RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: The fallacy is that a *Me* can Gain Realiza
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlis Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 10:53 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The fallacy is that a *Me* can Gain Realiza TomT: It was my experience for a while that Me had gone away. In retrospect it became obvious that little me was overwhelmed by the immensity of the wholeness that creation Is. As this experience was settled into and more knowledge was forthcoming it became obvious there really was still an I but it was not the same I that seemed to have gotten overwhelmed. Eventually it all filled up as the fullness of I but again that is not the same I that seemed to go away. THis new I, was the understanding of the wholeness and the paradox of being an individual and being cosmic at the same time. Tom As I mentioned in another post, I’ve been out of town for a week, visiting in-laws in Seattle. Being on vacation and out of the usual routines was enough to ramp up the unboundedness considerably. My infinite nature and my individual nature were kind of on equal footing, see-sawing back and forth gently all week. To use a metaphor (not a literal description), the unboundedness was like a constant tone. If there’s a constant tone playing, you don’t hear it after a while, even though it’s still there, but you can hear it again any time you choose to put your attention on it. Of course, in this case, the “tone” was bliss – so my attention would effortlessly be drawn back to it again and again. It didn’t matter how busy my surroundings were – Pike’s market was as conducive as a ferry ride or a beach. This experience gave rise to the thought that if unboundedness were to dawn suddenly, as it seems to have done for many spiritual teachers, one could easily feel that an individual “me” no longer existed. I think that if it dawns more gradually, over decades of meditation practice, as in my case, this is less likely to happen. For me, there does not appear to be any incompatibility between my individual nature with its thoughts, desires and activities, and my unbounded nature, which is like a soft cushion of bliss. The two are indeed paradoxical – they seem to exist in different dimensions – but they coexist in perfect harmony. It is clear that there is no “me” which “gets” enlightened, but that does not mean that there is no “me.” No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.33/1034 - Release Date: 9/27/2007 5:00 PM
[FairfieldLife] Re: The fallacy is that a *Me* can Gain Realiza
New morning snipped: And "ME" has always seemed a strained description or metaphor. More apt would be "we", but that still implies many and doesn't feel like that. The well is one. To equate this Oneness Well with this localized apparatus -- which in common language is called "me", doesn't fit my experience (and that is not the possessive form of "me", its the elsewhere form of me). But this experience may be different from others. TomT: It was my experience for a while that Me had gone away. In retrospect it became obvious that little me was overwhelmed by the immensity of the wholeness that creation Is. As this experience was settled into and more knowledge was forthcoming it became obvious there really was still an I but it was not the same I that seemed to have gotten overwhelmed. Eventually it all filled up as the fullness of I but again that is not the same I that seemed to go away. THis new I, was the understanding of the wholeness and the paradox of being an individual and being cosmic at the same time. Tom
[FairfieldLife] Re: The fallacy is that a *Me* can Gain Realiza
Barry writes snipped: In other words, it's not the words that provide the "finger pointing to the moon." It's the fact that the enlightened being's *attention* is on the moon that makes it lively, and that allows others to get a feeling for the moon and what it is like, even though the puny words will never do justice to it. That's my theory, and I'm sticking to it... :-) Tom T: It is my experience that the awake being puts their *attention* on the person asking questions about the moon. The questioner is open to the attention of the A being and that attention on the person while the moon is being talked about. Leaves the questioner with both the experience of the moon and the knowledge about the moon that the A person can impart. Both are present in any situation where a question is asked. Hard to resist when both experience and knowledge are aroused in one physiology. Again not my theory but my experience and that may change at any moment. Enjoy Tom
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The fallacy is that a *Me* can Gain Realiza
--- tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Barry writes snipped: > Transmission (or empowerment) kinda cuts through > the crap of language and its inability to express > the inexpressible. It also cuts through the crap > of the intellect, in that one doesn't have to > try to imagine what is being discussed; it is > here and now, part of one's experience. > > Tom T: > Patanjali last verse of chapter 3. > When the translucent intellect is as clear as the > Self, There is > Enlightenment. > > Doesn't seem like a crappy intellect to me. My > experience is the > intellect is the finest level of discrimination. > That is the job of > the intellect. The only way one can know the here > and now is the > finest discriminating aspect of the intellect. It is > also my > experience that the process of talking about IT > brings IT into the > relative so others can notice IT. The words become > 100% IT and are the > process for others to notice and become at home with > IT. Tom Agree with you Tom but only if an intellectual discussion/debate is free of polemics. Most discussions don't transcend themselves but become ego jousts. Nobody learns anything other than the other person is an asshole! This appears to be a huge obstacle. Just had a thought. Maybe this is the advantage of making gurus special(putting them in thrones, bowing to them, etc.). It puts the seekers intellect into a position of deference so at least they will consider what the guru is saying. But then you have the opposite problem of seekers completely dropping their intellects and taking what the guru says, as they understand it, as THE TRUTH. What a mess! > > > > To subscribe, send a message to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Or go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ > and click 'Join This Group!' > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Shape Yahoo! in your own image. Join our Network Research Panel today! http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7
[FairfieldLife] Re: The fallacy is that a *Me* can Gain Realiza
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, > "tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlis" > wrote: > > > > > Barry writes snipped: > > > Transmission (or empowerment) kinda cuts through > > > the crap of language and its inability to express > > > the inexpressible. It also cuts through the crap > > > of the intellect, in that one doesn't have to > > > try to imagine what is being discussed; it is > > > here and now, part of one's experience. > > > > Tom T: > > Patanjali last verse of chapter 3. > > When the translucent intellect is as clear as the Self, There is > > Enlightenment. > > > > Doesn't seem like a crappy intellect to me. My experience is the > > intellect is the finest level of discrimination. That is the job > > of > > the intellect. The only way one can know the here and now is the > > finest discriminating aspect of the intellect. It is also my > > experience that the process of talking about IT brings IT into the > > relative so others can notice IT. The words become 100% IT and are > > the process for others to notice and become at home with IT. Tom > > While you are free to have this opinion, I > do not share it. I do not believe that there > is ever a point at which the words become > 100% IT. Only IT is IT. IT cannot be captured > in words. > > What *can* happen is that the words become a > kind of finger pointing at the moon. The magic > (the IT) is the moon, *not* the words trying > to describe it. But someone can *intuit* the > real moon "through" the words, get a kind of > "hit" on it. *That* IMO is what "becomes > lively." It isn't the words that create the > liveliness or that really describe accurately > the IT being talked about. It's more like the > *process* of IT being talked about is what > creates the liveliness. Tom, I'm going to follow up on this because as a writer I've thought a great deal about the words that people use to describe higher states of consciousness. I've been trying to write about them for forty years now, and I would be comfortable saying that not one of the things I've written about such subjects is "true" or "truth." I am of the opinion, having tried many times to prove the opposite, that "true" and "statements about enlightenment" are incompatible. It just can't be done. The words are always going to be Just Words, mere approximations of the reality, mere fingers pointing at the moon. HOWEVER, there is some...uh...truth :-) to what you say above about students who are listening to an enlightened teacher talk about some aspect of enlightenment, and find *in* those untrue words some pointer to enlight- enment itself. So how does that *work*? I think it's a function of attention. Much of the time, like anyone else, the attention of the enlightened being is not focused on any one particular thing or subject. The Being is always there, but the surface mind is drawn to many things, and focuses on many things. But in a teaching setting, when a student asks a good question, and the enlightened being tries his best to answer it -- even IF he understands that the answer will never be completely true or accurate -- something interesting happens. The "liveliness" you speak of happens. My theory is that it happens because of attention. When the teacher's *attention* becomes focused on one particular aspect of enlightenment, enough for him to talk about it a little, that aspect *of* enlightenment becomes a little "enlivened." When it does, it become more perceivable by others who may not be living the full level of realization that the teacher is living. So they get a "hit" on the subject being discussed, and on that par- ticular aspect of enlightenment, *even though* the words the teacher is using to describe them are not completely true or accurate. In other words, it's not the words that provide the "finger pointing to the moon." It's the fact that the enlightened being's *attention* is on the moon that makes it lively, and that allows others to get a feeling for the moon and what it is like, even though the puny words will never do justice to it. That's my theory, and I'm sticking to it... :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: The fallacy is that a *Me* can Gain Realiza
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Barry writes snipped: > Transmission (or empowerment) kinda cuts through > the crap of language and its inability to express > the inexpressible. It also cuts through the crap > of the intellect, in that one doesn't have to > try to imagine what is being discussed; it is > here and now, part of one's experience. > > Tom T: > Patanjali last verse of chapter 3. > When the translucent intellect is as clear as the Self, There is > Enlightenment. > > Doesn't seem like a crappy intellect to me. My experience is the > intellect is the finest level of discrimination. That is the job of > the intellect. The only way one can know the here and now is the > finest discriminating aspect of the intellect. It is also my > experience that the process of talking about IT brings IT into the > relative so others can notice IT. The words become 100% IT and are the > process for others to notice and become at home with IT. Tom > I Agree. There is doubtless some frustration that comes from trying to understand descriptions of Self Realization when the experience is not yet permanent, yet I have found the descriptions very valuable on both sides of my experience. And by definition, such descriptions do bring the experience of Self Realization into the relative, straight from the source. To Barry's point, I have also become frustrated at descriptions of Self Realization, in lieu of experience, before the experience became permanent, and at those times felt as he does, that the words were just dry and not bringing with them any satisfaction at all. During those times I found it helpful to just respond to the dharma of the seeker, set all talk of Reality aside, and gain some 'street cred', do something active for awhile, and evaluate all of the descriptions of Self Realization again, later, once I had some fresh experience. Just as all experience and no intellectual understanding won't aid the process, such is also the case with too much theory and not enough practice.:-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: The fallacy is that a *Me* can Gain Realiza
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Barry writes snipped: > > Transmission (or empowerment) kinda cuts through > > the crap of language and its inability to express > > the inexpressible. It also cuts through the crap > > of the intellect, in that one doesn't have to > > try to imagine what is being discussed; it is > > here and now, part of one's experience. > > Tom T: > Patanjali last verse of chapter 3. > When the translucent intellect is as clear as the Self, There is > Enlightenment. > > Doesn't seem like a crappy intellect to me. My experience is the > intellect is the finest level of discrimination. That is the job of > the intellect. The only way one can know the here and now is the > finest discriminating aspect of the intellect. It is also my > experience that the process of talking about IT brings IT into the > relative so others can notice IT. The words become 100% IT and are > the process for others to notice and become at home with IT. Tom While you are free to have this opinion, I do not share it. I do not believe that there is ever a point at which the words become 100% IT. Only IT is IT. IT cannot be captured in words. What *can* happen is that the words become a kind of finger pointing at the moon. The magic (the IT) is the moon, *not* the words trying to describe it. But someone can *intuit* the real moon "through" the words, get a kind of "hit" on it. *That* IMO is what "becomes lively." It isn't the words that create the liveliness or that really describe accurately the IT being talked about. It's more like the *process* of IT being talked about is what creates the liveliness.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The fallacy is that a *Me* can Gain Realiza
Barry writes snipped: Transmission (or empowerment) kinda cuts through the crap of language and its inability to express the inexpressible. It also cuts through the crap of the intellect, in that one doesn't have to try to imagine what is being discussed; it is here and now, part of one's experience. Tom T: Patanjali last verse of chapter 3. When the translucent intellect is as clear as the Self, There is Enlightenment. Doesn't seem like a crappy intellect to me. My experience is the intellect is the finest level of discrimination. That is the job of the intellect. The only way one can know the here and now is the finest discriminating aspect of the intellect. It is also my experience that the process of talking about IT brings IT into the relative so others can notice IT. The words become 100% IT and are the process for others to notice and become at home with IT. Tom
