"> I suspect he'd be willing to rewrite it as: > > If you lose your attachment to/identification with > your own personality, you can afford to be non-equal. > > I think he makes a good point that insistence on > equality can mean not just humble unwillingness > to give oneself a higher status, but prideful > (egoic) unwillingness to accept a *lower* status."
I think these terms are most useful in a specific context. For example Tom Cruise is at a very high level in Scientology. He has taken auditing to the highest level which makes him much "higher" than you or I. In this system he possesses many magical powers from his level of attainment. I don't think it would be a function of pride for me to not accept any invitation from Tom to accept a "lower" status in his little made-up world of distinctions. I suspect you would not be willing to join his POV that you are far less developed spiritually than he is since you have your own personal standards for personal development that you pursue. I suspect that you would feel that if Tom was gaining something worthwhile through his auditing techniques that you were getting the equivalent or better from your own TM practice. (just a guess) In my life the people who I give the credit for be the most actualized in their personalities are the people who draw out the best from everyone around them. They don't radiate that they are "higher" but just that they are having a great time being alive and invite everyone to join them. But I do appreciate the distinction you are making. For me being "humble" is often another version of spiritual oneupsmanship. I never trust people who claim it. I am certainly not. My self confidence has be so hard earned through the years of my life. It is the lack of confidence in my self that has held me back, never being too "prideful". And anyone who invites me to accept that I am on a fundamentally lower level of awareness then they are will not receive an invitation to lunch at Bistro Curtis. Thanks for returning the ball. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > <snip> > > > > I don't view the ego in the way you seem to be using it and > > > > losing my personality is not a goal for me. > > > > > > As I understand it, enlightenment doesn't mean > > > "losing" one's personality, only the attachment > > > to and identification with it. The personality > > > remains as it was. > > > > That was how I understood it in MMY's system also. I was > > commenting on the Koan: > > > > "I'd like to give you the following koan: > > If you loose your own personality, you can afford to be non-equal." > > I suspect he'd be willing to rewrite it as: > > If you lose your attachment to/identification with > your own personality, you can afford to be non-equal. > > I think he makes a good point that insistence on > equality can mean not just humble unwillingness > to give oneself a higher status, but prideful > (egoic) unwillingness to accept a *lower* status. > > > I think it is pretty clear that personalities don't diminish in any > > way from spiritual practices judging from this group! > > You bet, and Michael is certainly no exception. >
