Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
On 06/11/2011 10:41 AM, sparaig wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu wrote: >> On 06/08/2011 10:18 AM, sparaig wrote: >>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: On Jun 8, 2011, at 2:52 AM, cardemaister wrote: > [...] > "Bhagavan S[h]ankara now left Prayaga, and travelling through the > skies, reached the splendid city of Mahismati... One, I wouldn't base his spiritual view on a fairy tale or what one says. And two, siddhis as obstructions applies to path, not fruition. >>> Certainly the sidhis are an obstruction. >>> >>> L. >> Well now that WOULD really depend on the path. They certainly aren't an >> obstruction in many tantric paths. ;-) >> >> Oh well, at least you folks aren't discussing Wiener's penis. :-D >> > Well, by obstruction on the path, I meant that they were an > obstacle-to-be-overcome: something that strengthens you as you overcome it. > > Lawson In tantra they are an adjunct which makes you stronger.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu wrote: > > On 06/08/2011 10:18 AM, sparaig wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > >> > >> On Jun 8, 2011, at 2:52 AM, cardemaister wrote: [...] > >>> "Bhagavan S[h]ankara now left Prayaga, and travelling through the > >>> skies, reached the splendid city of Mahismati... > >> One, I wouldn't base his spiritual view on a fairy tale or what one > >> says. And two, siddhis as obstructions applies to path, not fruition. > >> > > Certainly the sidhis are an obstruction. > > > > L. > > Well now that WOULD really depend on the path. They certainly aren't an > obstruction in many tantric paths. ;-) > > Oh well, at least you folks aren't discussing Wiener's penis. :-D > Well, by obstruction on the path, I meant that they were an obstacle-to-be-overcome: something that strengthens you as you overcome it. Lawson
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
On 06/08/2011 10:18 AM, sparaig wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: >> >> On Jun 8, 2011, at 2:52 AM, cardemaister wrote: >> L. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > The UC view of Vedanta, esp. in the Shank. tradition, not only > avoids siddhis, it considers them antithetical to the evolution > of consciousness. > >>> So, why did "Shank." himself utilize -- according to Shankara-dig- >>> vijaya of Maadhava-VidyaaraNya -- at least two of those Paata�jala- >>> siddhi-s, namely 'cittasya parashariiraavesha' (entered the dead >>> body of King Amaruka for "acquirement of knowledge of sex-love") >>> and 'aakaasha-gamanam'? >>> >>> "Bhagavan S[h]ankara now left Prayaga, and travelling through the >>> skies, reached the splendid city of Mahismati... >> One, I wouldn't base his spiritual view on a fairy tale or what one >> says. And two, siddhis as obstructions applies to path, not fruition. >> > Certainly the sidhis are an obstruction. > > L. Well now that WOULD really depend on the path. They certainly aren't an obstruction in many tantric paths. ;-) Oh well, at least you folks aren't discussing Wiener's penis. :-D
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > Do you think I'm a chronic liar? > > Do you lie to me? I don't think so. Not what I asked, although presumably if I were a chronic liar as Vaj asserted in his post to you, I'd lie to you as well as everybody else. > > Do you think I've consistently attempted to imply that > > I've spent time with Maharishi? > > I guess this is a reference to your post with Barry where > you described being in rooms for Maharishi talks with both > believers and with outsiders. What I wrote was actually in a post to you, as was Barry's comment on what I wrote. He took the most uncharitable > angle on understanding it as you might have done if he had > said it. Nope. If he had never *once* attempted to imply X and had, in fact, repeatedly and explicitly asserted not-X, it would never occur to me to accuse him of "consistently attempting to imply" X, because that would be a knowing and deliberate lie. > That is your preferred dance together. Lying is *his* preferred dance, not mine. > In a post between you and me, one of us might point out that > the actual taped talk was in a room with a certain group, > then this tape was edited for the group you were sitting in. > That may be a useful distinction to draw. Sitting with > Maharishi day after day outside the editing room gives a > different view of how he operates than the one he carefully > presents in his edited tapes. Wouldn't work in this instance, since the characteristic of the tapes I was referring to was that he *included* both the physical and the metaphysical no matter which audience they were made for, although he might emphasize one or the other. That's 50 for me this week. > So I wouldn't have taken what you wrote to mean that you were implying you > had been in the room with him, but I might remind you that there is more to > Maharishi than the edited tapes, and it is that experience that shapes my > view of him.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
>
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > Well, that's the big step.
> >
> > And it would fit into shifting from waking state perspective
> > to the unity version from the sincerity angle. I understand
> > the POV that he was talking to different levels of experience.
>
> Not a clue what you're getting at here, sorry. Could
> you try rephrasing or elaborating?
I was conceding that Maharishi could be viewed as speaking to different states
of consciousness with his different raps. That would go along with the
sincerity angle rather than my more jaded one.
>
> I meant that from waking state to CC is the big step
> in development of consciousness, the higher states
> being refinements of CC, as I've always understood
> MMY's scheme.
>
>
> > > In any case, leish avidya would have to be related to
> > > the physiology, wouldn't it? It's because you're still
> > > *in* a body that you have it.
> >
> > Yes but that body doesn't affect consciousness. Just
> > habits of the mind and body.
>
> Not getting this either.
I meant to say that leish avidya doesn't affect consciousness in his system,
only the mind and body.
>
>
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > "Important or interesting to the rest of us" isn't
> > > necessarily comprehensive.
> >
> > But you get my point. Comprehensive should come up with
> > something in the direction of remarkable, given the
> > adjectives on parade about these states of mind.
>
> I don't know if we'd recognize "remarkable" if we saw it,
> first of all. Second, that's your "should," not necessarily
> an absolute "should."
I have more confidence that I could, or that if a person really was in some
better state but had evolved from one similar to mine, he or she would know how
to lay it on me so I could be convinced. There are a lot of versions of
remarkable available after all and I really haven't seen more than a lot of
rehash Hindu philosophy out of most of the "enlightened" ones so far. Would it
be too much to ask for them to perfect the lithium battery so we could all have
cool electric cars?
>
> > > Granted, no Nobel Prizes to TMers, as far as we know (but
> > > it's entirely possible we might not know if there were),
> > > but I'm not positive scientific exploration per se is the
> > > sine qua non.
> >
> > I would settle for any field. David Lynch? I mean we have
> > plenty of creative TMers. I think that not only are
> > creative people drawn to TM but that TM is an asset to the
> > creative process up to a point.
>
> You don't think scientists are creative people?
Sure I do, I'm not sure what you are getting at. We have creative scientists
in the movement but so far they haven't produced something so great that it
makes me re-think their state of mind as more special than the rest of us.
>
> > But it is the higher states which have not lived up to the
> > hype. If they were sold as a great way to feel that you
> > will really dig, I would not be so picky about Maharishi's
> > promise machine.
>
> Another thing I'm not sure of is whether enough of the
> creative people (artists and scientists and others) who
> would be capable of coming up with something "remarkable"
> have actually reached the requisite states of
> consciousness. Of course, that's another "promise" that
> didn't pan out. But all the promises were *contingent*
> on the optimal circumstances and optimal levels of
> participation MMY envisioned, by individuals and en masse,
> and he never actually got those levels (maybe from some
> individuals). IOW, the promises were best-case scenarios,
> and we never really had the best case.
I find it easy to believe that some have. If you listen to Batgap videos there
sure are people who believe they have. But th
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
Nope. Lawson wasn't making a pronouncement to begin with, nor was his response to Barry's question a pronouncement. The only pronouncements in this exchange have been Barry's--and they're flat-out wrong. Remarkably Stupid. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > > > > > I've found an interesting alternative definition: > > > > > > > > Willingness to surrender to dharma > > > > > > Define dharma. Show it to me scientifically. I'll wait. > > > > The career/behavior that brings you the most personal > > growth in life. > > Define "personal growth." Does that mean that > someone like Donald Trump, who seems to define > "personal growth" as "financial growth," is > following dharma? > > More important, *according to who*? You're speak- > ing in pronouncements again. I'm asking you to > back up the pronouncements with some kind of > rationalization for them. Such as why anyone > should believe that the definition of dharma > you presented is either accurate, or desirable. > > > Of course, such a thing isn't testable, because you > > can't do comparison studies of the same person choosing > > two different lifestyle choice. > > > > Personal growth is another ill-defined term, of course. > > Exactly. You countered a question about you speaking > in pronouncements with Yet Another Pronouncement. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > > > I've found an interesting alternative definition: > > > > > > Willingness to surrender to dharma > > > > Define dharma. Show it to me scientifically. I'll wait. > > The career/behavior that brings you the most personal > growth in life. Define "personal growth." Does that mean that someone like Donald Trump, who seems to define "personal growth" as "financial growth," is following dharma? More important, *according to who*? You're speak- ing in pronouncements again. I'm asking you to back up the pronouncements with some kind of rationalization for them. Such as why anyone should believe that the definition of dharma you presented is either accurate, or desirable. > Of course, such a thing isn't testable, because you > can't do comparison studies of the same person choosing > two different lifestyle choice. > > Personal growth is another ill-defined term, of course. Exactly. You countered a question about you speaking in pronouncements with Yet Another Pronouncement.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > I've found an interesting alternative definition: > > > > Willingness to surrender to dharma > > Define dharma. Show it to me scientifically. I'll wait. The career/behavior that brings you the most personal growth in life. Of course, such a thing isn't testable, because you can't do comparison studies of the same person choosing two different lifestyle choice. Personal growth is another ill-defined term, of course. Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" wrote: > > (snip) > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > > > > According to Robin Woodsworth Carlsen, TM-style "enlightenment" is > > actually of form of induced psychosis. It is perceived exactly as > > described, but is in fact a form of psychosis. Given that one can > > experience such things as "the universe as fluctuations of > > consciousness" while under the influence of various different > > psychedelics, it sounds like it would be safer to eschew TM's "serenity > > without drugs" for some damn good drugs. > > > > > > At least you don't end up insane (typically) as the end result. > > > > > > Give me some Don Juan Matus anytime over becoming the latest > > self-proclaimed Super-Rishi or Raja. > > > > > > It makes me wonder how typical a description of the world "as > > consciousness" is among the mentally ill? > > > > > > Thoughts? > > (snip) > What world would exist without... 'Consiousness'... > What world exists while you are in deep sleep? > Do you know what your name is while in deep sleep? > Do you know anything in deep sleep...? > It seems obvious, that nothing exists without 'Consciousness' ... > 'Consciousness is the basis for 'Existence' itself... > Does the tree that falls in the forest make a sound if there is: 1) no forest; 2) no air; 3) no tree in the first place? L.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > On Jun 8, 2011, at 2:52 AM, cardemaister wrote: > > > > >> > >> L. > >> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> The UC view of Vedanta, esp. in the Shank. tradition, not only > >>> avoids siddhis, it considers them antithetical to the evolution > >>> of consciousness. > >>> > >> > > > > So, why did "Shank." himself utilize -- according to Shankara-dig- > > vijaya of Maadhava-VidyaaraNya -- at least two of those Paata�jala- > > siddhi-s, namely 'cittasya parashariiraavesha' (entered the dead > > body of King Amaruka for "acquirement of knowledge of sex-love") > > and 'aakaasha-gamanam'? > > > > "Bhagavan S[h]ankara now left Prayaga, and travelling through the > > skies, reached the splendid city of Mahismati... > > One, I wouldn't base his spiritual view on a fairy tale or what one > says. And two, siddhis as obstructions applies to path, not fruition. > Certainly the sidhis are an obstruction. L.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > [...] > > > Yeah, exactly. If individual brains produce individual > > > consciousnesses, you have to do some fairly elaborate > > > acrobatics to speak of Consciousness. MMY was definitely > > > an Idealist (matter is emergent from consciousness) > > > rather than a Materialist (vice-versa). > > > > There's no fracking difference guys! How can you miss this? > > It does involve fairly elaborate acrobatics to get to > no fracking difference. Or just intuition. If you read a later post of mine, > I pointed out that rishi-devata-chhandas could account > for it, just as you go on to do in another post. > Well, my take is simply: physics is based on consciousness, and in fact, according to MMY, physics is consciousness that has forgotten its own nature as consciousness. At some point [individual] consciousness emerges from complex physical interactions. There is a broken link, at least on the [individual] conscious level that doesn't get mended until the individual consciousness behaves [physically] in a certain way and then the individual [physics based] consciousness recognizes that it, and everything else, is consciousness all the way down.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > Granted, no Nobel Prizes to TMers, as far as we know (but > > it's entirely possible we might not know if there were), > > but I'm not positive scientific exploration per se is the > > sine qua non. > > Other than Physicist-Sidha Brian Josephsen, you mean? Oh, right. Sorry, Brian! > I rather suspect there are a few more out there simply due to statistical > analysis. > > Somewhere between 0.1% and 1.0% of adults in the USA learned TM in the past > 50 years. That means somewhere between 1 out of 1000 and one out of 100 of > the adults in the USA in almost any category at least learned TM. During the > 70's, people in highly demanding/stressful jobs would have been far more > likely to learn TM than any other stress management technique. I'm sure > there are many prominent people who are or were closet TMers.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > Granted, no Nobel Prizes to TMers, as far as we know (but > it's entirely possible we might not know if there were), > but I'm not positive scientific exploration per se is the > sine qua non. Other than Physicist-Sidha Brian Josephsen, you mean? I rather suspect there are a few more out there simply due to statistical analysis. Somewhere between 0.1% and 1.0% of adults in the USA learned TM in the past 50 years. That means somewhere between 1 out of 1000 and one out of 100 of the adults in the USA in almost any category at least learned TM. During the 70's, people in highly demanding/stressful jobs would have been far more likely to learn TM than any other stress management technique. I'm sure there are many prominent people who are or were closet TMers. L
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "whynotnow7" wrote: > > > > methinks you will be at this a long time Curtis. > > > At what? Understanding life? Till my dying day. The first thought that flitted through my mind when I read this was, "Wouldn't the idea that there could be 'more' than this be almost by definition be 'less'?" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6j1SIUGRxRM I love the pounding of hooves I love engines that roar I love the wild music of waves on the shore And the spiral perfection of a hawk when it soars Love my sweet woman down to the core There's roads and there's roads And they call, can't you hear it? Roads of the earth And roads of the spirit The best roads of all Are the ones that aren't certain One of those is where you'll find me Till they drop the big curtain Hear the wind moan In the bright diamond sky These mountains are waiting Brown-green and dry I'm too old for the term But I'll use it anyway I'll be a child of the wind Till the end of my days Little round planet In a big universe Sometimes it looks blessed Sometimes it looks cursed Depends on what you look at obviously But even more it depends on the way that you see Hear the wind moan In the bright diamond sky These mountains are waiting Brown-green and dry I'm too old for the term But I'll use it anyway I'll be a child of the wind Till the end of my days
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
Yep, I did a typo while writing but left it in place in the end. Apparently you didn't get the pun. Doesn't matter since it wasn't meant for you. BTW, why would I care what you "think" about anything? Your statement is only your professed self-opinion. No doubt it must be terrifying to be you. I'll say some prayers. Maybe you won't just fade to nothing. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: > > > > On Jun 7, 2011, at 11:00 PM, emptybill wrote: > > > > > > > Vaj: > > > > Give me some Don Juan Matus anytime over becoming > > > > the latest self-proclaimed Super-Rishi or Raja. > > > > > > Vaj quotes a fictional character from the Canteñada books > > > to nail down his arguments. So is this guy a bull-shitter or not? > > > I think "troll" sums it up. > > > > I think "flaming asshole" sums it up for you. > > I'm thinking "ignorant" would seem to be more appropriate > for someone who doesn't even know how to spell Castaneda. :-) > > Although Carlos' own "petty tyrant" might be fitting. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "whynotnow7" wrote: > > methinks you will be at this a long time Curtis. > At what? Understanding life? Till my dying day. And most people are really full of it about him IMO. Not understanding the cultural context and the other messiahs of his time, people have made up a bunch of nonsense about him and will not listen to reason. Why do you think a message of passivity and reward in the afterlife was chosen to be promoted by Charlemagne in the Roman empire over the teachings of a similar messiah around the time of Jesus who preached kicking the ass of the Roman oppressors? "Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's... " Be a good boy, pay your taxes and you will go to heaven after you die. As far as Maharishi goes, my view of him, although more detailed due to my experience with his teaching, is pretty similar to what most of society views him as: a Hindu Televangelist who had a short run at being the pop guru for exactly 15 minutes. But I like TM despite it being wildly oversold as a solution to all problems. I'm glad I learned it and experienced teaching it. < And for the same reasons - they cannot help but filter the guy through their own minds, coming up with lots of thoughts about how *they* see the world, but not a lot of clarity or insight about the other guy's view. > Kind of the human condition. I haven't found anyone exempt from that. We all do the best we can and hopefully are happy with what we come up with in our understanding. I am, but continue to think to refine my understanding. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "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 >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
I was just restating your questions. I did not expect that you would reply because the questions I asked were not directly aimed at you, they were kind of rhetorical. The discussion your original post provoked forked off in various directions. The reason I am assigning for having brought up the subject of 'knowledge,' was because you used the word 'know.' As that word does not seem (this is opinion you see) to have any traction with you, my opinion is this was an egregious error on my part; I will of course never know if was an error. I have been kind of taking it easy, and typed this off, and then went on to email another friend on the subject of astronomy, and to discuss with a nephew, on the telephone, computer security and sleep experiments. You implied I was struggling mightily to draw you into a discussion. Nah. (-: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" > wrote: > > > > Turq's original 4 (or perhaps 3-1/2 or 3 questions). (Some slight > > emphasis added) (-: > > > > > Just for the fun of it, you understand. :-) > > > > > > 1. [W]hat exactly (in your opinion, of course, and welcomed > > > as the opinion it is) was the distinction that Maharishi was > > > trying to draw between UC and BC? > > > 2. What would you think of a seeker who had enlightenment > > > presented to him on a platter and who then rejected it, > > > preferring to accept and try to groove with whatever state of > > > consciousness life presented to him? > > > 3. What if someone got all enlightened and all, and decided to > > > do something else? > > > 4. Would that be a Good Thing in your opinion, or a Bad Thing? > > > > > > I'm serious in this, and will try my best not to dump on > > > anyone who replies with an opinion. I honestly don't know, > > > or don't remember. And it would help me with a writing > > > project if I were to know the distinction he was drawing, > > > or attempting to draw. Thanks in advance. > > > > Now, if Turq wanted to know what the distinction is, why would > > he be soliciting opinion, and regarding it as merely opinion... > > Duh. Because I believe that nothing exists BUT opinion? > > For question 1, I was just curious as what people who > might have heard *Maharishi's* opinion of the distinction > between UC and BC thought that distinction was. I hold > *none* of these opinions as either "fact" or "truth" or > "knowing" or "knowledge." They're ALL just opinion, no > matter the source. > > As it turned out, only two people here seem to have had > a clear enough memory of what Maharishi's opinion was > on this subject to put it into a clear explanation. Those > two people were, interestingly enough, Curtis and Vaj, > two people who don't have anything to do with the TMO > any more, and don't think that much of Maharishi. That > did not prevent them from remembering what he said. > > For the other questions, I was just curious about what > people here might say. I was underwhelmed by the responses, > and dropped it as a topic of interest to me. > > > ...because it is often difficult if not impossible to milk > > knowledge from opinion? > > Speak for yourself. I don't believe that there is anything > BUT opinion. Or "knowledge" that is anything BUT opinion. > So Vaj and Curtis' opinion is, for me, on exactly the same > level as Maharishi's. I certainly don't hold that any > opinion he had was anything more than opinion, and that > doesn't hamper me with trying to riff on it for my own > amusement. Why should I be any more hampered by anyone > else's opinion? > > > Some opinion may appear obviously false, but opinion that > > is not obviously false, may still be false. So from what > > will Turq acquire the knowledge he seeks, if he is sincere > > in wanting to know something? > > > > All for the fun of it of course. > > All for the fun of it. > > I do not delude myself -- as you seem to -- that some opinion > is "true" and other opinion "false." It's all opinion. I take > each opinion for what it is -- pure opinion -- and then form > my own opinions on the basis of other people's, bounced off > of opinions I've heard from other sources, my own subjective > experience, and my own intuition. That is what we ALL do -- you > included -- although some seem to "weight" certain opinions to > make it seem as if some of them AREN'T opinion but some kind > of "fact" or "truth." > > I get the impression that you're struggling mightily to draw > me into some kind of protracted discussion with you as if you > were worthy of my time in doing so. If that is your intent, > backtrack to a statement you made earlier and justify it. > > You said ( paraphrasing from memory, because at this point you > don't interest me enough to go look it up :-) that you (or one) > could "know" at least one thing. > > What's that? > > How would you (or one) claim to "know" the truth or accuracy > of tha
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "WillyTex" wrote: > > turquoiseb: > > Define dharma. Show it to me scientifically. I'll wait. > > > This is funny - Barry didn't define anything in his original > questions, so now he wants us to define 'dharma', a basic > term used in Hinduism and Buddhism. Come to think of it, > has Barry ever defined anything? Go figure. What's even funnier is that nobody had made any claims whatsoever for "dharma." The issue was how another Sanskrit word might be translated. So Barry's demand for a definition of "dharma" and to be shown it scientifically had nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion. And here he thought he was posing one of his oh-so-clever "challenges" to TM beliefs. Just Remarkably Stupid.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
turquoiseb: > Define dharma. Show it to me scientifically. I'll wait. > This is funny - Barry didn't define anything in his original questions, so now he wants us to define 'dharma', a basic term used in Hinduism and Buddhism. Come to think of it, has Barry ever defined anything? Go figure. > Just for the fun of it, you understand. :-) > > The first: I bailed from the TMO early on, in 1978 or so. > To my memory, at that point Maharishi had not really ever > talked about anything "beyond" UC, his vision of Unity > Consciousness. I have heard since that he later hypothesized > BC, Brahman Consciousness, but I honestly don't remember him > ever talking about it when I was around. > > For those who were, what exactly (in your opinion, of course, > and welcomed as the opinion it is) was the distinction that > Maharishi was trying to draw between UC and BC? > > I'm serious in this, and will try my best not to dump on > anyone who replies with an opinion. I honestly don't know, > or don't remember. And it would help me with a writing > project if I were to know the distinction he was drawing, > or attempting to draw. Thanks in advance. > Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/278763
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" > wrote: > > > > Turq's original 4 (or perhaps 3-1/2 or 3 questions). (Some slight > > emphasis added) (-: [quoting Barry from an earlier post:] > > > I'm serious in this, and will try my best not to dump on > > > anyone who replies with an opinion. I honestly don't know, > > > or don't remember. And it would help me with a writing > > > project if I were to know the distinction he was drawing, > > > or attempting to draw. Thanks in advance. > > > > Now, if Turq wanted to know what the distinction is, why would > > he be soliciting opinion, and regarding it as merely opinion... > > Duh. Because I believe that nothing exists BUT opinion? If so, why did you say you wanted to *know* (see quote immediately above) the distinction MMY was drawing? > As it turned out, only two people here seem to have had > a clear enough memory of what Maharishi's opinion was > on this subject to put it into a clear explanation. Those > two people were, interestingly enough, Curtis and Vaj, > two people who don't have anything to do with the TMO > any more, and don't think that much of Maharishi. That > did not prevent them from remembering what he said. Except that the two of them remembered what he said quite differently, of course. > I do not delude myself -- as you seem to -- that some opinion > is "true" and other opinion "false." It's all opinion. I take > each opinion for what it is -- pure opinion -- and then form > my own opinions on the basis of other people's, bounced off > of opinions I've heard from other sources, my own subjective > experience, and my own intuition. That is what we ALL do -- you > included -- although some seem to "weight" certain opinions to > make it seem as if some of them AREN'T opinion but some kind > of "fact" or "truth." What some do that you resist mightily (when you think it serves you to do so, at least) is give weight to opinions depending on how well thought out they are, how logical they are, and to what degree they take consensus reality into account. Of course, you do this *yourself* when someone else's opinion differs from yours. > I get the impression that you're struggling mightily to draw > me into some kind of protracted discussion with you as if you > were worthy of my time in doing so. If that is your intent, > backtrack to a statement you made earlier and justify it. > > You said ( paraphrasing from memory, because at this point you > don't interest me enough to go look it up :-) that you (or one) > could "know" at least one thing. Here, let me help you out. He said: "There is probably just one thing one can really know, and what we know intellectually does not qualify for that experience." > What's that? > > How would you (or one) claim to "know" the truth or accuracy > of that thing? > > Ball's in your court, Chucko. Explain how someone could "know" > something that is based purely on their personal subjective > experience, and "know" it on the level of being absolutely > certain it is more than just opinion. I'll wait. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
> > > 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.
> >
> > Well, that's the big step.
>
> And it would fit into shifting from waking state perspective
> to the unity version from the sincerity angle. I understand
> the POV that he was talking to different levels of experience.
Not a clue what you're getting at here, sorry. Could
you try rephrasing or elaborating?
I meant that from waking state to CC is the big step
in development of consciousness, the higher states
being refinements of CC, as I've always understood
MMY's scheme.
> > In any case, leish avidya would have to be related to
> > the physiology, wouldn't it? It's because you're still
> > *in* a body that you have it.
>
> Yes but that body doesn't affect consciousness. Just
> habits of the mind and body.
Not getting this either.
> > > 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.
> >
> > "Important or interesting to the rest of us" isn't
> > necessarily comprehensive.
>
> But you get my point. Comprehensive should come up with
> something in the direction of remarkable, given the
> adjectives on parade about these states of mind.
I don't know if we'd recognize "remarkable" if we saw it,
first of all. Second, that's your "should," not necessarily
an absolute "should."
> > Granted, no Nobel Prizes to TMers, as far as we know (but
> > it's entirely possible we might not know if there were),
> > but I'm not positive scientific exploration per se is the
> > sine qua non.
>
> I would settle for any field. David Lynch? I mean we have
> plenty of creative TMers. I think that not only are
> creative people drawn to TM but that TM is an asset to the
> creative process up to a point.
You don't think scientists are creative people?
> But it is the higher states which have not lived up to the
> hype. If they were sold as a great way to feel that you
> will really dig, I would not be so picky about Maharishi's
> promise machine.
Another thing I'm not sure of is whether enough of the
creative people (artists and scientists and others) who
would be capable of coming up with something "remarkable"
have actually reached the requisite states of
consciousness. Of course, that's another "promise" that
didn't pan out. But all the promises were *contingent*
on the optimal circumstances and optimal levels of
participation MMY envisioned, by individuals and en masse,
and he never actually got those levels (maybe from some
individuals). IOW, the promises were best-case scenarios,
and we never really had the best case.
> > > 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.
> >
> > Well, who wouldn't? But I'm not convinced that's what
> > MMY was doing.
>
> Noted. And you seem to understand why someone might see it
> that way, just as I understand how someone may not.
Um, yes. But why someone might or might not see it that
way isn't necessarily just a matter of different
conclusions from intellectual reflection, as far as I'm
concerned.
Tangent: Before we go any further, I'd like to ask you to
respond to two questions:
Do you think I'm a chronic liar?
Do you think I've consistently attempted to imply that
I've spent time with Maharishi?
I'd just like to have your take on those two points.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" wrote: > > Turq's original 4 (or perhaps 3-1/2 or 3 questions). (Some slight > emphasis added) (-: > > > Just for the fun of it, you understand. :-) > > > > 1. [W]hat exactly (in your opinion, of course, and welcomed > > as the opinion it is) was the distinction that Maharishi was > > trying to draw between UC and BC? > > 2. What would you think of a seeker who had enlightenment > > presented to him on a platter and who then rejected it, > > preferring to accept and try to groove with whatever state of > > consciousness life presented to him? > > 3. What if someone got all enlightened and all, and decided to > > do something else? > > 4. Would that be a Good Thing in your opinion, or a Bad Thing? > > > > I'm serious in this, and will try my best not to dump on > > anyone who replies with an opinion. I honestly don't know, > > or don't remember. And it would help me with a writing > > project if I were to know the distinction he was drawing, > > or attempting to draw. Thanks in advance. > > Now, if Turq wanted to know what the distinction is, why would > he be soliciting opinion, and regarding it as merely opinion... Duh. Because I believe that nothing exists BUT opinion? For question 1, I was just curious as what people who might have heard *Maharishi's* opinion of the distinction between UC and BC thought that distinction was. I hold *none* of these opinions as either "fact" or "truth" or "knowing" or "knowledge." They're ALL just opinion, no matter the source. As it turned out, only two people here seem to have had a clear enough memory of what Maharishi's opinion was on this subject to put it into a clear explanation. Those two people were, interestingly enough, Curtis and Vaj, two people who don't have anything to do with the TMO any more, and don't think that much of Maharishi. That did not prevent them from remembering what he said. For the other questions, I was just curious about what people here might say. I was underwhelmed by the responses, and dropped it as a topic of interest to me. > ...because it is often difficult if not impossible to milk > knowledge from opinion? Speak for yourself. I don't believe that there is anything BUT opinion. Or "knowledge" that is anything BUT opinion. So Vaj and Curtis' opinion is, for me, on exactly the same level as Maharishi's. I certainly don't hold that any opinion he had was anything more than opinion, and that doesn't hamper me with trying to riff on it for my own amusement. Why should I be any more hampered by anyone else's opinion? > Some opinion may appear obviously false, but opinion that > is not obviously false, may still be false. So from what > will Turq acquire the knowledge he seeks, if he is sincere > in wanting to know something? > > All for the fun of it of course. All for the fun of it. I do not delude myself -- as you seem to -- that some opinion is "true" and other opinion "false." It's all opinion. I take each opinion for what it is -- pure opinion -- and then form my own opinions on the basis of other people's, bounced off of opinions I've heard from other sources, my own subjective experience, and my own intuition. That is what we ALL do -- you included -- although some seem to "weight" certain opinions to make it seem as if some of them AREN'T opinion but some kind of "fact" or "truth." I get the impression that you're struggling mightily to draw me into some kind of protracted discussion with you as if you were worthy of my time in doing so. If that is your intent, backtrack to a statement you made earlier and justify it. You said ( paraphrasing from memory, because at this point you don't interest me enough to go look it up :-) that you (or one) could "know" at least one thing. What's that? How would you (or one) claim to "know" the truth or accuracy of that thing? Ball's in your court, Chucko. Explain how someone could "know" something that is based purely on their personal subjective experience, and "know" it on the level of being absolutely certain it is more than just opinion. I'll wait. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> Well, that's the big step.
And it would fit into shifting from waking state perspective to the unity
version from the sincerity angle. I understand the POV that he was talking to
different levels of experience.
>
> 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.)
>
> And in the stomach too, no?
He simplified the process by saying it was the finest product of digestion with
"ojas" as the precursor to soma. Digging into Ayur veda we find an odd
sequence of digestion from food to muscles-fat... to I forget what (I think
bone marrow is in the sequence) ending in semen which becomes ojas which
becomes soma. So Maharishi was focusing on the more prudent part and I,
predictably, the prurient. This is the physical reason for celibacy for his
system. It was believed that this process takes a month, or as I call it, 30
wasted orgasms.
>
> > 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
>
> (I've never been sure how to spell the first part, but
> I'm pretty sure the second part is "avidya," no? The
> phrase means "remains of ignorance." So it would be
> leish avidya, I believe.)
Yes that seems right. In sanskrit they are probably mushed together.
>
> In any case, leish avidya would have to be related to
> the physiology, wouldn't it? It's because you're still
> *in* a body that you have it.
Yes but that body doesn't affect consciousness. Just habits of the mind and
body.
>
> 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.
>
> Sure, but that isn't what I'm talking about.
I was pursuing what gets in my craw about his approach.
>
> > 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.
>
> "Important or interesting to the rest of us" isn't
> necessarily comprehensive.
But you get my point. Comprehensive should come up with something in the
direction of remarkable, given the adjectives on parade about these states of
mind.
>
> Granted, no Nobel Prizes to TMers, as far as we know (but
> it's entirely possible we might not know if there were),
> but I'm not positive scientific exploration per se is the
> sine qua non.
I would settle for any field. David Lynch? I mean we have plenty of creative
TMers. I think that not only are creative people drawn to TM but that TM is
an asset to the creative process up to a point. But it is the higher states
which have not lived up to the hype. If they were sold as a great way to feel
that you will really dig, I would not be so picky about Maharishi's promise
machine.
>
> > 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.
>
> Well, who wouldn't? But I'm not convinced that's what
> MMY was doing.
Noted. And you seem to understand why someone might see it that way, just as I
understand how someone may no
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
Turq's original 4 (or perhaps 3-1/2 or 3 questions). (Some slight emphasis added) (-: >Just for the fun of it, you understand. :-) > 1. [W]hat exactly (in your opinion, of course, and welcomed as the opinion it is) was the distinction that Maharishi was trying to draw between UC and BC? 2. What would you think of a seeker who had enlightenment presented to him on a platter and who then rejected it, preferring to accept and try to groove with whatever state of consciousness life presented to him? 3. What if someone got all enlightened and all, and decided to do something else? 4. Would that be a Good Thing in your opinion, or a Bad Thing? >I'm serious in this, and will try my best not to dump on anyone who replies with an opinion. I honestly don't know, or don't remember. And it would help me with a writing project if I were to know the distinction he was drawing, or attempting to draw. Thanks in advance. Now, if Turq wanted to know what the distinction is, why would he be soliciting opinion, and regarding it as merely opinion, because it is often difficult if not impossible to milk knowledge from opinion? Some opinion may appear obviously false, but opinion that is not obviously false, may still be false. So from what will Turq acquire the knowledge he seeks, if he is sincere in wanting to know something? All for the fun of it of course.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > Although I'm not terribly interested in this discussion, > I'm interested in how Lawson deals with your simple > question below, "How would you know?" Seems to me he's > just stating ideas in pronouncements, the same way they > were stated to him, without any more rational filtering > or analysis being performed on the output of those ideas > to you than was performed on the input of them to him. :-) If you'd read the discussion, you'd know Lawson is talking about *what* Maharishi said, not whether what MMY said is *true*. See how Remarkably Stupid you are? Most people have no trouble making that simple distinction. You stumble badly over it all the time.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
This post demonstrates why Barry deserves no attention here other than scorn for being Remarkably Stupid or a Stupid Liar, or both. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > 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. :-) See how Remarkably Stupid Barry is? I was one of those *insisting* there was a contradiction. Barry has convinced himself he's much too smart to have to bother to read the discussions he barges in on in order to make a relevant or sensible comment. He's not anywhere near that smart, so he consistently makes himself look like an utter fool. > Other than using the word 'narcissism' in place of 'over- > confidence,' I agree with Curtis here. *In addition to* > being a lazy thinker spiritually, BWAHAHAHA. Barry calling somebody else a "narcissist" and a "lazy thinker." Master of Inadvertent Irony, once again. > > > 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. And here's the Stupid Liar demonstration. I didn't say above that I had been in an audience *with Maharishi*. That was Barry's addition. In fact, Maharishi had and continues to have far more audiences for his videotapes than he ever did "live." And because, far from ever attempting to imply I've spent time with Maharishi, I've made it explicit innumerable times that I have not, everyone here, including Barry, knows what kind of audience I was referring to. So he's not "pointing out" anything but what a Stupid Liar he is. Not that we haven't realized that long since. Which makes it particularly ironic... > 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. ...that Barry believes he is in a position to criticize anybody else for what he claims is dishonesty. Barry is convinced it's perfectly OK for him to lie; he does it constantly, without a second thought. And Barry is the *least honest thinker* I've ever encountered, by far. He consistently projects his own personality flaws onto others here; now he's projecting them onto Maharishi.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > I've found an interesting alternative definition: > > > > Willingness to surrender to dharma > > Define dharma. Show it to me scientifically. I'll > wait. My goodness. I wonder how Barry could have imagined Lawson was talking to him, let alone was the least bit interested in obtaining his approval for what he said. I mean, you know, especially since Barry obviously hasn't even the foggiest what the discussion is *about*, or he'd never even have posed the question.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > On Jun 7, 2011, at 11:00 PM, emptybill wrote: > > > > > Vaj: > > > Give me some Don Juan Matus anytime over becoming > > > the latest self-proclaimed Super-Rishi or Raja. > > > > Vaj quotes a fictional character from the Canteñada books > > to nail down his arguments. So is this guy a bull-shitter or not? > > I think "troll" sums it up. > > I think "flaming asshole" sums it up for you. I'm thinking "ignorant" would seem to be more appropriate for someone who doesn't even know how to spell Castaneda. :-) Although Carlos' own "petty tyrant" might be fitting.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
On Jun 8, 2011, at 2:52 AM, cardemaister wrote: L. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: The UC view of Vedanta, esp. in the Shank. tradition, not only avoids siddhis, it considers them antithetical to the evolution of consciousness. So, why did "Shank." himself utilize -- according to Shankara-dig- vijaya of Maadhava-VidyaaraNya -- at least two of those Paatañjala- siddhi-s, namely 'cittasya parashariiraavesha' (entered the dead body of King Amaruka for "acquirement of knowledge of sex-love") and 'aakaasha-gamanam'? "Bhagavan S[h]ankara now left Prayaga, and travelling through the skies, reached the splendid city of Mahismati... One, I wouldn't base his spiritual view on a fairy tale or what one says. And two, siddhis as obstructions applies to path, not fruition.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
On Jun 7, 2011, at 11:00 PM, emptybill wrote: Vaj: Give me some Don Juan Matus anytime over becoming the latest self-proclaimed Super-Rishi or Raja. Vaj quotes a fictional character from the Canteñada books to nail down his arguments. So is this guy a bull-shitter or not? I think "troll" sums it up. I think "flaming asshole" sums it up for you.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
Although I'm not terribly interested in this discussion, I'm interested in how Lawson deals with your simple question below, "How would you know?" Seems to me he's just stating ideas in pronouncements, the same way they were stated to him, without any more rational filtering or analysis being performed on the output of those ideas to you than was performed on the input of them to him. :-) Same thing with Robert, in his recent post that I took issue with. Parroting pronouncements, not only as if they constituted some sort of Truth, but as if the parroting of them should cause the other party to STFU. Same with posts claiming that someone could "know" things fersure, based solely on one's own subjective experience. I don't buy that whether the person claiming to "know" claims to be unenlightened or enlightened; it's still the same subjective experience and opinion as far as I can tell, claiming to be something other than subjective experience and opinion. I really get the feeling that "speaking in pronouncements" like this is an attempt to get others to STFU and just accept the stuff being parroted to them as some kind of thought-stopper "Truth," just as the parrots accepted it when it was parroted to them. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" wrote: > > [...] > > > I think I would say "yes & yes". Between asterix (asterixes?), > > > true that. But I think those words are not expressing properly > > > his position as (fairly consistently) expressed elsewhere. MMY > > > was not a reductionist/materialist as would seem to be implied > > > by "consciousness is the product of brain functioning". > > > > human consciousness is the product of the human brain's functioning. > > > > Sheesh. Is it really this hard to grasp? > > For me, yes. > > > He's talking about humans and their spiritual experiences as humans. > > > > An angel's consciousness is the result of the [whatever the equivalent of > > an angel's brain]'s functioning. You can't have a localized (whether it is > > in time or space or both) observer without some kind of associated > > structure (nervous system). > > If that's true (how would you know?), it does not follow > that the system is the product of the structure. > > If X is a necessary condition for Y, it does not follow (from > just that) that Y is a product of X (or, as materialists might > say, "Y is nothing but X"). For example, some structure in the > form of buildings is necessary for a university, but of course > the statement "the university IS a product of the buildings, or > can be reduced to the set of buildings that comprise it" is > false. > > I am thinking MMY is a "for every university there exists > some associated physical structure" kind of guy. But he's > not an "and that's ALL the university IS" kind of guy. > > If in the above you talk about brains and consciousness, > then, Curtis say, IS an "and that's all it is" kind of guy > (I think! Sorry Curtis if I'm getting you wrong). >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" wrote: > [...] > > I think I would say "yes & yes". Between asterix (asterixes?), > > true that. But I think those words are not expressing properly > > his position as (fairly consistently) expressed elsewhere. MMY > > was not a reductionist/materialist as would seem to be implied > > by "consciousness is the product of brain functioning". > > > > human consciousness is the product of the human brain's functioning. > > Sheesh. Is it really this hard to grasp? For me, yes. > He's talking about humans and their spiritual experiences as humans. > > An angel's consciousness is the result of the [whatever the equivalent of an > angel's brain]'s functioning. You can't have a localized (whether it is in > time or space or both) observer without some kind of associated structure > (nervous system). If that's true (how would you know?), it does not follow that the system is the product of the structure. If X is a necessary condition for Y, it does not follow (from just that) that Y is a product of X (or, as materialists might say, "Y is nothing but X"). For example, some structure in the form of buildings is necessary for a university, but of course the statement "the university IS a product of the buildings, or can be reduced to the set of buildings that comprise it" is false. I am thinking MMY is a "for every university there exists some associated physical structure" kind of guy. But he's not an "and that's ALL the university IS" kind of guy. If in the above you talk about brains and consciousness, then, Curtis say, IS an "and that's all it is" kind of guy (I think! Sorry Curtis if I'm getting you wrong).
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
"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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "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 ab
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill" wrote: > > > > This is not a definition but rather an interpretation. > > Try "faithfulness' ... a present-tense definition of shraddha. > > > > OK, just what does teh word "faith" mean? Belief without proof? Intuition? > Strong in God? Knowledge of things not seen? Well, according to Bhoja-deva: tatra shraddhA yogaviShaye chetasaH prasAdaH . I *guess* 'yoga-viSaye' (H-K translit.) means 'in the context of yoga', or stuff. In any case 'cetasaH prasaadaH' might be something like 'calmness of mind'? prasAda m. clearness, brightness, serenity, calmness, tranquillity, kindness, grace, favour, aid, assistance, gratuity, present.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > Shankara actually describes an eight-fold "ladder" of brahman, kind > of his version of Patanjali's eighfold path, the last of which is > that even the vritti of brahman is dropped and dissolved and > "forgotten". > Whoa! Are you sure you're not making that stuff up?! janmaadyasya yataH (*janma-aadi*; asya yataH)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > > > I've found an interesting alternative definition: > > > > > > Willingness to surrender to dharma > > > > Define dharma. Show it to me scientifically. I'll wait. > > It is everyone's 'Dharma' to finally surrender the 'Ego'... Pronouncement. Theory. Religion. NOT fact. > Scientifically, we know, that the 'Soul' animates the 'Body'... Are you honestly so clueless as to believe this, Robert? Please cite for me the scientific works that prove a soul. > But, because of our limited mind, we 'Create' this imaginary > version of ourselves, and this must be overcome to achieve > 'Dharma'... "Imaginary?" Seems to me you're just believing shit you were told, as if it were true, or Truth. Some of us have higher standards...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "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. > > 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, a
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > I've found an interesting alternative definition: > > > > Willingness to surrender to dharma > > Define dharma. Show it to me scientifically. I'll wait. >(snip) It is everyone's 'Dharma' to finally surrender the 'Ego'... Scientifically, we know, that the 'Soul' animates the 'Body'... But, because of our limited mind, we 'Create' this imaginary version of ourselves, and this must be overcome to achieve 'Dharma'... The way to disolve this ego, is to transcend it... This involves transcending body, mind, emotions and various attatchments that we inherited from past impressions or 'Samsaras'... Finally, when we stabilize the 'Being' beyond the 'Ego'... Then 'Dharma' arises naturally, as we are 'Acting' from the 'Soul'... The more 'Pure Consciousness' can be establised in awareness, the more the ego dissolves or gets 'Burned Up'... And, this just allows the true self to imerge... And the true 'Dharma' to be lived... The true dharma is to radiate pure consciousness or 'Soul'.. 'Soul' is all-compassionate, all-loving and infinite... So, it is just a matter of surrendering ego, which will automatically release the soul's desire to express itself, much beyond the boundaries of the limited 'Ego'... R.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > I've found an interesting alternative definition: > > Willingness to surrender to dharma Define dharma. Show it to me scientifically. I'll wait. > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister wrote: > [...] > > FWIW, according to Pata�jali, shraddhaa (usually translated to 'faith') > > seems to be a /conditio sine qua non/ for samaadhi: > > > > shraddhaaviiryasmRtisamaadhipraj�aapuurvaka itareSaam. > > > > (shraddhaa-viirya-smRti-samaadhi-praj�aa-puurvaka itareSaam). > > > > Taimni (Lawd, have mercy!): > > > > (In the case) of others (upaaya-pratyaya-yogis) it [samaadhi] > > is preceded by faith, energy, memory and high intelligence > > necessary for samaadhi. > > > > (NB: energy [viirya] is "dependent" on brahma-carya: > > brahma-carya-pratiSThaayaaM *viirya-laabhaH*!) > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
> > L. > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > > > > The UC view of Vedanta, esp. in the Shank. tradition, not only avoids > > siddhis, it considers them antithetical to the evolution of consciousness. > > > So, why did "Shank." himself utilize -- according to Shankara-dig- vijaya of Maadhava-VidyaaraNya -- at least two of those Paatañjala- siddhi-s, namely 'cittasya parashariiraavesha' (entered the dead body of King Amaruka for "acquirement of knowledge of sex-love") and 'aakaasha-gamanam'? "Bhagavan S[h]ankara now left Prayaga, and travelling through the skies, reached the splendid city of Mahismati...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > On Jun 7, 2011, at 7:55 PM, sparaig wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > >> > > [...] > >> Yeah, exactly. If individual brains produce individual > >> consciousnesses, you have to do some fairly elaborate > >> acrobatics to speak of Consciousness. MMY was definitely > >> an Idealist (matter is emergent from consciousness) > >> rather than a Materialist (vice-versa). > > > > There's no fracking difference guys! How can you miss this? >(snip) Funny you should make this 'Idealist' and 'Materialist'... Someone who withdraws from the physical world would be someone like Guru Dev. It seems Maharishi was bringing the knowledge of the true nature of the Self, which he imbibed from Guru Dev., into the vast material world, and wanted to attract physical wealth to his movement... This is how I see it.. R.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
(snip) > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > > According to Robin Woodsworth Carlsen, TM-style "enlightenment" is > actually of form of induced psychosis. It is perceived exactly as > described, but is in fact a form of psychosis. Given that one can > experience such things as "the universe as fluctuations of > consciousness" while under the influence of various different > psychedelics, it sounds like it would be safer to eschew TM's "serenity > without drugs" for some damn good drugs. > > > > At least you don't end up insane (typically) as the end result. > > > > Give me some Don Juan Matus anytime over becoming the latest > self-proclaimed Super-Rishi or Raja. > > > > It makes me wonder how typical a description of the world "as > consciousness" is among the mentally ill? > > > > Thoughts? > (snip) What world would exist without... 'Consiousness'... What world exists while you are in deep sleep? Do you know what your name is while in deep sleep? Do you know anything in deep sleep...? It seems obvious, that nothing exists without 'Consciousness' ... 'Consciousness is the basis for 'Existence' itself...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
Not just faith but rather "faithfulness". Pledging your fidelity of good faith. Something or someone worthy of trust or belief. Samaya - as in words of honor from a knight to his liege lord. Prussian: "Troth" - truthfulness. English - "Betroth" ... pledge of trust between a husband and wife. "Meine Erhe Heisst Treue" - "My Honor is my Loyalty." --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill" emptybill@ wrote: > > > > This is not a definition but rather an interpretation. > > Try "faithfulness' ... a present-tense definition of shraddha. > > > > OK, just what does teh word "faith" mean? Belief without proof? Intuition? Strong in God? Knowledge of things not seen? > > L. > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > > > I've found an interesting alternative definition: > > > > > > Willingness to surrender to dharma > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote: > > > [...] > > > > FWIW, according to Pata�jali, shraddhaa (usually translated to > > 'faith') seems to be a /conditio sine qua non/ for samaadhi: > > > > > > > > shraddhaaviiryasmRtisamaadhipraj�aapuurvaka itareSaam. > > > > > > > > (shraddhaa-viirya-smRti-samaadhi-praj�aa-puurvaka itareSaam). > > > > > > > > Taimni (Lawd, have mercy!): > > > > > > > > (In the case) of others (upaaya-pratyaya-yogis) it [samaadhi] > > > > is preceded by faith, energy, memory and high intelligence > > > > necessary for samaadhi. > > > > > > > > (NB: energy [viirya] is "dependent" on brahma-carya: > > > > brahma-carya-pratiSThaayaaM *viirya-laabhaH*!) > > > > > > > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > [...] > > Yeah, exactly. If individual brains produce individual > > consciousnesses, you have to do some fairly elaborate > > acrobatics to speak of Consciousness. MMY was definitely > > an Idealist (matter is emergent from consciousness) > > rather than a Materialist (vice-versa). > > There's no fracking difference guys! How can you miss this? It does involve fairly elaborate acrobatics to get to no fracking difference. If you read a later post of mine, I pointed out that rishi-devata-chhandas could account for it, just as you go on to do in another post.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
Vaj: Give me some Don Juan Matus anytime over becoming the latest self-proclaimed Super-Rishi or Raja. Vaj quotes a fictional character from the Canteñada books to nail down his arguments. So is this guy a bull-shitter or not? I think "troll" sums it up. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > According to Robin Woodsworth Carlsen, TM-style "enlightenment" is actually of form of induced psychosis. It is perceived exactly as described, but is in fact a form of psychosis. Given that one can experience such things as "the universe as fluctuations of consciousness" while under the influence of various different psychedelics, it sounds like it would be safer to eschew TM's "serenity without drugs" for some damn good drugs. > > At least you don't end up insane (typically) as the end result. > > Give me some Don Juan Matus anytime over becoming the latest self-proclaimed Super-Rishi or Raja. > > It makes me wonder how typical a description of the world "as consciousness" is among the mentally ill? > > Thoughts? > > On Jun 7, 2011, at 7:38 PM, sparaig wrote: > > > But in the context of the statement, everything IS physical. And [human] consciousness is a product of the functioning of the human brain. The fact that everything physical is consciousness all the way down doesn't mean that human consciousness can perceive this unless it is functioning in a certain way. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
true, but one doesn't have to know Skt or Hebrew in order to meet them. English works well. http://www.feebleminds-gifs.com/emerald-butterfly.jpg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill" wrote: > > Angels are merely a Semitic notion. > > There are no "angels" in the Veda-s, Purana-s or Tantra-s. > > "Angelos" means "messenger" in Greek, in other words > a news-bearer - not even a messenger of a "god". > > In Hebrew, "mal'akh yhvh" means "messenger of yhvh. > That is all. > > Fergit the notion that deva-s are "angels". T'aint so. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu" wrote: > > > > You're obscuring the issues by conflating "brains" with subtle nervous > systems. In ordinary every day parlance, Angels are considered not > having BRAINS (physical nervous systems)...and don't bring up the > Biblical statement about physically embodied Angels. > > ... > > It's obvious that Angels may have subtle nervous systems. I've met > Raphael the Archangel. He has a body but it's not physical, thus no > brains. > > ... > > Several people have asked MMY questions regarding existence after > physical life, pertaining to subtle nervous systems. Such "systems" = a > larger set than "brains", which operate on our physical world. > > ... > > Again, some people believe that if one is close to Enlightenment, the > goal may be attained without a physical body; through various Sadhanas > of unknown nature. But the idea that people "must" have physical bodies > is heresay, as is the counter proposition. But more options appeals to > me as an idea. > > ... > > http://www.feebleminds-gifs.com/celeste.jpg > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" LEnglish5@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > > [...] > > > > Yeah, exactly. If individual brains produce individual > > > > consciousnesses, you have to do some fairly elaborate > > > > acrobatics to speak of Consciousness. MMY was definitely > > > > an Idealist (matter is emergent from consciousness) > > > > rather than a Materialist (vice-versa). > > > > > > There's no fracking difference guys! How can you miss this? > > > > > > > > > L. > > > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
At the core of an arrogant man is a traumatized child, hypothetically speaking, again.:-) Why would anything be excluded from self-realization? Conversely, why couldn't someone gain self-realization any number of ways? Notice that those who have nothing good to say about the sidhis often had very weak experiences with them? Unable to let go. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill" wrote: > > The "Shank" tradition for Vaj is "Vidyaranya". > But he claim to be a dzogchen yogi so it doesn't > matter who he says is an authority. He reads books > and goes to webinars and teachings of Tibetans. > He has no guru-s or sampradaya. > He thinks of himself as the nor'easter Eckhart Tolle. > He makes this shit up. He must think it make > him look important. > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > > > > On Jun 6, 2011, at 9:38 PM, sparaig wrote: > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > curtisdeltablues@ wrote: > > >> > > >> It kind of shows how un-seriously Maharishi took this information > that it would be up to ME to cough up this furball! > > > [...] > > >> And given that the so called enlightened have so totally NOT lived > up to the > > >> hype of what these states mean according to Maharishi, a more > humble > > >> approach would be appropriate. > > > > > > Er, according to MMY, if one is actually in Unity Consciousness, one > can perform any and all of the sidhis at any time. I don't know that he > or anyone else (at least anyone within the TMO still) ever claimed that > for themslves. > > > > > > As has been pointed out to you previously on numerous occasions, it is > yoga-darshana that is enamoured with siddhis. The state of consciousness > associated with yoga-darshana in Maharishi Vedic "science" is > turiyatita, "Cosmic Consciousness" not UC. > > > > So you're left with, really, two options: > > > > 1. You heard it wrong and/or remembered it wrong. > > > > 2. The Maharishi got it wrong an therefore represents a departure, an > impurity within these awakening traditions. > > > > It's almost as if you're locked into some OCD definition welded onto > your brain, and you can't let go, lest YOU bring some imagined impurity > into the tradition. > > > > The UC view of Vedanta, esp. in the Shank. tradition, not only avoids > siddhis, it considers them antithetical to the evolution of > consciousness. > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
Angels are merely a Semitic notion. There are no "angels" in the Veda-s, Purana-s or Tantra-s. "Angelos" means "messenger" in Greek, in other words a news-bearer - not even a messenger of a "god". In Hebrew, "mal'akh yhvh" means "messenger of yhvh. That is all. Fergit the notion that deva-s are "angels". T'aint so. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu" wrote: > > You're obscuring the issues by conflating "brains" with subtle nervous systems. In ordinary every day parlance, Angels are considered not having BRAINS (physical nervous systems)...and don't bring up the Biblical statement about physically embodied Angels. > ... > It's obvious that Angels may have subtle nervous systems. I've met Raphael the Archangel. He has a body but it's not physical, thus no brains. > ... > Several people have asked MMY questions regarding existence after physical life, pertaining to subtle nervous systems. Such "systems" = a larger set than "brains", which operate on our physical world. > ... > Again, some people believe that if one is close to Enlightenment, the goal may be attained without a physical body; through various Sadhanas of unknown nature. But the idea that people "must" have physical bodies is heresay, as is the counter proposition. But more options appeals to me as an idea. > ... > http://www.feebleminds-gifs.com/celeste.jpg > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" LEnglish5@ wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > [...] > > > Yeah, exactly. If individual brains produce individual > > > consciousnesses, you have to do some fairly elaborate > > > acrobatics to speak of Consciousness. MMY was definitely > > > an Idealist (matter is emergent from consciousness) > > > rather than a Materialist (vice-versa). > > > > There's no fracking difference guys! How can you miss this? > > > > > > L. > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
methinks you will be at this a long time Curtis. Another dude, also with long
hair and a beard, has been gone for 2000+ years, and people are still arguing
about his message, purpose and intentions. And for the same reasons - they
cannot help but filter the guy through their own minds, coming up with lots of
thoughts about how *they* see the world, but not a lot of clarity or insight
about the other guy's view.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "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 a
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
> 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.
Well, that's the big step.
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.)
And in the stomach too, no?
> 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
(I've never been sure how to spell the first part, but
I'm pretty sure the second part is "avidya," no? The
phrase means "remains of ignorance." So it would be
leish avidya, I believe.)
In any case, leish avidya would have to be related to
the physiology, wouldn't it? It's because you're still
*in* a body that you have it.
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.
Sure, but that isn't what I'm talking about.
> 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.
"Important or interesting to the rest of us" isn't
necessarily comprehensive.
Granted, no Nobel Prizes to TMers, as far as we know (but
it's entirely possible we might not know if there were),
but I'm not positive scientific exploration per se is the
sine qua non.
> 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.
Well, who wouldn't? But I'm not convinced that's what
MMY was doing.
>
> 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.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
Jai Guru Dev dude! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "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. > > > > So true. > > The Age of Enlightenment is manifesting so incredible fast now even on the > collective level. > > And what is considered advanced experiences towards experiences of Being > today will shortly be commomplace. > > The understanding of our place in the Universe, so much mis-understood in the > past will, within a few short years be increasingly comprehended. Our Space > Brothers are about to be understood as Brothers, doing great works for > humanity without which our civilization would long be doomed. > > This is Maharishis accomplishment; making the Full Sunhine of the Age of > Enlightenment a permant reality for all generations to come. > > This is what he aimed at, by sacrificing his life to humanity, and this is > what he accomplished. > > Some few fortunate souls, so dear to his heart, the true Pioneers of the Age > of Enlightenment, have already made Enlightenment a reality in daily life ! > > Soon their accomplishments will become commonplace. > > "It is said that the Buddha enlightened 500 people. I think we will do > better." > > All Glory to the Pioneers of The Age of Enlightenment, all glory to Guru Dev ! > > Jai Guru Dev ! >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
There have always been wondrous and premature spiritual experiences on the way
to self realization. To make them the exclusive province of TM is absurd.
However, TM being very effective, especially with rounding, coupled with
Maharishi's decision not to take on lifestyle choices for *most* of us, the
technique could land you in some weird places temporarily. I say temporarily
because the high or experience wears off and everything is back to ordinary.
On the other hand, I would think a technique where a person never has their
locked down version of reality challenged, except a few lights out sessions
("dark retreats") would be boring and uninteresting. I could see a person after
doing such a lackluster and barely useful technique for a few years, deciding
to spice things up a little for themselves by becoming a perennial pain in the
ass about all things TM. Hypothetically speaking, of course.:-)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote:
> >
> > According to Robin Woodsworth Carlsen, TM-style
> > "enlightenment" is actually of form of induced psychosis.
>
> Oh, and Robin Woodsworth Carlsen is definitely the go-to
> person on the causes of psychosis. (That's why we always
> use his middle name, you see, to make him sound more
> impressive.)
>
> > It is perceived exactly as described, but is in fact a form
> > of psychosis. Given that one can experience such things as
> > "the universe as fluctuations of consciousness" while under
> > the influence of various different psychedelics, it sounds
> > like it would be safer to eschew TM's "serenity without
> > drugs" for some damn good drugs.
> >
> > At least you don't end up insane (typically) as the end result.
>
> Like Robin Woodsworth Carlsen, you mean?
>
> > Give me some Don Juan Matus anytime over becoming the latest
> > self-proclaimed Super-Rishi or Raja.
> >
> > It makes me wonder how typical a description of the world
> > "as consciousness" is among the mentally ill?
> >
> > Thoughts?
>
> If it were typical (I doubt that it is, but just for the
> sake of argument), would that mean that anyone who
> describes the world "as consciousness" is mentally ill?
>
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill" wrote: > > This is not a definition but rather an interpretation. > Try "faithfulness' ... a present-tense definition of shraddha. > OK, just what does teh word "faith" mean? Belief without proof? Intuition? Strong in God? Knowledge of things not seen? L. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > I've found an interesting alternative definition: > > > > Willingness to surrender to dharma > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote: > > [...] > > > FWIW, according to Pata�jali, shraddhaa (usually translated to > 'faith') seems to be a /conditio sine qua non/ for samaadhi: > > > > > > shraddhaaviiryasmRtisamaadhipraj�aapuurvaka itareSaam. > > > > > > (shraddhaa-viirya-smRti-samaadhi-praj�aa-puurvaka itareSaam). > > > > > > Taimni (Lawd, have mercy!): > > > > > > (In the case) of others (upaaya-pratyaya-yogis) it [samaadhi] > > > is preceded by faith, energy, memory and high intelligence > > > necessary for samaadhi. > > > > > > (NB: energy [viirya] is "dependent" on brahma-carya: > > > brahma-carya-pratiSThaayaaM *viirya-laabhaH*!) > > > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
The "Shank" tradition for Vaj is "Vidyaranya". But he claim to be a dzogchen yogi so it doesn't matter who he says is an authority. He reads books and goes to webinars and teachings of Tibetans. He has no guru-s or sampradaya. He thinks of himself as the nor'easter Eckhart Tolle. He makes this shit up. He must think it make him look important. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > On Jun 6, 2011, at 9:38 PM, sparaig wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" curtisdeltablues@ wrote: > >> > >> It kind of shows how un-seriously Maharishi took this information that it would be up to ME to cough up this furball! > > [...] > >> And given that the so called enlightened have so totally NOT lived up to the > >> hype of what these states mean according to Maharishi, a more humble > >> approach would be appropriate. > > > > Er, according to MMY, if one is actually in Unity Consciousness, one can perform any and all of the sidhis at any time. I don't know that he or anyone else (at least anyone within the TMO still) ever claimed that for themslves. > > > As has been pointed out to you previously on numerous occasions, it is yoga-darshana that is enamoured with siddhis. The state of consciousness associated with yoga-darshana in Maharishi Vedic "science" is turiyatita, "Cosmic Consciousness" not UC. > > So you're left with, really, two options: > > 1. You heard it wrong and/or remembered it wrong. > > 2. The Maharishi got it wrong an therefore represents a departure, an impurity within these awakening traditions. > > It's almost as if you're locked into some OCD definition welded onto your brain, and you can't let go, lest YOU bring some imagined impurity into the tradition. > > The UC view of Vedanta, esp. in the Shank. tradition, not only avoids siddhis, it considers them antithetical to the evolution of consciousness. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
This is not a definition but rather an interpretation. Try "faithfulness' ... a present-tense definition of shraddha. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > I've found an interesting alternative definition: > > Willingness to surrender to dharma > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote: > [...] > > FWIW, according to Pata�jali, shraddhaa (usually translated to 'faith') seems to be a /conditio sine qua non/ for samaadhi: > > > > shraddhaaviiryasmRtisamaadhipraj�aapuurvaka itareSaam. > > > > (shraddhaa-viirya-smRti-samaadhi-praj�aa-puurvaka itareSaam). > > > > Taimni (Lawd, have mercy!): > > > > (In the case) of others (upaaya-pratyaya-yogis) it [samaadhi] > > is preceded by faith, energy, memory and high intelligence > > necessary for samaadhi. > > > > (NB: energy [viirya] is "dependent" on brahma-carya: > > brahma-carya-pratiSThaayaaM *viirya-laabhaH*!) > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > According to Robin Woodsworth Carlsen, TM-style > "enlightenment" is actually of form of induced psychosis. Oh, and Robin Woodsworth Carlsen is definitely the go-to person on the causes of psychosis. (That's why we always use his middle name, you see, to make him sound more impressive.) > It is perceived exactly as described, but is in fact a form > of psychosis. Given that one can experience such things as > "the universe as fluctuations of consciousness" while under > the influence of various different psychedelics, it sounds > like it would be safer to eschew TM's "serenity without > drugs" for some damn good drugs. > > At least you don't end up insane (typically) as the end result. Like Robin Woodsworth Carlsen, you mean? > Give me some Don Juan Matus anytime over becoming the latest > self-proclaimed Super-Rishi or Raja. > > It makes me wonder how typical a description of the world > "as consciousness" is among the mentally ill? > > Thoughts? If it were typical (I doubt that it is, but just for the sake of argument), would that mean that anyone who describes the world "as consciousness" is mentally ill?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "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 stri
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu" wrote: > > right, but you've gradually changed the terms and definitions. The original > experession I believe was, or related to physical brains. > But, glad we agree if the definitions are expanded to embrace all types of > nervous systems, subtle or gross. Well, it was related to taking measurements of physical nervous systems and whether or not that would interfere with spirituality. If you want to extend the context in one direction, I'm happy to extend it in another... ;-) Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > On Jun 6, 2011, at 9:38 PM, sparaig wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > wrote: > >> > >> It kind of shows how un-seriously Maharishi took this information that it > >> would be up to ME to cough up this furball! > > [...] > >> And given that the so called enlightened have so totally NOT lived up to > >> the > >> hype of what these states mean according to Maharishi, a more humble > >> approach would be appropriate. > > > > Er, according to MMY, if one is actually in Unity > > Consciousness, one can perform any and all of the sidhis > > at any time. I don't know that he or anyone else (at > > least anyone within the TMO still) ever claimed that for > > themslves. > > As has been pointed out to you previously on numerous > occasions, it is yoga-darshana that is enamoured with > siddhis. The state of consciousness associated with > yoga-darshana in Maharishi Vedic "science" is turiyatita, > "Cosmic Consciousness" not UC. Of course, the discussion Lawson was commenting on was about *what* MMY said, not whether what MMY said was true. No matter how many times Vaj has told Lawson what he thinks about yoga-darshana and the siddhis etc., it doesn't change what MMY said. So Vaj has absolutely *zero* basis for attacking Lawson. > So you're left with, really, two options: > > 1. You heard it wrong and/or remembered it wrong. > > 2. The Maharishi got it wrong an therefore represents a > departure, an impurity within these awakening traditions. Lawson definitely did not get it wrong: that *is* what MMY said. As to whether MMY got it wrong, given how many things Vaj has gotten wrong about MMY and his teaching, I know whose word I'd put more stock in. > It's almost as if you're locked into some OCD definition > welded onto your brain, and you can't let go, lest YOU bring > some imagined impurity into the tradition. Notice (a) there is no "Vaj got it wrong" option; and (b) if Vaj tells you something even once, you are expected to accept it without question; if you dare to disagree, it's because you're "locked into some OCD definition." Also note that Vaj cleverly figures out a way to work "OCD" into virtually every post in which he addresses Lawson, in hopes of embarrassing him and suggesting that all his cognitive abilities are suspect. For sheer, unadulterated malicious meanness, that's really hard to beat. > The UC view of Vedanta, esp. in the Shank. tradition, not > only avoids siddhis, it considers them antithetical to the > evolution of consciousness. That's one interpretation of "the UC view of Vedanta," not necessarily the only one.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "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. So true. The Age of Enlightenment is manifesting so incredible fast now even on the collective level. And what is considered advanced experiences towards experiences of Being today will shortly be commomplace. The understanding of our place in the Universe, so much mis-understood in the past will, within a few short years be increasingly comprehended. Our Space Brothers are about to be understood as Brothers, doing great works for humanity without which our civilization would long be doomed. This is Maharishis accomplishment; making the Full Sunhine of the Age of Enlightenment a permant reality for all generations to come. This is what he aimed at, by sacrificing his life to humanity, and this is what he accomplished. Some few fortunate souls, so dear to his heart, the true Pioneers of the Age of Enlightenment, have already made Enlightenment a reality in daily life ! Soon their accomplishments will become commonplace. "It is said that the Buddha enlightened 500 people. I think we will do better." All Glory to the Pioneers of The Age of Enlightenment, all glory to Guru Dev ! Jai Guru Dev !
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
right, but you've gradually changed the terms and definitions. The original experession I believe was, or related to physical brains. But, glad we agree if the definitions are expanded to embrace all types of nervous systems, subtle or gross. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu" wrote: > > > > You're not making sense. True, everything is Consciousness all the way > > down, but not "brains all the way down". Physically dead people can be > > considered human, but can function intelligently without brains. I've met > > many of them. > > ... > > When the interactions of rishi, devata and chhandas become elaborate enough, > Consciousness forgets its own essential nature. At this point, matter and > energy emerge. > > Consciousness is at the basis of every "thing" in existence, but until you > have a "nervous system" sufficiently evolved to see this, its just a > philosophical construct (of course that might be an illusion all its own, but > MMY gave a criteria for making a distinction there, as well: can you perform > any of the sidhis at any time, without preparation, at its full expression?). > > > > > Re: the notion that people must have physical nervous systems in order to > > get Enlightened, this is speculative. Some people say that if one is > > "close" to the goal, it can be reached through resident progress in various > > Lokas suitable for helping such people. (speculative again, but represents > > a possible alternative to the "must" approach). Haven't met anybody who > > knows for sure. > > > > You're insisting that "nervous system" and "physical" must be related to the > atomic table. I'm using it in a more generic sense of veil of maya stuff. > > L. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu" wrote: > > You're not making sense. True, everything is Consciousness all the way down, > but not "brains all the way down". Physically dead people can be considered > human, but can function intelligently without brains. I've met many of them. > ... When the interactions of rishi, devata and chhandas become elaborate enough, Consciousness forgets its own essential nature. At this point, matter and energy emerge. Consciousness is at the basis of every "thing" in existence, but until you have a "nervous system" sufficiently evolved to see this, its just a philosophical construct (of course that might be an illusion all its own, but MMY gave a criteria for making a distinction there, as well: can you perform any of the sidhis at any time, without preparation, at its full expression?). > Re: the notion that people must have physical nervous systems in order to get > Enlightened, this is speculative. Some people say that if one is "close" to > the goal, it can be reached through resident progress in various Lokas > suitable for helping such people. (speculative again, but represents a > possible alternative to the "must" approach). Haven't met anybody who knows > for sure. You're insisting that "nervous system" and "physical" must be related to the atomic table. I'm using it in a more generic sense of veil of maya stuff. L.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
What evah. bah! Waves hand... L. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > On Jun 6, 2011, at 9:38 PM, sparaig wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > wrote: > >> > >> It kind of shows how un-seriously Maharishi took this information that it > >> would be up to ME to cough up this furball! > > [...] > >> And given that the so called enlightened have so totally NOT lived up to > >> the > >> hype of what these states mean according to Maharishi, a more humble > >> approach would be appropriate. > > > > Er, according to MMY, if one is actually in Unity Consciousness, one can > > perform any and all of the sidhis at any time. I don't know that he or > > anyone else (at least anyone within the TMO still) ever claimed that for > > themslves. > > > As has been pointed out to you previously on numerous occasions, it is > yoga-darshana that is enamoured with siddhis. The state of consciousness > associated with yoga-darshana in Maharishi Vedic "science" is turiyatita, > "Cosmic Consciousness" not UC. > > So you're left with, really, two options: > > 1. You heard it wrong and/or remembered it wrong. > > 2. The Maharishi got it wrong an therefore represents a departure, an > impurity within these awakening traditions. > > It's almost as if you're locked into some OCD definition welded onto your > brain, and you can't let go, lest YOU bring some imagined impurity into the > tradition. > > The UC view of Vedanta, esp. in the Shank. tradition, not only avoids > siddhis, it considers them antithetical to the evolution of consciousness. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
You're obscuring the issues by conflating "brains" with subtle nervous systems. In ordinary every day parlance, Angels are considered not having BRAINS (physical nervous systems)...and don't bring up the Biblical statement about physically embodied Angels. ... It's obvious that Angels may have subtle nervous systems. I've met Raphael the Archangel. He has a body but it's not physical, thus no brains. ... Several people have asked MMY questions regarding existence after physical life, pertaining to subtle nervous systems. Such "systems" = a larger set than "brains", which operate on our physical world. ... Again, some people believe that if one is close to Enlightenment, the goal may be attained without a physical body; through various Sadhanas of unknown nature. But the idea that people "must" have physical bodies is heresay, as is the counter proposition. But more options appeals to me as an idea. ... http://www.feebleminds-gifs.com/celeste.jpg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > [...] > > Yeah, exactly. If individual brains produce individual > > consciousnesses, you have to do some fairly elaborate > > acrobatics to speak of Consciousness. MMY was definitely > > an Idealist (matter is emergent from consciousness) > > rather than a Materialist (vice-versa). > > There's no fracking difference guys! How can you miss this? > > > L. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "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. Don't you mean "had he NOT looked to science..."? I mean, in Hermit in My House (Maharishi at 433), Helen Olson describes how they set up a little shed in the back yard so that scientific experiments could be done to validate his meditation technique and that would have been 1959 Lawson
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
On Jun 7, 2011, at 7:55 PM, sparaig wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: >> > [...] >> Yeah, exactly. If individual brains produce individual >> consciousnesses, you have to do some fairly elaborate >> acrobatics to speak of Consciousness. MMY was definitely >> an Idealist (matter is emergent from consciousness) >> rather than a Materialist (vice-versa). > > There's no fracking difference guys! How can you miss this? Maybe they bumped their head on something other than maya?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > [...] > Yeah, exactly. If individual brains produce individual > consciousnesses, you have to do some fairly elaborate > acrobatics to speak of Consciousness. MMY was definitely > an Idealist (matter is emergent from consciousness) > rather than a Materialist (vice-versa). There's no fracking difference guys! How can you miss this? L.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "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.) > I don't know about his contempt for the scientific method, but there's no contradiction here: its consciousness all the way down. However, consciousness, of a certain form called "a human brain" must be functioning [doing its consciousness-thang] in a certain way in order for that human brain to appreciate "wholeness of life." Lawson
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
According to Robin Woodsworth Carlsen, TM-style "enlightenment" is actually of form of induced psychosis. It is perceived exactly as described, but is in fact a form of psychosis. Given that one can experience such things as "the universe as fluctuations of consciousness" while under the influence of various different psychedelics, it sounds like it would be safer to eschew TM's "serenity without drugs" for some damn good drugs. At least you don't end up insane (typically) as the end result. Give me some Don Juan Matus anytime over becoming the latest self-proclaimed Super-Rishi or Raja. It makes me wonder how typical a description of the world "as consciousness" is among the mentally ill? Thoughts? On Jun 7, 2011, at 7:38 PM, sparaig wrote: > But in the context of the statement, everything IS physical. And [human] > consciousness is a product of the functioning of the human brain. The fact > that everything physical is consciousness all the way down doesn't mean that > human consciousness can perceive this unless it is functioning in a certain > way.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" wrote: [...] > I think I would say "yes & yes". Between asterix (asterixes?), > true that. But I think those words are not expressing properly > his position as (fairly consistently) expressed elsewhere. MMY > was not a reductionist/materialist as would seem to be implied > by "consciousness is the product of brain functioning". > human consciousness is the product of the human brain's functioning. Sheesh. Is it really this hard to grasp? He's talking about humans and their spiritual experiences as humans. An angel's consciousness is the result of the [whatever the equivalent of an angel's brain]'s functioning. You can't have a localized (whether it is in time or space or both) observer without some kind of associated structure (nervous system). Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
You're not making sense. True, everything is Consciousness all the way down,
but not "brains all the way down". Physically dead people can be considered
human, but can function intelligently without brains. I've met many of them.
...
Re: the notion that people must have physical nervous systems in order to get
Enlightened, this is speculative. Some people say that if one is "close" to the
goal, it can be reached through resident progress in various Lokas suitable for
helping such people. (speculative again, but represents a possible alternative
to the "must" approach). Haven't met anybody who knows for sure.
...
http://www.fantasygallery.net/ravenscroft/art_4_golden.html
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote:
>
> But in the context of the statement, everything IS physical. And [human]
> consciousness is a product of the functioning of the human brain. The fact
> that everything physical is consciousness all the way down doesn't mean that
> human consciousness can perceive this unless it is functioning in a certain
> way.
>
> L
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu" 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.
> >
>
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
On Jun 6, 2011, at 9:38 PM, sparaig wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: >> >> It kind of shows how un-seriously Maharishi took this information that it >> would be up to ME to cough up this furball! > [...] >> And given that the so called enlightened have so totally NOT lived up to the >> hype of what these states mean according to Maharishi, a more humble >> approach would be appropriate. > > Er, according to MMY, if one is actually in Unity Consciousness, one can > perform any and all of the sidhis at any time. I don't know that he or anyone > else (at least anyone within the TMO still) ever claimed that for themslves. As has been pointed out to you previously on numerous occasions, it is yoga-darshana that is enamoured with siddhis. The state of consciousness associated with yoga-darshana in Maharishi Vedic "science" is turiyatita, "Cosmic Consciousness" not UC. So you're left with, really, two options: 1. You heard it wrong and/or remembered it wrong. 2. The Maharishi got it wrong an therefore represents a departure, an impurity within these awakening traditions. It's almost as if you're locked into some OCD definition welded onto your brain, and you can't let go, lest YOU bring some imagined impurity into the tradition. The UC view of Vedanta, esp. in the Shank. tradition, not only avoids siddhis, it considers them antithetical to the evolution of consciousness.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
But in the context of the statement, everything IS physical. And [human]
consciousness is a product of the functioning of the human brain. The fact that
everything physical is consciousness all the way down doesn't mean that human
consciousness can perceive this unless it is functioning in a certain way.
L
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu" 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.
>
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" wrote:
>
> Which comes first, the 'Soul' or the 'Body'?...
> Do you remember being in the 'Womb'?
> Where were you between 'Lives'...?
> When you drop the body, will you still 'Exist'?
> Does your body know it 'Exists'...
> Or is 'Consciousness' the 'First Cause'?
>
It might be the first cause, but HUMAN consciousness requires a human nervous
system, and human appreciation of Unity requires a human nervous system in
Unity Consciousness...
L.
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister wrote:
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote:
> > >
> > > "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."
> > >
> > > -Maharishi Mahesh Yogi
> > >
> >
> > Well, actualla, one of the "nicknames" of Vedaanta-suutra
> > is 'shaariiraka-suutra':
> >
> > zArIrakamfn. bodily , corporeal &c. (= %{zArIra}) ; n. the soul or
> > embodied spirit or the doctrine inquiring into its nature MW. ; = %{-sUtra}
> > Veda7ntas. ; N. of an Upanishad (cf. %{-ko7paniSad}) and of a medical wk.
> > by S3ri1-mukha ; du. bodily joy and pain BhP.
> >
>
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister wrote:
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote:
> >
> > "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."
> >
> > -Maharishi Mahesh Yogi
> >
>
> Well, actualla, one of the "nicknames" of Vedaanta-suutra
> is 'shaariiraka-suutra':
>
> zArIraka mfn. bodily , corporeal &c. (= %{zArIra}) ; n. the soul or
> embodied spirit or the doctrine inquiring into its nature MW. ; = %{-sUtra}
> Veda7ntas. ; N. of an Upanishad (cf. %{-ko7paniSad}) and of a medical wk. by
> S3ri1-mukha ; du. bodily joy and pain BhP.
>
Willingness to surrender to dharma-sutra...
L.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
I've found an interesting alternative definition: Willingness to surrender to dharma --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister wrote: [...] > FWIW, according to Pata�jali, shraddhaa (usually translated to 'faith') > seems to be a /conditio sine qua non/ for samaadhi: > > shraddhaaviiryasmRtisamaadhipraj�aapuurvaka itareSaam. > > (shraddhaa-viirya-smRti-samaadhi-praj�aa-puurvaka itareSaam). > > Taimni (Lawd, have mercy!): > > (In the case) of others (upaaya-pratyaya-yogis) it [samaadhi] > is preceded by faith, energy, memory and high intelligence > necessary for samaadhi. > > (NB: energy [viirya] is "dependent" on brahma-carya: > brahma-carya-pratiSThaayaaM *viirya-laabhaH*!) >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu" wrote: > > thx, on his stmt that everything is physical, consciousness is a product of > brain functioning, etc; sounds a lot like Sam Harris. (scientific > materialism), brain comes first. > ... You're forgetting: it is consciousness all the way down... Human consciousness is a product of the human brain. The human brain, in term, is a product of consciousness. BUT, to hand-wave and say "its all the same" is to avoid dealing with the fact that for most people, it doesn't look the same, because their brains aren't functioning in a way that allows them to appreciate that fact. And as for the rest, shrug. I don't worry about home invaders too much beyond locking my door and keeping a disrupter under my pillow. L.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "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. 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. 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. 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. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > "authfriend" 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu" 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 b
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
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. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" wrote: > > "authfriend" 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu" 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 > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > He found the presentation of scientific materialism useful as a > > > > marketing strategy, which he laid out explicitly in his SOB. (favorite > > > > acronym ever!) > > > > > > He did? > > > > > > It's a long time since I SOBbed ;-) > > > > > > But I did read it once, cover to cover, and I certainly did not > > > mark his card as "scientific materialist". > > > > > > If you have a mo, could you reference some passages that you > > > feel assert scientific materialism? > > > > He talks about presenting the knowledge in a scientific context > > for people living today because that is what they believe in. > > But despite the trappings of a Science of Creative Intelligence > > Maharishi did not hold the methods of science to be anything so > > valuable that he needed to respect them. And he didn't. I was > > characterizing his presentation of consciousness based on > > physiology as scientific materialism. > > But it isn't, except for those two sentences. I agree with that completely. But we are talking at x-purposes here perhaps. Judy and I are talking about "scientific materialism". Curtis - I think you are talking about "presenting TM in scientific terms". Because (it seems to me) you sometimes conflate a scientific explanation with a materialistic explanation, our discussion has become muddled. I think I would accept though that MMY was an "ends justifies the means" kind of guy. But I'm not sure that's a sin. I think it also likely that MMY was clothing TM in scientific language for marketing reasons (and pedagogy). That doesn't bother me much either. A fancy, epistemological (;-))name for that is "pragmatism". But "scientific materialist"? No.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > wrote: > > > > > > > > He found the presentation of scientific materialism useful as a marketing > > > strategy, which he laid out explicitly in his SOB. (favorite acronym > > > ever!) > > > > He did? > > > > It's a long time since I SOBbed ;-) > > > > But I did read it once, cover to cover, and I certainly did not > > mark his card as "scientific materialist". > > > > If you have a mo, could you reference some passages that you > > feel assert scientific materialism? > > He talks about presenting the knowledge in a scientific context > for people living today because that is what they believe in. > But despite the trappings of a Science of Creative Intelligence > Maharishi did not hold the methods of science to be anything so > valuable that he needed to respect them. And he didn't. I was > characterizing his presentation of consciousness based on > physiology as scientific materialism. But it isn't, except for those two sentences. > I guess the reason this has caused debate is that I am > implying that Maharishi was talking out of two sides of his > mouth and Judy and perhaps you would like to see him as > more sincere. We all have to make our own choices on the > sincerity question. My point was that you homed in on those two sentences as if they made your case. They don't. You just used them as an excuse to inject your standard MMY-as-insincere bash.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
"authfriend" 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu" 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. Bu
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "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.) > > > > I don't think you can base your "two teachings" premise > > solely on the basis of those two sentences. > > I had some more exposure to his teaching than just those > two sentences. Why would you restrict us to just those > this quote in any discussion about him here? Those two sentences were what we were discussing, so your post appeared to be using the two sentences as evidence for your "two teachings" premise. But as I went on to point out in my next post, that statement as a whole appears to be directed as much to believers as to materialists, if not more to believers.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > > He found the presentation of scientific materialism useful as a marketing > > strategy, which he laid out explicitly in his SOB. (favorite acronym ever!) > > He did? > > It's a long time since I SOBbed ;-) > > But I did read it once, cover to cover, and I certainly did not > mark his card as "scientific materialist". > > If you have a mo, could you reference some passages that you > feel assert scientific materialism? He talks about presenting the knowledge in a scientific context for people living today because that is what they believe in. But despite the trappings of a Science of Creative Intelligence Maharishi did not hold the methods of science to be anything so valuable that he needed to respect them. And he didn't. I was characterizing his presentation of consciousness based on physiology as scientific materialism. I guess the reason this has caused debate is that I am implying that Maharishi was talking out of two sides of his mouth and Judy and perhaps you would like to see him as more sincere. We all have to make our own choices on the sincerity question. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" wrote: > > He found the presentation of scientific materialism useful as a marketing > strategy, which he laid out explicitly in his SOB. (favorite acronym ever!) He did? It's a long time since I SOBbed ;-) But I did read it once, cover to cover, and I certainly did not mark his card as "scientific materialist". If you have a mo, could you reference some passages that you feel assert scientific materialism?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "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.
Maharishi put a lot of time and effort into making his teaching available in
stages so that people not already bought in would not interact with the stuff
that required more belief support. I don't know if that is a plot or not but
it is an irrefutable aspect of how he taught and is key to understanding why
Maharishi might come off as a scientific materialist one minutes and then
present the primacy of consciousness the next. And this rap was no looser talk
than anything else he presented. It was as he himself characterized as the two
sets of teeth of the elephant, one for eating and one for show.
>
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu" 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.
> > >
> >
>
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "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.)
>
> I don't think you can base your "two teachings" premise
> solely on the basis of those two sentences.
I had some more exposure to his teaching than just those two sentences. Why
would you restrict us to just those this quote in any discussion about him here?
I'm sure you know he wasn't a scientific materialist. I'm not sure what point
you are making here.
He found the presentation of scientific materialism useful as a marketing
strategy, which he laid out explicitly in his SOB. (favorite acronym ever!)
>
>
>
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu" 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.
> > >
> >
>
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" jstein@ wrote: > > > > I think I would say "yes & yes". Between asterix (asterixes?) > > Noes! "Asterix the Gaul"! > > Singular: asterisk. Plural: asterisks. (From the Greek > > *aster-iskos*, "little star.") > > Thanks. "Little star". Spot on!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu" 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.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > I think I would say "yes & yes". Between asterix (asterixes?) Noes! "Asterix the Gaul"! > Singular: asterisk. Plural: asterisks. (From the Greek > *aster-iskos*, "little star.") Thanks. "Little star". Spot on!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "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.)
I don't think you can base your "two teachings" premise
solely on the basis of those two sentences.
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu" 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.
> >
>
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu" 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.
>
> I think I would say "yes & yes". Between asterix (asterixes?)
Singular: asterisk. Plural: asterisks. (From the Greek
*aster-iskos*, "little star.")
> true that. But I think those words are not expressing properly
> his position as (fairly consistently) expressed elsewhere. MMY
> was not a reductionist/materialist as would seem to be implied
> by "consciousness is the product of brain functioning".
Yeah, exactly. If individual brains produce individual
consciousnesses, you have to do some fairly elaborate
acrobatics to speak of Consciousness. MMY was definitely
an Idealist (matter is emergent from consciousness)
rather than a Materialist (vice-versa).
I think the only wiggle room is in "Every aspect of life
is integrated and connected with every other phase,"
which you might interpret as a way of invoking rishi-devata-
chhandas, or Knower/process of knowing/that which is known,
in which no member of the trio exists or acts independent
of the others--meaning that no object of knowledge exists
on its own; it exists because it is known by the Knower.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "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.
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu" 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.
> >
>
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
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.)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu" 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.
>
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu" 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.
>
I think I would say "yes & yes". Between asterix (asterixes?),
true that. But I think those words are not expressing properly
his position as (fairly consistently) expressed elsewhere. MMY
was not a reductionist/materialist as would seem to be implied
by "consciousness is the product of brain functioning".
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
Robert: > Which comes first, the 'Soul' or the 'Body'?... > Do you remember being in the 'Womb'? > Where were you between 'Lives'...? > When you drop the body, will you still 'Exist'? > Does your body know it 'Exists'... > Or is 'Consciousness' the 'First Cause'? > These questions cannot be answered because of human error. An error is something that should not be. Fact is, we don't see things exactly as they are - we see only parts of the whole. And, the mere fact of seeing changes the properties of the things seen. If things aren't as they seem, then how can know for sure if anything will be really real? If things appear to be so, but are in fact not so, then why so? If humans can err in the present, what would have prevented the wisest of men in the past from committing an error as well? So, the real question is: "Who am I, really?" Read more: Subject: Who Am I, really? Author: Willytex Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental Date:October 10, 2005 http://tinyurl.com/3qlqdky
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "WillyTex" wrote:
>
>
>
> > > Isn't it more accurately summarized as "everything
> > > has a physical level, consciousness is correlated
> > > with brain functioning"? Metaphysically that's a
> > > big difference...
> > >
> authfriend:
> > 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."
> >
> Somebody got really mixed up! According to the author
> of Brahma Sutras, Badarayana, "Brahman is what everything
> comes from." So, for the Vedanta, Consciousness is a
> product of Brahman. Pure consciousness is the Being, the
> Brahman itself, not an object of cognition.
Yes, as I went on to say (and you snipped):
> 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.
>
> Janmadyasya yatah I.1.2 (2) (Brahman is that) from which
> the origin etc., (i.e. the origin, sustenance and
> dissolution) of this (world proceed).
>
> 'Brahma Sutras'
> By Swami Sivananda
> http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/bs_1/1-1-02.html
>
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
> > Isn't it more accurately summarized as "everything
> > has a physical level, consciousness is correlated
> > with brain functioning"? Metaphysically that's a
> > big difference...
> >
authfriend:
> 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."
>
Somebody got really mixed up! According to the author
of Brahma Sutras, Badarayana, "Brahman is what everything
comes from." So, for the Vedanta, Consciousness is a
product of Brahman. Pure consciousness is the Being, the
Brahman itself, not an object of cognition.
Janmadyasya yatah I.1.2 (2) (Brahman is that) from which
the origin etc., (i.e. the origin, sustenance and
dissolution) of this (world proceed).
'Brahma Sutras'
By Swami Sivananda
http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/bs_1/1-1-02.html
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu" 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.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
> FWIW, according to Patañjali, shraddhaa (usually > translated to 'faith') seems to be a /conditio > sine qua non/ for samaadhi... > Well, yes, you have to have a certain amount of faith that the goal exists: samadhi. We don't know for sure that a state of samadhi exists, unless we experience it ourselves, but until that point, we have to consider what we do know and how we know it. We take verbal testimony as one source of valid knowledge. How else would someone even know about the enlightenment tradtion unless you hear about it from others. "The most valuable practice in the sphere of dhyana is the simple system of transcendental meditation. Transcendental meditation belongs to the sphere of dhyana, but at the same time transcends that sphere and gives rise to the state of transcendental consciousness, samadhi. After this state has been gained the attention returns to the sphere of dhyana, which is a sphere of activity." (CBG p. 486)
