[FairfieldLife] RE: Ricks enlightened friends
Heh Heh, MMY does that to Bevan and Hagelin. MMY's stamp of approval gives Bevan and the other Caped Clowns a huge ego boost. Maharishi even implies that Rajaram Nader is enlightened. Rick Archer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 10:22:43 -0500 Subject: RE: [FairfieldLife] Ricks enlightened friends I agree with you about premature claims to enlightenment. I think they are common. If the people Im referring to were saying I have reached the pinnacle of human evolution or if they displayed egotism or even if they were setting themselves up as gurus, Id doubt them. All of them have achieved significant degrees of awakening, all acknowledge that theres plenty more growth to undergo, not only for themselves but for MMY, Amma, your guru, and any living being, no matter how enlightened, and all are living private lives and are not inclined to become gurus. If they were, that wouldnt rule out their enlightenment in my estimation, but it would make them suspect of ambition-based motives for claiming enlightenment. All of the folks Im referring to have TM backgrounds. A few have branched out into other things. If the gurus stamp of approval were an absolute necessity for realization, no one in the TM movement could become realized, because MMY doesnt do that. You can think you are realized yet not be. But if you are realized, youll know it. Your experience will be sufficient confirmation. And youll be the only one at your graduation. - Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect. Join Yahoo!'s user panel and lay it on us.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Ricks enlightened friends
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I agree with you about "premature claims to enlightenment." I think they are > common. I read this and I had to chuckle-- my history with flashy "I'm there!" experiences, pointing towards enlightenment, has been that just when I thought I had awakened, the overwhelming and unbalanced (key words here) bliss would wear off, and there was nothing I could do to get it back, for awhile. And the longest the flashy stuff lasted was about a week, so as embarassing as any premature claims to myself were, they were mercifully short lived (and very disappointing at the time). Contrast that with the permanent experience, which is more of a concrete shift in perspective, in being, which cannot be diminished or eliminated, no matter how hard I try- lol!:-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Ricks enlightened friends
Like I've said many times here you begin making progress towards enlightenment once you stop worrying about whether you are enlightened or anyone else is enlightened. Aggravating over it which seems to be a favorite hobby here just slows the process. shempmcgurk wrote: > Why all this debate about who is and who isn't enlightened? > > I suggest that you do what I do: assume EVERYONE you meet in life -- > whether meditators or not -- are enlightened. Even the born agains. > > Make it your default. And if people, through their words or actions, > demonstrate that they aren't enlightened, then okay, that's their > problem. > > But why WOULDN'T you assume everyone you come in contact with is > enlightened? I mean, why shouldn't you? > > Don't you want to see the best in everybody? > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Ricks enlightened friends
Why all this debate about who is and who isn't enlightened? I suggest that you do what I do: assume EVERYONE you meet in life -- whether meditators or not -- are enlightened. Even the born agains. Make it your default. And if people, through their words or actions, demonstrate that they aren't enlightened, then okay, that's their problem. But why WOULDN'T you assume everyone you come in contact with is enlightened? I mean, why shouldn't you? Don't you want to see the best in everybody? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > OK Rick, > > Now asking in public so all can participate. I suspect that all of those that you know that > you say are realized have proclaimed this on their own without their Guru declaring this, > or they did not or currently do not have a guru, or they have their own inner Guru- either > in some form or otherwise. > > It does seem that enlightenment is also possible without the guru but I think it is very > rare. Even Ramana, from which this idea that it is possible, had a Guru ( acording to my > guru- I think the name was Archula). You pointed out that among other functions with the > Guru is telling one to continue even though they think they have arrived. This is the key > missing element for those self proclaiming as above because a Sat Guru in living form can > quiclky see if there is further to go once they are with the people for some time. That is > how it works in my path > > My experience with it is I have been with and read about both those self proclaiming as > above and also those proclaimed enlightened by their Guru who also were proclaimed > enlightened by their Guru in a chain continueing upwards. The Self procalimed fell apart > every time under scrutiny. I have seen a lot in the last two years like this- maybe 20. > > It is a subtle difference by quite clear to me, with the aide of my guru pointing out the > diffferences. There is a value to it- keeping holy company is wise, so good to make sure > the company one keeps is 100% holy sometimes. > > Some of these people screw others up in various ways. Most amazing I saw was one with > all the perfect words describing themselves as enlightened. What came out once there > was an association with Sat Guru was this person was depressed, angry. and with violent > thoughts. > > I just recently saw in person a guru proclaiming his disciples enlightened, however the > guru himself is a self proclaimed enlightened one, and this also looks flawed. The topic is > a tricky one. > > Hridaya Puri >
