wtf? ...more distracted nonsense from you... ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote :
--In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <fleetwood_macncheese@...> wrote : Curtis, if you were open to a normal explanation, and had already heard a lecture or two of Maharishi's, he always spoke in terms of the highest, first - so it sounds like a reasonable explanation to me - the furthest extent, of a currently unstable state of consciousness. Of course, if you, and whatshisface, were half the teachers you claim to be, and actually understood life from the perspective of the first stage of enlightenment, witnessing 24x7, you would recognize how what Maharishi said, makes a lot of sense, with a dash of inspiration, for those he was helping along. However, without this grounded nature in silence, all you see are the pieces, simply because the wholeness of what Maharishi is talking about, has not yet been achieved, by you. So, your perspective is comprehensible, yet by your own refusal to admit it, unenlightened -- but the question remains, why do you feel qualified, then, to hold forth on something you know next to nothing about?? C:So proud of witnessing, imagine that! I haven't heard such an adorable focus of attention since college. You know what goes great with witnessing Jim? Some nice Celestial Seasonings tea, maybe some Almond Sunset with a nice big spoon of honey. (Organic of course and preferably orange blossom) Be sure to put on some Keith Jarret too, that will calm you down a bit. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote : --In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <mjackson74@...> wrote : "He made it very clear on the first 6 month course that his model was just that and then proceeded to try to convince everyone they were already in Brahmin Consciousness like those Advaita dudes do!" Now that is very very interesting to me - he really said that, that the CC, GC, UC stuff was just a model, as in just a way of talking about awareness, not the definitive definition of human enlightenment??? C: It stared with teachers admitting that they did not have clear transcending when he asked for experiences. He was shocked. The way it was relayed to me when they got back was that he said that transcending to no mantra no thoughts was for is for beginners, that everyone was witnessing their meditations which is why everyone still had thoughts in meditation and not clear transcending the whole time and that all his teachers at the course were living in Brahman already but needed his stroke of knowledge. He said that their growth had not been sequential but all at once so that they all had flashes of all the states as they grew in wholeness. (there is a word too fat to pin down huh?) It was relayed to me by a really smart chick from the course who I could tell was a bit conflicted about being able to embrace her new Brahman consciousness. -------------------------------------------- On Fri, 5/16/14, curtisdeltablues@... mailto:curtisdeltablues@... [FairfieldLife] <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> wrote: Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: commenting on enlightenment, without a clue To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Friday, May 16, 2014, 9:54 PM ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <no_re...@yahoogroups.com mailto:no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote : "Neither one of you is established in being" It's that phrase again. Language is a big problem here. If I was to say I have an experience caused by my brain having learnt over time to experience a separation of my thoughts and the way the conscious substrate of qualia visualises 3 dimensional space, everyone would say so what? But couch the perception in "holy" nomenclature and everyone goes: Wow! are you really enlightened? C: Great point. This is a big issue I have with how language is being used to describe internal experience. It is so imprecise. A: You don't have to have experienced what you call cosmic consciousness for very long (or indeed at all) to know that Jim's claim that you need to have done to have an opinion of it is in error. The model of consciousness as an unfolding of/from some sort of unified field via seven stages is a description of a change in awareness but that doesn't mean this poor analogy of Marshy's is in any way an accurate description of how our brains work and integrate with the world. C: I believe the CC state was an aberration more closely associated with dissociation and with the same problems. He made it very clear on the first 6 month course that his model was just that and then proceeded to try to convince everyone they were already in Brahmin Consciousness like those Advaita dudes do! A: Consciousness isn't the unified field, but it seems like it is when you are in that state - I have been there before you write in and complain - It's a trick of the mind. C: There are so many states that feel like so many things. It seems to me that we are a long way off from having any justification to just buy into the traditional view of it all. There were so wrong about so much else we can prove today why would we take their word on ultimate reality? And it isn't that they just didn't now about how conception shapes perception they consciously used it for their religious agenda. Thanks for extending the rap in a sane direction. I hope I didn't butcher your meaning too much in my response. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <fleetwood_macncheese@...> wrote : Curtis writes:"The problem was that I don't think he [Maharishi] is right about human consciousness." My only question is: How do you know Maharishi is wrong, if you have not completed the first step in his model of human conciousness, Cosmic Consciousness? J: I have never come across a more close-minded and idiotic perspective on TM. Neither one of you is established in Being, and yet you say, without having experienced it, and without knowing the first thing about Maharishi's model of consciousness, that you deny it. "Neither one of you is established in being" It's that phrase again. Language is a big problem here. If I was to say I have an experience caused by my brain having learnt over time to experience a separation of my thoughts and the way the conscious substrate of qualia visualises 3 dimensional space, everyone would say so what? But couch the perception in "holy" nomenclature and everyone goes: Wow! are you really enlightened? You don't have to have experienced what you call cosmic consciousness for very long (or indeed at all) to know that Jim's claim that you need to have done to have an opinion of it is in error. The model of consciousness as an unfolding of/from some sort of unified field via seven stages is a description of a change in awareness but that doesn't mean this poor analogy of Marshy's is in any way an accurate description of how our brains work and integrate with the world. Consciousness isn't the unified field, but it seems like it is when you are in that state - I have been there before you write in and complain - It's a trick of the mind.
