Yes, Barry is being unmistakably outed as the know nothing bullshitter he is, and has been, for all of these years, and boy does it sting. All I am asking for is a little humility from him, due to his lack of spiritual experience. That's it. This isn't about me. This is about being real, and successfully calling out those who are simply propped up by their egos.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <awoelflebater@...> wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <turquoiseb@...> wrote : A rap for Curtis, now that the Jim-bot has shouted himself out and probably fallen asleep. For obvious reasons, I didn't want to get involved with Jim while he was busy doing his Biff Tanner imitation. He's clearly-out-of-control angry over the fact that he can't get me to react to his taunts, and that out-of-control-ness amuses me, so I'll allow him to continue to rant later when when he wakes up with a Boy-I-sure-shouted-them-down-didn't-I hangover. :-) But I do wish to comment on some of Curtis' comments, to add in my two centimes. Yes, I *do* agree with him in believing that Maharishi was WAY off in coming up with any meaningful interpretations of and descriptions of consciousness and what it means. And one of the key indicators of this to me is his reliance on a phenomenon that is seen as so meaningless in other meditation traditions that it is almost never spoken about, let alone suggested as a criterion for enlightenment. I am speaking, of course, of "witnessing." In Tibetan and other more traditional forms of meditation teaching, this phenomenon is so commonplace and is considered so meaningless that it is almost never mentioned, except with a passing warning. The warning is to not get hung up on it, because it's so easy to (in MMY terminology) "mood make" the sensation to convince oneself that they're more "advanced" than they really are. That, interestingly enough, is the same finding that neuroscientists have gleaned from lab experiments. The phenomenon of witnessnessing can be *generated*, merely by stimulating the proper areas of the brain. Furthermore, once the subject has experienced it via stimulation, it is possible for them to "bring on" that experience again just by making a mood of it. Of course the brain can be stimulated to mimic or to create any sensation or experience for a human being. Where do you think experience comes from anyway? Out of nothing and nowhere and we just spontaneously experience something with no equipment necessary to do so? All input comes through the brain (if you've got one) and witnessing can be triggered by something as simple as fear or when you are in the midst of some very strange situation. You said yourself you witnessed for days after having been mugged or almost mugged years ago, I remember that because I have had the same thing happen in similar circumstances, where one is thrown into a different mode of functioning because of either danger or threat. That's what I honestly think happened to the Jim-bot. He had some minor experiences of witnessing, and having a shitload of ego problems and wanting some attention, he kept mood-making the experience again so that he could use it to justify his oneupsmanship games. This is *exactly* why teachers in more legitimate traditions don't focus on "witnessing" as anything more than a beginner's perception, and don't try to convince students it's meaningful. The phenomenon is so easy to simulate subjectively that people get themselves in trouble *trying* to simulate it, and wind up wandering around in a state of classical psychological dissociation, unable to tell fantasy from reality. I might suggest that this pattern is very evident in the Jim-bot. Surely most people have noticed his compulsion to always try to "one-up" anyone in the realm of what he feebly considers "spiritual experience." Someone mentions an experience on Batgap or FFL, and he *can't help himself* and has to come roaring in claiming to have had that experience years ago. I've often been tempted to make up some experience that Maharishi supposedly talked about out of whole cloth and post it, just to see how long it would take Jimbo to claim he'd had the made-up experience, too. :-) Anyway, my point is that this compulsion to play oneupsmanship games with one's supposed "advanced consciousness" is considered by older, more established meditation traditions as *pretty much what happens* when one emphasizes "witnessing" and pretends that it's anything but the fleeting, everyday, beginner's experience it is. "Witnessing" is so easy to mood-make that these teachers don't want their students going down that path and losing themselves in delusion. Jim is the perfect example of what happens when they do. Oh dumbo, you do exactly what you are accusing Jim of doing - get all uppity and holier-than-thou and big for your britches when it comes to not only spiritual know-how but just about everything from living in the best country, eating at the best cafes and living the life only brilliant and creative people would dare and are capable of living. You are the ultimate bullshit machine here and Jim's just pushing the envelope to make you squirm. Don't you get it now? (Please don't think I want an answer - as of yet you haven't revealed anything I didn't already know about life and you're hardly going to be able to do so now.)
