Guest guest Posted March 13, 2001 Report Share Posted March 13, 2001 Nisargadatta, Xan <xanma@e...> wrote: > > ~ Sighhhhhhhhh Not so long ago I happened across a couple of very good articles describing double binding behaviour, and prescriptions for freeing oneself from the schizophrenic effects of it. I understand this may seem off-topic for such a mailing list, and apologize in advance if it is seen as inappropriate discussion. But from these ears, Xan just demonstrated classic examples of this type of behaviour in which dominance or control is sought under the mantle of wisdom, caring, and virtue. Xan's final " ~ Sighhhhhhhh " may have been sculpted to convey a sincere sense of disappointment or frustration at Melody's 'lack of progress' in consciousness; but what it does quite forcefully is re-exert Xan's superior position (in consciousness) - which is the goal of double-binders, unconscious though it can be. In that sense, Xan just hit a home-run. For those interested in reading more about the practice of " double binding " , I recommend the following URLs: http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/umbada/1100gp.htm http://www.well.com/user/bbear/double_bind.html Ed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 14, 2001 Report Share Posted March 14, 2001 Hi Paul, What do you mean when you say " Karma does seem to answer up to our searching, but when Love takes root there is nothing that can be done to stop it " ? When Love takes root in what? >The process of >categorization is performed wonderfully well by the ego but >ultimately, the effort expended in separation becomes a moot point. Can we take this a little further here? This seems a good opportunity to look a little deeper at our 'knowns'.... If the effort expended in separation is moot, are other actions initiated wonderfully well by the ego - such as larceny, slander, slovenliness, rudeness, adultery....even murder, ultimately moot points as well? Do we draw a line in our sense of abiding? If so, who draws the line, and why? Melody Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 14, 2001 Report Share Posted March 14, 2001 > Egoic actions come back to haunt us. In the search for release all > sorts of further actions are undertaken. The search becomes never > ending and self-fullfilling. If Love is allowed to roost in the place > of these actions then the karmically driven 'spritual progress' ceases > to rule the day. > > Do these ramblings reach you? I'm working on it, Paul. It seems in order for me to really 'hear' what you're saying, I'd have to understand what your definition of Love is. The question that arises for me (assuming your definition of Love is similar to mine) is: what exists *apart* from Love....that Love would need to root in? Referring back to Nisargadatta's words offered earlier today, " Suffering is primarily a call for attention, which itself is a movement of love " , Nisargadatta seems to be suggesting, is he not, that suffering (which is within the realm of 'ego') is a *movement* of love. In other words, Love is already 'rooted' in suffering, whether we recognize it or not? > > > >>The process of > >>categorization is performed wonderfully well by the ego but > >>ultimately, the effort expended in separation becomes a moot point. > > > >Can we take this a little further here? This seems a good > >opportunity to look a little deeper at our 'knowns'.... > > Perhaps I should clarify my postion, so to speak. I know nothing. The > words you read stem from my mind, which of course 'knows' everything. Clarified. :-) And ditto for 'me'. > All I do is to relay the thoughts, images and concepts that appear > from there - and usually in a very poor manner! > > How is it with you? Pretty much the same. Sometimes I seem to communicate my thoughts effectively. Other times not. But the clarity of transmission relies as much on the clarity of the listener as it does the communcator. > > >If the effort expended in separation is moot, > > > >are other actions initiated wonderfully well by the > >ego - such as larceny, slander, slovenliness, rudeness, > >adultery....even murder, ultimately moot points as well? > > Yes, these other points are moot as well, but not in a karmic sense. I'm not sure I follow you here. How are these not 'moot' in the same sense? > > > >Do we draw a line in our sense of abiding? If so, who draws > >the line, and why? > > Yes. > The ego. > Self preservation. A point can be moot even without our accepting it as so, couldn't it? > > What is the point you are attempting to reach? Just talking.....seeing where it takes us. :-) > > > > >Melody > > Greetings to you, Melody. > > Paul And to you, Paul. Your name sounds familiar. Have we shared the same list before? Melody Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 15, 2001 Report Share Posted March 15, 2001 Karma does seem to answer up to our searching, but when Love takes root there is nothing that can be done to stop it. The process of categorization is performed wonderfully well by the ego but ultimately, the effort expended in separation becomes a moot point. Paul On Wed, 14 Mar 2001 03:50:50 -0000, you wrote: >Nisargadatta, Xan <xanma@e...> wrote: >> >> ~ Sighhhhhhhhh > > >Not so long ago I happened across a couple of very >good articles describing double binding behaviour, >and prescriptions for freeing oneself from the >schizophrenic effects of it. > >I understand this may seem off-topic for such >a mailing list, and apologize in advance if >it is seen as inappropriate discussion. > >But from these ears, Xan just demonstrated >classic examples of this type of behaviour >in which dominance or control is sought >under the mantle of wisdom, caring, and virtue. > > >Xan's final " ~ Sighhhhhhhh " may have been sculpted >to convey a sincere sense of disappointment or >frustration at Melody's 'lack of progress' in >consciousness; but what it does quite forcefully >is re-exert Xan's superior position (in consciousness) >- which is the goal of double-binders, unconscious >though it can be. In that sense, Xan just hit a >home-run. > >For those interested in reading more about >the practice of " double binding " , I recommend >the following URLs: > >http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/umbada/1100gp.htm > >http://www.well.com/user/bbear/double_bind.html > >Ed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 15, 2001 Report Share Posted March 15, 2001 On Wed, 14 Mar 2001 09:37:26 -0800, you wrote: >Hi Paul, > >What do you mean when you say > > " Karma does seem to answer up to our searching, >but when Love takes root there is nothing that >can be done to stop it " ? > >When Love takes root in what? Egoic actions come back to haunt us. In the search for release all sorts of further actions are undertaken. The search becomes never ending and self-fullfilling. If Love is allowed to roost in the place of these actions then the karmically driven 'spritual progress' ceases to rule the day. Do these ramblings reach you? >>The process of >>categorization is performed wonderfully well by the ego but >>ultimately, the effort expended in separation becomes a moot point. > >Can we take this a little further here? This seems a good >opportunity to look a little deeper at our 'knowns'.... Perhaps I should clarify my postion, so to speak. I know nothing. The words you read stem from my mind, which of course 'knows' everything. All I do is to relay the thoughts, images and concepts that appear from there - and usually in a very poor manner! How is it with you? >If the effort expended in separation is moot, > >are other actions initiated wonderfully well by the >ego - such as larceny, slander, slovenliness, rudeness, >adultery....even murder, ultimately moot points as well? Yes, these other points are moot as well, but not in a karmic sense. >Do we draw a line in our sense of abiding? If so, who draws >the line, and why? Yes. The ego. Self preservation. What is the point you are attempting to reach? > >Melody Greetings to you, Melody. Paul Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 16, 2001 Report Share Posted March 16, 2001 On Wed, 14 Mar 2001 17:59:26 -0800, you wrote: >I'm working on it, Paul. It seems in order >for me to really 'hear' what you're saying, >I'd have to understand what your definition >of Love is. I read your response last night and still can't come up wth a definition of love. I keep drawing a blank, so I've given up. My use of a capital " L " was to differentiate Love, as in consciouness, versus love as related to suffering. >The question that arises for me (assuming >your definition of Love is similar to mine) is: > >what exists *apart* from Love....that >Love would need to root in? My response would be to say that Love is never apart from anything, it is the effort of trying to make it go away that is the 'problem'. >Referring back to Nisargadatta's words >offered earlier today, > > " Suffering is primarily a call for attention, which itself >is a movement of love " , > >Nisargadatta seems to be suggesting, is he not, >that suffering (which is within the realm of 'ego') >is a *movement* of love. > >In other words, Love is already 'rooted' in >suffering, whether we recognize it or not? I think that there are two different concepts at play here. 1) all is the movement of Love, meaning that existence is not a creation of Love but merely a 'movement'. (Words begin to break down on the definition of this). In this case, Love is indeed 'rooted' in suffering - and in everything else for that matter. 2) egoic suffering rejects the nature of Love and by doing this calls attention to the ego that something exists beyond itself. (Sort of like taking a slow boat to China versus much speedier travel through the " Who Am I? " approach.) >Clarified. :-) > >And ditto for 'me'. Very glad to have 'run into' you. :-) >> How is it with you? > >Pretty much the same. Sometimes I seem to >communicate my thoughts effectively. Other >times not. But the clarity of transmission >relies as much on the clarity of the listener as >it does the communcator. Clarity, as in the amount of ego that is allowed to dominate? >> Yes, these other points are moot as well, but not in a karmic sense. > > >I'm not sure I follow you here. How are these not >'moot' in the same sense? In the same vein as the 'Love' topic above, from the standpoint of suffering, karma is definately not a moot point. But beyond sufferring it doesn't matter what is done, and 'who' it is that does it. It's the Dance of the Universe, beauty abounds, but when we begin to call our own tune, we fall out of step. Ouch, is that you stepping on my toes? :-) >A point can be moot even without our >accepting it as so, couldn't it? Well said. This points back to my response to the double binding behaviour post. Basically, the classification is itself the same as the belief in karma. Both have no validity other than as pointers to oneself. >> What is the point you are attempting to reach? > > >Just talking.....seeing where it takes us. :-) I bow in gratitiude. >Your name sounds familiar. Have >we shared the same list before? From time to time I read the messages of some of the other lists, but very rarely do I ever post anything, so it is more likely that I 'know' much more about 'you' than 'you' about 'me'. :-) Paul 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.