Barry, you are far to heated, and I don't want to bore the audience here with a rebutal of your single arguments. Take my word for it: I don't mean it personal, and I surely don't want to change you (with whom should I discuss in the future? ;-)). Also when I say, that I don't understand, how someone witnessing, could have regrets for the past, I don't mean that in a personal way. I just mean it like this. And I still do.
But that doesn't mean I want to prove that your experiences are higher or lower etc, thats childish. We are not in a competition, neither of us. And the view,that one could fool oneself believing to be enlightened, is of course also general.There is indeed solid scientific research about choices and free-will, and how the I sensation comes about, clearly denying the simplistic notion of 'I am the doer of this deed', you are just not interested in it, which is okay. So, no bad, I just participate in this discussion like anyone, there were many more responding to this very post, none of them was accused by you for trying to change your mind except me. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity <no_reply@> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > You seem to be taking this very personally, while I simply > > try to elucitate the principles. For me this is an answer > > to the thoughts and ideas you bring up, so I see it in an > > impersonal way. > > Excuse me? Go back and look at the first few posts of > yours in this thread. You *started* by lecturing me > about complaining about past spiritual teachers and > teachings. The *clear* implication from you was that > this was not an appropriate thing to do, based on your > belief that none of the things I might be complaining > about were really "done" by anyone anyway; they were > all done by the universe. > > Go back and look; I think you'll find that you *started* > by being personal, and then later got into discussions > of a more theoretical nature, once I brought them up. > > <biggus snippus to> > > > One might ask, given your last sentence, why you > > > keep suggesting that your point of view is "better" > > > or "higher" and that mine is lesser? :-) > > > > There is nothing about 'better' or 'higher' in my > > suggestion. I am simply discussing, I don't know > > what you do. > > Ahem. Might I quote you from a few posts back in > this very thread (speakers are you, then me, then you): > > > > > IOW if you look at it from the ego POV, there are lots of > > > > mistakes and limitations, if you look from the POV of the > > > > Self there aren't, everything is perfect. It's just a > > > > matter from which level you look at things (Knowledge is > > > > diffferent in different states of consciousness) But its > > > > of course stupid to look at things from the ego-POV and > > > > pretend its the Self-POV. > > > > > > It is *your* contention that the ego-POV is lesser > > > than the Self-POV. > > > > Sure thats what I said. I said that it is a lesser POV than the > > highest. Yet, at this moment it is more appropriate. > > > And I try to do it in a > > logical fashion, while you put up a smokescreen of different > > viewpoints, between which one can choose... > > Exactly. It's not a smokescreen; that's how I perceive > the subject we are speaking about. It's all *about* > different points of view, among which one can make > a choice as to which one to prefer. > > > ...the non-choosing just being > > one of them - which is a contradiction in itself. > > But in the Buddhist paradigm a useful contradiction, > a thorn to remove a thorn, so to speak. :-) > > > Your arguments are > > simply not consistent, that's all. > > Neither is the universe. If you expect it to be, > you've got a lot to learn. :-) > > > > One might also ask, as I have several times (without, > > > I think, a response from you) why -- if you truly > > > believe that the universe runs everything and that > > > no one in it is really "doing" anything -- you keep > > > suggesting that I change my behavior and/or my > > > beliefs? > > > > Excuse me, I am not suggesting that you change your beliefs. > > Again, go back and reread the thread. You have suggested > several times that my beliefs are erroneous. At several > points you have suggested that my experiences were made > up. I don't think I've done that with you. I have merely > presented a *different* way of seeing and interpreting > the experience of "not the doer." I'm not invalidating > that experience; I've had it myself. I'm just saying > that there are other ways of *approaching* the experience > than assuming it's a "higher" or "better" way of seeing > things than "am the doer." > > > I am simply discussing - if that's not what you want, > > then what you are doing here? > > I'm trying to clue you in to the parts of your > "discussion" in which you seem get your *own* > buttons pushed, and start making declarations > about the relative "highness" and "lowness" of > things. You've done it a lot in this thread. > > > > If you honestly believe that the universe > > > is doing it all, shouldn't you be taking these > > > complaints directly to the universe instead of > > > the "not doer?" :-) > > > > You somehow seem to be under the illussion that you > > are seperate from the universe. It's like this joke: > > Someone keeps his backbag on his shoulders in the plane. > > The stewardess asks him to take it down and put it in > > the locker. He says, no, I carry it myself, I didn't > > pay for the overweight. > > Nice non-sequitur, but did you notice that you once > again didn't deal with the issue. You declared my > belief (which you incorrectly interpreted to be that > I am separate from the universe) an 'illusion.' But > you failed to deal with the fact that -- if you > really believe what you claim to believe -- you are > lecturing the universe itself. If you honestly > believe that I am not the doer of my own actions, > and thinker of my own thoughts, why are you > criticizing them as illusory? :-) > > > It just shows that you didn't understand the argument. > > Just like you, I do what I think I want to do. But > > unlike you, I don't believe that what I think is in > > my hands. > > I think that's perfectly *fine*, as a belief system. > But it *is* a belief system, a preference, not the > "highest" or the only way that one can view the > universe and how it works. That has been my point > all the way through. > > You *prefer* to think of yourself as "not the doer." > I *prefer* to think of myself as "am the doer." Both > are PREFERENCES, neither higher than the other. > > > I think what I think, because I can't help thinking > > that way. BTW. > > And because *it is a perfectly valid way of seeing > things*, from a certain point of view. You have a > *choice* as to which point of view to embrace. > You have *made* that choice, by choosing to > believe that you are "not the doer." (Depsite your > own everyday experience, I might add.) I have made > the same choice, by preferring to believe that I am. > BOTH are true. The choice of which point of view > to focus on is ONLY A PREFERENCE. > > <snipping silly pseudoscience> > ------------------------ 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/
