--- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> 
wrote:
>
> This distinction is a classic case of Maharishi's two
> teachings, the one he used for PR (scientific materialism)
> and the one he pulled out when there were believers in the
> room. He used his PR message to appear sciency (A method
> he actually had contempt for.)

I don't think you can base your "two teachings" premise
solely on the basis of those two sentences.



> --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In [email protected], "PaliGap" <compost1uk@> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In [email protected], "Yifu" <yifuxero@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > thx, on his stmt that everything is physical, consciousness
> > > > is a product of brain functioning, etc;
> > > 
> > > You think that's what it says? (The statement from MMY below).
> > 
> > That *is* what it says, almost verbatim. Look again (between
> > the added asterisks):
> > 
> > > > > "Every experience has its level of physiology, and so unbounded 
> > > > > awareness has its own level of physiology which can be measured. 
> > > > > Every aspect of life is integrated and connected with every other 
> > > > > phase. When we talk of scientific measurements, it does not take away 
> > > > > from the spiritual experience. We are not responsible for those times 
> > > > > when spiritual experience was thought of as metaphysical. 
> > > > > ***Everything is physical. Consciousness is the product of the 
> > > > > functioning of the brain.*** Talking of scientific measurements is no 
> > > > > damage to that wholeness of life which is present everywhere and 
> > > > > which begins to be lived when the physiology is taking on a 
> > > > > particular form. This is our understanding about spirituality: it is 
> > > > > not on the level of faith --it is on the level of blood and bone and 
> > > > > flesh and activity. It is measurable."
> > 
> > > Isn't it more accurately summarized as "everything has a physical
> > > level, consciousness is correlated with brain functioning"?
> > > Metaphysically that's a big difference.
> > 
> > Correlation does not imply causation. But he was explicit
> > that consciousness is caused by ("is the product of") brain
> > functioning. And "is physical" is not the same as "has a
> > physical level."
> > 
> > He may have "really meant" something more like your summary,
> > but that just ain't what he actually said in that statement.
> > I suspect, in light of the rest of his teaching, that he 
> > inadvertently overstated his point in the two sentences
> > between the asterisks. But you can't say Yifu *misread* what
> > he wrote.
> >
>


Reply via email to