The Sober Tongue of a Drunken Lover

[Guest guest]

Judi wrote:

 

> ***** Yes, well it's a matter of discrimination. I'm obviously not going to

> open my mouth and try to engage someone with the mentality of 12 year old or

> someone who is retarded. Of course not. For example, I don't go down to the

> local xtian church tell them how ridiculous they are.

>

Judi, for a person who claims to be interested in the truth, you show a

remarkable lack of curiosity about people. Do you really know the people in

the local xtian church well enough to categorize them as 12-year-olds,

retarded, and ridiculous? Perhaps you do. But you *write* like any other

fundamentalist, unable to imagine how anyone can enjoy the spiritual fruits

that you enjoy by using methods and speaking words different from those that

work for you.

 

After 9/11, a TV talking head interviewed parents of a child who was in the

plane that struck the Pentagon. The 10-year-old girl was

picked by her school to go to the West Coast for a marine biology school for

children. The mother said that God gave her the girl on loan and had now

called her back to Him. The mother said that she could accept that because

she had never thought the daughter was her possession in the first place.

The mother seemed very much at peace with herself and filled with love for

her little girl. Now the mother used language and concepts that I find very

muddled if taken literally, but which in fact worked for her to achieve what

I would call non-clinging: a non-possessive love for her daughter and an

admirable ability to quickly respond to reality by turning her love for her

daughter into a fond memory. There may be many on this listserv who can

simulate Realized discourse to a fair thee well, but could not accept such a

tragedy as well as this theologically simple xtian mother did.

 

My informal observation of the many groups of which I have been a member

during my lifetime -- social, spiritual, business, professional, scientific,

academic -- is that each membership runs across a roughly bell-shaped curve

from superstitious to discriminatingly open. No one has yet found a method

that reliably develops everyone spiritually, which may be genetically

influenced, like any other ability.

 

> And as far as people running from me face to face, yes it has happened. I'll

> give you an example. This person came to see me for enlightentment. And I said

> well, I have nothing to give you. :-) And she got beet red furious, if looks

> could kill and said, what do you mean? And I said, exactly that, I have

> nothing to give you. And she stormed off. You see, she came to get " satisfied "

> but I gave her the truth instead, I threw it back in her face. But she didn't

> want the *that*, :-) she wanted " enlightenment " , she didn't want the truth.

> :-) But, you see I gave her the whole thing, which is everything I have, which

> is " nothing " . :-)

>

First you say you have nothing to give her, then you say you gave her the

truth. And not only the truth, but the whole thing! Can you understand how

you might have confused her? There are many truths you could have given her,

but you chose to give her the Big One, which she was clearly unable to

grasp. If she already knew that Truth, she would have understood that you

weren't contradicting yourself but were giving her a kind of koan. If she

were close to Realization, your koan might have taken her the last step. But

when you talk of discrimination, you only contrast normal (?) people with

12-year-olds, retarded, and the ridiculous. Spiritual guidance calls for

much finer discrimination than that. Your postings read like a vital bull in

a china shop who needs to learn some subtlety so she doesn't break all the

fine china souls around her in the name of Realization. I have seen you give

wise instruction to others that cut to the bone and opened your

correspondent up marvelously, as well as nourished me as I read the

exchange. But this happened only when there was a fortuitous fit between you

and your correspondent.

 

I said there were many truths you could have given her besides the Big One.

For example, you could have asked her what she thought Enlightenment was

that she was seeking. In trying to answer you, she might have begun to see

the inadequacy in her own seeking. At worst, you could have more

specifically responded to her answer by saying that neither you nor anyone

else could give her what she was seeking, that what she was seeking she

could find only in herself. This *might* have at least helped her avoid the

mistake immediately below.

 

> And to this day, she is still running around from teacher to teacher, and

> paying good money no doubt too, to get enlightened. :-) Gee, I wonder what

> they're giving her? :-) All sorts of stuff I'm sure. :-)

>

Perhaps what I like best about you, Judi, is your ruthless refusal to

indulge the illusion that enlightenment will be given us by someone else. I

think there is a clarity and force to your ruthlessness that is healing. My

remarks above are only to suggest that, like a surgeon's scalpel, you are an

instrument that needs to be used with more attention to the client's needs.

Perhaps the best that could have been done for this woman would have been to

give her a nostrum that would have made her feel better about herself. This

is an area about I believe we still have little knowledge and about which I

believe you express more confidence than is warranted.

 

[My earlier email]

>> How do you tell the difference between being unable to do something and

>> refusing to do it?

>>

> **** If they were " unable " , there would be no reaction either way in the first

> place. It would be water off a ducks back. But when it hits the target, and

> there's reaction, it shows they are indeed " able " . They just don't *want* to.

>

Individuals with a phobia for water may want to swim but cannot overcome

their phobia. They cannot simply choose not to be afraid nor can they simply

choose to overcome their fear. Still, if threatened with being thrown in the

water, they will react. The reaction to which you refer shows only anxiety,

with no implication about choice.

 

> :-) People say they are seekers of truth, but they really aren't. It's the

> last thing they want.

>

You cannot choose to want the truth. And even if you want the truth with all

your heart, you may not be able to handle all of it right now. More below.

 

>> I believe we often have our own agenda when we accuse someone of refusing to

>> do something " of their own free will " . Then we can blame them for behaving in

>> ways we don't like. We can't blame them if we think they couldn't do it. I

>> don't find it intelligible to say that someone could be open but refuses to

>> be, could be honest but refuses to be. When I am closed and dishonest, it is

>> because I am scared and unable to overcome my fears.

>>

> **** Well it comes down to whether you're seeking the truth or not. If you're

> simply seeking the truth, where is the fear? It's your will over your fears.

> Your fear is wanting it to turn out a certain way or be a certain way. Seeking

> the truth is taking a walk on wild side. :-)

>

Very true. And there are certainly those who talk like they want the truth

but don't. But there are also others whose search for the truth is

complicated by a personal history of confusion and who may need to be helped

to open up bit by bit.

 

>> Or because I have complicated habits that I am unable immediately to unravel.

>> I am playing no game, at least no vicious one that I am free to drop at the

>> moment. Compassion responds by neither indulging my defensiveness nor blaming

>> it.

>>

> ***** Truth is always spontaneous.

>

Yes, truth is always spontaneous. But what is spontaneous is not always

truth; it may be only impulse. And one truth that is underestimated is, " I

don't know " , which can be quite liberating when expressed spontaneously.

 

> It's immediate. Like the punchline of a joke. Sure it may " pinch " , but it's

> still the truth, nonetheless. You can pout about ir and mull it over it all

> you want, but it doesn't change the fact, if you see what I mean? The horse is

> already out of the barn.

>

Again, there are many truths and the person in front of you may be able to

make use of only some of them. If you have any interest in them and are not

interested solely in indulging your compulsion to tell the truth as you see

it, you should listen to them more carefully than you give evidence of doing

in our correspondence.

 

>> The full truth, in my experience, is never harsh though it can be ruthless in

>> refusing to indulge the " games " . I don't find any compassion in your remarks

>> here, Judi. I don't believe enlightenment is " beyond compassion " . Insight

>> without compassion is at best an analgesic, not yet enlightenment.

>>

> ***** That is my compassion if you would but see it. You may not like it, but

> that doesn't make it any less compassionate. Do you see what I mean?

 

I see the compassion in your intent, but not in your seeming lack of care in

understanding the individual before you. You seem too caught up in the

rhetoric of enlightenment as it affects you. The relative grownups can learn

a great deal, and be nourished by, dialogue with you. My concern is for the

more vulnerable whom you seem insensitively to scorn for running away from

you.

 

Best wishes,

 

Gary

 

Gary Schouborg

Performance Consulting

Walnut Creek, CA

garyscho

 

Publications and professional services:

http://home.att.net/~garyscho

[Guest guest]

> >

> > But, you see I gave her the whole thing, which is everything I

have, which

> > is " nothing " . :-)

> >

 

Did the writer know about this " nothing " since birth or was there a

learning curve and then an un-learning curve?

 

> >>

> > ***** Truth is always spontaneous.

> >

 

A ripe fruit falls off. Falling off is spontaneous. What about

ripening?

 

 

Murali

[Guest guest]

Realization, " Murali " <murali@g...> wrote:

> > >

> > > But, you see I gave her the whole thing, which is everything I

> have, which

> > > is " nothing " . :-)

> > >

>

> Did the writer know about this " nothing " since birth or was there a

> learning curve and then an un-learning curve?

>

********* No, it's not realy a matter of learning and then unlearning.

For that to happen there has to be a " somebody " in the first place you

see, which is just more of the same nonsense.

 

 

> > >>

> > > ***** Truth is always spontaneous.

> > >

>

> A ripe fruit falls off. Falling off is spontaneous. What about

> ripening?

>

******* Not really no, it's more of an accident than a ripening.

There's nothing leading up to it, it's " uncaused " in other words. You

see that's the whole thing, people like to think they're on some sort

of path to finally get somewhere, but that notion is wrong from the

gitgo. It never goes anywhere. Only in circles. It's a complete and

utter of shift of reality. It's not a *self* improvement deal in other

words where you finally get somwhere. Not anything of the sort. It's

the death of all that.

 

Judi

[Guest guest]

Realization, Gary Schouborg <garyscho@a...> wrote:

> Judi wrote:

>

> > ***** Yes, well it's a matter of discrimination. I'm obviously not

going to

> > open my mouth and try to engage someone with the mentality of 12

year old or

> > someone who is retarded. Of course not. For example, I don't go

down to the

> > local xtian church tell them how ridiculous they are.

> >

> Judi, for a person who claims to be interested in the truth, you

show a

> remarkable lack of curiosity about people.

 

****** Yes, correct, I don't take much interest in most people.

 

 

 

Do you really know the

people in

> the local xtian church well enough to categorize them as

12-year-olds,

> retarded, and ridiculous? Perhaps you do.

 

******* Well sure, why would be there in the first place? Duh? :-)

 

 

But you *write* like any

other

> fundamentalist, unable to imagine how anyone can enjoy the spiritual

fruits

> that you enjoy by using methods and speaking words different from

those that

> work for you.

 

******* What fruits would those be?

 

 

> After 9/11, a TV talking head interviewed parents of a child who was

in the

> plane that struck the Pentagon. The 10-year-old girl was

> picked by her school to go to the West Coast for a marine biology

school for

> children. The mother said that God gave her the girl on loan and had

now

> called her back to Him. The mother said that she could accept that

because

> she had never thought the daughter was her possession in the first

place.

> The mother seemed very much at peace with herself and filled with

love for

> her little girl. Now the mother used language and concepts that I

find very

> muddled if taken literally, but which in fact worked for her to

achieve what

> I would call non-clinging: a non-possessive love for her daughter

and an

> admirable ability to quickly respond to reality by turning her love

for her

> daughter into a fond memory. There may be many on this listserv who

can

> simulate Realized discourse to a fair thee well, but could not

accept such a

> tragedy as well as this theologically simple xtian mother did.

>

> My informal observation of the many groups of which I have been a

member

> during my lifetime -- social, spiritual, business, professional,

scientific,

> academic -- is that each membership runs across a roughly

bell-shaped curve

> from superstitious to discriminatingly open. No one has yet found a

method

> that reliably develops everyone spiritually, which may be

genetically

> influenced, like any other ability.

>

**** Yes, there is no method. There is no *teaching* in other words.

Relative happiness of people is one thing, understanding that there's

no one there in the first place is quite another! In other words, I'm

not in the making people happy business. :-) That's all just more of

the same nonsense you see? And the understanding of that, which is the

transcendence of that is what real happiness is. All the rest is

merely relative, conditional in other words. With it's foundation as

suffering.

 

 

> > And as far as people running from me face to face, yes it has

happened. I'll

> > give you an example. This person came to see me for

enlightentment. And I said

> > well, I have nothing to give you. :-) And she got beet red

furious, if looks

> > could kill and said, what do you mean? And I said, exactly that, I

have

> > nothing to give you. And she stormed off. You see, she came to get

" satisfied "

> > but I gave her the truth instead, I threw it back in her face. But

she didn't

> > want the *that*, :-) she wanted " enlightenment " , she didn't want

the truth.

> > :-) But, you see I gave her the whole thing, which is everything I

have, which

> > is " nothing " . :-)

> >

> First you say you have nothing to give her, then you say you gave

her the

> truth. And not only the truth, but the whole thing! Can you

understand how

> you might have confused her? There are many truths you could have

given her,

> but you chose to give her the Big One, which she was clearly unable

to

> grasp. If she already knew that Truth, she would have understood

that you

> weren't contradicting yourself but were giving her a kind of koan.

If she

> were close to Realization, your koan might have taken her the last

step. But

> when you talk of discrimination, you only contrast normal (?) people

with

> 12-year-olds, retarded, and the ridiculous. Spiritual guidance calls

for

> much finer discrimination than that. Your postings read like a vital

bull in

> a china shop who needs to learn some subtlety so she doesn't break

all the

> fine china souls around her in the name of Realization. I have seen

you give

> wise instruction to others that cut to the bone and opened your

> correspondent up marvelously, as well as nourished me as I read the

> exchange. But this happened only when there was a fortuitous fit

between you

> and your correspondent.

>

> I said there were many truths you could have given her besides the

Big One.

> For example, you could have asked her what she thought Enlightenment

was

> that she was seeking. In trying to answer you, she might have begun

to see

> the inadequacy in her own seeking. At worst, you could have more

> specifically responded to her answer by saying that neither you nor

anyone

> else could give her what she was seeking, that what she was seeking

she

> could find only in herself. This *might* have at least helped her

avoid the

> mistake immediately below.

>

****** Well there was more dialog than that. Actually there was a

couple of hours. That was just the ending. But you see the thing is,

people have their own agenda that they feel they have to fulfill.

Be it whatever, they have their *story* that they want to have *turn

out*, some " place " that they need to get, like something *important*

that needs to happen, or whatever. But I am not in the *fulfillment*

business. My business is in the understanding of all that

suffering nonsense.

 

I have to run, they're calling me for breakfast. I'll finish later.

 

Judi

[Guest guest]

--- judirhodes wrote:

> Realization, judirhodes@e... wrote:

> > Realization, " Carol Philo "

> <cphilo@k...> wrote:

> > > What I think is going on is that most people

> (not exclusively

> women)

> > want to

> > > feel the warm fuzzies and you, Judi, give them

> prickles.

> > > The prickles are the obverse side of the warm

> fuzzies, but some

> > people are

> > > not yet that far along to realize that thorns

> and fluffies are the

> > same

> > > thing.

> > > Every listserve needs a gadfly and you do an

> admirable job. Your

> > humor is

> > > not universal, but it is your humor, and

> valuable.

> > > Truth is a rare commodity, but supply still

> exceeds demand.

> > > Gelf

> >

> > ****** Truth will never be popular. Duh? :-)

> >

> > Judi

>

> ****** If truth were an easy pill to swallow, nearly

> everybody in the

> world would be self realized. But that has never

> been the case

> throughout all of history, and I don't see that

> changing in the

> any near future. It's an extreme rarity, an

> " oddity " . I've heard the

> figure about 2,000 realizers in the world right now.

> Out of about 6 or

> so billion, what the are odds? You do the math.

>

> Judi

 

All 2,000 are liars.

 

It's beyond a rarity, it

can't happen even once.

 

Gargling with Listerine

after saying too much,

Dan

 

 

 

 

Find the one for you at Personals

http://personals.

[Guest guest]

***** That is my compassion if you would but see it.

> You may not like

> it, but that doesn't make it any less compassionate.

> Do you see what I

> mean?

 

Of course I do.

It doesn't even take a second to

throw a corpse overboard.

What could be more compassionate?

 

 

 

 

 

Find the one for you at Personals

http://personals.

[Guest guest]

--- judirhodes wrote:

> Realization, " Murali " <murali@g...>

> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > But, you see I gave her the whole thing, which

> is everything I

> > have, which

> > > > is " nothing " . :-)

> > > >

> >

> > Did the writer know about this " nothing " since

> birth or was there a

> > learning curve and then an un-learning curve?

> >

> ********* No, it's not realy a matter of learning

> and then unlearning.

> For that to happen there has to be a " somebody " in

> the first place you

> see, which is just more of the same nonsense.

>

>

> > > >>

> > > > ***** Truth is always spontaneous.

> > > >

> >

> > A ripe fruit falls off. Falling off is

> spontaneous. What about

> > ripening?

> >

> ******* Not really no, it's more of an accident than

> a ripening.

> There's nothing leading up to it, it's " uncaused " in

> other words. You

> see that's the whole thing, people like to think

> they're on some sort

> of path to finally get somewhere, but that notion is

> wrong from the

> gitgo. It never goes anywhere. Only in circles. It's

> a complete and

> utter of shift of reality. It's not a *self*

> improvement deal in other

> words where you finally get somwhere. Not anything

> of the sort. It's

> the death of all that.

>

> Judi

 

 

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

 

Well and clearly stated, Judi.

 

After this, no one can say

you're not compassionate! :-)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Find the one for you at Personals

http://personals.

[Guest guest]

Realization, d b <dan330033> wrote:

> ***** That is my compassion if you would but see it.

> > You may not like

> > it, but that doesn't make it any less compassionate.

> > Do you see what I

> > mean?

>

> Of course I do.

> It doesn't even take a second to

> throw a corpse overboard.

> What could be more compassionate?

>

****** Fore! lol

 

Judi

[Guest guest]

M: You said the whole misery is that I *think* that I

am " somebody " . To get out of this, I see 2 options.

Either I *think* that I am " not a

somebody " which is as absurd as the former, or do

not *think* at all which makes some sense.

 

D: What is beyond thought needn't avoid thought.

 

M: By the way, is not the thought process itself

based

on this " somebody " ?

 

D: Only when it tries to refer itself to

something conceptualized as " using " it

to " get somewhere " ...

 

M: Can there be any kind of

thinking without the thinker?

 

D: No thought has ever really had a thinker.

 

M: Does the one who is answering these questions on

this discussion group (or doing any action with

an interest in it) *think* anything at all?

 

D: What is the perceived separation between the one

answering and the one asking? Without

thought about a separation between a questioner

and one answering, what would be the

relevance of the question?

 

M: Please scare me again

 

D: Or ... scare yourself ... and there's

no need to wait for a response :-)

 

 

 

 

Find the one for you at Personals

http://personals.

[Guest guest]

Realization, d b <dan330033> wrote:

 

> M: Please scare me again

>

> D: Or ... scare yourself ... and there's

> no need to wait for a response :-)

>

***** LOL! That should just about take care of it! :-)

 

Judi

[Guest guest]

G: (snip) My criticism of the way Judi, Dan, and

Sandeep have been talking is not that they have been

wrong, but that they have been incomplete. Their talk

makes life in the everyday world inexplicable and

makes

the nondual sound unnecessarily paradoxical.

 

D: Life in the everday world is utterly

inexplicable, and yet here it is, going on in

its everyday sort of way. And that's truly

and utterly inexplicable! Marvelous, no?

 

All of our explanations are interwoven into this

day to day structuring of what we do -- and yet,

the reality of who it/I am is utterly beyond

explanation. Awesome, no?

 

This paradox can't be discussed --

we are it, we live as it, it lives us.

 

 

 

:-)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Find the one for you at Personals

http://personals.

[Guest guest]

Realization, d b <dan330033> wrote:

 

> D: What is the perceived separation between the one

> answering and the one asking? Without

> thought about a separation between a questioner

> and one answering, what would be the

> relevance of the question?

>

 

 

My misery is that I see a separation. Hence the question.

 

If you don't see this separation why bother to answer?

 

 

Murali

[Guest guest]

> After 9/11, a TV talking head interviewed parents of a child who

was in the

> plane that struck the Pentagon. The 10-year-old girl was

> picked by her school to go to the West Coast for a marine biology

school for

> children. The mother said that God gave her the girl on loan and

had now

> called her back to Him. The mother said that she could accept that

because

> she had never thought the daughter was her possession in the first

place.

> The mother seemed very much at peace with herself and filled with

love for

> her little girl. Now the mother used language and concepts that I

find very

> muddled if taken literally, but which in fact worked for her to

achieve what

> I would call non-clinging: a non-possessive love for her daughter

and an

> admirable ability to quickly respond to reality by turning her love

for her

> daughter into a fond memory. There may be many on this listserv who

can

> simulate Realized discourse to a fair thee well, but could not

accept such a

> tragedy as well as this theologically simple xtian mother did.

 

 

Dear Gary,

 

I, too, was moved by that interview. In fact, when it aired, I found

myself grabbing a pen to write down these quotes from it:

 

" My daughter, Asia, was never mine. She was just on loan and was a

great blessing. It was an honor to water God's flower for as long as

she was living. "

 

" I have a peace that I cannot explain. "

 

 

Do you recall that there was another interview right after it? It

was with a father who'd also lost his child. He was raging mad. He

wanted to kill whoever was responsible. His suffering was immense.

 

 

I thought the contrast between the two responses was striking.

 

!

 

Kheyala