Judi still speaks here thanks to yours truly.

[Guest guest]

Editors note: So that Viorica and the pure angels here are not

offended I have erased the complete verions of the F word.

 

> > J: I support intelligent discussion on the topic or issue. I

don't

> > support hit and run posting.

>

>***** May I remind you, I didn't run anywhere. Harsha is the one

>that always turns tail. The King of Avoidance! What do you think

>his little "sansatngh" is? It's an avoidance party. LOL

>They're all playing satsangh over there. LOL

>What pisses me off is that he uses Ramana's name to get followers

>for his own egotistical purposes with Harsha playing priest.

>He's a hit among the church ladies! LOL He's got 'em all making

>cupcakes. LOL With sprinkles! LOLOL

 

Hi Judi --

 

Sure, the world's going to hell in a handbasket.

When has that not been the case?

Don't follow leaders, watch the parking meters ...

 

It's a deck party on the U.S.S. Titanic.

LOL...

Let's rearrange some of the deck chairs ...

:-)

 

Hi Judi!

> > I'm not sure why you chose to express yourself

> > in a way that was sure to get you expelled from

> > satsangh. If you would have inhibited

> > the aggressive personalized attacking, you could

> > have had a dialogue about a point such as the one

> > you make above, which might have been interesting ...

> >

>**** Yes, wouldn't that be nice, there are some people you can

>talk to, but Harsha is not one of them. In other words,

>if he was so all loving, like he struts himself around,

>knowing my upsetness with him, why didn't he say, my god Judi,

>why are you so upset with me, what did I do?

 

Is that your image of what a loving person does, when

someone says "f you" to that person?

 

>That's love, and Harsha refuses it. I think the problem with

>Harsha is that no one has told him get f-ed before. :-)

 

How could you possibly know that?

It seems highly unlikely to me.

>Excuse my language.I bet Harsha's never been married has he?

 

I'm not sure.

I guess you're saying you have to be married, in order

to have been told "f you"? I can attest that this

is not so ;-)

>:-)) The line is right here Bud! :-) hehehe

>How does that country song go, "Mind your own business,

>I got to license to fight." :-))

 

For me, it's a question about communication, not

a question about needing a license to fight.

 

If there is a genuine interest in speaking to Harsha about

love, and whether he believes he is all-loving, to use your

words, and whether he is genuinely interested or not when someone

is upset -- probably the dialogue is more likely to occur

if there is not flagrant disrespect voiced immediately at

the beginning. If there is not genuine interest in speaking

to Harsha about love, then there is not communication --

perhaps there is the attempt to make a point about Harsha

to others, in which Harsha thus becomes objectified?

 

> > Krishamurti used to say that a person who insists

> > on non-violence tends to suppress, and

> > suppression (of thoughts, feelings, nontraditional

> > voices) is violent.

> >

>**** Exactly. I hate people like that, they tend to scare

>the shit out of me. You never know what they're up to.

>Church is the last place I'd take my kids to be babysat. :-)

 

Okay.

Well, I'm glad to know I got the point of

what you were saying ;-)

 

It seems that you're saying that what Harsha considers

to be love, seems to you to be supression. I think you

have something to say to him about this, although I'm

not sure that he's able to hear any of it, with all the

disrespect and "f you's" being hurled immediately

at the onset of the conversation. So, it's a disconnect,

and the communication doesn't happen. And life goes on ...

> > Nonviolence is "what is", when there is no activity

> > to impose upon "what is", as a someone who will

> > bring values, ideals, and an intention to make events

> > have a certain outcome.

>

>**** Exactly, it's *inherent* in other words.

 

It's "what is"! ;-)

> > This seems to be a hidden message of the Hebrew

> > Testament as well, in which it was clear that

> > YHVH would never be constrained by human

> > rules and expectations about the nature of

> > love and wisdom ...

> >

> >

>******

>Yes, and it's never really ever constrained in the first place.

 

Absolutely!

 

I am perfectly free all along.

Nothing has ever constrained anything.

 

And, as you've pointed out at times, it's sad that

so much beauty seems to be missed ...

 

But then, there are so many ways that

"the struggle to exist, survive -- and promote

continuing existence" seems

to capture "being aware" ...