On Jun 26, 2011, at 5:25 AM, maskedzebra wrote: > Hi. I didn't receive answers to my last two questions, but I'll pose a third. > AFAIK, you're the only person in recorded history to have achieved a > unity-type > state of consciousness or any other flavor of "enlightenment" and then > denounce > it as false. Are you aware of anyone else who has done so, and, if not, do you > think you're the first and why? As I'm sure you'll agree, there is a long > tradition of enlightenment in the East, and it would be surprising that no one > else would have ever made the same claim, assuming your current consciousness > reflects reality. > > RESPONSE: No, I have never heard of anyone who has "achieved a unity-type > state of consciousness or any flavor of 'enlightenment' and then has > denounce[d] it as false." And yes, I might be "the first". Certainly "there > is a long tradition of enlightenment in the East", and if my claim is correct > why is it that "no one else [has] ever made the same claim . . ."? > > Very good question. Here's where it gets interesting—and controversial. And > where most (if not all) readers will soon depart company with me. Those that > are not already convinced that my claim to be in Unity Consciousness, and > then to have 'de-enlightened' myself OUT of UC is, on the face of it, > preposterous. Certainly, before (and during) my enlightenment, someone who > made such an assertion (as I have made, and am making) would be > considered—and, I suppose, apprehended as—deluded in the extreme—probably > mentally ill. For an individual to claim to be enlightened—the supreme state > of the perfection of the human being in terms of consciousness—and then to > repudiate the truth of this state of consciousness, is disqualified to say > anything about enlightenment. Clearly he or she was not enlightened in the > first place—certainly not completely enlightened. Because, as far as I know, > once you reach cosmic consciousness you can't regress back to waking state > (just by itself). It is an irreversible state of spiritual evolution, a > distinct mode of personal functioning that is mechanically and > physiologically based. There is nothing subjective about Unity Consciousness: > you are either in Unity or you are not in Unity. And once you are there, > there's no going back. > > I absolutely adhered to this belief; in fact I knew beyond anything that my > enlightenment was more real, more convincing, more unchangeable than the > state of being unenlightened. No power in the universe could tamper with or > influence what had happened to me on that mountain in 1976 when I 'slipped > into Unity"—even Maharishi himself (although had he verbally said something > to contradict my experience—and eventually in exigent circumstances he was > forced to do exactly this, which represented a repudiation of what he had > more or less explicitly said in the past, and when I first announced at my > Six Month Course that I had gone into Unity Consciousness).—I would have to > live with that dissonance. But anything that Maharishi might say to me, just > by definition of what Unity Consciousness is—and how it was being experienced > by me—could not alter or affect the objective stability and mode of > functioning that constituted the state of Unity Consciousness. Look, > Maharishi laid out the criteria for determining what Unity Consciousness was, > and how one could tell whether one was in Unity Consciousness or not. Every > initiator I knew was familiar with what constituted the proof of whether you > were enlightened or not. I met the standard of proof, even in the estimation > of the most skeptical and sophisticated of initiators. And no one, in the ten > years when I was in Unity Consciousness, came anywhere close to putting into > doubt the state of consciousness I was in: my consciousness, because it was > enlightened, maintained its integrity in the presence of anyone, although, of > course initiators were the most receptive to the physical and mental and > behavioural exhibition of Unity Consciousness. > > Now how did it come about that 1. I rejected the validity of Unity > Consciousness; and 2. I was able to escape from Unity Consciousness and > return to my ordinary waking state consciousness, without having to > experience reality according to how I experienced it in Unity Consciousness? > > Well, this gets interesting. First of all, I never rejected, nor could I > reject, the FACT of Unity Consciousness. There IS such a thing as > enlightenment, and Unity Consciousness as far as I can tell is the summit of > what it means to be enlightened. (I should say in passing that I never went > through the first two stages of enlightenment: Cosmic Consciousness and then > God Consciousness: I went from ignorance right into Unity—and I told this to > Maharishi. He made it clear in his response that such a transition was > possible and even natural. In fact, if I remember correctly, towards the end > of our Six Month Course he began to actually suggest that the change from > waking state to Unity Consciousness was probably the more likely route than > through the stages of CC and GC.) > > What I reject about Unity Consciousness is its correspondence with reality. > Reality being defined as what really is the case. > > Now what this means is that although a person can experience the objective > and empirically undeniable state of Unity Consciousness, this does not mean > that such a state of consciousness is true to life. That is, ontologically > valid. Unity Consciousness does NOT mean one is the embodiment of reality. > Reality obviously permits persons to have the experience—even to function > perfectly in the physiological and mechanical mode—of Unity Consciousness. > What reality does NOT endorse is the idea that Unity Consciousness is a > truthful representation of either itself (reality: Unity Consciousness as a > microcosm of what reality is) or of the highest state that a human being is > capable of achieving spiritually. > > Indeed, as I found out even more convincingly than how I discovered myself in > Unity Consciousness, Unity Consciousness is a form of mystical deceit, a > metaphysically false state of consciousness. Remember: it is very real, it is > an objective state of consciousness; but, for all that, NOT IN ACCORDANCE > WITH REALITY. > > So how to account for something so real, so truthful, so powerful, so > convincing, so unchallengeable and yet ultimately an illusion, indeed what I > would call the most extraordinary and subtle hallucination that is possible > for any human being to experience? Being in Unity Consciousness meant, for > me, being INCAPABLE of being bested in a one-on-one encounter with another > human being. And by this, I mean that being enlightened meant one was > grounded (evidently) in a state of consciousness which was deeper, more > versatile, more creative, more attuned, more commanding—without even the > faintest effort to BE this—than the consciousness of any person who was still > in waking state consciousness. And I had thousands upon thousands of > opportunities to validate this, because the form behaviourally that my > enlightenment took was confronting the consciousness of those NOT in Unity > Consciousness—those, that is, who desired to be the beneficiaries of my > superior state of functioning. And there was never even momentarily, under > the severest test and adversity, any fluctuation in my consciousness, and any > challenge to that consciousness. > > Not only did my consciousness rule the consciousness of the other person. Any > attempt by that other person to pit their consciousness against my own, > resulted in the dramatic demonstration that indeed my consciousness was > dominant, not just dominant in the influence it expressed in terms of power > and integrity and silence, but in the actual range of creative and > intelligent responsiveness. My repertoire of possible responses to any > person, or to any situation, was virtually unlimited—that is, while in the > state of Unity Consciousness. > > And yet I eventually arbitrarily decided that even though my enlightenment > could not, as it were, 'go down to defeat'—from ANY opposition, including > Maharishi—I knew that it HAD to be rejected and dismantled. > > Now why would I determine that, despite ten years of perfect fulfilment and > perfect action (my life was purposeful in the extreme: I was revealing the > intrinsic metaphysical meaningfulness of every moment in a person's > life—through opening up a person to the conflict between positive and the > negative forces within themselves and within the external universe: life > became a process of heightening one sense of one's individuality, all the > while recognizing that pure consciousness, the Absolute, the Self was the > driving force behind this very process [all laid out tediously and > pedantically in a book: What Is Enlightenment? Sutras of The Personal With > Commentary])—why despite these glorious proofs of the beneficence of > enlightenment and the revealing of the actual context within which personal > evolution could take place OUTSIDE OF MEDITATION—meditation was still the > center of my life, and of those who had determined that they wanted to follow > me in my quest for individual and cosmic meaning in each moment—did I end up > turning upon my enlightenment with a vengeance, and dedicating my every > waking moment to deconstructing that enlightenment such as to return to the > state of consciousness that I was in before walking up that mountain in > Arosa, Switzerland? > > Well, because essentially I had exposed myself intellectually to another > paradigm of reality other than Maharishi's, other than the Eastern paradigm > of spirituality. And this other paradigm made it impossible that > enlightenment, Unity Consciousness could be true. Either Maharishi was right > (and how could he be wrong, when my own innocent, physical, and mechanical > functioning had been taken over by Unity Consciousness, which represented the > empirical proof of the truth of all his Teaching, and in some universal sense > the truth of the wisdom of the East?), or else this other paradigm was right. > And do you know what? The mere INTELLECTUAL BEAUTY AND INTELLIGENCE AND > COMPLEXITY AND PROFUNDITY of this other paradigm made Maharishi's vision of > reality, the Self, the universe seem shallow, naive, and infinitely less > persuasive as a final reading of what reality was at bottom. > > It was a great Western philosopher who presented to me a model of reality > which I knew, even though it meant that my EXPERIENCE of life was false (how > could THAT be? Well, as I say, the convincing intelligence and beauty of his > thought made even my enlightenment seem unreal—remember: we are talking about > a take on the universe and the meaning of human existence), contained more > reality and truth THAN ANYTHING I HAD EVER KNOWN UP UNTIL THAT MOMENT IN MY > LIFE. > > It all comes down to this (well, as it turns out, it is even more complicated > than this, because I later realized just what it means—metaphysically—to live > in a postmodern universe): the difference between The Science of Being and > Art of Living versus The Summa Theologicae. > > So, opening myself up intellectually to another paradigm created the > determination and even intuition that 1. my enlightenment could not be > ultimately coincident with reality because for this to be the case, the > entire body of Western philosophy is beside the point, and Hinduism contains > the entire truth, and that therefore 2. I must renounce my enlightenment and > somehow find the means to come out from under this hallucination. I must go > further than this: I must realize that the pantheistic experience under > psychedelic drugs—which first led me into TM—was false, and that my > enlightenment in essence represented the apotheosis of the Beatles, the > Sixties, Peace and Love, and the Wisdom of the East. > > Now you must understand: TM and Maharishi provided the most beautiful and > sublime EXPERIENCES I have ever had. And even powers and abilities that I > never knew were possible—and were wondrous to display to others (all > converging upon this notion of life as metaphysical theatre—but based upon > the experience of of TM). I have never experienced anyone as remarkable, as > powerful, as mesmerizing, as charming, as Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. I am > convinced, seen from a certain angle (there's a Maharishi-ism for you), he > was—in the early and middle seventies especially—as striking a personality as > I imagine Christ was. And certainly I thought I loved him with a love equal > to the love any disciple had for Christ. > > So, you understand, then, that the philosophy of Aquinas (as one > representative of a certain spiritual tradition) appeared to put a choice > before me: either the Self, the Atman, the Absolute is the ultimate reality, > and the perception of the oneness of one's self with creation the perfection > of the human being, or else THERE CAN BE NO SUCH THING AS THE SELF, THE > ATMAN, THE ABSOLUTE, because the final reality is a personal God who is > wholly other than any being he has created. And every created human being > does not, in and of himself, contain—as the person he or she is—any sort of > divinity whatsoever. What is divine in human beings is not their ultimate > self; what is divine in human beings is the fact that they are the deliberate > and conscious creation of a Person, and that therefore THE FACT OF THEIR > EXISTENCE is something that is GIVEN to them, and it something other than > what they, as persons, are. Furthermore, no human being is capable of merging > with God, with reality. The separateness of each individual human soul is an > absolute, and their contingent status as a created being [they have no > necessary existence] incompatible with unifying themselves with the > intelligence and beingness that is the cause of the whole of creation—and > their existence in the first place. > > I became, then, compelled by the Western interpretation of reality and > disillusioned with the Eastern interpretation of reality, and I recognized > these were mutually exclusive choices: either the East is right, or the West > of right. They both can't be right. Because that would be a metaphysical > contradiction. > > I chose the go with the West, and this meant destroying, or trying to destroy > the integrity of my Unity Consciousness. > > Now soon into my quest for the Western version of truth, I realized that ANY > INSTITUTIONAL representation of this truth (e.g. the Catholic Church) was > unable to deliver the truths contained in the Summa. The Western Church (and > all form of Christianity) were lifeless and devoid of any real spiritual > power altogether. At some point after deciding to devote my life to > systematically disassembling my enlightenment, I knew THERE WAS NOWHERE TO > TURN in order to get the truth. The truth, such as it was, was reflected in > the fact that God himself seemed to not be alive (in the religious sense) in > any form of spirituality at all, East or West. (Although, by implication of > what I had learned I knew this: that before I was born, all of the truth was > embodied in the West, in the form of the Catholic Church, and the saints, and > the sacraments, and the Eucharist—but the spirit of the Holy Trinity > (specifically the Holy Ghost) had departed from his Church, and that Church > was nothing but a cadaver compared to what it once was—compared, for > instance, to what it was when Aquinas composed the philosophical cathedral of > the Summa.) > > Now as to the question of HOW I de-enlightened myself, well, that's something > that I don't believe, at least at this stage in my development and > rehabilitation, I should disclose. I am still in the process of coming out > from under the spell of Maharishi and TM and yes, my enlightenment. But I > have discovered a method, a self-metapsychotherapeutic process, which is > taking me out of the context of the East—but not into the context of the West > (as represented by its religious tradition). Where is this method or process > taking me? > > It is taking me into reality as it presently exists. And in my contact with > reality—as relative, as imperfect as it must always be (even though it gets > somehow more objectively intimate as my post-enlightenment unfolds)—is > entirely a matter of experiencing life JUST AS IT IS. As I find it. Without > the guidance of any Teachings or orthodox spiritual practice. It is true that > I somehow draw upon SOMET'HING that has it origins in the traditions of the > West, but this is not something I could ever communicate to others—as it is > more in the form of a private revelation. > > But over-all I have been inspired to seek out a means to bring me to the > state of consciousness I am presently in, and that state of consciousness > does not permit me the experience of being unified with the rest of the > universe (Unity Consciousness), nor to apprehend the Self in everything > (Unity Consciousness), nor to find my actions Spontaneously Right (Unity > Consciousness), > nor to experience that I am a dynamic center of Spiritual Truth (Unity > Consciousness), nor that I know what the purpose of life is (Unity > Consciousness). What I do have is a highly developed feel for the Western > tradition—as it once was when it was ALIVE. But I only use that paradigm > essentially to set off its abstract truthfulness against the living > truthfulness of the East, a truthfulness that I perceive as the most > profoundest of spiritual lies. > > "Yeah, I went through that Brahmi chetana thing. It was a big hoax. Sure wish > I > could convince the other six Sapta Rishis so they could move on with their > lives. They were such nice Hindu boys before getting mixed up with yoga and > Vedic cognition." > > REPONSE: Well, I really believe it WAS a hoax. And yes, if I possessed some > technique of de-converting someone from the experience of the oneness of > reality, and the sense of there being a Self, and the notion of enlightenment > as the summit of human consciousness, I would. Because you see I HAVE GONE > THROUGH JUST SUCH A DE-CONVERSION, and I can't tell you how much better (or > more normal) it feels. Even though it does not have the razzle-dazzle and > firepower and glory of Unity Consciousness. Yes, "getting mixed up with yoga > and Vedic cognition" has become, not just for those "nice Hindu boys", but to > a certain extent for many of us who underwent the LSD experience in the > Sixties (which ineluctably led us to Maharishi) and turned towards the East, > for only the East possesses something that is real and alive and potent. The > spiritual life of the West has atrophied into nothing; what is left of it are > ideas and a mysticism which is sentimental rather than real (as it remains in > the East, and even still inside the practice of TM: that is, real). > > I'm not judging you or your assertion, just trying to get clarity as to your > claim. I'm aware of people, like Krishnamurti, who renounced a guru position, > and people who were on a path and rejected the path. Siddhartha Gautama comes > to > mind, when he rejected asceticism and veered off toward the Middle Way. > Someone > like Hindu-turned-Christian Rabindranath Maharaj, who wrote Escape into the > Light, had a revered renunciate yogi as a father and himself grew up to > become a > yogic adept, complete with temporary "enlightenment" experiences that he > eventually renounced, but he didn't consider himself to have *arrived* before > he > turned to Christianity. > > RESPONSE: I have read Krishnamurti in depth, and even met with him for an > hour (when I was still in Unity Consciousness). He was an intelligent and > intense human being, but for all that, not one hundredth as impressive or > charismatic as Maharishi. I am interested this person Rabindranath Maharaj > you mention (although I have never heard of him), and will look at his book > Escape into the Light. But again, I do attest to the notion of having > "arrived" in a permanent state of consciousness other than the one I had > known for 33 years before that. It is just that the Vedic gods WHO CREATED > AND SUSTAINED MY ENLIGHTENMENT had gone all the way in my case. > > In order to come out of, or escape from, Unity Consciousness, I had to turn > violently and hatefully upon these gods, and refuse to let them continue to > possess, dominate, and seduce me. I found a way—slow, painful, fitful— to > accomplish this, and I am still at it. The presence of these gods is still > felt in my brain and throughout my body. > > Do you still experience unity consciousness but have learned to disregard it > or > have you over time worked your way back to ordinary waking consciousness? Or, > was the de-enlightenment as sudden as the enlightenment? To my understanding, > you claim you were being used by Vedic gods. How did you get them to > relinquish > control? > > RESPONSE: No, I do not "still experience unity consciousness", but I can only > say that this more or less complete break with UC occurred as a result of a > cumulative process extending over a period of 24 years (almost right up to > these very moment). So, it was not sudden at all, and for many years after I > knew that my enlightenment was false (that is, false to reality) I continued > to experience my oneness with creation—and this of course rather than giving > me bliss and satisfaction and serenity, gave me nothing but existential > anguish. I could feel how by worshipping these gods (through TM and all the > advanced techniques, the Two Week Extension, the Sidhis, doing Puja, > initiations, Pranayama and Asanas:—the works) their influence over me might > take the rest of my life. and this still seem to be the case, although I > consider myself metaphysically alienated from Unity Consciousness in every > way that counts. > > The claim that unity can be gained and then overcome and exposed as a lie is > an > even bigger mind-intercourse for TB's than FFL's shocking expose that > Maharishi > had sex. Or David Kaplan's wife coming aboard several years ago and claiming > there were no Maharishi pandits and that, consequently, none would ever arrive > in Fairfield (arguably, she was proven wrong on that one). Ergo, I think this > is > worth a bit more discussion, even if it is boring to some people. They don't > have to read those posts, do they? > > RESPONSE: I agree. On the face of it, this "claim that unity can be gained > and then overcome and exposed as a lie is an even bigger mind-intercourse for > TB's" than almost anything that has been revealed about Maharishi. > Nevertheless, I don't doubt an experimental procedure could be developed > which would indeed take someone who was certain he or she was > enlightened—like any modern Guru from the East or the West—through a process > of de-Self-realization such that that person—no matter who he or she was, or > how convincing they had been in the role as a spiritual teacher (I include > Maharishi and the Dalai Lama in this)—gradually began to realize that > enlightenment was a state of consciousness which ultimately is in > contradiction to reality—and certainly does not represent reality in the > least. What enlightenment comes down to, if one is to take my testimony as > having any merit at all, is the brilliant mischief and malevolence and power > of these Vedic gods. That can—in an act of ultimate irony and > mockery—convince human beings they they are God. This is what happened to > Maharishi; this is what happened to me. > > If your claim is false, and unity can't really be dismantled, then you must > be: > > * an impostor who can convincingly appear to be RC (who rumor had it had > committed suicide, anyway) and who wants to mess with TB's minds by making > claims on his behalf > > RESPONSE: Yes, this follow logically from your premise that my claim is > false. Only I believe my claim more sincerely than I have encountered anyone > believing in that principle which runs counter to my present beliefs about > spirituality. In other words, abstractly considered, I could of course be > dead wrong. But, as it were, I have had two religious experiences: what drew > me into enlightenment; then what drew me away from enlightenment. And my > conviction in the validity of my perspective on the east goes down into me as > deep as anything could go—as does my present conviction about what are the > metaphysics of a postmodern universe—a universe which does not provide THE > ANSWER anymore—to anyone. > > or > > * RC, still in unity, but wanting to claim otherwise for some cosmic purpose > (how could it not be cosmic, if he's in unity?) > > RESPONSE: I categorically reject this alternative. Everything I have written > on this blog and in this specific post is the sincere and honest expression > of my beliefs and to a lesser extent my experience. > > or > > * RC, who was in a temporary false unity, rather than THE WHOLE THING, THE > REAL > THING, and Maharishi was incapable of distinguishing between the two, which > raises its own questions > > RESPONSE: Well, I claim that the intelligent, strong, and experienced > initiators who became convinced I was enlightened give the lie to this. > Because they were not about to go along with my being in Unity Consciousness > unless it as the real thing. They, to a one, were not looking for someone to > follow; after all, they had Maharishi, and every one of them was devoted to > Maharishi, and believed that in investing their credibility in the integrity > of my enlightenment, they were only doing what Maharishi would have them do. > None of them experienced any conflict—ever—between what I was doing and what > Maharishi had taught them. They remained loyal to Maharishi right to the > end—as I did. Then they bolted, and found within what they committed > themselves to, proof that I was a dangerous and a megalomaniac. Some of them, > that is. There are those who took a different approach to the coming undone > of the cult and my enlightenment. For 24 year, I have remained essentially > sequestered and isolated. Without personal contact with anyone from my > enlightenment past. > > I believe firmly that Maharishi was in Unity Consciousness, although his > mental deterioration near the end seemed to bring this into question, But not > for me. It only was evidence that the powers that he seemed to control or > which controlled him were beginning to run into opposition from those powers > who are enemies of the Vedic gods. The fallen angels versus the good angels, > if you like. But Bevan Morris's description of the silence in Maharishi's > house one month before his death, it is marvellous and utterly convincing: > No, Maharishi maintained his spiritual integrity—as defined by being in > another state of consciousness—to the end. Bevan, I believe, compared the > experience of this silence to the night firmament > > If your claim is true, OTOH, then a vast fabric of Eastern traditions and > writings spanning thousands of years and untold numbers of "saints" and sages > is > the biggest spoof in history and should receive at least passing > acknowledgment > on the Drudge Report. > > RESPONSE: Well, after one has gone through the death experience, I believe > what you say here, believe it or not, pretty much will be proven to be the > case. I wouldn't call it a "spoof" exactly, but I would certainly call it a > terrible cosmic conspiracy to delude and deceive human beings. Why would a > good God allow such a thing? Well, as one guy has said: "Who has known the > mind of God?" This is another topic altogether I think—what I am introducing > here. There is another question: why has God allowed the East to invade the > West and refuse to give any vitality and power to the religious traditions of > the West to resist this invasion? Again, the answer to this is beyond the > comprehension of myself. But I certainly feel the evidence of the withdrawal > of God from his creation. It is perhaps my deepest intuition. > > I see no empirical way to distinguish between these options, just as there is > no > way to prove that the universe wasn't created just five minutes ago, complete > with all its apparent history and all our memories of it. > > RESPONSE: OK, I can't refute your reasoning here, but I have attempted to > provide you with the information that would explain what is behind my claims > to have gone from unenlightened to enlightened to de-enlightened. The last > part of what you say, of course, is sophistical, but irrefutable. > > I used to be a TB. I now am too much of a skeptic to deny the possibility of > anything, even everything I used to believe. > > RESPONSE: Sounds paradoxically reasonable to me.
I loved your succinctness. ------------------------------------ To subscribe, send a message to: [email protected] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: [email protected] [email protected] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [email protected] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
