To: K-list
Recieved: 2003/02/10 03:39
Subject: Re: [k-list] Mirrors
From: felix
On 2003/02/10 03:39, felix posted thus to the K-list:
On Sun, 9 Feb 2003 19:53:46 -0000
"Charles" <charles AT_NOSPAM thaitherapy.co.uk> wrote:
> when i see something in someone else
> that i judge (either positively or
> negatively), this is an aspect of myself
> that i am seeing reflected.
>
> how is this so?
> are there any exceptions to the rule?
Hi Charles,
My view on this seems similar to Ken's, whose post I enjoyed
reading. :-)
My take on this is that we perceive through our various
sensory modalities what we think is there, and that's what
we act like is so. It's in the interpretation of what we
perceive that it gets tricky.
Like Ken wrote, we perceive the words and actions of others
as if we were doing what we 'think' they are doing, and make
judgement on what we think they are doing in the same way we
would judge ourselves if we did the same thing. I.E., "Judge
not lest ye be judged."
But, others are not necessarily doing what we 'think' they
are, they're doing what we think we would be doing if we
were them.
One of the problems with this is the "why" they are doing
what they are doing. They might have different reasons for
doing what they're doing than you would, even if, to an
impartial observer (EGAD!), the words and actions were
exactly the same.
If you were to ask the other their reasons for doing what
they think they're doing, you would still have to interpret
what they're telling you, by comparing what you 'think'
they're saying with something you think you did in a similar
way in the past, and obstensibly still end up thinking they
used the same exact reationale you would have, if you did
what you thought they did. With the point being, that other
people don't do what they do for your reasons... and maybe
you don't either.
Presently, I wonder if I even do what I think I'm doing.
Because the so-called experiences I compare the present with
probably didn't happen the way I thought they did, in the
past.
Each of us seem to perceive events not only in different
ways, but store that information depending on what
influences we found interesting at that particular time. If
we had paid attention to any other aspects of the event than
we did, we could have remembered the event in a totally
different way than we do. Our memories of our experiences of
the past don't appear to be all that reliable because they
could have been influenced by any other interest or the favoring of any other sensory modality or even what other
people convinced us was important at the time, instead of
the influences that did shape our recall of events of the
past.
Do you have me-mores (The more of me than you can see.) that
depend on photographs, and only remember the supposed event
by the descriptions of the photographer who told you such
and such happened in a certain way, because they took the
picture of it with their own biases? And yet, you accept it
as true even though you don't even remember the words and
actions they say they witnessed you say and do?
This all comes down to the central issue, in my opinion,
that since we are not who/what we think we are or could have
been (because we could have decided anything else happened
by favoring other input), how can we decide, by comparison,
what we think others are doing and saying by comparing what
we think they are doing and saying with what we think we
did.
We can, however, get to gnow who we 'think' we are by
listening to what we judge others to be like, either
positive or negative. Simply make a list of the things you
say about others, and you have the truth of what you think
you are... straight from the horses mouth.
Of course, this silliness of thinking we are this or that has
nothing to do with the reality that exists beyond thought
and deed, but only what you have decided you should be like
if you were really the person you hallucinate you are. Only
if you think that what you are is indeed the mask you
created to deal with the sensory world.
If you could refuse to limit your conscious awareness to these ridiculous presuppositions, is it possible you could
perform at a much stronger level of understanding than your
local imagination could provide you with? If you did not
kowtow to this mundane level of conscious awareness provided ,to you by chance and some haphazard serendipty, could you
let a more globally evolved understanding imbue you with
behaviors and words that go beyond the sensory limits of
body and soul?
I submit this is what the experiences of Kundalini can
prepare you for. Literally, to go beyond where you have
thought possible, and perhaps, beyond the body of thought or
passion in it's entirity. ;-)
felix
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.