--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "wayback71" <wayback71@> wrote: > > > > > > Barry, when you saw Lenz levite > > > 1. had you heard before that he did this sort of thing? > > > > No. Not the first time I saw him/it. > > Susan, I'd like to do what I forgot to do when first > replying, and thank you for the way in which you asked > your questions. That is, curious and more than a little > skeptical, but not hostile. That is rare, and why I don't > talk about this stuff here very much, and why I won't > talk about it again for a while after this post.
You're welcome. And thanks for taking the time to answer all the questions I had. I have a now deceased friend who was with Rama, too, and talked of these things. I have no doubt whatsoever that you and he saw Rama do these miraculous things. But, like you, my question is what does it mean? I too do not equate the ability to do siddhis or miracles with enlightenment. Rama did not call in the TV cameras and perhaps the purpose was to just stretch the mindsets of his viewers. Or maybe there was no purpose, he was just goofing and having fun. But the fundamental question is how do you integrate seeing this with the seemingly concrete world around us, the laws of physics, the need to have explanations for events, and also the need to believe in something greater and different than we have all around us. Glad you got to see Rama do this. I am at a point in life where I think Enlightenment is possible, but that it might "only" be a style of brain functioning here you kill off the ego part (perhaps by slowing down the whirlwind of interconnections and messages so that the sense of self and "doing" and are undone) and are left feeling calm, happy, and infinite. No bad at all in many ways, but not mystical. But I am not sure that there is anything after the body dies, only energy or consciousness. This half-baked and evolving view could accept other realities that coexist with ours, and still not necessarily believe in God or life after death. The whole thing is pretty amazing and as I have said before, I really would love to be around for the scientific progress of the next hundred years or so. > > From my point of view, the important thing about my first > post on this subject yesterday was the last sentence: > "Lemme tell you, that is a great deal harder to live with > than those who think that witnessing levitation would be > a Good Thing That Would Make Their Incarnation might think." > > THAT is really the bottom line. THAT, if there was one, > was the benefit of having witnessed extraordinary things. > NOT the having done it, but the having to *live with* > having done it. > > What do you DO with having experienced something that > you and everyone around you knows could not have > happened, if the world is "really" as it has been > described to us all our lives? > > Do you talk about it? Do you try to convince others that > it was real, and tell them what you think it "meant?" > Good luck with that. :-) You CAN'T ever convince someone > who hasn't seen or experienced something like this that > it was real. My brother and his wife and kids and several adult friends and many adult patrons saw something odd in Costa Rica years go- a large round disc (just like your would think a UFO would look) hovering silently on a mountainside just about 50 yards from where they sat in a restaurant. It stayed there for a good 10 minutes, then flew off at lightening speed, silently. They never talk about it!! None of them!!!! You can't explain it to others and so you file it away. > > Some people actually are so freaked out by what they > realize are the implications of having seen something > like this that they try to make the experience GO AWAY. > For example, I once took an ex-girlfriend, a die-hard > TMer who still is one to this day, to see Rama. I didn't > push it on her, because I knew what a stick-up-her-butt > TM TB she was, but she asked, so I brought her along to > a public talk. At one point during one of the meditations, > she, sitting right beside me, opened her eyes and looked > at Rama and said "Oh my God!" I opened my eyes and looked > at her and she was quivering, shaking. I looked up at > Rama and sure enough, he was hovering about a foot above > the sofa he had been sitting on. > > I whispered to her, "What are you seeing?" She said, "He > is levitating." She stared at him for some minutes, > clearly somewhat shaken by the experience, and then > closed her eyes again and meditated. After the talk, I > asked her about it and she said, "Yes, there is no > question about it...he was levitating. Not bouncing, > levitating." > > Two days later I ran into her, and she denied ever having > said that, or ever having seen it. Some weeks later I > heard through the gravevine that she now denied ever having > gone to see Rama in the first place, because that would > have been perceived as Off The Program. This I can believe. She probably decided she had been bewitched or tricked in some way, made up an explanation. > > THIS is the thing that people who think "All we'd have > to do to get everyone to sign up to learn TM is to > demonstrate real flying" don't understand. They really > don't get the power of denial, and of clinging to what > they've been told about the world and how it works, even > *in the face of their own experience to the contrary*. > > That is one of the things that appealed to me about the > Carlos Castaneda books. I discovered them *after* having > seen many of the extraordinary things he wrote about, in > the desert with Rama. What resonated with me, however, > is that Carlos was honest about what seeing these things > *put him through*. He was sitting there shaking in his > boots during many of these experiences, because they HAD > just rocked his world, and changed his perception of > that world in ways that -- if he was honest with himself > about having seen what he just saw -- he could never > go back to his previous way of seeing it. He had been > changed forever by the experience. > > Many people don't WANT to be changed forever. They may > claim that they do, but that's a pile of crap. They want > enlightenment to be as it was described to them by MMY, > a slow and linear process, in which waking state is > followed by CC and then CC is followed by GC and all > of these transitions are easy and don't really rock > your world all that much. Well, I think your world gets turned upside down by some of these shifts in the states of c. If the ego dies, it is dead and so are "you," along with the whole former sense of self. That is big. > > That is not my experience of how such things often happen. > IMO, the different states of consciousness are not linear, > they are coexistent and congruent, ALL of them happening > to ALL of us at once, simultaneously. We just focus on > and get attached to one of them at a time, that's all. > I've bounced in and out of various of Maharishi's "Seven > states of consciousness" for years, and not one of them > was IMO any "better" than another, or all that different > from one another. It was more like turning the dial on > a TV and choosing to listen to and watch a different show, > that's all. And it was the SAME show, only totally > different because you'd changed the subjective point > of view from which you were watching it. When I have had these experiences, it most definitely felt as if I had always been there in that state, but was now just paying attention to it from that different subjective point or channel. And it was easy to do. But upon fading, I did not know how to pay attention again. I have not had enough of these shifts to feel that they are common. > > But now imagine having experiences of CC or GC or UC > and trying to tell someone who has never experienced > them about them. Should they believe you? > > Of course not. You're describing something they've never > experienced. It's much easier to believe that you're just > a nut job, or touting your own self importance. > > Now take that and square it or cube it. THAT is what > talking about having witnessed siddhis is like. WHY should > anyone believe you? There is simply no reason that they > should. > > As a result, many simply DON'T talk about them. They keep > their mouths shut like many of my former Rama student > friends, and don't talk about them at all. Or, like my > ex-girlfriend, they glom onto "explanations" for what > they saw and experienced that makes it seem as if they > never really *did* see and experience it. This is just > so much EASIER than saying, "I really saw it." > > I'm in the "I really saw it" camp. I will NOT take the > "easy out" and claim that I didn't just because people > won't believe me, or glom onto easy "explanations" of > how I never "really" saw what I saw and experienced > what I did. I *DID* see this shit. I *DID* experience > the things I experienced. Yes, and having seen these things any times makes it easier to know that you really saw them. Just seeing it once - you can create explanations. > > Admitting that makes me a pariah to many, especially > if along their chosen path they have never had similar > experiences. Admitting that makes me appear to be a fool, > or crazy, or trying to puff myself up and appear more > important. I don't think most people would think of you in the ways you describe. You are most definitely not a person who wants to "mood make," as we used to say.i think people are more open than you give credit. > > You will have to forgive me if I suggest that people > who feel that way go fuck themselves. > > I'm just doing what feels to me to be the only honest > thing I can do -- *admit* to what I saw and experienced, > but at the same time *admit* that I don't understand > it, that I have no explanation for it, and that I don't > have the faintest clue about what any of it "means." > > I just describe my experiences, and allow people to > make of them what they will. That's what I did in Road > Trip Mind, and that's what I'm doing in these posts. > It is good to write it all down, especially for a writer.
