Beautiful. A few comments interleaved below. --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- 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.
YES >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. YES! > > 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. YES -- This I would call Understanding, as opposed to understanding *lol* -- we are Understanding, standing under, the experience with our own contentment, our own appreciation, our own fullness, our own self :-) > > 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. YES 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. YES > 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? YES > > 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. YES > > 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/
