--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Don Miller <pod1...@...> wrote: > > Enlightenment is not a case of knowing everything, or even of knowing more or less than some comparitive "unenlightened" state, but something more to do with allowing some spontanious part, the spirit I guess, decide what the mind will do with its attention in the present moment. The issue is not how much you know, but rather in knowing just what is essential for the moment, and not what is not essential. When the art of doing this is discovered, the attention will choose sometimes surprising things that the conscious mind would have ruled out, but those choices of attention will turn out to contain unexpected purpose. Care to provide an example?
 Likewise, one does not stop to make mistakes, at least not in the eyes of other people in the present moment, but surprisingly one finds that the mistakes contain unexpected reasons in themselves too. After a little conditioning to this one does not feel the fool either, because the innocent path turns out to be of much less > resistance and so much more effortless.... > > > > > ________________________________ > From: Don Miller pod1...@... > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Sat, July 3, 2010 1:46:50 PM > Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The "highest goal in life" as IDEA > >  > Yeah, but in a real sense "enlightenment" is not so far away, and thinking so might cause it to become unattainable. It will even happen to some without them desireing it or having a notion of what it is in advance.  Could be that some keep it on the end of a stick, always just a little out of reach of the burros mouth.   Sounds like a possible case of over-obsession, which could be either an agreement with Turquoise, or a counter-point, depending on if he is already there, in some manner, or not. > > I am going to look for another post from a few days ago, and elaborate. > > > > > ________________________________ > From: authfriend jst...@panix. com> > To: FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com > Sent: Sat, July 3, 2010 8:56:18 AM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The "highest goal in life" as IDEA > >  > --- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: > > > > I am fascinated by a certain type of idea -- one so > > established as being "true" that one can express the > > idea and no one questions the "truth" of it. After > > a while such ideas become *so* established and *so* > > assumed to be true that other ideas are piled on top > > of the first idea, to build larger "idea structures." > > And again, because the "foundation idea" is so assumed > > to be true, no one ever asks whether the whole struc- > > ture might be built on quicksand instead of bedrock. > > > > Such an idea is "Realization of enlightenment is the > > highest goal in life." > > And you're quite sure that nobody who holds this idea > has ever questioned it? > > Are you perhaps assuming that anybody who has questioned > it would have to have decided it wasn't true? > > Have you ever questioned that assumption? > > <snip> > > I have asked people who believe in this idea to tell > > me where it CAME FROM, where they first heard this > > idea -- which they clearly believe is true -- that the > > highest goal in life is the realization of enlightenment. > > Fascinatingly, many of them cannot remember, or claim > > not to be able to. When I ask, "Were you BORN with > > this idea," a shocking number of them say, "Yes." > > > > When I then ask the ones who say this when was the > > first time in their lives they ever heard of the concept > > of enlightenment, they give an age or a year, no problem. > > But when I point out that they have just claimed that > > they've believed that this thing they first heard about > > at age 20 or in 1967 was the highest goal in life since > > they were born, they see no conflict. It's like, having > > accepted the idea as true here and now, they practice > > revisionist history on their own lives and claim to have > > always believed it is true. > > (Actually, I don't believe this has ever happened; I > think Barry made it up for the purpose of his putdown.) > > <snip> > > Those of you who have paid your dues in an organization > > that taught you this "enlightenment is the highest goal" > > supposed truism, think back to all of the things you > > have done in your life to achieve this "highest goal." > > Even more interesting, think back to all of the things > > you *haven't* done in your life, or have *rejected*, > > because you believed that pursuing enlightenment was > > more important. *By definition* it was more important, > > because it's the "highest goal." OK, now having done > > that, think back to how many times during this life you > > have stepped back and asked yourself "IS enlightenment > > really the highest goal in life?" Or "WHY is the > > realization of enlightenment the highest goal in life?" > > Smaller number, ain't it? > > Or perhaps, they've stepped back and asked themselves, > "Do I really want to spend all this effort trying to > attain the highest goal in life? Naaah." > > In other words, it's entirely possible that one could > believe enlightenment *is* the highest goal in life > but decide against dedicating oneself to achieving it. > > <snip> > This rap is occas- > > ioned by finding an article recently posted by one of these > > folks about a saint who supposedly sat in samadhi for 12 > > years. The point of posting it seems to be that we should > > find this as inspiring as the poster does. > > (I'd be interested to read the article to see whether > there's more context to it than what Barry suggests here.) > > > Call me crazy, but I don't. Some fellow sat in one place > > for 12 years. Big whoop. Even if you consider this story > > true, and this fellow enlightened, WHAT DID THIS > > ACCOMPLISH? What did sitting in one place DO for > > any other human being, or for the world? > > Me, I wouldn't presume to say. On its face, it wouldn't > seem to be much; but for all I know, merely being in > deep samadhi for a long period may have the effect of > "enlivening" mass consciousness in manner beneficial > to the world and everyone in it. So I wouldn't want > to come down on either side. > > I cannot help but > > believe that the lowest, most selfish asshole in the world > > who manages even once in 12 years to overcome his self- > > ishness long enough to share a piece of bread with another > > asshole accomplishes more in that act than the saint > > accomplished by sitting on his butt for the same 12 years. > > Where did this belief come from? When did you first > hear it? > > Could this be the same type of idea as the idea that > enlightenment is the highest goal in life? Are you > capable of questioning the truth of this idea? Could > it have become *so* established and *so* assumed to > be true in your mind that you've piled other ideas on > top of it to build larger "idea structures"? Have you > ever asked yourself whether the whole structure might > be built on quicksand instead of bedrock? > > > For me a MUCH higher goal than realizing my enlightenment > > would be treating the people I encounter in life as compas- > > sionately as I can and helping them out as much as I am > > able to. And failing. But then trying again, and every so > > often getting it right. That goal I can get off on. But > > realizing my own enlightenment? That doesn't even make > > it to my personal "Top Ten" goals in life. > > > > So I cannot help but wonder when people keep saying that > > "enlightenment is the highest goal in life," as if it were > > not only true, but Truth. > > I'm not real sure what this has to do with the guy > who sat in samadhi for 12 years. Presumably he had > already achieved the goal of enlightenment. > > It is neither to me. If it is > > for you, can you explain WHY? > > > > This thread is an opportunity to discuss this idea *as* > > IDEA. If you believe it, I am really not dissing your > > belief that enlightenment is the highest goal in life; > > I am merely asking you to give an "intro lecture" on WHY > > you believe this, to someone who clearly doesn't get it. > > But if you do deliver such an "intro lecture," prepare to > be dissed by Barry. That's why he's asking, so he can put > you down when you respond (no matter how calm and > dispassionate and well-reasoned your lecture). >
