Judy, your post was brilliant, and I never had a doubt that your intellect is among the sharpest here, and that's why I can say to you, I have the clear feeling, there is some love-bombing going on here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_bombing
I can understand that this is luring, especially when one has been through very dry online discussions, with mostly men. Besides that, the whole culture in the TM movement isn't really geared toward the heart, so I can understand, if somebody comes, and touches you on a wholly differnt level, it is a kind of transcending itself. Yet, it is the same effect, if you simply fall in love - it can be as simple as that. This mingling of ideas about love, and spiritual ideas is quite common in the spiritual field, it does happen a lot, with gurus and their disciples, ladies - of all ages -fall in love with their male gurus, and men fall in love with their lady Matajis. But it does not substitue discrimination and real discernment about the ultimate state of enlightenment. And I know about it - yes I do know about it - only in real life, not on internet forums. You rightly say, that it is not possible to judge an enlightened according to his behaviour, especially not on the net, because how would you know? Because the internet puts a layer between us, that doesn't exist in real life. And that's exactly the point: As you are not in the physical proximity of the other person, it is more difficult to make a judgement, and therefore, what's the whole point of such a connection then? It's like internet love. Somebody says he is enlightened, and you either believe or don't believe. I have been with real enlightened people in my life, so I have a rough idea of how they are, what they have in common. One very striking feature is the sense of non-attachment you get with them. They are totally different in certain ways. The other point that I have got to know is their utter lack of need of self-explanation, a great sense of humility and a lack of self-glorification. They just keep their mouth shut most of the time, no small talks, nothing. No need to defend oneself. If somebody has a need to start every thread with his own name, praises only people who agree with him, and abuses those who don't, I don't believe he is in any way close to enlightenment in my book. Period. I have myself kundalini, do I need to go from house to house with that, so what, it is not enlightenment. The Upanishad, therefore rightly and wisely says: Those who say they know, they don't know, they who say they don't know, they know it. I go with that. Besides that, it is in the best interest of a yogi who has developing experiences not to seek a big audience. Ramana Maharshi was silent for 16 years AFTER his initial enlightenment experience. Many sadhaks are therefore directed by their masters towards solitude, to avoid spoiling their own Sadhana. Usually, traditionally, if you have a master, the master has to tell you to teach, before that you shouldn't teach. Then, if you teach, is your teaching just an attempt of emotionally involving people with you, or to teach real wisdom? So looking at it like this, you judge. Anyway, if you are having, a nice experience with this, for whatever reason, I am happy for you. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Yogi <raviyogi@...> wrote: > > Dear Judy, > > No. 49 for you. > > I can only say wow. > > That clear intellect again, I don't want to sound patronizing but this is > your best post ever that I have read. > > I know you were standing alone bravely facing the metaphorical demons of > ignorance and deception caused by deep emotional wounds - the Curtis's, > Barry's - piled on by naive idiots like Rick, Steve who wanted to be always > on the right side of these intellectually deceptive bastards with their > layers of POV's and these MF'ers even reduced *truth* to *opinion*. > > Then some retarded conspiracy theorists like Barry 2, disciples of their > equally reatrded Gurus like the Abhayanandas, the crooks, fraud Gurus from > India. > > What to say about my Uncle Kamsa, Vaj, the liar - luckily we had Sadhak > emptybill to balance him. > > I salute the warrior, the divine Mother Judy for battling the demons for so > long. You will surely be rewarded since you are the epitome of dharma, > Kshatriya dharma, the spiritual warrior. > > Yes with Bob, Obba, Denise started the heart centered approach. Bob and Obba > are all heart. Then Robin, Judy with his intellect and heart, Alex, Raunchy > > Love - Ravi. > > > On Dec 12, 2011, at 8:48 AM, "authfriend" <jstein@...> wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, zarzari_786 <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > <snip> > > > > As for "intellectual clarity," have you ever read any of > > > > the books by Chogyam Trungpa? Some are utterly brilliant, > > > > despite the fact (as we know now) that he was totally in > > > > the bag (meaning falling down drunk) while writing most > > > > of them. > > > > > > I know him mainly through the writings of others, which > > > is about exactly this topic. > > > > > > > Go figure. I guess my point is that while one > > > > may admire Trungpa's writing and its clarity on the one > > > > hand, you wouldn't really want him driving you anywhere > > > > or making decisions that strongly affected your life, > > > > would you? > > > > > > He's never been my cup of tea. > > > > Couple things. First, any addiction that constitutes > > a self-destructive behavior (e.g., gambling) is > > classified as a psychiatric condition because doing > > harm to oneself isn't considered "normal." But an > > alcoholic isn't "crazy" simply on the basis of his or > > her addiction. Some alcoholics may be seriously > > mentally ill as well as addicted, but others may not > > be. It's a matter of degree. > > > > Second, alcoholism is by no means unknown among > > some of our most greatest writers. It almost seems > > to be an occupational hazard: > > > > http://listverse.com/2008/01/22/top-15-great-alcoholic-writers/ > > > > Third, "intellectual clarity" or "coherence" is > > generally a pretty good sign that a person isn't > > "crazy" in the sense of psychotic. Obviously you > > wouldn't want an alcoholic to drive you anywhere, > > and letting somebody make decisions that would strongly > > affect your life isn't a great idea no matter who > > they are. But that doesn't mean an alcoholic can't have > > significant insights about Life, the Universe, and > > Everything that are worth one's attention. > > > > Bottom line, Trungpa isn't a very relevant example > > in the context of the unusual behavior on FFL recently > > that Barry's complaining about. > > > > > > I guess I bring this up because I see an increasingly > > > > disturbing trend here on FFL. Many people seem to have > > > > lost any sense of perspective on the things that happen > > > > here. It's just a chat forum; maybe a total of 40 people > > > > interact on it regularly. But for some it seems to have > > > > become a deadly serious business. They regularly LOSE > > > > IT over -- let's face it -- minor insults or petty > > > > affronts that a sane person would hardly notice. Some > > > > develop grudges and then recruit "teams" to help them > > > > obsess on their common grudgees. > > > > > > Yes, agreed. This is part of the usenetization of the > > > internet, not uncommon at all. The mechanics has nothing > > > to do with TM or spiritual movements per se. > > > > Exactly. > > > > People just > > > lose it as they get involved, you could say it is a lack > > > of detachment. > > > > You could say that. On the other hand... > > > > > > THIS is what 30 to 40 years of TM does for a person? > > > > > > Or doesn't do. I get your point is, that TM ers were > > > supposed to be more detached than the average internet > > > user, but obviously they aren't. > > > > ...if by "detachment" you mean what is generally > > referred to in the context of enlightenment as > > "nonattachment," it's not necessarily obvious at all > > on the basis of behavior. Nonattachment is a subjective > > quality that may or may not be evident from behavior > > (especially when the only behavior one sees is the > > words a person writes in an electronic forum). > > > > > Another issue, I think is old age. With some people, > > > reaching a certain age, mental abilities start to fail. > > > > True. But again, intellectual clarity in a person's > > writing would tend to rule that out. > > > > > Then there is the issue of lonliness, isolation. > > > > Also true. But in many if not most cases, you can't > > tell whether a person is isolated or lonely on the > > basis of what they write on an electronic forum (unless > > they tell you). The speculation, or even the assertion, > > that a person whose posts one doesn't like is "lonely" > > is often used as a cheap putdown to avoid addressing > > what the person says, but in most cases one doesn't > > know whether that's true. > > > > > > But worse, IMO, some of the folks whom I think have lost > > > > perspective don't seem to know what they're messing with > > > > when they start trying to recruit people with borderline > > > > personality disorders into their petty grudge wars I think > > > > that in doing this they're playing with fire, and I hope > > > > that it doesn't escalate into something a lot more serious, > > > > or tragic. > > > > > > I know exactly what you mean here. I have been watching > > > the soap opera that is going on here with bewilderment, > > > but I simply fail to get it. I am not sure what is ironic > > > or serious. Most posts are simply tl;dr > > > http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=tl%3Bdr > > > > Well, some posts are. Most posts are actually fairly > > short, shorter than the post you're responding to, in > > fact. > > > > > I guess some people, are simply fed up with the overly > > > intelectual culture of these boards, and they just like > > > to get emotionally turned on. > > > > With regard to what's been going on recently, I think > > you've hit the nail on the head here. Arguments have > > been a staple of FFL virtually since it began, but > > they've been primarily intellectually based arguments. > > They sometimes get heated and folks may take sides and > > even deliberately perpetuate grudges, as Barry does, > > but recent trends here have been of a different order. > > > > The increasing use of YouTube videos, especially music > > videos, as a substitute for or amplification of the > > written word is significant in this regard; it's a very > > different approach to communication that is more heart- > > centered (excuse the banal term). > > > > There's been more emotional honesty--positive and > > negative--recently, even in written posts, it seems to > > me. People are expressing their feelings toward one > > another more directly. Some may find that a little > > scary and may even be repelled by it; others clearly > > find it liberating. I think the characterization > > "they just like to get emotionally turned on" may be > > missing the significance of this development. > > > > > Otherwise, I am just clueless myself. > > > > I've been watching it with amazement. It's unsettling, > > no question about it. It's not something I find easy > > to participate in, but I have felt a degree of warmth > > emanating from it that's very much akin to bliss. > > > > Some long-time participants here have taken these > > interactions as an opportunity to sneer at the folks > > who engage in them. Sneering at people they disagree > > with or don't like while avoiding direct engagement > > with them has been their habitual mode of interaction > > here for many years; the outbreak of heart-centered > > call-and-response just gives them a new basis for > > sneering and, IMHO, says a lot more about them and > > their limitations than it does about the people > > they're sneering at. > > > > > But for me, any enlightened, crazy or not, should show > > > a level of detachment, which I simply expect, > > > > As I suggested above, that may be a mistake, in that > > you really can't tell what a person's subjective state > > of consciousness is from their behavior. > > > > > which includes not boasting about ones own enlightenment. > > > > I wouldn't even rule out someone's enlightenment on > > the basis of their boasting about it. It's not what > > one usually expects, true, but if the classical model > > of enlightenment--e.g., per the Gita, "I do not act > > at all"--is valid, if it's really the three gunas > > that determine the enlightened person's actions, it's > > a mug's game to conclude that a particular behavior > > is or is not consistent with higher consciousness. > > > > > Among crazy saints, I prefer the type, who go in rags, > > > if at all, stare at you in the streets of India, live > > > outside, talk if anything gibberish not comprehensible > > > to anyone, and don't know where America or Europe is, > > > and yes, get food from the trashbin. ;-) > > > > And never really get in your face, right? > > > > > > Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic > > Messages in this topic (10) > > RECENT ACTIVITY: New Members 4 New Photos 1 > > Visit Your Group > > To subscribe, send a message to: > > fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com > > > > Or go to: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ > > and click 'Join This Group!' > > MARKETPLACE > > Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on - Get > > the Yahoo! Toolbar now. > > > > > > Switch to: Text-Only, >
