--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill" <emptybill@...> wrote: > > Raviola > > Yer like a teenage boy high on meth. > Stop sounding like a fool ... fool.
EB, you are always scolding someone. Now you're sounding like Buck, at least in your intention to silence. > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula wrote: > > > > Is this what Grandpa Xeno had to say in his defense? Why can't he say > so himself? Why does he need you to speak on his behalf? > > > > What do the doctors say - that it's acceptable behavior as long as the > object of the deranged rant not a family member? It's very frustrating, > there seems to be no end in sight to Grandpa's pathological behavior. > > > > P.S may be you were joking but Judy's not my aunt - YOU are, unless > you are singing Grandpa tune? OMG - I hope not. > > > > > > On Aug 26, 2013, at 4:57 AM, "sharelong60" sharelong60@ wrote: > > > > > but but but Ravi, Xeno wrote this in reply to your aunt Judy! > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ravi Chivukula" > chivukula.ravi@ wrote: > > >> > > >> OMFG get a clue, next time please keep your intellectual vomit to > > >> yourselves no one other than my deluded Aunt Share even pays > attention > > >> to your bullshit. > > >> > > >> > > >> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula wrote: > > >>> > > >>> Do you realize Grandpa Xeno how psychopathically deranged your > > >> experiences > > >>> sound? You are too alienated emotionally, psychologically - god I > felt > > >> so > > >>> sick reading your vomit. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Xenophaneros Anartaxius < > > >>> anartaxius@ wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" authfriend@ > > >> wrote: > > >>>>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" > > >>>> wrote: > > >>>>>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Over the years I've been on this forum, I have gradually > ceased > > >> to > > >>>> believe that there is a universally applicable scheme for the > > >> development > > >>>> of enlightenment, such that if someone doesn't have *this* > > >> experience or > > >>>> does have *that* experience, it means they are (or are not) > > >> enlightened. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Some experiences (or lack of same) may be more common than > > >> others, but > > >>>> you can't make absolute, across-the-board "rules" that apply to > all > > >>>> individuals without exception, any more than you can do it with > the > > >>>> experience of falling in love. The uniqueness of first-person > > >> ontology > > >>>> remains just that. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> My opinion, anyway. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> [to Dr Dumbass] Not what I meant by "scheme." I meant > something > > >> like > > >>>> Maharishi's "Seven States of Consciousness"--an outline, format, > a > > >>>> schedule, a list of "symptoms." > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> First-person ontology is the thing that enlightenment gets rid > > >> of, > > >>>>> > > >>>>> I question this and every other statement you've made > > >>>>> in this post that you apply across the board, as opposed > > >>>>> to describing your own experience. > > >>>> > > >>>> I am describing my own experience. That is all I have. There is > just > > >>>> experience. Not experiences, with an 's', but experience, > singular. > > >>>> Experience*s* are like sub directories or folders on a computer. > It > > >> is not > > >>>> uncommon these days, others on this forum certainly seem to be > > >> experiencing > > >>>> something similar. > > >>>> > > >>>> There are a number of people in Fairfield having this kind of > > >> experience. > > >>>> And, I am confident, many others in all walks of life having > these > > >>>> experiences. It is in the air. It is not just a matter of TM, > there > > >> are > > >>>> lots of groups and people bent on awakening and succeeding. > > >>>> > > >>>> I say these things across the board because that is the way I > > >> experience > > >>>> these things and there is some support in the environment for > this > > >> way of > > >>>> describing human experience in long term meditators. None of this > is > > >>>> special with me. > > >>>> > > >>>> You have every prerogative to question (although you have not > > >> actually > > >>>> questioned anything above, you have only stated that you question > > >> it). > > >>>> Mapping out benchmarks for spiritual development is a minefield > > >> because as > > >>>> you said, 'I think there are likely many exceptions and > anomalies', > > >> so > > >>>> there are people who are not going to fit the mold. My outline > using > > >> the > > >>>> terms M used is just one way one could try to map general > categories > > >> of > > >>>> experience. > > >>>> > > >>>> For example, Charles Manson shows a number of characteristics of > > >> unity if > > >>>> we examine his statements, but he is also insane, a psychopath, > and > > >> lacks > > >>>> certain characteristics that a presumably normal person would > have, > > >> so he > > >>>> would be a significant outlier in any scheme that purports to > > >> categorise > > >>>> enlightenment benchmarks. > > >>>> > > >>>> I have a collection of Classical music recordings. I always have > > >> trouble > > >>>> trying to shelf them in some coherent way. My system here is > > >> generally by > > >>>> time period and the composer's name, using the date of death as a > > >> marker > > >>>> within a time period and beyond that I can remember where most > > >> composers > > >>>> lie on the time line. > > >>>> > > >>>> I think M's scheme for enlightenment is workable for many people, > it > > >> is > > >>>> more detailed than some schemes, but in the end any scheme turns > out > > >> to be > > >>>> nonsense, but it has applicability for giving one a bearing while > on > > >> the > > >>>> path. If a person's experience is anomalous, a scheme will appear > to > > >> be > > >>>> wrong to that person. > > >>>> > > >>>> In retrospect a scheme might even seem more on point than when > one > > >> was on > > >>>> the path, because when you are on the path, you do not really > know > > >> what you > > >>>> are headed for, or even where you are, and a benchmark isn't a > > >> specific > > >>>> experience, it is an general category of experience so making a > > >> mistake in > > >>>> interpreting what is going on is certainly a reasonable > assumption. > > >> Even > > >>>> the belief in a scheme might be useful just to keep you going. > > >>>> > > >>>> My experiences were in some ways anomalous and that led to much > > >> doubt. I > > >>>> went through a long period where I did not want to read anything > > >> about > > >>>> spiritual development, meditating all the while, but just not > > >> interested in > > >>>> hearing about or discussing it. Also run-of-the-mill TM > discussions > > >> can be > > >>>> incredibly boring. > > >>>> > > >>>> At any point in a spiritual path all one really needs is > information > > >> that > > >>>> applies directly to what one's experience or experiences are just > at > > >> that > > >>>> time, and not any other drivel; it does not always work to apply > > >> cookie > > >>>> cutter templates. > > >>>> > > >>>> The TM movement does not really want you to look at other stuff, > but > > >>>> eventually that is what helped me most; I took complete control > of > > >> my > > >>>> 'program' away from the movement over time because it failed to > > >> provide the > > >>>> information I needed when I needed it. > > >>>> > > >>>> I experimented and researched. But eventually it was kind of full > > >> circle, > > >>>> I ended up reading about things that initially propelled me on > the > > >> journey, > > >>>> and found answers to questions I could not find easily within the > TM > > >> org > > >>>> and TM teachers. > > >>>> > > >>>> What propelled the restoration of interest in all this was a > sudden > > >>>> unexpected shift in experience. Everything I had thought had > failed, > > >> proved > > >>>> in retrospect to have been useful, but to have had more specific > > >>>> information at specific times in my life would possibly have made > > >> the > > >>>> process more efficient. > > >>>> > > >>>> The only reason I write here is to clarify the nature of my > > >> experience. > > >>>> This was also a big help, including the attacks. Learning to > > >> navigate > > >>>> opposition when experiencing basically non-opposition is a very > > >> peculiar > > >>>> exercise. Someone can say something that can polish up clarity on > a > > >> point, > > >>>> but that point is not quintessentially a function of intellect. > > >>>> > > >>>> Bear in mind that when dealing with enlightenment, one is > ultimately > > >> not > > >>>> dealing with rational discourse, but dealing with a quality of > life > > >> that > > >>>> underlies, so to speak, everything else in experience, one > attempts > > >> to > > >>>> align with that, but one is not always able to apply the > intellect > > >> to a > > >>>> situation because intellect is a subset of experience, kind of in > > >> its own > > >>>> little compartment; it handles attempting to organise verbal > > >>>> representations a wider world of experience, but is not that > > >> experience, > > >>>> it's a filter for that experience, which means something is cut > out > > >> or > > >>>> blocked when it is use. > > >>>> > > >>>> If you fail to align with the wider experience, you try again, > and > > >> again. > > >>>> You are not polishing your intellect - it might improve, or even > get > > >> worse. > > >>>> You are polishing something you cannot even see, kind of like a > > >> seagull > > >>>> riding the currents of the air, learning to gracefully move on a > > >> bedrock of > > >>>> mystery. > > >>>> > > >>>> Waking up, or waking down, whichever way it goes does not matter > > >> because > > >>>> waking is the common element, is not a green card to nirvana. It > is > > >> like > > >>>> your life is a building that has just been totally demolished, > and > > >> you now > > >>>> have to build it anew, with a new understanding which simply > cannot > > >> have > > >>>> the gravity the previous one did because you know it is not > really > > >> true, > > >>>> but has a practical value only. The things thought about, as > > >> thought, is > > >>>> kind of like a comic book version of the wider perspective, of > which > > >> one > > >>>> can not really say anything. > > >>>> > > >>>> If lucky, I suppose, much of the demolition happens in the > > >> background > > >>>> during all the years of meditating and search, so waking up from > the > > >> dream > > >>>> might be gentle. If not, you might think you have gone insane, > and > > >> you > > >>>> really do need some guidance. I have heard people say they > thought > > >>>> something was seriously wrong when the awakening happened, > because > > >> the > > >>>> nature of the experience, however well prepared, was so unlike > what > > >> they > > >>>> expected. But if the experience is clear enough, you can't go > back. > > >> You are > > >>>> stuck in the ocean without an oar; you are the ocean in a > specific > > >> sense > > >>>> which really cannot be described, so an oar would do no good in > any > > >> case. > > >>>> To all the people in my life that made this possible, a heartfelt > > >> Thank You. > > >>>> > > >>>> PS Judy, as this is a response to you, I am listening to the Dies > > >> Irae > > >>>> from Verdi's Messa da Requiem, just in case I need preparation > for > > >> any > > >>>> potentially forthcoming response. :-) > > >>>> > > >>>>>> one ends up with a unity-centric ontology, the basic > progression > > >> is > > >>>> that the mind's focus on individuality shifts to universality, > and > > >> the ego > > >>>> is left without a job. The ego is why a person fears death. It's > a > > >> fiction > > >>>> that conveniently wraps around various processes going on in > > >> experience, > > >>>> but it dies with great difficulty for most. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Conventionally we still use nomenclature when we converse with > > >> other > > >>>> bodies because it simplifies communication to say 'yours', > 'mine', > > >> 'me', > > >>>> 'I', etc., when transferring information between minds. As we > start > > >> out, > > >>>> everyone has a personal ontology experience, so what is unique > about > > >> what > > >>>> everyone has? It's like different coloured coffee cups, that are > > >> otherwise > > >>>> all the same. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> The basic scheme of enlightenment is 'me' progressing to > > >> 'everything > > >>>> all together'. The details in between I think are pretty much as > you > > >>>> surmise - different people experience the letting go of initial > > >> state of > > >>>> spiritual progress differently, though there seem to be some > basic > > >>>> commonalities. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> In attempting to 'harmonise' various traditions, I would say > the > > >> common > > >>>> states described would correspond to M's WC, CC, and UC/BC. > > >> Traditions with > > >>>> meditation might add TC, although some, perhaps those meditating > > >> with > > >>>> mindfulness kinds of meditation, may not experience TC at all > > >> because that > > >>>> meditation is really aimed at UC (which is probably why many find > it > > >> more > > >>>> difficult than TM). > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Mindfulness meditators may become aware at some point they are > in > > >> a > > >>>> state that is with TM called CC; in other words, TC is not > > >> necessarily > > >>>> described as the goal, since in this meditation, you just sit > there > > >>>> silently, which is how meditation functions in unity, there not > > >> being an > > >>>> inward and outward stroke. As far as I am aware, TM is not > > >> necessarily > > >>>> superior to these other methods as far as the final result; more > > >> important > > >>>> may be how much you want the final result. GC is more interesting > as > > >> some > > >>>> traditions would consider the refined visions of GC as just > sensory > > >>>> illusions, which then dissipate when unity dawns. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> The greatest difficulty I have heard people mention when > talking > > >> of > > >>>> their experience outside of the TM movement is the loss of the > sense > > >> of > > >>>> small self, or ego. Some people simply chicken out when they see > > >> that > > >>>> enlightenment is not about personal ontology. If they manage to > > >> chicken out > > >>>> prior to a very clear awakening, they might be able to go back to > > >> being the > > >>>> fake person they were before without much difficulty. People with > a > > >> strong > > >>>> ego-structured mind might have the most resistance to this > process > > >> of > > >>>> 'enlightenment'. Some people become frightened, really > frightened. > > >> They > > >>>> have so much invested in 'who they are'. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Enlightenment is not about your specialness in any way other > than > > >> the > > >>>> capacity to be enlightened, so when you reach that threshold > where > > >> you can > > >>>> go either way, you can either be a coward, or accept the fact you > > >> are going > > >>>> to die before your physical death. If the awakening is clear > enough > > >> you do > > >>>> not get to go back, and any remaining issues you have you just > have > > >> to hack > > >>>> through them, which really means they hack through the fictional > > >> 'you' > > >>>> until that 'you' is basically history. This is not necessarily > > >> pleasant. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> I think you are correct in assuming that the progression of > > >> experience > > >>>> is highly variable depending on the starting point and the > 'karma' > > >> of the > > >>>> person, the history associated with an individual body. Some > never > > >> make it; > > >>>> some breeze through without a hitch or any seeming progression (a > > >> very > > >>>> small number), and everyone else is in between somewhere. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> I suppose if you had a map of what might happen, it might be > like > > >> a map > > >>>> of the United States with New York on one side, and San Francisco > on > > >> the > > >>>> other, and some vague change of colour in between annotated with > > >> blurry > > >>>> text that cannot be read clearly. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> You follow the map, thinking you are going to reach, say, San > > >> Francisco > > >>>> from New York. Some of that indistinct stuff in the middle of the > > >> map might > > >>>> happen or not. You might get upset that you cannot find your way. > In > > >> the > > >>>> end, you find you were tricked. You never left New York, but now > > >> 'you' have > > >>>> a completely different perspective on life, the consciousness no > > >> longer > > >>>> identifies with the personal 'me' shtick process running in the > mind > > >> and > > >>>> the mind itself somehow acquiesces this state of affairs, so it > does > > >> not > > >>>> matter. And this explanation is a big, big lie. But it might > serve. > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> ------------------------------------ > > >>>> > > >>>> To subscribe, send a message to: > > >>>> fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com > > >>>> > > >>>> Or go to: > > >>>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ > > >>>> and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > > > To subscribe, send a message to: > > > fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com > > > > > > Or go to: > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ > > > and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > >
