Vows / Gene Poole

[Guest guest]

Dear Gene Poole,

 

Thanks for your considerate and inspiring replies

to my post on the Bodhosattva vows.

 

I appreciated a whole lot as I had just realized

how far from god I have kept myself and tried to

address questions around that in meditation.

 

Your replies gave me a lot to think about.

 

Here are a few comments for the sharing of thoughts:

 

On Tue, 11 May 1999 11:18:52 ==Gene Poole== wrote:

>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'.

 

I do see your point.

 

I guess all children experience the tug of war between

wanting to conform and developing an independent self

with the love from parents as a carrot dangling in

front of their face to make them become

"selfless" as per the parents' will.

 

I did conform to a high degree.

>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)

 

I most definitely see your point.

 

It is all such a dance of give and take and perceived

wants and demanded wants.

 

A pause from the dance floor is 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'.

 

That is very true !

 

When there is no allowance for individuality

and variation of

expression, there is obviously a dynamic of wanting

to preserve present, and perhaps is the greatest

dynamic that of wanting to preserve old patterns of

power, in whatever context.

>> 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.

 

Thanks for the reminder. This is something I should

have seen by myself a long time ago, but didn't.

Takes time to sort new concepts out.

>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.

 

So a shedding of impressions includes the impression

of conformity to "selflessness" and external control ?

 

That is an interesting idea. I will have to chew a

little bit on it.

>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.

 

Thank you, that is a new thought and certainly a

very valid one.

 

Only when the disgustedness over the given standards

and values have reached a certain point, is it usually

possible to see them for what they are. But by then,

they are often just exchanged for another set of

values to compare oneself against. I suspect

one must strive hard in order not to let that happen.

>> 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'.

 

I see. I suppose that is why I have a bit of a

problem with it.

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

>who is NOT attempting to escape suffering.

 

I certainly see your point.

 

It is again a handing down of control in the form

of scriptures and old standards...

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

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

 

Yes, that is idealism, most often views inherited from

someone else.

>> 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?

 

I though about asking about that.

 

If I AM includes everyone, then saving just one should

suffice to save everyone, as much as saving everyone

would feel like saving oneself.

 

I also came to the conclusion that saving just one

other living being as well as "oneself"

then may count as saving "all". Logically.

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

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

 

Yes, that is most certainly correct.

 

And the vows were taken as a want to conform and

a want to be deserved of love, to be a "good

child".

>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.

 

I see that time and again. Many ppl never stop searching.

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

>concering parental control.

 

I feel the best thing would be to remain a

no controller and still try and extend love to

others. Not always easy.

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

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

 

At this point in time, being myself feels like

all I can do.

 

There is no wonder why everybody on the K list talk

about "being oneself" and "knowing oneself". Few

really do, but it is worth a try.

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

>all threads, leaving open space only.

 

And limitless possibility once the threads have been cut.

>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.

 

Thanks.

 

There were a lot of things to think of here, and I will go through it and sort

it out.

 

Your ideas were in many ways new and striking

and have been inspirational and useful to

develope a better sense of self guidance.

 

Thank you again for taking the time of sharing

of your thoughts and views.

 

Best regards,

 

Amanda.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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