--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <snip> > Put another way, it is that sense that there is still someting > there when we are sitting quietly, yet not thinking. To call > it 'attributeless bliss' perhaps is distracting. it is just that > sense of silence without thoughts that we sometimes experience when > just sitting quietly, not thinking, not meditating. Does this sound > like something you have experienced?
Yes, but I wouldn't swear it was the Self, because, as I went on to say: > > (And in any case, Michael says what I've always > > understood, that the Self isn't something that can > > be "found"; it can't be an object of perception.) <snip> > > Still feels "strained" to me. That's part of what I > > mean by being overshadowed. > > > > There's definitely been progress, but it still > > seems like there's quite a way to go. > > OK. I think I understand. In order for the strain to not be there, > there must be an acceptance of all...which is impossible to grasp > intellectually. At least for me it always was, because I equated > acceptance of all, with *liking* all, which I suspect is never the > case... I don't think I make that equation. It's more like you said, I equate acceptance with lack of resistance. But as you also say, acceptance isn't intellectual; it isn't something you can *do* intentionally. It's something that *happens* to you. And it hasn't happened to me yet (at least not all the way). So I have to think that what Michael calls the "shift of perspective" (bad word, because "perspective" is of the intellect, but Michael doesn't mean that) from identifying with the relative to identifying with the Self hasn't yet taken place for me. In other words, if Self-realization means not being overshadowed, and being overshadowed equals resistance/ lack of acceptance, then I'm not Self-realized. So it seems to me that I'm "judging" my state of consciousness by exactly the criterion Michael suggests-- not by flashy experiences or noticing witnessing or behaving better, but: "In enlightenment our actions are spontaneously right. Before enlightenment our actions are strained, but still right. All that happens is that the sense of strain disappears. But that's a dramatic shift." I still have a sense of strain. Or to put it another way: It's not that I have expectations of what enlightenment is like; it's that I expect it *not* to be like ignorance. (Yes, yes, I know, nirvana = samsara and all that. But I don't think that's a useful maxim pre-nirvana.) ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
