You raise some good questions. If you wish to then read in, otherwise just consider this another waste of my time.
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From: claudiouk
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 3:30 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Relative

My question though is, if in enlightenment the Knower is
the "infinite" Self, no longer the "point" ego, which effectively
gets overridden (apart from its organizing functions), then you are
left with a Self and a perceiving body. There might well be an
experience of "Self in all beings/ all beings in Self" but how true
can that be if it remains exclusively linked to the original "point"
body and its perceptions?
 
-----This is the problem, identifying with the body as if it's a point. The body is infinite. The self is absolute, not infinite. A point of identification is the absolute identifying with some snapshot of the infinite. There are no points. There are merely snapshots. As soon as the camera eye of the absolute has finished with its picture the scene has changed. How mant times does your pet, or baby do something cute, and you yell for the wife, and then she comes running, and the pet, or baby won't do it again?  Snapshot, snapshot, snapshot, snapshot.
 
And then we get hung up on the better pitcures of yesterday when our hair blew just right, and Kali didn't appear so lustful in our own eyes. All beings are linked, even in the snapshot. Didn't you see the dolphin in the ocean behind the subject, and the water sprites in the cloud dipping their heads into the underside of the gray foam of their world. What about the baby which raised it's hand too the twinkling sunlight refracted of your lens. 
 
 
As such it's just like a glorified relative
ego blessed with blissful oceanic feelings.
 
 
-----Except that unlike the horny housewife who is identifying with her wet snatch (who as been having a midlife crises for the last ten years), and the postman-as-divinely-handy-tool, (Thank you Jesus), except that, the enlightened aren't really identifying with their vagina, wet or dry, no, they are a circumference without any point for fastening upon. And so also, when the postman turnes them down, or they are to shy to invite him in, they release the horns, and don't treat their husbands like shit when they get home. Or they refasten the horns and work their man over, to his surprise. You see the enlightened is not afraid to try something new, since they aren't just a snapshot. Snapshot. The enlightened wife has a lucky husband who comes home to the field of all possibilities.
 
 
It would only be a true
cosmic Self if, moving from infinity to "point", it no longer is
exclusively linked to the original "point" body,
 
----The problem is using TM-speak which is relative, and based not upon the Sanskrit basis for the philosophy but is based in the English or other language and is the interpretation of an interpretation. In Tibetan they have five words for thought, five for mind, and so on....
 
The body is an amazing thing. Really amazing. Think how flexible and beautiful it is. And what is it? It's billions of individual cells. When you are speaking of a point body, what's your point? Which point? And even in that point are more points. Iin the cell is an atom of particles, and smaller points beyond. What one finds is the self same field of the absolute, and no points, no motion, nothing being created, or dying. Nothing but an absolute. That's is. Snap. Snap.
 
 
since Self is
omnipresent, at every point. That would make it less "relative" than
before, since it would now be linked with an infinity of "points" of
perception. You mention omniscience.. well if there is only ONE
Knower anyway... presumably in Unity this happens? Otherwise again it
would be a "point" hallucinating "infinity", with no "reality" to it.
 
Snapshot.

----A better question is why am I happy sometimes but not at others?


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

Reply via email to