--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Turq, > > Would you agree that, for you, the word "identification" has > the same definition as "attachment?" That's my stance.
Hmmm. I've never really thought in those terms. I'll try to do so "on the fly" here. My first reaction is to say No, that I don't think they are the same thing. I find myself able to identify with my current self quite well, but with- out being terribly attached to it. I *like* some of my selves, and identify fully with being them while I'm wearing them. And then they go away and the next self, when asked about the self that it liked so much, says, "Who?" I'll try to ponder this further as I move along to your own explanations of what you mean above. I may change my mind and say Yes by the end of the post. Really. :-) > The ego cannot be "ended," (since it doesn't exist,) but the > "choosing process" of identifying it as the "I" CAN be ended, > and once this inordinate attentioning on one small aspect of > amness stops, then the ego can be as wonderfully appropriate -- > in that, now, the ego is not puffed, hogging the spotlight, > and elbowing out all the other aspects of manifestation, but > is instead, a boon traveling companion, a biographer of the > body/mind. I have no problem with this at all. I think it's a valid way of expressing the same sense of comfort- ableness with self that I was trying to express earlier. > To me it is always about "what is awareness awaring?" Good phrase. > That's a spotlighting process, This one, too. > ...point value thingy, and whatever is going through one's mind > is being identified with as much as a dog does when sniffing his > fresh pee and, for my money, is thinking, "Ha, now that's > an ablution of the previous hound's objectionable scent!" (I'm > imagining myself as the dog, so he had to be a good writer!) I have to walk my best friend's dogs as soon as I finish writing this. You have me chuckling in anticipation of trying to get into their heads during the walk. Many thanks. > To me, enlightenment is "not identifying." Period. So far, I'm still going with No. I think that enlight- enment can be about identifying fully, *in the moment*, and being unattached to that moment when it's passed. > The least identification is having both feet on the slippery > slope. That might be true if the object being identified with wasn't your Self. But the sages, and often our own intuition, tells us that it is. So the "slippery slope" would seem to me to be more of a Giant Water Slide ride from Self to Self. :-) > Even pure being, amness, is a primal identification, and sure > enough, that slightest of all stains is all that's needed for > the sin of manifestation to occur when ego starts saying, "I'm > that. I'm that. I'm that." Instead of, you know, neti, neti, neti. Wow. Too much to bounce off of right now. I really *do* have to walk the dogs, and it's lookin' like rain. So there would be no time for me to do justice to amness being an identification, let alone "the sin of mani- festation." When it comes to the latter phrase, I'm not sure I even want to go there. Too icky and Puritain for me. If you believe in God and God created manifestation and, if what we have been told is true, is One with that manifestation, where is the Waldo of "sin" in this picture? Maybe later... > I think that I hear you loud and clear. I love the bon vivant > you are and support your right to identify with the wondrousness > that passes through your mind, but what about this "sin" I've > mentioned? Do you see that if one is attending to anything, then > one is not conscious of the "ALL THING," the Self -- except that > any THING must be a partial "ray" of the Self and thus, yeah, all > things can only be SELF, but you know what I mean. I think I do, and I'm still in the No camp. You seem to be saying (in more Buddhist terms) that nirvana is not samsara. And that nirvana is preferable to samsara. I'm more in the nirvana IS samsara camp. There is no "preference" in play because there is no difference between sitting samadhi no thoughts no perceptions no self only Self and walking samadhi full of thoughts full of perceptions full of self AND full of Self. To me your concern is based in dualism, the belief that the relative is not the Absolute and can't ever be. It has to be one or the other. But remember "200% of life?" > I think you've been saying that the "200% fullness" concept > is part of your dogma I really am writing this on the fly, as I read your post for the first time. It's more fun for me that way when dealing with a mind as flexible as yours. So I wrote my "200% of life" without reading yours first. :-) > -- that the game of enlightenment MUST allow for enjoyment > in the relative without it being "bad for evolution." You > refuse to see yourself as a sinner in any "eternal" sense... In any sense at all. > ...so it seems you'v got a very strongly held stance, which, > to me, means that probably you've looked at this identification > concept deeply. > > Have you? Not in those terms, no. > Have you pushed life through such a filter and seen if it > is really all about ending identification -- not ending or > starting any action? I think I can say that I have pondered this one a bit. To me it's *not* about ending identification, only ending attachment to those fleeting things that are identified with. > Which "tion" does ya choose? I mean, if you had a gun to > your head, say maybe Judy had the gun, THEN which would you > choose. I'm betting you resent the idea of having to choose > though, eh? Hee hee. Your "choice" doesn't even seem like one to me, so it's not really a very large caliber gun, even with Judy wielding it. :-) At the last minute you switched from talking about identification vs. attachment and made it identifi- cation vs. action. I'm not sure I can follow that mental leap, sorry. If you were to ask me with a psychic gun pointed to my head ( which may be what you did, since I started to reply to this post before even reading it :-) whether I was to come down on the side of identification vs. attachment, I'd say attachmend. That's the boogey- man, not identification. But what do I know? I'm just a bozo who has now dawdled so long writing this reply that he has to walk his dogs in the rain. :-) > PS See my posts, #140009 and 140633, for more about this. > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex" <do.rflex@> wrote: > > > > > > What's interesting about this post is that Barry appears, > > > out of all the main posters on this forum, to have the > > > biggest ego of all of them. He celebrates his ego [self] > > > in his posts - and appears to have all of the skills > > > required to hide the terrors of non-existence he describes. > > > The bigger they are, the harder they fall. > > > > I'll answer this, even though it's a bit of a slam, > > because it opens the possibility for a discussion > > that I don't think I've seen here before. > > > > It's related to comments I made about love vs. lust > > recently. It's clearly possible to be as *attached* > > to love as it is to lust. And in many spiritual > > traditions, it's the *attachment* that's the boogey- > > man in the equation, not the activity itself. > > > > So is it the *having* an ego that's the boogeyman > > in the realization-of-Self game, or is it the > > *attachment* to one's ego that is the boogeyman? > > > > I'm kinda of the opinion that it's the latter. > > > > Do I have a big ego? You betcha. Do I *revel* in > > having a big ego? You betcha. Am I particularly > > *attached* to that ego? I don't think so, because > > I've had so *many* of them. I've watched them come > > and go for years now, ever since I met the Rama > > dude and sat with him in the desert and had my > > ego-at-the-time blown out of its socks and watched > > it die. > > > > This is a rap that is *not* gonna resonate with > > a lot of people here. Unless you have been in a > > situation in which your ego -- your small s self -- > > gets blown away and replaced with a *new* ego > > on a regular basis, what's to identify with? > > > > But that's been my experience. So shoot me. :-) > > > > We'd go out into the desert with Rama as one ego, > > and come back for a few days blown out of our > > socks, egoless. It would take a day or two for > > a new one to take hold. The same thing would > > happen at the weekly meetings; it was to a large > > extent what we were there for...those periods of > > "between-ness" in which the old ego has been blown > > away and a new one hasn't yet taken root. > > > > For those of you who can admit to having dropped > > acid, and assuming you actually did *good* acid, > > try to remember back to that experience. There > > was a *reason* that Tiny Tim stole the basis for > > his book "The Psychedelic Experience" from the > > "Tibetan Book of the Dead." A good hit of pure > > Sandoz was literally like traversing the Bardo. > > You entered into the experience with a self, and > > the experience pointed out to you in no uncertain > > terms that you didn't really have one, and that > > Self was all there was. And for a few hours after > > the LSD experience, you remained in this "between- > > ness" state, with the old self blown away, but > > without having a new one (or, horrors, what you > > considered the "old" one) taking root again. > > > > That's very similar to what I'm talking about, > > but without the reliance on chemicals. > > > > I got *used* to this process of having one's ego > > blown out of its socks and, a day or so later, > > having a new one replace it. It happened on pretty > > much a weekly basis -- if not more often -- for > > fourteen years. > > > > THAT is to some extent where I'm "coming from" > > when I celebrate the latest and greatest ego or > > self I'm wearing. I don't *resent* the small s > > selves that play across my Self. I don't confuse > > them *with* Self. They are what they are, mere > > masks, costumes that Self has chosen to put on for > > some reason that probably even it doesn't understand, > > long enough to make a nice entrance at some costume > > ball. After the ball is over, the costume goes into > > the trash bin and the Self "puts on" another self. > > > > The new one is no more important than the old one. > > It has no more, and no less "going for it" than the > > last self did. It's Just Another self. > > > > So do I have an ego, a small s self? You betcha. > > But, unlike many here, do I *resent* that small > > s self and view it as some kind of barrier to Self, > > something that I have to "overcome" or "get past?" > > No I do not. My personal experience has taught me > > that that's going to happen pretty soon without > > my having to do much to "make" it happen. > > > > You guys are free to interpret all of this however > > you want. What you think about this rap, or my > > raps on this forum in general, doesn't really affect > > me that much. I've only met one person here in real > > life; the rest of you are just dots of phosphor. > > > > I live my life the way I live it. End of story. > > Part of the way I have chosen to live it is to *not* > > fall into the rut (as I perceive it) of resenting > > the self or believing that it's a terrible obstacle > > to Self. I have had enough extended experiences of > > Self to know that that's not true. So I choose to > > have *fun* with the ego, rather than resenting it > > or pretending not to have one. OF COURSE I have > > one; so do you. And, in my opinion, having exper- > > ienced enlightenment for short periods of time, so > > do the enlightened. Having an ego during those > > periods of enlightenment did *not* prevent my > > realization of enlightenment. > > > > I'm *comfortable* with my ego. I'm comfortable cele- > > brating it, and even more comfortable laughing at its > > silliness. If you knew me personally, you'd have more > > of a feeling for the full *extent* of that silliness. > > I can laugh at each silly ego because I know it's not > > going to be around that long. Tomorrow morning I'm > > likely to wake up and have a whole new ego to laugh > > at, and with. What is not to like about all that? > > >
