On Oct 10, 2011, at 3:18 PM, maskedzebra wrote: > Answer: I resist giving a simple response to this question. What follows here > is strictly my own idiosyncratic view of the matter. I doubt I will take > anyone with me in what I say. But I will go ahead anyway. Enlightenment, in > the case of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, was real; real here means: functioning in > a different context mechanically, behaviourally, experientially. > Enlightenment *is* a separate and distinct state of awareness which is as > different from waking state as waking state is to dream state. Enlightenment > is like waking up from a dream, and it is, unquestionably, the experience of > knowing the intention of the entire cosmos is acting through one's individual > existence. Unless it has this—mechanical, purposeful—aspect, it can't be > enlightenment. Not the way Maharishi defined it. Not the way Maharishi made > it possible for me to know what he was experiencing.
Well I hope you realize that this would also be a classical description of an number of psychiatric disorders, including but not limited to Schizotypal personality disorder or Schizophrenia. One should probably include the more recent Kundalini psychosis. "Real" is a relative term. There is not any style of validation for these states in Mahesh's system performed by someone known to be competent with higher states of consciousness. > > But as for the true reality of it: that is: does enlightenment represent the > fulfillment, the perfection, the consummation of what it means to be a human > being? this I reject categorically. Well, "pointing out" of the enlightened state is essential to grokking the reality of what we experience or imagine as an enlightened state or stage. The traditional presentation is that we've been so conditioned to delusion for countless lives that we're much, much more likely to chose a delusion as "our enlightenment". In one sense there are no enlightened people, there's only enlightened action. Those who talk, inevitably, don't know. > Enlightenment—any state that takes you outside of normal waking > state—including transcendence—is ultimately an illusion. Unless enlightenment involves no modification, it is seeing thing as they really are - just as they are. I think that was one of the hardest things for people (like me) who were or are conditioned by Hindu- or Veda-think to grok. > Note: I am not saying that it isn't something very real as measured by how it > allows one to function, the experience it immutably affords one to have at > all times, the stability of it, its unconquerable integrity. It is all these > things. But the question becomes: *How* is it that this state of > consciousness comes about? Buddhist awakeners might say it 'was there, from the beginning'. After all, everything that's compounded, changes. > For sure, it is the perpetual integrated experience of transcendence. But, > after all, does enlightenment correspond to objective reality? Does reality > seek to have itself embodied in a human being in the form of enlightenment? Yes, of course it corresponds to objective reality. > > No. A universal No to this. Which is why Maharishi started to come apart at > the end; it is why (if I may speak personally) I started to come apart at the > end. Enlightenment—if you're all out there—cannot be sustained. And reality > will bring it down. If, that is, you put yourself on the line: as in: I am > enlightened; let me lead you to the promised land (Unity Consciousness). Just > do this technique. Or: let me confront you inside the metaphysical drama of > creation. >From the tradition I come from, and the actual tradition of Christ some >believe, they might say that relaxation (unstressing?) continues to the >cellular level. One gets less and less encumbered - and then just returns to >the source of the five elements: light. > > So, strictly speaking, yes, TM "can produce a style of psychosis" which could > describe fittingly the state of enlightenment. But I have never seen *anyone* > on the earth other than Maharishi that I believe is 'truly enlightened'. I have. But I have to say I don't feel nor had I ever experienced Mahesh as "enlightened". A couple of minor siddhis? Maybe. And then even that fell away. That would be my perception. But then maybe he was just not my Elvis. > Because, as I have said, enlightenment requires the cosmos to appear to be > behind one's actions and supporting one's experience of a unified state of > consciousness. Enlightenment should and can meet all tests—but one. All the > tests short of reality deciding to confront it. Then Reality overpowers > reality. And enlightenment is seen for what it really is: a very unnatural, > deceitful, black-magical state of consciousness, which alienates one from who > one really is. Well that brings up an interesting observation other yogis have made on dark yogis like Mahesh. They are experts at producing forms of delusion, mind-scars if you will, that can enslave one. > As far as I am concerned Maharishi's version of what enlightenment is is the > only true enlightenment of my lifetime. I'd honestly have to say the opposite: his is the only faux-enlightenment system I've experienced directly. And it's also the only system of meditation I know of that caused so much suffering to it's practitioners. Shakyamuni was right: siddhis are the purest form of suffering. What does that say for someone who urged his students to cultivate siddhis? > Maharishi lived out the truth of his enlightenment—until the universe, or > what is behind the universe, decided it had had enough, and in its > unfathomable providence decided to bring him down. And is still bringing him > down. He's still a mystery. I'm open to "whatever". It could turn out the fanatic marketing job he did in popularizing meditation will be the right catalyst at the right time. And then we'll all have a good laugh. > > But it brought me down too. So, then, I deny, challenge, the so-called > enlightenment of anyone other than Maharishi. How so, Robin? Because I know I > can destabilize and undo that illusion if it gets presented to me in the form > of another human being. Not in the form of Maharishi, however—not when I knew > him; not when I was enlightened. The universe allowed Maharishi to represent > itself, even though, when it really came down to it, it rejected him, and > sent him on his way. And I am still suffering the consequences of this same > kind of rejection. That is, I am still finding out how f***ked up I made > myself by going into Unity Consciousness on that mountain in Switzerland. > > So, as long as one stays in waking state, one is all right. But anyone who > claims to be enlightened, first of all is not enlightened in the sense that > the universe or reality is getting behind that enlightenment—as it did in the > case of Maharishi, as it did, in the case of myself; and secondly they are > making themselves weaker as a human being than they otherwise would be were > they to step out of their so-called enlightenment and become a normal waking > state person again. Every guest on BatGap fits this description, and Rick's > association with TM and Maharishi renders him far more subtle, fluent, savvy > in his conversation about things cosmic than anyone of his guests. They are > all in an illusion of one kind of another. It seems we agree on many things! > > But, short of enlightenment, perhaps it's just fine to think one can evolve > into a higher state of consciousness through TM or any other meditation > technique. Myself, I have not outside of Maharishi encountered a single > person who claims to be enlightened who can stand up to the confrontation of > their enlightenment. They just get angry or out of control, and the falseness > of their experience gets exposed. Nobody, by contrast, could lay a hand on > Maharishi. But they could now. Same applies to myself. > > But since God is no longer enabling us to know his Creation—and > ourselves—through his own grace, well, then, everything is up for grabs. And > everyone's reality is just as valid as anyone else's reality. But for sure > enlightenment in some objective sense is a form of psychosis—but it may be > supported by awesomely powerful invisible beings like Devas, or angels, or > discarnate spirits. I think this causality applies to Maharishi, and I have > come to believe applies to my myself. > > If there was anything valid or truthful or objective about enlightenment, the > West would have made it an object of scientific study centuries ago—and all > those Jesuit Missionaries to India and Japan in the fifteenth century would > have been brought up short when they encountered some Guru or Roshi. They did > not, because enlightenment is a mystical state of consciousness which does > not correspond to reality as it is governed and sustained (and was originally > created) by a personal Creator. The Holy Ghost was with the Jesuits [like St > Francis Xavier]. Enlightenment will never become part of philosophy, > psychology, science, or literature: because it is *not real*. Therefore the > East is ultimately, in its spirituality, unreal. The spirituality of the West > once *was real*. The basis of its reality has gone. And therefore we in the > West—especially since psychedelics moved in—have followed the gods of the > East. Some would say that the only extant remnant of the style of complete awakening left on planet earth that corresponds to what Jesus of Nazareth experienced is that of the Mahasandhi yogis of Tibet who, similarly, simply dissolve into light: and thereby gain the simultaneous ability to merge with hundreds of thousands of dakinis, in innumerable realms as enlightened activity. If this wasn't the case, I doubt the Roman Catholic church would have so much interest in a phenomenon that'd they'd have teams of scientists waiting till the next time they get a report...
