--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <no_reply@> > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <sparaig@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > MMY defines fully mature Unity as ability to perform all sidhis > > without benefit of practicing > > > a sutra. I don't believe anyone is in that state today, if ever > > there was someone. > > > > > > That is one of my points. And there is a long thread on this about > a > > month ago. As some (Judy, for example) pointed out,and I agree, its > > virtually a truism that to claim MMY/TMO style of enlightenment, > one > > needs to fulfill TMO/MMY" criteria. Its so obvious, its hard to > > believe that some dispute this almost "identity" statement, > like "A=A". > > You must have forgotten my assertion that there is no such thing > as "MMY/TMO style of enlightenment". > > Following the logic you are using, SSRS must have achieved SSRS > style enlightenment, Mother Meera must have achieved Mother Meera > style enlightenment, Amma must have achieved Amma style > enlightenment, Maharishi must have achieved Maharishi style > enlightenment, and finally Guru Dev must have achieved Guru Dev > style enlightenment. > > Continuing with your logic, each of these saints' respective > enlightenments has its exclusive criteria, not shared by any other > saint's style of enlightenment. In no case is there a one-to-one > correspondence of criteria between say, one saint's enlightenment, > and that of another. > > No saint would be able to ever acknowledge a fellow saint's state of > consciousness as enlightened, because according to your logic, there > are not any substantial commonalities between one saint's style of > enlightenment and another saint's style of enlightenment. > > So again, I reject your notion that there is such a thing as a > MMY/TMO style of enlightenment. It is enlightenment, pure and > simple. Whether it is Maharishi, or SSRS, or Mother Meera, or Amma, > or Guru Dev, it is just pure and simple enlightenment.
I'm certainly no great scholar of enlightenment traditions, but my take on this is that there's a fundamental quality of awakening, common to all awakening traditions, in the recognition of "I AM THAT" on the level of pure awareness. It's a shift away from being solely identified with the individuated, dual mind/body. However, there are also various qualities that have shown up in the awakened/enlightened, and those qualities then got tacked on to the definition of enlightenment. Examples of those qualities are things like witnessing 24/7, perfected siddhis, saintly purity, small self completely disappearing, etc. IMO, all these arguments about who is or isn't enlightened derive from enlightenment not being universally defined. In my case, I've had that fundamental shift in identity, but I don't qualify as enlightened according to the criteria of many traditions. That's why I never claim anything more than a Waking Down second birth awakening, which, by the way, is different than other flavors of awakening in that it's an embodied awakening. It's not a purely nondual, transcendence-focussed, disregard the relative kind of awakening. In Waking Down, you awaken very deeply to who you are as a limited, dual being in addition to who you are as consciousness. 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/