--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <snip> I just appreciate the *essential* difference > between the two intellectual approaches -- one > says that enlightenment is "other," something > that must be "attained," and that there are > things or beings or whatever out there in the > universe that can "prevent" its realization. > The other says that enlightenment is always > present at every moment, that all one has to > do is realize that, and that there is nothing > in the universe that can interfere with that > realization. For me it's a purely aesthethic > thing -- although *no* words can define the > issue of enlightenment, the latter description > comes closer to my own experiences.
Granted enlightenment can be seen as a choice, but if it is a choice, why not choose to live it all the time? Then, if you choose to live it all the time, why are you not able to experience it all the time? What I am pointing to is that whether the ego decides there are external forces preventing enlightenment, or that a lack of mindfulness is preventing enlightenment, the experiential reality is that you are not living enlightenment 24x7x365xInfinity, and that the focus is then always on the prescriptive behavior that will get you to the eternal experience of enlightenment. This prescriptive behavior then may be anything; TM, Buddhism, Christianity, exercise, prayer, humility, faith, whatever. So, in my opinion, whether the impediment to enlightenment is seen internally or externally, the focus if we are serious about it remains on what we can do to reach the goal, regardless of why we aren't there yet.
