Great rap, Edg. **
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Duveyoung wrote: > > Do you see a difference between "attention vampires" and "spiritual > vampires?" Seems to me that attention is prior to spirit. > > Bhairitu wrote: > > Well the concept that was in the "spiritual vampire" book was pretty > much the same as what Turq was describing. Just somehow it was > labeled "spiritual" instead of "attention." It was about how some > people sap your energy and most of the examples were much more on the > physical than spiritual level just like the "attention vampire." > > Duveyoung writes: > > "Sap your energy" seems like a big fat slavering hunk of denial. If > someone is sapping your energy, how can they do that without your > permission to do so? -- that is -- without you freely giving your > attention to 'them' instead of to other posts, other life activities? > They're entirely harmless -- like scorpions in a cage -- by this analysis. > > That has been and is my problem first and foremost here -- that I have > denied my outright permissioning-of-the-trolls when I read their > posts. What you put your attention on grows, and if I plant into my > psyche their fouls seeds of ignorance and additionally nurture those > seeds by indulging/watering them with my attention, it's no wonder > that my flower gardens of thought are suddenly infested with > strangling weeds. Any discomfort must be my own fault -- I will have, > as if, slammed a vampire in the teeth with my neck and done all the > crimson puncturing with the vampire being largely innocent of any > charge of spiritual ravishment. Trolls are therefore mere tar babies. > Smack Willy and suddenly your mind takes a deep dive into willyism, > and the creepy ick of it coats all mentation. > > And, I was being too indirect about defining important words. Let me > ask you straight out how you define the word "attention" and "spirit." > > My takes: Even if these two entities are more akin to ghosts in > machines or antlers on a rabbit, still, how I define these words forms > my fundamental philosophy. "My philosophy" is usually a construction > of the intellect only, and not necessarily involving my heart. > Despite that flaw, to define these two words would be an act of > "choosing" one's a prior axioms that will then be the foundation > blocks of an upside-down pyramidal thinking that gels into a POV. > Change an axiomatic block, and the whole pyramid must be rebuilt and > usually rebuilt differently -- just as each snow flake's shape is > dependent upon how the very first molecules of water glopglom together > "at random" in their hydrogen bondings. > > To me, defining these words with clarity necessarily impacts all moral > and philosophical hierarchies of thought. Steven Pinker, in his book, > The Blank Slate, is so clueless about the need to define these words, > that despite a thorough and scientifically valid analysis of many > operations of the meat robot, his conclusions about humanness are > houses of cards easily seen as flimsy sets-of-thought that one minute > of contemplation about basic definitions could easily shake into an > avalanche of falling royalty and numbers. > > To me "attention" is deeper and subtler and therefore more fundamental > than "spirit." "Spirit's" definition must include an attention > dynamic -- that is, "you" has to be there to witness "you made > manifest in a conditioned, limited, and confined individuality;" > amness is the foundation of isness. Do you agree? > > While the concept of "pure being" is seen by many here as the > commonest of experiences and so obvious as to be "the truth," let's > not argue if their conclusions from their consciousness experiments > are validly drawn, but instead let's see that defining "attention" as > "pure being" or "awareness" -- whether or not such things exist -- > still can strongly determine practical-life matters -- like which > religion or cult or scripture or "Descartes type conclusioning" one > resonates with. And, we all know that joining the TMO was conditional > and that -- had we had differing ideas about fundamentals, however > slight -- we might have tipped into dancing in airports in orange > dhotis instead of bouncing on foam that emits clouds of noxious fungi > spores, sloughed off skin, and the myriads of wee creatures that feast > upon such detritus. Cough cough -- er, maybe dancing in public would > have been a more healthy choice. > > Funny how fungi can urge one to back-engineer a philosophy, eh? > > To me, how one defines "attention," "spirit" and "The Absolute," will > completely designate one's philosophy. To me, MMY, in his written > works, completely fuzzifies these concepts by using these words > imprecisely, and thus, it betrays a startling lack of clarity -- or an > agenda to keep "his customer list" from looking too closely at the > merchandise lest they wander off into other cults. > > Having struggled for so long -- merely intellectually, mind you, but > for hundreds of hours of reading/considering Advaita -- to gain > clarity about these words, I can easily see MMY as having simply not > thought deeply about these definitions and then, suddenly, finding > himself in a guru-status that demanded that he come out with such > definitions in his various "policy statements." Once one pretends to > be enlightened, everyone expects one to know the least aspect of > truth, so, I'm thinking MMY ponied up as best he could....like a > sophomore writing a blue book in English Lit instead of a physicist > doing math. > > Clearly how one defines spirit can impact one's definition of "karma" > or "reincarnation" or "enlightenment." And spirit, even though it be > defined as "attention on the move," still cannot be "attention > paused," and so, whether or not attention can exist without a spirit > being manifest is a powerful issue that informs all other > philosophical issues. > > How say you? > > Edg >
