Striving for abandonment

Am I having a self-conflict? I don't feel like I'm having one, but I could be contradictory to my pursuit of realizing enlightenment.

But that recognition does little to inhibit me from indulging in doses of recreational activities of the modern layperson. In Buddha's time, there were laypeople who had attained stream-entry and even the attainment of once-returner.

****************wrt above, from Maha-parinibbana Sutta*********
"More than five hundred laymen who have passed away in Nadika, Ananda, through the complete destruction of the three fetters have become stream-enterers, and are safe from falling into the states of misery, assured, and bound for Enlightenment." *************************************************************

But the modern laypeople of today like me lead not-so-simple lives -- having more relationship ties, more duties of the household and work life, more recreational activities. Would it be possible then to even come close to attaining stream-entry? I then look at what is the "problem" with the layperson life that hinders enlightenment. I think it is the fact that a layperson is a person of society. Is it possible for a layperson embedded in the way of the world to progress in the path of enlightenment? Yes I think so -- if the layperson is not too into the world and more into the Eighth-Fold Path, that layperson could progress to some extent in achieving enlightenment. But how much are those variables, that's something each individual has to decide by guaging their own willingness and accessing their readiness. If a layperson is ready and willing to abandon some of the indulges, then it is surely good to cut down on cravings and attachments. But as I'm not entirely ready and willing, I take these indulges and attachments with a pinch of salt, being easy-going as it comes and goes; not holding onto them too much. That's probably the reason why I don't censure myself too much with respect to my indulges.

I would never have seen the fatal flaw in the way of the world (equally the single goodness of unconditionality of Nibbana) if not for the First Noble Truth. I have had 3 types of encounters with the 1st Noble Truth -- instinctual, reflectional, and intellectually analytical. As non of the types are of penetrating insight through concentration, technically all of the 3 types basically fall under the category of understanding the 1st Noble Truth by analytical reasoning.

Instinctual encounter was when I first read a very long time ago that by "life is suffering", it refers to not only the unpleasant experiences but also all eventual ending of pleasant experiences. Honestly speaking, before this exposition, I had an opinion that the First Noble Truth is a pessimistic view -- which really brought me feeling down. But this exposition on the suffering caused by the footprint of impermanence stroked a cord with me and I finally understood why a state of "nothingness" is to be sought after for our happiness. Sometimes, when a question is raised, the answer is realized at a later time.

The nature's way of changeability is indeed the cause for my grief -- I'm in grief that I'm subjected to changes not governed or affected by my preferences. I'm in grief that the happiness I've obtained is impermanent. This is my understanding of what is not "me" and "mine". I don't think of the concept of "not me/mine" as "non-soul" -- which I personally found is both difficult to conceptualize and subscribe to. The concept of a "soul", latent and traversing through time and existences cannot be scientifically proven as a universally pervading phenomena. The denial of a soul would then be equally difficult to conceptualize.

What is meant by "not me" to me is the ideology that we have no control over external factors. We can make use of the laws to create a condition of causes to produce a desired effect with a certain probability of success. But we cannot create a desired effect merely by our wish. So we are functioning based on the law of cause and effect in a continuous time spectrum of changeability. If we have no authoritative control over these external objects then we have no right or ownership over them, we cannot declare them to be ours.

Platonic and romantic relationships, coupled with my character which seeks constant stimulation, I'm far from diligently working towards the goal of abandonment of objects which are not mine. I would say that especially the romantic relationship with whom I've managed to maintain throughout a good part of my life since college have helped and influenced me partly to be who and where I am by way of complementing, strengthening and supporting. Although he doesn't share the same pursuit, interest or faith in following the Dhamma, we're still able to converge in most other areas of life. There are those who are fortunate to experience the joy of meeting those with the same pursuits -- take Sariputta and Moggallana for example; these types of relationships have the same complementing, strengthening effect to traject each other onto the path of enlightenment.

This talking of a layperson attaining some level of enligthenment reminded me of someone who told that her deceased husband had told her that he had become a stream-enterer during his 3 month retreat in a mountain monastry. I was really sceptical about that...both the possibilty of attaining that in a 3 month retreat no-matter how rigorous it was; and his confidence in the attainment, but who knows.