Krishnamurti

[Guest guest]

, "David Bozzi" <david.bozzi@i...> wrote:

> , "dan330033" <dan330033> wrote:

>

> > Perfect agreement is a wonderful thing.

>

> No it isn't.

 

No shit, Sherlock :-)

[Guest guest]

Harsha writes:

 

"Lot of these Guru types (or the so called non-guru

types) have serious problems trying to keep up the

image and all. Am I being unfair to Krishnamurti? I

don't know but it doesn't seem like he was respectful

of Helen as a human being.

 

"And if you can't respect a fellow human being,

especially someone that you have cared about and

someone who cares about you, then something does seem

out of place. "

 

Dear Harsha,

 

I suspect that Krishnamurti *really* didn't recognize or remember Helen. He

lived so much in the present he was unable to remember people he once knew

quite well. He once said that this is why he always called people "Sir"

instead of calling them by name! LOL!

 

On another note, I've often wondered whether what, in part, what triggered

Kundalini in Krishnamurti was falling in love. He was often in the company

of attractive women.

 

Love, Hillary

 

 

 

Toine writes re Helen Knothe Nearing and Krishnamurti:

 

She [Helen] writes: "Not a flicker even of friendliness was left. He

had no more care for me or interest than he had for the fly on the wall."

Helen knew that after her he always had women friends, but she didn't

know how passionately he became attached to them.

 

Harsha writes:

 

Thanks Toine for doing some extra research and sharing

that about Krishnamurti. How odd that Krishnamurti

pretended not to know his old sweetheart Helen?! I

wonder if he was uncomfortable with the emotions he

felt for Helen for such a long time.

[Guest guest]

I am reading about Helen's view of her situation with K.

I am reading opinions about about what the situation really was.

I am reading opinions about Krishnamurti.

 

I am NOT reading what Krishnamurti's experience and situation was, I

am not reading K.'s side of the story.

 

Perhaps we don't need opinions, perhaps we need facts.

 

John L.

 

, druout@a... wrote:

> Harsha writes:

>

> "Lot of these Guru types (or the so called non-guru

> types) have serious problems trying to keep up the

> image and all. Am I being unfair to Krishnamurti? I

> don't know but it doesn't seem like he was respectful

> of Helen as a human being.

>

> "And if you can't respect a fellow human being,

> especially someone that you have cared about and

> someone who cares about you, then something does seem

> out of place. "

>

> Dear Harsha,

>

> I suspect that Krishnamurti *really* didn't recognize or remember

Helen. He

> lived so much in the present he was unable to remember people he

once knew

> quite well. He once said that this is why he always called

people "Sir"

> instead of calling them by name! LOL!

>

> On another note, I've often wondered whether what, in part, what

triggered

> Kundalini in Krishnamurti was falling in love. He was often in the

company

> of attractive women.

>

> Love, Hillary

>

>

>

> Toine writes re Helen Knothe Nearing and Krishnamurti:

>

> She [Helen] writes: "Not a flicker even of friendliness was left. He

> had no more care for me or interest than he had for the fly on the

wall."

> Helen knew that after her he always had women friends, but she

didn't

> know how passionately he became attached to them.

>

> Harsha writes:

>

> Thanks Toine for doing some extra research and sharing

> that about Krishnamurti. How odd that Krishnamurti

> pretended not to know his old sweetheart Helen?! I

> wonder if he was uncomfortable with the emotions he

> felt for Helen for such a long time.

[Guest guest]

, Harsha <harshaimtm> wrote:

> Dear Hillary,

>

> Thank you for your post. I hope you won’t mind my

> elaborating a bit more.

 

Dear Harsha,

 

Not a bit! ) delighted always! )

>

> Memory is absent in deep sleep and Nirvikalpa Samadhi.

> In those states the body is motionless as well. In

> most other states, memory is functional to some degree

> or another, as it is part of the body. Sri Ramana had

> an incredible memory as the devotees well know.

>

> Memory is part of the present moment. Self-Realized

> sages do not lose their memories because of

> Self-Knowledge. Memories are part of the body. To say

> that an enlightened person lives in the present moment

> does not seem accurate. Self – Knowledge reveals that

> we Are the present moment ItSelf. We are not in the

> now, We Are the Now. The Self Is the Hereness and the

> Nowness.

 

Interesting! ) Perhaps memory in these contexts has something to do with

being able to enter and leave these states at will, as Sri Ramana Maharshi

was obviously able to do. Just mulling here.

Krishnamurti often seemed "taken over" by Kundalini energy. When in a state

of nowness social trappings such as names, etc do not seem relevant. Perhaps

he was in a state of Nirvikalpa Samadhi but still was able to function

outwardly more or less normally. Or perhaps he was simply lazy! LOL!

Personally I sympathize with his inablilty to remember names!

 

My memory of the story of K's affair is a bit murky. The story came out in a

book by the woman's daughter, and the book is not particularly kind to K.

(I'm sorry. I no longer have the book and I can't remember the name of the

book or the author). But in defense of the lovers (as if they need

defending!) as I recall the woman's husband had decided to become celibate

and this may have been pretty hard on his then still relatively young wife.

They were all very close at that time.

 

For those whose main introduction to K is some of his more intellectual

stuff, I relate somewhat with the term boring. My introduction to

Krishnamurti was via his lectures on KPFA radio in the 60's, and I would find

it surprising if anyone who has heard him speak would be able to call him

boring after the experience! His voice had an incredible quality imparting

an astonishingly deep love and joy. Those who met him personally say his

presence was incredible.

 

My favorite K book is his Notebook which is full of descriptions of Kundalini

energy surging through him.

 

An example: "...all morning it had been there. It is not a make-believe,

it's not desire taking this form of sensation...Thought, having tried,

realizes that it cannot recall what had taken place..It is too vast for

thought or desire to conjure it up: it is too immense for the brain to bring

it about. It's not an illusion."

 

And p. 40 "Though one had slept, not too well, on waking one was aware that

all night the process was going but, much more, that there was a blossoming

of that benediction. One felt as though it was operating upon one.

On waking, there was an outgoing, outpouring of this power and strength. It

was as a stream rushing out of the rocks, out of the earth. There was a

strange and unimaginable bliss in this, an ecstasy that had nothing to do

with thought and feeling.

There is an aspen tree and its leaves are trembling in the breeze and without

that dance life is not. "

 

When I first read "Krishnamurti's Notebook" after my process began in 1996, I

couldn't believe how close his descriptions were to my nightly experiences.

 

Love, Hillary

>

> Perhaps Krishnamurti did have a very poor memory for

> names and faces and that is why he could not remember

> Helen with whom he corresponded with for six years.

> Given Krishnamurti’s somewhat abnormal upbringing, it

> seems more likely that he had difficulty in having

> normal relationships with women. Did not someone post

> something about a much older Krishnamurti having a

> relationship with the wife of one of his friends

> earlier, or is it my memory that is faulty here!

>

> Perhaps Krishnamurti had resolved certain relationship

> issues by the time he was in his 70s and 80s. I am not

> a Krishnamurti expert, so if someone has rishnamurti’s

> side of the story, please post it. John wanted facts.

>

> If absence of memory or poor memory was sign of some

> advanced spiritual state, then everyone with

> Alzheimer’s would be considered enlightened. People

> who have abused alcohol lose many brain cells and have

> poor memories as well. Many people also lose memory

> due to illness. We can certainly sympathize with

> people who have a weak memory. However, to suggest

> that bad memory implies living in the present moment

> and enjoying some divine exalted state seems bit of a

> stretch.

>

> Love to all

> Harsha

>

>

> --- druout@a... wrote:

> > Harsha writes:

> >

> > "Lot of these Guru types (or the so called non-guru

> > types) have serious problems trying to keep up the

> > image and all. Am I being unfair to Krishnamurti? I

> > don't know but it doesn't seem like he was

> > respectful

> > of Helen as a human being.

> >

> > "And if you can't respect a fellow human being,

> > especially someone that you have cared about and

> > someone who cares about you, then something does

> > seem

> > out of place. "

> >

[Guest guest]

Hi John,

 

I think the opinions in this case are quite illuminating and have lead to some

interesting thoughts. Who needs facts when you can have useful opinions? So much

more convenient.

How could we know K's experience? How could we get his side of the story, and if

we could, would it be 'factual'?

 

Harsha, your opinion of K as 'boring' is interesting (not punning here). I'm a

big K fan (or used to be at any rate) but I think you're right; he is boring,

and I think that was his strength. No bells and whistles, no fireworks, just an

uncompromising, pared down and somewhat ascetic take on what is, on what we do.

No comfort or relief offered, just the 'facts'. Did you ever read his

introductions in books like 'Commentaries on Living'? They were simple

descriptions of nature and meditation (K style, in which the observer and

observed are not different). They were quite poetic; very limpid, austere, but

beautiful too and less boring than the commentaries themselves, I think.

 

Grant.

 

> ** Original Re: Krishnamurti

> ** Original Sender: "John Logan" <johnrloganis

> ** Original 23 Sep 2002 01:42:16 -0000

> ** Original Message follows...

>

> I am reading about Helen's view of her situation with K.

> I am reading opinions about about what the situation really was.

> I am reading opinions about Krishnamurti.

>

> I am NOT reading what Krishnamurti's experience and situation was, I

> am not reading K.'s side of the story.

>

> Perhaps we don't need opinions, perhaps we need facts.

>

> John L.

>

> , druout@a... wrote:

> > Harsha writes:

> >

> > "Lot of these Guru types (or the so called non-guru

> > types) have serious problems trying to keep up the

> > image and all. Am I being unfair to Krishnamurti? I

> > don't know but it doesn't seem like he was respectful

> > of Helen as a human being.

> >

> > "And if you can't respect a fellow human being,

> > especially someone that you have cared about and

> > someone who cares about you, then something does seem

> > out of place. "

> >

> > Dear Harsha,

> >

> > I suspect that Krishnamurti *really* didn't recognize or remember

> Helen. He

> > lived so much in the present he was unable to remember people he

> once knew

> > quite well. He once said that this is why he always called

> people "Sir"

> > instead of calling them by name! LOL!

> >

> > On another note, I've often wondered whether what, in part, what

> triggered

> > Kundalini in Krishnamurti was falling in love. He was often in the

> company

> > of attractive women.

> >

> > Love, Hillary

> >

> >

> >

> > Toine writes re Helen Knothe Nearing and Krishnamurti:

> >

> > She [Helen] writes: "Not a flicker even of friendliness was left. He

> > had no more care for me or interest than he had for the fly on the

> wall."

> > Helen knew that after her he always had women friends, but she

> didn't

> > know how passionately he became attached to them.

> >

> > Harsha writes:

> >

> > Thanks Toine for doing some extra research and sharing

> > that about Krishnamurti. How odd that Krishnamurti

> > pretended not to know his old sweetheart Helen?! I

> > wonder if he was uncomfortable with the emotions he

> > felt for Helen for such a long time.

>

>

>

> /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

>

>

 

>** --------- End Original Message ----------- **

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Hillary,

 

Thank you for your post. I hope you won’t mind my

elaborating a bit more.

 

Memory is absent in deep sleep and Nirvikalpa Samadhi.

In those states the body is motionless as well. In

most other states, memory is functional to some degree

or another, as it is part of the body. Sri Ramana had

an incredible memory as the devotees well know.

 

Memory is part of the present moment. Self-Realized

sages do not lose their memories because of

Self-Knowledge. Memories are part of the body. To say

that an enlightened person lives in the present moment

does not seem accurate. Self – Knowledge reveals that

we Are the present moment ItSelf. We are not in the

now, We Are the Now. The Self Is the Hereness and the

Nowness.

 

Perhaps Krishnamurti did have a very poor memory for

names and faces and that is why he could not remember

Helen with whom he corresponded with for six years.

Given Krishnamurti’s somewhat abnormal upbringing, it

seems more likely that he had difficulty in having

normal relationships with women. Did not someone post

something about a much older Krishnamurti having a

relationship with the wife of one of his friends

earlier, or is it my memory that is faulty here!

 

Perhaps Krishnamurti had resolved certain relationship

issues by the time he was in his 70s and 80s. I am not

a Krishnamurti expert, so if someone has rishnamurti’s

side of the story, please post it. John wanted facts.

 

If absence of memory or poor memory was sign of some

advanced spiritual state, then everyone with

Alzheimer’s would be considered enlightened. People

who have abused alcohol lose many brain cells and have

poor memories as well. Many people also lose memory

due to illness. We can certainly sympathize with

people who have a weak memory. However, to suggest

that bad memory implies living in the present moment

and enjoying some divine exalted state seems bit of a

stretch.

 

Love to all

Harsha

 

 

--- druout wrote:

> Harsha writes:

>

> "Lot of these Guru types (or the so called non-guru

> types) have serious problems trying to keep up the

> image and all. Am I being unfair to Krishnamurti? I

> don't know but it doesn't seem like he was

> respectful

> of Helen as a human being.

>

> "And if you can't respect a fellow human being,

> especially someone that you have cared about and

> someone who cares about you, then something does

> seem

> out of place. "

>

> Dear Harsha,

>

> I suspect that Krishnamurti *really* didn't

> recognize or remember Helen. He

> lived so much in the present he was unable to

> remember people he once knew

> quite well. He once said that this is why he always

> called people "Sir"

> instead of calling them by name! LOL!

>

> On another note, I've often wondered whether what,

> in part, what triggered

> Kundalini in Krishnamurti was falling in love. He

> was often in the company

> of attractive women.

>

> Love, Hillary

>

>

>

> Toine writes re Helen Knothe Nearing and

> Krishnamurti:

>

> She [Helen] writes: "Not a flicker even of

> friendliness was left. He

> had no more care for me or interest than he had for

> the fly on the wall."

> Helen knew that after her he always had women

> friends, but she didn't

> know how passionately he became attached to them.

>

> Harsha writes:

>

> Thanks Toine for doing some extra research and

> sharing

> that about Krishnamurti. How odd that Krishnamurti

> pretended not to know his old sweetheart Helen?! I

> wonder if he was uncomfortable with the emotions he

> felt for Helen for such a long time.

>

>

>

>

>

 

 

=====

/join

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

New DSL Internet Access from SBC &

http://sbc.

[Guest guest]

Thanks Hillary for the discussion and some interesting

information about Krishnamurti.

 

In the late 1970s, I had a friend who apparently knew

one of Krishnamurti's assistant, helper, or something

like that. This gentleman, while acknowledging K's

brilliance also had some unflattering comments about

Krishnamurti's behavior.

 

Such things and comments about Krishnamurti or others

don't bother me. Everyone is a human being and has

certain personality traits they have to live with (and

those around them have to put up with). guru or

no-guru, it's all the same. The Kundalini experiences

Krishnamurti had are not unusual as you well know

Hillary from your own experiences. I don't find them

particularly impressive. Those who are interested in

such things can find others like Gopi Krishna who has

described his very dramatic experiences as well.

People on this list can give such descriptions of

their Kundalini experiences also. What does it mean?

 

My teacher, who just turned 80 this summer, knew

Krishnamurti and always spoke very highly of him.

There were people in Bombay who followed both my

teacher and Krishnamurti. Many years ago, my teacher's

son was speaking to me on the phone and telling me how

much he was enjoying reading one of the Krishnamurti

books and asked me about K.

 

I had to be honest and told him that I found K's books

to be very very boring.

 

As I have mentioned before, I did enjoy reading K's

biography a long time ago. His life was most

interesting. It is quite likely that Krishnamurti in

person was a very dynamic and interesting person and

good company as well.

 

I recall hearing that when Krishnamurti was near death

he appeared concerned that the "purity of his

teaching" be somehow maintained. So hopefully, things

are working out as he wanted.

 

Love to all

Harsha

 

 

 

 

--- druout wrote:

> , Harsha <harshaimtm>

> wrote:

> > Dear Hillary,

> >

> > Thank you for your post. I hope you won’t mind

> my

> > elaborating a bit more.

>

> Dear Harsha,

>

> Not a bit! ) delighted always! )

> >

> > Memory is absent in deep sleep and Nirvikalpa

> Samadhi.

> > In those states the body is motionless as well.

> In

> > most other states, memory is functional to some

> degree

> > or another, as it is part of the body. Sri Ramana

> had

> > an incredible memory as the devotees well know.

> >

> > Memory is part of the present moment.

> Self-Realized

> > sages do not lose their memories because of

> > Self-Knowledge. Memories are part of the body. To

> say

> > that an enlightened person lives in the present

> moment

> > does not seem accurate. Self – Knowledge reveals

> that

> > we Are the present moment ItSelf. We are not in

> the

> > now, We Are the Now. The Self Is the Hereness and

> the

> > Nowness.

>

> Interesting! ) Perhaps memory in these contexts

> has something to do with

> being able to enter and leave these states at will,

> as Sri Ramana Maharshi

> was obviously able to do. Just mulling here.

> Krishnamurti often seemed "taken over" by Kundalini

> energy. When in a state

> of nowness social trappings such as names, etc do

> not seem relevant. Perhaps

> he was in a state of Nirvikalpa Samadhi but still

> was able to function

> outwardly more or less normally. Or perhaps he was

> simply lazy! LOL!

> Personally I sympathize with his inablilty to

> remember names!

>

> My memory of the story of K's affair is a bit murky.

> The story came out in a

> book by the woman's daughter, and the book is not

> particularly kind to K.

> (I'm sorry. I no longer have the book and I can't

> remember the name of the

> book or the author). But in defense of the lovers

> (as if they need

> defending!) as I recall the woman's husband had

> decided to become celibate

> and this may have been pretty hard on his then still

> relatively young wife.

> They were all very close at that time.

>

> For those whose main introduction to K is some of

> his more intellectual

> stuff, I relate somewhat with the term boring. My

> introduction to

> Krishnamurti was via his lectures on KPFA radio in

> the 60's, and I would find

> it surprising if anyone who has heard him speak

> would be able to call him

> boring after the experience! His voice had an

> incredible quality imparting

> an astonishingly deep love and joy. Those who met

> him personally say his

> presence was incredible.

>

> My favorite K book is his Notebook which is full of

> descriptions of Kundalini

> energy surging through him.

>

> An example: "...all morning it had been there. It

> is not a make-believe,

> it's not desire taking this form of

> sensation...Thought, having tried,

> realizes that it cannot recall what had taken

> place..It is too vast for

> thought or desire to conjure it up: it is too

> immense for the brain to bring

> it about. It's not an illusion."

>

> And p. 40 "Though one had slept, not too well, on

> waking one was aware that

> all night the process was going but, much more, that

> there was a blossoming

> of that benediction. One felt as though it was

> operating upon one.

> On waking, there was an outgoing, outpouring of this

> power and strength. It

> was as a stream rushing out of the rocks, out of the

> earth. There was a

> strange and unimaginable bliss in this, an ecstasy

> that had nothing to do

> with thought and feeling.

> There is an aspen tree and its leaves are trembling

> in the breeze and without

> that dance life is not. "

>

> When I first read "Krishnamurti's Notebook" after my

> process began in 1996, I

> couldn't believe how close his descriptions were to

> my nightly experiences.

>

> Love, Hillary

>

> >

> > Perhaps Krishnamurti did have a very poor memory

> for

> > names and faces and that is why he could not

> remember

> > Helen with whom he corresponded with for six

> years.

> > Given Krishnamurti’s somewhat abnormal

> upbringing, it

> > seems more likely that he had difficulty in having

> > normal relationships with women. Did not someone

> post

> > something about a much older Krishnamurti having a

> > relationship with the wife of one of his friends

> > earlier, or is it my memory that is faulty here!

>

> >

> > Perhaps Krishnamurti had resolved certain

> relationship

> > issues by the time he was in his 70s and 80s. I am

> not

> > a Krishnamurti expert, so if someone has

> rishnamurti’s

> > side of the story, please post it. John wanted

> facts.

> >

> > If absence of memory or poor memory was sign of

> some

> > advanced spiritual state, then everyone with

> > Alzheimer’s would be considered enlightened.

> People

> > who have abused alcohol lose many brain cells and

> have

> > poor memories as well. Many people also lose

> memory

> > due to illness. We can certainly sympathize with

> > people who have a weak memory. However, to

> suggest

> > that bad memory implies living in the present

> moment

> > and enjoying some divine exalted state seems bit

> of a

> > stretch.

> >

> > Love to all

> > Harsha

> >

> >

> > --- druout@a... wrote:

> > > Harsha writes:

> > >

> > > "Lot of these Guru types (or the so called

> non-guru

> > > types) have serious problems trying to keep up

> the

> > > image and all. Am I being unfair to

> Krishnamurti? I

> > > don't know but it doesn't seem like he was

> > > respectful

> > > of Helen as a human being.

> > >

> > > "And if you can't respect a fellow human being,

> > > especially someone that you have cared about and

> > > someone who cares about you, then something does

> > > seem

> > > out of place. "

> > >

>

 

 

 

=====

/join

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

New DSL Internet Access from SBC &

http://sbc.

[Guest guest]

, "John Logan" <johnrloganis> wrote:

> I am reading about Helen's view of her situation with K.

> I am reading opinions about about what the situation really was.

> I am reading opinions about Krishnamurti.

>

> I am NOT reading what Krishnamurti's experience and situation was,

I

> am not reading K.'s side of the story.

>

> Perhaps we don't need opinions, perhaps we need facts.

>

> John L.

 

The process called "human mind" digresses.

 

It speculates.

 

It assumes.

 

It generates feelings based

on assumptions that lead to

speculations, which tie in

with previous experiences

which the mind links as "identity."

 

Which is the more important "fact":

the fact which the mind says is

true because it fits with assumptions,

speculations, and agendas ...

 

or the fact of what the mind is doing?

 

which the mind doesn't know, because

it can't step outside of itself to

know what it is doing?

 

(by mind, I don't mean an entity, but

an activity, a process involving the

movements of images, words, and concepts ...)

 

-- Dan

[Guest guest]

Dear Harsha,

 

If it is not about babba it is about bubba :-)

 

You wrote:

>>> This gentleman, while acknowledging K's brilliance also had some

unflattering comments about

Krishnamurti's behavior. <<<

 

Does it make a difference whether we comment upon say... Sai Baba or

Krishnamurti? Is one more acceptable to be criticized than the other? We

have dealt with the Sai Baba quite a while ago, and it was good that the

slew of comments on him stopped, now we have Krishnamurti... and he only

erred in being boring? Is that "perceived" boredom really worth talking

about?

 

Whatever anybody comments on someone else is more telling about the

commentator than about the one commented upon...

 

Is it really effective to express negative remarks about someone, however

slight the negativity is?

Is it not always more appropriate to keep a door open?

By remarking negatively about someone, may one not prevent or hamper another

person to open a door to the one who was just commented upon...

>>> Many years ago, my teacher's son was speaking to me on the phone and

telling me how much he was enjoying reading one of the Krishnamurti books

and asked me about K. I had to be honest and told him that I found K's books

to be very very boring. <<<

 

Real example:

I admit now, that once I had similar feelings about Krishnamurti as you, I

carefully kept them to myself though... If I would have expressed them to my

wife (who loved reading his books), she would not have enjoyed her

discoveries about reality as much as she did without my support or... with a

bit of a burr of my doing from my side... This could have had long range

repercussions... E.g. we may have gotten separated last year.... And I am

not kidding, honestly...

>>>I had to be honest and told him that I found K's books to be very very

boring. <<<

 

There is a difference between honesty in expressing one's inner feelings -

feelings directly to do with oneself - and expressing external

sensitivities - sensitivities directly having to do with someone else.

For example, it is good to be honest about one's own inner negativity, but

it is not really honesty to "flap" about conditional sensitivities one may

have about others...

 

The only honesty is the one that extends honour, honour to others and thus

honour indirectly to oneself.

It is not for nothing that honour and honesty are based on the same Sanskrit

root. Actually honesty and wisdom or knowledge are based on the same related

roots AN--> HAN--> GAN --> KAN, "Oh, Honourable One..." or "Oh,

Knowledgeable One...' or "Oh, Wise One..."

 

(There is, by the way, so much to this: the word "One" is based on the Aryan

"Aina", the name of the proto-god "An", the "One".)

 

Anyway, even the slightest derogatory comments about others is not

honourable...

 

Oops :-(

OK... :-)

Now... it is my turn to be honest...

Of course, what I just wrote, says more about me than about you to whom and

on whom I am commenting. Yes, I am sorry to say, I am slapping you somewhat

on the wrist... (Of course, I know that you can handle it... and also I know

that I am not saying this to dishonour you...)

I also know that I needed to say this... and what a better person to say

this to than to you Harsha...?!

 

You also wrote:

>>> The Kundalini experiences Krishnamurti had are not unusual as you well

know Hillary from your own experiences. I don't find them particularly

impressive <<<

 

Why should they impress you?!

>>> Those who are interested in such things can find others like Gopi

Krishna who has described his very dramatic experiences as well. People on

this list can give such descriptions of their Kundalini experiences also.

What does it mean?? <<<

 

I have written so many times now that Kundalini is our innate self-healing

inner mechanism and dynamic. I know..., this may not be the prevailing view,

but I did not expect to keep running into misunderstanding and somewhat

discounting remarks about Kundalini on this list anymore.

 

With all due respect and honour, Harsha,

 

Wim

 

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.386 / Virus Database: 218 - Release 9/9/2002

[Guest guest]

Dear Wim,

 

I enjoyed reading your comments as always. Your candor

is much appreciated.

 

It is possible perhaps for people to honor each other

in different ways. Sometimes by keeping quiet and

other times by speaking out. I am open to the

possibility that we can honor each other at times by

being honest and straight forward with our views,

although doing it with as much respect (and humor) as

possible.

 

So thank you for your comments Wim!

 

I certainly encourage people to post on Krishnamurti

if they have benefitted from his teaching.

 

Lots of love

Harsha

 

--- Wim Borsboom <wim wrote:

> Dear Harsha,

>

> If it is not about babba it is about bubba :-)

>

> You wrote:

> >>> This gentleman, while acknowledging K's

> brilliance also had some

> unflattering comments about

> Krishnamurti's behavior. <<<

>

> Does it make a difference whether we comment upon

> say... Sai Baba or

> Krishnamurti? Is one more acceptable to be

> criticized than the other? We

> have dealt with the Sai Baba quite a while ago, and

> it was good that the

> slew of comments on him stopped, now we have

> Krishnamurti... and he only

> erred in being boring? Is that "perceived" boredom

> really worth talking

> about?

>

> Whatever anybody comments on someone else is more

> telling about the

> commentator than about the one commented upon...

>

> Is it really effective to express negative remarks

> about someone, however

> slight the negativity is?

> Is it not always more appropriate to keep a door

> open?

> By remarking negatively about someone, may one not

> prevent or hamper another

> person to open a door to the one who was just

> commented upon...

>

> >>> Many years ago, my teacher's son was speaking to

> me on the phone and

> telling me how much he was enjoying reading one of

> the Krishnamurti books

> and asked me about K. I had to be honest and told

> him that I found K's books

> to be very very boring. <<<

>

> Real example:

> I admit now, that once I had similar feelings about

> Krishnamurti as you, I

> carefully kept them to myself though... If I would

> have expressed them to my

> wife (who loved reading his books), she would not

> have enjoyed her

> discoveries about reality as much as she did without

> my support or... with a

> bit of a burr of my doing from my side... This could

> have had long range

> repercussions... E.g. we may have gotten separated

> last year.... And I am

> not kidding, honestly...

>

> >>>I had to be honest and told him that I found K's

> books to be very very

> boring. <<<

>

> There is a difference between honesty in expressing

> one's inner feelings -

> feelings directly to do with oneself - and

> expressing external

> sensitivities - sensitivities directly having to do

> with someone else.

> For example, it is good to be honest about one's

> own inner negativity, but

> it is not really honesty to "flap" about conditional

> sensitivities one may

> have about others...

>

> The only honesty is the one that extends honour,

> honour to others and thus

> honour indirectly to oneself.

> It is not for nothing that honour and honesty are

> based on the same Sanskrit

> root. Actually honesty and wisdom or knowledge are

> based on the same related

> roots AN--> HAN--> GAN --> KAN, "Oh, Honourable

> One..." or "Oh,

> Knowledgeable One...' or "Oh, Wise One..."

>

> (There is, by the way, so much to this: the word

> "One" is based on the Aryan

> "Aina", the name of the proto-god "An", the "One".)

>

> Anyway, even the slightest derogatory comments about

> others is not

> honourable...

>

> Oops :-(

> OK... :-)

> Now... it is my turn to be honest...

> Of course, what I just wrote, says more about me

> than about you to whom and

> on whom I am commenting. Yes, I am sorry to say, I

> am slapping you somewhat

> on the wrist... (Of course, I know that you can

> handle it... and also I know

> that I am not saying this to dishonour you...)

> I also know that I needed to say this... and what a

> better person to say

> this to than to you Harsha...?!

>

> You also wrote:

> >>> The Kundalini experiences Krishnamurti had are

> not unusual as you well

> know Hillary from your own experiences. I don't find

> them particularly

> impressive <<<

>

> Why should they impress you?!

>

> >>> Those who are interested in such things can find

> others like Gopi

> Krishna who has described his very dramatic

> experiences as well. People on

> this list can give such descriptions of their

> Kundalini experiences also.

> What does it mean?? <<<

>

> I have written so many times now that Kundalini is

> our innate self-healing

> inner mechanism and dynamic. I know..., this may not

> be the prevailing view,

> but I did not expect to keep running into

> misunderstanding and somewhat

> discounting remarks about Kundalini on this list

> anymore.

>

> With all due respect and honour, Harsha,

>

> Wim

 

 

 

=====

/join

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

New DSL Internet Access from SBC &

http://sbc.

[Guest guest]

, Harsha <harshaimtm> wrote:

>

> I certainly encourage people to post on Krishnamurti

> if they have benefitted from his teaching.

>

 

 

 

Krishnamurti holds a very dear spot in the center of my heart.

 

Sincerely,

Kheyala

[Guest guest]

Greetings Dan,

 

Yes, yes, yes. and ...

 

What the "mind" doesn't know the "Witness" does.

 

John L.

 

, "dan330033" <dan330033> wrote:

>

> The process called "human mind" digresses.

>

> It speculates.

>

> It assumes.

>

> It generates feelings based

> on assumptions that lead to

> speculations, which tie in

> with previous experiences

> which the mind links as "identity."

>

> Which is the more important "fact":

> the fact which the mind says is

> true because it fits with assumptions,

> speculations, and agendas ...

>

> or the fact of what the mind is doing?

>

> which the mind doesn't know, because

> it can't step outside of itself to

> know what it is doing?

>

> (by mind, I don't mean an entity, but

> an activity, a process involving the

> movements of images, words, and concepts ...)

>

> -- Dan

[Guest guest]

on 9/24/02 7:36 AM, dan330033 at dan330033 wrote:

>

> The process called "human mind" digresses.

>

> It speculates.

>

> It assumes.

>

> It generates feelings based

> on assumptions that lead to

> speculations, which tie in

> with previous experiences

> which the mind links as "identity."

>

> Which is the more important "fact":

> the fact which the mind says is

> true because it fits with assumptions,

> speculations, and agendas ...

>

> or the fact of what the mind is doing?

>

> which the mind doesn't know, because

> it can't step outside of itself to

> know what it is doing?

>

> (by mind, I don't mean an entity, but

> an activity, a process involving the

> movements of images, words, and concepts ...)

>

> -- Dan

 

 

Yes, Dan...this is our Maya, not so much that the world is illusion as it is

our perception of it that is.... not quite altogether true.

 

The assumed identity judges, because it exists in a state of fear. Fear

arises with the sense of *other* and so judgements abound with strategies to

save oneself from assumed danger.

 

Boredom, doubt, and discomfort arise after one assumes he's relatively safe.

Unless the selfless loving ( that is our nature) is happening, then one is

strategizing, steering away from pain and toward pleasure. This whole game

gets tiresome and then nothing works....then we stop.

 

.....and then Grace finds us available.

 

I confess to the same unenthusiasum for K as Harsha. I read a few books in

the 70s and didn't find the heart anywhere, the love. Even Love seemed to be

analyzed to death by the mind of K.

 

( Here is something for Wim to tell us about: anal-yze...no doubt the phrase

," don't be anal about it," comes from the picking apart or analyzing the

details? Wim?)

 

I *do* remember reading some Rajneesh book where he alluded to an

interesting situation...The Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh said that the soul of

Maitreya was to come into the vehicle of Krishnamurti to do his teaching

work, but the ego in K would not allow this to happen. Mmmmmm.....????

 

Also, does anyone here know when Rajneesh changed into Osho? Did he change

his name or did someone do it after his passing?

 

I bow to all of the Mystery.

 

Shawn

[Guest guest]

Hi Shawn --

> Yes, Dan...this is our Maya, not so much that the world is illusion

as it is

> our perception of it that is.... not quite altogether true.

>

> The assumed identity judges, because it exists in a state of fear.

Fear

> arises with the sense of *other* and so judgements abound with

strategies to

> save oneself from assumed danger.

 

Where there is no assumed separation,

self and other don't pertain.

 

Words all imply an inside and outside,

but words can be used without

being deceived.

 

Thought, memory, sensation, perception--

these occur without any real inside

or outside taking place -- no

separated observer is ever situated.

 

>

> Boredom, doubt, and discomfort arise after one assumes he's

relatively safe.

> Unless the selfless loving ( that is our nature) is happening, then

one is

> strategizing, steering away from pain and toward pleasure. This

whole game

> gets tiresome and then nothing works....then we stop.

>

> ....and then Grace finds us available.

>

> I confess to the same unenthusiasum for K as Harsha. I read a few

books in

> the 70s and didn't find the heart anywhere, the love. Even Love

seemed to be

> analyzed to death by the mind of K.

 

Krishnamurti isn't someone to be read for

enjoyment, to get a feeling from, etc.

 

Krishnamurti points to direct insight, which

is not of thought, and which isn't in

the words of Krishnamurti.

 

If you get the message, the clarity, to which

he points, you might not want to read any

more Krishnamurti. He says the same thing

over and over, because it is the one point

he wants to convey.

 

Clarity is obscured because we trick ourselves

into believing separation.

 

If no separation is assumed, one wouldn't necessarily

want to hear more from Krishnamurti. But then,

why would one want to hear more from anyone?

Why would one cherish certain feelings or experiences?

 

One is free of holding to a position, and only "what is"

undisturbed, is being "what is" -- itself, oneself --

the words don't matter anymore.

 

>

> ( Here is something for Wim to tell us about: anal-yze...no doubt

the phrase

> ," don't be anal about it," comes from the picking apart or

analyzing the

> details? Wim?)

>

> I *do* remember reading some Rajneesh book where he alluded to an

> interesting situation...The Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh said that the

soul of

> Maitreya was to come into the vehicle of Krishnamurti to do his

teaching

> work, but the ego in K would not allow this to happen.

Mmmmmm.....????

 

I'll tell you very straight -- this is bullshit.

 

And anyone who gets tricked by conceptual nonsense about

beings who want to incarnate but can't, and ego's

the prevent things from happening -- gets to deal

with the results of their believing conceptual

nonsense.

 

There is always ego apparent whenever there is criticism

of what someone else's ego has done.

 

But, if this is missed, let the buyer beware! :-)

 

>

> Also, does anyone here know when Rajneesh changed into Osho? Did

he change

> his name or did someone do it after his passing?

 

Who cares?

 

This is all speculation of mind,

of no value except for gossip.

 

But of course, gossip has its place

in the scheme of things, too.

 

And it shows that whatever boredom might

be induced by Krishnamurti, he had

a point about the way the mind

generates speculations and then

gets involved with pursuing these ideas.

 

Boredom can be a very important focus for

looking into. What happens when there is

boredom, what is the boredom about,

what is the expectation involved that leads

to the feeling of boredom? These are the

kinds of questions Krishnamurti raised --

looking into "what is" as it is -- not

trying to avoid boredom, be entertained,

find what one likes to hear.

 

And by the way, not only can Krishnamurti be

boring in much of what he said -- he can be

petulant, high strung, and actually express

high expectations for his audience at the

same time he is questioning whether expectations

have any validity!

 

> I bow to all of the Mystery.

 

If no detective is situated to find something out,

then there's no mystery.

 

-- Dan

[Guest guest]

--- kheyalove <kheyala wrote:

> Krishnamurti holds a very dear spot in the center of

> my heart.

>

> Sincerely,

> Kheyala

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

Mine too Kheyala. But does anyone care about Helen?

 

Honestly.

 

Double Sincerely

Harsha

 

=====

/join

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

New DSL Internet Access from SBC &

http://sbc.

[Guest guest]

I'm enjoying this thread and it brings up an ongoing area of interest. Not

that I'm a Jnani or anything, but I'm noticing as I go along that I am less

and less self-conscious, which is a very good thing for my closest

relationships and also seems to facilitate the daily casual exchanges with

people. But the friendships in-between feel extremely awkward to me, exactly

because they sometimes seem to require a self-consciousness I now find quite

unpleasant. I find I have very little to say, sitting there viewing

everybody as God! Thanks to b and Mazie, I've looked up Adyashanti's (sp?)

excellent writing on the evolution of relationships AFTER the truth has been

realized, but otherwise I have not found too many helpful sources. One feels

one's way along, I guess. I'd love to hear if anybody has any notion of what

I'm talking about! Holly

[Guest guest]

>>Does anyone care about Helen?

 

It ocurrs to me that attachments between people (consenting adults)

would be difficult for a jnani.

 

How would you avoid hurting someone? Emotional attachments would be

one sided wouldn't they? A person (Helen) would be inconsistant,

blown about by karma, and desirous of remaining close to an object of

perceived purity.

 

The jnani (Krishnamurti) would have to enter a relationship knowing

there is a chance of inconsistancy on the part of the person.

 

A relationship like this would be onesided and doomed to hurt the

person.

 

I don't personally see a true jnani being involved in that way. I do

see a person of value and insight and intermittant brillance, filled

with love, being both loved and lover.

 

Love

Bobby G.

[Guest guest]

Bobby, why do you assume that Helen is not a Jnani and

Krishnamurti is!

 

Is it required that the Jnani proclaim herself to be

so and flex her spiritual biceps and make poses and

bore the hell out of everyone and their uncle.

 

It might be the other way around --- with

Krishnamurti, an unfinished product, being blown about

by his insecurities, and Helen, the true Jnani, being

perplexed by Krishamurti's odd behavior but accepting

it and continuing to hold him dear in her heart

despite K's immaturity.

 

Gee, if I had to guess who was the Jnani in that

story, it would not be Krishnamurti. And as my record

shows, my guesses are legendary for accuracy.

 

Just another perspective Bobby.

 

Sorry to not go along with everyone's brainwashing.

 

I am just saying that.

 

I am really not sorry at all. Ha, Ha! :-)

 

Love to a few (just kidding).

 

Love to all

Harsha

 

 

--- texasbg2000 <Bigbobgraham wrote:

> >>Does anyone care about Helen?

>

> It ocurrs to me that attachments between people

> (consenting adults)

> would be difficult for a jnani.

>

> How would you avoid hurting someone? Emotional

> attachments would be

> one sided wouldn't they? A person (Helen) would be

> inconsistant,

> blown about by karma, and desirous of remaining

> close to an object of

> perceived purity.

>

> The jnani (Krishnamurti) would have to enter a

> relationship knowing

> there is a chance of inconsistancy on the part of

> the person.

>

> A relationship like this would be onesided and

> doomed to hurt the

> person.

>

> I don't personally see a true jnani being involved

> in that way. I do

> see a person of value and insight and intermittant

> brillance, filled

> with love, being both loved and lover.

>

> Love

> Bobby G.

 

 

 

=====

/join

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

New DSL Internet Access from SBC &

http://sbc.

[Guest guest]

-Dear Harsha:

 

My point was that neither was a jnani. There is no use holding K. up

to a higher standard than anyone else.

 

It seems they both did the right thing by not meeting. Assuming the

gossip is true that they had had an intimate relationship, it seems

that presenting an old girlfriend to a current girlfriend would be

fraught with possibilities and an uncertainty that many would avoid.

 

If he was her teacher then they both gave up a lot by having an

affair. We on the sidelines can only vicariously hope it was worth

it.

 

Doesn't the Krishamurti's have a retreat in Ojai, CA?? I logged on

to someone's site a few years ago that gave the particulars about

staying there to get away from it all but I am not sure it was K.

It was very idyllic.

 

Interesting phrase, brainwashing. Clensing the mind should be a good

thing.

Bobby

 

 

-- In , Harsha <harshaimtm> wrote:

> Bobby, why do you assume that Helen is not a Jnani and

> Krishnamurti is!

>

> Is it required that the Jnani proclaim herself to be

> so and flex her spiritual biceps and make poses and

> bore the hell out of everyone and their uncle.

>

> It might be the other way around --- with

> Krishnamurti, an unfinished product, being blown about

> by his insecurities, and Helen, the true Jnani, being

> perplexed by Krishamurti's odd behavior but accepting

> it and continuing to hold him dear in her heart

> despite K's immaturity.

>

> Gee, if I had to guess who was the Jnani in that

> story, it would not be Krishnamurti. And as my record

> shows, my guesses are legendary for accuracy.

>

> Just another perspective Bobby.

>

> Sorry to not go along with everyone's brainwashing.

>

> I am just saying that.

>

> I am really not sorry at all. Ha, Ha! :-)

>

> Love to a few (just kidding).

>

> Love to all

> Harsha

>

>

> --- texasbg2000 <Bigbobgraham@a...> wrote:

> > >>Does anyone care about Helen?

> >

> > It ocurrs to me that attachments between people

> > (consenting adults)

> > would be difficult for a jnani.

> >

> > How would you avoid hurting someone? Emotional

> > attachments would be

> > one sided wouldn't they? A person (Helen) would be

> > inconsistant,

> > blown about by karma, and desirous of remaining

> > close to an object of

> > perceived purity.

> >

> > The jnani (Krishnamurti) would have to enter a

> > relationship knowing

> > there is a chance of inconsistancy on the part of

> > the person.

> >

> > A relationship like this would be onesided and

> > doomed to hurt the

> > person.

> >

> > I don't personally see a true jnani being involved

> > in that way. I do

> > see a person of value and insight and intermittant

> > brillance, filled

> > with love, being both loved and lover.

> >

> > Love

> > Bobby G.

>

>

>

> =====

> /join

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> New DSL Internet Access from SBC &

> http://sbc.

[Guest guest]

Hi Dan,

 

You wrote to Shawn,

> Where there is no assumed separation,

> self and other don't pertain.

>

> Words all imply an inside and outside,

> but words can be used without

> being deceived.

>

> Thought, memory, sensation, perception--

> these occur without any real inside

> or outside taking place -- no

> separated observer is ever situated.

 

Of course there is nothing wrong (and I am not assuming that you mean that)

with separation in the sense that parts and partners are pared off entities.

> ...words can be used without

> being deceived.

 

Indeed, the Sanskrit root PAR means parting off in the strong sense of

preparing them for sharing. PAR or pre-pare means separating something in

order to join it up somewhere else... Basically that is what play or lila is

about, is it not?

 

It is nice to have a "partner" eh?! :-)

 

The words pair, pare (paring knife) and par (as in "at par") are quite

likely related through the same root.

 

Thus separation in essence is not a bad thing at all...!

 

What is fallacious and caused by illusive manipulations is that denatured

humans have been forced to think that separation is a punishment,

everlasting doom or the like..

 

Again, like so many other words such as karma and maya (which originally

meant harmony and matter) here we have another example of a word that over

time has been assigned negative connotations.

 

To separate is what you do to pare similar entities and to prepare them for

sharing space and time in a different combination- to pair them up again.

 

What a loving activity really... want to dance with me?

 

I am coming more and more to the conclusion that when we use our words in

their original designed and invented (yes) meanings that we get it together

again. Or... that we just speak no words..., but that is a bigger ticket...!

In fact, is it not so that quietude follows when quibbling stops?

Good thing is that etymology is not semantic quibbling.

 

Word fragments, or archeo-mimeologic linguistic remnants, can, like broken

pieces of pottery, be joined up again, and it shows that in times of yore,

there indeed lived a kind of human who was still wholly natural and divine.

In fact, when we use our language thus, clearly and purely and in its

originality, we get something more whole than a restored glued together

vessel. We get a seamless integrity... a language of truth that is not

fragile like restored artefacts that end up in musea, we get a spoken word

(logos) with the original inspiration, making life divine current an

actual...

The oral tradition of the realized of yore is still fully useful and

applicable.

 

Here is to truth and words that speak of it...!!!

 

Wim

 

 

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.386 / Virus Database: 218 - Release 9/9/2002

[Guest guest]

Hi Bobby,

 

You wrote:

>>> It ocurs to me that attachments between people (consenting adults) would

be difficult for a jnani. <<<

 

I tell you :-) it is not impossible... and there can be great fun between

them...

But is requires steadfast work initially, and when one keeps at it, the

fruits are wonderful and plentiful...

>>>I don't personally see a true jnani being involved in that way.<<<

 

Well, there is nothing though that stops you from seeing it that way... you

can in fact as you say, "... see a person of value and insight and

intermittant brillance, filled with love, being both loved and lover" and

that to the fullest extent...

 

Wim

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.386 / Virus Database: 218 - Release 9/9/2002

[Guest guest]

Dear Holly:

 

An interesting notion. Perhaps you are becoming someone more people

want to get to know. The light is shining so to speak. The newness

of the situation might seem to come from you so you might need some

adaptation.

Just guessing. We not only bring our karma to a contact but our way

of reacting to their karma.

Love

Bobby G.

 

 

, Hbarrett47@a... wrote:

> I'm enjoying this thread and it brings up an ongoing area of

interest. Not

> that I'm a Jnani or anything, but I'm noticing as I go along that I

am less

> and less self-conscious, which is a very good thing for my closest

> relationships and also seems to facilitate the daily casual

exchanges with

> people. But the friendships in-between feel extremely awkward to

me, exactly

> because they sometimes seem to require a self-consciousness I now

find quite

> unpleasant. I find I have very little to say, sitting there

viewing

> everybody as God! Thanks to b and Mazie, I've looked up

Adyashanti's (sp?)

> excellent writing on the evolution of relationships AFTER the truth

has been

> realized, but otherwise I have not found too many helpful sources.

One feels

> one's way along, I guess. I'd love to hear if anybody has any

notion of what

> I'm talking about! Holly

[Guest guest]

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

> Hi Bobby,

>

> You wrote:

> >>> It ocurs to me that attachments between people (consenting

adults) would

> be difficult for a jnani. <<<

>

> I tell you :-) it is not impossible... and there can be great fun

between

> them...

> But is requires steadfast work initially, and when one keeps at it,

the

> fruits are wonderful and plentiful...

>

> >>>I don't personally see a true jnani being involved in that

way.<<<

>

> Well, there is nothing though that stops you from seeing it that

way... you

> can in fact as you say, "... see a person of value and insight and

> intermittant brillance, filled with love, being both loved and

lover" and

> that to the fullest extent...

>

> Wim

> ---

Dear Wim:

 

Having a wife is different than having lovers, and the potential for

harming someone, I believe, would stop a jnani from doing that.

 

Your suggestion that you are a jnani and so can speak about it with

authority is not backed up with any evidence I can see.

 

Love and laughter

Bobby G.

[Guest guest]

Hi Wim --

 

That there is no separation means that

whatever we conceive of as separation,

hasn't really separated anything.

 

-- Dan

 

 

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

> Hi Dan,

>

> You wrote to Shawn,

>

> > Where there is no assumed separation,

> > self and other don't pertain.

> >

> > Words all imply an inside and outside,

> > but words can be used without

> > being deceived.

> >

> > Thought, memory, sensation, perception--

> > these occur without any real inside

> > or outside taking place -- no

> > separated observer is ever situated.

>

> Of course there is nothing wrong (and I am not assuming that you

mean that)

> with separation in the sense that parts and partners are pared off

entities.

>

> > ...words can be used without

> > being deceived.

>

> Indeed, the Sanskrit root PAR means parting off in the strong sense

of

> preparing them for sharing. PAR or pre-pare means separating

something in

> order to join it up somewhere else... Basically that is what play

or lila is

> about, is it not?

>

> It is nice to have a "partner" eh?! :-)

>

> The words pair, pare (paring knife) and par (as in "at par") are

quite

> likely related through the same root.

>

> Thus separation in essence is not a bad thing at all...!

>

> What is fallacious and caused by illusive manipulations is that

denatured

> humans have been forced to think that separation is a punishment,

> everlasting doom or the like..

>

> Again, like so many other words such as karma and maya (which

originally

> meant harmony and matter) here we have another example of a word

that over

> time has been assigned negative connotations.

>

> To separate is what you do to pare similar entities and to prepare

them for

> sharing space and time in a different combination- to pair them up

again.

>

> What a loving activity really... want to dance with me?

>

> I am coming more and more to the conclusion that when we use our

words in

> their original designed and invented (yes) meanings that we get it

together

> again. Or... that we just speak no words..., but that is a bigger

ticket...!

> In fact, is it not so that quietude follows when quibbling stops?

> Good thing is that etymology is not semantic quibbling.

>

> Word fragments, or archeo-mimeologic linguistic remnants, can, like

broken

> pieces of pottery, be joined up again, and it shows that in times

of yore,

> there indeed lived a kind of human who was still wholly natural and

divine.

> In fact, when we use our language thus, clearly and purely and in

its

> originality, we get something more whole than a restored glued

together

> vessel. We get a seamless integrity... a language of truth that is

not

> fragile like restored artefacts that end up in musea, we get a

spoken word

> (logos) with the original inspiration, making life divine current an

> actual...

> The oral tradition of the realized of yore is still fully useful and

> applicable.

>

> Here is to truth and words that speak of it...!!!

>

> Wim

>

>

> ---

> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

> Version: 6.0.386 / Virus Database: 218 - Release 9/9/2002

[Guest guest]

Hi Bobby,

>>> Having a wife is different than having lovers, and the potential for

harming someone, I believe, would stop a jnani from doing that.

 

OK Bobby, :-) make that "Having a spouse..."

 

I have a spouse and love others as intimately as I do Emmy. Also I am a

spouse and am being loved by others who have their own loving spouses (or is

that spice?)... and nothing of that under the table... :-)

 

By the way, the potential for harming, danger or some difficulty is no

reason for not pursuing a goal, it is all the more reason to work more

steadfast, diligent and compassionately at it... to attain freedom for

all... to prevent another from being harmed by not being loved ... this

Helen of Krishnamurti maybe???

I can tell you my story... well, some already know...

 

It is a story of hard work infinitivally and unwavering resolve...

 

To "rework" ourselves to our original steady state of unconditional love, a

love that at the same time allows all conditions is not uncommon at all to

humankind. It may be rare, but rarity does not mean that it is not in origin

part and parcel of living as human in this divine milieu.

 

Unconditional love allows all conditions as it is independent from those

conditions.

>>> Your suggestion that you are a jnani and so can speak about it with

authority is not backed up with any evidence I can see. <<<

>>> Love and laughter <<<

 

Laughing and loving as well...

I may, but do not have to back this up with evidence... :-)

At some point jnani, bhakti and other yogic characteristics re-merge...

That is one of the meanings of "yoga": integration into wholeness, or as I

like to say "reintegration".

 

How that is with me, is as clear as can be..., as evident as the fact that

you are not sleeping while you are reading this. I don't have to see that

you are reading... you are reading....

 

Anyway, whether something is true or not has not much to do with others

believing it...

Belief is a concern of the doubter. Truth cannot be believed anyway, truth

is, it stands on its own. As long as something is believed, there is still a

remnant of doubt...

 

I say... away with doubt Bobbie...!

 

This has nothing to do with me, whether you believe me or not, it is nothing

to me, in the final analysis belief has to be suspended, gotten rid of...

 

Still loving and laughing, like you...

 

Wim

 

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.386 / Virus Database: 218 - Release 9/9/2002