Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: science can't fully describe reality
On Mar 24, 2009, at 12:55 PM, Hugo wrote: > I've long had the feeling that his absurd ranting on the Marshy > channel is an attempt to convince himself as much as anyone else. I guess that is the question: has he convinced himself in 'aligning his thought' with MMY, or does he maintain his rational independent thinking?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: science can't fully describe reality
Ken Wilbur, is that they guy who beats women? - Original Message - From: "yifuxero" To: Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 1:12 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: science can't fully describe reality > --Neither have become reconciled to the prospect of life in a subtle body > after death. Buddhism, otoh, does provide for that. > Nityananda's "Siddhaloka" is not part of Advaita Vedanta. MMY claims to > be a proponent of A.V. but that's nihilist: after Unity then physical > death, no more relative existence. > Buddhas otoh can exist in any number of transformation bodies. Siddhas > like Nityananda can live in Siddhaloka. > In Advaita Vedanta, Nothing! > > - In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" > wrote: >> >> Vaj wrote: >> > The Marshy said they should. So they did... >> > >> Ken Wilber pretty much agrees with the Marshy >> when it comes to meditation - Wilber is known >> for practiceing meditation techniques on a >> daily basis. >> >> Wilber co-wrote a review of spiritual teachers, >> and seems to approve of the practice of TM. From >> what I've read, Wilber's parents started TM >> practice some years ago. >> >> Read more: >> >> 'Spiritual Choices' >> The Problems of Recognizing Authentic Paths to >> Inner Transformation >> by Dick Anthony, Bruce Ecker, and Ken Wilber >> Paragon House, 1986 >> >> According to Wilber, the states of consciousness >> include: waking, dreaming, dreamless sleep, and >> nondual. Marshy seems to agree with this. >> >> Apparently Wilber ascribes to the 'two truths >> doctrine' of Nagarjuna. For Wilber no >> metaphysical doctrine or apparent reality is >> true in an absolute sense: only formless >> awareness, "the simple feeling of being," exists >> absolutely. >> >> "And tell me: is that story, sung by mystics >> and sages the world over, any crazier than >> the scientific materialism story, which is >> that the entire sequence is a tale told by an >> idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying >> absolutely nothing? Listen very carefully: just >> which of those two stories actually sounds >> totally insane?" >> >> Work cited: >> >> 'A Brief History of Everything' >> By Ken Wilber >> Shambhala, 2007 >> Page 42-3 >> >> Links of interest: >> >> "Every deeply enlightened teacher I have known >> has been a Rude Boy or Nasty Girl." >> >> Ken Wilber: >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Wilber >> >> Dennis Genpo Merzel: >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Genpo_Merzel >> > > > > > > > To subscribe, send a message to: > fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com > > Or go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ > and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links > > >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: science can't fully describe reality
On Mar 24, 2009, at 11:06 AM, guyfawkes91 wrote: Well, it's been hinted that Hagelin was pretty much forced to write his paper That's interesting, who's doing the hinting? How recently was it hinted? In message #139273, Patrick Gillam shared his recollection (emphases mine), in regards to touring the country promoting the idea of "consciousness as the unified field", not sure who I spoke to specifically on the paper, but I've heard this same story from different people: "I'm trying to summon a memory of a conversation with a former assistant of John Hagelin. This would have been the late 1980s or early '90s. As I recall, she said John was under pressure from Maharishi to tour the country, telling scientists that consciousness was indeed the unified field. John resisted, saying his research partners would frown upon it, and more to the point, it wasn't such a slam-dunk parallel. But Maharishi persisted, ultimately saying, If you won't do it, I'll find someone who will. So John did it."
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: science can't fully describe reality
On Mar 24, 2009, at 9:12 AM, Hugo wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: If you look at early MIU textbooks (privately printed), students were required to take an interdisciplinary set of courses which included physics. The physics module, as per the overriding TM mythology, compared the experience of TM to physics and the imaginary unified field of consciousness. But--and a very important "but"--at the end they explained in no uncertain terms, that you can only take analogies "so far". Did they really? Good for them. I said from day one in my TM career that CasUF is an analogy to supposed unification theories but was told by my TM teacher that it really was the UF. He obviously didn't know anything about it and was just toeing the party line. It was the thing that kept me sceptical and I thank them for it. Well, it's been hinted that Hagelin was pretty much forced to write his paper "Is Consciousness the Unified Field" and to accept the 'consciousness is the unified field' con, or to hit the highway. He craved "access" to the Big Reesh, so he sold his soul for that access. At that point it was no longer seen as an analogy, what it really is. If I find the old Interdisciplinary physics course, I'll scan it in. It's in a box somewhere. I did hear that Lawrence Domash objected to Marshy when he started going on about CasUF, apparently he said "But Maharishi we don't really know anything about that level yet" To which the reesh replied "We are the masters of this field!" Yet another story but you've gotta admit it has the ring of truth about it. Well, see the above. Similar story, but in this case 'it's my way or the highway'.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: science can't fully describe reality
On Mar 24, 2009, at 4:26 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:As usual, Ruth doesn't dare quote me, but she figures she's responding to the post of mine that John was commenting on. As usual, terrified of not being the center of attention, Judy tries to start Yet Another Argument with Ruth, who is *also* ignoring her. She sure likes to probe:
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: science can't fully describe reality
On Mar 23, 2009, at 8:04 PM, ruthsimplicity wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote: Judy, The jury about the reality of physics may still be out. For now, all of these scientists are still speculating. Even Hawking, the English physicist, has bet $100 that the scientists of the Hadron Collider in Switzerland will not find the missing particle needed to prove the unification theory in physics. Instead, Hawking is predicting that the scientists will find more particles to confuse the physics pot, so to speak. Intuitively, I do appreciate the idea that a musician like Andrea Bocelli can be considered a scientist of the genius kind. The same could be said for Monet and other artists--writers included. Regards, JR Quantum mechanics explains a lot, but the big problems arise when trying to form a unified field theory, which Hawking and others continue to struggle with. But there is no unified field theory yet, despite what Haglin says. As the quote in the first post says, ". . . if there's something about the physical world that quantum mechanics isn't telling you, it doesn't follow that those gaps can be filled with poetry." Mystical answers are not necessarily the correct answers. Quantum Mechanics is often misused to explain more than it does. Consciousness is a big example. And classical physics still explains behavior of "large" objects. Classical physics isn't wrong, it just isn't the whole picture. I really appreciate Ken Wilber's slant on physics, which is really the same slant anyone who is actually trained in physics will get right away: physics, at best, describes the gross--the very gross--physical world. Physicality. There's nothing spiritual about it at all. It a nuts and bolts worldview. It's only en extenso spiritually interesting at all. Consciousness is not the unified field, not by a long shot. In fact, if we really understand what spiritual paths who touch on this subject have to say, we realize it's not consciousness at all that is the unified field, it's prana. Interestingly, by Nirukta, prana actually means "first unit of energy", first as in "primary". If you look at early MIU textbooks (privately printed), students were required to take an interdisciplinary set of courses which included physics. The physics module, as per the overriding TM mythology, compared the experience of TM to physics and the imaginary unified field of consciousness. But--and a very important "but"--at the end they explained in no uncertain terms, that you can only take analogies "so far". They admitted right up front they were "pushing it". But eventually these edges were blurred...and eventually, ignored. The Marshy said they should. So they did.
