To: K-list
Recieved: 2002/03/07 10:27
Subject: [K-list] All this talk
From: Joseph Miller
On 2002/03/07 10:27, Joseph Miller posted thus to the K-list:
Dear OnlyCyclesATnospamaol.com,
(Sorry never saw a name or signature)
I've been reading over your posts. I've come to some new conclusions. I
feel the need for clarifications, a few corrections, and some important
points.
It appears we are not speaking the same language. I'm limited I admit.
English is my limit. (Well I can converse extemporaneously in Pig Latin
utbay atthay ependsday onway Englishway, osay Iway on'tay ountcay itway. As
a child I bored easily and wanted to stay out of trouble in school so I did
things to occupy myself and I have a good memory. What can I say? ;-)
It appears you aren't using Standard English, pretty much my limit as I
said, so I didn't and don't understand some of what you are saying. This
accounts for some of our differences. For example: Sacrifice.
My dictionary has a list of meanings for sacrifice, some specialized such as
gift to a deity, but right at the top of the list is
"the forfeiture of something highly valued for the sake of one considered to
have a greater value or claim"
which pretty much describes what a woman does who puts her child before
everything in her life. I know very good professional women with good and
promising careers who have been on the fast track but introspection or some
event caused a reassessment of their priorities. They valued their careers
but they valued their children more (as they should and so should fathers)
and stepped off the fast track, sacrificing raises, promotions, and all that
went with them to spend more time with the children. To a simple English
speaker that is perfectly aligned with the dictionary's definition.
There are other examples but this example should serve to show why I don't
understand the logic that includes things like:
"a mothers love isn't a sacrifice, a mother loving her child is a gift. Love
is so beautiful!! Beautiful!! Beautiful!"
No one has come out against love on this list to my knowledge, certainly not
me. But love without sacrifice is not love. If you aren't willing to give
up something for someone else you don't love him or her. (Part of the
reason for the "forsaking all others" part of the marriage ceremony, saying,
"I'm giving up catting around for this person" among other things.)
But part of the problem doesn't reflect the dictionary question. The part
about "Just remember-I- didn't call you a lower entity" followed a remark
from you that said a quote from me was "actually a saying many lower
entities tell people.” To say you "didn't call you..." is to deny
implication conveys a message. Again a language problem of a kind. To me
anyone who thinks implication has no meaning is a moron. Glad you won't be
taking offense at that.
That was a bit rude.
It was to get your attention. I apologize for any insult.
Part of the above also wasn't a direct as I usually am because I wanted to
lay out the logic behind it, something I usually assume (often
unfortunately) that is clear to everyone. It was a bit rough. I need your
attention for the rest of this note; it is the important part.
Fact is I'm no longer trying to discuss these things with you. From your
notes I've come to believe you honestly believe you have no ego and weren't
trying to be a jerk about anything. I believe your insults to me (such as
the Candyland one) don't exist in your mind because since you have no ego
you have no responsibility for your words or actions or that you are in some
way above the standards of regular people. I say this without anger, with
concern for a fellow human being and with no insult intended, you need help,
if you aren't truly delusional it is still a problem that needs
professsional help.
You need help, but you won't get it from me pointing out things you say that
don't make sense, words that don't mean to you what they mean everywhere
else, to everyone else. You need professional help.
Take a moment to reflect. Nothing in history, no religion, no therapy, has
ever postulated having no ego. Being free of the ego yes (as in not
controlled by it), but not having one, never. It isn't possible because
that is an essential part of being human without it there is only madness.
It is like the dictionary and sacrifice, the word ego has a meaning. That
thing that governs the mind and keeps the person "together” (though often
poorly or badly together) as a person is the ego. Without it the person
ceases to be, a body may be there but it can no longer interact and function
in any acceptable form with others of its kind, it has no base (be it
spiritual or materialistic) to stand on.
Responsible teachers in India have always turned away students with certain
kinds of mental problems. They have advised people without a strong and
developed sense of self, an ego, against meditating. The reason is they are
trying to transcend the ego and samskaras. If the ego is weak, poorly
developed, malformed, damaged in any of several ways and those people
undertake meditation and the spiritual journey it can lead to serious
psychosis, a complete breakdown, sometimes without the possibility of
recovery.
I don't know where your ideas on this topic come from but as I said they are
at odds with thousands of years of study and wisdom. With my admitted ego,
which I am proud to say I believe to be strong and functioning nicely, I
don't have the ego to dispute the widsom of ALL the masters who have gone
before me, spiritual, medical, and psychological.
For your own benefit think about what I've said.
Namaste,
Joe
http://www.kundalini-gateway.org
http://www.domin8rex.com/serpent/spirit/kindex.htm
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.