[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- 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 suffering :-) So you do the work until the discomfort goes away and you're feeling blissful, until *it* knows it is free, knows its nature as tangible bliss in the paradisical state of radiant Being, the way things *should* be. and thereby manifests my sensorium as radiant being/love/bliss Did I get that right? No doubt :-) Sure doesn't sound *anything* like moodmaking to me. :-) No doubt :-) But then, you still think enlightenment is an experience -- not that you care about enlightenment, of course -- and that we think we are great for realizing it's not, although we're probably just moodmaking anyway, and that we expect you to worship us and take our word for it. Did I get that right? :-) *L*L*L*
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- 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 existence, and doesn't get into such infantile games. Are you saying Rory is a Neo-Advaitin and that he claims his story is superior to other stories? - In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ 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 then, you still think enlightenment is an experience No, not in the same way that eating an orange is an experience, but one's *stories* about enlightement and one's *interpretation* of enlightenment are *very much* experiences, and *very much* stories. Dual attention and the duality of language can never contain the wholeness of nondual awareness. Words and stories will never be more than the crudest of descriptions of that which is known on the level of unbounded pure awareness.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
---(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 expression and development with Nichiren, 12- century; and in particular the notion of 3000 realms in a single life-moment; the term 3000 being a symbol for basically, everyting, since in the holographic model, (Ichinen Sanzen everything is contained within everything else. However, each of the particles differs from the others since the orientation within and as the hologram is everywhere different. (given that space and time are convenient contrivances that prevent objects from appearing simultaneously in the same space-time). A short metaphorical analogy: the blind men examining an elephant: one feels the tail, another the trunk, etc; It's all the same elephant. Different perspectives generate the notion of separateness. Here's a Wiki: The transient world of phenomena is thus seen as one with the unchanging, undifferentiated ground of existence. This doctrine was elaborated in a complex esoteric cosmology of 3000 interpenetrating realms of existence. Most scholars regard the Tiantai as the first truly Chinese school of Buddhist thought. The schools of Buddhism that had existed in China prior to the emergence of the Tiantai are generally believed to represent direct transplantations from India, with little modification to their basic doctrines and methods. The creation of the Tiantai school signified the maturation and integration of Buddhism in the Chinese context. No longer content to simply translate texts received from Indian sources, Chinese Buddhists began to apply new analyses to old texts, and even to produce new scriptures and commentaries that would attain significant status within the East Asian sphere. The Tiantai emphasis on the Lotus Sutra would be developed and expanded by the Japanese monk Nichiren, giving rise to Nichiren Buddhism- a school of Buddhism seen by some scholars as playing a similar role in Japan to that of the Tiantai school in China. In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff rorygoff@ 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 only an infinitesimal particle of Rory, which I am sure I am, snip I might be even more fun if you also admit that *I* am also an infitesimal particle of You; it works both ways :-) That can't be. That overstrains my brain. This turnaround thing has a limit, tell this to Byron. You can't be a particle of something, which is a particle of you already. What you mean is Indras net: Everything reflects everything else.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ 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 then, you still think enlightenment is an experience No, not in the same way that eating an orange is an experience, but one's *stories* about enlightement and one's *interpretation* of enlightenment are *very much* experiences, and *very much* stories. Dual attention and the duality of language can never contain the wholeness of nondual awareness. Words and stories will never be more than the crudest of descriptions of that which is known on the level of unbounded pure awareness.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- 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 might be even more fun if you also admit that *I* am also an infitesimal particle of You; it works both ways :-) *L*L*L*
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- 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 then, you still think enlightenment is an experience No, not in the same way that eating an orange is an experience, but one's *stories* about enlightement and one's *interpretation* of enlightenment are *very much* experiences, and *very much* stories. Dual attention and the duality of language can never contain the wholeness of nondual awareness. Words and stories will never be more than the crudest of descriptions of that which is known on the level of unbounded pure awareness.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- 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. And while you're at it, you might want to ask yourself why you have to respond to most of Barry's messages in some negative light and why they clearly seem to provoke in you such a consistently powerful reaction. I know exactly why I'm doing it, Vaj. If you were ever to see Barry get control over his compulsion to put others down and exalt himself, you'd see a proportionate reduction in my posts criticizing him for doing so.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- 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 jealous of me and afraid of enlightenment. Again, I am great, and you're not. Barry, you're far too deeply sunk in hypocrisy and fantasy and projection to be reached at this point, but I'll just note for the record that your demands that Rory and Jim question their own enlightenment sound like the very epitome of jealousy. If you don't believe that's the case, you might want to ask yourself why what you're writing so strongly gives that impression. 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.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- 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 one's eternal liberation from bondage and suffering. If you're not interested in liberation from suffering in this moment, of course, then feel free to inquire about whatever floats your boat, but it would be a mistake to equate that with the work :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote: Is that BK's assessment, or your unique and original view? It's my understanding of the work based on my reading and working with her first book, on watching her practice it on video, and on my own practice. I've seen and found the inquiry to be highly effective on working with some actual portion of ourselves which is actually suffering in this moment, is actually believing it should be different than it is in this moment, and for me that's what it's all about -- liberating those particles of myself who haven't yet realized I AM THAT, YOU ARE THAT, ALL THIS IS THAT and THAT IS ALL THERE IS. It's all about tending to any particles of ourselves who are shoulding in this moment. For example, in thinking about our discussion earlier this morning, I notice there is a particle of me in discomfort, and on listening I hear a very tiny thought, He should listen to me. Now *I* know full well that this is ridiculous, of course, but the *particle* doesn't know that in this moment; the particle is suffering from an old program. So I pay attention to the particle, engage the particle in the work, and don't quit until that particle remembers its original bliss, its original freedom. And since my consciousness is constantly collapsing into these particles, and manifesting my physical reality through these particles, now *I* am bathed in bliss, in utter freedom, and my physical world has regained its paradaisical state of radiant Being. It's all about teaching the devas :-) *L*L*L* 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 *should* be. Did I get that right? Sure doesn't sound *anything* like moodmaking to me. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- 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, you can be aware its a dream. But not so often, i think. I used to have this quite frequently at a time - not now. I was dreaming and aware that I dream. I wanted to wake up, and finally woke up. I even tried to open my eyelids with my hand, and thought I was awake, but was still dreaming, because certain things didn't fit. So, its very well possible to dream that one wakes up and is awake. That is not to say that I am with you in the case of Jimmy and Rory. 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, my answer would be the following, again judging from whatever little experiences I might have: How do you know, when you think you are free, that this is not just another dream, in reality you are in a prison, just dreaming to be free? Well, I would have no interest in the question, I would be thoroughly detached from the issue of being FREE or not. Whatever is is, if it's a prison or otherwise. If I am just a dream being dreamed by a person in coma in a hospital in NY, its okay too. Whatever is IS, and if its illusion then it's illusion, so what. Wanting to be certain about freedom would just mean that I view that freedom as a goal, another object of the mind to be attained. Whereas my certainty is that I am not the actor, and there is no achievement. Of course you could pretend to have detachment, not being the actor etc, but you would have to work very hard to convince yourself. And then you could realize that there is really nothing you could do about that too.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ 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 you? Not a clue. 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, something of which you're apparently not aware. And I *understand* that some people believe this. I do not. Neither do spiritual traditions such as the Tibetan one Vaj mentioned. I am a strong believer in enlightenment, and I believe that the experience of it should be under exactly the same scrutiny and subject to the same analysis as any other experience, if not more. It isn't exempt. What basis do you have for believing that Rory and I see it any other way? Is it because of what Vaj said? And why do you believe Vaj more than you believe either of us? I don't believe anything one way or another. I don't have a clue as to either of your states of consciousness, and don't much care. I'm curious about your unwillingness to examine those states of consciousness and how strong that unwillingness is. I mean, I can see *many* different ways of looking at the subjective experience of enlight- enment. It might be as many teachers of the past have described it. It might *also* be a simple brain abnormality that has been *interpreted* as the subjective experience of enlightenment and glorified beyond its reality. It might be both. Most of all, I can examine my subjective exper- iences of enlightenment against measures of that enlightenment from past spiritual traditions (whether they're accurate or not), and would of course be willing to have any spiritual teacher verify or not verify any state of conscious- ness I might find myself in. I might not place any more value on their assessments than I did on my own feelings about it, but I'd certainly be willing to get their feedback and throw it into the blender. What I find curious is that both you and Rory don't seem open to that. In fact, when the subject comes up, you resort to calling the person who suggests it ignorant and Rory says that there is no need to examine ideas about oneself that don't hurt ( H...I am the greatest...that doesn't hurt...it must be true. :-) and then slips back into the same distancing analysis-might-have- been-useful-for-those-mere-glimpses-of-higher- states-we-USED-to-have-but-aren't-relevant-now- that-we-ARE-so-great routine. Just makes me go Hm, that's all... Ask yourself this please and let the rest of FFL know the answer if you would: Why is it you are inclined to only believe in enlightenment from a distance... Simple answer. I'm not. That's how you're perceiving what I'm saying. *And* that skewed perception of yours (the same kind that feels comfortable declaring that Buddha once said, God is love) is one of the things that makes me wonder if you're quite as enlightened as you seem to think you are. ...of the either psychologically (paraphrase of Barry: we are always enlightened, we just need to realize it...- yes, and that means it can be escaped from at any time too), physically (paraphrase of Barry: those that say they are enlightened here, are not- yes, because if they were, they could be talking to you right now), or mentally (paraphrase of Barry: those who say they are enlightened need to be able to doubt their experiences- yes, because it again makes the immediate experience of enlightenment doubtful, and distant). I think you are afraid of enlightenment Barry. Very, very afraid of it. Prove me otherwise.:-) 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 jealous of me and afraid of enlightenment. Again, I am great, and you're not. It's what Curtis was talking about the other day with regard to Rory. Both of your fantasies about/perceptions of other people on this forum tend to exhibit a *trend*. They're always along the lines of, You're saying what you're saying because you're just not as advanced as we are. If you *were* advanced, you'd accept us as the enlightened beings we are. I guess my answer to that might be along the lines of Curtis' -- Yeah, right. :-) You are welcome to your view of me and what motivates me, as I am welcome to my view of you and what motivates
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- 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 enlightened? *I* am free of stress and beyond such things as you term it, because *I* do not exist as such, I am merely the indefinable, ungraspable Self, but not all of my bodymind know that it is free (though by far the majority do, or do know they are freely participating in my harmony) -- portions still believe in spacetime, separation, and so on. Call it leshavidya if you like; basically it's simply those beings in my universe who still believe they're suffering. I guess I'm asking why the need for work to elim- inate suffering if you're so enlightened? I'm an Evangelist; I like to spread the Good News; it tickles; as Self-pleasuring it's my form of masturbation :-) which you perceive as suffering. Which *it* perceives as suffering :-) It still perceives it that way. Why is It not enlightened if you are? A legitimate question, n'est-ce pas? It was running on old beliefs or old memory; spacetime being what is, the progressive dissolution into Now actually unfolds in its own good time among my particles :-) So you do the work until the discomfort goes away and you're feeling blissful, until *it* knows it is free, knows its nature as tangible bliss And freedom and tangible bliss are the way that things should be? It's the way they've always been, once we realize we're superimposing illusions on them, and relax :-) If an enlightened being contracted pancreatic cancer (one of the most painful ways to go) do you believe that he'd feel every moment as freedom and tangible bliss? Just another question...I don't know. Couldn't tell you; too hypothetical -- I only know that for me, physical pain is becoming more and more obviously both negligible on the one hand, and on the other, actual physical bliss, as I relax more and more into Being the simple and natural frequencies of gratitude, compassion, love, release, etc., and more and more of my body becomes eaten by and transmuted into passionate Love and Light and Bliss :-) in the paradisical state of radiant Being, the way things *should* be. and thereby manifests my sensorium as radiant being/love/bliss Again, as you believe it *should* be. No, as I perceive it *is*. The other is more and more obviously an infinitesimal illusion, but one which it behooves us to attend to and unravel ... what else have we got to do? :-) Sounds a lot to me as if you're doing should surgery on these particles. Please explain why you feel the need to *change* the way that you feel...oh, excuse me -- change the way that these particles of you feel if you're enlight- ened. I'm honestly curious. Because I love them/me, and I don't like to see/feel anyone suffering needlessly, when it's so simple to show them how to unravel, relax, and remind Us of our true nature :-) Did I get that right? No doubt :-) Sure doesn't sound *anything* like moodmaking to me. :-) No doubt :-) But then, you still think enlightenment is an experience No, not in the same way that eating an orange is an experience, but one's *stories* about enlightement and one's *interpretation* of enlightenment are *very much* experiences, and *very much* stories. The one thing about my Awakening was, although ocurring in spacetime, it is clearly beyond it; it is Self-evident, eternal, fundamental, and intensely, sensorily paradoxical -- ordinary and special; concrete and transcendental, spirit and matter, lively and still, inner and outer, evident and not-evident: *no story fits; no story captures THAT* -- *I* can't capture THAT; I can only *be* THAT -- all and none of the above: the Self appreciating THAT as Itself, as all that is, and absolute emptifulness -- the only experience that is non-experience, instantly removing all my seeker's doubt by its very nature or non-nature, by its very liberating spiritual-physical totality as Self-recognition. No experience I had had of C.C., G.C., or U.C. -- rich and fulfilling as they were -- could ever remove all doubt, could ever be final, could ever be this, as they were ephemeral, and bound by specific criteria. This Awakening realizes itself by understanding *it is not bound by criteria* -- and thus is eternal, unbound by spacetime itself. As long as we are holding siddhis, or witnessing, or *anything* up as a yardstick to measure our Awakening, we will remain unAwake. Loving what IS awakens Us, opens our Heart and guts enough to envelop creation, to see Ourself. *After* Awakening, it is quite natural to spontaneously stretch our wings, to see how Nature clings to our desires (or how our desires are Nature's) and how quickly
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
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 *should* be. Did I get that right? Sure doesn't sound *anything* like moodmaking to me. :-) Turq, My definition of moodmaking has always been pretending. Theatrical acting. Katie's the work seems like making it so. To me, that's a big difference. It might end up being merely a matter of degree if one really hacks down to the core concepts, but on a workaday level, the work seems like it gets the job done: no more fear in that part of the nervous system; whereas, moodmaking seems to do little to prevent the fear from arising again. Fear means dissonance in some fashion, cognitive, emotional, physical, the Arjuna dilemma. Moodmakers whistle past the graveyard; workers stop by the graveyard and peer Frost-snowy-woods deeply into it until the fear gets over it. Something like that. How workers do one thing at a time, is harder for me to see. That's the part of Katie's plan that seems a big hump to surmount. I think most of us here would support the notion of infinite correlation, so actually any work done has to involve all of existence if it is to be done perfectly. Oy, such a bother! I intuit that the work is somewhat superficially done if done in the waking state's cacophony as opposed to what can be done in a deep, calm, almost-no-thinking-going-on-otherwise, ritam-ish state. Not having done the work, much, I don't know if this is true -- just seems theoretically so to me. Compared to the energy levels of waking, the subtle realms are quite delicately sensitive to noisy big thoughts. Like trying to talk in a normal voice to a friend when a fire engine screams by, who can do the work with any precision on the ritam levels or even a merely somewhat subtle level, if waking life's concerns are creating a big emotion? Trying to do the work in an ally with a mugger's gun in one's neck seems unlikely to succeed, right? Oh, I suppose the work, even in the ally, can be done like that Zen guy, hanging by a branch over the cliff with the tiger above and the rocks below, who tastes the strawberry and finds it an especially sweet litany, but for most of us, the work is a tough slog -- just trying to find the motivation and time requires a deep clarity and resonance with the work, methinks; otherwise, who bothers to do this when the list of things to attend to is so very long? To me the work seems like THE TON OF WORK THAT IS PAINFULLY HUMBLING. Try putting that on your morning agenda. I think the work is strongly challenged by the TM concept of capture the fort. Why do so much reprogramming of the personality when one should just get out of the I'm a personality identification? But, of course, every Buddhist out there doing 10,000 prostrations will have a different view, eh? It's like the prostrations are the work -- in the waking state, in that so much of one is engaged by that processing -- heart, mind, body -- a prostration is a fast puja to me. To me, the Buddhists should at least philosophically wholly embrace the work's dynamics, mundane though they be. The TM shuffle whereby karma is cheated, seems so alluring comparatively. TM -- the no persperation spiritual exercise. TM of course promises 200% -- freedom and then, cherry on the top bonus, the personality you now no longer are is a beautiful automaton-of-God doing wonders every nanosecond for all sentient entities. Such a romantic vision -- no wonder I fell for it. To me, CC is freedom, and GC is doing the work to get the personality in line with the situation. That done, unity dawns when the robot is in resonance and comfortable with the egoless state. It's one thing to have the checkbook and scepter of the king, and quite another to act naturally and spontaneously in a kingly fashion. See the films King Ralph, Matrix, Thirteenth Floor, Freaky Friday, and/or The Hidden for the trials and delights of sudden shifts in identification and the struggle to adjust. Right now, if I were freed of my identification with this meat robot, I'd be basking in the eternal sunshine, but the robot would be working still on the spotless mind part of the deal. A plane's propeller keeps spinning after the engine shuts off. Like that. They say it takes 15 years in a cave for that propeller to stop, or much longer if one is engaged in daily life's pushes and tugs. I believe this. Even if not free yet, I believe that one has to merely stop using a part of the brain, and it will slowly lose identificational investiture, fade, dilute, spread out, diffuse -- something like that -- and become less likely to create thoughts. If I were in CC, I believe I would be not working on parts anymore and be removing identification from the whole system --
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- 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 feeling particular pain and suffering in, the object being to realize one's eternal liberation from bondage and suffering. If you're not interested in liberation from suffering in this moment, of course, then feel free to inquire about whatever floats your boat, but it would be a mistake to equate that with the work :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote: Is that BK's assessment, or your unique and original view? It's my understanding of the work based on my reading and working with her first book, on watching her practice it on video, and on my own practice. I've seen and found the inquiry to be highly effective on working with some actual portion of ourselves which is actually suffering in this moment, is actually believing it should be different than it is in this moment, and for me that's what it's all about -- liberating those particles of myself who haven't yet realized I AM THAT, YOU ARE THAT, ALL THIS IS THAT and THAT IS ALL THERE IS. It's all about tending to any particles of ourselves who are shoulding in this moment. For example, in thinking about our discussion earlier this morning, I notice there is a particle of me in discomfort, and on listening I hear a very tiny thought, He should listen to me. Now *I* know full well that this is ridiculous, of course, but the *particle* doesn't know that in this moment; the particle is suffering from an old program. So I pay attention to the particle, engage the particle in the work, and don't quit until that particle remembers its original bliss, its original freedom. And since my consciousness is constantly collapsing into these particles, and manifesting my physical reality through these particles, now *I* am bathed in bliss, in utter freedom, and my physical world has regained its paradaisical state of radiant Being. It's all about teaching the devas :-) *L*L*L* 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 *should* be. Did I get that right? Sure doesn't sound *anything* like moodmaking to me. :-) Doesn't sound like moodmaking to me. It would be moodmaking if Rory simply ignored or suppressed the feeling of discomfort and put on an air of feeling bliss. What Rory describes is the process of bringing full awareness to a belief that is causing suffering and, as a result, releasing the attachment to it. While I'm not intimately familiar with BK's The Work, I did recently work through some deeply held beliefs with which I spent decades beating myself up, and it was a real eye-opener to see beliefs go, in a matter of weeks, from being absolute truths, carved in stone, to merely obnoxious opinions that are no longer serving me. I was causing myself a lot of suffering with my continued attachment to those beliefs, and there's tremendous relief and freedom in releasing that attachment.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- 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 overstrains my brain. This turnaround thing has a limit, tell this to Byron. *lol* You can't be a particle of something, which is a particle of you already. What you mean is Indras net: Everything reflects everything else. YES YES YES! I LOVE YOU! :-) :-) :-) And also ... because Wholeness is continually collapsing into point(s), It gets to experience the *effect* (as a point) of its own *cause* (as Wholeness), and the *divinity* (from the viewpoint of the point, looking at Wholeness) of its own *humanity* (from the viewpoint of Wholeness, looking at point), und so weiter! :-) *L*L*L*
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- 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 only an infinitesimal particle of Rory, which I am sure I am, snip I might be even more fun if you also admit that *I* am also an infitesimal particle of You; it works both ways :-) That can't be. That overstrains my brain. This turnaround thing has a limit, tell this to Byron. You can't be a particle of something, which is a particle of you already. What you mean is Indras net: Everything reflects everything else.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
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 to respond to most of Barry's messages in some negative light and why they clearly seem to provoke in you such a consistently powerful reaction.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- 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 you, Barry, not about me. I see that you cannot answer my simple question to you about why you always entertain enlightenment from a distance, and that is quite answer enough. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- 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 interested in liberation from suffering in this moment, of course, then feel free to inquire about whatever floats your boat, but it would be a mistake to equate that with the work :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is that BK's assessment, or your unique and original view? It's my understanding of the work based on my reading and working with her first book, on watching her practice it on video, and on my own practice. I've seen and found the inquiry to be highly effective on working with some actual portion of ourselves which is actually suffering in this moment, is actually believing it should be different than it is in this moment, and for me that's what it's all about -- liberating those particles of myself who haven't yet realized I AM THAT, YOU ARE THAT, ALL THIS IS THAT and THAT IS ALL THERE IS. It's all about tending to any particles of ourselves who are shoulding in this moment. For example, in thinking about our discussion earlier this morning, I notice there is a particle of me in discomfort, and on listening I hear a very tiny thought, He should listen to me. Now *I* know full well that this is ridiculous, of course, but the *particle* doesn't know that in this moment; the particle is suffering from an old program. So I pay attention to the particle, engage the particle in the work, and don't quit until that particle remembers its original bliss, its original freedom. And since my consciousness is constantly collapsing into these particles, and manifesting my physical reality through these particles, now *I* am bathed in bliss, in utter freedom, and my physical world has regained its paradaisical state of radiant Being. It's all about teaching the devas :-) *L*L*L*
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- 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 and losing my personality is not a goal for me. As I understand it, enlightenment doesn't mean losing one's personality, only the attachment to and identification with it. The personality remains as it was. That was how I understood it in MMY's system also. I was commenting on the Koan: I'd like to give you the following koan: If you loose your own personality, you can afford to be non-equal. I think it is pretty clear that personalities don't diminish in any way from spiritual practices judging from this group! Sure Curtis, but of course I do mean it the way Judy described. For me its rather a 'view', a fundamental understanding that personailty, the external persona, my habits, thought habits, opininions etc are arbitrary and not chosen by 'me'. As such I understand the extreme relativity of what 'I am' in an external way. So 'losing ones's personality' would refer to such an understanding.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- 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 you are using language that very carefully does separate you from the person you are responding to. To a large degree this is true, Curtis, in that I generally attempt to take responsibility for my perceptions *of* the other, without ascribing specific attributes *to* the other (though sometimes I fail of course), as it's usually evident that my perceptions of the other are simply the qualities of myself I choose to see in this moment. This is *not* to say however that my perceptions aren't also true -- or at least shared by others, which may be our basic criterion of objective as opposed to subjective reality. However, as I mentioned to Steve, I really can't say if an asshole has any real existence -- the only reality I am prepared to affirm whole-heartedly is the self- evident, radiant indescribable one, as that one keeps appearing when the other perceptions un-slip-knot themselves. There is then no separation. Almost to a post there is an assertion of your separateness, specialness. Yes, I'm special, and so is everyone else, though some don't like to admit it. When I came on FFL with the message I'm enlightened, and so are you you wouldn't believe some of the responses I got ... even a strongly-worded death-wish :-) I think it is very important for you to present yourself as having a special relationship with the world. Special and ordinary, simultaneously. I offer you another option and perspective for consideration. We may all actually be the same with regard to our states of consciousness. Yes, that is generally my initial a-priori assumption, and was very much so on FFL -- though I have very often been shown here that my assumptions were apparently false, not shared by others :-) What you are describing in sometimes Baroque detail may just be an affectation of your use of words to describe states that everyone else is living in without needing all the descriptions. That's what a writer does, if successful -- points out something universal that others may have overlooked, or not seen in precisely that way :-) If you really want a unitive experience, I suggest trying out the following premise: You and I are actually the same. No states of awakening separate us. Neither of us are on any continuum of awareness before or after each other. Agreed :-) We are both just simply human with the same limitations and capacities. I uphold all of that, although obviously you have some capacities and talents which I do not, and vice versa. I respect yours, and do not require you to falsely insist I am your equal in them. Likewise, I also respect mine, and do not falsely insist you are my equal in them. Then go to the supermarket and look at everyone that same equal way. Everyone is just equally human and not on a path of awakening. Just folks. That's exactly the way I *do* go to the supermarket, live my life, etc. It was quite a shift to come onto FFL and try to see things in the old way of path and growth and enlightenment enough to communicate effectively with people here, and to realize that that long-outgrown mode of perception actually had richness and value I had overlooked. Yes, it's quite evident that everyone is precisely as enlightened as I am, as they *are* me -- but they are free to deny this if they so choose (and they often so choose)! :-) I hope this wont be taken as an attack although it is a judgment I am making. Naah :-) (BTW nuts are actually very hard to kick so their use in fights is really overrated!) Good to know :-) I think we have established enough rapport in previous posts to actually explore this topic a bit. I suspect Turq will have some perspective to share on this. No doubt :-) In my daily life I notice people's language as an attempt to assert a ranking. It is a version of monkey oneupmanship. As a performing artist I must push some people's buttons because I get a regular stream of guys (always guys) who feel the need to try to find out what I make as a performer. It seems important for them to make sure I am not making much money while having this much fun. They ask a serious of roundabout questions to determine that even though they hate their jobs (their words) at least they are making more money. Here on FFL it seems that there is another ranking system in place between guys. An enlightenment-O-meter. I've noticed that you seem to regard gurus, saints, etc. as on a power-trip of sorts. Me, not so much -- I actually was very
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
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 points about our different world views. I do agree with your point about people's differences concerning talents, intelligence and skills. You have correctly noted that I do not recognize the same meaning value in some spiritual experiences that some here do. It is not because I can not relate to them, it is because I view their value differently. What it means is where we differ. I don't recognize that a person's inner experiences make him higher than me in any way. I see this 'higher' only in a contextual way. For example 'more evolved towards a certain state of consciousness'. For example, somebody could be from a completely different philosophy, lets say a Dualist in the sense of Madhva. I could see that he is possibly very advanced at his path, even though I differ from him about the ultimate goal.And yet there are many common elements on the path.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- 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 Maharshi from http://www.arunachala.org What do you suggestsome type of mood-making to grok I'm out of the cage, out of the cage, out of the cage.? i.e. a reorientation of one's thinking to consider that one is not in the cage. But if the person still thought he was in the cage, could he/she get Enlightened anyway? I can only say what worked for me; a burning thirst, hunger, desire to get out of the bondage that I felt accutely- a desire that transcended money, sex, formal education, friendship, death, food, sleep, relative happiness of any kind. And complete and utter surrender to that which I intuited would set me free. And frequent prayer and study of spiritual teaching. And regular TM, morning and evening for 30 years. And the Siddhis programme to burn out some big stuff, for 15 years. And always being true to myself, no matter what. And no dogma or organized anything to follow- just me, in the slowly blooming desert of my consciousness, from the age of ten to the age of fifty. And I was in the cage of my making, right up until the moment I wasn't. That is what worked for me.:-) Wonderful Jim ! Thanks for sharing this.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- 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 apartment is real, but really be living inside Mae West's head? http://www.planetperplex.com/en/item203 Or, Jim, you were fortunate in realizing you were in a cage. So I guess the people living in the cage but don't know it are in ignorant Bliss?kind of like the people living in the Matrix world while the aliens are sucking out the juices from their real bodies. That isn't my reality, though it may be someone's. I recall someone said once that if it can be imagined, it exists. I like that, believe it, and accept it.:-) 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 imagine yourself as possibly stuck in a prison that you are unaware of? Its easy to imagine anything. If I have my choice I will imagine that I am eternally free. I can certainly imagine myself to be in prison, but I choose not to. I'm actually not very interested in imagining much about myself at all, purely for the purpose of speculation. I'd much rather live it through my body than imagine it in my head. My imagination serves the purpose of bringing my desires to fruition, and it does a very good job of that, so I ask you, why would I imagine myself in prison?:-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- 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: ---Consider an apartment as a type of cage. Could a person only think the apartment is real, but really be living inside Mae West's head? http://www.planetperplex.com/en/item203 Or, Jim, you were fortunate in realizing you were in a cage. So I guess the people living in the cage but don't know it are in ignorant Bliss?kind of like the people living in the Matrix world while the aliens are sucking out the juices from their real bodies. That isn't my reality, though it may be someone's. I recall someone said once that if it can be imagined, it exists. I like that, believe it, and accept it.:-) 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 imagine yourself as possibly stuck in a prison that you are unaware of? Its easy to imagine anything. If I have my choice I will imagine that I am eternally free. I can certainly imagine myself to be in prison, but I choose not to. I'm actually not very interested in imagining much about myself at all, purely for the purpose of speculation. I recall someone said once that if it can be imagined, it exists. I like that, believe it, and accept it.:-) I'd much rather live it through my body than imagine it in my head. My imagination serves the purpose of bringing my desires to fruition, and it does a very good job of that, so I ask you, why would I imagine myself in prison?:-) Why would you or anybody do any Byron Katie work?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- 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 practice TM regularly and buy all the CD's DVD's relating to Ramana Maharshi from http://www.arunachala.org What do you suggestsome type of mood-making to grok I'm out of the cage, out of the cage, out of the cage.? i.e. a reorientation of one's thinking to consider that one is not in the cage. But if the person still thought he was in the cage, could he/she get Enlightened anyway? I can only say what worked for me; a burning thirst, hunger, desire to get out of the bondage that I felt accutely- a desire that transcended money, sex, formal education, friendship, death, food, sleep, relative happiness of any kind. And complete and utter surrender to that which I intuited would set me free. And frequent prayer and study of spiritual teaching. And regular TM, morning and evening for 30 years. And the Siddhis programme to burn out some big stuff, for 15 years. And always being true to myself, no matter what. And no dogma or organized anything to follow- just me, in the slowly blooming desert of my consciousness, from the age of ten to the age of fifty. And I was in the cage of my making, right up until the moment I wasn't. That is what worked for me.:-) Wonderful Jim ! Thanks for sharing this. You are welcome, and so am I!;-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
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.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- 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 dramatical turn towards soberness, in my honest opinion. Thanks :-) OK, I'll say it again: I am enlightened, as of March(?- close enough) 2005. My experience has continued to grow-- like that Ramana Mountain fellow, we continue to eat the Universe after the perception and experience becomes clear. Jai Guru Dev.:-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- 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 imagine yourself as possibly stuck in a prison that you are unaware of? Its easy to imagine anything. If I have my choice I will imagine that I am eternally free. But of course you don't have that choice. Your imagination It is only that abstract anthropomorphic Nature that imagines what it wants and you are only the humble servant. Right? I can certainly imagine myself to be in prison, but I choose not to. But if that abstract anthropomorphic Nature imagines you in prison, per its inscrutable and abstract needs, then you will imagine you are in prison. Or are you saying you are not the instrument of the Divine and the Divine's imagination? I thought you just did in a prior post. Whether we like it or not (lol) we become agents of the Divine. Can you imagine that you are only imagining that you have the choice to imagine? Can you imagine that you are not the instrument of the Divine? Can you imagine that you are only imagining that you are enlightened? Can you imagine that you are only imagining that you are enlightened if that abstract anthropomorphic Nature imagines that you imagine that you are enlightened -- but also imagines that actually you are not? For all of you imaginations, or natures imaginations, and your thought of enlightenment, Is it true? Can you absolutely know that it's true? How do you react when you think that thought? Who would you be without the thought? Can you turn it around? (Each turnaround is an opportunity to experience the opposite of your original statement and see what you are without your (original) thought) Or is (or do you imagine) Byron Katie is only for those ignirant souls who are not as enlightened as you?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- 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 would be unrealistic for me to expect that a person pursuing a spiritual path would just drop it when communicating with me. Of course you would view people with perceptual filters that you value just as I do. This discussion has been helpful for me in exploring where these filters interact. One of the values for me in posting here has been to challenge my own perceptual filters concerning people who are on a spiritual path. At first I noticed the differences more between us, now I see more of the similarities. This is important for me because in my personal filters, I place a high value on being able to see things about people who are very different from me that I can relate with and connect to. Prejudging overtly spiritual people is a flaw in my filters that I am working on correcting. Posts with sincere desire to communicate our differences respectfully are my medicine. Thanks for a dose brother! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Thanks for taking the time to respond in detail. I think you have brought out some very good points about our different world views. I do agree with your point about people's differences concerning talents, intelligence and skills. You have correctly noted that I do not recognize the same meaning value in some spiritual experiences that some here do. It is not because I can not relate to them, it is because I view their value differently. What it means is where we differ. I don't recognize that a person's inner experiences make him higher than me in any way. I see this 'higher' only in a contextual way. For example 'more evolved towards a certain state of consciousness'. For example, somebody could be from a completely different philosophy, lets say a Dualist in the sense of Madhva. I could see that he is possibly very advanced at his path, even though I differ from him about the ultimate goal.And yet there are many common elements on the path.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
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 ... and I don't mean that as a put-down, just telling you who I am, while respecting your freedom of choice to be who you want :-) ME: Thanks for replying in detail. I knew I could count on some thoughtful material in response. There have been good perspectives offered by others in this thread giving me food for thought. The paragraph above is very T.S. Elliot. It is too clever to mess with. Very entertaining. I don't think I lump all Gurus in the same camp, but I think the ones who have built up big organizations are a bit power oriented. I don't know about the quieter ones who never built up big Western followings. I did spend some time in Christian monasteries with some monks who had a cool vibe that I wouldn't judge as being on a power trip. I tend to believe that gurus who end up with millions of dollars probably wanted them and worked hard to get them. I hold them as different from my value system as The Donald or any other heavy empire builder. My feelings about gurus in general is a work in progress. Right now the jury is deadlocked and keeps requesting more information. It is fine with me if I never get a verdict. I do come across exceptional people from time to time and they really seem to be functioning from a different POV. For me a person's POV on life is the driving factor. I am very influenced by the thinking of Albert Ellis (who just died RIP) and his view of how our conceptual models effect our happiness. (Rational Emotive Therapy) I found this exchange helpful and I appreciate your response. I think we do get a skewed vision of each other from our writing. We are all using our writing here for our own self discovery. Your point about the nature of writing was a valuable one. 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 announcing your own perspective on your experiences. Inherent in a view that you are no longer resisting your enlightenment and guys like me are, is a sort of hierarchy implied. But I can look past that since I carry my own versions of ranking people in my world. It is really none of my business how you are viewing me as long as the way you communicate with me has the friendly connection that I sense from your post. --- 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 you are using language that very carefully does separate you from the person you are responding to. To a large degree this is true, Curtis, in that I generally attempt to take responsibility for my perceptions *of* the other, without ascribing specific attributes *to* the other (though sometimes I fail of course), as it's usually evident that my perceptions of the other are simply the qualities of myself I choose to see in this moment. This is *not* to say however that my perceptions aren't also true -- or at least shared by others, which may be our basic criterion of objective as opposed to subjective reality. However, as I mentioned to Steve, I really can't say if an asshole has any real existence -- the only reality I am prepared to affirm whole-heartedly is the self- evident, radiant indescribable one, as that one keeps appearing when the other perceptions un-slip-knot themselves. There is then no separation. Almost to a post there is an assertion of your separateness, specialness. Yes, I'm special, and so is everyone else, though some don't like to admit it. When I came on FFL with the message I'm enlightened, and so are you you wouldn't believe some of the responses I got ... even a strongly-worded death-wish :-) I think it is very important for you to present yourself as having a special relationship with the world. Special and ordinary, simultaneously. I offer you another option and perspective for consideration. We may all actually be the same with regard to our states of consciousness. Yes, that is generally my initial a-priori assumption, and was very much so on FFL -- though I have very often been shown here that my assumptions were apparently false, not shared by others :-) What you are describing in sometimes Baroque detail may just be an affectation of your use of words to describe states that everyone else is living in without needing all the descriptions. That's what a writer does, if successful -- points out
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- 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 are stuck in in that boundary. The point of my kidding has been, Can you imagine yourself as possibly stuck in a prison that you are unaware of? Its easy to imagine anything. If I have my choice I will imagine that I am eternally free. But of course you don't have that choice. Your imagination It is only that abstract anthropomorphic Nature that imagines what it wants and you are only the humble servant. Right? I can certainly imagine myself to be in prison, but I choose not to. But if that abstract anthropomorphic Nature imagines you in prison, per its inscrutable and abstract needs, then you will imagine you are in prison. Or are you saying you are not the instrument of the Divine and the Divine's imagination? I thought you just did in a prior post. Whether we like it or not (lol) we become agents of the Divine. Can you imagine that you are only imagining that you have the choice to imagine? Can you imagine that you are not the instrument of the Divine? Can you imagine that you are only imagining that you are enlightened? Can you imagine that you are only imagining that you are enlightened if that abstract anthropomorphic Nature imagines that you imagine that you are enlightened -- but also imagines that actually you are not? For all of you imaginations, or natures imaginations, and your thought of enlightenment, Is it true? Can you absolutely know that it's true? How do you react when you think that thought? Who would you be without the thought? Can you turn it around? (Each turnaround is an opportunity to experience the opposite of your original statement and see what you are without your (original) thought) Or is (or do you imagine) Byron Katie is only for those ignirant souls who are not as enlightened as you? I don't know where to start with your plethora of rhetorical questions. I am perfectly comfortable to let you answer every one of them by yourself.:-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- 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 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 imagine yourself as possibly stuck in a prison that you are unaware of? Its easy to imagine anything. If I have my choice I will imagine that I am eternally free. But of course you don't have that choice. Your imagination It is only that abstract anthropomorphic Nature that imagines what it wants and you are only the humble servant. Right? I can certainly imagine myself to be in prison, but I choose not to. But if that abstract anthropomorphic Nature imagines you in prison, per its inscrutable and abstract needs, then you will imagine you are in prison. Or are you saying you are not the instrument of the Divine and the Divine's imagination? I thought you just did in a prior post. Whether we like it or not (lol) we become agents of the Divine. Can you imagine that you are only imagining that you have the choice to imagine? Can you imagine that you are not the instrument of the Divine? Can you imagine that you are only imagining that you are enlightened? Can you imagine that you are only imagining that you are enlightened if that abstract anthropomorphic Nature imagines that you imagine that you are enlightened -- but also imagines that actually you are not? For all of you imaginations, or natures imaginations, and your thought of enlightenment, Is it true? Can you absolutely know that it's true? How do you react when you think that thought? Who would you be without the thought? Can you turn it around? (Each turnaround is an opportunity to experience the opposite of your original statement and see what you are without your (original) thought) Or is (or do you imagine) Byron Katie is only for those ignirant souls who are not as enlightened as you? I don't know where to start with your plethora of rhetorical questions. I am perfectly comfortable to let you answer every one of them by yourself.:-) He can correct me if I'm wrong, 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. So far, the answer is no. You don't seem to be *able* to challenge that assumption, or question it in any way. It's a given, a story that you believe so thoroughly that you refuse to question it even theoretically. I get the feeling that what new.morning is suggesting is that there is a bit of cognitive dissonance when some who promote Byron Katie's techniques for anal- yzing one's stories (although I don't remember you having done that, Jim) refuse to analyze their own story of enlightenment, or even *consider the possi- bility* that it might not be true. Did I get that right, new? You're enlightened, and you refuse to even *think* that you might not be. Did I get that right, Jim?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- 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 level of thinking. It is a state of Being. This is not my original expression-- All of the gurus and spiritual teachers say this also. Given your background, I am surprised that you don't know this yet. Your level of ignorance astounds me.:-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
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 do? Can we be both ordinary and special simultaneously together? I will if you will. Actually, I will even if you won't ... and I don't mean that as a put-down, just telling you who I am, while respecting your freedom of choice to be who you want :-) ME: Thanks for replying in detail. I knew I could count on some thoughtful material in response. There have been good perspectives offered by others in this thread giving me food for thought. The paragraph above is very T.S. Elliot. It is too clever to mess with. Very entertaining. I don't think I lump all Gurus in the same camp, but I think the ones who have built up big organizations are a bit power oriented. I don't know about the quieter ones who never built up big Western followings. I did spend some time in Christian monasteries with some monks who had a cool vibe that I wouldn't judge as being on a power trip. I tend to believe that gurus who end up with millions of dollars probably wanted them and worked hard to get them. I hold them as different from my value system as The Donald or any other heavy empire builder. My feelings about gurus in general is a work in progress. Right now the jury is deadlocked and keeps requesting more information. It is fine with me if I never get a verdict. I do come across exceptional people from time to time and they really seem to be functioning from a different POV. For me a person's POV on life is the driving factor. I am very influenced by the thinking of Albert Ellis (who just died RIP) and his view of how our conceptual models effect our happiness. (Rational Emotive Therapy) I found this exchange helpful and I appreciate your response. I think we do get a skewed vision of each other from our writing. We are all using our writing here for our own self discovery. Your point about the nature of writing was a valuable one. 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 announcing your own perspective on your experiences. Inherent in a view that you are no longer resisting your enlightenment and guys like me are, is a sort of hierarchy implied. But I can look past that since I carry my own versions of ranking people in my world. It is really none of my business how you are viewing me as long as the way you communicate with me has the friendly connection that I sense from your post. **snip to end** 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 best of other posters here it makes me feel good. Even some of the more gadfly-oriented posts can be inherently respectful of the audience and I appreciate the more spirited discussions that sometimes result. It's disappointing, however, when folks presume the worst, take offense, and start the slamming. This thread fits in the first category and I agree that it has been very helpful. Marek
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
---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, Jim? You are missing what I and many others have already said again and again here. Enlightenment is not experienced on the level of thinking. It is a state of Being. This is not my original expression-- All of the gurus and spiritual teachers say this also. Given your background, I am surprised that you don't know this yet. Your level of ignorance astounds me.:-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- 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. 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 level of thinking. It is a state of Being. This is not my original expression-- All of the gurus and spiritual teachers say this also. Given your background, I am surprised that you don't know this yet. Your level of ignorance astounds me.:-) It's a little like accusing somebody of refusing even to *think* they might be dreaming rather than awake. When you're awake, it's self-evident you aren't dreaming. (Not self-evident meaning obvious, but rather evident in terms of itself.) That's a perfect analogy- Thanks!:-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
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 factors, but excluding these factors, and only if they like me, and only if I like them, belonging to this sect, but not belonging to that one, and manifesting these behaviors, but excluding those behaviors, having these beliefs, and excluding those beliefs, etc. No problem—I ran the same stories at one time, though they were probably more like feelings than discrete lists. So perhaps I talk about it to let people know the living truth of it, that anyone can find themselves in such a state of Being, and what it is like when it happens to an ordinary person. Hopefully something of what I am saying is helpful to someone out there. The other piece of it is, I just enjoy talking about it, as would most of us, having achieved a goal we've spent decades on.:-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, qntmpkt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ---Thanks, true, but why are you talking about it? 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. 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 level of thinking. It is a state of Being. This is not my original expression-- All of the gurus and spiritual teachers say this also. Given your background, I am surprised that you don't know this yet. Your level of ignorance astounds me.:-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- 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 already said again and again here. Enlightenment is not experienced on the level of thinking. It is a state of Being. This is not my original expression-- All of the gurus and spiritual teachers say this also. Given your background, I am surprised that you don't know this yet. Your level of ignorance astounds me.:-) It's a little like accusing somebody of refusing even to *think* they might be dreaming rather than awake. When you're awake, it's self-evident you aren't dreaming. (Not self-evident meaning obvious, but rather evident in terms of itself.)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- 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. 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 level of thinking. It is a state of Being. This is not my original expression-- All of the gurus and spiritual teachers say this also. Given your background, I am surprised that you don't know this yet. Your level of ignorance astounds me.:-) It's a little like accusing somebody of refusing even to *think* they might be dreaming rather than awake. When you're awake, it's self-evident you aren't dreaming. (Not self-evident meaning obvious, but rather evident in terms of itself.) Ever heard of hallucination? Or delusion? Clinically deluded people see things and believe things about their perceptions -- things that are self-evident to them -- every day that are more correctly categorized as dreams, or at the very least dreamlike. The first step to helping these people separate what is real in their perceptions and what is not is getting them to do a little self inquiry, to ask themselves if there is a *possibility* that they are not real. Until that happens, in an extreme case involving waking hallucinations and delusions, no progress can be made. (Other than with, say, drugs.) Now make the mental leap to those following spiritual paths who are so convinced that their perceptions are correct, and that their enlightenment is self-evident that they are unable to question, even theoretically, that they might be something else. I know that you haven't been around the block much, spiritually, but if you had you might have run into a few people who believed themselves enlightened who turned out to be delusional, and were later committed to institutions as a result of those delusions. You might have run into people who had convinced themselves -- and others -- that they were fully enlightened, and then self-destructed in some other way. Think Andy Rhymer. Think Frederick Lenz/ Rama, whom you probably *don't* consider enlightened. He certainly considered himself to be. I know for sure that his state of consciousness was self-evident to him, and yet he ended up as crab food, a suicide. *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'm just sayin' that there is a big red flag raised for me when someone believes one of their stories so completely that they seem *unable* to even *entertain* the idea that it might not be true. Haven't you ragged on me for years to examine my experiences of seeing someone levitate, to see if there might be another way of seeing the experience, and see if it might not be true? ( As if I hadn't already done this hundreds of times before I ever ran into you. :-) 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. :-) The Byron Katie fans here seem to be saying that it's a good thing to utilize some of her techniques to analyze their stories to see if they're true. And yet there is one story of their own that is somehow exempt from analysis. H.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- 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 question in their minds that it existed. But did it? I have no idea. Do you? Not a clue. 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, something of which you're apparently not aware. And I *understand* that some people believe this. I do not. Neither do spiritual traditions such as the Tibetan one Vaj mentioned. I am a strong believer in enlightenment, and I believe that the experience of it should be under exactly the same scrutiny and subject to the same analysis as any other experience, if not more. It isn't exempt.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- 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 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 level of thinking. It is a state of Being. This is not my original expression-- All of the gurus and spiritual teachers say this also. Given your background, I am surprised that you don't know this yet. Your level of ignorance astounds me.:-) It's a little like accusing somebody of refusing even to *think* they might be dreaming rather than awake. When you're awake, it's self-evident you aren't dreaming. (Not self-evident meaning obvious, but rather evident in terms of itself.) Ever heard of hallucination? Or delusion? Not relevant. The issue is one's state of consciousness, not one's state of mind. snip Haven't you ragged on me for years to examine my experiences of seeing someone levitate, to see if there might be another way of seeing the experience, and see if it might not be true? Nope, never have, actually. I'm afraid you're hallucinating.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- 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 announcing your own perspective on your experiences. Inherent in a view that you are no longer resisting your enlightenment and guys like me are, is a sort of hierarchy implied. But I can look past that since I carry my own versions of ranking people in my world. Actually, Curtis, I do not generally place you in any category of seriously resisting me/self/enlightenment as I don't generally feel any heavy resistance from you -- I almost always find you to be very open, thoughtful, and heartfilled -- all anyone could ask, and more. Moreover, a small degree of resistance itself is often stimulating, the grain of sand that grows the pearl. That's why I find myself often preferring FFL to other more homogeneous spiritual groups -- a bit of challenge is fun -- vive la difference! :-) It is really none of my business how you are viewing me as long as the way you communicate with me has the friendly connection that I sense from your post. My brother! :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- 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 already said again and again here. Enlightenment is not experienced on the level of thinking. It is a state of Being. snip Got to agree with Jim here -- I'd say it's not even an experience in the conventional meaning; more an Understanding that finally frees one from bondage to all experience -- hence, not really something that can fade away or get lost, like the glimpses of higher states we used to value so :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- 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. Basically, as I understand it, one does the work on oneself in areas in which one feels pain or suffering, as these are signs of incorrect thinking or thinking not in alignment with nature; there is no need to examine ideas that don't hurt :-) snip
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- 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*, 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 you? Not a clue. 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, something of which you're apparently not aware. And I *understand* that some people believe this. I do not. Neither do spiritual traditions such as the Tibetan one Vaj mentioned. I am a strong believer in enlightenment, and I believe that the experience of it should be under exactly the same scrutiny and subject to the same analysis as any other experience, if not more. It isn't exempt. What basis do you have for believing that Rory and I see it any other way? Is it because of what Vaj said? And why do you believe Vaj more than you believe either of us? Ask yourself this please and let the rest of FFL know the answer if you would: Why is it you are inclined to only believe in enlightenment from a distance, either psychologically (paraphrase of Barry: we are always enlightened, we just need to realize it...- yes, and that means it can be escaped from at any time too), physically (paraphrase of Barry: those that say they are enlightened here, are not- yes, because if they were, they could be talking to you right now), or mentally (paraphrase of Barry: those who say they are enlightened need to be able to doubt their experiences- yes, because it again makes the immediate experience of enlightenment doubtful, and distant). I think you are afraid of enlightenment Barry. Very, very afraid of it. Prove me otherwise.:-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- 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: 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 question in their minds that it existed. But did it? I have no idea. Do you? Not a clue. 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, something of which you're apparently not aware. And I *understand* that some people believe this. I do not. Neither do spiritual traditions such as the Tibetan one Vaj mentioned. I am a strong believer in enlightenment, and I believe that the experience of it should be under exactly the same scrutiny and subject to the same analysis as any other experience, if not more. It isn't exempt. What basis do you have for believing that Rory and I see it any other way? Is it because of what Vaj said? And why do you believe Vaj more than you believe either of us? What's particularly interesting is that Vaj claimed the test for enlightenment was whether the person could do certain siddhis. Barry, of course, has always insisted that the ability to do siddhis doesn't have anything to do with enlightenment. So if he's going by what Vaj says in this case, I guess it's just another one of those contradictions that show how spiritually advanced he is. How did Self-Realization come to be associated with the ability to perform spiritual parlor tricks and feats of esoteric duality?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- 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 perspectives, logic and nuances of semantics. You probably are wired differently and don't find such interesting. No harm, now foul. (I have been reading about different personality types and the research indicating different neural pathways for different types). I am perfectly comfortable to let you answer every one of them by yourself.:-) They are interesting questions, IMO. But I like to play with perspectives, logic and nuances of semantics. You probably are wired differently and don't find such interesting. No harm, now foul. (I have been reading about different personality types and the research indicating different neural pathways for different types). I am glad you are comfortable.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ 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 you? Not a clue. 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, something of which you're apparently not aware. And I *understand* that some people believe this. I do not. Neither do spiritual traditions such as the Tibetan one Vaj mentioned. I am a strong believer in enlightenment, and I believe that the experience of it should be under exactly the same scrutiny and subject to the same analysis as any other experience, if not more. It isn't exempt. What basis do you have for believing that Rory and I see it any other way? Is it because of what Vaj said? And why do you believe Vaj more than you believe either of us? What's particularly interesting is that Vaj claimed the test for enlightenment was whether the person could do certain siddhis. Barry, of course, has always insisted that the ability to do siddhis doesn't have anything to do with enlightenment. So if he's going by what Vaj says in this case, I guess it's just another one of those contradictions that show how spiritually advanced he is.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- 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. 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 level of thinking. It is a state of Being. This is not my original expression-- All of the gurus and spiritual teachers say this also. Given your background, I am surprised that you don't know this yet. Your level of ignorance astounds me.:-) It's a little like accusing somebody of refusing even to *think* they might be dreaming rather than awake. When you're awake, it's self-evident you aren't dreaming. (Not self-evident meaning obvious, but rather evident in terms of itself.) I am not so sure. Some interesting literature an epistimologies makes that very presumption -- that we are dreaming but think we are awake. Parallel to Plato's cave, perhaps. 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, you can be aware its a dream. But not so often, i think.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
---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 separate the men/women from the novices; thus, Guru Dev is a quantum leap beyond MMY although I dispute that there's some difference in the nature of Enlightenment since it's based on pure Consciousness and there's only one possibility there, vs an infinite variety of Siddhis to choose from. In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jul 25, 2007, at 7:48 PM, Alex Stanley wrote: So if he's going by what Vaj says in this case, I guess it's just another one of those contradictions that show how spiritually advanced he is. How did Self-Realization come to be associated with the ability to perform spiritual parlor tricks and feats of esoteric duality? It's just a natural byproduct of real union, thus the association. Realization is invariably accompanied by mundane siddhi, although mundane siddhi is not always a sign of realization. How could we pretend to really be operating from the unified field and not naturally have some manifestation of that?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- 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. 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 level of thinking. It is a state of Being. This is not my original expression-- All of the gurus and spiritual teachers say this also. Given your background, I am surprised that you don't know this yet. Your level of ignorance astounds me.:-) Thats quite a judgement Jim. (which is not a judgement of jim, but is an observation.) Yes it is, and based on what I said above, that Enlightenment is not experienced on the level of thinking; it is a state of Being. Very basic stuff, and for the seeker in question to not get this after all he has studied, merits, imo, my comment. I find it shocking.:-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- 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 dream, you can be aware its a dream. But not so often, i think. The only logical conclusion to your statements, though, is an infinite regress in which all states of consciousness are then invalidated through equivocation. I can think of other conclusions. Can be said of anything really. A supposition which then makes any kind of reality based discourse impossible, ergo, no learning from one another is possible. I can think of other conclusions. Is that where you want to keep this discussion? No. Though its not much a discussion. As I said, questions appear to me. I am inquisitive. See my list of possibly useful inquiry questions with which to ponder of use the Work on. For you, such may be meaningless. For me they are useful. C'est la vie. Its the difference of mind / personality / types. i like you either way. If the answer is yes, why? Seems like a big time waster. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- 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 scoundrels. who want to believe that we can achieve an enlightened state permanently, theoretically, maybe, possibly, almost, according to these factors, but excluding these factors, and only if they like me, and only if I like them, belonging to this sect, but not belonging to that one, and manifesting these behaviors, but excluding those behaviors, having these beliefs, and excluding those beliefs, etc. Wow, thats quite a pre-judgement that you have going there. i guess its not polite to suggest doing some work on that, but holy deep filters. Do you seriously believe I think like that? or Barry does? Where does that beleif come from, do you suppose? It is interesting to see how your mind works. No problem—I ran the same stories at one time, though they were probably more like feelings than discrete lists. So perhaps I talk about it to let people know the living truth of it, that anyone can find themselves in such a state of Being, and what it is like when it happens to an ordinary person. Hopefully something of what I am saying is helpful to someone out there. The other piece of it is, I just enjoy talking about it, as would most of us, having achieved a goal we've spent decades on.:-) You must be very proud of yourself.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- 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 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 level of thinking. It is a state of Being. This is not my original expression-- All of the gurus and spiritual teachers say this also. Given your background, I am surprised that you don't know this yet. Your level of ignorance astounds me.:-) It's a little like accusing somebody of refusing even to *think* they might be dreaming rather than awake. When you're awake, it's self-evident you aren't dreaming. (Not self-evident meaning obvious, but rather evident in terms of itself.) Ever heard of hallucination? Or delusion? Clinically deluded people see things and believe things about their perceptions -- things that are self-evident to them -- every day that are more correctly categorized as dreams, or at the very least dreamlike. The first step to helping these people separate what is real in their perceptions and what is not is getting them to do a little self inquiry, to ask themselves if there is a *possibility* that they are not real. Until that happens, in an extreme case involving waking hallucinations and delusions, no progress can be made. (Other than with, say, drugs.) Like in the film / book A Beautiful Mind. nash could not begin his recovery process until he accepted that his friends may not be real. And in a sense, that seems to be a type of mahavakaya. (Though I am sure it must only be a vakaya): Accepting, or questioning if what is out there -- the world and all, is real. Or if our fears or desires are real. Now make the mental leap to those following spiritual paths who are so convinced that their perceptions are correct, and that their enlightenment is self-evident that they are unable to question, even theoretically, that they might be something else. I know that you haven't been around the block much, spiritually, but if you had you might have run into a few people who believed themselves enlightened who turned out to be delusional, and were later committed to institutions as a result of those delusions. You might have run into people who had convinced themselves -- and others -- that they were fully enlightened, and then self-destructed in some other way. Think Andy Rhymer. Think Frederick Lenz/ Rama, whom you probably *don't* consider enlightened. He certainly considered himself to be. I know for sure that his state of consciousness was self-evident to him, and yet he ended up as crab food, a suicide. *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'm just sayin' that there is a big red flag raised for me when someone believes one of their stories so completely that they seem *unable* to even *entertain* the idea that it might not be true. Haven't you ragged on me for years to examine my experiences of seeing someone levitate, to see if there might be another way of seeing the experience, and see if it might not be true? ( As if I hadn't already done this hundreds of times before I ever ran into you. :-) 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. :-) The Byron Katie fans here seem to be saying that it's a good thing to utilize some of her techniques to analyze their stories to see if they're true. And yet there is one story of their own that is somehow exempt from analysis. H.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- 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 not enlightened, I assume you man me. Or perhaps Barry. Perhaps both of us scoundrels. who want to believe that we can achieve an enlightened state permanently, theoretically, maybe, possibly, almost, according to these factors, but excluding these factors, and only if they like me, and only if I like them, belonging to this sect, but not belonging to that one, and manifesting these behaviors, but excluding those behaviors, having these beliefs, and excluding those beliefs, etc. Wow, thats quite a pre-judgement that you have going there. i guess its not polite to suggest doing some work on that, but holy deep filters. Do you seriously believe I think like that? or Barry does? Where does that beleif come from, do you suppose? It is interesting to see how your mind works. No problem—I ran the same stories at one time, though they were probably more like feelings than discrete lists. So perhaps I talk about it to let people know the living truth of it, that anyone can find themselves in such a state of Being, and what it is like when it happens to an ordinary person. Hopefully something of what I am saying is helpful to someone out there. The other piece of it is, I just enjoy talking about it, as would most of us, having achieved a goal we've spent decades on.:-) You must be very proud of yourself. Etc.:-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
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 test states of enlightenment which have been used successfully for thousands of years. These are simple tests. If you claim to be enlightened thru an approach that used samadhi--nitya- samadhi (permanent samadhi, CC) as MMY called it, it is easy to test. Rather recently there was a rather famous western Tibetan Buddhist who claimed a high stage of enlightenment and it was interesting the type of verification they used. The person had to be capable of performing certain siddhis at will. When he did not meet any of the criteria, HHDL's office issued a statement essentially saying this person was not who he claimed to be. I hate to bring up what seems obvious to me, but .. I hope you can see through the mass of assumptions you cling to to make the above assertion. It's really a matter of experience, although to you there might seem to be some assumptions. Or so you assume. ;-) I also see, from just listening to what people on this list say, that most are not even barely aware of the basic assumptions behind a yogic approach to advaita and what those assumptions really, practically mean. Unfortunately this also means people who make wild claims and never even realize the implications which are implied, can be rather obviously blind-sided.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- 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: 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 level of thinking. It is a state of Being. This is not my original expression-- All of the gurus and spiritual teachers say this also. Given your background, I am surprised that you don't know this yet. Your level of ignorance astounds me.:-) It's a little like accusing somebody of refusing even to *think* they might be dreaming rather than awake. When you're awake, it's self-evident you aren't dreaming. (Not self-evident meaning obvious, but rather evident in terms of itself.) I am not so sure. Some interesting literature an epistimologies makes that very presumption -- that we are dreaming but think we are awake. Parallel to Plato's cave, perhaps. 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, you can be aware its a dream. But not so often, i think. The only logical conclusion to your statements, though, is an infinite regress in which all states of consciousness are then invalidated through equivocation. Can be said of anything really. A supposition which then makes any kind of reality based discourse impossible, ergo, no learning from one another is possible. Is that where you want to keep this discussion? If the answer is yes, why? Seems like a big time waster. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- 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. 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 level of thinking. It is a state of Being. snip Got to agree with Jim here -- I'd say it's not even an experience in the conventional meaning; more an Understanding that finally frees one from bondage to all experience -- hence, not really something that can fade away or get lost, like the glimpses of higher states we used to value so :-) HH Shiva smiles in agreement.:-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote: Can you imagine that you are only imagining that you are enlightened if that abstract anthropomorphic Nature imagines that you imagine that you are enlightened -- but also imagines that actually you are not? For all of you imaginations, or natures imaginations, and your thought of enlightenment, Is it true? Can you absolutely know that it's true? How do you react when you think that thought? Who would you be without the thought? Can you turn it around? (Each turnaround is an opportunity to experience the opposite of your original statement and see what you are without your (original) thought) Or is (or do you imagine) Byron Katie is only for those ignirant souls who are not as enlightened as you? I don't know where to start with your plethora of rhetorical questions. I am perfectly comfortable to let you answer every one of them by yourself.:-) He can correct me if I'm wrong, Oh, there are SO many things I would correct you on. :) (joke) but I think that what new.morning was getting at is whether you or anyone who considers themselves enlightened are willing to do the work on your assumption that you're enlightened. Yes. And other assumptions -- though I doubt they would consider them assumptions. Though, I suppose, any one with firm beliefs, particularly those based on personal experience -- do not think that their conclusion about the experience is a mere assumption. Ron, I doubt, considers his beleifs about his new path and teacher are assumptions They are like totally true. I started to explore the issue, in my own meandering, perhaps pesky, way, because various statements across several of Jim's posts did not add up. Which is probably my short coming. Still, an actually because of thet, I started looking at the issue from different angles.To see where my misunderstanding might be. And to gain a broader breakthough / fusion understanding of the issue areas laid out in my questions. It was not a gotcha ya set of questions. I have an iquisitve mind. I am curious (in many senses of the term.) And I am happy to set the foundation of my perspective and views. Jim is enlightened alternatively, Jim is not enlightened. Is it true? I don't know. For either question. Can you absolutely know that it's true? Nope. for both question How do you react when you think that thought? About the same when I don't think that thought. Who would you be without the thought? Just the same, with out either thought Can you turn it around? (I am not so good at turn arounds, but I will give it a try. I already have sort of flipped it by addressing both sides of the question. But another part of turn arounds, which I like, is to uncover any subconscious projection reflected in the belief worked on above. Lets see. 'Jim thinks I am enlightened' and/or 'Jim thinks I am not enlightened' -- do either of Jim's beliefs effect me, or change who I am? No. So far, the answer is no. You don't seem to be *able* to challenge that assumption, or question it in any way. It's a given, a story that you believe so thoroughly that you refuse to question it even theoretically. I get the feeling that what new.morning is suggesting is that there is a bit of cognitive dissonance when some who promote Byron Katie's techniques for anal- yzing one's stories (although I don't remember you having done that, Jim) refuse to analyze their own story of enlightenment, or even *consider the possi- bility* that it might not be true. Yes, that is one of several things that don't add up, in my perhaps limited view. And I don't buy the argument that its a matter of my not accepting paradoxes. I accept various spiritual and metaphysical paradoxes. Such paradoxes do not in any way imply that all spiritual paradoxes are valid. And it certainly does not imply that all, or even any, mundane paradoxes are valid. Except in riddles of course. What is black and white and red all over? Did I get that right, new? You are deeply perceptive and have remarkably clear cognitive functions. :) You're enlightened, and you refuse to even *think* that you might not be. Did I get that right, Jim?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- 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 willing to do the work on your assumption that you're enlightened. Basically, as I understand it, one does the work on oneself in areas in which one feels pain or suffering, as these are signs of incorrect thinking or thinking not in alignment with nature; there is no need to examine ideas that don't hurt :-) Nothing in stone says that the work can't be used in other ways. I don't have an understanding of any limits placed on the Work. Ron's recent post added to questions for interesting inquiries to use the Work for? Answers to the following questions seem to me to be fair game for the Work -- and useful: Who am I? Is the world real? Do i accurately precieve and cognize what is out there? Does God exist? Is TM a great thing / a not good thing? Am I useful for others? Do I make judgements, and pre-judgments that are not necessary? Where dos the sky end? What was there before the universe was created -- the big bang? Is global warming a large threat? Should everyone drive a hybrid? Is Tarantino a good director / writer? Do bears shite in the woods? Is April really the cruelest month? Is the sky really blue? Are the colors I see really the colors of the things I see? Is there life after death? Is fear real or useful? Who is Jesus? Who is SBS? Is Peter judgemental? Is Bush corrupt? Did the govt blow up the twin towers? Should capital gains tax be eliminated? Are apples the best PC's? Should the work only be done on areas in which one feels pain or suffering? Can one delude themselves about a state of being, a state of consciousness, an altered state of consciousness, perceptions, cognitive functions? Does God love me? Is Alison Krauss the best singer in the universe? Of course, you might suggest that these are all areas in which I feel pain or suffering. I would work on: How would Rory know what I feel and think inside? Do I care if Rory is mistaken?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- 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 believe that nothing exists anyway. 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 interested in liberation from suffering in this moment, of course, then feel free to inquire about whatever floats your boat, but it would be a mistake to equate that with the work :-) Is that BK's assessment, or your unique and original view?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- 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 interest, and potentially of value; but obviously not to Neo-Advaitins who believe that nothing exists anyway. 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 interested in liberation from suffering in this moment, of course, then feel free to inquire about whatever floats your boat, but it would be a mistake to equate that with the work :-) Is that BK's assessment, or your unique and original view? BK's assessment, derived from her own awakening.:-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- 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 enlightenment is such that it falls outside the category of stories, something of which you're apparently not aware. And I *understand* that some people believe this. I do not. Neither do spiritual traditions such as the Tibetan one Vaj mentioned. I am a strong believer in enlightenment, and I believe that the experience of it should be under exactly the same scrutiny and subject to the same analysis as any other experience, if not more. It isn't exempt. It's interesting Herbert Benson, before he went on to verify the tummo siddhi in a number of advanced yogis (and also the remarkable side-effect that their metabolic rate greatly dropped) he tested a bunch of westerners who all claimed to have the same level of tummo (heat yoga) realization. It turned out although all of them were convinced they had achieved this realization, in fact none of them had. So in some cases sceince can be used to verify certain claims of realization. It just happened in this case that their was a by- product that was easily measurable (heat). I believe at least one of the people claiming enlightenment in FF was tested by the TMO, but still, no cigar. Nonetheless they were obviously convinced they were! To continue this absurd belief that enlightenment can be proven somehow by external objective testing is, imo, one more way to keep eternal freedom at arms length. The ego loves these kinds of tests and criteria, because it gives it the endless ability to escape its own demise. It might help to keep in mind that prior to enlightenment, all seekers are slaves to their notions of seperateness, of uniqueness, of aloneness, of ownership of their thoughts and actions. To come up with endless, and I do mean endless, challenges to prove enlightenment is a sad and pathetic way to perpetuate this slavery. The point the enlightened always try to make is that none of this matters, that the only thing that matters is humility and surrender to that which will truly set you free, whether it comes from something read on a box of cereal, a Buddhist, Hindu, Christian text, a random thought, the living words of a knower of Reality, or the inner conviction to do whatever it takes to listen quietly to your own inner voice of freedom, and act on it. There is no ownership, self-aggrandizement, ego trip, or power trip associated with the words of the enlightened. These are all coverings that the ignorant in their fear place upon such words. So continue to choose; be a little pretzel in a twisted little pretzel world, or decide that total freedom is the only thing worth settling for. Your choice. Your path. Your life.:-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- 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, 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*, 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 you? Not a clue. 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, something of which you're apparently not aware. And I *understand* that some people believe this. I do not. Neither do spiritual traditions such as the Tibetan one Vaj mentioned. I am a strong believer in enlightenment, and I believe that the experience of it should be under exactly the same scrutiny and subject to the same analysis as any other experience, if not more. It isn't exempt. What basis do you have for believing that Rory and I see it any other way? Is it because of what Vaj said? And why do you believe Vaj more than you believe either of us? What's particularly interesting is that Vaj claimed the test for enlightenment was whether the person could do certain siddhis. Barry, of course, has always insisted that the ability to do siddhis doesn't have anything to do with enlightenment. So if he's going by what Vaj says in this case, I guess it's just another one of those contradictions that show how spiritually advanced he is. How did Self-Realization come to be associated with the ability to perform spiritual parlor tricks and feats of esoteric duality? Its one more way to keep that snakey string at bay.:-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- 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 questions. They are interesting questions, IMO. But I like to play with perspectives, logic and nuances of semantics. You probably are wired differently and don't find such interesting. No harm, now foul. (I have been reading about different personality types and the research indicating different neural pathways for different types). I am perfectly comfortable to let you answer every one of them by yourself.:-) They are interesting questions, IMO. But I like to play with perspectives, logic and nuances of semantics. You probably are wired differently and don't find such interesting. No harm, now foul. (I have been reading about different personality types and the research indicating different neural pathways for different types). I am glad you are comfortable. I am much more a cut to the chase type of personality.:-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- 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: 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 level of thinking. It is a state of Being. This is not my original expression-- All of the gurus and spiritual teachers say this also. Given your background, I am surprised that you don't know this yet. Your level of ignorance astounds me.:-) It's a little like accusing somebody of refusing even to *think* they might be dreaming rather than awake. When you're awake, it's self-evident you aren't dreaming. (Not self-evident meaning obvious, but rather evident in terms of itself.) I am not so sure. Some interesting literature an epistimologies makes that very presumption -- that we are dreaming but think we are awake. Parallel to Plato's cave, perhaps. Sure, but that just moves the whole thing back a level; it doesn't address or challenge my point at all. If what we think is waking is actually dreaming, then what is what we think is dreaming? There are still two different states of consciousness involved. 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. Yes, but that doesn't affect what I'm saying either. The point is that the difference between waking and dreaming is the *quality of consciousness*. Even the most vivid dream doesn't have the same quality as waking. If you had a really weird experience, you might ask yourself whether you were dreaming, but you wouldn't wonder for long; the content of the experience is trumped by the quality of consciousness. (I don't mean quality as in good-better-best but rather what your consciousness feels like.) Though sometimes in the dream, you can be aware its a dream. But not so often, i think.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- 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 already said again and again here. Enlightenment is not experienced on the level of thinking. It is a state of Being. This is not my original expression-- All of the gurus and spiritual teachers say this also. Given your background, I am surprised that you don't know this yet. Your level of ignorance astounds me.:-) Thats quite a judgement Jim. (which is not a judgement of jim, but is an observation.)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- 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 successfully for thousands of years. These are simple tests. If you claim to be enlightened thru an approach that used samadhi--nitya- samadhi (permanent samadhi, CC) as MMY called it, it is easy to test. Rather recently there was a rather famous western Tibetan Buddhist who claimed a high stage of enlightenment and it was interesting the type of verification they used. The person had to be capable of performing certain siddhis at will. When he did not meet any of the criteria, HHDL's office issued a statement essentially saying this person was not who he claimed to be. I hate to bring up what seems obvious to me, but .. I hope you can see through the mass of assumptions you cling to to make the above assertion.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- 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 best of other posters here it makes me feel good. Even some of the more gadfly-oriented posts can be inherently respectful of the audience and I appreciate the more spirited discussions that sometimes result. It's disappointing, however, when folks presume the worst, take offense, and start the slamming. This thread fits in the first category and I agree that it has been very helpful. Marek I was thinking perhaps a parallel thing. that when folks presume the worst, they are reflecting an inherent, perhaps unconscious judgement. Though I suppose the opposite is true.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
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 you? 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, something of which you're apparently not aware. that they seem *unable* to even *entertain* the idea that it might not be true. You have this very peculiar tendency to assume that when someone disagrees with you about whether something is possible, it's because they are unable to entertain the idea that whatever it is, is possible. It never occurs to you that they might have entertained the idea that it was possible and decided it wasn't. Haven't you ragged on me for years to examine my experiences of seeing someone levitate, to see if there might be another way of seeing the experience, and see if it might not be true? This is such a great example of the way you simply make stuff up about people, especially me. It has *zero* basis in reality. If I were you, I wouldn't be questioning others about the validity of *their* perceptions when your own are so demonstrably wrong. snip 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. :-) Yeah, I wasn't defending Jim. I was providing an analogy to illustrate the point he was making about the nature of enlightenment. Sorry you were unable to tell the difference. Just one further note: It's wonderfully amusing to watch you trying to make Jim doubt his experience of enlightenment when you've delivered countless exhortations about how TMers never have any spiritual experiences, so they call those of others in question out of jealousy. Given your recent spate of putdowns of Jim's and Rory's experiences, it looks like it ain't the TMers who are jealous.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
---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 Spiritual Sadhana. I disagree with that also, since due to MMY's brilliant innovations, doing all-day Sadhanas (as possibly some Monks in various traditions) is the real waste of time. Best to do TM and then do something productive like stroll around the mall and then see Transformers. 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: --- 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 willing to do the work on your assumption that you're enlightened. Basically, as I understand it, one does the work on oneself in areas in which one feels pain or suffering, as these are signs of incorrect thinking or thinking not in alignment with nature; there is no need to examine ideas that don't hurt :-) Nothing in stone says that the work can't be used in other ways. I don't have an understanding of any limits placed on the Work. Ron's recent post added to questions for interesting inquiries to use the Work for? Answers to the following questions seem to me to be fair game for the Work -- and useful: Who am I? Is the world real? Do i accurately precieve and cognize what is out there? Does God exist? Is TM a great thing / a not good thing? Am I useful for others? Do I make judgements, and pre-judgments that are not necessary? Where dos the sky end? What was there before the universe was created -- the big bang? Is global warming a large threat? Should everyone drive a hybrid? Is Tarantino a good director / writer? Do bears shite in the woods? Is April really the cruelest month? Is the sky really blue? Are the colors I see really the colors of the things I see? Is there life after death? Is fear real or useful? Who is Jesus? Who is SBS? Is Peter judgemental? Is Bush corrupt? Did the govt blow up the twin towers? Should capital gains tax be eliminated? Are apples the best PC's? Should the work only be done on areas in which one feels pain or suffering? Can one delude themselves about a state of being, a state of consciousness, an altered state of consciousness, perceptions, cognitive functions? Does God love me? Is Alison Krauss the best singer in the universe? Of course, you might suggest that these are all areas in which I feel pain or suffering. No; much like Jim, I'd suggest these are essentially a waste of time *unless* they're areas you're personally feeling particular pain and suffering in. I would (if asked) further suggest working first on the areas in which I feel the *most* suffering, in this moment, if any :-) I would work on: How would Rory know what I feel and think inside? Do I care if Rory is mistaken? Whatever floats your boat :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- 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 at is whether you or anyone who considers themselves enlightened are willing to do the work on your assumption that you're enlightened. Basically, as I understand it, one does the work on oneself in areas in which one feels pain or suffering, as these are signs of incorrect thinking or thinking not in alignment with nature; there is no need to examine ideas that don't hurt :-) Nothing in stone says that the work can't be used in other ways. I don't have an understanding of any limits placed on the Work. Ron's recent post added to questions for interesting inquiries to use the Work for? Answers to the following questions seem to me to be fair game for the Work -- and useful: Who am I? Is the world real? Do i accurately precieve and cognize what is out there? Does God exist? Is TM a great thing / a not good thing? Am I useful for others? Do I make judgements, and pre-judgments that are not necessary? Where dos the sky end? What was there before the universe was created -- the big bang? Is global warming a large threat? Should everyone drive a hybrid? Is Tarantino a good director / writer? Do bears shite in the woods? Is April really the cruelest month? Is the sky really blue? Are the colors I see really the colors of the things I see? Is there life after death? Is fear real or useful? Who is Jesus? Who is SBS? Is Peter judgemental? Is Bush corrupt? Did the govt blow up the twin towers? Should capital gains tax be eliminated? Are apples the best PC's? Should the work only be done on areas in which one feels pain or suffering? Can one delude themselves about a state of being, a state of consciousness, an altered state of consciousness, perceptions, cognitive functions? Does God love me? Is Alison Krauss the best singer in the universe? Of course, you might suggest that these are all areas in which I feel pain or suffering. No; much like Jim, I'd suggest these are essentially a waste of time *unless* they're areas you're personally feeling particular pain and suffering in. I would (if asked) further suggest working first on the areas in which I feel the *most* suffering, in this moment, if any :-) I would work on: How would Rory know what I feel and think inside? Do I care if Rory is mistaken? Whatever floats your boat :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- 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 not enlightened, I assume you man me. Or perhaps Barry. Perhaps both of us scoundrels. who want to believe that we can achieve an enlightened state permanently, theoretically, maybe, possibly, almost, according to these factors, but excluding these factors, and only if they like me, and only if I like them, belonging to this sect, but not belonging to that one, and manifesting these behaviors, but excluding those behaviors, having these beliefs, and excluding those beliefs, etc. Wow, thats quite a pre-judgement that you have going there. i guess its not polite to suggest doing some work on that, but holy deep filters. Do you seriously believe I think like that? or Barry does? Whether Barry thinks like that or not, he *posts* like that. What he posts depends entirely on what has been said by somebody he wants to put down. It's not clear whether he's aware of this or not. He's been doing it for so long, it may well be that he's completely lost touch with the process.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- 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 for me? We clearly have a different view on how the Work can be applied, and the value of doing so. And thats what make the world a wonderful place. I hope I am not offending BK by applying her work in some forbidden or inappropriate way. I have never heard of placing limits on its practice. Have you? A value I place on the work, or similar approaches, is that it can help reduce the clutter, and noise of judgments in ones mind. I used to have such more - and I observe it in other peoples dialogs -- where there is a habit or compulsion to judge many things. It can be gossipy, or high minded -- but its still, IMO, a waste of time and mind. I suggest, at least for me, that one need only judge another person, or thing, if one has to make a decision regarding them. And that doesn't have to even be a judgment. An evaluation is not a judgement in my book. But our definitions an perspectives may differ. A great thing. I see judgements as making a qualitative assessment of the person / thing. A la, she is good, or that is bad. An evaluation is she has these qualities, having them or not having them does not diminish or amplify her. That you don't find value ins doing such is fine with me. You probably don't have any monkey-mind judgements going on. Wonderful. It doesn't diminish me i you don't see the value in my practices. My happiness is not effected. And I like you either way. May diversity sprout 1000 heads. *unless* they're areas you're personally feeling particular pain and suffering in. I would (if asked) further suggest working first on the areas in which I feel the *most* suffering, in this moment, if any :-) I would work on: How would Rory know what I feel and think inside? Do I care if Rory is mistaken? Whatever floats your boat :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- 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: No; much like Jim, I'd suggest these are essentially a waste of time For you or for me? For anyone actually seeking to unravel their suffering :-) We clearly have a different view on how the Work can be applied, and the value of doing so. And thats what make the world a wonderful place. I hope I am not offending BK by applying her work in some forbidden or inappropriate way. I have never heard of placing limits on its practice. Have you? I've generally seen it applied to one's areas of suffering, which to me makes a lot of sense. YMMV. A value I place on the work, or similar approaches, is that it can help reduce the clutter, and noise of judgments in ones mind. Interesting -- to me it looked as if you were *increasing* the clutter with all those irrelevant questions. My mistake :-) I used to have such more - and I observe it in other peoples dialogs -- where there is a habit or compulsion to judge many things. It can be gossipy, or high minded -- but its still, IMO, a waste of time and mind. Agreed. I suggest, at least for me, that one need only judge another person, or thing, if one has to make a decision regarding them. And that doesn't have to even be a judgment. An evaluation is not a judgement in my book. But our definitions an perspectives may differ. A great thing. I see judgements as making a qualitative assessment of the person / thing. A la, she is good, or that is bad. An evaluation is she has these qualities, having them or not having them does not diminish or amplify her. That you don't find value ins doing such is fine with me. You probably don't have any monkey-mind judgements going on. Wonderful. It doesn't diminish me i you don't see the value in my practices. My happiness is not effected. Or affected either, I suspect! And I like you either way. And you always have, and always will, right? :-) May diversity sprout 1000 heads. Doesn't it already have trillions upon trillions? Or is that just McDonald's? *L*L*L*
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- 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 *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 interested in liberation from suffering in this moment, of course, then feel free to inquire about whatever floats your boat, but it would be a mistake to equate that with the work :-) As for Buddhists, Sakyamuni Buddha stated that there's not enough time to investigate natural laws and also do one's Spiritual Sadhana. I disagree with that also, since due to MMY's brilliant innovations, doing all-day Sadhanas (as possibly some Monks in various traditions) is the real waste of time. Best to do TM and then do something productive like stroll around the mall and then see Transformers. Yes, no doubt the Buddha was mistaken -- after all, he didn't know you -- if he did, he would doubtless agree with you that doing TM and then strolling around the mall and seeing Transformers is better for you in this moment. :-) Actually, I'm quite serious about this: I am certainly not going to try to push the work or anything else down your throat! It's your life, until it isn't :-) *L*L*L* 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, 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 willing to do the work on your assumption that you're enlightened. Basically, as I understand it, one does the work on oneself in areas in which one feels pain or suffering, as these are signs of incorrect thinking or thinking not in alignment with nature; there is no need to examine ideas that don't hurt :-) Nothing in stone says that the work can't be used in other ways. I don't have an understanding of any limits placed on the Work. Ron's recent post added to questions for interesting inquiries to use the Work for? Answers to the following questions seem to me to be fair game for the Work -- and useful: Who am I? Is the world real? Do i accurately precieve and cognize what is out there? Does God exist? Is TM a great thing / a not good thing? Am I useful for others? Do I make judgements, and pre-judgments that are not necessary? Where dos the sky end? What was there before the universe was created -- the big bang? Is global warming a large threat? Should everyone drive a hybrid? Is Tarantino a good director / writer? Do bears shite in the woods? Is April really the cruelest month? Is the sky really blue? Are the colors I see really the colors of the things I see? Is there life after death? Is fear real or useful? Who is Jesus? Who is SBS? Is Peter judgemental? Is Bush corrupt? Did the govt blow up the twin towers? Should capital gains tax be eliminated? Are apples the best PC's? Should the work only be done on areas in which one feels pain or suffering? Can one delude themselves about a state of being, a state of consciousness, an altered state of consciousness, perceptions, cognitive functions? Does God love me? Is Alison Krauss the best singer in the universe? Of course, you might suggest that these are all areas in which I feel pain or suffering. No; much like Jim, I'd suggest these are essentially a waste of time *unless* they're areas you're personally feeling particular pain and suffering in. I would (if asked) further suggest working first on the areas in which I feel the *most* suffering, in this moment, if any :-) I would work on: How would Rory know what I feel and think inside? Do I care if Rory is mistaken? Whatever floats your boat :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- 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*, 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 you? Not a clue. Then why did you ask? 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, something of which you're apparently not aware. And I *understand* that some people believe this. If you do understand this, then why are you asking someone who believes it whether their story about enlightenment might not be correct, when they say it's not a story in the first place? That would make no sense at all. It's like asking them what color Thursday is. I do not. Neither do spiritual traditions such as the Tibetan one Vaj mentioned. But lots of others do, as Jim pointed out. It's actually pretty standard. I am a strong believer in enlightenment, and I believe that the experience of it should be under exactly the same scrutiny and subject to the same analysis as any other experience, if not more. It isn't exempt. Should Thursday be exempt from a query about what color it is? Nobody's talking about exempt, of course. To use that term indicates you still don't grasp the distinction that's being made, or why it's made in the first place. You're just way out of your depth on this one, Barry.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
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 claim to be enlightened thru an approach that used samadhi--nitya- samadhi (permanent samadhi, CC) as MMY called it, it is easy to test. Rather recently there was a rather famous western Tibetan Buddhist who claimed a high stage of enlightenment and it was interesting the type of verification they used. The person had to be capable of performing certain siddhis at will. When he did not meet any of the criteria, HHDL's office issued a statement essentially saying this person was not who he claimed to be.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- 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 you have made up your mind about my state of consciousness, whatever your conclusion is? As I said before, my state of consciousness is not determined by what I think, rather it is based on what I am. If you have doubts about me being enlightened, why should I want to change your mind? I am comfortable with you having those doubts, if you are. This isn't a competition. It is a reality. Accept it, don't accept it. Whatever, but please quit trying to make that my problem-- I owe you nothing in that regard. The Byron Katie fans here seem to be saying that it's a good thing to utilize some of her techniques to analyze their stories to see if they're true. And yet there is one story of their own that is somehow exempt from analysis. H. Unless you are willing to go through Byron Katie's inquiry yourself, there's not a lot more to say about this.:-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
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, something of which you're apparently not aware. And I *understand* that some people believe this. I do not. Neither do spiritual traditions such as the Tibetan one Vaj mentioned. I am a strong believer in enlightenment, and I believe that the experience of it should be under exactly the same scrutiny and subject to the same analysis as any other experience, if not more. It isn't exempt. It's interesting Herbert Benson, before he went on to verify the tummo siddhi in a number of advanced yogis (and also the remarkable side-effect that their metabolic rate greatly dropped) he tested a bunch of westerners who all claimed to have the same level of tummo (heat yoga) realization. It turned out although all of them were convinced they had achieved this realization, in fact none of them had. So in some cases sceince can be used to verify certain claims of realization. It just happened in this case that their was a by- product that was easily measurable (heat). I believe at least one of the people claiming enlightenment in FF was tested by the TMO, but still, no cigar. Nonetheless they were obviously convinced they were!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
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 one's Self, if I've gotten what Rory is saying. However, the desire to behave like that is an expectation. some of this is just Rory; he used byron katie to get his answers but your use of it would give you your answers; its very personal and there is no one right answer, except what -you- think. One *practices* a little Byron Katiesque Inquiry and intellectually convinces one's self that it is relating to others on a non-judgmental level. the inquiry she teaches is much simpler than that; there is no convincing oneself of anything at all; you might end up less judgemental, but not because you are trying to be. But it seems to me that the very *process* of doing this is by definition a judgment upon one's *own* self, a desire to *change* the way it's behaving and should it into another form of behavior, an attempt to moodmake it into acting the way that it should. it is much simpler than all that; there is no desire to change, just a way of inquiry of your issue; there is no change of behaviour ... that would be mood-making; and yet as a side effect, her inquiry might actually change your original thinking, thus your behaviour would be different than it would have been, but only as a side effect. it works more like a koan than a mood making. it sounds to me that you have not actually tried her method of four questions inquiry, because it is actually very simple; but trying to describe it to someone who has not had the experience requires putting it into words, but that makes it sound more compicated than it is. I'm not particularly down on Byron Katie, or advaita, or Rory...I'm just intrigued by the proponents of these philosophies' ability to ignore what seems to me to be a raging contradiction. If the practice they're recom- mending to get beyond judgment requires the work, isn't that *by definition* a form of judgment about judgment? im no expert on Byron Katie, but i did take a weekend seminar with her in Fairfield a couple years ago, and liked it enough to buy her book. The Work, as she calls it, is her work of spreading the method she discovered; but it doent mean it is hard work as in rigorous, or a judgement against judgments, in some hard sense; it is more gentle, just inquiry (only if you feel like doing it) she stumbled upon her methods via her own normal westerner life; it happens to have the advaita/non-dualist results; but it is neo-advaita because it just emerged in her life, it is not something she learned from some indian guru teaching from a tradition of non-dualism.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- 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. Maybe you mean koans. Its not the same, it has a different underlying principle, and it comes from different paths with different goals and spiritual perspectives.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- 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 *should* not be criticizing other aspects of ones Self and acting accordingly, *in the pursuit of a desire*. I am recommending that one be aware of where the criticism is coming from -- that one place attention on the core expectations behind the criticisms, and thereby to discover the illusory and projective nature of one's thinking, and of one's pain. The result IME is generally a tremendous expansion of heart, of compassion, of consciousness as we reabsorb that demonic which we had projected outside ourselves and condemned. 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, if I've gotten what Rory is saying. No, the desire is to be free from pain, and this is one technique to unravel pain's illusory slipknot. However, the desire to behave like that is an expectation. One *practices* a little Byron Katiesque Inquiry and intellectually convinces one's self that it is relating to others on a non-judgmental level. No, the end result IME is most certainly not merely intellectual. I live a visceral life, and wpould not be satisfied with nor recommend mere intellectual masturbation :-) But it seems to me that the very *process* of doing this is by definition a judgment upon one's *own* self, a desire to *change* the way it's behaving and should it into another form of behavior, an attempt to moodmake it into acting the way that it should. No, it's a realization one is in pain (or in my terms, projecting monsters out there), and a decent method to see through and embrace the illusion -- to meet and conquer the challenge offered by that particular bardo demon. I'm not particularly down on Byron Katie, or advaita, or Rory...I'm just intrigued by the proponents of these philosophies' ability to ignore what seems to me to be a raging contradiction. If the practice they're recom- mending to get beyond judgment requires the work, isn't that *by definition* a form of judgment about judgment? It's a recognition of pain, and an Inquiry to heal it. The technique is a great deal like transcendence itself, as it allows us to reverse the process of manifestation/projection by tracing the thoughts consciously inward to their source, recognizing their fallacies, and remembering the truth -- in a deeply satisfyingly visceral, sensory way. And please, anyone who feels like answering, don't come back with a thorn to remove a thorn. That may work on TMers who've been trained to salivate at the sound of Maharishi's voice, but it ain't gonna cut the mustard intellectually. What I'm asking is whether the Byron Katie thorn is just a form of moodmaking, of training one's self into acting a certain way (acting in all senses of that word) because they've been convinced that they should act that way? Sounds like classic moodmaking to me. Again, I'd say No, because it merely provides a tool for recognizing and piercing the source of our pain. OTOH my current understanding of moodmaking is in no way condemnatory, as all the states of consciousness look much like moods to me. From where I stand, we have a choice as to our primary mood or frequency, which colors what interpretations we wish to ascribe to the myriads of incoming data, and this choice in turn actually determines which of the data we imbibe and manifest through our various levels of bodymind and thence into our environment. I do realize for many of us however that this initial choice of frequency is as yet unconscious. How is the work gonna help you determine the proper course of action when the other person you're trying not to be judgmental about is holding a gun on you, It's not a question of trying not to be judgmental; it's a question of destroying one's pain. and acting a whole lot like a madman on crack who is more interested in shooting you and your family just to see how you fall than he is in your wallet? Be afraid; be very afraid! :-) We Buddhists might have compassion for the poor, drugged- out guy, but we'd also do our best to kick the sucker in the nuts and get the gun away from him. The way I'm read- ing Rory's comments, he'd see that the guy is coming from a place of hurt/pain, relate it to his own hurt and pain, and say, LOL. You're just another aspect of my Self, and everything is OK. :-) Then you are reading me wrong, as appears often to be the case. I see no problem with Self kicking Self in the nuts if that is what is required. :-) 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.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
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 only 4 mahavakyas, all else are just vakyas. Maybe you mean koans. Its not the same, it has a different underlying principle, and it comes from different paths with different goals and spiritual perspectives. I was referring to the 600 or so mahavakyas of the Chinese kung-an (called koans in Japanese) which are also used to stimulate waking in some Buddhist schools. The goal, awakening, is the same, but the View is different. It was actually my Patanjali guru who turned me on to the fact that these kung-an are a more detailed and rigorous set of mahavakyas.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- 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. Because Rory takes an extreme, absolutist position, he falls into accepting and rejecting and therefore, polarities. Whether an asshole actually exists or not is impossible for me to say. I am rejecting that my suffering has an external reality, yes. If that makes me somehow falling into polarities, then so be it :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
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 we'd also do our best to kick the sucker in the nuts and get the gun away from him. So, when is the last time you kicked a guy in the nuts and took a gun away from him? I'm just wondering. ROTFLMAO! --Right, but Byron Katie is a Neo-Advaitin, and if we go too far into that realm, there's no karma, no people, no suffering (in fact, nothing!). Nope - Buddhism as a whole has more compassion. While I agree wholeheartedly, I find myself more interested in the seeming contradiction that I stumbled upon last night in the one-liner that made Rory *lol*, but which he didn't deal with. I've pasted in the whole exchange below, with all of its context restored, because I'm interested in hear- ing the fans of advaita (neo- or not) or Byron Katie explain to me why what seems like a contradiction to me isn't one. OK, I asked Swami G - does everyone go through the Kundalini Journey. I asked because based on my own experience with it, I can't imagine that it is possible without it. I think that this is the most accurate and telling statement in your post, Ron, and the one that is most relevant to Fairfield Life and the majority of posts here about spiritual progress. It's about *personal experience*, which is valid, and about *projection of that experience onto others*, which IMO is not. On this forum we've had people say that because *they* went through a period of anger at some spiritual teacher who disappointed them, everyone who criticizes a spiritual teacher is also feeling anger. snip FWIW I still support my original premise: If we criticise another (particularly if the other isn't even present, and we're criticising them to a 3rd party), we generally *are* coming from a place of pain (hurt/anger), whether or not we are consciously aware of it at that moment. This is because we are shoulding all over them :-) -- expecting them to be other than they are, and judging them for not living up to our expectations of what they should be or do. All of this stems from the core belief and illusion that what we are criticising is outside of ourself -- a position that is fraught with addictive pain. Practicing a little Byron-Katiesque Inquiry will soon sober us up and show us otherwise :-) Now let me get this straight. This sobering up and seeing things otherwise, that's something that we should be doing? 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 *should* not be criticizing other aspects of ones Self and acting accordingly, *in the pursuit of a desire*. 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, if I've gotten what Rory is saying. However, the desire to behave like that is an expectation. One *practices* a little Byron Katiesque Inquiry and intellectually convinces one's self that it is relating to others on a non-judgmental level. But it seems to me that the very *process* of doing this is by definition a judgment upon one's *own* self, a desire to *change* the way it's behaving and should it into another form of behavior, an attempt to moodmake it into acting the way that it should. I'm not particularly down on Byron Katie, or advaita, or Rory...I'm just intrigued by the proponents of these philosophies' ability to ignore what seems to me to be a raging contradiction. If the practice they're recom- mending to get beyond judgment requires the work, isn't that *by definition* a form of judgment about judgment? And please, anyone who feels like answering, don't come back with a thorn to remove a thorn. That may work on TMers who've been trained to salivate at the sound of Maharishi's voice, but it ain't gonna cut the mustard intellectually. What I'm asking is whether the Byron Katie thorn is just a form of moodmaking, of training one's self into acting a certain way (acting in all senses of that word) because they've been convinced that they should act that way? Sounds like classic moodmaking to me. How is the work gonna help you determine the proper course of action when the other person you're trying not to be judgmental about is holding a gun on you, and acting a whole lot like a madman on crack who is more interested in shooting you and your family just to see how you fall than he is in your wallet? We Buddhists might have compassion for the poor,
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- 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. I'm just wondering. Those of you who know more, please explain it to me. Try it and see for yourself, or keep on spinning rationalizations why Not to try it, it makes no difference to me. I'm still gonna kick you in the nuts every time I see you on crack waving a pistol around -- metaphorically speaking of course :-) 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 putting forth here. He proceeded to try to kick me in the nuts for purportedly spinning rationalizations on why not to try it. (You refrained from doing so, apparently because I didn't seem to you to be metaphorically on crack waving a pistol around.)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- 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@ wrote: I don't know. I'm just wondering. Those of you who know more, please explain it to me. Rory Goff rorygoff@ wrote: Try it and see for yourself, or keep on spinning rationalizations why Not to try it, it makes no difference to me. I'm still gonna kick you in the nuts every time I see you on crack waving a pistol around -- metaphorically speaking of course :-) authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 putting forth here. Hah! Yes! I LOVE the mirror-like quality of FFL, like Life cubed, as Self reflects Self to Selfnext it'll be *my* turn to use the infinite-recursion argument! He proceeded to try to kick me in the nuts for purportedly spinning rationalizations on why not to try it. Priceless, isn't it? :-) (You refrained from doing so, apparently because I didn't seem to you to be metaphorically on crack waving a pistol around.) 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 :-) *L*L*L*
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- 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 another form of moodmaking? Answer, short form: No. I don't know. I'm just wondering. Those of you who know more, please explain it to me. Try it and see for yourself, or keep on spinning rationalizations why Not to try it, it makes no difference to me. I'm still gonna kick you in the nuts every time I see you on crack waving a pistol around -- metaphorically speaking of course :-) 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 putting forth here. He proceeded to try to kick me in the nuts for purportedly spinning rationalizations on why not to try it. (You refrained from doing so, apparently because I didn't seem to you to be metaphorically on crack waving a pistol around.) Thank you for settling, at long last, the question of whether you *have* nuts. :-) Thank you also for settling the question of how long you can go after one of your long, relaxing weekends away without falling back in to the Gotta trash Barry routine. :-) But just for fun, is this the post that you char- acterize as trying to kick you in the nuts? If so, I guess I'm trying again. What I thought your motivations were with regard to realization then are exactly what I think of them today. And there is no more of an attempt to kick you in the nuts in my reposting them than there was in posting them in the first place. The purpose *of* posting them is to show you the stories you tell yourself about the past, and the way that you tend to remember -- or misremember -- that past. No stories, no pain. True stories, no pain. Imagined stories, seemingly a great *deal* of pain, equivalent in your mind to being kicked in the nuts. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, L B Shriver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip That's not it. The thought is, That hurts. I am in pain. I don't want to be in pain. That's not a story, that's a visceral response. No story no pain. Bull. The story is that there has to be a story. Attachment to attachment. I'm going to expand upon this, trying to speak as Rory does to the enlightened being that is Judy rather than the person who is going to interpret my three words above as a slam. They're not. They're a direct commentary on what I see as the real issue here. Rory (if I have interpreted his words correctly) seems to be saying that the pain of feeling hurt when someone tells you the truth is not your pain. It's not even pain. It's the death struggles of an ego trying to assert itself and survive. It's nothing more than a shadow that is growing darker as the light shining on it becomes brighter. The pain of feeling bad because someone tells you the truth about realization IS, as far as I can tell, just a story. And the story is fiction. You seem to be trying to make a case for the story being real, just because you feel it. In these discussions, Rory has been telling you that you are free, and you have been asserting, over and over, that he is mistaken and that you are not. Your *stories* are what are imprisoning you, Judy. You are like a person pacing back and forth in a tiny jail cell, the bars of which keep you from walking into the world of freedom and liberation that you glimpse through the bars and that you read about in the works of those who have broken out of prison before you. What I think Rory is trying to say is that the bars of your jail cell don't exist. They are just a hologram, an image of a jail cell that has no real existence. The bars have no substance. The only thing that keeps you in place within the cell and keeps you from walking into the world of liberation is your *idea* that the cell is real, that the bars are real. For now, in my opinion, you seem to be terribly attached to the cell being real. You don't even try to rattle the bars or to examine them to see if they're real. You already know that they're real. Anyone who says differently is obviously fucking with you. So what you do when some- one tells you that the bars aren't real is to try to make the person who's telling you the truth feel bad about telling you the truth. You try to make the person who has caused you pain feel pain himself. You talk about pain...well, I'll tell you...this whole process is more than a little painful to watch. The attachment I see here is your attachment to things as they have
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- 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 putting forth here. He proceeded to try to kick me in the nuts for purportedly spinning rationalizations on why not to try it. (You refrained from doing so, apparently because I didn't seem to you to be metaphorically on crack waving a pistol around.) Thank you for settling, at long last, the question of whether you *have* nuts. :-) Barry, my nuts have always been your fantasy. Thank you also for settling the question of how long you can go after one of your long, relaxing weekends away without falling back in to the Gotta trash Barry routine. :-) Exactly as long as you don't provide me with targets. But just for fun, is this the post that you char- acterize as trying to kick you in the nuts? If so, I guess I'm trying again. What I thought your motivations were with regard to realization then are exactly what I think of them today. And there is no more of an attempt to kick you in the nuts in my reposting them than there was in posting them in the first place. And no less of one, either. The purpose *of* posting them is to show you the stories you tell yourself about the past, and the way that you tend to remember -- or misremember -- that past. No stories, no pain. True stories, no pain. Imagined stories, seemingly a great *deal* of pain, equivalent in your mind to being kicked in the nuts. Not. You missed the word try. And this story wasn't imagined, either; thanks for confirming with your repost. Rory and I had a terrific discussion, and others chimed in with wonderful insights. Barry, almost needless to say, missed the point completely; he was, as usual, more intent on putting me down than actually following what Rory and I were talking about, let alone dealing with it. As I said at the time, he was distinctly hors de combat in that exchange. My response to the post of Barry's he goes on to quote is in message #64354, if anyone is interested. It's still hugely amusing to see Barry now taking *my* side and trying to kick *Rory* in the nuts. (I have no doubt that Rory's nuts, quite unlike mine, are not just a figment of Barry's imagination, but even so he fails to land his kick.)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- 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 know an answer to or have discursive ideas about. Sorry Vaj, there are only 4 mahavakyas, all else are just vakyas. Maybe you mean koans. Its not the same, it has a different underlying principle, and it comes from different paths with different goals and spiritual perspectives. I was referring to the 600 or so mahavakyas of the Chinese kung-an (called koans in Japanese) which are also used to stimulate waking in some Buddhist schools. The goal, awakening, is the same, but the View is different. It was actually my Patanjali guru who turned me on to the fact that these kung-an are a more detailed and rigorous set of mahavakyas. Sure, but then its Buddhism, not Advaita Vedanta right. Working with paradoxes to stop the mind momentarily is not the purpose of the Upanishadic Mahavakyas. The traditional advaitic method is quite different, and consists in a thorough acceptance and understanding of the advaitic truth as it is confirmed by vedic scripture - thats traditional Advaita in opposition to Neo-Advaita. The premises are the acceptance that this world is unreal and only Brahman is real. The Neo-Advaitins have appropriated the term 'Advaita' in order to describe an experience of Unity or their understanding of it, and mix with it all kinds of psychological or New Age methods. But Advaita is firmly rooted in scripture, it is 'Vedanta', the end of 'veda'. It consists of Sravana (Hearing or listening to the highest spiritual truth), Manana (The process of reasoning in which one reflects on the spiritual teacher's words and meditates upon their meaning) and Nididhyasana (Deep meditation on the truth of Brahman) Mahavakya Literally, great saying. A Vedantic formula that declares the oneness of the individual soul with Brahman. (Each mahavakya in Vedanta comes from a different of the main Upanishads. Each of these Upanishad belongs to a different Veda, hence only 4 Mahavakyas) see:http://www.vedanta.org/wiv/glossary/glossary_mr.html I suggest to investigate terms from spiritual path within their own respective philosophies and not a hotchpotch of new age ideas.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
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 about how you write that I would like to run by you Rory. I think you are using language that very carefully does separate you from the person you are responding to. Almost to a post there is an assertion of your separateness, specialness. I think it is very important for you to present yourself as having a special relationship with the world. I offer you another option and perspective for consideration. We may all actually be the same with regard to our states of consciousness. What you are describing in sometimes Baroque detail may just be an affectation of your use of words to describe states that everyone else is living in without needing all the descriptions. If you really want a unitive experience, I suggest trying out the following premise: You and I are actually the same. No states of awakening separate us. Neither of us are on any continuum of awareness before or after each other. We are both just simply human with the same limitations and capacities. Then go to the supermarket and look at everyone that same equal way. Everyone is just equally human and not on a path of awakening. Just folks. I hope this wont be taken as an attack although it is a judgment I am making. (BTW nuts are actually very hard to kick so their use in fights is really overrated!) I think we have established enough rapport in previous posts to actually explore this topic a bit. I suspect Turq will have some perspective to share on this. In my daily life I notice people's language as an attempt to assert a ranking. It is a version of monkey oneupmanship. As a performing artist I must push some people's buttons because I get a regular stream of guys (always guys) who feel the need to try to find out what I make as a performer. It seems important for them to make sure I am not making much money while having this much fun. They ask a serious of roundabout questions to determine that even though they hate their jobs (their words) at least they are making more money. Here on FFL it seems that there is another ranking system in place between guys. An enlightenment-O-meter. It isn't easy for guys to drop all the affections of our primate politics. But it is sometimes an option when chosen. Are you willing to actually see me as an equal? Completely equal? Not in some cosmic perspective way that you unequally comprehend, but brother to brother? --- 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? Rory Goff rorygoff@ wrote: Answer, short form: No. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: I don't know. I'm just wondering. Those of you who know more, please explain it to me. Rory Goff rorygoff@ wrote: Try it and see for yourself, or keep on spinning rationalizations why Not to try it, it makes no difference to me. I'm still gonna kick you in the nuts every time I see you on crack waving a pistol around -- metaphorically speaking of course :-) authfriend jstein@ wrote: 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 putting forth here. Hah! Yes! I LOVE the mirror-like quality of FFL, like Life cubed, as Self reflects Self to Selfnext it'll be *my* turn to use the infinite-recursion argument! He proceeded to try to kick me in the nuts for purportedly spinning rationalizations on why not to try it. Priceless, isn't it? :-) (You refrained from doing so, apparently because I didn't seem to you to be metaphorically on crack waving a pistol around.) 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 :-) *L*L*L*
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
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 mahavakyas to introduce the state of unitary awakening.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- 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 heartfelt thanks to You :-) 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 you are using language that very carefully does separate you from the person you are responding to. Almost to a post there is an assertion of your separateness, specialness. I think it is very important for you to present yourself as having a special relationship with the world. Very, very interesting insight, Curtis. Now that you've mentioned it, We're all one *is* a putdown compared to We're all separate and equal. I offer you another option and perspective for consideration. We may all actually be the same with regard to our states of consciousness. What you are describing in sometimes Baroque detail may just be an affectation of your use of words to describe states that everyone else is living in without needing all the descriptions. If you really want a unitive experience, I suggest trying out the following premise: You and I are actually the same. No states of awakening separate us. Neither of us are on any continuum of awareness before or after each other. We are both just simply human with the same limitations and capacities. Then go to the supermarket and look at everyone that same equal way. Everyone is just equally human and not on a path of awakening. Just folks. I hope this wont be taken as an attack although it is a judgment I am making. (BTW nuts are actually very hard to kick so their use in fights is really overrated!) I think we have established enough rapport in previous posts to actually explore this topic a bit. I suspect Turq will have some perspective to share on this. He does, but not in any pile on Rory sense. I honestly have never thought about this subject this way, in terms of language as ranking system, but now that you've brought it up, it's a *very* interesting way of seeing things. In my daily life I notice people's language as an attempt to assert a ranking. It is a version of monkey oneupmanship. As a performing artist I must push some people's buttons because I get a regular stream of guys (always guys) who feel the need to try to find out what I make as a performer. It seems important for them to make sure I am not making much money while having this much fun. They ask a serious of roundabout questions to determine that even though they hate their jobs (their words) at least they are making more money. Boy, have I seen that. Similarly, have you ever known guys who feel compelled to hit on every woman they encounter, *especially* the girlfriends or dates of the other guys? Ranking system. Here on FFL it seems that there is another ranking system in place between guys. An enlightenment-O-meter. Also a knowledge-O-meter. My understanding of this esoteric scripture is superior to yours. There are a few posts lately that seem to come with a measuring tape attached, with which to measure the dick of the person being addressed and compare its length to that of the poster. :-) It isn't easy for guys to drop all the affections of our primate politics. But it is sometimes an option when chosen. Are you willing to actually see me as an equal? Completely equal? Not in some cosmic perspective way that you unequally comprehend, but brother to brother? Best question posed on this group in quite a long while, dude. And so appropriate *to* this group. It's appropriate to *most* spiritual groups, of course, and each has its own measuring tape language, but the lingering effects of the TM movement have drummed its better than/higher than language and concepts into people Big Time. Think the flying contests. Think the jockeying for who can contribute the most $ and thus sit the closest to Maharishi, or even be in the same room with him while the peons watch on TV. Think the distinctions between raja, purusha/MD, recert governor, governor, recert TM teacher, TM teacher, citizen siddha, and lowly peon. Think the flowing robes and the crowns and the titles appropriated from royal courts, ferchis- sakes. The whole *movement* is structured in levels of oneupsmanship, so *of course* that's going to bleed over into one's thought patterns and language. 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 you, for the record. There's a Bruce Cockburn line in one of his songs that speaks to this subject: Why don't you cool out? Can it be so hard to love yourself without thinking
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
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* are what are imprisoning you, Judy. You are like a person pacing back and forth in a tiny jail cell, the bars of which keep you from walking into the world of freedom and liberation that you glimpse through the bars and that you read about in the works of those who have broken out of prison before you. What I think Rory is trying to say is that the bars of your jail cell don't exist. They are just a hologram, an image of a jail cell that has no real existence. The bars have no substance. The only thing that keeps you in place within the cell and keeps you from walking into the world of liberation is your *idea* that the cell is real, that the bars are real. For now, in my opinion, you seem to be terribly attached to the cell being real. You don't even try to rattle the bars or to examine them to see if they're real. You already know that they're real. Anyone who says differently is obviously fucking with you. So what you do when some- one tells you that the bars aren't real is to try to make the person who's telling you the truth feel bad about telling you the truth. You try to make the person who has caused you pain feel pain himself. You talk about pain...well, I'll tell you...this whole process is more than a little painful to watch. The attachment I see here is your attachment to things as they have been for your whole life. You've learned to cope with things the way they've been for your whole life. In your own words, you've developed a thick skin. You've learned to ignore any information that seems contrary to the way things have been for your whole life. You say, The bars are real; the cell is real; I really *am* a prisoner here, and I resent you who have tasted free- dom telling me that the reality I see around me *isn't* real. The attachment, in other words, is to attachment itself, to the status quo that you have developed a thick skin about, to nothing ever really changing. The cell isn't real. The bars don't really exist. One day you're going to get tired of trying to intellectually under- stand enlightenment and just go for enlightenment. One day you're going to forget your self and its attachments and just start walking. And when you do, you'll find yourself outside the cell. It'll surprise the shit out of you. You'll probably walk back and look at it, just to see if it was real all this time. You'll reach out and touch the bars and your hand will go right through them, as if they weren't there. They weren't there. All that was ever there was your *story* about the bars, your sad, sad tale of being stuck in jail, unjustly. You'll realize that there was never anything you could DO to escape from jail, because you were never in it in the first place. There IS no doing when it comes to escaping from the imaginary prison of self. I hope for your sake that this happens soon. I know that it'll happen, in spite of your self's efforts to keep it from happening. That's the magic of self realization -- even the self can't keep itself from realization.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- 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, 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 about how you write that I would like to run by you Rory. I think you are using language that very carefully does separate you from the person you are responding to. Almost to a post there is an assertion of your separateness, specialness. I think it is very important for you to present yourself as having a special relationship with the world. There are two different things being talked about here; two separate domains. To say we are all one is valid as a way to live our lives— like Curtis says, why judge anyone when we are going about our normal active reactive lives? No reason to work within any sort of context. Just be. What Rory is describing is the difference between taking responsibility for the way we each see and shape the world, and the opposite view, which is to blame the outside world for our problems; our he shoulds and she shoulds. He further stated that the model in which we blame the outside world for our problems, as you were doing in shoulding all over Ron, or Judy, or etc, etc, etc. is really an attempt to keep your pain at bay, instead of facing it and resolving it. So two domains; on the one hand, an open attitude when dealing with others in a day to day way, and on the other hand, a specific mechanism to deal with buried pain. If you conflate the two, as Curtis has done, there is no need to do anything about anything- stay static, stay in inertia. That is certainly a choice, though there is always the alternative which Rory has spoken about also. Trace the you should back to its source, and see it as an inner rectification, rather than an outside problem that the person being addressed needs to fix in order for you to feel better about yourself. Similarly, we can talk about methods and techniques that we may use to grow spiritually, or we can decide that we are A-OK and decide that we don't have to. Your choice, my choice, Curtis's choice, Rory's choice. So this discussion is about choices, not judgment.:-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- 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, rather than embracing the paradox: all is one and assholes still exist. Because Rory takes an extreme, absolutist position, he falls into accepting and rejecting and therefore, polarities. Whether an asshole actually exists or not is impossible for me to say. I am rejecting that my suffering has an external reality, yes. If that makes me somehow falling into polarities, then so be it :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- 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, rather than embracing the paradox: all is one and assholes still exist. Because Rory takes an extreme, absolutist position, he falls into accepting and rejecting and therefore, polarities. Whether an asshole actually exists or not is impossible for me to say. I am rejecting that my suffering has an external reality, yes. If that makes me somehow falling into polarities, then so be it :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- 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 you, for the record. Barry. You use it *all the time*. It's how you assert your spiritual superiority. You use more of it, more often, than anyone else here--*way* more than Rory--to rank yourself higher and others lower. It's ironic that you mention above about being in the same room with MMY while the peons watch on TV. How many times, do you imagine, have you used that one to put me or other TMers down who haven't spent time with MMY? Or the way you rank those who have purportedly paid their dues by becoming TM teachers higher than those who haven't? And those are just two of innumerable examples. And, now that you've brought the subject up, I find myself appreciating the few here who are *rarely* more. They don't seem to need the ranking system. They're just *fine* with being equals with the people they're addressing. Sez Barry, ranking people who don't seem to need the ranking system higher than those who do. Ranking so pervades your thinking, Barry, that you don't even see it. It's like water to a fish.
