--- In [email protected], tartbrain <no_reply@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "whynotnow7" <whynotnow7@> wrote: > > > > > > > > How do you know what someone in CC, GC, or UC perceives, or > > > > doesn't? > > > > > > Same way I know what anyone does, by what they express. > > > > And the language they use to express it. If, for example, > > someone claimed to be enlightened and *consistently*, over > > a period of years, demonstrated 1) heavy attachment, and > > an inability to keep from lashing out angrily at those > > who don't believe his or her claims of enlightenment, and > > 2) even heavier elitism, and a tendency to consider him/ > > herself "more evolved" than others, I might not know what > > exactly they were perceiving, but I sure know that I > > neither value it nor want it. > > Funny that there is all of this fighting about a field of pure joy.
A few years back some "spiritual" folks in Boulder put together a bunch of seminars that they called "Holy Man Jams." What they'd do is invite noted spiritual teachers -- many of whom had declared themselves to be enlightened -- to appear on the same stage, each of them having twenty minutes or so to do their thing, no one receiving any "higher billing" than anyone else. The most fascinating thing about this noble exper- iment is that literally every session devolved into intense and often emotional argument. The first guy or gal would speak and then all of the subsequent speakers would spend most of their time trying to refute or rebut the previous speakers. A fistfight actually broke out onstage in one session, which had been pre-billed as "everyone in this session is enlightened, at least according to them." I am merely noting as a parallel that if the people on this forum who have claimed to be enlightened really are enlightened, I don't want it. And I don't think I'm alone in this.
