Guest guest Posted September 14, 2001 Report Share Posted September 14, 2001 Dear Harsha -- Like you, and probably others here, I attended a candlelight vigil last night. There has been a constant stream of events, people, emotions, and meetings to deal with the past three days. Today, there was a memorial service. Many spoke of love, courage, and renewal. When many speak, and one voice is heard clearly, it is evident what hate and violence cannot destroy. Now - a brief lull in the incessant goings-on, and I now have a chance to respond to the message you posted to me previously. Thanks for this honest and thoughtful statement. You raise several worthy points, which I address in the spirit of love. For, in times such as these, there is nothing else to address except love. > Harsha (snip): > It is obvious to me that in living life, > judgments and evaluations have > to be made about situations, people, "spiritual > teachers" etc. What leads us > to form those judgments is another questions but > such judgments are made. It > seems to me that our personalities are attracted to > some people, things, and > situations and not so to others. I find certain > spiritual teachers and > teachings "unattractive" and even offensive at times > and others more > "attractive". I don't wish to or need to pretend > otherwise. Yes, attraction and repulsion are energy dynamics. The maintenance of parameters of attraction and repulsion in terms of values, judgments and other variables, such as emotional response, are aspects of the pattern we call "personality". To "pretend otherwise" would simply be another version of a dynamic of attraction and repulsion, perhaps an attraction to an image of "not being judgmental". So, yes, attraction and repulsion "happen" as part of being human. To me, the important thing to note is that these kinds of judgments and responses are based on memory. The thought and response "I like (or don't like) that teacher, president, homeless person, etc." is dependent on past experience and results, as well as conclusions made by thought -- and thought is interdependent with memory and the past. So, I don't suggest trying to eliminate judgments that happen. I look at how such judgments happen, notice the limitation of the pattern (whether it be called personality, the past, or whatever), and "see" that which *is*, that which is not defined in terms of the past, or parameters of attraction/repulsion. > The nature of consciousness itself is > Self-attraction. I disagree. Consciousness determines, via thought, ways to cognize "the nature of things". Thus, it can never comprehend its own nature, which is beyond thought. Its own nature is already "present" prior to comprehending anything. Because it can never catch itself, so to speak, consciousness isn't really "consciousness", insofar as associations of qualities or experiences are involved in the concept "consciousness". Consciousness (or *it*, if you will), having no nature that can be comprehended, certainly doesn't have the nature of Self-attraction. For there to be attraction, there has to be a space, a separation -- otherwise, how could there be the movement of attraction? And there can be no attraction without repulsion. So, for consciousness to have the nature of Self-attraction, it would have to have the nature of Self-repulsion as well. So, I'd rather say, "Consciousness" (substitute other words if you wish such as Self, Being, Truth, Identity, *it*) is *that* which is beyond attraction or repulsion, prior to any movement of being. >So it is natural > that we are attracted to that which we value in > ourselves. Yes. Until the point that we have nothing to value or devalue in ourselves. It's true that we can't help seeking that which we project from ourselves, up until there is no projection, hence no self to be imagined as a projector. For, not only are we attracted to what we value, "we" are formed through the conceptual process that is contructed by the movement called "attraction and repulsion". "We" not only give form to attractions and repulsions, the dynamics of attraction and repulsion give form to "me" ... > We seek > satisfaction and pleasure through joining others in > conscious or unconscious > relationships of various types. Husband - Wife, > Parent - Child, Guru - > Disciple, Friend - Friend, etc. > > I don't mind being attracted to some people or some > teachings and not so to > others. Well, whether "you" mind or not, makes no difference to the dynamic. "You" are a construct of the dynamic. Even if you object to the dynamic, your very objecting ends up being part of it, the dynamic that seems to create "you", which "you" seem to project ... > > Dan, I wanted to comment on something in an earlier > post of yours as well. > You had stated: > > "I sense a difference in tone between > one who is simply being aware, and > one who is seeking to gain others' attention, > following, admiration, adoration. > > And, many tricksters as well as charistmatic > teachers, leaders, speakers and writers fall into > that category." > I agree with you Dan. However, consider that the > nature of attraction is > built into the fabric of the Universe. There is no fabric to the Universe. There is only the "fabric-less" Consciousness which is none other than Love and Being yet which really has no name (i.e., *that*) which has no "within" nor "without", hence no inherent structure, nor lack of structure. >The earth and > the planets are able to > go around the sun in a relatively smooth orbit > because of the law of > attraction to some center of gravity. The earth and planets, and the "law of gravity", are the same thing. They don't go 'round because of a law external to themselves. They themselves are the action of the so-called "law" ... in other words, the Universe is seemless manifestation without separation, so there are no separable laws governing things that happen in some space external to the "laws" ... > Have you seen > a family gathered > around a little baby girl or baby boy. Parents, > Grandparents, uncles, aunts, > cousins all giving their utmost attention, > adoration, admiration. Gently > massaging her feet, looking into her eyes. The mere > fact of existence of > this baby draws attention, adoration, admiration, > etc., even though the baby > does not seek it. Clearly, if the baby is considered as an external agent that draws love from me, there is a conceptual separation between "me" and "the baby" ... To me, adoration is a version of love in which distance is yet assumed as real. If there can be adoration, there can be despising, because they are two versions of the same dynamic. Admiration and derogation go hand in hand. What people usually call love is just a polarity with indifference. The love that has no bounds and no opposite, the nameless love, is not a movement toward, (an attraction), nor a movement away (a repulsion). >Sometimes, it is the element of > innocence, lack of self > consciousness, and overwhelming beauty of life > whether of a baby or a sage > that calls forth admiration and adoration. Yes. Yet admiration and adoration are always toward an image. And thus, these states of relationship are transitional and not "ultimate" ... Adoration passes away with wisdom, because wisdom is the love that allows no object, no relation to another. Don't misunderstand me as someone who misses your point, who doesn't see that you are suggesting that the infinite includes all versions of love, that adoration, although seeming to involve two is expression of One. I see your point and value it. Yet, I point to an ending of any reliance on image, which is inexpressible in words, and which allows neither "two" nor "one" to manifest or unmanifest. Although this point seems as if "prior to" any manifestation, it is all that is, and has nothing whatsoever to do with constructs that are played out as a "being going through states in time" ... (This statement is merely suggestive, not meant to point to any *absence* of a "being going through states in time") Certainly, I have no reason to negate, nor to be against adoration, which is simply one of many feeling-states that affect perception, and which come and go. Nothing is out of place. When a transitional state passes into another transitional state, where is that which has no change, no state, no movement? It is not apart, not somewhere else. So, it is in the state of adoration, and in the state of disillusionment with adoration. It is here prior to adoration and after the death of adoration, the one who adores, and that which is adored. > Some of > my best moments have been > in adoration of others. And what have some of your worst moments been? And what is *that* in which any moment is equal and inseparable from any other moment? If a trickster and > charismatic teachers can call > forth that type of adoration as well, so be it. If > the motive for the > adoration is pure, the one who adores gets saturated > with the beauty he or > she perceives in the "guru" even though it may be a > trickster or a just a > charismatic teacher. That is how it seems to me. Yes. This sems to me like saying that there may be an aspect of love in even the darkest places. I agree with this very much. Love is never absent. That is the mystery of love. Namaste and thank you! Love, Dan Terrorist Attacks on U.S. - How can you help? Donate cash, emergency relief information http://dailynews./fc/US/Emergency_Information/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 14, 2001 Report Share Posted September 14, 2001 Dear Dan, Thank you for your thoughtful response. You are indeed right Dan that whatever word is used will have an opposite. Ancient sages often used Sat-Chit-Ananda (Existence-Consciousness-Bliss) to describe the Self. However, some can criticize this on the ground that the Self is beyond existence and non-existence, knowledge, ignorance, etc. Sages point out based on their experience that Sat-Chit-Ananda is one monolithic whole. And that Sat-Chit-Ananda are not attributes but the inherent nature of the Self It Self as one Inseparable Whole. What to do? Some language has to be used. And whatever language is used can be subjected to logical scrutiny. Then that logical scrutiny can be subjected to further more rigorous scrutiny, etc. I had said that the nature of consciousness itself is Self-Attraction. Here, "Attraction" was not meant as a movement towards anything. It is just another way to use language to describe a method, an orientation, a way of understanding. If it does not make sense, that is ok. I do not view any statement as describing some ultimate truth. Truth Is Self. Self Is Truth. When One Is It, there is no being outside it to be attracted and so forth. That is why I said, It's nature is that of Self-attraction. It has no where to move and no one to move towards. But if someone is more satisfied with a different combination of words, negations, etc. to understand the wholeness of their nature, why not? If you like your tea without sugar, I will have it the same way. :-). Love to all Harsha d b [dan330033] Friday, September 14, 2001 5:48 PM RE: adoration and love / Harsha Dear Harsha -- Like you, and probably others here, I attended a candlelight vigil last night. There has been a constant stream of events, people, emotions, and meetings to deal with the past three days. Today, there was a memorial service. Many spoke of love, courage, and renewal. When many speak, and one voice is heard clearly, it is evident what hate and violence cannot destroy. Now - a brief lull in the incessant goings-on, and I now have a chance to respond to the message you posted to me previously. Thanks for this honest and thoughtful statement. You raise several worthy points, which I address in the spirit of love. For, in times such as these, there is nothing else to address except love. > Harsha (snip): > It is obvious to me that in living life, > judgments and evaluations have > to be made about situations, people, "spiritual > teachers" etc. What leads us > to form those judgments is another questions but > such judgments are made. It > seems to me that our personalities are attracted to > some people, things, and > situations and not so to others. I find certain > spiritual teachers and > teachings "unattractive" and even offensive at times > and others more > "attractive". I don't wish to or need to pretend > otherwise. Yes, attraction and repulsion are energy dynamics. The maintenance of parameters of attraction and repulsion in terms of values, judgments and other variables, such as emotional response, are aspects of the pattern we call "personality". To "pretend otherwise" would simply be another version of a dynamic of attraction and repulsion, perhaps an attraction to an image of "not being judgmental". So, yes, attraction and repulsion "happen" as part of being human. To me, the important thing to note is that these kinds of judgments and responses are based on memory. The thought and response "I like (or don't like) that teacher, president, homeless person, etc." is dependent on past experience and results, as well as conclusions made by thought -- and thought is interdependent with memory and the past. So, I don't suggest trying to eliminate judgments that happen. I look at how such judgments happen, notice the limitation of the pattern (whether it be called personality, the past, or whatever), and "see" that which *is*, that which is not defined in terms of the past, or parameters of attraction/repulsion. > The nature of consciousness itself is > Self-attraction. I disagree. Consciousness determines, via thought, ways to cognize "the nature of things". Thus, it can never comprehend its own nature, which is beyond thought. Its own nature is already "present" prior to comprehending anything. Because it can never catch itself, so to speak, consciousness isn't really "consciousness", insofar as associations of qualities or experiences are involved in the concept "consciousness". Consciousness (or *it*, if you will), having no nature that can be comprehended, certainly doesn't have the nature of Self-attraction. For there to be attraction, there has to be a space, a separation -- otherwise, how could there be the movement of attraction? And there can be no attraction without repulsion. So, for consciousness to have the nature of Self-attraction, it would have to have the nature of Self-repulsion as well. So, I'd rather say, "Consciousness" (substitute other words if you wish such as Self, Being, Truth, Identity, *it*) is *that* which is beyond attraction or repulsion, prior to any movement of being. >So it is natural > that we are attracted to that which we value in > ourselves. Yes. Until the point that we have nothing to value or devalue in ourselves. It's true that we can't help seeking that which we project from ourselves, up until there is no projection, hence no self to be imagined as a projector. For, not only are we attracted to what we value, "we" are formed through the conceptual process that is contructed by the movement called "attraction and repulsion". "We" not only give form to attractions and repulsions, the dynamics of attraction and repulsion give form to "me" ... > We seek > satisfaction and pleasure through joining others in > conscious or unconscious > relationships of various types. Husband - Wife, > Parent - Child, Guru - > Disciple, Friend - Friend, etc. > > I don't mind being attracted to some people or some > teachings and not so to > others. Well, whether "you" mind or not, makes no difference to the dynamic. "You" are a construct of the dynamic. Even if you object to the dynamic, your very objecting ends up being part of it, the dynamic that seems to create "you", which "you" seem to project ... > > Dan, I wanted to comment on something in an earlier > post of yours as well. > You had stated: > > "I sense a difference in tone between > one who is simply being aware, and > one who is seeking to gain others' attention, > following, admiration, adoration. > > And, many tricksters as well as charistmatic > teachers, leaders, speakers and writers fall into > that category." > I agree with you Dan. However, consider that the > nature of attraction is > built into the fabric of the Universe. There is no fabric to the Universe. There is only the "fabric-less" Consciousness which is none other than Love and Being yet which really has no name (i.e., *that*) which has no "within" nor "without", hence no inherent structure, nor lack of structure. >The earth and > the planets are able to > go around the sun in a relatively smooth orbit > because of the law of > attraction to some center of gravity. The earth and planets, and the "law of gravity", are the same thing. They don't go 'round because of a law external to themselves. They themselves are the action of the so-called "law" ... in other words, the Universe is seemless manifestation without separation, so there are no separable laws governing things that happen in some space external to the "laws" ... > Have you seen > a family gathered > around a little baby girl or baby boy. Parents, > Grandparents, uncles, aunts, > cousins all giving their utmost attention, > adoration, admiration. Gently > massaging her feet, looking into her eyes. The mere > fact of existence of > this baby draws attention, adoration, admiration, > etc., even though the baby > does not seek it. Clearly, if the baby is considered as an external agent that draws love from me, there is a conceptual separation between "me" and "the baby" ... To me, adoration is a version of love in which distance is yet assumed as real. If there can be adoration, there can be despising, because they are two versions of the same dynamic. Admiration and derogation go hand in hand. What people usually call love is just a polarity with indifference. The love that has no bounds and no opposite, the nameless love, is not a movement toward, (an attraction), nor a movement away (a repulsion). >Sometimes, it is the element of > innocence, lack of self > consciousness, and overwhelming beauty of life > whether of a baby or a sage > that calls forth admiration and adoration. Yes. Yet admiration and adoration are always toward an image. And thus, these states of relationship are transitional and not "ultimate" ... Adoration passes away with wisdom, because wisdom is the love that allows no object, no relation to another. Don't misunderstand me as someone who misses your point, who doesn't see that you are suggesting that the infinite includes all versions of love, that adoration, although seeming to involve two is expression of One. I see your point and value it. Yet, I point to an ending of any reliance on image, which is inexpressible in words, and which allows neither "two" nor "one" to manifest or unmanifest. Although this point seems as if "prior to" any manifestation, it is all that is, and has nothing whatsoever to do with constructs that are played out as a "being going through states in time" ... (This statement is merely suggestive, not meant to point to any *absence* of a "being going through states in time") Certainly, I have no reason to negate, nor to be against adoration, which is simply one of many feeling-states that affect perception, and which come and go. Nothing is out of place. When a transitional state passes into another transitional state, where is that which has no change, no state, no movement? It is not apart, not somewhere else. So, it is in the state of adoration, and in the state of disillusionment with adoration. It is here prior to adoration and after the death of adoration, the one who adores, and that which is adored. > Some of > my best moments have been > in adoration of others. And what have some of your worst moments been? And what is *that* in which any moment is equal and inseparable from any other moment? If a trickster and > charismatic teachers can call > forth that type of adoration as well, so be it. If > the motive for the > adoration is pure, the one who adores gets saturated > with the beauty he or > she perceives in the "guru" even though it may be a > trickster or a just a > charismatic teacher. That is how it seems to me. Yes. This sems to me like saying that there may be an aspect of love in even the darkest places. I agree with this very much. Love is never absent. That is the mystery of love. Namaste and thank you! Love, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 15, 2001 Report Share Posted September 15, 2001 Just a little more BS: The adoration of the infant's unconditionality is the "apparent" movement of unconditional love meeting itself...through the dynamic simultaneous polarity (being) of self/SELF. , "Harsha" <harsha-hkl@h...> wrote: > Dear Dan, > > Thank you for your thoughtful response. You are indeed right Dan that > whatever word is used will have an opposite. Ancient sages often used > Sat-Chit-Ananda (Existence-Consciousness-Bliss) to describe the Self. > However, some can criticize this on the ground that the Self is beyond > existence and non-existence, knowledge, ignorance, etc. > > Sages point out based on their experience that Sat-Chit- Ananda is one > monolithic whole. And that Sat-Chit-Ananda are not attributes but the > inherent nature of the Self It Self as one Inseparable Whole. What to do? > Some language has to be used. And whatever language is used can be subjected > to logical scrutiny. Then that logical scrutiny can be subjected to further > more rigorous scrutiny, etc. > > I had said that the nature of consciousness itself is Self- Attraction. > Here, "Attraction" was not meant as a movement towards anything. It is just > another way to use language to describe a method, an orientation, a way of > understanding. If it does not make sense, that is ok. I do not view any > statement as describing some ultimate truth. Truth Is Self. Self Is Truth. > When One Is It, there is no being outside it to be attracted and so forth. > That is why I said, It's nature is that of Self-attraction. It has no where > to move and no one to move towards. But if someone is more satisfied with a > different combination of words, negations, etc. to understand the wholeness > of their nature, why not? > > If you like your tea without sugar, I will have it the same way. :-). > > Love to all > Harsha > > > > > d b [dan330033] > Friday, September 14, 2001 5:48 PM > > RE: adoration and love / Harsha > > > Dear Harsha -- > > Like you, and probably others here, I attended a > candlelight vigil last night. There has been a > constant stream of events, people, emotions, and > meetings to deal with the past three days. Today, > there was a memorial service. Many spoke of > love, courage, and renewal. When many speak, > and one voice is heard clearly, it is evident > what hate and violence cannot destroy. > > Now - a brief lull in the incessant goings-on, > and I now have a chance to respond > to the message you posted to me previously. > > Thanks for this honest and thoughtful statement. > You raise several worthy points, which I address > in the spirit of love. For, in times such > as these, there is nothing else to address > except love. > > > Harsha (snip): > > It is obvious to me that in living life, > > judgments and evaluations have > > to be made about situations, people, "spiritual > > teachers" etc. What leads us > > to form those judgments is another questions but > > such judgments are made. It > > seems to me that our personalities are attracted to > > some people, things, and > > situations and not so to others. I find certain > > spiritual teachers and > > teachings "unattractive" and even offensive at times > > and others more > > "attractive". I don't wish to or need to pretend > > otherwise. > > Yes, attraction and repulsion are energy dynamics. > The maintenance of parameters of attraction and > repulsion in terms of values, judgments and > other variables, such as emotional response, > are aspects of the pattern we call "personality". > To "pretend otherwise" would simply be another > version of a dynamic of attraction and > repulsion, perhaps an attraction to an image > of "not being judgmental". > So, yes, attraction and repulsion "happen" > as part of being human. > To me, the important thing to note is that > these kinds of judgments and responses > are based on memory. The thought and response > "I like (or don't like) that teacher, president, > homeless person, etc." is dependent on past > experience and results, as well as conclusions > made by thought -- and thought is interdependent > with memory and the past. > > So, I don't suggest trying to eliminate judgments > that happen. I look at how such judgments happen, > notice the limitation of the pattern (whether > it be called personality, the past, or whatever), > and "see" that which *is*, that which is not > defined in terms of the past, or parameters of > attraction/repulsion. > > > The nature of consciousness itself is > > Self-attraction. > > I disagree. > Consciousness determines, via thought, ways > to cognize "the nature of things". > Thus, it can never comprehend its own nature, > which is beyond thought. > Its own nature is already "present" prior to > comprehending anything. > Because it can never catch itself, so to speak, > consciousness isn't really "consciousness", > insofar as associations of qualities or experiences > are involved in the concept "consciousness". > > Consciousness (or *it*, if you will), having > no nature that can be comprehended, certainly > doesn't have the nature of Self-attraction. > For there to be attraction, there has to be > a space, a separation -- otherwise, how > could there be the movement of attraction? > And there can be no attraction without repulsion. > So, for consciousness to have the nature of > Self-attraction, it would have to have the nature > of Self-repulsion as well. > > So, I'd rather say, "Consciousness" (substitute other > words if you wish such as Self, Being, Truth, > Identity, *it*) is *that* which is beyond attraction > or repulsion, prior to any movement of being. > > > >So it is natural > > that we are attracted to that which we value in > > ourselves. > > Yes. Until the point that we have nothing to > value or devalue in ourselves. > It's true that we can't help seeking that which > we project from ourselves, up until there is > no projection, hence no self to be imagined > as a projector. > For, not only are we attracted to what we value, > "we" are formed through the conceptual process that > is contructed by the movement called > "attraction and repulsion". > "We" not only give form to attractions and repulsions, > the dynamics of attraction and repulsion give > form to "me" ... > > > We seek > > satisfaction and pleasure through joining others in > > conscious or unconscious > > relationships of various types. Husband - Wife, > > Parent - Child, Guru - > > Disciple, Friend - Friend, etc. > > > > I don't mind being attracted to some people or some > > teachings and not so to > > others. > > Well, whether "you" mind or not, makes no > difference to the dynamic. > "You" are a construct of the dynamic. > Even if you object to the dynamic, your > very objecting ends up being part of it, > the dynamic that seems to create "you", > which "you" seem to project ... > > > > > Dan, I wanted to comment on something in an earlier > > post of yours as well. > > You had stated: > > > > "I sense a difference in tone between > > one who is simply being aware, and > > one who is seeking to gain others' attention, > > following, admiration, adoration. > > > > And, many tricksters as well as charistmatic > > teachers, leaders, speakers and writers fall into > > that category." > > > I agree with you Dan. However, consider that the > > nature of attraction is > > built into the fabric of the Universe. > > There is no fabric to the Universe. > There is only the "fabric-less" Consciousness > which is none other than Love and Being > yet which really has no name (i.e., *that*) > which has no "within" nor "without", > hence no inherent structure, nor lack > of structure. > > >The earth and > > the planets are able to > > go around the sun in a relatively smooth orbit > > because of the law of > > attraction to some center of gravity. > > The earth and planets, and the "law of gravity", > are the same thing. They don't go 'round > because of a law external to themselves. > They themselves are the action of the so-called > "law" ... in other words, the Universe is > seemless manifestation without separation, > so there are no separable laws governing > things that happen in some space external > to the "laws" ... > > > Have you seen > > a family gathered > > around a little baby girl or baby boy. Parents, > > Grandparents, uncles, aunts, > > cousins all giving their utmost attention, > > adoration, admiration. Gently > > massaging her feet, looking into her eyes. The mere > > fact of existence of > > this baby draws attention, adoration, admiration, > > etc., even though the baby > > does not seek it. > > Clearly, if the baby is considered as an external > agent that draws love from me, there is a > conceptual separation between "me" and "the > baby" ... > > To me, adoration is a version of love in which > distance is yet assumed as real. If there > can be adoration, there can be despising, > because they are two versions of the same > dynamic. Admiration and derogation go hand > in hand. What people usually call love > is just a polarity with indifference. The > love that has no bounds and no opposite, > the nameless love, is not a movement toward, > (an attraction), nor a movement away (a repulsion). > > >Sometimes, it is the element of > > innocence, lack of self > > consciousness, and overwhelming beauty of life > > whether of a baby or a sage > > that calls forth admiration and adoration. > > Yes. Yet admiration and adoration > are always toward an image. > And thus, these states of relationship > are transitional and not "ultimate" ... > > Adoration passes away with wisdom, > because wisdom is the love that > allows no object, no relation to > another. > > Don't misunderstand me as someone who > misses your point, who doesn't see that > you are suggesting that the infinite > includes all versions of love, that > adoration, although seeming to involve > two is expression of One. I see your > point and value it. Yet, I point to > an ending of any reliance on image, which > is inexpressible in words, and which > allows neither "two" nor "one" to > manifest or unmanifest. Although this > point seems as if "prior to" any manifestation, > it is all that is, and has nothing whatsoever > to do with constructs that are played out > as a "being going through states in time" ... > (This statement is merely suggestive, not > meant to point to any *absence* of a "being > going through states in time") > > Certainly, I have no reason to negate, > nor to be against adoration, which is simply > one of many feeling-states that affect > perception, and which come and go. > > Nothing is out of place. > > When a transitional state passes into > another transitional state, where is > that which has no change, no state, > no movement? It is not apart, not somewhere > else. So, it is in the state of adoration, > and in the state of disillusionment with > adoration. It is here prior to adoration > and after the death of adoration, the one > who adores, and that which is adored. > > > > Some of > > my best moments have been > > in adoration of others. > > And what have some of your worst moments > been? > And what is *that* in which any moment > is equal and inseparable from any other > moment? > > If a trickster and > > charismatic teachers can call > > forth that type of adoration as well, so be it. If > > the motive for the > > adoration is pure, the one who adores gets saturated > > with the beauty he or > > she perceives in the "guru" even though it may be a > > trickster or a just a > > charismatic teacher. That is how it seems to me. > > Yes. This sems to me like saying that there may > be an aspect of love in even the darkest > places. I agree with this very much. > Love is never absent. > That is the mystery of love. > > Namaste and thank you! > > Love, > Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 15, 2001 Report Share Posted September 15, 2001 Thanks Ed. I think you and Dan need to have a conversation! :-). When you start using those kinds of terms, I feel only qualified to listen! Love Harsha eea [eea] Saturday, September 15, 2001 12:12 PM Re: adoration and love / Harsha Just a little more BS: The adoration of the infant's unconditionality is the "apparent" movement of unconditional love meeting itself...through the dynamic simultaneous polarity (being) of self/SELF. , "Harsha" <harsha-hkl@h...> wrote: > Dear Dan, > > Thank you for your thoughtful response. You are indeed right Dan that > whatever word is used will have an opposite. Ancient sages often used > Sat-Chit-Ananda (Existence-Consciousness-Bliss) to describe the Self. > However, some can criticize this on the ground that the Self is beyond > existence and non-existence, knowledge, ignorance, etc. > > Sages point out based on their experience that Sat-Chit- Ananda is one > monolithic whole. And that Sat-Chit-Ananda are not attributes but the > inherent nature of the Self It Self as one Inseparable Whole. What to do? > Some language has to be used. And whatever language is used can be subjected > to logical scrutiny. Then that logical scrutiny can be subjected to further > more rigorous scrutiny, etc. > > I had said that the nature of consciousness itself is Self- Attraction. > Here, "Attraction" was not meant as a movement towards anything. It is just > another way to use language to describe a method, an orientation, a way of > understanding. If it does not make sense, that is ok. I do not view any > statement as describing some ultimate truth. Truth Is Self. Self Is Truth. > When One Is It, there is no being outside it to be attracted and so forth. > That is why I said, It's nature is that of Self-attraction. It has no where > to move and no one to move towards. But if someone is more satisfied with a > different combination of words, negations, etc. to understand the wholeness > of their nature, why not? > > If you like your tea without sugar, I will have it the same way. :-). > > Love to all > Harsha > > > > > d b [dan330033] > Friday, September 14, 2001 5:48 PM > > RE: adoration and love / Harsha > > > Dear Harsha -- > > Like you, and probably others here, I attended a > candlelight vigil last night. There has been a > constant stream of events, people, emotions, and > meetings to deal with the past three days. Today, > there was a memorial service. Many spoke of > love, courage, and renewal. When many speak, > and one voice is heard clearly, it is evident > what hate and violence cannot destroy. > > Now - a brief lull in the incessant goings-on, > and I now have a chance to respond > to the message you posted to me previously. > > Thanks for this honest and thoughtful statement. > You raise several worthy points, which I address > in the spirit of love. For, in times such > as these, there is nothing else to address > except love. > > > Harsha (snip): > > It is obvious to me that in living life, > > judgments and evaluations have > > to be made about situations, people, "spiritual > > teachers" etc. What leads us > > to form those judgments is another questions but > > such judgments are made. It > > seems to me that our personalities are attracted to > > some people, things, and > > situations and not so to others. I find certain > > spiritual teachers and > > teachings "unattractive" and even offensive at times > > and others more > > "attractive". I don't wish to or need to pretend > > otherwise. > > Yes, attraction and repulsion are energy dynamics. > The maintenance of parameters of attraction and > repulsion in terms of values, judgments and > other variables, such as emotional response, > are aspects of the pattern we call "personality". > To "pretend otherwise" would simply be another > version of a dynamic of attraction and > repulsion, perhaps an attraction to an image > of "not being judgmental". > So, yes, attraction and repulsion "happen" > as part of being human. > To me, the important thing to note is that > these kinds of judgments and responses > are based on memory. The thought and response > "I like (or don't like) that teacher, president, > homeless person, etc." is dependent on past > experience and results, as well as conclusions > made by thought -- and thought is interdependent > with memory and the past. > > So, I don't suggest trying to eliminate judgments > that happen. I look at how such judgments happen, > notice the limitation of the pattern (whether > it be called personality, the past, or whatever), > and "see" that which *is*, that which is not > defined in terms of the past, or parameters of > attraction/repulsion. > > > The nature of consciousness itself is > > Self-attraction. > > I disagree. > Consciousness determines, via thought, ways > to cognize "the nature of things". > Thus, it can never comprehend its own nature, > which is beyond thought. > Its own nature is already "present" prior to > comprehending anything. > Because it can never catch itself, so to speak, > consciousness isn't really "consciousness", > insofar as associations of qualities or experiences > are involved in the concept "consciousness". > > Consciousness (or *it*, if you will), having > no nature that can be comprehended, certainly > doesn't have the nature of Self-attraction. > For there to be attraction, there has to be > a space, a separation -- otherwise, how > could there be the movement of attraction? > And there can be no attraction without repulsion. > So, for consciousness to have the nature of > Self-attraction, it would have to have the nature > of Self-repulsion as well. > > So, I'd rather say, "Consciousness" (substitute other > words if you wish such as Self, Being, Truth, > Identity, *it*) is *that* which is beyond attraction > or repulsion, prior to any movement of being. > > > >So it is natural > > that we are attracted to that which we value in > > ourselves. > > Yes. Until the point that we have nothing to > value or devalue in ourselves. > It's true that we can't help seeking that which > we project from ourselves, up until there is > no projection, hence no self to be imagined > as a projector. > For, not only are we attracted to what we value, > "we" are formed through the conceptual process that > is contructed by the movement called > "attraction and repulsion". > "We" not only give form to attractions and repulsions, > the dynamics of attraction and repulsion give > form to "me" ... > > > We seek > > satisfaction and pleasure through joining others in > > conscious or unconscious > > relationships of various types. Husband - Wife, > > Parent - Child, Guru - > > Disciple, Friend - Friend, etc. > > > > I don't mind being attracted to some people or some > > teachings and not so to > > others. > > Well, whether "you" mind or not, makes no > difference to the dynamic. > "You" are a construct of the dynamic. > Even if you object to the dynamic, your > very objecting ends up being part of it, > the dynamic that seems to create "you", > which "you" seem to project ... > > > > > Dan, I wanted to comment on something in an earlier > > post of yours as well. > > You had stated: > > > > "I sense a difference in tone between > > one who is simply being aware, and > > one who is seeking to gain others' attention, > > following, admiration, adoration. > > > > And, many tricksters as well as charistmatic > > teachers, leaders, speakers and writers fall into > > that category." > > > I agree with you Dan. However, consider that the > > nature of attraction is > > built into the fabric of the Universe. > > There is no fabric to the Universe. > There is only the "fabric-less" Consciousness > which is none other than Love and Being > yet which really has no name (i.e., *that*) > which has no "within" nor "without", > hence no inherent structure, nor lack > of structure. > > >The earth and > > the planets are able to > > go around the sun in a relatively smooth orbit > > because of the law of > > attraction to some center of gravity. > > The earth and planets, and the "law of gravity", > are the same thing. They don't go 'round > because of a law external to themselves. > They themselves are the action of the so-called > "law" ... in other words, the Universe is > seemless manifestation without separation, > so there are no separable laws governing > things that happen in some space external > to the "laws" ... > > > Have you seen > > a family gathered > > around a little baby girl or baby boy. Parents, > > Grandparents, uncles, aunts, > > cousins all giving their utmost attention, > > adoration, admiration. Gently > > massaging her feet, looking into her eyes. The mere > > fact of existence of > > this baby draws attention, adoration, admiration, > > etc., even though the baby > > does not seek it. > > Clearly, if the baby is considered as an external > agent that draws love from me, there is a > conceptual separation between "me" and "the > baby" ... > > To me, adoration is a version of love in which > distance is yet assumed as real. If there > can be adoration, there can be despising, > because they are two versions of the same > dynamic. Admiration and derogation go hand > in hand. What people usually call love > is just a polarity with indifference. The > love that has no bounds and no opposite, > the nameless love, is not a movement toward, > (an attraction), nor a movement away (a repulsion). > > >Sometimes, it is the element of > > innocence, lack of self > > consciousness, and overwhelming beauty of life > > whether of a baby or a sage > > that calls forth admiration and adoration. > > Yes. Yet admiration and adoration > are always toward an image. > And thus, these states of relationship > are transitional and not "ultimate" ... > > Adoration passes away with wisdom, > because wisdom is the love that > allows no object, no relation to > another. > > Don't misunderstand me as someone who > misses your point, who doesn't see that > you are suggesting that the infinite > includes all versions of love, that > adoration, although seeming to involve > two is expression of One. I see your > point and value it. Yet, I point to > an ending of any reliance on image, which > is inexpressible in words, and which > allows neither "two" nor "one" to > manifest or unmanifest. Although this > point seems as if "prior to" any manifestation, > it is all that is, and has nothing whatsoever > to do with constructs that are played out > as a "being going through states in time" ... > (This statement is merely suggestive, not > meant to point to any *absence* of a "being > going through states in time") > > Certainly, I have no reason to negate, > nor to be against adoration, which is simply > one of many feeling-states that affect > perception, and which come and go. > > Nothing is out of place. > > When a transitional state passes into > another transitional state, where is > that which has no change, no state, > no movement? It is not apart, not somewhere > else. So, it is in the state of adoration, > and in the state of disillusionment with > adoration. It is here prior to adoration > and after the death of adoration, the one > who adores, and that which is adored. > > > > Some of > > my best moments have been > > in adoration of others. > > And what have some of your worst moments > been? > And what is *that* in which any moment > is equal and inseparable from any other > moment? > > If a trickster and > > charismatic teachers can call > > forth that type of adoration as well, so be it. If > > the motive for the > > adoration is pure, the one who adores gets saturated > > with the beauty he or > > she perceives in the "guru" even though it may be a > > trickster or a just a > > charismatic teacher. That is how it seems to me. > > Yes. This sems to me like saying that there may > be an aspect of love in even the darkest > places. I agree with this very much. > Love is never absent. > That is the mystery of love. > > Namaste and thank you! > > Love, > Dan /join All paths go somewhere. No path goes nowhere. Paths, places, sights, perceptions, and indeed all experiences arise from and exist in and subside back into the Space of Awareness. Like waves rising are not different than the ocean, all things arising from Awareness are of the nature of Awareness. Awareness does not come and go but is always Present. It is Home. Home is where the Heart Is. Jnanis know the Heart to be the Finality of Eternal Being. A true devotee relishes in the Truth of Self-Knowledge, spontaneously arising from within into It Self. Welcome all to a. Your use of is subject to Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 16, 2001 Report Share Posted September 16, 2001 >Thanks Ed. I think you and Dan need to have a conversation! :-). Namaste, Harsha! >When you start using those kinds of terms, I feel only qualified to listen! Well then, you might enjoy the curried alphabet soup he makes of my words. :-) Peace, brother. >>Just a little more BS: The adoration of the infant's >>unconditionality is the "apparent" movement of >>unconditional love meeting itself...through the dynamic >>simultaneous >>polarity (being) of self/SELF. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 16, 2001 Report Share Posted September 16, 2001 eea [eea] >Thanks Ed. I think you and Dan need to have a conversation! :-). Namaste, Harsha! >When you start using those kinds of terms, I feel only qualified to listen! Well then, you might enjoy the curried alphabet soup he makes of my words. :-) Peace, brother. ************************************************ Namaste Ed! Yes, Dan is gifted with words and the overwhelming intelligence, understanding, and capacity to use them. His prose approaches poetry, his critique goes to the heart of the matter and his logic is unassailable. Dan takes words as far as they can go. Dan's enormous talents are supplemented with a generous and a kind heart and overflowing wisdom and we love him for that. The limitations of words Ed, especially in describing the Truth of Reality, is that we have to make the assumption that we can stand outside the Truth, Reality, and therefore can speak about it in a manner that is independent of that Reality. That is why anything can be said. Love Harsha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 16, 2001 Report Share Posted September 16, 2001 Dear Harsha, > Thank you for your thoughtful response. You're welcome. My pleasure, and thanks for yours, as well. > You are > indeed right Dan that > whatever word is used will have an opposite. Ancient > sages often used > Sat-Chit-Ananda (Existence-Consciousness-Bliss) to > describe the Self. > However, some can criticize this on the ground that > the Self is beyond > existence and non-existence, knowledge, ignorance, > etc. Indeed, it is the central assumption of language and thought, to be able to contrast something with what it is not, in such a way as to form definition, meaning and relationship. That this assumption is found across cultures, in the structures that are assumed in order to think, organize perception and society, and form language, speaks to the universality of the "human being" ... My response, however, was not simply to note the bias inherent in language, but to take a look at the limitations of "adoration" -- to humbly acknowledge love prior to, and beyond states such as adoration, and similarly prior to the dynamics of judgment, attraction, and repulsion. > > Sages point out based on their experience that > Sat-Chit-Ananda is one > monolithic whole. And that Sat-Chit-Ananda are not > attributes but the > inherent nature of the Self It Self as one > Inseparable Whole. What to do? There is nothing to do, and nothing that hasn't already been done. > Some language has to be used. And whatever language > is used can be subjected > to logical scrutiny. Then that logical scrutiny can > be subjected to further > more rigorous scrutiny, etc. My response to you included logic, Harsha, but simultaneously expresses intuitive awareness. I wrote simply to point to the limitations of an idealization of adoration. To be clear -- I am not against adoration, nor am I saying that someone needs to never express adoration. "What is" is inclusive of all possible states, including adoration, repugnance, indifference. Yet "what is" is not adoring, not the object of adoration, nor repelled, nor indifferent. How can "what is" be inclusive of all possible states, yet be within no states, having no qualities? Like this! Certainly I am not intrigued by logical scrutiny for its own sake, nor by endlessly subjecting logic to logic. In fact, I don't see "what is" as the outcome of logical scrutiny. That there is love beyond attraction and repulsion, and beyond adoration, is what I addressed, which is actually "a point prior to and beyond logical scrutiny". Remember -- your previous statements had to do with the necessity of making judgments, of being attracted to certain teachers and sages, indifferent to or repulsed by others, and finding adoration to be valuable in and of itself. It was in that context that I spoke. That is what I addressed, not the concept that everything needs to be subjected to logical scrutiny ad infinitum. To be clear with you, dear Harsha, what I'm saying is that adoration is a transitory state of being that involves a relationship in which there is one and another. > I had said that the nature of consciousness itself > is Self-Attraction. > Here, "Attraction" was not meant as a movement > towards anything. It is just > another way to use language to describe a method, an > orientation, a way of > understanding. If it does not make sense, that is > ok. Yes, I'm sure that's true of any of my statements as well, if they don't make sense, they don't make sense. I speak not in service of a method or an orientation, nor against a method or an orientation. Simply put, where there is no outside, and thus no being who can be apart, there is no future outcome to be attained, hence no method to put in place. There is nothing to orient. Here there can be no understanding nor adoration to be had, nor is there in any way a limitation or lack of understanding or love. Acknowledging we are "now" beyond logic, words, or sensations, we can speak what we have to say, without worrying about whether or not we've made sense. My situation when I speak of these things is utterly hopeless, and I acknowledge that. > I do not view any > statement as describing some ultimate truth. Truth > Is Self. Self Is Truth. > When One Is It, there is no being outside it to be > attracted and so forth. Indeed - anything said about *this* cannot be taken itself as *this*, for this is not definable as a verbal statement -- yet there is nothing other than *this*. So, we rest in peace "now", and say what we will, or say nothing. "When one is it", there is no such thing as ever not having been it, nor of anything that could have ever not been it. > That is why I said, It's nature is that of > Self-attraction. It has no where > to move and no one to move towards. Thank you for clarifying. >But if someone > is more satisfied with a > different combination of words, negations, etc. to > understand the wholeness > of their nature, why not? Certainly, one's nature isn't definable by words, that's been acknowledged ;-) Yet, words are used to communicate by humans, and nothing is out of place ;-) Usually words are used to achieve objectives, such as organizing actions or imparting a point of view. So, when words are used to express what has no objective, such words can't be understood as words usually are understood (when goals and objectives are maintained). Understanding "now" must be comprehended as neither imparting meaning, nor lacking meaning-- not at all "meaningless", this word (regardless whether "you" or "I" speak) -- is itself revealing to itself. So, yes, if your use of "self-attraction" was said in this way, then, indeed, it "makes sense" ... As you suggest I say it in whatever way fits for me, I will say "Self-revelation" ... And I'm sure the same "criticism" could apply to that word, too, for what is there to be revealed to whom? > If you like your tea without sugar, I will have it > the same way. :-). Regardless of who drinks the tea in what way, it ends up in the same place ;-) Love, Dan Terrorist Attacks on U.S. - How can you help? Donate cash, emergency relief information http://dailynews./fc/US/Emergency_Information/ 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.