Do you realize Grandpa Xeno how psychopathically deranged your experiences sound? You are too alienated emotionally, psychologically - god I felt so sick reading your vomit.
On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Xenophaneros Anartaxius < anartax...@yahoo.com> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" > <anartaxius@> wrote: > >> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > >> > >>> Over the years I've been on this forum, I have gradually ceased to > believe that there is a universally applicable scheme for the development > of enlightenment, such that if someone doesn't have *this* experience or > does have *that* experience, it means they are (or are not) enlightened. > >> > >>> Some experiences (or lack of same) may be more common than others, but > you can't make absolute, across-the-board "rules" that apply to all > individuals without exception, any more than you can do it with the > experience of falling in love. The uniqueness of first-person ontology > remains just that. > >> > >>> My opinion, anyway. > >> > >>> [to Dr Dumbass] Not what I meant by "scheme." I meant something like > Maharishi's "Seven States of Consciousness"--an outline, format, a > schedule, a list of "symptoms." > >> > >> First-person ontology is the thing that enlightenment gets rid of, > > > > I question this and every other statement you've made > > in this post that you apply across the board, as opposed > > to describing your own experience. > > I am describing my own experience. That is all I have. There is just > experience. Not experiences, with an 's', but experience, singular. > Experience*s* are like sub directories or folders on a computer. It is not > uncommon these days, others on this forum certainly seem to be experiencing > something similar. > > There are a number of people in Fairfield having this kind of experience. > And, I am confident, many others in all walks of life having these > experiences. It is in the air. It is not just a matter of TM, there are > lots of groups and people bent on awakening and succeeding. > > I say these things across the board because that is the way I experience > these things and there is some support in the environment for this way of > describing human experience in long term meditators. None of this is > special with me. > > You have every prerogative to question (although you have not actually > questioned anything above, you have only stated that you question it). > Mapping out benchmarks for spiritual development is a minefield because as > you said, 'I think there are likely many exceptions and anomalies', so > there are people who are not going to fit the mold. My outline using the > terms M used is just one way one could try to map general categories of > experience. > > For example, Charles Manson shows a number of characteristics of unity if > we examine his statements, but he is also insane, a psychopath, and lacks > certain characteristics that a presumably normal person would have, so he > would be a significant outlier in any scheme that purports to categorise > enlightenment benchmarks. > > I have a collection of Classical music recordings. I always have trouble > trying to shelf them in some coherent way. My system here is generally by > time period and the composer's name, using the date of death as a marker > within a time period and beyond that I can remember where most composers > lie on the time line. > > I think M's scheme for enlightenment is workable for many people, it is > more detailed than some schemes, but in the end any scheme turns out to be > nonsense, but it has applicability for giving one a bearing while on the > path. If a person's experience is anomalous, a scheme will appear to be > wrong to that person. > > In retrospect a scheme might even seem more on point than when one was on > the path, because when you are on the path, you do not really know what you > are headed for, or even where you are, and a benchmark isn't a specific > experience, it is an general category of experience so making a mistake in > interpreting what is going on is certainly a reasonable assumption. Even > the belief in a scheme might be useful just to keep you going. > > My experiences were in some ways anomalous and that led to much doubt. I > went through a long period where I did not want to read anything about > spiritual development, meditating all the while, but just not interested in > hearing about or discussing it. Also run-of-the-mill TM discussions can be > incredibly boring. > > At any point in a spiritual path all one really needs is information that > applies directly to what one's experience or experiences are just at that > time, and not any other drivel; it does not always work to apply cookie > cutter templates. > > The TM movement does not really want you to look at other stuff, but > eventually that is what helped me most; I took complete control of my > 'program' away from the movement over time because it failed to provide the > information I needed when I needed it. > > I experimented and researched. But eventually it was kind of full circle, > I ended up reading about things that initially propelled me on the journey, > and found answers to questions I could not find easily within the TM org > and TM teachers. > > What propelled the restoration of interest in all this was a sudden > unexpected shift in experience. Everything I had thought had failed, proved > in retrospect to have been useful, but to have had more specific > information at specific times in my life would possibly have made the > process more efficient. > > The only reason I write here is to clarify the nature of my experience. > This was also a big help, including the attacks. Learning to navigate > opposition when experiencing basically non-opposition is a very peculiar > exercise. Someone can say something that can polish up clarity on a point, > but that point is not quintessentially a function of intellect. > > Bear in mind that when dealing with enlightenment, one is ultimately not > dealing with rational discourse, but dealing with a quality of life that > underlies, so to speak, everything else in experience, one attempts to > align with that, but one is not always able to apply the intellect to a > situation because intellect is a subset of experience, kind of in its own > little compartment; it handles attempting to organise verbal > representations a wider world of experience, but is not that experience, > it's a filter for that experience, which means something is cut out or > blocked when it is use. > > If you fail to align with the wider experience, you try again, and again. > You are not polishing your intellect - it might improve, or even get worse. > You are polishing something you cannot even see, kind of like a seagull > riding the currents of the air, learning to gracefully move on a bedrock of > mystery. > > Waking up, or waking down, whichever way it goes does not matter because > waking is the common element, is not a green card to nirvana. It is like > your life is a building that has just been totally demolished, and you now > have to build it anew, with a new understanding which simply cannot have > the gravity the previous one did because you know it is not really true, > but has a practical value only. The things thought about, as thought, is > kind of like a comic book version of the wider perspective, of which one > can not really say anything. > > If lucky, I suppose, much of the demolition happens in the background > during all the years of meditating and search, so waking up from the dream > might be gentle. If not, you might think you have gone insane, and you > really do need some guidance. I have heard people say they thought > something was seriously wrong when the awakening happened, because the > nature of the experience, however well prepared, was so unlike what they > expected. But if the experience is clear enough, you can't go back. You are > stuck in the ocean without an oar; you are the ocean in a specific sense > which really cannot be described, so an oar would do no good in any case. > To all the people in my life that made this possible, a heartfelt Thank You. > > PS Judy, as this is a response to you, I am listening to the Dies Irae > from Verdi's Messa da Requiem, just in case I need preparation for any > potentially forthcoming response. :-) > > >> one ends up with a unity-centric ontology, the basic progression is > that the mind's focus on individuality shifts to universality, and the ego > is left without a job. The ego is why a person fears death. It's a fiction > that conveniently wraps around various processes going on in experience, > but it dies with great difficulty for most. > >> > >> Conventionally we still use nomenclature when we converse with other > bodies because it simplifies communication to say 'yours', 'mine', 'me', > 'I', etc., when transferring information between minds. As we start out, > everyone has a personal ontology experience, so what is unique about what > everyone has? It's like different coloured coffee cups, that are otherwise > all the same. > >> > >> The basic scheme of enlightenment is 'me' progressing to 'everything > all together'. The details in between I think are pretty much as you > surmise - different people experience the letting go of initial state of > spiritual progress differently, though there seem to be some basic > commonalities. > >> > >> In attempting to 'harmonise' various traditions, I would say the common > states described would correspond to M's WC, CC, and UC/BC. Traditions with > meditation might add TC, although some, perhaps those meditating with > mindfulness kinds of meditation, may not experience TC at all because that > meditation is really aimed at UC (which is probably why many find it more > difficult than TM). > >> > >> Mindfulness meditators may become aware at some point they are in a > state that is with TM called CC; in other words, TC is not necessarily > described as the goal, since in this meditation, you just sit there > silently, which is how meditation functions in unity, there not being an > inward and outward stroke. As far as I am aware, TM is not necessarily > superior to these other methods as far as the final result; more important > may be how much you want the final result. GC is more interesting as some > traditions would consider the refined visions of GC as just sensory > illusions, which then dissipate when unity dawns. > >> > >> The greatest difficulty I have heard people mention when talking of > their experience outside of the TM movement is the loss of the sense of > small self, or ego. Some people simply chicken out when they see that > enlightenment is not about personal ontology. If they manage to chicken out > prior to a very clear awakening, they might be able to go back to being the > fake person they were before without much difficulty. People with a strong > ego-structured mind might have the most resistance to this process of > 'enlightenment'. Some people become frightened, really frightened. They > have so much invested in 'who they are'. > >> > >> Enlightenment is not about your specialness in any way other than the > capacity to be enlightened, so when you reach that threshold where you can > go either way, you can either be a coward, or accept the fact you are going > to die before your physical death. If the awakening is clear enough you do > not get to go back, and any remaining issues you have you just have to hack > through them, which really means they hack through the fictional 'you' > until that 'you' is basically history. This is not necessarily pleasant. > >> > >> I think you are correct in assuming that the progression of experience > is highly variable depending on the starting point and the 'karma' of the > person, the history associated with an individual body. Some never make it; > some breeze through without a hitch or any seeming progression (a very > small number), and everyone else is in between somewhere. > >> > >> I suppose if you had a map of what might happen, it might be like a map > of the United States with New York on one side, and San Francisco on the > other, and some vague change of colour in between annotated with blurry > text that cannot be read clearly. > >> > >> You follow the map, thinking you are going to reach, say, San Francisco > from New York. Some of that indistinct stuff in the middle of the map might > happen or not. You might get upset that you cannot find your way. In the > end, you find you were tricked. You never left New York, but now 'you' have > a completely different perspective on life, the consciousness no longer > identifies with the personal 'me' shtick process running in the mind and > the mind itself somehow acquiesces this state of affairs, so it does not > matter. And this explanation is a big, big lie. But it might serve. > >> > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To subscribe, send a message to: > fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com > > Or go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ > and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links > > > >
