Turq, Is it my projection or did I go too far and smack you instead of tickle you?.....did I trigger a bit of a harrumph kinda mood?
Sorry if I ruffled any feathers -- I do this often and am in denial usually, but I tried to warn that I was engaging in an exercise to see if I could take the "other side" and still have some integrity. My point probably should have been spelled out better: words are always poetry. If I take the statement, "I love you" it seems to have one meaning, but we know that anyone who has ever uttered it is saying something new and different -- unique in the entire history of the universe. I've read your posts here while I was lurking, and I gotta tell ya, I have no handle on your emotional tone -- wondering if I'm not hearing your voice at all. When you challenge me for how I use the word "God" for instance, I feel like you feel like I'm trying to jam the concept into every reader's brain, and yeah, I do do that sort of thingy, do try to bully, take a short cut, but in my most recent posts, I think I'm mostly just having myself a thrill with seeing how words can be tossed at other words. You seem to be, well, very hair-triggered about certain concepts. Is that true? You may say no, but then why that tone? Again, maybe you're all sugar and cream, and I'm the sour interpreter, and if so, blame on me. Meanwhile, about that "God" thingy. Here's a way that maybe you can relax about my vocabulary and allow me to use that word: think about your nightly dreams. When you dream at night, how effortlessly do the images, words, furniture, spaces, people etc. get "built" instantaneously moment by moment. Your sleeping brain has the talent of Spielberg in these nightly productions, but while in the dream your character feels not the slightest authorship of the "whole shebang." Yet, verily are you not a god for this dream world? And that's what I'm talking about. I'm a character in God's dream, and though my core self is doing the actual work of creation, I'm caught up with a mere speck of it and calling it "me." Can't you allow me to use the word "God" for that level of "me-ness" that I am not consciously "in touch" with? If there is a Krishna, with a brain of biblical proportions, ahem, a living self-referential holodeck, can't I refer to Him like I would to that "self" that creates my nightly dreams? Can't I see that Krishna and my sleeping brain both have "me" in common, and each one is as "responsible for the creation that contains me" as the other is? When I dream, my dream character can be tortured, yet I do not awaken -- a sort of tell -- but, should I wake up, I don't hold it "against me" that I was being tortured. Something in me accepts the bad dream karma -- isn't this like what we call the compassion of the enlightened? Don't we expect the enlightened to have the ability to surrender to "what is" no matter what? Don't we expect that the enlightened know that this is a dream, and also that the dreamer cannot be found without destroying the dreamstate? If and when I do meet Krishna, I expect Him to be surprised that He'd thought me up -- just like I might be surprised to remember that in the dream I just woke up from that I had for some reason created a flaming couch that my dream character was sitting on nonchalantly but, for reasons never to be known, it was unnoticed by any character in the dream until "now" after awakening. Just so when I awaken from my living dream, might I not be surprised to find my self to be the creator of ALL THIS and that there is no doubt that it was me, me, only me what done the dream but still wonder why the flaming couch? Can't God be Someone like that -- have the dream emerge effortlessly with not the slightest sense of doership, no sense of having created me because He's part of the dream too, another character that the Absolute created? Turq, go with me here, let me use that word again in a serious question. When God awakens from the dream of creation, do you think that "only the Absolute is there" -- that there'd be no manifest brain to conceptualize that a dream had occurred? Is that more like your concept, more a Buddhist kinda voidy thingy? Like zero is needed for non-existence in math, can't I have a pet name for the Void? Edg --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], Duveyoung <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > Hey Turq, > > > > Let me be playful here and see if this very fine work of yours > > below can be doubted too. (Emphasis on the words playful and fine.) > > I certainly hope it can. I'm not selling anything. As > a former spiritual teacher of mine once said, "Writers > write because they're trying to figure things out. That's > all I'm doing here. Caveat lector. > > > Might give us some insight into Maharishi and others who have > > taken on that terrible burden: dhoti, divan, and divination. > > Their problem, not mine. :-) > > > Just keep hearing me giggling in the background as you read, > > and be ready to praise me for the tremendous effort it requires > > for me to disagree with your concepts. I'm hoping to neutralize > > your words so that my nervous system will, as if, have never > > identified with your words, and thus I will be freed thereby > > from attachment to your, oh-so-sweet, "truths." > > Whatever floats your boat. Me, I...uh...doubt that I'm > going to have much to say about them. > > > TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > It seems to me, based on my reading here and on a > > > number of other spiritual forums, that a lot can be > > > learned about spiritual movements and about the > > > spiritual seekers within them by how they respond > > > to the "D" word -- DOUBT. > > > > I doubt it. As if any insight into anything can be achieved by > > merely having the ego using the intellect as a flashlight to > > shine into the back of God's mind. > > You forget that you're talking to someone who doesn't > believe in a God, or at least not one with a "mind" > or a will of its own. :-) > > > As if whatever came out of anyone's mouth could > > be read like yarrow stalks. As if "a lot" about any spiritual > > movement could be as small as merely knowing how some members > > of the group react in a deeply negative way towards doubters. > > I think a LOT can be learned about a spiritual movement > from how it deals with doubters. If it deals with them > less than gracefully, for example, I for one am never > going to get involved with them. :-) > > > As if anyone could be such an expert psychologist that a few > > samplings of a few of the group's members could be definitive. > > With regard to TM and several other come-down-hard-on- > doubt movements, it's FAR from "a few." It's the whole > bloody "program." > > > Would anyone here want the TM movement to be judged by examining > > the self-serving doubts of the likes of DeAngelis, Gray, > > Bloomfield or by examining the doubts of the likes of me? > > I certainly would. The value of a spiritual teaching is > in the *students*, not in the teaching itself. If they're > full of shit, so is the teaching. IMHO, of course. :-) > > That's all I have the time or the interest to read right > now. No offense, dude, but it's software release time for > me, and that takes precedence over everything else. Hope > that you continue to have fun... > > Unc >
