Not a response or challenge to anyones words, just some observations on the words themselves.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" <raunchy...@...> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <rick@> wrote: > > > > From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] > > On Behalf Of raunchydog > > Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 12:52 PM > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Response to Curtis > > > > Walking one's talk is certainly important, but a judging a person's > level of > > consciousness from outward appearances and actions leaves a lot to be > > desired with respect to accuracy. If someone leads a righteous life > from > > outward appearances, their inward experience might be quite ordinary. > On the > > other hand, isn't it's possible for a person to be a scoundrel, and > still > > have extraordinary inward experiences? We can spend all day judging > other > > people's consciousness, but in the end we can only judge the quality > of our > > own experience. IMO it's presumptuous in the extreme to judge the > level of > > consciousness of others. > > > > I agree, and I'm not doing that. As far as I can tell, MMY was in an > > extraordinarily high state of consciousness (with apologies to > Curtis). > > According to his teaching, that should correlate with an > extraordinarily > > high degree of moral development. There's the rub. > > > > Rick, of course you've been judging the consciousness of others. It's > silly not to own it. IMO it's just as presumptuous of you to say > Maharishi was in an extraordinarily higher state of consciousness as it > is for anyone to say he wasn't. Words create a bit of a jail for the mind. How can unboundedness (again a word jail) be higher or lower. But after years of using the word higher with relationship to consciousness, we may actually see it as physically spatially higher. Distortions always eventually get whipped around by the actual. Using an internal concept of higher tends to create distance not intimacy. Maybe just call it pedestal consciousness so we we can always adore it from afar -- as something 'up there". Even if we say "refined" instead of higher -- how can Consciousness be refined? Consciousness is what it is. Perhaps its the use of the term Consciousness -- which having multiple meanings -- muddies the waters. I find using the sanskrit term can help clarify the muddle. How can Atman be refined is a more precise casting of the same question. It can't. Our consciousness is a reflection of that. Sometimes clearer, sometimes more smudged. > AGAIN...it is not possible to judge a > person's level of consciousness by his or her actions. > The cultural, emotional and intellectual interpretation of actions will always vary greatly from setting to setting. Interpretation of actions are always contextual. How could consciousness be tied to a certain set of "appropriate actions" - appropriate for all ages, cultures, people and circumstances. And one has to ask -- where do actions come from if identity is not found in those actions -- no doer. Do they come from a consciousness that is vastly separate from actions? Or do they come from something separate from consciousness. If separate, then where is the connection to consciousness. Does Atman create actions? Does Atman categorize actions into "appropriate for Atman" and "not appropriate for Atman?" Or perhaps one sees all actions as a play of consciousness. Then from this appreciation of things, all actions, world wide, are the play of consciousness - not just some of them. Does Atman say "These good and cool things are a play or Atman -- the bad and totally uncool actions are not a play of Atman". It appears that its all or nothing -- not much room for "some" "good" actions are related to Atman nd other "bad" actions are not. > Everyone is entitled to speculate about Maharishi's inner life based on > his outer life, but by what criteria? Think of ourselves and our own lives. Has anyone ever misinterpreted your actions, not really gotten where you were coming from? The only thing we can see from another's actions, is usually, what our own mind state would be if those actions came out of us. We might assume that if we did x y or z, then our inner space must be this or that-- something we have experienced within. If you have not experienced all possible inner realms, all reflections of consciousness, all reflections of Atman, how could one begin to know what actions are possible from that space. Maybe we can employ the shtupping > scale. One shtup BC, two shtups GC, three shtups CC, etc. > > It's deplorable behavior to take advantage of a young woman when you're > in a position of authority but it still doesn't say anything about > Maharishi's level of consciousness. By the way Curtis is going to kick > your ass for saying Maharishi isn't in low-life consciousness. B.F. > Skinner, really? I'd say he's more like Funky Winkerbean...with > emphasis on funky. > > Perhaps you've been trying for years to reconcile Maharishi's behavior > with what you believe to be his higher state of consciousness. I > appreciate this is an important issue for you, but IMO you've set before > you an impossible task. I hope you find peace with it. Maybe there is a Nobel Prize in it -- the definitive action sets clearly correlated (or caused by -- even better) with distinct reflections of consciousness. Ha! > From my own perspective I know it's possible to teach TM and not be the > least bit enlightened. But what do my students know about my level of > consciousness? Nothing. I haven't taught TM in years, but through the > Grace of Guru Dev, Maharishi made the the steps of initiation so > effortless, I could do it again in a heart-beat. > > Initiation is a methodical process, but there's an undeniable magic that > fills the person's Being when he or she transcends for the first time. > It's a glorious mystery I am blessed to share with others. I don't doubt > or question how is it that I, an unenlightened person, can actually > teach someone TM because I know that it isn't really *me* creating the > process of transcending. I leave that to the play of the eternal, > immutable nature of Being bubbling up for expression. I'm just the > stagehand. Maybe that's all that Maharishi ever was as well. > > > [http://joshreads.com/images/10/08/i100808fw.jpg] > Which again raises the question of who is the actor, from where do action arise -- in various reflections of consciousness.
