I believe that a lot of this sense of fulfillment in our lives is tied to our 
age. I have read studies about how satisfaction and happiness in life increases 
with age and I have certainly found that to be true. I have also gotten way 
better at what to focus on and what to ignore to keep my head on straight. 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <sharelong60@...> wrote :

 Curtis, driving back from lunch, I found myself wondering if there is any 
connection between this life force and knowledge and consciousness. It's been 
such an interesting experience for me because, evidence to the contrary here, 
since feeling so connected to life force, I definitely am less analytical. At 
the same time, there seems to be a "knowingness" guiding my speech and actions 
and choices. But it is not a left brain situation at all. It seems to be more 
whole body if that makes sense. And consciousness itself feels more embodied.
 

 During the drive I concluded that there are so many ways that people can get 
to this place of knowingness that's whole body. Like you with your music. Some, 
including me, find it in nature. Anyway, thanks for the exchange. 

 

 
 
   I can relate to that, well said.

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <sharelong60@...> wrote :

 Curtis, what I'm experiencing these days is that "feeling good" has taken on a 
new meaning. It might not be comfy or cozy, but it's very alive, very in the 
moment. As that takes over, something else is guiding my actions. And it's 
definitely not the urge to just "feel good." Hey, I think it's just life 
force...maybe what Maharishi called dharma.
 

 From: "curtisdeltablues@... [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com>
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Monday, November 17, 2014 11:15 AM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Okay, let's put it on the table: UFOs
 
 
   Thanks for keeping the topic going and now expanding it into another area. 
It is another interest of mine. One of the questions I have about meditaton and 
the pleasure states they invoke is whether or not it subverts the natural 
reward system our brains have for achieving something like drugs do. So if you 
can feel the same way without the hassle of having a baby, why not? Or how 
about getting the feeling I get when I have a great show without ever leaving 
the house? This is why I am dubious about drug highs as well as meditation 
highs. I used to be so addicted to the feelings I got in program and now I am 
chasing the same good feeling through my artistic life and teaching. I know 
what works for me.

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <sharelong60@...> wrote :

 Curtis, what grabbed my attention the most was your comment about knowledge 
and nice internal feeling. Don't know why this comes to mind, but here it is: 
some women report having a REALLY nice internal feeling when their newborn is 
placed in their arms for the first time. Probably the result of a heck of a lot 
of oxytocin being released! But they also report feeling a most profound love. 
And I think love is the result of the deepest knowledge of anyone or anything. 
And I think that has the greatest value for human life, the living of that. 
 

 From: "curtisdeltablues@... [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com>
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Monday, November 17, 2014 10:40 AM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Okay, let's put it on the table: UFOs
 
 
   

 I think you are right if we look at the source of the quote. He is 
interpreting a Rig Vedic verse that says that the gods reside in heaven. Richo 
akshare parame veyomon. (It has been decades but I think that is how you spell 
it!) So at its loftiest level in his system he interprets this to mean that the 
hymns of the Veda are in the absolute which is the religious idea that despite 
historical evidence to the contrary, the Vedas came along with Man. (And like 
Christianity's creation myth, fails to account for the 250 million year reign 
of the dinosaurs!)

So he took this religious assertion from his holy books and tried to put it 
into terms that might sell in the modern world to people who were not Hindu 
believers. The rest of the connection with how the movement uses this is all 
Maharishi and is a long way from the phrase itself. He uses it as a selling 
point to say that his trademarke meditation gives you a special state of mind 
where your "knowledge" (understanding and experience by his definition) is 
perfect or complete or any other one of the superlatives he applied to it like 
supreme knowledge. It is essentially a religious concept that he tried to make 
folksy for us to relate to.

The intro lecture completes this descending into our common life with claims 
about how it gives us our full mental potential using the now discredited idea 
that we only use 10% of our brains and that with TM we will use the rest of it.

So we are left to interpret it for ourselves how we personally relate to it 
all. I think there is a bit of dodging and weaving going on with movement 
claims where if one claim is seen as not accurate the target is shifted, like 
flying becomes the much less measurable world peace. 

So we have claims about mental development and how the growth of consciousness 
expands and since that is the "container" of "knowledge" our knowledge is 
somehow improved. (exactly how it does is not spelled out.) In the end you have 
people saying stuff like they feel more "wholeness, or unboundedness or 
purity,bliss, or simplicity", or any other of a list of vague puffy words that, 
although poetic, don't really describe more than a nice feeling inside.

And we forget that originally the claim was about knowledge and not just a nice 
internal feeling.

What I am saying is that I don't believe that this connection of the expansion 
of consciousness feeling has proven to have any affect at all on people's 
"knowledge" in any way that seems to matter or is detectible outside their own 
self satisfied feeling about themselves.

Same for Maharishi. He seemed like a super ambitious guy and an empire builder 
who made his share of mistakes like any other super ambitious guy. I don't see 
anything in what I heard him say after a decade and a half of listening to 
every tape of him talking I possibly could, that couldn't be replicated by 
anyone who was a good speaker and versed in the Hinduism he believed in. If 
anything he was a bit of an intellectual slacker by never mastering the all 
important Vedic language of Sanskrit while claiming that his mental state was 
so refined he didn't need to do the work that mastery would take. He was more 
of a business man dabbling in just enough spirituality to keep us entertained 
on courses. But once I started reading the books for myself I realized how thin 
his presentation of the breadth of the Vedic literature really was.

He was a Reader's Digest Vedic guru pitching a superficial self congratulatory 
version of the Vedas. I heard this complaint from more than one Sanskrit 
scholar  in the movement BTW. I also had an interesting exchange with Vernon 
Katz in Yugoslavia where he knowingly told me that Maharishi was quite the 
"optimist" about his teaching. I know he loves Maharishi but I am quite sure he 
saw through more of Maharishi's intellectual pretensions and failings than most.

So what is the evidence that knowledge is different in different states of 
consciousness? I don't have any. It seems like a cool idea that just didn't see 
to pan out. And with the movement functioning on the level it does 
intellectually, when I listen to movement leaders like Raja Dude and Hagelin, I 
have to conclude that whatever they are talking about isn't something that 
someone who doesn't share their religious notions about being "saved" by these 
states of salvation, needs.
YMMV of course.

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <sharelong60@...> wrote :

 Hi Curtis, still fumbling here and what I'm sensing is that, in terms of 
knowledge, my interpretation of what Maharishi meant is something more than 
what I'll call everyday knowledge. In fact, I've often wondered if by 
knowledge, Maharishi didn't mean Truth. But maybe I've now descended into 
splitting hairs (-:
 

 From: "curtisdeltablues@... [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com>
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2014 2:54 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Okay, let's put it on the table: UFOs
 
 
   Share,

I think you make a great case for taking care of yourself (diet and exercise), 
getting enough rest, and if you feel tired in the afternoon, take a nap. I am 
on board with all of that.

We are both welcome to our own interpretations of what part meditation plays in 
that. If it is something you value and enjoy it is none of my business. 

It was Maharishi's claim that I disagree with. I don't see any connection with 
what you said below with knowledge being different in different states of C. I 
suspect even at your most unsettled and unrested, if I asked you about 
something you know about, you would just answer me just as you do when you are 
feeling better. That is because your knowledge isn't different in different 
states of consciousness. That our variable feelings are different in different 
states would make a better case than about our "knowledge" being different. All 
we can say is that we feel better or worse at different times, and our body's 
state seems to affect this. The variable of how much consciousness I am 
experiencing at any one time seems like a very small variable among more 
important factors.

How much I care about something is the biggest predictor of how rich my 
knowledge is and given something I care about, I will fight through any fatigue 
factor to do it as much justice as I can to a subject I care about.

Again, we are just talking here. It is a great way to sort out thoughts isn't 
it?

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <sharelong60@...> wrote :

 Curtis and Steve, I'm also just thinking out loud, sort of fumbling around 
with all this. Because KISIC and KIDIDSOC always resonated with me as being 
true. They felt right. But it's also fun to try and reason them out as well. 
But as I said, I'm just fumbling around, exploring, also sort of playing with 
words and our accepted meaning of them.
 

 As I've said before, I don't really think in terms of higher and lower states 
of consciousness. I think of more developed brain states, meaning, more of the 
brain functioning in a very healthy way. Which I think would automatically be 
of benefit to the world. I'm assuming that if most of a person's brain was 
functioning in a very healthy way, then that is how they would behave. It seems 
like a reasonable assumption to me. 

 

 More fumbling, but here's an example from my life and I'm not claiming any 
higher SOC. But I do know that when I'm rested, when my physiology is settled, 
I feel more in harmony with the people around me. And I treat them more 
positively. That's a major value for me, and I think for them too.  OTOH, if 
I'm upset or distracted, I can't even be with them as completely, so my 
knowledge of them at that moment, is incomplete and therefore not as valuable 
for either of us in terms of living a rich human life.    

 From: "curtisdeltablues@... [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com>
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2014 1:09 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Okay, let's put it on the table: UFOs
 
 
   

 --In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <steve.sundur@...> wrote :

 Share, 

 I agree that there is some conflating here of mental abilities and "knowledge".

C: You mean by Maharishi in his examples, right? He started the comparison 
which you are labeling conflation.

 

 S: I think it is the typical apple/orange thing.
 

 The way the concept was presented by Maharishi was the obvious difference 
between waking, sleeping, and dreaming states of consciousness which we note in 
every day experience.

C: That was another example he used. The clear and foggy, tired not tired 
example was also his. Of course saying that these are different mental states 
doesn't really make any practical case for how it might apply to our daily life 
which is why he needed to extend the example. Saying that our "knowledge" is 
different in deep sleep is a bit of a stretch because it is a state of zero 
consciousness. So it isn't that the knowledge is different as much as the 
knower is gone. In dreams we also have a very altered sense of self so there 
really isn't a parallel there either. It isn't that our knowledge, which is by 
his definition experience and understanding.The understanding part is missing 
because the experience is not organized as it is in waking state. So saying 
that these are different style experience does nothing to establish the 
principle he is attempting to establish, that "knowledge" is structured in 
"consciousness." The best he does is to point out that to know anything we must 
be aware and to know specific things we must be aware of those things and be in 
a state of mind capable of that. Not exactly an enlightened news flash.

 

 C: But where it gets interesting is when you consider the fourth, fifth, 
sixth, and seventh states, and how knowledge is perceived or acquired, 
differently in those states.
 

 But, if you don't buy into the reality of those states, then it is easy to 
dismiss the theory.

C: You can have had the experience of altered states without buying into them 
as higher states. If you have done heavy rounding you know that you can alter 
your mental functioning. What it means is the issue. And in all my own 
experience I can't find an example of my "knowledge" being different, just my 
experience of my own mental functioning. The understanding was being pumped in 
by hours of lectures of Maharishi trying to convince me how I should interpret 
the experience and its value and meaning. I had the same beliefs throughout the 
process of changing internal experience, there was not change in my knowledge. 
Then when my "knowledge" changed again and I rejected his teaching I could 
still experience the states I had when I was a believer, they are not connected.

 

 S: After all, they are subjective by nature, so if someone says "prove it", 
you may be hard pressed to do so.

C: If this was the kind of state extolled by Maharishi, the highest state of 
human development, there would be plenty of proof. Maharishi gave lots of 
examples of how we would see results in activity, he was not poo pooing proof 
for his claims, he as boldly claiming it could be proven.

His confidence has not held up to scrutiny over time. Maharishi was using a 
philosophical proof system to make his case. I am showing that it is a flawed 
one. Proof by analogy isn't valid, analogies are a way to explain something you 
have proven in another way.

In the beginning he could claim that people just didn't have the experience so 
no noticeable results could be shown to prove his claim. Now we have people 
claiming to be in these higher states. So now it turns out that even if 
knowledge IS structured in consciousness, other than self satisfaction, nothing 
is changed in their "knowledge" that does anyone else any good at all. It is 
indistinguishable from someone saying, "now that Jesus has saved me and I have 
eternal life, everything in my life is unfolding in God's perfect plan." So the 
idea of the value of knowledge is reduced to: 
" I feel good about myself now." Did it really take years of practice to 
achieve that? And isn't the concept of the value of human knowledge much more 
than that?

This is a great topic no matter where you stand on it, thanks for pitching in 
Steve. I am just thinking out loud here, sorting out my own perspective by 
expressing it. 










 

 On the other hand, you have someone like Barry owning up to having such 
experiences, but placing no particular importance to them.
 

 You have someone like Michael, who has waxed on about traversing the whole 
field of those higher states of consciousness, but then deciding that doing so 
sort of invalidates his oft repeated assumption that the technique doesn't work.
 

 So, I'm not sure what is going on with these guys. 
 

 It sounds to me that at least those two have already implicated themselves as 
to verifying that "knowledge is different in different states of consciousness"
 

 Barry said as much this morning.  
 

 Now, the fact that this seems to put him at odds with what Curtis is saying, 
may require him to backtrack some.  Or more likely, he doesn't really care.
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <sharelong60@...> wrote :

 Curtis, from your first paragraph, it sounds like you're equating knowledge 
with mental abilities. But I don't think that's what Maharishi meant. I think 
what he meant by knowledge is conclusions drawn from perceptions.
 One of the classical examples is that of the blind men touching different 
parts of the elephant and then coming to different conclusions about the 
identity of the object being touched in different places.
 Another classic example is the snake and the string wherein the agitated 
person sees something threatening and the calm person sees something 
nonthreatening.
 Even in every day life, if 10 people witness an accident, there will be 10 
different reports. And how about the party game of telephone? Why doesn't the 
message stay the same with each hearing and repeating?

 

 

 

 From: "curtisdeltablues@... [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com>
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2014 10:59 AM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Okay, let's put it on the table: UFOs
 
 
   --In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote :

 
 Both the Turq's claim that he saw the Lenz-Rama-guy levitate many times and 
Curti's claim that "knowledge is not different in different states of 
consciousness" loom over these two guys forever. 

C: Nabbie with your attention to the details of what I write you could easily 
be mistaken for a fanboy.

Yes, this is one of my favorite topics and thanks for reminding me. Let's 
revisit it to see if my views have changed

I am denying that Maharishi has made a convincing case for his claim that:

Knowledge is different in different states of consciousness.

The example he used was that when we are sleepy our "knowledge" is different. 
When I was a young man, and more easily swayed by my internal feelings when 
thinking, I agreed with him. But now I do not find this to be the case. As an 
adult professional I have learned how to functions at a certain level mentally 
no matter what my level of rest or fatigue. My "knowledge" is not significantly 
affected. Being more likely to forget something can happen. But this is a long 
way from the breadth of this claim. I would say that fatigue exerts no more 
than a 10% influence over my mental abilities. So the comparison falls flat in 
my experience. Are you really incapable of doing your job well if you are 
tired? Does it make that much of a difference in your functioning really? You 
might enjoy it less but that is a different claim.

And as far as extending this into the so called "higher states" as if this 
analogy would prove anything about them even if it were true, I call bullshit. 
I have seen nothing from any of the so called enlightened guys, Maharishi 
included, that couldn't be replicated from anyone familiar with their use of 
language and a Hinduism 101 course.

Light some incense:

"The mind is a shallow boat surrounded by the ocean of infinity. The mind 
experiences pleasure and pain, It associates with the objects of perception 
which sells out the infinite full potential of their inner nature for a 
localized, finite experience. When the mind expands into its limitless source, 
it becomes one with that infinite nature, and takes on the qualities of 
truth,consciousness and bliss awareness, beyond the limitations of space and 
time. This is what the ancient rishis called Sat Chit Ananda."

You guess who wrote that from the "knowledge" it contains. Is there anything in 
those words that would make it impossible for the writer to be in waking state? 
Is there something so different from what a person who was not experiencing 
that reality could write, if they knew the language form and structure of the 
claims in that philosophy? Can you really tell if that was real or Memorex?

So Nabbie, you defend your teachers assertion that he did not prove. He just 
asserted it. Now is your moment to show how your elevated consciousness has 
such a superior state of knowledge, that you can turn my objections to ashes 
before my eyes. Being scornful of my objections is not an argument. Show us why 
we should accept that knowledge is different in different states of 
consciousness without resorting to the proof by bogus analogy, blatant 
unsupported assertion, or appeal to the authority of Hindu holy books that 
Maharishi tried. Do your guru a solid and help him make his case for the 
infidels. 

But we both know that no one can because you just bought into a belief that 
doesn't hold up to scrutiny.  

Same 3 choices every time you take a swing at me. You can defend your belief 
with reasoned argument to convince me where what I wrote was wrong somehow or 
missing an important point, you can follow angry Jim and go ad hominem as he 
recently did AGAIN, or you can slink away to take another sucker punch another 
day, never defending your position or refuting mine with reason, like an 
internet troll. 






It's a good thing that Richard keep reminding every possible lurker here how 
far out of any possible self-insight these two guy's are.
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <punditster@...> wrote :

 On 11/15/2014 4:23 PM, nablusoss1008 wrote:

   Sal is adjusting his speak every day now. Watch out, one of these days he'll 
even retract his extremely silly judgements on the Crop Circles.


 >
 "Adjusting his speak" - that's a good one! Apparently he already believes in 
tall tales - he has yet to reply to Barry's levitation claims about Rama. Go 
figure.
 
 "And I don't just mean explaining things away, to be convincing you have to 
show that something more realistic happened, more credible and using 
explanations we already understand and are known to happen in certain 
circumstances." - salyavin808
 >
 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
<no_re...@yahoogroups.com> mailto:no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote :
 
 
 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
<sharelong60@...> mailto:sharelong60@... wrote :
 
 Salyavin, I love your last paragraph: folklore in action; techno ghost stories 
for the nuclear age. As for me, I believe there is life somewhere else in the 
vast universe. And I think they are more highly advanced than us and maybe here 
with us. And I think it's great. 
 

 We can believe what we like. I have no opinion on intelligent life elsewhere, 
we don't know the variables that allow for it to develop. We could be unique or 
the universe could be teeming or maybe there's just one or two per galaxy over 
it's entire history. But the chances of there being other humanoids visiting 
Earth at the just same time as we've understood where we are cosmically? It 
beggars belief. Alien craft is the least likely explanation for UFO's. But I 
hope it's true.
 

 But at that point, I'm more like turq. It doesn't really impact my life one 
way or the other. Either way, what is the action step? (-:

 

 I don't know, just enjoy the ride, the evolving myth. We are apparently on the 
brink of something called "disclosure". We've been here before a few times as I 
recall, it never amounts to much but it's fun watching the TB's get excited 
that their favourite daydream is to be officially confirmed. 
 
 
 But it won't be, the UFO's won't land and Maitreya won't appear. It's the way 
of things. The connection between the two is that people want there to be more, 
want there to be a reason and for there to be salvation from a higher power, 
whether it's alien or spiritual. We're talking deep human needs here.
 
 
 From: salyavin808 <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> mailto:no_re...@yahoogroups.com
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2014 3:06 PM
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Okay, let's put it on the table: UFOs
 
 
   

 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,

























































































Reply via email to