--- In [email protected], akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Akasha:
> > > Does it strike anyone else as funny, even absurd, that the
whole paradigm about enlightenment on this list is
> > > dichotomous, digital, either "on or off"?
>
> Unc:
> > YES! That's exactly the issue.
>
> > I realized that some time back, during the discussions
> > about 'appreciation.' Some comment by, I think, Tom
> > made me completely abandon my old paradigm and come up
> > with a new one that more accurately described my
> > subjective experience.
>
> A:
> > > Pure consciousness begins from the first mediation. If not
> > > before.
>
> U:
> > Before. There has never been a moment in my life when
> > I was not enlightened.
>
> That's the one point on all of this where I think we differ.
> First, I see no value in labels such as enlightenment.
Me, either. I was just using the terminology already
being used in these discussions.
> It can create
> distinctions, it can creates longing for "titles", it can create
> false egos, it can creates scams, etc. And the upside is?
Giving some people who are anxious for the "title"
something to do with their time? :-)
> > I just never appreciated it
> > until a three-week period in Fiuggi, when the 24/7 wit-
> > nessing made it impossible not to appreciate. Since
> > then, that witnessing has slipped from foreground to
> > background many times, but what I realized during the
> > 'appreciation' discussion is that it has always been
> > present. What I realized when I first appreciated it
> > was that it had *always* been present.
>
> A:
> yes, all that is good. And similar. But if one wanted to play the
> labels game, it would seem that when the attention of Awareness (of
> awareness) slips from foreground to background, its not E. But I
> think E labels are bogus, so who cares. Claim all you want. :)
No claims, merely reporting. And having fun.
> A:
> > > And it can be delicate at first, and fade (yellow dye and cloth
> anyone?) and become "overshadowed". But it keeps coming back.
> Sometimes more noticable, sometimes present only when one notices
> it --- "where are my glasses?" ("you are wearng them, silly") is
> a good analogy.
>
> U:
> > And when you lighten up about it, you can bring it from
> > background to foreground any time you want. It's just
> > the neatest thing.
>
> A:
> YES. And it is always accessable. It is bitchin. Still, in that
> stage, I would hold that is not E. If I was playing the label game.
I no longer make that distinction. Lately I've discovered
a few fairly foolproof methods of bringing it from back-
ground to foreground anytime I want. The thing is, I
rarely want to. As someone -- perhaps you -- said in
these discussions, there is no difference. The "wanting"
there to be one feels false, whereas the appreciation of
what is already going on feels non-false.
> U:
> > The thing that brought it from background to foreground
> > most recently was, strangely enough, watching an old
> > movie on DVD. It was Roger Corman's, "The Raven," which
> > starred Vincent Price, Peter Lorre, Boris Karloff, and
> > a young guy in one of his first film roles, as Peter
> > Lorre's son. This young actor was SO bad that it made
> > you want to cringe. It was just amazing to watch. It
> > was like I was watching a brilliant actor brilliantly
> > playing the part of the worst actor ever filmed.
> >
> > It was. It was Jack Nicholson. The thing is, he was a
> > great actor even then. He just didn't appreciate it,
> > so his range was limited, and he clung to old ideas of
> > being a bad actor, trapped by ignorance and inexperience.
> > It wasn't true. All that he ever became was already
> > present, just not appreciated, and thus unused.
>
> Nice example.
Funny movie, funnier for his performance. :-)
> > That's the thing that is striking me about all these
> > conversations last night and this morning. Some people
> > who have learned to appreciate what has always been
> > present are talking to others who have not. The ones
> > who have not appreciated their own enlightenment are
> > playing a role, clinging to the illusion of their
> > ignorance as strongly as Jack was clinging to the
> > illusion of being a bad actor in The Raven. It's
> > all very, very, very, very funny.
>
> Perhaps I am viewed as one of those.
"Those?" If I viewed you as anything, which I don't
think I do, it would be as one of the people who has
learned to appreciate what has already been present.
> I just am not interested in the
> label game. Labels are not real.
The map is not the territory. I think what's going
on here is that Judy is more attached to being able
to say, "Ah...finally...I have the map," than in
actually getting to the place it points to. And
the last couple of days that's been striking me as
just hilarious, side-splittingly funny.
> Experience and Understanding are
> real. And both are spectral - extending along a long/wide
> spectrum.
I would say that experience was far more "real" than
understanding. The more experiences I have of higher
states of attention, the less I understand. And the
happier I am. Go figure.
> But for scientific measurement purposes, which may have
> some value, I would "label" E as continual foreground of
> PC. All thes other "states" stages we have talked about
> are nice developments.
If what one wanted to do was measure such a thing
"scientifically," that sounds like a good definition.
If what one wanted was a happy life, I'd say it was
pretty darned unproductive, because you couldd be
setting up for yourself the same kind of self-imposed
misery Judy's wallowing in. If your definition of
enlightenment revolves around the foreground apprec-
iation of PC being present, there would be a kind of
subconscious discontent (or "wanting") associated with
the periods in which it was not in the foreground.
That "wanting," by definition, is a lack of appreciation
for Here And Now, a lack of appreciation for the enlight-
enment that IS present.
I think it's better just to drop the whole definition
thang entirely, and just be enlightened, however it
manifests itself.
> Thats why I think "E" has been highly devalued in these neo-
> advaita years. Its drawing a target around the already shot
> arrow. "I am here, so this must be the goal." I am old skewl
> perhaps. I think there are actual classic "standards" that few
> I am aware of have met.
That may be. But who is it that still "wants" them?
> But many poo poo and label such as inaccurate, out of date,
> and/or stemming from a "bad translation".
Or just irrelevant to having a happy and meaningful life.
> All are having fine experiences. That does not make them E.
> But if it gets someone off, or satifies some ego need, they
> should go for it.
>
> I am happy with my experiences. I am not denying anything.
> Except devaluation and BS.
Whatever floats your boat. :-)
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
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/
