Ummm, I am not sure what people you are talking about, do you mean people who think TM won't get youto enlightenment, or people like Eckhart, Adyashanti, Ramana Maharishi etc. who think no kind of meditation will lead to enlightenment?
________________________________ From: Buck <dhamiltony...@yahoo.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2013 8:57 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Enlightenment WELL STATED BUCK Yes, well we know their outlook,and the view of life they mention, and which they think is the result of their own mental efforts, is the one held by the majority of people, and is the invariable fruit of pride, indolence, and ignorance. Forgive me but if I had not known it I should not have addressed this here. Their view of life is a regrettable delusion. -Buck in the Dome --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WLeed3@... wrote: > > Thanks for this reply Buck & a host of Ur other reply's here in polite > respect to YOU & all & here in this form! > > > In a message dated 1/13/2013 8:25:20 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, > Buck writes: > > Oh you fellows just assume no paths lead toward an awakening for people > nor continue on and that it is not self evident along the ways of a path. > That is your experience and what poor experience. It is blasphemous rattle > and argue what you are saying the way you contend it and having to > denigrate the awakened you see as your opponents as you go. Yours is a sad > commentary here on your selves. > > However, every day we are learning more about the benefits of meditation: > physical and mental well-being, compassion, patience, calming, a more > flexible mind, strengthened immune system, sharper memory-it;'s > extraordinary. > > Meditation. > First ecstasy, then the laundry. > Git to it, > -Buck in the Dome > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: > > > > > > Thought I would offer this for purposes of discussion. These > > > are my own beliefs at this time: > > > > > > From the teachings or musings if you will of people like > > > Eckhart Tolle and Anita Moorjani, Adyashanti one has to > > > believe that the whole thing about enlightenment and the > > > whole schtick that goes with it is complete made up > > > bullshit. > > > > Not necessarily. There are other explanations for the > > concept of a "path to enlightenment" that don't require > > us to think ill of those who proposed one. > > > > If for no other reason, humans have a tendency to need > > "explanations" or "reasons" for things that Just Happen. > > So *something* happens -- something unknown, and probably > > unknowable -- and someone pops into the state of attention > > that they have previously been told is enlightenment, or > > at the very least enlightenment-like. > > > > As for *HOW* it happened, or *WHY*, the most human tendency > > is to think, "What was I doing before it happened? That > > must have had something to do with it happening. If I > > figure out what that was, I can tell others about this > > thing that I did and they can do it, too, and experience > > what I am experiencing." > > > > The trouble with this, of course, is that no "thing" they > > did had anything to do with them realizing their always- > > already-present enlightenment. But if they associate it > > with meditating just before they realized it, they might > > create a "path" based on meditation. If they flashed out > > shortly after thinking fondly of their teacher, they might > > come up with a "path" based on bhakti and devotion. If > > they realized their enlightenment while having sex, they > > might even come up with a "path" based on sex. > > > > The trouble is that there was never any "path" for them, > > and so anything they come up with won't really work for > > anyone else, either. > > > > > Some meditation teachers like to teach that enlightenment is > > > something that is achievable in this lifetime, but in truth > > > it is already here, covered over by egoic perception. > > > Maharishi was particularly prone to promulgate this idea > > > that enlightenment was something to precious and rare that > > > needed to be pursued, to be chased, and he and teachers > > > like him do that to be able to get more people to buy > > > their nosturms. > > > > This part I agree with. Once having bought into the "path" > > presented to them -- probably by *their* teacher -- they > > continue to sell it. When the selling starts to make them > > money, and puff up their egos, they sell it even harder, > > to perpetuate the attention feed. And to sell a "path," > > one pretty much has to glorify the supposed "goal" or end > > point of the supposed path. > > > > > But evidently what we have called "enlightenment" is our > > > natural state must by virtue of being, just by being. You > > > don't have to go anywhere or do anything to become this > > > "state"� of awareness or being, but just be. > > > > While this is true, if someone had told it to you, would > > that have WORKED for you, to get you to realize this > > "state" yourself? I doubt that it would. Whatever was > > preventing you from realizing it before (*NOT* MMY''s idea > > of "stress," which I think is bullshit) is still in place, > > and until you drop that you can't realize the always- > > already-present nature of yourself. > > > > But does that make "paths" BAD? I don't think so. They > > give people *something to do*, something that they believe > > is leading them in a better direction. The fact that these > > things they're doing that they consider "sadhana" will > > probably not have much effect on their own realization > > may *be* a fact, but it keeps people off the streets. :-) > > > > > It must mean that meditation and seeking will never lead > > > to the experience of enlightenment, and when most people > > > talk about their enlightenment they are referring to a > > > fluctuating experience of consciousness. > > > > I wouldn't go so far as to say that meditation and seeking > > will "never" lead to them experiencing enlightenment. It > > might. On a deeper level, these things won't have "caused" > > the enlightenment, but at the same time they kept the > > person busy, and gave them something to pursue. > > > > > This to me also means that the old Hindu stuff about having > > > to spend countless lifetimes as plants, bugs, animals and > > > so forth until you "merit" a human body is also complete > > > made up bullshit. Why would the Infinite Magnificence, the > > > Unlimited Love that we are choose to do that? I can't think > > > of a reason. > > > > It's just made-up explanations that people come up with > > to convince themselves they know what's happening, and > > How The Universe Works. It's just what humans DO. > > > > > Any thoughts folks? > > > > Mine are above. I'll add to them that, while based on my > > own personal experience I tend to agree with the no-path, > > enlightenment-is-always-already-present thang, I *wouldn't* > > have believed that if I hadn't had a few realization exper- > > iences of my own. It wouldn't have made any sense whatsoever > > to hear that, because on the basis of *my own experience* > > before having realization experiences, this "always already > > present" stuff was clearly not true. I *wasn't* experiencing > > enlightenment. > > > > But then suddenly I was. And guess what -- the second thought > > upon finding myself in something that pretty closely resembled > > MMY's CC (the first thought being, "Wow...this is weird!") was > > "Shit. This is not new. This has been here all along." > > > > It's *at that point* -- having had such an experience oneself > > -- that the Tolle/Ramana Maharshi/Adyashanti stuff starts to > > "ring true." But *before* that point...no way. They could > > have talked, talked, talked all day about how already- > > enlightened I was, and I wouldn't have believed it because, > > from my POV, I clearly *wasn't*. > > > > So it's a Catch-22. I *agree* with you, based on my own > > experience, that the always already present model is more > > accurate, and describes the realization/enlightenment > > experience better than the seeking model. But I also know > > that I wouldn't feel that if I hadn't experienced what I > > have experienced. > > > > So it seems to me that when it comes to spiritual trips, > > there are different "paths" because people are in different > > stages of development. These "stages" have nothing whatsoever > > to do with "better/best" or "higher/lower" or any of those > > things that egos glom onto, it's just Where They Are At. > > So some approaches resonate for those who are At one kind > > of inner place, and other approaches resonate for those who > > are in a different kind of inner place. No harm, no foul. > > > > It's when the "path" becomes something that is sold heavily, > > or that starts to take people out of the Here And Now because > > they're always focused on some "goal" that is always "just > > one more course away" that I think that it's Bad News. > > > > Anyway, thanks for starting the topic, and for talking about > > something other than petty grudges and ego-battles. :-) That > > seems to be de rigeur here, and it's nice to be able to > > talk about ideas for a change... > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To subscribe, send a message to: > fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com > > Or go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ > and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links >
