Ah. Finally someone willing to deal with idea as IDEA. Sorta. :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "yifuxero" <yifux...@...> wrote: > > Now Turq;....you know this isn't true.
No, I really do not. I'm answering this by "reading as I go," so I don't know in advance what you're going to say lower down, but my bet is that you won't really deal with WHY you believe that enlightenment is the highest goal, except by "citing authority." And that's fine, if you believe in those "authorities." I do not. I think that any of them you cite were just human beings, just like every other human being in history, and thus their *opinion* holds no more weight than any other. < snip Christian stuff I have no interest in > > I appreciate some of your pointed criticisms regarding > Enlightenment and the dangers of unquestioning acceptance > of the model; so let's go back to square 1. Cool. That is exactly what I was suggesting. > Unfortunately, your pov is pitted against the likes of the > Buddha, Shankara, Ramana Maharshi, MMY; etc; And? > ...and you have about as much Foundation to stand on as the > Thelma and Louise characters having driven off a cliff: > nada....compared to the Spiritual Giants of history. They are "spiritual giants" ONLY if you believe they are. The Christians you mentioned earlier don't believe that any of these people are "spiritual giants," much less "authoritative." You do. That does not make it so. It only means that you have a BELIEF in these folks as both "spiritual giants" and "authoritative." To me, in terms of "authority" they are in *exactly* the same boat as Thelma and Louise. I think that on the whole *some* of the folks you name had more of a clue than Thelma and Louise, but only some. I do not hold them as "knowers of the truth." If you do, fine. But please remember that this is your BELIEF, not fact. > And then we come to modern history, post advent of MMY and > the attempt by the philosopher/pundit Wilber to summarize > somehow the entire corpus of Advaitic literature into a > set of a few volumes. Silly, in my opinion, but go on. > Extracting nondualism from the various religious contexts, > Wilber has come up with the "Great Tradition"; called by > ADi Da: "Advaitayana Buddhism". And? They're just GUYS, Yifu. Human beings. Not "authorities" unless you or other people hold them to be. > The key point of Advaitayana Buddhism as I see it is that > going back to the Buddha, : > > a. the very structure of material existence involving > Samsara is inherently suffering:...the wheel of transmigration > > Now here's where you departe from the "Great Tradition": Exactly. I do not believe that life in the material world is suffering. I've said this many times. > 1. first, you question the existence of Enlightenment itself Excuse me? I do not personally question it at all; I have experienced it. The point I made -- which you still don't seem to get, is that you used the word "evidence" when speaking of enlightenment. There is none. There are only the claims -- based on the subjective experience of a human being, and the way they choose to interpret that subjective experience -- and those who believe this subjective experience and this inter- pretation of it are "authoritative." MY point of view is that having experienced enlight- enment for brief periods of time is that it's JUST ANOTHER STATE OF ATTENTION, no better or "higher" than any other. I base my rejection of "enlighten- ment is the highest goal in life" on THAT, my personal experience. Can you say the same about your belief in it? Or is your belief based on citing authority, what someone else said? There is nothing "wrong" with the latter. In fact, I think that admitting it is both healthy and more intelligent than just assuming something is true and never questioning WHY one believes it's true. > ...which is an absurdity and can be dismissed outright. And now you slip into insulting and denigrating a BELIEF that differs from yours. First you completely misunderstand what I was saying, and interpret it as if I were saying that enlightenment doesn't exist. I didn't say that; I merely said that there was no EVIDENCE that it exists. There is none. Second, you react to your misunderstanding by calling *your misinterpretation of what I said* absurd, and dismissing it outright. Did I get that right? Read my longer explanation above and see if maybe you missed something. > Or, we can zero in on MMY's "Unity". There's enough evidence > for that There is NO evidence. There are only claims, based on subjective experience, and interpretations of that experience. I *share* the experience; I reject the interpretations. Do you get it now? > 2. Next, you say that you relish physical embodiment on this > planet and would not hesitate to engage in 20 more of such > incarnations. > I seriously doubt that if one of your incarnations has you > getting ALS at an early age. Might I point out that you are so emotionally involved in this that you didn't finish the sentence above? One of my good friends has ALS. At a young age. He's had it for many years now, and *despite* it is one of the happiest person I've ever met on this planet. You may view material life as suffering; I do not and he does not. > 3. The only credible leg you have to stand on is questioning > the value of techniques and their value in the short run; > since even dismissing the entire concept of Enlightenement, Again, you trot out your complete misunderstanding of what I said (I *never* dismissed the concept of enlightenment, merely pointed out that there is no EVIDENCE for it), and then conflate it WITH SOMETHING I'VE NEVER SAID. I have never questioned "the value of techniques and their value in the short run." I think techniques are NEAT, and can have much value in the short run. I do question cling- ing to them in the long run, but I do not question their value in the short run. Never have, as far as I know. Again, might I suggest that your emotional attachment is leading you to make statements and claims that are not even supported by the things I've said here on FFL. > 4....people continue with the practice of techniques due > to some benefits in the short run.; such as the experience > of "Transcendence" which can be precipitated through the > practice of TM. And? What does that have to do with "enlightenment is the highest goal of life?" I'll wait. :-) > 5. The bottom line: even allowing for the complete elimination > of the concept/idea of Enlightenment... Which I never proposed. Never. You made it up, and are now a tad emotionally out of control *reacting* to something you made up. Read what I say above, and my original state- ments a few posts ago -- I never said that enlightenment doesn't exist; I merely said that there is no EVIDENCE that it exists. It is a subjective phenomenon with, at this point in history, ZERO objective component that can be measured. You can personally experience enlightenment; you can be completely convinced that it exists as a subjective phen- omenon. Then you're in the same boat I am. But you cannot at that point claim that "evidence" has been presented for the existence of enlightenment. All you can claim is that you have experienced it subjectively. I am comfortable with this. Seemingly you are not. You seem to feel that because human beings you consider auth- oritative said things, that makes those things true. I do not. I read the words of the Buddha or other "spiritual giants" and I read the words of *fellow human beings*, who *may* have had a clue. And they may have had a clue about some things, but not others. I hold NONE of these people to be "authoritative" about everything. And I hold NONE of them to be authoritative about enlightenment being the highest goal in life. > ...we can account for people's continued practice of techniques > such as TM (or whatever); on the same basis that in the short > run, you derive benefits from your pleasures. And? I never suggested otherwise. You just imagined I did. > 6. Concerning short-term benefits then, we can take a statistical > approach: most people that started TM quit soon afterwards; but > others have continued with TM or other techniques, because it > gives them some benefits in the short run. And? What does this have to do with WHY you believe that enlightenment is the highest goal in life? > To conclude, you have made a fairly good point about the "idea" > of Enlightenment... Even though you completely misunderstood what that idea is. :-) > ...but virtually no dent in countering the fact that some people > derive various benefits in the short run for their Sadhana. Another point I NEVER MADE. You made it up, and are now emotionally involved in countering it. Classic straw man. > That might be: more peace of mind, more efficiency,...to some > extent but not to the same degree implied by the TMO people. > ... > In addition to the short term benefits; there's an intermediate > term outcome: that of PROGRESSION and EVOLUTION. That is, > after 2x years of practice for example, people in some way > may be better off on some levels than after x years of practice. And? What does this have to do with enlightenment being the highest goal of life? > The experience of evolutionary benefits must be tacked onto > the short term benefits. All told, the evolutionary benefits > over time: 5, 10, 15...20, years point to (true) an "Idea" > but it's based/predicated on some direct experience of a > progression. And? What does this have to do with enlightenment being the highest goal of life? > OTOH, without practice, no progression. Just more wine-tasing, > shooting the breeze with friends, and looking at the Babes. And? What does this have to do with enlightenment being the highest goal of life? > So people may choose which way to go, or perhaps accept Jesus as > one's personal Savior. And? What does this have to do with enlightenment being the highest goal of life? Might I point out that you have just ranted -- rather emotionally, I might add -- for 114 lines WITHOUT EVER DEALING WITH THE QUESTION. I asked WHY you believe that enlightenment is the highest goal in life. In this entire rap, the closest you have gotten to dealing with that question is to cite authority and invoke the names of "Buddha, Shankara, Ramana Maharshi, MMY; etc." And that's FINE, if you believe in authority, and believe that the human beings you cited *are* authorities. I think that if you "stand" on citing authority that places you on a much higher level philosophically than the folks who just assume that something is true without ever coming up with a reason WHY they believe it. But dude...you have just spent an entire rap "going off" rather emotionally on misunderstandings of what I've said and other things I've never said at all. And you all but ignored the IDEA presented for discussion. Do you really feel that this made the best case for your position on this subject? Maybe you'd like to start over. Try dealing with the actual IDEA presented for discussion here. To remind you what that IDEA is, it's the assertion that "enlightenment is the highest goal in life." When posing the IDEA for discussion, I *very carefully* tried to do so in a non- insulting way. I merely invited folks who believe it is true an opportunity to tell me WHY they believe it is true. I don't see you as having done that in this long, emotionally-charged rap. Instead, I see this rap as being more than a little reactive, and "going off the rails" completely, veering into irrelevancies and trying to denigrate me for saying things I NEVER SAID. Try again, dude. I like you, and generally I like your 'tude, even though I don't share your tabloid fascination with "spiritual giants" past and present. But you just "went off" on me rather than deal with a simple question. Wouldn't it have been simpler to just answer the question? I repeat it: If you believe that enlightenment is the highest goal in life, tell me WHY you believe this.
