--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Curtis, et al, > > To me, this "refining an atheistic stance" is merely a waste of time > like having a discussion about where's the best place to stand in a > cesspool. "Oh, stand over here, cuz the puke stench is easier to bear > than than the doo-doo stink over there."
Wow I'm impressed. Your contribution to the discussion is doo doo Ka ka. You just read enough of other posts to fly off into your own world don't you? I am tempted to just dismiss you as a person without the capacity to understand any POV but his own, but you are being such a dick about it I think I will hang for the humor factor. > > Oh, I'm being haughty, don't bother smacking the me-ego on this, but > atheism's appreciation of ALL THIS can, at best, be but a hollow and > lifeless POV which can yield but scant awe. I wonder what your mind conceives as "atheism". You are not only being haughty, you sound like every fundamentalist of every religion I have ever talked to. > > Proof? Look into the night sky. > > Such majesty, right? Boggling, glory. Yes the natural physical world is a wonderful place. Glad you noticed. Atheists can see it and enjoy it too. > > Bored yet? Getting your shoes on to make a run down to a Spanish Bar? Oh, a dig at Barry. How clever. > > The average person but glances at the night sky's display despite > knowing that one is peering as deeply as thirteen billion years into > the past, or that there's two hundred billion stars "next door" and > that there's two hundred billion other galaxies with their two hundred > billion stars, Yes we know this from science. This is another area that the world's scriptures are clueless about. or that perhaps the eyes of hundreds of millions of > ancient god-like civilizations are peering back. Could be. > > That's the rub. All that, right there for the looking at, and, "I'm > bored," say most folks. So much for the inspiration and passion that > relative majesty can trigger. WTF? Are you imagining a person bored by the beauty of the night sky" Never met such a person. Sure would make your post make some sense if there was one right? > > Major AWE can only come from seeing Pure Being's manifested diversity > as ALIVE, not MERELY an almost infinite, glorious, incredible > clockworks a'tickin'. It's all the difference between looking at the > Mona Lisa, and looking at the Mona Lisa and understanding that she's > actually there looking back at you -- and her smile now blazes at one. > > That's the difference between an atheist's awe and enlightenment's awe. You don't have a clue about atheist's awe for two reasons. One, you don't understand atheism and two you can't imagine another person's POV that differs from your own. > > Despite many here supporting Advaita, it's hard to find many posts > that keep on the front burner the concept that the EXPERIENCE of Pure > Being is relative and merely a symbol of silence (cuz the gunas are > balanced and no diversity is manifesting during the EXPERIENCE.) It's > a brain buzz though -- an activity. Something a robot can do. > > I don't see anyone here being a very good proponent of Advaita -- > myself included -- because though I think I know some stuff, it is all > secondarily acquired by mere intellectual study of Advaita. I'm not a > knower of reality -- I am a not-very-humble parrot trained by Ramana. False humility, does that work for you? > > Pure Being is the noise OM. That's the sound that contains all sounds > -- perfectly harmonized. Wow, you read an intro to a yoga book. Me too. > > But what/who receives/listens to this sound? > > Most posters here stop conceptualizing at this point. Because you are not making sense. > > So many write confusingly about transcending and consider the > experience of Pure Being to be the end-state of enlightenment -- a > sustained samadhi seems to be "the best" that many here can imagine, > whereas, Ramana Mahrishi contends that Pure Being is merely God, and > to transcend is a ACT of unification with one's oversoul, God, Pure > Being, but, THOUGH GOD IS PERFECT, it is still an act of WRONG > IDENTIFICATION to think "so small." > > The word "act" here is poetic since the Absolute cannot have any > qualities, including the dynamic "identification." But we are forced > to use words, so keep yer "poetry alert" warning light flashing. > > Pure Being DOES have qualities -- in fact, it has ALL QUALITIES. Pure > Being is a mote in the vastness of the Absolute, but if the Absolute > wants to comb its hair, it has to look in the mirror of Pure Being. > While combing, the Absolute can be imagined saying, "Yeah, that looks > like me, but where's all the missing vastness?" > > Pure Being is defined as "relative vastness." No brain can conceive > of anything vaster or more complete, so of course brains think that > they've found the Absolute when they transcend, unify, and pretend to > be silent while experiencing OM. The ego is merely saying to itself, > "I'm perfect as long as I don't do anything but hum this tune." And > it's true. Transcending ordinary thinking and residing in amness is > as quiet as an ego can get, but who merely wants an obedient ego? > > As beautiful as a soul can be, it's prison. > > The ego thinks it's the sentience that receives experiencing. When it > finally gets over itself, then, this assumption of identity, this > assertion of sentience, ends. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ > > Now, get this part, study this: When the ego stops thinking it is > alive instead of being merely one sound in Pure Being's chorus, all > identifications, except one, end. > > Saturating one's robot with this experience of Pure Being eventually > gets the brain to be experiencing this home of all the laws of nature > as an all time reality. This is an achievement of saintliness. > > But being a saint is still an identity -- but now, not the robot's > ego, but GOD'S EGO is doing the identification. The head is now THE > HEAD, and the aura becomes A HALO. > > BillyG says it like this: "TM is Samyama! Effortless Dharana, leading > to Dhyana (sublime spontaneous contemplation on the Divine), and > finally Samadhi (actual merging into oneness with the object of > contemplation, pure consciousness or the Divine)." > > Residing in this state of saintliness, this perfection, this balance, > finally gives even God's Ego a chance at seeing OM for the noise it > is. Then, a longing for true silence, true void, true Absolute can > arise. Identifying is so tiring, so burdensome that even God must put > down this weight. > > When, finally, God gives up (remember Brahma trying to find the bottom > of the lotus stalk) VOILA, it finally can be understood that the > Absolute never did do anything as silly as identifying. Only the ego > thinks it experiences, does, is. Even God's Ego must be a relative > phenomenon -- an identification with Pure Being. > > What answer does God get when He/She asks, "Who am I?" Only the > Absolute can be the answer -- Pure Being is just too gross, too loud, > too, shall I say it again? BORING. > > Infinity boring? > > Yep. God is the Absolute's day job. > > For deep funzies, the Absolute likes to get the feet up, kick back > with a brewski, watch the Packers, and get the fingers orange with > Cheetos crud. That's how to rest on the seventh day, cuz God's > punching a TIME clock like the rest of us donchaknow. > > Only Buddha's void, only no-thingness, only that state before > consciousness becomes conscious, only "what you experience in deep > dreamless sleep," only leaping out of identifying with Pure Being can > fulfill the desire for the ultimate, the infinity beyond awareness. > > Why don't atheists concern themselves with the above nuances? Because > they're still egos counting angels on pin heads when all the while, > they're ignoring the CONCEPT of the Absolute. Is that what you are imagining they are doing? Sure is easier than actually communicating and finding out. Your putdowns don't work, they just make you look like you don't have the capacity to understand philosophy. > > Genuflect to the Gap -- peer deeply -- between the stars, between > thoughts, doesn't matter. > > Edg I've got you sized up now Edg. When you mouth smiles, your eyes don't. > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > 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 <no_reply@> 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? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
