wonderful guest

[Guest guest]

Dear Amanda:

 

As I read your post a few things came to my mind. By the time one becomes a

Bodhisattva all has already been sacrificed, I would think the consciousness

is already so elevated that it matters not where one is hanging out. When I

first started my journey all I wanted was out of this earth hell and didn't

much care how it came about - after a while I began to realize that

liberation was no longer important merging with God or Self or however one

perceives it was what had become important and I was pretty peaceful

wherever I happened to be. At the level of a bodhisattva one is non-dual so

therefore helping others is not really helping others .

 

I used to feel the weight of failure in my life until one day someone said

to me there is no failure as failure is simply an opportunity waiting for

you down the road that statement shifted my perspective and a huge amount of

guilt was gone. The destination of the journey is not what is important it

is the journey itself and feeling failure just inhibits the joy of the

journey.

 

Linda

..

>I personally won't take the vows

>(if I ever do it) with eagerness.

>To me the vow means volunteering for a very very

>long tour of duty. It means to promise to stay behind

>after having attained enlightenment (when and where

>that may happen, if ever) and be

>one of the last

>beings who leave the universe for nirvana/moksha

>to become one with the I AM /god/ The Force.

 

>But to be more serious, the vows really are serious

>promises.

>I have specific and detailed memories of at least 25

>lives and in the last, I gave up every right for

>having an individual life and vowed to give everything

>for somebody else. I did it with eagerness and

>joy in the start, but it ended badly.

>In the end I found that the sacrifice was too much and

>I asked for some time out to get myself in order.

>Because of the circumstances that was not possible and

>all I could do was try and save my own reputation

>(ego again, yes I know) by making a life sacrifice.

>I really

>wanted to look out for the ones that were in my care,

>but it was really hard and when I was gone,

>the ppl I tried to look out for probably went into

>annihilation themselves.

>Thus, I feel I failed twice, in upholding my vow and

>when breaking it, in looking out for ppl, which

>by then had become more important than the vow itself.

>Maybe it all happened b/c of lack of ego, but it

>feels heavy nevertheless.

>The vow then was an iron law with no room for

>flexibility or excuses and there was absolutely

>no getting out.

>I am concerned that the Bodhisattva vows will be the

>same, a crushing responsibility for a task which in

>the end will turn out to be too demanding.

>Still, I feel that returning some of the little

>glimpses I've had of the force/god to other ppl and

>helping them a little along the way would be rewarding

>and worthwhile,

>because I know how much I thirsted for unconditional

>love myself.

>Very ambivalent about it all.

>Well, it probably again just shows how much ego I

>have left to lose before attaining anything at all.

>Thanks for sharing your enthusiasm and joy with us.

 

 

Sorry for being such a wet blanket, but at least it

made me realize a few things.

 

Best regards,

 

Amanda.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Angelfire for your free web-based e-mail. http://www.angelfire.com

 

------

Star Wars fans are using ONElist to share the fun.

http://www.ONElist.com

Are you?

[Guest guest]

On Mon, 10 May 1999 13:59:10 Bruce Morgen wrote:

>>That was my intention.

>>

>Your "intention" was one

>of "forcing?"

 

No, I intended to make it sound as if it was

inferential.

>There is no such "taboo,"

 

Well, thank you for clearing that up.

>OK, what you see is what you

>see.

 

Then try and take a look at why /you/ feel that is

the case and how you can know another's intentions.

>To be "fully non dual" is an

>ideal, a concept -- how is it

>that one who confesses to

>being "ego driven" and to a

>"lack of non dualism" can so

>confidently declare such an

>"if" and "should?"

 

Finally a relevant question, ladies and gentlemen.

 

First I will ask, how do you know it isn't ?

 

My answer to the question:

This I understands the concept of non dualism and

absolute compassion, both in the mind and in the

heart and can identify ego driveness,

dualism, egolessness and non dualism

to a certain extent

and can manage to separate the two with

some effort.

 

These thing are known in the heart and mind

through direct experience

via flashes of non dualism wherein the

concept of ego was removed, wherein

the concept of non dualism

for one instant was realized and the ego drive

was seen in all its enormity.

 

This realization was coupled with a

compassion

for the shortcomings and lack of insight in

self and others and was about the only thing which

stuck once the flash of insight was over.

 

Realization in the heart is one thing, manifestation to

reality is another when enlightenment

is not yet attained.

 

As previously said, the ego is not shed all in one go.

Even if the goal has been seen in the distance over the

top of the hill, it still means one has to keep

running to get there, it still remains a process,

maybe even more than before, since it has been

glimpsed now.

 

However, I reserve the right to stumble in my own

legs from time to time and not in the untied laces of

passing runners.

 

Thank you.

 

Best regards,

 

Amanda.

 

 

 

 

>

>>In addition, a fully enlightened, egoless

>>being in my view does not feel the need to

>>teach others, because that is a result of ego,

>

>Therefore, Sri Ramana and J.

>Krishnamurti spent a lifetime

>of work as "a result of ego?"

>Moreover, the "egoless being"

>is yet another ideal/concept,

>is there really any such

>person?

>

>>but will instead leave them to gain their own

>>insights on their own terms. Hence, piquing

>>questions has no point, listening

>>with compassion has.

>>

>The perception of "piquing

>questions" is entirely yours,

>but nontheless entirely

>compatible with "listening

>with compassion."

>

>>That was my point.

>>

>OK.

>

>>In all egodrivenness.

>>

>Well noted.

>

>>Best regards,

>>

>>Amanda.

>>

>Much love -- Bruce

>

>

>http://www.users.uniserve.com/~samuel/brucemrg.htm

>http://www.users.uniserve.com/~samuel/brucsong.htm

> m(_ _)m

>_

>

>_________________

>You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.

>Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html

>or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

>

>------

>Make your voice heard!

>

>Sign up for the ONElist Weekly Survey. Go to homepage for details.

>

 

 

Angelfire for your free web-based e-mail. http://www.angelfire.com

[Guest guest]

On Mon, 10 May 1999 11:37:32 -0700 "Amanda Erhart"

<mumblecat writes:

>"Amanda Erhart" <mumblecat

>

>

>On Mon, 10 May 1999 13:59:10 Bruce Morgen wrote:

>

>>>That was my intention.

>>>

>>Your "intention" was one

>>of "forcing?"

>

>No, I intended to make it sound as if it was

>inferential.

>

Will you be kind enough to

let me know when you've

stopped playing such games?

Thanks.

>>There is no such "taboo,"

>

>Well, thank you for clearing that up.

>

We live to serve.

>>OK, what you see is what you

>>see.

>

>Then try and take a look at why /you/ feel that is

>the case and how you can know another's intentions.

>

I don't recall claiming to

"know another's intentions,"

I was merely introducing the

possibility of an intention

other than the two you

proposed.

>>To be "fully non dual" is an

>>ideal, a concept -- how is it

>>that one who confesses to

>>being "ego driven" and to a

>>"lack of non dualism" can so

>>confidently declare such an

>>"if" and "should?"

>

>Finally a relevant question, ladies and gentlemen.

>

Finally, a straightforward

sarcasm attempt. :-)

>First I will ask, how do you know it isn't ?

>

>My answer to the question:

>This I understands the concept of non dualism and

>absolute compassion, both in the mind and in the

>heart and can identify ego driveness,

>dualism, egolessness and non dualism

>to a certain extent

> and can manage to separate the two with

>some effort.

>

This is not an understanding,

this an elaborate assumption.

If John's questions had come

from a recognized, "name

brand" teacher or personality,

would you have reacted in the

same way or resorted to an

alternate (set of)

assumption(s)?

>These thing are known in the heart and mind

>through direct experience

>via flashes of non dualism wherein the

>concept of ego was removed, wherein

>the concept of non dualism

>for one instant was realized and the ego drive

>was seen in all its enormity.

>

The juggling of concepts

results in still more concepts,

experiential understanding is

not conceptual.

>This realization was coupled with a compassion

>for the shortcomings and lack of insight in

>self and others and was about the only thing which

>stuck once the flash of insight was over.

>

Apparently.

>Realization in the heart is one thing, manifestation to

>reality is another when enlightenment

>is not yet attained.

>

"Manifestation to reality"

in terms of communication

is *always* problematic,

regardless of

"enlightenment," because

of the limitations of

thought and its child,

language.

>As previously said, the ego is not shed all in one go.

 

It is not even established

that "ego" can be "shed"

at all, regardless of

conceptual assumptions one

way or another.

>Even if the goal has been seen in the distance over the

>top of the hill, it still means one has to keep

>running to get there, it still remains a process,

>maybe even more than before, since it has been

>glimpsed now.

>

So many concepts, so many

assumptions!

>However, I reserve the right to stumble in my own

>legs from time to time and not in the untied laces of

>passing runners.

>

Perhaps one thing that can be

usefully discussed is whether

we have any choice at all as

to when and why we "stumble."

>Thank you.

>

You're welcome.

>Best regards,

>

>Amanda.

>

Much love -- Bruce

>

>

[unaddressed issues remain

from the original reply]:

>>

>>>In addition, a fully enlightened, egoless

>>>being in my view does not feel the need to

>>>teach others, because that is a result of ego,

>>

>>Therefore, Sri Ramana and J.

>>Krishnamurti spent a lifetime

>>of work as "a result of ego?"

>>Moreover, the "egoless being"

>>is yet another ideal/concept,

>>is there really any such

>>person?

>>

>>>but will instead leave them to gain their own

>>>insights on their own terms. Hence, piquing

>>>questions has no point, listening

>>>with compassion has.

>>>

>>The perception of "piquing

>>questions" is entirely yours,

>>but nontheless entirely

>>compatible with "listening

>>with compassion."

>>

>>>That was my point.

>>>

>>OK.

>>

>>>In all egodrivenness.

>>>

>>Well noted.

>>

>>>Best regards,

>>>

>>>Amanda.

>>>

>>Much love -- Bruce

 

_________________

You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.

Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html

or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

[Guest guest]

At 10:02 AM -0700 5/10/1999, Amanda Erhart wrote:

>"Amanda Erhart" <mumblecat

>

>

>On Mon, 10 May 1999 09:35:54 John Thomas wrote:

>

>>>>Who is this "I" that takes vows?

>>>>How are "others" separate from oneself?

>>>>How do "I" save "others" if "others" and "I" are not separate?

>>>>What is there to be "saved" from?

>>>

>>>Are these rhetorical questions or just an attempt at

>>>forcing certain thought patterns on others ?

>>>

>>>Amanda.

>>

>>Who's asking?

>

>Who are you asking about who's asking ?

>

>Amanda

 

Whoever's asking. Who is that?

 

Best wishes,

John Thomas

"Not a Name Brand"

[Guest guest]

>On Mon, 10 May 1999 09:35:54 John Thomas wrote:

>

>>>>Who is this "I" that takes vows?

>>>>How are "others" separate from oneself?

>>>>How do "I" save "others" if "others" and "I" are not separate?

>>>>What is there to be "saved" from?

>>>

>>>Are these rhetorical questions or just an attempt at

>>>forcing certain thought patterns on others ?

>>>

>>>Amanda.

>>

>>Who's asking?

>

>Who are you asking about who's asking ?

>

>Amanda

 

Whoever's asking. Who is that?

 

Best wishes,

John Thomas

"Not a Name Brand"

 

Hey welcome John and Amanda both. I have heard that initial irritation

between people on these lists sometimes hides magnetic intellectual

attraction and points to stimulating philosophical conversations in the

future. Or is that just in the movies :--).

 

Harsha

[Guest guest]

> John Thomas <treebeard

>[...]

> Who is this "I" that takes vows?

 

The "others", if they are not separate from oneself.

> How are "others" separate from oneself?

 

By identifying with the body and its feelings, which is "how" every creature

starts physical life, which in turn is "why" it is both noble and joyful to

"save them" from this delusion. The life of the Buddha and that of Ramana

Maharshi's were great examples of this.

> How do "I" save "others" if "others" and "I" are not separate?

 

In that case, there's no need even to save oneself as there will be an

"other" who isn't an "other", saving "me" who isn't "me"

> What is there to be "saved" from?

 

No, what isn't there to be saved from.

 

Jan

>

> Regards,

> John Thomas

[Guest guest]

>Hey welcome John and Amanda both. I have heard that initial irritation

>between people on these lists sometimes hides magnetic intellectual

>attraction and points to stimulating philosophical conversations in the

>future. Or is that just in the movies :--).

>

>Harsha

>

"Irritation"? "Intellectual"? "Philosophical"? What movie was that?

 

Regards,

John Thomas