--- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "> I suspect he'd be willing to rewrite it as: > > > > If you lose your attachment to/identification with > > your own personality, you can afford to be non-equal. > > > > I think he makes a good point that insistence on > > equality can mean not just humble unwillingness > > to give oneself a higher status, but prideful > > (egoic) unwillingness to accept a *lower* status." > > I think these terms are most useful in a specific context. For > example Tom Cruise is at a very high level in Scientology. He has > taken auditing to the highest level which makes him much "higher" than > you or I. In this system he possesses many magical powers from his > level of attainment. I don't think it would be a function of pride > for me to not accept any invitation from Tom to accept a "lower" > status in his little made-up world of distinctions. I suspect you > would not be willing to join his POV that you are far less developed > spiritually than he is since you have your own personal standards for > personal development that you pursue. I suspect that you would feel > that if Tom was gaining something worthwhile through his auditing > techniques that you were getting the equivalent or better from your > own TM practice. (just a guess)
I think the point is that when you've lost your attachment to your ego, you don't go around setting standards and comparing yourself to others, nor do you care if someone thinks you're lower on the totem pole. That's all just ego stuff, and it no longer carries a charge; there's no energy behind it. (That's not to say you might not pull rank once in a while if you thought it was important; Jesus driving the money-changers out of the Temple would be an example. But you wouldn't be doing it for yourself, you'd be doing it for others.) > In my life the people who I give the credit for be the most actualized > in their personalities are the people who draw out the best from > everyone around them. They don't radiate that they are "higher" but > just that they are having a great time being alive and invite everyone > to join them. As standards go, that's a pretty good one. > But I do appreciate the distinction you are making. For me being > "humble" is often another version of spiritual oneupsmanship. I > never trust people who claim it. I am certainly not. My self > confidence has be so hard earned through the years of my life. > It is the lack of confidence in my self that has held me back, > never being too "prideful". I'd say perfect humility is a function of perfect Self-confidence (cap S). And anyone who invites me to accept that I am on a > fundamentally lower level of awareness then they are will not receive > an invitation to lunch at Bistro Curtis. > > Thanks for returning the ball.
