> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rory Goff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >
> > Dear akasha,
> >
> > Many thanks! Your post, while (as always) beautifully expressed,
is
> > too long and involved for me at the moment to reproduce and
> > interleaf, answering point by point.
Akasha wrote:
> Well, I would love to hear you address my points when you have the
> time.
Rory wrote:
I thought I did. I know I did as well as I can, anyhow. *lol* As
long as you are processing through the logical mind, we aren't going
to see eye-to-eye on this one. Logic cannot embrace what I am
speaking of, can only slip around it, seeing it from different
snapshot-angles. You, however, can embrace what I speak of because
you ARE it. As is Tom. As is Peter. You will never be utterly
certain of anything until THAT gets you, though -- THAT I can pretty
much guarantee.
Akasha wrote:
As well as Tom. He said three days ago that he would get back to
> me shortly, regarding my original post. I lok forward to his
response
> also, along with yours.
Rory:
Maybe he's waiting for you to realize you are trying to grasp the
ungraspable. Dunno. You'll have to ask him. :-)
Rory earlier wrote:
> Bottom line: I do not know what
> > Tom's consciousness is to himself; I know what he is in me.
Akasha wrote:
> Does it follow that if I know what he is in me, then that provides
a
> valid assessment ofhim?
Rory:
If you have to ask, I am guessing not. You tell me. :-)
Akasha:
If not, why is the inside of you more valid
> than the inside of me.
Rory:
Because you had to ask. Seriously, who said it was? :-) I am only
responsible for my own creation, not yours. I know what I know, and
you know what you know. So what if Peter and Tom and I are all
saying essentially the same thing? You are free to ignore us all for
as long as you like. If you can. :-)
Akasha:
(Its all Brahamn isn't it, inside and out?)
Rory:
To me it is, absolutely, sure. Is it to you? If not, then no-self
certainty awaits with open arms.
Akasha:
Or
> are you simple saying that you have a view of him inside of you but
> that you assign no particular importance or validity to it, no
better
> or worse than anyone elses assessemnt?
Rory:
Hah. No, my assessment of Tom is absolutely better than the one you
have apparently assigned to him thus far. I know what he's talking
about and you are pretending you don't. But then, my assessment of
you is also better than the one you have apparently assigned for
yourself. Fair is fair. :-)
Rory earlier wrote:
> > His
> > descriptions of the actual extinction of the small self, of the
> > death of the witness -- like Peter's -- I can only identify with
the
> > extinction of Ahamkara in B.C.
Akasha wrote:
>
> Rob Svboda, amongst others, well versed in samkya (from which the
> concept of ahamkara arises), tantra, and well acquaited with saints
> that have quite interesting if not phenomenal states and abilites,
> says if one really looses all Ahamkara, their physical body,
amongst
> other things, would explode and dissolve.
Rory:
Yep, that's what happens. ;-) Nothing to be afraid of. The water's
fine once you get in.
Akasha:
> Did Shankara refer to Ahamkara totally disolving?
Rory:
Couldn't tell you. I don't speak for Shankara. You'll have to ask
him yourself. But it does not totally dissolve for all time while
you are in the body; as mentioned earlier, you put it on again
later, but it no longer serves the same function as before, at all,
at all.
Rory earlier wrote:
> > Thanks to our dialogue, I
> > am getting a lot clearer on "where" these states of
consciousness
> > are in the Purusha-body. They do serve a purpose.
Akasha wrote:
> Glad I can be of help. But since your knowledge is in a
transitional
> state,
Rory:
Knowledge is always in a transitional state. That's the fun of it.
Akasha:
>it appears that tomorrow, and next month, and next year, you
> may have a more refined view, that could contradict that which you
> think now.
Rory:
Sure. Why not? I am no fundamentalist, checking my Truth fearfully
against what someone wrote a thousand years ago or last week. *lol*
(Not that there's anything wrong with verification via scripture or
Master, of course.) My "knowledge" is eternally THAT, yet it lives
and breathes and grows. It is self-evident. It is eternally
unchanging, and eternally changing. It is perfectly appropriate to
the moment, and to all of those reading it in this moment. It is
calculated to awaken Us all to greater self-knowledge and greater
appreciation. For this moment, that is enough.
Akasha:
>By your own word, your knowledge does not appear to be
> end-state. Shankara, amongst others, appear to have stabilized in
> state of end-state knowledge. Assuming they were not delusional, I
> would tend to trust thier views more at this juncture.
Rory wrote:
Hey, suit yourself. :-) Trusting anybody other than your Self/Non-
Self is absurd in my opinion, but if that's where you're really at,
then enjoy it. Go ahead. Sell yourself to someone else. *lol* You
remember my post about drawing the circle around the arrow? You are
all you have got -- there is no one else who can effectively
interpret your Truth or live your Life for you. If you are serious
about realization in this lifetime, at some point you have to stand
alone, stripped naked, in your own nothingness or emptifulness.
Until you are willing to do that, we are just blowing smoke here.
Rory earlier:
> > Yes, C.C. knows the perfect duality of the Unmanifest and the
> > Relative, but it has no conception of the extinction of
the "small
> > self," the Guru-Christ-Self or Ahamkara. What has died? Nothing.
Akasha:
> Peter's long described (I didn't say long winded -- but then again
> high capacity prana inhalation - exhalation abilities IS a good
> thing!)
*lol*
Akasha:
>experience of No Self in CC contradicts this. However, I know
> your position on this: Peter is misinterpreting his experience.
Rory:
That's the way it looks to me at this juncture, yes. But at a
certain point one may realize that -- since time-space are
essentially illusory -- one's progress through various "initiations"
or consciousness-expansions is actually simultaneous, via harmonic-
resonance with a long line of one's "future"-selves or Masters. I
may be recognizing a "future-self" of Peter's that is perfectly
obvious to me NOW but that he may not yet feel comfortable claiming.
No harm in that, as far as I can see. :-)
Akasha:
> That may be the case, but it could go either way I suppose. If you
> open the door to misinterpreatation, he may be also be
misinterpreting
> in the wrong direction -- that is, his experiences are not
even "cc".
Rory:
If you can live with that belief, if it enlivens you and you know it
to be real, go ahead and assume that. In truth, they are not even
C.C. And they are "better" than U.C. He knows.
Akasha:
> And I suppose it opens the door for you mis-interpretting your own
> experiences (and Tom's) -- perhaps they are not as grand as you
> personally perceive them. Indeed you just said I was blowing them
out
> of proportion, indicating what you experience is not so grand, in
your
> own view.
Rory:
Yes, my experience is perfectly simple and natural to me, just as I
expect yours is to you. Don't glamorize what you perceive to be
another's state of consciousness -- see what it inspires and awakens
in your own. If you insist on seeing me as other than yourself, you
are going to continue to suffer. The ego-bound animal-mind and
logical-mind insist on differentiating between you and me, and
comparing you and me to see which is "higher" or "better." Screw
that. We're the same. I am just you talking to yourself, and you are
just me talking to myself. There is only one of us.
Akasha:
So, bottom line, either Peter is misinterpreting his
> experiences, or you are misinterpreting them -- along with your
own.
Rory:
It is simpler than that. Don't try to pigeonhole everything through
your mind. Peter and Tom and I are all the same, just wake-up calls
in your attention-field. We stand at the door of your heart and we
knock.
Rory wrote earlier:
> U.C.
> > knows it's all me, that I embrace all space-time if I care to
put my
> > attention there, but again it has no conception of the
extinction of
> > the unsuspected intermediating small self which is yet to come.
Akasha:
> That seems to contradict a lot of Advaitic and probably tantric
> thought. Any comments on Rory's view by Vaj, Dana, Sailor Bob's
> protogee's, rudrani(sp), or others?
Rory:
Those who have lost the self into the emptiful Great Immensity, eyes
open, in this waking state, will know what I am speaking of. Those
who haven't, won't, no matter how many ancient texts they may know
by heart. Save me from the scribes and Pharisees! Until you
surrender yourself, there's nothing more any of us can do.
Consulting and comparing our various angles might be amusing, but
just postpones the inevitable. You will never find true certainty
until you do it yourself. You'd still be trying to squish a multi-
dimensional THAT into too small a vessel. Can't be done. Try as you
might, x's parabola is always going to look like something
completely different from y's circle and z's way-cool hyperbola
until you abandon them all for the simple double-napped cone we are
all trying to hold up to you as a mirror to show you.
Rory earlier:
> > Again, this small self is virtually invisible until its sudden
> > disappearance in B.C., when the rug is totally pulled out and
there
> > are no longer any distinctions anywhere; there ONLY is the
emptiful
> > Great Immensity.
Akasha:
> Or maybe that is simply CC, and you have misinterpreted prior
states.
Rory:
Yes, quite possibly -- but what do we call those prior states? They
match the criteria we have conventionally given C.C. and G.C. and
U.C. quite well, with the one exception that they are not
necessarily permanent -- or even really necessary prerequisites
perhaps for the no-self state. They were for me; in retrospect the
sequence is smooth and clear, but results may vary, and I heartily
enjoin anyone interested to *not* seek out such external criteria
that I or anyone else may describe, but to go straight for the
source of one's own certain Truth. It is entirely too easy to get
hung up on looking for such external criteria and thereby ignore the
Truth that is really in front of us (and behind us and above us and
under us and within us and around us) NOW.
Rory earlier wrote:
> > Your mind(s) is/are beautifully refined, and I mean that in all
awe
> > and appreciation of your intellect. But at the moment you still
> > appear (to me) to be pretending perhaps to be Ahamkara-bound
(this
> > as evidenced by your attempts to distinguish and separate the
self-
> > evidently inseparable with logic), and so we really cannot go
any
> > further; logic is lovely but utterly useless where the ever-
present
> > and non-dual B.C. is concerned. THAT recognizes THAT.
Akasha wrote:
> Well Shankara and Patanjali, amongst others appear to have lauded
the
> value of refining buddhi. Until it is glass like and can sit on the
> threshold of all knowledge. Subtle and sharp enought to make the
> "final distinction". Sharp enough to really "GET IT" via the
> Mahavakya. To "GET" the fundamental musunderstanding of the
intellect
> (prior to glass like state).
Rory wrote:
Yes! Exactly so. That's why I am still playing with you. Well that,
and you're fun to play with, most times. :-)
Rory earlier wrote:
> > That's how I
> > recognize Tom to be speaking the Truth.
Akasha:
> But then you may be delusional.
Rory:
YES! YES! YES! Now you're getting it, buddy! :-) Don't stop now,
you're on a roll!
Rory earlier wrote:
> > It's a freakin' paradox only
> > the unselfed heart-belly can comprehend.
Akasha:
> I have heard persons very high on LSD -- during and after, say
similar
> things. Emphatic proclomation or personal belief that something is
so,
> does not make it so.
Rory:
YES! Very good!
Akasha:
> It seems a weak retreat to say "well, i can't counter the
> contradictions you point out, or find holes in your your logic, so
I
> will attack your overall logic system: that is "your eucldian
model
> is inadequate to understand my non-eucldian universe" -- so to
speak.
Rory:
Sorry, it's the best I can do. Trust me, you're getting a lot more
help than I did. Maybe I am not helping at all! Maybe I am the Iraqi
situation all over again! Wow! Cool.
Akasha:
> Indeed while what you say about my inability to comprehend,
Shankata
> did not appear to have to resort to using such a "non-euclidian"
card,
> and certainly not as his ONLY card".
He was able to argue and win over
> all opponents of a singular advaitistic view with quite refined
linear
> logic. To him, logical exposition and analysis seemed to be a good
> thing, a powerful tool for understanding, not a crutch as your
propose.
Rory:
Feel free to take it up with Shankara, then. Doesn't matter to me.
Just another distraction, as far as I am concerned. *yawn* :-)
Rory earlier wrote:
> > Brahman for me is supremely simple, self-evident, obvious, a
priori
> > (all of this is also a lie of course), and it makes sense to me
to
> > assume that (every)one is in Brahman unless s/he gives evidence
of
> > resisting that.
Akasha wrote:
> Well, thats a novel approach. I hope it brings value to you.
Rory:
Thanks. I am enjoying it. Life is good.
Rory earlier wrote:
> > Tom does not; on the contrary he shows every
> > evidence of no-self realization. So for me, right now, Tom is in
> > Brahman, at the very least.
Akasha wrote:
>
> So you have an opinion based on a somewhat novel epistomology, with
> yet to be validated underlying experiential framework.
Rory wrote:
Yet to be validated by YOU. :-) THAT validates itself. You will
NEVER be able to validate it on the terms you're insisting on right
now. But hey, prove me wrong! :-)
Akasha wrote:
So, to me, your
> assessment of Tom's state of consciousness is a good as anyone's
> elses: not relevant or having any special claim to validity.
Rory wrote:
Dismiss me if you can! We'll keep right on knocking. What else is
there to do? :-)
Rory earlier wrote:
> > You are of course welcome to create your
> > own reality and put him anywhere you like.
Akasha wrote:
> Unlike you, I am not into labeling and classifying people and
things.
> So I have no need to create anything or put Tom anywhere. But its
> fascinating that your best counter argument is to say that this is
> what I am doing.
Rory wrote:
Yes, I was aware of the mirroring when I wrote that, but that is
what it looks like from here anyhow. You are apparently trying to
cram Tom into C.C., and me into God-knows-what-delusion -- anything
to ignore us :-)
Akasha:
> Tom is what he is. I accept that. But all happiness to you in your
> pursuit of that -- classification and labeling.
Rory:
Yes, you're right, at a certain point all those classifications and
labels must go. More importantly though, the sense of separationn
and who's better-than-who discrimination itself must go...We are not
separate. There is only one of us. We are talking to ourself.
Rory earlier wrote:
> > Being sliced up by logic
> > into *unconnected* neat conic-sections "hurts" the primordial
heart
> > of Brahman a little -- you know the thorns around Christ's heart
in
> > those Catholic chapels? -- but I guess we can take it. :-)
Akasha wrote:
>
> Per above, if this is the case, I would assume it hurts Brahman
when
> some try to hyper label and classify others as you are doing.
Rory wrote:
Become Brahman, open to the perfect NOW, and let me know how I feel
to you. As always I welcome you with open heart and open arms.
Akasha wrote:
Actually
> that appears to be the same or similar to slicing them by logic. I
> have little interest in that. So I keep asking the same question to
> you and Tom: why the strong interest and /or need to label and
> classify your experiences and those of others?
Rory wrote:
What can I say? Brahman likes to play with itself :-)
Akasha:
> My use of logic in these postes is to help unravel your, IMO.
> artificial, and unuseful labels and classifications. I can only
> imagine Brahman feels the healing and growing wholeness, to use
your
> image.
Rory:
YES -- what we are doing here is good. (Heh - i first wrote "goof" -
also true.) You are quite probably right that all my labels and
classifications will not help you one whit to know Brahman -- as I
said earlier, we are just passing time until you're done and THAT
wakes up. I am paying attention to you, and that has to be good. :-)
Do please let me know if Shankara "shows" you THAT via logic -- I
would love to see this, and don't care in the slightest how you get
here. I still like my cone analogy, personally, but hey, one size
doesn't fit all.
LLL,
R.
Rory earlier wrote:
> And heck,
> > I think maybe that's what you're actually saying, too. If so,
let's
> > hear it for the indescribable THAT! :-) As you say, I yam what I
> > yam, sweet potater pie!
> >
> > Love,
> > R.
To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Or go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
