Cool, thanks for responding Rory. I feel heard and I hope you do too.
--- In [email protected], "Rory Goff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > Ha! Just what I was thinking. > > > > > > I love how the flea sits on the elephant's rump, thinking it can > > > control the elephant :-) > > > > > > > I sense some headway being made. In this analogy I guess people > like > > me are the flea and you guys are the elephant's ass right? > > R: Ha! No, Curtis, I know I am both, but it wasn't until I saw the > elephant's ass that I realized that the "I" that I had thought I was, > was only a flea. > > YMMV, of course; I really can't speak for you. > > C: It is the assumption of superiority that is drawing the fire, not > that > > you are rocking anyone's boat. > > R: Actually, I am not assuming any superiority *over you*, Curtis; I > never have. I know that you and I are utterly the same. > > I am asserting superiority *over Tyrannical Buddhi*. If you are > reading my lines as put-downs of You, I suspect it is because you are > momentarily identifying with Tyrannical Buddhi. (Or of course it > could simply be because I am an arrogant asshole :-) ) > > C: I am interested up to a point in > > reading about your experiences. But I have my own take on what is > > going on with your experiences. My take is of little value to you > but > > it has value to me. But what I also get from your posts is you > > describing your relationship to me in unnecessarily hierarchical > > terms. I don't doubt that you believe this, and truthfully I think > my > > perspective on life is "better" at least for me. But that doesn't > > mean that I have to sprinkle my communications with little bombs > about > > how I view your experiences to put you down. I'm glad you feel all > > enlightened up. Good for you. But my "enlightenment" is just as > > valuable to me although we think of this term in radically > different ways. > > R: Where did I say it wasn't, Curtis, and where for that matter did I > say you weren't "enlightened" ? > > C: It isn't the fact that you guys think you have attained a higher > state > > that causes communication trouble for you here, I dig that part, it > is > > interesting. It is a need to use that experience as a form of > > oneupsmanship. > > R: The only one-upmanship I am asserting is over *Tyrannical Buddhi*, > not over You. > > C: I think it may come from your belief that you have "the > > truth" rather than a POV to share. I'll accept your POV as > > entertaining, but you can't sell it as more than that to other > people > > unless they want to buy in, which apparently some do. It just wont > > work. This is a pretty elementary communication principle being > > violated here. > > R: That is quite correct. I am not here just to shoot the shit and > compare different realities. I realize this may look "fundamentalist" > to you, but BTDT, and it's a waste of time. There is no real > conversing with Tyrannical Buddhi, it only wants to lure Us into its > mood-making stuporous haze with its logic and "reasonableness." > > C: I also think that people are taking time to respond in detail to > how > > your communication comes across because you do have a genuine > > contribution. I for one am happy to hear about TMers who feel they > > have reached higher states with TM. > > > R: Not a TMer, and any "higher states" I reached were a complete > fool's paradise. They were only useful in showing me what I *didn't* > want -- which on reflection, was absolutely good enough, at that. > Negative information is still information :-) > > C: Because I have a different take > > on what these states mean I am completely comfortable with my > decision > > to opt out of this path and still give your experiences a careful > > listen. But human to human our internal experience of our selves or > > Selves if you prefer is of zero value outside the communications we > > use to describe them. The responsibility for how we are coming > across > > is our own. I often need feedback to correct how I am coming across > > here. Now it may be that you really don't give a shit as Angela > > proposed. I am inviting you to care. Mr. Gobachov tear down that > > wall! ZA VAS ! > > R: No wall whatsoever here, Curtis, except between me and Tyrannical > Buddhi, and I can't help that. It wants to be the boss, and it's > simply not smart enough for that :-) >
