Quote:
Originally Posted by dayzero
I have come across this lovely chap, Tony Parsons.
Much like Krishnamurti, and much to do with all our investigations here imo.
http://www.theopensecret.com/audio1.htm#audio
The Open Secret communication can only point to the simple wonder of being, and attempt to illuminate the futility of seeking for it. It does not accept or reject the teachings of spiritual path or process but it will expose, without compromise, the singular and fundamental misconception that drives the belief that there is something called a seeker that needs to find something else called enlightenment.
http://www.theopensecret.com/ |
So, then... Parsons would have us all live as if we are, all of us,
already awakened? I get that, but being awake and being "enlightened" are not the same thing. Does Parsons get this? Parsons, from my understanding, never had any enlightenment experiences of his own. So to him, they must not exist, right?
In fact, when asked
here , [I]But isn't enlightenment an extraordinary thing? He answers, "
No, not at all, that’s the point. Enlightenment is our natural and ordinary way of being."
What? To the Masters, the act of enlightenment is not necessarily a state of being, but rather a state of
becoming.
Tolle writes of his time after his illumination experience ..."For the next five months, I lived in a state of uninterrupted deep peace and bliss. After that, it diminished somewhat in intensity, or perhaps it just seemed to becuase it became my natural state. I could still function in the world, although I realized that nothing I ever
did could possibly add anything to what I already had."
Power of Now
The point here is that there is a division in the lives of the Mystics, the time BEFORE the experience and the resulting life of the Mystic AFTER enlightenment. A conversion. A complete alteration of life. It is an experience in its most intense form. It is an act of supreme, ineffable perception. Really, Parsons devotees, how is this "ordinary?"
It may be true that there are few, if any, modern day true enlightened Masters/Mystics that choose to identify themselves in the mainstream. But to say that every enlightened Mystic's abilities, including Blake, Boehme, Eckhart, Rolle, Jesus Christ, Catherine of Sienna, Bonaventure, Catherine of Genoa, Dante, Francis of Assisi, Hildegarde of Bingen, St. Teresa, Suso, Hafiz, Guru Nanak, Rama, Krishna, Shankaracharya, Kabir....should I go on and on? ...were simply due to
"...someone who has a lot of charisma and the gift of manifestation or magic" sounds like, well, someone like Parsons who has not had any experiences close to those of the great mystics.
Honestly, I think it's fine if people want to be aware of the essence of ordinary life and feel awake and whole, but will those acts automatically deliver enlightenment - illuminative experience or union with The Divine?