--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@... <no_reply@...> wrote: > > Yeah, that's what I meant too. It makes perfect sense after the > fact, but as a map, it sucks, big time.
That isn't what I'm saying either. Never mind. > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > I agree. If a person schemes to become enlightened > > > > Not what I meant by "scheme." I meant something like > > Maharishi's "Seven States of Consciousness"--an outline, > > a format, a schedule, a list of "symptoms." > > > > > > > > > > >, the very best that they can do is exhaust themselves, which oddly enough > > >is how awakening happens. So, yes, there never has and never will be a > > >process followed that results in liberation. The wraiths on the MUM campus > > >prove that. > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
