--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > Was in a rush before; want to add a couple things: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > <snip> > > > *Without a doubt*, these people's enlightenment was > > > self-evident to them. There was no question in their > > > minds that it existed. But did it? > > > > I have no idea. Do you? > > Not a clue.
Then why did you ask? > > > I'm just sayin' that there is a big "red flag" > > > raised for me when someone believes one of their > > > "stories" so completely > > > > And Jim was just sayin' that the nature of > > enlightenment is such that it falls outside the > > category of "stories," something of which you're > > apparently not aware. > > And I *understand* that some people believe this. If you do understand this, then why are you asking someone who believes it whether their "story" about enlightenment might not be correct, when they say it's not a "story" in the first place? That would make no sense at all. It's like asking them what color Thursday is. > I do not. Neither do spiritual traditions such > as the Tibetan one Vaj mentioned. But lots of others do, as Jim pointed out. It's actually pretty standard. > I am a strong believer in enlightenment, and I > believe that the experience of it should be under > exactly the same scrutiny and subject to the same > analysis as any other experience, if not more. It > isn't "exempt." Should Thursday be exempt from a query about what color it is? Nobody's talking about "exempt," of course. To use that term indicates you still don't grasp the distinction that's being made, or why it's made in the first place. You're just way out of your depth on this one, Barry.
