Guest guest Posted March 15, 2001 Report Share Posted March 15, 2001 Hi Paul... Continuing our dialogue.... > >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. Yes. It's the canvas onto which desires and fears get painted. > 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.) Narcissus comes to mind - in that once one sees one's self as separate and unique, all that he sees will a reflection of that self. Clarity of view then depends on how much that lens is colored by fears and desires. > > >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. To continue the metaphor from above... as in how colored or distorted the lens of perception. > > > >> 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? > :-) Nope. Not I. :-) > > >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. Yes. All concepts. A favorite response of mine from Sandeep is, " Some concepts cut deeper than others. " > >> What is the point you are attempting to reach? > > > > > >Just talking.....seeing where it takes us. :-) > > I bow in gratitiude. As do I. > > > >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'. :-) Oh, lord.... Here we go again! :-) in jest, Melody Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 16, 2001 Report Share Posted March 16, 2001 On Thu, 15 Mar 2001 10:41:01 -0800, you wrote: >Hi Paul... > >Continuing our dialogue.... Yes, thank you. >Narcissus comes to mind - in that once one >sees one's self as separate and unique, all that >he sees will a reflection of that self. As a take-off of " I am, therefore, I exist. " - " I am, therefore, you exist. " " I love myself, how can I not love you? " >Clarity of view then depends on how much >that lens is colored by fears and desires. 'Mind-full' takes on a new meaning. >> Clarity, as in the amount of ego that is allowed to dominate? > >Yes. To continue the metaphor from above... > >as in how colored or distorted the lens of perception. The funny thing about this is that no matter where " I " may think that I am, the lens is always way too dirty... :-) Sort of like picking up a thorn during travel and having it be a constant reminder that THIS doesn't belong. >> 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. > >Yes. All concepts. > >A favorite response of mine from Sandeep is, > > " Some concepts cut deeper than others. " Indeed. Sometimes, finding the path through the minefield called ego, seems impossible. Luckily, the undeniable comes in many, many different flavors! :-) The right concept at just the right time will cut deepest. To that end, we are all Guru's. It's just that some of us are not at it full time. :-) Perhaps this is applicable to Nisargadatta's quote that you mentioned. Can the concepts of that quote wash over you without meaning being attached to it? It sounds strange, but I think that you know what I mean. 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.