So, let's get this straight. You are not enlightened, are not established in Being, and therefore have not the slightest idea of what Maharishi was ultimately trying to accomplish.
You, and that other ex-TM teacher, like to pick at the loose threads, while ignoring the blatant fact, that you guys were washouts, in terms of succeeding at that which you taught, and were taught. You can say it is a problem with subjective interpretation, pre-scientific thought, and erroneous assumptions about consciousness, but the one thing you and tweedle dee cannot say, is simply, that you know what you are talking about, not having achieved the permanent state of consciousness, that Maharishi constantly referred to. If you would just admit this, Curtis, for you and Barry, both, you wouldn't have to spend so much time running down rabbit holes, and darting off to the side, constantly. Once you admit it - Barry already has - you are scot-free, off to the races, no problem. But continuing to spew forth on all things Maharishi and enlightenment, when you were clearly a failure, really shouldn't be tolerated on a forum like this. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote : Your attributes are wrong. Share didn't write that paragraph, I did. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <punditster@...> wrote : On 5/16/2014 4:00 PM, Share Long sharelong60@... mailto:sharelong60@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: C: > I challenge his fundamental assumption that "knowledge is structured > in consciousness." This is epistemological bogus and psychologically > manipulative. > R: You've totally lost me on this one. It is a standard Vedanta and Vajrayana theory first put forth by Asanga - that consciousness is the ultimate reality. Apparently they don't teach Hindu Vedanta or Buddhist Vajrayana philosophy at MUM. Go figure. C:So extend the bogusness to include them. I am aware of what Maharishi was presenting historically too. "Duality is only an appearance; non-duality is the real truth. The object exists as an object for the knowing subject; but it does not exist outside of consciousness because the distinction of subject and object is within consciousness." (IV 25-27) Sharma, p. 245-246. C: This is an assumptive phase that reminds me a bit of Locke's views. R: According to Sam Harris, to say that consciousness may only seem to exist is to admit its existence in full—for if things seem any way at all, that is consciousness. Consciousness is the one thing in this universe that cannot be an illusion. C: I would have to read that in context but I can assure you , he doesn't use this term in the same way the ancient Indians did. Our sense of our consciousness is fraught with all sorts of illusions and may even be a by product itself of a brain that evolved by necessity rather than intelligent design.Some parts communicate with other parts at a different pace and this may be the cause of our sense of consciousness. It is quite a mystery and I just don't accept that the ancients had it all figured out. or the moderns for that matter! --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com http://www.avast.com
