--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Jan 16, 2007, at 10:18 PM, sparaig wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajranatha@> wrote: > >> > >> On Jan 16, 2007, at 6:13 PM, Marek Reavis wrote: >>>> There have been passages in my life when I was overcome >>>> with what I can only refer to as 'transcendental bhakti' >>>> and I found myself on the ground, on my knees in spontaneous >>>> prayer, eyes streaming tears of gratitude and in such >>>> unbearable sweetness that it was incomprehensible >>>> that I could survive it. If that is part of the program >>>> I don't know how or why it isn't spoken about more directly. >>> >>> Have you read "Love and God"? After all, it sounds like >>> you already wrote your own version. ;-) > > > > Are you mocking him, by chance? > > > > My own belief, for what it is worth, is that any form of > > "overwhelming" emotion is, by definition, a sign of not > > being fully established in CC, but that doesn't denigrate > > what he was feeling...
Yes, in fact it does, whereas Vaj's comment does not. Sparaig is saying, in essence, that Marek could not possibly have felt what he felt and been fully estab- lished in CC. First, I don't think Marek has ever suggested that he *is* fully established in CC, so his comment is a non-sequitur to begin with, but even if he had, this particular *idea* of what life in enlightenment is like is IMO as baseless as many of the other ideas *about* enlightenment he's spouted here. > > On the other hand, YOUR comment certainly "feels" derogatory. It didn't to me. I don't think Vaj meant it that way, either. > Since I know quite well what I meant, we'll chock another > one up to the "ear of the beholder." What an idiot. Agreed. As for sparaig's notion that one cannot experience strong, even "overwhelming" emotion in enlightenment, I'd suggest that's Just Another Idea *About* Enlight- enment, formed from the point of view of non-enlight- enment. I suspect one can experience *any* emotion, strong or otherwise, in enlightenment, because the emotion *is* enlightenment, as is everything else the enlightened being experiences. The Self need not be "overwhelmed" to experience any part of what is, essentially, itSelf. The histories of supposedly-enlightened saints in almost all spiritual traditions (including Hinduism) are *full* of stories of them displaying strong emotions -- of bhakti or compassion or whatever. Emotions come and go. That is their nature, and the nature of having a body. Sparaig obviously expects that nature to *change* once one realizes one's enlightenment; I don't. Before enlightenment, chop wood, carry water, and occasionally experience strong emotions. After enlightenment, chop wood, carry water, and occasionally experience strong emotions. Sparaig's view seems to me a belief that someone who is not comfortable with strong emotions and who finds them "overwhelming" might develop. So many of the ideas that people have *about* enlightenment seem to me to be based on their own fears and aversions, and the hope that the things that inspire those fears and aversions will no longer appear in one's life after one realizes enlightenment. But they will. And we'll still have to deal with them, just as we did before realization. In this case, the issue is not the emotions but who experiences them.
