Peter:
> > > This is one of the clearest responses articulating the
> > > condition of "I" after realization. It's brilliant.
> > > Wondering what happens to the "I" in enlightenment is
> > > like asking what happens to the knot after it's
> > > untied; what happens to the darkness when the light is
> > > turned on. What happens is that they no longer exist.
> > > They are not accounted for because they cease to
> > > be...."assimilated, silenced, replaced" by no-thing!
> >
Quote:
Answer: There is great difficulity in describing a
condition that is not within the experiental reality of the ego, and
especially in answering a question the asking of which stems from
the dualistic paradigm of reality of the questioner. An
enlightened being *is* their condition; thus, there is no purpose to
make a 'claim'. That is an ego view.
> > >>
The personal self does not become enlightened or
transformed but instead is assimilated, silenced, and replaced by a
different condition altogether.
Vaj:
>From my POV it represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the
eastern experience of "ahamkara" (translated often as "ego") and
the Freudian, psychological or New Age idea of "ego". The two are not
the same, although many assume they are. When you lose ahamkara, you
lose the ability to identify with your body. In laymen's terms, you
die. In general, organs and cells don't like it.
Irmeli:
It puzzles me also, why people, when they stop identifying the 'I'
with an image of one's personal self, say there is no 'I' anymore.
The `I' is the subject, who feels, sees, interprets and evaluates
situations, makes meaning, uses concepts like enlightenment in
communication, relates to others, is in dialogue with others. The
fact that something is being perceived is based on subject/object
dualism. The perceiver is subject, the perceived is object.
The `I', the subject, cannot see itself. If it can, there is an error
in interpreting. The subject can see only something that is object to
itself. In enlightenment this error vanishes. And another error seems
to appear, the idea that there is no `I'.
------
Akasha:
So many interpretations of what one must presume is the same
Experience. (How can one meditate for decades without some good degree
of Experience of transcendence -- in itself, separate from activity,
or at the core of things?) Why one interpretation and not another? Why
one interpretation held emphatically (at times)?
It may be from the process of aquiring the interpretative insight --
often IME, its a Eureka type, "Ah Ha!) experience. It seems
"self-validating", obvious. And such Eureka experiences, may open the
Gap, so it "feels so right". With such hard-core assurance, it perhaps
seems equally clear that other interpretations must not be equally
valid. Thats understandable.
But the interpreation is "just" a thought. Perhaps well processed by
the intellect . Which is just a thing that churns away. The stronger
the sense of "I" and "my" mind, "my" intellect, the stronger the habit
or senses that "my" thoughts and reflections are correct. They bubbled
up (in "my" mind) or got spit out (from "my" intellect) so they must
be correct, right? That logic is about as good as saying, "I read it
on the Internet, so it must be true, right?"
So its ironic, or perhaps deeply telling, that those alleging "no I"
are often the most emphatic that their interpretations ("my thought")
of THE Experience, is correct, more correct than others. No foul in
vigorously defending a POV. Thats quite beneficial in bringing out
deeper levels of insight. But inner liberation brings with it, ALSO,
the increasing flexibility to see and appreciate other POVs, to easily
slip into another POV, to pull the best from many POVs. These are
hallmarks of inner independence. (Well, at least, thats one (though
not singular or exclusive) self-validated POV.)
------------------------ 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/
