Yesterday my husband handed me, ever go gently, the body of a dead hummingbird he found outside our window where we keep two feeders stocked with the sugar/water mixture so necessary for these small birds' survival during the winters here in Victoria. He fills them every other day because there is such a demand from these tiny creatures who often arrive, seven or eight at a time, to flit and drink just outside our kitchen door.
I took the small, frozen body out to bury it thinking of that frantic heart, no bigger than a tear, now still within its pearlescent breast. Its eyes were half open but sightless and that long, exquisitely fine beak as slender as four strands of horsehair still looking perfect and unbroken, ready to sip some fragrant nectar from some flower no longer blooming here in December. And those little wings, usually invisible in their speed, were folded back along the tiny body, looking so prim but probably just trying to keep itself warm in those final seconds of having fallen to the ground, dying. As I dug a small grave in the front garden underneath a statue of St Francis (something that used to sit in my parent's yard) I noticed the gnarled quality of the curled feet at the end of legs as fine as the smallest glass pipette. And as I laid the little thing into the small hole I had dug and covered it over, very gently so as not to crush the spent body within, I felt a mixture of grief and amazement that something this fine, this perfect, this active - this brilliant winking gem - was so stilled and because of that I was able to hold it in my hand, an impossibility under any other circumstances. Last night I was awakened by the wind, assaulting the house, driving the rain against the window behind my headboard and I found myself thinking about the hummer lying undisturbed under the soil. No wind buffeted there and all would be quiet, dark and very calm. Strange how one little life, and death, can fill your thoughts. I'm still thinking about that bird, even as I see seven others were drinking from the feeders, in this terrible wind, just ten minutes ago. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote: > > Maharishi: > > "Here is he who can speak for God, here is he who can speak for the cosmic > law, here is he who acts for God, here is the image of God on earth. > > > Me: What a great writing prompt. This discussion between Nabby and Robin is > fascinating on many levels but serves as an introduction to one of my > favorite issues: people who claim to be in some state of mind where this > statement is true. > > The idea that Nabby found something he finds hard to believe, i.e. that Robin > was really enlightened till he wasn't, is a hoot itself. > > The biggest problem I have with the whole traditional interpretation of > people experiencing states of mind which might be expressed in such a > grandiose claim, is that there is no real distinction given the poetic > looseness of the language, between the so called higher states and people who > are high functioning but suffering from mental disorders which manifest in > this kind of belief. And there seems to be little interest among the > enlightened to make sure there is a sorting mechanism other than, in > Maharishi's case, if you are speaking for God please keep your mouth shut, > there is only one God mouthpiece per movement. > > So Robin had his internal shift and was never evaluated to see if these > experiences were the "real deal" other than a short time in casual > conversation with Maharishi where very vague poetic terms were exchanged. > And certainly no one got a psych exam, right? > > Until the spiritual community has a way to distinguish this kind of claim as > the real, real, real, seriously the real deal, even within its own system > compared to the many versions of this conclusions drawn by people suffering > from serious mental disturbances, the whole thoery of higher states will not > be taken seriously in mainstream society. Nor should it be. > > I am fairly sympathetic to the idea that some styles of mental functioning > created by years of doing mental techniques might be useful. But not on the > heels of proclamations like that one Maharishi made. We already have too > many people making this claim while holding an AK or strapped with bombs. > > Now Maharishi actually proposed tests that I still think are reasonable > within the crazy world of his beliefs. That was that the sidhis performance > was an objective benchmark for higher states. And what I like about this is > that the claims about enlightenment are so over the top, it seems logical > that the person would have some noticeable difference in how they function. > But that was not to be, so now we lack such a standard. I would like to see > the enlightened just showing up with some quality that I find admirable or > interesting that might support the grandiose traditional claims. Instead I > see a self-satisfied snorefest in the Batgap interviews. > > So we have nothing but the kind of beliefs we see in every religion. A guy > like Robin says he feels something that could be expressed in that sentence > at the top. And some people around him say, "hey this guy really does seem > to be special so I will believe him." But we have such a shitty track record > with this don't we? > > I know what a broad swath this cuts, but here it goes: > > When any human makes the claim that he is speaking for God. I call bullshit > till proven otherwise. And the burden is on the person making the claim. I > don't know if there really is a God, but I do know that people claiming to > represent him on earth in any capacity are trying to separate their claim to > authority from my own. They are attempting to assume epistemological higher > ground. And we all know what to assume does. It makes an ass of ...no wait > that can't be right, it has something to do with me, or u or...oh hell I just > had it... > > it makes that person a total pain in the ass. > > Nailed it! > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" <maskedzebra@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" wrote: > > > > > > "The Lord speaks through him, the omnipresent cosmic life gains > > expression in his activity, the omniscient is expressed in the limitations > > of the man's individual personality, the cosmic intelligence finds > > expression in his individual mind, the thought of cosmic life is > > materialized in his process of thinking, the immutable silence of eternal > > Being finds expression in the man's thought, speech and action. The man's > > eyes behold the purpose of God, his ears hear the music of cosmic life, his > > hands hold onto cosmic intentions, his feet set the cosmic life in motion; > > he walks on earth, yet walks in the destiny of heaven; he sees, yet sees > > the glory of God; he hears, yet hears the silence; he speaks, yet speaks > > the word of God; he speaks, yet speaks the intention of God; he speaks and > > draws out the purpose of cosmic life; he speaks and gives expression to the > > cosmic purpose; he speaks yet his words speak eternal Being. The man is the > > living expression of the omnipresent, omniscient, cosmic existence. > > > > "Here is he who can speak for God, here is he who can speak for the > > cosmic law, here is he who acts for God, here is the image of God on earth. > > His life is the stream of cosmic Being. His individual life stream is a > > tidal wave of the eternal ocean of cosmic Being, a wave which holds within > > itself the entire ocean of cosmic life. He is the expression of the > > inexpressible eternal Being. He moves in the ever immovable status of the > > Absolute; his activity of relative existence expresses the eternal silence > > of the Absolute. In the radiance of his relative life, the Absolute finds > > in him an expression of its Being. Angels and gods enjoy his being on > > earth, and the earth and heavens enjoy the existence of the bliss of > > eternal Being embodied in the form of man. > > > > "The formless appears in form, the silence becomes vibrant, the > > inexpressible is expressed in a personality, and the cosmic life is > > breathed by the individual. > > > > "This is how, when the breath of the individual becomes the impulse of > > eternal life, the individuality breathes universal existence, and then is > > gained the fulfillment of life." > > > > The Science of Being and Art of Living by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi > > > > There is no exaggeration here; this was my experience on that mountain > > on Arosa and for ten years after this. > > > > > > If you had put a full stop after "Arosa" your story would be fine. > > It's the following 6 words that creates a confusion that seems to linger > > on to this day. > > Last time I suggest you had a checking. This advice still stands. > > > > Dear Nablusoss, > > > > I would ask you one question, Nablusoss: What is the context and quality > > of your experience in making this judgment of my enlightenment? > > > > > > It is purely intuitional. It has nothing to do with details of what you > > have written. Quite the contrary in fact; many of your descriptions of > > experiences certainly has the rings of truth to them and are profoundly > > beautiful. But somewhere there is a shorting, something unhinges. Then this > > sense of not finding your writing quite fitting was confirmed by others > > whom I trust. > > > > > > > > But there is always the matter of who we are. May I suggest your > > rereading AWB's post where she questions the realness of this > > differentiation of higher states of consciousness--I mean the paragraph > > which precedes the one where she addresses a question to myself" > > > > Thank you for caring so deeply about truth of why we are existing inside > > the universe, nablusoss. > > > > Robin > > > > > > I just read your answer to Ann. Again you write very well, and there is no > > reason to disbelieve any of this. > > But as you point out: "And then the question will arise in the reader's > > mind: Given what you have just told us, Robin: How did you get out of this > > 'cosmic' circumstance? That is something I have not talked about." > > > > Since I happen to believe that you had not established permanent > > enlightenment in the first place, why would I be interested in your > > de-enlightenment ? Well, perhaps as they say in Germany; "The braking of > > the rule confirms the rule". I certainly could not say that there are once > > and for all no exception to a rule, and if you would like to explain how, > > in your opinion, de-enlightenment was done, I'm sure many would find that > > interesting. > > > > Dear Nablusoss, > > > > Gee. I never knew you hadn't read my post to Ann. Well, that seems to have > > made a difference. The person nablusoss comes through in what you have just > > written to me. Nothing to complain about here. ;-) > > > > It seems I must now explain how I became de-enlightened. Getting > > enlightened took me approximately eight years; de-enlightenment has taken > > nearly 10,000 days. > > > > This is the question, then, I will try to answer [to quote you directly]: > > "How, in your opinion, de-enlightenment was done?" > > > > You will understand, nablusoss, that whereas enlightenment comes about > > through a means which can be applied by anyone, I could never prescribe my > > panacea (for de-enlightenment) for anyone other than myself. It is, then, a > > purely personal ordeal and solution. > > > > It certainly is more interesting than how I became enlightened. > > > > I will do this (explain these past twenty-five years and seven months) just > > as soon as I am ready. This seems imminent. > > > > The world waits, Robin. ;-) > > > > Glad we're playing in another key, nablusoss. > > > > Robin > > >
