The history of metaphsysics
James Cook
I was moved to wonder about the history of something mentioned in
several posts here, the subject of "metaphysics." Although some folks
may have "personal" definitions for it, I checked the massive
Encyclopedia Brittanica's Macropedia volumes for what might be the
broadest, most widely accepted view of it.
Although I don't recall hearing that Maharishi has used the word in his
teachings, some folks here have said that metaphysics is a part of
MMY's teachings along with the simple TM technique for relaxation.
The TM technique is not metaphysics or the "practice of metaphysics." So
that leaves the question of what metaphysics is. Footnote: one poster
suggested that "Hindu metaphysics" is taught by Maharishi, so I tried to
find the existence of such a tradition in hindu literature. Here is what
I found:
Quoted material is from the Encyclopedia, under "Metaphysics."
------------------------------------------
The word "metaphysics" was first used by Aristotle as one of two
complementary treatises by him, one titled "Physica", the other titled
"Metaphysica."
"Aristotle had distintuished two tasks for the philospher: first, to
investigate the nature and properties of what exists in the natural, or
sensible, world, and second, to explore the characteristics of "Being as
such" and to inquire into the character of 'the substance that is free
from movement,' or the most real of all things, the intelligible reality
on which everything in the world of nature was thought to be causally
dependent."
The first task, investigation of that part of life which the senses can
detect, was the subject of his treatise "Physica." The second task,
investigation of what is the "most real", the "eternal" and unchanging
aspects of existence, was the subject of his treatise "Metaphysica."
The inquiries in the Physica about that part of existence susceptible to
the senses lead on to those inquiries about the fundamental nature of
Being taken up in the Metaphysica.
It was interesting to me that the word and the philosophy "metaphysics"
as such has it's roots in Western philosophical traditions, not in any of
the Eastern philosophical traditions.
When you read the biographical histories of those considered to be the
most important figures in development of "science", Aristotle is one of
them. He is viewed as both a great philosopher and also a great
scientist. As with all great thinkers I've heard of, some of his
theories were controversal in his time, and were later proven to be
correct, playing an important role for modern science. Other of his
theories were controversal in his time, and are no longer widely accepted.
Aristotle's divisions were influenced by his teacher, Plato. Plato sought
to distinguish opinion, or mere "belief", from knowledge. Opinion, for
Plato, was a form of understanding which was shifting and unclear, whereas
knowledge was wholly lucid and eternal. Plato's message to men in this
teaching was to try and recognise the contradictions in involved in the
appearances of things, and to focus inquiry on what may be the realities
that lay behind them.
For example, the sun's "real" size may be different from it's "apparent"
size. This search for what is "real" has long been common to both science
and metaphysics.
The practice of metaphysical thinking.
The practice of metaphysical thinking has been classified into four basic
inquiries. "Metaphysics" is thus said to be:
1. An inquiry into what exists, or what really exists
2. The science of reality, as opposed to appearances
3. The study of the world as a whole
4. A theory of "first principles"
When metaphysical writers are asked what "metaphysics" is, they often
mention one or more of the above, depending upon their view of metaphysics.
Regarding metaphysics as "the study of the world as a whole":
Scientists are divisible into more and more speciaties of scientific
study. The sum of the results in research in botany, biology, physics,
etc. gives one a large view and total of all current scientific
knowledge, including the contradictions between the specialties. But for
some, having a total of scientific findings from all specialties isn't
enough of an understanding of life . . existence.
"People want to know not only what the scientists make of the world, but
also what significance to assign to their account. People experience the
world at different levels and in different capacities; they are not only
investigators but also agents; they have a moral and a legal, an
aestheic and a religious life in addition to their scientific life."
"Most people find it difficult to reconcile many of the findings of
science with their religious and moral lives, finding it necessary to
choose whether to go all the way with science, at the cost of abandoning
religion and even morals, or to stick to a religious or moral outlook
even if it means treating scientific claims with reserve."
"The practice of moral life is often believed to proceed on assumptions
that can hardly be accepted if science is to have the last word about
what is true. . . . . it becomes necessary to have some assessment of the
truth claims of the different forms of experience, to try to think of a
scheme in which justice is done to them all."
Regarding "metaphysics" as the "science of first principles":
First principles are the ultimate, irrefultable truths in life.
"The term 'first principles' is a translation of the Greek word 'archai.'
An arche is something from which an argument proceeds - it can be either
a primary premise or an ultimate presupposition.
"Metaphysics" is thus a philoshopical inquiry which asks several
fundamental questions about existence and life. Many important western
philosophers contributed to the vast literature in this area, each asking
their own sets of questions about the ultimate nature of life, reality,
science, and knowing.
The only sense in which I found the phrase "hindu metaphysics" meaningful
was that there are many vedic and hindu philosohers who asked similar
basic questions. As with the western philosophers, hindu philosphers
proposed both monotheistic and dualistic theories of such things as the
mind/body connection, i.e. are they totally separate or unified in some
way. The different schools of thought on these issues existed in both
Eastern and Western branches of philosphy. And both East and West
religions reflected some of these fundamental assumptions. To my
knowledge, Maharishi's discussions of concepts like the "field of pure
Being", "field of pure conciousness", etc. result from a metaphysical type
of question about what reality is like beyond what our senses tell us.
When you close your eyes and experience conciousness, what is the ultimate
nature of these conciousness experienced? Are there different kinds or
levels of conciousness? Is there any method to how one might experience
different levels of conciousness? What is the relation, if any between
how one experiences conciousness and relaxation or alertness or health or
clear thinking? These questions, and these theories, were common to both
Eastern and Western thinking.
A common link between physics and metaphysics is the methodical inquiry into
the fundamental nature of existence, into how to make sense of what
science seems to explain so far, and what it doesn't yet explain about
things we seem to know or experience. Today's philoshophical inquiry into
the true nature of things beyond what we sense, helps to spawn theories,
hypotheses, for scientists to test in the development of knowledge in
physics and other fields. It seems to me that inherent in any scientific
question, premise, theory or finding are one or more presuppositions
about life, existence, and ultimate truth, such that physics and metaphysics
touch each other continually, while still being quite different.
To my knowledge, Maharishi has drawn from science and philosophy, theory
and experience, East and West alike to compose ideas and unifying
explanations for our experience, especially the experience of our own
conciousness. In my view, based upon literature on the foregoing
subjects, I'm lead to believe that folks are likely to find a little
knowledge and vocabulary from many fields of knowledge (scientific, Vedic,
religious, philosphical) throughout Maharishis' interests and teachings.
Something that sounds like Hindu metaphysical inquiry or theory, may well
also have deep or deeper roots in Western thought. To the orthodox Hindu
in turn, some of MMY's teachings which mix their ancient philosophies with
both proven and theoretical Western scientific knowledge may sound like
heresy to them. He seems continually interested to learn of the latest
thinking in physics, compare it with last year's knowledge of physics,
compare all that with ancient concepts of knowledge and science, and look
for/expound the possible unifying explanation for the whole of it.
On this basis, he is involved in the process of trying to discern the
eternal, never changing truths of life as they manifest in the ever
changing modern fields of life and knowledge. More importantly, as new
vocabularies and concepts of physics unfold year by year, relating
something of the eternal ideas in terms of the new vocabularies and
concepts is an ongoing process. With this in mind, I'm less inclined to
think that the periodic adoption and dismissal of key scientific terms and
concepts from his teaching year by year means that his use of them was
insincere. I'm more inclined to view it as a process of expressing the
eternal questions and perspectives in terms currently thought to best
explain reality and tie all fields of knowledge together in a way "just to
each.
In relation to teaching the TM technique, I would simply view it as a
progressive process of introducing students to a method of experiencinig
their inner conciousness, and over a period of several days to discuss
what's happening in scientific terms. To the extent that science cannot
yet offer a vocabulary and theory of conciousness, Maharishi has provided
for teacher's to also convey the simplest rudiments of a theory of
conciousness so that students have a basic working knowledge and
vocabulary to discuss what they've experienced when eyes are
closed and the increased inner conciousness and relaxation has begun.
A way to discuss what Aristotle referred to as "Being", is as a field of pure
conciousness. Vedic theory from ancient times offers a large portion of
the conceptual framework Marharishi uses to discuss/teach about
conciousness. He also looks to modern physics, medicine, etc. for
additional insights, theories, and vocabulary to broaden the context for
understanding and discussing conciousness and it's relevance to
daily life and health.
In my own view, if metaphysical lines of inquiry arise at all during the
teaching of the TM technique, it is a minor discussion combined with a
survey of current scientific findings to offer broader understanding to
something simple, yet new to many people. It is not important to
understand conciousness to obtain the relaxation and other benefits of
meditation, but it is important to understanding how and why meditation
works, and is food for thought about it's relation to health and happiness.
End. :)
--
______________________________________________________________________________
James Cook Internet: jc...@netcom.com
San Francisco Bay, Calififornia Compuserve: 76520,2727
Rango Keshavan
>
James,
That was a great series of articles you have started. Keep it up. I
really am impressed.
Rango
Joe Kellett
<fascinating discussion of metaphysics deleted>
Well, I have rather a smaller dictionary:
metaphysics: a division of philosophy that includes ontology and cosmology.
ontology: a branch of metaphysics related to the nature and relations of
being.
cosmology: a branch of metaphysics that deals with the universe as an
orderly system.
None of this denies my assertion that metaphysics is tightly coupled to
religious belief, and that MMY teaches a brand of metaphysics that precludes
the validity of all but Eastern religions.
--Joe
--
Joe Kellett
jkel...@netcom.com
James Cook
: James Cook (jc...@netcom.com) wrote:
: <fascinating discussion of metaphysics deleted>
: None of this denies my assertion that metaphysics is tightly coupled to
: religious belief, and that MMY teaches a brand of metaphysics that precludes
: the validity of all but Eastern religions.
Ok. We're back to the "moving target" syndrome. You didn't respond to my
point.
The original accusation made by you and Tim was, and Tim most
specifically stated so I think, was that one of the so called deceptions
intentionally cast upon the public was that people learn the simple TM
relaxation technique without realizing that they'll be taught "Hindu
metaphysics." Tim and you characterize this a a big deal.
I posted an article here entitled "History of Metaphysics" which reflects
that the subject is primarily a Western philosophical tradition which is
implicit in physics thinking and inquiry. The information came from U.S.
encylopedias . . . main stream. Metaphysics is a western originated branch
of philosophy originating with Aristotle, and continuing into modern times
in the West.
No "Hindu metaphysics" as such was found in the encylcopedias on the
histories of pre-science or philosphy.
I also posted an article quoting Tim's own posting . . . . which was part
of the standard, internationally distributed information about TM and the
Natural Law Party. It had a long, complicated, mixture of physics,
metaphysics, Vedic, and related language, concepts, and vocabulary in it.
It is clearly a good example of issues discussed with meditators at times.
I posted this article to demonstrate that TM folks openly
discuss those matters, including metaphysical type concepts and
assumptions in national media. Therefore . . pay close attention . . . it
is not logical or fair to say that TM folks "surprise" new students with
indoctrination in stuff like the blend of physics and metaphysical
concepts. Ergo, the so called surprise/deception claim doesn't hold water,
based on this example and many others. It's wrong. It's unfair. They are
very open and communicative on that material.
The point here is:
1. Students aren't surprised (thus deceived as you claim) with a highly
secret agenda by which they'll be exposed to the physics and metaphysic
type concepts which are offered as a framework for explaining the
mechanics of TM. It's splashed all over the pages of international media
before anyone may attend a free TM introductory lecture. This shows the
falsity of your claim.
2. What this does show, is the falsity of your and Tim's claims as I just
explained. You new points are a separate matter, also mistaken.
Now your new points in this thread are claims that:
Metaphysics is tightly coupled with religion, and
Maharishi teaches a brand of metaphysics that precludes all but eastern
religions.
Now, in order for me to respond to whether any metaphysics is taught by
Maharishi, and whether that precludes all but eastern . . . , please
explain what specific concepts you are referring to here that the average
meditator is exposed to, and why you believe that those concepts preclude
a person from practicing anything but an Eastern religion. Please explain
just how the specific concepts preclude, and specifically what "preclude"
means in this context.
Your statement that Metaphysics is tightly coupled with religion is a tricky
sentence. As the History of Metaphysics article pointed out, there was a
time before modern science existed when men asked asked fundamental
questions about the nature of existence to postulate beginning frameworks
for study of science, nature, medicine, and everything else. Check out
the article.
Those questions are not the province of any one religion, they are only
questions about the nature of the universe at it's subtlest levels.
Metaphysics is NOT tightly coupled with religion in the sense that it is
the teaching of any religious docrine. It's concepts may be something
which religious people consider, but it is not the teaching of a religion.
For example, science may claim that the earth started eons ago and man
evolved from apes and so forth. Some religions, including Christian
fundamentalists, may believe that the earth was created by God in seven
days and that man . . . . etc. Physics asks basic questions about
existence, and postulates explanations for it. These may not match the
implicit presuppositions of Christianity. But this does not make physics
a "teaching of atheism". Discussions of physics theory and it's
questions does not, in my view, preclude, one from practicing
Christianity. The concepts clash. But that's all. If metaphysics
precludes all but Eastern religions merely by considering theories of
conciousness and inner experience, then physics would be equally guilty
of doing the same in that it's concepts contradict many Christian beliefs
about where everything came from and how it all works.
And once again, Maharishi's teachings and books, discussions of these
issues, and the frequent big newspaper articles and press releases
on these issues, clearly express his interest in studying these
subjects. So there is no exceptional surprise teaching of metaphysics in
a post trance situation so that they can't think for themselves type of
issue here. That claim is simply and audaciously B O G U S.
As I indicated the article "History of Metaphsycis", Maharishi has
arranged for TM to be taught in a simple way. For the few days following
that first session, students discuss their experiences and the questions
are answered in a way that includes a little scientific information and
research reporting to offer a framework for how meditation works. To the
extent that science cannot fully explain all the angles at this time,
Maharishi offers traditional theories of conciousness to round out the
understanding in simple terms. And I believe it is this area of
discussion that you're characterizing as metaphysics, which is an area
thoroughly explored by Western metaphysical thinkers since Aristotle.
There is no big surprise. People can think for themselves. The problems
spoken of in this respect just aren't there.
James Cook
Rango Keshavan
>None of this denies my assertion that metaphysics is tightly coupled to
>religious belief, and that MMY teaches a brand of metaphysics that precludes
>the validity of all but Eastern religions.
Whoa there, what happened to your assertion that TM is not a valid form
of Hinduism? Therefore, how would it not even preclude Eastern
religons? You are not consistent here!
--random opinions of me to follow
Metaphysics usually shines a negative light upon something when looked
upon by people trained in Western Scientific thought, as many of us most
certainly were through college and high school.
But for the heck of it, how about this assertion:
MMY is trying to combine Western Physics (especially quantum theory)
with Eastern Philosophy? Eastern Philosophy relies heavily on the mind
doing experimentation within itself, and then with the knowledge of the
Western Science also available to the mind, it can correlate the two until
it makes sense?
Of course, this is just my opinion, and not the MMY's. I offer it only
as a counter-opinion to Joe's.
Peace
Rango
Jeffrey CHANCE
>MMY is trying to combine Western Physics (especially quantum theory)
>with Eastern Philosophy? Eastern Philosophy relies heavily on the mind
>doing experimentation within itself, and then with the knowledge of the
Actually investigating the mind to understand things like the
world, and reality, makes a lot of sense. In my particular area
of chemistry, analytical chemistry, a lot of emphasis is placed
on the instrument used to make the analysis (actually this applies
to all areas of science). The scientist has to thoroughly test
and set-up the instrument so that the resulting analyses will
be correct. The entire result is based on a thorough understanding
of what the instrument is doing and how it is doing it.
So in investigating what reality is, what is the instrument?
Our awareness. Now certainly, the scientist doesn't have to
meditate to conduct fairly objective experiments on physical
material. But regarding the larger issue of the nature of
the universe, to suppose that our 5 senses are capable of
detecting everything is quite a substantial supposition.
It makes sense to me that some investigation ought to also
be done into consciousness itself (the instrument), if
that is possible (eg by meditation), to be really thorough
in our pursuit of a broader understanding of things.
-Jeff
Jeffrey CHANCE
Mike Doughney
>
>I also posted an article quoting Tim's own posting . . . . which was part
>of the standard, internationally distributed information about TM and the
>Natural Law Party. It had a long, complicated, mixture of physics,
>metaphysics, Vedic, and related language, concepts, and vocabulary in it.
>It is clearly a good example of issues discussed with meditators at times.
>I posted this article to demonstrate that TM folks openly
>discuss those matters, including metaphysical type concepts and
>assumptions in national media. Therefore . . pay close attention . . . it
>is not logical or fair to say that TM folks "surprise" new students with
>indoctrination in stuff like the blend of physics and metaphysical
>concepts. Ergo, the so called surprise/deception claim doesn't hold water,
>based on this example and many others. It's wrong. It's unfair. They are
>very open and communicative on that material.
>
>The point here is:
>
>1. Students aren't surprised (thus deceived as you claim) with a highly
>secret agenda by which they'll be exposed to the physics and metaphysic
>type concepts which are offered as a framework for explaining the
>mechanics of TM. It's splashed all over the pages of international media
>before anyone may attend a free TM introductory lecture. This shows the
>falsity of your claim.
>
I attended a week-long residence course at the then so-called "MIU
College of Natural Law" in Washington, DC in mid-1983. I was one of a
small group of meditators (non-sidhas) there to receive a second
technique (from Neil Paterson; I hear he's a politician now ;-).
During this course, I noticed the following:
1) For most of each day, the sidhas on the course would go into
the auditorium, and the doors would be shut. There were no windows or
other openings from the room to the outside of the building.
2) At least once during that week, I was involved in a discussion
during lunch or dinner with sidha residents. I asked one of them a
very simple question about when a particular tour of Washington
landmarks would occur during the week. His response was that he
couldn't answer me. Apparently the subject had come up while he was
in the closed auditorium; he couldn't talk about it because they had
been given the instruction that anything said while the doors
were closed was not to be repeated to non-Sidhas.
I don't know whether special precautions of some kind were taken
during this particular week since non-Sidhas were in the building;
this was an unusual occurance.
My point is this: It may not be plainly obvious to many in
the movement that secrecy is enforced by some means. My experience
during this week indicates that when people of varying depth of
commitment to the organization - varying between having been
through just the TM initiation and having taken the entire sidhis
courses - there is a very obvious compartmentalization of
information, and specific instruction given that whatever is
discussed in those locked rooms is not to be disclosed to the
non-sidhas that they may encounter at lunch or dinner.
If you really think that there isn't any secrecy surrounding
certain movement teachings, then perhaps you or others reading
this would be happy to fully disclose the following:
1) The types of subjects presented during these advanced
residence courses restricted to Sidhas, and how the course
material differs from that presented on residence courses
for non-sidha meditators.
2) Whether anyone has ever been told not to repeat any information
taught to them during a residence course, and the nature of
the restricted information.
3) There was a brief discussion some months back about setting
up a restricted mailing list for discussion by some subset
of the newsgroup readership; presumably it would be restricted
to initiators. There was mention of checking "field badges".
What subjects would be discussed on this list that could not
be discussed on the public newsgroup?
Through my personal experience, and from discussion by current
initiators on this newsgroup, it appears that the inner teachings
of the organization are different - perhaps very different - from
the advertising, and the instruction given to initiates. I suspect
that the inner teachings are not physics and metaphysics, but
of a more religious nature and centered on the Vedic tradition.
I also suspect that discussion of these teachings in public is
discouraged (at what level is a non-disclosure agreement required?)
because (1) exposure of them in public would remove all pretenses and
reveal the Movement as a religious organization at its core, neither
secular nor scientific, and (2) there would then be less incentive to
attend a residence course; there would no longer be "secret wisdom" to
learn there.
If there is no secret knowledge, then there can be no deception.
If there is some secret, and the disclosure of that secret would
in many cases discourage potential initiates from learning TM,
then deception is, or has been, occurring.
A specific example of secret knowledge which is not generally
distributed is the second volume of MMY's translation and commentary
on the Bhagavad-Gita. I was told at one point that it had been
completed, but was not available, because a large part of its contents
concerned devotion to God. Perhaps this volume is the basis of much
advanced course material?
--
Mike Doughney -- Vice-President/Operations -- Digital Express Group, Inc.
6006 Greenbelt Road, #228, Greenbelt, MD 20770-1914
301-220-2020 --- 800-969-9090 --- mi...@access.digex.net
James Cook
: >The point here is:
Tim had made the mistaken point that folks who first learn the simple TM
technique have no idea that, during the course, part of the discussion
about how TM works includes analogies from physics, "metaphysics", the
Veda's, etc. He thought this might be a big surprise to some, even
deceptive.
My post in reply made clear that the presence of those concepts is widely
published, and is openly displayed in most TM centers for those to see
who come to visit. He was mistaken.
Now, as to your questions and points about privacy in some circumstances
of the TM courses, I refer you to the lengthy "FAQ" I've just posted on
this topic. The question is a natural and comes up a lot. It's not so
intriguing as some may think. Take a look at that posting for a more
complete answer.
Regards,
James Cook
: technique (from Neil Paterson; I hear he's a politician now ;-).
: During this course, I noticed the following:
: 1) For most of each day, the sidhas on the course would go into
: the auditorium, and the doors would be shut. There were no windows or
: other openings from the room to the outside of the building.
(some deleted comments)
: courses - there is a very obvious compartmentalization of
: information, and specific instruction given that whatever is
: discussed in those locked rooms is not to be disclosed to the
: non-sidhas that they may encounter at lunch or dinner.
Regarding the the shutting or locking of doors, I would draw an analogy
to this:
If I want to have a good sleep, with zero risk of the phone waking me up,
I disconnect the phone before bed. If I'd like to meditate quietly
without having someone inadvertantly come in the room during those few
minutes, I sometimes lock the door and take the phone off, just as I
would for a good sleep or concentrating on some projects.
People practice those techniques in a setting which assures there will be
zero chance of distraction by folks who may wander into the center,
building, whatever. It is also a private practice, as further explained
in the "Privacy" FAQ I've posted. Please check it out if you have further
questions on that point.
Mike Doughney
>technique have no idea that, during the course, part of the discussion
>about how TM works includes analogies from physics, "metaphysics", the
>Veda's, etc. He thought this might be a big surprise to some, even
>deceptive.
>
>My post in reply made clear that the presence of those concepts is widely
>published, and is openly displayed in most TM centers for those to see
>who come to visit. He was mistaken.
>
Of course, we skeptics are always misinformed or mistaken. You are
also doing your best to put words in Tim's mouth rather than
responding directly to my comments.
In the remainder of my article I asserted that the inner teachings
of the Movement which are given to those who go on to take the
advanced techniques, or become initiators, are "private" and
are not discussed because they are strictly of a religious nature.
Do you, or do you not, agree?
I am not arguing over whether or not the Movement's advertising
contains zero metaphysical content. I am asserting that the
organization is strictly religious at its core, and that any claim to
scientific legitimacy is only a ploy to encourage people to begin the
long process of religious indoctrination which ends, for some, in
becoming completely dependent upon the Movement. The conversion process
is no different from that of many religious groups, although the
initial hook by which converts are attracted is rather unusual.
Mike Doughney
>: technique (from Neil Paterson; I hear he's a politician now ;-).
>
>: During this course, I noticed the following:
>
>: 1) For most of each day, the sidhas on the course would go into
>: the auditorium, and the doors would be shut. There were no windows or
>: other openings from the room to the outside of the building.
>
>
>to this:
>
>If I want to have a good sleep, with zero risk of the phone waking me up,
>I disconnect the phone before bed. If I'd like to meditate quietly
>without having someone inadvertantly come in the room during those few
>minutes, I sometimes lock the door and take the phone off, just as I
>would for a good sleep or concentrating on some projects.
>
>People practice those techniques in a setting which assures there will be
>zero chance of distraction by folks who may wander into the center,
>building, whatever. It is also a private practice, as further explained
>in the "Privacy" FAQ I've posted. Please check it out if you have further
>questions on that point.
You must be addressing the lurkers who haven't been on a residence
course, because you know as well as I do (you have been on a residence
course, yes?) that no "technique" is practiced all day long while on a
course. The remaining time is spent watching videotapes or
attending lectures.
We non-sidhas were in a second floor meeting room with the doors and
windows wide open; anyone could eavesdrop with the simplest equipment
from across the street, and we could be interrupted at any time by
someone in the hallway. We watched videos of MMY or were lectured to
after a few minutes of group meditation. We meditated in our rooms,
for two 20 minute periods in the morning, and two in the evening (the
double meditation being part of "rounding"; in retrospect, it makes
great preparation for the intervening indoctrination sessions).
The sidhas were in the closed auditorium while we were in the meeting
room. The doors were always kept closed while their sessions were in
progress, and there were no windows to the outside of the building.
While we meditated in our rooms, they were in the padded 'flying'
rooms elsewhere in the building, doing their program.
I asked someone who came out of this room a simple question unrelated
to any "private" teaching, and he tells me that because he heard the
answer while the doors were closed he can't answer my question.
Do you really think they had the doors closed and the windows boarded
up just so they wouldn't be interrupted?
Joe Kellett
: Joe Kellett spaketh thusly unto the world:
: : James Cook (jc...@netcom.com) wrote:
: : <fascinating discussion of metaphysics deleted>
: : None of this denies my assertion that metaphysics is tightly coupled to
: : religious belief, and that MMY teaches a brand of metaphysics that precludes
: : the validity of all but Eastern religions.
: Ok. We're back to the "moving target" syndrome. You didn't respond to my
: point.
I know the feeling well.
: The original accusation made by you and Tim was, and Tim most
: specifically stated so I think, was that one of the so called deceptions
: intentionally cast upon the public was that people learn the simple TM
: relaxation technique without realizing that they'll be taught "Hindu
: metaphysics." Tim and you characterize this a a big deal.
: I posted an article here entitled "History of Metaphysics" which reflects
: that the subject is primarily a Western philosophical tradition which is
: implicit in physics thinking and inquiry. The information came from U.S.
: encylopedias . . . main stream. Metaphysics is a western originated branch
: of philosophy originating with Aristotle, and continuing into modern times
: in the West.
: No "Hindu metaphysics" as such was found in the encylcopedias on the
: histories of pre-science or philosphy.
This is a semantic red herring. I have made it clear what I mean when I say
"metaphysics". Discussion of "Eastern metaphysics" is a common thing, in
the sense I implied of discussing "Eastern ontology and cosmology". I don't
suppose you assert that Hindu philosophy doesn't teach ontology and
cosmology (whatever they happen to call it)?
I suppose one _could_ say: "Ontology is a Western concept, and no 'Hindu
ontology' was mentioned in the encyclopedias on the histories of pre-science
or philosophy". But this would be a semantic red herring to obscure the
fact that Hindu philosophy covers the subject of "the nature and relations
of being" quite thoroughly, whatever they may actually call this branch of
study.
: I also posted an article quoting Tim's own posting . . . . which was part
: of the standard, internationally distributed information about TM and the
: Natural Law Party. It had a long, complicated, mixture of physics,
: metaphysics, Vedic, and related language, concepts, and vocabulary in it.
<deletions>
: concepts. Ergo, the so called surprise/deception claim doesn't hold water,
: based on this example and many others. It's wrong. It's unfair. They are
: very open and communicative on that material.
: The point here is:
: 1. Students aren't surprised (thus deceived as you claim) with a highly
: secret agenda by which they'll be exposed to the physics and metaphysic
: type concepts which are offered as a framework for explaining the
: mechanics of TM. It's splashed all over the pages of international media
: before anyone may attend a free TM introductory lecture. This shows the
: falsity of your claim.
: 2. What this does show, is the falsity of your and Tim's claims as I just
: explained. You new points are a separate matter, also mistaken.
I repeat that I consider this NLP stuff to be pseudo-scientific obfuscation.
Their message is _not_ "TM teaches metaphysics". Their message is rather
"All this stuff isn't really metaphysics, it's _science_!"
: Now your new points in this thread are claims that:
: Metaphysics is tightly coupled with religion, and
: Maharishi teaches a brand of metaphysics that precludes all but eastern
: religions.
: Now, in order for me to respond to whether any metaphysics is taught by
: Maharishi, and whether that precludes all but eastern . . . , please
: explain what specific concepts you are referring to here that the average
: meditator is exposed to, and why you believe that those concepts preclude
: a person from practicing anything but an Eastern religion. Please explain
: just how the specific concepts preclude, and specifically what "preclude"
: means in this context.
I've done this, but possibly before you came aboard. Most "orthodox" (or
"traditional" or whatever) variants of Western religion, including most
forms of Judaism, official Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, many or most
Protestant denominations, and all the schools of Islam I am personally aware
of, would disagree vigorously with the following TM doctrine:
"Regular practice of TM will create a state where _all_ of a person's
thoughts are morally perfect, _all_ of a person's actions are morally
perfect, and where the entire cosmos will rise up to support these morally
perfect thoughts and actions. _All_ personal suffering is also completely
absent in this state".
They would consider that this violates _their_ core doctrines. They would
consider that a person could not accept this TM doctrine and still be a
fully practicing (i.e., "believing") member of their respective faiths.
This is just _one_ of the core TM doctrines that TM seeks to hide with
obfuscation until it can be presented at the "proper" time, in the "proper"
way. The average person reading the NLP's pseudo-science will _not_ deduce
the exact nature of TM core doctrine.
: Your statement that Metaphysics is tightly coupled with religion is a tricky
: sentence. As the History of Metaphysics article pointed out, there was a
: time before modern science existed when men asked asked fundamental
: questions about the nature of existence to postulate beginning frameworks
: for study of science, nature, medicine, and everything else. Check out
: the article.
We're playing semantic games again. I think anyone with an open mind about
TM understands what I mean. If anyone not committed to TM does not
understand me, I would appreciate it if they would zap me a note.
: Those questions are not the province of any one religion, they are only
: questions about the nature of the universe at it's subtlest levels.
: Metaphysics is NOT tightly coupled with religion in the sense that it is
: the teaching of any religious docrine.
Teaching that absolute human moral perfection can be attained in one's
lifetime would commonly be considered a "religious doctrine".
:It's concepts may be something
: which religious people consider, but it is not the teaching of a religion.
: For example, science may claim that the earth started eons ago and man
: evolved from apes and so forth. Some religions, including Christian
: fundamentalists, may believe that the earth was created by God in seven
: days and that man . . . . etc. Physics asks basic questions about
: existence, and postulates explanations for it. These may not match the
: implicit presuppositions of Christianity. But this does not make physics
: a "teaching of atheism". Discussions of physics theory and it's
: questions does not, in my view, preclude, one from practicing
: Christianity. The concepts clash.
This argument is consistent with the TM policy of wrapping everything in the
cloak of natural science. As I said, TM seeks to confuse people about the
difference between metaphysics and science.
: But that's all. If metaphysics
: precludes all but Eastern religions merely by considering theories of
: conciousness and inner experience, then physics would be equally guilty
: of doing the same in that it's concepts contradict many Christian beliefs
: about where everything came from and how it all works.
This is another of the infinite variations of the "TM is not a religion"
obfuscation. As I said before, this reflects the TM strategy of equating
metaphysics with natural science. "You don't object to people teaching the
'big bang', so why do you call it 'religion' when we teach that we can lead
a person to moral perfection?" It is, indeed, a core part of the TM
strategy to make metaphysics and religion equate to science.
A better question would be: "How many religions would find the
abovementioned TM core doctrine to be incompatible with their teachings?"
Quite a few, I think. We're not talking about disputes about facts of
natural science here as with 'big bang', we're talking about _fundamentally_
incompatible systems of metaphysics. But TM seeks to hide the metaphysical
inconsistencies under the cloak of science.
Another question is: "How many people would classify TM as a religion if
they knew that it claimed to teach a way to create absolute moral perfection
in a human being"? Again, quite a few I think.
: And once again, Maharishi's teachings and books, discussions of these
: issues, and the frequent big newspaper articles and press releases
: on these issues, clearly express his interest in studying these
: subjects. So there is no exceptional surprise teaching of metaphysics in
: a post trance situation so that they can't think for themselves type of
: issue here. That claim is simply and audaciously B O G U S.
My question would be: "How many people in the puja room knew ahead of time
that they were about to be taught a technique that will make their thoughts
morally perfect, that will make their actions morally perfect, that will
draw the support of the cosmos for their every thought and action, and that
will put them in a condition where they can begin to have an intimate
relationship with God." Not many will have figured this out, I think. The
whole TM sleight of hand is to present this doctrine _clearly_ only in the
post-trance state.
: As I indicated the article "History of Metaphsycis", Maharishi has
: arranged for TM to be taught in a simple way. For the few days following
: that first session, students discuss their experiences and the questions
: are answered in a way that includes a little scientific information and
: research reporting to offer a framework for how meditation works. To the
: extent that science cannot fully explain all the angles at this time,
: Maharishi offers traditional theories of conciousness to round out the
: understanding in simple terms. And I believe it is this area of
: discussion that you're characterizing as metaphysics, which is an area
: thoroughly explored by Western metaphysical thinkers since Aristotle.
: There is no big surprise. People can think for themselves. The problems
: spoken of in this respect just aren't there.
Your arguments are a good example of TM obfuscation. This is consistent with
the TM strategy of confusing people so they don't clearly understand what
they are volunteering for. I continue to be suspicious of an organization
that cannot just tell people it's core doctrines in a simple, direct way.
The NLP blizzard of words does not qualify. TM is able to be _quite_ clear
about it's doctrines when people are in a more helpless post-trance state.
I find TM's official policy of obfuscation in the recruiting phase to be
consistent with the behavior of destructive cults, who do not present their
doctrines in a clear way until the person is at a psychological
disadvantage.
Since my main purpose here is to provide an alternate view for people not
committed to TM, I guess I'll just have to leave my "obfuscation" charge up
to their individual judgement.
David Swarbrick
>I asked someone who came out of this room a simple question unrelated
>to any "private" teaching, and he tells me that because he heard the
>answer while the doors were closed he can't answer my question.
>
>Do you really think they had the doors closed and the windows boarded
>up just so they wouldn't be interrupted?
Being a siddha of 13 years 'bumping', and having attended many courses
in the UK, I can say that I have never heard one thing that I would not
be happy to talk to anyone about. Nor have I heard anything that would
not be utterly boring to anyone who went to any effort to listen.
But ... I am asked not to say what is said, so I do not. You are _not_
missing anything. Most siddhas sleep through most of what is going
on between rounds anyway. It is true that they do not want to be disturbed.
Meditation seems extremely simple, so are the sidhis. You read people
on here who are mislead by that simplicity. The innocence is all.
--
David Swarbrick | Just Mooting UK Law BBS
Brighouse West Yorkshire HD6 2AG | +44 (0)484 401139 (24 hrs <=v.32bis)
| sw...@swarb.demon.co.uk
James Cook
: >
: >Tim had made the mistaken point that folks who first learn the simple TM
: >technique have no idea that, during the course, part of the discussion
: >about how TM works includes analogies from physics, "metaphysics", the
: >Veda's, etc. He thought this might be a big surprise to some, even
: >deceptive.
: >
: >My post in reply made clear that the presence of those concepts is widely
: >published, and is openly displayed in most TM centers for those to see
: >who come to visit. He was mistaken.
: >
: Of course, we skeptics are always misinformed or mistaken. You are
: also doing your best to put words in Tim's mouth rather than
: responding directly to my comments.
My posts here express my opinions, not cosmic declarations. When I feel
someone is mistaken I will usually say so. In that case I thought and
said Tim was mistaken.
: In the remainder of my article I asserted that the inner teachings
: of the Movement which are given to those who go on to take the
: advanced techniques, or become initiators, are "private" and
: are not discussed because they are strictly of a religious nature.
: Do you, or do you not, agree?
I believe I've made clear that what is taught in the referenced settings
are generally private. That means they will remain private there _and_
here. My privacy FAQ posted in this group further elaborates on this
matter, and you're referred to it for further consideration.
It is not Maharishi's view that the practice of TM is a religion. I
don't believe he has characterized any of his teachings as religious.
: I am not arguing over whether or not the Movement's advertising
: contains zero metaphysical content. I am asserting that the
: organization is strictly religious at its core, and that any claim to
: scientific legitimacy is only a ploy to encourage people to begin the
: long process of religious indoctrination which ends, for some, in
: becoming completely dependent upon the Movement.
You've made yourself clear on those points. I simply disagree.
James Cook
: The sidhas were in the closed auditorium while we were in the meeting
: room. The doors were always kept closed while their sessions were in
: progress, and there were no windows to the outside of the building.
: While we meditated in our rooms, they were in the padded 'flying'
: rooms elsewhere in the building, doing their program.
: I asked someone who came out of this room a simple question unrelated
: to any "private" teaching, and he tells me that because he heard the
: answer while the doors were closed he can't answer my question.
For some reason he seemed to adopt a very literal interpretation to his
point. It's not really inconsistent with the general privacy of sessions.
In any case, I wasn't there and don't feel accurate responding more
extensively to things I haven't seen and with such slight detail.
: Do you really think they had the doors closed and the windows boarded
: up just so they wouldn't be interrupted?
My own opinion, stated above, was that doors may have been closed and
locked to make sure that the session is private and uninterrupted. If
you need to see more drama in such mundane events, perhaps you should
take up creative writing.
Joe Kellett
: In article <jkellettC...@netcom.com> jkel...@netcom.com (Joe Kellett) writes:
: >None of this denies my assertion that metaphysics is tightly coupled to
: >religious belief, and that MMY teaches a brand of metaphysics that precludes
: >the validity of all but Eastern religions.
: Whoa there, what happened to your assertion that TM is not a valid form
^^^^^
: of Hinduism? Therefore, how would it not even preclude Eastern
: religons? You are not consistent here!
Emphasis is on "valid". I think he uses psychological tricks to _simulate_
spiritual experience and to gain psychological dominance over his followers.
His metaphysics is Eastern, however.
: --random opinions of me to follow
: Metaphysics usually shines a negative light upon something when looked
: upon by people trained in Western Scientific thought, as many of us most
: certainly were through college and high school.
I don't understand. Western scientific thought is compatible with many
schools of metaphysics. It is commonly expected that two scientists should
be able to conduct the same identical experiment and obtain similar results.
This expectation is based on a metaphysical assumption that there is such a
thing as an objective natural reality which will behave similarly for two
different observers.
If we start thinking that the results of an experiment depend completely on
the state of mind of the experimenter, based on a metaphysics that assumes
that natural reality is subjective rather than objective, then we get a
rather different concept of science than that held by most people (Western
people, anyway). So the common Western view of science may in fact be
somewhat incompatible with many _Eastern_ philosophies.
: But for the heck of it, how about this assertion:
: MMY is trying to combine Western Physics (especially quantum theory)
: with Eastern Philosophy? Eastern Philosophy relies heavily on the mind
: doing experimentation within itself, and then with the knowledge of the
: Western Science also available to the mind, it can correlate the two until
: it makes sense?
I would say that he is trying to sell his version of Eastern philosophy by
misleadingly masking it in the cloak of Western science.
Jeffrey CHANCE
>Emphasis is on "valid". I think he uses psychological tricks to _simulate_
>spiritual experience and to gain psychological dominance over his followers.
>His metaphysics is Eastern, however.
Joe, how do we distinguish between spiritual guidance and psychological
manipulation?
Jeff
Mike Doughney
David Swarbrick <da...@swarb.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Being a siddha of 13 years 'bumping', and having attended many courses
>in the UK, I can say that I have never heard one thing that I would not
>be happy to talk to anyone about. Nor have I heard anything that would
>not be utterly boring to anyone who went to any effort to listen.
>
>But ... I am asked not to say what is said, so I do not. You are _not_
>missing anything. Most siddhas sleep through most of what is going
>on between rounds anyway. It is true that they do not want to be disturbed.
>
But this is just the point. If heavy rounding produces a very relaxed,
suggestible state close to sleep, then what is taught during rounding
is particularly important. If the goal is to indoctrinate an
individual without their consent or knowledge, then that process would
occur and be particularly effective while rounding.
The fact that no one will discuss what is taught during these sessions
is, therefore, particularly disturbing.
Joe Kellett
To my thinking, the distinguishing factor is the extent to which individual
free will is respected.
The same psychological "influence processes" might be employed in either
case. If a person volunteers for a spiritually-oriented influence process
with fully informed prior consent based on an unimpaired free will, then I
would _not_ say that "psychological manipulation" was being used.
"Psychological influence processes" maybe, but not "manipulation". The use
of "miliue control" by the Missionaries of Charity would be an example.
But if a person is deceived about whether an influence process exists, or
about the true objective of the influence process, then I would call this
"psychological manipulation" and possibly "involuntary mind control".
But on rereading my quote above, maybe that's not where you were heading.
You might have meant "how can we distinquish authentic spiritual experiences
from those induced by psychological manipulation".
I would say, first, that we should apply the first set of criteria above to
determine the degree to which the spiritual system respects individual free
will. If it is a destructive system that does not respect free will and
that uses psychological manipulation, I would also tend to doubt the
validity of any spiritual experiences induced by the system's practices. In
such a case a person should just get out anyway and find a reputable
spiritual school.
David Swarbrick
>In article <753790...@swarb.demon.co.uk>,
>David Swarbrick <da...@swarb.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>Being a siddha of 13 years 'bumping', and having attended many courses
>>in the UK, I can say that I have never heard one thing that I would not
>>be happy to talk to anyone about. Nor have I heard anything that would
>>not be utterly boring to anyone who went to any effort to listen.
>>
>>But ... I am asked not to say what is said, so I do not. You are _not_
>>missing anything. Most siddhas sleep through most of what is going
>>on between rounds anyway. It is true that they do not want to be disturbed.
>>
>
>But this is just the point. If heavy rounding produces a very relaxed,
>suggestible state close to sleep, then what is taught during rounding
>is particularly important. If the goal is to indoctrinate an
>individual without their consent or knowledge, then that process would
>occur and be particularly effective while rounding.
Who on earth said anything about heavy unstressing? I didn't. I have
seen people get upset on courses. It was mnay years ago. I sleep
because by an large I am knackered. That is in truth what I go for,
rest, and nothing more. A sillier piece of determined misunderstanding
I have not seen since .... last time I read this group.
Discussions are about such exciting things as 'the tea tent is two doors up
on the left.' 'Who left that experiment in trainer biodegradation in
reception?' and other banalities. Heavy man...
James Cook
: If we start thinking that the results of an experiment depend completely on
: the state of mind of the experimenter, based on a metaphysics that assumes
: that natural reality is subjective rather than objective, then we get a
: rather different concept of science than that held by most people (Western
: people, anyway). So the common Western view of science may in fact be
: somewhat incompatible with many _Eastern_ philosophies.
: : MMY is trying to combine Western Physics (especially quantum theory)
: : with Eastern Philosophy? Eastern Philosophy relies heavily on the mind
: : doing experimentation within itself, and then with the knowledge of the
: : Western Science also available to the mind, it can correlate the two until
: : it makes sense?
: I would say that he is trying to sell his version of Eastern philosophy by
: misleadingly masking it in the cloak of Western science.
-----------------
Religion . . . science . . . . philosophy . . . Which is which?
Do religious texts offer good ideas for science to explore?
Can I speak of all three in the same breath and stay politically correct?
What's evident in this thread, and throughout the group, is a debate
about which subjects are "inherently" religious and which subjects are
"inherently" "science/scientific." Implicitly, there is a question as to
whether all things "scientific" are inherently not religious, and whether
all things "religious" are inherently not scientific.
Further, there seems to be an implication that someone theorising about
certain developing physics theories are "secretly" presenting a religious
philosophy. So . . . . where is the divide? Is there a firm and discrete
separation? If . . . . some aspects of physics theory address concepts
also at the core of some religious or philosophical thinking, is one
practicing religion or exploring science by discussing concepts from both
in the same breath?
It appears, IMHO, that some see this matter as unique to theories
Maharishi presents. But is it?
Is it unique to the ideas of MMY that ultimate reality, as described by
some unified field theory and quantum mechanics, _looks_ like religious
thinking disguised as physics?
The Encyclopedia Americana, a well known American publication, has an
extensive presentation of modern quantum mechanical theory in one of its
volumes, as well as another on religions around the world. I think this
following quote from this main stream survey of modern thought is
enlightening. Further, it is a general purpose encyclopedia reflecting an
unbiased, broad view of modern trends. It is not a publication associated
with the TM teaching organizations.
"RELIGION AND SCIENCE: The question of the relation of religion and
science has also taken a new turn. Relativity theory, quantum mechanics,
and other new scientific developments have resulted in some skepticism
toward older concepts about the solidity of matter, which helped separate
science from "spiritual" concepts and concerns. Some congruences exist
between modern physics and Buddhist and other mystical approaches to
reality, which stress the fluid and relative nature of phenomena. Thus a
new convergence between religion and science is apparent. It is, perhaps,
more significant than the strain put on traditional Christian, Jewish,
and Islamic cosmology by astronomical discoveries that vastly increase
the scale of the universe. Further, modern methods of psychotherapy show
a greater awareness of traditionally religious or spiritual techniques
such as meditation and yoga."
What does the foregoing suggest? To me it suggests that it is and will
remain common for some people to characterize as religious philosophy,
that which is honestly intended by others (Maharishi) as an examination of
certain scientific paradigms of reality, such as quantum mechanics -
unified field theory. It suggests to me that those drawing on
traditionally religious concepts as partial context for scientific
thinking and hypothesis development, will be suspected of masquerading
religious thinking as science per se. That one subject, "unified field
theory," would simultaneously _sound_ like science and religion is, IMHO,
an inevitable consequence of the evolution of knowledge and research.
Personally, I don't believe controversy about mixing concepts, analogs and
metaphors from science, philosophy and religion will go away soon. It is a
normal part of evolving knowledge and interplay between international
cultures.
This encyclopedic article also suggests to me that the interest in this
controversial, cross-disciplinary set of concepts is broadly based in
modern culture - and is not uniquely the interest of Maharishi and those
practicing TM meditation.
BUT, SCIENCE SAYS the study of the finest aspects of being may
be "beyond natural science."
Following is a brief excerpt from the Encyclopedia section on quantum
mechanical physics theory:
"SUPERUNIFICATION AND THE PLANCK ERA. Why should a net baryon
fraction initially of 0 be more appealing aesthetically than 10-9th? The
underlying motivation here is perhaps the most ambitious undertaking in
the history of science - the attempt to explain the creation of truly
everything from literally nothing. In other words, is the creation of the
entire universe from a vacuum possible?
The evidence for such an event lies in another remarkable fact. It can be
estimated that the total number of protons in the observable universe is
an integer 80 long. The total number of electrons in the observable
universe is also an integer 80 digits long. In all likelihood, these two
integers are equal, digit by digit - if not exactly, then nearly so. This
inference comes from the fact that, as far as astronomers can tell, the
total electric charge in the universe is zero. Is this another
coincidence, or does it represent a deeper connection?
The apparent coincidence becomes trivial if the entire universe was
created from a vacuum because a vacuum has by definition zero electric
charge. It is a truism that one cannot get something for nothing. The
interesting question is whether one can get everything for nothing.
Clearly, this is a very speculative topic for scientific investigation,
and the ultimate answer depends on a sophisticated interpretation of
what "nothing" means.
The words "nothing," "void," and "vacuum" usually suggest uninteresting
empty space. To modern quantum physicists, however, the vacuum has turned
out to be rich with complex and unexpected behavior. They envisage it as
a state of minimum energy where quantum fluctuations, consistent with the
uncertainty principle of Werner Heisenberg, can lead to the temporary
formation of particle-antiparticle pairs.
In flat space-time, destruction follows closely upon creation (the pairs
are said to be virtual) because there is no source of energy to give the
pair permanent existence and all the known forces acting between a
particle and antiparticle; they pull the pair together to annihilate one
another. In the expanding space-time of the very early universe, however,
particles and antiparticles may separate and become part of the
observable world. In other words, sharply curved space-time can give rise
to the creation of real pairs with positive mass-energy, a fact first
demonstrated in the context of black holes by the British astrophysicist
Stephen W. Hawking.
Yet, Einstein's picture of gravitation is that the curvature of space-time
itself is a consequence of mass-energy. Now, if curved space-time is
needed to give birth to curved space-time, which came first, space-time or
mass-energy? The suggestion that they both rose from something still more
fundamental raises a new question: What is more fundamental than space
and time, and mass and energy? No one knows the answer to this question,
and perhaps some would argue that the answer is not to be sought within
the boundaries of natural science."
The foregoing excerpt was from the physics section of a well respected,
general purpose encyclopedia. It was not the product of any effort of
Maharishi or those who share his visions and interests. At the very
least, I hope that these foregoing excerpts, taken as a whole with
Maharishi's own explanations of his thinking, reveal a line of thought
not just his, but, significantly, a line of thought of the modern
generation. It is not just Maharishi's thought which is very
controversial, but the thinking of our current generation and culture
which are controversial.
The line between that which is religious and that which is purely
scientific or philosophical may be blurring, as the understanding of
ultimate reality becomes a little more clear. And, perhaps, any of us
seeking to grasp the most subtle, the most comprehensive, understanding of
reality, will increasingly find ourselves drawing on ideas from religion,
philosophy, physics and physiology as we progress. It would be helpful if
a good deal of tolerance could be shown to those who explore the best
ideas and parallels between all these subjects in the search for their
common ground.
James Cook
James Cook
: The Encyclopedia Americana, a well known American publication, has an
: extensive presentation of modern quantum mechanical theory in one of its
: volumes, as well as another on religions around the world. I think this
: following quote from this main stream survey of modern thought is
: enlightening. Further, it is a general purpose encyclopedia reflecting an
: unbiased, broad view of modern trends. It is not a publication associated
: with the TM teaching organizations.
: Following is a brief excerpt from the Encyclopedia section on quantum
: mechanical physics theory:
: "SUPERUNIFICATION AND THE PLANCK ERA. Why should a net baryon
: fraction initially of 0 be more appealing aesthetically than 10-9th? The
: underlying motivation here is perhaps the most ambitious undertaking in
: the history of science - the attempt to explain the creation of truly
: everything from literally nothing. In other words, is the creation of the
: entire universe from a vacuum possible?
"the most ambitious undertaking in the history of science"
That's what a main stream American encyclopedia says of quantum theory
and its relation to understanding ultimate reality. Maharishi is in good
company when expressing his interest in the subject with grand
superlatives, I think - a reasonably common view by those who really are
intrigued by this aspect of science.
: The line between that which is religious and that which is purely