>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new_morning_blank_slate
> <no_reply@> wrote:
<snip>
> > But these types of interpretations are more akin to poetry
> > that is trying to describe love or beauty, not an internally-
> > consistent and logical truth.
>
> What makes you believe that "truth" is either internally
> consistent or logical?
Rather than the "truth" that enlightenment is *not*
either internally consistent or logical?
Beware the infinite regress; beware the category error.
I mean, READ the words of those
> who have realized enlightenment over the centuries.
> They seem to be consistent only in the sense that they
> agree, when pinned down, that there is no internal
> consistency or logic that can be applied to the
> description of enlightenment. In fact, pretty much
> the only thing they agree on is that it can't be
> described.
>
> I honestly think that what you're *hoping* is that the
> description of enlightenment can be internally consis-
> tent and logical, so that you can "understand" it
> using the rational mind. And you hope that despite
> the fact that most of the enlightened throughout
> history have said just the opposite, that it *can't*
> be understood or described by the rational mind.
>
> In my view, this desire to "understand" is a natural
> phenomenon, but it's one that is based on the unenlight-
> ened self trying to survive, when in fact for enlight-
> enment to be realized, that limited intellectual self
> has to be discarded or, at the very least, ignored.
>
> What if enlightenment (or whatever you choose to call
> it) can NEVER be accurately measured or described?
>
> It seems to me that situation creates a couple of
> interesting "Catch-22s." The first is that attempts
> *to* measure it or describe it "accurately" become
> exercises in pushing enlightenment away, not
> embracing its mysteries and inherent contradictions.
Actually, for some, wrestling with the contradictions
can be a "path" to realization as the intellect
demonstrates to itself that it is not just not up
to the challenge but fundamentally irrelevant, because
the challenge itself--of understanding enlightenment--
is irrelevant and utterly meaningless.
For the intellect to decide prematurely that
enlightenment is inherently contradictory--on the
basis, say, of having "READ the words of those who
have realized enlightenment over the centuries"--
makes the experiential truth of its contradictory
nature into a *concept* which the intellect can
uphold. This can strengthen the intellect rather
than leading it to convince itself--on its own terms--
that it is superfluous.
One can, in other words, work both sides of the
fence: repeatedly have the experience of the
contradictory nature of enlightenment, while at the
same time helping the intellect dig its own grave by
forcing it to slam itself repeatedly against the
contradictions until it knocks itself out.
*Of course* the self is going to fight for its
survival; that's a given, that's its nature. If
it's an especially tough and hardy self, it may
be more effective to cheer it on, to encourage it
to exert itself to the point of exhaustion, than
to try to suppress it.
Different strokes for different folks.
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
- Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
