---re - statement below MMY doesn't have "that" problem. That's cuz he insulates himself against any contructive feedback that doesn't agree with his initial POV.
In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <jflanegi@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander > > <mailander111@> wrote: > > > > > > Yes, excellent point. I've never seen MMY actually communicate with > > anyone. Jim and Rory may well be enlightened, but they don't seem to > > have enough self-awareness to notice how they come across. Maybe they > > just don't give a shit. a > > > > > How can I *control* your perception of me Angela? Even if I could, I > > have no interest in doing so. Why do we all have such different > > perceptions of what I say? In the eye of the beholder perhaps? > > > Acid Trip and Jim and Rory [since they both seem to have missed the post] > > > Reading Jim and Rory's posts reminds me of an acid trip I took decades > ago. I was *on*, I was *clear* and I was *here*/*there* NOW. Movement > that took place was totally done by the *on*, *clear* and *now* - the > 'state' itself. It was ecstatic - ecstacy in motion. There was NO > movement for 'good' or 'bad'. There was NO self-reflection or > 'conscience'. > > Looking back I can see that some of the things I might have said and > done while in fully *in* that 'state' could easily have been seen to > be arrogant, uncaring, critical and offensive - and I can see why. > There is no self-reflection or conscience. > > At the time however, I didn't care - there was only the flowing NOW > ECSTASY - and had I remained in that 'state' I wonder if I ever > *would* have cared. But of course, the acid wore off in about 8 hours > so there was no way I could have known. > > I bring this to an analogy with Jim where he gives a hint that just > maybe he *could*, in time, integrate his 'state' into being able to > present himself without appearing to be an arrogant asshole. > > > Jim says: > "I admit being somewhat slow on the uptake regarding my evaluation of > others' attitudes towards a frank expression of enlightenment. As > I've said before, I don't spend any time at all outside of this > forum, and one other, expressing my observations of enlightenment, > so my learning about how to express it, and learning about others' > reactions are relatively new. I don't attend courses, or visit > spiritual teachers or read so-called spiritually oriented books." > > > Maybe Jim actually *is* capable of recognizing that the examples of > some of his statements below can easily be considered by others to be > arrogant, hostile and offensive. In any case, it's no surprise that > any regular person might hold reservations [and even contempt] for > statements such as these coming from someone within the context of his > claimed 'enlightenment'. > > > Jim says: > "I am not saying I was immune from this "me-better-than-you or you- > better-than-me" condition, for it is automatic, left over from our > animal lives probably. But to also apply it to spiritual pursuit? Oh > my God, just *ask* outright for a few more turns on the wheel, why > don'cha???" > > Jim says: > "Don't try to lay your moodmaking crap on me buddy. I am not > condemning you, or me, if you want to see it that way- just calling > you on your BS and your foolishness, your hypocrisy." > > > If I read it correctly, Rory has been in this 'state' for 10+ years > and seems to have the same problem of not integrating his > consciousness to simple civil effective communication. > > [Hint: Guru Dev and Maharishi didn't/don't seem to have that problem.] >
