Skunk button pushing comments snipped for brevity. Comment below

Alex writes:
> Is it your belief that an enlightened person no longer has an ego or
> conditioned mind?
Akasha/Anon writes:
I think the term "enlightenment" is a label, that serves little
positive purpose -- and its use has many downsides. Its quite clear
that various people define the term in quite different ways -- those
from different "traditions" and even those proclaiming to be living
the label. Just today's post illustrates such. 

Both Jim and Peter claim enlightenment and yet quite sharply disagree
on the 20 point list of attributes posted yesterday.  

Another example of the self-proclaimed enlightened and various
traditions not agreeing on what the term refers to is your question
about ego. Your premise, it appears is that there is a ego in
enlightenment. Peter vigorously and abundantly disagrees -- stated
emphatically that he has searched everywhere no ego can be found --
and it is on this single criteria that he claims enlightenment. 

(Though ironically, thre is some "individuality" in the "peter-sphere"
that regularly feels insulted. And also which gets "bent out of shape"
and lashes out in anger.) 

And M Godman, who also claims enlightenment, states emphatically, and
with even more words than Peter, that there indeed is an ego in
enlightenment, but it no longer "rules" like it does pre-enlightnment
-- it becomes subordinate to the Self. 

Jim, who claims the same enlightenemnt claims anyone who thinks there
is no ego in enlightenment is insane.

And I assume, corrections welcome, that the premise of your question
stems from the view of Waking Down that there is an ego (and
conditioned mind) in enlightnement. 

Rory, who claims enlightenment, has even gone as far as to say that he
simple made up his own criteria for enlightenement, then "realized" 
that whcih he defined, and then started using the title "enlightenment
-- even though his definition was his own and neither a "traditional"
one nor the TMO one.

And Tom T, who claims enlightenment, says there are milions of
diferent types of enlightenemnt, or flavors as he calls them. 

Further Peter, again -- just today -- refers to cc as "baby
realization" or baby enlightenment. Yet, if you refer to the archives,
you will find a post from Tom where he "ranted" on and on (IMO) in a
long post why calling cc as "baby" anything was paraphrasing, stupid,
insane and agenda laden. 

Off cites MMY recently as saying enlightenment is 24 hour bliss.
Peter, greatly discounts bliss, repeatedly stating that "bliss is dumb". 

My own experience of bliss-saturated states in activity is that anger,
ego-driven activities, and glomminess (a fairly regular quality of
Tom's posts) cannot be found -- and are found "impossible" to arise. 
Whatever that state is, and/or MMY's  "24-hour bliss" enlightenment,
clearly they have little to do with Peter's and Tom's experience with
whatever they experience and label as "enlightenment" (experience used
in broad sense of ' experiencing a state of consciousness' not like 'I
experience the flower').

So hopefully you share some the the difficulty I have with the  use of
the label "enlightenment". And also the phenomenon of
self-proclamation of self-defined enlightenment.

My original comments, abve, on Tom's post are part of my periodic
laughter at the ironies, paradoxes and/or inconsistencies sxpressed by
 so-called self-proclaimed enlightened. Tom proclaims that it is
solely Brahman  who seees through Tom's eyes and types throuhg Tom's
fingers. So when Tom regularly lasses out in (IMO) appears as gloom,
anger, and silly reasoning, it makes me laugh. Similar to my laughter
when Peter claims "absolutely no ego exists" yet feels deeply insulted
at times. And my laughter at the band of self-proclaimed enlightened
as they stumble over themselves in expressing contractiory attributes
of the assumed (by the casual reader) commonality of the label
"enlightenment" (when in fact they are each defining the state in
different ways.)

Tom T:
Have your ever heard of the Paradox of Brahman? Is it possible that
this conundrum is something the mind can not fathom. Or is it Jaimini?
Hmmmm!
Enjoy! Tom T








------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing
http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/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/
 



Reply via email to