--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
"tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 
> > Barry writes snipped:
> > And again, you are assuming the "unenlightened" 
> > model, which believes that "progress" *has* to be "made"
> > "towards" enlightenment. If you shift to another 
> > equally accurate model and description of the process -- 
> > that everyone is always already enlightened and that the
> > *only* thing that marks "enlightenment" is a realization
> > of what has always already been going on -- then there
> > is no "progress" possible. 
> 
> TomT:
> The reason it is called ignorance is that one actually is able 
> to ignore that which they always have been and will always be. 
> It is not called stupid or smart or arrogant or gratuitous or 
> a lie it is called IGNORANCE. Name and form.

For those who have had a realization experience,
whether it be temporary or permanent, the "always
already enlightened" model is just so much more
*accurate*. 

It's *obvious* when it happens that there was never 
anywhere to "go," nothing to "become," no "stress" 
to get rid of, no moment at which you were ever
"unenlightened." Enlightenment is, has always been, 
and will always be; the only thing lacking up til 
now has been the realization of what should have
been obvious. As Tom suggests, the being who has
considered himself "unenlightened" has just been
being IGNORANT of what's been right in his face
since the day he was born.

So I've always wondered WHY spiritual teachers
went for that *other* model, the *inaccurate* one.
You know the one -- the one that says that there
are things you have to "do" to "become" enlight-
ened, that there are "obstacles" like stress that 
can prevent enlightenment, that one can ever be
"unenlightened." Why not do what Ramana Maharshi
and a few other teachers did and just TELL THE
TRUTH from Day One: "You're enlightened. Right
here, right now. GET OVER all this 'unenlightened'
stuff already."  :-)

As far as I can tell, the entire TM model for the
enlightenment process is a LIE. Worse, it is a 
*known* lie, because Maharishi has at times written
eloquently about the other model, the "always 
already enlightened" model. So he *chose* to tell
people that they were unenlightened, and would 
remain unenlightened until certain undefined 
conditions were met. He chose to *reinforce* 
the ignorance rather than dispel it. WHY, one 
wonders?



Reply via email to