--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung <no_re...@...> wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 <no_reply@> > wrote: > > > > its a good quote-- > > And "good" means what to you? Are you saying that this kind of text > message has any value of significance to daily life without there being > required a reader who is vastly prepared to resonate with it and, > indeed, have that blurb's truth as handy as amalak fruit on the palm of > that reader's hand with which to project the meaning into the words? > The words are useless without a prepared nervous system -- children or > bumpkins et al cannot be expected to be bettered by the reading of the > message, so unless there's a specific nervous system being targeted, > only sold-out Abraham followers could be expected to grok the purport of > the message. And then, even then, only the s0-called enlightened ones > can be relied upon to really ferret out the purport -- no follower of > Abraham would think his message was so clearly understood that they > could write it out in their own words and have it be as authentic as > Abraham's statement -- just like TMers thinking only Maharishi could > comment on the Gita. Hence, why post the blurb except as an attention > getter for Robert? > > If all you're saying is that the text conveys a meaning that an ordinary > English speaking person can "take a test on the content of the message > and get C+ or higher rating from Abraham," then the posting of the blurb > becomes almost trollish....well, okay, trollish period. Clearly, any > posting has the onus of being reasonably expected to deliver some sort > of edification/value, but what is that value to the unprepared, the > un-sold-outers, or the sold-out-to-something-elsers? Again, what is > "good?" The reading of it cannot be scientifically measured to show > improvements of consciousness, so it would be an act of faith only to > read this message and hope to gain from the reading of it. The message > in no way instructs one how to apply this knowledge -- quick, how do you > get a gallon of non-physical energy to wash off the day's dirt from the > soul? See? Like my facecious question, it's gobbledeegook. > > what it means is that the state of natural grace > > is one of not resisting, of acceptance, > > Pure poetry -- snakeoil talk actually. The best minds on the planet > cannot define the words of your statement with any consistency amongst > their various interpretations. You're defending poety with merely more > poetry. (Hey, you're not talking about congnative dissonance are you? > Don't think so.) > > and in order to live in that > > state requires an ego, > > So, even though the world's gurus are screaming "dump the ego," "kill > the ego," "my ego is dead," etc., you're saying that the ego has a > spiritual functionality that is necessary. Care to tussle with the > great minds about which side of that fence one should adopt? Don't > bother, because it's JUST WORDS. > > a sense of self, > > All the gurus say the self cannot be sensed.....so again, this is > poetry -- the words "sense" and "self" can have many meanings. > > an enjoyment of ourselves as > > individuals. > > Again, poetry; for how can the self enjoy the self -- are there two > selves such that we can posit one of them as the object of the other's > awareness? Corelatively, are the "selves" of others somehow defined as > different from other selves such that they can be distinguished from > each other? And if one self can be aware of other selves yet not be > expected to be enlightened and have a nervous system capable of this > astoundingly subtle feat, the whole logical structure is bogus. How > can I know another if I don't know my own self purely? > > However, this sense of ourselves can also be used prior > > to living this state of grace, > > Poetry. "A state of grace is knowing the self, but you can have grace > without knowning the self" -- to dwell upon this only makes sense if > we're in a Zen temple and doing a koan. And how can a sense of anything > be used without decades of practice in an ashram in which one daily > tries to intergrate axiomatic values with personality? And certainly, > you're not saying that the message takes one to the self; certainly the > message is a "relative thing that requires effort to apply a value to a > system." The message without an ashram and a guru is at best a pearl > tossed to swine -- defacto troll thrown rocks. > > to exclude ourselves from that which > > may be helpful. > > Geeze, "that which may be helpful?" Talk about your fuzzy mean- anything > statements. > > > > not a bad quote, though it is vague with regards to any sort of > > guideline on how to act without getting in our own way. > > Here you assume that there is an "actor" and a "way." Come on, are you > kidding me? Do you opine that you can define these terms without > writing a huge tome of philosophical treatment that handles all the > side-issues of "free will," "truth," "consciousness," conditioned > responses, et al? > > I'm not even disagreeing with you or the blurb -- I'm just tired of > poets, in this case it's Abraham, pretending to be teachers -- worse, > poets pretending that words have spiritual merit for the low cost of > merely running them through one's mind once. This is "spend an hour > with Christians singing songs on Sunday and that's a full spiritual > program" thinking. > > I am a long time reader of Ramana, and I wouldn't post any of his blurbs > here -- not the purest finest most specific deep stuff. Unless you are > prepared to saturate yourself with his thoughts as much as any TMer > takes the mantra, the deeper values of any statement "stays in the > book" as they say in India. > > No one here has yet taken me up on my dare: read Ramana's "Talks" three > times and see if something new suddenly comes storming into your mind > with an intellectual rush. Deep resonance, deep clarity, even mere > intellectual clarity -- these cannot be gained without great intent > applied relentlessly over long spans of time, and even then, what do you > have -- merely a well-tuned meat robot that has logically consistent > thoughts and feelings -- a grand accomplishiment that has no eternal > value, nor is the accomplishment itself a panacea in today's world. > Remember, the Veda says: "he who memorized the Rig is sinless." Not > "enlightened," instead, merely "sinless" -- not free from the > possibility of sin, but, instead, not-sinning right now. > > So what is the use of this rain of blurbs at FFL? > > Edg > i wrote what i wrote in as simple language as i could, for those interested in the context in which it was written. if there is no accepted context between me and the one reading what i wrote, what i wrote serves no purpose. the whole point of language is to write within a specific context for those interested in such a context.
it seems like you are looking for the context of the words to automatically mean something to you, and that all of us should agree from the outset on the exact meaning of the words used, without sharing the context. it is probably like reading a shop manual about carburetor tunings in order to extract more performance from a stock engine. either it has value, or it doesn't. what's the problem?
