---"only an ego would have a need for a hierarchy" ...not exactly true; since E'd people sometimes work like everybody else, some of those jobs require attention to hierarchy. Say one is a chicken- sexer before E, and afterwards too (since being Self-Realized doesn't automatically demand that one quit a job). The job of chicken sexing (determining the sex of chicks), is a hierarchal matter, requiring a highly skilled expertise in the field. This is not born of "ego". It's just a skill, and hierarchies are part of skills.
[EMAIL PROTECTED], "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis" > <reavismarek@> wrote: > > > > Comment below: > > > > ** > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <jflanegi@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I sure did. As a result, I find it difficult > > > > > to think of the periods of so-called unenlight- > > > > > enment as "unreal." They were just as real as > > > > > the periods of enlightenment. > > > > > > > > "Periods of enlightenment"? Is your Self realization > > > > transient; it comes and goes? > > > > > > Well, duh. Someone wasn't paying attention > > > in class. :-) > > > > > > I've been saying this since I first arrived > > > on this group. It comes, it goes. Big deal. > > > The periods of realization are, to me, no > > > more interesting than the perids of non- > > > realization. > > > > > > I really *don't* think hierarchically. > > > > > **end** > > > > This is a great subject (or so I feel). My experience (and general > > attitude) mirrors Barry's. Don't claim to be Awake, but can't > figure > > out how I'm not. In my life there have been enlightenment episodes > > (an interesting paradox in itself) that have grounded me in an > > unshakeable conviction re the Reality of Self as I first learned > of it > > from Maharishi, and articulated by others, and in the wisdom > > traditions, and in my experience. 'Being' is just fine; I am never > > not; and I feel that if anyone here on this forum would look into > it > > they would be hard pressed to deny that for themselves, as well. > For > > myself it feels like it did when I was a little kid, even before I > > learned to talk. > > > > Nisargadatta posits the inquiry as (paraphrased): Were *you* born, > or > > was the body born (in consciousness)? And: Who were you before > this > > identity (the name and the form) was given to you (and drew your > > attention to it)? > > > > I might differ from Barry's position in that, if this isn't being > > Awake, I'm totally stoked about what That is. So, in that sense, > I do > > place a value on the state of enlightenment as opposed to > ignorance of > > It. But then again, it all seems to be good and as it should be, > so > > maybe we're not so far apart on this subject as it might seem. > > > > And certainly, within Totality, how can there be hierarchy? > > > Hierarchy of what? Hierarchy is an imposition of class structures > born of ego. It is useful when I go through the drive-in and am > asked what size soda I want, small, medium or large, and can be > helpful when classifying phenomena, but as an absolute mechanism, it > really doesn't exist. Only the ego has a need for hierarchy. Barry > may have a better answer, since he introduced the subject. >
