--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltabl...@...> wrote: > > It is so interesting to read this kind of stuff now, being so > outside the mindset. I have a few thoughts about it. > ... > Here is where I disagree with Maharishi the most: > > > Now what is needed depends on an infinite number of > > considerations, but it is a field of all possibilities, > > because it is Ritam bhara pragya, a state of intelligence > > which knows everything and which registers only the truth. > > It is not deluded because it is Self-referral. Being > > Self-referral it knows everything. > > This is not only wrong, it is dangerously wrong.
I wanted to reply to this yesterday but didn't have the time to. Tonight, waiting to go out for the biggest night of Carnavale, I do. I think you pinpointed the crux of the situation, Curtis. Pretty much the *whole* situation. Why would a person claim on an Internet forum that they know the "truth" about what someone they've never met is "really" thinking and what his "real" motives are? Why would *anyone* say something that ludicrous? They don't think it's ludicrous. And the reason is that they were taught to believe stuff like the "teaching" at the top. I agree with you that it's not only wrong, it's dangerously wrong. > It is a statement of confidence in a state of mind as a > source of truth that needs no external testing. Funny > that he denies that it is "deluded" because this is > exactly how I view such a claim. I view it that way, too. But the people who have been taught to believe that a state of mind *can* be a "source of truth" would probably not see it that way. They would, in fact, assume that it was very possible for them to achieve a state of mind from which they personally can know the "truth." Having accepted that, it's a very small step from there to actually believing that they *do* know the "truth."
