Edg, I've been thinking about this "primal identification" thang that you mentioned earlier, and have decided to spend my last post of the week pondering it further. I won't be able to follow up on any ideas you have to offer on this subject until Saturday, but hopefully you'll have some, and without the pressure of dogs who want to be walked gnawing at my ankles, maybe I'll be able to do more justice to answering some of your questions then. :-)
--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], Duveyoung <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > Turq, > > > > Would you agree that, for you, the word "identification" has > > the same definition as "attachment?" That's my stance. > > Hmmm. I've never really thought in those terms. I'll > try to do so "on the fly" here. I'm still in the 'No' camp, and will attempt to explain why below. > > The ego cannot be "ended," (since it doesn't exist,) but the > > "choosing process" of identifying it as the "I" CAN be ended, > > and once this inordinate attentioning on one small aspect of > > amness stops, then the ego can be as wonderfully appropriate -- > > in that, now, the ego is not puffed, hogging the spotlight, > > and elbowing out all the other aspects of manifestation, but > > is instead, a boon traveling companion, a biographer of the > > body/mind. > > . . . > > To me, enlightenment is "not identifying." Period. The > > least identification is having both feet on the slippery > > slope. > > > > Even pure being, amness, is a primal identification, and sure > > enough, that slightest of all stains is all that's needed for > > the sin of manifestation to occur when ego starts saying, "I'm > > that. I'm that. I'm that." Instead of, you know, neti, neti, neti. Ok, here is the point that's intrigued me. I fully admit to having read very little Advaita, where these ideas seem to be coming from. I walked away from TM and having much of an interest in the Hindu-based philosophies 25 years ago, and wandered down paths more frequented by Buddhists. So when I first encountered, a few days ago, your use of the term "primal identification," and, even more shocking (to me), "sin" used with regard to manifestation, it kinda threw me for a loop. I must admit to having NEVER entertained such a concept as "sin" with regard to the manifest universe. It struck me at the time as something more appropriate to Western traditions, such as the ones that sprung from the Bible. They tend to see manifest creation as being, almost by definition, in a "fallen" state, as existing somehow "apart" from Godhead or the Absolute or whatever you wish to call it. And with your use of the terms "primal identification" and "sin of mani- featation," I started to get the feeling that you regarded relative creation the same way. So here's my rap...it may not be a very good rap, but here it is anyway. :-) It seems to me that the concept of relative creation being separate from the Absolute, or existing in some kind of "fallen" state as the "sin of manifestation" is based on having *started* one's philosophical ponderings by accepting as a given an assumption. This unchallenged assumption then defines almost everything that follows. The assumption is that there was a Creation, a moment in time when the universe became manifest. I do not accept that. My intuition tells me that the Buddhists are more "onto" the reality of the situation by positing an *eternal* universe, one that was NEVER created -- it has been both Absolute and manifest in the past, it is both Absolute and manifest now, and it will always be Absolute and manifest, simultaneously, forever. There has never been a moment in which the universe was *not* expressed in manifestation, and there will never *be* a moment in which the universe is not expressed in manifestation. What we see around us today is the way it has always been and the way it will always be. There was never a "Big Bang," (except as a minor pimple eruption on the face of a far larger, eternal universe), and there will never be a final dissolution of the universe back into non-manifestation. Do you begin to see how someone who believes this (whether or not it is "true") might not be so prone to look at the manifest universe as "fallen," as in any way "lesser than" a postulated pure Absolute, with no manifest aspect to It? The whole question of "primal identification" becomes meaningless, because there is no moment that wes ever "primal." There is no question of "fallen," because there was never a moment in which the universe "fell" from pure, unmanifest Absolute to an "impure" Absolute/ manifest pair. "They" have always been One. Therefore the idea of the "sin of manifestation" is, for me, ludicrous. It's looking at an eternal universe and saying, "Y'know dude, you're great and all, but I liked you better when you were just One instead of One Plus Many." That makse sense only if you believe that there *was* a time when this universe you're speaking to *was* One, and that it somehow "fell" to the state of One Plus Many. I don't buy that. Therefore, with regard to your original question, I guess I really *do* have to disagree with Advaita that the boogeyman in the equation is identification. Where is the *problem* with identification if the universe has always been, and has always been Self identifying with Self? As I said before, where is the Waldo of "sin" in this picture? To me identification is not really a problem. One can identify with self without being attached to that self. In Buddhist circles, the attachment is the boogeyman and, although I am anything *but* a strict Buddhist (I "pick and choose" from its tenets just as I do with any other philosophy I've encountered, only going for the ones that strike an intuitive resonance with me), I'm gonna have to stick with attachment as the boogey- man in my own personal philosophy, as weak as that philosophy might be. I hope that this has clarified my position a bit, and I have no doubt that you'll probably come up with some mind-boggling response that will leave me pondering the whole fascinating subject further. If so, I'll try to rap more about it on Saturday. See ya then... Unc
