--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, blusc0ut <no_reply@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "RoryGoff" <rorygoff@> wrote: > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shanti2218411" <kc21d@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > To me this is one of those discussions which IMHO can't > > > > > actually be resolved.People who are "awake' will > > > > > experience "reality" ,whatever the hell that is :), as non > > > > > dual, people who are not"awake" will experience reality as > > > > > separate from the self, > > > > > > "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > > > What's interesting to me is that there often doesn't > > > > seem to be any "backward compatibility" of the "awake" > > > > state with the "not awake" state. At least some of > > > > those who are "awake" appear not to have any recollection > > > > of what it was like for them not to be awake, and as a > > > > result they have a terrible time communicating with those > > > > who are not yet awake. > > > > > > > > There's a great deal of "But don't you see that..." No, we > > > > *don't* see. We're willing to take their word for it that > > > > that's what *they* see, but they don't seem to be willing > > > > to take our word for it that that isn't what *we* see. > > > > > > > * * * I am so sorry for the disconnect, Judy! I don't really > > > see where I am asking you to "see" much of anything; I am > > > just trying to point out where our suffering lies... > > > > You don't see the disconnect between what comes before > > the semicolon in what you just wrote and what comes after > > it? > > Judy, I really think that this is the problem with so-called > Neo-Advaita.
It certainly is. I'm not positive Rory understands it to be Neo-Advaita, though. > You could say, that for Rory, you (or me) are his Rohrschach > test :-) Yupper. > You cannot keep this 'accept everything' without getting into > an infinite regression. If this is so, you also have to accept > the opposite of 'accept everything', so where you gonna stand? Yes, well put. > The very fact that Rory is 'sharing' this with all of us (and > he has every right to do so), shows, that he actually does NOT > accept US as WE are. If he would, why tell us. Exactly. I've been trying to hint around at this, but he's not getting it. > Okay, I am not saying he is trying to persuade us, still he > thinks, that having this viewpoint is somehow better than > any other. Clearly. (He'll deny it, though.) Total agreement with this: > I think the Rohrschach test and the Work of Byron Kathy have > their merits, but IMO, limited to a therapeuthic situation, > not as an all comprehensive world view. Should the people in > egypt think, that they should accept Mubarak, because they > have to accept the Mubarak /Hitler within themselves, should > they refrain from going on the streets, because they would be > judgemental, should they see the dictatorship as a cosmic > Rohrschach test? Even raising those questions shows their > upsurdity. This is exactly what Non-Doership does NOT mean. > This becomes all New Age gibberish to me. But I do not deny, > that such introspection, as Rory suggests, has its value. I > just think, it's not an action plan.
