--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@...> wrote:
> > Key words: "that you apply across the board" Right; I don't know about across the board. I wouldn't say it is a majority of people's takes on it here in FF, but it is that of many of the people I know well here, and perhaps close to a majority of the people I know very well. There seem to be more and more people here reporting similar "deaths" or awakenings that I am aware of, anyhow. > What I question is whether any of the elements Xeno > describes are universally applicable. I think there > are likely many exceptions and anomalies. Undoubtedly. > I did not suggest that any individual's reported > experience was a lie. No, nor did I mean to imply such; I was agreeing with Xeno's last line, that any such description is of necessity a big, big lie, but we do the best we can :-) > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" > > > <anartaxius@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Over the years I've been on this forum, I have gradually ceased to > > > > > believe that there is a universally applicable scheme for the > > > > > development of enlightenment, such that if someone doesn't have > > > > > *this* experience or does have *that* experience, it means they are > > > > > (or are not) enlightened. > > > > > > > > > Some experiences (or lack of same) may be more common than others, > > > > > but you can't make absolute, across-the-board "rules" that apply to > > > > > all individuals without exception, any more than you can do it with > > > > > the experience of falling in love. The uniqueness of first-person > > > > > ontology remains just that. > > > > > > > > > My opinion, anyway. > > > > > > > > > [to Dr Dumbass] Not what I meant by "scheme." I meant something like > > > > > Maharishi's "Seven States of Consciousness"--an outline, format, a > > > > > schedule, a list of "symptoms." > > > > > > > > First-person ontology is the thing that enlightenment gets rid of > > > > > > I question this and every other statement you've made > > > in this post that you apply across the board, as opposed > > > to describing your own experience. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , one ends up with a unity-centric ontology, the basic progression is > > > that the mind's focus on individuality shifts to universality, and the > > > ego is left without a job. The ego is why a person fears death. It's a > > > fiction that conveniently wraps around various processes going on in > > > experience, but it dies with great difficulty for most. > > > > > > > > Conventionally we still use nomenclature when we converse with other > > > > bodies because it simplifies communication to say 'yours', 'mine', > > > > 'me', 'I', etc., when transferring information between minds. As we > > > > start out, everyone has a personal ontology experience, so what is > > > > unique about what everyone has? It's like different coloured coffee > > > > cups, that are otherwise all the same. > > > > > > > > The basic scheme of enlightenment is 'me' progressing to 'everything > > > > all together'. The details in between I think are pretty much as you > > > > surmise - different people experience the letting go of intitial state > > > > of spiritual progress differently, though there seem to be some basic > > > > commonalities. > > > > > > > > In attempting to 'harmonise' various traditions, I would say the common > > > > states described would correspond to M's WC, CC, and UC/BC. Traditions > > > > with meditation might add TC, although some, perhaps those meditating > > > > with mindfulness kinds of meditation, may not experience TC at all > > > > because that meditation is really aimed at UC (which is probably why > > > > many find it more difficult than TM). > > > > > > > > Mindfulness meditators may become aware at some point they are in a > > > > state that is with TM called CC; in other words, TC is not necessarily > > > > described as the goal, since in this meditation, you just sit there > > > > silently, which is how meditation functions in unity, there not being > > > > an inward and outward stroke. As far as I am aware, TM is not > > > > necessarily superior to these other methods as far as the final result; > > > > more important may be how much you want the final result. GC is more > > > > interesting as some traditions would consider the refined visions of GC > > > > as just sensory illusions, which then dissipate when unity dawns. > > > > > > > > The greatest difficulty I have heard people mention when talking of > > > > their experience outside of the TM movement is the loss of the sense of > > > > small self, or ego. Some people simply chicken out when they see that > > > > enlightenment is not about personal ontology. If they manage to chicken > > > > out prior to a very clear awakening, they might be able to go back to > > > > being the fake person they were before without much difficulty. People > > > > with a strong ego-structured mind might have the most resistance to > > > > this process of 'enlightenment'. Some people become frightened, really > > > > frightened. They have so much invested in 'who they are'. > > > > > > > > Enlightenment is not about your specialness in any way other than the > > > > capacity to be enlightened, so when you reach that threshold where you > > > > can go either way, you can either be a coward, or accept the fact you > > > > are going to die before your physical death. If the awakening is clear > > > > enough you do not get to go back, and any remaining issues you have you > > > > just have to hack through them, which really means they hack through > > > > the fictional 'you' until that 'you' is basically history. This is not > > > > necessarily pleasant. > > > > > > > > I think you are correct in assuming that the progression of experience > > > > is highly variable depending on the starting point and the 'karma' of > > > > the person, the history associated with an individual body. Some never > > > > make it; some breeze through without a hitch or any seeming progression > > > > (a very small number), and everyone else is in between somewhere. > > > > > > > > I suppose if you had a map of what might happen, it might be like a map > > > > of the United States with New York on one side, and San Francisco on > > > > the other, and some vague change of colour in between annotated with > > > > blurry text that cannot be read clearly. > > > > > > > > You follow the map, thinking you are going to reach, say, San Francisco > > > > from New York. Some of that indistinct stuff in the middle of the map > > > > might happen or not. You might get upset that you cannot find your way. > > > > In the end, you find you were tricked. You never left New York, but now > > > > 'you' have a completely different perspective on life, the > > > > consciousness no longer identifies with the personal 'me' shtick > > > > process running in the mind and the mind itself somehow acquiesces this > > > > state of affairs, so it does not matter. And this explanation is a big, > > > > big lie. But it might serve. > > > > > > > > > >
