Re: a message for you -- The PM Refugees' Forum

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 13:42:09 05/07/09 Thu
Author: Michael
Subject: Re: a message for you
In reply to: iteo 's message, "Re: a message for you" on 23:24:11 05/05/09 Tue

Im familiar with that book, and others by the same author. I would disagree with the idea that it is not possible to become permanently enlightened/realised...and im suprised if he can quote Buddhist scripture, since surely the Buddha was THE example that it is possible to become permanently realised.

From what my Realised teacher says.

>Well, you do make a good point Michael. In theory, I
>should hold on to none of these notions and maybe
>you're right about that.
>
>But it's not a contradiction, and here's why:
>
>My epiphany was short lived - that's true; but
>nevertheless, for a short period I was in a state of
>enlightenment (to what degree I cannot say with any
>certainty) - but I had absolutely no desire, and I
>mean that on every possible level, and I was very
>much in a nondual state of mind.
>
>I simply didn't want anything, nor did I care about
>anything, I was neither happy nor sad - the best
>description is the word "peace" - but I was also not
>oblivious to everything either.
>
>But it didn't last. In fact, months after my epiphany
>I read "After the Ecstasy, the Laundry" and I learned
>that my experience was typical of many Zen monks,
>nuns, etc. According to the book the state of
>enlightenment simply doesn't last.
>
>In fact the author contends that no one can enter the
>state of enlightenment for good - but will drift out
>of the state after a period of time and he uses
>Buddhist scripture to prove his point (and also many
>experiences of modern day Zen masters). And even
>though my experience may seem to validate his argument
>- I still disagree him on that point. I do think that
>some may have entered the state of enlightenment
>permanently ( but I could wrong.)
>
>But to say evil doesn't exist would be a lie on my
>part - I'd merely be parroting the enlightened
>teachers. While I now know that it is true on a deeper
>level and I did indeed experience the state they talk
>about, I am no longer in that state. I am back to what
>I was before. That state is something you cannot
>pretend to be in. When you reach it - you change on a
>level that goes beyond your own ability. I also
>changed physically - losing 25lbs in only 3 weeks with
>no effort and I had other physical changes as well.
>
>The idea that good and evil do not exist is only true
>when one is enlightened. Otherwise the idea is merely
>philosophical. If someone is about to viciously harm
>another right in front of me, I cannot sit back and
>say that it's not evil and that I don't care because
>"good and evil" don't exist - that I am "above it all".
>
>I am simply no longer in that state of mind anymore
>and I won't pretend to be. But I do have an absolute
>knowing that the enlightened teachers of the past
>speak the truth about duality and yet, I also can
>recognize "evil" (as well as "good") when I see it.
>
>So here I am, caught between two worlds - which may
>seem contradictory to you, but it's not to me.
>

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Re: a message for you -- grasshopper, 19:21:04 09/02/10 Thu