--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> 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*. > > Funny, above you called the progress model > "equally accurate." > > And as I've already pointed out, the model > per se isn't any different, it just uses > different words to express the same thing. > > > 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. > > Except that it's obvious only once you've had > that realization. What you describe as "something > lacking" is what the progress model calls ignorance > or "unenlightenment." What's lacking is enlightenment. > > And there's no reason to suppose there isn't any > "progress" involved in remedying that lack, whether > one recognizes it or not. > > <snip> > > 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, > > I.e., lacking the realization that they were > always already enlightened. > > > and would > > remain unenlightened until certain undefined > > conditions were met. > > I.e., the condition of realization that they > were always already enlightened. > > > He chose to *reinforce* > > the ignorance rather than dispel it. WHY, one > > wonders? > > Perhaps because he knows it doesn't make any > damn difference. > > Actually, it seems to me the "you're already > enlightened" model is the one that's a lie. > If you're still lacking the realization, you're > not enlightened. > > This model is designed to make people feel stupid > if they're still lacking the realization, as if > there were something wrong with them for not > having it--e.g., "what should have been obvious," > "IGNORANT of what's been right in his face since > the day he was born."
But it's the truth. THAT is what you're pissed off about. > It's the very worst kind of elitism, playing with > words to exalt oneself and denigrate others. Whatever. If you feel "stupid" with this model, that's because it places the *reason* for your belief in your own "unenlightenment" squarely where it belongs -- in your own lap. Just as you prefer to believe in "bad guys" in politics and here on Fairfield Life, and contin- ually try to find people or things on which you can "place blame" for the things you don't like, you'd prefer to believe that there are "reasons" that you don't perceive yourself to be enlightened. There are. You've never made the CHOICE to perceive the reality of the situation. You'd prefer to cling to the notion that you're "unenlightened." Whatever. If you get off on that, I guess there is nothing more to say. Except that by my count, this compulsive post of yours claiming that I'm an elitist puts you over the 50-post limit for this week. Rick's count is the official one, of course, but if his count agrees with mine, I guess I'll see you Saturday the 9th, not Saturday the 2nd. And, *whenever* you next appear, I'd be willing to bet you'll still be clinging to your model of "I'm unenlightened no matter what *anyone* tells me. And the fact that I'm unenlightened is somebody/something else's fault, not mine!"
