Nice post. I have no specific comments about it, but wanted to reply so I'd have the opportunity to thank you for the Golda Meir quote. That's approaching Oscar Wilde territory.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "at_man_and_brahman" <at_man_and_brahman@...> wrote: > > Robin, no one has taken up my suggestion to consider how William of Occam > would treat your story. As you probably know, Occam's Razor says, "Pluralitas > non est ponenda sine necessitate; "Plurality should not be posited without > necessity." The simplest solution is the one most likely to be correct. In > practice, "the simplest solution" is sometimes open for debate, but this > principle is still useful. > > I grew up in a Methodist family (though I do not belong to any church and > have been a TM meditator for about 35 years), and find Catholicism, with its > reliance on tradition and intercession, a poor substitute for whatever value > lies in a more direct Biblical Christianity. That admitted bias and a few > others I feel to be equally Occamian are the basis for what I write below. My > thoughts are beginning to form regarding what may be questionable premises > upon which you've structured an apparently logically sound argument, i.e., > one in which the conclusions follow from the premises. If the premises are > false, even a logically sound argument will provide a false representation of > reality. [Yes, I'm clear you see Maharishi's teaching the same way.] > > Here are my problems with what you've generously shared with FFL, as much as > I've thought them through to date: > > * I haven't read The Summa. I'd be surprised if it would impress me the same > way it did you, not because of spending most of my lifetime influenced by > Maharishi and his mantras but rather because I grew up Protestant. I don't > believe the Bible to be the inerrant word of God, but I'm much more likely to > look to it for the Christian message than to Aquinas or to other Catholic > saints and scholars. Curtis appears to be saying much the same below. If the > only hope of my being saved from the evil Vedic gods lies in attuning my mind > to a Catholic Doctor, I'll take my chances. "If you have the conjoined bad > luck to be both a Protestant and a TMer, you're screwed." > > * You believe the Catholic church lost the Holy Spirit in the last century. > I'd posit that whatever the Holy Spirit might be, Catholicism lost it within > a few hundred years, at most, of the time of Jesus. Again speaking as a > [nominal] Protestant, I look at the early history of Peter's church as one > focused on accumulation of gold, jewels, and relics largely to the exclusion > of simple original teachings, such as not storing up treasures where moths > and rust corrupt and thieves steal. Aquinas might have been a great > theologian, as such, but he lived in a world far removed from that of Jesus, > and I don't accept that the thirteenth century was any more graced by God > than our own. I understand your points about objective experience and how it > seemed part and parcel of the great Christian writers of the time. I just > don't think the experiences represented Biblical essence. > > * If Vedic gods/fallen angels/evil mantras/whatever are determined to turn TM > meditators away from God and toward unity consciousness as a false > representation of reality, and you were one of the only poster children for > their work, they are very ineffectual. Most meditators get nowhere close, no > matter how many times they repeat their mantras or how many advanced > techniques they have. As a friend of mine who is an initiator once told > another initiator who was waxing skeptical about whether TM was the right > path, "I don't mind bowing down to Vedic gods because, after I reach The God, > they can kiss my butt." A few decades later, my friend has reached not CC, > GC, or UC, and years of being married to a Catholic theology school graduate > have not brought him closer to the Christian God. Catholicism's Jesus and the > Vedic gods have both failed miserably, though both have had plenty of > opportunity to take his soul. Most people who still practice TM have more > sleepiness and daydreaming during meditation than mystical deviation from > objective Truth as defined by Aquinas. If the Vedic gods can bring me a bit > of life after the evening news, they can otherwise kiss *my* butt. Sometimes, > they succeed, sometimes not. A meditating friend of mine once told his > children that, if his head was above the pillow after a long day's toiling, > he was meditating. If his head was below the pillow, he was sleeping. > > * You agreed with me that you might be the only person in recorded history to > win the spiritual Triple Crown: achieve unity consciousness, conclude > intellectually that it was a false representation of reality, and then > extricate yourself from it by some as-yet unexplained process. You don't seem > to be concerned about the improbability thereof, assuming you were correct in > all your determinations. In thousands of years, why hasn't anyone else in the > spiritual/mystical literature of the world recorded the same thing if you're > right? Why assume yourself to be special? > > Here's your pattern: You once thought you were part of a special group of > people, knowers of Ultimate Truth (UT) 1.0. Upon becoming an *embodiment* of > UT 1.0 (UT 1.5, if you will), you then created and taught a subcult that you, > uniquely, had UT 2.0, consisting of the missing ingredients of UT 1.0 (not > unlike Ravi Shankar more recently, with his cognition of Sudarshan Kriya). > Now, you believe you might be unique in all of history to have garnered UT > 3.0 (that UTs 1.0, 1.5, and 2.0 were all constructs of fallen angels as > revealed through the writings of a man a large percentage of Christendom > would regard as possessing UT 0.5, at most), inclusive of a means to > extricate yourself from UT 1.5. My memory of college statistics is that we > should be multiplying the odds of each of these improbabilities, using Bistro > Mathematics (see Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy), to get the combined > improbability that you're in possession of the Answer to the Ultimate > Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything. > > "Don't be humble. You're not that great." -- Golda Meir > > * It makes sense to me that the increasing unification of physics, one which > William of Occam would have liked, supports the eastern world view of > monistic idealism. Aquinas believed that God created the universe and man > within it, and that we, as created beings, can never be God. Correct? > Einstein, another guy maybe even smarter than Aquinas, said that he once > realized, after years of shaving with one bar of soap and washing his hands > with another, he needed only one bar to accomplish both tasks. In my own > small way, I prefer the parsimony of a unified level of man/nature/Creator. > > Robin, you're an anomalous presence in the TM universe. I've always been fond > of anomalies and ambiguities, or "boundary conditions" as they're called in > physics, and am finding myself increasingly fond of you, even if I appear > critical. The healthy mind challenges its own assumptions, parsimonious or > not. In challenging your own over the years, you cause me to do the same with > mine. > > From America to Canada, happy July 4th. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@> > wrote: > > > > My grandfather was a fascinating guy, started as a professional violinist, > > became a scientist and help develop the gasses that killed the Germans in > > the trenches in WWI,(cough, cough, ouch) became a successful enough > > businessman to have a wing of the Albany NY hospital named for him for his > > philanthropy. He smoked a Meerschaum pipe and used to discuss Darwin's > > theories with me at age 10. > > > > He was driving with his son-in-law, my Dad, one day when they passed a sign > > for a Church named the Church of the Assumption. > > > > "Aren't they all" he quipped. >
