Re: [Meditation Society of America] Interesting Comment From Email
medit8ionsociety <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
--- In email@example.com, Jason Fishman
> Hi Bob,
> Not being a person set apart, then I couldn't say that I'm
enlightened anymore then the next guy or gal. If it all moves together
then we are all enlightened idiots, eh?
> Somehow that doesn't hold true. If there is a thing called
enlightenment then it's something defined by the person perceiving an
enlightened person, based on a set of standards that they call
enlightenment. Calling someone a football player for example, shows
that we perceive them playing football, a good football player when
they fit inside those rules a bad one when they do not, and so forth.
> I would say that there are a great deal of enlightened folks, they
just don't have much to say about it, since it's clear that the rules
are moldable in such a way that there are no specifics about anyone,
which holds true for anyone really, riding on the backs of past
enlightened folks, taking cues on how to act, what limits are
presented and so forth.
> Charles Mason is a pretty smart cookie, I'd even say pretty
enlightened, set apart in such a way that he understood, very well I
may add, how to be set apart. It seems silly to think of a murderous
person as enlightened, yet people murder daily just to have a
hamburger :-) Silly also to define yourself or anyone else as
enlightened or idiots, when there really are no stable standards in
which to judge.
> Peace and Love
Dear Sri Jason,
You never cease to impress me. Charles Manson! Wow! I actually use him
as a basic proof of how weird the universe is. Whenever someone I know
gets deathly ill, injured, dies, or some similar negative thing, I
commonly say "And Charles Manson is healthy! I gotta ask God what
that's all about when I run into him"
Yes, I guess we're all enlightened idiots for sure! Thanks for the
Peace and blessings,
Well Bob, I'm not sure if your joking about asking god or not, but there won't be a God that is going to explain the actions of the universe to anyone.
If there was a God that would pick out a specific member to do his work, then I certainly wouldn't be able to trust that god. God then to me would be no more then an individual manipulating the universe in his/her idea of what it should be.
The truth of the matter is no amount of prayer will give a human the power to move mountains or cheat death. Going out in the world, doing the living on your own isn't possible within the frame of god's will. Making choices, progression through time, experience and so forth are all limited within the frame of being and that frame is between a begining and an end, when there really is no solid conclusion one can make about any of this, God is in the cards as well as the stars and not making judgements about how anyone acts. The freedom of being an individual along with the responsibility that entails to the living.
Peace and Love
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search - Find what you�re looking for faster.
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, medit8ionsociety <no_rep=
> --- In email@example.com, "jodyrrr"I suppose Bob. However, any expectation about the experience of
> <jodyrrr@y...> wrote:
> > --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, medit8ionsociety
> > wrote:
> > > One of our long time members had this to say about "Enlightened"
> > >
> > > "When someone is making judgements about someone else, this alone
> > > indicates that they see themselves as separate from the rest of
> > > creation, and red-flags their not being enlightened."
> > >
> > > Comments?
> > Just another occluding expectation about enlightenment.
> > To believe you will cease to distinguish between different
> > people and objects, let alone discard critical thought, is
> > just one of the many things people *BELIEVE* (rather than
> > know experientially) about enlightenment.
> Dear Jodiji,
> Well, I hear what you are saying, and as with all your statements, I
> respect and value it, but perhaps your judgement of the statement
> being "Just another occluding expectation about enlightenment." may
> also be 'Just another occluding expectation about enlightenment' as
a realizer made by a non-realizer has no basis in fact, as only those
who are realizers are in possession of the "facts." But even if a
realizer made the above characterization, s/he is only speaking out
of their own experience. Realizers, like all people, are as individual
as snowflakes. One realizer may find no reason to evaluate the
statements of others, another may spend all his time doing so.
There are many examples of enlightened assholes. Nirsagadatta
and U.G. Krishnamurti come to mind. Ramakrishna could also be
quite the jerk in certain, limited circumstances, as were his two
main disciples Vivekananda and Brahmananda, depending on the
> And your saying that says it condones a belief that one ceasesTrue.
> "to distinguish between different people and objects" may be just your
> unique extraploation of what was said.
> Viewed another way, I think itAgain, we can look toward Vivekananda as an example of a realizer
> can be seen that the statement shows the basic discrimination and
> dispassion that are the foundations of Raja and Jnana Yoga, and not at
> all a discarding of critical thought (which actually may be what the
> fallen St. Martha might rightly call "a good thing").
who was full of critical judgements and not afraid to express them,
often much to the chargrin of his Western hosts. He travelled coast-
to-coast in America in the end of the 19th century on a lecture/debating
tour where he regularly handed his opponents a new round rear-end
> > Believing such will only serve to create a template inAnd spiritual culture is literally *brimming* with these templates.
> > the mind which enlightenment will not fit into (as it will
> > not fit *ANY* template the mind creates for it.)
> Yes, I like and agree with the template/concept that enlightenment
> will not fit into...any template the mind creates.
Our writer's comments, regardless of where they are coming from
experientially, only serve to distribute and reinforce one such
template, that of enlightened folk always being nice and never
having a reason to critique the statements of another.
> > The endThat's one reading of it, and probably the closest to my intent.
> > result is the occlusion of understanding due to mistaken
> > impressions about it being taken for fact rather than the
> > fiction they are.
> Well, couldn't this be seen as a judgement about the state of the
> writer, and that they aren't enlightened, and know by experience of
> what they are sharing here?
But, if we accept the writer as enlightened, then s/he is just
imposing their personal definition of enlightenment, based on
their own patterns of behavior and expectations for themselves.
It follows the contours of the standard Vedic boilerplate about
what enlightenment is and what it results in vis å vis the person
it apparently happens to. But I've found in my own experience
out of my own life, and that of my friends whom I would call
jnanis, that enlightenment has no standard with regards to the
individuals who come under its umbrella. IOW, there's just as
many personal and individual differences in the enlightened
as the unenlightened. Enlightenment doesn't change who you
were, at least not all at once, at least not in every case.
There is a brain, and that brain connects to memories, and
these memories and patterns of behavior change over time,
usually quite slowly, rather than all at once. So, while the
understanding we are calling enlightenment is the same in
terms of what becomes known to that life, the characteristics
of that life are probably going to keep rolling in the same
general manner that it always has.
> And that what you have said is fact andThe red flags of others have no bearing on 'this' or my life
> not fiction, but not so for what they said. Quite a judgement....and
> to go back to the initial statement, does this mean that there are red
> flags going up?
as an expounder on 'this'. I'm quite aware as an individual that
I come off as an over-opinionated asshole, and I expect nobody
to take my word for my own understanding. IOW, I send red flags
up in others all the time, and it changes nothing with regards to
what I as an individual know, or my convictions about what I am
I suppose others would call that pig-headed. All I can really
say to them is, "Oink, oink." ;)
> In any event, thanks for the good stuff. As always, your insight isNo prob Bob. I'd apologize for giving enlightenment a bad name,
> conducive to self inquiry and that surely is "a good thing".
> Peace and blessings,
but I see that as a good thing, as it helps to tear down those
expectations and occluding templates that so many are trying
to fit into their heads as a way to come to the understanding
- --- In email@example.com, "texasbg2000"
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, medit8ionsocietyYo Bobby G,
> <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> > One of our long time members had this to say about "Enlightened"
> > "When someone is making judgements about someone else, this alone
> > indicates that they see themselves as separate from the rest of
> > creation, and red-flags their not being enlightened."
> > Comments?
> Hi Bob:
> I certainly don't want to beat a dead horse, but...
> it seems to me that making judgments about others is indeed an
> indication of "'being' absorbed in one's mind".
> Bobby G.
Actually, I think what we see on these lists that could be called
"beating a dead horse" are the ever ongoing judgements about others
states of consciousness. And to me too, this is certainly "'being'
absorbed in one's mind". And I think that we all have better things to
do than that:-)
Peace and blessings,