Although I did use some scientific terms because I believe that this kind of claim could meet such a threshold in principle, it makes just as much sense through the perspective in this sentence:
"practical and solitary nature of the TM practice eventually won out." You felt results so you continued, right? Not scientific but practical. If we lower the bar below a scientific threshold and say "this claim could be practically demonstrated so that people of good faith could appreciate that it was true" wouldn't we be back to the need for demonstration? This is not a claim that you will feel better, it is about the world so we can share in its evidence together, in a strictly "aw shucks ain't that a sight Ma" kind of way. You are making a case for apriori faith in the system which is fine for believers. But since this is in principle testable, even if we accept that for people who already believe it is not necessary,wouldn't the message go out to more people just as it did for TM? Even though it wasn't the science rap that drew you in, it was the thing that made it rise above other spiritual practices in popularity. So I get that you don't find this necessary, what I am challenging is why isn't this a priority in an organization whose purpose is to spread this knowledge and preserve Maharishi's teaching. So on an individual level, sure I agree. But this is a claim about the world and it will involve cash from donors right? There are plenty of ways that we use to distinguish fact from fantasy in life. None of them that I know of are against such a demonstration even if it doesn't meet true scientific standards. They say they can do this wonderful thing, show us as artists who want to appreciate its glory. Is that a better fit? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "futur.musik" <futur.musik@...> wrote: > > Although your arguments for scientific validation are valid, I am not sure it > makes a lot of difference whether the sutras and yagyas are provable > scientifically. While I can see Maharishi's attempts to bridge science and > yoga as necessary to bring his message to the West initially, now that so > many teachers and methods are here, it has become more of a spiritual > cafeteria in terms of what each of us decides benefits us as a practice, vs. > which technique can be proved rigorously by science. > > I remember my starting TM had nothing to do with science. I had already been > exposed to Hindu, Buddhist and Christian religions and although I got a lot > out of each one, the practical and solitary nature of the TM practice > eventually won out. I am not arguing for TM, but rather to show that the > science is nice to have but not a must have when deciding which technique to > adopt as a regular practice. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@> > wrote: > > > > And with this announcement we enter the realm of the testable. Let's break > > it down: > > > > > While Yogic Flying produces a powerful, generalized, non-directed surge> > > > of positivity for the general well-being of society, > > > > Actually sidhis themselves included many testable behaviors. But that > > didn't really pan out too well did it? No one was able to produce > > something specific that would prove the theory. It could have happened, > > Maharishi predicted it would happen, but it did not happen. > > > > So they changed the claim to something they could paint a circle around and > > claim victory, the panacea snake oil of "generalized non-directed surge" (I > > think I saw that flick when it came out on VHS, It stars Ginger Lynn who > > claimed to have a detachable jaw and in the third scene with the pizza > > delivery guy made me a believer. Now that's what you call a convincing > > demo of a claim!) > > > > So they could have given a demo that would have changed the world forever > > with the sidhis. The finding lost objects one that Larry Domash bragged > > about doing would have been enough, and we would have given Jonathan > > Shear's claim of understanding a squirrel a polite pass. But they didn't, > > which in the rest of the world is known as, they couldn't. They got off the > > hook by changing the claim to be so broad that, "hey look a squirrel" > > worked for movement believers. It did not impress the world at large who > > pretty much unanimously responded to all these claims with "Yeah right, hey > > do you want to go grab a coffee?" > > > > But happy days are here again folks, if the movement will step up they have > > a chance once again to redeem themselves and convert the world. All that > > is needed is for them to produce exactly what they are claiming to. And > > before you are too quick to say "oh that Curtis is being a butthole again" > > think about this for a minute. This is a chance for them to prove to the > > world that their claims are true, so why are they not doing it in a form > > that the rest of us could appreciate? The fulfillment of the world plan is > > right there in front of them, isn't it? Am I being unreasonable for asking > > them for a convincing demo? When did TM become the a branch of the > > Evangelical Church of Jesus the Redeemer? Why is faith necessary when a > > demo is possible? > > > > <Yagyas create a > > > very focused, concentrated influence of positivity designed to > > > neutralize specific threats. Like the threats that are looming today.> > > > > All they have to do is pick 3 things. 3 things that need yagya-ing. 3 > > things that are broken or not enough of something or too much of something > > we don't want. Why is it improper in principle to insist that they first > > put their money where their mouth is with a decent demo of this effect that > > we can all see if in fact it is specific? Why aren't they the ones > > insisting on one if they are so sure of this that they will accept people's > > money for them? Hell, they deserve to put down a wager with all of us > > skeptics. If they could do X then it is reasonable for them to ask us to > > pony up and pay for the next round, right? > > > > So I challenge any believers in yagyas here to come up with 3 things that > > we could verify that Yagyas could fix. I believe it deals with the issue > > of the simultaneity not equaling causation problem by asking for 3. > > Wouldn't that do it? And if it isn't scientifically airtight (also an > > anatomically enlightening scene in the above mentioned movie) wouldn't it > > be a good faith demo worthy of more research? Since the whole TM thing is > > not supposed to be faith based why is it out of line to expect that they do > > what they claim first? > > > > But they wont, and I have a pretty good idea of why. I saw this routine > > before with the sidhis. Nobody ever guesses which shell the pea is under in > > this game. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" <dhamiltony2k5@> wrote: > > > > > > All area Satsangs: > > > While Yogic Flying produces a powerful, generalized, non-directed surge > > > of positivity for the general well-being of society, Yagyas create a > > > very focused, concentrated influence of positivity designed to > > > neutralize specific threats. Like the threats that are looming today. > > > > > > [LAUNCHING: THE NEW NATIONAL YAGYA PROGRAM] > > > > > > Maharishi has designed the most powerful system of Yagya the world has > > > ever seen. The Maharishi National YagyaSM program is a massive > > > application of Yagya on a national scale, specifically engineered to > > > produce the largest possible impact on an entire nation. > > > Focus for 2012: Maharishi Yagyas® for the Nation > > > Join us in this great endeavor, please.Let us launch this powerful new > > > program, > > > may abundant good fortune smile on America, and may Maharishi's > > > great legacy of peace and enlightenment permanently bless the human > > > race. > > > > > > Jai Guru Dev > > > > > >
