--- In [email protected], "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In [email protected],
> > "tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlis"
> > <tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlist@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Truth Comes at a Cost
> > > by Adyashanti
> > > If I was to translate the enlightened state down into
> > > human terms, I'd have to describe it as contentment.
> > > Being nobody, going nowhere, needing no reason to exist.
> >
> > Excellent. Just this morning I was reading FFL,
> > gazing at all the understandable (they've been
> > told for decades how important they are, after
> > all) but lamentable self-importance there ("Only
> > we can save the world by bouncing on our bums")
> > and remembering one of my favorite quotes by
> > a spiritual teacher:
> >
> > I am not important.
> > Today I am here and tomorrow I will be gone.
> > This is my freedom.
> > I am not important.
> >
> > > To the ego, that probably sounds a little boring and of
> > > course to an ego it is. But then again, there's really
> > > nothing for the ego in enlightenment. In enlightenment,
> > > the egoic false self is rendered an irrelevant illusion,
> > > a mask, a character that nothingness wears while pretending
> > > to be human.
> > >
> > > Not only is there nothing in enlightenment for the ego,
> > > the ego is really nothing but a defense against enlightenment.
> > > I'm not saying that ego is bad or evil because it's not. I'm
> > > saying that ego is a social and personal construct and
> > > therefore an illusion. But there's nothing wrong with an
> > > illusion. A painting is an illusion; a movie is an illusion;
> > > a good novel is an illusion. The problem isn't with illusion;
> > > the problem is with the emotional attachments and addictions
> > > of ego.
> >
> > I like this guy. He's got a clue. I have very little
> > tolerance these days for those who go on and on about
> > how only the "highest" state of consciousness or the
> > "highest" reality is real. They're all equally real,
> > and equally illusory, even the supposed "highest."
> > Those who can't be happy in the "low," ego-bound states
> > of consciousness are fooling themselves if they think
> > they're going to be any happier in the "high," non-
> > ego-bound states of consciousness. Their lack of
> > happiness is something they bring to their current
> > state of consciousness, not an attribute *of* that
> > state of consciousness.
> >
> > As before, so after. Before enlightenment, sport wood
> > and carry condoms. After enlightenment, sport wood
> > and carry condoms. If you're bitching about life before
> > your realization, you're probably going to bitch about
> > life after your realization, too.
>
> So much for "If I was to translate the enlightened
> state down into human terms, I'd have to describe
> it as contentment..."
Not to mention:
"The state itself is reality, and it's won at the
hands of unreality. Simply put, ultimate truth comes
at a cost, and the cost is everything in you and
about you that is unreal. The end result is freedom,
happiness, peace, and no longer viewing life through
the veils of illusion."
Scary. Even scarier:
> > Excellent. Just this morning I was reading FFL,
> > gazing at all the understandable (they've been
> > told for decades how important they are, after
> > all) but lamentable self-importance there ("Only
> > we can save the world by bouncing on our bums")
Since Barry last posted yesterday, there's been
exactly *one* post (from Bob Brigante) that might
be characterized this way, and that only partially.
Barry's got more layers of unreality than just his
ego to contend with.
