--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <rick@...> wrote: > > > On Behalf Of turquoiseb > > > > My friend's response to Barry's comments: > > How could one possibly describe that or know that? In my case > I have definitely become more even,more patient, more tender > and loving towards all things. Those things seem to come > naturally with this experience over time. > So, relationships, especially marriage, have improved from my > perspective, at least. But I have not run out and joined > Greenpeace or the Sierra Club. I am not an activist, in that > regard, never have been. People, I think, pretty much remain > who they are, keep their usual proclivities. Or, if they change > in any way, it is a very gradual unnoticeable thing. A kind of > softening takes place. But I have heard others say if anything > they have become more "outrageous". So who knows? > > As the Gita tells us, there are no outward manifestations of this. > > It seems to me the person making this comment may be missing the > point here. It is entirely likely to me that one does more good > in the world by virtue of who they are than what they do. I can't > prove that, but that's what I've always believed. > > I would love to hear in what ways this person's experience has > changed them in the direction of doing good in the world. Maybe > they could provide some examples of what they mean.
My thanks to Rick's friend for his comments. My point was not to "take on" his experience per se, but the general language of "self discovery," which I cannot help but notice sounds a lot like "selfish discovery." The supposed benefits of realizing enlightenment are almost always presented in terms of "I" and "me." The person who is claiming enlightenment is saying things about how much their subjective lives may have changed after this transition. I'm just looking for someone to put things in terms that might hint at a bit of care for others. There are certainly attempts at this in some dogmas, which tend to rely heavily on Woo Woo. The enlightened being is supposed to be a benefit to society just by being. People benefit from his/her vibes just by being around them. These types of raps even go as far as to claim that violence and other low mindstates aren't even *possible* in the vicinity of an enlightened being. I'm thinking that Tat Wala Baba wasn't notified of this before someone killed him. :-) I really wasn't looking to put Rick's friend on the spot, merely looking to make a point about the essentially selfish nature of much of the language surrounding enlightenment. It's almost *always* about "What it did for me" (the person claiming enlightenment). It's almost *never* about anyone else. Doesn't that strike anyone else as a tad unbalanced? As for the person's last comment, I do not and have never claimed enlightenment. I've had some periods of being in states of mind that I think match Maharishi's CC to a T, but they only lasted weeks at a time and to be honest, they weren't interesting enough for me to make a "goal" of reattaining them. They were what they were, and now is what it is. All are on an equal footing in my opinion. So the question of what my personal experience of "doing for others" might be is kinda moot. I didn't experience it changing one iota while these experiences were going on, and I'm not convinced that the subjective experience of enlightenment causes a change in anyone else, either. My point was about the essentially "Enlightenment is important because it's important to *me*" nature of much of the language of spirituality. That's all. My 50+ year experience in spiritual movements leads me to believe that most people don't ever even *notice* this self-centered focus. I noticed. I'm more drawn these days to groups that don't really give much of a shit about their personal enlightenment, and put the majority of their focus on trying to help others on a moment-to-moment basis.
