Hi Akasha,
Thank you for your lengthy and thoughtful reply. I can much better understand your overall perspective now, which oddly enough is very much like my own. Just to clarify the 'Rory' question: 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. Please substitute 'Akasha' for Rory in the above sentence. All the Best, Jim --- In [email protected], akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- 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/
