--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > This model is designed to make people feel stupid > > if they're still lacking the realization, as if > > there were something wrong with them for not > > having it--e.g., "what should have been obvious," > > "IGNORANT of what's been right in his face since > > the day he was born." > > > > It's the very worst kind of elitism, playing with > > words to exalt oneself and denigrate others. > > When the movement came out with its "mistake of the intellect" > phrase it kinda struck me this same way. Unfortunate choice of > words IMO.
The difference is that if it's "the mistake of the intellect" it's somebody ELSE's fault. It's like the people who believe in it are whining, "It's the universe's fault, or God's fault, or the laws of nature's fault, or somebody's...it's certainly not MINE." In the "it's somebody/something ELSE's fault that I'm not enlightened" model, there is something *outside* of one's self to blame it on. And there is something *outside* of one's self that "prevents" you from realizing your enlightenment. You don't have to take any responsibility for not being enlightened, and you can't really do all that much to change the situation, because it's controlled by that mysterious something "outside" of one's self. In the "always already enlightened" model, the fact that you don't perceive yourself to be enlightened is always *your* fault. You just haven't made that choice. BUT, at any moment you *could* make that choice, and change things, and realize what has always already been present. Me, I like the "always already enlightened" model and find the "not enlightened and its somebody/ something ELSE's fault" model insulting. Others obviously swing the other way. Go figure. > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, > > > "tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlis" > > > <tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlist@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Barry writes snipped: > > > > > And again, you are assuming the "unenlightened" > > > > > model, which believes that "progress" *has* to be "made" > > > > > "towards" enlightenment. If you shift to another > > > > > equally accurate model and description of the process -- > > > > > that everyone is always already enlightened and that the > > > > > *only* thing that marks "enlightenment" is a realization > > > > > of what has always already been going on -- then there > > > > > is no "progress" possible. > > > > > > > > TomT: > > > > The reason it is called ignorance is that one actually is able > > > > to ignore that which they always have been and will always be. > > > > It is not called stupid or smart or arrogant or gratuitous or > > > > a lie it is called IGNORANCE. Name and form. > > > > > > For those who have had a realization experience, > > > whether it be temporary or permanent, the "always > > > already enlightened" model is just so much more > > > *accurate*. > > > > Funny, above you called the progress model > > "equally accurate." > > > > And as I've already pointed out, the model > > per se isn't any different, it just uses > > different words to express the same thing. > > > > > It's *obvious* when it happens that there was never > > > anywhere to "go," nothing to "become," no "stress" > > > to get rid of, no moment at which you were ever > > > "unenlightened." Enlightenment is, has always been, > > > and will always be; the only thing lacking up til > > > now has been the realization of what should have > > > been obvious. > > > > Except that it's obvious only once you've had > > that realization. What you describe as "something > > lacking" is what the progress model calls ignorance > > or "unenlightenment." What's lacking is enlightenment. > > > > And there's no reason to suppose there isn't any > > "progress" involved in remedying that lack, whether > > one recognizes it or not. > > > > <snip> > > > As far as I can tell, the entire TM model for the > > > enlightenment process is a LIE. Worse, it is a > > > *known* lie, because Maharishi has at times written > > > eloquently about the other model, the "always > > > already enlightened" model. So he *chose* to tell > > > people that they were unenlightened, > > > > I.e., lacking the realization that they were > > always already enlightened. > > > > and would > > > remain unenlightened until certain undefined > > > conditions were met. > > > > I.e., the condition of realization that they > > were always already enlightened. > > > > He chose to *reinforce* > > > the ignorance rather than dispel it. WHY, one > > > wonders? > > > > Perhaps because he knows it doesn't make any > > damn difference. > > > > Actually, it seems to me the "you're already > > enlightened" model is the one that's a lie. > > If you're still lacking the realization, you're > > not enlightened. > > > > This model is designed to make people feel stupid > > if they're still lacking the realization, as if > > there were something wrong with them for not > > having it--e.g., "what should have been obvious," > > "IGNORANT of what's been right in his face since > > the day he was born." > > > > It's the very worst kind of elitism, playing with > > words to exalt oneself and denigrate others. > > >
