To: K-list
Recieved: 2003/10/04 14:30
Subject: RE: [K-list] Philosophical question
From: Goran Starcevic
On 2003/10/04 14:30, Goran Starcevic posted thus to the K-list:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: K-list-bounces AT_NOSPAM kundalini-gateway.org
> [mailto:K-list-bounces AT_NOSPAM kundalini-gateway.org] On Behalf Of Mystress
> Angelique Serpent
> Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 2:55 PM
> To: k-list AT_NOSPAM kundalini-gateway.org
> Subject: RE: [K-list] Philosophical question
>
> You cannot know for sure whether Jesus enjoyed his experience,
This sounds to me as "you can not know whether 2 and 2 are 4" -something
like a little kid arguing, or a nihilist. They are 4 by definition. Jesus
suffered by definition -unless you don't belive in him.
or what
> he intended to accomplish.
The other thing is a induction, yes, inducing from gospels -he never did
anything pointless, why would he do something pointless in the end?
Not to mention how great his torture was.
Whole churches have been divided
> arguing those
> issues.
> You presume to know "The Truth About Jesus", enough to use your
> *beliefs* as a supposedly logical argument in a discussion
> about logic,
> when logically you cannot know... and so your argument
> becomes irrelevant.
>
> What do you think that tells the list members about you? ;) heh.
That I don't mean literally when I say "I'm using logic" but that I also
use strong arguments, combined with it.
> I could similarly dissect all of your "logical" arguments, but
> what for?
Similar to what? ;)
> Rhetoric and logic are not the same thing, eh? The art of
> rhetoric is not about truth, it is about framing things in a way to be
> persuasive, or
> appear true. You are playing a rhetoric game... hiding behind it,
> apparently for your own amusement, perhaps it makes you feel
> powerful...
Hiding? I don't know who/what I am, where I am, where/whether I am
going, why it is as it is, and am not sure of my life choices. What
is there to hide?
My child traumas? ;)
> whereas Elargonauto is dancing naked bravely sharing himself honestly.
I thought he was just sharing his garbage, just like me..
His
> patience and comfort in a vulnerable position makes your logical
> dissection appear rather self serving.
Maybe it wasn't boring to him but when he realized that he stopped
giving me the food.
He had far more patience than
> I... but it
> would not serve his self esteem to continue to be your toy.
Oughtn't it be objective, the self esteem thing?
> >I'd say it's a very interesting indication at least and you and
> >Elargonauto call it 'going in circles' and 'going nowhere'
> -somehow it
> >seems to me that either the both of you are not interested in going
> >closer towards the truth or you haven't understand the
> discussion and
> >are concluding based on that.
>
> Whose truth?
Of anyone who can tell from it about what is independant of what you or
anyone thinks of it.
> Walk a mile in his shoes, and you will understand better. You have
> stated you do not want to... so, what then is your point?
That his miles aren't worth a sh1t from my perspective but you will call
this my garbage anyway.
You want to
> persuade him that he is wrong and you are correct?
Show him.
> You cannot, he is
> dedicated to following Divine Will, and does not worship logic.
Then he showed me. :)
> >My position in this whole story on the level so extremely
> low as this
> >is irrelevant -don't you think?
>
> Doubtless it is relevant to you, or you would not have expended so
> much energy in discussing it.
To me -yes.
> However, with regards to the spiritual unfolding process known as
> Kundalini, and the insights gained thereof... the list topic... it is
> irrelevant and somewhat out of place... except for you, if you are
> wanting to understand.
Just as I said.
> >It isn't that I've come here to achieve something in particular.
>
> If not achievement, then enjoyment? Your choices contradict your
> argument.
Particular meaning "characteristic of one only; distinctive" (I
should've used the word 'peculiar' instead).
> >test myself, maybe understand/hear the 'truth' of the others
>
> You don't want to understand, obviously, and you apparently cannot
> hear...
> so why tell yourself that you do?
I've heared and understood as much as I could and didn't like it so
I said what I said. I belive E's statements are true in a certain
spectrum but not in the whole.
> It is simple
> enough to engage
> empathy and see through the eyes of another. A moment's
> thought experiment,
> to try a new belief on for size and see how the world looks
> different. You
> can always change it back if you don't like it.
>
> You did try it, for a moment, and found the idea scary...
Not the idea or experiment, but his view.
> but instead of
> completing the experiment and riding out the fear to see what
> is on the
> other side, as he suggested, you ran back to your comfort
> zone of safety in
> logic, and went defensive, started trying to project/persuade
> him that your
> fear based limits are truth.
How do you know I found experiment scary and not the view I sensed
from it?
> The issues you are invested in, are your own inner stuff and you
> need to resolve them with yourself instead of trying to using E, or
> anyone else as
> a tool or receptacle...
That's a good point. What started with simple questions has turned
into inner stuff issues very quickly.
> unless they accept the role of guru for you.
A good point. Nor only that -both me (and E?) are far from being
a guru.
> > > >Let me rephrase the question once again, LOL: "If the
> > > direction of your
> > > >mind (which doesn't need to be commissioned by the power of
> > > anything and
> > > >do it's duty as best as it can) commissioned by the
> power of your
> > > >own will is bringing you to the place of your choosing how can
> > > you call it
> > > >'serious limitation of freedom'?!
>
> This conversation has opposite perspectives, depending on your
> chakra perspective and state of awakening.
<cut>
<cut>
<cut>
<cut>
> In other words, for Elargonauto and I, it is safer to surrender to
> the guidance of Divine Will that is communicated through the
> belly, than to try
> to navigate with logic. To my own Self be true, and logic can
> go whistle.
It's good we (me) at least figured something out ;)
> The real irony, is that mental issues, thinking and logic are of
> the power chakra, as well as the signals of karma/dharma that are
> the spiritual
> navigation system. It is the chakra level issue you are at in
> your process,
> apparently.
I'm at chakra level 3 issues now?! You've localized my sh1t!
Another good thing :)
> >Isn't the only difference between ego-free mind and ego-mind the
> >absence of the qualities of ego?
>
> No, not entirely. Ego may remain, but it is no longer in charge.
> Actions do not stem from it, it's desires are not a motivating factor.
> It is more like an entertaining monkey chattering away in a
> corner, rather
> than the whole of personal identity. You can watch it
> display its antics,
> without acting on them or identifying with them as your Self.
Why would you ignore a part of yourself? With what will you discern
between the lower vibrations of your own and other's consciousness
but with the ego which is the discerning consciousness itself?
> Do you really have freedom of choice, or are you a puppet on
> Divine strings that thinks itself independent? Not seeing the
> strings, you may
> fancy yourself independent and choose to be blind to how the Divine
> manipulates your decisions, how narrowly you are actually
> constrained. It
> is part of the nature of ego, to be blind to the truth of
> your helplessness.
If you're a puppet both before and after surrendering to the guidance
how can then in essence exist difference in qualities of freedom before
and after surrendering?
> Can you *really* do anything you want??? I bet you can think of
> dozens, if not thousands of things you cannot do.
This is true, but I approximate the nubmer is same if not greater after
you surrender to the guidance -that is not essential.
> If you were raised in a box and never saw outside of it, would you
> be able to comprehend freedom? What feels like freedom to the
> ego-mind in its
> box, looks like confinement and restriction, from a
> perspective outside of
> the box.
> It is very *freeing* to give the task of decision making,
> over to the
> smarter, infinite part of your mind instead of trying to use
> the limited
> part that is logic. It is very freeing to let go of worry and
> concern for
> consequences, and enjoy the ride that is life. "Life is not
> meant to be a
> struggle" (Stewart Wilde) if you are struggling, then you are
> off your
> path. Going with the flow of divine will, carries you
> effortless. Thus,
> "effort" = "illusion."
>
> The ego freedom you describe, is like boasting that you are free
> to walk in tight circles, and bang your head against the wall as
> often as you
> like. The freedom Elargonauto speaks of, is an inner
> navigator that shows
> where the doorways are. The freedom to experience being
> infinite, rather
> than experiencing oneself as a grocery list of statistics (age, name,
> occupation, marital status, etc.) confined to the limits of a
> physical body.
Ok, I'm changing perspective; Isn't then the ultimate freedom to
fully understand that infinite part of your mind? Why only listen
to your inner navigator -why not fully understand what lies behind
it and act according to it, with full 'responsibility' (which may even
be an illusion)? Isn't but only that the freedom?
> >That is not what Elargonauto is saying because he finds it
> imperative
> >to not have a limitation of freedom, unless of course he thought of
> >freedom as being completely devoted to something higher than
> yourself
> >(which he will probably say now) ;>
>
> That would be the general definition of freedom, on this list.
> This is a kundalini list, the subject header says philosophical
> question. Surrender
> is the imperative of Kundalini, and it leads to an experience
> of freedom
> that is like nothing the ego mind can comprehend.
My algebra professor once said: "We can't comprehend it but we can
talk about it." :)
> A wise teacher once explained to me how commitment is freedom.
> Once you commit to something, you are free to pursue it with all
> attention, you are
> no longer being pulled in many directions, distracted by
> other options. too
> many open doors can be as paralyzing as none, if one cannot
> make a decision
> to choose one and the committment to step through it.
But there are not as many directions -Maybe you can only choose
between two -up and down; going towards existence and towards
non-existence?
<cut>
> >Why would anyone want to loose the consciousness (or
> illusion?) of his
> >own identity (ego), besides wanting to see past the illusion of it?
>
> Is that not reason enough?
It is indeed. I appologize for rather stupid question.
> > > NLP is excellent for doing this.
> >
> >What is NLP?
>
> Neuro linguistic programming
<cut>
Thanks for the abundancy of info you gave me. I should have checked
it my self. I have no excuse for being lazy -I obviously wasn't
thinking when I asked you the question besides google.com :)
To get a reminder of your password or adjust your subscription, visit:
http://www.kundalini-gateway.org/mailman/listinfo/k-list_kundalini-gateway.org
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.