By the way jpEG, I agree with you for once that some people here do write a lot of bullshit.
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 5:46 AM, Kuber Technologies < [email protected]> wrote: > Aho, Enlightened Guy, > > > > On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 10:56 PM, jp EnlightenmentGuy < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> I have heard many spiritual teachers just dismissively say things >> like, >> >> "You can't be anything that changes, right? You are not the body, or >> mind, or memories, or personality or whatever." >> >> Really? >> >> I'll bet 99.99%++ of all humans who have ever existed would agree with >> what is written below. Can you say, clearly, why this is not >> accurate?? >> >> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >> >> Who or what am I? I am a body, with certain attributes and abilities >> (physical and mental), born to parents, exposed to things in the >> environment, having had experiences I have collected memories, and >> developed beliefs and a personality (with all its many sub- >> attributes). >> >> If I had been born to different parents (or adopted as an infant), or >> born at a different time, or born into a different body, or born in a >> different place, or in a different culture/society, then I would in >> fact be a different person. >> >> That is what a "person" is -- a unique, ever-changing, body/mind/ >> personality, that is born, lives for a while, then dies. >> >> That is what I am. >> >> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >> >> How clear can you be in pointing out how, exactly, this is inaccurate? >> > > > Who says the above depiction is inaccurate? > > But it is a depiction. > > And a depiction is always limited. > > Just like a painting of the sky...may in fact be far more beautiful than > the actual muggy polluted sordid of a sky... > > ..........but a painting no matter how wide the canvas .....is only a > bounded version. > > > > > The depiction as above........as........ what seems to be an absolute > truth...... > > is an arising and maybe persisting ...........conviction....within what is > once again termed(depicted).........as the dreaming-while-awake-drama. > > What happens to the content of this dreaming-while-awake-drama.........with > all it's seeming so real, so absolute postulates.... > > ....of the seemingly so real existence of a sentient biological object with > identifiable parentage........and which seemingly acts so independently, so > volitionally........while relating with an array of equally so real sentient > and non-sentient other-than-itself-objects.... > > .....what happens to the entirety of this hoopla.....when this > dreaming-while-awake-drama..........ceases? > > As in going to sleep. > > The entirety of all that seemingly so real., so absolute postulates, > including the unshakable conviction of one's existence as "a" distinguished > person...... > > .......goes pooooooooooooof. > > As gets poooofed..........the beloved wife, the beloved son, the beloved > mother, the revered icon of material or spiritual authority............the > sense of identity/person which has made such a tremendous mark in life, all > the accumulations, material/spiritual, all the convictions, realization, > understandings, assertions, denials...... > > .....all the profane joys and profound sorrows, the sublime and the > ridiculous, the awe-inspiring moments and the pissing- off-events....... > > ......all vaporizes. > > > And is replaced with another entire set of postulates and an equally > unshakable conviction of one's existence as "a" distinguished > dream-character-person.... > > ...which seemingly acts so independently, so volitionally........relating > with an array of equally so real sentient and non-sentient > other-than-itself-dreamt-up objects...... > > ......making up the hoopla of sleep-dream-drama. > > > > Which also goes poooooooooooooof.......when the state of deep sleep dawns. > > > > A state in which is the absence of the dream-while-awake hoopla and the > dream-while-sleep hoopla. > > > Seemingly so real and so dear to life...............convictions(which are > nothing but thoughts maybe deeply entrenched).... > > ...which appear and disappear, which arise and dissipate.... > > ....whose longevity are only minute fractions of time.... > > .....of what import are these convictions? > > > > The usual refrain (or the "clever" rejoinder)..........is "But when I wake > up I find the same world the same relationships, the same body with-the > piles-in-the-rectum, the same job etc etc. > So all that must have continued to exist, while I was away........either > sleep-dreaming or deep-sleeping or whatever". > > > > The cognized world in the moment with the entirety of it's content, which > includes the sentient biological body-mind object through which the very > cognizing of the perceived-world is taking place.... > > ......is never the same, moment to moment to moment. > > Just seems like a persistent constant. > > Just like flowing waters of a river gives rise to a conviction about a > constant entity termed as a river. > > Just like a gathering of trees gives rise to a conviction about a constant > entity termed as a forest. > > Or two criss-crossing lines drawn on a blank paper...........appear to > have a point at which the two lines criss-cross. > > There is really no "river", no "forest", no "point".... > > ....just conventions .........which no doubt serve a useful purpose. > > Language for example is an agreed convention. > > > > And it is also not that there is something which changing into something > else. > > This moment now and here..........has no connectivity to the next. > > A "next moment" itself being a thought in this now and here. > > "Now and here" has never moved to or morphed into a "then and there". > > > > So is the no-hoopla-persistingly constant deep-sleep state.........the > truth of one's identity? > > Nope.........for that too is a durational event. > > That in which...........all these three states happens...... > > ......that, which is all the three states ............in its seemingly > objectivized form(s)..... > > .....that-which-has-no-space-to-admit-an-other...... > > ------that to which, neither appearance or disappearance, neither arising > or dissipating, neither existing, or non-existing..........has any > relevance....... > > ..can that be an identity even to itself? > > Can "it" even admit the relevance of a need for an identity itself? > > > A pointing as "Awareness-not-aware-of-itself"... > > .....while possessing the widest expanse of a canvas......is still a > depicting. > > > > So now what is to be done............with the Who am I > .............vuvuzela whining? > > No matter what the arising answer to that question in the moment...... > > ..... no matter how deep the conviction about that answer in that moment > .... > > ..... no matter how lofty the authority from whom the answer has been > borrowed, heard, imbibed....written down and memorized...... > > ....the quest......just for whom is that answer............an answer? > > Who is it that is has taken delivery of the thought............in the form > of the answer? > > Who is it that has taken the delivery of the thought............in the form > of the question... > ...Who am I? > > Who is it.............for whom the relevance of the need of an identity? > > > Who is it to whom this play of thought, in the form of > questioning/answering.... > > ....is a cognizable array of eventing? > > > > > It is not a coincidence that the Sufi dervishes go Hoo Hooo Hoooo while > whirling away. > > > > > > > > > > > > >
