Now Turq;....you know this isn't true. Fundamentalist Christians begin with accepting Jesus as your personal Savior as the necessary ingredient for Salvation. Everybody else (the unsaved), are doomed. Once the Kingdom arrives (naturally through Jesus the Messiah); then Christians look forward to a special place in that Kingdom - Heaven on Earth as it is in Heaven; and happiness for all the saved; forever and ever. ... I appreciate some of your pointed criticisms regarding Enlightenment and the dangers of unquestioning acceptance of the model; so let's go back to square 1. ... Unfortunately, your pov is pitted against the likes of the Buddha, Shankara, Ramana Maharshi, MMY; etc; and you have about as much Foundation to stand on as the Thelma and Louise characters having driven off a cliff: nada....compared to the Spiritual Giants of history.
And then we come to modern history, post advent of MMY and the attempt by the philosopher/pundit Wilber to summarize somehow the entire corpus of Advaitic literature into a set of a few volumes. Extracting nondualism from the various religious contexts, Wilber has come up with the "Great Tradition"; called by ADi Da: "Advaitayana Buddhism". ... The key point of Advaitayana Buddhism as I see it is that going back to the Buddha, : a. the very structure of material existence involving Samsara is inherently suffering:...the wheel of transmigration Now here's where you departe from the "Great Tradition": 1. first, you question the existence of Enlightenment itself, which is an absurdity and can be dismissed outright. Or, we can zero in on MMY's "Unity". There's enough evidence for that 2. Next, you say that you relish physical embodiment on this planet and would not hesitate to engage in 20 more of such incarnations. I seriously doubt that if one of your incarnations has you getting ALS at an early age. 3. The only credible leg you have to stand on is questioning the value of techniques and their value in the short run; since even dismissing the entire concept of Enlightenement, 4....people continue with the practice of techniques due to some benefits in the short run.; such as the experience of "Transcendence" which can be precipitated through the practice of TM. 5. The bottom line: even allowing for the complete elimination of the concept/idea of Enlightenment, we can account for people's continued practice of techniques such as TM (or whatever); on the same basis that in the short run, you derive benefits from your pleasures. 6. Concerning short-term benefits then, we can take a statistical approach: most people that started TM quit soon afterwards; but others have continued with TM or other techniques, because it gives them some benefits in the short run. To conclude, you have made a fairly good point about the "idea" of Enlightenment but virtually no dent in countering the fact that some people derive various benefits in the short run for their Sadhana. That might be: more peace of mind, more efficiency,...to some extent but not to the same degree implied by the TMO people. ... In addition to the short term benefits; there's an intermediate term outcome: that of PROGRESSION and EVOLUTION. That is, after 2x years of practice for example, people in some way may be better off on some levels than after x years of practice. The experience of evolutionary benefits must be tacked onto the short term benefits. All told, the evolutionary benefits over time: 5, 10, 15...20, years point to (true) an "Idea" but it's based/predicated on some direct experience of a progression. OTOH, without practice, no progression. Just more wine-tasing, shooting the breeze with friends, and looking at the Babes. So people may choose which way to go, or perhaps accept Jesus as one's personal Savior. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jst...@...> wrote: > > --- 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). >
