--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_re...@...> wrote:
> As for #2, I have to nitpick again. You said "a > highest goal." I said "THE highest goal." With intention, because this is how I perceive it. I intentionally did not formulate it in an absolutist way. There > is a difference, and one that should be obvious > to anyone who has paid their dues in the TMO or > in other spiritual trips that claim that enlight- > enment is the highest goal. I am not interested in anything TM or the TMO. > The *presentation* of enlightenment as the highest > *possible* goal, with no other goal being as "high" > or as worthy, is what I have an issue with. But that's not what I started arguing for: You inserted the word 'possible' only now, making the same statement, which could have been a statement of personal choice and intent, an absolutist and intolerant one. This is not how you started out. I've > seen this piece of dogma ruin lives, as people got > so "into" the pursuit of enlightenment as the only > goal in life worth pursuing that they turned into > total flakes and lost all touch with reality. AND > their sense of well-being, since they were by def- > inition at every moment pursuing something they > felt they had not yet "attained." Aspirin in the right dose is a very helpful medicine, too much of it could kill you. The same is true here: In ideal, highest or otherwise is not bad in and of itself, but it could be if it is interpreted in a wrong and unbalanced way. > Back when I was a TM state coordinator, I heard of > and had to peripherally deal with the example of a > young guy who was so "one-pointed" in his quest for > enlightenment that he stole money from his family's > bank accounts to pay for "the next course," the one > that (of course, given the inevitable TMO sales pitch) > would be the one that would finally do it, and allow > him to realize enlightenment. It was like pulling > teeth to get the TMO to give the money back when his > parents demanded it, and in the end they gave back > only a portion of the money. Do you feel that this > is balanced behavior? No it isn't. First of all enlightenment cannot be bought, that's a totally wrong idea. Then you can not force it, there is no course - nor will there ever be - to GIVE you enlightenment. The 'I' of the doer is itself the greatest obstacle to its achievment - despite of all this, it could very well be an ideal that one holds highest. > > It's also not normal behavior, more of an example of > extreme behavior. Exactly! It's just that: extreme behaviour. It's unethical to steal money, it is karmically wrong, and without getting your karma clear, you don't get enlightened. Everybody is responsible for his/her own actions, and we have to bear the consequences. We all create our own karma IMHO But I would bet that everyone on > this forum knows of examples of people who let their > family or business responsibilities slide just to go > on that "next big course," the one that was finally > going to get them enlightened. You are citing an example lying back in time how many years? 30, 35, 40? Do you have no example more recent? The spiritual scene has changed quite a bit. Why not cite a more recent example if this is such a universal problem with ideals. > > My point is that I think -- for many reasons -- that > calling enlightenment the "highest" possible goal in > life is a Classically Bad Idea, pragmatically and > karmically. Your mileage may vary on this. If you leave off the word *possible*, which leaves no choice for other people to think differently, this is a totally wrong conclusion. Because you jump from an extreme example and generalize it to be true for all 'highest ideals'. Now you leave the cat off the bag - your question wasn't innocent, but a set-up, why didn't you start out with your opinion right away? <snip> > > Okay, I will try to deal with it. First I must say, that this > > formulation 'Enlightenment as highest goal' is not from me, and > > I would formulate it differently, but never mind, I clearly > > subscribe to a hierarchical order of ideals. That is I would > > say, that enlightenment is higher in order than others. > > How much higher? Higher than ice-cream after lunch, but not incompatible with it :-) That's the whole point you are missing: Everything in life has its time in life, enlightenment is not a goal that can be forced. Its an ideal, like it is an ideal like the 'impeccable warrior' of Carlos Castanedian fame, or the inaccessibility of the hunter. :-) (which is probably very important in a hunters society) That is, could you list some of the > other ideals or goals in life that you feel enlightenment > is "higher" than? Is "helping others" lower than gaining > your own enlightenment? No, it is not lower at all. Many great enlightened saints did a lot to help others, like feeding the poor, building schools etc. As it happens, I am myself involved in such work. Is finding a sense of relative > well-being in one's daily life "lower" No, its quite likely even connected with enlightenment. <purposeful cut here> than spending that > life questing after something one has only heard of and > never experienced, some mythical state of "highest" well > being called "enlightenment?" Just askin'... Now thats becoming a loaded question with too many assumptions. Who says you have never experienced it? To me, having mystical experiences seems to be the fundamental thing about the quest to enlightenment. To strive for enlightenment, without deep life-changing experiences to cause this, seems to be unlikely and unnatural. > > And arguing with someone who never made those choices > and never even hinted at saying the things you attrib- > uted to him in your mind, as if he had really said > them. I see. :-) What are you saying? I attributed these choices to you in my mind? Are you mind-reading? > > > I think the second one was nailing it, if you look at the > > end of the post. > > I have no idea what you are talking about here so I'm > going to have to ask you to be more explicit. Are you > still claiming that I said or believe these things that > you made up and attributed to me? If so, prove it. Never mind. Don't get upset. I explored some logical choices of what you had said, just to clarify it for myself. I didn't attribute these choices to you or claimed you said them. No need to get tight up. > > Again, its not my formulation, but I think that a hierarchical > > order of goals and ideals in life is very natural. > > That is your right. I disagree. Do I have the right > to disagree? Sure. But maybe you don't understand what I mean by hierarchical. Hierarchical can also be in a more technical sense, that one set (goal/ideal) is a subset of another one. For example having food is subordinate to maintaining once life. I am sure you acknowledge this as a logical relation. > Actually, you do not. Most operating systems before > WinXP didn't even have the concept of "administrator" > for most users. Because they had only one user maybe? Computers which were constructed to be in networks had a superuser. > Again, not true. Have you never heard of "swap space?" > Prioritization takes place on the OS level, almost > never at the user level, as a matter of choice. I know that. I did not say that its a matter of choice for the user. But the OS itself has to have it, as you call it, prioritization. > Is this another one of those "If I claim you believe it > you believe it" things, like making up ideas, claiming > I've said them, and then arguing against them as if I > had? You've really got a thing for doing this, dude. :-) I actually elaborated on it. There are natural priorities in all our lives. Thats all I was saying. > Actually, the way I live my life takes care of the last > one so effectively that it never has to be a conscious > goal. I just live my life, and joy and a general sense > of well-being happen. Nice for you. I did not say something has to be a conscious goal. It is a goal nevertheless. > Now back to the point you keep talking around, without > dealing with head-on, if you don't mind. Why is enlight- > enment a suitable candidate for the *highest* goal in > life, the one that trumps all others, and renders ALL > other goals lesser and less worthy of one's time and > energy? I object to this kind of loaded question, which was not at all your original question. > Actually, I kinda doubt you have ever done this. Only > programmers who get into the guts of the operating > system do this. 99% of all users just do what they do > and allow these priorities to sort themselves out. Sure. Not my point that the user does it. My point was that prioritization is there and necessary. And of course the OS, that is the programmer does it. > > You probably still have lots of ideals you don't really hold > > in your mind, but they pop up, when necessary, like sustaining > > life, and right afterwards, your overall feeling of wellbeing, > > and anything subordinate to them. But they all have to do with > > sustaining the 'I'. > > And you perceive a problem with this? Is having > an 'I' *lower* in your estimation than not having > one? You always have an 'I' otherwise you could not function in the world. The question is how much it is in front of your awareness, and how much attached you are to it, lets say to yout thoughts, opinions etc. One step is to realize, there is 'something else' outside the I, something bigger. With this also altruistic work is helpfull. > > > If you think beyond the 'I', you are already in the field of > > 'enlightenment', religion, transcendence, God however you may > > call it. Once people discover there is an area beyond the little > > 'I' , they asign priorities to it. > > I didn't. I don't. I don't know you, but I dare say > I've been there, done that with most of the experi- > ences you've had in your life, and probably a few > you haven't had. I think its a silly game trying to find out who has had more experiences than the other. I don't want to be in a competition with you. Having done this, I do NOT assign > a higher priority to the experiences that were 'I-less' > than I do to the ones that were...uh...'I-ful'. Well not my experience here. It is actually quite difficult to 'evaluate' experiences, and judge how much they are the same or not. Generally everybody thinks of his 'best' experiences to be highest. I can only talk to close friends and see on the details if they had something similar or not. As I said, I think that it is impossible to live without an 'I'. It is a matter of attachment to it. > Especially if you have been TOLD -- over and over > and over and over for *decades* -- that these > "spiritual" or "religious" experiences are "better" > or "higher" than other experiences. That IS the case, > right? No, not in my case. You're not actually claiming that the TMO did > *not* do this, or that other spiritual trips *don't* > do this, are you? I have no interest in the TMO, and I have not been involved in any spiritual trip that does this. You may consider that you are actually out of touch with the spiritual scene for a while. > I am suggesting that people "prioritize" these so- > called spiritual or religious experiences as "higher" > NOT because they really are, but because they've been > TOLD that they are. I think that the experiences I am refering to are awe inspiring in themselves. I know that many people have had similar experiences, and I claim that these are the ones which really changes peoples lifes. Any kind of 'brainwashing' is really not what is in my mind about that. The original question was - without the *loaded* parts that you just added now- that why would people hold 'enlightenment to be the highest ideal'. and who would actually support this notion. I do, but only in the way I explain here. IMHO to have enlightenment as a high ideal or as highest ideal is perfectly justifyable, but not under any condition, not in an unbalanced or unethical and exclusivistic way, as you suggest. > That was a JOKE, dude. I have NO "list of priorities" > in life. I just made up the number 17 because I sus- > pected that ranking enlightenment that low on an > imaginary list of goals would push some buttons. It > seems to have. :-) I knew it was a joke, I my response too was a joke :-) But on a second note, just to be a nitpick, interestingly you picked a number containing 7, which is considered spiritual in most traditions, Of course you did so unconsciously. > While I don't diagree, I am waiting for you to challenge > your own. But I am not pretending to be a rebel ;-) For example, up at the beginning of this post > you seem to still be claiming that I believe something > I have never said, believed, or even thought about. Is > that one of the beliefs you can challenge in yourself? I think you misunderstood > Formulate it some other way. I don't feel like. I do not do it for myself. I would probably not call my 'highest' goal enlightenment, because it is still egocentric in some ways, especially 'achieving' it. So I don't call it anything for now. Maybe surrender comes close. Think of the Bodhisattva ideal, here personal enlightenment is not considered highest, because *as a goal*, it still has an egoistic touch to it. Then my highest ideal is already ingrained in my soul. If you feel like it. Again, > I'm not trying to sell you anything or convince you of > anything. I'm just rapping, throwing out ideas just for > the fuck of it. There is no...dare I say it...goal > going on for me in doing this rapping. If you perceive > one, I might suggest that you might be projecting it > there, and that this is one of "your own beliefs" that > you might want to consider challenging. :-) I think any 'mental' idea can and will be challenged. I see it like the 'thorn removing the thorn' (btw, you may see this example as typical for MMY, but it is actually from Shankara and typicall Advaita). An idea that is very strong in a persons mind, can eliminate other ideas or desires or thought constructs, that are perceived 'lesser' by the person. Ultimately, this idea too will have to be dropped, as it is only a mental construct. A similar idea is described in the YS, where Savikalpa Samadhi will preceed Nirvikalpa Samadhi. It is simpler to eliminate all samskaras, by focusing on only one 'highest' samskara, the experience of bliss. Finally this last Samskara, will be eliminated as well in Nirvikalpa. Well thats just another concept about it. :-)
