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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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.