--- In [email protected], "Marek Reavis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Comment below: > > ** > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "jim_flanegin" <jflanegi@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > I sure did. As a result, I find it difficult > > > > to think of the periods of so-called unenlight- > > > > enment as "unreal." They were just as real as > > > > the periods of enlightenment. > > > > > > "Periods of enlightenment"? Is your Self realization > > > transient; it comes and goes? > > > > Well, duh. Someone wasn't paying attention > > in class. :-) > > > > I've been saying this since I first arrived > > on this group. It comes, it goes. Big deal. > > The periods of realization are, to me, no > > more interesting than the perids of non- > > realization. > > > > I really *don't* think hierarchically. > > > **end** > > This is a great subject (or so I feel). My experience * (and general attitude) mirrors Barry's. Don't claim to > be Awake, but can't figure out how I'm not.
Well said. LOL. > In my life there have been enlightenment episodes > (an interesting paradox in itself) that have grounded > me in an unshakeable conviction re the Reality of Self > as I first learned of it from Maharishi, and articulated > by others, and in the wisdom traditions, and in my > experience. 'Being' is just fine; I am never not; and > I feel that if anyone here on this forum would look into > it they would be hard pressed to deny that for themselves, > as well. For myself it feels like it did when I was a > little kid, even before I learned to talk. > > Nisargadatta posits the inquiry as (paraphrased): Were > *you* born, or was the body born (in consciousness)? > And: Who were you before this identity (the name and > the form) was given to you (and drew your attention > to it)? > > I might differ from Barry's position in that, if this > isn't being Awake, I'm totally stoked about what That is. My stokedness is the same for the periods of enlightenment and for the periods of non- enlightenment...ça m'est égal. > So, in that sense, I do place a value on the state of > enlightenment as opposed to ignorance of It. I really don't. I have lived with this flip-flop since 1972. There really doesn't appear to be a hierarchical "higher" or "lower" to either the flip or the flop that I can identify. It's all just what is going on at the time. > But then again, it all seems to be good and as it should > be, so maybe we're not so far apart on this subject as > it might seem. Yup. > And certainly, within Totality, how can there be hierarchy? That's what I keep wondering. And yet, so *many* spiritual traditions that teach Unity *at the same time* teach hierarchy. Enlightened is "better" than un. The point of view of someone in a supposedly enlight- ened state of mind is "better" than the point of view of someon in an unenlightened state of mind. The latter is "illusion" or "unreal." Get real. They're all states of mind.
