--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > If I may leap into the fray... > > How high does the non-I leap? > > > > There appear to be two distinctions > > here. One, can the intellect locate the Self, or enlightenment? and > > Two, can it subsequently be described? > > Perhaps three. Or even four. Your word "locate" had the connotation to > me of "finding the Self from raw deduction". So my quick response was > "no". > > You answered yes, so I assume you mean, when Self experiences Self, > can the intellect identify "its there". if thats what you man, then "yes". > > So its useful to clarify if the reference is to finding "something > unknown", or identifying something thats already there, and > distinguishing it from "other", or seeing it the same as (previously) > "other" . > > The mind is as or even much more involved "description" than the > intellect. Intellect can say "this, not this" in terms of descriptors > that the mind passes by it for "review". But the mind does the > conceptual work, the framing of the issue, the development of a > framework of understanding. So can the mind (with a bit of help from > the intellect) describe Self -- but only with poetic markers, and only > if it is "adjacent" -- that there is Experience. But the descriptors > are only markers -- like describing love to a drunk chipmunk. One can > make an attempt to do so, but (mostly) only in "poetic" languange. > Just as love can only (mostly) be described poetically (but not > limited to poems). > > But the same pre and post issue is there. The mind can try to create > poetic markers for what is already there. It can't, from scratch, > without the "adjacent" experience, conceptualize what the experience is. > > So there is a 2x2 matrix: Mind/intellect x Experience / non- experience > (or pre/post). One needs to clearly identify which of the four cells > one is refering to when one is talking about locating and describing Self. > > > My take on this, if I may, is that the intellect easily locates the > > Self. However, it is impossible to describe unless we are speaking > > with someone who is enlightened and then it is more of a non- verbal > > acknowledgement between the interested parties. > > The love poetry (try Neruda) makes sense (often) to one who is either > in love, or who has been in love. Its sill garbage to one who had not. > > I say often because no single words or markers are universal, IMO. > Ones markers may or may not make sense to another -- even if the > experience is the same. (and maybe the experience is different -- but > thats a whole other experience). > Right, there is an initial experience of recognizing our localized Self or Atman. And the intellectual discrimination is within a context of markers as you describe. So that our Self clearly stands out against the background of non-Self.
Then as our experience progresses, Atman merges with Brahman (aka God), so that Atman exists, but now in the infinite context of Brahman. This is a most unusual context because Self can no longer be truly discriminated, or put another way, it is now seen on a background and within a context of "stuff" just like it, rendering the whole search for Atman, and discrimination of Atman, basically meaningless. So the search for enlightenment progresses first from locating something which appears to be inside ourselves, and discriminating that from its background, to then seeing enlightenment through all of the senses, and thoughts, and conclusions, into what is outside ourselves. Enlightenment during this next stage has two remarkable characteristics: It appears to progress much faster than the first inward-oriented stage because of the richness of the experience, since instead of withdrawing from the senses as we do in order to culture the first stage of enlightenment, the senses are instead in wholehearted service to this second stage. Also, it is so much fun, becuase the further we explore, ponder, enliven and discern the outer world, the more enlightened we become. The link between our actions and our enlightenment is so much more immediate, so much more rewarding than during the first stage. We now live in a world who's only purpose for existing is to further our enlightenment in concrete and practical ways. It is very amazing and yet absolutely grounded. As to the question of I and no-I, upon closer investigation, there is only me, linked inexorably to everything and everyone. Make sense? ------------------------ 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/
