Dear MZ, my responses below. --- In [email protected], maskedzebra <no_reply@...> wrote: > > 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? > Yes. > 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. > Wow - that has come as a shocker. > 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." > Perfect !!! > (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.") > Good quote - I have addressed the "affliction of the innocent" part below. > 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. True and I appreciate that as well. > 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. > Good luck with that !! > 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. > Beloved is just a metaphor, it doesn't really stand for a thing or a person in particular, I'm not sure if its even personal or impersonal or if its inside or outside of me. > 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. > That's good to know. > 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. > Tough luck. > 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. That's good to know. > > Can we leave it at that, Ravi? Yes. > 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. > Seriously - I afflict the innocent? You don't really come across as innocent or someone who will be afflicted by my words - I could be wrong. Either way I will try not to afflict the innocent. Just as you find my behavior perplexing, I find myself exasperated by your elusive, eccentric and eclectic behavior. > 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). > No problem. > 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 don't think I have any offending beliefs, unless you call my love and trust in the existence to be a belief system. I believe enlightenment is just "I don't know" on steroids, that you are perfectly content, relaxed with what is. But I'm not going to buy into "you are right and I'm wrong" opinion of yours.
> > I have STOPPED evolving; you, I assure you, young man, you are STILL evolving. > I'm glad we are in agreement here. > As I close here, Ravi, my friend, I feel this has been a fair and equitable exchange of opinions. > Good enough. > 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. > Thank you. Your earlier posts had a strong belief of enlightenment being a mystical deceit and hallucination, now you heavily quote from your friend and profess your admiration of qualities such as grace, providence. Whereas you emphasized your intellect before now so you seem to be entertaining possibility of truth beyond the intellect. Like all of your previous messages - I don't think I have gotten anything out of it hence my label of you being "elusive, eccentric and eclectic".
