"Bingo. Nothing could be more antithetical to science that the belief that one can "know" things based solely on one's own subjective experience."
Really? I appreciate that this sounds good to you, but you do this all the time. You often declare the motives of others here as if known by you, without any proof whatsoever. Maharishi always stressed both explicitly and implicitly that subjective experience only makes sense when it accompanies self-realization. You are right, the subjectivity of the unenlightened mind is not trustworthy. As Maharishi said, it is like football, kicked here and there by whatever grabs the attention of the mind. Such a mind is useless as a scientific instrument, though to then conclude that everyone's mind is similarly unbalanced is again a purely subjective judgment of yours, based on nothing. Whatever other teachers you had, correlating experience to SOC, probably confused you a great deal. My advice is to stop thinking so hard about a "problem" whose only solution is self-realization. Maharishi will continue to be dead Maharishi, yet you and Curtis will continue on with your muddled thinking. Isn't that kind of a waste of time, given that life is about our individual challenges and achievements, vs. distracting ourselves endlessly with speculations about a guy who is no longer here? Oddly enough, it is those of us who focused more on our self development vs. the perceived failings of the teacher who have moved on with our lives, rarely thinking at all about Maharishi, leaving the nitpickers and nasysayers along with him, in the dust. --- In [email protected], turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@> > wrote: > > > > --- 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. > > Pursued compulsively by...uh...fools, who seem to > have gotten their buttons pushed because Maharishi > got caught in a contradiction. :-) > > The fault is Maharishi's. He consistently presented > his "knowledge" in the form, "This (X) is how the world > looks (and works)." That IMO, having seen a better > way of presenting things, is a lazy approach based on > the narcissistic view (and unfortunately often true > view) that the teacher's followers would just believe > whatever he said, without ever challenging it. What > I have seen in the past from teachers I consider much > better at spriitual teaching than Maharishi is more > along the lines of "This (X) is how the world looks > (and works) from state of consciousness Y and point > of view Z." > > Maharishi consistently mixed apples and oranges in > his talks. I consider this a disservice to his students, > especially given his own pronouncement, "Knowledge is > different in different states of consciousness." To > make pronouncements without *naming* the SOC or POV > from which the pronouncement is made is *inviting* > cries of "contradiction," because *by definition* (his > own) viewing the world from different SOCs and POVs > will inevitably result in contradictory views of > "reality." The very fact that anyone can be discussing > these obvious contradictions is the result of Maharishi's > lazy approach to the "knowledge" he was trying to present. > > > 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. > > Other than using the word 'narcissism' in place of 'over- > confidence,' I agree with Curtis here. *In addition to* > being a lazy thinker spiritually, one who did not feel > the need to define the SOC or POV from which he was speak- > ing on a given subject, Maharishi had a long history of > Just Not Caring. He co-opted science the same way he co- > opted the Beatles and Merv Griffin, as a marketing > mechanism with which to promote Maharishi's superstitious > ideas about how the world works and sell them (emphasis > on 'sell') to naive Westerners. > > > > 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. > > Curtis may seem to believe this because he actually met > the man, sat in rooms with him, and saw how he "did > business" for decades, something that few of the people > debating it with him have done. There is a big difference > between having witnessed a long history of events and > trends first-hand and having seen an occasional video on > an occasional residence course. > > Based on similar experience watching him make his pro- > nouncements onstage, I'm fairly convinced that the thought > "Is this true?" never entered his head. The only thing > he thought about was "Will this enable me to sell more > TM (or whatever the product du jour was at that time)?" > Whether he actually believed that selling more TM was > a good thing or a dharmic thing or not is a moot point > IMO. > > <snip> > > > 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. > > Actually, you have not. You never sat in *any* audience > with Maharishi. I point this out because you consistently > attempt to imply otherwise on this forum, as you do above. > > > 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. > > Bingo. Nothing could be more antithetical to science > that the belief that one can "know" things based solely > on one's own subjective experience. > > > 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). > > Spurious in itself, obviously, but something that many > people on this forum would not question for a moment. > > > 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. > > Absolutely. > > > 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. > > Maharishi was to science the same way the George W. Bush > administration was to science. "Practice revisionist > history on science to make it seem as if it 'proves' > the things we already believe." > > > I am not anti-speculation in and of itself. It is an important > > part of the creative process. > > One of the things that makes this a hard point to get > across to the people you're talking to, Curtis, is that > they honestly don't think Maharishi's pronouncements were > speculation. At a fundamental level they believe that he > was speaking Truth, and if science doesn't agree with > his superstitions, it's science that is wrong. Compare > and contrast to say, the Dalai Lama, who has stated the > exact opposite position. > > > 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. > > That and an *incredible* level of naivete on the part of > his followers. They believed shit that *no one sane* would > admit to believing. Some still do. They believed, for > example, that they could learn to fly through the air. > They believed in physical immortality, enough to pony up > tens of thousands of dollars (or more) for his "Immmortality > Course." They believed (and some still believe) that a bunch > of people sitting on slabs of foam thinking words in English > that came verbatim from a $3.95 paperback edition of the > Yoga Sutras could cause world peace and an end to all prob- > lems in life, not only for themselves, but for others. They > believed that entering or exiting a building from the "wrong" > direction could fuck up their lives. You'll have to pardon > me here, but I'm suggesting that anyone who believed in such > things without giving a second thought to the rationality > of them didn't need South-facing entrances to fuck them up. :-) > > > Cynically, money and power. > > More charitably, an incredibly superstitious Hindu who > would do anything to sell his superstitions to others > as the Highest Truth, as he believed them to be. And > that "anything" meant *anything*. Ethics had no part > in his life, only expediency in achieving his goals. > I personally don't believe that those goals were prim- > arily money and power. I think they were superstitious > and religious goals, and that his driving goal was that > of a religious fanatic, one who saw *no problem* with > cloaking his religion in the garb of "science" if that > would help him to sell the "Truth" of it to others. > > > 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". > > That was his whole act from Day One. > > > 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. > > My honest suspicion, Curtis, is that you are *much* more > serious -- and honest -- about your inquiry into the nature > of reality than Maharishi ever was. You can accept that you > don't "know," or that you can be wrong about things you > assume. He could not. Never. That is why I class him as > a religious fanatic and you as an honest thinker. >
