|
|
Post by berlake on May 17, 2013 18:30:31 GMT -5
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". silence - with respect, I don't think you and I are going to communicate in very productive way for either of us! I evidently misunderstand you or give various impressions about myself which you are misinterpreting, so I am going to say a sincere thank you for taking the time to engage with me in this discussion, but I think it's probably simpler (and less tiring) if we just call it a day here. Perhaps if we could talk in person it would be different, but we'll never get to find out... |
|
|
|
Post by silence on May 17, 2013 21:26:25 GMT -5
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". silence - with respect, I don't think you and I are going to communicate in very productive way for either of us! I evidently misunderstand you or give various impressions about myself which you are misinterpreting, so I am going to say a sincere thank you for taking the time to engage with me in this discussion, but I think it's probably simpler (and less tiring) if we just call it a day here. Perhaps if we could talk in person it would be different, but we'll never get to find out... Okie Dokie. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2013 2:36:15 GMT -5
Trying to purify a reflection, will always be emotionally exhausting.
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 14, 2013 9:43:13 GMT -5
...........bumping for Peter.....and Marian.......in relation to the John de Ruiter thread...... 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 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 [/quote] |
|
|
|
Post by berlake on Oct 16, 2013 7:46:10 GMT -5
...........bumping for Peter.....and Marian.......in relation to the John de Ruiter thread...... 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 [/quote] |
|
|
|
Post by berlake on Oct 16, 2013 9:11:33 GMT -5
Stardustpilgrim... I've not been back since my initial foray (as I pretty much felt I'd exhausted all possibility of making myself understood). However, your sincere response has prompted me to try one last time... (Please forgive the capitalisations: they are not meant to sound like I am ranting or shouting; they are merely intended to add emphasis for clarity).
As far as an ego-mind CAN interpret anything that is being communicated by people who are claiming that there is an underlying Suchness/Thatness/Consciousness/Being/Absolute (the list is close to endless; choose your erroneous concept), I believe I am pretty well versed in what the aim is: to TOTALLY remove ego-mind/self from the picture (though of course, the mind or the self cannot possibly "achieve" this). This is a COMPLETE death to the known; it is the end of the individual; it is radical; it has nothing whatsoever to do with the personal identity.
Are we agreed? If not, do clarify, please.
Now: there are accounts of this selfless "state" because there are people who have successfully become non-people. Without this, there would be little by way of any kind of discussion worth having. We would be indulging in mere philosophical speculation. So, as far as these accounts go, there must be - as you point out in your referral to Zen literature - some kind of consistency to the state of "no-self" or "no-mind" which we can rely upon in some sense; and, for the most part, I believe this is the case; there is something to rely upon.
My point regarding the three people I have mentioned is that their accounts are TOTALLY DIFFERENT to all the others; furthermore, their accounts appear to be HIGHLY interpretive of this peculiar and (to my mind - yes, my mind) completely-diametrically-opposed-to-Enlightenment state of being (which is a state of non-being). THAT is why the three people I mention give such utterly different interpretations of the state itself. UG used to decry any Truth or Reality or the possibility of "knowing" such a Truth or Reality BEFORE his "calamity." He was already a total skeptic. He was already completely convinced that there was no hope. His view after he evidently regressed to some kind of primordial, perception-based consciousness (like that of a plant, perhaps!?) was not different. The only difference was that he was able to DESCRIBE being totally annihilated. But his INTERPRETATION of the state is based solely on his previous beliefs. These remained. If you read what he says closely, this should be apparent. The moments before his "calamity" clarify this quite well. In fact, most of the language he used (quite deliberately, it would seem) was that of J. Krishnamurti, only U.G. used it to scare people and to rail-road them into his way of thinking; and don't be deceived: just because he was unconscious of being conscious it doesn't mean he wasn't thinking.
Bernadette Roberts was, similarly, harbouring a philosophical predisposition: to a subject/object, self/God idea of Christian Union. She claims she had often wondered where "she" ended and "God" began. What apparently happened to her (according to her explanation of the moment her self "fell away") was that she "realised" (mentally, it would appear) that where there is no self, there can be no God, because they are mutually dependent. It is difficult to analyse the exact events precipitating the falling away of self, but they certainly seem to have involved a strange - perhaps not entirely conscious - apprehension of the BELIEF that there can be no God without self, as self is needed to apprehend God. This, I am sure you will agree, is the opposite tautology of most of the more profound teachings; i.e., that "God" is not divisible in any sense, and that ultimately there is no distinction between anything whatsoever, as all is already THAT which is beyond subject and object. The ONLY way to "know" "God" is by ceasing to bring about the sense of division which occurs through the perpetuation of the individual identity - which is entirely constructed by sense perception and conceptual cognition and which identity is entirely devoid of any self-existence (annatta/Anatman, as the Buddhists would have it)... Bernadette Roberts appears to have retained her finite mental perspective (as is clearly demonstrated by her attempts to try and understand what had happened to her, since the answer was not self-evident - another HUGE clue), which is another intimation that what she is describing is not the cessation of mind and self, but a kind of radical "depression" of the true Consciousness which is the real and only ground from which we derive any sense of "being" (even whilst ensnared by individuality...). It sounds the same as U.G's descriptions to me, but the interpretation is radically different.
Suzanne Segal seems to have experienced a terrifying sense of the same kind of "ontological annihilation" (again, totally different from the annihilation of the ego-mind, which erroneously attributes its ontological sense to itself), which she tried desperately to prevent before the "witness" finally gave way, too. After this, she retained ALL OF HER ORDINARY FACULTIES, including mind, beliefs, feelings and apparently even motives, yet without ANY sense of being alive whatsoever. Once more, this doesn't sound anything at all like the descriptions of no-mind or ego death which tend to involve the individual "dying" and then a total identification with Nothing/Emptiness/Consciousness/Whatever. It is then BEYOND QUESTION that this is the nature of Reality or Truth; that the Emptiness is really only empty of all distinguishing features, and is the ever mysterious Source of all that is. Segal claims to have eventually realised this, but, again, it is unclear if this is true or whether it was a mind-made belief acquired after years of desperate mental seeking after an explanation for the state she found herself in.
Finally - NONE of these three people describe the main "hallmarks" of Enlightenment, namely: Timelessness (the direct identity with a timeless reality); transcendence of the universe as a self-existent reality (all three attest to the absolute reality of the physical universe); re-establishment of an already-present fact (i.e., that the One Reality has always and always be the Truth, as it is the source of all else).
I can understand that people will think I am just quoting from books about the state of "Enlightenment." That's fine. I'm guessing no-one else here is speaking from the state themselves, so I am not alone in this. I understand that it's not very "advanced" to still talk about it in these terms, since it is beyond description and beyond the mind. I F***ING GET IT!!! I got that years ago. Please, no more patronising attempts to prove that I don't know anything (I'm not aiming this at you, Stardust, or indeed most people in this forum, I would imagine...). We're all in the same boat here. None of us knows anything. BUT - we are all here in this group discussing Enlightenment based upon other people's accounts of it. And all I am saying is that the three people I mention SEEM TO BE TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING ELSE, and I therefore advise caution. And do you know why I believe their words are so dangerous? Because so many people now think it is so much more "mature" to be totally nihilistic and to expect Enlightenment to be some kind of dry, potentially unpleasant (if you're honestly taking UG et al seriously) state.
As for me and my fear: yep, my fear is strong. But anyone who is doing this consciously who ISN'T frightened at all is in denial or has come through fear. At least I am being honest with myself. For the record, I am also close to the end of my tether with "myself." I sh*t you not. My life has been utterly devoid of any motive or purpose outside of figuring out - for myself and by myself - what the truth REALLY is, and at whatever cost (and I don't just mean figuring out mentally - I gave that up years ago...). And yes: I have latched onto these three people's words out of fear, because I don't want things to end up like that and because I know it is possible based upon my experience (which I have tried to explain!). And if it's possible for me to nearly end up like that, it's possible for others, especially if they believe that U.G.K., B.R. and S.S. are all describing something to strive for (and the worst of them is U.G., for his very convincing - yet totally false - arguments. In fact, his philosophical speculations are amongst the most damaging I have ever read).
That's it. I can't explain it better than that without writing page after page and showing 7 years' worth of consideration in this matter...
Cheers!
Tim
|
|
frustratedwanter
Full Member
Apparently I posted something in 2020. I don't think that's what I'm looking for but what ta hey?
Posts: 150
|
Post by frustratedwanter on Oct 16, 2013 15:31:34 GMT -5
Wanting to throw in 2 cents for some reason. Without reading everything up to this point, it's a mite deep and convoluted for me. Checked in on some U.G. videos a ways back. Dude struck me as p.o.'d, I wasn't interested. Segal was interesting, a road I didn't follow. I believe she died of a brain tumor and there was some conjecture on whether that explained her experience. Interesting. See "A stroke of insight" by Her Name Escapes Me. Interesting. Took a short walk with Bernadette. I think she said something about Jesus and Buddha found a "still point" which eventually swallowed "the world". I'm paraphrasing here. That's the part I walked away with 'cause I liked it. And quickly forgot to use it as a practice. I don't 'member well. Feel a little sad that Bernadette, Jesus and Buddha lived that I might get some quickly forgotten idea about a still point. Seems like a waste.
I too am concerned about people misinterpreting ideas, following those who shouldn't be followed. If too much of that goes on we'll get exactly the world we're living in. I am grateful that I have not followed anyone to my death in the jungle or to a spaceship behind a comet. I don't know why that is but so it is. Ideas that HAVE been pushing "me" are stupid enough and well accepted in the mainstream. I don't know by what mysterious grace I might take the occasional "right" step. I suspect the reasons for the "wrong" ones are obvious, whether I see them or not. Anyway......
In a strange city.
I ask someone for directions to Enlightenment Street.
The person might admit they don't know.
Might not want to admit they don't know and give directions anyway.
Might THINK they know.
Might be a joker that wants to run me around town.
What are you gonna do?
Person might know and lovingly tell me the way.
Doesn't really matter.
I'll get lost anyway.
For me it's in one ear, out the other.
Thanks.
That was exhausting.
|
|
frustratedwanter
Full Member
Apparently I posted something in 2020. I don't think that's what I'm looking for but what ta hey?
Posts: 150
|
Post by frustratedwanter on Oct 16, 2013 15:49:43 GMT -5
Cheer up Tim.
Been chewing on this bone for some 30 years.
Frustration is 'The Way'.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2013 15:52:21 GMT -5
Cheer up Tim. Been chewing on this bone for some 30 years. Frustration is 'The Way'. |
|
frustratedwanter
Full Member
Apparently I posted something in 2020. I don't think that's what I'm looking for but what ta hey?
Posts: 150
|
Post by frustratedwanter on Oct 16, 2013 18:31:52 GMT -5
Cheer up Tim. Been chewing on this bone for some 30 years. Frustration is 'The Way'. It isn't the way? Part of the way? What's real now? And I don't know exactly what you're asking about anyway. It is a very sincere "Cheer up!" |
|
frustratedwanter
Full Member
Apparently I posted something in 2020. I don't think that's what I'm looking for but what ta hey?
Posts: 150
|
Post by frustratedwanter on Oct 16, 2013 20:09:51 GMT -5
Berlake:
Would like to recommend some of my recent discoveries:
Rupert Spira. Tries to point out to my recalcitrant mind that what I seek is already so.
Which is a position that often occurs to me.
Usually when I want a different "so".
Am fighting.
I've heard "already so" from those I somehow trust so many times that I believe it must be so.
Because I can't think of any rational, or other, argument.
For or against.
What is already so cannot possibly be another "so".
Whatever it is I personally fight against is already....that.
Even the one fighting.
I'll stop there.
Rick linchitz.
Couple of Science and Non-Duality clips on Youtube. (SAND). If that piques your interest you might suffer thru the other ones with German translation. Watching the impatient one is some sort of practice in itself. Didn't get ME anywhere (as yet) but there it is.
Fluffy pink cotton candy ideas of what it means to be awake thrown out the window.
Pain doesn't disappear. Thoughts don't disappear.
The world IS in all it's ugly glory.
Points out to me my fluffy pink cotton candy stories.
I think it's good to see that sugar melting in the fire.
Don't find it comforting.
Does seem like the right direction to me.
I like Tony Parsons.
I think some call him Neo advaita.
Labels are great.
They give no one something to believe in.
It makes no one someone.
I like Tony parsons. I think he's on to something.
Short, sweet, uncompromising.
If you think you've suffered enough in seven years walk with Spira.
He'll talk to you about time.
I don't get it myself.
You might.
Questions about who has the "right" story will not satisfy you.
Doesn't satisfy me.
Not sure why I am not satisfied.
Looking for a different "so".
|
|
|
|
Post by berlake on Oct 17, 2013 6:47:04 GMT -5
Frustratedwanter... I'm sorry, but you've completely missed my point. But never mind...
I'm not looking for any pointers. I know who Tony Parsons and Rupert Spira are, by the way (and I love Spira's "teacher," Francis Lucille. Very clear and very direct). Parsons replied to an email of mine and left me a message on my phone inviting me to call him (something he does with anyone who contacts him, I believe). I decided not to talk to him after I became suspicious that he was a fake (I know - how do I know, right? Well, it's just a feeling based upon his books, interviews and videos. Just doesn't seem at all genuine and sounds like someone who is parroting other teachers without anything substantial to offer apart from his hackneyed line about there being "no-one here")! Rupert Spira lives in my hometown, and I have considered seeing him. He seems interesting. His wife also runs a "non-dual" therapy thing. She seems nice (from the couple of videos I've seen) and I thought about contacting her for a while, but I can't really afford it. I've had several long conversations with Linda Clair in Australia (over the phone) and have exchanged many emails with her. She has been extremely helpful. Might have a chat with Jan Frazier soon, too, as she seems very genuine and is available for one-to-one consultations over the phone...
I'm not frustrated by the (in my view genuine) "teachings" I have encountered. I have found - and still find - many people helpful, and I return to their words again and again. As I said, I'm not looking for any pointers, though thank you for your suggestions. I was just trying (and again failing, evidently) to raise an issue which I personally believe is worth raising. I don't mind honest disagreement one bit, but if you detect some "misery" in my words it is simply utter f***ing exasperation due to having received mostly clumsy and even patronising responses. But I'm not here to win any friends; just sharing something for those who might find it useful. If I engage with the madness, it's just to try and preserve my original point for those who, as I mentioned, might find it useful. I'm not trying to defend myself (though I can just hear the dissent as I write those words!)...
So I'm not going to "cheer up." Thanks.
Good luck with your "so." I actually mean that :-)
Tim
|
|
|
|
Post by berlake on Oct 17, 2013 13:37:20 GMT -5
Wanting to throw in 2 cents for some reason. Without reading everything up to this point, it's a mite deep and convoluted for me. Checked in on some U.G. videos a ways back. Dude struck me as p.o.'d, I wasn't interested. Segal was interesting, a road I didn't follow. I believe she died of a brain tumor and there was some conjecture on whether that explained her experience. Interesting. See "A stroke of insight" by Her Name Escapes Me. Interesting. Took a short walk with Bernadette. I think she said something about Jesus and Buddha found a "still point" which eventually swallowed "the world". I'm paraphrasing here. That's the part I walked away with 'cause I liked it. And quickly forgot to use it as a practice. I don't 'member well. Feel a little sad that Bernadette, Jesus and Buddha lived that I might get some quickly forgotten idea about a still point. Seems like a waste. I too am concerned about people misinterpreting ideas, following those who shouldn't be followed. If too much of that goes on we'll get exactly the world we're living in. I am grateful that I have not followed anyone to my death in the jungle or to a spaceship behind a comet. I don't know why that is but so it is. Ideas that HAVE been pushing "me" are stupid enough and well accepted in the mainstream. I don't know by what mysterious grace I might take the occasional "right" step. I suspect the reasons for the "wrong" ones are obvious, whether I see them or not. Anyway...... In a strange city. I ask someone for directions to Enlightenment Street. The person might admit they don't know. Might not want to admit they don't know and give directions anyway. Might THINK they know. Might be a joker that wants to run me around town. What are you gonna do? Person might know and lovingly tell me the way. Doesn't really matter. I'll get lost anyway. For me it's in one ear, out the other. Thanks. That was exhausting. BTW - her name's Jill Bolte Taylor. I have the book you mention; yes, it is interesting. There's also a brilliant talk she gives for TED which is available to view online... |
|
frustratedwanter
Full Member
Apparently I posted something in 2020. I don't think that's what I'm looking for but what ta hey?
Posts: 150
|
Post by frustratedwanter on Oct 17, 2013 21:54:06 GMT -5
Cheer up Tim. Been chewing on this bone for some 30 years. Frustration is 'The Way'. Oh. |
|
frustratedwanter
Full Member
Apparently I posted something in 2020. I don't think that's what I'm looking for but what ta hey?
Posts: 150
|
Post by frustratedwanter on Oct 17, 2013 22:19:37 GMT -5
Frustratedwanter... I'm sorry, but you've completely missed my point. But never mind... I'm not looking for any pointers. I know who Tony Parsons and Rupert Spira are, by the way (and I love Spira's "teacher," Francis Lucille. Very clear and very direct). Parsons replied to an email of mine and left me a message on my phone inviting me to call him (something he does with anyone who contacts him, I believe). I decided not to talk to him after I became suspicious that he was a fake (I know - how do I know, right? Well, it's just a feeling based upon his books, interviews and videos. Just doesn't seem at all genuine and sounds like someone who is parroting other teachers without anything substantial to offer apart from his hackneyed line about there being "no-one here")! Rupert Spira lives in my hometown, and I have considered seeing him. He seems interesting. His wife also runs a "non-dual" therapy thing. She seems nice (from the couple of videos I've seen) and I thought about contacting her for a while, but I can't really afford it. I've had several long conversations with Linda Clair in Australia (over the phone) and have exchanged many emails with her. She has been extremely helpful. Might have a chat with Jan Frazier soon, too, as she seems very genuine and is available for one-to-one consultations over the phone... I'm not frustrated by the (in my view genuine) "teachings" I have encountered. I have found - and still find - many people helpful, and I return to their words again and again. As I said, I'm not looking for any pointers, though thank you for your suggestions. I was just trying (and again failing, evidently) to raise an issue which I personally believe is worth raising. I don't mind honest disagreement one bit, but if you detect some "misery" in my words it is simply utter f***ing exasperation due to having received mostly clumsy and even patronising responses. But I'm not here to win any friends; just sharing something for those who might find it useful. If I engage with the madness, it's just to try and preserve my original point for those who, as I mentioned, might find it useful. I'm not trying to defend myself (though I can just hear the dissent as I write those words!)... So I'm not going to "cheer up." Thanks. Good luck with your "so." I actually mean that :-) Tim Being unwilling to read everything posted it is possible I missed your point. Being unwilling to torture myself with whatever point is trying to be made. I think you're trying to make sure I don't misunderstand something. I believe my misunderstanding is mine to hold, not your's to take away. Cheer up! The heavy burden of my salvation is not your's to bear. I do in fact claim and have absolute sovereignty over the right to misunderstand. |
|
