--- 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?
>
++ Good points - here and now can't be appreciated later usually.
