--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > A new topic, hopefully bias- and argumentation-free. > > Because the topic has come up on several different > forums of which I am a member lately, with edifying > answers, I pass the question along to Fairfield Life: > > What criteria would convince you that someone you > met was enlightened?
It's not a "new topic," Barry; you've brought it up many times before, both here and on alt.m.t. And of course it's designed to give you the opportunity to dump on anybody (especially TMers) who has different criteria than you do. > Because I'm posting the question, I might as well > provide my answer. First, I would never assume that > anyone I had *not* met physically was enlightened. > For that matter, I would never assume *for sure* that > anyone I *had* met was enlightened, although I might > develop what Judy calls a "working hypothesis" that > they might be enlightened. My term is "working assumption," just for the record. A hypothesis is something that can be tested; an assumption isn't, necessarily. <snip> > How the person speaks and acts and expresses his or > her subjective experience with enlightenment is a > minor factor, one that might mitigate *against* > enlightenment if, say, the person meditates well > but expresses a lot of anger and lower emotions, > or has a habit of kicking dogs and small children :-) > but again it's not a major factor. So you believe behavior is diagnostic of state of consciousness?
