<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- In [email protected], Peter <drpetersutphen@>
wrote:
> >
> > The shift from a bound self to a
> > non-localized Self is pure acausal grace that can not
> > be enacted from the side of the bound mind.
>
> And if the shift occurs, and there is something acausal, then
> what does the acausal thing have to do with the shift?
Nothing. Unless you believe it does. And then you're
stuck with your belief, which implies boundaries and
is no longer the thing you're examining. You have
shifted "back."
> This appear so be a non-statment. Or one of no consequence. "A"
> has nothing to do with "B". "B" shifts. (So why bring up "A"?)
Habit.
> If the grace is causal, then on one level, there is some
> meaning in the statement.
What's wrong with all statements having exactly the
amount of "meaning?" That is, only the amount we
give to them.
> But grace implies something outside of IT. Thus its support on
> someting. Which contradicts prior statements.
And contradiction is bad exactly why?
> It sounds like these statements of this genre are personal
> interpretations of an "experience". They may be correct, clear,
> insightful interpretations, they may be fuzzy, inconsistent and
> distoreted. But they make sense to the interpreter.
At one particular point and from one particular
point of view and state of attention. If the
interpreter shifts states of attention, he or
she may say the exact opposite, with an equal
degree of conviction. And *both* make sense
to the interpreter. And *both* have the same
degree of "truth." That is, none.
> Like I intepret the sun rising every morning. It works for me.
> It IS what I see. It resonates with me. But I know its
> an "incorrect" interpretation of whats really going on.
And you "know" this how? Because someone told you
another interpretation, and you give it (and the
teller's state of attention and point of view, from
which this second interpretation is "true" and
another is not) more than you did your own state
of mind and point of view?
> But these types of interpretations are more akin to poetry
> that is trying to describe love or beauty, not an internally-
> consistent and logical truth.
What makes you believe that "truth" is either internally
consistent or logical? I mean, READ the words of those
who have realized enlightenment over the centuries.
They seem to be consistent only in the sense that they
agree, when pinned down, that there is no internal
consistency or logic that can be applied to the
description of enlightenment. In fact, pretty much
the only thing they agree on is that it can't be
described.
I honestly think that what you're *hoping* is that the
description of enlightenment can be internally consis-
tent and logical, so that you can "understand" it
using the rational mind. And you hope that despite
the fact that most of the enlightened throughout
history have said just the opposite, that it *can't*
be understood or described by the rational mind.
In my view, this desire to "understand" is a natural
phenomenon, but it's one that is based on the unenlight-
ened self trying to survive, when in fact for enlight-
enment to be realized, that limited intellectual self
has to be discarded or, at the very least, ignored.
What if enlightenment (or whatever you choose to call
it) can NEVER be accurately measured or described?
It seems to me that situation creates a couple of
interesting "Catch-22s." The first is that attempts
*to* measure it or describe it "accurately" become
exercises in pushing enlightenment away, not
embracing its mysteries and inherent contradictions.
The second is the importance of trust -- trusting
one's own experience, even though it may seem
internally inconsistent and non-logical.
Your poetry analogy is onto something. Poets don't
really mind if they describe a flower (or something
less tangible, like love) differently from poem to
poem. Each poem captures a small subjective aspect
of the thing you're writing the poems about; *none*
of the poems capture the thing itself. And that's Ok.
To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Or go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'
SPONSORED LINKS
| Maharishi university of management | Maharishi mahesh yogi | Ramana maharshi |
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
