XPost: alt.philosophy.taoism, alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, alt.philosophy.zen   
   From: invalid@invalid.invalid   
      
   dagnabit  wrote:   
   > "noname"  wrote in message news:nv5kso$ki4$1@dont-email.me...   
   >>   
   >> dagnabit  wrote:   
   >>> "noname"  wrote in message news:nv5a2h$sov$1@dont-email.me...   
   >>>>> I doubt that this could be explained effectively to anyone   
   >>>>> reading this who thinks of themselves as a person or as   
   >>>>> an individual.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Ah, a cop-out from the start!  See, that's our job.  Or at least my job   
   >>>> at   
   >>>> the moment.  To explain it effectively to anyone reading this.  No   
   >>>> matter   
   >>>> what they think of themselves as.  Because if I do it right, just once,   
   >>>> it'll spread.  And if I don't, nothing much is lost, a little time, and   
   >>>> what value has that?   
   >>>   
   >>> the extent to which the seeming individual consciousness   
   >>> can grasp its delusion can oftentimes be just a temporary   
   >>> sidebar anyway. even with a glimpse of what is beyond,   
   >>> the individual can fade back into dreariness fairly easily.   
   >>   
   >> Or the individual can wake up.   
   >   
   > and there's the rub. the individual does not become   
   > a so-called enlightened individual.   
      
   I have no definition for "enlightened individual".  I don't know just what   
   that means.  Apparently "enlightenment" is a magic pumpkin blessing from a   
   fairy aunt.  It's enough just to be awake imo.  Whether one can be   
   "enlightened" independently from being awake, or not... "enlightened" what   
   is that?  Enlightened to the fact that one has been sleeping for all   
   intents and purposes maybe.  Dunno, it seems a lot like being "blessed",   
   but who is there to bless what is, and why would anyone bother?  Beats me.   
      
   > the more one   
   > expands the horizon of one's awareness, and I use   
   > the idea "one" quite loosely, the more it may become   
   > apparent that in order to expand that horizon, the "one"   
   > will effectively and exponentially shrink in significance   
   > and realism.   
      
   That part isn't at all what I've experienced.  The world seems more real   
   instead of less.  I'm no less, nor more, significant than ever, though the   
   framing of "significance" seems vastly different.  The terms of   
   significance are not what they once were.  I used to be a big significance   
   in a little pond of me, now I'm engaged in a "deeper" reality, not in the   
   sense of heavier-duty-thinking, but in the sense of more color-depth, more   
   vividness, realness, tighter correspondence with what's actually going on.   
   Me is definitely the same as ever, same acrid sense of humor, etc., just   
   more hooked-in with realtime.   
      
   >   
   >>>>> the only reason you think there is a "Tang" person is because   
   >>>>> of a lack of clarity.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Aw, c'mon, give us a break here, don't start out by telling us we're   
   >>>> morons, wait 'til the end to do that!  The ones of us who are, we know   
   >>>> it   
   >>>> already; the ones who don't, will figure it out or not.  No sense   
   >>>> antagonizing the reader unless s/he's a moron, which we all are.  So to   
   >>>> speak, imo, nobody knows nuffink, etc.   
   >>>   
   >>> nisargadatta maharaj likened individuals to the mushrooms   
   >>> that grow from a cowpie. a handy analogy and effectively   
   >>> correct.   
   >>   
   >> No shit?  I could see how that untwists into something reasonable.  I   
   >> don't   
   >> agree with it, but atm i'm not sure why.  Except that the source of   
   >> individuals isn't the group.   
   >   
   > he was just making a reference to the insignificance   
   > of the idea of individualism when it comes to self   
   > realization.   
      
   I'd say not to worry about that, my experience is that it works itself   
   right out.  Once you hatch into a chicken you no longer have to chant "i'm   
   not an egg, i'm not an egg".   
      
   >   
   >>>>> it appears that your awareness stops at   
   >>>>> your skin boundaries, but awareness permeates all reality   
   >>>>> and even the air is aware.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> It's a tough line to tread, saying that.  It makes some assumptions   
   >>>> that   
   >>>> may not stand.  Like the simple idea that we're all alike.  It's easy   
   >>>> to   
   >>>> assume we're all alike, in the sense of having bodies and minds that   
   >>>> work   
   >>>> the same way, but I'm not convinced that's true.  Even though modern   
   >>>> science assures us that we are of a species.   
   >>>   
   >>> I'm not saying that we are all alike in our apparent   
   >>> individualities but if the assumptions that awareness   
   >>> permeates all isn't recognized   
   >>   
   >> It doesn't seem right to say "awareness permeates all".   
   >   
   > that's just because of the popular notion of what   
   > awareness entails. conscious human style awareness?   
   > no, but awareness all the same. in the novel, "gravity's   
   > rainbow" author thomas pynchon says; "and a soul in   
   > ev'ry stone". he was of course being facetious due to   
   > the popular notion of soul, but he still made a valid   
   > point about the non-locality of awareness.   
      
   I thought Gravity's Rainbow sucked so bad that you've lost me at the go on   
   that one.   
      
   And I don't really know what the popular notion of what awareness entails   
   is, or what that has to do with anything, unless somebody is a drama-queen   
   trying to play a part.  Maybe I haven't thought about it enough, but I   
   couldn't begin to define "awareness", at least not atm.   
      
   >   
   >>> it is simply that play of   
   >>> ideas known as an individual that entertains this.   
   >>   
   >> If that helps keep your bits straight, more power to ya.   
   >   
   > but that notion is exactly what keeps your bits in disarray.   
      
   I don't think so.  I don't think my bits are in disarray, since there's no   
   definition for non-disarray.  And something is keeping all the little poles   
   on all the little magnets lined up better than they used to be, so to   
   speak.   
      
   >   
   >>>>> since most don't see the actual   
   >>>>> ubiquitous-ness of awareness there arises a psychological   
   >>>>> delusion of individual person-hood, so to speak.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> It isn't a delusion, we actually are individual persons.  I am not you,   
   >>>> and   
   >>>> you are not me.  Easy-peasey, individual persons.   
   >>>   
   >>> in the sense of differences there are individual   
   >>> attributes, yet you turn this into a person and   
   >>> that is where the veils come in and cloud over   
   >>> the actual depths of what one truly is.   
   >>   
   >> An individual and a person are not necessarily the same thing.  I think   
   >> you're using the term "person" where I'd use something like egoic-self.   
   >   
   > okay.   
      
   It's not important "whose" terms we use, but that we understand what is   
   being said by them and with them.  What is said with them being their   
   intended meaning, what is said by them being the irrelevant   
   superficialities implied by alternate meanings.  Get hooked into what's   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)