1629[Meditation Society of America] Re: THE SAGE'S VIEW
- Jan 2, 2003--- In email@example.com, Gregory Goode
> The understanding is not experiential - whatever experience you canthink of - understanding is "in back of it." If understanding *were*
experiential (and I don't mean understanding how to fill out one's
tax form), then it would be just another whiff that comes and goes.
>********** Exactly, and people chase sprituality like it's a goddaman
orgasm. Understanding transcends (in back of) the whole "chase"
business itself. Orgasms come, orgasms go, spritual experiences
come, spriitual experiences go - so much the worse for it! :-) Ha-ha!
> It's like when I learned that there's no Santa Claus. I can tracethe event back to a certain point in chronological time (sneaking
downstairs one Christmas eve and seeing my parents wrap the
presents. They talked about they'd make the bike be from Santa...).
But what was left was not a mental image constantly remembered and
rehearsed ("There is no Santa, there is no Santa).
>Santa. Not having that notion is not an experience....
> No, it's more the dissolving of the notion that there *is* a
>the cessation of that experience too!
> So if you're looking for an experience, then get ready to look for
>guess that everyone has experiences... at least everyone alive .. :-)
> At 07:38 AM 1/2/03 +0200, Athanor wrote:
> >Understanding is experiential! How do you understand than, Judi? i
and judi, if the ego is not the ground, than what is it? what are you
> >what's wrong with Sarlo?
> > > understanding is experiential.
> > ****** Wrong again! Understanding is non-experiential.
> > Ever heard the term "non-duality"? Well there you have it.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>