--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- In [email protected], "sandiego108" <sandiego108@>
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Are you saying you are certain none of those people are
> > > > enlightened?
> > >
> > > I'm saying that I knew all of these people,
> > > and that I've heard four of the seven clearly
> > > say that they were NOT in CC or any other higher
> > > state, long after the "five-to-seven year" mark.
> > >
> > > In other words, I don't know what their state of
> > > consciousness was, but they seemed to.
> > >
> > > This is just matrixmonitor's self-importance
> > > bullshit. "I assume that these people were
> > > enlightened, therefore they are important,
> > > therefore I was slightly important because
> > > I saw or met them once."
> > >
> > > You find the same phenomenon in every spiritual
> > > trip, but rarely with the same level of naivete
> > > that one finds it in TM.
> >
> > And you are absolutely sure these people were telling you the
truth?
> > Given the less than positive reception one finds in discussing
the
> > subject of enlightenment, I am leaving the door open that these
> > people were being less than candid with you.
>
> It is certainly possible that these people
> were lying to me, and to the groups of TM
> students they were in all cases addressing.
> But of course, if they *were* enlightened
> and lying about it, all that would prove is
> that the enlightened are capable of looking
> fellow TMers in the eye and lying their
> socks off to them.
>
> Somehow, I can see why you would find that
> explanation more acceptable than the possi-
> bility that they were simply telling the
> truth.
>
Know your audience.
