--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" <anartaxius@...> wrote: > > --- 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. > > > [to Dr Dumbass] Not what I meant by "scheme." I meant something like > > Maharishi's "Seven States of Consciousness"--an outline, format, a > > schedule, a list of "symptoms." > > First-person ontology is the thing that enlightenment gets rid of
I question this and every other statement you've made in this post that you apply across the board, as opposed to describing your own experience. , one ends up with a unity-centric ontology, the basic progression is that the mind's focus on individuality shifts to universality, and the ego is left without a job. The ego is why a person fears death. It's a fiction that conveniently wraps around various processes going on in experience, but it dies with great difficulty for most. > > Conventionally we still use nomenclature when we converse with other bodies > because it simplifies communication to say 'yours', 'mine', 'me', 'I', etc., > when transferring information between minds. As we start out, everyone has a > personal ontology experience, so what is unique about what everyone has? It's > like different coloured coffee cups, that are otherwise all the same. > > The basic scheme of enlightenment is 'me' progressing to 'everything all > together'. The details in between I think are pretty much as you surmise - > different people experience the letting go of intitial state of spiritual > progress differently, though there seem to be some basic commonalities. > > In attempting to 'harmonise' various traditions, I would say the common > states described would correspond to M's WC, CC, and UC/BC. Traditions with > meditation might add TC, although some, perhaps those meditating with > mindfulness kinds of meditation, may not experience TC at all because that > meditation is really aimed at UC (which is probably why many find it more > difficult than TM). > > Mindfulness meditators may become aware at some point they are in a state > that is with TM called CC; in other words, TC is not necessarily described as > the goal, since in this meditation, you just sit there silently, which is how > meditation functions in unity, there not being an inward and outward stroke. > As far as I am aware, TM is not necessarily superior to these other methods > as far as the final result; more important may be how much you want the final > result. GC is more interesting as some traditions would consider the refined > visions of GC as just sensory illusions, which then dissipate when unity > dawns. > > The greatest difficulty I have heard people mention when talking of their > experience outside of the TM movement is the loss of the sense of small self, > or ego. Some people simply chicken out when they see that enlightenment is > not about personal ontology. If they manage to chicken out prior to a very > clear awakening, they might be able to go back to being the fake person they > were before without much difficulty. People with a strong ego-structured mind > might have the most resistance to this process of 'enlightenment'. Some > people become frightened, really frightened. They have so much invested in > 'who they are'. > > Enlightenment is not about your specialness in any way other than the > capacity to be enlightened, so when you reach that threshold where you can go > either way, you can either be a coward, or accept the fact you are going to > die before your physical death. If the awakening is clear enough you do not > get to go back, and any remaining issues you have you just have to hack > through them, which really means they hack through the fictional 'you' until > that 'you' is basically history. This is not necessarily pleasant. > > I think you are correct in assuming that the progression of experience is > highly variable depending on the starting point and the 'karma' of the > person, the history associated with an individual body. Some never make it; > some breeze through without a hitch or any seeming progression (a very small > number), and everyone else is in between somewhere. > > I suppose if you had a map of what might happen, it might be like a map of > the United States with New York on one side, and San Francisco on the other, > and some vague change of colour in between annotated with blurry text that > cannot be read clearly. > > You follow the map, thinking you are going to reach, say, San Francisco from > New York. Some of that indistinct stuff in the middle of the map might happen > or not. You might get upset that you cannot find your way. In the end, you > find you were tricked. You never left New York, but now 'you' have a > completely different perspective on life, the consciousness no longer > identifies with the personal 'me' shtick process running in the mind and the > mind itself somehow acquiesces this state of affairs, so it does not matter. > And this explanation is a big, big lie. But it might serve. >
