On Oct 13, 2007, at 2:08 PM, Rick Archer wrote:
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Vaj
Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2007 12:59 PM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Rick's lady friend's cosmic knowledge
On Oct 13, 2007, at 1:20 PM, Rick Archer wrote:
I think she’s writing one. I’ll let you know if and when it gets
published. A guy in the satsang who’s experiences seem to be “more
advanced” than hers is also writing one – or co-writing one with a
published author. You’ll know about that one too. AFAIK, neither of
these people are trying to position themselves to be a pubic guru
of any sort. I think their motivation is as you said: “it might
really blow some minds that valuable new states of mind are being
reached.” And not only to blow minds, but I think that reading such
accounts and discussing them with these people helps to enliven
these states in one’s own experience.
Now let me get this right Rick: she doesn't think it's special, BUT
SHE'S WRITING A BOOK ON IT? So that means she's writing a book
because it's not special? I hope you realize that's kind hard to
swallow buddy. Lemme guess, she's doing it for the benefit of other
sentient beings, those of us wallowing in ignorance...yeah that's
the ticket! ;-)
She’s been writing reams because it helps her clarify her
experience. I don’t know if she’s ever shared any of it with
anybody, but she might turn it into a book someday. I, for one,
would probably find it beneficial to read, as I do many spiritual
books. I don’t think her attitude is condescending, as you imply.
In your world, is everyone who writes a book about their experience
an egomaniac?
I was not implying that she was condescending Rick, I was making a
joke about how obvious it is that she sees this as special. I
gathered from her descriptions that she was NOT condescending one
bit. I think it's important to realize that the style we're referring
to does not necessarily imply some overt vanity, condescension or
arrogance whatsoever. This process of selection is quiet and inferred
from the preferences people convey. As I just pointed out to Judy, if
there is some preference from these events (she describes) from any
other event, then there is some selection going on. This selection is
mediated by an ego, with a sense of "I" which bears preferences. If
there is some uneven preference going on, this is a sign of ego
involvement (but not necessarily egocentricity).
