Barry appears endlessly frustrated by his own efforts as a seeker,externalizing his frustrations instead on 'others' . I'd answer his question by saying there is no apparent benefit of a self realized person to others, only to themselves. Further, the ripening state of self realization is one in which the boundaries between the self and others begins to dissipate, so draw your own conclusions.
Thanks for your response Tartbrain. Enjoyed it. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain <no_reply@...> wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > All that seems > > > > to "matter" is the person's subjective sense of their > > > > own subjective state of consciousness. We never hear of > > > > ways in which this subjective state proves itself of > > > > value to anyone else in the objective world. I'd like > > > > to hear more about that. > > > > > > When a crack, heroin, alcohol or food addict, gets "clean", > > > gets outside of the addiction, it appears that most don't > > > say "how selfish, its all about you" and ask "how did you > > > help anyone else in the world?" and "what did you do for > > > me today?" > > I am suggesting that most of humanity is addicted to a thought-full mind, > finding happiness in the past and future, and swimming in the "joys" of > regret, blame and judgement. How that manifests may be different from crack > addicts. Still its deeper addiction than to crack, IMO. Crack, people kick in > a few months. The above addictions, people can't shake in many lifetimes. > > > > > So you're suggesting that all but a handful of people > > on this planet are the equivalent of crack, heroin, > > alcohol, or food addicts because they're not enlight- > > ened? How elitist is that? :-) > > There are various degrees of addiction to the bag of addictions cited above. > Some, like smack addicts, can be quite functional. > > > > > And how in line with much of the dogma of enlightenment. > > > > Well, I get your take that you are interpreting my comments as "So > Enlightenment is so special" Just the opposite. Getting well, getting healed > is absolutely nothing special. And may make one less special in terms of > outer accomplishments, relations and all. > > > > While I am sympathetic to your POV, in the past I have asked, > > > "where are the human virtues"? However, we might be addicted > > > to the introductory lecture (whether TM, neo-buddhism, or > > > Andrew Carnegieism.) Intro lectures are simplified, dumbed > > > down versions of things. > > > > > > When someone loses the grip of their lives-long addiction to > > > the thought-full mind, past and future, looking for satisfaction > > > out there, blame, regret and judgement, I am not sure its uber- > > > sane to ask, "But what did you do for ME today?". > > > > I didn't use the word "me." > > And I assumed you understood that "ME" was not referring solely to YOU. > > I carefully used the word > > "anyone." What have the supposedly-enlightened done > > for ANYONE? What tangible benefit does *their* enlight- > > enment have for anyone else? I think it's a viable > > question. > > As are many Mu questions. They seem viable to the asker. Does not make them > no Mu. > > > > Former mind and thought addicts don't owe you or me anything. > > > > Yeah, because they were "addicts," and now they're not. > > Right. > > > > For the record, I see NO DIFFERENCE between the subjec- > > tive state of non-enlightenment and the subjective > > state of enlightenment. > > Of course there is no difference. These are mind states. Everyone has mind > states. > > > They're both just mindstates. > > Ah, so we agree, ha. > > > So, just as one could viably ask the "addicts" what > > they have done for anyone else lately, one can ask > > it of the supposedly enlightened. > > I don't ask anyone what they have done for me lately. Or for anyone else. I > am content that people are working through their stuff and everyone is doing > the best they can. Even the lesser addicted. > > >If they're so > > enlightened and all, 1) the question shouldn't bother > > them and 2) they should have a ready answer. > > Well you seem bothered -- not sure it bothers anyone else. > > > > Still, having one less person looking for love -- and > > > satisfaction -- in all the wrong places seems to be a > > > positive step for humanity. > > > > Only if one believes the dogma that there are "wrong" > > places. And that those who are not claiming enlighten- > > ment are the equivalent of junkies. I don't believe > > that, and am a bit surprised that you do. > > Jeez, can't you reduce this to more black and white even more, and get rid of > any speck or semblance of original context and meaning? > > > > > > > > (And let us hear how the lessening of your addictive, > > > monkey on your back, monkey mind, nature (inhert in all > > > of us) has helped the world?) > > > > I help the world as much as I can. > > Isn't that special. (as the Church Lady would say) > > > > One of the ways I > > do so is by not considering all but a handful of its > > inhabitants to be "monkeys" and "addicts." > > Ah,you are the pillar of human virtues. > > Me, I am dog poo -- I am quite comfortable with that. >
