thx, excellent post; one of the more logical set of statements on this topic that I've seen thus far. Some considerations:
a. the Aufklarung approach avoids certain conflicts Advaitins and especially Neo-Advaitins get into; one of which is explaining what entity is saying "I'm Enlightened". b. on stronger ground may be statements attesting to relative signposts, such as: seeing an actual sign which says "Stop" or "Go", or "30 miles to Vegas". Or, internal/external observations: "I've been stung by a bee", or "I've seen some blue Aliens". (whatever,...true or false). Such claims appear to be in a different category than the E. claims. c. One way to skirt around the E. conundrums would be to zero-in on the nature of relative signposts along the way, as is the case in the Sant Mat Tradition represented by Kirpal Singh. With such an approach, validation shifted to a different class of experiences akin to NDE's - which presents a new set of problems but avoids the various self-conflicted contradictions of Neo-Advaita and (some) in Advaita. An example might be something like: "I've traveled out of the physical body and can hear the OOOMMMM. This experience gives me much pleasure and you too can experience the same pleasure". d. Or, adopt a dualist perspective which avoids the E. experiential traps, shifting the focus to a primary focus such as Jesus, a Guru worshipped as a God, etc. There could be an advantage in accepting Jesus as one's Personal Savior relating to questions of Narcissism - since ideally at least, the "important" Person is Jesus, not "us". OTOH, Fundie Christianity frequently leads to us vs them confrontations, so again more possible traps. http://www.feebleminds-gifs.com/pegesus.jpg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill" <emptybill@...> wrote: > > There is no Enlightenment > It never existed and it never will. > > But there is Aufklärung Clearing Up > > There is no enlightenment to be discovered, realized or attained by > anyone at any time in any way. > > There is only Aufklärung Clearing Up. > > Enlightenment? There never was and never will be such a thing except as > the title for a historical movement in European history. This term was > originally used for a 18th Century European cultural period, which in > English was called the Enlightenment but in German was titled Zeitalter > der Aufklärung - the Age of Clearing Up. Only recently has the title > "enlightenment" become a synonym for awakening (Bodhi), > particularly by Buddhist and Hindu influenced writers. > > What therefore is this "awakening"? Are we now asleep? Is > someone at this very moment trying to wake us up? The answer to this > seemingly theoretical question is both no but also yes. > > To answer the initial question: we are here, we are present and we are > awake we are right here reading these very sentences. We are not > sleeping or dreaming, except perhaps in the metaphorical sense of > "dreaming away our life". Above all we are not now ensconced in > a dream state. > > More importantly, we are also not broken that platitude of Latin > based Christianity which declares our being to be beyond fixing > because we are fundamentally stricken with the moral dis-ease of sin and > death. By such a measure we are irredeemably disfigured and inherently > condemnable. In this story, somehow God cheats his very own justice to > save us. "Somehow" means that His own declared > "redemption" is gerrymandered into the workings of cosmic > justice. > > So does it sound a bit unusual? > > This story, in condensed form, is the two thousand year cultural > paradigm that we carry, either consciously or unconsciously within us, > just by being Westerners. > > Read it and weep. > > Thus, if we are not inherently broken but fundamentally hale and alertly > awake, then do we really have a problem? Is there some other kind of > awareness we lack and that we must try to generate? > > Only distinguish inherent awareness and mind or cit (awareness) versus > citta (consciousness). Then deepen absorption in this very awareness. > You'll begin where Shankara suggested the very foundation resides in > plain view. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" > <anartaxius@> wrote: > > > > Enlightenment doesn't have a personal definition. > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: > > > > > > What is your personal definition of "enlightenment?" Where did it > come > > > from? I would suggest that these two questions are inexorably > linked, > > > and some thought can be productively given to that link. > > > > > > In another spiritual tradition, albeit a short-lived one, the > definition > > > of enlightenment given to students was "The ability to manifest > golden > > > light, and be funny." Not coincidentally, the teacher who proposed > this > > > definition was capable of producing the reality of or the subjective > > > impression of golden light, and was pretty damned funny. To this day > > > many of his students consider these two qualities to be THE > definition > > > of enlightenment. Some of them throw into the mix, "Does he drive a > > > Mercedes?," but the two biggies are golden light and funny. > > > > > > This has always struck me as being similar to Barry Bonds declaring > that > > > enlightenment is defined by the ability to hit 762 home runs during > > > one's career as a major league baseball player. Bzzzzzt. > > > > > > Maharishi was a big one for definitions. He proposed many such > > > definitions of enlightenment. Were they true, or were they him > parroting > > > what he'd been told by his own teachers? I personally don't think > we'll > > > ever know, but it has not escaped my attention that many people > believe > > > that his definitions of enlightenment were 100 percent accurate, > because > > > -- of course -- he was enlightened, and thus knew fersure. Some > former > > > Rama students feel the same way. > > > > > > I am less than convinced, which makes me somewhat of a heretic with > > > regard to their teachings. Both of them. I have no earthly idea what > > > "enlightenment" is fersure, and I certainly don't take either of > their > > > definitions as to what it is as gospel, or as truth. > > > > > > These days I don't even CARE very much about the buzzword > > > "enlightenment," or about assigning it to anyone. It's just a > buzzword, > > > a pseudo-definition of something I am not convinced can ever be > defined. > > > Does that make me a Bad Person? > > > > > >
