--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung <no_reply@...> wrote: > > I disagree with the monks in that the divine, if real, > must be omnipresent, so if I'm to honor that, then > ordinary life has to have the deepest divinity available, > and the only missing element is my intent to see it or, > lacking the eyesight, try to see it if I can evolve a > mind capable of doing so.
Hear, hear. Well said. > These monks are kinda cheating in that they surround > themselves in a cocoon of sacred relics, and thus perforce > are constantly stimulated by such objects to re-up their > commitment to place awareness on the divine, but the likes > of you and I are out here winging it with the onus of > penetrating the common to see that everything has a deep > silence about it which is the exact holiness these monks > seek. Exactly. I just came back from taking my family out for dinner and then walking back along the lake and canals I live by at sunset. There has been nothing in any of the "official" spiritual trips I have invested time and energy in that surpasses the sense of wonder and awe my own neighborhood inspired in me tonight. The monks strike me as searching desperately for the "divine" in an atmosphere that is nothing but. Like fish searching for this mythical "water" they've been told about by their holy fish shamans. :-) > To me the difference is that you and I eat fresh off the > vine, and they're doing canned food. We might not always > get what we want, but we get it fresh and tastier than > that fare from the dusty tomes. I just don't get the "reverence for the old" that some spiritual seekers have developed. It's as if they really believe that life way back when was more full of the absolute than life now. Talk about missing the point.
