Selfishness and enlightenment.

[Guest guest]

In my experience, Selfishness and

Enlightenment don't mix. One destroys

the other - and, only when one is

destroyed, the " other " is " discovered " .

Because, one is created just by the

" absence " of the other - just like the

light and the darkness. Darkness is

merely the [relative] absence of the

Light and nothing More. Less the

light, thicker the darkness!

 

 

Maybe, that's why, the earliest

pioneer of Enlightenment, Buddha,

discovered two things at once:

 

 

Enlightenment

 

and,

 

No Self

 

 

Because, in reality... the two are

" exactly " same thing.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming "

<adithya_comming wrote:

>

> In my experience, Selfishness and

> Enlightenment don't mix. One destroys

> the other - and, only when one is

> destroyed, the " other " is " discovered " .

> Because, one is created just by the

> " absence " of the other - just like the

> light and the darkness. Darkness is

> merely the [relative] absence of the

> Light and nothing More. Less the

> light, thicker the darkness!

>

>

> Maybe, that's why, the earliest

'> pioneer of Enlightenment, Buddha,

> discovered two things at once:

>

>

> Enlightenment

>

> and,

>

> No Self

>

>

> Because, in reality... the two are

> " exactly " same thing.

 

 

 

 

he discovered nothing.

 

there's nothing to discover.

 

no one to discover anything.

 

no-self is ALL and ONLY.

 

'That', 'This' and the 'Other'........ain't.

 

AM IS that AM IS....and there ain't nothing else.

 

of course THAT'S nothing too.

 

drop illusions and what is...IS..

 

just as it always IS, has been, will be..

 

yet..

 

That too never was.

 

..b bobji baba

 

 

p.s.

 

within the time stream of dream..

 

Gautama was hardly the 'pioneer' of enlightenment.

 

he followed in a long lineage of 'pioneers' if you will.

 

but THAT which IS...needs no:

 

pioneers, colonists, conceivers, originators, initiates, settlers.

 

there are none in any case.

 

and 'you' nor 'me' will ever understand it.

 

if 'it's' being talked about or written about..

 

'that' ain't 'IT'...

 

nor is 'it' 'THAT'.

 

 

 

p.p.s.

 

it's hard to explain unless your not there.

 

:-)