Rory, This interaction including Marek and Turq's comments on it has been one of the most fruitful for me on FFL. I want to start by thanking you for taking the time for making such a detailed response. I think I understand your points better and you drew good lines where we disagree. But the whole spirit of maintaining rapport that your post maintains is something I really appreciate. Since we were discussing feelings a bit, I felt respected and that you genuinely desire to understand what I am saying. Very cool and thank you for that.
I think the psychological model that you have found useful in your own life is being applied to mine. In my view it does not apply but you may be seeing something else. I do recognize that we all have blind spots which is what makes posting here so valuable. I have learned a lot here. When I left MMY it was not out of being disillusioned or feeling cheated by him. It was a continuation of my interest in discovery that lead me outside his system. If I felt hurt it was from my previous movement friends not understanding that I had not turned into the devil, but was positively enjoying other ways to view the experiences in meditation. It was naive of me to think it was possible to maintain discussions since I had viewed people who left the movement as "negative" when I was into it myself. Through the years those friendships got replaced and I don't feel hurt by their rejection. It was the only move they could make and stay as devoted as they were (and some are). The reason I am not hurt my MMY is because he took me on a fantastic ride. He was a bit manipulative and was "using" us, but this is not so uncommon for ambitious older people exploiting innocent youth for their own benefit. I give him a pass that he probably believes most of his own rap, but I don't view him as the most honest guy in the world or saintly in any way. I don't think he has much human compassion or capacity to respect and love other people as equals. I suspect this is a disorder. So I don't think he has much of a choice in how he operates. Should I be hurt if, as a frog, I get stung by the scorpion riding on my back? So I have made my peace and mostly enjoy the good things from my past experiences in the movement. It made me a hell of a lecturer with so much public speaking experience and that has benefited the way I present my music act. I am very glad that I spent the years rounding, so I have a grasp of what people are talking about with how compelling mystical experiences are. Posting here with people with all sorts of versions of relationship with our past movement lives has been really healing for me. I want to address one point you made in your post directly: ME: > My criticism of MMY is not from feeling hurt by him. It is because I think he is wrong. Rory: Yes, you do think he is wrong, and that you know better, and I am absolutely certain that you are right; that that is true. Our conceptual understanding/framework of what MMY has said is absolutely false. There's a simpler truth you have been articulating, where "enlightenment" and "ignorance" are utterly irrelevant, and "spiritual experience" itself is irrelevant, and your own self knows your own self best, and so on. These are some of the keynotes of "Brahman," which he also has talked about, as much as one can talk about the utterly indescribable :-) Me: I don't believe that I know better than MMY concerning human consciousness. I have found some models more useful than his, but I am far from understanding human consciousness. I consider the contribution of traditional practices to be valuable. I think there are important contributions from more modern sources. This is a life long fascination for me, and although I don't consider Vedic knowledge in any form to be a complete understanding of human consciousness, I respect its contribution to man's thought. I think there are probably some more intellectual presentations and less commercially oriented ones than MMY's, but his was the one I studied in depth. In any case I don't resent that I view his perspective as flawed. It was a stepping stone for me and I really enjoyed my life in the movement and was satisfied with my own experiences while in TM. I just view them differently now. Oh one more: RORY: And I with you. FWIW, to me you are showing many of the earmarks > of "Brahman" -- but I really couldn't care less, and I suspect you > probably couldn't either. Great joke, isn't it?! ME: I may not have gained the "enlightened" state that I dreamed of in my youth, but growing older has given me all the self knowledge I need to enjoy a great life. I believe that the perspective I sought in my teens and 20's was really just the centered feeling of self actualization that years of living provide. I am at home in the world and at peace with myself as a non cosmically conscious, ordinary guy. It is more than enough and I am grateful for it. Thanks for keeping the perspective insights flowing Rory. I appreciate your openness and ability to discuss these topics in detail in a friendly way. Finally, any Borat reference makes me go "Wawa weee wa! --- In [email protected], "Rory Goff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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. > > > > --- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > 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. > > Rory says: > Where are you getting that I am calling me enlightened and you > ignorant, Curtis? When I first noticed the blind-spot phenomenon it > was when I was trying to point out the self-evident perfection *to > someone who was not Curtis*. I have since then noticed the blind-spot > phenomenon *in myself*. Does this make me ignorant? Well, it means I > have blind-spots, as (as far as I can tell) we all do. Period. > Overall "enlightenment" or "ignorance" -- however we may define them > or refuse their meaningfulness -- and personally, I have no problem > with refusing to make any distinction between "enlightenment" > and "ignorance" -- *are not the issue here.* > > Rory said earlier: > > > 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. > > >Curtis said: 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. > > Yes, we'll have to agree to differ on that one. FWIW I kind of saw > Judy as a "logic-piranha" when I first ran into her and she shredded > the nice anti-TM arguments I had clothed my resentment with, leaving > me bare-boned, but as I saw where she was coming from, and healed the > core discontents she revealed, I came to see her beautiful clarity > and balance more and more deeply, and now I am in total awe of the > divine grace manifesting in Her presence. > > Curtis: > > 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. > > Rory: > Well, I found that *my* important content was actually just badly- > fitting drapery around a core of discontent. YMMV, of course. > > Curtis: > > 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. > > Rory: > My response to this would be, how on earth could we ever *know* > whether what you say is true or not, except for each of us > individually, in this moment, as a personal truth? What I am hearing > as a subtext is, "I, Curtis, know better than MMY does about my own > state(s) of consciousness." And personally, I, Rory, say -- good for > you! That's what self-reference (i.e. "Brahman") is all about! But > the whole "misapplied an ancient framework ... that we understand > better through modern psychology..." As Borat would say, "Not so > much" -- that part just feels like a socially-acceptable (but > unprovable) way to say what I think (and hope) I *hear* you really > saying above. > > Curtis: > >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. > > *lol* I can see how this would not be fun -- but my point is not that > you are wrong, it is that you are making baseless -- i.e. seemingly > logical but actually logically unprovable -- attacks, or criticisms, > if you prefer: Sweeping generalizations that hold no water, but are > actually (I hope and believe) masking or clothing some very real > feelings underneath. (Otherwise, you're just wasting yours and > everyone's time, and I don't really think that's possible.) I am not > trying to discount your arguments by saying there's an emotional core > underneath; I am discounting your arguments as too sweeping and > asking you to look at the feeling-level motivation behind them. > There's really good stuff there, inside the blind-spot. > > 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 have already told you that this is essentially true; I am > responding to you, "creating" you, *on the basis of my memory* and of > my own blind-spots. I do not consider this to be a "poopy-pants" > statement, because I do not consider it to be an insult to state that > my so-called logical statements repose upon subtler feelings. I > *have* found that as my understanding of my own subtle underlying > feelings clarifies, then my thinking also clarifies. Again, YMMV. > > Curtis: > > 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. > > Rory: > Yes, you do think he is wrong, and that you know better, and I am > absolutely certain that you are right; that that is true. Our > conceptual understanding/framework of what MMY has said is absolutely > false. There's a simpler truth you have been articulating, > where "enlightenment" and "ignorance" are utterly irrelevant, > and "spiritual experience" itself is irrelevant, and your own self > knows your own self best, and so on. These are some of the keynotes > of "Brahman," which he also has talked about, as much as one can talk > about the utterly indescribable :-) > > Curtis: > -- OK, 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. > > Rory: > Perhaps you are less emotionally-tinted than I; my whole world > shattered into grief and rage when -- despite the wowzer experiences > MMY was showing me on the Science and Veda course -- I realized I had > all along been following a false Messiah; that he was no "higher" > than I! :-) For me this was a huge piece of the puzzle -- not the > *whole* puzzle, but a *huge* piece of it. > > Curtis: > > 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. > > Rory: > Yes. I hear you -- I used to be plagued by TMO true-believers after I > left the TMO, until I cleared the residues of my own TM doubts. For > years afterward I was still plagued by other evangelical > fundamentalists, until I cleared most of my "inner fundamentalist." > My world is definitely as I am! (YMMV, of course.) > > Curtis: > > 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. > > And I with you. FWIW, to me you are showing many of the earmarks > of "Brahman" -- but I really couldn't care less, and I suspect you > probably couldn't either. Great joke, isn't it?! > > LLL, > > Rory > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > >
