Amanda/Vows?

[Guest guest]

Re: Amanda/Vows?

> Mon, 10 May 1999

> "Amanda Erhart" <mumblecat

> wonderful guest

 

Hi Amanda,

 

I am prompted to reply to your letter, which has now become a thread. I

have a few comments on the issue of 'vows', please see below. I also wish

to introduce the concepts of 'Ahimsa' and compassion into this discussion,

which continues to my next posting.

> Dear Linda,

>

> On Mon, 10 May 1999 12:30:23 Linda Callanan wrote:

>

> >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

>

> Thank for your reply.

>

> Your words ring very true and do move me a lot.

>

> Strange thing was, I never thought of any place

> on earth on anywhere else as

> hell until I had a taste of non dualism

> and saw the suffering in others. I was privileged

> enough to lead a life protected from suffering.

 

Now, as you look back, had you actually not suffered, or had you actually

been "protected" from any concept of having your own self? A child guided

to become 'selfless' is a perfect tool of the parents, and will cause them

no stress. Such a child is 'good'.

 

The parental 'racket' of guiding the child to putting the needs and values

of the parents ahead of their (the childs) own is continued on as the

guise of the 'wise Guru', who then merely actuates the parental implant

(existing in the child) much as one uses a 'remote control' with a TV.

'Selfless' creates a race of slaves, entranced to do the will of the

controller.

 

The greater the potential of the child, the easier such control is to

actuate (by parents). Love and harmony are seen as the external 'goals',

and the 'process' is deemed to be 'surrender' to the 'higher good'. The

parent is 'saving' the child, and the child is expected to be _rationally_

gratefull, and to be able to express that in words, the same words the

parent uses to 'guide' the child. Many such words are read and chanted as

'scripture'.

> >Linda: 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 .

>

> Amanda: I agree with you on that. I understand enlightenment is

> not attained until all levels of the ego or I are

> shed.

 

This understanding is true, but only insofar as it relates to the

'guidance' I mention above.

 

Wholeness has nothing to do with 'shedding' or releasing anything but

_impressions_. Your stated understanding is an impression to release; that

is all that it is. It does not relate to any factor of reality, other than

the ongoing conspiracy to remain ignorant of the racket of

control/entrancement/enslavement. This is the oldest racket in the 'world'.

 

> That has far from happened yet, so I'm still in the

> process of working it all out, but it takes time.

 

Yes, time is of the essence. It is _your_ time.

> The first time I heard of non dualism

> as an ipso facto concept relating

> and not one presented by

> ppl who had taken too much LSD in their time

> was 8 weeks ago.

 

I am impressed. 8 weeks... and now you are here. Congratulations. I commend

your steering ability.

> >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

> faster the better. I.e. I'd rather save my own

> behind and get out of here as fast as possible

> than wait for everybody else to finish up and get out. Because that is

>like waiting around for the party to

> finish in order to clean up afterwards.

 

I would rather offer to you, that failure occurs in relation, that it is

relative, and has more to do with the standards/values that one has been

'gifted with' by other PPL, than it has to do with any actual

accomplishment or lack thereof.

> (notwithstanding that with that kind of attitude,

> I will probably be among the last anyway... )

 

The last shall be first...

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

> promises.

 

Those vows are a metaphorical trick, similar to a computer virus. They

cannot take root in one who has transcended suffering... and they are

meaningless except to one who has had the groundwork prepared by parental

'control'.

 

The 'meme' of the opposite-to-suffering cannot take root in the mind of one

who is NOT attempting to escape suffering.

> 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.

 

Yes, idealistic 'doings' are actually the flowers of the seeds of ideas,

ideas not our own, but 'im-planted'.

> 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.

 

As they will do. That is not what we work to 'save' PPL from.

> 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.

 

Can you perhaps experiment with applying the vow to yourself _only_? As a

'thought-experiment'? How does that come out, in your simulator?

> 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.

 

Yes; my understanding is that you were already 'in' and that the vows

pulled you 'out', through the essential inopperability of those vows.

Perhaps this is a hint of the subtlety of the Buddha-nature, no?

> 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.

 

It was that way from the beginning... of your existence in the world-dream,

of which most every parent is an 'agent'.

 

You have taken steps... to contact this 'underground', the refuge of free

scoundrels. As hackers, we can attempt to remove your 'implant', the

value-base which requires the world-dream for the sustaining of your

temporal identity. Remember, though, that your temporal identity need not

be 'shed', only _realized_. The fanatical ravings of spiritual idealists

are the voices of those lost in the abyss of 'mind', spinning in obligatory

movement in reaction to whatever is presented.

> 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.

 

Yes. Bless you. Please refer to my remarks in the beginning of this letter,

concering parental control.

> Very ambivalent about it all.

 

The agnostic is 'safe' from the agents of control. Being yourself will

attract them, but also cause them to wither away to mere information.

> 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.

 

Woven blankets have warp and woof; this is Tantra, the Diamond which cuts

all threads, leaving open space only.

> Best regards,

>

> Amanda.

 

Thank you Amanda for your amazing honesty. I have known many who have had

similar thoughts, but have never expressed them, preferring instead to

remain in the hell of value-based suffering. Self is no value; it is not

relative. You can have that.

 

Highest regards,

 

==Gene Poole==