--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@...> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@>
> wrote:
> >
> > Judy for the record, your objections to my other post
> > were either based on your lack of familiarity with
> > Maharishi's experiential goals for his programs beyond
> > the beginner level of instruction, (never attended an
> > experience grading group)
>
> Let's avoid your attempt at context-shifting here and
> look instead at these quotes:
I know you think Robin gave you a wonderful tool here Judy but it really is
meaningless. We all communicate through different contexts and communicating
across them is the job of communication. To accuse someone of having a
different context to look at something is to say that they are a different
person from you. You are using it as a way to accuse deviousness which is a
transparently unfriendly agenda.
>
> "It was the goal of the practice to have the experiences
> I was having [in meditation]."
>
> "The experience of enlightenment IN activity is the goal
> of the practice."
>
> Both are quotes from your posts to me in our discussion.
> They are contradictory. Are you able to acknowledge this?
Seriously, you are hung up on this? This different contexts are unclear to
you? Even knowing that my whole point was about having peak experiences so
pleasurable that they bypass the action achievement fulfillment cycle might
have a downside?
This is a prefect example of what I mean by the different knowledge base
between teachers and TM practicers. After I clarify this you will know exactly
what I mean.
Let's use Maharishi's favorite teaching tool.
The goal of Olympic weightlifting is to bench press over 500 pounds ten times.
The goal of Olympic weightlifting is to get a medal at the Olympics.
Are these contradictory?
One of the main things that teachers learn is that meditators can't be trusted
with the full perspective of Maharishi's teaching. It is doled out very
carefully. So when teaching a meditator it is critical to never give the
impression that the meditation itself has an experiential goal or they might
try to manipulate the practice to achieve it, or become a pain in the ass if
they have not by complaining about it. So meditators are fed only enough
information so that they will be good little mindless doobies and repeat their
mantras without any expectations.
But in the context of Maharishi's full teaching is there a goal to the
meditation itself? Yeah it does and that is the experience of clear witnessing
of the transcending process. It also turns out that this state is highly
pleasurable which was my whole point. When I sit to meditate my brain goes
into a state of extremely high reward. My post was an essay on my ambivalence
about its value to my life comparing it to the different perspectives I have
had about it.
On TTC and even on my sidhis courses among others we sat in groups and
evaluated our experiences grading them from A clear transcending most of
meditation, B Transcending sometimes, and C foggy. This is important if you
want to do any techniques that require you to be in a state of mind other than
thinking about how hot the chick who sits in front of you looks in yoga pants.
(I mean really, you can see her thong.) So on courses where Maharishi is no
longer afraid that you will mess up your TM he discussed experiences of
meditation, and yes, clear transcending is actually better than having thoughts
at a certain stage of the process. You can't do anything other than just
meditate more to achieve it, but that is the reality, it is better. I rounded
my ass off (4 years) to achieve it.
So in the context of meditation development clear transcending most of the time
in meditation is the goal of the practice and that was all I was discussing.
The discussion has been derailed but my point concerns my experience of the
goal of the meditation practice, not that I am in Brahman Consciousness which
(now watch out these are gunna sound the same...)is the goal of the practice of
TM.
If that doesn't make it clear nothing will. Have you noticed that the people
who are most willing to discuss the deeper aspects of the teaching on the board
are the ones who dropped out of the mindset? That is because teachers are
indoctrinated not to discuss Maharishi's teaching openly with mixed levels of
exposure to the knowledge. The internet kind of blew the lid off of a lot of
that with certain information, but it has not replaced the hours of study to
acquire Maharishi's perspective and mindset. That takes time. I don't
recommend it now, but there is no shortcut. If you want a teacher's
perspective on TM you need to take TTC. There are hundreds of hours of tapes
of Maharishi discussing things he never reveals to meditators.
And even then there are levels of knowledge. I had access to the equivalent to
the Vatican tape library and saw tapes that required me to get written
permission from Jerry Jarvis to see them. They are no longer even shown to
teachers. So I can guarantee you that there are many many many hours of tapes
of Maharishi talking to small groups about things only a handful of people have
heard. And check this. I also know that Maharishi made many tape alone and
had them locked with no one seeing them.
There has always been a hierarchy of access to his knowledge and still is.
I hope someday the secrecy gives way to a sense of openness of knowledge so
that his teaching could be seen in its completeness. Not because I think he
was all that. But because he does have a voice that deserves to be heard on
the topic of meditaton. So that it can be added to our growing knowledge pool
of being a human.
>
> > your confusions concerning different aspects of the
> > teaching,(confusing the programs inner goals with the
> > outer goals)
>
> Do you maintain that the first quote above is the "inner
> goal"? Does it obviate the second goal?
Complete non sequitur.
>
> > or a deliberate malicious filter that twisted what I meant
> > into something you could complain about propelled by a
> > premise that I have an agenda to mislead people who might
> > want to start TM for some devious, although inexplicable,
> > reason.
>
> I said it was important to avoid misleading people, and I
> did suggest you had done so in the post I complained about,
> especially with that first quote above. I actually never
> suggested you had an *agenda* to mislead. I'm perfectly
> willing to accept that it was inadvertent, that it simply
> hadn't occurred to you that what you were describing of
> your own experience ("addiction" etc.) might lead someone
> to think it applied to TMers in general, most of whom
> never get into TM in that kind of depth and intensity.
I wasn't discussing foggy meditations while going over your shopping list. I
was discussing the effect of having extremely pleasurable meditations in a
group FFL, who has many members who can relate to that.
One the most interesting things to me about taking up TM again after 18 years
not meditating was that I was right back to where I left off. My brain just
went right back into the experiences I was having at the end of 15 years of
involvement. So this might be some innate thing TM triggers in how the brain
operates or perhaps it was just conditioned by TM, but either way it is
interesting in its persistence. So I am genuinely questioning the value of the
practice openly here. It has been derailed by so much hostility.
>
> I'm not the one who twists things, Curtis.>
Like that.
>
> > But in the end we both got what we want. I got to clarify
> > what I meant
>
> Not quite yet, Curtis. As I predicted, you dropped out
> of our discussion after being confronted with your
> contradictory assertions quoted above.
No you wore me down in your not getting the distinctions that mattered to my
point and over-focusing on irrelevant or only apparent distinctions like the
one quoted above. And which you could have caught much earlier if you didn't
have your devious-Curtis filter on.
>
> > and you got to make your eternal case that a stranger on
> > the Internet was a bad, bad person.
>
> "Stranger on the Internet" is a bit of deliberate and
> unwarranted loading--misuse, actually--of language. A
> person to whom you've been talking for years on an
> Internet forum cannot legitimately be said to be a
> "stranger."
You are a stranger to me Judy. As Steve has pointed out you have revealed very
little of yourself personally here, much less than I have. Your roll here has
been as an editor of other people's writing and resident nit-picker. And you
yourself admitted that you "knew better" than to discuss your experiences here
as I do. And your thinking style is so foreign to me I still after all these
years cannot predict what you will or will not "get" from my writing. I never
would have predicted that you could have mixed up the quote at the top. It
still has me shaking my head. And he weirder thing still is that you will not
back down and acknowledge that you missed a very obvious point. You will find
some irrelevant nit to pick and will be off again in your next post. I have
never seen you learn from one of our exchanges and change your view. You will
just focus somewhere else as if this interaction never happened or will find
some word I used that you will hyper-focus on.
>
> I think you are an unusually *devious* person. Whether
> that makes you a "bad, bad person" is a definitional
> issue. (I think it's better to be straightforward,
> myself.)
Devious: Showing a skillful use of underhanded tactics to achieve goals.
Yeah I wonder how I took that in a bad way. You must have meant "underhanded"
in a good way then.
>
> > Now you can go back to your fulltime job of informing the
> > world what a bad person Barry is
>
> "Fulltime job"? Hardly. And less and less necessary as
> time goes on to inform folks about his negative
> qualities. Few on the forum take him seriously any longer;
> as you may have noticed, he's having increasing trouble
> retaining his teeth as he ages. Less work for Mother.
>
> Speaking of Barry, it appears that you're going to
> politely refrain from correcting your buddy on his
> deliberate misrepresentation of your discussion with
> me (also as I predicted).
Yeah, I'm gunna leave that up to you to deal with. I was only interested in
the part that concerned me.
>
> I thought it was amusing, by the way, that you claimed he
> had painted both of us in an unflattering light. In fact,
> of course, the only thing he criticized you for was
> talking to me in the first place, while instructing you to
> "IGNORE HER DEMENTED ASS," among other demonizations.
He was harder on you but you deserve that. But between more friendly posters
even a slight admonition is notable and it got my attention.
>
> > and will hopefully leave me alone to discuss my topic
> > with people with an genuine interest in what I am saying.
>
> I'll continue to comment on whatever I see fit to comment
> on in your posts.
So pugnacious. It must be exhausting being you.
>
>
>
>
>
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Curtis, for the record, while there's a lot in this post
> > > I *disagree* with rather strongly, there isn't a thing
> > > in it that I object to the way I did with your other post.
> > > As far as I'm concerned, no one has any need to cover
> > > their ears.
> > >
> > > You will no doubt continue to insist that I criticized
> > > your first post because I disagreed with it rather than
> > > because it was misleading, but if so that's your problem,
> > > not mine.
> > >
> > > --- 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.)
> > > (snip)
> > >
> >
>
