On 10/31/2014 6:31 PM, lengli...@cox.net [FairfieldLife] wrote:
Who ever said that Maharishi's consciousness was functioning
independently from his brain?
Maharishi made it clear ovr and over again that the state of a
person's physiology dictated what kind of consciousness they had.
>
/Pure consciousness is never the object of knowledge, which implies a
subject-object dualism. It would be more accurate to say that the brain
is the limiting factor that dictates the perception - consciousness
itself never changes - it is just filtered by the physiology.//In fact,
enlightenment simply means the ability to enjoy./
>
As MMY's health declined towards the in, he had, as you pointed out, a
diminished capacity to focus. and obviously became very forgetful,
easily irritated, etc.
That only means he wasn't perfectly enlightened by his definition.
Gurudev died from complications from food poisoning, so we can assume
that HE wasn't "fully enlightened" according to MMY's definition, either.
In fact, as I said, MMY's talk about how the consciousness of the
world wouldn't support the most refined states of consciousness pretty
much acknowledges (even if MMY wouldn't have admitted it to himself)
that Gurudev couldn't have been perfectly enlightened.
MMY was a human being. It's perfectly normal for human beings to hold
contradictory beilefs simultaneously, even if they can't acknowledge
the contradiction.
L
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote :
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <fleetwood_macncheese@...> wrote :
His health suffered, but this inflammatory nonsense from Curtis, is
just that.
M: You don't get it because you were never around the guy. His
diminished capacity was a shock to me. Trying to label it inflammatory
nonsense doesn't make the problem go away. It isn't his poor health I
am commenting on, it is his mental health. The guy was whipped. His
brain was whipped. If his consciousness was independent from his brain
functioning this should not be the case.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote :
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <fleetwood_macncheese@...> wrote :
"What struck me because I have spent quite a bit of time around old
people in the last few years and it seemed obvious that Maharishi was
clearly suffering from the diminished capacity of age and very likely
dementia. He was not well."
Um, have you ever actually spent hours at a time with each resident of
a nursing home, as in worked there, changing diapers, serving meals,
doing bed checks? I have, and the thing that clearly distinguishes
Maharishi's response, from that of someone suffering from dementia, is
that Maharishi, despite some irritability, retains his focus. The same
cannot be said of nursing home patients, with dementia.
I don't think he retained any focus, it was awful to watch from my
seat. He was rambling a lot in the last few years, and repeating
himself. Not to mention making less sense than usual (I never thought
he was much of a speaker) and his hands were shaking a lot too.
The responses to this among my fellow workers at the academy were many
and various. Denial that there was anything wrong was the principle
one, beliefs that the amount of stress in the world has wearing him
out (or similar attempts to fit it into the "knowledge" so that it
wasn't a problem) came a close second. And a few were shocked but
didn't say anything as any health problems would contradict everything
he'd been telling everyone his whole life.
I was angry, because I honestly thought that someone in his condition
should not be allowed to appear like that in public without help or
any sort of explanation, what were they thinking over in Vlodrop? I
thought he should just be propped up in bed on a silk pillow with a
big box of chocolates. Forced retirement and let the devotees run it
on their own.
Quite a stretch, from you, with a little cherry-picked "evidence" as
garnish. Seems very similar to the sort of things you have been
accusing Nabby of lately, doesn't it? I guess fairness only counts,
when *you* are the target.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote :
I was struck by the posted interview between the Aussie and the
Maharishi through closed circuit TV where Maharishi was unable to
field a question about whether or not he could actually fly by going
into "you kids get off of my lawn" mode. What struck me because I have
spent quite a bit of time around old people in the last few years and
it seemed obvious that Maharishi was clearly suffering from the
diminished capacity of age and very likely dementia. He was not well.
This observation only matters because at the heart of a lot of the
premises in TM is that the state of consciousness in enlightenment
transcends the functioning of the brain. This is the premise on which
we have claims about witnessing deep sleep for example, and all the
conjectural nonsense surrounding what happens after a "conscious"
enlightened death. It is stated in different ways as a premise
underneath many claims about how a person functions in enlightenment.
We saw Maharishi, who in his salad days would have gigglingly swatted
away such a direct question calling him on an outrageous claim,
completely flummoxed and left with a broom in his hand chasing the
local scamps out of his rutabaga patch.
How can it be that "consciousness development" can have an effect on
the person after their brain stops functioning and rots, when it
couldn't even weather the storm of old age for the supposedly most
developed person, Maharishi himself? Apparently consciousness
development has the same impact as imagination development when it
comes to being able to resist the ravages of age. Brain functioning
trumps all imagination of it being otherwise. And the difference
between Maharishi in old age and my own father can only be seen
clearly in the zeros in their bank accounts.
