>
> --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In [email protected], 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.
>
Yup, what she said!
That may be why what is termed here on FFL as Neo-Advaitan talk has
value for some beyond subtle the group think stuff. Challenging a
sturdy intellect....
JohnY
To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Or go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'
SPONSORED LINKS
| Maharishi university of management | Maharishi mahesh yogi | Ramana maharshi |
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.
