--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_re...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_reply@ wrote: > > > > Dan was special -- way wise beyond his age. Not that he was > > a guru one would seek, but that it was he who sought -- sought > > hearts to engage -- and pushed them faster into depth and clarity. > > The same depth and clarity that drove him to > taking his own life?
You're assuming that suicide is an absolute immorality? That's been my stance too I admit, but I recognize that I'm merely resonating as an individual -- not being truly able to say even if there is life -- for a personality -- after death, or that there's some spiritual proof of suicide being one of the "great sins." And, if he was enlightened, and that's not a gimme, then by definition, suicide is acceptable in some way. If he was not enlightened, then, hey, who's clarity doesn't waver from bookend to bookend? I don't know what happened in his last days that might have pushed him past the tipping point; it could have been but a final straw or a spur of the moment misstep, but I'm certainly not going to say no one has the right to end his life no matter what the circumstances. Nor would I say that depth and clarity would drive him -- it could have been a temporary triggering not an act of intellect or heart. > > Edg, I *understand* that you found someone who > was willing to go back and forth with you over > the emotional hyperbole of spirituality, and > that this made a big impression on you. I never > met or interacted with the dude, and I have a > somewhat different impression, based on the > followup to his death, and what has been posted > by him and about him. If you read the conversation I had with him over hundreds of posts, I don't think even you could conclude that it was a process of "emotional hyperbole of spirituality." Instead, it is a display of my true doubts about his claims of enlightenment and his very gentlemanly patience with my challenges. I don't just do hundreds of back and forths with anyone, ya know, this kid was special, and in many ways he got me to reconsider what I thought were very firm positions. > > I'm seeing more of the "echo chamber effect" I > wrote about earlier, back when Ravi was being > touted as the latest realized being by this > *same* group of discerning seers. The reaction > I'm seeing on BATGAP and to some extent in some > of the posts forwarded to FFL is "protect the > idea that we're realized," along with an IMO > unhealthy dose of "realization is by definition > 100% life supporting...it's all good." The group as a whole accepts the statements of others at face value for the purpose of mutual exploration. I didn't think it matters what the reality is in that the logical consistency of the presentations of those with such claims are spotlit. Those who claimed enlightenment were not looking for followers so much, but they were definitely there with rolled-up sleeves working the neurons with us mundaners. It was a service you simply cannot purchase -- try to get any preacher or priest of any religion to jaw with you about the nuances of spirituality over hours and hours -- as if. The BATGP group is significantly about just such service. > > Duh. The lesson one should take away from this > whole sad business is IMO more along the lines > of "realizations come and go, they're *not* > inherently all "life-supporting," and sometimes > they need *real* feedback from someone who knows > the pitfalls of spiritual practice and how to > deal with them. It would be hard to imagine Dan fitting into your above cubbyhole. He was never heard to say his actions were purely sattvic or that his intellect had clarity about the import of his existence, yet he felt he was part of a perfection beyond words. His family and his friends were not ignoring obvious signs such as, say, Ravi's friends are even now being presented with. Dan had it together in many of the environments he participated within. Rick's statement about telling him to be quiet, for instance, shows that that group thought of Dan as a knowing chum more than an all wise guru -- that speaks to Dan's intent and humility and mitigates any assertions that he was merely a smart kid who'd studied Advaita and now was puffing up his ego-gone-nuts with it. And who knows the pitfalls of spiritual practice? -- only a very rare counselor could be said to be on top of this issue such that some sort of effective therapy could be interceptive. I've had some experience with folks going nuts due to "enlightenment," and I have failed to penetrate those delusions enough to help anyone, so I know that any group is unlikely to be therapeutically expert, and, so, yes, to the extent that the group members are picking up on "signs" and yet blinkering it out or rationalizing it, then there is a need for recognizing that lack of integrity, but at the BATGP group, there are many challengers who would nitpick all the statements. No one at BATGP had, in my opinion, any reason to suspect that Dan was so close to a cusp. > > On reflection, I do *not* think that a group of > amateurs dealing with confusing experiences that > they share is the same thing as being in a trad- > ition that has seen this sort of thing for many > centuries, and has learned over those centuries > which of the confusing experiences *are* really > beneficial and which are not. Nothing I have read > in the followups to Daniel's death leads me to > believe that anyone in the satsang group or on > the BATGAP forum has that kind of perspective. And maybe so, but isn't that besides the point? The group serves a few needs, but no group serves all needs. Nor, again, do I think, by my having failed more than once to help someone who was obviously askew, that there are places where such a person can go for a substantial look-see. Sometimes even a shot of lithium just will not do the trick. I paid for a person to go to a psychologist recently, and that didn't cut it, and he ended up hospitalized, and even there with all the chemical straight jackets, it took months for him to "come down from his frenzy about being enlightened." BATGP and the ilk simply cannot be held to a standard even modern medicine has yet to sustain. > > My points all along have been that the desire > to "protect the realization" is not an inherently > safe one. It "works" to create a group who can > feel all cool and realized because no matter what > they say to others around them, they tend to get > reflected back to them a hearty "Yeah...that's > some neat realization all right." But what happens > when someone says something that should trigger > alarm bells in the listeners, and no alarm bells > go off? I'd say that Dan gave no such signals in his postings. In real life, it seems he was telling some folks he was troubled, but I didn't know him "in real life," so I can't say if anyone dropped the ball. BATGP constantly interacted with Dan, and we just didn't see anything that could trigger an alarm. I invite you to read his words and see if you'd be thusly triggered by anything he said. > > I am *not* trying to "assign blame" in this. I > *more* than understand the sense of isolation that > someone who has convinced themselves that they are > "realized" enforce upon themselves. I am merely > pointing out some of the dangers inherent in doing > so, and the dangers of people around them *rein- > forcing* possibly unsound ideas because their > allegiance is still to an unsound piece of dogma: > "Meditation and realization are 100% life-supporting." I don't think Dan was isolated or that he'd painted himself into a corner by asserting enlightenment that gradually became a jailcell for him. Maybe, yes, but he was competent and functional in so many ways that put himself "in smarm's way," and he DAILY was confronted by those who took his statements with a grain of salt. That he got positive feedback from those who really couldn't know his true state is not a moral crime or a psychological error on the parts of those who bought into his claims. In all my exchanges with him, he never tried to get me to buy it; instead, he just kept presenting logically instead of "believe me you turd." Dan's ego was not clamoring for outer validation anywhere near to, say, the level I personally find myself seeking. If anyone, it would have been me to recognize such signs in him, but he was very humble -- very. Read his words! > > Things *can* and *do* "go wrong" along the Way. My > point is that you're not likely to get any real > feedback on whether the experiences you're caught > up in and overwhelmed by are positive or negative > from a group of people who are still committed to > the unsound idea that all of them are positive. Again, at the BATGP group, Dan got tons of corrections and questions, and you simply don't see anyone sucking up to him as if they'd want him for a personal guru. Yes, there's some mood making and glorification of experiences, but they are rare compared to a rather scholarly intent on the part of all. Certainly in his posts, Dan just never came off as one who was "caught up in" an experience. In real life, maybe there someone could or should have been alarmed, but if so, and if no one was able to help him with that greater intimacy with him, the BATGP folks cannot be expected to have done better. The BATGP is sort of a philosophical hobbyist place; not a mutual admiration blinkering event. Edg > > Just my opinion... > > > > I just posted this at another site: > > > > > > Dan is an evolutionary wind at my back; he shepherds me still. > > > > He words still scintillate living inside my intent. > > > > I;ve read his words for hours today and there's not a hint of > > any fading of the power with which he effortlessly touches a life. > > > > Not that he wrote creatively, though he did, not that his love > > was angelic, though it was, not that he slogged for hours writing > > to help me step into love, and he did, it is the source that > > flowed through him that I can never forget, for is not the > > silence of his missingness yet the best of him? > > > > When thoughts stop, there he is. > > > > Yet do I cry and cry and cry . . . his bell still tolls for me. > > > > Edg > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <salsunshine@> wrote: > > > > > > On May 30, 2010, at 5:13 PM, Rick Archer wrote: > > > > > > >> FW; > > > >> "I knew Daniel well and have a little different take than some others. this is what my perception was knowing what was going on. Had I known the last 2 months he told so many people his pain was too great and he was thinking of killing himself I would have intervened strongly in some way. intervention may have helped but at the same time. a person has to be receptive and I don't know how receptive Daniel was. that advaita group all think they are beyond human help and looked to him as the mentor and teacher and he had no one." <end paste> > > > > > > > > > > > > Whoever wrote this doesn't know what they're talking about. They may never have been to the group, and you certainly haven't. We loved and respected Dan, and he spoke with great clarity from a great depth, but the group in general did not look to him as mentor and teacher, and he had people he respected to whom he could talk as much as he wanted to. > > > > > > I sure hope not, Rick. There seems to be something > > > profoundly odd about a group of middle-aged people > > > looking to someone more than half their age as a > > > "mentor and teacher," JMO. > > > > > > Sal > > > > > >
