Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
Thanks for your alternating comments. I read them. Not sure what to say except, Oh Yeah, you live in Scotland, truely a mystical place I wish to check out someday since I have a good amount of Scottish in me. My Grandfather was in Scottish Military horseback and kilts and all. - Original Message - From: off_world_beings To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, January 30, 2009 10:32 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Kirk kirk_bernha...@... wrote:
[FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Kirk kirk_bernha...@... wrote: Thanks for your alternating comments. I read them. Not sure what to say except, Oh Yeah, you live in Scotland, truely a mystical place I wish to check out someday since I have a good amount of Scottish in me. My Grandfather was in Scottish Military horseback and kilts and all. On horseback in kilts? Ouch!
[FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Kirk kirk_bernhardt@ wrote: Thanks for your alternating comments. I read them. Not sure what to say except, Oh Yeah, you live in Scotland, truely a mystical place I wish to check out someday since I have a good amount of Scottish in me. My Grandfather was in Scottish Military horseback and kilts and all. On horseback in kilts? Ouch! WHAT'S UNDER YOUR KILT? * A wee set of pipes. * On a good day, lipstick. * How warm are your hands? * An airport...2 hangers and a fighter [http://z.hubpages.com/u/4521_f260.jpg]
[FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , Kirk kirk_bernha...@... wrote: the most effective way to establish that state is by alternating the practice of transcending with activity. the easiest way to do this is through the regular (2x a day) practice of Transcendental Maditation, or TM. ---Ah if you must know I started feeling the all oneness thing about six months before 9/11 after buying my first high powered rudraksha malas of three faced and one faced moon beads. I wore it to work. I felt the Shiva/Agni connection was good for cooking. You know you have to piss and other things Did you wash your hands afterwards? I get worried in restaurants these days, I hope you washed your hands. sometimes and that's all good to remind us all how we start as smart little monkey apes and regress really to our prebirth state Kinda like Dick Cheney huh? He's an evil old bastard, but he looks like an innocent baby as he gets older. during -LIFE- only to reverse and forget everything we ever knew just so as to -DIE. So I don't really know if TM is the ultimate as during long resident courses they wouldn't even speak to the effects of visuals and colors and so on whereas the Tibetans have all that shit sussed out fully. So do some ol' hippy dudes I know. The main idea here being that seing God in shit is probably the better way to quick realization I propose that seeing 'Shit in God' is A FAR SUPERIOR PERCEPTION than the low level perception of merely seeing 'God in shit'. than mere alternating mind of silence and mind of action. Truely the key being the mind, tantras then are keys to training the mind. And wearing Shiva around ones neck is a very close and personal tantra in any case. Sounds like Ted Haggard before he went down the slippery slope (no pun intended.) Sitting at a bar, seing Shiva twinkling in an offered line, and thank you Lord. Likewise, the UFO world capital right now is my home town of West Kilbride (where they like a wee dram late into the night too), or maybe its now this place where I spent so many a drunken night its a wonder I am still alive to tell the tale -- about 10 miles away from West Kilbride. http://www.largsandmillportnews.com/articles/1/23729 http://www.largsandmillportnews.com/articles/1/23729 OffWorld
[FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutp...@... wrote: Let's face it, the TMO would be a lot healthier if people had sex (and chicken sandwiches) on a more regular basis. According to who ?
[FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, I am the eternal l.shad...@... wrote: I didn't get all that excited when I was last on IA (ended a couple weeks ago) and I didn't notice all that much excitement amongst the people I spoke with compared to last year or the year before. Very good ! Excitement = entropy. Unfortunately the citizens of Fairfield, except for a very few bright individuals, understands the power behind and blessings bestowed upon their town since the early 70's. When MUM and the meditators leave, and they finally will, the town will be left with hundreds of bewildered spiritual vampires. The chatters as you described them will be all that town will have left. An american story of hope and tragedy.
[FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchy...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutphen@ wrote: Me, EnlightenDawn and Raunch sit around, smoking grasshopper weed and engage in mental tantric practices between the domes. Oh, by the way, many years ago I walked between the domes when everybody was flying. Oh my God! I almost got electrocuted! The energy exchange between the domes was mind blowing. One big yoni, one big lingam. Stand back! Peter, I used to know a guy who said he could sense,(through his nose physical nose or his subtle nose, I forget which) the attraction between male and female pheromones emanating from the domes. He must have been smokin' grasshopper weed or somethin' on a breezy day and he got wind of it. Or he needed to get laid real bad!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
Enlightenment is different in different states of consciousness. Different tantras will evoke the state of conceptless light vision direct with sight, or work perhaps in less elaborated centers with other formless and unformulable mental or energy states. To at the state of sound and vision to mentally elaborate into something meaningful is at once both the start and end of the path itself. The entire path starting with a thought and ending with the same thought, the thought having presented the path. From sound and vision opportunities are constantly occuring to freshen up or liberate frequencies thus if one wills so they may die outwardly and ressurect in spirit, or as in The Devil card 15 of the Tarot Solve et Coagula one may entirely dissolve again their mental state of elaboration and forget all this enlightenment business entirely at their own discretion, especially those of us who aren't actively teaching. Bro, Sis, I have been sitting right next to you in sound and vision. Bro Sis don't spit at me with derision.
[FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
---Yes, interesting!. Once, (half in jest), somebody told Charlie Lutes something about transcending. He replied with a question: Do you mean somebody physically dissolved into white Light, disappearing from view? (to paraphrase). The lesson: the term transcendence usually applies to a very limited state of Consciousness, not even addressing cellular DNA. In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Kirk kirk_bernha...@... wrote: Enlightenment is different in different states of consciousness. Different tantras will evoke the state of conceptless light vision direct with sight, or work perhaps in less elaborated centers with other formless and unformulable mental or energy states. To at the state of sound and vision to mentally elaborate into something meaningful is at once both the start and end of the path itself. The entire path starting with a thought and ending with the same thought, the thought having presented the path. From sound and vision opportunities are constantly occuring to freshen up or liberate frequencies thus if one wills so they may die outwardly and ressurect in spirit, or as in The Devil card 15 of the Tarot Solve et Coagula one may entirely dissolve again their mental state of elaboration and forget all this enlightenment business entirely at their own discretion, especially those of us who aren't actively teaching. Bro, Sis, I have been sitting right next to you in sound and vision. Bro Sis don't spit at me with derision.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
I had some meditation experiences. I would see lights of all colors, pretty much the entire time. Other things read like 'day and night' experiences of the Buddhist tantric - fireflys, smoke, crosses, eternal knots, melting, expanding, and typical kundalini signs like feeling on fire for weeks on end and hearing my brain synapses rapid firing during times of especial internal mental conflict, often more at night when trying to sleep than during formal meditation. People ask, what meditation am I talking about since I synthesize all my teachings into one maismic conundrum. I am talking about all the meditation forms I have done starting with Guru Dattreya mantra I got from a traveling yogi in LA when I was fourteen to TM and fifteen years, then also seven advanced techniques, Sidhis, four years at MIU, then falling pretty much freeform from there on until Dzogchen for last five years. Whatever that means, if anything at all. Which for me takes the form of a hymn or two and some japa. And also the recurring thought that all will be alright, to not force issues, to relax, to have a good time. The person holding up traffic behind clears it up for ahead. I have put down TM as totally internally turned techniques now totally space me out beyond the ability to effectly act. So I do the middle thing and sit 'in the gap' and put down some numbers of mantras. No point discussing which ones. But they are related to Saraswati as hot babe Dakini. But it is clear to me during practice due to the clear feelings I get that the mantras I use are 'effective' in the sense that they make me feel a certain way. Inlcuding that too, you pervert. So when I am hearing people talk about not feeling enlightened or whatever I am like hey what are you talking about. If you don't feel enlightened then you most likely aren't since if you are working just from the mind it won't be stable and if just from the POV of sitting meditation sessions then one will never open their eyes during regular life and see the same thing as during meditation. If one is doing open eye practice using imagination as well as sound and so on then it will become more easy to stabilize the light nature. The value of which is the feeling that comes from such stability. The feeling of freshness, clarity, light, and sense of connectivity. Resorting to consort, one has developed within the love fire and it is automatically arisen due to grace of guru and lineage. I remember once on the topic of aloneness and kaivalya someone added that it sounded horrible to be alone, but someone else added that however in that state there is not even aloneness. So no feeling of aloneness. If ones sadhana is not providing feelings of enlightenment then what is it doing exactly? Because we were not doing these religious things merely to waste time were we? No God is keeping track. So sorry. One is doing their practice because it is still of benefit to them obviously. Have you ever been tense like a live wire and put on a song and it strokes your head and unknots your muscles better than your lazy lover. POV of Dzogchen is something like lack of Advaita with a flashlight and a clear crystal globe. No God and so on, though presence throughout all. Over the glass of wine, I ask you to tell me where this God you Advaitists talk about where it exists, now stop thinking and tell me! The only God that ever existed for any and all was the king and queen of their mental limitations disguised as lordly and goodly. Of any other God there has never been such a thing upon this Earth. Liberated beings have come many who felt the presence of being beyond mind as being liberating to know and develop a relationship with. Then having such knowledge one realizes that nobody else can ever again place limitations upon ones potential or mind. It is in your control to submerge and retreat, that is to repent, oh sinner, repent, at the late hour, and transcend and how can anything be really so sinful when one is able to glow like that? I say this like I have because in various systems liberation takes on various forms. It's really cool to finally get rid of God and Gods finally and forever as all they have done is stood between one and ones elf. Now look here. Now see here. Mardi Gras is right around the corner. Have you found a reason to repent yet? No? Sad.
[FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, yifuxero yifux...@... wrote: ---Yes, interesting!. Once, (half in jest), somebody told Charlie Lutes something about transcending. He replied with a question: Do you mean somebody physically dissolved into white Light, disappearing from view? (to paraphrase). The lesson: the term transcendence usually applies to a very limited state of Consciousness, not even addressing cellular DNA. I think it would refer to being beyond the three worlds (physical, astral and causal) or beyond the koshas; anna maya kosha, prana maya kosha, mano maya kosha, jnana maya kosha and ananda maya kosha. The 'food' (body) covering, the life force covering, the mind covering, the intellect covering and the bliss covering (or sheath) respectively...
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
Very good ! Excitement = entropy. Unfortunately the citizens of Fairfield, except for a very few bright individuals, understands the power behind and blessings bestowed upon their town since the early 70's. When MUM and the meditators leave, and they finally will, the town will be left with hundreds of bewildered spiritual vampires. The chatters as you described them will be all that town will have left. An american story of hope and tragedy. -Nablus you have changed during last year.
[FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Kirk kirk_bernha...@... wrote: Very good ! Excitement = entropy. Unfortunately the citizens of Fairfield, except for a very few bright individuals, do not understand the power behind and blessings bestowed upon their town since the early 70's. When MUM and the meditators leave, and they finally will, the town will be left with hundreds of bewildered spiritual vampires. The chatters as you described them will be all that town will have left. An american story of hope and tragedy. -Nablus you have changed during last year. How could I not; we are entering the The Age of Enlightenment, full speed.
[FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , enlightened_dawn11 no_re...@... wrote: your definitions all sound so monkey-like. here's a banana, my little chiquita. enlightenment is that state of consciousness in which a person no longer identifies with, and gets lost in, the objects of perception. This sounds like a good explanation. Its like night and day, they are both versions of the other. Day just has more light in it, and night just has more dark in it. It is not an absolute state. Just a movement from consciousness getting caught up and overwhelmed by in its own activity, to consciousness observing and enjoying its own activity. OffWorld this can't be accomplished on the thinking level. it is not about thinking, imagining, believing, denying, or hallucinating. the most effective way to establish that state is by alternating the practice of transcending with activity. the easiest way to do this is through the regular (2x a day) practice of Transcendental Maditation, or TM. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: Seriously, I would like to hear each person's definition in one or two sentences please. (we already know Vaj is going to inscrutably say And Sal is going to say A good BLT sandwich ...but what is the definition from the rest of you? Enlightenment -- a fluid, everchanging subjective state of mind that has no qualities or attributes except what the claimant of having attained it claims it has, and no benefits for the claimant or society other than what the claimant says it has. The only important thing is that other people must view the person who has claimed enlightenment as somehow special and better than they are. See 'unicorn,' and 'UFO sightings.' All in all, a BLT is more nourishing and better for you, and cheaper. -- The Dictionary of Cutting Through The Bullshit, Get Real Press, 33rd. edition. MORE DEFINITIONS OF ENLIGHTENMENT The Maharishi Mahesh Yogi definition Enlightenment is exactly as I described it over the years, and it's the same for everyone. It's a steady progression through the states of CC, GC, UC and BC to complete fulfillment. When one reaches that state of full enlightenment, one is able to manifest all of the siddhis and levitate, as I do, and bring all of one's ideas to perfect completion, as I did with Vedaland and so many other projects. That'll be a million dollars, please. The Dumb Blonde definition Enlightenment is what I say it is. Anyone who says anything different is WRONG, and is just a monkey-mind chattering away. And I know this to be true because my TM initiator, What's-his-name, said so back when I first learned TM, back in Wherever-it-was-ville. The Vaj definition Enlightenment is what the people I consider enlightened say it is. And it is ONLY what the people I consider enlightened say it is. So there. :-) The TMO definition Enlightenment is the inevitable result of practicing the TM technique, which is the fastest, easiest, most effective means of attaining enlightenment ever seen on planet Earth. This can be verified by doing scientific tests on all the people we have certified as being fully enlightened over the 53 years of our teaching. Come back a week from some Thursday and we will provide you with a list of their names. Turq's definition Enlightenment is something that people who (on the whole) have never experienced it like to talk about as if they knew exactly what it was. In general, the more they talk about it as if they know exactly what it is, the less likelihood there is that they have ever had even a fleeting experience of it. Those who *have* had a fleeting experience of what they consider enlighten- ment to be are basically saying that their subjective experience -- whatever it might have been really -- is synonymous with enlightenment because *they* had the experience, and they are so important that if *they* had that experience, it *must* be cool and valuable and special, because *they* are cool and valuable and special. People talk about enlightenment in the same way they talk about unicorns -- they claim to know *exactly* what the unicorn of enlightenment looks like, but can't show you any unicorns so that you can verify that what they are describing is true. You're just supposed to take their word for it that the unicorn they are describing is really enlightenment, because they said it, and they're so special. (On the whole, there is more agreement about what unicorns look like than about what
[FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: Seriously, I would like to hear each person's definition in one or two sentences please. (we already know Vaj is going to inscrutably say And Sal is going to say A good BLT sandwich ...but what is the definition from the rest of you? Enlightenment -- a fluid, everchanging subjective state of mind that has no qualities or attributes except what the claimant of having attained it claims it has, and no benefits for the claimant or society other than what the claimant says it has. The only important thing is that other people must view the person who has claimed enlightenment as somehow special and better than they are. See 'unicorn,' and 'UFO sightings.' All in all, a BLT is more nourishing and better for you, and cheaper. -- The Dictionary of Cutting Through The Bullshit, Get Real Press, 33rd. edition. MORE DEFINITIONS OF ENLIGHTENMENT The Maharishi Mahesh Yogi definition Enlightenment is exactly as I described it over the years, and it's the same for everyone. It's a steady progression through the states of CC, GC, UC and BC to complete fulfillment. When one reaches that state of full enlightenment, one is able to manifest all of the siddhis and levitate, This seems like an excellent definition. Since, if there is one thing you could not argue with, and that is if someone demonstrates the siddhis and claims enlightenment (which I don't think they would claim that even then.) It would be hard to argue with a pure demonstration of higher powers I think. Therefore, I have always said, unless someone can demonstrate the sidhis, then all the arguments about enlightenment are entertaining but don't mean much. Therefore, any argument you make is not viable rationale, and one should just enjoy TM if you like it, if not, don't practice. Other than that there is only one last resort for modern rational man to refer to: Scientific research published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, of which Maharishi has BY FAR the most. Hence, the inevitability that society, should it survive long enough, will act upon science, not philosphy and conjecture. OffWorld
[FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , grate.swan no_re...@... wrote: A corrupt marketing tool and identity crutch used by those who feel that the natural culmination of life processes is something that can be packaged, sold and owned. This ironically seems like the statement of a corrupted perception. To see life, not as life, but as death, is like seeing the glass half empty instead of half full. OffWorld
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
Some things have no definition! --- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, grate.swan no_re...@... wrote: A corrupt marketing tool and identity crutch used by those who feel that the natural culmination of life processes is something that can be packaged, sold and owned. This ironically seems like the statement of a corrupted perception. To see life, not as life, but as death, is like seeing the glass half empty instead of half full. OffWorld
[FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , enlightened_dawn11 no_reply@ wrote: your definitions all sound so monkey-like. here's a banana, my little chiquita. enlightenment is that state of consciousness in which a person no longer identifies with, and gets lost in, the objects of perception. You know this sounds like a made-up problem to solve. I never met anyone who was lost in or identified with the objects of perception. Someone would have an unimaginable pathological lack of self awareness for this to be a problem. I mean this seriously because it is one of the fundamental presuppositions of Maharishi's teaching. Can anyone here remember when this was a problem in your life before TM? I honestly can't. Only well developed minds are able to percieve the true effects of the outside world upon their freedom. Of course, perhaps you have always been of a higher state of consciousness. Or perhaps you were like most people in the world - dull minded, brainwashed, with poor imagination. Its hard to say for sure. OffWorld
[FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , Marek Reavis reavisma...@... wrote: I also acknowledge that I have an aspect of my mind that is an unchanging witness of my personality. It is an artifact of consciousness and a part of being human if you choose to spend enough time to notice it. I'll even acknowledge that meditating helps you notice this aspect of your mind more clearly. ** This quote (above), is what I'm interested in. The assertion that the unchanging witness is an aspect of the mind and an artifact of consciousness, however, is still unsettled for me. I can understand why you'd assert that, but I don't understand how you could support the assertion. In reference to your question, nothing can support this assertion. That was Maharishi's WHOLE POINT FROM DAY ONE ! Only experience of it yourself can convince you. No-one else can. Even though I am not in any high state of consciousness, I have had thousands upon thousands of experiences that are without question MORE REAL, MORE POWERFUL, and MORE INTERESTING than the regular thinking or mental activity of daily life (even though I love the latter aspects very much too.) And the experience is one of an unchanging pure and powerfaul basis to all of existence. Now, you have to remember, that science clearly shows that the mind generates its experience of existence by extrapolating and interpreting the soup of the universe based upon its own mental make up and perception, and then creating your worldview. All minds do this according to science (all animals and humans.) Therefore, all experience and all reality that you experience is based on your experience, and the most real and deepest experiecnes that you have are therefore, the most real and deepest experiences you have. That's it. Is anyone getting this yet. There is no there, there. There is only a cosmic soup of which you are one with, and there are devices called 'brains' that extrapolate and create from the soup that which they are most pre-desposed to create for themselves. Therefore, there is no-one who can tell you what absolute unchanging pure being is like...you have to experience yourself and develop your familiarity with it more and more over time. If you want to, that is. Of course, if you don't want to then there is no need to do so. OffWorld
[FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
-You say There's no one there then admit that some aspect of mind (even though inseparable from the ground of Being, is able to comment upon that fact). Therefore, your statement regarding no one is false. There is somebody there within and as Brahman; namely some body/mind. As long as you have(i.e. are) a body/mind in the relative sense, there will always be somebody there to make false statements like there's nobody there. -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , Marek Reavis reavismarek@ wrote: I also acknowledge that I have an aspect of my mind that is an unchanging witness of my personality. It is an artifact of consciousness and a part of being human if you choose to spend enough time to notice it. I'll even acknowledge that meditating helps you notice this aspect of your mind more clearly. ** This quote (above), is what I'm interested in. The assertion that the unchanging witness is an aspect of the mind and an artifact of consciousness, however, is still unsettled for me. I can understand why you'd assert that, but I don't understand how you could support the assertion. In reference to your question, nothing can support this assertion. That was Maharishi's WHOLE POINT FROM DAY ONE ! Only experience of it yourself can convince you. No-one else can. Even though I am not in any high state of consciousness, I have had thousands upon thousands of experiences that are without question MORE REAL, MORE POWERFUL, and MORE INTERESTING than the regular thinking or mental activity of daily life (even though I love the latter aspects very much too.) And the experience is one of an unchanging pure and powerfaul basis to all of existence. Now, you have to remember, that science clearly shows that the mind generates its experience of existence by extrapolating and interpreting the soup of the universe based upon its own mental make up and perception, and then creating your worldview. All minds do this according to science (all animals and humans.) Therefore, all experience and all reality that you experience is based on your experience, and the most real and deepest experiecnes that you have are therefore, the most real and deepest experiences you have. That's it. Is anyone getting this yet. There is no there, there. There is only a cosmic soup of which you are one with, and there are devices called 'brains' that extrapolate and create from the soup that which they are most pre-desposed to create for themselves. Therefore, there is no- one who can tell you what absolute unchanging pure being is like...you have to experience yourself and develop your familiarity with it more and more over time. If you want to, that is. Of course, if you don't want to then there is no need to do so. OffWorld
[FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, yifuxero yifux...@... wrote: -You say There's no one there I didn't say there is no-one there. You read it completely wrongly. I think you should go back and try again. OffWorld -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , Marek Reavis reavismarek@ wrote: I also acknowledge that I have an aspect of my mind that is an unchanging witness of my personality. It is an artifact of consciousness and a part of being human if you choose to spend enough time to notice it. I'll even acknowledge that meditating helps you notice this aspect of your mind more clearly. ** This quote (above), is what I'm interested in. The assertion that the unchanging witness is an aspect of the mind and an artifact of consciousness, however, is still unsettled for me. I can understand why you'd assert that, but I don't understand how you could support the assertion. In reference to your question, nothing can support this assertion. That was Maharishi's WHOLE POINT FROM DAY ONE ! Only experience of it yourself can convince you. No-one else can. Even though I am not in any high state of consciousness, I have had thousands upon thousands of experiences that are without question MORE REAL, MORE POWERFUL, and MORE INTERESTING than the regular thinking or mental activity of daily life (even though I love the latter aspects very much too.) And the experience is one of an unchanging pure and powerfaul basis to all of existence. Now, you have to remember, that science clearly shows that the mind generates its experience of existence by extrapolating and interpreting the soup of the universe based upon its own mental make up and perception, and then creating your worldview. All minds do this according to science (all animals and humans.) Therefore, all experience and all reality that you experience is based on your experience, and the most real and deepest experiecnes that you have are therefore, the most real and deepest experiences you have. That's it. Is anyone getting this yet. There is no there, there. There is only a cosmic soup of which you are one with, and there are devices called 'brains' that extrapolate and create from the soup that which they are most pre-desposed to create for themselves. Therefore, there is no- one who can tell you what absolute unchanging pure being is like...you have to experience yourself and develop your familiarity with it more and more over time. If you want to, that is. Of course, if you don't want to then there is no need to do so. OffWorld
[FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutp...@... wrote: I'd be a fool to reduce my conceptual understanding of him to some sort of un-enlightened con artist. I am not attempting to be argumentative or challenging, nor do I have an agenda regarding the Maharishi. I am simply curious (a statement that can stand alone and perhaps describes me well.) Reversing Byron Katie, what if that were true. Would that change your life?
[FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutp...@... wrote: Enlightenment is not what you think. Hey, Pete, mind if I rephrase your one-liner? Enlightenment just is. What you think *about* it is not what you think. I'm more than open to the possibility of altered states of consciousness that many people in the past have experienced and described as enlight- enment. I have no problem with the altered states having been real, for the people doing the describing. It's just that I think that the descriptions were fanciful imaginings based on a combination of what they had been told about enlightenment and the subjective effects of the altered states themselves on the describers' mental state and thinking processes. What I suspect is that they were having real subjective experiences, experiences that don't quite map to everyday reality as most people experience it. But then they try to describe these altered states and fail, relying on either old descriptions from the past of what the altered states mean, or equally invalid new descriptions, based on solipsism. In other words, the experiences are real, if only in a subjective sense. But anything that the person says *about* the experiences and what they mean is bullshit. I'm not just being contrary or argumentative here. This is actually what I believe. Today, anyway. :-) --- On Tue, 1/27/09, ruthsimplicity no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: From: ruthsimplicity no_re...@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, January 27, 2009, 5:10 PM --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_reply@ wrote: enlightenment is that state of consciousness in which a person no longer identifies with, and gets lost in, the objects of perception. This sounds like the I don't care anymore definition of enlightenment. 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
[FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_re...@... wrote: bravo monkey! chatter, chatter, chatter. are you done playing with your banana, and have decided to begin chattering again? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: ED, I have noticed that you tend to snip arguments that you have no idea how to deal with, as you did above, and limit yourself to just what you consider a brilliant putdown. You also tend to get carried away with (and dare I say it, identified with) these putdowns, to the point of fouling out on posts. That reminds me of another poster in FFL's past. :-) But I've decided to let the question of who you posted as in the past drop and deal with you just as who you are posting as now. So here's a question for enlightened_dawn11, whoever that might be: One cannot help but notice that you make assertions about the nature of enlightenment as if those asser- tions were fact. You almost never present any reasons for the assertions; it's as if you believe that the fact that you write them is enough, and that the fact *that* you wrote them should pretty much end the discussion. You often seem befuddled that your assertions do NOT end the discussion, as you clearly intended them to do. There is almost an anti-intellectual quality to these declarations of certainty, as if anyone who challenges what you say about enlightenment is guilty of some failing for not believing what you say as if it were Truth Incarnate. Having seen this phenomenon before, on this forum and in the broader spiritual smorgasbord, I guess my question to you is: Are you claiming to be enlightened? My followup question, if the answer is Yes, is: Why should anyone believe you? I'm phrasing this question in personal terms, as it relates to you, ED11, whoever you are. But naturally it has broader implications. Why should we believe *anyone* who claims to be enlightened? What are some of the reasons you can think of for doing so?
[FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
Excellent, Peter. It's exactly the map of the territory Maharishi has been telling grasshopper, identifying for years with the weeds he's been smokin'. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutp...@... wrote: Enlightenment is not what you think because: You can not get enlightened. A thought is necessarily bound by time and space and therefore has nothing to do with enlightenment. You can not model enlightenment. So with those caveats. In ignorance you are somebody. A psychological private self that relates to the world. Then you get 1st stage enlightenment and you are nobody. Actually, no you to be or not to be. Consciousness becomes conscious of its own consciousness and withdraws identity with any space/time experience. No-Self. No localization of consciousness. Weird as shit for the mind. You no longer exist, only consciousness within which everything occurs. Then you get 2nd stage enlightenment Grasshopper. Now you are everybody. Consciousness awakens to its bound value of space and time as simply consciousness. All moving within itself. From here to here through there according to Maharishi. Those are good words. --- On Tue, 1/27/09, Peter drpetersutp...@... wrote: From: Peter drpetersutp...@... Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, January 27, 2009, 8:18 PM Enlightenment is not what you think. --- On Tue, 1/27/09, ruthsimplicity no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: From: ruthsimplicity no_re...@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, January 27, 2009, 5:10 PM --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_reply@ wrote: enlightenment is that state of consciousness in which a person no longer identifies with, and gets lost in, the objects of perception. This sounds like the I don't care anymore definition of enlightenment. 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
[FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, yifuxero yifux...@... wrote: --you say, to paraphrase: (according to MMY, those are good words). But You can not get enlightened are your words, not his. He didn't often use the E word (if ever) in the context of a progression from CC - BC - UC; but he might have said something like: You can reach Unity Consciousness. That being the case, MMY's teachings would conflict with your Neo-Advaitin nonsense. Who you calling a knuckle dragging Neo-Advaitin, Buster? Them's fighten' words. Peter is obviously Advaitin, there's not an ounce of Neo in him. Just to clarify the splitting of hairs, here's an excellent description of Traditional Advaita versus Neo-Advaita: http://tinyurl.com/c8b4yw In support of Peter the Great: The range of creative intelligence is from here to here. So obviously there's no place to go. If I could go, I'd hop a bus to there. So here it is: the clown bus, the crazy passengers and the fun ride (knowledge, knower and the process of knowing) beautifully woven together as one. Innocently pull one tread in one amazing moment of just be and the mistake of intellect instantly unravels. MMY wasn't jiving us when he said the concept of a path is for the ignorant. So leave or stay on the bus, whatever, I'm just glad MMY provided [keys to the bus (TM) and] such a glorious map [SCI] to just be nowhere. raunchydog post #203856
[FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
agreed-- really well said dr. pete. enlightenment is real, viable and experienced-- just not by -thinking- raunchydog, i don't get your comments at all- care to clarify please? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchy...@... wrote: Excellent, Peter. It's exactly the map of the territory Maharishi has been telling grasshopper, identifying for years with the weeds he's been smokin'. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutphen@ wrote: Enlightenment is not what you think because: You can not get enlightened. A thought is necessarily bound by time and space and therefore has nothing to do with enlightenment. You can not model enlightenment. So with those caveats. In ignorance you are somebody. A psychological private self that relates to the world. Then you get 1st stage enlightenment and you are nobody. Actually, no you to be or not to be. Consciousness becomes conscious of its own consciousness and withdraws identity with any space/time experience. No-Self. No localization of consciousness. Weird as shit for the mind. You no longer exist, only consciousness within which everything occurs. Then you get 2nd stage enlightenment Grasshopper. Now you are everybody. Consciousness awakens to its bound value of space and time as simply consciousness. All moving within itself. From here to here through there according to Maharishi. Those are good words. --- On Tue, 1/27/09, Peter drpetersutphen@ wrote: From: Peter drpetersutphen@ Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, January 27, 2009, 8:18 PM Enlightenment is not what you think. --- On Tue, 1/27/09, ruthsimplicity no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: From: ruthsimplicity no_re...@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, January 27, 2009, 5:10 PM --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_reply@ wrote: enlightenment is that state of consciousness in which a person no longer identifies with, and gets lost in, the objects of perception. This sounds like the I don't care anymore definition of enlightenment. 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
[FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_re...@... wrote: agreed-- really well said dr. pete. enlightenment is real, viable and experienced-- just not by -thinking- raunchydog, i don't get your comments at all- care to clarify please? Just jiving Peter. It's an analogy that obviously failed. It's a stretch but my point was, the grasshopper identifies with the weeds in which he lives so much so that he smokes the weed and hallucinates his existence to be something real. Sorry, I can't wrap my brain around it any further than that. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: Excellent, Peter. It's exactly the map of the territory Maharishi has been telling grasshopper, identifying for years with the weeds he's been smokin'. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutphen@ wrote: Enlightenment is not what you think because: You can not get enlightened. A thought is necessarily bound by time and space and therefore has nothing to do with enlightenment. You can not model enlightenment. So with those caveats. In ignorance you are somebody. A psychological private self that relates to the world. Then you get 1st stage enlightenment and you are nobody. Actually, no you to be or not to be. Consciousness becomes conscious of its own consciousness and withdraws identity with any space/time experience. No-Self. No localization of consciousness. Weird as shit for the mind. You no longer exist, only consciousness within which everything occurs. Then you get 2nd stage enlightenment Grasshopper. Now you are everybody. Consciousness awakens to its bound value of space and time as simply consciousness. All moving within itself. From here to here through there according to Maharishi. Those are good words. --- On Tue, 1/27/09, Peter drpetersutphen@ wrote: From: Peter drpetersutphen@ Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, January 27, 2009, 8:18 PM Enlightenment is not what you think. --- On Tue, 1/27/09, ruthsimplicity no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: From: ruthsimplicity no_re...@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, January 27, 2009, 5:10 PM --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_reply@ wrote: enlightenment is that state of consciousness in which a person no longer identifies with, and gets lost in, the objects of perception. This sounds like the I don't care anymore definition of enlightenment. 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
[FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchy...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, yifuxero yifuxero@ wrote: --you say, to paraphrase: (according to MMY, those are good words). But You can not get enlightened are your words, not his. He didn't often use the E word (if ever) in the context of a progression from CC - BC - UC; but he might have said something like: You can reach Unity Consciousness. That being the case, MMY's teachings would conflict with your Neo-Advaitin nonsense. Who you calling a knuckle dragging Neo-Advaitin, Buster? Them's fighten' words. Peter is obviously Advaitin, there's not an ounce of Neo in him. Just to clarify the splitting of hairs, here's an excellent description of Traditional Advaita versus Neo-Advaita: http://tinyurl.com/c8b4yw In support of Peter the Great: The range of creative intelligence is from here to here. So obviously there's no place to go. If I could go, I'd hop a bus to there. So here it is: the clown bus, the crazy passengers and the fun ride (knowledge, knower and the process of knowing) beautifully woven together as one. Innocently pull one tread in one amazing moment of just be and the mistake of intellect instantly unravels. MMY wasn't jiving us when he said the concept of a path is for the ignorant. So leave or stay on the bus, whatever, I'm just glad MMY provided [keys to the bus (TM) and] such a glorious map [SCI] to just be nowhere. raunchydog post #203856 MMY spent 99% of his time talking about, aggressively marketing, obsessing over, developing world govts to rule over, and trying to black list anything that wasn't: HIS keys to the bus and HIS roadmap, and 1% doing from here to here talk. If you look at tmo culture, how people in the tmo actually think and live, it's all keys and bus, or to be more precise, Maharishi's Supreme Vedic Golden Keys and Maharishi's Most Glorious Unified Global Enlightened Sat Yuga (with a pure gold hemi-powered) Bus, please show your paid up in full officially approved dome badge to get on. MMY is worse than the Bible; you can support anything with maharishi says talk. I don't get picking out some phrases he might have said in the 70s to disprove what he and the tmo obviously are today. That a (shocking small) percentage of long term sidhas have had from here to here advaita experiences doesn't prove anything about what MMY really taught and nurtured in his followers. Reality is from here to here, people in every spiritual movt and probably more not in any movt have these natural advaita experiences, and so naturally some MMY devotees have too. But I'd say right now there are more sidhas in ffld being blocked from that natural experience by the keys that MMY/tmo have provided.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
You can not get enlightened. This is very true. In waking state there is an experience of an individuality; a private psychological self. In waking state there is a mistaken notion that this individuality will get enlightened; that it will have some sort of enlightened experience. But the only reason a you exists is because consciousness is identified with and projected into some relative vehicle of mind and consciousness has become the object it identifies with. When consciousness becomes conscious of its own consciousness this identification is withdrawn and there is no longer a bound identity to consciousness. A you no longer exists. There is the mind, emotions and everything else, but there is no longer an identity with these vehicles. They just happen within a context of pure consciousness. They always were functioning like this, but a delusion of a you was present. --- On Tue, 1/27/09, yifuxero yifux...@yahoo.com wrote: From: yifuxero yifux...@yahoo.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, January 27, 2009, 11:00 PM --you say, to paraphrase: (according to MMY, those are good words). But You can not get enlightened are your words, not his. He didn't often use the E word (if ever) in the context of a progression from CC - BC - UC; but he might have said something like: You can reach Unity Consciousness. That being the case, MMY's teachings would conflict with your Neo-Advaitin nonsense. - In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutp...@... wrote: Enlightenment is not what you think because: You can not get enlightened. A thought is necessarily bound by time and space and therefore has nothing to do with enlightenment. You can not model enlightenment. So with those caveats. In ignorance you are somebody. A psychological private self that relates to the world. Then you get 1st stage enlightenment and you are nobody. Actually, no you to be or not to be. Consciousness becomes conscious of its own consciousness and withdraws identity with any space/time experience. No-Self. No localization of consciousness. Weird as shit for the mind. You no longer exist, only consciousness within which everything occurs. Then you get 2nd stage enlightenment Grasshopper. Now you are everybody. Consciousness awakens to its bound value of space and time as simply consciousness. All moving within itself. From here to here through there according to Maharishi. Those are good words. --- On Tue, 1/27/09, Peter drpetersutp...@... wrote: From: Peter drpetersutp...@... Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, January 27, 2009, 8:18 PM Enlightenment is not what you think. --- On Tue, 1/27/09, ruthsimplicity no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: From: ruthsimplicity no_re...@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, January 27, 2009, 5:10 PM --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_reply@ wrote: enlightenment is that state of consciousness in which a person no longer identifies with, and gets lost in, the objects of perception. This sounds like the I don't care anymore definition of enlightenment. 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 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
[FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
lol-- i got as far as the grasshopper living among the weeds and then got lost... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchy...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_reply@ wrote: agreed-- really well said dr. pete. enlightenment is real, viable and experienced-- just not by -thinking- raunchydog, i don't get your comments at all- care to clarify please? Just jiving Peter. It's an analogy that obviously failed. It's a stretch but my point was, the grasshopper identifies with the weeds in which he lives so much so that he smokes the weed and hallucinates his existence to be something real. Sorry, I can't wrap my brain around it any further than that. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: Excellent, Peter. It's exactly the map of the territory Maharishi has been telling grasshopper, identifying for years with the weeds he's been smokin'. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutphen@ wrote: Enlightenment is not what you think because: You can not get enlightened. A thought is necessarily bound by time and space and therefore has nothing to do with enlightenment. You can not model enlightenment. So with those caveats. In ignorance you are somebody. A psychological private self that relates to the world. Then you get 1st stage enlightenment and you are nobody. Actually, no you to be or not to be. Consciousness becomes conscious of its own consciousness and withdraws identity with any space/time experience. No-Self. No localization of consciousness. Weird as shit for the mind. You no longer exist, only consciousness within which everything occurs. Then you get 2nd stage enlightenment Grasshopper. Now you are everybody. Consciousness awakens to its bound value of space and time as simply consciousness. All moving within itself. From here to here through there according to Maharishi. Those are good words. --- On Tue, 1/27/09, Peter drpetersutphen@ wrote: From: Peter drpetersutphen@ Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, January 27, 2009, 8:18 PM Enlightenment is not what you think. --- On Tue, 1/27/09, ruthsimplicity no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: From: ruthsimplicity no_re...@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, January 27, 2009, 5:10 PM --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_reply@ wrote: enlightenment is that state of consciousness in which a person no longer identifies with, and gets lost in, the objects of perception. This sounds like the I don't care anymore definition of enlightenment. 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
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
--- On Wed, 1/28/09, boo_lives boo_li...@yahoo.com wrote: From: boo_lives boo_li...@yahoo.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, January 28, 2009, 12:27 PM --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchy...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, yifuxero yifuxero@ wrote: --you say, to paraphrase: (according to MMY, those are good words). But You can not get enlightened are your words, not his. He didn't often use the E word (if ever) in the context of a progression from CC - BC - UC; but he might have said something like: You can reach Unity Consciousness. That being the case, MMY's teachings would conflict with your Neo-Advaitin nonsense. Who you calling a knuckle dragging Neo-Advaitin, Buster? Them's fighten' words. Peter is obviously Advaitin, there's not an ounce of Neo in him. Just to clarify the splitting of hairs, here's an excellent description of Traditional Advaita versus Neo-Advaita: http://tinyurl.com/c8b4yw In support of Peter the Great: The range of creative intelligence is from here to here. So obviously there's no place to go. If I could go, I'd hop a bus to there. So here it is: the clown bus, the crazy passengers and the fun ride (knowledge, knower and the process of knowing) beautifully woven together as one. Innocently pull one tread in one amazing moment of just be and the mistake of intellect instantly unravels. MMY wasn't jiving us when he said the concept of a path is for the ignorant. So leave or stay on the bus, whatever, I'm just glad MMY provided [keys to the bus (TM) and] such a glorious map [SCI] to just be nowhere. raunchydog post #203856 MMY spent 99% of his time talking about, aggressively marketing, obsessing over, developing world govts to rule over, and trying to black list anything that wasn't: HIS keys to the bus and HIS roadmap, and 1% doing from here to here talk. If you look at tmo culture, how people in the tmo actually think and live, it's all keys and bus, or to be more precise, Maharishi's Supreme Vedic Golden Keys and Maharishi's Most Glorious Unified Global Enlightened Sat Yuga (with a pure gold hemi-powered) Bus, please show your paid up in full officially approved dome badge to get on. MMY is worse than the Bible; you can support anything with maharishi says talk. I don't get picking out some phrases he might have said in the 70s to disprove what he and the tmo obviously are today. That a (shocking small) percentage of long term sidhas have had from here to here advaita experiences doesn't prove anything about what MMY really taught and nurtured in his followers. Reality is from here to here, people in every spiritual movt and probably more not in any movt have these natural advaita experiences, and so naturally some MMY devotees have too. But I'd say right now there are more sidhas in ffld being blocked from that natural experience by the keys that MMY/tmo have provided. It is amazing that more people are not Realized in the TMO. One reason, as you imply, is that Maharishi was way too successful in creating a waking state model that explained enlightenment. People have become trapped in the model. How this happens I don't know. But about Maharishi, make no mistake about it, he was a profoundly realized being. All that other bullshit was there too. I won't deny that, but his Realization was huge. If you experienced him directly, I don't see how you could miss this infinity walking around in a human body with a pretty curious Indian businessman personality. Maharishi's presence functioned as a profound catalyst for altering the foundations of my consciousness. I don't think there ever was an encounter with him that didn't blast me into some profound state of altered consciousness. I'd be a fool to reduce my conceptual understanding of him to some sort of un-enlightened con artist. 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
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
Me, EnlightenDawn and Raunch sit around, smoking grasshopper weed and engage in mental tantric practices between the domes. Oh, by the way, many years ago I walked between the domes when everybody was flying. Oh my God! I almost got electrocuted! The energy exchange between the domes was mind blowing. One big yoni, one big lingam. Stand back! --- On Wed, 1/28/09, enlightened_dawn11 no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: From: enlightened_dawn11 no_re...@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, January 28, 2009, 12:40 PM lol-- i got as far as the grasshopper living among the weeds and then got lost... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchy...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_reply@ wrote: agreed-- really well said dr. pete. enlightenment is real, viable and experienced-- just not by -thinking- raunchydog, i don't get your comments at all- care to clarify please? Just jiving Peter. It's an analogy that obviously failed. It's a stretch but my point was, the grasshopper identifies with the weeds in which he lives so much so that he smokes the weed and hallucinates his existence to be something real. Sorry, I can't wrap my brain around it any further than that. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: Excellent, Peter. It's exactly the map of the territory Maharishi has been telling grasshopper, identifying for years with the weeds he's been smokin'. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutphen@ wrote: Enlightenment is not what you think because: You can not get enlightened. A thought is necessarily bound by time and space and therefore has nothing to do with enlightenment. You can not model enlightenment. So with those caveats. In ignorance you are somebody. A psychological private self that relates to the world. Then you get 1st stage enlightenment and you are nobody. Actually, no you to be or not to be. Consciousness becomes conscious of its own consciousness and withdraws identity with any space/time experience. No-Self. No localization of consciousness. Weird as shit for the mind. You no longer exist, only consciousness within which everything occurs. Then you get 2nd stage enlightenment Grasshopper. Now you are everybody. Consciousness awakens to its bound value of space and time as simply consciousness. All moving within itself. From here to here through there according to Maharishi. Those are good words. --- On Tue, 1/27/09, Peter drpetersutphen@ wrote: From: Peter drpetersutphen@ Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, January 27, 2009, 8:18 PM Enlightenment is not what you think. --- On Tue, 1/27/09, ruthsimplicity no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: From: ruthsimplicity no_re...@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, January 27, 2009, 5:10 PM --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_reply@ wrote: enlightenment is that state of consciousness in which a person no longer identifies with, and gets lost in, the objects of perception. This sounds like the I don't care anymore definition of enlightenment. 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 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
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
On Jan 28, 2009, at 12:27 PM, boo_lives wrote: That a (shocking small) percentage of long term sidhas have had from here to here advaita experiences doesn't prove anything about what MMY really taught and nurtured in his followers. Reality is from here to here, people in every spiritual movt and probably more not in any movt have these natural advaita experiences, and so naturally some MMY devotees have too. But I'd say right now there are more sidhas in ffld being blocked from that natural experience by the keys that MMY/tmo have provided. Of course you nailed that one right on the head--and let's not forget that these are now coached advaita experiences ever since MMY presided over the course dredging for moods. People are being encouraged to moodmake their own projected feeling-tones into advaita experiences. It's the in thing I hear. Without exception, they never vary from the pre-programmed script. 'They're all actors and the Dome is their stage.'
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
Don't worry, we've set the blade extra low on the akashic landmower. On Jan 28, 2009, at 12:40 PM, enlightened_dawn11 wrote: lol-- i got as far as the grasshopper living among the weeds and then got lost...
[FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutp...@... wrote: You can not get enlightened. This is very true. In waking state there is an experience of an individuality; a private psychological self. In waking state there is a mistaken notion that this individuality will get enlightened; that it will have some sort of enlightened experience. lol- yeah, one description of the way it goes down is as if you are riding an elevator upwards in waking state, convinced that the higher you get, the closer to enlightenment you are-- 27th floor, yeah! --52nd floor, wow, i am SO CLOSE! I had a witnessing experience! --93rd floor, uh-HUH!! This is almost IT! and then without warning, the floor in the elevator vanishes, and before you have a chance to even think about grabbing onto something, you are falling, and falling and falling, and falling, and falling. falling away into nothingness, falling away into freedom, and lest i say it? unboundedness... But the only reason a you exists is because consciousness is identified with and projected into some relative vehicle of mind and consciousness has become the object it identifies with. When consciousness becomes conscious of its own consciousness this identification is withdrawn and there is no longer a bound identity to consciousness. A you no longer exists. There is the mind, emotions and everything else, but there is no longer an identity with these vehicles. They just happen within a context of pure consciousness. They always were functioning like this, but a delusion of a you was present. --- On Tue, 1/27/09, yifuxero yifux...@... wrote: From: yifuxero yifux...@... Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, January 27, 2009, 11:00 PM --you say, to paraphrase: (according to MMY, those are good words). But You can not get enlightened are your words, not his. He didn't often use the E word (if ever) in the context of a progression from CC - BC - UC; but he might have said something like: You can reach Unity Consciousness. That being the case, MMY's teachings would conflict with your Neo-Advaitin nonsense. - In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutphen@ wrote: Enlightenment is not what you think because: You can not get enlightened. A thought is necessarily bound by time and space and therefore has nothing to do with enlightenment. You can not model enlightenment. So with those caveats. In ignorance you are somebody. A psychological private self that relates to the world. Then you get 1st stage enlightenment and you are nobody. Actually, no you to be or not to be. Consciousness becomes conscious of its own consciousness and withdraws identity with any space/time experience. No-Self. No localization of consciousness. Weird as shit for the mind. You no longer exist, only consciousness within which everything occurs. Then you get 2nd stage enlightenment Grasshopper. Now you are everybody. Consciousness awakens to its bound value of space and time as simply consciousness. All moving within itself. From here to here through there according to Maharishi. Those are good words. --- On Tue, 1/27/09, Peter drpetersutphen@ wrote: From: Peter drpetersutphen@ Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, January 27, 2009, 8:18 PM Enlightenment is not what you think. --- On Tue, 1/27/09, ruthsimplicity no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: From: ruthsimplicity no_re...@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, January 27, 2009, 5:10 PM --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_reply@ wrote: enlightenment is that state of consciousness in which a person no longer identifies with, and gets lost in, the objects of perception. This sounds like the I don't care anymore definition of enlightenment. 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 To subscribe
[FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
and you know this, monkey, from your VAST EXPERIENCE with TM, right??? lets see, 4 years worth according to you, several decades ago...yup, qualifies for a banana... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: On Jan 28, 2009, at 12:27 PM, boo_lives wrote: That a (shocking small) percentage of long term sidhas have had from here to here advaita experiences doesn't prove anything about what MMY really taught and nurtured in his followers. Reality is from here to here, people in every spiritual movt and probably more not in any movt have these natural advaita experiences, and so naturally some MMY devotees have too. But I'd say right now there are more sidhas in ffld being blocked from that natural experience by the keys that MMY/tmo have provided. Of course you nailed that one right on the head--and let's not forget that these are now coached advaita experiences ever since MMY presided over the course dredging for moods. People are being encouraged to moodmake their own projected feeling-tones into advaita experiences. It's the in thing I hear. Without exception, they never vary from the pre-programmed script. 'They're all actors and the Dome is their stage.'
[FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutp...@... wrote: It is amazing that more people are not Realized in the TMO. One reason, as you imply, is that Maharishi was way too successful in creating a waking state model that explained enlightenment. People have become trapped in the model. How this happens I don't know. But about Maharishi, make no mistake about it, he was a profoundly realized being. All that other bullshit was there too. I won't deny that, but his Realization was huge. If you experienced him directly, I don't see how you could miss this infinity walking around in a human body with a pretty curious Indian businessman personality. Maharishi's presence functioned as a profound catalyst for altering the foundations of my consciousness. I don't think there ever was an encounter with him that didn't blast me into some profound state of altered consciousness. I'd be a fool to reduce my conceptual understanding of him to some sort of un-enlightened con artist. i think you have something there, that in his attempts to wake people up to the allure of enlightened life, MMY brought out so much knowledge that seekers burrow into it as a comfy cocoon, or get lost in argument over the myriad details of it all, rather than use it as a chrysalis for enlightenment.
[FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: On Jan 28, 2009, at 12:27 PM, boo_lives wrote: That a (shocking small) percentage of long term sidhas have had from here to here advaita experiences doesn't prove anything about what MMY really taught and nurtured in his followers. Reality is from here to here, people in every spiritual movt and probably more not in any movt have these natural advaita experiences, and so naturally some MMY devotees have too. But I'd say right now there are more sidhas in ffld being blocked from that natural experience by the keys that MMY/tmo have provided. Of course you nailed that one right on the head--and let's not forget that these are now coached advaita experiences ever since MMY presided over the course dredging for moods. People are being encouraged to moodmake their own projected feeling-tones into advaita experiences. It's the in thing I hear. Without exception, they never vary from the pre-programmed script. 'They're all actors and the Dome is their stage.' Could you say more about the script - I'm curious what flavor of enlightenment experience has gotten the approval. Is it still going on now that mmy is gone? Who listens to the experience? Are they using typical tmo buzzwords or are there new buzzwords? I'd heard quite a while ago that thmds were giving experiences to mmy most every day and it was a big thing - to come up with an experience that gets the ok from mmy is big currency on thmd (though not as big as real currency) and it seemed women were really working on and fretting over the wording of their experience flavors hoping it would get a positive response. I'm curious about the buzzwords because I believe there is a high percentage of deflected kundalini shakti risings on thmd and I wonder if mmy, most likely another deflected, likes those type of experiences or some other?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
On Jan 28, 2009, at 1:02 PM, enlightened_dawn11 wrote: and you know this, monkey, from your VAST EXPERIENCE with TM, right??? lets see, 4 years worth according to you, several decades ago...yup, qualifies for a banana... Four years? Not according to me!
[FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
--Thx raunch. I like you. Short of defining them, it's easier to say that Neo-Advaitins focus solely on Being or whatever term they use (perhaps the Self); but without giving an account of their transition through the relative layers of existence and diminishing the importance of everything relative. MMY was clearly a 200%-er, not a 100%-er. Definitions would be less productive now that simply listing some of the chronic/acute Neo- Advaitins: Eckart Tolle, Wayne Liquorman, Ramesh Balsekar, Nisargadatta Maharaj...the list goes on and on. A quick google search will uncover about 100 of them. The Neo-Advaitins say you are already Enlightened. (nonsense!) They spend a lot of time in Satsangs saying Yet are Enlightened!; and criticize others whose opinions differ by saying their opponents are monkey minds. MMY presented a package deal of progressive evolution, the focus being CC, GC, and UC. To Neo-Advaitins, progressivism is out of the picture and irrelevant. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, yifuxero yifuxero@ wrote: --you say, to paraphrase: (according to MMY, those are good words). But You can not get enlightened are your words, not his. He didn't often use the E word (if ever) in the context of a progression from CC - BC - UC; but he might have said something like: You can reach Unity Consciousness. That being the case, MMY's teachings would conflict with your Neo-Advaitin nonsense. Who you calling a knuckle dragging Neo-Advaitin, Buster? Them's fighten' words. Peter is obviously Advaitin, there's not an ounce of Neo in him. Just to clarify the splitting of hairs, here's an excellent description of Traditional Advaita versus Neo-Advaita: http://tinyurl.com/c8b4yw In support of Peter the Great: The range of creative intelligence is from here to here. So obviously there's no place to go. If I could go, I'd hop a bus to there. So here it is: the clown bus, the crazy passengers and the fun ride (knowledge, knower and the process of knowing) beautifully woven together as one. Innocently pull one tread in one amazing moment of just be and the mistake of intellect instantly unravels. MMY wasn't jiving us when he said the concept of a path is for the ignorant. So leave or stay on the bus, whatever, I'm just glad MMY provided [keys to the bus (TM) and] such a glorious map [SCI] to just be nowhere. raunchydog post #203856
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
Men who extol 'enlightenment talk' are rarely not on 'hallucinogenics' and never
have adequate personal love experience worth talking about.
Arhata
http://www.freedomofspeech.netfirms.com/
--- On Wed, 1/28/09, enlightened_dawn11 no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote:
From: enlightened_dawn11 no_re...@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, January 28, 2009, 4:56 PM
agreed-- really well said dr. pete. enlightenment is real, viable
and experienced- - just not by -thinking-
raunchydog, i don't get your comments at all- care to clarify please?
--- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, raunchydog raunchydog@ ...
wrote:
Excellent, Peter. It's exactly the map of the territory Maharishi
has
been telling grasshopper, identifying for years with the weeds he's
been smokin'.
--- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, Peter drpetersutphen@
wrote:
Enlightenment is not what you think because:
You can not get enlightened.
A thought is necessarily bound by time and space and therefore
has
nothing to do with enlightenment.
You can not model enlightenment.
So with those caveats.
In ignorance you are somebody. A psychological private self that
relates to the world.
Then you get 1st stage enlightenment and you are nobody.
Actually,
no you to be or not to be. Consciousness becomes conscious of its
own consciousness and withdraws identity with any space/time
experience. No-Self. No localization of consciousness. Weird as
shit
for the mind. You no longer exist, only consciousness within
which
everything occurs.
Then you get 2nd stage enlightenment Grasshopper. Now you are
everybody. Consciousness awakens to its bound value of space and
time
as simply consciousness. All moving within itself. From here to
here
through there according to Maharishi. Those are good words.
--- On Tue, 1/27/09, Peter drpetersutphen@ wrote:
From: Peter drpetersutphen@
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of
enlightenment
To: FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Tuesday, January 27, 2009, 8:18 PM
Enlightenment is not what you think.
--- On Tue, 1/27/09, ruthsimplicity
no_re...@yahoogroup s.com wrote:
From: ruthsimplicity no_re...@yahoogroup s.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of
enlightenment
To: FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Tuesday, January 27, 2009, 5:10 PM
--- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com,
enlightened_ dawn11
no_reply@ wrote:
enlightenment is that state of consciousness in
which
a person no
longer identifies with, and gets lost in, the
objects
of perception.
This sounds like the I don't care
anymore
definition of enlightenment.
- - --
To subscribe, send a message to:
FairfieldLife- subscribe@ yahoogroups. com
Or go to:
http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/FairfieldL ife/
and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups
Links
- - --
To subscribe, send a message to:
FairfieldLife- subscribe@ yahoogroups. com
Or go to:
http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/FairfieldL ife/
and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
[FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: On Jan 28, 2009, at 1:02 PM, enlightened_dawn11 wrote: and you know this, monkey, from your VAST EXPERIENCE with TM, right??? lets see, 4 years worth according to you, several decades ago...yup, qualifies for a banana... Four years? Not according to me! your post 205746 Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: PAUL MCCARTNEY CONCERT and Consciousness-based Education ... are they may be the future of school based meditation, esp. since good, solid research backs them up. I too did TM throughout college and I'd have to say it's primary benefit was 20 min. of rest, two times a day...
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
On Jan 28, 2009, at 1:23 PM, boo_lives wrote: Of course you nailed that one right on the head--and let's not forget that these are now coached advaita experiences ever since MMY presided over the course dredging for moods. People are being encouraged to moodmake their own projected feeling-tones into advaita experiences. It's the in thing I hear. Without exception, they never vary from the pre-programmed script. 'They're all actors and the Dome is their stage.' Could you say more about the script - I'm curious what flavor of enlightenment experience has gotten the approval. Is it still going on now that mmy is gone? Who listens to the experience? Are they using typical tmo buzzwords or are there new buzzwords? It used to be when MMY would listen in at the dome, people spoke at the microphone and gave experiences. He praised some experiences and so that was what people learned to provide. I'd heard quite a while ago that thmds were giving experiences to mmy most every day and it was a big thing - to come up with an experience that gets the ok from mmy is big currency on thmd (though not as big as real currency) and it seemed women were really working on and fretting over the wording of their experience flavors hoping it would get a positive response. I'm curious about the buzzwords because I believe there is a high percentage of deflected kundalini shakti risings on thmd and I wonder if mmy, most likely another deflected, likes those type of experiences or some other? 'I am the Eternal' could probably tell you more, I think they were calling it 'the one' experience or something like that. He's shared some humorous examples. I think there are a lot of deflected risings in long term sidhas period. In deflected arisings my limited insight (not being on IAC) seems to indicate you're right, it's normal to have some kinds of experience like advaitic glimpses or even bipolar type manifestations and these are what MMY was coaching. But cultivation of siddhis does naturally favor that style of rising anyway. Sidhi practice seems to directly stimulate the cerebral cortex in some way that it follows an unusual path neurologically. Such deflected risings are of great benefit as these type of people stick around forever and even if they do leave the overall group are programmed parroters, like out of a TM brochure or an SCI tape.
[FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
c'mon monkey, you're just making shit up to fit your prejudices-- the reason no one tells you anything except the crumbs you can find scampering under the table is that you're too full of yourself to even hear it. have a banana and stfu. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: On Jan 28, 2009, at 1:23 PM, boo_lives wrote: Of course you nailed that one right on the head--and let's not forget that these are now coached advaita experiences ever since MMY presided over the course dredging for moods. People are being encouraged to moodmake their own projected feeling-tones into advaita experiences. It's the in thing I hear. Without exception, they never vary from the pre-programmed script. 'They're all actors and the Dome is their stage.' Could you say more about the script - I'm curious what flavor of enlightenment experience has gotten the approval. Is it still going on now that mmy is gone? Who listens to the experience? Are they using typical tmo buzzwords or are there new buzzwords? It used to be when MMY would listen in at the dome, people spoke at the microphone and gave experiences. He praised some experiences and so that was what people learned to provide. I'd heard quite a while ago that thmds were giving experiences to mmy most every day and it was a big thing - to come up with an experience that gets the ok from mmy is big currency on thmd (though not as big as real currency) and it seemed women were really working on and fretting over the wording of their experience flavors hoping it would get a positive response. I'm curious about the buzzwords because I believe there is a high percentage of deflected kundalini shakti risings on thmd and I wonder if mmy, most likely another deflected, likes those type of experiences or some other? 'I am the Eternal' could probably tell you more, I think they were calling it 'the one' experience or something like that. He's shared some humorous examples. I think there are a lot of deflected risings in long term sidhas period. In deflected arisings my limited insight (not being on IAC) seems to indicate you're right, it's normal to have some kinds of experience like advaitic glimpses or even bipolar type manifestations and these are what MMY was coaching. But cultivation of siddhis does naturally favor that style of rising anyway. Sidhi practice seems to directly stimulate the cerebral cortex in some way that it follows an unusual path neurologically. Such deflected risings are of great benefit as these type of people stick around forever and even if they do leave the overall group are programmed parroters, like out of a TM brochure or an SCI tape.
[FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutphen@ wrote: You can not get enlightened. This is very true. In waking state there is an experience of an individuality; a private psychological self. In waking state there is a mistaken notion that this individuality will get enlightened; that it will have some sort of enlightened experience. lol- yeah, one description of the way it goes down is as if you are riding an elevator upwards in waking state, convinced that the higher you get, the closer to enlightenment you are-- 27th floor, yeah! --52nd floor, wow, i am SO CLOSE! I had a witnessing experience! --93rd floor, uh-HUH!! This is almost IT! and then without warning, the floor in the elevator vanishes, and before you have a chance to even think about grabbing onto something, you are falling, and falling and falling, and falling, and falling. falling away into nothingness, falling away into freedom, and lest i say it? unboundedness... Sounds awful. What's desirable about that?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 11:53 AM, Vaj vajradh...@earthlink.net wrote: Of course you nailed that one right on the head--and let's not forget that these are now *coached* advaita experiences ever since MMY presided over the course dredging for moods. People are being encouraged to moodmake their own projected feeling-tones into advaita experiences. It's the in thing I hear. Without exception, they never vary from the pre-programmed script. 'They're all actors and the Dome is their stage.' This definitely goes on in with the THP and THMD, whose experiences, incidently, are not read by the person having them. It is considerably less so (I re-read my own experiences every so often) in the two domes on campus. There there is an amazing amount of heart and none of this let's use as many of the words Maharishi taught us in his final year in every sentence in the experiences.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 12:23 PM, boo_lives boo_li...@yahoo.com wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: Could you say more about the script - I'm curious what flavor of enlightenment experience has gotten the approval. Is it still going on now that mmy is gone? Who listens to the experience? Are they using typical tmo buzzwords or are there new buzzwords? I'd heard quite a while ago that thmds were giving experiences to mmy most every day and it was a big thing - to come up with an experience that gets the ok from mmy is big currency on thmd (though not as big as real currency) and it seemed women were really working on and fretting over the wording of their experience flavors hoping it would get a positive response. I'm curious about the buzzwords because I believe there is a high percentage of deflected kundalini shakti risings on thmd and I wonder if mmy, most likely another deflected, likes those type of experiences or some other? Been there, done that, plan to go back and do it again. There is no script given to the IA CPs. There is no script. However TMO people will be TMO people. What's expected is that you'll relate a #1 (Unity or beyond) experience. In the two domes, these experiences take the form of describing, with lots of heart, experiences that have to do with loss of self, with experiencing The Self, with experiences of infinity, bliss in every direction and in every thing. Each experience in the two domes is quite unique, stated in the idiom of the experiencer. The sidhi administrators read the experiences and make SUGGESTIONS about what to leave in, what to leave out before the experience is read. The off campus experiences seem to be pages out of the same book. Some THMD will go on and on about experiencing the primal sounds, for example, and throw in as many of Maharishi's words used during his last year of teaching to us, just to let us know that these words have validity. One could be cynical here, but let's just let it be that what you place your attention on will grow and since Maharishi placed out attention there, that area will grow into #1 experiences. I have no idea what the THMD/THP feel about the experiences in the domes. In the domes the reaction to the THMD/THP experiences is bullshit. Why does it take all of these special buzz words to describe an experience? Why further is it necessary to seemingly continue on with one of Maharishi's last lectures with show and tell or a lab demonstration? Bevin and Hagelin give first preference to THMD/THP experiences and if there are none then experiences in the domes can be read.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
ruthsimplicity wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_re...@... wrote: enlightenment is that state of consciousness in which a person no longer identifies with, and gets lost in, the objects of perception. This sounds like the I don't care anymore definition of enlightenment. I usually ignore these threads because they really show how ignorant many people are on FFL about enlightenment. The best model is just the simple models that Indian adhere too. MMY complicated it to extract more money out of his followers. Keep raising the carrot. What we have he is a lot of anxiety over enlightenment. Enlightenment is simply moksha but one can intellectually masturbate all over that subject. As I've said many times one is on the road to enlightenment one once they no longer are anxious about it. To dissect the state is not going to get anyone there any faster.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
Thanks for taking the time to openly respond to this question. Your openness is appreciated. On Jan 28, 2009, at 3:12 PM, I am the eternal wrote: Been there, done that, plan to go back and do it again. There is no script given to the IA CPs. There is no script. However TMO people will be TMO people. What's expected is that you'll relate a #1 (Unity or beyond) experience. In the two domes, these experiences take the form of describing, with lots of heart, experiences that have to do with loss of self, with experiencing The Self, with experiences of infinity, bliss in every direction and in every thing. Each experience in the two domes is quite unique, stated in the idiom of the experiencer. The sidhi administrators read the experiences and make SUGGESTIONS about what to leave in, what to leave out before the experience is read. So they make editorial suggestions? Why? I'm sorry, but that seems odd. Edited experiences, movement approved? This doesn't mean there is a script (of acceptable or not acceptable)? If the experiences are turned down, one would have to be on the (unspoken) script to get a mention wouldn't they? Perhaps I'm missing something. The off campus experiences seem to be pages out of the same book. Some THMD will go on and on about experiencing the primal sounds, for example, and throw in as many of Maharishi's words used during his last year of teaching to us, just to let us know that these words have validity. One could be cynical here, but let's just let it be that what you place your attention on will grow and since Maharishi placed out attention there, that area will grow into #1 experiences. I have no idea what the THMD/THP feel about the experiences in the domes. In the domes the reaction to the THMD/THP experiences is bullshit. Why does it take all of these special buzz words to describe an experience? Why further is it necessary to seemingly continue on with one of Maharishi's last lectures with show and tell or a lab demonstration? Good question. You're closer to the source so I'll have to defer to your impressions! Bevin and Hagelin give first preference to THMD/THP experiences and if there are none then experiences in the domes can be read. Oh that's just too funny. It's not easy being king.
[FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_re...@... wrote: lol-- i got as far as the grasshopper living among the weeds and then got lost... So did the grasshopper. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_reply@ wrote: agreed-- really well said dr. pete. enlightenment is real, viable and experienced-- just not by -thinking- raunchydog, i don't get your comments at all- care to clarify please? Just jiving Peter. It's an analogy that obviously failed. It's a stretch but my point was, the grasshopper identifies with the weeds in which he lives so much so that he smokes the weed and hallucinates his existence to be something real. Sorry, I can't wrap my brain around it any further than that. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: Excellent, Peter. It's exactly the map of the territory Maharishi has been telling grasshopper, identifying for years with the weeds he's been smokin'. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutphen@ wrote: Enlightenment is not what you think because: You can not get enlightened. A thought is necessarily bound by time and space and therefore has nothing to do with enlightenment. You can not model enlightenment. So with those caveats. In ignorance you are somebody. A psychological private self that relates to the world. Then you get 1st stage enlightenment and you are nobody. Actually, no you to be or not to be. Consciousness becomes conscious of its own consciousness and withdraws identity with any space/time experience. No-Self. No localization of consciousness. Weird as shit for the mind. You no longer exist, only consciousness within which everything occurs. Then you get 2nd stage enlightenment Grasshopper. Now you are everybody. Consciousness awakens to its bound value of space and time as simply consciousness. All moving within itself. From here to here through there according to Maharishi. Those are good words. --- On Tue, 1/27/09, Peter drpetersutphen@ wrote: From: Peter drpetersutphen@ Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, January 27, 2009, 8:18 PM Enlightenment is not what you think. --- On Tue, 1/27/09, ruthsimplicity no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: From: ruthsimplicity no_re...@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, January 27, 2009, 5:10 PM --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_reply@ wrote: enlightenment is that state of consciousness in which a person no longer identifies with, and gets lost in, the objects of perception. This sounds like the I don't care anymore definition of enlightenment. 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
[FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_reply@ wrote: your definitions all sound so monkey-like. here's a banana, my little chiquita. enlightenment is that state of consciousness in which a person no longer identifies with, and gets lost in, the objects of perception. You know this sounds like a made-up problem to solve. I never met anyone who was lost in or identified with the objects of perception. Someone would have an unimaginable pathological lack of self awareness for this to be a problem. How do you answer the request to descrinbe your self? PEople tend to fall into 3 broad categories of description, and into three borad categories of EEG pattern as well. Not just TMers, either. L.
[FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutp...@... wrote: Me, EnlightenDawn and Raunch sit around, smoking grasshopper weed and engage in mental tantric practices between the domes. Oh, by the way, many years ago I walked between the domes when everybody was flying. Oh my God! I almost got electrocuted! The energy exchange between the domes was mind blowing. One big yoni, one big lingam. Stand back! Peter, I used to know a guy who said he could sense,(through his nose physical nose or his subtle nose, I forget which) the attraction between male and female pheromones emanating from the domes. He must have been smokin' grasshopper weed or somethin' on a breezy day and he got wind of it. --- On Wed, 1/28/09, enlightened_dawn11 no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: From: enlightened_dawn11 no_re...@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, January 28, 2009, 12:40 PM lol-- i got as far as the grasshopper living among the weeds and then got lost... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_reply@ wrote: agreed-- really well said dr. pete. enlightenment is real, viable and experienced-- just not by -thinking- raunchydog, i don't get your comments at all- care to clarify please? Just jiving Peter. It's an analogy that obviously failed. It's a stretch but my point was, the grasshopper identifies with the weeds in which he lives so much so that he smokes the weed and hallucinates his existence to be something real. Sorry, I can't wrap my brain around it any further than that. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: Excellent, Peter. It's exactly the map of the territory Maharishi has been telling grasshopper, identifying for years with the weeds he's been smokin'. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutphen@ wrote: Enlightenment is not what you think because: You can not get enlightened. A thought is necessarily bound by time and space and therefore has nothing to do with enlightenment. You can not model enlightenment. So with those caveats. In ignorance you are somebody. A psychological private self that relates to the world. Then you get 1st stage enlightenment and you are nobody. Actually, no you to be or not to be. Consciousness becomes conscious of its own consciousness and withdraws identity with any space/time experience. No-Self. No localization of consciousness. Weird as shit for the mind. You no longer exist, only consciousness within which everything occurs. Then you get 2nd stage enlightenment Grasshopper. Now you are everybody. Consciousness awakens to its bound value of space and time as simply consciousness. All moving within itself. From here to here through there according to Maharishi. Those are good words. --- On Tue, 1/27/09, Peter drpetersutphen@ wrote: From: Peter drpetersutphen@ Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, January 27, 2009, 8:18 PM Enlightenment is not what you think. --- On Tue, 1/27/09, ruthsimplicity no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: From: ruthsimplicity no_re...@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, January 27, 2009, 5:10 PM --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_reply@ wrote: enlightenment is that state of consciousness in which a person no longer identifies with, and gets lost in, the objects of perception. This sounds like the I don't care anymore definition of enlightenment. 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
[FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, yifuxero yifuxero@ wrote: --In other words, mind is a secondary witness to Witnessing; a fact even the Neo-Advaitins can't deny. (some mind-entity - illusory or not - is making various claims). What is the value of having those experiences.? That is the question that no one asks, because they have already been presented with (and bought hook, line, and sinker) the dogma that achieving this witnessing state is the highest point of human evolution, something that should be achieved. That's why MMY refers to CC as merely normal or glorified ignorance or the most intense form of the illusion of duality, etc. L.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
Let's face it, the TMO would be a lot healthier if people had sex (and chicken sandwiches) on a more regular basis. --- On Wed, 1/28/09, raunchydog raunchy...@yahoo.com wrote: From: raunchydog raunchy...@yahoo.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, January 28, 2009, 6:48 PM --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutp...@... wrote: Me, EnlightenDawn and Raunch sit around, smoking grasshopper weed and engage in mental tantric practices between the domes. Oh, by the way, many years ago I walked between the domes when everybody was flying. Oh my God! I almost got electrocuted! The energy exchange between the domes was mind blowing. One big yoni, one big lingam. Stand back! Peter, I used to know a guy who said he could sense,(through his nose physical nose or his subtle nose, I forget which) the attraction between male and female pheromones emanating from the domes. He must have been smokin' grasshopper weed or somethin' on a breezy day and he got wind of it. --- On Wed, 1/28/09, enlightened_dawn11 no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: From: enlightened_dawn11 no_re...@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, January 28, 2009, 12:40 PM lol-- i got as far as the grasshopper living among the weeds and then got lost... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_reply@ wrote: agreed-- really well said dr. pete. enlightenment is real, viable and experienced-- just not by -thinking- raunchydog, i don't get your comments at all- care to clarify please? Just jiving Peter. It's an analogy that obviously failed. It's a stretch but my point was, the grasshopper identifies with the weeds in which he lives so much so that he smokes the weed and hallucinates his existence to be something real. Sorry, I can't wrap my brain around it any further than that. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: Excellent, Peter. It's exactly the map of the territory Maharishi has been telling grasshopper, identifying for years with the weeds he's been smokin'. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutphen@ wrote: Enlightenment is not what you think because: You can not get enlightened. A thought is necessarily bound by time and space and therefore has nothing to do with enlightenment. You can not model enlightenment. So with those caveats. In ignorance you are somebody. A psychological private self that relates to the world. Then you get 1st stage enlightenment and you are nobody. Actually, no you to be or not to be. Consciousness becomes conscious of its own consciousness and withdraws identity with any space/time experience. No-Self. No localization of consciousness. Weird as shit for the mind. You no longer exist, only consciousness within which everything occurs. Then you get 2nd stage enlightenment Grasshopper. Now you are everybody. Consciousness awakens to its bound value of space and time as simply consciousness. All moving within itself. From here to here through there according to Maharishi. Those are good words. --- On Tue, 1/27/09, Peter drpetersutphen@ wrote: From: Peter drpetersutphen@ Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, January 27, 2009, 8:18 PM Enlightenment is not what you think. --- On Tue, 1/27/09, ruthsimplicity no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: From: ruthsimplicity no_re...@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, January 27, 2009, 5:10 PM --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_reply@ wrote: enlightenment is that state of consciousness in which a person no longer identifies with, and gets lost in, the objects of perception. This sounds like the I don't care anymore definition
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
On Jan 28, 2009, at 6:57 PM, sparaig wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, yifuxero yifuxero@ wrote: --In other words, mind is a secondary witness to Witnessing; a fact even the Neo-Advaitins can't deny. (some mind-entity - illusory or not - is making various claims). What is the value of having those experiences.? That is the question that no one asks, because they have already been presented with (and bought hook, line, and sinker) the dogma that achieving this witnessing state is the highest point of human evolution, something that should be achieved. That's why MMY refers to CC as merely normal or glorified ignorance or the most intense form of the illusion of duality, etc. Wow, if he really said that, all that really shows is his ineptitude as a so-called yogi, turiyatita being the summum bonum of real yogis and his acquired pseudo-advaitic snobbery. How could anyone take such a person seriously? Whatever sells, huh?
[FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, I am the eternal l.shad...@... wrote: On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 4:02 PM, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: Thanks for taking the time to openly respond to this question. Your openness *is* appreciated. On Jan 28, 2009, at 3:12 PM, I am the eternal wrote: What's expected is that you'll relate a #1 (Unity or beyond) experience. In the two domes, these experiences take the form of describing, with lots of heart, experiences that have to do with loss of self, with experiencing The Self, with experiences of infinity, bliss in every direction and in every thing. Each experience in the two domes is quite unique, stated in the idiom of the experiencer. The sidhi administrators read the experiences and make SUGGESTIONS about what to leave in, what to leave out before the experience is read. So they make editorial suggestions? Why? I'm sorry, but that seems odd. Edited experiences, movement approved? This *doesn't* mean there is a script (of acceptable or not acceptable)? If the experiences are turned down, one would have to be *on the (unspoken) script* to get a mention wouldn't they? The experience has to fit in with Maharishi's teachings and not be conjecture. I had a number of sentences struck out because, according to Doug B, the experiences could not be verified. snip What nonsense. The only reason I can see to have experience meetings is to have a student recount an experience that has had a particularly profound or confusing impact on him/her and to have a qualified teacher respond and bring some clarity or perspective. For that to happen the experience has to be described in an accurate and personal manner, there can't be any editing. What does it mean to say your experience can't be verified? And by people like Doug B, who BTW gave me perhaps the single worst piece of advice I've ever been given? One thing I learned in the tmo was that most everyone who's known to have great experiences is to be avoided at all costs, they're usually toxic, unstable or egomaniacs.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 7:00 PM, boo_lives boo_li...@yahoo.com wrote: The experience has to fit in with Maharishi's teachings and not be conjecture. I had a number of sentences struck out because, according to Doug B, the experiences could not be verified. snip What nonsense. The only reason I can see to have experience meetings is to have a student recount an experience that has had a particularly profound or confusing impact on him/her and to have a qualified teacher respond and bring some clarity or perspective. For that to happen the experience has to be described in an accurate and personal manner, there can't be any editing. What does it mean to say your experience can't be verified? And by people like Doug B, who BTW gave me perhaps the single worst piece of advice I've ever been given? One thing I learned in the tmo was that most everyone who's known to have great experiences is to be avoided at all costs, they're usually toxic, unstable or egomaniacs. I guess you're not getting what the #1 experience reporting is about. It's part of the all day, all evening show. IA is marketed to potential CPs as the way to gain very profound experiences in consciousness very quickly, say in just a week end. It goes along with the very laughable (IMO) marketing of go to IA, if even for the weekend then go home and prosper. IA has lost a lot of its glitter, but it started off as being ground zero of the development of consciousness. Maharishi was on many of the between the first and second morning round teleconferences. This was a way to get Maharishi's knowledge, his presence, his attention. As you can see by the numbers at http://invincibleamerica.org/tallies.htmlit's dead in the water. They made a big mistake when the cancelled the foreign stipends I guess to raise the NAFTA stipends by $100 USD per a month. I didn't get all that excited when I was last on IA (ended a couple weeks ago) and I didn't notice all that much excitement amongst the people I spoke with compared to last year or the year before.
[FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutp...@... wrote: Let's face it, the TMO would be a lot healthier if people had sex (and chicken sandwiches) on a more regular basis. Grasshopper gives Peter one leg up for chicken sandwich idea and two legs up for sex.
[FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig lengli...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, yifuxero yifuxero@ wrote: --In other words, mind is a secondary witness to Witnessing; a fact even the Neo-Advaitins can't deny. (some mind-entity - illusory or not - is making various claims). What is the value of having those experiences.? That is the question that no one asks, because they have already been presented with (and bought hook, line, and sinker) the dogma that achieving this witnessing state is the highest point of human evolution, something that should be achieved. That's why MMY refers to CC as merely normal or glorified ignorance or the most intense form of the illusion of duality, etc. L. I don't think MMY ever referred to witnessing *as* CC, it was always used in the context of an indication of the growth towards CC and not the culmination of CC. Though CC contains witnessing, it is far more and he used to say it is a milestone on the path of evolution. MMY used CC to describe Self Realization, in classical Yoga CC is defined as what MMY would call Unity, other than that things remain the same.
[FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
your definitions all sound so monkey-like. here's a banana, my little chiquita. enlightenment is that state of consciousness in which a person no longer identifies with, and gets lost in, the objects of perception. this can't be accomplished on the thinking level. it is not about thinking, imagining, believing, denying, or hallucinating. the most effective way to establish that state is by alternating the practice of transcending with activity. the easiest way to do this is through the regular (2x a day) practice of Transcendental Maditation, or TM. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: Seriously, I would like to hear each person's definition in one or two sentences please. (we already know Vaj is going to inscrutably say And Sal is going to say A good BLT sandwich ...but what is the definition from the rest of you? Enlightenment -- a fluid, everchanging subjective state of mind that has no qualities or attributes except what the claimant of having attained it claims it has, and no benefits for the claimant or society other than what the claimant says it has. The only important thing is that other people must view the person who has claimed enlightenment as somehow special and better than they are. See 'unicorn,' and 'UFO sightings.' All in all, a BLT is more nourishing and better for you, and cheaper. -- The Dictionary of Cutting Through The Bullshit, Get Real Press, 33rd. edition. MORE DEFINITIONS OF ENLIGHTENMENT The Maharishi Mahesh Yogi definition Enlightenment is exactly as I described it over the years, and it's the same for everyone. It's a steady progression through the states of CC, GC, UC and BC to complete fulfillment. When one reaches that state of full enlightenment, one is able to manifest all of the siddhis and levitate, as I do, and bring all of one's ideas to perfect completion, as I did with Vedaland and so many other projects. That'll be a million dollars, please. The Dumb Blonde definition Enlightenment is what I say it is. Anyone who says anything different is WRONG, and is just a monkey-mind chattering away. And I know this to be true because my TM initiator, What's-his-name, said so back when I first learned TM, back in Wherever-it-was-ville. The Vaj definition Enlightenment is what the people I consider enlightened say it is. And it is ONLY what the people I consider enlightened say it is. So there. :-) The TMO definition Enlightenment is the inevitable result of practicing the TM technique, which is the fastest, easiest, most effective means of attaining enlightenment ever seen on planet Earth. This can be verified by doing scientific tests on all the people we have certified as being fully enlightened over the 53 years of our teaching. Come back a week from some Thursday and we will provide you with a list of their names. Turq's definition Enlightenment is something that people who (on the whole) have never experienced it like to talk about as if they knew exactly what it was. In general, the more they talk about it as if they know exactly what it is, the less likelihood there is that they have ever had even a fleeting experience of it. Those who *have* had a fleeting experience of what they consider enlighten- ment to be are basically saying that their subjective experience -- whatever it might have been really -- is synonymous with enlightenment because *they* had the experience, and they are so important that if *they* had that experience, it *must* be cool and valuable and special, because *they* are cool and valuable and special. People talk about enlightenment in the same way they talk about unicorns -- they claim to know *exactly* what the unicorn of enlightenment looks like, but can't show you any unicorns so that you can verify that what they are describing is true. You're just supposed to take their word for it that the unicorn they are describing is really enlightenment, because they said it, and they're so special. (On the whole, there is more agreement about what unicorns look like than about what enlightenment looks like.)
[FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
i meant Transcendental MEDitation, not MADitation, though at times along the way i confess to have felt quite crazy.:) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_re...@... wrote: your definitions all sound so monkey-like. here's a banana, my little chiquita. enlightenment is that state of consciousness in which a person no longer identifies with, and gets lost in, the objects of perception. this can't be accomplished on the thinking level. it is not about thinking, imagining, believing, denying, or hallucinating. the most effective way to establish that state is by alternating the practice of transcending with activity. the easiest way to do this is through the regular (2x a day) practice of Transcendental Maditation, or TM. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: Seriously, I would like to hear each person's definition in one or two sentences please. (we already know Vaj is going to inscrutably say And Sal is going to say A good BLT sandwich ...but what is the definition from the rest of you? Enlightenment -- a fluid, everchanging subjective state of mind that has no qualities or attributes except what the claimant of having attained it claims it has, and no benefits for the claimant or society other than what the claimant says it has. The only important thing is that other people must view the person who has claimed enlightenment as somehow special and better than they are. See 'unicorn,' and 'UFO sightings.' All in all, a BLT is more nourishing and better for you, and cheaper. -- The Dictionary of Cutting Through The Bullshit, Get Real Press, 33rd. edition. MORE DEFINITIONS OF ENLIGHTENMENT The Maharishi Mahesh Yogi definition Enlightenment is exactly as I described it over the years, and it's the same for everyone. It's a steady progression through the states of CC, GC, UC and BC to complete fulfillment. When one reaches that state of full enlightenment, one is able to manifest all of the siddhis and levitate, as I do, and bring all of one's ideas to perfect completion, as I did with Vedaland and so many other projects. That'll be a million dollars, please. The Dumb Blonde definition Enlightenment is what I say it is. Anyone who says anything different is WRONG, and is just a monkey-mind chattering away. And I know this to be true because my TM initiator, What's-his-name, said so back when I first learned TM, back in Wherever-it-was-ville. The Vaj definition Enlightenment is what the people I consider enlightened say it is. And it is ONLY what the people I consider enlightened say it is. So there. :-) The TMO definition Enlightenment is the inevitable result of practicing the TM technique, which is the fastest, easiest, most effective means of attaining enlightenment ever seen on planet Earth. This can be verified by doing scientific tests on all the people we have certified as being fully enlightened over the 53 years of our teaching. Come back a week from some Thursday and we will provide you with a list of their names. Turq's definition Enlightenment is something that people who (on the whole) have never experienced it like to talk about as if they knew exactly what it was. In general, the more they talk about it as if they know exactly what it is, the less likelihood there is that they have ever had even a fleeting experience of it. Those who *have* had a fleeting experience of what they consider enlighten- ment to be are basically saying that their subjective experience -- whatever it might have been really -- is synonymous with enlightenment because *they* had the experience, and they are so important that if *they* had that experience, it *must* be cool and valuable and special, because *they* are cool and valuable and special. People talk about enlightenment in the same way they talk about unicorns -- they claim to know *exactly* what the unicorn of enlightenment looks like, but can't show you any unicorns so that you can verify that what they are describing is true. You're just supposed to take their word for it that the unicorn they are describing is really enlightenment, because they said it, and they're so special. (On the whole, there is more agreement about what unicorns look like than about what enlightenment looks like.)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
On Jan 27, 2009, at 10:50 AM, enlightened_dawn11 wrote: the most effective way to establish that state is by alternating the practice of transcending with activity. the easiest way to do this is through the regular (2x a day) practice of Transcendental Maditation, or TM. Interesting how it doesn't seemed to have helped you SPELL YOUR FAVORITE FORM OF MEDITATION CORRECTLY! Unless of course you're actually practicing Transcendental Maditation in which case, yes, that does make a lot of sense. Nobody in the game of football should be called a genius. A genius is somebody like Norman Einstein. —former NFL quarterback Joe Theisman
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
On Jan 27, 2009, at 10:53 AM, enlightened_dawn11 wrote: i meant Transcendental MEDitation, not MADitation, though at times along the way i confess to have felt quite crazy.:) It was just a Freudian slip, I wouldn't worry too much about it. And about the crazy feelings, yes we all noticed, but we still are enjoying your posts. Please continue.
[FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_re...@... wrote: your definitions all sound so monkey-like. here's a banana, my little chiquita. enlightenment is that state of consciousness in which a person no longer identifies with, and gets lost in, the objects of perception. Yeah, that's right: puruSaartha-shuunyaanaaM guNaanaaM pratiprasavaH [is] kaivalyam... !
[FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
A corrupt marketing tool and identity crutch used by those who feel that the natural culmination of life processes is something that can be packaged, sold and owned.
[FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_re...@... wrote: your definitions all sound so monkey-like. here's a banana, my little chiquita. enlightenment is that state of consciousness in which a person no longer identifies with, and gets lost in, the objects of perception. You know this sounds like a made-up problem to solve. I never met anyone who was lost in or identified with the objects of perception. Someone would have an unimaginable pathological lack of self awareness for this to be a problem. I mean this seriously because it is one of the fundamental presuppositions of Maharishi's teaching. Can anyone here remember when this was a problem in your life before TM? I honestly can't. this can't be accomplished on the thinking level. it is not about thinking, imagining, believing, denying, or hallucinating. the most effective way to establish that state is by alternating the practice of transcending with activity. the easiest way to do this is through the regular (2x a day) practice of Transcendental Maditation, or TM. I have heard this exact phrase somewhere before but I just can't place it... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: Seriously, I would like to hear each person's definition in one or two sentences please. (we already know Vaj is going to inscrutably say And Sal is going to say A good BLT sandwich ...but what is the definition from the rest of you? Enlightenment -- a fluid, everchanging subjective state of mind that has no qualities or attributes except what the claimant of having attained it claims it has, and no benefits for the claimant or society other than what the claimant says it has. The only important thing is that other people must view the person who has claimed enlightenment as somehow special and better than they are. See 'unicorn,' and 'UFO sightings.' All in all, a BLT is more nourishing and better for you, and cheaper. -- The Dictionary of Cutting Through The Bullshit, Get Real Press, 33rd. edition. MORE DEFINITIONS OF ENLIGHTENMENT The Maharishi Mahesh Yogi definition Enlightenment is exactly as I described it over the years, and it's the same for everyone. It's a steady progression through the states of CC, GC, UC and BC to complete fulfillment. When one reaches that state of full enlightenment, one is able to manifest all of the siddhis and levitate, as I do, and bring all of one's ideas to perfect completion, as I did with Vedaland and so many other projects. That'll be a million dollars, please. The Dumb Blonde definition Enlightenment is what I say it is. Anyone who says anything different is WRONG, and is just a monkey-mind chattering away. And I know this to be true because my TM initiator, What's-his-name, said so back when I first learned TM, back in Wherever-it-was-ville. The Vaj definition Enlightenment is what the people I consider enlightened say it is. And it is ONLY what the people I consider enlightened say it is. So there. :-) The TMO definition Enlightenment is the inevitable result of practicing the TM technique, which is the fastest, easiest, most effective means of attaining enlightenment ever seen on planet Earth. This can be verified by doing scientific tests on all the people we have certified as being fully enlightened over the 53 years of our teaching. Come back a week from some Thursday and we will provide you with a list of their names. Turq's definition Enlightenment is something that people who (on the whole) have never experienced it like to talk about as if they knew exactly what it was. In general, the more they talk about it as if they know exactly what it is, the less likelihood there is that they have ever had even a fleeting experience of it. Those who *have* had a fleeting experience of what they consider enlighten- ment to be are basically saying that their subjective experience -- whatever it might have been really -- is synonymous with enlightenment because *they* had the experience, and they are so important that if *they* had that experience, it *must* be cool and valuable and special, because *they* are cool and valuable and special. People talk about enlightenment in the same way they talk about unicorns -- they claim to know *exactly* what the unicorn of enlightenment looks like, but can't show you any unicorns so that you can verify that what they are describing is true. You're just supposed to take their word for it that the unicorn they are describing is really enlightenment, because they said it, and they're so special. (On the whole, there is more agreement about what unicorns look
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
the most effective way to establish that state is by alternating the practice of transcending with activity. the easiest way to do this is through the regular (2x a day) practice of Transcendental Maditation, or TM. ---Ah if you must know I started feeling the all oneness thing about six months before 9/11 after buying my first high powered rudraksha malas of three faced and one faced moon beads. I wore it to work. I felt the Shiva/Agni connection was good for cooking. You know you have to piss and other things sometimes and that's all good to remind us all how we start as smart little monkey apes and regress really to our prebirth state during -LIFE- only to reverse and forget everything we ever knew just so as to -DIE. So I don't really know if TM is the ultimate as during long resident courses they wouldn't even speak to the effects of visuals and colors and so on whereas the Tibetans have all that shit sussed out fully. The main idea here being that seing God in shit is probably the better way to quick realization than mere alternating mind of silence and mind of action. Truely the key being the mind, tantras then are keys to training the mind. And wearing Shiva around ones neck is a very close and personal tantra in any case. Sitting at a bar, seing Shiva twinkling in an offered line, and thank you Lord.
[FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Kirk kirk_bernha...@... wrote: And wearing Shiva around ones neck is a very close and personal tantra in any case. Sitting at a bar, seing Shiva twinkling in an offered line, and thank you Lord. I would be more inclined to believe you saw a god in the line if your answer was: No thanks, I don't need any more shrinkage in areas of my bank account or dick right now. the most effective way to establish that state is by alternating the practice of transcending with activity. the easiest way to do this is through the regular (2x a day) practice of Transcendental Maditation, or TM. ---Ah if you must know I started feeling the all oneness thing about six months before 9/11 after buying my first high powered rudraksha malas of three faced and one faced moon beads. I wore it to work. I felt the Shiva/Agni connection was good for cooking. You know you have to piss and other things sometimes and that's all good to remind us all how we start as smart little monkey apes and regress really to our prebirth state during -LIFE- only to reverse and forget everything we ever knew just so as to -DIE. So I don't really know if TM is the ultimate as during long resident courses they wouldn't even speak to the effects of visuals and colors and so on whereas the Tibetans have all that shit sussed out fully. The main idea here being that seing God in shit is probably the better way to quick realization than mere alternating mind of silence and mind of action. Truely the key being the mind, tantras then are keys to training the mind. And wearing Shiva around ones neck is a very close and personal tantra in any case. Sitting at a bar, seing Shiva twinkling in an offered line, and thank you Lord.
[FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
curtisdeltablues wrote: enlightenment is that state of consciousness in which a person no longer identifies with, and gets lost in, the objects of perception. You know this sounds like a made-up problem to solve. I never met anyone who was lost in or identified with the objects of perception. Someone would have an unimaginable pathological lack of self awareness for this to be a problem. I mean this seriously because it is one of the fundamental presuppositions of Maharishi's teaching. Can anyone here remember when this was a problem in your life before TM? I honestly can't. Curtis, This is the crux issue: what is the nature of Identity? I think your suspicions are well founded only if you ignore that the mind itself is an object of consciousness. Every thought-feeling (the mind) is a tar baby that allures Identity to become its soul. Moment by moment WE INVEST in objects. We enter them. We identify with them. We affirm their existence like dying folks in the desert crawling towards a mirage of an oasis. Each thought impossibly grabs us effortlessly -- we rubberneck them like roadside accidents . . . unable to avert our gazing. When I buy a new car, woe unto anyone who comes up to it and bangs it with a fist -- I will feel pain I tells ya! That's my Identity you're pounding on there bub! Just so, being a narcissist, I'm happy to report that each of my thoughts is like a new Ferrari being delivered to my driveway. Curtis, I keep banging on your door about Identity -- am I merely droning at this stage, or do you see enough wiggle room such that you are examining this assertion of mine that Identity is non-physical with the intent to reach a deeper clarity about it? Or do you think I'm just slinging Advaita shit that can safely be dismissed? Does ya got twelve in the juryroom still? Edg
[FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
i can relate to the mystical avenues for gaining enlightenment also. but those come and go, and are a less reliable path for the establishment of non-identification. more a validation of the worthiness of the path, than a means to establish Being. also the use of drugs to enable mystical experiences is valid to a degree, though drugs work on the principle of 'robbing peter to pay paul'-- side effects, hangovers, etc. not saying its a bad thing, just a very real trade-off. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Kirk kirk_bernha...@... wrote: the most effective way to establish that state is by alternating the practice of transcending with activity. the easiest way to do this is through the regular (2x a day) practice of Transcendental Maditation, or TM. ---Ah if you must know I started feeling the all oneness thing about six months before 9/11 after buying my first high powered rudraksha malas of three faced and one faced moon beads. I wore it to work. I felt the Shiva/Agni connection was good for cooking. You know you have to piss and other things sometimes and that's all good to remind us all how we start as smart little monkey apes and regress really to our prebirth state during -LIFE- only to reverse and forget everything we ever knew just so as to -DIE. So I don't really know if TM is the ultimate as during long resident courses they wouldn't even speak to the effects of visuals and colors and so on whereas the Tibetans have all that shit sussed out fully. The main idea here being that seing God in shit is probably the better way to quick realization than mere alternating mind of silence and mind of action. Truely the key being the mind, tantras then are keys to training the mind. And wearing Shiva around ones neck is a very close and personal tantra in any case. Sitting at a bar, seing Shiva twinkling in an offered line, and thank you Lord.
[FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_re...@... wrote: Identity is non-physical with the intent to reach a deeper clarity about it? Or do you think I'm just slinging Advaita shit that can safely be dismissed? Does ya got twelve in the juryroom still? My identity is not physical. It is tied to the physical so that when the physical becomes worm food I have a suspicion that I'm not going to be able to remember the Brazilian Samba chords I learned on my guitar this morning. I can't even maintain consciousness when a doctor pumps a white liquid into my veins for a little fireside chat with the interior of my colon. I also acknowledge that I have an aspect of my mind that is an unchanging witness of my personality. It is an artifact of consciousness and a part of being human if you choose to spend enough time to notice it. I'll even acknowledge that meditating helps you notice this aspect of your mind more clearly. But making a case for it being the transpersonal basis for all creation is just imposing a religious assertion on top of it. It is making a bigger deal about it than I think it deserves. But I could be wrong. But so far all the magical stuff claimed about this state of mind has not shown up. Has it? Maharishi was a charismatic interesting guy and all but he didn't show up as having special powers to me, beyond what an eccentric relentless self promoter like Donald Trump exhibits. The Donald sleeps as little as Maharishi did too! curtisdeltablues wrote: enlightenment is that state of consciousness in which a person no longer identifies with, and gets lost in, the objects of perception. You know this sounds like a made-up problem to solve. I never met anyone who was lost in or identified with the objects of perception. Someone would have an unimaginable pathological lack of self awareness for this to be a problem. I mean this seriously because it is one of the fundamental presuppositions of Maharishi's teaching. Can anyone here remember when this was a problem in your life before TM? I honestly can't. Curtis, This is the crux issue: what is the nature of Identity? I think your suspicions are well founded only if you ignore that the mind itself is an object of consciousness. Every thought-feeling (the mind) is a tar baby that allures Identity to become its soul. Moment by moment WE INVEST in objects. We enter them. We identify with them. We affirm their existence like dying folks in the desert crawling towards a mirage of an oasis. Each thought impossibly grabs us effortlessly -- we rubberneck them like roadside accidents . . . unable to avert our gazing. When I buy a new car, woe unto anyone who comes up to it and bangs it with a fist -- I will feel pain I tells ya! That's my Identity you're pounding on there bub! Just so, being a narcissist, I'm happy to report that each of my thoughts is like a new Ferrari being delivered to my driveway. Curtis, I keep banging on your door about Identity -- am I merely droning at this stage, or do you see enough wiggle room such that you are examining this assertion of mine that Identity is non-physical with the intent to reach a deeper clarity about it? Or do you think I'm just slinging Advaita shit that can safely be dismissed? Does ya got twelve in the juryroom still? Edg
[FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
i was never able to learn touch typing, so i am not able to correct as i type, only through proofreading afterwards. thanks for your concern, though... have a banana, you've earned another one today, oh cuddly and cute king of monkeys! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: On Jan 27, 2009, at 10:50 AM, enlightened_dawn11 wrote: the most effective way to establish that state is by alternating the practice of transcending with activity. the easiest way to do this is through the regular (2x a day) practice of Transcendental Maditation, or TM. Interesting how it doesn't seemed to have helped you SPELL YOUR FAVORITE FORM OF MEDITATION CORRECTLY! Unless of course you're actually practicing Transcendental Maditation in which case, yes, that does make a lot of sense. Nobody in the game of football should be called a genius. A genius is somebody like Norman Einstein. —former NFL quarterback Joe Theisman
[FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
you are trying so hard today, curt, and your reward is due-- enjoy a banana! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_reply@ wrote: your definitions all sound so monkey-like. here's a banana, my little chiquita. enlightenment is that state of consciousness in which a person no longer identifies with, and gets lost in, the objects of perception. You know this sounds like a made-up problem to solve. I never met anyone who was lost in or identified with the objects of perception. Someone would have an unimaginable pathological lack of self awareness for this to be a problem. I mean this seriously because it is one of the fundamental presuppositions of Maharishi's teaching. Can anyone here remember when this was a problem in your life before TM? I honestly can't. this can't be accomplished on the thinking level. it is not about thinking, imagining, believing, denying, or hallucinating. the most effective way to establish that state is by alternating the practice of transcending with activity. the easiest way to do this is through the regular (2x a day) practice of Transcendental Maditation, or TM. I have heard this exact phrase somewhere before but I just can't place it... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: Seriously, I would like to hear each person's definition in one or two sentences please. (we already know Vaj is going to inscrutably say And Sal is going to say A good BLT sandwich ...but what is the definition from the rest of you? Enlightenment -- a fluid, everchanging subjective state of mind that has no qualities or attributes except what the claimant of having attained it claims it has, and no benefits for the claimant or society other than what the claimant says it has. The only important thing is that other people must view the person who has claimed enlightenment as somehow special and better than they are. See 'unicorn,' and 'UFO sightings.' All in all, a BLT is more nourishing and better for you, and cheaper. -- The Dictionary of Cutting Through The Bullshit, Get Real Press, 33rd. edition. MORE DEFINITIONS OF ENLIGHTENMENT The Maharishi Mahesh Yogi definition Enlightenment is exactly as I described it over the years, and it's the same for everyone. It's a steady progression through the states of CC, GC, UC and BC to complete fulfillment. When one reaches that state of full enlightenment, one is able to manifest all of the siddhis and levitate, as I do, and bring all of one's ideas to perfect completion, as I did with Vedaland and so many other projects. That'll be a million dollars, please. The Dumb Blonde definition Enlightenment is what I say it is. Anyone who says anything different is WRONG, and is just a monkey-mind chattering away. And I know this to be true because my TM initiator, What's-his-name, said so back when I first learned TM, back in Wherever-it-was-ville. The Vaj definition Enlightenment is what the people I consider enlightened say it is. And it is ONLY what the people I consider enlightened say it is. So there. :-) The TMO definition Enlightenment is the inevitable result of practicing the TM technique, which is the fastest, easiest, most effective means of attaining enlightenment ever seen on planet Earth. This can be verified by doing scientific tests on all the people we have certified as being fully enlightened over the 53 years of our teaching. Come back a week from some Thursday and we will provide you with a list of their names. Turq's definition Enlightenment is something that people who (on the whole) have never experienced it like to talk about as if they knew exactly what it was. In general, the more they talk about it as if they know exactly what it is, the less likelihood there is that they have ever had even a fleeting experience of it. Those who *have* had a fleeting experience of what they consider enlighten- ment to be are basically saying that their subjective experience -- whatever it might have been really -- is synonymous with enlightenment because *they* had the experience, and they are so important that if *they* had that experience, it *must* be cool and valuable and special, because *they* are cool and valuable and special. People talk about enlightenment in the same way they talk about unicorns -- they claim to know *exactly* what the unicorn of enlightenment looks like, but can't show you any unicorns so that
[FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_re...@... wrote: you are trying so hard today, curt, and your reward is due-- enjoy a banana! Who is Curt? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_reply@ wrote: your definitions all sound so monkey-like. here's a banana, my little chiquita. enlightenment is that state of consciousness in which a person no longer identifies with, and gets lost in, the objects of perception. You know this sounds like a made-up problem to solve. I never met anyone who was lost in or identified with the objects of perception. Someone would have an unimaginable pathological lack of self awareness for this to be a problem. I mean this seriously because it is one of the fundamental presuppositions of Maharishi's teaching. Can anyone here remember when this was a problem in your life before TM? I honestly can't. this can't be accomplished on the thinking level. it is not about thinking, imagining, believing, denying, or hallucinating. the most effective way to establish that state is by alternating the practice of transcending with activity. the easiest way to do this is through the regular (2x a day) practice of Transcendental Maditation, or TM. I have heard this exact phrase somewhere before but I just can't place it... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: Seriously, I would like to hear each person's definition in one or two sentences please. (we already know Vaj is going to inscrutably say And Sal is going to say A good BLT sandwich ...but what is the definition from the rest of you? Enlightenment -- a fluid, everchanging subjective state of mind that has no qualities or attributes except what the claimant of having attained it claims it has, and no benefits for the claimant or society other than what the claimant says it has. The only important thing is that other people must view the person who has claimed enlightenment as somehow special and better than they are. See 'unicorn,' and 'UFO sightings.' All in all, a BLT is more nourishing and better for you, and cheaper. -- The Dictionary of Cutting Through The Bullshit, Get Real Press, 33rd. edition. MORE DEFINITIONS OF ENLIGHTENMENT The Maharishi Mahesh Yogi definition Enlightenment is exactly as I described it over the years, and it's the same for everyone. It's a steady progression through the states of CC, GC, UC and BC to complete fulfillment. When one reaches that state of full enlightenment, one is able to manifest all of the siddhis and levitate, as I do, and bring all of one's ideas to perfect completion, as I did with Vedaland and so many other projects. That'll be a million dollars, please. The Dumb Blonde definition Enlightenment is what I say it is. Anyone who says anything different is WRONG, and is just a monkey-mind chattering away. And I know this to be true because my TM initiator, What's-his-name, said so back when I first learned TM, back in Wherever-it-was-ville. The Vaj definition Enlightenment is what the people I consider enlightened say it is. And it is ONLY what the people I consider enlightened say it is. So there. :-) The TMO definition Enlightenment is the inevitable result of practicing the TM technique, which is the fastest, easiest, most effective means of attaining enlightenment ever seen on planet Earth. This can be verified by doing scientific tests on all the people we have certified as being fully enlightened over the 53 years of our teaching. Come back a week from some Thursday and we will provide you with a list of their names. Turq's definition Enlightenment is something that people who (on the whole) have never experienced it like to talk about as if they knew exactly what it was. In general, the more they talk about it as if they know exactly what it is, the less likelihood there is that they have ever had even a fleeting experience of it. Those who *have* had a fleeting experience of what they consider enlighten- ment to be are basically saying that their subjective experience -- whatever it might have been really -- is synonymous with enlightenment because *they* had the experience, and they are so important that if *they* had that experience, it *must* be cool and valuable and special, because *they* are cool and
[FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
Curtis, Under no circumstances are you to take a banana from ED11. Not that there's anything wrong with that! - Jerry Seinfeld Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_re...@... wrote: you are trying so hard today, curt, and your reward is due-- enjoy a banana! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_reply@ wrote: your definitions all sound so monkey-like. here's a banana, my little chiquita. enlightenment is that state of consciousness in which a person no longer identifies with, and gets lost in, the objects of perception. You know this sounds like a made-up problem to solve. I never met anyone who was lost in or identified with the objects of perception. Someone would have an unimaginable pathological lack of self awareness for this to be a problem. I mean this seriously because it is one of the fundamental presuppositions of Maharishi's teaching. Can anyone here remember when this was a problem in your life before TM? I honestly can't. this can't be accomplished on the thinking level. it is not about thinking, imagining, believing, denying, or hallucinating. the most effective way to establish that state is by alternating the practice of transcending with activity. the easiest way to do this is through the regular (2x a day) practice of Transcendental Maditation, or TM. I have heard this exact phrase somewhere before but I just can't place it... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: Seriously, I would like to hear each person's definition in one or two sentences please. (we already know Vaj is going to inscrutably say And Sal is going to say A good BLT sandwich ...but what is the definition from the rest of you? Enlightenment -- a fluid, everchanging subjective state of mind that has no qualities or attributes except what the claimant of having attained it claims it has, and no benefits for the claimant or society other than what the claimant says it has. The only important thing is that other people must view the person who has claimed enlightenment as somehow special and better than they are. See 'unicorn,' and 'UFO sightings.' All in all, a BLT is more nourishing and better for you, and cheaper. -- The Dictionary of Cutting Through The Bullshit, Get Real Press, 33rd. edition. MORE DEFINITIONS OF ENLIGHTENMENT The Maharishi Mahesh Yogi definition Enlightenment is exactly as I described it over the years, and it's the same for everyone. It's a steady progression through the states of CC, GC, UC and BC to complete fulfillment. When one reaches that state of full enlightenment, one is able to manifest all of the siddhis and levitate, as I do, and bring all of one's ideas to perfect completion, as I did with Vedaland and so many other projects. That'll be a million dollars, please. The Dumb Blonde definition Enlightenment is what I say it is. Anyone who says anything different is WRONG, and is just a monkey-mind chattering away. And I know this to be true because my TM initiator, What's-his-name, said so back when I first learned TM, back in Wherever-it-was-ville. The Vaj definition Enlightenment is what the people I consider enlightened say it is. And it is ONLY what the people I consider enlightened say it is. So there. :-) The TMO definition Enlightenment is the inevitable result of practicing the TM technique, which is the fastest, easiest, most effective means of attaining enlightenment ever seen on planet Earth. This can be verified by doing scientific tests on all the people we have certified as being fully enlightened over the 53 years of our teaching. Come back a week from some Thursday and we will provide you with a list of their names. Turq's definition Enlightenment is something that people who (on the whole) have never experienced it like to talk about as if they knew exactly what it was. In general, the more they talk about it as if they know exactly what it is, the less likelihood there is that they have ever had even a fleeting experience of it. Those who *have* had a fleeting experience of what they consider enlighten- ment to be are basically saying that their subjective experience -- whatever it might have been really -- is synonymous with enlightenment because *they* had the experience, and they are so important
[FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
excellent starting point! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_reply@ wrote: you are trying so hard today, curt, and your reward is due-- enjoy a banana! Who is Curt? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_reply@ wrote: your definitions all sound so monkey-like. here's a banana, my little chiquita. enlightenment is that state of consciousness in which a person no longer identifies with, and gets lost in, the objects of perception. You know this sounds like a made-up problem to solve. I never met anyone who was lost in or identified with the objects of perception. Someone would have an unimaginable pathological lack of self awareness for this to be a problem. I mean this seriously because it is one of the fundamental presuppositions of Maharishi's teaching. Can anyone here remember when this was a problem in your life before TM? I honestly can't. this can't be accomplished on the thinking level. it is not about thinking, imagining, believing, denying, or hallucinating. the most effective way to establish that state is by alternating the practice of transcending with activity. the easiest way to do this is through the regular (2x a day) practice of Transcendental Maditation, or TM. I have heard this exact phrase somewhere before but I just can't place it... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: Seriously, I would like to hear each person's definition in one or two sentences please. (we already know Vaj is going to inscrutably say And Sal is going to say A good BLT sandwich ...but what is the definition from the rest of you? Enlightenment -- a fluid, everchanging subjective state of mind that has no qualities or attributes except what the claimant of having attained it claims it has, and no benefits for the claimant or society other than what the claimant says it has. The only important thing is that other people must view the person who has claimed enlightenment as somehow special and better than they are. See 'unicorn,' and 'UFO sightings.' All in all, a BLT is more nourishing and better for you, and cheaper. -- The Dictionary of Cutting Through The Bullshit, Get Real Press, 33rd. edition. MORE DEFINITIONS OF ENLIGHTENMENT The Maharishi Mahesh Yogi definition Enlightenment is exactly as I described it over the years, and it's the same for everyone. It's a steady progression through the states of CC, GC, UC and BC to complete fulfillment. When one reaches that state of full enlightenment, one is able to manifest all of the siddhis and levitate, as I do, and bring all of one's ideas to perfect completion, as I did with Vedaland and so many other projects. That'll be a million dollars, please. The Dumb Blonde definition Enlightenment is what I say it is. Anyone who says anything different is WRONG, and is just a monkey-mind chattering away. And I know this to be true because my TM initiator, What's-his-name, said so back when I first learned TM, back in Wherever-it-was-ville. The Vaj definition Enlightenment is what the people I consider enlightened say it is. And it is ONLY what the people I consider enlightened say it is. So there. :-) The TMO definition Enlightenment is the inevitable result of practicing the TM technique, which is the fastest, easiest, most effective means of attaining enlightenment ever seen on planet Earth. This can be verified by doing scientific tests on all the people we have certified as being fully enlightened over the 53 years of our teaching. Come back a week from some Thursday and we will provide you with a list of their names. Turq's definition Enlightenment is something that people who (on the whole) have never experienced it like to talk about as if they knew exactly what it was. In general, the more they talk about it as if they know exactly what it is, the less likelihood there is that they have ever had even a fleeting experience of it. Those who *have* had a fleeting experience of what they consider enlighten- ment to be are basically saying that their subjective experience --
[FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
I also acknowledge that I have an aspect of my mind that is an unchanging witness of my personality. It is an artifact of consciousness and a part of being human if you choose to spend enough time to notice it. I'll even acknowledge that meditating helps you notice this aspect of your mind more clearly. ** This quote (above), is what I'm interested in. The assertion that the unchanging witness is an aspect of the mind and an artifact of consciousness, however, is still unsettled for me. I can understand why you'd assert that, but I don't understand how you could support the assertion. And I'm not saying that you're wrong in the assertion, only that I don't know myself. At some point, it became clear that awareness always is (and was), but somehow I hadn't noticed it before. Meditation and other tools apparently assisted the discovery of it. Awareness persisted in sleep and during episodes of unconsciousness resulting from injury or illness. However, since at no time, did the body fall away, there's no telling whether awareness persists or not when the body dies. (But it feels like it does.) It seems clear that the Eastern traditions and lineages have found the apparent persistence of awareness to have value, and have constructed some elaborate and some convincing arguments to support both the belief in its value and to stimulate individuals to gain that experience in their own lives. Whether or not those traditions have it right, or are merely touting an experience that feels good, or feels right, but doesn't have any larger, transpersonal value is still in question. For myself, I've taken the position that there's enough of value to continue to experiment with consciousness to get a clearer sense of what it all means. Eastern traditions (including Maharishi's), mystical philosophies, and the many insightful posts on FFL have been excellent adjuncts to that continued exploration. Thanks, Curtis. Marek ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_reply@ wrote: Identity is non-physical with the intent to reach a deeper clarity about it? Or do you think I'm just slinging Advaita shit that can safely be dismissed? Does ya got twelve in the juryroom still? My identity is not physical. It is tied to the physical so that when the physical becomes worm food I have a suspicion that I'm not going to be able to remember the Brazilian Samba chords I learned on my guitar this morning. I can't even maintain consciousness when a doctor pumps a white liquid into my veins for a little fireside chat with the interior of my colon. I also acknowledge that I have an aspect of my mind that is an unchanging witness of my personality. It is an artifact of consciousness and a part of being human if you choose to spend enough time to notice it. I'll even acknowledge that meditating helps you notice this aspect of your mind more clearly. But making a case for it being the transpersonal basis for all creation is just imposing a religious assertion on top of it. It is making a bigger deal about it than I think it deserves. But I could be wrong. But so far all the magical stuff claimed about this state of mind has not shown up. Has it? Maharishi was a charismatic interesting guy and all but he didn't show up as having special powers to me, beyond what an eccentric relentless self promoter like Donald Trump exhibits. The Donald sleeps as little as Maharishi did too! curtisdeltablues wrote: enlightenment is that state of consciousness in which a person no longer identifies with, and gets lost in, the objects of perception. You know this sounds like a made-up problem to solve. I never met anyone who was lost in or identified with the objects of perception. Someone would have an unimaginable pathological lack of self awareness for this to be a problem. I mean this seriously because it is one of the fundamental presuppositions of Maharishi's teaching. Can anyone here remember when this was a problem in your life before TM? I honestly can't. Curtis, This is the crux issue: what is the nature of Identity? I think your suspicions are well founded only if you ignore that the mind itself is an object of consciousness. Every thought-feeling (the mind) is a tar baby that allures Identity to become its soul. Moment by moment WE INVEST in objects. We enter them. We identify with them. We affirm their existence like dying folks in the desert crawling towards a mirage of an oasis. Each thought impossibly grabs us effortlessly -- we rubberneck them like roadside accidents . . . unable to avert our gazing. When I buy a new car, woe unto anyone who comes up to it and bangs it with a fist -- I will feel pain I tells ya! That's my Identity you're
[FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
--In other words, mind is a secondary witness to Witnessing; a fact even the Neo-Advaitins can't deny. (some mind-entity - illusory or not - is making various claims). What is the value of having those experiences.? If there is value in such experiences why aren't those experiencing It shouting from the rooftops? - In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Marek Reavis reavisma...@... wrote: I also acknowledge that I have an aspect of my mind that is an unchanging witness of my personality. It is an artifact of consciousness and a part of being human if you choose to spend enough time to notice it. I'll even acknowledge that meditating helps you notice this aspect of your mind more clearly. ** This quote (above), is what I'm interested in. The assertion that the unchanging witness is an aspect of the mind and an artifact of consciousness, however, is still unsettled for me. I can understand why you'd assert that, but I don't understand how you could support the assertion. And I'm not saying that you're wrong in the assertion, only that I don't know myself. At some point, it became clear that awareness always is (and was), but somehow I hadn't noticed it before. Meditation and other tools apparently assisted the discovery of it. Awareness persisted in sleep and during episodes of unconsciousness resulting from injury or illness. However, since at no time, did the body fall away, there's no telling whether awareness persists or not when the body dies. (But it feels like it does.) It seems clear that the Eastern traditions and lineages have found the apparent persistence of awareness to have value, and have constructed some elaborate and some convincing arguments to support both the belief in its value and to stimulate individuals to gain that experience in their own lives. Whether or not those traditions have it right, or are merely touting an experience that feels good, or feels right, but doesn't have any larger, transpersonal value is still in question. For myself, I've taken the position that there's enough of value to continue to experiment with consciousness to get a clearer sense of what it all means. Eastern traditions (including Maharishi's), mystical philosophies, and the many insightful posts on FFL have been excellent adjuncts to that continued exploration. Thanks, Curtis. Marek ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_reply@ wrote: Identity is non-physical with the intent to reach a deeper clarity about it? Or do you think I'm just slinging Advaita shit that can safely be dismissed? Does ya got twelve in the juryroom still? My identity is not physical. It is tied to the physical so that when the physical becomes worm food I have a suspicion that I'm not going to be able to remember the Brazilian Samba chords I learned on my guitar this morning. I can't even maintain consciousness when a doctor pumps a white liquid into my veins for a little fireside chat with the interior of my colon. I also acknowledge that I have an aspect of my mind that is an unchanging witness of my personality. It is an artifact of consciousness and a part of being human if you choose to spend enough time to notice it. I'll even acknowledge that meditating helps you notice this aspect of your mind more clearly. But making a case for it being the transpersonal basis for all creation is just imposing a religious assertion on top of it. It is making a bigger deal about it than I think it deserves. But I could be wrong. But so far all the magical stuff claimed about this state of mind has not shown up. Has it? Maharishi was a charismatic interesting guy and all but he didn't show up as having special powers to me, beyond what an eccentric relentless self promoter like Donald Trump exhibits. The Donald sleeps as little as Maharishi did too! curtisdeltablues wrote: enlightenment is that state of consciousness in which a person no longer identifies with, and gets lost in, the objects of perception. You know this sounds like a made-up problem to solve. I never met anyone who was lost in or identified with the objects of perception. Someone would have an unimaginable pathological lack of self awareness for this to be a problem. I mean this seriously because it is one of the fundamental presuppositions of Maharishi's teaching. Can anyone here remember when this was a problem in your life before TM? I honestly can't. Curtis, This is the crux issue: what is the nature of Identity? I think your suspicions are well founded only if you ignore that the mind itself is an object of consciousness. Every thought- feeling (the mind) is a
[FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
why, the bananas come from the forest, my little chiquita! they grow in big bunches there, and are ripe for the monkeys to eat. us humans don't insert them anywhere except our mouths. does my little chiquita put them other places? can you describe please, my little chiquita? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_reply@ wrote: Curtis, Under no circumstances are you to take a banana from ED11. Absolutely. You don't know where that banana might have been. Worse, you do. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, yifuxero yifux...@... wrote: --In other words, mind is a secondary witness to Witnessing; a fact even the Neo-Advaitins can't deny. (some mind-entity - illusory or not - is making various claims). What is the value of having those experiences.? That is the question that no one asks, because they have already been presented with (and bought hook, line, and sinker) the dogma that achieving this witnessing state is the highest point of human evolution, something that should be achieved. If they had NOT been presented with that view, it would have no value to them at all. And it's not even that hard to achieve. Based on reports of people who practiced techniques of lucid dreaming ( waking up in your dreams, to the point of being able to control them ), after only a few months pretty much everyone I was working with reported being able to witness not only their dreams, but deep sleep as well. These were people who have never meditated in their lives, and they could witness by performing a few simple exercises before sleep, and during it. To them, being able to witness their dreams or deep sleep is small potatoes, nothing to get excited about or value in itself. The point of lucid dreaming is to be able to fully control your dreams, and manifest anything you want in them, visit anyone you want to visit, stuff like that. They laughed with me when I told them that some people think that developing the witness thing was a big deal. They laughed *at* me when I told them that there were people who thought being able to do this was enlightenment...they thought I was putting them on, because in their view no one could be that stupid. The older I get, the more I agree with them. Obviously, I tend to agree with Curtis in all of this. So there is a thing called witnessing your activity. So what? Schizophrenics have that one down pat, or at least some of them do. What good has it done them? What good does it do any- one else? If there is value in such experiences why aren't those experiencing It shouting from the rooftops? - In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Marek Reavis reavismarek@ wrote: I also acknowledge that I have an aspect of my mind that is an unchanging witness of my personality. It is an artifact of consciousness and a part of being human if you choose to spend enough time to notice it. I'll even acknowledge that meditating helps you notice this aspect of your mind more clearly. ** This quote (above), is what I'm interested in. The assertion that the unchanging witness is an aspect of the mind and an artifact of consciousness, however, is still unsettled for me. I can understand why you'd assert that, but I don't understand how you could support the assertion. And I'm not saying that you're wrong in the assertion, only that I don't know myself. At some point, it became clear that awareness always is (and was), but somehow I hadn't noticed it before. Meditation and other tools apparently assisted the discovery of it. Awareness persisted in sleep and during episodes of unconsciousness resulting from injury or illness. However, since at no time, did the body fall away, there's no telling whether awareness persists or not when the body dies. (But it feels like it does.) It seems clear that the Eastern traditions and lineages have found the apparent persistence of awareness to have value, and have constructed some elaborate and some convincing arguments to support both the belief in its value and to stimulate individuals to gain that experience in their own lives. Whether or not those traditions have it right, or are merely touting an experience that feels good, or feels right, but doesn't have any larger, transpersonal value is still in question. For myself, I've taken the position that there's enough of value to continue to experiment with consciousness to get a clearer sense of what it all means. Eastern traditions (including Maharishi's), mystical philosophies, and the many insightful posts on FFL have been excellent adjuncts to that continued exploration. Thanks, Curtis. Marek ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_reply@ wrote: Identity is non-physical with the intent to reach a deeper clarity about it? Or do you think I'm just slinging Advaita shit that can safely be dismissed? Does ya got twelve in the juryroom still? My identity is not physical. It is tied to the physical so that when the physical becomes worm food I have a suspicion that I'm not going to be able to remember the Brazilian Samba chords I learned on my guitar this morning. I can't even maintain consciousness when a doctor pumps a white liquid into my veins for a little
[FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
interesting-- what do you mean by mind is a secondary witness to witnessing? i enjoy the paradox of witnessing occuring on its own, by virtue of the witness (atman), but it needs the mind to express the definition of witnessing, in order to communicate anything at all about it. wouldn't it be more precise to say the mind is in service to the witness, since the mind cannot have an identity of its own? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, yifuxero yifux...@... wrote: --In other words, mind is a secondary witness to Witnessing; a fact even the Neo-Advaitins can't deny. (some mind-entity - illusory or not - is making various claims). What is the value of having those experiences.? If there is value in such experiences why aren't those experiencing It shouting from the rooftops? - In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Marek Reavis reavismarek@ wrote: I also acknowledge that I have an aspect of my mind that is an unchanging witness of my personality. It is an artifact of consciousness and a part of being human if you choose to spend enough time to notice it. I'll even acknowledge that meditating helps you notice this aspect of your mind more clearly. ** This quote (above), is what I'm interested in. The assertion that the unchanging witness is an aspect of the mind and an artifact of consciousness, however, is still unsettled for me. I can understand why you'd assert that, but I don't understand how you could support the assertion. And I'm not saying that you're wrong in the assertion, only that I don't know myself. At some point, it became clear that awareness always is (and was), but somehow I hadn't noticed it before. Meditation and other tools apparently assisted the discovery of it. Awareness persisted in sleep and during episodes of unconsciousness resulting from injury or illness. However, since at no time, did the body fall away, there's no telling whether awareness persists or not when the body dies. (But it feels like it does.) It seems clear that the Eastern traditions and lineages have found the apparent persistence of awareness to have value, and have constructed some elaborate and some convincing arguments to support both the belief in its value and to stimulate individuals to gain that experience in their own lives. Whether or not those traditions have it right, or are merely touting an experience that feels good, or feels right, but doesn't have any larger, transpersonal value is still in question. For myself, I've taken the position that there's enough of value to continue to experiment with consciousness to get a clearer sense of what it all means. Eastern traditions (including Maharishi's), mystical philosophies, and the many insightful posts on FFL have been excellent adjuncts to that continued exploration. Thanks, Curtis. Marek **
[FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
bravo monkey! chatter, chatter, chatter. are you done playing with your banana, and have decided to begin chattering again? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote:
[FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_re...@... wrote: enlightenment is that state of consciousness in which a person no longer identifies with, and gets lost in, the objects of perception. This sounds like the I don't care anymore definition of enlightenment.
[FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_reply@ wrote: enlightenment is that state of consciousness in which a person no longer identifies with, and gets lost in, the objects of perception. This sounds like the I don't care anymore definition of enlightenment. yes, agreed-- on the surface, that IS what it sounds like-- that is why making a mood of such behavior leads to apathy and inefficiency. i remember meeting a fellow once at a wedding who was trying to act and talk, while at the same time thinking, i am unattached, i am unattached came across like a zombie. the Maharishi has been very clear that this is not entertained on the level of thinking or imagining, which is a trap some fall into. the experience is nothing like that, and yet unmistakable. i am at a loss for words beyond that--
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
Enlightenment is not what you think. --- On Tue, 1/27/09, ruthsimplicity no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: From: ruthsimplicity no_re...@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, January 27, 2009, 5:10 PM --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_re...@... wrote: enlightenment is that state of consciousness in which a person no longer identifies with, and gets lost in, the objects of perception. This sounds like the I don't care anymore definition of enlightenment. 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
[FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutp...@... wrote: Enlightenment is not what you think. Morpheus: I know exactly what you mean, Peter. Morpheus: I imagine that right now you're feeling a bit like Alice. Tumbling down the rabbit hole? Neo: You could say that. Morpheus: I can see it in your eyes. You have the look of a man who accepts what he sees because he's expecting to wake up. Ironically, this is not far from the truth. Do you believe in fate, Neo? Neo: No. Morpheus: Why not? Neo: 'Cause I don't like the idea that I'm not in control of my life. Morpheus: I know exactly what you mean. Let me tell you why you're here. You're here because you know something. What you know, you can't explain. But you feel it. You felt it your entire life. That there's something wrong with the world. You don't know what it is, but it's there. Like a splinter in your mind -- driving you mad. It is this feeling that has brought you to me. Do you know what I'm talking about? Neo: The Matrix? Morpheus: Do you want to know what it is? (Neo nods his head.) Morpheus: The Matrix is everywhere, it is all around us. Even now, in this very room. You can see it when you look out your window, or when you turn on your television. You can feel it when you go to work, or when go to church or when you pay your taxes. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth. Neo: What truth? Morpheus: That you are a slave, Neo. Like everyone else, you were born into bondage, born inside a prison that you cannot smell, taste, or touch. A prison for your mind. (long pause, sighs) Unfortunately, no one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself. This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back. (In his left hand, Morpheus shows a blue pill.) Morpheus: You take the blue pill and the story ends. You wake in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. (a red pill is shown in his other hand) You take the red pill and you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes. (Long pause; Neo begins to reach for the red pill) Remember -- all I am offering is the truth, nothing more. (Neo takes the red pill and swallows it with a glass of water) --- On Tue, 1/27/09, ruthsimplicity no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: From: ruthsimplicity no_re...@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, January 27, 2009, 5:10 PM --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_reply@ wrote: enlightenment is that state of consciousness in which a person no longer identifies with, and gets lost in, the objects of perception. This sounds like the I don't care anymore definition of enlightenment. 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
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
Now Raunch, did you pull that from memory? --- On Tue, 1/27/09, raunchydog raunchy...@yahoo.com wrote: From: raunchydog raunchy...@yahoo.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, January 27, 2009, 9:16 PM --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutp...@... wrote: Enlightenment is not what you think. Morpheus: I know exactly what you mean, Peter. Morpheus: I imagine that right now you're feeling a bit like Alice. Tumbling down the rabbit hole? Neo: You could say that. Morpheus: I can see it in your eyes. You have the look of a man who accepts what he sees because he's expecting to wake up. Ironically, this is not far from the truth. Do you believe in fate, Neo? Neo: No. Morpheus: Why not? Neo: 'Cause I don't like the idea that I'm not in control of my life. Morpheus: I know exactly what you mean. Let me tell you why you're here. You're here because you know something. What you know, you can't explain. But you feel it. You felt it your entire life. That there's something wrong with the world. You don't know what it is, but it's there. Like a splinter in your mind -- driving you mad. It is this feeling that has brought you to me. Do you know what I'm talking about? Neo: The Matrix? Morpheus: Do you want to know what it is? (Neo nods his head.) Morpheus: The Matrix is everywhere, it is all around us. Even now, in this very room. You can see it when you look out your window, or when you turn on your television. You can feel it when you go to work, or when go to church or when you pay your taxes. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth. Neo: What truth? Morpheus: That you are a slave, Neo. Like everyone else, you were born into bondage, born inside a prison that you cannot smell, taste, or touch. A prison for your mind. (long pause, sighs) Unfortunately, no one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself. This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back. (In his left hand, Morpheus shows a blue pill.) Morpheus: You take the blue pill and the story ends. You wake in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. (a red pill is shown in his other hand) You take the red pill and you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes. (Long pause; Neo begins to reach for the red pill) Remember -- all I am offering is the truth, nothing more. (Neo takes the red pill and swallows it with a glass of water) --- On Tue, 1/27/09, ruthsimplicity no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: From: ruthsimplicity no_re...@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, January 27, 2009, 5:10 PM --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_reply@ wrote: enlightenment is that state of consciousness in which a person no longer identifies with, and gets lost in, the objects of perception. This sounds like the I don't care anymore definition of enlightenment. 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
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
Enlightenment is not what you think because: You can not get enlightened. A thought is necessarily bound by time and space and therefore has nothing to do with enlightenment. You can not model enlightenment. So with those caveats. In ignorance you are somebody. A psychological private self that relates to the world. Then you get 1st stage enlightenment and you are nobody. Actually, no you to be or not to be. Consciousness becomes conscious of its own consciousness and withdraws identity with any space/time experience. No-Self. No localization of consciousness. Weird as shit for the mind. You no longer exist, only consciousness within which everything occurs. Then you get 2nd stage enlightenment Grasshopper. Now you are everybody. Consciousness awakens to its bound value of space and time as simply consciousness. All moving within itself. From here to here through there according to Maharishi. Those are good words. --- On Tue, 1/27/09, Peter drpetersutp...@yahoo.com wrote: From: Peter drpetersutp...@yahoo.com Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, January 27, 2009, 8:18 PM Enlightenment is not what you think. --- On Tue, 1/27/09, ruthsimplicity no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: From: ruthsimplicity no_re...@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, January 27, 2009, 5:10 PM --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_re...@... wrote: enlightenment is that state of consciousness in which a person no longer identifies with, and gets lost in, the objects of perception. This sounds like the I don't care anymore definition of enlightenment. 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
[FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
--you say, to paraphrase: (according to MMY, those are good words). But You can not get enlightened are your words, not his. He didn't often use the E word (if ever) in the context of a progression from CC - BC - UC; but he might have said something like: You can reach Unity Consciousness. That being the case, MMY's teachings would conflict with your Neo-Advaitin nonsense. - In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutp...@... wrote: Enlightenment is not what you think because: You can not get enlightened. A thought is necessarily bound by time and space and therefore has nothing to do with enlightenment. You can not model enlightenment. So with those caveats. In ignorance you are somebody. A psychological private self that relates to the world. Then you get 1st stage enlightenment and you are nobody. Actually, no you to be or not to be. Consciousness becomes conscious of its own consciousness and withdraws identity with any space/time experience. No-Self. No localization of consciousness. Weird as shit for the mind. You no longer exist, only consciousness within which everything occurs. Then you get 2nd stage enlightenment Grasshopper. Now you are everybody. Consciousness awakens to its bound value of space and time as simply consciousness. All moving within itself. From here to here through there according to Maharishi. Those are good words. --- On Tue, 1/27/09, Peter drpetersutp...@... wrote: From: Peter drpetersutp...@... Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, January 27, 2009, 8:18 PM Enlightenment is not what you think. --- On Tue, 1/27/09, ruthsimplicity no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: From: ruthsimplicity no_re...@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, January 27, 2009, 5:10 PM --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_reply@ wrote: enlightenment is that state of consciousness in which a person no longer identifies with, and gets lost in, the objects of perception. This sounds like the I don't care anymore definition of enlightenment. 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
[FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_reply@ wrote: your definitions all sound so monkey-like. here's a banana, my little chiquita. enlightenment is that state of consciousness in which a person no longer identifies with, and gets lost in, the objects of perception. You know this sounds like a made-up problem to solve. I never met anyone who was lost in or identified with the objects of perception. Someone would have an unimaginable pathological lack of self awareness for this to be a problem. I mean this seriously because it is one of the fundamental presuppositions of Maharishi's teaching. Can anyone here remember when this was a problem in your life before TM? I honestly can't. I agree. I was about to respond that fawning over a state of consciousness in which a person no longer identifies with, and gets lost in, the objects of perception is like fawning over a SoC where I no longer trip over my untied shoelaces and don't blow buggers out my nose when i laugh (usually).
[FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutp...@... wrote: Now Raunch, did you pull that from memory? Sure, I did, idiot savant that I am or maybe it's just the red pill working on me. --- On Tue, 1/27/09, raunchydog raunchy...@... wrote: From: raunchydog raunchy...@... Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, January 27, 2009, 9:16 PM --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutphen@ wrote: Enlightenment is not what you think. Morpheus: I know exactly what you mean, Peter. Morpheus: I imagine that right now you're feeling a bit like Alice. Tumbling down the rabbit hole? Neo: You could say that. Morpheus: I can see it in your eyes. You have the look of a man who accepts what he sees because he's expecting to wake up. Ironically, this is not far from the truth. Do you believe in fate, Neo? Neo: No. Morpheus: Why not? Neo: 'Cause I don't like the idea that I'm not in control of my life. Morpheus: I know exactly what you mean. Let me tell you why you're here. You're here because you know something. What you know, you can't explain. But you feel it. You felt it your entire life. That there's something wrong with the world. You don't know what it is, but it's there. Like a splinter in your mind -- driving you mad. It is this feeling that has brought you to me. Do you know what I'm talking about? Neo: The Matrix? Morpheus: Do you want to know what it is? (Neo nods his head.) Morpheus: The Matrix is everywhere, it is all around us. Even now, in this very room. You can see it when you look out your window, or when you turn on your television. You can feel it when you go to work, or when go to church or when you pay your taxes. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth. Neo: What truth? Morpheus: That you are a slave, Neo. Like everyone else, you were born into bondage, born inside a prison that you cannot smell, taste, or touch. A prison for your mind. (long pause, sighs) Unfortunately, no one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself. This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back. (In his left hand, Morpheus shows a blue pill.) Morpheus: You take the blue pill and the story ends. You wake in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. (a red pill is shown in his other hand) You take the red pill and you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes. (Long pause; Neo begins to reach for the red pill) Remember -- all I am offering is the truth, nothing more. (Neo takes the red pill and swallows it with a glass of water) --- On Tue, 1/27/09, ruthsimplicity no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: From: ruthsimplicity no_re...@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, January 27, 2009, 5:10 PM --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_reply@ wrote: enlightenment is that state of consciousness in which a person no longer identifies with, and gets lost in, the objects of perception. This sounds like the I don't care anymore definition of enlightenment. 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
[FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
Snake! It's a snake! Calm down folks, GrateSwan thought his shoelace was a snake but now that he has blown his nose (properly) and he has greater mental clarity, everyone can put away their snake bite kit. Swan apologizes for panicking. He realizes identifying with the snake was a mistake of his intellect and he has sworn to free himself from perpetual ignorance by doing TM regularly. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_reply@ wrote: your definitions all sound so monkey-like. here's a banana, my little chiquita. enlightenment is that state of consciousness in which a person no longer identifies with, and gets lost in, the objects of perception. You know this sounds like a made-up problem to solve. I never met anyone who was lost in or identified with the objects of perception. Someone would have an unimaginable pathological lack of self awareness for this to be a problem. I mean this seriously because it is one of the fundamental presuppositions of Maharishi's teaching. Can anyone here remember when this was a problem in your life before TM? I honestly can't. I agree. I was about to respond that fawning over a state of consciousness in which a person no longer identifies with, and gets lost in, the objects of perception is like fawning over a SoC where I no longer trip over my untied shoelaces and don't blow buggers out my nose when i laugh (usually).
