Guest guest Posted January 11, 2003 Report Share Posted January 11, 2003 Honesty is the most profound happening that one could ever experience.It finally takes us from the discouraging path to Truth, directly onto the roadof Truth.John de Ruiter (from True Vision list) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 12, 2003 Report Share Posted January 12, 2003 , "Gloria Lee" <glee@c...> wrote: > Honesty is the most profound happening that one could ever experience. > It finally takes us from the discouraging path to Truth, directly onto the road > of Truth. > > John de Ruiter > > (from True Vision list) In answer to Gloria the following comes from Sarlo of the Guru rating list: (Gloria) this is from the guy who lied to his wife about the two young blonde women he was getting it on with. He was open about it eventually but not at first. http://www.globalserve.net/~sarlo/Yjohn.htm Sigh. Sarlo Hi Gloria, thanks for all the good work you are doing! :-). This guy sounds like President Clinton. He was also open about Monica and stuff but not at first. I wish all these gurus could practice what they preach. How easy it is to dispense pop psycho babble advice on how to live!? :-). Love to all Harsha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 12, 2003 Report Share Posted January 12, 2003 , "harshaimtm <harshaimtm>" <harshaimtm> wrote: <snip> > In answer to Gloria the following comes from Sarlo of the Guru rating > list: > > (Gloria) this is from the guy who lied to his wife about the two > young blonde women he was getting it on with. He was open about it > eventually but not at first. > http://www.globalserve.net/~sarlo/Yjohn.htm > > Sigh. > Sarlo > > Hi Gloria, thanks for all the good work you are doing! :-). This guy > sounds like President Clinton. He was also open about Monica and > stuff but not at first. > > I wish all these gurus could practice what they preach. How easy it > is to dispense pop psycho babble advice on how to live!? :-). > > Love to all > Harsha Hello Harsha and All Friends - And my question is this: Where on the honesty scale, do we put using multiple personas online? Me, I have this one and another older one that came first (it is used on 2 lists only, and I have never used more than one ID on any list), so I am including myself in the question. And, I am quite sure, that many readers here do the same, perhaps even moreso, but I am not singling any one individual out, just asking a general question. One that I am serious about. And I ask what is 'true' and what is 'honest' in this context, when people insinuate themselves into the lives and hearts of others under falsified personalities? People might say that they use these different personalities to advance a teaching - and i think that is valid - i endorse and support it. But I don't endorse and support it when people get hurt... And that happens, too. It has happened to me. But, asking for myself, is there something that has gone awry when we then take that extra step and speak of truth and honesty while hiding behind our false personas? It is troubling to me. And that's a truth for me. love, joyce Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 12, 2003 Report Share Posted January 12, 2003 Thanks for bringing this up Joyce. Not too long ago, many of us became aware of a woman pretending to be a man on the internet (had a male's e-mail name). So I certainly understand when you say that there can be misunderstandings! It all depends on how seriously we take things and what we are looking for, I guess. I am not sure what this has to do with the original post by Gloria about John de ruiter or President Clinton and Monica. But if you want to change the thread, sure why not? :-). By the way, I am not sure what you are saying? Is it what I am saying? Harsha , "know_mystery > > > Hello Harsha and All Friends - > > And my question is this: Where on the honesty scale, do we put using > multiple personas online? Me, I have this one and another older one > that came first (it is used on 2 lists only, and I have never used > more than one ID on any list), so I am including myself in the > question. And, I am quite sure, that many readers here do the same, > perhaps even moreso, but I am not singling any one individual out, > just asking a general question. One that I am serious about. > > And I ask what is 'true' and what is 'honest' in this context, when > people insinuate themselves into the lives and hearts of others under > falsified personalities? People might say that they use these > different personalities to advance a teaching - and i think that is > valid - i endorse and support it. But I don't endorse and support it > when people get hurt... And that happens, too. It has happened to me. > > But, asking for myself, is there something that has gone awry when we > then take that extra step and speak of truth and honesty while hiding > behind our false personas? It is troubling to me. And that's a truth > for me. > > love, > joyce Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 12, 2003 Report Share Posted January 12, 2003 Hi Harsha - It had to do with people speaking out for truth but not operating from a place of truth, like John de Ruiter or Clinton, only in an online environment. That's what it was about, not about what one is or is not looking for or how seriously anyone takes the net. There are people espousing Truth with a capital 'T' who are speaking from places of untruth as evidenced by behavior. And so I brought it up as something to be reconciled, by everyone, where words and behavior are perhaps at odds. What I would say to those people is: I'll listen to the messages of Truth, but come to me from a position of honesty, please. joyce PS - So I don't think I've changed the thread. One person praised the work of another who was pursuing Truth, and the second poster pointed out that the other who was pursuing Truth was living a lie... And I just generalized it to 'anybody' online who might be living a lie while espousing the Truth. But that's just me, and i've been guilty too. , "harshaimtm <harshaimtm>" <harshaimtm> wrote: > Thanks for bringing this up Joyce. Not too long ago, many of us > became aware of a woman pretending to be a man on the internet (had a > male's e-mail name). So I certainly understand when you say that > there can be misunderstandings! It all depends on how seriously we > take things and what we are looking for, I guess. > > I am not sure what this has to do with the original post by Gloria > about John de ruiter or President Clinton and Monica. But if you want > to change the thread, sure why not? :-). > > By the way, I am not sure what you are saying? Is it what I am saying? > > Harsha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 12, 2003 Report Share Posted January 12, 2003 On 1/12/03 at 10:35 PM know_mystery <know_mystery > wrote: , "harshaimtm <harshaimtm>" <harshaimtm> wrote:<snip>> In answer to Gloria the following comes from Sarlo of the Guru rating > list:> > (Gloria) this is from the guy who lied to his wife about the two > young blonde women he was getting it on with. He was open about it > eventually but not at first. > http://www.globalserve.net/~sarlo/Yjohn.htm> > Sigh.> Sarlo> > Hi Gloria, thanks for all the good work you are doing! :-). This guy > sounds like President Clinton. He was also open about Monica and > stuff but not at first. > > I wish all these gurus could practice what they preach. How easy it > is to dispense pop psycho babble advice on how to live!? :-).> > Love to all> HarshaHello Harsha and All Friends -And my question is this: Where on the honesty scale, do we put using multiple personas online? Me, I have this one and another older one that came first (it is used on 2 lists only, and I have never used more than one ID on any list), so I am including myself in the question. And, I am quite sure, that many readers here do the same, perhaps even moreso, but I am not singling any one individual out, just asking a general question. One that I am serious about. I know the issue, there has been a time when i was the only "Jan" on the lists d to but that changed, and ppl were exchanging the poster's names. That was both nice (giving a free insight into reader's habits) and cumbersome, so i did some research on names to use for a new ID, even took their anagrams into consideration and used Google to spot other users. The choice was "ecirada", which can be pronounced fairly well in many languages and doesn't have other users, according to the Google search machine. The name doesn't have a meaning either :-) And I ask what is 'true' and what is 'honest' in this context, when people insinuate themselves into the lives and hearts of others under falsified personalities? People might say that they use these different personalities to advance a teaching - and i think that is valid - i endorse and support it. But I don't endorse and support it when people get hurt... And that happens, too. It has happened to me. I know of cases of presenting an ID with the other gender as well, and to no surprise, such action asks for a label like "having an agenda for it". Operations, not possible or difficult with one ID, could be termed operations from a "hidden agenda".But, asking for myself, is there something that has gone awry when we then take that extra step and speak of truth and honesty while hiding behind our false personas? It is troubling to me. And that's a truth for me. love,joyce What looks like deceit from one perspective is seen "purposeful" from another. Hence it is pleasant to know, there are nifty proggies to check from where (which ISP) a post has been sent and often, that offers a clue on the poster. But strictly speaking, that goes too for a household of which all members are using the same computer. Hence some linguistic skills (and intuition) are a welcome addition. Peace, Jan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 12, 2003 Report Share Posted January 12, 2003 Gurdjief the great Russian teacher used many personnas on a regular basis. He was a rug merchant in one city, St Petersburg I believe, and a teacher of the occult in Moscow. If you approached him while he was selling rugs then he would just say you were mistaken. I joined a group based on his and ouspensky's work in Cincinatti in '69. The teacher made the students pretend to be somebody they were not to show them how much their self image was based on the role they had in life. I tried it a little but I left town. It is an incredible teacher to do that. The people who were fooled could take it well or not. I think if you want to be understood you better not change your ways too much online. Love Bobby G. , "know_mystery <know_mystery>" <know_mystery> wrote: > Hi Harsha - > > It had to do with people speaking out for truth but not operating > from a place of truth, like John de Ruiter or Clinton, only in an > online environment. That's what it was about, not about what one is > or is not looking for or how seriously anyone takes the net. > > There are people espousing Truth with a capital 'T' who are speaking > from places of untruth as evidenced by behavior. And so I brought it > up as something to be reconciled, by everyone, where words and > behavior are perhaps at odds. What I would say to those people is: > I'll listen to the messages of Truth, but come to me from a position > of honesty, please. > > joyce > > PS - So I don't think I've changed the thread. One person praised the > work of another who was pursuing Truth, and the second poster pointed > out that the other who was pursuing Truth was living a lie... And I > just generalized it to 'anybody' online who might be living a lie > while espousing the Truth. But that's just me, and i've been guilty > too. > > > , "harshaimtm <harshaimtm>" > <harshaimtm> wrote: > > Thanks for bringing this up Joyce. Not too long ago, many of us > > became aware of a woman pretending to be a man on the internet (had > a > > male's e-mail name). So I certainly understand when you say that > > there can be misunderstandings! It all depends on how seriously we > > take things and what we are looking for, I guess. > > > > I am not sure what this has to do with the original post by Gloria > > about John de ruiter or President Clinton and Monica. But if you > want > > to change the thread, sure why not? :-). > > > > By the way, I am not sure what you are saying? Is it what I am > saying? > > > > Harsha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 12, 2003 Report Share Posted January 12, 2003 Hello Bobby - Yes, I am very familiar with this, through Ouspensky's writings of it, and as mentioned in my first post, I think it is a useful thing as a part of teaching. So, it is not about being fooled by a teacher for me, but it IS about having someone hammer on about Truth capital T while being a poseur. If the teacher is not modeling Truth, then where is Truth. If the teacher is lying to the student while speaking of Truth... um, isn't that a little bit disingenuous? Anyway, it is MY problem, not anyone elses... Who am I to challenge those who so selflessly teach those of us who have so much yet to learn? This is just one of my own personal buttons around what is Truth. (And if nothing else, it shows that I am thinking about it, a lot...) But can you help me out with your last sentence? I am not sure what it means when you say "I think if you want to be understood you better not change your ways too much online." Thank you. love, joyce PS - But then there are those instances where the situation does not involve any teachings at all... , "texasbg2000 <Bigbobgraham@a...>" <Bigbobgraham@a...> wrote: > Gurdjief the great Russian teacher used many personnas on a regular > basis. He was a rug merchant in one city, St Petersburg I believe, > and a teacher of the occult in Moscow. If you approached him while > he was selling rugs then he would just say you were mistaken. > > I joined a group based on his and ouspensky's work in Cincinatti > in '69. The teacher made the students pretend to be somebody they > were not to show them how much their self image was based on the role > they had in life. I tried it a little but I left town. It is an > incredible teacher to do that. The people who were fooled could take > it well or not. > > I think if you want to be understood you better not change your ways > too much online. > > Love > Bobby G. > > , "know_mystery > <know_mystery>" <know_mystery> wrote: > > Hi Harsha - > > > > It had to do with people speaking out for truth but not operating > > from a place of truth, like John de Ruiter or Clinton, only in an > > online environment. That's what it was about, not about what one is > > or is not looking for or how seriously anyone takes the net. > > > > There are people espousing Truth with a capital 'T' who are > speaking > > from places of untruth as evidenced by behavior. And so I brought > it > > up as something to be reconciled, by everyone, where words and > > behavior are perhaps at odds. What I would say to those people is: > > I'll listen to the messages of Truth, but come to me from a > position > > of honesty, please. > > > > joyce > > > > PS - So I don't think I've changed the thread. One person praised > the > > work of another who was pursuing Truth, and the second poster > pointed > > out that the other who was pursuing Truth was living a lie... And I > > just generalized it to 'anybody' online who might be living a lie > > while espousing the Truth. But that's just me, and i've been guilty > > too. > > > > > > , "harshaimtm > <harshaimtm>" > > <harshaimtm> wrote: > > > Thanks for bringing this up Joyce. Not too long ago, many of us > > > became aware of a woman pretending to be a man on the internet > (had > > a > > > male's e-mail name). So I certainly understand when you say that > > > there can be misunderstandings! It all depends on how seriously > we > > > take things and what we are looking for, I guess. > > > > > > I am not sure what this has to do with the original post by > Gloria > > > about John de ruiter or President Clinton and Monica. But if you > > want > > > to change the thread, sure why not? :-). > > > > > > By the way, I am not sure what you are saying? Is it what I am > > saying? > > > > > > Harsha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 12, 2003 Report Share Posted January 12, 2003 "harshaimtm " wrote:In answer to Gloria the following comes from Sarlo of the Guru rating list: (Gloria) this is from the guy who lied to his wife about the two young blonde women he was getting it on with. He was open about it eventually but not at first. http://www.globalserve.net/~sarlo/Yjohn.htm Sigh. Sarlo Hi Gloria, thanks for all the good work you are doing! :-). This guy sounds like President Clinton. He was also open about Monica and stuff but not at first. I wish all these gurus could practice what they preach. How easy it is to dispense pop psycho babble advice on how to live!? :-). Love to all Harsha Harsha did you know you were in there to? " Harsha M 45ish Indian based in US (RI) aka Harsh K Luthar PhD, management prof, satsangh mag, holds forth on NDS and HS, Sri Chitrabhanu, Ramana" Cool! How do I get an aka? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 12, 2003 Report Share Posted January 12, 2003 Hi Joyce: I agree there are those times when someone poses and there is no lesson in mind. I think that person has issues as they say. You probably can't learn anything by posing if you don't expose your usual way of acting to yourself. "I think if you want to be understood you > better not change your ways too much online." I think it is hard enough to say what you mean online because of the lack of the "meta message". Inflection, context of a long conversation, eye contact, that sort of thing. If you develop a kind of persona that the people you know get to expect they will know you and what you mean. I try not to use sarcasm for instance but I know others who use it all the time and since I expect it, I know what they really mean (hopefully). I hate to miscommunicate. As an artist my life work is about being able to communicate as directly as possible and I feel a lot of discomfort when I don't. Good luck with this person. Love Bobby G. -- In , "know_mystery <know_mystery>" <know_mystery> wrote: > Hello Bobby - > > Yes, I am very familiar with this, through Ouspensky's writings of > it, and as mentioned in my first post, I think it is a useful thing > as a part of teaching. So, it is not about being fooled by a teacher > for me, but it IS about having someone hammer on about Truth capital > T while being a poseur. If the teacher is not modeling Truth, then > where is Truth. If the teacher is lying to the student while speaking > of Truth... um, isn't that a little bit disingenuous? Anyway, it is > MY problem, not anyone elses... Who am I to challenge those who so > selflessly teach those of us who have so much yet to learn? This is > just one of my own personal buttons around what is Truth. (And if > nothing else, it shows that I am thinking about it, a lot...) > > But can you help me out with your last sentence? I am not sure what > it means when you say "I think if you want to be understood you > better not change your ways too much online." Thank you. > > love, > joyce > > PS - But then there are those instances where the situation does not > involve any teachings at all... > > > > , "texasbg2000 > <Bigbobgraham@a...>" <Bigbobgraham@a...> wrote: > > Gurdjief the great Russian teacher used many personnas on a regular > > basis. He was a rug merchant in one city, St Petersburg I believe, > > and a teacher of the occult in Moscow. If you approached him while > > he was selling rugs then he would just say you were mistaken. > > > > I joined a group based on his and ouspensky's work in Cincinatti > > in '69. The teacher made the students pretend to be somebody they > > were not to show them how much their self image was based on the > role > > they had in life. I tried it a little but I left town. It is an > > incredible teacher to do that. The people who were fooled could > take > > it well or not. > > > > I think if you want to be understood you better not change your > ways > > too much online. > > > > Love > > Bobby G. > > > > , "know_mystery > > <know_mystery>" <know_mystery> wrote: > > > Hi Harsha - > > > > > > It had to do with people speaking out for truth but not operating > > > from a place of truth, like John de Ruiter or Clinton, only in an > > > online environment. That's what it was about, not about what one > is > > > or is not looking for or how seriously anyone takes the net. > > > > > > There are people espousing Truth with a capital 'T' who are > > speaking > > > from places of untruth as evidenced by behavior. And so I brought > > it > > > up as something to be reconciled, by everyone, where words and > > > behavior are perhaps at odds. What I would say to those people > is: > > > I'll listen to the messages of Truth, but come to me from a > > position > > > of honesty, please. > > > > > > joyce > > > > > > PS - So I don't think I've changed the thread. One person praised > > the > > > work of another who was pursuing Truth, and the second poster > > pointed > > > out that the other who was pursuing Truth was living a lie... And > I > > > just generalized it to 'anybody' online who might be living a lie > > > while espousing the Truth. But that's just me, and i've been > guilty > > > too. > > > > > > > > > , "harshaimtm > > <harshaimtm>" > > > <harshaimtm> wrote: > > > > Thanks for bringing this up Joyce. Not too long ago, many of us > > > > became aware of a woman pretending to be a man on the internet > > (had > > > a > > > > male's e-mail name). So I certainly understand when you say > that > > > > there can be misunderstandings! It all depends on how seriously > > we > > > > take things and what we are looking for, I guess. > > > > > > > > I am not sure what this has to do with the original post by > > Gloria > > > > about John de ruiter or President Clinton and Monica. But if > you > > > want > > > > to change the thread, sure why not? :-). > > > > > > > > By the way, I am not sure what you are saying? Is it what I am > > > saying? > > > > > > > > Harsha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 12, 2003 Report Share Posted January 12, 2003 Hi Everyone, I am enjoying this thread very much. There is something else about honesty that I don't think anyone has touched on yet, and it's this: I think we can only be as honest with others as we are with ourselves. And we can only be as honest with ourselves as we are conscious of ourselves. That means if there are pockets of unconsciousness in ourselves in certain areas, we can't even see what it is we are honestly being dishonest about! So, as far as Joyce's question goes, I think it is always up to us to get very quiet and to trust ourselves in whether or not to trust the words of another, whether we are going for spiritual advice or a used car or whatever. Anyway, that's my two cents. But don't trust me, please, because I am quite aware that there are things in me that I am still unconscious of. Love and peace to all, Kheyala P.S. Dan? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 13, 2003 Report Share Posted January 13, 2003 Hello Bobby - Thanks. I agree especially with what you say about being an artist and communication, and I love your paintings that you share with us here. Sarcasm is very tricky online, as you point out. One list I read on occasion has had a sort of provocateur character who is sarcastic frequently and he/she almost always denotes the sarcastic intent using this emoticon ;-) . Now, for me, that emoticon has become almost indelibly stamped with a negative charge, though I now understand that this is not the case for everyone. So missing the inflection and tone and body language and the other components of communication in person, even the little helpful emoticons can lead me astray at times. Thanks again. love, joyce , "texasbg2000 <Bigbobgraham@a...>" <Bigbobgraham@a...> wrote: > Hi Joyce: > > I agree there are those times when someone poses and there is no > lesson in mind. I think that person has issues as they say. You > probably can't learn anything by posing if you don't expose your > usual way of acting to yourself. > > "I think if you want to be understood you > > better not change your ways too much online." > > I think it is hard enough to say what you mean online because of the > lack of the "meta message". Inflection, context of a long > conversation, eye contact, that sort of thing. If you develop a kind > of persona that the people you know get to expect they will know you > and what you mean. I try not to use sarcasm for instance but I know > others who use it all the time and since I expect it, I know what > they really mean (hopefully). > > I hate to miscommunicate. As an artist my life work is about being > able to communicate as directly as possible and I feel a lot of > discomfort when I don't. > > Good luck with this person. > > Love > Bobby G. > > > -- In , "know_mystery > <know_mystery>" <know_mystery> wrote: > > Hello Bobby - > > > > Yes, I am very familiar with this, through Ouspensky's writings of > > it, and as mentioned in my first post, I think it is a useful thing > > as a part of teaching. So, it is not about being fooled by a > teacher > > for me, but it IS about having someone hammer on about Truth > capital > > T while being a poseur. If the teacher is not modeling Truth, then > > where is Truth. If the teacher is lying to the student while > speaking > > of Truth... um, isn't that a little bit disingenuous? Anyway, it is > > MY problem, not anyone elses... Who am I to challenge those who so > > selflessly teach those of us who have so much yet to learn? This > is > > just one of my own personal buttons around what is Truth. (And if > > nothing else, it shows that I am thinking about it, a lot...) > > > > But can you help me out with your last sentence? I am not sure what > > it means when you say "I think if you want to be understood you > > better not change your ways too much online." Thank you. > > > > love, > > joyce > > > > PS - But then there are those instances where the situation does > not > > involve any teachings at all... > > > > > > > > , "texasbg2000 > > <Bigbobgraham@a...>" <Bigbobgraham@a...> wrote: > > > Gurdjief the great Russian teacher used many personnas on a > regular > > > basis. He was a rug merchant in one city, St Petersburg I > believe, > > > and a teacher of the occult in Moscow. If you approached him > while > > > he was selling rugs then he would just say you were mistaken. > > > > > > I joined a group based on his and ouspensky's work in Cincinatti > > > in '69. The teacher made the students pretend to be somebody > they > > > were not to show them how much their self image was based on the > > role > > > they had in life. I tried it a little but I left town. It is an > > > incredible teacher to do that. The people who were fooled could > > take > > > it well or not. > > > > > > I think if you want to be understood you better not change your > > ways > > > too much online. > > > > > > Love > > > Bobby G. > > > > > > , "know_mystery > > > <know_mystery>" <know_mystery> wrote: > > > > Hi Harsha - > > > > > > > > It had to do with people speaking out for truth but not > operating > > > > from a place of truth, like John de Ruiter or Clinton, only in > an > > > > online environment. That's what it was about, not about what > one > > is > > > > or is not looking for or how seriously anyone takes the net. > > > > > > > > There are people espousing Truth with a capital 'T' who are > > > speaking > > > > from places of untruth as evidenced by behavior. And so I > brought > > > it > > > > up as something to be reconciled, by everyone, where words and > > > > behavior are perhaps at odds. What I would say to those people > > is: > > > > I'll listen to the messages of Truth, but come to me from a > > > position > > > > of honesty, please. > > > > > > > > joyce > > > > > > > > PS - So I don't think I've changed the thread. One person > praised > > > the > > > > work of another who was pursuing Truth, and the second poster > > > pointed > > > > out that the other who was pursuing Truth was living a lie... > And > > I > > > > just generalized it to 'anybody' online who might be living a > lie > > > > while espousing the Truth. But that's just me, and i've been > > guilty > > > > too. > > > > > > > > > > > > , "harshaimtm > > > <harshaimtm>" > > > > <harshaimtm> wrote: > > > > > Thanks for bringing this up Joyce. Not too long ago, many of > us > > > > > became aware of a woman pretending to be a man on the > internet > > > (had > > > > a > > > > > male's e-mail name). So I certainly understand when you say > > that > > > > > there can be misunderstandings! It all depends on how > seriously > > > we > > > > > take things and what we are looking for, I guess. > > > > > > > > > > I am not sure what this has to do with the original post by > > > Gloria > > > > > about John de ruiter or President Clinton and Monica. But if > > you > > > > want > > > > > to change the thread, sure why not? :-). > > > > > > > > > > By the way, I am not sure what you are saying? Is it what I > am > > > > saying? > > > > > > > > > > Harsha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 13, 2003 Report Share Posted January 13, 2003 Dear Kheyala - You are absolutely correct. We need to know ourselves...to be conscious of all those pockets of unconsciousness. I am thankful when friends help me become more aware of my own, even when it is a painful thing to experience. This is one of those lessons that goes on for me a lot lately, it is necessary, and I am happy to go through it. And I think you are also right about getting very quiet in order to do this. love, joyce PS - About trusting you? You are one of the most trustworthy ones out there, Dear Kheyala. Surely you must know that is how I feel, at least. , "kheyalove <kheyala@n...>" <kheyala@n...> wrote: > Hi Everyone, > > I am enjoying this thread very much. > > There is something else about honesty that I don't think anyone has > touched on yet, and it's this: I think we can only be as honest with > others as we are with ourselves. And we can only be as honest with > ourselves as we are conscious of ourselves. That means if there are > pockets of unconsciousness in ourselves in certain areas, we can't > even see what it is we are honestly being dishonest about! > > So, as far as Joyce's question goes, I think it is always up to us to > get very quiet and to trust ourselves in whether or not to trust the > words of another, whether we are going for spiritual advice or a used > car or whatever. > > Anyway, that's my two cents. But don't trust me, please, because I > am quite aware that there are things in me that I am still > unconscious of. > > Love and peace to all, > Kheyala > > P.S. Dan? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 13, 2003 Report Share Posted January 13, 2003 on 1/12/03 2:06 PM, know_mystery <know_mystery at know_mystery wrote: > Hi Harsha - > > It had to do with people speaking out for truth but not operating > from a place of truth, like John de Ruiter or Clinton, only in an > online environment. That's what it was about, not about what one is > or is not looking for or how seriously anyone takes the net. > > There are people espousing Truth with a capital 'T' who are speaking > from places of untruth as evidenced by behavior. And so I brought it > up as something to be reconciled, by everyone, where words and > behavior are perhaps at odds. What I would say to those people is: > I'll listen to the messages of Truth, but come to me from a position > of honesty, please. > > joyce > > PS - So I don't think I've changed the thread. One person praised the > work of another who was pursuing Truth, and the second poster pointed > out that the other who was pursuing Truth was living a lie... And I > just generalized it to 'anybody' online who might be living a lie > while espousing the Truth. But that's just me, and i've been guilty > too. Hi all! Can we really judge a person by something he or she does or says? Do you have a preconcieved idea of what a holy man will do or say? Can you know another's heart? Have you heard of free will or how you can't have it if you're not there? Perhaps you like this and not that...isn't the trouble with the "you?" Is heresay a party to this? I think to be honest with ourselves is extremely painful and hard to do since we are all conditioned heavily by our upbringing and environment. Don't the laws and indeed even the boudaries between right and wrong blur according to different situations, places, customs, and times? Shawn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 13, 2003 Report Share Posted January 13, 2003 Boiling it down, can a dishonest person tell the truth? Well, while can a one legged man can pass the salt at the dinner table, it doesn't mean he may not be the greatest dance partner. If one who is speaking has unusual sexual proclivities, it's ok to listen, as long as you keep your pants on. If something significant or profound is being said and you trust your heart to recognize it, what does it matter where it comes from? Even a frogs croak can inspire a vision of heaven, but it doesn't mean you must form an attachment to the frog. .. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 13, 2003 Report Share Posted January 13, 2003 Thanks Joyce for the clarification. Men in power have a long history of using women. Male gurus and other religious or political figures are not an exception to this rule. The problem of exploitation of women and even minors is well documented in virtually every religion and culture and country and is heart breaking. So on the spiritual path, it helps to have some common sense and use one's intelligence although it is not easy sometimes. Anyway, people will believe what they will and pursue the truth in their own way. In Real Estate, they say that the value of a property is based on three things. Location, Location, Location. Eventually, everything comes down to where our "Location" is. No one can deceive you, if you know your own location. And that Joyce is Truth (Capital T) in a nutshell! :-). Love to all Harsha --- "know_mystery <know_mystery" <know_mystery wrote: > Hi Harsha - > > It had to do with people speaking out for truth but > not operating > from a place of truth, like John de Ruiter or > Clinton, only in an > online environment. That's what it was about, not > about what one is > or is not looking for or how seriously anyone takes > the net. > > There are people espousing Truth with a capital 'T' > who are speaking > from places of untruth as evidenced by behavior. And > so I brought it > up as something to be reconciled, by everyone, where > words and > behavior are perhaps at odds. What I would say to > those people is: > I'll listen to the messages of Truth, but come to me > from a position > of honesty, please. > > joyce > > PS - So I don't think I've changed the thread. One > person praised the > work of another who was pursuing Truth, and the > second poster pointed > out that the other who was pursuing Truth was living > a lie... And I > just generalized it to 'anybody' online who might be > living a lie > while espousing the Truth. But that's just me, and > i've been guilty > too. > > > , "harshaimtm > <harshaimtm>" > <harshaimtm> wrote: > > Thanks for bringing this up Joyce. Not too long > ago, many of us > > became aware of a woman pretending to be a man on > the internet (had > a > > male's e-mail name). So I certainly understand > when you say that > > there can be misunderstandings! It all depends on > how seriously we > > take things and what we are looking for, I guess. > > > > I am not sure what this has to do with the > original post by Gloria > > about John de ruiter or President Clinton and > Monica. But if you > want > > to change the thread, sure why not? :-). > > > > By the way, I am not sure what you are saying? Is > it what I am > saying? > > > > Harsha > > > ===== /join Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 13, 2003 Report Share Posted January 13, 2003 --- Mace Mealer <mmealer wrote: > Harsha did you know you were in there to? > > " Harsha M 45ish Indian based in US (RI) aka Harsh > K Luthar PhD, > management prof, satsangh mag, holds forth > on NDS and HS, Sri > Chitrabhanu, Ramana" > > Cool! How do I get an aka? > Hi Mace, No, I was not aware and don't know what to make of it. Being a devotee of Sri Ramana is sufficient status for me. One of the uses of internet is for entertainment so perhaps it is in that spirit. I noted that our old friend Dan Berkow is on there as well. Mace, if I had my own guru list, you would be on the very top with your own personal aka! :-). Mace Mealer aka Guruji M&M! :-). Harsha ===== /join Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 13, 2003 Report Share Posted January 13, 2003 Mace, I love the way you express yourself! The line about keeping one's pants on at a spiritual gathering is a really good one! Can we make you the list guru for a while. People can even take turns so there is not too much pressure. But no scandals please. Just kidding. A scandal now and then is OK as long as it is in good taste. Harsha --- Mace Mealer <mmealer wrote: > > Boiling it down, > can a dishonest person tell the truth? > Well, while can a one legged man > can pass the salt at the dinner table, > it doesn't mean he may not be the > greatest dance partner. > If one who is speaking has unusual > sexual proclivities, it's ok to listen, > as long as you keep your pants on. > If something significant or profound > is being said and you trust your heart > to recognize it, what does it matter > where it comes from? Even a frogs > croak can inspire a vision of heaven, > but it doesn't mean you must form > an attachment to the frog. > ===== /join Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 13, 2003 Report Share Posted January 13, 2003 Hi Shawn, When facing 2 sleeping human mind-bodies unknown to you, it's impossible to judge anything but the observation of these bodies. It isn't possible to know "this one is a saint and the other one a thief". That already indicates the commentary given is likely to reflect your "programming", not necessarily what is "pure" observation. Behavior can be observed and eventually your behavior has to adapt to it, and/or gets adapted by it. That indicates the issue of interconnectedness. Also, how conditioning can accumulate by interpretation, like dust on a mirror.. Peace, JanOn 1/13/03 at 12:00 AM shawn wrote: on 1/12/03 2:06 PM, know_mystery <know_mystery > atknow_mystery wrote:> Hi Harsha -> > It had to do with people speaking out for truth but not operating> from a place of truth, like John de Ruiter or Clinton, only in an> online environment. That's what it was about, not about what one is> or is not looking for or how seriously anyone takes the net.> > There are people espousing Truth with a capital 'T' who are speaking> from places of untruth as evidenced by behavior. And so I brought it> up as something to be reconciled, by everyone, where words and> behavior are perhaps at odds. What I would say to those people is:> I'll listen to the messages of Truth, but come to me from a position> of honesty, please.> > joyce> > PS - So I don't think I've changed the thread. One person praised the> work of another who was pursuing Truth, and the second poster pointed> out that the other who was pursuing Truth was living a lie... And I> just generalized it to 'anybody' online who might be living a lie> while espousing the Truth. But that's just me, and i've been guilty> too.Hi all!Can we really judge a person by something he or she does or says? Do youhave a preconcieved idea of what a holy man will do or say? Can you knowanother's heart? Have you heard of free will or how you can't have it ifyou're not there? Perhaps you like this and not that...isn't the troublewith the "you?" Is heresay a party to this? I think to be honest withourselves is extremely painful and hard to do since we are all conditionedheavily by our upbringing and environment. Don't the laws and indeed eventhe boudaries between right and wrong blur according to differentsituations, places, customs, and times?Shawn/join The Heart is the Self. The Self is the Heart. Your use of is subject to the Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 13, 2003 Report Share Posted January 13, 2003 on 1/13/03 5:19 AM, ecirada at ecirada wrote: > Hi Shawn, > > When facing 2 sleeping human mind-bodies unknown to you, > it's impossible to judge anything but the observation of these > bodies. It isn't possible to know "this one is a saint and the > other one a thief". That already indicates the commentary > given is likely to reflect your "programming", not necessarily > what is "pure" observation. Behavior can be observed and > eventually your behavior has to adapt to it, and/or gets adapted > by it. That indicates the issue of interconnectedness. Also, how > conditioning can accumulate by interpretation, like dust on a mirror.. > > Peace, > Jan Jan da Man, I just read some of Balsekar's stuff on free will and no-doer. It is really freeing to see how impossible it is to asign blame or praise. Each teacher kicks "me" closer to the cliff. Thanks jan)))))))))Shawn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 13, 2003 Report Share Posted January 13, 2003 On 1/13/03 at 10:30 AM shawn wrote: on 1/13/03 5:19 AM, ecirada at ecirada (AT) mad (DOT) scientist.com wrote:> Hi Shawn,> > When facing 2 sleeping human mind-bodies unknown to you,> it's impossible to judge anything but the observation of these> bodies. It isn't possible to know "this one is a saint and the> other one a thief". That already indicates the commentary> given is likely to reflect your "programming", not necessarily> what is "pure" observation. Behavior can be observed and> eventually your behavior has to adapt to it, and/or gets adapted> by it. That indicates the issue of interconnectedness. Also, how> conditioning can accumulate by interpretation, like dust on a mirror..> > Peace,> JanJan da Man,I just read some of Balsekar's stuff on free will and no-doer. It is reallyfreeing to see how impossible it is to asign blame or praise. Each teacherkicks "me" closer to the cliff. :)Thanks jan)))))))))ShawnHi Shawn, Before praising or blaming happens, the senses have to receive stimuli, and an evaluation algorithm automatically processes them. Thus, a response like blaming or praising isn't due to these stimuli: in REM sleep it is clear, the mind provides both the stimuli and the responses. Replacing one evaluation algorithm with another could become a job for a therapist, when for instance the evaluation algorithm starts to result in depression often. That could also happen when dishonest, as memory records all thought an action, and the evaluation mechanism "works" on that too, it doesn't ask for permission. Peace, Jan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 13, 2003 Report Share Posted January 13, 2003 on 1/13/03 12:41 PM, ecirada at ecirada wrote: > On 1/13/03 at 10:30 AM shawn wrote: > on 1/13/03 5:19 AM, ecirada at ecirada wrote: > >> Hi Shawn, >> >> When facing 2 sleeping human mind-bodies unknown to you, >> it's impossible to judge anything but the observation of these >> bodies. It isn't possible to know "this one is a saint and the >> other one a thief". That already indicates the commentary >> given is likely to reflect your "programming", not necessarily >> what is "pure" observation. Behavior can be observed and >> eventually your behavior has to adapt to it, and/or gets adapted >> by it. That indicates the issue of interconnectedness. Also, how >> conditioning can accumulate by interpretation, like dust on a mirror.. >> >> Peace, >> Jan > > Jan da Man, > > I just read some of Balsekar's stuff on free will and no-doer. It is really > freeing to see how impossible it is to asign blame or praise. Each teacher > kicks "me" closer to the cliff. > > Thanks jan)))))))))Shawn > > > Hi Shawn, > > Before praising or blaming happens, the senses have to receive stimuli, > and an evaluation algorithm automatically processes them. Thus, a response > like blaming or praising isn't due to these stimuli: in REM sleep it is clear, > the mind provides both the stimuli and the responses. Replacing one evaluation > algorithm with another could become a job for a therapist, when for > instance the evaluation algorithm starts to result in depression often. > That could also happen when dishonest, as memory records all thought an > action, > and the evaluation mechanism "works" on that too, it doesn't ask for > permission. > > Peace, > Jan Jan, This is a vicious cycle, as I understand it...thankfully when there is set in motion "witnessing," the cycle is spontaneously interrupted and the burning away of these algorythms takes place(since in witnessing there is no identification algorythm to cause all the others)...and so self-help is no help at all, but Self-help is. I'm assuming that your "algorythm" is nothing more than the proccess of identification and the concurring struggle that ensues. Peace *and Love* my brother, Shawn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 13, 2003 Report Share Posted January 13, 2003 Hi Harsha - Thanks, with a capital 'T.' But to clairfy, I have not been abused by any man in a position of power or anything like that at all...I could never imagine that happening, at least to me. love, joyce , Harsha <harshaimtm> wrote: > Thanks Joyce for the clarification. Men in power have > a long history of using women. Male gurus and other > religious or political figures are not an exception to > this rule. The problem of exploitation of women and > even minors is well documented in virtually every > religion and culture and country and is heart > breaking. > > So on the spiritual path, it helps to have some common > sense and use one's intelligence although it is not > easy sometimes. > > Anyway, people will believe what they will and pursue > the truth in their own way. > > In Real Estate, they say that the value of a property > is based on three things. Location, Location, > Location. > > Eventually, everything comes down to where our > "Location" is. No one can deceive you, if you know > your own location. > > And that Joyce is Truth (Capital T) in a nutshell! > :-). > > Love to all > Harsha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 13, 2003 Report Share Posted January 13, 2003 On 1/13/03 at 1:18 PM shawn wrote: on 1/13/03 12:41 PM, ecirada at ecirada (AT) mad (DOT) scientist.com wrote:> On 1/13/03 at 10:30 AM shawn wrote:> on 1/13/03 5:19 AM, ecirada at ecirada (AT) mad (DOT) scientist.com wrote:> >> Hi Shawn,>> >> When facing 2 sleeping human mind-bodies unknown to you,>> it's impossible to judge anything but the observation of these>> bodies. It isn't possible to know "this one is a saint and the>> other one a thief". That already indicates the commentary>> given is likely to reflect your "programming", not necessarily>> what is "pure" observation. Behavior can be observed and>> eventually your behavior has to adapt to it, and/or gets adapted>> by it. That indicates the issue of interconnectedness. Also, how>> conditioning can accumulate by interpretation, like dust on a mirror..>> >> Peace,>> Jan> > Jan da Man,> > I just read some of Balsekar's stuff on free will and no-doer. It is really> freeing to see how impossible it is to asign blame or praise. Each teacher> kicks "me" closer to the cliff. > > Thanks jan)))))))))Shawn> > > Hi Shawn,> > Before praising or blaming happens, the senses have to receive stimuli,> and an evaluation algorithm automatically processes them. Thus, a response> like blaming or praising isn't due to these stimuli: in REM sleep it is clear,> the mind provides both the stimuli and the responses. Replacing one evaluation> algorithm with another could become a job for a therapist, when for> instance the evaluation algorithm starts to result in depression often.> That could also happen when dishonest, as memory records all thought an> action,> and the evaluation mechanism "works" on that too, it doesn't ask for> permission.> > Peace,> JanJan,This is a vicious cycle, as I understand it...thankfully when there is setin motion "witnessing," the cycle is spontaneously interrupted and theburning away of these algorithms takes place(since in witnessing there is noidentification algorithm to cause all the others)...and so self-help is nohelp at all, but Self-help is.I'm assuming that your "algorythm" is nothing more than the proccess ofidentification and the concurring struggle that ensues.Peace *and Love* my brother,Shawn Good to see you recognize the vicious circle Shawn. Then it won't be difficult to see that any conscious activity is but a subset of the mind's total activity, even in deep meditation. YFYI, deep dreamless sleep isn't the absence of activity, it is unawareness of it, only a kind of watchdog remains, to wake you up. Hence it could be clear that but one issue affects all activity, and that is called "giving up". Whether pranayama, mantras, meditating or enquiring, whatever is practiced to calm down the chattering mind is always a subset of "giving up the will to live & enjoy". Hence the saying "God has compassion for the elderly" as for them, "giving up" happens spontaneously due to the gradual increase of "system failure". Peace, Jan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 13, 2003 Report Share Posted January 13, 2003 > > Good to see you recognize the vicious circle Shawn. Then it won't be difficult > to see > that any conscious activity is but a subset of the mind's total activity, even > in deep > meditation. YFYI, deep dreamless sleep isn't the absence of activity, it is > unawareness > of it, only a kind of watchdog remains, to wake you up. Hence it could be > clear that but > one issue affects all activity, and that is called "giving up". Whether > pranayama, mantras, > meditating or enquiring, whatever is practiced to calm down the chattering > mind is always > a subset of "giving up the will to live & enjoy". Hence the saying "God has > compassion > for the elderly" as for them, "giving up" happens spontaneously due to the > gradual increase > of "system failure". > > Peace, > Jan Jan, ....and not just the elderly...as understanding implies, no doing (except for that subtle desire to understand, and even that goes as a result of this conceptual understanding of "no remedy") touches it and each tiny bit of recognition and understanding undermines the motive. The understanding that one must give up slams against an intense desire to "do" it...which really means the understanding isn't all there yet...I somehow haven't had enough yet, but the little "moments" of witnessing come more often and the resulting freedom is addicting and one feels the tigers teeth! ;-) and then I just start longing to be eaten...... who do I call myself? What image is there to hold onto....and yet This is here and I'm a Dad and all that. This is Crazy! Shawn )))))))Who? 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.