Re: [FairfieldLife] Ego in Enlightenment and Enlightened Ironies
Well, Anon, the only solution is to get enlightened and join the fun. But in all seriousness, the difference in expressions and attitudes regarding enlightenment are just the impact of That on different mind-streams (if I may borrow a Gangaji term). It's why there is no one spiritual tradition. There is never going to be total intellectual agreement regarding That, although That is the same for all. This 20 point list is just the concern of a particular mind on the impact of That on his/her mind. --- tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Skunk button pushing comments snipped for brevity. Comment below Alex writes: Is it your belief that an enlightened person no longer has an ego or conditioned mind? Akasha/Anon writes: I think the term enlightenment is a label, that serves little positive purpose -- and its use has many downsides. Its quite clear that various people define the term in quite different ways -- those from different traditions and even those proclaiming to be living the label. Just today's post illustrates such. Both Jim and Peter claim enlightenment and yet quite sharply disagree on the 20 point list of attributes posted yesterday. Another example of the self-proclaimed enlightened and various traditions not agreeing on what the term refers to is your question about ego. Your premise, it appears is that there is a ego in enlightenment. Peter vigorously and abundantly disagrees -- stated emphatically that he has searched everywhere no ego can be found -- and it is on this single criteria that he claims enlightenment. (Though ironically, thre is some individuality in the peter-sphere that regularly feels insulted. And also which gets bent out of shape and lashes out in anger.) And M Godman, who also claims enlightenment, states emphatically, and with even more words than Peter, that there indeed is an ego in enlightenment, but it no longer rules like it does pre-enlightnment -- it becomes subordinate to the Self. Jim, who claims the same enlightenemnt claims anyone who thinks there is no ego in enlightenment is insane. And I assume, corrections welcome, that the premise of your question stems from the view of Waking Down that there is an ego (and conditioned mind) in enlightnement. Rory, who claims enlightenment, has even gone as far as to say that he simple made up his own criteria for enlightenement, then realized that whcih he defined, and then started using the title enlightenment -- even though his definition was his own and neither a traditional one nor the TMO one. And Tom T, who claims enlightenment, says there are milions of diferent types of enlightenemnt, or flavors as he calls them. Further Peter, again -- just today -- refers to cc as baby realization or baby enlightenment. Yet, if you refer to the archives, you will find a post from Tom where he ranted on and on (IMO) in a long post why calling cc as baby anything was paraphrasing, stupid, insane and agenda laden. Off cites MMY recently as saying enlightenment is 24 hour bliss. Peter, greatly discounts bliss, repeatedly stating that bliss is dumb. My own experience of bliss-saturated states in activity is that anger, ego-driven activities, and glomminess (a fairly regular quality of Tom's posts) cannot be found -- and are found impossible to arise. Whatever that state is, and/or MMY's 24-hour bliss enlightenment, clearly they have little to do with Peter's and Tom's experience with whatever they experience and label as enlightenment (experience used in broad sense of ' experiencing a state of consciousness' not like 'I experience the flower'). So hopefully you share some the the difficulty I have with the use of the label enlightenment. And also the phenomenon of self-proclamation of self-defined enlightenment. My original comments, abve, on Tom's post are part of my periodic laughter at the ironies, paradoxes and/or inconsistencies sxpressed by so-called self-proclaimed enlightened. Tom proclaims that it is solely Brahman who seees through Tom's eyes and types throuhg Tom's fingers. So when Tom regularly lasses out in (IMO) appears as gloom, anger, and silly reasoning, it makes me laugh. Similar to my laughter when Peter claims absolutely no ego exists yet feels deeply insulted at times. And my laughter at the band of self-proclaimed enlightened as they stumble over themselves in expressing contractiory attributes of the assumed (by the casual reader) commonality of the label enlightenment (when in fact they are each defining the state in different ways.) Tom T: Have your ever heard of the Paradox of Brahman? Is it possible that this conundrum is something the mind can not fathom. Or is it Jaimini? H! Enjoy! Tom T Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Join modern day disciples
[FairfieldLife] Ego in Enlightenment and Enlightened Ironies
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, a_non_moose_ff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tom T: An old politician who had been a chicken farmer for the first 50 years of his life put it to me this way. Son you have got to learn you are never going to win when you get in a p*ssing contest with a skunk. That advice has been ignored from time to time by me and it has always ended up with me getting p*ssed on. If I remember to avoid the skunkns in the first place, life is a lot smoother and sweeter. i have noticed there some here on FFlife who definitaly fall into that category. Oh well we eventually get it. Tom T You know, Tom, when the only way you can deal with someone who disagrees with you is by dehumanizing them and reducing them in your mind to the status of an animal, you should probably take a step back and ask yourself why it is that you find other human beings so very threatening. It is fascinating that someone, particularly an enlightened being, can negatively characterize others as skunks -- parphrasing -- skunks p*ss all over others -- and fail to see that their characterization parallels that of a skunk -- p*ssing all over others. And I thought someone in Brahman Consciousness saw all things as Brahman. Whose nature is Ananda -- Bliss. Whatever. But is is a shame when Brahman wakes up on the wrong side of the loka and is grumpy. Sort of puts a gloomy cast of all of creation. And while some will see some humor and irony in the above, Peter will undoubtedly see rage and anger. Seeing himself in all things? Enlightenment. What a trip! Is it your belief that an enlightened person no longer has an ego or conditioned mind? I think the term enlightenment is a label, that serves little positive purpose -- and its use has many downsides. Its quite clear that various people define the term in quite different ways -- those from different traditions and even those proclaiming to be living the label. Just today's post illustrates such. Both Jim and Peter claim enlightenment and yet quite sharply disagree on the 20 point list of attributes posted yesterday. Another example of the self-proclaimed enlightened and various traditions not agreeing on what the term refers to is your question about ego. Your premise, it appears is that there is a ego in enlightenment. Peter vigorously and abundantly disagrees -- stated emphatically that he has searched everywhere no ego can be found -- and it is on this single criteria that he claims enlightenment. (Though ironically, thre is some individuality in the peter-sphere that regularly feels insulted. And also which gets bent out of shape and lashes out in anger.) And M Godman, who also claims enlightenment, states emphatically, and with even more words than Peter, that there indeed is an ego in enlightenment, but it no longer rules like it does pre-enlightnment -- it becomes subordinate to the Self. Jim, who claims the same enlightenemnt claims anyone who thinks there is no ego in enlightenment is insane. And I assume, corrections welcome, that the premise of your question stems from the view of Waking Down that there is an ego (and conditioned mind) in enlightnement. Rory, who claims enlightenment, has even gone as far as to say that he simple made up his own criteria for enlightenement, then realized that whcih he defined, and then started using the title enlightenment -- even though his definition was his own and neither a traditional one nor the TMO one. And Tom T, who claims enlightenment, says there are milions of diferent types of enlightenemnt, or flavors as he calls them. Further Peter, again -- just today -- refers to cc as baby realization or baby enlightenment. Yet, if you refer to the archives, you will find a post from Tom where he ranted on and on (IMO) in a long post why calling cc as baby anything was paraphrasing, stupid, insane and agenda laden. Off cites MMY recently as saying enlightenment is 24 hour bliss. Peter, greatly discounts bliss, repeatedly stating that bliss is dumb. My own experience of bliss-saturated states in activity is that anger, ego-driven activities, and glomminess (a fairly regular quality of Tom's posts) cannot be found -- and are found impossible to arise. Whatever that state is, and/or MMY's 24-hour bliss enlightenment, clearly they have little to do with Peter's and Tom's experience with whatever they experience and label as enlightenment (experience used in broad sense of ' experiencing a state of consciousness' not like 'I experience the flower'). So hopefully you share some the the difficulty I have with the use of the label enlightenment. And also the phenomenon of self-proclamation of self-defined enlightenment. My original comments,
[FairfieldLife] Ego in Enlightenment and Enlightened Ironies
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, a_non_moose_ff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tom T: An old politician who had been a chicken farmer for the first 50 years of his life put it to me this way. Son you have got to learn you are never going to win when you get in a p*ssing contest with a skunk. That advice has been ignored from time to time by me and it has always ended up with me getting p*ssed on. If I remember to avoid the skunkns in the first place, life is a lot smoother and sweeter. i have noticed there some here on FFlife who definitaly fall into that category. Oh well we eventually get it. Tom T You know, Tom, when the only way you can deal with someone who disagrees with you is by dehumanizing them and reducing them in your mind to the status of an animal, you should probably take a step back and ask yourself why it is that you find other human beings so very threatening. It is fascinating that someone, particularly an enlightened being, can negatively characterize others as skunks -- parphrasing -- skunks p*ss all over others -- and fail to see that their characterization parallels that of a skunk -- p*ssing all over others. And I thought someone in Brahman Consciousness saw all things as Brahman. Whose nature is Ananda -- Bliss. Whatever. But is is a shame when Brahman wakes up on the wrong side of the loka and is grumpy. Sort of puts a gloomy cast of all of creation. And while some will see some humor and irony in the above, Peter will undoubtedly see rage and anger. Seeing himself in all things? Enlightenment. What a trip! Is it your belief that an enlightened person no longer has an ego or conditioned mind? I think the term enlightenment is a label, that serves little positive purpose -- and its use has many downsides. Its quite clear that various people define the term in quite different ways -- those from different traditions and even those proclaiming to be living the label. Just today's post illustrates such. Both Jim and Peter claim enlightenment and yet quite sharply disagree on the 20 point list of attributes posted yesterday. Another example of the self-proclaimed enlightened and various traditions not agreeing on what the term refers to is your question about ego. Your premise, it appears is that there is a ego in enlightenment. Peter vigorously and abundantly disagrees -- stated emphatically that he has searched everywhere no ego can be found -- and it is on this single criteria that he claims enlightenment. (Though ironically, thre is some individuality in the peter-sphere that regularly feels insulted. And also which gets bent out of shape and lashes out in anger.) And M Godman, who also claims enlightenment, states emphatically, and with even more words than Peter, that there indeed is an ego in enlightenment, but it no longer rules like it does pre-enlightnment -- it becomes subordinate to the Self. Jim, who claims the same enlightenemnt claims anyone who thinks there is no ego in enlightenment is insane. And I assume, corrections welcome, that the premise of your question stems from the view of Waking Down that there is an ego (and conditioned mind) in enlightnement. Rory, who claims enlightenment, has even gone as far as to say that he simple made up his own criteria for enlightenement, then realized that whcih he defined, and then started using the title enlightenment -- even though his definition was his own and neither a traditional one nor the TMO one. And Tom T, who claims enlightenment, says there are milions of diferent types of enlightenemnt, or flavors as he calls them. Further Peter, again -- just today -- refers to cc as baby realization or baby enlightenment. Yet, if you refer to the archives, you will find a post from Tom where he ranted on and on (IMO) in a long post why calling cc as baby anything was paraphrasing, stupid, insane and agenda laden. Off cites MMY recently as saying enlightenment is 24 hour bliss. Peter, greatly discounts bliss, repeatedly stating that bliss is dumb. My own experience of bliss-saturated states in activity is that anger, ego-driven activities, and glomminess (a fairly regular quality of Tom's posts) cannot be found -- and are found impossible to arise. Whatever that state is, and/or MMY's 24-hour bliss enlightenment, clearly they have little to do with Peter's and Tom's experience with whatever they experience and label as enlightenment (experience used in broad sense of ' experiencing a state of consciousness' not like 'I experience the flower'). So hopefully you share some the the difficulty I have with the use of the label enlightenment. And also the phenomenon of self-proclamation of self-defined enlightenment. My original comments, abve, on Tom's post are part of my
[FairfieldLife] Ego in Enlightenment and Enlightened Ironies
Skunk button pushing comments snipped for brevity. Comment below Alex writes: Is it your belief that an enlightened person no longer has an ego or conditioned mind? Akasha/Anon writes: I think the term enlightenment is a label, that serves little positive purpose -- and its use has many downsides. Its quite clear that various people define the term in quite different ways -- those from different traditions and even those proclaiming to be living the label. Just today's post illustrates such. Both Jim and Peter claim enlightenment and yet quite sharply disagree on the 20 point list of attributes posted yesterday. Another example of the self-proclaimed enlightened and various traditions not agreeing on what the term refers to is your question about ego. Your premise, it appears is that there is a ego in enlightenment. Peter vigorously and abundantly disagrees -- stated emphatically that he has searched everywhere no ego can be found -- and it is on this single criteria that he claims enlightenment. (Though ironically, thre is some individuality in the peter-sphere that regularly feels insulted. And also which gets bent out of shape and lashes out in anger.) And M Godman, who also claims enlightenment, states emphatically, and with even more words than Peter, that there indeed is an ego in enlightenment, but it no longer rules like it does pre-enlightnment -- it becomes subordinate to the Self. Jim, who claims the same enlightenemnt claims anyone who thinks there is no ego in enlightenment is insane. And I assume, corrections welcome, that the premise of your question stems from the view of Waking Down that there is an ego (and conditioned mind) in enlightnement. Rory, who claims enlightenment, has even gone as far as to say that he simple made up his own criteria for enlightenement, then realized that whcih he defined, and then started using the title enlightenment -- even though his definition was his own and neither a traditional one nor the TMO one. And Tom T, who claims enlightenment, says there are milions of diferent types of enlightenemnt, or flavors as he calls them. Further Peter, again -- just today -- refers to cc as baby realization or baby enlightenment. Yet, if you refer to the archives, you will find a post from Tom where he ranted on and on (IMO) in a long post why calling cc as baby anything was paraphrasing, stupid, insane and agenda laden. Off cites MMY recently as saying enlightenment is 24 hour bliss. Peter, greatly discounts bliss, repeatedly stating that bliss is dumb. My own experience of bliss-saturated states in activity is that anger, ego-driven activities, and glomminess (a fairly regular quality of Tom's posts) cannot be found -- and are found impossible to arise. Whatever that state is, and/or MMY's 24-hour bliss enlightenment, clearly they have little to do with Peter's and Tom's experience with whatever they experience and label as enlightenment (experience used in broad sense of ' experiencing a state of consciousness' not like 'I experience the flower'). So hopefully you share some the the difficulty I have with the use of the label enlightenment. And also the phenomenon of self-proclamation of self-defined enlightenment. My original comments, abve, on Tom's post are part of my periodic laughter at the ironies, paradoxes and/or inconsistencies sxpressed by so-called self-proclaimed enlightened. Tom proclaims that it is solely Brahman who seees through Tom's eyes and types throuhg Tom's fingers. So when Tom regularly lasses out in (IMO) appears as gloom, anger, and silly reasoning, it makes me laugh. Similar to my laughter when Peter claims absolutely no ego exists yet feels deeply insulted at times. And my laughter at the band of self-proclaimed enlightened as they stumble over themselves in expressing contractiory attributes of the assumed (by the casual reader) commonality of the label enlightenment (when in fact they are each defining the state in different ways.) Tom T: Have your ever heard of the Paradox of Brahman? Is it possible that this conundrum is something the mind can not fathom. Or is it Jaimini? H! Enjoy! Tom T Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
