---IMO : the "pure" (Consciousness only) neo-Advaitin viewpoint begs the question of why in the world "one" would even talk about Enlightenment, or even "accept" something such as the statement of a neo-Advaitin Guru such as HWL Poonja: "Ye are already Enlightened". Doesn't make sense. If "they" are already Enlightened, then who needs Poonjaji to tell them?? I have a hypothesis: The neo-Advaitins have the need to fork over money for special courses, where the Gurus readily accept the money in payment for telling them they're aleady Enlightened!. It's a money making "POONJA-SCHEME" Hee Hee!!!
In [email protected], off_world_beings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> > wrote: > snip > <<the two > > most prevalent approaches to Self Realization. > > > > Although there are more than two, of course, I > > think that one can safely sort them into two piles. > > The first pile has a label that says, "Believes in > > the concept of non-enlightenment, and the existence > > of things that can prevent enlightenment." The > > second label says, "Believes in the ever-present > > existence of enlightenment, that one is always > > already enlightened, that the only thing necessary > > to be enlightened is to *realize* that you already > > are enlightened, and that no obstacles to that > > realization can or do exist." > > > Good start. Existentialism, and its opposite...Existentialism. > > > > > > It seems to me that TM and many other forms of > > spiritual development fall into the first box,>> > > > Except that the most common phrase used by Maharishi over 50 years > is "the Self". Think about it Turquoise. > > > > whereas some forms of Advaita or Neo-Advaita or > > Zen or Taoism fall into the latter. *Both* of > > these approaches and "ways of seeing" are valid, > > in my opinion, in that they describe reality from > > a particular state of attention. One's *predilection* > > for one description or the other is all that matters. > > > > In the "I believe in non-enlightenment" box, there > > seems to me to be a fascination with BLAME. "I'm > > not enlightened because of my stress/my samskaras/ > > my sins/the state of the world/other people fucking > > with me/all of the above. If these things weren't > > present, I'd have an easier pathway to enlightenment." > > > > In the "I'm always already enlightened" box, there > > seems to be no such fixation on BLAME. It's a path > > that is more concerned with CHOICE. "At every moment > > of every day, I have the choice to realize and live > > my ever-present enlightenment. My ability to *make* > > that choice is not affected by anything.">> > > > ""Kierkegaard also focused on the deep anxiety of human existence -- > the feeling that there is no purpose, indeed nothing, at its core. > Finding a way to counter this nothingness, by embracing existence, > is the fundamental theme of existentialism, and the explanation for > the philosophy's name. While someone who claims to believe in > reality might be called a "realist," or someone who believes in a > deity a "deist," someone who believes fundamentally only in > existence, and seeks to find meaning in his life solely by embracing > existence, is an existentialist."" > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existentialism#Major_concepts_in_existen > tialism > > > > > > > I kinda prefer the latter path, but I understand those > > who prefer the former. It's a safer path, full of > > prescriptions for the things one must do to avoid the > > obstacles and "become" enlightened, and equally full > > of proscriptions against doing any of the things that > > "prevent" enlightenment. > > > > The "I'm already enlightened, if I just choose to > > realize that" approach doesn't tend to have that many > > do's and don'ts. What would be the point, if neither > > the do's nor the don'ts have any effect on one's > > always-already-present enlightenment?>> > > > They are one and the same. They are not different. It is like the > Buddhist and the Vedantist argueing about about the "Self" (Atman) > and the "no-self" (Anatman). They are the EXACTLY same thing, just > that people like to argue for a hobby (kinda like this board really) > > OffWorld > > > > > > > Anyway, I'm just throwing this out as a potential > > topic for discussion. If anyone is interested in the > > subject, pile on. If not, carry on and use your five > > posts as you choose. > > >
