No, you willfully turns what Maharishi said upside down which makes you, as several here not just me has pointed out, a bogus and a liar. He claimed and rightly so, that knowledge is different in different states of consciousness. You still make the very untrustworthy claim that your knowledge is the same in any state. Which is downright silly, if not delusional. Which any "professional" in any field also will tell you. The reason you probably don't know this is because you are an amateur philosopher and an amateur musician as evidenced by the video's you posted on youtube.
---In [email protected], <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote : --In [email protected], <[email protected]> wrote : One can't argue with deluded people. When Curtis claims knowledge is not structured in consciousness he wants us to believe that he is the same when tired, in deep sleep, after a couple of drinks, when playing "music" and in meditation. C: There are differences in how I feel, there is no difference in my "knowledge." The sleep example is absurd nor did I claim that. Maharishi's claim is that the states of mind produced from meditation change someone's knowledge. You are a perfect example of how this is not true. For all your practice you are still contributing material here at a very low level even considering your English as a second language handicap. So if knowledge really is structured in consciousness... If you are a professional in any field you are not affected by being tired. That is an amateur's problem. You feel different, but your knowledge remains reliable and consistent, as does your ability to deliver the goods. N: Right. If anyone doubted Curtis was delusional/and or a liar all they have to is read that post. A phony and more than "a little fake" as his friend the Tur'q C: The liar charge is especially odious. It is a trollish charge unaccompanied with a charge I can defend myself from specifically. You are a good little "shoot the messenger" soldier aren't you Nabby. A cluster of fantastic claims and beliefs held together by animosity toward non believers. Very provincial, the opposite of what "expanded awareness" should include. Your awareness is even too limited to comprehend the perspective from a person you consider ignorant like myself. How expanded is that? . ---In [email protected], <fleetwood_macncheese@...> wrote : LOL - good one! He is such a phony - The only reason Barry continuously brings up the level setting, is for fear his lack of progress, in any domain of his life, will be made obvious. What a little fake. ---In [email protected], <awoelflebater@...> wrote : ---In [email protected], <turquoiseb@...> wrote : On Sunday, May 18, 2014 6:33 AM, "dhamiltony2k5@... [FairfieldLife]" <[email protected]> wrote: In range and distribution of illumined Batgap interviewees by types, just throwing these Batgap illumined people interviewed thus far on a scatter graph by their experience and spiritual affect on others, it seems observable that some of the awakened are more proactive in affect as teachers, some are long time practiced at helping others spiritually and/or transformational for others just by being of a field effect of presence. Some of them are teachers in nature of character, while some may glow in the closet and watch sort of like Harri by experience was for so long. Others transformational in effect like a Janet Sussman also from childhood or Connie Huebner from younger or Ammachi from way back, yet different from glowing in the closet each in their lives have been engaged teaching in formats with spiritual experience, techniques and scholarship to be of help to others for much of their lives, Batgap is a fabulous oral archive around this range of spiritual possibility within humanity based on a scale of abiding experience and spiritual transformational affect. It is useful for parsing to see them in a range and distribution of, Teachers -Gurus -Sat Gurus -Jagad Gurus by scale of transformational affect. Just as a question, wouldn't it be more interesting to consider the possibility that everyone Rick has ever interviewed is Just Another Human Being, whose experiences are in no way any "better" or "higher" than any others? In other words, it seems to me that Buck is still arguing for the elitism approach, trying to categorize these folks into "higher/lower" and "better/worse" pigeonholes so that people like him can look up to some of them and look down on others. Wouldn't it be more...uh, dare I say it...enlightened to consider them all at exactly the same level -- just human beings having an opinion based on their individual interpretations of their respective subjective experiences? Nicely said, now, shall we start with you trying this little experiment with the people you dislike because they find you uninteresting and boorish? Let's see how expansive and all-encompassing your mind can become for this lab test. Let's start with Jim and Judy - first exercise: list all the positive things you are able to appreciate about them and there has to be a minimum of 5 things per person. No sarcasm, only genuine expressed ability to "consider them all at exactly the same level -- just human beings having an opinion based on their individual interpretations of their respective subjective experiences." We'll wait - no doubt forever.
