Yes, of course theses two fellows publishing here do not 'know' It as they wish, one cannot 'know' It. They do not 'know' It and that is why they are unhappy.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" wrote: > > Yes, no one attains to truth by himself. Only by laying stone on stone with > the cooperation of all, by the millions of generations from our forefathers > to our own times, is that temple reared which is to be a worthy dwelling > place of the Great God the Unified Field > > --- 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 > > >
