--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 4, 2008, at 8:01 AM, vanilla_dawn11 wrote:
if we define enlightenment as
being in constant alignment with the universal flow, the cosmic
purpose, that also becomes the motivator.
Unless of course you see
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ddeadlus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yeah, being in the flow of life is the best. Effortless functioning,
total safety, good things. Perhaps the best is the ability to
completely fulfill every possible desire. It's hard to tell what's
best though, as
here's my take on that. once a person becomes enlightened they
become a natural advocate for such a state- i have no idea why- it
just happens, and i've watched it happen to enough people that i
think i can state it as a trend. and since Kundalini markers are
flashy and come with their own set
: Is enlightenment really all it's cracked up to be?
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, November 4, 2008, 8:28 AM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 4, 2008, at 7:40 AM, Alex Stanley wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ddeadlus
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, gullible fool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Isn't that Ron's guru?
Yep, it sure is. To me, that spazoid kundalini stuff is no less
utterly ridiculous than fundie Christians hootin'n'hollerin' at a
revival meeting. Seriously, what the hell does goofy shit
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 4, 2008, at 7:40 AM, Alex Stanley wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ddeadlus no_reply@ wrote:
Yeah, being in the flow of life is the best. Effortless functioning,
total safety, good things. Perhaps
On Nov 4, 2008, at 7:45 AM, enlightened_dawn11 wrote:
i always appreciated what the Maharishi said about enlightenment. he
called it normal functioning; minimum competency. i think of it that
way also for me personally, not as some sort of dualistic put down,
but actually as a joke that our
On Nov 4, 2008, at 7:40 AM, Alex Stanley wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ddeadlus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yeah, being in the flow of life is the best. Effortless functioning,
total safety, good things. Perhaps the best is the ability to
completely fulfill every possible desire.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ddeadlus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yeah, being in the flow of life is the best. Effortless functioning,
total safety, good things. Perhaps the best is the ability to
completely fulfill every possible desire. It's hard to tell what's
best though, as
On Nov 4, 2008, at 8:01 AM, vanilla_dawn11 wrote:
if we define enlightenment as
being in constant alignment with the universal flow, the cosmic
purpose, that also becomes the motivator.
Unless of course you see beyond the sugar coating and realize there
is no ultimate purpose, only
Wow, what an awesome topic.
My experience is that Enlightenment is internally everything it's
cracked up to be while being completely externally normal at the same
time. Thus, there is this real sense of no-big-dealness to it.
On some level, Awakening (i.e. I am That) is an incredibly ordinary
-Nope. Wrong. Enlightenment is defined BOTH in terms of Being AND the
various Kundalini markers as described by MMY, Lakshmanjoo, and
others: 100% Absolute, 100% relative, not just It.
There has to be clear markers along the way otherwise idiots like
you would be deceived into a premature
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ddeadlus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wow, what an awesome topic.
My experience is that Enlightenment is internally everything it's
cracked up to be while being completely externally normal at the
same
time. Thus, there is this real sense of
what ddeadlus writes does not contradict what you are saying. a
clearing of the 3rd eye or enlivening of the heart, throat or crown
chakras is an incredible and wonderful experience. but there is
nothing to be gained by dwelling on the experience.
it is a step along the way and then we are
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ddeadlus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wow, what an awesome topic.
My experience is that Enlightenment is internally everything it's
cracked up to be while being completely externally normal at the
same
time. Thus, there is this real sense of
Yeah, being in the flow of life is the best. Effortless functioning,
total safety, good things. Perhaps the best is the ability to
completely fulfill every possible desire. It's hard to tell what's
best though, as Enlightenment is just so utilitarian.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
Vaj wrote:
The Divine Madman and Masters of Mahamudra...
'Enjoy the Ride'
The 'Crazy Wisdom' of Uncle Sammy, A Rascal Sage
by Sandia S. Siegel and S. George Green
AuthorHouse, 2008
Other titles of interst:
'Holy Madness'
Spirituality, Crazy-Wise Teachers, And Enlightenment
by Georg Feuerstein
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
sure. enlightenment is something we either buy into, or we don't. it
is a state of being we aspire to, or not. those that feel a need to
pursue it, to live the state of a free and integrated soul, do so
What do you think?
I think you hit that post out of the park.
Since ancient cultures made no distinctions between personality
disorders or mental illness and enlightenment, I think they are very
poor reference points for the states of mind possible by humans and
what they mean. It is important
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
-snip-
What do you think?
a very interesting question at the top of your post. enlightenment
is really all it is cracked up to be and a lot more. the difference
is that when it is heard about or experienced temporarily
but enlightenment is not a state of mind. otherwise there could be
no established state of enlightenment. enlightenment is a state of
being.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What do you think?
I think you hit that post out of the park.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
but enlightenment is not a state of mind. otherwise there could be
no established state of enlightenment. enlightenment is a state of
being.
This is where I differ from the traditional understanding of these
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11
no_reply@ wrote:
but enlightenment is not a state of mind. otherwise there could
be
no established state of enlightenment. enlightenment is a state
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11
no_reply@ wrote:
but enlightenment is not a state of mind. otherwise there could
be no established state of enlightenment. enlightenment is a
state
sure. enlightenment is something we either buy into, or we don't. it
is a state of being we aspire to, or not. those that feel a need to
pursue it, to live the state of a free and integrated soul, do so
because of some fundamental lack in their lives. why that is and
where it comes from
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
sure. enlightenment is something we either buy into, or we
don't. it
is a state of being we aspire to, or not. those that feel a need
to
pursue it, to live the state of a free and integrated soul, do
so
On Oct 30, 2008, at 12:59 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote:
In making performance of the sidhis a verification of higher states
Maharishi was doing a brave thing. It is my favorite part of his
teaching, that he gave concrete benchmarks. He may not have lived up
to his grand claims, but the system
On Oct 30, 2008, at 1:31 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote:
Actually I was referring to Maharishi's explicit linking of these
qualities. He was very fond of making such lists and we spent a lot
of time around him doing just that. It was his claim that the state
of enlightenment leads to miraculous
so much for the traditional criteria, eh? seriously if the
traditional criteria were all there was to it, those teaching and
assessing such criteria would be enlightening people by the
truckload. why isn't that happening?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
---Precisely! The Neo-Advaitins just say Being...Being... and
claim Enlightenment. The relative benchmarks have to be there in
terms what the body has gone through in the transition from CC to GC
to UC. For starters, Lakshmanjoo lists at least 4 levels of awareness
during sleep. Very few
curtisdeltablues wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
but enlightenment is not a state of mind. otherwise there could be
no established state of enlightenment. enlightenment is a state of
being.
This is where I differ from the
On Oct 30, 2008, at 2:31 PM, enlightened_dawn11 wrote:
so much for the traditional criteria, eh?
The traditional criteria are very precise at doing what they've done
successfully for thousands of years. Nothing has changed accept the
modern era where people are sold on these ideas or
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Oct 30, 2008, at 2:31 PM, enlightened_dawn11 wrote:
so much for the traditional criteria, eh?
The traditional criteria are very precise at doing what they've
done
successfully for thousands of years. Nothing has
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
are samskaras remaining that need to get out of the system. And don't
buy into the fact that all samskaras need to be gone to be
enlightened.
Obviously that is not the case.
Oh yeah!
viraama-pratyayaabhyaasa-puurvaH
On Oct 30, 2008, at 2:44 PM, enlightened_dawn11 wrote:
The traditional criteria are very precise at doing what they've
done
successfully for thousands of years. Nothing has changed accept
the
modern era where people are sold on these ideas or meet up with
any
of the many fake teachers
-
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@
wrote:
-snip-
What do you think?
I think if the model of enlightenment allows the enlightened to be
asses then I want no part of it.
On Oct 30, 2008, at 6:03 PM, ruthsimplicity wrote:
-
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@
wrote:
-snip-
What do you think?
I think if the model of enlightenment allows the enlightened to be
asses then I want no part of it.
Hear, hear, Ruth! Best answer I've heard so
On Oct 30, 2008, at 7:07 PM, Sal Sunshine wrote:
I think if the model of enlightenment allows the enlightened to be
asses then I want no part of it.
Hear, hear, Ruth! Best answer I've heard so far.
My personal take is that most of this enlightenment talk is mega-
boring, but maybe that's
Sal Sunshine wrote:
On Oct 30, 2008, at 6:03 PM, ruthsimplicity wrote:
-
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@
wrote:
-snip-
What do you think?
I think if the model of enlightenment allows the enlightened to be
asses then I want no part of it.
Hear, hear, Ruth!
On Oct 30, 2008, at 6:24 PM, Vaj wrote:
Yeah, that's fine--but what about divine asses--no, not people
who egoically act themselves out as not-all-that-divine asses,
hurting some or (very sadly) many--but those who feigned
assholiness and instead use(d) outrageousness to awaken others to
On Oct 30, 2008, at 6:28 PM, Bhairitu wrote:
On Oct 30, 2008, at 6:03 PM, ruthsimplicity wrote:
-
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@
wrote:
-snip-
What do you think?
I think if the model of enlightenment allows the enlightened to be
asses then I want no part of
TurquoiseB wrote:
What do you think?
Ah, all I have to do is ring the little
bell, and the slobbering dog shows up
right on cue.
Read more:
Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental
From: Mike Doughney
Subject: Re: Question for expert Doughney
Date: Wed, Feb 18 2004
On Oct 30, 2008, at 7:31 PM, Sal Sunshine wrote:
On Oct 30, 2008, at 6:24 PM, Vaj wrote:
Yeah, that's fine--but what about divine asses--no, not people
who egoically act themselves out as not-all-that-divine asses,
hurting some or (very sadly) many--but those who feigned
assholiness and
Vaj wrote:
Yeah, that's fine--but what about divine
asses...
Rude boy gurus?
We would likewise not attempt to evaluate
any author's polemics in situations where the
righteous anger may have been provoked, and
may be justifiable as an attempt to awaken
the people at whom it is directed,
there is nothing that excuses that sort of anti-social and rude
behavior. it is arrogant, mean-spirited and destructive, and anyone
doing it as some sort of enlightened exercise to wake someone up
is delusional, at best.
i hope you are not condoning this?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is enlightenment really all it's cracked up to be?
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, October 30, 2008, 11:47 AM
What do you think?
I think you hit that post out of the park.
Since ancient cultures made no distinctions between
On Oct 30, 2008, at 8:10 PM, enlightened_dawn11 wrote:
Yeah, that's fine--but what about divine asses--no, not people
who
egoically act themselves out as not-all-that-divine asses,
hurting
some or (very sadly) many--but those who feigned assholiness and
instead use(d) outrageousness to
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Oct 30, 2008, at 8:10 PM, enlightened_dawn11 wrote:
Yeah, that's fine--but what about divine asses--no, not people
who
egoically act themselves out as not-all-that-divine asses,
hurting
some or (very sadly)
On Oct 30, 2008, at 8:50 PM, enlightened_dawn11 wrote:
No. Sorry.
I've seen it otherwise: cutting to the raw heart of America.
Utterly
with compassion.
Paradoxically in trailer-trash drunkenness--but nonetheless, to
the
heart of the matter, for the time.
That it's borne good fruit (good
Shame on you Dawn for only envisioning a small slice of the mandala
of
humanity as enlightenable!
**
The light in enlightenment is unlimited consciousness, and it's
available when the mind is sattvic (pure, transparent). Until the mind,
the sixth sense, no longer blocks full
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It seems an appropriate question for this forum. Whatever
our differences, its members have probably spent an average
of 30 years each being fascinated by enlightenment and the
pursuit of it. And we still are, or we
and
time limitation is inside consciousness.
--- On Thu, 10/30/08, Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is enlightenment really all it's cracked up to
be?
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, October 30, 2008, 11:17 PM
52 matches
Mail list logo
