On 11/20/2014 9:30 AM, Michael Jackson mjackso...@yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] wrote:
Its interesting that so many people today who think Marshy was
enlightened and who believe that TM can bring one to enlightenment do
not seem to accept his very clear definition of enlightenment which he
laid out in both his Gita blabber and his so-called Science of Being.
They seem to want to find some OTHER definition of enlightenment that
suits them better, like these Adyashanti types who seem to define
enlightenment as pretty much whatever you want it to mean so they can
claim the crown and get followers.
>
You are welcome to advance your own definition of enlightenment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightenment/spiritual/
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightenment_%28spiritual%29>
Anyone that appears to be as happy as MMY was, I would consider to be in
a state of enlightenment. He apparently had all of his desires fulfilled
many times over. He had the ability to laugh and seemed to really enjoy
life - he was a success and he attained his goal.
You are confused because, there is in fact no objective "enlightenment"
- it's a subjective experience. To be enlightened means simply to be in
a natural state, free from suffering.
/"Confusion arises from erroneously identifying words, objects, and
ideas with one another; knowledge of the cries of all creatures comes
through perfect discipline of the distinctions between them."/ -
Patanjali, Yoga Sutras 3.17
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* "Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartax...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]"
<FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com>
*To:* "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com>
*Sent:* Wednesday, November 19, 2014 11:20 AM
*Subject:* Re: [FairfieldLife] Most Absurd Rumor
I think this brings up an interesting point. How does one define
'enlightenment'. The most overreaching attempts include the entire
universe as a connected unity, and that would imply simply that all
that exists is what enlightenment is about. If you include everything
you cannot define enlightenment as A, B, C minus some bad parts you do
not like. So if, simplistically the universe is A, B, C, X, Y, and Z,
you have to include them all. There is a phrase in Zen 'walk off with
the farmer's ox, steal the blind man's food', which is an expression
of unboundedness. This is kind of how the TMO behaves. From my
perspective, enlightenment does not have any injunctions on behaviour
in spite of advertisements to the contrary, all enlightenment does is
reveal the connectedness of the universe, and if you want to be a
'good person', first you have to define what a good person is, and
then you have to act that way, and that is a local phenomenon, an
aspect of the universe far reduced from the whole. You could be
enlightened and a criminal. If you listen to Charles Manson (I saw
that picture online too), while he seems sort of crazy, he also often
expresses unboundedness in his understanding of the world.
Religions, which presumably have some connexion with the idea of
enlightenment have all these rules for governing behaviour, and the
question one could ask is, if religion is so great and will straighten
people out, why are these rules necessary? (and one could also ask why
are the rules inconsistent between religions regarding behaviour). If
you say god created the universe and the way it runs, then the
universe is a serial killer. Like father, like son and daughter.
Looking at religious figures, gurus, etc., one cannot conclude that
these rules and enlightenment techniques substantially affect
behaviour that we would call 'bad'. This issue of behaviour is one
which we in civilised society do not seem to have much of a clue on
how to solve, and all the methods we have invented to fix it have failed.
How do you traverse society without leaving mangled bodies,
psychologically damaged bodies, emotionally damaged bodies, in your
wake? There does not seem to be a direct connexion with seeing the
world as unbounded, and acting in it in a bound way unless there is an
internal switch that pains you if you cause harm. Some people do not
seem to have that switch (sociopaths and psychopaths), or a 'damaged'
switch and have reduced empathy. Some people are crushed by having too
much empathy. If you eliminate pain and suffering from your own life,
will you care about others if life no longer pains you? There seems to
be a variable in all this that is not accounted for and which does not
seem to be affected much by the things people do in the hope of
gaining enlightenment.
An example of unboundedness and unity from the Bible. Isaiah, in a
literal translation (bolded are words in original Hebrew).
*Except *for *me, *there *is no Elohim; **I am forearming you, **yet
you *do *not know me, **That they may **know, **From *the *rising of
*the *sun and from *the *west, **that *there is *no *one *apart from
me; **I *am *Yahweh, and *there *is no **other. **Former//*of *light
and creator*//of *darkness, **maker*//of *good*//*and creator*//of
*evil, **I, Yahweh, **make*//*all these**.*
*
*
Here you have all the darkness you would want emanating from the
supposed source of creation (a great way to express narcissism too).
There are similar passage in the Bhagavad-Gita. If everything, good
and bad are integral in existence and are sourced from the same origin
or have the same being, and we come to direct knowledge of that, what
is to prevent us from being all those qualities that (some) people abhor?
Light is the left hand of darkness
and darkness the right hand of light.
Two are one, life and death, lying
together like lovers in kemmer,
like hands joined together,
like the end and the way.
—Ursula K. Le Guin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* "TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]"
<FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com>
*To:* "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com>
*Sent:* Wednesday, November 19, 2014 12:05 PM
*Subject:* Re: [FairfieldLife] Most Absurd Rumor
*From:* "anartax...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]"
<FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com>
The Zen trained Adyashanti had this to say about 'enlightenment success':
'When I looked around at the Buddhist tradition, I realized that the
success rate was terrible. People were in it for enlightenment, but
very few were actually getting enlightened. If this were a business, I
thought, we'd be bankrupt.'
'I think it's unfortunate that a person can spend hour after hour, day
after day, year after year, dedicating his life to enlightenment, and
yet the very notion that anybody attains enlightenment is a taboo.
We're all going after this; but God forbid somebody says they've
realized it. We don't believe them, we're cynical, we have doubt; we
go immediately into a semi- (or overt) attack mode. To me, it
highlights the fact that people are chasing an awakening they don't
believe could happen to them.
*/I've heard this rap from him before, and I think he's being
simplistic. For example, his model doesn't work for me -- I've had
enlightenment experiences, and the way I figure it, if I could have
them, *anybody* could. So the belief that "it can't happen" is not in
play.
/*
*/
/*
*/Instead, when I object to someone's claim of being enlightened, in
almost every case it's because THEY ARE NOT WALKING THEIR *OWN* TALK.
That is, they are acting contrary to their *own* definitions and
descriptions of what enlightenment is.
/*
*/
/*
*/That was the problem with Maharishi, it was the problem with
Rama-Fred Lenz, and it is *certainly* the problem with low-level
poseurs like Jim Flanegin or Robin Carlsen. All four of these people
IMO suffered from long-term narcissistic personality disorder all
their lives, and so when they had some *minor* experience of
boundlessness or witnessing, their own self-centeredness and
narcissism made them assume that they were "enlightened" and they
began to claim it to other people. The "tell" that none of them were,
in fact, enlightened is that when all of them are called upon to
define what enlightenment is or what it means, *their own thoughts,
words, and actions* don't fit their own definitions.
/*
*/
/*
*/It's like they define enlightenment as A, B, and C but then act out
X, Y, and Z. They're so narcissistic that they don't notice the
discrepancy, and so they think no one will else notice./*
*/
/*
*/They're wrong. We notice.
/*
*/
/*
*/
/*
*/
/*
*/
/*
