[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[mrfishey2001]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Here's a more considered response:

 
 What is this me you talk about? Seriously, what is
 it? Not conceptually, but phenomenologically; your
 actual experience of it.
 

--

Your description stands. Say I realize Peter's version of Realization on 
Sunday, what 
changes for me on Monday? 

To my mind what made MMY's dialogues unique was the unlimited application of 
the state 
of enlightenment. That knowing, experiencing, becoming, realizing, stabilizing… 
pure 
consciousness was not necessarily a goal, but a step. By some accounts, an 
initial step - 
the first step in acquiring true knowledge. That without measurable affect, 
enlightenment 
continues as a linguistic battle of endless speculation. To frame his dialogues 
as scientific, 
presupposes application. The move from hermetic to public demands the 
enlargement of 
subjectivity such that becomes by definition influential. 

My initial inquiry for Mr. Sandiego was to understand what his experience was. 
Not 
necessarily his descriptive efforts, but what his life had become as an 
enlightened being. 
Had he realized a different version than the one circulated by MMY, one where 
measurable 
results are deemed unnecessary? 

---

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[Peter]

Nice post Mrfishey!

--- mrfishey2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  Here's a more considered response:
 
  
  What is this me you talk about? Seriously, what
 is
  it? Not conceptually, but phenomenologically; your
  actual experience of it.
  
 
 --
 
 Your description stands. Say I realize Peter's
 version of Realization on Sunday, what 
 changes for me on Monday? 
 
 To my mind what made MMY's dialogues unique was the
 unlimited application of the state 
 of enlightenment. That knowing, experiencing,
 becoming, realizing, stabilizing… pure 
 consciousness was not necessarily a goal, but a
 step. By some accounts, an initial step - 
 the first step in acquiring true knowledge. That
 without measurable affect, enlightenment 
 continues as a linguistic battle of endless
 speculation. To frame his dialogues as scientific, 
 presupposes application. The move from hermetic to
 public demands the enlargement of 
 subjectivity such that becomes by definition
 influential. 
 
 My initial inquiry for Mr. Sandiego was to
 understand what his experience was. Not 
 necessarily his descriptive efforts, but what his
 life had become as an enlightened being. 
 Had he realized a different version than the one
 circulated by MMY, one where measurable 
 results are deemed unnecessary? 
 
 ---
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 To subscribe, send a message to:
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
 Or go to: 
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
 and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
 
 
 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
 
 



  

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 sandiego108@
 wrote:
 
  My perception is such that there are no beliefs existing 
  independently in my mind purely for the sake of believing them, 

Beautiful ! This is freedom.
May all of us experience this sooner rather than later. :-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
 And that's over and out for me this week. 

Thank you very much ! :-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[ruthsimplicity]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

snip

 They would say, I, as a psychological, subjective
 entity, no longer exist, yet everything occurs as it
 did before. I used to think that there was a me that
 had intention and this is what created all of my
 thought, emotions and behavior. But now it is clear
 that there is only pure consciousness. To say that 'I
 am pure consciousness' would be incorrect because this
 would imply that there is a separate 'I' that knows it
 is pure consciousness. Only this consciousness can
 recognize its own consciousness. It is now clear that
 there actually never was a me. This me was simply
 an artifact of pure consciousness collapsing into and
 identifying with the limited nature of the mind.


I guess I understand your words, but do not know that I believe in
pure consciousness.  But your experience is interesting to me as is
Jim's experience.

So I am relatively new here, so I didn't know about your enlightenment.
I am going to try to expand my understanding through a different route
than asking about enlightenment.  Instead, can you tell me about your
everyday relative life?  Do you have personal goals?   Why do you drum? 
Do you cry?  What kind of house do you live in?   Do you dream at night?
When sitting around doing nothing, what do you think about?  Do you
exercise? You don't need to answer these specific questions, but can you
tell me at least a bit about your life in the relative world and whether
and how it has changed since enlightenment?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[Richard J. Williams]

TurquoiseB wrote:
 I speak out of direct experience.
 
Lenz has claimed to be one of only 
twelve truly enlightened people on 
Earth. The enlightened twelve also, 
he claimed, included his dog Vayu.

Source:

Frederick Lenz:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Lenz

Titles of interest:

'Take Me For a Ride'
Coming Of Age In A Destructive Cult
by Mark E. Laxer
Outer Rim Press, 1993 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[Richard J. Williams]

yifuxero wrote:
 But, nothing - I how can we even evaluate 
 such claims of E when the little they 
 say doesn't even match the criteria given 
 by MMY.

According to Marshy, enlightenment consists 
of a state of consciousness in which the 
Absolute, which is Pure Consciousness, is 
not overshadowed by things, events, or 
phenomena. 

Then the Absolute stands by itself as the 
Self, which is non-different from the 
Absolute. This description of enlightenment 
agrees with the description in Gaudapada's 
'Alantasanti'.

According to Marshy, the Purusha or the 
'Transcendental Person', is totally separate 
from the prakriti. Marshy Patanjali agrees 
with this by stating in his 'Yoga Sutras' 
that Yoga is the isolation of the Purusha 
from the prakriti.

 The One doesn't eradicate the many, 
 which is contained within and as It. 

 But the real question is how much 
 significance one gives to things 
 relative. 

 Neo-Advaitins don't even recognize the 
 existence of relative things; so I would 
 assume that if a thief is threatening 
 to enter a neighbor's house, no point 
 in calling the police since the people 
 aren't real.

 In any event, all such Neo-Advaita-speak 
 statements come from one place: MIND.

 Besides, Byron Katie isn't Enlightened; 
 though she may be Awakened (a term used 
 especially in the tradition of HWL Poonja, 
 a disciple of Ramana Maharshi). 

 So what this Awakening is awake to, I 
 believe it's some type of non-dual 
 realization of Presence but far short of 
 Enlightenment.

 If some of the Awakened people would give
 a brief description of the signs I've 
 been sqawking about recently (subtle Light 
 and Sound); in terms of the progression 
 from CC to GC to UC; I would at least 
 welcome and listen to what they have to 
 say.  
  
  S. Vidyasankar:
  http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp/ad_faq.html
  
  Ajativada or the doctrine of no-origination, 
  is the fundamental doctrine of Gaudapaada. 
  From the absolute standpoint origination is 
  an impossibility. 
  
  Gaudapada:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaudapada
  
  Titles of interest:
  
  'Dispelling Illusion'
  Gaudapada's Alatasanti
  by Douglas A. Fox
  State University of New York Press, 1993

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[Peter]

--- Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 yifuxero wrote:
  But, nothing - I how can we even evaluate 
  such claims of E when the little they 
  say doesn't even match the criteria given 
  by MMY.
 
 According to Marshy, enlightenment consists 
 of a state of consciousness in which the 
 Absolute, which is Pure Consciousness, is 
 not overshadowed by things, events, or 
 phenomena. 
 
 Then the Absolute stands by itself as the 
 Self, which is non-different from the 
 Absolute. This description of enlightenment 
 agrees with the description in Gaudapada's 
 'Alantasanti'.
 
 According to Marshy, the Purusha or the 
 'Transcendental Person', is totally separate 
 from the prakriti. Marshy Patanjali agrees 
 with this by stating in his 'Yoga Sutras' 
 that Yoga is the isolation of the Purusha 
 from the prakriti.

Exactly. Maharishi gives a profoundly succinct 
definition of Realization. The only distinction I'd
make would be in pure conscious as being the self.
There is nothing remotely resembling the waking state
self in Realization. I think Maharishi did this to
avoid the conceptual difficulty and time wasting
discussions trying to understand this within waking
state.  







  

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[Hugo]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 yifuxero wrote: 
This is not in agreement with the latest 
theories in physics. 
   
   Maybe so, but the subject of this thread
   is Byron Katies 'Awakening' - that's a
   metaphysical discussion, not a physics
   theory.
  
 Hugo wrote: 
  Poor dodge RJ, anything idea that helps an
  argument is valid here.
 
 Maybe so, but there is nothing in the science
 of physics that can prove that Byron Katie had 
 an 'awakening' - the tern 'awakening' hasn't 
 even been defined. Awakening in this context
 is a metaphysical term and so it must be
 argued in terms of metaphysics - there's no
 such property as 'awakening' in the physical
 sciences to even relate to.

The term awakening is a description or title of
a particular experience, or set of experiences.
Science is still trying to work out how the brain
creates the illusion of consciousness so we can 
forgive them if they don't have a label for everything,
but they do know that every subjective experience 
has a correlate in the brain therefore awakenings
will have there own signature in brain chemistry and
may one day be understood.

 
  Of course if a tree falls over it makes a 
  noise.
 
 It's not a 'noise' if there is nothing to perceive 
 it, that's the point. There must be knowing
 subject because all experience is subjective.
 No objects exist apart from the subject doing
 the experiencing.
 
  The point is whether different animals will 
  hear a different noise, because the sound, 
  along with all perception is constructed in 
  our minds. 
 
 Maybe so, but it has not been established that
 there is a 'mind' to do the perceiving - that's
 the point. What is 'mind'? A bundle of perceptions,
 an individual soul-monad, the body, what? 'Mind'
 isn't part of the physical sciences either.

It is part of it, measurably so, and so far the only 
thing we know about mind is that the Cartesian theatre
we all perceive, that is the idea that there is an us
located in the middle of our heads looking out at the
world, is an illusion. There is no central processing
unit that every other part of the brain refers back to.

Which is an interesting puzzle, makes me wonder what
enlightenment might actually be if the person experiencing
it isn't what he thought he was to start with. Interesting
times ahead because science has only really started to
grapple how consciousness is formed in the brain.
 
 But there is a 'constructed character of knowing'.
 
 This means that due to previous perceptions we
 simply remember things and events - we do not
 perceive things and events as they really are -
 things and events are changed by the perception
 of them.
 
  Different brains/different perceptions. To see 
  or hear something without a physical reference 
  is a hallucination. 
 
 Maybe so, but a hallucination is real in the sense
 that it is presented to us. On the other hand,
 an unreal object would not exist at all. That's
 why the Adwaita thinkers always say that objects
 of perception are not real, yet they are not 
 'unreal' either.
 
  Peer into a brain scanner and see the process 
  of perception at work, it's an amazing thing. 
  You can also create hallucinations by stimulating 
  different areas.
 
 Maybe so, but there's no proof that the brain is
 percieving a real object. There are no double-blind
 scientific studies that prove the existence of
 a corresponding physiological state called
 'awakening'. 'Awakening', 'enlightenment' - these 
 are all metaphysical terms and not subject to 
 physical sciences.

See above. 
 
  Kant wouldn't have known about that. Science 
  is going through a materialist phase for a very
  good reason. It's moved on since Kant and those
  other dead guys. I always felt kind of sorry for 
  people who can't tell whether they are dreaming
  or not. 
  
 There's no way for sure that you can tell if
 you are dreaming or not. There's nothing in the
 waking state that could not be in a dream state.
  
The universe itself is the sentient
being.

   You are assumng that there is a universe
   'out there' - but you could be dreaming.
   In dreams we see universes out there; in
   dreams we can run and jump and consult 
   our friends. 
  
  Are you on your solipsist trip again RJ?
 
 Well, yes.
 
 The philosophical idea that 'My mind is the only 
 thing that I know exists.' Solipsism is an 
 epistemological or metaphysical position that 
 knowledge of anything outside the mind is 
 unjustified. The external world and other minds 
 cannot be known and might not exist.
 
 Source:
 
 Solipsism:
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism
 
  This is a lame argument, in my dreams I can
  travel through time, wrestle dinosaurs,
  jump to the moon, hell I can do anything.
 
 That proves my point: in dreams you can do
 anything that you can do in the waking state.

?
 
  Yet I notice a certain tedious consistency 
  in the everyday 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[yifuxero]

--Sounds fine to me, I'm a Marshy/TM TB.  Then why are you 
continually sliding into a Communistic form of Advaita-speak?...by 
saying things which point to a nihilistic viewpoint held by the 
pseudo-Advaitins?

Your following words show that we are in agreement: not overshadowed 
by things, events, or
phenomena
...showing that you at least acknowledge that things, events, and 
phenomena truly exist.  OK - fine, if you want to say such things 
are illusory dream-like in their character, great; but that doesn't 
annihiliate them altogether.
So stop going around implying that there's no people, no karma, no 
things; when Marshy clearly says otherwise.
Last but not least, I see no evidence that Enlightenment eradicates 
suffering DURING one's physical lifetime.  Let's assume MMY was/is 
Enlightened for the sake of discussion.  Was he free of suffering?  I 
doubt it seriously.
Don't slice up what constitutes a person into an interior and 
exterior, a Self and a not-self, a mind vs body. It's a package deal 
and we get the whole ball of wax.  Don't say I'm not talking about 
physical suffering.  Nonsense.  Body can't be separated from mind. 


- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 yifuxero wrote:
  But, nothing - I how can we even evaluate 
  such claims of E when the little they 
  say doesn't even match the criteria given 
  by MMY.
 
 According to Marshy, enlightenment consists 
 of a state of consciousness in which the 
 Absolute, which is Pure Consciousness, is 
 not overshadowed by things, events, or 
 phenomena. 
 
 Then the Absolute stands by itself as the 
 Self, which is non-different from the 
 Absolute. This description of enlightenment 
 agrees with the description in Gaudapada's 
 'Alantasanti'.
 
 According to Marshy, the Purusha or the 
 'Transcendental Person', is totally separate 
 from the prakriti. Marshy Patanjali agrees 
 with this by stating in his 'Yoga Sutras' 
 that Yoga is the isolation of the Purusha 
 from the prakriti.
 
  The One doesn't eradicate the many, 
  which is contained within and as It. 
 
  But the real question is how much 
  significance one gives to things 
  relative. 
 
  Neo-Advaitins don't even recognize the 
  existence of relative things; so I would 
  assume that if a thief is threatening 
  to enter a neighbor's house, no point 
  in calling the police since the people 
  aren't real.
 
  In any event, all such Neo-Advaita-speak 
  statements come from one place: MIND.
 
  Besides, Byron Katie isn't Enlightened; 
  though she may be Awakened (a term used 
  especially in the tradition of HWL Poonja, 
  a disciple of Ramana Maharshi). 
 
  So what this Awakening is awake to, I 
  believe it's some type of non-dual 
  realization of Presence but far short of 
  Enlightenment.
 
  If some of the Awakened people would give
  a brief description of the signs I've 
  been sqawking about recently (subtle Light 
  and Sound); in terms of the progression 
  from CC to GC to UC; I would at least 
  welcome and listen to what they have to 
  say.  
   
   S. Vidyasankar:
   http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp/ad_faq.html
   
   Ajativada or the doctrine of no-origination, 
   is the fundamental doctrine of Gaudapaada. 
   From the absolute standpoint origination is 
   an impossibility. 
   
   Gaudapada:
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaudapada
   
   Titles of interest:
   
   'Dispelling Illusion'
   Gaudapada's Alatasanti
   by Douglas A. Fox
   State University of New York Press, 1993

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[ruthsimplicity]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams 
 
 You could pick up the latest Dean Koontz novel that 
 you have not yet read and read it in a dream. There's 
 nothing in the waking state that could not be in a 
 dream state. 

Doesn't anyone ever admit that they are wrong around here? ;)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams 
  
  You could pick up the latest Dean Koontz novel that 
  you have not yet read and read it in a dream. There's 
  nothing in the waking state that could not be in a 
  dream state. 
 
 Doesn't anyone ever admit that they are wrong around here? ;)

That is the best condensed phrase of the biggest stumbling block to
real communication here that I have read Ruth.  That nails it!

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[ruthsimplicity]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, yifuxero [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


 Your following words show that we are in agreement: not overshadowed 
 by things, events, or
 phenomena
 ...showing that you at least acknowledge that things, events, and 
 phenomena truly exist.  OK - fine, if you want to say such things 
 are illusory dream-like in their character, great; but that doesn't 
 annihiliate them altogether.
 So stop going around implying that there's no people, no karma, no 
 things; when Marshy clearly says otherwise.
 Last but not least, I see no evidence that Enlightenment eradicates 
 suffering DURING one's physical lifetime.  Let's assume MMY was/is 
 Enlightened for the sake of discussion.  Was he free of suffering?  I 
 doubt it seriously.
 Don't slice up what constitutes a person into an interior and 
 exterior, a Self and a not-self, a mind vs body. It's a package deal 
 and we get the whole ball of wax.  Don't say I'm not talking about 
 physical suffering.  Nonsense.  Body can't be separated from mind. 

This is the most sensible post about TM from a TB that I have ever
read. What do the other believers think about what you are saying
here; especially about suffering. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[Richard J. Williams]

yifuxero wrote:
 ...if you want to say such things are illusory 
 dream-like in their character, great; but that 
 doesn't annihiliate them altogether.

Things and events - phenomena - are not real, yet
not unreal either. They are like an illusion in
that they are not exactly as they appear to be,
yet they are real in the sense that they are 
presented to us as illusion. So, it would not be
correct to say that phenomena are unreal; they are
simply dream-like because phenomena can't be known
or experienced without an intermediary something -
we call it consciousness. We do not experience
phenomenon directly, but through the lense of the
senses, which change the objects of perception.

It's like when you're driving down a West Texas
highway and you swerve because you see a 'wet spot'
on the road, when you know that it hasn't rained 
for over sixty days.

The wet spot is an illusion, but the illusion is
a real experience. That's different than saying 
nothing exits or that anything is annihilated.

Dreams are real becuase they are dreams. Something
that is unreal is something that never existed,
a figment of the imagination for example. But 
quite often people see with double vision simply
because they have a mote in their eye, or they
see the horns of a hare when in reality, there 
are no horns on a rabbit.

 So stop going around implying that there's no 
 people, no karma, no things; when Marshy clearly 
 says otherwise.

According to Marshy, all actions are accomplished
due to the propensity of the gunas - we do not
really act at all. 

 Last but not least, I see no evidence that 
 Enlightenment eradicates suffering DURING one's 
 physical lifetime. 

[snip]

Suffering is subjective, but the suffering that is
relieved by attaining enlightenment is 'freedom'
from the ignorance that causes us to believe that
we possess an individual soul-monad. For relief of
physical suffering you need to consult a physician.

[snip]

 Body can't be separated from mind.

There's no 'mind' to be separated from, that's just
a metaphysical term. In reality there are only the
gunas born of nature that regulate our actions. The
whole idea of transcending is to go beyond 'mind',
beyond thinking, to a state of pure conciousness. 

Gaudapaada was the first thinker to expound on 
Adwaita - he was the real thing, not a neo-Adwaitan.

For those well versed in the Vedaanta the world is 
like a city of Gaandharvas - an illusion.

Source:

'Gaudapada' 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaudapada
 
'Dispelling Illusion'
Gaudapada's Alatasanti
by Douglas A. Fox
State University of New York Press, 1993

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[Richard J. Williams]

  Maybe so, but there is nothing in the science
  of physics that can prove that Byron Katie had 
  an 'awakening' - the tern 'awakening' hasn't 
  even been defined. Awakening in this context
  is a metaphysical term and so it must be
  argued in terms of metaphysics - there's no
  such property as 'awakening' in the physical
  sciences to even relate to.
 
Hugo wrote:  
 The term awakening is a description or title of
 a particular experience, or set of experiences.
 Science is still trying to work out how the 
 brain creates the illusion of consciousness so 
 we can forgive them if they don't have a label 
 for everything, but they do know that every 
 subjective experience has a correlate in the 
 brain therefore awakenings will have there 
 own signature in brain chemistry and may one 
 day be understood.
 
Maybe so, but there are no peer-reviewed, 
double-blind scientific reports that prove that 
there is a physiological correlation to a state 
of consciousness called an 'awakening' state. 
The term 'awakening' used in the context of Byron 
Katie is a metaphysical term, not a scientific 
term.
  
  Maybe so, but it has not been established 
  that there is a 'mind' to do the perceiving 
  - that's the point. What is 'mind'? A bundle 
  of perceptions, an individual soul-monad, the 
  body, what? 'Mind' isn't part of the physical 
  sciences either.
 
 It is part of it, measurably so, and so far the 
 only thing we know about mind is that the 
 Cartesian theatre we all perceive, that is the 
 idea that there is an us located in the middle 
 of our heads looking out at the world, is an 
 illusion. There is no central processing unit 
 that every other part of the brain refers back 
 to.
 
Maybe so, but I was saying there's no proof that
we possess an individual soul-monad that 
reincarnates over time. You can call the soul-monad 
a 'soul' or a 'monad' or a 'mind' if you want to, 
but that doesn't prove that there is such a thing
in reality.

 Which is an interesting puzzle, makes me wonder 
 what enlightenment might actually be if the 
 person experiencing it isn't what he thought he 
 was to start with. Interesting times ahead 
 because science has only really started to 
 grapple how consciousness is formed in the brain.
  
  Your perception of all these objects is 
  depending on your previous experiences. You do 
  not actually perceive your bike or your dog
  exactly 'as it is' - there's always a something
  in-between your perception and the objects you
  perceive. That something is consciousness -
  without that, there's no perceiver at all.
 
 Obviously, but the point is if my dog was suddenly
 twenty foot tall I would know I was dreaming, 
 this is the inconsistency that would give it away. 

How would you know? 

In a dream if your dog was suddenly twenty feet 
tall you would probably consult your friends. In 
the waking state if your dog was suddenly twenty 
feet tall you would probably consult your friends.

Lots of things occur in the waking state that don't
make any sense - for example, you could be having
a problem with your eye sight. A stick in the water
might appear bent, but when you take the stick out
of the water it is straight.

What happened?

It was an error, but if the senses are to give us
accurate knowledge, there should be no errors -
errors are something than should not be.

While you are in the dream, it is a 'real' dream, 
as real as any waking experience. But you have not 
offered any proof that you are not now in a dream.

Until you 'awaken' you won't know that you were not
only dreaming when you were asleep, but you will
not know that you were dreaming when you were 
awake.

That's the whole point - to 'awaken', not from a 
sleep dream, but to awaken from the dream you're in 
while awake - that's why they call it an 'awakening' 
in the enlightenment tradition.

Otherwise, it wouldn't make any sense to say that 
you have 'awakened' from being already in the waking
state when everyone can obviously see that you are 
awake from sleeping. The term has meaning only for 
those who are following the path of yogic enstasis 
- to a scientist you might sound like a loon.

There could be an elephant hiding in your room 
according to Ludwig Witgenstein, and you could never
disprove it using language. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein
 
 But then many experiments have been conducted to 
 show how previous experience can't be trusted as 
 the mind papers over any cracks to give you a 
 steady picture, we just think we know what's 
 going on around us. But the cracks only appear 
 because the brain can't process everything that 
 comes in. Comes IN. FROM the senses.
 
 Did you read this:
 
 http://www.freivald.org/~jake/deutschOnSolipsism.html
 
 I think it's the best argument about solipsism. 
 The idea that my mind has two components, one to 
 create the world and the other to experience it...
 
Maybe so, but like I said there's no 'creation' - all 
phenomena 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[Richard J. Williams]

Ruth wrote:
  Doesn't anyone ever admit that they 
  are wrong around here? ;)
 
Curtis wrote:
 That is the best condensed phrase of 
 the biggest stumbling block to real 
 communication here that I have read 
 Ruth.  That nails it!
 
If you two are not going to engage and 
have nothing more to add to the dialog, 
why not just keep your pie holes shut? ;)

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[Peter]

--- yifuxero [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --Sounds fine to me, I'm a Marshy/TM TB.  Then why
 are you 
 continually sliding into a Communistic form of
 Advaita-speak?...by 
 saying things which point to a nihilistic viewpoint
 held by the 
 pseudo-Advaitins?
 
 Your following words show that we are in agreement:
 not overshadowed 
 by things, events, or
 phenomena
 ...showing that you at least acknowledge that
 things, events, and 
 phenomena truly exist.  OK - fine, if you want to
 say such things 
 are illusory dream-like in their character, great;
 but that doesn't 
 annihiliate them altogether.
 So stop going around implying that there's no
 people, no karma, no 
 things; when Marshy clearly says otherwise.
 Last but not least, I see no evidence that
 Enlightenment eradicates 
 suffering DURING one's physical lifetime.  Let's
 assume MMY was/is 
 Enlightened for the sake of discussion.  Was he free
 of suffering?  I 
 doubt it seriously.
 Don't slice up what constitutes a person into an
 interior and 
 exterior, a Self and a not-self, a mind vs body.
 It's a package deal 
 and we get the whole ball of wax.  Don't say I'm
 not talking about 
 physical suffering.  Nonsense.  Body can't be
 separated from mind.

Right, the body can not be separated from the mind.
And it is the body/mind that suffers. In avidya
consciousness is identified with the body/mind and
creates a me that suffers and enjoys. Realization is
the initial recognition that consciousness is not
limited to and quite separate from the body/mind. And
what was formerly a sense of me or I is nowhere to
be found. There is only consciousness and subjective
and objective objects of experience moving through and
reacting to one another in consciousness. That I or
me is no longer bound as a psychological self it is
just pure awareness outside of space and time. You are
not aware of pure consciousness nor are you (in the
waking state sense) pure consciousness, there is just
pure consciousness. The I is no longer limited as a
subjective sense of me- it has opened into its
swar-rupa, true form, as unbound. 





 
 
 
 - In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J.
 Williams 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  yifuxero wrote:
   But, nothing - I how can we even evaluate 
   such claims of E when the little they 
   say doesn't even match the criteria given 
   by MMY.
  
  According to Marshy, enlightenment consists 
  of a state of consciousness in which the 
  Absolute, which is Pure Consciousness, is 
  not overshadowed by things, events, or 
  phenomena. 
  
  Then the Absolute stands by itself as the 
  Self, which is non-different from the 
  Absolute. This description of enlightenment 
  agrees with the description in Gaudapada's 
  'Alantasanti'.
  
  According to Marshy, the Purusha or the 
  'Transcendental Person', is totally separate 
  from the prakriti. Marshy Patanjali agrees 
  with this by stating in his 'Yoga Sutras' 
  that Yoga is the isolation of the Purusha 
  from the prakriti.
  
   The One doesn't eradicate the many, 
   which is contained within and as It. 
  
   But the real question is how much 
   significance one gives to things 
   relative. 
  
   Neo-Advaitins don't even recognize the 
   existence of relative things; so I would 
   assume that if a thief is threatening 
   to enter a neighbor's house, no point 
   in calling the police since the people 
   aren't real.
  
   In any event, all such Neo-Advaita-speak 
   statements come from one place: MIND.
  
   Besides, Byron Katie isn't Enlightened; 
   though she may be Awakened (a term used 
   especially in the tradition of HWL Poonja, 
   a disciple of Ramana Maharshi). 
  
   So what this Awakening is awake to, I 
   believe it's some type of non-dual 
   realization of Presence but far short of 
   Enlightenment.
  
   If some of the Awakened people would give
   a brief description of the signs I've 
   been sqawking about recently (subtle Light 
   and Sound); in terms of the progression 
   from CC to GC to UC; I would at least 
   welcome and listen to what they have to 
   say.  

S. Vidyasankar:
   
 http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp/ad_faq.html

Ajativada or the doctrine of no-origination, 
is the fundamental doctrine of Gaudapaada. 
From the absolute standpoint origination is 
an impossibility. 

Gaudapada:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaudapada

Titles of interest:

'Dispelling Illusion'
Gaudapada's Alatasanti
by Douglas A. Fox
State University of New York Press, 1993
 
 
 
 
 
 
 To subscribe, send a message to:
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
 Or go to: 
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
 and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
 
 
 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
 
 



  

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[yifuxero]

--Nopewrong.  There's a new me - the social me;, the dream-like 
me, the illusory me; whatever you and the other Neo-Advaitins want to 
call it that you claim doesn't exist.  
 It (the me) still exists but is an inseparable part and parcel of 
non-dual Reality.
To use an analogy: say there's a world in which everything is somehow 
made of clay (not really possible but let's stretch our 
imaginations).  Eventually, people start to wake up to the fact that 
they are made of clay.  Do they then go around saying Oh, yes, the 
former me that I thought was made of metal, paint, 
string,...etc...and other seemingly separate components was non-
existent...now there's no longer a me?
 Some do. After assimilating their grokking of the New Reality; some 
idiots continue going around saying Nope - we don't really exist; 
but the others (apparently a minority on this forum) - see the truth: 
They were persons before and after the Awakening; but the after is 
simply individuality within the context of clayness.
 Sutphen, 108, Willytex...etc are individuals. End of story. That 
applies, to Gangaji, Eckhart Tolle, Ramesh Balsekar, Byron Katie, 
Wayne Liquorman; and the whole horde of non-sensical, delusional Neo-
Advaitins who are still befuddled about what vanished, and what 
remains.


- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 
 --- yifuxero [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  --Sounds fine to me, I'm a Marshy/TM TB.  Then why
  are you 
  continually sliding into a Communistic form of
  Advaita-speak?...by 
  saying things which point to a nihilistic viewpoint
  held by the 
  pseudo-Advaitins?
  
  Your following words show that we are in agreement:
  not overshadowed 
  by things, events, or
  phenomena
  ...showing that you at least acknowledge that
  things, events, and 
  phenomena truly exist.  OK - fine, if you want to
  say such things 
  are illusory dream-like in their character, great;
  but that doesn't 
  annihiliate them altogether.
  So stop going around implying that there's no
  people, no karma, no 
  things; when Marshy clearly says otherwise.
  Last but not least, I see no evidence that
  Enlightenment eradicates 
  suffering DURING one's physical lifetime.  Let's
  assume MMY was/is 
  Enlightened for the sake of discussion.  Was he free
  of suffering?  I 
  doubt it seriously.
  Don't slice up what constitutes a person into an
  interior and 
  exterior, a Self and a not-self, a mind vs body.
  It's a package deal 
  and we get the whole ball of wax.  Don't say I'm
  not talking about 
  physical suffering.  Nonsense.  Body can't be
  separated from mind.
 
 Right, the body can not be separated from the mind.
 And it is the body/mind that suffers. In avidya
 consciousness is identified with the body/mind and
 creates a me that suffers and enjoys. Realization is
 the initial recognition that consciousness is not
 limited to and quite separate from the body/mind. And
 what was formerly a sense of me or I is nowhere to
 be found. There is only consciousness and subjective
 and objective objects of experience moving through and
 reacting to one another in consciousness. That I or
 me is no longer bound as a psychological self it is
 just pure awareness outside of space and time. You are
 not aware of pure consciousness nor are you (in the
 waking state sense) pure consciousness, there is just
 pure consciousness. The I is no longer limited as a
 subjective sense of me- it has opened into its
 swar-rupa, true form, as unbound. 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  - In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J.
  Williams 
  willytex@ wrote:
  
   yifuxero wrote:
But, nothing - I how can we even evaluate 
such claims of E when the little they 
say doesn't even match the criteria given 
by MMY.
   
   According to Marshy, enlightenment consists 
   of a state of consciousness in which the 
   Absolute, which is Pure Consciousness, is 
   not overshadowed by things, events, or 
   phenomena. 
   
   Then the Absolute stands by itself as the 
   Self, which is non-different from the 
   Absolute. This description of enlightenment 
   agrees with the description in Gaudapada's 
   'Alantasanti'.
   
   According to Marshy, the Purusha or the 
   'Transcendental Person', is totally separate 
   from the prakriti. Marshy Patanjali agrees 
   with this by stating in his 'Yoga Sutras' 
   that Yoga is the isolation of the Purusha 
   from the prakriti.
   
The One doesn't eradicate the many, 
which is contained within and as It. 
   
But the real question is how much 
significance one gives to things 
relative. 
   
Neo-Advaitins don't even recognize the 
existence of relative things; so I would 
assume that if a thief is threatening 
to enter a neighbor's house, no point 
in calling the police since the people 
aren't real.
   
In any event, all such Neo-Advaita-speak 
statements come from one place: MIND.
   
Besides, Byron 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[Peter]

This pretty funny. If you spoke out of direct
experience this would be an interesting conversation.
But your complete denial of anyone's experience other
than those that fit your CONCEPT
--- yifuxero [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --Nopewrong.  There's a new me - the social
 me;, the dream-like 
 me, the illusory me; whatever you and the other
 Neo-Advaitins want to 
 call it that you claim doesn't exist.  
  It (the me) still exists but is an inseparable part
 and parcel of 
 non-dual Reality.
 To use an analogy: say there's a world in which
 everything is somehow 
 made of clay (not really possible but let's stretch
 our 
 imaginations).  Eventually, people start to wake up
 to the fact that 
 they are made of clay.  Do they then go around
 saying Oh, yes, the 
 former me that I thought was made of metal, paint,
 
 string,...etc...and other seemingly separate
 components was non-
 existent...now there's no longer a me?
  Some do. After assimilating their grokking of the
 New Reality; some 
 idiots continue going around saying Nope - we don't
 really exist; 
 but the others (apparently a minority on this forum)
 - see the truth: 
 They were persons before and after the Awakening;
 but the after is 
 simply individuality within the context of
 clayness.
  Sutphen, 108, Willytex...etc are individuals. End
 of story. That 
 applies, to Gangaji, Eckhart Tolle, Ramesh Balsekar,
 Byron Katie, 
 Wayne Liquorman; and the whole horde of
 non-sensical, delusional Neo-
 Advaitins who are still befuddled about what
 vanished, and what 
 remains.
 
 
 - In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  
  --- yifuxero [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  
   --Sounds fine to me, I'm a Marshy/TM TB.  Then
 why
   are you 
   continually sliding into a Communistic form of
   Advaita-speak?...by 
   saying things which point to a nihilistic
 viewpoint
   held by the 
   pseudo-Advaitins?
   
   Your following words show that we are in
 agreement:
   not overshadowed 
   by things, events, or
   phenomena
   ...showing that you at least acknowledge that
   things, events, and 
   phenomena truly exist.  OK - fine, if you want
 to
   say such things 
   are illusory dream-like in their character,
 great;
   but that doesn't 
   annihiliate them altogether.
   So stop going around implying that there's no
   people, no karma, no 
   things; when Marshy clearly says otherwise.
   Last but not least, I see no evidence that
   Enlightenment eradicates 
   suffering DURING one's physical lifetime.  Let's
   assume MMY was/is 
   Enlightened for the sake of discussion.  Was he
 free
   of suffering?  I 
   doubt it seriously.
   Don't slice up what constitutes a person into
 an
   interior and 
   exterior, a Self and a not-self, a mind vs body.
   It's a package deal 
   and we get the whole ball of wax.  Don't say
 I'm
   not talking about 
   physical suffering.  Nonsense.  Body can't be
   separated from mind.
  
  Right, the body can not be separated from the
 mind.
  And it is the body/mind that suffers. In avidya
  consciousness is identified with the body/mind and
  creates a me that suffers and enjoys.
 Realization is
  the initial recognition that consciousness is not
  limited to and quite separate from the body/mind.
 And
  what was formerly a sense of me or I is
 nowhere to
  be found. There is only consciousness and
 subjective
  and objective objects of experience moving through
 and
  reacting to one another in consciousness. That I
 or
  me is no longer bound as a psychological self it
 is
  just pure awareness outside of space and time. You
 are
  not aware of pure consciousness nor are you (in
 the
  waking state sense) pure consciousness, there is
 just
  pure consciousness. The I is no longer limited
 as a
  subjective sense of me- it has opened into its
  swar-rupa, true form, as unbound. 
  
  
  
  
  
   
   
   
   - In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J.
   Williams 
   willytex@ wrote:
   
yifuxero wrote:
 But, nothing - I how can we even evaluate 
 such claims of E when the little they 
 say doesn't even match the criteria given 
 by MMY.

According to Marshy, enlightenment consists 
of a state of consciousness in which the 
Absolute, which is Pure Consciousness, is 
not overshadowed by things, events, or 
phenomena. 

Then the Absolute stands by itself as the 
Self, which is non-different from the 
Absolute. This description of enlightenment 
agrees with the description in Gaudapada's 
'Alantasanti'.

According to Marshy, the Purusha or the 
'Transcendental Person', is totally separate 
from the prakriti. Marshy Patanjali agrees 
with this by stating in his 'Yoga Sutras' 
that Yoga is the isolation of the Purusha 
from the prakriti.

 The One doesn't eradicate the many, 
 which is contained within and as It. 

 But the real question is how much 
 significance one 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[Peter]

--- Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 This pretty funny. If you spoke out of direct
 experience this would be an interesting
 conversation.
 But your complete denial of anyone's experience
 other
 than those that fit your CONCEPT

Hey, this was sent accidentally before I got done!

...CONCEPT of realization makes me realize that you
are simply interested in being right, rather than an
interesting conversation. You seem to be confounding
consciousness with individuality. In avidya they are
the same, but in CC they separate, as it were, for the
first time. By the way a counter argument is not
simply saying, NOPE, you're wrong.






 --- yifuxero [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  --Nopewrong.  There's a new me - the social
  me;, the dream-like 
  me, the illusory me; whatever you and the other
  Neo-Advaitins want to 
  call it that you claim doesn't exist.  
   It (the me) still exists but is an inseparable
 part
  and parcel of 
  non-dual Reality.
  To use an analogy: say there's a world in which
  everything is somehow 
  made of clay (not really possible but let's
 stretch
  our 
  imaginations).  Eventually, people start to wake
 up
  to the fact that 
  they are made of clay.  Do they then go around
  saying Oh, yes, the 
  former me that I thought was made of metal,
 paint,
  
  string,...etc...and other seemingly separate
  components was non-
  existent...now there's no longer a me?
   Some do. After assimilating their grokking of the
  New Reality; some 
  idiots continue going around saying Nope - we
 don't
  really exist; 
  but the others (apparently a minority on this
 forum)
  - see the truth: 
  They were persons before and after the
 Awakening;
  but the after is 
  simply individuality within the context of
  clayness.
   Sutphen, 108, Willytex...etc are individuals. End
  of story. That 
  applies, to Gangaji, Eckhart Tolle, Ramesh
 Balsekar,
  Byron Katie, 
  Wayne Liquorman; and the whole horde of
  non-sensical, delusional Neo-
  Advaitins who are still befuddled about what
  vanished, and what 
  remains.
  
  
  - In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  
   
   --- yifuxero [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
   
--Sounds fine to me, I'm a Marshy/TM TB.  Then
  why
are you 
continually sliding into a Communistic form of
Advaita-speak?...by 
saying things which point to a nihilistic
  viewpoint
held by the 
pseudo-Advaitins?

Your following words show that we are in
  agreement:
not overshadowed 
by things, events, or
phenomena
...showing that you at least acknowledge that
things, events, and 
phenomena truly exist.  OK - fine, if you
 want
  to
say such things 
are illusory dream-like in their character,
  great;
but that doesn't 
annihiliate them altogether.
So stop going around implying that there's no
people, no karma, no 
things; when Marshy clearly says otherwise.
Last but not least, I see no evidence that
Enlightenment eradicates 
suffering DURING one's physical lifetime. 
 Let's
assume MMY was/is 
Enlightened for the sake of discussion.  Was
 he
  free
of suffering?  I 
doubt it seriously.
Don't slice up what constitutes a person
 into
  an
interior and 
exterior, a Self and a not-self, a mind vs
 body.
It's a package deal 
and we get the whole ball of wax.  Don't say
  I'm
not talking about 
physical suffering.  Nonsense.  Body can't be
separated from mind.
   
   Right, the body can not be separated from the
  mind.
   And it is the body/mind that suffers. In avidya
   consciousness is identified with the body/mind
 and
   creates a me that suffers and enjoys.
  Realization is
   the initial recognition that consciousness is
 not
   limited to and quite separate from the
 body/mind.
  And
   what was formerly a sense of me or I is
  nowhere to
   be found. There is only consciousness and
  subjective
   and objective objects of experience moving
 through
  and
   reacting to one another in consciousness. That
 I
  or
   me is no longer bound as a psychological self
 it
  is
   just pure awareness outside of space and time.
 You
  are
   not aware of pure consciousness nor are you
 (in
  the
   waking state sense) pure consciousness, there is
  just
   pure consciousness. The I is no longer limited
  as a
   subjective sense of me- it has opened into its
   swar-rupa, true form, as unbound. 
   
   
   
   
   



- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard
 J.
Williams 
willytex@ wrote:

 yifuxero wrote:
  But, nothing - I how can we even evaluate 
  such claims of E when the little they 
  say doesn't even match the criteria given 
  by MMY.
 
 According to Marshy, enlightenment consists 
 of a state of consciousness in which the 
 Absolute, which is Pure Consciousness, is 
 not overshadowed by things, events, or 
 phenomena. 
 
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[new . morning]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams 
  
  You could pick up the latest Dean Koontz novel that 
  you have not yet read and read it in a dream. There's 
  nothing in the waking state that could not be in a 
  dream state. 
 
 Doesn't anyone ever admit that they are wrong around here? ;)


Dream on, Ruth. :)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Ruth wrote:
   Doesn't anyone ever admit that they 
   are wrong around here? ;)
  
 Curtis wrote:
  That is the best condensed phrase of 
  the biggest stumbling block to real 
  communication here that I have read 
  Ruth.  That nails it!
  
 If you two are not going to engage and 
 have nothing more to add to the dialog,

So you miss the point that then go all troll on us.  Nice move
Richard.  You are the most flagrant offender of this principle on the
list.

Or perhaps you would like to engage and show us how you can pick up
a novel you have not read and actually read it in a dream.  You can
imagine you are reading the new book, but you would be wrong and
making up the content.  So you cannot have any experience you can have
in the waking state in a dream Richard, your statement is false and
you are incapable of admitting that.  So what do you turn to:
 
 why not just keep your pie holes shut? ;)

The cutesy emoticon doesn't counter the discussion stopping trollish
nature of this phrase that you use so often.  I don't know where I
have ever heard such a phrase in real life, perhaps on COPS when they
raid a biker bar right before the beer bottles fly. Why someone would
use such a phrase in a discussion of the philosophy of knowledge in
different states of consciousness is beyond me.  NO it isn't funny
because it is too heavy handed and nasty sounding.  I recommend trying
out a new routine Richard.  This would be an excellent time for it. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[new . morning]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_reply@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams 
   
   You could pick up the latest Dean Koontz novel that 
   you have not yet read and read it in a dream. There's 
   nothing in the waking state that could not be in a 
   dream state. 
  
  Doesn't anyone ever admit that they are wrong around here? ;)
 
 That is the best condensed phrase of the biggest stumbling block to
 real communication here that I have read Ruth.  That nails it!
 

You are wrong Curtis! Admit it! :)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[new . morning]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

 My perception is such that there are no beliefs existing 
 independently in my mind purely for the sake of believing them, of 
 holding onto them in order to create a world that makes sense to me. 
 This to me is bondage, and a static view of the world that I have 
 not the strength nor will nor interest to maintain. It is infinitely 
 more enjoyable to watch the world come into being every time I 
 experience it, and dissolve every time that I do not experience it. 
 And far more accurate in my experience.
 
 So, for example, if I go outside and it is cold, my body gets cold 
 and I come inside and say, its cold outside. Then my body warms up 
 because it is warmer inside and then I don't know any longer whether 
 it is cold outside. Why must I hold onto the belief that it is cold 
 outside, when in fact I don't really know one way of the other?
 
 If a tree falls in the forest and I come upon the fallen tree, did 
 it make a sound when it fell? Maybe it did, and maybe it didn't. To 
 lug around the belief that it definitely did is too much weight, too 
 much clutter. If someone were to then explain that yes, of course it 
 did, I might agree with them, because I have studied the propagation 
 of soundwaves and it is in my best interests that moment to keep 
 things simple and agree with them. But there is no static belief 
 that this is so. It is a situational or contextual belief, based on 
 what I am achieving in the moment. 
 
 After they leave and I am left alone with the fallen tree, that is 
 all there is. A fallen tree that is laying there in the forest. As I 
 look at the fallen tree, what is underneath it? Perhaps the ground, 
 but seeing as the tree is very heavy and I cannot lift it, perhaps 
 it rests on nothing at all. Again, I don't know, nor do I entertain 
 the safe assumption that I do know what lies beneath it, that the 
 ground extends beneath it. Again, too much trouble to hold such an 
 assumption, unless I choose to.
 
 When I leave the forest, does the tree remain? I don't know. My 
 memory of the tree will remain, for awhile, as long as I want it to 
 or need it to, to fulfill some contextual need, like a picture I 
 draw later from memory, or not.
 
 This is what I mean when I say that I create my Universe; everyone 
 creates their Universe.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[Peter]

Ruth don't you remember SCI point #173,456 in lecture
45? Others are wrong but I am not.

--- curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J.
 Williams
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  Ruth wrote:
Doesn't anyone ever admit that they 
are wrong around here? ;)
   
  Curtis wrote:
   That is the best condensed phrase of 
   the biggest stumbling block to real 
   communication here that I have read 
   Ruth.  That nails it!
   
  If you two are not going to engage and 
  have nothing more to add to the dialog,
 
 So you miss the point that then go all troll on us. 
 Nice move
 Richard.  You are the most flagrant offender of this
 principle on the
 list.
 
 Or perhaps you would like to engage and show us
 how you can pick up
 a novel you have not read and actually read it in a
 dream.  You can
 imagine you are reading the new book, but you would
 be wrong and
 making up the content.  So you cannot have any
 experience you can have
 in the waking state in a dream Richard, your
 statement is false and
 you are incapable of admitting that.  So what do you
 turn to:
  
  why not just keep your pie holes shut? ;)
 
 The cutesy emoticon doesn't counter the discussion
 stopping trollish
 nature of this phrase that you use so often.  I
 don't know where I
 have ever heard such a phrase in real life, perhaps
 on COPS when they
 raid a biker bar right before the beer bottles fly.
 Why someone would
 use such a phrase in a discussion of the philosophy
 of knowledge in
 different states of consciousness is beyond me.  NO
 it isn't funny
 because it is too heavy handed and nasty sounding. 
 I recommend trying
 out a new routine Richard.  This would be an
 excellent time for it. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 To subscribe, send a message to:
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
 Or go to: 
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
 and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
 
 
 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
 
 



  

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[new . morning]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


  According to Marshy, the Purusha or the 
  'Transcendental Person', is totally separate 
  from the prakriti. Marshy Patanjali agrees 
  with this by stating in his 'Yoga Sutras' 
  that Yoga is the isolation of the Purusha 
  from the prakriti.
 
 Exactly. Maharishi gives a profoundly succinct 
 definition of Realization. The only distinction I'd
 make would be in pure conscious as being the self.

 There is nothing remotely resembling the waking state
 self in Realization. 

I raised a similar point once -- (whether you call it realization or
just common everyday experience of most mediators -- or many sorts.)
It could just as easily be called the We. Not a good fit, but no worse
the Self. 

but Tom raised an interesting point. paraphrasing, We call it Self
because everything out there feels like ME

Different experiences. Perhaps different paths. Perhaps Different
mountains. 

And why artificially try to unite various expereinces under some
label? Someone experiences everything as ME. Another experience
everthing as SO different and not even in the same ballpark as ME.
Some say what experience?

What is the compulsion to fit a nice big red ribbon of a label around
various experiences? 

Compulsions seem to be running in the opposite direction where i am
rolling. They don't seem to be much of a human virtue (I know a
label -- but a pretty loose,non-constricting one -- subject to each
ones own interpretation.. 

 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[new . morning]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Ruth don't you remember SCI point #173,456 in lecture
 45? Others are wrong but I am not.

Maharishi NEVER said that! :)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[Richard J. Williams]

Ruth wrote:
Doesn't anyone ever admit that they are wrong 
around here? ;)
   
Curtis wrote:
   That is the best condensed phrase of the 
   biggest stumbling block to real communication 
   here that I have read Ruth. That nails it!
  
  If you two are not going to engage and 
  have nothing more to add to the dialog,
 
Curtis wrote:
 So you miss the point that then go all 
 troll on us. Nice move Richard.

There's nothing you can say that would prove 
that you are not now in a dream. 

You can do in a dream anything you can do in a 
waking state. In dreams you can run and jump and 
consult your friends, just like you can run and
jump and consult your friends in the waking 
state.

 You are the most flagrant offender of 
 this principle on the list.
 
 Or perhaps you would like to engage 
 and show us how you can pick up a novel 
 you have not read and actually read it 
 in a dream. You can imagine you are 
 reading the new book, but you would be 
 wrong and making up the content. So you 
 cannot have any experience you can have 
 in the waking state in a dream Richard, 
 your statement is false and you are 
 incapable of admitting that.  

 So what do you turn to:
  
  why not just keep your pie holes shut? ;)
 
 The cutesy emoticon doesn't counter the 
 discussion stopping trollish nature of 
 this phrase that you use so often. 

Shut yer yap! :)

 I don't know where I have ever heard such 
 a phrase in real life, perhaps on COPS 
 when they raid a biker bar right before 
 the beer bottles fly. Why someone would
 use such a phrase in a discussion of the 
 philosophy of knowledge in different 
 states of consciousness is beyond me.  
 NO it isn't funny because it is too heavy 
 handed and nasty sounding. I recommend 
 trying out a new routine Richard. This 
 would be an excellent time for it.

Ad hominem is the second to last resort of 
someone who is loosing a debate and is 
unable to respond with legitimacy. The last 
resort (most difficult for the ego) is to 
consider that he might be wrong. 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[Peter]

Here's a more considered response:

--- yifuxero [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --Nopewrong.  There's a new me - the social
 me;, the dream-like 
 me, the illusory me; whatever you and the other
 Neo-Advaitins want to 
 call it that you claim doesn't exist.  
  It (the me) still exists but is an inseparable part
 and parcel of 
 non-dual Reality.

What is this me you talk about? Seriously, what is
it? Not conceptually, but phenomenologically; your
actual experience of it.

 To use an analogy: say there's a world in which
 everything is somehow 
 made of clay (not really possible but let's stretch
 our 
 imaginations).  Eventually, people start to wake up
 to the fact that 
 they are made of clay.  Do they then go around
 saying Oh, yes, the 
 former me that I thought was made of metal, paint,
 string,...etc...and other seemingly separate
 components was non-
 existent...now there's no longer a me?

Let's run with this. The error of the above analogy is
that you are assuming that the mechanics of
Realization are the same as waking state knowing.
Here, the people realize that they are made of clay
realizing that their  previous understanding of what
they were (paint, wire, etc., was wrong). But if the
clay is the Absolute or pure consciousness in the
analogy it is clay that has no attributes: it is neti,
neti, not this, not that. It is bigger that the
biggest and smaller than the smallest. It is infinite
and unbounded by space and time. If this is so, then
it can not be an object of experience because it has
no boundaries and is thus incapable of being perceived
through the mind. If the clay was the Absolute, then
the mind, perceiving it, would experience pure,
absolute nothingness. And, in fact, when the mind
looks at pure consciousness, this is exactly what
happens. Consciousness becomes conscious of its own
consciousness. The mind does not recognize pure
consciousness because the mind can only experience
phenomena bound by space and time. Consciousness is
outside space and time.

  Some do. After assimilating their grokking of the
 New Reality;

Again, you use the term grokking with very little
examination of what this actually means and what sort
of perceptual mechanics are involved.

 some 
 idiots continue going around saying Nope - we don't
 really exist

They would say, I, as a psychological, subjective
entity, no longer exist, yet everything occurs as it
did before. I used to think that there was a me that
had intention and this is what created all of my
thought, emotions and behavior. But now it is clear
that there is only pure consciousness. To say that 'I
am pure consciousness' would be incorrect because this
would imply that there is a separate 'I' that knows it
is pure consciousness. Only this consciousness can
recognize its own consciousness. It is now clear that
there actually never was a me. This me was simply
an artifact of pure consciousness collapsing into and
identifying with the limited nature of the mind.
 
 but the others (apparently a minority on this forum)
 - see the truth: 
 They were persons before and after the Awakening;
 but the after is 
 simply individuality within the context of
 clayness.
  Sutphen, 108, Willytex...etc are individuals. End
 of story. That 
 applies, to Gangaji, Eckhart Tolle, Ramesh Balsekar,
 Byron Katie, 
 Wayne Liquorman; and the whole horde of
 non-sensical, delusional Neo-
 Advaitins who are still befuddled about what
 vanished, and what 
 remains.

Why don't you throw in Ramana Maharishi and
Nisgaradatta  and we'll all be in good company!



 
 
 - In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  
  --- yifuxero [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  
   --Sounds fine to me, I'm a Marshy/TM TB.  Then
 why
   are you 
   continually sliding into a Communistic form of
   Advaita-speak?...by 
   saying things which point to a nihilistic
 viewpoint
   held by the 
   pseudo-Advaitins?
   
   Your following words show that we are in
 agreement:
   not overshadowed 
   by things, events, or
   phenomena
   ...showing that you at least acknowledge that
   things, events, and 
   phenomena truly exist.  OK - fine, if you want
 to
   say such things 
   are illusory dream-like in their character,
 great;
   but that doesn't 
   annihiliate them altogether.
   So stop going around implying that there's no
   people, no karma, no 
   things; when Marshy clearly says otherwise.
   Last but not least, I see no evidence that
   Enlightenment eradicates 
   suffering DURING one's physical lifetime.  Let's
   assume MMY was/is 
   Enlightened for the sake of discussion.  Was he
 free
   of suffering?  I 
   doubt it seriously.
   Don't slice up what constitutes a person into
 an
   interior and 
   exterior, a Self and a not-self, a mind vs body.
   It's a package deal 
   and we get the whole ball of wax.  Don't say
 I'm
   not talking about 
   physical suffering.  Nonsense.  Body can't be
   separated from mind.
  
  Right, the body can not be separated 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[wayback71]

Peter, I always enjoy reading your posts about enlightenment, consciousness, 
the self.  
You express it all so clearly (for example writing that the me is an artifact 
of pure consc. 
collapsing into and identifying with the limited nature of the mind - that's 
pretty darn 
good!).

A question for you and Jim and whoever else - do you ever miss the old, 
unenlightened 
way of being?  I know it all continues automatically, but is the lack of 
identification with 
the mind lonely or too much to bear or confusing?

Another question, if I may. Is there any fear or worry about when the 
body/mind/self dies? 
I gather that Consciousness remains, and that you have already adjusted to the 
fact that 
the body/mind/self is not the me that you had once thought it to be. But 
without the 
body/mind, is there a lack of contrast between Consciousness and the relative 
such that 
there is nothing to appreciate or differentiate or experience Consciousness?  I 
cannot 
really describe this too well.  I guess I am asking how Consciousness knows 
Consciousness when there is no body/mind to narrow it down to a point before it 
resumes 
its infinite nature (that is if Infinity can ever be narrowed down anyway).
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Here's a more considered response:
 
 --- yifuxero [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  --Nopewrong.  There's a new me - the social
  me;, the dream-like 
  me, the illusory me; whatever you and the other
  Neo-Advaitins want to 
  call it that you claim doesn't exist.  
   It (the me) still exists but is an inseparable part
  and parcel of 
  non-dual Reality.
 
 What is this me you talk about? Seriously, what is
 it? Not conceptually, but phenomenologically; your
 actual experience of it.
 
  To use an analogy: say there's a world in which
  everything is somehow 
  made of clay (not really possible but let's stretch
  our 
  imaginations).  Eventually, people start to wake up
  to the fact that 
  they are made of clay.  Do they then go around
  saying Oh, yes, the 
  former me that I thought was made of metal, paint,
  string,...etc...and other seemingly separate
  components was non-
  existent...now there's no longer a me?
 
 Let's run with this. The error of the above analogy is
 that you are assuming that the mechanics of
 Realization are the same as waking state knowing.
 Here, the people realize that they are made of clay
 realizing that their  previous understanding of what
 they were (paint, wire, etc., was wrong). But if the
 clay is the Absolute or pure consciousness in the
 analogy it is clay that has no attributes: it is neti,
 neti, not this, not that. It is bigger that the
 biggest and smaller than the smallest. It is infinite
 and unbounded by space and time. If this is so, then
 it can not be an object of experience because it has
 no boundaries and is thus incapable of being perceived
 through the mind. If the clay was the Absolute, then
 the mind, perceiving it, would experience pure,
 absolute nothingness. And, in fact, when the mind
 looks at pure consciousness, this is exactly what
 happens. Consciousness becomes conscious of its own
 consciousness. The mind does not recognize pure
 consciousness because the mind can only experience
 phenomena bound by space and time. Consciousness is
 outside space and time.
 
   Some do. After assimilating their grokking of the
  New Reality;
 
 Again, you use the term grokking with very little
 examination of what this actually means and what sort
 of perceptual mechanics are involved.
 
  some 
  idiots continue going around saying Nope - we don't
  really exist
 
 They would say, I, as a psychological, subjective
 entity, no longer exist, yet everything occurs as it
 did before. I used to think that there was a me that
 had intention and this is what created all of my
 thought, emotions and behavior. But now it is clear
 that there is only pure consciousness. To say that 'I
 am pure consciousness' would be incorrect because this
 would imply that there is a separate 'I' that knows it
 is pure consciousness. Only this consciousness can
 recognize its own consciousness. It is now clear that
 there actually never was a me. This me was simply
 an artifact of pure consciousness collapsing into and
 identifying with the limited nature of the mind.
  
  but the others (apparently a minority on this forum)
  - see the truth: 
  They were persons before and after the Awakening;
  but the after is 
  simply individuality within the context of
  clayness.
   Sutphen, 108, Willytex...etc are individuals. End
  of story. That 
  applies, to Gangaji, Eckhart Tolle, Ramesh Balsekar,
  Byron Katie, 
  Wayne Liquorman; and the whole horde of
  non-sensical, delusional Neo-
  Advaitins who are still befuddled about what
  vanished, and what 
  remains.
 
 Why don't you throw in Ramana Maharishi and
 Nisgaradatta  and we'll all be in good company!
 
 
 
  
  
  - In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter
  

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 This pretty funny. If you spoke out of direct
 experience this would be an interesting conversation.
 But your complete denial of anyone's experience other
 than those that fit your CONCEPT

Peter, I speak out of direct experience.
True, that experience comes and goes, and
isn't all permanent and all like Jim's :-),
but it's been my experience off and on since 
1972. I think that yifuxero's rap below
is right on.

I consider the pretense that there is no
self any more to be one of the most destruc-
tive and non-spiritual concepts in the
spiritual smorgasbord. All that has happened
is a shifting of the self's point of view, 
that's all. The fact that one can access a 
point of view that *seems* to be viewing the 
world from the point of view of Oneness and 
non-limited-self does not alter the fact that 
either 1) one is still viewing the world, 
*from* a point of view, and 2) that the other 
beings in the world, and *their* points of view, 
still exist.

I guess the thing that we're (yifuxero, Vaj,
myself, Ruth, and a few others) talking about
in these What is enlightenment? discussions
is that there appears to be a terrible *disoc-
iation* evident in some who claim to be enlight-
ened. Far too many of them -- in the Neo-Advaita
movement and in other spiritual movements and 
in the home grown enlightened like Jim -- seem
to be able to talk *only* about *themselves*,
while claiming not to *have* selves.

Jim is literally incapable of finding room in
his description of enlightenment for other people.
Everything is in terms of his own subjective
experience -- HIM. When directly asked where other 
people fit into this equation, he gets angry and 
evades the questions. He doesn't seem to even
like to be *reminded* that other people exist.
(If they do, and don't fawn all over his words
as if those words are delivered from On High, 
they're probably all gay anyway. :-))

I'm sorry, but this just doesn't jibe with my own
personal experiences, with my experiences being
around individuals I suspect of really being 
enlightened, and with how enlightenment has been 
described by great teachers in the past.

Many of them refused to even talk about the sub-
jective experience of enlightenment; that was not
*important* to them. All that they talked of was
the benefits that the enlightened -- and those on
the pathway to enlightenment -- could bring to
other people, to other sentient beings. *That*
is the focus of enlightenment as it has been
traditionally described, *not* how it feels for
the perceiver subjectively.

There is something *wrong* with someone who claims
to be fully enlightened and who cannot even *talk*
about other human beings, other than to claim that
he creates them. What such a person is describing 
and calling enlightenment is IMO more properly 
called narcissism and solipsism. 

Don't go down the You peons won't be able to under-
stand until you're as high as I am path, Peter. 
Look at your own statement above. I'm agreeing with
yifuxero's rap below, not because it matches some
CONCEPT of enlightenment for me, but because it
matches my experience. In my humble opinion, those
who have realization experiences and speak of having
no self and yet speak pretty much only *in terms
of* the self and its subjective experience possibly
haven't had very deep experiences of realization yet,
and stopped just inside the doorway to enlightenment. 
They may have a bit further to go to be able to 
integrate their own experience with still being an 
integral part of a greater world, which still *does* 
exist around them, and which deserves as much of 
their attention as their own subjective experiences 
do. Or more.

And that's over and out for me this week. You who
are still below the posting limit have fun continuing
to talk things out. At least I still believe that you
exist; some of the enlightened among us don't seem 
to. They probably believe that you wink out and
disappear when they are no longer allowed to post. :-)


 --- yifuxero [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  --Nopewrong.  There's a new me - the social
  me;, the dream-like 
  me, the illusory me; whatever you and the other
  Neo-Advaitins want to 
  call it that you claim doesn't exist.  
   It (the me) still exists but is an inseparable part
  and parcel of 
  non-dual Reality.
  To use an analogy: say there's a world in which
  everything is somehow 
  made of clay (not really possible but let's stretch
  our 
  imaginations).  Eventually, people start to wake up
  to the fact that 
  they are made of clay.  Do they then go around
  saying Oh, yes, the 
  former me that I thought was made of metal, paint,
  
  string,...etc...and other seemingly separate
  components was non-
  existent...now there's no longer a me?
   Some do. After assimilating their grokking of the
  New Reality; some 
  idiots continue going around saying Nope - we don't
  really exist; 
  but the others 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, gullible fool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  It's [heaven] not a meat and potatoes THEME, is it?
  Coffee tables that look like steaks, poofy 
  beanbag chairs that look like dollops of 
  mashed potatoes, that sorta thing? I don't 
  remember any of that in Seelisberg.
 
 Remember, Turq, the Gita talks of numerous heaven worlds. 
 Sorry if this will burst your bubble, but there's a time 
 to be realistic, and ex-TMers just should not expect to 
 attain the same highest heaven world as the loftiest and 
 most one-pointed ones on this forum.

This doesn't mean that I'm going to get stuck
in the granola- and gruel-themed heaven, does it?
Bummer.

 
 --- On Sun, 6/8/08, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  From: TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening
  To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
  Date: Sunday, June 8, 2008, 2:24 PM
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
  sandiego108 sandiego108@
  wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
  curtisdeltablues 
   curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
   
I think this glorification of the experience of
  depersonalization 
is really misguided.  There is a lot of
  information about this 
state in modern psychology that needs to be
  integrated into more 
traditional understandings of these experiences. 
  Just because 
she enjoyed this transition of awareness
  doesn't mean it is a 
good thing. I found this account somewhat
  alarming.  I have had 
experiences like it but would never seek them as
  a goal for my 
awareness again.  
   
   Yep the ego will always find such an experience
  alarming. And 
   if the person it is occuring to has this experience
  poorly 
   integrated, it leads to madness; like dropping acid or
  something. 
   It is only by unwinding any aort of template of
  experience, of 
   camparison, of ego story, and living complete skill in
  action 
   as  Byron Katie does, that such a state lives up to
  its promised 
   fulfillment of desires. 
  
  Does it fuck up your spelling, though? I've 
  noticed 3 or 4 spelling errors in your last 
  two posts. This isn't one of those poorly 
  integrated things you are talking about, 
  is it?  :-)
  
   And no it shouldn't be glorified, for
  enlightenment is a completely 
   normal state of life. Not super normal-- just plain
  meat and 
   potatoes normal.
  
  Uh-huh. That's why you told us you know how
  heaven is decorated. That's pretty meat and
  potatoes...not super normal at all.  :-)
  
  How DO you know how heaven is decorated, Jim?
  
  It's not a meat and potatoes THEME, is it?
  Coffee tables that look like steaks, poofy 
  beanbag chairs that look like dollops of 
  mashed potatoes, that sorta thing? I don't 
  remember any of that in Seelisberg.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  To subscribe, send a message to:
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  
  Or go to: 
  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
  and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
  
  
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[sandiego108]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, gullible fool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  It's not a meat and potatoes THEME, is it?
  Coffee tables that look like steaks, poofy 
  beanbag chairs that look like dollops of 
  mashed potatoes, that sorta thing? I don't 
  remember any of that in Seelisberg.
 
 Remember, Turq, the Gita talks of numerous heaven worlds. Sorry if 
this will burst your bubble, but there's a time to be realistic, and 
ex-TMers just should not expect to attain the same highest heaven 
world as the loftiest and most one-pointed ones on this forum.
 
No wonder your name is gullible, if you have the idea that heaven is 
difficult to attain. I guess that's where the fool part comes in; you 
don't even know where to look. TM has nothing to do with it. You do 
seem to be (overly) familiar with hell though-- why?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[Richard J. Williams]

yifuxero wrote:
 ---the flaw in your reasoning is the separation 
 of entities that you call sentient from others.  

The flaw is the mistaken belief that we have an 
individual soul-monad, which accounts for people 
thinking that they are separate from each other 
and from the Absolute - the belief that they are
individual subjects that possess individual souls
that reincarnate as personalities.

Sentience is the ability to feel or perceive 
subjectively.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience

 This is an artificial separation.

Maybe so.
 
 Again, the universe as a whole is the one.

In Vedanta, the universe is an illusion, part and 
parcel of Maya. The real is transcendental, that is, 
beyond the relative world of matter. The 'One' is 
the 'Transcendental Person' that stands beyond the 
perceptions of the senses.

   There's no sound unless there's a
   sentient being to percieve it.
  
  yifuxero wrote: 
   This is not in agreement with the latest 
   theories in physics. 
  
  Maybe so, but the subject of this thread
  is Byron Katies 'Awakening' - that's a
  metaphysical discussion, not a physics
  theory.
  
   The universe itself is the sentient
   being.
   
  You are assuming that there is a universe
  'out there' - but you could be dreaming.
  In dreams we see universes out there; in
  dreams we can run and jump and consult 
  our friends. 
  
  There is nothing in the waking state that 
  could not be experienced in a dream.
  
  And it all depends on what you mean by
  'sentient being'. Sentience means anyone
  who can think and perceive. If there is
  no one around when a tree falls, then
  there is no one to think or perceive.
   
We are perfectly justified in 
maintaining that only what is within 
ourselves can be immediately and 
directly perceived, and that only my 
own existence can be the object of a 
mere perception... 

Immanuel Kant, 'Critique of Pure Reason'
A367 f.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[Hugo]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  There's no sound unless there's a
  sentient being to percieve it.
 
 yifuxero wrote: 
  This is not in agreement with the latest 
  theories in physics. 
 
 Maybe so, but the subject of this thread
 is Byron Katies 'Awakening' - that's a
 metaphysical discussion, not a physics
 theory.

Poor dodge RJ, anything idea that helps an
argument is valid here. Of course if a tree 
falls over it makes a noise. The point is 
whether different animals will hear a different
noise, because the sound, along with all 
perception is constructed in our minds. Different
brains/different perceptions. To see or hear 
something without a physical reference is a 
hallucination. Peer into a brain scanner and
see the process of perception at work, it's
an amazing thing. You can also create 
hallucinations by stimulating different areas.
Kant wouldn't have known about that. Science 
is going through a materialist phase for a very
good reason. It's moved on since Kant and those
other dead guys. I always felt kind of sorry for 
people who can't tell whether they are dreaming
or not. 


  The universe itself is the sentient
  being.
  
 You are assumng that there is a universe
 'out there' - but you could be dreaming.
 In dreams we see universes out there; in
 dreams we can run and jump and consult 
 our friends. 

Are you on your solipsist trip again RJ?
This is a lame argument, in my dreams I can
travel through time, wrestle dinosaurs,
jump to the moon, hell I can do anything. 
Yet I notice a certain tedious consistency 
in the everyday world, my bike has yet to 
turn into a spaceship, my dog is still only
a foot tall etc. 
  
 There is nothing in the waking state that 
 could not be experienced in a dream.

Unfortunately the reverse isn't true.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 sandiego108@
 wrote:
 
  
  My perception is such that there are no beliefs existing
  independently in my mind purely for the sake of believing them, of
  holding onto them in order to create a world that makes sense to me.
  This to me is bondage, and a static view of the world that I have
  not the strength nor will nor interest to maintain. It is infinitely
  more enjoyable to watch the world come into being every time I
  experience it, and dissolve every time that I do not experience it.
  And far more accurate in my experience.
 
 
  So, for example, if I go outside and it is cold, my body gets cold
  and I come inside and say, its cold outside. Then my body warms up
  because it is warmer inside and then I don't know any longer whether
  it is cold outside. Why must I hold onto the belief that it is cold
  outside, when in fact I don't really know one way of the other?
 
 I am sorry, but I cannot believe that if in 10 minutes after coming in
 from a cold day you go out again that you do not expect it would still
 be cold and I believe that you would be surprised if it is hot. Or if
 lava was flowing in your back yard. Of course, we don't think about
 it being cold outside until it is time to go out again. But we know it
 is cold outside. 
 
  If a tree falls in the forest and I come upon the fallen tree, did
  it make a sound when it fell? Maybe it did, and maybe it didn't. To
  lug around the belief that it definitely did is too much weight, too
  much clutter. If someone were to then explain that yes, of course it
  did, I might agree with them, because I have studied the propagation
  of soundwaves and it is in my best interests that moment to keep
  things simple and agree with them. But there is no static belief
  that this is so. It is a situational or contextual belief, based on
  what I am achieving in the moment.
 
  
  After they leave and I am left alone with the fallen tree, that is
  all there is. A fallen tree that is laying there in the forest. As I
  look at the fallen tree, what is underneath it? Perhaps the ground,
  but seeing as the tree is very heavy and I cannot lift it, perhaps
  it rests on nothing at all. Again, I don't know, nor do I entertain
  the safe assumption that I do know what lies beneath it, that the
  ground extends beneath it. Again, too much trouble to hold such an
  assumption, unless I choose to.
 
 It just sounds like you chose or not chose to go into a dissociative
 state, dissociation meaning simply not seeing the connections that
 people ordinarily see between things or events. 
 


When you analyze most of the stuff sandiego108 [Jim] claims, you begin
to discover the obvious flaws, like you have here, Ruth.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[ruthsimplicity]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


 
 When you analyze most of the stuff sandiego108 [Jim] claims, you begin
 to discover the obvious flaws, like you have here, Ruth.


Well, assuming Sandiego is not lying and I have no reason to think
that he is, his perceptions are his reality.  What is interesting is
that he does not appear in the least bit dysfunctional or unhappy.  I
find it very interesting to hear about people wo can dissociate in a
way that is not dysfunctional. 

Now I can willfully depersonalize myself or but I do not find it a
state that is helpful to me and I find it unpleasant.   

The types of states that I find blissful are different this. When
concentrating and figuring out a major problem I can get into the
zone and perform at my best. No dissociation or witnessing. There is
bliss in that. But it might just be endorphins. :)  I can also get
into a different kind of zone, one when under stress but where
performance is required and you must perform at your best. I think it
was Rick who mentioned this state once when he described helping
someone in and accident. I think of this type of witnessing more as an
artifact of the stress of the moment and a way to keep you intact as
you do what needs to be done. I would not call that bliss. Another
type of being in the zone that I can think of right now is not one
where intellectual action is required, but one of being part of the
universe.  This zone I reach through communing with nature or music or
poetry.  The bliss of being a speck in the grand whole. And no
dissociation or depersonalization is involved.  

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote:
 
 
  
  When you analyze most of the stuff sandiego108 [Jim] claims, you begin
  to discover the obvious flaws, like you have here, Ruth.
 
 
 Well, assuming Sandiego is not lying and I have no reason to think
 that he is, his perceptions are his reality.  What is interesting is
 that he does not appear in the least bit dysfunctional or unhappy.  I
 find it very interesting to hear about people wo can dissociate in a
 way that is not dysfunctional. 
 
 Now I can willfully depersonalize myself or but I do not find it a
 state that is helpful to me and I find it unpleasant.   
 
 The types of states that I find blissful are different this. When
 concentrating and figuring out a major problem I can get into the
 zone and perform at my best. No dissociation or witnessing. There is
 bliss in that. But it might just be endorphins. :)  I can also get
 into a different kind of zone, one when under stress but where
 performance is required and you must perform at your best. I think it
 was Rick who mentioned this state once when he described helping
 someone in and accident. I think of this type of witnessing more as an
 artifact of the stress of the moment and a way to keep you intact as
 you do what needs to be done. I would not call that bliss. Another
 type of being in the zone that I can think of right now is not one
 where intellectual action is required, but one of being part of the
 universe.  This zone I reach through communing with nature or music or
 poetry.  The bliss of being a speck in the grand whole. And no
 dissociation or depersonalization is involved.


What you've done above is to effectively articulate your own
subjective experience in a clear manner that lends credibility to what
you said. In my view, 'sandeigo' Jim doesn't do that. The central
substance of what he asserts often fails even simple logic.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[Richard J. Williams]

yifuxero wrote: 
   This is not in agreement with the latest 
   theories in physics. 
  
  Maybe so, but the subject of this thread
  is Byron Katies 'Awakening' - that's a
  metaphysical discussion, not a physics
  theory.
 
Hugo wrote: 
 Poor dodge RJ, anything idea that helps an
 argument is valid here.

Maybe so, but there is nothing in the science
of physics that can prove that Byron Katie had 
an 'awakening' - the tern 'awakening' hasn't 
even been defined. Awakening in this context
is a metaphysical term and so it must be
argued in terms of metaphysics - there's no
such property as 'awakening' in the physical
sciences to even relate to.

 Of course if a tree falls over it makes a 
 noise.

It's not a 'noise' if there is nothing to perceive 
it, that's the point. There must be knowing
subject because all experience is subjective.
No objects exist apart from the subject doing
the experiencing.

 The point is whether different animals will 
 hear a different noise, because the sound, 
 along with all perception is constructed in 
 our minds. 

Maybe so, but it has not been established that
there is a 'mind' to do the perceiving - that's
the point. What is 'mind'? A bundle of perceptions,
an individual soul-monad, the body, what? 'Mind'
isn't part of the physical sciences either.

But there is a 'constructed character of knowing'.

This means that due to previous perceptions we
simply remember things and events - we do not
perceive things and events as they really are -
things and events are changed by the perception
of them.

 Different brains/different perceptions. To see 
 or hear something without a physical reference 
 is a hallucination. 

Maybe so, but a hallucination is real in the sense
that it is presented to us. On the other hand,
an unreal object would not exist at all. That's
why the Adwaita thinkers always say that objects
of perception are not real, yet they are not 
'unreal' either.

 Peer into a brain scanner and see the process 
 of perception at work, it's an amazing thing. 
 You can also create hallucinations by stimulating 
 different areas.

Maybe so, but there's no proof that the brain is
percieving a real object. There are no double-blind
scientific studies that prove the existence of
a corresponding physiological state called
'awakening'. 'Awakening', 'enlightenment' - these 
are all metaphysical terms and not subject to 
physical sciences.

 Kant wouldn't have known about that. Science 
 is going through a materialist phase for a very
 good reason. It's moved on since Kant and those
 other dead guys. I always felt kind of sorry for 
 people who can't tell whether they are dreaming
 or not. 
 
There's no way for sure that you can tell if
you are dreaming or not. There's nothing in the
waking state that could not be in a dream state.
 
   The universe itself is the sentient
   being.
   
  You are assumng that there is a universe
  'out there' - but you could be dreaming.
  In dreams we see universes out there; in
  dreams we can run and jump and consult 
  our friends. 
 
 Are you on your solipsist trip again RJ?

Well, yes.

The philosophical idea that 'My mind is the only 
thing that I know exists.' Solipsism is an 
epistemological or metaphysical position that 
knowledge of anything outside the mind is 
unjustified. The external world and other minds 
cannot be known and might not exist.

Source:

Solipsism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism

 This is a lame argument, in my dreams I can
 travel through time, wrestle dinosaurs,
 jump to the moon, hell I can do anything.

That proves my point: in dreams you can do
anything that you can do in the waking state.
 
 Yet I notice a certain tedious consistency 
 in the everyday world, my bike has yet to 
 turn into a spaceship, my dog is still only
 a foot tall etc. 
 
Your perception of all these objects is 
depending on your previous experiences. You do 
not actually perceive your bike or your dog
exactly 'as it is' - there's always a something
in-between your perception and the objects you
perceive. That something is consciousness -
without that, there's no perceiver at all.
   
  There is nothing in the waking state that 
  could not be experienced in a dream.
 
 Unfortunately the reverse isn't true.

Maybe so, but can you prove that you are not
dreaming? I think not. There's no way to prove
that objects exist apart from the experiencer.
The entire universe could be an illusion, just
like the Adwaita thinkers theorized.

According to Adwaita, there is 'consciousness'
only - everything else is not real, yet not
unreal - an illusion, just like the horns of
a hare. The only absolute real is pure 
consciousness, according to the Adwaita 
metaphysics.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[Richard J. Williams]

Ruth wrote:
 This zone I reach through communing with 
 nature or music or poetry. The bliss of 
 being a speck in the grand whole. And no
 dissociation or depersonalization is 
 involved.

What you have just described, Ruth, is 
meditation, so you have proved what I have 
been saying for some time. When Curtis feels 
good after practicing playing his guitar,
that is a meditation.

Meditation relieves stress and strain. When
Marshy called it 'unstressing' he simply 
meant that meditation could relieve stress
and strain, what Selye called 'eu-stress',
stress that is beneficial.

But if stress happens too often or lasts 
too long, it can have bad effects. It can be 
linked to headaches, an upset stomach, back 
pain, or trouble sleeping. It can weaken your 
immune system, making it harder to fight off 
disease. 

If you already have a health problem, stress 
may make it worse. It can make you moody, 
tense, or depressed. Your relationships may 
suffer, and you may not do well at work or 
school.

How can you relieve stress?

Try meditation, imagery exercises, or try
self-hypnosis. 

Source:

Healthwise:
http://tinyurl.com/5xoeho

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[ruthsimplicity]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

snip
 It's not a 'noise' if there is nothing to perceive 
 it, that's the point. 
 

snip
 There's nothing in the
 waking state that could not be in a dream state.


What I should have said that when a tree falls in the woods it makes a
sound wave.  ;)

You can't do anything in your dreams that you can do when you are
awake.  You can't pick up the latest Dean Koontz novel that you have
not yet read and read it.  

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[ruthsimplicity]

-Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

snip
 It's not a 'noise' if there is nothing to perceive
 it, that's the point.


snip
There's nothing in the
 waking state that could not be in a dream state.


What I should have said that when a tree falls in the woods it makes a
sound wave. ;)

You can't do everything in your dreams that you can do when you are
awake. You can't pick up the latest Dean Koontz novel that you have
not yet read and read it.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[yifuxero]

--The flaw in your pseudo-Advaita reasoning is that AFTER one 
resides in non-duality;...you say there's nothing left.  Incorrect.  
The rope is simply not seen as the snake.  But the rope remains 
something altogether different (within and as the non-dual reality).
However, this does not mean that the non-dual dream people vanish.  
Willytex still exists!  ...do you not? and you differ from 108 and 
other people.  OK - everything is non-dual big deal!  Go on from 
there and don't get stuck in the neo-Advaitic trap.

- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 yifuxero wrote:
  ---the flaw in your reasoning is the separation 
  of entities that you call sentient from others.  
 
 The flaw is the mistaken belief that we have an 
 individual soul-monad, which accounts for people 
 thinking that they are separate from each other 
 and from the Absolute - the belief that they are
 individual subjects that possess individual souls
 that reincarnate as personalities.
 
 Sentience is the ability to feel or perceive 
 subjectively.
 
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience
 
  This is an artificial separation.
 
 Maybe so.
  
  Again, the universe as a whole is the one.
 
 In Vedanta, the universe is an illusion, part and 
 parcel of Maya. The real is transcendental, that is, 
 beyond the relative world of matter. The 'One' is 
 the 'Transcendental Person' that stands beyond the 
 perceptions of the senses.
 
There's no sound unless there's a
sentient being to percieve it.
   
   yifuxero wrote: 
This is not in agreement with the latest 
theories in physics. 
   
   Maybe so, but the subject of this thread
   is Byron Katies 'Awakening' - that's a
   metaphysical discussion, not a physics
   theory.
   
The universe itself is the sentient
being.

   You are assuming that there is a universe
   'out there' - but you could be dreaming.
   In dreams we see universes out there; in
   dreams we can run and jump and consult 
   our friends. 
   
   There is nothing in the waking state that 
   could not be experienced in a dream.
   
   And it all depends on what you mean by
   'sentient being'. Sentience means anyone
   who can think and perceive. If there is
   no one around when a tree falls, then
   there is no one to think or perceive.

 We are perfectly justified in 
 maintaining that only what is within 
 ourselves can be immediately and 
 directly perceived, and that only my 
 own existence can be the object of a 
 mere perception... 
 
 Immanuel Kant, 'Critique of Pure Reason'
 A367 f.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, yifuxero [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --The flaw in your pseudo-Advaita reasoning is that AFTER one 
 resides in non-duality;...you say there's nothing left. Incorrect.  
 The rope is simply not seen as the snake. But the rope remains 
 something altogether different (within and as the non-dual reality).
 However, this does not mean that the non-dual dream people vanish.  
 Willytex still exists! ...do you not? and you differ from 108 and 
 other people. OK - everything is non-dual big deal! Go on from 
 there and don't get stuck in the neo-Advaitic trap.

That's it exactly.

What you would call the Neo-Advaitic trap
I would call the one point of view is the
highest trap. 

The Neo-Advaitan (or even Advaitan) point of
view is Just Another Point Of View. It does
not supersede or make invalid any other points
of view. 

Just because a perceiver sees the world as One
does not mean it is not *also* many. 

There is a lot of this in the TM rap, and in
many other spiritual trips' raps. Basically it
boils down to, There are many points of view,
but only one of them is 'true,' the 'highest.'
I think they could have stopped at, There are
many points of view..., and if they were more 
honest, added, ...and all of them are equally
true, from that point of view.

I'm not buyin' this highest shit. I have had 
experiences in which I saw the world as One, too. 
All distinctions disappeared, all boundaries 
between objects and sentient beings disappeared 
and they merged as One, and there was no distinc-
tion between myself as perceiver of this One and 
One itSelf. But then the phone rang, and someone 
ELSE wanted to talk to me. 

In my humble opinion, that someone ELSE really
existed. They had their own point of view, *just*
as valid as mine, and that point of view wanted 
to interface with mine, as part of the cosmic 
dance that some call Lila and I call interdependent 
origination.

I don't have to consider the caller other than
mySelf to grant them respect as other than my self. 
They do exist. So do I. And *at the same time* we 
are One. The one does not invalidate the other. The 
One does not invalidate the many.


 - In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams 
 willytex@ wrote:
 
  yifuxero wrote:
   ---the flaw in your reasoning is the separation 
   of entities that you call sentient from others.  
  
  The flaw is the mistaken belief that we have an 
  individual soul-monad, which accounts for people 
  thinking that they are separate from each other 
  and from the Absolute - the belief that they are
  individual subjects that possess individual souls
  that reincarnate as personalities.
  
  Sentience is the ability to feel or perceive 
  subjectively.
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience
  
   This is an artificial separation.
  
  Maybe so.
   
   Again, the universe as a whole is the one.
  
  In Vedanta, the universe is an illusion, part and 
  parcel of Maya. The real is transcendental, that is, 
  beyond the relative world of matter. The 'One' is 
  the 'Transcendental Person' that stands beyond the 
  perceptions of the senses.
  
 There's no sound unless there's a
 sentient being to percieve it.

yifuxero wrote: 
 This is not in agreement with the latest 
 theories in physics. 

Maybe so, but the subject of this thread
is Byron Katies 'Awakening' - that's a
metaphysical discussion, not a physics
theory.

 The universe itself is the sentient
 being.
 
You are assuming that there is a universe
'out there' - but you could be dreaming.
In dreams we see universes out there; in
dreams we can run and jump and consult 
our friends. 

There is nothing in the waking state that 
could not be experienced in a dream.

And it all depends on what you mean by
'sentient being'. Sentience means anyone
who can think and perceive. If there is
no one around when a tree falls, then
there is no one to think or perceive.
 
  We are perfectly justified in 
  maintaining that only what is within 
  ourselves can be immediately and 
  directly perceived, and that only my 
  own existence can be the object of a 
  mere perception... 
  
  Immanuel Kant, 'Critique of Pure Reason'
  A367 f.
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[Richard J. Williams]

yifuxero wrote:
 --The flaw in your pseudo-Advaita reasoning is 
 that AFTER one resides in non-duality;...you 
 say there's nothing left.  Incorrect. 

This is not 'pseudo-Advaita', it's the real thing:

There is only One - there are not two. 

Everything but the One is an illusion. The One is 
the only Reality. The One can only be experienced 
in transcendental conciousness. 

There is no creation, no dissolution; no coming 
forth, no coming to be; nothing moves here or 
there; there is no change.

Source:

S. Vidyasankar:
http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp/ad_faq.html

Ajativada or the doctrine of no-origination, is 
the fundamental doctrine of Gaudapaada. From the 
absolute standpoint origination is an impossibility. 

Gaudapada:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaudapada

Titles of interest:

'Dispelling Illusion'
Gaudapada's Alatasanti
by Douglas A. Fox
State University of New York Press, 1993

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[Richard J. Williams]

  There's nothing in the waking state that could 
  not be in a dream state.
 
Ruth wrote:
 You can't do everything in your dreams that you 
 can do when you are awake. You can't pick up the 
 latest Dean Koontz novel that you have not yet 
 read and read it.

You could pick up the latest Dean Koontz novel that 
you have not yet read and read it in a dream. There's 
nothing in the waking state that could not be in a 
dream state. 

In dream states we can read novels and run and jump 
and consult with our friends, just like we do in the 
waking state. There's no proof that you are not in 
a dream state right now.

The Chinese philosopher, Chuang Tsu (c. 369-268 B.C.) 
said: 'I once dreamt I was a butterfly. Suddenly I 
awakened, and there I lay like a man, myself again.

Now, which am I?

A man dreaming he is a butterfly, or a butterfly 
dreaming he is man?'

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[tertonzeno]

---OK, we're in a dream; but an important point (IMO), is how 
important or signifant are the dream people to you in the context of 
non-duality.
 Are you taking the Neo-Advaitin position that (since everything is a 
dream), then I don't know and I don't care; or the Buddhist 
position that you/we are responsible for helping others - in fact, 
everybody in the entire universe.  Practically speaking, that may not 
be feasible right now; but just follow Dalai Lama's words of wisdom - 
try to extend compassion to everybody. This may include various 
physical means to eradicate suffering.
 But being a Neo-Advaitin, I take it that you consider the dream-
people to be virtually non-existent people and about as important as 
those Second Life Avatars (of no importance). Since we're all living 
in a type of Second Life cyberworld of dreamlike substance; then 
anything goes: suffering is equal to  non-suffering since the dream-
like Avatars just pop up again. 

 In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

   There's nothing in the waking state that could 
   not be in a dream state.
  
 Ruth wrote:
  You can't do everything in your dreams that you 
  can do when you are awake. You can't pick up the 
  latest Dean Koontz novel that you have not yet 
  read and read it.
 
 You could pick up the latest Dean Koontz novel that 
 you have not yet read and read it in a dream. There's 
 nothing in the waking state that could not be in a 
 dream state. 
 
 In dream states we can read novels and run and jump 
 and consult with our friends, just like we do in the 
 waking state. There's no proof that you are not in 
 a dream state right now.
 
 The Chinese philosopher, Chuang Tsu (c. 369-268 B.C.) 
 said: 'I once dreamt I was a butterfly. Suddenly I 
 awakened, and there I lay like a man, myself again.
 
 Now, which am I?
 
 A man dreaming he is a butterfly, or a butterfly 
 dreaming he is man?'

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[Richard J. Williams]

tertonzeno wrote:
  Are you taking the Neo-Advaitin position 
 that...

Not a 'Neo-Adwaita' position, but the original
Adwaita position. Gaudapada is the founder
of Adwaita in India. He was the teacher of
Govindapada, the teacher of the Adi Shankara,
who established the Dasanami Sampraqdaya, which
is headquartered at Sringeri Matha.

'Ajativada' or the doctrine of no-origination, is 
the fundamental doctrine of Gaudapaada. From the 
absolute standpoint, origination is an illusion.

Source: 

Gaudapada:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaudapada

Titles of interest:

'Dispelling Illusion'
Gaudapada's Alatasanti
by Douglas A. Fox
State University of New York Press, 1993

 (since everything is a dream), then I don't know 
 and I don't care; or the Buddhist position that 
 you/we are responsible for helping others - in 
 fact, everybody in the entire universe.

The doctrine of non-origination, Ajativada, is the 
basic realization in the Adwaita tradition. This
means that nothing was ever created - you cannot
create something out of nothing. Things do not
move about - motion is an immpossibility. All
these notions are like seeing the horns of a hare.

 ---OK, we're in a dream; but an important point 
 (IMO), is how important or signifant are the 
 dream people to you in the context of non-duality.

 Practically speaking, that may not be feasible 
 right now; but just follow Dalai Lama's words of 
 wisdom - try to extend compassion to everybody. 
 This may include various physical means to 
 eradicate suffering.

 But being a Neo-Advaitin, I take it that you 
 consider the dream-people to be virtually
 non-existent people and about as important as 
 those Second Life Avatars (of no importance). 

According to Gaudapada's Adwaita, liberation from
suffering consists of experiencing the transcendental
consciousness - the pure consciousness experienced
during transcendental meditation. The goal of all
Adwaitans is to dispel the illusion that they are
an individual soul-monad. A meditation that is 
transcendental provides the *ideal* opportunity
for the transcending.

See also:

According to the Madhyamikas, all phenomena are 
empty of 'self nature' or 'essence', meaning that 
they have no intrinsic, independent reality apart 
from the causes and conditions from which they 
arise.

Madhyamaka:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madhyamaka

[snip] 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[yifuxero]

-The One doesn't eradicate the many, which is contained within and as 
It. But the real question is how much significance one gives to 
things relative. Neo-Advaitins don't even recognize the existence of 
relative things; so I would assume that if a thief is threatening to 
enter a neighbor's house, no point in calling the police since the 
people aren't real.
   In any event, all such Neo-Advaita-speak statements come from one 
place: MIND.
 Besides, Byron Katie isn't Enlightened; though she may be Awakened 
(a term used especially in the tradition of HWL Poonja, a disciple of 
Ramana Maharshi). So what this Awakening is awake to, I believe 
it's some type of non-dual realization of Presence but far short of 
Enlightenment.
 If some of the Awakened people would give a brief description of 
the signs I've been sqawking about recently (subtle Light and 
Sound); in terms of the progression from CC to GC to UC; I would at 
least welcome and listen to what they have to say.  But, nothing - I 
how can we even evaluate such claims of E when the little they say 
doesn't even match the criteria given by MMY.
  


-- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 yifuxero wrote:
  --The flaw in your pseudo-Advaita reasoning is 
  that AFTER one resides in non-duality;...you 
  say there's nothing left.  Incorrect. 
 
 This is not 'pseudo-Advaita', it's the real thing:
 
 There is only One - there are not two. 
 
 Everything but the One is an illusion. The One is 
 the only Reality. The One can only be experienced 
 in transcendental conciousness. 
 
 There is no creation, no dissolution; no coming 
 forth, no coming to be; nothing moves here or 
 there; there is no change.
 
 Source:
 
 S. Vidyasankar:
 http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp/ad_faq.html
 
 Ajativada or the doctrine of no-origination, is 
 the fundamental doctrine of Gaudapaada. From the 
 absolute standpoint origination is an impossibility. 
 
 Gaudapada:
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaudapada
 
 Titles of interest:
 
 'Dispelling Illusion'
 Gaudapada's Alatasanti
 by Douglas A. Fox
 State University of New York Press, 1993

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[Peter]

--- mrfishey2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  
  no, but you can kill yourself as dead as any dead
 person, and remain 
  alive-- that's magical. As for all the other,
 materially based stuff 
  like shape shifting and flying, it looks like a
 complete waste of 
  time. Compared to normal life, it seems ludicrous
 and foolish-- just 
  a way to entice the unenlightened, that's all.
 
 
 --
 
 Mr Sandiego – this is truly enchanting to me - an
 unenlightened. A wealth of possibilities. 
 Might I ask; if your young son was dying of cancer,
 would you be able to save him?

Hopefully he could by giving him the best medical care
possible.




 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 To subscribe, send a message to:
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
 Or go to: 
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
 and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
 
 
 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
 
 



  

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[mrfishey2001]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 
 --- mrfishey2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108
  sandiego108@ wrote:
   
   no, but you can kill yourself as dead as any dead
  person, and remain 
   alive-- that's magical. As for all the other,
  materially based stuff 
   like shape shifting and flying, it looks like a
  complete waste of 
   time. Compared to normal life, it seems ludicrous
  and foolish-- just 
   a way to entice the unenlightened, that's all.
  
  
  --
  
  Mr Sandiego – this is truly enchanting to me - an
  unenlightened. A wealth of possibilities. 
  Might I ask; if your young son was dying of cancer,
  would you be able to save him?
 
 Hopefully he could by giving him the best medical care
 possible.
 
---


Yes, of course. But from what I understand Mr. Sandiego enjoys discussing his 
experiences 
of enlightenment. I was hoping that, in addition to the good fortune of 
commonsense and 
medical coverage, his magical power could heal the sick. And so I ask; from his 
level of 
development could he save his son using mystical power alone? 
 

--

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[Peter]

--- mrfishey2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  
  --- mrfishey2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
 sandiego108
   sandiego108@ wrote:

no, but you can kill yourself as dead as any
 dead
   person, and remain 
alive-- that's magical. As for all the other,
   materially based stuff 
like shape shifting and flying, it looks like
 a
   complete waste of 
time. Compared to normal life, it seems
 ludicrous
   and foolish-- just 
a way to entice the unenlightened, that's all.
   
   
   --
   
   Mr Sandiego – this is truly enchanting to me -
 an
   unenlightened. A wealth of possibilities. 
   Might I ask; if your young son was dying of
 cancer,
   would you be able to save him?
  
  Hopefully he could by giving him the best medical
 care
  possible.
  
 ---
 
 
 Yes, of course. But from what I understand Mr.
 Sandiego enjoys discussing his experiences 
 of enlightenment. I was hoping that, in addition to
 the good fortune of commonsense and 
 medical coverage, his magical power could heal the
 sick. And so I ask; from his level of 
 development could he save his son using mystical
 power alone?

You already know the answer to that.




 
  
 
 --
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 To subscribe, send a message to:
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
 Or go to: 
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
 and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
 
 
 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
 
 



  

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[sandiego108]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mrfishey2001 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutphen@ 
wrote:
 
  
  --- mrfishey2001 mrfishey2001@ wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108
   sandiego108@ wrote:

no, but you can kill yourself as dead as any dead
   person, and remain 
alive-- that's magical. As for all the other,
   materially based stuff 
like shape shifting and flying, it looks like a
   complete waste of 
time. Compared to normal life, it seems ludicrous
   and foolish-- just 
a way to entice the unenlightened, that's all.
   
   
   --
   
   Mr Sandiego – this is truly enchanting to me - an
   unenlightened. A wealth of possibilities. 
   Might I ask; if your young son was dying of cancer,
   would you be able to save him?
  
  Hopefully he could by giving him the best medical care
  possible.
  
 ---
 
 
 Yes, of course. But from what I understand Mr. Sandiego enjoys 
discussing his experiences 
 of enlightenment. I was hoping that, in addition to the good 
fortune of commonsense and 
 medical coverage, his magical power could heal the sick. And so I 
ask; from his level of 
 development could he save his son using mystical power alone? 
  
This is a question that comes up all the time from seekers-- can 
karma, my karma, especially the bad stuff be avoided? I remember 
laughing about a thought I shared with another enlightened guy once, 
how at one time we were both so mired in the negativity of the 
world that we couldn't wait to get enlightened and escape it- lol.

Doesn't work like that. If anything, life is embraced much more 
fully and realistically, with eyes always wide open once 
enlightenment dawns. Karma is karma. If it wasn't there we wouldn't 
be able to use it as the extraordinary and God given resource that 
it is.

But before this happens, seekers including me get all excited about 
magical and mystical powers because for them, and me, it is a way to 
think of escaping the unskillful, karma bound life they and I were 
living. Impossible.

So, why would I want to save my dying son from cancer through some 
mystical mumbo-jumbo? What's the point?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[ruthsimplicity]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

  As for all the other, materially based stuff 
 like shape shifting and flying, it looks like a complete waste of 
 time. Compared to normal life, it seems ludicrous and foolish-- just 
 a way to entice the unenlightened, that's all.

So you are in the second camp--flying is not important.

If it is just a way to entice the unenlightened, entice me.  Show me
that you can fly.  

You see, I think yogic flying is a fraud. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[ruthsimplicity]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

 
 So, why would I want to save my dying son from cancer through some 
 mystical mumbo-jumbo? What's the point?

So I assume that you would try to save him using the best medical care
possible.  What is the difference?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[sandiego108]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 sandiego108@
 wrote:
 
   As for all the other, materially based stuff 
  like shape shifting and flying, it looks like a complete waste 
of 
  time. Compared to normal life, it seems ludicrous and foolish-- 
just 
  a way to entice the unenlightened, that's all.
 
 So you are in the second camp--flying is not important.
 
 If it is just a way to entice the unenlightened, entice me.  Show 
me
 that you can fly.  
 
 You see, I think yogic flying is a fraud.

When I did the flying technique, I was able to achieve really good 
results, comparatively; up in the air with little corresponding 
muscular effort, and sometimes none. The internal experience of 
completely dissolving into light was by far the most spectacular 
result though, and one that began to culture my nervous system for 
enlightenment.

When I said it (the flying thing) is used as an enticement to the 
unenlightened, the unenlightened mind cannot concieve of the 
experience of enlightenment, so Maharishi Mahesh Yogi would use all 
kinds of methods to induce his followers to progressively attune 
themselves to Universal conciousness, without letting them in on the 
open secret that their previous identity would disappear for all 
intents and purposes once the goal was achieved,, or perhaps more 
precisely, they would lose all attachment to it. I think it was 
pretty clever-- whatever works.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[sandiego108]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 sandiego108@
 wrote:
 
  
  So, why would I want to save my dying son from cancer through 
some 
  mystical mumbo-jumbo? What's the point?
 
 So I assume that you would try to save him using the best medical 
care
 possible.  What is the difference?
 

What does any of this have to do with enlightenment? 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[mrfishey2001]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  
  Yes, of course. But from what I understand Mr.
  Sandiego enjoys discussing his experiences 
  of enlightenment. I was hoping that, in addition to
  the good fortune of commonsense and 
  medical coverage, his magical power could heal the
  sick. And so I ask; from his level of 
  development could he save his son using mystical
  power alone?
 
 You already know the answer to that.
 

-

No, you already know the answer to that.

--

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[mrfishey2001]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mrfishey2001 
 mrfishey2001@ wrote:
 
  Yes, of course. But from what I understand Mr. Sandiego enjoys 
 discussing his experiences 
  of enlightenment. I was hoping that, in addition to the good 
 fortune of commonsense and 
  medical coverage, his magical power could heal the sick. And so I 
 ask; from his level of 
  development could he save his son using mystical power alone? 
   
 This is a question that comes up all the time from seekers-- can 
 karma, my karma, especially the bad stuff be avoided? I remember 
 laughing about a thought I shared with another enlightened guy once, 
 how at one time we were both so mired in the negativity of the 
 world that we couldn't wait to get enlightened and escape it- lol.
 
 Doesn't work like that. If anything, life is embraced much more 
 fully and realistically, with eyes always wide open once 
 enlightenment dawns. Karma is karma. If it wasn't there we wouldn't 
 be able to use it as the extraordinary and God given resource that 
 it is.
 
 But before this happens, seekers including me get all excited about 
 magical and mystical powers because for them, and me, it is a way to 
 think of escaping the unskillful, karma bound life they and I were 
 living. Impossible.
 
 So, why would I want to save my dying son from cancer through some 
 mystical mumbo-jumbo? What's the point?

-

From my perspective it's difficult to imagine a state of consciousness, 
outside of sleep, 
that would spare me that kind of sorrow. I'd not thought of it so much as 
mystical 
mumbo-jumbo, more the incomparable gift of healing. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[Hugo]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_reply@ 
 wrote:


Ruth wrote:
  Can you change the atoms around in your 
  body to make yourself into a tree?  Etc.


Sandiego wrote:
  No, but you can kill yourself as dead as any
  dead person, and remain alive-- that's magical.
  As for all the other, materially based stuff
  like shape shifting and flying, it looks like 
  a complete waste of time. Compared to normal 
  life, it seems ludicrous and foolish-- just 
  a way to entice the unenlightened, that's all.

Not sure I understand this correctly, are you claiming
that you've done this or just *know* that it's possible.
If the latter, how do you know? If the former can you
tell us about it.

I can't see the ability to change shape and fly as
being foolish, more a sort of demonstration that
your ideas about reality and the minds place in it
are real. I've heard John Hagelins, not very convincing
even to a putz like me, lectures on quantum physics
and would like to know why, if people doing TM really
are experiencing and acting from the unified field, we 
haven't seen anyone do any of these amazing super-normal
things. The only unusual thing I saw in all my years
as a yogic flyer, were people sleeping all day and
still being tired enough to kip at night, hardly
something James Randi would want to investigate.

I would like to be enticed by a demonstration, a
falsifiable experiment is the only way of demonstrating
that a theory is on the right track. I think for flying
that someone jumping of the top floor of a skyscraper
would be all the demo we need. Falsified of course by 
whoever wants to pick up the gauntlet hitting the 
pavement.

I'm being serious, if the TMO could demonstrate
any of the sidhis there would be queues round the 
block to learn. Which is apparently what they 
would like to see.

The killing yourself and still being alive baffles
me completely, can you enlarge on this?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[curtisdeltablues]

 The killing yourself and still being alive baffles
 me completely, can you enlarge on this?


I remember believing this.  My reasoning was based on the experience
of witnessing sleep.  I decided that if my consciousness could not be
extinguished by sleep that somehow if I died my consciousness would
stay on.  It is really a fascinating area of the conviction because it
cannot be experienced but it gets very entrenched.  

Now I believe that when the hardware crashes, the software is not
available.  I am at peace with the idea of my personal extinction
after death.  The amazing thing is that I am conscious this very
minute.  How great is that?

It's not that life is so short, it's that we're dead soo long!



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hugo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 sandiego108@ 
 wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_reply@ 
  wrote:
 
 
 Ruth wrote:
   Can you change the atoms around in your 
   body to make yourself into a tree?  Etc.
 
 
 Sandiego wrote:
   No, but you can kill yourself as dead as any
   dead person, and remain alive-- that's magical.
   As for all the other, materially based stuff
   like shape shifting and flying, it looks like 
   a complete waste of time. Compared to normal 
   life, it seems ludicrous and foolish-- just 
   a way to entice the unenlightened, that's all.
 
 Not sure I understand this correctly, are you claiming
 that you've done this or just *know* that it's possible.
 If the latter, how do you know? If the former can you
 tell us about it.
 
 I can't see the ability to change shape and fly as
 being foolish, more a sort of demonstration that
 your ideas about reality and the minds place in it
 are real. I've heard John Hagelins, not very convincing
 even to a putz like me, lectures on quantum physics
 and would like to know why, if people doing TM really
 are experiencing and acting from the unified field, we 
 haven't seen anyone do any of these amazing super-normal
 things. The only unusual thing I saw in all my years
 as a yogic flyer, were people sleeping all day and
 still being tired enough to kip at night, hardly
 something James Randi would want to investigate.
 
 I would like to be enticed by a demonstration, a
 falsifiable experiment is the only way of demonstrating
 that a theory is on the right track. I think for flying
 that someone jumping of the top floor of a skyscraper
 would be all the demo we need. Falsified of course by 
 whoever wants to pick up the gauntlet hitting the 
 pavement.
 
 I'm being serious, if the TMO could demonstrate
 any of the sidhis there would be queues round the 
 block to learn. Which is apparently what they 
 would like to see.
 
 The killing yourself and still being alive baffles
 me completely, can you enlarge on this?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[sandiego108]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 
  The killing yourself and still being alive baffles
  me completely, can you enlarge on this?
 
 
 I remember believing this.  My reasoning was based on the 
experience
 of witnessing sleep.  I decided that if my consciousness could not 
be
 extinguished by sleep that somehow if I died my consciousness would
 stay on.  It is really a fascinating area of the conviction 
because it
 cannot be experienced but it gets very entrenched.  
 
 Now I believe that when the hardware crashes, the software is not
 available.  I am at peace with the idea of my personal extinction
 after death.  The amazing thing is that I am conscious this very
 minute.  How great is that?
 
 It's not that life is so short, it's that we're dead soo long!
 
Ha ha-- good one! I like that. 

For Hugo: What I was talking about is the dissolution of, or 
unwinding of, or lack of attachment to, what I used to consider as 
myself, my identity. Now those pieces have either gone away or I am 
not attached to them-- in any case have nothing to do with them. 
This description if heard by most would be thought of as being dead.

On the topic you bring up Curtis, whether or not there is life after 
death, it depends, and I don't much concern myself about what the 
outcome is, since it is dependent on my actions anyway. If I go out 
like a candle, that is fine.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[Angela Mailander]

thanks, Bhairitu,
I started out ambidextrous, so they tied my left hand behind my back.  Trouble 
was that when I wrote with my left hand, people needed a mirror to read it.  I, 
of course, didn't need the mirror with the result that to this day I can't tell 
left from right and related little things.  When I'm tired, a 6 looks just like 
a 9 to me, and my checkbook has often suffered for my inability to distinguish 
between 18 and 81.

  


--- On Sun, 8/6/08, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 From: Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 Date: Sunday, 8 June, 2008, 6:41 PM
 Congrats on your successful show!  I started out in life as
 an artist as 
 soon as I could hold a pencil but in my left hand.  Art
 teachers 
 back then didn't know what to do about that and
 actually I discovered 
 later in life in attempts to draw with my right hand the
 vision in my 
 mind more closely matched what I drew than with my left. 
 Of course my 
 right hand had less developed skills.
 
 Angela Mailander wrote:
  You are right on guys, back in the 70s I wrote a poem
 about that experience when I was still head over heels in
 love with my own experiences: Woke up this
 morning/couldn't re-/member who I was or where/but then
 things stiffened, reporting for duty...  Too bad I
 didn't have you to advise me and manage a guru
 business, Bhairitu. I'd been meditating thirty years by
 then.
 
  I'm more or less back, but I still won't be
 able to read any but a very few posts.  My show at the
 gallery was, I hear, a huge success, lots of stuff sold,
 and the gallery wants me to get ready for a bigger show in
 July.  My studio is barely set up, and, here I don't
 know where to buy paint yet. 
 
 

Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

 For Hugo: What I was talking about is the dissolution of, or 
 unwinding of, or lack of attachment to, what I used to consider as 
 myself, my identity. 

Jim, 

Given this statement, can you explain WTF your lack 
of self and identity was THINKING yesterday 
when you launched into the gay thing?

I mean, let's look at it rationally. I did two things
to set you off...count them, two:

1. I corrected a mistake that you had made. You claimed
that no one had ever stood up to Maharishi, to his face.
That is a complete fantasy, fabricated by someone *who
was never even in a position to know that what he claimed
was true*. 

2. I laughed at you. When you said, in all seriousness,
that you knew how heaven was decorated, I poked fun at
that, and at you.

And you -- lack of self and identity and all -- felt
that that justified launching into a *series* of gay
slurs aimed at me. When others similarly challenged
your holy word or laughed at you, you lit into them
as well.

Please explain to me, from your enlightened perspective,
how this does NOT fall into the description of the
narcissistic chronic abuser I posted earlier.

I'll wait.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[Hugo]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues 
 curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
 
  
   The killing yourself and still being alive baffles
   me completely, can you enlarge on this?
  
  
  I remember believing this.  My reasoning was based on the 
 experience
  of witnessing sleep.  I decided that if my consciousness could 
not 
 be
  extinguished by sleep that somehow if I died my consciousness 
would
  stay on.  It is really a fascinating area of the conviction 
 because it
  cannot be experienced but it gets very entrenched.  
  
  Now I believe that when the hardware crashes, the software is not
  available.  I am at peace with the idea of my personal extinction
  after death.  The amazing thing is that I am conscious this very
  minute.  How great is that?
  
  It's not that life is so short, it's that we're dead soo long!
  
 Ha ha-- good one! I like that. 
 
 For Hugo: What I was talking about is the dissolution of, or 
 unwinding of, or lack of attachment to, what I used to consider as 
 myself, my identity. Now those pieces have either gone away or I am 
 not attached to them-- in any case have nothing to do with them. 
 This description if heard by most would be thought of as being dead.

Oh right, I thought we were talking near-death experiences like
the person, apparently dead, who travels down tunnels of light
and has visits from dead relatives, sometimes even alive ones
(bit of a giveaway to it being a totally subjective thing I think)
All of this happens when the brain *should* be unable to conjure
any conscious experience.

 
 On the topic you bring up Curtis, whether or not there is life 
after 
 death, it depends, and I don't much concern myself about what the 
 outcome is, since it is dependent on my actions anyway. If I go out 
 like a candle, that is fine.



'It depends whether their is life after death on my actions' This is 
a new one on me! And on every other religious system I've heard about.
Tell us more.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[curtisdeltablues]

All of this happens when the brain *should* be unable to conjure
any conscious experience.

This jump is too far IMO.  People having near death experiences are
don't have probes inside their brains do they?  Probably most don't
have EEGs either.  I have never heard any doctor claim that they knew
that the electrical chemical activity of the brain had ceased in these
experiences.  And of course the person going in and out of
consciousness is about as unreliable a witness as you can get of what
happened when.




--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hugo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 sandiego108@ 
 wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues 
  curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
  
   
The killing yourself and still being alive baffles
me completely, can you enlarge on this?
   
   
   I remember believing this.  My reasoning was based on the 
  experience
   of witnessing sleep.  I decided that if my consciousness could 
 not 
  be
   extinguished by sleep that somehow if I died my consciousness 
 would
   stay on.  It is really a fascinating area of the conviction 
  because it
   cannot be experienced but it gets very entrenched.  
   
   Now I believe that when the hardware crashes, the software is not
   available.  I am at peace with the idea of my personal extinction
   after death.  The amazing thing is that I am conscious this very
   minute.  How great is that?
   
   It's not that life is so short, it's that we're dead soo long!
   
  Ha ha-- good one! I like that. 
  
  For Hugo: What I was talking about is the dissolution of, or 
  unwinding of, or lack of attachment to, what I used to consider as 
  myself, my identity. Now those pieces have either gone away or I am 
  not attached to them-- in any case have nothing to do with them. 
  This description if heard by most would be thought of as being dead.
 
 Oh right, I thought we were talking near-death experiences like
 the person, apparently dead, who travels down tunnels of light
 and has visits from dead relatives, sometimes even alive ones
 (bit of a giveaway to it being a totally subjective thing I think)
 All of this happens when the brain *should* be unable to conjure
 any conscious experience.
 
  
  On the topic you bring up Curtis, whether or not there is life 
 after 
  death, it depends, and I don't much concern myself about what the 
  outcome is, since it is dependent on my actions anyway. If I go out 
  like a candle, that is fine.
 
 
 
 'It depends whether their is life after death on my actions' This is 
 a new one on me! And on every other religious system I've heard about.
 Tell us more.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[ruthsimplicity]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hugo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 sandiego108@ 
 wrote:
snip
  
  On the topic you bring up Curtis, whether or not there is life 
 after 
  death, it depends, and I don't much concern myself about what the 
  outcome is, since it is dependent on my actions anyway. If I go out 
  like a candle, that is fine.
 
 
 
 'It depends whether their is life after death on my actions' This is 
 a new one on me! And on every other religious system I've heard about.
 Tell us more.

We can wait for Sandiego, but this is consistent with what he has said
in the past; he is the creator of his own world. And if you create the
world around you, I assume you create your own death and what happens
after your death. 

Taking this further, Sandiego can say anything to any of us because we
are his creation. So he can make gay jibes at Turq or refuse to fly
for me.  

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[Angela Mailander]

I have read reports of EEGs flatlining in near death experiences (NDE)nbsp; 
But your point still remains well taken.nbsp; Remember what St. Agustine said, 
I measure it, but what it is I measure, I do not know.nbsp;nbsp;And just 
cause we have EEGs doesn't mean thatnbsp;we're measuring all there is to 
measure.nbsp; Near death experiences may be just that:nbsp; Near.nbsp; Near 
is no cigar.nbsp; I've hadnbsp;a groovynbsp;NDEnbsp;twice.nbsp; Certainly 
blow away experiences, but the point is, I came back and I have no way of 
knowing what, if anything,nbsp;would happen if I didn't come back.nbsp; It's 
hard to imagine hownbsp;there could be less than pure consciousness, but hey, 
lots of shit happens on a daily basisnbsp;that I couldn't have 
imagined.nbsp;nbsp;

--- On Mon, 9/6/08, curtisdeltablues lt;[EMAIL PROTECTED]gt; wrote:

From: curtisdeltablues lt;[EMAIL PROTECTED]gt;
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, 9 June, 2008, 11:39 AM






lt;All of this happens when the brain *should* be unable to conjure
any conscious experience.gt;

This jump is too far IMO. People having near death experiences are
don't have probes inside their brains do they? Probably most don't
have EEGs either. I have never heard any doctor claim that they knew
that the electrical chemical activity of the brain had ceased in these
experiences. And of course the person going in and out of
consciousness is about as unreliable a witness as you can get of what
happened when.

--- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, Hugo lt;richardhughes103@ ...gt; 
wrote:
gt;
gt; --- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, sandiego108 lt;sandiego108@ 
gt; 
gt; wrote:
gt; gt;
gt; gt; --- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, curtisdeltablues 
gt; gt; lt;curtisdeltablues@ gt; wrote:
gt; gt; gt;
gt; gt; gt; 
gt; gt; gt; gt; The killing yourself and still being alive baffles
gt; gt; gt; gt; me completely, can you enlarge on this?
gt; gt; gt; gt;
gt; gt; gt; 
gt; gt; gt; I remember believing this. My reasoning was based on the 
gt; gt; experience
gt; gt; gt; of witnessing sleep. I decided that if my consciousness could 
gt; not 
gt; gt; be
gt; gt; gt; extinguished by sleep that somehow if I died my consciousness 
gt; would
gt; gt; gt; stay on. It is really a fascinating area of the conviction 
gt; gt; because it
gt; gt; gt; cannot be experienced but it gets very entrenched. 
gt; gt; gt; 
gt; gt; gt; Now I believe that when the hardware crashes, the software is not
gt; gt; gt; available. I am at peace with the idea of my personal extinction
gt; gt; gt; after death. The amazing thing is that I am conscious this very
gt; gt; gt; minute. How great is that?
gt; gt; gt; 
gt; gt; gt; It's not that life is so short, it's that we're dead soo 
long!
gt; gt; gt; 
gt; gt; Ha ha-- good one! I like that. 
gt; gt; 
gt; gt; For Hugo: What I was talking about is the dissolution of, or 
gt; gt; unwinding of, or lack of attachment to, what I used to consider as 
gt; gt; myself, my identity. Now those pieces have either gone away or I am 
gt; gt; not attached to them-- in any case have nothing to do with them. 
gt; gt; This description if heard by most would be thought of as being dead.
gt; 
gt; Oh right, I thought we were talking near-death experiences like
gt; the person, apparently dead, who travels down tunnels of light
gt; and has visits from dead relatives, sometimes even alive ones
gt; (bit of a giveaway to it being a totally subjective thing I think)
gt; All of this happens when the brain *should* be unable to conjure
gt; any conscious experience.
gt; 
gt; 
gt; gt; On the topic you bring up Curtis, whether or not there is life 
gt; after 
gt; gt; death, it depends, and I don't much concern myself about what the 
gt; gt; outcome is, since it is dependent on my actions anyway. If I go out 
gt; gt; like a candle, that is fine.
gt; gt;
gt; 
gt; 
gt; 'It depends whether their is life after death on my actions' This is 
gt; a new one on me! And on every other religious system I've heard about.
gt; Tell us more.
gt;

 













Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[Hugo]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 
  The killing yourself and still being alive baffles
  me completely, can you enlarge on this?
 
 
 I remember believing this.  My reasoning was based on the experience
 of witnessing sleep.  I decided that if my consciousness could not 
be
 extinguished by sleep that somehow if I died my consciousness would
 stay on.  It is really a fascinating area of the conviction because 
it
 cannot be experienced but it gets very entrenched.  

I think that we somehow survive death is probably the one 
idea that unites all cultures. . I can see where they all
get there ideas from, historically most lives must have 
been pretty damn miserable and the thought that you go 
through all that crap just to never be seen again must be
a bit of a pisser.

I tried the eastern trip on for size when I learnt TM but
it didn't take and I'm happier thinking this is the one 
and only time and that in a few years the world I've created
in my head will be gone, anything else will be a bonus of 
course.


 Now I believe that when the hardware crashes, the software is not
 available.  I am at peace with the idea of my personal extinction
 after death.  The amazing thing is that I am conscious this very
 minute.  How great is that?

Pretty damn amazing indeed. Hardly a day goes by without me 
wondering about it.
 
 It's not that life is so short, it's that we're dead soo long!
 
 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hugo richardhughes103@ 
wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 
sandiego108@ 
  wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity 
no_reply@ 
   wrote:
  
  
  Ruth wrote:
Can you change the atoms around in your 
body to make yourself into a tree?  Etc.
  
  
  Sandiego wrote:
No, but you can kill yourself as dead as any
dead person, and remain alive-- that's magical.
As for all the other, materially based stuff
like shape shifting and flying, it looks like 
a complete waste of time. Compared to normal 
life, it seems ludicrous and foolish-- just 
a way to entice the unenlightened, that's all.
  
  Not sure I understand this correctly, are you claiming
  that you've done this or just *know* that it's possible.
  If the latter, how do you know? If the former can you
  tell us about it.
  
  I can't see the ability to change shape and fly as
  being foolish, more a sort of demonstration that
  your ideas about reality and the minds place in it
  are real. I've heard John Hagelins, not very convincing
  even to a putz like me, lectures on quantum physics
  and would like to know why, if people doing TM really
  are experiencing and acting from the unified field, we 
  haven't seen anyone do any of these amazing super-normal
  things. The only unusual thing I saw in all my years
  as a yogic flyer, were people sleeping all day and
  still being tired enough to kip at night, hardly
  something James Randi would want to investigate.
  
  I would like to be enticed by a demonstration, a
  falsifiable experiment is the only way of demonstrating
  that a theory is on the right track. I think for flying
  that someone jumping of the top floor of a skyscraper
  would be all the demo we need. Falsified of course by 
  whoever wants to pick up the gauntlet hitting the 
  pavement.
  
  I'm being serious, if the TMO could demonstrate
  any of the sidhis there would be queues round the 
  block to learn. Which is apparently what they 
  would like to see.
  
  The killing yourself and still being alive baffles
  me completely, can you enlarge on this?
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[ruthsimplicity]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_reply@ 
 wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 sandiego108@
  wrote:
  
   
   So, why would I want to save my dying son from cancer through 
 some 
   mystical mumbo-jumbo? What's the point?
  
  So I assume that you would try to save him using the best medical 
 care
  possible.  What is the difference?
  
 
 What does any of this have to do with enlightenment?

I don't know.  I am trying to figure out how a person who believes
they are enlightened views the world. 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[Sal Sunshine]

On Jun 9, 2008, at 10:29 AM, Hugo wrote:


I've heard John Hagelins, not very convincing
even to a putz like me, lectures on quantum physics
and would like to know why, if people doing TM really
are experiencing and acting from the unified field, we
haven't seen anyone do any of these amazing super-normal
things.


You know, Hugo, the one super-normal thing I'd like to see people
 still heavily involved in TM do that would really blow me away
is treat others with basic respect and empathy on a regular
basis.  If that were to ever happen, I just might start believing
in pixie dust.

Sal

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[sandiego108]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 sandiego108@
 wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_reply@ 
  wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 
sandiego108@
   wrote:
   

So, why would I want to save my dying son from cancer 
through 
  some 
mystical mumbo-jumbo? What's the point?
   
   So I assume that you would try to save him using the best 
medical 
  care
   possible.  What is the difference?
   
  
  What does any of this have to do with enlightenment?
 
 I don't know.  I am trying to figure out how a person who believes
 they are enlightened views the world. 
 

Just like in so called real life, it varies from person to person. I 
don't believe I am enlightened (in other words, why would I carry 
around this belief? Beliefs must be catalogued and nurtured and 
cross checked and validated-- what a waste of both time and life) 
but I will answer your question for myself, personally, as if I am a 
normal person ;-) (which, believe me I am-- eminently normal...)

If I hypothetically had a son and he was dying of cancer, would I 
try to save his life? Of course- who, except for some delusional 7th 
day adventists would allow their son to die without any attempt to 
save him? btw, judging from this question it is a peculiar 
perspective you have on enlightenment.

Again, enlightenment is a normal state of functioning. it 
encompasses all of the attributes that are typically associated with 
human beings. And there are no rules to follow or ways that an 
enlightened person acts, other than as they do. 

There are some very misguided stories about enlightenment, 
propogated by those attempting to make sense of the enlightened 
experience from a standpoint of ignorance, of waking state. It 
cannot be done. Best to just focus on your own path, if you have 
one, and forget about all of the speculation.
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[Vaj]

On Jun 9, 2008, at 12:39 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote:


All of this happens when the brain *should* be unable to conjure
any conscious experience.

This jump is too far IMO.  People having near death experiences are
don't have probes inside their brains do they?



There actually is some research on this, although thus far it is  
unpublished and rudimentary. According to the Dalai Lama in his  
recent book The Universe in a Single Atom there are actually teams of  
neuroscientists actually waiting and hoping to measure a yogi in  
Clear Light of Dying meditation. This is a form of meditation that  
occurs in a flat EEG after physical death during which certain parts  
of the body remain warm, but the person is physiologically dead. He  
cites a number of recent instances of people remaining  
'uncorruptable' for weeks in tropical climates during this style of  
meditation. So, believe it or not, this is an area we may see some  
research on relatively soon.


And of course there are meditation techniques to gain some experience  
of the death state ahead of time. To call such methods mind-blowing  
would be an understatement. Are they actually mimicking the death  
state? The only way to really know for sure is to try them out. As  
pilots say 'getting up is easy, it's landing (or re-entry) that's the  
hardest part.' :-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[ruthsimplicity]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

 
 Just like in so called real life, it varies from person to person. I 
 don't believe I am enlightened (in other words, why would I carry 
 around this belief? Beliefs must be catalogued and nurtured and 
 cross checked and validated-- what a waste of both time and life) 
 but I will answer your question for myself, personally, as if I am a 
 normal person ;-) (which, believe me I am-- eminently normal...)
 
 If I hypothetically had a son and he was dying of cancer, would I 
 try to save his life? Of course- who, except for some delusional 7th 
 day adventists would allow their son to die without any attempt to 
 save him? btw, judging from this question it is a peculiar 
 perspective you have on enlightenment.

The question was in the context of whether you would use any
superpowers you might have to save your son, and you said you would
not. 
 
 Again, enlightenment is a normal state of functioning. it 
 encompasses all of the attributes that are typically associated with 
 human beings. And there are no rules to follow or ways that an 
 enlightened person acts, other than as they do. 
 
 There are some very misguided stories about enlightenment, 
 propogated by those attempting to make sense of the enlightened 
 experience from a standpoint of ignorance, of waking state. It 
 cannot be done. Best to just focus on your own path, if you have 
 one, and forget about all of the speculation.

My own path is to question, to speculate, and to hear about the
experiences of others.  It is the way I am. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[curtisdeltablues]

Best to just focus on your own path, if you have 
 one, and forget about all of the speculation.


Yeah Ruth, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

This statement is a serious red flag to thoughtful people Jim.

Her question comes out of your response to the question: could you use
magical powers to cure your son? To which you replied: 

So, why would I want to save my dying son from cancer through some
mystical mumbo-jumbo? What's the point?

This seemed inconsistent because you would try medical measures to
save him, so why not the normal magical powers of enlightenment? 
And you have discussed having subjectively gained medical knowledge of
family members in the past so this question really does not represent
a peculiar view of enlightenment.  The difference between having
magical powers and not using them and not having them at all seems
nonexistent to me.

I don't believe I am enlightened 

This is kind of important I think.  It is a belief.  Trying to sell a
belief as certain knowledge has not served mankind well in the past. 
In fact as soon as I see someone trying this move on my I immediately
check my wallet.

I think it adds a lot to the group to have your willingness to answer
questions about your assertions about yourself Jim.  There is an
inherent condescension in the relationship, me = ignorant, you =
enlightened.  But once we get past that weirdness I enjoy these posts.
 It makes me rethink the whole proposal of what enlightenment might be
and if anyone at all is in such a state and even if it is a good thing
at all.  There are so many assumptions about this state from
traditional literature that discussing it this way helps me become
conscious of the assumptions.  A very interesting topic and I'm sure
we have not heard the end of it despite your advice.





 



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_reply@ 
 wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 sandiego108@
  wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_reply@ 
   wrote:
   
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 
 sandiego108@
wrote:

 
 So, why would I want to save my dying son from cancer 
 through 
   some 
 mystical mumbo-jumbo? What's the point?

So I assume that you would try to save him using the best 
 medical 
   care
possible.  What is the difference?

   
   What does any of this have to do with enlightenment?
  
  I don't know.  I am trying to figure out how a person who believes
  they are enlightened views the world. 
  
 
 Just like in so called real life, it varies from person to person. I 
 don't believe I am enlightened (in other words, why would I carry 
 around this belief? Beliefs must be catalogued and nurtured and 
 cross checked and validated-- what a waste of both time and life) 
 but I will answer your question for myself, personally, as if I am a 
 normal person ;-) (which, believe me I am-- eminently normal...)
 
 If I hypothetically had a son and he was dying of cancer, would I 
 try to save his life? Of course- who, except for some delusional 7th 
 day adventists would allow their son to die without any attempt to 
 save him? btw, judging from this question it is a peculiar 
 perspective you have on enlightenment.
 
 Again, enlightenment is a normal state of functioning. it 
 encompasses all of the attributes that are typically associated with 
 human beings. And there are no rules to follow or ways that an 
 enlightened person acts, other than as they do. 
 
 There are some very misguided stories about enlightenment, 
 propogated by those attempting to make sense of the enlightened 
 experience from a standpoint of ignorance, of waking state. It 
 cannot be done. Best to just focus on your own path, if you have 
 one, and forget about all of the speculation.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[yifuxero]

--Flaws in your statements:
1. First, you state a fact as if it were certain, saying it's not a 
belief.  Fine - you're just mistaken.  Lots of people have seen 
weather balloons thinking they were ET spaceships.  They were 
mistaken.  Your basic problem is using a particular word the big E 
that can be defined in a certain way but you are using only your own 
limited criteria.

2. Next, you keep on saying you're not attached to this and that.  
Big deal!  Neither are my coworkers attached to those things.
The flaw here is that if you conduct an adequate research of the 
statements of E'd people; (people assumed to be E'd such as Sakyamuni 
Buddha and certain successors, Ramana Maharshi, and SBS); you will 
find that such persons define E BOTH in terms of Presense AND what 
signs that have occurred on the way to E.
Then you say E can't be defined in terms of what goes on in the 
waking state.  Not quite true.  E can be defined in terms of Presence 
AND the subtle signs, some of which may take place in the waking or 
any other state.
Other than stating you once saw Guru Dev, what were the signs of your 
progress differentiating GC from CC, and UC from GC? 

3. Last for now - you say there are misguided notions about E. 
Right! - yours.  We aren't talking about beliefs, just the list of 
correct criteria which constitutes a definition.  You haven't met the 
criteria; and your list of criteria is rather short and doesn't match 
even MMY's. 


- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_reply@ 
 wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 sandiego108@
  wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity 
no_reply@ 
   wrote:
   
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 
 sandiego108@
wrote:

 
 So, why would I want to save my dying son from cancer 
 through 
   some 
 mystical mumbo-jumbo? What's the point?

So I assume that you would try to save him using the best 
 medical 
   care
possible.  What is the difference?

   
   What does any of this have to do with enlightenment?
  
  I don't know.  I am trying to figure out how a person who believes
  they are enlightened views the world. 
  
 
 Just like in so called real life, it varies from person to person. 
I 
 don't believe I am enlightened (in other words, why would I carry 
 around this belief? Beliefs must be catalogued and nurtured and 
 cross checked and validated-- what a waste of both time and life) 
 but I will answer your question for myself, personally, as if I am 
a 
 normal person ;-) (which, believe me I am-- eminently normal...)
 
 If I hypothetically had a son and he was dying of cancer, would I 
 try to save his life? Of course- who, except for some delusional 
7th 
 day adventists would allow their son to die without any attempt to 
 save him? btw, judging from this question it is a peculiar 
 perspective you have on enlightenment.
 
 Again, enlightenment is a normal state of functioning. it 
 encompasses all of the attributes that are typically associated 
with 
 human beings. And there are no rules to follow or ways that an 
 enlightened person acts, other than as they do. 
 
 There are some very misguided stories about enlightenment, 
 propogated by those attempting to make sense of the enlightened 
 experience from a standpoint of ignorance, of waking state. It 
 cannot be done. Best to just focus on your own path, if you have 
 one, and forget about all of the speculation.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[sandiego108]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Best to just focus on your own path, if you have 
  one, and forget about all of the speculation.
 
 
 Yeah Ruth, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
 
 This statement is a serious red flag to thoughtful people Jim.
 
 Her question comes out of your response to the question: could you 
use
 magical powers to cure your son? To which you replied: 
 
 So, why would I want to save my dying son from cancer through 
some
 mystical mumbo-jumbo? What's the point?
 
 This seemed inconsistent because you would try medical measures to
 save him, so why not the normal magical powers of enlightenment? 
 And you have discussed having subjectively gained medical 
knowledge of
 family members in the past so this question really does not 
represent
 a peculiar view of enlightenment.  The difference between having
 magical powers and not using them and not having them at all seems
 nonexistent to me.

Well the magical powers as you call them I have developed have not 
been tried on cancer. I have dealt successfully with back injuries 
and headaches-- stuff like that. Would I trust my magical powers to 
heal someone of cancer vs. medical care? No way, though I would not 
be able to resist using my magical powers to look around inside 
their body and see if anything helpful occured to me. Magical powers-
- cmoe on-- straight out of some ooga booga movie from the 50's...
 
 I don't believe I am enlightened 
 
 This is kind of important I think.  It is a belief.  Trying to 
sell a
 belief as certain knowledge has not served mankind well in the 
past. 
 In fact as soon as I see someone trying this move on my I 
immediately
 check my wallet.

Did you read that right? I said I *don't* believe I am enlightened, 
any more than you believe you are a blues player.
 
 I think it adds a lot to the group to have your willingness to 
answer
 questions about your assertions about yourself Jim.  There is an
 inherent condescension in the relationship, me = ignorant, you =
 enlightened.  

Yeah the language kind of lends itself to that conclusion. Oh well.

Actually any condescension comes from those who believe 
enlightenment is something special. I have never said that it was, 
just that permanent enlightenment is available to anyone, even 
Barry, yixefero, John dorflex, Sal, and all the other doubters here- 
my, what a thought crime that is! And, gasp, if they are dilligent, 
they may actually , gasp, achieve the Goal in this lifetime!!! Oh my 
god, another thought crime!

 But once we get past that weirdness I enjoy these posts.

great!

  It makes me rethink the whole proposal of what enlightenment 
might be
 and if anyone at all is in such a state and even if it is a good 
thing
 at all.  

I like it.

There are so many assumptions about this state from
 traditional literature that discussing it this way helps me become
 conscious of the assumptions. 

at least centuries worth of assumptions probably, and most of them 
wrong...

 A very interesting topic and I'm sure
 we have not heard the end of it despite your advice. 

My advice was nothing more than common sense- don't speculate too 
much about something you are trying to do. I find action with its 
resultant consequences far superior to speculation in making 
progress. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[Richard J. Williams]

Ruth wrote:
 Sandiego can say anything to any of us 
 because we are his creation. 

You may have misunderstood Jim, Ruth. Jim was
simply saying that none of us perceives the
world in exactly the same way. All perceptions
are changed by our own individual consciousness.

No things and event are perceived exactly the 
same by everyone. And nobody perceives things
exactly as they are. Things are changed by us
when we perceive them.

We perceive qualities of things, we do not
perceive wholes. Things are changed just by the
fact that they are perceived. We each perceive
things and events in our own consciousness.

There is no 'creation' - things and events are
never 'created' - you can't create something out
of nothing. What we perceive are appearances -
we do not apprehend the thing-in-itself.

Simply put, no objects exist independently of 
their being known. Several people cannot see 
the same object and see it exactly as it is. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[ruthsimplicity]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Ruth wrote:
  Sandiego can say anything to any of us 
  because we are his creation. 
 
 You may have misunderstood Jim, Ruth. Jim was
 simply saying that none of us perceives the
 world in exactly the same way. All perceptions
 are changed by our own individual consciousness.
 
 No things and event are perceived exactly the 
 same by everyone. And nobody perceives things
 exactly as they are. Things are changed by us
 when we perceive them.
 
 We perceive qualities of things, we do not
 perceive wholes. Things are changed just by the
 fact that they are perceived. We each perceive
 things and events in our own consciousness.
 
 There is no 'creation' - things and events are
 never 'created' - you can't create something out
 of nothing. What we perceive are appearances -
 we do not apprehend the thing-in-itself.
 
 Simply put, no objects exist independently of 
 their being known. Several people cannot see 
 the same object and see it exactly as it is.

Well, we will have to hear from Jim.  My impression of what he has
said seemed a bit more literal than what you are saying.  

I am not of the school which believes no objects exist independently
of their being known.  But of course people's perceptions are colored
by a variety of things.  Nevertheless, I still believe blue is blue,
cold is cold and a tree falling in the woods makes noise even if you
are not there.  

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[Richard J. Williams]

  All perceptions are changed by our 
  own individual consciousness.
 
Ruth wrote: 
 I am not of the school which believes 
 no objects exist independently
 of their being known. 

Maybe so, Ruth, but don't forget about 
the 'constructed character of knowing':

Objects are not known directly; that is, 
there is something between the objects 
percieved and our knowledge of them. 

The point is, we do not percieve objects
exactly as they are without distortion 
by any intervening medium.

Objects are not known directly, but only 
through the medium of consciousness.

 But of course people's perceptions are 
 colored by a variety of things. 

 Nevertheless, I still believe blue is 
 blue, cold is cold... 

There's no absolute 'blue' - a blind
person can't see the sky. The perception
of 'cold' is realtive to the perciever.

It is obvious that different people may 
not see the same object, as it is, but
may perceive different objects when 
confronted by the same stimulus source.

 ...and a tree falling in the woods 
 makes noise even if you are not there.

There's no sound unless there's a 
sentient being to percieve it. 

No objects which are known exist 
independently of their being known. 

Objects cannot endure or continue to 
exist without being experienced by 
anyone. 

Knowing the objects creates them. 
Objects, including their qualities, 
are affected merely by being known. 

Knowledge of objects changes their 
nature. 

You can read more here:

We are perfectly justified in 
maintaining that only what is within 
ourselves can be immediately and 
directly perceived, and that only my 
own existence can be the object of a 
mere perception... 

Immanuel Kant, 'Critique of Pure Reason'
A367 f.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[sandiego108]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams
 willytex@ wrote:
 
  Ruth wrote:
   Sandiego can say anything to any of us 
   because we are his creation. 
  
  You may have misunderstood Jim, Ruth. Jim was
  simply saying that none of us perceives the
  world in exactly the same way. All perceptions
  are changed by our own individual consciousness.
  
  No things and event are perceived exactly the 
  same by everyone. And nobody perceives things
  exactly as they are. Things are changed by us
  when we perceive them.
  
  We perceive qualities of things, we do not
  perceive wholes. Things are changed just by the
  fact that they are perceived. We each perceive
  things and events in our own consciousness.
  
  There is no 'creation' - things and events are
  never 'created' - you can't create something out
  of nothing. What we perceive are appearances -
  we do not apprehend the thing-in-itself.
  
  Simply put, no objects exist independently of 
  their being known. Several people cannot see 
  the same object and see it exactly as it is.
 
 Well, we will have to hear from Jim.  My impression of what he has
 said seemed a bit more literal than what you are saying.  
 
 I am not of the school which believes no objects exist 
independently
 of their being known.  But of course people's perceptions are 
colored
 by a variety of things.  Nevertheless, I still believe blue is 
blue,
 cold is cold and a tree falling in the woods makes noise even if 
you
 are not there.  
 

My perception is such that there are no beliefs existing 
independently in my mind purely for the sake of believing them, of 
holding onto them in order to create a world that makes sense to me. 
This to me is bondage, and a static view of the world that I have 
not the strength nor will nor interest to maintain. It is infinitely 
more enjoyable to watch the world come into being every time I 
experience it, and dissolve every time that I do not experience it. 
And far more accurate in my experience.

So, for example, if I go outside and it is cold, my body gets cold 
and I come inside and say, its cold outside. Then my body warms up 
because it is warmer inside and then I don't know any longer whether 
it is cold outside. Why must I hold onto the belief that it is cold 
outside, when in fact I don't really know one way of the other?

If a tree falls in the forest and I come upon the fallen tree, did 
it make a sound when it fell? Maybe it did, and maybe it didn't. To 
lug around the belief that it definitely did is too much weight, too 
much clutter. If someone were to then explain that yes, of course it 
did, I might agree with them, because I have studied the propagation 
of soundwaves and it is in my best interests that moment to keep 
things simple and agree with them. But there is no static belief 
that this is so. It is a situational or contextual belief, based on 
what I am achieving in the moment. 

After they leave and I am left alone with the fallen tree, that is 
all there is. A fallen tree that is laying there in the forest. As I 
look at the fallen tree, what is underneath it? Perhaps the ground, 
but seeing as the tree is very heavy and I cannot lift it, perhaps 
it rests on nothing at all. Again, I don't know, nor do I entertain 
the safe assumption that I do know what lies beneath it, that the 
ground extends beneath it. Again, too much trouble to hold such an 
assumption, unless I choose to.

When I leave the forest, does the tree remain? I don't know. My 
memory of the tree will remain, for awhile, as long as I want it to 
or need it to, to fulfill some contextual need, like a picture I 
draw later from memory, or not.

This is what I mean when I say that I create my Universe; everyone 
creates their Universe.



 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[curtisdeltablues]

 So, for example, if I go outside and it is cold, my body gets cold 
 and I come inside and say, its cold outside. Then my body warms up 
 because it is warmer inside and then I don't know any longer whether 
 it is cold outside. Why must I hold onto the belief that it is cold 
 outside, when in fact I don't really know one way of the other?

Your description reminds me of Tom Hank's character on SNL:


Jingle:
Mr. Short-Term Memory.
He shouldn't have stood under that pear tree.
Now there's just no remedy.
He'll frustrate you so
But he'll never know.
Because he's Mr. Short-Term Memory.

Announcer: Tonight's episode: The Blind Date.

[ segue into Mr. Short-Term Memory in a fancy restaurant sitting at a
table with his blind date ]

Mr. Short-Term Memory: So, the boss walks into the office, and Bill's
got his sweater on over his head, and.. [ laughs ]

Date: [ laughing ] Bill sounds like a pretty funny guy!

Mr. Short-Term Memory: Bill who?

Date: The guy you work with.

Mr. Short-Term Memory: Oh, Bill? How do you know Bill?

Date: I don't know Bill.

Mr. Short-Term Memory: Oh, it's too bad, he's a pretty funny guy! So,
you want to guy out to dinner?

Date: What do you mean? We're at dinner.

Mr. Short-Term Memory: Oh, great, I'm hungry!

[ Waiter walks up with a bottle of wine ]

Waiter: Here you are, Sir.

Mr. Short-Term Memory: Hey, what's with the wine?

Waiter: It's the Bordeaux you just ordered.

Mr. Short-Term Memory: I didn't order any wine! If this is one of
those kind of places where they bring you wine that you didn't order,
and then put it on your bill, I'm not biting!

Date: Jeff, you ordered the wine.

Mr. Short-Term Memory: Oh! [ takes the wine and pours it ]

Date: You know, it's kind of funny that you're in advertising..
because my dad used to be in advertising. When I was little, he'd try
his ideas on me, and..

Mr. Short-Term Memory: Excuse me.. Miss? You're welcome to sit here
and everything.. but I think introductions are in order.

Date: Jeff. It's me. Caroline. Your date.

Mr. Short-Term Memory: [ checks her out ] Ohhh, hey, alright! So,
what's your name?

Waiter: [ returns with menus ] Here are your menus. Our Special this
evening is Medallions of Veal smothered in a wine and mushroom sauce.

Mr. Short-Term Memory: [ examines menu ] Is there a Special tonight?

Waiter: I just told you the Special: Medallions of Veal..

Mr. Short-Term Memory: Look, just tell me about the Special, please? I
don't want to hear all this babbling about Medallions of Veal - I
don't even see it on the menu!

Waiter: I'm.. sorry, Sir.. there are no Specials.

Mr. Short-Term Memory: Well.. okay. I'll have the Poached Salmon.

Date: I'll have the same.

Mr. Short-Term Memory: Hey! Poached Salmon! I'll have that! [ Waiter
tries to take the menu ] Excuse me, but I think we're going to need
these menus to order the food!

Waiter: [ takes menu ] Uh.. I'll get you a fresh one.

Mr. Short-Term Memory: Oh. Wow. Classy place. I hope they have Poached
Salmon!

Date: Yeah. Well, anyway.. you know, I used to think of going into
advertising myself.. but.. once I got into publishing, well..

Mr. Short-Term Memory: Excuse me. This is very interesting, but I
don't know who you are, and frankly, it's making me just a little..

Date: Caroline! Caroline! I'm your date! Caroline!

Mr. Short-Term Memory: Oh. [ checks her out ] Hey, alright, we're
doing okay! Now, if we could just get a waiter.. [ grabs a busboy ]
Excuse me, Busboy? Could you introduce us to a waiter, please? I'm
sure he must be a delightful individual, we'd love to meet him! Thank you!

Date: Jeff, please don't make a scene..

Mr. Short-Term Memory: Well, I'm just trying to get food before.. [
looks at his watch ] Hey! Look at this watch!

Date: Jeff.. it's yours.

Mr. Short-Term Memory: [ smiles ] Thank you!

Waiter: [ re-enters, and places the food on the table ] And here you are..

Mr. Short-Term Memory: Oh, boy.. listen, you're obviously new. I don't
know if you realize it or not, but you've just served food to people
who have barely sat down! A menu would be nice for a start!

Waiter: [ disgusted ] I'm sorry, Sir, there's no need to see a menu.
We only serve one dish at this restaurant - Poached Salmon.

Mr. Short-Term Memory: Hey, Poached Salmon! I love it! [ starts eating ]

Date: Jeff, have you ever seen anybody about your.. condition?

Mr. Short-Term Memory: [ grows uncomfortable as he chews ] There's
something in my mouth! There's something in my mouth! [ spits out his
Poached Salmon onto his napkin ] There was food in my mouth!

Date: It's just your Poached Salmon!

Mr. Short-Term Memory: Oh. I love Poached Salmon! [ pierces the chewed
food with his fork ]

Date: Don't eat it!

Mr. Short-Term Memory: [ notices the chewed food in his napkin ] Wait
a minute, I'm not going to eat this! This has already been in
somebody's mouth! Oh, this is a great restaurant! Serves
already-been-chewed food!

Date: Just eat it, Jeff!

Mr. Short-Term Memory: No way!

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[yifuxero]

--Re: the following statement (below):
 
There's no sound unless there's a
sentient being to percieve it.

 This is not in agreement with the latest theories in physics. The 
universe itself is the sentient being.



- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

   All perceptions are changed by our 
   own individual consciousness.
  
 Ruth wrote: 
  I am not of the school which believes 
  no objects exist independently
  of their being known. 
 
 Maybe so, Ruth, but don't forget about 
 the 'constructed character of knowing':
 
 Objects are not known directly; that is, 
 there is something between the objects 
 percieved and our knowledge of them. 
 
 The point is, we do not percieve objects
 exactly as they are without distortion 
 by any intervening medium.
 
 Objects are not known directly, but only 
 through the medium of consciousness.
 
  But of course people's perceptions are 
  colored by a variety of things. 
 
  Nevertheless, I still believe blue is 
  blue, cold is cold... 
 
 There's no absolute 'blue' - a blind
 person can't see the sky. The perception
 of 'cold' is realtive to the perciever.
 
 It is obvious that different people may 
 not see the same object, as it is, but
 may perceive different objects when 
 confronted by the same stimulus source.
 
  ...and a tree falling in the woods 
  makes noise even if you are not there.
 
 There's no sound unless there's a 
 sentient being to percieve it. 
 
 No objects which are known exist 
 independently of their being known. 
 
 Objects cannot endure or continue to 
 exist without being experienced by 
 anyone. 
 
 Knowing the objects creates them. 
 Objects, including their qualities, 
 are affected merely by being known. 
 
 Knowledge of objects changes their 
 nature. 
 
 You can read more here:
 
 We are perfectly justified in 
 maintaining that only what is within 
 ourselves can be immediately and 
 directly perceived, and that only my 
 own existence can be the object of a 
 mere perception... 
 
 Immanuel Kant, 'Critique of Pure Reason'
 A367 f.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[sandiego108]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  So, for example, if I go outside and it is cold, my body gets 
cold 
  and I come inside and say, its cold outside. Then my body warms 
up 
  because it is warmer inside and then I don't know any longer 
whether 
  it is cold outside. Why must I hold onto the belief that it is 
cold 
  outside, when in fact I don't really know one way of the other?
 
 Your description reminds me of Tom Hank's character on SNL:
 
 
 Jingle:
 Mr. Short-Term Memory.
 He shouldn't have stood under that pear tree.
 Now there's just no remedy.
 He'll frustrate you so
 But he'll never know.
 Because he's Mr. Short-Term Memory.

funny-- except the guy sounds retarded- no skill in action. 
Otherwise, spot on.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[Richard J. Williams]

 There's no sound unless there's a
 sentient being to percieve it.

yifuxero wrote: 
 This is not in agreement with the latest 
 theories in physics. 

Maybe so, but the subject of this thread
is Byron Katies 'Awakening' - that's a
metaphysical discussion, not a physics
theory.

 The universe itself is the sentient
 being.
 
You are assumng that there is a universe
'out there' - but you could be dreaming.
In dreams we see universes out there; in
dreams we can run and jump and consult 
our friends. 

There is nothing in the waking state that 
could not be experienced in a dream.

And it all depends on what you mean by
'sentient being'. Sentience means anyone
who can think and percieve. If there is
no one around when a tree falls, then
there is no one to think or percieve.
 
  We are perfectly justified in 
  maintaining that only what is within 
  ourselves can be immediately and 
  directly perceived, and that only my 
  own existence can be the object of a 
  mere perception... 
  
  Immanuel Kant, 'Critique of Pure Reason'
  A367 f.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[yifuxero]

---the flaw in your reasoning is the separation of  entities that you 
call sentient from others.  This is an artificial separation. 
Again, the universe as a whole is the one.


 In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  There's no sound unless there's a
  sentient being to percieve it.
 
 yifuxero wrote: 
  This is not in agreement with the latest 
  theories in physics. 
 
 Maybe so, but the subject of this thread
 is Byron Katies 'Awakening' - that's a
 metaphysical discussion, not a physics
 theory.
 
  The universe itself is the sentient
  being.
  
 You are assumng that there is a universe
 'out there' - but you could be dreaming.
 In dreams we see universes out there; in
 dreams we can run and jump and consult 
 our friends. 
 
 There is nothing in the waking state that 
 could not be experienced in a dream.
 
 And it all depends on what you mean by
 'sentient being'. Sentience means anyone
 who can think and percieve. If there is
 no one around when a tree falls, then
 there is no one to think or percieve.
  
   We are perfectly justified in 
   maintaining that only what is within 
   ourselves can be immediately and 
   directly perceived, and that only my 
   own existence can be the object of a 
   mere perception... 
   
   Immanuel Kant, 'Critique of Pure Reason'
   A367 f.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[ruthsimplicity]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

 
 My perception is such that there are no beliefs existing 
 independently in my mind purely for the sake of believing them, of 
 holding onto them in order to create a world that makes sense to me. 
 This to me is bondage, and a static view of the world that I have 
 not the strength nor will nor interest to maintain. It is infinitely 
 more enjoyable to watch the world come into being every time I 
 experience it, and dissolve every time that I do not experience it. 
 And far more accurate in my experience.

 
 So, for example, if I go outside and it is cold, my body gets cold 
 and I come inside and say, its cold outside. Then my body warms up 
 because it is warmer inside and then I don't know any longer whether 
 it is cold outside. Why must I hold onto the belief that it is cold 
 outside, when in fact I don't really know one way of the other?

I am sorry, but I cannot believe that if in 10 minutes after coming in
from a cold day you go out again that you do not expect it would still
be cold and I believe that you would be surprised if it is hot.  Or if
lava was flowing in your back yard.  Of course, we don't think about
it being cold outside until it is time to go out again. But we know it
is cold outside. 
 
 If a tree falls in the forest and I come upon the fallen tree, did 
 it make a sound when it fell? Maybe it did, and maybe it didn't. To 
 lug around the belief that it definitely did is too much weight, too 
 much clutter. If someone were to then explain that yes, of course it 
 did, I might agree with them, because I have studied the propagation 
 of soundwaves and it is in my best interests that moment to keep 
 things simple and agree with them. But there is no static belief 
 that this is so. It is a situational or contextual belief, based on 
 what I am achieving in the moment. 

I don't get this at all.  
 
 After they leave and I am left alone with the fallen tree, that is 
 all there is. A fallen tree that is laying there in the forest. As I 
 look at the fallen tree, what is underneath it? Perhaps the ground, 
 but seeing as the tree is very heavy and I cannot lift it, perhaps 
 it rests on nothing at all. Again, I don't know, nor do I entertain 
 the safe assumption that I do know what lies beneath it, that the 
 ground extends beneath it. Again, too much trouble to hold such an 
 assumption, unless I choose to.

Isn't it just as hard to assume nothing?  Laws of nature and
expectations about how the world looks and behaves makes life simpler.
You rarely think about these expectations, they just are.
 
 When I leave the forest, does the tree remain? I don't know. My 
 memory of the tree will remain, for awhile, as long as I want it to 
 or need it to, to fulfill some contextual need, like a picture I 
 draw later from memory, or not.
 
 This is what I mean when I say that I create my Universe; everyone 
 creates their Universe.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[ruthsimplicity]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

 
 My perception is such that there are no beliefs existing
 independently in my mind purely for the sake of believing them, of
 holding onto them in order to create a world that makes sense to me.
 This to me is bondage, and a static view of the world that I have
 not the strength nor will nor interest to maintain. It is infinitely
 more enjoyable to watch the world come into being every time I
 experience it, and dissolve every time that I do not experience it.
 And far more accurate in my experience.


 So, for example, if I go outside and it is cold, my body gets cold
 and I come inside and say, its cold outside. Then my body warms up
 because it is warmer inside and then I don't know any longer whether
 it is cold outside. Why must I hold onto the belief that it is cold
 outside, when in fact I don't really know one way of the other?

I am sorry, but I cannot believe that if in 10 minutes after coming in
from a cold day you go out again that you do not expect it would still
be cold and I believe that you would be surprised if it is hot. Or if
lava was flowing in your back yard. Of course, we don't think about
it being cold outside until it is time to go out again. But we know it
is cold outside. 

 If a tree falls in the forest and I come upon the fallen tree, did
 it make a sound when it fell? Maybe it did, and maybe it didn't. To
 lug around the belief that it definitely did is too much weight, too
 much clutter. If someone were to then explain that yes, of course it
 did, I might agree with them, because I have studied the propagation
 of soundwaves and it is in my best interests that moment to keep
 things simple and agree with them. But there is no static belief
 that this is so. It is a situational or contextual belief, based on
 what I am achieving in the moment.

 
 After they leave and I am left alone with the fallen tree, that is
 all there is. A fallen tree that is laying there in the forest. As I
 look at the fallen tree, what is underneath it? Perhaps the ground,
 but seeing as the tree is very heavy and I cannot lift it, perhaps
 it rests on nothing at all. Again, I don't know, nor do I entertain
 the safe assumption that I do know what lies beneath it, that the
 ground extends beneath it. Again, too much trouble to hold such an
 assumption, unless I choose to.

It just sounds like you chose or not chose to go into a dissociative
state, dissociation meaning simply not seeing the connections that
people ordinarily see between things or events. 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[gullible fool]

 It's not a meat and potatoes THEME, is it?
 Coffee tables that look like steaks, poofy 
 beanbag chairs that look like dollops of 
 mashed potatoes, that sorta thing? I don't 
 remember any of that in Seelisberg.

Remember, Turq, the Gita talks of numerous heaven worlds. Sorry if this will 
burst your bubble, but there's a time to be realistic, and ex-TMers just should 
not expect to attain the same highest heaven world as the loftiest and most 
one-pointed ones on this forum.

--- On Sun, 6/8/08, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 From: TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 Date: Sunday, June 8, 2008, 2:24 PM
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
 sandiego108 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
 curtisdeltablues 
  curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
  
   I think this glorification of the experience of
 depersonalization 
   is really misguided.  There is a lot of
 information about this 
   state in modern psychology that needs to be
 integrated into more 
   traditional understandings of these experiences. 
 Just because 
   she enjoyed this transition of awareness
 doesn't mean it is a 
   good thing. I found this account somewhat
 alarming.  I have had 
   experiences like it but would never seek them as
 a goal for my 
   awareness again.  
  
  Yep the ego will always find such an experience
 alarming. And 
  if the person it is occuring to has this experience
 poorly 
  integrated, it leads to madness; like dropping acid or
 something. 
  It is only by unwinding any aort of template of
 experience, of 
  camparison, of ego story, and living complete skill in
 action 
  as  Byron Katie does, that such a state lives up to
 its promised 
  fulfillment of desires. 
 
 Does it fuck up your spelling, though? I've 
 noticed 3 or 4 spelling errors in your last 
 two posts. This isn't one of those poorly 
 integrated things you are talking about, 
 is it?  :-)
 
  And no it shouldn't be glorified, for
 enlightenment is a completely 
  normal state of life. Not super normal-- just plain
 meat and 
  potatoes normal.
 
 Uh-huh. That's why you told us you know how
 heaven is decorated. That's pretty meat and
 potatoes...not super normal at all.  :-)
 
 How DO you know how heaven is decorated, Jim?
 
 It's not a meat and potatoes THEME, is it?
 Coffee tables that look like steaks, poofy 
 beanbag chairs that look like dollops of 
 mashed potatoes, that sorta thing? I don't 
 remember any of that in Seelisberg.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 To subscribe, send a message to:
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
 Or go to: 
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
 and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
 
 
 

  

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues 
 curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
 
  Best to just focus on your own path, if you have 
   one, and forget about all of the speculation.
  
  
  Yeah Ruth, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
  
  This statement is a serious red flag to thoughtful people Jim.
  
  Her question comes out of your response to the question: could 
you 
 use
  magical powers to cure your son? To which you replied: 
  
  So, why would I want to save my dying son from cancer through 
 some
  mystical mumbo-jumbo? What's the point?
  
  This seemed inconsistent because you would try medical measures to
  save him, so why not the normal magical powers of 
enlightenment? 
  And you have discussed having subjectively gained medical 
 knowledge of
  family members in the past so this question really does not 
 represent
  a peculiar view of enlightenment.  The difference between having
  magical powers and not using them and not having them at all seems
  nonexistent to me.
 
 Well the magical powers as you call them I have developed have not 
 been tried on cancer. I have dealt successfully with back injuries 
 and headaches-- stuff like that. Would I trust my magical powers to 
 heal someone of cancer vs. medical care? No way, though I would not 
 be able to resist using my magical powers to look around inside 
 their body and see if anything helpful occured to me. Magical 
powers-
 - cmoe on-- straight out of some ooga booga movie from the 50's...
  
  I don't believe I am enlightened 
  
  This is kind of important I think.  It is a belief.  Trying to 
 sell a
  belief as certain knowledge has not served mankind well in the 
 past. 
  In fact as soon as I see someone trying this move on my I 
 immediately
  check my wallet.
 
 Did you read that right? I said I *don't* believe I am enlightened, 
 any more than you believe you are a blues player.
  
  I think it adds a lot to the group to have your willingness to 
 answer
  questions about your assertions about yourself Jim.  There is an
  inherent condescension in the relationship, me = ignorant, you =
  enlightened.  
 
 Yeah the language kind of lends itself to that conclusion. Oh well.
 
 Actually any condescension comes from those who believe 
 enlightenment is something special. I have never said that it was, 
 just that permanent enlightenment is available to anyone, even 
 Barry, yixefero, John dorflex, Sal, and all the other doubters here-
 
 my, what a thought crime that is! And, gasp, if they are dilligent, 
 they may actually , gasp, achieve the Goal in this lifetime!!! Oh 
my 
 god, another thought crime!

Even worse for them, particularily for this Turqoise is the thought 
that someone could get enlightened with TM. Which would mean he 
wasted the last 30 years of his life. Thats why he freaks out by the 
idea that someone, and Jim is not the only one, actually achieved 
everything Maharishi promised while he wasted his time.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[curtisdeltablues]

I think this glorification of the experience of depersonalization is
really misguided.  There is a lot of information about this state in
modern psychology that needs to be integrated into more traditional
understandings of these experiences.  Just because she enjoyed this
transition of awareness doesn't mean it is a good thing. I found this
account somewhat alarming.  I have had experiences like it but would
never seek them as a goal for my awareness again.  



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Less than two weeks after I entered the halfway house, my life changed
 completely. What follows is a very approximate account.
 
 One morning I woke up. I had been sleeping on the floor as usual.
Nothing
 special had happened the night before; I just opened my eyes. But I was
 seeing without concepts, without thoughts or an internal story.
There was no
 me. It was as if something else had woken up. It opened its eyes. It was
 looking through Katie's eyes. And it was crisp, it was clear, it was
new, it
 had never been here before. Everything was unrecognizable. And it was so
 delighted! Laughter welled up from the depths and just poured out. It
 breathed and was ecstasy. It was intoxicated with joy: totally
greedy for
 everything. There was nothing separate, nothing unacceptable to it.
 Everything was its very own self. For the first time I - it -
experienced
 the love of its own life. I - it -was amazed!
 
 In trying to be as accurate as possible, I am using the word it
for this
 delighted, loving awareness, in which there was no me or world, and
in which
 everything was included. There just isn't another way to say how
completely
 new and fresh the awareness was. There was no I observing the it.
There
 was nothing but the it. And even the realization of an it came
later.
 
 Let me say this in a different way. A foot appeared; there was a
cockroach
 crawling over it. It opened its eyes, and there was something on the
foot;
 or there was something on the foot, and then it opened its eyes - I
don't
 know the sequence, because there was no time in any of this. So, to
put it
 in slow motion: it opened its eyes, looked down at the foot, a
cockroach was
 crawling across the ankle, and . it was awake! It was born. And from
then
 on, it's been observing. But there wasn't a subject or an object. It
was -
 is - everything it saw. There's no separation in it, anywhere.
 
 All my rage, all the thoughts that had been troubling me, my whole
world,
 the whole world, was gone. The only thing that existed was
awareness. The
 foot and the cockroach weren't outside me; there was no outside or
inside.
 It was all me. And I felt delight - absolute delight! There was
nothing, and
 there was a whole world: walls and floor and ceiling and light and body,
 everything, in such fullness. But only what it could see: no more,
no less.
 
 Then it stood up, and that was amazing. There was no thinking, no
plan. It
 just stood up and walked to the bathroom. It walked straight to a
mirror,
 and it locked onto the eyes of its own reflection, and it
understood. And
 that was even deeper than the delight it had known before. It fell
in love
 with that being in the mirror. It was as if the woman and the
awareness of
 the woman had permanently merged. There were only the eyes, and a
sense of
 absolute vastness, with no knowledge in it. It was as if I - she -
had been
 shot through with electricity. It was like God giving itself life
through
 the body of the woman - God so loving and bright, so vast - and yet
she knew
 that it was herself. It made such a deep connection with her eyes.
There was
 no meaning to it, just a nameless recognition that consumed her.
 
 Love is the best word I can find for it. It had been split apart,
and now it
 was joined. There was it moving, and then it in the mirror, and then it
 joined as quickly as it had separated - it was all eyes. The eyes in the
 mirror were the eyes of it. And it gave itself back again , as it
met again.
 And that gave it its identity, which I call love. As it looked in the
 mirror, the eyes - the depth of them- were all that was real, all that
 existed - prior to that, nothing. No eyes, no anything; even
standing there,
 there was nothing. And then the eyes come out to give it what it is.
People
 name things a wall, a ceiling, a foot, a hand. But it had no name
for these
 things, because it's indivisible. And it's invisible. Until the
eyes. Until
 the eyes. I remember tears of gratitude pouring down the cheeks as
it looked
 at its own reflection. It stood there staring for I don't know how long.
 
 These were the first moments after I was born as it, or it as me.
There was
 nothing left of Katie. There was literally not even a shred of
memory of her
 - no past, no future, not even a present. And in that openness, such
joy.
 There's nothing sweeter than this, I felt; there is nothing but
this. If
 you loved yourself more than anything you could imagine, 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[curtisdeltablues]

Gender correction, sorry Byron.  


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 I think this glorification of the experience of depersonalization is
 really misguided.  There is a lot of information about this state in
 modern psychology that needs to be integrated into more traditional
 understandings of these experiences.  Just because she enjoyed this
 transition of awareness doesn't mean it is a good thing. I found this
 account somewhat alarming.  I have had experiences like it but would
 never seek them as a goal for my awareness again.  
 
 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote:
 
  Less than two weeks after I entered the halfway house, my life
changed
  completely. What follows is a very approximate account.
  
  One morning I woke up. I had been sleeping on the floor as usual.
 Nothing
  special had happened the night before; I just opened my eyes. But
I was
  seeing without concepts, without thoughts or an internal story.
 There was no
  me. It was as if something else had woken up. It opened its eyes.
It was
  looking through Katie's eyes. And it was crisp, it was clear, it was
 new, it
  had never been here before. Everything was unrecognizable. And it
was so
  delighted! Laughter welled up from the depths and just poured out. It
  breathed and was ecstasy. It was intoxicated with joy: totally
 greedy for
  everything. There was nothing separate, nothing unacceptable to it.
  Everything was its very own self. For the first time I - it -
 experienced
  the love of its own life. I - it -was amazed!
  
  In trying to be as accurate as possible, I am using the word it
 for this
  delighted, loving awareness, in which there was no me or world, and
 in which
  everything was included. There just isn't another way to say how
 completely
  new and fresh the awareness was. There was no I observing the it.
 There
  was nothing but the it. And even the realization of an it came
 later.
  
  Let me say this in a different way. A foot appeared; there was a
 cockroach
  crawling over it. It opened its eyes, and there was something on the
 foot;
  or there was something on the foot, and then it opened its eyes - I
 don't
  know the sequence, because there was no time in any of this. So, to
 put it
  in slow motion: it opened its eyes, looked down at the foot, a
 cockroach was
  crawling across the ankle, and . it was awake! It was born. And from
 then
  on, it's been observing. But there wasn't a subject or an object. It
 was -
  is - everything it saw. There's no separation in it, anywhere.
  
  All my rage, all the thoughts that had been troubling me, my whole
 world,
  the whole world, was gone. The only thing that existed was
 awareness. The
  foot and the cockroach weren't outside me; there was no outside or
 inside.
  It was all me. And I felt delight - absolute delight! There was
 nothing, and
  there was a whole world: walls and floor and ceiling and light and
body,
  everything, in such fullness. But only what it could see: no more,
 no less.
  
  Then it stood up, and that was amazing. There was no thinking, no
 plan. It
  just stood up and walked to the bathroom. It walked straight to a
 mirror,
  and it locked onto the eyes of its own reflection, and it
 understood. And
  that was even deeper than the delight it had known before. It fell
 in love
  with that being in the mirror. It was as if the woman and the
 awareness of
  the woman had permanently merged. There were only the eyes, and a
 sense of
  absolute vastness, with no knowledge in it. It was as if I - she -
 had been
  shot through with electricity. It was like God giving itself life
 through
  the body of the woman - God so loving and bright, so vast - and yet
 she knew
  that it was herself. It made such a deep connection with her eyes.
 There was
  no meaning to it, just a nameless recognition that consumed her.
  
  Love is the best word I can find for it. It had been split apart,
 and now it
  was joined. There was it moving, and then it in the mirror, and
then it
  joined as quickly as it had separated - it was all eyes. The eyes
in the
  mirror were the eyes of it. And it gave itself back again , as it
 met again.
  And that gave it its identity, which I call love. As it looked in the
  mirror, the eyes - the depth of them- were all that was real, all that
  existed - prior to that, nothing. No eyes, no anything; even
 standing there,
  there was nothing. And then the eyes come out to give it what it is.
 People
  name things a wall, a ceiling, a foot, a hand. But it had no name
 for these
  things, because it's indivisible. And it's invisible. Until the
 eyes. Until
  the eyes. I remember tears of gratitude pouring down the cheeks as
 it looked
  at its own reflection. It stood there staring for I don't know how
long.
  
  These were the first moments after I was born as it, or it as me.
 There was
  nothing left of Katie. There was literally not even a shred of
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[sandiego108]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 I think this glorification of the experience of depersonalization is
 really misguided.  There is a lot of information about this state in
 modern psychology that needs to be integrated into more traditional
 understandings of these experiences.  Just because she enjoyed this
 transition of awareness doesn't mean it is a good thing. I found this
 account somewhat alarming.  I have had experiences like it but would
 never seek them as a goal for my awareness again.  
 

Yep the ego will always find such an experience alarming. And if the 
person it is occuring to has this experience poorly integrated, it 
leads to madness; like dropping acid or something. It is only by 
unwinding any aort of template of experience, of camparison, of ego 
story, and living complete skill in action as  Byron Katie does, that 
such a state lives up to its promised fulfillment of desires. And no 
it shouldn't be glorified, for enlightenment is a completely normal 
state of life. Not super normal-- just plain meat and potatoes normal.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues 
 curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
 
  I think this glorification of the experience of depersonalization 
  is really misguided.  There is a lot of information about this 
  state in modern psychology that needs to be integrated into more 
  traditional understandings of these experiences.  Just because 
  she enjoyed this transition of awareness doesn't mean it is a 
  good thing. I found this account somewhat alarming.  I have had 
  experiences like it but would never seek them as a goal for my 
  awareness again.  
 
 Yep the ego will always find such an experience alarming. And 
 if the person it is occuring to has this experience poorly 
 integrated, it leads to madness; like dropping acid or something. 
 It is only by unwinding any aort of template of experience, of 
 camparison, of ego story, and living complete skill in action 
 as  Byron Katie does, that such a state lives up to its promised 
 fulfillment of desires. 

Does it fuck up your spelling, though? I've 
noticed 3 or 4 spelling errors in your last 
two posts. This isn't one of those poorly 
integrated things you are talking about, 
is it?  :-)

 And no it shouldn't be glorified, for enlightenment is a completely 
 normal state of life. Not super normal-- just plain meat and 
 potatoes normal.

Uh-huh. That's why you told us you know how
heaven is decorated. That's pretty meat and
potatoes...not super normal at all.  :-)

How DO you know how heaven is decorated, Jim?

It's not a meat and potatoes THEME, is it?
Coffee tables that look like steaks, poofy 
beanbag chairs that look like dollops of 
mashed potatoes, that sorta thing? I don't 
remember any of that in Seelisberg.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[Marek Reavis]

Jim, is your internal experience the same as Byron Katie's?  Does 
that description match yours entirely or is it different in some 
fashion?

And, Peter, if you're reading this, is this your experience of 
awakening?

For anyone else, does this sound familiar?

Thanks in advance,

Marek

**

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues 
 curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
 
  I think this glorification of the experience of 
depersonalization is
  really misguided.  There is a lot of information about this 
state in
  modern psychology that needs to be integrated into more 
traditional
  understandings of these experiences.  Just because she enjoyed 
this
  transition of awareness doesn't mean it is a good thing. I found 
this
  account somewhat alarming.  I have had experiences like it but 
would
  never seek them as a goal for my awareness again.  
  
 
 Yep the ego will always find such an experience alarming. And if 
the 
 person it is occuring to has this experience poorly integrated, it 
 leads to madness; like dropping acid or something. It is only by 
 unwinding any aort of template of experience, of camparison, of 
ego 
 story, and living complete skill in action as  Byron Katie does, 
that 
 such a state lives up to its promised fulfillment of desires. And 
no 
 it shouldn't be glorified, for enlightenment is a completely 
normal 
 state of life. Not super normal-- just plain meat and potatoes 
normal.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[curtisdeltablues]

snip
 
 Yep the ego will always find such an experience alarming. And if the 
 person it is occuring to has this experience poorly integrated, it 
 leads to madness; like dropping acid or something. It is only by 
 unwinding any aort of template of experience, of camparison, of ego 
 story, and living complete skill in action as  Byron Katie does, that 
 such a state lives up to its promised fulfillment of desires.

For all the talk about how enlightened people are living some
different ego reality, I gotta say, I see no evidence that they are
functioning in a fundamentally different way than the rest of us.
Maharishi is the single most egotistical person I have ever met. But
other than that he acted like any other big business type guy I have
met with a big ego to match his big agenda.  Trying to distinguish his
ego state from Donald Trump's seems like a stretch for me. 

Without adding the clinical understanding of depersonalization to the
understanding of these experiences people are just left to interpret
them for themselves. 

 And no 
 it shouldn't be glorified, for enlightenment is a completely normal 
 state of life. Not super normal-- just plain meat and potatoes normal.

The state of enlightenment that Maharishi was pitching included
magical powers.  Calling the ability to fly normal is a misuse of the
word.  As far as the internal experience that may be true because I
think it is very likely that many or even most people who describe
themselves as enlightened just have a more dramatic way of describing
states of awareness the rest of us take for granted.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[feste37]

Yes, it's all in how you handle it. Byron Katie is a down-to-earth,
common sense, no nonsense type of woman who has integrated this
experience into her understanding of life. I think her books and
workshops help a lot of people. She was in Fairfield some years back,
in about September or October 1999. 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues 
 curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
 
  I think this glorification of the experience of depersonalization is
  really misguided.  There is a lot of information about this state in
  modern psychology that needs to be integrated into more traditional
  understandings of these experiences.  Just because she enjoyed this
  transition of awareness doesn't mean it is a good thing. I found this
  account somewhat alarming.  I have had experiences like it but would
  never seek them as a goal for my awareness again.  
  
 
 Yep the ego will always find such an experience alarming. And if the 
 person it is occuring to has this experience poorly integrated, it 
 leads to madness; like dropping acid or something. It is only by 
 unwinding any aort of template of experience, of camparison, of ego 
 story, and living complete skill in action as  Byron Katie does, that 
 such a state lives up to its promised fulfillment of desires. And no 
 it shouldn't be glorified, for enlightenment is a completely normal 
 state of life. Not super normal-- just plain meat and potatoes normal.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening = Jim Dreaver

[amarnath]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Yes, it's all in how you handle it. Byron Katie is a down-to-earth,
 common sense, no nonsense type of woman who has integrated this
 experience into her understanding of life. I think her books and
 workshops help a lot of people. She was in Fairfield some years back,
 in about September or October 1999. 
 

another very down-to-earth, etc example is Jim Dreaver.

unlike Katie and Tolle whose awakening was a one day-permanent deal,
it took Dreaver 20 years to get there finally; very interesting story.

his teachings, new eBook End Your Story, Begin Your Life, 
seem like a synopsis of Tolle's, and the like, but it's also obvious
that they are from his own experiences over a twenty year period.
definitely worth a read.

http://www.jimdreaver.com/

http://www.endyourstory.com/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening = Jim Dreaver, *TM*

[amarnath]

forgot to mention that Jim Dreaver and quite a few other advaita
teachers, that I came across in my readings,
have done TM as well as many other practices on their long spiritual
journeys

but, interestingly enough, all have moved on to a more down-to-earth,
more natural way of being and functioning.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, amarnath [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote:
 
  Yes, it's all in how you handle it. Byron Katie is a down-to-earth,
  common sense, no nonsense type of woman who has integrated this
  experience into her understanding of life. I think her books and
  workshops help a lot of people. She was in Fairfield some years
back,
  in about September or October 1999.
  

 another very down-to-earth, etc example is Jim Dreaver.

 unlike Katie and Tolle whose awakening was a one day-permanent deal,
 it took Dreaver 20 years to get there finally; very interesting story.

 his teachings, new eBook End Your Story, Begin Your Life,
 seem like a synopsis of Tolle's, and the like, but it's also obvious
 that they are from his own experiences over a twenty year period.
 definitely worth a read.

 http://www.jimdreaver.com/

 http://www.endyourstory.com/

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[Bhairitu]

Ah but there's money in this.  You write a book start a movement or 
cult.  Have workshops.  Be on TV.  You're missing the boat Curtis.  You 
should start an Awakening Through the Blues program.  Write a book, 
sell videos and music, start a cult.  Be rich.  After all life is about 
money isn't it?  ;-)
curtisdeltablues wrote:
 I think this glorification of the experience of depersonalization is
 really misguided.  There is a lot of information about this state in
 modern psychology that needs to be integrated into more traditional
 understandings of these experiences.  Just because she enjoyed this
 transition of awareness doesn't mean it is a good thing. I found this
 account somewhat alarming.  I have had experiences like it but would
 never seek them as a goal for my awareness again.