--- In [email protected], "Rory Goff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > ><snip> > > The music was acoustic and eclectic, ranging from blues to > > ragtime to Celtic. The instrumentation was equally eclectic; > > we're talkin' guitars, banjos, accordions, Uillean pipes, > > pennywhistles, mandolins, and fiddles. The crowd ranged in > > age from mine and The Artist's age (basically older than > > dirt) to young people in their twenties, tattooed and > > artistic friends of The Artist's daughter. > > > > And the food was great and the wine was great and the music > > was great and we all had a great time and no one there was > > in the least bit special. > > > > And I guess I'm writing this because I really think that the > > reason we all *had* such a good time is that no one there was > > special. <snip> > > It appears you are using "special" in a different sense than I have > been. Those guys *all* sound special to me, but then I think it's > pretty obvious everybody and everything is special if you give them > half a chance. And by the same token, everybody and everything is > also utterly ordinary. The kind of "special" Mr. Crumb appears to > be, to certain fans, I wouldn't wish on anyone -- but of course, > that too is perfect :-)
Well said. As Curtis has said, whether you see everyone around you as "special" or as "ordinary," the magic seems to be in seeing them equally -- no "better" or "worse" or "higher" or "lower" than yourself. The people I've known in my life who manage to live this on a daily basis also happen to be the happiest people I've known in my life. Whereas those who focus on the differences, on their group being "better" than other groups, or their stories being "better" than other stories, often seem to be the least happy. That's sorta what I was trying to get at last night in my after-midnight ramblings. The stalker's obsession with Robert was *out of balance* with respect to life and living, and it had thrown *him* out of balance. In my associative mind I linked his "pilgrimage" to see Robert to (IMO) overly bhaktified pilgrimages to see spiritual teachers, and to writings such as the bio of Shankara mentioned here recently. Surely in your time in the TMO and/or in other spiritual trips you've seen this "out of balance" phenomenon a few times. I know I sure have. Some seeker getting so obsessed with the teacher and the love and adoration that they feel for the teacher that they start losing their connection with anything resembling the "real world." The love and adoration may be *real* -- that's not the point -- and they may actually serve to inspire the seeker who gets carried away behind them, but are such emotions beneficial in the long run? I really don't know. I'm just pondering the subject by writing about it, hoping something will leap off the page at me and make it all make some kind of sense. So far it hasn't, but I guess that's perfect, too. :-)
