I don't think we share the same perspective on people with different world views. Given the mature nature of poster here, equally thoughtful, equally world wise, I'm pretty sure people have found out what works for them. I can have confidence in my own view without thinking less of someone who doesn't share it. I lived 31 years of my life as an enthusiastic theist so I have no excuse for putting down people who choose to believe or interpret their inner experiences as proof.
I am posting on a spiritual board for a reason. If all I wanted was a bunch of back patting I could get that on an atheist board. But that is boring to me because I have done enough thinking about that perspective. What interests me are the edges of that POV and Marek, Turq, Judy and Trinity, among others, have all contributed to me noticing things I missed on my own. Did you ever study the psychology of boundaries, where they relate to establishing flexible but strong intellectual boundaries? If you want my two cents, pursuing that information would serve you well. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Curtis, > > Okay on your "breaking rapport" chiding -- I'll try > harder/better/wiser. Yeah, I was cheap shotting atcha. > > BUT BUT BUT > > I've written soooooo much about identification. > > Okay, so, I get it. My posts are not convincing anyone, and since I > don't claim enlightenment, then, of course, my clarity about > identification must be "off" to some degree, and who am I to get on a > stump and start shouting about it? Others, enlightened others, have > already done so in a far deeper fashion. > > Again, I had to read Ramana's "Talks" three times, taking good notes, > before -- not suddenly but swiftly -- what he was talking about "came > into focus." I just don't believe I have the word power to make any > horse drink, and, indeed, neither does Ramana, but, a "faithful" > applying of oneself to his words does do the saturation necessary -- > or at least it did for me. > > When I see you and Dinkquoise patting yourselves on your backs about > being so clear about your atheism, I'm, well, aghast. > > Aghast? Yeah, cuz, both of you can sling the words, both of you are > real life success stories, and both of you have great hearts, and to > see you miss the mark so widely on this issue is a huge let down of my > expectations. Yeah, I said the magic word "my" -- excuuuuuuuse me. > > Reading Ramana just did it for me -- without having to get rid of > "Personal God." Ramana and Nisargadatta both did pujas, ahem, > religiously, but each spoke of silence, mouna, in a kinder tone of > voice. I see that the Personal God concept is relative, limited, > illusory, but functionally, like Newton's laws of physics, a Personal > God "will do" in most circumstances, and no need arises for an > Einsteinian subtlety. Ramana provides the view of the Absolute that > finally got to my lower levels by saturation, and "identification" > just became amalak fruit to me. I just don't see that clarity in your > posts -- so far. I'm just not the person who can make your horse > drink. Ramana maybe could. > > For my first two readings of Ramana's "Talks," he was pretty much just > another yogi saying the ancient wisdoms, but on the third, I started > seeing where I hadn't been listening to him in the first two readings. > Chagrin city for moi. To me, now, he's ONLY talking about > identification shifting from relative "onto" the Absolute -- NOT onto > Being, the divine fake. > > If I can't put the words down that will convert you on the spot, then > why bother re-inventing the wheel? -- Ramana rolling a light speed -- > he's far better at saturating than I could be, cuz he had the actual > clarity compared to my mere intellectual kiddie-clarity. > > But who will do this? Who can see that understanding words is always > a case of first impression, second impression, third impression, etc.? > I just don't see anyone understanding saturation enough to delve > deeper into the concept of identification, because, well, they > understand it completely, just take their word for it, donchaknow. > > Unless one just keeps coming back to the concept again and again and > again, I don't see actual clarity arising -- jes gots ta build neurons. > > Edg > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > "And, yet, there you are psychocuddling with the atheists to an degree > > I cannot support. They're little coffee clutch chatter has been so > > telling about how subtle they AREN'T when it comes to clarity about > > identification. " > > > > This is your contribution to the discussion? "clarity about > > identification"? WTF? > > > > "To me they're like three fish in leather jackets > > sneering at the other fish who believe in "water," and they can't get > > over themselves for being so superior." > > > > You are living is salty water dude. Very salty. Breaking rapport is a > > lot easier than creating it. I've been sharing my POV with people > > online, finding where we differ and where we agree. I've discovered > > how similar my path is to people who have come to different > > conclusions for themselves. What is your goal here? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > Torque the Pred? > > > > > > Unky Punky? > > > > > > The Pain in Spain > > > > > > I've been sooooo enjoying your lastest summations of him, I'm ashamed > > > of myself. > > > > > > ;-) > > > > > > And, yet, there you are psychocuddling with the atheists to an degree > > > I cannot support. They're little coffee clutch chatter has been so > > > telling about how subtle they AREN'T when it comes to clarity about > > > identification. To me they're like three fish in leather jackets > > > sneering at the other fish who believe in "water," and they can't get > > > over themselves for being so superior. > > > > > > Edg > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > <snip> > > > > Right now, I'm, like, standing up on my chair > > > > > and applauding whenever Judy rips Pred a new one. Sigh. And, now > > > > > watch, she'll write that in no way is she ripping anything -- just > > > > > clarifying is all. Hee hee. > > > > > > > > Who's Pred? > > > > > > > > > >
