Guest guest Posted August 18, 2001 Report Share Posted August 18, 2001 Once it is realized that every word, phrase, and thought, and that to which they refer, is a reflection and manifestation of the infinite, then no words in themselves can be seen to be harmful. That being understood, any 'reaction' to those words which are less than transcendent, is the responsibility of the reader and should be dealt with accordingly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 18, 2001 Report Share Posted August 18, 2001 - eea (AT) aug (DOT) com Once it is realized that every word, phrase, and thought, and thatto which they refer, is a reflection and manifestation of theinfinite, then no words in themselves can be seen to be harmful. That being understood, any 'reaction' to those words which are less than transcendent, is the responsibility of the reader and should be dealt with accordingly. ---------------Dear Ed, Uh, point of logic here... so why isn't any 'reaction' to words just as much equally a reflection and manifestation of the infinite? And why isn't what is 'first said' the responsibility of the sayer, if his own 'reactions' to words subsequently are? Looks like you are trying to draw some line that doesn't exist between actions and reactions, to divy up all the responsibility on one side. By your own definition here, 'nothing said or done' can be anything 'less than transcendent' since all is equally a reflection of the infinite. Your statements are just contradictory, and can't both be true at once. If you are going to require transcendence and make the reader responsible, why not start with the writer? The fact is we are all both at once. You seem to want to give carte blanche by saying words are just words. Would you shout "Fire!" and then blame all the panicked people for reacting instead of transcending what is just a word? Saying "and that to which they refer" adds another dimension of context. This is more commonly called reality. That said, generally I do agree that people are accountable for their reactions, in the sense that they may be accurate indicators of a person's awareness or maturity. (so many factors to this!) This is about the most 'unequal' standard that can be imagined!! And so lifelike too. With love, Gloria Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 19, 2001 Report Share Posted August 19, 2001 Hi Gloria, nice sharing with you again. Ed: >>Once it is realized that every word, phrase, and thought, and that>>to which they refer, is a reflection and manifestation of the>>infinite, then no words in themselves can be seen to be harmful. >>That being understood, any 'reaction' to those words which is less >>than transcendent, is the responsibility of the reader and should be >>dealt with accordingly. Gloria: >Uh, point of logic here... so why isn't any 'reaction' to words just as much equally a >reflection and manifestation of the infinite? All reactions are reflections and manifestations of the infinite, though some offer understanding, some lack understanding. >>And why isn't what is 'first said' the responsibility of the sayer, if his own 'reactions' to words subsequently are? It is. But the responsibility originated when the sayer responded to a prior message. In other words the respons-ability begins with the listening and interpretation of what is being said. The ensuing reaction statement follows the interpreted meaning. >Looks like you are trying to draw some line that doesn't exist >between actions and reactions, to divy up all the responsibility on >one side. Not really...all things considered. >By your own definition here, 'nothing said or done' can be anything 'less than >transcendent' since all is equally a reflection of the >infinite. Yes all reactions are reflections of the infinite. But some offer human understanding. Others are filtered through layers of emotionally conditioned limitation. >Your statements are just contradictory, and can't both be true at >once. This seems to be a basic limitation of logic and perception -not really seeing simultaneously...one's self as human and transcendent. >If you are going to require transcendence and make the reader >responsible, why not start with the writer? The fact is we are all >both at once. This was addressed above. You seem to want to give carte blanche by saying words are just words. Would you shout "Fire!" and then blame all the panicked people for reacting instead of transcending what is just a word? I am referring to dialog on the list, not to physical situations. Sorry I didn't make that clear. >Saying "and that to which they refer" adds another dimension of >context. This is more commonly called reality. This is about the >most 'unequal' standard that can be imagined!! And so lifelike too. >With love, >Gloria And love from, Ed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 19, 2001 Report Share Posted August 19, 2001 >Yes all reactions are reflections of the infinite. But some offer human >understanding. Others are filtered through layers of emotionally >conditioned limitation. Dear Ed and Gloria, :-) Would you then say limitation is an attribute of the infinite? Would you say this is limitless? Is there such a thing as unconditional limitation? Is it possible for the infinite not to have a reflection? Or are some 'actions' neither reactive or causative, in other words unconditioned? In yet other words, what are you talking about . . . :-) Lobster exo People can join exo by sending a BLANK email to: exo- or visit: http://pages.britishlibrary.net/lobster/exxo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 19, 2001 Report Share Posted August 19, 2001 , Lobster <lobster@b...> wrote: > > >Yes all reactions are reflections of the infinite. But some offer human > >understanding. Others are filtered through layers of emotionally > >conditioned limitation. > > Dear Ed and Gloria, > :-) > Would you then say > limitation is an attribute of the > infinite? Would you say this is limitless? > Is there such a thing as unconditional limitation? > Is it possible for the infinite not to have a > reflection? Or are some 'actions' > neither reactive or causative, > in other words unconditioned? > In yet other words, what are you > talking about . . . > > :-) > Lobster Hi Lobster, No trap good enough to catch you. Now to answer your questions: It is a rather strange world we live in. Well, see you later. :-) Ed > > exo > People can join exo by sending a BLANK > email to: exo-@t... > or visit: http://pages.britishlibrary.net/lobster/exxo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 19, 2001 Report Share Posted August 19, 2001 Dear Ed, You answered Gloria: >>And why isn't what is 'first said' the responsibility of the sayer, if his own 'reactions' to words subsequently are? It is. But the responsibility originated when the sayer responded to a prior message. In other words the respons-ability begins with the listening and interpretation of what is being said. The ensuing reaction statement follows the interpreted meaning. Kheyala: When you say, "prior message," are you referring to the initial impulse to speak? If you are, this really interests me because I find that words can spontaneously erupt and be totally accurate and totally "respons-able," as you say. It also seems that words can erupt and be emotionally filtered, as you say. ( Maybe I just answered my own question, because I just noticed the word "spontaneously" in the first sentence, regarding truly Empty communication.) In both instances, it seems to be beyond my control...because if it was up to me, well, I simply wouldn't do the latter. In both instances, it _seems_ spontaneous. Would you say that the spontanaity of the emotional responses is simply illusion? Because there must be time and a "me" to sneak in there, right? Would you vouch for Ramana and say that the only way to know is to Be that Stillness? Am I asking questions here or am I actually making statements? Kheyala P.S. I feel that this is really important because I am well aware that we are not only speaking about words, here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 19, 2001 Report Share Posted August 19, 2001 , "Kheyala" <kheyala@n...> wrote: > Dear Ed, > You answered Gloria: > >>And why isn't what is 'first said' the responsibility of the sayer, if his own 'reactions' to words subsequently are? > > > It is. But the responsibility originated when the sayer responded to a prior message. In other words the respons-ability begins with the listening and interpretation of what is being said. The ensuing reaction statement follows the interpreted meaning. > Hi Kheyala, "Prior message" here refers to the thought the sayer is responding to. Not sure where you are going with the rest of your message. Seems like you might be wondering when you are being spontaneous. Lotsa love, Ed > Kheyala: > > When you say, "prior message," are you referring to the initial impulse to speak? > > If you are, this really interests me because I find that words can spontaneously erupt and be totally accurate and totally "respons-able," as you say. > > It also seems that words can erupt and be emotionally filtered, as you say. > > ( Maybe I just answered my own question, because I just noticed the word "spontaneously" in the first sentence, regarding truly Empty communication.) > > In both instances, it seems to be beyond my control...because if it was up to me, well, I simply wouldn't do the latter. In both instances, it _seems_ spontaneous. > > Would you say that the spontanaity of the emotional responses is simply illusion? Because there must be time and a "me" to sneak in there, right? > > Would you vouch for Ramana and say that the only way to know is to Be that Stillness? > > Am I asking questions here or am I actually making statements? > > Kheyala > > P.S. I feel that this is really important because I am well aware that we are not only speaking about words, here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 19, 2001 Report Share Posted August 19, 2001 Hi Gloria, nice sharing with you again. Ed: snip I am referring to dialog on the list, not to physical situations. Sorry I didn't make that clear. Hi again Ed, If it's not too late to keep from over-complicating this... :) just let me say that I do understand your point about reactions to words being emotionally filtered, interpreted, etc. Maybe we could just say that every word, action, intention, reaction, interpretation, etc, is reflective of a level of awareness and leave it at that. This is not hard for anyone to understand. Or as Andrew is fond of saying, "You can call me anything, just don't call me late to dinner." Love again too, Gloria Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.