--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In [email protected], t3rinity <no_reply@> wrote:
> > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > > <snip>
> > > > Now, if this tactics is terribly productive, I don't know, I
> > > > just know that this particular body/mind organism called
> > > > Maharishi was drawn to it, that is that the supreme Brahman
> > > > wanted him to do so...
> > >
> > > Here we lost the ability to have a meaningful discussion.
> > > The moment you postulate some sentient entity that you
> > > call 'supreme Brahman' and suggest that it has desires
> > > (wants) of its own, I lose interest. :-)
> >
> > Too bad, because you don't even read and cut the sentence
> > short. Thats because of stereotyped thinking, its so easy
> > to have those buttons pushed with you...
>
> And you don't get your buttons pushed when someone
> points out that a core assumption behind your
> philosophy seems to be, "the Absolute does what
> it 'wants?'" :-)
First of all, of course I can get my buttons pushed, but in this case
my reaction was triggered not by any argument of yours, but by the
simple fact that you rejected the rest of my post in the middle of a
sentence by not even trying to understand it. If you would have argued
against the contents (that the absolute is running the show) - no
problem, that would have been a discussion, but my dear you simply
said that a "meaningful discussion" wouldn't be possible. So in fact
it is you who boldly state that a "Meaningful discussion" is not
possible, once I relate to personal experiences of my own, you somehow
don't want to relate to. Not i am setting absolutes here what can be
discussed, but you. Just as a reminder for an authoritarian style of
discussion.
> I was just funnin' with you, dude.
Ah, ah, what an easy cope out saying I was just making fun. Doesn't
impress me.
> *You* are the
> one who then got uptight and droned on for several
> paragraphs trying to defend what you'd said and
> put down what I'd said.
No I clarified what I thought you had misunderstood and made you end
this discussion. Of course we can end it anytime. But please don't say
that you are interested in other peoples experiences. You are only
interested in other peoples experiences once they conform to your own
worldviews. Let me spell it out for you: I am not interestet in any
ideological discussion. It seems you are interestet in it. I don't
care if somebody 'believes' in God or not, and if how one imagines
him/her/it/yourself to be. My point is regarding to an experience, and
that is like it is. For me this was only a language problem, and it
was you getting uptight about a concept I had no intentions about. I
was more interested in the recognition that "I am not incharge" I am
not interested at all in the other end of "who is in charge". I can't
name it define it etc. I don't care since I'm anyway not in charge. It
seems to be you who is interested in the dogmatic background, not me.
> T'would seem that *you*
> are the one with somewhat of an attachment to
> your concept of the Absolute running everything.
Its an experience I have. Let me also rephrase it:There is no me
running the show. Leave the Absolute out, since it seems to confuse you.
> Contrary to what you say below, it sounds to me
> very much as if you're "selling something."
What does selling something mean? I am not selling an ideology or a
cult, but an experience if you want so. Weren't we talking of
enlightenment experiences. To me, part and parcel of the enlightenment
experience is, that there is no YOU who is in charge, that is true for
oneself, but also for anybody else in my own view, so that I don't see
them as individaul personalities in charge anymore. That makes me
forgive and accept their limitations, as they are not responsible for
them anymore. That makes me accept my own past misconceptions as
inevitable. That makes me accept that there was nothing "I" could do
before understanding arose.
> Just *look* at the paragraph below. Who is upset
> and frustrated and somewhat irate here?
Oh if that is your point, I freely admit that I was frustrated about
your reaction to not attend to arguments anymore ('meaningful
discussion impossible') once certain buzzwords appeared.
> Hint: it
> ain't me. *You* are the one who seems to be upset
> that I don't believe what you believe. I'm not
> upset with you.
I also gave you no reason really to be upset with me.
> > ...and I'm kinda fed up and actually too lazy to
> > translate something to you; a man of your intelligence
> > could easily understand - if you just wanted. Once your
> > buttons are pushed its like talking to a wall - not
> > meaningful, but also not because of me.As I
> > have nothing to sell, I don't care for one actually,
> > why waste energy, end of story.
>
> Then, having ranted at me because I wasn't buying
> what you are selling, you move on to selling it to
> others:
>
> > Okay, for the sake of others who might just catch this
> > little bit of dialoque: Here I am referring to the Brahman
> > as the Absolute, and any
> > of us, including Maharishi just being players, with the Absolute
> > behind, animating everything. Nowhere I am saying that you have to
> > imagine Brahman like a decission-making person - thats just your
> > hook up, and I really don't care about it. My point is that our
> > involvement
> > into our own personality is illussionary. As long as you think that
> > you are 'in charge', you surely have no witnessing, you just gather
> > experiences for your own satisfaction.
>
> Your last phrase above is *exactly* my feeling for
> what the Absolute is. It has no will, no intent, no
> plan; it is just gathering experiences.
I have no problem with that, but to me this is just conceptualization.
I don't really want to make concepts about the Absolute. I can only
see and understand at my present state my own realizations.
> It's *OK* if you believe differently.
I don't believe differently.
> But you *are*
> trying to sell what you believe.
Not what I believe, no concept about the Absolute anyway, but rather
my experience about it.I don't think witnessing is possible with an
ego/I believing to be running the show.
> If you weren't, you
> wouldn't have gotten so uptight and reactive when I
> indicated I wasn't interested in buying your idea
> that the Absolute "wants" things.
I was getting uptight not because you said you believe differently,
but because you said a meaningful discussion was impossible, on
account of some dogmatic understanding of term 'Absolute' (Sorry for
repeating it so often)
>
> Just to clarify, trinity, *I don't know*. My intuitive
> feeling about such ponderous philosophical ponderings
> is more Buddhist than Hindu. I feel that the Absolute
> just *is*; it doesn't "want" things. I am unconvinced
> that it has sentience and an intent of its own. If you
> feel otherwise, that's just fine with me.
And as I told you, such philosophic ponderings are not my issue. I
rather got upset because you made it an issue. You may feel that such
an issue is implied in my experience of me Not running the show, as
someone else then would have to run the show according to logic. So I
lightely said that the Supreme Brahman is running it. But I didn't
mean to go into any details about it, or to propose a theory on it. I
rather see it as a distraction. So when I said that the Supreme
Brahman made Maharishi do whatever he did, I don't mean to say
anything about a sentient being or the nature of reality, because to
me thats a matter of taste or individual disposition. So let me
restate it negatively: Maharishi couldn't have done otherwise as what
he did, nor couldn't we.
My point being this: Once you have such an experiential recognition,
you couldn't possibly anymore feel any regrets about passed teachings
or misconcepts, be they from your own side or from somebody else.
Anything good that has happened to you, through somebody, you see the
same 'authorship' (and please don't take authorship literal), the same
hand in it.(please don't take hand literal) I was upset with you
because we have let the same discussion about the same issue before,
me clarifying this very same point infinte time, but it is eternally
hooked in you memory that I have a Hindu type of concept of God, and
you are terribly afraid I want to sell it to you, while for me this
type of clarification is just an odd linguistic exercise.
------------------------ 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/
