yeah it is an all or nothing scenario. No one is ever a little bit awake, just as no one is a little bit pregnant. Once the curtain goes up, or falls down, the reality experienced from that moment on is as different from the previously ego based justification, as day is from night.
Even though I might have sensory experiences outside my ordinary spectrum as a result of meditation, they are not really spiritual experiences, because the ego will always see them in terms of itself. As long as the ego is running the show, there is no chance of comprehending a spiritual existence. It is like being on the wrong side of a two way mirror. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "futur.musik" <futur.musik@...> wrote: > > Yep, two completely different worlds, one clear and transparent, the other > twisted externally to satisfy an internal need. Never the twain shall meet. > :-) > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" <anartaxius@> > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "futur.musik" <futur.musik@> wrote: > > > > > > "I don't think I buy that with regard to honesty. Surely differences in > > > awareness account for whether a person believes there is *justification* > > > for saying something they know to be false, but you really can't make > > > much of a case that nobody ever attempts to deceive others." > > > > > > Thanks Judy. Yes, of course you are right about deliberate deception > > > being a reality. However, the thing I have been thinking about is how if > > > someone is ignorant of their true nature, their attempts to deceive > > > others are based on an attempt to find peace within themselves, > > > strengthening a reality that substitutes for true self knowledge. Even > > > though the deception appears designed for others, it is really an attempt > > > to compensate for a lack of comprehension of one's motives, feelings and > > > reactions. > > > > > > The edifice for others is purposefully built, but not primarily for the > > > others. It is built to reflect a comfortable story that substitutes for > > > self-knowledge. > > > > > > This being the case, until someone knows themselves, the only other > > > choice is to be what you are calling dishonest. Everything is done in > > > support of the ego. It is the nature of the beast. How can someone be > > > true to a part of themselves they know little to nothing about? > > > > I tend to agree with this. The ego is a kind of mis-perception of > > experience, it really is not some kind of entity, it is more like a bad > > habit that has to be untrained, but seeing through the ego requires waking > > up, seeing that our whole conceptual world is a fabrication, a lie we never > > knew existed, a lie whose depth can take the breath away when exposed. One > > does not really suspect how twisted one's thought and action is until one > > sees through this. And seeing through this is for most just the beginning > > of being able to unravel self-deception. Being 'spiritual' often results in > > one set of self-deceptive lies being substituted for former ones. Not a big > > difference. > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "futur.musik" <futur.musik@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Regarding being true to one's nature on here, is there any other > > > > > choice? > > > > > > > > > > I was thinking about what the difference in self-structure is, > > > > > between the person full of thoughts about who they are, and the > > > > > person with a rested mind. > > > > > > > > > > I can picture my own experience as previously living within a sphere > > > > > of totality of myself, with a big impenetrable nucleus at the center. > > > > > So I was aware of everything around the nucleus, except the nucleus > > > > > itself (which was a completely unsustainable state). Then, once it > > > > > began to develop cracks and rapidly break apart, there became nothing > > > > > left to hold onto. > > > > > > > > > > This distinction regarding our awareness is a crucial one in > > > > > determining our personal truth, and that of others. I find that once > > > > > the nucleus becomes known to us, it becomes easy to spot it in > > > > > others, whether they are aware of it or not. > > > > > > > > > > The difference between having exploded one's nucleus and not is in > > > > > the former case, we are oneness within. However if the tight nucleus > > > > > of ego remains, we are constantly in a state of duality within > > > > > ourselves, the known and the unknown, or the comfortable and > > > > > uncomfortable. > > > > > > > > > > If someone is in a state of ignorance wrt their inner nature, then > > > > > that person will see the world as completely different than someone > > > > > with full knowledge of themselves. Two completely different worlds, > > > > > even though outer experience may appear similar. > > > > > > > > > > So if someone appears dishonest, or contrary or fearful to us, > > > > > it is merely a difference in awareness, and no deliberate > > > > > attempt at deception or obfuscation. > > > > > > > > I don't think I buy that with regard to honesty. Surely > > > > differences in awareness account for whether a person > > > > believes there is *justification* for saying something > > > > they know to be false, but you really can't make much > > > > of a case that nobody ever attempts to deceive others. > > > > > > Each type of person has their own awareness, one is complete and one > > > > is incomplete. Comparing the two is a futile exercise in apples and > > > > oranges. > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > > > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I was mulling over a few versions of this post myself Barry, > > > > > > > but since you nailed it I can get off with just a: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what he said. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Favorite line: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Call the media. "Buck" has just suggested that Fairfield > > > > > > > > Life be run the way the TMO is. :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > You sure that's what Buck means? > > > > > > > > > > > > I wouldn't be in favor of legislating it, but IMHO FFL > > > > > > would be a better, more enjoyable place, and its > > > > > > discussions more interesting and productive, if we all > > > > > > would refrain from personal attacks against each other, > > > > > > if we could express our disagreements without being > > > > > > disagreeable, in Obama's phrase. > > > > > > > > > > > > Wouldn't hurt if we all made an effort to be as truthful > > > > > > as we possibly can, either. > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" <dhamiltony2k5@> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You know, the TM Hymn on Negativity > > > > > > > > > I should think it would make a nice unified code of conduct > > > > > > > > > as an inclusive guideline for posting on FairfieldLife. > > > > > > > > > Particularly for posting negativity here on FFL. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We'll miss you. :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Seriously, dude, what would you call all your endless > > > > > > > > posts denouncing Bevan and the Rajas? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Negative" is a RELATIVE concept, not an absolute > > > > > > > > one. I'd be willing to bet that any of the people you > > > > > > > > rail against would consider you and your "Buck" char- > > > > > > > > acter more than a little negative. And, from their > > > > > > > > point of view, they'd be correct, because to them > > > > > > > > "negative" means anything that criticizes or goes > > > > > > > > against what they believe to be true and correct. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I thought that earlier you yourself were making the > > > > > > > > point that the injunction to "never entertain nega- > > > > > > > > tivity and never denounce anyone" was a two-edged > > > > > > > > sword that could be (and, as I remember you suggest- > > > > > > > > ing, was) used by the TMO to control minds and > > > > > > > > opinions. I agree with that earlier assessment, and > > > > > > > > feel that what you propose above is just another > > > > > > > > flavor of it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Who gets to decide what is "negative" and what is not? > > > > > > > > You? The mysterious "we" you refer to below? Not. Gonna. > > > > > > > > Happen. :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You know, posting on FFL is a privilege, not a right. We > > > > > > > > > should do more to protect that privilege. This is a simple > > > > > > > > > guideline that is very easily enforced. Coulld just revoke > > > > > > > > > someone's FFL membership when they violate it. For being > > > > > > > > > negative like that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Call the media. "Buck" has just suggested that Fairfield > > > > > > > > Life be run the way the TMO is. :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Have it on the homepage as part of the forum description so > > > > > > > > > it comes up every time. It's a uniform code of justice to > > > > > > > > > attend to that we could all use and our moderators enforce. > > > > > > > > > We'd all be better off and the list a safer place to be. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I can think of no place on earth that would be a safer > > > > > > > > place to be with someone of the "Buck" mindset running it. > > > > > > > > Just sayin'. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Om ! May the Unified Field protect us both together; > > > > > > > > > may It nourish us both together; > > > > > > > > > May we work conjointly with great energy, > > > > > > > > > May our study be vigorous and effective; > > > > > > > > > May we not mutually dispute > > > > > > > > > or may we not hate any. > > >
