So...we can forget about you addressing this issue, directly; your failure to experience what Maharishi attempted to teach you, and have you teach others. It doesn't bode well for you, dude. You continue your evasive moves, trying to somehow make this about me.
But, it isn't about me. It is about a couple of ex-TM teachers, overreaching their knowledge, and stating their opinions, for which they have no substance. That is it. Very simply. At least the other guy was willing, all too willing, to admit the extent of his "enlightenment" -- two weeks of witnessing, a loooong time ago. Put up, or shut up, Curtis. As your cohort would say, "I'll wait". ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <fleetwood_macncheese@...> wrote : 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. c: I have a very clear idea of what he was trying to accomplish. Far better than your delusional relationship with his buzz words. J: 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. C: Jim, your assumptions about yourself are fraudulent and have zero traction for your goal with me. Nothing you say here has any relevance to me.I know you think you have found some kind of tool to make yourself feel superior and important, but it is backfiring badly. Trying to use bombast to get at what I experienced with Maharishi's programs is not going to work. You are acting like a dick Jim. J: 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. C: Whatever power you are attempting to exert over me here is just showing you for what you are. The whole "when did you stop beating your wife" routine is transparent. Are you really too dim to understand this? J: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. C: Shouldn't be tolerated? Who exactly do you think you are? ---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
