I agree but Marshy did - that was part of his con game.
--------------------------------------------
On Sun, 2/16/14, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Drinking Vedic Coffee and Discerning 'Cult' 
from 'Sect'
 To: [email protected]
 Date: Sunday, February 16, 2014, 4:35 PM
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
  
 
 
 
   
 
 
     
       
       
       
 
 
 ---In [email protected], <mjackson74@...>
 wrote:
 
 I agree with some
 of the things I believe Barry has said - that we are all
 part of this cosmic soup, and the entire infinite or nearly
 infinite range of experiences are available to us. The kinds
 of things Sal relates are available to all of us at anytime,
 but most of us aren't aware of it. 
 
 
 
 The idea that there is some kind of definable
 "state" of awareness and a well laid out
 progression towards it is in my opinion some made up baloney
 on the part of the old rishis who didn't want to work,
 just wanted to set around all day looking at their navel and
 when they had some of these experiences they said "Ah
 ha! This is REAL reality, and all these po' folk
 runnin' around doing all this doing are full of crap! WE
 have the lock on what is true, real and righ!"
 
 
 
 And like everyone else in the world they wanted everyone
 else to corroborate their reality so they made a big deal
 out of it and created all the sacred books of the Hindoos
 that everybody was supposed to embrace if they were smart.
 Along comes Marshy, fanatic Hindoo, and he used the playbook
 to make a nice living for himself. 
 
 
 
 So I think we can slip in and out of these different
 experiences of our own awareness. Some like maybe Eckhart
 Tolle can choose to stay in one spot for a long time, making
 it seem permanent. Others go back and forth. Which IMO
 accounts for the behavior we see in folks like Marshy,
 Muktananda, Kriyananda and all the rest where they appear to
 be brilliant enlightened individuals one day and the next
 day appear to be venal, petty tyrants and sexual
 opportunists and so forth. 
 Well, just
 as in waking state there are almost infinite manifestations
 of perception, behaviour, intelligence then why wouldn't
 there be the same in so-called "enlightened" or at
 least, 'other' states of awareness? I am still not
 convinced there are these "enlightened" altered
 states of consciousness at all and I certainly don't
 think you can categorize these states, if they do exist,
 into tight little cubicles of defined characteristics that
 are the same for all those having attained those
 states.
 
 --------------------------------------------
  On Sun, 2/16/14, steve.sundur@...
 <steve.sundur@...>
 wrote:
 
 
 
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] RE: Drinking Vedic Coffee and
 Discerning 'Cult' from 'Sect'
 
 To: [email protected]
 
 Date: Sunday, February 16, 2014, 2:28 PM
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 I'm
 
 thinking of some of the other "flashy"
 experiences
 
 that have been related here periodically.
 
 Bob
 
 Price related one, sometime ago.  MJ related one
 
 recently.  In both cases they were more or less just
 
 "footnotes", and then life moved on.  But
 
 they also seemed to have left their mark and a pretty deep
 
 impression, as though saying, "We're not finished
 
 here, just wanting to set a
 
 marker"
 
 But
 
 who knows, maybe it's just "random brain
 
 activity" as I believe Curtis once said.
 
 
 
 
 
 ---In [email protected],
 
 <[email protected]>
 wrote:
 
 
 
 Yes, I used to
 
 get a lot of things like that. A text book progression of
 
 enlightened states as espoused by Marshy. Really amazingly
 
 nice and it convinced me I was going to get there but it
 all
 
 stopped, maybe it will start up again but I doubt it and it
 
 doesn't even interest me any more, it's like the
 
 acid trips I used to do, a great way to spend a day but is
 
 it a good long term proposition? 
 
 At work once I became the unwitting centre of
 
 attention when I slipped into "unity" on a busy
 
 friday afternoon when we were normally running around
 trying
 
 to wrap everything up. Everyone else just pulled up a chair
 
 and sat round my desk, it was amazing how different yet the
 
 same I was, intensely relaxed but wide awake and flowing
 all
 
 things good from some centre that wasn't even me but
 was
 
 everything that existed and it was all lush, powerful and
 
 vivid. Happy days, but it wore off a few hours later and
 
 that was that. What it
 
 all means I cannot say, my guess is nothing, just a phase,
 
 maybe all that bending my mind out of shape suddenly
 
 reflexively threw it into a euphoric state. But whatever,
 it
 
 doesn't work any more...
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 --In
 
 [email protected],
 <steve.sundur@...>
 
 wrote:
 
 
 
 Wow, I hope you don't me
 
 saying this, but this is the nicest post we've had in
 
 about six months.  And it sounds like more than
 
 witnessing.I say that because as I've always understood
 it,
 
 the transcendental field is without attributes.  It is
 
 when we experience it that it becomes blissful.  But
 
 otherwise, it is just a silent
 
 witness.Whatever
 
 you were experiencing was creeping into waking
 
 state.
 
 
 
 
 
 ---In
 
 [email protected],
 
 <[email protected]>
 wrote:
 
 
 
 
 
 Yes,
 
 like being wrapped in infinite cotton wool, all rosy and
 
 warm. During some of those experiences I'd spend days
 
 seeing the world like it's made of christmas tree
 lights
 
 with that angel hair round them. Then it got even better
 and
 
 I saw where the light came from and I knew everything
 
 without being able to answer any questions and then it
 
 stopped.
 
 What
 
 the point of it was, other than to make me feel my ascetic
 
 life was paying off, is beyond me. But if it had lasted any
 
 longer I probably would have started a cult myself. 
 
 
 
 
 
 ---In [email protected],
 
 <steve.sundur@...> wrote:
 
 
 
 (-:   Hey, neat about
 
 that witnessing experience.  I experienced it once,
 and
 
 didn't realize it till after the fact.  But was
 the
 
 experience "blissful" for you?
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ---In [email protected],
 
 <[email protected]>
 wrote:
 
 
 
 Potayto,
 
 potahto.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ---In [email protected],
 
 <dhamiltony2k5@...> wrote:
 
 
 
 No,
 
 most of what you are offering as definition technically is
 
 about sects.   Cults form around charismatic persons. 
 
 Sects form out
 
 of specialness, exception or differentiation as in
 different
 
 denominations of
 
 protestantism or catholicism or denominations or types of
 
 meditation.
 
 Those are sects.  Sects are around fragmentation and cults
 
 are
 
 around persons as charismatics.  For instance, If
 
 someone really
 
 'charismatic', like earlier defined by Weber, like
 a
 
 Robin were to show up in Fairfield, Iowa and
 
 take off a bunch of meditators as his followers by force
 and
 
 power of
 
 personality then we're talking cult, as a sect.  That
 is
 
 different
 
 than the different sects of people out teaching meditations
 
 and some
 
 others out there teaching other things they've
 
 learned.-Buck in the Dome
 
 Salyavin808
 
 writes: You don't need any leader to be a cult. All you
 
 need is a belief system that sets you apart from the
 
 norm. 
 
     
      
 
     
     
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Reply via email to