--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "Robert Gimbel" <babajii_99@> > wrote: > > > > It really baffles me, how some people could question whether > > he is enlightened or not; can't relate to this notion at all. > > As you say, Robert, it's a matter of experience. Yours > convinces you to consider him enlightened; mine convinces > me to not consider him enlightened. > > As for *why* I don't personally believe that Maharishi > is enlightened, I'll be happy to explain it, although > it'll be a little long, and I can promise you that it > won't do you any good or affect what you believe one > way or another. My reasons are based on my subjective > experience, and are therefore irrelevant to anyone > else's subjective experience. > > First, I do not believe that it is possible to ever > know for sure whether *anyone* is enlightened. I don't > believe that there will ever be a "scientific" test > to verify the realization of enlightenment, and there > certainly are none available right now. So we, as > seekers, are left with *only* our own subjective > perceptions. That suits me just fine; I'm comfortable > with never knowing for sure. I don't know for sure > whether *any* of the many teachers I've met and worked > with in my life were enlightened, and I never will. > > However, there are two criteria -- both subjective, > both experiential -- that I use to determine whether > I think someone *might* have realized their enlighten- > ment, at least at the moment I interact with them. > > The first criterion is the strongest, in my opinion. > Just meditate with them. In my experience, if the > person you are meditating with is really going into > clear, several-minutes-long periods of samadhi (an > ability that seems to be part of almost every trad- > ition I know of), that experience is unmistakable. > If you're sitting in the same room with the person > as they meditate and slip into samadhi, within say > 100 feet of the teacher, it is almost *impossible* > to have a thought in your *own* meditation. If the > teacher's period of thoughtless samadhi lasts for > twenty minutes to an hour, then *your* period of > thoughtless samadhi lasts for twenty minutes to an > hour, with not a single thought or perception > popping into your mind. > > Suffice it to say that this was never my experience > meditating with Maharishi, not once in 14 years, > whereas it was my consistent experience of meditating > with several other teachers. > > The second criterion has to do with something Jim > has spoken about here on FFL, and has gotten a lot of > very nasty flack for. It's the issue of "recognition." > Basically (and pardon me Jim if I paraphrase), it's > the notion that while you personally are experiencing > periods of awakening (which I define as consisting of > periods of total mental clarity along with 24/7 > "witnessing" -- the equally clear experience of trans- > cendental consciousness, or in TM-ese, TC), you can > recognize others who are having that same experience. > I agree with Jim that this is a real phenomenon, > limited only by the "rule" that both parties have > to be having that realization experience at the > same time. > > My first experience with this was in Fiuggi, on the > last "leg" of my teacher training. For whatever reason, > several people I knew there -- about a dozen -- began > experiencing 24/7 witnessing. The first person that > this happened to, after about a week of the experiences > continuing for her 24/7, every day, went to the course > leaders and told them about what was happening. She was > sent home from the course. Immediately, the next day. > They sent someone to her room to pack all her things, > and didn't allow her to say goodbye to anyone. > > The other folks who were having similar experiences, > by now three or four of them, weren't stupid and learned > from this event, and kept their experiences to themselves, > discussing them only with close friends. I happened to > be one of those close friends. I found it all quite > interesting, but nothing like what they were experiencing > was going on for me and I honestly didn't expect it to, > so I didn't pay much attention to it all. And then one > day one of my meditations went on for longer than I had > planned -- about four hours longer, without my intending > it to -- and when it finally ended, the experience of > strong, clear, thoughtless transcendence did not. I got > up and dressed and went to dinner and it still didn't go > away. It didn't end that night during sleep, and it didn't > go away for a couple of weeks. > > It was *during* that couple of weeks that the experience > Jim talked about became apparent. I would meet someone > I didn't know, someone who was having the same exper- > iences (but without me knowing that) and look into their > eyes, and both of us would smile or laugh. It was instant- > aneous, unquestionable *recognition*, without either of us > saying a word. It was like Self meeting Self, unmistakable. > When this happened, we'd often follow up on the recognition > with some quiet discussion (away from the ears of the course > leaders, of course) about when it started for each of us, > whether the experience "came and went" or seemed to be there > all the time, etc. It was a really fun time. > > Anyway, how this relates to my criteria for who *might* > be enlightened and why I am not convinced that Maharishi > is enlightened is that *during* this two-week period of > clear, 24/7 witnessing, I got an advanced technique, from > Maharishi himself. I waited in line and then went up and > sat at his feet and he taught me the technique, and then > as fate would have it he talked to me for a few minutes > about an interaction we'd had years before in Squaw Valley. > So I sat there for almost five minutes, a foot away from > him, looking directly into his eyes. No recognition. None. > Nada. Nichevo. Rien. Bupkus. > > I left the room, walked back to my pension, and interacted > with a few of the people who were having the 24/7 witnes- > sing experiences. In every case, instant recognition, Self > meeting Self. I asked them what their experience had been > when *they* sat at Maharishi's feet and looked directly > into his eyes and they all reported the exact same thing. > No recognition whatsoever. None. Nada. Nichevo. Rien. > Bupkus. No Self meeting Self. > > Does this "prove" to me that Maharishi wasn't enlightened, > at least at that moment? No, of course not. It's just my > perception. But I consider it a pretty strong hint. :-) > > From that moment on I *never* considered him enlightened, > no more than I considered myself enlightened as my own > experiences started to fade. That didn't interfere with > me being a TM teacher, and with teaching something that > I felt at the time was valuable, but it *did* serve to > keep me a little more grounded than many of my fellow > teachers, who were convinced that Maharishi was enlight- > ened with the same degree of certainty with which they > believed the sun would come up every morning. > > Anyway, since you asked, that's the story. I'm sure that > some people will jump all over it and try to nitpick and > come up with reasons why they shouldn't believe it (even > though I'm not asking them to :-), and why they should > continue hanging on to their belief that he *is* enlight- > ened (even though I'm not asking them to do that. :-) > Cool. Whatever floats your boat. I'm not trying to change > what you believe, merely to explain what I believe, and why. > > Me, I don't know for sure. My experiences during my time > with the TM movement and afterwards suggest to me that > Maharishi was telling the *truth* by never claiming to be > enlightened. I have no problem with this position. It would > seem that those who claim that he is something he never > claimed to be *do* have a problem with his position. They > are, after all, claiming something for him that he has > never claimed for himself. > > But that's fine. I leave these people to work their beliefs > out all by themselves. It really doesn't matter a damn to > me; it's irrelevant. The only way that I could revise my > opinion on the matter would involve criterion #1, sitting > in the same room and meditating with him. Obviously, that > will never happen. So for me his enlightenment or non- > enlightenment is a moot point. I will never know for sure, > although as far as I can tell, based on my own experience, > he is not. That and a buck-fifty will buy me a bad cuppa > coffee at Starbucks. > > But does it *matter* whether he was/is enlightened? No, > of course not. I would have learned the same things from > him during my time with the TMO whether I believed he was > enlightened or not. They would have the same value or non- > value whether he was enlightened or not. I'm grateful for > the things I learned that I still consider to have value, > and I don't cling to the things that I consider not to > have value. > > And that would be the same *EVEN IF* I considered > him enlightened.
So, is what you're trying to say, is that enlightenment is only a temporary phenomenon, and that it fades? Or that the word enlightenment, claiming someone as enlightened, is a moot point, because it's not the enlightenment that counts, but the techniques to get to enlightenment, that count; Since you said, that you were experiencing enlightenment at that time on that course, and that several others were also; therefore, you are saying that Maharishi taught you and others techniques to bring you to enlightenment, and also taught you the definition of enlightenment, which you used( witnessing 24/7 or no break in consciousness). Do you consider anyone enlightened now, or is that something foolish to claim, because how can you prove it; how could Jesus prove it to Pilot? What about a teacher that is enlightened, but has not a clue how he or she got there and therefore hasn't a clue to how to get anyone else there? >From my experience, I did have clear transcendence in the presence of Maharishi; I only spoke to him briefly, and I was more impressed that there seemed to be no ego there, that was my first impression; and an open heart where love was flowing, without him manipulating anything. And that his consciousness 'felt' as big as the ocean. I once had more of a 'feeling' experience with him; this happened, during the time, when he came to Fairfield, when the dome was being built, and I was at the Fairfield Airport, when he left. There was just a feeling of 'oneness' with him, which I had; we were just looking at each other- the door of the small plane was closed; and as he was taking off, a few minutes later; I just felt myself expand; it was a long time ago; but at the time, these experiences left a deep impression on me. I feel my connection with him, must be from a past life or two... As there was always a very strong heart connection with him; And a willingness to defend him from a deep level, which I just feel he stirs this in me. I have no other way to explain it; When I first saw him, it was at Madison Square Garden in New York, in 1975, I just felt like it had all happened before, somehow... So, for me it's just a felt intuitive thing; A feeling, a sense, a truth for me. Like he was a great teacher before, in a past time; And that we had spent time together before. R.G. > 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 <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
