Hey Yagyax, I like you. I've found another kindred spirit here. But it's fun
hashing it out with all these non-kindred spirits, isn't it? It refines the
intellect.
Your point that "what really makes people individuals is the point of view" I
like, but would put a slight spin on it. That is, essentially, it: we are all a
point of view in the divine consciousness, a perspective from which It views
itself. But part of individuality is an impulse that is more than point of
view: it is an essence, a spirit-personality, much deeper than the surface
personality developed in a human lifetime. It is an impulse that can be
experienced in meditation, unless a person does not believe it's there and as a
result never looks for or detects it.
Anyone who's been deeply in love has experienced this essence in another -- a
person-ness eternal and unique. Anyone who's ever been loved has experienced
this essence in themselves, enlivened by the perception of the lover. It's why
love is so precious! It locates the essential in us all.
I believe that soulmates are two halves of the same essence, and the innate
drive of the heart to find itself in another is the urge to rediscover and
unite with the deepest individual impulse of one's own being.
I think it's impossible to be in love and to want to non-exist, or to believe
nothing exists but the Isness. The awareness that is Love finds the exquisite
essence of the person it adores, as a bee finds the heart of a flower. Each
person, like each flower, is unique. Each person has an essence different from
every other essence in creation, to be discovered and cherished and loved.
We treasure being loved because it makes us rich in our individuality --
something far more than a collection of parts (body, mind, earth-built
personality, emotions, likes and dislikes). Love makes us "real." It reminds us
of our essential reality, both our Cosmic nature and our sacred impulse as a
unique, sacred consciousness.
yagyax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
--Hi Bronte...you ask if the false "I" makes individuals separate.
That contributes to it among those ignorant of the Self, since such
persons are mainly concerned about the veneer of psychomaterial
existence, which is innately separate without consideration of pure
Consciousness; in fact "evil" according to Eckart Tolle.
Among those in whom the false "I" no longer exists, the (strictly
relative) separateness that makes MMY different than SSRS or Ramana
different than SBS would for starters rely on the (apparent)
separateness of things, people, etc oriented in space-time; but more
important; since the universe can be considered as an immense
computer (matter); with laws (the programs); all conceived of as pure
digital bits of information, what really makes people different is
simply their POV. Thus, MMY's POV (which is the mind-orientation of
an individual within the universal hologram) differs considerably
from Ramana's, and then again from the Dalai Lama's.
The POV's (viewpoints) partake of extremely powerful M-fields which
are often at odds; at this time in the metaphysical area, chiefly the
clash between extremist Islam and the West.
And, we haven't even touched the problem of world physical
suffering; e.g. 16,000 children die each day due to malnutrition.
Either one is concered about such problems, or not. The motto of
the Advaitins seems to be "I don't know and I don't care".
Imagine a world in which everybody is Enlightened. Nobody would go
around saying "There's no Me, or "I"; since the playing field would
be even, at ground zero for everybody; and relative minds would
go "back" to an apparent type of separateness; only fully unified as
Pure Consciousness. If somebody were wearing flashy clothes that
deserved commenting upon, that would be quite natural; and nobody
would belabor the question of there being "individuals" or not. Of
course there are individuals!...but some think not.
If individuals didn't exist, there would be no point in having
Heaven on Earth.
- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bronte Baxter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> 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." <wgm4u@> 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.
>
---------------------------------
Building a website is a piece of cake.
Yahoo! Small Business gives you all the tools to get online.
