--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bronte Baxter > <brontebaxter8@> wrote: > > > > > > I replied to this once. Somehow it never posted, so here goes > again: > > > > From Judy, quoting Bronte: > > To claim that the ego is only a Me is to perceive only its > limited > expression. Such limited expression certainly needs > dissolving for > cosmic bliss to occur. But the Me only needs to > dissolve into the > I. It was never intended by the Infinite that >the > I should dissolve > into non-existence. > > > > Judy wrote: > > I really think this all boils down to a matter of semantics. I've > never understood that in enlightenment the "I" dissolves into > nonexistence; rather, what dissolves into nonsexistence (because it > was an illusion to start with) is *identification* > > with the "I." The "I" is still there, doing its thing, not in any > way inhibited by the lack of identification with it. > > > > Bronte writes: > > It's not just semantics. It's a fundamentally opposite way of > viewing life and the universe. People of my mindset don't just claim > that the ego never dissolves in true enlightenment. We also advocate > that IDENTIFICATION WITH the ego -- in the subjective sense of "I, > the doer" (not in the object sense of "Me, the happened to") SHOULD > never dissolve. We argue that having such dissolution as one's goal > or allowing it to happen is the hugest mistake a human being can > make. > > > > You say that the ego doesn't dissolve in enlightenment -- that > identification with the ego is what dissolves. I don't think > identification with the small self has to ever dissolve or should. > What the goal should be is to identifify with both one's cosmic > unlimited universal nature while AT THE SAME TIME identifying with > oneself as an individual consciousness. Both identities must be > simultaneous for true realization to occur. > > > > When a person stops identifying with their individual "I," they > lose their authorship, their empowerment, their freedom as original, > creative expressions of God. The difference between your description > of enlightenment and mine is huge: it's the difference between > someone floating in the water and someone swimming. > > Well, that's certainly a loaded analogy! > > > We're not here to float in the water, to let life happen to us. > To observe and witness ourselves and life, to be "done to." We're > here to co-create with God, realizing our oneness with That, our > infinite power and joy as God's dynamic expressions. > > I don't think we're ever going to see eye-to-eye > on this; but again, my understanding is that if > you identify with the Self rather than the self, > you are identifying with the ultimate creative > principle. Your self is then experienced to be > *the creation of* that principle, of the Self. So > in no way do you opt out of the job of creating. > > > Co-creating is impossible when people accept a belief that to > identify with their individuality (thoughts, desires, etc.) is > unspiritual, egotistical, and contrary to liberation. > > Sure, if it's only a belief and not one's direct > experience. > > <snip> > > I agree that false identification is at the root of suffering in > life. But what false identification consists of is not what >Indianism > tells us it is. > > FWIW, it's not just "Indianism" that tells us this. > Even St. Paul said Christians are to be "in the world > but not of it." > > > False identification, and the cause of suffering, is >identification > of ourselves with the body, not identifcation of ourselves as > individuals. > > But the identification that is said to dissolve in > enlightenment isn't just with the body, it's with > everything individual about the person--mind, > personality, emotions, intellect, etc. > > Ultimately there's said to be a reintegration, in > which all the individualities in the universe are > seen to be one with the transcendent; that Unity > is one's personal Self. > > You're very eloquent in your defense of your > position, but I still strongly suspect that we're > dealing with subtle semantics here, as well as, > perhaps, different stages of realization. > > In any case, it's never been my understanding > that one becomes a kind of robot in enlightenment > (at least not in any sense that one wasn't a robot > to begin with). One realizes one's status as the > Robot Master, as it were, the generator of the > very forces of creation.
Judy is correct, I just knew what a difficult case B would be and didn't want to take the time and effort to unravel all of his/her nonsense. BTW, Brahman isn't bored as he/she put it, the state of Brahman is ever new joy, eternal bliss, Anandam!
