--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <jflanegi@> > wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Gillam" > > <jpgillam@> wrote: > > > --- jim_flanegin wrote: > > > > --- Rick Archer wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Seems to me that enlightenment is a matter of seeing > > > > > things clearly. It doesn't mean you're Superman. > > > > > > > > > That's as good and elegant a definition as I've heard-- seeing > > > > things clearly. Plain and simple. > > This is very much in line with the Buddhist approach > to enlightenment. One "definition" I've heard from > Buddhist teachers of the state is, "Enlightenment is > perception without mental modification." > > *Any* mental modification. I think that one of the > things that "rings false" in some people's reported > experiences of enlightenment is that they attempt > to make the experiences "fit into" the descriptions > of such experiences they have been fed by their > tradition. They *color* the stories of their own > personal experiences in such a way that they seem > to be more in line with what other members of the > organization were told about what such experiences > "should" be like. Or -- another common phenomenon -- > they describe their experiences such that it appears > they fall into one of the pat descriptions of *stages* > of enlightenment -- CC, GC, UC, BC, or whatever the > various "flavors" of experiences are labeled by their > tradition. > > That's one reason I find reports such as Jim's > valuable. He rarely, if ever, tries to do this. > He just talks about what he experiences, without > trying to "color" it or define it in any way *as* > anything; they're just his stories of "what is," > for him. > > > > To bring up Suzanne Segal again, that's an admonition she > > > hammered toward the end of her book -- "seeing things > > > as they really are." But she never elaborated on it. > > > > > > Sometimes I think the work of Byron Katie is geared toward > > > seeing things as they really are, unencumbered by > > > preconceptions or fears. Maybe that's one explanation. > > Preconceptions are always just that -- pre-conceptions. > They're what one expects the baby to look like and > be like before any actual screwing has taken place. :-) > > When the baby actually *is* conceived and pops out, > it doesn't necessarily look like or act like what > was expected. And that's Ok. But some "parents" have > a tendency to try to *make* it into what they expected. > The kid's playing in the sandbox, clearly blissed out > drawing in the sand, enjoying being an artist, and > the "parents" are already planning its career as a > lawyer, because they were told that all enlightenment > babies are lawyers. :-) :-) :-) > > Back in Fiuggi, I knew about half a dozen folks who > were having flashes of awakening. At first they were > quite happy describing them *as they were*, as 24/7 > transcendence, along with whatever else was going on > in the "foreground" of life. Then Maharishi gave a > lecture in which he suggested that one of the > qualities of CC was "X." Within days, all of these > people were talking about "X." No one had ever > mentioned "X" before, or seemingly even thought > about "X" before, but the moment it was an *expected* > component of CC, they added it to their stories of > their own personal experiences. > > In other words, in my opinion, not being stabilized > in their experience, they were attempting to *color* > it and *make them into* what such experiences were > "supposed" to be like. What was obvious from my > point of view was that the joy had gone out of their > stories. Before this event, when these people had > been talking about "what was" for them, you could > *feel* the energy behind their words, the sense of > newness and excitement that they were feeling. The > moment they switched to telling stories about what > they were "supposed" to be experiencing, all of > that joy went out of the words. It was just people > telling stories that had been told to them. >
It's interesting to hear that the power of persuasion might be at work here, as I had a series of experiences early on in my "career" that showed me a text book step-by-step evolution, clearly deliniated states of higher awareness from cc all the way to unity, it was amazingly convincing and very obviously a real physical state my brain was slipping into. But I had read a book about TM and asked many questions on courses. Can our expectations (not that I felt I was having any, I've always felt very innocent with the technique) influence the states this easily? This would be a fascinating area of study I think. What really impressed me about the teachings is an experience of the veda I had once, very powerful and definately real as I couldn't have imagined it if I'd tried. The thing is, the only veda I knew of at the time was Darth, as it was four years before I heard about it on a course and was told we could actually hear it in certain states. ------------------------ 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/
