-Your definition of "dogma" may be overly broad. It's not the content, but the character of binding duality. Thus, to assess another person as you are doing is rather presumptuous; since you have expressed various political viewpoints. By your same approach, your political viewpoints can just as easily be construed as dogma. To be really consistent, you would have to come to the absurd conclusion that Ramana Maharshi has not Enlightened since he continued to be a devotee of Arunachala Shiva.
-- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 <no_re...@...> wrote: > > one more point, to bring some balance vis a vis Buddhists and TMO, > Barry and "vaj" are a lot more like Bevan and John Hagelin that it > may appear. Although Barry and "vaj" see their allegiance to "His > Holiness" the Dalai Lama and Bevan and John see their allegiance to > the Maharishi, all four of them are operating in much the same > manner. > > if SSRS is asking us to loot the store, all four of these guys are > living in the halfway house. all are trying to both be dogmatic and > at the same time gain enlightenment. there is absolutely no > difference between trying to hold onto the ego in Buddhism and > within the TMO. NO difference. > > sure, as with Buddhist practice, you may think that if you do good > stuff for others, then you are becoming enlightened. same as living > in a vastu house in the TMO. the initial AHA with both practices is > useful in broadening the mind. but as Bevan, John, Barry and "vaj" > so openly demonstrate, an addiction to dogma will never result in > enlightenment. all you end up with is mood making. > > it is clear to anyone on this board that both Barry and "vaj" can be > really nasty guys. and both too espouse compassion. this is > identical to Bevan and John, who on the one hand espouse a Vedic > lifestyle, while humping married women on the side. no difference. > > there is no way to fake the goal of a spiritual tradition by > continuing to follow dogma. all four of these seekers are ego > tripping, and all four are never going to gain enlightenment using > that approach. > > sorry to pick on you guys, Barry and "vaj"-- its just that you are > perfect servants for the point i am making.:) > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 > <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > i want to make a point here about enlightenment-- "vaj" argues > below > > that he can both follow the dogma, and be -partially- enlightened. > > > > THIS IS NOT POSSIBLE. unlike what his teachers have taught him > (read > > $$$ and power for THEM), the experience of enlightenment is one of > > total freedom and complete independence. there is no need in such > a > > state to refer back to where we are trying to go. > > > > another servant to my point here is Barry who frequently mentions > he > > was enlightened once, for a short time. this impermanent > witnessing > > experience has nothing to do with enlightenment either. > > > > "vaj" argues the point that someone who has reached the > destination > > needs to continue to look at the map. speaking of absolutes, this > is > > absolute garbage.:) > > > > while enlightenment is not a static state, there is no > relationship > > between religious dogma and enlightenment. dogma is useful for > > pointing us in the right direction, but is then naturally > discarded > > once the goal is reached. > > > > many seekers like Barry and "vaj" hold on to dogma because it is a > > convenient way of not letting go completely of their ego. fine-- > no > > problem, but they shouldn't try to justify it in all sorts of > > bizarre ways. enlightenment is straightforward. no caveats. you > are > > or you aren't, no dogma and no excuses. > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradhatu@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Jan 16, 2009, at 12:33 PM, enlightened_dawn11 wrote: > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradhatu@> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> On Jan 16, 2009, at 12:02 PM, enlightened_dawn11 wrote: > > > >> > > > >>> however the goal is actually reached by TRANSCENDING THE > DOGMA, > > > >>> whether it is the Buddhist ideals of compassion or whether > it > > is > > > > the > > > >>> TMO ideals of living a Vedic life. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> It sounds like you lack an experiential understanding of the > > > >> difference between relative compassion and absolute > compassion > > or > > > >> what the nature of consciousness actually is. > > > >> > > > >> There's ultimately nothing to transcend; what a silly belief. > > > >> > > > > it sounds to me as if you are claiming to be enlightened. or > you > > are > > > > trapped by dogma. which is it please? > > > > > > I'm afraid you're a bit too binary for me my dear! > > > > > >
