--- 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
An enlightened man is able to know anything at any time, but not everyting all of the time. -Maharishi
