--- Begin Message ---
Dear Bronte Baxter,
Thanks for posting that passionate piece challenging basic assumptions on the
nature and value of enlightenment. More on that below.
Meanwhile, I agree that knowledge is knowledge whether we call it just plain
knowing, or psychic, or intuitive, or whole, or cosmic, or whatever. Any
difference between them is a difference in degree, not in kind. I also agree
that someone who knows at the high degree that the giver of dharshan to beggars
claims for herself and then says, Im not special, is being somewhat
disingenuous, if not downright fulsome. So you can certainly be forgiven for
puking in public.
On the other hand, Ricks friend is dead right about not being special. We all
have the kind of knowledge she claims for herself, if only in embryonic form.
Im sure weve all had the experience of not being able to raise the name of
someone we know quite well. That person is fully present in our awareness, we
are certain about who it is we have in mind, yet we cant drag the name into
the realm of manifest language as a thought-form (madhyama) or as an expressed
set of sounds (vaikhari). Similarly, we all have the experience of not being
able to spit out a word we want during a senior moment. We know exactly
which word it is; we know it with perfect faith and absolute certainty, yet it
is just about wholly unmanifest (so much for Derridas notion that there aint
no such thing as a transcendental signified). This is stunning knowledge when
it comes right down to it, and the only reason were not electrified by it is
the fact that the experience is so very common and
that we generally dont really think about anything so common.
Well, if we can know a person whose name we cant raise or a word that wont
come into the bounded spotlight of manifestation, and know it with such
absolute certainty, then knowing The Word in it's infinite divinity is not
really a stretch. I could argue that such knowledge is bigger than the
knowledge of some lady living in cramped quarters (a telling example), but it
is bigger only from a point of view that doesnt apprehend the Word in all
its fullness. From that point of view, an ants knowledge is no smaller than
mine. Thats me speaking through The Word for a moment in that last sentence.
Now about your very intelligent and compassionate challenge of basic
assumptions: I (speaking as an ant this time), I, too, find it telling that
here in Fairfield were interested only in our own groovy experiences, our own
evolution, and our own enlightenment for its own sake, rather than for the sake
of all that lives, while, on the other side of the world, Burmese monks by the
thousands are risking death, and, worse, torture, to free (other) people from
oppressive government. We can certainly argue about which community is more
enlightened, theirs or ours.
You raise issues worthy of discussion, and I hope the group doesnt shut you
down as they did me when I challenged those assumptions upon first joining the
group. My challenge of these basic assumptions was in the context of the values
we espouse in the meditating community being essentially those of Hitlers
Germany, though wrapped in different color paper.
a
Bronte Baxter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Note: forwarded message attached.
---------------------------------
Check out the hottest 2008 models today at Yahoo! Autos.
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
From: TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 05:50:23 -0000
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Challenging Assumptions
[ Interestingly, I wrote this Friday afternoon,
several hours before Ron's reply to my email to
him, on a similar subject. I'm posting it this
morning in lieu of a direct reply to his post. ]
"The healthy mind challenges its own assumptions."
~ The I Ching
That's what it says on the main page of Fairfield Life.
And that's what a number of the folks who chat here do,
on a fairly regular basis. That's why I like the place.
But I've noticed that there are a few assumptions that
no one (or almost no one) ever challenges. These assump-
tions have *been* assumptions for so many of us, and for
so long, that they are just given a "free ride," and
almost everyone accepts them as a given. No one even
*thinks* about challenging them.
The one I'm going to challenge tonight, just for the fun
of it, is a Big One, possibly the biggest, never-challenged
assumption in the whole enlightenment game. Briefly stated,
it is:
"Enlightenment is a worthy thing to spend one's
life pursuing; in fact, it is the *most* worthy
thing you could spend your life pursuing."
You find this assumption underlying all but a few traditions
that have a notion of enlightenment, as part of their dogma.
It manifests as respect for (or even reverence for) those
who are "one-pointed" in their desire for enlightenment. It
manifests in the time that seekers spend searching for the
supposedly-enlightened, and then listening to what they have
to say. It manifests in the monks (in TM-ese, Purusha types)
and nuns (in TM-ese, Mother Divine ladies) who give up pretty
much everything in life *except* the pursuit of enlightenment.
Families don't matter to them, career doesn't matter to them,
achievement of things in the world doesn't matter to them --
if they are to be believed, the only thing that *does* matter
to them is the realization of their own enlightenment.
And therein lies the rub. It's in the words "their own."
Enlightenment is a subjective thing. It can never be proved,
and it can never be measured, at least in my opinion. It can
only be experienced -- subjectively -- by the person who is
experiencing it. Thus it's all about ME -- my perceptions,
my overcoming suffering or becoming more happy, my ability
to attain 'higher' knowledge or have 'more refined' exper-
iences and perceptions.
There are some -- strong philosophers and spiritual teachers
among them -- who have stated that the one-pointed pursuit
of enlightenment is the most SELFISH thing that a person
could possibly do with their lives, *because* it is purely
subjective. It's a way of declaring to the world, "I have
decided that the most important thing in the world is the
quality of my own subjective experience; that is where I
choose to put my focus; nothing else (or little else)
really matters."
And this attitude gets APPLAUDED in many, if not most,
spiritual traditions. It is seen as not only a good thing,
but the *best* thing. Go figure.
The dogma of these spiritual traditions tends to support this
assumption, without ever for a moment challenging it. Hard-
core, fundamentalist Buddhism talks about life being suffering,
and *only* enlightenment being a way beyond suffering. There-
fore, why would you spend your time on anything else? (This is
why I have nothing whatsoever to do with hard-core, fundamen-
talist Buddhism; my life has *never* been suffering, and thus
that particular aversion/desire pair does nothing for me.)
The dogma also invents things to make it seem as if this
purely subjective process of realizing enlightenment has
an objective value *in itself*. The enlightened radiate
magical Woo Woo Rays. The very presence of one of them in
your neighborhood makes all the flowers brighter and the
corn grow taller. Stuff like that. This may be, but I have
seen *just* as much evidence of this kinda stuff being a fact
as I have of enlightenment itself being a fact -- that is,
none whatsoever. I don't expect to ever see such evidence.
But thousands (if not millions) of believers worldwide still
devote their lives to the pursuit of enlightenment above all
else, without ever delving deeply into the question, "What
is enlightenment *good for*, anyway?"
Clearly, if all the glowing, blissed-out talk, talk, talk
from the supposedly-enlightened is any indication, it's good
for believing that you've got everything figured out. For
many of the supposedly-enlightened, it's also clearly good
in that it allows them to believe that *as* enlightened
beings, they are much more "evolved" or insightful or
happening than all those poor non-enlightened beings who
come to them for advice and help along the Way.
But I'm challenging this "base assumption" of many of the
world's spiritual traditions because, as a life-long watcher
*of* such traditions, I don't see a lot of the supposedly-
enlightened actually DOING much for anyone but themselves.
Oh sure, they may give a little "darshan" here and there,
or teach classes or write books, but when you come right
down to it, much of that is about trying to convince others
that *they* should do everything they can to get as enlight-
ened as the supposedly-enlightened teachers are. It's about
preserving the status quo of the enlightenment business,
and keeping a never-ending line of seekers at the door to
pay the bills and pay homage.
How many of the supposedly-enlightened ever get their hands
dirty doing something that *directly* helps people who have
not drunk the Kool-Aid and thus are not already pursuing
enlightenment? How many of them do stuff for the poor, who
couldn't care *less* about becoming enlightened? How many
of them work to prevent wars and injustice, except on the
level of kicking back and radiating Woo Woo Rays?
It's as if the attainment of enlightenment was *enough* for
many of these supposedly-enlightened guys and gals. They've
*done* their work for this incarnation. Now they can just
kick back and live on their pension (enlightenment), content
with having people hang around and admire them for being all
enlightened and all.
Sorry, but that's just not *enough* for me.
When it comes to my personal priorities in life, realizing
my own personal enlightenment doesn't even make the Top Ten.
Those ten spots are all taken up by activities that have
at least something to do with helping other people more
than they do with helping myself.
And I've met monks who feel *exactly* the same way. While
they are *nominally* on a path that many would call a pathway
to enlightenment, *no* thought is given on a daily basis to
actually *achieving* that enlightenment; they consider it a
lesser goal than focusing on a daily basis on helping other
people, in whatever way they can.
These monks I can identify with; they have what I think is
a cool attitude about enlightenment. I have had long conver-
sations with many of them, in Tibetan traditions and in Zen
traditions and in others, and their example never ceases to
inspire me. They don't give a shit whether they personally
*ever* realize their own enlightenment; they focus on Here
And Now, and on doing the things that they feel will have
the most benefit for other sentient beings.
Their assumptions about how to live and where to put their
focus in life may be *just* as flawed and *just* as chal-
lengeable as the assumption that one should be "one-pointed
about enlightenment." I have no problem with anyone who wants
to challenge them. What I am expressing is mere preference,
not any kind of "rule" or "cosmic law" or "truth." But at
the same time I can't help but think that these monks who
consider the objective well-being of others more important
than their own subjective well-being are onto something.
But this is all Just My Opinion. You guys talk it out for
yourselves...
Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
--- End Message ---
