--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann" <awoelflebater@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <LEnglish5@> wrote: > > > > > > I just don't understand people i guess. > > > > > > BTW, all you folk who feel a need to seek out the awakened... > > > > > > When was the last time you got checked? > > > > I was having similar thoughts earlier today, on the train > > back to Paris. Buck cites some "new gun in town" as some- > > one who is supposedly awakened. And why? Because he *says* > > he is, probably. > > > > If you look at it rationally, that is the *only* evidence > > we have that an "awakened" state actually exists -- people > > interpreting their subjective experience in terms of some > > past or present dogma about enlightenment or awakening > > and saying, "Yep, I'm there." > > > > Yet many people find these *claims* both inspiring, and > > believable. Go figure. > > Simply put yourself in a place in time about 30 years > ago, even further back. Remember how you viewed the > world then, back when you were in your late 20's, 30's > maybe even your 40's and what you found interesting, > worthy of investigation. Why do you act as if you were > never someone who did precisely what you condemn others > for?
It is *precisely* because I've been there, done that with this stuff that I can laugh at it. It is because they have never done anything *else* or believed any- thing *else* that certain people cannot, and feel as if they should get uptight about being laughed at. > > Personally, I think that the reason people think this > > way is to Justify Their Investment In A Lifetime Spent > > Believing In Woo. To me, it's the *same* phenomenon we > > see in Nabby hoping beyond hope that crop circles are > > the result of Woo, or that a supposedly spinning statue > > is an example of Woo. Any Woo Will Do. > > Woo is cool. Woo is woo for a reason. We all want woo > to exist because it means there is more than meets > the everyday eye. Which is *precisely* the wrong approach. The everyday IS what is majestic. Having to invent something "more" to revere is what people who cannot appreciate the wonder of the everyday do with their lives. > You appear to like magic, illusion, the mysterious. > Why? Probably for the same reason I do. It indicates > there is more than we currently know. It means we > might actually be surrounded by wonderful, deeper > even scarier things than we usually witness. Isn't that just a way of saying, "I find the everyday boring and uninteresting, so I have to search for something flashier and more Woo Woo to believe in to get my rocks off? Seems to me it would be more productive to learn to appreciate the wonder of the everyday. > Some things people define as woo is preposterously > laughable but some is subtle enough to truly grab > the attention, is worthy of more than a smirk. People who cannot handle being smirked at because of their beliefs should keep those beliefs to them- selves or hide in an ashram somewhere that they don't have to interface with people who don't share them. They're ONLY beliefs. > > It's as if they feel that if they can find even *one* > > example of Woo -- no matter how anecdotal it may be, no > > matter how based on hearsay and subjective claims it > > may be -- that one example of Woo will justify all the > > time, money, and energy they spent pursuing Woo. > > Why so condescending? Would you prefer it if everyone > simply accepted the fact that Primetime TV and a > holiday at Disneyland were as good as it gets? I don't seen any difference between those who feel that they need something like TV or Disneyland to distract them from the banality of their lives and those who feel that they need Woo to do the same thing. > > TM "checking" isn't going to do anything to get rid of > > such longings, and such hopes. Neither, it seems, is > > the presentation of rational thought, or the scientific > > method. The desire for Woo is all-consuming, whatever > > form of Woo it is that the seeker seeks. > > Now you're stretching it a bit. You always do this; > you take a premise that might hold some merit and > you take it to this ludicrous extreme encompassing > everyone and the far limit of what this might entail. And? What's that to you? You are a black and white guy. Let's see some nuance. "You should think and act and write the way *I* want you to." Yeah, right. > > If they can find even *one* person they can convince > > themselves is awakened or enlightened, then (they think) > > awakening or enlightenment EXIST, and their lives spent > > believing that they exist were not a waste. If they can > > find even one example of what they consider real magic > > or Woo, then magic and Woo EXIST, and again their lives > > were not wasted pursuing it. > > Oh, the "theys" and the "theirs" of the world. Let's > just ridicule them to death. No, let's just ridicule them in the hope that someday they learn to laugh *along* with how ridiculous they are rather than get uptight when someone points it out.
