Over the years I've been on this forum, I have gradually ceased to believe that there is a universally applicable scheme for the development of enlightenment, such that if someone doesn't have *this* experience or does have *that* experience, it means they are (or are not) enlightened.
Some experiences (or lack of same) may be more common than others, but you can't make absolute, across-the-board "rules" that apply to all individuals without exception, any more than you can do it with the experience of falling in love. The uniqueness of first-person ontology remains just that. My opinion, anyway. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@... <no_reply@...> wrote: > > Actually it is true, or at least I have verified it for myself, that pure > awareness cannot be destroyed (muddied?) after it is established - Believe > me, I have tried, diligently!! > > The very curious thing, though, is that someone can have a lot of pure > awareness established, and yet, until they wake up from their dream of > ego-bound identity, and surrender completely, the pure awareness stays > largely hidden from view. I look at it as God's game of, "I'll show you mine, > if you show me yours. You go first." > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > cardemaister wrote: > > > > > As per yoga-suutras, when one "reaches" enlightenment (kaivalya), > > > the guNa-s become > > > > > > puruSaartha-shuunya. AFAIK, there's no force or power in the > > > universe that could reverse that process... > > > > That's the standard belief, yes. Maybe it's not correct? > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, iranitea <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > > > > Robin claims enlightenment *in the past*, decades ago. > > > > > > Enlightenment is always *in the present*, never in the past. > > > > Robin does not claim to be enlightened in the present. > > >
