Why reply to me, and only include Jim's words in the bit you appear to
be replying to? I state no such thing.
To my eye, we are pointing to the same misconception Jim stated, or at
least to appearance of same.
To you, I might suggest 'time' is an abstracted distraction - an
apparent side-effect - an aspect/way of relating to/as this.
KG
On 10/9/2012 8:22 PM, Joe wrote:
Kris,
I missed a chance earlier to mention to Jim that I see "enlightenment"
as the ongoing PROCESS of becoming enlightened.
It is the LIFE of becoming enlightened:
Awake for longer and longer periods, and more awake. More one's
original human self, with our full human inheritance.
Jim, that's what the "-ment" signifies, and encompasses.
It's never a done deal.
It's not conferred by Swami-ji Muktananda's feather-stick, or his
successor's.
It is a process in Time, or out of Time. And it takes time.
Enlightenment is not a body of something, finished, signed, sealed,
and delivered. It is a walk very far downstairs, during which you shed
all your clothes, including your socks. Further underwater than the
mortgage on your double-wide (or, you own your mobile home outright?).
If you mean that, for you, at any time, enlightenment (or its fruits
and functions) is "the best possible mental state available", well,
who can quibble, because enlightenment is just "being on the way to
enlightenment". But "best" sounds good; it is however entirely
relative to something, and I don't know what that standard is, that
series of tried-on-and-rejected states, for you. So, I can't yet
understand, or agree. And of course that's OK. We're just talking.
--Joe
> Kristopher Grey <kris@...> wrote:
>
> On 10/9/2012 12:54 PM, jfnewell7 wrote:
> > I am defining enlightenment as the best possible mental state
[snip] [snip]
