--- In [email protected], Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Dec 14, 2005, at 8:36 PM, anonymousff wrote: > > > > > To me, the latter is far more effective and inviting. And it doesn't > > have heavy-handedness of cultish procliamations "this is the way it > > is, period. This interprestation of reality is the only valid one. > > period. And it is known by means way beyond you. So just take it > > without questioning." > > One of the reasons an enlightened being will typically not talk about > enlightenment or even their own enlightenment is because this is, > except for some generalities, of little help in awakening the true > state of enlightenment in others. In other words, it's a very > inefficient way to introduce that state (either temporarily or > permanently) in students. > > It's interesting the culture that has developed in the west from the > satsangs of Ramana, Nisargadatta and Papaji. It's nothing like the > sadhanas that lead them to the non-dual state in the first place. > Ramana was a devotee of Kali who had numerous non-dual sadhanas. But > he did not teach that to his student (that I am aware of). And > Nisargadatta had a Nath guru who undoubtedly taught him some great > teaching which lead to his ripening and liberation. But he also would > not even talk of these teachings in any detail. They gave no methods > for the masses that flocked to them like the ones they themselves > used. But laughingly, those who emulate their examples merely parody > there darshans as if that will do it. It would be laughable if it > wasn't so sad. Even Papaji said none of his students received his > final teaching--the final stroke. They were just leeches. But those > who tasted--glimpsed--the View of non-duality abruptly claimed it as > their own. And then they declared satsangs of their own. And they > declared themselves enlightened on their own...even after people like > Papaji told them, no, sorry. > > It's like the old saying 'those who know, don't say; those who say, > don't know.' > > Worth remembering. >
The self-proclamation part has always struck me as odd. Linked to the absolutist interpretations of what IT IS. As if there is some insecurity. THIS has to be IT. And odd that there are strong mandates of how IT can be spoken of. And how IT cannot. And what one can understand and what one cannot. And if anyone is experiencing Effulgence, a seemingly endless flow of liveliness, unshakable bliss (not all bliss is dumb), constant wakefulness, actions happening, knowledge happening, loss of possessionship (of ideas, POVs, relations and things), compassion that seems to be rooted at the core of everything, a limitless sense of wonder -- and irony, a not so worried view of "pending disasters", a not so impressed view of pending sucesses, then wonderful. Why not speak of these things. Why speak in nebulous labels of "liberation, awakening, and enlightenment"? Whose liberation, whose awakening? So many paths, so many traditions make so many distinctions. Lots of trail markers on this hike. Why be so anxious to claim the pinnacle. Why not just claim, if claims are needed, "I am hiking, and its fun". (oops, sorry "the body is hiking" <smirk> (And I mean experience not in the sense of "I see the flower" and this "I experience it", but in the sense of "Consciousness Groking", And the process of self-proclamation, what a concept. Someone reads a book and says "I GET that! I must be enlightened." "hm, they say here no-self is enlightenment. I have searched high and low and cannot find an ego. Ergo I am enlightened." Yet so many self-proclaimed enlightened, even here on this list, but more so else where, directly contradict each other. Sure the indescribable can be approached from different angles. But its odd when A says "There is absolutely no ego" and B says, "of course there is an ego, you are insane to think there isn't", and C says "well, there is an ego, but it finds its proper role as servant, not master" and D says "You are a fool to try to understand this paradox of ego, it is Brahman, it is confusion" and E says "well, if you take this conic section and slice it, its clear the ego is an elipse with 16 dancing golden elves who are really the ashwins." Perhaps they each went to a different Satsang, or read a different book. Its odd too people claim labels (enlightenemnt, awakening, liberation", and not specific "attributes" of such. Its as if the label is a smoke screen for "all attributes". But few are willng to proclaim specific attributes and discuss in detail. Which if the purpose is helping others, to promote insight and understanding, could serve a role. But usually its "la de da liberation". The socratic method always struck me as useful. No proclamations. Simply questions crafted to allow others to get IT in their own way, by their own means. Not that such should be a universal mandate, but it does seem to be a humble path to sharing knowledge. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Drugs Don't Discriminate. Get help for yourself or someone you know. http://us.click.yahoo.com/0I.OUB/ZbOLAA/d1hLAA/0NYolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 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/
