--- In [email protected], "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" 
<anartaxius@...> wrote:
>
> --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In [email protected], "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" 
> > <anartaxius@> wrote:
> > > In this post Ann brings up a really important point about the 
> > > enlightenment game. It does not matter if the person you are
> > > trying to imbibe spiritual experience from is enlightened or
> > > not - that would be a good thing if they were enlightened -
> > > but that they can get you to the next step that works out for
> > > you in that direction.
> > 
> > Seems to me Ann is saying she wasn't even looking for
> > enlightenment, so I'm not at all sure how she can be
> > said to have brought up the point Xeno makes.
> > 
> > > They might not be able to take you all the way, but at that
> > > point you are there and maybe they get you onto the next step
> > > whereas if you were somewhere else, maybe that would not
> > > happen. When the limit of what they can do is reached, and
> > > you are not an idiot, you move on somewhere else. How many TM 
> > > initiators would you feel could take you all the way? Their
> > > job - initiation, which means basically 'to start' - is to
> > > get you on a path. It is clear that perhaps with the exception
> > > of MMY no one continues to rely on their initiator to complete
> > > the job because their job specification specifically limits
> > > them to a few special tasks.

Just a few more words on the subject here Xeno. 

I am perhaps an anamoly here at FFL. Even though I meditated from the age of 14 
until about 29 and attended and graduated from MIU I am not really a seeker of 
any state of consciousness that has a name. All the talk of CC, GC, UC or 
whatever other terms are out there in other practices, these are not something 
I necessarily believe in or, at least, I am not sure consciousness can be 
packaged so neatly into these kinds of categories. As far as I know, I wouldn't 
be able to recognize someone in any of these states even if I was married to 
them. It is not that I don' believe these states could be possible it is just 
that the fact of them makes no difference to my life - at least as I perceive 
it. I am pretty sure, intellectually, that humans who are in those states, if 
they exist, are probably assets to the planet but other than that, I don't give 
it much thought. What I DO think about is how I can best live my life. For all 
I know I am in Brahman consciousness if there is such a thing (it sounds 
faintly familiar) but so what? I am what I am and I do what I do. Things happen 
in the world around me and I react/act/respond. Sometimes I need to think about 
it and many times I don't. Impulses come up out of somewhere and out they go 
into the environment in what I say, how I move, how I look. I perceive myself 
acting and measure the effect and respond again accordingly. I think this is 
what everyone does. 

But more than enough about me. To synopsize, I would just say that if I am a 
seeker at all it is to find, in every moment, the most appropriate action, 
statement, movement that is possible to ensure that I support what I believe to 
be positive and beautiful and worthwhile in this world. There just isn't an 
impulse in me to seek out a state of consciousness that may, or may not, exist 
as a distinct reality. If, in going about my day to day existence I stumble 
into some other state then so be it. I just hope it doesn't scare the hell out 
of me.
> > 
> > This may well all be valid, but again, it's not clear to
> > me how any of it relates to what Ann is talking about.
> > 
> > > Ann's lack of condemnation of Robin in the present day is a 
> > > recognition of her ability to know when an appropriate break
> > > is indicated, when to move on is necessary.
> > 
> > Very interesting interpretation of what Ann wrote:
> > 
> > > --- In [email protected], awoelflebater <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In [email protected], turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote:
> > <snip>
> > > > > > 2. Robin was never enlightened.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Isn't it amazing that Barry knows for sure? Isn't it
> > > > > amazing that Barry would even have an *opinion*, when he
> > > > > didn't know Robin during the period when he says he was
> > > > > enlightened? And when he doesn't even read Robin's posts?
> > > > 
> > > > Yes indeedy, it certainly is amazing. If anyone could say 
> > > > anything about this small matter it could potentially be me
> > > > since I was hanging around every minute of every day for
> > > > about 1260 days back in the 80's. But guess what? I am no
> > > > more qualified to say that someone is enlightened than I am
> > > > to say if they are in love, hungry, scared or schizophrenic.
> > > > Did it matter to me if Robin was enlightened? No, actually.
> > > > I did not hang around because I thought Robin could get me
> > > > to enlightenment or could bestow on me great spiritual gifts.
> > > > I hung around because I felt it to be life-supporting,
> > > > positive, extremely interesting, exciting and immensely 
> > > > fascinating. In addition I really liked Robin as a person,
> > > > as a rebel, as a really smart, lively human being. I felt
> > > > really alive around him and others who were also part of 
> > > > the "group". We were rockin' and rollin' back then. It was 
> > > > ecstatic and it was agonizing in turns.
> > > > 
> > > > If it turned out Robin wasn't enlightened 26 years ago would
> > > > I ask for my money back? Naw, I got more than the price of
> > > > the ticket/admission in return. If what he had going on back
> > > > then was called "Unity Consciousness" then so be it, you could
> > > > call it anything you like, it doesn't mean much to me but if 
> > > > someone wants to put a label on it then sure, label it UC. And
> > > > after all, Robin should know. I think you just might as well 
> > > > believe him as there isn't a soul on this planet who could
> > > > prove otherwise.
> > 
> > I wonder how Ann feels about Xeno's interpretation of the
> > above.
> 
> Well, that would settle the matter so I welcome it. In any case, I was 
> riffing off of what she said. Projecting. She seems like a practical gal, and 
> would make practical decisions about her own life, enlightenment or not.
>


Reply via email to