XPost: alt.philosophy.taoism, alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, alt.philosophy.zen   
   From: invalid@invalid.invalid   
      
   dagnabit  wrote:   
   > "noname"  wrote in message news:nv6rcf$ndb$1@dont-email.me...   
   >>   
   >> dagnabit  wrote:   
   >>> "noname"  wrote in message news:nv5kso$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.   
   >   
   > you said; "or the individual can wake up" and I just used   
   > "enlightened" instead. enlightened can encompass many   
   > separate meanings as to the human agenda seeing things   
   > more clearly or into what is called siddhi powers or it can   
   > go in the direction of interconnectedness like a type of unity   
   > consciousness wherein the basic commonality that we all   
   > share is seen as primeval instead of maybe a false notion   
   > wherein that egoic self rules over any type of perspective   
   > clarity as to the basic origin of not only the relative physical   
   > manifestation or what appears to be individual descents into   
   > the density of the physical forms.   
      
   When you say the individual "does not become" there are minimally two   
   meanings, one can-not become, versus, one does not necessarily become.   
      
   >   
   >>> 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.   
   >   
   > as aforementioned, perspective can run the gamut of relying on   
   > an appearance of individualisms in order to extrapolate a clarity   
   > of focus which is dwell specific cohesive to any particular agenda,   
   > or there can be a similar negotiation due to the arena of what is   
   > seen as interconnectedness. one doesn't appear to be anymore   
   > auspicious than the other though. as long as what might be termed   
   > "depth of focus" ensues then a deepening clarity can persist in   
   > contrast to what gurdjieff called the sleepwalking public.   
      
   I'd quibble with that, I'd say the state of the sleepwalking public can do   
   what it will, but the clarity ought not decrease, changes in clarity should   
   click in and ratchet only forward.  That may just be my native   
   thickheadedness.   
      
   >   
   >>>>>>> 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".   
   >   
   > around 1977 I had one of those ton of bricks falling   
   > on your head awakening "experiences" and went   
   > completely hoarse trying to explain it to people,   
   > and the main take on it at the time was seeing   
   > how people are extremely conditioned into their   
   > fears and desires that it clouded over any possible   
   > way that they could move towards a greater clarity   
   > of focus and leave behind the conditioning loops   
   > that their mental package leads them around by   
   > the nose with. out of all of the people I talked to   
   > trying to explain this only two got even a glimmer   
   > of what I was saying and likely lost it soon afterwards.   
      
   It's like that.  Sometimes people wake up, and if you say the wrong thing   
   they go right back to sleep.   
      
   >   
   >   
   >>>>>>> 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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)