--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" <fintlewoodlewix@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > You do realize this is pure conjecture, right, not > > > > established fact? > > > > > > See Jung, Lazlo, Fromme etc. It's part of a painstakingly > > > developed theory from much observation. "Pure" conjecture > > > would mean someone just made it up. > > > > Look, it's as good a conjecture as any other, but there's > > no way to "observe" what it posits (at least as you've > > stated it), no way to test it. It isn't scientific. > > You can observe developmental stages of personal evolution and > there are many ways that healthy development can be arrested > resulting in mental problems in later life. The seperation > from mother is critical in this. The stretch is that the > externalisation is a metaphor for religious life and while it > could never be actually scientific due to the probable > impossibility of time travel, it's a heckuva lot more likely > than the Garden of Eden or Age of Enlightenment as it's a > full expanation of one of our deepest spiritual needs.
What I'm suggesting is that its status as a "full explanation of one of our deepest spiritual needs" is conjectural, regardless of the reality of GoE or AoE. There is no way to "observe" or test that it is the explanation of this need. > > > > > The experience is the same (jolly pleasant) but the supporting > > > > > beliefs become unnecessary and then *boy* does it get hard to > > > > > justify yogic flying if you stop believing you're defeating one > > > > > of the fundamental forces of nature. > > > > > > > > Not if you experience benefits from the practice in > > > > daily life. > > > > > > Ha ha! So you think you canlive without the TM belief system > > > and still hop about. Secular yogic flying, I'll believe that > > > when I see it.... > > > > (How could you tell?) > > If it was taught without someone explaining what was going > to happen because they don't teach it without recourse to > the ancient texts that declare that's it's a stage of actual > levitation or that it's an accepted part of physics that > consciousness is the unified field and fundamental forces > can be overruled. Cut the crap and the religion and just > tell people to say the sutra without any loaded ideas and > see what happens. That would be an interesting test, for sure. You'd need to include the full program (TM plus the other sutras) for it to be conclusive, though. > > It's entirely possible to hop without believing you're > > "defeating one of the fundamental forces of nature." > > Possible but pointless. Again, not pointless if there are benefits in daily life. > > The sutra *does something* to/in/with the bodymind. I > > have no idea what or how, but it's something, and for > > many (or at least some) it has a beneficial effect. > > That's reason enough to practice even if you don't > > believe it will ever lead to flying. > > Fair enough. I think what happens is that you hop > deliberately but don't *consciously* move the muscles > in the same way that you don't consciously move them > when you walk. In terms of the actual mechanics, I think it's something like this, except that it seems to me more like, say, the knee-jerk reflex or a sneeze or yawn. It's easy to stop walking; it's a lot more difficult (in my experience) to suppress the hopping impulse. > The power of suggestion gained from the > teaching method is enough to switch off credulity with > a bit of practise. (Switch ON credulity, I think you mean.) There are other aspects to the experience, though, besides just the physical movements, and some of them are so completely unexpected that it isn't clear how they could be a matter of mere suggestion. Some of them are impossible to describe in words. If they're only suggestion, how are they suggested? Once you've had the experience of "bubbling bliss," for example, you instantly realize it's what the term refers to. But how could you conceivably know what it was like just from the term itself? Bottom line, I think the "power of suggestion" explanation raises more questions than it answers. It's one of those skeptical responses that sounds great until you really look at it closely and realize that it just doesn't cover what it's supposed to cover. Or to put it another way, if it's all the "power of suggestion," suggestion must be a lot more powerful and complex and mysterious than we thought.
