Guest guest Posted April 10, 2003 Report Share Posted April 10, 2003 dear Rob .. thank you for asking this question of me .. "why do I care enough? .. there are several reasons. Ive been a member of this email community called "realisation" for a little while now and Judi is a member too. I would like to get to know, and understand her better, find out what makes my neighbour Judi tick - its a personal quirk of mine, I love to hear other people's stories .. thats why I joined this group ) The key word in your question is "care" .. when I see someone in obvious pain, so bound up in their own anger and vitriol that they need to continually strike out at other people and hurt and insult them, I feel their pain and I care. Simple. Judi's behaviour does herself and her cause no favours ... her cause, I think, being to assist others to attain realisation - not sure about this though and alas she will not answer my questions. IMHO anyone who is sincere about the subject of realisation could not take her contributions seriously .. no, wait, that is rather a broad statement, let me just say that {I} dont. In the weeks following my first exposure to Judi, I thought about her a lot .. and about myself too, I was going through some heavy personal stuff at the time. Now, having turned a corner, I see her for who and what she is, inasmuch as what she has shown me of herself here and at her site, and yes, she makes me smile too. Personally, I think she just comes here to vent .. she has not contributed anything really worthwhile to this list in the time Ive been here, apart from her anger, and I find it quite amusing to be able to have dialogue with a "real" dead person <g> blessings on you Rob .. deb Dear Deb, I'm not going to argue with anything you said here about Judi. Let's agree for argument's sake that it's all correct. The question remains, however: Why do you care enough about her to write such a long letter? The reason I ask is because I directed a similar question at myself a few weeks ago, and it turned out to be very fruitful. Over the years I had often found Judi irritating. It wasn't till a few weeks ago, though, that I got around to asking myself the obvious question: WHY do I get irritated by Judi? When I investigated the matter, it turned out the answer had to do entirely with me and not at all with Judi. And it involved something that damaged my pride. Oddly enough, since I found the answer to the question, Judi doesn't irritate me anymore. Now she just makes me smile. Best wishes, Rob P.S. Thank you for this: > Notice I have not labelled you .. I could say you are this or > that, I could say you are many things, oh so many things - > you give me so much ammunition... This is a good example of what Alton and I were talking about (confronting what people say instead of attacking them personally). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 10, 2003 Report Share Posted April 10, 2003 Dear Deb, Thanks for the answer. > The key word in your question is "care" .. when I see someone > in obvious pain, so bound up in their own anger and vitriol that > they need to continually strike out at other people and hurt and > insult them, I feel their pain and I care. Simple. So you're writing these letters as a favor to Judi? To try to soothe her pain? I'm really trying to understand YOUR motive for writing. I'm asking a question about Deb, not about Judi. Puzzled, Rob - deb Realization Thursday, April 10, 2003 6:44 PM Judi's Ghost? dear Rob .. thank you for asking this question of me .. "why do I care enough? .. there are several reasons. Ive been a member of this email community called "realisation" for a little while now and Judi is a member too. I would like to get to know, and understand her better, find out what makes my neighbour Judi tick - its a personal quirk of mine, I love to hear other people's stories .. thats why I joined this group ) The key word in your question is "care" .. when I see someone in obvious pain, so bound up in their own anger and vitriol that they need to continually strike out at other people and hurt and insult them, I feel their pain and I care. Simple. Judi's behaviour does herself and her cause no favours ... her cause, I think, being to assist others to attain realisation - not sure about this though and alas she will not answer my questions. IMHO anyone who is sincere about the subject of realisation could not take her contributions seriously .. no, wait, that is rather a broad statement, let me just say that {I} dont. In the weeks following my first exposure to Judi, I thought about her a lot .. and about myself too, I was going through some heavy personal stuff at the time. Now, having turned a corner, I see her for who and what she is, inasmuch as what she has shown me of herself here and at her site, and yes, she makes me smile too. Personally, I think she just comes here to vent .. she has not contributed anything really worthwhile to this list in the time Ive been here, apart from her anger, and I find it quite amusing to be able to have dialogue with a "real" dead person <g> blessings on you Rob .. deb Dear Deb, I'm not going to argue with anything you said here about Judi. Let's agree for argument's sake that it's all correct. The question remains, however: Why do you care enough about her to write such a long letter? The reason I ask is because I directed a similar question at myself a few weeks ago, and it turned out to be very fruitful. Over the years I had often found Judi irritating. It wasn't till a few weeks ago, though, that I got around to asking myself the obvious question: WHY do I get irritated by Judi? When I investigated the matter, it turned out the answer had to do entirely with me and not at all with Judi. And it involved something that damaged my pride. Oddly enough, since I found the answer to the question, Judi doesn't irritate me anymore. Now she just makes me smile. Best wishes, Rob P.S. Thank you for this: > Notice I have not labelled you .. I could say you are this or > that, I could say you are many things, oh so many things - > you give me so much ammunition... This is a good example of what Alton and I were talking about (confronting what people say instead of attacking them personally)...........INFORMATION ABOUT THIS LIST..........Email addresses: Post message: Realization Un: Realization- Our web address: http://www.realization.orgBy sending a message to this list, you are givingpermission to have it reproduced as a letter onhttp://www.realization.org................................................ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 11, 2003 Report Share Posted April 11, 2003 hello Rob, and greetings, I am new here, bellow is my web-site for introduction. I do share Deb's and Alton's feelings about Judi, I am familiar with Judi's version of kinder-garden " Spirituality 101 " I also share your acknowledgement Rob, that anything, ANYTHING one responds to is a part of his/her own psyche; with Judi I went through the questions: why does she irritate me.. is it her foul language? limited one-liners? calling everyone who tries to better themselves with meditation a " masturbator " and I am a yogi? well the answer to all of the above is: YES, and I do stand by my taste: in communication, conduct and by my understanding of where and where from and why someone is comming from. But the final answer to the question; why does a woman who had a nervous breakdown what she mistaked for realization and feels Awakened irritates me?, and than I watched my reactions to her posts at several clubs and I saw clearly, that she is a devious TROLL of the worst kind in a pathetic need for attention, she jumps into a conversation without paying attention to the thread, she jumps in to vomit vile gutter- languaged remarks and to attack someone, she would jump in at a club with her mindless oneliners. To answer: to the statement by Papaji that " there is enlightenment and than constant vigilance " Judi says: " *******how stooopid is that? " and than followed it up with her basic rhetoric, that " vigilance " is waiting for a savior; from her bigoted midevel Christian mind, and, that searching, doing is suffering etc I happend to belive, that Papaji was right and recognized her mindless trolling technic to jump in to threads and ruin them at once.. And this is the final reason I dislike her activities on the Internet she is a troll; and she should keep to her 120 masochists members of the endofteroeranch; she can insult them regu= larly; what is what she needs to do, and wait for them to " awaken " and she should stop trolling other clubs with 0! zero input. Of course I am not alone to dislike the kind of her: who is homophobic, prejudiced and bigoted on the top of all her faults I mentioned before; as gutter language and gutter associations: postings like " your little faggot in your pink tutu " , " stop masturbating you little bastard " etc The owner of the Guru_Ratings club; a respected level headed intelligent person wrote about her the following: Judi Rhodes's rating by Sarlo from the Guru Rating website: " Judi Rhodes: American, dispenses wisdom at TheEndOfTheRopeRanch. " You dramatic whiners, = please hit the road, you are utterly too ridiculous for me . .. . Fuck off and die. " Specializes in caustic quotes, 3rd-rate humour and putdowns of women. " Mirr= ors up! " Projection queen " at: <http://www.globalserve.net/~sarlo/RatingsF.htm> She is not worse the energy to spend a minute with; she acts like she invented self-introspection and that is why some take her seriously peace-awareness-love, Karta <http://santmat-meditation.net/iam/> " Rob Sacks " <editor@r...> wrote: > Dear Deb, > > Thanks for the answer. > > > The key word in your question is " care " .. when I see someone > > in obvious pain, so bound up in their own anger and vitriol that > > they need to continually strike out at other people and hurt and > > insult them, I feel their pain and I care. Simple. > > So you're writing these letters as a favor to Judi? To try to > soothe her pain? > > I'm really trying to understand YOUR motive for writing. I'm asking > a question about Deb, not about Judi. > > Puzzled, > > Rob > > Deb: dear Rob .. > thank you for asking this question of me .. " why do I care enough? .. the= re are several reasons. > > Ive been a member of this email community called " realisation " for a litt= le while now and Judi is a member too. I would like to get to know, and unde= rstand her better, find out what makes my neighbour Judi tick - its a person= al quirk of mine, I love to hear other people's stories .. thats why I joine= d this group ) > > The key word in your question is " care " .. when I see someone in obvious = pain, so bound up in their own anger and vitriol that they need to continual= ly strike out at other people and hurt and insult them, I feel their pain an= d I care. Simple. > > Judi's behaviour does herself and her cause no favours ... her cause, I= think, being to assist others to attain realisation - not sure about this t= hough and alas she will not answer my questions. IMHO anyone who is sincere = about the subject of realisation could not take her contributions seriously = ... no, wait, that is rather a broad statement, let me just say that {I} dont= .. > > In the weeks following my first exposure to Judi, I thought about her a= lot .. and about myself too, I was going through some heavy personal stuff = at the time. Now, having turned a corner, I see her for who and what she is,= inasmuch as what she has shown me of herself here and at her site, and yes,= she makes me smile too. > > Personally, I think she just comes here to vent .. she has not contribu= ted anything really worthwhile to this list in the time Ive been here, apart= from her anger, and I find it quite amusing to be able to have dialogue wit= h a " real " dead person <g> > > blessings on you Rob .. > deb > Dear Deb, > > I'm not going to argue with anything you said here about > Judi. Let's agree for argument's sake that it's all correct. > > The question remains, however: Why do you care > enough about her to write such a long letter? > > The reason I ask is because I directed a similar question > at myself a few weeks ago, and it turned out to be very > fruitful. > > Over the years I had often found Judi irritating. It wasn't > till a few weeks ago, though, that I got around to asking > myself the obvious question: WHY do I get irritated by > Judi? > > When I investigated the matter, it turned out the > answer had to do entirely with me and not at all with > Judi. And it involved something that damaged my > pride. > > Oddly enough, since I found the answer to the question, > Judi doesn't irritate me anymore. Now she just makes > me smile. > > Best wishes, > > Rob > > P.S. Thank you for this: > > > Notice I have not labelled you .. I could say you are this or > > that, I could say you are many things, oh so many things - > > you give me so much ammunition... > > This is a good example of what Alton and I were talking > about (confronting what people say instead of attacking > them personally). > http://www.realization.org Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 11, 2003 Report Share Posted April 11, 2003 Dear Karta: You certainly have gotten your writing skills together. Now because You did such a completely good job at bashing Judi to the chagrin of Rob, It is incumbent on me to come to her defense. You probably have realized that not only do we have absolutely no control of events that appear on the screen of consciousness, but that what is happening is actors playing a prescripted part par excellence. What ever Judi or anyone else offers in life is not under her control or anyone's control. Everything just happens according to some unknown laws of cause and effect without any particle of free will attached to it. The molecules of words come forth as events that have no free will or responsibility attached to them when we realize we are thespians. Rob is right when he says to watch what is happening in our minds. The only thing that we can really do it watch the passing show. Actually I hope to someday have a group where anyone is free to say what they want to with only one rule. No criminal behavior, which is to prevent the members from being disturbed by the authorities. I now feel that I have released all my anger toward Judi and want to hug and kiss her. Love and welcome. Now let us hear how your spiritual quest is going. MT but full of it, The Self of course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 11, 2003 Report Share Posted April 11, 2003 Dear Karta, Welcome to this mail group. Your letter about Judy is a true masterpiece of autopsy on the living, and it brought a smile to my lips for reasons that I'll state in a moment. However I have to remind you that we try to maintain a rule here against characterizing people negatively (for example, calling them bigots, etc.) Mostly you were careful to observe this rule but in a few cases you went overboard, and I would ask you please to be even more careful in the future. The reasons your letter made me smile are, first, its eloquence, and second, that I concede the accuracy of most of the details you provide and yet I still defend Judi. This makes me laugh at myself. I defend her in the following sense: I think she really is in the state that she claims to be in. I think a part of the ego machinery has ceased functioning in her. I can't explain exactly why I believe this. It's some kind of subjective intuition on my part. Either you see it or you don't. I can't offer any argument to demonstrate that I'm right. She wrote here a few weeks ago: > No, that's the whole deal, no more seeking, that whole > miserable business is no more. " Does not compute " anymore. > > I'll give you an example - I had dinner with this fellow the other > nite and then we went over to the video store and were looking > at movies. He said, " here's one that will make you feel good > about yourself. " And I didn't say anything to him, but that kind > of stuff just does not compute with me anymore. It's totally > irrelevant. So you see, while everyone else is trying to get > *somewhere* to " feel good " about themselves, I squinch my > face and say, what the hell do you think you're doing, where > do you think you're going? :-) Do you see what I mean, it's > totally irrelevant - does not " compute " . This just has the ring of truth to me. Deb criticized Judi a few days ago on the grounds that Judi isn't saying anything new. But it seems to me, in fact, that these words ring true precisely because they are original. Of course Judi's experience isn't new -- people have been describing this experience since the Buddha -- but the words she uses to describe it are new. Everybody who really sees this experience describes it in their own words. People who haven't seen it use words from books. Judi is using her own words. > ...she is a devious TROLL of the worst kind in a pathetic > need for attention... How do you know that's her motive? You're probably looking at this question incredulously because it's SO OBVIOUS that this is her motive, but really, I ask you seriously, how do you know? > But the final answer to the question; why does a woman > who had a nervous breakdown what she mistaked for > realization and feels Awakened irritates me?... Haha, I'm supposed to enforce rules here against this kind of remark, but it's hard to remember my job when you are so funny. Doesn't realization often coincide with a nervous breakdown? The Dark Night of the Soul, etc.? It's not easy to renounce yourself. I can think of two recent well-documented examples: U.G. Krishnamurti and Eckhardt Tolle. > " Judi Rhodes: American, dispenses wisdom at > TheEndOfTheRopeRanch. " You dramatic whiners, = > please hit the road, you are utterly too ridiculous for me . > >. . Fuck off and die. " Yes, of course, her comments are outrageous and indefensible. But don't you get the sense sometimes that her remarks are SO ridiculous that something else is going on? That maybe she's not taking them seriously? That there's a joke going on here? > She is not wor[th] the energy to spend a minute with; she > acts like she invented self-introspection and that is why > some take her seriously. Well, maybe, but for some reason, people love to expend their energy on talking about her. Why don't they simply ignore her? Once again, thank you for your magnificently eloquent and amusing letter, and welcome to this mail group. Best wishes, Rob P.S. I didn't look at your website yet: <http://santmat-meditation.net/iam/> But I will soon. - " satkartar5 " <mi_nok <Realization > Friday, April 11, 2003 1:49 AM Re: Judi's Ghost? hello Rob, and greetings, I am new here, bellow is my web-site for introduction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 11, 2003 Report Share Posted April 11, 2003 Hello Alton, " mark_twain11 " <mark_twain11> wrote: > Dear Karta: > You certainly have gotten your writing skills together. Karta: Naaaaah, only my english is getting better > > Now because You did such a completely good job at bashing Judi Karta: I did not mean to " bash " I only stated my view > to the > chagrin of Rob, It is incumbent on me to come to her defense. > > You probably have realized that not only do we have absolutely no > control of events that appear on the screen of consciousness, but > that what is happening is actors playing a prescripted part par > excellence. > > What ever Judi or anyone else offers in life is not under her control > or anyone's control. Everything just happens according to some > unknown laws of cause and effect without any particle of free will > attached to it. Karta: yes, I did realize, and I knew, that we have absolutely no control over events. But, I am not d to Ramesh's no Free will docrine. sorry I happened to belive; that there IS! a me-ego needed to yoke it and than function with in this world: and we should refine that one with vigilance. > A: The molecules of words come forth as events that have > no free will or responsibility attached to them when we realize we > are thespians. > > Rob is right when he says to watch what is happening in our minds. > The only thing that we can really do it watch the passing show. Karta: yes, he could be right > > Actually I hope to someday have a group where anyone is free to say > what they want to with only one rule. No criminal behavior, which is > to prevent the members from being disturbed by the authorities. > > I now feel that I have released all my anger toward Judi and want to > hug and kiss her. > Karta: OK, please do not mind, that I'll keep my values and taste and will dislike the prejidiced type; keeping in mind the non-dualist no-separation, but more so NO-DISTURBANCE for me > Love and welcome. > Now let us hear how your spiritual quest is going. Karta: it is going honestly with my best efforts, and I want to thank you again for introducing Nisargadatta for me <smiles> my quest is: staying conscious on being conscious awareness-love-peace, Karta > MT but full of it, The Self of course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 11, 2003 Report Share Posted April 11, 2003 Hi Rob, " Rob Sacks " <editor@r...> wrote: > Dear Karta, > > Welcome to this mail group. Karta: thank you; I am glad to be here to learn and share > Your letter about Judy is a true masterpiece of autopsy on > the living, and it brought a smile to my lips for reasons that > I'll state in a moment. However I have to remind you that > we try to maintain a rule here against characterizing people > negatively (for example, calling them bigots, etc.) Karta: I am used to call a spade a spade, sorry Rob, but how would you define someone belive system who states: " that being vigilant with one enlightenment means waiting for the " Savior " ¿ > Mostly > you were careful to observe this rule but in a few cases you > went overboard, and I would ask you please to be even > more careful in the future. > Karta: OK but I'll be honest and will not sacrifice that just to excepted > The reasons your letter made me smile are, first, its eloquence, > and second, that I concede the accuracy of most of the details > you provide and yet I still defend Judi. This makes me laugh > at myself. I defend her in the following sense: I think she > really is in the state that she claims to be in. I think a part of > the ego machinery has ceased functioning in her. Karta: ROTFL, you could be imposing your own worldview here.. > I can't > explain exactly why I believe this. It's some kind of subjective > intuition on my part. Either you see it or you don't. I can't > offer any argument to demonstrate that I'm right. > > She wrote here a few weeks ago: > > > No, that's the whole deal, no more seeking, that whole > > miserable business is no more. " Does not compute " anymore. > > > > I'll give you an example - I had dinner with this fellow the other > > nite and then we went over to the video store and were looking > > at movies. He said, " here's one that will make you feel good > > about yourself. " And I didn't say anything to him, but that kind > > of stuff just does not compute with me anymore. It's totally > > irrelevant. So you see, while everyone else is trying to get > > *somewhere* to " feel good " about themselves, I squinch my > > face and say, what the hell do you think you're doing, where > > do you think you're going? :-) Karta: oh! where and what ? in deed ? > Do you see what I mean, it's > > totally irrelevant - does not " compute " . > > This just has the ring of truth to me. Deb criticized Judi a few > days ago on the grounds that Judi isn't saying anything new. Karta: I am glad to hear tat you know > But > it seems to me, in fact, that these words ring true precisely > because they are original. Of course Judi's experience isn't new -- > people have been describing this experience since the Buddha -- > but the words she uses to describe it are new. Everybody who > really sees this experience describes it in their own words. > People who haven't seen it use words from books. Judi > is using her own words. Karta: I chose not to read them > > ...she is a devious TROLL of the worst kind in a pathetic > > need for attention... > > How do you know that's her motive? You're probably > looking at this question incredulously because it's SO > OBVIOUS that this is her motive, but really, I ask you > seriously, how do you know? > > > But the final answer to the question; why does a woman > > who had a nervous breakdown what she mistaked for > > realization and feels Awakened irritates me?... > > Haha, I'm supposed to enforce rules here against this kind > of remark, but it's hard to remember my job when you are > so funny. > > Doesn't realization often coincide with a nervous > breakdown? The Dark Night of the Soul, etc.? It's not > easy to renounce yourself. I can think of two recent > well-documented examples: U.G. Krishnamurti and > Eckhardt Tolle. Karta: I like Tolle and the NOW > > >Sarlo's Guru_Rating: " Judi Rhodes: American, dispenses wisdom at > > TheEndOfTheRopeRanch. " You dramatic whiners, = > > please hit the road, you are utterly too ridiculous for me . > > > >. . Fuck off and die. " > > R: Yes, of course, her comments are outrageous and > indefensible. > > But don't you get the sense sometimes that her remarks > are SO ridiculous that something else is going on? That > maybe she's not taking them seriously? That there's a joke > going on here? > > >K: She is not wor[th] the energy to spend a minute with; she > > acts like she invented self-introspection and that is why > > some take her seriously. > > R: Well, maybe, but for some reason, people love to expend their > energy on talking about her. Why don't they simply ignore her? Karta: she has 120 masochist deluted memebrs at her farm, that is all. Who talk about her must be like me: SYMPLY ANOYED with ignorance > > Once again, thank you for your magnificently eloquent and > amusing letter, and welcome to this mail group. > > Best wishes, > > Rob > > P.S. I didn't look at your website yet: > <http://santmat-meditation.net/iam/> > But I will soon. > Ok thanks Rob for your time awareness-love-peace, Karta Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 11, 2003 Report Share Posted April 11, 2003 Hi Karta, > Karta: I am used to call a spade a > spade, sorry Rob, but how would you > define someone belive system who > states: " that being vigilant with one > enlightenment means waiting for the > " Savior " Why does this bother you? The Roman Catholic contemplative tradition offers an instruction which is more or less, " Be quiet so you can hear God. " How is this any different from the remark you quote? It's difficult to me to understand why the remark bothers you because I'm seeing it out of context. But I would guess Judi was thinking something along the following lines. This is only a guess on my part: Papaji was very good at giving temporary glimpses to people. It was as if, in his presence, people were temporarily accelerated to a level of insight far beyond what they had attained through their own efforts. As soon as they left him, they began to slip back. To prevent them from slipping back, Papaji told them, " Hold onto it through vigilance. " I think Judi has found a permanent state of understanding in which part of the ego machinery has shut down for good. In such a state, vigilance isn't needed anymore. So I think perhaps (and again, I'm only guessing), if she made a remark belittling vigilance, it's because she thinks she's offering something better. I'd also point out that in a ... what to call it? ... fullblown state of realization as described in the Upanishads, where the doer is completely gone, a word like " vigilance " which implies deliberate effort probably doesn't make any sense. How can somebody like Ramana Maharshi be vigilant? He can't do anything. Best regards, Rob - " satkartar5 " <mi_nok <Realization > Friday, April 11, 2003 3:52 AM Re: Judi's Ghost? Hi Rob, " Rob Sacks " <editor@r...> wrote: > Dear Karta, > > Welcome to this mail group. Karta: thank you; I am glad to be here to learn and share Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 11, 2003 Report Share Posted April 11, 2003 Realization , " Rob Sacks " <editor@r...> wrote: > Hi Karta, > > > Karta: I am used to call a spade a > > spade, sorry Rob, but how would you > > define someone belive system who > > states: " that being vigilant with one > > enlightenment means waiting for the > > " Savior " > > Why does this bother you? The Roman Catholic > contemplative tradition offers an instruction which is more > or less, " Be quiet so you can hear God. " How is this any > different from the remark you quote? > ******* Rob, I never said anything like that. She makes all sorts of shit up constantly that supposedly I said. Some are just twisted and bits of pieces out of context to suit her purpose, while others are out and out blatant lies. Either way, she's been called on it over and over. But doesn't bother her, she just keeps on. It's a lack of conscience, it's demonic in nature. The girl is very sick. It happens. Judi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 11, 2003 Report Share Posted April 11, 2003 Realization , " Rob Sacks " <editor@r...> wrote: > > Papaji was very good at giving temporary glimpses to > people. It was as if, in his presence, people were > temporarily accelerated to a level of insight far beyond > what they had attained through their own efforts. As > soon as they left him, they began to slip back. To > prevent them from slipping back, Papaji told them, > " Hold onto it through vigilance. " > > I think Judi has found a permanent state of > understanding in which part of the ego machinery has > shut down for good. In such a state, vigilance isn't > needed anymore. So I think perhaps (and again, I'm > only guessing), if she made a remark belittling > vigilance, it's because she thinks she's offering something > better. > > I'd also point out that in a ... what to call it? ... > fullblown state of realization as described in the > Upanishads, where the doer is completely gone, > a word like " vigilance " which implies deliberate effort > probably doesn't make any sense. How can somebody > like Ramana Maharshi be vigilant? He can't do anything. > > Best regards, > > Rob ******** Hi Rob, yes, " vigilance " is all about having an " experience " , where understanding is beyond experience. In other words, " vigilance " requires a " doer " if that makes sense? Where from the perspective of understanding, it's total nonsense. Judi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 11, 2003 Report Share Posted April 11, 2003 Realization , " Rob Sacks " <editor@r...> wrote: > Hi Judi, > > > Rob, I never said anything like that. She makes all sorts of > > shit up constantly that supposedly I said. > > Lol, well, I had fun riffing on it anyway. > > Rob > ****** Cool! :-) And wouldn't you know, looks like another " troll " , this onnika person. Sheesh, like bugs crawling out of the woodwork, even on a global scale we see it happening. And you know where I stand on that crap? :-) Judi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 11, 2003 Report Share Posted April 11, 2003 Dear Judi, > > In other words, " vigilance " requires a " doer " if that makes sense? Yes it makes sense. Is there any way to get to the understanding besides observing the whole thing repeatedly from outside and reminding yourself what's going on? Rob - " judirhodes " <judirhodes <Realization > Friday, April 11, 2003 12:46 PM Re: Judi's Ghost? > Realization , " Rob Sacks " <editor@r...> wrote: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 11, 2003 Report Share Posted April 11, 2003 Realization , " Rob Sacks " <editor@r...> wrote: > Dear Judi, > > > > In other words, " vigilance " requires a " doer " if that makes sense? > > Yes it makes sense. > > Is there any way to get to the understanding besides > observing the whole thing repeatedly from outside > and reminding yourself what's going on? > > Rob > ******* No, that's it. It's all a matter of " understanding " through from beginning to end. Nothing else is required. That's the whole process in a nutshell. Inquiry alone does the job. Judi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 11, 2003 Report Share Posted April 11, 2003 Realization , " Rob Sacks " <editor@r...> wrote: > Dear Judi, > > > > In other words, " vigilance " requires a " doer " if that makes sense? > > Yes it makes sense. > > Is there any way to get to the understanding besides > observing the whole thing repeatedly from outside > and reminding yourself what's going on? > > Rob There's nothing to remind yourself of, Rob. There's no one who needs be reminded. Just remember this, a kiss is just a kiss, a sigh is but a sigh -- Judi knows the rest of the words, maybe she'll fill it in ... Smiles, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 11, 2003 Report Share Posted April 11, 2003 The thing I really love about *Judi* is that she couldn't give a f*** what I think of her, unlike the rest of you whining brats. I personally feel privileged to be in dialogue with someone who can actually help me to put myself out of my suffering. I guess I should also thank Debs for her excrutiatingly tedious posts which help to deepen that suffering to the point where I might just do something about it. I don't claim realization but I can recognize truth and integrity from BS born of fear. Thank you all for showing me to myself in all my ugliness. Getting ready to die, - if not now when, - soon, you wondrous creatures, soon. Tanya xxxx. Realization , " Judi Rhodes " <judirhodes@z...> wrote: > Dear Friends, > > I'm addressing this to you mature, sincere folks out there who are serious about this " realization " or " enlightenment " business and just might happen to have your ears on right now, as you're reading what I have to say. I am not addressing this to the hysterical neurotics, the lovelorn, the sob sisters, the insecure, the angry, the know-it- alls, the distrustful ax-grinders, the smiley guys, the " oh yes, life is great, hallelujah " gang -- in other words, the general run of mental-emotional basket cases, that we see so often in so - called " spiritual. " circles. I hold out no hope for them. They're busy doing whatever kind of nonsense they're about. If they had half a brain to begin with they wouldn't be doing that in the first place. Let's face it, this is not for everybody -- so let's move on. > > Realization is for strong, secure, emotionally mature, clear- headed, no-nonsense, healthy folks, people with both feet on the ground. It's not brain surgery, all it takes is common sense and the unflinching desire to understand, to uncover, to get to the bottom of the matter, to look at the truth of who you are come what may. It requires the courage to stand alone, because the ball lies entirely in your court. Let me tell you -- and I can't stress this strongly enough -- there has been so much nonsense promulgated about finding the truth of who you are in some " other, " be it a lover, a guru, Jesus, or even some personal idea of " God. " In other words, paying lip service to some imaginary being isn't going to cut it! Discovering the truth of who you are is not about playing emotional co-dependency games with some sort of " other. " That said, let's go on. > > On to the point: realization is about understanding, it is not about making your life work out. That is the great misunderstanding. It is not something " added " to your already existing circumstance or sense of existence that you are trying to improve upon, to finally get that brass ring or cream pie in the sky. This is about the utter failure of all that, it is not in just allowing or coming to terms with it, but actually marching right into it! You see your life is not going to " work out, " not ever, and that's exactly is the point. > > Understanding is about loss, not gain. Please understand that! In order to actually and really observe yourself and get at the truth of who you are, and what you're doing, you first have to get clear of the hope, the fear, that business of you trying to make your life work out, from the time you wake up in the morning until you go to bed at night. Whatever drives you, your so-called story, the tale of Dick or Jane -- it's simply not going to happen. Even if your prince, princess, or Rolls-Royce does show up, that's going to come to an end. Nothing is permanent and whatever goes up must come down. People die and even Rolls-Royce's rust. You have to come to terms with that, seriously, once and for all. That's all there is to it. In other words, it's in stopping all that business that you play with all the time, that you occupy yourself with, the whole " grass is greener " business that you suffer continually. All that nothing but the activity of suffering, if you would but see it! That's your entire identity, you see., it's what makes you tick! It's very subtle. Whether you're at your worst or at your best, it is still, at its root, suffering. > > So, the work, the " task " then becomes one of actually looking for where it is that you're holding on, what you're still trying " work out, " and simply letting it go. To bring this suffering to the surface, to look at it, to make it concrete, palpable. This is by no means some sort of psychotherapy, you don't have to analyze it and understand the " why " of your holding on, to just to bring it up and see it, allow yourself to feel it and let it go is enough. In other words, it's not about saying " Well, it's because my mother hit me when I was a kid, poor me, " or any number of events that might have occurred. The past is dead and gone, drop it. And let me say something else here, I am not describing a career or a hobby here. Realistically, I'm referring to a couple weeks of serious intense effort, for those of you who are mature and prepared, perhaps a few months, but certainly no more than that. > > My advice is simple: take some time for yourself, get off away by yourself, let your life go, completely. Just get away and get into these places where you're holding on and let go. I mean all the places where you don't want to go -- you need to go there and stop avoiding them. Face the fears that you have been hiding, even from yourself. Bring everything up until you are absolutely, utterly heartbroken and be done with it! > > And that is when real self-observation begins and NOT before. In other words, you have to get beyond yourself, so you can clearly see yourself and what it is you are actually doing. It's like discovering that you have been pinching yourself without realizing it, causing your own suffering. And that's all your the illusion of separate identity amounts to. However, as long as you're trying to make the story work out one way or another, you can't really observe yourself because you are the suffering activity you're trying to observe! > > There is only Consciousness, you do not really even exist. Never did! > > Just think, all this time and you could of had a V-8! > > Cheers! > Judi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 11, 2003 Report Share Posted April 11, 2003 - " Rob Sacks " <editor <Realization > Friday, April 11, 2003 1:01 PM Re: Re: Judi's Ghost? > Dear Judi, > > > > In other words, " vigilance " requires a " doer " if that makes sense? > > Yes it makes sense. Hi Rob, What sense does it make to say that vigilence requires a doer but understanding doesn't? In other words, what priviledges understanding? Harvey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 11, 2003 Report Share Posted April 11, 2003 " Rob Sacks " <editor <Realization > Friday, April 11, 2003 2:39 AM Re: Re: Judi's Ghost? [snip] I think she > really is in the state that she claims to be in. I think a part of > the ego machinery has ceased functioning in her. I can't > explain exactly why I believe this. It's some kind of subjective > intuition on my part. Either you see it or you don't. I can't > offer any argument to demonstrate that I'm right. Hi Bob, I wonder why you might think enlightenment involves the ceasing to function of ego machinery. Why should anything have to stop? We are told that the old person has died. But who is the one telling us this? Harvey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 11, 2003 Report Share Posted April 11, 2003 " Rob Sacks " <editor <Realization > Friday, April 11, 2003 12:12 PM Re: Re: Judi's Ghost? [snip] > I think Judi has found a permanent state of > understanding in which part of the ego machinery has > shut down for good. In such a state, vigilance isn't > needed anymore. So I think perhaps (and again, I'm > only guessing), if she made a remark belittling > vigilance, it's because she thinks she's offering something > better. Hi Rob, Is enlightenment a state? How could we tell if someone were in the right state, or even if we were in that state? If enlightenment is an understanding then it would seem to be subject to a simple or complex explanation. We could take a multiple choice quiz and get our enlightenment certificates at the end of the satsang lecture. Harvey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 11, 2003 Report Share Posted April 11, 2003 " Harvey Schneider " <haarvi1@n...> wrote: > > > Dear Judi, > > > > > > In other words, " vigilance " requires a " doer " if that makes sense? > > > > Yes it makes sense. > > Hi Rob, > What sense does it make to say that vigilence requires a doer but > understanding > doesn't? In other words, what priviledges understanding? > Harvey privlidged LOL, that is their act all right Hi Harvey, I am glad to see you here; someone with real *understanding* Peace-awareness-love, Karta Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 12, 2003 Report Share Posted April 12, 2003 " I wonder why you might think enlightenment involves the ceasing to function of ego machinery. Why should anything have to stop? We are told that the old person has died. But who is the one telling us this? " Harvey In the spiritual community when they don't like you or what you communicate they say that guy has a large ego. Ego is something negative and to get rid of. Well at Ramanashrama someone came upon Ramana who was alone and asked where is the swami? Ramana said the swami in not here. He lied and later said how could he say he was the swami. The ego is the medium of communication is this world and I agree, even those so called Realized beings have it, but have the mental powers to detach from it at will. Aloha, MT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 12, 2003 Report Share Posted April 12, 2003 Realization , " mark_twain11 " <mark_twain11> wrote: > " I wonder why you might think enlightenment involves the ceasing to > function of ego machinery. Why should anything have to stop? > We are told that the old person has died. But who is the one telling > us this? " > Harvey > > In the spiritual community when they don't like you or what you > communicate they say that guy has a large ego. Ego is something > negative and to get rid of. > > Well at Ramanashrama someone came upon Ramana who was alone and asked > where is the swami? Ramana said the swami in not here. He lied and > later said how could he say he was the swami. The ego is the medium > of communication is this world and I agree, even those so called > Realized beings have it, but have the mental powers to detach from it > at will. > > Aloha, > MT When something no longer anchors reality for you, it simply no longer anchors reality. You don't have to detach from it, because it never was an anchor for anything, except imaginings that were make-believe the whole time. Mental powers are involved in trying to keep imaginings real to the mind. Truth requires neither mental powers nor physical powers. There is no one existing outside of *this* that would need some kind of powers to detach from something, or realize something, or get to the truth. The truth can't be gotten to. The entire " getting to " machinery is uprooted, dissolved, when understood as clearly obsolete, inapplicable, and utterly beside the point. -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 12, 2003 Report Share Posted April 12, 2003 > When something no longer anchors reality for you, > it simply no longer anchors reality. > > You don't have to detach from it, because it never > was an anchor for anything, except imaginings > that were make-believe the whole time. > > Mental powers are involved in trying to keep imaginings > real to the mind. > > Truth requires neither mental powers nor physical powers. > > There is no one existing outside of *this* that would need > some kind of powers to detach from something, or > realize something, or get to the truth. > > The truth can't be gotten to. > > The entire " getting to " machinery is uprooted, dissolved, > when understood as clearly obsolete, inapplicable, > and utterly beside the point. > > -- Dan MT: Then you may become possessed. Ramana thought at first he was possessed. Aloha, MT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 12, 2003 Report Share Posted April 12, 2003 Realization , " mark_twain11 " <mark_twain11> wrote: > > > When something no longer anchors reality for you, > > it simply no longer anchors reality. > > > > You don't have to detach from it, because it never > > was an anchor for anything, except imaginings > > that were make-believe the whole time. > > > > Mental powers are involved in trying to keep imaginings > > real to the mind. > > > > Truth requires neither mental powers nor physical powers. > > > > There is no one existing outside of *this* that would need > > some kind of powers to detach from something, or > > realize something, or get to the truth. > > > > The truth can't be gotten to. > > > > The entire " getting to " machinery is uprooted, dissolved, > > when understood as clearly obsolete, inapplicable, > > and utterly beside the point. > > > > -- Dan > > MT: > Then you may become possessed. Ramana thought at first he was > possessed. > Aloha, > MT As Jesus said, " Many are called, few are chosen. " I don't get to choose it. That's not how it works. And it's beyond being possessed. Everything already is fully " possessed " if you want to call it that -- with no separation ever. -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 13, 2003 Report Share Posted April 13, 2003 " mark_twain11 " <mark_twain11 > Then you may become possessed. Ramana thought at first he was > possessed. > Aloha, > MT Hi mark_twain11, Can you please say more about Ramana's thinking he was possessed. I haven't come across this idea. Where did you see it? Harvey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 13, 2003 Report Share Posted April 13, 2003 Dear Harvey: Rob can give you more information on that. I think he told me that on a group. Maybe it came from one of Godman's books Love, em-tee. My yoga teacher suggested this oh no not another name. Realization , " Harvey Schneider " <haarvi1@n...> wrote: > > " mark_twain11 " <mark_twain11> > > Then you may become possessed. Ramana thought at first he was > > possessed. > > Aloha, > > MT > > Hi mark_twain11, > Can you please say more about Ramana's thinking he was possessed. I haven't > come across this idea. Where did you see it? > Harvey 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.