--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" <raunchy...@...> wrote:
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. B.F. Skinner, too clinical for a performing artist, Funky Winkerbean, bit too depressing from the few strips I have read... so I was hoping to be the hetero James Randi! As to Maharishi's state of consciousness, I wouldn't pick "low-life" as a description. The guy was exceptional in many ways. Just not all the ways the that he promoted himself to be. Lets start with the Horacio Alger's story of an Indian business man creating a world empire. Not too shabby on its own even with the deduction for the slave labor he used to renovate and flip his real estate ventures. And his insight on teaching people how to teach meditation was a Henry Ford brilliance of mass marketing meditation. And in my experience it really worked well. So even without a model of his being in a unique state of mind ala higher states the guy was not a lower anything IMO. But even with all the hype about his love of knowledge, he was more a repetitive marketer mind than a real scholar even by his own admission. Looking at his higher state of consciousness model, which really should have been his big detailed contribution to human thought: can you really say he gave the kind of details that an expert would be able to give? I saw hours and hours of tapes of him discussing "higher states" and it never really reached beyond the level of translating the brochure descriptions from the Sanskrit. Given how rich these state should be in terms of detailed knowledge concerning how the world works, am I the only one to be underwhelmed by his descriptions? They seem useful in their lack of detail so people who are having some type of unusual internal experience can say, "yeah that's me, between Unity and Braham" as you hear on BATGAP. Vague oneness and seeing my SELF everywhere and kumbaya my lord kumbaya. But Maharishi was no lower anything. He was kicking ass and taking numbers. (the only question we may disagree on is whose asses were getting kicked and whose numbers where being taken.) > > > > --- 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. AGAIN...it is not possible to judge a > person's level of consciousness by his or her actions. > > Everyone is entitled to speculate about Maharishi's inner life based on > his outer life, but by what criteria? 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. > > 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] >
