--- In [email protected], "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], nablusoss1008 <no_reply@> > wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "jim_flanegin" <jflanegi@> > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "coshlnx" <coshlnx@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --But none of these people can perform actual Siddhis. The > > > disciples > > > > of Jesus [along with Paul] performed numerous miracles > according to > > > > tradition, and some mentioned in ACTS; even raising the dead. > The > > > > most MMY's disciples can aspire to is Doug Henning's magic > tricks, > > > > not even on your list. > > > > > > > Speaking of magic tricks, I made myself disappear for good-- > That's a > > > pretty good trick, don't you think?:-) > > > > Disappear, meaning ? > > > The subsumption of the localized sense of self that every individual > soul eventually goes through. I was thinking about this process this > morning and marveling at how complete it is, and once we have grown > out of the necessity of ownership of our thoughts and actions,
This is the sole criteria that you use for enlightenment? Thats a rather low bar, IMO. (high bar if you are "limboing") You have the perogative of defining enlightenment any way you want. But that is why for years I have said it the nbecomes a meaningless label, with 1000 self-labeled enlightened ones and up to 1000 definitions of enlightenment (or 2000 :)). Non ownership of thoughts and actions is evident to anyone who simple thinks about it a bit. That realization becomes then, not a thought, but a living experience, IME. For example, "Did I create this brain, these neurotransmitters, these receptors, these 1000 or so links between every neuron to others, this cognitive system of senses, memory and sensory and memory processing? Do I really even know how it works beyond a surface outline,could I repair it, could I design a better system? Do I understand how a thought forms, how it initiated? Do I have any control over the initiation of a thought? " For me since the answer is no, how could I possibly claim ownership of thoughts? Same logic train for action. Just the fact that thought proceeds many actions -- if I don't own the thought, I can't own the action. And if the action is pure reaction, with no thought, how can I possibly claim ownership of that? (There was a long post to trinity about a year and a half ago that went into more detail.) By your definition, anyone who reads this post, and ponders it for 30 seconds, will be enlightened. > So this transition is not > an artificial one, or one in which we will ever return to defining > ourselves as purely individual selves again. Same with going through the above process. >Which makes the whole > thing pretty funny-- that we as such unevolved souls here on planet > earth, place such importance and cherish this state of subsuming our > individuality to a natural state of Being, that we call > it "enlightenment". No, its what you and perhaps some friends call enlightenment. If one finds the label of "enlightenment" important or useful, to improve clarity and meaningfulness in your communications, I suggest you call it LBE -- low bar enlightenment. > I can > imagine a planet of Yogis or Buddhas or Christs somewhere and they'd > look over after I proclaimed my great achievement, kinda yawn, and > say, "Oh is that all?". lol! How could it be a great achievement -- or any achievement at all -- if you had/have no ownership of the action? >Not to minimize the reality of having > eternally found my way home, or living this boundless freedom, but > yet again recognizing that it is another step, in an infinite number > of steps. This one in fact possibly the most significant of all, > because from this point on, I am now awake to the unfolding of all > of the others. That's what I meant by disappearing for good.:-) I feel the same way when I get out of bed in the morning. Gotta take that first step in order for the other stuff in the day to unfold. Would you call betting out of bed "enlightenment" too? If so then the bedhead look must be "in".
