--- In [email protected], turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "RoryGoff" wrote: > > > Yeah, when it got down to it at the "end,"... > TB: OK, stop right there. Really.
R: Yes! "Stop right there. Really." Exactly! :-) TB: What on earth -- *other* than ego -- could cause a single > iteration of genus homo spapiens to declare that "where > *he* was at" was "the end?" R: Ha! Yeah, just trying to convey as best I can, through ego, something that is in truth utterly unconveyable, at least by words. This is "something" that is *UNLIKE ANY OTHER THING* a priori, inconceivable, indescribable, and simultaneously utterly ordinary, always been here, always will be, yet not, utterly perfect and utterly flawed. And so on. Utterly satisfying, utterly devastating. "No man shall see the face of God and live" :-) TB: I *honestly* do not see any "end" to the evolutionary > process, if it even exists. It goes on forever. Are you > honestly trying to make a case for some state of > consciousness being its "end?" Nope, that is why I put it "the end" in quotes. I am only talking about the perception of one's primary identity with something that is IN spacetime and therefore undergoing evolution, through various states of consciousness or whatever. That gave way to the That which upholds all of them simultaneously. R> ...it was all about the ego getting what it finally, ultimately, > > painfully needed,... > TB: Please explain what this "it" you refer to refers to, if > not one's individual ego. Yes! One's individual ego AND the Wholeness itself. All the same "stuff" finally and forever. R: > ...realizing with a flash of shock and awe that ego and "God" > > or reality or Truth were actually, finally, incredible as it > > might seem, *actually on the same page* and what the ego > > deep-down NEEDED, the Universe also NEEDED for the > > ego. > TB: We're waiting for you to explain how they are different, > this "ego" you refer to, and this "Universe" you refer to. R: They are not! Not at ALL! But I didn't deep-down grok that before. > > That deep-down Reality actually did give a shit, was big > > enough to care about the tiny insignificant stuff like an > > ego too. > TB: How do I interpret this statement other than, "My ego is > SO cool that even the Creator must pay attention to it?" :-) HA! You are welcome to interpret it in any way you like! "Egregious ego" works for me, and you and Judy will oddly even be in agreement for once! :-) TB: > > I'm more of a believer in "Shit just happens." :-) > > R: > Yes, I am sure that That too is True :-) > TB: Then we have some possibility of future discourse. Home > in on that, and drop all this "*I* wanted it" or "God wanted > it" crap. R: Sorry, no can do, to the exclusion of the other, if I am to remain as true as I can be to the dynamics of what it felt like then. TB: Could you be happy with all that you have experienced in > life if there were NO "plan" behind it, NO "creator" or > "God" behind it, just randomicity? R: Ha! I have utterly no idea if ultimately there is a "plan" or a "creator" or if ultimately there is just "randomicity" -- nor do I find that I even care. Self-examination tells me that "plan" and "randomicity" are both perfectly correct views of the same "thing" -- Us. Two sides of the same coin. Atman is Brahman, and all That. AND a bag of chips. TB: > > Any of my "enlightenment" experiences -- WHATEVER the > > > fuck they were -- occurred when they fuckin' felt like > > > it, not when I felt like it. Has your experience been > > > different? > > R: > That was ABSOLUTELY my experience, I would say, until > > the last few weeks before the "death" or "crucifixion" or > > Awakening or permanent shift of "Brahman remembering > > Brahman." > TB: Whatever. Asked to describe any of my "enlightenment > experiences," I'd have to stick with, "I just experienced a > brain fart." Different strokes for different folks. :-) R: Ha! Yep :-) Brain-fart works for me! R: > During that last week or two boundaries started to melt as > > I found I could "talk myself into" or out of pretty much > > any state or experience at will, shifting my perceptions at > > their root via a kind of intellectual dialogue. > TB:> And it never occurred to you that these "states or experiences" > might be just fantasies that you...uh...projected onto your > self? > R: From one point of view, that's EXACTLY what they are, and always have been, yeah! Nicely put. TB:> > I mean, my first 24/7-for-several-weeks experience of > > > such an experience may have happened on a TM course, > > > which can be construed to have involved "wanting" or will, > > > but many of my subsequent experiences have not. I once > > > was hurled into a several-week period of "enlightenment > > > experiences" during a mugging attempt in Amsterdam. The > > > guy pulled his knife, and I transcended and "stayed > > > there" for quite a while. I also kicked his ass and > > > sent him away without his booty. :-) > > > > > > Not meaning to shit on your party, I nonetheless would > > > be curious as to whether you feel you can detect a one- > > > to-one-relationship between you "wanting" to shift into > > > a different state of consciousness, and that happening. > > R: > Yes, but only as everything drew to a close, as mentioned above. > TB: Ah, "the close." That's a term that salesmen use, isn't it? :-) R: Ha! Yeah. I suppose I could take a page from Curtis and describe it as "the perfect reach-around" :-) TB: > > In real time, that is. It's easy to create the illusion > > > of such an IF - THEN relationship in retrospect. :-) :-) :-) > > R: > Yeah, it was in real time, but as time -- or my belief in its pre- > > eminence -- was rapidly evaporating. > TB: How cool for you. R: Death is very cooling, yeah. > > Thanks for the rap, Turq. I enjoyed this a lot :-) :-) :-) > TB: Just checking whether you're actually "rappable." :-) > R: I will try to do better in the "future." :-)
