--- In [email protected], "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> > wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > Was in a rush before; want to add a couple things: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], 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?
I don't believe anything one way or another. I don't have a clue as to either of your states of consciousness, and don't much care. I'm curious about your unwillingness to examine those states of consciousness and how strong that unwillingness is. I mean, I can see *many* different ways of looking at the subjective experience of enlight- enment. It might be as many teachers of the past have described it. It might *also* be a simple brain abnormality that has been *interpreted* as the subjective experience of enlightenment and glorified beyond its reality. It might be both. Most of all, I can examine my subjective exper- iences of enlightenment against "measures" of that enlightenment from past spiritual traditions (whether they're accurate or not), and would of course be willing to have any spiritual teacher "verify" or "not verify" any state of conscious- ness I might find myself in. I might not place any more value on their assessments than I did on my own feelings about it, but I'd certainly be willing to get their feedback and throw it into the blender. What I find curious is that both you and Rory don't seem open to that. In fact, when the subject comes up, you resort to calling the person who suggests it "ignorant" and Rory says that "there is no need to examine ideas about oneself that don't hurt" ( Hmmmm..."I am the greatest...that doesn't hurt...it must be true." :-) and then slips back into the same distancing analysis-might-have- been-useful-for-those-mere-glimpses-of-higher- states-we-USED-to-have-but-aren't-relevant-now- that-we-ARE-so-great routine. Just makes me go Hmmmmm, that's all... > Ask yourself this please and let the rest of FFL know the > answer if you would: > Why is it you are inclined to only believe in enlightenment > from a distance... Simple answer. I'm not. That's how you're perceiving what I'm saying. *And* that skewed perception of yours (the same kind that feels comfortable declaring that Buddha once said, "God is love") is one of the things that makes me wonder if you're quite as "enlightened" as you seem to think you are. > ...of the either psychologically (paraphrase of Barry: > "we are always enlightened, we just need to realize it..."- > yes, and that means it can be escaped from at any time too), > physically (paraphrase of Barry: "those that say they are > enlightened here, are > not"- yes, because if they were, they could be talking to you right > now), or mentally (paraphrase of Barry: "those who say they are > enlightened need to be able to doubt their experiences"- yes, > because it again makes the immediate experience of enlightenment > doubtful, and distant). I think you are afraid of enlightenment > Barry. Very, very afraid of it. Prove me otherwise.:-) I can't, and have no desire to, "prove" anything to you about the truth or falseness of your own projected fantasies. I can only point out the *nature* of those fantasies. This latest one deconstructs to, "You are jealous of me and afraid of enlightenment." Again, "I am great, and you're not." It's what Curtis was talking about the other day with regard to Rory. Both of your fantasies about/perceptions of other people on this forum tend to exhibit a *trend*. They're always along the lines of, "You're saying what you're saying because you're just not as advanced as we are. If you *were* advanced, you'd accept us as the enlightened beings we are." I guess my answer to that might be along the lines of Curtis' -- "Yeah, right." :-) You are welcome to your view of me and what motivates me, as I am welcome to my view of you and what motivates you. Either could be correct, either could be mere projection. The difference seems to be that I am willing to accept that my idea of you is *just* an idea, and might easily be incorrect. You don't seem to be willing to even entertain that possibility. Your perceptions are "correct," inviolable, basically the Word Of God. Cool, if that's what gets you off. To me it makes you sound an awful lot like the hundreds and thousands of "poseur-enlightened beings" out there in the spiritual marketplace. *Especially* when you consistently react to anyone who doesn't just automatically buy your claimed enlightenment without question with anger and indignation and defensiveness and insults (as you have been doing consistently for the last year or so now). As I've said, I have NO CLUE what your state of con- sciousness might be, and don't much care. What I am hinting at is more like what Curtis talked about, a "personal preference" about the types of people I like to hang with. After decades of dealing with people and spiritual teachers who cannot relate to others *unless* they accept them as superior to me and/or more advanced than me, I have little patience for that act. It's cool, I guess, for those who *like* master- disciple model and that sorta stuff, but it really doesn't do much for me. It wouldn't do much for me if I consider the person a real master, and it cert- ainly doesn't do much for me coming from someone I don't see as one. The bottom line of your posts, Jim, is that we have to accept you as *you see yourself*, and that's that. It's basically how Maharishi comes across as well. Not gonna happen...
