|
|
Post by hcspirit on Jul 12, 2009 3:43:08 GMT -5
it was watching the struggles of people who've been led to dabble in various New Age-ish and occult practices without understanding (or being told, of course) where these practices lead that motivated me to start blogging. That makes it sound quite sinister. In what way were they struggling? Where do these practices lead? Lots of different bad places. When I wrote that I was thinking of a friend of mine. As a precocious kid of maybe 10 or so, she got into her older brother's pop spirituality books on kundalini and astral projection. That's how she came to spend her teen years in mental institutions. Another person I've met more recently got involved in meditation expecting relaxation and stress relief. No one told them that meditation might instead deliver them a chance to wrestle with paralyzing fears of annihilation. In the first case it was published crap ending up in the hands of a young kid. In the second case it was lack of accurate information. In both cases the result is real human pain. I'm sick of seeing spirituality sold by charlatans and the simply clueless alike as a pleasant way to relax and a great substitute for therapy. It should be sold as a great way to massively disrupt your life while confronting fears way deeper than whatever it was that you had previously thought was your deepest fear. Ahh, you want to change the world then?[/quote] No individual can "change the world", and I don't think there will ever be an end to the various forms of spiritual snake oil. It's simpler than that. I have seen the pain, and I feel an obligation to do the finite part that I can do to relieve or prevent a few people's pain. I don't think it's useful to compare and rank suffering. turn particular species of suffering into "causes", and then rate the causes as to their worth. Doing that loses sight of the actual ground truth: that pain is pain, and a human, not a category, is experiencing uniquely personal suffering. The argument that one should focus on that which piles up the most bodies fails because it oversimplifies the matter. It would make some sense if people could only address one category at a time and if everyone were able to address each category with equal skill. Neither is true. Some persons are in a batter position to address the international arms trade, and some people are uniquely positioned to care for their aging mother. Little prevents an individual from acting on both concerns more or less simultaneously. I don't think they're intended to do that. Religions tend to be founded by really enthusiastic, sincere, people. But when the first generation or two of enthusiastic and sincere leaders pass, and what's left is a structure that has money and wields power (which is the form a successful religion sooner or later will take), then people who are interested in money and power become the leaders. People like that value obedience and conformity, for obvious reasons, and so they teach it. In the healthier religions, one can still find pockets of anarchic enthusiasm. But they're isolated, and need to take care not to be labeled heresy by the conformity-teachers. Well, yes, Christian heaven looks a lot like Buddhist final nirvana, probably because it's the same thing, approached from different angles  I think though you aren't being fair to the actual complexities of either religion. Both religions have sects that are so rule-bound they've drained every bit of life from the sect, and sects where that anarchic enthusiasm can still be found, tucked away in the corners. In both religions, you'll find sects which police their dogma to death, and sects where the membership rarely takes the dogma all that seriously. And neither mainstream Buddhism nor mainstream Christianity actually teaches that if you obey a set formula of rules you'll automatically be enlightened/go to heaven. Though, yes, unless you're lucky enough to stumble upon one of those pockets of anarchic enthusiasm, all you'll find, really, is religious authorities preaching on the merits of following the orders of the religious authorities. No, not at all. |
|
|
|
Post by lightmystic on Jul 12, 2009 15:34:07 GMT -5
Good points HCSpirit. Also, I find it's important not to impress people with Enlightenment, because that implies that it's something it's not....
|
|
|
|
Post by Peter on Jul 13, 2009 8:19:50 GMT -5
Thanks for taking the time to write considered responses with concrete examples HCS, it's much appreciated. I have seen the pain, and I feel an obligation to do the finite part that I can do to relieve or prevent a few people's pain. Sounds like noble motivation. Good luck with new router and next article. Your point is well made, and taken. Yup, you are closer to the truth than I was there, agreed. Yes, my thinking had gotten a bit black and white there - perhaps a reaction against experiences with the former type. A hat trick of well made points. Have a karma point  Kind Regards, Peter |
|
|
|
Post by divinity on Aug 16, 2009 11:59:40 GMT -5
We are all enlightened already... it's just that our human shell which is distracted by illusion of the senses keeps getting sucked into believing the illusion is real.
There is only divine light which is what we are... the energy which animates the physical shells we call bodies, which we totally over identify with. We are only divine light because that is all there is.
After a near death experience at 4 years old, I had a radically different perception of life and what we call "death" which has never left me.
This is my opinion only and not meant to offend or challenge anyone else's truth.
Blessings,
Divinity
|
|
|
|
Post by SHANE on Sept 3, 2009 4:46:16 GMT -5
ACTUALLY NO ONE IS ENLIGHTENED, THERE IS NOT TWO, THREE ETC. ALL IS CONSCIOUSNESS. IT'S YOUR THOUGHTS THAT CREATE ENLIGHTMENT VS NONENLIGHTMENT. ASK YOURSELF IF THESE PEOPLE WHO SAY THEY'RE ENLIGHTENED HAVE TO USE THE RESTROOM, EAT , SLEEP, HAVE THOUGHTS PASS BY THRUOUT THE DAYS GO THRU LOW MOODS AND HIGH MOODS ETC. THE BIGGEST MISCONCEPTION ABOUT SUPPOSSED ENLIGHTMENT IS ONCE YOU GET IT YOUR DAYS WILL BE ROSY WITH BLUE SKIES FOREVER. AS LONG AS YOUR IN THE FORM (YOU) THIS STATE IS IMPOSSIBLE. YOU MAY BE GIVEN THE GIFT OF NO LONGER IDENTIFYING WITH YOUR I THOUGHTS THAT IS ALL. ENJOY THE MYSTERIOUS JOURNEY. YOUR THOUGHTS WILL BE OF NO USE IN AIDING YOU. THE FEAR OF DEATH AND THE WISH FOR INDIVIDUAL CONTINUATY IS THOUGHT BASED AND HAS CREATED MANY RELIGIONS(CONCEPTS) AS AN ESCAPE MECHANISM
|
|
|
|
Post by shanes shadow on Sept 3, 2009 9:11:57 GMT -5
semantics, but yes there is no other. shane makes verifiable statements, though consciousness keeps doing what its doing and here we are as fingers of the same hand talking to another. www.onelook.com/?w=enlightened&ls=aflow flow flow |
|
|
|
Post by lightmystic on Sept 3, 2009 9:59:26 GMT -5
Why do you feel like those things are somehow opposed to Enlightenment. Why do you feel like the fact that there is only one thing going on negates Enlightenment? Actually, what do you think Enlightenment IS anyway? Because, the way you're defining it, it probably doesn't exist.... ACTUALLY NO ONE IS ENLIGHTENED, THERE IS NOT TWO, THREE ETC. ALL IS CONSCIOUSNESS. IT'S YOUR THOUGHTS THAT CREATE ENLIGHTMENT VS NONENLIGHTMENT. ASK YOURSELF IF THESE PEOPLE WHO SAY THEY'RE ENLIGHTENED HAVE TO USE THE RESTROOM, EAT , SLEEP, HAVE THOUGHTS PASS BY THRUOUT THE DAYS GO THRU LOW MOODS AND HIGH MOODS ETC. THE BIGGEST MISCONCEPTION ABOUT SUPPOSSED ENLIGHTMENT IS ONCE YOU GET IT YOUR DAYS WILL BE ROSY WITH BLUE SKIES FOREVER. AS LONG AS YOUR IN THE FORM (YOU) THIS STATE IS IMPOSSIBLE. YOU MAY BE GIVEN THE GIFT OF NO LONGER IDENTIFYING WITH YOUR I THOUGHTS THAT IS ALL. ENJOY THE MYSTERIOUS JOURNEY. YOUR THOUGHTS WILL BE OF NO USE IN AIDING YOU. THE FEAR OF DEATH AND THE WISH FOR INDIVIDUAL CONTINUATY IS THOUGHT BASED AND HAS CREATED MANY RELIGIONS(CONCEPTS) AS AN ESCAPE MECHANISM |
|
|
|
Post by divinity on Sept 4, 2009 15:40:21 GMT -5
Perhaps we think there are very few enlightened beings because to recognize them we must first be enlightened ourselves?
Is the desire to become enlightened better or worse than the desire to become a CEO of a big successful company?
|
|
fear
Full Member
Posts: 128
|
Post by fear on Sept 4, 2009 23:16:35 GMT -5
I think the desire between becoming a CEO and becoming enlightened is the same. Neither is better or worse.
The self aware CEO and the self aware Holy man have the same chance of being enlightened. It's the self awareness and not the profession that determines one's success in discovering his true nature.
Although there are probably many more traps in the life of a CEO because of the power the title bestows. But you could argue that Holy men have their share of power too. And we all know power corrupts.
|
|
|
|
Post by divinity on Sept 6, 2009 20:47:29 GMT -5
Perhaps it is the desire of becoming anything is the trap... just like it's not what you are addicted to, but that you are addicted that is the problem. Maybe it is desire which corrupts. I see desire as a sign that the present moment is not enough.
|
|
|
|
Post by lightmystic on Sept 8, 2009 14:25:07 GMT -5
For me, I don't find that desire itself is the problem, rather it's attachment to the idea that a certain specific thing is going to fulfill the desire that's the problem. Letting the desire be without deciding what it has to look like on the surface has always ended with the desire being fulfilled. Usually (90% or so of the time) in a way that I did not expect, and could never have predicted. This has always worked when I've let myself really have the desire and let it be fulfilled without trying to dictate HOW it got fulfilled on the surface and what that looked like. That's Life's job to work out, and at BEST I can get in the way. At worst, I make a real mess of things. Perhaps it is the desire of becoming anything is the trap... just like it's not what you are addicted to, but that you are addicted that is the problem. Maybe it is desire which corrupts. I see desire as a sign that the present moment is not enough. |
|
|
|
Post by lightmystic on Sept 8, 2009 14:34:21 GMT -5
I would say that they are very different things, assuming what is really desired is Enlightenment and not some concept of being superhappy all the time. If it's the superhappy that people desire, then CEO is a better desire IMO because at least one has some concept of how to get there. If they think Enlightenment will bring superhappy then they are in for quite a shock. It's not that there are no superhappy's, but the superhappy's are the feelings that come from not needing anything, from allowing everything to be. So all ideas of wanting this thing and not wanting another have to be looked at in explicit detail within oneself in order to see that they are not what we thought they were at that deep emotional level. So the nature of desire for Enlightenment, in terms of practically fulfilling it, are in many ways 180 degrees different than the way regular desires are fulfilled. Desires for CEO status and so forth are all about gaining something. Enlightenment is all about losing something to see what's already going on. Other desire are something we have to "go get" in some way, Enlightenment is letting ourselves release those tendencies so that there is nothing lacking. Desires are about making something happen. Enlightenment is about coexisting with Life as one thing. As a non-separate entity. I'm really not sure the two can be equated. The only similarity I see is that the feeling of fulfillment is the same. In Enlightenment, it's constant. In relative desires, it comes and goes very much. I think the desire between becoming a CEO and becoming enlightened is the same. Neither is better or worse. The self aware CEO and the self aware Holy man have the same chance of being enlightened. It's the self awareness and not the profession that determines one's success in discovering his true nature. Although there are probably many more traps in the life of a CEO because of the power the title bestows. But you could argue that Holy men have their share of power too. And we all know power corrupts. |
|
|
|
Post by divinity on Sept 16, 2009 20:37:05 GMT -5
I don't think any of us can be super happy all the time... without drugs! And of course drugs wear off. Also, to be super happy all the time might get old. I find the contrast between being ok, and thinking about something I want to create and then creating it to be the best way to get happy.
|
|
|
|
Post by lightmystic on Sept 17, 2009 10:09:32 GMT -5
Being super happy seems to come as a deeper feeling that is not about emotions, when control is released over wanting or not wanting anything, and innocently letting yourself do what it does. Then it seems to take over... It's a catch 22 though, because the very wanting of happiness and not some other emotion prevents the allowing, which prevents the happiness freedom thing. Go figure. I don't think any of us can be super happy all the time... without drugs! And of course drugs wear off. Also, to be super happy all the time might get old. I find the contrast between being ok, and thinking about something I want to create and then creating it to be the best way to get happy. |
|
|
|
Post by divinity on Sept 17, 2009 10:58:05 GMT -5
Yes, you are right I think. It is attachment to anything which causes the feelings of disconnection with who "we" are.
|
|
I think though you aren't being fair to the actual complexities of either religion. Both religions have sects that are so rule-bound they've drained every bit of life from the sect, and sects where that anarchic enthusiasm can still be found, tucked away in the corners. In both religions, you'll find sects which police their dogma to death, and sects where the membership rarely takes the dogma all that seriously. And neither mainstream Buddhism nor mainstream Christianity actually teaches that if you obey a set formula of rules you'll automatically be enlightened/go to heaven. 
But then the work we're doing doesn't need to be 'sold' at all, does it?