--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley" <j_alexander_stanley@...> 
wrote:
>
> Whoa, that [Xeno's rap below] was excellent. Couple thoughts...
> 
> It does seem like TM can get people to the very edge of some 
> kind of awakening, but the shift often requires being pushed 
> off the TM treadmill by someone/something outside the TMO.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that someone or something
has to "push" a person into an awakening experience. I'd
say more that the person has to be able to *let go* of
the belief that they're "in charge" of their awakening
or non-awakening, and similarly *let go* of "doing" the
things they think they have to "do" to "cause" it. Most
of the people I know who have had an awakening experience
describe it more in terms of "falling" into it rather than
making it happen. 

I suspect that this has been true throughout history. I
doubt that very many human beings EVER had an awakening
experience while diligently "doing what they had been told
to do" to cause one. In some cases, they "let go" physically,
by either stopping meditating for a while or doing more of
it than they had been told, or by trying another type of
meditation. Others "let go" intellectually, and stopped
believing in the dogma they had been taught about awakening,
at which point awakening actually happened for them. 

But in almost every case, as you suggest, there was some
kind of "break" with past habits and past beliefs, something
that allowed the person to actually *open themselves to some-
thing NEW, something DIFFERENT*. 


> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" <anartaxius@> 
> wrote:
> >
> > St. MJ here seems to be pointing out that, as most people seeking to better 
> > their lives on this planet see reality, the movement's rhetoric is a series 
> > of false statements. That the promises fall flat, that there is no 
> > self-referral loop in the movement to provide a remedy. There is a 
> > bliss-ninny attitude where the discrepancies of what is said and what 
> > happens is ignored, is disregarded on purpose as a result of inner-movement 
> > philosophy to not entertain negativity. Whereas an intelligent system would 
> > simply note the discrepancy and do something to adjust the system. 
> > 
> > Entertaining negativity is not the same as a feedback loop designed to keep 
> > something on course. If you are driving a car and drift toward a telephone 
> > pole, you do not say to someone who points out you are in a bad situation, 
> > 'you shit, I know what I am doing, quit giving me negative vibes', you just 
> > turn the wheel a bit in the other direction and correct course. Ossified 
> > spiritual movements don't do that, like the incredible resistance we have 
> > seen in the Catholic church dealing with their buggering priests.
> > 
> > This is one level of reality, the level of the dream where most people 
> > experience life, where we all experience life until unity dawns, and so 
> > this is how most understand things when they think about life and the 
> > world. The movement ignores practical reasoning and action to the point of 
> > really bizarre activity and thinking.
> > 
> > The movement does not seem to me anymore to talk much about enlightenment. 
> > It does not seem to have a focus on getting those who have been meditating 
> > etc., for a long time, to complete the imaginary journey. It seems focused 
> > on keeping the revenue coming in with new recruits. Further, people need a 
> > forum to express their experiences. People seem really tight lipped about 
> > experiences in the movement. It helps to talk about them. You find out lots 
> > of people are going through similar positive and negative spaces, and that 
> > some people have actually had awakenings but don't have any information how 
> > to deal with the experience or experiences that come up because they can be 
> > mighty disorienting, for, because they transcend what one has experienced 
> > prior, these experience may not fit in at all with what one believed, and 
> > people have to have some kind of intellectual buffer to smooth the process. 
> > 
> > People can have mind-blowing awakenings that after a time can come crashing 
> > down for no apparent reason, or have great pre-awakening experience that 
> > are really blissful, but suddenly just vanish and they find themselves in a 
> > spiritual desert for years, and years. The movement gets you in the gate 
> > that lies at the margins of the mansion, but once you get close to the 
> > front door of the  building, what? What happens when you get inside the 
> > mansion? Most people have no clue. 
> > 
> > TM teachers are mostly trained to start the process, not fill you in on its 
> > completion. TM-Sidhi administrators, from what I have been told, have their 
> > limited sphere of knowledge. For the ground state of all existence, 
> > omnipresent, you would think there would not be so much secrecy about it 
> > and how to experience it fully. This is because, I think, because everyone 
> > in the movement, particularly at high levels are constrained to acting and 
> > talking as MMY would have them, and not freely expressing the unboundedness 
> > growing in themselves in a way that is natural to them. Everyone has to 
> > wear blinders, so as not to stray from the 'purity of the teaching', which 
> > is interpreted as doing exactly what one is told without deviation. 
> > 
> > I always thought as a new meditator, that purity of the teaching was 
> > experiencing how to take a correct angle and let go. That is it. that 
> > really is it. Initiation and checking seem to take care of that. It is a 
> > pretty robust system. But more is needed to handle what happens after, when 
> > people get stuck and frustrated, they need solid food, not blissy 
> > platitudes and blissy attitudes. They need to know the grit of spiritual 
> > growth which not always a rosy path.
> > 
> > I feel there is a lot of necessary knowledge about all this that the 
> > movement does not provide. Maybe it is there in old tapes and audio 
> > recordings of MMY. But everything we hear is sanitised and massaged into 
> > Pablum. It seems that the full range of experiences one can have is not 
> > discussed in detail in the movement unless perhaps you have big bucks to 
> > spend on some course, and then it trickles out in a paltry stream. So in 
> > this sense, I think St. MJ is saying the movement is not paying attention 
> > to reality, that is, where we are supposed to end up. It wants us to keep 
> > us on the path, which does not exist, even in MMY's own words. It is a 
> > pathless path. Intellectual knowledge is not enough, but it provides fodder 
> > for the system to reset itself. In particular one does not need 
> > intellectual knowledge that keeps one in the same rut all the time. It has 
> > to break boundaries all the time, not just confirm what you think you 
> > already know.
> > 
> > We don't hear how many people are getting enlightened, we hear about this 
> > and that project to build some building, or get some school to learn TM. 
> > Enlightened people develop an autonomy, a self reliance, and you cannot 
> > push them around. They won't buy bullshit in the spiritual theatre, they do 
> > not need the movement. Let me repeat, if they succeeded with what the 
> > movement gave them, they will not need the movement for anything. The best 
> > thing they could do is tell people about the value of spiritual growth. 
> > Maybe some would recommend TM. It seems to work well, at least in the 
> > beginning. Maybe they wouldn't, but they could get others to start 
> > investigating spiritual life with a real curiosity and gusto. Perhaps 
> > because of their own aliveness. 
> > 
> > One specific teacher may not be everyone's cup of tea, you have to find 
> > someone that resonates with you, and whose way of presenting resonates with 
> > you. At different points in my life, different people resonated with me. 
> > Sometimes it is just a book. MMY resonated with me for a time. But 
> > eventually you have to come into your own in this trek, its all about what 
> > you are, not about what you think you are, so any teacher or system that 
> > does not keep constantly putting you back on your own nature, 
> > experientially, intellectually, emotionally, is going to lose its appeal at 
> > some point unless you are a spiritual basket case.
> > 
> > A lot of what goes on in this forum seems based on a peculiar set of ideas 
> > we have: how does an enlightened person act? Do we really have any idea 
> > about what such a person does, day to day, minute to minute? Is it any 
> > different than what other people, not engaged in the living or in the quest 
> > of reality, do. Why do we assume that an enlightened person is going act in 
> > some particular 'spiritual' way. Many here assume MMY was unenlightened 
> > because of his behaviour. I disagree. I tend to think of him as an 
> > enlightened Rakshasa. People have faults. Awakening does not automatically 
> > negate bad habits, that is habits thought to be bad in a certain mode of 
> > thinking. It takes a resolve to adjust, and some just give in to them. 
> > Think of what it would be like to be the centre of adulation from all sorts 
> > of needy people, looking to you to answer their every question, thinking of 
> > you as some kind of god, thinking that you are the only hope they have to 
> > save their sorry ass and make their life right. It might be very isolating 
> > and lonely, to be placed so high on a pedestal, that you might never be 
> > able to climb back down and be a normal person again, to be regarded as a 
> > normal person again. The pressure to succumb might be intolerable. You have 
> > seen MMY in the Guru Dev movie - he looks like an excited groupie, like a 
> > lot of us were. He was just an ordinary guy at some point, and it would 
> > seem, got drawn into the whirlwind of what others expected of him. A lot of 
> > gurus seem to fall off the wagon. Being a guru takes a certain kind of 
> > courage and abandon that few have. Maybe this is why so many fall from what 
> > our sense of what an enlightened being is supposed to be like. But 
> > supposing there is no outer criterion for how an enlightened person should 
> > behave? That would be a pickle wouldn't it?
> >
>


Reply via email to