--- 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. :-)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBzJGckMYO4 > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wgm4u wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He (MMY) should have been more upfront about his > > > > > > > enlightenment status... > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > >> What difference would that have made? > > > > > > > > > > > > It would have been Just Another Human Being Making > > > > > > Just Another Claim. > > > > > > > > > > > > Why does anyone believe that they should believe > > > > > > someone who claims to be enlightened? > > > > > > > > > > > Good Point! The hallmark of enlightenment as it is > > > > > discussed here, is the ability to reside within the > > > > > silence of the Self, regardless of the other activity > > > > > taking place. > > > > > > > > Sez who? > > > > > > > > Seriously. You are making *pronouncements* again, > > > > Jim, based (as far as I can tell) on Things That > > > > Were Told To You By People You Choose To Believe. > > > > > > > > What makes those things correct, or "truth?" > > > > > > > > It's not that I diss your ability to believe what > > > > you were told. It's just that I don't believe that > > > > you fully understand that you were TOLD it, and > > > > that the only reason you choose to believe it is > > > > that you *choose* to believe that what you were > > > > TOLD is somehow equivalent with "truth." > > > > > > > > I have no such illusions. > > > > > > > > I consider Maharishi Just Another Guy. I consider > > > > Buddha Just Another Guy. I consider Christ, and > > > > any other spiritual teacher you could name, Just > > > > Another Guy. Unless it was a woman, of course, in > > > > which case she would be Just Another Gal. :-) > > > > > > > > I do not cut ANY of these people any special breaks > > > > with regard to "knowing the truth." They were merely > > > > human beings, having human opinions, and stating > > > > them, based on their personal experiences. > > > > > > > > As such, their opinions carry no more weight than > > > > my own. > > > > > > > > Why do you feel differently? > > > > > > > > Do you really feel that some people are more "special" > > > > than others, and that as a result their opinions > > > > carry more "weight" or have more legitimacy than the > > > > opinions of others? > > > > > > > > I do not. > > > > > > > > I am clearly in the "We're all bozos on this bus" camp. > > > > > > > > You seem to be more in the "Some bozos are more 'special' > > > > than others, and that therefore their words carry more > > > > weight than others" camp. > > > > > > > > Make a case for your position. > > > > > > > > > >
