[FairfieldLife] Re: Self is just self capitalized
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "dhamiltony2k5" wrote: > > > > This rant of yours is very good for starters and obviously > > heartfelt, but Dear Turq; is also way more than that. Just is. > > I pray you can sit with it some more. Nice rant. It was a joy > > to read. > > Careful, dude. You know the olde saying: > "Say something complimentary about Barry > and wind up on the Enemies List." Doug can be very, um, tactful. > :-) > > Original rant (for the convenience of the > person who is now going to feel compelled > to dump on it): > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/237892 Already did, several days ago.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Self is just self capitalized
> > > > Nice rant. It was a joy to read. > > -D in FF > > > > Is a great rant really. The punctuation thing evidently goes way back > in human experience. & an opportunity of > a lifetime to discern it. > > "Know thy '(S)elf'" > > Remember these? > > B.Gita > > Let a man raise his self by his Self, > let him not debase his Self; he alone, indeed, is his own friend, he alone > his own enemy. > VI.5 > > That state in which thought, > settled through the practice of Yoga, > retires, in which seeing the Self by > the Self alone, he finds contentment > in the Self. VI.20 > Let him gradually retire through the intellect possessed of patience; having established the mind in the Self, let him not think at all. VI.25 For the supreme happiness comes to the yogi whose mind is deep in peace, in whom the spur to activity is stilled, who is without blemish and has become one with cosmic consciousness. VI.27 is Science like.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Self is just self capitalized
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "dhamiltony2k5" wrote: > > This rant of yours is very good for starters and obviously > heartfelt, but Dear Turq; is also way more than that. Just is. > I pray you can sit with it some more. Nice rant. It was a joy > to read. Careful, dude. You know the olde saying: "Say something complimentary about Barry and wind up on the Enemies List." :-) Original rant (for the convenience of the person who is now going to feel compelled to dump on it): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/237892 As for "sitting with it," it was just a cafe rant, dude...so yesterday. Or last Saturday, actually...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Self is just self capitalized
> Nice rant. It was a joy to read. > -D in FF > Is a great rant really. The punctuation thing evidently goes way back in human experience. & an opportunity of a lifetime to discern it. "Know thy '(S)elf'" Remember these? B.Gita Let a man raise his self by his Self, let him not debase his Self; he alone, indeed, is his own friend, he alone his own enemy. V.I5 That state in which thought, settled through the practice of Yoga, retires, in which seeing the Self by the Self alone, he finds contentment in the Self. VI.20
[FairfieldLife] Re: Self is just self capitalized
Well, writing as a conservative meditator from experience, as the case may be the case does matter. This rant of yours is very good for starters and obviously heartfelt, but Dear Turq; is also way more than that. Just is. I pray you can sit with it some more. Nice rant. It was a joy to read. -D in FF
[FairfieldLife] Re: Self is just self capitalized
> > A good distinction, but one still based on "the > > view from outside," not the view from within. The > > world might perceive one's life as suffering, but > > that is no reason that the person experiencing > > that life must perceive it that way... > > Judy wrote: > That was kind of Buddha's point, wasn't it, that > one need not experience life as suffering? His whole > teaching was how to *avoid* experiencing life as > suffering... > The Buddha's point was that we should not strive for what we are not going to get. To do that entails 'suffering' because goals are not attained. His point was to avoid striving for more enlightenment than you are going to get.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Self is just self capitalized
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "metoostill" wrote: > > > > > --- On Sat, 1/2/10, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > > > For all I know I may be the only person on this forum who > > > thinks this is REEEALLY REEEALLY STOOOPID. But then > > > I believe that that First Noble Truth indicates that Buddha > > > was somewhat of a Wuss. "Life is suffering" as the basis of > > > all of his teachings? Give me a fuckin' break. > > > > I think the quote is not "Life is Suffering" but "Suffering > > is inevitable"... > > A good distinction, but one still based on "the > view from outside," not the view from within. The > world might perceive one's life as suffering, but > that is no reason that the person experiencing > that life must perceive it that way. Erm. That was kind of Buddha's point, wasn't it, that one need not experience life as suffering? His whole teaching was how to *avoid* experiencing life as suffering. > None of the experiences you list below involve > suffering unless one *chooses* to experience them > as suffering. "Chooses" isn't quite the right term here; it trivializes the process and makes people wrong for having the experience of suffering. > I still say that Buddha was just tailoring his > message to his demographic, and as stated before > I do not fault him for that. If you're talking to > people whose perception of their lives is that it > has always been suffering, you talk suffering and > the cessation of it. Interpreting "suffering" as material deprivation is too narrow. Even those who lead comfortable lives may experience suffering, an inexplicable inability to be happy and satisfied with what they have, or the suffering of losing loved ones, or of being ill, or simply afraid of dying. His "demographic" wasn't only the "less-than-fortunate" in a material sense. Personally, I would like to > have heard a discourse from Buddha talking to > someone who did *not* perceive his life as suffer- > ing. That would have been interesting. Would he > have preached the Same Old Same Old, or would he > have found a "carrot" to appeal to the non- > sufferer, as he used the "cessation of suffering" > carrot to appeal to the sufferer? Most likely he wouldn't have bothered to talk to them. Those who do not experience that life is suffering have either achieved nirvana, or they are in a state of denial. He had nothing to offer the former because they had already reached the goal of his Eightfold Path, either through his teaching or on their own. He had no carrots beyond that of the end of suffering, nirvana. And he had nothing to offer the latter until their lives became so miserable, for whatever reason-- material deprivation or emotional pain--that they could no longer deny their suffering. The carrot has appeal only if one recognizes that one is hungry.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Self is just self capitalized
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu wrote:
>
> TurquoiseB wrote:
> > Much is said in traditional Eastern spirituality about
> > realization of the "Self." Capital "S." As opposed to
> > that awful lower-case "s" word, "self." But if you
> > analyze what most of the spiritual teachers you revere
> > actually said, most of them were teaching that self and
> > Self were exactly the same thing.
>
> For those who have realized the "Self" the "self" can be hard to find.
> But it is there as it has to be or one would be unable to communicate
> with the other "selves." IOW, you have to "localize" when dealing with
> the world. One may go a whole week without realizing they have not
> focused on the "self" but then one of these occasions arises when they
> have to. Also an enlightened person may act more like a realist than a
> bliss ninny. The latter is a show that gurus often put on.
>
uddharedAtmanAtmAnaM nAtmAnamavasAdayet.h .
Atmaiva hyAtmano bandhurAtmaiva ripurAtmanaH .. 6\-5..
[without sandhi, a bit different transliteration,
that e.g. A > aa]:
uddharet; aatmanaa aatmaanam; na aatmaanam avasaadayet.
aatmaa; eva hi; aatmanaH; bandhuH; aatmaa; eva ripuH;
aatmanaH .. 6\-5..
Exactly the same word (nom. sing: aatmaa; lemma: aatman)
appears in the above shloka(?) seven times, in different
inflectional forms:
aatmanaa -- instrumental singular (by self)
aatmaanam -- accusative sing. ("self-im", like 'him' from 'he')
aatmaanam -- ditto
aatmaa -- nominative sing. (self)
aatmanaH -- (ablative/)genitive sing. ([from/] of self, self's)
aatmaa -- nom. sing.
aatmanaH -- gen. sing.
Maharishi's translation:
Let a man raise his self by his Self,
let him not debase his Self; he alone,
indeed, is his own friend, he alone
his own enemy.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Self is just self capitalized
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "metoostill" wrote: > > > --- On Sat, 1/2/10, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > For all I know I may be the only person on this forum who > > thinks this is REEEALLY REEEALLY STOOOPID. But then > > I believe that that First Noble Truth indicates that Buddha > > was somewhat of a Wuss. "Life is suffering" as the basis of > > all of his teachings? Give me a fuckin' break. > > I think the quote is not "Life is Suffering" but "Suffering > is inevitable"... A good distinction, but one still based on "the view from outside," not the view from within. The world might perceive one's life as suffering, but that is no reason that the person experiencing that life must perceive it that way. None of the experiences you list below involve suffering unless one *chooses* to experience them as suffering. I still say that Buddha was just tailoring his message to his demographic, and as stated before I do not fault him for that. If you're talking to people whose perception of their lives is that it has always been suffering, you talk suffering and the cessation of it. Personally, I would like to have heard a discourse from Buddha talking to someone who did *not* perceive his life as suffer- ing. That would have been interesting. Would he have preached the Same Old Same Old, or would he have found a "carrot" to appeal to the non- sufferer, as he used the "cessation of suffering" carrot to appeal to the sufferer? > ...one being as pessimistic and imbalanced (yes > even really stupid) as it sounds, the other stating an > unavoidable reality, as Buddha seems, in that well known > story (even if hagiographic or apocryphal), to have noticed > that without exception we all will age and die, and watch > our loved ones age and die as that is inevitable, and quite > appropriately none of us laugh about that, mixed with other > more wondrous or awe inspiring experiences.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Self is just self capitalized
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Jason wrote: > > Try telling this to people caught in Nazi holocaust, Partition riots, > Khemer rouge genocide in Cambodia, Stalinist purge in Soviet Union, Cancer > patients, children suffering from mal-nutrition in third world countries etc > etc. > > Life is not exactly "cool" for them. eh.?? > > --- On Sat, 1/2/10, TurquoiseB wrote: > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Self is just self capitalized > Date: Saturday, January 2, 2010, 4:14 AM > > For all I know I may be the only person on this forum who > thinks this is REEEALLY REEEALLY STOOOPID. But then > I believe that that First Noble Truth indicates that Buddha > was somewhat of a Wuss. "Life is suffering" as the basis of > all of his teachings? Give me a fuckin' break. I think the quote is not "Life is Suffering" but "Suffering is inevitable", one being as pessimistic and imbalanced (yes even really stupid) as it sounds, the other stating an unavoidable reality, as Buddha seems, in that well known story (even if hagiographic or apocryphal), to have noticed that without exception we all will age and die, and watch our loved ones age and die as that is inevitable, and quite appropriately none of us laugh about that, mixed with other more wondrous or awe inspiring experiences. As to those more horrific events which we are at risk to experiencing, that is why one of my favorite summaries of advaita is "sticks and stones can break my bones but names will never hurt me." Mamma was right, the error of superimposition is the root of much unnecessary mental anguish. But realizing that does not neuter the other reality, that sticks and stones can break my bones. Buddha, for what its worth, did there draw a line in the sand and part with magical thinking.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Self is just self capitalized
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "pranamoocher" wrote: > > Nice, but Goat's Milk is just plain disgusting! > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, m 13 wrote: > > > > I m going to choose to revel in my illusion And of course the Lord gives you that freedom, the choice is yours and if your choices are good you'll have an easier time of itBut they say even the Sattvic choices and consequences become stale over time, and nothing, NOTHING, worldly can compare to the bliss of Spirit. You won't know that until you have first hand experience of it, then there will be NO doubt.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Self is just self capitalized
Nice, but Goat's Milk is just plain disgusting! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, m 13 wrote: > > I m going to choose to revel in my illusion > � > savor each grain of laughter and chunky salt, and creamy smoothness with a > bite goats milk, and the heat of smirks.Spice, and texture in all > I�love my illusion, full of interesting things to play with and be amused > by. > � > wow > three blue jays just now are all sharing the seed bowl! > They most times i observe, are so 'alpha male ' ish, chasing each other away, > only one can eat at a time-it seems, King of the Mountain type energy. > That was sure nice to see them all taking turns;one deep in the bowl, two > perched on top.And a sparrow they did not chase away. > How lovely. > � >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Self is just self capitalized
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > Today's cafe rants are probably going to have a theme. > This theme was inspired by an old friend saying with a > straight face on another Internet forum that "exclusive > aim of human existence" is to "break free the from the > repetitive phenomenon of birth and death." > > On one level, I feel for this friend. I used to parrot > this crap myself once, and actually believed it. I now > look back on the being who believed that as incredibly > narcissistic and incredibly lazy and incredibly self- > serving. I too once preferred the silence of meditation > to the noise of the streets, and thus bought the "teach- > ings" of recluses who were so afraid of noise that they > withdrew into ashrams that the ultimate goal of life was > to eliminate life entirely. By withdrawing from life and > living the life of a recluse until one realizes enlight- > enment, and then ultimately by withdrawing from life > entirely so much so that it never happens again. All > that would be left is the silence. That was perceived > as the "goal." > > Some here perceive that as the goal still. I do not, and > in this particular cafe rap I'm going to rap a bit about > why. Caveat emptor. > > Much is said in traditional Eastern spirituality about > realization of the "Self." Capital "S." As opposed to > that awful lower-case "s" word, "self." But if you > analyze what most of the spiritual teachers you revere > actually said, most of them were teaching that self and > Self were exactly the same thing. > > Meditation -- meaning eyes-closed, withdraw-from-the- > senses-and-the-world meditation -- is the *easy* path > to realization of the Self. You shut everything out, and > if you're lucky you manage to "transcend" the noise and > experience silence. And you call that experience "Self." > Capital "S." If you bought the dogma that the teachers > revere taught you, you hope that someday this silence > will be 24/7 and that you will experience it all the time. > > Nothing wrong with that, IMO. It's just the belief that > self is something *different* than Self that I don't buy. > > Self is just self realizing what's really going on. And > a self can do that as easily in activity as it can with > eyes closed in meditation. If this were not true, then > enlightenment could not exist. > > So why do so many *rag* on self, and talk about "eliminating > the self," or "becoming Self," as if the latter somehow > left self *behind* like a snake shedding its skin? That's > not how I see things, or experienced them during my personal > enlightenment experiences. > > I always saw -- and experienced -- enlightenment as an > *additive* process, not a *subtractive* one. Perception of > everything as silence with eyes closed in sitting meditation > was not any different than perception of everything as > silence in a traffic jam. My experience was always the "200% > of life" that Maharishi talked about. And 200% was always > perceived as more interesting than 100% -- on *either* side > of the equation. That is, "24/7 samadhi in activity" tended > to be more fun and more fulfilling not only than 100% lost > in the relative with no samadhi, it *also* tended to be more > fun and more fulfilling than 100% lost in samadhi, with > eyes closed. > > So I find it difficult to comprehend why so many profess > the latter as their "goal" in life. > > They claim to be working towards "200% of life," but the > actual "goal" they speak of is to have the relative half of > life GO AWAY, so that they are left with only the silence > of samadhi. They wish to become the "drop merged with the > ocean," Self with *no* self component. > > Seems to me that what they're hoping by believing this is > that *after* having realized 200% of life by realizing their > enlightenment, the *payoff* for this is reverting to 100% > again. > > For all I know I may be the only person on this forum who > thinks this is REEEALLY REEEALLY STOOOPID. But then > I believe that that First Noble Truth indicates that Buddha > was somewhat of a Wuss. "Life is suffering" as the basis of > all of his teachings? Give me a fuckin' break. > > Life is cool. If the teachers we revere are really to be > believed, relative existence is not only not "lesser" than > the Absolute, it *is* the Absolute. "200% of life" is being > able to realize and appreciate both simultaneously. > > And yet thousands if not millions strive for enlightenment > *so that* they can theoretically eliminate one half of life. > They set as the *goal* of their spiritual path "getting off > the wheel," and ending incarnation entirely. They *look > forward* to leaving 100% of the relative behind, *rejecting* > the accomplishment of "200% of life," and becoming 100% of > the Absolute for all eternity. Go figure. > > I do not share their goal. My goal is not to transcend the > relative but to experience it as *both* relative and Abso
[FairfieldLife] Re: Self is just self capitalized
I m going to choose to revel in my illusion savor each grain of laughter and chunky salt, and creamy smoothness with a bite goats milk, and the heat of smirks.Spice, and texture in all I love my illusion, full of interesting things to play with and be amused by. wow three blue jays just now are all sharing the seed bowl! They most times i observe, are so 'alpha male ' ish, chasing each other away, only one can eat at a time-it seems, King of the Mountain type energy. That was sure nice to see them all taking turns;one deep in the bowl, two perched on top.And a sparrow they did not chase away. How lovely.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Self is just self capitalized
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > So the "life is suffering" metaphors don't *work* as > well for me as they might for those who are suffering. > I do not deny their suffering or the desire for a > cessation of that suffering. It's just that -- for > whatever reason -- I find it difficult to *feel* that > desire for a cessation of suffering or a cessation > of relative life itself. Relative life has just > fuckin' *rocked* for me. In this incarnation and in > several more that I have memories of. > > In some of them I was persecuted and literally tortured > to death. Slowly. By people who were *getting off* on > torturing me. These memories -- whatever they are and > wherever they came from -- are part of my personal > "memory bank," my recollection of my personal past. To > me they feel just as "real" as memories of last week. > > But those incarnations rocked, too. I would not change > one moment of any of them. If I did, I wouldn't be here > the way I am now, and I kinda like here and the way I > am now. The interesting thing is that a lesson learned in one life may be forgotten in the next, which means one may have to repeat it in a subsequent life. (Remembering what happened in one life is not the same as learning the lesson it represented; either can occur without the other.) One may have to go through many cycles of learning a lesson, forgetting it, and then having to learn it all over again, until eventually the lesson "sticks" from one life to the next, so that one no longer repeats the mistakes that necessitated the lesson in the first place.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Self is just self capitalized
meh- ixneh on the negative closing things out To me more loving and real is to sit with eyes closed and accept with no judgement, in fact, with open mind/arms -Welcome each sound, each car driving by, each bird talking while flying by,the sound of the air swirling... any and every sound all are existing here along with me Acknowledge each 's existance by just listening and thereby accepting it's lifeforce/essence with me Seems negative to 'delete' sounds This way I become more aware and okay with all that is existing how arrogant to think I am the only one that is important. these birds have families and bellies of their own to feed and thoughts- just listen and do not close the door on them , include them in your world because they are there already they are there for a good reason open up the doors of the heart and see heart open link There is a time for close (open-close)(breathe in, breathe out) but my own opinion is that meditation is not the time for close. Y all can disagree, it is my own experience, that this works for me. Listen, acknowledge, welcome, let go- listen...wait, patience, quiet the mind/body,next sound-and so on , and give thanks for all. We need the bitter with sweet, and that with the sounds and people as well as foods. Commentary by Meow
[FairfieldLife] Re: Self is just self capitalized
> > So why do so many *rag* on self, and talk about > > "eliminating > > the self," or "becoming Self," > > as if the latter somehow left self *behind* like > > a snake shedding its skin? That's not how I see > > things, or experienced them during my personal > > enlightenment experiences... > > Judy wrote > Oh, really...? > So, I'm going to need some help here, can anyone name a spiritual teacher that is teaching materialism, that the 'self' is the same thing as the 'Self'? "For those well versed in the Vedaanta the world is like a city of Gaandharvas - an illusion." Source: 'Gaudapada' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaudapada
[FairfieldLife] Re: Self is just self capitalized
TurquoiseB wrote: > But if you analyze what most of the spiritual > teachers you revere actually said, most of them > were teaching that self and Self were exactly > the same thing. > Well, I don't know what teachers you've been seeing, but no Buddhist would teach the idea of 'self' or 'Self' - Buddhists don't agree with the notion that individuals each have an eternal soul-monad. I always figured that Turq didn't understand Advaita Vedanta or the Ramana Maharshi, and this proves it! Maybe I should pass this message over to alt.buddha.short.fat.guy - LOL!!! > Meditation -- meaning eyes-closed, withdraw-from-the- > senses-and-the-world meditation -- is the *easy* path > to realization of the Self. You shut everything out, and > if you're lucky you manage to "transcend" the noise and > experience silence. And you call that experience "Self." > Capital "S." If you bought the dogma that the teachers > revere taught you, you hope that someday this silence > will be 24/7 and that you will experience it all the time. > > Nothing wrong with that, IMO. It's just the belief that > self is something *different* than Self that I don't buy. > > Self is just self realizing what's really going on. And > a self can do that as easily in activity as it can with > eyes closed in meditation. If this were not true, then > enlightenment could not exist. > > So why do so many *rag* on self, and talk about "eliminating > the self," or "becoming Self," as if the latter somehow > left self *behind* like a snake shedding its skin? That's > not how I see things, or experienced them during my personal > enlightenment experiences. > > I always saw -- and experienced -- enlightenment as an > *additive* process, not a *subtractive* one. Perception of > everything as silence with eyes closed in sitting meditation > was not any different than perception of everything as > silence in a traffic jam. My experience was always the "200% > of life" that Maharishi talked about. And 200% was always > perceived as more interesting than 100% -- on *either* side > of the equation. That is, "24/7 samadhi in activity" tended > to be more fun and more fulfilling not only than 100% lost > in the relative with no samadhi, it *also* tended to be more > fun and more fulfilling than 100% lost in samadhi, with > eyes closed. > > So I find it difficult to comprehend why so many profess > the latter as their "goal" in life. > > They claim to be working towards "200% of life," but the > actual "goal" they speak of is to have the relative half of > life GO AWAY, so that they are left with only the silence > of samadhi. They wish to become the "drop merged with the > ocean," Self with *no* self component. > > Seems to me that what they're hoping by believing this is > that *after* having realized 200% of life by realizing their > enlightenment, the *payoff* for this is reverting to 100% > again. > > For all I know I may be the only person on this forum who > thinks this is REEEALLY REEEALLY STOOOPID. But then > I believe that that First Noble Truth indicates that Buddha > was somewhat of a Wuss. "Life is suffering" as the basis of > all of his teachings? Give me a fuckin' break. > > Life is cool. If the teachers we revere are really to be > believed, relative existence is not only not "lesser" than > the Absolute, it *is* the Absolute. "200% of life" is being > able to realize and appreciate both simultaneously. > > And yet thousands if not millions strive for enlightenment > *so that* they can theoretically eliminate one half of life. > They set as the *goal* of their spiritual path "getting off > the wheel," and ending incarnation entirely. They *look > forward* to leaving 100% of the relative behind, *rejecting* > the accomplishment of "200% of life," and becoming 100% of > the Absolute for all eternity. Go figure. > > I do not share their goal. My goal is not to transcend the > relative but to experience it as *both* relative and Absolute, > all the time. And then to *continue* experiencing it as both, > as long as that continues. I do not seek a "cessation of > life" or a "cessation of self" or a "cessation of seeking." > I hope that life is set up such that seeking continues > eternally, and that I -- as self or Self -- never tire of it. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Self is just self capitalized
--In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > So why do so many *rag* on self, and talk about "eliminating > the self," or "becoming Self," as if the latter somehow > left self *behind* like a snake shedding its skin? That's > not how I see things, or experienced them during my personal > enlightenment experiences. Oh, really? "The fascinating thing is that none of the ways that these selves-attached-to-their-selves present them- selves are 'them,' either. Only Self is really 'them,' and Self doesn't cast a shadow." --Barry Wright, June 8, 2009 (#221177) Barry's views about Life, the Universe, and Everything as expressed in his "cafe rants" are determined by whatever he's selected as his dumping target for the day. Today it's those who value the Self over the self, regardless of how often he himself has proclaimed this same value in the past, as in the June post (only one of many I could have quoted).
[FairfieldLife] Re: Self is just self capitalized
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Jason wrote: > > Has it occured to you that both of us are an elite minority > on this planet. I mean how many of us really pondered over > the meaning of existence.? Absofuckinglutely. A critic once said, when discussing the films of Woody Allen, "Neurosis is a disease only the well-to-do have time for. I would suggest that enlightenment and the "spiritual path" are things that only the well-to-do have time for. If we had been born into the karma of *most* of the sentient beings on this planet, would we *ever* have had time to ponder them? > You seem to believe in an infinite series of re-incarnations. Yes, I guess I do. > That dosen't sound logical to me. all things ultimately end. I do not believe this. I think that's an anthropomorphism projected onto a universe that never ends. I do not believe that there is a "goal" or an "end" to sentient existence or to spiritual seeking. I tend to believe that, as the Tao Te Ching says, "From wonder into wonder life will open." I further believe that it will keep opening forever. At least I hope so. I would view reaching a state in which I thought I had attained the "goal" or "end" of life as an indication of FAILURE, and a sign that I should press the "Restart" button and buy a humility clue. I would hope that the "purpose" of life -- if there is one -- is that wonder keeps opening into wonder eternally. > --- On Sat, 1/2/10, TurquoiseB wrote: > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Self is just self capitalized > Date: Saturday, January 2, 2010, 5:08 AM > > > Actually, the teaching of every realized being in > history is that life *is* cool for them. Coolness > dependeth not on one's external circumstances. It > dependeth only on how one perceives those external > circumstances. As my man Bruce Cockburn once said: > > Little round planet > In a big universe > Sometimes it looks blessed > Sometimes it looks cursed > Depends on what you look at obviously > But even more it depends on the way that you see > > I do not delude myself that I am 'way fortunate. I > am the luckiest fuckin' human being I've ever met. > I should have died dozens of times. Or wound up > behind bars somewhere. I have systematically > ignored the rules and "popular wisdom" presented > to me *as* wisdome most of my life. And I have > gotten away with it. > > I honestly do not know which is the chicken and > which the egg in this scenario. Did I manage to > ignore or break all the rules and have a smokin' > life anyway because I dreamed it into existence > by never imagining that there was any other way > to live my life, or did the good fortune of my > life just tempt me into thinking that the "rules" > didn't apply to me? Beats the fuck outa me. All > I know is that I have been phenomenally lucky. > > Others have not been so fortunate. One could go > so far as to say that *most* have not been so > fortunate. I feel for them. So did all of the > spiritual teachers in history. That is probably > why they taught using the *metaphors* and the > *desires* of the less-than-fortunate . > > Find yourself preaching to an audience who believe > that life is suffering -- because that is what they > perceive their lives to have been -- and which > metaphors are you going to pick to convey a way > *past* suffering? Duh. I do not *fault* the Buddha > for starting with "Life is suffering." Look at his > demographic. > > It's just that lately I am more drawn to teachings > that don't speak to that demographic. There are a > few of us "out here" in the spiritual smorgasbord > whose lives have *not* been perceived as suffering. > They've been perceived as one fuckin' glorious > E-ticket ride, in fact. > > For whatever reason, our lives rocked. They rock > still. Every morning presents a new opportunity for > additional rock-on-age. > > So the "life is suffering" metaphors don't *work* as > well for me as they might for those who are suffering. > I do not deny their suffering or the desire for a > cessation of that suffering. It's just that -- for > whatever reason -- I find it difficult to *feel* that > desire for a cessation of suffering or a cessation > of relative life itself. Relative life has just > fuckin' *rocked* for me. In this incarnation and in > several more that I have memories of. > > In some of them I was persecuted and literally tortured > to death. Slowly. By people who were *getting off* on > torturing me. These memories -- whatever they are and > wherever they came from -- are part of my personal > "memory bank," my recollection of my personal past. To > me they feel just as "real" as memories of last week. > > But those incarnations rocked, too. I would not change > one moment of any of them. If I did, I wouldn't be here > the way I am now, and I kinda like here and the way I > am now. > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Self is just self capitalized
Has it occured to you that both of us are an elite minority on this planet. I mean how many of us really pondered over the meaning of existence.? You seem to believe in an infinite series of re-incarnations. That dosen't sound logical to me. all things ultimately end. --- On Sat, 1/2/10, TurquoiseB wrote: Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Self is just self capitalized Date: Saturday, January 2, 2010, 5:08 AM Actually, the teaching of every realized being in history is that life *is* cool for them. Coolness dependeth not on one's external circumstances. It dependeth only on how one perceives those external circumstances. As my man Bruce Cockburn once said: Little round planet In a big universe Sometimes it looks blessed Sometimes it looks cursed Depends on what you look at obviously But even more it depends on the way that you see I do not delude myself that I am 'way fortunate. I am the luckiest fuckin' human being I've ever met. I should have died dozens of times. Or wound up behind bars somewhere. I have systematically ignored the rules and "popular wisdom" presented to me *as* wisdome most of my life. And I have gotten away with it. I honestly do not know which is the chicken and which the egg in this scenario. Did I manage to ignore or break all the rules and have a smokin' life anyway because I dreamed it into existence by never imagining that there was any other way to live my life, or did the good fortune of my life just tempt me into thinking that the "rules" didn't apply to me? Beats the fuck outa me. All I know is that I have been phenomenally lucky. Others have not been so fortunate. One could go so far as to say that *most* have not been so fortunate. I feel for them. So did all of the spiritual teachers in history. That is probably why they taught using the *metaphors* and the *desires* of the less-than-fortunate . Find yourself preaching to an audience who believe that life is suffering -- because that is what they perceive their lives to have been -- and which metaphors are you going to pick to convey a way *past* suffering? Duh. I do not *fault* the Buddha for starting with "Life is suffering." Look at his demographic. It's just that lately I am more drawn to teachings that don't speak to that demographic. There are a few of us "out here" in the spiritual smorgasbord whose lives have *not* been perceived as suffering. They've been perceived as one fuckin' glorious E-ticket ride, in fact. For whatever reason, our lives rocked. They rock still. Every morning presents a new opportunity for additional rock-on-age. So the "life is suffering" metaphors don't *work* as well for me as they might for those who are suffering. I do not deny their suffering or the desire for a cessation of that suffering. It's just that -- for whatever reason -- I find it difficult to *feel* that desire for a cessation of suffering or a cessation of relative life itself. Relative life has just fuckin' *rocked* for me. In this incarnation and in several more that I have memories of. In some of them I was persecuted and literally tortured to death. Slowly. By people who were *getting off* on torturing me. These memories -- whatever they are and wherever they came from -- are part of my personal "memory bank," my recollection of my personal past. To me they feel just as "real" as memories of last week. But those incarnations rocked, too. I would not change one moment of any of them. If I did, I wouldn't be here the way I am now, and I kinda like here and the way I am now.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Self is just self capitalized
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Jason wrote: > > Try telling this to people caught in Nazi holocaust, Partition > riots, Khemer rouge genocide in Cambodia, Stalinist purge in > Soviet Union, Cancer patients, children suffering from > mal-nutrition in third world countries etc etc. > > Life is not exactly "cool" for them. eh.?? Actually, the teaching of every realized being in history is that life *is* cool for them. Coolness dependeth not on one's external circumstances. It dependeth only on how one perceives those external circumstances. As my man Bruce Cockburn once said: Little round planet In a big universe Sometimes it looks blessed Sometimes it looks cursed Depends on what you look at obviously But even more it depends on the way that you see I do not delude myself that I am 'way fortunate. I am the luckiest fuckin' human being I've ever met. I should have died dozens of times. Or wound up behind bars somewhere. I have systematically ignored the rules and "popular wisdom" presented to me *as* wisdome most of my life. And I have gotten away with it. I honestly do not know which is the chicken and which the egg in this scenario. Did I manage to ignore or break all the rules and have a smokin' life anyway because I dreamed it into existence by never imagining that there was any other way to live my life, or did the good fortune of my life just tempt me into thinking that the "rules" didn't apply to me? Beats the fuck outa me. All I know is that I have been phenomenally lucky. Others have not been so fortunate. One could go so far as to say that *most* have not been so fortunate. I feel for them. So did all of the spiritual teachers in history. That is probably why they taught using the *metaphors* and the *desires* of the less-than-fortunate. Find yourself preaching to an audience who believe that life is suffering -- because that is what they perceive their lives to have been -- and which metaphors are you going to pick to convey a way *past* suffering? Duh. I do not *fault* the Buddha for starting with "Life is suffering." Look at his demographic. It's just that lately I am more drawn to teachings that don't speak to that demographic. There are a few of us "out here" in the spiritual smorgasbord whose lives have *not* been perceived as suffering. They've been perceived as one fuckin' glorious E-ticket ride, in fact. For whatever reason, our lives rocked. They rock still. Every morning presents a new opportunity for additional rock-on-age. So the "life is suffering" metaphors don't *work* as well for me as they might for those who are suffering. I do not deny their suffering or the desire for a cessation of that suffering. It's just that -- for whatever reason -- I find it difficult to *feel* that desire for a cessation of suffering or a cessation of relative life itself. Relative life has just fuckin' *rocked* for me. In this incarnation and in several more that I have memories of. In some of them I was persecuted and literally tortured to death. Slowly. By people who were *getting off* on torturing me. These memories -- whatever they are and wherever they came from -- are part of my personal "memory bank," my recollection of my personal past. To me they feel just as "real" as memories of last week. But those incarnations rocked, too. I would not change one moment of any of them. If I did, I wouldn't be here the way I am now, and I kinda like here and the way I am now. > --- On Sat, 1/2/10, TurquoiseB wrote: > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Self is just self capitalized > Date: Saturday, January 2, 2010, 4:14 AM > > > Today's cafe rants are probably going to have a theme. > This theme was inspired by an old friend saying with a > straight face on another Internet forum that "exclusive > aim of human existence" is to "break free the from the > repetitive phenomenon of birth and death." > > On one level, I feel for this friend. I used to parrot > this crap myself once, and actually believed it. I now > look back on the being who believed that as incredibly > narcissistic and incredibly lazy and incredibly self- > serving. I too once preferred the silence of meditation > to the noise of the streets, and thus bought the "teach- > ings" of recluses who were so afraid of noise that they > withdrew into ashrams that the ultimate goal of life was > to eliminate life entirely. By withdrawing from life and > living the life of a recluse until one realizes enlight- > enment, and then ultimately by withdrawing from life > entirely so much so that it never happens again. All > that would be left is the silence. That was perceived > as the "goal." > > Some here perceive that as the goal still. I do not, and > in this particular cafe rap I'm going to rap a bit about > why. Caveat emptor. > > Much is said in traditional Eastern spirituality about > realization of the "Self." Capital "S." As opposed to > that awful lower-case "s" word, "self." But if you > analy
[FairfieldLife] Re: Self is just self capitalized
Try telling this to people caught in Nazi holocaust, Partition riots, Khemer rouge genocide in Cambodia, Stalinist purge in Soviet Union, Cancer patients, children suffering from mal-nutrition in third world countries etc etc. Life is not exactly "cool" for them. eh.?? --- On Sat, 1/2/10, TurquoiseB wrote: Subject: [FairfieldLife] Self is just self capitalized Date: Saturday, January 2, 2010, 4:14 AM Today's cafe rants are probably going to have a theme. This theme was inspired by an old friend saying with a straight face on another Internet forum that "exclusive aim of human existence" is to "break free the from the repetitive phenomenon of birth and death." On one level, I feel for this friend. I used to parrot this crap myself once, and actually believed it. I now look back on the being who believed that as incredibly narcissistic and incredibly lazy and incredibly self- serving. I too once preferred the silence of meditation to the noise of the streets, and thus bought the "teach- ings" of recluses who were so afraid of noise that they withdrew into ashrams that the ultimate goal of life was to eliminate life entirely. By withdrawing from life and living the life of a recluse until one realizes enlight- enment, and then ultimately by withdrawing from life entirely so much so that it never happens again. All that would be left is the silence. That was perceived as the "goal." Some here perceive that as the goal still. I do not, and in this particular cafe rap I'm going to rap a bit about why. Caveat emptor. Much is said in traditional Eastern spirituality about realization of the "Self." Capital "S." As opposed to that awful lower-case "s" word, "self." But if you analyze what most of the spiritual teachers you revere actually said, most of them were teaching that self and Self were exactly the same thing. Meditation -- meaning eyes-closed, withdraw-from- the- senses-and-the- world meditation -- is the *easy* path to realization of the Self. You shut everything out, and if you're lucky you manage to "transcend" the noise and experience silence. And you call that experience "Self." Capital "S." If you bought the dogma that the teachers revere taught you, you hope that someday this silence will be 24/7 and that you will experience it all the time. Nothing wrong with that, IMO. It's just the belief that self is something *different* than Self that I don't buy. Self is just self realizing what's really going on. And a self can do that as easily in activity as it can with eyes closed in meditation. If this were not true, then enlightenment could not exist. So why do so many *rag* on self, and talk about "eliminating the self," or "becoming Self," as if the latter somehow left self *behind* like a snake shedding its skin? That's not how I see things, or experienced them during my personal enlightenment experiences. I always saw -- and experienced -- enlightenment as an *additive* process, not a *subtractive* one. Perception of everything as silence with eyes closed in sitting meditation was not any different than perception of everything as silence in a traffic jam. My experience was always the "200% of life" that Maharishi talked about. And 200% was always perceived as more interesting than 100% -- on *either* side of the equation. That is, "24/7 samadhi in activity" tended to be more fun and more fulfilling not only than 100% lost in the relative with no samadhi, it *also* tended to be more fun and more fulfilling than 100% lost in samadhi, with eyes closed. So I find it difficult to comprehend why so many profess the latter as their "goal" in life. They claim to be working towards "200% of life," but the actual "goal" they speak of is to have the relative half of life GO AWAY, so that they are left with only the silence of samadhi. They wish to become the "drop merged with the ocean," Self with *no* self component. Seems to me that what they're hoping by believing this is that *after* having realized 200% of life by realizing their enlightenment, the *payoff* for this is reverting to 100% again. For all I know I may be the only person on this forum who thinks this is REEEALLY REEEALLY STOOOPID. But then I believe that that First Noble Truth indicates that Buddha was somewhat of a Wuss. "Life is suffering" as the basis of all of his teachings? Give me a fuckin' break. Life is cool. If the teachers we revere are really to be believed, relative existence is not only not "lesser" than the Absolute, it *is* the Absolute. "200% of life" is being able to realize and appreciate both simultaneously. And yet thousands if not millions strive for enlightenment *so that* they can theoretically eliminate one half of life. They set as the *goal* of their spiritual path "getting off the wheel," and ending incarnation entirely. They *look forward* to leaving 100% of the relative behind, *rejecting* the accomplishment of "200% of life," and becoming
