I think that this "tale" points out the short comings of the TM teachings and path. The focus is so much on personal experience that those who have some experience or perception out of the ordinary, feel special. This specialness and achievement is a focus of the TM philosophy. What would you expect to happen? Most true spiritual teachings teach humility and compassion, if you have "experiences" you should keep them to yourself or maybe share them with your teacher. This focus on experience and achievement increases ego and narcissism.
The experiences, perceptions and realizations can be true, how we relate to them and process them makes all the difference. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > The example of a possibly enlightened person being featured in a weekly > TV series on national television in the US presents us with a remarkable > opportunity. In "Enlightened," the character of Amy shows us a person > who was obviously, certifiably crazy (she was, in fact, "certified" -- > legally forced to seek therapy) having a subjective experience that she > associates with "enlightenment," and then afterwards expects people > around her to react to how she feels "inside" rather than how she acts > on the outside, in real life. She considers herself an "agent of > change," and expects everyone around her TO change, just as a result of > coming into contact with her. > > I think this fictional situation really begs to be compared TO real > life, and how three other people have "acted on the outside" in real > life, both in Fairfield and here on FFL. Let's compare Amy to Robin, > Jim, and Ravi. > > Robin is pretty much yer classic "spiritual crazy." Back in the day, he > had some subjective experiences that he interpreted as enlightenment, > and felt (and acted) as if everyone around him should react to his > pronouncement of his own enlightenment not only as if him saying it was > true made it true, but as if now he was some kind of "special" person, > one whose words had "weight," and should be listened to and paid > attention to as if he were really, really, REALLY special -- one of the > enlightened whose wordiness is next to Godliness. > > We all know how that worked out. Most people laughed at him. Heck, even > Maharishi -- who he was expecting to climb onto the "Robin is > enlightened" bus and support him -- regarded him as a crazy person. So > how did he react to that? He acted even crazier. We are talking, after > all, about someone so crazy and so convinced that everyone should regard > what he said as Truth that he rented a plane and dropped leaflets of his > own tracts on MIU. Crazy. Bedbug crazy. And now, years later, having > disavowed the "enlightened" thang but still as narcissistic as it gets > and still as convinced of his own specialnessitude, he writes long, > long, long solipcistic tracts here and *still* expects everyone to not > only read them, but treat them as the Truth he is convinced they are. If > anyone (such as myself, or Tom, or others) suggests that he's still more > than a little bedbug crazy, he lashes out at them and tries to portray > them negatively and demonize them. THIS is the model of "enlightened > behavior" that Robin presents to the world, and to us. > > Now think Jim Flanegin. When he first appeared on FFL, pronouncing *his* > enlightenment, he was laughed at, too. Suffice it to say he > reacted...uh...badly. He launched into long, abusive tirades against > anyone who failed to believe in his enlightenmentnessitude, so much so > that he embarrassed himself thoroughly and finally skulked off of the > forum in disgrace. Then, not content with that, he came back two more > times, "anonymously." He made up new screen names and pretended that > they weren't really him, and started the same abusive routine again, > consistently lashing out at those who failed to treat him the way > someone enlightened "should" be treated. Busted on both of those > attempts to conceal his identity, now he's back in a fourth incarnation > on FFL, *still* being easily the person on this forum whose buttons are > most easily pushed, still lashing out at anyone who challenges either > his own supposed "enlightened" status or challenges the things he > believes to be true. THIS is the model of "enlightened behavior" that > Jim believes in, and presents to us. > > Finally, think Ravi. His first appearance on FFL was actually more of a > meltdown than the fictional Amy's. When people here failed to treat him > as the "enlightened" being he presented himself as, he became so manic > and so abusive that almost everyone on the forum was calling for some > kind of "intervention," to help him seek professional help and hopefully > prevent him from doing harm to either himself or (more likely) to his > wife. Now he's calmed down a bit, but is still in the same mould as Jim; > every time someone pushes his buttons he seemingly *has* to react by > insulting the person who isn't treating him the way he expects to be > treated, and by trying to discredit them. THIS is the model of > enlightened behavior that Ravi believes in, and presents to us as > something we should both revere and hope to aspire to. > > WTF? > > These four people -- one fictional, three real (sort of) -- seem to > believe that they are actually MAKING A CASE for enlightenment, and for > it not only being a Good Thing, but the Best Thing, something that all > of the rest of us lesser, unenlightened peons should aspire to and seek > above all other goals in life. (Well, Robin doesn't do this with > enlightenment per se...just with treating his own words and ideas as the > Cosmic Truth he clearly believes they are.) And at the same time, they > all periodically act just as crazy and just as out-of-control as Amy > does. Am I the only person here who thinks that they're not quite making > the case for "enlightenment" or for it being a Good Thing that they > think they are? Am I wrong in thinking that compared to the fictional > Amy, *they* often appear even crazier than she does? > > I believe that enlightenment -- if it even exists, and isn't just some > former of mental aberration glorified by people in the past and > considered something it's not -- is NO BIG DEAL. No one should be > expected to either believe someone's proclamation of their own > enlightenment, or treat them any differently because of that > proclamation. The Supposedly Enlightened should, in my honest opinion, > be treated JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE. We should judge their words and > actions *the exact same way* we treat anyone else's. That, in fact, is > how I've treated each of these three bozos on FFL. > > They seem to be reacting to that with as little grace and equanimity as > Amy reacts to her former husband and her former lover blowing her off in > the first episode of the TV series. And they want us to buy that lack of > grace and equanimity as enlightenment, too. > > I don't. How do you feel about it? > > Seriously, is there anyone on this forum willing to step up to the plate > and say that they actually *believe* that Robin, Jim and Ravi are > actually enlightened? If so, are you comfortable with the day-to-day way > that they conduct themselves, as a kind of "demo" or role model of what > enlightenment should be or will be for you when you achieve it? Does > their example make you want to become all enlightened yourself? Honestly > curious. >
