"Enlightenment" is simply defined as life, accompanied by eternal and deep 
silence, Being, during any state of consciousness. End of story. There are no 
automatic attributes beyond that, as the universe takes care of the rest. 
Anyone can gain enlightenment, and with that, their individuality will always 
express enlightenment. To try for some sort of personal algorithm beyond that, 
is a fool's errand; better to focus on your own path, than try to come up with 
any comprehensive list of personal attributes. Silence in activity, always. 
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote :


---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <dhamiltony2k5@...> wrote :

 Defining Enlightenment, 

 Anartaxius wrote : 
 I think this brings up an interesting point. How does one define 
'enlightenment'. The most overreaching attempts include the entire universe as 
a connected unity, and that would imply simply that all that exists is what 
enlightenment is about.

 Hows about this as an alternative for the sake of discussion:

 “GURU DEV, The Unified Field, bliss of the Absolute, transcendental joy, the 
Self-Sufficient, the embodiment of pure knowledge which is beyond and above the 
universe like the sky, the aim of "Thou art That" and other such expressions 
which unfold eternal truth, the One, the Eternal, the Pure, the Immoveable, the 
Witness of all intellects, whose status transcends thought, the Transcendent 
along with the three gunas, the true preceptor, to the UNIFIED FIELD SHRI GURU 
DEV, I bow down.” 
 Sounds like a good trip but doesn't really explain anything except it terms 
that are also unexplained like "eternal truth" and "the immovable". And "pure 
knowledge" that's the oddest concept of the lot as it implies there is no added 
waffle but is in itself a bit vague. More work required. 
 The three Gunas I do understand though, that was Harry Secombe, Peter Sellers 
and Spike Milligan wasn't it? 

 There is a phrase in Zen 'walk off with the farmer's ox, steal the blind man's 
food', which is an expression of unboundedness. This is kind of how the TMO 
behaves. -Xenophaneros Anartaxius 404951
Oblivious or Willful morally unbound? Bringing in and using the TMO as an 
example may not be illustrative of the nature or nurture of spiritual 
enlightenment lived in life.  Go too far with the TMO example polluted with the 
story of many people then the conversation goes over to entertaining negativity 
and would start in to denouncing people in culture.  That goes beyond 
spirituality and enlightenment the way Fleet is clearly talking by example. 
 anartaxius@...> wrote : 
 I think this brings up an interesting point. How does one define 
'enlightenment'. The most overreaching attempts include the entire universe as 
a connected unity, and that would imply simply that all that exists is what 
enlightenment is about. If you include everything you cannot define 
enlightenment as A, B, C minus some bad parts you do not like. So if, 
simplistically the universe is A, B, C, X, Y, and Z, you have to include them 
all. There is a phrase in Zen 'walk off with the farmer's ox, steal the blind 
man's food', which is an expression of unboundedness. This is kind of how the 
TMO behaves. From my perspective, enlightenment does not have any injunctions 
on behaviour in spite of advertisements to the contrary, all enlightenment does 
is reveal the connectedness of the universe, and if you want to be a 'good 
person', first you have to define what a good person is, and then you have to 
act that way, and that is a local phenomenon, an aspect of the universe far 
reduced from the whole. You could be enlightened and a criminal. If you listen 
to Charles Manson (I saw that picture online too), while he seems sort of 
crazy, he also often expresses unboundedness in his understanding of the world.

 Religions, which presumably have some connexion with the idea of enlightenment 
have all these rules for governing behaviour, and the question one could ask 
is, if religion is so great and will straighten people out, why are these rules 
necessary? (and one could also ask why are the rules inconsistent between 
religions regarding behaviour). If you say god created the universe and the way 
it runs, then the universe is a serial killer. Like father, like son and 
daughter. Looking at religious figures, gurus, etc., one cannot conclude that 
these rules and enlightenment techniques substantially affect behaviour that we 
would call 'bad'. This issue of behaviour is one which we in civilised society 
do not seem to have much of a clue on how to solve, and all the methods we have 
invented to fix it have failed.

 How do you traverse society without leaving mangled bodies, psychologically 
damaged bodies, emotionally damaged bodies,  in your wake? There does not seem 
to be a direct connexion with seeing the world as unbounded, and acting in it 
in a bound way unless there is an internal switch that pains you if you cause 
harm. Some people do not seem to have that switch (sociopaths and psychopaths), 
or a 'damaged' switch and have reduced empathy. Some people are crushed by 
having too much empathy. If you eliminate pain and suffering from your own 
life, will you care about others if life no longer pains you? There seems to be 
a variable in all this that is not accounted for and which does not seem to be 
affected much by the things people do in the hope of gaining enlightenment.

 An example of unboundedness and unity from the Bible. Isaiah, in a literal 
translation (bolded are words in original Hebrew).

 Except for me, there is no Elohim; I am forearming you, yet you do not know 
me, That they may know, From the rising of the sun and from the west, that 
there is no one apart from me; I am Yahweh, and there is no other.  Former of 
light and creator of darkness, maker of good and creator of evil, I, Yahweh, 
make all these.

 Here you have all the darkness you would want emanating from the supposed 
source of creation (a great way to express narcissism too). There are similar 
passage in the Bhagavad-Gita. If everything, good and bad are integral in 
existence and are sourced from the same origin or have the same being, and we 
come to direct knowledge of that, what is to prevent us from being all those 
qualities that (some) people abhor?

 Light is the left hand of darkness
 and darkness the right hand of light.
 Two are one, life and death, lying
 together like lovers in kemmer,
 like hands joined together,
 like the end and the way.

                  —Ursula K. Le Guin


 From: "TurquoiseBee turquoiseb@... [FairfieldLife]" 
 To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> 
 Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 12:05 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Most Absurd Rumor
 From: "anartaxius@... [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com>
   The Zen trained Adyashanti had this to say about 'enlightenment success':

 'When I looked around at the Buddhist tradition, I realized that the success 
rate was terrible. People were in it for enlightenment, but very few were 
actually getting enlightened. If this were a business, I thought, we'd be 

 'I think it's unfortunate that a person can spend hour after hour, day after 
day, year after year, dedicating his life to enlightenment, and yet the very 
notion that anybody attains enlightenment is a taboo. We're all going after 
this; but God forbid somebody says they've realized it. We don't believe them, 
we're cynical, we have doubt; we go immediately into a semi- (or overt) attack 
mode. To me, it highlights the fact that people are chasing an awakening they 
don't believe could happen to them. 


 I've heard this rap from him before, and I think he's being simplistic. For 
example, his model doesn't work for me -- I've had enlightenment experiences, 
and the way I figure it, if I could have them, *anybody* could. So the belief 
that "it can't happen" is not in play. 


 Instead, when I object to someone's claim of being enlightened, in almost 
every case it's because THEY ARE NOT WALKING THEIR *OWN* TALK. That is, they 
are acting contrary to their *own* definitions and descriptions of what 
enlightenment is.


 That was the problem with Maharishi, it was the problem with Rama-Fred Lenz, 
and it is *certainly* the problem with low-level poseurs like Jim Flanegin or 
Robin Carlsen. All four of these people IMO suffered from long-term 
narcissistic personality disorder all their lives, and so when they had some 
*minor* experience of boundlessness or witnessing, their own self-centeredness 
and narcissism made them assume that they were "enlightened" and they began to 
claim it to other people. The "tell" that none of them were, in fact, 
enlightened is that when all of them are called upon to define what 
enlightenment is or what it means, *their own thoughts, words, and actions* 
don't fit their own definitions. 



Reply via email to