Great. Thank you for the reply. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <fleetwood_macncheese@...> wrote :
Persistence - One's identity associates with what lasts the longest. When pure awareness, not awareness of anything, but awareness of the source of everything, a current of deep silence, accompanies everything, while the 'everything' continuously changes, the identity shifts, after awhile, to that persistent pure awareness. We are no longer what we previously thought lasted the longest; job, family, thoughts, beliefs, or even physical life. We identify with pure awareness. We are pure awareness. This greatly eliminates the question of what is. It simply is. Pure awareness is the persistent reality. This being the case, there is no longer such a strong identification of what is mine, such an edifice built of 'me'. If there is not much me, how can there, then, be a strong not me? The idea, even the sense, of subjective vs. objective, no longer makes complete sense. However, even on the basis of all of this silence, my personality continues along, trying not to get me into too much trouble, though ever serving my Infinite curiosity. :-) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <steve.sundur@...> wrote : Jim, when you say "objectively", can you elaborate on that? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <fleetwood_macncheese@...> wrote : ...a major infraction of the "Barry Doctrine" - LOL - yes, he is quite the cranky old fundamentalist, isn't he? Glad you enjoy reading my experiences, Steve, and yes, they are mine...subjectively, and objectively. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <steve.sundur@...> wrote : Again, what am I missing? A large part of Barry's content here, is reminding, (okay, usually yelling at) people, that their subjective experiences don't mean anything. They are just their own, subjective experiences. And most people accept that. Or at least the part that they are their own subjective experiences. So, when Jim reports his experiences, I think they're pretty cool. But they are his experiences. So, according to Barry, we should be fawning over them? That would be a major infraction of the "Barry Doctrine" Barry, we are following the game plan. It's all good. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <turquoiseb@...> wrote : Game, set, and match again, Curtis. Mr. Angry Little Enlightened Man has a history of doing stuff like this. Remember not long ago when he claimed that he wasn't stalking me on the Internet and then tried to "prove it" by finding a photo of me that he could only have found by stalking me on the Internet and posted it? What an ass clown. The only thing one needs to remember about Jim Flanegin to put him into perspective is that after all this time claiming to be enlightened (how long has be been doing it now...ten years?), he cannot produce *even a single person* who believes his claims. Not one. That's pretty pathetic, if only on the level of complete lack of charisma. From: "curtisdeltablues@... [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2014 12:34 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi on Not Speaking Ill of Others + Finding Something Good in Others and Talking about that Good Did you just call a stranger on the internet a poopy pants? That is adorable. Who's my angry little man? You are, goochi goochi goo. Where's that smile. Come on, where is that smile Mr. Frowny Pants. There it is! I see it now. Smile for the bad, bad man whose words make you feel this way. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <fleetwood_macncheese@...> wrote : What a bunch of BS, Curtis. I have seen you be a sneaky, underhanded, back-stabbing little shit on here, much more than once, which you then seek to bury, rationalize, and justify, under a ton of words. You are not evil, Curtis, waaay too petty to be evil - just a mean-spirited, and unsuccessful, jerk. This word-flood isn't working, no matter how much rational Curtis, has convinced asshole Curtis, that it is. So, save this favorite story for your gullible friends - The rest of us see right through you. Have a nice day. :-) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote : --In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote : WGM4U: Curtis-wiki is useful, but not the final word. C: I only went there for the quote, I already knew what the phrase meant and used to own the gag statue. WGM4U: Hear, see and speak no evil is just a catch-all phrase meaning stay on the positive side of life, IMHO. If you entertain evil, indulge in evil, speak evil it pollutes your own soul, why gossip? You take on that evil, it 'soils' your own soul. It doesn't mean we don't see things for what they are, we just don't indulge in them in the same manner. MMY was saying the same thing, I hope this helps you understand MMY better. C: I believe that Maharishi's purpose was much more specific than telling us to be good boys and girls and don't be bad boys and girls. I am not sure what you mean by "entertaining" evil? Serving it drinks? After a few bourbons evil always gets grab-assy. I guess indulging in evil is doing evil things which is kind of obvious. Of course the people likely to hear and heed such a warning are not likely to be evil doers in the first place. The value of it is kinda thin practically speaking. And I am not sure what you mean by "speaking evil." Buck is using it to mean anyone who states his disagreement with Maharishi's teaching, so I am not sure what standard is being invoked here. I think it is nicer to not be a dick to people, but that is more my preference from my upbringing than anything else. The reason people gossip is to check their social values allignement with other people in their tribe. It has a value which is why it is so popular. But it doesn't have anything to do with my discussions here. I am not gossiping about Maharishi when I present my POV on him and his teaching. What the phrase see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil implies is to put your head in the sand and ignore "evil." This is Maharishi's teaching about how to deal with people like me who disagree with his philosophy. Buck is violating Maharishi's rule about ignoring people who don't play along with the assumptions of the movement. In the movement people like me are demonized as being "evil" when we speak up about our POV. It is a cult move to protect the beliefs. But this principle gets very tricky when you deal outside the closed belief system of a cult mindset. Do you remember the Age of Enlightenment News we used to read to course participants, stripped of any "negative" news? Is it entertaining negativity to know about schools being de-funded and fighting back against the politicians who are doing it? Should we just not see this evil, or hear about it? Screwing kids out of their chance out of a good education is evil in my book, but should I ignore it? What about child abuse? It is by any standard evil right? Should we not see or hear about it, should we not speak out against it and fight it where we can? And what about if we believe in our hearts that a philosophy is flawed and does harm through irrational beliefs? Is it wrong to notice that people who are killing the last of our tigers and rhinos on the planet because they believe in THEIR hearts that these animal's body parts have magical properties? Should we see this evil and confront it on the level of education against this irrational belief? Or should we see no evil? And what if after 15 years studying Maharishi's teaching and experiencing his programs I came to the conclusion that there are faults in his assumptions about what these states of mind mean. What if I sincerely believed that my experience in the group was a valuable insight about the teaching from the perspective of an insider. What if I felt that my POV was as valuable as anyone else's who promote Maharishi's teaching. Am I being "evil" for expressing my opinion on an open forum? WGM4U: Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. Matt 10:16 King James C: I like poetry as much as the next literature fan. But in a world of wolves, sheep and doves get eaten. I would rather be a human who knows all about the habits of wolves so I can steer clear of them or if necessary, deal with them. Sheep and doves are both dumb as rocks. They are terrible metaphors for how people should live in the world. But hey, I appreciate your extending the conversation, I really do. We don't agree about this it seems, or at least are seeing it in completely different ways. If your way suits you, more power to you. I am just grateful for an opportunity to write about how I feel about it and for that, I thank you.
