Don't speak for everyone Barry, I'm interested in his enlightenment. Here's a clue to explain to you why I make fun of you because I DON'T CARE ABOUT YOUR OPINIONS ON ENLIGHTENMENT, so STFU Barry. I know you feel threatened when anyone uses the "E" word, but again if someone is talking about the "E" word S....T...F....U.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > MZ, here's a free clue to explain to you why I got no more than two > sentences into the self-serving drivel below: I DON'T CARE ABOUT YOUR > 'ENLIGHTENMENT.' It (meaning the stories you tell others and yourself > about your experiences and what you think they "mean" or "meant") > obviously are very important to YOU, because you just won't STFU about > them. All these years later and you still won't STFU about them. > > Someday you might want to figure out that expecting other people to be > interested in your subjective state of consciousness is like expecting > them to be interested in your retelling of a vivid dream experience you > had the previous night. Ever try this? Ever watch people's eyes glaze > over after a minute or so, as if they were thinking, "Why oh why won't > this guy STFU about an experience that was meaningful only to him?" > > Clue: That's exactly what they were thinking. > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@ wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" rick@ wrote: > > > > Dear Rick, > > > > If my enlightenment was not the real deal, then in all that I say > about enlightenment, I will be revealing this discrepancy between my > version of Unity Consciousness and the real version. Somehow, if I was > not in the same essential state of consciousness that Maharishi was in, > someone like yourself would detect this in the absence of that > perspective which would give legitimacy and credibility to everything I > say about both what enlightenment is, and what it was like to be > enlightened. > > > > The fact that you are forced to fall back on the a priori assumption > that, because you believe enlightenment to be a real state of affairs (I > believe it to be a real state of experience with consequent definitive > parameters of behaviour and abilities, but for all that not a state of > consciousness which is coincident with ultimate reality), and I am > repudiating the metaphysical validity of enlightenmentclaiming I am > now de-enlightened,it must perforce be the case that my > enlightenment was not the real deal. Because, you see, if it had been > the real deal, how could I, given your absolute belief in its > ontological truthfulness, reject this belief, reject the truth of > enlightenment? > > > > You must, because I am denouncing the state of enlightenment (and > Unity Consciousness) as a form of extraordinary mystical deceit of the > mind, conclude that: He was not really enlightened, because his ego is > still intact, and besides, anyone who was REALLY enlightened, would not > be able to make themselves unenlightened, nor would they dream of > rejecting this state of consciousness as being false to reality. > > > > Given then your fundamental belief that enlightenment has to be true, > you have no other choice but to write as you have written above, > because, for you, it is never going to be a question of determining > whether or not enlightenment corresponds to reality (whether it indeed > is a true state of affairs for a human being and objectively and > truthfully represents reality as it really is). For you enlightenment > HAS TO BE TRUE. To question its intrinsic validity as a metaphysically > bona fide state of human experience and functioning is tantamount to > denying what essentially constitutes your highest vision of what life is > all about. To deprive you of this belief is the functional equivalent of > forcing you to give up your belief in God. For you, then, Rick, > enlightenment (the belief in this reality) is as unquestioned and solid > and irrefutable as someone else's belief that Christ was God. It is your > religion. Why so? Because you cannot conceive, given your experiences > and observations and history, of ever bringing it (the idea of > enlightenment) before a tribunal of critical judgment wherelike the > existence of Godit would be subject to real debate and argument. As > to whether indeed it is a natural state of consciousness and functioning > for the human person. > > > > You MUST therefore conclude that since I am on a mission to debunk > your religion, and that I once claimed to have intimate familiarity with > that religion (once having been according to my own testimony, the very > embodiment of that religion: i.e. in Unity Consciousness), and now have > disavowed that religion, that I WAS NEVER THEREFORE A TRUE BELIEVER IN > THAT RELIGION. Or rather, never really knew what that religion > (enlightenment) was all about. > > > > For me, Rick, the question is determined by my experience. I have > never met or read about anyone who conclusively demonstrates to me that > they are in possessionactual possessionof a more desirable > state of consciousness then the one we were born into. Although > paradoxically, had I met myself enlightened, in my non-enlightened > state, I would certainly have believe in his (my) enlightenment as much > as I believed in Maharishi's. My enlightenment was proven to me in ten > thousand different waysin every moment of my life when I lived > under that state of consciousness. > > > > No, for me, Rick, it is you who give yourself away, because you > evidently cannot countenance the idea that enlightenment just might be > what I say it is. But you are unwilling or unable to subject > enlightenment to a true acid test. You have no surefire way of knowing > whether enlightenment exists as a true and objectively valid state of > consciousness. What is your proof that this state of consciousness > exists such that you know it is the perfect representation of what > reality is? > > > > By your reading of books on the subject? by your interviews with these > guests who purportedly have entered into a state of realization? by your > experience with Maharishi? > > > > Where does this absolute and unshakeable belief originate? > > > > I suggest it has been absorbed into your being through your TM and > Maharishi experience just like Mother's Milk. It has taken up residence > inside of you in a way that utterly forbids any re-examination of it > along the lines that I am pursuing in these posts. > > > > Sure, Rick, I could be dead wrong; you could be dead right. However > THERE IS NO INSPIRATION BEHIND THIS POST which would testify to the fact > that in writing to me as you have you are standing in for reality, for > the truth of enlightenment. If such a state of affairs exists (I believe > it exists) and it is an intrinsic good (I don't believe enlightenment is > this) then it seem ironic that, in your forceful defence of its truth > claims you are unable to summon up anything other than an abstract > argumentthere is no passion, no irresistible logic, no purchase > upon reality itself IN THE ACT OF DOING THIS. You are in the same > position as the person who, when faced with the atheist's arguments, > just resorts to: "Look I know that God exists. Therefore your experience > that He does not exist is false." > > > > I don't even sense the beauty of your faith in this truth, Rick. It is > almost a matter of the quotidian in your life: it is just is commonplace > knowledge. > > > > I believe in non-enlightenmentor rather in the mystical falseness > of enlightenmentwith a conviction that is so comprehensive and > clearly reasoned (and empirically inspired) that I feel I am making a > transaction with reality in a deeper way than you making a transaction > with reality in dismissing my claim to know what the classic form of > enlightenment is. > > > > The only way you will come to know what enlightenment really is is to > participate in a thought experiment: assume IT IS NOT REAL, IT DOES NOT > EXIST AS A TRUTHFUL REPRESENTATION OF REALITY. Then examine what it is > which makes you assume the dogmatic conviction that enlightenment is a > good. Remember: I believe in the existence of enlightenment; it's just > that I have found out the hard wayand so did Maharishithat > life refuses to have anything to do with supporting it (enlightenment) > in any way whatsoever that is consistent with your belief that > enlightenment exists, and it is a good. > > > > By the way, I think the ego indestructibleand it remains so even > in the life of those who think they have gone beyond their ego (those > who are enlightened). Like Maharishi: he has an ego, even in his current > state of existence. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rick Archer wrote: > > > > Unfortunately, no time for much participation in these wonderful > > > discussions, but one quick point: > > > > > > > > > > > > MZ, you seem to be evaluating enlightenment, Indian spirituality, > etc., on > > > the basis of your experience of enlightenment. What makes you think > your > > > experience was the real deal, and bears any similarity to what truly > > > enlightened people were/are experiencing? I read one of your books > 20-30 > > > years ago, and watched the RC show with fascination from the > sidelines, but > > > I didn't get the sense that you were living enlightenment. It was > some sort > > > of awakening which to you had the flavor of Unity, but your ego was > very > > > much intact, which is not the case with genuine, abiding awakening. > IOW, a > > > very preliminary glimpse, profound as it may have been, but not a > standard > > > by which anyone else's state or tradition could reliably be judged > or > > > evaluated. I say this in friendship. No negativity implied or > intended. > > > > > > > > > > > > One other thing. Don't jump to conclusions. Cultivate what Zen calls > "don't > > > know mind". Very helpful tool. Not only consistency, but certainty, > is the > > > hobgoblin of little minds. > > > > > >
