--- In [email protected], Tom Pall <thomas.pall@...> wrote: > > 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 enlightenmentclaiming 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 wherelike the > > existence of Godit 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 > > possessionactual possessionof 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 waysin 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 argumentthere 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-enlightenmentor rather in the mystical falseness of > > enlightenmentwith 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 wayand so did Maharishithat 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 indestructibleand 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?
RESPONSE: Thomas, could you provide an example of a sentence or two, from the letter above, which illustrates the problem of the intelligibility and clearness of my argument? You see, when you take on an a priori assumption of someone (like Rickbless him, great guy for sure) you have to dig down into a placeand express this conceptuallywhich undercutsand exposesthis unexamined assumption. I am trying in this letter to demonstrate logically and argumentatively the flaw in Rick's response to me. Not by simply debating with him, but something more than this: actually attempting to PROVE TO HIM that he has missed entirely the ground upon which he could ever begin to refute what I have said. I don't say that I COULD NOT BE PROVEN ALL WRONG about enlightenment, and Rick decisively vindicated; I am only trying to excavate below where the mere conflict of opinion and belief arise, to touch those sources of predisposition in us which tend to determine our opinions and beliefs. Certainly it costs you something to follow my argument. But for me there is no obfuscation or lack of clarity (I speak only on behalf of myself here) in what I have written. Nevertheless I have to respect the judgment of a reader who approached reading my letter without prejudice or hostility. And I must assume you are just such a reader. And you came away with the impression which you have articulated here. What interests me here is only one question: Is the way I have shaped my argument such that it becomes incomprehensible? Because no one yet has attempted to refute any part of it. Or is this refusal to address the substance of what I have said entirely explained by the specific criticism you have posted here? It would be perhaps not fatal, but the inability to make myself understood in this effort of mine to defend myself from the facile and obvious point that Rick has made certainly weakens my case. And then there is the problem that FOR ME the lines of my reasoning seem to follow inevitably from my original premise: that reality confirmed that I had indeed entered into the classic form of enlightenmenteven as this so-called higher state of consciousness concealed flaws and distortions in me which eventually came home to roost. Once I was determined to get unstuck from my enlightenment. I admit I am posting on this blog in order to facilitate my own growth and understanding. I am not going to get very far in this objective if what ends up happening is my readers come away with the experience you have described in your post. But, again, Thomas, if you can provide an example of a sentence or two which refuse to yield themselves up to the innocent groking that you desire and deserve, I might be the beneficiary of your original critique. As it stands now, I just have to take your judgment on faith. And you see, I can't do this, because for me I perfectly understand what I am trying to say in my letter to Rick. >
