Is this what Grandpa Xeno had to say in his defense? Why can't he say so himself? Why does he need you to speak on his behalf?
What do the doctors say - that it's acceptable behavior as long as the object of the deranged rant not a family member? It's very frustrating, there seems to be no end in sight to Grandpa's pathological behavior. P.S may be you were joking but Judy's not my aunt - YOU are, unless you are singing Grandpa tune? OMG - I hope not. On Aug 26, 2013, at 4:57 AM, "sharelong60" <sharelon...@yahoo.com> wrote: > but but but Ravi, Xeno wrote this in reply to your aunt Judy! > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ravi Chivukula" <chivukula.ravi@...> > wrote: >> >> OMFG get a clue, next time please keep your intellectual vomit to >> yourselves no one other than my deluded Aunt Share even pays attention >> to your bullshit. >> >> >> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula wrote: >>> >>> 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 < >>> anartaxius@ wrote: >>> >>>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" authfriend@ >> wrote: >>>>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" >>>> wrote: >>>>>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "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 > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > 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 > > >
