Dear Ravi,
Well, I think I will let someone else (good friend that he is) speak on behalf
of myselfand who knows? maybe you too. Here's what this very nice fellow
saidit's been a while, mind you, since he said it, but I think he still
believes the same thingNo, in fact I am sure he does. You there, Ravi? Here
goes:
"Not merely learning about divine things but also experiencing themthat does
not come from mere intellectual acquaintance. . . but from loving the things of
God and cleaving to them by affection. Fellow-feeling comes from fondness
rather than from cognizance, for things understood are in the mind in the
mind's own fashion, whereas desire goes out to things as they are in
themselves; love would transform us into the very condition of their being.
Thus by the settled bent of his affections. . . the lover of divine matters
divinely catches their gist."
Isn't this Ravi Yogi all over?
But (this close friend of mine) also said (not incompatible with previous
statement):
"Truth is a divine thing, a friend more excellent than any human friend."
To the consternation and chagrin of a few readers on this blog I happen to
believe wholeheartedly in both theselet me call them thisPERCEPTIONS.
The lastHi, Raviidea of my friend (It is not exactly an original notion I'd
saybut it's the succinctness of the way of it getting said that sticks with
me) is, even in a purely psychological sense, germane to our present situation:
"Everything is provided for in the scheme of the universal cause; nothing can
evade it."
(Although speaking on behalf of myself, as a victim of your eviscerations of my
beliefs and autobiographical confessions, I would have to end with a final
quotesame person:
"Nothing appears more to impugn divine providence in human affairs than the
affliction of the innocent.")
But let's get serious, Ravi.
We both seem more or less unyielding in our own original ways of seeing things,
Ravi [my erstwhile Unity Consciousness, your ongoing Self-Realization]. I am
happy to leave it at that. This friend, whom I have quoted here, he did teach
me (directly and indirectly) more than MMY didalthough nothing in my
experience can touch the brilliance, the power, and the joy of those eighteen
years when I thought Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (and his Teachingand the context he
created inside creation for me to exist and thrive) the functional equivalent
of God.
Since (in my opinion) Maharishi (and his metaphysical context) went as far as
anything could go towards the experience and reality of Heaven itself (inside
of oneself I suppose), the fact that in the end he proved to be a charlatanand
oh so subtly corrupt through and throughmust mean that he (and his Teaching)
was mocking something that WAS real and true (or so I must infer, given the
person that I am).
Therefore, Ravi, there is a truth ("more excellent than any friend"or, I would
add, any lover) that we will enter into when we go through the experience of
death. My reason for posting on this blog, believe it or not, is to prepare
myself for just this very non-contingent reality. It's coming up for me, in
other words, whether I like it or not.
I excepte your Beloved in this; I realize he/she never even got born. That, I
have to admit, is a considerable advantage over myself. He/she ain't no afraid
of dying either.
In any case, I have to conclude that opposition from the Ravi Yogi, why, it's
just part of the happy ordeal of getting ready for what I will encounter (and
never be fully ready for) when my soul isforciblyseparated from my body.
When that famous saint [something I have quoted previous posts] said:
"Everything is grace", what she meant was that everything that is happening in
the universeincluding the decisions made by our own very private free
willsand all the suffering and violence and injusticecan be apprehended, if
one is given supernaturally this perspective, to be not happening outside of
the intention of a Personal Intelligence.
Alas, I have not been afforded this sainted viewpoint.
But anyhow, Ravi, even this quarrel between us, when I am rendered dumbfounded
by your chameleon, protean, quicksilver shifts of mood and thought,
isnecessarilypart of this grace.
And so, I should be content. And, I think, after this latest exchange (at least
when it comes to the happy, merry, infuriating flourishes of one Ravi Yogi), I
am.
Can we leave it at that, Ravi?I mean with the implicit promise you will not
"afflict the innocent"? Like St Francis, I am more trusting in Sister Death
than the whirling dervish Indian engineer who has so tormented [Why, oh why,
God?] me since I came onto this blog.
But you must NEVER think you have pierced the armour of my unassailable and
indefectible personal belief system. Only Mr Death can do that (I have, I know,
switched genders).
Look, Raviand by golly this is the last time I am going to tell you this: I AM
RIGHT AND YOU ARE WRONG. Simple procedure whenever your own beliefs deviate
from what I have laid down in my posts: This is not the signal for you to start
to ARGUE with me, but rather (someday you will be grateful to me for telling
you this) is the sign (from your Creator) to SUBMITand jettison those
offending beliefs.
When is this going to get through to you and your Beloved?
I have STOPPED evolving; you, I assure you, young man, you are STILL evolving.
As I close here, Ravi, my friend, I feel this has been a fair and equitable
exchange of opinions.
Aristotle has said (again in the words of my good friend) that "those who are
moved by divine instinct have no need to take counsel according to the reason;
they follow an intimate instinct and ARE MOVED BY A BETTER PRINCIPLE." [my
emphasis]
This, I must believe, applies to the case of that immortal soul Ravi Yogi.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ravi Yogi" <raviyogi@...> wrote:
>
> Dear maskedzebra, I have refrained from commenting on your experiences
> such as your battles with the Vedic Gods and such since these are your
> metaphors for your battles, my comments on the rest below.
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > 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?
> >
> First of all you have to let me know what my scriptures are and what is
> their concept of enlightenment. Because all the scriptures I have read
> didn't give any concept, just pointers to it. So I will answer your
> question though it's not exactly well stated. I have been and continue
> to be at a loss of words for my experience, but I, as in my rational
> mind, does want to do both 1 & 2 - i.e. explain my experience to myself
> and others, daily, my rational mind is constantly at it, every minute,
> trying to explain it away. So the integration of the rational mind with
> the experience is the metaphors I throw out - some my own, some well
> repeated ones. I don't just parrot the well repeated ones but they mesh
> well with what I feel.
> > 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.
> Mine - the first was dramatic and extraordinary too, but it has followed
> with periods of integration and another dramatic transition with higher
> intensity. But it doesn't seem to have the finality as you conclude
> yours to be, mine has more been like a rise and coast, another rise and
> coast, more like an airplane ascending, I can't say I have reached the
> destination.
> Unlike yours my idea of enlightenment hasn't included dominating others,
> besting others, or resulted or felt the need for an acknowledgement from
> others or need to put in a predefined bucket or the need to show off as
> a special state to be emulated by others.
> I have to say you have been cheated by Maharishi or that you missed the
> pun.
> I loved the quote - "Ignorance has no beginning but an end whereas
> Enlightenment has a beginning but no end". I don't know why your
> experience could not exist in the ordinary waking state consciousness -
> doesn't make any sense to me. Enlightenment is not opposed to the waking
> state.
> > 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.
> >
> Doesn't make any sense to me - what are your definitions of "reality"
> and "enlightenment" and why doesn't enlightenment represent "reality"
> accurately?
>
> > 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.
> >
> I never said I gave a mock interview, it was just a pun that you missed
> - yet again - why am I not surprised?
> >
> > 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?
> >
> I always have an open mind, always ready to contradict myself- not sure
> why you thought I was not a nice guy and not sure why you would need my
> approval - you are giving too much power to me and your Vedic Gods - or
> may be you think I'm one of these Vedic Gods? I'm a nobody.
>
> > Am I all wrong about this, Ravi?
> >
> I really am unable to comment on any of the paragraphs above without
> some kind of details from you on your concept of "reality" (which you
> seem to stress in every paragraph) and/or "truth", "UC" (is this same as
> enlightenment?). You are wrong in your assessment - my post was sincere,
> not in isolation or impulsiveness, your entire argument was based on you
> having attained UC and your description of UC if indeed synonymous to
> enlightenment didn't make any sense to me.
> > 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.
> If you decide to stop posting in the interest of your
> self-rehabilitation - that's fair enough - since I did that myself here
> for a few months here last year, but I wouldn't want it to be because of
> me.
> > 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.
> >
> Thank you. Life is good - here. This quote says it all - ""Life is not a
> problem. If you are trying to solve it you will miss it."
> You seem to be a typical philosopher, caught in words, spend your entire
> time in words, creates God, reality, truth out of words - a peddler of
> empty words, master of intellectual jugglery.
>
