[FairfieldLife] Re: Difference between existence and consciousness is creativity.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: Funny, Travis still thinks it is one of hte most important markers of Transcendental Consciousness, so Does Arenander. However, they agree that it isn't always present during TC. What DOES happen is some marked change in breathing. Sometimes it is an apparent suspension, and sometimes only a sharp reduction, but it is very consistent according to what they say in all their reseach. The thing to keep in mind is that you do NOT notice breath suspension ala TC. If you notice breath suspension, that is NOT TC, by definition. L. Obviously. You would only know something happened when coming out of that experience, and not be able to remember when the breath stopped or not, though there was that experience of having to take a breath suddenly. I only recall that from the first few years of meditating. I wonder what a large group of meditators who had been meditating for, say, 50 years would show? In browsing some non-TM websites, a number mention that advanced yogis experience shallow or suspended breath during meditation. Well, one of the TM studies was on a woman who had been meditating since the age of 10, that is, for 50 years, who was showing breath suspension for up to 60 seconds at a time, for a total of 50+% of her meditation period. However, TM theory predicts that episodes of pure consciousness are not a good indicator of enlightenment because a single episode of PC might cause changes in the nervous system that take months or years to fully resolve, and during that period, meditations might be less restful. Also, the most striking examples of the EEG pattern associated with pure consciousness are shown in figure 2 of this paper, but they aren't generally associated with breath suspension. My own take is that they don't last long enough. The EEG associated with breath suspensions lasted for many seconds, while the hyper-coherence shown in figure 2 only lasts for a cycle or so, which means only 1/10th of a second: http://brainresearchinstitute.org/research/totalbrain/TMsynch_SignalProc05_Hebert.pdf A book called Zen and the Brain mentions suspension of breath, citing TM research where suspension of breath lasted an average of 18 seconds The range was actually 15 to 60 seconds, for the study that he cited. He misread/misquoted (I have the study). L.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Difference between existence and consciousness is creativity.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@... wrote: [...] However, TM theory predicts that episodes of pure consciousness are not a good indicator of enlightenment because a single episode of PC might cause changes in the nervous system that take months or years to fully resolve, and during that period, meditations might be less restful. I should have said, not a good indicator of *partial* enlightenment. One traditional definition of nirvakalpa samadhi is that one enters samadhi during meditation and never leaves, but you can have some witnessing value constantly throughout waking, dreaming and sleeping, and not be having ANY noticeable pure consciousness episodes during meditation. L
[FairfieldLife] Re: Difference between existence and consciousness is creativity.
www.psychosomaticmedicine.org/content/44/2/133.full.pdf Farrow J, Hebert J. Breath suspension during the Transcendental Meditation technique. Psychosomatic Medicine 1982;44(2):133-153. Any changes in breathing during TM are completely natural and spontaneous. Breathing slows during the Transcendental Meditation technique because attention becomes completely absorbed in the process, not because one is controlling the breath. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: Funny, Travis still thinks it is one of hte most important markers of Transcendental Consciousness, so Does Arenander. However, they agree that it isn't always present during TC. What DOES happen is some marked change in breathing. Sometimes it is an apparent suspension, and sometimes only a sharp reduction, but it is very consistent according to what they say in all their reseach. The thing to keep in mind is that you do NOT notice breath suspension ala TC. If you notice breath suspension, that is NOT TC, by definition. L. Obviously. You would only know something happened when coming out of that experience, and not be able to remember when the breath stopped or not, though there was that experience of having to take a breath suddenly. I only recall that from the first few years of meditating. I wonder what a large group of meditators who had been meditating for, say, 50 years would show? In browsing some non-TM websites, a number mention that advanced yogis experience shallow or suspended breath during meditation. Well, one of the TM studies was on a woman who had been meditating since the age of 10, that is, for 50 years, who was showing breath suspension for up to 60 seconds at a time, for a total of 50+% of her meditation period. However, TM theory predicts that episodes of pure consciousness are not a good indicator of enlightenment because a single episode of PC might cause changes in the nervous system that take months or years to fully resolve, and during that period, meditations might be less restful. Also, the most striking examples of the EEG pattern associated with pure consciousness are shown in figure 2 of this paper, but they aren't generally associated with breath suspension. My own take is that they don't last long enough. The EEG associated with breath suspensions lasted for many seconds, while the hyper-coherence shown in figure 2 only lasts for a cycle or so, which means only 1/10th of a second: http://brainresearchinstitute.org/research/totalbrain/TMsynch_SignalPro\ c05_Hebert.pdf A book called Zen and the Brain mentions suspension of breath, citing TM research where suspension of breath lasted an average of 18 seconds The range was actually 15 to 60 seconds, for the study that he cited. He misread/misquoted (I have the study). L.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Difference between existence and consciousness is creativity.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: [...] However, TM theory predicts that episodes of pure consciousness are not a good indicator of enlightenment because a single episode of PC might cause changes in the nervous system that take months or years to fully resolve, and during that period, meditations might be less restful. I should have said, not a good indicator of *partial* enlightenment. One traditional definition of nirvakalpa samadhi is that one enters samadhi during meditation and never leaves, but you can have some witnessing value constantly throughout waking, dreaming and sleeping, and not be having ANY noticeable pure consciousness episodes during meditation. L If a person experiences 'pure consciousness' in meditation along with breath suspension, we might have a different situation with more long term meditators. Obviously if a person is 'witnessing' during activity, many of the markers of a restful state in meditation are not going to be present. I think we could expect that the markers of progress would change over time, as experience changes. The term partial enlightenment seems kind of odd. Partial skydiving might be jumping out of a plane without a parachute. Leaving the plane, falling for a while, and landing are all taken care of, but it is not the same as full skydiving.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Difference between existence and consciousness is creativity.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: [...] This is a pointless conversation as the TMO makes all sorts of claims about consciousness that are easy to understand but it when pressed it turns out they don't mean anything! THey don't mean or imply anything special in the context of already-measured events. However, assuming that the ME is real, Yogic Flying, 3rd (4th?) stage is real, etc., the theory is waiting in the wings. Where, I have very little doubt, it will remain. Why make big deal about the spiritual world and cosmic awareness if it turns out that you are saying the same thing as everyone else. I'm not going to phrase that as a question as the answer will most likely be another step back from what MMY originally meant by us experiencing the home of all the laws of nature. Which is what I'm disputing and you are agreeing with but using MMYs language. So let's forget it, at least until Hagelin says something stupid again. See above. Also, if one sees the universe as a connectionist system, then, a localized connectionist system might be a good simulation of the whole, if the correspondence of the various parts is close enough. In a sense, Unity Consciousness can be said to be a simulation of that Whole, assuming the above. Illusion of simulation I would say. You do know there doesn't have to be a unified field? Most scientists are reductionists, but yes, science doesn't require that all fields of inquiry converge towards a single TOE. K, K? Typo for L. I did guess that. L
[FairfieldLife] Re: Difference between existence and consciousness is creativity.
IMHO, it all goes back to The Fourth pranayama, which is simultaneous breath suspension, which coincidentally is one of hte major markers of Pure Consciousness during TM. L. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: There are two sources that talk in terms of twitching, hopping, floating, flying. Yogatattva-Upanishad, and Shiva Samhita. Yep. I seem to recall, according to YTU, levitation (bhuumi-tyaaga?) is achieved practicing 16-64-32 -alternate nostril praaNaayaama. They're both relatively recent works, though I believe that Yogatattva-Upanishad is one of the 108. I think they are both newer than Bhoja-vRtti. Perhaps YF was more sophisticated before violent Christianity and Islam muddled the global collective consciousness on a large scale? Heh heh... L --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: [...] This is a pointless conversation as the TMO makes all sorts of claims about consciousness that are easy to understand but it when pressed it turns out they don't mean anything! THey don't mean or imply anything special in the context of already-measured events. However, assuming that the ME is real, Yogic Flying, 3rd (4th?) stage is real, etc., the theory is waiting in the wings. It seems to me the stages according to Bhojadeva* are as follows: 1. yathaaruci jale: (*locative* sing; walking) on water as he likes, or stuff 2. uurNa-naabha-tantu-jaalena (*instrumental* sing.): on(?) a spider's web** 3. aaditya-rasmibhiH (instr. pl.) on (or perhaps rather 'with the help of', or somesuch) the rays of the sun. 4. yatheSTam aakaashena (instr. sing.) : as one wishes, through(?) aakaasha *vR^ittiH \-\-\- kAyaH pA~nchabhautikaM sharIram . tasyAkAshenAvakAshadAyakena yaH sambandhastatra saMyamaM vidhAya laghuni tUlAdau samApattiM tanmayIbhAvalakShaNAM vidhAya prAptAtilaghubhAvo yogI prathamaM yathAruchi jale saMcharaNakrameNorNanAbhatantujAlena saMcharamANa Adityarashmibhishcha viharan yatheShTamAkAshena gachChati .. 42.. ** jala = water; jaala = web
[FairfieldLife] Re: Difference between existence and consciousness is creativity.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: [...] This is a pointless conversation as the TMO makes all sorts of claims about consciousness that are easy to understand but it when pressed it turns out they don't mean anything! THey don't mean or imply anything special in the context of already-measured events. However, assuming that the ME is real, Yogic Flying, 3rd (4th?) stage is real, etc., the theory is waiting in the wings. Where, I have very little doubt, it will remain. You are almost certainly correct, but wouldn't it be fun if you are wrong? Why make big deal about the spiritual world and cosmic awareness if it turns out that you are saying the same thing as everyone else. I'm not going to phrase that as a question as the answer will most likely be another step back from what MMY originally meant by us experiencing the home of all the laws of nature. Which is what I'm disputing and you are agreeing with but using MMYs language. So let's forget it, at least until Hagelin says something stupid again. See above. Also, if one sees the universe as a connectionist system, then, a localized connectionist system might be a good simulation of the whole, if the correspondence of the various parts is close enough. In a sense, Unity Consciousness can be said to be a simulation of that Whole, assuming the above. Illusion of simulation I would say. Well, the proof is supposed to be perfomrances of hte siddhis based on being in a higher state. L.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Difference between existence and consciousness is creativity.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: [...] This is a pointless conversation as the TMO makes all sorts of claims about consciousness that are easy to understand but it when pressed it turns out they don't mean anything! THey don't mean or imply anything special in the context of already-measured events. However, assuming that the ME is real, Yogic Flying, 3rd (4th?) stage is real, etc., the theory is waiting in the wings. Where, I have very little doubt, it will remain. You are almost certainly correct, but wouldn't it be fun if you are wrong? Hilarious, I imagine quite an upset in world politics for a start. Everything would have to go in education, yogic flying in schools. The list of surreal upsets to life is almost endless. I don't see why the EU doesn't give the TMO a go at running Greece for a couple of years, be a good test of nature support. Get some yagya's going to ease the debt, pull all those temples down and face them east. I would start doing the siddhis again and join in just for a laugh I don't suppose they would be able to convince anyone to let them try on the strength of the current evidence but the combined celebrity power of Oprah and Russell Brand just might swing things.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Difference between existence and consciousness is creativity.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: [...] This is a pointless conversation as the TMO makes all sorts of claims about consciousness that are easy to understand but it when pressed it turns out they don't mean anything! THey don't mean or imply anything special in the context of already-measured events. However, assuming that the ME is real, Yogic Flying, 3rd (4th?) stage is real, etc., the theory is waiting in the wings. Where, I have very little doubt, it will remain. You are almost certainly correct, but wouldn't it be fun if you are wrong? Hilarious, I imagine quite an upset in world politics for a start. Everything would have to go in education, yogic flying in schools. The list of surreal upsets to life is almost endless. Eh, the City of Rio de Janeiro has put the entire student body (1 million students) on the waiting list to learn TM via the David Lynch Foundation. I don't see why the EU doesn't give the TMO a go at running Greece for a couple of years, be a good test of nature support. Get some yagya's going to ease the debt, pull all those temples down and face them east. I would start doing the siddhis again and join in just for a laugh I don't suppose they would be able to convince anyone to let them try on the strength of the current evidence but the combined celebrity power of Oprah and Russell Brand just might swing things. That and the research coming out of the US military studies on PTSD. L.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Difference between existence and consciousness is creativity.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: On May 19, 2012, at 4:53 AM, sparaig wrote: IMHO, it all goes back to The Fourth pranayama, which is simultaneous breath suspension, which coincidentally is one of the major markers of Pure Consciousness during TM. No, that's definitely NOT what the fourth pranayama is. How did you come to believe such a thing? Suspension of breath has long been observed with death. However interviewing the dead about the experience has not resulted in the acquisition of any data about whether there is an experience associated with this particular breath suspension.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Difference between existence and consciousness is creativity.
On May 19, 2012, at 4:35 PM, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartax...@yahoo.com wrote: Suspension of breath has long been observed with death. However interviewing the dead about the experience has not resulted in the acquisition of any data about whether there is an experience associated with this particular breath suspension. When I was trained about death, it was explained what type of signs you can notice and that certainly those signs can be experienced before death. They can! It's the specific sequence that varies from person to person...but the cessation of breath is a key moment in the process. :-) It's just that the consciousness does not leave immediately thereafter in peaceful deaths... Breath suspension in TM, which I've personally experienced many times, has relatively recently been commented on by neuroscientists and despite the hand-waving of the TMO seems to be no big deal.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Difference between existence and consciousness is creativity.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: On May 19, 2012, at 4:35 PM, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... wrote: Suspension of breath has long been observed with death. However interviewing the dead about the experience has not resulted in the acquisition of any data about whether there is an experience associated with this particular breath suspension. When I was trained about death, it was explained what type of signs you can notice and that certainly those signs can be experienced before death. They can! It's the specific sequence that varies from person to person...but the cessation of breath is a key moment in the process. :-) It's just that the consciousness does not leave immediately thereafter in peaceful deaths... Breath suspension in TM, which I've personally experienced many times, has relatively recently been commented on by neuroscientists and despite the hand-waving of the TMO seems to be no big deal. I was being a bit facetious, but after a few days, no reports from the dead. Suspension of breath in TM seems to be a feature of the early years of meditation, or just a lot of fatigue. Meditation is fine, but no suspension of breath, and as far as I can tell, transcending is a myth of the past, it no longer seems real; what it has been replaced with is much more interesting, and no big deal. In fact I cannot think in terms of transcending and transcendence at all unless I really force the issue. I believe you have some kind of medical training, or are familiar with a number of medical issues. What are your thoughts on anesthesia and consciousness? Based on what I have read, and experienced, I would think this medical technology can bring us very close to the experience of death, or perhaps the non-experience of death, to put it another way, that the consciousness in the brain is sufficiently disrupted as to simulate the experience of death with a high degree of fidelity.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Difference between existence and consciousness is creativity.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: [...] This is a pointless conversation as the TMO makes all sorts of claims about consciousness that are easy to understand but it when pressed it turns out they don't mean anything! THey don't mean or imply anything special in the context of already-measured events. However, assuming that the ME is real, Yogic Flying, 3rd (4th?) stage is real, etc., the theory is waiting in the wings. Where, I have very little doubt, it will remain. You are almost certainly correct, but wouldn't it be fun if you are wrong? Hilarious, I imagine quite an upset in world politics for a start. Everything would have to go in education, yogic flying in schools. The list of surreal upsets to life is almost endless. Eh, the City of Rio de Janeiro has put the entire student body (1 million students) on the waiting list to learn TM via the David Lynch Foundation. That'll be more proof that the ME doesn't work I suppose, how many more do they need. Still I imagine at least some of the students will enjoy it enough to keep doing it and maybe get some benefit. I don't see why the EU doesn't give the TMO a go at running Greece for a couple of years, be a good test of nature support. Get some yagya's going to ease the debt, pull all those temples down and face them east. I would start doing the siddhis again and join in just for a laugh I don't suppose they would be able to convince anyone to let them try on the strength of the current evidence but the combined celebrity power of Oprah and Russell Brand just might swing things. That and the research coming out of the US military studies on PTSD. I was joking, having worked for the TMO I can't imagine any group I'd *less* like to run a country. Especially on the say so of Brand. Can't fault them for trying though. Let's monitor things and see what happens. L.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Difference between existence and consciousness is creativity.
Funny, Travis still thinks it is one of hte most important markers of Transcendental Consciousness, so Does Arenander. However, they agree that it isn't always present during TC. What DOES happen is some marked change in breathing. Sometimes it is an apparent suspension, and sometimes only a sharp reduction, but it is very consistent according to what they say in all their reseach. The thing to keep in mind is that you do NOT notice breath suspension ala TC. If you notice breath suspension, that is NOT TC, by definition. L. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: On May 19, 2012, at 4:35 PM, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: Suspension of breath has long been observed with death. However interviewing the dead about the experience has not resulted in the acquisition of any data about whether there is an experience associated with this particular breath suspension. When I was trained about death, it was explained what type of signs you can notice and that certainly those signs can be experienced before death. They can! It's the specific sequence that varies from person to person...but the cessation of breath is a key moment in the process. :-) It's just that the consciousness does not leave immediately thereafter in peaceful deaths... Breath suspension in TM, which I've personally experienced many times, has relatively recently been commented on by neuroscientists and despite the hand-waving of the TMO seems to be no big deal. I was being a bit facetious, but after a few days, no reports from the dead. Suspension of breath in TM seems to be a feature of the early years of meditation, or just a lot of fatigue. Meditation is fine, but no suspension of breath, and as far as I can tell, transcending is a myth of the past, it no longer seems real; what it has been replaced with is much more interesting, and no big deal. In fact I cannot think in terms of transcending and transcendence at all unless I really force the issue. I believe you have some kind of medical training, or are familiar with a number of medical issues. What are your thoughts on anesthesia and consciousness? Based on what I have read, and experienced, I would think this medical technology can bring us very close to the experience of death, or perhaps the non-experience of death, to put it another way, that the consciousness in the brain is sufficiently disrupted as to simulate the experience of death with a high degree of fidelity.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Difference between existence and consciousness is creativity.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@... wrote: Funny, Travis still thinks it is one of hte most important markers of Transcendental Consciousness, so Does Arenander. However, they agree that it isn't always present during TC. What DOES happen is some marked change in breathing. Sometimes it is an apparent suspension, and sometimes only a sharp reduction, but it is very consistent according to what they say in all their reseach. The thing to keep in mind is that you do NOT notice breath suspension ala TC. If you notice breath suspension, that is NOT TC, by definition. L. Obviously. You would only know something happened when coming out of that experience, and not be able to remember when the breath stopped or not, though there was that experience of having to take a breath suddenly. I only recall that from the first few years of meditating. I wonder what a large group of meditators who had been meditating for, say, 50 years would show? In browsing some non-TM websites, a number mention that advanced yogis experience shallow or suspended breath during meditation. A book called Zen and the Brain mentions suspension of breath, citing TM research where suspension of breath lasted an average of 18 seconds
[FairfieldLife] Re: Difference between existence and consciousness is creativity.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: You are the one getting confused. Rishi, devata and chhandas -observer, process of observation and observed. That is all consciousness is. ELectrons are conscious, by that definition. Then scrap that definition as it confuses you, electrons are just negatively charged whirly things bound to the atomic nucleus they surround, there isn't any way they are aware which is what consciousness means. You are confusing aware with self-aware. ANything that interacts with other things, is, by the above definition, conscious. Good way of wriggling off the hook but we both know that isn't what Hagelin co are talking about. And it was you who said consciousness guides evolution which is how we got started, big difference between interacting and guiding as the latter shows intelligence and intent and there aint none of that on display as we clearly both agree. Connectionism took off when Hopfield showed that learning algorithms can be described in terms of the same math used to describe physical systems: http://itee.uq.edu.au/~cogs2010/cmc/chapters/Hopfield/ This insight has been extended in many ways. In a sense, you can talk about universal connectionist systems the same way you can Turing Machines: if the math that describes the way a given system works can be recast in terms of a Turing Machine, then that system can perform the same calculations that a Turing Machine can. Likewise, if the components of a physical system can be shown to interact in the same way that the components of an abstract neural network can, then that physical system can perform the same functions as the abstract neural network. In fact, any Turing Machine can be used to model a neural network, and Turing Machines have been created out of Tinkertoys, for example. From the other direction, a sufficiently complex and properly designed connectionist network can be used as a Turing Machine. The only question is: can such networks arise by accident? We already know that they can via evolutionary forces in biological systems. It is a mathematical certainty that given enough time/space/energy, random conglomerations of an infinite collection of interacting parts will include sub-collections that can function as connectionist systems. The only assertion that I make that perhaps isn't obvious is that the whole of the Unified FIeld (whatever it is), acts as such a connectionist system. My intuition says that this MUST be the case, though of course, my intuition is often wrong. Interesting ideas. Shame intuition can't be trusted on subjects like this and it seems like it could be testable, all you'd have to do is catch it out doing something non-random and the game would be up. That's one of the main objections to quantum consciousness, that if it could act in such a way it would violate it's own ultra predictable behaviour. If it looks like it doesn't why speculate? Other than that it's fun of course. You do know there doesn't have to be a unified field? L
[FairfieldLife] Re: Difference between existence and consciousness is creativity.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: You are the one getting confused. Rishi, devata and chhandas -observer, process of observation and observed. That is all consciousness is. ELectrons are conscious, by that definition. Then scrap that definition as it confuses you, electrons are just negatively charged whirly things bound to the atomic nucleus they surround, there isn't any way they are aware which is what consciousness means. You are confusing aware with self-aware. ANything that interacts with other things, is, by the above definition, conscious. Good way of wriggling off the hook but we both know that isn't what Hagelin co are talking about. And it was you who said consciousness guides evolution which is how we got started, big difference between interacting and guiding as the latter shows intelligence and intent and there aint none of that on display as we clearly both agree. Hmmm? I was quoting Hagelin's own stuff. And, intellect at this fundatmental level is the ability to note distinctions and NOTHING more. That is the defining characteristic of consciousness and the first thing that manifests. Or rather, consciousness manifests due to its ability to note distinctions. THe first distinction being that it notes its own existence. Note that electrons don't note their own existence. It is only at the most fundamental level that there is only one thing. [...] Interesting ideas. Shame intuition can't be trusted on subjects like this and it seems like it could be testable, all you'd have to do is catch it out doing something non-random and the game would be up. The universe almost always behaves in a non-random way. That's one of the main objections to quantum consciousness, that if it could act in such a way it would violate it's own ultra predictable behaviour. If it looks like it doesn't why speculate? Other than that it's fun of course. You're confusing consciousness with decision-making. You do know there doesn't have to be a unified field? Most scientists are reductionists, but yes, science doesn't require that all fields of inquiry converge towards a single TOE. K,
[FairfieldLife] Re: Difference between existence and consciousness is creativity.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: You are the one getting confused. Rishi, devata and chhandas -observer, process of observation and observed. That is all consciousness is. ELectrons are conscious, by that definition. Then scrap that definition as it confuses you, electrons are just negatively charged whirly things bound to the atomic nucleus they surround, there isn't any way they are aware which is what consciousness means. You are confusing aware with self-aware. ANything that interacts with other things, is, by the above definition, conscious. Good way of wriggling off the hook but we both know that isn't what Hagelin co are talking about. And it was you who said consciousness guides evolution which is how we got started, big difference between interacting and guiding as the latter shows intelligence and intent and there aint none of that on display as we clearly both agree. Hmmm? I was quoting Hagelin's own stuff. And, intellect at this fundatmental level is the ability to note distinctions and NOTHING more. That is the defining characteristic of consciousness and the first thing that manifests. Or rather, consciousness manifests due to its ability to note distinctions. THe first distinction being that it notes its own existence. Note that electrons don't note their own existence. It is only at the most fundamental level that there is only one thing. [...] Interesting ideas. Shame intuition can't be trusted on subjects like this and it seems like it could be testable, all you'd have to do is catch it out doing something non-random and the game would be up. The universe almost always behaves in a non-random way. As we seem to be saying the same things, apart from the laguage used and emphasis on That's one of the main objections to quantum consciousness, that if it could act in such a way it would violate it's own ultra predictable behaviour. If it looks like it doesn't why speculate? Other than that it's fun of course. You're confusing consciousness with decision-making. This is a pointless conversation as the TMO makes all sorts of claims about consciousness that are easy to understand but it when pressed it turns out they don't mean anything! Why make big deal about the spiritual world and cosmic awareness if it turns out that you are saying the same thing as everyone else. I'm not going to phrase that as a question as the answer will most likely be another step back from what MMY originally meant by us experiencing the home of all the laws of nature. Which is what I'm disputing and you are agreeing with but using MMYs language. So let's forget it, at least until Hagelin says something stupid again. You do know there doesn't have to be a unified field? Most scientists are reductionists, but yes, science doesn't require that all fields of inquiry converge towards a single TOE. K, K?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Difference between existence and consciousness is creativity.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: [...] This is a pointless conversation as the TMO makes all sorts of claims about consciousness that are easy to understand but it when pressed it turns out they don't mean anything! THey don't mean or imply anything special in the context of already-measured events. However, assuming that the ME is real, Yogic Flying, 3rd (4th?) stage is real, etc., the theory is waiting in the wings. Why make big deal about the spiritual world and cosmic awareness if it turns out that you are saying the same thing as everyone else. I'm not going to phrase that as a question as the answer will most likely be another step back from what MMY originally meant by us experiencing the home of all the laws of nature. Which is what I'm disputing and you are agreeing with but using MMYs language. So let's forget it, at least until Hagelin says something stupid again. See above. Also, if one sees the universe as a connectionist system, then, a localized connectionist system might be a good simulation of the whole, if the correspondence of the various parts is close enough. In a sense, Unity Consciousness can be said to be a simulation of that Whole, assuming the above. You do know there doesn't have to be a unified field? Most scientists are reductionists, but yes, science doesn't require that all fields of inquiry converge towards a single TOE. K, K? Typo for L. L
[FairfieldLife] Re: Difference between existence and consciousness is creativity.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: [...] This is a pointless conversation as the TMO makes all sorts of claims about consciousness that are easy to understand but it when pressed it turns out they don't mean anything! THey don't mean or imply anything special in the context of already-measured events. However, assuming that the ME is real, Yogic Flying, 3rd (4th?) stage is real, etc., the theory is waiting in the wings. It seems to me the stages according to Bhojadeva* are as follows: 1. yathaaruci jale: (*locative* sing; walking) on water as he likes, or stuff 2. uurNa-naabha-tantu-jaalena (*instrumental* sing.): on(?) a spider's web** 3. aaditya-rasmibhiH (instr. pl.) on (or perhaps rather 'with the help of', or somesuch) the rays of the sun. 4. yatheSTam aakaashena (instr. sing.) : as one wishes, through(?) aakaasha *vR^ittiH \-\-\- kAyaH pA~nchabhautikaM sharIram . tasyAkAshenAvakAshadAyakena yaH sambandhastatra saMyamaM vidhAya laghuni tUlAdau samApattiM tanmayIbhAvalakShaNAM vidhAya prAptAtilaghubhAvo yogI prathamaM yathAruchi jale saMcharaNakrameNorNanAbhatantujAlena saMcharamANa Adityarashmibhishcha viharan yatheShTamAkAshena gachChati .. 42.. ** jala = water; jaala = web
[FairfieldLife] Re: Difference between existence and consciousness is creativity.
There are two sources that talk in terms of twitching, hopping, floating, flying. Yogatattva-Upanishad, and Shiva Samhita. They're both relatively recent works, though I believe that Yogatattva-Upanishad is one of the 108. L --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: [...] This is a pointless conversation as the TMO makes all sorts of claims about consciousness that are easy to understand but it when pressed it turns out they don't mean anything! THey don't mean or imply anything special in the context of already-measured events. However, assuming that the ME is real, Yogic Flying, 3rd (4th?) stage is real, etc., the theory is waiting in the wings. It seems to me the stages according to Bhojadeva* are as follows: 1. yathaaruci jale: (*locative* sing; walking) on water as he likes, or stuff 2. uurNa-naabha-tantu-jaalena (*instrumental* sing.): on(?) a spider's web** 3. aaditya-rasmibhiH (instr. pl.) on (or perhaps rather 'with the help of', or somesuch) the rays of the sun. 4. yatheSTam aakaashena (instr. sing.) : as one wishes, through(?) aakaasha *vR^ittiH \-\-\- kAyaH pA~nchabhautikaM sharIram . tasyAkAshenAvakAshadAyakena yaH sambandhastatra saMyamaM vidhAya laghuni tUlAdau samApattiM tanmayIbhAvalakShaNAM vidhAya prAptAtilaghubhAvo yogI prathamaM yathAruchi jale saMcharaNakrameNorNanAbhatantujAlena saMcharamANa Adityarashmibhishcha viharan yatheShTamAkAshena gachChati .. 42.. ** jala = water; jaala = web
[FairfieldLife] Re: Difference between existence and consciousness is creativity.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@... wrote: There are two sources that talk in terms of twitching, hopping, floating, flying. Yogatattva-Upanishad, and Shiva Samhita. Yep. I seem to recall, according to YTU, levitation (bhuumi-tyaaga?) is achieved practicing 16-64-32 -alternate nostril praaNaayaama. They're both relatively recent works, though I believe that Yogatattva-Upanishad is one of the 108. I think they are both newer than Bhoja-vRtti. Perhaps YF was more sophisticated before violent Christianity and Islam muddled the global collective consciousness on a large scale? Heh heh... L --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: [...] This is a pointless conversation as the TMO makes all sorts of claims about consciousness that are easy to understand but it when pressed it turns out they don't mean anything! THey don't mean or imply anything special in the context of already-measured events. However, assuming that the ME is real, Yogic Flying, 3rd (4th?) stage is real, etc., the theory is waiting in the wings. It seems to me the stages according to Bhojadeva* are as follows: 1. yathaaruci jale: (*locative* sing; walking) on water as he likes, or stuff 2. uurNa-naabha-tantu-jaalena (*instrumental* sing.): on(?) a spider's web** 3. aaditya-rasmibhiH (instr. pl.) on (or perhaps rather 'with the help of', or somesuch) the rays of the sun. 4. yatheSTam aakaashena (instr. sing.) : as one wishes, through(?) aakaasha *vR^ittiH \-\-\- kAyaH pA~nchabhautikaM sharIram . tasyAkAshenAvakAshadAyakena yaH sambandhastatra saMyamaM vidhAya laghuni tUlAdau samApattiM tanmayIbhAvalakShaNAM vidhAya prAptAtilaghubhAvo yogI prathamaM yathAruchi jale saMcharaNakrameNorNanAbhatantujAlena saMcharamANa Adityarashmibhishcha viharan yatheShTamAkAshena gachChati .. 42.. ** jala = water; jaala = web
[FairfieldLife] Re: Difference between existence and consciousness is creativity.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: There are two sources that talk in terms of twitching, hopping, floating, flying. Yogatattva-Upanishad, and Shiva Samhita. Yep. I seem to recall, according to YTU, levitation (bhuumi-tyaaga?) is achieved practicing 16-64-32 -alternate nostril praaNaayaama. They're both relatively recent works, though I believe that Yogatattva-Upanishad is one of the 108. I think they are both newer than Bhoja-vRtti. Perhaps YF was more sophisticated before violent Christianity and Islam muddled the global collective consciousness on a large scale? Heh heh... In a related story, Vainamoinen (Estonian: Vanemuine - muni in the forest, vane?? ;) made the blacksmith Ilmarinen (ilma = air) fly with a pine?? :D http://www.internationalhero.co.uk/v/vainamoinen.htm L --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: [...] This is a pointless conversation as the TMO makes all sorts of claims about consciousness that are easy to understand but it when pressed it turns out they don't mean anything! THey don't mean or imply anything special in the context of already-measured events. However, assuming that the ME is real, Yogic Flying, 3rd (4th?) stage is real, etc., the theory is waiting in the wings. It seems to me the stages according to Bhojadeva* are as follows: 1. yathaaruci jale: (*locative* sing; walking) on water as he likes, or stuff 2. uurNa-naabha-tantu-jaalena (*instrumental* sing.): on(?) a spider's web** 3. aaditya-rasmibhiH (instr. pl.) on (or perhaps rather 'with the help of', or somesuch) the rays of the sun. 4. yatheSTam aakaashena (instr. sing.) : as one wishes, through(?) aakaasha *vR^ittiH \-\-\- kAyaH pA~nchabhautikaM sharIram . tasyAkAshenAvakAshadAyakena yaH sambandhastatra saMyamaM vidhAya laghuni tUlAdau samApattiM tanmayIbhAvalakShaNAM vidhAya prAptAtilaghubhAvo yogI prathamaM yathAruchi jale saMcharaNakrameNorNanAbhatantujAlena saMcharamANa Adityarashmibhishcha viharan yatheShTamAkAshena gachChati .. 42.. ** jala = water; jaala = web
[FairfieldLife] Re: Difference between existence and consciousness is creativity.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: You are the one getting confused. Rishi, devata and chhandas -observer, process of observation and observed. That is all consciousness is. ELectrons are conscious, by that definition. Then scrap that definition as it confuses you, electrons are just negatively charged whirly things bound to the atomic nucleus they surround, there isn't any way they are aware which is what consciousness means. You are confusing aware with self-aware. ANything that interacts with other things, is, by the above definition, conscious. ENd of story. Now, if you want to get all emergent, consider an infinite (or near infinite) collection of thingies that interact with each other. By definition, that thingie functions as a pattern recognizer on a cosmic scale. A slightly more elaborate end of story. It's what I just said with the addition of the idea that electrons recognise something, I'll have to check the maths but I'm pretty sure that for all their potential they just sit there holding things together, the universe then builds what it can. The two things don't affect each other beyond that. Luckily for us! Connectionism took off when Hopfield showed that learning algorithms can be described in terms of the same math used to describe physical systems: http://itee.uq.edu.au/~cogs2010/cmc/chapters/Hopfield/ This insight has been extended in many ways. In a sense, you can talk about universal connectionist systems the same way you can Turing Machines: if the math that describes the way a given system works can be recast in terms of a Turing Machine, then that system can perform the same calculations that a Turing Machine can. Likewise, if the components of a physical system can be shown to interact in the same way that the components of an abstract neural network can, then that physical system can perform the same functions as the abstract neural network. In fact, any Turing Machine can be used to model a neural network, and Turing Machines have been created out of Tinkertoys, for example. From the other direction, a sufficiently complex and properly designed connectionist network can be used as a Turing Machine. The only question is: can such networks arise by accident? We already know that they can via evolutionary forces in biological systems. It is a mathematical certainty that given enough time/space/energy, random conglomerations of an infinite collection of interacting parts will include sub-collections that can function as connectionist systems. The only assertion that I make that perhaps isn't obvious is that the whole of the Unified FIeld (whatever it is), acts as such a connectionist system. My intuition says that this MUST be the case, though of course, my intuition is often wrong. L
[FairfieldLife] Re: Difference between existence and consciousness is creativity.
You are the one getting confused. Rishi, devata and chhandas -observer, process of observation and observed. That is all consciousness is. ELectrons are conscious, by that definition. ENd of story. Now, if you want to get all emergent, consider an infinite (or near infinite) collection of thingies that interact with each other. By definition, that thingie functions as a pattern recognizer on a cosmic scale. A slightly more elaborate end of story. L. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: [...] That's what you think. If the purpose of science is to explain things in the simplest possible way this idea cocks that right up because it invents (choosing words careful here) an uneccessary level at complexity for no reason other than that some people like the idea. What is the point? For John, when he was working on the Flipped SU(5) tweaks requested by Ellis, it was a *simplification* to think in terms of consciousness is the unified field. And I think you are still hung up on the idea of consciousness implying human-like consciousness. ANY interaction of one thingie with another thingie is an example of consciousness. You're ducking and diving a bit aren't you? This isn't what Hagelin means at all by CasUF, he has it as a field of pure awareness that we can interact with to create coherence at a distance and that's because the UF is our *own* consciousness. If it was just one thingie affecting another it would be how I'm saying it is, just a bunch of wobbly fields, cosmic consciousness is a whole other ball game, nay sport and it's a bit disengenious to confuse the two. What about the discovery of ved in human physiology? or Jyotish, other consequences (according to Hagelin) of consciousness being a vedic thing. If it was just thingies we could just say so what? and there would never have been any controversy as it would just be an example of language causing confusion but he says the UF is us! Fundamentally. An electron has the same ability to collapse the wave function as a human, because they are, in the context of simple quantum mechanical evens, both equally conscious. In fact, all a human is is a mass of elementary thingies mutually collapsing each other's wave functions in rather elaborate way. Human consciousness is an emergent property of the activity of this mass of fundamental consciousness. There, see how easy it is to confuse things? An electron isn't conscious. Try saying an electron is just a wobbly field thing and see what happens, it does the same job in creating a macro world where consciousness can arise via enough sophisticated biology and no-one gets confused. Don't multiply entities unnecessarily. L.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Difference between existence and consciousness is creativity.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: On May 16, 2012, at 10:59 AM, salyavin808 wrote: So are you saying that the TMO dictum consciousness is primary, matter is secondary, echoing the sentiments of Shankara, is a falsehood? I would say it's a falsehood as I can't see any evidence to support it, I assume it's a case of mistaking an altered inner state for meaningful knowledge of external reality. I think that would be clear to anyone who actually studied physics - it's all about physicality, and very little about consciousness. I guess if they believe it they aren't deliberately perpetuating falsehood just mistaken about the quality of the knowledge, but they are lying when they say it's done and dusted, even JH doesn't say that here even though he implies it's an explanation accepted or considered by other scientists, when it isn't. In old self-published multi-disciplinary books MIU used to produce, they were very clear about parallels in physics being merely analogies, and that there was a certain point where these analogies broke down. But over time this was shelved and the consciousness is primary delusion became part of TM Org dogma and sales pitches. But this is also a huge trend in India in general, with even the government supporting nebulous connections between religion and science. And when you start putting King Tony's weird ideas into the mix and claiming even that you can predict and prevent earth- quakes (but mysteriously choose not to) it goes over any sort of reasonable interpretation of even the original idea that consciousness is a factor in QP. I imagine the fathers of QP would go scampering into the trees if they heard John Hagelin in full flow about what he considers knowledge. And then come out of the trees to give him a good slap upside his head when they heard his claim that he'd finished Einsteins work! No, no, please say it ain't so, Quantum Vedism cannot go! I'm sure it will stick around for a while yet Fortunately there's a growing backlash from actual working scientists to counter such quantum fairy tales. FWIW, once again, Richard Feynman: Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, But how can it be like that? because you will get down the drain, into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that. On the apparent absurdities of Quantum behavior, in The Character of Physical Law (1965) Lecture 6 : Probability and Uncertainty the Quantum Mechanical view of Nature
[FairfieldLife] Re: Difference between existence and consciousness is creativity.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@... wrote: FWIW, once again, Richard Feynman: Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, But how can it be like that? because you will get down the drain, into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that. On the apparent absurdities of Quantum behavior, in The Character of Physical Law (1965) Lecture 6 : Probability and Uncertainty the Quantum Mechanical view of Nature Well, trying to answer that question, BaadaraayaNa might have quoted Himself (BS I, 2): janmaadyasya yataH. And kRSNa: anaadimat paraM brahma **na sa tan naasad ucyate**. (BG XIII 13)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Difference between existence and consciousness is creativity.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@... wrote: FWIW, once again, Richard Feynman: Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, But how can it be like that? because you will get down the drain, into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that. On the apparent absurdities of Quantum behavior, in The Character of Physical Law (1965) Lecture 6 : Probability and Uncertainty the Quantum Mechanical view of Nature This is funny: Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts. What is Science?, presented at the fifteenth annual meeting of the National Science Teachers Association, in New York City (1966) published in The Physics Teacher Vol. 7, issue 6 (1969)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Difference between existence and consciousness is creativity.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote: FWIW, once again, Richard Feynman: Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, But how can it be like that? because you will get down the drain, into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that. On the apparent absurdities of Quantum behavior, in The Character of Physical Law (1965) Lecture 6 : Probability and Uncertainty the Quantum Mechanical view of Nature This is funny: Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts. I like this. So is thinking for oneself in the world of religion and spirituality.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Difference between existence and consciousness is creativity.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@... wrote: You are the one getting confused. Rishi, devata and chhandas -observer, process of observation and observed. That is all consciousness is. ELectrons are conscious, by that definition. Then scrap that definition as it confuses you, electrons are just negatively charged whirly things bound to the atomic nucleus they surround, there isn't any way they are aware which is what consciousness means. ENd of story. Now, if you want to get all emergent, consider an infinite (or near infinite) collection of thingies that interact with each other. By definition, that thingie functions as a pattern recognizer on a cosmic scale. A slightly more elaborate end of story. It's what I just said with the addition of the idea that electrons recognise something, I'll have to check the maths but I'm pretty sure that for all their potential they just sit there holding things together, the universe then builds what it can. The two things don't affect each other beyond that. Luckily for us! L. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: [...] That's what you think. If the purpose of science is to explain things in the simplest possible way this idea cocks that right up because it invents (choosing words careful here) an uneccessary level at complexity for no reason other than that some people like the idea. What is the point? For John, when he was working on the Flipped SU(5) tweaks requested by Ellis, it was a *simplification* to think in terms of consciousness is the unified field. And I think you are still hung up on the idea of consciousness implying human-like consciousness. ANY interaction of one thingie with another thingie is an example of consciousness. You're ducking and diving a bit aren't you? This isn't what Hagelin means at all by CasUF, he has it as a field of pure awareness that we can interact with to create coherence at a distance and that's because the UF is our *own* consciousness. If it was just one thingie affecting another it would be how I'm saying it is, just a bunch of wobbly fields, cosmic consciousness is a whole other ball game, nay sport and it's a bit disengenious to confuse the two. What about the discovery of ved in human physiology? or Jyotish, other consequences (according to Hagelin) of consciousness being a vedic thing. If it was just thingies we could just say so what? and there would never have been any controversy as it would just be an example of language causing confusion but he says the UF is us! Fundamentally. An electron has the same ability to collapse the wave function as a human, because they are, in the context of simple quantum mechanical evens, both equally conscious. In fact, all a human is is a mass of elementary thingies mutually collapsing each other's wave functions in rather elaborate way. Human consciousness is an emergent property of the activity of this mass of fundamental consciousness. There, see how easy it is to confuse things? An electron isn't conscious. Try saying an electron is just a wobbly field thing and see what happens, it does the same job in creating a macro world where consciousness can arise via enough sophisticated biology and no-one gets confused. Don't multiply entities unnecessarily. L.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Difference between existence and consciousness is creativity.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: You are the one getting confused. Rishi, devata and chhandas -observer, process of observation and observed. That is all consciousness is. ELectrons are conscious, by that definition. Then scrap that definition as it confuses you, electrons are just negatively charged whirly things bound to the atomic nucleus they surround, there isn't any way they are aware which is what consciousness means. I believe at least my brains consist of negatively charged whirly things bound to the atomic nucleus they surround...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Difference between existence and consciousness is creativity.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: You are the one getting confused. Rishi, devata and chhandas -observer, process of observation and observed. That is all consciousness is. ELectrons are conscious, by that definition. Then scrap that definition as it confuses you, electrons are just negatively charged whirly things bound to the atomic nucleus they surround, there isn't any way they are aware which is what consciousness means. I believe at least my brains consist of negatively charged whirly things bound to the atomic nucleus they surround... I think your brain is much more than that Carde, mine I'm not so sure about. Whirly is the word!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Difference between existence and consciousness is creativity.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: You are the one getting confused. Rishi, devata and chhandas -observer, process of observation and observed. That is all consciousness is. ELectrons are conscious, by that definition. Then scrap that definition as it confuses you, electrons are just negatively charged whirly things bound to the atomic nucleus they surround, there isn't any way they are aware which is what consciousness means. I believe at least my brains consist of negatively charged whirly things bound to the atomic nucleus they surround... I think your brain is much more than that Carde, mine I'm not so sure about. Whirly is the word! The negatively charged whirly things in Card's brain are pretty smart. His electrons *know* they should just sit there holding things together. Every electron in Card's brain is the knower in the process of knowing thingies.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Difference between existence and consciousness is creativity.
You are actually a closet theist and don't even know it. turquoiseb: It's just an eternal machine that was never created and has no purpose... So, that's your belief. Most commonly, nihilism is presented in the form of existential nihilism which argues that life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism And you're a terrified little boy who needs to believe that there is a Big Daddy In The Sky to sleep well at night. Which would be merely pitiable if you didn't have a similar need to debate others about the fairy tales you believe in to try to convince them they're something more than fairy tales. There. Now we've both gotten what we really think of each other out of our systems. :-) Since you believe the universe is eternal and never-created, you then believe that the universe is the Knower, the Process of Knowing, and the Known by Itself. Bzzt. Does not compute. I believe *nothing* about those three made-up concepts you just spouted. And even if I did they would have nothing to do with the nature of the universe. They're just silly ideas, opinions spouted by silly humans. IOW, It knows and maintains the dimensions of space and time. It, meaning the universe, neither knows nor maintains diddelysquat. I don't believe that the universe is sentient; that's YOUR fantasy. :-) It's just an eternal machine that was never created and has no purpose. In that sense, if the universe *were* sentient (it's not, as far as I can tell), its lack of purpose would put it several notches above puny humans who feel that *their* purpose was to understand the universe's, which doesn't exist. :-) As such, It is a Being, albeit an impersonal one. So, you actually believe in an Impersonal Eternal Being. John, I suggest that you keep your dualist fantasies to yourself, and try not to embarrass yourself by trying to convince others that they're more than fantasies. The universe is not a being of any kind. It's an It. What happens within that It just happens; there is no Plan behind it, and no intelligence guiding it. Shit just happens. Some of us are comfortable with that. Others (like yourself) seem to feel that they need a fantasy god or being who runs things to explain shit just happening. Cool, I guess, if that makes you feel better. But don't expect others to pretend that your fantasies are real just because you do.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Difference between existence and consciousness is creativity.
On May 16, 2012, at 1:38 AM, salyavin808 wrote: Thanks, I got nearly 1.35 minutes into it before switching off. Good of him to admit there is no scientific consensus on what he says but he then went on to claim that superstring theory is the unified field etc. There's no consensus on that either. I could guess the rest, there's no consensus on consciousness creating the world - except among gurus with yagyas to sell or movies to promote So are you saying that the TMO dictum consciousness is primary, matter is secondary, echoing the sentiments of Shankara, is a falsehood? No, no, please say it ain't so, Quantum Vedism cannot go!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Difference between existence and consciousness is creativity.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: John, We see people die all the time. The universe does not disappear for those still living. Did somebody suggest otherwise? That's precisely the point I was making. I'm not sure if Xeno read my post carefully and objectively. JR It is that some people have a strong belief that when they die, things are going to be pretty much like it is for them now, but they will be in another place. Perhaps I scrambled my thought here, stating the obvious, as I was thinking of those for whom there is the belief the universe will not disappear, that they will still be somewhere. x = ego, individuated awareness y = the delusion that allows ego z = enlightenment x - y = z The ego minus the delusion that forms it results in enlightenment. But the delusion and the ego are really the same, so x = y We can then write x -x = z The end of the ego, the sense of self, small 's' results in enlightenment x - x = 0 Therefore 0 = z Enlightenment is a cipher, that is, nothing A perfect commentary on maya, 'that which is not'. We can also write x - x = z and rewrite it as x = z + x In other words the value of enlightenment is always present if x is present or not. Let's add other egos p1 p2 p3 to each side of the equation e.g., p1 = p1 is a tautology and can be added to any equation without changing its 'truth value'. x - y =z resulting in x - y + p1 + p2 + p3 = z + p1 + p2 + p3 And we can subsitute delusion y1, y2, y3 for some of the p values x - y + p1 + p2 + p3 = z + y1 + y2 + y3 This is how creation works, its all in the mind manipulating symbols, and creating equivalences for those symbols that the mind invents to carve up experiential existence into discrete values. But when you simplify the equation to its simplest value it always comes out 0 = z the big nothing. So you have all the values of creation and the value of its source and it is all equivalent to nothing. Why do we spend so much time talking about this? Much ado about nothing. This is the meaning of the phrase in the Bible 'when you clothe mortality with immortality, then death, where is thy sting? Xeno, It's not about nothing. It's about everything. Here's Dr. John Hagelin explaining some of the issues we've been discussing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrcWntw9juMfeature=related JR John, you are missing the point: everything IS nothing. You can have it either way, if you want to make duality out of it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Difference between existence and consciousness is creativity.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: On May 16, 2012, at 1:38 AM, salyavin808 wrote: Thanks, I got nearly 1.35 minutes into it before switching off. Good of him to admit there is no scientific consensus on what he says but he then went on to claim that superstring theory is the unified field etc. There's no consensus on that either. I could guess the rest, there's no consensus on consciousness creating the world - except among gurus with yagyas to sell or movies to promote So are you saying that the TMO dictum consciousness is primary, matter is secondary, echoing the sentiments of Shankara, is a falsehood? Vaj apparently doesn't know what consensus means either.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Difference between existence and consciousness is creativity.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: On May 16, 2012, at 1:38 AM, salyavin808 wrote: Thanks, I got nearly 1.35 minutes into it before switching off. Good of him to admit there is no scientific consensus on what he says but he then went on to claim that superstring theory is the unified field etc. There's no consensus on that either. I could guess the rest, there's no consensus on consciousness creating the world - except among gurus with yagyas to sell or movies to promote So are you saying that the TMO dictum consciousness is primary, matter is secondary, echoing the sentiments of Shankara, is a falsehood? I would say it's a falsehood as I can't see any evidence to support it, I assume it's a case of mistaking an altered inner state for meaningful knowledge of external reality. I guess if they believe it they aren't deliberately perpetuating falsehood just mistaken about the quality of the knowledge, but they are lying when they say it's done and dusted, even JH doesn't say that here even though he implies it's an explanation accepted or considered by other scientists, when it isn't. And when you start putting King Tony's weird ideas into the mix and claiming even that you can predict and prevent earth- quakes (but mysteriously choose not to) it goes over any sort of reasonable interpretation of even the original idea that consciousness is a factor in QP. I imagine the fathers of QP would go scampering into the trees if they heard John Hagelin in full flow about what he considers knowledge. And then come out of the trees to give him a good slap upside his head when they heard his claim that he'd finished Einsteins work! No, no, please say it ain't so, Quantum Vedism cannot go! I'm sure it will stick around for a while yet
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Difference between existence and consciousness is creativity.
On May 16, 2012, at 10:59 AM, salyavin808 wrote: So are you saying that the TMO dictum consciousness is primary, matter is secondary, echoing the sentiments of Shankara, is a falsehood? I would say it's a falsehood as I can't see any evidence to support it, I assume it's a case of mistaking an altered inner state for meaningful knowledge of external reality. I think that would be clear to anyone who actually studied physics - it's all about physicality, and very little about consciousness. I guess if they believe it they aren't deliberately perpetuating falsehood just mistaken about the quality of the knowledge, but they are lying when they say it's done and dusted, even JH doesn't say that here even though he implies it's an explanation accepted or considered by other scientists, when it isn't. In old self-published multi-disciplinary books MIU used to produce, they were very clear about parallels in physics being merely analogies, and that there was a certain point where these analogies broke down. But over time this was shelved and the consciousness is primary delusion became part of TM Org dogma and sales pitches. But this is also a huge trend in India in general, with even the government supporting nebulous connections between religion and science. And when you start putting King Tony's weird ideas into the mix and claiming even that you can predict and prevent earth- quakes (but mysteriously choose not to) it goes over any sort of reasonable interpretation of even the original idea that consciousness is a factor in QP. I imagine the fathers of QP would go scampering into the trees if they heard John Hagelin in full flow about what he considers knowledge. And then come out of the trees to give him a good slap upside his head when they heard his claim that he'd finished Einsteins work! No, no, please say it ain't so, Quantum Vedism cannot go! I'm sure it will stick around for a while yet Fortunately there's a growing backlash from actual working scientists to counter such quantum fairy tales.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Difference between existence and consciousness is creativity.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: On May 16, 2012, at 1:38 AM, salyavin808 wrote: Thanks, I got nearly 1.35 minutes into it before switching off. Good of him to admit there is no scientific consensus on what he says but he then went on to claim that superstring theory is the unified field etc. There's no consensus on that either. I could guess the rest, there's no consensus on consciousness creating the world - except among gurus with yagyas to sell or movies to promote So are you saying that the TMO dictum consciousness is primary, matter is secondary, echoing the sentiments of Shankara, is a falsehood? I would say it's a falsehood as I can't see any evidence to support it, Um, you can't *legitimately* say it's a falsehood unless there's evidence *against* it. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and all that. Since the premise that consciousness is primary and matter is secondary cannot be disproved, and the premise that matter is primary and consciousness secondary cannot be proved, in the absence of positive evidence for the former, it's an epistemological standoff. Vaj obviously doesn't, but I should think you would know better than to characterize it as a falsehood. I assume it's a case of mistaking an altered inner state for meaningful knowledge of external reality. I guess if they believe it they aren't deliberately perpetuating falsehood just mistaken about the quality of the knowledge, but they are lying when they say it's done and dusted, even JH doesn't say that here even though he implies it's an explanation accepted or considered by other scientists, when it isn't. Actually there are scientists who not only consider it but lean in its direction (e.g., quantum physicist Bernard d'Espagnat, winner of the 2009 Templeton Prize, the same one the Dalai Lama won this year).
[FairfieldLife] Re: Difference between existence and consciousness is creativity.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: If there is no consciousness, how can the concept of space dimensions exist? Because it's a reality not a concept? And if it wasn't we wouldn't have had anywhere to evolve, unless you think that didn't happen. Sal, Here's an explanation by Dr. John Hagelin about consciousness and its relationship with the universe. This should help explain the concepts we've been discussing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrcWntw9juMfeature=related JR Thanks, I got nearly 1.35 minutes into it before switching off. Good of him to admit there is no scientific consensus on what he says but he then went on to claim that superstring theory is the unified field etc. There's no consensus on that either. I could guess the rest, there's no consensus on consciousness creating the world - except among gurus with yagyas to sell or movies to promote Sal, So, which cosmological model do you think is right in describing how the universe started? JR
[FairfieldLife] Re: Difference between existence and consciousness is creativity.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: Thanks, I got nearly 1.35 minutes into it before switching off. Good of him to admit there is no scientific consensus on what he says but he then went on to claim that superstring theory is the unified field etc. There's no consensus on that either. I could guess the rest, there's no consensus on consciousness creating the world - except among gurus with yagyas to sell or movies to promote Sal, So, which cosmological model do you think is right in describing how the universe started? I'm not salyavin, but I'll answer. I've always been fond of the Creation myth proposed by Douglas Adams in The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy -- In the beginning, the universe was created. This made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move. Many races believe it was created by some sort of god, but the Jatravartid people of Viltvodle VI firmly believed that the entire universe was, in fact, sneezed out of the nose of a being called the Great Green Arkleseizure. The Jatravartids, who lived in perpetual fear of the time they called The Coming of the Great White Handkerchief were small, blue creatures with more than fifty arms each. They were therefore unique in being the only race in history to have invented the aerosol deodorant before the wheel. It's sure a lot better than the one in Genesis. (For those who don't know, Robert Crumb's The Book Of Genesis is not only the first version of the book in history that illustrates every single passage, it's the best visual representation of it.) [R Crumb's Genesis: Chapter one of The Book Of Genesis illustrated By R Crumb] [Robert Crumb]
[FairfieldLife] Re: Difference between existence and consciousness is creativity.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: If there is no consciousness, how can the concept of space dimensions exist? Because it's a reality not a concept? And if it wasn't we wouldn't have had anywhere to evolve, unless you think that didn't happen. Sal, Here's an explanation by Dr. John Hagelin about consciousness and its relationship with the universe. This should help explain the concepts we've been discussing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrcWntw9juMfeature=related JR Thanks, I got nearly 1.35 minutes into it before switching off. Good of him to admit there is no scientific consensus on what he says but he then went on to claim that superstring theory is the unified field etc. There's no consensus on that either. I could guess the rest, there's no consensus on consciousness creating the world - except among gurus with yagyas to sell or movies to promote Sal, So, which cosmological model do you think is right in describing how the universe started? The simplest one. JR
[FairfieldLife] Re: Difference between existence and consciousness is creativity.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: Thanks, I got nearly 1.35 minutes into it before switching off. Good of him to admit there is no scientific consensus on what he says but he then went on to claim that superstring theory is the unified field etc. There's no consensus on that either. I could guess the rest, there's no consensus on consciousness creating the world - except among gurus with yagyas to sell or movies to promote Sal, So, which cosmological model do you think is right in describing how the universe started? I'm not salyavin, but I'll answer. I've always been fond of the Creation myth proposed by Douglas Adams in The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy -- In the beginning, the universe was created. This made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move. Many races believe it was created by some sort of god, but the Jatravartid people of Viltvodle VI firmly believed that the entire universe was, in fact, sneezed out of the nose of a being called the Great Green Arkleseizure. The Jatravartids, who lived in perpetual fear of the time they called The Coming of the Great White Handkerchief were small, blue creatures with more than fifty arms each. They were therefore unique in being the only race in history to have invented the aerosol deodorant before the wheel. Heh heh, my favourite. Salyavin is a Douglas Adams creation from an unbroadcast Dr Who story he wrote called Shada about the prison of the Time Lords. I just read the novel as he apparently based a lot of the first Dirk Gently novel on it but it turned out to be only one of the characters, the name of the college and the joke about having a memory like, erm...what are those things you use to strain veg- tables.Sieve! It's sure a lot better than the one in Genesis. (For those who don't know, Robert Crumb's The Book Of Genesis is not only the first version of the book in history that illustrates every single passage, it's the best visual representation of it.) [R Crumb's Genesis: Chapter one of The Book Of Genesis illustrated By R Crumb] [Robert Crumb]
[FairfieldLife] Re: Difference between existence and consciousness is creativity.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: Vaj obviously doesn't, but I should think you would know better than to characterize it as a falsehood. Funnily enough in my first draft I didn't but went with it because to claim something is Truth when you have no idea about it at all (and they haven't) and to claim to have solved all the problems of physics when you haven't is telling porkies. It may be unprovable but so is the Great Green Arkleseizure and if I used a cognizance of that to try and persuade you to buy prayers it wouldn't be long before you considered me a bullshit artist. So to be honest, I can't say it's a falsehood legitimately but as there is no evidence that the method the idea was arrived at is a reliable way of gaining data they have got to stop calling it a truthhood. I assume it's a case of mistaking an altered inner state for meaningful knowledge of external reality. I guess if they believe it they aren't deliberately perpetuating falsehood just mistaken about the quality of the knowledge, but they are lying when they say it's done and dusted, even JH doesn't say that here even though he implies it's an explanation accepted or considered by other scientists, when it isn't. Actually there are scientists who not only consider it but lean in its direction (e.g., quantum physicist Bernard d'Espagnat, winner of the 2009 Templeton Prize, the same one the Dalai Lama won this year). If I was a scientist I would turn down the Templeton prize, if it wasn't for the million bucks anyway!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Difference between existence and consciousness is creativity.
Awww Barry, were you having a bad day? (Sorry, I tend to skip around when scanning information.) Your subsequent posts were significantly better. From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 12:29 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Difference between existence and consciousness is creativity. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: According to MMY, everything is based in consciousness. If there wasn't any consciousness, there wouldn't be any existence or creativity. So, for any universe to manifest, IMO there would have to be a consciousness to create width, length, and height, at the very least. The dimension of time could be optional. IOW, this universe would be similar to an empty box and nothing else. But why would there need to be a consciousness? There are simpler ways to get the universe going without recourse to anything mystical. Not to mention the concept of an eternal, never-created universe. I know from past interactions that John is incapable of entertaining even the thought of this, but since you're new here I thought I'd see if you could swing behind this idea. Barry, You are actually a closet theist and don't even know it. And you're a terrified little boy who needs to believe that there is a Big Daddy In The Sky to sleep well at night. Which would be merely pitiable if you didn't have a similar need to debate others about the fairy tales you believe in to try to convince them they're something more than fairy tales. There. Now we've both gotten what we really think of each other out of our systems. :-) Since you believe the universe is eternal and never-created, you then believe that the universe is the Knower, the Process of Knowing, and the Known by Itself. Bzzt. Does not compute. I believe *nothing* about those three made-up concepts you just spouted. And even if I did they would have nothing to do with the nature of the universe. They're just silly ideas, opinions spouted by silly humans. IOW, It knows and maintains the dimensions of space and time. It, meaning the universe, neither knows nor maintains diddelysquat. I don't believe that the universe is sentient; that's YOUR fantasy. :-) It's just an eternal machine that was never created and has no purpose. In that sense, if the universe *were* sentient (it's not, as far as I can tell), its lack of purpose would put it several notches above puny humans who feel that *their* purpose was to understand the universe's, which doesn't exist. :-) As such, It is a Being, albeit an impersonal one. So, you actually believe in an Impersonal Eternal Being. John, I suggest that you keep your dualist fantasies to yourself, and try not to embarrass yourself by trying to convince others that they're more than fantasies. The universe is not a being of any kind. It's an It. What happens within that It just happens; there is no Plan behind it, and no intelligence guiding it. Shit just happens. Some of us are comfortable with that. Others (like yourself) seem to feel that they need a fantasy god or being who runs things to explain shit just happening. Cool, I guess, if that makes you feel better. But don't expect others to pretend that your fantasies are real just because you do.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Difference between existence and consciousness is creativity.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: [...] That's what you think. If the purpose of science is to explain things in the simplest possible way this idea cocks that right up because it invents (choosing words careful here) an uneccessary level at complexity for no reason other than that some people like the idea. What is the point? For John, when he was working on the Flipped SU(5) tweaks requested by Ellis, it was a *simplification* to think in terms of consciousness is the unified field. And I think you are still hung up on the idea of consciousness implying human-like consciousness. ANY interaction of one thingie with another thingie is an example of consciousness. An electron has the same ability to collapse the wave function as a human, because they are, in the context of simple quantum mechanical evens, both equally conscious. In fact, all a human is is a mass of elementary thingies mutually collapsing each other's wave functions in rather elaborate way. Human consciousness is an emergent property of the activity of this mass of fundamental consciousness. L.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Difference between existence and consciousness is creativity.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: And universal consciousness may be more than just an idea; it may be the experiential realization of some people. I guess the question there is whether you can trust the experience to be what it appears to be or whether it is just a consequence of jiggering around with our heads via drugs or meditation or even mental illness and concluding that because we have no boundaries that must be how it is. Surely people in these states would be able to come up with some sort of testable statement even if it only compares theoretically, but I haven't seen any evidence for that, even king Tony's cognizance only stems so far as a book he read appearing in human physiology, whatever that means (and I've read it - utterly surreal that any scientist could be so uncritical) The universe we perceive in our heads is a picture based on info from our senses, change the way bits of our brain relate to create that picture and you have the unbounded sense that we all know and love, is how I see it. Of course. And, as you say, perhaps there is no real difference between the insight from enlightenment (TM-style), drugs or pharmaceuticals. Of course, in the modern western sense of validity, if the insight is real, then we should expect to find practical applications that can be measured using scientific means. L.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Difference between existence and consciousness is creativity.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: And universal consciousness may be more than just an idea; it may be the experiential realization of some people. I guess the question there is whether you can trust the experience to be what it appears to be or whether it is just a consequence of jiggering around with our heads via drugs or meditation or even mental illness and concluding that because we have no boundaries that must be how it is. Surely people in these states would be able to come up with some sort of testable statement even if it only compares theoretically, but I haven't seen any evidence for that, even king Tony's cognizance only stems so far as a book he read appearing in human physiology, whatever that means (and I've read it - utterly surreal that any scientist could be so uncritical) The universe we perceive in our heads is a picture based on info from our senses, change the way bits of our brain relate to create that picture and you have the unbounded sense that we all know and love, is how I see it. Of course. And, as you say, perhaps there is no real difference between the insight from enlightenment (TM-style), drugs or pharmaceuticals. Of course, in the modern western sense of validity, if the insight is real, then we should expect to find practical applications that can be measured using scientific means. And as that has yet to happen.which is where we came in. L.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Difference between existence and consciousness is creativity.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: [...] That's what you think. If the purpose of science is to explain things in the simplest possible way this idea cocks that right up because it invents (choosing words careful here) an uneccessary level at complexity for no reason other than that some people like the idea. What is the point? For John, when he was working on the Flipped SU(5) tweaks requested by Ellis, it was a *simplification* to think in terms of consciousness is the unified field. And I think you are still hung up on the idea of consciousness implying human-like consciousness. ANY interaction of one thingie with another thingie is an example of consciousness. You're ducking and diving a bit aren't you? This isn't what Hagelin means at all by CasUF, he has it as a field of pure awareness that we can interact with to create coherence at a distance and that's because the UF is our *own* consciousness. If it was just one thingie affecting another it would be how I'm saying it is, just a bunch of wobbly fields, cosmic consciousness is a whole other ball game, nay sport and it's a bit disengenious to confuse the two. What about the discovery of ved in human physiology? or Jyotish, other consequences (according to Hagelin) of consciousness being a vedic thing. If it was just thingies we could just say so what? and there would never have been any controversy as it would just be an example of language causing confusion but he says the UF is us! Fundamentally. An electron has the same ability to collapse the wave function as a human, because they are, in the context of simple quantum mechanical evens, both equally conscious. In fact, all a human is is a mass of elementary thingies mutually collapsing each other's wave functions in rather elaborate way. Human consciousness is an emergent property of the activity of this mass of fundamental consciousness. There, see how easy it is to confuse things? An electron isn't conscious. Try saying an electron is just a wobbly field thing and see what happens, it does the same job in creating a macro world where consciousness can arise via enough sophisticated biology and no-one gets confused. Don't multiply entities unnecessarily. L.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Difference between existence and consciousness is creativity.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: IMO, this is where physicists, like Stephen Hawking, are getting confused. He's written in his latest book that there is no need of a Divine Being to create this universe or any others outside this one. He fails to see that the very act of having a three dimensional universe requires consciousness to support it. Without consciousness there is NOTHING. But why? Why do 3 dimensions need consciousness? they are there whether we are or a universal type consciousness exists. I'm sure Hawking considered these points as part of his training. Sal, My point is that it takes a knower to conceive of length, width, or height. If there was no Knower, the concept of length, width, or height is meaningless. IOW, if you are the only knower left in this universe and you died, the universe will disappear as well. Why? Because there is no more observer, who is capable of conceiving the three dimensions. The universe as I understand it would disappear for sure, but that's just my limited experience and opinions in my head. Thing is there wasn't anyone to perceive the universe before sentient beings evolved so what was it doing before then? JR --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@ wrote: How 'bout everything is consciousness? In fact it would be pretty hard to prove that everything isn't consciousness. ;-) On 05/14/2012 11:24 AM, John wrote: According to MMY, everything is based in consciousness. If there wasn't any consciousness, there wouldn't be any existence or creativity. So, for any universe to manifest, IMO there would have to be a consciousness to create width, length, and height, at the very least. The dimension of time could be optional. IOW, this universe would be similar to an empty box and nothing else. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shainm307shainm307@ wrote: Interesting thing for all the Fairfielders: In a channeling of pleiadians I heard the difference between consciousness and existence is creativity kind of goes against Maharishi, unless Maharishi was just going very broad.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Difference between existence and consciousness is creativity.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: snip Without going through these arguments, you can use your own logic and reason to answer what is needed to create a universe. At the very least you need to have length, width, and height to manifest a universe. But these dimensions need consciousness to define, understand and manifest a universe. Without consciousness, it's impossible to create a universe. There is only NOTHING. So you think there is no universe without us to perceive it? I don't think that's what John is saying. As I understand him, he's suggesting that the property of consciousness (universal and nonlocalized) would be required for a universe to be created. I know what he's saying! Well, your question asked him whether he thought something he *didn't* say (and doesn't believe). I jsut want to know why he believes that rather than something that doesn't require a universal god/consciousness thing. I want him to get that it's a guru belief thing and not part of science. I think he knows it's not part of science. But it may be more than guru belief. snip It's a bit problematic using your own logic and reason if you hold beliefs like yours because it kind of hamstrings you into only accepting mystical explanations from gurus rather than the hard won findings of science all of which get along just fine without consciousness. My books do anyway! It shouldn't be rather than. You don't have to give up the findings of science to believe that everything emerges from consciousness. That's what you think. If the purpose of science is to explain things in the simplest possible way this idea cocks that right up because it invents (choosing words careful here) an uneccessary level at complexity for no reason other than that some people like the idea. What is the point? Different question. Perfectly reasonable one, but that wasn't what you suggested above. Occam's razor isn't infallible; it works only in an adequate frame of reference. What was the situation before the Big Bang? The question can't even be asked coherently, since time didn't come into existence until the Big Bang. It may be that for a sufficient explanation for the universe's existence, one will have to look beyond science. And universal consciousness may be more than just an idea; it may be the experiential realization of some people.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Difference between existence and consciousness is creativity.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: On May 14, 2012, at 2:32 PM, Bhairitu wrote: How 'bout everything is consciousness? In fact it would be pretty hard to prove that everything isn't consciousness. ;-) Yeah, as long as they don't bump their head or stub their toe! :-) Buh..but... I thought you knew that so called matter is only an illusion created by the basic force fields of nature, primarily the electromagnetic field? At least I've been told that over 99 percent of atoms is emptiness... I bet most people even up in Minnesota might be aware of that!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Difference between existence and consciousness is creativity.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: According to MMY, everything is based in consciousness. If there wasn't any consciousness, there wouldn't be any existence or creativity. So, for any universe to manifest, IMO there would have to be a consciousness to create width, length, and height, at the very least. The dimension of time could be optional. IOW, this universe would be similar to an empty box and nothing else. But why would there need to be a consciousness? There are simpler ways to get the universe going without recourse to anything mystical. Not to mention the concept of an eternal, never-created universe. I know from past interactions that John is incapable of entertaining even the thought of this, but since you're new here I thought I'd see if you could swing behind this idea. Barry, You are actually a closet theist and don't even know it. And you're a terrified little boy who needs to believe that there is a Big Daddy In The Sky to sleep well at night. Which would be merely pitiable if you didn't have a similar need to debate others about the fairy tales you believe in to try to convince them they're something more than fairy tales. There. Now we've both gotten what we really think of each other out of our systems. :-) Since you believe the universe is eternal and never-created, you then believe that the universe is the Knower, the Process of Knowing, and the Known by Itself. Bzzt. Does not compute. I believe *nothing* about those three made-up concepts you just spouted. And even if I did they would have nothing to do with the nature of the universe. They're just silly ideas, opinions spouted by silly humans. IOW, It knows and maintains the dimensions of space and time. It, meaning the universe, neither knows nor maintains diddelysquat. I don't believe that the universe is sentient; that's YOUR fantasy. :-) It's just an eternal machine that was never created and has no purpose. In that sense, if the universe *were* sentient (it's not, as far as I can tell), its lack of purpose would put it several notches above puny humans who feel that *their* purpose was to understand the universe's, which doesn't exist. :-) As such, It is a Being, albeit an impersonal one. So, you actually believe in an Impersonal Eternal Being. John, I suggest that you keep your dualist fantasies to yourself, and try not to embarrass yourself by trying to convince others that they're more than fantasies. The universe is not a being of any kind. It's an It. What happens within that It just happens; there is no Plan behind it, and no intelligence guiding it. Shit just happens. Some of us are comfortable with that. Others (like yourself) seem to feel that they need a fantasy god or being who runs things to explain shit just happening. Cool, I guess, if that makes you feel better. But don't expect others to pretend that your fantasies are real just because you do.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Difference between existence and consciousness is creativity.
And universal consciousness may be more than just an idea; it may be the experiential realization of some people. I guess the question there is whether you can trust the experience to be what it appears to be or whether it is just a consequence of jiggering around with our heads via drugs or meditation or even mental illness and concluding that because we have no boundaries that must be how it is. Surely people in these states would be able to come up with some sort of testable statement even if it only compares theoretically, but I haven't seen any evidence for that, even king Tony's cognizance only stems so far as a book he read appearing in human physiology, whatever that means (and I've read it - utterly surreal that any scientist could be so uncritical) The universe we perceive in our heads is a picture based on info from our senses, change the way bits of our brain relate to create that picture and you have the unbounded sense that we all know and love, is how I see it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Difference between existence and consciousness is creativity.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: And universal consciousness may be more than just an idea; it may be the experiential realization of some people. I guess the question there is whether you can trust the experience to be what it appears to be or whether it is just a consequence of jiggering around with our heads via drugs or meditation or even mental illness and concluding that because we have no boundaries that must be how it is. Surely people in these states would be able to come up with some sort of testable statement even if it only compares theoretically, I don't know whether that last is true. What they can do is tell you how to have the same experience for yourself--that's testable, but of course only subjectively. but I haven't seen any evidence for that, even king Tony's cognizance only stems so far as a book he read appearing in human physiology, whatever that means I don't either. I've never heard what he's done described that way. (and I've read it - utterly surreal that any scientist could be so uncritical) The universe we perceive in our heads is a picture based on info from our senses, change the way bits of our brain relate to create that picture and you have the unbounded sense that we all know and love, is how I see it. You could well be right. But what I was addressing was your statement that it was only an idea or a guru belief.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Difference between existence and consciousness is creativity.
Bhairitu, You're one of the smart ones here. I'm listening. Thanks for the concept getting caught up in intellectual concepts. I don't know how to check myself for suchlikeexcept to post herein and let others take a whack at my conclusions and see if my certainties are thereby eroded. Have you got a better technique to offer me for such recalibration? What does a yogi know if he/she says he/she knows silence? Here's my answer to that question. (I'll risk constructing a Gordian Knot for you to slice in half:) Silence, as an experience, is not an experience of silence itself, but rather, it is, well, a something, an experience, a processing, a doingness of a nervous system that is mis-labeled silence. The lack of input from the senses, the lack of any memories being recalled, the lack of an emotional undercurrent -- these are not examples of silence, they're zeros in the nervous system, place holders. An empty cup actively waiting to be filled is a non-silent cup. It buzzes with readiness. That would be the sound OM. Beingness is busy-ness. The nervous system must be doing something (creating mental-cup-ready-to-be-filled) to create the possibility of knowing/knower/known. Sounds like a whole lotta non-silence to me. Is your elbow silent? No, right? It's always sending you reports about itself, but you ignore them. That's not an experience of elbow silence, right? Then there's the silence of deep sleep when waking-consciousness itself is gone. Yet we are assured by the ancients that someone is still home even when all the lights are turned out. And science proves this: a person in a coma can be seen to light up parts of their brain when someone in the room discusses, say, playing tennis, and the brain's areas for motor functions then get active. Who's in there listening? Answer -- No one. The ego is shut down, the waking state is shut down, awareness of the body is absent, no volitional dynamics are observed, REM is absent as are other indicators of dreaming. Who's listening? When the corpus coliseum is severed, the person becomes two persons, each with a separate POV, each one having a separate sentience. Where is the awareness of those two parts subtly conjoined? Answer: they're not. One doesn't speak to the other. They act as if they are two separate souls. Only the concept, The Absolute can explain this. Jesus spoke of rocks crying out -- I like to think he was signifying The Absolute's omnipresencenot that rocks have nervous systems. When a tree falls in the forest THERE'S ALWAYS SOMEONE AROUND -- that is: The Absolute. It hears the tree fall just as the comatose patient hears the discussion about tennis and the rocks hear that the disciples didn't preach on the Sabbath. Only The Absolute can be the identity for a broken down or shut down nervous system, or the mind of a rock, and in doing so (note the word doing) awareness (as an attribute of existence) becomes real -- as in when consciousness becomes conscious. Silence is transcendence. Beyond materiality. Beyond manifestation. Prior to consciousness becoming active. Before God first spoke. In the Ved we read about these priests who tried to bring back this person from the dead. They invoked every rite and got no results. They prayed: May this soul of this body return from heaven or hell or any of the other lokas. Nothing. Finally they prayed: May the soul of this body come back from wherever it's at. And bingo the guy lived. Where was he residing? All these arguments leave me with only The Absolute. Pure being doesn't cut it for me. Yogis, saints and even Brahma didn't know, couldn't know, will never know, silence. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@... wrote: What do you think the silence is that so many yogi have spoken of? The silence that permeates activity or over which activity is projected. The silence that is still and absolute. Be careful about getting caught up in intellectual concepts. They will delude you. Either that or meditation is just another way of getting high. :-D On 05/14/2012 03:20 PM, Duveyoung wrote: Bhairitu So, are you saying The Absolute can be experienced by an enlightened person? Seems to me it cannot be, but instead the body/mind system constructs a nearest equivalent as a metaphor. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu These things are better experienced than explained. ;-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Difference between existence and consciousness is creativity.
Point is how you define consciousness? Vaj: What's so touchy is as a vajrayana practitioner you use the word consciousness in very different ways... You seem confused about Vajrayana, yet it seems crystal clear from reading words of Arya Asanga and Buddha's sutras! Arya Asanga puts forth the school's basic doctrines in his Mahaayaana Sutralamkaara Shaastra: 1. Reality is pure consciousness. 2. The phenomenal world is momentary - shunya. 3. The individual ego - the I - doesn't really exist. It is neither real nor unreal, nor both, nor neither - it is an illusion. 4. All suffering is due to clinging to the notions of I and mine. 5. Liberation is only the destruction of the illusion or ignorance. 6. The real is non-dual. When consciousness has no resting place, does not increase, and no longer accumulates karma, it becomes free; and when it is free it becomes quiet; and when it is quiet it is blissful; and when it is blissful it is not agitated; and when it is not agitated it attains nirvana in its own person; and it knows that rebirth is exhausted, that it has lived the holy life, that it has done what it behooved it to do and that it is no more for this world. Source: Samyutta Nikhaaya - 22.53.1
[FairfieldLife] Re: Difference between existence and consciousness is creativity.
--- John jr_esq@ wrote: IMO, this is where physicists, like Stephen Hawking, are getting confused. He's written in his latest book that there is no need of a Divine Being to create this universe or any others outside this one. He fails to see that the very act of having a three dimensional universe requires consciousness to support it. Without consciousness there is NOTHING. --- salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: But why? Why do 3 dimensions need consciousness? they are there whether we are or a universal type consciousness exists. I'm sure Hawking considered these points as part of his training. Sal, --- John jr_esq@ wrote: My point is that it takes a knower to conceive of length, width, or height. If there was no Knower, the concept of length, width, or height is meaningless. IOW, if you are the only knower left in this universe and you died, the universe will disappear as well. Why? Because there is no more observer, who is capable of conceiving the three dimensions. --- salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: The universe as I understand it would disappear for sure, but that's just my limited experience and opinions in my head. Thing is there wasn't anyone to perceive the universe before sentient beings evolved so what was it doing before then? The classical universe is stable and it existed before sentient beings evolved. The first generation stars exploded in supernovae and only when the second generation stars started igniting, Life could have evolved. However the quantum universe behaves differently. Particles are non-localised unless they are observed. But even this problem is sorted out when Time is given an extra dimension. If linear time is like equator, the second temporal dimension is like a longitude. Two temporal dimensions and nine spatial dimensions completely eliminate the Heisenberg's uncertainity principle. The hazy and fuzzy quantum world suddenly becomes neat, clean and tidy. I personaly believe there might be three temporal dimensions. If hidden spatial dimensions act as ocean waves that moves particles along, even the wave-particle duality gets eliminated. Issac Newton might eventually have the last laugh. Our universe might be a 3-dimensional brane, among a multitude of branes. But there has to be an Observer outside the universe to give it stability and prevent the reality from collapsing.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Difference between existence and consciousness is creativity.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_reply@... wrote: So, are you saying The Absolute can be experienced by an enlightened person? Seems to me it cannot be, but instead the body/mind system constructs a nearest equivalent as a metaphor. Edg I think you are right Edg, the absolute cannot be experienced BY a person IN THAT a person cannot possess the Absolute, so to speak, since it is what we are, we BECOME the absolute. The ego (the false personality) becomes the cosmic EGO or God. To know Brahman (the absolute) is to become Brahman. And what is Brahman?; Sat/Truth, Chit/Consciousness, Ananda/bliss, we ARE conscious bliss.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Difference between existence and consciousness is creativity.
Not to mention the concept of an eternal, never-created universe John jr_esq: Barry, You are actually a closet theist and don't even know it... On numerous occasions I have pointed out to Barry that the historical Buddha did not support the eternalist theory. Not sure where Barry got the idea that the universe could be eternal - it's certainly not a Buddhist notion! Buddhist teachings avoid the extremes of both creation and eternalism. Mere perception is not sufficient proof for the existence of the external world. For by the time we're aware of the awareness, in that moment - both perception and the perceived are things of the past. Perception is as false as dreams.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Difference between existence and consciousness is creativity.
salyavin808: The universe as I understand it would disappear for sure, but that's just my limited experience and opinions in my head... From what I've read, Shankara based his teachings on his Adi Guru, Gauda, who taught 'Ajativada', or the doctrine of 'no-origination'. According to Gaudapadacharya, there is no creation, no dissolution; no coming forth, no coming to be; nothing moves here or there; there is no change. The first human spiritual idea was that there was a One 'beyond' the physical world - the notion that there were many came much later, when people were confused and began pluralistic metaphysical specualtion, attempting to confuse the people. Everything but the One is an illusion. The One is the only Reality. The One can only be experienced in transcendental consciousness. Most TMers understand that in the waking state we also appear to move, to see doors and tables, we consult with our friends; in the waking state we can run and jump. The realization of non-origination, and the absence of an individual soul-monad, is all you really have to understand. You don't need to be a learned pundit to understand that things don't really move hither and thither, and events are an appearance only, just like an illusion or things and events seen in a dream. We all have dreams, and we all understand the dream state - in dreams we appear to move, to see doors and tables, and we consult with our friends; in dreams we can run and jump. For those well versed in the Vedaanta the world is like a city of Gaandharvas, an illusion. - Guadapada. Work cited:: S. Vidyasankar: http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp/ad_faq.html Read more: 'The Secret of the Three Cities' An Introduction to Hindu Sakta Tantrism by Douglas Renfrew Brooks University Of Chicago Press, 1990
[FairfieldLife] Re: Difference between existence and consciousness is creativity.
We see people die all the time. The universe does not disappear for those still living... authfriend: Did somebody suggest otherwise? No, the universe would still be not real, yet not unreal either, after death. It would still be like a dream. We really cannot think of matter as either existing or not existing. The consciousness cannot truly create matter - there is no such thing as matter. There is only the constructive interference of the interpenetrating universe. As it is written in the Mundaka Upanishad: 'By energism of Consciousness Brahman is massed; from that Matter is born and from Matter Life and Mind and the worlds.'
[FairfieldLife] Re: Difference between existence and consciousness is creativity.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams richard@... wrote: Not to mention the concept of an eternal, never-created universe John jr_esq: Barry, You are actually a closet theist and don't even know it... On numerous occasions I have pointed out to Barry that the historical Buddha did not support the eternalist theory. Not sure where Barry got the idea that the universe could be eternal - it's certainly not a Buddhist notion! Buddhist teachings avoid the extremes of both creation and eternalism. Mere perception is not sufficient proof for the existence of the external world. For by the time we're aware of the awareness, in that moment - both perception and the perceived are things of the past. Perception is as false as dreams. Richard, I agree. That's why one's perception has to be tested to see if it's true in nature. This is the basis of the scientific method. But Barry appears to be dogmatically sure of his opinions without any proofs or evidence. Why is that? JR
[FairfieldLife] Re: Difference between existence and consciousness is creativity.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams richard@... wrote: We see people die all the time. The universe does not disappear for those still living... authfriend: Did somebody suggest otherwise? No, the universe would still be not real, yet not unreal either, after death. It would still be like a dream. We really cannot think of matter as either existing or not existing. The consciousness cannot truly create matter - there is no such thing as matter. MMY called it Mithya in one of his lectures, here's a little on it from a different source: http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/definitions/mithyA.htm There is only the constructive interference of the interpenetrating universe. As it is written in the Mundaka Upanishad: 'By energism of Consciousness Brahman is massed; from that Matter is born and from Matter Life and Mind and the worlds.'
[FairfieldLife] Re: Difference between existence and consciousness is creativity.
These things are better experienced than explained. ;-) Duveyoung: So, are you saying The Absolute can be experienced by an enlightened person? Seems to me it cannot be, but instead the body/mind system constructs a nearest equivalent as a metaphor. In order to trigger the reality-structurer it is important simply to feed the human biocomputer the proper data or symbols. The Sutras, like Talbot says, are a like metaprograms, sets of symbols which enable the biocomputer to communicate with the structurally lower levels of the nervous system that control the reality-structurer. If we cannot acquire the attitude necessary to trigger the reality-structurer, we may, like the yogin, simply choose an arbitrary mantra or symbol. It is far easier to practice simple yogic formulas than it is to deal with highly abstract notions such as the 'nagual' or the 'void.' According to Talbot, these are the forces wherewith mind creates and animates the whole universe; ordinarily they are not ours to command, for, until the false ego is negated or unless we employ yogic means to transcend its bounds, our individual minds function as it were, like small puddles isolated from the great ocean. The bija mantras, Buddhist and Hindu, are the computer cards, the code. We, as meditators, are the technicians and the bio-computers. Before one can program the structurally lower levels of the nervous system (the levels governing the reality- structurer) one must be able to metaprogram the cerebral cortex with the appropriate set of symbols. This gives us a remarkable new slant on meditation. - Michael Talbot Work cited: 'Mysticism and the New Physics' by Michael Talbot
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Difference between existence and consciousness is creativity.
I acually think that people play with sin, otherwise we'd have nothing to do, so maybe being as nice as possible isn't good for everyone. However from what I noticed in life, it brings good nature support just by doing good deeds. So I'm sure all gurus play with sin, and i'm sure they all play differntly. Just because a guru has bad traits doesn't mean he isn't enlightened. From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 10:29 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Difference between existence and consciousness is creativity. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ellis Nelson himalayaspencerellis@... wrote: I can see how consciousness informs existence and at that level a further refinement is found through creativity. It reminds me of the Perfect Man in Sufism who manifests through his preparedness (if I understand that correctly). While I understand that such theoretical discussions interest some, I tend to avoid them because my experience tells me that they're *completely* theoretical. Have you ever met a human being who you feel significantly affected the world around them through nothing more than the mech- anism of his or her consciousness? I have not, and have come to believe that it's a myth, a sales pitch touting the theoretical benefits *to others* of attaining supposed higher states of consciousness, whereas in actuality there are no such benefits. It's not (because you are new here, and probably don't know where I stand on such issues) that I disbelieve in what people have called enlightenment or higher states of consciousness in the past. Been there, done that, worn the T-shirt, and then thrown it away. It's just that I've come to believe that these are completely *subjective* states of mind that do not affect others, *except* in the same way that any of us affects others, through our thoughts and actions. While it may feel good subjectively to be in these states, I do not hold that to be of as much value as doing good for others in one's thoughts and actions. I've met supposed masters who claimed to be (and obviously believed it thoroughly themselves) that they were fully enlightened, but were real pricks. They treated people badly. If this is either enlightenment or a higher state of consciousness, color me not interested in it. In other words, the idea of the Perfect Man, whether it be a Sufi formulation of it or a Buddhist one or a Hindu one or any other flavor of one, just doesn't float my boat. I don't believe that any such perfection has ever existed. Give me someone who just tries con- sistently to be a little better each day anytime. From what I've seen, believing that one has attained a level at which this trying is no longer necessary is almost always followed by the believer demonstrating that they needed to try more than most people, not less.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Difference between existence and consciousness is creativity.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Shain McVay shainm307@... wrote: I acually think that people play with sin... Define sin. I'll wait. :-) ...otherwise we'd have nothing to do, so maybe being as nice as possible isn't good for everyone. However from what I noticed in life, it brings good nature support just by doing good deeds. So I'm sure all gurus play with sin, and i'm sure they all play differntly. Just because a guru has bad traits doesn't mean he isn't enlightened. I think the issue for TMers here is that the very definition of enlightenment proposed to us by Maharishi declared that it was impossible for an enlightened being to have bad traits. According to him, they couldn't possibly be bad because their actions were (again, by definition) in accord with the Laws Of Nature. For the record, I'm down with the possibility of someone being enlightened (by many traditions' definitions of enlightened) and having bad traits. I'm also down with them being classically enlight- ened and crazy as a fuckin' loon. I think Maharishi's definition of what it is to be enlightened is the problem. It's a fantasy IMO, one that has little to do with the actuality of enlightenment. Then again, I think of enlightenment as a purely subjective phenomenon, one possibly without any measurable effect on the external world. From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 10:29 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Difference between existence and consciousness is creativity. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ellis Nelson himalayaspencerellis@ wrote: I can see how consciousness informs existence and at that level a further refinement is found through creativity. It reminds me of the Perfect Man in Sufism who manifests through his preparedness (if I understand that correctly). While I understand that such theoretical discussions interest some, I tend to avoid them because my experience tells me that they're *completely* theoretical. Have you ever met a human being who you feel significantly affected the world around them through nothing more than the mech- anism of his or her consciousness? I have not, and have come to believe that it's a myth, a sales pitch touting the theoretical benefits *to others* of attaining supposed higher states of consciousness, whereas in actuality there are no such benefits. It's not (because you are new here, and probably don't know where I stand on such issues) that I disbelieve in what people have called enlightenment or higher states of consciousness in the past. Been there, done that, worn the T-shirt, and then thrown it away. It's just that I've come to believe that these are completely *subjective* states of mind that do not affect others, *except* in the same way that any of us affects others, through our thoughts and actions. While it may feel good subjectively to be in these states, I do not hold that to be of as much value as doing good for others in one's thoughts and actions. I've met supposed masters who claimed to be (and obviously believed it thoroughly themselves) that they were fully enlightened, but were real pricks. They treated people badly. If this is either enlightenment or a higher state of consciousness, color me not interested in it. In other words, the idea of the Perfect Man, whether it be a Sufi formulation of it or a Buddhist one or a Hindu one or any other flavor of one, just doesn't float my boat. I don't believe that any such perfection has ever existed. Give me someone who just tries con- sistently to be a little better each day anytime. From what I've seen, believing that one has attained a level at which this trying is no longer necessary is almost always followed by the believer demonstrating that they needed to try more than most people, not less.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Difference between existence and consciousness is creativity.
Yifu, My comments are shown below: 1. (a) 3-d universe requires consciousness to support it. First, why 3-d, and not 23-d or 1-d. Non sequitur anyway. Why is consciousness required? Because you say so? The reason why you were able to understand my post is that you are able to understand the principles of of spacial dimensions, aside from the written language. The understanding of spacial dimensions imply that you're sentient and have consciousness. Similarly, the creation of the universe requires sentience and consciousness to manifest it. If there is no consciousness, how can the concept of space dimensions exist? 2. (b) on your statement, without consciousness, there is nothing. By nothing, I assume you mean the null set. But without anything there is nothing. The null set explains nothing. By nothing, I meant non-existence--not even a mathematical concept like a null set. 3. (c) you say Hawking claims there's no need for a Divine Being to create the universe. What are your reasons for saying there is a need? For the reasons I've stated in this reply above. There are other formal arguments like the Kalam Cosmological Argument which would refute Hawking's position. But that's another topic. 4. Finally, (d) there's no scientific evidence for Consciousness (the impersonal Absolute); or even consciousness (relative). (e) but the really big question is: does anything exist? There's no proof for that, but philosophers simply gloss that over, assuming that the universe (relative) exists; then go on from there. ... You need to stop beating round the bush and start coming up with some logical or experimental ideas as to why the universe needs a Creator. Just saying Hawking is wrong doesn't prove you're right. ... Don't beat around the bush. Find the Burning Bush! There is scientific evidence for Consciousness. The mere fact that scientists are able to understand Einstein's theories is evidence that Consciousness exist. In addition, these same scientists have conducted experiments which proved that Einstein's theories are correct--at least for the time being. Of course something does exist! Descartes said, I think. Therefore, I am. Can you refute that? JR
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Difference between existence and consciousness is creativity.
This is such an interesting conversation/thread btw, and very comforting in a weird way. Interesting definition. From: wgm4u no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 11:33 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Difference between existence and consciousness is creativity. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams richard@... wrote: We see people die all the time. The universe does not disappear for those still living... authfriend: Did somebody suggest otherwise? No, the universe would still be not real, yet not unreal either, after death. It would still be like a dream. We really cannot think of matter as either existing or not existing. The consciousness cannot truly create matter - there is no such thing as matter. MMY called it Mithya in one of his lectures, here's a little on it from a different source: http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/definitions/mithyA.htm There is only the constructive interference of the interpenetrating universe. As it is written in the Mundaka Upanishad: 'By energism of Consciousness Brahman is massed; from that Matter is born and from Matter Life and Mind and the worlds.'
[FairfieldLife] Re: Difference between existence and consciousness is creativity.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@... wrote: If there is no consciousness, how can the concept of space dimensions exist? Because it's a reality not a concept? And if it wasn't we wouldn't have had anywhere to evolve, unless you think that didn't happen.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Difference between existence and consciousness is creativity.
On 05/15/2012 09:35 AM, Duveyoung wrote: Bhairitu, You're one of the smart ones here. I don't know about that especially as I get older. :-D Thanks for the concept getting caught up in intellectual concepts. I don't know how to check myself for suchlikeexcept to post herein and let others take a whack at my conclusions and see if my certainties are thereby eroded. Have you got a better technique to offer me for such recalibration? Probably but you'd need to do some traveling. Might be quite a trek on a trikke. :-D What does a yogi know if he/she says he/she knows silence? He doesn't (unless he has the Vulcan Mind Meld Siddhi) but he might notice the glow in the fact or light emanating from the crown chakra. It would just be an indicator that something good is happening though. :-D Here's my answer to that question. (I'll risk constructing a Gordian Knot for you to slice in half:) Silence, as an experience, is not an experience of silence itself, but rather, it is, well, a something, an experience, a processing, a doingness of a nervous system that is mis-labeled silence. The lack of input from the senses, the lack of any memories being recalled, the lack of an emotional undercurrent -- these are not examples of silence, they're zeros in the nervous system, place holders. An empty cup actively waiting to be filled is a non-silent cup. It buzzes with readiness. That would be the sound OM. Beingness is busy-ness. The nervous system must be doing something (creating mental-cup-ready-to-be-filled) to create the possibility of knowing/knower/known. Sounds like a whole lotta non-silence to me. Is your elbow silent? No, right? It's always sending you reports about itself, but you ignore them. That's not an experience of elbow silence, right? Then there's the silence of deep sleep when waking-consciousness itself is gone. Yet we are assured by the ancients that someone is still home even when all the lights are turned out. And science proves this: a person in a coma can be seen to light up parts of their brain when someone in the room discusses, say, playing tennis, and the brain's areas for motor functions then get active. Who's in there listening? Answer -- No one. The ego is shut down, the waking state is shut down, awareness of the body is absent, no volitional dynamics are observed, REM is absent as are other indicators of dreaming. Who's listening? When the corpus coliseum is severed, the person becomes two persons, each with a separate POV, each one having a separate sentience. Where is the awareness of those two parts subtly conjoined? Answer: they're not. One doesn't speak to the other. They act as if they are two separate souls. Only the concept, The Absolute can explain this. Jesus spoke of rocks crying out -- I like to think he was signifying The Absolute's omnipresencenot that rocks have nervous systems. When a tree falls in the forest THERE'S ALWAYS SOMEONE AROUND -- that is: The Absolute. It hears the tree fall just as the comatose patient hears the discussion about tennis and the rocks hear that the disciples didn't preach on the Sabbath. Only The Absolute can be the identity for a broken down or shut down nervous system, or the mind of a rock, and in doing so (note the word doing) awareness (as an attribute of existence) becomes real -- as in when consciousness becomes conscious. Silence is transcendence. Beyond materiality. Beyond manifestation. Prior to consciousness becoming active. Before God first spoke. In the Ved we read about these priests who tried to bring back this person from the dead. They invoked every rite and got no results. They prayed: May this soul of this body return from heaven or hell or any of the other lokas. Nothing. Finally they prayed: May the soul of this body come back from wherever it's at. And bingo the guy lived. Where was he residing? All these arguments leave me with only The Absolute. Pure being doesn't cut it for me. Yogis, saints and even Brahma didn't know, couldn't know, will never know, silence. Edg The silence I am talking about permeates everything. It is NOT a sound but inner peace that will grow. It is the screen on which the shadow play of the relative is shown. There have been some members here who have mentioned experiencing it. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitunoozguru@... wrote: What do you think the silence is that so many yogi have spoken of? The silence that permeates activity or over which activity is projected. The silence that is still and absolute. Be careful about getting caught up in intellectual concepts. They will delude you. Either that or meditation is just another way of getting high. :-D On 05/14/2012 03:20 PM, Duveyoung wrote: Bhairitu So, are you saying The Absolute can be experienced by an enlightened person? Seems to
[FairfieldLife] Re: Difference between existence and consciousness is creativity.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: John, We see people die all the time. The universe does not disappear for those still living. Did somebody suggest otherwise? That's precisely the point I was making. I'm not sure if Xeno read my post carefully and objectively. JR It is that some people have a strong belief that when they die, things are going to be pretty much like it is for them now, but they will be in another place. Perhaps I scrambled my thought here, stating the obvious, as I was thinking of those for whom there is the belief the universe will not disappear, that they will still be somewhere. x = ego, individuated awareness y = the delusion that allows ego z = enlightenment x - y = z The ego minus the delusion that forms it results in enlightenment. But the delusion and the ego are really the same, so x = y We can then write x -x = z The end of the ego, the sense of self, small 's' results in enlightenment x - x = 0 Therefore 0 = z Enlightenment is a cipher, that is, nothing A perfect commentary on maya, 'that which is not'. We can also write x - x = z and rewrite it as x = z + x In other words the value of enlightenment is always present if x is present or not. Let's add other egos p1 p2 p3 to each side of the equation e.g., p1 = p1 is a tautology and can be added to any equation without changing its 'truth value'. x - y =z resulting in x - y + p1 + p2 + p3 = z + p1 + p2 + p3 And we can subsitute delusion y1, y2, y3 for some of the p values x - y + p1 + p2 + p3 = z + y1 + y2 + y3 This is how creation works, its all in the mind manipulating symbols, and creating equivalences for those symbols that the mind invents to carve up experiential existence into discrete values. But when you simplify the equation to its simplest value it always comes out 0 = z the big nothing. So you have all the values of creation and the value of its source and it is all equivalent to nothing. Why do we spend so much time talking about this? Much ado about nothing. This is the meaning of the phrase in the Bible 'when you clothe mortality with immortality, then death, where is thy sting?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Difference between existence and consciousness is creativity.
Wait a minute, did you come up with the equations? I like them. I still don't like the idea of nothing. I prefer everything. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: John, We see people die all the time. The universe does not disappear for those still living. Did somebody suggest otherwise? That's precisely the point I was making. I'm not sure if Xeno read my post carefully and objectively. JR It is that some people have a strong belief that when they die, things are going to be pretty much like it is for them now, but they will be in another place. Perhaps I scrambled my thought here, stating the obvious, as I was thinking of those for whom there is the belief the universe will not disappear, that they will still be somewhere. x = ego, individuated awareness y = the delusion that allows ego z = enlightenment x - y = z The ego minus the delusion that forms it results in enlightenment. But the delusion and the ego are really the same, so x = y We can then write x -x = z The end of the ego, the sense of self, small 's' results in enlightenment x - x = 0 Therefore 0 = z Enlightenment is a cipher, that is, nothing A perfect commentary on maya, 'that which is not'. We can also write x - x = z and rewrite it as x = z + x In other words the value of enlightenment is always present if x is present or not. Let's add other egos p1 p2 p3 to each side of the equation e.g., p1 = p1 is a tautology and can be added to any equation without changing its 'truth value'. x - y =z resulting in x - y + p1 + p2 + p3 = z + p1 + p2 + p3 And we can subsitute delusion y1, y2, y3 for some of the p values x - y + p1 + p2 + p3 = z + y1 + y2 + y3 This is how creation works, its all in the mind manipulating symbols, and creating equivalences for those symbols that the mind invents to carve up experiential existence into discrete values. But when you simplify the equation to its simplest value it always comes out 0 = z the big nothing. So you have all the values of creation and the value of its source and it is all equivalent to nothing. Why do we spend so much time talking about this? Much ado about nothing. This is the meaning of the phrase in the Bible 'when you clothe mortality with immortality, then death, where is thy sting?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Difference between existence and consciousness is creativity.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Susan wayback71@... wrote:
Enlightenment is a cipher, that is, nothing
A perfect commentary on maya, 'that which is not'.
If that's a translation of 'maayaa' (mAyA), we are afraid
it might be slightly based on folk etymology, apparently assuming
that 'yaa' in it is the feminine relative pronoun, prefixed with
the prohibitive(?) particle 'maa'.
Literally, mAyA (maayaa) seems to be a feminine
gender noun, based on the adjective (mfn: masculine, feminine,
neuter) whose masculine/neuter
stem is 'mAya' (maaya), derived from the root verb
'maa', primarily meaning 'to measure'...
4 mAyamfn. (3. %{mA}) measuring (see %{dhAnya-m-}) ; creating
illusions (said of Vishn2u) MBh. ; (%{A}) f. see below.
5 mAyAf. art , wisdom , extraordinary or supernatural power (only in
the earlier language) ; illusion , unreality , deception , fraud , trick ,
sorcery , witchcraft magic RV. c. c. ; an unreal or illusory image , phantom
, apparition ib. (esp. ibc= false , unreal , illusory ; cf. comp.) ; duplicity
(with Buddhists one of the 24 minor evil passions) Dharmas. 69 (in phil.)
Illusion (identified in the Sa1m2khya with Prakr2iti or Pradha1na and in that
system , as well as in the Veda7nta , regarded as the source of the visible
universe) IW. 83 ; 108 ; (with S3aivas) one of the 4 Pa1s3as or snares which
entangle the soul Sarvad. MW. ; (with Vaishn2avas) one of the 9 S3aktis or
energies of Vishn2u L. ; Illusion personified (sometimes identified with Durga1
, sometimes regarded as a daughter of Anr2ita and Nirr2iti or Nikr2iti and
mother of Mr2ityu , or as a daughter of Adharma) Pur. ; compassion , sympathy
L. ; Convolvulus Turpethum L. ; N. of the mother of Gautama Buddha MWB. 24 ; of
Lakshmi1 W. ; of a city Cat. ; of 2 metres Col. ; du. (%{mAye@indrasya}) N. of
2 Sa1mans ArshBr.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Difference between existence and consciousness is creativity.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: If there is no consciousness, how can the concept of space dimensions exist? Because it's a reality not a concept? And if it wasn't we wouldn't have had anywhere to evolve, unless you think that didn't happen. Sal, Here's an explanation by Dr. John Hagelin about consciousness and its relationship with the universe. This should help explain the concepts we've been discussing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrcWntw9juMfeature=related JR
[FairfieldLife] Re: Difference between existence and consciousness is creativity.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: John, We see people die all the time. The universe does not disappear for those still living. Did somebody suggest otherwise? That's precisely the point I was making. I'm not sure if Xeno read my post carefully and objectively. JR It is that some people have a strong belief that when they die, things are going to be pretty much like it is for them now, but they will be in another place. Perhaps I scrambled my thought here, stating the obvious, as I was thinking of those for whom there is the belief the universe will not disappear, that they will still be somewhere. x = ego, individuated awareness y = the delusion that allows ego z = enlightenment x - y = z The ego minus the delusion that forms it results in enlightenment. But the delusion and the ego are really the same, so x = y We can then write x -x = z The end of the ego, the sense of self, small 's' results in enlightenment x - x = 0 Therefore 0 = z Enlightenment is a cipher, that is, nothing A perfect commentary on maya, 'that which is not'. We can also write x - x = z and rewrite it as x = z + x In other words the value of enlightenment is always present if x is present or not. Let's add other egos p1 p2 p3 to each side of the equation e.g., p1 = p1 is a tautology and can be added to any equation without changing its 'truth value'. x - y =z resulting in x - y + p1 + p2 + p3 = z + p1 + p2 + p3 And we can subsitute delusion y1, y2, y3 for some of the p values x - y + p1 + p2 + p3 = z + y1 + y2 + y3 This is how creation works, its all in the mind manipulating symbols, and creating equivalences for those symbols that the mind invents to carve up experiential existence into discrete values. But when you simplify the equation to its simplest value it always comes out 0 = z the big nothing. So you have all the values of creation and the value of its source and it is all equivalent to nothing. Why do we spend so much time talking about this? Much ado about nothing. This is the meaning of the phrase in the Bible 'when you clothe mortality with immortality, then death, where is thy sting? Xeno, It's not about nothing. It's about everything. Here's Dr. John Hagelin explaining some of the issues we've been discussing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrcWntw9juMfeature=related JR
[FairfieldLife] Re: Difference between existence and consciousness is creativity.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: If there is no consciousness, how can the concept of space dimensions exist? Because it's a reality not a concept? And if it wasn't we wouldn't have had anywhere to evolve, unless you think that didn't happen. Sal, Here's an explanation by Dr. John Hagelin about consciousness and its relationship with the universe. This should help explain the concepts we've been discussing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrcWntw9juMfeature=related JR Thanks, I got nearly 1.35 minutes into it before switching off. Good of him to admit there is no scientific consensus on what he says but he then went on to claim that superstring theory is the unified field etc. There's no consensus on that either. I could guess the rest, there's no consensus on consciousness creating the world - except among gurus with yagyas to sell or movies to promote
[FairfieldLife] Re: Difference between existence and consciousness is creativity.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@... wrote: Xeno, It's not about nothing. It's about everything. Here's Dr. John Hagelin explaining some of the issues we've been discussing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrcWntw9juMfeature=related JR Managed to watch a bit more that time. The man's hubris astounds me, he must be hoping (or perhaps just aware) that the auddience for What the Bleep is new age dreamers and not his fellow physicists. The search for the unified filed isn't over, even Einstein abandoned it, and they weren't talking about consciousness anyway! to say it's his ideas is astounding vanity - someone should send this to his old mates at CERN so they could have a good laugh. Just becauzse he's got a PHD and talks in sciency words doesn't mean he's right. You've got to be more discerning John, stick to what is known, accept there are limits to current knowledge and don't confuse it with the fantasy this stuff is. Unknown and unnecessary, ask some working physicists not flakes like Hagelin who will be selling you astrology and cures for earth- quakes on the back of this knowledge
[FairfieldLife] Re: Difference between existence and consciousness is creativity.
If I remember correctly, chapter eight SBALwhen consciousness becomes conscious. Otherwise, here's some official poop: http://www.transcendentalconsciousness.com/unified_field.htm Funnily enough, this is one of the areas of movement dogma that I'm still rather comfortable with. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shainm307 shainm307@... wrote: Interesting thing for all the Fairfielders: In a channeling of pleiadians I heard the difference between consciousness and existence is creativity kind of goes against Maharishi, unless Maharishi was just going very broad.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Difference between existence and consciousness is creativity.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shainm307 shainm307@... wrote: Interesting thing for all the Fairfielders: In a channeling of pleiadians I heard the difference between consciousness and existence is creativity kind of goes against Maharishi, unless Maharishi was just going very broad. Couple of thoughts spring to mind: Could you ask the pleiadians how they manage to survive in such a hostile region of space? And maybe how they know English and even how they defeat the speed of light to communicate with you? Hmm, could be I'm going to take some convincing that this channeling thing is a reliable source of information. Perhaps you are in touch with a deep layer of yourself and when in a trance you externalize your inner voice? Tell us how it I'm sceptical but interested.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Difference between existence and consciousness is creativity.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ellis Nelson himalayaspencerellis@... wrote: I can see how consciousness informs existence and at that level a further refinement is found through creativity. It reminds me of the Perfect Man in Sufism who manifests through his preparedness (if I understand that correctly). While I understand that such theoretical discussions interest some, I tend to avoid them because my experience tells me that they're *completely* theoretical. Have you ever met a human being who you feel significantly affected the world around them through nothing more than the mech- anism of his or her consciousness? I have not, and have come to believe that it's a myth, a sales pitch touting the theoretical benefits *to others* of attaining supposed higher states of consciousness, whereas in actuality there are no such benefits. It's not (because you are new here, and probably don't know where I stand on such issues) that I disbelieve in what people have called enlightenment or higher states of consciousness in the past. Been there, done that, worn the T-shirt, and then thrown it away. It's just that I've come to believe that these are completely *subjective* states of mind that do not affect others, *except* in the same way that any of us affects others, through our thoughts and actions. While it may feel good subjectively to be in these states, I do not hold that to be of as much value as doing good for others in one's thoughts and actions. I've met supposed masters who claimed to be (and obviously believed it thoroughly themselves) that they were fully enlightened, but were real pricks. They treated people badly. If this is either enlightenment or a higher state of consciousness, color me not interested in it. In other words, the idea of the Perfect Man, whether it be a Sufi formulation of it or a Buddhist one or a Hindu one or any other flavor of one, just doesn't float my boat. I don't believe that any such perfection has ever existed. Give me someone who just tries con- sistently to be a little better each day anytime. From what I've seen, believing that one has attained a level at which this trying is no longer necessary is almost always followed by the believer demonstrating that they needed to try more than most people, not less.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Difference between existence and consciousness is creativity.
Laura, Can't agree. By logic, I conclude that existence is prior to consciousness -- necessitated because of how I define the words. Existence, in this usage by me, means: The Absolute. When attempting to conceptualize The Absolute, the quality, pure consciousness, can often be touted as if it were The Absolute, but that's merely because ALL qualities are said to be residing-therein-beyond-manifestness. Anything one says about The Absolute can be denied or affirmed without regard for any proofs therefore. There's no talking about it without talking about, well, everything. So to me, incarnational experiences cannot inform existence if existence already has all the knowledge -- due to its fecundity. In fact, let me expose my extremism: causality itself is a ruse. To me, it's all a matter of synchronicity instead. The Absolute is omnipresent -- not merely something manifested in a nervous system as an experience. It is beyond being and non-being; beyond isness and nothingness; beyond any polarity. Brahma tried to inform His Self. Spent 3,000 of His years diving down the lotus stalk upon which he had found himself born/borne. Never got there. Gave up the quest. Purport of the tale: Heart and mind are not vehicles to or tools to work on The Absoluteexcept that eschewing any attending of those conceptual and emotional processes leaves pure consciousness abiding with silence.a state of the nervous system typically called transcending but which I consider to be merely not-dwelling-on-objects-of-consciousness. That PROCESS of relatively-transcending allows the ego (after reconstituting after transcendence) to finally see that all along it has been erroneously assuming that it is a spirit when actually it's just been a noisy part of the clockworks of the human nervous system -- not sentientnot any more real than anything else...not an author of thoughtsillusory. And though the ego of the enlightened mind still continues, identity is no longer assigned to its doings. Identity doesn't even reside with Creation as the Selfonly The Absolute can truly shame the ego into seeing its temporal and spacial basis and becoming meek. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ellis Nelson himalayaspencerellis@... wrote: I can see how consciousness informs existence and at that level a further refinement is found through creativity. It reminds me of the Perfect Man in Sufism who manifests through his preparedness (if I understand that correctly). Laura (www.ellisnelson.com)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Difference between existence and consciousness is creativity.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ellis Nelson himalayaspencerellis@ wrote: I can see how consciousness informs existence and at that level a further refinement is found through creativity. It reminds me of the Perfect Man in Sufism who manifests through his preparedness (if I understand that correctly). While I understand that such theoretical discussions interest some, I tend to avoid them because my experience tells me that they're *completely* theoretical. Have you ever met a human being who you feel significantly affected the world around them through nothing more than the mech- anism of his or her consciousness? Is Barry mistakenly assuming that this is supposed to be the case with the Perfect Man of Sufism? I have not, and have come to believe that it's a myth, a sales pitch touting the theoretical benefits *to others* of attaining supposed higher states of consciousness, whereas in actuality there are no such benefits. The pitch with the Perfect Man is that his behavior-- the very same criterion Barry goes on to tout--is of benefit to others. It's not (because you are new here, and probably don't know where I stand on such issues) that I disbelieve in what people have called enlightenment or higher states of consciousness in the past. Ellis, because you are new here, you probably don't yet know that familiarity with an issue is not necessary for Barry to give us the benefit of his opinion on it. He prefers to make assumptions and opine about those rather than informing himself; it simply doesn't matter whether his assumptions have anything to do with the topic under discussion.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Difference between existence and consciousness is creativity.
Have you ever met a human being who you feel significantly affected the world around them through nothing more than the mechanism of his or her consciousness? authfriend: Is Barry mistakenly assuming that this is supposed to be the case with the Perfect Man of Sufism? Has Barry ever met a human being that has NOT significantly affected the world around him through nothing more than the mechanism of his or her consciousness? Let me rephrase that: Is there a human being on the planet that Barry has NOT met that has not significantly affected the world around him through nothing more than the mechanism of his or her consciousness? I have not, and have come to believe that it's a myth, a sales pitch touting the theoretical benefits *to others* of attaining supposed higher states of consciousness, whereas in actuality there are no such benefits. The pitch with the Perfect Man is that his behavior-- the very same criterion Barry goes on to tout--is of benefit to others. It's not (because you are new here, and probably don't know where I stand on such issues) that I disbelieve in what people have called enlightenment or higher states of consciousness in the past. Has anyone ever met a Buddhist that does NOT believe in 'enlightenment' - if so, then that person would not be a 'Buddhist', since the term 'Buddha' infers a waking up or an enlightenment experience? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gautama_Buddha How did Barry get so mixed up? Ellis, because you are new here, you probably don't yet know that familiarity with an issue is not necessary for Barry to give us the benefit of his opinion on it. He prefers to make assumptions and opine about those rather than informing himself; it simply doesn't matter whether his assumptions have anything to do with the topic under discussion. Everything is in some sort of relationship, connection, or balance with every other thing in the cosmos. The currency of the universe is learned information, imprinted upon The Field - the reason for its stability - an exchange of energy. Since we are all connected through The Field, then it should be possible to tap into this vast reservoir of energy and information. 'The Field' by Lynne McTaggart Harper, 2001
[FairfieldLife] Re: Difference between existence and consciousness is creativity.
According to MMY, everything is based in consciousness. If there wasn't any consciousness, there wouldn't be any existence or creativity. So, for any universe to manifest, IMO there would have to be a consciousness to create width, length, and height, at the very least. The dimension of time could be optional. IOW, this universe would be similar to an empty box and nothing else. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shainm307 shainm307@... wrote: Interesting thing for all the Fairfielders: In a channeling of pleiadians I heard the difference between consciousness and existence is creativity kind of goes against Maharishi, unless Maharishi was just going very broad.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Difference between existence and consciousness is creativity.
How 'bout everything is consciousness? In fact it would be pretty hard to prove that everything isn't consciousness. ;-) On 05/14/2012 11:24 AM, John wrote: According to MMY, everything is based in consciousness. If there wasn't any consciousness, there wouldn't be any existence or creativity. So, for any universe to manifest, IMO there would have to be a consciousness to create width, length, and height, at the very least. The dimension of time could be optional. IOW, this universe would be similar to an empty box and nothing else. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shainm307shainm307@... wrote: Interesting thing for all the Fairfielders: In a channeling of pleiadians I heard the difference between consciousness and existence is creativity kind of goes against Maharishi, unless Maharishi was just going very broad.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Difference between existence and consciousness is creativity.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@... wrote: According to MMY, everything is based in consciousness. If there wasn't any consciousness, there wouldn't be any existence or creativity. So, for any universe to manifest, IMO there would have to be a consciousness to create width, length, and height, at the very least. The dimension of time could be optional. IOW, this universe would be similar to an empty box and nothing else. But why would there need to be a consciousness? There are simpler ways to get the universe going without recourse to anything mystical. I also don't think time could be optional as it is simply what happens when there is matter present, interactions will take time to happen, so unless everything stays perfectly still which is exactly what *didn't* happen with creation there will be time. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shainm307 shainm307@ wrote: Interesting thing for all the Fairfielders: In a channeling of pleiadians I heard the difference between consciousness and existence is creativity kind of goes against Maharishi, unless Maharishi was just going very broad.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Difference between existence and consciousness is creativity.
On May 14, 2012, at 2:32 PM, Bhairitu wrote: How 'bout everything is consciousness? In fact it would be pretty hard to prove that everything isn't consciousness. ;-) Yeah, as long as they don't bump their head or stub their toe! :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Difference between existence and consciousness is creativity.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: According to MMY, everything is based in consciousness. If there wasn't any consciousness, there wouldn't be any existence or creativity. So, for any universe to manifest, IMO there would have to be a consciousness to create width, length, and height, at the very least. The dimension of time could be optional. IOW, this universe would be similar to an empty box and nothing else. But why would there need to be a consciousness? There are simpler ways to get the universe going without recourse to anything mystical. Not to mention the concept of an eternal, never-created universe. I know from past interactions that John is incapable of entertaining even the thought of this, but since you're new here I thought I'd see if you could swing behind this idea. I also don't think time could be optional as it is simply what happens when there is matter present, interactions will take time to happen, so unless everything stays perfectly still which is exactly what *didn't* happen with creation there will be time. Again, the there was never a first Creation theory takes care of this handily. There are just SO many complications projected onto the universe when humans project their own ephemeral lives and deaths onto the universe and assume As below, so above. :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shainm307 shainm307@ wrote: Interesting thing for all the Fairfielders: In a channeling of pleiadians I heard the difference between consciousness and existence is creativity kind of goes against Maharishi, unless Maharishi was just going very broad. Thanks for pointing out the ludicrousness of both channeling and channeling Pleiadians earlier. I just rolled my eyes and ignored it, but it's good that someone points out that those who trust knowledge from either source are probably looney tunes. :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Difference between existence and consciousness is creativity.
On 05/14/2012 11:44 AM, Vaj wrote: On May 14, 2012, at 2:32 PM, Bhairitu wrote: How 'bout everything is consciousness? In fact it would be pretty hard to prove that everything isn't consciousness. ;-) Yeah, as long as they don't bump their head or stub their toe! :-) Point is how you define consciousness? Narrowly or broadly? :-D (This becomes a play on words after awhile doesn't it?)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Difference between existence and consciousness is creativity.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@... wrote: On 05/14/2012 11:44 AM, Vaj wrote: On May 14, 2012, at 2:32 PM, Bhairitu wrote: How 'bout everything is consciousness? In fact it would be pretty hard to prove that everything isn't consciousness. ;-) Yeah, as long as they don't bump their head or stub their toe! :-) Point is how you define consciousness? Narrowly or broadly? :-D Definition of CONSCIOUSNESS from Webster's 1 a: the quality or state of being aware especially of something within oneself b: the state or fact of being conscious of an external object, state, or fact c: awareness; especially: concern for some social or political cause 2 : the state of being characterized by sensation, emotion, volition, and thought : mind 3 : the totality of conscious states of an individual 4 : the normal state of conscious life regained consciousness 5 : the upper level of mental life of which the person is aware as contrasted with unconscious processes (This becomes a play on words after awhile doesn't it?) I often wonder if we are all talking about the same thing.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Difference between existence and consciousness is creativity.
On 05/14/2012 12:23 PM, salyavin808 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitunoozguru@... wrote: On 05/14/2012 11:44 AM, Vaj wrote: On May 14, 2012, at 2:32 PM, Bhairitu wrote: How 'bout everything is consciousness? In fact it would be pretty hard to prove that everything isn't consciousness. ;-) Yeah, as long as they don't bump their head or stub their toe! :-) Point is how you define consciousness? Narrowly or broadly? :-D Definition of CONSCIOUSNESS from Webster's 1 a: the quality or state of being aware especially of something within oneself b: the state or fact of being conscious of an external object, state, or fact c: awareness; especially: concern for some social or political cause 2 : the state of being characterized by sensation, emotion, volition, and thought : mind 3 : the totality of conscious states of an individual 4 : the normal state of conscious liferegained consciousness 5 : the upper level of mental life of which the person is aware as contrasted with unconscious processes (This becomes a play on words after awhile doesn't it?) I often wonder if we are all talking about the same thing. I wouldn't take Sri Sri Webster's definition of consciousness. After all was he (or the staff) enlightened? Nah, they're going to take the flatlander version. You see I take the totality of existence as consciousness and by that I don't mean mine but the consciousness of the universe. After all that is what moksha is about. By now I would expect everyone here to be experiencing that or demanding a refund. :-D
[FairfieldLife] Re: Difference between existence and consciousness is creativity.
IMO, this is where physicists, like Stephen Hawking, are getting confused. He's written in his latest book that there is no need of a Divine Being to create this universe or any others outside this one. He fails to see that the very act of having a three dimensional universe requires consciousness to support it. Without consciousness there is NOTHING. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@... wrote: How 'bout everything is consciousness? In fact it would be pretty hard to prove that everything isn't consciousness. ;-) On 05/14/2012 11:24 AM, John wrote: According to MMY, everything is based in consciousness. If there wasn't any consciousness, there wouldn't be any existence or creativity. So, for any universe to manifest, IMO there would have to be a consciousness to create width, length, and height, at the very least. The dimension of time could be optional. IOW, this universe would be similar to an empty box and nothing else. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shainm307shainm307@ wrote: Interesting thing for all the Fairfielders: In a channeling of pleiadians I heard the difference between consciousness and existence is creativity kind of goes against Maharishi, unless Maharishi was just going very broad.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Difference between existence and consciousness is creativity.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: On May 14, 2012, at 2:32 PM, Bhairitu wrote: How 'bout everything is consciousness? In fact it would be pretty hard to prove that everything isn't consciousness. ;-) Yeah, as long as they don't bump their head or stub their toe! :-) Which, of course, would not disprove the Idealist premise that everything is consciousness.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Difference between existence and consciousness is creativity.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@... wrote: IMO, this is where physicists, like Stephen Hawking, are getting confused. He's written in his latest book that there is no need of a Divine Being to create this universe or any others outside this one. He fails to see that the very act of having a three dimensional universe requires consciousness to support it. Without consciousness there is NOTHING. But why? Why do 3 dimensions need consciousness? they are there whether we are or a universal type consciousness exists. I'm sure Hawking considered these points as part of his training. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@ wrote: How 'bout everything is consciousness? In fact it would be pretty hard to prove that everything isn't consciousness. ;-) On 05/14/2012 11:24 AM, John wrote: According to MMY, everything is based in consciousness. If there wasn't any consciousness, there wouldn't be any existence or creativity. So, for any universe to manifest, IMO there would have to be a consciousness to create width, length, and height, at the very least. The dimension of time could be optional. IOW, this universe would be similar to an empty box and nothing else. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shainm307shainm307@ wrote: Interesting thing for all the Fairfielders: In a channeling of pleiadians I heard the difference between consciousness and existence is creativity kind of goes against Maharishi, unless Maharishi was just going very broad.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Difference between existence and consciousness is creativity.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@... wrote: On 05/14/2012 12:23 PM, salyavin808 wrote: I wouldn't take Sri Sri Webster's definition of consciousness. After all was he (or the staff) enlightened? Nah, they're going to take the flatlander version. You see I take the totality of existence as consciousness and by that I don't mean mine but the consciousness of the universe. After all that is what moksha is about. By now I would expect everyone here to be experiencing that or demanding a refund. :-D My consciousness is the only one I know about. I assume others do - especially if they think about things like this! But I don't ascribe it to inanimate matter as it doesn't need it, in fact it gets along fine without it so I prefer not to elaborate it's already wondrous immensity. As the late great Douglas Adams put it: It's enough for me to know that a garden is beautiful without thinking there are fairies at the bottom of it as well.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Difference between existence and consciousness is creativity.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: According to MMY, everything is based in consciousness. If there wasn't any consciousness, there wouldn't be any existence or creativity. So, for any universe to manifest, IMO there would have to be a consciousness to create width, length, and height, at the very least. The dimension of time could be optional. IOW, this universe would be similar to an empty box and nothing else. But why would there need to be a consciousness? There are simpler ways to get the universe going without recourse to anything mystical. We've discussed this idea in this forum before. We've argued about the use of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, and those made by Aquinas to prove the existence of a Being that created this universe. Without going through these arguments, you can use your own logic and reason to answer what is needed to create a universe. At the very least you need to have length, width, and height to manifest a universe. But these dimensions need consciousness to define, understand and manifest a universe. Without consciousness, it's impossible to create a universe. There is only NOTHING. I also don't think time could be optional as it is simply what happens when there is matter present, interactions will take time to happen, so unless everything stays perfectly still which is exactly what *didn't* happen with creation there will be time. That's why I mentioned an empty box as the example for a universe. If there is matter involved, then time may be needed for a physical universe to exist in scientific terms. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shainm307 shainm307@ wrote: Interesting thing for all the Fairfielders: In a channeling of pleiadians I heard the difference between consciousness and existence is creativity kind of goes against Maharishi, unless Maharishi was just going very broad.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Difference between existence and consciousness is creativity.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: According to MMY, everything is based in consciousness. If there wasn't any consciousness, there wouldn't be any existence or creativity. So, for any universe to manifest, IMO there would have to be a consciousness to create width, length, and height, at the very least. The dimension of time could be optional. IOW, this universe would be similar to an empty box and nothing else. But why would there need to be a consciousness? There are simpler ways to get the universe going without recourse to anything mystical. We've discussed this idea in this forum before. We've argued about the use of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, and those made by Aquinas to prove the existence of a Being that created this universe. Without going through these arguments, you can use your own logic and reason to answer what is needed to create a universe. At the very least you need to have length, width, and height to manifest a universe. But these dimensions need consciousness to define, understand and manifest a universe. Without consciousness, it's impossible to create a universe. There is only NOTHING. So you think there is no universe without us to perceive it? Or is it that your inner universe is so different from the external stimuli that provokes it that you can think it's real and the external world is the illusion or that it doesn't exist without us to collapse the waveforms? Strange beliefs to hold, too anthropomorphic for me. I prefer the rather more romantic notion that it got here on its own and would carry on without us or any other conscious vessel to perceive it until the whole thing flies apart into its inevitable heat death. It's a bit problematic using your own logic and reason if you hold beliefs like yours because it kind of hamstrings you into only accepting mystical explanations from gurus rather than the hard won findings of science all of which get along just fine without consciousness. My books do anyway!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Difference between existence and consciousness is creativity.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: snip Without going through these arguments, you can use your own logic and reason to answer what is needed to create a universe. At the very least you need to have length, width, and height to manifest a universe. But these dimensions need consciousness to define, understand and manifest a universe. Without consciousness, it's impossible to create a universe. There is only NOTHING. So you think there is no universe without us to perceive it? I don't think that's what John is saying. As I understand him, he's suggesting that the property of consciousness (universal and nonlocalized) would be required for a universe to be created. Or is it that your inner universe is so different from the external stimuli that provokes it that you can think it's real and the external world is the illusion or that it doesn't exist without us to collapse the waveforms? Strange beliefs to hold, too anthropomorphic for me. I prefer the rather more romantic notion that it got here on its own and would carry on without us or any other conscious vessel to perceive it until the whole thing flies apart into its inevitable heat death. It's a bit problematic using your own logic and reason if you hold beliefs like yours because it kind of hamstrings you into only accepting mystical explanations from gurus rather than the hard won findings of science all of which get along just fine without consciousness. My books do anyway! It shouldn't be rather than. You don't have to give up the findings of science to believe that everything emerges from consciousness.
