Re: [FairfieldLife] ENLIGHTENMENT MYTHS
From: anartax...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com I would have at least skimmed the essay. I skimmed enough of it to know that I didn't want to waste a sunny day in the Netherlands reading it. It was just more intellectualizing about a subject that can't be intellectualized, or as I put it below, spiritual porn. Better to enjoy the day, IMO, so I did. But I see this morning that a few people here had nothing more interesting going on in their lives yesterday than me. As I've suggested many times about my role on this forum, I discuss ideas, the ideas piss them off, and they discuss me. It's tough providing starter ideas for people who aren't smart enough to come up with their own, but hey...I guess somebody's gotta do it... :-) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : As a followup, although I recognize that it is well and clearly written, I couldn't make my way through it. Too many notes, to quote the film Amadeus. But then, I tend to believe that talking about enlightenment is a lot like watching porn and believing that you're having sex. My bad. I suppose talking about enlightenment is best for those who have a natural inclination to tell people about it, and a situation arises that supports that inclination. For a while I wanted to talk about it, mainly to clarify what was going on intellectually in my head, but that tendency seems to be fading. Most of the talk on FFL is not about enlightenment but about the people who have intersected with that idea and became fucked up. From: TurquoiseBee turquoiseb@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, June 7, 2014 10:16 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] ENLIGHTENMENT MYTHS Thanks for posting this, Anartaxius. I have successfully downloaded the attachment, and will try to read it later today or later this weekend, when I have time to do so, and will comment if I feel I have comments to make. For now, I will say that I agree with his list of myths about enlightenment, and agree with the basic principle that they ARE myths. I do NOT hold that what people have called enlightenment does not exist. I believe it does, but that it is a purely subjective experience that 1) defies description, 2) defies categorization or hierarchization, 3) is no better or higher than any other experience, and 4) may not be duplicatible. By #4 I mean that it is possible IMO that every person who experiences the subjective experience that they call enlightenment is experiencing a *different* experience or set of experiences. They may have some similarities with what others claim to experience and call enlightenment, but essentially they'll all be different, even though the claimants CLAIM that they're all the same. If I feel like commenting more after reading the essay, I will. If not, the above can stand as my take on enlightenment. I think it's an OK experience, as experiences go, but no more important or special than any other experience. The attempt to claim otherwise is IMO *always* an attempt to sell somebody something -- whether that something be a technique or membership in some supposedly special or elite lineage or group. From: anartaxius@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, June 6, 2014 10:36 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] ENLIGHTENMENT MYTHS [1 Attachment] [Attachment(s) from anartaxius@... [FairfieldLife] included below] ENLIGHTENMENT MYTHS Some days ago emptybill posted (Lightmint vs EEG Claptrap) a quote by James Swartz. After poking around for a while I found this fellow's web site. Just after I came on FFL in 2011, yuxifero also responded to a post I had made with a link to his site. Swartz had written a book called 'How to Attain Enlightenment'. I do not think I followed up on that. But I did find a sample chapter from that book a few days ago titled 'What is Enlightenment'. This was really interesting as it is an attempt to explain enlightenment from the viewpoint of Advaita Vedanta. Of special interest to me was a series of discussions he called 'enlightenment myths'. I have attached that sample chapter to this post but would like to make brief mention of the discussions in it. It is divided into several sections, but most interest were the sub headings of the enlightenment myths. As you read these you might notice that these myths cover just about everything we find in the TM scheme, and in many other traditions as well. Swartz has a very sharp intellect and handles most of his discussion well, and takes apart these ideas one by one. Reminds me of Curtis, (and even Robin, were he not off the deep end - this is now Robin might sound if he knew what he was talking about, and was not trying to exorcise everybody, and trying
Re: [FairfieldLife] ENLIGHTENMENT MYTHS
From: authfri...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com I consider Xeno's views of both Barry and Robin to be so biased--one pro, the other con--as to be twisted. It did take a bit of effort to read some of Robin's posts, but they weren't obfuscatory or intended to entrap, nor was he putting on airs. She says, writing in such a way as to infer that she know the 'truth' about Robin, and no one else does. See what I mean about how NPD attracts NPD? :-) (That's the twisted part.) I think Xeno had problems similar to Barry's in reading Robin's posts, and this made him feel inadequate and resentful as well.How Xeno can see anything less than the purest hatred in Barry's obsessive comments about Robin, I can't imagine. But then Xeno has been angling for strokes from Barry for quite some time now. Sounds to me as if Judy is a little resentful because Xeno and Share don't hate someone she's *told* them repeatedly that they should hate. How dare they? :-) What I find interesting about *Judy's* ongoing obsession with Robin is how she manages to drool over and defend a guy who on the one hand infers that the claim that he was once enlightened is a Really Big Deal (to the point of feeling that he has to actively confront anyone who denies this), and on the other hand infers that he's a Really Big Deal because he *quit* that shit, cold turkey. You would think that someone who claims to be an editor would notice the NPD tendency to insist on being a Really Big Deal, both past and present. Maybe it's that she actually believes he actually was/is one. Who knows? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : I would say Barry disliked Robin. Obsessive hatred seems a little extreme. Barry doesn't like long sprawling tracts of text, Robin's speciality, and he seems to have a very short fuse with people who think of themselves excessively or put on airs. I did not care for Robin's writing style either. I consider Robin's writing obfuscatory rather than illuminating. He was not out to explain, I think he used his skills to entrap rather than to free. He has a shorter attention span than I do. But much longer than a gnat. He does write some long posts, and they usually stay on topic, even if those who read them do not like what he says. I do not always like what he says, but that is my reaction to certain things. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : Barry appears to have the attention span of a gnat. I suspect that may be why he developed such an obsessive hatred of Robin. Here were others reading Robin's posts with interest and understanding, and Barry couldn't get past the first few lines. Made him feel inadequate. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : As a followup, although I recognize that it is well and clearly written, I couldn't make my way through it. Too many notes, to quote the film Amadeus.
Re: [FairfieldLife] ENLIGHTENMENT MYTHS
I really don't understand this ongoing interest with Robin, that you have. I thought he had the ability, here on FFL, more than most, to put the active turnings of his mind, on paper, with the movement intact. I was fascinated by it, at first, and he is clearly a brilliant guy. I saw him as a spiritual performance artist, more than anything else, and that's it - no big deal, either way. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : From: authfriend@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com I consider Xeno's views of both Barry and Robin to be so biased--one pro, the other con--as to be twisted. It did take a bit of effort to read some of Robin's posts, but they weren't obfuscatory or intended to entrap, nor was he putting on airs. She says, writing in such a way as to infer that she know the 'truth' about Robin, and no one else does. See what I mean about how NPD attracts NPD? :-) (That's the twisted part.) I think Xeno had problems similar to Barry's in reading Robin's posts, and this made him feel inadequate and resentful as well. How Xeno can see anything less than the purest hatred in Barry's obsessive comments about Robin, I can't imagine. But then Xeno has been angling for strokes from Barry for quite some time now. Sounds to me as if Judy is a little resentful because Xeno and Share don't hate someone she's *told* them repeatedly that they should hate. How dare they? :-) What I find interesting about *Judy's* ongoing obsession with Robin is how she manages to drool over and defend a guy who on the one hand infers that the claim that he was once enlightened is a Really Big Deal (to the point of feeling that he has to actively confront anyone who denies this), and on the other hand infers that he's a Really Big Deal because he *quit* that shit, cold turkey. You would think that someone who claims to be an editor would notice the NPD tendency to insist on being a Really Big Deal, both past and present. Maybe it's that she actually believes he actually was/is one. Who knows? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : I would say Barry disliked Robin. Obsessive hatred seems a little extreme. Barry doesn't like long sprawling tracts of text, Robin's speciality, and he seems to have a very short fuse with people who think of themselves excessively or put on airs. I did not care for Robin's writing style either. I consider Robin's writing obfuscatory rather than illuminating. He was not out to explain, I think he used his skills to entrap rather than to free. He has a shorter attention span than I do. But much longer than a gnat. He does write some long posts, and they usually stay on topic, even if those who read them do not like what he says. I do not always like what he says, but that is my reaction to certain things. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : Barry appears to have the attention span of a gnat. I suspect that may be why he developed such an obsessive hatred of Robin. Here were others reading Robin's posts with interest and understanding, and Barry couldn't get past the first few lines. Made him feel inadequate. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : As a followup, although I recognize that it is well and clearly written, I couldn't make my way through it. Too many notes, to quote the film Amadeus.
Re: [FairfieldLife] ENLIGHTENMENT MYTHS
What's your problem, Barry? I'm simply stating my opinions (albeit not necessarily those you impute to me). (BTW, you need to look up the distinction between infer and imply. In this post, you are the one doing the inferring. Check it out.) Given the huge number of words Barry has written about Robin, while he was here and after he left, right up to the present, I think we can (ahem) infer that for Barry, Robin was a Really Big Deal. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : From: authfriend@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com I consider Xeno's views of both Barry and Robin to be so biased--one pro, the other con--as to be twisted. It did take a bit of effort to read some of Robin's posts, but they weren't obfuscatory or intended to entrap, nor was he putting on airs. She says, writing in such a way as to infer that she know the 'truth' about Robin, and no one else does. See what I mean about how NPD attracts NPD? :-) (That's the twisted part.) I think Xeno had problems similar to Barry's in reading Robin's posts, and this made him feel inadequate and resentful as well. How Xeno can see anything less than the purest hatred in Barry's obsessive comments about Robin, I can't imagine. But then Xeno has been angling for strokes from Barry for quite some time now. Sounds to me as if Judy is a little resentful because Xeno and Share don't hate someone she's *told* them repeatedly that they should hate. How dare they? :-) What I find interesting about *Judy's* ongoing obsession with Robin is how she manages to drool over and defend a guy who on the one hand infers that the claim that he was once enlightened is a Really Big Deal (to the point of feeling that he has to actively confront anyone who denies this), and on the other hand infers that he's a Really Big Deal because he *quit* that shit, cold turkey. You would think that someone who claims to be an editor would notice the NPD tendency to insist on being a Really Big Deal, both past and present. Maybe it's that she actually believes he actually was/is one. Who knows? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : I would say Barry disliked Robin. Obsessive hatred seems a little extreme. Barry doesn't like long sprawling tracts of text, Robin's speciality, and he seems to have a very short fuse with people who think of themselves excessively or put on airs. I did not care for Robin's writing style either. I consider Robin's writing obfuscatory rather than illuminating. He was not out to explain, I think he used his skills to entrap rather than to free. He has a shorter attention span than I do. But much longer than a gnat. He does write some long posts, and they usually stay on topic, even if those who read them do not like what he says. I do not always like what he says, but that is my reaction to certain things. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : Barry appears to have the attention span of a gnat. I suspect that may be why he developed such an obsessive hatred of Robin. Here were others reading Robin's posts with interest and understanding, and Barry couldn't get past the first few lines. Made him feel inadequate. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : As a followup, although I recognize that it is well and clearly written, I couldn't make my way through it. Too many notes, to quote the film Amadeus.
Re: [FairfieldLife] ENLIGHTENMENT MYTHS
On 6/8/2014 5:06 AM, TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: Sounds to me as if Judy is a little resentful because Xeno and Share don't hate someone she's *told* them repeatedly that they should hate. How dare they? :-) So, it's all about Judy. Go figure.
Re: [FairfieldLife] ENLIGHTENMENT MYTHS
Thanks for posting this, Anartaxius. I have successfully downloaded the attachment, and will try to read it later today or later this weekend, when I have time to do so, and will comment if I feel I have comments to make. For now, I will say that I agree with his list of myths about enlightenment, and agree with the basic principle that they ARE myths. I do NOT hold that what people have called enlightenment does not exist. I believe it does, but that it is a purely subjective experience that 1) defies description, 2) defies categorization or hierarchization, 3) is no better or higher than any other experience, and 4) may not be duplicatible. By #4 I mean that it is possible IMO that every person who experiences the subjective experience that they call enlightenment is experiencing a *different* experience or set of experiences. They may have some similarities with what others claim to experience and call enlightenment, but essentially they'll all be different, even though the claimants CLAIM that they're all the same. If I feel like commenting more after reading the essay, I will. If not, the above can stand as my take on enlightenment. I think it's an OK experience, as experiences go, but no more important or special than any other experience. The attempt to claim otherwise is IMO *always* an attempt to sell somebody something -- whether that something be a technique or membership in some supposedly special or elite lineage or group. From: anartax...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, June 6, 2014 10:36 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] ENLIGHTENMENT MYTHS [1 Attachment] [Attachment(s) from anartax...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] included below] ENLIGHTENMENT MYTHS Some days ago emptybill posted (Lightmint vs EEG Claptrap) a quote by James Swartz. After poking around for a while I found this fellow's web site. Just after I came on FFL in 2011, yuxifero also responded to a post I had made with a link to his site. Swartz had written a book called 'How to Attain Enlightenment'. I do not think I followed up on that. But I did find a sample chapter from that book a few days ago titled 'What is Enlightenment'. This was really interesting as it is an attempt to explain enlightenment from the viewpoint of Advaita Vedanta. Of special interest to me was a series of discussions he called 'enlightenment myths'. I have attached that sample chapter to this post but would like to make brief mention of the discussions in it. It is divided into several sections, but most interest were the sub headings of the enlightenment myths. As you read these you might notice that these myths cover just about everything we find in the TM scheme, and in many other traditions as well. Swartz has a very sharp intellect and handles most of his discussion well, and takes apart these ideas one by one. Reminds me of Curtis, (and even Robin, were he not off the deep end - this is now Robin might sound if he knew what he was talking about, and was not trying to exorcise everybody, and trying to convince us he was also at one time, enlightened, but not now). 1. The Path of Experience 2. The Path of Knowledge 3. The Value of a Means of Knowledge 4. Enlightenment Myths a. No Mind, Blank Mind, Empty Mind, Stopped Mind b. No Ego, Ego Death c. Nirvana d. The Now e. Experience of Oneness f. Transcendental State g. Enlightenment as Eternal Bliss h. Levels of Enlightenment i. Enlightenment as Special Status j. Enlightenment as Energy k. Fulfillment of All Desires I think Barry might like this essay because it undermines the idea of enlightenment as giving anyone some special kind of something that makes them, well, holier than thou. Barry might disagree with the idea Swartz has about enlightenment being 'real'. I think this is as one of the finest essays on enlightenment I have ever read. Maharishi did talk of the path of experience and the path of knowledge, but the path of knowledge seems to have gotten buried in the TMO in favour of the path of experience, and especially devotion to guru as time went on. Swartz basically says the path of experience (meditation etc.) helps clear the way for enlightenment, but does not in fact result in it. At any rate I find this essay a refreshing counter to the TMO's increasing descent into endarkenment.
Re: [FairfieldLife] ENLIGHTENMENT MYTHS
As a followup, although I recognize that it is well and clearly written, I couldn't make my way through it. Too many notes, to quote the film Amadeus. But then, I tend to believe that talking about enlightenment is a lot like watching porn and believing that you're having sex. My bad. From: TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, June 7, 2014 10:16 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] ENLIGHTENMENT MYTHS Thanks for posting this, Anartaxius. I have successfully downloaded the attachment, and will try to read it later today or later this weekend, when I have time to do so, and will comment if I feel I have comments to make. For now, I will say that I agree with his list of myths about enlightenment, and agree with the basic principle that they ARE myths. I do NOT hold that what people have called enlightenment does not exist. I believe it does, but that it is a purely subjective experience that 1) defies description, 2) defies categorization or hierarchization, 3) is no better or higher than any other experience, and 4) may not be duplicatible. By #4 I mean that it is possible IMO that every person who experiences the subjective experience that they call enlightenment is experiencing a *different* experience or set of experiences. They may have some similarities with what others claim to experience and call enlightenment, but essentially they'll all be different, even though the claimants CLAIM that they're all the same. If I feel like commenting more after reading the essay, I will. If not, the above can stand as my take on enlightenment. I think it's an OK experience, as experiences go, but no more important or special than any other experience. The attempt to claim otherwise is IMO *always* an attempt to sell somebody something -- whether that something be a technique or membership in some supposedly special or elite lineage or group. From: anartax...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, June 6, 2014 10:36 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] ENLIGHTENMENT MYTHS [1 Attachment] [Attachment(s) from anartax...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] included below] ENLIGHTENMENT MYTHS Some days ago emptybill posted (Lightmint vs EEG Claptrap) a quote by James Swartz. After poking around for a while I found this fellow's web site. Just after I came on FFL in 2011, yuxifero also responded to a post I had made with a link to his site. Swartz had written a book called 'How to Attain Enlightenment'. I do not think I followed up on that. But I did find a sample chapter from that book a few days ago titled 'What is Enlightenment'. This was really interesting as it is an attempt to explain enlightenment from the viewpoint of Advaita Vedanta. Of special interest to me was a series of discussions he called 'enlightenment myths'. I have attached that sample chapter to this post but would like to make brief mention of the discussions in it. It is divided into several sections, but most interest were the sub headings of the enlightenment myths. As you read these you might notice that these myths cover just about everything we find in the TM scheme, and in many other traditions as well. Swartz has a very sharp intellect and handles most of his discussion well, and takes apart these ideas one by one. Reminds me of Curtis, (and even Robin, were he not off the deep end - this is now Robin might sound if he knew what he was talking about, and was not trying to exorcise everybody, and trying to convince us he was also at one time, enlightened, but not now). 1. The Path of Experience 2. The Path of Knowledge 3. The Value of a Means of Knowledge 4. Enlightenment Myths a. No Mind, Blank Mind, Empty Mind, Stopped Mind b. No Ego, Ego Death c. Nirvana d. The Now e. Experience of Oneness f. Transcendental State g. Enlightenment as Eternal Bliss h. Levels of Enlightenment i. Enlightenment as Special Status j. Enlightenment as Energy k. Fulfillment of All Desires I think Barry might like this essay because it undermines the idea of enlightenment as giving anyone some special kind of something that makes them, well, holier than thou. Barry might disagree with the idea Swartz has about enlightenment being 'real'. I think this is as one of the finest essays on enlightenment I have ever read. Maharishi did talk of the path of experience and the path of knowledge, but the path of knowledge seems to have gotten buried in the TMO in favour of the path of experience, and especially devotion to guru as time went on. Swartz basically says the path of experience (meditation etc.) helps clear the way for enlightenment, but does not in fact result in it. At any rate I find this essay
Re: [FairfieldLife] ENLIGHTENMENT MYTHS
Watch a lot of porn, do you, Barry? Real sex, like real enlightenment, is much preferred. Please, take my word for it.:-) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : As a followup, although I recognize that it is well and clearly written, I couldn't make my way through it. Too many notes, to quote the film Amadeus. But then, I tend to believe that talking about enlightenment is a lot like watching porn and believing that you're having sex. My bad. From: TurquoiseBee turquoiseb@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, June 7, 2014 10:16 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] ENLIGHTENMENT MYTHS Thanks for posting this, Anartaxius. I have successfully downloaded the attachment, and will try to read it later today or later this weekend, when I have time to do so, and will comment if I feel I have comments to make. For now, I will say that I agree with his list of myths about enlightenment, and agree with the basic principle that they ARE myths. I do NOT hold that what people have called enlightenment does not exist. I believe it does, but that it is a purely subjective experience that 1) defies description, 2) defies categorization or hierarchization, 3) is no better or higher than any other experience, and 4) may not be duplicatible. By #4 I mean that it is possible IMO that every person who experiences the subjective experience that they call enlightenment is experiencing a *different* experience or set of experiences. They may have some similarities with what others claim to experience and call enlightenment, but essentially they'll all be different, even though the claimants CLAIM that they're all the same. If I feel like commenting more after reading the essay, I will. If not, the above can stand as my take on enlightenment. I think it's an OK experience, as experiences go, but no more important or special than any other experience. The attempt to claim otherwise is IMO *always* an attempt to sell somebody something -- whether that something be a technique or membership in some supposedly special or elite lineage or group. From: anartaxius@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, June 6, 2014 10:36 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] ENLIGHTENMENT MYTHS [1 Attachment] [Attachment(s) https://us-mg5.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?.rand=0b8m3ft1a6o9h#TopText from anartaxius@... [FairfieldLife] included below] ENLIGHTENMENT MYTHS Some days ago emptybill posted (Lightmint vs EEG Claptrap) a quote by James Swartz. After poking around for a while I found this fellow's web site. Just after I came on FFL in 2011, yuxifero also responded to a post I had made with a link to his site. Swartz had written a book called 'How to Attain Enlightenment'. I do not think I followed up on that. But I did find a sample chapter from that book a few days ago titled 'What is Enlightenment'. This was really interesting as it is an attempt to explain enlightenment from the viewpoint of Advaita Vedanta. Of special interest to me was a series of discussions he called 'enlightenment myths'. I have attached that sample chapter to this post but would like to make brief mention of the discussions in it. It is divided into several sections, but most interest were the sub headings of the enlightenment myths. As you read these you might notice that these myths cover just about everything we find in the TM scheme, and in many other traditions as well. Swartz has a very sharp intellect and handles most of his discussion well, and takes apart these ideas one by one. Reminds me of Curtis, (and even Robin, were he not off the deep end - this is now Robin might sound if he knew what he was talking about, and was not trying to exorcise everybody, and trying to convince us he was also at one time, enlightened, but not now). 1. The Path of Experience 2. The Path of Knowledge 3. The Value of a Means of Knowledge 4. Enlightenment Myths a. No Mind, Blank Mind, Empty Mind, Stopped Mind b. No Ego, Ego Death c. Nirvana d. The Now e. Experience of Oneness f. Transcendental State g. Enlightenment as Eternal Bliss h. Levels of Enlightenment i. Enlightenment as Special Status j. Enlightenment as Energy k. Fulfillment of All Desires I think Barry might like this essay because it undermines the idea of enlightenment as giving anyone some special kind of something that makes them, well, holier than thou. Barry might disagree with the idea Swartz has about enlightenment being 'real'. I think this is as one of the finest essays on enlightenment I have ever read. Maharishi did talk of the path of experience and the path of knowledge, but the path of knowledge seems to have gotten buried in the TMO in favour of the path
Re: [FairfieldLife] ENLIGHTENMENT MYTHS
I would have at least skimmed the essay. Peter Schaffer's screenplay (based on his stage version) of Amadeus portrays Emperor Joseph II, who spoke the words 'too many notes', as somewhat of a dilettante as far as music, in fact he could not come up with those words, having been prompted by one of his lackeys. Mozart did write a lot of notes, though no denser than his contemporaries, but played more when he played the piano, improvising, especially in repeated passages, elaborating the musical line. He wrote out examples of this for his students, showing them how to vary what was on the written page to make a performance more interesting. Well, I like Mozart. You like Bruce Cockburn (too few notes, but very nice). ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : As a followup, although I recognize that it is well and clearly written, I couldn't make my way through it. Too many notes, to quote the film Amadeus. But then, I tend to believe that talking about enlightenment is a lot like watching porn and believing that you're having sex. My bad. I suppose talking about enlightenment is best for those who have a natural inclination to tell people about it, and a situation arises that supports that inclination. For a while I wanted to talk about it, mainly to clarify what was going on intellectually in my head, but that tendency seems to be fading. Most of the talk on FFL is not about enlightenment but about the people who have intersected with that idea and became fucked up. From: TurquoiseBee turquoiseb@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, June 7, 2014 10:16 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] ENLIGHTENMENT MYTHS Thanks for posting this, Anartaxius. I have successfully downloaded the attachment, and will try to read it later today or later this weekend, when I have time to do so, and will comment if I feel I have comments to make. For now, I will say that I agree with his list of myths about enlightenment, and agree with the basic principle that they ARE myths. I do NOT hold that what people have called enlightenment does not exist. I believe it does, but that it is a purely subjective experience that 1) defies description, 2) defies categorization or hierarchization, 3) is no better or higher than any other experience, and 4) may not be duplicatible. By #4 I mean that it is possible IMO that every person who experiences the subjective experience that they call enlightenment is experiencing a *different* experience or set of experiences. They may have some similarities with what others claim to experience and call enlightenment, but essentially they'll all be different, even though the claimants CLAIM that they're all the same. If I feel like commenting more after reading the essay, I will. If not, the above can stand as my take on enlightenment. I think it's an OK experience, as experiences go, but no more important or special than any other experience. The attempt to claim otherwise is IMO *always* an attempt to sell somebody something -- whether that something be a technique or membership in some supposedly special or elite lineage or group. From: anartaxius@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, June 6, 2014 10:36 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] ENLIGHTENMENT MYTHS [1 Attachment] [Attachment(s) https://us-mg5.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?.rand=0b8m3ft1a6o9h#TopText from anartaxius@... [FairfieldLife] included below] ENLIGHTENMENT MYTHS Some days ago emptybill posted (Lightmint vs EEG Claptrap) a quote by James Swartz. After poking around for a while I found this fellow's web site. Just after I came on FFL in 2011, yuxifero also responded to a post I had made with a link to his site. Swartz had written a book called 'How to Attain Enlightenment'. I do not think I followed up on that. But I did find a sample chapter from that book a few days ago titled 'What is Enlightenment'. This was really interesting as it is an attempt to explain enlightenment from the viewpoint of Advaita Vedanta. Of special interest to me was a series of discussions he called 'enlightenment myths'. I have attached that sample chapter to this post but would like to make brief mention of the discussions in it. It is divided into several sections, but most interest were the sub headings of the enlightenment myths. As you read these you might notice that these myths cover just about everything we find in the TM scheme, and in many other traditions as well. Swartz has a very sharp intellect and handles most of his discussion well, and takes apart these ideas one by one. Reminds me of Curtis, (and even Robin, were he not off the deep end - this is now Robin might sound if he knew what he was talking about, and was not trying to exorcise everybody, and trying to convince
Re: [FairfieldLife] ENLIGHTENMENT MYTHS
Barry appears to have the attention span of a gnat. I suspect that may be why he developed such an obsessive hatred of Robin. Here were others reading Robin's posts with interest and understanding, and Barry couldn't get past the first few lines. Made him feel inadequate. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : As a followup, although I recognize that it is well and clearly written, I couldn't make my way through it. Too many notes, to quote the film Amadeus.
Re: [FairfieldLife] ENLIGHTENMENT MYTHS
I would say Barry disliked Robin. Obsessive hatred seems a little extreme. Barry doesn't like long sprawling tracts of text, Robin's speciality, and he seems to have a very short fuse with people who think of themselves excessively or put on airs. I did not care for Robin's writing style either. I consider Robin's writing obfuscatory rather than illuminating. He was not out to explain, I think he used his skills to entrap rather than to free. He has a shorter attention span than I do. But much longer than a gnat. He does write some long posts, and they usually stay on topic, even if those who read them do not like what he says. I do not always like what he says, but that is my reaction to certain things. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : Barry appears to have the attention span of a gnat. I suspect that may be why he developed such an obsessive hatred of Robin. Here were others reading Robin's posts with interest and understanding, and Barry couldn't get past the first few lines. Made him feel inadequate. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : As a followup, although I recognize that it is well and clearly written, I couldn't make my way through it. Too many notes, to quote the film Amadeus.
Re: [FairfieldLife] ENLIGHTENMENT MYTHS
I consider Xeno's views of both Barry and Robin to be so biased--one pro, the other con--as to be twisted. It did take a bit of effort to read some of Robin's posts, but they weren't obfuscatory or intended to entrap, nor was he putting on airs. (That's the twisted part.) I think Xeno had problems similar to Barry's in reading Robin's posts, and this made him feel inadequate and resentful as well. How Xeno can see anything less than the purest hatred in Barry's obsessive comments about Robin, I can't imagine. But then Xeno has been angling for strokes from Barry for quite some time now. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : I would say Barry disliked Robin. Obsessive hatred seems a little extreme. Barry doesn't like long sprawling tracts of text, Robin's speciality, and he seems to have a very short fuse with people who think of themselves excessively or put on airs. I did not care for Robin's writing style either. I consider Robin's writing obfuscatory rather than illuminating. He was not out to explain, I think he used his skills to entrap rather than to free. He has a shorter attention span than I do. But much longer than a gnat. He does write some long posts, and they usually stay on topic, even if those who read them do not like what he says. I do not always like what he says, but that is my reaction to certain things. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : Barry appears to have the attention span of a gnat. I suspect that may be why he developed such an obsessive hatred of Robin. Here were others reading Robin's posts with interest and understanding, and Barry couldn't get past the first few lines. Made him feel inadequate. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : As a followup, although I recognize that it is well and clearly written, I couldn't make my way through it. Too many notes, to quote the film Amadeus.
