What you posit here is the skeptic PoV . That is okay if you want to stay there. Last week I got a tour of the Fermilab collider from a friend who is a career physicist there at the facility. They'll use circumstance that will suggest or describe something and they are able to then look further and check if something is there. They've found a few things that initially were just thought about. That is the process there.
Fairfield is like that too. Fairfield in fact is full of clairvoyant, clairaudiant, clairsentient folks. Spiritual consciousness-based folks who are of help in consciousness to others with their abilities. It might be spiritual or physical health well-being, mending bones, or just talking with animals, stars and planets. It runs in different ways. Lot of these people do not stick their heads up for professional fear of getting their heads cut off so you won't hear much of them. But locally we know them and folks here go to them as needed. This suggests something that could be looked at. Maharishi described these things. In teaching Patanjali he taught a key to it that opens [the] universe. These folks here are sidhas that way though it is also just natural human being. Physics will catch up to it in the same way the CERN and Fermilab come to see things. Physics is getting there. You could too and also some of the other nay-sayers here too. Yours in Being, =Buck in the Dome --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" <fintlewoodlewix@...> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <LEnglish5@> wrote: > > > > I have no idea if floating due to the Yogic Flying (or any other mental > > technique) is possible, but you should understand that "law of nature" in > > science means something rather different than when MMY uses the term. > > > > A scientific law is merely a theory which has never been observed to be > > false, at least within the context that it was originally formulated. > > > > For example, the speed of light is a constant *in a vacuum,* but it is > > perfectly possible and trivial to set up conditions where the speed of > > light is considerably less than 186,000 miles per second. > > > > The "laws" of Quantum Mechanics are extremely trustworthy, EXCEPT when you > > try to bring them together with gravitation. Then no-one is quite sure what > > to do. > > I think a major point to make here is that the speed of light is > *always* constant in a vacuum. And it is *always* predictably > constant if a bit slower when travelling through water etc. If > you know the conditions you can say with stunning accuracy how > fast it will go. > > It's the same with gravity, positions and behaviour of planets > are entirely predictable because gravity is highly predictable. > You get gravity wherever you get mass and it isn't a force as much > as it is a distortion of time and space. It doesn't pull, we fall > *always* towards larger objects. > > In fact the whole of the physical world is stunningly predictable > due to the accuracy of QP. Outside of John Hagelin's daydreams, > where is the evidence or even a credible theory that this whole > body of understanding is rewritable due to some magic words > spoken in an altered state of consciousness? Or in any way? > > > > IF floating proves to be possible due to the TM-Sidhis, then obviously it > > will be possible only in specific circumstances (whatever they are), > > How about when doing the sutra as instructed? > > and will not likely challenge our understanding of the universe outside those > special circumstances -they will require an extension to our understanding of > the universe, not a total rewrite, > > Give over Lawson, what is being proposed is that our thoughts > are somehow fundamental to everything else in the universe, so much > so that we can change the way the universe operates at a fundamental > level by having the mere *intention* of flying. That consciousness > is the unified field is the bit that will require a rewrite of > everything else. > > If it worked we would have seen it by now. You can't opt out > of the laws of nature, they hold everything together. Imagine > if you were sitting meditating and you accidently said the > wrong magic words and undid the strong nuclear force instead > of gravity by mistake, oops - no more atomic nuclei. Bit of > a cock up that would be but according to John Hagelin we > can do anything, and in fact *are*. Everytime we we do YF > we, according to JH, alter the statistical probabilty of > gravity continuing to make us fall towards heavier objects. > How about that! > > let's have some evidence to back these claims > up. Better still let's have an actual realistic theory of how > things like "positivity" are transmitted through the subatomic > world to create "peace" at a distance. There isn't a theory that > even remotely explains what things like that might mean to nature > itself without dipping into the sort of drippy new age concepts > couched in vague sciencey sounding terms like "coherence in > collective conciousness" that don't actually mean a whole lot > unless you've brought into the TM belief system. And they will > require a rewrite of everything to do with society and psychology. > > If you want to rewrite human understanding get some evidence > to back up the wild ideas! Better still, step back from the TMO > belief system and see your post the way non-believers see it, > it all sounds completely barking to me... > > > > any more than Quantum Mechanics or Special or General Relativity required us > to rewrite Newtonian Mechanics, which only deals with phenomenon that could > be observed in Newton's time. > > > > Of course, no-one has ever been seen to float during Yogic Flying, at least > > not in a laboratory setting, so speculating about the mechanism of an > > unobserved phenomenon that isn't predicted by any existing scientific > > theory is kinda silly, even if John Hagelin has fun pretending he can do it > > in any realistic way. > > > > > > Even so, the effects of Yogic Flying and the other TM-Sidhis on the human > > nervous system concerning higher states of enlightenment are at least > > somewhat established and are consistent with the rest of TM theory. > > > > Whether or not perception of oneness (Unity Consciousness) with the > > universe that might result from practicing them is "really real" by MMY''s > > definition, is another question, of course, and depends on whether or not > > floating and so on are actually possible. > > > > > > L > > > > --- 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. > > > > > > --- 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. > > > > > > > > > >
