Thanks for the comments martyboi. You have made the assumption that all languages for describing enlightenment are describing the same thing, even though the descriptions sound different. This may not be the case. This becomes more than just an interesting hobby when having to make choices about what teachers to listen to, and correspondingly, which practices to engage in.
For example, take the ongoing discussion between Irmeli and TurquoiseB on the subject of emotions. The viewpoints that each is expressing give rise to very different ways of focusing one's attention, and different outcomes. Each viewpoint has an explanation for why the approach of the other will do harm in some way. It's your choice to listen to one of these approaches or not. But the outcome has real consequences. a --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "martyboi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sorry for lurking, but I think this is a very interesting discussion: > > I like the way that Eckhart Tolle talks about words in relationship to > enlightenment. He says that all word are just pointers, because the > experience is beyond words, beyond thought. He explains that words > like: Self, being, no-self, presence, void, all point to the same > experience of perfectly awake silence, but are inadequate to describe > it. However, when talking from that place, the silence is as if > carried out like a signal on a carrier waves. > > I feel that this explains why the use of different languages by > various teachers does not hinder you from getting there. Also explains > why being in the presence of an "enlightened" person can have the > quality of darshan - regardless if they speak or not or what words > they do use. Enlightenment is primarily and experience that is beyond > the mind, and any discussions about it only point to it. Of course, > some individuals verbal skill probably point to it better than others do. > > Thinking about enlightenment, describing it, and analyzing it is just > an interesting hobby that keeps you from getting bored until you are > there. Of course, all work and no play, make you a dull boy... > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anonymousff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Reply to Akasha appears below: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anonymousff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > [SNIP] > > > > > That Awareness is expressed in the lifes of all in infinite > > ways is > > > > of > > > > > little surprise. However, what I was seeking to confirm (or > > refute if > > > > > there is no confirmation -- same process) is that there is some > > > > > commonality to the so called experience of so called > > awakening. As a > > > > > rough analogy, while all humans are unique and different, > > there are > > > > > are core features of commonality that allow them to be > > classified as > > > > > homo-sapiens. > > > > [SNIP TO END] > > > > > > > > *** > > > > I like to think that there is one underlying reality that all > > forms > > > > > and expressions of enlightenment take part in. That may be > > asking too > > > > much, but I'd like to take it as a starting point. > > > > > > Why not similataneously hold that there maybe is commonality and > > also > > > mayber there is NOT commonality to all human expressions or > > experience > > > of spritual unfoldment. It seems if you take ONE possiblity as > > true as > > > the strating point, you may be chasing your tail. > > > > **** > > REPLY TO AKASHA: > > > > I feel very disappointed that you dismissed this discussion so > > easily. It is as if you didn't bother reading past my first > > paragraph and formed an opinion on that basis alone. > > > > Somehow, I think you misunderstood me. To better explain the point > > of view I was expressing, I'll use an analogy that you recently > > used: physicists acknowledge that some phenomena are best described > > by Newtonian physics, while others are better describe by Quantum > > Mechanics. However, an underlying assumption is that these two > > methods of describing and explaining phenomena are in fact > > describing the same universe. > > > > So that was my starting point. I chose to assume that there is one > > universe within which different people get "enlightened". This says > > nothing about the description of that universe, or the character of > > the enlightenment of anyone in particular. For example, this same > > universe may support an enlightenment in which God or Personal God > > plays an important role, an enlightenment in which there is no God, > > an enlightenment in which the ultimate truth can well be described > > using words like "Self", or an enlightenment in which there is No > > Self. These various forms of "enlightenment" may be on some > > sequential path, or they may be mutually exclusive end states. All > > of that is up for grabs, as far as I'm concerned. And yes, maybe > > there are forms of "enlightenment" that have no commonality > > whatsoever with other forms. > > > > What if everyone exists in his/her own universe with its own rules? > > What does that mean, really? Does it mean that the person's > > experience alone defines his/her universe? or that everyone else's > > universe doesn't really exist as far as I'm concerned? Well, we > > could go that way. But I don't find it very fruitful. > > > > I've included my original post below. I was hoping to get a more > > thoughtful reply from you. But, if you don't want to, well, ok, it > > was fun, I guess... > > > > a > > > > **** > > > > ORIGINAL POST REPEATED: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > [SNIP] > > > That Awareness is expressed in the lifes of all in infinite ways is > > of > > > little surprise. However, what I was seeking to confirm (or refute > > if > > > there is no confirmation -- same process) is that there is some > > > commonality to the so called experience of so called awakening. As > > a > > > rough analogy, while all humans are unique and different, there are > > > are core features of commonality that allow them to be classified > > as > > > homo-sapiens. > > [SNIP TO END] > > > > *** > > I like to think that there is one underlying reality that all forms > > and expressions of enlightenment take part in. That may be asking too > > much, but I'd like to take it as a starting point. Then, the question > > arises, within that reality, how much room is there for variation of > > experience that could meaningfully be called "awakened" > > or "enlightened"? > > > > Some differences may be accounted for by people being at > > various "stages". Thus, for example, you could have some speak of the > > world of change as unreal. While this sounds like a fairly advanced > > perception, it may be a reflection of the Self/Non-Self duality that > > M. associates with CC. Others might speak of the world of change as > > utterly real, and seamlessly connected to the unchanging, which > > sounds more like a UC perception. > > > > One confounding factor brought out in various autobiographical > > accounts is that "awakened" states may be experienced at first > > as "ultimate" because they all have some quality of unboundedness, > > infinity, immortality about them; whereas, it is only in retrospect > > that they may be recognized as transitional states moving on to > > more "awakenings". > > > > But all of this presupposes that there is one more or less general > > outcome (with many minor variations) for everyone who is destined > > to "awaken". That could be a false assumption. > > > > If we take it that advanced practitioners of many spiritual > > traditions have "attained" to the states that they define as > > awakened, how are we to account for the variances in description? Is > > some of this just a problem of trying to describe the ineffable? > > Would all of these people agree with each other about their states > > (if not their descriptions of them) if they sat down and talked to > > each other, as Dr. Pete has suggested? Or are there possibly > > fundamentally different "realized" states? For example, could it be > > that the Hindus experience "Self-realization" while Buddhists speak > > of there being no Self (big S or little), because these are > > different experiences of the underlying truth? To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
