below --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradh...@...> wrote: > > > On May 31, 2009, at 10:43 AM, Duveyoung wrote: > > > Vaj, my friend, we need to talk. I'm wondering how your mind works > > when it comes to deciding if others are speaking truths and/or are > > speaking truly. There's a big difference between these two > > concepts, yes? > > > > I'm worried that I'll piss you off like I did with my "Curtis and > > music" > > post, but, please, let me ramble, will ya? > > You didn't "piss me off" Edg.
I "something'd you off." I still have your hand print vibrating in neon crimson welts on my face! Hee hee. > > > > > Consider: > > > > If someone is bitching about what a TB thinks, they're griping about > > the > > content of someone else's here and now. To me, everyone is always > > reporting about their experience of living in the here and now -- > > obviously, > > right? > > Unless of course they're reporting based on attachment or worry about > the past or future. To me, whether or not they are attached to a POV is secondary to the fact that they think they're speaking truly about their experiences. The blind man who thinks that he truly "knows" may be fooling himself, but I want to hear what his delusion is in detail no matter what. I may eventually discount any conclusions by him if I see that he is not "practiced" in "how to observe," but I'm willing to listen to a lot of drivel before I come to that conclusion. Nab's point of view, though heavily dependent upon the tactic of "spew TMO dogma," does reveal that he's tracking the debates enough to toss his "pre-recorded pronouncements into the ring." It's redundant, but it does tell us about his ways of thinking about the issues, such that we get to see how "such a mind" reconciles itself to information that doesn't easily conform to his dogma. He's more like a blind man standing next to his best friend, say, Maharishi -- also a blind man, who is reporting about an elephant and then merely parroting what his friend says. After enough of this, I've come to discount Nab's view almost entirely, but I had to give him his 15 minutes at the microphone, see? To me, the here and now is always attended. A thought about the past is occuring NOW...not in the past. A thought about the future, ditto. The fact that there's someone inside a mind and reporting about a stream of consciousness seems overwhelmingly more important than the content of the mind. Nab's empty echoing is irritating, but the awareness from which that echoing manifests cannot be rightly besmirched. God is behind every mask. Maybe not a God who lives forever, but at least a "central authority of a body/mind" whose intent is, by definition, holy -- meaning an intent to become whole that seems to be the birthright of every human. I do not want to be smarmy about Nab's struggles to become whole despite my conclusion that he's got a long way to go. He is on a path as much as I'm on a path, and, frankly, I do not have any hope of knowing where his OR MY path is leading or how far either of us is along that path. To the degree that I assert my own certainties such that I invalidate those of others, I'm okay with my debating, but when I slip into personal attacks that "write off" Nab's inner spirit's intent to fully manifest, then I'm sinning in my own eyes. I have sinned here, and I hope to do better in this regard. Willy, Nab, Off, Shemp, youse guys gots souls and to that I bow. > > > No matter what the "extremely recent" content of the mind may be, > > reporting about such is "dead dog's teeth being attended" in that > > the mind's > > "branch jumping monkey" habit is to go to the "best aspect" of any > > moment > > of consciousness. > > > > Even a homeless person, drunk on the street, can be found to be > > attending > > the euphoric sensations -- to those fruits instead of all the other > > kinds of > > thoughts he/she might have. In the line to the Nazi showers, those > > minds > > surely had monkeys jumping to "it's just a shower," or even, "what a > > bright > > sunny day." Are not TBs allowed to have just such fruits too in > > their lives? > > Do we need to poke everyone in the line and tell them they're going > > to be killed? > > > > Whatever anyone posts here is what it is -- a product of a mind > > that's being > > attended by a witness. The products of consciousness are necessarily > > subject to the challenge that the blind men faced when reporting > > their conclusions > > about an elephant. Therefore, anyone's opinion is truth as they > > know it. > > It simply cannot be a bad thing if folks share their truths so that > > a "whole > > elephant" might be grasped with clarity. They are speaking truly, > > but not > > necessarily about truth. > > > > If I am a TB, and I'm thinking something like: "The world is a > > terrible place > > and only the TM technique can save it," that's a thought I'm having > > right now > > about the "world's elephant," and if I'm mindful of that thought > > then I'm as > > fully reporting my here and now's processing as anyone else is > > reporting their > > attending of their own thought streams. > > > > Attending any object of consciousness is a spiritual event, yes? > > > > Hindu teachers universally agree that even ordinary life is a life > > of yagya -- that is, > > desires are being "burnt" by fulfilling them. > > That sounds like too broad a brush. Universally? Do you think that's > what Patanjali would (for example) agree with? Seeded consciousness > plants more seeds, good seeds and bad seeds. Those seeds can go > dormant, sprout combine with old seeds which are just emerging. A > seedless consciousness might be said to be one of continual sacrifice > some Hindu teachers might say. But not all. I have an addiction to salt (and a thousand other things.) Each time I use salt, I'm ever so slightly less likely to "shoot up" with salt again. One experience of salt is not such a powerful yayga, but it does "help some." I have had other addictions that eventually petered out by this very process, so I validate it highly in my own mind as a spiritual, ablbeit slow, process of evolution. Yeah, it will take a billion lifetimes at this rate to become whole, but a step is a step is a step along the path, yes? > > > Work-a-day life is evolving, so, I > > say that one must at least honor that in others. They may be > > thinking that an > > elephant is solely tree-like and are certain the other blind men are > > wrong, but > > at least the person is 100% truthfully reporting their POV. That's > > truth being > > honored by them, and I think we should honor that aspect of their > > personalities. > > > > To me, all folks are witnessing their robot's clockworks, and the > > various > > clockworks describe "reality" in various ways, natch. To pay > > attention to the > > content of one's own mind's thoughts about another's mind's contents > > and find > > fault of some sort is of little use. The blind men must all confer > > if a whole > > elephant is to be known. Get that? We must have impartial truths > > reported > > to be able to assemble them into one whole. So it's okay for you to > > report your > > contents about TM TB's thought streams, but miss not that finding > > fault is > > finding fault is finding fault. If one thinks that faults are being > > found, fine, report > > that and see if it harmonizes with the reports of others, but keep > > in mind that > > it's merely one way to describe an elephant, and observed faults may > > be as > > misleading as "trunk-like legs." > > Are you referring to something I said here? It sounds like an > interesting stream-of-consciousness non sequitur. Perhaps you are a > perennialist? Yeah, I ramble until I reach that magical point where I feel I've gotten my point said.....and a lot of the time, I don't know my point until I've rassled with it on paper. > > Is there such a thing as a wrong View of reality or a false path? Are > all paths ultimately equal? They say that even fool in persuit of his folly will become wise. So there's no absolutes in this regard. Finding a technique that works for one is not a trivial search. I meditated for 29 years and know only too well the power of the TM cul de sac. Yet, my life's tsunami's seemingly have taught me to the bone what four hours a day doing a mantra could not. Frankly, I don't think I'd recognize a "path" if I saw one. I can be suckered again, yup yup yup, but I'm no longer looking for a path, so that's my armor. To me, anyone who thinks he's on a path is like a little kid with a hobo's stick and bundle on his shoulders running away from home. Adorable. Understandable. But in most cases, coming home at the first sign of hunger. To me, I finally got hungry after 29 years of eating concepts sweetened by saccrine -- ultimately a bitter illusion of no nutritional value. The fact that it took 29 years is my profit -- I at least know that about myself now -- that I can waste time. If others are bgeing deluded into walking down certain paths, what of it? Every ad on TV is trying to get you to do that. Every teacher is telling every child in America that anyone can become president. Paths everywhere, see? Sorting them all out has to be a moment by moment processing -- the old monkey jumping to another branch thing, or an attempt to surrender to a dogma that resonates and have faith in it. With a pretty damned good mind, I failed at that -- that's how hard it is to pick a path for me. Speak not of paths to me. I fucking quit. > > Perhaps all that exists as "good" or "bad" cannot be differentiated in > the nondual knowledge of our fundamental Base. Do opinions mean one is > necessarily trapped in the non-spacious error of accepting or > rejecting or can they arise from circumstances present in an > interdependently-arising nature without effecting a fundamental > awareness: like images arising in a mirror, the mirror remains > unchanged? Can the relative and absolute be simultaneously arising? Holy shit what a mouthful. I don't have the gumption to try to pump the above with meaning. Not sure I could if I did try. Yet, I think it means muchly to you....so there's that. > > > Given the above reasoning, even Nab is operating in a fully > > spiritual fashion > > and merely reporting on how his clockworks "churn" about such. To > > the degree > > that Nab can apprehend his subtle mechanics, we can assign a rating > > of how > > adroit his "attentioning processes" are. If Nab is very good at > > doing such, > > and can get THAT "into words," he has as deep a truth to teach here > > as anyone, > > and he'll be able to instruct us about the nature of consciousness > > no matter > > the content of his mind. Get that? If Nab could be utterly clear > > about "Nab-ness," > > he'd be a world teacher. > > I don't know that my experience would be that there is any substantial > self. Could Nab-ness or Vaj-ness be an illusion? Could it all be done > with mirrors? Why Vaj, I do believe you're being cute. To be serious, I've posted here at length about my idea that Ramana Maharishi's idea of "self" was purely and only the Absolute, and that it is not attachment that is the problem but identification instead: meaning: any incarnation is into the body/mind of a blind man who is forced to try to describe "color," and that identifying with such a system is the primal fault needing to be corrected. Trying to re-arrange the attachments of a meat robot is something that the robot does, but it has no affect on the initial error of identification. Gotta rush off.....I'll respond to the below later. Edg > > > There is no such thing as "one opinion being superior to another > > opinion," since, > > by definition, opinion is not expected to present itself as factual > > truth but merely > > is theory. If I ask your opinion, you are 100% sure to give me > > that, but if I ask > > for facts, then that's a whole 'nother deal. > > > > If Nab's opinion is that TM is the best form of spirituality, who am > > I to shoot > > arrows at how his clockworks' gears are turning? > > That would depend on how you define "spirituality", no? > > > If Maharishi refers to himself > > as "Maharishi," it is what it is, but if he says, "Consciousness > > works like this," > > then we have the basis of debate. > > > > I have had some of the most poignant moments with the world's > > "almost dead > > dogs." Giving five bucks to a burnt-out bum in a shopping center > > parking lot, > > exchanging a few words, can find me blinded by the illumination of > > the bum's > > white teeth. His clockworks might be a mess, his real teeth stained > > and > > yellowed, but the presence of his witness is unmistakable. When I > > knock on > > such doors, someone answers! Astounding, eh? There's your white > > teeth! > > A spirit within may be witnessing a cacophony but there is nothing > > noisy > > about the witness. To me, it is devastating to meet someone with a > > broken > > life in that the fact that they are "forced" into witnessing it is a > > reminder that > > I too am "a drunk with paper bag" whenever I explain myself to the > > world. > > I too am imprisoned within a clockworks that churns and churns and > > churns > > before my lidless inner eye. I too am begging for "five bucks worth > > of validation" > > from the world. > > > > Though I but partially walk the talk and to live the implied > > morality above, to me > > it is very spiritual to enter the POVs of others and honor their > > paths as equal to > > my own. > > > > Now, all that said, I ask you, "What is your true intent regarding > > the contents > > of the minds of others here?" > > I don't have any one particular intent towards the "minds of others" > on FFL Edg. It depends on circumstances and circumstances vary. >
