--- In [email protected], "Marek Reavis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Comments below: > > ** > > --- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > Rory > > > > > > Yes, I first noticed the blind-spot phenomenon when I was > attempting > > > to point out the self-evident and was watching the apparently > willful > > > (but actually unconscious) machinations of the personality in > > > maintaining ignorance, but I am not particularly basing my > current > > > observation that you (and we all) have blind spots on my > > > understanding of the self. > > > > Me: I don't recognize the distinctions between "ignorance" and > > "enlightenment" that you seem to be making. Referring to me as > > "ignorant" about specific information may be a true statement in > > context, but referring to me as "maintaining ignorance" as a state > of > > consciousness seems unnecessarily rude. I never question your > > experiences, you seem to value them and high five for that. But > > assuming that it has given you a superior insight in to ultimate > > questions about life is not a jump I am willing to make. You get > the > > equal respect that all articulate interesting posters deserve, no > more > > no less. > > > > > > > > I am basing it on the fact that --to borrow a nice term from > Barry -- > > > where blind spots are involved, there is no *equanimity*; one is > > > coming from a place of ungrounded attack. What the critic tends > to > > > miss IMO is that Judy and I are generally *not* defending MMY and > the > > > TMO; we're just pointing out *that the critic is attacking in an > > > unbalanced manner*. Again, you, Curtis, have noted that you cut > slack > > > for Thai beliefs -- that is, you have equanimity there, more than > you > > > do for TM beliefs. That's certainly understandable; you used to > > > identify with TM beliefs; there's a residue there. > > > > Me: First of all you and Judy are working completely different sides > > of the street IMO. I have a different opinion of what Judy is up to > > and have already written about it. I do not accept that she is > just > > pointing out when a critic is attacking in an imbalanced manor. I > > agree that her motivation has little to do with defending MMY's > > teaching. It is a style of relating to people that is content free, > > MMY is just a prop. IMO it is the personal assertion of power and > > will that is the the motivator. It is not philosophical at all, it > is > > a more primal drive in play. Just my 2 cents. > > > > What you seem to be doing it trying out a mental framework that has > > been useful for you on other people. But reducing philosophical > > positions to emotions strips them of the important content. > > > > For example I can make a statement with no emotion that can be > falsely > > perceived as an "attack": "MMY is incorrect in his understanding of > > human consciousness. He has misapplied an ancient framework to > mental > > states and processes that we understand better though the insights > of > > modern psychology." I make this statement without any personal > attack > > on MMY as a person, it is just my considered opinion on MMY's > > teaching. If you try to reduce this position to my emotional state > > you miss the whole point. If you argue that I am wrong because I am > > just expressing repressed emotions of being hurt by MMY you are > making > > an ad hominem argument attacking the person rather than dealing with > > what the person has said. I refer to all such arguments as "poopy > > pants" because this is what happens when someone is out argued in a > > school yard. The person shouts "Yeah but you are a pooply pants" > and > > runs away. It is philosophically bogus. It also leads to a quick > > infinite regress. If it is true that our philosophy can be reduced > to > > emotional states, then your reaction to what I wrote could just be > > your own repressed past experience about people claiming that MMY is > > wrong. Focusing on that would be an unfair dodge of your point > > wouldn't it? > > > > I agree with the physiological insight the last paragraph presents. > > It is an excellent psychological insight but lacks epistemological > > implications for me. > > > > My criticism of MMY is not from feeling hurt by him. It is because > I > > think he is wrong. I had great experiences for 15 years and do not > > dwell on the monkey business that sometimes when on. Young people > are > > usually exploited by older people till they get their sea legs. I > got > > a lot out of my participation and although it went on a bit long, > if I > > had my druthers, I gained a lot. I also gained a lot from deciding > > that I was mistaken in thinking of MMY as an authority on > > consciousness. I take responsibility for my voluntary participation > > for years, and my choice to leave when I did. Changing my mind about > > someone doesn't make me angry at the person. Live and learn is my > > perspective, I am a work on progress and each stage is important > for me. > > > > I appreciate your taking the time to explore these topics in more > > detail. Concerning me cutting other cultures more slack for their > > beliefs, I don't as far as sharing their beliefs. I know my own > > lines. The people I am describing come from non evangelical South > > East Asian cultures, they never press their beliefs on me or try to > > convince me. They are Buddhists who couldn't care less what I > believe > > and don't express superiority over me for what they believe. > > > > When spiritual people approach me respectfully I don't feel > compelled > > to act like a dick and "call them" on beliefs I don't share. It is > > none of my business. This is also true when I have hung out with > cool > > TM people. If they accept me for who I am we can be brothers and > > sisters who believe different things and have a different > perspective > > on MMY. Some can pull it off and some can't. But mutual respect is > > key. I think you and I can pull it off Rory. I am enjoying > > communicating with you. > > > > > > > > > > Personally, I've noticed that much if not all of my suffering - - > my > > > reactive residue -- has come from places where I falsely assumed > > > responsibility for something, identified with something that was > > > actually not my business. I used to actually feel pain, for > example, > > > when driving through my neighborhood and seeing a downright ugly > > > house. How could the architect be so stupid as to design such a > God- > > > awful monstrosity, and the home-owner so blind as to choose it, > etc., > > > etc.? I finally realized *I am not responsible for the > classically > > > aesthetic perfection of my neighborhood* -- it is what it is, > period. > > > Same for BushCo and so on. What a relief! > > > > > > I'd write more, but my wife really wants to go out for brunch > *now* > > > so.. to be continued! :-) > > > > > > LLL > > > > > > **end** > > Just some haphazard thoughts re the above and the recent remarks > shared between Jim and Curtis, too. > > Seems to me that India in particular had a whole lot of pretty smart > monkeys who early on who figured out that if you did this thing, or > that thing, one technique or another for a certain amount of time you > could get to a 'place' where you 'realized' your self and the world > in a whole new (and fantastically integrated) way. My understanding, > Curtis, is that you feel that 'that' state is just another state of > experiencing that doesn't carry any greater weight or significance > outside of the experiencer, correct? In other words, it is not an > ultimate state of being or realization that could be considered as > the apogee of human awareness, but rather a state of consciousness > that provides the experiencer with a particular and peculiar > awareness but does not necessarily invoke any 'higher' functions or > evolutionary advantage. I agree with that, but true or not (in an > Absolute sense) it certainly seems to satisfy and it's understandable > why so many people would tout it's value and pursue it's appreciation. > > The one phrase of Maharishi's that always seems particularly apt to > me in regards to 'enlightenment' states (and also congruent with my > understanding of your epistemological position) is "enjoying the > fruit of all knowledge". In other words, the state that Maharishi > (and other sages past and present) endorse (i.e., Enlightenment), > imparts the sense and feeling of 'knowing everything', > finally 'getting IT', 'everything making perfect sense' -- the > visceral appreciation of the perfection and wholeness of All > notwithstanding apparent dissensions and divisions. That is really > an attractive point of view and it makes perfect sense to me that > when some of the monkeys of old figured that one out they wanted to > share that info along with the smokey herbs and the fermented coconut > juice that was also being passed around. Seems to me that the great > spiritual lineages must have begun just that way. > > There's no way that you can draw any greater inference beyond the > feeling that being in that state imparts to the apparent individual > who claims the state. But that state of consciousness or attention > is so enticing, so sweet and so perfect, and so available and > (seemingly) self evident that, of course, if 'you' happened to have > stumbled by accident or good fortune upon it, you would want to tell > people about it and share it and teach it, etc. And I think it's > perfectly understandable that you'd be nonplussed when people > wouldn't bother to listen or believe you about how absolutely > wonderful and perfect that state of awareness is and, moreover, even > argued with you about its absolute worth or value. > > Who knows if in the state of Realization one does 'know everything' > or it just feels that way, but if the feeling is real (to the > experiencer) then there's no way for the 'feeler' to gainsay the > feeling. So in that sense, it seems emminently reasonable to speak > about the feeling just as it is, a feeling of Realization and > Completeness that overtakes all. If it 'actually' has no greater > value doesn't matter. > > Perhaps the above is not as clear as I would have liked but now I've > got to go to jail and visit with some clients before lockdown. > > Marek > You bring out a really good point in that, yes, if it feels good, we as humans (aka smarter monkeys, walking fish, birds with metal tools, etc.) enjoy sharing it.
The other thing that occurred to me from your post was that not only does Realization feel good, and lead to the unmistakable conclusion that one owns the seat of all knowledge, but that this feeling if valid also generates sustainable benefits to the experiencer, above and beyond the benefits accrued through any other state of consciousness. This is tested via the prolonged, laborious and finely tuned seeking that occurs prior to the state being completely established. Once having tasted, however fleetingly, the state of Realization, because of the fulfillment experienced, the hook so to speak, we spend our time after that, testing the experience the next time it happens in terms of duration and scope. It is through these tests that we are able to ultimately verify established Realization as the ultimate fulfillment. I'll never forget a time several decades ago, after having ingested a substance (rhymes with joke), I thought I was completely in tune with the Universe, only to discover upon closer inspection that my hands were shaking, and despite my subjective feeling, I was impaired. Similarly, as I enjoy pointing out in jest, my driving improves after I've been drinking. So I feel it is an important point to make, and one that has been brought out here on FFL with regards to mood making, that the best test for Realization being THE ultimately satisfying state is how well it works for each of us, and the tangible benefits accrued. Just the subjective state without (infinitely) lasting benefits is not "the whole thing, the real thing".:-)
