Without a doubt the most useful post on this site I have seen for a
very long time. Thanks!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Dean Goodman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > 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/
