--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, iranitea <no_reply@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Jason" <jedi_spock@> wrote:
> > Face it Robin, you were *never* enlightened in the first > > place. > > Bingo! The conclusion is therefore: not the Maharishi was deceived, but Robin > was (and still is) > > I found these two videos of Osho very helpful in understanding enlightenment: > > You Are in Prison and You Think You Are Free > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XyOmYVIsig > > Spiritual Growth and Enlightenment > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uP5J3i1H5dA > > There are several things that strike me as improbably on the account below. > One of these is the fact that Robin presents his 'enlightenment' in a > straight line leading up from his encounters with Maharishi and the > experiences he has had on courses or through plain TM ('transcending'). But > in my own humble experiences, this is not like it is. I remember Maharishi > talking about the 'shock of unity' (I am not totally sure now, if it as > 'shock of unity' or 'shock of Brahman') These were not very well known tapes, > but I am sure, more than just me, who are here, have seen it. This is what > actually coincides with my own experiences in this direction (I don't claim > enlightenment though.) > > Think of somebody being in a prison, and coming out of it! If you were your > whole life in a prison, you don't know what freedom is, you will only realize > it the moment you come out. It is not just a slowly and natural fading into > something you had already known before - as Robin depicts it. > > Think of Plato's cave analogy, how the person, who is led outside of the > cave, first is blended by the bright sun light, before, he only knew the > reflection of light, not even the sun, but of fire. > > I cannot help, and notice the strong emotional sense of nostalgia in Robins > report. I think many TM teachers can identify with these feelings, the > memories of being on rounding courses and so on. I know these feelings, but I > don't in no way, have any sense of nostalgia about it. It is simply gone, was > nice at the time, but has been replaced by something better, more true and > more liberating. So. I believe firmly, once you are liberated, there will be > a break to all of your past life, that cannot be reverted. > On rereading my post above, I felt it wasn't really strong enough. So let me add some thoughts and a little bit of context. One is best made by a reference to Sankhya, something Willy referred to in a post recently. Sankhya is all about separating Purusha and Prakriti. The confusion in ignorance is the mixing of both. This discrimination (viveka) is also important in Advaita. Now, Prakriti, that's all of nature, that's also all the gods governing nature. The Upanishad says, that the gods keep man like cattle, that they don't like man to get liberated (I don't remember which Upanishad says it, but I am sure many of you have read it, and Carde would know for sure). The point is, you are not just gathering the support of nature, you are actually going out of nature, you are separating from Prakriti in your consciousness. Now I am aware of the influence of Gnosticism in the spiritual strata, and I came recently across an Indian example of a teacher, obviously making references to basically Gnostic thought, by calling all the Vedic gods archons. I also discovered similar references in Aurobindean philosophy. Talking with my friend in India, I pointed it out, being surrounded everywhere by all these temples to various deities, in rural areas festivals are en vogue, where animal sacrifice is still very popular, normal for the people there, as turkey is at Xmas in our countries. My friend pointed out that all the Indian gods, but especially a certain type of goddess worship is always ambivalent. The goddess of smallpox has to be pacified, in order to not bring smallpox. So he made an interesting point. He said, when you step outside of the circle, where the gods have an influence on you, they might feel revengeful, and it would be the role of the guru, to sort of pacify the gods in you. I know it sounds weird, but this pacification would be a way, to reconcile your stepping out of prakriti, but still live within prakriti in relative harmony. So, when Maharishi speaks of support of nature, (he does so traditionally of course) then, maybe, it is this what is meant. But the way he speaks about it, just cuts the story short. It's sort of euphemistic.
