Dear MZ - It will as usual take me several sittings to absorb and form a coherent response, so it will take a while. But I just want to say I still think you are an amazing writer, philosopher, a sincere person and I like the sense of irony your posts convey, not this one though. You are giving me too much power just as you do to your imaginary Vedic Gods. My state is rejoicing in my powerlessness unlike yours where you dominated and bested others. So please continue posting, nor I nor anyone else (Vedic Gods) have power to stop you.
--- In [email protected], maskedzebra <no_reply@...> wrote: > > RESPONSE: Ah, those Vedic gods that I thought I had exorcized from my consciousness, they have returned to tempt me. As in: we can (through our good friend Ravi Yogi) draw you back into your metaphysical theatre by an outrageous and manic putdown of your so-called enlightenment (Unity Consciousness). > > We (we Vedic gods) through the instrumentality of RY will draw you [MZ] back into Unity Consciousness where you would, almost involuntarily, begin confronting whatever was resisting reality. There's Phantom Limb Syndrome, where a person continues to feel the sensation of flesh and bone where now there is nothing, because the limb has been amputated. I have now discovered Phantom Enlightenment Syndrome, where in the provocative presence of someone 'going off' on my enlightenment, the old context of cosmic theatre renews its angelic presence and vitalityand thus the apparent resurrection of enlightenment (the latter an essential given in order to precipitate the dynamic process of metaphysical confrontation). Even after my claim of having amputated my enlightenment. > > But I mustn't go for the bait, right Ravi?even as you had no idea you were doing this. > > Try this thought experiment: if you had never heard of enlightenment: it was a concept about which you were entirely ignorant (you didn't know of its existence, either in your vocabulary or in your experience), and you were describing what it was like to be Ravi Yogi RIGHT NOW, would you be forced tovirginally, innocentlydescribe, and thus discover, the necessity of, the reality of enlightenment (as classically delineated in your own scriptures)? Would, then, enlightenment, as a concept, as an empirical description of a certain style of functioning of your consciousness and your self, be required in order for you to 1. explain your experience to yourself; 2. explain your experience to others? > > In my case, the violent shift from one state of consciousness to another state of consciousness (although occurring seemingly smoothly and irresistibly) was dramatic and extraordinary. And the attendant powers and abilities immediately conferred upon one simultaneous with effecting that transition from one state of consciousness into another, never-before-experienced state of consciousness, COULD NOT EXIST INSIDE ORDINARY WAKING STATE CONSCIOUSNESS. > > I, then, in making sense of what happened to me in Arosa in September 1976, WOULD [in this same thought experiment] REQUIRE a concept that entailed, in its nascent articulation, a perfect and felicitous conformity to what Maharishi defined as Unity Consciousness. So I would not have had to have an idea of enlightenment, in order to experientially validate its existence and its components for the first time when it happened to me. > > My putative enlightenment occurred not with respect to everything I had learned or knew about what enlightenment was before the moment I became enlightened. It happened, and I recognized what it was that was happening, based upon what I had learned from Maharishi. > > Now I don't say this same situation CANNOT apply to yourself, but I am interested in whether it DOES so apply. Because if it does, then there is no such thing as enlightenment, since if enlightenment has anything to do with a true state of consciousness, it must represent reality accurately, and your critique (as expressed here in this post) of my enlightenment is at variance (obviously without your conscious knowledge of this) with reality. It is indeed the evidence of the non-fit between your subjective experience and the reality out of which you even have your individual existenceand your capacity to form the very judgment you have in this instance. > > From the standpoint of the context of enlightenmentat least as it was profoundly and decisively imposed upon my consciousness and person in September 1976the very act of your interpreting my long post in the manner you have herehaving drawn the conclusions that you haveconstitutes manifestly an act that, because it can ultimately be provenin the stream of life, that is, as an event for others to witnessto be objectively out of accordance with reality, necessarily draws around it a context which spontaneously and inexorably demonstrates to you, and to the rest of reality, that you are deceived. You get it, Ravi: contained implicitly within this act of judgment of my enlightenment is the means of proving that judgment false. > > {I mean it is either THIS, or this same process can be turned against ME, especially in THIS post. There cannot be two different kinds of ultimate truthful perspective on reality.] > > Now this does not mean that you cannot argue against the validity of my enlightenmentas others (including the very credible Rick Archer) have done. Nor that you cannot find flaws in my argument and narration of my enlightenment which deserve to be exposed and rebutted. But what it does mean is that if someone determines to (however unknowingly) categorically misconstrue my description and account of my enlightenmentsomehow missing the entire meaning of what I have expressed in that long postthat person opens themselves to a process of intellectual retribution whereby REALTY ITSELF PROVES WHAT IS THE CASEto the detriment of the point of view and opinion of the person who has got it as wrong as you have. > > You understand, then, Ravi: I am NOT saying you don't have the right to question, challenge, and even invalidate my idea of enlightenmentit is theoretically quite possible that somewhere I have made a serious error in my construal of what happened to me both on that mountain and afterwards and even when I began to dismantle the mechanical foundation of my putative enlightenment. What I am saying is that if you cross a certain line of non-truthfulness (which can only come about by an almost perfect negative correspondence between your own subjective experience and what constitutes reality), then life, realityand someone supposedly in Unity Consciousnesswill, or could, confront you in your error, such as to PROVE YOU WRONG TO YOURSELF and the rest of the universe. > > This did happen (when I did not take it beyond this, and began to accuse a person of being consciously insincere: that's when the Vedic gods GOT ME; and that's where unrecognized weakness, distortions, unresolved tensions in myself were exploited [by these same Vedic gods]because I took this process I am describing in this post as it applies to you beyond where it was true and valid (and I bear the onus of responsibility here: my enlightenment concealed and covered upfrom me, from others evenprofound problems in myself)): this did happen [we are talking about the valid part of my enlightenment] during my years of being in Unity Consciousness, and it was nothing different in principle than a Socratic demolishing the argument of one of his interlocutors (only with a lot more fireworks)systematically, perfectly. Within the context of my experience of Unity Consciousness a certain dialectical dynamic could be set into motion by behaviour on the part of a given person which [this behaviour] was at once 1. in violation of that person's true nature 2. in violation of the context of reality as the universe serves it up. > > Now I am not (thank God) in the position to work on you via this original process (I never knew of its existence before I went into Unity Consciousnessand in the end it proved to be more destructive than beneficial to those who submitted to it), but even though I stand apart from that terrible compulsion of minewhich, as I have just stated extended BEYOND, well beyond, where it should have goneI nevertheless recognize that in this post to which I am responding here YOU HAVE GONE OFF THE DEEP END, RAVI. > > Ravi: NO I HAVEN'T, MZ. YOU HAVE GONE OFF THE DEEP END. > > Well, I suppose it is possible for both of us to be right, or both of us to be wrong. But here's the deal, Ravi: which one of us provides the greater purchase on reality to a disinterested reader who reads my long post from Sunday (June 26) and then this post of yours: the account as it stands there or the devastating and necessary dismemberment of that account as performed by yourself? > > Now you note that I am NOT EVEN ENTERING INTO THE REALM of disputation and polemic here. That is, I am not attempting to defend myself, or the truthfulness of my post from yesterday. I am merely pointing (and the irony here, as least abstractly conceived, could be that YOU ARE ACTUALLY RIGHT, I AM ACTUALLY WRONGso in effect, if this dialectical process does exist within the powers of the intelligence behind reality, than it is conceivable that instead of me turning this process onto you, YOU COULD INDEED TURN IT ONTO MEI am quite ready for such a unanticipated, undreamed of possibilityand I SHOULD always be so ready) out that, on the basis of what I have read here (your post), I am aware of this reactivation of the context within which I acted while under the perfect hallucination of enlightenment. (There were, after all, some very valid things about my enlightenment: those Vedic gods know a thing or two.) > > I have been told that after Rick Archer interviewed you about your self-realized state, you said you were actually only giving a mock-interview; that you were playing Rick for a fool (and I believe there were unwanted consequences to this decision of yours to publicly declare this). Well, I don't say in this instance you are DELIBERATELY repeating that same act with me; but I can assure you, Ravi: your categorical dismissal and denial of there being any sort of truthful epistemological basis to my enlightenment is, just on the face of it, a far too radical and uncompromising judgment to make. EVEN IF I AM WRONG OBJECTIVELY ABOUT WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED TO ME. And thus my post from yesterday, is, when it comes right down to it, more a clinical than a serious philosophical and theological document. > > So, do we understand each other, then, Ravi? I am not out of mere pique and psychological frustration accusing you of getting me all wrong in that post. What I AM saying, is that in the extremist form your rebuttal has taken, you have gone outside of the parameters where your argumentjuxtaposed with my long posthas any real meaningfulness. And because of this, it lays you open to the chargeand supernaturally driven arraignment whereby you could be PROVEN to be mistaken, utterly and totally mistaken. > > No Ravi: it is not a question of who is right and who is wrong between us. It is a question of the context of metaphysical believability which forms around what each of us has said about enlightenment: me, in that post of yesterday; you in this post of today. I submit to you that you have recklessly and irresponsibly chosen to argue against what I have said is the case (for me) in a manner and form which, just in itself, refutes itself. Because measured against the probability of the relativistic truthfulness of what I have said, what you said in response seems almost unthinkingly dogmatic and arbitrary. You see, Ravi, in order to make the argument that you have made, you virtually have to ignore entirely the sincerity and vulnerability and honesty out of which I wrote that posthowever deceived I may be and remain about the extent to which what I have said represents what really happened when viewed under the aspect of eternity. > > Now in THIS post I am not seeking vindication. I am just alerted to your tendency (held nicely in check in your most recent reactions to me, once you launched your first missile after I first began to post here) to suddenly 'go off', which I believe you have done in this latest post. In this one act you have demonstrated that your self-realized state cannot be any predictable index of the truth of things. Indeed I would go so far as I say that however delightful, creative, and eloquent (and I must admit witty) your present style of functioning [another Maharishi-ism there] enables you to be, in this instance (with this post) you areIMHOdisassociated from reality. > > But then, what I have said here may just provide the opportunity for a refutation by the redoubtable Ravi Yogi which will shake me at my roots, and cause me to beg you for forgiveness for having so arrogantly and quixotically and wrong-headedly judged the meritsintellectually, metaphysicallyof the argument you make in this post. > > I am prepared for such a contingency As I have already said, I had BETTER be so prepared. > > Hey, Ravi: I really wish you would return to being a nice guy when it comes to myself. Can't I write something which will gain your approval again, so youas you have already done oncerevise your estimation of me and declare you have an open mind about me? > > You see, the reversal, the dramatic and anti-existential [you did not GO THROUGH anything in order to arrive at the perspective you set out here in this latest post] reversal that is represented in this post (in contradiction to your recent approach to Masked Zebra) is, I submit, a symptom of a certain uncontrollable variability and whimsicalness in yourself (although I don't mean by this to be implying there is anything WRONG with you), such that you are, as in the case of Rick Archer, capable of suddenly changing your attitude and point of view WITHOUT THE SLIGHTEST SENSE OR AWARENESS of this severe fluctuation. [For instance when I viewed that interview with Rick Archer, you were, undeniably sincere and forthrightbut you actually pretended, after the fact, this was not the case. Did you consciously know you were dissembling when you did this?] > > I am sure both of us are sincere, Ravi. And what I have put down here will be subjected, I am sure, to the fiercest of criticism and scrutiny. Who knows? maybe the consensus will be that your post of today not only rivals my post in its sincerity, but in its argumentation it is the clear victor. > > That could happen. And I am prepared for that to happen. But that cannot and will not alter the immediate and dominant impression that I formed of the character of your post: that it came out of a self-context of perfect isolation and impulsiveness, without the faintest contact with the subtext of pain, and tension which was contained in that post of mine from yesterdayas potentially objectively false as my post could be when measured against reality. > > Now you will realize that I have not even begun to consider the CONTENT of your rebuttal. And the why of this is because the personal subjectivity of the human being Ravi Yogi so godsmacked me when I read that post that I couldn't even attend to the argument he was making. After all, Ravi, when one argues for what is ultimate truth, IT HAS TO COST US SOMETHING to do so. To even earn the right to lay down our philosophy. It seems to me that your take-down of the substance of my post cost you nothing, and did not carry with it any evidence of the nobility, or gravity, or sincerity of feeling that I cannot doubt but exists in that heart of yours. > > Am I all wrong about this, Ravi? > > P.S. I have a feeling that might be my last post at FFL. Not because of having suffered a mortal wound or unforgettable humiliation, but because I am perhaps veering (and have veered) a little too far beyond the standard deviation I have set for myself in order to continue my project of self-rehabilitation. Thank you for your post, Ravi. I wish you the greatest success and delight (and TRUTH!) inside the movement of your own experience of purported self-realization. Life is goodalwayssomewhere. > > > > --- In [email protected], "Ravi Yogi" raviyogi@ wrote: > > > > Dear maskedzebra - you look like a really nice guy and everything, there > > are some things I really like about you like anyone else on this list > > but you need to let go of your hallucinations and mystical deceit that > > you ever were enlightened. I have a hard time explaining what > > Enlightenment is, it can only be explained metaphorically(read some of > > Jim or Rory's posts), but I can easily catch someone who is just > > bullshitting. And I could see you are bullshitting when I first read > > your account on Mike Conley's blog that someone posted here a few months > > back. This is what you said in response to wayback71 - " I feel healthy > > and normalat least compared my TM/Maharishi enlightenment days" and > > this makes sense you seem to coming out of your hallucinations and > > intellectual deceit, you are working, taking walks - this is a good > > thing. > > Now why do I think you never were enlightened in the first place. > > > > Maharishi seems to have done a great disservice by his detailed > > description of UC, BC, BS but then he understood the greediness of the > > mind and the intellect, it was just a carrot dangling at everyone > > understanding the goal oriented nature of the humanmind. But there will > > always be idiots like you who will take it literally and like you said > > project these sign posts, hallucinate and intellectually deceive > > themselves into enlightenment. > > MMY description were not supposed to be taken literally and that you did > > comes very clearly in your posts. > > Barry is more smarter than you. He is right - "Enlightenment has zero > > value for others" and it's a highly subjective experience. I agree with > > him, I believe its just next to impossible for someone to declare you > > enlightened because enlightenment cannot be declared for oneself and > > cannot be proclaimed on others. > > I read you descriptions from 1976 in Switzerland on how everyone around > > could feel you were enlightened (Quote "I met the standard of proof, > > even in the estimation of the most skeptical and sophisticated of > > initiators") and let me tell you it was just a hallucination if others > > could feel it and see it somehow. I talk to many people daily and though > > people might characterize me as funny, playful, sarcastic, > > irresponsible, immature - no one can access my inner expansiveness, they > > can only deduce it or have a vague suspicion of something different. > > Remember your favorite "solipsism"? > > Enlightenment in most cases doesn't result in anything significant > > outside of you and you are no Ammachi. > > From your description it's clear it's intellectual deceit - you think > > Enlightenment is something special -I quote you "(I was) INCAPABLE of > > being bested in a one-on-one encounter with another human being") , > > "more versatile, more creative, more attuned, more commanding", "my > > enlightenment took was confronting the consciousness of those NOT in > > Unity Consciousnessthose, that is, who desired to be the > > beneficiaries of my superior state of functioning". > > Another quote of yours - "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 unlimitedthat is, while in the state > > of Unity Consciousness. > > Enlightenment doesn't mean now you are more dominant, you have power, > > integrity or having a an unlimited repertoire of responses. > > You are well advised to read some scriptures like Vasishtha Yoga or > > Tripura Rahasyam, if not at least listen to some of the interviews on > > batgap - enlightenment is nothing special, it's pretty mundane - this is > > one of the areas where I struggled last year, I thought I need to do > > something special, become a renunciate or a wandering monk..LOL.. since > > I had nothing left to do, nowhere to go, it was only with the > > existence's and my Guru's blessings I was able to integrate and let go > > of those stupid feelings. I realized I just had to continue doing what I > > ad or continue what was for me in that moment. What I should be doing > > could change tomorrow - to be fluid, to meet every moment in its > > pristine virgin beauty - that is what enlightenment is - it is not > > something special, it is not an acknowledgement from others. > > Enlightenment is only from the perspective of oneself, never a judgment > > of others, cannot be found outside of oneself. > > --- In [email protected], maskedzebra <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > 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 . . ."? > > > > > >
