You said, "I'll deal with this -- just for fun..." But, it neither reads as, nor feels like, "fun", at all. You have a very strange feeling of "fun", completely unlike mine, in fact unrecognizable as such, in my experience. Anything else from you?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ wrote: > > > > > > LOL - first you have to show me that you read and understood > > > what I wrote. So far, no tamale, big boy.:-) > > > > Most of his rant was a total non sequitur. He doesn't seem > > to have read your second paragraph: > > > > "This Self to Self recognition easily transcends language, and > > makes irrelevant what another says, or doesn't say, about their > > personal enlightenment. So Maharishi easily recognized that > > there was nothing to say regarding any personal claims of his, > > one way or the other." > > I'll deal with this -- just for fun, and because to > my way of thinking you and Jim have just reinforced > my point. The "Self to Self recognition" referred > to above as if it were either true or Truth is > Merely Yet Another Thing TOLD To You By Maharishi. > > As such, it *again* falls into the category of Just > Another Thing Said By A Human Being, and besides, it > is demonstrably wrong. > > IF there were such a thing as "Self to Self recognition," > meaning (as MMY explained it) that one enlightened > person could recognize enlightenment in another, then > what happened in the case of Maharishi vs. Robin? Or in > the many, many other cases of TMers who clearly felt to > the core of their being that they had realized enlight- > enment and went to Maharishi to confirm it, and he > failed to? > > Either they were deluded about their supposed enlightenment > (a strong possibility) and Maharishi was correcting them > from his platform of enlightenment (not a likely possibility > IMO), or the whole concept is wrong. I lean to the latter. > > After all, Maharishi has also been known to make similar > "not enlightened" pronouncements about fairly well-known > teachers outside his tradition. The people in those > traditions assume that the teacher (living or dead) that > Maharishi was dissing was enlightened, and in many cases > the teachers in question assumed this, too. So was one > of these supposedly enlightened people WRONG, or is the > whole IDEA of "Self to Self recognition" WRONG. > > Again, I go with the latter. > > The thing that Jim proposed, and that you glommed onto as > yet another opportunity to diss Barry, is JUST ANOTHER > OPINION, spouted by JUST ANOTHER HUMAN BEING. > > There is nothing that has -- or will ever -- be able to > verify the truth or falsity of this opinion. Jim gloms > onto it because he wants to believe it; so do you. But > it IS just opinion. > > > You were *agreeing* with him that claims to be enlightened > > are irrelevant because it's a purely personal, subjective > > experience. > > > > And the first part of his rant *contradicts* that very > > same agreement, in that he appears to believe that *he* > > is able to discern whether or not someone (in this case, > > you) is enlightened--i.e., since you aren't, according > > to him, therefore you could not possibly be speaking > > from experience. > > IT DOESN'T MATTER whether Jim is "speaking from > experience." The most that could EVER be is *his* > experience. It NEVER equates to truth. > > Neither does anything EVER said by Maharishi. > > As for Jim being enlightened, I don't think we have > to go into this. I would venture that there is no > one on this forum who believes that he is. And if > anyone disagrees with me on this, they are free to > speak up. > > > I swear, he's becoming less coherent by the day. > > And I swear, your obsession with "getting Barry" is > becoming more embarrassing for you every day. :-) > > My point was -- and is -- that many (if not most) TMers > spout things as "truth" that THEY CAN NO LONGER > REMEMBER WERE TOLD TO THEM BY MAHARISHI. They > seem to believe that these things just spring to their > minds as if coming from some platform of truth, wise > sutras of wisdom like "Self knows Self." But all they > are doing is parroting shit TOLD to them by someone > else. > > Don't get your hopes up that this is the start of one > of the long, protracted arguments you live for, BTW. > I will not reply to anything you say in reply, and > probably won't even bother to read it. I just felt > like replying this morning on a whim, and the whim > is now over. Besides, when it comes to discussing > enlightenment experiences, you don't even have > experience to draw on, so by definition anything you > have to say on the subject was TOLD to you by someone, > and thus truly irrelevant. :-) >
