--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@... <no_reply@...> wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" <anartaxius@> 
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Its funny, dude. I am writing about direct experience wrt Barry, and when 
> > > I do, you quote me chapter and verse out of some metaphysical playbook. 
> > > Which is a little too conceptual for my taste. If you doubt what I said 
> > > about Barry never having experienced enlightenment, and why, why not ask 
> > > Barry about it? He knows the truth of it.
> > 
> > Where did you get the idea I was talking about metaphysics? Metaphysics 
> > explains nothing, it is tripe. Everybody experiences 'enlightenment' all 
> > the time, but the kicker is most of them don't have that word active in 
> > their vocabulary so the ramifications of having that concept in their brain 
> > never occurs to them, and most of the rest that do, think enlightenment is 
> > something else that they have to find, or develop, or attain; and that is 
> > OK because that is usually a step we have to go through on the supposed 
> > journey.
> > 
> > With you for example, how does that experience of silence seem, is it 
> > internal to the body; external? In relation to activity, where is it (if 
> > that is a meaningful question)? How would you describe it qualitatively or 
> > quantitatively? For me, the experience of silence has qualitatively and 
> > quantitatively changed over a long period of time. But the experience of 
> > silence alone with activity is not what I would call enlightenment. 
> > Increased silence is just a component of experience and at the same time, 
> > is all of it.
> **Right. Enlightenment is the fundamental shift in identity, accompanied by 
> the conditioning of the mind to support silence at all times, not simply 
> being restful.
> > 
> > Since you feel you have nailed Barry, what about Maharishi? Was Maharishi 
> > enlightened or not? What is your take on that? 
> **I guess my question back to you, is, "Who gives a shit, Xeno??"  Barry is 
> interacting in his peculiar way on this board, and my commenting on his 
> behavior is relevant to my continued enjoyment on this forum. Whether or not 
> Maharishi was enlightened is not relevant to anything in my life. Is it in 
> yours? Apparently it means a lot to Barry, too. Maharishi provided me the 
> tools to take my own path, and I am always hugely grateful to him for that. 
> That is where it begins, and that is where it ends, for me. 

The only system I ever heard of for pinpointing the level of enlightenment (and 
all states of human consciousness from 0,1 to 7,0) is that of Benjamin Creme's 
Master. According to him Maharishi had a very high level of enlightenment at 
3,8. The Rama fellow not so much, he was thoroughly unenlightened. 
The knowledge the Turq brings on enlightenment here is nada, zero, useless and 
utterly coloured by his immature emotional states.


Reply via email to