--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > > > See? Attachment.
> > >
> > > so say we all...
> >
> > Actually, not all. The "there is a path to enlightenment" /
> > "there is something wrong with you that must be corrected
> > if you're not experiencing enlightenment" paradigm is *very*
> > popular, but far from the only approach.
> >
> > These days I resonate more with the Ramana Maharshi
> > approach. It's more real, and in my opinion more effective
> > at producing realization. If someone in a satsang given
> > in that tradition tried to claim that they'd really like to be
> > enlightened but just "can't" because... they'd be cut off
> > after "because" and reminded that they already ARE
> > enlightened. After a while even the most attached person
> > gets the point.
> >
> > It's a little like people who are unwilling to give up a long-
> > time grudge or neurosis. They don't want to give it up
> > because they get *mileage* out of it. "Oh woe is me...I'm
> > not enlightened because..." It's a way of getting attention
> > and prolonging the non-realization of enlightenment. If
> > everyone around you stops rewarding you for whining
> > about not being enlightened, maybe you'd drop the whining
> > and just realize that you're already enlightened.
> >
> > That's the theory of this approach, anyway. I've seen it work
> > wonders. And it was certainly more pleasant to be around
> > than the traditional "you're not enlightened because there
> > is something wrong with you" approach.
> >
>
> Actually, I was referring to the "attachment" thing.
>
> We ALL are attached, or so it seems.
I agree.
I was just rappin' about the difference in two philosophies,
one of which seems to me to perpetuate attachment by
almost "rewarding" it and giving it substance ("the reason
you're not enlightened is because of 'stress'") and another
which refuses to give the attachment any substance.
I honestly think that if the Ramana Maharshi tradition had
more effective techniques to impart the direct experience
of transcendence and CC (other than what they do in
satsang) that their philosophy would result in more people
realizing enlightenment than the traditional there-are-
reasons-you're-not-enlightened approach.
I like the fact that their approach doesn't deal with excuses.
So many other techniques and traditions have an *excuse*
for why more students don't realize enlightenment (they're
full of stress, they're not serious enough about their study,
the world is too gnarly, whatever). There are times when
it seems to me that the more excuses a tradition has for
NOT realizing enlightenment, the less likely it is that anyone
pursuing that tradition will realize enlightenment.
I like the contrast with the Gangaji / Ramana approach.
No excuses are needed because there is never a time that
any of us is not enlightened.
To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Or go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
