--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > Was in a rush before; want to add a couple things: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> > wrote: > > > <snip> > > > > *Without a doubt*, these people's enlightenment was > > > > self-evident to them. There was no question in their > > > > minds that it existed. But did it? > > > > > > I have no idea. Do you? > > > > Not a clue. > > > > > > I'm just sayin' that there is a big "red flag" > > > > raised for me when someone believes one of their > > > > "stories" so completely > > > > > > And Jim was just sayin' that the nature of > > > enlightenment is such that it falls outside the > > > category of "stories," something of which you're > > > apparently not aware. > > > > And I *understand* that some people believe this. > > I do not. Neither do spiritual traditions such > > as the Tibetan one Vaj mentioned. > > > > I am a strong believer in enlightenment, and I > > believe that the experience of it should be under > > exactly the same scrutiny and subject to the same > > analysis as any other experience, if not more. It > > isn't "exempt." > > > What basis do you have for believing that Rory and I see it any > other way? Is it because of what Vaj said? And why do you believe > Vaj more than you believe either of us?
What's particularly interesting is that Vaj claimed the test for enlightenment was whether the person could do certain siddhis. Barry, of course, has always insisted that the ability to do siddhis doesn't have anything to do with enlightenment. So if he's going by what Vaj says in this case, I guess it's just another one of those contradictions that show how spiritually advanced he is.
