--- In [email protected], zarzari_786 <no_reply@...> wrote: > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > --beyond the bounds of what is expected, usual, normal, > > or appropriate > > > > There's also the Crazy Wisdom tradition, as you most > > likely know; and the Advahuts zarzari talks about. > > I find it funny you quote me (indirectly I know), where I just had criticized > you for your alignment with Ravi (and Robin!). > > No, I don't think Ravi is an Avadhut, because Avadhuts are not internet > trolling. What makes Avadhuts so special, and a matter of interest for > serious seekers, is the fact that they are the opposite of attention sluts. > If Avadhuts are abusive, and they can be abusive, they do so to chase you > away, because they want to be left alone, and not because they want to > attract attention. Most Avadhuts live on streets, many do so very > purposefully, some refuse to take up comfortable homes. > > The main thing about them is their total independence. The Gita, II 57 says: > "The wisdom of that person remains established who has no attachment for > anything anywhere, who neither praises nor hates anything whatever, good or > evil, when he comes across it." > > This is a verse following II 55, where Maharishis commentary occurs, that > there are no OUTWARD signs of the enlightenment of a person. But that doesn't > mean that one is asked to bestow the title of enlightenment onto about > anyone who demands so. It doesn't mean that one should throw all attempts of > discrimination overboard. > > No Avadhuta I know about actually claims enlightenment! It's just so > un-avadhuta to do so. > > My friend, who met many Avadhutas, and who let me to some (he is going to > write a book about it), met one Avadhuta, who was struck by another man at > his arm. He didn't react at all, he just looked at his arm, as if this was a > foreign object! > > So, if you say, that Avadhutas can react crazy, and can react abusive, it > certainly doesn't mean, that if you react crazy and abusive, that you are an > Avadhuta! And it doesn't mean that someone who claims enlightenment, and > reacts crazy is an Avadhuta! > > If you would see a complete desinterest, of lets say, who praises him, and > who denounces him, that could be a sign of an Avadhuta. If you could see a > total lack of making any career, as an 'enlightened' or becoming a famous > writer, he could be an Avadhuta, but then he would not be here around. Can't > imagine an Avadhuta making 50 posts exactly, then stopping to come back with > one or two videos! > > Can't think of an Avadhuta trying to create alliances on an internet forum! > So, IMHO, what one should do is apply common sense, and occam's razor, and it > is much more likely that Ravi has the problems he talks about. > > I remember Maharishi talking on TTC, giving an example of a lady, who claimed > to another CP to be in CC, and asked him to marry her! He warned everyone > that one should not take such claims serious. If somebody claims > enlightenment, especially on a public forum like this, I would take it always > take it with a grain of salt, because why should anyone want to do that? > Occam's razor means that on a spiritual forum, such claims are more easily > attempts at self exaltion. > > So, the explanation, that we cannot determine purely from outside signs if > someone is enlightened or not, is true on a sort of absolute level, but it is > not very practical. The term enlightenment itself is a very conceptual term, > and most enlighteneds I know about, don't like it, and wouldn't want to apply > it to themselves. It's like the carrot on the stick, just a goal you project > into the future. All the experiences people associate with BIG E can be faked. > > What I accuse you of Judy, is not that you have explicitly confirmed the BIG > E of either two candidates, but your quite obvious double standard in > treating people like this.
In fact, you should know, that Ravi takes clues from you whom to abuse, and whom to spare. As long as you had backed me up, he never mentioned me in an abusive way. The moment you started to become critical at me, and switched to your 'get-Barry' mode,(which actually started first in our off-board exchange after two posts), he started abusing me > That is to say, if Ravi throws some junk words in the direction of TM and > MMY, you somehow don't intercept in the same way, you would do as with Curtis > or Barry. But Curtis and Barry could be just as enlightened as Ravi or Robin, > according to your statement from the Gita, what gives? It's just the same, we > all could be enlightened, I could be enlightened for that matter (and I even > remember that you once called me out for it, that I, as an enlightened would > argue to you like this would be unfair, lol) And of course, I am totally on > Curtis' side in this whole Ravi affair. He should be either expelled, or all > his abusive allegations should be deleted, and this should be at least > treated as somebody overposting. Someone making 51 posts must wait for a > week, but he, abusing Curtis in this way gets a pass! > > With regard to Robin, I'd like to point out, that Maharishi said, that an > enlightened can only be recognized by someone being at least in the same > state. So, Judy, you brilliant championeer of logic, when Maharishi declares > that Robin is NOT in unity and never was, (and that is what is publicly known > AFAIK, for former supposed statements we have to trust Robin), the either > Maharishi wasn't enlightened, or Robin wasn't. Your choice. But from all, > what I observe from you here, it is clear, that you have never been in the > movement. >
