To: K-list
Recieved: 1999/09/20 08:30
Subject: Re: [K-list] seemingly stupid questions about K
From: Martin Thompson
On 1999/09/20 08:30, Martin Thompson posted thus to the K-list:
17:14:31 Mon, 20 Sep 1999
Ville Vainio at Ville Vainio <vvainioATnospamtp.spt.fi> writes:
>On Mon, 20 Sep 1999, Martin Thompson wrote:
>
>> I agree. I think this destroying of the ego business is just an Eastern
>> hang-up. Surely, the point is not to destroy it, but to integrate it,
>> isn't it?
>
>It doesn't matter what the point is, it's a biological fact that the grip
>of ego will be weakened with awakening of k. It's not something you have
>to do or strive for, it just happens.
>
I think that that is the way with integration: it just happens (perhaps
when a certain amount of conscious and unconscious processing has been
done on whatever issue it was that needed to be integrated).
>> >But you dont have to have awakened K to become enlightened I read
>> >somewhere?
>
>> I'm interested in hearing other people's answer to this one. What the
>> heck is enlightenment anyway? As far as I can understand it, we're all
>> enlightened already but most people don't know it! To me, enlightenment
>
>IMO more complete way to say the thing you say here is that when we get
>enlightened, we see there never was any enlightenment to strive for,
That's about what I mean, yes.
> or a
>person that gets enlightenment does not exist anymore.
>
Yes and no. Certainly, the person as a body is still there, but whether
they exist otherwise I think depends on whether their ego has been
destroyed (Eastern style, they are reduced to being a social unit, i.e.,
less but whole) or integrated (Western style, they become more but
whole).
What this whole means, I suppose, is Jung's Self which encompasses all
functions.
>> seems to consist of simply being yourself and being relaxed about it.
>
>It consists of blah and grrrraaaun, accompanied by DOH!
>
>(Sorry, the zen got better of me ;-).
>
>> Big deal. But if that's so, why does self-consciousness seem such a
>> barrier to it when that is part of who we are too?
>
>Part of what? What does "part of who we are" mean? This implies that there
>is something that we "are", which can "contain" other things. Which is not
>exactly true.
I don't really mean it in that sense: I mean it is an aspect, a feature,
a property.
--
Martin Thompson martinATnospamtucana.demon.co.uk
London, UK
Home Page: http://www.tucana.demon.co.uk
Free Regular Income: http://www.virtualis.com/vr/mthomps4/vrp.html
"Everything I do and say with anyone makes a difference." Gita Bellin
DISCLAIMER!
Home | Archive Index | Search the archives | Subscribe
K. List FAQ | Kundalini FAQs | Signs and Symptoms | Awakening Experiences | K. list Polls | Member Essays | Meditations | List Topics | Art Gallery | Cybrary | Sitemap | Email the moderators.
symbol.