I think there would be 2 options - one, it would be the time for the enlightened person to fall out from the organization. If they are charismatic enough and have "teaching" samskaras then they can start giving Satsangs and such, I have seen quite a few on batgap. Two - continue the same old drama. But be cautious in divulging the details publicly and hopefully one can slowly gain the trust of one individual at a time, share their experience and hopefully inspire them. It could be helpful to others on the same path, practicing similar meditation techniques, with similar Guru that similar state is possible for them as well. The above two options seem to be a good idea. Most in an org would take very unkindly to a person like this, since this can be very upsetting to them and can result in a lot of negativity, along with what you say, ridicule by others. Most are caught up in the "seeker" story, "seeker auto-pilot" for the rest of their lives. I actually don't think there is much value in any org celebrating or recognizing this individual because I don't think that this individual would care for anyone's acknowledgment. Plus I believe that enlightenment cannot be judged in others, it is upto that individual to declare it. This is the biggest problem I had with MZ's story about how everyone could recognize his UC and how he was bitch slapping the unenlightened around. > Saying all of this, I apologize in advance to those to whom I have given > offense in the past by challenging *their* claims of having realized the > Big E. I may not have believed your claims at the time, and may in fact > not believe them now, but I *do* respect you having "gone public" with > them. As does Rick, or he wouldn't be doing his BATGAP series. Thanks Barry, that's quite an admission and I certainly wasn't expecting it :-)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > Mind-segueing from my previous cafe rap, I find my self realizing that > an even better measure of where the rubber meets the road in a spiritual > organization might be how it treats those who have realized its goal, > and dare to say so. > > I submit that this is an interesting topic, Robin and others who have > dared to say so being among us. > > How were they treated by the organization that had promised > enlightenment to its followers (not to mention...uh...financial > supporters) for many decades? Was their attainment of the goal > celebrated and their testimony added to the WhyYouShouldLearnTM.com Web > page? Or were they instantly marginalized and/or ostracized? > > It's an interesting question, isn't it? > > Those of you who have "dared to say so," either on this forum or within > the cloistered halls of the TM movement, do you care to comment? How > were you treated? > > Those of you who never mentioned your personal realization within those > same cloistered halls, but only on forums such as this one, why did you > make that choice? What did you expect would be the response from within > the cloistered halls to your proclamation, that prevented you from > making it? > > Honestly curious, and I will do my best to avoid any samskaras that > tempt me to poke fun where it might be misinterpreted in response. I > really don't know, because although I have experienced the occasional > period of time spent in enlightened (or, at the very least, not > ordinary) states of consciousness, I was never tempted to "go public" > with them, and thus never had to risk the potential wrath of the public. > > Saying all of this, I apologize in advance to those to whom I have given > offense in the past by challenging *their* claims of having realized the > Big E. I may not have believed your claims at the time, and may in fact > not believe them now, but I *do* respect you having "gone public" with > them. As does Rick, or he wouldn't be doing his BATGAP series. > > I guess my point in this cafe rap -- if I have one, other than just to > rap -- is "What was that decision to 'go public' LIKE for you? Did you > feel some reticence in doing so? If so, WHY did you feel that > reticence?" It's an interesting question, n'est-ce pas? >
