--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sandiego108" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > <snip> Do you think it's possible that when you "know" things > > the way they do, your "seeing" becomes so Vedic that > > you can perceive that it's against the laws of nature > > to explain how or why you "know" things? :-) > > The question you must ask yourself is not something sarcastic > directed at others, but why you have this obvious battle going > on within yourself, to, on the one hand, desire answers to > questions, and on the other ask them is such a mocking and > disrepectful tone that you not only substantially decrease your > chances of receiving any answers, but also harden your heart and > mind against any answers you do receive. It seems like a way to > make noise, but not solve anything for yourself.
Jim, in order: 1. There is no question I "must" ask myself. There is only the question you *want* me to ask myself. No matter how enlightened you consider yourself, you have neither the right nor the authority to "must" me about ANYTHING. Your act lately is to, whenever I ask you some tough questions that *you* don't want to or are unable to deal with, to turn it around and suggest that the problem is from *my* side. It's based on some *lack* in me that is *not* lacking in you. It's the *same* thing you're saying in the other post, that because YOU are enlightened (or claim to be), YOU define "truth." You have stated -- quite clearly -- that essentially the reason you believe that you are enlightened is that you have chosen to call your own experiences by the name "enlightenment." (That WAS what you said, in essence...you laid out your *own* experiences as a definition of enlightenment, and then said, in essence, "Because these are my own experiences, and because I define those experiences as 'enlightenment,' I am enlightened." You then went on to say that it was *not* possible that you could be mistaken about the nature of these experiences. Now you're "musting." Seems to me that you've kinda lost perspective on what your place is in the universe, dude. You do not have the intelligence, personal power, charisma, or state of consciousness to "must" a DOG into obeying you, much less me; you just like to think you have that power. :-) 2. You claim to have "perceived" that I have a "battle going on inside myself." And after I have explained to you, quite patiently IMO, that I have *zero* desire for "permanent enlightenment," *especially* as you define enlightenment. I am NOT seeking spiritual advice from you; I'd rather be *dead* than think like you. I'm merely asking you questions to put you on the spot and have you defend some of the statements you have made here in the past, and that you continue to make in the present. 3. With regard to my "mocking and disrespectful tone," what is present in you that could possibly be mocked and disrespected? You *have* said, have you not, that you have no self, only Self, right? You *have* said, "The process of attaining enlightenment involves the complete dissolution of any sort of artificial identity," have you not? What "artificial identity" in you thus is able to feel mocked or disrespected? Are you trying to tell us that Self feels mocked and disrespected by itsSelf? 4. As for your answers, I consider them worthless. I am not *looking* for any "answers," least of all from you. I would sooner trust answers from Son Of Sam. So the issue of whether my attitude is "blocking" those answers is somewhat questionable. > I think it comes down to what I have recognized about you > previously... 5. "What you have recognized." Is that synonymous with "Truth," Jim? Does the fact that you "recognize" something make it by definition true? What about your "recognition" that Buddha -- someone who did not believe in gods and was unfamiliar with even the concept of a single God -- said, "God is love." Was that another of your "re-cognitions?" > ...that you have both a fear and a need for enlightenment > within you... 6. Methinks you projecting your own motivations onto me, dude. I have no "need" for enlightenment, nor do I "fear" it. It comes, it goes. I neither seek it nor avoid it. I don't CARE whether it comes or it goes. What is going on is that you are trying to SELL the "need" for enlightenment, and I am not buying. > ...and you are stuck in the middle, unable to move forward > until the fear is resolved. 7. "Move forward" to WHAT, dude? I have stated very clearly that I have NO desire for enlightenment, as you have defined it, or even as *I* define it. I seek only to appreciate what is, whatever is. It is YOU who is trying to sell me the "need" to seek enlightenment; it is me who is not buying. > The fear is the fear of your ego dissolving. Trust me, it > feels a lot better once you have let go. I do NOT trust you. I do NOT believe for an instant that you have "dissolved your ego." I do NOT believe for an instant that you are enlightened. And if I did, it wouldn't MATTER, because you have nothing to offer me. You are selling some- thing that I am not in the market for. I "recognize" YOU as the person who is getting more and more desperate, as more and more people here read what you say and write you off. Your schtick seems to revolve around "I am enlightened because I say I am. You are all unenlightened because I say you are. Anything you say that is less than respectful to me is because you are afraid of your own enlightenment and probably afraid of my awesome enlightened-ness. You will only understand when you are as high as I am." Hopefully, NO ONE here will ever get as high as you are, Jim. Who would WANT that?
