--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltabl...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > <snip> > > > 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? > > > > "Detailed knowledge concerning how the world works," > > such as what? What questions about how the world works > > would you have expected to have answered if he had > > been an expert? > > Don't you think permanent access to Ritam should provide > some pretty rock'n details about anything? Maharishi > started quite a few businesses so it was not out of line > to think he might have come up with something really > innovative like how to get energy out of french fries or > something.
My understanding of this kind of siddhi is that it's on a need-to-know basis. What can be perceived via ritam isn't decided by the individual in question. > But lets just look at the detail he did provide as a basis. > Would you be happy in any other area of human knowledge to > get the kind of formulaic responses to describing the state > that we got from him? At that stage of the teaching process, with this kind of knowledge, I'd expect to hear the basics until the teacher was satisfied that everyone had mastered them. > Let's just take GC where the celestial level of life is > open to perceptions. Do you think that a person who could > see this level might have some useful insights about the > finest aspect of the relative? Maybe, maybe not. See above about "need to know." In this case, on the part of the students as well as the teacher. > But if you are satisfied with the details of his > description for each stage of development, then you are > all set. For me they seem kind of lame and lacking in > the depth and detail I expect in a book about Tuscan's > approach to Italian cooking in the waking state of > consciousness enhanced by a bit of Chianti. As you know, I've never been confident you actually got the depth. I've never seen you demonstrate any real understanding of it. > > (For the record, his basuc model of higher states wasn't > > original with him. His contribution was more in his > > systematic, highly integrated explanations thereof in > > layman's language. > > I think you are giving him a bit more credit for what he > came up with in interpretation than it might deserve. It's less credit than you gave him! > But it never evolved. You would think with people in the > movement growing into these states we would have > unceasingly detail descriptions beyond what you might > overhear over the trance-dance music at a rave. I haven't seen much in the way of detailed descriptions from you of your experiences of advanced states. Maybe you didn't have anything beyond the trance-dance level? > What other field of human knowledge billed as a science > had so little growth of perspective in the decades Maharishi > was in charge? We saw lots of innovations in marketing. > But in terms of his insights about life we saw almost no > growth of knowledge. I don't think higher states involve "insights about life." Those would be relative concepts. > Just rehashed cliches enhanced with the new Vedic word of > the moment that made it all seem as if something new was > coming out instead of the same old points with some new > buzz words. And the higher states model was particularly > stagnant and I find the the most surprising. That should > have been the most vibrant growth part of his teaching > considering all the "researchers in consciousness" were > focusing their (even with my jaded perspective) intelligent > minds on the task. Growth of consciousness isn't *about* focusing the mind on the task. Again, that's all relative stuff. The growth is internal and subjective (and very largely indescribable anyway; words aren't an adequate tool for the job). > IMHO, had it been significantly more > > detailed, it wouldn't really have suited the purpose; it > > would have been likely to cause confusion rather than > > clarity. It was hard enough to get the basics across.) > > I don't agree that it would have caused confusion, why? > Any field of knowledge is confusing until you learn the > basics then then build on them. But he never did really > build on the basics,he repeated them. And we used to get > the basics across in a single advanced lecture on the > seven states of consciousness in centers. People's > descriptions today haven't really gone beyond those > catch-phrases. I'm not sure they *can*, simply because of the limitations of language. I mean, look at some of Vaj's posts in which he spouts off all kinds of "details" about states of consciousness. I'm sure there are equivalents in the Advaita and Yoga traditions MMY taught. They don't really add anything to growth of consciousness; they're just a lot of intellectual masturbation, all relative. And I'm not sure every TM teacher was teaching from any more than rote. I've seen more than a few, mainly here and on alt.m.t, who clearly just didn't *get* it. They couldn't extrapolate on their own, or if they did, they were way off base. Some didn't even get how the TM process works. They could draw the bubble diagram, but they didn't get the principles behind it. (Vaj is the perfect example, BTW. He's clueless.) And goodness knows, even with the top-notch teachers I was fortunate to have, not all the students got it either--bubble diagram, seven states, you name it. My sense is MMY focused on teaching the basics as clearly as he possibly could and left it at that, knowing any more detail--if it could even be articulated--would be wasted on a good number of students, and that those who got it would have the Big Picture and be able to extrapolate on their own.
