On Jul 24, 2008, at 10:58 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Jul 24, 2008, at 12:03 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote:
Curtis, think you are going a little overboard with your
rejecting a
lot > of yogic science.
I just said it is faith based, and it is. I don't share your faith.
What you're not getting is that yogic "science" is not faith based at
all: it is direct experience based.
Experienced based and the methods of science are not the same thing as
I'm sure you know. People could claim "Jesus science" because they
"experience" being saved but it doesn't mean they are using the
methods of science.
I would say subjective science rather than objective science then.
Either needs a steady and reliable instrument with which to
investigate it's nature.
You'd find it easier to understand this if you had a teacher who had
experientially guided you through the various stages of meditation.
I'm not challenging the usefulness or the compelling nature of your
experience. I respect that you feel very convinced. That conviction
doesn't translate to other people as easily which is appropriate.
Well that is the same with external science and subjective science.
Just because Pons and Fleischman say they can produce cold fusion in
a jar doesn't mean I accept it either. I'd have to laboriously try to
replicate their experiment. Same with some internal states.
Just because you were burned by a false guru is a bad reason to
assume that other meditative teachers are not authentic. But it is a
reason to be suspicious.
I would not sum up my mostly positive experiences with Maharishis as
being burned by a false guru.
Sorry, I do not get that impression listening to you.
It appears to me that since you did not have the benefit of such
training, you go to the opposite pole of experience: objective,
verifiable materialistic experience and embrace that as your belief:
faith in science. And clearly science is also faith based. We don't
replicate every peer-reviewed we see published; we take it on faith
that it's "good science". Similarly in terms of internal states, we
rely on the authenticity of the teacher and the authenticity of his
or her experience. The problem of course is, in either case, if you
have a crooked scientist or a fraudulent yogi your very basis of
inquiry is inherently flawed.
I agree with your critique of the application of the scientific method
by people. I don't agree that I have somehow become a cartoon person
who only believes in material things. Some of my most cherished
experiences are not material things. It is an unfair reduction of my
life.
I was not referring to all of your life, merely in regards to you TM
experience and how that seems to have changed your appreciation of
internal meditative states. I feel relatively certain that you have
many internal experiences you do value just like everyone else.
However I do see a disconnect between you not finding the inner
experiences authentic in the way they were claimed by your teacher
and your claim that these were positive internal experiences. If the
two (the gurus claim and your final decision on their intrinsic
value) don't jive it would seem to me that the claim (below) that
such experiences were "great" are at loggerheads. Perhaps you meant
to say 'they were great at the time' or maybe that they were
'pleasurable' states?
In the same way that external validation can take place, so can
validation of internal states. I think you should be open to the fact
that you may have been "burned" by a fraudulent internal scientist
("yogi"), but just as a fraudulent scientist does not invalidate all
of scientific inquiry, nor does a fraudulent yogi invalidate all
verifiable internal states.
I had great internal experiences with Maharishi's programs. I just
don't accept his explanation of what they mean. You may have a great
handle on your own internal mental states but I doubt you have one on
mine.
Also similarly, when a faulty or fraudulent scientist attempts to
present bad science, peers should be made aware of the error, so too
should fraudulent yogis be exposed for their mountebankery. It's
unfortunate that such persons exist, but they do.
I don't share your experience of other yogis who you feel are superior
to Maharishi in some way.
Well of course that would depend on whether or not you had some
similar experience with other yogis.
In your own example
it's forced you to be averse to a whole dimension of inquiry, the
internal ones. This is however a natural response to abuse. You've
been wounded in some way and so you (or any of us) react accordingly.
I've just come to different conclusions than you have Vaj. No need to
demonize my position as being "a natural response to abuse."
I'm referring to mindsets you've shared here before, like the recent
example you gave of actually believing other teachers should not be
engaged since they had an agenda to acquire students of Mahesh'.
There are a number of brainwashing-like elements in any cult like the
TMO and yes they are abusive IMO. Same with thought reform in such
groups. I feel that to be a type of abuse. I believe (please correct
me if I'm wrong on this) I had the impression that you went through
some kind of exit counseling post TM? It is based on these
impressions that I use the word abuse. It was not an attempt to
demonize your position but simply to respond to what appears to be
the case, based on what I believed you were saying. I do understand
you may not feel it was abuse, and I hope it was not. But from my
POV, it appears that way.
Instead the point was that your stance seems to be a response to
something strong, an aversion, that forces you to close off a certain
POV as viable. IME people only make such a shift in response to some
very strong stimulus.
I also understand that it is extremely difficult for people who were
at a certain level of involvement to fully disengage or come clean
(please don't take that as aimed at you, that is for you to decide).
To do so may feel like we lose our integrity, after all we've
invested our hearts, our minds, our time and our money. To turn away
from that can be very difficult.
Claiming
to know that I have been wounded in some way is presumptuous. As I
have told many true believers of TM who tried to sum up my Maharishi
experience this way,it is incorrect. I had a great time with
Maharishis till the day I decided that I did not share his world view
anymore. I am not a victim and he didn't wound me.
Again, I'm not trying to sound presumptuous but instead relying on
the impression I formed from listening to you describe your situation
over time.
Can you imagine how bogus it would be for me to sum up your current
position of having studied with "real yogis" as being in reaction to
your hurt of being burned by Maharishi, so you had to find someone to
replace him?
No, I think that would be an honest statement to be perfectly frank!
It was hurtful and yes I did want a experts perspective, so I sought
out an expert I felt I could trust and used the discrimination I
gained from my TM experience to approach some important questions I
had. (BTW I am not referring to Sw. Rama here. I never fully trusted
him, but I did appreciate some insights I was able to gain).
