On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 1:30 AM, maskedzebra <[email protected]>wrote:
> > > --- In [email protected], "Rick Archer" <rick@...> wrote: > > Dear Rick, > > If my enlightenment was not the real deal, then in all that I say about > enlightenment, I will be revealing this discrepancy between my version of > Unity Consciousness and the real version. Somehow, if I was not in the same > essential state of consciousness that Maharishi was in, someone like > yourself would detect this in the absence of that perspective which would > give legitimacy and credibility to everything I say about both what > enlightenment is, and what it was like to be enlightened. > > The fact that you are forced to fall back on the a priori assumption that, > because you believe enlightenment to be a real state of affairs (I believe > it to be a real state of experience with consequent definitive parameters of > behaviour and abilities, but for all that not a state of consciousness which > is coincident with ultimate reality), and I am repudiating the metaphysical > validity of enlightenment—claiming I am now de-enlightened,—it must perforce > be the case that my enlightenment was not the real deal. Because, you see, > if it had been the real deal, how could I, given your absolute belief in its > ontological truthfulness, reject this belief, reject the truth of > enlightenment? > > You must, because I am denouncing the state of enlightenment (and Unity > Consciousness) as a form of extraordinary mystical deceit of the mind, > conclude that: He was not really enlightened, because his ego is still > intact, and besides, anyone who was REALLY enlightened, would not be able to > make themselves unenlightened, nor would they dream of rejecting this state > of consciousness as being false to reality. > > Given then your fundamental belief that enlightenment has to be true, you > have no other choice but to write as you have written above, because, for > you, it is never going to be a question of determining whether or not > enlightenment corresponds to reality (whether it indeed is a true state of > affairs for a human being and objectively and truthfully represents reality > as it really is). For you enlightenment HAS TO BE TRUE. To question its > intrinsic validity as a metaphysically bona fide state of human experience > and functioning is tantamount to denying what essentially constitutes your > highest vision of what life is all about. To deprive you of this belief is > the functional equivalent of forcing you to give up your belief in God. For > you, then, Rick, enlightenment (the belief in this reality) is as > unquestioned and solid and irrefutable as someone else's belief that Christ > was God. It is your religion. Why so? Because you cannot conceive, given > your experiences and observations and history, of ever bringing it (the idea > of enlightenment) before a tribunal of critical judgment where—like the > existence of God—it would be subject to real debate and argument. As to > whether indeed it is a natural state of consciousness and functioning for > the human person. > > You MUST therefore conclude that since I am on a mission to debunk your > religion, and that I once claimed to have intimate familiarity with that > religion (once having been according to my own testimony, the very > embodiment of that religion: i.e. in Unity Consciousness), and now have > disavowed that religion, that I WAS NEVER THEREFORE A TRUE BELIEVER IN THAT > RELIGION. Or rather, never really knew what that religion (enlightenment) > was all about. > > For me, Rick, the question is determined by my experience. I have never met > or read about anyone who conclusively demonstrates to me that they are in > possession—actual possession—of a more desirable state of consciousness then > the one we were born into. Although paradoxically, had I met myself > enlightened, in my non-enlightened state, I would certainly have believe in > his (my) enlightenment as much as I believed in Maharishi's. My > enlightenment was proven to me in ten thousand different ways—in every > moment of my life when I lived under that state of consciousness. > > No, for me, Rick, it is you who give yourself away, because you evidently > cannot countenance the idea that enlightenment just might be what I say it > is. But you are unwilling or unable to subject enlightenment to a true acid > test. You have no surefire way of knowing whether enlightenment exists as a > true and objectively valid state of consciousness. What is your proof that > this state of consciousness exists such that you know it is the perfect > representation of what reality is? > > By your reading of books on the subject? by your interviews with these > guests who purportedly have entered into a state of realization? by your > experience with Maharishi? > > Where does this absolute and unshakeable belief originate? > > I suggest it has been absorbed into your being through your TM and > Maharishi experience just like Mother's Milk. It has taken up residence > inside of you in a way that utterly forbids any re-examination of it along > the lines that I am pursuing in these posts. > > Sure, Rick, I could be dead wrong; you could be dead right. However THERE > IS NO INSPIRATION BEHIND THIS POST which would testify to the fact that in > writing to me as you have you are standing in for reality, for the truth of > enlightenment. If such a state of affairs exists (I believe it exists) and > it is an intrinsic good (I don't believe enlightenment is this) then it seem > ironic that, in your forceful defence of its truth claims you are unable to > summon up anything other than an abstract argument—there is no passion, no > irresistible logic, no purchase upon reality itself IN THE ACT OF DOING > THIS. You are in the same position as the person who, when faced with the > atheist's arguments, just resorts to: "Look I know that God exists. > Therefore your experience that He does not exist is false." > > I don't even sense the beauty of your faith in this truth, Rick. It is > almost a matter of the quotidian in your life: it is just is commonplace > knowledge. > > I believe in non-enlightenment—or rather in the mystical falseness of > enlightenment—with a conviction that is so comprehensive and clearly > reasoned (and empirically inspired) that I feel I am making a transaction > with reality in a deeper way than you making a transaction with reality in > dismissing my claim to know what the classic form of enlightenment is. > > The only way you will come to know what enlightenment really is is to > participate in a thought experiment: assume IT IS NOT REAL, IT DOES NOT > EXIST AS A TRUTHFUL REPRESENTATION OF REALITY. Then examine what it is which > makes you assume the dogmatic conviction that enlightenment is a good. > Remember: I believe in the existence of enlightenment; it's just that I have > found out the hard way—and so did Maharishi—that life refuses to have > anything to do with supporting it (enlightenment) in any way whatsoever that > is consistent with your belief that enlightenment exists, and it is a good. > > By the way, I think the ego indestructible—and it remains so even in the > life of those who think they have gone beyond their ego (those who are > enlightened). Like Maharishi: he has an ego, even in his current state of > existence. > > > > > > RC, are your experiences so beyond the rest of us, your concepts so profound we can't understand with simple language that you must use so many words to get your meaning and concepts across? Are you wanting to get points across to us FFL readers, wanting to dazzle us with lots of words, or incapable of responding to anyone but yourself? We speak English here. We use few words to get our meaning across. Rick, to whom you're responding, is a case study in the economy of words and tightness of expression. Yet you feel you need to blast him with what might pass for some as rhetoric but what for others, like me, appears to be just talking shit to windmills. Could you perhaps edit your responses so that us mere mortals can grok what you're saying? Or is that we're mere mortals a problem in itself?
