--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, > "tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlis" > <tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlist@> 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? >
My readings of vedic texts implies that acquiring enlightenment is like becoming a doctor - - that is, after one has demonstrated sufficient proficiency with the material, then the title is bestowed upon you, (thru practice of yoga) one earns enlightenment the old fashioned way. This traditional 'model' takes a polite approach to enlightenment - as compared to the buccaneer approach where one can create opportunities of heightened eligibility (aka Grace) - - the thinking being that all that is required is a familiarity with the transcendent - - for example, if closing your eyes right now (or better yet with eyes open); if the notion of "I Am" or the "Transcendent" resonates - than you are eligible. So, create your own moments of Grace, and try on the idea of "I AM That" - - does it fit? Hey remember this, 50% of all doctors graduated in the bottom half of their class - likewise, the Self is not exact till you are there, so the point where you leap is up to you. Keep in mind the naturalness of consciousness (as compared to an experience) - we are not looking for something like "Wow I've been enlightened for 2 hours and 22 minutes and it is really a trip .. " if any impression is present, it be more like "this is how I have always lived" or "this is how human beings live" . . not unlike waking state . . so be a pirate AARGH
