[FairfieldLife] Re: What Does The self Fear Most?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rory Goff" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" > > wrote: > > > > > > TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > I would never be so silly as to believe that there > > > > was such a thing as "one truth," let alone try to > > > > express it. I'll leave that to you... > > > > > > So, the "one truth" for you, Barry, is that it's silly > > > to believe that anyone else would have a "one truth" > > > let alone try to express it. > > > > Yes, I too was kind of laughing at how easily we can take an > > Eclectic Understanding and apply it in a Fundamentalist manner! :- ) > > I should point out that nowhere above do I suggest > that *Edg* shouldn't pursue his quest for "one > truth." No, you just call him "silly" for doing so.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What Does The self Fear Most?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rory Goff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" > wrote: > > > > TurquoiseB wrote: > > > I would never be so silly as to believe that there > > > was such a thing as "one truth," let alone try to > > > express it. I'll leave that to you... > > > > > So, the "one truth" for you, Barry, is that it's silly > > to believe that anyone else would have a "one truth" > > let alone try to express it. > > Yes, I too was kind of laughing at how easily we can take an Eclectic > Understanding and apply it in a Fundamentalist manner! :-) Barry has never quite gotten the concept of the infinite regress.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What Does The self Fear Most?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Sigh. > > It's going to be another one of those weeks, isn't it? > We were actually starting to have *fun* here on FFL > until the Bringdown Twins decided to lower things > to their level again. Poor Barry's ego. It suffers so. [snip]
[FairfieldLife] Re: What Does The self Fear Most?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rory Goff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" > wrote: > > > > TurquoiseB wrote: > > > I would never be so silly as to believe that there > > > was such a thing as "one truth," let alone try to > > > express it. I'll leave that to you... > > > > So, the "one truth" for you, Barry, is that it's silly > > to believe that anyone else would have a "one truth" > > let alone try to express it. > > Yes, I too was kind of laughing at how easily we can take an > Eclectic Understanding and apply it in a Fundamentalist manner! :-) I should point out that nowhere above do I suggest that *Edg* shouldn't pursue his quest for "one truth." He might be able to stumble on one, and might even be able to express it in such a way that it would be "grokable" by everyone. For me, given my beliefs, such an exercise *would* be silly. I've said as much here many times. And then Edg pretty much demanded that I do so anyway. He even qualified it by saying that it should be an "ultimate one truth." I declined. But I wait with 'bated breath to hear *his* "one truth." Or yours, Rory, should you wish to attempt one. Or anyone else who might wish to propose one. For all of you, such an exercise might *not* be silly. For me, it would be, so I won't be invited *or* badgered into it. That's all.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What Does The self Fear Most?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > TurquoiseB wrote: > > I would never be so silly as to believe that there > > was such a thing as "one truth," let alone try to > > express it. I'll leave that to you... > > > So, the "one truth" for you, Barry, is that it's silly > to believe that anyone else would have a "one truth" > let alone try to express it. Yes, I too was kind of laughing at how easily we can take an Eclectic Understanding and apply it in a Fundamentalist manner! :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: What Does The self Fear Most?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I would never be so silly as to believe that there > > > was such a thing as "one truth," let alone try to > > > express it. I'll leave that to you... > > > First, although [Bruce Cockburn] holds strong personal > beliefs (Christian beliefs), he never attempts to force > them on others or argue that others "hold a lower card" > by believing something else. Fortunately, Barry doesn't feel the need to emulate Cockburn in this last regard.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What Does The self Fear Most?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Sigh. > > It's going to be another one of those weeks, isn't it? > We were actually starting to have *fun* here on FFL > until the Bringdown Twins decided to lower things > to their level again. > > > I would never be so silly as to believe that there > > > was such a thing as "one truth," let alone try to > > > express it. I'll leave that to you... Right, Barry's the only one who gets to have fun by lowering things to his level, you see.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What Does The self Fear Most?
Sigh. It's going to be another one of those weeks, isn't it? We were actually starting to have *fun* here on FFL until the Bringdown Twins decided to lower things to their level again. Back in the trash bin with Flay-again. :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB > wrote: > > > > Edg, > > > > Happy that you got off on my rap enough to write > > all this, and happy that it made you happy to > > write it. But you're still selling, and I'm not > > a prospective buyer. I was just walking through > > the market digging all the sights and sounds and > > wandered past your booth. :-) > > > > I would never be so silly as to believe that there > > was such a thing as "one truth," let alone try to > > express it. I'll leave that to you... > > > > Unc > > I can conclude from your response to Edg and others > that there is only one truth and that remains for you > only the truths that you yourself have discovered. You can conclude anything you want. And, history indicates, probably will. :-) > You > are not beholden to the logic or experiences of others > when they are offered to you, although you could > potentially learn from them. That is correct. Neither are you, although you don't seem to have ever realized this. :-) > No, you will only choose that which you have > discovered and which you decide glorifies your own > self image. A good example are the Bruce Cockburn > quotes that you post from time to time. Safe bet, > because Bruce is a well known and "cool" musician, and > he has never chased you, asking you accept his stuff. > You gladly accept it, possibly because you wish to > emulate him. You do have a weakness for musicians I've > noticed. :-) There's music in the forest Children laugh in the school yard On the skid row of the spirit Hear the ranting of the Western Guard Why don't you cool out Can it be so hard to love yourself without thinking someone else holds a lower card -- Bruce Cockburn, 1977 One of the reasons I like Bruce Cockburn, and have for over 37 years now, is that he is fairly unique in the world of spiritual writers. First, although he holds strong personal beliefs (Christian beliefs), he never attempts to force them on others or argue that others "hold a lower card" by believing something else. Second, he's a helluva poet, a wordsmith who speaks to my heart. I love the ways in which he encapsulates complex ideas in simple words. And third, I like his credo. He has described his work as "journaling," merely keeping a record of the fine and wonderful places -- both inner and outer -- his life has taken him to, and through. He would *never* think of himself as some kind of "teacher," or his songs as containing some kind of "message" or "truth" for others. They are merely poetic sound-paintings of his travels through life as a spritual being, a set of footprints left behind to mark that life. He has spoken of this eloquently at religious conclaves at Calvin College and other forums. He doesn't hope that others will *follow* his footsteps -- exactly the opposite. He hopes instead that the song-records of *his* spiritual footprints will inspire others to value their *own* footprints through life, wherever that life may take them. That certainly seems to have been the effect of his work on my life. I'm *sorry* that you got up on the wrong side of the bed today, Jim. I'm *sorry* that you, as you put it, feel "beholden" to the "logic and experiences" of others. I'm *sorry* that you feel the need to argue the supremacy of your ideas. And, most of all, I'm *sorry* that you don't seem to have many footsteps of your *own* to celebrate here, and have to spend so much time trying to elevate the footsteps of others that you feel "beholden" to. It must make it very difficult to be you, and thus I can have compassion for you when you start acting like Willytex. But I don't have to interact with you when you get like this. I'm not "beholden" to you or to anyone else. I make my *own* footprints, and mine are leading away from you.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What Does The self Fear Most?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Edg, > > Happy that you got off on my rap enough to write > all this, and happy that it made you happy to > write it. But you're still selling, and I'm not > a prospective buyer. I was just walking through > the market digging all the sights and sounds and > wandered past your booth. :-) > > I would never be so silly as to believe that there > was such a thing as "one truth," let alone try to > express it. I'll leave that to you... > > Unc > I can conclude from your response to Edg and others that there is only one truth and that remains for you only the truths that you yourself have discovered. You are not beholden to the logic or experiences of others when they are offered to you, although you could potentially learn from them. No, you will only choose that which you have discovered and which you decide glorifies your own self image. A good example are the Bruce Cockburn quotes that you post from time to time. Safe bet, because Bruce is a well known and "cool" musician, and he has never chased you, asking you accept his stuff. You gladly accept it, possibly because you wish to emulate him. You do have a weakness for musicians I've noticed. I have noticed also that you often reply emotionally when someone attempts to get a logical response from you, including the silent emotional response of no response at all. Again, there is not an attempt at common understanding. It instead becomes a silly ego challenge, which you then define in your own terms, in order to "win". And "win" you do, at least in your own mind. Because after all, anything offered from others is clearly understood as inferior, such as Edg's prolonged posting to you. Something you can sneer at and find ways to describe why you don't belong, aren't buying it, categorize, categorize, categorize. And when I peel away all the multifaceted ways in which you play, avoid and evade, I see someone emotionally fragile, and often lonely, who wants to join in but is desperately afraid to let down his guard. Putting on one mask or another, and all the while silently and loudly declaring If I Didn't Invent It Or Embrace It On My Own, I Reject It. You play with a lot of masks, and yet they are all easy to see through. So I suppose that leaves you with a choice- keep on starving your heart and hiding in the towers of your mind, making up the stories about why this and why that, drawing from books the imprecise categories in which to put other's words, or just forget about all of that transparent stuff, let go, and be truly free. Your choice, but don't say I didn't warn you. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: What Does The self Fear Most?
A couple of comments below... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Judy, > > We agree. I use "sin" merely as a poetic term for "you're screwed, dude." > > If the Absolute "level" is ignored, then one is, as if, committing > suicide -- Ramana has definitely used the word "suicide" for this > identification -- exclusively -- with amness/isness, since it "kills" > the Self by misdirection. So, I feel like "sin" is poetically close > enough for "un-enlightenment." > > Turq espouses amness is the Self, but if that concept is in actuality > not one's living mindful experience (hopefully it is for Turq) and if > that concept is merely dogma-believed, then calling amness the Self is > egoic delusion-attachment despite it being a true statement. > > Until the Absolute is realized, the ego will indeed be evolving > towards realization via the yagyas of normal life, and the ego will be > found to say, "I'm evolving towards realizing the Absolute." But, > though it is a correct statement, the ego can never reach the Absolute > nor "see it" in order to target it, nor do anything at all but yet > seemingly be sentient nonetheless. > > It can be discovered that the sentience behind ego resides solely in > the Absolute, but only by a neti-neti-neti process whereby one finally > says, "I've sought every WHERE, and none of this is the Absolute, and > none of this is sentient, including the ego that is presently thinking > it is sentient, and since only the Absolute remains unsearched, well, > that's where real sentience must abide." That's amness being > indirectly aware of the Absolute by a concluding process, not an > experience of the Absolute which cannot be any quality ever. > > I think Maharishi Mahesh Yogi is on record as saying that the purpose > of creation (amness) is the expansion of happiness. I'm comfortable > with that as the primal intent of amness, but the connection between > the Absolute and the arising of that primal intent to manifest can > only be realized -- not understood via mechanical sense of being able > to trace back to the source of amness -- Brahma failed the lotus stalk > test after all. > > The mind-you cannot get there. Absolute-you cannot be anywhere else. > If the mind is processing "looking for me," only the Absolute can be > found, but only by the mind ceasing to exist for a moment. If the > mind is looking for anything else, only amness can be found. The > mantra is sought by the mind, so it is followed to amness, but inside > amness, no mantra and no mind can be found, and thus no "leading to > the Absolute" can happen. This, I really don't follow at all. First you say the Absolute can be found only by the mind ceasing to exist; then you say when the mind ceases to exist at the end of the mantra trail, there can be no finding of the Absolute. Huh?? > See Message #133187 for my tale of a geranium. > > http://tinyurl.com/2jn8yt > > I think Turq views every speck of life as being as valuable as that > geranium. An atheist appreciating life as sacred, go figure. I think > Turq is an angel -- deeply addicted to amness' offers. Just like me. '-) > > Judy, your reply will very interesting to me, since I think you've > "got it" when it comes to using movement nomenclature. Perhaps a > dictionary written by us can be a bridge between our worlds. Oy, I'm not sure I'm up to the challenge. Let me ask you something, though. Where do you (if you do) fit Brahman into your scheme?
[FairfieldLife] Re: What Does The self Fear Most?
Judy, We agree. I use "sin" merely as a poetic term for "you're screwed, dude." If the Absolute "level" is ignored, then one is, as if, committing suicide -- Ramana has definitely used the word "suicide" for this identification -- exclusively -- with amness/isness, since it "kills" the Self by misdirection. So, I feel like "sin" is poetically close enough for "un-enlightenment." Turq espouses amness is the Self, but if that concept is in actuality not one's living mindful experience (hopefully it is for Turq) and if that concept is merely dogma-believed, then calling amness the Self is egoic delusion-attachment despite it being a true statement. Until the Absolute is realized, the ego will indeed be evolving towards realization via the yagyas of normal life, and the ego will be found to say, "I'm evolving towards realizing the Absolute." But, though it is a correct statement, the ego can never reach the Absolute nor "see it" in order to target it, nor do anything at all but yet seemingly be sentient nonetheless. It can be discovered that the sentience behind ego resides solely in the Absolute, but only by a neti-neti-neti process whereby one finally says, "I've sought every WHERE, and none of this is the Absolute, and none of this is sentient, including the ego that is presently thinking it is sentient, and since only the Absolute remains unsearched, well, that's where real sentience must abide." That's amness being indirectly aware of the Absolute by a concluding process, not an experience of the Absolute which cannot be any quality ever. I think Maharishi Mahesh Yogi is on record as saying that the purpose of creation (amness) is the expansion of happiness. I'm comfortable with that as the primal intent of amness, but the connection between the Absolute and the arising of that primal intent to manifest can only be realized -- not understood via mechanical sense of being able to trace back to the source of amness -- Brahma failed the lotus stalk test after all. The mind-you cannot get there. Absolute-you cannot be anywhere else. If the mind is processing "looking for me," only the Absolute can be found, but only by the mind ceasing to exist for a moment. If the mind is looking for anything else, only amness can be found. The mantra is sought by the mind, so it is followed to amness, but inside amness, no mantra and no mind can be found, and thus no "leading to the Absolute" can happen. See Message #133187 for my tale of a geranium. http://tinyurl.com/2jn8yt I think Turq views every speck of life as being as valuable as that geranium. An atheist appreciating life as sacred, go figure. I think Turq is an angel -- deeply addicted to amness' offers. Just like me. '-) Judy, your reply will very interesting to me, since I think you've "got it" when it comes to using movement nomenclature. Perhaps a dictionary written by us can be a bridge between our worlds. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > Ok, here is the point that's intrigued me. I fully > > admit to having read very little Advaita, where these > > ideas seem to be coming from. I walked away from TM > > and having much of an interest in the Hindu-based > > philosophies 25 years ago, and wandered down paths > > more frequented by Buddhists. > > > > So when I first encountered, a few days ago, your use > > of the term "primal identification," and, even more > > shocking (to me), "sin" used with regard to manifestation, > > it kinda threw me for a loop. I must admit to having > > NEVER entertained such a concept as "sin" with regard > > to the manifest universe. > > I'd love to know where the notion that Advaita views > manifestation as "sin" came from. I've never > encountered that idea in any of the material I've > read on Advaita, and certainly not from Maharishi. > > If there is "sin," as I understand it, it's in > having "forgotten" one's unmanifest nature. > > Then there's this, two responses MMY has given (at > different times) to the question, "Why did the > Absolute manifest?" > > (1) Perhaps for the sake of variety? > > (2) It didn't. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: What Does The self Fear Most?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ok, here is the point that's intrigued me. I fully > admit to having read very little Advaita, where these > ideas seem to be coming from. I walked away from TM > and having much of an interest in the Hindu-based > philosophies 25 years ago, and wandered down paths > more frequented by Buddhists. > > So when I first encountered, a few days ago, your use > of the term "primal identification," and, even more > shocking (to me), "sin" used with regard to manifestation, > it kinda threw me for a loop. I must admit to having > NEVER entertained such a concept as "sin" with regard > to the manifest universe. I'd love to know where the notion that Advaita views manifestation as "sin" came from. I've never encountered that idea in any of the material I've read on Advaita, and certainly not from Maharishi. If there is "sin," as I understand it, it's in having "forgotten" one's unmanifest nature. Then there's this, two responses MMY has given (at different times) to the question, "Why did the Absolute manifest?" (1) Perhaps for the sake of variety? (2) It didn't.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What Does The self Fear Most?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Edg, > > Happy that you got off on my rap enough to write > all this, and happy that it made you happy to > write it. But you're still selling, and I'm not > a prospective buyer. I was just walking through > the market digging all the sights and sounds and > wandered past your booth. :-) > > I would never be so silly as to believe that there > was such a thing as "one truth," let alone try to > express it. I'll leave that to you... > > Unc > You're all heart.:-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: What Does The self Fear Most?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Turq, excellent points (below) and I feel that both Edg and you
> are both following Basho's point of seeking what the "men of old"
> sought.
>
> What makes both Ramana Maharshi and Nisargadatta different (IMO)
> from other teachers, Maharishi included, is that they both
> emphasize the seeker's own immediacy and self-sufficiency in
> sadhana as opposed to intermediaries (either by technique,
> teacher, or ritual). Essentially they both say "you've got
> two good legs right underneath you; now walk over in that
> direction and you'll find what you'll find", whereas
> other teachings (just to arbitrarily over-generalize)
> emphasize the "follow me and walk this way" approach,
> ("mind the thornbushes over there; nice view right about
> here, etc.").
I completely agree. I like that about both of these
guys a great deal, and I also like the tendency to
*not* see the seeker as someone who is "broken" and
who needs to be "fixed" to realize their enlighten-
ment. That had an *immediate* resonance for me when
I first encountered their thinking; I had far more
resonance for it than I'd had for the I-spiritual-
teacher-you-peon-do-what-I-say-and-follow-me model.
> It's my feeling, congruent with whatever experience I've
> had, that either approach *does* lead to the same place
> (as Doctor Bronner says, "All One") but I'm not really
> concerned whether or not that's true or real or universal,
> and I'm certainly not concerned in convincing anyone of
> that either.
Gotta agree there. If they don't lead to the same
place, they lead to two somewheres that look enough
alike so that travelers who have gone there can
talk about their respective experiences over a beer
or two and understand each other.
> Similarly, it doesn't seem to me that you and Edg are on
> different sides of the issue; or if you are, it's the two
> sides of the same coin.
Yup. And in my case, the coin is still in mid-flip.
I don't see it as coming down on *any* side of the
coin anytime soon, at least not soon enough to
settle any side bets made on "heads or tails." :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: What Does The self Fear Most?
Turq, excellent points (below) and I feel that both Edg and you are
both following Basho's point of seeking what the "men of old" sought.
What makes both Ramana Maharshi and Nisargadatta different (IMO) from
other teachers, Maharishi included, is that they both emphasize the
seeker's own immediacy and self-sufficiency in sadhana as opposed to
intermediaries (either by technique, teacher, or ritual). Essentially
they both say "you've got two good legs right underneath you; now walk
over in that direction and you'll find what you'll find", whereas
other teachings (just to arbitrarily over-generalize) emphasize the
"follow me and walk this way" approach, ("mind the thornbushes over
there; nice view right about here, etc.").
It's my feeling, congruent with whatever experience I've had, that
either approach *does* lead to the same place (as Doctor Bronner says,
"All One") but I'm not really concerned whether or not that's true or
real or universal, and I'm certainly not concerned in convincing
anyone of that either. Similarly, it doesn't seem to me that you and
Edg are on different sides of the issue; or if you are, it's the two
sides of the same coin.
The great majority of folks who post on FFL (and I suspect those who
lurk here, as well), are Westerners who, despite our stints as
disciples in the Eastern tradition, are just too steeped in the
Western *ideals* of individualism and eclecticism to remain lockstep
followers of any teaching or teacher forever, even though we may have
developed a lasting taste for Indian food and/or Hindu Gods. That's
neither a good thing or a bad thing; just is what it is. For whatever
reason we were tinderbox-dry proto-seekers when we first heard of
Maharishi or Yogananda or Krishnamurti or meditation or yoga or
whatever the spark was that ignited the wildfire of interest in and
dedication to the idea of self-realization that we all succumbed to in
our youth.
This phase of the world meditation movement, however, strikes me as
being far more interesting (and substantial) than the heady time of
World Plans and Merv Griffin mass initiations. There are so many
people living in the world right now, going about their everyday
lives, who have been lastingly infected with not only the *idea* of
self-realization, but actually have had first-hand experience with
techniques that, at the very least, facilitate self-inquiry and
self-exploration. Regardless of how long or how well they meditated,
millions and tens of millions of people have purposefully sat down,
closed their eyes, and looked into the self at some point in their
lives. That's just way cool. And important, too, or so I feel.
Really appreciate the dialoque, thanks.
**
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Just to finish up from last week, just for the fun
> of playing with ideas, *not* to argue or claim the
> "rightness" or "superiority" of those ideas or
> anything like that. The "short version" is:
>
> Thanks but no thanks on Ramana, Edg. I've read him
> before, and there was no strong resonance for me
> there. For one reason, I'm more into saturating my
> self with its *own* ideas (poor as they may be)
> these days than with other people's, and second
> because I honestly believe that most Advaita I have
> read's ideas are based on an unchallenged basic
> assumption that, in my opinion, renders anything
> based upon that assumption suspect. But thanks for
> the suggestion, and for the fervor of your post.
>
> Longer version below, just for fun...
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung wrote:
> >
> > Turq,
> >
> > I wish I had the writing skills to do what I want to do in
> > this post.
> >
> > But, NO ONE has such skills.
>
> I'm not convinced it's even *about* writing skills.
>
> > All the scriptures of the world were written by the smartest
> > folks possible...
>
> That's an issue on which we shall have to agree to
> disagree. I find that many of them were written by
> uptight, life-averse recluses who wanted to convince
> others to live just like them, terrified of the world
> in which they dwelled. :-)
>
> > ...and none of them ever produced anything in text that would,
> > you know, pick one's soul up like a crying toddler and, just
> > with a whisper or two to the intellect, free one FOREVER.
>
> I would go so far as to say that the same is true of
> spiritual teachers. IMO not one of them in history has
> ever had that power, or that effect. Realization
> happens on its own, and those to whom it happens may
> *attribute* it to the particular spiritual teacher
> they work with, but I'm not convinced it happens that
> way. It's like the olde Indian metaphor of the crow
> and the coconut. The crow lands on a branch of the
> palm tree and a coconut falls from another branch
> of the same tree. Is there a cause-and-effect
> relationship between the two events? Well, the answer
> is "not necessarily." There is
[FairfieldLife] Re: What Does The self Fear Most?
Just to finish up from last week, just for the fun of playing with ideas, *not* to argue or claim the "rightness" or "superiority" of those ideas or anything like that. The "short version" is: Thanks but no thanks on Ramana, Edg. I've read him before, and there was no strong resonance for me there. For one reason, I'm more into saturating my self with its *own* ideas (poor as they may be) these days than with other people's, and second because I honestly believe that most Advaita I have read's ideas are based on an unchallenged basic assumption that, in my opinion, renders anything based upon that assumption suspect. But thanks for the suggestion, and for the fervor of your post. Longer version below, just for fun... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Turq, > > I wish I had the writing skills to do what I want to do in > this post. > > But, NO ONE has such skills. I'm not convinced it's even *about* writing skills. > All the scriptures of the world were written by the smartest > folks possible... That's an issue on which we shall have to agree to disagree. I find that many of them were written by uptight, life-averse recluses who wanted to convince others to live just like them, terrified of the world in which they dwelled. :-) > ...and none of them ever produced anything in text that would, > you know, pick one's soul up like a crying toddler and, just > with a whisper or two to the intellect, free one FOREVER. I would go so far as to say that the same is true of spiritual teachers. IMO not one of them in history has ever had that power, or that effect. Realization happens on its own, and those to whom it happens may *attribute* it to the particular spiritual teacher they work with, but I'm not convinced it happens that way. It's like the olde Indian metaphor of the crow and the coconut. The crow lands on a branch of the palm tree and a coconut falls from another branch of the same tree. Is there a cause-and-effect relationship between the two events? Well, the answer is "not necessarily." There is, for you, if you imagine one. But that doesn't mean that one ever existed on any objective level. > Not that they didn't try. Not that scholars were duffers. Here again we must agree to disagree. Some of them *were* duffers IMO. The guy who wrote Ecclesiastes certainly seems to have been sorely in need of antidepressants. :-) You may begin to suspect that I have very little de facto respect for what others call "scriptures." You would be correct in this suspicion. I don't care *who* wrote it, or how many people on the planet consider it scripture or valuable spiritual teaching. Either it "speaks" to me or it does not. End of story. If it does, cool. If it does not, the "scripture" has no value for me whatsoever, except possibly as entertainment. > I believe in saturation now -- a simple running of concepts > over and over again is found to breed, grow, do-whatever-is- > needed, for a brain to finally have what it PHYSICALLY takes > to have the clarity about identification that I believe I have. With all due respect, it seems that the overall message of this post is that you run the *same* concepts over and over again, concepts (as I suggested earlier) that are based on acceptance of a Creation myth that postulates that there was once a time when the Absolute was not manifest. I was merely trying to suggest another concept, that this is NOT a given. If one takes that "given" away, then from my perspective the whole idea of "primal iden- tification" is meaningless, because there has never been a moment in the history of the universe that one could deem "primal." I still feel that way. Reading a buncha Ramana or Nisarg- adatta ain't gonna change that for me, if they assume that there *was* such a "primal" moment. For me, right now, the notion of an eternal universe, one that has never seen a moment in which the relative aspect of creation was not manifest has an intuitive resonance. It "feels" correct. Therefore any idea that is *dependent* on the notion of a "standalone" Absolute, one that has no manifest side, is rather suspect. I *understand* that many, if not most, people might have a bit of a problem conceiving of an eternal universe, one that never began and will never end. Humans tend to anthropomorphize. They have a hard time with the concept of eternity. Because *they* have a beginning (birth) and an end (death), they tend to project that outwards at the manifest universe, imagining *it* to have a birth and a death as well. This anthropomorphizing is reinforced, of course, by the Creation myths of most religions, almost all of which contain a verse that starts with, "In the beginning..." All I'm suggesting is that a *great deal* of philosophy and religion is based upon accepting Creation myths -- and the notion of Creation itself -- as a given. If you do not, all of the sub-philosophies t
[FairfieldLife] Re: What Does The self Fear Most?
> > I wonder if Barry read the Buddha's > > first sermon. Go figure. > > Peter wrote: > Yeah, that Barry is a real spiritual 'tard! > Turq wrote: "Buddhism -- all the good stuff about meditation, but without all that God stuff." http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/139679
[FairfieldLife] Re: What Does The self Fear Most?
Comment below: ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Turq, > > I wish I had the writing skills to do what I want to do in this post. > > But, NO ONE has such skills. > > All the scriptures of the world were written by the smartest folks > possible, and none of them ever produced anything in text that would, > you know, pick one's soul up like a crying toddler and, just with a > whisper or two to the intellect, free one FOREVER. > > Not that they didn't try. Not that scholars were duffers. The best > minds tried. Minds that are so stellar. Minds way beyond my ken. > All have failed to produce a book that "gets you there in one reading." > > I believe in saturation now -- a simple running of concepts over and > over again is found to breed, grow, do-whatever-is-needed, for a brain > to finally have what it PHYSICALLY takes to have the clarity about > identification that I believe I have. I'm not talking about me being > enlightened and having pure-knowledge to hand down from on high. I'm > not talking about having passed an IQ test. I am not touting > superiority, but as I've pointed out, NO ONE can claim to "have the > words that cut to the chase." I wish I could say words with that > transformative power, but NO ONE has ever been able to "say THAT," and > be successful. > > Like everyone here, I am a very long time thinker, but I didn't get > what I'm trying to communicate about identification after decades of > spiritual, intellectual, moral, physical and financial commitment to > this "work." Flat out didn't get it. > > You'd think I would have gotten it. Should have. Didn't. 29 years > in the chair, 2,000 pujas, lifestyle dedication . nada. > > What happened, methinks, is that my whole spirituality was spread out > over many issues. Most of my time was spent on many things instead of > the "one truth." On my third reading of Ramana Maharshi's "Talks," > something clicked. It took that long And if you've read "Talks," > you know that at first it comes off as Ramana saying the exact same > thing to everyone all the time. But I didn't even hear what he was > saying for the first two readings. It's there plain as day in his > words, but I didn't have the brain to read them properly. Simple as that. > > I've tried to communicate this here, but I've failed miserably -- or, > better said, I've discovered yet again, gotten clear about it yet > again, that the intellect is a very weak tool when it comes to > "informing" a mind -- better said: growing a mind. > > Saturation. Priceless. > > Child psychology teaches that certain cognitions are not available to > a child until the brain has grown "enough" to "get it." A child's > brain will grab at a paper doll instead of a $100 bill, believe that a > tall skinny glass has more water than a shorter but much larger glass, > not be able to pick a square out from amongst circles, etc. > > Not so hard to think that maybe an adult has to grow a brain that can > tell the difference between silence and noise. > > It's not hypnosis, not brainwashing, not delusion -- saturation is > merely "watering the mind" until a clarity flower grows. > > Remember when we were first told that "life is bliss," "you can > contact God," "one can achieve a thoughtless state," "dreams are > astral traveling," "Guru Dev is divine," or any of the thousand others > "cult statements" we've all had to encounter "for the first time?" We > didn't know what the words meant -- not like we know now, right? > > We all had to grow neuron-connectivity in order to PHYSICALLY EMBODY > what we actually meant when we said these phrases to ourselves and > others. The bones had to be fleshed out. Neurons had to grow to form > a faithful "reproduction of the outside" inside. > > No one, upon first hearing that "life is bliss" could be expected to > instantly know all the ramifications of believing such a statement. > In fact, the belief itself must be grown first, then "tried out" again > and again to see what really is "going on" when one has the brain > produce such activities. It takes thousands of iterations before one > can "feel the heft of the belief" inside one's mind. > > From age 25 to 59, I was your typical geekazoid, couch potato, no > exercise, weakling. Oh, I could get the groceries into the house, > pick up the kids in my arms, pretend to be Superman to toddlers, and I > was thinking "I'm okay. Yeah, I could do a bit more, but I'm not in > "bad" shape." > > But I was a joke. > > Now, after three years of vigorous exercise daily for 30 minutes, I'm > in shape. And like the heft of a saturation born process, my muscles > "hang heavily" from my shoulders. Three years it took, but now I can > just feel the strength and power draping my bones. First time in my > life feeling of fitness. Did me wonders psychologically. > > That's what I'm talking about when I s
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What Does The self Fear Most?
--- "Richard J. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > TurquoiseB wrote: > > It seems to me that the concept of relative > creation > > being separate from the Absolute, or existing in > some > > kind of "fallen" state as the "sin of > manifestation" > > is based on having *started* one's philosophical > > ponderings by accepting as a given an assumption. > > > That the world is characterized by suffering, a > fallen > state, is a basic fundamental Buddhist concept. It > is > mentioned by the historical Buddha in the Four Noble > > Truths. I wonder what kind of Buddhist philosophy > Barry > has been reading all these years. For a fact he read > 'Surfing the Himalayas' by the Zen Master Rama, > because > he admitted it. But I wonder if Barry read the > Buddha's > first sermon. Go figure. Yeah, that Barry is a real spiritual 'tard! > > > > To subscribe, send a message to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Or go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ > and click 'Join This Group!' > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story. Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games. http://sims.yahoo.com/
[FairfieldLife] Re: What Does The self Fear Most?
TurquoiseB wrote: > It seems to me that the concept of relative creation > being separate from the Absolute, or existing in some > kind of "fallen" state as the "sin of manifestation" > is based on having *started* one's philosophical > ponderings by accepting as a given an assumption. > That the world is characterized by suffering, a fallen state, is a basic fundamental Buddhist concept. It is mentioned by the historical Buddha in the Four Noble Truths. I wonder what kind of Buddhist philosophy Barry has been reading all these years. For a fact he read 'Surfing the Himalayas' by the Zen Master Rama, because he admitted it. But I wonder if Barry read the Buddha's first sermon. Go figure.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What Does The self Fear Most?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Turq, > > I wish I had the writing skills to do what I want to do in this post. > > But, NO ONE has such skills. > > All the scriptures of the world were written by the smartest folks > possible, and none of them ever produced anything in text that would, > you know, pick one's soul up like a crying toddler and, just with a > whisper or two to the intellect, free one FOREVER. That's prolly impossible, even theoretically, cuz what ya hafta "challenge", is /maayaa/ by /brahma/, janmaadyasya yataH! :D
[FairfieldLife] Re: What Does The self Fear Most?
Edg, I've been thinking about this "primal identification" thang that you mentioned earlier, and have decided to spend my last post of the week pondering it further. I won't be able to follow up on any ideas you have to offer on this subject until Saturday, but hopefully you'll have some, and without the pressure of dogs who want to be walked gnawing at my ankles, maybe I'll be able to do more justice to answering some of your questions then. :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung 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. I'm still in the 'No' camp, and will attempt to explain why below. > > 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. > > . . . > > To me, enlightenment is "not identifying." Period. The > > least identification is having both feet on the slippery > > slope. > > > > 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. Ok, here is the point that's intrigued me. I fully admit to having read very little Advaita, where these ideas seem to be coming from. I walked away from TM and having much of an interest in the Hindu-based philosophies 25 years ago, and wandered down paths more frequented by Buddhists. So when I first encountered, a few days ago, your use of the term "primal identification," and, even more shocking (to me), "sin" used with regard to manifestation, it kinda threw me for a loop. I must admit to having NEVER entertained such a concept as "sin" with regard to the manifest universe. It struck me at the time as something more appropriate to Western traditions, such as the ones that sprung from the Bible. They tend to see manifest creation as being, almost by definition, in a "fallen" state, as existing somehow "apart" from Godhead or the Absolute or whatever you wish to call it. And with your use of the terms "primal identification" and "sin of mani- featation," I started to get the feeling that you regarded relative creation the same way. So here's my rap...it may not be a very good rap, but here it is anyway. :-) It seems to me that the concept of relative creation being separate from the Absolute, or existing in some kind of "fallen" state as the "sin of manifestation" is based on having *started* one's philosophical ponderings by accepting as a given an assumption. This unchallenged assumption then defines almost everything that follows. The assumption is that there was a Creation, a moment in time when the universe became manifest. I do not accept that. My intuition tells me that the Buddhists are more "onto" the reality of the situation by positing an *eternal* universe, one that was NEVER created -- it has been both Absolute and manifest in the past, it is both Absolute and manifest now, and it will always be Absolute and manifest, simultaneously, forever. There has never been a moment in which the universe was *not* expressed in manifestation, and there will never *be* a moment in which the universe is not expressed in manifestation. What we see around us today is the way it has always been and the way it will always be. There was never a "Big Bang," (except as a minor pimple eruption on the face of a far larger, eternal universe), and there will never be a final dissolution of the universe back into non-manifestation. Do you begin to see how someone who believes this (whether or not it is "true") might not be so prone to look at the manifest universe as "fallen," as in any way "lesser than" a postulated pure Absolute, with no manifest aspect to It? The whole question of "primal identification" becomes meaningless, because there is no moment that wes ever "primal." There is no question of "fallen," because there was never a moment in which the universe "fell" from pure, unmanifest Absolute to an "impure" Absolute/ manifest pair. "They" have always been One. Therefore the idea of the "sin of manifestation" is, for me, ludicrous. It's looking at an eternal universe and saying, "Y'know dude, you're great and all, but I liked you better when you were just One instead of One Plus Many." That makse sense only if you believe
[FairfieldLife] Re: What Does The self Fear Most?
http://tinyurl.com/2j3yaf The above might be a good analog for all of us ego lovers. Here's a guy who LITERALLY has a handle on four "other" selves. Not that there's anything wrong with that.. (Seinfeld) Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "martyboi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Barry's ego puts on a show of pretending that it has a handle on itself. > > > > > Good insight, but I would question if Barry's ego is the only ego > doing this? Seems to be lots of it going around. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: What Does The self Fear Most?
http://tinyurl.com/2j3yaf The above might be a good analog for all of us ego lovers. Here's a guy who LITERALLY has a handle on four "other" selves. Not that there's anything wrong with that.. (Seinfeld) Click on the "Christopher.wmv" link. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "martyboi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Barry's ego puts on a show of pretending that it has a handle on itself. > > > > > Good insight, but I would question if Barry's ego is the only ego > doing this? Seems to be lots of it going around. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: What Does The self Fear Most?
> Barry's ego puts on a show of pretending that it has a handle on itself. > Good insight, but I would question if Barry's ego is the only ego doing this? Seems to be lots of it going around.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What Does The self Fear Most?
--- Robert Gimbel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What does the self fear Most?- > The small self, or egoic self, fears most, it's own > death. > It's own death arrives, at the moment the intellect > decides to give up > trying to figure it all out, and becomes > 'Transclucent'. > Therefore, the small self, ego, dies, to itself, it > no longer exists. > Poof, like it never really existed in the first > place. > In it's place is the awareness that replaces the > ego. > So, the ego is no longer identified, or empowered or > even consulted. > It's the death of the ego. > When Jesus said, something about being born again: > I believe he was making this point, of transcending > the ego. > So, you can see, that transcending the ego, has > never been a small or > an easy thing, through time. > But, now, things are changing, changing, it seems. I would only add that giving-up trying to figure it out is only a first step, for many, in the dissolution of the ego. Once the intellect is not used to defend and position the ego there is still a very deep and foundational identification of pure consciousness called the Ahamkara or I-thought. This is the foundation of avidya or ignorance. It is the experiential sense of individuality. This individuality as is a delusion of the greatest magnitude. It is an artifact of the projection and identification of pure consciousness with space/time boundaries. > > > > > > To subscribe, send a message to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Or go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ > and click 'Join This Group!' > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search that gives answers, not web links. http://mobile.yahoo.com/mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC
[FairfieldLife] Re: What Does The self Fear Most?
What does the self fear Most?- The small self, or egoic self, fears most, it's own death. It's own death arrives, at the moment the intellect decides to give up trying to figure it all out, and becomes 'Transclucent'. Therefore, the small self, ego, dies, to itself, it no longer exists. Poof, like it never really existed in the first place. In it's place is the awareness that replaces the ego. So, the ego is no longer identified, or empowered or even consulted. It's the death of the ego. When Jesus said, something about being born again: I believe he was making this point, of transcending the ego. So, you can see, that transcending the ego, has never been a small or an easy thing, through time. But, now, things are changing, changing, it seems.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What Does The self Fear Most?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "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 > on
[FairfieldLife] Re: What Does The self Fear Most?
--- 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. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: What Does The self Fear Most?
Turq, Would you agree that, for you, the word "identification" has the same definition as "attachment?" That's my stance. 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. To me it is always about "what is awareness awaring?" That's a spotlighting process, 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!) To me, enlightenment is "not identifying." Period. The least identification is having both feet on the slippery slope. 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. 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 you've been saying that the "200% fullness" concept is part of your dogma -- 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, so it seems you've got a very strongly held stance, which, to me, means that probably you've looked at this identification concept deeply. Have you? Have you pushed life through such a filter and seen if it is really all about ending identification -- not ending or starting any action? 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. Edg PS See my posts, #140009 and 140633, for more about this. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "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 fo
[FairfieldLife] Re: What Does The self Fear Most?
TurquoiseB wrote: > 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
[FairfieldLife] Re: What Does The self Fear Most?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
[FairfieldLife] Re: What Does The self Fear Most?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Being forgotten. > > It fears oblivion. > > IMO, it's not even that the self fears death > itself. Most selves have caught a clue and have > realized that they're gonna die, and have come > to some sense of comfort with that fact. But > what the self fears is that it'll be completely > forgotten when it dies, as if its life had made > no difference whatsoever to the other lives it > touched. It's afraid that *when* it dies, the > following conversation is going to take place: > > "Hey, didja hear that such-and-such-self died?" > "Who? How's about them Red Sox, eh? Didn't they > just kick ass in the game last night?" > > And it will. > > The self aspires to be Ozymandius, King Of Kings. > It wants those selves left behind to gaze upon > its works and despair. Or applaud. Whatever. But > it really, really, really, *really* wants to be > remembered, paid attention to. Because as long > as it can get others to pay attention to it, the > self can convince itself that it exists. > > The thing is, it doesn't exist. > > Sit to meditate and forget the self, and there > is only Self. > > Die, drop this silly bunch of muscles and sinew > and bones and brain cells, and there is only Self. > > The thing that the self fears most is being > forgotten. And strangely enough, one cannot begin > to truly appreciate the Self until one forgets the > self. > > The more that the self tries to be remembered, to > establish itself as important, memorable, someone > who "made a difference," a hero, someone who worked > with the "highest teacher," a serious spiritual > seeker, a warrior who fought against untruth and > injustice -- WHATEVER the fantasy that the self > has concocted in an attempt to gain attention and > drive away the fear that no one will pay attention > to it and thus confirm its existence -- it will die, > and it will be forgotten. > > Beat the motherfucker to the punch. Sit to meditate > and forget the self before all the other selves around > you have a chance to. Let the self fade away and > laugh as it goes. And then, when someone reacts to > the death of the self with a hearty, "Who?," it'll > be the Self laughing. How's about them Red Sox, eh? 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.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What Does The self Fear Most?
Turq, Well aren't we just a little busy bee lately. Good form, good concepts, glad your small self is getting its clap on. I was surprised that you used the bardo concept -- er, do you believe that the "astral/causal body" actually can exist without a "living" physical nervous system? If so, do you believe that such a 2/3rds existence allows for evolution? It seems the TM dogma would allow for evolution after death but only rarely. I think I heard that Guru Dev had to die in order to evolve to the "sixteenth calla" or something like that, but that might have been his last in-the-body action, not an after life action. Why am I not clear about this when I was a true believer for decades -- see? -- the TM movement never cared for an educated "work force." Ramana Maharishi talks about the afterlife, reincarnation, etc., but for the most part, he didn't dwell upon such possibilities, since it's all small self stuff. I don't even think Ramana was all that hepped up to try all that hard to get the small selves coming to him to freedom -- he just operated like a dictionary -- people could look up the true meanings life's words in him, but he wasn't urgent about everyone reading him. More like, "Well, if you must know, yes, it's possible to greatly reduce suffering while in the body, but even a perfect life is not worth attachment." Maharishi Mahesh Yogi agreed and said that angels want to evolve beyond their status, but they're cul-de-sacally as close to the godhead as possible without dissolving individuality, so they have to get a human body/mind to get to unity. I guess being on the right hand of the Throne is just as stifling as being, well, merely on the throne that's in a small room in my home. My jury's out on this afterlife thingy. My ego sure loves the idea, but, as a homonunculus-philosopher-in-my-own-mind, my ego holds that it would be wrong to live a life based on a tarbaby fantasy and be so unwilling to face the oblivion of Ozymandias. I think facing "complete egoic death" has wonderful fear-killing, real life egoic benefits. Meditate on a corpse thingy. Afterall, who WOULD want to psychologically reinforce the egoic patterns of "hoping-for-more-life-ness?" That's fershur going to bite one in the ass on the deathbed, me figures, as those patterns do as they have been trained to so and start screaming for fulfillment instead of being quiet while "I" lovingly give back my very small entirety to the Self. This is a central problem of religions -- to prepare personalities for death. But I've watched good folks die, and "I'm going to the Lord" was not the predominate experience for even the most religious of them. It's more like, "Oh Lord, can I have one more breath?" Simple beggary may be the most common of deathbed actions. I don't know -- do religions prepare most folks with an ability to calmly face death? Seems not, but maybe if I worked in a hospital I'd see more faith in the face of death. I hope I would. I think posting here has done me some great good along these lines. I've put some powerful words together -- methought -- and watched them worn down to Ozzy's legs as each person here ignored my precious offerings -- not even deigning to correct me if I needed it. My ego has to face that. At best, my words might still be googlable a thousand years from now, but my ego won't be one speck happier today even if my ego has that "form of immortality" as a deep belief (hard wired conceptual addiction.) For the ego to want to be preserved in print, in memories in other brains, in photos -- is such a tell. Those are not living embodiments -- yet the ego relates to them See? A fox knows its own scent. Who here doesn't smell their own farts like a connoisseur? My ego loves the waftings of conceptual-certainty's turds. The Advaita dogmatic stance at death seems preferable. There cannot be death if there hasn't ever been life. Identify with The Real for crissakes! Matthew 6:18-20 19 Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: 20 But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Barry writes snipped: > Being forgotten. > > It fears oblivion. > > IMO, it's not even that the self fears death > itself. Most selves have caught a clue and have > realized that they're gonna die, and have come > to some sense of comfort with that fact. But > what the self fears is that it'll be completely > forgotten when it dies, as if its life had made > no difference whatsoever to the other lives it > touched. > > TomT > from reading Byron Katie she encourages all to focus on the Big Three > that will generally cover all the fears. > Fear of dying -- > 1. Alone > 2. Unloved > 3. B
