Hi, Yagyax. Never saw you on the forum before. This was brilliant. However, I'm
confused what you meant by this part:
IMO, if certain Gurus refuse to recognize the fact that they are
still individuals, so be it. After dying, perhaps they will no
longer exist as individuals, really; leaving the universe for those
who wish to continue with some type of relative body.
But since the delusional "I" is only ONE component of what makes up
an individual, the "I" cannot be said to vanish. Obviously, the
false "I" does vanish but this is only one component of what makes up
a person, which distinguishes one person from another: MMY is not
SSRS, etc. That's what makes up an individual, in the broadest sense
or definition.
I agree that the delusional "I" is only one component of what makes up the
individual. Another component is the enlightened "I," which from my perspective
includes not just "I" the universal but "I" the purified individual ego. I'm
not sure that's what you were saying though. If it is, we're in complete
agreement.
Were you, instead, meaning to say that the false "I" is the thing that makes
us separate from other persons? If that is the case, I disagree. A purified
individual ego still distinguishes between itself and others -- moreover, it
acts dynamically, rather than passively observing its own actions. It isn't
"false I" to step dynamically into one's individual expression, especially when
the "universal I" is awake within.
I was thinking of another analogy: the figures in a painting. All a painting
is, on one level, is a painted canvas. There is no diversity other than canvas
and paint (kinda like consciousness and energy). That is the "oneness" level of
the painting. But it would be false to say the figures in the painting don't
exist. It would not be wrong for a lion in the painting to say "I am an
individual lion" at the same time as it says "I am a painting." Both are true.
What isn't true is for the lion to say "I am only a painting. I was never
really a lion."
yagyax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
--Nope Billy - Bronte is more correct - although Auth is technically
correct to a certain extent.. The bottom line, beyond the lively
exchange of ideas, amounts to a thorough, deepseated POV about how
one views the world and the ultimate goal of human evolution: (as
discussed in a previous string), a. After E., one can still choose to
exist as an individual, b. apparently, one can allow the compoments
of one's existence to completely dissolve and disspate, leaving no
individual, or c. choose not to choose.
However, a. has a variation which may cloud the concept
of "individuality". A Buddha may exist relatively speaking, but the
components of individuality may be spread throughout the universe in
countless Transformation bodies.
We can take Ramana as an example. He viewed the body as simply
excess baggage to be gotten rid of (to paraphrase his own words!).
Contrast this with the goals of certain Buddhas who may continue to
exist in some form to assist the evolution of others. There's a
contrasted POV here!.
Thus, it's more than semantics; but the two sides amount to
(perhaps) irreconciable differences.
IMO, if certain Gurus refuse to recognize the fact that they are
still individuals, so be it. After dying, perhaps they will no
longer exist as individuals, really; leaving the universe for those
who wish to continue with some type of relative body.
But since the delusional "I" is only ONE component of what makes up
an individual, the "I" cannot be said to vanish. Obviously, the
false "I" does vanish but this is only one component of what makes up
a person, which distinguishes one person from another: MMY is not
SSRS, etc. That's what makes up an individual, in the broadest sense
or definition.
In this broad context, rocks can be "individuals" since each of them
differs from the others. Thus, semantics enters into the picture,
true..
- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> 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!
>
---------------------------------
Need a vacation? Get great deals to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel.
