--- In [email protected], "Rory Goff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > Now let me get this straight. Someone says something, > > and that causes part of you to feel discomfort, > > reveals a particle which I hadn't noticed before :-)
Just as a question, given Maharishi's descriptions of enlightenment and what it is, *why* does this "particle" of you still feel discomfort and suffer- ing? Isn't it free of stress and beyond such things if you're enlightened? I guess I'm asking why the need for "work" to elim- inate suffering if you're so enlightened? > > which > > you perceive as suffering. > > Which *it* perceives as suffering :-) "It" still perceives it that way. Why is "It" not enlightened if you are? A legitimate question, n'est-ce pas? > > So you do "the work" until > > the discomfort goes away and you're feeling blissful, > > until *it* knows it is free, knows its nature as tangible bliss And "freedom" and "tangible bliss" are the way that things "should" be? If an enlightened being contracted pancreatic cancer (one of the most painful ways to go) do you believe that he'd feel every moment as freedom and tangible bliss? Just another question...I don't know. > > in the "paradisical state of radiant Being," the > > way things *should* be. > > and thereby manifests my sensorium as radiant being/love/bliss Again, as you believe it *should* be. Sounds a lot to me as if you're doing "should surgery" on these "particles." Please explain why you feel the need to *change* the way that you feel...oh, excuse me -- change the way that these "particles" of you feel if you're enlight- ened. I'm honestly curious. > >Did I get that right? > > No doubt :-) > > > Sure doesn't sound *anything* like moodmaking to me. :-) > > No doubt :-) But then, you still think enlightenment is an > experience No, not in the same way that eating an orange is an experience, but one's *stories* about enlightement and one's *interpretation* of enlightenment are *very much* experiences, and *very much* stories. > -- not that you care about enlightenment, of course -- and > that we think we are great for realizing it's not, although > we're probably just moodmaking anyway, and that we expect > you to worship us and take our word for it. Did I get that > right? :-) Maybe. At least you didn't use the "You just don't understand because you're not where I'm at" comeback this time. Much. :-)
