How Can We Reconcile Enlightenment with Errors?
Perhaps I could lighten my load by answering the various emails that have asked this question here, given the difficulty I’m having coordinating my pop netbook and imap Mac. If you’ll allow me on this occasion, I’d be grateful.
First of all, yes, I’m aware of what the lightworker says about Obama. Do I agree with him? No. I also don’t think I can easily excise what he says from his posts.
How can I call him enlightened when he says something like that? Well, the two are not contradictory.
I’ll reprint a comment I made earlier in answer to the same question.
The difficulty we may have with this seeming incongruence comes when we forget that enlightenment has stages. The initial stage of enlightenment occurs when the kundalini reaches the fourth chakra and is called by Hindus “spiritual awakening” and by Buddhists “stream-entering.” Does that make a person all-knowing? Certainly not.
I have a friend who undoubtedly has had that experience and he continues to say things I disagree with. (This friend has been in the Far East for a year so he is not anyone we know.)
I can think of numerous examples of people who’ve reached seventh-chakra enlightenment called by Hindus Brahmajnana and by Buddhists arahantship, who appear to have said things that were at least debatable. Again I don’t wish to start a war by naming names.
I don’t know what level of enlightenment the lightworker in question has achieved, but whatever level it is, he’s neither all-knowing nor free of reactivation.
He seems to know little of the galactics. He doesn’t know that nuclear war has been banned on the planet or that World War III won’t happen.
So I take from him what I like and leave the rest. And there is much that he says that I regard as true and courageous. He plays his role and does a great job. Where he errs, I don’t consider him insincere; just misinformed. I also don’t expect him to be omniscient so I’m not troubled by what I consider to be errors.
If you want to look further into the levels of enlightenment, they are discussed at some length on the page of the dictionary of enlightenment, From Darkness Unto Light, here: http://www.angelfire.com/space2/light11/fdl/e1.html , and in various chapters of The Purpose of Life is Enlightenment. which you’ll find in the righthand column, particularly the chapters, “The Purpose of Life is Enlightenment,” “Beyond God-Realization,” and “Enlightenment is Virtually Endless.”
Enlightenment itself is virtually endless. We talk of spiritual awakening, cosmic consciousness, savikalpa samadhi, nirvikalpa samadhi, sahaja samadhi, ananda samadhi, nirvana, knowledge of the No-Self, and these are only levels of enlightenment we are aware of.
I would not regard a person as reactivation-free until they are past sahaja samadhi, like Adyashanti or Sri Ramana Maharshi.
So, in sum, I think we have to approach this particular lightworker’s messages knowing that he can lead or speak on some questions and perhaps not on others. But isn’t that the same for all of us? It certainly feels appropriate when I think of myself. What do I know of sacred geometry, astrology, the photon belt, the galactic center, etc.? Zip. I keep my mouth closed on those topics or quote others and state my own ignorance.
Until we are all-knowing, the best we can do, really, is to be clear about the status of our knowledge – belief, hearsay, guesswork, certain knowledge, etc. We can be in integrity with the status of our knowledge, rather than making claims to being all-knowing.