--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter Sutphen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > --- Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 18, 2005, at 10:03 AM, jyouells2000 wrote: > > > > > Agreed 'sign's of awakening' can only be self > > reported. The difference > > > between nearly infinite and infinite is infinite. > > It's a catagory > > > difference. Once it is clearly known that > > unbounded is not a 'really > > > big space', and that eternal is not a 'really long > > time' the whole > > > idea of relative signs falls apart... > > > > In many traditions one checks ones View, their inner > > experience and POV > > with a teacher who's 'been there, done that'. I > > can't tell you how many > > people I've met who thought they were enlightened > > after a certain > > experience or shift in awareness. In every case the > > experience was a > > symptom of some part of awakening or some aspect of > > the Path. In the > > first part of my training a portion was on people > > who will report > > instances of enlightenment after practicing certain > > practices, so there > > is a practical literature out there on this very > > topic, it's just not > > generally discussed outside the tradition (let alone > > on email lists). > > > > -V. > > Yes, what is usually discussed on an e-mail list are > peoples' mental models of enlightenment and how wrong > you are if you don't express your experience of > enlightenment within the confines of my mental model.
Thats among the reasons I find the use of the label of "enlightenment" counter productive if not meaningless. It appears to me that there are a variety of experience, the variety driven probably by different nervous sytems, different practices, different starting points etc. Discussion of experiences can be useful in clarifying whats happening. Discussion of what the arbitrary labels of A & E do or do not mean seems less useful Why people cling to using A&E labels continues to baffle me. As Vaj has pointed out in several recent posts, or my take on them, is that there is always more stuff to unfold, more stuff to dissolve or integrate. To draw a discrete line and say all of this is pre-enlightenment and all of that is post enlightenment seems silly and as you point out triggers a lot of silly discussion. However, I am open to the possibility that some actually find real value in using lsuch A & E labels, categorizations and differentiations (us and them). What puzzles me is why those that use such labels don't appear to be able to define them well. I applaud you (Peter) for your definition the other day: CC is "baby" awakening. Cessation of identification of consciousness with mind. End of "I" and "me". However, for me that definition raise the question: Is this both a necessary and sufficient condition for enlightenment, per your POV? Same question to Vaj (and for all of the following questions) >From your conceptual framework of defining what enlightenment means to you, you appear to find this a necessary feature / "experience" / fundamental shift. If there is not cessation of identification of consciousness with mind --end of "I" and "me", there is never anything that could be called enlightenmet, in your view. Is that correct? The larger question is whether "just" having cessation of identification of consciousness with mind -- end of "I" and "me" is singularly sufficient for you to use the label enlightened for yourself or others? Or are there other necessary features / attributes experience that are necessary for the enlightenment label? I have no A & E conceptual models and thus am not trying to fit any experience into any conceptual model. Nor am I personally seeking to conceptual posit what enlightenment is. Like I say, for me, its a bogus concept. But since others find value in the term, and use it, it facilitates communication to cleary define terms, particularly one that has such a wide range of possible connotations. That said, cessation of identification of consciousness with mind -- end of "I" and "me" -- appears to me experientially to be a weak form or preliminary sort of experience. But if state is what is meant by A & E, it would explain or give mor credence to the often banter claim that so many are popping into A & E. So again, is cessation of identification of consciousness with mind -- end of "I" and "me" both a necessary and sufficient condition for enlightenment and or awakening per your POV? This question is directed specifically to Peter and Vaj, and Tom if he is around, and certainly all others who which to contribute. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
