--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Jason <jedi_sp...@...> wrote: > > Try telling this to people caught in Nazi holocaust, Partition > riots, Khemer rouge genocide in Cambodia, Stalinist purge in > Soviet Union, Cancer patients, children suffering from > mal-nutrition in third world countries etc etc. > > Life is not exactly "cool" for them. eh.??
Actually, the teaching of every realized being in history is that life *is* cool for them. Coolness dependeth not on one's external circumstances. It dependeth only on how one perceives those external circumstances. As my man Bruce Cockburn once said: Little round planet In a big universe Sometimes it looks blessed Sometimes it looks cursed Depends on what you look at obviously But even more it depends on the way that you see I do not delude myself that I am 'way fortunate. I am the luckiest fuckin' human being I've ever met. I should have died dozens of times. Or wound up behind bars somewhere. I have systematically ignored the rules and "popular wisdom" presented to me *as* wisdome most of my life. And I have gotten away with it. I honestly do not know which is the chicken and which the egg in this scenario. Did I manage to ignore or break all the rules and have a smokin' life anyway because I dreamed it into existence by never imagining that there was any other way to live my life, or did the good fortune of my life just tempt me into thinking that the "rules" didn't apply to me? Beats the fuck outa me. All I know is that I have been phenomenally lucky. Others have not been so fortunate. One could go so far as to say that *most* have not been so fortunate. I feel for them. So did all of the spiritual teachers in history. That is probably why they taught using the *metaphors* and the *desires* of the less-than-fortunate. Find yourself preaching to an audience who believe that life is suffering -- because that is what they perceive their lives to have been -- and which metaphors are you going to pick to convey a way *past* suffering? Duh. I do not *fault* the Buddha for starting with "Life is suffering." Look at his demographic. It's just that lately I am more drawn to teachings that don't speak to that demographic. There are a few of us "out here" in the spiritual smorgasbord whose lives have *not* been perceived as suffering. They've been perceived as one fuckin' glorious E-ticket ride, in fact. For whatever reason, our lives rocked. They rock still. Every morning presents a new opportunity for additional rock-on-age. So the "life is suffering" metaphors don't *work* as well for me as they might for those who are suffering. I do not deny their suffering or the desire for a cessation of that suffering. It's just that -- for whatever reason -- I find it difficult to *feel* that desire for a cessation of suffering or a cessation of relative life itself. Relative life has just fuckin' *rocked* for me. In this incarnation and in several more that I have memories of. In some of them I was persecuted and literally tortured to death. Slowly. By people who were *getting off* on torturing me. These memories -- whatever they are and wherever they came from -- are part of my personal "memory bank," my recollection of my personal past. To me they feel just as "real" as memories of last week. But those incarnations rocked, too. I would not change one moment of any of them. If I did, I wouldn't be here the way I am now, and I kinda like here and the way I am now. > --- On Sat, 1/2/10, TurquoiseB <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote: > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Self is just self capitalized > Date: Saturday, January 2, 2010, 4:14 AM > > > Today's cafe rants are probably going to have a theme. > This theme was inspired by an old friend saying with a > straight face on another Internet forum that "exclusive > aim of human existence" is to "break free the from the > repetitive phenomenon of birth and death." > > On one level, I feel for this friend. I used to parrot > this crap myself once, and actually believed it. I now > look back on the being who believed that as incredibly > narcissistic and incredibly lazy and incredibly self- > serving. I too once preferred the silence of meditation > to the noise of the streets, and thus bought the "teach- > ings" of recluses who were so afraid of noise that they > withdrew into ashrams that the ultimate goal of life was > to eliminate life entirely. By withdrawing from life and > living the life of a recluse until one realizes enlight- > enment, and then ultimately by withdrawing from life > entirely so much so that it never happens again. All > that would be left is the silence. That was perceived > as the "goal." > > Some here perceive that as the goal still. I do not, and > in this particular cafe rap I'm going to rap a bit about > why. Caveat emptor. > > Much is said in traditional Eastern spirituality about > realization of the "Self." Capital "S." As opposed to > that awful lower-case "s" word, "self." But if you > analyze what most of the spiritual teachers you revere > actually said, most of them were teaching that self and > Self were exactly the same thing. > > Meditation -- meaning eyes-closed, withdraw-from- the- > senses-and-the- world meditation -- is the *easy* path > to realization of the Self. You shut everything out, and > if you're lucky you manage to "transcend" the noise and > experience silence. And you call that experience "Self." > Capital "S." If you bought the dogma that the teachers > revere taught you, you hope that someday this silence > will be 24/7 and that you will experience it all the time. > > Nothing wrong with that, IMO. It's just the belief that > self is something *different* than Self that I don't buy. > > Self is just self realizing what's really going on. And > a self can do that as easily in activity as it can with > eyes closed in meditation. If this were not true, then > enlightenment could not exist. > > So why do so many *rag* on self, and talk about "eliminating > the self," or "becoming Self," as if the latter somehow > left self *behind* like a snake shedding its skin? That's > not how I see things, or experienced them during my personal > enlightenment experiences. > > I always saw -- and experienced -- enlightenment as an > *additive* process, not a *subtractive* one. Perception of > everything as silence with eyes closed in sitting meditation > was not any different than perception of everything as > silence in a traffic jam. My experience was always the "200% > of life" that Maharishi talked about. And 200% was always > perceived as more interesting than 100% -- on *either* side > of the equation. That is, "24/7 samadhi in activity" tended > to be more fun and more fulfilling not only than 100% lost > in the relative with no samadhi, it *also* tended to be more > fun and more fulfilling than 100% lost in samadhi, with > eyes closed. > > So I find it difficult to comprehend why so many profess > the latter as their "goal" in life. > > They claim to be working towards "200% of life," but the > actual "goal" they speak of is to have the relative half of > life GO AWAY, so that they are left with only the silence > of samadhi. They wish to become the "drop merged with the > ocean," Self with *no* self component. > > Seems to me that what they're hoping by believing this is > that *after* having realized 200% of life by realizing their > enlightenment, the *payoff* for this is reverting to 100% > again. > > For all I know I may be the only person on this forum who > thinks this is REEEALLY REEEALLY STOOOPID. But then > I believe that that First Noble Truth indicates that Buddha > was somewhat of a Wuss. "Life is suffering" as the basis of > all of his teachings? Give me a fuckin' break. > > Life is cool. If the teachers we revere are really to be > believed, relative existence is not only not "lesser" than > the Absolute, it *is* the Absolute. "200% of life" is being > able to realize and appreciate both simultaneously. > > And yet thousands if not millions strive for enlightenment > *so that* they can theoretically eliminate one half of life. > They set as the *goal* of their spiritual path "getting off > the wheel," and ending incarnation entirely. They *look > forward* to leaving 100% of the relative behind, *rejecting* > the accomplishment of "200% of life," and becoming 100% of > the Absolute for all eternity. Go figure. > > I do not share their goal. My goal is not to transcend the > relative but to experience it as *both* relative and Absolute, > all the time. And then to *continue* experiencing it as both, > as long as that continues. I do not seek a "cessation of > life" or a "cessation of self" or a "cessation of seeking." > I hope that life is set up such that seeking continues > eternally, and that I -- as self or Self -- never tire of it. > > > >
