(to maskedzebra)
If what you previously experienced was enlightenment, then you could conceivably become ex-enlightened. Otherwise, that would not be possible. It is possible to 'see through the veil' and fall back and have the experience close down. But never completely. Some have a real smooth time of it, but sometimes some really difficult things can start coming out after an awakening, one can simultaneously be schizophrenic, experiencing wholeness and at the same time experiencing an illusion resulting from unstressing which seems just as real until it begins to fade. There are also some other considerations that might bear on this which have to do with differences in the way human brains are wired together, though I won't go into this here. I have not challenged what you have said, but I do not fully grasp what it is you are trying to communicate (I also have a lack of time at the moment). Try a bulleted list of short descriptions, a summary if you will of what you experienced, in order of a timeline would be nice. I know little of your history, I have not formed any strong idea about you. I am in a stage called 'curiosity'. I thought your depiction of Werner Erhard was fairly apt. I think he got much of that aggressive aspect from his time in Scientology, where such behaviour among leaders of that cult has been described by ex-Scientologists. I knew a young lady from Hawaii who knew Erhard from before est; she said he smoked cigarettes and was overweight. I had heard other stories. My mother was one of the first 500 people to go through est. I do not think it affected her very much, she was a bit odd for a week or so, but then pretty much seemed to return to her 'normal' self. My view is that in self development programs, designated as spiritual or not, some conditioning falls away, but gets replaced by other conditioning, and if one is lucky, the former exceeds the latter and eventually the secondary conditioning will be experienced through. Otherwise, one is not so lucky. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra <no_reply@...> wrote: > It's starting to rankle, this constant challenging of what I have to say. I have the feeling that once more on this forum have become more familiar with what you have to say, it might get more challenging. If it rankles, I suspect it is because you might be attempting to avoid some experience. If you have a lot of momentum in what you want to say, some encounters on this forum are like running into a brick wall. > Isn't there SOMEONE out there willing to become a devotee of the > ex-enlightened man? I am willing to listen, but I am not a devotee of anyone, or anything, except my remaining illusions, and this is a good place to wear such fantasies down. If I have a definition of what enlightenment is, I would say it is the realisation of what has always been the case. Nothing more, nothing less. Maharishi said this: 'in unity consciousness, nothing ever happened.' Krishnamurti said: 'My secret is I do not mind what is happening.' Maharishi said Krishnamurti was 'too far gone in unity.' Krishnamurti did not know what it was like to *not* be that way. Your descriptions so far seem convoluted, but they seem to be thinning out and getting clearer. So, how is it with you?
