On Dec 15, 2005, at 12:53 AM, anonymousff wrote: The self-proclamation part has always struck me as odd. Linked to the absolutist interpretations of what IT IS. As if there is some insecurity. THIS has to be IT. And odd that there are strong mandates of how IT can be spoken of. And how IT cannot. And what one can understand and what one cannot.
And if anyone is experiencing Effulgence, a seemingly endless flow of liveliness, unshakable bliss (not all bliss is dumb), constant wakefulness, actions happening, knowledge happening, loss of possessionship (of ideas, POVs, relations and things), compassion that seems to be rooted at the core of everything, a limitless sense of wonder -- and irony, a not so worried view of "pending disasters", a not so impressed view of pending sucesses, then wonderful. Why not speak of these things.
It really depends on the listeners. If there is an intent to facilitate liberation, does talk cook the rice? Why speak in nebulous labels of "liberation, awakening, and enlightenment"?
Such nebulous terms often represent a lack of superknowledge IMO. Then no need for the nebulous. Whose liberation, whose awakening? So many paths, so many traditions make so many distinctions. Lots of trail markers on this hike. Why be so anxious to claim the pinnacle. Why not just claim, if claims are needed, "I am hiking, and its fun". (oops, sorry "the body is hiking" <smirk>
One wonders. Ego? How does one check if what is being expressed is from ego? (And I mean experience not in the sense of "I see the flower" and this "I experience it", but in the sense of "Consciousness Groking",
And the process of self-proclamation, what a concept. Someone reads a book and says "I GET that! I must be enlightened." "hm, they say here no-self is enlightenment. I have searched high and low and cannot find an ego. Ergo I am enlightened." Yet so many self-proclaimed enlightened, even here on this list, but more so else where, directly contradict each other.
Hmmm.
Sure the indescribable can be approached from different angles. But its odd when A says "There is absolutely no ego" and B says, "of course there is an ego, you are insane to think there isn't", and C says "well, there is an ego, but it finds its proper role as servant, not master" and D says "You are a fool to try to understand this paradox of ego, it is Brahman, it is confusion" and E says "well, if you take this conic section and slice it, its clear the ego is an elipse with 16 dancing golden elves who are really the ashwins." Perhaps they each went to a different Satsang, or read a different book.
Or was never trained properly so they cannot recognize a false view. Or they've never had there View verified to know if they hold false Views (of reality). Most of these people IME tend to be outside (often deliberately) their alleged traditions.
We've been chatting offlist about demonic states. That's certainly another possibility.
Its odd too people claim labels (enlightenemnt, awakening, liberation", and not specific "attributes" of such. Its as if the label is a smoke screen for "all attributes".
And hoping others assume that. But few are willng to proclaim specific attributes and discuss in detail. Which if the purpose is helping others, to promote insight and understanding, could serve a role. But usually its "la de da liberation".
Uh huh.
The socratic method always struck me as useful. No proclamations. Simply questions crafted to allow others to get IT in their own way, by their own means. Not that such should be a universal mandate, but it does seem to be a humble path to sharing knowledge.
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
|
