--- In [email protected], anonymousff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- 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. > Everything you have said here is like someone dancing around and around the fire of Realization. Jump In! Burn Up!
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Ever feel sad or cry for no reason at all? Depression. Narrated by Kate Hudson. http://us.click.yahoo.com/YbEMxA/ubOLAA/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/
