--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Jason" <jedi_spock@...> wrote: > > > > > > --- "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > > > > Robin claims enlightenment *in the past*, decades ago. > > > > > > --- iranitea <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > Enlightenment is always *in the present*, never in the past.
(Just for the record, iranitea's reply is meaningless in the context of what he was commenting on. He knows that but was just trying to be clever.) > --- "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > Robin does not claim to be enlightened in the present. > > Which means he was never enlightened in the past. Maybe, maybe not. > Please note, he also claimed that Khomeni was enlightened. Um, yes, did you think I wasn't aware of this? > He even seemed to imply that his E was hindu type and > Khomeni's E was islamic type. Sort of, yes. Different religious contexts. And...? You know, it's just so *foolish* for anyone here to try to discern what it was that happened to Robin some 36 years ago. It's foolish *in general* for any of us to try to determine another person's state of consciousness. We just are not in a position to know when the only actual *data* we have are what the person him/herself says about his/her subjective experience. And it's even more of a limitation when that data is in the form of words on a monitor screen, rather than a "live" encounter with the person himself. What is truly ludicrous--infantile, in fact, not to mention obnoxious--is to argue with or even *attack* a person for describing his subjective experience as enlightenment, as if you could possibly know more about the nature of what he experienced than he does on the basis of your book-larnin' (or even your own experiences). Jason, you said in your post to Emily that you were just trying to be "objective." Well, you really can't *be* objective about another person's *subjective* state. Seems to me the appropriate stance toward a person who has made a claim of enlightenment, currently or in the past, is a neutral one, without judgment one way or the other. Just accept what the person says for what it is, asking questions if what the person says is unclear. Don't try to stuff them into some box to fit *your* understanding of what enlightenment is and isn't, no matter how many ancient texts you've studied. And don't sell the universe--nature--short. There's more than one way to skin a cat, more ways than any of us are able to imagine. I would go so far as to say that no two individuals have ever developed enlightenment the same way, or experienced it the same way once it was developed. Enlightenment just isn't *conceptual*.
