--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I guess if you're going to look at "God" as a "personal" deity then your > blog makes some sense. But you're forgetting that MMY and the Shankara > tradition taught "God" as the impersonal.
If you accept that "laws of nature" is a secular term for God, then you must accept that MMY was preaching a personal God because the terms "nature support" and "Maharishi effect" are implying intervention at a fundamental level. Consciousness as Unified Field, the "enlivenment" of which allegedly increases positivity in human affairs, is another term for God. Again, if it was impersonal we wouldn't be able to gain favour just from mental contact. > "Laws of Nature" is still a pretty good secular notion to explain what > many call "God" especially in abstract terms rather than some being that > micromanages your life. If you don't believe in the laws of nature then > turn on your webcam so we can see you walk through that wall next to > you. :) The laws of nature aren't something we need to *believe* in. I can't walk through walls because of the repelling action of the nuclear forces that hold electrons away from the nucleus of atoms. Secular or not, I doubt there is anything we can do to change that. And unless any genuine sidhas can step forward.....
