---No - that's only the Neo-Advaitin state of non-duality, not Enlightenment. There's a big gulf between the Neo-Advaitin state as described below (and exhibited by numerous Neo-Advaitins giving a similar description of non-duality); and Enlightenment as demonstrated by Sakyamuni Buddha, Ramana Maharshi, and Guru Dev. In short, although Enlightenment is non-dual, not all "conditions" of non-duality are demonstrations of Enlightenment.
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 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. > Also a subjective sense that I am always centered, in the precise > center of my world. 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... 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). > > That's all I can think of for the moment. Do you agree with this > definition? > > > > > > > 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? 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? 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. 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. >
