5652Re: Any relevance here? Dan
- Apr 1, 2003--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Jeff Belyea" <jeff@s...> wrote:
> --- In email@example.com, "judirhodes"And I think Dan's point is this: to be a "happy meditator" requires
> <judirhodes@z...> wrote:
> > --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "G"
> > <crystalkundalini@h...> wrote:
> > >
> > > G: one more additional comment to Jeff's clarity..... you see we
> > > do not think that we are higher - more special - elite... we Know
> > > that what we are is most ordinary ... we have gone past all the
> > > games.... and where we are everyone can be.... behind all of
> > > the shadows and clouds of ignorance (which parade through
> > > mental dramas and judgement) , remains the light of Pure
> > > Being which is everyones birthright.....
> > >
> "We" are HAPPY MEDITATORS - Dan's generous description.
one to define themselves as such, and as such they provide themselves
with yet another cage of identity, that of being the "happy meditator."
So, being a "happy meditator" is just like being a "suffering wannabe"
or a "perpetual loser" insofar as these are all self-generated definitions
of individuality rather than the pure being behind it all.
This isn't to say that a "happy meditator" doesn't have access to
themselves as this pure being, just that they dress this pure being
up as the "happy meditator" and parade it around for those they
consider less happy then themselves.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>