--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anon_astute_ff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote:
>
> > Much more interesting than any of this, though, was
> > Jim Flanegin's response to the original post ...
>
> ...
> 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.

> > 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.

> > 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.

> > 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.
>
> > disagree
>
> Why should one agree with claims that appear shallow or
contradictory,
>  and/or interpretations that are sigualr and absolutist?
>
> > 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.
>
> > It
> > does no harm to the awakened person, for obvious reasons.
>
> Yet some react pretty vehemently against such. So it raises
questions.
>
> >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?"
>
> 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?
>
> > 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.
>

> > 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. 
>
> > 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.
>
Hi, I appreciate your comments and questions, but I find myself
unable to respond to each of them, just as an artist would find it
difficult to justify or explain each brushstroke, or a poet each
line of a poem. 

What I expressed was the exposition of a single thought and feeling,
in a very specific context. The singularity expressed transcends its
elements.

I have read through my posting here, and wouldn't make any changes
to it. So I am left with the impression that you question or
disagree with some of it.

I am not copping out, or finding your comments not worth a response,
so please don't misunderstand me. I just don't know what else to say
to you to clarify or justify further what I have written.





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




Reply via email to