I agree with you here, Judy. Barry makes some interesting points about an
alternative approach to enlightenment, but his unpleasant tone regarding the
beliefs of others is very off-putting and makes one doubt the validity of his own
"enlightenment." I agree also that his presentation of the TM approach is a

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In
> > FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlis"
> > <tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlist@> wrote:
> > >
> > > You are very right Judy in that Yes can not be intentional.
> >
> > Coming from a Buddhist perspective, in which intent
> > and focus are very *much* a part of the realization
> > process, I'd have to disagree with you, Tom. 
> >
> > I think that the issue that some people are reacting
> > to in my little cafe story is that it pushes their
> > *religious* buttons, the ones they don't like
> > to admit they have. They have been convinced, after
> > decades of indoctrination by the TM movement and
> > its Hindu underpinnings, that passivity is the *only*
> > way to go in the quest for enlightenment. Don't ever
> > work at anything because that would be "straining"
> > or "effort" or the imposition of will, and thus
> > an aspect of ego. So the "proper" attitude towards
> > enlightenment is to just sit around and wait for it
> > to happen on its own.
> There are two ways to address a disagreement.  One is
> to make a positive case for one's own perspective; the
> other is to trash the other perspective.
> The disadvantage of choosing the second route is that
> one can be tempted to caricature the opposing viewpoint
> rather than presenting it fairly, in order to make it
> easier to trash.  And if one convinces oneself of the
> truth of one's caricature, it makes it easier to
> convince oneself of the truth of one's own
> perspective without ever considering the possible
> merits of the other.
> This may raise suspicions that the person doing the
> trashing is deep down not so confident of his
> perspective as he pretends to be, since he has to
> distort the other to make it appear less valid
> than his own.
> > And wait, and wait, and wait, and wait, and wait.
> >
> > And if it *doesn't* happen, after decades of
> > sitting around and waiting and doing what you're
> > told, that's somehow "all right" because it isn't
> > really "you" who has anything to do with your
> > enlightenment. It's really the universe, or Natural
> > Law, or God that's made the decision to leave you
> > lost in the illusion of unenlightenment.
> In my experience (doing what I feel is right for
> me, not "what I'm told"), I make more progress
> when I take responsibility without assigning blame.
> The former does not necessarily imply the latter.
> I don't assume "something else" has made any
> decisions about me, but by the same token, I do not
> assume I am somehow "not all right" because this or
> that hasn't happened yet.
> In other contexts, Barry has vigorously scorned the
> "seeking" mentality that requires one to feel "not
> all right" about oneself until one has "found" one's
> "all-rightness."  But here he seems to be claiming
> the opposite.  That suggests a certain degree of
> confusion.
> > That's an Ok set of things to believe, I guess,
> > if what you want is to never realize your enlight-
> > enment.  Me, I prefer the Buddhist approach, in
> > which one's intent and ability to focus come into
> > play and in which talents and ability other than
> > waiting and hoping become part of the realization
> > process. 
> >
> > I'm not comfortable with the just-be-patient-and-
> > wait approach to enlightenment, in which one is told
> > over and over by the *vendor* of that approach to
> > enlightenment that their UNenlightenment "isn't
> > their fault."  What a fuckin' lie that is.
> Hmm, I've never heard any "vendor" say that.  I
> suspect that notion is a function of the caricature
> Barry has created to bolster his own perspective.
> > It's a lie even if you believe in the model their
> > system is based on. If you believe that "stress"
> > is what keeps you from being enlightened, then who
> > created your stress?  Well duh, you did.  If you
> > believe it's karma that keeps you from being
> > enlightened, well who created the karma?  Well
> > duh, again, you did. Take some responsibility fer
> > chrssakes...if you're convinced that you are not
> > enlightened, YOU created that reality (or, as it
> > turns out, unreality).
> Yes, duh.  Again, though, taking responsibility is
> not the same as blaming oneself.
> > I *know* that saying these things on a TM forum
> > is going to rile people up, and make some of them
> > crazy. It's absolute HERESY to a person who has drunk
> > the TM Kool-Aid and believes that effortlessness is
> > the *only* model that leads to transcendence and
> > eventually enlightenment to suggest that there are
> > *other* models -- models that involve will and
> > intention -- and that they lead there, too.
> It's not the "heresy" that's the problem, of course,
> it's the caricature of what the "heresy" is presented
> as opposing.
> Perhaps the reason it's a caricature is because the
> caricaturist has never quite understood the real
> nature of the alternative to his own perspective.
> > The people who have spent their lives -- sometimes
> > thirty or forty years of their lives -- sitting
> > and waiting and waiting and waiting for something
> > else to "do enlightenment" for them are *affronted*
> > when they hear from someone who is part of a diff-
> > erent tradition, one that believes that one can,
> > and should, "do enlightenment" oneself.
> >
> > They're especially affronted if the offending
> > person seems to have had a few experiences that
> > indicate that the intent/focus approach has actually
> > *worked* for them.  Such stories might make seekers
> > who are part of the "wait patiently for enlightenment;
> > it's out of your hands" school of thought think,
> > "Gee...what if I really *have* been wasting my time
> > waiting around all these years for enlightenment to
> > reveal itself to me?" 
> Or not.  Perhaps they are trusting their own experience
> of what results in progress and what does not.  And
> perhaps they look at how the folks behave who claim
> "I am in control of my enlightenment" and wonder about
> what those people have actually achieved as a function
> of their supposedly enlightening experiences.
> > Can't have that. So the hard-line passive, wait-
> > and-see types get a little uppity and they spout the
> > dogma they've been taught, that the effortless, do-
> > nothing-and-wait approach to enlightenment they've
> > been taught is the ONLY way that enlightenment can
> > possibly happen. And I actually understand why people
> > do this -- repeating the dogma that there is
> > nothing you can do but wait gives you something to
> > *do* while you're sitting around waiting...it relieves
> > the boredom.  :-)
> Again, you can make a case for your own experience, or
> you can trash the other guy's.  Or in this case, trash
> your own fantasy of the other guy's.  Because if you
> really *knew* what the other guy's experience was, you
> might not be quite so sure of the superiority of your
> own.
> > I'm not going to pursue this whole subject here any
> > more, though. There is just too much resistance on
> > this forum to presenting the taking-an-active-role-
> > in-your-own-realization approach.
> It isn't the approach, it's the *presentation* of
> that approach, the compulsion to trash any other
> approach, the ferocious, vicious hostility born of
> a stark terror of the idea of not being in
> absolute control.
> . It's just a waste
> > of time to talk about it, because the decades of
> > indoctrination have been too effective. The waiters
> > have been waiting so long that they can't even
> > imagine that there is something they could do
> > other than waiting. And they get angry when someone
> > *does* suggest such a thing. So I'm going to leave
> > them to their waiting, and hope that approach works
> > out for them in the future a little better than it's
> > worked out for them so far.
> Than you *fantasize* it has worked out for them so
> far, you mean.

To subscribe, send a message to:

Or go to:
and click 'Join This Group!'

Maharishi university of management Maharishi mahesh yogi Ramana maharshi


Reply via email to