[FairfieldLife] Re: Visualizing the E8 root system
I thought you had a more abstract World-View..?? qntmpkt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 01:22:36 - Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Visualizing the E8 root system --Right, very eloquent; but I see no evidence that Krishna is the Lord of the Universe, in a relative sense. My candidate: The Scientology God, Xenu. - Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] . wrote: Isn't the Absolute Being synonymous with Natural Law, the Creator of an Intelligent Design? MMY wrote a book called The Science of Being and the Art of Living that should be helpful to you in understanding the basics of what he teaches. So, there is a Science of Being and Intelligent Design which MMY wants to teach in public schools. Now I'm no longer confused. Excerpt from Maharishi's commentary on Bhagavad Gita 4.6: Although manifest creation, which includes men and other creatures, springs from the unmanfest, its manifestation is by virtue of prakriti. But the divine manifestation of the unminanifest Being, which comes to re-establish the forgotten wisdom of life, is by virtue of 'Lila-shakti' , which is the very power of the Absolute, an integral part of Its transcendent divine nature. Surgery is the inseparable power of the surgeon. Sometimes it is active, as when the surgeon works at the operating table, but at other times it is latent, as when he is resting at home. Lila- shakti (the play-power of Brahman) functions in an analogous way, and by virtue of this the unmanifest, ever remaining in its absolute state, manifests into creation. The almighty nature of the eternal Being thus maintains Reality in both Its aspects, absolute and relative. The Lord says: 'remaining in My own nature I take birth' just as the sap in a tree appears as a leaf and a flower without losing its quality as sap, so the unmanifest Being, remaining unmanifest, imperishable and eternal, takes birth. Nothing happens to the Absolute, and yet the Incarnation of the Absolute springs up, by virtue of Its own nature. Here the Lord is saying - While remaining in My own nature I take birth through My power of creation, and through that I function; that is how I remain unbound and at the same time am able to restore law and order in creation. CBG p. 189 Though I am unborn and of imperishable nature, though Lord of all beings, yet remaining in My own nature I take birth through My own power of Creation. - BG 4.6 - Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Visualizing the E8 root system
TurquoiseB wrote: I *get off* on the mystery of it all. If you like playing with models, GO FOR IT. So, mystery is your model that you *get off* on, but what's so mysterious about IF THEN ELSE, 0 and 1, and Visual Basic.net?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Visualizing the E8 root system
Just my usual too quick on the trigger response. I hear the term super string or anything of that ilk associated with TM and my brain locks-up! I'm sure it can have value for people, such as John Hagelin, who actually understand it and can facilitate deeper understanding of the mechanichs of consciousness, but for us lay folk it is mind numbing. That's its true purpose. :-) the invoking the too quick on the trigger response part or the mind numbing part? The mind numbing part. I was asking a bit tongue-in-check. I understood your intent. But wanted to (humorously ?) introduce another possibility -- that M. does such to invoke an irritation / vansana-driven response to it. Resolvong the vasana in those who respond. Perhaps a fringe theory, but as credible as the trance / marketing theory, IMO. Whatever floats your boat. :-) You'll notice, however, that it gives Maharishi the benefit of believing that he actually knows what the heck he's doing, something I'm not as anxious to do as those who don't want to deal with the possibility that they've spent their lives following someone who may have no more clue than they do. :-) N.s comment about leaving Purusha because he did not pass the test of patience, may (maybe not) be an example of this. IMO, and experience, M uses a lot of techniques to purify those around him. As did SBS, apparently -- sending M running with secret message to swami miles away. M to only find out it was a sort of hoax, just to put M thru some necessary loop of activity. Such tecnniques can drive many crazy and they leave. Others stick it out, and apparently gain some good thngs. I can't say for sure. But I know the techniques have validity from experience. Couldn't you have gained just as much benefit from banging your head against a wall? Again, you seem to be projecting onto Maharishi some kind of guru knowledge that told him that Pointless Exercise In Frustration 32.4 was just the thing that Seeker 18,784 needed to resolve some karma. Another perfectly reasonable explanation for SBS send- ing Maharishi off on a wild goose chase is that he (Maharishi) was just being a pain in the ass and SBS wanted to GET RID OF HIM and have a blessed few hours without some adoring bhakti-freak dogging his heels. :-) It's a sales technique designed to make the buyer think, O, these people are smarter than I am. I can tell because they use big words that I don't understand. There- fore they know what they're talking about. I am sure there is a segment of the market that responds like that. I suggest it may be smaller than you surmise. I work in the computer industry. The segment of the market that responds to incomprehensible geekspeak is well established. Shocking, but well established. I'm reminded of P.T. Barnum's famous line when the crowds weren't leaving the tent quickly enough after one of his shows and he needed to get them out of the tent so he could fill it with more suckers for the next show. He picked up a bullhorn and started shouting, This way to see the egress. This way to see the egress. Everyone rushed out of the tent, anxious to find out what an egress was and ooh and aah over it. This way to see the quantum mechanical level of life. Better hurry. :-) And so they sign on the dotted line, or continue to buy the inferior products of an inferior company because they have bought into the company's use of buzzwords. It's the same model used to sell hardware and software. We in the industry call it geekspeak. The more incomprehensible geekspeak you throw into the blurbs about your product, the more of the product you are likely to sell. To fools perhaps. Most people I know respond to substance. Perhaps you hang with the wrong crowd Did I ever suggest that the people who fall for geek- speak were NOT fools? I thought that was implicit in what I said. But fall for it they do. Just look at the marketing brochures for high-end software aimed at businesses; the more incomprehensible the geekspeak, the better it sells, and the more Fortune 500 busi- nesses are dependent upon it. Whatever the intellectual can I connect these possibly unrelated dots in my mind value that hypothetical exercises like Hagelin's might have for *him*, their value to the TM movement is as geekspeak. One of the trends that one finds in the study of *many* spiritual traditions is that many of the traditions that made the biggest impact on society, and in some cases have lasted the longest in history, were the ones that *dispensed with* geekspeak, or presented a clear alternative to it. So the premeise is that those who communicate clearly have a larger impact than those who don't. Perhaps a revolutionary concept. I would have thought that the premise was that those who talk about things that most people are actually interested in have
[FairfieldLife] Re: Visualizing the E8 root system
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's a sales technique designed to make the buyer think, O, these people are smarter than I am. I can tell because they use big words that I don't understand. There- fore they know what they're talking about. I am sure there is a segment of the market that responds like that. I suggest it may be smaller than you surmise. I work in the computer industry. The segment of the market that responds to incomprehensible geekspeak is well established. Shocking, but well established. I'd like to see your numbers Turq. I work in the industry here, pretty much at the center of it (Silicon Valley), and have for many years. The infamous Dot Com Bomb seven years ago was caused by a maturation of the industry, people waking up and realizing that, No, you couldn't sell bags of dog food over the Internet, that many of the highfliers of the time selling hardware and software had no viable business model showing actual ROI for their customers. Your oversimplified and cynical model of (especially) members of the Fortune 500 being duped by software with marginal value has seen its day. It was pretty much obsolete about ten years ago. Nowadays there are ways to get nearly instantaneous metrics on actual productivity improvements resulting from software, and everyone reads the same reports. There are no longer a bunch of dupes out there. To survive and make any real money, the providers of software these days actually have to be pretty darned good.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Visualizing the E8 root system
TurquoiseB wrote: Although the relative world is purely relative, it is *also* pure Absolute. So, you're saying that you hold a dualistic philosophy. That is the very essence of its mystery. The mystery is why you'd adopt a metaphysical explanantion of the universe, when a physical expalanation is all that is needed. How can there be two reals? I'll jump in, even though I haven't thought about this stuff in Physics metaphors since I left the TM movement (and haven't missed thinking that way). I suspect you have a good point about any Unified Field Theory that physicists could come up with having to do purely with the relative world. That is the only field they play in. As for the relative world not being Jack Kennedy, however, my experiences have con- vinced me that it *is* Jack Kennedy. Although the relative world is purely relative, it is *also* pure Absolute. That is the very essence of its mystery. But, at the same time, I have my doubts as to science's ability to ever grok that, much less include it in any of their theories of How Things Work. Things only work in the field of the relative, and thus that is the field they are playing in and trying to find some way to describe. That'll take them long enough and will be challenging enough. They should leave asking the Absolute to get up off the bench and join the game to mystics.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Visualizing the E8 root system
Duveyoung wrote: To me Being is all the gunas perfectly balanced but still having the quality of being manifest -- that is, observable and thus distinct from the Absolute -- just exactly as a mirror is functional but invisible to human eyes that are tuned to see only to the mirror's reflections. But Maharishi has said that the relative is separate from the Absolute, that the Absolute is free from the gunas, and that the Absolute is not an object of knowledge. The Vedas mainly deal with the subject of the three modes of material nature. Rise above these modes, O Arjuna. Be transcendental to all of them. Be free from all dualities and from all anxieties for gain and safety, and be established in the Self. http://www.asitis.com/2/45.html
[FairfieldLife] Re: Visualizing the E8 root system
Here's my first attempt to unfuzzify things. Once upon a time, there were three aspects: Absolute, Being, Manifesting Being. THE ABSOLUTE is: beyond even beyondness, and no concept or anti-concept can give any intellectual handle to grab it. Nor can the quality of non-grab-ableness be said to apply to it. It cannot be said to be real or unreal, yet if a choice must be made, it is the only real, and if one assumes that the Absolute is real, then, of course, anything that is unreal cannot touch it. Any THING-THOUGHT is unreal; all unreal things are thoughts only. The Absolute's nickname is Big Self. To call the Absolute pure consciousness cannot be correct, but it is so alluring to think that the Absolute is someTHING that is aware, but in the absence of things, there cannot be any awareness -- awareness and thingness are like love and marriage, goes together like a horse and carriage, duality donchaknow. Hindu word for the Absolute: Brahman. Not Brahma cuz He IS manifest. The temptation to say that the Absolute is the Witness is almost unbearable, but doing that would be wrong. Even though only the Absolute could possibly be said to be real, for the purposes of dialog, assuming INSTEAD, that Being manifestation soul consciousness is the real allows for the intellect to pretend to think about the Absolute, but the intellect would be merely navel gazing at the small self, Being. BEING is: All Qualities in perfect balance -- poised to variegate. Consciousness now exists, but it has not become conscious of any THING except its self, the first thing, the only everything. Being is Amness with a titch of isness besmirching it -- or beautifying it like an ingenue's mole. It is the small self before sinning (imbalancing) has begun. It is an almost perfect metaphor for the Absolute in that 1. Silence seems to exist/prevail, Being seems to be a perfectly still harmony of the gunas. 2. All possibilities are available: every quality, every iteration of physicality, every thought, every sin, every form of love, every energy, every structure, EVERY THINGNESS is at the ready. The canvas is perfectly white and any shading, no matter how pastel will pop. 3. Consciousness of Unity without an intent to express itself. 4. Identification -- ego, though existing, is satisfied, intent-less and is called soul, Brahma, Unified-Virtual Field, atma. And the list how Being reminds one of the Absolute goes on literally forever. How it can be that, in Being, all materiality resides -- balanced, undifferentiated, unified but intellectually delineate-able -- how that is structured, is up for grabs -- and it has been grabbed by every religion. I like The Ten Sefirot of the Kabbalah as an approach -- I think of the Sefirot as God's personality when no one's looking. Or, how about imagining the entire Hindu pantheon all seated and humming OM? That's a good one too. Then there's Modern Physics too; when it looks for the ultimate particle, a heretic is banging on the church door demanding to be allowed to partake of communion, unification. MANIFESTING BEING, the infinite disconnect has occurred. Big Isness is in the building. Manifesting Being is all the qualities of Being now displaying in space/time. Now Ego assumes -- steals -- authorship of existence. Ego has lost sight of God because Ego is looking outwards instead of being content with the pure harmony of samadhi's unity. Ego's drugged, tripping on God's parts. The apple has been bitten. In Hindu terms, Brahma is deluded, because He couldn't find Brahman at the bottom of the lotus stalk and because no other God has His perfections. So, Brahma thinks He's creating -- Brahma says, Hey, by default, I must be God. Then He cops out, and tells his four mind-born sons to do the actual work of creating, but they, like their Old Man, cop out too and say, Heck with you, Dad, we're staying in samadhi. So, Bramha invented sex, and we all know what happened after that -- since then, every ego thinks it's Jack Kennedy. There's a start. Any help in tweaking these words towards a stronger clarity would be appreciated. I'm not so much handing the above down from on high, but, rather, I'm hoping it is a faithful presentation of vocabulary so that we can communicate. If we could take out all my poetry and horsing around with words, we might have something worth reading. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, claudiouk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: you're no Jack Kennedy - not sure what THAT means.. no I'm Claudio. I'm sure we all have our own views on these matters and how far our definitions are fuzzy, and how bad that is in fact, is all rather fuzzy to me. I think language can only point the way.. re definitions for consciousness, the Absolute, Being, and the Unified Field - I don't find MMY's usage of these terms, as in his Gita or more recent pronouncements, problematic. They refer to a transcendental realm of awareness, beyong thoughts or concepts or
[FairfieldLife] Re: Visualizing the E8 root system
Richard, In transcendental samadhi, it gets tricky, because to me, that's still duality. One (a nervous system) is still saying I am. One is not saying I am suchandsuch, but nonetheless, it is saying, I am. But that's still two thingies, ego and amness. Or, if you prefer to go up a notch in abstraction, 1. Absolute 2. Soul. Samadhi is amness, primal sinless ego, singing OM -- singing like hunters doing duck calls -- hoping to lure the Absolute down from the heights of akhanda mandala karum. But, ha!, it's one smart duck! One transcends by doing less and less. Thinking a thought is work being done. The least work of this type is samadhi -- a nervous system is still operating but in neutral, not in drive. If I have no awareness of anything outer, but I'm still aware, I've transcended, stopped, MOST thinking, but awareness without an object is still some work being done. That least state of excitation, that smallest amount of working, results in the experience, amness, but it is not a perfect silence since it is an action of a body that is intended to symbolize the Absolute. The Absolute is, functionally, the imaginary friend of amness. The problem with samadhi is that identification remains localized as body, mind, spirit. Time still seems to exist as a potential of Being, and urp, now I'm getting claustrophobic! The trick of enlightenment is to identify with the Absolute instead of Being. It's a toughie, cuz you know Being is s convincing. How convincing? There's that story about the sage who had become so powerful that he could create a whole new creation with its own new Gods, so Indra and his boys sent a hot chick to twiddle the sage's twiddleables. And, yep, sure enough, ten thousand years of tapas went down the drain, and then the sage didn't have enough shakti to do a new creation, so the Gods could relax. How sweet must Being Beauty be, eh? That chick musta been something to have a sage pay 10,000 years of tapas for her fee. Like that, Being can suck ya in. Pun intended. One moment one's almost perfectly identified with the unbounded, then BLAMMO, you're Indra with a ton of work to do, or worse, Edg on caffeine. Nope, TM's mantra only gets ya to samadhi, and dwelling there is good cuz as one gets used to identifying with a symbol of perfect silence -- that is, the sound of OM -- one cultures one's nervous system until it can shift from local, quality ladened, unbounded but yet fettered ensoulment onto the Absolute. Once this toggling of identification happens, that's the last paradigm shift the mind can have -- when even wooden decoy bliss cannot bribe the Absolute down to the duck hunter. That's enlightenment -- one leaps out of the zombie. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Duveyoung wrote: To me Being is all the gunas perfectly balanced but still having the quality of being manifest -- that is, observable and thus distinct from the Absolute -- just exactly as a mirror is functional but invisible to human eyes that are tuned to see only to the mirror's reflections. But Maharishi has said that the relative is separate from the Absolute, that the Absolute is free from the gunas, and that the Absolute is not an object of knowledge. The Vedas mainly deal with the subject of the three modes of material nature. Rise above these modes, O Arjuna. Be transcendental to all of them. Be free from all dualities and from all anxieties for gain and safety, and be established in the Self. http://www.asitis.com/2/45.html
[FairfieldLife] Re: Visualizing the E8 root system
-thanks, as usual for your extraordinary insights! Personally, I believe (grok) that there is a genuine paradox of Brahman; i.e. that existence is simultaneously relative and Absolute. Paradoxes are found in mathematics, entities B. Russell and later, K. Godel delved into. Examples: 1. the Cretan's Paradox, named after a passage in the Bible which states that all Cretans are liars. So, if one asks a Cretan, are you telling the truth?, is the Cretan telling the truth, or lying? This is a paradox since, if the Cretan is stating the truth, he's actually lying. A simpler one is to have a piece of paper on which is written on both sides: The other side of this paper is untrue. Is the statement true or false? The human mind may be tempted to demand an easily solution to such paradoxes: right or wrong, yin or yang. Such dichotomies exist in Aristotlean logic, but the truth often exists in the excluded middle, the gray area between true or false. One can find metaphorical analogues to the excluded middle in quantum physics: a quantum particle may exist in a shadowy area of quantum ghostliness, in a twilight zone of probabilities. Attempting to pin down the precise location and momentum of such particles runs up against Heisenberg's Uncertainy principle. It can't be done. Metaphorical analogues to physical principles can be useful in helping us to understand physics and metaphysics. For one thing, there are serious wide open gaps between our current store of knowledge and the actual state of the universe, which nobody can account for. Such phenomena include dark matter and dark energy. In the current state of physics, there is no shortage of wild speculative hypotheses to account for the existence of dark matter and dark energy. Metaphorical analogues can help people get pointed in the right direction; subject to later confirmation by experimental methods (hopefully).. -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Richard, In transcendental samadhi, it gets tricky, because to me, that's still duality. One (a nervous system) is still saying I am. One is not saying I am suchandsuch, but nonetheless, it is saying, I am. But that's still two thingies, ego and amness. Or, if you prefer to go up a notch in abstraction, 1. Absolute 2. Soul. Samadhi is amness, primal sinless ego, singing OM -- singing like hunters doing duck calls -- hoping to lure the Absolute down from the heights of akhanda mandala karum. But, ha!, it's one smart duck! One transcends by doing less and less. Thinking a thought is work being done. The least work of this type is samadhi -- a nervous system is still operating but in neutral, not in drive. If I have no awareness of anything outer, but I'm still aware, I've transcended, stopped, MOST thinking, but awareness without an object is still some work being done. That least state of excitation, that smallest amount of working, results in the experience, amness, but it is not a perfect silence since it is an action of a body that is intended to symbolize the Absolute. The Absolute is, functionally, the imaginary friend of amness. The problem with samadhi is that identification remains localized as body, mind, spirit. Time still seems to exist as a potential of Being, and urp, now I'm getting claustrophobic! The trick of enlightenment is to identify with the Absolute instead of Being. It's a toughie, cuz you know Being is s convincing. How convincing? There's that story about the sage who had become so powerful that he could create a whole new creation with its own new Gods, so Indra and his boys sent a hot chick to twiddle the sage's twiddleables. And, yep, sure enough, ten thousand years of tapas went down the drain, and then the sage didn't have enough shakti to do a new creation, so the Gods could relax. How sweet must Being Beauty be, eh? That chick musta been something to have a sage pay 10,000 years of tapas for her fee. Like that, Being can suck ya in. Pun intended. One moment one's almost perfectly identified with the unbounded, then BLAMMO, you're Indra with a ton of work to do, or worse, Edg on caffeine. Nope, TM's mantra only gets ya to samadhi, and dwelling there is good cuz as one gets used to identifying with a symbol of perfect silence -- that is, the sound of OM -- one cultures one's nervous system until it can shift from local, quality ladened, unbounded but yet fettered ensoulment onto the Absolute. Once this toggling of identification happens, that's the last paradigm shift the mind can have -- when even wooden decoy bliss cannot bribe the Absolute down to the duck hunter. That's enlightenment -- one leaps out of the zombie. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams willytex@ wrote: Duveyoung wrote: To me Being is all the gunas perfectly balanced but
[FairfieldLife] Re: Visualizing the E8 root system
jstein wrote: In my understanding, Consciousness, Being, Absolute, and Unified Field are all synonymous in MMY's teaching. Somebody, maybe MMY, is really confused! The Top 10 Intelligent Designs (or Creation Myths): Scientists now believe that there is an intrinsic logic to our reality, that there are absolutes, laws of nature. http://www.livescience.com/history/top10_intelligent_designs.html
[FairfieldLife] Re: Visualizing the E8 root system
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: jstein wrote: In my understanding, Consciousness, Being, Absolute, and Unified Field are all synonymous in MMY's teaching. Somebody, maybe MMY, is really confused! Actually, I think that would be you. The Top 10 Intelligent Designs (or Creation Myths): Scientists now believe that there is an intrinsic logic to our reality, that there are absolutes, laws of nature. http://www.livescience.com/history/top10_intelligent_designs.html
[FairfieldLife] Re: Visualizing the E8 root system
In my understanding, Consciousness, Being, Absolute, and Unified Field are all synonymous in MMY's teaching. Richard J. Williams wrote: Somebody, maybe MMY, is really confused! jstein wrote: Actually, I think that would be you. Now I am confused! Confused about MMY teaching the Science of Creative Intelligence in public schools. Please set me straight on this: Isn't the Absolute Being synonymous with Natural Law, the Creator of an Intelligent Design? Another question: How could something be created in the Unified Field? Wouldn't that defy logic? I've never heard of anyone having intrinsic logic. Where does that come from? From God the Creator? If so, why don't I see any logic from you these days? The Top 10 Intelligent Designs (or Creation Myths): Scientists now believe that there is an intrinsic logic to our reality, that there are absolutes, laws of nature. http://www.livescience.com/history/top10_intelligent_designs.html
[FairfieldLife] Re: Visualizing the E8 root system
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In my understanding, Consciousness, Being, Absolute, and Unified Field are all synonymous in MMY's teaching. Richard J. Williams wrote: Somebody, maybe MMY, is really confused! jstein wrote: Actually, I think that would be you. Now I am confused! Confused about MMY teaching the Science of Creative Intelligence in public schools. Please set me straight on this: Isn't the Absolute Being synonymous with Natural Law, the Creator of an Intelligent Design? MMY wrote a book called The Science of Being and the Art of Living that should be helpful to you in understanding the basics of what he teaches. Another question: How could something be created in the Unified Field? Wouldn't that defy logic? I've never heard of anyone having intrinsic logic. Where does that come from? From God the Creator? If so, why don't I see any logic from you these days? The Top 10 Intelligent Designs (or Creation Myths): Scientists now believe that there is an intrinsic logic to our reality, that there are absolutes, laws of nature. http://www.livescience.com/history/top10_intelligent_designs.html
[FairfieldLife] Re: Visualizing the E8 root system
Duveyoung wrote: Here's my first attempt to unfuzzify things. Once upon a time, there were three aspects: Absolute, Being, Manifesting Being. Only in metaphysical theory - there's nothing in nature that would indicate that reality is a manifestation of three supernatural powers. It's more reasonable to infer from observation that there is a primal unity in nature, not chaos. An orderly universe implies a unity, rather than a duality. It's natural to assume that everything is in reality one, and that everything is connected and dependant on other things. Although we infer that the ultimate reality is one, we don't know what to call it until we read the scriptures. Ishvara in the Yoga Tradition is the same as the Brahman in the Vedantic tradition. But, Ishvara is not 'God' in the sense of a Creator nor is Ishvara a demi-God such as Shiva, Parvati, Durga, etc. The only Indian tradition that purported the idea that Brahma the Creator was a material entity was Charvaka and Sanjaya the Skeptic. All the schools of Vedanta are transcendentalist in point-of-view.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Visualizing the E8 root system
Isn't the Absolute Being synonymous with Natural Law, the Creator of an Intelligent Design? MMY wrote a book called The Science of Being and the Art of Living that should be helpful to you in understanding the basics of what he teaches. So, there is a Science of Being and Intelligent Design which MMY wants to teach in public schools. Now I'm no longer confused. Excerpt from Maharishi's commentary on Bhagavad Gita 4.6: Although manifest creation, which includes men and other creatures, springs from the unmanfest, its manifestation is by virtue of prakriti. But the divine manifestation of the unminanifest Being, which comes to re-establish the forgotten wisdom of life, is by virtue of 'Lila-shakti', which is the very power of the Absolute, an integral part of Its transcendent divine nature. Surgery is the inseparable power of the surgeon. Sometimes it is active, as when the surgeon works at the operating table, but at other times it is latent, as when he is resting at home. Lila- shakti (the play-power of Brahman) functions in an analogous way, and by virtue of this the unmanifest, ever remaining in its absolute state, manifests into creation. The almighty nature of the eternal Being thus maintains Reality in both Its aspects, absolute and relative. The Lord says: 'remaining in My own nature I take birth' just as the sap in a tree appears as a leaf and a flower without losing its quality as sap, so the unmanifest Being, remaining unmanifest, imperishable and eternal, takes birth. Nothing happens to the Absolute, and yet the Incarnation of the Absolute springs up, by virtue of Its own nature. Here the Lord is saying - While remaining in My own nature I take birth through My power of creation, and through that I function; that is how I remain unbound and at the same time am able to restore law and order in creation. CBG p. 189 Though I am unborn and of imperishable nature, though Lord of all beings, yet remaining in My own nature I take birth through My own power of Creation. - BG 4.6
[FairfieldLife] Re: Visualizing the E8 root system
--Right, very eloquent; but I see no evidence that Krishna is the Lord of the Universe, in a relative sense. My candidate: The Scientology God, Xenu. - In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Isn't the Absolute Being synonymous with Natural Law, the Creator of an Intelligent Design? MMY wrote a book called The Science of Being and the Art of Living that should be helpful to you in understanding the basics of what he teaches. So, there is a Science of Being and Intelligent Design which MMY wants to teach in public schools. Now I'm no longer confused. Excerpt from Maharishi's commentary on Bhagavad Gita 4.6: Although manifest creation, which includes men and other creatures, springs from the unmanfest, its manifestation is by virtue of prakriti. But the divine manifestation of the unminanifest Being, which comes to re-establish the forgotten wisdom of life, is by virtue of 'Lila-shakti', which is the very power of the Absolute, an integral part of Its transcendent divine nature. Surgery is the inseparable power of the surgeon. Sometimes it is active, as when the surgeon works at the operating table, but at other times it is latent, as when he is resting at home. Lila- shakti (the play-power of Brahman) functions in an analogous way, and by virtue of this the unmanifest, ever remaining in its absolute state, manifests into creation. The almighty nature of the eternal Being thus maintains Reality in both Its aspects, absolute and relative. The Lord says: 'remaining in My own nature I take birth' just as the sap in a tree appears as a leaf and a flower without losing its quality as sap, so the unmanifest Being, remaining unmanifest, imperishable and eternal, takes birth. Nothing happens to the Absolute, and yet the Incarnation of the Absolute springs up, by virtue of Its own nature. Here the Lord is saying - While remaining in My own nature I take birth through My power of creation, and through that I function; that is how I remain unbound and at the same time am able to restore law and order in creation. CBG p. 189 Though I am unborn and of imperishable nature, though Lord of all beings, yet remaining in My own nature I take birth through My own power of Creation. - BG 4.6
[FairfieldLife] Re: Visualizing the E8 root system
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutphen@ wrote: Just my usual too quick on the trigger response. I hear the term super string or anything of that ilk associated with TM and my brain locks-up! I'm sure it can have value for people, such as John Hagelin, who actually understand it and can facilitate deeper understanding of the mechanichs of consciousness, but for us lay folk it is mind numbing. That's its true purpose. :-) the invoking the too quick on the trigger response part or the mind numbing part? The mind numbing part. It's a sales technique designed to make the buyer think, O, these people are smarter than I am. I can tell because they use big words that I don't understand. There- fore they know what they're talking about. And so they sign on the dotted line, or continue to buy the inferior products of an inferior company because they have bought into the company's use of buzzwords. It's the same model used to sell hardware and software. We in the industry call it geekspeak. The more incomprehensible geekspeak you throw into the blurbs about your product, the more of the product you are likely to sell. Whatever the intellectual can I connect these possibly unrelated dots in my mind value that hypothetical exercises like Hagelin's might have for *him*, their value to the TM movement is as geekspeak. One of the trends that one finds in the study of *many* spiritual traditions is that many of the traditions that made the biggest impact on society, and in some cases have lasted the longest in history, were the ones that *dispensed with* geekspeak, or presented a clear alternative to it. Christ taught in the common language, using anal- ogies and metaphors that were comprehensible to the common man. As opposed to the language and the teachings used by the prevailing religions of his time. He developed a following. One of the primary reasons that the Catholic Church exterminated the Cathars was that they *taught in the common language*, not in Latin...and not in geekspeak. Buddha became popular because he rejected the high- falootin' language and rituals of the existing religions, and (again) taught in clear, non-geek- speak language to the common people, about things that they had to deal with...everyday stuff, like suffering and how to get past it. In the beginning, the TM movement taught in clear, non-geekspeak language about the benefits of medi- tation. And it developed quite a following. Over the years it abandoned that approach and began to rely more and more on geekspeak, which in my opinion was more designed to pander to and hold onto the existing followers than to attract new ones. The result? As some have pointed out here, more existing TMers die every year than new TMers are created. I'm not convinced that geekspeak is a good thing when it comes to spiritual teaching. Yeah, it may appeal to the intellect, which in turn appeals to the ego and the small self. But does it really help your life in any way to hear about superstrings and such stuff? Many people seem to *want* their minds numbed by high-falootin' language and concepts that they don't really understand. They *like* that stuff. Me, I'm drawn to those teachers and traditions that just speak clearly and without pretension about everyday stuff and offer clear, non-geekspeak techniques that offer more effective ways to deal with that everyday stuff. But that's probably just me...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Visualizing the E8 root system
Whatever the intellectual can I connect these possibly unrelated dots in my mind value that hypothetical exercises like Hagelin's might have for *him*, their value to the TM movement is as geekspeak. This is an excellent point. Any time a person uses a string of terms I don't have the background to understand, they are using words as hypnotic tools rather than to communicate. Since your intellect can't engage with undefined words, you resort to an emotional feeling of what the words feel like, and this shifts your mind's function off of its best chance to engage and challenge the concepts presented. This language form is not meant to inform, it is meant to shift mental states. That doesn't mean that you walk away as a zombie under their control, but it does make you a bit too spacey to stand up and shout STFU! I think the next generations are more vulnerable to infotainment graphics that sum up complexities into simple images. That is how their mind's are being trained to process. It has a similar effect but uses a different sense to achieve its no question goal. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutphen@ wrote: Just my usual too quick on the trigger response. I hear the term super string or anything of that ilk associated with TM and my brain locks-up! I'm sure it can have value for people, such as John Hagelin, who actually understand it and can facilitate deeper understanding of the mechanichs of consciousness, but for us lay folk it is mind numbing. That's its true purpose. :-) the invoking the too quick on the trigger response part or the mind numbing part? The mind numbing part. It's a sales technique designed to make the buyer think, O, these people are smarter than I am. I can tell because they use big words that I don't understand. There- fore they know what they're talking about. And so they sign on the dotted line, or continue to buy the inferior products of an inferior company because they have bought into the company's use of buzzwords. It's the same model used to sell hardware and software. We in the industry call it geekspeak. The more incomprehensible geekspeak you throw into the blurbs about your product, the more of the product you are likely to sell. Whatever the intellectual can I connect these possibly unrelated dots in my mind value that hypothetical exercises like Hagelin's might have for *him*, their value to the TM movement is as geekspeak. One of the trends that one finds in the study of *many* spiritual traditions is that many of the traditions that made the biggest impact on society, and in some cases have lasted the longest in history, were the ones that *dispensed with* geekspeak, or presented a clear alternative to it. Christ taught in the common language, using anal- ogies and metaphors that were comprehensible to the common man. As opposed to the language and the teachings used by the prevailing religions of his time. He developed a following. One of the primary reasons that the Catholic Church exterminated the Cathars was that they *taught in the common language*, not in Latin...and not in geekspeak. Buddha became popular because he rejected the high- falootin' language and rituals of the existing religions, and (again) taught in clear, non-geek- speak language to the common people, about things that they had to deal with...everyday stuff, like suffering and how to get past it. In the beginning, the TM movement taught in clear, non-geekspeak language about the benefits of medi- tation. And it developed quite a following. Over the years it abandoned that approach and began to rely more and more on geekspeak, which in my opinion was more designed to pander to and hold onto the existing followers than to attract new ones. The result? As some have pointed out here, more existing TMers die every year than new TMers are created. I'm not convinced that geekspeak is a good thing when it comes to spiritual teaching. Yeah, it may appeal to the intellect, which in turn appeals to the ego and the small self. But does it really help your life in any way to hear about superstrings and such stuff? Many people seem to *want* their minds numbed by high-falootin' language and concepts that they don't really understand. They *like* that stuff. Me, I'm drawn to those teachers and traditions that just speak clearly and without pretension about everyday stuff and offer clear, non-geekspeak techniques that offer more effective ways to deal with that everyday stuff. But that's probably just me...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Visualizing the E8 root system
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutphen@ wrote: Just my usual too quick on the trigger response. I hear the term super string or anything of that ilk associated with TM and my brain locks-up! I'm sure it can have value for people, such as John Hagelin, who actually understand it and can facilitate deeper understanding of the mechanichs of consciousness, but for us lay folk it is mind numbing. That's its true purpose. :-) the invoking the too quick on the trigger response part or the mind numbing part? The mind numbing part. It's a sales technique designed to make the buyer think, O, these people are smarter than I am. I can tell because they use big words that I don't understand. There- fore they know what they're talking about. And so they sign on the dotted line, or continue to buy the inferior products of an inferior company because they have bought into the company's use of buzzwords. It's the same model used to sell hardware and software. We in the industry call it geekspeak. The more incomprehensible geekspeak you throw into the blurbs about your product, the more of the product you are likely to sell. One would think, if the TMO were using geekspeak as a sales technique, that one would find it in abundance on the primary Web site designed to sell TM, www.tm.org. But it doesn't have any geekspeak that I can find. It seems to use all simple, straightforward, everyday language.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Visualizing the E8 root system
--- thanks for your outstanding points, most valid indeed!. OTOH, on occasion, metaphorical analogues to math/physics principles can be useful in helping us find parallels to certain deep, subtle properties of relative existence. The downside is the risk of logical errors such as the appeal to authorities, and geekspeak, or jargon. Since the TMO has been known to use some (or all) of such logical fallacies, we become naturally suspicious, and rightly so!. Such mathematical principles as the E8 Lie group point to (contrary to MMY and Hagelin) strictly relative principles, akin to the Buddhist principles of interconnectedness and dependent origination; and ultimately, the holographic nature of the universe: a concept pioneered in Buddhism - more so than in Hinduism. (wiki - the Buddhism of Tien Tai). At any rate, no, pure Consciousness - as pointed out by the quantum pioneers themselves (since some of them apparently had an intuitive knowledge of Being-In-Itself, especially Schroedinger); is not a subject of modern scientific inquiry (unless** - as pointed out by Jim Flanagan, we restrict the inquiry by safe qualifications such as this is my experience:..etc.. Then, such studies can be scientific as long as one doesn't tweak the statistics (as in the MUM studies). Thus, pure Consciousness is not a field. One can make parallels to certain facets of relative existence (explored and explained more by the Buddhists than Hindus) - particularly the nature of Dharma, karma, and reincarnation; and the various elements of cause and effects. As mentioned before, such relative concepts would be interconnectedness, dependent origination, and the holographic nature of existence. Such concepts may point to THAT, but as several contributors have already pointed out, there's no direct connection between Being and quantum mechanics. I might add that the concept of a Singularity has a ringing appeal to what me might experience as That; but again, a Singularity has to be something relative in order for scientists to investigate it, according to the commonly accepted notions of scientific inquiry. (that does not of course include private revelations). BTW private revelations were in the domain of the Gnostics, as opposed to appeal by Authorities ; such as the local Bishop, Pope, etc. Naturally, Gnosticism was a very dangerous, heretical approach; since if one can discover innate wisdom through interior inquiry, who needs the Pope? In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutphen@ wrote: Just my usual too quick on the trigger response. I hear the term super string or anything of that ilk associated with TM and my brain locks-up! I'm sure it can have value for people, such as John Hagelin, who actually understand it and can facilitate deeper understanding of the mechanichs of consciousness, but for us lay folk it is mind numbing. That's its true purpose. :-) the invoking the too quick on the trigger response part or the mind numbing part? The mind numbing part. It's a sales technique designed to make the buyer think, O, these people are smarter than I am. I can tell because they use big words that I don't understand. There- fore they know what they're talking about. And so they sign on the dotted line, or continue to buy the inferior products of an inferior company because they have bought into the company's use of buzzwords. It's the same model used to sell hardware and software. We in the industry call it geekspeak. The more incomprehensible geekspeak you throw into the blurbs about your product, the more of the product you are likely to sell. Whatever the intellectual can I connect these possibly unrelated dots in my mind value that hypothetical exercises like Hagelin's might have for *him*, their value to the TM movement is as geekspeak. One of the trends that one finds in the study of *many* spiritual traditions is that many of the traditions that made the biggest impact on society, and in some cases have lasted the longest in history, were the ones that *dispensed with* geekspeak, or presented a clear alternative to it. Christ taught in the common language, using anal- ogies and metaphors that were comprehensible to the common man. As opposed to the language and the teachings used by the prevailing religions of his time. He developed a following. One of the primary reasons that the Catholic Church exterminated the Cathars was that they *taught in the common language*, not in Latin...and not in geekspeak. Buddha became popular because he rejected the high- falootin' language and rituals of the existing religions, and (again) taught in
[FairfieldLife] Re: Visualizing the E8 root system
Sorry sinhlnx, I'm finding it harder to follow your points than Hagelin's! And you're not even using any quantum maths! strictly relative principles, akin to the Buddhist principles of interconnectedness and dependent origination - MMY consistently identifies the Unified Field with the ABSOLUTE, the origin of the dualistic Relative. holographic nature of the universe: a concept pioneered in Buddhism - if you mean things like smaller than the smallest = greater than the greatest; or as above, so below; or as is the atom, so is the universe etc then such holographic parallels predate Buddhism.. pure Consciousness is not a field - Hagelin says it's the field of all fields; a field effect of consciousness, as in the Maharishi Effect, means that changes in the coherence and quality of indivindual consciousness has an effect on others over and above one- to-one interactions through action or communication. I think this is not anti-Buddhist. The Natural Mind, Buddha Nature, transcends individuality.. enlivening the Buddha Nature in oneself naturally creates positive effects in others - a field effect. there's no direct connection between Being and quantum mechanics - Hagelin talks of superstring theory. Transcending the individual mind and the quantum + gravity unification brings us to the Unified Field Consciousness - the Being or pure consciousness/existence of everything.. So don't really see where the discrepancy between MMY and Buddhism lies. I personally see myself as more Buddhist than anything else.. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sinhlnx [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- thanks for your outstanding points, most valid indeed!. OTOH, on occasion, metaphorical analogues to math/physics principles can be useful in helping us find parallels to certain deep, subtle properties of relative existence. The downside is the risk of logical errors such as the appeal to authorities, and geekspeak, or jargon. Since the TMO has been known to use some (or all) of such logical fallacies, we become naturally suspicious, and rightly so!. Such mathematical principles as the E8 Lie group point to (contrary to MMY and Hagelin) strictly relative principles, akin to the Buddhist principles of interconnectedness and dependent origination; and ultimately, the holographic nature of the universe: a concept pioneered in Buddhism - more so than in Hinduism. (wiki - the Buddhism of Tien Tai). At any rate, no, pure Consciousness - as pointed out by the quantum pioneers themselves (since some of them apparently had an intuitive knowledge of Being-In-Itself, especially Schroedinger); is not a subject of modern scientific inquiry (unless** - as pointed out by Jim Flanagan, we restrict the inquiry by safe qualifications such as this is my experience:..etc.. Then, such studies can be scientific as long as one doesn't tweak the statistics (as in the MUM studies). Thus, pure Consciousness is not a field. One can make parallels to certain facets of relative existence (explored and explained more by the Buddhists than Hindus) - particularly the nature of Dharma, karma, and reincarnation; and the various elements of cause and effects. As mentioned before, such relative concepts would be interconnectedness, dependent origination, and the holographic nature of existence. Such concepts may point to THAT, but as several contributors have already pointed out, there's no direct connection between Being and quantum mechanics. I might add that the concept of a Singularity has a ringing appeal to what me might experience as That; but again, a Singularity has to be something relative in order for scientists to investigate it, according to the commonly accepted notions of scientific inquiry. (that does not of course include private revelations). BTW private revelations were in the domain of the Gnostics, as opposed to appeal by Authorities ; such as the local Bishop, Pope, etc. Naturally, Gnosticism was a very dangerous, heretical approach; since if one can discover innate wisdom through interior inquiry, who needs the Pope? In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutphen@ wrote: Just my usual too quick on the trigger response. I hear the term super string or anything of that ilk associated with TM and my brain locks-up! I'm sure it can have value for people, such as John Hagelin, who actually understand it and can facilitate deeper understanding of the mechanichs of consciousness, but for us lay folk it is mind numbing. That's its true purpose. :-) the invoking the too quick on the trigger response part or the mind numbing part?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Visualizing the E8 root system
Claudiouk, Please tell me the definitions you'd have for consciousness, the Absolute, Being, and the Unified Field. I think you're being fuzzy and mixing the Absolute with Being, but I see Being as the relative, qualities that must be described dualistically -- thus, I would say that the Unified Field is a good metaphor for Being, not the Absolute. This fuzziness is what I finally decided was a tell about the lack of subtlety for Maharishi's vocabulary. To me, soul, consciousness, Being, atma, are all in the relative. They're egoically spawned concepts. Tell me your definitions for awareness and sentience while you're at it. To me the Absolute is pure mystery -- Being can pretend to be the Absolute, even fool the rishi's that it is the Absolute, but I've seen the Absolute, and Being, I gotta tell ya, you're no Jack Kennedy. Anyone else want a piece of this? Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, claudiouk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry sinhlnx, I'm finding it harder to follow your points than Hagelin's! And you're not even using any quantum maths! strictly relative principles, akin to the Buddhist principles of interconnectedness and dependent origination - MMY consistently identifies the Unified Field with the ABSOLUTE, the origin of the dualistic Relative. holographic nature of the universe: a concept pioneered in Buddhism - if you mean things like smaller than the smallest = greater than the greatest; or as above, so below; or as is the atom, so is the universe etc then such holographic parallels predate Buddhism.. pure Consciousness is not a field - Hagelin says it's the field of all fields; a field effect of consciousness, as in the Maharishi Effect, means that changes in the coherence and quality of indivindual consciousness has an effect on others over and above one- to-one interactions through action or communication. I think this is not anti-Buddhist. The Natural Mind, Buddha Nature, transcends individuality.. enlivening the Buddha Nature in oneself naturally creates positive effects in others - a field effect. there's no direct connection between Being and quantum mechanics - Hagelin talks of superstring theory. Transcending the individual mind and the quantum + gravity unification brings us to the Unified Field Consciousness - the Being or pure consciousness/existence of everything.. So don't really see where the discrepancy between MMY and Buddhism lies. I personally see myself as more Buddhist than anything else.. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sinhlnx sinhlnx@ wrote: --- thanks for your outstanding points, most valid indeed!. OTOH, on occasion, metaphorical analogues to math/physics principles can be useful in helping us find parallels to certain deep, subtle properties of relative existence. The downside is the risk of logical errors such as the appeal to authorities, and geekspeak, or jargon. Since the TMO has been known to use some (or all) of such logical fallacies, we become naturally suspicious, and rightly so!. Such mathematical principles as the E8 Lie group point to (contrary to MMY and Hagelin) strictly relative principles, akin to the Buddhist principles of interconnectedness and dependent origination; and ultimately, the holographic nature of the universe: a concept pioneered in Buddhism - more so than in Hinduism. (wiki - the Buddhism of Tien Tai). At any rate, no, pure Consciousness - as pointed out by the quantum pioneers themselves (since some of them apparently had an intuitive knowledge of Being-In-Itself, especially Schroedinger); is not a subject of modern scientific inquiry (unless** - as pointed out by Jim Flanagan, we restrict the inquiry by safe qualifications such as this is my experience:..etc.. Then, such studies can be scientific as long as one doesn't tweak the statistics (as in the MUM studies). Thus, pure Consciousness is not a field. One can make parallels to certain facets of relative existence (explored and explained more by the Buddhists than Hindus) - particularly the nature of Dharma, karma, and reincarnation; and the various elements of cause and effects. As mentioned before, such relative concepts would be interconnectedness, dependent origination, and the holographic nature of existence. Such concepts may point to THAT, but as several contributors have already pointed out, there's no direct connection between Being and quantum mechanics. I might add that the concept of a Singularity has a ringing appeal to what me might experience as That; but again, a Singularity has to be something relative in order for scientists to investigate it, according to the commonly accepted notions of scientific inquiry. (that does not of course include private revelations). BTW private revelations were in the domain of the Gnostics, as
[FairfieldLife] Re: Visualizing the E8 root system
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Claudiouk, Please tell me the definitions you'd have for consciousness, the Absolute, Being, and the Unified Field. I think you're being fuzzy and mixing the Absolute with Being, but I see Being as the relative, qualities that must be described dualistically -- thus, I would say that the Unified Field is a good metaphor for Being, not the Absolute. This fuzziness is what I finally decided was a tell about the lack of subtlety for Maharishi's vocabulary. To me, soul, consciousness, Being, atma, are all in the relative. They're egoically spawned concepts. Tell me your definitions for awareness and sentience while you're at it. To me the Absolute is pure mystery -- Being can pretend to be the Absolute, even fool the rishi's that it is the Absolute, but I've seen the Absolute, and Being, I gotta tell ya, you're no Jack Kennedy. Anyone else want a piece of this? I'll jump in, even though I haven't thought about this stuff in Physics metaphors since I left the TM movement (and haven't missed thinking that way). I suspect you have a good point about any Unified Field Theory that physicists could come up with having to do purely with the relative world. That is the only field they play in. As for the relative world not being Jack Kennedy, however, my experiences have con- vinced me that it *is* Jack Kennedy. Although the relative world is purely relative, it is *also* pure Absolute. That is the very essence of its mystery. But, at the same time, I have my doubts as to science's ability to ever grok that, much less include it in any of their theories of How Things Work. Things only work in the field of the relative, and thus that is the field they are playing in and trying to find some way to describe. That'll take them long enough and will be challenging enough. They should leave asking the Absolute to get up off the bench and join the game to mystics.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Visualizing the E8 root system
you're no Jack Kennedy - not sure what THAT means.. no I'm Claudio. I'm sure we all have our own views on these matters and how far our definitions are fuzzy, and how bad that is in fact, is all rather fuzzy to me. I think language can only point the way.. re definitions for consciousness, the Absolute, Being, and the Unified Field - I don't find MMY's usage of these terms, as in his Gita or more recent pronouncements, problematic. They refer to a transcendental realm of awareness, beyong thoughts or concepts or even objective reality, which is universal, oneness, non-duality, the fundamental reality of Being, Existence, Reality.. as opposed to duality, individuality, physical reality characterised by locality, isolation etc. Can't say I'm philosophically minded so not that bothered with fuzzy thinking. re Unified Field is a good metaphor for Being, not the Absolute - suggests you yourselk have an understanding of the difference between Absolute and Relative. The Unifield Field is the theoretical Non- Duality of Nature, the Unity underlying the Diversity of the Relative. Hence I don't find it that difficult to equate it with the Absolute. Yes we are dealing with concepts that have arisen from different epochs and philosophical traditions but if one takes a broader view one can see the equivalences and idsentities rather than get bogged down obsessively with finer details that end up distorting the reality. But hey, that's just my opinion and understanding. So what conclusions are you making from your premises as expressed in your posting (apart from questioning mine, I mean)? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Claudiouk, Please tell me the definitions you'd have for consciousness, the Absolute, Being, and the Unified Field. I think you're being fuzzy and mixing the Absolute with Being, but I see Being as the relative, qualities that must be described dualistically -- thus, I would say that the Unified Field is a good metaphor for Being, not the Absolute. This fuzziness is what I finally decided was a tell about the lack of subtlety for Maharishi's vocabulary. To me, soul, consciousness, Being, atma, are all in the relative. They're egoically spawned concepts. Tell me your definitions for awareness and sentience while you're at it. To me the Absolute is pure mystery -- Being can pretend to be the Absolute, even fool the rishi's that it is the Absolute, but I've seen the Absolute, and Being, I gotta tell ya, you're no Jack Kennedy. Anyone else want a piece of this? Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, claudiouk claudiouk@ wrote: Sorry sinhlnx, I'm finding it harder to follow your points than Hagelin's! And you're not even using any quantum maths! strictly relative principles, akin to the Buddhist principles of interconnectedness and dependent origination - MMY consistently identifies the Unified Field with the ABSOLUTE, the origin of the dualistic Relative. holographic nature of the universe: a concept pioneered in Buddhism - if you mean things like smaller than the smallest = greater than the greatest; or as above, so below; or as is the atom, so is the universe etc then such holographic parallels predate Buddhism.. pure Consciousness is not a field - Hagelin says it's the field of all fields; a field effect of consciousness, as in the Maharishi Effect, means that changes in the coherence and quality of indivindual consciousness has an effect on others over and above one- to-one interactions through action or communication. I think this is not anti-Buddhist. The Natural Mind, Buddha Nature, transcends individuality.. enlivening the Buddha Nature in oneself naturally creates positive effects in others - a field effect. there's no direct connection between Being and quantum mechanics - Hagelin talks of superstring theory. Transcending the individual mind and the quantum + gravity unification brings us to the Unified Field Consciousness - the Being or pure consciousness/existence of everything.. So don't really see where the discrepancy between MMY and Buddhism lies. I personally see myself as more Buddhist than anything else.. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sinhlnx sinhlnx@ wrote: --- thanks for your outstanding points, most valid indeed!. OTOH, on occasion, metaphorical analogues to math/physics principles can be useful in helping us find parallels to certain deep, subtle properties of relative existence. The downside is the risk of logical errors such as the appeal to authorities, and geekspeak, or jargon. Since the TMO has been known to use some (or all) of such logical fallacies, we become naturally suspicious, and rightly so!. Such mathematical principles as the E8 Lie group point to (contrary to MMY and Hagelin) strictly
[FairfieldLife] Re: Visualizing the E8 root system
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Claudiouk, Please tell me the definitions you'd have for consciousness, the Absolute, Being, and the Unified Field. I think you're being fuzzy and mixing the Absolute with Being, but I see Being as the relative, qualities that must be described dualistically -- thus, I would say that the Unified Field is a good metaphor for Being, not the Absolute. This fuzziness is what I finally decided was a tell about the lack of subtlety for Maharishi's vocabulary. To me, soul, consciousness, Being, atma, are all in the relative. They're egoically spawned concepts. Tell me your definitions for awareness and sentience while you're at it. To me the Absolute is pure mystery -- Being can pretend to be the Absolute, even fool the rishi's that it is the Absolute, but I've seen the Absolute, and Being, I gotta tell ya, you're no Jack Kennedy. Anyone else want a piece of this? In my understanding, Consciousness, Being, Absolute, and Unified Field are all synonymous in MMY's teaching.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Visualizing the E8 root system
To me Being is all the gunas perfectly balanced but still having the quality of being manifest -- that is, observable and thus distinct from the Absolute -- just exactly as a mirror is functional but invisible to human eyes that are tuned to see only to the mirror's reflections. That quality of having all qualities nested in virtual potential, and its quality of objectivity, these are what I think the Unified Field is to today's physicists -- they make statements like an infinite amount of energy can come from any cubic centimeter of virtual field. Sounds like Brahma to me. Now, what kicks Being off balance and into full manifestation? Can't be nothing but the Absolute, right? But the Absolute has no feet! And in fact the Absolute does NOT have the quality of having no feet too! See? Gonna come out stupid sounding whenever one talks about the Absolute. That's the mystery -- there's no connection between the Absolute and Being and this is a powerful deep truth, but as Turq just reminded us, the Relative is nothing but the Absolute. Hence the paradox -- Godel loved it. I'm waiting for a physicist to say, Hey, is it just me, or did I just see the universe blink off for a scintillation's halflife? Then, I'll say they're sniffing around the Absolute's hydrant. In a dream, everything's real only as long as the dreamer is there. Of all the statements one can make about the Absolute, that pausing of bliss, that silence of deep dreamless sleep is about as truthful as any lie a brain can tell. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, claudiouk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: you're no Jack Kennedy - not sure what THAT means.. no I'm Claudio. I'm sure we all have our own views on these matters and how far our definitions are fuzzy, and how bad that is in fact, is all rather fuzzy to me. I think language can only point the way.. re definitions for consciousness, the Absolute, Being, and the Unified Field - I don't find MMY's usage of these terms, as in his Gita or more recent pronouncements, problematic. They refer to a transcendental realm of awareness, beyong thoughts or concepts or even objective reality, which is universal, oneness, non-duality, the fundamental reality of Being, Existence, Reality.. as opposed to duality, individuality, physical reality characterised by locality, isolation etc. Can't say I'm philosophically minded so not that bothered with fuzzy thinking. re Unified Field is a good metaphor for Being, not the Absolute - suggests you yourselk have an understanding of the difference between Absolute and Relative. The Unifield Field is the theoretical Non- Duality of Nature, the Unity underlying the Diversity of the Relative. Hence I don't find it that difficult to equate it with the Absolute. Yes we are dealing with concepts that have arisen from different epochs and philosophical traditions but if one takes a broader view one can see the equivalences and idsentities rather than get bogged down obsessively with finer details that end up distorting the reality. But hey, that's just my opinion and understanding. So what conclusions are you making from your premises as expressed in your posting (apart from questioning mine, I mean)? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_reply@ wrote: Claudiouk, Please tell me the definitions you'd have for consciousness, the Absolute, Being, and the Unified Field. I think you're being fuzzy and mixing the Absolute with Being, but I see Being as the relative, qualities that must be described dualistically -- thus, I would say that the Unified Field is a good metaphor for Being, not the Absolute. This fuzziness is what I finally decided was a tell about the lack of subtlety for Maharishi's vocabulary. To me, soul, consciousness, Being, atma, are all in the relative. They're egoically spawned concepts. Tell me your definitions for awareness and sentience while you're at it. To me the Absolute is pure mystery -- Being can pretend to be the Absolute, even fool the rishi's that it is the Absolute, but I've seen the Absolute, and Being, I gotta tell ya, you're no Jack Kennedy. Anyone else want a piece of this? Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, claudiouk claudiouk@ wrote: Sorry sinhlnx, I'm finding it harder to follow your points than Hagelin's! And you're not even using any quantum maths! strictly relative principles, akin to the Buddhist principles of interconnectedness and dependent origination - MMY consistently identifies the Unified Field with the ABSOLUTE, the origin of the dualistic Relative. holographic nature of the universe: a concept pioneered in Buddhism - if you mean things like smaller than the smallest = greater than the greatest; or as above, so below; or as is the atom, so is the universe etc then such holographic parallels predate
[FairfieldLife] Re: Visualizing the E8 root system
Being is all the gunas perfectly balanced but still having the quality of being manifest - MMY, frequently talked about Being = the Absolute and, for instance in the Gita, how the Gunas are the first Relative manifestation from this Absolute/Being. the Relative is nothing but the Absolute is just because the manifestation is just another point of view of the Absolute - as Hagelin tried to show, even in the Unified Fileld equations, one can discern the non-duality underlying diversity. And in higher states of consciousness first the distinction betweeen Absolute and Relative is established, then the non-duality of reality. All rather theoretical stuff for me anyway - I'll wait and see what personal experience brings - so far nothing remotely about Gunas or Being or Absolutes.. unfortunately. But going back to your formulation, if the Absolute is NOT Being, and Being is just a finer value of the Relative, and there is a mystery about how the Absolute becomes Relative, what consequences/implications you see in that then regarding meditation, knowledge, enlightenment etc? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To me Being is all the gunas perfectly balanced but still having the quality of being manifest -- that is, observable and thus distinct from the Absolute -- just exactly as a mirror is functional but invisible to human eyes that are tuned to see only to the mirror's reflections. That quality of having all qualities nested in virtual potential, and its quality of objectivity, these are what I think the Unified Field is to today's physicists -- they make statements like an infinite amount of energy can come from any cubic centimeter of virtual field. Sounds like Brahma to me. Now, what kicks Being off balance and into full manifestation? Can't be nothing but the Absolute, right? But the Absolute has no feet! And in fact the Absolute does NOT have the quality of having no feet too! See? Gonna come out stupid sounding whenever one talks about the Absolute. That's the mystery -- there's no connection between the Absolute and Being and this is a powerful deep truth, but as Turq just reminded us, the Relative is nothing but the Absolute. Hence the paradox -- Godel loved it. I'm waiting for a physicist to say, Hey, is it just me, or did I just see the universe blink off for a scintillation's halflife? Then, I'll say they're sniffing around the Absolute's hydrant. In a dream, everything's real only as long as the dreamer is there. Of all the statements one can make about the Absolute, that pausing of bliss, that silence of deep dreamless sleep is about as truthful as any lie a brain can tell. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, claudiouk claudiouk@ wrote: you're no Jack Kennedy - not sure what THAT means.. no I'm Claudio. I'm sure we all have our own views on these matters and how far our definitions are fuzzy, and how bad that is in fact, is all rather fuzzy to me. I think language can only point the way.. re definitions for consciousness, the Absolute, Being, and the Unified Field - I don't find MMY's usage of these terms, as in his Gita or more recent pronouncements, problematic. They refer to a transcendental realm of awareness, beyong thoughts or concepts or even objective reality, which is universal, oneness, non- duality, the fundamental reality of Being, Existence, Reality.. as opposed to duality, individuality, physical reality characterised by locality, isolation etc. Can't say I'm philosophically minded so not that bothered with fuzzy thinking. re Unified Field is a good metaphor for Being, not the Absolute - suggests you yourselk have an understanding of the difference between Absolute and Relative. The Unifield Field is the theoretical Non- Duality of Nature, the Unity underlying the Diversity of the Relative. Hence I don't find it that difficult to equate it with the Absolute. Yes we are dealing with concepts that have arisen from different epochs and philosophical traditions but if one takes a broader view one can see the equivalences and idsentities rather than get bogged down obsessively with finer details that end up distorting the reality. But hey, that's just my opinion and understanding. So what conclusions are you making from your premises as expressed in your posting (apart from questioning mine, I mean)? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_reply@ wrote: Claudiouk, Please tell me the definitions you'd have for consciousness, the Absolute, Being, and the Unified Field. I think you're being fuzzy and mixing the Absolute with Being, but I see Being as the relative, qualities that must be described dualistically -- thus, I would say that the Unified Field is a good metaphor for Being, not the Absolute. This fuzziness
[FairfieldLife] Re: Visualizing the E8 root system
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues I think the next generations are more vulnerable to infotainment graphics that sum up complexities into simple images. That is how their mind's are being trained to process. It has a similar effect but uses a different sense to achieve its no question goal. Yeah those damn kids. When we were their age we use to have to trod through 20 miles of snow to go rounding or fly in the domes. Kids! Next thing you know they will be listening to rock'n'roll -- or even blues music!. (the devils music)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Visualizing the E8 root system
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues I think the next generations are more vulnerable to infotainment graphics that sum up complexities into simple images. That is how their mind's are being trained to process. It has a similar effect but uses a different sense to achieve its no question goal. Yeah those damn kids. When we were their age we use to have to trod through 20 miles of snow to go rounding or fly in the domes. Kids! Next thing you know they will be listening to rock'n'roll -- or even blues music!. (the devils music) Ha-Ha! Why when I was their age, I had to Seriously the greatest impact on a child's mind and whether or not they view life with clear and intelligent discrimination is how their parents see things. Amazing how unfazed my daughter is by some of the less helpful social influences these days, and on the other hand how susceptible some of her (mostly past) friends are. She was joking with me the other day, yeah dad, I turned out so badly- many of the kids I go to school with do drugs on Friday night, and here I am attending a school play with my mom Also we were talking about how when parents say one thing but do another, even though the child can't articulate the disconnect, they are totally aware of it on a visceral level, and if the disconnect continues, they will naturally lose respect for the parent, and tune them out. Something that is way too common, in any generation. So our kids keep us real too when we are tuned into them in the present vs. stories about how we should be raising them.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Visualizing the E8 root system
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutphen@ wrote: Just my usual too quick on the trigger response. I hear the term super string or anything of that ilk associated with TM and my brain locks-up! I'm sure it can have value for people, such as John Hagelin, who actually understand it and can facilitate deeper understanding of the mechanichs of consciousness, but for us lay folk it is mind numbing. That's its true purpose. :-) the invoking the too quick on the trigger response part or the mind numbing part? The mind numbing part. I was asking a bit tongue-in-check. I understood your intent. But wanted to (humorously ?) introduce another possibility -- that M. does such to invoke an irritation / vansana-driven response to it. Resolvong the vasana in those who respond. Perhaps a fringe theory, but as credible as the trance / marketing theory, IMO. N.s comment about leaving Purusha because he did not pass the test of patience, may (maybe not) be an example of this. IMO, and experience, M uses a lot of techniques to purify those around him. As did SBS, apparently -- sending M running with secret message to swami miles away. M to only find out it was a sort of hoax, just to put M thru some necessary loop of activity. Such tecnniques can drive many crazy and they leave. Others stick it out, and apparently gain some good thngs. I can't say for sure. But I know the techniques have validity from experience. It's a sales technique designed to make the buyer think, O, these people are smarter than I am. I can tell because they use big words that I don't understand. There- fore they know what they're talking about. I am sure there is a segment of the market that responds like that. I suggest it may be smaller than you surmise. And so they sign on the dotted line, or continue to buy the inferior products of an inferior company because they have bought into the company's use of buzzwords. It's the same model used to sell hardware and software. We in the industry call it geekspeak. The more incomprehensible geekspeak you throw into the blurbs about your product, the more of the product you are likely to sell. To fools perhaps. Most people I know respond to substance. Perhaps you hang with the wrong crowd :) Whatever the intellectual can I connect these possibly unrelated dots in my mind value that hypothetical exercises like Hagelin's might have for *him*, their value to the TM movement is as geekspeak. One of the trends that one finds in the study of *many* spiritual traditions is that many of the traditions that made the biggest impact on society, and in some cases have lasted the longest in history, were the ones that *dispensed with* geekspeak, or presented a clear alternative to it. So the premeise is that those who communicate clearly have a larger impact than those who don't. Perhaps a revolutionary concept. Christ taught in the common language, using anal- ogies and metaphors that were comprehensible to the common man. As opposed to the language and the teachings used by the prevailing religions of his time. He developed a following. Which prevailing religions were those and what languge and teachings do they attempt to foster on to the public? One of the primary reasons that the Catholic Church exterminated the Cathars was that they *taught in the common language*, not in Latin...and not in geekspeak. I appreciate the Cathers directlness, but were the catholics of the time submerged in geekspeak? How so? Buddha became popular because he rejected the high- falootin' language and rituals of the existing religions, and (again) taught in clear, non-geek- speak language to the common people, about things that they had to deal with...everyday stuff, like suffering and how to get past it. Yet baptists and fundamentalist ministers today gather millions with far from simple language, logic and metaphors. Go figure! In the beginning, the TM movement taught in clear, non-geekspeak language about the benefits of medi- tation. More stage II. In the beginning, it was God-consciousness, divine love, angels, gods, and Charlie Lutes golden oratory of SRM. And it developed quite a following. Over the years it abandoned that approach and began to rely more and more on geekspeak, which in my opinion was more designed to pander to and hold onto the existing followers than to attract new ones. The result? As some have pointed out here, more existing TMers die every year than new TMers are created. I find a lot of the newer language and cited studies more straightforward than the SIMS days. YMMV. I'm not convinced that geekspeak is a good thing when it comes to spiritual teaching. Yeah, it may appeal to the intellect, which
[FairfieldLife] Re: Visualizing the E8 root system
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [Barry wrote:] Christ taught in the common language, using anal- ogies and metaphors that were comprehensible to the common man. As opposed to the language and the teachings used by the prevailing religions of his time. He developed a following. Which prevailing religions were those and what languge and teachings do they attempt to foster on to the public? This is laughably wrong, BTW, on both counts. The prevailing religions of the time didn't use incomprehensible language. But even more starkly wrong, Jesus is recorded as having said explicitly that his parables and metaphors had hidden meanings that only those in the know could understand: And he said, 'He who has ears to hear, let him hear.' And when he was alone, those around him with the twelve [disciples] asked him about the parables. And he said to them, 'To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables, so that they may indeed see but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand, lest they should turn and be forgiven' (Mark 4:9-12; similarly in Matthew 11:9-15). Sounds like quite the elitist, doesn't he? He repeats He who has ears to hear, let him hear something like a dozen times in connection with one or another of his parables, indicating they have multiple levels of meaning beyond the surface understanding of the words. Jesus is *known* for his geekspeak. It is *the* predominant characteristic of his teaching. Not only did he speak in enigmatic, koan-like parables to the masses, he engaged in highly sophisticated wordplay with the Jewish religious authorities that left them baffled and confused. He developed a following *despite* the fact that his teaching was couched in highfalutin language, far from easily accessible to the common man. His geekspeak challenged them, puzzled them, intrigued them, drew them in. It was, indeed, a highly effective sales technique.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Visualizing the E8 root system
The E(8) Lie group is an essential component of the E(8)xE(8) heterotic superstring that Hagelin was involved with at CERN. This shameless TM tie-in is a sort of Eight Degrees of Hagelin theory, if you will. TM is only eight scalar degrees of separation, or vibrational modes of the superstring, from anything, or something like that. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mathatbrahman mathatbrahman@ wrote: New mathematical discovery, the E8 Lie group. Has more data than the human genome. Here's an image of it.: (makes a great mathematical mandala). http://aimath.org/E8/mcmullen.html Oooo. Dizzifying.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Visualizing the E8 root system
All this theoretical physics stuff from Hagelin is a metaphor, and a poor metaphor at that. It is essentially incomprehensible and contributes absolutely nothing to the understanding of Realization. --- at_man_and_brahman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The E(8) Lie group is an essential component of the E(8)xE(8) heterotic superstring that Hagelin was involved with at CERN. This shameless TM tie-in is a sort of Eight Degrees of Hagelin theory, if you will. TM is only eight scalar degrees of separation, or vibrational modes of the superstring, from anything, or something like that. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mathatbrahman mathatbrahman@ wrote: New mathematical discovery, the E8 Lie group. Has more data than the human genome. Here's an image of it.: (makes a great mathematical mandala). http://aimath.org/E8/mcmullen.html Oooo. Dizzifying. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Got a little couch potato? Check out fun summer activities for kids. http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mailp=summer+activities+for+kidscs=bz
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Visualizing the E8 root system
On May 15, 2007, at 7:45 AM, Peter wrote: All this theoretical physics stuff from Hagelin is a metaphor, and a poor metaphor at that. It is essentially incomprehensible and contributes absolutely nothing to the understanding of Realization. It's interesting, MIU physics texts (privately published) did emphasize a relationship and an analogy between physics and consciousness BUT they also included a chapter on such analogies and mentioned the fact that such analogies could only be taken so far. At some point, probably around the time Hagelin was urged (forced?) to write the hilarious Is Consciousness the Unified Field?, a major leap of faith was made and analogy became taken as science or fact. The TMO and Mahesh Varma: putting the Con back in Consciousness and selling it to you.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Visualizing the E8 root system
Is Consciousness the Unified Field? - if consciousness is truly most fundamental, there IS a need to relate it to the most fundamental laws of physics, because presently it is being ignored altogether. As for the limits and incomprehensibility of Hagelin's metaphors or equivalences, surely the same could be said of the Vedas - in spite of countless commentaries it remains a rather obscure philosophy/manual of consciousness. In the end nothing but realization itself will do.. But I think you are both being too harsh on Hagelin.. He is making valiant efforts to interpret those equations in novel ways, as windows to the properties of the unified field. Like us looking at the behaviour of someone and figuring out underlying propensities? The discussion on the equations reflecting the non-duality of unity I thought ADDED to my understanding of nonduality I had come across previously from similar statements made by individuals or in scriptures. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On May 15, 2007, at 7:45 AM, Peter wrote: All this theoretical physics stuff from Hagelin is a metaphor, and a poor metaphor at that. It is essentially incomprehensible and contributes absolutely nothing to the understanding of Realization. It's interesting, MIU physics texts (privately published) did emphasize a relationship and an analogy between physics and consciousness BUT they also included a chapter on such analogies and mentioned the fact that such analogies could only be taken so far. At some point, probably around the time Hagelin was urged (forced?) to write the hilarious Is Consciousness the Unified Field?, a major leap of faith was made and analogy became taken as science or fact. The TMO and Mahesh Varma: putting the Con back in Consciousness and selling it to you.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Visualizing the E8 root system
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On May 15, 2007, at 7:45 AM, Peter wrote: All this theoretical physics stuff from Hagelin is a metaphor, and a poor metaphor at that. It is essentially incomprehensible and contributes absolutely nothing to the understanding of Realization. It's interesting, MIU physics texts (privately published) did emphasize a relationship and an analogy between physics and consciousness BUT they also included a chapter on such analogies and mentioned the fact that such analogies could only be taken so far. At some point, probably around the time Hagelin was urged (forced?) to write the hilarious Is Consciousness the Unified Field?, a major leap of faith was made and analogy became taken as science or fact. Actually, as the question mark in the title of the paper indicates, Hagelin is quite clear that he is *speculating*. And, of course, there are plenty of highly credentialed non-TM physicists and mathematicians who are also working on integrating consciousness and physics (e.g., Penrose). I don't suppose you'd care to be specific as to why Hagelin's paper is hilarious, would you? I won't hold my breath. The TMO and Mahesh Varma: putting the Con back in Consciousness and selling it to you.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Visualizing the E8 root system
Peter, I didn't say that the E(8)xE(8) heterotic superstring theory had anything to do with TM, nor did Hagelin at the time he was at CERN. That came later. He was still about two years from writing his first TM/physics monograph. My point was that *I* had made a connection between the E(8) Lie group and TM by explaining that it had a relationship to Hagelin himself, and by extension to the TM universe. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: All this theoretical physics stuff from Hagelin is a metaphor, and a poor metaphor at that. It is essentially incomprehensible and contributes absolutely nothing to the understanding of Realization. --- at_man_and_brahman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The E(8) Lie group is an essential component of the E(8)xE(8) heterotic superstring that Hagelin was involved with at CERN. This shameless TM tie-in is a sort of Eight Degrees of Hagelin theory, if you will. TM is only eight scalar degrees of separation, or vibrational modes of the superstring, from anything, or something like that. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mathatbrahman mathatbrahman@ wrote: New mathematical discovery, the E8 Lie group. Has more data than the human genome. Here's an image of it.: (makes a great mathematical mandala). http://aimath.org/E8/mcmullen.html Oooo. Dizzifying. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Got a little couch potato? Check out fun summer activities for kids. http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mailp=summer+activities+for +kidscs=bz
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Visualizing the E8 root system
On May 15, 2007, at 9:51 AM, claudiouk wrote: Is Consciousness the Unified Field? - if consciousness is truly most fundamental, there IS a need to relate it to the most fundamental laws of physics, because presently it is being ignored altogether. One wonders if you have read this type of literature, because I've read numerous other hypotheses in this regard, so it's far from being ignored. As for the limits and incomprehensibility of Hagelin's metaphors or equivalences, surely the same could be said of the Vedas - in spite of countless commentaries it remains a rather obscure philosophy/manual of consciousness. Have you read the Vedas? Is that what they really are, manuals of consciousness? You must've read a different Veda than I did then. In the end nothing but realization itself will do.. But I think you are both being too harsh on Hagelin.. He is making valiant efforts to interpret those equations in novel ways, as windows to the properties of the unified field. No, he was read the riot act by his guru: either come up with a unified field/quantum answer for consciousness/TM/TMSP to support what I say or you're out of here. He stayed. Like us looking at the behaviour of someone and figuring out underlying propensities? The discussion on the equations reflecting the non-duality of unity I thought ADDED to my understanding of nonduality I had come across previously from similar statements made by individuals or in scriptures. Of course, if you even find the idea of consciousness as a unified field tenable.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Visualizing the E8 root system
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On May 15, 2007, at 9:51 AM, claudiouk wrote: snip But I think you are both being too harsh on Hagelin.. He is making valiant efforts to interpret those equations in novel ways, as windows to the properties of the unified field. No, he was read the riot act by his guru: either come up with a unified field/quantum answer for consciousness/TM/TMSP to support what I say or you're out of here. He stayed. Not surprisingly, Vaj is misrepresenting this six ways to Sunday. Here's what he's basing his claim on, a post by Patrick Gillam from January 2006 (#139273): I'm trying to summon a memory of a conversation with a former assistant of John Hagelin. This would have been the late 1980s or early '90s. As I recall, she said John was under pressure from Maharishi to tour the country, telling scientists that consciousness was indeed the unified field. John resisted, saying his research partners would frown upon it, and more to the point, it wasn't such a slam-dunk parallel. But Maharishi persisted, ultimately saying, If you won't do it, I'll find someone who will. So John did it. To start with, this is third-hand information; Patrick acknowledges that his recollection is vague. But note that the issue was *touring the country addressing groups of non-TM scientists* with the consciousness-is-the-unified-field notion, not coming up with it in the first place, as Vaj erroneously claims. As Lawson pointed out to Vaj on alt.m.t when Vaj made this claim there, the notion was, in fact, the reason Hagelin had come to MUM, giving up his prestigious gig at CERN. There's just no question that it was something Hagelin believed in fervently, and he had already developed the idea in some detail by the time MMY told him to go on tour with it. Again, the physics/consciousness connection *was why he came to MIU to work with MMY*. The claim that he was forced by MMY to come up with a theory he didn't believe in is entirely bogus. Wasn't such a slam-dunk parallel could mean several different things (especially since we don't know if this was a verbatim quote), but in this context, given that we *do* know Hagelin believed in the notion, it seems likely that what Hagelin meant was that the notion was still *speculative*, not something that was ready to present to the non-TM physics community as an actual full-fledged theory. It's also not clear that Hagelin ever went on such a tour. According to Lawson, who is pretty familiar with Hagelin's work, Hagelin may have given an informal talk here or there to a particular group, but there was never any kind of full-dress tour. (And we don't know how Hagelin ended up presenting the notion to the groups he spoke to. My guess is that he did present it as speculative, just as he did in the paper.) The difference here between what Vaj says and the real story is a sterling example of why, when Vaj makes an unsupported claim, it's important to have a large saltshaker handy. Either Vaj has a terrible memory, or he doesn't care about accuracy.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Visualizing the E8 root system
Just my usual too quick on the trigger response. I hear the term super string or anything of that ilk associated with TM and my brain locks-up! I'm sure it can have value for people, such as John Hagelin, who actually understand it and can facilitate deeper understanding of the mechanichs of consciousness, but for us lay folk it is mind numbing. --- at_man_and_brahman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Peter, I didn't say that the E(8)xE(8) heterotic superstring theory had anything to do with TM, nor did Hagelin at the time he was at CERN. That came later. He was still about two years from writing his first TM/physics monograph. My point was that *I* had made a connection between the E(8) Lie group and TM by explaining that it had a relationship to Hagelin himself, and by extension to the TM universe. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: All this theoretical physics stuff from Hagelin is a metaphor, and a poor metaphor at that. It is essentially incomprehensible and contributes absolutely nothing to the understanding of Realization. --- at_man_and_brahman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The E(8) Lie group is an essential component of the E(8)xE(8) heterotic superstring that Hagelin was involved with at CERN. This shameless TM tie-in is a sort of Eight Degrees of Hagelin theory, if you will. TM is only eight scalar degrees of separation, or vibrational modes of the superstring, from anything, or something like that. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mathatbrahman mathatbrahman@ wrote: New mathematical discovery, the E8 Lie group. Has more data than the human genome. Here's an image of it.: (makes a great mathematical mandala). http://aimath.org/E8/mcmullen.html Oooo. Dizzifying. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Got a little couch potato? Check out fun summer activities for kids. http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mailp=summer+activities+for +kidscs=bz To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Get the free Yahoo! toolbar and rest assured with the added security of spyware protection. http://new.toolbar.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/norton/index.php
[FairfieldLife] Re: Visualizing the E8 root system
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just my usual too quick on the trigger response. I hear the term super string or anything of that ilk associated with TM and my brain locks-up! I'm sure it can have value for people, such as John Hagelin, who actually understand it and can facilitate deeper understanding of the mechanichs of consciousness, but for us lay folk it is mind numbing. That's its true purpose. :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Visualizing the E8 root system
On May 15, 2007, at 12:14 PM, TurquoiseB wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just my usual too quick on the trigger response. I hear the term super string or anything of that ilk associated with TM and my brain locks-up! I'm sure it can have value for people, such as John Hagelin, who actually understand it and can facilitate deeper understanding of the mechanichs of consciousness, but for us lay folk it is mind numbing. That's its true purpose. :-) You laugh, but that's actually very true! What better way to sway the masses than to bombard them with Hagelin's pseudoscience as part of your marketing spiel? It *sounds* true, so therefore it must be good. After all, science cannot lie. Or so they'd like us to believe. Well, at least he got an award in pseudoscience for some of his efforts. Well deserved I might add ;-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Visualizing the E8 root system
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Well, at least he got an award in pseudoscience for some of his efforts. Well deserved I might add ;-) And another example of the need to take a saltshaker to Vaj's claims. The award he's referring to is the Ig Nobel, which is most decidedly *not* in pseudoscience. Vaj knows this, because I've pointed it out before.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Visualizing the E8 root system
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutphen@ wrote: Just my usual too quick on the trigger response. I hear the term super string or anything of that ilk associated with TM and my brain locks-up! I'm sure it can have value for people, such as John Hagelin, who actually understand it and can facilitate deeper understanding of the mechanichs of consciousness, but for us lay folk it is mind numbing. That's its true purpose. :-) the invoking the too quick on the trigger response part or the mind numbing part?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Visualizing the E8 root system
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mathatbrahman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: New mathematical discovery, the E8 Lie group. Has more data than the human genome. Here's an image of it.: (makes a great mathematical mandala). http://aimath.org/E8/mcmullen.html Oooo. Dizzifying.
