a fun experiment to try: close your eyes, and one by one eliminate the motion of the mind; no projection right, left, up, down, backwards, forwards. Just bring it to a quiet stop, no thought. Allow the senses to continue to operate, just don't interact with their objects.
Then, where is I? no idea. If you attempt on the other hand to think your way into an understanding of enlightenment, you will get some reasonable approximate understanding, but the trick then is to use that as a spur for the heart to thirst more for enlightenment, and not allow the ego instead to pursue this idealized concept of enlightenment, (leading to more musing and thinking). Stupid ego. It always sounds so complicated when it is thought about. Works a lot better to just not think about it. Then you will find it, and all of your answers will come quickly and effortlessly. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You have done such a good job of explaining this "I" no "I" > thing frontwards, backwards, sideways and inside out. Even though > many are not experiencing this state of mind or no mind right now, I > think that with a little quiet contemplation most can at least know > abstractly what it is that you are talking about. The problem is > that the idea of a driver of action is just kind of swept under the > rug of God/Nature/Mystery which says to me that although there is a > real shift of awareness being experienced there is some > understanding that is missing. Until this understanding is opened up > some I don't think that the questions of responsibility in action > by "enlightened" individuals can be resolved to any statisfaction. > > This idea starts to sound like there is a great and powerful Oz > making all things happen from behind the curtain and any attempts to > understand it are just the mind trying to keep itself busy so you > better just forget it. > > Is it possible that, the experience of there being no "I" to intend > or not to intend is based on the recognition that ego as has always > been identified with as "I" is actually not Self therefore "I" do > not exist. Maybe a more accurate statement would be: therefore "I" > is not the ego. > > Didn't you say in an earlier post that your teacher Ravi Shankar > (spl?) mentioned something about this experience of no "I" being > something that could occur in the process of growth towards > realization. Did he elaborate on that at all? > > Rick Carlstrom 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/
