--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_re...@...> wrote: > > 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.
MMY talks about Purnam idah and Purnam idam, both inner and outer fullness. At any rate, the 'ego' has no essential reality, but if you wish to believe you ARE the actor on the stage of life that is your prerogative, albeit bizarre in the final analysis. The bliss of the Self is ever new joy, the bliss of the ego (ego being the product of the interaction with the senses or Gunas) is transitory and pails in comparison to the superior bliss of the Soul. Hence, you WILL tire of the repeated indulgence of the objects of the senses, you can take that on faith or experience, the choice is yours. In fact, as long as you believe you are the 'ego' you continue to chase rainbows, it is only in the relinquishing of the illusion (ego) that you achieve, or unfold, the reality. You strike me as just afraid of losing his 'self' identity; you don't lose your ability to 'act' on the stage of life, just the illusion that you are the actor!! Ka peech? Any great Yogi can Reincarnate on Earth at any time under any circumstance, did not Christ resurrect his physical body?
