Message info
 
To:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com From:Vaj Subject:Re: [FairfieldLife] Turiya-tit-for-tat-iya (was Re: Astral Residence Courses) Date:Sun, 19 Feb 2012 16:19:31 -0500
 

 


On Feb 19, 2012, at 9:26 AM, turquoiseb wrote:

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradhatu@...> wrote:
>
> On Feb 19, 2012, at 5:10 AM, turquoiseb wrote:
> >
> > There is no such thing as "evidence" when it comes to
> > assessments of whether someone is/was in some purported
> > higher state of consciousness. There are only claims.
> > Claims mad e either by the persons themselves (which
> > cannot ever be supported by objective fact) or, even
> > more tenuous, claims made by people who knew them and
> > made assumptions about their state of consciousness
> > based on their own completely subjective (and often 
> > self-serving) assessments.
> 
> One of the most important recent scientific studies on 
> meditation actually measured the brain waves (and other 
> markers) of a western buddhist yogi, as he consciously 
> went into samadhi for hours at a stretch. The results 
> were quite remarkable and replicated by several different 
> labs. Never mind the subjects nick name is 'the happiest 
> man in the world' for his always ebullient affect.
> 
> So this type of evidence can exist.

I persist in calling it lack of evidence. All that you
have described is one individual whose brainwaves are
somewhat different than most people's. That's ALL.

No, it's actually much more significant than that. It's something so extraordinary it's only been seen before in disease - but this is not disease, it's something entirely different than seen in normal waking, sleeping or dream - and it's high amplitude signal ties the brain together.

The big question about yogis being able to demonstrate extraordinary physiological feats could be explained if we knew that the brains network could also contro l the reptilian part of the brain that automatically helps us do things like breathing, etc.

 
The *nature* and cause and "meaning" of that difference 
has neither been established as any kind of baseline, 
or as being linked with enlightenment. 

It's been linked to two styles of samadhi: that of Patanjali yogins who can go into samadhi at will and Buddhist yogins who can go into samadhi at will.


Even if you found 50 people who could produce the same
types of brainwaves, what would you have established?

Not much, it would need to be something truly extraordinary in terms of the medical historical record and what's known about human consciousness.

IMO, only that at least 50 people have learned to con-
trol their thinking in such a fashion that they can 
create similar results during crude physiological tests. 
Again, no connection with either enlightenment or the
lack thereof has been established.

They're not establishing enlightenment, but an extension of this research is that any enlightened person should be able to demonstrate unusual capacities at some level, not all necessarily measurable.


> Also, in regards to pointing out, at that moment, one becomes 
> aware of the consciousness of their teacher. SO that's a type 
> of subjective verification.

Emphasis on the word "subjective." Nabby could probably
claim to be "subjectively aware" of the consciousness of 
Benjamin Creme, Supercharlatan. Or the fictional Maitreya. 
Does either claim make it so? 

Good point. However any good dzogchen yogi would have learned to discriminate samsara-nirvana and nirvana-samsara type projections as part of learning to reside and rest in the natural state. Thus they don't or are much less likely to fall for mediumistic mental-pl ane game playing.

In the case of rigpa, I'd argue that two people resting in rigpa are capable of of mutual perception, to varying degrees. 


Or are these possibly the subjective opinions of people
who devoted their lives to someone, who obviously gain 
much or all of their own sense of self worth from being
associated with him and how "special" he is seen by the
world, and who thus have a somewhat vested interest in
the world seeing him as enlightened? 

Again, IMO...we're down to claims. Not facts, claims.

> > Most tenuous of all are attempts to claim that someone
> > who lived years or centuries in the past was in some
> > particular state of consciousness, based on things 
> > either written by them firsthand (few and far between)
> > or supposedly said by them and written down by True
> > Believers of the time, whose first instinct was almost
> > always to try to glorify the person they had glommed 
> > onto as "master."
> > 
> > Even though there can never be any "evidence" one way
> > or another, I disagree with Vaj (if he said it) that
> > Maharishi was "only in CC." I never saw the slightest
> > indication that he was even that. I think he was like
& gt; > most seekers -- in waking state 99% of the time, with
> > possible but very fleeting glimpses of any other state
> > of awareness, and those (if they ever took place at all)
> > very few and far between.
> 
> I might have said that he was in CC at best (Yifu did not 
> quote me directly, so I do not know specifically what he was 
> referring to), but that's not my current opinion. I think he 
> had some mojo early on ("shakti") and perhaps some minor 
> siddhis, but they faded as wealth and business became the 
> only permanent thing in his consciousness. 

That is your opinion, and I do not dispute it, AS opinion.
Mine does not jibe with yours. I never experienced much of
anything from him that I would consider "shakti," and I
certainly never saw any siddhis -- minor or major -- ever
being displayed. I think he was an ordinary guy who at the
beginning wanted to do some good for the world by parroting
the things he'd heard around the ashram, but after a few
years lost sight of even those good intentions, and cared
only about preserving the status quo. That is, him as the
ultimate -- and sole -- authority in his students' lives.

That's an interesting take and certainly one I could agree with as well. My previous opinion should be taken as a "giving him (Mahesh) the benefit of the doubt" type opinion. Yours would be more like my real opinion. ;-)


> Despite some lovable and remarkable qualities, Maheshiji 
> turned out to be a rather low consciousness dude.
> 
> YMMV.

Instead of "low consciousness," I would say "ordinary."

Well, I get a whole 'bottom-feeder' vibe off him - like when he blasted Mark Landau (or whoever it was at the time). And once I heard that the whole Srivistava family was involved in various guru scams, that signed and sealed it for me.

__._,_.___
To subscribe, send a message to:
FairfieldLife-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Or go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'
.

__,_._,___