--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], Duveyoung <no_reply@> wrote: > > > <snip> > > > > But, I'm admitting to you I'm attached in many many ways still, > > > > so of course, the ego must be having a field day, but what I'm > > > > trying to say about my partial enlightenment -- let me try > > > > again -- is that my intellect is so fulfilled with the "reality > > > > explanation" of Advaita, that I just am not interested in the > > > > proselytizations for other dogmas. Advaita is "good enough" > for > > > > me. Other dogmas certainly have all the truths poetically > > > > embodied too, but Advaita answers all my questions in short > order. > > > > > > I don't know that I'd call it "partial enlightenment," > > > but the above is very much true for me as well. > > > > > > I'm sort of reluctant to say it, because one isn't > > > supposed to be able to "understand" Advaita, given > > > that it's so radically paradoxical; but when I read > > > material by, say, Nisagardatta or Ramana Maharshi, > > > it doesn't confound me. I'm going "Yup, yup, right"; > > > it all seems quite transparent, and indeed inevitable. > > > My intellect--I assume it's my intellect--is able to > > > encompass the paradox, to see how it works. > > > > > > And as you say, it's so fulfilling that there's no > > > need to look further. Or rather, there isn't anywhere > > > further to look. > > > > > > That's not to say I "experience" it, at least not at > > > any level I recognize. But the intellect rests very > > > peacefully in it. > > > > > > And like you, I didn't get it from Maharishi. Unlike > > > you, I got it from two books for the general reader, > > > a section in Ken Wilber's "Eye to Eye," and--I'm a > > > little embarrassed to admit--from Amit Goswami's > > > "The Self-Aware Universe" (which draws heavily on > > > Douglas Hofstadter's "Godel, Escher, Bach" and his > > > ideas on self-reference, and, heaven help us, on > > > quantum mechanics--Goswami's a theoretical physicist). > > > > > > Once it had fallen in place, though, I was able to > > > see it in MMY's teaching. In particular, there's a > > > section in MMY's "Science of Being" toward the > > > beginning on prana and karma that I had initially > > > found utterly incomprehensible that suddenly became > > > clear as glass. But I do I think his teaching must > > > have laid some of the groundwork, and my experience > > > of TM contributed as well. > > > > > > Not only was I able to see it in MMY's teaching, but > > > in all kinds of spiritually oriented material, in > > > more "poetic" formulations, as you say, that would > > > previously have meant nothing to me. > > > > > > I don't know what any of this means. I've been > > > inclined to think it doesn't mean anything, given > > > the heavy emphasis on "experience" with regard to > > > realization. But I'm very intrigued by what you > > > say above because it seems so parallel to my > > > situation, and I haven't seen anybody else > > > describe it this way. > > > > And all I'm saying -- to you both -- is that > > the map is not the territory. > > Yes, Barry, we know that. I said so above, in > fact, and so has Edg. How did you manage to > miss it? > > Both of you seem > > motivated primarily by a desire to "understand" > > enlightenment, to get some kind of intellectual > > "handle" on it. > > Can't speak for Edg, but that isn't true of me. > Advaita is about the nature of ultimate reality, > not about enlightenment per se. > > And I'm not even sure "understanding" Advaita > is what either of us is doing (as I also > indicated above and you missed). I think > something else may be going on, but I don't know > how to characterize it, except that in its own > way it's also an "experience," just not the kind > you're familiar with. > > <snip> > > Your *intellects* or > > self (very small s) are happy and peaceful with > > your current "understanding" of enlightenment, > > but that's because you've found a way to enable > > the self to perpetuate...uh...itself. > > Not necessarily. Intellectual activity is what > perpetuates the self. This is the opposite.
Sure it is. That's why you've had so many strong personal experiences of enlightenment while pursuing this path for over thirty years. I'm not tryin' to talk you out of your chosen path; that would seem to be impossible at this point. All I'm suggesting this morning is that, as is often the case on this forum, you might learn something about the *nature* of that path if you analyze the parts you snip out of posts that you reply to. In this case, that was: > I'd rather visit a place than read travel books > about it and speculate about it from afar, but > that's probably just me. You seem to prefer reading the travel books and speculating about the exotic places they describe to actually visiting these places yourself. Cool. I guess.
