Guest guest Posted August 7, 2004 Report Share Posted August 7, 2004 Few lovers of Phil. would argue that of all the validation tests `authority' is the least reliable. Most people would agree that to accept the truth of a statement on authority is... well, un- philosophical. After all, a philosopher should think for h/himself. And yet, look at it, 99.9% of the things that we hold to be true have been accepted on authority. All the news we read, listen, or watch are accepted on the authority placed on our `free press.' Free that is to the point, that salaried news-people can be considered free from the politics of their bosses. We trust the checks and balances of the system. We believe that truth even when murdered, weighted down, and thrown in the sea, will eventually surface somewhere. And the same goes for our scientific knowledge. It would be impossible for even the most gifted to check and test every bit of scientific knowledge personally. So we trust science to get rid of the `bad apples' as special relativity did with Newtonian physics. I know, bad pun. To trust authority has been drilled into our brain. Since childhood we absorbed our education trusting our parents, our teachers, and most of all our books. The printed word glows, even in adulthood, with the light of authority. The subconscious message that if it is written it must be true, it is sadly all that a large segment of the population needs to believe. That's what makes propaganda so effective. Falsehoods are not mirages, they have consequences, which are sometimes devastating. That is why the pragmatist method: the interpretation of ideas in terms of their consequences rather than their veracity, could be such efficacious antidote to the pitfalls of authority. Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 7, 2004 Report Share Posted August 7, 2004 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> wrote: > Few lovers of Phil. would argue that of all the validation > tests `authority' is the least reliable. Most people would agree that > to accept the truth of a statement on authority is... well, un- > philosophical. After all, a philosopher should think for h/himself. > And yet, look at it, 99.9% of the things that we hold to be true have > been accepted on authority. > > All the news we read, listen, or watch are accepted on the authority > placed on our `free press.' Free that is to the point, that salaried > news-people can be considered free from the politics of their > bosses. We trust the checks and balances of the system. We believe > that truth even when murdered, weighted down, and thrown in the sea, > will eventually surface somewhere. And the same goes for > our scientific knowledge. It would be impossible for even the most > gifted to check and test every bit of scientific knowledge > personally. So we trust science to get rid of the `bad apples' as > special relativity did with Newtonian physics. I know, bad pun. > > To trust authority has been drilled into our brain. Since childhood > we absorbed our education trusting our parents, our teachers, and > most of all our books. The printed word glows, even in adulthood, > with the light of authority. The subconscious message that if it is > written it must be true, it is sadly all that a large segment of the > population needs to believe. That's what makes propaganda so > effective. > > Falsehoods are not mirages, they have consequences, which are > sometimes devastating. That is why the pragmatist method: the > interpretation of ideas in terms of their consequences rather than > their veracity, could be such efficacious antidote to the pitfalls of > authority. > > Pete J. Krishnamurti said that one must be free from all authority, both external and internal. The internal authority is our personal knowledge and experience competing with each other inside ourselves; one fragment winning over other fragments. I think Krishnamurti has a point when he says that all authority leads to a fragmented mind which will always meet the newness of the moment in an incomplete way. Complete action can only be brought about when there is no authority - external or internal. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 7, 2004 Report Share Posted August 7, 2004 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> wrote: > > Few lovers of Phil. would argue that of all the validation > > tests `authority' is the least reliable. Most people would agree > that > > to accept the truth of a statement on authority is... well, un- > > philosophical. After all, a philosopher should think for > h/himself. > > And yet, look at it, 99.9% of the things that we hold to be true > have > > been accepted on authority. > > > > All the news we read, listen, or watch are accepted on the > authority > > placed on our `free press.' Free that is to the point, that > salaried > > news-people can be considered free from the politics of their > > bosses. We trust the checks and balances of the system. We believe > > that truth even when murdered, weighted down, and thrown in the > sea, > > will eventually surface somewhere. And the same goes for > > our scientific knowledge. It would be impossible for even the most > > gifted to check and test every bit of scientific knowledge > > personally. So we trust science to get rid of the `bad apples' as > > special relativity did with Newtonian physics. I know, bad pun. > > > > To trust authority has been drilled into our brain. Since childhood > > we absorbed our education trusting our parents, our teachers, and > > most of all our books. The printed word glows, even in adulthood, > > with the light of authority. The subconscious message that if it is > > written it must be true, it is sadly all that a large segment of > the > > population needs to believe. That's what makes propaganda so > > effective. > > > > Falsehoods are not mirages, they have consequences, which are > > sometimes devastating. That is why the pragmatist method: the > > interpretation of ideas in terms of their consequences rather than > > their veracity, could be such efficacious antidote to the pitfalls > of > > authority. > > > > Pete > > J. Krishnamurti said that one must be free from all authority, both > external and internal. The internal authority is our personal > knowledge and experience competing with each other inside ourselves; > one fragment winning over other fragments. I think Krishnamurti has a > point when he says that all authority leads to a fragmented mind > which will always meet the newness of the moment in an incomplete > way. Complete action can only be brought about when there is no > authority - external or internal. > > /AL Can you do that, Al? Can you even understand what that means? It seems to me that by quoting K, you're both relying on his authority, and ignoring his injunction at the same time. ) Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 8, 2004 Report Share Posted August 8, 2004 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> > wrote: > > > Few lovers of Phil. would argue that of all the validation > > > tests `authority' is the least reliable. Most people would agree > > that > > > to accept the truth of a statement on authority is... well, un- > > > philosophical. After all, a philosopher should think for > > h/himself. > > > And yet, look at it, 99.9% of the things that we hold to be true > > have > > > been accepted on authority. > > > > > > All the news we read, listen, or watch are accepted on the > > authority > > > placed on our `free press.' Free that is to the point, that > > salaried > > > news-people can be considered free from the politics of their > > > bosses. We trust the checks and balances of the system. We > believe > > > that truth even when murdered, weighted down, and thrown in the > > sea, > > > will eventually surface somewhere. And the same goes for > > > our scientific knowledge. It would be impossible for even the > most > > > gifted to check and test every bit of scientific knowledge > > > personally. So we trust science to get rid of the `bad apples' as > > > special relativity did with Newtonian physics. I know, bad pun. > > > > > > To trust authority has been drilled into our brain. Since > childhood > > > we absorbed our education trusting our parents, our teachers, and > > > most of all our books. The printed word glows, even in adulthood, > > > with the light of authority. The subconscious message that if it > is > > > written it must be true, it is sadly all that a large segment of > > the > > > population needs to believe. That's what makes propaganda so > > > effective. > > > > > > Falsehoods are not mirages, they have consequences, which are > > > sometimes devastating. That is why the pragmatist method: the > > > interpretation of ideas in terms of their consequences rather > than > > > their veracity, could be such efficacious antidote to the > pitfalls > > of > > > authority. > > > > > > Pete > > > > J. Krishnamurti said that one must be free from all authority, both > > external and internal. The internal authority is our personal > > knowledge and experience competing with each other inside > ourselves; > > one fragment winning over other fragments. I think Krishnamurti has > a > > point when he says that all authority leads to a fragmented mind > > which will always meet the newness of the moment in an incomplete > > way. Complete action can only be brought about when there is no > > authority - external or internal. > > > > /AL > > Can you do that, Al? Can you even understand what that means? It > seems to me that by quoting K, you're both relying on his authority, > and ignoring his injunction at the same time. ) > > Pete To follow authority means to act mechanically. And we do need authority, like the laws of society, such authority creates a structure for things to run more smoothly, like traffic lights. And even internal authority like knowledge, memories and experiences is of course needed. But when the action is total, then there is a complete response in the moment. Meeting the moment with only internal authority as a guide leads to a fragmented response which in turn leads to a conflict with the uncertainty inherent in each moment. This uncertainty is only there because we meet the newness of the living moment with what is often limited to only internal authority as a guide. Otherwise there is no uncertainty. When we meet each moment with total action there is no conflict between the limited past and the each moment. When we meet life fully, then there are no choices to make. Choices indicate uncertainty caused by a limited past as authority unable to respond directly, effortlessly to each new situation. When the mind is unclouded by the past then there is freedom. What I mean by unclouded by the past is that the past is functioning only when needed and not being in our face all the time. To meet life only from knowledge, memories and experiences is to be led by mechanical internal authority, and although we believe that that is to be in control, it is in fact a seed for confusion. We want control, but real control comes first when we are one with the moment and our action total. All other forms of control is just a fragment in struggle with other fragments, and struggle is not control, struggle is a lack of control. Choice is not control. Choice indicates a lack of control. When action is total, then knowledge, memories and experiences become a part of that total action instead of being a fragment in the form of internal authority trying to cope with other fragments which we call our life situation. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 8, 2004 Report Share Posted August 8, 2004 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> > > Pete True, very true, Al. But the question was, can you do that? Quoting, memorizing anothers wisdom is easy, but it doesn't liberate, unless you live it. Please, delete from your emails old posts. Only the very last post your answering to, is needed. Thanks. > > To follow authority means to act mechanically. And we do need > authority, like the laws of society, such authority creates a > structure for things to run more smoothly, like traffic lights. And > even internal authority like knowledge, memories and experiences is > of course needed. But when the action is total, then there is a > complete response in the moment. Meeting the moment with only > internal authority as a guide leads to a fragmented response which in > turn leads to a conflict with the uncertainty inherent in each > moment. This uncertainty is only there because we meet the newness of > the living moment with what is often limited to only internal > authority as a guide. Otherwise there is no uncertainty. When we meet > each moment with total action there is no conflict between the > limited past and the each moment. When we meet life fully, then there > are no choices to make. Choices indicate uncertainty caused by a > limited past as authority unable to respond directly, effortlessly to > each new situation. When the mind is unclouded by the past then there > is freedom. What I mean by unclouded by the past is that the past is > functioning only when needed and not being in our face all the time. > To meet life only from knowledge, memories and experiences is to be > led by mechanical internal authority, and although we believe that > that is to be in control, it is in fact a seed for confusion. We want > control, but real control comes first when we are one with the moment > and our action total. All other forms of control is just a fragment > in struggle with other fragments, and struggle is not control, > struggle is a lack of control. Choice is not control. Choice > indicates a lack of control. When action is total, then knowledge, > memories and experiences become a part of that total action instead > of being a fragment in the form of internal authority trying to cope > with other fragments which we call our life situation. > > /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 8, 2004 Report Share Posted August 8, 2004 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> > > > Pete > > True, very true, Al. But the question was, can you do that? > Quoting, memorizing anothers wisdom is easy, but it doesn't > liberate, unless you live it. > > Please, delete from your emails old posts. Only the very last post > your answering to, is needed. Thanks. I seems to me that I gradually become less dependent on inner authority, but it could be that I am fooling myself. I have not experienced what J. Krishnamurti called the total revolution of the mind. And I don't know if there ever will be such revolution in my mind. The fearless state that many sages talk about, why are there so few who reach that state? Is this fearless state only a result of a brain damage/defect? Still, the logic is clear: what is there to fear in this moment other than one's own ideas about the future, and the future is always only ideas. How can one be afraid of what will always be only ideas? Maybe fear is needed as a guide, but to live in fear all one's life and then die: what a cosmic joke! I find it reasonable to believe that it is possible to live in a fearless state, a state that is not caused by a brain damage, but rather a more intelligent state than the ordinary fear-based state. /AL > > > > > To follow authority means to act mechanically. And we do need > > authority, like the laws of society, such authority creates a > > structure for things to run more smoothly, like traffic lights. And > > even internal authority like knowledge, memories and experiences is > > of course needed. But when the action is total, then there is a > > complete response in the moment. Meeting the moment with only > > internal authority as a guide leads to a fragmented response which > in > > turn leads to a conflict with the uncertainty inherent in each > > moment. This uncertainty is only there because we meet the newness > of > > the living moment with what is often limited to only internal > > authority as a guide. Otherwise there is no uncertainty. When we > meet > > each moment with total action there is no conflict between the > > limited past and the each moment. When we meet life fully, then > there > > are no choices to make. Choices indicate uncertainty caused by a > > limited past as authority unable to respond directly, effortlessly > to > > each new situation. When the mind is unclouded by the past then > there > > is freedom. What I mean by unclouded by the past is that the past > is > > functioning only when needed and not being in our face all the > time. > > To meet life only from knowledge, memories and experiences is to be > > led by mechanical internal authority, and although we believe that > > that is to be in control, it is in fact a seed for confusion. We > want > > control, but real control comes first when we are one with the > moment > > and our action total. All other forms of control is just a fragment > > in struggle with other fragments, and struggle is not control, > > struggle is a lack of control. Choice is not control. Choice > > indicates a lack of control. When action is total, then knowledge, > > memories and experiences become a part of that total action instead > > of being a fragment in the form of internal authority trying to > cope > > with other fragments which we call our life situation. > > > > /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 8, 2004 Report Share Posted August 8, 2004 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> > > > > > Pete > > > > True, very true, Al. But the question was, can you do that? > > Quoting, memorizing anothers wisdom is easy, but it doesn't > > liberate, unless you live it. > > > > Please, delete from your emails old posts. Only the very last post > > your answering to, is needed. Thanks. > > I seems to me that I gradually become less dependent on inner > authority, but it could be that I am fooling myself. I have not > experienced what J. Krishnamurti called the total revolution of the > mind. And I don't know if there ever will be such revolution in my > mind. The fearless state that many sages talk about, why are there so > few who reach that state? Is this fearless state only a result of a > brain damage/defect? Still, the logic is clear: what is there to fear > in this moment other than one's own ideas about the future, and the > future is always only ideas. How can one be afraid of what will > always be only ideas? Maybe fear is needed as a guide, but to live in > fear all one's life and then die: what a cosmic joke! I find it > reasonable to believe that it is possible to live in a fearless > state, a state that is not caused by a brain damage, but rather a > more intelligent state than the ordinary fear-based state. > > /AL It's possible Al, I have no fears. What do I mean by this? Do I mean, that if my wife in the next room screams 'fire', and I get up to see what's happening, and I see my livingroom in flames and the door blocked by flames, I would not feel fear? No, of course not. Physical fear before real and present danger is normal, and healthy. But, days, months, years go by, without I facing any situation which requires physical fear. It's the endless 'what ifs' imagination could dream up that causes mental fears, and I don't entertain 'what ifs' about the future. I have confidence that the present always will take care of itself. To do that is very easy when one drops the habit of comparing the present with the past, or with an ideal, or terrible future. Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 8, 2004 Report Share Posted August 8, 2004 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> > wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> > > > > > > > > Pete > > > > > > True, very true, Al. But the question was, can you do that? > > > Quoting, memorizing anothers wisdom is easy, but it doesn't > > > liberate, unless you live it. > > > > > > Please, delete from your emails old posts. Only the very last > post > > > your answering to, is needed. Thanks. > > > > I seems to me that I gradually become less dependent on inner > > authority, but it could be that I am fooling myself. I have not > > experienced what J. Krishnamurti called the total revolution of the > > mind. And I don't know if there ever will be such revolution in my > > mind. The fearless state that many sages talk about, why are there > so > > few who reach that state? Is this fearless state only a result of a > > brain damage/defect? Still, the logic is clear: what is there to > fear > > in this moment other than one's own ideas about the future, and the > > future is always only ideas. How can one be afraid of what will > > always be only ideas? Maybe fear is needed as a guide, but to live > in > > fear all one's life and then die: what a cosmic joke! I find it > > reasonable to believe that it is possible to live in a fearless > > state, a state that is not caused by a brain damage, but rather a > > more intelligent state than the ordinary fear-based state. > > > > /AL > > It's possible Al, I have no fears. What do I mean by this? Do I mean, > that if my wife in the next room screams 'fire', and I get up to see > what's happening, and I see my livingroom in flames and the door > blocked by flames, I would not feel fear? No, of course not. Physical > fear before real and present danger is normal, and healthy. > But, days, months, years go by, without I facing any situation which > requires physical fear. It's the endless 'what ifs' imagination could > dream up that causes mental fears, and I don't entertain 'what ifs' > about the future. I have confidence that the present always will take > care of itself. To do that is very easy when one drops the habit of > comparing the present with the past, or with an ideal, or terrible > future. > > Pete But don't you have a fear about making a fool of yourself, don't you have a facade that you call 'you' - image, prestige and pride - to uphold? Aren't you concerned with what other people might think of you? Aren't you concerned about having a body that will wither away and die? /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 8, 2004 Report Share Posted August 8, 2004 > > > > It's possible Al, I have no fears. What do I mean by this? Do I > mean, > > that if my wife in the next room screams 'fire', and I get up to > see > > what's happening, and I see my livingroom in flames and the door > > blocked by flames, I would not feel fear? No, of course not. > Physical > > fear before real and present danger is normal, and healthy. > > But, days, months, years go by, without I facing any situation > which > > requires physical fear. It's the endless 'what ifs' imagination > could > > dream up that causes mental fears, and I don't entertain 'what ifs' > > about the future. I have confidence that the present always will > take > > care of itself. To do that is very easy when one drops the habit of > > comparing the present with the past, or with an ideal, or terrible > > future. > > > > Pete > > But don't you have a fear about making a fool of yourself, don't you > have a facade that you call 'you' - image, prestige and pride - to > uphold? P:No Al. I have made a fool of myself so many times, that I have come to enjoy it. I play the fool for fun, in this list and others, and in real life. I have no public image to protect, no prestige. I have a fuzzy image about an old man called Pete, but I don't worry about what images others might have of that old man. Whether they think he is a fool, or a wise man won't change my life a bit. Aren't you concerned with what other people might think of > you? P: No. I'm retired. I don't depend on others for income. I don't chase after women anymore. I have friends, and family who have known me for years and explain my foibles by saying: 'That's Pete for you. Pay no mind. He means no harm.' Aren't you concerned about having a body that will wither away > and die? LOL. My body wither long ago, and death looks like a nice long rest from here. Pain is still pain, and I don't like it anymore than you do, but it doesn't scare me either. Some forms of death are painful, but if that's what's coming my way, worrying, or being afraid won't change the outcome. Would it? So don't worry, let life live itself. Your fuzzing about it is spoiling the fun. How old are you? Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2004 Report Share Posted August 9, 2004 Hey Pete, It was reassuring..reading your last answers to Anders..especially let life live itself.. /M P:No Al. I have made a fool of myself so many times, that I have come to enjoy it. I play the fool for fun, in this list and others, and in real life. I have no public image to protect, no prestige. I have a fuzzy image about an old man called Pete, but I don't worry about what images others might have of that old man. Whether they think he is a fool, or a wise man won't change my life a bit. Aren't you concerned with what other people might think of > you? P: No. I'm retired. I don't depend on others for income. I don't chase after women anymore. I have friends, and family who have known me for years and explain my foibles by saying: 'That's Pete for you. Pay no mind. He means no harm.' Aren't you concerned about having a body that will wither away > and die? LOL. My body wither long ago, and death looks like a nice long rest from here. Pain is still pain, and I don't like it anymore than you do, but it doesn't scare me either. Some forms of death are painful, but if that's what's coming my way, worrying, or being afraid won't change the outcome. Would it? So don't worry, let life live itself. Your fuzzing about it is spoiling the fun. How old are you? Pete ** If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: /mygroups?edit=1 Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2004 Report Share Posted August 9, 2004 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> wrote: > > > > > > It's possible Al, I have no fears. What do I mean by this? Do I > > mean, > > > that if my wife in the next room screams 'fire', and I get up to > > see > > > what's happening, and I see my livingroom in flames and the door > > > blocked by flames, I would not feel fear? No, of course not. > > Physical > > > fear before real and present danger is normal, and healthy. > > > But, days, months, years go by, without I facing any situation > > which > > > requires physical fear. It's the endless 'what ifs' imagination > > could > > > dream up that causes mental fears, and I don't entertain 'what > ifs' > > > about the future. I have confidence that the present always will > > take > > > care of itself. To do that is very easy when one drops the habit > of > > > comparing the present with the past, or with an ideal, or > terrible > > > future. > > > > > > Pete > > > > But don't you have a fear about making a fool of yourself, don't > you > > have a facade that you call 'you' - image, prestige and pride - to > > uphold? > > P:No Al. I have made a fool of myself so many times, that I have come > to enjoy it. I play the fool for fun, in this list and others, and in > real life. I have no public image to protect, no prestige. I have > a fuzzy image about an old man called Pete, but I don't worry about > what images others might have of that old man. Whether they think he > is a fool, or a wise man won't change my life a bit. > > Aren't you concerned with what other people might think of > > you? > > P: No. I'm retired. I don't depend on others for income. I don't > chase after women anymore. I have friends, and family who have > known me for years and explain my foibles by saying: 'That's Pete > for you. Pay no mind. He means no harm.' > > Aren't you concerned about having a body that will wither away > > and die? > > LOL. My body wither long ago, and death looks like a nice long rest > from here. Pain is still pain, and I don't like it anymore than you > do, but it doesn't scare me either. Some forms of death are painful, > but if that's what's coming my way, worrying, or being afraid > won't change the outcome. Would it? So don't worry, let life live > itself. Your fuzzing about it is spoiling the fun. How old are you? > > Pete Sounds good Pete. You seem to have few fears. But let me ask you this: if someone who was able to read thoughts would spend an entire day writing down all the things you was thinking during the course of a day, and then he or she would let your family and friends read those thoughts, would not even that make you a bit scared? :-) I myself am 39 years old, and full of fears. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2004 Report Share Posted August 9, 2004 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> wrote: > > > > > > > > It's possible Al, I have no fears. What do I mean by this? Do I > > > mean, > > > > that if my wife in the next room screams 'fire', and I get up > to > > > see > > > > what's happening, and I see my livingroom in flames and the > door > > > > blocked by flames, I would not feel fear? No, of course not. > > > Physical > > > > fear before real and present danger is normal, and healthy. > > > > But, days, months, years go by, without I facing any situation > > > which > > > > requires physical fear. It's the endless 'what ifs' imagination > > > could > > > > dream up that causes mental fears, and I don't entertain 'what > > ifs' > > > > about the future. I have confidence that the present always > will > > > take > > > > care of itself. To do that is very easy when one drops the > habit > > of > > > > comparing the present with the past, or with an ideal, or > > terrible > > > > future. > > > > > > > > Pete > > > > > > But don't you have a fear about making a fool of yourself, don't > > you > > > have a facade that you call 'you' - image, prestige and pride - > to > > > uphold? > > > > P:No Al. I have made a fool of myself so many times, that I have > come > > to enjoy it. I play the fool for fun, in this list and others, and > in > > real life. I have no public image to protect, no prestige. I have > > a fuzzy image about an old man called Pete, but I don't worry about > > what images others might have of that old man. Whether they think > he > > is a fool, or a wise man won't change my life a bit. > > > > Aren't you concerned with what other people might think of > > > you? > > > > P: No. I'm retired. I don't depend on others for income. I don't > > chase after women anymore. I have friends, and family who have > > known me for years and explain my foibles by saying: 'That's Pete > > for you. Pay no mind. He means no harm.' > > > > Aren't you concerned about having a body that will wither away > > > and die? > > > > LOL. My body wither long ago, and death looks like a nice long rest > > from here. Pain is still pain, and I don't like it anymore than you > > do, but it doesn't scare me either. Some forms of death are > painful, > > but if that's what's coming my way, worrying, or being afraid > > won't change the outcome. Would it? So don't worry, let life live > > itself. Your fuzzing about it is spoiling the fun. How old are you? > > > > Pete > > Sounds good Pete. You seem to have few fears. But let me ask you > this: if someone who was able to read thoughts would spend an entire > day writing down all the things you was thinking during the course of > a day, and then he or she would let your family and friends read > those thoughts, would not even that make you a bit scared? :-) > > I myself am 39 years old, and full of fears. > > /AL Hmm... I think maybe I should have written 'you were...' and not 'you was...' to get the English grammar in order. How embarrasing. How embarrasing. I must quickly add - in order to save face - that my native language is Swedish. :-) /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2004 Report Share Posted August 9, 2004 > > Sounds good Pete. You seem to have few fears. But let me ask you > this: if someone who was able to read thoughts would spend an entire > day writing down all the things you was thinking during the course of > a day, and then he or she would let your family and friends read > those thoughts, would not even that make you a bit scared? :-) > > I myself am 39 years old, and full of fears. > > /AL I wonder if you did mention here your age before because that's the exact age I thought you were. No, that little experiment would not scare me. I wouldn't want that to happen, only because people have great expectations about how a loved one feels, and think about them, and probably the reality would cause them pain. The thing that would cause them more pain, probably, is that if they are not in my presence, I hardly think of them at all. Out of sight, out of mind. Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2004 Report Share Posted August 9, 2004 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> wrote: > > > > > Sounds good Pete. You seem to have few fears. But let me ask you > > this: if someone who was able to read thoughts would spend an > entire > > day writing down all the things you was thinking during the course > of > > a day, and then he or she would let your family and friends read > > those thoughts, would not even that make you a bit scared? :-) > > > > I myself am 39 years old, and full of fears. > > > > /AL > > I wonder if you did mention here your age before because that's the > exact age I thought you were. > No, that little experiment would not scare me. I wouldn't want that > to happen, only because people have great expectations about how a > loved one feels, and think about them, and probably the reality would > cause them pain. The thing that would cause them more pain, probably, > is that if they are not in my presence, I hardly think of them at all. > Out of sight, out of mind. > > Pete The 'you don't want that to happen' is the ego, trying to protect itself. This idea that reality will cause someone pain is fear. You see? /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2004 Report Share Posted August 9, 2004 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> wrote: > > > > > > > > Sounds good Pete. You seem to have few fears. But let me ask you > > > this: if someone who was able to read thoughts would spend an > > entire > > > day writing down all the things you was thinking during the > course > > of > > > a day, and then he or she would let your family and friends read > > > those thoughts, would not even that make you a bit scared? :-) > > > > > > I myself am 39 years old, and full of fears. > > > > > > /AL > > > > I wonder if you did mention here your age before because that's the > > exact age I thought you were. > > No, that little experiment would not scare me. I wouldn't want that > > to happen, only because people have great expectations about how a > > loved one feels, and think about them, and probably the reality > would > > cause them pain. The thing that would cause them more pain, > probably, > > is that if they are not in my presence, I hardly think of them at > all. > > Out of sight, out of mind. > > > > Pete > > The 'you don't want that to happen' is the ego, trying to protect > itself. This idea that reality will cause someone pain is fear. You > see? > > /AL Al, I think you are obsessed with the idea of fear. It's OK not to want to hurt others. And if, you want to call it 'fear', I think you're distorting the meaning of the word. And that desire not to hurt others doesn't come from ego, it comes from just being a normal human being who feels empathy for others. So just stop, seeing fear everywhere. Feeling fear is OK, look away from the unpleasantness of fear toward what it's pointing at. In your case, it's mainly pointing at shadows in your own mind. Don't be chicken, Al. Look at the shadows straight in the eye. Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2004 Report Share Posted August 9, 2004 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Sounds good Pete. You seem to have few fears. But let me ask > you > > > > this: if someone who was able to read thoughts would spend an > > > entire > > > > day writing down all the things you was thinking during the > > course > > > of > > > > a day, and then he or she would let your family and friends > read > > > > those thoughts, would not even that make you a bit scared? :-) > > > > > > > > I myself am 39 years old, and full of fears. > > > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > I wonder if you did mention here your age before because that's > the > > > exact age I thought you were. > > > No, that little experiment would not scare me. I wouldn't want > that > > > to happen, only because people have great expectations about how > a > > > loved one feels, and think about them, and probably the reality > > would > > > cause them pain. The thing that would cause them more pain, > > probably, > > > is that if they are not in my presence, I hardly think of them at > > all. > > > Out of sight, out of mind. > > > > > > Pete > > > > The 'you don't want that to happen' is the ego, trying to protect > > itself. This idea that reality will cause someone pain is fear. You > > see? > > > > /AL > > Al, I think you are obsessed with the idea of fear. It's OK not to > want to hurt others. And if, you want to call it 'fear', I think > you're distorting the meaning of the word. And that desire not to > hurt others doesn't come from ego, it comes from just being a normal > human being who feels empathy for others. So just stop, seeing fear > everywhere. > Feeling fear is OK, look away from the unpleasantness of fear toward > what it's pointing at. In your case, it's mainly pointing at shadows > in your own mind. Don't be chicken, Al. Look at the shadows straight > in the eye. > > Pete I am curious to find out if there is a fearless state of being. A state where I *know* I can't hurt anyone, including myself, whatever I do. And a state where I know that nothing can hurt me, whatever happens. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 2004 Report Share Posted August 11, 2004 more painful than death is the fear of death.. more painful than the fear of death is the strong illusion that u r this body , and u r bon one day and die an other day ... more painful than the illusion of the birth and death is the ignorance of ones own self... My master,Guru Ramana provides the ambrosia which destroys all these illusory pains.. I dedicate this Poem to Pete & anders...... Murali, cerosoul [Pedsie2] Monday, August 09, 2004 5:16 AM Nisargadatta Re: The Authority Test > > > > It's possible Al, I have no fears. What do I mean by this? Do I > mean, > > that if my wife in the next room screams 'fire', and I get up to > see > > what's happening, and I see my livingroom in flames and the door > > blocked by flames, I would not feel fear? No, of course not. > Physical > > fear before real and present danger is normal, and healthy. > > But, days, months, years go by, without I facing any situation > which > > requires physical fear. It's the endless 'what ifs' imagination > could > > dream up that causes mental fears, and I don't entertain 'what ifs' > > about the future. I have confidence that the present always will > take > > care of itself. To do that is very easy when one drops the habit of > > comparing the present with the past, or with an ideal, or terrible > > future. > > > > Pete > > But don't you have a fear about making a fool of yourself, don't you > have a facade that you call 'you' - image, prestige and pride - to > uphold? P:No Al. I have made a fool of myself so many times, that I have come to enjoy it. I play the fool for fun, in this list and others, and in real life. I have no public image to protect, no prestige. I have a fuzzy image about an old man called Pete, but I don't worry about what images others might have of that old man. Whether they think he is a fool, or a wise man won't change my life a bit. Aren't you concerned with what other people might think of > you? P: No. I'm retired. I don't depend on others for income. I don't chase after women anymore. I have friends, and family who have known me for years and explain my foibles by saying: 'That's Pete for you. Pay no mind. He means no harm.' Aren't you concerned about having a body that will wither away > and die? LOL. My body wither long ago, and death looks like a nice long rest from here. Pain is still pain, and I don't like it anymore than you do, but it doesn't scare me either. Some forms of death are painful, but if that's what's coming my way, worrying, or being afraid won't change the outcome. Would it? So don't worry, let life live itself. Your fuzzing about it is spoiling the fun. How old are you? Pete ** If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: /mygroups?edit=1 Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. 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.