--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, a_non_moose_ff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Another Anon has comments inserted below.
Good questions. Responses interspersed below. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, a_non_moose_ff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > > If someone is having "enlightenment" experiences or is > > > stabilized as Self and talks about an ego, I don't > > > doubt their experiences, I just wonder what it is they > > > are referring to when they say "ego." When I say in > > > enlightenmernt that there is no ego what I mean is > > > that there is no subjective self. There is no "me". > > > The pronoun "me" or "I" doesn't refer to anything. The > > > mind looks for something and there is nothing there, > > > literally. In waking state the mind turns inward and > > > experiences a thought/feeling sense of an individual; > > > a private "me." This is what disappears in CC. There > > > is just consciousness and then everything else > > > (objective and subjective). You could say, "I am pure > > > consciousness", but the problem with this is that > > > there is no "I" to be or not to be anything. There is > > > just consciousness and objects that are not > > > consciousness. Thoughts and feelings are there, but > > > there is no "I" having these or taking ownership of > > > these subjective experiences. > > > > > All that is good and fine. > > ^^^^^ > So that means that you accept Peter at his word for what his > experience is? I do. I think Peter is a sincere and honorable guy. However, I do believe that misinterpretation and cognitive errors may be involved in his reporting of his experiences. As with all of us. And his often absolutist and universality of his proclamations can be problematic. > What about the others (Tom T, Michael G, Jim, Rory, > other?) I believe that misinterpretation and cognitive errors may be involved here also. And other factors (for some not all). Among these issues are very active imaginations, almost imagineering of experiences. And lots of reading of many sources which seems to taint the descriptions. For some it does not feels "digested" and personally reported but rather parroting from what has been heard or read. And some appear to have an intense ownership of their thoughts and ideas, very thin skinned to questions and challenging of their ideas. Not that these factors make them insincere, but they are factors that could be involved in something more than solely a deep personal "struggling" to try to convey personal experiences. (Ownership of ideas to me indicates a lingering identiy with the mind and its products. A situation which contractices the basic "definition(s)" of "enlightenment") >In other words, are you expressing doubts only about the > terminology used and the universality and/or significance of their > experiences? or are you also expressing doubts about what they say > are their experiences as well? I try to take them at their word. My main concern is that, upon doing so, they have different definitions of enlightenment (and some struggle to even define the criteria for such), and are reporting different experiences. Thus, my point is that use of terms like "enlightenment" and "awakinging" are meaningless in discussions such as we have on FFL. Talk then focuuses on an abstraction, a label. Worse yet, its a label with many meanings for many people. On the other had, simply talking about a direct experience, such as "wakefulness during sleep" can be good and useful. > In my own case, I experience a subjective sense of localized > individual self, and have trouble imagining what it would be like to > be conscious and functional and not have that subjective sense. A bit of that may be good, but as you seem to say, it quickly leads to the conclusion that it can't be done. Use of the intellect is NOT to figure out what IT is, but rather to figure out what IT is not. Neti neti, "the dog who didn't bark" sort of thing.. > On > the other hand, people report not having this sense, and don't > report it as a liability or a psychologically or neurologically > dysfunctional condition. Rather, they report it as some kind of > more "realized" improvement over having a subjective sense of > localized individual self. So I'm inclined to have an open mind on > this as a possibility. I was wondering where you stood on this. I think we all have some experience of Consciousness in silence and activity. IT glowing within ITself. I also find an intellectual understanding, and then a Groking of body, mind and intellect acting by themselves according to their own natures. All of this is interesting, quite a foundational shift. Or what I term a CORE shift. What one thought was the core of ones life is not the core. "Something" else is found to be the core. ====== to be continued in a later post ======= ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/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/
