TurquoiseB wrote:
> The desire in this case is to have no expectations
> of others in terms of their behavior, and to see
> them as other aspects of one's Self,
>
<snip>
> We Buddhists...
>
"We" Buddhists? Do Buddhists believe in a "Self"?
> ...might have compassion for the poor, drugged-
> out guy, but we'd also do our best to kick the sucker
> in the nuts and get the gun away from him.
>
So, when is the last time you kicked a guy in the nuts
and took a gun away from him? I'm just wondering.
ROTFLMAO!
> > --Right, but Byron Katie is a Neo-Advaitin, and if we go too
> > far into that realm, there's no karma, no people, no suffering
> > (in fact, nothing!). Nope - Buddhism as a whole has more
> > compassion.
>
> While I agree wholeheartedly, I find myself more interested
> in the seeming contradiction that I stumbled upon last night
> in the one-liner that made Rory *lol*, but which he didn't
> deal with. I've pasted in the whole exchange below, with
> all of its context restored, because I'm interested in hear-
> ing the fans of advaita (neo- or not) or Byron Katie explain
> to me why what seems like a contradiction to me isn't one.
>
> > > > > OK, I asked Swami G - does everyone go through the Kundalini
> > > > > Journey. I asked because based on my own experience with it,
> > > > > I can't imagine that it is possible without it.
> > > >
> > > > I think that this is the most accurate and telling
> > > > statement in your post, Ron, and the one that is
> > > > most relevant to Fairfield Life and the majority
> > > > of posts here about spiritual "progress." It's
> > > > about *personal experience*, which is valid, and
> > > > about *projection of that experience onto others*,
> > > > which IMO is not.
> > > >
> > > > On this forum we've had people say that because
> > > > *they* went through a period of anger at some
> > > > spiritual teacher who disappointed them, everyone
> > > > who criticizes a spiritual teacher is also feeling
> > > > anger. <snip>
> > >
> > > FWIW I still support my original premise: If we criticise another
> > > (particularly if the other isn't even present, and we're
> > > criticising them to a 3rd party), we generally *are* coming from
> > > a place of pain (hurt/anger), whether or not we are consciously
> > > aware of it at that moment. This is because we are "shoulding"
> > > all over them :-) -- expecting them to be other than they are,
> > > and judging them for not living up to our expectations of what
> > > they "should" be or do. All of this stems from the core belief
> > > and illusion that what we are criticising is outside of ourself
> > > -- a position that is fraught with addictive pain. Practicing a
> > > little Byron-Katiesque Inquiry will soon sober us up and show
> > > us otherwise :-)
> >
> > Now let me get this straight. This sobering up
> > and seeing things otherwise, that's something
> > that we "should" be doing?
>
> The question is, "How is doing 'the work,' Byron Katie-
> style, *not* fraught with addictive pain?" It seems to
> me that what Rory describes above is very much a form
> of moodmaking -- starting with the assumption that one
> *should* not be criticizing other aspects of ones Self
> and acting accordingly, *in the pursuit of a desire*.
>
> The desire in this case is to have no expectations of
> others in terms of their behavior, and to see them as
> other aspects of one's Self, if I've gotten what
> Rory is saying. However, the desire to behave like that
> is an expectation. One *practices* "a little Byron
> Katiesque Inquiry" and intellectually convinces one's
> self that it is relating to others on a non-judgmental
> level. But it seems to me that the very *process* of
> doing this is by definition a judgment upon one's *own*
> self, a desire to *change* the way it's behaving and
> "should" it into another form of behavior, an attempt
> to moodmake it into acting the way that it "should."
>
> I'm not particularly down on Byron Katie, or advaita,
> or Rory...I'm just intrigued by the proponents of these
> philosophies' ability to ignore what seems to me to be
> a raging contradiction. If the practice they're recom-
> mending to get beyond judgment requires "the work,"
> isn't that *by definition* a form of judgment about
> judgment?
>
> And please, anyone who feels like answering, don't come
> back with "a thorn to remove a thorn." That may work on
> TMers who've been trained to salivate at the sound of
> Maharishi's voice, but it ain't gonna cut the mustard
> intellectually. What I'm asking is whether the Byron
> Katie "thorn" is just a form of moodmaking, of training
> one's self into acting a certain way ("acting" in all
> senses of that word) because they've been convinced
> that they "should" act that way? Sounds like classic
> moodmaking to me.
>
> How is "the work" gonna help you determine the proper
> course of action when the other person you're trying
> not to be judgmental about is holding a gun on you, and
> acting a whole lot like a madman on crack who is more
> interested in shooting you and your family just to see
> how you fall than he is in your wallet?
>
> We Buddhists might have compassion for the poor, drugged-
> out guy, but we'd also do our best to kick the sucker in
> the nuts and get the gun away from him. The way I'm read-
> ing Rory's comments, he'd see that the guy is coming from
> a place of hurt/pain, relate it to his own hurt and pain,
> and say, "LOL. You're just another aspect of my Self, and
> everything is OK." :-)
>
> Question, short form: Is Katie's "the work," whether
> valuable or not, just another form of moodmaking?
>
> I don't know. I'm just wondering. Those of you who know
> more, please explain it to me.
>
