Guest guest Posted September 23, 2001 Report Share Posted September 23, 2001 Dear Dan, I wrote: > > It is about time that you responded, Dan. > > Did you notice how the word 'correctly' triggered you? You wrote: > Did you notice how my response > elicited the concept of "triggered"? And did you notice that the word "triggered" elicited your response? And on and on we can go... This is an example of a common 'avoidance' maneuver, so tiring for the person who keeps doing it. Instead of dealing with content, the respondent starts dealing with process, in an attempt to deviate from the issue at hand. I wrote the word "correct" which prompted you to write about "correcting", which is not the word I used at all and which word is different in meaning as well as function. In a subsequent post to you, I gently attempted to guide you back, urging you to understand what I said by prompting you not to "think that I meant what you understood..." That is my right and duty...and... yours as well. If we want to communicate, we will have to make sure that we don't deviate, unless we decide to do so together. Instead of responding to my urge to revisit my words, you decided to sidestep to a neighboring word, luring me away from an issue that you apparently felt the need to avoid. What's the use of me saying something and you hearing something else? > Interesting that responses > are evaluated by "the mind of Wim" > as triggered or not triggered, is it not? This was not about "'triggering," nor was this about "the mind of Wim", this was about the word "correct" in a sentence that that you did not get the meaning of. You are very clever in your sidestepping maneuver as you are not only moving the target, you are also changing it. But hey, to no avail...! > What do you make of the phrase > "it's about time" arising? It IS about "time", it is not about triggering. I know what I write, that's why I write it. You apparently have a problem with time, that makes you lift it out and capitalize on it... not realizing that your cleverness shows your weakness. As you may have noticed, later on in my response to you, I dealt with time as well as I noticed that you displayed a difficulty with it. (Your remarks were: "Being timeless, there is no first step, second step, etc.") You see Dan, years ago I already went through deliberations similar to yours, and found them to be philosophically flawed... A wise lady and life prompted me, and...I could not afford to beat around the bush any longer... reality called... Not only do you find 'time' problematic, you also have an issue with 'space'. You have a difficulty with steps, simple walking, one foot after the other... traversing the earth... > Perhaps some kind of schedule of expectations? I did not 'expect or hope' that you would respond, I 'knew' that you would respond... and you did... because it was that time for you... I wrote: > > What I say is true, > > but that does not at all lead to your conclusion > > that I am "El and Paul." You wrote: > Nothing leads to it. You seem a poor reader, it is you who lead yourself to the conclusion, "If what you say is true, then you are El and Paul." That is what you wrote... not me. > It's not a conclusion. > It's the apriori reality of being. That "I am El and Paul" (your conclusion) is not the a priori reality of being. You are messy in expressing yourself. > > That we, in full reality of love, feel at-oneness > > - no distinction - > > does not at all mean that I 'am' the one I love. > It's not a feeling, Wim. Why don't you find out what "feeling" is exactly... you may then agree with me... I wrote: > > No matter how we love and how much... > > we cannot physically be what we love, except ourselves... > Now you've interjected the conceptual > filter of physical and nonphysical. I used the word "physically." I did not use the word "nonphysical", it is not in my active vocabulary. As I stated before, opposites have no value in reality. You've got a mixed up philosophy here. The 'physical' is real and perceivable through the faculties of the senses and their extensions in science and research. The physical is measurable, is matter, has mass, can be 'hand'led, 'mani'pulated. Words like 'meter', 'matter', 'measure', 'mani-pulate' all derive from the Sanskrit 'maya' which stems from the Aryan root MA 'to measure by hand'. (Nothing illusive there!!!) The word 'physical' (as well as the word 'be') comes from the Greek 'phyein' = to bring forth. The word 'nature' comes from the Latin 'nasci' = to be born. Energy from the Greek 'energos' = energy, work, labour which leads to birth. 'Res natura', 'the nature of things'). Anything that is not that, is purely conceptual and carries no weight, has no value in reality, is not real (real from the Latin 'res' = 'thing') No duality here. Opposites do not exist...except in the conceptual mind. > To think that your being of El and Paul > would be some kind of physical fusion, > seems quite off-target. No it is not, I am simply not El or Paul, nor you... IN ANY WHICH WAY... Why would you be conversing with me if I, one way or another, in any which way, were you? I wrote: > > That is why in love there is play > > between the lover and the beloved, > > the play of reciprocal mutuality. You wrote: > There is love > prior to any manifestation > of one playing with another. Before anything is manifested it cannot be perceived... Your statement is purely conceptual... it has no value in reality. Love cannot be without the manifestation of energy, the play of reciprocal mutuality, interference patterns. As soon as there is love it manifests, AND in synchronicity AND coincidentally, as soon as there is manifestation there is love... Love, life, live, leben (German for live or life), Leib (German for body), lijk, lichaam (Dutch for body) all stem from the Sanskrit Aryan LUBH 'carnal knowledge' Now, rather than countering me, it would be good to hear me out... > > Love is that wonderful creative play of having found > > that there IS the other, that there IS something else besides "I". > When the "other" can be relinquished, *perfect peace* is. Is there something the matter with the "other" so that she/he/it needs to be relinquished? The dictionary meaning of 'relinquish' is 'to leave behind', keep that in mind. Implying that the "other" can be an impediment to "perfect peace" and as such needs to be relinquished, is exactly what impedes *perfect peace*. Perfect peace is when the "other" needs NOT to be relinquished, when the "other" is a non-issue and lives in perfect peace amongst and with us. With all due respect, your statement is utter nonsense... To make this clear, let me just push what you imply, a bit further. You peace is not perfect as it is conditional. It is conditional upon the relinquishment of the "other." You are either talking abandonment or conditional surrender, your peace would eventually depend upon excommunication..., it may resemble peace... but not for long... Now do not forget, you brought up the topic "perfect peace"...I did not drag this in or interject it... If you go on with such arguments you end up with terrorists on your back... Unless what you wrote is not exactly what you meant... Well if that is the case, do you remember what I wrote and what triggered all this? I wrote originally: > > No criticism intended... > > just pointing out the need > > to express oneself correctly... > > the first step to regain one's realization. "For wherever *two or three* come together in my *name*, there I am with them" (Matthew 18:20). 'Name' derives from the Sanskrit 'naman' or 'jnaman'. A jnani is a 'man of knowledge', a man with a name. The Sanskrit / Aryan root for name is GNA = 'to know'. So, when two or more are gathered in one knowledge, around one name, when there is no distinction between the ones that are gathered ("no distinction" literally means "When no one is picked over the other.") then the "other" is no problem and perfect peace is and we can play that wondrous love. That is why I wrote: > > That is why in love there is play > > between the lover and the beloved, > > the play of reciprocal mutuality. > > Love is that wonderful creative play > > of having found that there IS the other, > > that there IS something else besides "I". > > That you are not the other, > > and that you are not something else > > is fully celebrated in that creative play > > that some call Divine Leela. So your statement is nonsense, how can one get perfect peace by leaving anyone behind, you get aloneness... that is not peace... it may be utterly quiet, but that is no "perfect peace." > > That you are not the other, > > and that you are not something else > > is fully celebrated in that creative play > > that some call Divine Leela. You wrote: > Call it what *you* wish. What kind of answer is that? I did not call it that way, I said "some call it Divine Lila". I may be picky, but your reading skills need to be honed, Dan. > > There is no reason in reality to conclude that > > 'not being the other' is in principle > > a painful or problematic separation, > > that it is some kind of suffering that has to be overcome, > > a desire to be fulfilled, a trauma to be healed. > Never having mentioned anything of the sort, That is right, you did not mention it, that is why I DID, this was written for you, do not retort with the tired "the lens through which you view" > I can only thank you for displaying > "the lens through which you view". > > Innate and original, > > unconditional human/divine love > > does not work that way. > Defining what ways something works > and doesn't work is the way the "mind of Wim" works. No, that is not how the "mind of Wim" works. I told you what I told you, because I wanted to tell YOU what I told you. It was not my intention here, to show you how the "mind of Wim" works, or anyone's mind for that matter. If you are interested in the workings of the mind... I have written quite a lot on that... Can I oblige you? I wrote: > > "You are already them" ??? > > I am not! > > I am not even trying to! > It doesn't involve trying, dear Wim. Read Dan man, that is what "I" said. We agree, but you are so used to 'retorting' that you don't read what the writer wrote, let alone understand what the writer said. You respond too quickly with counter arguments, you are so compelled to do that, that it is almost an obsession... I notice that in a lot of your email responses. > And it's not a matter of choice. That is right! Did you think that I said that it was "a matter of choice?" > It's beyond Wim's ability to affirm You don't know me Dan, what can you say about my ability to affirm?. Also, don't objectify me, I am indeed Wim, but you can address me with "you"... Do you do that a lot? Objectifying the other? Some examples: > El expresses El correctly, > Paul expresses Paul correctly, > and Wim expresses Wim correctly. > ...by speaking correctly in the way that Wim > or Dan thinks is correct... > In saying this, Dan is expressing Dan correctly, > and knows that Wim is expressing Wim correctly. > ...or deny, except insofar as "Wim's conceptual lens" > (identified by Wim as leela of Maya) Objectifying is a defense mechanism, and if it helps you and me, we can face each other, touch each other. I am available, are you? I am here, and you are welcome to visit me, touch me, love me, kiss me, play with me. I can also visit you... where do you live? I travel quite a bit. Gives me a chance to really put you under the loop. > (identified by Wim as leela of Maya) Why don't you figure out what "leela of Maya" means? Or why don't you figure out who you are or I am, rather than putting your objectifications and identifications on yourself and me... The subject line of this post "Dan is expressing Dan correctly" is another example of such self objectification... Some mild case of borderline Dissociative Identity Disorder perhaps? > > And if you think that it is the purpose > > of existence and reality to be one-another, > > than I suggest that you live in an > > impossible universe. > Of course it's impossible given the > lens you're using! I am not using a lens, I am talking to you, to you personally Dan... Projection, lenses, mirrors, filtering and the like. Oh such tired and pseudo psychological terms... > Who said anything about "purpose" - Nobody, that is why I brought it up... > can you catch that lens as it interjects its constructs? Catching lenses? Lenses interjecting? Constructs of the lens? Language, Dan, don't stumble over words... If you want to talk, speak, write, communicate, use your words appropriately. When you are this messy with your metaphors, what kind of mind has produced them? > :-) :-) > > What a physical problem that *would* be, > > being one-another, being everything else! > Actually it's not a problem at all! I wrote: "What a physical problem that *would* be," I did not say that *it is* a physical problem. > And physical vs. nonphysical doesn't enter into it. The physical does, and the nonphysical does not, because the "nonphysical" does not exist in reality. Opposites do not exist In reality > > The joyous wonder of being separate > > - not being the other, not being something else - > > allows, enables and urges us to love > > 'what and who we are not' > > as much as we love ourselves. > Love without any gap of separation > has no need to oppose or support separation. Truly so, as separation is not in need of support or opposition. Separation is a wonderful something... Try to get what I mean here, Dan... That the word 'separation' at some point started to pick up some negative connotations does not mean at all that separation is negative in principle. Separation is a fact of life... separation is an act of life... Separation is part of this wonderful miracle of life... Love is a fact of life... love is an act of life... love is part of this wonderful miracle of life... > There is no thought > that what I love is me or not me, > because what I love is not a what, > not an other, and not a self. > It is love itself, loving itself > simply by being as it is (as I am) ... > "isness" or "such as this is" ... Truly so...there is no such thought... Love is devoid of thoughts, but love is 'in act and fact' not devoid of separate subjects such as you and me. You, Dan, who reads this, you, just twitching a muscle.... Did you notice? Me, typing this with my right hand while my 'other' hand is scratching one side of my nose, not the 'other' side. > > Unconditional, unquestioned and unquestionable 'love > > of self' is our 'steady state of being' in principle. > *Until* "love of self" has no arising. Correct... Oops, wait a second, is that correct? As you just used the word "Until", allow me to just be a bit naughty. Remember that you wrote to me? > Perhaps some kind of schedule of expectations? :-) > When the mental barrier of the concept > physical vs. nonphysical dissolves, The physical is not a concept as it is perceived, the nonphysical is con-ceived it cannot be per-ceived. The physical only exists, it has no opposite...Is is. Whatever you call "nonphysical" does not exist, 'tjust ain't, 'tdoesn't even 'not exist'. That also means that it cannot even be an opposite, except as a concept with no value in reality, as it has no being whatsoever except as an ephemeral mnemonic aid to help you make sense of the physical... Remember what I wrote above, words like 'physical' and 'be' or 'being' derive from the Greek 'phyein' = to bring forth. > the mind of Wim, or of Dan, will have > no place to hold itself or another. I don't have a mind that is holding the object of "itself or another", me or you. As soon as the mind regains its appropriate function, the mind is no bother... The mind is no problem... > *Then* truth will be self-evident, > and without a self or other, > independent of a filter! That is a conditional statement, truth is unconditional, so is love, so is reality... There is no need to say "and without a self or other" 'You and I not being each other" is the miracle... I appreciate "you and I" fully... Hey, chances are that I appreciate you more fully than you appreciate yourself... > Meanwhile you are free to offer your various concepts, > suppositions and inferences about > *what you believe* beings have realized > or haven't realized! "what you believe..."??? No beliefs here, realized beings "have" no concepts, suppositions, inferences, beliefs... > All the leela of the "mind of Wim" (Maya) -- > enjoy its display if you are able! Could you stop (-: making up my mind :-) ? I may be good for you to know, what the inventor (in times of yore) of the word "maya" meant when that word was designed. A really great philosopher, that one... and a great scientist... Maya is actually about relationships between separate entities, relativity measurements. The name of that great being was "Academos", a genuine precursor of Einstein, Dirac and Feynman... In fact that philosopher / scientist of yore already laid the foundation for Gauge Theory and the understanding of gauge fields. (Gauge theory is a mathematical theory that involves both Einstein's special theory of relativity and quantum mechanics.) > :-) :-) Love, Dan... Wim. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.277 / Virus Database: 146 - Release 9/5/2001 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.