--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jst...@...> wrote: <snip> > > So if you're given a choice of premises about which > you have absolutely no way of being even reasonably > certain and are asked to pick the one that seems most > probable to you intellectually, you're then willing > to say you believe in the premise you picked?
I don't consider the idea of knowledge revivals being brought about by nature to be a premise. It is an imaginative literary device or a religious speculation. So I can't imagine being in a context where I would have to treat them as something I would have to choose to believe. When dealing with works of religion, fiction or art I enjoy them on another level where belief is not the reliant question. I do not believe that Lord Voldimort is really trying to kill a real Harry Potter, but I enjoyed reading about their struggle and can see it as a metaphor for other aspects of life. > > > > For other types of premises, it works differently, since > > > there can be more or less actual evidence for them. > > > > > > > I'm not sure how you make the move from the beautiful work > > > > of literature (Mahabharata) describing the human condition > > > > brilliantly to it being a literal roadmap of how the world > > > > actually works in a grander scheme. > > > > > > And I don't know how you can equate an abstract metaphysical > > > premise to a "literal roadmap" except as a slightly sleazy > > > attempt at a sort of guilt-by-association with scriptural > > > literalism. > > > > There is nothing sleazy about taking you at your word. > > Yeah, it's sleazy to suggest that such a highly > abstract premise can be taken as a "literal road map." > At most, it's an arrow pointing away from the tubes. It is a specific claim about actual events in the world it is not abstract for me. The pejorative "sleezy" has no place in this discussion. There is nothing abstract about thinking that it is highly likely that Maharishi is being used by nature to revive knowledge. It was not only concrete and specific we both paid in cash to learn it. It is far from an abstract premise. > > Remember what this is about: your interest in > portraying me as just as extreme in my positive view > of MMY as you are in your negative view. And you're > having to do some very elaborate stretches in the > attempt. We will have to agree to disagree here. If you see Maharishi's role as an instrument of nature reviving the knowledge like Jesus or Buddha then you are at least as positive about him as I am "negative" when I say that it seems more likely to me that he had a grandiose impression of his importance in history most likely caused by a personality disorder. Considering how many thousands of people in the world have such afflictions and how few become world teachers, I would say your view of him is exponentially more positive. > > But this one doesn't work either. > > > The concept of rise and fall of knowledge and of humans > > like Maharishi taking the role of reviver IS a literal > > claim in the literature. And you seem to be taking it > > literally and giving it a high probability of being true > > within your subset of pre-belief metaphysical concepts. > > Look at what I wrote again to start with. I said nothing > about its being a human being that does the reviving. > That's only one of any number of possibilities. But we are talking about the specific case of Maharishi's role in the world here. > > > It is a statement about the world and in this case > > Maharishi specifically that you are taking literally. > > Unless you are saying that the rise and fall of > > knowledge is actually a metaphor for something else. > > Not really a metaphor per se, just very abstract, an > overall tendency in the evolution of the universe, you > might say. This may make sense to you, but I don't follow. > > <snip> > > So the question arises, how do YOU distinguish a claim > > in the Gita that there is an actual rise and fall of > > knowledge and it comes out when times are bad with the > > claim that Arjuna could shoot a shower of a thousand > > arrows in the matter of a few moments. > > (1) The degree of abstraction; (2) whether the abstraction > is found in other systems/traditions. You still are not showing your work but of course you don't have to. I don't know how you take the first step into thinking that any of these books might offer reliable information about even abstract concepts. And I'm not sure what criteria you are using to compare them with other systems but I suspect this is a self fulfilling prophesy. The criteria you are sorting for screens out things that sound alike. > > > > > You don't come across as a scripture believer so I'm not > > > > sure how you could base anything of the nature of the rise > > > > and fall of knowledge on the Gita. > > > > > > The Gita citation was for your reference. That particular > > > premise is hardly limited to the Gita, or Hinduism or the > > > Vedic tradition, for that matter. As I say, it makes > > > intellectual sense to me, given my choice of optimism as > > > an approach to life. > > > > Do you mean different prophets of God in different > > scriptures? Is that what you mean by this idea being > > found elsewhere? > > That's one version, yes. The "prophet" version could be > secular as well, the judgment of history. (Some folks > accorded Obama such a role.) > > > > One of many such dudes. "THE dude" only at this particular > > > point in history. > > > > By his own account the Dude after Guru Dev who was the best > > dude since Shankara. > > So we've got Buddha and Jesus and Lao-Tzu and a bunch > of other dudes as well. > > > > > This may come from your experiences of your program that > > > > give you more confidence that Maharishi was teaching > > > > something profound enough to warrant his grand claim of > > > > his unique role in history. > > > > > > ??? Not even he made that claim. > > > > He absolutely did. He even talked about how Buddha > > only got 500 people enlightened but he was going to get > > thousands of people there. He clearly stated that his > > full revival of knowledge was greater than Buddha who > > he considered to be an Avatar. > > Yeah, that's a quibble. None of the others was in a > position to enlighten thousands in their time; that > MMY potentially was is a function of modern technology. Actually that is not his complete claim. He also claimed to be bringing back 100% of natural law and that previous religions only brought back a fraction of the whole knowledge. This was not technology based but I think pinned on the greatness of Guru Dev whose biggest accomplishment according to Maharishi was to make Maharishi. (Convenient don't you think?) > > > And even as one of many > > > such dudes throughout history, IMHO he was drafted, as were > > > they, according to the premise. I give him credit only > > > for doing his damndest to fulfill the requirements of the > > > position for which he was drafted. > > > > In light of the implicit grandeur of this role his > > personal flaws seem kind of insignificant. > > I don't buy "implicit grandeur" as a description, and > the significance of his personal flaws versus his > personal virtues is pretty evenly balanced, I'd say. A many whose role is providing the knowledge to keep mankind from going down the tubes isn't implicit grandeur? What would it take? > > <snip> > > > As to human ingenuity, I think the knowledge fosters > > > and facilitates it, so to me that's a false dichotomy. > > > > I guess we just differ in the teleological nature of the > > process or that it comes in waves that the Indian > > literature talks about. > > Don't know about "waves," unless you're referring to a > cyclical gradual rise and gradual fall. I was. > > We do differ on the teleology, but not in the sense of > "design," if that's what you're suggesting. > > > > > I could be > > > > > wrong, but I prefer to live as an optimist in that > > > > > regard. > > > > > > > > I don't view this as a function of optimism unless you > > > > have put all your eggs in this basket for hope. > > > > > > Not following you here. Which basket? > > > > Maharishi's mental techniques basket. > > Well, obviously, as I said, they haven't *worked* yet, > so it's still hypothetical. In the meantime, the practice > is taking me in what feels like the right direction. > > > > > Although I am not a fan of "epistemological hedonism" (if > > > > it feels good it is a valuable belief) > > > > > > Not so much hedonism as a matter of what gets you > > > through the night, an alternative to hopelessness > > > and despair. > > > > Another false alternative for me. I think there is much > > reason to maintain hopefulness. > > I don't think we have a prayer unless there's some kind > of major transformation. Well than I can see the appeal of Maharishi's teaching for you. > > > Even many people in the German death camps managed it. > > By either holding onto their faith in God or going > existentialist. I'm not sure those were the only two options. Like most people they seemed to have a mixture of faith and doubt about ultimate matters from what I've heard in their interviews. But they could find hope in any little thing personally, even just staying alive to know the fate of a loved one. > > Just as a reminder of where we started: > > > > I'm not arguing with you, in this discussion, > > > about the value of the teaching. But if feeling > > > the teaching is valuable leads me to see him > > > personally in a more positive light than he > > > deserves, I'd suggest it may work the other way > > > around as well. > > > > > > And I might point out that your view of him > > > personally is *way* more extreme on the negative > > > side than mine is on the positive side. So we end up agreeing to disagree again but I enjoyed the ride and learned a few things. The claim is a question of values and opinion. No surprise that we don't share the same ones. > > > > > > It seems to be a human trait plugged into our survival. Unless the brain > > chemistry F's up. Then we are screwed! I have much compassion for people > > with clinical depression. >
