--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <jflanegi@> > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > You're enlightened, and you refuse to even *think* > > > > that you might not be. Did I get that right, Jim? > > > > > > You are missing what I and many others have already said again > > > and again here. Enlightenment is not experienced on the level > > > of thinking. It is a state of Being. This is not my original > > > expression-- All of the gurus and spiritual teachers say this > > > also. Given your background, I am surprised that you don't > > > know this yet. Your level of ignorance astounds me.:-) > > > > It's a little like accusing somebody of refusing > > even to *think* they might be dreaming rather > > than awake. When you're awake, it's self-evident > > you aren't dreaming. (Not "self-evident" meaning > > "obvious," but rather evident in terms of itself.) > > Ever heard of hallucination? Or delusion? > > Clinically deluded people see things and believe > things about their perceptions -- things that are > self-evident to them -- every day that are more > correctly categorized as dreams, or at the very > least dreamlike. > > The first step to helping these people separate > what is real in their perceptions and what is not > is getting them to do a little self inquiry, to > ask themselves if there is a *possibility* that > they are not real. Until that happens, in an > extreme case involving waking hallucinations and > delusions, no progress can be made. (Other than > with, say, drugs.)
Like in the film / book A Beautiful Mind. nash could not begin his recovery process until he accepted that his "friends" may not be real. And in a sense, that seems to be a type of mahavakaya. (Though I am sure it must only be a vakaya): Accepting, or questioning if what is "out there" -- the world and all, is real. Or if our fears or desires are real. > > Now make the mental leap to those following spiritual > paths who are so convinced that their perceptions are > correct, and that their enlightenment is "self-evident" > that they are unable to question, even theoretically, > that they might be something else. > > I know that you haven't been around the block much, > spiritually, but if you had you might have run into > a few people who believed themselves enlightened > who turned out to be delusional, and were later > committed to institutions as a result of those > delusions. You might have run into people who had > convinced themselves -- and others -- that they were > fully enlightened, and then self-destructed in some > other way. Think Andy Rhymer. Think Frederick Lenz/ > Rama, whom you probably *don't* consider enlightened. > He certainly considered himself to be. I know for > sure that his state of consciousness was self-evident > to him, and yet he ended up as crab food, a suicide. > > *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'm just sayin' that there is a big "red flag" > raised for me when someone believes one of their > "stories" so completely that they seem *unable* to > even *entertain* the idea that it might not be true. > Haven't you ragged on me for years to examine my > experiences of seeing someone levitate, to see if > there might be another way of seeing the experience, > and see if it might not be true? ( As if I hadn't > already done this hundreds of times before I ever > ran into you. :-) > > Yet when Jim refuses to even *consider* examining > his enlightenment, even if it's just theoretical > and for fun, you defend him and claim that I'm > accusing him of something. Hmmmm. :-) > > The Byron Katie fans here seem to be saying that > it's a good thing to utilize some of her techniques > to analyze their "stories" to see if they're true. > And yet there is one story of their own that is > somehow "exempt" from analysis. Hmmmm. >
