Guest guest Posted June 15, 2002 Report Share Posted June 15, 2002 Dear bodies, It is interesting, I find, that no one seems to comment on my observation of how there seems to be a number of bodies here who will never admit to a live guru ( or even one who is awake and yet chooses not to function as guru). But you will heap praises and butter on those not here to crush your ego and point out your contempt and concepts of how, if a man takes charitable contributions for his services, for instance, he must not be "there." We pay for far less important things! But I am unconcerned whether or not you give money to someone or not, but I do see a predjudice toward such activities. The guru is not suppose to be perfect, is he? But you can tell him apart from those asleep, or can you? This apparently is up to the individual. It has always been that there are those who hear and respond as well as those who hear and respond to a trickster ( as in the case of that big place of religosity near Italy) Instead of looking for reasons to debunk we should be very attentive to the Truth, that more than even "rings" inside us, it transforms us! Do the limitations of phisical life impinge upon our own conscious freedom? Only to the extent we let them. I, personally know that I *must* come to enjoy unshakable confidence in the absolute freedom of my conscious nature. And untill I do, I will pay close attention to those who seem to. Their words are prasad. I am not going to throw out the baby with the bathwater. But I'm not signing any property over either, but....if I choose to, I hope each and every one of you will defend my right to do so freely and *not* try to have me "deprogrammed!" Otherwise, I'd say, start with the Catholics! love, Shawn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 15, 2002 Report Share Posted June 15, 2002 Hi Shawn You wrote: >>> It is interesting, I find, that no one seems to comment on my observation of how there seems to be a number of bodies here who will never *admit* to a live guru ( or even one who is awake and yet chooses not to function as guru).<<< It was such a good statement, Shawn, it must have flabbergasted us. :-) I would probably soften the word "admit" a bit more. Granted, it is already way milder than "commit" or "submit"..., maybe "permit" would be a better choice, as in "allow".) But do you know what the real reason is? It is like with the Buddha; when you meet him on the road you are to kill him. So maybe, many are just afraid of having to kill the guru when they meet him or her on their path. It seems more expedient to swerve away... or to cross to the other side of the street... I am actually not joking here, although I do not mean it literally..., the killing that is... I actually had two attempts on my life in those good old guru days... The "culprits" by the way are doing very well... Oh and by the way, I once gave a bullying psychiatrist a run for his life... Actually we tried to kill each other. We are both doing well. :-) You know where the word Guru originally stems from? The root GU in Sanskrit means "to drive ahead", to shout, "go go go", RU is "bellowing, roaring". GU-RU, can you imagine such a person? Seems like a cowboy to me or a cowherd driving his cows to better pastures, Krishna was one... although he played the flute. "Guru" later came to mean the leader in the battle (of truth of course :-), one who runs ahead of the troupes shouting, "Let's go!" roaring like a lion, Braveheart comes to mind. Gurus don't mind to be killed. Maybe that is why there are more dead than alive. >>> Instead of looking for reasons to debunk we should be very attentive to the Truth, that more than even "rings" inside us, it transforms us! <<< Well said... >>> I, personally know that I *must* come to enjoy unshakable confidence in the absolute freedom of my conscious nature....<<< If you *must*, then you will. If we could just quickly find out what "conscious nature" really is then we would have it licked. It is not difficult... You are already nature, just pinch your body... You are already conscious, did you not notice? Just don't believe those that hamper(ed) your absolute and innate freedom with illusive judgemental threats and fear, who charged you in the past with words and sentences of which the charge is still remotely controlling your ability to be free. Shake off those engrammatic shackles and go go go... the good pastures are here (arcadia), just start dancing... The words guru, helmsman, nautonnier, governor, cyber-nator all mean the same thing. Someone who is steering or guiding (GU), taking the helm, towards a way of existence in which we again can be people of happiness, joy and goodwill. The word "will" in goodwill has not so much to do with will (like wanting) as with joy, which comes to us via the Latin gaude and Julius, then via guilio and joie to joy. Wim (from Wil-helm) --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.370 / Virus Database: 205 - Release 6/5/2002 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 15, 2002 Report Share Posted June 15, 2002 on 6/14/02 10:39 PM, Wim Borsboom at wim wrote: > > If we could just quickly find out what "conscious nature" really is then we > would have it licked. > It is not difficult... > You are already nature, just pinch your body... > You are already conscious, did you not notice? ========================= i already know I don't know and can't know *what* consciousness *is*. It all seems so boring and inane. Somehow, I can't muster up the effort to really *try* anything....and so I'll use another tac or tact and ask myself , "where is this consciousness?" Even this seems empty as I watch the struggling "me" attempting ....... attempting what? to get free of itself? Oh slippery mind, I'm on to you and you're boring me......I know how you work. The one I want to be, I am, but you are tenacious......I'm going to keep my eye on you! ALL experience is wonderful AND terrible....and FUTILE! Where does consciousness hide in sleep? I'm off to bed, to see what I can find.... Namaste, Shawn > Just don't believe those that hamper(ed) your absolute and innate freedom > with illusive judgemental threats and fear, who charged you in the past with > words and sentences of which the charge is still remotely controlling your > ability to be free. Shake off those engrammatic shackles and go go go... the > good pastures are here (arcadia), just start dancing... > > The words guru, helmsman, nautonnier, governor, cyber-nator all mean the > same thing. Someone who is steering or guiding (GU), taking the helm, > towards a way of existence in which we again can be people of happiness, joy > and goodwill. The word "will" in goodwill has not so much to do with will > (like wanting) as with joy, which comes to us via the Latin gaude and > Julius, then via guilio and joie to joy. > > Wim > (from Wil-helm) > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.370 / Virus Database: 205 - Release 6/5/2002 > > > > /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 June 15, 2002 Report Share Posted June 15, 2002 Oh, my dear Shawn, You really meant that? >>>ALL experience is wonderful AND terrible....and FUTILE! <<< My god, who convinced you of that? There is nothing wrong with experience! Who judged your experience? What was made of your experience? How was it evaluated for you? Who pre-digested your experience? Who digested your experience? Who post-digested your experience? Who alienated you from being you? Someone other than you put a piece of their mind into yours! THAT makes you feel that experience is terrible and futile... I have never ever had such feeling about 'experience'... Come to your senses Shawn... YOUR senses... Seems that someone else made up your mind Start again from scratch... Indeed, go to bed and sleep, but do not look for consciousness there or anywhere. Go to sleep and when you wake up in the morning... play... it is Saturday. >>> Where does consciousness hide in sleep? <<< T'ain't nowhere to hide, because it does not have to hide anywhere, nor can it hide anywhere! Wim --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.370 / Virus Database: 205 - Release 6/5/2002 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 15, 2002 Report Share Posted June 15, 2002 Seems very dificult for the unenlightened to see the wood for the trees. I have heard it said that You do 25% of the work the Guru does 25% and "God" does 50%. Most of the realized ones that I have read had an experience(s) that disolved their ego and then from the other side of the fence they attempt to tell us how to to realize self. No doubt they are doing the best they can. Sai Baba has said he has no devotees but he is devoted to all & can you not love yourself as much as I love you. He points to your Self all the time. I kind of agree that dead Gurus get the most respect and it seems to me that each generation and culture produces its own blessed enlightened ones. I am drawn particularly to the teachings of Eckhart Tolle ( book The Power of Now) as he comments on the Guru disciple relationship with humour and points out the dangers of concepts of any kind. He is also very encouraging from the point that at this "time" it has never been easier to become realised because "THAT" wants us to. I also like Bernie Prior fully realized of the tantric tradition. Not about making love but about having love making/moving you. Allowing the relationship to dissolve the ego. (His master was Barry Long) Spent a weekend at one of his retreats and he points allways to the "Now" and the only purpose is to be yourself. He has several female "companions" and they seemed to be very content with this relationship. Reading "The Course of Miracles" at the moment and though it it is very long winded there are a lot of gems in it. I havent as yet got to the practise part. I would not consider myself to be a follower of anyone but appreciate the signposts given by many. Regards Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 15, 2002 Report Share Posted June 15, 2002 , shawn <shawn@w...> wrote: > Dear bodies, > Hi Shawn: > It is interesting, I find, that no one seems to comment on my observation of > how there seems to be a number of bodies here who will never admit to a live > guru ( or even one who is awake and yet chooses not to function as guru). It is not unusual for people not to comment on topics I feel important. I sometimes wonder why. It could be acceptance or rejection either. > > But you will heap praises and butter on those not here to crush your ego and > point out your contempt and concepts of how, if a man takes charitable > contributions for his services, for instance, he must not be "there." We pay > for far less important things! But I am unconcerned whether or not you give > money to someone or not, but I do see a predjudice toward such activities. If you can see a prejudice in others that makes you just like every body else. It is seeing your own prejudices that makes a difference. Taking money for services whatever they are is traditional. I don't like to see someone solicit business and pretend it is a free exchange of ideas. > > The guru is not suppose to be perfect, is he? But you can tell him apart > from those asleep, or can you? This apparently is up to the individual. It > has always been that there are those who hear and respond as well as those > who hear and respond to a trickster ( as in the case of that big place of > religosity near Italy) > > Instead of looking for reasons to debunk we should be very attentive to the > Truth, that more than even "rings" inside us, it transforms us! There is nothing lacking when the truth is ringing. > > Do the limitations of phisical life impinge upon our own conscious freedom? > Only to the extent we let them. > > I, personally know that I *must* come to enjoy unshakable confidence in the > absolute freedom of my conscious nature. And untill I do, I will pay close > attention to those who seem to. Their words are prasad. > > I am not going to throw out the baby with the bathwater. But I'm not signing > any property over either, but....if I choose to, I hope each and every one > of you will defend my right to do so freely and *not* try to have me > "deprogrammed!" Otherwise, I'd say, start with the Catholics! There are a few people here I consider to be gurus. The world wide net has allowed us to find them and access their words. I am grateful to be able to commune daily with them. It is a comfort to me stuck out here in the backwoods to be able to converse on this level. It is true I was never comfortable in large groups of devotees. There is a mass consciousness that takes over which I found to be less progressive than my own private path. > > love, > Shawn Stick around. You're pretty good at this stuff (not to mention a hell of a painter.) Big Bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 16, 2002 Report Share Posted June 16, 2002 on 6/15/02 3:44 AM, texasbg2000 at Bigbobgraham (AT) aol (DOT) com wrote: I don't like to see someone solicit business and pretend it is a free exchange of ideas. ===================== I haven't seen anyone soliciting on this list......what are you talking about? ============================ > > Truth, that more than even "rings" inside us, it transforms us! There is nothing lacking when the truth is ringing. ============================ What does this mean, "ringing?" ======================= Stick around. You're pretty good at this stuff (not to mention a hell of a painter.) Big Bob ++=============-- Thanks Big. love Shawn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 16, 2002 Report Share Posted June 16, 2002 Hi Wim and Shawn, I'm jumping in the middle of this ... Some of these questions that devil us, like "where is consciousness", are all a dead end -- that is why there seems to be futility. Let's put a different view and get out of the box --- In the beginning and in the end it is very simple, our wanting to analyze makes it complicated. There are facts and there are ideas about the facts. The ideas are the stories we tell ourselves about what is going in the experience. The ideas are like a map, and THE MAP IS NOT THE TERRITORY. That's it. To make a clear distinction, in the theory of perception, the "facts" correlate with "sensation", and the "ideas" correlate with "perception". [My use of the words "sensation" and "perception" is very specific. In studies in Biotechnology and Human Engineering it has been discovered that there are over 169 specific senses each with characteristics which make each "sense" distinct from the others. For reference see L. J. Fogel, BIOTECHNOLOGY, chapter 17 as I recall. Further I am out of the box here as well....I note that there are physical senses (169 or more), and there are other subtle senses including emotional, mental, and yes, psychic and spiritual senses which are available only in states of consciousness altered from ordinary material or physical realities.] Sensation comes from some kind of "contact", perception comes from past experience with sensation or from learned experience as related by others. When one creates a flow chart of the perceptual networks one finds that in the "sensation" experience it is very simple. Contact sends a signal through a nerve (or some other path of least resistence); the signal is received by other nerves and are combined with the effects of other nerves from the same or other sensory nerves. The combinations reach areas of "awareness" in the brain. This is basically pretty straightforward -- then evolution rears it complexity. "Perception" takes place and complicates things enormously. How? By giving "meaning" to the experience. Survival mechanisms are in place which ask questions (metaphorically speaking) such as -- Is this sensation dangerous or safe? Is this sensation desireable or undesireable? Is this sensation like some previous sensation or complex experience? What else is going on at the same time as this sensation? Is this familiar or something new? Notice the influence and filtering of the information about the sensation coming from previously stored information about previous experiences (memory). These memories can a act as conditioning mechanisms which can and often do distort the sensation into something other than what it is. Also note that the "memory" aspect is only a coded image of the past experiences -- in simple terms our simple sensation has been conditioned and is now an image, a map. It is this "map" which gives us the "meaning" in our sensation/experience -- AND THE MAP IS NOT THE TERRITORY. Most of the time we are experiencing the maps and not our direct experience -- and the "story" (another name for "map") begins very quickly due to our evolution and our desire originally for survival. If you are still with me thus far, I am ready to deal with the emptiness. Our search is futile because the "essential self" has recognized that it is dealing with maps and stories and not with reality. In Zen this "essential self" is called (among other things) THE UNBORN. Unborn because the story has not yet been added! The "emptiness" comes from the feeling that we are not dealing with reality -- and that feeling is the doorway to the breakthrough we are looking for!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The "futility" is the precursor to realization. We realize the emptiness of most of our experience -- and the reality is in entering the empty places. Be still. Be quiet. These are the keys. Not permanently. Ramana Maharshi tried to make stillness and silence permanent and nearly died for his troubles. Then why, Be still; Be quiet. Because then awareness can allow reality to appear. We experience, then comes the story. Let it come! After the story is told, there is nothing more to say or do. In this emptiness, in this pause, reality appears, truth appears. Since it is reality and truth, there is at last peace. Peace because This is real and not a story. In this Peace there is no self and yet nothing is left out, because It is all here and everything is included. This is the process... we experience (the fact), then comes the story (idea), we wait for the story to end, and then we experience the fact (reality, truth). If we become involved in the story -- then we must just wait for the story to end, and the peace returns. There is nothing to supress or control; the mind is not the enemy, it is just doing its job; and it is not complex at all. When we let the story end, we experience the wonder and majesty of Life and All, beyond our stories which lead only to complexity, fear and anxiety. We discover that Life really is like a river and we enjoy the ride instead of needing to be somewhere or another. It is really not hard -- we just make it hard. It is really easy and the truth is always really simple and clear, just here and now. If not here, where, and if not now, when? And Wim. Yes, yes, yes! John L. , Wim Borsboom <wim@a...> wrote: > Oh, my dear Shawn, > > You really meant that? > >>>ALL experience is wonderful AND terrible....and FUTILE! <<< > > My god, who convinced you of that? > There is nothing wrong with experience! > Who judged your experience? > What was made of your experience? > How was it evaluated for you? > > Who pre-digested your experience? > Who digested your experience? > Who post-digested your experience? > > Who alienated you from being you? > > Someone other than you put a piece of their mind into yours! > THAT makes you feel that experience is terrible and futile... > > I have never ever had such feeling about 'experience'... > Come to your senses Shawn... YOUR senses... > Seems that someone else made up your mind > Start again from scratch... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 16, 2002 Report Share Posted June 16, 2002 Hi John You wrote: >>> I'm jumping in the middle of this ... <<< You are welcome, the water is warm, we like to swim together, the sun sparkles, glints of recognition in our eyes. Swimming with dolphins, nice. Swimming with you wonderful !. >>> In the beginning and in the end it is very simple, our wanting to analyze makes it complicated.<<< Indeed, WANTING to analyze makes things complicated. Nothing wrong with analyzation per se, John, and I noticed you are good at it. The more we are looking for simplicity, the more we are beautifully analyzing Analyzing originally meant "undoing the knot", to loosen up complexity. >>> There are facts and there are ideas about the facts. <<< Yep. >>>To make a clear distinction, in the theory of perception, the "facts" correlate with "sensation", and the "ideas" correlate with "perception". <<< I concur, although I use the word conception instead of perception, but I follow you. I will explain later. >>> My use of the words "sensation" and "perception" is very specific. In studies in Biotechnology and Human Engineering it has been discovered that there are over 169 specific senses each with characteristics which make each "sense" distinct from the others. <<< I love it. >>> Further I am out of the box here as well....I note that there are physical senses (169 or more), and there are other subtle senses including emotional, mental, and yes, psychic and spiritual senses which are available only in states of consciousness *altered from* ordinary material or physical realities.<<< Right, but I might say it slightly differently, I see that those subtle senses are well integrated with the 'organic' foundation of well working physical senses. I got that straight from my mother, she told me rather early in life, that the metaphysical is rooted in the physical..., that the metaphysical is the blossoming of the physical..., that the physical and metaphysical form an integrated whole. I have written about that before, so I do not want to elaborate... >>> Sensation comes from some kind of "contact", perception comes from past experience with sensation or from learned experience as related by others. <<< I follow you and concur again. My choice of words would be slightly different, but eh, that's not a problem... >>> This is basically pretty straightforward -- then evolution rears it complexity. <<< Only that what we call "human evolution" rears a specific complexity...and I am not fully convinced that that is actually an evolutionary advance... but OK >>> "Perception" takes place and complicates things enormously. How? By giving "meaning" to the experience. Survival mechanisms are in place which ask questions (metaphorically speaking)... <<< I go along, providing that you use the word "meaning" as devoid of moral judgement which is all too often "de-meaning". And it looks from what you list afterwards that you do not include any such moral connotations. That is important... I go along, providing also that you allow me to propose a different perspective on your "metaphorical questions", which as I shall attempt to show are actually not so "metaphorical". >>> Notice the influence and filtering of the information about the sensation coming from previously stored information about previous experiences (memory). These memories can a act as conditioning mechanisms which can and often do distort the sensation into something other than what it is. <<< I could have written the above myself, in fact I have elsewhere, but I gave it a different slant as far as "distortion" is concerned. It is here, that I usually also introduce, like you do, but again with different wording, a neural network *functionality* that we normally call "mind", a *conceptualizing functionality*. When the mind loses this 'appropriate' functionality and gets messed up through traumatization, the distortion that you speak of, takes place. I will explain some of the traumatization later. In my language then: Sense perception leads to mental conception (concepts) which can (after traumatization) lead to deception (what we elsewhere may call illusion or even delusion). It is unfortunate that the mind can become an out of control "controller" rather than a "server", (a stores clerk gone haywire). As I said, this happens through traumatization - repeated traumatization, which eventually affects our neural pathways... The mind then starts providing discordant information, based on vibrationary patterns that have been caused to bounce back and forth in our nerves, patterns that eventually trip over themselves to produce discordant information. I have written about that before and it can be substantiated physically. (By the way, the biofeedback apparatus that I use, graphs out and depicts those energy patterns, discordant or harmonious.) I sometimes like to compare a well functioning mind to a well designed relational database managing system, (don't worry, I won't go overboard here, :-) where queries are well formulated so that the mind can, from the answers provided, formulate appropriate suggestions... based on sense and... making sense... (your 169 physical senses leading into the more subtle metaphysical senses.) >>> If you are still with me thus far, I am ready to deal with the emptiness. <<< OK >>>Our search is futile because the "essential self" has recognized that it is dealing with maps and stories and not with reality. In Zen this "essential self" is called (among other things) THE UNBORN. <<< Perfect, John. Now... in my experience, which I tested and re-tested, the unborn can be born without that story and carry on from there without what Don Juan calls, one's "description of the world". Actually the unborn is supposed to be born WITHOUT THAT STORY ALREADY STORED IN ITS FUTURE. It does not expect the reception it receives. Being born by itself is not the reason for that emptiness that you are mentioning. I am not saying John, that you don't agree with that, I am just stating it here, because we usually overlook that... >>> Unborn because the story has not yet been added! <<< >>> The "emptiness" comes from the feeling that we are not dealing with reality <<< I phrase it as follows, we are at the moment of being born not "being dealt with as reality". Onto a child is pushed a description of identity and concomitant characteristics based on 1. questions about life that the birth givers have themselves not found an answer to, and 2. obsessive and persistent questioning of life that birth givers found a reason for doing. Actually, what all too often takes place at the moment of birth, is a basic and persistent external questioning about the arrival and continuing presence of an infant. Check it out for yourself, instead of being received with affirmations and confirmations, a child is confronted or surrounded with questions that it cannot even comprehend or begin to answer, "Hello, how are you?", "What's your name?", "Are you cold?", "Is it a boy?", "Is it a girl?", "Doctor, is s/he all right?", " Are you hungry", "Do you want to nurse", "Do you want to see the baby, now?", "What is your name?", "Hello, who are you..." We even count the baby's toes and fingers, that is of course disarming and cute, but it is also a sign of a deeper something. We expect things to be the matter, rather than being OK. Surely, there are plenty of positive sentiments, but any question surrounding a child at that stage is un-intelligible to that child... It is actually very much NOT "a propos". A child expects to be expected, not to be questioned... It expects to be recognized, love should not even be a question, it should be a given. That a child arrives in the world is not a question for the child itself. That a child arrived is a question for the adults who are not ready to deal with it... That is the basic trauma, right off the bat most children are not readily recognized. It is that what I see that leads to the emptiness you are so rightfully mentioning. But I do not see that emptiness as basic to the natural condition of being on the verge between being unborn and being born. The emptiness has unfortunately become basic to the 'condition of human nature' that surrounds a newborn that still unquestionably expects unadulterated nature. It appears to me that what surrounds a baby at the moment of birth is the traumatic replay of the (hi)story that human nature has become 'the denatured human'. Parents are "expecting" as long as the mother is pregnant, but as soon as the "expecting" is materialized, the questioning begins. That is NOT what the child expects. In the womb it was in a state of unconditionality. It did not have to say, "If I behave well, will I be fed?" It did not have to say, "Pretty please" and "Thank you". Upon being born the conditionality of human nature is an absolute shocker to a child. And in most case an immediate recoil takes place, Another thing that a child did not expect is to be held upside down, its spine being put under enormous stress, and to be given a slap on the behind, just because we think it will not start breathing in time. The people-who-surround-a-birth's problem is trust in nature, no wonder a child will have difficulty trusting caregivers and then later its own human nature. Luckily we do not do the bum rap anymore, a violent act really, but we found something else to aggravate our little ones, we stick things up its nose and throat to suck out phlegm that it might choke on. Could all this be the cause of allergies, breathing, asthma, spinal problems and problems that are caused by damage to the fine nervous structures that emanate from the young spine... Another thing that a child does not expect is expectations, pre-mature expectations... Of course at some point we are expected to tell a child, to ask itself ... "Who am I?" When I was sixteen, in high school it was considered "de rigueur" to ask yourself, "Who am I?" If you did not, our teachers did not find us serious enough, deep enough, you were superficial, not really worthy... I stood up in class and ask teacher (an ex priest), "What kind of question is that?" >>> The "emptiness" comes from the feeling that we are not dealing with reality <<< >>> -- and that feeling is the doorway to the breakthrough we are looking for!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! <<< With all due respect John, may I rephrase that a bit? The "emptiness" comes from the feeling that we are being withheld the recognition of the full reality of being. >>> -- and that feeling is the doorway to the breakthrough we are looking for!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! <<< Right >>> The "futility" is the precursor to realization. We realize the emptiness of most of our experience -- and the reality is in entering the empty places. <<< Could it also be reminiscent of the empty stare in the faces of those who were to unconditionally accept us? Could reality be just the world?! The world out of the box! Out of the question box! >>> It is really not hard -- we just make it hard. It is really easy and the truth is always really simple and clear, just here and now. If not here, where, and if not now, when? <<< >>> And Wim. Yes, yes, yes! <<< Nice John to have you here, It is going to be a beautiful Sunday here, Vancouver Island, going to swim in the Pacific... shallow sandy beach... warm pools of tidal water... Seals looking on, they are not wondering why? or what? or how? Seals are not even just wondering, or admiring... Seals are wonders. As are we. Wim --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.370 / Virus Database: 205 - Release 6/5/2002 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 16, 2002 Report Share Posted June 16, 2002 , "texasbg2000" <Bigbobgraham@a...> wrote: > , shawn <shawn@w...> wrote: > > Dear bodies, > > > > Hi Shawn: > > > It is interesting, I find, that no one seems to comment on my > observation of > > how there seems to be a number of bodies here who will never admit > to a live > > guru ( or even one who is awake and yet chooses not to function as > guru). > > It is not unusual for people not to comment on topics I feel > important. I sometimes wonder why. It could be acceptance or > rejection either. > > > > > But you will heap praises and butter on those not here to crush > your ego and > > point out your contempt and concepts of how, if a man takes > charitable > > contributions for his services, for instance, he must not > be "there." We pay > > for far less important things! But I am unconcerned whether or not > you give > > money to someone or not, but I do see a predjudice toward such > activities. > > If you can see a prejudice in others that makes you just like every > body else. It is seeing your own prejudices that makes a > difference. Taking money for services whatever they are is > traditional. > I don't like to see someone solicit business and pretend it is a free > exchange of ideas. > > > > > The guru is not suppose to be perfect, is he? But you can tell him > apart > > from those asleep, or can you? This apparently is up to the > individual. It > > has always been that there are those who hear and respond as well > as those > > who hear and respond to a trickster ( as in the case of that big > place of > > religosity near Italy) > > > > Instead of looking for reasons to debunk we should be very > attentive to the > > Truth, that more than even "rings" inside us, it transforms us! > > There is nothing lacking when the truth is ringing. > > > > > Do the limitations of phisical life impinge upon our own conscious > freedom? > > Only to the extent we let them. > > > > I, personally know that I *must* come to enjoy unshakable > confidence in the > > absolute freedom of my conscious nature. And untill I do, I will > pay close > > attention to those who seem to. Their words are prasad. > > > > I am not going to throw out the baby with the bathwater. But I'm > not signing > > any property over either, but....if I choose to, I hope each and > every one > > of you will defend my right to do so freely and *not* try to have me > > "deprogrammed!" Otherwise, I'd say, start with the Catholics! > > There are a few people here I consider to be gurus. The world wide > net has allowed us to find them and access their words. I am > grateful to be able to commune daily with them. It is a comfort to > me stuck out here in the backwoods to be able to converse on this > level. > It is true I was never comfortable in large groups of devotees. > There is a mass consciousness that takes over which I found to be > less progressive than my own private path. > > > > > love, > > Shawn > > Stick around. You're pretty good at this stuff (not to mention a > hell of a painter.) > > Big Bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 16, 2002 Report Share Posted June 16, 2002 , shawn <shawn@w...> wrote: > on 6/15/02 3:44 AM, texasbg2000 at Bigbobgraham@a... wrote: > > I don't like to see someone solicit business and pretend it is a free > exchange of ideas. > ===================== > > I haven't seen anyone soliciting on this list......what are you talking > about? > > ============================ Dear Shawn: I was referring to the talk about siddhis. This topic helps anyone in the business (taking money) of using their siddhis to diagnose and cure others. I construe it as a solicitation for one in the business to try and keep the topic alive, regardless of the person's effectiveness with the use of siddhis. If you are a fortune teller and want to argue its merits you are touting your wares while 'discussing' it. Your expertise and knowledge about the subject can be examined by people who may want to employ you. You have an additional reason for keeping the topic alive. The problem for the one in the business comes when anyone objects to the ideas of siddhis or the worth of involving yourself with the use of siddhis. Money or contacts may be lost. Trying to intimidate people into letting you go about the business of using siddhis for payment is hidden behind a reasonable discussion that many are interested in. It may even lead to remarks about 'killing' and 'I would like to come and visit you'. I believe if it is a business for you, you should leave the topic alone or allow others to question it without bringing their character into question. It is difficult for gentle people to put voice to these concerns which makes the abuse I was writing about worse. I am not a moderator, just putting voice to my observations. ---------- > > > Truth, that more than even "rings" inside us, it transforms us! > > There is nothing lacking when the truth is ringing. > ============================ > > What does this mean, "ringing?" > > ======================= Truth can be said to be reality. Concepts said to be truth can be doubted. The ring of truth associated with a concept means having a concept compel one to realize reality. 'Ringing' in this sense is Self realization since the Self is reality. Transforming is something the ego thinks it can do to avoid disappearing. It is the Aham Vritti, the first thought, and it will never become something greater. > > > Stick around. You're pretty good at this stuff (not to mention a > hell of a painter.) > > Big Bob > > ++=============-- > > Thanks Big. -------------- Just the Truth my friend. -------------- > > love Shawn Love, Bobby G. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 16, 2002 Report Share Posted June 16, 2002 on 6/16/02 5:26 AM, texasbg2000 at Bigbobgraham (AT) aol (DOT) com wrote: Dear Shawn: I was referring to the talk about siddhis. This topic helps anyone in the business (taking money) of using their siddhis to diagnose and cure others. I construe it as a solicitation for one in the business to try and keep the topic alive, regardless of the person's effectiveness with the use of siddhis. =========================== .......so I am a painter, in the business of selling paintings and therefore should be strictly discouraged from showing any work unless specifically asked to? Also whether or not I'm good at it is a consideration? ======================================= If you are a fortune teller and want to argue its merits you are touting your wares while 'discussing' it. Your expertise and knowledge about the subject can be examined by people who may want to employ you. You have an additional reason for keeping the topic alive. The problem for the one in the business comes when anyone objects to the ideas of siddhis or the worth of involving yourself with the use of siddhis. Money or contacts may be lost. Trying to intimidate people into letting you go about the business of using siddhis for payment is hidden behind a reasonable discussion that many are interested in. ========================== What are you worried about if you are on to it? ============== It may even lead to remarks about 'killing' and 'I would like to come and visit you'. I believe if it is a business for you, you should leave the topic alone or allow others to question it without bringing their character into question. ============================ Ah-ha. Yes. I agree about the personal attack issue. ================== It is difficult for gentle people to put voice to these concerns which makes the abuse I was writing about worse. I am not a moderator, just putting voice to my observations. ---------- > > > Truth, that more than even "rings" inside us, it transforms us! > > There is nothing lacking when the truth is ringing. > ============================ > > What does this mean, "ringing?" > > ======================= Truth can be said to be reality. Concepts said to be truth can be doubted. The ring of truth associated with a concept means having a concept compel one to realize reality. 'Ringing' in this sense is Self realization since the Self is reality. Transforming is something the ego thinks it can do to avoid disappearing. It is the Aham Vritti, the first thought, and it will never become something greater. ============================ I really don't have any desire to play polemics. I think we may be on the same page here, just different words. It is very evident and obvious to me that words carry siddhi that can transform the individual's perception, as in the case of seeing through the ego to allow the being to be experienced as Presence. The ringing of truth produces, at least in my case, a kind of flashing forward of the Being the presence of the witness...... This is transmission and even in the case of Maharshi, it was an understood fact. Transmission initiates, otherwise everything remains an object of mind, and one can conceptually talk all they want about unity and so forth but will not in fact experience anything of the kind. No transmission, no juice, no real Living Truth, simple. Siddhis is not a problem unless you desire them or wish to avoid them! love, Shawn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 16, 2002 Report Share Posted June 16, 2002 on 6/14/02 11:53 PM, Wim Borsboom at wim wrote: > Oh, my dear Shawn, > > You really meant that? >>>> ALL experience is wonderful AND terrible....and FUTILE! <<< > > My god, who convinced you of that? > There is nothing wrong with experience! > Who judged your experience? > What was made of your experience? > How was it evaluated for you? ==================== Is it not horrible when a child starves to death or gets hit by a bus? =================================== > Who pre-digested your experience? > Who digested your experience? > Who post-digested your experience? ========================================= do you need more fiber in your diet? ======================================= > Who alienated you from being you? ======================== Isn't this what you are doing now? =================================== > Someone other than you put a piece of their mind into yours! > THAT makes you feel that experience is terrible and futile... ============================ you have seen too many psychologists, I'm afraid.... ========================== > I have never ever had such feeling about 'experience'... ============================= Perhaps you are living in a dream world? Is it not true that ultimately we are not in controll of our experience? ========================= > Come to your senses Shawn... YOUR senses... > Seems that someone else made up your mind > Start again from scratch... ============================== How did you get so deeply entangled in the molasses of analysis? love, Shawn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 16, 2002 Report Share Posted June 16, 2002 , shawn <shawn@w...> wrote: > on 6/16/02 5:26 AM, texasbg2000 at Bigbobgraham@a... wrote: > Hi Shawn > Dear Shawn: > I was referring to the talk about siddhis. This topic helps anyone > in the business (taking money) of using their siddhis to diagnose and > cure others. I construe it as a solicitation for one in the business > to try and keep the topic alive, regardless of the person's > effectiveness with the use of siddhis. > > =========================== > > ......so I am a painter, in the business of selling paintings and therefore > should be strictly discouraged from showing any work unless specifically > asked to? Also whether or not I'm good at it is a consideration? > > ======================================= Painting is a communication just as poetry and dance is. It needs to be seen. > > If you are a fortune teller > and want to argue its merits you are touting your wares > while 'discussing' it. Your expertise and knowledge about the subject > can be examined by people who may want to employ you. You have an > additional reason for keeping the topic alive. > The problem for the one in the business comes when anyone objects to > the ideas of siddhis or the worth of involving yourself with the use > of siddhis. Money or contacts may be lost. Trying to intimidate > people into letting you go about the business of using siddhis for > payment is hidden behind a reasonable discussion that many are > interested in. > > ========================== > > What are you worried about if you are on to it? > > ============== I am fine I just had that one thing to say. Besides, you asked. > It may even lead to remarks about 'killing' and 'I > would like to come and visit you'. > I believe if it is a business for you, you should leave the topic > alone or allow others to question it without bringing their character > into question. > ============================ > > Ah-ha. Yes. I agree about the personal attack issue. > > ================== > > It is difficult for gentle people to put voice to > these concerns which makes the abuse I was writing about worse. > I am not a moderator, just putting voice to my observations. > ---------- > > > > > Truth, that more than even "rings" inside us, it transforms us! > > > > There is nothing lacking when the truth is ringing. > > ============================ > > > > What does this mean, "ringing?" > > > > ======================= > > Truth can be said to be reality. Concepts said to be truth can be > doubted. The ring of truth associated with a concept means having a > concept compel one to realize reality. 'Ringing' in this sense is > Self realization since the Self is reality. > Transforming is something the ego thinks it can do to avoid > disappearing. It is the Aham Vritti, the first thought, and it will > never become something greater. > ============================ > > I really don't have any desire to play polemics. I think we may be on the > same page here, just different words. It is very evident and obvious to me > that words carry siddhi that can transform the individual's perception, as > in the case of seeing through the ego to allow the being to be experienced > as Presence. The ringing of truth produces, at least in my case, a kind of > flashing forward of the Being the presence of the witness...... This is > transmission and even in the case of Maharshi, it was an understood fact. > Transmission initiates, otherwise everything remains an object of mind, and > one can conceptually talk all they want about unity and so forth but will > not in fact experience anything of the kind. No transmission, no juice, no > real Living Truth, simple. i agree. > > Siddhis is not a problem unless you desire them or wish to avoid them! I don't have the desire for psychic siddhis. I consider that a blessing. I wish to avoid them the same way I wish to avoid thoughts. Most of my practice is that avoidance. They disappear with pranayama or self enquiry either. > love, > > Shawn Love Bobby G. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 16, 2002 Report Share Posted June 16, 2002 Hi Bobby, >>I don't have the desire for psychic siddhis. I consider that a blessing. I wish to avoid them the same way I wish to avoid thoughts. Most of my practice is that avoidance. They disappear with pranayama or self enquiry either.<< I don't understand the remark about "pranayama". There are ways in which pranayama can be used to "turn on" siddhis and empower them. I am not in disagreement with your desire to avoid the development of siddhis as a personal option -- but most "development" work will turn them on more or less as part of the process. They are just tools to be used, and if you have no need for them because of your life (or karma) they will fade away. Why put out one's eyes because one might see something bad happening, or become deaf because one might hear "bad" things, or avoid all touch contact because it might bring pleasure (or pain)? If I need to "levitate" and have the ability, then levitate I will. Actually I tend to use airplanes when I need such levitation. :-D If I am a teacher, such as Poonja, for instance, I may well need the ability to see past lives, or auras, to assist in guiding a seeker. The siddhis are no more than extensions of our ordinary senses and abilities. Learning to read and write is not in fact normal, but such learning has certainly enhanced my life and promoted communication with others (not always for the best at all times, but the opportunity is always there to continue communication until clarification comes). John L. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 17, 2002 Report Share Posted June 17, 2002 Hi Bobby, >>I don't have the desire for psychic siddhis. I consider that a blessing. I wish to avoid them the same way I wish to avoid thoughts. Most of my practice is that avoidance. They disappear with pranayama or self enquiry either.<< I don't understand the remark about "pranayama". There are ways in which pranayama can be used to "turn on" siddhis and empower them. -- Hi John I was referring to using pranayama to shut down the mind in meditation. -- I am not in disagreement with your desire to avoid the development of siddhis as a personal option -- but most "development" work will turn them on more or less as part of the process. They are just tools to be used, and if you have no need for them because of your life (or karma) they will fade away. -------------------------- I disagree. All illusion diminishes with true development. -------------------------- Why put out one's eyes because one might see something bad happening, or become deaf because one might hear "bad" things, or avoid all touch contact because it might bring pleasure (or pain)? If I need to "levitate" and have the ability, then levitate I will. Actually I tend to use airplanes when I need such levitation. :-D If I am a teacher, such as Poonja, for instance, I may well need the ability to see past lives, or auras, to assist in guiding a seeker. The siddhis are no more than extensions of our ordinary senses and abilities. Learning to read and write is not in fact normal, but such learning has certainly enhanced my life and promoted communication with others (not always for the best at all times, but the opportunity is always there to continue communication until clarification comes). --------------------------- There was a big discussion of this topic several months ago. The only ability I want to develop is the ability to control the vrittis. The seduction of the world is powerful enough even without the development you describe. I appreciate your very reasonable and even post. I look forward to reading more. --------------------------- John L. -------------- Love Bobby G. 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.