> Akasha wrote:
[snipped Paula's question and the first half of Akasha's reply]
> But I did not experience that as the stark "no I" that you appear to
> have or others have. And there was, through my youth and adulthood, a
> "me" that desired, strove for things, got hurt, got angry, etc. I
> could switch between "ME" and "me" to a degree. And in my mid teens
> when I started TM, the sense or glow of "ME" was stronger and more
> switchable with "me" when I wanted it. But other times, I was absorbed
> in "me" and dealing with lots of "me" issues. The "me" clearly had
> problems and constrants. Many have been dealt with over the years.
> Others have not been so well.
So the question to ask yourself is this:
You say that there are two things that you switch between - ME and me
[like: Self and self - Absolute and relative...];
And you clearly describe how there were times when one or the other
predominated more, and how that predominance shifted over time;
Then who is the "I" that is doing this switching, that "could switch
between 'ME' and 'me'", that says "the sense or glow of 'ME' was stronger
and more switchable with 'me' when I wanted it"?
Who is the "I" that can get "absorbed in 'me'" [and therefore also get
extricated from absorption in 'me']? [absorbed in 'me' = waking state,
ignorance]
Who is the "I" that can get absorbed in 'ME'? [transcendental consc.]
You describe the comings and goings, the ebb and flow, of ME and me.
You describe them beautifully as experiences.
Who is the EXPERIENCER?
Who is the experiencer of that ebb and flow, of those experiences?
Who is the experiencer, whether it is experiencing predominantly 'ME',
or predominantly 'me', or any combination of the two?
Notice how experiences come and go - even the experience of pure 'ME'.
'ME' and 'me' come and go (depending upon where you put your attention).
Who is there (within you, behind you, above you, beyond you...) that
DOESN'T change, that doesn't come and go - through all these experiences
of the swings between 'ME' and 'me'?
Who's attention notices 'ME' and notices 'me'?
Who's attention can swing from 'me' to 'ME', from one extreme end of its
Self to the other, all within the range of its Self?
There you are.
You have always been there, haven't you?
'ME' and 'me' are just your two fields, your first duality.
You are The Knower of the fields (Brahman, The Great).
[Note: Please don't get hung up in the word "who"; you can freely
substitute "what", or "[nothing]", or whatever word or phrase or
language works for you... We're trying to use linear, relative
words to hint at something that can't be contained by words.]
> So the question is, does your sense of "no I" include an absence of
> localized "issues" that affect "you", distinct from "You"? In other
> words, for example, if someone insults you, that is, someone -- or an
> event -- pushes a really deep button, do "you" still feel insulted?
There are two fields to Life - the relative and the Absolute.
In wholeness, both are there, interpenetrating, inextricably bound
to one another, two ends of one continuum of life. ("You can't have
one without the other".)
In enlightenment, the relative field of Life does not disappear.
That is some "spiritual urban legend".
The relative field of life is 'me'.
That 'me' has its nature, its role to perform.
Its role is to act like an individual wave on the ocean; 'me' has needs,
desires, likes and dislikes, attraction and repulsion, its whole story.
That doesn't change in enlightenment.
The body still has an innate will to live.
The senses still have a responsibility to sense (the enlightened don't
start obliviously tripping over chairs, tottering off the edge of cliffs,
etc.) - [at least once the first rush of The Shift has calmed down ;) ]
The relative mind/body ('me') still has its memories, its likes and dis-
likes, its personality, its ethics...
If you always liked chocolate ice-cream, and were allergic to peppermint
ice-cream, that's still there after enlightenment.
In fact, nothing much changes in the relative after awakening.
> And that gets to the point, are there still any buttons to push that
> can get "you" riled up enough so that "you" actually feel insulted? Or
> is the Ocean so deep, no waves are felt?
The question is not framed the right way; you make it a kind of
"either/or" choice, as though you can be either 'me' or 'ME'.
That's like saying that the ocean can either be waves or silent
depth, but not both together.
Why can't 'me' feel insulted, and "ME" feel nothing in its silence,
and The Knower put attention anywhere along that continuum?
If you put attention on 'me' you will notice all the mechanics of
insult and attention will experience/resonate with 'insult'.
If you put attention on "ME" you will notice all untouchability and
silence and peace and attention will experience/resonate with 'un-
touchable'.
Both are simultaneously true.
Not only simultaneously true, but absolutely necessary for the exis-
tence of the other.
Neither of these two - 'me' or 'ME', insulted or untouched, is your
Reality.
You are The Knower - whose consciousness/awareness can have many flavors.
> It would seem if ALL traces of ego are gone,
If all traces of ego were gone, there would be no relative 'me'.
Ego is the finest level of the relative, responsible for the existence
of the sense of individuality, responsible for the wave; ego is the very
foundation of the wave. Ego gives rise to intellect, mind, senses, the
body, and then the whole explosion of relative experience.
Awakening does NOT mean wiping out the ego.
[That is another "spiritual urban legend".]
Awakening means the stopping of being totally absorbed in the ego, grip-
ped by the ego, lost in the ego, identifying with the ego.
Ignorance is when you believe that you ARE the ego, and ONLY the ego -
when you are so lost in the relative that you don't know that there IS
anything else except ego, boundaries, change, death - when you think
that the ego is the ultimate, the boss, the charioteer.
Awakening is when you are no longer gripped by that belief, when you
know there IS something else, when you know that you are also Absolute,
unbounded, non-changing, infinite.
> then there is no one to be insulted. Just the ocean.
If there is "just the ocean", then there are no waves, no bliss, no ex-
pansion of happiness, nothing to contrast with silence/peace.
So silence/peace becomes meaningless.
> That's been a "measure" I use sometimes,
> loosely, for myself and others. When people are able to find buttons
> that set me off, make "me" feel insulted angry, I know there is
> another part of "me" is there and can be dissolved if I so choose.
It's a good measure of whether someone has anger issues.
It's a poor measure of awakening.
Anger is just the flaring up of energy when a desire gets blocked.
As long as there's a relative, there will be desires.
As long as there's desires, there will be the possibility of desires
being obstructed/blocked = anger.
A side-point about relative behavior:
What we do with that energy called 'anger' is a different story.
(a) Do we run from the anger, get into denial/dullness/depression?
(b) Do we act out the anger, turning it on ourself (harm ourself) or
dumping it on others (violence)?
(c) Or do we employ the anger to energize us to find a better way to
fulfill that desire?
Obviously (c) is the healthy choice, while (a) and (b) arise from
constriction/buttons and obstruct the flow of life.
To avoid anger you don't need Self-realization per se; you need to:
a. Avoid blocks to desires.
Develop the ability to fulfill desires with such power and sup-
port of nature that there is no possibility of blockage.
b. Heal all wounds/constrictions in your relative mind/body that block
the flow of life.
Then it will will be easy to spontaneously make choice (c) above,
instead of getting shunted down paths (a) or (b).
These are both in the relative field of life.
> And I find the same in others. Some claim enlightenment but are
> easily, personally (as in "me") insulted and angered, even when
> quite small buttons are pushed -- even if inadvertently.
Krishna got angry.
Rama got angry.
Brahma got angry.
Shiva got angry.
Christ got angry.
Maharishi gets angry.
Guru Dev, in his search for his personal master, met realized beings
who still manifested considerable anger.
The stories are well-recorded and widely accepted.
An interesting couple of questions to ask is:
1. If a person was horribly abused as a child, and as adult they awa-
kened, realized their Reality as the Self - would that awakening
automatically remove all wounds, all constrictions, from that abuse
that reside in the relative mind/body?
2. Would the relative mind/body that was the relative aspect of that
realized being still have emotional buttons, still tighten up when
confronted with sensory cues that remind them of that childhood
abuse (even if those triggers seem unimportant or inadvertent to
someone who hadn't gone through that abuse)?
Answers:
1. No
2. Yes
Established in the equilibrium of the Self, if they desired to remove
those wounds/constrictions, they would have an easier time of it, and
the process would be smoother.
And during the growth from Self-realization to God-realization - a
growth that has a lot to do with the relative field of life - they would
certainly be offered many opportunities to remove those constrictions to
the full, divine flow of life.
>
> I know there is an Ocean feeling. When and where no buttons exist. No
> one can push anything that can even remotely make "me" / "ME" feel
> insulted or angry or sad or even happy and exhilarated. It's just
> Oceanic. Sun-like glowing. So, the same question from a different
> angle, does is feeling of "no-I" one of emptiness and void, or is it
> Oceanic and full?
What is your experience:
1. Is ME (the Absolute aspect) empty and void, or oceanic and full?
2. Is The Knower (whose attention shifts between ME and me) empty
and void, or oceanic and full?
Then just be aware "who's noticing that?"
Who is perceiving 'empty and void' or 'oceanic and full'
There you are, again!
Namaste,
Michael
PARA - The Center for Realization
The Relationship Institute
Michael Dean Goodman Ph.D., D.D., Director
Boca Raton FL * 641-919-3700 * [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fairfield IA, Chicago IL, Washington DC, Baltimore MD, San Francisco CA
------------------------ 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/
