--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37" <feste37@...> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > Dear Feste36, > > I didn't miss seeing this, and as you will understand, it (and because of > > where it seemed to come from) was consoling to me. Indeed at the point that > > I read it, I was seriously considering suspending operations (for at least > > a week: the proper sentence for having abused my privileges here on FFL). I > > was not enjoying the persecution, and thought: Do I need this? Your few > > words restored my spirits somewhat, and I have renewed posting here. So > > thanks, Feste36. > > MZ > > > > I've been enjoying your posts because of the intense intellectual, spiritual, > and emotional drama they reveal going on at what sounds like a very exalted > level of experience. I find these accounts quite remarkable, worthy of a > Nietzsche or a William Blake, both of whom lived vast inner lives, and very > dramatic ones, too, where few could follow. It cannot be easy. > > I also found it very interesting, indeed unique from what I know of, to read > of someone who consciously removed himself from unity consciousness and > reestablished his identity as a personal, individual self that stands in a > subordinate relationship to a divine Other. > > This struck a chord with me because my own experience seems to have followed > at least something of the path you outline, but without the feeling that one > perspective must be right and the other wrong. By that I do not mean that I > have ever experienced unity consciousness, but I have all my adult life (I > started TM when I was 17) imbibed the Indian philosophy of "unity is all > there is." And thanks to spiritual teachers who showed me how simple it is, I > do experience myself, whenever I choose, it seems, as existing within a vast > Nothing that is also myself (there seems to be no other way of describing > it)-- although I do not experience that Nothing as God. That's not the word > that comes to mind at all. > > My experience of God -- and it is an unmistakable and quite recent > experience, unlike anything else I've ever had -- is of a being who is quite > Other than me, completely separate from me, and yet who knows me intimately, > and has infinite compassion and a complete lack of judgment about me (neither > of which qualities have I ever been able to muster by myself to apply to > myself), and all without making a big deal out of it -- it's very gentle and > quiet and simple and practical. I find it rather humbling to have such > experiences, the most recent of which came at a time of crisis, and I don't > think I am fooling myself about it. I was being guided at that time by a > Being who, one would have to say, even though it feels rather awkward, is > worthy of the name Lord or Heavenly Father, just as the Christians say. I did > not in any way at that time feel that I was being guided by my "higher self," > an overused New Age term which is probably due for retirement. > > Mind you, I'm not convinced that there is a dichotomy between these two > perspectives. They are just different viewpoints. > > After all, in the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna tells Arjuna early on that the > eternal is within him. He is, in essence, a part of the one reality and can > therefore never cease to exist. (I take that to be close to the "Nothing" > that I seem to be able to experience at will.) > > But when Krishna reveals himself to Arjuna in Chapter 11 in his full glory, > he is a Being who stands wholly apart from Arjuna, superior to him and > infinitely more vast than he, in every way imaginable. > > Arjuna, then, in addition to receiving the knowledge that he is eternal -- he > is the vastness of the absolute that cannot, in the nature of things, ever > pass out of existence -- also has an experience of God as Other, as Not > Myself. > > I would like to continue to live with both perspectives. I can feel the > presence of the Nothing as the Self, but I don't feel that that invalidates > an I-Thou relationship between the individual person and the all-knowing and > all-seeing God who knows even when a sparrow falls to the ground. It's a > paradox in which the individual self may at once know a Unity that brings > peace and a sense of the vastness of Being, but also an Otherness that is > beyond anything that the individual self can merge or be at one with. It is > just too vast to be comprehended. > > Such are my puny musings on a hot humid Saturday night in Fairfield, IA. > > Once again, I have enjoyed your posts, MZ, which are written with such grace > and conviction and ruthless honesty. I think you are on an amazing journey. > > > Dear Feste36, > I didn't miss seeing this, and as you will understand, it (and because of where it seemed to come from) was consoling to me. Indeed at the point that I read it, I was seriously considering suspending operations (for at least a week: the proper sentence for having abused my privileges here on FFL). I was not enjoying the persecution, and thought: Do I need this? Your few words restored my spirits somewhat, and I have renewed posting here. So thanks, Feste36. > MZ
I've been enjoying your posts because of the intense intellectual, spiritual, and emotional drama they reveal going on at what sounds like a very exalted level of experience. I find these accounts quite remarkable, worthy of a Nietzsche or a William Blake, both of whom lived vast inner lives, and very dramatic ones, too, where few could follow. It cannot be easy. I also found it very interesting, indeed unique from what I know of, to read of someone who consciously removed himself from unity consciousness and reestablished his identity as a personal, individual self that stands in a subordinate relationship to a divine Other. This struck a chord with me because my own experience seems to have followed at least something of the path you outline, but without the feeling that one perspective must be right and the other wrong. By that I do not mean that I have ever experienced unity consciousness, but I have all my adult life (I started TM when I was 17) imbibed the Indian philosophy of "unity is all there is." And thanks to spiritual teachers who showed me how simple it is, I do experience myself, whenever I choose, it seems, as existing within a vast Nothing that is also myself (there seems to be no other way of describing it)-- although I do not experience that Nothing as God. That's not the word that comes to mind at all. My experience of God -- and it is an unmistakable and quite recent experience, unlike anything else I've ever had -- is of a being who is quite Other than me, completely separate from me, and yet who knows me intimately, and has infinite compassion and a complete lack of judgment about me (neither of which qualities have I ever been able to muster by myself to apply to myself), and all without making a big deal out of it -- it's very gentle and quiet and simple and practical. I find it rather humbling to have such experiences, the most recent of which came at a time of crisis, and I don't think I am fooling myself about it. I was being guided at that time by a Being who, one would have to say, even though it feels rather awkward, is worthy of the name Lord or Heavenly Father, just as the Christians say. I did not in any way at that time feel that I was being guided by my "higher self," an overused New Age term which is probably due for retirement. Mind you, I'm not convinced that there is a dichotomy between these two perspectives. They are just different viewpoints. After all, in the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna tells Arjuna early on that the eternal is within him. He is, in essence, a part of the one reality and can therefore never cease to exist. (I take that to be close to the "Nothing" that I seem to be able to experience at will.) But when Krishna reveals himself to Arjuna in Chapter 11 in his full glory, he is a Being who stands wholly apart from Arjuna, superior to him and infinitely more vast than he, in every way imaginable. Arjuna, then, in addition to receiving the knowledge that he is eternal -- he is the vastness of the absolute that cannot, in the nature of things, ever pass out of existence -- also has an experience of God as Other, as Not Myself. I would like to continue to live with both perspectives. I can feel the presence of the Nothing as the Self, but I don't feel that that invalidates an I-Thou relationship between the individual person and the all-knowing and all-seeing God who knows even when a sparrow falls to the ground. It's a paradox in which the individual self may at once know a Unity that brings peace and a sense of the vastness of Being, but also an Otherness that is beyond anything that the individual self can merge or be at one with. It is just too vast to be comprehended. Such are my puny musings on a hot humid Saturday night in Fairfield, IA. Once again, I have enjoyed your posts, MZ, which are written with such grace and conviction and ruthless honesty. I think you are on an amazing journey. Dear Feste36, You might just reconvert me yet. What comes through in your post is the persuasive way in which you have argued for a true reconciliation of East and West (if I can interpret it that way). I always look for objective evidence of the disagreement between reality and a given person's adherence to the Eastern religious experience. Because I believe this disagreement an objective metaphysical truth. I usually, almost always, find such evidence. But not in your case. What conclusion can I draw from my experience of someone whose belief system on the one hand upholds the viability and truth of the Eastern vision of creation while simultaneously upholdingat least in principle if not in actual orthodox doctrinethe viability and truth of the Western vision of creation? That you are a good person (secretly, inscrutably blessed) who for whatever reason has been given the grace to live authentically and honestlyand serenelywithin these two conflicting interpretations of reality (although I understand what you are saying is the case here; that they represent different perspectives on the same underlying truth)without experiencing any contradiction. Now I cannot follow you rationally or logically in this (although I feel the quality of your intelligence); that is, my reason and my personal history will not allow me to do this. But I am, I think, completely won over to the truth of your position, since the actual experience I get of the person who has posted these comments is a person who embodies in herself or himself this, for me, impossible truth: that Arjuna and (as it were) Aquinas can be apprehended in such a way so as to be both, each in their own way, referring to the same ultimate truthalthough in this case, it is your own personal (and recent) experience which substitutes for Aquinas (my non-living teacher of the Western tradition). This is a most interesting paradox, Feste36, because it suggests there is the possibility of a personal subjectivity which transcends the significance and implication of what for me are two incompatible vantage points on God, or ultimate reality. The exemplary instance of this inconceivable (before reading your letter: others have tried to make essentially the same case as you have here, but unsuccessfully; you, on the other hand, have convincingly demonstrated after all that one can truthfully live out a life which harmonizes what seems to me to be a dissonance-begetting proposition) reconciliation is yourself. You more than pull it off. And I am left wondering to myself: How is this possible? Because, to repeat myself, if someone apprehends life in some definitive way such that their metaphysical commitment is at variance with realityand no matter what: based upon my own personal experience and reasoning, I judge the fundamental Eastern (Maharishi's) point of view to be thus wrongly situated with respect of what is actually the casethen there will always be evidence, however concealed or obscured (say by the attractiveness of the personality and/or the acuteness of the intelligence) of some failure to make contact with what is real. Invariably I find myself able to pick this upeither in writing or in person. Because if one's ultimate beliefs are in effect more or less in accordance with reality then there is no conscious or unconscious pressure upon the subjectivity of that person to make their beliefs fit reality as they live inside a spiritual context which does in fact match their beliefs (even if they are unaware of this). The person is, at it were, coming at life within a more unconstrained subjectivity. On the other hand, I have found in my experience if a person's ultimate beliefs are not in accordance with reality (as I believe was the case with Maharishi, which explains his seriously diminished brilliance and clarity towards the end of his life), this shows up unconsciously in the strain that is put upon their subjectivity as it bears the consequence of this lack of a one to one correspondence between their beliefs and the reality in which they are forced to live. In the instance of yourself this spiritual hypothesis is disproven, for you give the strongest impression of being a loving, intelligent, and serene human being. You, then, are providing in your personal life the experimental proof of the truthhowever inconceivable it is to myselfthat the East and West can be harmonized in the consciousness of a single person. A wonderful experience for me, even as it leaves me in a serious quandary. Because, you see, you have not convinced me logically or rationally of the empirical plausibility of this proposition, but the quiet and intense radiance of your own consciousness does better than logic and reason in this case to make your point. I acceptin the case of yourself at leastthe truth of what you have affirmed in this post. And I will live with the consequences. Thank you for your letter which expresses something of the loving goodness which I believe is behind creation and the individual existence of ourselves as living created beings. You have forced a paradox upon me, Feste36. > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37" <feste37@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Don't go, Masked Zebra. We love you. You make us think. Usually we just > > > hurl insults. > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Tom Pall <thomas.pall@> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 6:49 PM, maskedzebra > > > > <no_re...@yahoogroups.com>wrote: > > > > > > > > > Dear Tom, > > > > > > > > > > Just to clear one thing up. I never paid any attention to post counts, > > > > > because I never knew anything about limits. I probably should have; > > > > > no doubt > > > > > I was sent this information. But if ignorance is no excuse under the > > > > > law, > > > > > you at least should know that I was plumb dumb about this regulation, > > > > > and it > > > > > did not seem indulgent for the authorities to overlook this initial > > > > > flouting > > > > > of the rules, when, as a recent arrival in this country (FFL), I had > > > > > no idea > > > > > that there were any binding laws of the road. And besides, I found > > > > > myself, > > > > > once I began posting, having to fend off or respond to a multitude of > > > > > voices, each one more or less making a demand upon me to clarify, to > > > > > prove > > > > > myself. > > > > > > > > > > Of course had I known about the rule, you may be sure I would have > > > > > conformed. And since it is the spirit not the letter of the law that > > > > > counts, > > > > > are you willing to say that, in suspending the normal punishment when > > > > > it > > > > > came to me, the editors at FFL violated your sense of justice? > > > > > > > > > > Because if this is your experience, I am willing, in being sincerely > > > > > convinced of this conviction of yours, to TAKE THE NEXT WEEK OFF FROM > > > > > POSTING. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > RC, don't place limits on yourself like that. Take next week and the > > > > week > > > > after and the week after. > > > > > > > > But Nature's already taking its course. You're quickly becoming > > > > irrelevant > > > > here just as you've become irrelevant wherever you've squatted. Soon > > > > all > > > > that be left behind will be some rotting turds, a God awful stench and > > > > flies. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Would it seem a more just universe if I did this? I assure you I am > > > > > willing > > > > > to bear the consequences of my actions. > > > > > > > > > > MZ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
