Guest guest Posted April 15, 2003 Report Share Posted April 15, 2003 Thanks Shawn, that was an enjoyable read. The dialogue dealt with actions, thoughts, behaviours, emotions... and yes these may be referred to as the will of the Source or of God, but what of our internal way of being? This is not dictated by our programming, our thoughts, our emotions, our circumstances or our DNA... but rather, it is a choice... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 15, 2003 Report Share Posted April 15, 2003 Nisargadatta , " toby20042004 " <toby.wilson@t...> wrote: > Thanks Shawn, that was an enjoyable read. > > The dialogue dealt with actions, thoughts, behaviours, emotions... > and yes these may be referred to as the will of the Source or of God, > but what of our internal way of being? This is not dictated by our > programming, our thoughts, our emotions, our circumstances or our > DNA... but rather, it is a choice... devi: hello, did you read that article or not...there is no real choice. if you feel like your choosing, it's because source or God has given you those thoughts and feelings,...surrender,.. there is nothing being done here except whats Gods Will...your on you way to a higher state of consciousness where you'll realize what your true nature is and from there you'll be guided to new horizons of being.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 15, 2003 Report Share Posted April 15, 2003 on 4/15/03 5:23 AM, devianandi at devi wrote: > Nisargadatta , " toby20042004 " > <toby.wilson@t...> wrote: >> Thanks Shawn, that was an enjoyable read. >> >> The dialogue dealt with actions, thoughts, behaviours, emotions... >> and yes these may be referred to as the will of the Source or of > God, >> but what of our internal way of being? This is not dictated by our >> programming, our thoughts, our emotions, our circumstances or our >> DNA... but rather, it is a choice... > > devi: hello, did you read that article or not...there is no real > choice. if you feel like your choosing, it's because source or God > has given you those thoughts and feelings,...surrender,.. there is > nothing being done here except whats Gods Will...your on you way to a > higher state of consciousness where you'll realize what your true > nature is and from there you'll be guided to new horizons of being.. > I have to aggree with devi on this one, Toby. " Internal way of being " is not, IMO an action, but simply Be-ing. .....and I'm sorry devi, if I'm coming off " mean " ...I don't mean to. ))))Shawn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 16, 2003 Report Share Posted April 16, 2003 shawn > > <toby.wilson@t...> wrote: > >> Thanks Shawn, that was an enjoyable read. > >> > >> The dialogue dealt with actions, thoughts, behaviours, emotions... > >> and yes these may be referred to as the will of the Source or of > > God, > >> but what of our internal way of being? This is not dictated by our > >> programming, our thoughts, our emotions, our circumstances or our > >> DNA... but rather, it is a choice... > > > > devi: hello, did you read that article or not...there is no real > > choice. if you feel like your choosing, it's because source or God > > has given you those thoughts and feelings,...surrender,.. there is > > nothing being done here except whats Gods Will...your on you way to a > > higher state of consciousness where you'll realize what your true > > nature is and from there you'll be guided to new horizons of being.. > > > > > > I have to aggree with devi on this one, Toby. " Internal way of being " is > not, IMO an action, but simply Be-ing. > > ....and I'm sorry devi, if I'm coming off " mean " ...I don't mean to. > > ))))Shawn hello, it does sound right awareness-love-peace, Karta Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 16, 2003 Report Share Posted April 16, 2003 Shawn, Devi & Karta, We may attempt to define the intricates workings of the universe in any way we like. We can define them as the will of God or as nature or even as random events, and we can build logic and arguements to back up these theories. However, this does not change what is, it only changes the way we define and explain what is. So whether we have choice of whether we include this choice in our definition of " God's will " is really irrelevant. The universe is as it is, and our petty discrepencies and definitions regarding this have no influence on the absolute reality of what is. So for my purposes of communicating a point, I say we can choose our inner way of being, whether we surrender or cling, whether we are internally honest or dishonest. Whether you want to include this choice I am referring to in your definition of God's will or not makes no difference at all, it is really irrelevant. The words are used for communication purposes only, they do not and can not encapsulate absolute reality. So I guess we may have to agree to disagree on this one, even if it is only due to the terminology alone. Toby > > satkartar7 [sMTP:mi_nok] > Wednesday, April 16, 2003 10:35 AM > Nisargadatta > Re: Choice > > shawn > > > <toby.wilson@t...> wrote: > > >> Thanks Shawn, that was an enjoyable read. > > >> > > >> The dialogue dealt with actions, thoughts, behaviours, emotions... > > >> and yes these may be referred to as the will of the Source or of > > > God, > > >> but what of our internal way of being? This is not dictated by our > > >> programming, our thoughts, our emotions, our circumstances or our > > >> DNA... but rather, it is a choice... > > > > > > devi: hello, did you read that article or not...there is no real > > > choice. if you feel like your choosing, it's because source or God > > > has given you those thoughts and feelings,...surrender,.. there is > > > nothing being done here except whats Gods Will...your on you way to a > > > higher state of consciousness where you'll realize what your true > > > nature is and from there you'll be guided to new horizons of being.. > > > > > > > > > > > I have to aggree with devi on this one, Toby. " Internal way of being " is > > not, IMO an action, but simply Be-ing. > > > > ....and I'm sorry devi, if I'm coming off " mean " ...I don't mean to. > > > > ))))Shawn > > > hello, it does sound right > > awareness-love-peace, Karta > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 16, 2003 Report Share Posted April 16, 2003 Nisargadatta , " Wilson, Toby " <toby.wilson@t...> wrote: > Shawn, Devi & Karta, > > We may attempt to define the intricates workings of the universe in any way we like. We can define them as the will of God or as nature or even as random events, and we can build logic and arguements to back up these theories. However, this does not change what is, it only changes the way we define and explain what is. So whether we have choice of whether we include this choice in our definition of " God's will " is really irrelevant. The universe is as it is, and our petty discrepencies and definitions regarding this have no influence on the absolute reality of what is. > > So for my purposes of communicating a point, I say we can choose our inner way of being, whether we surrender or cling, whether we are internally honest or dishonest. Whether you want to include this choice I am referring to in your definition of God's will or not makes no difference at all, it is really irrelevant. The words are used for communication purposes only, they do not and can not encapsulate absolute reality. So I guess we may have to agree to disagree on this one, even if it is only due to the terminology alone. thank you Toby; a great reminder peace-love, Karta > > Toby Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 16, 2003 Report Share Posted April 16, 2003 on 4/15/03 11:28 PM, Wilson, Toby at toby.wilson wrote: > Shawn, Devi & Karta, > > We may attempt to define the intricates workings of the universe in any way we > like. We can define them as the will of God or as nature or even as random > events, and we can build logic and arguements to back up these theories. > However, this does not change what is, it only changes the way we define and > explain what is. So whether we have choice of whether we include this choice > in our definition of " God's will " is really irrelevant. The universe is as it > is, and our petty discrepencies and definitions regarding this have no > influence on the absolute reality of what is. > > So for my purposes of communicating a point, I say we can choose our inner way > of being, whether we surrender or cling, whether we are internally honest or > dishonest. Whether you want to include this choice I am referring to in your > definition of God's will or not makes no difference at all, it is really > irrelevant. The words are used for communication purposes only, they do not > and can not encapsulate absolute reality. So I guess we may have to agree to > disagree on this one, even if it is only due to the terminology alone. > > Toby Hence my original post: >>> Whichever way you want to look at it is fine. Every moment choices are >>> apparently made, it doesn't matter much whether you think you made them. The >>> fruit ripens how it will. On the other hand, desire shapes destiny. >>> >>> )))))))))Shawn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 17, 2003 Report Share Posted April 17, 2003 on 4/15/03 11:28 PM, Wilson, Toby at toby.wilson wrote: > So for my purposes of communicating a point, I say we can choose our inner way > of being can you explain this? How to choose a " way of being " ...what is that, an attitude? > whether we surrender or cling, whether we are internally honest or > dishonest. These are actions, are they not? )))))Shawn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 17, 2003 Report Share Posted April 17, 2003 > on 4/15/03 11:28 PM, Wilson, Toby at toby.wilson wrote: > > > So for my purposes of communicating a point, I say we can choose our inner way > > of being > > can you explain this? How to choose a " way of being " ...what is that, an > attitude? > > > > whether we surrender or cling, whether we are internally honest or > > dishonest. > > These are actions, are they not? > > )))))Shawn > ______________ Hi Shawn, What is honesty? We simply look at what is true and accept it as is. This is being honest in its simplest form. I could lie to my friends and make out that I am a better tennis player than I actually am. I could talk myself up to impress them. This is being dishonest. It creates a false image that I must stand behind and support. It requires my input for it to exist. Then, when it comes time to play a tennis match, I may not perform as well as I have made out. So I make excuses, blame my racket, my bad shoes and so on. So I'm on the court, looking like a bit of a fool, needing to defend my illusion. This dishonest status I have created simply cannot stand up on its own. I must play an active role in maintaining it. Action is necessary. This internal action is the ego at work, reasoning and building logic to manoeuvre its way around the Truth. So from this dishonesty I find myself in, what do I have to do to be honest, to let honesty in? What " action " do I need to take to find Truth in this dishonest mess I have created? There is no action that is necessary. It is an internal lack of action that is needed. I simply choose a way of being that is honest rather than dishonest. I internally surrender my dishonesty. And when I cut off its oxygen supply, cut off its fueling energy, it dies of its own accord. How can it possibly survive? In surrendering dishonesty, I let in Truth, rather than resisting it as I previously had been doing. Now some people may say, " That guy is an idiot. That's the truth, I'm just being honest here. " But is this true honesty? Without their ego to hold this judgement in place, what would happen to it? Where would it exist? It has no existance outside their internal environment. They are simply living in a self created illusion, held together by an internal holding. Letting go of this holding, this dishonest way of being, is synonymous with letting in Truth. We can not surrender Truth, we can only surrender to it. So choosing an internal way of being that is true is as simple as warmly lying your head down on the inside. It's letting Truth rule your internal environment, rather than " you " ruling it. If you would like to call this " action " , how about we compromise and call it a soft, gentle half action. :-) Toby ______________ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 17, 2003 Report Share Posted April 17, 2003 on 4/16/03 11:23 PM, Wilson, Toby at toby.wilson wrote: _______________ > > Hi Shawn, > > What is honesty? We simply look at what is true and accept it as is. This is > being honest in its simplest form. But the looking at what is true is the trouble in the first place? The whole idea that " I am the body " is false. but we think it and feel it to be so. > I could lie to my friends and make out that I am a better tennis player than I > actually am. I could talk myself up to impress them. This is being > dishonest. It creates a false image that I must stand behind and support. It > requires my input for it to exist. Then, when it comes time to play a tennis > match, I may not perform as well as I have made out. So I make excuses, blame > my racket, my bad shoes and so on. > > So I'm on the court, looking like a bit of a fool, needing to defend my > illusion. This dishonest status I have created simply cannot stand up on its > own. I must play an active role in maintaining it. Action is necessary. > This internal action is the ego at work, reasoning and building logic to > manoeuvre its way around the Truth. It is also the ego that now would like to be honest. > So from this dishonesty I find myself in, what do I have to do to be honest, > to let honesty in? What " action " do I need to take to find Truth in this > dishonest mess I have created? > > There is no action that is necessary. It is an internal lack of action that > is needed. I simply choose a way of being that is honest rather than > dishonest. I internally surrender my dishonesty. And when I cut off its > oxygen supply, cut off its fueling energy, it dies of its own accord. How can > it possibly survive? In surrendering dishonesty, I let in Truth, rather than > resisting it as I previously had been doing. Who is the one *doing* all this honest-dishonest stuff? It is the ego! > Now some people may say, " That guy is an idiot. That's the truth, I'm just > being honest here. " But is this true honesty? Without their ego to hold this > judgement in place, what would happen to it? Where would it exist? It has no > existance outside their internal environment. They are simply living in a > self created illusion, held together by an internal holding. Letting go of > this holding, this dishonest way of being, is synonymous with letting in > Truth. We can not surrender Truth, we can only surrender to it. Surrender happens, you cannot *do* it. To be honest with ourself, we must find ourself first. > So choosing an internal way of being that is true is as simple as warmly lying > your head down on the inside. It's letting Truth rule your internal > environment, rather than " you " ruling it. If you would like to call this > " action " , how about we compromise and call it a soft, gentle half action. :-) > > Toby This is the ego choosing a different path in the dream. )))))Shawn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 17, 2003 Report Share Posted April 17, 2003 my god guys! I like Toby's post so much, that I was contemplating to go honest and than Shawn changed the story to fast Karta ¿¿¿¿ <shawn@w...> wrote: toby.wilson@t... wrote: > > > Hi Shawn, > > > > What is honesty? We simply look at what is true and accept it as is. = This is > > being honest in its simplest form. > > > But the looking at what is true is the trouble in the first place? The wh= ole > idea that " I am the body " is false. but we think it and feel it to be so.= > > > > > I could lie to my friends and make out that I am a better tennis player= than I > > actually am. I could talk myself up to impress them. This is being > > dishonest. It creates a false image that I must stand behind and suppo= rt. It > > requires my input for it to exist. Then, when it comes time to play a = tennis > > match, I may not perform as well as I have made out. So I make excuses= , blame > > my racket, my bad shoes and so on. > > > > So I'm on the court, looking like a bit of a fool, needing to defend my= > > illusion. This dishonest status I have created simply cannot stand up = on its > > own. I must play an active role in maintaining it. Action is necessar= y. > > This internal action is the ego at work, reasoning and building logic t= o > > manoeuvre its way around the Truth. > > It is also the ego that now would like to be honest. > > > > > So from this dishonesty I find myself in, what do I have to do to be ho= nest, > > to let honesty in? What " action " do I need to take to find Truth in th= is > > dishonest mess I have created? > > > > There is no action that is necessary. It is an internal lack of action= that > > is needed. I simply choose a way of being that is honest rather than > > dishonest. I internally surrender my dishonesty. And when I cut off i= ts > > oxygen supply, cut off its fueling energy, it dies of its own accord. = How can > > it possibly survive? In surrendering dishonesty, I let in Truth, rathe= r than > > resisting it as I previously had been doing. > > > > Who is the one *doing* all this honest-dishonest stuff? It is the ego! > > > > > > Now some people may say, " That guy is an idiot. That's the truth, I'm = just > > being honest here. " But is this true honesty? Without their ego to ho= ld this > > judgement in place, what would happen to it? Where would it exist? It= has no > > existance outside their internal environment. They are simply living i= n a > > self created illusion, held together by an internal holding. Letting g= o of > > this holding, this dishonest way of being, is synonymous with letting i= n > > Truth. We can not surrender Truth, we can only surrender to it. > > Surrender happens, you cannot *do* it. To be honest with ourself, we must= > find ourself first. > > > > So choosing an internal way of being that is true is as simple as warml= y lying > > your head down on the inside. It's letting Truth rule your internal > > environment, rather than " you " ruling it. If you would like to call th= is > > " action " , how about we compromise and call it a soft, gentle half actio= n. :-) > > > > Toby > > This is the ego choosing a different path in the dream. > > )))))Shawn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 18, 2003 Report Share Posted April 18, 2003 > What is honesty? We simply look at what is true and accept it as is. This is being honest in its simplest form. S: But the looking at what is true is the trouble in the first place? T: If it troubles you, then best to keep yourself safe and continue to live in what is untrue. _____________________________ S: The whole idea that " I am the body " is false. but we think it and feel it to be so. T: Certainly. _____________________________ > I could lie to my friends and make out that I am a better tennis player than I > actually am. I could talk myself up to impress them. This is being > dishonest. It creates a false image that I must stand behind and support. It > requires my input for it to exist. Then, when it comes time to play a tennis > match, I may not perform as well as I have made out. So I make excuses, blame > my racket, my bad shoes and so on. > > So I'm on the court, looking like a bit of a fool, needing to defend my > illusion. This dishonest status I have created simply cannot stand up on its > own. I must play an active role in maintaining it. Action is necessary. > This internal action is the ego at work, reasoning and building logic to > manoeuvre its way around the Truth. S: It is also the ego that now would like to be honest. T: Absolutely, and it's the ego that wants to find Truth, that wants to achieve enlightenment and be a " somebody " . The ego wants to avoid pain and gain pleasure. So the ego works on the illusion, the ego reads books, seeks out Gurus, aquires knowledge, tries to " do " honesty in any way it can, tries anything and everything to find those good feelings, that illusive bliss, all the while keeping itself safe. But this " doing " is not honesty Shawn. It is the ego striving to move toward what it loves, but always keeping itself safely separate from it. _________________________ > So from this dishonesty I find myself in, what do I have to do to be honest, > to let honesty in? What " action " do I need to take to find Truth in this > dishonest mess I have created? > > There is no action that is necessary. It is an internal lack of action that > is needed. I simply choose a way of being that is honest rather than > dishonest. I internally surrender my dishonesty. And when I cut off its > oxygen supply, cut off its fueling energy, it dies of its own accord. How can > it possibly survive? In surrendering dishonesty, I let in Truth, rather than > resisting it as I previously had been doing. S: Who is the one *doing* all this honest-dishonest stuff? It is the ego! T: It is not the ego. The " doing " is the ego. The dishonesty is the ego. But the ego can not " do " honesty. The ego cannot create honesty within, because Truth is not the creation of the ego. How could the ego possibly create Truth? If I said to you right now, be dishonest, are there not many ways you could play out that dishonesty within youself? You as conciousness could choose to engage the ego and be dishonest in many different ways. And all of them would involve some sort of internal " doing " . You would be " creating " dishonesty. Then, if I said to you, be absolutely honest, totally honest to the core, what would you do? Explain to me how you would " do " absolute honesty? What could you possibly " do " ? How could the ego play out this sincere internal honesty? It simply cannot. Because Truth is not the creation of the ego. The ego does not and cannot create Truth. You cannot " do " Truth. Dishonesty, however, is the creation of the ego and it can be " done " . Without internal dishonesty, there can be no ego. Without internal dishonesty, nothing remains other than Truth. ________________________ > Now some people may say, " That guy is an idiot. That's the truth, I'm just > being honest here. " But is this true honesty? Without their ego to hold this > judgement in place, what would happen to it? Where would it exist? It has no > existance outside their internal environment. They are simply living in a > self created illusion, held together by an internal holding. Letting go of > this holding, this dishonest way of being, is synonymous with letting in > Truth. We can not surrender Truth, we can only surrender to it. S: Surrender happens, you cannot *do* it. T: True, you cannot " do " surrender, but you can most certainly stand in its way. _________________________ S: To be honest with ourself, we must find ourself first. T: Keep searching then and let me know how you go. _________________________ > So choosing an internal way of being that is true is as simple as warmly lying > your head down on the inside. It's letting Truth rule your internal > environment, rather than " you " ruling it. If you would like to call this > " action " , how about we compromise and call it a soft, gentle half action. :-) > > Toby This is the ego choosing a different path in the dream. )))))Shawn 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.