--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Since this thread is one of many where there are some that are happy
> to be where they are with TM and then some indicating they would
> have nothing to do with TM, my question to the latter is what is it
> you have decided to do now?
>
> Have you continued seeking another path that can bring about the
> promises that you thought were incorperated in TM or have you thrown
> in the towel and lumped all paths with TM and taken the position
> that all Gurus and paths are fraud?
This is a profound question Ron. I hope others weigh it.
I think you have given a false choice here, either seeking another
path or throwing in the towel and lumping all paths with TM as frauds.
There are many other options, including my own, which cannot be
summed up so neatly. You are evaluating anyone who has changed their
perspective from your own teleological bias. You believe that life
has a goal of enlightenment. If you drop that assumption you can
understand my POV.
For me the goal of enlightenment adn God realization was a given for
many years. I believed that it was clear cut and irrefutable that
life's purpose was to live in a permanent state of awareness of bliss
and complete knowledge of life, a state of fulfillment and infinitely
expanded awareness. I had experienced qualities of this state enough
to know that it might be possible to live in such a state, but I never
asked the question if this was really a desirable state for me. I
never questioned that. Of course living in a permanent state of
absolute happiness and fulfillment is good right? Not so fast.
I am reading a fascinating book right now that sheds some light on
this question and is putting together ideas that I have been banging
around for years. The most popular course at Harvard University right
now is about happiness by a guy named Tal Ben-Shahar. His conclusions
match my experiences (oh, is that why I like certain books!) that
happiness is not useful as a static goal. It is meant to be in flux
as a way to guide our life towards our goals in life. I wont try to
sum it all up in a post, anyone can check it out for themselves, the
book is called "Happier". He doesn't have ultimate answers but I
think he has detailed the variables nicely.
My shift of perspective on the value of the states of mind I had been
cultivating through meditation that happened about 18 years ago
brought a complete change in how I view my life and its purpose.
Having dropped the assumption that my life has a pre-ordained purpose,
I took up the challenge of creating purposes for my life. Although I
have a good baseline of wellbeing, the degrees of my happiness are in
flux according to how well I am fulfilling the goals of my
self-created purposes. Fluctuating happiness is a valuable tool to
keep me heading in the direction I want.
I view the states of mind I used to revel in from program as just what
MMY promised "fulfillment without achievement" and this is not helpful
for me now. I think these states are interesting and a blast to
experience, but I view them cautiously in my life almost like a state
of intoxication. I am not anti ecstatic experience, no matter what
the source, but I understand that they have a price. I no longer seek
to live in fulfillment. I love its ebb and flow.
My experience is that these internal states don't seem to create
people that I look up to particularly. People who claim to have
mastered enlightenment and the truth of life just strike me as a
certain type of person who needs to present themselves as above
others. I don't deny that they have gained some unique internal
state, maybe they have. But the state of our mind is such a tiny part
of my life. Over focusing on it, and spending large amounts of time
cultivating specific states misses the point of life for me now. I
couldn't care less what state of mind someone claims and really don't
care much about my own state. I generate happiness and fulfillment on
an ongoing basis. If you offered me a permanent state of enlightened
fulfillment I would decline. I love my life as it is. I am
enlightened enough to enjoy life, smart enough to understand what I
want, and fulfilled in varying degrees as I unfold the goals and
purposes of my life I have created. I have cognitive limits but I
work with them to get what I want.
I have known both heroin addicts and people who spent all day in
program in my life. I find them both completely nonfunctional in
their lives. I have known people who enjoy a cocktail or joint after
they do their work and people who like to sit in meditation after
being productive. I find these two groups to be more similar than
different in their balance of life. They both seem to have similar
potential for happiness and fulfillment in their lives. (You can
substitute any engaging hobby like kayaking, sailing or playing music
,my choice, if you are so inclined. The key seems to be a state
changing experience from your working mindset.)
A common theme for me is that I challenge self-proclaimed enlightened
people to do something that unenlightened people cannot. Most gurus
are only able to claim that they have a higher level of happiness or
awareness but can't demonstrate to me that they have achieved more
than that, a state of personal satisfaction. If just one of them
stepped up with their superior knowledge and cured cancer I would have
to re-think my position. But since they all seem to resort to the
"nature doesn't want me to" line I really couldn't care less how much
happiness they feel or how convinced they are that they are living in
the "goal of life". They aren't living in my many goals, that is my
job. One that continues to challenge me and bring me greater
fulfillment as I pursue them. But when I am not on track, I have a
built-in system to let me know.
Thanks for the topic Ron. Life is great isn't it?
>
> Of course the decision is up to you but if you have made the latter
> choice, it differs from what I chose.
>
> The point is that what is taking place in any other path has nothing
> to do with the other, all deserve a fair chance of unbiased
> investigation
>
>
> Hridaya
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <jflanegi@>
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex" <do.rflex@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <jflanegi@>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex" <do.rflex@>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin"
> > <jflanegi@>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008
> > <no_reply@>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex"
> > <do.rflex@>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shukra69"
> > > > <stephen4359@>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > There is no worshipping Rajas in Maharishi's
> movement-
> > > > Raja's
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > worshipping Bhagavan.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The Rajas [kings] in Maharishi's movement are phony
> > Rajas of
> > > > > > imaginary
> > > > > > > > countries. It's all part of Maharishi's pretend world.
> > It
> > > > has no
> > > > > > > > connection to what's actually happening in the actual
> > world
> > > > of
> > > > > > human
> > > > > > > > affairs.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > For you to fuss about whether the phony Rajas actually
> > > > worship
> > > > > > > > Bhagavan is ludicrous in light of their phoniness to
> > begin
> > > > with.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > But my dear friend; I thought we had already established
> > the
> > > > fact
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > the "actual world" is not only boring but even
> dangerous.
> > It
> > > > is
> > > > > > people
> > > > > > > that only relate to the little things they can see and
> > hear
> > > > and
> > > > > > touch
> > > > > > > etc that are responsible for the plight this planet is
> in !
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > For what its worth, I recall Maharishi referring to
> material
> > > > life as
> > > > > > the lowest form of life. Not as a value judgement, but
> > relative
> > > > to a
> > > > > > sliding scale of evolution.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Interesting. Guru Dev on the other hand claimed that a life
> in
> > this
> > > > > world is preferable a life in the God worlds.
> > > > >
> > > > > "Divine birth is longed for by those wishing for a share of
> the
> > > > > celestial, to be acquired by people who make specific
> religious
> > > > > sacrifices and works relating to the divine. In devaloka
> > (heaven)
> > > > the
> > > > > abundance of things to be experienced causes the minds of
> > devataa{}
> > > > oM
> > > > > (gods) to remain wandering endlessly, hence they do not make
> > > > efforts
> > > > > to do purushhartha (work for fulfilment of life). Therefore
> > birth
> > > > as a
> > > > > human is said to be preferable; since here man can do
> > purushhaartha
> > > > > and so can be in the presence of parabrahma (the Supreme
> Soul)"
> > > > >
> > > > > ~~ Guru Dev
> > > > >
> > > > > And I recall Maharishi having said just about the same thing
> > Guru
> > > > Dev
> > > > > said.
> > > > >
> > > > I agree that all levels of life, from the base material, to
> the
> > > > divine transcendent are all available right here in human
> form.
> > > > Depends on the level of consciousness how much is accessible.
> > >
> > >
> > > The point is that this world is preferable as a place to grow.
> > >
> > Point, John!
> >
>
