So, over coffee on this bright new morning in FFL history, after reading all the posts from last night, and bearing in mind the Reward vs. Punish- ment post I made yesterday, I don't feel like responding to any of them. Instead I'll rap for a little while on a favorite theme -- the two most prevalent approaches to Self Realization.
Although there are more than two, of course, I think that one can safely sort them into two piles. The first pile has a label that says, "Believes in the concept of non-enlightenment, and the existence of things that can prevent enlightenment." The second label says, "Believes in the ever-present existence of enlightenment, that one is always already enlightened, that the only thing necessary to be enlightened is to *realize* that you already are enlightened, and that no obstacles to that realization can or do exist." It seems to me that TM and many other forms of spiritual development fall into the first box, whereas some forms of Advaita or Neo-Advaita or Zen or Taoism fall into the latter. *Both* of these approaches and "ways of seeing" are valid, in my opinion, in that they describe reality from a particular state of attention. One's *predilection* for one description or the other is all that matters. In the "I believe in non-enlightenment" box, there seems to me to be a fascination with BLAME. "I'm not enlightened because of my stress/my samskaras/ my sins/the state of the world/other people fucking with me/all of the above. If these things weren't present, I'd have an easier pathway to enlightenment." In the "I'm always already enlightened" box, there seems to be no such fixation on BLAME. It's a path that is more concerned with CHOICE. "At every moment of every day, I have the choice to realize and live my ever-present enlightenment. My ability to *make* that choice is not affected by anything." I kinda prefer the latter path, but I understand those who prefer the former. It's a safer path, full of prescriptions for the things one must do to avoid the obstacles and "become" enlightened, and equally full of proscriptions against doing any of the things that "prevent" enlightenment. The "I'm already enlightened, if I just choose to realize that" approach doesn't tend to have that many do's and don'ts. What would be the point, if neither the do's nor the don'ts have any effect on one's always-already-present enlightenment? Anyway, I'm just throwing this out as a potential topic for discussion. If anyone is interested in the subject, pile on. If not, carry on and use your five posts as you choose.
