--- In [email protected], "sandiego108" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> > wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "sandiego108" <sandiego108@> > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> > wrote: > > > <snip> My first two questions as your student are: > > > > > > > > 1. How do you know you're enlightened? > > > > > > These are excellent questions. In order to answer this > > > first one, I have to ask you first, what do you mean > > > by "enlightened"? I have written about this state > > > experientially many times, but there is a great deal > > > of confusion around this term, so I'd like to establish > > > meanings first. > > > > Jim, you were the person who, only a few posts > > ago, advised me to go back and read my TM Intro > > Lecture notes. I don't have any; I threw away > > all of my TM-related books and materials decades > > ago. > > > > What I'm doing here is trying to get you to give > > your *own* Intro Lecture. > > > > YOU are the one who claimed to be enlightened. I > > would say that the onus falls on you to define > > the term, not me. > > > > As you have said many times, I am not in a position > > to define enlightenment at all, whereas you are. > > > > So, if you need a definition before you continue > > your Intro Lecture, I suggest you present one. > > That's what we all had to do when we were giving > > Intro Lectures. > > I don't know about presenting or continuing an intro lecture-- I > thought that was to describe TM, and I am not a TM teacher... but > OK- I define living enlightenment as having the simultaneous > experience of deep, infinite silence, infused into every activity > of life, sensory or thoughtful, while waking, dreaming or sleeping.
I have no problem with this definition. > I further > define enlightenment as having the sense that I create my world, > wholly and totally, including all of those in it (even though they > may have the same experience that includes me) moment by moment. I do not agree with this at all, but I understand that it is part of your definition of enlightenment. Proceed. > Also a subjective sense that I am always centered, in the precise > center of my world. As a definition for what you experience, I have no problem with this. I think that the world might have a slight problem with you being the center of it :-), but proceed. > And that things always work out for the best, > even though in the middle of something, it sometimes feels pretty > dicey, but then as I wait and watch through a continuation of an > experience, it resolves itself perfectly, until the next adventure, > in which the dynamic repeats itself... I would not agree with this as a definition of enlight- enment, but I have no problem with it being one of your subjective experiences, and thus a part of your definition of enlightenment. Proceed. > Also much reduced fear-- > Since there is nothing I feel I have to do anymore, other than the > next obvious thing, there is no longer much to be fearful of, except > possibly imagination. This includes no fear of death (As distinct > from also having a strong love of life). Again, I have no problem with this as one of your definitions of enlightenment. Proceed. > That's all I can think of for the moment. Do you agree with this > definition? Did you notice that one of the things you couldn't think of at the moment was the original question? :-) How do you know that you are enlightened? > > > > 2. Is it possible that you are mistaken? > > > > Still unanswered. > > Good question-- Is it possible that I am mistaken about being > in a permanent state of enlightenment, that I have just defined? To clarify the question for your next try, what I should have said is: Is it possible that you are mistaken about being enlightened, period? (Not whether it is permanent or not.) > Nope- I just defined it based purely on my experience. kind of > a set up- I defined it based on what I experience, therefore I > am in the state that I just defined. How could I or anyone else > be mistaken about that? People are mistaken about their experiences in scientific tests every day. Did you take the test I posted some time ago? Did you see the moonwalking bear first time through? > So it kinda comes back to, once again, what we agree > enlightenment is. > > Is it possible that I may wake up in the next 5 seconds and not be > enlightened? I seriously do not understand the question-- what would > I revert to? The process of attaining enlightenment involves the > complete dissolution of any sort of artificial identity. You left this last sentence out of the list above, your definition of enlightenment. I'm going to write this down and play it back to you next time you insult someone on this forum. At that point I am going to ask you what exactly is insulting the other poster, if you have dissolved any sort of artificial identity? Is it Self? Does Self really have so much time on its hands that it drops into an Internet chat forum to insult itsSelf? :-) > So how do I > get back to what I no longer am? Also this question seems to imply > that enlightenment is a static state in which one either is or > isn't. And it isn't a static state. Interesting answers, but not to the question I was asking, or meaning to ask. I didn't make it clear enough in my first try, and that is my fault. I wasn't asking whether it was possible that you could be mistaken about being *permanently* enlightened, I was asking whether it was possible that you could be mistaken about being enlight- ened, period. Are you willing to stand on "Nope?"
