> Whilst I applaud your religious scepticism, the above
> statement is taking things a bit beyond the scope of what
> qualifies as 'religion'. I think that you are talking about
> spiritual belief, which is quite a different animal
There is no clear line between the two and I won't argue this point, but I do believe that TM (where these ideas come from) is a repackaged form of Hinduism, which is clearly defined as a religion.
> Religion, per se, implies dogma, i.e. a set of rules
> imposed by a hierarchical structure, such as the Vatican,
> in the case of the Roman Church. These rules are usually
> invented by people who hold positions of power within their
> various groups, and the purpose of the rules is to control
> and manipulate the followers of the said 'religion'.
What about the Maharishi?
> rules are intended to be followed or some 'penalty' will
> result, in extreme cases burning at the stake,
> slow-roasting over a well heated barbeque, and other
> assorted 'gothic' style retributions.
Not usually, but it does happen.
Ultimately the extreme
> sanction is usually something along the lines of "Do as we
> say or you will burn in Hell for all Eternity" !
> If you take the time to actually read the material Pati
> posted and any of the miriad similar texts that are available
> along similar lines you will quickly realise that the
> emphasis is on SELF - motivation, i.e. all the results are
> totally dependent on the efforts and experiences of the
> individual, there is little or no co-ersion involved, and
> there are absolutely no threats of dire consequences if one
> neglects to follow the suggested guidelines.
OK. A bit like Buddhism then? And Buddhism is not a religion of course?
> So far as the 'science' is concerned I have two comments for
> you. Firstly if you study Yogic meditation in all it's forms
> you will gradually appreciate that this is a science, and
> it's practitioners are highly disciplined and scientific
'Science' has a strict meaning in our culture, which is not fulfilled by Yoga I'm afraid. I would classify it as a 'discipline'.
The appearance of 'mysticism' is usually
> applied by non-involved observers, typically highly
> sceptical at the outset, i.e. the 'agenda' that you refer to
> is usually coming from the critic's side as much, if not
> more, than the participant's side.
I think you are naive to think that 'spiritual' groups such as TM do not have an 'agenda' of a political and commercial nature.
I'm referring to the unjustified 'grafting' of a distorted and badly explained form of 11-dimensional supergravity theory (which is now out of date BTW) onto a spiritual theory in order to make it 'seem' more scientific and credible. Although, whether this has been done in a 'cynical' way or not I couldn't say.
Supergravity's fame gradually spread into the general public and
even began to have a following among religious groups. For example,
the concept of "unification" is a central belief within the transcendental
meditation movement. Its followers therefore published a large poster
containing the complete equations describing 11-dimensional super-
gravity. Each term in the equation, they claimed, represented something
special, such as "harmony," "love," "brotherhood," and so on. (This
poster hangs on the wall of the theoretical institute at Stony Brook. This
is the first time that I am aware of that an abstract equation from theo-
retical physics has inspired a following among a religious group!) - Michio Kaku
> Secondly, if you have any particular reasons why you chose
> the e-handle 'B.L. Zeebub', and particularly if you have a
> reasonably defined sense of humour, I would highly recommend
> that you try reading G.I. Gurdjieff's book 'Beelzebub, Tales
> to His Grandson', assuming that you haven't already. This
> lengthy tome has much to say on the subject of our so-called
> 'Science' ! ;-)
Thanks. I saw that book a long time ago and was intrigued. I shall read it if I get the chance. Don't think that I don't realise that science has limits, nevertheless, it is a extremely powerful tool, far more able to improve our understanding of the nature of the universe than religion or yoga for that matter IMO.
|A Field Theory of Consciousness..#1||223||Astikapati||07-Jul-02 09:54|
|A Field Theory of Consciousness...#2..#1||173||Astikapati||07-Jul-02 10:00|
|Re: A Field Theory of Consciousness...#3(conclusion)||173||Astikapati||07-Jul-02 10:06|
|Exerpt from a book||91||Fuzzy||07-Jul-02 10:35|
|This is not science||91||B L Zeebub||07-Jul-02 12:48|
|Zee, bub it looks like Science to me :))||109||Astikapati||08-Jul-02 04:39|
|Scientific rigour||89||B L Zeebub||08-Jul-02 09:47|
|Re: Scientific rigour||82||Hoppy||08-Jul-02 11:47|
|Re: Scientific rigour||79||B L Zeebub||08-Jul-02 13:41|
|Re: Scientific rigour||82||mephisto||09-Jul-02 02:50|
|Re: Scientific rigour||107||B L Zeebub||13-Jul-02 12:25|
|Re: Scientific rigour||82||Hoppy||14-Jul-02 21:43|
|Re: Scientific rigour||67||B L Zeebub||14-Jul-02 22:30|
|Re: Scientific rigour||165||Astikapati||09-Jul-02 06:02|