Re: [FairfieldLife] No Ground Of All Being [was Re: Help a Saint - Lose]

[Bob Price]

Curtis, 

As always, thoughtful and considered. 

Thanks




From: curtisdeltablues 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, June 27, 2011 10:03:17 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] No Ground Of All Being [was Re: Help a Saint - Lose]

  
So I'm playing this gig in a Midwestern dive, usual Friday night crowd, couple 
of friends, couple of drunks.  I'm working through my second set with the usual 
shouts from the back for me to play Freebird (I've played here for years and 
some drunks STILL don't know what I play and what I don't play!)

A guy walks in wearing, I shit you not, full 10 inch platform heels covered on 
the sides with green neon sparkles.  Other than that he is dressed normally, 
some version of Levi Strauss meets Calvin Kline.  I take one look at him, one 
look at the crowd who has clocked his arrival as a congregation registering a 
loud fart in church.  I pull him behind the chicken wire I perform behind(it's 
that kind of crowd).  Just as he clears the edge of the wire the first bottles 
start bouncing off the mesh.  He looks a bit shaken so I say to him, "have a 
seat on this stool, here's a beer".

(Blue Velvet interlude)

FRANK
(to Jeffrey)
What kinda beer do you like?

JEFFREY

Heineken.

FRANK
FUCK THAT SHIT. PABST BLUE RIBBON!!!

The thing is, I was a version of you around 15 years ago walking into the 
newsgroup called Alt Meditation Transcendental to process my own movement 
history through in the vitriolic atmosphere of people who were dead set on 
discrediting me.  What they are good for is to engage you to do the heavy 
lifting on your perspective.  But you have to be careful how much you let in 
because their interest is not friendly.  But the work is totally worth it if it 
assists your own process of understanding the thing many of us did with 
Maharishi's teaching where we let it change us in a fundamental way and then 
decided that this was not the way we wanted to function.

Your arc was much higher than mine, but the principle was the same for me.  I 
had to decide how I was going to think about the states Maharishi's practices 
induced for myself, without the overriding "but of course the goal of life is 
enlightenment, everybody knows that!"

So there will be many times when you will have had enough and need a break and 
decide you have done enough "processing" for a while but I hope you continue to 
work on your perspective here.  Your piece that laid out the whole soaring tale 
of where you have been and where you are now was fascinating to me.  I believe 
there is more about where you are now that could stimulate some great 
conversations here or in emails.

My arc took me solidly into a humanistic perspective and yours seems to have 
landed you in some version of theism.  For me, if any of the gods showed up at 
my gig, I would request that the waiter sat him right in in between the ladies 
room door and the kitchen door so that his elbows would be constantly rocked by 
the swinging doors until he had had enough and slinked off to spread some more 
Guinea worms in African ponds. No love lost there when I sent him packing.

Anyway we have more to discuss if you can stomach the place.

Comments interspersed below. 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra  wrote

> RESPONSE: I got intellectually swarmed after starting to post on this blog, 
> so 
>after reading this post of yours, I just attempted to fight off all my 
>closing-in-for-the-kill critics.
> 
> I have never had the experience afforded to me by posting on this blog: the 
>kinds of conversations and disputes that erupt spontaneously and 
>never-endingly. 
>It has, in a certain way, been quite wonderful for me, as I have found myself 
>forced to respond in a multitude of different ways to the omnidirectional 
>bullets fired at my head.
> 
> I can't even account for my experience exactly; all I know is that, since I 
> put 
>down my enlightenment days, I have never had such a necessary work-out—and not 
>just by my mind. I have found myself forced to draw upon everything I have to 
>survive the testing and provocation that has come my way.
> 
> I am really quite grateful, especially for being able to get down that 
> lengthy 
>post this Sunday. After getting all that business out, I felt: Ah, I have 
>explained my heterodox view of enlightenment and Hindu spirituality (as taught 
>to my body and soul by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi).

I can so totally relate.  I loathed AMT but was drawn to the work and the 
effect 
it had on how I think about everything actually.  I'm sure the inner work could 
be done in a less antagonistic atmosphere but there is something strangely 
compelling in having people's hands at your throat challenging you to the core 
that makes you have to hunker down and find out what you are made of. 

[FairfieldLife] No Ground Of All Being [was Re: Help a Saint - Lose]

[curtisdeltablues]

So I'm playing this gig in a Midwestern dive, usual Friday night crowd, couple 
of friends, couple of drunks.  I'm working through my second set with the usual 
shouts from the back for me to play Freebird (I've played here for years and 
some drunks STILL don't know what I play and what I don't play!)

A guy walks in wearing, I shit you not, full 10 inch platform heels covered on 
the sides with green neon sparkles.  Other than that he is dressed normally, 
some version of Levi Strauss meets Calvin Kline.  I take one look at him, one 
look at the crowd who has clocked his arrival as a congregation registering a 
loud fart in church.  I pull him behind the chicken wire I perform behind(it's 
that kind of crowd).  Just as he clears the edge of the wire the first bottles 
start bouncing off the mesh.  He looks a bit shaken so I say to him, "have a 
seat on this stool, here's a beer".

(Blue Velvet interlude)

FRANK
   (to Jeffrey)
What kinda beer do you like?

JEFFREY
   
Heineken.

FRANK
FUCK THAT SHIT. PABST BLUE RIBBON!!!


The thing is, I was a version of you around 15 years ago walking into the 
newsgroup called Alt Meditation Transcendental to process my own movement 
history through in the vitriolic atmosphere of people who were dead set on 
discrediting me.  What they are good for is to engage you to do the heavy 
lifting on your perspective.  But you have to be careful how much you let in 
because their interest is not friendly.  But the work is totally worth it if it 
assists your own process of understanding the thing many of us did with 
Maharishi's teaching where we let it change us in a fundamental way and then 
decided that this was not the way we wanted to function.

Your arc was much higher than mine, but the principle was the same for me.  I 
had to decide how I was going to think about the states Maharishi's practices 
induced for myself, without the overriding "but of course the goal of life is 
enlightenment, everybody knows that!"

So there will be many times when you will have had enough and need a break and 
decide you have done enough "processing" for a while but I hope you continue to 
work on your perspective here.  Your piece that laid out the whole soaring tale 
of where you have been and where you are now was fascinating to me.  I believe 
there is more about where you are now that could stimulate some great 
conversations here or in emails.

My arc took me solidly into a humanistic perspective and yours seems to have 
landed you in some version of theism.  For me, if any of the gods showed up at 
my gig, I would request that the waiter sat him right in in between the ladies 
room door and the kitchen door so that his elbows would be constantly rocked by 
the swinging doors until he had had enough and slinked off to spread some more 
Guinea worms in African ponds. No love lost there when I sent him packing.

Anyway we have more to discuss if you can stomach the place.

Comments interspersed below. 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra  wrote

> RESPONSE: I got intellectually swarmed after starting to post on this blog, 
> so after reading this post of yours, I just attempted to fight off all my 
> closing-in-for-the-kill critics.
> 
> I have never had the experience afforded to me by posting on this blog: the 
> kinds of conversations and disputes that erupt spontaneously and 
> never-endingly. It has, in a certain way, been quite wonderful for me, as I 
> have found myself forced to respond in a multitude of different ways to the 
> omnidirectional bullets fired at my head.
> 
> I can't even account for my experience exactly; all I know is that, since I 
> put down my enlightenment days, I have never had such a necessary 
> work-out—and not just by my mind. I have found myself forced to draw upon 
> everything I have to survive the testing and provocation that has come my way.
> 
> I am really quite grateful, especially for being able to get down that 
> lengthy post this Sunday. After getting all that business out, I felt: Ah, I 
> have explained my heterodox view of enlightenment and Hindu spirituality (as 
> taught to my body and soul by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi).


I can so totally relate.  I loathed AMT but was drawn to the work and the 
effect it had on how I think about everything actually.  I'm sure the inner 
work could be done in a less antagonistic atmosphere but there is something 
strangely compelling in having people's hands at your throat challenging you to 
the core that makes you have to hunker down and find out what you are made of.  
This place is a huge intellectual resource.  I have hammered out a comfortable 
relationship with everyone over time so it is so much more relaxed to process 
ideas here for me now. 

[FairfieldLife] No Ground Of All Being [was Re: Help a Saint - Lose]

[maskedzebra]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra  wrote:
> >
> > LOVE IT! THANKS. GOT MY ATTENTION. You prove my pet theory: when a person's 
> > first person perspective comes—unwittingly, adventitiously—through their 
> > so-called attempts at a third person perspective (e.g. what you are telling 
> > me here)—and what you get is strong and healthy—then time to: BECOME ALERT.
> > 
> > I am, via your post, alerted to the contingent solipsistic tendency in me—I 
> > have never shaken this since I was a small child. But you are the first 
> > person on this blog to convince me I should be aware of the need to mortify 
> > this temptation whenever my putative enlightenment is undergoing a 
> > vivisection.
> 
> It kind of comes with the territory of discussing your experience doesn't it? 
>  I wasn't suggesting that you were more that way than I would be if I were 
> doing the same.  It wasn't as pointed as that.  I was speculating on why 
> Turq's reaction was different than my own in relating to you here.  I could 
> understand why he went that way, but for me it is not how I believe I will 
> get the most from our interaction.  I would never take part in a vivisection 
> of someone's important inner life.  (well that doesn't mean I can NEVER come 
> off like an asshole here!)  We all have to set our own boundaries for 
> discussions here.  It is easy to be kind of flip and mean with things other 
> people cherish.  I mean if you came back and said blues is repetitive crap 
> played by people who never mastered the guitar, I really wouldn't care, even 
> though I like it so much.  As the Roman's say, there is not accounting for 
> taste.  But no matter how much the blues is my life, it is never my identity 
> so I don't personalize someone's different musical taste as a statement about 
> me. It is about them. And it does tell me something about the person.
> 
> But when dealing with the identity level experiences in Maharishi's programs 
> or other spiritual experiences, we don't have that separation usually.  
> Although I think it is intellectually healthy to develop that ability.
> 
> > 
> > Will try to maintain some credibility on this blog, as I have already 
> > learned a lot (e.g. CDB on the blues). You'll keep me honest, Curtis. No 
> > doubt about THAT.
> > 
> > So, as GWB said: Bring it on.
> 
> I took some time to connect with you on an emotional level first so we could 
> see each other through the kinder lens of rapport.  I cherish my skepticism 
> about all things spiritual, but I don't want to be a dick about it.  I want 
> to relate to people here as if we have already had our first beer and found 
> out we both love Mario Batali's regional Italian cooking show. (Do you get 
> him up there, he is my Italian cooking guru from the food network.)
> 
> > 
> > I am aware that the Mission is NOT Accomplished (mission = perfect 
> > self-knowledge, perfect disinterestedness, perfect understanding).
> 
> Acknowledgement of being human is always a good start. Frankly if you said 
> anything else I would become instantly bored.
> 
> < It's just that I can only respond meaningfully to criticism which stands 
> apart in its merit from the motives of my critic.>
> 
> Although you have gotten some posts that have been critical, nobody knows you 
> here really.  I personally don't think you deserve criticism for sharing your 
> perspective here.  You are understandably sensitive to some harshness coming 
> your way.  But there are a lot of responses that come from a more accepting 
> place, Whynotnow and Rick for two examples.  And Vaj should have some more 
> interesting comments on how your experiences fit into the Vedic tradition.  
> I'm sure I am missing others. 
> 
> But I doubt you will find me a "critic" here.  We already have a friendly 
> connection.  I am not interested in squandering that potential for 
> communication on trying to be more "right" about something than you are.  
> Let's just explore where we draw our different lines of reality and assume 
> that the other person has good reasons for the lines they have drawn.  I am a 
> fan of the concepts around maintaining healthy emotional and intellectual 
> boundaries.  You don't have to share my perspective for me to try to 
> understand yours, and vise versa.  It is only if we can acknowledge and be 
> cool with the differences that we have a chance of expanding our views.
> 
> > 
> > It's going to be fun, Curtis. I appreciate the warning and the hidden 
> > admonition.
> 
> I'm not sure that was my intention but OK. You got outside yourself 
> completely in our discussion of the blues, letting me spread my little wings 
> and fly.  Much appreciated.
> 
> > 
> > But don't you DARE question the truth of my enlightenment, OK?>
> 
> I don't question that you had a shift of your internal state that was radical 
> enough for you to associate it with the terms Maharishi

[FairfieldLife] No Ground Of All Being [was Re: Help a Saint - Lose]

[maskedzebra]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Tom Pall  wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 5:20 AM, maskedzebra wrote:
> 
> > RESPONSE: Thomas, could you provide an example of a sentence or two, from
> > the letter above, which illustrates the problem of the intelligibility and
> > clearness of my argument?
> >
> >
> Not easily.   Your bombast runs through every word.  I don't know if you're
> modeling yourself after a 19th century itinerant American speechifier,
> someone who would have performed to the enthralled crowds at, for example,
> Chautauqua  Park in Fairfield during Chautauqua's hayday, or W.C. Fields,
> who I suspect was making fun of those itinerant speechifiers.   Whichever,
> doesn't matter.  You've told us over and over again how very open and
> receptive to Earhard you were the day of the massacre and that a massacre
> ensued but never described the assault.  You used the word "transgression"
> or "transgressed" when describing yoru interaction with Earhard.  IMO an
> inappropriate word chosen for theatrical effect and not to convey to us mere
> mortals what actually went on.   I'm creating a "histrionic" label for your
> posts in Gmail so I can readily find them when I'm hankering for the 1840s
> rhetorical genre your posts embody.   Thanks for adding to the variety of
> FairfieldLife.

RESPONSE: Then,  you're just going to leave a guy twisting in the proverbial 
wind, Tom? How about some intervention. I think it mean to just mock someone 
without providing some remedy that the speechifier could apply to cure his 
malady.

If I incur any more wounds from persons such as yourself (who seem to be 
unwilling to benefit from my superior vantage point on the universe), I am just 
going to take my ball and go home. Never to be heard from again. Do you really 
want to be responsible for an act of this magnitude? I am, after all, a 
missionary at heart, and if the natives will not bow down and obey me (find 
perfect agreement with everything I say and HOW I SAY IT) then I shall abandon 
them in their benightedness.

Please reconsider, Thomas. "Histrionic", any idea how much that hurts?

No, I suppose you don't.
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] No Ground Of All Being [was Re: Help a Saint - Lose]

[Tom Pall]

On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 5:20 AM, maskedzebra wrote:

> RESPONSE: Thomas, could you provide an example of a sentence or two, from
> the letter above, which illustrates the problem of the intelligibility and
> clearness of my argument?
>
>
Not easily.   Your bombast runs through every word.  I don't know if you're
modeling yourself after a 19th century itinerant American speechifier,
someone who would have performed to the enthralled crowds at, for example,
Chautauqua  Park in Fairfield during Chautauqua's hayday, or W.C. Fields,
who I suspect was making fun of those itinerant speechifiers.   Whichever,
doesn't matter.  You've told us over and over again how very open and
receptive to Earhard you were the day of the massacre and that a massacre
ensued but never described the assault.  You used the word "transgression"
or "transgressed" when describing yoru interaction with Earhard.  IMO an
inappropriate word chosen for theatrical effect and not to convey to us mere
mortals what actually went on.   I'm creating a "histrionic" label for your
posts in Gmail so I can readily find them when I'm hankering for the 1840s
rhetorical genre your posts embody.   Thanks for adding to the variety of
FairfieldLife.

[FairfieldLife] No Ground Of All Being [was Re: Help a Saint - Lose]

[seventhray1]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Tom Pall  wrote:
> RC, are your experiences so beyond the rest of us, your concepts so
profound
> we can't understand with simple language that you must use so many
words to
> get your meaning and concepts across? Are you wanting to get points
> across to us FFL readers, wanting to dazzle us with lots of words, or
> incapable of responding to anyone but yourself? We speak English here.
We
> use few words to get our meaning across. Rick, to whom you're
responding,
> is a case study in the economy of words and tightness of expression.
Yet
> you feel you need to blast him with what might pass for some as
rhetoric but
> what for others, like me, appears to be just talking shit to
windmills.
> Could you perhaps edit your responses so that us mere mortals can grok
what
> you're saying? Or is that we're mere mortals a problem in itself?
>
Neat reply Tom.  "I know just how you feel"  Morphius

[FairfieldLife] No Ground Of All Being [was Re: Help a Saint - Lose]

[maskedzebra]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Tom Pall  wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 1:30 AM, maskedzebra wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
> >
> > Dear Rick,
> >
> > If my enlightenment was not the real deal, then in all that I say about
> > enlightenment, I will be revealing this discrepancy between my version of
> > Unity Consciousness and the real version. Somehow, if I was not in the same
> > essential state of consciousness that Maharishi was in, someone like
> > yourself would detect this in the absence of that perspective which would
> > give legitimacy and credibility to everything I say about both what
> > enlightenment is, and what it was like to be enlightened.
> >
> > The fact that you are forced to fall back on the a priori assumption that,
> > because you believe enlightenment to be a real state of affairs (I believe
> > it to be a real state of experience with consequent definitive parameters of
> > behaviour and abilities, but for all that not a state of consciousness which
> > is coincident with ultimate reality), and I am repudiating the metaphysical
> > validity of enlightenment—claiming I am now de-enlightened,—it must perforce
> > be the case that my enlightenment was not the real deal. Because, you see,
> > if it had been the real deal, how could I, given your absolute belief in its
> > ontological truthfulness, reject this belief, reject the truth of
> > enlightenment?
> >
> > You must, because I am denouncing the state of enlightenment (and Unity
> > Consciousness) as a form of extraordinary mystical deceit of the mind,
> > conclude that: He was not really enlightened, because his ego is still
> > intact, and besides, anyone who was REALLY enlightened, would not be able to
> > make themselves unenlightened, nor would they dream of rejecting this state
> > of consciousness as being false to reality.
> >
> > Given then your fundamental belief that enlightenment has to be true, you
> > have no other choice but to write as you have written above, because, for
> > you, it is never going to be a question of determining whether or not
> > enlightenment corresponds to reality (whether it indeed is a true state of
> > affairs for a human being and objectively and truthfully represents reality
> > as it really is). For you enlightenment HAS TO BE TRUE. To question its
> > intrinsic validity as a metaphysically bona fide state of human experience
> > and functioning is tantamount to denying what essentially constitutes your
> > highest vision of what life is all about. To deprive you of this belief is
> > the functional equivalent of forcing you to give up your belief in God. For
> > you, then, Rick, enlightenment (the belief in this reality) is as
> > unquestioned and solid and irrefutable as someone else's belief that Christ
> > was God. It is your religion. Why so? Because you cannot conceive, given
> > your experiences and observations and history, of ever bringing it (the idea
> > of enlightenment) before a tribunal of critical judgment where—like the
> > existence of God—it would be subject to real debate and argument. As to
> > whether indeed it is a natural state of consciousness and functioning for
> > the human person.
> >
> > You MUST therefore conclude that since I am on a mission to debunk your
> > religion, and that I once claimed to have intimate familiarity with that
> > religion (once having been according to my own testimony, the very
> > embodiment of that religion: i.e. in Unity Consciousness), and now have
> > disavowed that religion, that I WAS NEVER THEREFORE A TRUE BELIEVER IN THAT
> > RELIGION. Or rather, never really knew what that religion (enlightenment)
> > was all about.
> >
> > For me, Rick, the question is determined by my experience. I have never met
> > or read about anyone who conclusively demonstrates to me that they are in
> > possession—actual possession—of a more desirable state of consciousness then
> > the one we were born into. Although paradoxically, had I met myself
> > enlightened, in my non-enlightened state, I would certainly have believe in
> > his (my) enlightenment as much as I believed in Maharishi's. My
> > enlightenment was proven to me in ten thousand different ways—in every
> > moment of my life when I lived under that state of consciousness.
> >
> > No, for me, Rick, it is you who give yourself away, because you evidently
> > cannot countenance the idea that enlightenment just might be what I say it
> > is. But you are unwilling or unable to subject enlightenment to a true acid
> > test. You have no surefire way of knowing whether enlightenment exists as a
> > true and objectively valid state of consciousness. What is your proof that
> > this state of consciousness exists such that you know it is the perfect
> > representation of what reality is?
> >
> > By your reading of books on the subject? by your interviews with these
> > guests who purportedly have entered into a state of realization

Re: [FairfieldLife] No Ground Of All Being [was Re: Help a Saint - Lose]

[Tom Pall]

On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 1:30 AM, maskedzebra wrote:

>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
>
> Dear Rick,
>
> If my enlightenment was not the real deal, then in all that I say about
> enlightenment, I will be revealing this discrepancy between my version of
> Unity Consciousness and the real version. Somehow, if I was not in the same
> essential state of consciousness that Maharishi was in, someone like
> yourself would detect this in the absence of that perspective which would
> give legitimacy and credibility to everything I say about both what
> enlightenment is, and what it was like to be enlightened.
>
> The fact that you are forced to fall back on the a priori assumption that,
> because you believe enlightenment to be a real state of affairs (I believe
> it to be a real state of experience with consequent definitive parameters of
> behaviour and abilities, but for all that not a state of consciousness which
> is coincident with ultimate reality), and I am repudiating the metaphysical
> validity of enlightenment—claiming I am now de-enlightened,—it must perforce
> be the case that my enlightenment was not the real deal. Because, you see,
> if it had been the real deal, how could I, given your absolute belief in its
> ontological truthfulness, reject this belief, reject the truth of
> enlightenment?
>
> You must, because I am denouncing the state of enlightenment (and Unity
> Consciousness) as a form of extraordinary mystical deceit of the mind,
> conclude that: He was not really enlightened, because his ego is still
> intact, and besides, anyone who was REALLY enlightened, would not be able to
> make themselves unenlightened, nor would they dream of rejecting this state
> of consciousness as being false to reality.
>
> Given then your fundamental belief that enlightenment has to be true, you
> have no other choice but to write as you have written above, because, for
> you, it is never going to be a question of determining whether or not
> enlightenment corresponds to reality (whether it indeed is a true state of
> affairs for a human being and objectively and truthfully represents reality
> as it really is). For you enlightenment HAS TO BE TRUE. To question its
> intrinsic validity as a metaphysically bona fide state of human experience
> and functioning is tantamount to denying what essentially constitutes your
> highest vision of what life is all about. To deprive you of this belief is
> the functional equivalent of forcing you to give up your belief in God. For
> you, then, Rick, enlightenment (the belief in this reality) is as
> unquestioned and solid and irrefutable as someone else's belief that Christ
> was God. It is your religion. Why so? Because you cannot conceive, given
> your experiences and observations and history, of ever bringing it (the idea
> of enlightenment) before a tribunal of critical judgment where—like the
> existence of God—it would be subject to real debate and argument. As to
> whether indeed it is a natural state of consciousness and functioning for
> the human person.
>
> You MUST therefore conclude that since I am on a mission to debunk your
> religion, and that I once claimed to have intimate familiarity with that
> religion (once having been according to my own testimony, the very
> embodiment of that religion: i.e. in Unity Consciousness), and now have
> disavowed that religion, that I WAS NEVER THEREFORE A TRUE BELIEVER IN THAT
> RELIGION. Or rather, never really knew what that religion (enlightenment)
> was all about.
>
> For me, Rick, the question is determined by my experience. I have never met
> or read about anyone who conclusively demonstrates to me that they are in
> possession—actual possession—of a more desirable state of consciousness then
> the one we were born into. Although paradoxically, had I met myself
> enlightened, in my non-enlightened state, I would certainly have believe in
> his (my) enlightenment as much as I believed in Maharishi's. My
> enlightenment was proven to me in ten thousand different ways—in every
> moment of my life when I lived under that state of consciousness.
>
> No, for me, Rick, it is you who give yourself away, because you evidently
> cannot countenance the idea that enlightenment just might be what I say it
> is. But you are unwilling or unable to subject enlightenment to a true acid
> test. You have no surefire way of knowing whether enlightenment exists as a
> true and objectively valid state of consciousness. What is your proof that
> this state of consciousness exists such that you know it is the perfect
> representation of what reality is?
>
> By your reading of books on the subject? by your interviews with these
> guests who purportedly have entered into a state of realization? by your
> experience with Maharishi?
>
> Where does this absolute and unshakeable belief originate?
>
> I suggest it has been absorbed into your being through your TM and
> Maharishi experience just like Mother's Milk

[FairfieldLife] No Ground Of All Being [was Re: Help a Saint - Lose]

[Ravi Yogi]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra  wrote:
>
> RESPONSE: Don't hit a guy when he's already down, Turquoiseb. Haven't
you already said enough, for Christ's sake? I need your counsel, not
your cruel truthfulness. You've hit an undefended part of me, OK? And I
need to nurse my wounds for a while. Now leave me alone. After this
second blow, you've made me a bitter man. Did you know you would have
THAT effect on me? Should have stopped after the first knock-down
argument, turq.
>
> By the way, there's no way that you could be wrong. Believe me, your
position is unassailable. Even the beautiful first person subjectivity
behind it pierced me.
>
> One thing I DID learn from Maharishi: the aesthetics of irony
(although his was more often unstated; but the deep cynicism inside that
man's heart, it was a wonder to behold. No one had "attitude" like
Maharishi. His inner experience of himself was of the nature of being
INCAPABLE of humility—I certainly don't want to follow him in
this.—but his sense of irony? There he had no peers. But for all
that the most magical human being since Christ I believe.)
>
> Is it time for me to STFU, Turq?
>

Dear MZ, This is just an awesome response, I have to say I have totally
fallen in love with your sense of irony, loved your earlier expression
"maximum sincerity" with maximum irony and how you use irony to protect
yourselves. Your comments on Maharishi seem very apt as well though I
don't agree with the humility part, my behavior is something similar to
that. I can be very humble and playful when listening and interacting
with others but rarely do I run it to anyone with whom I can relate to
so I can come across as sarcastic and distant. I can clearly see why I
am destined to be single :-).
Your opinions on "solipsism" are appreciated as well, I never ran in to
this word before so I had to read it. Now the word really resonates with
what I have felt and continue to feel. I also have been accused of being
ironic and sarcastic, but that has been my way to protect myself, I'm a
deeply intense person and if I really express myself with "maximum
sincerity" very few have the ability to deal with it - so then I
continue on in my playful, sarcastic way at work and in my interactions
with others.  So I'm similar to you in that if I don't think I can be
sincere with the other person I operate in the ironic, sarcastic mode.
So even if I don't agree with what you say, I'm hoping you stick around
and are not offended by people questioning you. I feel we have only seen
the surface of you and there's lot that's hidden behind the mask.

[FairfieldLife] No Ground Of All Being [was Re: Help a Saint - Lose]

[wayback71]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1"  wrote:
>
> 
> Are you incapable of snipping, or just plain lazy?
> 
> 
Forgot - lesson relearned.

[FairfieldLife] No Ground Of All Being [was Re: Help a Saint - Lose]

[seventhray1]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
 wrote:
>
> Thanks for explaining that in some detail. I think we go about
connecting to new posters in different and sometimes opposite ways. And
I am using what your way discovers about someone as I hope you are mine.
I try for rapport an common ground and you break rapport and see how
they react. Both seem valid and suite our own personality and interests
here.

Do you see the results in the different styles?  In one case what
results is dialogue that leads to some possible new perspectives.  The
other results in mostly boring rehashes.
>
> Seeing if a person can discuss their inner life in a non defensive
manor is certainly a prerequisite to being able to hang, and we are both
sensitive to the implications of claims of higher states with regard to
what kind of higher ground they are claiming in a discussion. I think we
both have a pretty negative reaction to that.
>
> But I don't share your conclusions about what it shows about the
"ego". In my model it reveals the health of emotional and intellectual
boundaries. It they are healthy and strong then we can discuss. But if
they are not, then there is a fragility of personality that I want to
respect.
>
> To answer your first question, I didn't miss your point but I did miss
some of your motivation so thanks for clearing that up.
>
> Personally I think MZ is going to stimulate a LOT of discussions with
posters here and I am all for that.
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
 wrote:
> > >
> > > -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra 
wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I am, via your post, alerted to the contingent solipsistic
> > > > tendency in me—I have never shaken this since I was a small
> > > > child. But you are the first person on this blog to convince
> > > > me I should be aware of the need to mortify this temptation
> > > > whenever my putative enlightenment is undergoing a vivisection.
> > >
> > > It kind of comes with the territory of discussing your
> > > experience doesn't it? I wasn't suggesting that you were
> > > more that way than I would be if I were doing the same. It
> > > wasn't as pointed as that. I was speculating on why Turq's
> > > reaction was different than my own in relating to you here.
> > > I could understand why he went that way, but for me it is
> > > not how I believe I will get the most from our interaction.
> > > I would never take part in a vivisection of someone's
> > > important inner life.
> >
> > I'm curious, Curtis, as to whether you think that's
> > what I was doing -- trying to slice and dice his
> > "important inner life." From my side, what I thought
> > I was doing was saying that I didn't CARE much about
> > his inner life, and that it wasn't important to me.
> >
> > As for vivisecting claims of supposed higher states
> > of consciousness, Yes, I sometimes indulge in that
> > (although I don't think I was in this case). I find
> > it's an interesting way to see whether someone who
> > claims to have achieved a state beyond ego or small
> > self or whatever can walk the talk of their claim.
> >
> > As we have seen in the past, some can and some can't.
> >
> > I think that Tom Traynor did a pretty good job of
> > presenting himself as somewhat self realized on this
> > forum, without feeling the need to lash out at those
> > who might not either buy it or be impressed by it. I
> > think that Dr. Pete, in the rare times that he's made
> > suggestions about where he's at, has similarly mainly
> > walked his talk. I think that Rory, in his most recent
> > appearance on this forum (as opposed to his earlier
> > playdates) did a pretty good job of keeping it in his
> > pants, emotional-reaction-wise.
> >
> > Others...uh...not so much. As I've said before, I don't
> > think we can "vivisect" what is essentially unprovable.
> > Those who claim to be in higher states of consciousness
> > are undoubtedly having *some* experience. What it is
> > neither I nor (in my opinion) they can really say. It's
> > when they (as blastedactresses has pointed out so well
> > recently) try to turn their subjective experiences into
> > some kind of "truth" or pronouncement that I might be
> > tempted to have a little "Let's poke at the supposedly
> > enlightened person and see if there's really no self
> > in there or whether there's a really BIG one waiting
> > to lash out in defensiveness and anger" fun with them.
> >
> > Like blastedactresses, I do not buy that anyone can
> > extrapolate from their subjective experience something
> > called truth. In my view, whatever they experience is
> > nothing more -- or less -- than subjective experience.
> > As such, there is nothing that I or anyone else can say
> > to prove or disprove it.
> >
> > When they cross the line from relating a subjective
> > experience to making pronouncements about what that
> > experience "means," and cal

[FairfieldLife] No Ground Of All Being [was Re: Help a Saint - Lose]

[seventhray1]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:

> When they cross the line from relating a subjective
> experience to making pronouncements about what that
> experience "means," and calling those pronouncements
> "truth," I might try to remind them that what they're
> saying may be nothing more than opinion, and thus no
> more "truth" than anyone else's opinion. ANYONE
> else's opinion. And that includes supposed holy men
> from the present or past. I don't swing behind the
> idea that ANY of their opinions is "truth."
Says he whose buttons cannot be pushed.

[FairfieldLife] No Ground Of All Being [was Re: Help a Saint - Lose]

[seventhray1]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
  I might be
> tempted to have a little "Let's poke at the supposedly
> enlightened person and see if there's really no self
> in there or whether there's a really BIG one waiting
> to lash out in defensiveness and anger" fun with them.
You know it does get a little old, but evidently not for you.  Having
spoken your "peace" you might just want stand back and let things play
out.  But, you seem to feel a need to keep on keeping on.  When I think
everyone else would wish that you would sometimes just STFU.
> Like blastedactresses, I do not buy that anyone can
> extrapolate from their subjective experience something
> called truth. In my view, whatever they experience is
> nothing more -- or less -- than subjective experience.
> As such, there is nothing that I or anyone else can say
> to prove or disprove it.
>
> When they cross the line from relating a subjective
> experience to making pronouncements about what that
> experience "means," and calling those pronouncements
> "truth," I might try to remind them that what they're
> saying may be nothing more than opinion, and thus no
> more "truth" than anyone else's opinion. ANYONE
> else's opinion. And that includes supposed holy men
> from the present or past. I don't swing behind the
> idea that ANY of their opinions is "truth."
>

[FairfieldLife] No Ground Of All Being [was Re: Help a Saint - Lose]

[seventhray1]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
> >
> > -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra  wrote:
> > >
> > > I am, via your post, alerted to the contingent solipsistic
> > > tendency in me—I have never shaken this since I was a small
> > > child. But you are the first person on this blog to convince
> > > me I should be aware of the need to mortify this temptation
> > > whenever my putative enlightenment is undergoing a vivisection.
> >
> > It kind of comes with the territory of discussing your
> > experience doesn't it? I wasn't suggesting that you were
> > more that way than I would be if I were doing the same. It
> > wasn't as pointed as that. I was speculating on why Turq's
> > reaction was different than my own in relating to you here.
> > I could understand why he went that way, but for me it is
> > not how I believe I will get the most from our interaction.
> > I would never take part in a vivisection of someone's
> > important inner life.
>
> I'm curious, Curtis, as to whether you think that's
> what I was doing -- trying to slice and dice his
> "important inner life." From my side, what I thought
> I was doing was saying that I didn't CARE much about
> his inner life, and that it wasn't important to me.
Why couldn't you say it in about 100 fewer words, and it's always so
self referral, me, me, me.  Okay, you made that point.  It doesn't work
for you.  So move on.  I think we got the point.
> As for vivisecting claims of supposed higher states
> of consciousness, Yes, I sometimes indulge in that
> (although I don't think I was in this case). I find
> it's an interesting way to see whether someone who
> claims to have achieved a state beyond ego or small
> self or whatever can walk the talk of their claim.
>
> As we have seen in the past, some can and some can't.
>
> I think that Tom Traynor did a pretty good job of
> presenting himself as somewhat self realized on this
> forum, without feeling the need to lash out at those
> who might not either buy it or be impressed by it. I
> think that Dr. Pete, in the rare times that he's made
> suggestions about where he's at, has similarly mainly
> walked his talk. I think that Rory, in his most recent
> appearance on this forum (as opposed to his earlier
> playdates) did a pretty good job of keeping it in his
> pants, emotional-reaction-wise.
>
> Others...uh...not so much. As I've said before, I don't
> think we can "vivisect" what is essentially unprovable.
> Those who claim to be in higher states of consciousness
> are undoubtedly having *some* experience. What it is
> neither I nor (in my opinion) they can really say. It's
> when they (as blastedactresses has pointed out so well
> recently) try to turn their subjective experiences into
> some kind of "truth" or pronouncement that I might be
> tempted to have a little "Let's poke at the supposedly
> enlightened person and see if there's really no self
> in there or whether there's a really BIG one waiting
> to lash out in defensiveness and anger" fun with them.
>
> Like blastedactresses, I do not buy that anyone can
> extrapolate from their subjective experience something
> called truth. In my view, whatever they experience is
> nothing more -- or less -- than subjective experience.
> As such, there is nothing that I or anyone else can say
> to prove or disprove it.
>
> When they cross the line from relating a subjective
> experience to making pronouncements about what that
> experience "means," and calling those pronouncements
> "truth," I might try to remind them that what they're
> saying may be nothing more than opinion, and thus no
> more "truth" than anyone else's opinion. ANYONE
> else's opinion. And that includes supposed holy men
> from the present or past. I don't swing behind the
> idea that ANY of their opinions is "truth."
>

[FairfieldLife] No Ground Of All Being [was Re: Help a Saint - Lose]

[seventhray1]

Are you incapable of snipping, or just plain lazy?


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "wayback71"  wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@ wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
> >
> > Dear Rick,
> >
> > If my enlightenment was not the real deal, then in all that I say
about enlightenment, I will be revealing this discrepancy between my
version of Unity Consciousness and the real version. Somehow, if I was
not in the same essential state of consciousness that Maharishi was in,
someone like yourself would detect this in the absence of that
perspective which would give legitimacy and credibility to everything I
say about both what enlightenment is, and what it was like to be
enlightened.
> >
> > The fact that you are forced to fall back on the a priori assumption
that, because you believe enlightenment to be a real state of affairs (I
believe it to be a real state of experience with consequent definitive
parameters of behaviour and abilities, but for all that not a state of
consciousness which is coincident with ultimate reality), and I am
repudiating the metaphysical validity of enlightenment—claiming I am
now de-enlightened,—it must perforce be the case that my
enlightenment was not the real deal. Because, you see, if it had been
the real deal, how could I, given your absolute belief in its
ontological truthfulness, reject this belief, reject the truth of
enlightenment?
> >
> > You must, because I am denouncing the state of enlightenment (and
Unity Consciousness) as a form of extraordinary mystical deceit of the
mind, conclude that: He was not really enlightened, because his ego is
still intact, and besides, anyone who was REALLY enlightened, would not
be able to make themselves unenlightened, nor would they dream of
rejecting this state of consciousness as being false to reality.
> >
> > Given then your fundamental belief that enlightenment has to be
true, you have no other choice but to write as you have written above,
because, for you, it is never going to be a question of determining
whether or not enlightenment corresponds to reality (whether it indeed
is a true state of affairs for a human being and objectively and
truthfully represents reality as it really is). For you enlightenment
HAS TO BE TRUE. To question its intrinsic validity as a metaphysically
bona fide state of human experience and functioning is tantamount to
denying what essentially constitutes your highest vision of what life is
all about. To deprive you of this belief is the functional equivalent of
forcing you to give up your belief in God. For you, then, Rick,
enlightenment (the belief in this reality) is as unquestioned and solid
and irrefutable as someone else's belief that Christ was God. It is your
religion. Why so? Because you cannot conceive, given your experiences
and observations and history, of ever bringing it (the idea of
enlightenment) before a tribunal of critical judgment where—like the
existence of God—it would be subject to real debate and argument. As
to whether indeed it is a natural state of consciousness and functioning
for the human person.
> >
> > You MUST therefore conclude that since I am on a mission to debunk
your religion, and that I once claimed to have intimate familiarity with
that religion (once having been according to my own testimony, the very
embodiment of that religion: i.e. in Unity Consciousness), and now have
disavowed that religion, that I WAS NEVER THEREFORE A TRUE BELIEVER IN
THAT RELIGION. Or rather, never really knew what that religion
(enlightenment) was all about.
> >
> > For me, Rick, the question is determined by my experience. I have
never met or read about anyone who conclusively demonstrates to me that
they are in possession—actual possession—of a more desirable
state of consciousness then the one we were born into. Although
paradoxically, had I met myself enlightened, in my non-enlightened
state, I would certainly have believe in his (my) enlightenment as much
as I believed in Maharishi's. My enlightenment was proven to me in ten
thousand different ways—in every moment of my life when I lived
under that state of consciousness.
> >
> > No, for me, Rick, it is you who give yourself away, because you
evidently cannot countenance the idea that enlightenment just might be
what I say it is. But you are unwilling or unable to subject
enlightenment to a true acid test. You have no surefire way of knowing
whether enlightenment exists as a true and objectively valid state of
consciousness. What is your proof that this state of consciousness
exists such that you know it is the perfect representation of what
reality is?
> >
> > By your reading of books on the subject? by your interviews with
these guests who purportedly have entered into a state of realization?
by your experience with Maharishi?
> >
> > Where does this absolute and unshakeable belief originate?
> >
> > I suggest it has been absorbed into your 

[FairfieldLife] No Ground Of All Being [was Re: Help a Saint - Lose]

[seventhray1]

In a little less severe terms, I think this nails it.  OTOH, I have been
enjoying some of the other posts.  But can anybody bite into this?
Jiminy Christmas.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> MZ, here's a free clue to explain to you why I got no more than two
> sentences into the self-serving drivel below: I DON'T CARE ABOUT YOUR
> 'ENLIGHTENMENT.' It (meaning the stories you tell others and yourself
> about your experiences and what you think they "mean" or "meant")
> obviously are very important to YOU, because you just won't STFU about
> them. All these years later and you still won't STFU about them.
>
> Someday you might want to figure out that expecting other people to be
> interested in your subjective state of consciousness is like expecting
> them to be interested in your retelling of a vivid dream experience
you
> had the previous night. Ever try this? Ever watch people's eyes glaze
> over after a minute or so, as if they were thinking, "Why oh why won't
> this guy STFU about an experience that was meaningful only to him?"
>
> Clue: That's exactly what they were thinking.
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@ wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" rick@ wrote:
> >
> > Dear Rick,
> >
> > If my enlightenment was not the real deal, then in all that I say
> about enlightenment, I will be revealing this discrepancy between my
> version of Unity Consciousness and the real version. Somehow, if I was
> not in the same essential state of consciousness that Maharishi was
in,
> someone like yourself would detect this in the absence of that
> perspective which would give legitimacy and credibility to everything
I
> say about both what enlightenment is, and what it was like to be
> enlightened.
> >
> > The fact that you are forced to fall back on the a priori assumption
> that, because you believe enlightenment to be a real state of affairs
(I
> believe it to be a real state of experience with consequent definitive
> parameters of behaviour and abilities, but for all that not a state of
> consciousness which is coincident with ultimate reality), and I am
> repudiating the metaphysical validity of enlightenment—claiming I
am
> now de-enlightened,—it must perforce be the case that my
> enlightenment was not the real deal. Because, you see, if it had been
> the real deal, how could I, given your absolute belief in its
> ontological truthfulness, reject this belief, reject the truth of
> enlightenment?
> >
> > You must, because I am denouncing the state of enlightenment (and
> Unity Consciousness) as a form of extraordinary mystical deceit of the
> mind, conclude that: He was not really enlightened, because his ego is
> still intact, and besides, anyone who was REALLY enlightened, would
not
> be able to make themselves unenlightened, nor would they dream of
> rejecting this state of consciousness as being false to reality.
> >
> > Given then your fundamental belief that enlightenment has to be
true,
> you have no other choice but to write as you have written above,
> because, for you, it is never going to be a question of determining
> whether or not enlightenment corresponds to reality (whether it indeed
> is a true state of affairs for a human being and objectively and
> truthfully represents reality as it really is). For you enlightenment
> HAS TO BE TRUE. To question its intrinsic validity as a metaphysically
> bona fide state of human experience and functioning is tantamount to
> denying what essentially constitutes your highest vision of what life
is
> all about. To deprive you of this belief is the functional equivalent
of
> forcing you to give up your belief in God. For you, then, Rick,
> enlightenment (the belief in this reality) is as unquestioned and
solid
> and irrefutable as someone else's belief that Christ was God. It is
your
> religion. Why so? Because you cannot conceive, given your experiences
> and observations and history, of ever bringing it (the idea of
> enlightenment) before a tribunal of critical judgment where—like
the
> existence of God—it would be subject to real debate and argument.
As
> to whether indeed it is a natural state of consciousness and
functioning
> for the human person.
> >
> > You MUST therefore conclude that since I am on a mission to debunk
> your religion, and that I once claimed to have intimate familiarity
with
> that religion (once having been according to my own testimony, the
very
> embodiment of that religion: i.e. in Unity Consciousness), and now
have
> disavowed that religion, that I WAS NEVER THEREFORE A TRUE BELIEVER IN
> THAT RELIGION. Or rather, never really knew what that religion
> (enlightenment) was all about.
> >
> > For me, Rick, the question is determined by my experience. I have
> never met or read about anyone who conclusively demonstrates to me
that
> they are in possession—actual possession—of a more desirable
> state of consciousness then the one we were born 

[FairfieldLife] No Ground Of All Being [was Re: Help a Saint - Lose]

[richardjwilliamstexas]

> > Response: I never anticipated I would be on the receiving end of 
> > a final knock-down argument like the one above. If I had known (I 
> > should have) such an extraordinary summing up of myself 
> > (negatively) were possible, don't worry, I would have STFU. But 
> > you see, Turq, I thought it appropriate to explain what my 
> > perspective is on enlightenment, TM, Maharishi.You have convinced 
> > me I was in a dream about this. ...
> >
turquoiseb:
> Given the fact that you felt the need to go on for another
> 275 words about this, color me not convinced that you are
> "convinced."  :-)
> 
Turq, STFU and let the people talk. This is NOT your
newsgroup, it's Rick's. You've had fifteen years to
post your POV. Get some sleep!

> I'll try to explain further. In my reply, I used an analogy
> to try to help you understand why some (like...uh...myself)
> might not be hanging on your every word as you talk, talk,
> talk about your subjective experiences and what you think
> they mean. I suggested that (on the receiving end) it was
> a lot like having to sit there and listen to someone going
> on and on about the vivid dream they had the previous night,
> and how incredibly meaningful that dream was to them.
> 
> What possible relevance to my life could someone else's 
> dream have? I *get* that it's important to the person trying
> to tell me how important it was to him, but it's just *not*
> important to me. Similarly, what possible relevance to my
> life could *your* subjective experience of supposed higher
> states of consciousness have, much less what you've decided
> they mean or don't mean?
> 
> You strike me as someone who is used to "easy audiences,"
> meaning the kind of blissninny New Age people you might have
> met in Fairfield or in the TM movement. For many of them,
> someone talking about their supposed state of consciousness
> might be fascinating. They might sit there in rapt awe and
> let you go on and on about such subjective experiences, and
> a few of them might even be impressed by them.
> 
> I'm...uh...not one of those people. I've had a few cool
> subjective experiences myself, and have no need to bolster
> my faith in any particular dogma or path by hearing stories
> told by those who claim to have reached one of the "goals"
> of such a path. Just bores my socks off, dude.
> 
> It's NOT (despite what some would have you believe) that I
> have any particular problem with people claiming to have
> experienced supposed higher states of consciousness. How
> could I? I've had them myself. That said, I don't find it
> a terribly good use of my time to listen to others talk 
> about *their* experiences, much less what they think they
> "mean." Boring. I'd rather be off having experiences of
> my own.
> 
> I'm not an easy audience for people wanting to talk, talk,
> talk about their subjective experiences. I've had my own.
> 
> I'm also not the kinda person who is going to assume that
> what you say about your experiences or your purported 
> state of consciousness -- past or present -- is true, just
> because you say it. Some people are. Given your reaction --
> some would say overreaction -- to people not treating your
> words the way you wanted them to, you might be happier 
> trying your spiel on easier audiences.
> 
> I don't give a shit about your experiences decades ago in
> Fairfield. If you have any interest for me at all, it will
> be based on who and what you are today, here and now. And
> it will be based on what you can come up with to say that
> might have some relationship to my life. Talking about your
> subjective experiences and expecting people to be as fasc-
> inated by them as you were (and obviously still are) is
> just not gonna cut it. I'd rather read people swapping
> good recipes for lemon meringue pie.
> 
> Are we clear? I have nothing against you. I'm not looking
> to "knock you down." I'm just bored by some of your raps,
> that's all. They have no relevance to my life. And I some-
> times get the feeling that you don't CARE whether what you
> say has any relevance to my life, or anyone else's. You 
> give the impression of someone writing with the expectation 
> that others will find his subjective, inner life fascinating, 
> just because he finds it fascinating. 
> 
> Some might. Many New Agers or long-term TMers might. I'm
> neither one of those. I'm just a guy who likes to jackpot
> ideas around for the fun of it, with other people who like
> the same thing. What I write on this forum is my OPINION,
> nothing more. I try my best to never claim that this opinion
> is either fact, or that anyone else should share it.
> 
> You give the impression of someone who is convinced that
> his subjective view of the world and how it works is more
> than opinion. Good luck finding people who might agree with
> you about this. You haven't found one in me.
>

[FairfieldLife] No Ground Of All Being [was Re: Help a Saint - Lose]

[curtisdeltablues]

Thanks for explaining that in some detail.  I think we go about connecting to 
new posters in different and sometimes opposite ways.  And I am using what your 
way discovers about someone as I hope you are mine.  I try for rapport an 
common ground and you break rapport and see how they react.  Both seem valid 
and suite our own personality and interests here.

Seeing if a person can discuss their inner life in a non defensive manor is 
certainly a prerequisite to being able to hang, and we are both sensitive to 
the implications of claims of higher states with regard to what kind of higher 
ground they are claiming in a discussion.  I think we both have a pretty 
negative reaction to that.

But I don't share your conclusions about what it shows about the "ego".  In my 
model it reveals the health of emotional and intellectual boundaries.  It they 
are healthy and strong then we can discuss.  But if they are not, then there is 
a fragility of personality that I want to respect.  

To answer your first question, I didn't miss your point but I did miss some of 
your motivation so thanks for clearing that up.

Personally I think MZ is going to stimulate a LOT of discussions with posters 
here and I am all for that.  


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
> wrote:
> >
> > -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra  wrote:
> > >
> > > I am, via your post, alerted to the contingent solipsistic 
> > > tendency in me—I have never shaken this since I was a small 
> > > child. But you are the first person on this blog to convince 
> > > me I should be aware of the need to mortify this temptation 
> > > whenever my putative enlightenment is undergoing a vivisection.
> > 
> > It kind of comes with the territory of discussing your 
> > experience doesn't it?  I wasn't suggesting that you were 
> > more that way than I would be if I were doing the same. It 
> > wasn't as pointed as that. I was speculating on why Turq's 
> > reaction was different than my own in relating to you here.  
> > I could understand why he went that way, but for me it is 
> > not how I believe I will get the most from our interaction.  
> > I would never take part in a vivisection of someone's 
> > important inner life.  
> 
> I'm curious, Curtis, as to whether you think that's
> what I was doing -- trying to slice and dice his 
> "important inner life." From my side, what I thought
> I was doing was saying that I didn't CARE much about
> his inner life, and that it wasn't important to me.
> 
> As for vivisecting claims of supposed higher states
> of consciousness, Yes, I sometimes indulge in that
> (although I don't think I was in this case). I find 
> it's an interesting way to see whether someone who
> claims to have achieved a state beyond ego or small
> self or whatever can walk the talk of their claim.
> 
> As we have seen in the past, some can and some can't.
> 
> I think that Tom Traynor did a pretty good job of
> presenting himself as somewhat self realized on this
> forum, without feeling the need to lash out at those
> who might not either buy it or be impressed by it. I
> think that Dr. Pete, in the rare times that he's made
> suggestions about where he's at, has similarly mainly
> walked his talk. I think that Rory, in his most recent
> appearance on this forum (as opposed to his earlier 
> playdates) did a pretty good job of keeping it in his
> pants, emotional-reaction-wise. 
> 
> Others...uh...not so much. As I've said before, I don't
> think we can "vivisect" what is essentially unprovable.
> Those who claim to be in higher states of consciousness
> are undoubtedly having *some* experience. What it is 
> neither I nor (in my opinion) they can really say. It's
> when they (as blastedactresses has pointed out so well
> recently) try to turn their subjective experiences into
> some kind of "truth" or pronouncement that I might be
> tempted to have a little "Let's poke at the supposedly
> enlightened person and see if there's really no self
> in there or whether there's a really BIG one waiting
> to lash out in defensiveness and anger" fun with them.
> 
> Like blastedactresses, I do not buy that anyone can
> extrapolate from their subjective experience something
> called truth. In my view, whatever they experience is
> nothing more -- or less -- than subjective experience.
> As such, there is nothing that I or anyone else can say
> to prove or disprove it. 
> 
> When they cross the line from relating a subjective 
> experience to making pronouncements about what that
> experience "means," and calling those pronouncements
> "truth," I might try to remind them that what they're
> saying may be nothing more than opinion, and thus no
> more "truth" than anyone else's opinion. ANYONE 
> else's opinion. And that includes supposed holy men
> from the present or past. I don't swing behind the
> idea that ANY of their opinions is "truth."
>

[FairfieldLife] No Ground Of All Being [was Re: Help a Saint - Lose]

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra  wrote:
> >
> > I am, via your post, alerted to the contingent solipsistic 
> > tendency in me—I have never shaken this since I was a small 
> > child. But you are the first person on this blog to convince 
> > me I should be aware of the need to mortify this temptation 
> > whenever my putative enlightenment is undergoing a vivisection.
> 
> It kind of comes with the territory of discussing your 
> experience doesn't it?  I wasn't suggesting that you were 
> more that way than I would be if I were doing the same. It 
> wasn't as pointed as that. I was speculating on why Turq's 
> reaction was different than my own in relating to you here.  
> I could understand why he went that way, but for me it is 
> not how I believe I will get the most from our interaction.  
> I would never take part in a vivisection of someone's 
> important inner life.  

I'm curious, Curtis, as to whether you think that's
what I was doing -- trying to slice and dice his 
"important inner life." From my side, what I thought
I was doing was saying that I didn't CARE much about
his inner life, and that it wasn't important to me.

As for vivisecting claims of supposed higher states
of consciousness, Yes, I sometimes indulge in that
(although I don't think I was in this case). I find 
it's an interesting way to see whether someone who
claims to have achieved a state beyond ego or small
self or whatever can walk the talk of their claim.

As we have seen in the past, some can and some can't.

I think that Tom Traynor did a pretty good job of
presenting himself as somewhat self realized on this
forum, without feeling the need to lash out at those
who might not either buy it or be impressed by it. I
think that Dr. Pete, in the rare times that he's made
suggestions about where he's at, has similarly mainly
walked his talk. I think that Rory, in his most recent
appearance on this forum (as opposed to his earlier 
playdates) did a pretty good job of keeping it in his
pants, emotional-reaction-wise. 

Others...uh...not so much. As I've said before, I don't
think we can "vivisect" what is essentially unprovable.
Those who claim to be in higher states of consciousness
are undoubtedly having *some* experience. What it is 
neither I nor (in my opinion) they can really say. It's
when they (as blastedactresses has pointed out so well
recently) try to turn their subjective experiences into
some kind of "truth" or pronouncement that I might be
tempted to have a little "Let's poke at the supposedly
enlightened person and see if there's really no self
in there or whether there's a really BIG one waiting
to lash out in defensiveness and anger" fun with them.

Like blastedactresses, I do not buy that anyone can
extrapolate from their subjective experience something
called truth. In my view, whatever they experience is
nothing more -- or less -- than subjective experience.
As such, there is nothing that I or anyone else can say
to prove or disprove it. 

When they cross the line from relating a subjective 
experience to making pronouncements about what that
experience "means," and calling those pronouncements
"truth," I might try to remind them that what they're
saying may be nothing more than opinion, and thus no
more "truth" than anyone else's opinion. ANYONE 
else's opinion. And that includes supposed holy men
from the present or past. I don't swing behind the
idea that ANY of their opinions is "truth." 

[FairfieldLife] No Ground Of All Being [was Re: Help a Saint - Lose]

[curtisdeltablues]

-- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra  wrote:
>
> LOVE IT! THANKS. GOT MY ATTENTION. You prove my pet theory: when a person's 
> first person perspective comes—unwittingly, adventitiously—through their 
> so-called attempts at a third person perspective (e.g. what you are telling 
> me here)—and what you get is strong and healthy—then time to: BECOME ALERT.
> 
> I am, via your post, alerted to the contingent solipsistic tendency in me—I 
> have never shaken this since I was a small child. But you are the first 
> person on this blog to convince me I should be aware of the need to mortify 
> this temptation whenever my putative enlightenment is undergoing a 
> vivisection.

It kind of comes with the territory of discussing your experience doesn't it?  
I wasn't suggesting that you were more that way than I would be if I were doing 
the same.  It wasn't as pointed as that.  I was speculating on why Turq's 
reaction was different than my own in relating to you here.  I could understand 
why he went that way, but for me it is not how I believe I will get the most 
from our interaction.  I would never take part in a vivisection of someone's 
important inner life.  (well that doesn't mean I can NEVER come off like an 
asshole here!)  We all have to set our own boundaries for discussions here.  It 
is easy to be kind of flip and mean with things other people cherish.  I mean 
if you came back and said blues is repetitive crap played by people who never 
mastered the guitar, I really wouldn't care, even though I like it so much.  As 
the Roman's say, there is not accounting for taste.  But no matter how much the 
blues is my life, it is never my identity so I don't personalize someone's 
different musical taste as a statement about me. It is about them. And it does 
tell me something about the person.

But when dealing with the identity level experiences in Maharishi's programs or 
other spiritual experiences, we don't have that separation usually.  Although I 
think it is intellectually healthy to develop that ability.

> 
> Will try to maintain some credibility on this blog, as I have already learned 
> a lot (e.g. CDB on the blues). You'll keep me honest, Curtis. No doubt about 
> THAT.
> 
> So, as GWB said: Bring it on.

I took some time to connect with you on an emotional level first so we could 
see each other through the kinder lens of rapport.  I cherish my skepticism 
about all things spiritual, but I don't want to be a dick about it.  I want to 
relate to people here as if we have already had our first beer and found out we 
both love Mario Batali's regional Italian cooking show. (Do you get him up 
there, he is my Italian cooking guru from the food network.)

> 
> I am aware that the Mission is NOT Accomplished (mission = perfect 
> self-knowledge, perfect disinterestedness, perfect understanding).

Acknowledgement of being human is always a good start. Frankly if you said 
anything else I would become instantly bored.

< It's just that I can only respond meaningfully to criticism which stands 
apart in its merit from the motives of my critic.>

Although you have gotten some posts that have been critical, nobody knows you 
here really.  I personally don't think you deserve criticism for sharing your 
perspective here.  You are understandably sensitive to some harshness coming 
your way.  But there are a lot of responses that come from a more accepting 
place, Whynotnow and Rick for two examples.  And Vaj should have some more 
interesting comments on how your experiences fit into the Vedic tradition.  I'm 
sure I am missing others. 

But I doubt you will find me a "critic" here.  We already have a friendly 
connection.  I am not interested in squandering that potential for 
communication on trying to be more "right" about something than you are.  Let's 
just explore where we draw our different lines of reality and assume that the 
other person has good reasons for the lines they have drawn.  I am a fan of the 
concepts around maintaining healthy emotional and intellectual boundaries.  You 
don't have to share my perspective for me to try to understand yours, and vise 
versa.  It is only if we can acknowledge and be cool with the differences that 
we have a chance of expanding our views.

> 
> It's going to be fun, Curtis. I appreciate the warning and the hidden 
> admonition.

I'm not sure that was my intention but OK. You got outside yourself completely 
in our discussion of the blues, letting me spread my little wings and fly.  
Much appreciated.

> 
> But don't you DARE question the truth of my enlightenment, OK?>

I don't question that you had a shift of your internal state that was radical 
enough for you to associate it with the terms Maharishi used for higher states. 
 My experience of the term is based on my own experiences with his programs, so 
we may differ on what we mean by the term "enlightenment".  I'm not sure how 
clear Maharishi himself was on the concept of it or what he w

[FairfieldLife] No Ground Of All Being [was Re: Help a Saint - Lose]

[maskedzebra]

LOVE IT! THANKS. GOT MY ATTENTION. You prove my pet theory: when a person's 
first person perspective comes—unwittingly, adventitiously—through their 
so-called attempts at a third person perspective (e.g. what you are telling me 
here)—and what you get is strong and healthy—then time to: BECOME ALERT.

I am, via your post, alerted to the contingent solipsistic tendency in me—I 
have never shaken this since I was a small child. But you are the first person 
on this blog to convince me I should be aware of the need to mortify this 
temptation whenever my putative enlightenment is undergoing a vivisection.

Will try to maintain some credibility on this blog, as I have already learned a 
lot (e.g. CDB on the blues). You'll keep me honest, Curtis. No doubt about THAT.

So, as GWB said: Bring it on.

I am aware that the Mission is NOT Accomplished (mission = perfect 
self-knowledge, perfect disinterestedness, perfect understanding). It's just 
that I can only respond meaningfully to criticism which stands apart in its 
merit from the motives of my critic.

It's going to be fun, Curtis. I appreciate the warning and the hidden 
admonition.

But don't you DARE question the truth of my enlightenment, OK?

That's where we part company. Just be as flattering, fawning, and sycophantic 
as you can.

When it comes to my beautiful achievement of Unity Consciousness.

I'd like to be taken somewhere through writing on this blog.

So keep delivering, Curtis baby.

You STF have so far. 



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> Hey MZ,
> 
> You have a real contribution of perspective to contribute here and right now 
> you are getting a bit of the circling pack action.
> 
> I believe it is because you are here with a well thought out perspective that 
> challenges many of ours, as well as the difficulty of transcending (oh shit 
> flashback!) the inevitable narcissistic impression that comes with the 
> territory of describing your subjective experiences and focusing on yourself 
> in front of strangers.  Which is what I am guessing prompted Turq's reaction 
> that I often share about some writers.   (The old: MY orgasm is the most 
> fascinating thing in the world to me, and YOURS is the least.) We get a lot 
> of me me me types floating through. I would like to make the case that you 
> have more to offer than that if you will stick around.
> 
> I appreciated your intense data dump in response to Rick because it is going 
> to take a lot of words to map across our perspectives.  So I hope you weather 
> the early difficulties because right now you are attempting to map across 
> concepts to so many people at once it must be very frustrating.
> 
> I hope that wasn't too presumptively "Dr. Phil" (do you get that butthole's 
> show in Canada?) and that you get my intention.  
> 
> 
> In other words, please stick around and I think anyone who cares to will have 
> some ideas and perspectives challenged by your input. But it is gunna take 
> some time.  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "wayback71"  wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Dear Rick,
> > > > 
> > > > If my enlightenment was not the real deal, then in all that I say about 
> > > > enlightenment, I will be revealing this discrepancy between my version 
> > > > of Unity Consciousness and the real version. Somehow, if I was not in 
> > > > the same essential state of consciousness that Maharishi was in, 
> > > > someone like yourself would detect this in the absence of that 
> > > > perspective which would give legitimacy and credibility to everything I 
> > > > say about both what enlightenment is, and what it was like to be 
> > > > enlightened.
> > > > 
> > > > The fact that you are forced to fall back on the a priori assumption 
> > > > that, because you believe enlightenment to be a real state of affairs 
> > > > (I believe it to be a real state of experience with consequent 
> > > > definitive parameters of behaviour and abilities, but for all that not 
> > > > a state of consciousness which is coincident with ultimate reality), 
> > > > and I am repudiating the metaphysical validity of 
> > > > enlightenment—claiming I am now de-enlightened,—it must perforce be the 
> > > > case that my enlightenment was not the real deal. Because, you see, if 
> > > > it had been the real deal, how could I, given your absolute belief in 
> > > > its ontological truthfulness, reject this belief, reject the truth of 
> > > > enlightenment?
> > > > 
> > > > You must, because I am denouncing the state of enlightenment (and Unity 
> > > > Consciousness) as a form of extraordinary mystical deceit of the mind, 
> > > > conclude that: He was not really enlightened, because his ego is still 
> > > > 

[FairfieldLife] No Ground Of All Being [was Re: Help a Saint - Lose]

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> >
> > MZ, here's a free clue to explain to you why I got no more 
> > than two sentences into the self-serving drivel below: I DON'T 
> > CARE ABOUT YOUR 'ENLIGHTENMENT.' It (meaning the stories you 
> > tell others and yourself about your experiences and what you 
> > think they "mean" or "meant") obviously are very important to 
> > YOU, because you just won't STFU about them. All these years 
> > later and you still won't STFU about them.
> > 
> > Someday you might want to figure out that expecting other 
> > people to be interested in your subjective state of consciousness 
> > is like expecting them to be interested in your retelling of a 
> > vivid dream experience you had the previous night. Ever try 
> > this? Ever watch people's eyes glaze over after a minute or so, 
> > as if they were thinking, "Why oh why won't this guy STFU about 
> > an experience that was meaningful only to him?"
> > 
> > Clue: That's exactly what they were thinking.
> 
> Response: I never anticipated I would be on the receiving end of 
> a final knock-down argument like the one above. If I had known (I 
> should have) such an extraordinary summing up of myself 
> (negatively) were possible, don't worry, I would have STFU. But 
> you see, Turq, I thought it appropriate to explain what my 
> perspective is on enlightenment, TM, Maharishi.You have convinced 
> me I was in a dream about this. ...

Given the fact that you felt the need to go on for another
275 words about this, color me not convinced that you are
"convinced."  :-)

I'll try to explain further. In my reply, I used an analogy
to try to help you understand why some (like...uh...myself)
might not be hanging on your every word as you talk, talk,
talk about your subjective experiences and what you think
they mean. I suggested that (on the receiving end) it was
a lot like having to sit there and listen to someone going
on and on about the vivid dream they had the previous night,
and how incredibly meaningful that dream was to them.

What possible relevance to my life could someone else's 
dream have? I *get* that it's important to the person trying
to tell me how important it was to him, but it's just *not*
important to me. Similarly, what possible relevance to my
life could *your* subjective experience of supposed higher
states of consciousness have, much less what you've decided
they mean or don't mean?

You strike me as someone who is used to "easy audiences,"
meaning the kind of blissninny New Age people you might have
met in Fairfield or in the TM movement. For many of them,
someone talking about their supposed state of consciousness
might be fascinating. They might sit there in rapt awe and
let you go on and on about such subjective experiences, and
a few of them might even be impressed by them.

I'm...uh...not one of those people. I've had a few cool
subjective experiences myself, and have no need to bolster
my faith in any particular dogma or path by hearing stories
told by those who claim to have reached one of the "goals"
of such a path. Just bores my socks off, dude.

It's NOT (despite what some would have you believe) that I
have any particular problem with people claiming to have
experienced supposed higher states of consciousness. How
could I? I've had them myself. That said, I don't find it
a terribly good use of my time to listen to others talk 
about *their* experiences, much less what they think they
"mean." Boring. I'd rather be off having experiences of
my own.

I'm not an easy audience for people wanting to talk, talk,
talk about their subjective experiences. I've had my own.

I'm also not the kinda person who is going to assume that
what you say about your experiences or your purported 
state of consciousness -- past or present -- is true, just
because you say it. Some people are. Given your reaction --
some would say overreaction -- to people not treating your
words the way you wanted them to, you might be happier 
trying your spiel on easier audiences.

I don't give a shit about your experiences decades ago in
Fairfield. If you have any interest for me at all, it will
be based on who and what you are today, here and now. And
it will be based on what you can come up with to say that
might have some relationship to my life. Talking about your
subjective experiences and expecting people to be as fasc-
inated by them as you were (and obviously still are) is
just not gonna cut it. I'd rather read people swapping
good recipes for lemon meringue pie.

Are we clear? I have nothing against you. I'm not looking
to "knock you down." I'm just bored by some of your raps,
that's all. They have no relevance to my life. And I some-
times get the feeling that you don't CARE whether what you
say has any relevance to my life, or anyone else's. You 
give the impression of someone writing with the expectation 
that others will find his subjective,

[FairfieldLife] No Ground Of All Being [was Re: Help a Saint - Lose]

[curtisdeltablues]

Hey MZ,

You have a real contribution of perspective to contribute here and right now 
you are getting a bit of the circling pack action.

I believe it is because you are here with a well thought out perspective that 
challenges many of ours, as well as the difficulty of transcending (oh shit 
flashback!) the inevitable narcissistic impression that comes with the 
territory of describing your subjective experiences and focusing on yourself in 
front of strangers.  Which is what I am guessing prompted Turq's reaction that 
I often share about some writers.   (The old: MY orgasm is the most fascinating 
thing in the world to me, and YOURS is the least.) We get a lot of me me me 
types floating through. I would like to make the case that you have more to 
offer than that if you will stick around.

I appreciated your intense data dump in response to Rick because it is going to 
take a lot of words to map across our perspectives.  So I hope you weather the 
early difficulties because right now you are attempting to map across concepts 
to so many people at once it must be very frustrating.

I hope that wasn't too presumptively "Dr. Phil" (do you get that butthole's 
show in Canada?) and that you get my intention.  


In other words, please stick around and I think anyone who cares to will have 
some ideas and perspectives challenged by your input. But it is gunna take some 
time.  




--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "wayback71"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra  wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
> > > 
> > > Dear Rick,
> > > 
> > > If my enlightenment was not the real deal, then in all that I say about 
> > > enlightenment, I will be revealing this discrepancy between my version of 
> > > Unity Consciousness and the real version. Somehow, if I was not in the 
> > > same essential state of consciousness that Maharishi was in, someone like 
> > > yourself would detect this in the absence of that perspective which would 
> > > give legitimacy and credibility to everything I say about both what 
> > > enlightenment is, and what it was like to be enlightened.
> > > 
> > > The fact that you are forced to fall back on the a priori assumption 
> > > that, because you believe enlightenment to be a real state of affairs (I 
> > > believe it to be a real state of experience with consequent definitive 
> > > parameters of behaviour and abilities, but for all that not a state of 
> > > consciousness which is coincident with ultimate reality), and I am 
> > > repudiating the metaphysical validity of enlightenment—claiming I am now 
> > > de-enlightened,—it must perforce be the case that my enlightenment was 
> > > not the real deal. Because, you see, if it had been the real deal, how 
> > > could I, given your absolute belief in its ontological truthfulness, 
> > > reject this belief, reject the truth of enlightenment?
> > > 
> > > You must, because I am denouncing the state of enlightenment (and Unity 
> > > Consciousness) as a form of extraordinary mystical deceit of the mind, 
> > > conclude that: He was not really enlightened, because his ego is still 
> > > intact, and besides, anyone who was REALLY enlightened, would not be able 
> > > to make themselves unenlightened, nor would they dream of rejecting this 
> > > state of consciousness as being false to reality.
> > > 
> > > Given then your fundamental belief that enlightenment has to be true, you 
> > > have no other choice but to write as you have written above, because, for 
> > > you, it is never going to be a question of determining whether or not 
> > > enlightenment corresponds to reality (whether it indeed is a true state 
> > > of affairs for a human being and objectively and truthfully represents 
> > > reality as it really is). For you enlightenment HAS TO BE TRUE. To 
> > > question its intrinsic validity as a metaphysically bona fide state of 
> > > human experience and functioning is tantamount to denying what 
> > > essentially constitutes your highest vision of what life is all about. To 
> > > deprive you of this belief is the functional equivalent of forcing you to 
> > > give up your belief in God. For you, then, Rick, enlightenment (the 
> > > belief in this reality) is as unquestioned and solid and irrefutable as 
> > > someone else's belief that Christ was God. It is your religion. Why so? 
> > > Because you cannot conceive, given your experiences and observations and 
> > > history, of ever bringing it (the idea of enlightenment) before a 
> > > tribunal of critical judgment where—like the existence of God—it would be 
> > > subject to real debate and argument. As to whether indeed it is a natural 
> > > state of consciousness and functioning for the human person.
> > > 
> > > You MUST therefore conclude that since I am on a mission to debunk your 
> > > religion, and that

[FairfieldLife] No Ground Of All Being [was Re: Help a Saint - Lose]

[maskedzebra]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "wayback71"  wrote:
> >
> > MZ- I think you have some interesting things to say. But 
> > the way you write is so condensed that it obscures your 
> > ideas.  It could be that I simply struggle to read it and 
> > get fatigued. 
> 
> That's part of what I was getting at in my earlier
> quip. The writing style just SCREAMS "You must take
> my experiences seriously, because they were...uh...
> MY experiences, and this is MY view of what they 
> mean!" Bzzt. Not gonna happen.
> 
> > And I wonder if you think in the same style you write. 
> 
> This occurred to me as well, because what I saw in
> the little I was able to wade through was that MZ
> basically *ignored* Rick's original question ("What 
> makes you think your experience was the real deal, 
> and bears any similarity to what truly enlightened 
> people were/are experiencing?") and went all defensive
> instead. Color me not impressed.
>
RESPONSE: Don't hit a guy when he's already down, Turquoiseb. Haven't you 
already said enough, for Christ's sake? I need your counsel, not your cruel 
truthfulness. You've hit an undefended part of me, OK? And I need to nurse my 
wounds for a while. Now leave me alone. After this second blow, you've made me 
a bitter man. Did you know you would have THAT effect on me? Should have 
stopped after the first knock-down argument, turq.

By the way, there's no way that you could be wrong. Believe me, your position 
is unassailable. Even the beautiful first person subjectivity behind it pierced 
me.

One thing I DID learn from Maharishi: the aesthetics of irony (although his was 
more often unstated; but the deep cynicism inside that man's heart, it was a 
wonder to behold. No one had "attitude" like Maharishi. His inner experience of 
himself was of the nature of being INCAPABLE of humility—I certainly don't want 
to follow him in this.—but his sense of irony? There he had no peers. But for 
all that the most magical human being since Christ I believe.)

Is it time for me to STFU, Turq?

[FairfieldLife] No Ground Of All Being [was Re: Help a Saint - Lose]

[maskedzebra]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "wayback71"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
> > 
> > Dear Rick,
> > 
> > If my enlightenment was not the real deal, then in all that I say about 
> > enlightenment, I will be revealing this discrepancy between my version of 
> > Unity Consciousness and the real version. Somehow, if I was not in the same 
> > essential state of consciousness that Maharishi was in, someone like 
> > yourself would detect this in the absence of that perspective which would 
> > give legitimacy and credibility to everything I say about both what 
> > enlightenment is, and what it was like to be enlightened.
> > 
> > The fact that you are forced to fall back on the a priori assumption that, 
> > because you believe enlightenment to be a real state of affairs (I believe 
> > it to be a real state of experience with consequent definitive parameters 
> > of behaviour and abilities, but for all that not a state of consciousness 
> > which is coincident with ultimate reality), and I am repudiating the 
> > metaphysical validity of enlightenment—claiming I am now de-enlightened,—it 
> > must perforce be the case that my enlightenment was not the real deal. 
> > Because, you see, if it had been the real deal, how could I, given your 
> > absolute belief in its ontological truthfulness, reject this belief, reject 
> > the truth of enlightenment?
> > 
> > You must, because I am denouncing the state of enlightenment (and Unity 
> > Consciousness) as a form of extraordinary mystical deceit of the mind, 
> > conclude that: He was not really enlightened, because his ego is still 
> > intact, and besides, anyone who was REALLY enlightened, would not be able 
> > to make themselves unenlightened, nor would they dream of rejecting this 
> > state of consciousness as being false to reality.
> > 
> > Given then your fundamental belief that enlightenment has to be true, you 
> > have no other choice but to write as you have written above, because, for 
> > you, it is never going to be a question of determining whether or not 
> > enlightenment corresponds to reality (whether it indeed is a true state of 
> > affairs for a human being and objectively and truthfully represents reality 
> > as it really is). For you enlightenment HAS TO BE TRUE. To question its 
> > intrinsic validity as a metaphysically bona fide state of human experience 
> > and functioning is tantamount to denying what essentially constitutes your 
> > highest vision of what life is all about. To deprive you of this belief is 
> > the functional equivalent of forcing you to give up your belief in God. For 
> > you, then, Rick, enlightenment (the belief in this reality) is as 
> > unquestioned and solid and irrefutable as someone else's belief that Christ 
> > was God. It is your religion. Why so? Because you cannot conceive, given 
> > your experiences and observations and history, of ever bringing it (the 
> > idea of enlightenment) before a tribunal of critical judgment where—like 
> > the existence of God—it would be subject to real debate and argument. As to 
> > whether indeed it is a natural state of consciousness and functioning for 
> > the human person.
> > 
> > You MUST therefore conclude that since I am on a mission to debunk your 
> > religion, and that I once claimed to have intimate familiarity with that 
> > religion (once having been according to my own testimony, the very 
> > embodiment of that religion: i.e. in Unity Consciousness), and now have 
> > disavowed that religion, that I WAS NEVER THEREFORE A TRUE BELIEVER IN THAT 
> > RELIGION. Or rather, never really knew what that religion (enlightenment) 
> > was all about.
> > 
> > For me, Rick, the question is determined by my experience. I have never met 
> > or read about anyone who conclusively demonstrates to me that they are in 
> > possession—actual possession—of a more desirable state of consciousness 
> > then the one we were born into. Although paradoxically, had I met myself 
> > enlightened, in my non-enlightened state, I would certainly have believe in 
> > his (my) enlightenment as much as I believed in Maharishi's. My 
> > enlightenment was proven to me in ten thousand different ways—in every 
> > moment of my life when I lived under that state of consciousness.
> > 
> > No, for me, Rick, it is you who give yourself away, because you evidently 
> > cannot countenance the idea that enlightenment just might be what I say it 
> > is. But you are unwilling or unable to subject enlightenment to a true acid 
> > test. You have no surefire way of knowing whether enlightenment exists as a 
> > true and objectively valid state of consciousness. What is your proof that 
> > this state of consciousness exists such that you know it is the perfect 
> > representation of what reality is?
> > 
> > By your reading of books on the subject? by your interv

[FairfieldLife] No Ground Of All Being [was Re: Help a Saint - Lose]

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "wayback71"  wrote:
>
> MZ- I think you have some interesting things to say. But 
> the way you write is so condensed that it obscures your 
> ideas.  It could be that I simply struggle to read it and 
> get fatigued. 

That's part of what I was getting at in my earlier
quip. The writing style just SCREAMS "You must take
my experiences seriously, because they were...uh...
MY experiences, and this is MY view of what they 
mean!" Bzzt. Not gonna happen.

> And I wonder if you think in the same style you write. 

This occurred to me as well, because what I saw in
the little I was able to wade through was that MZ
basically *ignored* Rick's original question ("What 
makes you think your experience was the real deal, 
and bears any similarity to what truly enlightened 
people were/are experiencing?") and went all defensive
instead. Color me not impressed. 

[FairfieldLife] No Ground Of All Being [was Re: Help a Saint - Lose]

[maskedzebra]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ravi Yogi"  wrote:
RESPONSE: Seems like  reasonable request, Ravi. Let me work on it, OK?
> 
Dear maskedzebra - all I see is a lot of intellectual jugglery and
> nothing concrete. Can you please, if it's even possible for you,
> describe in a few lines each on your enlightenment, the reasons why you
> thought it was mystical deceit and your current de-enlightenment
> process. Please use generic terms - there's someone like me who has no
> knowledge of CC, GC and shudderthank god I don't :-).
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra  wrote:
> >
> >
> > Dear Rick,
> >
> > If my enlightenment was not the real deal, then in all that I say
> about enlightenment, I will be revealing this discrepancy between my
> version of Unity Consciousness and the real version. Somehow, if I was
> not in the same essential state of consciousness that Maharishi was in,
> someone like yourself would detect this in the absence of that
> perspective which would give legitimacy and credibility to everything I
> say about both what enlightenment is, and what it was like to be
> enlightened.
> >
> > The fact that you are forced to fall back on the a priori assumption
> that, because you believe enlightenment to be a real state of affairs (I
> believe it to be a real state of experience with consequent definitive
> parameters of behaviour and abilities, but for all that not a state of
> consciousness which is coincident with ultimate reality), and I am
> repudiating the metaphysical validity of enlightenment—claiming I am
> now de-enlightened,—it must perforce be the case that my
> enlightenment was not the real deal. Because, you see, if it had been
> the real deal, how could I, given your absolute belief in its
> ontological truthfulness, reject this belief, reject the truth of
> enlightenment?
> >
> > You must, because I am denouncing the state of enlightenment (and
> Unity Consciousness) as a form of extraordinary mystical deceit of the
> mind, conclude that: He was not really enlightened, because his ego is
> still intact, and besides, anyone who was REALLY enlightened, would not
> be able to make themselves unenlightened, nor would they dream of
> rejecting this state of consciousness as being false to reality.
> >
> > Given then your fundamental belief that enlightenment has to be true,
> you have no other choice but to write as you have written above,
> because, for you, it is never going to be a question of determining
> whether or not enlightenment corresponds to reality (whether it indeed
> is a true state of affairs for a human being and objectively and
> truthfully represents reality as it really is). For you enlightenment
> HAS TO BE TRUE. To question its intrinsic validity as a metaphysically
> bona fide state of human experience and functioning is tantamount to
> denying what essentially constitutes your highest vision of what life is
> all about. To deprive you of this belief is the functional equivalent of
> forcing you to give up your belief in God. For you, then, Rick,
> enlightenment (the belief in this reality) is as unquestioned and solid
> and irrefutable as someone else's belief that Christ was God. It is your
> religion. Why so? Because you cannot conceive, given your experiences
> and observations and history, of ever bringing it (the idea of
> enlightenment) before a tribunal of critical judgment where—like the
> existence of God—it would be subject to real debate and argument. As
> to whether indeed it is a natural state of consciousness and functioning
> for the human person.
> >
> > You MUST therefore conclude that since I am on a mission to debunk
> your religion, and that I once claimed to have intimate familiarity with
> that religion (once having been according to my own testimony, the very
> embodiment of that religion: i.e. in Unity Consciousness), and now have
> disavowed that religion, that I WAS NEVER THEREFORE A TRUE BELIEVER IN
> THAT RELIGION. Or rather, never really knew what that religion
> (enlightenment) was all about.
> >
> > For me, Rick, the question is determined by my experience. I have
> never met or read about anyone who conclusively demonstrates to me that
> they are in possession—actual possession—of a more desirable
> state of consciousness then the one we were born into. Although
> paradoxically, had I met myself enlightened, in my non-enlightened
> state, I would certainly have believe in his (my) enlightenment as much
> as I believed in Maharishi's. My enlightenment was proven to me in ten
> thousand different ways—in every moment of my life when I lived
> under that state of consciousness.
> >
> > No, for me, Rick, it is you who give yourself away, because you
> evidently cannot countenance the idea that enlightenment just might be
> what I say it is. But you are unwilling or unable to subject
> enlightenment to a true acid test. You have no surefire way of knowing
> whether enlightenment exists as a true and object

[FairfieldLife] No Ground Of All Being [was Re: Help a Saint - Lose]

[maskedzebra]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> MZ, here's a free clue to explain to you why I got no more than two
> sentences into the self-serving drivel below: I DON'T CARE ABOUT YOUR
> 'ENLIGHTENMENT.' It (meaning the stories you tell others and yourself
> about your experiences and what you think they "mean" or "meant")
> obviously are very important to YOU, because you just won't STFU about
> them. All these years later and you still won't STFU about them.
> 
> Someday you might want to figure out that expecting other people to be
> interested in your subjective state of consciousness is like expecting
> them to be interested in your retelling of a vivid dream experience you
> had the previous night. Ever try this? Ever watch people's eyes glaze
> over after a minute or so, as if they were thinking, "Why oh why won't
> this guy STFU about an experience that was meaningful only to him?"
> 
> Clue: That's exactly what they were thinking.

Response: I never anticipated I would be on the receiving end of a final 
knock-down argument like the one above. If I had known (I should have) such an 
extraordinary summing up of myself (negatively) were possible, don't worry, I 
would have STFU. But you see, Turq, I thought it appropriate to explain what my 
perspective is on enlightenment, TM, Maharishi.You have convinced me I was in a 
dream about this. And the embarrassment and humiliation I now experience (after 
reading what you have said about me above) goes way beyond what you might 
calculate would be the case. Have some pity on me, Turq: now you've got to—I 
don't say you can—put me back together again.

Will you?

I was wrong, but my INTENTION in my response to Rick was as sincere and 
innocent as his was in calling me out. And before I  came smack up against YOUR 
argument I was sure what I said there was logical and persuasive.

But that was BEFORE I had thought of, much less encountered directly—and oh so 
mercilessly,—YOUR STFU argument. Believe me, Turq, it is a killer. And thanks.

How about I tell you why I think Jimmy Fallon is the most talented person on 
television.

Interested in THAT?

Whatever you do with this post (the one I am writing now), Turq, don't ever 
accuse me of being ironic—because given the devastating power of your post 
above, THAT would be even more ironic. 

The Lord loves a broken, contrite heart—and I hope he is paying attention right 
now. Because this is where I'm at—and it's YOUR fault, Turq.

But then again he (God) seems to have STFU quite some time ago.

Which is why Enlightenment seems such a good idea. (The West can't provide any 
inspired alternative to the East; ergo, the East annexes spirituality as we 
have known it.)

Time for me to STFU now, Turq. Thank you.
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" rick@ wrote:
> >
> > Dear Rick,
> >
> > If my enlightenment was not the real deal, then in all that I say
> about enlightenment, I will be revealing this discrepancy between my
> version of Unity Consciousness and the real version. Somehow, if I was
> not in the same essential state of consciousness that Maharishi was in,
> someone like yourself would detect this in the absence of that
> perspective which would give legitimacy and credibility to everything I
> say about both what enlightenment is, and what it was like to be
> enlightened.
> >
> > The fact that you are forced to fall back on the a priori assumption
> that, because you believe enlightenment to be a real state of affairs (I
> believe it to be a real state of experience with consequent definitive
> parameters of behaviour and abilities, but for all that not a state of
> consciousness which is coincident with ultimate reality), and I am
> repudiating the metaphysical validity of enlightenment—claiming I am
> now de-enlightened,—it must perforce be the case that my
> enlightenment was not the real deal. Because, you see, if it had been
> the real deal, how could I, given your absolute belief in its
> ontological truthfulness, reject this belief, reject the truth of
> enlightenment?
> >
> > You must, because I am denouncing the state of enlightenment (and
> Unity Consciousness) as a form of extraordinary mystical deceit of the
> mind, conclude that: He was not really enlightened, because his ego is
> still intact, and besides, anyone who was REALLY enlightened, would not
> be able to make themselves unenlightened, nor would they dream of
> rejecting this state of consciousness as being false to reality.
> >
> > Given then your fundamental belief that enlightenment has to be true,
> you have no other choice but to write as you have written above,
> because, for you, it is never going to be a question of determining
> whether or not enlightenment corresponds to reality (whether it indeed
> is a true state of affairs for a human being and objectively and
> truthfully represents reality as it really is). For y

[FairfieldLife] No Ground Of All Being [was Re: Help a Saint - Lose]

[wayback71]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
> 
> Dear Rick,
> 
> If my enlightenment was not the real deal, then in all that I say about 
> enlightenment, I will be revealing this discrepancy between my version of 
> Unity Consciousness and the real version. Somehow, if I was not in the same 
> essential state of consciousness that Maharishi was in, someone like yourself 
> would detect this in the absence of that perspective which would give 
> legitimacy and credibility to everything I say about both what enlightenment 
> is, and what it was like to be enlightened.
> 
> The fact that you are forced to fall back on the a priori assumption that, 
> because you believe enlightenment to be a real state of affairs (I believe it 
> to be a real state of experience with consequent definitive parameters of 
> behaviour and abilities, but for all that not a state of consciousness which 
> is coincident with ultimate reality), and I am repudiating the metaphysical 
> validity of enlightenment—claiming I am now de-enlightened,—it must perforce 
> be the case that my enlightenment was not the real deal. Because, you see, if 
> it had been the real deal, how could I, given your absolute belief in its 
> ontological truthfulness, reject this belief, reject the truth of 
> enlightenment?
> 
> You must, because I am denouncing the state of enlightenment (and Unity 
> Consciousness) as a form of extraordinary mystical deceit of the mind, 
> conclude that: He was not really enlightened, because his ego is still 
> intact, and besides, anyone who was REALLY enlightened, would not be able to 
> make themselves unenlightened, nor would they dream of rejecting this state 
> of consciousness as being false to reality.
> 
> Given then your fundamental belief that enlightenment has to be true, you 
> have no other choice but to write as you have written above, because, for 
> you, it is never going to be a question of determining whether or not 
> enlightenment corresponds to reality (whether it indeed is a true state of 
> affairs for a human being and objectively and truthfully represents reality 
> as it really is). For you enlightenment HAS TO BE TRUE. To question its 
> intrinsic validity as a metaphysically bona fide state of human experience 
> and functioning is tantamount to denying what essentially constitutes your 
> highest vision of what life is all about. To deprive you of this belief is 
> the functional equivalent of forcing you to give up your belief in God. For 
> you, then, Rick, enlightenment (the belief in this reality) is as 
> unquestioned and solid and irrefutable as someone else's belief that Christ 
> was God. It is your religion. Why so? Because you cannot conceive, given your 
> experiences and observations and history, of ever bringing it (the idea of 
> enlightenment) before a tribunal of critical judgment where—like the 
> existence of God—it would be subject to real debate and argument. As to 
> whether indeed it is a natural state of consciousness and functioning for the 
> human person.
> 
> You MUST therefore conclude that since I am on a mission to debunk your 
> religion, and that I once claimed to have intimate familiarity with that 
> religion (once having been according to my own testimony, the very embodiment 
> of that religion: i.e. in Unity Consciousness), and now have disavowed that 
> religion, that I WAS NEVER THEREFORE A TRUE BELIEVER IN THAT RELIGION. Or 
> rather, never really knew what that religion (enlightenment) was all about.
> 
> For me, Rick, the question is determined by my experience. I have never met 
> or read about anyone who conclusively demonstrates to me that they are in 
> possession—actual possession—of a more desirable state of consciousness then 
> the one we were born into. Although paradoxically, had I met myself 
> enlightened, in my non-enlightened state, I would certainly have believe in 
> his (my) enlightenment as much as I believed in Maharishi's. My enlightenment 
> was proven to me in ten thousand different ways—in every moment of my life 
> when I lived under that state of consciousness.
> 
> No, for me, Rick, it is you who give yourself away, because you evidently 
> cannot countenance the idea that enlightenment just might be what I say it 
> is. But you are unwilling or unable to subject enlightenment to a true acid 
> test. You have no surefire way of knowing whether enlightenment exists as a 
> true and objectively valid state of consciousness. What is your proof that 
> this state of consciousness exists such that you know it is the perfect 
> representation of what reality is?
> 
> By your reading of books on the subject? by your interviews with these guests 
> who purportedly have entered into a state of realization? by your experience 
> with Maharishi?
> 
> Where does this absolute and unshakeable belief originate?
> 
> I suggest it has been absorbed into 

[FairfieldLife] No Ground Of All Being [was Re: Help a Saint - Lose]

[Ravi Yogi]

Don't speak for everyone Barry, I'm interested in his enlightenment.
Here's a clue to explain to you why I make fun of you because I DON'T
CARE ABOUT YOUR OPINIONS ON ENLIGHTENMENT, so STFU Barry.
I know you feel threatened when anyone uses the "E" word, but again if
someone is talking about the "E" word
ST...FU.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> MZ, here's a free clue to explain to you why I got no more than two
> sentences into the self-serving drivel below: I DON'T CARE ABOUT YOUR
> 'ENLIGHTENMENT.' It (meaning the stories you tell others and yourself
> about your experiences and what you think they "mean" or "meant")
> obviously are very important to YOU, because you just won't STFU about
> them. All these years later and you still won't STFU about them.
>
> Someday you might want to figure out that expecting other people to be
> interested in your subjective state of consciousness is like expecting
> them to be interested in your retelling of a vivid dream experience
you
> had the previous night. Ever try this? Ever watch people's eyes glaze
> over after a minute or so, as if they were thinking, "Why oh why won't
> this guy STFU about an experience that was meaningful only to him?"
>
> Clue: That's exactly what they were thinking.
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@ wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" rick@ wrote:
> >
> > Dear Rick,
> >
> > If my enlightenment was not the real deal, then in all that I say
> about enlightenment, I will be revealing this discrepancy between my
> version of Unity Consciousness and the real version. Somehow, if I was
> not in the same essential state of consciousness that Maharishi was
in,
> someone like yourself would detect this in the absence of that
> perspective which would give legitimacy and credibility to everything
I
> say about both what enlightenment is, and what it was like to be
> enlightened.
> >
> > The fact that you are forced to fall back on the a priori assumption
> that, because you believe enlightenment to be a real state of affairs
(I
> believe it to be a real state of experience with consequent definitive
> parameters of behaviour and abilities, but for all that not a state of
> consciousness which is coincident with ultimate reality), and I am
> repudiating the metaphysical validity of enlightenment—claiming I
am
> now de-enlightened,—it must perforce be the case that my
> enlightenment was not the real deal. Because, you see, if it had been
> the real deal, how could I, given your absolute belief in its
> ontological truthfulness, reject this belief, reject the truth of
> enlightenment?
> >
> > You must, because I am denouncing the state of enlightenment (and
> Unity Consciousness) as a form of extraordinary mystical deceit of the
> mind, conclude that: He was not really enlightened, because his ego is
> still intact, and besides, anyone who was REALLY enlightened, would
not
> be able to make themselves unenlightened, nor would they dream of
> rejecting this state of consciousness as being false to reality.
> >
> > Given then your fundamental belief that enlightenment has to be
true,
> you have no other choice but to write as you have written above,
> because, for you, it is never going to be a question of determining
> whether or not enlightenment corresponds to reality (whether it indeed
> is a true state of affairs for a human being and objectively and
> truthfully represents reality as it really is). For you enlightenment
> HAS TO BE TRUE. To question its intrinsic validity as a metaphysically
> bona fide state of human experience and functioning is tantamount to
> denying what essentially constitutes your highest vision of what life
is
> all about. To deprive you of this belief is the functional equivalent
of
> forcing you to give up your belief in God. For you, then, Rick,
> enlightenment (the belief in this reality) is as unquestioned and
solid
> and irrefutable as someone else's belief that Christ was God. It is
your
> religion. Why so? Because you cannot conceive, given your experiences
> and observations and history, of ever bringing it (the idea of
> enlightenment) before a tribunal of critical judgment where—like
the
> existence of God—it would be subject to real debate and argument.
As
> to whether indeed it is a natural state of consciousness and
functioning
> for the human person.
> >
> > You MUST therefore conclude that since I am on a mission to debunk
> your religion, and that I once claimed to have intimate familiarity
with
> that religion (once having been according to my own testimony, the
very
> embodiment of that religion: i.e. in Unity Consciousness), and now
have
> disavowed that religion, that I WAS NEVER THEREFORE A TRUE BELIEVER IN
> THAT RELIGION. Or rather, never really knew what that religion
> (enlightenment) was all about.
> >
> > For me, Rick, the question is determined by my experience. I have
> never met or read about

[FairfieldLife] No Ground Of All Being [was Re: Help a Saint - Lose]

[Ravi Yogi]

Dear maskedzebra - all I see is a lot of intellectual jugglery and
nothing concrete. Can you please, if it's even possible for you,
describe in a few lines each on your enlightenment, the reasons why you
thought it was mystical deceit and your current de-enlightenment
process. Please use generic terms - there's someone like me who has no
knowledge of CC, GC and shudderthank god I don't :-).

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra  wrote:
>
>
> Dear Rick,
>
> If my enlightenment was not the real deal, then in all that I say
about enlightenment, I will be revealing this discrepancy between my
version of Unity Consciousness and the real version. Somehow, if I was
not in the same essential state of consciousness that Maharishi was in,
someone like yourself would detect this in the absence of that
perspective which would give legitimacy and credibility to everything I
say about both what enlightenment is, and what it was like to be
enlightened.
>
> The fact that you are forced to fall back on the a priori assumption
that, because you believe enlightenment to be a real state of affairs (I
believe it to be a real state of experience with consequent definitive
parameters of behaviour and abilities, but for all that not a state of
consciousness which is coincident with ultimate reality), and I am
repudiating the metaphysical validity of enlightenment—claiming I am
now de-enlightened,—it must perforce be the case that my
enlightenment was not the real deal. Because, you see, if it had been
the real deal, how could I, given your absolute belief in its
ontological truthfulness, reject this belief, reject the truth of
enlightenment?
>
> You must, because I am denouncing the state of enlightenment (and
Unity Consciousness) as a form of extraordinary mystical deceit of the
mind, conclude that: He was not really enlightened, because his ego is
still intact, and besides, anyone who was REALLY enlightened, would not
be able to make themselves unenlightened, nor would they dream of
rejecting this state of consciousness as being false to reality.
>
> Given then your fundamental belief that enlightenment has to be true,
you have no other choice but to write as you have written above,
because, for you, it is never going to be a question of determining
whether or not enlightenment corresponds to reality (whether it indeed
is a true state of affairs for a human being and objectively and
truthfully represents reality as it really is). For you enlightenment
HAS TO BE TRUE. To question its intrinsic validity as a metaphysically
bona fide state of human experience and functioning is tantamount to
denying what essentially constitutes your highest vision of what life is
all about. To deprive you of this belief is the functional equivalent of
forcing you to give up your belief in God. For you, then, Rick,
enlightenment (the belief in this reality) is as unquestioned and solid
and irrefutable as someone else's belief that Christ was God. It is your
religion. Why so? Because you cannot conceive, given your experiences
and observations and history, of ever bringing it (the idea of
enlightenment) before a tribunal of critical judgment where—like the
existence of God—it would be subject to real debate and argument. As
to whether indeed it is a natural state of consciousness and functioning
for the human person.
>
> You MUST therefore conclude that since I am on a mission to debunk
your religion, and that I once claimed to have intimate familiarity with
that religion (once having been according to my own testimony, the very
embodiment of that religion: i.e. in Unity Consciousness), and now have
disavowed that religion, that I WAS NEVER THEREFORE A TRUE BELIEVER IN
THAT RELIGION. Or rather, never really knew what that religion
(enlightenment) was all about.
>
> For me, Rick, the question is determined by my experience. I have
never met or read about anyone who conclusively demonstrates to me that
they are in possession—actual possession—of a more desirable
state of consciousness then the one we were born into. Although
paradoxically, had I met myself enlightened, in my non-enlightened
state, I would certainly have believe in his (my) enlightenment as much
as I believed in Maharishi's. My enlightenment was proven to me in ten
thousand different ways—in every moment of my life when I lived
under that state of consciousness.
>
> No, for me, Rick, it is you who give yourself away, because you
evidently cannot countenance the idea that enlightenment just might be
what I say it is. But you are unwilling or unable to subject
enlightenment to a true acid test. You have no surefire way of knowing
whether enlightenment exists as a true and objectively valid state of
consciousness. What is your proof that this state of consciousness
exists such that you know it is the perfect representation of what
reality is?
>
> By your reading of books on the subject? by your interviews with these
guests who purportedly have entered into a state of real

[FairfieldLife] No Ground Of All Being [was Re: Help a Saint - Lose]

[turquoiseb]

MZ, here's a free clue to explain to you why I got no more than two
sentences into the self-serving drivel below: I DON'T CARE ABOUT YOUR
'ENLIGHTENMENT.' It (meaning the stories you tell others and yourself
about your experiences and what you think they "mean" or "meant")
obviously are very important to YOU, because you just won't STFU about
them. All these years later and you still won't STFU about them.

Someday you might want to figure out that expecting other people to be
interested in your subjective state of consciousness is like expecting
them to be interested in your retelling of a vivid dream experience you
had the previous night. Ever try this? Ever watch people's eyes glaze
over after a minute or so, as if they were thinking, "Why oh why won't
this guy STFU about an experience that was meaningful only to him?"

Clue: That's exactly what they were thinking.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" rick@ wrote:
>
> Dear Rick,
>
> If my enlightenment was not the real deal, then in all that I say
about enlightenment, I will be revealing this discrepancy between my
version of Unity Consciousness and the real version. Somehow, if I was
not in the same essential state of consciousness that Maharishi was in,
someone like yourself would detect this in the absence of that
perspective which would give legitimacy and credibility to everything I
say about both what enlightenment is, and what it was like to be
enlightened.
>
> The fact that you are forced to fall back on the a priori assumption
that, because you believe enlightenment to be a real state of affairs (I
believe it to be a real state of experience with consequent definitive
parameters of behaviour and abilities, but for all that not a state of
consciousness which is coincident with ultimate reality), and I am
repudiating the metaphysical validity of enlightenment—claiming I am
now de-enlightened,—it must perforce be the case that my
enlightenment was not the real deal. Because, you see, if it had been
the real deal, how could I, given your absolute belief in its
ontological truthfulness, reject this belief, reject the truth of
enlightenment?
>
> You must, because I am denouncing the state of enlightenment (and
Unity Consciousness) as a form of extraordinary mystical deceit of the
mind, conclude that: He was not really enlightened, because his ego is
still intact, and besides, anyone who was REALLY enlightened, would not
be able to make themselves unenlightened, nor would they dream of
rejecting this state of consciousness as being false to reality.
>
> Given then your fundamental belief that enlightenment has to be true,
you have no other choice but to write as you have written above,
because, for you, it is never going to be a question of determining
whether or not enlightenment corresponds to reality (whether it indeed
is a true state of affairs for a human being and objectively and
truthfully represents reality as it really is). For you enlightenment
HAS TO BE TRUE. To question its intrinsic validity as a metaphysically
bona fide state of human experience and functioning is tantamount to
denying what essentially constitutes your highest vision of what life is
all about. To deprive you of this belief is the functional equivalent of
forcing you to give up your belief in God. For you, then, Rick,
enlightenment (the belief in this reality) is as unquestioned and solid
and irrefutable as someone else's belief that Christ was God. It is your
religion. Why so? Because you cannot conceive, given your experiences
and observations and history, of ever bringing it (the idea of
enlightenment) before a tribunal of critical judgment where—like the
existence of God—it would be subject to real debate and argument. As
to whether indeed it is a natural state of consciousness and functioning
for the human person.
>
> You MUST therefore conclude that since I am on a mission to debunk
your religion, and that I once claimed to have intimate familiarity with
that religion (once having been according to my own testimony, the very
embodiment of that religion: i.e. in Unity Consciousness), and now have
disavowed that religion, that I WAS NEVER THEREFORE A TRUE BELIEVER IN
THAT RELIGION. Or rather, never really knew what that religion
(enlightenment) was all about.
>
> For me, Rick, the question is determined by my experience. I have
never met or read about anyone who conclusively demonstrates to me that
they are in possession—actual possession—of a more desirable
state of consciousness then the one we were born into. Although
paradoxically, had I met myself enlightened, in my non-enlightened
state, I would certainly have believe in his (my) enlightenment as much
as I believed in Maharishi's. My enlightenment was proven to me in ten
thousand different ways—in every moment of my life when I lived
under that state of consciousness.
>
> No, for me, Rick, it is you who give yourself away, because you

[FairfieldLife] No Ground Of All Being [was Re: Help a Saint - Lose]

[maskedzebra]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:

Dear Rick,

If my enlightenment was not the real deal, then in all that I say about 
enlightenment, I will be revealing this discrepancy between my version of Unity 
Consciousness and the real version. Somehow, if I was not in the same essential 
state of consciousness that Maharishi was in, someone like yourself would 
detect this in the absence of that perspective which would give legitimacy and 
credibility to everything I say about both what enlightenment is, and what it 
was like to be enlightened.

The fact that you are forced to fall back on the a priori assumption that, 
because you believe enlightenment to be a real state of affairs (I believe it 
to be a real state of experience with consequent definitive parameters of 
behaviour and abilities, but for all that not a state of consciousness which is 
coincident with ultimate reality), and I am repudiating the metaphysical 
validity of enlightenment—claiming I am now de-enlightened,—it must perforce be 
the case that my enlightenment was not the real deal. Because, you see, if it 
had been the real deal, how could I, given your absolute belief in its 
ontological truthfulness, reject this belief, reject the truth of enlightenment?

You must, because I am denouncing the state of enlightenment (and Unity 
Consciousness) as a form of extraordinary mystical deceit of the mind, conclude 
that: He was not really enlightened, because his ego is still intact, and 
besides, anyone who was REALLY enlightened, would not be able to make 
themselves unenlightened, nor would they dream of rejecting this state of 
consciousness as being false to reality.

Given then your fundamental belief that enlightenment has to be true, you have 
no other choice but to write as you have written above, because, for you, it is 
never going to be a question of determining whether or not enlightenment 
corresponds to reality (whether it indeed is a true state of affairs for a 
human being and objectively and truthfully represents reality as it really is). 
For you enlightenment HAS TO BE TRUE. To question its intrinsic validity as a 
metaphysically bona fide state of human experience and functioning is 
tantamount to denying what essentially constitutes your highest vision of what 
life is all about. To deprive you of this belief is the functional equivalent 
of forcing you to give up your belief in God. For you, then, Rick, 
enlightenment (the belief in this reality) is as unquestioned and solid and 
irrefutable as someone else's belief that Christ was God. It is your religion. 
Why so? Because you cannot conceive, given your experiences and observations 
and history, of ever bringing it (the idea of enlightenment) before a tribunal 
of critical judgment where—like the existence of God—it would be subject to 
real debate and argument. As to whether indeed it is a natural state of 
consciousness and functioning for the human person.

You MUST therefore conclude that since I am on a mission to debunk your 
religion, and that I once claimed to have intimate familiarity with that 
religion (once having been according to my own testimony, the very embodiment 
of that religion: i.e. in Unity Consciousness), and now have disavowed that 
religion, that I WAS NEVER THEREFORE A TRUE BELIEVER IN THAT RELIGION. Or 
rather, never really knew what that religion (enlightenment) was all about.

For me, Rick, the question is determined by my experience. I have never met or 
read about anyone who conclusively demonstrates to me that they are in 
possession—actual possession—of a more desirable state of consciousness then 
the one we were born into. Although paradoxically, had I met myself 
enlightened, in my non-enlightened state, I would certainly have believe in his 
(my) enlightenment as much as I believed in Maharishi's. My enlightenment was 
proven to me in ten thousand different ways—in every moment of my life when I 
lived under that state of consciousness.

No, for me, Rick, it is you who give yourself away, because you evidently 
cannot countenance the idea that enlightenment just might be what I say it is. 
But you are unwilling or unable to subject enlightenment to a true acid test. 
You have no surefire way of knowing whether enlightenment exists as a true and 
objectively valid state of consciousness. What is your proof that this state of 
consciousness exists such that you know it is the perfect representation of 
what reality is?

By your reading of books on the subject? by your interviews with these guests 
who purportedly have entered into a state of realization? by your experience 
with Maharishi?

Where does this absolute and unshakeable belief originate?

I suggest it has been absorbed into your being through your TM and Maharishi 
experience just like Mother's Milk. It has taken up residence inside of you in 
a way that utterly forbids any re-examination of it along the lines that I am 
pursuing in these posts.

S

[FairfieldLife] No Ground Of All Being [was Re: Help a Saint - Lose]

[whynotnow7]

yeah, I don't really write speculatively, so yeah, based on my experience. Some 
people interpret stuff differently. Fine with me. I think you hit on something 
when you mention having given up context when you gave up Enlightenment. There 
is something to that, in that I must hold and identify an "I am enlightened" 
thought in order to validate the state. On the other hand I find the 
experiential reality of being self realized, enlightened, is that there is 
maybe ten percent of the volume of thoughts in the mind as before. (That, in 
and of itself, is a huge relief and burden lifted.) Not as much junk mail - 
lol. 

So whatever it is called or not called, enlightenment or something else, it can 
only claim its identity with us when we think it, and since my thoughts are 
much less, I don't think about enlightenment or self realization much at all. 
It is either there or not, doesn't matter which. 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "whynotnow7"  wrote:
> >
> > masked zebra wrote:
> > RESPONSE: Not a single person in my lifetime has demonstrated  
> > impeccably and infallibly that such a "ground of all being" even 
> > exists. That is, if I am to go by his/her claim to become the  embodiment 
> > of such an irreducible level of reality. In fact, I would go further: I 
> > have not observed a single person who even gives evidence that they have 
> > made contact with such a fundamental form of reality.
> > 
> > **The only person who can conclusively demonstrate it is you. Even then of 
> > course, you can fool yourself.:-)  All the teachers teach are pointers to 
> > self realization. No one can give that to you. I look at it as reaching a 
> > point of mental coordination, unifying the heart and intellect so that life 
> > gets smoother. So far as I can tell, that is the big super pay off to 
> > initial self-realization, budding enlightenment, life gets smoother. Still 
> > have to do the same stuff, but it is easier. As to what one book or teacher 
> > refers to that way of living doesn't matter. It's all based on experience 
> > anyway, so if you want to call it blue cheese, please do.
> > 
> > **I like to think of it as better coordination because coordination is 
> > based on practice and use, vs. belief, so there is nothing to memorize or 
> > keep in mind. Just a matter of coordination over time. The dawning of 
> > self-realization is mechanical. 
> > 
> > For me the 'home of all the laws of nature' is a metaphysical fiction. 
> > Sure, the EXPERIENCE seems to verify this reality (via TM), but, given how 
> > wonderfully convincing one's initial experiences are of TM (the auguring of 
> > everything MMY promises), the final pay-off (nothing to show for it, an 
> > extraordinarily disappointing trajectory of 'progress' in one's 'evolution' 
> > over decades of doing TM), logically forces one to conclude: THESE 
> > EXPERIENCES ARE FALSE; that is, they DO NOT COINCIDE WITH REALITY. There IS 
> > no such thing as Enlightenment.
> > 
> > **Enlightenment isn't an experience. There may be a noticeable transition 
> > to establishing that first permanent candle of silence within, but once 
> > established, learning and developing and changing has to continue - nothing 
> > to hold it back, so enlightenment doesn't really point to one experience, 
> > except there may be a sudden and lasting realization of that first candle 
> > of silence being kindled. After that, life continues like it did before.
> 
> RESPONSE: Is all of this coming out of your own private experience, 
> whynotnow? If it is experimental knowledge than obviously we have a sharp 
> disagreement. But if it is a dogma which you are attempting to verify in your 
> own life by looking at your life from this perspective, then all that I can 
> say is: even if you achieve enlightenment, it will represent a reality that, 
> while as you say, is mechanically produced, nevertheless misrepresents what 
> reality is. Saint Francis Xavier went to India to destroy those Hindu idols. 
> And did all this within an undeniable supernatural grace. I have made the 
> empirical discovery—after writing 11 books (while Enlightened) and conducting 
> countless theatrical seminars (also while enlightened) that I was profoundly 
> DECEIVED. And I have made it my life's ambition to eliminate the deleterious 
> effects of Maharishi and TM upon my mind and body.
> 
> I sense the sincerity, clarity, and confidence in what you say in rebuttal to 
> what I have said. But I also sense that where I have come to know what I say 
> is—if you will permit me to say this—a deeper place, closer to reality than 
> from where you are contradicting me. But who knows? You may be dead right.
> 
> It's just that I gave up a lot to become de-enlightened (powers, abilities, 
> context), but I had no choice: life was punishing me for my error, the error 
> of Enlightenment. Because while such a state of conscio

[FairfieldLife] No Ground Of All Being [was Re: Help a Saint - Lose]

[Yifu]

thx, MZ,...I agree with your overall perspective since it agrees with (imo - 
seems to) with Nichiren's Buddhism. Main idea: "Enlightenment is a process, not 
an end-goal in itself".
...
If true, this pov would provide an alternative to much of Advaita (especially 
MMY's brand), Neo-Advaita; but less of an alternative to Muktananda's Kashmir 
Saivism. I've seen Muktananda several times in the after-physical life state. 
He was trapped in the lower astral but is making gradual progress toward the 
higher planes (probably where his guru Nityananda is).
...
However (a) if your objections to the "Gods" or gods include Buddhas, 
Bodhisattvas, Yidams, etc; I would object to that. In a way, the GOHONZON can 
be considered a Deity, although it's essentialy a Mandala embracing (foremost); 
the impersonal Holographic Principle.
...
Although your statements on the surface may contradict Jim's, imo there's not 
much of a disagreement IF:

(a) one accepts that there are certain evolutionary "jumps" (saltations, 
quantum leaps), representing discrete levels of Reality through direct 
realization, having "listed" signposts. 
...
But after this juncture, many of the Advaitins diverge from the eternally 
progressive model, stating outright that after CC or higher, (and physical 
death), the purpose of life has been fulfilled and there's no more finite 
existence (any bodies gross or subtle simply disintegrate with the components 
being dispersed...poof!).
...
Maybe that's what you're objecting to.  At any rate, this "end of existence" 
model is contradicted by Shankara; and alternative models of eternal growth and 
evolution may be found within Buddhism and other Traditions.
...
http://www.originalpurity.org/gurulin/graphics/amiti.jpg

PS: the notion of E. as a "process" has the advantage of being a great 
"leveler" since all sincere seekers after "the truth" would be in the same 
boat, with  no claimants on a pedestal saying "I've got It" with the rest of 
the crowd somehow "lower".
...
If there have been any Enlightened persons in Nichiren's Buddhism, it's 
unlikely they would state they've "arrived", since arrival is an eternal 
progression in that modelno "end of story".
  


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "whynotnow7"  wrote:
> >
> > masked zebra wrote:
> > RESPONSE: Not a single person in my lifetime has demonstrated  
> > impeccably and infallibly that such a "ground of all being" even 
> > exists. That is, if I am to go by his/her claim to become the  embodiment 
> > of such an irreducible level of reality. In fact, I would go further: I 
> > have not observed a single person who even gives evidence that they have 
> > made contact with such a fundamental form of reality.
> > 
> > **The only person who can conclusively demonstrate it is you. Even then of 
> > course, you can fool yourself.:-)  All the teachers teach are pointers to 
> > self realization. No one can give that to you. I look at it as reaching a 
> > point of mental coordination, unifying the heart and intellect so that life 
> > gets smoother. So far as I can tell, that is the big super pay off to 
> > initial self-realization, budding enlightenment, life gets smoother. Still 
> > have to do the same stuff, but it is easier. As to what one book or teacher 
> > refers to that way of living doesn't matter. It's all based on experience 
> > anyway, so if you want to call it blue cheese, please do.
> > 
> > **I like to think of it as better coordination because coordination is 
> > based on practice and use, vs. belief, so there is nothing to memorize or 
> > keep in mind. Just a matter of coordination over time. The dawning of 
> > self-realization is mechanical. 
> > 
> > For me the 'home of all the laws of nature' is a metaphysical fiction. 
> > Sure, the EXPERIENCE seems to verify this reality (via TM), but, given how 
> > wonderfully convincing one's initial experiences are of TM (the auguring of 
> > everything MMY promises), the final pay-off (nothing to show for it, an 
> > extraordinarily disappointing trajectory of 'progress' in one's 'evolution' 
> > over decades of doing TM), logically forces one to conclude: THESE 
> > EXPERIENCES ARE FALSE; that is, they DO NOT COINCIDE WITH REALITY. There IS 
> > no such thing as Enlightenment.
> > 
> > **Enlightenment isn't an experience. There may be a noticeable transition 
> > to establishing that first permanent candle of silence within, but once 
> > established, learning and developing and changing has to continue - nothing 
> > to hold it back, so enlightenment doesn't really point to one experience, 
> > except there may be a sudden and lasting realization of that first candle 
> > of silence being kindled. After that, life continues like it did before.
> 
> RESPONSE: Is all of this coming out of your own private experience, 
> whynotnow? If it is experimental knowledge than obviously we have a sharp 
> disagreement. Bu

RE: [FairfieldLife] No Ground Of All Being [was Re: Help a Saint - Lose]

[Rick Archer]

Unfortunately, no time for much participation in these wonderful
discussions, but one quick point:

 

MZ, you seem to be evaluating enlightenment, Indian spirituality, etc., on
the basis of your experience of enlightenment. What makes you think your
experience was the real deal, and bears any similarity to what truly
enlightened people were/are experiencing? I read one of your books 20-30
years ago, and watched the RC show with fascination from the sidelines, but
I didn't get the sense that you were living enlightenment. It was some sort
of awakening which to you had the flavor of Unity, but your ego was very
much intact, which is not the case with genuine, abiding awakening. IOW, a
very preliminary glimpse, profound as it may have been, but not a standard
by which anyone else's state or tradition could reliably be judged or
evaluated. I say this in friendship. No negativity implied or intended. 

 

One other thing. Don't jump to conclusions. Cultivate what Zen calls "don't
know mind". Very helpful tool. Not only consistency, but certainty, is the
hobgoblin of little minds.

[FairfieldLife] No Ground Of All Being [was Re: Help a Saint - Lose]

[maskedzebra]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "whynotnow7"  wrote:
>
> masked zebra wrote:
> RESPONSE: Not a single person in my lifetime has demonstrated  
> impeccably and infallibly that such a "ground of all being" even 
> exists. That is, if I am to go by his/her claim to become the  embodiment of 
> such an irreducible level of reality. In fact, I would go further: I have not 
> observed a single person who even gives evidence that they have made contact 
> with such a fundamental form of reality.
> 
> **The only person who can conclusively demonstrate it is you. Even then of 
> course, you can fool yourself.:-)  All the teachers teach are pointers to 
> self realization. No one can give that to you. I look at it as reaching a 
> point of mental coordination, unifying the heart and intellect so that life 
> gets smoother. So far as I can tell, that is the big super pay off to initial 
> self-realization, budding enlightenment, life gets smoother. Still have to do 
> the same stuff, but it is easier. As to what one book or teacher refers to 
> that way of living doesn't matter. It's all based on experience anyway, so if 
> you want to call it blue cheese, please do.
> 
> **I like to think of it as better coordination because coordination is based 
> on practice and use, vs. belief, so there is nothing to memorize or keep in 
> mind. Just a matter of coordination over time. The dawning of 
> self-realization is mechanical. 
> 
> For me the 'home of all the laws of nature' is a metaphysical fiction. Sure, 
> the EXPERIENCE seems to verify this reality (via TM), but, given how 
> wonderfully convincing one's initial experiences are of TM (the auguring of 
> everything MMY promises), the final pay-off (nothing to show for it, an 
> extraordinarily disappointing trajectory of 'progress' in one's 'evolution' 
> over decades of doing TM), logically forces one to conclude: THESE 
> EXPERIENCES ARE FALSE; that is, they DO NOT COINCIDE WITH REALITY. There IS 
> no such thing as Enlightenment.
> 
> **Enlightenment isn't an experience. There may be a noticeable transition to 
> establishing that first permanent candle of silence within, but once 
> established, learning and developing and changing has to continue - nothing 
> to hold it back, so enlightenment doesn't really point to one experience, 
> except there may be a sudden and lasting realization of that first candle of 
> silence being kindled. After that, life continues like it did before.

RESPONSE: Is all of this coming out of your own private experience, whynotnow? 
If it is experimental knowledge than obviously we have a sharp disagreement. 
But if it is a dogma which you are attempting to verify in your own life by 
looking at your life from this perspective, then all that I can say is: even if 
you achieve enlightenment, it will represent a reality that, while as you say, 
is mechanically produced, nevertheless misrepresents what reality is. Saint 
Francis Xavier went to India to destroy those Hindu idols. And did all this 
within an undeniable supernatural grace. I have made the empirical 
discovery—after writing 11 books (while Enlightened) and conducting countless 
theatrical seminars (also while enlightened) that I was profoundly DECEIVED. 
And I have made it my life's ambition to eliminate the deleterious effects of 
Maharishi and TM upon my mind and body.

I sense the sincerity, clarity, and confidence in what you say in rebuttal to 
what I have said. But I also sense that where I have come to know what I say 
is—if you will permit me to say this—a deeper place, closer to reality than 
from where you are contradicting me. But who knows? You may be dead right.

It's just that I gave up a lot to become de-enlightened (powers, abilities, 
context), but I had no choice: life was punishing me for my error, the error of 
Enlightenment. Because while such a state of consciousness does indeed exist, 
it is created—yes, mechanically—and sustained by mystical intelligences (devas) 
which ultimately do not seek the happiness of human beings. On the contrary.

And I know this from direct experience.

Thank you for your comments. It took me a while to get to them.


>

[FairfieldLife] No Ground Of All Being [was Re: Help a Saint - Lose]

[whynotnow7]

masked zebra wrote:
RESPONSE: Not a single person in my lifetime has demonstrated  
impeccably and infallibly that such a "ground of all being" even 
exists. That is, if I am to go by his/her claim to become the  embodiment of 
such an irreducible level of reality. In fact, I would go further: I have not 
observed a single person who even gives evidence that they have made contact 
with such a fundamental form of reality.

**The only person who can conclusively demonstrate it is you. Even then of 
course, you can fool yourself.:-)  All the teachers teach are pointers to self 
realization. No one can give that to you. I look at it as reaching a point of 
mental coordination, unifying the heart and intellect so that life gets 
smoother. So far as I can tell, that is the big super pay off to initial 
self-realization, budding enlightenment, life gets smoother. Still have to do 
the same stuff, but it is easier. As to what one book or teacher refers to that 
way of living doesn't matter. It's all based on experience anyway, so if you 
want to call it blue cheese, please do.

**I like to think of it as better coordination because coordination is based on 
practice and use, vs. belief, so there is nothing to memorize or keep in mind. 
Just a matter of coordination over time. The dawning of self-realization is 
mechanical. 

For me the 'home of all the laws of nature' is a metaphysical fiction. Sure, 
the EXPERIENCE seems to verify this reality (via TM), but, given how 
wonderfully convincing one's initial experiences are of TM (the auguring of 
everything MMY promises), the final pay-off (nothing to show for it, an 
extraordinarily disappointing trajectory of 'progress' in one's 'evolution' 
over decades of doing TM), logically forces one to conclude: THESE EXPERIENCES 
ARE FALSE; that is, they DO NOT COINCIDE WITH REALITY. There IS no such thing 
as Enlightenment.

**Enlightenment isn't an experience. There may be a noticeable transition to 
establishing that first permanent candle of silence within, but once 
established, learning and developing and changing has to continue - nothing to 
hold it back, so enlightenment doesn't really point to one experience, except 
there may be a sudden and lasting realization of that first candle of silence 
being kindled. After that, life continues like it did before.