--- In [email protected], "PaliGap" <compost1uk@...> wrote: > > --- 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.) > > But I'm not convinced that's right Curtis. Yes, as Judy highlights, > in this one quote MMY is asserting (at one point) scientific > materialism. But usually he sticks more to this kind of thing: > "Every experience has its level of physiology". Someone who > is not a acientific materialistic (moi!), might not find that > the least bit offensive. Or so it seems to me. At worse, it's > loose talk (and that's probably pedantic in the context). But > it's not a plot.
That's exactly right. There's nothing in the rest of that statement that would surprise or raise objections from "believers," and quite a bit of it that might well elicit resistance from scientific materialists. It appears to me that the statement is at least as much directed at "believers," to remind them not to be contemptuous of the physical, as it is designed to assure materialists that the physical isn't being held in contempt. Any hint of inconsistency, even if it's obviously just a matter of "loose talk," will serve as an excuse for Maharishi-bashing. > > > --- 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.
