Sunday, June 20, 2010

Consciousness and ... ? ... physics??????????

We all appreciate the cockup Mahesh made of physics and consciousness! A friend of mine, who was one of Mahesh's spreaders-of-the-word in the early 60's and is now a retired professor of physics, opined flat out that Mahesh didn't know anything about physics. Well, no surprise there. Mahesh's modus operandi or mahesh operandi, if you prefer, was to cobble together in his all-knowing and superior way the babblings of others. To his credit, he could make crap sound good, even desirable.

Here's a link ( that might be of interest - at least reading the reviews down the bottom of the page are quite impressive.

I don't even have the book yet and didn't know Wallace had written it until just a few minutes ago. I was actually looking through Amazon for another of Wallace's books. But it strikes me that since our various avenues of "consciousness" taken together is what has manufactured our systematic understanding of what we call physics, the two must have some relationship; just not the one Mahesh prattled on about in order make himself seem so wonderfully specially.

I'm familiar with much of B. Allan Wallace's work. I find it extremely useful in its context of Buddhist understanding of the world we inhabit and valuable in furthering my understanding of not only Buddhism as an intellectual object, but also as a means to facilitating a furtherance of what the Buddha meant by awakening.

Just as an aside, I think it should be noted that "awakening" in the Buddhist context and "enlightenment" in the context of Maheshism have no relationship whatsoever. But I think awakening in the Buddhist context is attainable and desirable. AND I know that it doesn't come with silly rajas wearing Burger King hats or price tags, or any of the bankrupting other crapspackle of Maheshism that's supposed to make Mahesh's delusional predictions come true. It also doesn't EVER involve blaming the victim.


Sudarsha said...

Apologies, but I don't know how to make the link clickable. It's easy enough to go to and look for Hidden Dimensions: The Unification of Physics and Consciousness (Columbia Series in Science and Religion) by B. Allan Wallace. BUT don't expect the kind of material you might be accustomed to if you've been into the mock-science of TM.

jb9876 said...

"it should be noted that "awakening" in the Buddhist context and "enlightenment" in the context of Maheshism have no relationship whatsoever. But I think awakening in the Buddhist context is attainable and desirable."
How so? What is the difference?

Sudarsha said...

In the Buddhist context, "awakening" means to see things just as they are, that is, to discipline the senses through meditation (here, insert about 6 books worth of material) so that our senses only detect what they are designed to detect and do not, as they usually do, insert all sorts of assumptions, preconceptions, preferences and so forth. So that, for example a coiled rope is seen as a coiled rope, not as a snake.

In the sense of Maheshism, "enlightenment" is some kind of superior knowledge of mystical presence ... Mahesh is never clear or precise when it comes to explaining enlightenment. He just babbles on and on about the mind going to finer and finer levels of perception. But neither his trumped up "science" nor anyone's experience, as far as I know, has ever been articulate about what that experience is all about or what it is good for. Certainly we haven't seen any significant representative of Maheshims accomplish anything that might give a clue to the value of Maheshism's "enlightenment".

Sorry, it's not really a very good response to your excellent question. The Buddha was very pragmatic and very perceptive. I didn't see this in Mahesh.

jb9876 said...

Sudarsha, thanks for your explanation. I'm not sure you really understood what Mahesh was saying. In fact, he was very very precise in explaining Enlightenment, at least the tapes I saw while on rounding courses. Sure these explanations were later obscured by all the other nonsense used to sell and pimp Indian products and services.

Anyway, the form of Awakening in Buddhism, afaik, is the same. There is no way to make an identity, I'm not that naive, but there are many parallels, and I also write from my own practical experience. When the Self shines forth, its like turning on a clear light in a darkened room, and you indeed see Plato's wall, utter simplicity, and even if the roof brain chatter continues, one abides in tacit understanding. And, surprisingly, the motive force is seen to be love. Weird.

Just to freshen up I took down a book I own, "Clear Light of Bliss; Mahamudra in Vajrayan Buddhism" by Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, and reread some pages. Yes, Buddhism, in all its forms is very direct and detailed. But, don't forget Mahesh was invoking a mix of Indian traditions, so he was on somewhat firm footing.

Yes, TM organization has warts, and perhaps MMY is the king wart frog, but he indeed introduced some unique ideas that are now being used but not acknowledged.

Yes, Mahesh may not compare to the Buddha, but who knows? Perhaps the true Buddha was asking people to pull his finger and then fell on the ground in a blissful laugh.


Sudarsha said...

Thanks, jb9876, I am always happy to stand corrected. I have to speak of my own experience with Mahesh and Maheshism prior to and up to 1975 when I jumped ship. So it is no wonder that I may have missed something in his spiel about how wonderful he was and how we all had a great opportunity to buy, literally, into his secrets.

Sorry, I really am very cynical. I have subjected all my readings and efforts in practises in Buddhist thought and theory (if that's an acceptable term) to the same cynicism and scrutiny I have learned from the deceit and chicanery of Mahesh and what he turned TM into.

If we saw Mahesh just as he was, if our minds and reasonings were absent the conceptualizaions, assumptions, lept-to conclusions and so forth, I don't think he would fare well at all. Yet, he fares beautifully in the context of the TMO and Maheshism, which leads me to cosider that his view of enlightenment is very different (despite his words) from the Buddhist understanding, at least my understanding, of the concept of awakening.

Thank you for your considered remarks. I really appreciate them.

Post a Comment