TurquoiseB wrote: > 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. > Well, I don't know what teachers you've been seeing, but no Buddhist would teach the idea of 'self' or 'Self' - Buddhists don't agree with the notion that individuals each have an eternal soul-monad.
I always figured that Turq didn't understand Advaita Vedanta or the Ramana Maharshi, and this proves it! Maybe I should pass this message over to alt.buddha.short.fat.guy - LOL!!! > 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. >
