--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "jim_flanegin" > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > <snip> > > Put another way, it is that sense that there is still someting > > there when we are sitting quietly, yet not thinking. To call > > it 'attributeless bliss' perhaps is distracting. it is just that > > sense of silence without thoughts that we sometimes experience when > > just sitting quietly, not thinking, not meditating. Does this sound > > like something you have experienced? > > Yes, but I wouldn't swear it was the Self, because, as > I went on to say: > > > > (And in any case, Michael says what I've always > > > understood, that the Self isn't something that can > > > be "found"; it can't be an object of perception.) > > <snip> > > > Still feels "strained" to me. That's part of what I > > > mean by being overshadowed. > > > > > > There's definitely been progress, but it still > > > seems like there's quite a way to go. > > > > OK. I think I understand. In order for the strain to not be there, > > there must be an acceptance of all...which is impossible to grasp > > intellectually. At least for me it always was, because I equated > > acceptance of all, with *liking* all, which I suspect is never the > > case... > > I don't think I make that equation. It's more like > you said, I equate acceptance with lack of resistance. > But as you also say, acceptance isn't intellectual; it > isn't something you can *do* intentionally. It's > something that *happens* to you. And it hasn't happened > to me yet (at least not all the way). > > So I have to think that what Michael calls the "shift > of perspective" (bad word, because "perspective" is of > the intellect, but Michael doesn't mean that) from > identifying with the relative to identifying with the > Self hasn't yet taken place for me. > > In other words, if Self-realization means not being > overshadowed, and being overshadowed equals resistance/ > lack of acceptance, then I'm not Self-realized. > > So it seems to me that I'm "judging" my state of > consciousness by exactly the criterion Michael suggests-- > not by flashy experiences or noticing witnessing or > behaving better, but: > > "In enlightenment our actions are spontaneously right. > Before enlightenment our actions are strained, but > still right. All that happens is that the sense of > strain disappears. But that's a dramatic shift." > > I still have a sense of strain. > > Or to put it another way: It's not that I have > expectations of what enlightenment is like; it's > that I expect it *not* to be like ignorance. > > (Yes, yes, I know, nirvana = samsara and all that. > But I don't think that's a useful maxim pre-nirvana.) > Well, thank you for this exchange. Yep, you are right, it is that strain which appears to be the chief indicator of where we are vis a vis realization. The good news is, as Michael says, that it is not the distance we may imagine it is, in order to get from here to there.
------------------------ 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/
