[FairfieldLife] Re: An Open Question to FFLers
I belive Maharishi was enlightened by my experience listening to him and from being around him... I felt that he had gotten beyond his ego... What enlightenment means to you may be quite different than what it means to me... But, it really doesn't matter... All that really matters is your bliss For that is what radiates most to the universe now and forever more... Is there life after sleep? YEs, of course... Can you really see or describe 'God' Not really... Can you really ever see or describe why you may or may not think another person is enlightened... I think you must have been very perturbed at the other man you were following and just have a classic case of transference towards Maharishi Mahesh Yogi...but that's alright, he can take it... Jai Guru Dev --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > This question has been posed before, by numerous people, > but I don't remember it ever being dealt with in any depth, > or with any real honesty, so I'm posing it again: > > If you believe that Maharishi was enlightened (in at least > Cosmic Consciousness as he defined it, let alone Unity > Consciousness as he defined it), WHY do you believe this? > > I ask because, try as I might I never once, in all the years I > studied with him and was around him, heard Maharishi > claim to be enlightened. Not once. > > I have met or encountered on the Internet *many* people > whose experience was the same as mine; they cannot think > of a single occasion on which he actually claimed to be in > any higher state of consciousness. > > And yet, day after day we hear people talking on this and > other forums as if Maharishi's enlightenment could be > *assumed*, that it's a Done Deal, and a fact. They stake > their entire reputations on this. > > I'm wondering WHY. > > If you're one of these people, convinced that Maharishi was > enlightened, could you possibly explain WHY you feel this > way? Thanks in advance... >
[FairfieldLife] Re: An Open Question to FFLers
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > This question has been posed before, by numerous people, > but I don't remember it ever being dealt with in any depth, > or with any real honesty, so I'm posing it again: > > If you believe that Maharishi was enlightened (in at least > Cosmic Consciousness as he defined it, let alone Unity > Consciousness as he defined it), WHY do you believe this? If the anecdotes by David Fiske on TM-News several years back are true, IMO he must have been in Unity Consciousness. (Apparently going through walls, controlling peoples minds from far away, and stuff...heh...)
[FairfieldLife] Re: An Open Question to FFLers
As the 'Big Self' is established, this intuitive self grows and grows... By reflecting back onto itself, instead of the 'outside surface reflections of the intellect, emotions, mind, senses, and the material world... One, instead forms a habit to look within, constantly... That is where this 'Intutitve Knowingness' comes from... Could it be 'Any Other Way?'... How else could you 'Feel Yourself to Be Enlightened' by some 'OUtside Acknowledgement?'... Would an E.E.G. prove it to you? If you saw someone 'Levitate' would that get you off>? Or could you only find the 'Peace of God' as the 'A Course IN Miracles'...states over and over again.. By 'Transcending the Small Self, The Ego'... The 'False Identity that is continually fed in this world...of materialisation of egos competing for attention by other egos... Or could you expand what you feel is yourself, and pass through to an "Eternal Dimension".? Who could do it besides you? Maharishi can't do it for you... Or that guy that took his own life... Or that guy that those Germans followed to their deaths, last time around that arrogant block... Or for that matter...either could Ramana Maharishi or Mooji or or Gangaji, or Moses or Jesus or Mohhamed, or or or...ad infinitum... Brahm is all that there Is... So, what is this Brahm the Vedas Speak Of??? That is the 64,000 dollar question... Stay tuned...don't touch that dial...and we'll be right back... on the E.I B. Network from Sunny Palm Beach Florida... Good Morning, Rose Marie...where you are! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > This question has been posed before, by numerous people, > > but I don't remember it ever being dealt with in any depth, > > or with any real honesty, so I'm posing it again: > > > > If you believe that Maharishi was enlightened (in at least > > Cosmic Consciousness as he defined it, let alone Unity > > Consciousness as he defined it), WHY do you believe this? > > If the anecdotes by David Fiske on TM-News several years > back are true, IMO he must have been in Unity Consciousness. > (Apparently going through walls, controlling peoples minds > from far away, and stuff...heh...) >
[FairfieldLife] Re: An Open Question to FFLers
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" wrote: > > As the 'Big Self' is established, this intuitive self grows and grows... > By reflecting back onto itself, instead of the 'outside surface reflections > of the intellect, emotions, mind, senses, and the material world... > One, instead forms a habit to look within, constantly... There is seamless continuity from inside to outside so looking within really does not have a lot of meaning. Inside/Outside is not significant, unless of course it is significant for you. > > That is where this 'Intutitve Knowingness' comes from... It does not come from anywhere because everywhere is the same place, in a manner of speaking. > > Could it be 'Any Other Way?'... No. But it might seem that way. > > How else could you 'Feel Yourself to Be Enlightened' by some 'OUtside > Acknowledgement?'... That might be nice, but who are you going to trust to give you a clue? > Would an E.E.G. prove it to you? No. > > If you saw someone 'Levitate' would that get you off>? I would be surprised. > Or could you only find the 'Peace of God' as the 'A Course IN > Miracles'...states over and over again.. Finders keepers (except Robin). > By 'Transcending the Small Self, The Ego'... > The 'False Identity that is continually fed in this world...of > materialisation of egos competing for attention by other egos... Transcending is going beyond. Once you get to the beyond, how can you transcend? The joke is, you did not have to go anywhere. Transcending is a myth, perhaps a useful one, it is part of a magician's misdirection. Transcending is like letting the air out of a hot tire, the stuff that keeps you running around all over the place. Once all your tires are permanently flat, you can appreciate the world without having to be driven. > > Or could you expand what you feel is yourself, and pass through to an > "Eternal Dimension".? Expansion is another misdirection. > > Who could do it besides you? > > Maharishi can't do it for you... > > Or that guy that took his own life... > > Or that guy that those Germans followed to their deaths, last time around > that arrogant block... > > Or for that matter...either could Ramana Maharishi or Mooji or or Gangaji, or > Moses or Jesus or Mohhamed, or or or...ad infinitum... > > Brahm is all that there Is... Except if you call it something, you have a great opportunity to lose sight of it (metaphorically speaking). > > So, what is this Brahm the Vedas Speak Of??? Now you are going off track. > > That is the 64,000 dollar question... Wrong question. Try running out of questions. No lifetime can produce more than a finite number of queries, so luck is on your side. > Stay tuned...don't touch that dial...and we'll be right back... > > on the E.I B. Network from Sunny Palm Beach Florida... > > Good Morning, Rose Marie...where you are! With regard to Turq's question below. Maharishi never said as far as I am familiar that he was enlightened. He described a state he called enlightenment. If enlightenment exists, how to tell? Anybody can believe that there is a thing called enlightenment. That is an opinion. A belief is simply a false substitute for knowledge. But then how do we know if we know something rather than just believe it? Enlightenment is spoken of as a concrete state of experience, and yet it is said to be beyond description, so nothing one can say about it could possibly be true, as any description would not be it. Therefore you cannot really tell anybody what it might be. And thus anybody hearing such a description could possibly know anything on the basis of that description. We have been tricked! > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > This question has been posed before, by numerous people, > > > but I don't remember it ever being dealt with in any depth, > > > or with any real honesty, so I'm posing it again: > > > > > > If you believe that Maharishi was enlightened (in at least > > > Cosmic Consciousness as he defined it, let alone Unity > > > Consciousness as he defined it), WHY do you believe this? > > > > If the anecdotes by David Fiske on TM-News several years > > back are true, IMO he must have been in Unity Consciousness. > > (Apparently going through walls, controlling peoples minds > > from far away, and stuff...heh...) > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: An Open Question to FFLers
prick your fucking is dead --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > This question has been posed before, by numerous people, > but I don't remember it ever being dealt with in any depth, > or with any real honesty, so I'm posing it again: > > If you believe that Maharishi was enlightened (in at least > Cosmic Consciousness as he defined it, let alone Unity > Consciousness as he defined it), WHY do you believe this? > > I ask because, try as I might I never once, in all the years I > studied with him and was around him, heard Maharishi > claim to be enlightened. Not once. > > I have met or encountered on the Internet *many* people > whose experience was the same as mine; they cannot think > of a single occasion on which he actually claimed to be in > any higher state of consciousness. > > And yet, day after day we hear people talking on this and > other forums as if Maharishi's enlightenment could be > *assumed*, that it's a Done Deal, and a fact. They stake > their entire reputations on this. > > I'm wondering WHY. > > If you're one of these people, convinced that Maharishi was > enlightened, could you possibly explain WHY you feel this > way? Thanks in advance... >
[FairfieldLife] Re: An Open Question to FFLers
His followers called him Mahasamatman and said he was a god. He preferred to drop the Maha- and the -atman, however, and called himself Sam. He never claimed to be a god. But then, he never claimed not to be a god. Circumstances being what they were, neither admission could be of any benefit. Silence, though, could. Therefore, there was mystery about him. -Lord of Light, by Roger Zelazny http://arthursbookshelf.com/sci-fi/zelazny/Lord%20of%20Light%20-%20Roger%20Zelazny.pdf --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > This question has been posed before, by numerous people, > but I don't remember it ever being dealt with in any depth, > or with any real honesty, so I'm posing it again: > > If you believe that Maharishi was enlightened (in at least > Cosmic Consciousness as he defined it, let alone Unity > Consciousness as he defined it), WHY do you believe this? > > I ask because, try as I might I never once, in all the years I > studied with him and was around him, heard Maharishi > claim to be enlightened. Not once. > > I have met or encountered on the Internet *many* people > whose experience was the same as mine; they cannot think > of a single occasion on which he actually claimed to be in > any higher state of consciousness. > > And yet, day after day we hear people talking on this and > other forums as if Maharishi's enlightenment could be > *assumed*, that it's a Done Deal, and a fact. They stake > their entire reputations on this. > > I'm wondering WHY. > > If you're one of these people, convinced that Maharishi was > enlightened, could you possibly explain WHY you feel this > way? Thanks in advance... >
[FairfieldLife] Re: An Open Question to FFLers
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > This question has been posed before, by numerous people, Actually it's Barry who regularly poses it. I don't recall anyone else doing so, but I could be wrong. > but I don't remember it ever being dealt with in any depth, > or with any real honesty, so I'm posing it again: > > If you believe that Maharishi was enlightened (in at least > Cosmic Consciousness as he defined it, let alone Unity > Consciousness as he defined it), WHY do you believe this? What Barry means by "depth" and "real honesty" is agreement with him that MMY wasn't enlightened. My memory is different. I remember that some folks did indeed agree with him, and that the discussions were in considerable depth on both sides of the question (and in the middle--i.e., agnostic--as well). The real reason Barry poses the question, of course, is to give himself and those who agree with him an opportunity to dump on those who disagree. Apparently he's feeling the need for such an opportunity again. > I ask because, try as I might I never once, in all the years I > studied with him and was around him, heard Maharishi > claim to be enlightened. Not once. > > I have met or encountered on the Internet *many* people > whose experience was the same as mine; they cannot think > of a single occasion on which he actually claimed to be in > any higher state of consciousness. Actually this is most likely because he never did, so it would be surprising if anyone Barry had met or encountered on the Internet had reported having a different "experience." (I guess you could call never having heard MMY claim to be enlightened an "experience," but that's a rather odd way to put it.) Of course, that MMY never made the claim is a complete red herring with regard to the issue of whether he was enlightened. It isn't clear why Barry even mentions it, as if it somehow meant the weight of evidence was on his side. Oh, never mind, that's *why* he mentioned it. > And yet, day after day we hear people talking on this and > other forums as if Maharishi's enlightenment could be > *assumed*, that it's a Done Deal, and a fact. Do we actually hear this "day after day"? It does come up occasionally, but I wonder whether "day after day" might not be a bit of hyperbole, perhaps designed to make the issue sound more urgent. > They stake their entire reputations on this. Now, this is interesting. Can anybody think of an example of someone staking their entire reputations on the assumption that MMY was enlightened? (Reputations for what? Do we know of people who have a reputation for being able to determine whether a person is enlightened?) Or is this assertion yet another example of Barry's dependence on empty filler, material that is written to sound impressive and significant but whose putative meaning evaporates when examined closely? > I'm wondering WHY. I'm guessing Barry has heard the vast majority of reasons that have been advanced for why folks believe MMY was enlightened. But perhaps he's forgotten them, just as he seems to have forgotten that he's ever asked the question before. > If you're one of these people, convinced that Maharishi was > enlightened, could you possibly explain WHY you feel this > way? Thanks in advance... Translation: "Thanks in advance for making yourself a target for the putdowns I so desperately need to be able to deliver."
