--- akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In [email protected], Peter Sutphen > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Not so much that his personality is "flawed", but > that > > it is exactly what it is. "Flawed" implies some > sort > > of standard or basis of evaluation. I don't know > what > > that would be other than some story I need to tell > > myself. > > Do you classify "having dementia" a story? That was > your "story" or > explanation yesterday.
Yes, that is a story within the dharma of waking state. It is an attempt to understand within that context. > Is this story now being > dropped? Or is the > "story" that MMY is simply an unexplainable paradox > being dropped? > (Prior "stories"). It's all being dropped in that particular post. > > Is it a "story" -- your evaluation of others as > having an unfulfilled > father issues in explaining other's behavior towards > MMY? Or is that > "purely experienced"? Just a story that you appropriately turned around (ala Byron Katie) towards me which I fully agree with. > > > But now you can't then take the counter > > position and say that his personality is > "perfect." It > > is neither flawed nor perfect. If you drop all > stories > > you just have pure experience left. > > Is it really possible to "drop all stories" and > experiencing someone > or something "purely"? Doesn't all experience have > some intermediary > level of interpretation? I equate interpretation as > "story". How are > you defining "story"? Is it different from > interpretation? Here story is just the explanatory construct used by mind to have experience "make sense." Pure experience is a bodily felt only. There's not a story intrinsic to it, that is something the mind does. Yet, on the other hand, that experience also constrains what meanings can be generated, as it were, from that experience. So there is "something" intrinsic to experience that could be thought of as limiting the meaning that is generated from it. But the range of the meaning would only apply to our experience and not another's experience. So our experience is not that MMY is mad. Our experience is something quite personal in reaction to his behavior. All we can do is generate meaning within the domain of our own experiencing. As soon as we start talking about others, it's truly just a story and usually something used to manage our own uncomfortable experiencing. > > If one is to believe the claimants to Brahman on > this list, even THAT > is an understanding -- which implies to me it is an > interpretation of > an experience. And doesn't leesha-vidya and > "personality" provide a > layer of interpreation on "the world" which > differentiates the > relative views of those who are Blazing Brahman? Yes, I agree. That's why any spoken teaching is limited. I like Dakshinamurti. He didn't speak a word and just radiated that until you "got it." Any spoken teaching must necessarily transcend itself into That. > For > example, MMY and > SSRS apparently view the UK differently on the > surface level. They > have different "stories" about it. So, again I am > trying ot get to the > point of is it really possible to "drop all stories" > and experiencing > someone or something "purely" -- even in Brahman? Yes, because (here's a story!) Brahman is outside of mind. It can not be recognized by mind. Mind only sees nothingness when it tries to "see" Brahman. > > And that > > experience varies from person to person. > > Why does the experience vary from person to person > if there is no > intermediary level of interpreation or story? I'm just saying people have different experiences of "the same thing." > > >For me MMY is > > absolute Brahman and that Brahman moves in > profoundly > > mysterious ways to awaken to itself. All this MMY > > nonsense is pure leela. A deliciously mad dish of > > perfect Kali devouring your mind. > > Is that a story -- a level of interpretation -- or > do you hold that as > pure experience? Another story because it is spoken. > > This is not a critic of your statements. Rather, > your posts bring up > (some times subtle) distinctions, sometimes apparent > contradictions, > which if explained, would make your points clearer > -- if not profound. I'm with ya Akasha! -Peter > > > > > > 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 > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250 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/
