[FairfieldLife] Re: The two models
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip Actually, it seems to me the you're already enlightened model is the one that's a lie. If you're still lacking the realization, you're not enlightened. This model is designed to make people feel stupid if they're still lacking the realization, as if there were something wrong with them for not having it--e.g., what should have been obvious, IGNORANT of what's been right in his face since the day he was born. But it's the truth. And, as I've said *many times* here, I DON'T KNOW THE TRUTH. I don't even *believe* in such a thing as 'TRUTH.' --Barry Wright, 7/31/07 I worked with a teacher for many years who per- sonified the 'I can't tell you the truth about enlightenment because there IS no truth about enlightenment that can be put into words' philos- ophy I have been rappin' about recently. He went out of his way to point out that everything he was saying was in a context, and from a particular point of view. Shift context and change points of view and, he said, it would no longer be true. --Barry Wright, 9/21/07 (And endless other similar examples...)
[FairfieldLife] Re: The two models
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Judy writes: snipped This model is designed to make people feel stupid if they're still lacking the realization, as if there were something wrong with them for not having it--e.g., what should have been obvious, IGNORANT of what's been right in his face since the day he was born. It's the very worst kind of elitism, playing with words to exalt oneself and denigrate others. TomT: I did not use the word IGNORANT. I was quoting Barry, Tom. What on earth made you think I was misquoting you? You hadn't even made your post when I made this one.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The two models
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip Actually, it seems to me the you're already enlightened model is the one that's a lie. If you're still lacking the realization, you're not enlightened. This model is designed to make people feel stupid if they're still lacking the realization, as if there were something wrong with them for not having it--e.g., what should have been obvious, IGNORANT of what's been right in his face since the day he was born. But it's the truth. I worked with a teacher for many years who per- sonified the 'I can't tell you the truth about enlightenment because there IS no truth about enlightenment that can be put into words' philos- ophy I have been rappin' about recently. He went out of his way to point out that everything he was saying was in a context, and from a particular point of view. Shift context and change points of view and, he said, it would no longer be true. Are you trying to suggest that my four words were not written in a context? Within that context, they're perfectly true. In other contexts, not so much. Are there any other quotes of mine that you need help understanding? :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: The two models
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip Actually, it seems to me the you're already enlightened model is the one that's a lie. If you're still lacking the realization, you're not enlightened. This model is designed to make people feel stupid if they're still lacking the realization, as if there were something wrong with them for not having it--e.g., what should have been obvious, IGNORANT of what's been right in his face since the day he was born. But it's the truth. I worked with a teacher for many years who per- sonified the 'I can't tell you the truth about enlightenment because there IS no truth about enlightenment that can be put into words' philos- ophy I have been rappin' about recently. He went out of his way to point out that everything he was saying was in a context, and from a particular point of view. Shift context and change points of view and, he said, it would no longer be true. Are you trying to suggest that my four words were not written in a context? Within that context, they're perfectly true. In other contexts, not so much. I couldn't agree more. That's been my point all along; thanks for confirming it. But I would also suggest that a significant part of that context *for you* is that it offers you yet another opportunity to attempt to put others down while exalting yourself. See, I have no problem with your model, only with the way you use it, and your insistence that it's somehow *more true* than the progress model. Metaphysically, both models are equally true and equally valid, just from different states-of- consciousness contexts. What is *not* valid is the attempt to apply the model from one state of consciousness to another state of consciousness--particularly when the attempt is made in the interests of denigrating others.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The two models
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Are you trying to suggest that my four words were not written in a context? Within that context, they're perfectly true. In other contexts, not so much. Oh, forgot to mention, you somehow managed to snip, without indicating the deletion, the first quote I provided: And, as I've said *many times* here, I DON'T KNOW THE TRUTH. I don't even *believe* in such a thing as 'TRUTH.' --Barry Wright, 7/31/07
[FairfieldLife] Re: The two models
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: snip Are you trying to suggest that my four words were not written in a context? Within that context, they're perfectly true. In other contexts, not so much. Oh, forgot to mention, you somehow managed to snip, without indicating the deletion, the first quote I provided: And, as I've said *many times* here, I DON'T KNOW THE TRUTH. I don't even *believe* in such a thing as 'TRUTH.' --Barry Wright, 7/31/07 Are you and Jim in some kind of contest to see which of you can obsess about me the most? If so, I think he's winning right now. You'll have to make 20-25 more posts about me this week to catch up. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: The two models
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: snip Are you trying to suggest that my four words were not written in a context? Within that context, they're perfectly true. In other contexts, not so much. Oh, forgot to mention, you somehow managed to snip, without indicating the deletion, the first quote I provided: And, as I've said *many times* here, I DON'T KNOW THE TRUTH. I don't even *believe* in such a thing as 'TRUTH.' --Barry Wright, 7/31/07 Are you and Jim in some kind of contest to see which of you can obsess about me the most? If so, I think he's winning right now. You'll have to make 20-25 more posts about me this week to catch up. :-) Translation: Boy, she really got me that time. Now, how can I distract attention from the fact that I keep getting shot down?
[FairfieldLife] Re: The two models
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: snip Are you trying to suggest that my four words were not written in a context? Within that context, they're perfectly true. In other contexts, not so much. Oh, forgot to mention, you somehow managed to snip, without indicating the deletion, the first quote I provided: And, as I've said *many times* here, I DON'T KNOW THE TRUTH. I don't even *believe* in such a thing as 'TRUTH.' --Barry Wright, 7/31/07 Are you and Jim in some kind of contest to see which of you can obsess about me the most? If so, I think he's winning right now. You'll have to make 20-25 more posts about me this week to catch up. :-) Translation: Boy, she really got me that time. Now, how can I distract attention from the fact that I keep getting shot down? Do you ever LISTEN to yourself, Judy? How old are you? 67? How long have you been meditating? 35 years? And you get off on believing that you got me? Don't you understand how OBSESSED you and Jim and Nablus are with me? Everyone else here understands it. And I somehow think that they're not following your imaginary triumphs on their own tote boards. You're busy trying to score imaginary points about contradicting oneself against someone who is COMPLETELY comfortable with contradiction. As for the quote itself, I'm perfectly com- fortable with it, too. How could I not be? It's the TRUTH. :-) :-) :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: The two models
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: snip Are you trying to suggest that my four words were not written in a context? Within that context, they're perfectly true. In other contexts, not so much. Oh, forgot to mention, you somehow managed to snip, without indicating the deletion, the first quote I provided: And, as I've said *many times* here, I DON'T KNOW THE TRUTH. I don't even *believe* in such a thing as 'TRUTH.' --Barry Wright, 7/31/07 Are you and Jim in some kind of contest to see which of you can obsess about me the most? If so, I think he's winning right now. You'll have to make 20-25 more posts about me this week to catch up. :-) Translation: Boy, she really got me that time. Now, how can I distract attention from the fact that I keep getting shot down? Do you ever LISTEN to yourself, Judy? Translation: Oops, she caught me AGAIN. How old are you? 67? How long have you been meditating? 35 years? And you get off on believing that you got me? The evidence that you've been gotten does give me kind of a chuckle, yes. Don't you understand how OBSESSED you and Jim and Nablus are with me? You ain't in a position to accuse anybody else of obsession, dude. Everyone else here understands it. And I somehow think that they're not following your imaginary triumphs on their own tote boards. You're busy trying to score imaginary points about contradicting oneself against someone who is COMPLETELY comfortable with contradiction. Then why does it bother you so much when your contradictions are pointed out? After all, you're the guy who insists he doesn't want to be taken seriously. As for the quote itself, I'm perfectly com- fortable with it, too. You're not being taken seriously. Live with it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The two models
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are you and Jim in some kind of contest to see which of you can obsess about me the most? If so, I think he's winning right now. You'll have to make 20-25 more posts about me this week to catch up. :-) sounds obsessive- all the counting and all. Interesting that you can easily count to 30 or so, but you can't reliably count to zero, can you?...:-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: The two models
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: snip Are you trying to suggest that my four words were not written in a context? Within that context, they're perfectly true. In other contexts, not so much. Oh, forgot to mention, you somehow managed to snip, without indicating the deletion, the first quote I provided: And, as I've said *many times* here, I DON'T KNOW THE TRUTH. I don't even *believe* in such a thing as 'TRUTH.' --Barry Wright, 7/31/07 Are you and Jim in some kind of contest to see which of you can obsess about me the most? If so, I think he's winning right now. You'll have to make 20-25 more posts about me this week to catch up. :-) Translation: Boy, she really got me that time. Now, how can I distract attention from the fact that I keep getting shot down? Do you ever LISTEN to yourself, Judy? How old are you? 67? How long have you been meditating? 35 years? And you get off on believing that you got me? Don't you understand how OBSESSED you and Jim and Nablus are with me? What ?? Take your medication, go for a walk, find a 18 year old, get a life, buy a barrel of cheap spanish red wine if you must, but stop hallucinating. You are perhaps not aware of this and perhaps it goes against every bone in your body, but I do not find you very interesting, certainly not enough to become obsessed with.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The two models
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: snip Are you trying to suggest that my four words were not written in a context? Within that context, they're perfectly true. In other contexts, not so much. Oh, forgot to mention, you somehow managed to snip, without indicating the deletion, the first quote I provided: And, as I've said *many times* here, I DON'T KNOW THE TRUTH. I don't even *believe* in such a thing as 'TRUTH.' --Barry Wright, 7/31/07 Are you and Jim in some kind of contest to see which of you can obsess about me the most? If so, I think he's winning right now. You'll have to make 20-25 more posts about me this week to catch up. :-) Translation: Boy, she really got me that time. Now, how can I distract attention from the fact that I keep getting shot down? Do you ever LISTEN to yourself, Judy? How old are you? 67? How long have you been meditating? 35 years? And you get off on believing that you got me? Don't you understand how OBSESSED you and Jim and Nablus are with me? What ?? Take your medication, go for a walk, find a 18 year old, get a life, buy a barrel of cheap spanish red wine if you must, but stop hallucinating. You are perhaps not aware of this and perhaps it goes against every bone in your body, but I do not find you very interesting, certainly not enough to become obsessed with. In fact, the only person to be obsessed with you is yourself. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: The two models
Larry wrote: I'm curious, does every thread on this forum tend to degrade like this? This forum is all about the people who belong to it ..:) Yes, Larry, after about two hours, almost every thread on this forum degrades rapidly. The TMers seem to have a very limited attention span often degenerating into endless arguments.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The two models
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 sandiego108@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: this sounds like a fantasy on your part- an ego trip. And it still doesn't explain your insistence that people in your estimation aren't enlightened because they don't *act* enlightened... do you try to *act* enlightened? I don't have to. As always Turq, clear as a bell. I thought so. :-) I don't claim to be enlightened the way Jimbo does, so why would I try to act enlightened? You claim a different enlightenment than Jim Flanegin since you said we all are enlightened anyway. I see, tapas not necessary. Cheers ! ;-) I'm curious, does every thread on this forum tend to degrade like this? This forum is all about the people who belong to it ..:)
[FairfieldLife] Re: The two models
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 sandiego108@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: this sounds like a fantasy on your part- an ego trip. And it still doesn't explain your insistence that people in your estimation aren't enlightened because they don't *act* enlightened... do you try to *act* enlightened? I don't have to. As always Turq, clear as a bell. I thought so. :-) I don't claim to be enlightened the way Jimbo does, so why would I try to act enlightened? You claim a different enlightenment than Jim Flanegin since you said we all are enlightened anyway. I see, tapas not necessary. Cheers ! ;-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: The two models
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 sandiego108@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: this sounds like a fantasy on your part- an ego trip. And it still doesn't explain your insistence that people in your estimation aren't enlightened because they don't *act* enlightened... do you try to *act* enlightened? I don't have to. As always Turq, clear as a bell. I thought so. :-) I don't claim to be enlightened the way Jimbo does, so why would I try to act enlightened?
[FairfieldLife] Re: The two models
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 sandiego108@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: this sounds like a fantasy on your part- an ego trip. And it still doesn't explain your insistence that people in your estimation aren't enlightened because they don't *act* enlightened... do you try to *act* enlightened? I don't have to. As always Turq, clear as a bell.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The two models
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: sh, don't wake TB up- he is sleeping... And 18 of your last 20 posts have been spent obsessing on and attacking me. Is this some strategy to convince us that you are enlightened, or is that really all that you are able to think about?
[FairfieldLife] Re: The two models
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 sandiego108@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: this sounds like a fantasy on your part- an ego trip. And it still doesn't explain your insistence that people in your estimation aren't enlightened because they don't *act* enlightened... do you try to *act* enlightened? I don't have to. As always Turq, clear as a bell. the Tur*quoise B thinking goes something like this: Everyone is enlightened, but they don't know it, although those that claim to be enlightened are like everyone else, however, TB knows who is enlightened by the way they express themselves, and yet TB is like everyone else, but isn't enlightened, but realizes his enlightenment, unless he changes his mind, in which case all of the above is moot. Some would call this crazy wisdom, and others would just call it crazy...:-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: The two models
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 sandiego108@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: this sounds like a fantasy on your part- an ego trip. And it still doesn't explain your insistence that people in your estimation aren't enlightened because they don't *act* enlightened... do you try to *act* enlightened? I don't have to. As always Turq, clear as a bell. I thought so. :-) I don't claim to be enlightened the way Jimbo does, so why would I try to act enlightened? You claim a different enlightenment than Jim Flanegin since you said we all are enlightened anyway. I see, tapas not necessary. Cheers ! ;-) sh, don't wake TB up- he is sleeping...
[FairfieldLife] Re: The two models
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 sandiego108@ wrote: sh, don't wake TB up- he is sleeping... And 18 of your last 20 posts have been spent obsessing on and attacking me. Is this some strategy to convince us that you are enlightened, or is that really all that you are able to think about? its carzy dude! :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: The two models
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 sandiego108@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: this sounds like a fantasy on your part- an ego trip. And it still doesn't explain your insistence that people in your estimation aren't enlightened because they don't *act* enlightened... do you try to *act* enlightened? I don't have to. As always Turq, clear as a bell. the Tur*quoise B thinking goes something like this: Everyone is enlightened, but they don't know it, although those that claim to be enlightened are like everyone else, however, TB knows who is enlightened by the way they express themselves, and yet TB is like everyone else, but isn't enlightened, but realizes his enlightenment, unless he changes his mind, in which case all of the above is moot. Some would call this crazy wisdom, and others would just call it crazy...:-) Or the excuse buddhists use for not having to do tapas. Reading books and plenty of cheap vino will do. ;-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: The two models
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 sandiego108@ wrote: sh, don't wake TB up- he is sleeping... And 18 of your last 20 posts have been spent obsessing on and attacking me. Is this some strategy to convince us that you are enlightened, or is that really all that you are able to think about? I must admit that I have never seen Jim being into trying to convince anyone. But if you could convince me that I am already enlightened I might reconsider.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The two models
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 sandiego108@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 sandiego108@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: this sounds like a fantasy on your part- an ego trip. And it still doesn't explain your insistence that people in your estimation aren't enlightened because they don't *act* enlightened... do you try to *act* enlightened? I don't have to. As always Turq, clear as a bell. the Tur*quoise B thinking goes something like this: Everyone is enlightened, but they don't know it, although those that claim to be enlightened are like everyone else, however, TB knows who is enlightened by the way they express themselves, and yet TB is like everyone else, but isn't enlightened, but realizes his enlightenment, unless he changes his mind, in which case all of the above is moot. Some would call this crazy wisdom, and others would just call it crazy...:-) Or the excuse buddhists use for not having to do tapas. Reading books and plenty of cheap vino will do. ;-) en-lite-tenment vs. enlightenment...:-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: The two models
Or the excuse buddhists use for not having to do tapas. Nabby, the guy lives in Spain for God's sake. He gets served a version of tapas with every glass of wine ordered probably. Now I don't know if he is doing tapas as you recommend, he is probably just eating it. But some of the squid tapas might be doable. It has certainly crossed my mind...did I just say that out loud? I hope that helps. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 sandiego108@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 sandiego108@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: this sounds like a fantasy on your part- an ego trip. And it still doesn't explain your insistence that people in your estimation aren't enlightened because they don't *act* enlightened... do you try to *act* enlightened? I don't have to. As always Turq, clear as a bell. the Tur*quoise B thinking goes something like this: Everyone is enlightened, but they don't know it, although those that claim to be enlightened are like everyone else, however, TB knows who is enlightened by the way they express themselves, and yet TB is like everyone else, but isn't enlightened, but realizes his enlightenment, unless he changes his mind, in which case all of the above is moot. Some would call this crazy wisdom, and others would just call it crazy...:-) Or the excuse buddhists use for not having to do tapas. Reading books and plenty of cheap vino will do. ;-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: The two models
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Or the excuse buddhists use for not having to do tapas. Nabby, the guy lives in Spain for God's sake. He gets served a version of tapas with every glass of wine ordered probably. Now I don't know if he is doing tapas as you recommend, he is probably just eating it. But some of the squid tapas might be doable. It has certainly crossed my mind...did I just say that out loud? I hope that helps. so...you're saying he is literally *screwing* himself out of further enlightenment? How insightful!
[FairfieldLife] Re: The two models
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlis tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlist@ wrote: Barry writes snipped: And again, you are assuming the unenlightened model, which believes that progress *has* to be made towards enlightenment. If you shift to another equally accurate model and description of the process -- that everyone is always already enlightened and that the *only* thing that marks enlightenment is a realization of what has always already been going on -- then there is no progress possible. TomT: The reason it is called ignorance is that one actually is able to ignore that which they always have been and will always be. It is not called stupid or smart or arrogant or gratuitous or a lie it is called IGNORANCE. Name and form. For those who have had a realization experience, whether it be temporary or permanent, the always already enlightened model is just so much more *accurate*. Funny, above you called the progress model equally accurate. And as I've already pointed out, the model per se isn't any different, it just uses different words to express the same thing. It's *obvious* when it happens that there was never anywhere to go, nothing to become, no stress to get rid of, no moment at which you were ever unenlightened. Enlightenment is, has always been, and will always be; the only thing lacking up til now has been the realization of what should have been obvious. Except that it's obvious only once you've had that realization. What you describe as something lacking is what the progress model calls ignorance or unenlightenment. What's lacking is enlightenment. And there's no reason to suppose there isn't any progress involved in remedying that lack, whether one recognizes it or not. snip As far as I can tell, the entire TM model for the enlightenment process is a LIE. Worse, it is a *known* lie, because Maharishi has at times written eloquently about the other model, the always already enlightened model. So he *chose* to tell people that they were unenlightened, I.e., lacking the realization that they were always already enlightened. and would remain unenlightened until certain undefined conditions were met. I.e., the condition of realization that they were always already enlightened. He chose to *reinforce* the ignorance rather than dispel it. WHY, one wonders? Perhaps because he knows it doesn't make any damn difference. Actually, it seems to me the you're already enlightened model is the one that's a lie. If you're still lacking the realization, you're not enlightened. This model is designed to make people feel stupid if they're still lacking the realization, as if there were something wrong with them for not having it--e.g., what should have been obvious, IGNORANT of what's been right in his face since the day he was born. It's the very worst kind of elitism, playing with words to exalt oneself and denigrate others.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The two models
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlis tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlist@ wrote: Barry writes snipped: And again, you are assuming the unenlightened model, which believes that progress *has* to be made towards enlightenment. If you shift to another equally accurate model and description of the process -- that everyone is always already enlightened and that the *only* thing that marks enlightenment is a realization of what has always already been going on -- then there is no progress possible. TomT: The reason it is called ignorance is that one actually is able to ignore that which they always have been and will always be. It is not called stupid or smart or arrogant or gratuitous or a lie it is called IGNORANCE. Name and form. For those who have had a realization experience, whether it be temporary or permanent, the always already enlightened model is just so much more *accurate*. It's *obvious* when it happens that there was never anywhere to go, nothing to become, no stress to get rid of, no moment at which you were ever unenlightened. Enlightenment is, has always been, and will always be; the only thing lacking up til now has been the realization of what should have been obvious. As Tom suggests, the being who has considered himself unenlightened has just been being IGNORANT of what's been right in his face since the day he was born. So I've always wondered WHY spiritual teachers went for that *other* model, the *inaccurate* one. You know the one -- the one that says that there are things you have to do to become enlight- ened, that there are obstacles like stress that can prevent enlightenment, that one can ever be unenlightened. Why not do what Ramana Maharshi and a few other teachers did and just TELL THE TRUTH from Day One: You're enlightened. Right here, right now. GET OVER all this 'unenlightened' stuff already. :-) As far as I can tell, the entire TM model for the enlightenment process is a LIE. Worse, it is a *known* lie, because Maharishi has at times written eloquently about the other model, the always already enlightened model. So he *chose* to tell people that they were unenlightened, and would remain unenlightened until certain undefined conditions were met. He chose to *reinforce* the ignorance rather than dispel it. WHY, one wonders? My readings of vedic texts implies that acquiring enlightenment is like becoming a doctor - - that is, after one has demonstrated sufficient proficiency with the material, then the title is bestowed upon you, (thru practice of yoga) one earns enlightenment the old fashioned way. This traditional 'model' takes a polite approach to enlightenment - as compared to the buccaneer approach where one can create opportunities of heightened eligibility (aka Grace) - - the thinking being that all that is required is a familiarity with the transcendent - - for example, if closing your eyes right now (or better yet with eyes open); if the notion of I Am or the Transcendent resonates - than you are eligible. So, create your own moments of Grace, and try on the idea of I AM That - - does it fit? Hey remember this, 50% of all doctors graduated in the bottom half of their class - likewise, the Self is not exact till you are there, so the point where you leap is up to you. Keep in mind the naturalness of consciousness (as compared to an experience) - we are not looking for something like Wow I've been enlightened for 2 hours and 22 minutes and it is really a trip .. if any impression is present, it be more like this is how I have always lived or this is how human beings live . . not unlike waking state . . so be a pirate AARGH
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The two models
On Jan 31, 2008, at 10:30 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote: This model is designed to make people feel stupid if they're still lacking the realization, as if there were something wrong with them for not having it--e.g., what should have been obvious, IGNORANT of what's been right in his face since the day he was born. It's the very worst kind of elitism, playing with words to exalt oneself and denigrate others. Quite the opposite, the actual intention (at least in Buddhadharma, but I suspect we see the same thing is seen in Hinduism's various darshanas or ways-of-seeing ) is that there's 'different strokes for different folks'. When the movement came out with its mistake of the intellect phrase it kinda struck me this same way. Unfortunate choice of words IMO. It's a translation of a common word used in Ayurveda is all it is. The problem with the TMO, they seem to use it frequently outside it's intended context.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The two models
This model is designed to make people feel stupid if they're still lacking the realization, as if there were something wrong with them for not having it--e.g., what should have been obvious, IGNORANT of what's been right in his face since the day he was born. It's the very worst kind of elitism, playing with words to exalt oneself and denigrate others. When the movement came out with its mistake of the intellect phrase it kinda struck me this same way. Unfortunate choice of words IMO. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlis tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlist@ wrote: Barry writes snipped: And again, you are assuming the unenlightened model, which believes that progress *has* to be made towards enlightenment. If you shift to another equally accurate model and description of the process -- that everyone is always already enlightened and that the *only* thing that marks enlightenment is a realization of what has always already been going on -- then there is no progress possible. TomT: The reason it is called ignorance is that one actually is able to ignore that which they always have been and will always be. It is not called stupid or smart or arrogant or gratuitous or a lie it is called IGNORANCE. Name and form. For those who have had a realization experience, whether it be temporary or permanent, the always already enlightened model is just so much more *accurate*. Funny, above you called the progress model equally accurate. And as I've already pointed out, the model per se isn't any different, it just uses different words to express the same thing. It's *obvious* when it happens that there was never anywhere to go, nothing to become, no stress to get rid of, no moment at which you were ever unenlightened. Enlightenment is, has always been, and will always be; the only thing lacking up til now has been the realization of what should have been obvious. Except that it's obvious only once you've had that realization. What you describe as something lacking is what the progress model calls ignorance or unenlightenment. What's lacking is enlightenment. And there's no reason to suppose there isn't any progress involved in remedying that lack, whether one recognizes it or not. snip As far as I can tell, the entire TM model for the enlightenment process is a LIE. Worse, it is a *known* lie, because Maharishi has at times written eloquently about the other model, the always already enlightened model. So he *chose* to tell people that they were unenlightened, I.e., lacking the realization that they were always already enlightened. and would remain unenlightened until certain undefined conditions were met. I.e., the condition of realization that they were always already enlightened. He chose to *reinforce* the ignorance rather than dispel it. WHY, one wonders? Perhaps because he knows it doesn't make any damn difference. Actually, it seems to me the you're already enlightened model is the one that's a lie. If you're still lacking the realization, you're not enlightened. This model is designed to make people feel stupid if they're still lacking the realization, as if there were something wrong with them for not having it--e.g., what should have been obvious, IGNORANT of what's been right in his face since the day he was born. It's the very worst kind of elitism, playing with words to exalt oneself and denigrate others.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The two models
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlis tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlist@ wrote: Barry writes snipped: And again, you are assuming the unenlightened model, which believes that progress *has* to be made towards enlightenment. If you shift to another equally accurate model and description of the process -- that everyone is always already enlightened and that the *only* thing that marks enlightenment is a realization of what has always already been going on -- then there is no progress possible. TomT: The reason it is called ignorance is that one actually is able to ignore that which they always have been and will always be. It is not called stupid or smart or arrogant or gratuitous or a lie it is called IGNORANCE. Name and form. For those who have had a realization experience, whether it be temporary or permanent, the always already enlightened model is just so much more *accurate*. Funny, above you called the progress model equally accurate. And as I've already pointed out, the model per se isn't any different, it just uses different words to express the same thing. It's *obvious* when it happens that there was never anywhere to go, nothing to become, no stress to get rid of, no moment at which you were ever unenlightened. Enlightenment is, has always been, and will always be; the only thing lacking up til now has been the realization of what should have been obvious. Except that it's obvious only once you've had that realization. What you describe as something lacking is what the progress model calls ignorance or unenlightenment. What's lacking is enlightenment. And there's no reason to suppose there isn't any progress involved in remedying that lack, whether one recognizes it or not. snip As far as I can tell, the entire TM model for the enlightenment process is a LIE. Worse, it is a *known* lie, because Maharishi has at times written eloquently about the other model, the always already enlightened model. So he *chose* to tell people that they were unenlightened, I.e., lacking the realization that they were always already enlightened. and would remain unenlightened until certain undefined conditions were met. I.e., the condition of realization that they were always already enlightened. He chose to *reinforce* the ignorance rather than dispel it. WHY, one wonders? Perhaps because he knows it doesn't make any damn difference. Actually, it seems to me the you're already enlightened model is the one that's a lie. If you're still lacking the realization, you're not enlightened. This model is designed to make people feel stupid if they're still lacking the realization, as if there were something wrong with them for not having it--e.g., what should have been obvious, IGNORANT of what's been right in his face since the day he was born. But it's the truth. THAT is what you're pissed off about. It's the very worst kind of elitism, playing with words to exalt oneself and denigrate others. Whatever. If you feel stupid with this model, that's because it places the *reason* for your belief in your own unenlightenment squarely where it belongs -- in your own lap. Just as you prefer to believe in bad guys in politics and here on Fairfield Life, and contin- ually try to find people or things on which you can place blame for the things you don't like, you'd prefer to believe that there are reasons that you don't perceive yourself to be enlightened. There are. You've never made the CHOICE to perceive the reality of the situation. You'd prefer to cling to the notion that you're unenlightened. Whatever. If you get off on that, I guess there is nothing more to say. Except that by my count, this compulsive post of yours claiming that I'm an elitist puts you over the 50-post limit for this week. Rick's count is the official one, of course, but if his count agrees with mine, I guess I'll see you Saturday the 9th, not Saturday the 2nd. And, *whenever* you next appear, I'd be willing to bet you'll still be clinging to your model of I'm unenlightened no matter what *anyone* tells me. And the fact that I'm unenlightened is somebody/something else's fault, not mine!
[FairfieldLife] Re: The two models
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [I wrote:] This model is designed to make people feel stupid if they're still lacking the realization, as if there were something wrong with them for not having it--e.g., what should have been obvious, IGNORANT of what's been right in his face since the day he was born. It's the very worst kind of elitism, playing with words to exalt oneself and denigrate others. When the movement came out with its mistake of the intellect phrase it kinda struck me this same way. Unfortunate choice of words IMO. Even though the intellect is still mistaken in enlightenment? Even though we couldn't function in the relative without that mistake? Even though every word out of MMY's mouth is in the language of the mistaken intellect? Seems to me it should have exactly the opposite effect--it explains why we don't automatically realize we're always already enlightened, why it isn't our fault that we don't realize it. The intellect's mistake is that it's too smart for its own good. That's why we transcend, so that the intellect shuts up and quits misleading us, so we can experience Self-referral without getting hung up in paradox and infinite regress, which is what Self-referral looks like to the intellect. (My last post for the week, gang.)
[FairfieldLife] Re: The two models
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This model is designed to make people feel stupid if they're still lacking the realization, as if there were something wrong with them for not having it--e.g., what should have been obvious, IGNORANT of what's been right in his face since the day he was born. It's the very worst kind of elitism, playing with words to exalt oneself and denigrate others. When the movement came out with its mistake of the intellect phrase it kinda struck me this same way. Unfortunate choice of words IMO. The difference is that if it's the mistake of the intellect it's somebody ELSE's fault. It's like the people who believe in it are whining, It's the universe's fault, or God's fault, or the laws of nature's fault, or somebody's...it's certainly not MINE. In the it's somebody/something ELSE's fault that I'm not enlightened model, there is something *outside* of one's self to blame it on. And there is something *outside* of one's self that prevents you from realizing your enlightenment. You don't have to take any responsibility for not being enlightened, and you can't really do all that much to change the situation, because it's controlled by that mysterious something outside of one's self. In the always already enlightened model, the fact that you don't perceive yourself to be enlightened is always *your* fault. You just haven't made that choice. BUT, at any moment you *could* make that choice, and change things, and realize what has always already been present. Me, I like the always already enlightened model and find the not enlightened and its somebody/ something ELSE's fault model insulting. Others obviously swing the other way. Go figure. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlis tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlist@ wrote: Barry writes snipped: And again, you are assuming the unenlightened model, which believes that progress *has* to be made towards enlightenment. If you shift to another equally accurate model and description of the process -- that everyone is always already enlightened and that the *only* thing that marks enlightenment is a realization of what has always already been going on -- then there is no progress possible. TomT: The reason it is called ignorance is that one actually is able to ignore that which they always have been and will always be. It is not called stupid or smart or arrogant or gratuitous or a lie it is called IGNORANCE. Name and form. For those who have had a realization experience, whether it be temporary or permanent, the always already enlightened model is just so much more *accurate*. Funny, above you called the progress model equally accurate. And as I've already pointed out, the model per se isn't any different, it just uses different words to express the same thing. It's *obvious* when it happens that there was never anywhere to go, nothing to become, no stress to get rid of, no moment at which you were ever unenlightened. Enlightenment is, has always been, and will always be; the only thing lacking up til now has been the realization of what should have been obvious. Except that it's obvious only once you've had that realization. What you describe as something lacking is what the progress model calls ignorance or unenlightenment. What's lacking is enlightenment. And there's no reason to suppose there isn't any progress involved in remedying that lack, whether one recognizes it or not. snip As far as I can tell, the entire TM model for the enlightenment process is a LIE. Worse, it is a *known* lie, because Maharishi has at times written eloquently about the other model, the always already enlightened model. So he *chose* to tell people that they were unenlightened, I.e., lacking the realization that they were always already enlightened. and would remain unenlightened until certain undefined conditions were met. I.e., the condition of realization that they were always already enlightened. He chose to *reinforce* the ignorance rather than dispel it. WHY, one wonders? Perhaps because he knows it doesn't make any damn difference. Actually, it seems to me the you're already enlightened model is the one that's a lie. If you're still lacking the realization, you're not enlightened. This model is designed to make people feel stupid if they're still lacking the realization, as if there were something wrong with them for not having it--e.g., what should have been obvious, IGNORANT of what's been right in his face since the day he was born.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The two models
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: damn difference. Actually, it seems to me the you're already enlightened model is the one that's a lie. If you're still lacking the realization, you're not enlightened. This model is designed to make people feel stupid if they're still lacking the realization, as if there were something wrong with them for not having it--e.g., what should have been obvious, IGNORANT of what's been right in his face since the day he was born. It's the very worst kind of elitism, playing with words to exalt oneself and denigrate others. Agreed. The you're already enlightened model fires up one thing only: the ego. The model fits perfectly for the lazy lovers of vino here on FFL. ;-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: The two models
Judy writes: snipped This model is designed to make people feel stupid if they're still lacking the realization, as if there were something wrong with them for not having it--e.g., what should have been obvious, IGNORANT of what's been right in his face since the day he was born. It's the very worst kind of elitism, playing with words to exalt oneself and denigrate others. TomT: I did not use the word IGNORANT. I was very careful to use the root word of this sequence which is the word to IGNORE. If one is willing to consider that the basic human condition is the ability to IGNORE then there is no blame, no shame and no reason to IGNORE the opportunity to do a small amount of self inquiry. Just considering that this might be a way out of the quandary of being a seeker and not a finder has some possibility of moving out of a frozen position of the last 25 to 35 years. we learned to transcend in order to know IT when IT found us. Self inquiry might allow us to find the way our tricky minds work. I am only suggesting that we look at the possibility that the ability to IGNORE is just bad software and that there may be a way out through allowing us to see no bad guys, no blame, no shame and just a statement to be explored to see if it has any value to whomever. This is the true value of the intellect. As Patanjali put it chapter 3 last verse. When the translucent intellect is as clear as the SELF, there is Enlightenment. Tom
[FairfieldLife] Re: The two models
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip you'd prefer to believe that there are reasons that you don't perceive yourself to be enlightened. snip And, *whenever* you next appear, I'd be willing to bet you'll still be clinging to your model of I'm unenlightened no matter what *anyone* tells me. And the fact that I'm unenlightened is somebody/something else's fault, not mine! SO clue us in please, dude-- you rant and rave when others on this board have stated unequivocally that they are enlightened (you know who they are), because you judge their expression to be unenlightened. And now you say that we are all enlightened?? wtf? The conclusion seems to be that everyone is enlightened, but only when you, TB, say they are. Right? That's just wrong...smells of your own private religion, with your ego as God.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The two models
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: damn difference. Actually, it seems to me the you're already enlightened model is the one that's a lie. If you're still lacking the realization, you're not enlightened. This model is designed to make people feel stupid if they're still lacking the realization, as if there were something wrong with them for not having it--e.g., what should have been obvious, IGNORANT of what's been right in his face since the day he was born. It's the very worst kind of elitism, playing with words to exalt oneself and denigrate others. Agreed. The you're already enlightened model fires up one thing only: the ego. The model fits perfectly for the lazy lovers of vino here on FFL. ;-) The ego is no less fired up in the person chained to a treadmill to enlightenment.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The two models
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: snip you'd prefer to believe that there are reasons that you don't perceive yourself to be enlightened. snip And, *whenever* you next appear, I'd be willing to bet you'll still be clinging to your model of I'm unenlightened no matter what *anyone* tells me. And the fact that I'm unenlightened is somebody/something else's fault, not mine! SO clue us in please, dude-- you rant and rave when others on this board have stated unequivocally that they are enlightened (you know who they are), because you judge their expression to be unenlightened. And now you say that we are all enlightened?? wtf? Well OF COURSE you're all enlightened. In the sense that all of us are, even the ones who don't think they are, even the ones like Judy who are ready to die fighting for their right to say they're not enlightened. But that only makes you LIKE EVERYONE ELSE ON THE PLANET. Your problem is that you want to be considered special for being LIKE EVERYONE ELSE ON THE PLANET. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: The two models
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: damn difference. Actually, it seems to me the you're already enlightened model is the one that's a lie. If you're still lacking the realization, you're not enlightened. This model is designed to make people feel stupid if they're still lacking the realization, as if there were something wrong with them for not having it--e.g., what should have been obvious, IGNORANT of what's been right in his face since the day he was born. It's the very worst kind of elitism, playing with words to exalt oneself and denigrate others. Agreed. The you're already enlightened model fires up one thing only: the ego. The model fits perfectly for the lazy lovers of vino here on FFL. ;-) The ego is no less fired up in the person chained to a treadmill to enlightenment. God, I love it when Alex posts. He really cuts to the chase...
[FairfieldLife] Re: The two models
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Your problem is that you want to be considered special for being LIKE EVERYONE ELSE ON THE PLANET. :-) this sounds like a fantasy on your part- an ego trip. And it still doesn't explain your insistence that people in your estimation aren't enlightened because they don't *act* enlightened... do you try to *act* enlightened?
[FairfieldLife] Re: The two models
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: Your problem is that you want to be considered special for being LIKE EVERYONE ELSE ON THE PLANET. :-) this sounds like a fantasy on your part- an ego trip. And it still doesn't explain your insistence that people in your estimation aren't enlightened because they don't *act* enlightened... do you try to *act* enlightened? I don't have to.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The two models
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 sandiego108@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: Your problem is that you want to be considered special for being LIKE EVERYONE ELSE ON THE PLANET. :-) this sounds like a fantasy on your part- an ego trip. And it still doesn't explain your insistence that people in your estimation aren't enlightened because they don't *act* enlightened... do you try to *act* enlightened? I don't have to. I think I just threw up in my mouth a little bit...
