Enlightenment, in depth

[Trevcaru]

 

If I were a mouse running on a wheel, I would know what I was running on.

 

 

 

Then you are much braver than i.

 

quote name='Scotty' post='118318' date='Apr 29 2009, 05:02 PM']

 

Only dead people have no experience.

 

 

 

 

And thank you for the delicacy.

Edited April 30, 2009 by Trevcaru

[Birch]

Oh GOOD!

 

Shouting at last. Scott, your thread has TRACTION;-)

 

 

I'm going to throw a spanner in there (and put my non-reputation on the line;-)) and say that experience IS MOST OF THE TIME only self-reflective of the -ing of the moment -(which is unfortunately just another -ing) otherwise you wouldn't know that you're having an experience of the -ing (I'm wondering if that's what some people mean by 'intellectual' vs 'flow')

 

When it comes to enlightenment

 

The gap between -ing and the experience of that -ing disappears. Or at least it gets smaller -otherwise no bliss;-)

[goldisheavy]

WHY ARE YOU FATHOMING? what makes you special? you think your special? fuck it...

IT IS UNFATHOMABLE!there... i said it

 

This is actually a very common question in the spiritual circles, and I think it should be answered.

 

My answer is this. At the ultimate level of analysis, things are baseless, and thus are unfathomable. However, we also recognize that there is a relative level, which is not strictly separate and not strictly distinct from the ultimate, but we feel and talk about it differently. We know that 5 kilos of apples is not the same as 2 kilos of ice cream. We know that to buy apples you don't go into an ice cream shop. You could just throw up your hands and say, "It's all unfathomable! Stop trying to understand... apples and ice cream are unfathomable..." But in reality they are fathomable for us, aren't they? You know how to buy ice cream. You know how to buy apples. You can, with little difficulty, learn how to grow apples and learn how to make your own ice cream. While you may not fathom the ultimate essence of apples, you can fathom a damn good deal about apples.

 

To develop one's powers of reasoning by attempting to fathom various features of one's own experience is an ornamentally good and an ornamentally useful process. It's not useless just because the usefulness is ornamental in nature. Recognizing this is important to avoid nihilism.

 

Besides, you cannot avoid an easy (for a contemplator) counter-question: How do you know things are unfathomable? The only way to be certain that things are unfathomable is to fathom all the things completely. If you don't have complete understanding of all things, you don't have the proper grounds to state that things are unfathomable. But if you do have complete understanding of all things, then you have fathomed them, because understanding and fathoming are just two words that mean the same thing.

 

Saying that things are flat-out unfathomable is a little too extreme of a statement. A more modest statement can be more honest. Maybe say, "when you try to fathom things, you can never complete that process or reach a conclusion, because what it means for a thing to be itself is an ongoing, ever-incomplete, and ever-complete process. It's ever-incomplete because the meaning changes in an ongoing fashion as the informational field changes. It's ever-complete because nothing can be done to make things more complete than they already are, ongoing-ly." Something like that. Something more modest and more nuanced. I guess it doesn't fit into a sound bite as nicely. Doesn't make for a good slogan.

[Trevcaru]

 

 

When it comes to enlightenment

 

The gap between -ing and the experience of that -ing disappears. Or at least it gets smaller -otherwise no bliss;-)

 

Who said anything about bliss? and "gets smaller"... is it possible for there to be no gap? and if you were to tell me, should i believe you? And if you wanted to show me, could you? And if i wanted to experience it, could i? now i think we are getting somewhere.

[goldisheavy]

Who said anything about bliss? and "gets smaller"... is it possible for there to be no gap? and if you were to tell me, should i believe you? And if you wanted to show me, could you? And if i wanted to experience it, could i? now i think we are getting somewhere.

 

Just ask, "What is the role of convention in our lives?" or "What is the role of convention in my life?" That's a better way to ask the same questions, in my opinion. But I think those are great questions though.

[Trevcaru]

This is actually a very common question in the spiritual circles, and I think it should be answered.

 

My answer is this. At the ultimate level of analysis, things are baseless, and thus are unfathomable. However, we also recognize that there is a relative level, which is not strictly separate and not strictly distinct from the ultimate, but we feel and talk about it differently. We know that 5 kilos of apples is not the same as 2 kilos of ice cream. We know that to buy apples you don't go into an ice cream shop. You could just throw up your hands and say, "It's all unfathomable! Stop trying to understand... apples and ice cream are unfathomable..." But in reality they are fathomable for us, aren't they? You know how to buy ice cream. You know how to buy apples. You can, with little difficulty, learn how to grow apples and learn how to make your own ice cream. While you may not fathom the ultimate essence of apples, you can fathom a damn good deal about apples.

 

To develop one's powers of reasoning by attempting to fathom various features of one's own experience is an ornamentally good and an ornamentally useful process. It's not useless just because the usefulness is ornamental in nature. Recognizing this is important to avoid nihilism.

 

Besides, you cannot avoid an easy (for a contemplator) counter-question: How do you know things are unfathomable? The only way to be certain that things are unfathomable is to fathom all the things completely. If you don't have complete understanding of all things, you don't have the proper grounds to state that things are unfathomable. But if you do have complete understanding of all things, then you have fathomed them, because understanding and fathoming are just two words that mean the same thing.

 

Saying that things are flat-out unfathomable is a little too extreme of a statement. A more modest statement can be more honest. Maybe say, "when you try to fathom things, you can never complete that process or reach a conclusion, because what it means for a thing to be itself is an ongoing, ever-incomplete, and ever-complete process. It's ever-incomplete because the meaning changes in an ongoing fashion as the informational field changes. It's ever-complete because nothing can be done to make things more complete than they already are, ongoing-ly." Something like that. Something more modest and more nuanced. I guess it doesn't fit into a sound bite as nicely. Doesn't make for a good slogan.

 

i see you brought balloons with you as well. but maybe the clowns need to dance.... right?

 

Just ask, "What is the role of convention in our lives?" or "What is the role of convention in my life?" That's a better way to ask the same questions, in my opinion. But I think those are great questions though.

 

Your candy is more bitter than mine. Some people are lactose intolerant, right gold?

Edited April 30, 2009 by Trevcaru

[mjjbecker]

..

Edited July 7, 2009 by mjjbecker

[Aetherous]

Mjjbecker,

 

The 'enlightenment' as claimed and proclaimed by sages of the past?

 

Yep, specifically the Buddhist kind. Probably Theravadan...someone knowledgeable please correct me if I'm wrong on that point. I've spent years thinking that these ideas were Theravadan, and I'd like to know if I am wrong.

 

Glenn Morris had it correct. It is a biological process. He details it in his book, 'Path Notes', and Santiago has already expanded on it to some degree, so I wont repeat the details. Buy the book wink.gif .

 

I have read it. Fun book. I'm not interested in what they consider to be enlightenment, at least for this discussion. There really are different kinds of enlightenment. The way I've defined the one for this topic, is the 'no self' variety.

 

We came up with this excellent definition for the kind we're discussing (it's still a work in progress):

 

Enlightenment is a direct non-conceptual realization that there is no self/doer/thinker/watcher/witness/observer. It is a realization that there is only "phenomena-ing". It does not involve a loss of a self. It's not a state of being unaware of a self. It does not have anything to do with a lessened emotional response to the world, or a loss of negative emotions. It has nothing to do with being able to manifest things into existence, or having magical powers. It is not the ability to accept everything fully. It is not about residing in the space from which everything arises.

 

That throws out a lot of different kinds of what people consider to be "enlightenment". But so be it: this is the kind we're talking about here.

 

I'm cool with people talking about the nature of other kinds of enlightenment, too (it's not like I own this topic)...but I just hope that people stop confusing things...

 

I am not discussing other kinds of enlightenment! I'm only talking about the kind we've defined. If you have no experience with this kind, then your contributions will probably be not so great.

 

Self reflection is fine, but pointless without experience-there has to be a reference point. Guidance is often invaluable. Hence the 'Path Notes'. They are like a map, but you have to do the journey. Reading the map is not the same as doing the journey. Experience, not intellectual masturbation.

 

I do have experience...which is why I talk about this kind of enlightenment. This is the kind I experienced directly, like 7 years ago, after having read the map, and done the journey (not done traveling yet).

 

Why would you assume otherwise?

 

This discussion is good for me personally, to clarify things. I'm not "there" yet, and maybe some things are still unclear for me...so hashing it out is GREAT. It's also good for other people to get a different and more strict view of what this kind of enlightenment entails.

 

Anyway, there was biological crazy stuff happening with my experience too (classic kundalini awakening, and possibly a mind to mind with some being or my "higher self", which was strange), but the key characteristic that made it enlightenment (in my opinion) and not just some other crazy phenomenon, was that my perception changed so that everything happening wasn't seen by "me". Best explained by that beautifully simple phrase: "sound, but no hearing"...

 

The description we've come up with, above, describes it pretty well without being confusing as to which kind of enlightenment this is.

 

To be clear: I don't consider meeting with a being, or getting guidance from a "higher self", enlightenment. Nor do I consider kundalini awakening enlightenment. I don't consider an endless evolution into higher light, or dissolving the ego or the body, to be enlightenment.

 

The only kind that I personally consider to be "enlightenment" is the one I experienced and somewhat verified through reading a few Buddhist texts.

 

That's just my opinion. I will acknowledge that people claim that all sorts of experiences are "enlightenment"...cool, call it that. I don't...not a big deal. I respect your traditions, and I'm sure they have valuable things in them.

 

Once again: what I'm discussing in this topic has nothing to do with any of that. It only has to do with:

 

Enlightenment is a direct non-conceptual realization that there is no self/doer/thinker/watcher/witness/observer. It is a realization that there is only "phenomena-ing". It does not involve a loss of a self. It's not a state of being unaware of a self. It does not have anything to do with a lessened emotional response to the world, or a loss of negative emotions. It has nothing to do with being able to manifest things into existence, or having magical powers. It is not the ability to accept everything fully. It is not about residing in the space from which everything arises.

 

So please...no more confusing things.

 

...

 

Also, I don't say this in an attempt to be rude, but if people want to be negative know it alls, I just won't reply to their comments. It's a total waste of my time. I'm here to discuss the topic, not discuss the supposed stupidity of discussing the topic.

 

What else is a discussion board for, than to clarify things about our practices?

 

Hopefully, I don't respond to any more pointless comments...

 

Xabir,

 

I am letting your last post sink in, and also reading more Ingram, trying to come up with a decent reply. It may take a few days...

[xabir2005]

Take your time

Yep, specifically the Buddhist kind. Probably Theravadan...someone knowledgeable please correct me if I'm wrong on that point. I've spent years thinking that these ideas were Theravadan, and I'd like to know if I am wrong.

So do Vajrayana/Tibetan and Zen/Mahayana. Edited April 30, 2009 by xabir2005

[mjjbecker]

..

Edited July 7, 2009 by mjjbecker

[三江源]

.

Edited April 9, 2015 by 三江源

[Trevcaru]

 

I do have experience...which is why I talk about this kind of enlightenment.

 

You have nothing but a memory of something you are now calling enlightenment. And so now, you strive for it, you define it so you can experience it again, so you can hold on to it, right? And so you go about trying to assimilate the enlightened experience.... But i think it is more important to see the flaw in the approach than anything else. The approach is the running.... everyone is doing the same thing, i have nothing, im not 'enlightened', and never claimed to be. Im a man, like you discussing, in sometimes what may not be the best way, the nature of enlightenment. The problem i see is this, we have this idea of enlightenment based upon our experience, and now we want it to happen again. It was so wonderful, so liberating.... and the mind yearns for that. Listen closely, the yearning for that is exactly what enlightenment is not. Do you see what i am saying? If there was no yearning there would be just what is there. The whole activity, the whole wheel with the mouse, any movement towards this freedom is exactly what freedom is not.

You may not like paradoxes, but the truth is there regardless. Enlightenment is not something you can put in a bag and 'have', is it? We see all the things we think are good, like enlightenment, hapiness, maybe a little bit of compassion, a little honor, and we create our 'grab bag of freedom', the gurus, the priests, the religions, they all tell us we must strive, we must obtain enlightenment, but i am saying it is impossible.... enlightenment must be a byproduct, the release of when we are able to step back and see the futility of running on the mouse wheel, the futility of strife and of becoming, which are the same thing. If i am striving for enlightenment, it is because there is something i am afraid of right? I put this filter of what i believe enlightenment is, maybe from a past experience, or what i have read, and i go about my day searching for that, striving for that... i feel aweful, my life is a mess in so many ways, so i go about through my day searching for my freedom. My girlfriend breaks up with me, so i go about and search for happiness, my brother calls me a sissy, so i strive for strength. I have my accumulations of all these various things, these ideas, from memory of what i believe is freedom, or enlightenment, and i strive for them. The more pain, the harder i strive. The more lost the more i strive.

So we have accumulation... the accumulation of all the various things we think are good for us.... but all these things are blocking our ability to see are they not? i have the memory of the 'tough' guy, my brother thinks im a sissy, so i want to be a little tough, and so i emulate. I have the image of the enlightened, cause i feel like a fool, and so i go about with this filter of the enlightened as well... and all the millions of things i have overlaid in my perception, and i go about my day searching, creating, becoming this thing, these many ideas i have of right action. This process warps the body as well as the mind, limiting it by the filters it has overlaid in its perception. And we do this like a mouse running on a wheel, never stopping to question the process of running cause we dont have the energy, which is the freedom, to step back and see this entire process at once. To see the entire movement of accumulation at once. We see that fire burns, and therefore there is no questioning, no choice, if we burn our hand we immediately take our hand away, there is no time, no becoming.... we dont need strife, or will power. But the key is that we have seen, truly seen the action, the hurt of it. Now, if the mind is able to step back, and with that great amount of energy, able to see the whole process of pain, of strife of becoming; i dont mean striving for freedom, i mean, when it is able to step back and see that the strife is becoming, then isnt that the end of it? If it is able to see the whole process, that it has been running on this wheel of becoming in every attempt to free itself.... isnt that the ending of it? If i see that my hand is burning, do i accumulate non-burningness? Must i go about my day striving for not-falling-off-cliffness? Of course not, its silly. So why when we have the pain from the psychological, when we have our feeling of insufficiency, we run to enlightenment, or we run to freedom. Freedom is not something that can be striven for is it? can you see this whole prcoess? Maybe if you have been looking in your own life and not accepting what i am saying, or rejecting... we have seen, that any movement towards freedom, is exactly what it is not.

Now... if i was to say, "if you have experience, throw it out!" then this is the running in the wheel again, is it not? If i was to give you a formula to meet your pain with, are we not doing the same thing? i say this for the ones who are not following along so well... if you ask me at this point, 'well what do we do then?', are you caught up in the process of meeting the unknown with the known?

Edited May 4, 2009 by Trevcaru

[Aetherous]

Mjjbecker,

 

How do you suppose any physiological experience can be divorced from the biological though?

 

I'm not saying it has to be...it's just that the qualifier for what makes it enlightenment is what we've defined. I think it's more accurate to define it this way and say that this is the enlightenment the Buddha was talking about, because if you read the texts and talk to the Buddhist masters, it is.

 

The biological process can be taken past this point. It can also happen long before this point, too. So it's only confusing to say anything about that. I prefer to just call it an altogether different kind of "enlightenment", although I don't even like to consider it that myself.

 

As far as the sages are concerned, that kind of enlightenment is biological.

 

Can you put quotes here of sages saying that?

[goldisheavy]

i see you brought balloons with you as well. but maybe the clowns need to dance.... right?

 

Clowns and balloons often go together. Of course clowns like to pop balloons for fun, but maybe that's what the balloons are for when clowns come out? I don't know. I've always liked circus since I was little.

 

Your candy is more bitter than mine. Some people are lactose intolerant, right gold?

 

Oh I don't know. Does milk sweeten or embitter the candy? I have no idea.

 

it is outside the realms of the conscious mind to know what is 'unliberated' since it is that thing. And has no knowledge of that which isnt that thing.[/color][/i]

 

No, that's very wrong. When people seek liberation, it is some kind of experience that prompts them. When people want water they know what thirst feels like. When people want freedom, they know what imprisonment feels like.

 

Both freedom and imprisonment are products of mind. Both thirst and the slaking of thirst are of mind.

 

The boundary between the conscious and sub/unconscious mind is an imaginary one.

 

Is is dogmatic? It's not my job to judge myself. I leave that up to you.

 

i have nothing, im not 'enlightened', and never claimed to be. Im a man, like you discussing, in sometimes what may not be the best way, the nature of enlightenment.

 

Here's a list of claims you make:

 

1. You have nothing.

2. You are not enlightened.

3. You never claimed to be enlightened.

4. You're a man like us.

 

Of these claims, only #3 is perhaps NOT preposterous. Every other claim on that list is without basis. Conventionally it's considered a sign of humility to go around claiming that you are nothing, and so forth. However, among sages, such manner of behavior is considered to be anywhere between dubious and stupid. It's called "false humility". In order for you to know for sure you are not enlightened, you must know what being enlightened is like. And in order to know that, you must already be enlightened. So if you are not yet enlightened, you cannot know that you are not enlightened. For all you know, you are in fact enlightened.

 

The problem i see is this, we have this idea of enlightenment based upon our experience, and now we want it to happen again. It was so wonderful, so liberating.... and the mind yearns for that. Listen closely, the yearning for that is exactly what enlightenment is not. Do you see what i am saying? If there was no yearning there would be just what is there. The whole activity, the whole wheel with the mouse, any movement towards this freedom is exactly what freedom is not. You may not like paradoxes, but the truth is there regardless. Enlightenment is not something you can put in a bag and 'have', is it? We see all the things we think are good, like enlightenment, hapiness, maybe a little bit of compassion, a little honor, and we create our 'grab bag of freedom', the gurus, the priests, the religions, they all tell us we must strive, we must obtain enlightenment, but i am saying it is impossible.... enlightenment must be a byproduct, the release of when we are able to step back and see the futility of running on the mouse wheel, the futility of strife and of becoming, which are the same thing. If i am striving for enlightenment, it is because there is something i am afraid of right? I put this filter of what i believe enlightenment is, maybe from a past experience, or what i have read, and i go about my day searching for that, striving for that... i feel aweful, my life is a mess in so many ways, so i go about through my day searching for my freedom. My girlfriend breaks up with me, so i go about and search for happiness, my brother calls me a sissy, so i strive for strength. I have my accumulations of all these various things, these ideas, from memory of what i believe is freedom, or enlightenment, and i strive for them. The more pain, the harder i strive. The more lost the more i strive. So we have accumulation... the accumulation of all the various things we think are good for us.... but all these things are blocking our ability to see are they not? i have the memory of the 'tough' guy, my brother thinks im a sissy, so i want to be a little tough, and so i emulate. I have the image of the enlightened, cause i feel like a fool, and so i go about with this filter of the enlightened as well... and all the millions of things i have overlaid in my perception, and i go about my day searching, creating, becoming this thing, these many ideas i have of right action. This process warps the body as well as the mind, limiting it by the filters it has overlaid in its perception. And we do this like a mouse running on a wheel, never stopping to question the process of running cause we dont have the energy, which is the freedom, to step back and see this entire process at once. To see the entire movement of accumulation at once. We see that fire burns, and therefore there is no questioning, no choice, if we burn our hand we immediately take our hand away, there is no time, no becoming.... we dont need strife, or will power. But the key is that we have seen, truly seen the action, the hurt of it. Now, if the mind is able to step back, and with that great amount of energy, able to see the whole process of pain, of strife of becoming; i dont mean striving for freedom, i mean, when it is able to step back and see that the strife is becoming, then isnt that the end of it? If it is able to see the whole process, that it has been running on this wheel of becoming in every attempt to free itself.... isnt that the ending of it? If i see that my hand is burning, do i accumulate non-burningness? Must i go about my day striving for not-falling-off-cliffness? Of course not, its silly. So why when we have the pain from the psychological, when we have our feeling of insufficiency, we run to enlightenment, or we run to freedom. Freedom is not something that can be striven for is it? can you see this whole prcoess? Maybe if you have been looking in your own life and not accepting what i am saying, or rejecting... we have seen, that any movement towards freedom, is exactly what it is not.

Now... if i was to say, "if you have experience, throw it out!" then this is the running in the wheel again, is it not? If i was to give you a formula to meet your pain with, are we not doing the same thing? i say this for the ones who are not following along so well... if you ask me at this point, 'well what do we do then?', are you caught up in the process of meeting the unknown with the known?

 

I believe you have some really interesting things to say, but for Pete's sake, can you split your writing into some paragraphs? I have hard time reading this blob of text. Just hit the return key twice every so often, preferably in a logical place.

Edited April 30, 2009 by goldisheavy

[Birch]

What's THIS doing all the way down HERE?

 

Are we just not interested in this topic? Maybe it's been overdone. Maybe I'm channeling an archetypal Jewish Mom (no offense intended to anyone, really)

 

Or maybe, just maybe, everyone on this forum is already awake and enlightened. Which could be a great thing.

 

Or, could it ?

 

And if it is the case, why would it be a BAD idea (and for who?) that people become awake and enlightened?

[Vajrasattva]

What's THIS doing all the way down HERE?

 

Are we just not interested in this topic? Maybe it's been overdone. Maybe I'm channeling an archetypal Jewish Mom (no offense intended to anyone, really)

 

Or maybe, just maybe, everyone on this forum is already awake and enlightened. Which could be a great thing.

 

Or, could it ?

 

And if it is the case, why would it be a BAD idea (and for who?) that people become awake and enlightened?

 

 

Oy Vey!

[Trunk]

... for Pete's sake, can you split your writing into some paragraphs? I have hard time reading this blob of text.

And, while we're at it, my pet peeve:

Please folks let's not unnececarily quote someone's whole frickin' entire huge post.

 

Trunk

[xenolith]

Its an experience. While other experiences certainly exist which can achieve the objective of enlightenment, one in particular is a way in which it may be obtained by means of purposeful endeavor...the experience of crown center awareness. This experience is known as the great straight upward path to enlightenment in the Tibetan Book of the Dead.

 

The effects are only as permanent as the experiencer's ability to effect the changes in the experiencer's Life that the experience of the experience indicates.

 

Love.

 

xeno

[seadog]

Today I watched as an elderly Man and Women walked painfully slow across a busy road.The traffic stopped in all directions and waited from them to finish their crossing.

Today I saw a young girl rescue a grasshopper from a water bowl that had been left on the street for thristy dogs.

Today a nurse made my wife laugh so much her hospital bed shook for an instance.

Today in the supermarket I saw an old friend and she told me about her life caring for her elderly mother and her old dog.

 

"Emptiness of which compassion is the very essence

Is only for those who want enlightenment."

Lord Nagarjuna

Edited May 3, 2009 by seadog

[Birch]

Oh well;-)

 

I guess it can stay down here then.

[三江源]

.

Edited April 9, 2015 by 三江源

[Trevcaru]

 

 

"Emptiness of which compassion is the very essence

Is only for those who want enlightenment."

Lord Nagarjuna

 

""Emptiness of which compassion is the very essence

Is only for those who see the futility of wanting enlightenment."

supreme ultra-mega god of superiority and maximum awesomeness trevcaru

[Ya Mu]

Scott,

Your definition is static but the universe is dynamic.

 

I would suggest that there is no such thing as enlightenment unless a person wished to say Enlightenment stage 1, enlightenment stage 2, on & on.

 

Discovery through cultivation can bring a person through these stages, so can getting hit with lightning (I have done both; both are very illuminating ). Sure each stage is an experience but that particular experience, even though it has helped to define "you" as a whole, really hasn't as much meaning when reaching the next stage because each stage encompasses and supercedes the previous one. I suggest to NOT keep trying to recapture a previous experience. Also, I suggest that a perfect static definition of something that is DYNAMIC can never be.

 

Some observations of stages which don't mean much:

1) Look at me!

2) I don't like "me" so I want to dissolve

3) Power

4) Power sucks without wisdom

4) Knowledge

6) Knowledge sucks without wisdom

7) Compassion

8) Recognizing vibratory levels are infinite

9) Knowing

9.5) Assuming responsibility

10) Helping others is worth far more than anything else

11) Linking with your Higher Level Self (yeah I know, it is not in your definition )

12) Making choice to stay and help others or not

13) Still have to chop wood & carry water if you make choice to stay

14)

15)...

 

Not trying to throw you off track, just some thoughts after scanning this thread. Carry on.

 

 

edit: GIH - Yes I know this entirely demonstrates that I know nothing of the mind. There, I've said it so you don't have to!

Edited May 4, 2009 by Ya Mu

[Birch]

I dunno. I really really did very much want awakening because I wanted less pain, more love, more awesomeness, less mediocrity, more fun, less stupidity around me (hahahaha), more compassion for myself. Except I didn't know what awakening was.

 

I thought it would bring me all of these things. Did it? Yes and No. Also more pain, less love, more mediocrity, less fun, more stupidity, less compassion for myself. How does one get past all those?

 

This is precisely where the 'chop wood, carry water' thing comes in in my story.

 

And precisely where Seadog has said something awesome. Which he often does - although I suspect he is now tired of people.

 

Of course if you (or I) are in a frame of mind that contributes to your seeing what he said as a bunch of trite cuteness offered up by a dude with an old man avatar then it's not going to make a difference right that moment. Maybe it will some other time.

 

It reminds me of some of those Taoist authors (please don't ask me which ones, I'd have to look it up) who mention letting your eyes rest where they want (I'm paraphrasing)

[Aetherous]

Sorry everyone who has been waiting for this topic to continue...I've been very busy, but this next week I will have more time to talk about this.

 

Ya Mu,

 

I still think we're talking about different types of enlightenment. I like your stages that you laid out, but to me that's a different topic or a different kind of enlightenment.

 

I know it sucks that the definition I like is static, but that's just the way it is.

 

Kate,

 

I thought it would bring me all of these things. Did it? Yes and No. Also more pain, less love, more mediocrity, less fun, more stupidity, less compassion for myself. How does one get past all those?

 

This is precisely where the 'chop wood, carry water' thing comes in in my story.

 

Wisdom. _/\_