Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Meditation Society of America] Interesting Comment From Email

Expand Messages
  • Jason Fishman
    Hi Bob, Not being a person set apart, then I couldn t say that I m enlightened anymore then the next guy or gal. If it all moves together then we are all
    Message 1 of 9 , Mar 11, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Bob,
       
      Not being a person set apart, then I couldn't say that I'm enlightened anymore then the next guy or gal. If it all moves together then we are all enlightened idiots, eh?
       
      Somehow that doesn't hold true. If there is a thing called enlightenment then it's something defined by the person perceiving an enlightened person, based on a set of standards that they call enlightenment. Calling someone a football player for example, shows that we perceive them playing football, a good football player when they fit inside those rules a bad one when they do not, and so forth.
       
      I would say that there are a great deal of enlightened folks, they just don't have much to say about it, since it's clear that the rules are moldable in such a way that there are no specifics about anyone, which holds true for anyone really, riding on the backs of past enlightened folks, taking cues on how to act, what limits are presented and so forth.
       
      Charles Mason is a pretty smart cookie, I'd even say pretty enlightened, set apart in such a way that he understood, very well I may add, how to be set apart. It seems silly to think of a murderous person as enlightened, yet people murder daily just to have a hamburger :-) Silly also to define yourself or anyone else as enlightened or idiots, when there really are no stable standards in which to judge.
       
      Peace and Love

      medit8ionsociety <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
      One of our long time members had this to say about "Enlightened" people:

      "When someone is making judgements about someone else, this alone
      indicates that they see themselves as separate from the rest of
      creation, and red-flags their not being enlightened."

      Comments?




      Do you Yahoo!?
      Yahoo! Search - Find what you�re looking for faster.

    • jodyrrr
      ... Just another occluding expectation about enlightenment. To believe you will cease to distinguish between different people and objects, let alone discard
      Message 2 of 9 , Mar 11, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, medit8ionsociety <no_reply@y...>
        wrote:
        > One of our long time members had this to say about "Enlightened" people:
        >
        > "When someone is making judgements about someone else, this alone
        > indicates that they see themselves as separate from the rest of
        > creation, and red-flags their not being enlightened."
        >
        > Comments?

        Just another occluding expectation about enlightenment.

        To believe you will cease to distinguish between different
        people and objects, let alone discard critical thought, is
        just one of the many things people *BELIEVE* (rather than
        know experientially) about enlightenment.

        Believing such will only serve to create a template in
        the mind which enlightenment will not fit into (as it will
        not fit *ANY* template the mind creates for it.) The end
        result is the occlusion of understanding due to mistaken
        impressions about it being taken for fact rather than the
        fiction they are.
      • medit8ionsociety
        ... ... Dear Jodiji, Well, I hear what you are saying, and as with all your statements, I respect and value it, but perhaps your judgement of
        Message 3 of 9 , Mar 11, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "jodyrrr"
          <jodyrrr@y...> wrote:
          > --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, medit8ionsociety
          <no_reply@y...>
          > wrote:
          > > One of our long time members had this to say about "Enlightened"
          people:
          > >
          > > "When someone is making judgements about someone else, this alone
          > > indicates that they see themselves as separate from the rest of
          > > creation, and red-flags their not being enlightened."
          > >
          > > Comments?
          >
          > Just another occluding expectation about enlightenment.
          >
          > To believe you will cease to distinguish between different
          > people and objects, let alone discard critical thought, is
          > just one of the many things people *BELIEVE* (rather than
          > know experientially) about enlightenment.

          Dear Jodiji,
          Well, I hear what you are saying, and as with all your statements, I
          respect and value it, but perhaps your judgement of the statement
          being "Just another occluding expectation about enlightenment." may
          also be 'Just another occluding expectation about enlightenment' as
          well. And your saying that says it condones a belief that one ceases
          "to distinguish between different people and objects" may be just your
          unique extraploation of what was said. Viewed another way, I think it
          can be seen that the statement shows the basic discrimination and
          dispassion that are the foundations of Raja and Jnana Yoga, and not at
          all a discarding of critical thought (which actually may be what the
          fallen St. Martha might rightly call "a good thing").
          >
          > Believing such will only serve to create a template in
          > the mind which enlightenment will not fit into (as it will
          > not fit *ANY* template the mind creates for it.)

          Yes, I like and agree with the template/concept that enlightenment
          will not fit into...any template the mind creates.

          > The end
          > result is the occlusion of understanding due to mistaken
          > impressions about it being taken for fact rather than the
          > fiction they are.

          Well, couldn't this be seen as a judgement about the state of the
          writer, and that they aren't enlightened, and know by experience of
          what they are sharing here? And that what you have said is fact and
          not fiction, but not so for what they said. Quite a judgement....and
          to go back to the initial statement, does this mean that there are red
          flags going up?

          In any event, thanks for the good stuff. As always, your insight is
          conducive to self inquiry and that surely is "a good thing".
          Peace and blessings,
          Bob
        • medit8ionsociety
          ... enlightened anymore then the next guy or gal. If it all moves together then we are all enlightened idiots, eh? ... enlightenment then it s something
          Message 4 of 9 , Mar 11, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, Jason Fishman
            <munkiman4u@y...> wrote:
            > Hi Bob,
            >
            > Not being a person set apart, then I couldn't say that I'm
            enlightened anymore then the next guy or gal. If it all moves together
            then we are all enlightened idiots, eh?
            >
            > Somehow that doesn't hold true. If there is a thing called
            enlightenment then it's something defined by the person perceiving an
            enlightened person, based on a set of standards that they call
            enlightenment. Calling someone a football player for example, shows
            that we perceive them playing football, a good football player when
            they fit inside those rules a bad one when they do not, and so forth.
            >
            > I would say that there are a great deal of enlightened folks, they
            just don't have much to say about it, since it's clear that the rules
            are moldable in such a way that there are no specifics about anyone,
            which holds true for anyone really, riding on the backs of past
            enlightened folks, taking cues on how to act, what limits are
            presented and so forth.
            >
            > Charles Mason is a pretty smart cookie, I'd even say pretty
            enlightened, set apart in such a way that he understood, very well I
            may add, how to be set apart. It seems silly to think of a murderous
            person as enlightened, yet people murder daily just to have a
            hamburger :-) Silly also to define yourself or anyone else as
            enlightened or idiots, when there really are no stable standards in
            which to judge.
            >
            > Peace and Love

            Dear Sri Jason,
            You never cease to impress me. Charles Manson! Wow! I actually use him
            as a basic proof of how weird the universe is. Whenever someone I know
            gets deathly ill, injured, dies, or some similar negative thing, I
            commonly say "And Charles Manson is healthy! I gotta ask God what
            that's all about when I run into him"
            Yes, I guess we're all enlightened idiots for sure! Thanks for the
            reminder:-)
            Peace and blessings,
            Bob

            >
            > medit8ionsociety <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
            > One of our long time members had this to say about "Enlightened" people:
            >
            > "When someone is making judgements about someone else, this alone
            > indicates that they see themselves as separate from the rest of
            > creation, and red-flags their not being enlightened."
            >
            > Comments?
            >
            >
          • texasbg2000
            ... Hi Bob: I certainly don t want to beat a dead horse, but... it seems to me that making judgments about others is indeed an indication of being absorbed
            Message 5 of 9 , Mar 12, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, medit8ionsociety
              <no_reply@y...> wrote:
              > One of our long time members had this to say about "Enlightened"
              people:
              >
              > "When someone is making judgements about someone else, this alone
              > indicates that they see themselves as separate from the rest of
              > creation, and red-flags their not being enlightened."
              >
              > Comments?

              Hi Bob:

              I certainly don't want to beat a dead horse, but...

              it seems to me that making judgments about others is indeed an
              indication of "'being' absorbed in one's mind".

              Love
              Bobby G.
            • Jason Fishman
              ... enlightened anymore then the next guy or gal. If it all moves together then we are all enlightened idiots, eh? ... enlightenment then it s something
              Message 6 of 9 , Mar 12, 2004
              • 0 Attachment


                medit8ionsociety <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

                --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, Jason Fishman
                <munkiman4u@y...> wrote:
                > Hi Bob,

                > Not being a person set apart, then I couldn't say that I'm
                enlightened anymore then the next guy or gal. If it all moves together
                then we are all enlightened idiots, eh?

                > Somehow that doesn't hold true. If there is a thing called
                enlightenment then it's something defined by the person perceiving an
                enlightened person, based on a set of standards that they call
                enlightenment. Calling someone a football player for example, shows
                that we perceive them playing football, a good football player when
                they fit inside those rules a bad one when they do not, and so forth.

                > I would say that there are a great deal of enlightened folks, they
                just don't have much to say about it, since it's clear that the rules
                are moldable in such a way that there are no specifics about anyone,
                which holds true for anyone really, riding on the backs of past
                enlightened folks, taking cues on how to act, what limits are
                presented and so forth.

                > Charles Mason is a pretty smart cookie, I'd even say pretty
                enlightened, set apart in such a way that he understood, very well I
                may add, how to be set apart. It seems silly to think of a murderous
                person as enlightened, yet people murder daily just to have a
                hamburger :-) Silly also to define yourself or anyone else as
                enlightened or idiots, when there really are no stable standards in
                which to judge.

                > Peace and Love

                Dear Sri Jason,
                You never cease to impress me. Charles Manson! Wow! I actually use him
                as a basic proof of how weird the universe is. Whenever someone I know
                gets deathly ill, injured, dies, or some similar negative thing, I
                commonly say "And Charles Manson is healthy! I gotta ask God what
                that's all about when I run into him"
                Yes, I guess we're all enlightened idiots for sure! Thanks for the
                reminder:-)
                Peace and blessings,
                Bob

                Well Bob, I'm not sure if your joking about asking god or not, but there won't be a God that is going to explain the actions of the universe to anyone.

                If there was a God that would pick out a specific member to do his work, then I certainly wouldn't be able to trust that god. God then to me would be no more then an individual manipulating the universe in his/her idea of what it should be.

                The truth of the matter is no amount of prayer will give a human the power to move mountains or cheat death. Going out in the world, doing the living on your own isn't possible within the frame of god's will. Making choices, progression through time, experience and so forth are all limited within the frame of being and that frame is between a begining and an end, when there really is no solid conclusion one can make about any of this, God is in the cards as well as the stars and not making judgements about how anyone acts. The freedom of being an individual along with the responsibility that entails to the living.

                Peace and Love


                Do you Yahoo!?
                Yahoo! Search - Find what you�re looking for faster.
              • jodyrrr
                ... ly@y... ... I suppose Bob. However, any expectation about the experience of a realizer made by a non-realizer has no basis in fact, as only those who are
                Message 7 of 9 , Mar 12, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, medit8ionsociety <no_rep=
                  ly@y...>
                  wrote:
                  > --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "jodyrrr"
                  > <jodyrrr@y...> wrote:
                  > > --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, medit8ionsociety
                  > <no_reply@y...>
                  > > wrote:
                  > > > One of our long time members had this to say about "Enlightened"
                  > people:
                  > > >
                  > > > "When someone is making judgements about someone else, this alone
                  > > > indicates that they see themselves as separate from the rest of
                  > > > creation, and red-flags their not being enlightened."
                  > > >
                  > > > Comments?
                  > >
                  > > Just another occluding expectation about enlightenment.
                  > >
                  > > To believe you will cease to distinguish between different
                  > > people and objects, let alone discard critical thought, is
                  > > just one of the many things people *BELIEVE* (rather than
                  > > know experientially) about enlightenment.
                  >
                  > Dear Jodiji,
                  > Well, I hear what you are saying, and as with all your statements, I
                  > respect and value it, but perhaps your judgement of the statement
                  > being "Just another occluding expectation about enlightenment." may
                  > also be 'Just another occluding expectation about enlightenment' as
                  > well.

                  I suppose Bob. However, any expectation about the experience of
                  a realizer made by a non-realizer has no basis in fact, as only those
                  who are realizers are in possession of the "facts." But even if a
                  realizer made the above characterization, s/he is only speaking out
                  of their own experience. Realizers, like all people, are as individual
                  as snowflakes. One realizer may find no reason to evaluate the
                  statements of others, another may spend all his time doing so.

                  There are many examples of enlightened assholes. Nirsagadatta
                  and U.G. Krishnamurti come to mind. Ramakrishna could also be
                  quite the jerk in certain, limited circumstances, as were his two
                  main disciples Vivekananda and Brahmananda, depending on the
                  circumstances.

                  > And your saying that says it condones a belief that one ceases
                  > "to distinguish between different people and objects" may be just your
                  > unique extraploation of what was said.

                  True.

                  > Viewed another way, I think it
                  > can be seen that the statement shows the basic discrimination and
                  > dispassion that are the foundations of Raja and Jnana Yoga, and not at
                  > all a discarding of critical thought (which actually may be what the
                  > fallen St. Martha might rightly call "a good thing").

                  Again, we can look toward Vivekananda as an example of a realizer
                  who was full of critical judgements and not afraid to express them,
                  often much to the chargrin of his Western hosts. He travelled coast-
                  to-coast in America in the end of the 19th century on a lecture/debating
                  tour where he regularly handed his opponents a new round rear-end
                  orifice.

                  > > Believing such will only serve to create a template in
                  > > the mind which enlightenment will not fit into (as it will
                  > > not fit *ANY* template the mind creates for it.)
                  >
                  > Yes, I like and agree with the template/concept that enlightenment
                  > will not fit into...any template the mind creates.

                  And spiritual culture is literally *brimming* with these templates.
                  Our writer's comments, regardless of where they are coming from
                  experientially, only serve to distribute and reinforce one such
                  template, that of enlightened folk always being nice and never
                  having a reason to critique the statements of another.

                  > > The end
                  > > result is the occlusion of understanding due to mistaken
                  > > impressions about it being taken for fact rather than the
                  > > fiction they are.
                  >
                  > Well, couldn't this be seen as a judgement about the state of the
                  > writer, and that they aren't enlightened, and know by experience of
                  > what they are sharing here?

                  That's one reading of it, and probably the closest to my intent.
                  But, if we accept the writer as enlightened, then s/he is just
                  imposing their personal definition of enlightenment, based on
                  their own patterns of behavior and expectations for themselves.

                  It follows the contours of the standard Vedic boilerplate about
                  what enlightenment is and what it results in vis å vis the person
                  it apparently happens to. But I've found in my own experience
                  out of my own life, and that of my friends whom I would call
                  jnanis, that enlightenment has no standard with regards to the
                  individuals who come under its umbrella. IOW, there's just as
                  many personal and individual differences in the enlightened
                  as the unenlightened. Enlightenment doesn't change who you
                  were, at least not all at once, at least not in every case.

                  There is a brain, and that brain connects to memories, and
                  these memories and patterns of behavior change over time,
                  usually quite slowly, rather than all at once. So, while the
                  understanding we are calling enlightenment is the same in
                  terms of what becomes known to that life, the characteristics
                  of that life are probably going to keep rolling in the same
                  general manner that it always has.

                  > And that what you have said is fact and
                  > not fiction, but not so for what they said. Quite a judgement....and
                  > to go back to the initial statement, does this mean that there are red
                  > flags going up?

                  The red flags of others have no bearing on 'this' or my life
                  as an expounder on 'this'. I'm quite aware as an individual that
                  I come off as an over-opinionated asshole, and I expect nobody
                  to take my word for my own understanding. IOW, I send red flags
                  up in others all the time, and it changes nothing with regards to
                  what I as an individual know, or my convictions about what I am
                  saying.

                  I suppose others would call that pig-headed. All I can really
                  say to them is, "Oink, oink." ;)

                  > In any event, thanks for the good stuff. As always, your insight is
                  > conducive to self inquiry and that surely is "a good thing".
                  > Peace and blessings,
                  > Bob

                  No prob Bob. I'd apologize for giving enlightenment a bad name,
                  but I see that as a good thing, as it helps to tear down those
                  expectations and occluding templates that so many are trying
                  to fit into their heads as a way to come to the understanding
                  they seek.

                  --jody.
                • medit8ionsociety
                  ... Yo Bobby G, Actually, I think what we see on these lists that could be called beating a dead horse are the ever ongoing judgements about others states of
                  Message 8 of 9 , Mar 12, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "texasbg2000"
                    <Bigbobgraham@a...> wrote:
                    > --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, medit8ionsociety
                    > <no_reply@y...> wrote:
                    > > One of our long time members had this to say about "Enlightened"
                    > people:
                    > >
                    > > "When someone is making judgements about someone else, this alone
                    > > indicates that they see themselves as separate from the rest of
                    > > creation, and red-flags their not being enlightened."
                    > >
                    > > Comments?
                    >
                    > Hi Bob:
                    >
                    > I certainly don't want to beat a dead horse, but...
                    >
                    > it seems to me that making judgments about others is indeed an
                    > indication of "'being' absorbed in one's mind".
                    >
                    > Love
                    > Bobby G.

                    Yo Bobby G,
                    Actually, I think what we see on these lists that could be called
                    "beating a dead horse" are the ever ongoing judgements about others
                    states of consciousness. And to me too, this is certainly "'being'
                    absorbed in one's mind". And I think that we all have better things to
                    do than that:-)
                    Peace and blessings,
                    Bob
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.