--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], Vaj <vajradhatu@> 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, 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. > > The very language implies that there is ONLY one > reality. This is patently obvious, because, as > Maharishi said so often, "Knowledge is structured > in consciousness." Same object of perception, dif- > ferent realities. > > If a person in waking looks at an object, he sees > one reality. Same person in dreaming or deep sleep, > another. And then you move on to the more interest- > ing views. From the POV of CC, yet another reality, > one structured in duality. From GC, yet another, > also dual but with one aspect of the duality more > lively. From UC, still another.
All these states and experiences are contained within the whole of reality. You are arguing that the individual trees exist, but not the forest. > > I've always had little patience for those who claim > that there is "one reality," or worse, a "highest > reality." They all coexist at all moments; they all > have the same source and the same Being as their > essence. Exactly. > > Plus, as Vaj says below, if there were only "one > reality," then the moment anyone realized UC, that > should be the ONLY reality operating in the universe. > Right? > > > > 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). :-) > > The Newagers in my 'hood say it will happen > Any Day Now. :-) > > > > > > 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. > > But ONLY by the individual who perceives at that > level. > > > > > 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. > > Oh? Did you find that when you popped into Unity > and perceived everything as One that everyone > around you did, too? :-) > > > > 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. > > And, more important, there are important distinctions > between them if one is ever to transcend them. I would probably be more inclined to say that there is nothing to transcend. > > > Not all paths lead to Enlightenment / Buddhahood. Not all paths > > lead to the same state of consciousness. > > > > As John Lennon said: Nothing is real. :-) > > Or as Unc says, Everything is real. Perceiving > that the universe is illusory from one state of > consciousness doesn't make it illusory. It's just > perception. And I'd be willing to bet that if you > walked up to a gang of rogue grannies and tried > to tell them they don't exist, they'd whup yer ass. :-) > I'm not claiming the universe is illusory. I was actually saying that it is real.
