Comment below: **
--- In [email protected], "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "Marek Reavis" > <reavismarek@> wrote: **snip** > > > > 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".:-) > **end** Jim, thanks, and here's my pong to your ping. You wrote: " 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." Okay, a couple of things: you say "if valid" (i.e., the feeling of owning the seat of all knowledge), which seems to be another way of asserting the absolute nature of the realization, still based solely on your experience of it, including whatever the collateral benefits are. I'm not doubting the authenticity of the "feeling", I'm just agreeing with Curtis (or at least I think I'm agreeing with Curtis) that there is no way that that anyone can verify the validity of anyone else's realization. If there was then we'd all be able to agree that Maharishi (or you or Rory or Swami G. or whomever) was or was not Realized. (If there was anyone else to begin with, that is.) Secondly, what do feel are the benefits that accrue from realization other than realization itself? The subjective state *is* the benefit, isn't it? Also, I agree with you that when there is any experience of awakening, no matter how transitory, the hook would seem to have been set and the search for its permanency might begin in earnest. At least that's been many folks' experience, though Curtis at this point in time, seems to have come to a different conclusion regardless of how much he has enjoyed (or enjoys) what many would designate as 'spiritual' experiences or transient awakening. As re your feeling of having been in tune with the universe after some herbal ingestion, I don't doubt it one bit, regardless of whether or not you experienced hand tremors of felt too impaired to drive; motor skills are not definitive of realization. Moreover, realization is the definition of ubiquitous; it always surprises me how we can maintain ignorance for as long as we do. Herbs or prayer or sex or mantra or a good bowel movement (or, as Maharishi once said, the smokey exhaust fumes from a bus) are easily enough to tip the balance to enlightenment or refresh the spirit with a taste of awakening. The point that I believe Curtis was making (and the one I feel I'm in agreement with) is that there is nothing outside of the self that can be a basis of verification. Thanks for replying. Marek Thanks
