--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Take your next vacation in Fairfield and sit in on two of our 
> >Wednesday night satsangs, and question some of the folks there to 
> >your heart's content. I think it'll shake up your beliefs a bit.

I thought Vaj had done that, at least listened in, and found it heavy
in group-think. It would seem, as observed in  many group support
groups, some if not many, quickly become adept at mimicing the groups
themes and by doing so gain both subtle and more manifest cues and
encouragement. Not to say the satsangs necessarily manifest these
group dynamics, but nothing is evident as to why they would and do not.

> > And all of it's contingent upon our flawed abilities to judge 
> > others'subjective states from their attempts to express the 
> > inexpressible in words.

Thus why would sitting in on Satsangs prove to be world view shaking?
Anyone can use any words. MMY used to laugh at the Book Cosmic
Consciousness (Burke?) and say the samething, "anyone can say
anything, any words, it means nothing." 

The words may be valid, or they may be wishful thinking,
peer-ifluenced testimonials, or more manifest fabrications to
substantiate the myth of individuality. Who knows. And, to what extent
does it matter?

It seems that all one really say from listening to experiences of
another is some variation on the following themes i) "yes, that sounds
like what I have experienced", ii) "that sounds odd, it does not
describe my experience of that, but sounds more like wishful thinking
based on current or classical lingo" iii) the person does not exhibit
the qualities that they say are characteristics of their state, or iv)
 "I don't have any experience that corresponds to what is being
described, it sounds resonable, maybe its a clear eperience and
interpretation of such, maybe its not".

> > Vaj, I consider you a friend and I respect your scholarship and
> > experience,  and can't match either, and I also respect and to 
> > some extent share 
> > your concerns about premature claims to enlightenment, but I have
> > serious doubts  about your apparent belief that regular folks like
> >  Jim, Dr. Pete,
> > etc.,  can't possibly be experiencing the "real" thing, 

Who is saying the eperiences can't possibly be real? If themes ii-iii
apply, it may raise skepticism, or at least some legitimate questions.
Why should quesions not be asked in those conditions (themes ii-iii). 

Your point sounds like the first verse of the longer, odd refrain
sometimes sung here that "you are saying the experiences can't
possibly be real because you have never had any experiences and are
bitter and jealous". Whew, thats always quite a blast of ego-twist and
distortion -- either purposeful or simply from an unclear mind. First,
I don't remember anyone here ever saying an experience can't possibly
be real. Second, questions are valid if themes ii-iii apply. Third,
the reasons questions are asked , or points of oddness cited, is
precisely because they contradict personal experience -- in the case
of theme ii. 

> >or are
> > experiencing some  very preliminary stage and mistaking it for 
> > something more advanced.

Always a possibility. There are experiences and (mis)interpretations
of experiences. Two distinct things.

> on 4/8/06 6:30 PM, Vaj at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> > Well I can only comment on the contradictions they express here 
> > (or  off list). Some of it's very nice, some is contradictory. 
> >Anything's  possible.

And thus respectful questioning, and respectful answers (not attacking
the questioner as having low motives) seems productive.

> On Apr 8, 2006, at 4:29 PM, jim_flanegin wrote:
> > There is a perfect crystalline structure manifested of
> > consciousness once the intellect is perfected. It is this 
> >structure, independent  of any external reference points, including
> > a body, which centers  the Self. It is the singularity found at 
> >the intersection of past,  future, and infinity.

This to me is an example of theme iii. Jim appears to imply that he
has obtained a perfected intellect. (Perhaps not, perhaps he meant
something other than this interpretation.) If  its the former, it
raises questions, in that a number of jim's posts, IMO, appear to be
from someone not with a perfected intellect. Its fair grounds for
questions, IMO.

> Good luck with that.

Snide remarks are not really productive. 

> your cynicism is underwhelming.. 

Neither are dismissive and superiority-attempting replies.

Its too bad straight forward questions can't be asked and answered.
For example,

"Jim, you appear to imply that you have a perfected intellect. Perhaps
not, perhaps you meant something other than this interpretation.
However, if its the former, it raises questions, in that a number of
your posts, IMO, do not relect the logic of someone with a perfected
intellect. Thats not a proof, its an opinion and perhaps is based on
differing views between us on what a "perfected intellect" means.
Thus, to advance the points of yours and related posts, I hope you do
not take offense in my asking: i) did you mean to infer that you have
a perfected intellect, ii) if so, can you be precise as to what you
mean by that term, and how such a perfected intellect has manifest in
your conclusions, decisions and life?"


To subscribe, send a message to:

Or go to: 
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

Reply via email to