How many *asterisks can you stuff in one post?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_re...@...> wrote: > > In a sidebar conversation with Curtis yesterday, I > tried to sum up the situation with regard to Ravi > and Daniel and the fact that many people seem to have > considered them enlightened or at the very least in > the midst of some powerful and *positive* "awakening" > as follows: > > "I think the elephant in the room that no one is > talking about is that the 'criterion for selection' > is the same for 'casting' the videos as it is for > making any other determination of a person's enlight- > enment -- 'They said they were, and I believe them.' > Once that belief is formed, inertia sets in. It > becomes easier to continue to accept it as true and > defend it as true than to go back to the original > decision, or even remember that you made one." > > My point is that accepting what someone says about > their state of consciousness at face value is IMO an > unwarranted acceptance of someone's (anyone's) subjec- > tive experience as the thing that defines reality. > > And I do not think this is an accident. This 'tude > has been carefully cultivated by Maharishi and the TM > organization for decades, to the point where now almost > no one even *questions* it. > > Look at the "official process" within the TM organi- > zation for achieving its stated goal -- the realization > of enlightenment. There isn't one. There is no mechanism, > and has *never* been one, for determining whether some- > one's reports of "good experiences" are "good enough" > to qualify as "enlightened." > > The entire *history* of the tradition from which MMY > comes is based on someone *saying* that they are enlight- > ened and having everyone around them agree with them, for > *no other reason than that they said it*. I am suggesting > that they have preserved this tradition and passed it > along to new generations of students completely lacking > in the discrimination that the tradition's founder > (Shankara) was so (unjustly IMO) famous for touting. > > Think of a story told on FFL of someone's purported > enlightenment or realization. *Other than* the person > in question's *claims* about their subjective experience, > what led you to believe that they were really enlight- > ened? Now extend this to teachers you have never met > personally, but consider enlightened. On what basis did > you make that decision? I would suggest that you made it > based on what *they* said about their subjective exper- > iences, and/or what others said about them. > > Keep the siddhis and miracle BS out of this for the moment. > Some seem to feel that the ability to perform siddhis is > the big "final exam" of enlightenment. I have been there, > done that with siddhis, and I don't think they have *any* > relationship to enlightenment whatsoever. I have seen > siddhis performed by people who were not only not enlight- > ened but didn't *believe* in enlightenment, and I have > seen those who claimed enlightenment not be able to per- > form them. Apples and oranges. Hell, *I* have been able > to perform minor siddhis, especially those having to do > with "seeing the future." Does anyone here think *I* am > enlightened? I certainly hope not, and I've certainly > never claimed it. > > But if I *had*, my point is that you would really have > had mainly my word about my own subjective experiences on > which to base your decision. > > Mainly. There is something *else* that you could have used > to make your determination about my purported enlightenment > or lack thereof -- your own common sense. I'm suggesting > that people in the TM community seem to have given up on > the use of that particular measure, and have seemingly > gone completely over to the "Dark Side" of "He said it... > therefore it must be true." > > I tend to believe that subjective experience does *NOT* > define reality, and that sometimes it's at odds with > reality. There is a *value* to "listening critically," > and asking someone to walk the walk of their talk. In the > reports of the "TM community" and how they handle themselves, > especially lately, I don't see any value being placed on > walking the walk, only on talking the talk. >
