Still being one of those "waking state" seekers of "enlightenment" myself, I would agree that I might be defensively attached to a particular and no doubt limiting view and understandings of it. However it does seem that people with "experiences" of enlightenment in this forum, and more generally outside it, seem themselves also "attached" to explanations or descriptions that don't correlate much between eachother. For instance you have MMY followers using typical TMO lingo, versus Buddhists finding no God or Self in enlightenment as gainst Christian mystics whose expositions have another character altogether. Could it be, I wonder sometimes, that enlightenment is a real phenomenon but idiosyncratic, depending on brain chemistry on one hand and cultural heritage on the other, and there is no way of establishing the "superiority" of one claim against another; also that we are dealing here ultimately with purely "subjective" experiences and accounts, however lofty, sacred, universal etc one might experience them as being "ultimate reality". However unlike drug-induced experiences, "enlightenment" is a natural human capacity and beneficial.
, although aware of the and yes at times --- In [email protected], Peter Sutphen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > --- shanti2218411 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > ---Actually I think your response makes my point > > since for you my > > description of my experience of unboundedbess > > changing"isn't > > really real,but really clever" while on the other > > hand I think my > > experience of unboundedness has changed in the way I > > described.However > > the way I described this change apparently doesn't > > make sense to you > > and therefore doesn't seem "real" to you.Which of > > course points out > > the difficulty if not the futility of trying to > > describe changes in > > the experience of conciousness.I think this is one > > of the reasons why > > its probably a good idea not to say too much about > > your expereinces. > > Kevin > > I see people reacting to reports of "spiritual" > experiences in two ways. The first is healthy. The > experiences inspire and can challenge the belief > systems of the listener. Discussion can lead to a much > deeper understanding of these experiences and the > nature of evolution of consciousness. An authentic > growth of understanding and insight has occurred. The > other response is purely defensive. The experiences > challenge the listeners belief system but there is so > much invested in that belief system that they reject > the experience outright. Unless experience conforms to > the waking state model of enlightenment they are > defensively attached to, it is invalid and the person > is at best delusional and at worst intentionally > sowing seeds of doubt (i.e., an agent of the "dark > forces"). These people confuse their emotional > investment in their belief system with divine > "intuition". They never question their beliefs: > they're fanatics. A possibly very dangerous place to > be. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com 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/
