--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> <snip>
> >
> > Curtis, if you're going to paraphrase me, please try
> > to be accurate. I didn't "invite someone to believe"
> > anything. I suggested they leave their minds open a
> > crack to the possibility there were some insights
> > they hadn't grasped.
>
> I did try but I am open to correction to understand what you meant.
> I'm not sure I understand the distinction you are making here. We
> don't share the same perspective on how deep Maharishi's insights
> were. That may be why.
>
> >
> > > Maharishi wasn't
> > > exactly presenting Hegelian philosophy. He was
> > > extremely repetitive on very view, easily grasped
> > > points.
> >
> > I suggest you leave your mind open a crack as well
> > on this point.
>
> On me not understanding what Maharishi taught? Sorry but given my
> history with his teaching that is not an option. To paraphrase a
> great quote from Guitar Slim, I studied his teaching so much it would
> make your ass hurt. I'm very confident that I understood his POV to
> my own satisfaction.
>
> >
> > > > Or did I make a specific statement concerning MMY?
> > >
> > > That's what I guess I don't understand, why are you
> > > making a special case for him? Is he the only such
> > > special case?
> >
> > I don't know, most likely not. But his case is the only
> > one I'm talking about here.
>
> This is the interesting question for me: How have you determined his
> uniqueness?
>
> >
> > I don't see any
> > > reason for someone who has spent some time with his
> > > 3 books and especially after meditating for a while
> > > to doubt their conclusions about his teaching based
> > > on how well they have understood it.
> >
> > Do you think someone who has spent some time with
> > three books about the Delta blues and has played
> > and/or listened to the music for a while can be
> > certain they understand it completely?
>
> Keith Richards said "To play this music you need three chords, two
> fingers and one asshole." Understanding something "completely" may be
> as unrealistic as understanding it perfectly. But I spent less than
> an hour with two groups of kids today and they understood the most
> important parts of the music to me when I was done. It is actualizing
> it in performance that is the life long journey which might be a match
> for how you feel about meditation as a practice. But the intellectual
> part is not so hard in either case.
>
> >
> > > > Do you equate leaving one's mind open a crack with
> > > > lack of confidence? How about just lack of *certainty*?
> > >
> > > I guess we all put in the time we feel we need for
> > > any thinker and then come to a conclusion. I'm not
> > > sure "certainty" is the best goal for knowledge.
> >
> > No, neither am I. I don't think in some cases that
> > we can even be certain we've put in all the time we
> > need to come to a valid conclusion.
>
> I guess we each choose out battles here. Valid enough for ourselves
> is probably the only thing possible. But that is good enough to
> support a great life for me, and I suspect for you.
>
> >
> > <snip>
> > > Maharishi was not the biggest intellectual even by
> > > his own admission in his own field of interest
> > > compared to the professional pundits around Guru Dev.
> >
> > I think that depends on how one defines "intellectual."
> >
> > <snip>
> > > > To put it in more general terms, you can't *rule out*
> > > > other interpretations of a teaching if you aren't
> > > > even aware there *are* other interpretations.
> > >
> > > I'm not sure what you are referring to here.
> >
> > I had in mind some of the conclusions that Ruth has
> > drawn, such as that "no suffering" means "no empathy."
>
> That is her take on the teaching, not the teaching itself. I don't
> doubt that in the way she is thinking about it, this is right for her.
> It might not be right for me. But I did agree that the whole concept
> of life without suffering is bogus and I'll take it a step further,
> childish. It reveals a lack of maturity in facing how hardships bring
> out the best in us and shape our character. Maharishi's immaturity in
> this area was recently exposed in the Charlie Lutes chapters where his
> deceitfulness in not taking responsibility for ending a meeting put
> Charlie in discomfort and conflict, so Maharishi could avoid his own
> discomfort. Did you buy Charlie' co-dependent explanation that
> Maharishi lied to avoid "hurting the student's feelings?" Uh huh.
>
> >
> > Maharishi was pretty
> > > explicit. He did elaborate his beliefs more in his
> > > teacher training tapes, so I guess you could make a
> > > case that teachers are in a better position to judge
> > > what he taught from their 8 months or so of 3 tapes
> > > a day exposure. But both you and Ruth were at the
> > > same training level of his teaching so that doesn't
> > > apply.
> >
> > In my observation, Curtis, some people get it and
> > some don't, no matter how much training they've had.
> > It's not a matter of smarts; I'm not sure what makes
> > the difference. Not everyone has the capacity for
> > thinking metaphysically, just as not everyone has
> > musical ability.
>
> I would have said the same thing when I was into the mindset. Now I
> think of it differently. I think it takes buying, consciously or
> unconsciously, some presuppositions. If you don't have them in place
> the system doesn't hold together.
>
> >
> > <snip>
> > > So I guess I still don't understand what you were
> > > referring to specifically which would avoid the
> > > double bind Ruth mentioned which is that if you
> > > disagree with him then you are wrong because you
> > > have disagreed with him.
> >
> > I never said or suggested that. For all I know, if
> > Ruth were to make an effort to wake up her inner
> > metaphysician and ended up really getting what he was
> > teaching, she might still decide it was wrong.
>
> I'm not sure she hasn't. But metaphysics is probably not my strong
> suit now either so I'm appreciating a different wisdom in what she
> writes here.
> >
> > But she'd have much more sophisticated reasons for
> > coming to that conclusion, and she would likely not
> > be quite so smug in her dismissive attitude toward
> > those who think it was right.
>
> Smug is your spin, Intellectually confident is mine. But I'm still a
> work in progress concerning how I approach people who are still into
> Maharishi's teaching. My goal is to be personally respectful but
> still maintain my ability to goof on the ideas that I find amusing.
> This is flawed from the start. But sometimes I catch a balance as I
> sometimes do in discussing the ideas with you. But a lot of that has
> to do with your ability to put some of the more far out stuff in an "I
> don't know" box. That makes your take on the teaching more palatable
> than say, King of "whatever" Tony. I always appreciate your keeping
> the ball in play Judy. You have some cool and useful intellectual gray
> zones to share here, even when we ultimately disagree.
>
>
>
>
> >
>
I find it odd that I am assumed to be smug when all I say is that I
understand the theories and I don't agree. Is not agreeing smug? I
also find it frustrating when some TMers assume that my thinking is
flawed or I don't get certain metaphysical concepts. No matter how
often I say I get it, they never will believe me because they cannot
conceive that I understand but simply do not agree. The problem with
this is that it feels like I am being minimized, that my opinion and
feelings are not as valid as the believers' opinions and feelings.
