"A dunce once searched for a fire with a lighted lantern."
Joshu Washes the Bowl, The Gateless Gate No. 7, Zen Flesh, Zen Bones, compiled
by Paul Reps, translated by Paul Reps and Nyogen Senzaki, p. 176.
--- On Thu, 10/30/08, curtisdeltablues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
From: curtisdeltablues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is enlightenment really all it's cracked up to be?
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, October 30, 2008, 11:47 AM
> What do you think?
I think you hit that post out of the park.
Since ancient cultures made no distinctions between personality
disorders or mental illness and enlightenment, I think they are very
poor reference points for the states of mind possible by humans and
what they mean. It is important to understand the different channels
our mind can function on up to a point. But spending a lifetime for a
particular state of mind...
The older I get, the less I care about my state of mind. It is the
least interesting thing about my day.
Great question Turq.
--- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED] .> wrote:
>
> It seems an appropriate question for this forum. Whatever
> our differences, its members have probably spent an average
> of 30 years each being fascinated by enlightenment and the
> pursuit of it. And we still are, or we wouldn't be here.
> Whether we still believe in the concept of enlightenment
> or not, we're still here every week discussing it, or
> things related to it.
>
> Over the years, we've all been presented with a number of
> ideas about enlightenment -- what it is and what it is not.
> These ideas have ranged from the ordinary (enlightenment
> is nothing more -- or less -- than waking up to what is
> already going on) to the extraordinary (enlightenment --
> "full" enlightenment, whatever that is -- is so special
> that those who achieve it cannot help but be perfect in
> their thoughts and actions, and can do things that normal
> humans can't, like levitate and know The Truth About
> Everything).
>
> We've also been taught -- in most of the spiritual traditions
> represented here -- that achieving or realizing one's enlight-
> enment is the highest path available to human beings. I know
> that I have certainly been told that everything else --
> EVERYTHING else -- is secondary to the pursuit of one's
> enlightenment. Or that it should be.
>
> I just realized that today is the anniversary of the first
> time I formally meditated, and thus stepped onto a spiritual
> path. And here I am, 42 years later, still on it. Go figure.
>
> And at the end of 42 years on that path, I find myself still
> believing in the existence of something called enlightenment.
> Heck, I can't very well doubt that one -- I've spent days and
> weeks at a time in subjective states of consciousness that
> mapped one-to-one to all of my spiritual teachers' descrip-
> tions of enlightenment. And they were neat, these periods
> of time spent out of time, but they tended to be more
> ordinary than extraordinary. They came, they went, and they
> still do. But the bottom line for me is that the time I spend
> in those states is no more special or meaningful than the
> time I spend in the ordinary waking state.
>
> As for the *really* extraordinary shit, the siddhis, I have
> performed a few of the minor ones myself, and have seen a
> few of the major ones being performed by someone else. And
> that was fun, but to be honest, over time the extraordinary
> shit turned out to be pretty ordinary, too.
>
> So, as a result, I have to find myself saying, in answer to
> the question in the Subject line, "No, I don't think enlight-
> enment is all it's cracked up to be." I think it's much less
> than what it's cracked up to be. And more. It can't EVER
> be what it's cracked up to be, because it was "cracked up to
> be" something to us in words. When it comes to enlightenment,
> words just don't cut the mustard.
>
> I think that if you get off on the idea of enlightenment more
> than you get off on the other things in your life, then by all
> means you should pursue it. And you should pursue it gung-ho,
> one-pointedly, if that's how you think such things should be
> done.
>
> But I'm going to pass on that one. Been there, done that, didn't
> find "there" that much different or better than "here." I'm
> going to focus on appreciating here, and now, and leave pursuit
> of something that lies in their future to those who like that
> sorta thing.
>
> What do you think?
>
