--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > > Just as a general rule of thumb, people who think > > > > MMY had it all wrong really ought to leave their > > > > minds open a crack to the possibility that the way > > > > they understand what he taught may not be the only > > > > way, and that there are certain insights they may > > > > not have fully grasped. > > > > > > Should we also have the same lack of confidence in > > > our assessment of the teachings of Jerry Falwell, > > > Chairmen Mao, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, everybody who > > > gets on Access Hollywood? > > > > Did I say "As a general rule of thumb, people who > > think somebody has it all wrong should lack confidence > > in their assessment of him or her"? > > No you used different words. But inviting someone to > believe that they haven't grasped the concepts is the > same thing.
Curtis, if you're going to paraphrase me, please try to be accurate. I didn't "invite someone to believe" anything. I suggested they leave their minds open a crack to the possibility there were some insights they hadn't grasped. > Maharishi wasn't > exactly presenting Hegelian philosophy. He was > extremely repetitive on very view, easily grasped > points. I suggest you leave your mind open a crack as well on this point. > > Or did I make a specific statement concerning MMY? > > That's what I guess I don't understand, why are you > making a special case for him? Is he the only such > special case? I don't know, most likely not. But his case is the only one I'm talking about here. I don't see any > reason for someone who has spent some time with his > 3 books and especially after meditating for a while > to doubt their conclusions about his teaching based > on how well they have understood it. Do you think someone who has spent some time with three books about the Delta blues and has played and/or listened to the music for a while can be certain they understand it completely? > > Do you equate leaving one's mind open a crack with > > lack of confidence? How about just lack of *certainty*? > > I guess we all put in the time we feel we need for > any thinker and then come to a conclusion. I'm not > sure "certainty" is the best goal for knowledge. No, neither am I. I don't think in some cases that we can even be certain we've put in all the time we need to come to a valid conclusion. <snip> > Maharishi was not the biggest intellectual even by > his own admission in his own field of interest > compared to the professional pundits around Guru Dev. I think that depends on how one defines "intellectual." <snip> > > To put it in more general terms, you can't *rule out* > > other interpretations of a teaching if you aren't > > even aware there *are* other interpretations. > > I'm not sure what you are referring to here. I had in mind some of the conclusions that Ruth has drawn, such as that "no suffering" means "no empathy." Maharishi was pretty > explicit. He did elaborate his beliefs more in his > teacher training tapes, so I guess you could make a > case that teachers are in a better position to judge > what he taught from their 8 months or so of 3 tapes > a day exposure. But both you and Ruth were at the > same training level of his teaching so that doesn't > apply. In my observation, Curtis, some people get it and some don't, no matter how much training they've had. It's not a matter of smarts; I'm not sure what makes the difference. Not everyone has the capacity for thinking metaphysically, just as not everyone has musical ability. <snip> > So I guess I still don't understand what you were > referring to specifically which would avoid the > double bind Ruth mentioned which is that if you > disagree with him then you are wrong because you > have disagreed with him. I never said or suggested that. For all I know, if Ruth were to make an effort to wake up her inner metaphysician and ended up really getting what he was teaching, she might still decide it was wrong. But she'd have much more sophisticated reasons for coming to that conclusion, and she would likely not be quite so smug in her dismissive attitude toward those who think it was right.
