Guest guest Posted February 11, 2005 Report Share Posted February 11, 2005 In a message dated 2/10/05 9:43:29 PM, lbb10 writes: >L: No my lovelies, what was said was that I gave my friends the assumptions mentioned and they tried them on and used to look at life and stuff and >they began to talk like we do here. They do not speak like that usually. The assumptions held allowed them dissolve stuff so that eventually they >could not speak for everything became mute. They thought it was interesting and useful and then dropped it because they could not speak >if they continued with it, they became wordless wonders and we laughed and laughed because I would ask them what was this or that they just >laughed. P: So Lewis, what is the use of such parlor tricks? Anyone can imitate the way others talk without having an insight into their psyche. If they simple thought it was interesting, they really did not get anything valuable out of it. Why do you even bother to mention it here? > >L: I can make no sense of the words " In reality there is only the source, > dark in itself, making everything shine. " If my darkness is the only > >source how could that be? I am one appearance of billions. My darkness > is in the appearance and it seems inseparable from it. Do other people > >experience this darkness? My friends experience it. My family members > experience it. The not knowing how things happen. But does everyone have > >this? Maybe he believes that everyone has it and the all together they > are one thing that has no outer inner to it so that there is no blobbing > >>of substance or whatever. > P: How can you be sure that your friends and family experience the same darkness you do? You just gave them a label an a brief description and they say " Yes, we feel that, " and you accepted it. But on what grounds? Do they behave as you do, do they talk about these things all the time? Lewis, I know 'your darkness is no ordinary darkness because it obsess you, because the way you write, because of the perfume of your words. You could be just imitating, conducting an experiment here, as you did with your friends, but I doubt it. Lewis, labels are tricky, and people could label a herring, a whale, but you will know if you questioned them. If they say, " A whale is just another fish. " Then you know they didn't see a whale, no one that ever saw a whale close by, would call it 'another fish.' People that have apperceive the core of being, true nature, This, or whatever name you want to use, won't ever call it ordinary. It's the eye of the hurricane, Lewis, from them on your live revolves around it. It can't be ignored, it eats me, it kills me, and I love it. I love to die, and to be resurrected in it. Nothing like it. And if you don't know what I mean, you are not there yet. Pete Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 11, 2005 Report Share Posted February 11, 2005 In a message dated 2/11/05 11:50:28 AM, lbb10 writes: > >Be careful not to love it Pete, for it is possible that you will make > that which is not there and undergo painful circumstances of your > >creation over and over. There is rejoicing in the removal of a limit and > the expansion of a greater free and we can be thankful and joyous in the > >moment and that too will pass as the wind that it is. > > >Lewis > Eating and killing was used in the sense that Pete is not there when the WW is there. And Pete reappears later, but not the same, fainter. And even in this dying there is beauty and love. And, no, one cannot be careful in love. It's all, or nothing. If it can be apportioned and measure, then it is not love. No control is possible, no caution, no timidity. It's the reckless journey of salmons in love. ) Bon voyage! Pete? > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 11, 2005 Report Share Posted February 11, 2005 Pedsie2 wrote: > > In a message dated 2/10/05 9:43:29 PM, lbb10 writes: > > >>L: No my lovelies, what was said was that I gave my friends the assumptions > > mentioned and they tried them on and used to look at life and stuff and > >>they began to talk like we do here. They do not speak like that usually. > > The assumptions held allowed them dissolve stuff so that eventually they > >>could not speak for everything became mute. They thought it was > > interesting and useful and then dropped it because they could not speak > >>if they continued with it, they became wordless wonders and we laughed > > and laughed because I would ask them what was this or that they just > >>laughed. > > > P: So Lewis, what is the use of such parlor tricks? Anyone can imitate > the way others talk without having an insight into their psyche. If they > simple thought it was interesting, they really did not get anything > valuable out of it. Why do you even bother to mention it here? It is not a trick, Pete. Is it not possible that such a presentation could be of some use for those using filters and imagining that these filters are in some way a means to nonduality? If you were using filters in this way, what or how would you take it? What response would you have? > > >>>L: I can make no sense of the words " In reality there is only the source, >> >>dark in itself, making everything shine. " If my darkness is the only >> >>>source how could that be? I am one appearance of billions. My darkness >> >>is in the appearance and it seems inseparable from it. Do other people >> >>>experience this darkness? My friends experience it. My family members >> >>experience it. The not knowing how things happen. But does everyone have >> >>>this? Maybe he believes that everyone has it and the all together they >> >>are one thing that has no outer inner to it so that there is no blobbing >> >>>>of substance or whatever. >>> > P: How can you be sure that your friends and family experience the same > darkness you do? You just gave them a label an a brief description and > they say " Yes, we feel that, " and you accepted it. But on what grounds? > Do they behave as you do, do they talk about these things all the time? I am not sure they experience it the same way as I do. I only have their reports and see their actions and daily life. I did not give them a label to work with Pete, nor do I tell them what I am interested in about the darkness. That is leading and doing so gets answers that you want or allows them to put the label on what they think you mean. Where did you get the idea that that was done in that way? I ask questions that have nothing to do with what I am interested in to obviate leading and labeling. In my friends case, they took on assumptions and used them. They produced what they did without any coaching. The assumptions were simple. There is nothing hidden and speech is speech. I ask simple questions like how do you do that (drawing). I get a response and than ask another question based on that response. That is all. Ask any one how they do something and gently explore it and see what you find. Do it, and you will understand it. They behave as as they do as they are as do all of us regardless of what we say or think. We do as we are. Sometimes what we do matches what is spoken. Actions speak better. No one I know, besides the people here, talk about nonduality or have an abiding interest in it. > > Lewis, I know 'your darkness is no ordinary darkness because it obsess you, > because the way you write, because of the perfume of your words. You > could be just imitating, conducting an experiment here, as you did with your > friends, but I doubt it. There is no experiment or imitation. My friends (2-one in California and one in New York) know me as one involved in this sort of thing since we first met. It emerges every now and then when something new is learned and is bubbling out when we are talking. They have no interest in it in general and as they are moving in other conditions (media and politics and nursing and nature) that grab them, occupy them and I am the one who is on this and they are open to listen if it pops out and sometimes they find it interesting if it " grabs " them and they pursue me in it. Most times it is a brief mention and we go on to other things. Sometimes they explore it to my surprise. Lewis, labels are tricky, and people could label a > herring, > a whale, but you will know if you questioned them. If they say, " A whale is > just > another fish. " Then you know they didn't see a whale, no one that ever saw > a whale close by, would call it 'another fish.' People that have apperceive > the core of being, true nature, This, or whatever name you want to use, > won't ever call it ordinary. Why not? This has always been a surprise to me, the sensation about being in darkness as something special. It is just as it is. An ordinary thing. At one time, my experience was perceived as sub human unable to react as others do, unable to feel the way others do and unable to think as others do. It seemed as if I was living in another world from everyone else and there was no explanation for it. It's the eye of the hurricane, Lewis, from them > on your live revolves around it. It can't be ignored, it eats me, it kills > me, > and I love it. I love to die, and to be resurrected in it. Nothing like it. > And > if you don't know what I mean, you are not there yet. > > Pete For me Pete there is ignoring it or paying attention to it. It deals out all. I do not know what you mean by eating and killing you. Let me project what I experience with those words. There is a calmness and quiet. Then there is an event a condition in front and this condition is taken wholly and directly without mediation (thinking, filtering, imagining) and then there are movements upheavals in the darkness that are painful, disturbing the appearance, flashes of heat, sweating, even shaking and trembling but it is not known what it is and something is giving way, something is being uprooted, moved, handled that was cherished or secreted or believed in. etc. and this or these now appear near the surface and it is perceived and their are these sensations that quake and shake the appearance and if not mediated or touched and simply undergone no matter what occurs, no matter what sensations, no matter what label or threat or protective device emerges, it then flies, it is released, it is gone and there is a return to the quiet, to the darkness. Is this what you mean by eating and killing Pete? There is no killing or eating of me. For me, it is the dark movements doing the work that it does. This is can be labeled expansion, the removal of a limit or limits, and when a limit is removed in this way there is upheaval that is short and sometimes accompanied with unpleasant sensations. The appearance is doing its work and if it is done often there is no sensation of killing and eating, just uncomfortable sensations due to handling the limit and then expanding into a larger free, if you want to conceive of it in that way. The free is for indescribable me, that has no limits or bounds as it is. It is the removal of the limits in the appearance that creates these sensations, label them what you will. Death has always been a popular label it seems because of the sometimes intense sensations occurring with experiencing an unmediated event that " rips at " or removes a limit, or you can call it an attachment or self or whatever you imagine. Don't label them or understand them, if it is possible as it is. Be careful not to love it Pete, for it is possible that you will make that which is not there and undergo painful circumstances of your creation over and over. There is rejoicing in the removal of a limit and the expansion of a greater free and we can be thankful and joyous in the moment and that too will pass as the wind that it is. Lewis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 11, 2005 Report Share Posted February 11, 2005 Pedsie2 wrote: > > In a message dated 2/11/05 11:50:28 AM, lbb10 writes: > > > >>>Be careful not to love it Pete, for it is possible that you will make >> >>that which is not there and undergo painful circumstances of your >> >>>creation over and over. There is rejoicing in the removal of a limit and >> >>the expansion of a greater free and we can be thankful and joyous in the >> >>>moment and that too will pass as the wind that it is. >> >>>Lewis >> > Eating and killing was used in the sense that Pete is not there when the WW > is there. And Pete reappears later, but not the same, fainter. And > even in this dying there is beauty and love. And, no, one cannot be careful > in love. It's all, or nothing. If it can be apportioned and measure, then it > is not > love. No control is possible, no caution, no timidity. It's the reckless > journey > of salmons in love. ) Bon voyage! > > Pete? I will still call Pete, as that is given name of the appearance that answers. There is no confusion. Lewis 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.