"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, Your response to my earlier post was so excellent and clear that I am taking some time to respond. I am so glad to have your mind at work on this topic! --- In [email protected], "Marek Reavis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Comment below: > > ** > > --- In [email protected], "jim_flanegin" <jflanegi@> > 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 >
