--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <snip> > You don't seem to understand. I don't believe that > there IS any such thing as an "impediment to > enlightenment." Enlightenment is present at all > times. Sometimes I realize that, sometimes I don't. > No big deal either way, and no real difference in > terms of appreciation of life.
I have misunderstood your original posting, which I thought was contrasting two ways of mentally seeing the path to a desirable state. The impediment to enlightenment I spoke of is in your words, your choice not to recognize it. However, that presupposes that you value such a state of enlightenment, that it makes a difference in your quality of life. For you it apparently doesn't, so I agree that for you there is no impediment to enlightenment, because to you enlightenment is a relative phenomenon, no different than any other relative state. Further, that all the talk of the wise throughout the ages that enlightenment brings release from the suffering of bondage doesn't apply to you. For you, enlightenment makes no difference in that regard. So if that is true, what is realization vs non-realization to you? If there is no qualitative difference between the two experiences, how can you possibly distinquish between the two of them? I am not trying to put words in your mouth, just following your statements to their logical conclusion. Have I got it right as far as your view of things?
