---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <noozguru@...> wrote :
On 10/19/2015 07:23 PM, awoelflebater@... mailto:awoelflebater@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <noozguru@...> mailto:noozguru@... wrote : FFL has always been split between the haves and have not "experienced." The "have nots" will decree that there is no such thing as enlightenment but how would they know? It's silly. This leaves many "haves" scratching their heads wondering what's up with the "have nots"? After all it may have come easy for the "haves." If you haven't visited the Grand Canyon you can only get an idea of it from pictures and videos. But to stand at it's edge will give you a true experience of it's expanse and horror if you are prone to vertigo. Over the years I've heard many explanations as to why some folks even with TM began experiencing enlightenment. One is that they spent lifetimes as yogis in India trying to achieve enlightenment so a little push put them over the edge. A point about enlightenment came in an unusual way from an article about the controversial new movie about Steve Jobs. His former girlfriend quoted Ram Dass regarding Job's bizarre behavior: “When someone goes into a state of enlightenment but does it while still attached to their ego, they call that the golden chain. And that’s what I feel happened to Steve. He went into magnificence and enlightenment but he, he just blew it.” http://www.wired.com/2015/10/steve-jobs-tech-god-complex/ http://www.wired.com/2015/10/steve-jobs-tech-god-complex/ My tantra guru put it another way in that enlightenment does not get rid of ALL your samskaras and what remains determines the personality of an enlightened person. Maharishi put it in terms of "remains of ignorance" that exists in enlightenment. To judge people externally for enlightenment is therefore folly. As is to judge enlightenment even if you haven't had a little taste of it. It's like judging a movie without so much of even seeing the trailer. But, staying true to one's experience is valid. Maybe one can attach a title to it, maybe one can't. Enlightenment or ignorance. Sometimes what looks like judgement may simply be an opinion based on experience or lack thereof. No one can fault a person for naming or knowing the world based on what one has seen, known and understood - or not. Does an enlightened person know for sure someone else is not? Do they know for sure that someone is? What is this recognition based upon? If I were to agree with your last paragraph then it stands that I can never know by looking at another's actions, words or deeds if they are awakened or not. So where does this leave us? The important thing is to experience enlightenment yourself and not worry about other people's state. The roles of the guru is to get you to enlightenment, not put on a show for you. Hey, I'm with you on this. I don't even think about enlightenment let alone who might or might not be. As I said in response to Doug's post about depression based upon feeling others are, in some way, ahead of you on the evolutionary scale, I simply shake my head and take a walk in my orchard. I feel the rain (yes Empty, I am an experience whore) and take a large spoonful of Haagen Dazs ice cream slathered in chocolate sauce and peanut butter. It all doesn't get much better than that. As far as gurus go, I'll let others pay the big buck and provide the applause - I'll be out diving in salty waves in some ocean or other.
