[FairfieldLife] Is Byron Katie's "the work" a form of moodmaking?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "matrixmonitor"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --Right, but Byron Katie is a Neo-Advaitin, and if we go too
> far into that realm, there's no karma, no people, no suffering
> (in fact, nothing!). Nope - Buddhism as a whole has more
> compassion.
While I agree wholeheartedly, I find myself more interested
in the seeming contradiction that I stumbled upon last night
in the one-liner that made Rory *lol*, but which he didn't
deal with. I've pasted in the whole exchange below, with
all of its context restored, because I'm interested in hear-
ing the fans of advaita (neo- or not) or Byron Katie explain
to me why what seems like a contradiction to me isn't one.
> > > > OK, I asked Swami G - does everyone go through the Kundalini
> > > > Journey. I asked because based on my own experience with it,
> > > > I can't imagine that it is possible without it.
> > >
> > > I think that this is the most accurate and telling
> > > statement in your post, Ron, and the one that is
> > > most relevant to Fairfield Life and the majority
> > > of posts here about spiritual "progress." It's
> > > about *personal experience*, which is valid, and
> > > about *projection of that experience onto others*,
> > > which IMO is not.
> > >
> > > On this forum we've had people say that because
> > > *they* went through a period of anger at some
> > > spiritual teacher who disappointed them, everyone
> > > who criticizes a spiritual teacher is also feeling
> > > anger.
> >
> > FWIW I still support my original premise: If we criticise another
> > (particularly if the other isn't even present, and we're
> > criticising them to a 3rd party), we generally *are* coming from
> > a place of pain (hurt/anger), whether or not we are consciously
> > aware of it at that moment. This is because we are "shoulding"
> > all over them :-) -- expecting them to be other than they are,
> > and judging them for not living up to our expectations of what
> > they "should" be or do. All of this stems from the core belief
> > and illusion that what we are criticising is outside of ourself
> > -- a position that is fraught with addictive pain. Practicing a
> > little Byron-Katiesque Inquiry will soon sober us up and show
> > us otherwise :-)
>
> Now let me get this straight. This sobering up
> and seeing things otherwise, that's something
> that we "should" be doing?
The question is, "How is doing 'the work,' Byron Katie-
style, *not* fraught with addictive pain?" It seems to
me that what Rory describes above is very much a form
of moodmaking -- starting with the assumption that one
*should* not be criticizing other aspects of ones Self
and acting accordingly, *in the pursuit of a desire*.
The desire in this case is to have no expectations of
others in terms of their behavior, and to see them as
other aspects of one's Self, if I've gotten what
Rory is saying. However, the desire to behave like that
is an expectation. One *practices* "a little Byron
Katiesque Inquiry" and intellectually convinces one's
self that it is relating to others on a non-judgmental
level. But it seems to me that the very *process* of
doing this is by definition a judgment upon one's *own*
self, a desire to *change* the way it's behaving and
"should" it into another form of behavior, an attempt
to moodmake it into acting the way that it "should."
I'm not particularly down on Byron Katie, or advaita,
or Rory...I'm just intrigued by the proponents of these
philosophies' ability to ignore what seems to me to be
a raging contradiction. If the practice they're recom-
mending to get beyond judgment requires "the work,"
isn't that *by definition* a form of judgment about
judgment?
And please, anyone who feels like answering, don't come
back with "a thorn to remove a thorn." That may work on
TMers who've been trained to salivate at the sound of
Maharishi's voice, but it ain't gonna cut the mustard
intellectually. What I'm asking is whether the Byron
Katie "thorn" is just a form of moodmaking, of training
one's self into acting a certain way ("acting" in all
senses of that word) because they've been convinced
that they "should" act that way? Sounds like classic
moodmaking to me.
How is "the work" gonna help you determine the proper
course of action when the other person you're trying
not to be judgmental about is holding a gun on you, and
acting a whole lot like a madman on crack who is more
interested in shooting you and your family just to see
how you fall than he is in your wallet?
We Buddhists might have compassion for the poor, drugged-
out guy, but we'd also do our best to kick the sucker in
the nuts and get the gun away from him. The way I'm read-
ing Rory's comments, he'd see that the guy is coming from
a place of hurt/pain, relate it to his own hurt and pain,
and say, "LOL. You're just another aspect of my Self, and
everything is OK." :-)
Question, short form: Is Katie's "the work," whether
valuable or not, just ano
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Samadhi by Shr Chinmoy'
i wonder if it is fair or accurate to translate the language of Sri Chinmoy using Maharishi's language of his Seven States of Consciousness? could it be, that "savikalpa samadhi" is TC (transcendental consciousness); "nirvikalpa samadhi" is CC (Cosmic C'nes); and "sahaja samadhi" is UC (Unity, or Brahman)? btw, a couple weeks ago i was introduced to the Sri Chinmoy restaurant in San Francisco; my friend and i agreed that besides good vegetarian food, the "vibe" of the staff was alot like old fashioned TM meditators. kind of a sweet sanctuary, in the midst of hustle and bustle of downtown SF, in a somewhat seedy neighborhood, lol --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robert Gimbel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >Samadhi: The Height of Divine Consciousness > 'Above the toil of life my soul is a bird of fire winging the Infinite'. Samadhi is a spiritual state of consciousness. There are various kinds of samadhi. Among the minor samadhis, savikalpa samadhi happens to be the highest. Beyond savikalpa comes nirvikalpa samadhi, but there is a great gulf between these two: they are two radically different samadhis. Again, there is something even beyond nirvikalpa samadhi called sahaja samadhi. > In savikalpa samadhi, for a short period of time you lose all human consciousness. In this state the conception of time and space is altogether different. For an hour or two hours you are completely in another world. You see there that almost everything is done. Here in this world there are many desires still unfulfilled in yourself and in others. Millions of desires are not fulfilled, and millions of things remain to be done. But when you are in savikalpa samadhi, you see that practically everything is done; you have nothing to do. You are only an instrument. If you are used, well and good; otherwise, things are all done. But from savikalpa samadhi everybody has to return to ordinary consciousness. > Even in savikalpa samadhi there are grades. Just as there are brilliant students and poor students in the same class in school, so also in savikalpa samadhi some aspirants reach the highest grade, while less aspiring seekers reach a lower rung of the ladder, where everything is not so clear and vivid as on the highest level. > In savikalpa samadhi there are thoughts and ideas coming from various places, but they do not affect you. While you are meditating, you remain undisturbed, and your inner being functions in a dynamic and confident manner. But when you are a little higher, when you have become one with the soul in nirvikalpa samadhi, there will be no ideas or thoughts at all. I am trying to explain it in words, but the consciousness of nirvikalpa samadhi can never be adequately explained or expressed. I am trying my best to tell you about this from a very high consciousness, but still my mind is expressing it. But in nirvikalpa samadhi there is no mind; there is only infinite peace and bliss. There nature's dance stops, and the knower and the known become one. There you enjoy a supremely divine, all-pervading, self-amorous ecstasy. You become the object of enjoyment, you become the enjoyer and you become the enjoyment itself. > When you enter into nirvikalpa samadhi, the first thing you feel is that your heart is larger than the universe itself. Ordinarily you see the world around you, and the universe seems infinitely larger than you are. But this is because the world and the universe are perceived by the limited mind. When you are in nirvikalpa samadhi, you see the universe as a tiny dot inside your vast heart. > In nirvikalpa samadhi there is infinite bliss. Bliss is a vague word to most people. They hear that there is something called bliss, and some people say that they have experienced it, but most individuals have no firsthand knowledge of it. When you enter into nirvikalpa samadhi, however, you not only feel bliss, but actually grow into that bliss. > The third thing you feel in nirvikalpa samadhi is power. All the power of all the occultists put together is nothing compared with the power you have in nirvikalpa samadhi. But the power that you can take from samadhi to utilise on earth is infinitesimal compared with the entirety. > Nirvikalpa samadhi is the highest samadhi that most realised spiritual Masters attain. It lasts for a few hours or a few days, and then one has to come down. When one comes down, what happens? Very often one forgets his own name and age; one cannot speak or think properly. But through continued practice, gradually one becomes able to come down from nirvikalpa samadhi and immediately function in a normal way. Generally, when one enters into nirvikalpa samadhi, one does not want to come back into the world again. If one stays there for eighteen or twenty-one days, there is every possibility that the soul will leave the body for good. There were spiritual Masters in the hoary past who attained nirvikalpa samadhi and did not com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bush appoints himself dictator in case of catastrophic event
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu wrote: > > > > > > > > You'd think the country was constantly under siege by Islamic > > > > terrorists which it isn't and nowhere close. This nonsense is > > > > totally unwarranted but their think tanks told them that when > > > > the economic shit hits the fan there will be massive unrest in > > > > this country (that is if the massive overweight can still walk > > > > the few steps to the streets) so they are putting the tools in > > > > place to control us. > > > > > > The last thing I want to do is get involved in a > > > bunch of US politics and conspiracy theories, but > > > as long as you're doing it, I think you might want > > > to aim your conspiracy theory a little less far > > > into the future. Economic collapse, scholapse, > > > dude...there is an *election* coming up, and elec- > > > tion that the Republicons cannot possibly win. So > > > do you think it's possible that a few of them are > > > thinking, "H...we can't win an election, so > > > why don't we have a terrorist attack instead? > > > Then we wouldn't have to *have* an election." > > > > > > That's the way we'd do a good conspiracy theory > > > 'way over here in Europe. :-) > > > > > > And just in case things turn out that way, I just > > > wanted to be on record as having said it first, > > > *from* 'way over here in Europe. :-) :-) :-) > > > > Ahhh, no, not really. If I had a nickel for every > > time I've heard this suggested--since well before > > the 2004 election up to today--I'd be a wealthy > > woman. > > Yeah, but it would be an uneasy wealth. As when you go to buy > a car and unload 100,000 nickels. Not to mention that the idea's been around for decades in scifi, not just since 2004. I wrote a scifi short story myself in the early 90s about a US president who stages a suitcase-nuke attack against an American city in an attempt to establish an authoritarian regime. What triggered the story idea at the time was not the real possibility of terrorist attacks against America (which hadn't happened yet) and thus the staging of them, but a simple set of laws that I stumbled across on my first visit to New Mexico. I was visiting Los Alamos and read an article in the paper there about a neighborhood in the town, close to some of the oldest nuclear facilities at LANL, in which *every family in the neighborhood* had one or more cases of cancer in the family. The gist of the article was that the city of Los Alamos and the state of New Mexico was powerless to conduct any tests to determine if the soil in the neighborhood was polluted with nuclear radiation, because *they were for- bidden by Federal law from doing so*. These laws have supposedly been in effect since the 1950s and the Cold War. *Only the Federal government* of the United States has the right to investigate nuclear events. It's actually against the law for anyone else to run their own tests or do any serious investigation. So in the story, even though I imagined a "nuclear foot- print" to the suitcase nuke that would have identified it as being American-made, no one was allowed to determine that "footprint" except the government itself, and so the report that they issued said that it had come from the former Soviet Union. It was just a story, but the sad reality is that, given these laws, it doesn't have to stay one.
[FairfieldLife] Re: My experience with the awakened Kundalini
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Note I am not being a parakeet when I tell you that my > experience is it is moving me faster to enlightenment. > Let me put it this way, I feel this very stronly. It is > giving experience of the things I hear are the signs of > what enlightenment is. With all due respect, and with the fervent hope that you are correct, I think you're forgetting something, Ron. Your *belief* that you are "moving faster to enlightenment" is based on what you *have been told*. Your *belief* that these things are the "signs of what enlightenment is" are based on *what you have been told*. You have made a decision to *believe* what you have been told. That doesn't necessarily make it so. I sincerely hope it is, and that you are making all the progress that you feel you are, but from my point of view you could be experiencing normal, everyday bursts of energy that pretty much everyone on a spiritual path would be noticing if they had been told to pay attention to them and "weight" them and assign them value, and to *interpret* them as progress towards enlightenment. In a TM context, for example, these things would be considered just another experience, and no weight would be given to them. Same thing in many Buddhist traditions. But in the path you've chosen, these experiences have been described as special, as mean- ingful. That makes you special and your experiences meaningful. > I reported in using the term everything is falling away > before i noticed it to be a common term used because > this is something many in my path are experiencing. And have been *told* that they "should* experience. And have been *told* that having these experiences makes them a little special, and indicates that they are making rapid progress towards enlightenment. So are they going to put a bit of emphasis on *having* these experiences? Well, duh. > Any opinion that disagrees with what I just said is like > one telling me that I am wrong about the ice cream tasting > sweet. No, it's merely reminding you that you were *told* that the ice cream would taste sweet, and that ice cream is the pathway to enlightenment. That doesn't necessarily mean that eating ice cream would get you enlightened. It might just make you fat. :-) Here's a test for you. Is it *possible* that kundalini experiences mean absolutely *nothing* about one's proximity to enlightened states of mind, and that they are Just Another Phenomenon, one that shouldn't be "weighted" more than any other? If you bristled at that idea, then I'd suggest that what you've been told about kundalini and its importance might have been aimed more at your ego than at freeing yourself from it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's "the work" a form of moodmaking?
> TurquoiseB wrote: > > I'm interested in hearing the fans of advaita (neo- or not) > or Byron Katie explain to me why what seems like a > contradiction to me isn't one. > > The desire in this case is to have no expectations of > others in terms of their behavior, and to see them as > other aspects of one's Self, if I've gotten what > Rory is saying. However, the desire to behave like that > is an expectation. some of this is just Rory; he used byron katie to get his answers but your use of it would give you your answers; its very personal and there is no one right answer, except what -you- think. > One *practices* "a little Byron Katiesque Inquiry" >and intellectually convinces one's self that it is > relating to others on a non-judgmental level. the inquiry she teaches is much simpler than that; there is no convincing oneself of anything at all; you might end up less judgemental, but not because you are trying to be. > But it seems to me that the very *process* of > doing this is by definition a judgment upon one's *own* > self, a desire to *change* the way it's behaving and > "should" it into another form of behavior, an attempt > to moodmake it into acting the way that it "should." it is much simpler than all that; there is no desire to change, just a way of inquiry of your issue; there is no change of behaviour ... that would be mood-making; and yet as a side effect, her inquiry might actually change your original thinking, thus your behaviour would be different than it would have been, but only as a side effect. it works more like a koan than a mood making. it sounds to me that you have not actually tried her method of "four questions" inquiry, because it is actually very simple; but trying to describe it to someone who has not had the experience requires putting it into words, but that makes it sound more compicated than it is. > > I'm not particularly down on Byron Katie, or advaita, > or Rory...I'm just intrigued by the proponents of these > philosophies' ability to ignore what seems to me to be > a raging contradiction. If the practice they're recom- > mending to get beyond judgment requires "the work," > isn't that *by definition* a form of judgment about > judgment? im no expert on Byron Katie, but i did take a weekend seminar with her in Fairfield a couple years ago, and liked it enough to buy her book. The Work, as she calls it, is her work of spreading the method she discovered; but it doent mean it is "hard work" as in rigorous, or a judgement against judgments, in some hard sense; it is more gentle, just inquiry (only if you feel like doing it) she stumbled upon her methods via her own normal westerner life; it happens to have the advaita/non-dualist results; but it is "neo-advaita" because it just emerged in her life, it is not something she learned from some indian guru teaching from a tradition of non-dualism.
[FairfieldLife] Re: My experience with the awakened Kundalini
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ron" wrote: > > > > Note I am not being a parakeet when I tell you that my > > experience is it is moving me faster to enlightenment. > > Let me put it this way, I feel this very stronly. It is > > giving experience of the things I hear are the signs of > > what enlightenment is. > > With all due respect, and with the fervent hope that > you are correct, I think you're forgetting something, > Ron. Your *belief* that you are "moving faster to > enlightenment" is based on what you *have been told*. > Your *belief* that these things are the "signs of > what enlightenment is" are based on *what you have > been told*. > > You have made a decision to *believe* what you have > been told. That doesn't necessarily make it so. I firmly stand by what I said- I am completely aware of the experience and how it can be viewed by others as it is here. This time, in light of a parakeet accusation, I paid close attention when i said that this is my experience. I am stateing specifically the ice cream tastes good- you beg to differ, telling me that just because I say it tastes good, well I am just believing it because I am told that , etc No, the experience is concrete - as concrete as who you define who you are right now- so to the degree the concrete can be smashed with a sledge hammer, that is how comcrete my experience is that I wrote > > I sincerely hope it is, and that you are making all > the progress that you feel you are, but from my point > of view you could be experiencing normal, everyday > bursts of energy that pretty much everyone on a > spiritual path would be noticing if they had been > told to pay attention to them and "weight" them and > assign them value, and to *interpret* them as progress > towards enlightenment. The knowing in this case is my own direct experience, no need to be told anything. In this case, I wasn't asking the Guru, I was telling the Guru what it is > > In a TM context, for example, these things would be > considered just another experience, and no weight > would be given to them. What things? It is a state of consciousness known to me through direct experience- directly related to the kundalini- I am paying attention as I write that this is not a parakeet speaking since you are throwing this accusation out, for which I would not deny when it is past my own experience- will let you know in this letter when I am reporting what the guru has to say as compared with my own experience for which I tell the Guru what is there, so far in this letter, that is the case. Maybe in my past posts, similar claims I am makeing above are interpreted as what I am told verses what I concretely experience. No, the above is direct experience and it is beyond what I had in TM, however, cant speak for others Same thing in many Buddhist > traditions. But in the path you've chosen, these > experiences have been described as special, as mean- > ingful. That makes you special and your experiences > meaningful. They are just what is there, what took and is taking place- I am not in a position to label it because then it means just where i am with regard to enlightenment, it should even mean I am enlightened in order to box up and label just where I am with the journey, I dont know what enlightenment is like, I have only heard about it > > > I reported in using the term everything is falling away > > before i noticed it to be a common term used because > > this is something many in my path are experiencing. > > And have been *told* that they "should* experience. > And have been *told* that having these experiences > makes them a little special, and indicates that they > are making rapid progress towards enlightenment. So > are they going to put a bit of emphasis on *having* > these experiences? Well, duh. I dont follow you exactly but make no mistake about it, there is both guidence and faith on my path, and as I said beyond my own experience, I can only report what those claiming enlightenment say- that is being a parakeet for the points- that evil word parakeet. One can also be a parakeet in throwing the parakeet accusation out- for it is the case that it is belief for all until enlightenment, and there is, even in sincere ones on the path, a mouthing off of what the guru says. to the degree that it is actualized, that part is not reading or hearing about what the ice crea tastes like, it is tasting it. Then to one that hasn't, they can accuse one of thinking they are tasting it but not. This again is why I was mindfull above when I stated that anyone opposing the points I stated are giving me an argument that what I am saying I am tasting is wrong- I was very mindfull of what I wrote as my own experience- again, yes, my direct experience is knowing it is in the direction of enlightenment- it is as real as the r
[FairfieldLife] 'Walking the Faith Line with Eboo Patel'
uthors Walking the Faith Line with Eboo Patel Talk of the Nation, July 19, 2007 · Author Eboo Patel talks about the hate and rejection he sees in many young religious extremists, and why ignoring the faith line that divides us comes at a huge price. Eboo Patel, author of Acts of Faith: The Story of an American Muslim, the Struggle for the Soul of a Generation and founder of Interfaith Youth Core in Chicago Excerpt: Acts of Faith by Eboo Patel Introduction: The Faith Line Someone who doesn't make flowers makes thorns. If you're not building rooms where wisdom can be openly spoken, you're building a prison. Shams of Tabriz Eric Rudolph is in court pleading guilty. But he is not sorry. Not for the radio-controlled nail bomb that he detonated at New Woman All Women Health Care in Birmingham, Alabama, that killed an off-duty police officer and left a nurse hobbled and half-blind. Not for the bomb at the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta that killed one, injured dozens, and sent shock waves of fear through the global community. Not for his hate-spitting letter stating, "We declare and will wage total war on the ungodly communist regime in New York and your legislative bureaucratic lackeys in Washington," signed "the Army of God." Not for defiling the Holy Bible by writing "bomb" in the margin of his copy. In fact, Rudolph is proud and defiant. He lectures the judge on the righteousness of his actions. He gloats as he recalls federal agents passing within steps of his hiding place. He unabashedly states that abortion, homosexuality, and all hints of "global socialism" still need to be "ruthlessly opposed." He does this in the name of Christianity, quoting from the New Testament: "I have fought the good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith." Felicia Sanderson lost her husband, Robert, a police officer, to Rudolph's Birmingham bomb. During the sentencing hearing, she played a tape of speeches made at her husband's funeral. People remembered him keeping candy for children in his patrol car and raising money to replace Christmas gifts for a family whose home had been robbed. Felicia Sanderson pointed to Rudolph and told the court, "He has been responsible for every tear my sons have shed." Judge C. Lynwood Smith sentenced Rudolph to two life terms, compared him to the Nazis, and said that he was shocked at Rudolph's lack of remorse. But many others felt a twitch of pride. Eric Rudolph might have been a loner, but he did not act alone. He was produced by a movement and encouraged by a culture. In the woods of western North Carolina, where Rudolph evaded federal agents for five years, people cheered him on, helped him hide, made T-shirts that said RUN RUDOLPH RUN. The day he was finally caught, a woman from the area was quoted as saying, "Rudolph's a Christian and I'm a Christian . . . Those are our values. These are our woods." Of all the information published about Rudolph, one sentence in particular stood out to me: Rudolph wrote an essay denying the Holocaust when he was in high school. How does a teenager come to hold such a view? The answer is simple: people taught him. Eric Rudolph had always had trouble in school fights, truancy. He never quite fit in. His father died when he was young. His mother met and followed a series of dangerous iconoclasts who preached a theology of hate. The first was Tom Branham, who encouraged the Rudolph family to move next door to him in Topton, North Carolina. Eric was soon drawing Nazi symbols in his schoolbooks at nearby Nantahala High School. Next, Eric's mother moved the family to Schell City, Missouri, to be near Dan Gayman, a leading figure in the extremist Christian Identity movement. Gayman had been a high school principal and knew how to make his mark on young people. He assumed a fatherly relationship with Eric, enrolled him in Christian Identity youth programs, and made sure he read the literature of the movement. Gayman taught Eric that the Bible was the history of Aryan whites and that Jews were the spawn of Satan and part of a tribe called the "the mud people." The world was nearing a final struggle between God's people and Satan's servants, and it was up to the "conscious" Aryans to ensure victory for the right race. Eric took to calling the television "the Electric Jew." He carved swastikas into his mother's living room furniture. His library included virulently anti-Semitic publications such as The Protocols of the Le
[FairfieldLife] Re: Response to Alex's Kundalini symptoms
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Tanmay: How much time do I get before I turn into a pumkin? If and when you get a proper job and focus instead of fooling around on the internet you will be ok. Fear no pumpkin :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Samadhi by Shr Chinmoy'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "george_deforest" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > i wonder if it is fair or accurate to translate > the language of Sri Chinmoy using Maharishi's language of > his Seven States of Consciousness? > > could it be, that "savikalpa samadhi" is TC (transcendental > consciousness); "nirvikalpa samadhi" is CC (Cosmic C'nes); > and "sahaja samadhi" is UC (Unity, or Brahman)? > > btw, a couple weeks ago i was introduced to the Sri Chinmoy > restaurant in San Francisco; my friend and i agreed that > besides good vegetarian food, the "vibe" of the staff > was alot like old fashioned TM meditators. > > kind of a sweet sanctuary, in the midst of hustle and bustle > of downtown SF, in a somewhat seedy neighborhood, lol Thats interesting because it was just my experience when meeting Shri Chimnoy a couple of years ago. Same sweetness, same bliss as in meeting Maharishi. Looked like two brothers. Intellectually I have no idea what Shri Chimnoy is doing though and googeling Him isn't easy. He gave me a couple of books and it is as if something Maharishi could have written if He was not busy saving the planet. From talking to some of His students there is no doubt that Shri Chimnoy is doing a wonderful job in lifting them closer to the Godhead within.
[FairfieldLife] Re: My experience with the awakened Kundalini
Ron, I'm really not trying to argue with you or "accuse" you of anything -- that's how you're reacting. I merely presented a different way of looking at your experience. That you respond to that different way of seeing things as an accusation says more, IMO, than the experiences. More below, *again* not to argue or to accuse or to say that I'm "right" and you're "wrong" (neither of which I believe or am capable of stating definitively), but just to look at things from another point of view. How you relate to that different point of view is your business, just as your experience is your experience. I would never quibble with that experience, merely with how you interpret it, and merely to point out that there are other possible interpretations. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ron" wrote: > > > > > > Note I am not being a parakeet when I tell you that my > > > experience is it is moving me faster to enlightenment. > > > Let me put it this way, I feel this very stronly. It is > > > giving experience of the things I hear are the signs of > > > what enlightenment is. > > > > With all due respect, and with the fervent hope that > > you are correct, I think you're forgetting something, > > Ron. Your *belief* that you are "moving faster to > > enlightenment" is based on what you *have been told*. > > Your *belief* that these things are the "signs of > > what enlightenment is" are based on *what you have > > been told*. > > > > You have made a decision to *believe* what you have > > been told. That doesn't necessarily make it so. > > I firmly stand by what I said- I am completely aware of the > experience and how it can be viewed by others as it is here. > This time, in light of a parakeet accusation... Parrot. Parakeets, as far as I know, cannot be taught to repeat phrases. > ...I paid close attention when i said that this is my > experience. And I appreciate that, and I have *no problem* with your experience. May you continue to have many more of them, and may you continue to enjoy them thoroughly. > I am stateing specifically the ice cream tastes good- > you beg to differ, telling me that just because I say > it tastes good, well I am just believing it because I > am told that , etc Go back and read what I wrote, as opposed to what you read into it. I *never* stated or even suggested that your experience of the "ice cream" was in any way false, or that it didn't taste sweet to you. I merely pointed out that your *interpretation* of the "meaning" of your experience of eating ice cream (experiencing kundalini phenomena and relating them to your spiritual progress) was open to other inter- pretations, and that it could have been biased by what you'd been *told* about such experiences. In Santa Fe, New Mexico there is a popular desert consisting of vanilla ice cream with cayenne pepper added to it. It's really delicious, a true taste treat. But if one had been primed before eating it with only the information that "ice cream is sweet," that would not prepare one for the real experience itself. Similarly, if a person tried to explain the experience of eating such a desert to someone who has never tried it, they're going to wonder about the person's perceptions: "This guy is describing the experience of eating ice cream as leaving a not-unpleasant but surprising burning taste in one's mouth and throat. That sure isn't *my* experience of eating ice cream, nor does it fit into *my* ideas of what ice cream is." Similarly, I have *no problem* with your experiences, whatever they may be. I'm only pointing out that there may be other ways of looking at and interpreting those experiences. > No, the experience is concrete - as concrete as who you > define who you are right now- That's not very concrete, dude. You might want to search for a different metaphor. :-) > so to the degree the concrete can be smashed with a sledge > hammer, that is how comcrete my experience is that I wrote And *as* experience, I have nothing to say about it. As *interpretation* of experience, I have the right to view it differently than you do. > > I sincerely hope it is, and that you are making all > > the progress that you feel you are, but from my point > > of view you could be experiencing normal, everyday > > bursts of energy that pretty much everyone on a > > spiritual path would be noticing if they had been > > told to pay attention to them and "weight" them and > > assign them value, and to *interpret* them as progress > > towards enlightenment. > > The knowing in this case is my own direct experience, no need > to be told anything. But you *were* told something. You were told that it's a *good* experience, one that indicates that you are making progress towards enlightenment. All I'm suggest- ing is that this might have colored your *interpretation*
Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Byron Katie's "the work" a form of moodmaking?
We buddhists? What is this about?
empty
TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "matrixmonitor"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --Right, but Byron Katie is a Neo-Advaitin, and if we go too
> far into that realm, there's no karma, no people, no suffering
> (in fact, nothing!). Nope - Buddhism as a whole has more
> compassion.
While I agree wholeheartedly, I find myself more interested
in the seeming contradiction that I stumbled upon last night
in the one-liner that made Rory *lol*, but which he didn't
deal with. I've pasted in the whole exchange below, with
all of its context restored, because I'm interested in hear-
ing the fans of advaita (neo- or not) or Byron Katie explain
to me why what seems like a contradiction to me isn't one.
> > > > OK, I asked Swami G - does everyone go through the Kundalini
> > > > Journey. I asked because based on my own experience with it,
> > > > I can't imagine that it is possible without it.
> > >
> > > I think that this is the most accurate and telling
> > > statement in your post, Ron, and the one that is
> > > most relevant to Fairfield Life and the majority
> > > of posts here about spiritual "progress." It's
> > > about *personal experience*, which is valid, and
> > > about *projection of that experience onto others*,
> > > which IMO is not.
> > >
> > > On this forum we've had people say that because
> > > *they* went through a period of anger at some
> > > spiritual teacher who disappointed them, everyone
> > > who criticizes a spiritual teacher is also feeling
> > > anger.
> >
> > FWIW I still support my original premise: If we criticise another
> > (particularly if the other isn't even present, and we're
> > criticising them to a 3rd party), we generally *are* coming from
> > a place of pain (hurt/anger), whether or not we are consciously
> > aware of it at that moment. This is because we are "shoulding"
> > all over them :-) -- expecting them to be other than they are,
> > and judging them for not living up to our expectations of what
> > they "should" be or do. All of this stems from the core belief
> > and illusion that what we are criticising is outside of ourself
> > -- a position that is fraught with addictive pain. Practicing a
> > little Byron-Katiesque Inquiry will soon sober us up and show
> > us otherwise :-)
>
> Now let me get this straight. This sobering up
> and seeing things otherwise, that's something
> that we "should" be doing?
The question is, "How is doing 'the work,' Byron Katie-
style, *not* fraught with addictive pain?" It seems to
me that what Rory describes above is very much a form
of moodmaking -- starting with the assumption that one
*should* not be criticizing other aspects of ones Self
and acting accordingly, *in the pursuit of a desire*.
The desire in this case is to have no expectations of
others in terms of their behavior, and to see them as
other aspects of one's Self, if I've gotten what
Rory is saying. However, the desire to behave like that
is an expectation. One *practices* "a little Byron
Katiesque Inquiry" and intellectually convinces one's
self that it is relating to others on a non-judgmental
level. But it seems to me that the very *process* of
doing this is by definition a judgment upon one's *own*
self, a desire to *change* the way it's behaving and
"should" it into another form of behavior, an attempt
to moodmake it into acting the way that it "should."
I'm not particularly down on Byron Katie, or advaita,
or Rory...I'm just intrigued by the proponents of these
philosophies' ability to ignore what seems to me to be
a raging contradiction. If the practice they're recom-
mending to get beyond judgment requires "the work,"
isn't that *by definition* a form of judgment about
judgment?
And please, anyone who feels like answering, don't come
back with "a thorn to remove a thorn." That may work on
TMers who've been trained to salivate at the sound of
Maharishi's voice, but it ain't gonna cut the mustard
intellectually. What I'm asking is whether the Byron
Katie "thorn" is just a form of moodmaking, of training
one's self into acting a certain way ("acting" in all
senses of that word) because they've been convinced
that they "should" act that way? Sounds like classic
moodmaking to me.
How is "the work" gonna help you determine the proper
course of action when the other person you're trying
not to be judgmental about is holding a gun on you, and
acting a whole lot like a madman on crack who is more
interested in shooting you and your family just to see
how you fall than he is in your wallet?
We Buddhists might have compassion for the poor, drugged-
out guy, but we'd also do our best to kick the sucker in
the nuts and get the gun away from him. The way I'm read-
ing Rory's comments, he'd see that the guy is coming from
a place of hurt/pain, relate it to his own hurt and pain,
and say, "LOL. You're just another aspect of my Self, and
everythin
Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Byron Katie's "the work" a form of moodmaking?
On Jul 24, 2007, at 3:01 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: > > FWIW I still support my original premise: If we criticise another > > (particularly if the other isn't even present, and we're > > criticising them to a 3rd party), we generally *are* coming from > > a place of pain (hurt/anger), whether or not we are consciously > > aware of it at that moment. This is because we are "shoulding" > > all over them :-) -- expecting them to be other than they are, > > and judging them for not living up to our expectations of what > > they "should" be or do. All of this stems from the core belief > > and illusion that what we are criticising is outside of ourself > > -- a position that is fraught with addictive pain. Practicing a > > little Byron-Katiesque Inquiry will soon sober us up and show > > us otherwise :-) > > Now let me get this straight. This sobering up > and seeing things otherwise, that's something > that we "should" be doing? The question is, "How is doing 'the work,' Byron Katie- style, *not* fraught with addictive pain?" It seems to me that what Rory describes above is very much a form of moodmaking -- starting with the assumption that one *should* not be criticizing other aspects of ones Self and acting accordingly, *in the pursuit of a desire*. IME it all boils down to how well you can embrace paradox, a paradox that embraces the absolute and relative considerations as well. Therefore you can have an absolute, detached perspective and still honor relative considerations--that's what 'holding the paradox' is. However repeating a known paradox, like parroting couple of maha- vakyas, isn't very honest nor is repeating some formulaic ideas from a new age advaita workshop. If you want to use paradox as a vehicle, try running through a couple hundred mahavakyas you don't already know an answer to or have discursive ideas about. Otherwise it just becomes a game of pretend or hide-and-seek. In the above example, Rory is embracing absolute POV 'criticizing is projecting our own inner pain on others' and therefore taking an extreme POV, rather than embracing the paradox: all is one and assholes still exist. Because Rory takes an extreme, absolutist position, he falls into "accepting and rejecting" and therefore, polarities.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'MIC Threatens Hillary'
In a message dated 7/22/07 11:29:11 P.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Are you just hoping nobody here reads the newspapers? No, just one or two that don't spin left. ** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is it necessary to tread the Kundalalini path for Realization
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "matrixmonitor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --Right, but Byron Katie is a Neo-Advaitin, and if we go too far into > that realm, there's no karma, no people, no suffering (in fact, > nothing!). Has that been your experience with her Inquiry? It certainly hasn't been mine. :-) >Nope - Buddhism as a whole has more compassion. I am not here to promote one tool over another, or one path over another, or one guru over another, or one God (or no God) over another - - whatver works for you, works for me :-) *L*L*L*
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is it necessary to tread the Kundalalini path for Realization
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rory Goff" wrote: > a position that is fraught with > > addictive pain. > > > Hi Rory, so are you using the expression "addictive pain" because we > find it easier to recycle the pain habitually (from a separated ego > standpoint), vs. face Reality through love and acceptance, or, that > the addiction to the boundary is painful, and causes pain, because it > keeps us in the delusion of separation? I recognize that it works > either way-- just curious which one you were going for when you wrote > it. Thanks!:-) Hi Jim -- more the second implication, but I like the first too. Thanks! :-) *L*L*L*
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's "the work" a form of moodmaking?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If you want to use paradox as a vehicle, > try running through a couple hundred mahavakyas you don't already > know an answer to or have discursive ideas about. Sorry Vaj, there are only 4 mahavakyas, all else are just vakyas. Maybe you mean koans. Its not the same, it has a different underlying principle, and it comes from different paths with different goals and spiritual perspectives.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's "the work" a form of moodmaking?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The question is, "How is doing 'the work,' Byron Katie-
> style, *not* fraught with addictive pain?" It seems to
> me that what Rory describes above is very much a form
> of moodmaking -- starting with the assumption that one
> *should* not be criticizing other aspects of ones Self
> and acting accordingly, *in the pursuit of a desire*.
I am recommending that one be aware of where the criticism is coming
from -- that one place attention on the core expectations behind the
criticisms, and thereby to discover the illusory and projective
nature of one's thinking, and of one's pain. The result IME is
generally a tremendous expansion of heart, of compassion, of
consciousness as we reabsorb that "demonic" which we had projected
outside ourselves and condemned.
> The desire in this case is to have no expectations of
> others in terms of their behavior, and to see them as
> other aspects of one's Self, if I've gotten what
> Rory is saying.
No, the desire is to be free from pain, and this is one technique to
unravel pain's illusory slipknot.
>However, the desire to behave like that
> is an expectation. One *practices* "a little Byron
> Katiesque Inquiry" and intellectually convinces one's
> self that it is relating to others on a non-judgmental
> level.
No, the end result IME is most certainly not merely intellectual. I
live a visceral life, and wpould not be satisfied with nor recommend
mere intellectual masturbation :-)
>But it seems to me that the very *process* of
> doing this is by definition a judgment upon one's *own*
> self, a desire to *change* the way it's behaving and
> "should" it into another form of behavior, an attempt
> to moodmake it into acting the way that it "should."
No, it's a realization one is in pain (or in my terms, projecting
monsters "out there"), and a decent method to see through and embrace
the illusion -- to meet and conquer the challenge offered by that
particular "bardo demon".
> I'm not particularly down on Byron Katie, or advaita,
> or Rory...I'm just intrigued by the proponents of these
> philosophies' ability to ignore what seems to me to be
> a raging contradiction. If the practice they're recom-
> mending to get beyond judgment requires "the work,"
> isn't that *by definition* a form of judgment about
> judgment?
It's a recognition of pain, and an Inquiry to heal it. The technique
is a great deal like transcendence itself, as it allows us to reverse
the process of manifestation/projection by tracing the thoughts
consciously inward to their source, recognizing their fallacies, and
remembering the truth -- in a deeply satisfyingly visceral, sensory
way.
> And please, anyone who feels like answering, don't come
> back with "a thorn to remove a thorn." That may work on
> TMers who've been trained to salivate at the sound of
> Maharishi's voice, but it ain't gonna cut the mustard
> intellectually. What I'm asking is whether the Byron
> Katie "thorn" is just a form of moodmaking, of training
> one's self into acting a certain way ("acting" in all
> senses of that word) because they've been convinced
> that they "should" act that way? Sounds like classic
> moodmaking to me.
Again, I'd say No, because it merely provides a tool for recognizing
and piercing the source of our pain.
OTOH my current understanding of moodmaking is in no way
condemnatory, as all the states of consciousness look much like moods
to me. From where I stand, we have a choice as to our primary "mood"
or "frequency," which colors what interpretations we wish to ascribe
to the myriads of incoming data, and this choice in turn actually
determines which of the data we imbibe and manifest through our
various levels of bodymind and thence into our environment. I do
realize for many of us however that this initial choice
of "frequency" is as yet unconscious.
> How is "the work" gonna help you determine the proper
> course of action when the other person you're trying
> not to be judgmental about is holding a gun on you,
It's not a question of "trying not to be judgmental;" it's a question
of destroying one's pain.
>and
> acting a whole lot like a madman on crack who is more
> interested in shooting you and your family just to see
> how you fall than he is in your wallet?
"Be afraid; be very afraid!" :-)
> We Buddhists might have compassion for the poor, drugged-
> out guy, but we'd also do our best to kick the sucker in
> the nuts and get the gun away from him. The way I'm read-
> ing Rory's comments, he'd see that the guy is coming from
> a place of hurt/pain, relate it to his own hurt and pain,
> and say, "LOL. You're just another aspect of my Self, and
> everything is OK." :-)
Then you are reading me wrong, as appears often to be the case. I see
no problem with Self kicking Self in the nuts if that is what is
required. :-)
> Question, short form: Is Katie's "the work," whether
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's "the work" a form of moodmaking?
On Jul 24, 2007, at 9:23 AM, t3rinity wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If you want to use paradox as a vehicle, > try running through a couple hundred mahavakyas you don't already > know an answer to or have discursive ideas about. Sorry Vaj, there are only 4 mahavakyas, all else are just vakyas. Maybe you mean koans. Its not the same, it has a different underlying principle, and it comes from different paths with different goals and spiritual perspectives. I was referring to the 600 or so mahavakyas of the Chinese kung-an (called koans in Japanese) which are also used to stimulate waking in some Buddhist schools. The goal, awakening, is the same, but the View is different. It was actually my Patanjali guru who turned me on to the fact that these kung-an are a more detailed and rigorous set of mahavakyas.
[FairfieldLife] Re: My experience with the awakened Kundalini
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Ron, I'm really not trying to argue with you or "accuse" > you of anything -- that's how you're reacting. I merely > presented a different way of looking at your experience. > > That you respond to that different way of seeing things > as an accusation says more, IMO, than the experiences. BTW, this is a standard trap that Barry sets when he feels like putting someone down: He delivers a series of questions that are designed to make them feel they're being accused of something, but are carefully phrased to give him "plausible deniability." Then when the person responds to the accusatory tone, he puts them down for being "defensive" and "reading in" to what he wrote, suggesting that the implied accusations they're objecting to were on target. This enables him to "win," in his own mind at least. > Parrot. Parakeets, as far as I know, cannot be > taught to repeat phrases. Yes, they can. They aren't as voluble as parrots or as easy to train, but they're known for their talking abilities. > In Santa Fe, New Mexico there is a popular desert > consisting of vanilla ice cream with cayenne pepper > added to it. Wow, a whole desert made of ice cream! How does it stay frozen in the heat? > I *understand* that many do *not* believe as I do, and > feel (as they have been told to feel) that when one is > enlightened one sees "correctly," or accurately, or > without any possible distortion. Note that when anybody says anything about enlightenment that's different from what Barry believes, it's because they're just parroting what they've been told.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's "the work" a form of moodmaking?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> In the above example, Rory is embracing absolute POV 'criticizing is > projecting our own inner pain on others' and therefore taking an > extreme POV, rather than embracing the paradox: all is one and > assholes still exist. Because Rory takes an extreme, absolutist > position, he falls into "accepting and rejecting" and therefore, > polarities. Whether an asshole actually exists or not is impossible for me to say. I am rejecting that my suffering has an external reality, yes. If that makes me somehow "falling into polarities," then so be it :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's "the work" a form of moodmaking?
TurquoiseB wrote:
> The desire in this case is to have no expectations
> of others in terms of their behavior, and to see
> them as other aspects of one's Self,
>
> We Buddhists...
>
"We" Buddhists? Do Buddhists believe in a "Self"?
> ...might have compassion for the poor, drugged-
> out guy, but we'd also do our best to kick the sucker
> in the nuts and get the gun away from him.
>
So, when is the last time you kicked a guy in the nuts
and took a gun away from him? I'm just wondering.
ROTFLMAO!
> > --Right, but Byron Katie is a Neo-Advaitin, and if we go too
> > far into that realm, there's no karma, no people, no suffering
> > (in fact, nothing!). Nope - Buddhism as a whole has more
> > compassion.
>
> While I agree wholeheartedly, I find myself more interested
> in the seeming contradiction that I stumbled upon last night
> in the one-liner that made Rory *lol*, but which he didn't
> deal with. I've pasted in the whole exchange below, with
> all of its context restored, because I'm interested in hear-
> ing the fans of advaita (neo- or not) or Byron Katie explain
> to me why what seems like a contradiction to me isn't one.
>
> > > > > OK, I asked Swami G - does everyone go through the Kundalini
> > > > > Journey. I asked because based on my own experience with it,
> > > > > I can't imagine that it is possible without it.
> > > >
> > > > I think that this is the most accurate and telling
> > > > statement in your post, Ron, and the one that is
> > > > most relevant to Fairfield Life and the majority
> > > > of posts here about spiritual "progress." It's
> > > > about *personal experience*, which is valid, and
> > > > about *projection of that experience onto others*,
> > > > which IMO is not.
> > > >
> > > > On this forum we've had people say that because
> > > > *they* went through a period of anger at some
> > > > spiritual teacher who disappointed them, everyone
> > > > who criticizes a spiritual teacher is also feeling
> > > > anger.
> > >
> > > FWIW I still support my original premise: If we criticise another
> > > (particularly if the other isn't even present, and we're
> > > criticising them to a 3rd party), we generally *are* coming from
> > > a place of pain (hurt/anger), whether or not we are consciously
> > > aware of it at that moment. This is because we are "shoulding"
> > > all over them :-) -- expecting them to be other than they are,
> > > and judging them for not living up to our expectations of what
> > > they "should" be or do. All of this stems from the core belief
> > > and illusion that what we are criticising is outside of ourself
> > > -- a position that is fraught with addictive pain. Practicing a
> > > little Byron-Katiesque Inquiry will soon sober us up and show
> > > us otherwise :-)
> >
> > Now let me get this straight. This sobering up
> > and seeing things otherwise, that's something
> > that we "should" be doing?
>
> The question is, "How is doing 'the work,' Byron Katie-
> style, *not* fraught with addictive pain?" It seems to
> me that what Rory describes above is very much a form
> of moodmaking -- starting with the assumption that one
> *should* not be criticizing other aspects of ones Self
> and acting accordingly, *in the pursuit of a desire*.
>
> The desire in this case is to have no expectations of
> others in terms of their behavior, and to see them as
> other aspects of one's Self, if I've gotten what
> Rory is saying. However, the desire to behave like that
> is an expectation. One *practices* "a little Byron
> Katiesque Inquiry" and intellectually convinces one's
> self that it is relating to others on a non-judgmental
> level. But it seems to me that the very *process* of
> doing this is by definition a judgment upon one's *own*
> self, a desire to *change* the way it's behaving and
> "should" it into another form of behavior, an attempt
> to moodmake it into acting the way that it "should."
>
> I'm not particularly down on Byron Katie, or advaita,
> or Rory...I'm just intrigued by the proponents of these
> philosophies' ability to ignore what seems to me to be
> a raging contradiction. If the practice they're recom-
> mending to get beyond judgment requires "the work,"
> isn't that *by definition* a form of judgment about
> judgment?
>
> And please, anyone who feels like answering, don't come
> back with "a thorn to remove a thorn." That may work on
> TMers who've been trained to salivate at the sound of
> Maharishi's voice, but it ain't gonna cut the mustard
> intellectually. What I'm asking is whether the Byron
> Katie "thorn" is just a form of moodmaking, of training
> one's self into acting a certain way ("acting" in all
> senses of that word) because they've been convinced
> that they "should" act that way? Sounds like classic
> moodmaking to me.
>
> How is "the work" gonna help you determine the proper
> course of action when the other person you're trying
> not to be judgmental about is holding a gun on you
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's "the work" a form of moodmaking?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rory Goff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > Question, short form: Is Katie's "the work," whether > > valuable or not, just another form of moodmaking? > > Answer, short form: No. > > > I don't know. I'm just wondering. Those of you who know > > more, please explain it to me. > > Try it and see for yourself, or keep on spinning rationalizations > why Not to try it, it makes no difference to me. I'm still gonna > kick you in the nuts every time I see you on crack waving a pistol > around -- metaphorically speaking of course :-) I'm chuckling, remembering when you suggested the Byron Katie approach to me some time back, and I rejected it on similar grounds to what Barry's putting forth here. He proceeded to try to kick me in the nuts for purportedly spinning rationalizations on why not to try it. (You refrained from doing so, apparently because I didn't seem to you to be metaphorically on crack waving a pistol around.)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bush appoints himself dictator in case of catastrophic event
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > HEY AMERICANS - ARE YOU WATCHING WHAT'S HAPPENING TO YOUR COUNTRY ??? > > Bush Anoints Himself as the Insurer of Constitutional Government in > Emergency > Matthew Rothschild > The Progressive, May 18, 2007 > http://progressive.org/mag_wx051807 > I'm quite shocked at this possibility. I thought your fabled written constitution was packed with various fail-safe mechanisms. Your presidential elections next year are going to be of immense importance. Uns.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's "the work" a form of moodmaking?
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > Question, short form: Is Katie's "the work," whether > > > valuable or not, just another form of moodmaking? "Rory Goff" wrote: > > Answer, short form: No. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > I don't know. I'm just wondering. Those of you who know > > > more, please explain it to me. "Rory Goff" wrote: > > Try it and see for yourself, or keep on spinning rationalizations > > why Not to try it, it makes no difference to me. I'm still gonna > > kick you in the nuts every time I see you on crack waving a > > pistol around -- metaphorically speaking of course :-) "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm chuckling, remembering when you suggested the > Byron Katie approach to me some time back, and I > rejected it on similar grounds to what Barry's > putting forth here. Hah! Yes! I LOVE the mirror-like quality of FFL, like Life cubed, as Self reflects Self to Selfnext it'll be *my* turn to use the infinite-recursion argument! > He proceeded to try to kick me in the nuts for > purportedly spinning rationalizations on why not to > try it. Priceless, isn't it? :-) (You refrained from doing so, apparently > because I didn't seem to you to be metaphorically > on crack waving a pistol around.) Right, you didn't offer me that marvelous image to play with -- but you *did* (in my reality anyhow) offer me your pain, which was all I really wanted. To whatever degree You and I are separate, my heartfelt thanks to You :-) *L*L*L*
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'MIC Threatens Hillary'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > In a message dated 7/22/07 11:29:11 P.M. Central Daylight Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > Are you just > hoping nobody here reads the newspapers? > > No, just one or two that don't spin left. "Spin left" being defined as anything that doesn't follow the hard right-wing line. Unfortunately, in this case it's not a matter of spin but of what Clinton *actually wrote* in her original request. Here's the spin (actually, the lie) from the right wing that MDixon is trying to perpetuate: "She was telling the Pentagon to whip up plans for a withdrawal from Iraq and send them to her." This is not what Clinton wrote.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's "the work" a form of moodmaking?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rory Goff" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > Question, short form: Is Katie's "the work," whether > > > valuable or not, just another form of moodmaking? > > > > Answer, short form: No. > > > > > I don't know. I'm just wondering. Those of you who know > > > more, please explain it to me. > > > > Try it and see for yourself, or keep on spinning rationalizations > > why Not to try it, it makes no difference to me. I'm still gonna > > kick you in the nuts every time I see you on crack waving a pistol > > around -- metaphorically speaking of course :-) > > I'm chuckling, remembering when you suggested the > Byron Katie approach to me some time back, and I > rejected it on similar grounds to what Barry's > putting forth here. > > He proceeded to try to kick me in the nuts for > purportedly spinning rationalizations on why not to > try it. (You refrained from doing so, apparently > because I didn't seem to you to be metaphorically > on crack waving a pistol around.) Thank you for settling, at long last, the question of whether you *have* nuts. :-) Thank you also for settling the question of how long you can go after one of your long, relaxing weekends away without falling back in to the "Gotta trash Barry" routine. :-) But just for fun, is this the post that you char- acterize as "trying to kick you in the nuts?" If so, I guess I'm trying again. What I thought your motivations were with regard to realization then are exactly what I think of them today. And there is no more of an attempt to "kick you in the nuts" in my reposting them than there was in posting them in the first place. The purpose *of* posting them is to show you the stories you tell yourself about the past, and the way that you tend to remember -- or misremember -- that past. No stories, no pain. True stories, no pain. Imagined stories, seemingly a great *deal* of pain, equivalent in your mind to being kicked in the nuts. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "L B Shriver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > > > snip > > > > That's not it. The thought is, "That hurts. I am > > > > in pain. I don't want to be in pain." > > > > > > > > That's not a "story," that's a visceral response. > > > > > > > > > > > > > No story no pain. > > > > Bull. The story is that there has to be a story. > > Attachment to attachment. I'm going to expand upon this, trying to speak as Rory does to the enlightened being that is Judy rather than the person who is going to interpret my three words above as a slam. They're not. They're a direct commentary on what I see as the real issue here. Rory (if I have interpreted his words correctly) seems to be saying that the "pain" of feeling "hurt" when someone tells you the truth is not your pain. It's not even pain. It's the death struggles of an ego trying to assert itself and survive. It's nothing more than a shadow that is growing darker as the light shining on it becomes brighter. The "pain" of feeling bad because someone tells you the truth about realization IS, as far as I can tell, just a story. And the story is fiction. You seem to be trying to make a case for the story being "real," just because you feel it. In these discussions, Rory has been telling you that you are free, and you have been asserting, over and over, that he is mistaken and that you are not. Your *stories* are what are imprisoning you, Judy. You are like a person pacing back and forth in a tiny jail cell, the bars of which keep you from walking into the world of freedom and liberation that you glimpse through the bars and that you read about in the works of those who have "broken out of prison" before you. What I think Rory is trying to say is that the bars of your jail cell don't exist. They are just a hologram, an image of a jail cell that has no real existence. The bars have no substance. The only thing that keeps you in place within the cell and keeps you from walking into the world of liberation is your *idea* that the cell is real, that the "bars" are real. For now, in my opinion, you seem to be terribly attached to the cell being real. You don't even try to rattle the bars or to examine them to see if they're real. You already "know" that they're real. Anyone who says differently is obviously fucking with you. So what you do when some- one tells you that the bars aren't real is to try to make the person who's telling you the truth feel bad about telling you the truth. You try to make the person who has caused you "pain" feel pain himself. You talk about pain...well, I'll tell you...this who
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'MIC Threatens Hillary'
In a message dated 7/24/07 8:39:04 A.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Are you just > hoping nobody here reads the newspapers? > > No, just one or two that don't spin left. "Spin left" being defined as anything that doesn't follow the hard right-wing line. Unfortunately, in this case it's not a matter of spin but of what Clinton *actually wrote* in her original request. Here's the spin (actually, the lie) from the right wing that MDixon is trying to perpetuate: "She was telling the Pentagon to whip up plans for a withdrawal from Iraq and send them to her." This is not what Clinton wrote. _Elections - Pentagon Rebukes Sen. Clinton on Iraq - AOL News_ (http://news.aol.com/elections/story/_a/pentagon-rebukes-sen-clinton-on-iraq/200707201143099 90001?ecid=RSS0001) AOL News is hardly "right wing". ** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's "the work" a form of moodmaking?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > I'm chuckling, remembering when you suggested the > > Byron Katie approach to me some time back, and I > > rejected it on similar grounds to what Barry's > > putting forth here. > > > > He proceeded to try to kick me in the nuts for > > purportedly spinning rationalizations on why not to > > try it. (You refrained from doing so, apparently > > because I didn't seem to you to be metaphorically > > on crack waving a pistol around.) > > Thank you for settling, at long last, the question > of whether you *have* nuts. :-) Barry, my nuts have always been your fantasy. > Thank you also for settling the question of how > long you can go after one of your long, relaxing > weekends away without falling back in to the "Gotta > trash Barry" routine. :-) Exactly as long as you don't provide me with targets. > But just for fun, is this the post that you char- > acterize as "trying to kick you in the nuts?" If > so, I guess I'm trying again. What I thought your > motivations were with regard to realization then > are exactly what I think of them today. And there > is no more of an attempt to "kick you in the nuts" > in my reposting them than there was in posting them > in the first place. And no less of one, either. The purpose *of* posting them > is to show you the stories you tell yourself about > the past, and the way that you tend to remember -- > or misremember -- that past. No stories, no pain. > True stories, no pain. Imagined stories, seemingly > a great *deal* of pain, equivalent in your mind to > being kicked in the nuts. Not. You missed the word "try." And this story wasn't imagined, either; thanks for confirming with your repost. Rory and I had a terrific discussion, and others chimed in with wonderful insights. Barry, almost needless to say, missed the point completely; he was, as usual, more intent on putting me down than actually following what Rory and I were talking about, let alone dealing with it. As I said at the time, he was distinctly hors de combat in that exchange. My response to the post of Barry's he goes on to quote is in message #64354, if anyone is interested. It's still hugely amusing to see Barry now taking *my* side and trying to kick *Rory* in the nuts. (I have no doubt that Rory's nuts, quite unlike mine, are not just a figment of Barry's imagination, but even so he fails to land his kick.)
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'MIC Threatens Hillary'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > In a message dated 7/24/07 8:39:04 A.M. Central Daylight Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > Are you just > > hoping nobody here reads the newspapers? > > > > No, just one or two that don't spin left. > > "Spin left" being defined as anything that doesn't > follow the hard right-wing line. > > Unfortunately, in this case it's not a matter of > spin but of what Clinton *actually wrote* in her > original request. > > Here's the spin (actually, the lie) from the > right wing that MDixon is trying to perpetuate: > > "She was telling the Pentagon to whip up plans > for a withdrawal from Iraq and send them to her." > > This is not what Clinton wrote. > > _Elections - Pentagon Rebukes Sen. Clinton on Iraq - AOL News_ > (http://news.aol.com/elections/story/_a/pentagon-rebukes-sen- clinton-on-iraq/200707201143099 > 90001?ecid=RSS0001) AOL News is hardly "right wing". Which is why it didn't misrepresent what she had written.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bush appoints himself dictator in case of catastrophic event
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "uns_tressor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex" wrote: > > > > HEY AMERICANS - ARE YOU WATCHING WHAT'S HAPPENING TO YOUR COUNTRY ??? > > > > Bush Anoints Himself as the Insurer of Constitutional Government in > > Emergency > > Matthew Rothschild > > The Progressive, May 18, 2007 > > http://progressive.org/mag_wx051807 > > > I'm quite shocked at this possibility. I thought your > fabled written constitution was packed with various > fail-safe mechanisms. Your presidential elections next > year are going to be of immense importance. > Uns. Indeed. How it plays out will be interesting and quite significant.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's "the work" a form of moodmaking?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Jul 24, 2007, at 9:23 AM, t3rinity wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > If you want to use paradox as a vehicle, > > > try running through a couple hundred mahavakyas you don't already > > > know an answer to or have discursive ideas about. > > > > Sorry Vaj, there are only 4 mahavakyas, all else are just vakyas. > > Maybe you mean koans. Its not the same, it has a different underlying > > principle, and it comes from different paths with different goals and > > spiritual perspectives. > > I was referring to the 600 or so mahavakyas of the Chinese kung-an > (called koans in Japanese) which are also used to stimulate waking in > some Buddhist schools. The goal, awakening, is the same, but the View > is different. It was actually my Patanjali guru who turned me on to > the fact that these kung-an are a more detailed and rigorous set of > mahavakyas. Sure, but then its Buddhism, not Advaita Vedanta right. Working with paradoxes to stop the mind momentarily is not the purpose of the Upanishadic Mahavakyas. The traditional advaitic method is quite different, and consists in a thorough acceptance and understanding of the advaitic truth as it is confirmed by vedic scripture - thats traditional Advaita in opposition to Neo-Advaita. The premises are the acceptance that this world is unreal and only Brahman is real. The Neo-Advaitins have appropriated the term 'Advaita' in order to describe an experience of Unity or their understanding of it, and mix with it all kinds of psychological or New Age methods. But Advaita is firmly rooted in scripture, it is 'Vedanta', the end of 'veda'. It consists of Sravana (Hearing or listening to the highest spiritual truth), Manana (The process of reasoning in which one reflects on the spiritual teacher's words and meditates upon their meaning) and Nididhyasana (Deep meditation on the truth of Brahman) Mahavakya Literally, "great saying." A Vedantic formula that declares the oneness of the individual soul with Brahman. (Each mahavakya in Vedanta comes from a different of the main Upanishads. Each of these Upanishad belongs to a different Veda, hence only 4 Mahavakyas) see:http://www.vedanta.org/wiv/glossary/glossary_mr.html I suggest to investigate terms from spiritual path within their own respective philosophies and not a hotchpotch of new age ideas.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's "the work" a form of moodmaking?
Rory: "Right, you didn't offer me that marvelous image to play with -- but you *did* (in my reality anyhow) offer me your pain, which was all I really wanted. To whatever degree You and I are separate, my heartfelt thanks to You :-)" Me: I have been enjoying lurking I have been thinking something about how you write that I would like to run by you Rory. I think you are using language that very carefully does separate you from the person you are responding to. Almost to a post there is an assertion of your separateness, specialness. I think it is very important for you to present yourself as having a special relationship with the world. I offer you another option and perspective for consideration. We may all actually be the same with regard to our states of consciousness. What you are describing in sometimes Baroque detail may just be an affectation of your use of words to describe states that everyone else is living in without needing all the descriptions. If you really want a unitive experience, I suggest trying out the following premise: You and I are actually the same. No states of awakening separate us. Neither of us are on any continuum of awareness before or after each other. We are both just simply human with the same limitations and capacities. Then go to the supermarket and look at everyone that same equal way. Everyone is just equally human and not on a path of "awakening". Just folks. I hope this wont be taken as an attack although it is a judgment I am making. (BTW nuts are actually very hard to kick so their use in fights is really overrated!) I think we have established enough rapport in previous posts to actually explore this topic a bit. I suspect Turq will have some perspective to share on this. In my daily life I notice people's language as an attempt to assert a ranking. It is a version of monkey oneupmanship. As a performing artist I must push some people's buttons because I get a regular stream of guys (always guys) who feel the need to try to find out what I make as a performer. It seems important for them to make sure I am not making much money while having this much fun. They ask a serious of roundabout questions to determine that even though they hate their jobs (their words) at least they are making more money. Here on FFL it seems that there is another ranking system in place between guys. An enlightenment-O-meter. It isn't easy for guys to drop all the affections of our primate politics. But it is sometimes an option when chosen. Are you willing to actually see me as an equal? Completely equal? Not in some cosmic perspective way that you unequally comprehend, but brother to brother? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rory Goff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB > wrote: > > > > > > Question, short form: Is Katie's "the work," whether > > > > valuable or not, just another form of moodmaking? > > "Rory Goff" wrote: > > > Answer, short form: No. > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB > wrote: > > > > I don't know. I'm just wondering. Those of you who know > > > > more, please explain it to me. > > "Rory Goff" wrote: > > > Try it and see for yourself, or keep on spinning rationalizations > > > why Not to try it, it makes no difference to me. I'm still gonna > > > kick you in the nuts every time I see you on crack waving a > > > pistol around -- metaphorically speaking of course :-) > > "authfriend" wrote: > > > > I'm chuckling, remembering when you suggested the > > Byron Katie approach to me some time back, and I > > rejected it on similar grounds to what Barry's > > putting forth here. > > Hah! Yes! I LOVE the mirror-like quality of FFL, like Life cubed, as > Self reflects Self to Selfnext it'll be *my* turn to use the > infinite-recursion argument! > > > He proceeded to try to kick me in the nuts for > > purportedly spinning rationalizations on why not to > > try it. > > Priceless, isn't it? :-) > > (You refrained from doing so, apparently > > because I didn't seem to you to be metaphorically > > on crack waving a pistol around.) > > Right, you didn't offer me that marvelous image to play with -- but > you *did* (in my reality anyhow) offer me your pain, which was all I > really wanted. To whatever degree You and I are separate, my > heartfelt thanks to You :-) > > *L*L*L* >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's "the work" a form of moodmaking?
On Jul 24, 2007, at 12:09 PM, t3rinity wrote: I suggest to investigate terms from spiritual path within their own respective philosophies and not a hotchpotch of new age ideas. I couldn't agree more, but then of course I get called a "traditionalist". Not just advaita vedanta uses mahavakyas to introduce the state of unitary awakening.
[FairfieldLife] VIDEO: The Bush Liars Lying on Tape
Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney and Powell shown lying to the American people and to the world Watch them lie: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3slsCBqrQfk&mode=related&search=
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's "the work" a form of moodmaking?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Rory: > > "Right, you didn't offer me that marvelous image to play with > > -- but you *did* (in my reality anyhow) offer me your pain, > > which was all I really wanted. To whatever degree You and I > > are separate, my heartfelt thanks to You :-)" > > Me: I have been enjoying lurking I have been thinking something > about how you write that I would like to run by you Rory. I > think you are using language that very carefully does separate > you from the person you are responding to. Almost to a post there > is an assertion of your separateness, specialness. I think it is > very important for you to present yourself as having a special > relationship with the world. Very, very interesting insight, Curtis. Now that you've mentioned it, "We're all one" *is* a putdown compared to "We're all separate and equal." > I offer you another option and perspective for consideration. > We may all actually be the same with regard to our states of > consciousness. What you are describing in sometimes Baroque > detail may just be an affectation of your use of words to > describe states that everyone else is living in without needing > all the descriptions. If you really want a unitive experience, > I suggest trying out the following premise: You and I are > actually the same. No states of awakening separate us. > Neither of us are on any continuum of awareness before or > after each other. We are both just simply human with the same > limitations and capacities. Then go to the supermarket and look > at everyone that same equal way. Everyone is just equally human > and not on a path of "awakening". Just folks. > > I hope this wont be taken as an attack although it is a judgment > I am making. (BTW nuts are actually very hard to kick so their > use in fights is really overrated!) I think we have established > enough rapport in previous posts to actually explore this topic > a bit. I suspect Turq will have some perspective to share on this. He does, but not in any "pile on Rory" sense. I honestly have never thought about this subject this way, in terms of "language as ranking system," but now that you've brought it up, it's a *very* interesting way of seeing things. > In my daily life I notice people's language as an attempt to > assert a ranking. It is a version of monkey oneupmanship. As > a performing artist I must push some people's buttons because > I get a regular stream of guys (always guys) who feel the need > to try to find out what I make as a performer. It seems important > for them to make sure I am not making much money while having > this much fun. They ask a serious of roundabout questions to > determine that even though they hate their jobs (their words) > at least they are making more money. Boy, have I seen that. Similarly, have you ever known guys who feel compelled to hit on every woman they encounter, *especially* the girlfriends or dates of the other guys? Ranking system. > Here on FFL it seems that there is another ranking system in > place between guys. An enlightenment-O-meter. Also a knowledge-O-meter. "My understanding of this esoteric scripture is superior to yours." There are a few posts lately that seem to come with a measuring tape attached, with which to measure the dick of the person being addressed and compare its length to that of the poster. :-) > It isn't easy for guys to drop all the affections of our > primate politics. But it is sometimes an option when chosen. > Are you willing to actually see me as an equal? Completely > equal? Not in some cosmic perspective way that you > unequally comprehend, but brother to brother? Best question posed on this group in quite a long while, dude. And so appropriate *to* this group. It's appropriate to *most* spiritual groups, of course, and each has its own "measuring tape language," but the lingering effects of the TM movement have drummed its better than/higher than language and concepts into people Big Time. Think the "flying contests." Think the jockeying for who can contribute the most $ and thus sit the closest to Maharishi, or even be in the same room with him while the peons watch on TV. Think the distinctions between raja, purusha/MD, recert governor, governor, recert TM teacher, TM teacher, citizen siddha, and lowly peon. Think the flowing robes and the crowns and the titles appropriated from royal courts, ferchis- sakes. The whole *movement* is structured in levels of oneupsmanship, so *of course* that's going to bleed over into one's thought patterns and language. What you say about Rory's use of language as a ranking device certainly strikes a resonance with me, but now that you've brought it up, I can see it in many others as well. And yes, occasionally in myself. Rarely in you, for the record. There's a Bruce Cockburn line in one of his songs that speaks to this subject: Why do
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's "the work" a form of moodmaking?
Are you sure you are talking about *Judy* here? because what I am hearing is you talking to yourself Barry, all the way down. Has nothing to do with Judy, except as a device for your own distraction.:-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Your *stories* are what are imprisoning you, Judy. You > are like a person pacing back and forth in a tiny jail > cell, the bars of which keep you from walking into the > world of freedom and liberation that you glimpse through > the bars and that you read about in the works of those > who have "broken out of prison" before you. > > What I think Rory is trying to say is that the bars of your > jail cell don't exist. They are just a hologram, an image > of a jail cell that has no real existence. The bars have > no substance. The only thing that keeps you in place > within the cell and keeps you from walking into the > world of liberation is your *idea* that the cell is > real, that the "bars" are real. > > For now, in my opinion, you seem to be terribly attached > to the cell being real. You don't even try to rattle the bars > or to examine them to see if they're real. You already > "know" that they're real. Anyone who says differently is > obviously fucking with you. So what you do when some- > one tells you that the bars aren't real is to try to make the > person who's telling you the truth feel bad about telling > you the truth. You try to make the person who has caused > you "pain" feel pain himself. > > You talk about pain...well, I'll tell you...this whole process > is more than a little painful to watch. > > The attachment I see here is your attachment to things > as they have been for your whole life. You've learned > to cope with things the way they've been for your whole > life. In your own words, you've "developed a thick skin." > You've learned to ignore any information that seems > contrary to the way things have been for your whole life. > You say, "The bars are real; the cell is real; I really *am* > a prisoner here, and I resent you who have tasted free- > dom telling me that the reality I see around me *isn't* > real." The attachment, in other words, is to attachment > itself, to the status quo that you have developed a thick > skin about, to nothing ever really changing. > > The cell isn't real. The bars don't really exist. One day > you're going to get tired of trying to intellectually under- > stand enlightenment and just go for enlightenment. One > day you're going to forget your self and its attachments > and just start walking. And when you do, you'll find > yourself outside the cell. It'll surprise the shit out of you. > You'll probably walk back and look at it, just to see if > it was real all this time. You'll reach out and touch the > "bars" and your hand will go right through them, as if > they weren't there. They weren't there. All that was > ever there was your *story* about the bars, your sad, > sad tale of being stuck in jail, unjustly. > > You'll realize that there was never anything you could > DO to escape from jail, because you were never in it > in the first place. There IS no doing when it comes to > escaping from the imaginary prison of self. > > I hope for your sake that this happens soon. I know that > it'll happen, in spite of your self's efforts to keep it from > happening. That's the magic of self realization -- even > the self can't keep itself from realization. >
[FairfieldLife] Eating Slaumers
This morning I had a tasty treat -- I ate a slaumer. It was surprisingly juicy, had a yellow and rose colored thin outer skin, quite sweet but not overwhelmingly sweet like some fruits can be, crispy and crunchy flesh. I've seen this fruit before in other colors too -- all yellow, all green, all red, and mottled varieties, and the taste of the flesh can differ quite, but there's no mistaking a slaumer for any other fruit. The small black seeds were bitter, so don't eat them, but you can eat just about all the rest of it, except for the woody stem, if it's still attached. The skin is kinda like paper or celluloidish, very very thin, but very edible and has a taste all its own. Sticks in one's teeth though. I say leave the skin on, don't peel it. I even liked the sound it makes when I bite into it, and the size too is just right, bigger than a plum but still small enough to eat in one sitting and not ruin one's hunger for a coming meal , and though eating only one isn't especially filling, your jaw muscles will get a decent workout -- this thing has serious crunch to deliver -- even the small bits as one nears the end of the chewing can still challenge one's biting down. And every crunch delivers a spritz of flavor. Some folks cook them, and everyone knows they're a very very safe food to give one's kids. I like it's heft, being mostly water, and thus it won't disappoint you if you pick one up -- not like oranges which can dry out and be basically juice free. The slaumer is sure to deliver poundage -- value for value. Ergonomically, they're like the perfect size to hold on to -- not golf ball tiny or softball big, but just about every size in between can be found. And, well, they're pretty. I found my slaumers at a roadside stand of a farmer. Bought a bushel of them and they're going fast. If you can find them, try 'em. For the ones that grew last year and have been sitting in a cooler for months, well, they can lose taste and texture, so beware. But, hopefully, my words above have encourage you folks out there to try one. I know it's a bother to actually do something in order to have the experience I have just had, but 99% of you are going to like this taste. My words cannot do them justice. Ancient, time honored food across many cultures too. What's not to love, eh? Oh, wait. Did I say "slaumer?" I meant "apple." Why didn't you know I was describing an apple until now? Okay, next subject: I had a spiritual experience this morning, and I want to describe it for you . . . . Edg
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's "the work" a form of moodmaking?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > Rory: > > > "Right, you didn't offer me that marvelous image to play with > > > -- but you *did* (in my reality anyhow) offer me your pain, > > > which was all I really wanted. To whatever degree You and I > > > are separate, my heartfelt thanks to You :-)" > > > > Me: I have been enjoying lurking I have been thinking something > > about how you write that I would like to run by you Rory. I > > think you are using language that very carefully does separate > > you from the person you are responding to. Almost to a post there > > is an assertion of your separateness, specialness. I think it is > > very important for you to present yourself as having a special > > relationship with the world. There are two different things being talked about here; two separate domains. To say we are all one is valid as a way to live our lives like Curtis says, why judge anyone when we are going about our normal active reactive lives? No reason to work within any sort of context. Just be. What Rory is describing is the difference between taking responsibility for the way we each see and shape the world, and the opposite view, which is to blame the outside world for our problems; our "he shoulds" and "she shoulds". He further stated that the model in which we blame the outside world for our problems, as you were doing in "shoulding" all over Ron, or Judy, or etc, etc, etc. is really an attempt to keep your pain at bay, instead of facing it and resolving it. So two domains; on the one hand, an open attitude when dealing with others in a day to day way, and on the other hand, a specific mechanism to deal with buried pain. If you conflate the two, as Curtis has done, there is no need to do anything about anything- stay static, stay in inertia. That is certainly a choice, though there is always the alternative which Rory has spoken about also. Trace the "you should" back to its source, and see it as an inner rectification, rather than an outside problem that the person being addressed needs to fix in order for you to feel better about yourself. Similarly, we can talk about methods and techniques that we may use to grow spiritually, or we can decide that we are A-OK and decide that we don't have to. Your choice, my choice, Curtis's choice, Rory's choice. So this discussion is about choices, not judgment.:-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eating Slaumers
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Oh, wait. Did I say "slaumer?" > > I meant "apple." > > Why didn't you know I was describing an apple until now? > > Okay, next subject: I had a spiritual experience this morning, > and I want to describe it for you . . . No need. You just did. And well, too. :-) That's it exactly. We can't convey the real experience, but we can hint at it, or even more effective, can try to find some way to relate the experience that we had to one that the reader might have had, and establish a relationship between the two. The reader then has the opportunity to make the connection and intuit from the experience they have had something of the experience that they haven't. "Oh, my hut." It's not about huts at all.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's "the work" a form of moodmaking?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rory Goff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > >> In the above example, Rory is embracing absolute POV 'criticizing > is > > projecting our own inner pain on others' and therefore taking an > > extreme POV, rather than embracing the paradox: all is one and > > assholes still exist. > Because Rory takes an extreme, absolutist > > position, he falls into "accepting and rejecting" and therefore, > > polarities. > > Whether an asshole actually exists or not is impossible for me to say. > I am rejecting that my suffering has an external reality, yes. If that > makes me somehow "falling into polarities," then so be it :-) >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's "the work" a form of moodmaking?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rory Goff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > >> In the above example, Rory is embracing absolute POV 'criticizing > is > > projecting our own inner pain on others' and therefore taking an > > extreme POV, rather than embracing the paradox: all is one and > > assholes still exist. > Because Rory takes an extreme, absolutist > > position, he falls into "accepting and rejecting" and therefore, > > polarities. > > Whether an asshole actually exists or not is impossible for me to say. > I am rejecting that my suffering has an external reality, yes. If that > makes me somehow "falling into polarities," then so be it :-) >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's "the work" a form of moodmaking?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What you say about Rory's use of language as a ranking > device certainly strikes a resonance with me, but now > that you've brought it up, I can see it in many others > as well. And yes, occasionally in myself. Rarely in you, > for the record. Barry. You use it *all the time*. It's how you assert your spiritual superiority. You use more of it, more often, than anyone else here--*way* more than Rory--to rank yourself higher and others lower. It's ironic that you mention above about being in the same room with MMY while the "peons" watch on TV. How many times, do you imagine, have you used that one to put me or other TMers down who haven't spent time with MMY? Or the way you rank those who have purportedly "paid their dues" by becoming TM teachers higher than those who haven't? And those are just two of innumerable examples. > And, now that you've brought the subject up, I find > myself appreciating the few here who are *rarely* "more." > They don't seem to need the ranking system. They're > just *fine* with being equals with the people they're > addressing. Sez Barry, ranking people who don't seem to need the ranking system higher than those who do. Ranking so pervades your thinking, Barry, that you don't even see it. It's like water to a fish.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's "the work" a form of moodmaking?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Jul 24, 2007, at 12:09 PM, t3rinity wrote: > > > I suggest to investigate terms from spiritual path within their own > > respective philosophies and not a hotchpotch of new age ideas. > > > I couldn't agree more, but then of course I get called a > "traditionalist". Not by me though. I appreciate when people have an insight or some background knowledge of the terms they are actually using. And it's of course ridiculous by some ( I just read a post stating this) to interpret this as a 'showing up' or trying to be knowledge-wise upscale etc. Should we all be just dumb and stupid, in order to not show off? We would always be just on the surface of things. Instead, when using terms, one could as well try to be a little bit more knowledgeable about the history and /or philosophic context. Why don't people stay out of a discussion rather than using this 'We are all the same and you are just trying to show off' logic which is childish and just shows an inferiority complex. (Sorry, this wasn't directed to you ;-)) > Not just advaita vedanta uses mahavakyas to introduce the state of > unitary awakening. Okay, accepted, but the word then has a different meaning. I didn't know, and its good to be clear about it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's "the work" a form of moodmaking?
Thanks for responding Turq. Pinning it all on Rory isn't completely fair since it is a quality in many posts as you mention. I had a nice little self-reflection on whether or not I was using my own self admitted "commonness" in the same way! It is an imposition of my own values onto someone else's experience so it is susceptible to the same quality I am discussing. But my appeal to viewing us all as equally ordinary as humans is not some special insight I have gained by being special in any way. Many people on earth view others this way, it is a very ordinary egalitarian perspective on people. Christ didn't teach me this so I am following a path of divine love for mankind, it isn't based on years of meditation or contemplation of man's place. It just seems to be a baseline fact of our existence. (self-evident...not!) Just my choice of point of view. I was having dinner with a guy after busking on Sunday. He had arrived on his boat to the docks where I perform and he has been a fan of my music for years. He projects a lot onto me about how I am living a life he wished he "could". He has a bunch of kids, a nasty divorce, and a high paying TV network job, so he feels trapped with his life. His solution seems to be to stay very drunk a lot. We had a pretty insightful discussion of values over dinner in between his challenges to arm wrestle him! A bit oafish, but interesting enough to be worth the trouble. He spent a lot of time trying to contextualize my life with his. I really couldn't relate to his need. I don't think I am superior in any way to guys who bust their butts for the big bucks, especially for their kids. I am not a suit-hater like some flannel-clad refugee from the Seattle grunge era. I think we are all struggling with the exact same human condition which is facing mortality (our own and loved ones) in the face of uncertain knowledge about ultimate reality. He made some attempts to assert that Christ had taken care of all that for us but, as you can imagine, it didn't exactly get too far with me. So thanks for not seeing it as Rory bashing. I look forward to his response to it and how he relates to this perspective if he chooses to respond. I may be completely full of it, but I do have a certain confidence that everyone else is just like me, doing the best they can with the weird mix of genetics and circumstances that brought us to where we are in our lives. We are not only just bozos on this bus, we are each capable of wisdom and insights. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > Rory: > > > "Right, you didn't offer me that marvelous image to play with > > > -- but you *did* (in my reality anyhow) offer me your pain, > > > which was all I really wanted. To whatever degree You and I > > > are separate, my heartfelt thanks to You :-)" > > > > Me: I have been enjoying lurking I have been thinking something > > about how you write that I would like to run by you Rory. I > > think you are using language that very carefully does separate > > you from the person you are responding to. Almost to a post there > > is an assertion of your separateness, specialness. I think it is > > very important for you to present yourself as having a special > > relationship with the world. > > Very, very interesting insight, Curtis. > > Now that you've mentioned it, "We're all one" *is* a > putdown compared to "We're all separate and equal." > > > I offer you another option and perspective for consideration. > > We may all actually be the same with regard to our states of > > consciousness. What you are describing in sometimes Baroque > > detail may just be an affectation of your use of words to > > describe states that everyone else is living in without needing > > all the descriptions. If you really want a unitive experience, > > I suggest trying out the following premise: You and I are > > actually the same. No states of awakening separate us. > > Neither of us are on any continuum of awareness before or > > after each other. We are both just simply human with the same > > limitations and capacities. Then go to the supermarket and look > > at everyone that same equal way. Everyone is just equally human > > and not on a path of "awakening". Just folks. > > > > I hope this wont be taken as an attack although it is a judgment > > I am making. (BTW nuts are actually very hard to kick so their > > use in fights is really overrated!) I think we have established > > enough rapport in previous posts to actually explore this topic > > a bit. I suspect Turq will have some perspective to share on this. > > He does, but not in any "pile on Rory" sense. I honestly > have never thought about this subject this way, in terms > of "language as ranking system," but now that you've > brought it up, it's a *very* interesting way of seeing > things. > > > In my
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's "the work" a form of moodmaking?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Thanks for responding Turq. Pinning it all on Rory isn't > completely fair since it is a quality in many posts as you > mention. I had a nice little self-reflection on whether > or not I was using my own self admitted "commonness" in > the same way! As did I. I have actually written, on this forum and on others, several times now, of one of the things I do almost religiously with my posts. Once a month or so, I go through all of them and reread them as if the person I had been talking to was myself. I've been doing this for years now. I've learned much from this. > It is an imposition of my own values onto someone else's > experience so it is susceptible to the same quality I am > discussing. But my appeal to viewing us all as equally > ordinary as humans is not some special insight I have > gained by being special in any way. Many people on earth > view others this way, it is a very ordinary egalitarian > perspective on people. Christ didn't teach me this so > I am following a path of divine love for mankind, it > isn't based on years of meditation or contemplation of > man's place. It just seems to be a baseline fact of our > existence. > (self-evident...not!) Just my choice of point of view. And a good choice, as far as I am concerned. I have certainly never achieved this egalitarianism, but I think I might have gotten closer to it than some folks who, when the subject comes up, lapse into, "Yeah, I was a bully on the playground this morning, but Billy was a bully, too. And he's been a bully for longer than I have...let me tell you about some of the terrible things he's done." :-) *Of course* I've done the stuff you're talking about, Curtis. *That* is why it struck such a resonance for me. It's like, Duh! I was a member of the TM cult for many years. Then I moved on to another cult for just as many years. In each of them (the second a little less than the first), the entire *environment* was structured around being superior to other people who weren't in the cult, and to some others who were in the cult but not on the same "level." Anyone here who has been a part of the TMO who says that they *can't* identify with this is IMO indulging is self deception or lying. Me, I've tried for almost nine years now, since beat- ing feet from the last cult, to *get over* some of this feeling of hierarchy and one's place in that hierarchy, to *get over* the sense of superiority and "best-ness" and being "more evolved" that was programmed into us for so many years and decades. And I've failed more often than I've succeeded. But that doesn't mean that I can't keep trying, and that I can't appreciate someone who has gotten over it to a greater extent than I have, or who never succumbed to it in the first place. Do I have a greater degree of respect for these people than I do those whose reaction to this very subject coming up for discussion is to either deny that they do it or to point fingers at someone else and say, "Yeah, but they do it, too." Again, well Duh! :-) > I was having dinner with a guy after busking on Sunday. He > had arrived on his boat to the docks where I perform and he > has been a fan of my music for years. He projects a lot > onto me about how I am living a life he wished he "could". > He has a bunch of kids, a nasty divorce, and a high paying > TV network job, so he feels trapped with his life. His > solution seems to be to stay very drunk a lot. We had > a pretty insightful discussion of values over dinner in > between his challenges to arm wrestle him! A bit oafish, > but interesting enough to be worth the trouble. He spent > a lot of time trying to contextualize my life with his. > I really couldn't relate to his need. I don't think I am > superior in any way to guys who bust their butts for the > big bucks, especially for their kids. I am not a suit-hater > like some flannel-clad refugee from the Seattle grunge era. > I think we are all struggling with the exact same human > condition which is facing mortality (our own and loved ones) > in the face of uncertain knowledge about ultimate reality. > He made some attempts to assert that Christ had taken care > of all that for us but, as you can imagine, it didn't > exactly get too far with me. > > So thanks for not seeing it as Rory bashing. I really didn't see it that way. It was, as I said, pretty much the first time I had ever looked at the *language of spirituality* that way. And it's an interesting way *to* look at that language. More evolved/Less evolved. More honest/less honest. CC, GC, UC/plain olde waking state. Enlightened people who can do no possible wrong, and whose per- ceptions are always accurate because they have evolved past the things that would cloud their vision, and who are in tune with the Laws Of Nature. Ranking systems all. > I look forward to his response
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's "the work" a form of moodmaking?
---Below: Rory says suffering has no objective reality. True, but irrelevant in terms of the actions that may be required to offset the suffering. The proposed remedies - whatever they are - also have no objective reality, so we are back to square one. Thus, if some home invaders are attacking your neighbors, do something about it. We don't say "those guys have no objective external reality, so why bother?". The neo-Advaitins paint themselves into a corner of contradictions. The fact that nothing has an "external" reality shouldn't influence (IMO) one's natural tendancy to help others.; so why even say "this and that has no external reality"? That's obvious! When it comes to $$, the neo-Advaitin Gurus are quick to acknowledge the objective, external reality of money. In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rory Goff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > >> In the above example, Rory is embracing absolute POV 'criticizing > is > > projecting our own inner pain on others' and therefore taking an > > extreme POV, rather than embracing the paradox: all is one and > > assholes still exist. > Because Rory takes an extreme, absolutist > > position, he falls into "accepting and rejecting" and therefore, > > polarities. > > Whether an asshole actually exists or not is impossible for me to say. > I am rejecting that my suffering has an external reality, yes. If that > makes me somehow "falling into polarities," then so be it :-) >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Welcome to Richistan, USA
shempmcgurk wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Where Shemp "dreams" to live. >> >> "America's super-rich have returned to the days of the Roaring >> > Twenties. > >> As the rest of the country struggles to get by, >> > "struggles to get by"? Sure, if you've overextended yourself. > Otherwise, there has never been a time in human history in which > those in the lowest rungs of society have it so well off. > Nonsense. The cost of living has risen tremendously but you apparently didn't notice. Just the cost of gas rising has increased the cost of many things including food. Yup, I don't have much sympathy for many of the fools who bought big SUVs and pickups because they were "discounted" and didn't think about the cost of gas. >> a huge bubble of >> multi-millionaires lives almost in a parallel world. The rich now >> > live > >> in their own world of private education, >> > > ...which the less well off could have, too, if we had a school > voucher program... > More nonsense. Quality public education even for college should be free. We could easily have that and money left over if we didn't waste money on that stupid war in Iraq which is only done to profit Bush's buddies. >> private health care >> > > Huh? > > The vast majority of Americans have "private health care". Only > those without health insurance -- approximately 45 million -- are on > public health care programs. > And what programs are these. There are over 40 million with no health care whatsoever. Wake up. >> and gated >> mansions. They have their own schools >> > > > > > > > Oh, this is getting silly. > > And, of course, it's from The Guardian, so what do you expect? > The book was written by a columnist from the Wall Street Journal. > > We need MORE rich people in America and the rest of the world so that > they bring up the masses with them to higher levels of affluence and > economic security. > Yes, more rich and fewer or no super-rich. Just use a progressive income tax to reduce the number of super-rich. That worked well up until 1982 when Reagan screwed up things. Even Gates and Buffet are in favor of this.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Bush appoints himself dictator in case of catastrophic event
TurquoiseB wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: >> >>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: >>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu wrote: > You'd think the country was constantly under siege by Islamic > terrorists which it isn't and nowhere close. This nonsense is > totally unwarranted but their think tanks told them that when > the economic shit hits the fan there will be massive unrest in > this country (that is if the massive overweight can still walk > the few steps to the streets) so they are putting the tools in > place to control us. > The last thing I want to do is get involved in a bunch of US politics and conspiracy theories, but as long as you're doing it, I think you might want to aim your conspiracy theory a little less far into the future. Economic collapse, scholapse, dude...there is an *election* coming up, and elec- tion that the Republicons cannot possibly win. So do you think it's possible that a few of them are thinking, "H...we can't win an election, so why don't we have a terrorist attack instead? Then we wouldn't have to *have* an election." That's the way we'd do a good conspiracy theory 'way over here in Europe. :-) And just in case things turn out that way, I just wanted to be on record as having said it first, *from* 'way over here in Europe. :-) :-) :-) >>> Ahhh, no, not really. If I had a nickel for every >>> time I've heard this suggested--since well before >>> the 2004 election up to today--I'd be a wealthy >>> woman. >>> >> Yeah, but it would be an uneasy wealth. As when you go to buy >> a car and unload 100,000 nickels. >> > > Not to mention that the idea's been around for decades in > scifi, not just since 2004. I wrote a scifi short story > myself in the early 90s about a US president who stages a > suitcase-nuke attack against an American city in an attempt > to establish an authoritarian regime. > > What triggered the story idea at the time was not the real > possibility of terrorist attacks against America (which > hadn't happened yet) and thus the staging of them, but a > simple set of laws that I stumbled across on my first visit > to New Mexico. I was visiting Los Alamos and read an article > in the paper there about a neighborhood in the town, close > to some of the oldest nuclear facilities at LANL, in which > *every family in the neighborhood* had one or more cases > of cancer in the family. > > The gist of the article was that the city of Los Alamos > and the state of New Mexico was powerless to conduct any > tests to determine if the soil in the neighborhood was > polluted with nuclear radiation, because *they were for- > bidden by Federal law from doing so*. > > These laws have supposedly been in effect since the 1950s > and the Cold War. *Only the Federal government* of the > United States has the right to investigate nuclear events. > It's actually against the law for anyone else to run their > own tests or do any serious investigation. > > So in the story, even though I imagined a "nuclear foot- > print" to the suitcase nuke that would have identified it > as being American-made, no one was allowed to determine > that "footprint" except the government itself, and so > the report that they issued said that it had come from > the former Soviet Union. > > It was just a story, but the sad reality is that, given > these laws, it doesn't have to stay one. And false flag operations have been used by rulers throughout history. The public is very gullible but you usually can't pull the wool over the intelligentsia. When Bush started bombing Iraq I decried on Yahoo group lists the unwarranted bombing of a sovereign country. I was onto Bushco's lies as were others but some on the lists acted as if I was a traitor. I hate "groupthink" like that but find it challenging and fun to oppose it. Now many of those folks realize I was right. I also remember the "groupthink" after 9-11 I wanted no part of. The high school boys all acting macho and ready to "join up" to fight "the terrorists" (fine if they fight the right ones). But to their credit the military quickly made it clear that they didn't just want a bunch of kids with a "gung ho" attitude. Speaking of "groupthink" yesterday while sitting on the patio at the local Starbucks I overheard a conversation between a couple of young 20 somethings. The guy was trying to get the girl to read Bible scripture regularly and the girl was complaining she couldn't get into it. It was obvious to me she wanted to deal with reality and the guy was trying to impose an illusion or maya on her. This is how the religious right dumbs down societ
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's "the work" a form of moodmaking?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have actually written, on this forum and on others, > several times now, of one of the things I do almost > religiously with my posts. Once a month or so, I go > through all of them and reread them as if the person > I had been talking to was myself. I've been doing this > for years now. I've learned much from this. Sure can't tell you've learned anything from your posts, Barry. You've been doing the ranking thing for as long as I've known you. It's always been the *foundation* of your approach to discussing spirituality. > Anyone here who has been a part of the TMO who says > that they *can't* identify with this is IMO indulging > is self deception or lying. Here you're ranking others by whether they do or don't identify with it. > Me, I've tried for almost nine years now, since beat- > ing feet from the last cult, to *get over* some of > this feeling of hierarchy and one's place in that > hierarchy, to *get over* the sense of superiority > and "best-ness" and being "more evolved" that was > programmed into us for so many years and decades. And here you're ranking yourself above those you perceive not to have "gotten over" it. > Do I have a greater degree > of respect for these people than I do those whose > reaction to this very subject coming up for discussion > is to either deny that they do it or to point fingers > at someone else and say, "Yeah, but they do it, too." More ranking. > More evolved/Less evolved. More honest/less honest. > CC, GC, UC/plain olde waking state. Enlightened > people who can do no possible wrong, and whose per- > ceptions are always accurate because they have > evolved past the things that would cloud their > vision, and who are in tune with the Laws Of Nature. > Ranking systems all. Another ranking system: Those who rank versus those who don't. > Your perception of the *language of spirituality*, > and its usage as a form of ranking system, got me > thinking about how to recognize it. One of the ways > that's occurring to me is how someone reacts when > someone else here says something about them that is > *very* contrary to the way that they obviously see > themselves. We've all seen folks who react by...uh... > reacting, and get all huffy and defensive about it, > or by actually attacking the person that they believe > has attacked them. But we've also seen a few great > examples of folks saying, "Yep, that's me. Or another > part of me, at any rate." I can't help but think that > the latter just might be displaying a tad more wisdom > and insight. Or, possibly what someone else has said about them is accurate, as opposed to being off the wall. That doesn't make them "better," but it > sure does make you want to share a beer with them > more than you might want to share one with someone > who reacts by going postal. Barry. This is just as much ranking, just as much saying they're "better," only without using that word.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's "the work" a form of moodmaking?
On Jul 24, 2007, at 3:38 PM, yifuxero wrote: ---Below: Rory says suffering has no objective reality. True, but irrelevant in terms of the actions that may be required to offset the suffering. The proposed remedies - whatever they are - also have no objective reality, so we are back to square one. Thus, if some home invaders are attacking your neighbors, do something about it. We don't say "those guys have no objective external reality, so why bother?". The neo-Advaitins paint themselves into a corner of contradictions. The fact that nothing has an "external" reality shouldn't influence (IMO) one's natural tendancy to help others.; so why even say "this and that has no external reality"? That's obvious! When it comes to $$, the neo-Advaitin Gurus are quick to acknowledge the objective, external reality of money. Nicely said. This is a common theme in neo-advaitin "realizers", the inability to present a correct View (drsti) regarding the "two truths" (satyadvaya). It's always a dead giveaway.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's "the work" a form of moodmaking?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: "Are you willing to actually see me as an equal? Completely equal? Not in some cosmic perspective way that you unequally comprehend, but brother to brother? " Here my opinion: We are not equal. I think what you are trying to convey is a mere dogma. We are ONE in the ultimate sense of being Brahman, but as far as I understand, that is a reality that you do not accept. As human beings we are different in intelligence, moral capacity, professional skills, and - this is my belief - spiritual advancement. Yes I believe in spiritual evolution, and that we are all on some scale of it, and that our spiritual experiences may actually reflect it. But I also think, that the more we are spiritually speaking, 'evolved', the more we lose our identification with a 'personality', and the identification with being an 'actor' responsible for whatever advancement is being done. I also feel that it is bad for the ego to feel superior to others - but thats in one way a spiritual consideration, as in spirituality the ego is something to be overcome. Your statement: 'We are all equal', is as I understand it, more or less a moralistic one, it comes from a humanistic perspective.While I understand the humanistic value of it, as a fact it is wrong. And in the way you state it above, you are simply trying to impose your own philosophic (or non-philosophic) outlook on Rory, or whoever you may feel is concerned. That's wrong because we all didn't want to convince each other of our respective religious beliefs, right? But here you state "Not in some cosmic perspective way that you unequally comprehend, but brother to brother?" (Using original religious language yourself - brother, we are all brothers and sisters descending from Adam and Eve- appropriated in a humanistic atheist way.) In a way, you simply disagree with Rorys spiritual evolutionary perspective, and somehow find fault that his language reflects it. The equality you propose is something completely different than the unity Advaita speaks of. As you cannot really relate to these experiences - you simply deny their validity - you try to put it on a level you can relate to: We are all the same human, we will all die, the same idiots , sometimes having insights etc. But what is wrong with some people being superior to you? I believe in a God, who is infinitely superior to me. I believe in spiritual evolution, which means, I can ascend and be superior to others - but at the same time I have to accept that there are others, billions, which are far more evolved than me and will always be. Egalitarism is just another way the ego works out IMO. 'We are all the same' means no one can be above me. No god, no human being, no higher spirit or master. Look at it from this POV: You can't have anyone above you, your ego won't allow. Understanding your own human limitations, egalitarism is a way to ensure, if even yourself can't be on top, nobody else can either. It has nothing to do with combating the ego. But thats not what you may want anyway. As I understand you, and I don't mean to insult you in any way, you are seeking some common ground with spiritual people here. So you give your interpretation of what 'sameness' or Oneness means and at the same time express your discomfort with the philosophy and spiritual insights of Rory and others here. And you surely are irreverent to the fact, that those experiences / insights are earned through a life of spiritual endeaver, 'work' (title of Byrons method) and focus for decades. Nobody would deny this regarding your music skills. We are not equal at all, we don't have the same skills and don't have the same spiritual experiences, nothing to be proud of though. For those who are lucky to have whatever spiritual insight, its rather something to be grateful and it rather evokes humility to something bigger than the 'little' self. I feel pity for those who haven't experienced this, but I can't look down on them, nor do I think that Rory indicated this in any way. I see him as a completely humble spiritual practitionar, who is far beyond me. I'd like to give you the following koan: If you loose your own personality, you can afford to be non-equal. > I think you are > using language that very carefully does separate you from the person > you are responding to. Almost to a post there is an assertion of your > separateness, specialness. I think it is very important for you to > present yourself as having a special relationship with the world. I > offer you another option and perspective for consideration. We may > all actually be the same with regard to our states of consciousness. > What you are describing in sometimes Baroque detail may just be an > affectation of your use of words to describe states that everyone else > is living in without needing all the descriptions. If you really want > a unitive experience, I suggest trying out the following p
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Welcome to Richistan, USA
In a message dated 7/24/07 2:47:16 P.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Quality public education even for college should be free. We could easily have that and money left over if we didn't waste money on that stupid war in Iraq which is only done to profit Bush's buddies. Why not free public housing and utilities along with free healthcare and legal care? ** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
[FairfieldLife] Jesus Christ speaks of the living waters..bliss consciousness!
Jesus (addressing the Samarian woman at the well) answered and said unto her, "Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again, ...but, whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst, the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water (bliss,anandam) springing up into everlasting life". John 4:13.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'Hillary Kicks Brass'
In a message dated 7/22/07 10:47:24 P.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: She didn't vote "for the war." She voted to authorize Bush to use force only if diplomacy was unsuccessful. Bush, of course, never had any intention of using diplomacy. The war was a done deal long before anybody voted for or against the authorization. We hear this a lot these days, but did any of the Democrat Senators protest immediately before or after hostilities began that their vote "authorizing" force was being misused by Bush? I don't recall any until it was becoming obvious that the military had not found any WMD's and would likely not find any either. You are right , the war was a done deal before the vote was taken and everybody that voted for authorization knew it. ** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's "the work" a form of moodmaking?
On Jul 24, 2007, at 4:39 PM, Vaj wrote: the "two truths" I'm sorry (someone nudged me offlist). The "two truths" are the relative (truth) and the absolute (truth). Thanks Kala. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's "the work" a form of moodmaking?
Thanks for taking the time to respond in detail. I think you have brought out some very good points about our different world views. I do agree with your point about people's differences concerning talents, intelligence and skills. You have correctly noted that I do not recognize the same meaning value in some spiritual experiences that some here do. It is not because I can not relate to them, it is because I view their value differently. What it means is where we differ. I don't recognize that a person's inner experiences make him "higher" than me in any way. As far as your pointing out that I am imposing my POV on Rory and advocating a position, I agree. Of course I don't expect anyone to say "Yeah that's right people's state of consciousness doesn't matter." I was using it as a point of discussion of our different POVs. I don't view the ego in the way you seem to be using it and losing my personality is not a goal for me. I do recognize when people are superior to me in a lot of ways. Some people have higher IQs and I can appreciate their CPU power when I interact with them. In the world of martial arts it is always humbling to fight a person with higher skills, sometimes so much higher that it blows my mind. In music I tend to see things less in a hierarchy because I don't view art in a competitive framework. If a person has less technical skill than I have in harmonica but blows some real soul stirring notes I am all in. They are equal to anything I do. Likewise, I can hear a "better" guitarist but if they don't deliver the feeling I seek from music I don't think of them as "higher", even though they choose to do something I haven't practiced enough to do. I guess the consciousness meter is like that for me. Someone's descriptions of their subjective experiences doesn't make me automatically give any credit. If you told me that you had lunch with God yesterday, I would be more interested in the menu. Your post was very thoughtful and I am going to read it a few more times to try to understand your points better. Believe me that I appreciate your time and thoughtfulness on this topic. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > "Are you willing to actually see me as an equal? Completely equal? > Not in some cosmic perspective way that you unequally comprehend, but > brother to brother? " > > Here my opinion: > > We are not equal. I think what you are trying to convey is a mere > dogma. We are ONE in the ultimate sense of being Brahman, but as far > as I understand, that is a reality that you do not accept. As human > beings we are different in intelligence, moral capacity, professional > skills, and - this is my belief - spiritual advancement. Yes I believe > in spiritual evolution, and that we are all on some scale of it, and > that our spiritual experiences may actually reflect it. But I also > think, that the more we are spiritually speaking, 'evolved', the more > we lose our identification with a 'personality', and the > identification with being an 'actor' responsible for whatever > advancement is being done. I also feel that it is bad for the ego to > feel superior to others - but thats in one way a spiritual > consideration, as in spirituality the ego is something to be overcome. > > Your statement: 'We are all equal', is as I understand it, more or > less a moralistic one, it comes from a humanistic perspective.While I > understand the humanistic value of it, as a fact it is wrong. And in > the way you state it above, you are simply trying to impose your own > philosophic (or non-philosophic) outlook on Rory, or whoever you may > feel is concerned. That's wrong because we all didn't want to convince > each other of our respective religious beliefs, right? But here you > state "Not in some cosmic perspective way that you unequally > comprehend, but brother to brother?" (Using original religious > language yourself - brother, we are all brothers and sisters > descending from Adam and Eve- appropriated in a humanistic atheist > way.) In a way, you simply disagree with Rorys spiritual evolutionary > perspective, and somehow find fault that his language reflects it. The > equality you propose is something completely different than the unity > Advaita speaks of. As you cannot really relate to these experiences - > you simply deny their validity - you try to put it on a level you can > relate to: We are all the same human, we will all die, the same idiots > , sometimes having insights etc. But what is wrong with some people > being superior to you? I believe in a God, who is infinitely superior > to me. I believe in spiritual evolution, which means, I can ascend and > be superior to others - but at the same time I have to accept that > there are others, billions, which are far more evolved than me and > will always be. > > Egalitarism is just another way the ego wo
[FairfieldLife] Re: Welcome to Richistan, USA
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > shempmcgurk wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu wrote: > > > >> Where Shemp "dreams" to live. > >> > >> "America's super-rich have returned to the days of the Roaring > >> > > Twenties. > > > >> As the rest of the country struggles to get by, > >> > > "struggles to get by"? Sure, if you've overextended yourself. > > Otherwise, there has never been a time in human history in which > > those in the lowest rungs of society have it so well off. > > > Nonsense. The cost of living has risen tremendously but you apparently > didn't notice. Just the cost of gas rising has increased the cost of > many things including food. Yup, I don't have much sympathy for many of > the fools who bought big SUVs and pickups because they were "discounted" > and didn't think about the cost of gas. ...sounds like you started the above paragraph disagreeing with me and ended it agreeing with me... > >> a huge bubble of > >> multi-millionaires lives almost in a parallel world. The rich now > >> > > live > > > >> in their own world of private education, > >> > > > > ...which the less well off could have, too, if we had a school > > voucher program... > > > More nonsense. Quality public education even for college should be > free. We could easily have that and money left over if we didn't waste > money on that stupid war in Iraq which is only done to profit Bush's > buddies. Do you think we had quality public education before the war in Iraq...after all, we were spending 100s of billions of dollars on public education... > >> private health care > >> > > > > Huh? > > > > The vast majority of Americans have "private health care". Only > > those without health insurance -- approximately 45 million -- are on > > public health care programs. > > > And what programs are these. There are over 40 million with no health > care whatsoever. Wake up. I'm just not going to continue debating with you if you continue to make such silly assertions. Over 40 million Americans don't have health care INSURANCE. Zero Americans don't have health care. > >> and gated > >> mansions. They have their own schools > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Oh, this is getting silly. > > > > And, of course, it's from The Guardian, so what do you expect? > > > The book was written by a columnist from the Wall Street Journal. > > > > We need MORE rich people in America and the rest of the world so that > > they bring up the masses with them to higher levels of affluence and > > economic security. > > > Yes, more rich and fewer or no super-rich. Just use a progressive > income tax to reduce the number of super-rich. That worked well up > until 1982 when Reagan screwed up things. Even Gates and Buffet are in > favor of this. I am aware of Gates and Buffet being in favor of the Estate Tax. I am not aware of them being for increasing our already-existing progressive income tax system. Citation? > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's "the work" a form of moodmaking?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't view the ego in the way you seem to be using it and > losing my personality is not a goal for me. As I understand it, enlightenment doesn't mean "losing" one's personality, only the attachment to and identification with it. The personality remains as it was.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's "the work" a form of moodmaking?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > (BTW nuts are actually very hard to kick so their use in > fights is really overrated!) Tell that to Bobby Hill! http://youtube.com/watch?v=Gp1JPPFVWIw
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's "the work" a form of moodmaking?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > I don't view the ego in the way you seem to be using it and > > losing my personality is not a goal for me. > > As I understand it, enlightenment doesn't mean > "losing" one's personality, only the attachment > to and identification with it. The personality > remains as it was. That was how I understood it in MMY's system also. I was commenting on the Koan: "I'd like to give you the following koan: If you loose your own personality, you can afford to be non-equal." I think it is pretty clear that personalities don't diminish in any way from spiritual practices judging from this group! >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Welcome to Richistan, USA
shempmcgurk wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> shempmcgurk wrote: >> >>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu wrote: >>> >>> Where Shemp "dreams" to live. "America's super-rich have returned to the days of the Roaring >>> Twenties. >>> >>> As the rest of the country struggles to get by, >>> "struggles to get by"? Sure, if you've overextended yourself. >>> Otherwise, there has never been a time in human history in which >>> those in the lowest rungs of society have it so well off. >>> >>> >> Nonsense. The cost of living has risen tremendously but you >> > apparently > >> didn't notice. Just the cost of gas rising has increased the cost >> > of > >> many things including food. Yup, I don't have much sympathy for >> > many of > >> the fools who bought big SUVs and pickups because they >> > were "discounted" > >> and didn't think about the cost of gas. >> > > > > ...sounds like you started the above paragraph disagreeing with me > and ended it agreeing with me... > I guess it would have been clearer to you if I had put an OTOH before the "Yup." IOW, I am saying that the cost of living is rising and that is creating a pinch that I think many did not count on. However foolhardy purchases such as gas-guzzling SUVs and pickups even if they were a bargain don't show much foresight and those are over extensions. There are plenty of people though who didn't overextend finding things tough and Bush whore media doesn't like to report on it. > > > a huge bubble of multi-millionaires lives almost in a parallel world. The rich > now > >>> live >>> >>> in their own world of private education, >>> ...which the less well off could have, too, if we had a school >>> voucher program... >>> >>> >> More nonsense. Quality public education even for college should be >> free. We could easily have that and money left over if we didn't >> > waste > >> money on that stupid war in Iraq which is only done to profit >> > Bush's > >> buddies. >> > > > > Do you think we had quality public education before the war in > Iraq...after all, we were spending 100s of billions of dollars on > public education... > > What I am saying as an example that the Iraq war billions could have provided education or better highways or housing for the homeless. Instead we just blow stuff up with it so that the defense contractors can sell us more things to blow up. Doesn't make much sense. However, why do you expect black and white statements when you don't do that yourself? > > > > private health care >>> Huh? >>> >>> The vast majority of Americans have "private health care". Only >>> those without health insurance -- approximately 45 million -- are >>> > on > >>> public health care programs. >>> >>> >> And what programs are these. There are over 40 million with no >> > health > >> care whatsoever. Wake up. >> > > > > > > I'm just not going to continue debating with you if you continue to > make such silly assertions. > Sounds like a measle out to me. > Over 40 million Americans don't have health care INSURANCE. Zero > Americans don't have health care. > These days if you don't have health insurance you usually don't get health care. One in the same. > > > > > > and gated mansions. They have their own schools >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Oh, this is getting silly. >>> >>> And, of course, it's from The Guardian, so what do you expect? >>> >>> >> The book was written by a columnist from the Wall Street Journal. >> >>> We need MORE rich people in America and the rest of the world so >>> > that > >>> they bring up the masses with them to higher levels of affluence >>> > and > >>> economic security. >>> >>> >> Yes, more rich and fewer or no super-rich. Just use a progressive >> income tax to reduce the number of super-rich. That worked well up >> until 1982 when Reagan screwed up things. Even Gates and Buffet >> > are in > >> favor of this. >> > > > > I am aware of Gates and Buffet being in favor of the Estate Tax. I > am not aware of them being for increasing our already-existing > progressive income tax system. > > Citation? > http://www.maxfunds.com/?q=node/149 > > > > >> >> >> > > > >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Welcome to Richistan, USA
In a message dated 7/24/07 6:30:19 P.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Do you think we had quality public education before the war in > Iraq...after all, we were spending 100s of billions of dollars on > public education... > > What I am saying as an example that the Iraq war billions could have provided education or better highways or housing for the homeless. Instead we just blow stuff up with it so that the defense contractors can sell us more things to blow up. Doesn't make much sense. you mean you would have spent the same money , a different way. How about Social Security? ** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's "the work" a form of moodmaking?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > wrote: > > > > > I don't view the ego in the way you seem to be using it and > > > losing my personality is not a goal for me. > > > > As I understand it, enlightenment doesn't mean > > "losing" one's personality, only the attachment > > to and identification with it. The personality > > remains as it was. > > That was how I understood it in MMY's system also. I was > commenting on the Koan: > > "I'd like to give you the following koan: > If you loose your own personality, you can afford to be non-equal." I suspect he'd be willing to rewrite it as: If you lose your attachment to/identification with your own personality, you can afford to be non-equal. I think he makes a good point that insistence on equality can mean not just humble unwillingness to give oneself a higher status, but prideful (egoic) unwillingness to accept a *lower* status. > I think it is pretty clear that personalities don't diminish in any > way from spiritual practices judging from this group! You bet, and Michael is certainly no exception.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's "the work" a form of moodmaking?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > I don't view the ego in the way you seem to be using it and > > losing my personality is not a goal for me. > > As I understand it, enlightenment doesn't mean > "losing" one's personality, only the attachment > to and identification with it. The personality > remains as it was. > Almost exactly. The personality is much more enjoyable "in" enlightenment because we can be precise with it, nothing hidden. And all of its attributes are there, all shiny and available. We also have full control of it-- not that we want to act phony, but rather we can choose to be exactly the very best of ourselves, more powerful, more fun, more everything. Jai Guru Dev. Om Shiva. All it takes is giving up everything (lol), and it all comes back ten-thousand fold (lol x 10,000). Its funny to see some here twisting themselves this way and that, with elaborate explanations and such strident voices that keep them from being free. Holding on to the bars of their cages as one poster said about himself, so that they can continue the only life they have ever known. What do you do about such people? What do you say to them, when they are living such lives of frozen fear? Nothing much to say, and just go on with life, seeing right through them. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's "the work" a form of moodmaking?
"> I suspect he'd be willing to rewrite it as: > > If you lose your attachment to/identification with > your own personality, you can afford to be non-equal. > > I think he makes a good point that insistence on > equality can mean not just humble unwillingness > to give oneself a higher status, but prideful > (egoic) unwillingness to accept a *lower* status." I think these terms are most useful in a specific context. For example Tom Cruise is at a very high level in Scientology. He has taken auditing to the highest level which makes him much "higher" than you or I. In this system he possesses many magical powers from his level of attainment. I don't think it would be a function of pride for me to not accept any invitation from Tom to accept a "lower" status in his little made-up world of distinctions. I suspect you would not be willing to join his POV that you are far less developed spiritually than he is since you have your own personal standards for personal development that you pursue. I suspect that you would feel that if Tom was gaining something worthwhile through his auditing techniques that you were getting the equivalent or better from your own TM practice. (just a guess) In my life the people who I give the credit for be the most actualized in their personalities are the people who draw out the best from everyone around them. They don't radiate that they are "higher" but just that they are having a great time being alive and invite everyone to join them. But I do appreciate the distinction you are making. For me being "humble" is often another version of spiritual oneupsmanship. I never trust people who claim it. I am certainly not. My self confidence has be so hard earned through the years of my life. It is the lack of confidence in my self that has held me back, never being too "prideful". And anyone who invites me to accept that I am on a fundamentally lower level of awareness then they are will not receive an invitation to lunch at Bistro Curtis. Thanks for returning the ball. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > wrote: > > > > > > > I don't view the ego in the way you seem to be using it and > > > > losing my personality is not a goal for me. > > > > > > As I understand it, enlightenment doesn't mean > > > "losing" one's personality, only the attachment > > > to and identification with it. The personality > > > remains as it was. > > > > That was how I understood it in MMY's system also. I was > > commenting on the Koan: > > > > "I'd like to give you the following koan: > > If you loose your own personality, you can afford to be non-equal." > > I suspect he'd be willing to rewrite it as: > > If you lose your attachment to/identification with > your own personality, you can afford to be non-equal. > > I think he makes a good point that insistence on > equality can mean not just humble unwillingness > to give oneself a higher status, but prideful > (egoic) unwillingness to accept a *lower* status. > > > I think it is pretty clear that personalities don't diminish in any > > way from spiritual practices judging from this group! > > You bet, and Michael is certainly no exception. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's "the work" a form of moodmaking?
---the people you mention - living in cages. They should practice TM regularly and buy all the CD's & DVD's relating to Ramana Maharshi from http://www.arunachala.org What do you suggestsome type of mood-making to grok "I'm out of the cage, out of the cage, out of the cage."? i.e. a reorientation of one's thinking to consider that "one" is not in the cage. But if the person still thought he was in the cage, could he/she get Enlightened anyway? In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > wrote: > > > > > I don't view the ego in the way you seem to be using it and > > > losing my personality is not a goal for me. > > > > As I understand it, enlightenment doesn't mean > > "losing" one's personality, only the attachment > > to and identification with it. The personality > > remains as it was. > > > Almost exactly. The personality is much more enjoyable "in" > enlightenment because we can be precise with it, nothing hidden. And > all of its attributes are there, all shiny and available. We also > have full control of it-- not that we want to act phony, but rather > we can choose to be exactly the very best of ourselves, more > powerful, more fun, more everything. Jai Guru Dev. Om Shiva. > > All it takes is giving up everything (lol), and it all comes back > ten-thousand fold (lol x 10,000). > > Its funny to see some here twisting themselves this way and that, > with elaborate explanations and such strident voices that keep them > from being free. Holding on to the bars of their cages as one poster > said about himself, so that they can continue the only life they > have ever known. What do you do about such people? What do you say > to them, when they are living such lives of frozen fear? Nothing > much to say, and just go on with life, seeing right through them. :- ) >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's "the work" a form of moodmaking?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rory Goff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > The question is, "How is doing 'the work,' Byron Katie- > > style, *not* fraught with addictive pain?" It seems to > > me that what Rory describes above is very much a form > > of moodmaking -- starting with the assumption that one > > *should* not be criticizing other aspects of ones Self > > and acting accordingly, *in the pursuit of a desire*. > > I am recommending that one be aware of where the criticism is coming > from -- that one place attention on the core expectations behind the > criticisms, and thereby to discover the illusory and projective > nature of one's thinking, and of one's pain. And this view would be consistent, IMU, of your answer to a question I asked you some time ago, "Do you feel all perception and cognition (in the mundane sense) are projection?" You answered affirmatively. I neither reject nor accept that premise (um, because I wouldn't want to judge the premise :) -- but its fun to play with. In a 'serious sense, and a jovial one. The latter first. Do some guys see (none here of course) see all tits as gorgeous and can't stop staring at them because they think they themselves have gorgeous tits? And they are simply projecting onto women? Or is it that they see an seek motherly love and nourishment in everything. Aka, needy. Is nab projecting a personal need to get a (better) job when he repeatedly tells Ron to do so. Is Barry a "pissant" becasue he sees other as pissants (back awhile) Is Judy a liar because she sees others as liars? Does Vaj see conspiracy, and evil intent in TM because he is evil and conspiratoral inside? Do I see many things as funny, and laugh, when others do not -- is that because I am a joke? Or just because I am funny (as in odd.) More seriously, I ponder, how can we see anything but a projection of our inner world? All perception and cognition (mundane) is through our own set of deep conditioning, filters samskaras, whatever. We see what we are. Perhaps a point is that terms need to be clarified. "Where the criticism is coming from" -- is all criticism -- in the broad sense of evaluation, feedback, etc a bad thing? Is it projection for a boss to say "you could do even better, be more communicative and expressive of your ideas". Is that simply that she herself sees herself as uncommunicative and unexpressive of her ideas? or is she simply providing some useful feedback? Thus, is negative (towards spiteful) criticism projection but objective useful feedback -- based on skills of objective evaluation? Things to ponder.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's "the work" a form of moodmaking?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "> I suspect he'd be willing to rewrite it as: > > > > If you lose your attachment to/identification with > > your own personality, you can afford to be non-equal. > > > > I think he makes a good point that insistence on > > equality can mean not just humble unwillingness > > to give oneself a higher status, but prideful > > (egoic) unwillingness to accept a *lower* status." > > I think these terms are most useful in a specific context. For > example Tom Cruise is at a very high level in Scientology. He has > taken auditing to the highest level which makes him much "higher" than > you or I. In this system he possesses many magical powers from his > level of attainment. I don't think it would be a function of pride > for me to not accept any invitation from Tom to accept a "lower" > status in his little made-up world of distinctions. I suspect you > would not be willing to join his POV that you are far less developed > spiritually than he is since you have your own personal standards for > personal development that you pursue. I suspect that you would feel > that if Tom was gaining something worthwhile through his auditing > techniques that you were getting the equivalent or better from your > own TM practice. (just a guess) I think the point is that when you've lost your attachment to your ego, you don't go around setting standards and comparing yourself to others, nor do you care if someone thinks you're lower on the totem pole. That's all just ego stuff, and it no longer carries a charge; there's no energy behind it. (That's not to say you might not pull rank once in a while if you thought it was important; Jesus driving the money-changers out of the Temple would be an example. But you wouldn't be doing it for yourself, you'd be doing it for others.) > In my life the people who I give the credit for be the most actualized > in their personalities are the people who draw out the best from > everyone around them. They don't radiate that they are "higher" but > just that they are having a great time being alive and invite everyone > to join them. As standards go, that's a pretty good one. > But I do appreciate the distinction you are making. For me being > "humble" is often another version of spiritual oneupsmanship. I > never trust people who claim it. I am certainly not. My self > confidence has be so hard earned through the years of my life. > It is the lack of confidence in my self that has held me back, > never being too "prideful". I'd say perfect humility is a function of perfect Self-confidence (cap S). And anyone who invites me to accept that I am on a > fundamentally lower level of awareness then they are will not receive > an invitation to lunch at Bistro Curtis. > > Thanks for returning the ball.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jesus Christ speaks of the living waters..bliss consciousness!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Jesus (addressing the Samarian woman at the well) answered and said > unto her, "Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again, > > ...but, whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never > thirst, the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of > water (bliss,anandam) springing up into everlasting life". John 4:13. > Or he was really just a great bottled water salesman.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's "the work" a form of moodmaking?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I think the point is that when you've lost your > attachment to your ego, you don't go around > setting standards and comparing yourself to others, > nor do you care if someone thinks you're lower on > the totem pole. That's all just ego stuff, and it > no longer carries a charge; there's no energy > behind it. Perhaps a parallel (or not) thought is "its just a personality" -- not mine per se, just as "your" personality is not mine. The intellect of any personality might compare, not compare, whatever. Whatever their "last push of the cart" has the clown do -- jumping through another hoop, or climbing out of a VW with 13 other clowns. "I am not that personality, nor that one, nor that one." Or I am all of them. > (That's not to say you might not pull rank once > in a while if you thought it was important; Jesus > driving the money-changers out of the Temple would > be an example. But you wouldn't be doing it for > yourself, you'd be doing it for others.) The personality may pull rank, or not pull rank, when its appropriate, and when its not appropriate. The personality will live out its run on the pinball machine of creation.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's "the work" a form of moodmaking?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > In my life the people who I give the credit for be the most actualized > in their personalities are the people who draw out the best from > everyone around them. They don't radiate that they are "higher" but > just that they are having a great time being alive and invite everyone > to join them. Very true. But perhaps only part of the picture, IMV. The person you describe is a wonderful type of personality. But one of many types. I have recently been reading a lot about extroverts and introverts. (And the Briggs-Myer 8 classes of each for you anal types -- myself included.) Introverts are wired differently than extroverts, different -- often longer and more complex neural pathways. And distinctly different levels of key neurotransmitters. And introverts comprise only 25% of the general population, yet 60% of the gifted population. And just as history is written by the victors, many social, group, cultural perceptions are shaped by the "majority". Your description is of a actualized extrovert. Some introverts may be as actualized -- but express it differently. Just a thought / observation.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's "the work" a form of moodmaking?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Its funny to see some here twisting themselves this way and that, > with elaborate explanations and such strident voices that keep them > from being free. Holding on to the bars of their cages as one poster > said about himself, so that they can continue the only life they > have ever known. What do you do about such people? What do you say > to them, when they are living such lives of frozen fear? Nothing > much to say, and just go on with life, seeing right through them. :-) We were just thinking the same about you. :)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Welcome to Richistan, USA
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > In a message dated 7/24/07 6:30:19 P.M. Central Daylight Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > Do you think we had quality public education before the war in > >> Iraq...after all, we were spending 100s of billions of dollars on >> public education... >> >> >> > What I am saying as an example that the Iraq war billions could have > provided education or better highways or housing for the homeless. > Instead we just blow stuff up with it so that the defense contractors > can sell us more things to blow up. Doesn't make much sense. > > > > you mean you would have spent the same money , a different way. How about > Social Security? > > Duh. No, you use Social Security for Social Security not on something else. It is not wasted that way. The Iraq war is a waste of time, money and human life.
[FairfieldLife] Godchecker.com adds mystical numbers to its services.
--- http://www.godchecker.com/offerings/index.php?article-numbers I'm assuming godchecker.com is already on your list of indispensable sites. Especially if you're looking for some new to pray to. -
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's "the work" a form of moodmaking?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Jul 24, 2007, at 3:38 PM, yifuxero wrote: > > > ---Below: Rory says suffering has no objective reality. True, but > > irrelevant in terms of the actions that may be required to offset the > > suffering. The proposed remedies - whatever they are - also have no > > objective reality, so we are back to square one. Perhaps "things" have as much reality as personalities do. Both are hallow -- but as Alvy Singer said, "I thought of that old joke, y'know, the, this... this guy goes to a psychiatrist and says, "Doc, uh, my brother's crazy; he thinks he's a chicken." And, uh, the doctor says, "Well, why don't you turn him in?" The guy says, "I would, but I need the eggs." Well, I guess that's pretty much now how I feel about relationships; y'know, they're totally irrational, and crazy, and absurd, and... but, uh, I guess we keep goin' through it because, uh, most of us... need the eggs." > > This is a common theme in neo-advaitin "realizers", the inability to > present a correct View (drsti) regarding the "two truths" (satyadvaya). > Being THE correct view, I am sure all realized ones agree on it. (Oh wait, first th group of realized will have to agree on what realized means. Damn, back to square one.)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's "the work" a form of moodmaking?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" wrote: > > > > > Its funny to see some here twisting themselves this way and that, > > with elaborate explanations and such strident voices that keep them > > from being free. Holding on to the bars of their cages as one poster > > said about himself, so that they can continue the only life they > > have ever known. What do you do about such people? What do you say > > to them, when they are living such lives of frozen fear? Nothing > > much to say, and just go on with life, seeing right through them. :-) > > > We were just thinking the same about you. :) > Of course- I expect that those living in ignorance will always feel antagonized, not only by others in their situation, but also by someone living in freedom. I am sure you have read the Gita where Maharishi lays out quite clearly the natural antagonism of the small self towards the large Self; its impending death and extinction. So if you must, you must.:-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's "the work" a form of moodmaking?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So thanks for not seeing it as Rory bashing. A bashed Rory is as Perfect as an unabashed Rory.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's "the work" a form of moodmaking?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: "Do you feel all perception and cognition (in > the mundane sense) are projection?" Now, try expressing all that you have pondered and answered as if everyone else is truly YOU, not projected from you but actually YOU.lol. kinda weird and different and crazy, isn't it? Hard to draw such clean distinctions, such ripostes of ligic, eh? lol. scrambles your eggs, eh?:-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's "the work" a form of moodmaking?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > but I do have a certain > confidence that everyone else is just like me, doing the best they can > with the weird mix of genetics and circumstances that brought us to > where we are in our lives. Yes. I find that recognition does bring a sense of equality. > We are not only just bozos on this bus, we > are each capable of wisdom and insights. Rodger Federer is doing the best he can. I am doing the best I can.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's "the work" a form of moodmaking?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" > wrote: > > > > > > > > Its funny to see some here twisting themselves this way and > that, > > > with elaborate explanations and such strident voices that keep > them > > > from being free. Holding on to the bars of their cages as one > poster > > > said about himself, so that they can continue the only life they > > > have ever known. What do you do about such people? What do you > say > > > to them, when they are living such lives of frozen fear? Nothing > > > much to say, and just go on with life, seeing right through > them. :-) > > > > > > We were just thinking the same about you. :) > > > Of course- I expect that those living in ignorance will always feel > antagonized, Yes, when we were thinking the same about you, we were hoping that you were not antagonized.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's "the work" a form of moodmaking?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "matrixmonitor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ---the people you mention - living in cages. They should practice TM > regularly and buy all the CD's & DVD's relating to Ramana Maharshi > from http://www.arunachala.org > What do you suggestsome type of mood-making to grok "I'm out of > the cage, out of the cage, out of the cage."? i.e. a > reorientation of one's thinking to consider that "one" is not in the > cage. But if the person still thought he was in the cage, could > he/she get Enlightened anyway? I can only say what worked for me; a burning thirst, hunger, desire to get out of the bondage that I felt accutely- a desire that transcended money, sex, formal education, friendship, death, food, sleep, relative happiness of any kind. And complete and utter surrender to that which I intuited would set me free. And frequent prayer and study of spiritual teaching. And regular TM, morning and evening for 30 years. And the Siddhis programme to burn out some big stuff, for 15 years. And always being true to myself, no matter what. And no dogma or organized anything to follow- just me, in the slowly blooming desert of my consciousness, from the age of ten to the age of fifty. And I was in the cage of my making, right up until the moment I wasn't. That is what worked for me.:-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's "the work" a form of moodmaking?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "qntmpkt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Whether an asshole actually exists or not is impossible for me to > say. Actually a nice analogy (for satsang on the south side). Like a donut (from Krispy Creme), is there a donut hole?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's "the work" a form of moodmaking?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Its funny to see some here twisting themselves this way and > > that, > > > > with elaborate explanations and such strident voices that keep > > them > > > > from being free. Holding on to the bars of their cages as one > > poster > > > > said about himself, so that they can continue the only life they > > > > have ever known. What do you do about such people? What do you > > say > > > > to them, when they are living such lives of frozen fear? Nothing > > > > much to say, and just go on with life, seeing right through > > them. :-) > > > > > > > > > We were just thinking the same about you. :) > > > > > Of course- I expect that those living in ignorance will always feel > > antagonized, > > Yes, when we were thinking the same about you, we were hoping that you > were not antagonized. > Great! Thanks.:-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's "the work" a form of moodmaking?
---Consider an apartment as a type of cage. Could a person only "think" the apartment is real, but really be living inside Mae West's head? http://www.planetperplex.com/en/item203 Or, Jim, you were fortunate in realizing you were in a cage. So I guess the people living in the cage but don't know it are in "ignorant Bliss"?kind of like the people living in the Matrix world while the aliens are sucking out the juices from their real bodies. In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Its funny to see some here twisting themselves this way and > > > that, > > > > > with elaborate explanations and such strident voices that > keep > > > them > > > > > from being free. Holding on to the bars of their cages as > one > > > poster > > > > > said about himself, so that they can continue the only life > they > > > > > have ever known. What do you do about such people? What do > you > > > say > > > > > to them, when they are living such lives of frozen fear? > Nothing > > > > > much to say, and just go on with life, seeing right through > > > them. :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > We were just thinking the same about you. :) > > > > > > > Of course- I expect that those living in ignorance will always > feel > > > antagonized, > > > > Yes, when we were thinking the same about you, we were hoping that > you > > were not antagonized. > > > Great! Thanks.:-) >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's "the work" a form of moodmaking?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rory Goff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > The question is, "How is doing 'the work,' Byron Katie- > > style, *not* fraught with addictive pain?" It seems to > > me that what Rory describes above is very much a form > > of moodmaking -- starting with the assumption that one > > *should* not be criticizing other aspects of ones Self > > and acting accordingly, *in the pursuit of a desire*. > > I am recommending that one be aware of where the criticism is coming > from -- that one place attention on the core expectations behind the > criticisms, and thereby to discover the illusory and projective > nature of one's thinking, and of one's pain. And to be aware of any feelings when being criticized. Fairly -- and particularly when unfairly.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's "the work" a form of moodmaking?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rory Goff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > OTOH my current understanding of moodmaking is in no way > condemnatory, as all the states of consciousness look much like moods > to me. From where I stand, we have a choice as to our primary "mood" > or "frequency," which colors what interpretations we wish to ascribe > to the myriads of incoming data, and this choice in turn actually > determines which of the data we imbibe and manifest through our > various levels of bodymind and thence into our environment. I do > realize for many of us however that this initial choice > of "frequency" is as yet unconscious. I was thinking a similar thing in my "projection" post -- "and moods are a bad thing?" Perhaps personality is composed of moods (and other things). Does God have a "mood" -- a personality? Does a tree, a rock. A flower? Ducks?(I walk past a hundred ducks every day -- so I have an opinion on that.) Mood is a core of projection. When one is angry -- one sees fear, distrust and hate. When ones heart is full, one sees love in everything. Ever been on a course with a teacher who can do the "Love Train" thing? That is blow open 1000 peoples hearts -- wide open. After a week or so. And many (not all) are walking around seeing intense love within and radiating from everyone? In that sense, I hold a different view and experience from T3rinity.Equality -- for something that matters -- can be realized and "seen" from a relative view. While moods and personalities, skills etc, still exist. But if ones personality is "out there" -- what exactly is the distinction being made: "That thing is better than that thing? And both are insignificant compared to this intense Love thing?" Where is the heirarchy -- of any substance? > > How is "the work" gonna help you determine the proper > > course of action when the other person you're trying > > not to be judgmental about is holding a gun on you, > > It's not a question of "trying not to be judgmental;" it's a question > of destroying one's pain. > > >and > > acting a whole lot like a madman on crack who is more > > interested in shooting you and your family just to see > > how you fall than he is in your wallet? > > "Be afraid; be very afraid!" :-) > > > We Buddhists might have compassion for the poor, drugged- > > out guy, but we'd also do our best to kick the sucker in > > the nuts and get the gun away from him. The way I'm read- > > ing Rory's comments, he'd see that the guy is coming from > > a place of hurt/pain, relate it to his own hurt and pain, > > and say, "LOL. You're just another aspect of my Self, and > > everything is OK." :-) > > Then you are reading me wrong, as appears often to be the case. I see > no problem with Self kicking Self in the nuts if that is what is > required. :-) > > > Question, short form: Is Katie's "the work," whether > > valuable or not, just another form of moodmaking? > > Answer, short form: No. > > > I don't know. I'm just wondering. Those of you who know > > more, please explain it to me. > > Try it and see for yourself, or keep on spinning rationalizations why > Not to try it, it makes no difference to me. I'm still gonna kick you > in the nuts every time I see you on crack waving a pistol around -- > metaphorically speaking of course :-) >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Welcome to Richistan, USA
In a message dated 7/24/07 9:28:26 P.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What I am saying as an example that the Iraq war billions could have > provided education or better highways or housing for the homeless. > Instead we just blow stuff up with it so that the defense contractors > can sell us more things to blow up. Doesn't make much sense. > > > > you mean you would have spent the same money , a different way. How about > Social Security? > > Duh. No, you use Social Security for Social Security not on something else. It is not wasted that way. The Iraq war is a waste of time, money and human life Nooz , do you actually think that SS taxes are kept in a "Lock Box", separate from other government revenues? ** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's "the work" a form of moodmaking?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Me: I have been enjoying lurking I have been thinking something about > how you write that I would like to run by you Rory. I think you are > using language that very carefully does separate you from the person > you are responding to. To a large degree this is true, Curtis, in that I generally attempt to take responsibility for my perceptions *of* the other, without ascribing specific attributes *to* the other (though sometimes I fail of course), as it's usually evident that my perceptions of the other are simply the qualities of myself I choose to see in this moment. This is *not* to say however that my perceptions aren't also "true" -- or at least shared by others, which may be our basic criterion of objective as opposed to subjective reality. However, as I mentioned to Steve, I really can't say if an "asshole" has any real existence -- the only reality I am prepared to affirm whole-heartedly is the self- evident, radiant indescribable one, as that one keeps appearing when the other perceptions un-slip-knot themselves. There is then no separation. Almost to a post there is an assertion of your > separateness, specialness. Yes, I'm special, and so is everyone else, though some don't like to admit it. When I came on FFL with the message "I'm enlightened, and so are you" you wouldn't believe some of the responses I got ... even a strongly-worded death-wish :-) >I think it is very important for you to > present yourself as having a special relationship with the world. Special and ordinary, simultaneously. >I > offer you another option and perspective for consideration. We may > all actually be the same with regard to our states of consciousness. Yes, that is generally my initial a-priori assumption, and was very much so on FFL -- though I have very often been shown here that my assumptions were apparently false, not shared by others :-) > What you are describing in sometimes Baroque detail may just be an > affectation of your use of words to describe states that everyone else > is living in without needing all the descriptions. That's what a writer does, if successful -- points out something universal that others may have overlooked, or not seen in precisely that way :-) If you really want > a unitive experience, I suggest trying out the following premise: You > and I are actually the same. No states of awakening separate us. Neither of us are on any continuum of awareness before or after each > other. Agreed :-) >We are both just simply human with the same limitations and > capacities. I uphold all of that, although obviously you have some capacities and talents which I do not, and vice versa. I respect yours, and do not require you to falsely insist I am your "equal" in them. Likewise, I also respect mine, and do not falsely insist you are my "equal" in them. >Then go to the supermarket and look at everyone that same > equal way. Everyone is just equally human and not on a path of > "awakening". Just folks. That's exactly the way I *do* go to the supermarket, live my life, etc. It was quite a shift to come onto FFL and try to see things in the old way of "path" and "growth" and "enlightenment" enough to communicate effectively with people here, and to realize that that long-"outgrown" mode of perception actually had richness and value I had overlooked. Yes, it's quite evident that everyone is precisely as "enlightened" as I am, as they *are* me -- but they are free to deny this if they so choose (and they often so choose)! :-) > I hope this wont be taken as an attack although it is a judgment I am > making. Naah :-) (BTW nuts are actually very hard to kick so their use in > fights is really overrated!) Good to know :-) I think we have established enough > rapport in previous posts to actually explore this topic a bit. I > suspect Turq will have some perspective to share on this. No doubt :-) > In my daily life I notice people's language as an attempt to assert a > ranking. It is a version of monkey oneupmanship. As a performing > artist I must push some people's buttons because I get a regular > stream of guys (always guys) who feel the need to try to find out what > I make as a performer. It seems important for them to make sure I am > not making much money while having this much fun. They ask a serious > of roundabout questions to determine that even though they hate their > jobs (their words) at least they are making more money. > > Here on FFL it seems that there is another ranking system in place > between guys. An enlightenment-O-meter. I've noticed that you seem to regard gurus, saints, etc. as on a power-trip of sorts. Me, "not so much" -- I actually was very relieved, very self-affirmed, when others came forward on FFL and elsewhere to admit their enlightenment -- not because enlightenment is any big deal,
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's "the work" a form of moodmaking?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sinhlnx" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ---Consider an apartment as a type of cage. Could a person > only "think" the apartment is real, but really be living inside Mae > West's head? Some time ago, and periodically, I "consider" that we are all living in Krishna's apartment -- this huge 10+ dimensional mega-complex that streches towards infinity (no where). And has an intereting blue glow to the walls.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's "the work" a form of moodmaking?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning wrote: > "Do you feel all perception and cognition (in > > the mundane sense) are projection?" > > Now, try expressing all that you have pondered and answered as if > everyone else is truly YOU, not projected from you but actually > YOU.lol. kinda weird and different and crazy, isn't it? Hard to draw > such clean distinctions, such ripostes of ligic, eh? lol. scrambles > your eggs, eh?:-) See later post. When the heart is full, one sees love in everything. A sweet radiant love -- emanating from everything. When one is Full of It, one sees That everywhere. In that sense, I think it is still a projection, a line, of a distinct, but "out there" not so significant personality. That is, until there is no line anymore. But then its silly to say "It all is ME". There is no IT and the there is no ME when the line is gone. Then it makes as much or more sense to simple say "Chocolate Pudding" than to say "Its ALL ME". Or "ponder" and grok the flip side -- that You are a projection of IT. It realizes that IT is YOU. And then the line disappears for It projecting itself onto you -- and "Chocolate Pudding". (Then there is no more flip side.)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's "the work" a form of moodmaking?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sinhlnx" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ---Consider an apartment as a type of cage. Could a person > only "think" the apartment is real, but really be living inside Mae > West's head? > > http://www.planetperplex.com/en/item203 > > Or, Jim, you were fortunate in realizing you were in a cage. So I > guess the people living in the cage but don't know it are > in "ignorant Bliss"?kind of like the people living in the Matrix > world while the aliens are sucking out the juices from their real > bodies. Or perhaps Jim is living locked in the cage of "Enlightenment World" -- perhaps not knowing he is caged, all the while thinking he is boundlessly free.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's "the work" a form of moodmaking?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Jul 24, 2007, at 3:38 PM, yifuxero wrote: > > > ---Below: Rory says suffering has no objective reality. True, but > > irrelevant in terms of the actions that may be required to offset the > > suffering. The proposed remedies - whatever they are - also have no > > objective reality, so we are back to square one. Thus, if some home > > invaders are attacking your neighbors, do something about it. We > > don't say "those guys have no objective external reality, so why > > bother?". The neo-Advaitins paint themselves into a corner of > > contradictions. The fact that nothing has an "external" reality > > shouldn't influence (IMO) one's natural tendancy to help others.; so > > why even say "this and that has no external reality"? That's obvious! > > When it comes to $$, the neo-Advaitin Gurus are quick to > > acknowledge the objective, external reality of money. > > > Nicely said. > > This is a common theme in neo-advaitin "realizers", the inability to > present a correct View (drsti) regarding the "two truths" (satyadvaya). > > It's always a dead giveaway. a) I have continually held that inquiry is not a substitute for activity or inactivity, it is merely a way to unravel one's suffering. Hard as it may be to believe, one will still perform correct action even if one is not suffering! :-) b) I did not realize anything through neo-advaita; I woke up on my own after 9 years of TM (and the grace of a few teachers and non- teachers presenting the mahavakyas at precisely the right moment), realizing that all the states of consciousness I had perceived through TM were transient, bound by space-time, and I didn't even want them or any other external criteria; I now wholeheartedly desired, and was willing to surrender into, only perfection Now. That's when I hit bottom and turned inside out as Self realized that Self and only Self has always been all there is, here and now :-) c) Some 23 years later I read Byron Katie and saw her genius in providing a dirt-simple technique to allow *all* the mind's old programs, all our old particles, to catch up with and surrender into the Self. If I could change anything, I would give myself Byron Katie's technique 23 years earlier :-) d) I have neither paid for nor charged for any courses, healing, etc. for over a decade. Money is lovely and abundant, as freely enjoyable as oxygen :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's "the work" a form of moodmaking?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I feel pity for those who haven't experienced this, but > I can't look down on them, nor do I think that Rory indicated this in > any way. I see him as a completely humble spiritual practitionar, who > is far beyond me. Jesus! In no way am I "far beyond" you, trin -- you have maturity, clarity, depth, wisdom and experience I can never hope to equal, and that's just fine by me. I'm only sorry I haven't expressed my awe and appreciation of you sufficiently before; I guess I thought you knew :-) *L*L*L*
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's "the work" a form of moodmaking?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sinhlnx" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ---Consider an apartment as a type of cage. Could a person > only "think" the apartment is real, but really be living inside Mae > West's head? > > http://www.planetperplex.com/en/item203 > > Or, Jim, you were fortunate in realizing you were in a cage. So I > guess the people living in the cage but don't know it are > in "ignorant Bliss"?kind of like the people living in the Matrix > world while the aliens are sucking out the juices from their real > bodies. > That isn't my reality, though it may be someone's. I recall someone said once that if it can be imagined, it exists. I like that, believe it, and accept it.:-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's "the work" a form of moodmaking?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning wrote: > > "Do you feel all perception and cognition (in > > > the mundane sense) are projection?" > > > > Now, try expressing all that you have pondered and answered as if > > everyone else is truly YOU, not projected from you but actually > > YOU.lol. kinda weird and different and crazy, isn't it? Hard to draw > > such clean distinctions, such ripostes of ligic, eh? lol. scrambles > > your eggs, eh?:-) > > See later post. When the heart is full, one sees love in everything. A > sweet radiant love -- emanating from everything. When one is Full of > It, one sees That everywhere. > > In that sense, I think it is still a projection, a line, of a > distinct, but "out there" not so significant personality. That is, > until there is no line anymore. But then its silly to say "It all is > ME". There is no IT and the there is no ME when the line is gone. Then > it makes as much or more sense to simple say "Chocolate Pudding" than > to say "Its ALL ME". > > Or "ponder" and grok the flip side -- that You are a projection of IT. > It realizes that IT is YOU. And then the line disappears for It > projecting itself onto you -- and "Chocolate Pudding". (Then there is > no more flip side.) > fun and games, eh? OK- sure. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's "the work" a form of moodmaking?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sinhlnx" wrote: > > > > ---Consider an apartment as a type of cage. Could a person > > only "think" the apartment is real, but really be living inside Mae > > West's head? > > > > http://www.planetperplex.com/en/item203 > > > > Or, Jim, you were fortunate in realizing you were in a cage. So I > > guess the people living in the cage but don't know it are > > in "ignorant Bliss"?kind of like the people living in the Matrix > > world while the aliens are sucking out the juices from their real > > bodies. > > Or perhaps Jim is living locked in the cage of "Enlightenment World" > -- perhaps not knowing he is caged, all the while thinking he is > boundlessly free. > "Thinking he is boundlessly free"? What a stupid, ignorant thuoght that would be, in my opinion.:-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's "the work" a form of moodmaking?
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rory Goff" wrote: > > I am recommending that one be aware of where the criticism is coming > > from -- that one place attention on the core expectations behind the > > criticisms, and thereby to discover the illusory and projective > > nature of one's thinking, and of one's pain. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > And this view would be consistent, IMU, of your answer to a question I > asked you some time ago, "Do you feel all perception and cognition (in > the mundane sense) are projection?" You answered affirmatively. > > I neither reject nor accept that premise (um, because I wouldn't want > to judge the premise :) -- but its fun to play with. In a 'serious > sense, and a jovial one. The latter first. > > Do some guys see (none here of course) see all tits as gorgeous and > can't stop staring at them because they think they themselves have > gorgeous tits? And they are simply projecting onto women? Or is it > that they see an seek motherly love and nourishment in everything. > Aka, needy. > > Is nab projecting a personal need to get a (better) job when he > repeatedly tells Ron to do so. > > Is Barry a "pissant" becasue he sees other as pissants (back awhile) > > Is Judy a liar because she sees others as liars? > > Does Vaj see conspiracy, and evil intent in TM because he is evil and > conspiratoral inside? > Do I see many things as funny, and laugh, when others do not -- is > that because I am a joke? Or just because I am funny (as in odd.) In some cases, I think these qualities may have represented "bardo- demons" that some of these people were wrestling with, for awhile. In the deeper sense, yes, these are mostly qualities of the universal self that the personality may have had a hard time accepting nonjudgmentally. > More seriously, I ponder, how can we see anything but a projection of > our inner world? All perception and cognition (mundane) is through our > own set of deep conditioning, filters samskaras, whatever. We see what > we are. Yes, and even when through whatever technique or grace we see through the filters, we still see the self -- albeit now in its innocence as That: self-evident, predominantly radiant, blissful, love itself, etc. > Perhaps a point is that terms need to be clarified. "Where the > criticism is coming from" -- is all criticism -- in the broad sense of > evaluation, feedback, etc a bad thing? No. In fact none of it "a bad thing" -- but some of it is rooted in, and an attempt to avoid, one's own suffering. >Is it projection for a boss to > say "you could do even better, be more communicative and expressive of > your ideas". Is that simply that she herself sees herself as > uncommunicative and unexpressive of her ideas? or is she simply > providing some useful feedback? Thus, is negative (towards spiteful) > criticism projection but objective useful feedback -- based on skills > of objective evaluation? Sure, and really to me it's all essentially irrelevant *except* as a means to self-diagnose and unravel one's own suffering. And that approach itself is apparently not going to be particularly meaningful to all people at all times in their lives :-) > > Things to ponder. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's "the work" a form of moodmaking?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sinhlnx" wrote: > > > > > > ---Consider an apartment as a type of cage. Could a person > > > only "think" the apartment is real, but really be living inside > Mae > > > West's head? > > > > > > http://www.planetperplex.com/en/item203 > > > > > > Or, Jim, you were fortunate in realizing you were in a cage. So > I > > > guess the people living in the cage but don't know it are > > > in "ignorant Bliss"?kind of like the people living in the > Matrix > > > world while the aliens are sucking out the juices from their > real > > > bodies. > > > > Or perhaps Jim is living locked in the cage of "Enlightenment > World" > > -- perhaps not knowing he is caged, all the while thinking he is > > boundlessly free. > > > "Thinking he is boundlessly free"? What a stupid, ignorant thuoght > that would be, in my opinion.:-) > Spoken like a true caveman (a la Plato) :)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's "the work" a form of moodmaking?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rory Goff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity wrote: > I feel pity for those who haven't experienced this, but > > I can't look down on them, nor do I think that Rory indicated this in > > any way. I see him as a completely humble spiritual practitionar, who > > is far beyond me. > > Jesus! In no way am I "far beyond" you, trin -- you have maturity, > clarity, depth, wisdom and experience I can never hope to equal, and > that's just fine by me. I'm only sorry I haven't expressed my awe and > appreciation of you sufficiently before; I guess I thought you knew :-) > > *L*L*L* > Jesus indeed!:-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's "the work" a form of moodmaking?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sinhlnx" wrote: > > > > ---Consider an apartment as a type of cage. Could a person > > only "think" the apartment is real, but really be living inside Mae > > West's head? > > > > http://www.planetperplex.com/en/item203 > > > > Or, Jim, you were fortunate in realizing you were in a cage. So I > > guess the people living in the cage but don't know it are > > in "ignorant Bliss"?kind of like the people living in the Matrix > > world while the aliens are sucking out the juices from their real > > bodies. > > > That isn't my reality, though it may be someone's. I recall someone > said once that if it can be imagined, it exists. I like that, believe > it, and accept it.:-) > An yet, someone also said (Saint Byron perhaps) that if you can't imagine the opposite of something -- as possibly being true, then you are stuck in in that boundary. The point of my kidding has been, "Can you imagine yourself as possibly stuck in a prison that you are unaware of?"
