Its a damned good question - I have to have an identity, and a personality, in order to function. That doesn't automatically mean that I "own" it, or think of it as mine, yet, nonetheless, I am wholly responsible for how I act, and what I do.
So my embarrassment comes about, when it does, when I miscalculate something, as I sometimes do, since I operate a lot without preconceptions, and hence, in uncharted territory. It is more a mechanism for self-correction, a practical thing, rather than leaning towards shame, which would occur if I were primarily dismayed by my actions, vs. my self-image. It is difficult for me to be more precise, so I'll leave it at that. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <turquoiseb@...> wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@... wrote: > > OK, I am glad you enjoyed your nasty tidbit, at my expense, or so you think. > > Yeah, I've embarrassed the hell out of myself more times than I can count. > But it sure beats the alternative, as you amply demonstrate. Just as a question, how can embarrassment happen without attachment? If you have no self and no image of self to protect or defend, how can you possibly be embarrassed, no matter what it does? > ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@ wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ wrote: > > > > correction: I am pointing out that the mistake of thinking that > > non-attachment, and other full-blown symptoms, as I call them, of > > Enlightenment, can be consciously learned, and that to pretend to do so, is > > injurious, and a waste of time. Your behavior is a perfect example. > > No problem. You're just not attached to being able to spell. It's a little > like your non-attachment to being able to count, back when we still had > posting limits. You were, after all, the FFL poster who spent the most time > on the I Have No Self Control bench. :-) > > > ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: > > > > I am pointing out that the mistake of thinking that non-attachment, and > > other full-blown symptoms, as I call them, of Enlightenment, cannot be > > consciously learned, and that to pretend to do so, is injurious, and a > > waste of time. Your behavior is a perfect example. > > > > ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@ wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ wrote: > > > > > > "If spiritual masters were regulated by the advertising standards > > > authority wouldn't they be fined for their false promises of "bliss > > > consciousness"?" > > > > > > If anything, they should be fined, for, on the one hand, holding out the > > > promise of "bliss consciousness", and, on the other, failing to provide a > > > technique to establish such a state. Without the technique, it is like a > > > bunch of Buddhists running around, talking about "non-attachment", while > > > reflecting, "Noggin-attachment", instead. > > > > > > There is such hunger in the world for spiritual progress, yet 99.999% of > > > the 'teachers' on the subject, have no clue. > > > > But *I* do, which is why you should pay attention to *ME* and what *I* say, > > rather than these know-nothings. Especially if they represent 2500-year-old > > Buddhist traditions rather than the slightly-over-50-year-old "tradition" > > established by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi when he made up the technique of > > Transcendental Meditation out of whole cloth. > > > > Besides, you should believe *ME*, because I'm so bloody *special*, having > > realized the full potential of this slightly-over-50-year-old "tradition," > > and thus being more enlightened than you are. *I* am the one you should pay > > attention to, because...uh...well...I deserve it. *I* will tell you the > > TRUTH about which techniques are effective (even though I've never been > > trained in how to teach any of them) and will tell you *better* than any of > > these other 99.999% of "teachers" (even though I've never been one, and > > wouldn't even know how to *begin* to teach TM, much less any other form of > > meditation). > > > > So yeah, that's the ticket. Don't believe what any of these (spit) > > Buddhists say. Believe *ME* because...uh...well...because I *want* you to. > > The more people like you who focus on me and believe the stuff I say, even > > though I've never had any training in anything I say, the better off you'll > > be. Because *I* know the TRUTH, and 99.999% of the spiritual "teachers" in > > the world don't. Besides, *I* am humble about how incredibly special and > > highly evolved *I* am, and (spit) they aren't. > > > > Did I capture what you were trying to say adequately, Jimbo? :-) > > >
