--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 <no_re...@...> wrote: > > in my own practice, for example, i have found that real guru/God > (dess) devotion has furthered my progress in a way that the basic > knowledge i first gained from the TMO never could. > > this devotional learning and experience though, instead of being a > contradiction of my earlier learning, has instead revealed a > fullness and liveliness to the basic teaching that the Maharishi > brought out, and completed an experiential understanding of > enlightenment, that continues to grow, and grow and grow. and > given the limitless experience of enlightenment, i don't see or > concieve of any end in sight.
Ah. I've been waiting for this. The first overt claim of enlightenment: "furthered my progress...and completed an experiential understanding of enlightenment..." Y'know, Dawn...even though he was "before your time" here on FFL, you should really spend some time looking into the history of another poster here named Jim Flanegin. He, too felt that he had gained an "exper- iental understanding of enlightenment." The problem was in how he *demonstrated* that enlightenment, or understanding of it. He chose to do it by adopting a completely experiential "definition" of enlightenment (basically, "I say that I am enlightened, therefore anything I do is enlightenment"), an anti-intellectual, my-experience-is-the- definition approach to all things related to enlightenment and meditation, and a tendency to demonstrate higher powers such as being able to reincarnate as different beings, without having to die first to do it. At the same time, he demonstrated an inability to either (pick one) count to 50, or control his outbursts to stay within the posting limit. He demonstrated a fast-and-loose relationship with facts of any kind, attributing quotes to historical figures that they not only never said, but which were antithetical to their philosophies and actual teachings. He also tended to display the opposite of the compassion that many traditions present as one of the attri- butes of enlightenment, consistently insulting other posters here and calling them names. After "demonstrating" his awesome powers of reincarn- ation and being busted on having faked it, he refused to ever admit that he had done it, even while occasionally posting things under the fake "new incarnation" ID that still carried his real name, or otherwise demonstrating that the "new person" wasn't quite as "new" as presented. In other words, he was a lot like you, Dawn. I know that you're just a gal speaking your mind, but what can you offer us that would help us to *believe* your claim of having attained an "experiential understanding of enlightenment?" Can you do better than Jim did? And if not, how does that support your contention that the experience of enlightenment is "limitless," that it continues to "grow and grow and grow," and that there is "no end in sight." In all honesty, all I've seen in your posts so far is a rehash of the same stuff that Jim Flanegin used to spout here. Same old same old. And frankly, a lot of us have been there, done that with that approach, and we're hoping for a new spin on things, or maybe a new approach to "being enlightened in cyberspace." Now that you've come out as someone who could possibly do that, what can you show us that is *different* than what has been "shown us" before on this forum by supposedly enlightened beings like Jim or Rory? I think a lot of people here saw their "present- ations of enlightenment" as fairly deluded and ego-based, although, to be honest, they might not have been. You are a newcomer, and now that you've "outed yourself" as having attained an "experiential understanding of enlightenment," we're looking forward to how YOU "demo" it. The ball's in your court. Swing away.
