MDG: 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"?
Akasha: Its a form of the intellect that knows itself, and the difference between "Me" and "me". Intellect, a bit morphing as "attention". MDG: Who is the EXPERIENCER? A: Its sort of a "mu" question. I understand your Ramana framework. But IME, "Me" IS. Its not an "Experiencer" in the way that word has a connotation to me. But I understand that you may have a different connotation from me. MDG: Notice how experiences come and go - even the experience of pure 'ME'. A: And Who is doing the noticing when you do this? Ponder that .. you should. MDG: There you are. A: No, Its non-localized. Its nowhere. As the beatles sang, "He is just a Nowhere Man". :) MDG: You have always been there, haven't you? A: Another "mu" question. Or perhaps mute. MDG: We're trying to use linear, relative words to hint at something that can't be contained by words.] A: "We" kimoshabe? A: > 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? MDG: There are two fields to Life - the relative and the Absolute. A: Sometimes. Sometimes not. MDG: In enlightenment, the relative field of Life does not disappear. That is some "spiritual urban legend". A: When Shiva IS, Shiva IS. MDG: The relative field of life is 'me'. That 'me' has its nature, its role to perform. A: Do you ever read my posts? Do you think you are providing an insight here? No problem if you are using my comments as a springboard to make general statements, voiced to all, and not specifically in related to my points. But its useful to distinguiush that. Your tone is personal, yet your words bely much understanding of my oft expressed POVs. MDG: The body still has an innate will to live. A: A group of us were siting on the floor late at night with M. and someone, a caring motherly type woman" admonsished M. to get off to bed, to get some sleep, to take care of his body "else you might die". M. just said abruptly, "So what!" and went on with "the work". A: > 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? MDG: The question is not framed the right way; A: Oh. Thank you for clarifying my train of thought. MDG: 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. A: Nope, I implied nothing of the kind. Perhaps you should read more carefully. Or I will try to write more clearly. But in re-reading it, it seems pretty clear. Again, feel free to use my comments as a springboard to go off on your own lecture. Lectures can be good. But don't delude yourself that you are addressing points I raised. MDG: Why can't 'me' feel insulted, and "ME" feel nothing in its silence, A: For you, if you have that experience, then I am sure it can. But I am refering to my own experience where the Ocean so deep that any "insults" just don't stick. Nothing can be taken away. Anger can't rise up. So that is my Experience. At tmes -- which I am referring to. It doesn't need to fit your experience or intellectual frameworks. It just IS. MDG: 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'. A: Michael, I notice what I notice. I notice a lot. You are free to notice what you do. We can compare notes at time. That would be fun. And while I appreciate your imptus and impulse to help, I don't need you to tell me what I notice or need to notice. Particularly when you don't seem to notice -- or have had the experience -- that I am referring to. What I refered to above is outside the realm of reacting to insult. If you have not experienced that, fine. if you want to state that you experience and react to insults, while experiencing "Me", fine. I have been there. But I am referring to something beyond that. (see prior response) MDG: Both are simultaneously true. A: If they are for you at times, then fine. Just a heads up, someday you may experience something where the Ocean so deep that any "insults" just don't stick. Nothing can be taken away. Anger can't rise up. So thats my Experience. If you also eperience such, then great. If you do not experience such, then great. Your experience is your experience. A: > It would seem if ALL traces of ego are gone, MDG: If all traces of ego were gone, there would be no relative 'me'. A: I'll let you duke it out with Peter on that one. My point in the post, perhaps lost in snipping, is that if one is feeling insulted, there is still a trace of ego, regardless if the person feels "no I" -- that no "I" can be found. But its interesting. Both you and Peter claim enlightenment, yet differ on the most fundamental of points. Indeed for Peter, if I understand his position, "no-I" is the singualar necessary and sufficient characteristic of enlightenment. Yet you say, enlightenment, presumably including yuor own, still has ego. Just another example, IMO, of different interpreations of the same or similar "Experience". And a good admonishment of not being to attached to a single POV, one's POV. MDG: Ego is the finest level of the relative, A: I experience something different. But may just be we interpret the same thing differently. MDG: Awakening does NOT mean wiping out the ego. [That is another "spiritual urban legend".] A: Hey Peter. Your positoned has been challenged. No hitting below the belt. DING. The first round begins. MDG: 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. A: > then there is no one to be insulted. Just the ocean. MDG: 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. A: If thats your experience, fine. Mine differs. A: > 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. MDG: It's a good measure of whether someone has anger issues. It's a poor measure of awakening. A: If it doesn't work for you, don't use it. And I said noting about awakening. Perhaps re-read what I wrote. MDG: 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: And do you really think I never read the Gita? Do you really feel you are informing me of some new POV? > 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. MDG: 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. See past posts on this. My POV is different than yours. So be it. A: > 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? MDG: 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? A: I have discussed my expereince. If you wish to share yours, in the spirit of sharing, and not lecturing, thats great. Its always interesting to hear others experiences, and their interpretations of them. Feel free to share such anytime. Thanks for your interest in my experiences and POV. And I appreciate your impetus towards caring. ------------------------ 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/
