MZ, I enjoyed this question of yours. You said (with my edit), "Try this thought experiment: if you had never heard of enlightenment: it was a concept about which you were entirely ignorant (you didn't know of its existence, either in your vocabulary or in your experience), and you were describing what it was like... would you be forced tovirginally, innocentlydescribe, and thus discover, the necessity of, the reality of enlightenment (as classically delineated in your own scriptures)? Would, then, enlightenment, as a concept, as an empirical description of a certain style of functioning of your consciousness and your self, be required in order for you to 1. explain your experience to yourself; 2. explain your experience to others?"
And the answer is no. The whole enlightenment thing and interest in it comes from us being within a generation who moved from god knows what into an exploration of consciousness, ideally resulting in some sort of stability, understanding and peace. However, the generation now in their 20's knows nothing about enlightenment, has little interest in meditation, and yet comfortably lives in the moment. Many of then fit many attributes of being self-realized, and yet there is interest in all of the paths our generation took to get there. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra <no_reply@...> wrote: > > RESPONSE: Ah, those Vedic gods that I thought I had exorcized from my > consciousness, they have returned to tempt me. As in: we can (through our > good friend Ravi Yogi) draw you back into your metaphysical theatre by an > outrageous and manic putdown of your so-called enlightenment (Unity > Consciousness). > > We (we Vedic gods) through the instrumentality of RY will draw you [MZ] back > into Unity Consciousness where you would, almost involuntarily, begin > confronting whatever was resisting reality. There's Phantom Limb Syndrome, > where a person continues to feel the sensation of flesh and bone where now > there is nothing, because the limb has been amputated. I have now discovered > Phantom Enlightenment Syndrome, where in the provocative presence of someone > 'going off' on my enlightenment, the old context of cosmic theatre renews its > angelic presence and vitalityand thus the apparent resurrection of > enlightenment (the latter an essential given in order to precipitate the > dynamic process of metaphysical confrontation). Even after my claim of having > amputated my enlightenment. > > But I mustn't go for the bait, right Ravi?even as you had no idea you were > doing this. > > Try this thought experiment: if you had never heard of enlightenment: it was > a concept about which you were entirely ignorant (you didn't know of its > existence, either in your vocabulary or in your experience), and you were > describing what it was like to be Ravi Yogi RIGHT NOW, would you be forced > tovirginally, innocentlydescribe, and thus discover, the necessity of, the > reality of enlightenment (as classically delineated in your own scriptures)? > Would, then, enlightenment, as a concept, as an empirical description of a > certain style of functioning of your consciousness and your self, be required > in order for you to 1. explain your experience to yourself; 2. explain your > experience to others? <snip>
