Jim: There also appear to be two exceptions to this 'listing' behavior, > and those are the postings of Curtis and new morning. However upon > closer examination, both of their postings weren't really listing > criteria for non-dual Self realization, but rather desirable > attributes of being, so more a psychological perspective than one > dealing head on with the state of consciousness.
Me: To address consciousness more head on, I believe that people can alter the way their minds functions radically through meditation. It happened to me so I don't have any reason to doubt someone's claim that they have reached a state of consciousness that is very different from what it was before. Where I differ is that I don't share the assumption that this new state gives one a deeper insight into "reality", even though it may feel as though this is the case. In MMY's system he always loads the beliefs about the experiences as he is inducing them. I have had experiences that I could express as my Self being the essence of the universe and that I am immortal and unbounded. But now that I don't think this is the actually the case, I relate to my experiences as interesting and compelling, but don't believe that it was an experience of a deeper reality. So if a person presents themselves as "enlightened", I just figure they are having a compelling subjective experience, and don't think much about it unless they attempt to use this claim as a leverage point to act superior to me. That is the same criteria for sorting out bores in any other area of my life. I don't assume that people who have developed these states have any better insight into what is going on here on earth than I do. I only choose to interact with people who have the humility to recognize our shared human condition. MMY doesn't teach that the experiences of growing enlightenment are self-evident enough to be complete without adding the beliefs found in Vedic scriptures. He is using an ancient interpretation of what these states mean. I think they can be understood today in a more value free way. Just as earlier societies believed that one's dreams were a journey in to the land of the dead, but today that is not a common view, I think we will learn to view these states of consciousness differently as they are studied more. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> > wrote: > > <snip> > > > > So I don't really think the original question is > > > > very meaningful; and given Barry's responses to > > > > others' comments, it seems pretty clear that it > > > > was intended to serve as a vehicle for putdowns > > > > by Barry of those who don't come up with a list > > > > of specific criteria. > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley" > > <j_alexander_stanley@> wrote: > > > > > > It seems to me that if there are objective criteria for judging > > > enlightenment, then enlightenment is nothing more than a > dualistic > > > phenomenon, defined by particular states of dual mind/body. From > my > > > perspective, no-thought samadhi is no less dualistic than > performing > > > siddhis, psychic abilities, or any of the other items in Barry's > > > diddlysquat box. It's a matter of different people and/or > traditions > > > placing greater importance on particular phenomena. > > > > > > All those different phenomena and the arguing about them is the > > > baggage I referred to in my first post to this thread. That's > > > why I'm more comfortable with the term 'awake'. IMO, the heart of > > > awakening is nondual awareness, and I don't see how there could > > > possibly be a set of dualistic objective criteria to assess > > > nondual awareness. > > > > The attempt to have a list of set criteria to validate > enlightenment, or Self realization to the waking state mind is a > trap set up by the ego to validate its current state, what it sees > as self preservation. To directly confront a statement such as yours > that there cannot "be a set of dualistic objective criteria to assess > nondual awareness", means that the self must release its limited > identity and sense of ownership. Rather than doing that, the small > ego will turn to the mind and heart for rescue, insisting on a set > of criteria that must be met, thereby infinitely postponing its > demise and/or surrender. > > The reason this 'listing' behavior is so prevalent in Barry, Vaj, > and kaladevi is that they don't transcend their limited identity > regularly. I know it is a bold statement, but it is clear that the > small ego is conditioned for ownership and if these bonds of > ownership are not regularly transcended, the clever yet stupid ego > will continually come up with rationalizations to validate itself, > and stave off its dissolution into Self. > > There also appear to be two exceptions to this 'listing' behavior, > and those are the postings of Curtis and new morning. However upon > closer examination, both of their postings weren't really listing > criteria for non-dual Self realization, but rather desirable > attributes of being, so more a psychological perspective than one > dealing head on with the state of consciousness. >
