--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@...> wrote:
>
> --- 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.
I get this point. I have spent quite a lot of time in the past trying to make
this case with other examples. But it seems like a bit of a fools errand now.
I have no real idea of his level of sincerity and can only speculate like
everyone else. The fact that he was deceptive on fundamental issues like his
own celibacy makes me feel confident that he was a master of shenanigans, but I
accept that YMMV. His interaction with scientists was one of "exponent of
supreme knowledge" to purveyors of limited knowledge. That alone ejects him
from a pursuit of knowledge I respect. It worked better when I lacked
intellectual confidence when I was younger. Then I thought his absurd
overconfidence was cool.
>
> 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.
That is the thing about the universality of the scientific method. I am not
judging him by MY standards. There is good science, fraudulent science, shitty
science and all the stages in between. But one step off good science is a big
one and guys like Maharishi are not the only ones pulling this, look at how
politics attempts to turn good science into shitty science for convenience.
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.
I think he believed this till CC. After consciousness is established in that
state then it becomes independent of physiology in his system. (the brain can
ever rot!) There are still some physical components to refinement of perception
through the mythical soma (produced miraculously out of semen for dudes.) But
that doesn't affect the independent consciousness but only perception to GC.
(Oh my God! I mean really, really, OH MY GOD!) Then after Unity you have
leisha vidya which I suspect was one of his personal excuses for banging
groupies.
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.
If you missed the lectures showing his contempt for science you might just
catch it from his positioning of his subjective means of gaining knowledge
compared to science. And here is my sincere beef with the guy. He played up
the limitations of the scientific method and claimed that his techniques gave
us access to not only a new way of feeling about our own identity ("I am
eternal and will never perish), but also claimed that we could have a reliable
way to know about the way the world actually works from inside our minds (which
he would claim was deeper than that in consciousness). But he never produced
any examples of anything that he or any of his followers got from inside that
turned out to be really important or interesting to the rest of us. In fact
dreams have so far produced much more fodder for scientific exploration than
any of the TMer's states of mind.
So I have a strong dislike for politicians or gurus who play on most people's
unfamiliarity of the methods of science as a confidence game to make it seem
like their speculations about how the world works is deeper than that.
I am not anti-speculation in and of itself. It is an important part of the
creative process. But at some point we need to sort out the BS from the
substantial and Maharishi had no interest in that process since it was his
speculations that were causing his success on all levels. Cynically, money and
power. More charitably, more people who believed that he was a unique person
who knew things we don't, and would accept his priorities for our lives and
"attention".
So this point is not a superficial Maharishi bash for me. It strikes at the
core of what I consider to be an honest inquiry into reality and I am no less
serious about it than he was.
>
>
> >
> > --- 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.
>
