Thanks Judy! great quotes - I particularly like the first one, about expanding our notions of what human beings are capable of.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@...> wrote: > > --- 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. > > > > > >
