--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <jflanegi@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <no_reply@> > > wrote: > > > Can you imagine that you are only imagining that you are > > > enlightened if that abstract anthropomorphic "Nature" imagines > > > that you imagine that you are enlightened -- but also imagines > > > that actually you are not? > > > > > > For all of you imaginations, or natures imaginations, and your > > > thought of enlightenment, > > > > > > Is it true? > > > > > > Can you absolutely know that it's true? > > > > > > How do you react when you think that thought? > > > > > > Who would you be without the thought? > > > > > > Can you turn it around? > > > > > > (Each turnaround is an opportunity to experience the opposite > > > of your original statement and see what you are without your > > > (original) thought) > > > > > > Or is (or do you imagine) Byron Katie is only for those > > > "ignirant" souls who are not as enlightened as you? > > > > I don't know where to start with your plethora of rhetorical > > questions. I am perfectly comfortable to let you answer every > > one of them by yourself.:-) > > He can correct me if I'm wrong,
Oh, there are SO many things I would correct you on. :) (joke) > but I think that > what new.morning was getting at is whether you or > anyone who considers themselves enlightened are > willing to "do the work" on your assumption that > you're enlightened. Yes. And other assumptions -- though I doubt they would consider them assumptions. Though, I suppose, any one with firm beliefs, particularly those based on personal experience -- do not think that their conclusion about the experience is a "mere assumption". Ron, I doubt, considers his beleifs about his new path and teacher are "assumptions" They are "like totally true". I started to explore the issue, in my own meandering, perhaps pesky, way, because various statements across several of Jim's posts did not add up. Which is probably my short coming. Still, an actually because of thet, I started looking at the issue from different angles.To see where my misunderstanding might be. And to gain a broader "breakthough" / fusion understanding of the issue areas laid out in my questions. It was not a "gotcha ya" set of questions. I have an iquisitve mind. I am curious (in many senses of the term.) And I am happy to set the foundation of my perspective and views. "Jim is enlightened" alternatively, Jim is not "enlightened". Is it true? "I don't know. For either question. Can you absolutely know that it's true? "Nope. for both question" How do you react when you think that thought? "About the same when I don't think that thought. Who would you be without the thought? "Just the same, with out either thought" Can you turn it around? (I am not so good at turn arounds, but I will give it a try. "I already have sort of flipped it by addressing both sides of the question. But another part of turn arounds, which I like, is to uncover any subconscious projection reflected in the belief worked on above. Lets see. 'Jim thinks I am enlightened' and/or 'Jim thinks I am not enlightened' -- do either of Jim's beliefs effect me, or change who I am? No." > > So far, the answer is no. You don't seem to be > *able* to challenge that assumption, or question > it in any way. It's a given, a "story" that you > believe so thoroughly that you refuse to question > it even theoretically. > I get the feeling that what new.morning is suggesting > is that there is a bit of cognitive dissonance when > some who promote Byron Katie's techniques for anal- > yzing one's "stories" (although I don't remember you > having done that, Jim) refuse to analyze their own > story of enlightenment, or even *consider the possi- > bility* that it might not be true. Yes, that is one of several things that don't add up, in my perhaps limited view. And I don't buy the argument that its a matter of my not accepting paradoxes. I accept various spiritual and metaphysical paradoxes. Such paradoxes do not in any way imply that all spiritual paradoxes are valid. And it certainly does not imply that all, or even any, mundane paradoxes are valid. Except in riddles of course. "What is black and white and red all over?" > Did I get that right, new? You are deeply perceptive and have remarkably clear cognitive functions. :) > You're enlightened, and you refuse to even *think* > that you might not be. Did I get that right, Jim?
