Poo Poo for Pooh.

[Guest guest]

The concept of Forgiveness is a 'ego filling' wrapped in 'self

righteousness

pastry'.

, Glen Livet <tsh925> wrote:

 

Hi Glen....I loved your thoughts....and the only one I would dig

deeper into is this one. Ego-forgiveness maybe could be described

this way. But, in the Sunshine of consciousness there is no

forgiveness....because there is no offense taken....the question is a

mute one. Hugs. Syena.

[Guest guest]

Dear Tim and Syena,

Tim wrote:

> The concept of Forgiveness is a 'ego filling' > wrapped in 'self righteousness pastry'.

Syena wrote:

> Ego-forgiveness maybe could be described this way. > But, in the

Sunshine of consciousness there is no forgiveness....> because there

is no offense taken....> the question is a mute one.

Forgiveness indeed is a concept... does not exist... just like you... :-)

Love, Wim

[Guest guest]

, "Wim Borsboom" <wim@a...> wrote:

 

Forgiveness indeed is a concept... does not exist... just like

you... :-)

>

> Love, Wim

******************

So, I'm a concept? Hmmmm. To be a concept...I must be conceptualized

somewhere....by something. Perhaps I am a concept of myself. So, I

think I'll pinch myself and conceptualize the pain.

 

And if I don't exist...then neither does God.

 

 

Thanks Wim for your depth of insight. Hugs. Syena.

[Guest guest]

--- Wim Borsboom <wim wrote:

> Dear Tim and Syena,

>

> Tim wrote:

> > The concept of Forgiveness is a 'ego filling'

> > wrapped in 'self righteousness pastry'.

>

> Syena wrote:

>

> > Ego-forgiveness maybe could be described this way.

> > But, in the Sunshine of consciousness there is no forgiveness....

> > because there is no offense taken....

> > the question is a mute one.

>

> Forgiveness indeed is a concept... does not exist... just like you...

> :-)

>

> Love, Wim

>

 

Who forgives? The 'I'. And, if the 'I' is to forgive, there is a

revieling of the conditions of that forgiveness. Forgiveness, or the

concept of, is nonexistent, I agree, but the need to carry 'advantage'

over a perceived offending party (real world dynamics here) by way of

guilt, or owing a favor etc... is karma.

 

Now. There are those that would, will, try and do create intentional

situations (offenses) playing off your weaknesses, sensitivities, the

current life position you are in and/or personality to create a need in

you to ask, beg, or perform for their forgiveness.

 

Extreme cases lead to blackmail and extorsion. Perhaps you are on the

other side of this... I don't know.

 

They create the 'false illusion' of this or that and play you as the

hero that is good but can not decide which team is the good team and

this is the 'arena of the middle ground'. That is where I AM throwing

back starfish and taking the heads of demons.

 

Thus, there is no forgiveness for 'intentional acts' against one.

Karma. Who is it that does not forgive? There is no 'I'. And of 'that'

you are not. Sorry. We, as living thinking beings are born with an 'I'

and with that 'I' comes the need for meaning.

 

Balance is the way. To take advantage of a true forgiving nature (one

that does not see or thinks of itself as forgiving but as facilitating

good energy)is karma. Like taking rope.

 

There is no forgiveness for sin or karma in the greater realm. In this

physical realm we use forgiveness as a tool to get this for that. In

the greater realm balance is maintained. As you do, so too, is it done

to you. There are no 'I's there.

 

Personally, I take people at face value. Today you will offend me to my

face and behind my back yet tomorrow, you may start again. New. The

collective of effect on my life is not my concern. That is the war

between me and God and I do not believe in making people pay for God's

mistakes. Does God make mistakes? Now there is a topic.

 

Does this mean that there is no pentenance? No. It means that your

'justice' is built right into your future.

 

Your life is waiting good... or bad.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

=====

-- hobbes

 

 

 

Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Messenger

http://phonecard./

[Guest guest]

Dear Tim,

Do you actually read Ramana Maharshi's writings? Or, do you at least

read the Ramana quotes that Vicky posts so diligently. Do you

enquire, "Who am I?"

Discussing reality, truth, love and bliss is always OK.

Arguing about reality, truth, love and bliss is not... as arguing is about concepts.

Discussing is about how we as humans on our way back to "our innate

wonder", witness, sense, manifest and profess reality, truth, love

and bliss.

Concepts are very useful tools, but outdated the moment they have

helped us to make sense of the wonder. At best, concepts are

temporary tools that help making sense of this miraculous reality of

all that this is...

At worst, concept keep us from contacting reality directly

Once coming to one's senses, one can start throwing the concepts out.

Reality is so neat, it tends to grow on you. :-)

What most do, instead of witnessing reality, they belabor the

concepts, (the idolatry of the concepts), arguing which are best to

get you to recover reality, truth love and bliss the quickest, but...

heeheehee, while arguing... most are forgetting what it is again that

is to be re-covered.

You wrote:

> That is the war between me and God > and I do not believe in making

people pay for God's mistakes. > Does God make mistakes? Now there is

a topic.

This "me" is a concept

God is a concept.

Mistakes are concepts.

> Your life is waiting good... or bad.

Opposites are concepts.

> Your life is waiting...

Huh???

But I'm not, especially not waiting in the belief that conceptions are

more real than perceptions?

So, the only thing to do is, to get to one's senses (again) and to

take it from there, from scratch...

!!! Nothing waiting, a-waiting or in waiting though !!!

Dear Tim, I notice from a lot that you've written so far that you have

a pretty clear understanding of the dynamics of suffering and

illusion... and at some point you even turn a very enjoyable humorous

vicious circle (going counter clockwise):

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

Wim wrote:

>>You don't exist.

Tim answered:> Yes I do. It is you that does not exist. Do you know

why? Because you> exist 'in me and without me' and my awareness of

you is my own. > Shall I forget that:> > My name is Tim Harris.>

???^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

That that by itself is not full circle... (got it?), here is the

clockwise track, the two of us completing each other's circle in this

"Super Conducting Super Colliding Accelerator", the singular

viciousness disappearing in "con-fusion."

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

Tim wrote:

>It is you that does not exist.

Wim answers:Yes I do. It is you that does not exist. Do you know why?

Because youexist 'in me and without me' and my awareness of you is my

own. Shall I forget that:My name is Wim

Borsboom.???^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

> We, as living thinking beings are born with an 'I'> and with that

'I' comes the need for meaning.

No no, the "need for meaning" gets installed the moment a newborn is

not perceived in wonder (first violation) and / or not perceived as a

being of wonder (second violation). Doubt gets installed the moment a

newborn's being is questioned as to efficiency / deficiency (third

violation). From the recoil of these violations comes the illusion of

separation, doubt, deficiency, the need for meaning, purpose, etc.

I Am

You are

S/he is

We all are I

> Jesus Christ. I know I AM.

Interesting every time when Jesus said "that certain something" in

Aramaic (which usually gets translated as "I Am"), he really said

"Ena Ena"...

Now there's a saying to write something about...

Tim, by the way, in a previous post you said:

> ...It is the blindness that you eloquently express> above that

bleeds compassion from my being...

Well thank you... :-) but... do not bleed too much, OK?!

Love, Wim

[Guest guest]

--- Wim Borsboom <wim wrote:

> Dear Tim,

>

> Do you actually read Ramana Maharshi's writings? Or, do you at least

> read the Ramana quotes that Vicky posts so diligently. Do you

> enquire, "Who am I?"

 

No. I know 'who I am'. It is not a question for me.

 

I discuss things 'within the spirit' with Ram, Krishna, Christ, and

Buddha... anything else, I am sure that you would agree, is secondary

to these.

 

Someone told me that you should get those lights for the trees downtown

for the street festival... Who am I?

 

 

 

=====

-- hobbes

 

 

 

Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Messenger

http://phonecard./

[Guest guest]

Dear Tim,

I wrote:> Do you enquire, "Who am I?"

You answered:

> > No. I know 'who I am'. It is not a question for me.

Fair enough!

Tim:

> > I discuss things 'within the spirit' with Ram, Krishna, Christ,

and Buddha...> > anything else, I am sure that you would agree, is

secondary to these.

And "Tim Harris" is secondary to these?

And "Wim Borsboom" as well?

You said above:

> > I know 'who I am'

You mean to say that you also know who I am so well, that you can

easily make decisions as to my primary or secondary placement ? :-) I

notice that you did not place me in your list of beings with whom you

discuss things 'within the spirit'. And on top of that, you are sure

that I will agree with you :-)

You have guts Tim, but... no dice.

I do not see any reason why I am not part of your list, right in

between Christ and Buddha for example... You know why? Because I

am... and... I welcome you to sit amongst us... Can you really? Oh

yes, and that, very simply, thanks to making no distinctions as to

primary and secondary levels about "anything."

All that grading is so conceptual and conditional...the very thing

that leads to suffering in all its illusive varieties.

To be able to grade though, you must have a clear understanding of,

and a firm belief in the adequacies and inadequacies of the human

being, your judgments must be as "good as god's."

So, Tim are you with us? Or are you so convinced that you are

deficient enough that you cannot be? Who convinced you of that? And

under what pressure?

All you seem to know so far is something about classifications,

primary and secondary and maybe more levels...

Where did you pick up that need to grade? Did, by any chance, a notion

of deficiency and inadequacy sneak in?

You wrote:

> Someone told me that you should get those lights> for the trees

downtown for the street festival...

Someone? Me? You? Trees? Festival?

You wrote at the end :

> Who am I?

Why do you ask...

You answered already at the beginning:

> > I know 'who I am'. It is not a question for me.

Nor is it a question for me...

Love, Wim.

(I suggest Tim, that you do read some Ramana material.)