A common story told to us on TM-courses - was about the meditator that wished for an apple and suddenly the apple was in his hand. I have never experienced such a thing, but I think from my mind it is possible from the consciousness to create material things. Deepak Chopra has explained it in a rational way. Everything starts with a vibration who creates a sound which creates a form. Ingegerd
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I always thought that the connection that the TMO made to quantum > physics was always just a cute little analogy and nothing more. > Never took it seriously and I always hoped no one else would either. > > Beyond being an analogy and using the platform of quantum mechanics > to serve as an illustration for how consicousness works, I never saw > an actual connection between the working of the mind and > consciousness and physics. > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > File Under: TMO lies and marketing ploys; Boomeritis Hinduism; > Pseudo- > > advaita > > > > Answers from biologist and physicist Ken Wilber. > > > > http://www.tinyurl.com/cmay6 > > > > The first question has to do directly with the relation of modern > > quantum physics and spirituality. In effect, does physics prove > God, > > does the Tao find proof in quantum realities? > > > > Answer: "Categorically not. I don't know more confusion in the > last > > thirty years than has come from quantum physics...." > > > > Ken goes on to outline the three major confusions that have > dominated > > the popular (mis)understanding of the relationship of physics and > > mysticism. > > > > #1: Your consciousness does not create electrons. Unlike > Newtonian > > physics, which can predict the location of large objects moving > at > > slow speeds, quantum physics only offers a probability wave in > which > > a given particle, like an electron, should show up. But here's > the > > funny thing: it is only at the moment that one makes the > measurement > > that the electron actually does "show up." Certain writers and > > theorists have thus suggested that human intentionality actually > > creates reality on a quantum level. The most popular version of > this > > idea can be found in the movie What the Bleep Do We Know?!, in > which > > we "qwaff" reality into existence. > > > > Ken suggests this is both bad physics and bad mysticism. As for > the > > former, in his book, Quantum Questions, Ken compiled the original > > writings of the 13 most important founders of modern quantum and > > relativistic physics, to explore their understanding of the > > relationship of physics and mysticism. Without exception, each one > of > > them believed that modern physics does NOT prove spiritual > realities > > in any fashion. And yet each of them was a mystic, not because of > > physics, but in spite of it. By pushing to the outer limits of > their > > discipline, a feat which requires true genius, they found > themselves > > face to face with those realities that physics categorically > could > > not explain. > > > > Likewise, none of those founders of modern physics believed that > the > > act of consciousness was responsible for creating particles at > the > > quantum level. David Bohm did not believe that, Schroedinger did > not > > believe that, Heisenberg did not believe that. That belief > requires > > the enormous self-infatuation and narcissism, or "boomeritis," of > the > > post-modern ego, and Ken goes into the possible psychology behind > all > > of that. > > > > #2: Quantum vacuum potentials are not unmanifest Spirit. The > > immediate problem with the notion that certain "unmanifest" or > > "vacuum" quantum realities give rise to the manifest world, and > that > > the quantum vacuum is Spirit, is that it immediately presupposes > a > > radically divided Spirit or Ultimate. There is Spirit "over > here," > > manifestation "over there," and it's only through these quantum > > vacuum potentials that Spirit actualizes manifestation—with > Spirit > > set apart from manifestation. > > > > As the great contemplative traditions agree, true nondual Spirit > is > > the suchness, emptiness, or isness of all manifestation, and as > such > > leaves everything exactly where it finds it. Nondual Spirit is no > > more set apart from manifestation than the wetness of the ocean > is > > set apart from waves. Wetness is the suchness or isness of all > waves. > > By identifying Spirit with quantum potential, you are actually > > qualifying the Unqualifiable, giving it characteristics—"and > right > > there," Ken says, "things start to go horribly wrong, and they > never > > recover. These folks are trying to give characteristics to > Emptiness. > > They therefore make it dualistic. And then things get worse from > > there...." > > > > #3: Just because you understand quantum mechanics doesn't mean > you're > > enlightened. Physics is an explicitly 3rd-person approach to > reality, > > whereas meditative, contemplative, or mystical disciplines are > > explicitly 1st-person approaches to reality. Neither perspective > is > > more real than the other, but each perspective does disclose > > different truths, and you cannot use the truth disclosed in one > > domain to "colonize" another. The study of physics, as a 3rd- > person > > discipline, will not get you enlightenment; and meditation, as a > 1st- > > person discipline, will not disclose the location of an asteroid > (or > > an electron). The "content" of enlightenment is the realization > of > > that which is timeless, formless, and eternally unchanging. The > > content of physics is the understanding of the movement of form > > within time, i.e. that which is constantly changing. And if you > hook > > Buddha's enlightenment to a theory of physics that gets disproved > > tomorrow, does that mean Buddha loses his enlightenment? > > > > Ken goes on to suggest that what might be influencing quantum > > realities is not Suchness per se, but bio-energy or prana, which > may > > be the source of the crackling, buzzing, electric creativity that > so > > many theorists have tried to explain at the quantum level. Of > course, > > it remains to be seen exactly what further research does and does > not > > support. > > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
