Guest guest Posted February 25, 2005 Report Share Posted February 25, 2005 In a message dated 2/25/05 7:09:53 AM, lbb10 writes: > L: If one learns this lesson, one could see the futility of trying to > directly correct and control the behavior of others with commands and > admonitions, words. We are incorrigble in one way and then > incorrigible in another as something is dropped and other behavior > appears in its place as that happens from time to time or not at all. > P: Read what you told last moth you were here for: To be shaken as much as possible, but it seems you don't like to be shaken, or are as eager to learn from it as you said. Now you declare yourself incorregible. LOL L: Did what for me, Pete. Make me the case that I am, doing the sort of things done here? Experiences help. You know getting trapped in your own thought and then getting out easily and the hard way caught by others, tripping over self-centeredness and ego, weaving justifications and rationalizations to defend beliefs held, protecting me and the turf I earned and sweated to obtain and ..... and then having them all one by one mercilessly obliterated, in one way or another, and suffering the death that comes with that more than once because it is hard to keep a dull and stupid man down, fasting, praying, meditating, mind discipline practices, studying at the university, experiencing Western and Eastern traditions by practicing them wholeheartedly for more than 30 years, having those ineffable mystical experiences of many kinds and varieties, cross racial, cross cultural,international experiences with others in head on collisions and cooperation, suffering from disillusionment, failure, humiliation, anxiety, experiencing fear, the fear of death, facing death, overcoming the fear of death, falling out, going in, ups and downs, kids and family and friends, making a living, problems and joys..... stuff like that. Hard experiences helps to shake it out. That's why I am here, to get shaken out as much as possible. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 25, 2005 Report Share Posted February 25, 2005 Hi All, Rather than gather all the words together in an impenetrable snip salad let us us hope that our short term memories are intact enough to follow this. Lewis, are you a perspectivist? Well yes, though the term is usually applied to the thought of Nietzsche in the " 20th. century many kindred anti-objectivist theories have been proposed " .(Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy) 'Facts are precisely what there is not, only interpretations'(Nietzsche) But perhaps you are more a truth- relativist. " This is the view that a belief or opinion cannot be said to be true simply, but only true relative to a species, a conceptual scheme, a social practice, a social group or a person. " (P.D.P.) Is that the hand that shaves you Lewis? Yet I know, like the kiddy note book that I have on the desk in front of me that has a cut out of a black dog with floppy ears on the cover, underneath, when you lift it, is an amorphous black blob. Stefan, yes it amazes me that most of those on these lists see Vedanta as a type of Absolute Idealism. Dead wrong as the slightest reading of Sankara's Bhrama Sutra Bhyasa will reveal. It is Realism through and through but not naive realism of course as the central analogy is error which is a magnificent piece of lateral thinking. I am no expert in Nisargadatta but he seems to be in the central advaitic tradition except when he is talking to someone whose understanding is pitched at the Idealist level. That is the satguru: he brings you up from your level using what you already have. The extract that Joyce quoted is a good example of plain realism. " Use your mind. Remember. Observe. You are not different from others. Most of their experiences are valid for you too. Think clearly and deeply, go into the structure of your desires and their ramifications. They are a most important part of your mental and emotional make-up and powerfully affect your actions. Remember, you cannot abandon what you do not know. To go beyond yourself, you must know yourself. " There is no truth-relativism here. So finally if I recommend, having tried it, 'everything you know is wrong' as an affirmation I also may say to myself (a) Who's in charge of the shop; (b)Turn off the sausage machine. Michael. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 25, 2005 Report Share Posted February 25, 2005 Hi Mike, ombhurbhuva wrote: > Hi All, > Rather than gather all the words > together in an impenetrable snip salad let > us us hope that our short term memories > are intact enough to follow this. Lewis, > are you a perspectivist? No. Well yes, No. though > the term is usually applied to the thought > of Nietzsche in the " 20th. century many > kindred anti-objectivist theories have > been proposed " .(Penguin Dictionary of > Philosophy) 'Facts are precisely what > there is not, only > interpretations'(Nietzsche) No. > But perhaps you are more a truth- > relativist. " This is the view that a > belief or opinion cannot be said to be > true simply, but only true relative to a > species, a conceptual scheme, a social > practice, a social group or a > person. " (P.D.P.) No. > > Is that the hand that shaves you Lewis? No. > Yet I know, like the kiddy note book that > I have on the desk in front of me that has > a cut out of a black dog with floppy ears > on the cover, underneath, when you lift > it, is an amorphous black blob. Amorphous, formless, indefinable, indescribable, impenetrable, knowable, experiential, dynamic, pregnant with potential....... > > Stefan, yes it amazes me that most of > those on these lists see Vedanta as a type > of Absolute Idealism. Dead wrong as the > slightest reading of Sankara's Bhrama > Sutra Bhyasa will reveal. It is Realism > through and through but not naive realism > of course as the central analogy is error > which is a magnificent piece of lateral > thinking. I am no expert in Nisargadatta > but he seems to be in the central advaitic > tradition except when he is talking to > someone whose understanding is pitched at > the Idealist level. That is the satguru: > he brings you up from your level using > what you already have. > > The extract that Joyce quoted is a good > example of plain realism. > > " Use your mind. Remember. Observe. You are > not different from > others. Most of their experiences are > valid for you too. Think clearly > and deeply, go into the structure of your > desires and their > ramifications. They are a most important > part of your mental and > emotional make-up and powerfully affect > your actions. Remember, you > cannot abandon what you do not know. To go > beyond yourself, you must > know yourself. " > > There is no truth-relativism here. So > finally if I recommend, having tried it, > 'everything you know is wrong' as an > affirmation I also may say to myself (a) > Who's in charge of the shop; > (b)Turn off the sausage machine. > > Michael. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 25, 2005 Report Share Posted February 25, 2005 Pedsie2 wrote: > > In a message dated 2/25/05 7:09:53 AM, lbb10 writes: > > > >>L: If one learns this lesson, one could see the futility of trying to >>directly correct and control the behavior of others with commands and >>admonitions, words. We are incorrigble in one way and then >>incorrigible in another as something is dropped and other behavior >>appears in its place as that happens from time to time or not at all. >> > > P: Read what you told last moth you were here for: To be shaken as much > as possible, but it seems you don't like to be shaken, or are as eager to > > learn from it as you said. Now you declare yourself incorregible. > LOL Yes. That is correct. Shaken by hard experiences as always has been the case. There are many kinds of hard experiences. Real confrontation is but one. You will not find anywhere where I have said I like confrontation. That is in your imagination of me. I take confrontation as it comes and have no aversion to it. Have you ever have sustained a confrontation with me? You are unable to sustain a confrontation with me, Pete. It is not in you to do so. You hit and run if challenged hard, then you get angry, and talk about who you think is your opponent, you mock them to others and then you dismiss and order them around and then try this and that to get back, to get what is in your craw out by doing stuff like this. You do not stand your ground on what the disagreement is or review you reactions they are are all what they are and they flow as they must. I respond to these behaviors because it is in me to do so as it is in you. I do not to defend a thing for there is nothing to defend as I have said before to others. I report what was said and keep things accurate and ask questions to ascertain the source of allegations and this is enough. The accuracy of the text is enough and unanswered questions are enough to demonstrate emptiness, imaginings, and other things. You do not provide hard experiences Pete. You are simply incapable of doing that with me and certain others. You are kind at base and not belligerent. You get upset easily when things get beyond your ken, your control, and you lose your temper, have an episode and then come back to what you normally are. This has been repeated throughout my time here and throughout your record here and admitted by you in different ways. You are incorrigible in it as it is. It is not a problem or an irritant. There is no mystery about you in this, is there? There is also no mystery about me. Why do you decontexualize text? Why do you snip to suit your argument? Bring the whole of it in. Let it all be seen if you intend to set up court. Are you are looking hard to knock me down? Is it not apparent to you that you cannot knock someone down who is already down? If you read carefully what was said instead of reacting and looking for a way to knock me down you would not have come up with this bit and I welcome it for I can say things below with it. I will say it for you again so that it is clear. We are incorrigible as we are at the moment and then there is change (shaken will do it Pete? No?), small, medium, large, etc. and then we are incorrigible in that until our next abandonment, we always do as we are. or as it is above: " We are incorrigible in one way and then incorrigible in another as [something is dropped and other behavior appears in its place as that happens from time to time or not at all]. " Is it not clear that there is nothing contradictory or laughable about this simple thing? Do you think that I say things here lightly? I say them with all that I am. What are you trying to do fighting with that which is not, what you imagine? What hope is there in it? Why grasp at the air? I am grasping at air and know it, do you know it? I have witnessed what is considered by some to be constant labeling, name calling, mocking, scorning, condemning, commanding, vituperation, affrontery, indifference, disdain, anger, dismissal, spanking, snideness, discourtesy, disrespect for no reason other than a reaction to what is different or unacceptable or a call on something attached. This is common to this list so that when there is a disagreement over anything between all who participate there is a break up into small camps of two or three and divisions and crusaders fighting for this and that. This works to the good of all in its way in that limits, conditioning, and attachments are revealed and loosed when it is spontaneous and since it is seems so common and often and done over the most insignificant of matters its effect is lost. There is a settling, a predictability, conditioning, conformity, alignment along lines of thought and belief and experience. Pete, I see you as a kind and gentle person that easily angers, however that anger is sourced and ramified in you. It is what you are. You are incorrigible as I am. This effort is grasping beyond what I have seen before and it is a good sign. If you keep it up you may see it clearly! So it stands: If one learns this lesson, one could see the futility of trying to directly correct and control the behavior of others with commands and admonitions, words. We are incorrigible in one way and then incorrigible in another [as something is dropped and other behavior appears in its place as that happens from time to time or not at all]. Come on back. You are welcome. Lewis > > L: Did what for me, Pete. Make me the case that I am, doing the sort of > things done here? Experiences help. You know getting trapped in your own > thought and then getting out easily and the hard way caught by others, > tripping over self-centeredness and ego, weaving justifications and > rationalizations to defend beliefs held, protecting me and the turf I > earned and sweated to obtain and ..... and then having them all one by > one mercilessly obliterated, in one way or another, and suffering the > death that comes with that more than once because it is hard to keep a > dull and stupid man down, fasting, praying, meditating, mind discipline > practices, studying at the university, experiencing Western and Eastern > traditions by practicing them wholeheartedly for more than 30 years, > having those ineffable mystical experiences of many kinds and varieties, > cross racial, cross cultural,international experiences with others in > head on collisions and cooperation, suffering from disillusionment, > failure, humiliation, anxiety, experiencing fear, the fear of death, > facing death, overcoming the fear of death, falling out, going in, ups > and downs, kids and family and friends, making a living, problems and > joys..... stuff like that. Hard experiences helps to shake it out. > That's why I am here, to get shaken out as much as possible. > >> > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 26, 2005 Report Share Posted February 26, 2005 Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: >P: Read what you told last moth you were here for: To be shaken as >much as possible, but it seems you don't like to be shaken Pete likes to be the shaker, he does not like to be shaken at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 26, 2005 Report Share Posted February 26, 2005 In a message dated 2/25/05 9:10:20 PM, lbb10 writes: > > > > L:> Yes. That is correct. Shaken by hard experiences as always has been the > case. There are many kinds of hard experiences. Real confrontation is > >but one. You will not find anywhere where I have said I like > confrontation. That is in your imagination of me. I take confrontation > >as it comes and have no aversion to it. > P: So I was wrong, you say shaken, not confrontation. Big diffffference! My Ggggod, am I glad you clarified such an important point! > > L: >I respond to these behaviors because it is in me to do so as it is in > you. I do not to defend a thing for there is nothing to defend as I have > >said before to others. > P: If you want to fool yourself thinking that this looong manifesto and others you usually write when confronted are not elaborate defenses is OK with me. And there is nothing in the definition of confrontation (a clash of ideas, or personalities) which says it has to be long to qualify as confrontation. There are very brief confrontations which leaves people very shaken, and I'm sure you had some of those too. > L: > I report what was said and keep things accurate > >and ask questions to ascertain the source of allegations and this is > >enough. The accuracy of the text is enough and unanswered questions are > >enough to demonstrate emptiness, imaginings, and other things. > P That your reporting is accurate and that your questions, if left unanswered, prove other's allegations as only imaginations, are only your own self-serving imaginations. > > L:> Why do you decontexualize text? Why do you snip to suit your argument? > P: I do it for several reasons: a) brevity b) I don't consider what was said needs to be pursued, or I consider what was said unimportant. Like your comments about me. I don't care what you think about me. I don't need to explain myself to others, as you constantly do. Lewis, might be fascinating to you, and you must think the world has to share in. c) It eventually shows who considers their ideas precious. I don't, and that's why I don't pursue an argument in post after post, as you and others do. If people don't get it after a couple of tries, it's OK with me. Someone, somewhere, will get it sometime, somehow. > L: Bring the whole of it in. Let it all be seen if you intend to set up > >>court. Are you are looking hard to knock me down? Is it not apparent to > >you that you cannot knock someone down who is already down? > P: No. I mean you no harm, on the contrary, I think you are great, and could even get better, if only people would 'shake you' a little. But Lewis is neither my kid, nor my pupil, so I won't make shaking you my daily task. > > L: >Pete, I see you as a kind and gentle person that easily angers, however > that anger is sourced and ramified in you. It is what you are. You are > >incorrigible as I am. This effort is grasping beyond what I have seen > >before and it is a good sign. If you keep it up you may see it clearly! > > P: Thank you, Lewis, for your kind words. I think of you as a kind person > also, one who has provided me with many hours of good entertainment, and it is probably for selfish reasons I try to stimulate your writing with brief confrontations. You might not see what we do here as entertaintment, but that's mainly what it's, a spiritual show for hungry souls. Food for the soul, cotton candy for the spirit, offered free of charge by smiling and frowning clowns alike in this bizarre nondual circus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 26, 2005 Report Share Posted February 26, 2005 Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > > In a message dated 2/25/05 9:10:20 PM, lbb10@c... writes: > > > > > > > > > > L:> Yes. That is correct. Shaken by hard experiences as always has been the > > case. There are many kinds of hard experiences. Real confrontation is > > >but one. You will not find anywhere where I have said I like > > confrontation. That is in your imagination of me. I take confrontation > > >as it comes and have no aversion to it. > > > P: So I was wrong, you say shaken, not confrontation. Big diffffference! > My Ggggod, am I glad you clarified such an important point! You are welcome. > > > > L: >I respond to these behaviors because it is in me to do so as it is in > > you. I do not to defend a thing for there is nothing to defend as I have > > >said before to others. > > > P: If you want to fool yourself thinking that this looong manifesto and > others > you usually write when confronted are not elaborate defenses is OK with me. When you can substantiate claims then such words will be retracted. Until then, you can think of my replies as you wish as a long manifesto and others or elaborate defenses or what else you wish to project. As it stands, our projections do not match. > And there is nothing in the definition of confrontation (a clash of ideas, or > personalities) which says it has to be long to qualify as confrontation. True. > There > are very brief confrontations which leaves people very shaken, and I'm > sure you had some of those too. No. I was shaken by other matters, quite quietly, in the writings of, and communications with, others and not found in confrontations, brief or long. > > L: > I report what was said and keep things accurate > > >and ask questions to ascertain the source of allegations and this is > > >enough. The accuracy of the text is enough and unanswered questions are > > >enough to demonstrate emptiness, imaginings, and other things. > > > P That your reporting is accurate and that your questions, if left > unanswered, > prove other's allegations as only imaginations, are only your own > self-serving > imaginations. That is yours to believe Pete. To substantiate allegations and to answer questions asked is the way to prove what is self-serving. No imagination is needed. This is has not been done. > > L:> Why do you decontexualize text? Why do you snip to suit your argument? > > > P: I do it for several reasons: > > a) brevity Yes. > b) I don't consider what was said needs to be pursued, or I consider what was > said > unimportant. Yes. That is true and it always seems to be in support of your position. Like your comments about me. I don't care what you think about > me. Yes. Don't care is care in another way. > I don't need to explain myself to others, as you constantly do. Is it a need Pete? It is simply me. What you do is what you do. You are free to do so. I am free to do so? What are you doing here? Explaining. Why is it a need in me and not in you? In what way are we different in this? Why do you deny what is apparent? We are the same in our humanity, the same in our being, in our limitations. For every denial of me, in the same breath you deny your self or in having no self, the expression of your humanity or however you project your existence. Lewis, > might be > fascinating to you, and you must think the world has to share in. It is not fascinating and I am writing to Pete. > c) It eventually shows who considers their ideas precious. I don't, and > that's > why I don't pursue an argument in post after post, as you and others do. I do not own ephemera and they have no preciousness to me. They air to be inhaled exhaled or otherwise. May I and other pursue an argument if it moves me or others to do so? If > people > don't get it after a couple of tries, it's OK with me. Someone, somewhere, > will get > it sometime, somehow. That is possible. In saying this do you think your ideas are precious and to be had by others? > > L: Bring the whole of it in. Let it all be seen if you intend to set up > > >>court. Are you are looking hard to knock me down? Is it not apparent to > > >you that you cannot knock someone down who is already down? > > > P: No. I mean you no harm, on the contrary, I think you are great, and > could even get better, if only people would 'shake you' a little. Not great in any way whatsoever and all is welcome. But Lewis > is > neither my kid, nor my pupil, so I won't make shaking you my daily task. You are incorrigible. > > > > L: >Pete, I see you as a kind and gentle person that easily angers, however > > that anger is sourced and ramified in you. It is what you are. You are > > >incorrigible as I am. This effort is grasping beyond what I have seen > > >before and it is a good sign. If you keep it up you may see it clearly! > > > > P: Thank you, Lewis, for your kind words. I think of you as a kind person > > also, one who has provided me with many hours of good entertainment, and it > is > probably for selfish reasons I try to stimulate your writing with brief > confrontations. > You might not see what we do here as entertaintment, but that's mainly what > it's, > a spiritual show for hungry souls. Food for the soul, cotton candy for the > spirit, offered free of charge by smiling and frowning clowns alike in this > bizarre > nondual circus. It is not mainly entertainment for me, Pete. There is humor and drama and all things human and I suppose one can include entertainment. If you think it is mainly entertainment, a spiritual show, a bizzare nondual circus, and there are others who think it is mainly the same, that is one way to project how you and your projection of those others you speak of, whomever they are, imagine it. I have found other human beings here and not one a clown. I have not found the bizarre, only the human in a variety of forms and that beyond the human. This is my projection. I suppose, in your projection of this list and some of its members, you and they, whomever they are, will continue to be clowns in your circus providing that food and cotton candy you speak of. Work hard and be make sure your clown noses and props are in good order. The center ring is yours again. 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.