|
Message |
| Posted By: |
UT |
| Date: |
27-Jan-2007-11:16:35 |
| Subject: |
The criteria for calling someone 'enlightened' |
In the "Is She/He Enlightened?????" thread, I posed a question to Samurai. I did so because the same question has been posed on other spiritual forums I'm a part of recentlly, with edifying results. The question, basically, is:
"If you were to label someone you have met or someone you have read about in history 'enlightened,' what are the criteria you use to justify that label?"
The question got me to thinking about my criteria for such things, and how they have evolved over the years. I share them here, hoping only to provoke interesting discussions of such criteria. I do NOT suggest that mine are "better" than anyone else's, or that they reflect any grand cosmic Truth. They're just what I've settled on, for now. They may change tomorrow, as my self changes. ( I've noticed lately that I cycle through selves faster than some people change their underwear, so by the time I finish writing this and post it, "my" criteria may well have changed. :-)
The two criteria that Rama gave for determining the enlightenment of someone were that they radiate golden light and they're funny. I no longer believe those to be effective criteria, although I have no problem with those who do.
For me -- first -- any hypothesis I have about someone's enlightenment is just that, a "working hypothesis, not an absolute belief. It's just a label I might apply to someone if they meet my criteria for *suspecting* that they might be enlightened. Their enlightenment or non-enlightenment is not, for me, something that defines whether I have something to learn from them.
So what are those criteria? It's better to start with what they are not. The golden light thang, while interesting, doesn't mean much to me. I mean, *I* can generate golden light if I want to, even during periods when I am not realizing my enlightenment, so I rank that as a siddhi, not an absolute criterion. The ability to perform other siddhis, such as levitating, disappearing, psychic phenomena, healing people, "seeing" the future, or whatever also are not criteria I would use. I have known far too many people who can do these things who are *not* enlightened for me to believe that there is a one-for-one relationship between these abilities and the state of enlightenment.
So for me, it comes down to one and only one criterion -- meditating with them. Not just once, but many times, over a period of months or years. If, during those meditations, *in the same room* with the person as they meditate, I have the experience of long, sustained periods of samadhi -- say, 20-30 minutes in duration, with no thoughts or sensations during any of those periods -- then I would probably begin to suspect that I'm dealing with someone who is enlightened. But only suspect.
So what are YOUR criteria for deeming someone enlightened? I'm not looking to knock these criteria or dump on them, just to understand the *why* of them. Thanks in advance,
Unc
|
The messages posted hear are those of the specific individual and may not represent the policies of Lila Publishing, the ideas of any other member of this bulletin board community or the teachings of Dr. Frederick Lenz. All copyrights are maintained by respective contributors and may not be reused without permission. By posting on this board you grant Lila Publishing a non-exclusive royalty free license under your copyright to use, store, display and reproduce your messages in whole or in part. All site assets, including these Perl scripts copyright © 1999-2002 Lila Publishing. These Perl scripts may not be directly linked to.
|
Communication Center - Version 3.50
© 2000-2002 Lila Publishing
|
