Guest guest Posted March 14, 2005 Report Share Posted March 14, 2005 In a message dated 3/14/05 12:53:13 PM, lbb10 writes: > Dear G, > > Anders does as he is and is incorrigible in it as it > stands. Perhaps asking questions and sharing is less > head spinning. More is communicated and more is > understood. Trying to influnence or change an > incorrigible person as we all are at any moment with > words and ideas,[until we have a sudden dropping out > of an inability to continue something in the same way > and then back to incorrigibility], does not usually > seem to have much effect as you noted in your post > about teaching understanding. Are you not incorrigible > in what you are at the moment? > > Love, > > Lewis > > __ > P: LOL. Is Goldien more guilty of trying to change AL, that you in trying to change Golden's trying? I know! You do like the as that you are... Oops! I got that wrong. I meant, you do as you are, too. ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 14, 2005 Report Share Posted March 14, 2005 Nisargadatta , " goldenrainbowrider " <laughterx8@h...> wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , " garyfalk1943 " <falkgw@h...> > > wrote: > > > > > I give it 5 Stars but then again, I'm easy. I'm a sucker for > > anything that tells me everything " is gonna be alright. " > > > Golden: I would rephrase that to say, you're a sucker for anything > Nisagardatta tells you alright and your ego is a sucker for being > appeased with hope. You are in love with Nis to a fault b/c you have > trouble recognizing the same univeral ideas when they come from > other names and mouths and as a matter of fact, I suspect I could > type anything here and sign Nis name to it and you'd love it. But, > I could rearrange words to match Nis style and type my name to it > and it wouldn't hold the same clout for you. That's my observation > of Gary's acceptance level. That's fine by the way. xxxxxxxxxx Well I won't argue with you there. Reminds me of the classic story of the monk, the cook and the Buddha. Most, if not all of you, have probably heard it but it does bear repeating: A few lines are scribbled on the monastery's bulletin board. The message sounds very profound but nobody is quite sure what to make of it. When the Abbot says that the cook wrote it, everyone starts laughing and mocking the cook. What an asshole, etc. Then the Abbot says, no, it was actually the head monk who wrote it. The head monk's an asshole just one notch up from the cook, so what does he know. When the Abbot revealed finally that what was written came from the one of the Venerable Ancestors, they all quickly copied the words, had them laminated and put them on their altars in order to worship them better. Same shit, different yuga. You're right, if I thought the words were Wolinsky's, I would have dismissed them immediately. But if they are indeed attributable to Niz Maharaj, they are going right on my shrine as soon as I get home from rending unto Caesar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 14, 2005 Report Share Posted March 14, 2005 Nisargadatta , " garyfalk1943 " <falkgw@h...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " goldenrainbowrider " > <laughterx8@h...> wrote: > > > > > Nisargadatta , " garyfalk1943 " <falkgw@h...> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > I give it 5 Stars but then again, I'm easy. I'm a sucker for > > > anything that tells me everything " is gonna be alright. " > > > > > > Golden: I would rephrase that to say, you're a sucker for anything > > Nisagardatta tells you alright and your ego is a sucker for being > > appeased with hope. You are in love with Nis to a fault b/c you > have > > trouble recognizing the same univeral ideas when they come from > > other names and mouths and as a matter of fact, I suspect I could > > type anything here and sign Nis name to it and you'd love it. > But, > > I could rearrange words to match Nis style and type my name to it > > and it wouldn't hold the same clout for you. That's my > observation > > of Gary's acceptance level. That's fine by the way. > > xxxxxxxxxx > > Well I won't argue with you there. Reminds me of the classic story > of the monk, the cook and the Buddha. > > Most, if not all of you, have probably heard it but it does bear > repeating: > > A few lines are scribbled on the monastery's bulletin board. The > message sounds very profound but nobody is quite sure what to make of > it. > > When the Abbot says that the cook wrote it, everyone starts laughing > and mocking the cook. What an asshole, etc. > > Then the Abbot says, no, it was actually the head monk who wrote it. > The head monk's an asshole just one notch up from the cook, so what > does he know. > > When the Abbot revealed finally that what was written came from the > one of the Venerable Ancestors, they all quickly copied the words, > had them laminated and put them on their altars in order to worship > them better. > > Same shit, different yuga. > > You're right, if I thought the words were Wolinsky's, I would have > dismissed them immediately. But if they are indeed attributable to > Niz Maharaj, they are going right on my shrine as soon as I get home > from rending unto Caesar. Eckhart Tolle says that words spoken by a sage is charged with presence. If an ordinary person speaks the exact same words, then there is not the same charge. I wonder if maybe that is true also about written texts. I often feel the text I read as much as I think about it. And I can sense different energy behind the same words, depending who has written them. Perhaps it is only my preconceived ideas and conditioning that makes words feel different from different persons. But I suspect it is both the idea about the person and some actual energy behind the words that can be felt. Hmm... maybe this is a bit too new-agie. But I cannot however deny that there is a feeling behind words, even written words. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 14, 2005 Report Share Posted March 14, 2005 Nisargadatta , " garyfalk1943 " <falkgw@h...> wrote: > > > > Well I won't argue with you there. Reminds me of the classic story > of the monk, the cook and the Buddha. > > Most, if not all of you, have probably heard it but it does bear > repeating: > > A few lines are scribbled on the monastery's bulletin board. The > message sounds very profound but nobody is quite sure what to make of > it. > > When the Abbot says that the cook wrote it, everyone starts laughing > and mocking the cook. What an asshole, etc. > > Then the Abbot says, no, it was actually the head monk who wrote it. > The head monk's an asshole just one notch up from the cook, so what > does he know. > > When the Abbot revealed finally that what was written came from the > one of the Venerable Ancestors, they all quickly copied the words, > had them laminated and put them on their altars in order to worship > them better. > > Same shit, different yuga. > > You're right, if I thought the words were Wolinsky's, I would have > dismissed them immediately. But if they are indeed attributable to > Niz Maharaj, they are going right on my shrine as soon as I get home > from rending unto Caesar. Golden: that's a great story, but what makes it even more enjoyable is that you recognized it in your own experience. You make me smile. It's your kind of bold openness and honest wording without having to tip toe around wording for concern of upsetting someone's sensibilities that made me stick around here. The thing is that it really doesn't matter from who's mouth it all came out of does it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 14, 2005 Report Share Posted March 14, 2005 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > >> > Eckhart Tolle says that words spoken by a sage is charged with > presence. If an ordinary person speaks the exact same words, then > there is not the same charge. I wonder if maybe that is true also > about written texts. I often feel the text I read as much as I think about it. And I can sense different energy behind the same words, depending who has written them. Perhaps it is only my preconceived ideas and conditioning that makes words feel different from different persons. But I suspect it is both the idea about the person and some actual energy behind the words that can be felt. Hmm... maybe this is > a bit too new-agie. But I cannot however deny that there is a feeling > behind words, even written words. > > /AL Golden: Al, you read the monk story with your intellect and your ego is trying to frame it into a construct that will assist it in surviving the insatiable format which it desires. That's fine, of course, but with it comes the helpless victim state that longs for release and at the same times pushes it away because it knows it will therefore change into something different than what it current " understands " . This sets a conflict of push and pull – seeking - which you experience very vividly. The monk story explains that the person read the words and having been told that they belonged to the cook discarded them. Then upon hearing that the words had been written by the buddha the reader accepted them with great verve. The words had *always* been written by the buddha, only the reader believed they written by someone else. When the reader believed they were written by the cook he discarded them. In this case it has *nothing* to do with your theory that a different writer projects different energy. It has everything to do with the idea that the ego/intellect constructs an energy that he alots to either the cook, the monk or the buddha, because in effect the words are the same, only the ego of the reader has made it into something different. That story was a wonderful example of someones parable about what the individual believes and sets up as grand and almighty authoritarian guruness. You have distorted it into a lower construct because you remain in intellect and have not yet been able to come in/from understanding. Therefore you will always translate that parable in order to protect your ego. There is no " other " writing the words but the budhha. It is altered ego intellect that plays a game to say it is better from this mouth or that mouth and it's not a new age thing, it's been used by seeking mystic wannabees for millenia. Example: last year on a board monumenting a guru who many believe to be Shiva, one of the posters said she dreamed about this guru. He was so wise and loving and warm and awesome. She knew this must be God. Next night she dreamed that there were a group of people huddled around a man and they all said this man was God. She edged closer to the get a look at the man and finally glimpsed him. She assessed that he was an ordinary person who projected absolutely *no* warm fuzzies of love, strength or authority whatsoever. She was terribly disappointed and wrote in her post that she will continue looking for someone because this man obviously wasn't thee *God*. I smiled and turned the computer off. Do you understand why I did that? ~*~ golden Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 14, 2005 Report Share Posted March 14, 2005 Nisargadatta , " goldenrainbowrider " <laughterx8@h...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > >> > > Eckhart Tolle says that words spoken by a sage is charged with > > presence. If an ordinary person speaks the exact same words, then > > there is not the same charge. I wonder if maybe that is true also > > about written texts. I often feel the text I read as much as I > think about it. And I can sense different energy behind the same > words, depending who has written them. Perhaps it is only my > preconceived ideas and conditioning that makes words feel different > from different persons. But I suspect it is both the idea about the > person and some actual energy behind the words that can be felt. > Hmm... maybe this is > > a bit too new-agie. But I cannot however deny that there is a > feeling > > behind words, even written words. > > > > /AL > > > > Golden: Al, you read the monk story with your intellect and your > ego is trying to frame it into a construct that will assist it in > surviving the insatiable format which it desires. That's fine, > of course, but with it comes the helpless victim state that longs > for release and at the same times pushes it away because it knows it > will therefore change into something different than what it > current " understands " . This sets a conflict of push and > pull – seeking - which you experience very vividly. > > The monk story explains that the person read the words and having > been told that they belonged to the cook discarded them. Then upon > hearing that the words had been written by the buddha the reader > accepted them with great verve. > The words had *always* been written by the buddha, only the reader > believed they written by someone else. When the reader believed > they were written by the cook he discarded them. In this case it > has *nothing* to do with your theory that a different writer > projects different energy. It has everything to do with it. The monk who discarded buddhas words lacked the sensitivity to sense the depth of the text and recognized only the surface manequin message. > It has everything to do with the idea > that the ego/intellect constructs an energy that he alots to either > the cook, the monk or the buddha, because in effect the words are > the same, only the ego of the reader has made it into something > different. What I am saying is that it is not nescessarily only the intellectually constructed energy that can be felt, but also that a deeper reality that can possibly be sensed. I am sure you have felt yourself when there is for example anger in someone's e-mail to you, even when the anger is not expressed in the words. You can then sense the anger beyond the words, and it may or may not be only your intellectual construction that creates this energy. > That story was a wonderful example of someones parable > about what the individual believes and sets up as grand and almighty > authoritarian guruness. You have distorted it into a lower > construct because you remain in intellect and have not yet been > able to come in/from understanding. Therefore you will always > translate that parable in order to protect your ego. There is > no " other " writing the words but the budhha. It is altered > ego intellect that plays a game to say it is better from this mouth > or that mouth and it's not a new age thing, it's been used by > seeking mystic wannabees for millenia. Maybe. Maybe not. > > Example: last year on a board monumenting a guru who many believe > to be Shiva, one of the posters said she dreamed about this guru. > He was so wise and loving and warm and awesome. She knew this must > be God. Next night she dreamed that there were a group of people > huddled around a man and they all said this man was God. She edged > closer to the get a look at the man and finally glimpsed him. She > assessed that he was an ordinary person who projected absolutely > *no* warm fuzzies of love, strength or authority whatsoever. She > was terribly disappointed and wrote in her post that she will > continue looking for someone because this man obviously wasn't > thee *God*. > I smiled and turned the computer off. Do you understand why I did > that? Maybe you were using a laptop computer and the batteries were about to run out anyway? /AL > > ~*~ golden Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 14, 2005 Report Share Posted March 14, 2005 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > Maybe you were using a laptop computer and the batteries were about to > run out anyway? > > /AL > > > Golden: attempting to discuss with you makes one's head spin. It is a seemingly futile venture. I don't have a lap top but nice try though. ~*~ golden Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 14, 2005 Report Share Posted March 14, 2005 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " goldenrainbowrider " > <laughterx8@h...> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > >> > > > Eckhart Tolle says that words spoken by a sage is charged with > > > presence. If an ordinary person speaks the exact same words, then > > > there is not the same charge. I wonder if maybe that is true also > > > about written texts. I often feel the text I read as much as I > > think about it. And I can sense different energy behind the same > > words, depending who has written them. Perhaps it is only my > > preconceived ideas and conditioning that makes words feel different > > from different persons. But I suspect it is both the idea about the > > person and some actual energy behind the words that can be felt. > > Hmm... maybe this is > > > a bit too new-agie. But I cannot however deny that there is a > > feeling > > > behind words, even written words. > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > > > Golden: Al, you read the monk story with your intellect and your > > ego is trying to frame it into a construct that will assist it in > > surviving the insatiable format which it desires. That's fine, > > of course, but with it comes the helpless victim state that longs > > for release and at the same times pushes it away because it knows it > > will therefore change into something different than what it > > current " understands " . This sets a conflict of push and > > pull – seeking - which you experience very vividly. > > > > The monk story explains that the person read the words and having > > been told that they belonged to the cook discarded them. Then upon > > hearing that the words had been written by the buddha the reader > > accepted them with great verve. > > The words had *always* been written by the buddha, only the reader > > believed they written by someone else. When the reader believed > > they were written by the cook he discarded them. In this case it > > has *nothing* to do with your theory that a different writer > > projects different energy. > > It has everything to do with it. The monk who discarded buddhas words > lacked the sensitivity to sense the depth of the text and recognized > only the surface manequin message. PS. Also, let's say that if the cook had copied some text from Buddha and claimed it to be his text, then perhaps the depth _would_ have been lost, even though it was still exactly the same text. And if he would have said that the text was from Buddha, then the deeper presence could have been preserved. There may be depths beneath the surface of words that is easily overlooked by the intellect. Even seemingly separate identical words are unique, and connected with everything else. The word car is for example not the same as the word car. To the intellect, this would usually appear to be identical words. /AL > > > It has everything to do with the idea > > that the ego/intellect constructs an energy that he alots to either > > the cook, the monk or the buddha, because in effect the words are > > the same, only the ego of the reader has made it into something > > different. > > What I am saying is that it is not nescessarily only the > intellectually constructed energy that can be felt, but also that a > deeper reality that can possibly be sensed. I am sure you have felt > yourself when there is for example anger in someone's e-mail to you, > even when the anger is not expressed in the words. You can then sense > the anger beyond the words, and it may or may not be only your > intellectual construction that creates this energy. > > > That story was a wonderful example of someones parable > > about what the individual believes and sets up as grand and almighty > > authoritarian guruness. You have distorted it into a lower > > construct because you remain in intellect and have not yet been > > able to come in/from understanding. Therefore you will always > > translate that parable in order to protect your ego. There is > > no " other " writing the words but the budhha. It is altered > > ego intellect that plays a game to say it is better from this mouth > > or that mouth and it's not a new age thing, it's been used by > > seeking mystic wannabees for millenia. > > Maybe. Maybe not. > > > > > Example: last year on a board monumenting a guru who many believe > > to be Shiva, one of the posters said she dreamed about this guru. > > He was so wise and loving and warm and awesome. She knew this must > > be God. Next night she dreamed that there were a group of people > > huddled around a man and they all said this man was God. She edged > > closer to the get a look at the man and finally glimpsed him. She > > assessed that he was an ordinary person who projected absolutely > > *no* warm fuzzies of love, strength or authority whatsoever. She > > was terribly disappointed and wrote in her post that she will > > continue looking for someone because this man obviously wasn't > > thee *God*. > > I smiled and turned the computer off. Do you understand why I did > > that? > > Maybe you were using a laptop computer and the batteries were about to > run out anyway? > > /AL > > > > > ~*~ golden Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 14, 2005 Report Share Posted March 14, 2005 In a message dated 3/14/05 4:28:55 PM, lbb10 writes: > ..........The head rolled to a stop, blinked a few times and then its > brain rumbled and secreted some consciousness between the synapses. > The consciousness collapsed a quantum wave function, emitted some > crystals and thoughts that called other thoughts and rose up from the > floor and passed through the wall of the office and speedliy headed > down south along the Atlantic Seaboard floating just above the waves > and under radar. > > Off the coast of southern Florida, the smiling head encountered some > aliens in the ocean that tried to abduct it and put it in their > ship...................but the illegals from Haiti cried, " Mon Dieu, > where eez zee boday, " and jumped ship and swam off. > > Across the Gulf of Mexico the head flew steadily, hair blowing in the > wind, brain secreting heavily and collapsing wave functions as > necessary doing as it is. Thoughts called other thoughts that thought > of the thought that called thoughts and other thoughts until it > reached Mexico, where it translocated by mistake into Watts. The now > grinning head met up with some boyz from the hood and seeing the wide > grinning head, they said, > > " Hey, what up wid dat? We don't be feelin' no bodyless peeps here " and > tried to send the head to head heaven with a baseball bat, but the > head was ahead of them, karma working its magic and made it to Pete's > place in a flash of siddhi power. It hovered there for a while in > front of Pete, secreted some more consciousness, had a kensho and then > a satori, then an I am moment and said, Hi! Hi! Hi! Dark Vader! Pete > looked up calmly, steadied his gaze upon the smiling head and suddenly > smelled a skunk scent and thinking it a dream, a bubble he had > forgotten the moment before, about life after death, and muttered > under his breath, " You do like the as that you are.... > > Inspired, the head wanted to quote something from the Upanishads but > an image of the tetralemma written on huge bald head appeared and the > thought that called thoughts cast it down into the fiery hells where > Satan ate it greedily and so no quote was made for it had no hands nor > text to read from so it said, > > " Hi Hi Hi, you are incorrigible Pete my dear trying to have that do as > you arer notice what it did as it was done after doing what it does as > it is in all it ways that it is possible do. " > > With those words, Pete wrote them down and shared them with everyone > he met as he roamed the streets late into the night but nobody read > them or heeded them because Pete wrote them and because his name was > not Michael Jackson or Martha Stewart, someone with a name. > > Pete did not mind, for he has none, and so the brain secreted a > thought that called a thought that said Go figure! and the appearance > called Pete said, > > Go figure! > > :-) > > P: Very enjoyable! Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 14, 2005 Report Share Posted March 14, 2005 Nisargadatta , " goldenrainbowrider " <laughterx8@h...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > Maybe you were using a laptop computer and the batteries were > about to > > run out anyway? > > > > /AL > > > > > > > Golden: attempting to discuss with you makes one's head spin. It > is a seemingly futile venture. I don't have a lap top but nice > try though. > > ~*~ golden That was only my way of saying that I don't know. A cop out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 14, 2005 Report Share Posted March 14, 2005 --- goldenrainbowrider <laughterx8 wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , > " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > Maybe you were using a laptop computer and the > batteries were > about to > > run out anyway? > > > > /AL > > > > > > > Golden: attempting to discuss with you makes one's > head spin. It > is a seemingly futile venture. I don't have a lap > top but nice > try though. > > ~*~ golden Dear G, Anders does as he is and is incorrigible in it as it stands. Perhaps asking questions and sharing is less head spinning. More is communicated and more is understood. Trying to influnence or change an incorrigible person as we all are at any moment with words and ideas,[until we have a sudden dropping out of an inability to continue something in the same way and then back to incorrigibility], does not usually seem to have much effect as you noted in your post about teaching understanding. Are you not incorrigible in what you are at the moment? Love, Lewis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 14, 2005 Report Share Posted March 14, 2005 Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > --- goldenrainbowrider <laughterx8@h...> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , > > " anders_lindman " > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Maybe you were using a laptop computer and the > > batteries were > > about to > > > run out anyway? > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > > > > > > Golden: attempting to discuss with you makes one's > > head spin. It > > is a seemingly futile venture. I don't have a lap > > top but nice > > try though. > > > > ~*~ golden > > Dear G, > > Anders does as he is and is incorrigible in it as it > stands. Perhaps asking questions and sharing is less > head spinning. More is communicated and more is > understood. Trying to influnence or change an > incorrigible person as we all are at any moment with > words and ideas,[until we have a sudden dropping out > of an inability to continue something in the same way > and then back to incorrigibility], does not usually > seem to have much effect as you noted in your post > about teaching understanding. Are you not incorrigible > in what you are at the moment? > > Love, > > Lewis > I sense a certain futility in your striving here, Lewis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 14, 2005 Report Share Posted March 14, 2005 --- anders_lindman <anders_lindman wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess > <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > --- goldenrainbowrider <laughterx8@h...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , > > > " anders_lindman " > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe you were using a laptop computer and the > > > batteries were > > > about to > > > > run out anyway? > > > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Golden: attempting to discuss with you makes > one's > > > head spin. It > > > is a seemingly futile venture. I don't have a > lap > > > top but nice > > > try though. > > > > > > ~*~ golden > > > > Dear G, > > > > Anders does as he is and is incorrigible in it as > it > > stands. Perhaps asking questions and sharing is > less > > head spinning. More is communicated and more is > > understood. Trying to influnence or change an > > incorrigible person as we all are at any moment > with > > words and ideas,[until we have a sudden dropping > out > > of an inability to continue something in the same > way > > and then back to incorrigibility], does not > usually > > seem to have much effect as you noted in your post > > about teaching understanding. Are you not > incorrigible > > in what you are at the moment? > > > > Love, > > > > Lewis > > > > I sense a certain futility in your striving here, > Lewis. My beloved, I am incorrigible. Lewis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 14, 2005 Report Share Posted March 14, 2005 --- Pedsie2 wrote: > > > In a message dated 3/14/05 12:53:13 PM, > lbb10 writes: > > > > Dear G, > > > > Anders does as he is and is incorrigible in it as > it > > stands. Perhaps asking questions and sharing is > less > > head spinning. More is communicated and more is > > understood. Trying to influnence or change an > > incorrigible person as we all are at any moment > with > > words and ideas,[until we have a sudden dropping > out > > of an inability to continue something in the same > way > > and then back to incorrigibility], does not > usually > > seem to have much effect as you noted in your post > > about teaching understanding. Are you not > incorrigible > > in what you are at the moment? > > > > Love, > > > > Lewis > > > > __ > > > > P: LOL. Is Goldien more guilty of trying to > change AL, > that you in trying to change Golden's trying? > > I know! You do like the as that you are... > Oops! I got that > wrong. > I meant, you do as you are, too. ) Hahahaha! For you my beloved Pete as you know, I am incorrigible in it as well. Guilty as charged. My neck has been chopped. The head rolls laughing with eyes blinking Hahahahaha! :-D Lewis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 14, 2005 Report Share Posted March 14, 2005 Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > >My beloved, > >I am incorrigible. > >Lewis G: I am incorrigible too. Guilty as charged. My neck has been chopped. The head rolls laughing with eyes blinking. Perhaps I see fragments of my own incorrigibility in others, I am That and all that jazz. I guess I recognize my own endless banging of the head against the wall, just like I recognize in Al, only I'm doing it in a slightly different way, but it's really all the same. We are all threads in the incorrigible tapestry pricking our finger with the needle many times until we see the product in it's glory. Funny that our ego is so strong enough to deem it as such and then to see others as being either the nice guys or bad guy or indifferent guy isn't it? I'll shut up now. Thank you for checking me. ~*~ G Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 14, 2005 Report Share Posted March 14, 2005 Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > --- Pedsie2@a... wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 3/14/05 12:53:13 PM, > > lbb10@c... writes: > > > > > > > Dear G, > > > > > > Anders does as he is and is incorrigible in it as > > it > > > stands. Perhaps asking questions and sharing is > > less > > > head spinning. More is communicated and more is > > > understood. Trying to influnence or change an > > > incorrigible person as we all are at any moment > > with > > > words and ideas,[until we have a sudden dropping > > out > > > of an inability to continue something in the same > > way > > > and then back to incorrigibility], does not > > usually > > > seem to have much effect as you noted in your post > > > about teaching understanding. Are you not > > incorrigible > > > in what you are at the moment? > > > > > > Love, > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > __ > > > > > > > P: LOL. Is Goldien more guilty of trying to > > change AL, > > that you in trying to change Golden's trying? > > > > I know! You do like the as that you are... > > Oops! I got that > > wrong. > > I meant, you do as you are, too. ) > > > Hahahaha! > > For you my beloved Pete as you know, I am incorrigible > in it as well. Guilty as charged. My neck has been > chopped. The head rolls laughing with eyes blinking > Hahahahaha! :-D > > Lewis ...........The head rolled to a stop, blinked a few times and then its brain rumbled and secreted some consciousness between the synapses. The consciousness collapsed a quantum wave function, emitted some crystals and thoughts that called other thoughts and rose up from the floor and passed through the wall of the office and speedliy headed down south along the Atlantic Seaboard floating just above the waves and under radar. Off the coast of southern Florida, the smiling head encountered some aliens in the ocean that tried to abduct it and put it in their ship...................but the illegals from Haiti cried, " Mon Dieu, where eez zee boday, " and jumped ship and swam off. Across the Gulf of Mexico the head flew steadily, hair blowing in the wind, brain secreting heavily and collapsing wave functions as necessary doing as it is. Thoughts called other thoughts that thought of the thought that called thoughts and other thoughts until it reached Mexico, where it translocated by mistake into Watts. The now grinning head met up with some boyz from the hood and seeing the wide grinning head, they said, " Hey, what up wid dat? We don't be feelin' no bodyless peeps here " and tried to send the head to head heaven with a baseball bat, but the head was ahead of them, karma working its magic and made it to Pete's place in a flash of siddhi power. It hovered there for a while in front of Pete, secreted some more consciousness, had a kensho and then a satori, then an I am moment and said, Hi! Hi! Hi! Dark Vader! Pete looked up calmly, steadied his gaze upon the smiling head and suddenly smelled a skunk scent and thinking it a dream, a bubble he had forgotten the moment before, about life after death, and muttered under his breath, " You do like the as that you are.... Inspired, the head wanted to quote something from the Upanishads but an image of the tetralemma written on huge bald head appeared and the thought that called thoughts cast it down into the fiery hells where Satan ate it greedily and so no quote was made for it had no hands nor text to read from so it said, " Hi Hi Hi, you are incorrigible Pete my dear trying to have that do as you arer notice what it did as it was done after doing what it does as it is in all it ways that it is possible do. " With those words, Pete wrote them down and shared them with everyone he met as he roamed the streets late into the night but nobody read them or heeded them because Pete wrote them and because his name was not Michael Jackson or Martha Stewart, someone with a name. Pete did not mind, for he has none, and so the brain secreted a thought that called a thought that said Go figure! and the appearance called Pete said, Go figure! :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 14, 2005 Report Share Posted March 14, 2005 Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > --- anders_lindman <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess > > <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > > > --- goldenrainbowrider <laughterx8@h...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , > > > > " anders_lindman " > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe you were using a laptop computer and the > > > > batteries were > > > > about to > > > > > run out anyway? > > > > > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Golden: attempting to discuss with you makes > > one's > > > > head spin. It > > > > is a seemingly futile venture. I don't have a > > lap > > > > top but nice > > > > try though. > > > > > > > > ~*~ golden > > > > > > Dear G, > > > > > > Anders does as he is and is incorrigible in it as > > it > > > stands. Perhaps asking questions and sharing is > > less > > > head spinning. More is communicated and more is > > > understood. Trying to influnence or change an > > > incorrigible person as we all are at any moment > > with > > > words and ideas,[until we have a sudden dropping > > out > > > of an inability to continue something in the same > > way > > > and then back to incorrigibility], does not > > usually > > > seem to have much effect as you noted in your post > > > about teaching understanding. Are you not > > incorrigible > > > in what you are at the moment? > > > > > > Love, > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > > I sense a certain futility in your striving here, > > Lewis. > > > My beloved, > > I am incorrigible. > > Lewis > Yes, but that incorrigibility is in a state of constant flux. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 15, 2005 Report Share Posted March 15, 2005 Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10: --- anders_lindman <anders_lindman: Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess<lbb10: --- goldenrainbowrider <laughterx8: Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman: Maybe you were using a laptop computer and the batteries were about to run out anyway? /AL Golden: attempting to discuss with you makes one's head spin. It is a seemingly futile venture. I don't have a lap top but nice try though. ~*~ golden Dear G, Anders does as he is and is incorrigible in it as it stands. Perhaps asking questions and sharing is less head spinning. More is communicated and more is understood. Trying to influence or change an incorrigible person as we all are at any moment with words and ideas,[until we have a sudden dropping out of an inability to continue something in the same way and then back to incorrigibility], does not usually seem to have much effect as you noted in your post about teaching understanding. Are you not incorrigible in what you are at the moment? Love, Lewis I sense a certain futility in your striving here, Lewis. My beloved, I am incorrigible. Lewis Yes, but that incorrigibility is in a state of constant flux. /AL Dear Anders, Let us assume a world, Anders, or this will go nowhere. Are you up to being a creator of worlds? First, Let's remove the notions of dreams and illusions. No such thing for the moment. And let's drop all monisms temporarily; there is no concern for material substance or other forms of underlying substratums or consciousness or intelligence and so on that also may compose, mold or manipulate substratums. These can come back at any time. Our world will be one of subjective experience only that has no dream or illusion content or substance underlying it, spiritual, material or what have you. There is also no duality or nonduality or any fictions like those either. Just two appearances communicating talking about our impressions, our witnessing, of what we experience, however communicable and described, with the assumption that we can share some of the experiences using language. We cannot share what an orange tastes like or its color (qualia) but we can try other experiences. Can you temporarily create this sort of world? And can you stay in it for a while? I can, and if you can, then we can talk about incorrigibility. If not fughetaboudit. Let me know. After we can go back to other worlds. Take Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. http://mobile./maildemo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 15, 2005 Report Share Posted March 15, 2005 Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess > <lbb10@c...: > > --- anders_lindman <anders_lindman: > Nisargadatta , Lewis > Burgess<lbb10@c...: > > --- goldenrainbowrider <laughterx8@h...: > > Nisargadatta , > " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman: > > > Maybe you were using a laptop computer and the > batteries were about to run out anyway? > > /AL > > Golden: attempting to discuss with you makes one's > head spin. It is a seemingly futile venture. I > don't have a lap top but nice try though. > > ~*~ golden > > Dear G, > Anders does as he is and is incorrigible in it as it > stands. Perhaps asking questions and sharing is less > head spinning. More is communicated and more is > understood. Trying to influence or change an > incorrigible person as we all are at any moment with > words and ideas,[until we have a sudden dropping out > of an inability to continue something in the same way > and then back to incorrigibility], does not usually > seem to have much effect as you noted in your post > about teaching understanding. Are you not incorrigible > in what you are at the moment? > > Love, > > Lewis > > > I sense a certain futility in your striving here, > Lewis. > > > My beloved, > > I am incorrigible. > > Lewis > > Yes, but that incorrigibility is in a state of > constant flux. > > /AL > > > Dear Anders, > > Let us assume a world, Anders, or this will go > nowhere. Are you up to being a creator of worlds? > > First, Let's remove the notions of dreams and > illusions. No such thing for the moment. And let's > drop all monisms temporarily; there is no concern for > material substance or other forms of underlying > substratums or consciousness or intelligence and so on > that also may compose, mold or manipulate substratums. > These can come back at any time. > > Our world will be one of subjective experience only > that has no dream or illusion content or substance > underlying it, spiritual, material or what have you. > There is also no duality or nonduality or any fictions > like those either. Just two appearances communicating > talking about our impressions, our witnessing, of what > we experience, however communicable and described, > with the assumption that we can share some of the > experiences using language. We cannot share what an > orange tastes like or its color (qualia) but we can > try other experiences. Can you temporarily create this > sort of world? And can you stay in it for a while? I > can, and if you can, then we can talk about > incorrigibility. If not fughetaboudit. Let me know. > After we can go back to other worlds. > > I see what you mean. It's like a direct contact with what is, labelling or no labelling. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 15, 2005 Report Share Posted March 15, 2005 --- anders_lindman <anders_lindman wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess > <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess > > <lbb10@c...: > > > > --- anders_lindman <anders_lindman: > > Nisargadatta , Lewis > > Burgess<lbb10@c...: > > > > --- goldenrainbowrider <laughterx8@h...: > > > > Nisargadatta , > > " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman: > > > > > > Maybe you were using a laptop computer and the > > batteries were about to run out anyway? > > > > /AL > > > > Golden: attempting to discuss with you makes > one's > > head spin. It is a seemingly futile venture. I > > don't have a lap top but nice try though. > > > > ~*~ golden > > > > Dear G, > > Anders does as he is and is incorrigible in it as > it > > stands. Perhaps asking questions and sharing is > less > > head spinning. More is communicated and more is > > understood. Trying to influence or change an > > incorrigible person as we all are at any moment > with > > words and ideas,[until we have a sudden dropping > out > > of an inability to continue something in the same > way > > and then back to incorrigibility], does not > usually > > seem to have much effect as you noted in your post > > about teaching understanding. Are you not > incorrigible > > in what you are at the moment? > > > > Love, > > > > Lewis > > > > > > I sense a certain futility in your striving here, > > Lewis. > > > > > > My beloved, > > > > I am incorrigible. > > > > Lewis > > > > Yes, but that incorrigibility is in a state of > > constant flux. > > > > /AL > > > > > > Dear Anders, > > > > Let us assume a world, Anders, or this will go > > nowhere. Are you up to being a creator of worlds? > > > > First, Let's remove the notions of dreams and > > illusions. No such thing for the moment. And let's > > drop all monisms temporarily; there is no concern > for > > material substance or other forms of underlying > > substratums or consciousness or intelligence and > so on > > that also may compose, mold or manipulate > substratums. > > These can come back at any time. > > > > Our world will be one of subjective experience > only > > that has no dream or illusion content or substance > > underlying it, spiritual, material or what have > you. > > There is also no duality or nonduality or any > fictions > > like those either. Just two appearances > communicating > > talking about our impressions, our witnessing, of > what > > we experience, however communicable and described, > > with the assumption that we can share some of the > > experiences using language. We cannot share what > an > > orange tastes like or its color (qualia) but we > can > > try other experiences. Can you temporarily create > this > > sort of world? And can you stay in it for a while? > I > > can, and if you can, then we can talk about > > incorrigibility. If not fughetaboudit. Let me > know. > > After we can go back to other worlds. > > > > > > I see what you mean. It's like a direct contact with > what is, > labelling or no labelling. > > /AL We are simply dropping assumptions and assuming specific ones and, as we do so, a new world emerges. Labeling is part of this world as it is all others and in this one we eschew the use of certain labels and concepts to see incorrigibilty from an experiential viewpoint. Put the assumptions back in, the previous worlds emerge. Can you do it? Lewis Lewis Make your home page http://www./r/hs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 15, 2005 Report Share Posted March 15, 2005 Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > --- anders_lindman <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess > > <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess > > > <lbb10@c...: > > > > > > --- anders_lindman <anders_lindman: > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis > > > Burgess<lbb10@c...: > > > > > > --- goldenrainbowrider <laughterx8@h...: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , > > > " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman: > > > > > > > > > Maybe you were using a laptop computer and the > > > batteries were about to run out anyway? > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > Golden: attempting to discuss with you makes > > one's > > > head spin. It is a seemingly futile venture. I > > > don't have a lap top but nice try though. > > > > > > ~*~ golden > > > > > > Dear G, > > > Anders does as he is and is incorrigible in it as > > it > > > stands. Perhaps asking questions and sharing is > > less > > > head spinning. More is communicated and more is > > > understood. Trying to influence or change an > > > incorrigible person as we all are at any moment > > with > > > words and ideas,[until we have a sudden dropping > > out > > > of an inability to continue something in the same > > way > > > and then back to incorrigibility], does not > > usually > > > seem to have much effect as you noted in your post > > > about teaching understanding. Are you not > > incorrigible > > > in what you are at the moment? > > > > > > Love, > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > > > > I sense a certain futility in your striving here, > > > Lewis. > > > > > > > > > My beloved, > > > > > > I am incorrigible. > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > Yes, but that incorrigibility is in a state of > > > constant flux. > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > > > > Dear Anders, > > > > > > Let us assume a world, Anders, or this will go > > > nowhere. Are you up to being a creator of worlds? > > > > > > First, Let's remove the notions of dreams and > > > illusions. No such thing for the moment. And let's > > > drop all monisms temporarily; there is no concern > > for > > > material substance or other forms of underlying > > > substratums or consciousness or intelligence and > > so on > > > that also may compose, mold or manipulate > > substratums. > > > These can come back at any time. > > > > > > Our world will be one of subjective experience > > only > > > that has no dream or illusion content or substance > > > underlying it, spiritual, material or what have > > you. > > > There is also no duality or nonduality or any > > fictions > > > like those either. Just two appearances > > communicating > > > talking about our impressions, our witnessing, of > > what > > > we experience, however communicable and described, > > > with the assumption that we can share some of the > > > experiences using language. We cannot share what > > an > > > orange tastes like or its color (qualia) but we > > can > > > try other experiences. Can you temporarily create > > this > > > sort of world? And can you stay in it for a while? > > I > > > can, and if you can, then we can talk about > > > incorrigibility. If not fughetaboudit. Let me > > know. > > > After we can go back to other worlds. > > > > > > > > > > I see what you mean. It's like a direct contact with > > what is, > > labelling or no labelling. > > > > /AL > > We are simply dropping assumptions and assuming > specific ones and, as we do so, a new world emerges. > Labeling is part of this world as it is all others and > in this one we eschew the use of certain labels and > concepts to see incorrigibilty from an experiential > viewpoint. Put the assumptions back in, the previous > worlds emerge. Can you do it? > > Lewis > I can almost get the sense of it. To see all labelling as just that and that this labelling may indeed not budge rest of reality in any way or form. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 15, 2005 Report Share Posted March 15, 2005 --- anders_lindman <anders_lindman wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess > <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > --- anders_lindman <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis > Burgess > > > <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess > > > > <lbb10@c...: > > > > > > > > --- anders_lindman <anders_lindman: > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis > > > > Burgess<lbb10@c...: > > > > > > > > --- goldenrainbowrider <laughterx8@h...: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , > > > > " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman: > > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe you were using a laptop computer and the > > > > batteries were about to run out anyway? > > > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > > > Golden: attempting to discuss with you makes > > > one's > > > > head spin. It is a seemingly futile venture. > I > > > > don't have a lap top but nice try though. > > > > > > > > ~*~ golden > > > > > > > > Dear G, > > > > Anders does as he is and is incorrigible in it > as > > > it > > > > stands. Perhaps asking questions and sharing > is > > > less > > > > head spinning. More is communicated and more > is > > > > understood. Trying to influence or change an > > > > incorrigible person as we all are at any > moment > > > with > > > > words and ideas,[until we have a sudden > dropping > > > out > > > > of an inability to continue something in the > same > > > way > > > > and then back to incorrigibility], does not > > > usually > > > > seem to have much effect as you noted in your > post > > > > about teaching understanding. Are you not > > > incorrigible > > > > in what you are at the moment? > > > > > > > > Love, > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > > > > > > > I sense a certain futility in your striving > here, > > > > Lewis. > > > > > > > > > > > > My beloved, > > > > > > > > I am incorrigible. > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > > > Yes, but that incorrigibility is in a state of > > > > constant flux. > > > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Anders, > > > > > > > > Let us assume a world, Anders, or this will go > > > > nowhere. Are you up to being a creator of > worlds? > > > > > > > > First, Let's remove the notions of dreams and > > > > illusions. No such thing for the moment. And > let's > > > > drop all monisms temporarily; there is no > concern > > > for > > > > material substance or other forms of > underlying > > > > substratums or consciousness or intelligence > and > > > so on > > > > that also may compose, mold or manipulate > > > substratums. > > > > These can come back at any time. > > > > > > > > Our world will be one of subjective experience > > > only > > > > that has no dream or illusion content or > substance > > > > underlying it, spiritual, material or what > have > > > you. > > > > There is also no duality or nonduality or any > > > fictions > > > > like those either. Just two appearances > > > communicating > > > > talking about our impressions, our witnessing, > of > > > what > > > > we experience, however communicable and > described, > > > > with the assumption that we can share some of > the > > > > experiences using language. We cannot share > what > > > an > > > > orange tastes like or its color (qualia) but > we > > > can > > > > try other experiences. Can you temporarily > create > > > this > > > > sort of world? And can you stay in it for a > while? > > > I > > > > can, and if you can, then we can talk about > > > > incorrigibility. If not fughetaboudit. Let me > > > know. > > > > After we can go back to other worlds. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I see what you mean. It's like a direct contact > with > > > what is, > > > labelling or no labelling. > > > > > > /AL > > > > We are simply dropping assumptions and assuming > > specific ones and, as we do so, a new world > emerges. > > Labeling is part of this world as it is all others > and > > in this one we eschew the use of certain labels > and > > concepts to see incorrigibilty from an > experiential > > viewpoint. Put the assumptions back in, the > previous > > worlds emerge. Can you do it? > > > > Lewis > > > > I can almost get the sense of it. To see all > labelling as just that > and that this labelling may indeed not budge rest of > reality in any > way or form. > > /AL Yes. That is what being incorrigible is. Not budging. Being, doing as you are. 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.