On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 10:07 AM, Andre Broersen <[email protected]>wrote:
> Hi Marsha and John, > > Krishnamurti felt that truth is a 'pathless land' and when asked who he (K) > was, he said: 'nobody'. I think this is significant. Ok Andre, I got so many problems with that I don't even wanna start. Yet. Let me just jump straight to the most important part: All the sages of the world, when pressed, have denied their own 'I'. > > I found it interesting to see on this discuss,that when I introduced the > 'I' as a non-existent concept, some started to have difficulty with this > and, once again, using all sorts of SOM logic to justify the existence of > 'themselves' . Curious isn't it? > I'm not sure what you are associating with SOM logic, but I do remember somewhat strikingly, addressing your denying your I. So maybe I'll try again. Taking on all the sages of the world, as well, I see. Denying the I as in primary reality? I deny that as well. Sorry Ham, I don't believe the world arises out of my own consciousness. But denying the I as a real entity that sits here and types at you? No can do buddy. It's a good thing, this I. It talks, it walks, it thinks and it is. You can't take it from me. You CAN take it from yourself but the question then I ask now as I ask then, why? Here, a quote to help explain in better words than a nine-fingered woodcutter: "It cannot be stressed too strongly that liberation does not involve the loss of destruction of such conventional concepts as the ego; it means seeing through them--in the same way that we can use the idea of the equator without confusing it with a physical mark on the face of the earth." But just because something is "only in your head" does that mean it doesn't exist? Don't be silly. The law of gravity is only in your head, but it meets all the criteria for existence that matter. Just ask Mr. Robert Pirsig in one of them books he wrote. Now you mentioned the sages being hard pressed. I can get that. Logical reductionists can really tear words and meanings down, just trying to make their "points" - to the point where the sage (who's always trying to be a nice guy and communicate to the bozos) admits, "yeah, if you got that definition of an ego, it doesn't really exist." It's a matter of syntactical grace I suppose. Ask Arlo. But you can't get along without an I, dude. They come in handier than a sharp chainsaw. Allan Watts - Psychotherapy East and West, talks about this a lot. I highly recommend. John the gone (for the weekend) -- ------------ The self is a point along a dynamic continuum, evolving toward Quality by Choice. ------------ Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
