Enlightenment: > > > > > TM is an excellent and effective technique for > > > > > gaining a permanent state of enlightenment.
Ignorance: > > > > A few questions, Jim: > > > > > > > > How do you "know" that your purported state > > > > of enlightenment is permanent? Could it not > > > > change tomorrow, or next week? > > > > > > > > How do you "know" that you are enlightened? > > > > Is it possible that you are mistaken? > > > > > > > > If it is not possible that you could be mis- > > > > taken, does that make you better than than > > > > Maharishi? He, after all, declared Andy Rhymer > > > > to be enlightened, and Andy later turned out > > > > to be a child molester and a terrible embar- > > > > rassment to the TM movement, whom (as I under- > > > > stand it) Maharishi himself later condemned. > > > > > > > > So what do you think was going on in that > > > > situation? Was Maharishi (whom you presumably > > > > consider enlightened) originally right about > > > > Andy being enlightened? Or was he originally > > > > wrong about Andy being enlightened? Enlightenment: > > > I can appreciate your fear and doubt concerning a permanent > > > state of enlightenment... Ignorance: > > How about your fear and doubt regarding answering > > two simple questions (the ones you "forgot"): > > > > > How do you "know" that you are enlightened? > > > Is it possible that you are mistaken? > > > > Jim, you have presented yourself here on this forum > > as enlightened. Are you now suggesting, by avoiding > > these two questions, that an enlightened being is > > afraid to answer them? > > > > I'll give you a "pass" on the Andy stuff, but you > > should theoretically be able to answer the two > > questions above. Can you? > > > > It's a matter of some interest to me. You are in > > essence claiming to be the voice of enlightenment > > here. Are you now saying that enlightenment is > > afraid to deal with the issue of how enlightenment > > recognizes itself? > > > > Lots of other enlightened beings in history have > > not been afraid of these two questions. Why are you? Enlightenment: > > <snip> > > > I'll say again for the nth time, that this isn't about me, > > > that the state of enlightenment can be permanent for anybody. > > > It is achievable in this lifetime. Remember, its all about you. Ignorance: > > I disagree, Jim. Your position on this forum is > > very MUCH about you. YOU are the one who is > > presenting himself as enlightened. I have decided > > to ask you a number of questions *as if that were > > true*. > > > > If what you say about being enlightened is true, > > how you answer them will be "enlightenment speaking," > > will it not? > > > > If you refuse to answer, or dodge the questions, > > that will be an enlightened person being afraid > > to deal with questions posed by a spiritual > > seeker, will it not? Enlightenment: > You said just yesterday rather emphatically that you were NOT a > spiritual seeker. So why have you changed your mind today? Ignorance: I most assured did not say that. I am still a very strong spiritual seeker. It's just that I don't seek the same thing you do. "Permanent enlightenment," the thing you were selling yes- terday, is of no interest to me. Permanent and ever-growing appreciation of what is -- *whatever* is -- is my interest. Enlightenment: > In any case, I disagree-- I am not setting myself up as the voice > of enlightenment on this forum at all. I enjoy writing about my > experiences in that regard. I suppose because I am the only one > doing that regularly, the argument could be made that I am a > defacto "voice" of sorts, but that has never been, and is not my > intention. Anymore than it is for anyone solely writing about a > topic here on FFL. Ignorance: Jim, I am trying to make the point -- one that you never seem to have gotten -- that by announcing yourself as enlightened, you *chose* to become a de facto voice of enlightenment. You could have written about your experiences without ever mentioning your own state of consciousness. Many people here do, some of whom I would be more willing to believe are enlightened than I would to believe that of you. I *understand* that at this point you'd like to roll back the clock and pretend that you had never claimed to be enlightened. But you did, man. The cat is out of the bag. It's going to go back *in* the bag with reluctance. :-) I'm going to take at your word. I'm going to treat you as if you are exactly what you say you are. And I'm going to treat your responses as if they are "enlightenment speaking." Since you are what you say you are, and therefore what you have said about enlightenment in the past is true, then by your own definitions you *are* the voice of enlightenment speaking. Who else would be speaking? Since you are who you say you are, there is no self to be speaking; there can only be Self. So I'm asking you to step up to the plate and answer a few simple question AS Self, AS enlightenment speaking. You've shifted your style in the last few days to the role of a teacher. You've expressed concern for my spiritual aspirations, or lack thereof. You have given advice that I should follow if I'm to become like you. You *did* do all that, right? So follow the fuck up on it, dude. *Like it or not*, you have cast yourself in the role of enlightenment speaking on this forum. You seem to feel that you have a broader or more evolved perspective than I do, and that that broader perspective entitles you to give me spiritual advice. Well, I'm going to take you up on your offer. I'm going to ask you a few questions, ignorance to enlightenment. Since you are what you say you are, you will probably see this as an enormous opportunity to dispel my ignorance and lead me to enlightenment. And I am more than open to having my ignorance dispelled. Go for it, enlightened dude. Enlightenment: > I have already answered your two questions appropriately in my > previous response to you. I will leave you to your own conclusions. Ignorance: My conclusion is that you don't want to be put in the position of walking your own talk. Or, in this case, even talking your own talk. They are pretty simple and non-threatening questions, dude. How do you know you're enlightened? Is it possible that you are mistaken? Enlightenment: > If you are truly interested in attaining a state of permanent > enlightenment, you should find a teacher or someone with whom > you feel comfortable discussing these questions with. I > seriously doubt that is me. Ignorance: I am formally putting you in the position of that teacher very much being you. My first two questions as your student are: 1. How do you know you're enlightened? 2. Is it possible that you are mistaken?
