Anguish of Seeking

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/17/05 4:39:25 AM, falkgw writes:

 

 

> >Another question that

> >keeps popping up in my head is this:

>

> >V: If there is no one to become enlightened, how can guys like Ramesh

> >and Wayne Liquorman (or anybody else, for that matter) claim to have

> >the " final understanding " as they call it?

>

P: Good question, Victor. Most people who commit themselves to a long

learning process have a clear idea what they will become in the end.

They have seen many doctors, lawyers, electricians, etc. Few people who

search for enlightenment have a clear idea what they will become, or

if they do, most often that idea is mistaken. Fewer yet, have seen an

enlightened being. So it's like salmons going upstream guided by an obscure

urge, not knowing where they are going, or if they will ever make it.

 

I don't like the term enlightenment, it has too many grandiose, unrealistic

implications. There is only change, change toward clarity, spontaneity,

unitive perception without conceptuality. Who changes? The brain does.

It's a rewiring of the brain away from personhood. It's not an

understanding,

and there is no final understanding. Understanding is just an intellectual

thing. It could lead to real change, but it's not liberation from personhood.

 

So what changes are these which could bring freedom from personhood?

Delayed emotional response for one. I always have been prone to anger.

Before, anger brought instant words, or actions

which created suffering for others and myself. Now, this anger flashes

in what seems a great calm space which absorbs it rather quickly

without giving way to angry words or actions.

There is change from how the world and the body are seem. They seem

to be one seamless perception, and yet relevant distinctions are made.

I still pick the right food at the market, and get out of the way of incoming

cars. These changes and many others, give no special powers, or supernatural

claims to enlightenment. They just make life great.

>

> >V: In other words, WHO is it that HAS this understanding, or

> >enlightenment?  And by the way, I did go to a talk in NYC in 1984 or

> >>so where Ramesh, very very humbly, in response to the question, "

> >Are you enlightened? " said, " Yes " , although he did qualify that

> >statement with something to the effect of saying " practically

> .speaking. "

>

P: The idea that one can possess qualities is an illusion. It's as

absurd an idea as to think a TV set owns a good movie. The

brain manifest different states from moment to moment, and

there is no entity inside to own anything. Ideas and memory

give the illusion of the continuity of a person. This doesn't mean

the brain, or the mind, if the idea of a brain turns you off,

can't be rewired to receive better channels with greater clarity.

 

Nice talking with you,

 

Pete

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

" I think he was referring to suffering as mental anguish.

> I have been in great pain that gave birth to mental

> anguish- a frantic desire to scape the situation. That

> of course, exasperated the pain. And I have undergone

> great pain without the mental anguish, with great calm

> and interest to investigate what made pain different

> from pleasure. In this second instance, the pain was

> bearable, and to my surprise I found my attention

> drifting away, and the pain becoming a distant background.

> Physical pain is unavoidable, even for a jnani, but suffering

> is just a mental attitude. " Pete >

>

Thanks, Pete. This is a great explanation. Another question that

keeps popping up in my head is this:

 

If there is no one to become enlightened, how can guys like Ramesh

and Wayne Liquorman (or anybody else, for that matter) claim to have

the " final understanding " as they call it?

 

In other words, WHO is it that HAS this understanding, or

enlightenment? And by the way, I did go to a talk in NYC in 1984 or

so where Ramesh, very very humbly, in response to the question, "

Are you enlightened? " said, " Yes " , although he did qualify that

statement with something to the effect of saying " practically

speaking. "

 

I am not criticizing Ramesh or Wayne since I admire them both, but

again, if there is nobody to actually BE enlightened, what is the

point of all the Anguish of Seeking?

 

Whatever happened to " seek and ye shall find " ?

 

In other words, if Gary can never EVER be enlightened, then why is

Gary running around trying the Bhakti thing, then the Jnana thing,

etc. etc.

 

At least I've never tried the Karma Yoga thing: I'm not really big

on " selfless service. " (Too lazy for that!)

 

Thanks!!