--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jst...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" <babajii_99@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > <snip> > > > Sure, but isn't the intellect (the working mind, not > > > the abstraction) exactly what inhibits getting to the > > > reference-free state? > > > > > I don't believe it's the intellect your speaking of? > > It's the ego, that keeps one from a reference free state. > > The ego becomes our reference point, and that is what > > needs transcendence...The intellect just notices this or > > that...it jumps to see what is the choice between this > > or that. > > Well, see my response to grate.swan. It's the > situation in which the intellect is perceived as, or > perceives itself to be, supreme that gets in the way.
My view doesn't have anything to do with the intellect feels or perceives itself as supreme. First I don't even think that's possible -- a feeling of superiority would be ego identifying with intellect as in "I am the intellect and I am supreme" The intellect never does, and can't say this. It just computes. What the intellect can do, along with memory intuition etc, is break boundaries. i don't take my definitions from the TMO -- they have a catechism that may have some value, but is far from comprehensive. The intellect does not just "discriminate" Thats TM speak -- not reality, IMO. The intellect can draw powerful conclusions that defy what we perceive and the conceptual frameworks within which we view the world. That's far more than discrimination. For example, the intellect (or the work of others using their intellect) applied to data from observation can figure out for example that the earth revolves around the sun, and not vice versa. Thats not not simply discrimination. Its a whole lot more. And I don't suggest intellect takes to to all realizations. But it's findings can take you to the door that opens up new possibilities. The intellect may provide the conclusion that what I see, via my projection of my qualities onto everything I perceive mans that I perceive only a limited distorted piece of reality. This conclusion may lead me to find things that will purify the light that I shine on the world -- the light that enables my perception of it. At that point the intellect can rest for a while -- while the rest of the crew searches for something to whiten up the light. > I'm not sure how the concept of "ego" fits into the > concept of the "mistake of the intellect"; I'm not > sure the ego can be said to be separate from the > intellect, but that may be one way to put it. My view is that the ego is not a thing that exists, in and of itself. Its not an entity. Its smoke and mirrors. A mirage. Its "real" only to the extent that we don't understand, and see clearly, that its just smoke and mirrors. When none sees that, and the intellect can help immensely in that, then the ego (as I view the term) drops away. Ego is not the same as self-esteem. One can view ones output, performance, skills, attributes, and if these are consistent with ones values, then there is a sense of self-esteem in a broad sens as in "all is good". Self-esteem has nothing to do, in my sense of it, with feeling smug, or superior. Its a love for qualities one has found to be ther, and have been refined to a degree to work well. In that sense, self-esteem is like feeling competent. I can do this well. And if one cannot first feel self-esteem, one cannot feel esteem for the world. "Love thy neighbor as thy self" to me means ones love the good qualities they find arising in themselves, and loves those same qualities on others. what defines a good quality is ones values. And true, strong values come from the intellect. > > > The ego dissolves when the mind experiences pure > > consciousness, beyond ego.... The ego can dissolve long before that. > > When the bliss of being is established in awareness, > > then the intellect becomes aligned with being, > > instead of the limited take of the ego... When are things not aligned with being? That would make them non-being. When is something not being. That is an example of how we can get so caught up in the TM catechism, we see that as reality -- and parrot things that are silly when intellect bears down on them a bit. > Yes, that's my understanding of what happens once > enlightenment has been realized. > > Of course, all this analysis is being done *by* the > intellect, so perhaps we shouldn't put all that much > stock in it anyway! > > > > > The ego begins to change it's identification, and begins to identify with > > being, beyond individual mind, emotion and intellect... > > When intellect experiences: Sat Chit Ananda, then it becomes aligned with > > 'Absolute Bliss Consciousness... > > R.G. >
