[FairfieldLife] [was Re: WHAT IF?] Bevan and John Hagelin = Barry and "vaj"
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "yifuxero" wrote: > > --- HA! Gotcha. HA HA-- no you didn't! Now you're judging people on what relative matters > constitute dogma and which topics are not. You say "genuine > devotion" is not dogma but genuine Buddhist or genuine Shiva devotion > is OK, as well as your previously expoused political convictions > prior to the election.. > Why not devotion to a dogma? One can be devoted to a dogma and > still be Enlightened. Why not? one can be enlightened and do whatever they want, including theoretically being devoted to a dogma (though i'd have to see it to believe it). the point i am making is that adherence to dogma will not get you enlightened. it is a trap, plain and simple, and must be transcended in order to reach the goal. adherence to dogma is just giving the ego an out, or an in, if you prefer.
[FairfieldLife] [was Re: WHAT IF?] Bevan and John Hagelin = Barry and "vaj"
--- HA! Gotcha. Now you're judging people on what relative matters constitute dogma and which topics are not. You say "genuine devotion" is not dogma but genuine Buddhist or genuine Shiva devotion is OK, as well as your previously expoused political convictions prior to the election.. Why not devotion to a dogma? One can be devoted to a dogma and still be Enlightened. Why not? What matters (again) is the nature of the binding attachment, not the CONTENT. You're confusing the two. Take an extreme case: Certainly, everybody would agree that the Roman Catholic Church teaches DOGMA. Your'e saying it would be impossible for a person who at one time is a True Believer (TB) in the dogma to get Enlightened without giving up the dogma. Sorry - non-sequitur. In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 wrote: > > i think my point is much clearer in my post to specifically address > your question. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "yifuxero" > wrote: > > > > -Your definition of "dogma" may be overly broad. It's not the > > content, but the character of binding duality. Thus, to assess > > another person as you are doing is rather presumptuous; since you > > have expressed various political viewpoints. > > By your same approach, your political viewpoints can just as > easily > > be construed as dogma. > > To be really consistent, you would have to come to the absurd > > conclusion that Ramana Maharshi has not Enlightened since he > > continued to be a devotee of Arunachala Shiva. > > > > > > -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 > > wrote: > > > > > > one more point, to bring some balance vis a vis Buddhists and > TMO, > > > Barry and "vaj" are a lot more like Bevan and John Hagelin that > it > > > may appear. Although Barry and "vaj" see their allegiance > to "His > > > Holiness" the Dalai Lama and Bevan and John see their allegiance > to > > > the Maharishi, all four of them are operating in much the same > > > manner. > > > > > > if SSRS is asking us to loot the store, all four of these guys > are > > > living in the halfway house. all are trying to both be dogmatic > and > > > at the same time gain enlightenment. there is absolutely no > > > difference between trying to hold onto the ego in Buddhism and > > > within the TMO. NO difference. > > > > > > sure, as with Buddhist practice, you may think that if you do > good > > > stuff for others, then you are becoming enlightened. same as > living > > > in a vastu house in the TMO. the initial AHA with both practices > is > > > useful in broadening the mind. but as Bevan, John, Barry > and "vaj" > > > so openly demonstrate, an addiction to dogma will never result > in > > > enlightenment. all you end up with is mood making. > > > > > > it is clear to anyone on this board that both Barry and "vaj" > can > > be > > > really nasty guys. and both too espouse compassion. this is > > > identical to Bevan and John, who on the one hand espouse a Vedic > > > lifestyle, while humping married women on the side. no > difference. > > > > > > there is no way to fake the goal of a spiritual tradition by > > > continuing to follow dogma. all four of these seekers are ego > > > tripping, and all four are never going to gain enlightenment > using > > > that approach. > > > > > > sorry to pick on you guys, Barry and "vaj"-- its just that you > are > > > perfect servants for the point i am making.:) > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > i want to make a point here about enlightenment-- "vaj" argues > > > below > > > > that he can both follow the dogma, and be -partially- > > enlightened. > > > > > > > > THIS IS NOT POSSIBLE. unlike what his teachers have taught him > > > (read > > > > $$$ and power for THEM), the experience of enlightenment is > one > > of > > > > total freedom and complete independence. there is no need in > such > > > a > > > > state to refer back to where we are trying to go. > > > > > > > > another servant to my point here is Barry who frequently > mentions > > > he > > > > was enlightened once, for a short time. this impermanent > > > witnessing > > > > experience has nothing to do with enlightenment either. > > > > > > > > "vaj" argues the point that someone who has reached the > > > destination > > > > needs to continue to look at the map. speaking of absolutes, > this > > > is > > > > absolute garbage.:) > > > > > > > > while enlightenment is not a static state, there is no > > > relationship > > > > between religious dogma and enlightenment. dogma is useful for > > > > pointing us in the right direction, but is then naturally > > > discarded > > > > once the goal is reached. > > > > > > > > many seekers like Barry and "vaj" hold on to dogma because it > is > > a > > > > convenient way of not letting go completely of their ego. fine- > - >
[FairfieldLife] [was Re: WHAT IF?] Bevan and John Hagelin = Barry and "vaj"
i think my point is much clearer in my post to specifically address your question. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "yifuxero" wrote: > > -Your definition of "dogma" may be overly broad. It's not the > content, but the character of binding duality. Thus, to assess > another person as you are doing is rather presumptuous; since you > have expressed various political viewpoints. > By your same approach, your political viewpoints can just as easily > be construed as dogma. > To be really consistent, you would have to come to the absurd > conclusion that Ramana Maharshi has not Enlightened since he > continued to be a devotee of Arunachala Shiva. > > > -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 > wrote: > > > > one more point, to bring some balance vis a vis Buddhists and TMO, > > Barry and "vaj" are a lot more like Bevan and John Hagelin that it > > may appear. Although Barry and "vaj" see their allegiance to "His > > Holiness" the Dalai Lama and Bevan and John see their allegiance to > > the Maharishi, all four of them are operating in much the same > > manner. > > > > if SSRS is asking us to loot the store, all four of these guys are > > living in the halfway house. all are trying to both be dogmatic and > > at the same time gain enlightenment. there is absolutely no > > difference between trying to hold onto the ego in Buddhism and > > within the TMO. NO difference. > > > > sure, as with Buddhist practice, you may think that if you do good > > stuff for others, then you are becoming enlightened. same as living > > in a vastu house in the TMO. the initial AHA with both practices is > > useful in broadening the mind. but as Bevan, John, Barry and "vaj" > > so openly demonstrate, an addiction to dogma will never result in > > enlightenment. all you end up with is mood making. > > > > it is clear to anyone on this board that both Barry and "vaj" can > be > > really nasty guys. and both too espouse compassion. this is > > identical to Bevan and John, who on the one hand espouse a Vedic > > lifestyle, while humping married women on the side. no difference. > > > > there is no way to fake the goal of a spiritual tradition by > > continuing to follow dogma. all four of these seekers are ego > > tripping, and all four are never going to gain enlightenment using > > that approach. > > > > sorry to pick on you guys, Barry and "vaj"-- its just that you are > > perfect servants for the point i am making.:) > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 > > wrote: > > > > > > i want to make a point here about enlightenment-- "vaj" argues > > below > > > that he can both follow the dogma, and be -partially- > enlightened. > > > > > > THIS IS NOT POSSIBLE. unlike what his teachers have taught him > > (read > > > $$$ and power for THEM), the experience of enlightenment is one > of > > > total freedom and complete independence. there is no need in such > > a > > > state to refer back to where we are trying to go. > > > > > > another servant to my point here is Barry who frequently mentions > > he > > > was enlightened once, for a short time. this impermanent > > witnessing > > > experience has nothing to do with enlightenment either. > > > > > > "vaj" argues the point that someone who has reached the > > destination > > > needs to continue to look at the map. speaking of absolutes, this > > is > > > absolute garbage.:) > > > > > > while enlightenment is not a static state, there is no > > relationship > > > between religious dogma and enlightenment. dogma is useful for > > > pointing us in the right direction, but is then naturally > > discarded > > > once the goal is reached. > > > > > > many seekers like Barry and "vaj" hold on to dogma because it is > a > > > convenient way of not letting go completely of their ego. fine- - > > no > > > problem, but they shouldn't try to justify it in all sorts of > > > bizarre ways. enlightenment is straightforward. no caveats. you > > are > > > or you aren't, no dogma and no excuses. > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 16, 2009, at 12:33 PM, enlightened_dawn11 wrote: > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> On Jan 16, 2009, at 12:02 PM, enlightened_dawn11 wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >>> however the goal is actually reached by TRANSCENDING THE > > DOGMA, > > > > >>> whether it is the Buddhist ideals of compassion or whether > > it > > > is > > > > > the > > > > >>> TMO ideals of living a Vedic life. > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> It sounds like you lack an experiential understanding of the > > > > >> difference between relative compassion and absolute > > compassion > > > or > > > > >> what the nature of consciousness actually is. > > > > >> > > > > >> There's ultimately nothing to transcend; what a silly belief. >
[FairfieldLife] [was Re: WHAT IF?] Bevan and John Hagelin = Barry and "vaj"
-Your definition of "dogma" may be overly broad. It's not the content, but the character of binding duality. Thus, to assess another person as you are doing is rather presumptuous; since you have expressed various political viewpoints. By your same approach, your political viewpoints can just as easily be construed as dogma. To be really consistent, you would have to come to the absurd conclusion that Ramana Maharshi has not Enlightened since he continued to be a devotee of Arunachala Shiva. -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 wrote: > > one more point, to bring some balance vis a vis Buddhists and TMO, > Barry and "vaj" are a lot more like Bevan and John Hagelin that it > may appear. Although Barry and "vaj" see their allegiance to "His > Holiness" the Dalai Lama and Bevan and John see their allegiance to > the Maharishi, all four of them are operating in much the same > manner. > > if SSRS is asking us to loot the store, all four of these guys are > living in the halfway house. all are trying to both be dogmatic and > at the same time gain enlightenment. there is absolutely no > difference between trying to hold onto the ego in Buddhism and > within the TMO. NO difference. > > sure, as with Buddhist practice, you may think that if you do good > stuff for others, then you are becoming enlightened. same as living > in a vastu house in the TMO. the initial AHA with both practices is > useful in broadening the mind. but as Bevan, John, Barry and "vaj" > so openly demonstrate, an addiction to dogma will never result in > enlightenment. all you end up with is mood making. > > it is clear to anyone on this board that both Barry and "vaj" can be > really nasty guys. and both too espouse compassion. this is > identical to Bevan and John, who on the one hand espouse a Vedic > lifestyle, while humping married women on the side. no difference. > > there is no way to fake the goal of a spiritual tradition by > continuing to follow dogma. all four of these seekers are ego > tripping, and all four are never going to gain enlightenment using > that approach. > > sorry to pick on you guys, Barry and "vaj"-- its just that you are > perfect servants for the point i am making.:) > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 > wrote: > > > > i want to make a point here about enlightenment-- "vaj" argues > below > > that he can both follow the dogma, and be -partially- enlightened. > > > > THIS IS NOT POSSIBLE. unlike what his teachers have taught him > (read > > $$$ and power for THEM), the experience of enlightenment is one of > > total freedom and complete independence. there is no need in such > a > > state to refer back to where we are trying to go. > > > > another servant to my point here is Barry who frequently mentions > he > > was enlightened once, for a short time. this impermanent > witnessing > > experience has nothing to do with enlightenment either. > > > > "vaj" argues the point that someone who has reached the > destination > > needs to continue to look at the map. speaking of absolutes, this > is > > absolute garbage.:) > > > > while enlightenment is not a static state, there is no > relationship > > between religious dogma and enlightenment. dogma is useful for > > pointing us in the right direction, but is then naturally > discarded > > once the goal is reached. > > > > many seekers like Barry and "vaj" hold on to dogma because it is a > > convenient way of not letting go completely of their ego. fine-- > no > > problem, but they shouldn't try to justify it in all sorts of > > bizarre ways. enlightenment is straightforward. no caveats. you > are > > or you aren't, no dogma and no excuses. > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Jan 16, 2009, at 12:33 PM, enlightened_dawn11 wrote: > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> On Jan 16, 2009, at 12:02 PM, enlightened_dawn11 wrote: > > > >> > > > >>> however the goal is actually reached by TRANSCENDING THE > DOGMA, > > > >>> whether it is the Buddhist ideals of compassion or whether > it > > is > > > > the > > > >>> TMO ideals of living a Vedic life. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> It sounds like you lack an experiential understanding of the > > > >> difference between relative compassion and absolute > compassion > > or > > > >> what the nature of consciousness actually is. > > > >> > > > >> There's ultimately nothing to transcend; what a silly belief. > > > >> > > > > it sounds to me as if you are claiming to be enlightened. or > you > > are > > > > trapped by dogma. which is it please? > > > > > > I'm afraid you're a bit too binary for me my dear! > > > > > >
[FairfieldLife] [was Re: WHAT IF?] Bevan and John Hagelin = Barry and "vaj"
one more point, to bring some balance vis a vis Buddhists and TMO, Barry and "vaj" are a lot more like Bevan and John Hagelin that it may appear. Although Barry and "vaj" see their allegiance to "His Holiness" the Dalai Lama and Bevan and John see their allegiance to the Maharishi, all four of them are operating in much the same manner. if SSRS is asking us to loot the store, all four of these guys are living in the halfway house. all are trying to both be dogmatic and at the same time gain enlightenment. there is absolutely no difference between trying to hold onto the ego in Buddhism and within the TMO. NO difference. sure, as with Buddhist practice, you may think that if you do good stuff for others, then you are becoming enlightened. same as living in a vastu house in the TMO. the initial AHA with both practices is useful in broadening the mind. but as Bevan, John, Barry and "vaj" so openly demonstrate, an addiction to dogma will never result in enlightenment. all you end up with is mood making. it is clear to anyone on this board that both Barry and "vaj" can be really nasty guys. and both too espouse compassion. this is identical to Bevan and John, who on the one hand espouse a Vedic lifestyle, while humping married women on the side. no difference. there is no way to fake the goal of a spiritual tradition by continuing to follow dogma. all four of these seekers are ego tripping, and all four are never going to gain enlightenment using that approach. sorry to pick on you guys, Barry and "vaj"-- its just that you are perfect servants for the point i am making.:) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 wrote: > > i want to make a point here about enlightenment-- "vaj" argues below > that he can both follow the dogma, and be -partially- enlightened. > > THIS IS NOT POSSIBLE. unlike what his teachers have taught him (read > $$$ and power for THEM), the experience of enlightenment is one of > total freedom and complete independence. there is no need in such a > state to refer back to where we are trying to go. > > another servant to my point here is Barry who frequently mentions he > was enlightened once, for a short time. this impermanent witnessing > experience has nothing to do with enlightenment either. > > "vaj" argues the point that someone who has reached the destination > needs to continue to look at the map. speaking of absolutes, this is > absolute garbage.:) > > while enlightenment is not a static state, there is no relationship > between religious dogma and enlightenment. dogma is useful for > pointing us in the right direction, but is then naturally discarded > once the goal is reached. > > many seekers like Barry and "vaj" hold on to dogma because it is a > convenient way of not letting go completely of their ego. fine-- no > problem, but they shouldn't try to justify it in all sorts of > bizarre ways. enlightenment is straightforward. no caveats. you are > or you aren't, no dogma and no excuses. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > > > > On Jan 16, 2009, at 12:33 PM, enlightened_dawn11 wrote: > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > >> > > >> > > >> On Jan 16, 2009, at 12:02 PM, enlightened_dawn11 wrote: > > >> > > >>> however the goal is actually reached by TRANSCENDING THE DOGMA, > > >>> whether it is the Buddhist ideals of compassion or whether it > is > > > the > > >>> TMO ideals of living a Vedic life. > > >> > > >> > > >> It sounds like you lack an experiential understanding of the > > >> difference between relative compassion and absolute compassion > or > > >> what the nature of consciousness actually is. > > >> > > >> There's ultimately nothing to transcend; what a silly belief. > > >> > > > it sounds to me as if you are claiming to be enlightened. or you > are > > > trapped by dogma. which is it please? > > > > I'm afraid you're a bit too binary for me my dear! > > >
