thx, MZ,...I agree with your overall perspective since it agrees with (imo - seems to) with Nichiren's Buddhism. Main idea: "Enlightenment is a process, not an end-goal in itself". ... If true, this pov would provide an alternative to much of Advaita (especially MMY's brand), Neo-Advaita; but less of an alternative to Muktananda's Kashmir Saivism. I've seen Muktananda several times in the after-physical life state. He was trapped in the lower astral but is making gradual progress toward the higher planes (probably where his guru Nityananda is). ... However (a) if your objections to the "Gods" or gods include Buddhas, Bodhisattvas, Yidams, etc; I would object to that. In a way, the GOHONZON can be considered a Deity, although it's essentialy a Mandala embracing (foremost); the impersonal Holographic Principle. ... Although your statements on the surface may contradict Jim's, imo there's not much of a disagreement IF:
(a) one accepts that there are certain evolutionary "jumps" (saltations, quantum leaps), representing discrete levels of Reality through direct realization, having "listed" signposts. ... But after this juncture, many of the Advaitins diverge from the eternally progressive model, stating outright that after CC or higher, (and physical death), the purpose of life has been fulfilled and there's no more finite existence (any bodies gross or subtle simply disintegrate with the components being dispersed...poof!). ... Maybe that's what you're objecting to. At any rate, this "end of existence" model is contradicted by Shankara; and alternative models of eternal growth and evolution may be found within Buddhism and other Traditions. ... http://www.originalpurity.org/gurulin/graphics/amiti.jpg PS: the notion of E. as a "process" has the advantage of being a great "leveler" since all sincere seekers after "the truth" would be in the same boat, with no claimants on a pedestal saying "I've got It" with the rest of the crowd somehow "lower". ... If there have been any Enlightened persons in Nichiren's Buddhism, it's unlikely they would state they've "arrived", since arrival is an eternal progression in that model....no "end of story". --- In [email protected], maskedzebra <no_reply@...> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "whynotnow7" <whynotnow7@> wrote: > > > > masked zebra wrote: > > RESPONSE: Not a single person in my lifetime has demonstrated > > impeccably and infallibly that such a "ground of all being" even > > exists. That is, if I am to go by his/her claim to become the embodiment > > of such an irreducible level of reality. In fact, I would go further: I > > have not observed a single person who even gives evidence that they have > > made contact with such a fundamental form of reality. > > > > **The only person who can conclusively demonstrate it is you. Even then of > > course, you can fool yourself.:-) All the teachers teach are pointers to > > self realization. No one can give that to you. I look at it as reaching a > > point of mental coordination, unifying the heart and intellect so that life > > gets smoother. So far as I can tell, that is the big super pay off to > > initial self-realization, budding enlightenment, life gets smoother. Still > > have to do the same stuff, but it is easier. As to what one book or teacher > > refers to that way of living doesn't matter. It's all based on experience > > anyway, so if you want to call it blue cheese, please do. > > > > **I like to think of it as better coordination because coordination is > > based on practice and use, vs. belief, so there is nothing to memorize or > > keep in mind. Just a matter of coordination over time. The dawning of > > self-realization is mechanical. > > > > For me the 'home of all the laws of nature' is a metaphysical fiction. > > Sure, the EXPERIENCE seems to verify this reality (via TM), but, given how > > wonderfully convincing one's initial experiences are of TM (the auguring of > > everything MMY promises), the final pay-off (nothing to show for it, an > > extraordinarily disappointing trajectory of 'progress' in one's 'evolution' > > over decades of doing TM), logically forces one to conclude: THESE > > EXPERIENCES ARE FALSE; that is, they DO NOT COINCIDE WITH REALITY. There IS > > no such thing as Enlightenment. > > > > **Enlightenment isn't an experience. There may be a noticeable transition > > to establishing that first permanent candle of silence within, but once > > established, learning and developing and changing has to continue - nothing > > to hold it back, so enlightenment doesn't really point to one experience, > > except there may be a sudden and lasting realization of that first candle > > of silence being kindled. After that, life continues like it did before. > > RESPONSE: Is all of this coming out of your own private experience, > whynotnow? If it is experimental knowledge than obviously we have a sharp > disagreement. But if it is a dogma which you are attempting to verify in your > own life by looking at your life from this perspective, then all that I can > say is: even if you achieve enlightenment, it will represent a reality that, > while as you say, is mechanically produced, nevertheless misrepresents what > reality is. Saint Francis Xavier went to India to destroy those Hindu idols. > And did all this within an undeniable supernatural grace. I have made the > empirical discoveryafter writing 11 books (while Enlightened) and conducting > countless theatrical seminars (also while enlightened) that I was profoundly > DECEIVED. And I have made it my life's ambition to eliminate the deleterious > effects of Maharishi and TM upon my mind and body. > > I sense the sincerity, clarity, and confidence in what you say in rebuttal to > what I have said. But I also sense that where I have come to know what I say > isif you will permit me to say thisa deeper place, closer to reality than > from where you are contradicting me. But who knows? You may be dead right. > > It's just that I gave up a lot to become de-enlightened (powers, abilities, > context), but I had no choice: life was punishing me for my error, the error > of Enlightenment. Because while such a state of consciousness does indeed > exist, it is createdyes, mechanicallyand sustained by mystical > intelligences (devas) which ultimately do not seek the happiness of human > beings. On the contrary. > > And I know this from direct experience. > > Thank you for your comments. It took me a while to get to them. > > > > >
