--- In [email protected], "emptybill" <emptybill@...> wrote: > > Cut the B.S. > > Truth is not a proposition.
I guess your experience is, "I can do nothing about this." > --- In [email protected], "Robin Carlsen" <maskedzebra@> > wrote: > > > > > > We are as brave as our willingness to experience as much truth as will > hurt us into changing ourselves. > > > > One thing is certain: at some point in our individual existence we > shall meet a perfect being. > > > > If you want to say something you think is true, you must say it > through the totality of who you are. > > > > Someone who praises us, or defends us, who speaks up for us--this > means nothing to us unless we sense they know us as we know ourselves. > > > > The good angels will among other things never know how good a cup of > coffee tastes. > > > > If you understand death the way it really is, it is, in the case of > every human being, a perfectly unnatural thing. > > > > Oneness has become the greatest metaphysical cliche there ever was. > > > > No one has ever complained about anything once they have died. Even, > as is the case: they continue to exist. > > > > The closest a man and a woman can come together is when they realize > there is a sphere of communion that transcends gender. Then are true > lovers. > > > > It doesn't matter how hateful, cruel, miserable someone is--just as > long as their experience is: I can do nothing about this. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When you say something or write something and all the feedback you > get comes > > from within yourself and from nowhere else, your isolation tells you > you are not > > exactly making yourself sweet to reality. > > > > > > > Or maybe the most exquisitely beautiful and perfect feedback that > anyone can > > expect can come from nowhere other than your Self. > > > > > If you are really saying something true, there is a strong > likelihood you will > > get some help in saying it--from the origin of what gives us a sense > of there > > being something like what it feels like when something is true. > > > > > > > The only help that is real, true, and unconditional comes from within, > from a > > place even more subtle than sensing or feeling. > > > > > Reality once was willing to be translated into dogma; no such > willingness > > exists anymore; reality is a living and experiential thing--only; > there is no > > dogma extant within which reality will allow itself to be held. > > > > > > Imagine coming into a context which knows you better than you do; > imagine a > > context which forces lovingly and involuntarily upon your > consciousness the > > truth of everything that could ever be said about you, everything that > has > > happened to you in your life--including every single one of your acts: > all this > > seen inside the perfect meaning of it all--a meaning which you > instantly > > recognize as complete therefore which you accept unconditionally: this > is what > > dying must be. > > > > > > Life is not designed to have the truth of it known through a process > of > > transcendence. Life can only be known inside its design from within > life itself; > > this is why the East must in the final analysis be false; it would > trivialize > > the immense and inconceivable suffering we have all undergone--and all > our > > gratuitous joys too. > > > > > > If there is a Personal God who has given us each a specified free > will (the > > faculty is identical in all of us; its functioning singular in each > and every > > case), then God himself must face the truth that the person he does > not > > eternally accept into his Kingdom (whatever that might be) has only > become what > > it was most certain he or she would become and could become nothing > else. The > > sense of the justice of one's fate--inside a context of eternity--must > > be--seemingly--felt to be more truthful and right (to that person) > than whatever > > awareness God has that he has willed in some way that that person > never really > > had the chance to be anything other than what he or she *has* become. > > > > > > The natural prejudice and cynicism towards Christianity is proof > that it once > > was true in the universe--because the religion itself says so much > more that is > > pertinent to the business of being a human being with free will in the > universe > > than any other religion--Judaism excepted. And there are no reasonable > > criticisms to be made about Christianity qua Christianity that account > for the > > animus against it. So, it must be true that Christianity itself has > decided to > > die. This is the proof it was true, for no false religion could have > the power > > and truth to destroy itself. Think Peter meeting Christ for the first > time: > > Christianity does not make this experience available to anyone. > > > > > > The Sixties signalled the end of civilization as we have known it, > but somehow > > there is the intuition that it was, at the same time, in a way no one > of us can > > know, the beginning of a new creation; a creation, quite obviously, > which has > > not yet come into being. But the intuition is undeniable: something > else is true > > now and that something else that is true means there is a whole other > truth > > regarding what is to come, about which we know nothing. > > > > > > Once Maharishi and TM did not come true, it somehow meant--for each > and every > > one of us devoted initiators--that nothing would come true. > Conclusion: > > Maharishi was the counterfeit of the real thing: the real thing which > has yet to > > come into Creation--something better than Christ and all his > suffering. It > > hasn't come yet. It is nowhere in the world. Not one of us > ex-initiators has > > found something experientially that qualitatively gives us a more > sublime sense > > of truth than we enjoyed, say, in 1973. > > > > > > It is something interesting to contemplate someone we knew so well, > having > > died, and wondering what that person knows now--about themselves, > about God, > > about all of creation. We are, each one of us, going to have that > experience, > > and we will remember this very moment perfectly and always. Once, that > is we > > have died--and therefore know we cannot die again. No matter what is > said on > > this forum, it just might be the most exquisitely personal experience > we have > > ever had. > > > > > > > Most of the above may be pearls before swine; some of the above is > exquisitely > > poetic that even I recognize; and I thank you for taking the time and > effort to > > write it. > > > > <snip> > > > > LaughingGull: > > > > > Robin: Thank you for the list of additional "truth" criteria and for > your > > > thoughts on Plath, Hughes, Stevens, and even Capote. I'm sure there > are many > > > things of value in what you write, and I'm coming to realize that > you demand > > > some effort on the part of the reader to attach significance to what > you > > write. > > > In other words, there are "layers" to your writing (much like > Maharishi's > > > response to the question of whether or not you were in UC). > > > > > > And I think I get it that the content of our lives (here on FFL or > otherwise) > > > could be far more than the frivolous, mundance, shallow, etc. etc. > way that > > some > > > of us post or live. Yet, that's the beauty in being here in that > *what* each > > of > > > us is doing right here and right now happens to be *just* the right > thing that > > > each of us *could* be doing right here and right now, here on FFL or > otherwise > > > > > > There are many approaches to one's realization of his/her true > nature, not > > just > > > the path of the intellect. Trotaka anyone? > > > > <snip> > > > > Robin responds to laughinggull: > > > > > > Any confidence not born of grace is potentially suspect. > > > > > > > > Thinking you ever have something more to say to someone than you > have to say > > > to yourself (in the saying of that something to that other person) > usually > > means > > > trouble. > > > > > > > > Life is always trying to break us open--at least in some > cumulatively > > > providential sense this is its intention. > > > > > > > > We just might have to put up with ourselves for a very long time. > > > > > > > > If love is not intelligent it is not the real thing. > > > > > > > > The highest gift from reality is the realization that one's life > is designed > > > to make one into a someone other and more than what we could be if > our life > > was > > > just up to us. > > > > > > > > Reality no longer provides any form of certainty about truth that > can exist > > > separated from the living and immediate perception of what reality > serves up > > in > > > one's experience. > > > > > > > > Any final idea of happiness will include the physical. > > > > > > > > If your sense of what is right does not escape from your > subjectivity, it is > > > likely wrong. > > > > > > > > Pride is just a very inefficient way of experiencing what is real. > > > > > > > > The person we are was once an idea before we came to exist as the > person we > > > are. > > > > > > > > LaughingGull: > > > > > > Robin, I too enjoyed your list of criteria for determining the > > truth (although > > > > I'll have to admit, I had to read each one very, very slowly!). > > > > > > > > I watched "Sylvia" again last night, a movie about Sylvia Plath > (Gwyneth > > > > Paltrow), her writings, her marriage to Ted Hughes (Daniel Craig), > and > > finally > > > > her suicide. The scene where some poets are just sitting around > > spontaneously > > > > rifting on whatever's in their heads reminds me somewhat of your > writings. > > > I'll > > > > bet you would have made a great "beat" poet...perhaps you *were* > one of > > those > > > > "beat" poets? If you care to share, what are your thoughts on > Sylvia Plath's > > > > poetry or the writings of Jack Kerouac? Did either or both have a > handle on > > > the > > > > truth of reality? > > > > > > > > RC: > > > > > I met Ted Hughes after a poetry reading: he was an extraordinary > human being. > > > > > > > > Who was at fault there--only 'God' knows the answer to this. And > now, so do > > > Sylvia and Ted--and their son. > > > > > > > > I liked *On the Road* a lot more than Truman Capote did. > > > > > > > > I think Sylvia more normal than Ted--but she could not bear the > mystique of > > > his maleness in the presence of other women. > > > > > > > > I think of Wallace Stevens possessing a more metaphysically > beautiful mind > > > than Kerouac. > > > > > > > > Being a TM teacher in the early seventies held a lot more meaning > than being > > > merely a Dharma Bum. > > > > > > > > Emily was abstemious in her posts today. > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Robin Carlsen" > <maskedzebra@> wrote: > > > > <snip> > > > > > > > You are just as interested in the proposition of being wrong as > being > > right. > > > > > > > > > > You let reality be as complex as it wants to be as it makes > itself known > > > > inside your mind. > > > > > > > > > > Your argument interacts with reality (and you feel this) as you > articulate > > > > that argument. > > > > > > > > > > You seek to say what you have said before but to make sure you > have the > > > > experience when you say it as it you have never said it before. > > > > > > > > > > You are always being potentially the most critical audience to > your own > > > > performance. > > > > > > > > > > You look for the fresh validation from what is most real: the > validity of > > > your opinion is, for you, up for grabs when you express it. > > > > > > > > > > You do your best to make your experience of being you as > original and > > > innocent as if you were just coming to know yourself for the first > time in > > that moment. > > > > > > > > > > You seek to know the difference between when the wind is behind > you, when > > > the wind is blasting in your face. > > > > > > > > > > You like the idea of life as the opportunity to continually > recreate > > > > yourself--and to be recreated. > > > > > > > > > > You have the experience that what is behind reality knows you > better than > > > you know yourself. > > >
