From: pagemail@swcp.com   
      
   In article <5b40r29eg60jg9786813n3sstrps2t17l5@4ax.com>,   
    Jyeshta  wrote:   
      
   > On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 15:21:52 -0700, Crowfoot    
   > wrote:   
   >   
   > >> >Now yer talking; but I think how it works is that you   
   > >> >have to come to *accept and embrace* the wretched   
   > >> >place, horrors and all, before you are qualified to *leave   
   > >> >it behind forever*.   
   > >> >   
   > >> >Sounds just like life, doesn't it?   
   > >>   
   > >> Well, in earth life, you don't have to accept and embrace the world,   
   > >> do you?  I mean, in any hypothetical particular incarnation.   
   > >   
   > >No, and most of us don't; but I believe that your last life on   
   > >this planet and in physical form is the one in which you do in   
   > >fact come to the place at which you accept and embrace the   
   > >whole shebang, horrors and all.  Maybe acceptance means no   
   > >longer being *engaged* with it, so that there's nothing to draw   
   > >you back here: been here, done it, given it all a hug and a tear,   
   > >and moved on out, says the T shirt.   
   >   
   > In that case, I feel that I have reached the acceptance stage.   
      
   If you have, I am envious!  I get way too angry about stuff to   
   imagine myself in that longed-for place.   
      
   > I am not at all engaged with earthly life.   
      
   Hmm.  Maybe I shouldn't have used the term "engaged" that   
   way.  I think acceptance of the kind I'm talking about means   
   engagement *without* judgmentalism; you just take it as it   
   comes and deal with it, you don't step back and *avoid* it to   
   avoid engagement (I'm not saying that's what you're talking   
   about re yourself, only that I'm concerned with a word that I   
   think I've used in a misleading way).  You step forward and   
   take it all in, because it's your last time, you're about to leave   
   it all behind -- so it's all precious if only in its sheer physicality.   
   I have a couple of friends who use spirituality to detach   
   themselves from engagement, which isn't what I'm trying to   
   get at: maybe because the first "religious" reading I did as an   
   adult that really caught me up was about Zen Buddhism, and   
   I think I've kept that idea of detachment + vivid presence   
   and habitation of the "now" as the ultimate goal in the physical   
   world.  At that point, you're free to go (or stay) as you choose,   
   and most go.   
      
   >  I think I took acceptance to   
   > mean being all right with all the horrors - but actually it is. I   
   > guess.  I think you do have to feel only compassion for the murderers,   
   > etc.  Anger and outrage and suchlike mean one's still engaged with the   
   > world, in which case I am.  And maybe even compassion is unnecessary.   
   > I don't know.   
      
   Yeah, see above -- it seems to be a sort of intense suspension   
   between deep involvement and the detachment of perspective,   
   and I think that everyone who's been around a few (hundred!)   
   times has had glimpses, moments of it, and so has an inkling of   
   what it is when you do in fact get there.   
      
   > >And because we are old, old comrades-in-arms and in everything   
   > >else with them, we say yes, and then we go around connecting   
   > >up with other friends for stuff we want to get done ourselves, and   
   > >meantime we realize that we can't *remember* what fresh-   
   > >squeezed orange juice or fine Belgian chocolate or smoked bacon   
   > >actually *tastes* like, only that it was unbearably wonderful, and   
   > >so was running in a strong, healthy body (and all that other stuff   
   > >we do in those bodies), and next thing you know, we're ready to   
   > >jump back in.   
   >   
   > Yes, I pretty much agree with all that, in theory.  I really don't   
   > know what I believe, except that, due to certain experiences I've had,   
   > I believe the soul survives physical death.   
      
   Do you feel you can elaborate on that a little?  I don't   
   want to pry, I'm just curious.   
      
   > >You didn't think we did all this stuff *alone*, did you?  Every   
   > >last one of us has old friends all over the world (and out of the   
   > >world too, of course).   
   >   
   > No, I didn't think that at all.  I'm an astrologer.  I've been taught   
   > we choose our own charts, pick our own parents, have hordes of soul   
   > mates with whom we make deals and arrangements for each incarnation,   
      
   Great, we're on the same page there.  I only raised the issue   
   because in this culture we're so soundly indoctrinated with   
   the idea of our essential solitude that a lot of people think it's   
   true.   
      
   >  I just don't know what I truly believe right now.   
      
   Yeah; we all have our moments.  Sometimes all it takes is a   
   glance at the morning paper . . .   
      
   > >My info is that we all get back; we are what that consciousness is   
   > >made up of, dispersed into the universe, and that consciousness   
   > >is not whole again until every last scrap comes home, no matter   
   > >how long it takes.  After all, we've got eternity; there is no meter   
   > >running.   
   >   
   > Maybe there is (a meter running).   
      
   Maybe there is!  But then -- who's driving the damn cab?    
      
   >  What is eternity, and how much of it is reliant on matter?   
   > None of it?  In that case, it doesn't matter that the universe is   
   > expanding and... what's supposed to happen?   
      
   You've got me; but I incline toward the idea that everything is   
   basically energy, and that "matter" is just more or less tightly   
   clotted energy that's lumped together to slow it all down, introduce   
   "time", and create "form".   You know that Indian idea about how   
   it's all a dance that God-ness makes to entertain itself?  I like that   
   part, too, although it becomes morally indefensible when people   
   bring up something like the Rwanda genocide or any kind of   
   specific suffering.  Still, I think it's as true as most other ideas   
   about all this, truer than most.  On the other hand, as a writer of   
   stories I'm used to the idea of pain and suffering as positive parts   
   of an interesting plot (think of opera, or of crime novels or war   
   stories!).   
      
   > It will implode or something?  I forget.   
      
   Turn inside out and start again as a new universe?  Forever and   
   ever, amen or no amen?   
      
   > But by that time, will every   
   > scrap of us have finished?  Will we all get home before there's no   
   > more physical universe to finish up our business within?   
      
   My sense of form tells me, yes.  *Real* "meaninglessness* for me   
   would be an end without time for resolution, but I take the concept   
   of "eternity" to mean, time "enough" for all of it.   
      
   > >Exactly; I think it looks unimaginably different from out there.   
   > >I only try imagining it because I'm a fiction writer, and that's   
   > >my skill.  But I'm still just blowing smoke rings about all this,   
   > >just like everybody else.  Which is another one of those   
   > >enjoyable things you can only do while you're *here*, isn't it?   
   >   
   > Maybe, but I'd definitely rather be *there*.   
   >   
   > >C   
      
   I know the feeling, and have it often myself.   
      
   Crowfoot   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)