Rory: "As I said when I first met you here, I am completely willing to be "unenlightened" with you in your world, if you are willing to be "enlightened" with me in mine -- will that do? Can we be both "ordinary" and "special" simultaneously together? I will if you will. Actually, I will even if you won't ... and I don't mean that as a put-down, just telling you who I am, while respecting your freedom of choice to be who you want :-)"
ME: Thanks for replying in detail. I knew I could count on some thoughtful material in response. There have been good perspectives offered by others in this thread giving me food for thought. The paragraph above is very T.S. Elliot. It is too clever to mess with. Very entertaining. I don't think I lump all Gurus in the same camp, but I think the ones who have built up big organizations are a bit power oriented. I don't know about the quieter ones who never built up big Western followings. I did spend some time in Christian monasteries with some monks who had a cool vibe that I wouldn't judge as being on a power trip. I tend to believe that gurus who end up with millions of dollars probably wanted them and worked hard to get them. I hold them as different from my value system as The Donald or any other heavy empire builder. My feelings about gurus in general is a work in progress. Right now the jury is deadlocked and keeps requesting more information. It is fine with me if I never get a verdict. I do come across exceptional people from time to time and they really seem to be functioning from a different POV. For me a person's POV on life is the driving factor. I am very influenced by the thinking of Albert Ellis (who just died RIP) and his view of how our conceptual models effect our happiness. (Rational Emotive Therapy) I found this exchange helpful and I appreciate your response. I think we do get a skewed vision of each other from our writing. We are all using our writing here for our own self discovery. Your point about the nature of writing was a valuable one. One of the paradoxes of the TM system is that anyone claiming to have reached the goal was always viewed with great suspicion when I was involved. I can imagine the rash of S-- you would have gotten for announcing your own perspective on your experiences. Inherent in a view that you are no longer resisting your enlightenment and guys like me are, is a sort of hierarchy implied. But I can look past that since I carry my own versions of ranking people in my world. It is really none of my business how you are viewing me as long as the way you communicate with me has the friendly connection that I sense from your post. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rory Goff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > Me: I have been enjoying lurking I have been thinking something > about > > how you write that I would like to run by you Rory. I think you are > > using language that very carefully does separate you from the person > > you are responding to. > > To a large degree this is true, Curtis, in that I generally attempt > to take responsibility for my perceptions *of* the other, without > ascribing specific attributes *to* the other (though sometimes I fail > of course), as it's usually evident that my perceptions of the other > are simply the qualities of myself I choose to see in this moment. > > This is *not* to say however that my perceptions aren't also "true" -- > or at least shared by others, which may be our basic criterion of > objective as opposed to subjective reality. However, as I mentioned > to Steve, I really can't say if an "asshole" has any real existence -- > the only reality I am prepared to affirm whole-heartedly is the self- > evident, radiant indescribable one, as that one keeps appearing when > the other perceptions un-slip-knot themselves. There is then no > separation. > > Almost to a post there is an assertion of your > > separateness, specialness. > > Yes, I'm special, and so is everyone else, though some don't like to > admit it. When I came on FFL with the message "I'm enlightened, and > so are you" you wouldn't believe some of the responses I got ... even > a strongly-worded death-wish :-) > > >I think it is very important for you to > > present yourself as having a special relationship with the world. > > Special and ordinary, simultaneously. > > >I > > offer you another option and perspective for consideration. We may > > all actually be the same with regard to our states of > consciousness. > > Yes, that is generally my initial a-priori assumption, and was very > much so on FFL -- though I have very often been shown here that my > assumptions were apparently false, not shared by others :-) > > > > What you are describing in sometimes Baroque detail may just be an > > affectation of your use of words to describe states that everyone > else > > is living in without needing all the descriptions. > > That's what a writer does, if successful -- points out something > universal that others may have overlooked, or not seen in precisely > that way :-) > > If you really want > > a unitive experience, I suggest trying out the following premise: > You > > and I are actually the same. No states of awakening separate us. > Neither of us are on any continuum of awareness before or after each > > other. > > Agreed :-) > > >We are both just simply human with the same limitations and > > capacities. > > I uphold all of that, although obviously you have some capacities and > talents which I do not, and vice versa. I respect yours, and do not > require you to falsely insist I am your "equal" in them. Likewise, I > also respect mine, and do not falsely insist you are my "equal" in > them. > > >Then go to the supermarket and look at everyone that same > > equal way. Everyone is just equally human and not on a path of > > "awakening". Just folks. > > That's exactly the way I *do* go to the supermarket, live my life, > etc. It was quite a shift to come onto FFL and try to see things in > the old way of "path" and "growth" and "enlightenment" enough to > communicate effectively with people here, and to realize that that > long-"outgrown" mode of perception actually had richness and value I > had overlooked. Yes, it's quite evident that everyone is precisely > as "enlightened" as I am, as they *are* me -- but they are free to > deny this if they so choose (and they often so choose)! :-) > > > I hope this wont be taken as an attack although it is a judgment I > am > > making. > > Naah :-) > > (BTW nuts are actually very hard to kick so their use in > > fights is really overrated!) > > Good to know :-) > > I think we have established enough > > rapport in previous posts to actually explore this topic a bit. I > > suspect Turq will have some perspective to share on this. > > No doubt :-) > > > In my daily life I notice people's language as an attempt to assert > a > > ranking. It is a version of monkey oneupmanship. As a performing > > artist I must push some people's buttons because I get a regular > > stream of guys (always guys) who feel the need to try to find out > what > > I make as a performer. It seems important for them to make sure I > am > > not making much money while having this much fun. They ask a > serious > > of roundabout questions to determine that even though they hate > their > > jobs (their words) at least they are making more money. > > > > Here on FFL it seems that there is another ranking system in place > > between guys. An enlightenment-O-meter. > > I've noticed that you seem to regard gurus, saints, etc. as on a > power-trip of sorts. Me, "not so much" -- I actually was very > relieved, very self-affirmed, when others came forward on FFL and > elsewhere to admit their enlightenment -- not because enlightenment > is any big deal, but because *resisting* it is, and the absence of > resistance in these fellow-admitters is so sweet and natural -- so > loving. When they respect their heart thus, they respect mine too; > there really is only one heart. I do *not* see everyone as jostling > for position on the enlightenment-O-meter -- I only see resistance > and lack of resistance -- to themselves, to "me." > > >It isn't easy for guys to > > drop all the affections of our primate politics. But it is > sometimes > > an option when chosen. Are you willing to actually see me as an > > equal? Completely equal? Not in some cosmic perspective way that > you > > unequally comprehend, but brother to brother? > > As I said when I first met you here, I am completely willing to > be "unenlightened" with you in your world, if you are willing to > be "enlightened" with me in mine -- will that do? Can we be > both "ordinary" and "special" simultaneously together? I will if you > will. Actually, I will even if you won't ... and I don't mean that as > a put-down, just telling you who I am, while respecting your freedom > of choice to be who you want :-) > > *L*L*L* >
