Whew - a very active imagination you have Bozotronic Barry! Typical for someone who enjoys blaming everyone but themselves for their lack of spiritual progress. I just posted recently the reason for my reaction of shock and anger when I first stated on FFL that I had attained self realization about five years ago. Here it is again. Perhaps you could remember it this time?
When I first popped into CC (not knowing what the SOC was, but knowing that I felt an overwhelming relief at this unprecedented sense of inner freedom), I thought it would be helpful to report that ordinary joes like me could attain the ultimate goal of spiritual seeking. It was precisely because I do not consider myself special that I thought this was a useful thing for others to know, that enlightenment was not some rare thing just for esoteric monks but that regular householder types not affiliated with the TM organization or any other, could also attain it. Unlike you, who have made your spiritual dabblings the core of your social identity, I had gone about my seeking largely alone. So I was dismayed, shocked and angered when others immediately called my SOC into question. I also see in retrospect that what I was experiencing was the classic hallmark of CC as defined by Maharishi, inner freedom and infinite expansion on the inside, yet a foreign world on the outside. The challenging turned out to be a good thing for me, as it highlighted my lack of integration between my inner state and the outer world. This in turn challenged me to go through a series of integrations similar to some of the 'dark night of the wills' experiences Adyashanti describes in the dark night of the soul talk that Rick recently posted. So at this point I am unruffled by what anyone wants to say about my SOC. Although my detailed and extensive reading of both MMY's BG (numerous times) and SBAL (once) books are obviously not a requirement for any SOC, I found them to be helpful in providing signposts and faith at the time. Its really pretty useless for you to try and distract yourself over me, Bozotronic Barry. if you want to do some good, please focus on yourself a little more, perhaps listen to Adyashanti's talk, take your quest a little more seriously, and stop appearing as everyone's idea of a spiritual joke. Of course the choice is always yours, and with that I bid you Adieu.:-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@> > wrote: > > > > So what do you consider a cheap shot that I have taken at > > Maharishi? > > While Mr. Self Realized is at it, I'd like him to > produce quotes of mine that he considers "cheap > shots" at Maharishi. > > > I can't think of anything I have said about him that I didn't > > sincerely mean. My shots are carefully considered and not > > cheap at all. > > More important -- and this is I think the thing that > pushes Jimbo's attachment/aversion buttons -- is that > your occasional shots at Maharishi are based on total > equality and a "Prove it" attitude, the very thing he > fears the most. > > Jim's entire approach to spirituality seems to be based > on the premise that "some people are better than others." > (Or, as Orwell put it in Animal Farm, "All animals are > equal, but some are more equal than others." In Jimworld, > the *only* thing that a person needs to do to be revered > as an enlightened being is claim to be one. > > People who hear such claims, in Jimworld, should auto- > matically and without hesitation place the enlightenment > claimant on a higher plane than themselves, treat their > every word as true (or better, Truth), and hang around > them waiting for them to spout sage advice, which they > then accept as Truth and revere with much fawning and > reverence. > > That, IMO, is what he expected to happen when he first > landed in Fairfield Life. To his surprise, shock, and > dismay (followed quickly by angry lashing out and a > tirade of insults and putdowns that has not ceased in > the years since), people treated him like what he was, > Just Another Guy Saying Shit. Nobody (except maybe > Nabby) accepted him as enlightened or self realized. > Nobody revered him. Nobody treated what he wrote as any > more wise or truthful than anything anyone else wrote. > THAT in my opinion is what pissed Jim off the most, and > has him *still* pissed off and carrying around a pimply- > faced-teenager-sized grudge against those who committed > the Ultimate Crime of not treating him the way he wanted > to be treated. > > To Jim, self realization is a kind of "attainment" or > "achievement" that *should be recognized as such*. In > Jimworld, the *only* thing that a person has to do to > be worthy of reverence and awe is claim something about > his or her state of consciousness. The only appropriate > response to such claims is the state of reverence and > awe he was hoping for. Anything less is a "cheap shot," > by lesser beings than himself. > > And that, if I'm not mistaken, is how he'd like Curtis > and Vaj and myself to treat Maharishi. Not gonna happen. > I base my view of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi on several things: > 1) the assumption that he was Just Another Guy, no more > important or "highly evolved" than any other, 2) a person > who I sat in rooms with for years and watched him do his > thing (as opposed to never having met him and having > watched only carefully-edited videotapes), 3) someone > who never once *produced* on any of his claims, and 4) > someone who was All Talk, No Walk (a lot like Jim, in > other words). > > Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. As > Curtis has said, Maharishi never produced any. The best > he could come up with was spurious "science" produced > by True Believers who were wearing the rose-colored > glasses of confirmation bias and reverence for the holy > guy that Jim thinks "appropriate" for such an "advanced > being." Me, I don't buy that *anyone* is "advanced" at > anything until they demonstrate it for me. > > To date, like MMY, Jim has NOT demonstrated anything to > back up his claims that he (and other claimants to the > throne of enlightenmentitudeness) is "special." He seems > to me to be the most ordinary of human beings, someone > who at one point in his life grew tired of being a nobody > and figured out that if he just made a bunch of claims to > gullible people, a certain percentage of them would treat > him as "special," just because he claimed to be. Same with > Ravi. He, too was an absolute nobody until he suckered > Rick in with some parroted spiritual bullshit and a similar > claim to be self realized. > > I think Jim's buttons get so pushed by Vaj, Curtis and me > treating Maharishi as NOT special despite his claims of > being special because it brings up for him a mirror of > what happened *to him* when he tried to run the same act. > People, in Jim's view, just *shouldn't be allowed* to treat > claims as claims, and the people making them as Just Another > Person Making A Claim. Everyone should treat Maharishi as > special, in exactly the same way that everyone should treat > Jim as special. They're special because they say they are, > and that's that. > > <snip> > > You seem proud that you never took the time to spend time > > with the guy and go on his most intensive programs. > > I honestly get the feeling, given the strong anti-intellectual > stance he has displayed on FFL since his arrival here, that > not only has Jim never met the person he wants you to revere, > he never read any of his books, either. I get the feeling > (from the incredible gaps in his knowledge of what Maharishi > actually taught) that the *entire* extent of his "knowledge" > about MMY comes from a few tapes seen on residence courses > or at TM centers. I could be wrong about this (a statement > that we have never and *will* never hear Jim make), but that > is my impression of the guy, and the full extent of his > "experience with Maharishi." > > > But it leads to you having a fantasy bond with your own > > imagination about him. > > Exactly. *Whatever* Jim says about Maharishi is based on his > fantasies about him, combined with (IMO) an attempt to suck > up to other MMY TBs in an attempt to get them to focus on > him and think of him as "special." There just ain't no there > there in his relationship to the man, and never will be now > that he's dead. > > > Your objections to my opinion about him have no basis in who > > he actually was. He is just a made up abstractions based on > > whatever few tapes they let sidhas see. > > And Jim's fantasies about what an "enlightened being" "should" > be. Jim's full of "shoulds." You "should" stop treating MMY > as just another human being, and not believing everything he > said as if it were Truth. You "should" treat him the same way. > > > But I may be wrong. Trot out some "cheap shots" and I'll see > > if I can justify them. > > And do the same for me. And you lurkers -- don't let him > get away with NOT doing this. If this is Just Another Example > Of A Vague Jim Putdown, with nothing to back it up, let's > expose that as what it is, shall we? If he honestly believes > that Curtis (or I) have made "cheap shots" at MMY on this > forum, demand that 1) he repost the quotes he feels fall into > that category, and 2) clarify why he considers them "cheap > shots." > > Charlatans exist because they sucker people into treating > them as "special," based on nothing more than what they say > about themselves. Jim thinks this approach to those who > claim higher states of consciousness is a Good Thing. I don't. > I think that extraordinary claims require extraordinary > proof. To date, Jim Flanegin has produced not only zero > evidence that he is as "special" as he wants people to > believe he is, he's demonstrated how non-special he really is. >
