--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now let me get this straight. Someone says something,
and that causes part of you to feel discomfort,
reveals a particle which I hadn't noticed before :-)
which
you perceive as suffering.
Which *it* perceives as
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, matrixmonitor
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--Right, but TALKING (or posting stuff on the internet) about
Enlightenment is another story. The Neo-Advaitins are saying their
story is superior to the stories of others.
Buddhism has an absolute continuum of
---(below - particles are mutually inclusive, the universe within a
grain of sand); and aspect of HOLOGRAPHY, the concept of which seems
to have originated with Zhiyi, of the Tien Tai School of Buddhism, 6-
th century. The holographic concept (although not using that word)
achieved a greater
--Right, but TALKING (or posting stuff on the internet) about
Enlightenment is another story. The Neo-Advaitins are saying their
story is superior to the stories of others.
Buddhism has an absolute continuum of existence, and doesn't get
into such infantile games.
- In
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
When I was asked the same question that you asked Jim and Rory, I have
thought, what I would answer from my own very limited perspective of
being only an infinitesimal particle of Rory, which I am sure I am,
snip
I
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff rorygoff@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
Sure doesn't sound *anything* like moodmaking to me. :-)
No doubt :-) But
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jul 26, 2007, at 10:23 AM, authfriend wrote:
And while you're at it, you might ask yourself why
your fantasy that someone else thinks they're great
and you're not provokes in you such a powerfully
defensive reaction.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
I can't, and have no desire to, prove anything to
you about the truth or falseness of your own projected
fantasies. I can only point out the *nature* of those
fantasies. This latest one deconstructs to, You are
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff rorygoff@ wrote:
I said, essentially a waste of time *unless* they're areas
you're personally feeling particular pain and suffering in,
the object being to realize
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think some here, perhaps Rory and Jim, have expressed something of
that sort. I do know that when you are dreaming, its hard to accept
that you are dreaming -- but assume you are awake. Though sometimes in
the dream,
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
Was in a rush before; want to add a couple things:
--- In
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just as a question, given Maharishi's descriptions
of enlightenment and what it is, *why* does this
particle of you still feel discomfort and suffer-
ing? Isn't it free of stress and beyond such things
if you're
Turq said to Rory: Now let me get this straight. Someone says
something, and that causes part of you to feel discomfort, which you
perceive as suffering. So you do the work until the discomfort goes
away and you're feeling blissful, in the paradisical state of radiant
Being, the way things
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff rorygoff@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff rorygoff@ wrote:
I said, essentially a waste of time *unless* they're areas
you're personally
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff rorygoff@ wrote:
I(t) might be even more fun if you also admit that *I* am also an
infinitesimal particle of You; it works both ways :-)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That can't be. That
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity no_reply@ wrote:
snip
When I was asked the same question that you asked Jim and Rory, I have
thought, what I would answer from my own very limited perspective of
being
On Jul 26, 2007, at 10:23 AM, authfriend wrote:
And while you're at it, you might ask yourself why
your fantasy that someone else thinks they're great
and you're not provokes in you such a powerfully
defensive reaction.
And while you're at it, you might want to ask yourself why you have
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The bottom line of your posts, Jim, is that we have
to accept you as *you see yourself*, and that's that.
It's basically how Maharishi comes across as well.
Not gonna happen...
Except that my entire post was about
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff rorygoff@ wrote:
I said, essentially a waste of time *unless* they're areas
you're
personally feeling particular pain and suffering in, the object
being to realize one's eternal liberation from bondage and
suffering.
If you're not
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
snip
I don't view the ego in the way you seem to be using it
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
Me: I have been enjoying lurking I have been thinking something
about
how you write that I would like to run by you Rory. I think
Thanks Curtis for your quick response, and especially for not taking
offense in any way. That really speaks for you.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks for taking the time to respond in detail. I think you have
brought out some very good
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, matrixmonitor
matrixmonitor@ wrote:
---the people you mention - living in cages. They should
practice
TM
regularly and buy all the CD's DVD's relating to Ramana
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sinhlnx sinhlnx@ wrote:
---Consider an apartment as a type of cage. Could a person
only think the
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sinhlnx sinhlnx@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, matrixmonitor
matrixmonitor@ wrote:
---the people you mention - living in cages. They should
On Jul 24, 2007, at 10:39 PM, new.morning wrote:
This is a common theme in neo-advaitin realizers, the inability to
present a correct View (drsti) regarding the two
truths (satyadvaya).
Being THE correct view, I am sure all realized ones agree on it.
:-) If only.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Just one short comment to this: For me it is a wonderful refreshment
to FFL, and for me personally, that you and Jim are saying what you
do. Since the two of you started saying what you say this place has
made a
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
An yet, someone also said (Saint Byron perhaps) that if you can't
imagine the opposite of something -- as possibly being true, then
you
are stuck in in that boundary.
The point of my kidding has been, Can you
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks Curtis for your quick response, and especially for not taking
offense in any way. That really speaks for you.
It was easy not to be offended since your post had some interesting
points for me to think about. It
Rory: As I said when I first met you here, I am completely willing to
be unenlightened with you in your world, if you are willing to
be enlightened with me in mine -- will that do? Can we be
both ordinary and special simultaneously together? I will if you
will. Actually, I will even if you won't
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@
wrote:
An yet, someone also said (Saint Byron perhaps) that if you
can't
imagine the opposite of something -- as possibly being true,
then
you
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@
wrote:
An yet, someone also said (Saint Byron perhaps) that if you
can't
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You're enlightened, and you refuse to even *think*
that you might not be. Did I get that right, Jim?
You are missing what I and many others have already said again and
again here. Enlightenment is not experienced on the
Quick comment at the bottom:
**
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rory: As I said when I first met you here, I am completely willing
to
be unenlightened with you in your world, if you are willing to
be enlightened with me in mine -- will that
---Thanks, true, but why are you talking about it?
In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
You're enlightened, and you refuse to even *think*
that you might not be. Did I get that right,
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@
wrote:
You're enlightened, and you refuse to even *think*
that you might not be.
Good question Are you not interested?
Seriously, there are many seekers on the path, like the poster who
asked me if I think I am or am not enlightened, who want to believe
that we can achieve an enlightened state permanently, theoretically,
maybe, possibly, almost, according to these
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
You're enlightened, and you refuse to even *think*
that you might not be. Did I get that right, Jim?
You are missing what I and many others have
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
You're enlightened, and you refuse to even *think*
that you might not be.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Was in a rush before; want to add a couple things:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
snip
*Without a doubt*, these people's enlightenment was
self-evident to them. There was no
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@
wrote:
You're
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip
One of the paradoxes of the TM system is that anyone claiming to
have
reached the goal was always viewed with great suspicion when I was
involved. I can imagine the rash of S-- you would have gotten for
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
You're enlightened, and you refuse to even *think*
that you might not be. Did I get that right, Jim?
You are missing what I and many others have
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
He can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that
what new.morning was getting at is whether you or
anyone who considers themselves enlightened are
willing to do the work on your assumption that
you're enlightened.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
Was in a rush before; want to add a couple things:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@
wrote:
snip
*Without a doubt*,
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@
wrote:
I don't know where to start with your plethora of rhetorical
questions.
They are interesting questions, IMO. But I like to play with
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@
wrote:
Was in a rush before; want to add a couple things:
--- In
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
You're enlightened, and you refuse to even *think*
that you might not be.
---to a certain extent, your're right, Vaj; except that there's an
infinite variation in the possible Siddhis, and then one would have
to judge which of them is a criterion: certainly, being able to
communicate with lobsters would be on top of the list, for sure!
At the very least, Siddhis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@
wrote:
You're enlightened, and you refuse to even *think*
that you might not be.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@
wrote:
that sort. I do know that when you are dreaming, its hard to accept
that you are dreaming -- but assume you are awake. Though
sometimes in
the
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Good question Are you not interested?
Seriously, there are many seekers on the path, like the poster who
asked me if I think I am or am not enlightened,
I assume you man me. Or perhaps Barry. Perhaps both of us
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
You're
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@
wrote:
Good question Are you not interested?
Seriously, there are many seekers on the path, like the poster
who
asked me if I think I am or am
On Jul 25, 2007, at 9:09 PM, new.morning wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jul 25, 2007, at 10:17 AM, new.morning wrote:
Can you absolutely know that it's true?
I hate to bring up what seems obvious to me, but there are objective
ways to
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@
wrote:
You're enlightened, and you refuse to even *think*
that you might not be.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@
wrote:
Can you imagine that you are only imagining that you are
enlightened if
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
He can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that
what new.morning was getting at is whether you or
anyone who considers themselves enlightened are
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mathatbrahman
mathatbrahman@ wrote:
---Nope I disagree. The questions below are legitimate, of
interest,
and potentially of value; but obviously not to Neo-Advaitins who
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff rorygoff@
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mathatbrahman
mathatbrahman@ wrote:
---Nope I disagree. The questions below are legitimate, of
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jul 25, 2007, at 5:20 PM, TurquoiseB wrote:
I'm just sayin' that there is a big red flag
raised for me when someone believes one of their
stories so completely
And Jim was just sayin' that the nature of
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@
wrote:
I don't know where to start with your plethora of rhetorical
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
You're enlightened, and you refuse to even *think*
that you might not be. Did I get that right, Jim?
You are missing what I and many others have
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jul 25, 2007, at 10:17 AM, new.morning wrote:
Can you absolutely know that it's true?
I hate to bring up what seems obvious to me, but there are objective
ways to test states of enlightenment which have been used
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Marek Reavis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Quick comment at the bottom:
**
Curtis, your last comment (last sentence, immediately above) re
the friendly connection represents for me, too, the best of FFL.
Whenever people here are willing to presume the
Was in a rush before; want to add a couple things:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
*Without a doubt*, these people's enlightenment was
self-evident to them. There was no question in their
minds that it existed. But did it?
I have no idea. Do
---Nope I disagree. The questions below are legitimate, of interest,
and potentially of value; but obviously not to Neo-Advaitins who
believe that nothing exists anyway. As for Buddhists, Sakyamuni
Buddha stated that there's not enough time to investigate natural
laws and also do one's
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff rorygoff@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@
wrote:
He can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that
what new.morning was getting
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@
wrote:
Good question Are you not interested?
Seriously, there are many seekers on the path, like the
poster who asked me if I think I am or am
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff rorygoff@ wrote:
No; much like Jim, I'd suggest these are essentially a waste of time
For you or
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff rorygoff@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff rorygoff@
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mathatbrahman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
---Nope I disagree. The questions below are legitimate, of
interest,
and potentially of value; but obviously not to Neo-Advaitins who
believe that nothing exists anyway.
I said, essentially a waste of time
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
Was in a rush before; want to add a couple things:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@
wrote:
snip
*Without a doubt*,
On Jul 25, 2007, at 10:17 AM, new.morning wrote:
Can you absolutely know that it's true?
I hate to bring up what seems obvious to me, but there are objective
ways to test states of enlightenment which have been used
successfully for thousands of years. These are simple tests. If you
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Yet when Jim refuses to even *consider* examining
his enlightenment, even if it's just theoretical
and for fun, you defend him and claim that I'm
accusing him of something. H. :-)
Why don't we just leave it at
On Jul 25, 2007, at 5:20 PM, TurquoiseB wrote:
I'm just sayin' that there is a big red flag
raised for me when someone believes one of their
stories so completely
And Jim was just sayin' that the nature of
enlightenment is such that it falls outside the
category of stories,
TurquoiseB wrote:
I'm interested in hearing the fans of advaita (neo- or not)
or Byron Katie explain to me why what seems like a
contradiction to me isn't one.
The desire in this case is to have no expectations of
others in terms of their behavior, and to see them as
other aspects of
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you want to use paradox as a vehicle,
try running through a couple hundred mahavakyas you don't already
know an answer to or have discursive ideas about.
Sorry Vaj, there are only 4 mahavakyas, all else are just vakyas.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The question is, How is doing 'the work,' Byron Katie-
style, *not* fraught with addictive pain? It seems to
me that what Rory describes above is very much a form
of moodmaking -- starting with the assumption that one
On Jul 24, 2007, at 9:23 AM, t3rinity wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you want to use paradox as a vehicle,
try running through a couple hundred mahavakyas you don't already
know an answer to or have discursive ideas about.
Sorry Vaj, there are
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the above example, Rory is embracing absolute POV 'criticizing
is
projecting our own inner pain on others' and therefore taking an
extreme POV, rather than embracing the paradox: all is one and
assholes still exist.
TurquoiseB wrote:
The desire in this case is to have no expectations
of others in terms of their behavior, and to see
them as other aspects of one's Self,
snip
We Buddhists...
We Buddhists? Do Buddhists believe in a Self?
...might have compassion for the poor, drugged-
out guy, but
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
snip
Question, short form: Is Katie's the work, whether
valuable or not, just another form of moodmaking?
Answer, short form: No.
I don't know.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@
wrote:
snip
Question, short form: Is Katie's the work, whether
valuable or not, just another form of moodmaking?
Rory Goff rorygoff@ wrote:
Answer, short form: No.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff rorygoff@
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
snip
Question, short form: Is Katie's the work, whether
valuable or not, just
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
snip
I'm chuckling, remembering when you suggested the
Byron Katie approach to me some time back, and I
rejected it on similar grounds to what Barry's
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jul 24, 2007, at 9:23 AM, t3rinity wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote:
If you want to use paradox as a vehicle,
try running through a couple hundred mahavakyas you don't already
Rory:
Right, you didn't offer me that marvelous image to play with -- but
you *did* (in my reality anyhow) offer me your pain, which was all I
really wanted. To whatever degree You and I are separate, my
heartfelt thanks to You :-)
Me: I have been enjoying lurking I have been thinking something
On Jul 24, 2007, at 12:09 PM, t3rinity wrote:
I suggest to investigate terms from spiritual path within their own
respective philosophies and not a hotchpotch of new age ideas.
I couldn't agree more, but then of course I get called a
traditionalist. sigh
Not just advaita vedanta uses
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rory:
Right, you didn't offer me that marvelous image to play with
-- but you *did* (in my reality anyhow) offer me your pain,
which was all I really wanted. To whatever degree You and I
are separate, my
Are you sure you are talking about *Judy* here? because what I am
hearing is you talking to yourself Barry, all the way down. Has
nothing to do with Judy, except as a device for your own
distraction.:-)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Your *stories*
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
Rory:
Right, you didn't offer me that marvelous image to play with
-- but you *did* (in my reality anyhow) offer me your pain,
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote:
In the above example, Rory is embracing absolute POV 'criticizing
is
projecting our own inner pain on others' and therefore taking an
extreme POV,
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote:
In the above example, Rory is embracing absolute POV 'criticizing
is
projecting our own inner pain on others' and therefore taking an
extreme POV,
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
What you say about Rory's use of language as a ranking
device certainly strikes a resonance with me, but now
that you've brought it up, I can see it in many others
as well. And yes, occasionally in myself. Rarely in
1 - 100 of 148 matches
Mail list logo
