Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2013 22:35:01 GMT -5
One of the lessons I struggled with in the Course was the concept of specialness, and how it is a sort of enemy of peace. It is indeed, though. When I view myself as special, I am seperated and doomed to upholding a seperative existence that in truth I cannot uphold at all. Like Sysyfuss pushing that rock up the mountain. So much energy to maintain an illusion, to keep the strawman thinking he is real. But what is the alternative? Is there truly another way? The alternative is to stop telling yourself you're special. I'll start today. |
|
|
|
Post by berlake on May 16, 2013 3:57:13 GMT -5
Silence - I don't understand your last question. Could you clarify, please? Who cares what these teachers say and experience anymore than someone who drops acid and tells you all about this and that? I'm asking whether the issue is about interpreting the words correctly or if the real issue is with distracting yourself by translating other people's experiences? Yours is an interesting perspective, silence. Distracting myself from what, exactly? The real business we're all here for? If that's so, how can trying to ensure I don't fuck that up in a catastrophic was be something I shouldn't care about? I'm assuming you believe it either isn't possible to fuck it up or that there's no such "thing" as Enlightenment. Either way, I wholeheartedly disagree... Tim |
|
|
|
Post by berlake on May 16, 2013 4:27:42 GMT -5
You final question is warmly welcomed, however - thank you. And I would answer it thus: you're missing my point entirely if you are asking it! UGK is NOT talking from a perspective of non-duality and so people who presume he is might try to imitate the non-state he ended up not living; which would result in the worst kind of three kinds of suicide. He doesn't attempt to disguise the fact that what happened to him was not "Enlightenment." And he did not say this to be disingenuous. What happened was something else; something horrid. If people try to annihilate their deepest sense of being, then they will end up in the same place - which is to say no place. You're just having fun with your own type of interpretation in exactly the same way as the masses of people dangerously misinterpreting these teachers. I don't think you actually know anything at all about what happened to him let alone whether it was horrid. OK. Maybe I do know, maybe I don't. Same goes for us all, then. But there's a chance I'm right and there are personal experiences which have helped me to this conclusion and which go along a good deal of "research." Discredit these if you wish, but I am not going to be so hasty. I'm definitely NOT "having fun" with any interpretations. You are being quite presumptuous about my motives and my perspective. I am willing to accept that, as topology pointed out, my motives are coloured in various personal ways (and I WILL answer this post!!!), but to presume I am unaware of this or that I am caught up in concepts and distracting myself from... whatever, is simply another interpretation and also fairly insensitive attempt at being some kind of anti-guru-concept-crusher. Incidentally, if other people's experiences count for nothing, why are you a member of this forum? It is fundamentally (or so I would imagine) designed to allow for the discussion of the teachers it "rates." It seems to a bit of a contradiction to invest your time in discussing people whose experiences you have already discredited. Either that, or you are contradicting yourself with your questions. If it weren't for the descriptions of "Enlightenment" passed onto us by people who are in a position to attempt to describe it (and I am NOT one of these people), then there would be nothing to discuss. Granting that these descriptions might be genuine and granting that some of them might be truthfully reporting a fundamental Realisation of Truth, is it not equally possible that there are some descriptions to be of something which is NOT "Enlightenment," but is in fact something which should certainly be avoided; and yet these descriptions have entered the arena of "Enlightenment" descriptions for dissemination along with all the others and are being on the whole (according to most people here, too) interpreted in the same light. IF I am right and the people whose works are being discussed are reporting something which is possibly the opposite of most other descriptions, then is there no value in trying to clarify this? There are many people are suffering and who will be drawn to these descriptions in particular because they speak of a kind of annihilation which many traumatised individuals experience in the depths of their consciousness (and yes, I speak from experience and I speak from knowledge of the experience of many others, too). The fact that the prospect of annihilation could be achieved is something quite shocking, but might well lead some people towards the assumption that this is a desirable aim. In my honest, considered, humble and experiential opinion it is NOT. I am also familiar with another kind of "experience" where the mind and self (not ontological self, but empiric self) begin to disintegrate of dissolve. This, too, is terrifying, but it is certainly NOT felt as annihilation. It is felt as the complete disidentification from my personal identity and all mind-based projections. There a sense of "voidness" and "nothingness" which becomes palpable and substantial and originates in the chest. I have yet to find the courage to follow this experience to its conclusion as a lifetime of condition had taught me to take myself to be a someone. So - now I am open for further humiliation or presumption or "deconstruction," but at least you know why I am here and, hopefully, that I am not a "woo-woo" hippie or new age fantasist (though if I were I would expect far more humane and respectful treatment from such experienced and evidently entrenched "seekers..." Tim [/quote] |
|
|
|
Post by topology on May 16, 2013 7:03:58 GMT -5
Tim,
What is getting humiliated? Is that real? Or is that the temporary personal self that you are currently identifying with?
|
|
|
|
Post by silence on May 16, 2013 9:16:21 GMT -5
Who cares what these teachers say and experience anymore than someone who drops acid and tells you all about this and that? I'm asking whether the issue is about interpreting the words correctly or if the real issue is with distracting yourself by translating other people's experiences? Yours is an interesting perspective, silence. Distracting myself from what, exactly? The real business we're all here for? If that's so, how can trying to ensure I don't x that up in a catastrophic was be something I shouldn't care about? I'm assuming you believe it either isn't possible to x it up or that there's no such "thing" as Enlightenment. Either way, I wholeheartedly disagree... Tim Your sentence structure is throwing me off. I'm basically saying you're in the same boat as the other people busily interpreting the "teachers". |
|
|
|
Post by silence on May 16, 2013 9:31:07 GMT -5
You're just having fun with your own type of interpretation in exactly the same way as the masses of people dangerously misinterpreting these teachers. I don't think you actually know anything at all about what happened to him let alone whether it was horrid. OK. Maybe I do know, maybe I don't. Same goes for us all, then. But there's a chance I'm right and there are personal experiences which have helped me to this conclusion and which go along a good deal of "research." Discredit these if you wish, but I am not going to be so hasty. I'm definitely NOT "having fun" with any interpretations. You are being quite presumptuous about my motives and my perspective. I am willing to accept that, as topology pointed out, my motives are coloured in various personal ways (and I WILL answer this post!!!), but to presume I am unaware of this or that I am caught up in concepts and distracting myself from... whatever, is simply another interpretation and also fairly insensitive attempt at being some kind of anti-guru-concept-crusher. Incidentally, if other people's experiences count for nothing, why are you a member of this forum? It is fundamentally (or so I would imagine) designed to allow for the discussion of the teachers it "rates." It seems to a bit of a contradiction to invest your time in discussing people whose experiences you have already discredited. Either that, or you are contradicting yourself with your questions. If it weren't for the descriptions of "Enlightenment" passed onto us by people who are in a position to attempt to describe it (and I am NOT one of these people), then there would be nothing to discuss. Granting that these descriptions might be genuine and granting that some of them might be truthfully reporting a fundamental Realisation of Truth, is it not equally possible that there are some descriptions to be of something which is NOT "Enlightenment," but is in fact something which should certainly be avoided; and yet these descriptions have entered the arena of "Enlightenment" descriptions for dissemination along with all the others and are being on the whole (according to most people here, too) interpreted in the same light. IF I am right and the people whose works are being discussed are reporting something which is possibly the opposite of most other descriptions, then is there no value in trying to clarify this? There are many people are suffering and who will be drawn to these descriptions in particular because they speak of a kind of annihilation which many traumatised individuals experience in the depths of their consciousness (and yes, I speak from experience and I speak from knowledge of the experience of many others, too). The fact that the prospect of annihilation could be achieved is something quite shocking, but might well lead some people towards the assumption that this is a desirable aim. In my honest, considered, humble and experiential opinion it is NOT. I am also familiar with another kind of "experience" where the mind and self (not ontological self, but empiric self) begin to disintegrate of dissolve. This, too, is terrifying, but it is certainly NOT felt as annihilation. It is felt as the complete disidentification from my personal identity and all mind-based projections. There a sense of "voidness" and "nothingness" which becomes palpable and substantial and originates in the chest. I have yet to find the courage to follow this experience to its conclusion as a lifetime of condition had taught me to take myself to be a someone. So - now I am open for further humiliation or presumption or "deconstruction," but at least you know why I am here and, hopefully, that I am not a "woo-woo" hippie or new age fantasist (though if I were I would expect far more humane and respectful treatment from such experienced and evidently entrenched "seekers..." Tim [/quote] Why concern yourself with people who are trying to annihilate themselves unless you believe they are actually capable of it. All they're doing is playing silly mind games with themselves. You've become entranced by the word enlightenment and now it exists to you as some sort of objective state or experience that has an opposite. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on May 16, 2013 11:49:44 GMT -5
Here's my two cents. I often recommend Segal's "Collision with the Infinite" because it has a peculiar and often beneficial effect upon seekers. Her writing about her loss of selfhood helps many people see-through various deeply-held beliefs and thoughts about selfhood and/or existence. How this happens I don't know, but I can think of many people who have been strongly affected by her book, and all of them were affected in what I would call a positive way.
UG has always struck me as an odd character--sort of an ultimate contrarian with a chip on his shoulder about Jiddu and several other teachers. At the same time he's kinda funny, and there is probably some value in considering what he has to say, if only to challenge whatever beliefs someone may have. (I agree with E.'s interpretation of what UG has to say)
BR's first two books interested me, but then she sort of wandered off into some mindset where she felt obligated to reconcile her interior experiences in some quasi-Christian way. I lost interest in her because she never seemed to have reached any kind of psychologically-unified way of being. For whatever reason she seemed to overlook the fact that ordinary everyday life (free from the dominance of thought or special experiences) is what this path is all about.
Are any of these folks dangerous? Not from my POV. It's all just part of being in show business. *smile*
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2013 12:37:51 GMT -5
Wow. Pretty much nothing any of you has said been what I was expecting to find here! Perhaps this is good, as it will make me think again about certain things. That said, I'm surprised that the idea of non-dual consciousness is unfamiliar here. I rather thought that on this particular website people would be oriented in this way. I'm sorry for being presumptuous. If I may be permitted an attempt at explanation, then here it is... Consciousness is ordinarily associated with or projected onto objects, whether they be objects of the senses or more subtle objects such as thoughts. In this way, consciousness is divided into not only subject and object (an apparent perceiving subject and apparently "other" objects), but also into the word or discrete and differentiated objects. Our ability or propensity to discriminate and label (in the neutral as well as judging sense) is dependent upon this. Non-dual consciousness is the Realisation (so far as I understand it) of the non-divisive nature of Consciousness as the essence of all things, including the apparent spatial universe and the apparent extension of time leading from "here" to "there." In reality, these are abstractions or illusions within Consciousness which Consciousness apprehends but is not dependent upon nor limited to. Non-dual Consciousness is also (when Realised to Itself by Itself) non-conceptual, since a concept would limit its nature. It is also beyond any notion of God / Divinity or self / Self - hence the Buddha's "Anatman / Nastikata" doctrine. However, this does not at ALL mean that God / Divinity or self / Self do not "exist;" rather that they are themselves limitations within the greater comprehension of non-dual Consciousness. Meister Eckhart's surmon on "Spiritual Poverty" is a fairly good example of this. In the end, nothing can be said about non-dual reality which is why (apparently) the Buddha said nothing about it and why so little is "understood" about it. I know nothing whatever about it; I am merely trying to pass on the information I have read from others who have Realised it and tried to communicate something of it. What it is NOT, though, is some empty or blank void or space. The terms Void and Space are used sometimes (Tibetan Buddhism, Mahayana Buddhism, Shunya Buddhism, Merrell-Wolff and others, I believe), but these are terms which describe it from the relative perspective. Thus to our ordinary consciousness it appears to be nothing whatsoever - absolute unconsciousness. When Realised as It is in Itself, however, It is known to be utterly full and complete and perfect; unsupported, uncreated and Eternal. Apparently it's amazing and no-one would turn way from it (which would mean It turning away from Itself...). As for UG, BR and SS - and my "agenda" (thanks, silence...) - I believe their words, and particularly those of UG, are doing serious damage to many people along the path because the interpretations of their words are often (in my opinion) misguided. I simply want to try and understand them better and to help others to realise (who don't already, which many of you apparently do) that their descriptions are NOT of anything transcendent or "Spiritual." There seems to me to be a pervasive sense of nihilistic denial in the spiritual teachings of some modern writers, and I believe this is a consequence of people like UG. I believe this is incredibly damaging (potentially, to the unprepared) and I simply want to discuss the matter in order to shed more light on it. Silence - I don't understand your last question. Could you clarify, please? By the way, if this topic is genuinely not that interesting or relevant, then I'll quietly go away again - I don't have an axe to grind! berlake Perhaps the teachings are damaging. Perhaps nihilistic. I would only remind you that man has never constructed anything that will last anyhow. There is plenty of nihilism in the Bible too. Think Ecclesiastes. Think Christ on a cross. Think of you and I and every member of this forum in 100 years. Think "not this, not this". |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 16, 2013 21:34:19 GMT -5
You're just having fun with your own type of interpretation in exactly the same way as the masses of people dangerously misinterpreting these teachers. I don't think you actually know anything at all about what happened to him let alone whether it was horrid. OK. Maybe I do know, maybe I don't. Same goes for us all, then. But there's a chance I'm right and there are personal experiences which have helped me to this conclusion and which go along a good deal of "research." Discredit these if you wish, but I am not going to be so hasty. I'm definitely NOT "having fun" with any interpretations. You are being quite presumptuous about my motives and my perspective. I am willing to accept that, as topology pointed out, my motives are coloured in various personal ways (and I WILL answer this post!!!), but to presume I am unaware of this or that I am caught up in concepts and distracting myself from... whatever, is simply another interpretation and also fairly insensitive attempt at being some kind of anti-guru-concept-crusher. Incidentally, if other people's experiences count for nothing, why are you a member of this forum? It is fundamentally (or so I would imagine) designed to allow for the discussion of the teachers it "rates." It seems to a bit of a contradiction to invest your time in discussing people whose experiences you have already discredited. Either that, or you are contradicting yourself with your questions. If it weren't for the descriptions of "Enlightenment" passed onto us by people who are in a position to attempt to describe it (and I am NOT one of these people), then there would be nothing to discuss. Granting that these descriptions might be genuine and granting that some of them might be truthfully reporting a fundamental Realisation of Truth, is it not equally possible that there are some descriptions to be of something which is NOT "Enlightenment," but is in fact something which should certainly be avoided; and yet these descriptions have entered the arena of "Enlightenment" descriptions for dissemination along with all the others and are being on the whole (according to most people here, too) interpreted in the same light. IF I am right and the people whose works are being discussed are reporting something which is possibly the opposite of most other descriptions, then is there no value in trying to clarify this? There are many people are suffering and who will be drawn to these descriptions in particular because they speak of a kind of annihilation which many traumatised individuals experience in the depths of their consciousness (and yes, I speak from experience and I speak from knowledge of the experience of many others, too). The fact that the prospect of annihilation could be achieved is something quite shocking, but might well lead some people towards the assumption that this is a desirable aim. In my honest, considered, humble and experiential opinion it is NOT. I am also familiar with another kind of "experience" where the mind and self (not ontological self, but empiric self) begin to disintegrate of dissolve. This, too, is terrifying, but it is certainly NOT felt as annihilation. It is felt as the complete disidentification from my personal identity and all mind-based projections. There a sense of "voidness" and "nothingness" which becomes palpable and substantial and originates in the chest. I have yet to find the courage to follow this experience to its conclusion as a lifetime of condition had taught me to take myself to be a someone. So - now I am open for further humiliation or presumption or "deconstruction," but at least you know why I am here and, hopefully, that I am not a "woo-woo" hippie or new age fantasist (though if I were I would expect far more humane and respectful treatment from such experienced and evidently entrenched "seekers..." Tim [/quote] From my earliest memories I have always been the person I am now. I have quite a few as I remember many instances of being with my grandpa, who died when I was years-5 months old. I am only comfortable alone. I am only comfortable in my own skin, alone. As I indicated (I think) on the how did your spiritual journey begin thread, part of it was in an attempt to figure out this problem, not being comfortable around people. At 24 I found out about the journey from true self (essence) to ego/personality (loss of real self where most people remain.....stuck in identity as false self/ego/personality), then awakening, dying to false self/ego/persona and a return to true self/essence. In 1991 I had an experience that lasted very strongly for about three weeks, and then tapered off and ended completely after about six months. The three weeks were bliss, I was the same, but different. I was comfortable in my skin, anywhere, with anyone. But.......I was also a bit nutty....I was too penisy....didn't care about seeming a little nutty. Life pushed back very hard...eventually. After the three weeks I essentially made a decision to end what was happening, go back into life and be ordinary. This was the most difficult decision of my life. There was only one thing in the whole universe worth that decision, however. Coming down wasn't too bad at first.......then it got worse. By the end of the six months my life, inside and outside, was H-E-L-L. It was pretty-much as it had been, but in comparison to the three weeks, it was hell. Later (actually, after some years) I figured I had moved from ego/personality to true self/essence. The nuttiness was because ego/personality was still there, in the background, coloring my experience.......and then I understood why one does have to completely die to ego/personality, if it doesn't go the nuttiness will always be there (if you don't think that you are nutty, you don't know yourself). Would you want to be the person you were at two, eight, fourteen? We move on, we grow. I am beginning to recognize the person I had become in 1991, I've slowly been becoming that person again. I'm ready to finish off my nasty self-ego/false self/ego/persona........that's being (now) who I am, essentially. Theoretically (everything I just wrote was theoretical once-upon-a-time) there is a further movement from true self to no-self. Tim/berlake, I have read hundreds of accounts of no-self (Zen-type stuff) What is it about no self that you don't get? Does not no self indicate annihilation? Your post seems to indicate that something scared the B-Jesus out of you (I think maybe why you have locked on to UG, BR and SS). I don't know if all this means anything to you, but it is most sincere.......One really has to be almost absolutely tired of who they are, to move on.....maybe absolutely... sdp |
|
|
|
Post by topology on May 16, 2013 23:26:40 GMT -5
sdp,
If I am understanding berlake's concern it is that some people might take the message of no-self into the realm of anti-self. My perspective on that is that a person would already have to be in some kind of self-loathing already and just giving themselves permission to act on the self-loathing due to how they are interpreting these authors.
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 17, 2013 13:07:38 GMT -5
I am also familiar with another kind of "experience" where the mind and self (not ontological self, but empiric self) begin to disintegrate of dissolve. This, too, is terrifying, but it is certainly NOT felt as annihilation. It is felt as the complete disidentification from my personal identity and all mind-based projections. There a sense of "voidness" and "nothingness" which becomes palpable and substantial and originates in the chest. I have yet to find the courage to follow this experience to its conclusion as a lifetime of condition had taught me to take myself to be a someone. So - now I am open for further humiliation or presumption or "deconstruction," but at least you know why I am here and, hopefully, that I am not a "woo-woo" hippie or new age fantasist (though if I were I would expect far more humane and respectful treatment from such experienced and evidently entrenched "seekers..." Tim I would hazard a guess that your experience described is the movement from personality to essence (I take your meaning of empiric self to be personality, ontological self, essence). Personality does not want to die. It is a mechanism, but almost can seem conscious in its cunning and craftiness to stay alive and in control (which is an illusion anyway). Yes, to get a glimpse is terrifying, but the thing to understand is that personality is not going to survive the death of the physical body, (at least not very long anyway). So you really don't have anything to loose in facing the terrifying. Rather, it is a blessing and a release. ........I think you are very brave to try to come to terms with UG, BR and SS, but, we really have no need to worry about anyone else, everyone is individually responsible for their own actions. I think what you are facing is for your own self.....you are sort-of trying to escape, by putting it in terms of trying to help others. .........Think of Luke Skywalker entering the cave. In the cave you only see what you are. Yoda told him he didn't need his light saber in the cave. He saw Darth Vader, fought him, downed him, took off the mask, and saw it was himself. We really are nasty....little people...difficult to see what we are.......most difficult........ But beyond the movement from personality to essence, is movement from grown-up essence, to......whatever is next.........maybe no self. ..........Ever read The Dark Night of the Soul by St. John of the Cross? There is first the night of sense. I think this is probably dying to personality. But John talks about the further journey, the second night. It is much more difficult, much more difficult. The Dark Night of the Spirit is probably the movement from grown essence, to........whatever comes next (this would be dying to true self). So....what's left would be not-true-self.......not-self.........no-self. Yes, it is in a very sense annihilation...anything that helps you see your self, one should be thankful for.......but we usually run from it........ sdp |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 17, 2013 13:19:01 GMT -5
sdp, If I am understanding berlake's concern it is that some people might take the message of no-self into the realm of anti-self. My perspective on that is that a person would already have to be in some kind of self-loathing already and just giving themselves permission to act on the self-loathing due to how they are interpreting these authors. Well.......yes.....but...however..... I think it's important to understand what modern psychology (Jung...and all) means by our shadow. I think it can be very helpful. Sacrifice is.....you sacrifice the lower for the higher.....it's not really a sacrifice at all.........unless one is stuck in the lower.....values the lower more than the higher. It all has to do with what we say "I" to. If we always say "I" to the lower, of course annihilation seems like a bad thing. ........The movement away from self to Self is very difficult......eventually we really have to make the decision....... "all in"......... It's all either positive or negative from where one is standing......or looking forward or looking backwards........ sdp |
|
|
|
Post by berlake on May 17, 2013 17:44:56 GMT -5
sdp, If I am understanding berlake's concern it is that some people might take the message of no-self into the realm of anti-self. My perspective on that is that a person would already have to be in some kind of self-loathing already and just giving themselves permission to act on the self-loathing due to how they are interpreting these authors. ... and not only to act on the self-loathing / shame, but to somehow follow it through to a conclusion whereby the ontological self becomes unconscious; something it is in many things, I would imagine, such as rocks and so forth. This is what I mean by annihilation, though the term is misleading, since nothing can really be annihilated, only seen as illusion or return to unconsciousness. The Realisation of "whatever we want to call it" involves the realisation that we are not the empiric, individual self. This is a kind of death. It can happen prior to Realisation or as a consequence, it would seem. Yes, someone would need to be (probably unconsciously in psychological terms) in some kind of self-loathing to be drawn to these "teachings" (as I was/am), but this is a not inconsiderable number of people, I would suggest. My point is that the accounts of the experiences themselves may indeed hold no threat, but when they are interpreted as something akin to Enlightenment, then it's possible that the experience (of annihilation) may be sought, since there is already a frame of reference. Also, UG's particular philosophy is radically anti-spiritual. It is more materialistic than most naturalist scientists and empiricists would ever dare to go! This, too, taken as a kind of "truth" could be very harmful (though no less harmful than the cognitive psychologists' conclusions drawn from their investigations into the nature of "self" to someone who isn't familiar with the distinction between "self" and (to coin sdp's term) "Essence.") For people who are able to navigate the material they encounter with some grounding and discrimination, the words of someone like UG will be interpreted in their own way, and either accepted or rejected. But for less strong or critically minded people (and there are many) finding him recommended on a website like this one might just be very damaging... |
|
|
|
Post by berlake on May 17, 2013 18:02:36 GMT -5
I would hazard a guess that your experience described is the movement from personality to essence (I take your meaning of empiric self to be personality, ontological self, essence). Personality does not want to die. It is a mechanism, but almost can seem conscious in its cunning and craftiness to stay alive and in control (which is an illusion anyway). Yes, to get a glimpse is terrifying, but the thing to understand is that personality is not going to survive the death of the physical body, (at least not very long anyway). So you really don't have anything to loose in facing the terrifying. Rather, it is a blessing and a release. ........I think you are very brave to try to come to terms with UG, BR and SS, but, we really have no need to worry about anyone else, everyone is individually responsible for their own actions. I think what you are facing is for your own self.....you are sort-of trying to escape, by putting it in terms of trying to help others. .........Think of Luke Skywalker entering the cave. In the cave you only see what you are. Yoda told him he didn't need his light saber in the cave. He saw Darth Vader, fought him, downed him, took off the mask, and saw it was himself. We really are nasty....little people...difficult to see what we are.......most difficult........ But beyond the movement from personality to essence, is movement from grown-up essence, to......whatever is next.........maybe no self. ..........Ever read The Dark Night of the Soul by St. John of the Cross? There is first the night of sense. I think this is probably dying to personality. But John talks about the further journey, the second night. It is much more difficult, much more difficult. The Dark Night of the Spirit is probably the movement from grown essence, to........whatever comes next (this would be dying to true self). So....what's left would be not-true-self.......not-self.........no-self. Yes, it is in a very sense annihilation...anything that helps you see your self, one should be thankful for.......but we usually run from it........ sdp Hmmm... Totally with you for the first half, and agree I'm mixing my motives to a degree. As for my experiences, remember I mentioned two distinct types: one I instinctively feel is "positive" despite the terror attached to it (a great leap on the unknown and unknowable with the ordinary faculties, and a complete detachment from any sense of the "Tim" I know); the latter a God awful sense of total and irretrievable annihilation of the sense of Being. I managed to pull back from latter by instinct and will, but I am sure it is to be avoided. You won't convince me otherwise! I'm not sure I follow the second half of your post, though. Are you talking about "man's last and highest parting," as Eckhart has it, when both God and Self are subsumed into the Ultimate (a bit like Nisargadatta's Absolute, is seems to me, and almost certainly the same as Franklin Merrell-Wolff's description of his final Realisation beyond Self)? If you are, then I would imagine this is indeed something of a herculean task in terms of courage. But are you including BR's account of "beyond self and God" in this? I would have to say that I cannot see the same outcome being described by her, which leads me back to my original point... |
|
|
|
Post by berlake on May 17, 2013 18:23:26 GMT -5
Tim, What is getting humiliated? Is that real? Or is that the temporary personal self that you are currently identifying with? Robert, I'm just being disingenuous in the hope that by saying these things people might not be quite so uncivilised in their treatment of me. I don't know any of you well enough to trust that you have the skill to surgically operate upon my "ego," so I'm not really here for help in that area; though I understand and appreciate your efforts to help "me" to see past myself :-) But don't worry: I'm holding onto the illusion deliberately in some ways, and I am certainly aware that humiliation, shame, guilt, reward and on and on all belong to the false "me." I'm just not ready to jump yet, so I'm not really digging being pushed!!! I'm not sure I'd trust my own judgement or skill in doing so for someone else I have never met... As for your earlier points: thank you. It is helpful to clarify one's motives, both explicit and subtextual; and I am bringing some subtext :-) But I hope you can separate this from the issue I am trying to clarify, which concerns the apparently ubiquitous assumption that the three people I keep mentioning were in some way speaking of the same thing as other "Enlightened" people (and yes I know individuals don't get Enlightened; Realisation is the seeing through of the illusion of being a separate entity, so that would be a contradiction in terms. But I don't really want to get into this, since it's been covered elsewhere by dozens of people). I'm just trying to point out that it seems possible that something other than Enlightenment can occur and that it has become part of the language and the general orientation of many people who are "seekers." This alone is worrying to me, and that's before we get back to the fact that certain vulnerable people might end up quite seriously hampered by encountering these accounts in a context which they will naturally presume to be the correct one. Incidentally, I am absolutely not convinced that Enlightenment is something "ordinary" in the sense that it is not the solution to all human problems. I find no evidence that it isn't exactly what the Sages have said it is: worth anything it may cost. This appears to be a very unfashionable view these days, and it would seem that I might sound naive or too frightened to let go of my cozy concepts, but I can only try and assure you that this is far from being the case! My introduction to the whole idea of Enlightenment was not pleasant and I have only arrived at this position through arduous and dogged determination to get to the facts, whatever they may be. It just so happens that I find an element of "pollution" in the waters these days, and I believe it comes from people like UG and even Tony Parsons and probably a whole host of other people who are claiming some state or other to be "it." But I still believe there is an "it," and that it is the resolution to our problems. Call me old fashioned... Anyway, I think we've about exhausted this thread. I know I'm exhausted! I'm grateful for the input, even if these forum discussions are extremely difficult to navigate with any dignity :-) Tim |
|
