--- In [email protected], "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi Akasha, > > I think you may be misunderstanding me.
Could be. Apologies if I am. I am open and eager to get it right. > I am NOT stating the fact > that just because I like what Rory says that you or anybody else > should. Thats nice. But why would you think that I think that? I don't find any such thrust in my writing. Maybe its a blind spot. Help me out. Where am i doing this? Or, another hypothesis is, that you are seeing this in my writing, emenating from some of your own internal filters. You add or subract from what really IS, the words in front of you. That is literally None Of My Business. So this isn't some > little fascism or something. Glad to hear it, though i would not suspect or think otherwise. > Rather all I am saying is that in order for me to continue to grow > and evolve, I must treat Rory (in the way he has thus far expressed > himself) as I would treat myself. Why "must" you? You have become solely dependent on Rory for your growth and evolution? I question whether thats wise, to place all your eggs in one basket. Or to place your growth and evolution in someone elses hands. I know Rory would discourage you from doing that. You stated, "The way I now see it, is if there is no real difference between he and I, then his expressions must be that of a higher self I am gaining familiarity with. " Why "must" he be a higher self? As an aside, you seem to use the word "must" a lot. In my experience that is prominant in true-believer mind-sets. Sincere and eager seekers, sure that THIS must be the one, the real thing, at last. But back to "Why 'must' he be a higher self?": do you believe Rory MUST be in Maharishi Consciousness (his term), a stage beyond Shiva Consciousness (his term), a stage beyond Krishna Consciousness, then again a stage beyond Brahman Consciousness. Sankara indicates BC is IT, the Begining and End, the culmination of it all. Do you believe Rory has fully realized states way beyond Shankara? Are you open to the possiblity that Rory is delusional -- that is, he has read a lot of books, has a deep darshana (view) of various states, actually believes himself to be in those states, yet is not? I am open to both views. Perhaps you can try Byron Katie's approach (which Rory would highly recommend). 1. Is it true? 2. Can you absolutely know that it's true? 3. How do you react when you think that thought? (When you believe that thought?) 4. Who would you be without the thought? 5) Turn the thought around. The questions i am trying to get at are: Lets take it out for a spin. Rory has total and complete realization of KC, SC and MC, all states bytond BC. 1. Is it true? Possibly. 2. Can you absolutely know that it's true? No. And there is not much evidence for it. And lots of inconsistencies. 3. How do you react when you think that thought? (When you believe that thought?) Happy for "him", happy about everything. Glad he is making himself available. 4. Who would you be without the thought? I would be the same. I suspect your world would be a lot dimmer. Perhaps shattered. 5) Turn the thought around. Rory is delusional (as defined above). Lets try the 4 steps wit h the turn around. 1. Is it true? Possibly. it seems consistent with quite a few things. 2. Can you absolutely know that it's true? No. 3. How do you react when you think that thought? (When you believe that thought?) A bit sad that he is trapped in this delusion - he is a nice guy, i like him. A bit sad that he is misleading people. 4. Who would you be without the thought? The same. > I have never minded your comments of skepticism or doubt regarding > Rory. I am not really sketical. I more focus on inconsistancies, logical fallacies, contradictions with other teachings -- non of which make Rory wrong. But at some point you have to look at the pile of pros and the piles of cons. And ponder if one is huge and one is tiny. > What I don't like is the mean spiritedness and disdain with > which you treat his comments, Again, this sppears to be your filters interpreting what I write. Or, I am very open, show me where I am mean-spirited. You would actually have to get inside my head to do so. So what can I say. What I write is not mean spirited. Beleive it or not, its of not importance to me. As i said, I focus on inconsistancies, logical fallacies, contradictions with other teachings. The purpose is to promote thinking and discussion -- to try to drag out mor knowledge form this collective consciousness. And to try to help raise the "vibration" rate of the discussion, the help myself and others clear away the smoke and mirrors from the shinning sun of wisdom and insight. And in a deeper sense, I see this as healing "Self". Taking the darshana I gained from SSRS ten years ago (actually not a new insight at that time, but a view I took on more actively), I see everyone as as a flame of divinity -- the same as which is realized inside. So its like when you are at the beach and you see "kinks" in the blanket laid out -- you attend to it. The blanket is part of me. Spontaneously smoothing takes place. "Do that which ought to be done" was a flame that leaped out of the gita into me 35 years ago. Its what happens. So when I see logical fallacies in your writing or Rories, I see it as part of the same continent that i am on. The continent always moves to heal the continent. Echoing Donne: "No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main; if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less...any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind...Perchance he for whom this bell tolls, may be so ill, as that he knows not it tolls for him; and perchance I may think myself so much better than I am, as that they who are about me...may have caused it to toll for me...and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee." > or anyone else's with whom you > disagree. I don't really disagree with anyone for I don't hold any firm views. I take on provisional views so that I can function in the world, but am often refining and disgarding such as I gain more insight. > > It could very well be that you have a valid point of view to express > which may question or even run counter to some of that which is > expressed in this online community. I would hope. Hope springs eternal. > However when you get nasty or demeaning about it, You appear to see mean and nasty things a lot. Maybe the fault dear Brutus is not in the "outer world" aka stars, but in ourselves. you are catering > to that which is limited within your Self, and not sharing your > knowledge honestly. Hard for you to know or understand my honesty. Have you cnsidered that I am being to honest for your tastes? That you (appear to) like cozy, sugar-coated things and honest views that disrupt that world disturb you? How is the Self ever limited? To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
