.

Schalk, I like the idea of these polls, but remind everyone that polls are only evidence of opinions, not facts. I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm certain that most of my opinions are wrong.

1. Have you ever personally met someone that you consider to be fully enlightened but from the standpoint of stages (vertical enlightenment) and states (horizontal enlightenment)? NO

2. Have you ever personally met someone that you consider to be enlightened vertically but not horizontally? NO

3. Have you ever personally met someone that you consider to be enlightened horizontally but not vertically? NO

4. Where in the world do you feel one should go to generate the maximum probability that one will meet an enlightened person? TAHITI

5. Do you feel that you will become enlightened in this lifetime? NO (see below)

6. Do you feel that you are trying to do things that will speed up the process of your gaining enlightenment? What goes by the name "enlightenement" is at best a gigantic exageration. Based on the current state of the evidence, the notion of absolute or permanent enlightenement is a complete myth. If we have special exotic experiences of "enlightenment" (and I have) they are temporary and their after-effects on people with normal mental health are usually mild and benign. On the other hand, in unstable people the effects of any exotic state of consciousness may be longlasting and extreme. Otherwise, the kinds of enlightenment for which any evidence exists are little different from many other profound but transient inner experiences such as inspiration or awe, including the possibility that such experiences can sometimes be encouraged or cultivated by various means. Unfortunately, the mythical version of permanent enlightenement is very widespread and is exploited by almost everyone in the "spiritual development" industry. It seems as though anyone who has ever had a transient experience of enlightenment (and there are many varieties) is easily convinced without further evidence (if any exists I'd love to see it) that such states can become permanent. If you are such a person, I see a rip off in your future.

Richard

--

There is no answer. There is no solution. There is only practice. (Anon.)

RE: The subject is enlightened persons. I am seeking to tally numbers on how many people personally have met a person they consider to be enlightened.

In Truth what One is “enlightened of” (or “liberated from”) is One’s belief in being a ‘separate person.”  As such, there are no “enlightened people,” only “body-mind organisms” that have been enlightened of their illusion of “self-existent personhood” [and all that implies (i.e. separate identity, personal doership, free will, suffering, etc.)].  Thus, an “enlightened person” would actually a conceptual “non-sequitor.”

Cutting to the chase, “There can only Be One Absolute, Only One One” (and anything other than THAT is apparent only).

1. Have you ever personally met someone that you consider to be fully enlightened but from the standpoint of stages (vertical enlightenment) and states (horizontal enlightenment)?

If we are talking about meeting (face to face or in the flesh) a “human body-mind organism” that is “enlightened of any self-identification with a personal sense of being” or “knows he is not a person” then the answer is yes.  He goes by the name of Charlie Hayes (Charles David Hayes) and can be contacted a www.theeternalstate.org or charliehayes36@yahoo.com .  Charlie is a former professional race car driver and a “real piece of work” by any standard.  Be warned, however, he does like to play “Hard Ball.”

Seen in this light I would say that any "relative catagorization" of Enlightement (as with the Absolute) is a bit of an "oxymoron." Although okay for intellectual computational purposes (from an assumed position of relativity), it becomes meaningless with respect to the Absolute Ground of Being (from a position of non-relativity).

2. Have you ever personally met someone that you consider to be enlightened vertically but not horizontally?

As previously defined, enlightenment would have to be 100% (which is what the Biblical reference to Pure Heart points to), as anything less (re: vertical or horizontal) implies a relative or dual (versus Non-Dual) state of Consciouness. In other words, to be Enlightened is like being pregnant, One can’t be a “little bit” of either one.

3. Have you ever personally met someone that you consider to be enlightened horizontally but not vertically?

See response to 2 above.

4. Where in the world do you feel one should go to generate the maximum probability that one will meet an enlightened person?

Call Charlie Hayes and make an appointment.  You can also talk to John Wheeler, Steven Windgate, Sailor Bob, Adamson, Byron Katie, Jeff Foster, Tony Parsons, Nathan Gill, Scott Kiloby, Umani (Lisa) Hyde or Leo Hartong (who all have websites Charlie’s site links to).

In any event, YOU will be talking to the same ONE (re: YOUR SELF) particularly expressed through the body-mind organisms represented by those names.

5. Do you feel that you will become enlightened in this lifetime?

THAT which can be Enlightened Always Already Is! (re: The REAL never dies and the unreal never lives.) 

However, That may presently be appearing as One who has a temporary case of Divine Amnesia.  In other words, what “enlightenment” is really about is “becoming aware” of what "One Always Already Is” (or re-member-ing/re-collect-ing/re-cogniz-ing THAT as Being Ever-Present); but which One seems to have forgotten due to “a fatal case of mistaken identity.”

6. Do you feel that you are trying to do things that will speed up the process of your gaining enlightenment?

Technically speaking, and from a pure Advaitic standpoint, the answer would be no. For how could an imagined or conceptually fabricated person (or any other concept of thought for that matter) do anything “in and of itself.”

Even Jesus, who many consider a unique “Son of God,” said: “I of mine own self can do nothing, the Father (the Absolute) in me, He doeth the work.”  Which also clarifies what was being pointe to when he said: “Why calleth thou me good, for none are good, save One, which is God.”

 As such, there is nothing “you” (as one now conditioned to believe he is a separate person) can do” and nothing “you can not do” to beenlightened.  It happens when it happens, of Itself.

This is just saying that practice or non-practice (if one is doing either) is just part of the Script (or the way the Divine Dominos fall) – it goes on until it doesn’t.

Jeff Foster has a great podcast that addresses this "particular issue" much better than I on http://urbangurucafe.com/wordpress/index.php

[Addendum: Although Greg Mayer's suggestion that "Those who know don't speak and those that speak don't know" is quite true from a relative perspective, whether speaking goes on or not is not a matter of personal choice, but rather the programming of a particular body-mind organism.  So regardless of whether a particular expression of Enlightenment speaks or not is not the issue so much as "Who or What is speaking."  In this regard, none of organisms named above would consider themselves to "be any more enlightened than You."  Further along these lines, Charlie offers the following "Enlightenement Lie Dectector Test":  If you want to know if someone is enlightened, ask them.  If they say they are, they aren't." (LOL)  As such, "people" who think "they have it and you don't" must still, at least to some degree, self-deluded, however enlightened they might otherwise appear.]

RFHay