Yifuxero, It's going to be f*cking hilarious one day when you directly cognize the non-localization of pure consciousness and realize that in such a condition there is no individuality or psychological "I" to reference. You're going to say, "Holy sh*t! 'I' don't exist!"
--- On Wed, 1/26/11, yifuxero <yifux...@yahoo.com> wrote: > From: yifuxero <yifux...@yahoo.com> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Practicing Sahaj Samadhi > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Date: Wednesday, January 26, 2011, 5:57 PM > right, Judy, thx for clarifying > that. > True that nature may "want" something else, in spite of our > choices. > > An extended Neo-Advaitic error would go something > like..."it's the Gunas that made the choice, not me". > The glitch here is that although the Egoic false-identified > "I" may no longer exist, the entity making the choices is > the body/mind AS the Gunas. > Saying the Gunas made the choice would be ommitting the > fact that the body/mind is part/parcel of the Gunas making > up the Totality. > If a Neo-A. says "The Totality made the choice"; this is > partially correct but incomplete since the body/mind is > still part of the Totality and we are back to square one > identifying who made the choice. > Thus, there is no evading who/what made the choice, as long > as the conventional individual is embodied. Even though > individuality can be considered to be "illusory"; that > illusory entity made the choices, perhaps though no > misidentified Ego may be present. > ... > But regardless of E. or not, the conventional body/mind > makes choices (and then Nature as a whole may direct the > outcome; obviously not everything goes as planned or > wanted). > ... > Also, though no falsely identified Ego may exist, the > social/transactional ego still does; e.g. a small group may > be present with MMY eager to find out what choices he > made. After the meeting, they talk to one-another: > "Wow, what a great choice"!, or "Wow, that choice was > crap". > Obviously, MMY made choices, granted he may not have had an > misidentified Ego. Often, the outcome differed than his > desires. > However, there still was an conventional individual, > namely, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, a real (although apparent) > person. > He made choices.. > > The unmanifest Self is always "choiceless"; but the > conventional body/mind makes choices, often with an > expectation of results. > > Judy, thanks for not being a Neo-A. > http://www.fantasygallery.net/ravenscroft/art_6_a-touch-of-frost.html > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, > "authfriend" <jstein@...> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, > Yifu Xero <yifuxero@> wrote: > > <snip> > > > I would dispute the existence of "choiceless > awareness", > > > or doership without regard to consequences. > > > Take an Enlightened person who both before and > after E. > > > works as a commodities trader. Is somebody > saying that > > > after E. there's no "choice" as to trades, and > their > > > outcome? If not, he'd be out on the street > without a job. > > > > It isn't that no choices are made; it's that "I" > don't > > make the choice. Rather, the choice happens as the > result > > of the interaction of the three gunas, or Nature > > (according to MMY's teaching and the Gita). > > > > The "I" who doesn't make the choice is the same "I" > who > > says, "I do not act at all." > > > > As to being out on the street without a job, that may > be > > what Nature "wants." Nature may have something else > in > > mind for me, for its own inscrutable reasons. > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To subscribe, send a message to: > fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com > > Or go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ > and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links > > > fairfieldlife-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com > > >
