Akasha: > > Terming that as "E", to me, goes beyond reporting. its labeling. > > And since it differs from what many understand that term to be, > > it simply promotes miscommunication. Unc: > Fine. I've already told you that the only reason I > was using the E word was because it was already in > play in the thread. I don't think that way. Call > it enkughtenment if you like. :-)
A: I know. Some comments are not directly focused on You (which I am sure weakens the exposition given you are clealy the most interesting thing to talk about : ) ). Some are just points being made, relevant to the topic and thread. But its is a good call. When doing such, its good to clarify "I am making a general point here, and not talking specifically about you..." > > U: > > > No claims, merely reporting. And having fun. > > > > A: Well, fun is good. This discussion is fun and not a challenge. > > And resonable people can view the same things differently. U: > If more people realized that, more discussions would > be more fun. :-) A: Yes. Fun is good. Clarifying is good. Provocative POVs can be good. Insights are good. Letting go is good. Jabbing people is not so good. Responding to jabs is not so good. Diagnosing motives in others is not so good. Unsolicited advice is not so good. Pontification (like I am doing here) is not so good. :) A: > > But labels (above) is different from a "term" which can facilite > > communication. Some don't appear to distinguish between labels and > > terms, which seems unfortunate. > > > > The term E is a rolled up abstraction. A symbol for so me > > experience. When all share the same understanding of the > > symbol, it can facilitate communication. U: > What makes you believe that they all share the > *experience*, and thus can agree on a symbol for it? A: Ah, a many paths, many peaks guy. I am pretty open to that. But I think you are making the same point. For many reasons, not all share the same understanding of the symbol, and perhaps are "describing" a different experience, and thus broad semantic symbols in metaphysical discussions usually do not facilitate communication. A: > > When people make up their own definitions, which is > > fine IMO, but without clearly demarcing how such differs from > > common usage, the symbol loses its value, it becomes counter > > productive. U: > Again, you seem to be assuming that everyone who > realizes enlightenment is experiencing the same > thing. I make no such assumption. A:No, that assumptions is not necessary for the above view. And second, I am not even making that assumption. A:> > So while I agree with Tom, in a later post, that some commonly > > agreed upon terminology is good. U:> Only if you feel that you are of necessity discussing > the exact same experience. A: Well thats sort of the point. Is Foreground PC often present for you? Me too. So we can talk about FPC. Thus FPC is a useful term that facilitates communication. Same convo, different terms. yogi 1: I am enlightened. yogi 2: I am not. and you are an arrogant pompous ass for proclaiming such. 1: You just dont get it dude. 2: Your mother dont get it dude! I get it cuz i am beyond seeking for empty concepts. 1: Thats because you are not special and not enlightened. When you join the club, you will get it 2: F you. 1: no F you!! And your sister is ugly. ----- I think think the first convo is more useful. You may not. Go figure. > > Which is my whole whole point here. > > Thanks. I had wondered. :-) yes, your mind does seem fuzzy. :) A: > > And, agreeing with Tom, its nice to have a concise term and not a > > 50 word discriptor and 50 word disclaiamer. U: > I've already proposed enkughtenment. It works very > well on the other forum. :-) A: I would not think it would wrok well here in that people would still have many different connoations for the word. Does it mean "no-I"? "CFPC" "Deep and cosntant compassion" Equinamity in all conditions? Allof these? Any of these? Some of these? None of these. > > It just seem that using a > > symbol, particularly ones with heavy baggage and multiple and > > different connotations to many people, is not productive. "E" > > is such, and I find "Awake" hs become such. And as Unc points > > out, if the symbol has an opposite, has most do. Both are counter > > productive, IMO. > > Koan of the day: what is the antonym of enkughtenment? tnemnethgukne. <duh> :) > > > Thus I favor just saying what is, instead of relying on unreliable > > intermediary symbols. For example, "constant foreground PC" > > expresses a specific "state", is relatively concise (could be > > shortened to CFPC), and is immediately distinguishable from > > Variable Foreground PC or Oscillating Foreground PC. And is > > clearly distinguishable from Unity Brahman states where All > > is "experienced / understood" as CFPC, "That Brahman is the > > same as THIS Atman". > > Whatever floats your boat. In my view, all of these > distinctions imply a belief in a somewhat linear pro- > gression and a hierarchy of "higher" or "fuller" > experiences of enkughtenment. > Boring. Thats because you must be a linear boring guy. :) Really, its something in your view that makes you see that, not the terms themselves. > > > > > 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. > > > > U: > > > I no longer make that distinction. A: Well then you are a retard :) > > A: > > Thats fine, but it implies that you hold that any initial > > experience of PC is E. Which is in a way true. "you are a knower > > of reality". But since for some then E means PC, for some CC and > > others BC. Its then not a particularly precise term. And it has > > label baggage. U: > The entire *problem*, as I see it, is with the desire > to be precise about something that is off the map. :-) A: No, not precise. Just not totally nebulous. > > > > > U: > > > > > The thing that brought it from background to foreground > > > > > most recently was, strangely enough, watching an old > > > > > movie on DVD. .... > > > > A: > > But I hope too you have recognized mush simpler and instantaneous > > methods. > > Strangely enough, even for someone as Tantric as myself, > none of my methods for bringing this awareness from back- > ground to foreground has ever involved the use of mush. :-) A: your humor and insights transcend me. > > > I would say that experience was far more "real" than > > > understanding. > > > > A: > > I am deferring to the Tom/Rory view that BC is an understanding, > > not an experience. U: > I don't give a shit about BC or CC or UC or GC or > WhamBamThankYouMa'amC. I don't think in terms > of Maharishi's seven states or definitions of them > *at all* these days. A: Thats fine. Not much to do with my minor point, but a good rap. U: > If I'm reduced to such silly > labels to have conversations here, I put up with it, > but that doesn't mean that I believe the labels are > in any way accurate. Enkughtenment is better because > there is no end point to enkughtenment, and no dis- > cernible points along the Way that one could achieve. > It's an endless continuum, identifiable primarily > by the sound of laughter. A: Ah, then we seem to be talking the same thing. Its odd though, I keep saying "no labels, enjoy the (non)-trip" and you keep saying "if you drop the labels, then you can enjoy the continuum." Sounds the same to me. But the tone seems argumentative, in a friendly way. Perhaps its a classic case of presuming (falsely) what the other is thinking. Actually, I think its more each of us responding to snippets, without focusing on the forest -- what is this guys main point, beyond his snippet response raps. > > I think clear terms can facilitate discussion. U: > But what does the discussion facilitate? A: Well, it happens. its value -- maybe none. But you suggested you have gained great value from recent discussions here. So you tell me. A: > > But per your point, I agree if one seeks E, which is a major reason why I think the label is quite unproductive. And you have not read all the archives I presume, but this has been a long discussion in the past. U: > And, obviously, a fruitless one, other than as a nice > way to pass the time and have fun. :-) A: Kind of an arrogant jag. :) Some past discussionsprovided value for me. A: > > Three years ago or so, I deeply and sincerely abandoned any seeking for E. I abondoned the label. (though I searched for appopriate terms for sakes of discussion). I decided, came to understand that, everything I need is right here now. And I would focus just on that. The Non Seeking, the abondement of "Tomorrow" was useful for me. It may or may not be useful for all. I got a lot of blank stares and yawning at the time. U: > Yes, but could they walk and chew gum at the same time? :-) A: No gum. I switched to Skoal so I can hook up with Gretchen Wilson. U: > > > That "wanting," by definition, is a lack of appreciation > > > for Here And Now, a lack of appreciation for the enlight- > > > enment that IS present. A: > > The wanting would be if it was there. You presume something false. > Ever seen those bumper stickers that start, "I'd > rather be ... ?" The ... doesn't matter. Whatever > it is, it indicates a dissatisfaction with Now. > One of the qualities I associate with enkughtenment, > at least in my case, is satisfaction with Now. A: Doesn't the constant trying to diagnose why others are fucked up take you out of the hereand now? i would think thats a waste. > > > > 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? You seem to be skimming the discussion and not understanding points I am making -- and your needle is stuck in the same ole groove, replaying the same rap over and over and over again.. Or I am disasterously unclear. Neway, lets move on. U: I consider > them all interesting fiction, in the sense that not > ONE of them can be proven A: Yes. I see them like poetry. You dont prove a poem. but if it sparks some connections and insights, perhaps far removed from the topic, its "fun". "like a candle in a windless place". Great line. I am not looking for peer reviewed studies on it. > The value of the scripture does not depend on its > "rightness," merely on my ability to find something > of value in it. Yes. ------------------------ 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/
