Knock on your door; Attachment / Detachment check. Which ones do you harbor the most.

reply to post by dominicus


I would attempt to invite him in for coffee and pick his brain. If he refused, I would have to send him on his way. If what he said was sincere, it would mean I, like him, would be able to figure it out on my own. There's no way I could leave all I worked for behind for a possible glimpse into this man's madness.

Cool thought experiment Dominicus. What would you do?

reply to post by schuyler

What if? What if? What if? You set the conditions on your initial post. You said nothing about a wife's approval. I really don't think it is fair to keep adding conditions as you begin to get answers that point out the holes in your original statement.

IS it wrong to ask, "what if", while allowing the original premise to stand? You've already stated that you wouldn't go, case closed. I'm personally asking, as an evolution of this discussion, if the things that kept you from going initially were in check, would you go then.

No adding conditions, just another question.

What if you knew you had cancer and were going to die in a few months anyway?

Personally, to the knock on the door and the offer, I'm going whether there is cancer or not.

What if you knew your wife had a terminal illness and was going to be dead anyway?

This one is alot harder, however if there was time to talk to her and she was cool, I'd still go. If she wanted me to stay with her, I'd stay w/ her til death and see if I can go afterwards to fulfill the offer.

What if it was almost December 21st and the world was going to be destroyed anyway?

I'd go.

What if Jesus had come to you in a dream months earlier and had told you that of a guy knocks on your door with a proposition that actually he's the devil and will take you to hell?

Perhaps I wouldn't go

You can play these pepetual what if games all day long. You got a few answers here. Have the good grace to accept them and not try to slither from beneath your original proposition.

There is no slithering. To those who say "no", and give an excuse, I would like to personally know if that initial reason/attachment, was in another position/resolved, would you go then.

For example, in certain cultures, a man remains married, works, raises kids, until the kids are grown and leave the house, at which point this man takes up spiritual study and practice, ocne the majority of worldly obligations are fulfilled. In that context, that's why I asked in the case that the obligations which keep you at bay where fulfilled, would you go then.

Context is everything

Originally posted by dominicus
reply to post by schuyler

 

There is no slithering. To those who say "no", and give an excuse, I would like to personally know if that initial reason/attachment, was in another position/resolved, would you go then.

Interesting to use the word "excuse" applied to others. I would say, "and give a reason." which many here have already given you.

reply to post by schuyler

Interesting to use the word "excuse" applied to others. I would say, "and give a reason." which many here have already given you.

aren't the reasons of some, the excuses of others, and vice versa? There really is no way to know which is which unless we know the person well or set up a lie detector test

reply to post by dominicus


Dominicus,

What would you do if you realized after a while that the Monk was a fraud or charlatan? Would it still be worth it?

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by dominicus

 

Dominicus,

What would you do if you realized after a while that the Monk was a fraud or charlatan? Would it still be worth it?

Double edged sword. On 1 end it would have been time wasted. On the other end, there would be fulfilled satisfaction knowing that I investigated the claims, to the best of my ability, and found them to be false, which would allow me to move on in life.

When considering the two ends together, logic and reason concludes that at times it is necessary to spend time (even if considered wasted) to investigate certain claims made in life.

No. I have a child with a disability that is dependent on me. Any personally invested or interested deity would/should know that I would be unable and unwilling to set aside my personal responsibility to "jump the line" on life's ride.

Originally posted by dominicus
[1] All of a sudden, a Buddha/Jesus/Saintly/Monk type figure knocks on your door.

[2] "Leave everything behind and come follow me, and I will show you though direct experience the Absolute Truth, what's behind the proverbial veil, who you really are, Enlightenment, etc etc"

1. I "presume" we "KNOW" this is a divine encounter and not a random kook.

2. Since I already "know" what's behind one part of the veil and who I am - a divine entity would KNOW what I already know (that others don't know) and would express that knowledge,

Okay, if KOOK is ruled out; my first thought (now, in body) is "Can I grab my cigs?"
Second thought is, "If this is REAL - I'd have no compulsion to grab my cigs!"

Now, did I have a compulsion to grab my cigs? If yes; then, I'd KNOW it wasn't divine or that it was a malevolent trickster. If no; then, I'd go.

reply to post by dominicus


So, in other words, give up the attachments to all other things and beings except for THIS being and what (s)he considers to be "Enlightenment"?

Something doesn't sound right...

Originally posted by arpgme
reply to post by dominicus

 

So, in other words, give up the attachments to all other things and beings except for THIS being and what (s)he considers to be "Enlightenment"?

Something doesn't sound right...

"Leave everything behind and come follow me, and I will show you though direct experience the Absolute Truth, what's behind the proverbial veil, who you really are, Enlightenment, etc etc"

I don't see any attachment in the offer. If someone wants to show me something, (which has happened in my life before in other ventures) it doesn't mean I have to be attached to what was shown or to that person.