Guest guest Posted October 4, 2001 Report Share Posted October 4, 2001 Trace wrote: > The term partial realization seems so oxymoronic to me......Partial > realization=partially pregnant.... > The parallel is not between partial realization and partial pregnancy, but between partial realization and partial gestation. Until the fetus has developed to near 9 months it cannot live on its own. Similarly, we can have a true realization, like a true pregnancy, but one that cannot maintain itself. Admittedly, " partial realization " is not a happy phrase. We wouldn't want to call a child a partial adult. Still, there is development. The child is highly dependent and not self-sustaining like the adult. But the child is a true human being, an inchoate adult, if you will. This just came in: > Is 'Glimpse' a better term for partial realization? > > Murali 'Glimpse' has a lot to offer. It captures both the temporary nature of less-than-full realization and its lack of fullness. What we're dealing with here is cognitive development, early vs. later stages. If we were undergraduate physics majors, we might legitimately say that we understand relativity theory, but it is doubtful that we understand it as deeply as Einstein. What's the difference? Einstein can see all kinds of implications that we cannot. Similarly, we who are less-than-fully realized might momentarily, under specific conditions, realize where true value/reality lies, if you will, but we cannot sustain the realization under all conditions. We get easily caught up again in the maelstrom of everyday activity. The fully realized do not. Still, for a moment, we knew -- although not as deeply, comprehensively, exhaustively -- what the fully realized knows. Gary > Rob Rote: > >> I assume this is directed (at least in part) to my earlier post >> today about Catherine Ingram. I can only say again that she >> defines realization as a kind of insight that comes and goes. >> She is utterly open about this; it's not an inference on my part. >> >> This is true of all of Poonjaji's students, so far as I know. In >> contrast, other people, whom I trust more, describe or define >> it as permanent state which is not an insight. Poonjaji himself >> is in the second group. His teachings are different from his >> students' teachings. > > I don't see why we can't distinguish between full realization, which is a > permanent trait, and partial realization, which is not. Such a difference > exists in perhaps every line of development. When I was 14, I bowled a 245 > game, immediately followed by a 91. A " fully realized " bowler might average > 245, having a high-skilled trait. I had none, but had a flash of excellence > never again to be repeated. So too in spiritual development, I have moments > of realization of what is really important in life, moments which occur with > increasing frequency and last for increasingly longer times, but which still > all too often vanish when empirical conditions become too threatening. If > there really are fully realized people -- a matter which I believe is of > only theoretical importance, since whether or not they're fully realized > doesn't help me -- then they maintain their state of realization under all > empirical conditions. > > Gary > Gary Schouborg Performance Consulting Walnut Creek, CA garyscho Publications and professional services: http://home.att.net/~garyscho Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 4, 2001 Report Share Posted October 4, 2001 *It* doesn't develop. Ideas about it develop. People love their ideas about it, which have nothing to do with it, and love to believe that they have experiences of it, which can develop and deepen, which have nothing to do with it. Anything less than fully *it*, isn't *it*. Oh well, back to the drawing board :-) -- Dan --- Gary Schouborg <garyscho wrote: > Trace wrote: > > > The term partial realization seems so oxymoronic > to me......Partial > > realization=partially pregnant.... > > > The parallel is not between partial realization and > partial pregnancy, but > between partial realization and partial gestation. > Until the fetus has > developed to near 9 months it cannot live on its > own. Similarly, we can have > a true realization, like a true pregnancy, but one > that cannot maintain > itself. > > Admittedly, " partial realization " is not a happy > phrase. We wouldn't want to > call a child a partial adult. Still, there is > development. The child is > highly dependent and not self-sustaining like the > adult. But the child is a > true human being, an inchoate adult, if you will. > > This just came in: > > > Is 'Glimpse' a better term for partial > realization? > > > > Murali > > 'Glimpse' has a lot to offer. It captures both the > temporary nature of > less-than-full realization and its lack of fullness. > What we're dealing with > here is cognitive development, early vs. later > stages. If we were > undergraduate physics majors, we might legitimately > say that we understand > relativity theory, but it is doubtful that we > understand it as deeply as > Einstein. What's the difference? Einstein can see > all kinds of implications > that we cannot. Similarly, we who are > less-than-fully realized might > momentarily, under specific conditions, realize > where true value/reality > lies, if you will, but we cannot sustain the > realization under all > conditions. We get easily caught up again in the > maelstrom of everyday > activity. The fully realized do not. Still, for a > moment, we knew -- > although not as deeply, comprehensively, > exhaustively -- what the fully > realized knows. > > Gary > > > Rob Rote: > > > >> I assume this is directed (at least in part) to > my earlier post > >> today about Catherine Ingram. I can only say > again that she > >> defines realization as a kind of insight that > comes and goes. > >> She is utterly open about this; it's not an > inference on my part. > >> > >> This is true of all of Poonjaji's students, so > far as I know. In > >> contrast, other people, whom I trust more, > describe or define > >> it as permanent state which is not an insight. > Poonjaji himself > >> is in the second group. His teachings are > different from his > >> students' teachings. > > > > I don't see why we can't distinguish between full > realization, which is a > > permanent trait, and partial realization, which is > not. Such a difference > > exists in perhaps every line of development. When > I was 14, I bowled a 245 > > game, immediately followed by a 91. A " fully > realized " bowler might average > > 245, having a high-skilled trait. I had none, but > had a flash of excellence > > never again to be repeated. So too in spiritual > development, I have moments > > of realization of what is really important in > life, moments which occur with > > increasing frequency and last for increasingly > longer times, but which still > > all too often vanish when empirical conditions > become too threatening. If > > there really are fully realized people -- a matter > which I believe is of > > only theoretical importance, since whether or not > they're fully realized > > doesn't help me -- then they maintain their state > of realization under all > > empirical conditions. > > > > Gary > > > Gary Schouborg > Performance Consulting > Walnut Creek, CA > garyscho > > Publications and professional services: > http://home.att.net/~garyscho > > NEW from GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month. http://geocities./ps/info1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 4, 2001 Report Share Posted October 4, 2001 From the center of my heart, I thank you, Dan. - d b Realization Thursday, October 04, 2001 1:03 PM Re: Realization and development *It* doesn't develop.Ideas about it develop.People love their ideas about it,which have nothing to do with it,and love to believe thatthey have experiences of it,which can develop and deepen,which have nothing to do withit.Anything less than fully *it*, isn't *it*.Oh well, back to the drawing board :-)-- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 4, 2001 Report Share Posted October 4, 2001 Kheyala, > From the center of my heart, I thank you, Dan. > According to Dan, the center of your heart has nothing to do with *It* either, but I guess it's a nice sentiment. Gary > *It* doesn't develop. > > Ideas about it develop. > > People love their ideas about it, > which have nothing to do with it, > and love to believe that > they have experiences of it, > which can develop and deepen, > which have nothing to do with > it. > > Anything less than fully *it*, > isn't *it*. > > Oh well, back to the drawing board :-) > > -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 4, 2001 Report Share Posted October 4, 2001 --- Kheyala > From the center of my heart, I thank you, Dan. Dear Kheyala, From the center of my heart: Yes. NEW from GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month. http://geocities./ps/info1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 4, 2001 Report Share Posted October 4, 2001 Dear Gary -- There's only one thing that's sure, and you're right, it's not a nice sentiment. What is that one thing? From the center of my heart, it's Yes. From the center of Yes, it's No. From the center of No, it's ... Namaste, Dan > According to Dan, the center of your heart has > nothing to do with *It* > either, but I guess it's a nice sentiment. > > Gary NEW from GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month. http://geocities./ps/info1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 4, 2001 Report Share Posted October 4, 2001 Hi Gary, (kiss on your cheek) Nice to meet you! Love, Kheyala - Gary Schouborg Realization Thursday, October 04, 2001 2:28 PM Re: Re: Realization and development Kheyala,> From the center of my heart, I thank you, Dan.> According to Dan, the center of your heart has nothing to do with *It*either, but I guess it's a nice sentiment.Gary> *It* doesn't develop.> > Ideas about it develop.> > People love their ideas about it,> which have nothing to do with it,> and love to believe that> they have experiences of it,> which can develop and deepen,> which have nothing to do with> it.> > Anything less than fully *it*,> isn't *it*.> > Oh well, back to the drawing board :-)> > -- Dan..........INFORMATION ABOUT THIS LIST..........Email addresses: Post message: Realization Un: Realization- Our web address: http://www.realization.orgBy sending a message to this list, you are givingpermission to have it reproduced as a letter onhttp://www.realization.org................................................ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.