--- In [email protected], Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Mar 30, 2008, at 4:15 PM, endlessrainintoapapercup wrote: > > > > >>> And what difference is there between > >>> paths to enlightenment? There is > >>> One Reality which is known or not > >>> known. This Reality is all that is. > >> > >> Well I know some would agree with such an absolute statement. But no, > >> I don't believe that there is One reality that is all there is. But > >> absolutists do believe that. > > > > I don't know what "absolutists" > > say and believe, but I question > > what is absolute about the statement > > that there is one reality. It is a very > > large and all-inclusive statement. > > It acknowledges everything that > > appears to exist and everything that > > doesn't. > > It's commonly addressed as a false view in Buddhist debate and it's > common to hear such statements with the spread of Neovedism, > Neoadvaita and other New Age doctrines. > > If everything were one or 'all is one' than when Buddha Shakyamuni > was enlightened, everyone would have become enlightened. I don't know > about where you live, but where I live, that ain't happened yet > (relatively speaking). :-)
Technically, I didn't say "all is one". I said that there is one reality. How can you argue against the existence of reality? As I am using the word, it includes everything in the phenomenological world and everything outside of it, all that exists, everything that doesn't. And haven't you heard the story about the buddhist monk who reached enlightenment only to discover, to his surprise, that everyone else was enlightened too? > > > > > > >>> We live in the illusion of many > >>> teachings and many paths, but > >>> when the One Reality is known, > >>> it is found to be everywhere > >>> equally, in all teachings and > >>> paths. > >> > >> I never was a fan of perennialism, the so-called philosophia > >> perennis. > >> Just more philosophical BS to me (sorry)... > > > > > > Again, I'm not familiar with perennialism > > and the "so-called philosophia perennis" > > which you object to. I'm only speaking from > > my own experience and reflections on > > reality. Ideas are abstract, but there is > > something Real to be known, and it > > is not limited or obstructed by any of > > our beliefs about it. It expresses through > > all that is. All of this is an expression > > of it. When we try to describe and > > define it, we are the metaphorical > > blind who describe the different parts > > of the elephant. > > All paths are relative. Since all paths are relative, there are > relative difference between them. > > Not all paths lead to Enlightenment / Buddhahood. Not all paths lead > to the same state of consciousness. > > As John Lennon said: Nothing is real. :-) And everything is real. The relative differences between paths are an abstract and academic matter. The only path that matters is the one you are on. In the midst of this experience of reality that we find ourselves in, we seek to discern value and meaning and purpose, gravitating towards the teachings and practices that seem most relevant to us. In the process of discriminating between what has value to us and what doesn't, consciousness is refined and hones in on that which is Real. It is this one-pointed intention which becomes formed in the deepest levels of consciousness that finally delivers us to the goal. No path is a recipe that automatically produces enlightenment or states of consciousness. Enlightenment reconciles all the relative differences, and reveals the path to be illusory because there was never anywhere to go anyway.
