--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <LEnglish5@> wrote: > > > > LOL. There are plenty of "fully enlightened" folks in > > the TM from the cooks to da King (I assume) but the TMO > > definition of full enlightenment is merely that one have > > a sufficiently stress free nervous system that one never > > loses Self, even during intense activity or sleep. > > > > Not a big deal: as MMY says, merely normal. > > > > "Does King Tony float at will?" seems to be what you are > > asking. It seems obvious that MMY wasn't a perfected > > floater since he died of old age, so why would you expect > > King Tony to be? > > Lawson, just as a point, not everyone *believes* > the "TMO definition of enlightenment." > > The first part above makss sense to me as an over- > simplified "baseline" for enlightenment. But the > floating thing? I don't believe that for an instant, > and neither do 99% of the enlightenment traditions > on the planet. > > Why do you? > > Oh yeah, I forgot...Maharishisez. >
Huh, I've been under the impression that most enlightenment traditions DO accept MMY's premise, save that they think that it isn't necessary to actually demonstrate the ability to float to show that one is enlightened. Of course, the TM stance doesn't say its necessary that one demonstrate floating, only that if one practices the Yoga Sutra for Yogic FLying and does NOT float, then one isn't fully enlightened. Or are you talking about the aging thing? A fully enlightened personhave transcended mortality (if it be possible), according to TM theory, but aging, per se, wouldn't be a contra-indication of full enlightenment. Its not that far off from other theories of enlightenment either, as far as I am aware. Lawson Lawson
