Guest guest Posted November 26, 2001 Report Share Posted November 26, 2001 Murali, > To Gary . . ., > > Hey, are we switching positions? :-) > We couldn't stay fixed if we tried, could we? :-) > Realization, Gary Schouborg <garyscho@a...> wrote: What is this > cutting off of the off shoot? What does it involve? How does ripening prepare > for it? Does anyone do the cutting off? Is it self-annihilation? > > It is nothing more than an analogy. I could have used any number of them, each > time failing utterly to convey " it " (which no language can ever convey). 'A > bubble bursting' describes the same but will bring out another set of > questions. I wasn't criticizing your analogy for limping. If analogies didn't limp, they'd be identities, wouldn't they? I was inviting you to move beyond analogy to something less ambiguous, if possible. You have taken some helpful steps below. > > Any way, this offshoot of course is the ego-self, an aberration from the > natural, caught up in the process of identifying thoughts, actions and things > as it's own (or others') and there by claiming all the miseries. > It would be helpful if you could describe the natural, as opposed to the aberration. I think I have done so below; you can correct me if I have not guessed your meaning. > Knowing this as a fact is the first step in ripening. Of course knower and the > known is the ego itself. Naturally the question 'what is the way out?' is > raised. And all the answers invariably point in getting rid of the questioner > itself! Definitely the ego or mind cannot get rid itself off. All it can do is > to weaken itself to such an extent (like stilling the mind through > self-inquiry) that a mere touch (the accident or grace) will destroy it > forever. I can see why you would want to get rid of any fixed idea of who or what the questioner is, but why would you want to get rid of the questioner itself? A fixed notion of who the questioner is is an aberration. A heuristic notion of the questioner -- a pointer to the mind-body unit doing the questioning -- is " natural " . > All efforts and ripening is valid and required to bring the ego upto this > vulnerable state. The rest is inevitable. And those who happened to undergo > this transformation accidentally must have done their homework earlier > (perhaps a life or two). > I don't see any reason to suppose that there *must* be prior ripening any more than there is reason to suppose that there must *not* be. Reason there may be for either position, but I'm unaware of anyone having yet supplied it. >> Or, to back up a bit: what is this false shadowy self? If I say that Gary is >> writing this to Murali, are Gary and Murali false shadowy selves? If not, >> then what is the difference between a false shadowy self and a true one? >> > The ego-self is false because it is not permanent. It is shadowy because when > the light of intuition grows, it depletes like a shadow. As long as Murali > sees himself as a wave, Gary is another. The moment the individuality is > lost, there is nothing but the ocean. Now, when you ask about the difference > between the real and the false, my mind somehow is going blank. I don't know > perhaps. > We need to identify the context of our statements. Failure to do so causes unnecessary paradox. Above, you contrast shadowy from permanent. In that " spiritual " sense, Gary and Murali are truly shadowy identities -- that is, what can be attributed of us is constantly changing. But in a practical, everyday sense, we usefully talk of true and false identities: for example, it is Gary, not Murali, who is now writing this sentence; it is false that Murali is writing it; and however much you and I change, it will never be the case that Murali wrote it. When we confuse these two senses of identity -- confuse the different contexts in which these two senses are used -- we get into unnecessary paradox. Take, for example, your suggestion above to get rid of the questioner itself! This inappropriately applies insights from one context (we can have no fixed idea of the questioner) to another context (questioner as pointer to which mind-body unit is doing the questioning). We must know the context of our discussion and apply the logic appropriate to it. To put it less abstractly: Give to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's. I would like to copy this exchange to another group, if I may. 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 November 26, 2001 Report Share Posted November 26, 2001 Realization, Gary Schouborg <garyscho@a...> wrote: > Murali, > > > To Gary . . ., > > > > Hey, are we switching positions? :-) > > > We couldn't stay fixed if we tried, could we? :-) <snip> > I would like to copy this exchange to another group, if I may. > Yes. Go ahead. Murali 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.