Hi Xeno, I've been enjoying your posts, though I am not sure there is a way to greatly simplify the language and ways we discuss enlightenment. Somehow the desire to "get there" leads both to the diversity of expression about the pathless path, and the agility to ultimately make one's way through the forest of knowledge presented.
I agree we need some conditioning to refine our discrimination towards that we are seeking. As for putting that coherently so that everyone gets it? I dunno, a fool's errand perhaps- Seems like if someone is going to get it, nothing stands in their way. And given that all of us think and experience so differently, perhaps the diversity of expression is a good thing. :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius <anartaxius@...> wrote: > > Ravi Yogi wrote: [In a response to a rather long post about the supposed > 'path' > of enlightenment, not repeated here] > > The important factors in the non-journey journey are: > * Three S's of spirituality - Satsang (company of the enlightened), > Seva > (service to Guru or God) and Sadhana (spiritual practices) > * And the 3 V's - Vairagya (dispassion to worldly objects), Viveka > (discrimination) and Vichara(inquiry, investigation). > * Above all Kripa or Grace of a Sadguru or God is the most important > factor. > > This response helps clarify the question or questions I was asking. There are > many different traditions of enlightenment, each with their own set of > descriptive terms, practices and techniques. Ravi Yogi uses a number of > special > terms in his response to me, most of which I do not know, and was kind enough > to > amplify them so I could grasp what they connoted. > > Perhaps the question I am proposing is this: is there a completely generic > way > to describe the journey of enlightenment, without the bamboozling > characteristics of a special vocabulary, that would appeal to the widest > audience? One of the problems I see is most spiritual language seems to me to > have strong religious connotations. When people with one religious > orientation > hear the language of another religious orientation, it tends to be very > off-putting. People regularly slay each other on this world in the name of > whatever they label as their primary or exclusive overlord (which is kind of > generic term for the concept 'god'), and its accompanying metaphysical > theological system. However the experience of enlightenment and its > associated > experiences are found across the board regardless of the spiritual camp where > one is parked. > > There are other groups, such as scientists which tend to atheism, and > spiritual > language tends to be rather unpopular with such groups. The concept of 'god' > does not compute, even though some scientists use the word in a very general > way > sometimes. So saying something like 'devotion to God or a teacher' might not > go > over very well. You would have to find some neutral way to explain it to > them. > One neuroscientist interested in spiritual phenomena and experiences wrote: > > > "The universality of these phenomena refutes the sectarian claims of any one > religion. And, given that contemplatives generally present their experiences > of > self-transcendence as inseparable from their associated theology, mythology, > and > metaphysics, it is no surprise that scientists and non-believers tend to view > their reports as the product of disordered minds, or as exaggerated accounts > of > far more common mental states â" like scientific awe, aesthetic enjoyment, > artistic inspiration, etc." > > The scientific community, and philosophers tend to be intellectual. Ravi Yogi > wrote at the beginning of his response to me the following: > > "I would say not to intellectualize or philosophize too much (sushkatarka - > dry > logic), otherwise you will just end deceiving yourself - a la Vakrabuddhi or > the > Trickster." > > This could certainly apply to my posts, but also, over-intellectualising > doesn't > seem to work very well with simpler folk, but it is often necessary with > certain > groups. I realize that on forums the attention span often seems to be about > one > sentence in duration. One would think that a group that discussed at length > recently "no mantra, no thoughts" would have a bit more room for a few more > thoughts. >
