--- In [email protected], "shanti2218411" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In [email protected], Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I think it can be understood using the concept of > > dharma. Within the context of waking state there is a > > foundational dharma of individual responsibility > > because there is so clearly a phenomenological "I" > > that is "me". One engages in spiritual practices to > > "integrate being" etc., etc.. Then "something happens" > > and the Self wakes-up to what it has already been. Now > > the dharma has shifted because there is no "I" present > > and the perspectiveless perspective is quite different > > from the perspective of "I" in waking state. > > Everything just happens and it is self-evident that it > > has always occured this way. > > For me "enlightenment" can be described as a radical shift in the > functioning of the brain. Prior to enlightenment the brain created > the expereince of an individual self and then as a result of long > term meditation or some other process the brain stops creating > this expereince.
I can't agree. I don't think anything "stops." Something new is "added" (even though it was always present), that's all, and that "something new" (the 24/7 realization of Self) is inherently more "powerful" and "attractive" than the experience of self (small s). Small s self is still present, but doesn't attract the attention as much. At least that's how it appears to me. > In the absence of an expereince of an individual self there > is a state of conciousness in which there is no sense whatsoever > of "someone" doing something. If you add the word 'sometimes' to that sentence, I can agree with it. *Sometimes* there is the experience of things just doing themselves; other times the experience is, as always, of the self doing things. As before enlightenment, so after enlightenment. Wood, water, that whole chopping and carrying thang. :-) > Nonetheless doing/action goes on. This is because > the existence of the body/mind and its functions does not (in > the mature adult)depend on the experience of an individual self. > I think you can actually make a pretty good arguement that except > for the particular brain involved very little of any significance > occurs ie for the world at large when "enlightenment" takes > place. I think you could safely say that nothing whatsoever happens that affects the world when realization takes place. Before individual realization, the world is nothing but enlightenment dancing; after individual realization the world is nothing but enlightenment dancing. > IMHO the > term enlightenment would nore appropriately be used to describe > someone whose behavior reflects traits which are commonly > associated with higher human functioning eg compassion, > creativity etc.Kevin I'm more radical; I don't think the term 'enlightenment' should be used at all. It's lost any useful meaning. If one insists on using it, defining it in terms of behavior could be misleading and illusory, because all of the traits you list above can be (and have been) faked. The bottom line for me is that realization is a purely subjective experience. People seem to want to objectify it, to come up with some measuring stick for it. I don't think they'll ever find one. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
