An unenlightened man cuts his finger and says, "Damn, that hurts!" An enlightened man cuts his finger and says, "Damn, that hurts!"
The unenlightened man says, "I cut my finger" The enlightened man says, "I cut my finger" But their experiences are vastly different. When the unenlightened man says 'I" he's referring to a private, psychological self; his "me". This is the result of the projection/identification of consciousness with subtle aspects of the mind. When the enlightened man says, "I" he's saying that for the sake of convenience to communicate with you. He has no private "I". There certainly are thoughts and feelings, but they are not "his" thoughts and feelings. There is no "aham" or localized identification of a individual self. To even say "He is pure consciousness" would be incorrect because that presupposes an individuality that is now pure consciousness. In enlightenment that experience of localized individuality or "I-ness" or "me-ness" is not present. Thoughts and feelings are there but they don't "belong" to anybody. Like trees and the grass; they are just there. All subjective and objective experience hangs like a 2-dimensional basket "inside" of consciousness. So, does an enlightened man suffer? In that context of pure consciousness is there physical pain? Yes. In that context of pure consciousness is there emotional pain? Yes. But who "he" is can not suffer. "He" is something completely outside mind that can never be comprehended by mind. That is pure "suchness" or "thusness" (tathata). This was communicated by Buddha in his famous "Flower Sermon." As a side note, I actually find buddhist terms to offer a better conceptual tool set when discussing enlightenment than the vedic/hindu terms. They are, in my experience, more precise and capture subtleties that the vedic/hindu terms miss. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@... <no_reply@...> wrote: > > "From all of those professing enlightenment on this forum, is it possible to > suffer in the state you're in? I think so but tell me, I am very interested." > > Hi Ann. Gee, (looks around...looks around, again) I guess that's me. Do I > suffer? About two years ago, I was cutting a piece of wood in my shed, and > the blade slipped and cut my left index finger deeply. Immediately > afterwards, I had the presence of mind to be aware my body was in shock and > therefore not registering pain, which allowed me during that 15 minute > window, to both clean the wound thoroughly, and dress it properly, before the > pain set in. That, and a number of other examples, large and small, stand as > a good analogy to living an enlightened existence. > > Life still happens, even more vigorously than before, and yet, there is a > general abiding, an acceptance of whatever comes, and a reassurance that life > is exactly what I make of it. There ceases to be any separation between me > and the life I live. So any pain can be either avoided, or greatly minimized. > > There is an apparent transition that occurs with spiritual liberation, or > enlightenment. The transition looks like a transition from surrender, to > becoming highly independent. What is hidden is the surrender, inherent in the > independence. Just like being a student of anything else, I get the > increasing freedom, if I continue to play by the rules. > > Because life is then lived on a background of increasing freedom, in every > domain, suffering just doesn't come up in the same context as it used to. > What I mean is that anything causing me physical or mental pain used to hurt > a lot more. Like being touched on an already sunburned patch of skin. That is > gone now, healed. > > So even though anyone who is enlightened continues to be human, and feels > pain, in terms of the chronic, overshadowing implications of the word, > "suffering", that is no longer there, past, present, or future. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann" <awoelflebater@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" <jr_esq@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula <chivukula.ravi@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Well dear Judy - good to know he wasn't suffering for me, 'cause > > > > > that's pretty insulting. But Amma is suffering for you and even if > > > > > you don't believe in her, her grace and compassion is with you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If Amma is enlightened she is not suffering. Like Jesus, according to > > > > Maharishi, Jesus didn't even suffer at the cross. > > > > > > > > > From another group, someone said that crucifixion causes vagal > > > stimulation which produces hallucination equivalent to an LSD trip. But > > > IMO, Jesus chose to suffer and die to fulfill his mission. > > > > From all of those professing enlightenment on this forum, is it possible to > > suffer in the state you're in? I think so but tell me, I am very interested. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This should set the record straight about what Maharishi thinks of > > > > suffering: > > > > > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyPJaxF1S4w > > > > > > > > "Suffering is foreign to man's nature - suffering is foreign to nature. > > > > That's all" > > > > > > > > > >
