--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@... <no_reply@...> wrote: > > Most of what you say here is irrelevant, having much more to do with your > inner story, than any tangible effects, pro or con, regarding meditation. > > Anything we appropriate for our lives, appears to have a benefit for us > initially. Its continued benefit, or not, can easily be measured. Not by > which story fits best in our heads and hearts, but rather, by answering a > simple question, periodically, "Hey (I say to myself quietly), howzit > going?". Now, there not being anyone around but me, there is no need to > bullshit myself. > > This is the way I have approached my relationship with TM. There is a real > difference between having an elaborate justification for something, vs. being > secure in its value simply because it works properly, as the tool it is > intended to be. > > Seems you've gone from being obsessively naive during your days in the TMO,>
What are you basing this on since we didn't know each other then? Actually as a philosophy major at MIU I was involved in the most rigorous challenge to the beliefs of the movement within the organization. Or questions were so troubling that Maharishi eliminated the major even though it was one of the university's most popular majors. I did continue to train until I represented the teaching based on the same criteria you describe above, I believed it was working for me. <to now being obsessively critical with the science-y stuff. Two sides of the same coin (same as the other coin flipper on here). This the second time you have conflated the issues of epistemology with being science-y. The methods of science are a subset of the issues contained within epistemology of how do we evaluate the strength of our reasons supporting a belief. The scientific method has a limited range of application and is practically useless when evaluating the philosophical issues I am raising about spiritual beliefs. Evaluating the reasons we adapt beliefs is not a science issue. They have to deal with it too, but it underlies all of human knowledge. Even for people who deny they have beliefs as you have attempted. Saying that I am being obsessively critical with the science-y stuff is just another of your many attempts to demonize me personally rather than discuss the issues I am raising. But this was a more polite version from the last name calling session, so thanks for that. > > Like Maharishi always said, in so many different ways, the value of TM is > beyond thoughts. Stay grounded and enjoy it. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@> > wrote: > > > > So after the wave of drama I am back contemplating what the value is of the > > different states of mind produced and cultivated by meditation. (Emily > > please cover your ears.) > > > > Meditation is pleasurable on its own even without any benefits. > > Pleasurable experiences need no further justification. It produces a > > "high" and that feeling can linger. I still question the value of some of > > the more intense peak experiences since it is basically as content free as > > a hit of something from the opiate group, which is not surprising because > > neurotransmitters are the bodies inner opiates. And getting all > > fulfilled-up, divorced from any achievement more than a cat lying on the > > same pillow to warm it couldn't accomplish seems a bit dubious to me. I > > guess it is a matter of how much time is devoted to this feel good state of > > mind. The question of it producing something else is still up in the air > > for me. > > > > I believe for some people there is an effect of meditation making them more > > thoughtful, however I would add that naturally thoughtful people can become > > more detached and dissociated from their feelings. I don't see the kind of > > mental enhancements that Maharishi tried to claim. The TMers were a > > self-selected higher educated, higher income group to start, but other than > > that seem fairly ordinary to slightly more naive about claims than most > > people I interact with. They tend to trust their inner feelings about > > objective things and that gives many of them a bit of over-gullible > > dopiness. So I can't see that long term use of meditation has brought much > > in the way of benefits mentally or creatively. People who are naturally > > creative continue to be as they meditate, even as they attribute it to > > their practice, and boring people who are not creative are just as dull > > with the additional annoyance of seeming pretty pleased with themselves > > internally for no obvious reason. > > > > The biggest claim from the perspective of these traditions is that they are > > opening up the mind to a more unvarnished direct experience of "reality". > > I think this seems a bit dubious and seems overly dependent on the > > interpretation from old traditions that were as full of superstition as any > > insight into man's condition. But that is the deepest reason to do a lot > > of mind altering meditation, the combination with the belief that this > > experience means certain things. > > > > I'm just gunna toss off the Mahariahi/Heglin physics angle as a metaphor > > gone awry and marketing silliness and not worth considering. > > I will include Maharishi's own standard of test of sidhi performance to > > indicate that something didn't work out as predicted. Either it is really > > NOT the field of all possibilities or TM and sidhis aren't getting people > > to that level. The experiment has been going on a bit long so if the > > movement wont call this one, I will. > > > > But other sincere Yoga believers maintain that the state of mind reached in > > meditation and the state they cultivate allows them to see the truth of > > existence which corresponds not coincidentally with whatever ontological > > metaphysics the group they associate with buys into. And with the > > vagueness of the language used to describe these states combined with the > > abstract non sensory nature of most of these POVs, we have an untestable > > loop of belief feeding the experience its meaning. > > > > So it seems to come down to faith in the system's meaning assignment. And > > I know that there will be much hue and cry that in fact it is all > > experienced and not just believed, but that doesn't seem to included an > > understanding of how conception shapes our perceptions. Especially in an > > area with so much floaty altered states involved. I just don't believe the > > conditions are present for reliable knowledge reporting. So if you believe > > in the system's view of ultimate reality, you will get a nice dose of that > > experience. But you have really no way to verify its validity because it > > is all subjective. And our brains definitely have the ability to serve up > > a version of everything being one or whatever other version of unitive > > experience you want to trot out. Been there. > > > > When a Christian says he EXPERIENCES being born again into the loving > > salvation of his Lord, that he is living in a state beyond mere belief, he > > is on the exact same epistemological sand trap as the yogi who claims that > > his inner experience is the real real,seriously dude, I'm talking realest, > > experience of reality. And in the end it is the feeling good that is > > probably the driving force accompanied by a distinct lack of interest in > > pushing further into the discussion of "how do we know this". > > > > But that is where I am. I don't see anything persuasive as an argument in > > favor of believing that people who claim higher states are any more in tune > > with reality than the rest of us. With all the obvious wackiness from many > > of these people I think they support a better case for self-delusion, or at > > best a sort of benign overestimation of one's real wisdom. > > > > And I know that those into this will dismiss my "ignorance" and see this > > POV as indicating a flaw in me. I am fine with that. But I am an > > unenlightened guy and this is a legitimate question I am proposing. I would > > think someone coming from and enlightened viewpoint could at least present > > a case that would satisfy me without having me first drink the cool-aid of > > belief first. I got my ticket punched, had the unitive experiences and am > > still left with the legitimate question: > > > > How do we know that meditaiton states are better able to experience > > reality, and how could we know if this was true? > > > > Emily take your hands off your ears now. > > > > The above writing was an expression of my POV, and you can verify this > > because it has my name at the top. > > >
