--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jst...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" <raunchydog@> wrote: > > > <snip> > > > > > > > She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named and Curtis have interesting > > > > > > > discussions defending their POV. A disagreement with a > > > > > > > POV is a debate, not an ego battle. > > > > > > > > > > > > We must agree to disagree. > > > > > > Says Barry, debating the meaning of "debate" and > > > thus, by his very own definition, engaging in an > > > ego battle. > > > > > > > > > A debate *IS* an ego battle. By definition. > > > > > > What else could believe that its point of > > > > > > view was "right" enough to debate it with > > > > > > others. > > > > > > > > > > Fifty people can have fifty POVs. > > > > > > > > All of them equal, none of them more > > > > "right" or "better" than any other. > > > > > > In your opinion, which you clearly believe is > > > more "right" and "better" than any other. > > > > > > > Or do you think that perhaps yours > > > > *is* more "right" or "better?" If so, > > > > WHAT is it that believes that? > > > > > > > > Is it Self (big S), or self (small s)? > > > > > > Obviously not the Self. > > > > > > > If the latter, is that not a synonym > > > > for "ego?" > > > > > > Yes, but not in the sense you're using the term. > > > If the self is the ego, then every word you've > > > ever posted here has been generated by your ego. > > > > > > Notice, again, that you are *debating* with > > > raunchy, which means, in your very own > > > definition, that you believe your take is more > > > "right" or "better" than hers. It means your ego > > > is doing battle in support of your point of view, > > > precisely what you claim to disdain. > > > > I am not clear if debate means defending ones own POV. > > I'm just pointing out to Barry that he's gotten > caught in his own definition. "Debate" can mean > lots of things besides an "ego battle." > > Barry wants to convey that he is More Egoless Than > Thou because he doesn't defend his self-image or > engage in debate, but of course he does both, at > great length. He wants to convey that he doesn't > think his own opinions are any better than anyone > else's, but of course he does think they're better > and demonstrates it repeatedly. > > > (see prior post on Debate Team). In fact debate, in > > that context (Debate Team) means quite the opposite; > > one defends A POV -- whether its ones own POV or not. > > That process seems liberating. Seeing multiple sides. > > And in the process probably modifying ones own POV. > > Many people use debate to challenge, modify, and refine > their own point of view rather than to impose it on > others. The person who refuses to debate either has no > confidence in their POV or is so supremely confident > it's right that they don't feel the need to challenge it. > > <snip> > > > You're unable to recognize the implications > > > of what you proclaim because in your mind, only > > > *your* perspective exists. > > > > While we all shine our own limited light spectrum on > > everything -- even those called enlightened cast > > their cultural framework on things that in truth are > > devoid of such a framework. However, by recognizing > > that we ONLY see via the spectrum we project onto the > > world, allows the mind to conceive of other constructs. > > Exactly. Most of us learn this pretty early. I clearly > recall the moment it first occurred to me, as a young > child, that other people had a "me" inside them just as > I did. Very uncomfortable realization, but necessary for > getting along in the world. > > > Different from our perception, but logically reasonable > > and plausible. From that, I think is a crack in the > > cage by which the astute may wiggle free. (Which > > counters the notion prevalent is some new age and neo- > > advaita groups that the intellect is the problem, the > > enemy.) > > Well, but isn't that because the intellect, having > realized that others have their own perspectives, are
I see your point. However, my thought, perhaps weakly conveyed, is that if we can get to a reference free, or bias-free state -- where the light -- so to speak is white or clear -- comprehensive of all spectrums, not colored by a limited spectrum, then we see what actually is -- not just the color of the limited spectrum (of our individuality). Some "saints" I have encountered appear to have this. Everything is fresh, new, not shadowed by individual bias and limitations. Seeing things via projecting a white light, we see what is. If there is an underlying commonality to everything, then I would think we could only appreciate that from our reference free white light projection illuminating all we see. Indeed if we are only shining an orange light, we can never see the commonality of all things -- we can only see the commonality of orangeness -- which is false unity. The unifying factor is not the commonality of all things, but simply a mirage -- our artificial imposition of (false) orange light on everything. Only when we shine bias free, reference free white light -- containing all colors -- then we see everything -- including the underlying unity of all things (if that is the reality -- I will report back when I "see it".) In a sense, White Light is Brahman in Indian terms. Individual states of consciousness are different colored lights -- even GC and UC (using the TMO framework). Ones sees things from that light that they project. And only that. Brahman / White Light would be shining all colors of the spectrum similtaneously on things and consequently seeing ALL things, all states of consciousness, all POVs, seeing the Totality all at one time. (Friends in the back hills of Kentucky say White Lightening is a clear way to get to the white light. I will report back if that does the trick.) > establishes a separation between self and others, > whereas enlightenment is the realization that we are > all One? It's that we-are-all-One step that the > intellect inhibits, having learned the lesson about > other constructs perhaps too well. > > We start out as solipsists, then grudgingly overcome > that to recognize the existence of other minds, then > have to overcome *that* recognition to realize there > is only One Mind, in effect. >
