--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > This discussion is fascinating to me. Both Rick's and Turq's > experiences. What makes it more riveting for me is that both of you > have maintained a spiritual perspective, but not one that conforms to > a specific version or dogma. I can easily see that a Purusha guy > would dismiss my position that the transcendent or the so-called > higher states of MMY are not "all that". But seeing Purusha's > reaction to Rick is even more interesting. > > I think they are missing the point as I understand Rick's position. > They are focusing on the details of MMY's personal weirdness or > failings and missing what I think is your larger point, that MMY does > not have a corner on the spiritual market and that people are well > advised to have some broader experiences with other teachers if they > want to pursue this path through life. <snip>
> My favorite part: > > "You FEEL more comfortable reducing Maharishi to a relative > personality, with flaws like all of us, who may know less about Vedic > knowledge than some gay cowboy named Dana or Oscar or LeRoy who went > to India and studied with the Hindu status quo; you don't FEEL > comfortable seeing Maharishi as an embodiment of pure knowledge, the > only Rishi in history who has cognized all the vedas, because that > would not fit into your world view and that is not how you feel > comfortable with yourself." > > Wow! "Uh, excuse me I think I see my GF waving to me from across the > room, gotta run, good luck with that, thanks for the chat, buh by." I > Exit quickly without looking back or ever letting this person get eye > contact again that night! > > > Thanks for sharing these exchanges, they provide so much insight into > what values I want in my life. Yes, this whole exchange has been fascinating. From my POV it appears that you and Rick and Turq are essentially illustrating (to borrow M. Scott Peck's terminology) an Eclectic POV, whereas the Purusha guy clearly is not. Is he indeed demonstrating the Fundamentalist or True-Believer POV? It certainly appears so from some angles, particularly in his apparent refusal to allow Rick to simply BE, and to appreciate him as he IS. On the other hand, he is describing the insights of the Love POV beautifully when he points out that our gathering of data and our interpreting of them *depend* upon, and reflect back to us, our a- priori "feeling-level," and that our first responsibility is to take responsibility for that. As far as I can remember, this doesn't make much sense either from a Fundamentalist nor an Eclectic POV, but only from the POV of Love. And in that sense, he is *fully* appreciating Rick as he IS, describing that perhaps-only-semi-conscious "feeling- level" stance to him, showing him the Heart and its function in discrimination. On the other other hand, my own Heart is not particularly stirred by the stance of the Purusha-guy, and Heart knows its own. It is almost as if the Purusha-guy is using insights of Stage-IV Love to justify Stage-II Fundamentalism. And on the other other other hand, when I recall that my interpetration of this whole thing is but a mirror of *my* feeling- level, I realize I know nothing about what is really *out there*, but I have learned something about my own capacities to transform an a- priori Heart-truth into a secondary belief-structure, and for that I am humbled, and grateful. Thanks, guys. *L*L*L* > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <rick@> wrote: > > > > My friend's response: > > > > > > > > The thing is, all these oppositions you have, we could take each > one, one at > > a time, and examine them, like the Zimbabwe dictator, Maharishi and Mia > > Farrow and the rest, the tallest building, Rajas, etc. etc. etc., > but the > > individual issues like these will be endless -- your list will never > run out > > -- because it's rooted in something deeper within you than the > individual > > items and examples. What I've found w/TM-X type people, and most of the > > fringe roos in Ff (even the more intelligent ones, such as LB), it's > kind of > > like talking to the KKK. I read a book once by a journalist who went > down > > south and interviewed all these KKK crackers -- the leaders, the > current and > > former Grand Wizards and Dragons -- hoping to get at the more > thoughtful and > > intellectual underpinnings of their prejudices, some more valid sounding > > justifications to write about (perhaps he was hoping at least for > something > > as intelligent sounding as the Bertrand Russell and some of the other > > quotes you sent me; although, Russell, whom it sounds cool and > intelligent > > to quote, is really not such a good reference for a six-pack Hindu > Joe like > > yourself, because his empiricist philosophical school denied the very > > possibility of consciousness ever experiencing consciousness). What the > > journalist found was, they really had no intellectual foundations > for their > > beliefs. They were all a bunch of dumb-ass rednecks who had no further > > justifications than, "Those bunch of goddamn coons. I hate em." > > > > > > > > We both know that your world view is not based on surface issues > such as, > > "What about Maharishi's praise of Robert Mugabe?" or "Well, then why > didn't > > they build the tallest building in the world yet?" (Arguments, as Bobby > > showed, easily blown out of the murky waters of doubt.) And I'm not > > comparing you to the KKK, although most of the oppositions and > prejudices I > > hear from the Ff fringe are no more thoughtful than racism. I am > saying that > > the intellectual underpinnings are simply rooted in a belief system > that is > > a projection of something deeper than sense data and logic; it's > about how > > you process that data and interpret it, which has nothing to do with > > discrimination and logic, but with the feeling level, and the > feeling level > > is rooted in the fibers of your being, constituted by karma, gunas, > planets, > > the whole package of who you are. You FEEL more comfortable reducing > > Maharishi to a relative personality, with flaws like all of us, who > may know > > less about Vedic knowledge than some gay cowboy named Dana or Oscar > or LeRoy > > who went to India and studied with the Hindu status quo; you don't FEEL > > comfortable seeing Maharishi as an embodiment of pure knowledge, the > only > > Rishi in history who has cognized all the vedas, because that would > not fit > > into your world view and that is not how you feel comfortable with > yourself. > > There are no plausible intellectual reasonings to justify a particular > > relative world view; in the end, it's all about justifying one's > individual > > existence, arranging ones sense of self to survive and more > comfortably "be" > > in the world; thinking the way you think because of who you are, > modifying > > your thoughts and attitudes in a way that will allow you to feel most > > resolved in your relationship with everyone around you. Character is > fate. > > > > > > > > What I will argue against, Ricky, is your adhering to these lines of > > reasoning, using lame examples to justify your beliefs, calling people > > fundamentalists if they don't agree with you on these surface > issues, and > > your presenting of all these "facts" on your website to support your > world > > view when the real discrepancy between all these view points is not > these > > confused issues themselves but what lies > > > > deeper: the feeling level of acceptance or rejection, which is based > on how > > much love and how much universal sympathy and support for all beings > there > > is deep in one's heart. That and a degree of brainwave coherence, or > lack > > thereof. > > > > > > > > Amma, 'one of the beautiful flowers rising up as the Age of > Enlightenment > > dawns,' would never waste time putting Maharishi down. > > > > There's way too much love and clarity in her heart. But instead, says of > > him, "The greatest meditation teacher who ever walked the earth," > > > > as quoted to me by one of her disciples. (I experienced her adoration on > > Maharishi myself once when I spoke to her about him.) > > > > > > > > You tell me I need to challenge my assumptions because I don't FEEL > like you > > do about Maharishi. You use Bertrand Russell quotes to imply that I > need to > > see things oppositely because I'm aligned with Maharishi and support him > > wholeheartedly. You tell me, in so many words, that I still stand > 100% in > > the Movement only because I merely believe what I've been told. You, > by way > > of inserting quotes, tell me I'm a fundamentalist because I am > unwaveringly > > devoted to the Master. Perhaps I deserve that condescending treatment > > because I tell you outright that you're deluded. But Ricky, it's > only your > > use of these flaky superficial arguments against Maharishi that I > dismiss, > > so you will see through them. If you want to embrace Amma that's not an > > unevolutionary thing. But your negativity masquerading as > rationality, you > > know better than that and need to go deeper into that universal love > where > > all this is resolved and there's no mucky opposition in your > awareness. Yes > > I'm telling you what you need because I know the Vikings and your > fondness > > for goats have gotten to you. > > > > > > > > You could never "dampen" the "enthusiasm or devotion" of these people, > > because it is self-referral, true and real and pure. Because your > "facts" > > are not facts at all, but whining expressions of doubt and > misinformation, > > rooted in whatever feelings are there inside you. > > > > But truth is not based on feeling. It just is. Maybe you're the one who > > needs to consider that the opposite is true. > > >
