On Jun 2, 2006, at 9:04 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:
> I think the secret of why "sages" would propose a
> "definition" even while admitting that one cannot
> be given is pretty simple: they wish to be considered
> the "experts," the "authority" in such matters.
>
> Throughout history, the enlightened have tended to
> give non-definitions such as the one you quote above,
> stating the impossibility of the task. In my exper-
> ience, whether they *then* go on to violate that state-
> ment and propose a definition has a lot to do with
> their position in the society of the time, and whether
> they have a position and an income to protect. If they
> do, well duh...it is in their interest to 1) set them-
> selves up as the arbiters of "what is enlightened and
> what is not" (only a Jivanmukta can recognize a Jivan-
> mukta") and 2) come up with "definitions" that
> define *themselves* as individual who, *by definition*
> are "perfect," free from "weaknesseses and
> limitations," "omniscient," etc.
>
> In other words, I think it's wise to look into what
> the author of any definition of enlightenment was
> selling before considering it definitive.
>
Sivananda's descriptions are basically textual and traditional. I did
not see anything particularly original other than that it was him
giving it in his own wording.
To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Or go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'
SPONSORED LINKS
| Religion and spirituality | Maharishi mahesh yogi |
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
