--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote: > > -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "whynotnow7" <whynotnow7@> wrote: > > > > Hey Barry, Belief by others has no bearing on these things. You would have > > been in popular company believing and declaring in the 15th century that > > the world is flat. This is what I meant in the past Barry when I have said > > you strike me more as a follower than a leader. > > > > The spiritual journey is always a singular one, not needing anything except > > one's own integrity and dedication. To try and game it into some sort of > > popularity contest is misguided and immature, imo. > > > There is a significant difference in today's "enlightened" from the past > though. That is that in the past there was an extensive support system of > interaction with someone entrusted to evaluate progress. Most traditions > involved communities of people whose constant interaction was in fact a real > time monitoring process. That combined with a strict protocol and interaction > with a representative of a tradition created a lot of checks and balances. > > This is a important point in how we are proceeding today with evaluating what > these internal states mean. On one hand people seem confident to use the > scriptures to support claims of enlightenment while at the same time living > completely outside the traditional structures meant to support such a claim. > Maharishi was very clear about the need to external evaluations for claims of > enlightenment and at least gave lip-service to some benchmarks.
Though he missed the naked one. At Humbolt 70, when a large contingent went skiny dipping towards the end of the course he said, "The naked body is ugly" though I am sure he was not referring to anyone here. > > This all starts with Maharishi who sort of set these techniques free into the > world but really offered little continuing support for people as their mental > states changed. He had lots of support of changing mental states. He said go beyond them. And provided checking to help. > There was a theater of such support like in the fairly recent show of a few > questions in the dome on some course. Carefully monitored and without any > follow-up. I remember writing my monthly experience reports for years after > taking the sidhis with no feedback. I stopped my around 1980 "Is anyone listening?" -- which I am guessing was before yours started. Funny to think the monthly reports went on and on. Some guy rounding in his closet, like japanese solders on some jungle island, still "fighting" into the early 1950's, is probably still sending them. > That would be a fascinating pile of material to evaluate the sidhi program > from. I hope that someday someone sifts through that for some insight. Shifting through all of the confirmational and other biases would be a challenge. > > I am in the camp that believes that our minds can be shifted significantly Words are words, stumbling blocks at best. So sorry for pointing out the obvious -- but words have taken on a life of their own, they have created their own little world, that has nothing to do with Silence. As AK sings, "You say it best when you say nothing at all". The perfect Advanced Lecture. FWIW, shifting of the mind has nothing to do with Silence. Awareness doesn't shift. Talk of shifting minds often comes from shifty minds. >but that we can't look to the past interpretations for what it means. We need >to find out on our own. It seems that you have blended a bit of each approach >in presenting your own inner state here. I did listen to your Batgap >interview and felt that you were giving it the old college try to explain >where you were at internally. A genuine attempt to go beyond jargon that I >appreciated. It is hard to provide something convincing to others that >something meaningful has occurred for you. Meaningful occurances are the domain of shifty minds. There is no meaning in Silence. Restful Meaninglessness. (Didn't you get SCI #37? Opps sorry, thats only for those in the underground bunker.) > I believe that Batgap tends to gloss over statements of miracles as mundane > or at least not necessary to back up with some proof. I think that is a > reasonable bar to clear for any claim of an interaction with the world that > could be measured. > Unfoldment has nothing to do with creating a "better me". Measured improvement is a relativistic mobius strip, fractaling out infinite detail and meaning -- totally on the other side of the Ganges from Silence. > My views on all this is still a work in progress. I've had enough of my own > shifts Daily I hope. Psyllium seed husks can help. >of state to know that such things can be dramatic Silence has no drama. >but still have not been convinced that all these changes are better states. Conviction and understanding have nothing to do with Silence. > Some of them seem like too much of a good thing to me. > > Thanks for keeping up the dialogue Jim. > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Oh ? I claimed to have jumped 6 meters from the sitting > > > > > position several times. > > > > > Not exactly flying, but quite close. > > > > > > > > I think that certainly can be called flying unless you were > > > > on a trampoline or somesuch! IMO, that's nothing short or > > > > semi-sensational! ;D > > > > > > I suspect that the word "delusional" works better in > > > this case than "semi-sensational." :-) > > > > > > I further suspect that the number of people on this > > > forum who believe Nabby when he claims this is equal > > > to the number of people who believe Jim and Ravi when > > > they claim to be enlightened. The word "delusional" > > > may factor into this mathematical equation as well. :-) > > > > > >
