--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann" <awoelflebater@...> wrote: > > Well, as cool as flying would no doubt be I think anyone being able to do so > is obviously going against the laws of nature as we know them. Now of course, > this brings up the next question concerning the laws of nature we don't know > about. But I thought practicing TM puts you in accord with all the laws of > nature so if one were to levitate does that mean that the law of gravity etc. > are inherently somehow "anti" true laws of nature or even negative ones. I > mean, you can't have it both ways. Either gravity and all the other > principles of physics work or they do not, are consistent or they are not. If > "not" then they are evidently not "laws". Riddle me that one Batman.
"...Yogic Flying invites us to look at human potential in an altogether new light, to expand our notions of what human beings can accomplish, to think afresh about the connection between human consciousness and the natural world. "In just the last few years, quantum physics has identified the most fundamental field of Nature's intelligence, the Unified Field of all the Laws of Nature the level from where all the Laws of Nature, including the force of gravity, arise. This universal level of Natural Law underlies all forms and phenomena in the universe, including the human mind and body. "The ancient Vedic understanding of Nature that Maharishi has brought to light goes further, identifying this universal field as a field of pure consciousness. In Maharishi's understanding, human consciousness has its foundation in this fundamental field of Natural Law. The human mind, Maharishi explains, can open to this most powerful level of Nature and function from here. "Functioning from this fundamental level, Maharishi points out, we command the total potential of Natural Law; we can harness its power to fulfill our desires. Functioning from here, nothing is impossible for us. Our potential is unbounded. "Yogic Flying provides evidence that human awareness can open to and operate from the most fundamental level of Natural Law. It enables us to access and enliven the total potential of Natural Law residing within each of us to open this infinite reservoir of energy and intelligence and harness it for all possibilities and fulfillment in daily life...." "Regular practice of Yogic Flying leads the individual mind to enjoy control of Nature's central switchboard from where Natural Law governs the life of everyone and administers the entire universe from within the intelligence of every grain of creation." Maharishi http://www.yogicflyingclubs.org/yogic_flying.html > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" <anartaxius@> > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" > > > <anartaxius@> wrote: > > > > > > > > From the viewpoint of a scientist doing research, > > > > experiments can only manipulate physical variables. Any > > > > conceptualisation of what is occurring that is given a > > > > metaphysical explanation is out of range. So from a > > > > scientific perspective, regarding mind and brain as > > > > different ways of explaining the same phenomena seems > > > > like the best approach. > > > > > > Just to clarify (again), my post did not take a position > > > on the relationship of mind to brain. My point was that > > > the neuropsychologist who wrote the article misrepresented > > > his own opinion on the matter as established fact, when the > > > issue is significantly controversial. > > > > > > The "best approach" in this case is faute de mieux. > > > > > > (snip) > > > > Perhaps the reasons for the debate regarding mind and > > > > brain are psychological rather than having anything to > > > > do with the reality of the situation. Suppose, > > > > hypothetically, that a concrete proof were possible > > > > that showed mind and brain were identical in every way > > > > and physical. What would that do for you psychologically? > > > > And if one were a die-hard empiricist, and the converse > > > > was possible to prove, what would that do for you? > > > > > > "The reality of the situation" is that hypothetically, > > > Materialism can be falsified (e.g., by levitation) but > > > not proved, and Idealism can be proved (e.g., by > > > levitation) but not falsified. > > > > I was just making a general comment, perhaps more directed toward > > bhairitu's direct response to the original post. The idea that levitation > > is physically impossible to achieve via a mental technique would be blown > > out of the water by an actual verifiable demonstration. > > > > But other explanations could be possible. Small animals such as frogs and > > spiders have been levitated using magnetic fields, though the power > > required to do this would light up a small city. What would make the > > investigation of mind and levitation more likely would be a demonstration > > of levitation in which there would be no detectable physical anomaly, such > > as magnetic fields etc. > > > > The problem with metaphysical explanations is *any* metaphysical > > explanation that fits the facts is equally probable because of the > > un-falsifiability. Thus, one could be lifted off the ground by the giant > > hand of Apollo, or by mysterious, incredibly powerful immaterial fart rays, > > or by an undetectable akashic vortex overhead sucking one off the ground. > > > > One thing is clear about research, we do have considerably more scientific > > knowledge of how the brain works, and metaphysical explanations as a result > > seem to have less lustre. > > > > When a neurosurgeon has to operate on a brain, the patient is normally > > awake, and the surgeon has to spend some time poking around with an > > electrode to find out what functions are located where, because they are > > different in every brain, though typically in the same general areas. > > Language may be in a very small tight location, or more diffuse, and > > interestingly this corresponds to how well a person manipulates words. > > > > If the person speaks more than one language, the areas of the brain for > > each language are different. All the functions that allow the person to > > work in the world have to be mapped before the surgeon cuts out a tumor or > > tissue associated with a palsy etc., otherwise just following a general > > plan would leave the patient a vegetable. It is this tit for tat > > correspondence with the way the mind works when the brain is damaged that > > leads us to the idea that mind and brain are different ways of looking at > > the same process. > > > > For example, a woman that had specific damage to one part of the brain > > could still write sentences, but she would leave out all the vowels. Yet > > she still left placeholders for all the vowels. This indicates that > > consonants and vowels are likely stored in different areas of the brain, > > and that the location of vowels in a sentence may also be stored in a > > separate area. That is the observation, but just how the brain pulls all > > this together (the 'binding problem' is what it is called) is currently > > unknown. > > > > If the mind creates the brain, why does damage to the brain incapacitate > > the mind? If the mind is separate from the brain, why, if the brain is > > damaged, does it not remove itself to a more suitable host? > > > > The research that shows computers analysing the electrical activity of the > > brain can predict what decision a brain will come to many seconds before it > > becomes a conscious experience is another area that make one wonder what is > > going on, with the mind seemingly the horse behind the cart being pulled > > along. > > > > All this is leading to attempts to create functional computer analogical > > models of the human brain, that can use input, and can be taught just like > > us. > > > > There is this this little robot in my home that vacuums the floor. It maps > > out the space and vacuums around the edge and then vacuums everything in > > between, avoiding obstacles along the way, and when the power gets low, it > > returns directly to its battery charging station. Is this the the rudiments > > of conscious behaviour? To do its job, the machine has to learn something, > > though it is far far less complex than what we do. > > > > If we say the ground of existence is consciousness, then this little > > machine must have some kind of consciousness. On the other hand if we say > > consciousness is some special kind of thing that is somehow inserted into > > the world via us - human life - there is the problem of the mechanics of > > how this would work. Is it a soul? How do souls hang out when they are not > > associated with a body? Are there mechanics involved in getting a soul to > > inhabit a body, and what are their characteristics? If there are no > > characteristics, how could anything happen? > > > > There are some scientists and philosophers who feel this nit picking about > > consciousness might be asking the wrong questions, that is, the questions > > that are being asked create the problem to be solved because they are red > > herrings. > > > > My view, at the moment, is being through having an internal structure > > becomes conscious, that being is pre-conscious, and so the story goes that > > being and consciousness are slightly different. But in this scheme mind and > > brain are the same, as that is the internal structure. This POV of course > > is really nonsense, because to say anything you have to make up concepts, > > or adopt ones others make up, to manipulate and arrange in relation to one > > another, to explain how you experience things. If you experience everything > > in silence without a thought, no question arises, it's all there, and that > > is that. > > > > Now regarding that post with Lawson. I read Robin's post you referenced, > > and I generally agree with him on levitation not being a requirement for > > enlightenment. No tradition other than the TMO, and that one only recently, > > give that as a requirement. And Mahahishi said, for example, Krishnamurti > > was too far gone in unity, and Krishnamurti never levitated, and was > > scornful of spiritual techniques en masse. So, how could Maharishi say > > that, if levitation were really a requirement, having made Krishnamurti an > > exception to such a rule? If I were to speculate on why he espoused such a > > requirement it would have to be either he wanted people to keep at the > > practice, or he was just using it as a way to get people to funnel money > > into the movement, or perhaps both. And writings in Maharishi's tradition > > (and other traditions as well) warn of following the path of special > > powers, if you want enlightenment. > > > > Using levitation as a requirement for enlightenment is a good way for > > keeping people in place, for if that were true, no one in the absence of a > > concrete, verifiable demonstration could ever displace the assumption that > > Maharishi was in unity, and that they, in the absence of that demo, could > > never aspire to usurp his position as a source of wisdom. That said, if no > > one practicing these techniques ever really levitates, it would mean the TM > > panoply of spiritual techniques is a demonstrable failure for achieving the > > sought-for end. > > > > Maharishi said that the TM-Sidhi programme would shorten the path to > > enlightenment by many years. I do not know if that is true, but mental > > techniques in this business are tools to achieve an end, not an end in > > themselves. To achieve an end, sometimes you have to use certain tools, and > > then at some point discard those tools, and pick up others. And at the end, > > maybe tools are not needed, having accomplished their task. > > >
