--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltabl...@...> wrote: > > Please excuse the lack of < > around Judy's comments. I > cut and pasted this into another doc while yahoo groups > was not cooperating this afternoon. I'll put a ME: in > front of my stuff. > > Re: Response to Curtis > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@> > 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. > > Me: Maharishi sold it as volitional
I'll leave that to empty bill to sort out; I wasn't really able to follow what he was saying, and I'm not sure which of us he was responding to. Hopefully he'll explain further. > but either way I have no reason to view it as more > than just another Vedic myth like flying monkeys. Irrelevant. Here we're discussing what the teaching *is*, not whether we believe it. You have a tendency to get the two confused. > > 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. > > Me: 50 years and then just die without laying out more? > I'm gunna go with he didn't have more or he would have > packaged it and sold it. ?? Sheesh, he's constantly being accused of bringing out all kinds of new stuff to package and sell. > > 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. > > Me: So everything with the flow of knowledge is the > best of all possible worlds? I guess that's one way of putting it, especially if your intention is to put it down. > Well you are the one who needs to be satisfied here > so if you are good for you. See, again you're getting the substance confused with belief. > > 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. > > Me: > This has always been your oddest line of attack since > as we both know I am the only one officially vetted > and awarded with accolades as having understood it > really well by both MIU and MERU. Mm-hmm. Some here would laugh at you for insisting on your Authoriteh. I stand by what I said. > That said, my conversations with you started after > I had been out for some time and some of the details > of the teaching have an "angels on the head of a pin" > quality to me now. I wouldn't expect you to think I > understood his teaching now. I re-phrase his idea in > my own way now unless I am specifically pointing out > what I heard him say. > > The way I express how I understand it all now is not > as Maharishi wanted us to understand, or how I did > when I was a believer. I disagree with him about HIS > grasp of the details of human consciousness. I think > he made a lot of stuff up. Sure gets you off the hook, don't it? <snip> > > 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. > > Me: I don't view them as advanced but just altered. Irrelevant. > Describing them isn't my job it was his. Copout. > Why would you try to throw this burden of proof on > me now? Because you said you hadn't heard "unceasingly detail descriptions" of higher states from people in the movement. > Maybe you didn't have anything beyond the trance-dance > level? > > Me: Yeah, I just wasn't evolved enough to believe what > you believe, line. Kinda going old school on me here > aren't you? Are you claiming your experiences were more profound than anybody else's? Because you just got done saying you hadn't heard any descriptions beyond the trance- dance level. > So who do you imagine has gone beyond the trance dance > level and how do you know? Don't "know" for sure about anybody, but I'd put some money on Peter, for one. I don't think the disappearance of the "I" as he describes it is normally encountered by participants in trance-dances, and certainly not on a long-term basis. > > 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. > > Me: KISIC That is pretty clear about how up on the > relative concepts it would entail. "KISIC"? No idea what you're saying here. > It is the whole conceptual basis for his university. Yes, but it's still *relative*, Curtis. > > 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). > > ME: > OK so I guess he is off the hook and so am I. If you like, sure. And all the others as well. I think the limitations of language are extremely important in understanding any teaching about enlightenment. <snip> > > 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. > > Me: > I find some of Vaj's descriptions to be exactly what > I would have expected from Maharishi concerning the > detailed expediences of levels of consciousness. I > don't buy the initial premise that we know these are > valuable states of mind, but I would appreciate the > detail if I was into this stuff. Each to his own, I guess. > Judy > 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.) > > Me: Well I'll have to agree to disagree with how much > you mastered Maharishis's teaching Judy. I mean your > exposure was really limited. You're welcome to correct me if you think I've gotten anything wrong. I can't recall your ever having done so. > But beyond that it is too much of a hodge podge to > really be called a system. We'll have to agree to disagree on this point. My experience was of a hodge-podge at first, but it gradually coalesced, one piece after another falling into place as my understanding grew. By far the most satisfying intellectual experience I've ever had. The sense of completion, of integrated resonance, was extraordinary. But it's also open-ended--not "complete" as in finished, done with; the understanding gets more and more fine-grained and more and more expansive at the same time. Sort of like a hologram once the fundamental pieces are in place. > It was formed in a critical vacuum where everything > Maharishi said was devoured by young people with very > little clue about anything. The context of adoration > and non challenging any point made it an artificial > system with very little rigor. Again, I disagree. It's the most organic system I've ever encountered. > Plus so much of the teaching is just assertive nonsense > claims so the idea of mastering it means repeating a > lot of unverified claims. Irrelevant. > (Like nature controls ritam so we can't ask for the > cure for my father's cancer.) Hm, where did that come from? Not from anything I said. (Is your father ill with cancer? If so, my fervent wishes for his recovery.) > 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. > > ME: > I was tested on my understanding under an academic > setting so I knew I had it down to their satisfaction > when I cared to. Dunno, maybe the academic setting was the problem. > But your perspective is missing about a thousand > hours of his lectures But according to you, most of that was repetition. Ooopsie!! > so I believe your confidence is more of a feeling > based thing. Not, actually. I've gotten enough unsolicited positive feedback from very experienced teachers to be pretty sure I have the basics down. (And this wasn't on residence courses; it wasn't pat-on-the-head feedback.) <snip> > 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. > > Me: > That certainly lets him off the hook nicely. And therefore couldn't be the case? > Doesn't have to demonstrate any superior mental > development I think he demonstrated superior mental development in spades. I was awed by his intelligence. > no need to prove that he has any special powers Sure are a lot of stories about his demonstrations of same. But there are, of course, some very good pragmatic reasons why he might not have wanted to give formal demonstrations if, in fact, he did have "special powers." > and let the students teach themselves! Best way to learn, especially in an experiential field of knowledge. Give 'em the basics, and let 'em loose.
