Excellent post. My comments in between marked by ****. --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Let me take a stab at trying to straighten this > out, as briefly as I can. > > Intellectually, I know all this stuff, everything > Rory has said, everything Barry has said in this post, > about the nature of "ignorance." I've heard it over > and over and *over* again, and not only that, I'm > completely convinced it's true. > > I'm absolutely positive that I were I to become > realized, I'd be saying the same things on my own > hook. > > What I hope I *wouldn't* be doing is to couch them > in terms that suggest realization is a matter of > psychology, of intention, of ideas, of stories, that > the willingness to do a little tweaking here and > there of how one thinks and reacts can bring > realization about. > > That may turn out to be difficult, because that > may be how it all looks to me then; and because > we lack a good vocabulary for expressing what it > looks like in other terms. > > But I hope I remember MMY's dictum "Knowledge is > structured in consciousness"--not in psychology, > not in the mind, but in consciousness--and its > corollary, "Knowledge is different in different > states of consciousness." > > That's *experiential* knowledge, not intellectual > knowledge, not psychological insight. Another > way to say it is, "One's experiential reality is > different in different states of consciousness." **** This is very true. I have difficulties to remember, what my experiential reality was before an awakening.**** > > In the state of consciousness we've been calling > "ignorance," one *cannot know* experientially > that the bars of the cage don't exist; and the > intellectual conviction that they don't exist > *does not affect* the experiential knowledge that > they do. > > As I said in earlier posts, something *else* has > to happen for experiential knowledge, the > experiential reality, to change. "Attachment" > in the sense MMY uses the term is not something > that can be dissolved by intention (other than > the intention to sit down, close one's eyes, and > begin TM). Nor can it be dissolved via > intellectual examination or psychological probing. > **** I think intellectual self inquiry, psychological probing and recognizing and transforming suppressed emotions are important techniques along with meditation that help you better navigate in life and makes you faster ready for the next shift in awareness, but the shift in itself doesn't happen through these means.**** > <snip> > > In these discussions, Rory has been telling > > you that you are free, and you have been asserting, over > > and over, that he is mistaken and that you are not. > > He is speaking from his state of consciousness, > in which the experiential reality is that I > am free. > > And I'm speaking from my state of consciousness, > in which the experiential reality is that I am > not. > > Both of us can be right; these are not mutually > exclusive propositions as I just phrased them. > > The mistake is for him to suggest *my* > experiential reality is that I am free. > > <snip> > > For now, in my opinion, you seem to be terribly attached > > to the cell being real. You don't even try to rattle the bars > > or to examine them to see if they're real. > > Very much au contraire. I'm constantly rattling > them. And they make a lot of noise when I do. > > > You already > > "know" that they're real. Anyone who says differently is > > obviously fucking with you. So what you do when some- > > one tells you that the bars aren't real is to try to make the > > person who's telling you the truth feel bad about telling > > you the truth. You try to make the person who has caused > > you "pain" feel pain himself. > > And here, sadly, you veer off into putdowns, and > inaccurate ones at that (as per usual). > > I made it *explicit* to Rory, and I'm pretty sure he > understood, that I was NOT suggesting he had any > intention of "fucking" with me, to the contrary, in > fact. Nor was I trying to make him feel bad; I told > him that as well. What I wanted him to do was to > *empathize* with my pain. And indeed he did, to his > credit. > > Moreover, as I also made clear, he was "causing" > me no more than annoyance at the misunderstanding. > When I described my pain, I was recalling what I > had felt the first time I'd been told, "Oh, you're > not really overshadowed; you're not in ignorance; > you're already enlightened." That was years ago, > and I got over it, but it did leave a scar. > > I just hate to think of other people having to > experience the same kind of pain when it's so > utterly unnecessary. I *hoped* I might be able > to communicate the nature of the problem, but > I don't think I was very successful. > > Bottom line, I'd suggest to realized people that > while speaking the truth of their own experiential > reality is fine and important, if they can't > empathize with the experiential reality of the > unrealized, at least they should try to avoid > contradicting what the unrealized say about their > experiential reality. Just accept that their > experiential reality is different from yours. > > It would never occur to me to tell a realized > person what *their* experiential reality is. I'm > not in their state of consciousness, so how could > I know? By the same token, why on *earth* would > they think they can dictate to me what my > experiential reality is? > > It seems to me, based on my observation of what > realized people have said about the state of > ignorance, that the stages of experiential reality > are not backward-compatible, as it were. You can't > fully recall the experiential reality of the dream > state once you are awake. **** I often like to metaphorically think of these different stages of experiential reality ( this is a very good expression) as different operating systems in a computer. I think it is also possible that, when a new more advanced operating system gets installed, the new one may be lacking some good properties the old operating system had. It's the throwing away the baby with the bath water syndrome. The more advanced operating system can pick up those properties, once the defect is recognized. The old operating system cannot pick up the more advanced qualities of the new operating system. I have realized that if I really want to help another person, I must be able to experientially share her reality. In that position I look at the conflicts of her life and we try to navigate through them the best we can together. This kind of sharing is very difficult to do in a chat group in internet, clearly easier in the physical presence of the person. In every day life I feel it is more rewarding to meet each person this way to the extent I can. It doesn't feel a bit good to take a superior position.**** > > <snipping the rest, which is mainly just > Barryblather, more of his elaborate fantasies > about my psychological makeup> > > One last point: I've been discussing the > situation of a realized person telling the > unrealized person what the latter's experiential > reality is. The situation of an *unrealized* > person telling another unrealized person that > the latter's experiential reality is "really" > that of realization is a very different, and > much more repellent, can of worms that I won't > address here. 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 <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
