[Comments interleaved]: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis" <reavismarek@> > wrote: > > **snip** > > > > But it seems to me that the initial presumption of the reality of > > time and therefore the sequential and discrete construct of > > personalities and events within it creates a first and fundamental > > misalignment of what might happen within any person's consciousness. > > For instance, it seems likely to me that 'reincarnation' refers not > > to a unique, historical sequence of lives lived by some underlying > > and fundamental (but still fundamentally ignorant) personality that > > extends from the past and into the future as pencilled in on the > > cosmic wall calendar, but rather just a shift of attention to a > > constellation of experiences that "appears" within a matrix of time. > > That's pretty much my take on it, too. Time is the > illusion, and timelessness is more the reality. Or > one reality, anyway. >
[Agreed. Timelessness, or "Now" isn't any more real than the experience of time, but you could argue that it's a "greater" reality because it encompasses time; in the same way that a huge block of marble encompasses any number of images that might conceivably be carved from it. You could imagine one image, let's say of a discus thrower with body corkscrewed and arm pulled all the way back, and then imagine that same figure, but this time with the body uncoiled just a little bit and the arm holding the discus coming forward, and then another image just a little bit farther along the "narrative" of the throw. All the potential images exist in the rock complete both in the static and the dynamic. Just like time in timelessness.] > > In other words, it seems likely to me that as "I" go through this > > life and accumulate whatever wisdom, insight and illumination that > > this personality can absorb, then when this particular receiver (the > > body) winks out, then attention shifts to another constellation of > > experiences that another receiver provides. In this model, I don't > > understand why "I" couldn't be "reborn" as my mother or my father or > > my guru or my God, or any other personality that is a proper > > expression of where and what my attention is drawn to. > > Exactly. Even though I've had a few strong "past- > life memories," my suspicion is that it isn't a > phenomenon related to "memory" of a "past" event > at all. It's more of a shifting of my attention > such that two *simultaneous* lifetimes occuring > in timelessness are perceived simultanously, from > the point of view of one of them. The only thing > that makes one of them seem "past" and the other > "present" is this illusion of time and our sequent- > iality within it. > > > In the experience of psychedelics and meditation-catalyzed visions, > > as well as dream experiences, it seems clear that the experiences > > exist within 'me' but the information provided can be as real and as > > useful as any experiences in the 'real' world. The color red is > > just as information-rich and evocative regardless of where it > > appears, either just in my head or shared in the communal reality. > > > > So in language of religion, the attention is directed towards a > > certain constellation of qualities and characteristics that, to > > one degree or another, the personality finds appealing. For me, > > although raised Roman Catholic, I never really connected with the > > Jesus personality, but find many of the Hindu gods very appealing > > and the personality of Guru Dev even more so. It's just where my > > own personality finds a certain satisfaction, where my attention > > is naturally drawn. > > One of the reasons I probably felt out of place in > the TM movement is that I *wasn't* drawn to these > types of images or personalities. I could never get > off on Guru Dev, or on Hindu gods or goddesses or > whatever. They just didn't float my boat. On the > other hand, I *could* identify with formlessness, > with the Absolute, with the Void. Different strokes > for different folks, I guess. > [Absolutely. It's really all about finding what makes you float and that happens spontaneously.] > > So there really doesn't seem to be a difference between real and > > unreal, only what we agree on and what we don't. The personality of > > Jesus is no more unreal now than it was a couple of thousand years > > ago and it wasn't any more real "then" than it is "now". If your > > attention is drawn to that personality, as you feel it to be, then > > you grow in those values naturally. > > I agree, even though the personality of Jesus may > not be actually present. The idea of him still is, > as long as you focus on it. > [Even if "you" were around when the historical Jesus was walking and talking, his personality would still just be whatever "you" were able to grok. His teachings would be, for you, whatever it was that you got from them; his darshan would be whatever you received. He (and everyone else) only exist in you, anyway. If you're not here then nothing else is. One of the things I love about FFL is the opportunity to be able to enjoy the dialogues (and monologues) that take place here. Only by the seemingly most arbitrary sequence of circumstances over decades do I find myself in a position to understand, appreciate and participate in this forum. Honestly, in the world in which I live and work, none of what goes on here would make the slightest sense to anyone; it would take hours of non-stop explanation just to lay the foundation of what FFL is all about and it would be impossible to convey all the nuances and references that we (mostly) all take for granted and enjoy.] > > Mostly rambling, I guess, but I'll think about it some more. > > Really appreciate you bringing it up, thanks. > > Yup. Nice contrast to some of the "I've so been > wronged and nobody cares" crap lately. > [Well, I guess I haven't been wronged lately; but nobody cares about that anyway, I guess. Thanks.]
