yeah, I don't really write speculatively, so yeah, based on my experience. Some people interpret stuff differently. Fine with me. I think you hit on something when you mention having given up context when you gave up Enlightenment. There is something to that, in that I must hold and identify an "I am enlightened" thought in order to validate the state. On the other hand I find the experiential reality of being self realized, enlightened, is that there is maybe ten percent of the volume of thoughts in the mind as before. (That, in and of itself, is a huge relief and burden lifted.) Not as much junk mail - lol.
So whatever it is called or not called, enlightenment or something else, it can only claim its identity with us when we think it, and since my thoughts are much less, I don't think about enlightenment or self realization much at all. It is either there or not, doesn't matter which. --- In [email protected], maskedzebra <no_reply@...> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "whynotnow7" <whynotnow7@> wrote: > > > > masked zebra wrote: > > RESPONSE: Not a single person in my lifetime has demonstrated > > impeccably and infallibly that such a "ground of all being" even > > exists. That is, if I am to go by his/her claim to become the embodiment > > of such an irreducible level of reality. In fact, I would go further: I > > have not observed a single person who even gives evidence that they have > > made contact with such a fundamental form of reality. > > > > **The only person who can conclusively demonstrate it is you. Even then of > > course, you can fool yourself.:-) All the teachers teach are pointers to > > self realization. No one can give that to you. I look at it as reaching a > > point of mental coordination, unifying the heart and intellect so that life > > gets smoother. So far as I can tell, that is the big super pay off to > > initial self-realization, budding enlightenment, life gets smoother. Still > > have to do the same stuff, but it is easier. As to what one book or teacher > > refers to that way of living doesn't matter. It's all based on experience > > anyway, so if you want to call it blue cheese, please do. > > > > **I like to think of it as better coordination because coordination is > > based on practice and use, vs. belief, so there is nothing to memorize or > > keep in mind. Just a matter of coordination over time. The dawning of > > self-realization is mechanical. > > > > For me the 'home of all the laws of nature' is a metaphysical fiction. > > Sure, the EXPERIENCE seems to verify this reality (via TM), but, given how > > wonderfully convincing one's initial experiences are of TM (the auguring of > > everything MMY promises), the final pay-off (nothing to show for it, an > > extraordinarily disappointing trajectory of 'progress' in one's 'evolution' > > over decades of doing TM), logically forces one to conclude: THESE > > EXPERIENCES ARE FALSE; that is, they DO NOT COINCIDE WITH REALITY. There IS > > no such thing as Enlightenment. > > > > **Enlightenment isn't an experience. There may be a noticeable transition > > to establishing that first permanent candle of silence within, but once > > established, learning and developing and changing has to continue - nothing > > to hold it back, so enlightenment doesn't really point to one experience, > > except there may be a sudden and lasting realization of that first candle > > of silence being kindled. After that, life continues like it did before. > > RESPONSE: Is all of this coming out of your own private experience, > whynotnow? If it is experimental knowledge than obviously we have a sharp > disagreement. But if it is a dogma which you are attempting to verify in your > own life by looking at your life from this perspective, then all that I can > say is: even if you achieve enlightenment, it will represent a reality that, > while as you say, is mechanically produced, nevertheless misrepresents what > reality is. Saint Francis Xavier went to India to destroy those Hindu idols. > And did all this within an undeniable supernatural grace. I have made the > empirical discoveryafter writing 11 books (while Enlightened) and conducting > countless theatrical seminars (also while enlightened) that I was profoundly > DECEIVED. And I have made it my life's ambition to eliminate the deleterious > effects of Maharishi and TM upon my mind and body. > > I sense the sincerity, clarity, and confidence in what you say in rebuttal to > what I have said. But I also sense that where I have come to know what I say > isif you will permit me to say thisa deeper place, closer to reality than > from where you are contradicting me. But who knows? You may be dead right. > > It's just that I gave up a lot to become de-enlightened (powers, abilities, > context), but I had no choice: life was punishing me for my error, the error > of Enlightenment. Because while such a state of consciousness does indeed > exist, it is createdyes, mechanicallyand sustained by mystical > intelligences (devas) which ultimately do not seek the happiness of human > beings. On the contrary. > > And I know this from direct experience. > > Thank you for your comments. It took me a while to get to them. > > > > >
