I--someone who claims to be enlightened--reject the notion of superiority to the extent of how it's been elaborated in this thread. It's so stupid I find it offensive, it's as hollow as a Republican talking point.
If a person seeks to evolve, do they strive to realize an inferior state?
If a person seeks to evolve, do they strive to realize a superior state?
If the spiritual path is a matter of self-improvement, then by definition one who's further along the spiritual path has realized a superior state than someone less far along. It goes without saying.
Can one drastically, sustainably realize a superior state with the snap of their fingers, without actually making any effort? Of course not. Because what a "superior" state is, is precisely unknown to them.
The trajectory towards a more superior state is never fully known--otherwise it would already have been pursued--and the destination of said superior state is never fully known either--since obviously one can't discern where they'll end up before they decide where to go. (Realization of the trajectory arises simultaneously with arrival at the destination.)
Crow speaks of certain qualities corresponding to 'superiority', such as experience, authority, lack of ego, etc.
Why not simply use the terms "experience", "authority", "lack of ego", etc? Oh, well actually he does. But then he adds the word "superiority" to top it all off. Does it imply anything extra?
Crow talks about his perspective of enlightenment and strategies for attaining enlightenment. But he never defines "superiority".
Furthermore, not only is it derogatory towards others to call one's self superior, but to make it the central thesis of a thread, to imply it goes hand-in-hand with enlightenment, to never give any definition of it, and to stress that unenlightened folks are painfully ignorant of it... it's a sneaky, passive-aggressive way of touting one's horn for no other purpose than to get off on it.
The dictionary is quite clear in this matter. "Superiority" can refer to a person or thing being greater in quality or quantity to another person or thing in a specific, defined way, or it can refer to a person or thing being greater in quality or quantity to another person or thing in a general, universal way. The former case requires elaboration of the specific, defined aspect in question. The latter case is a matter of absolute value, necessitating ontological and epistemological discussion to have any hope of moving beyond the subjective whims of personal opinion, that is, in the eyes of any rationale, critical-thinking reader.
Recklessly tossing about polarizing words only helps promote the equally ludicrous notion that somehow we're all identical, that all personal agency is illusory, that at the end of the day we're all just a big, fat, homogeneous blob of undifferentiated oneness.