--- In [email protected], "whynotnow7" <whynotnow7@...> wrote: > > One thing no revolutionary is about to do is conform > wholeheartedly to the status quo, whether in terms of science > or religion. Maharishi would have gotten nowhere fast had he > looked to science to validate his techniques. So like all > visionaries, he spoke the language of his audience as > appropriate, and kept spreading his message. Nothing unusual > about that, nor do I see anything unethical or deceptive > about it. His primary aim was to raise the world's > consciousness. In terms of his expression: "The world is as > you are", he succeeded in spades.
The attempt here is to make it appear that his "two teachings" were contradictory, so one of them must have been "insincere." But if that's the case Curtis wants to make, he's got to do a lot better job of it than pointing to this particular statement. Curtis seems to believe that because MMY didn't meet *his* scientific standards, MMY therefore had no respect for science and was just doing PR to fool people into thinking he did. I agree that MMY's scientific standards were pretty low, but not that he didn't really believe what he said about spirituality being measurably reflected in the physiology. His approach was holistic no matter who he was talking to. He'd emphasize either the physical or the metaphysical (although he hated that word) depending on the occasion, but never one to the exclusion of the other, at least that I ever heard, and I've been in both types of audience. > > --- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@> > wrote: > > > > "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > Any hint of inconsistency, even if it's obviously just > > > a matter of "loose talk," will serve as an excuse for > > > Maharishi-bashing.--- > > > > I don't agree that this was loose talk. It was a consistent pattern of how > > he presented himself to certain audiences. Having spent days at symposiums > > hearing him talk with scientists, I know his "I'm a scientist just like > > you" rap really well. And I saw scientist catch him at his double teaching > > game when he tried to mix the two. > > > > Whether this amounts to "Maharishi bashing" or not has to do with our > > evaluation of the sincerity of his positioning I guess. But seeing the guy > > clearly and delineating the levels of his teachings accurately is not > > bashing in my book. He was an ends justify the means guy. He was a master > > spin doctor. He also believed that he needed to dole out his teaching > > according to how bought in you were. He trained his teachers to continue > > this policy and spent a lot of time during TTC to let us practice the > > skills. > > > > But he was not a scientific materialist although he learned how to sound > > like one when it suited him. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- 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.
