--- In [email protected], Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], a_non_moose_ff > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > "HAHAHAHA. > > > > Peter, the ever extending audacity of your > > doublespeak, and that of > > your pals, never ceases to amaze me. "There > > absolutely is no ego in > > E., but there is an ego in E. ... la de dah". > > > I said that? I don't think so. >
-------------- The post you responded to yesterday 84544 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/84544 was in response to a prior post where I pointed out "unenlightened" contradictions, in various statements made by the five self-proclaimed enlightened on FFL. That text is highlighted at the end of this post as: "===== Original text Peter is Responding To ========== " And it is summarized in the following four points. The specific point at hand are Peter's often repeated claims (#1) that: 1) Peter: There is absolutley no ego or sense of individuality in enlightenment and anyone who cliams there is is not enlightened. 2) Other self-proclaimed enlightened ones: There is an ego in enlightenemt and anyone who says that there is not is insane. 3) Peter (recently): All of this is all consistent, this is just the impact of THAT on different minds. 4) Peter: And the fact that there is some personal and individual part of me that still feels insulted and gets angry at percieved slights is totally consistent with point #1. You responded by saying: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/84544 Well, Anon, the only solution is to "get" enlightened and join the fun. But in all seriousness, the difference in expressions and attitudes regarding enlightenment are just the impact of That on different "mind-streams (if I may borrow a Gangaji term). It's why there is no one spiritual tradition. There is never going to be total intellectual agreement regarding That, although That is the "same" for all. This 20 point list is just the concern of a particular mind on the impact of That on his/her mind. ----- In this response you make the argument, via reference to my post, that the directly contradictory statements about the existence of ego in enlightenemnt ("there is an ego" vs. "there is no ego") is explaned away by "difference in expressions and attitudes regarding enlightenment are just the impact of That on different "mind-streams". You have argued repeatedly and vigorously in the past, that the universally applicable definition of enlightenemnt is characterized by the sole criteria that there is absolutely no trace of ego in enlightement. And that this is your personal "experience". And that if anyone is experiencing ego, they are not enlightened. Given how emphatic your past statemenys have been per the above themed, to then state, paraphrasing "well, some may experience an ego, some may not, its all good, its all enlightenemnt, its just the impact of That on different "'mind-streams'" -- is such a contradiction or complete reversal of position that it is laughable. ===== Original text Peter is Responding To ========== --- tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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/
