On Apr 27, 2006, at 12:12 PM, anon_astute_ff wrote:
> This is a thoughtful and potentially useful counterpoint
> to Vaj's analysis. [sequencing changed]
>
> Yes, but it reaises some points for discussion (not the same as
> arguments supporting entrenched POVs)
>
>
> > -------
> > Hi Vaj, and thanks for your comments and perspective on collective
> > satsanging here on FFL (I am assuming this is the group you refer to
> > and have been observing...).
> >
> > I can certainly see from one POV how a group of awakened individuals
> > could appear to have some silent codependent agreement with one
> > another, driven by ego satisfaction. And how from this same POV,
> > there is no argument and little criticism within the group because
> > this would fracture the codependent nature of it.
> >
> > On the other hand, from another POV, I can see the enjoyment of a
> > group of awakened individuals sharing perspectives on a state of
> > ultimate freedom. With no consequences to other observers, one way
> > or another- no $$ requested, or follow up meetings advertised...
>
> Sure, both possibilities exist. I see Vaj's post as simply adding a
> new hypothesis to be considered along with the "conventional" POV.
> Like anything, if the shoe fits wear it.
It's actually only one of several "negative" dynamics present in the
satsang setting. There are others which I was hoping others might
bring up on their own, but instead they have posted on other topics
like the paranoia of being "observed", who is it he's talking about,
etc.
>
> > Because the same event is observed and experienced differently
> > according to our consciousness, I cannot say that everyone should
> > experience this group of awakened individuals in the same way.
> >
> > However, a couple of key points about this discussion:
> >
> > 1. determination of awakening, or not, of another is something
> > sensed on a feeling level. Proclamations do no good, unless the
> > person is walking the walk so to speak.
>
> Yes. And while I am only commenting on FFL, not all SS, IMO, the walk
> and talk have not always appear consistent. Such apparent
> inconsistencies are good, and fair grounds for questioning, IMO.
Yes precisely. However debate is often discouraged or not even
allowed in such a setting.
>
> > Unfortunately it seems that
> > the ones best able to see another's awakening are those who are
> > awake themselves...
>
> And unforetunately, those stuck in groupthink and co-dependency cycles
> are usually not the ones to first or best recognize it. Outside
> observers can be helpful in point out some patterns.
Yes.
>
> > 2. the challenging of awakened states is helpful to a point. However
> > to ceaselessly challenge,
>
> However, IMO, its a good thing regularly raise observations and
> questions about: unclear points, ramifications and implications of
> points raised, inconsistencies, paradoxes, contradictions,diversions,
> poor logic, and unsubstantied claims of fact.
Absolutely.
>
> > disagree
>
> Why should one agree with claims that appear shallow or contradictory,
> and/or interpretations that are sigualr and absolutist?
Good question, why would we?
>
> > and insult those who state that
> > they are awakened can be harmful to observers of this dialogue.
>
> Insults are not productive -- except perhaps in the very special
> circumstnace when claims of universal love and compassion, as well as
> "no ego", etc. are made. In that specialized case, limited "insults"
> --while perhaps not of the highest form of behavior, but widely
> deployed on FFL in many areas of discussion -- can be a form of
> inquiry: "Does this person really have no ego. If so, what is
> manifestly (in their writing) feeling diminished when insults are
> cast?"
>
> And if/when they cast insults, it raises issues of reciprocity, and
> the depth of thier universal love and compassion.
Yes precisely. Reminds me of the post the other day from Ramanashram
on teachers being indifferent to praise or criticism as a common
criteria for brahmavidya.
>
> > It
> > does no harm to the awakened person, for obvious reasons.
>
> Yet some react pretty vehemently against such. So it raises questions.
Yes it has.
>
> >But it is
> > not a good thing in my opinion to in effect broadcast a message that
> > awakening is not possible for the typical seeker, unless an endless
> > and often nebulous set of conditions are met first.
>
> I am not aware of anyone doing that. If that is your take, I questions
> how "seeing things exactly as they are" your perception is as claimed.
>
> What I observe are statements that in a tradition -- say TM, "MMY
> defines enlightenment as such, with these attributes, and these tests
> of it. Are you experienceing these?". The same with other traditions.
> For example, in some tibetian traditions, enlightenement is defined as
> as such, with these attributes, and these tests of it. Are you
> experienceing these?"
Another salient point IMO is the discrepancy between TMO models and
traditional models. I might even be commented that TMO "lowers the
bar" --of course the question is why??? Easier to sell? Or just
dumbed down? Bad east -> west translation of traditions? And why do
TMer descriptions of CC, GC or UC seldom venture beyond what they've
been told? Was this meant to be a built-in test in and of itself?
This bring up the "View determines Fruit" observation and also the
importance of Correct View (which some find quite offensive for some
reason).
>
> Perhaps someone has defined enlightenment in their own way, such as
> Rory. Such persons may not make any claims that it has much to do with
> TM or any other traditions' enlightenment. Thats fine, particularly as
> long as its explicitly stated. What I find of interest to question,
> is when claimants to enlightenment cannot or will not define what they
> personally mean by the term they are using, or whether what they are
> claiming is different from the TM or other traditions of enlightenment
> or awakening.
>
>
> >
> > Awakening is not something easily established. It takes much
> > dedication, devotion, faith, strength, and discrimination for anyone
> > who truly wants to reach that goal.
>
>
> And do you consider it possible that some may be misinterpreting some
> experience, as "enlightenment"? That their discrimination might be
> off, or flawed?
It's actually IME much more common for people to mistake something
other than enlightenment for the Big E. Fortunately tradition
enumerates these very clearly and even trains some students in these
states so they are familiar with them.
> > To state regularly as some here
> > have done, that such an experience can never be established by the
> > tools many of have at our disposal (TM and TM-Sidhis), is to me a
> > disservice to those whose ardently seek to have their deepest
> > desires fulfilled.
>
> I am not clear who is saying that. Can you be specific? Is it Vaj you
> have in mind? As I understand his view (for which he has not submitted
> evidence, so its remains a hypothesis IMO), its that TM may take one
> to some beneficial state, but that there are advanced techniques in
> other traditions that go beyond that.
Yes, this is one thing I have tried to convey, but is rarely if ever
responded to (other than with insults, research citations, etc.).
> > Seeking is a normal and often difficult part of the process of
> > awakening.
>
> Thats your opinion. I hold a different view -- that seeking itself is
> part of the cycle of bondage. Trinity has pointed out that he believes
> that is a classic Advaitian view.
Seeking Mind can never really find. -Vaj
>
> > As we work on one area and the next, creating gradually
> > and permanenently our awakened selves,
>
> the "awakened selves" are composed of polished parts? The Awakened
> Self was once not awake? If this really is your view, we fundamentally
> differ in a most high regard.
Lost me here.
To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Or go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
