Suzanne Segal Part 2 (Nonduality)

[Guest guest]

Hi All,

 

<<

Tim Gerchmez <fewtch

>Segal says: "We have become convinced that the presence of particular

>thoughts, feelings, or actions is the only way we can really know if

>someone is enlightened. The checklist of enlightened attributes is both

>lengthy and complex. Is this really love, we ask, in the presence of a

>supposedly enlightened being? Or bliss? Do they still have thoughts, we

>want to know, since we have heard that a mind empty of thoughts is

>surely a sign of spiritual advancement? And what is this? Is fear

>present? Well, the presence of fear proves they couldn't possibly having

>a true spiritual experience. In fact, however, the presence of fear

>means only that fear is present, and nothing more."

 

This completely baffles me. It's generally accepted that fear is a

function of ego, which Segal claims to have absolutely none. Perhaps

"self" does not necessarily equate with "ego" (although it seems that it

must). I have to say, I'm lost. It seems to me that if Suzanne was

feeling fear at the loss of a sense of self, that "self" had to still be

there, hiding somewhere, because it is the self that GENERATES fear, is it

not?

 

KKT: I'm completely agreed with Tim. I think FEAR means

EGO. When I read Suzanne Segal's "Collision with the Infinite",

I was very puzzled by these two apparently opposite aspects:

 

(1) Suzanne claimed that she lived in a "no-self" (egoless) state.

(2) But at the same time, she experienced a tremendous FEAR

(precisely, she had FEAR because she found no EGO!) And all

this lasted for 12 years!

 

It means that there's a FEAR independent of the EGO ??

Is it possible?

 

BTW, Suzanne Segal passed away on April 1, 1997.

She died of a brain tumor after a short illness.

------------

This writing raises far more questions in my mind than it answers. If fear

is NOT a function of a sense of "me," then what exactly IS it? Simply a

conditioned response from earlier stages of man's evolution? If so, this

means that fear is unavoidable, and those who claim to have "lost fear" in

the course of spiritual growth/realization are liars.

 

KKT: J. Krishnamurti, Ramana Maharshi, Nisargadatta Maharaj,

U.G. Krishnamurti .... all claimed that they had no ego, so no fear!!

---------

 

Lost,

 

Tim

>>

---------------------------

 

Be Well,

KKT

[Guest guest]

This is Part 2 of the summary of Suzanne Segal's Collision with the

Infinite, A Life Beyond the Personal Self. Note that her discussion of

language and navigation reminds us very much of Gene Poole's work

http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/umbada/gene.htm

except that Gene goes into far greater detail. The only places I've seen

the word 'navigation' used in terms of spiritual journeying have been in

Segal's and Poole's writings. Enjoy. Part 1 is at

http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/umbada/suzanne.htm

 

---Jerry

 

Part 2

 

After ten years she began to explore the spiritual perspective on the

emptiness of the no-self. She found volumes of material in Buddhism on

anatta ( no-self) and shunyata (emptiness). Now she learned that not

only was her experience understood, it was sought by those on the

spiritual path.

 

Perhaps Segal's greatest the challenge the past ten years was day-to-day

functioning without a 'me'. "(personality) functions floated in a

vastness that referred to no one," she wrote. Buddhism, she found,

explained this by describing the skandhas or "aggregates" as personality

functions which remain when one is empty of the person or the 'me'. The

five skandhas include form, feelings, perceptions, thoughts and

consciousness.

 

Their interaction creates the illusion of self. They do not actually

make up the self. There is not self. When the truth of the skandhas is

revealed, as suddenly happened to Segal at the bus stop, it is seen that

there is no self, only the skandhas functioning as they function; the

truth is that they are empty, they don't constitute a self, but their

interaction creates the illusion of self.

 

Still, Segal could not find literary descriptions of the fear she had

been knowing for ten years. She maintains that the language and

assumptions that go into creating the notion of what real spiritual

experience is, is a closed system, and that one who speaks of

experiences beyond that closed system, is seen to be navigating their

way to enlightenment with the use of highly questionable markers, of

which one of them is fear.

 

Segal says: "We have become convinced that the presence of particular

thoughts, feelings, or actions is the only way we can really know if

someone is enlightened. The checklist of enlightened attributes is both

lengthy and complex. Is this really love, we ask, in the presence of a

supposedly enlightened being? Or bliss? Do they still have thoughts, we

want to know, since we have heard that a mind empty of thoughts is

surely a sign of spiritual advancement? And what is this? Is fear

present? Well, the presence of fear proves they couldn't possibly having

a true spiritual experience. In fact, however, the presence of fear

means only that fear is present, and nothing more."

[Guest guest]

At 04:42 PM 3/5/99 -0400, you wrote:

>Segal says: "We have become convinced that the presence of particular

>thoughts, feelings, or actions is the only way we can really know if

>someone is enlightened. The checklist of enlightened attributes is both

>lengthy and complex. Is this really love, we ask, in the presence of a

>supposedly enlightened being? Or bliss? Do they still have thoughts, we

>want to know, since we have heard that a mind empty of thoughts is

>surely a sign of spiritual advancement? And what is this? Is fear

>present? Well, the presence of fear proves they couldn't possibly having

>a true spiritual experience. In fact, however, the presence of fear

>means only that fear is present, and nothing more."

 

This completely baffles me. It's generally accepted that fear is a

function of ego, which Segal claims to have absolutely none. Perhaps

"self" does not necessarily equate with "ego" (although it seems that it

must). I have to say, I'm lost. It seems to me that if Suzanne was

feeling fear at the loss of a sense of self, that "self" had to still be

there, hiding somewhere, because it is the self that GENERATES fear, is it

not?

 

This writing raises far more questions in my mind than it answers. If fear

is NOT a function of a sense of "me," then what exactly IS it? Simply a

conditioned response from earlier stages of man's evolution? If so, this

means that fear is unavoidable, and those who claim to have "lost fear" in

the course of spiritual growth/realization are liars.

 

Lost,

 

Tim

 

-----

The CORE of Reality awaits you at:

http://www.serv.net/~fewtch/ND/index.html -

Poetry, Writings, even Live Chat on spiritual topics.

[Guest guest]

Hi Tim,

>>Segal says: "We have become convinced that the presence of particular

>>thoughts, feelings, or actions is the only way we can really know if

>>someone is enlightened. The checklist of enlightened attributes is both

>>lengthy and complex. Is this really love, we ask, in the presence of a

>>supposedly enlightened being? Or bliss? Do they still have thoughts, we

>>want to know, since we have heard that a mind empty of thoughts is

>>surely a sign of spiritual advancement? And what is this? Is fear

>>present? Well, the presence of fear proves they couldn't possibly having

>>a true spiritual experience. In fact, however, the presence of fear

>>means only that fear is present, and nothing more."

>

>This completely baffles me. It's generally accepted that fear is a

>function of ego, which Segal claims to have absolutely none. Perhaps

>"self" does not necessarily equate with "ego" (although it seems that it

>must).

 

I haven't read the book, only these two Parts from Jerry's web site. But I

don't see her mentioning "ego." I think that may be a separate discussion.

>I have to say, I'm lost. It seems to me that if Suzanne was

>feeling fear at the loss of a sense of self, that "self" had to still be

>there, hiding somewhere, because it is the self that GENERATES fear, is it

>not?

 

Well, you would have to give your definition of "self" before that question

could be considered.

>This writing raises far more questions in my mind than it answers. If fear

>is NOT a function of a sense of "me," then what exactly IS it? Simply a

>conditioned response from earlier stages of man's evolution? If so, this

>means that fear is unavoidable, and those who claim to have "lost fear" in

>the course of spiritual growth/realization are liars.

 

My first impression on reading these two parts is that what happened to

Suzanne was the loss of identification as a personality. The out-of-body

experience (OOBE) isn't uncommon; my son had one when he was about 7. The

first time a dentist gave him gas, he saw wonderful colors; the second

time, he left his body. He was excited and thrilled by the experience. He

told me he just shot up to the ceiling and watched everything. But if he

hadn't been able to get back to a normal state, I think the excitement and

thrill would have been replaced by very normal fear.

 

Her OOBE could have been the result of a cerebral accident, a small stroke.

Once OOB permanently, it seems to me, just that separateness and observing

it would lead to the dissolution of a sense of personality. Of course, she

may have planned it for this life for some reason, perhaps to demonstrate

something to others.

 

But it is abnormal. The person who goes beyond identification with a

personality in the course of spiritual pursuits has usually identified at a

"higher" level. He understands what's happening. Apparently this happened

to Suzanne when she wasn't prepared, didn't understand, and had no other

identification.

 

What was left? Obviously the physical body was still there, emotions

(astral body) were still there, and thinking (mental body) were still

there. All the personality vehicles. But her experience was that she was

not in them, not-them. She seems to have been simply a focal point of

consciousness, a conscious focus. Wonderful if she had intended it, if she

understood what happened and what to do with it, how to live with it. But

she didn't... she had to start searching in books and with therapists to

try to understand it.

 

The question was, what is fear? It seems to me that it is anticipation of

pain of some sort. In its most basic form, it is self-protective. When

you put your hand on a burner on the stove and it's hot, you snatch your

hand away and thus avoid any further burn. I knew of a woman who was born

without any sense of physical pain, and it was a terrible handicap. She

had to be always on her guard, trying to anticipate how she might be

injured, because there was no warning signal of pain. If she put her hand

on the hot burner, maybe there would have been the sense of heat - I don't

know - and that would have alerted her. But it wouldn't have hurt. Maybe

she would have realized something was wrong only when she smelled something

burning and looked for what it was. So that basic kind of fear is a good

thing to have, as long as you plan to stay in the body for a while and

would rather not have it banged up. ) This kind of fear seems to arise

naturally as a result of feeling pain... or of seeing something coming at

us that we know will cause pain... like a truck. I don't think it

would be "unenlightened" to get out of the way of the truck.

 

I think we can probably extrapolate that to understand other kinds of fear.

If something hurts emotionally or mentally, we try to avoid it, back off

from it. Or if we see something coming that we know will hurt in those

ways...

 

And that's where we probably get into karmic stuff with fear. A man looks

like a man who hurt me, so I react to him in a certain way... at the root

of that is the memory of past pain and the urge to avoid the same thing

happening again. Or someone says something that I think sounds like

something that man would have said. There I go again... )) So we get

all tangled up in emotions and thoughts from the past and apply them in a

mistaken way to what's happening currently.

 

Well, I could go on about that, but that's the direction I'm thinking in

right now... The way to get rid of or prevent these fears would be: 1)

deal with the past stuff, clean up the karmic stuff, so it doesn't continue

to be an influence, and 2) free ourselves from attachments as much as

possible. If I really don't care what somebody else thinks about what I'm

writing, then there's no cause for fear of a negative response or pain/fear

when I get a negative response.

 

There may be other ways too. If somebody writes me a really nasty

response, I could see it as an opportunity to get rid of some karma for

him... because if he's gonna send me that crap, then it's my crap and I

can get rid of it.

>If so, this

>means that fear is unavoidable, and those who claim to have "lost fear" in

>the course of spiritual growth/realization are liars.

 

Yes, I think some fear will always be unavoidable as long as we're

incarnate. And I'm glad... I don't want to stop snatching my hand away

from that hot burner. Even if I could be the ultimate stoic about the

pain, it would be a lot harder to get dressed without part of my hand.

 

But I do avoid pain when possible. I have no fear of death, but I'd rather

not go through a lot of pain getting there. If you give me a choice of

three ways to die - and if there are no other considerations - I'll take

the most painless way.

 

I think when people say they've lost their fears... or they are free of

fear... they must be speaking relatively... they mean they've cleaned up

the karmic mess from the past... freed themselves from attachments... to

whatever degree... they live in the moment... fear may arise in the

moment... one can deal with it more efficiently if there's no tangle with

the past.

 

Just my thoughts of this afternoon... what do you think?

 

Love,

Dharma

[Guest guest]

Dharma;

 

 

Some great analysis in your post. Much that makes sense to me. It is

possible that when we discuss ego/egolessness; dual/nondual; et cetera, a

fair amount of generalization takes place. But perhaps that is as it

should be.

 

Madhya

[Guest guest]

Good topic. My experience with fear is that we fear but one thing.

Death. In other words, we fear that which we do not know. All other fear

is a smaller part of this fear. We fear loss, aloneness, rejection, loss

of identity...the list goes on yet are all attributes of the 'unknown'

elements of death. How much more so would we fear if our lives were

placed on a count down timer of "Cancer...you have six months to live.

No more."

 

Ego says that you can lose these things yet Advaita states that life and

death do not exist. It is to but touch this 'absolute' and you will see

that one does not die. One changes. Conscious existence and awareness is

unbroken for all time. Thus, no fear of death. The only death that

remains then is the death that one feels as they face their fear. Soon,

the 'pain' balances and allows you to simply let it go. One can not live

in the valley of death only pass through it.

 

All is well. All is as it should be. You can neither avoid or cheat your

way out of something, call it a personified God or a faceless absolute,

that these dictate must transpire. However, ask yourself, will you ever

know it? Remember, one attribute of God or the absolute is that it is

SEAMLESS and thus, consciousness, that which is eternal, must to be so.

 

Regards.

 

Tim Harris

[Guest guest]

> "Jerry M. Katz" <umbada

[..]

> Part 2

>

> After ten years she began to explore the spiritual perspective on the

> emptiness of the no-self. She found volumes of material in Buddhism on

> anatta ( no-self) and shunyata (emptiness). Now she learned that not

> only was her experience understood, it was sought by those on the

> spiritual path.

>

> Perhaps Segal's greatest the challenge the past ten years was day-to-day

> functioning without a 'me'. "(personality) functions floated in a

> vastness that referred to no one," she wrote. Buddhism, she found,

> explained this by describing the skandhas or "aggregates" as personality

> functions which remain when one is empty of the person or the 'me'. The

> five skandhas include form, feelings, perceptions, thoughts and

> consciousness.

>

> Their interaction creates the illusion of self. They do not actually

> make up the self. There is not self. When the truth of the skandhas is

> revealed, as suddenly happened to Segal at the bus stop, it is seen that

> there is no self, only the skandhas functioning as they function; the

> truth is that they are empty, they don't constitute a self, but their

> interaction creates the illusion of self.

>

> Still, Segal could not find literary descriptions of the fear she had

> been knowing for ten years. She maintains that the language and

> assumptions that go into creating the notion of what real spiritual

> experience is, is a closed system, and that one who speaks of

> experiences beyond that closed system, is seen to be navigating their

> way to enlightenment with the use of highly questionable markers, of

> which one of them is fear.

>

> Segal says: "We have become convinced that the presence of particular

> thoughts, feelings, or actions is the only way we can really know if

> someone is enlightened. The checklist of enlightened attributes is both

> lengthy and complex. Is this really love, we ask, in the presence of a

> supposedly enlightened being? Or bliss? Do they still have thoughts, we

> want to know, since we have heard that a mind empty of thoughts is

> surely a sign of spiritual advancement? And what is this? Is fear

> present? Well, the presence of fear proves they couldn't possibly having

> a true spiritual experience. In fact, however, the presence of fear

> means only that fear is present, and nothing more."

 

The checklist can be easily commented upon. Concerning love, it is the

analogy of the overflowing vessel. Unless the vessel is empty it can't be

filled and when it is being filled, nothing will overflow. Only when the

vessel is overflowing one will radiate love. So it isn't a dial to measure

enlightenment.

 

If enlightenment would be different from bliss, who would "want" it?

 

A better question would be "what possesses an enlightened one? If the answer

is "nothing", there is no one to have thoughts. It is thoughts rising and

subsiding in mental space; they can be turned off at will but nothing is

lost / gained by doing so.

 

Fear is always linked to a (possible) loss. Here, the knowledge of savikalpa

samadhis come to the rescue. For instance, mind can be mixed up with

consciousness of personality. The fear remains until personality ceases to

be the center of being, when Being "takes over". Having fear contradicts

functioning without a "me". It sounds more like "me" in suspended animation

with "my assets" still hovering around. What remains hidden as fear in

enlightenment is the fear of loosing all reference, when nearing nirvikalpa

samadhi for the first time. This fear doesn't last for ten years.

 

Jan

[Guest guest]

Hello Dharma,

 

This is good stuff to me on my path of today,

 

You said:

"Yes, I think some fear will always be unavoidable as long as we're

incarnate. And I'm glad... I don't want to stop snatching my hand away

from that hot burner. Even if I could be the ultimate stoic about the

pain, it would be a lot harder to get dressed without part of my hand."

 

First let me say that from the experience of life, their is no difference

between fear and pain, unless one of degree. In other words pain is a form

of fear. From my physics background and mind: fear/pain is inertia/matter to

ether/spirit, matter is ether crystallized by fear.

 

In relation to what you said, for a fire walker (example), bringing to

his/her attention "the snatching process of tacking the hand away from the

stove", would burn them as he/she walks on fire.

 

Memory in a sense is a kind of fear. I admire those who can walk on the fire

on which they cooked their dinner - where they still feel it hot in the

stomach as they walk on the very hot embers it was cooked on. In certain

"states" of being to this plane from the body it's possible as you well know

to reach a state where fire burns our body and in another where it does not.

To maintain all the rainbow of being in a specific state, all the time, is

another story...

 

You say after:

 

"But I do avoid pain when possible. I have no fear of death, but I'd rather

not go through a lot of pain getting there. If you give me a choice of

three ways to die - and if there are no other considerations - I'll take the

most painless way."

 

What makes us seek the less painful way? That very principle behind that

question, just fascinates me. Maybe i create that question to amuse myself,

my exercise of brushing my teeth today .

 

But still, i ask myself now: What is pain? From where/when does it burst out

from the Nothingness, for it to call or create a form of attention to it, an

ego if you want. And why the ego emerging from pain seeks the path of less

pain? Is it to create the perfect conscious living illusion? Starting at

levels among many like "does a cube of ice melting under the sun fell pain"?

 

But if pain seeks the path of less pain, why is it still there today, on any

level?

 

Is pain really unavoidable? and what is it?

 

Of course to me pleasure, in that perceptive, is a form of harmonized pain

to a complex center.

 

Enjoy,

Antoine

[Guest guest]

At 07:05 PM 3/5/99 EST, you wrote:

>KKT: I'm completely agreed with Tim. I think FEAR means

>EGO. When I read Suzanne Segal's "Collision with the Infinite",

>I was very puzzled by these two apparently opposite aspects:

 

I gave this some thought, and came to a conclusion that what Suzanne Segal

experienced was NOT a "Collision with the Infinite," but a "Collision with

Mental Illness" (the title sure wouldn't sell as many books for her

publisher ;-)...

 

There is a state psychiatrists call "depersonalization" where the ego

essentially "splits off" from thought and the rest of personality. I

believe that there's a danger in coming to a conclusion too quickly that

what happened to Suzanne Segal was some sort of spiritual experience. It

could just as easily be purely mental illness, with no spiritual aspect

whatsoever. After all, she lost the "me," but there was no perception of I

AM in "me's" place, really. She had to read books on Buddhism and then

suddenly "Oh wow, now it's a spiritual thing."

 

A life lived in terror for 10 (?) years doesn't sound the least bit

spiritual to me. It sounds like the lady was sick in the head (and

deserving of compassion). Who can claim that *ALL LOSSES OF 'me'* are

inherently spiritual? Are all books with words like "Thy" and "Thou" to be

taken as "bibles?"

>(1) Suzanne claimed that she lived in a "no-self" (egoless) state.

>(2) But at the same time, she experienced a tremendous FEAR

>(precisely, she had FEAR because she found no EGO!)

 

But if "she" had fear, there was still a "she," and thus still a "me"

somewhere. Something had to be having the fear. Suzanne couldn't identify

what it was. But it was there. It HAD to have been the 'me' "split away"

from the rest of her personality.

>BTW, Suzanne Segal passed away on April 1, 1997.

>She died of a brain tumor after a short illness.

 

Interesting. Could have been the cause of the entire thing. Probably was,

actually.

 

Tim

 

 

-----

The CORE of Reality awaits you at:

http://www.serv.net/~fewtch/ND/index.html -

Poetry, Writings, even Live Chat on spiritual topics.

[Guest guest]

At 02:46 AM 3/6/99 -0000, you wrote:

>Having fear contradicts

>functioning without a "me". It sounds more like "me" in suspended animation

>with "my assets" still hovering around.

 

I have to agree. It is the 'me' and the 'me' only (a.k.a. the ego) that

experiences fear. I heard that Suzanne died recently of a brain tumor.

The likely cause of her depersonalization. Her publisher probably made a

bundle off the title "Colliding with the Infinite," however... :-/

 

 

-----

The CORE of Reality awaits you at:

http://www.serv.net/~fewtch/ND/index.html -

Poetry, Writings, even Live Chat on spiritual topics.

[Guest guest]

Hi Antoine!

>First let me say that from the experience of life, their is no difference

>between fear and pain, unless one of degree. In other words pain is a form

>of fear.

 

I can't agree with you on that. At least, not in regard to physical

pain. A dentist explained to me once that some people actually do feel

much more pain from their teeth than others do. He said in school they

experimented with actual nerves in glass dishes in the lab, and they found

that, depending on variations in the chemicals surrounding the nerves, they

would react up to four times as strongly to painful stimulation. All a

matter of body chemistry, he said.

 

When I was pregnant, I studied natural childbirth (that was before the

Lamaze method). It involved physical relaxation and deep breathing and -

most of all - the absence of fear. If you're afraid, it hurts worse, the

book said; fear changes the pain threshold. (Does that mean fear or the

lack of it changes the body chemistry? I don't know, but that would be my

guess.) Learn to distinguish between discomfort and pain, it said; if it's

only discomfort, it isn't so bad.

 

In the hospital doctors would say to me, "You can't be in labor. Nobody

smiles like that if they're in labor." I had a baby with no medication,

and I never had anything I couldn't call discomfort. Except - in the

middle of delivery there was suddenly one big terrible pain, and I let out

a yell. Then I realized it was the episiotomy - an incision - and it was

all over, so I shut up. I had forgotten to make sure the doctor would give

a local injection for the episiotomy. Oy! I just assumed any doctor

would. So I wasn't anticipating anything... there was no fear involved...

I didn't see it coming... but I felt it and it was pain!!

>From my physics background and mind: fear/pain is inertia/matter to

>ether/spirit, matter is ether crystallized by fear.

 

If that were true, it would mean that fear is a necessary part of the

process of creating the physical world and maintaining it.

>In relation to what you said, for a fire walker (example), bringing to

>his/her attention "the snatching process of tacking the hand away from the

>stove", would burn them as he/she walks on fire.

 

Relatively speaking, yes... but you'll notice the firewalkers keep

moving... they don't just stand there or have a nap in the fire... )

>Memory in a sense is a kind of fear.

 

I think you're just speaking of remembering certain things, not of memory

as such.

>I admire those who can walk on the fire

>on which they cooked their dinner - where they still feel it hot in the

>stomach as they walk on the very hot embers it was cooked on. In certain

>"states" of being to this plane from the body it's possible as you well know

>to reach a state where fire burns our body and in another where it does not.

 

Yes, you have to get into a certain state to do it. I've seen a firewalker

friend move a couple of hot embers with her hand, but I saw her pause for

the right mental state... and then move them very quickly...

>To maintain all the rainbow of being in a specific state, all the time, is

>another story...

>

>You say after:

>

>"But I do avoid pain when possible. I have no fear of death, but I'd rather

>not go through a lot of pain getting there. If you give me a choice of

>three ways to die - and if there are no other considerations - I'll take the

>most painless way."

>

>What makes us seek the less painful way? That very principle behind that

>question, just fascinates me. Maybe i create that question to amuse myself,

>my exercise of brushing my teeth today .

 

Well, I don't always. We will all accept some pain if it seems necessary.

 

In addition, I have been whipped and learned to enjoy it... when handled

in the right way, it brings a release of endorphins - the feel-good

chemicals - in the brain (the same thing that is responsible for "runner's

high"). Hey, is that any stranger than walking on fire? )

 

People will accept pain if necessary, and some people enjoy some kinds of

pain... but that doesn't mean there isn't real pain out there that nobody

enjoys...

 

If I ever have to have surgery again, I'll certainly do my best to turn

that post-op pain into bliss, but I think I'll be very glad for some

chemical medication. )

 

Love,

Dharma

[Guest guest]

At 12:12 AM 3/6/99 -0600, you wrote:

>Dharma <fisher1

>

>Hi Antoine!

>

>>First let me say that from the experience of life, their is no difference

>>between fear and pain, unless one of degree. In other words pain is a form

>>of fear.

>

>I can't agree with you on that.

 

I can't either.

 

<snip>

>When I was pregnant, I studied natural childbirth (that was before the

>Lamaze method). It involved physical relaxation and deep breathing and -

>most of all - the absence of fear. If you're afraid, it hurts worse, the

>book said; fear changes the pain threshold. (Does that mean fear or the

>lack of it changes the body chemistry? I don't know, but that would be my

>guess.) Learn to distinguish between discomfort and pain, it said; if it's

>only discomfort, it isn't so bad.

 

Fear is the ego's response to physical pain, as is suffering. If the ego

is not involved, physical pain becomes nothing more than an intense

sensation, one to be studied from a detached viewpoint.

>If that were true, it would mean that fear is a necessary part of the

>process of creating the physical world and maintaining it.

 

Perhaps it used to be that way, when we were animals. Fear is a function

of the lower (limbic) portion of the brain, the so-called "reptilian

brain." It once had a function in an earlier stage of human evolution.

Now, most often, it just gets in the way and often actually PREVENTS the

removal of the cause of fear. Thus, "There is nothing to fear but fear

itself" :-)

>People will accept pain if necessary, and some people enjoy some kinds of

>pain... but that doesn't mean there isn't real pain out there that nobody

>enjoys...

 

There's no reason NOT to enjoy pain, any more than there is to enjoy

"pleasure." As both are intense sensations, if one gets pleasure from the

intensity of the sensation (or learns something from it), what's the

problem? :-)

 

With Love,

 

Tim

 

 

-----

The CORE of Reality awaits you at:

http://www.serv.net/~fewtch/ND/index.html -

Poetry, Writings, even Live Chat on spiritual topics.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/5/1999 4:12:36 PM Pacific Standard Time, fisher1

writes:

 

<< Just my thoughts of this afternoon... what do you think?

 

Love,

Dharma >>

 

Welcome to the Satsangha Dharma.

Harsha

[Guest guest]

Hi all,

 

After reading Tim G. post on the idea that maybe Suzanne had

a form of mental illness, it got me to thinking a bit. I

wonder if the reason I have such difficulty with this new

area of thought-spirituality- is the training I have had in

psychology.

 

Reading in the area of spirituality is in some ways the

antithesis of all that I have been taught. Tim's mention of

depersonalization as well as disassociation brought all this

to my awareness. The idea in psychology is to build up ego

strength but in spirituality it appears to be to lose the

ego. The only similarity that I have discovered (and keep

in mind I am a real beginner) is the focus on becoming free

of over dependence on ego defenses. Of course, in

spirituality there would be the ultimate end of no ego

defenses.

 

To tell you the truth, I know that I would never have been

smart enough or brave enough to deal with the experiences I

have read about if those had occurred before gaining what

little knowledge I have about this subject.

 

Love,

Judy

[Guest guest]

> Tim Gerchmez <fewtch

>

> At 02:46 AM 3/6/99 -0000, you wrote:

>

> >Having fear contradicts

> >functioning without a "me". It sounds more like "me" in

> suspended animation

> >with "my assets" still hovering around.

>

> I have to agree. It is the 'me' and the 'me' only (a.k.a. the ego) that

> experiences fear. I heard that Suzanne died recently of a brain tumor.

> The likely cause of her depersonalization. Her publisher probably made a

> bundle off the title "Colliding with the Infinite," however... :-/

 

If the ego had "just" fear on its sleeve, it wouldn't be that bad. Feelings

are polar in nature; each basic feeling has an opposite. Someone who is on a

tour of revenge, takes a lot of risks - without the urge for revenge, taking

the risks would cause fear. Another component of ego is lust - consider the

risk some are willing to take for gratification. In an ego-based society all

these feelings are nurtured. Compared to the bliss of one's true nature,

they are infectious diseases in the disguise of entertainment.

 

It is more likely Suzanne experienced states of surrender - without someone

(guru, God) to surrender to the process isn't pleasant. A basic component of

human nature is devotion.

 

Jan

[Guest guest]

Fear is not ego. Ego is a thought-construct. Fear is mainly the

automatism of the organism -- that is what Suzanne Segal describes as

the fear.

 

The petty attempt to denigrate and belittle another's insight and

realization IS ego.

 

If Segal's crisis was "caused" by a tumor, then I'm glad she found

some measure of peace and joy in the final stage of her life. The

"causes" of insight and ways of the Infinite cannot be limited by

another's ego-limited judgements.

 

If fear is ego, then so is hunger and fatigue.

 

Phil

 

 

<<

>KKT: I'm completely agreed with Tim. I think FEAR means

>EGO. When I read Suzanne Segal's "Collision with the Infinite",

>I was very puzzled by these two apparently opposite aspects:

 

I gave this some thought, and came to a conclusion that what Suzanne

Segal

experienced was NOT a "Collision with the Infinite," but a "Collision

with

Mental Illness" (the title sure wouldn't sell as many books for her

publisher ;-)...

 

There is a state psychiatrists call "depersonalization" where the ego

essentially "splits off" from thought and the rest of personality. I

believe that there's a danger in coming to a conclusion too quickly that

what happened to Suzanne Segal was some sort of spiritual experience.

It

could just as easily be purely mental illness, with no spiritual aspect

whatsoever. After all, she lost the "me," but there was no perception

of I

AM in "me's" place, really. She had to read books on Buddhism and then

suddenly "Oh wow, now it's a spiritual thing."

 

A life lived in terror for 10 (?) years doesn't sound the least bit

spiritual to me. It sounds like the lady was sick in the head (and

deserving of compassion). Who can claim that *ALL LOSSES OF 'me'* are

inherently spiritual? Are all books with words like "Thy" and "Thou"

to be

taken as "bibles?"

>(1) Suzanne claimed that she lived in a "no-self" (egoless) state.

>(2) But at the same time, she experienced a tremendous FEAR

>(precisely, she had FEAR because she found no EGO!)

 

But if "she" had fear, there was still a "she," and thus still a "me"

somewhere. Something had to be having the fear. Suzanne couldn't

identify

what it was. But it was there. It HAD to have been the 'me' "split

away"

from the rest of her personality.

>BTW, Suzanne Segal passed away on April 1, 1997.

>She died of a brain tumor after a short illness.

 

Interesting. Could have been the cause of the entire thing. Probably

was,

actually.

 

Tim

>>

[Guest guest]

Hi Judy. As for building up vs. losing the ego I understand your

confusion! What sense I can make out of the issue is 2-fold:

 

1) The ego only exists when we use it. The less we need it

(because we SEE that we are not the doer) the more we can let it just

sit quietly, dormant, until a situation arises where an ego is useful,

e.g., posting to a cybersatsangh.

 

2) Reaching this state is a lot easier if you have a healthy,

flexible ego in the first place because otherwise one will be

overwhelmed by the loss of control involved in spiritual surrender.

All "neurotic" distortions prevent us from seeing the truth.

Paradoxically, profound penetration of one's neurosis is also the

gateway to truth. Folks who try to "become spiritual" to avoid or rise

above their human dilemmas are in for a very bumpy ride. Ken Wilber is

probably the best writer about the psychological/spiritual synthesis,

although I find him a little too heady! Holly

[Guest guest]

Hi Holly,

 

Thanks so much for adding some clarity to this issue of ego.

 

I certainly have admiration for those who have been able to

experience this surrender of control.

 

At least by participating in these groups, I am aware of

this possibility for myself and perhaps will be less

frightened and less quick to think I am having some sort of

psychotic episode if this should occur.

 

I do like Ken Wilber and was reading an article by him last

night. He talked about two different kinds of religious

experiences, those which involve changing beliefs and those

which involve transformation. I thought of all the people

here on the list who have experienced transformation.

 

For myself I am at the point of changing some beliefs which

has meant feeling more comfortable with letting be whatever

is. I've always been a person who thought I had to

struggle and resist obstacles. I had an ex husband who once

told me I was a 'steamroller'. These days I question that

anything is worth having that requires a lot of struggle.

 

Love,

Judy

[Guest guest]

Hi Judy,

 

I think your post cuts to the heart of the matter here. In my opinion,

from the Canadian model, so many people, many here, know the pain of

being labelled mentally ill. It saddens me to think that, even our

doctors are realizing this yet they refuse to let go of their prestigue.

The mental illness label is extremely potent and distructive to the

human spirit and perhaps is the greatest form of prejudice that I know.

 

We say, yes we evolve. Yet we make no allowances for this evolution.

Mental illness is a negative label for a positive thing. I took great

pleasure in taking the concepts of the 'experts' and putting them

together like lego. They were noticable afraid of me. Fortunately, I was

able to describe my 'understanding' and it shattered the glass ceiling

of these educated minds. This is not a bad thing and I am sure that the

two doctors I dealt with would agree it was very illuminating.

 

We only fear the things that we do not understand. Even now, I know

that, rather than validate us, it is much easier for these doctors to

take what we have said on this and that and claim it as their own. They

prove 'our' theories and make them their theories and pad their homes.

Those that have been validated as 'enlightened' also take our ideas to

support their own. Those that 'know' that we have deeper understanding

then they, choose to place us under the label of mentally ill. It keeps

others away. We become their own personal money making machines. Mental

slave labour.

 

Fortunately, I was lucky enough to keep somewhat distant from the

horrors that I have seen here and witnessed in the media. 'Treatments'

sound more like a Hitler style examination. I have heard your stories

and I know your pain. I can never say that I was 'taken away' as

horrifically as some of you yet the possibility of this was always

understood and present.

 

You see the world around you changing, conforming to your ideas,

conforming to your models. You rejoice when you see this group and that

group getting new funding. These are not your delusions as you are being

told. These are the realities of what we are saying, and the reality

that those that would oppress us are capitalizing on.

 

The truth is, we have tranceneded human understanding. We have shattered

all their models and broken all their toys. We all use various symbols

and models to explain yet we 'are' menatlly ill. Consider, I would

rather be mentally ill then mentally challenged like those that feed off

our insight.

 

I do not believe that they know what we know. Tell me if you have heard

this one before. "He who speaks does not know", "The Tao that can not be

named is not the eternal Tao"...."There is nothing new here. Just old

ideas. Tell us something new." Tell yourself something new. If we have

nothing new to share and we are menatlly ill than why do you continue to

press us for something new?

 

I come here to share ideas, rustle some feathers, and understand myself.

You all know the model. Remember when you were in the hospital, and you

were with other 'crazy' people. Did it not seem that they were no crazy?

Did it not seem more like you were being studied? That is how I felt.

Each personality had a puzzle for me to work on. It was too perfect to

be true. You know what I mean here don't you?

 

The problem with sycronicity is that it is too good to be true! Don't

you see this? Consider: I randomly got in the truck, and went for a

drive. As I was driving randomly through a neighborhood, I was waved

into a drive way. I went in. The house belonged to Tim Harris' dad. Not

my dad but the other Tim Harris that lives in here. What are the odds?

Then, as soon as I got out of the truck I was placed in a 'who's on

first' game. What are the odds that 1) I would pull into this driveway

(I was waved in by this gentleman) 2) It was the father of Tim Harris.

C'mom. Who are we fooling here? Was I delusional? NO. I was firmly in

the concept of What is is. I was trying to get to the bottom of this to

make it stop by confronting my oppressors. I did and I won.

 

These are the things that 'make' us crazy. Yet, when you have one of

your 'episodes' does it not feel like you are being passed through a

procesing pipeline? Everything is too real and yet it is your desire to

explore this, I suggest, man made phenomena<sp>. We are baited then

'forced' to react. Did you not also bring a 'witness(es)'? Did they not

also see the things you saw? Did they not also marvel at the

'predictions' based on each scene? Me too. You are not crazy. You are

not mentally ill. The things that you saw others saw. It was not a

delusion or an illusion. You were being studied. It was your addiction

to the puzzle that got you in trouble.

 

I have a model to eliminate homelessness. I have a model for a more

responsible government that is 'for the people', I have a model to

eliminate family violence. I have a model that allows open communication

between people. I have a model of mental health. I have a model to

assist our troubled youth. I have a model of higher learning. I have a

model to eliminate famine. Are these not the things that 'our existing

systems' consider a threat to their failing systems of power and greed?

Is it any wonder then that they would want to label me and all of you

'mentally ill'? Their system is only failing us.

 

I will never be allowed to share these models as I am labelled 'mentally

ill'. I say to you. No. I am not mentally ill. I am a highly functional,

highly intelligent, productive human being. We all are. It is now our

time to consider if we will accept this label that the 'professionals'

have placed on us based in their own failure to measure up. My answer is

no, I am not for sale. It is time to generate new professionals. I wish

to be one of these so that we can get on with helping our planet and our

people.

 

What is is. A dead planet is a dead home and, as of yet, we have no

place to move to.

 

Regards.

 

Tim Harris

[Guest guest]

Hi Jerry,

>This is Part 2 of the summary of Suzanne Segal's Collision with the

>snip<

>http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/umbada/suzanne.htm

 

This is the first time I've visited your web site... sorry about that,

always too busy for the really important things... you know...

 

I love it! First of all, the chance to read your own writings and know you

better...

 

And what a collection, what a wealth you have there! People I've always

wanted to read, people whose books I've lost and wanted to read again, new

sources I didn't know about... I don't know how many pages I bookmarked to

go back to...

 

Most of all, I love the way you present them all as sangha... which they

are...

 

Love,

Dharma

[Guest guest]

Dear Judy,

 

I think I can clear this one up for you!

 

In order to be ready to lose the ego, the ego must first (paradoxically) be

strong and well-grounded. There are many people out there with weak egos

(and thus not in the least ready for nondual spirituality!), and before an

ego can begin to "dissolve" and melt somewhat into the Infinite, it must

first be at least reasonably mature, well-grounded, and emotionally stable.

The role of psychology is to help the individual accomplish this. Please

take a look at the following web page - I think it may "answer all your

questions" :

 

http://www.radical-aliveness.com/awakening.htm

 

With Love,

 

Tim

 

At 07:48 AM 3/6/99 -0500, you wrote:

>Judy Walden <judyw

>

>Hi all,

>

>After reading Tim G. post on the idea that maybe Suzanne had

>a form of mental illness, it got me to thinking a bit. I

>wonder if the reason I have such difficulty with this new

>area of thought-spirituality- is the training I have had in

>psychology.

>

>Reading in the area of spirituality is in some ways the

>antithesis of all that I have been taught. Tim's mention of

>depersonalization as well as disassociation brought all this

>to my awareness. The idea in psychology is to build up ego

>strength but in spirituality it appears to be to lose the

>ego. The only similarity that I have discovered (and keep

>in mind I am a real beginner) is the focus on becoming free

>of over dependence on ego defenses. Of course, in

>spirituality there would be the ultimate end of no ego

>defenses.

>

>To tell you the truth, I know that I would never have been

>smart enough or brave enough to deal with the experiences I

>have read about if those had occurred before gaining what

>little knowledge I have about this subject.

>

>Love,

>Judy

 

 

-----

The CORE of Reality awaits you at:

http://www.serv.net/~fewtch/ND/index.html -

Poetry, Writings, even Live Chat on spiritual topics.

[Guest guest]

Sat, 6 Mar 1999 12:14:25 -0600

Dharma <fisher1

Re: Suzanne Segal Part 2 (Nonduality)

 

Hi Jerry,

>This is Part 2 of the summary of Suzanne Segal's Collision with the

>snip<

>http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/umbada/suzanne.htm

 

This is the first time I've visited your web site... sorry about that,

always too busy for the really important things... you know...

 

I love it! First of all, the chance to read your own writings and know

you better...

 

And what a collection, what a wealth you have there! People I've always

wanted to read, people whose books I've lost and wanted to read again,

new sources I didn't know about... I don't know how many pages I

bookmarked to go back to...

 

Most of all, I love the way you present them all as sangha... which

they are...

 

Love,

Dharma

__________________

 

Thank you, my Dear. It's what I enjoy, and I hope to keep developing it

over time. Thank you for your contributions here, and thank you, Harsha,

for creating the space for this gathering.

 

Those who have not already discovered, there are web pages for jb (Jan)

and Harsha at

http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/umbada/harsha.htm

http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/umbada/jb.htm

 

Jerry