--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"Are you willing to actually see me as an equal? Completely equal? Not in some cosmic perspective way that you unequally comprehend, but brother to brother? " Here my opinion: We are not equal. I think what you are trying to convey is a mere dogma. We are ONE in the ultimate sense of being Brahman, but as far as I understand, that is a reality that you do not accept. As human beings we are different in intelligence, moral capacity, professional skills, and - this is my belief - spiritual advancement. Yes I believe in spiritual evolution, and that we are all on some scale of it, and that our spiritual experiences may actually reflect it. But I also think, that the more we are spiritually speaking, 'evolved', the more we lose our identification with a 'personality', and the identification with being an 'actor' responsible for whatever advancement is being done. I also feel that it is bad for the ego to feel superior to others - but thats in one way a spiritual consideration, as in spirituality the ego is something to be overcome. Your statement: 'We are all equal', is as I understand it, more or less a moralistic one, it comes from a humanistic perspective.While I understand the humanistic value of it, as a fact it is wrong. And in the way you state it above, you are simply trying to impose your own philosophic (or non-philosophic) outlook on Rory, or whoever you may feel is concerned. That's wrong because we all didn't want to convince each other of our respective religious beliefs, right? But here you state "Not in some cosmic perspective way that you unequally comprehend, but brother to brother?" (Using original religious language yourself - brother, we are all brothers and sisters descending from Adam and Eve- appropriated in a humanistic atheist way.) In a way, you simply disagree with Rorys spiritual evolutionary perspective, and somehow find fault that his language reflects it. The equality you propose is something completely different than the unity Advaita speaks of. As you cannot really relate to these experiences - you simply deny their validity - you try to put it on a level you can relate to: We are all the same human, we will all die, the same idiots , sometimes having insights etc. But what is wrong with some people being superior to you? I believe in a God, who is infinitely superior to me. I believe in spiritual evolution, which means, I can ascend and be superior to others - but at the same time I have to accept that there are others, billions, which are far more evolved than me and will always be. Egalitarism is just another way the ego works out IMO. 'We are all the same' means no one can be above me. No god, no human being, no higher spirit or master. Look at it from this POV: You can't have anyone above you, your ego won't allow. Understanding your own human limitations, egalitarism is a way to ensure, if even yourself can't be on top, nobody else can either. It has nothing to do with combating the ego. But thats not what you may want anyway. As I understand you, and I don't mean to insult you in any way, you are seeking some common ground with spiritual people here. So you give your interpretation of what 'sameness' or Oneness means and at the same time express your discomfort with the philosophy and spiritual insights of Rory and others here. And you surely are irreverent to the fact, that those experiences / insights are earned through a life of spiritual endeaver, 'work' (title of Byrons method) and focus for decades. Nobody would deny this regarding your music skills. We are not equal at all, we don't have the same skills and don't have the same spiritual experiences, nothing to be proud of though. For those who are lucky to have whatever spiritual insight, its rather something to be grateful and it rather evokes humility to something bigger than the 'little' self. I feel pity for those who haven't experienced this, but I can't look down on them, nor do I think that Rory indicated this in any way. I see him as a completely humble spiritual practitionar, who is far beyond me. I'd like to give you the following koan: If you loose your own personality, you can afford to be non-equal. <snip> > I think you are > using language that very carefully does separate you from the person > you are responding to. Almost to a post there is an assertion of your > separateness, specialness. I think it is very important for you to > present yourself as having a special relationship with the world. I > offer you another option and perspective for consideration. We may > all actually be the same with regard to our states of consciousness. > What you are describing in sometimes Baroque detail may just be an > affectation of your use of words to describe states that everyone else > is living in without needing all the descriptions. If you really want > a unitive experience, I suggest trying out the following premise: You > and I are actually the same. No states of awakening separate us. > Neither of us are on any continuum of awareness before or after each > other. We are both just simply human with the same limitations and > capacities. Then go to the supermarket and look at everyone that same > equal way. Everyone is just equally human and not on a path of > "awakening". Just folks. > > > I hope this wont be taken as an attack although it is a judgment I am > making. (BTW nuts are actually very hard to kick so their use in > fights is really overrated!) I think we have established enough > rapport in previous posts to actually explore this topic a bit. I > suspect Turq will have some perspective to share on this. > > In my daily life I notice people's language as an attempt to assert a > ranking. It is a version of monkey oneupmanship. As a performing > artist I must push some people's buttons because I get a regular > stream of guys (always guys) who feel the need to try to find out what > I make as a performer. It seems important for them to make sure I am > not making much money while having this much fun. They ask a serious > of roundabout questions to determine that even though they hate their > jobs (their words) at least they are making more money. > > Here on FFL it seems that there is another ranking system in place > between guys. An enlightenment-O-meter. It isn't easy for guys to > drop all the affections of our primate politics. But it is sometimes > an option when chosen. Are you willing to actually see me as an > equal? Completely equal? Not in some cosmic perspective way that you > unequally comprehend, but brother to brother?
