Guest guest Posted March 17, 2005 Report Share Posted March 17, 2005 Multinationals corporations run the world. They are the power behind the throne. And so it's in the world of the psyche, all is done on behalf of 'Self Incorporated.' Even spirituality, which on the surface seems to seek the unlimited, secretly works to maintain the limited corporation. How is this so? We fall for the trick of seeking the unlimited through definitions, explanations, and labels. We can't stand to be undefined. If you don't believe me, try it. Try to stay with perception without commentaries, labels or definitions. Its almost impossible, like trying not to touch a missing tooth with your tongue. Understand that the role of definition and labeling is to set apart, and nothing else. Clearly see that wanting to be, means being apart, and for that, a label is needed. It doesn't matter if the label is body, matter, or Consciousness. All labels are limitations. Until you see that, you will be like a mole digging deeper in the dark. Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 17, 2005 Report Share Posted March 17, 2005 In a message dated 3/17/05 9:01:39 AM, wwoehr writes: > Hi Pete, > > Interesting points and convincing too. Let me pick out, as you wrote > that we cannot live undefined. > > We can live undefined, presupposed that there is total independence > from others. Our need to be defined is the need to be recognizable or > identifiable by others because others promise security (if this > promise gets fufilled is not sure). So to be undefined and not to be > identified seems to be the same when one gives them a closer look. > > The fear to live undefined it the fear to be totally alone. It is > interesting that to be totally alone at the same time is the ending > of the illusion of separaration. > > Werner > > > What can I say! /.\ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 17, 2005 Report Share Posted March 17, 2005 In a message dated 3/17/05 10:03:19 AM, lbb10 writes: > L: At work I > am labeled, I am labeled by everyone I meet. I am > labeled here. These labels do not matter unless I > believe they are me or not me or partially me or > neither me nor not me. It is the attachment to the > labels that are a problem and that is where the hole > digging and darkness gets serious. Etc, etc. > P: Lewis, you should have quitted when you were ahead. You will never reach this level of eloquence again: " Geobo beena tabe kefuku awawee soo toko. See eekee > > bisono muharo himbo nakuru so eesee soso. Sabae > goto > > ming chuo hee muho. Saysay goteebee oosusu! " > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 17, 2005 Report Share Posted March 17, 2005 > > > > And so it's in the world of the psyche, all is > > done on behalf of 'Self Incorporated.' > > There is no 'world of the psyche', there is only the phrase 'world of > the psyche', which rears it's head in a few people here and there, > from time to time, and is discussed as if being somehow, meaningful, > significant, Important! (Do you know >>why<< such things are > >>still<< being discussed - even after thousands of years, and > multiple retranslations of significant terms?) > P: Yes, Bob. > > There is no 'self inc.' (though that's a pretty catchy phrase), there > is only the transient spikes of energy transfer (and transmission) > called thoughts, but more often just feelings, complaining about, and > criticizing the status quo. > > > Even spirituality, which on the surface seems > > to seek the unlimited, secretly works to > > maintain the limited corporation. > > > > There is no 'spirituality', there is just the term 'spirituality' > which doesn't seek anything at all - terms don't seek, thoughts don't > seek. These transiently anomalistic energy spikes can sound this way > or that way to the ear, but terms have no concept about the cause of > their arising, nor what they are 'trying to do' (like, secretly > working to maintain the corporation, 'self inc.') > > > How is this so? > > 'This' is so, only because you say it is so, there is no other reason > - but, just because you say it is so, doesn't mean it is so. > > > > We fall for the trick of seeking > > the unlimited through definitions, explanations, > > and labels. We can't stand to be undefined. > P: Bob, up to here you were digesting (translating) quite nicely into your own lingo the dirt I dug up for you. But what you wrote below bout powers behind powers and nervous systems intertwined is pure imagination and bullshit, whether you know it or not. > > > There is no 'we' about it. > 'We' have no part in the unfolding of this story, anymore than > multinationals (the men supposedly in charge of those few companies) > have some part in the unfolding of This Story. The nervous system in > every living human is dynamically intertwined with the nervous > systems of every other living human - whether they know or realize it > - and 'together' IT is the real power behind all apparent 'powers'. > > Individually fluctuating spikes of energy - you, me, larry the > lamppost - are merely the audience; we didn't WRITE the play, we > aren't ACTING in the play - we are only and evermore, the critics, > commentators, and pseudo-intellectuals trying to figure out what was > in the mind of the AUTHOR. > > > > > > Pete, your entire piece, was FULL of labels, and thus limitations. > Are you even peripherally aware of that, or just a mole digging > deeper in the dark? > LOL, Bob. What an insight! How else could It be said? BBOBBA na PEKKO? Don't get me wrong, I appreciate what you're trying to do here, and I hope you will continue. I'm just acknowledging your kind attention to my ramblings, in my own acidic way. > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 17, 2005 Report Share Posted March 17, 2005 --- Pedsie2 wrote: > > Multinationals corporations run the world. > They are the power behind the throne. And > so it's in the world of the psyche, all is > done on behalf of 'Self Incorporated.' > Even spirituality, which on the surface seems > to seek the unlimited, secretly works to > maintain the limited corporation. > > How is this so? We fall for the trick of seeking > the unlimited through definitions, explanations, > and labels. We can't stand to be undefined. If > you don't believe me, try it. Try to stay with > perception without commentaries, labels or > definitions. Its almost impossible, like trying > not to touch a missing tooth with your tongue. > > Understand that the role of definition and > labeling is to set apart, and nothing else. > Clearly see that wanting to be, means being > apart, and for that, a label is needed. It doesn't > matter if the label is body, matter, or > Consciousness. All labels are limitations. Until > you see that, you will be like a mole digging > deeper in the dark. > > Pete Geobo beena tabe kefuku awawee soo toko. See eekee bisono muharo himbo nakuru so eesee soso. Sabae goto ming chuo hee muho. Saysay goteebee oosusu! :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 17, 2005 Report Share Posted March 17, 2005 Hi Pete, Interesting points and convincing too. Let me pick out, as you wrote that we cannot live undefined. We can live undefined, presupposed that there is total independence from others. Our need to be defined is the need to be recognizable or identifiable by others because others promise security (if this promise gets fufilled is not sure). So to be undefined and not to be identified seems to be the same when one gives them a closer look. The fear to live undefined it the fear to be totally alone. It is interesting that to be totally alone at the same time is the ending of the illusion of separation. Werner Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > Multinationals corporations run the world. > They are the power behind the throne. And > so it's in the world of the psyche, all is > done on behalf of 'Self Incorporated.' > Even spirituality, which on the surface seems > to seek the unlimited, secretly works to > maintain the limited corporation. > > How is this so? We fall for the trick of seeking > the unlimited through definitions, explanations, > and labels. We can't stand to be undefined. If > you don't believe me, try it. Try to stay with > perception without commentaries, labels or > definitions. Its almost impossible, like trying > not to touch a missing tooth with your tongue. > > Understand that the role of definition and > labeling is to set apart, and nothing else. > Clearly see that wanting to be, means being > apart, and for that, a label is needed. It doesn't > matter if the label is body, matter, or > Consciousness. All labels are limitations. Until > you see that, you will be like a mole digging > deeper in the dark. > > Pete > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 17, 2005 Report Share Posted March 17, 2005 In a message dated 3/17/05 1:09:20 PM, mybox234 writes: > f you do, then please describe - in your own words - why you spend > time each and every day, almost without a break, " discussing " > religion, spirituality, and philosophy (which also go by other names) > on multiple email lists with a bunch of people you've never met, and > likely will never meet (and not only you, but hundreds of thousands > of people worldwide). > P: Of course, Bob, you know the above is an exageration, I write most days, two or three emails on average, and I do it because you Bob, and people like you like to read it. Because if these lists were to diapppear you would have no reason to criticize, and bitch, and you would feel very lonely. You Bob, has no people skills to speak of, or dog skills for that matter, and if you had a dog, probably the thing ran away, and plum left you. B::A few of THEM, know what the real power is, that is >running this factory of talking apes for the edification of the intellectuals and philosophers to discuss ad nauseum, but the >information is not likely to get out into the public marketplace any >time soon. P: Oh yeah, Bob, kid yourself, if it makes you feel better. Sure! You are in the know about the power behind it all. May the force be wiith you, Bob skywalker. Dream on, pal! > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 17, 2005 Report Share Posted March 17, 2005 Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > Multinationals corporations run the world. > They are the power behind the throne. And > so it's in the world of the psyche, all is > done on behalf of 'Self Incorporated.' > Even spirituality, which on the surface seems > to seek the unlimited, secretly works to > maintain the limited corporation. > > How is this so? We fall for the trick of seeking > the unlimited through definitions, explanations, > and labels. We can't stand to be undefined. If > you don't believe me, try it. Try to stay with > perception without commentaries, labels or > definitions. Its almost impossible, like trying > not to touch a missing tooth with your tongue. > > Understand that the role of definition and > labeling is to set apart, and nothing else. > Clearly see that wanting to be, means being > apart, and for that, a label is needed. It doesn't > matter if the label is body, matter, or > Consciousness. All labels are limitations. Until > you see that, you will be like a mole digging > deeper in the dark. > > Pete > And falling into the idea of being undefined is a self-defining trick too, a limiting label in itself. To be free from limiting labels is to accept those labels. Remove the no and only yes remains. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 17, 2005 Report Share Posted March 17, 2005 --- Werner Woehr <wwoehr wrote: > > > Hi Pete, > > Interesting points and convincing too. Let me pick > out, as you wrote that we cannot live undefined. > > We can live undefined, presupposed that there is > total independence from others. Our need to be > defined is the need to be recognizable or > identifiable >by others because others promise > security (if this promise gets fufilled is not sure) > So to be undefined and not to be identified seems to > be the same when one gives them a closer look. > > The fear to live undefined it the fear to be totally > alone. It is interesting that to be totally alone at > the same time is the ending of the illusion of > separation. > > Werner Hi Pete and Werner, In addition, there is another way to approach this. Labels, definitions and explanations are harmless. They do nothing. In my family I am labeled. At work I am labeled, I am labeled by everyone I meet. I am labeled here. These labels do not matter unless I believe they are me or not me or partially me or neither me nor not me. It is the attachment to the labels that are a problem and that is where the hole digging and darkness gets serious. Labels, definitions and explanations are what we use to get around in the conventional world. They can be and are useful tools. Some of these tools if poorly applied (mislabeling, poor definition, inaccurate explanations about general phenomena) misused (sterotypes, scapegoating, abusing), taken to be other than what they are (tool vs " me, " provisional vs. final) etc. than we have problems in living. Labeling an oncoming car a feather is mislabeling and has obvious problems. Constructing a building with instructions from a Tinker Toy set has problems. Believing that one is all-knowing has problems. Believing that nothing exists and acting on it creates problems in living. Being undefined does not mean being zero or a machine forever turning out negations, neti, neti. Being undefined can be the simple realization that provisional labels, definitions, explanations are not living things and that living itself, being alive as it is is all that is required to go on. Labels set apart and they always will as life cannot go on without them. But such distinctions are harmless if one knows that they are labels and nothing more and do not form or maintain attachments to or cathexes with them and they are used well. This is another way of being undefined; to be labled or to label is as it will always be, but to free be of labels and to hold no one to a label as it goes. There is no separation possible in this sense and the presupposition of total independence or interdependence becomes unneccesary. We flow unimpeded by transient, impermanent, provisional labels, definitions and explanations. Lewis > Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... > wrote: > > Multinationals corporations run the world. > > They are the power behind the throne. And > > so it's in the world of the psyche, all is > > done on behalf of 'Self Incorporated.' > > Even spirituality, which on the surface seems > > to seek the unlimited, secretly works to > > maintain the limited corporation. > > > > How is this so? We fall for the trick of seeking > > the unlimited through definitions, explanations, > > and labels. We can't stand to be undefined. If > > you don't believe me, try it. Try to stay with > > perception without commentaries, labels or > > definitions. Its almost impossible, like trying > > not to touch a missing tooth with your tongue. > > > > Understand that the role of definition and > > labeling is to set apart, and nothing else. > > Clearly see that wanting to be, means being > > apart, and for that, a label is needed. It > doesn't > > matter if the label is body, matter, or > > Consciousness. All labels are limitations. Until > > you see that, you will be like a mole digging > > deeper in the dark. > > > > Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 17, 2005 Report Share Posted March 17, 2005 Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > Multinationals corporations run the world. > They are the power behind the throne. You've already started out on the wrong foot! No, they do not run the world. There is no 'they' there. 'Their' power is loaned to them, and 'they' only appear to be in charge. There is real power behind the apparent power, of course (and then there are the powerless - everybody else, including the historians and critics) - but real power remains unknown (although it's effects are to some degree known) to the masses, even though they while away their lives trying to name it (God, Multinationals, the Conspiracy, the Other, Self, Aliens from elsewhere, Etc.). > And so it's in the world of the psyche, all is > done on behalf of 'Self Incorporated.' There is no 'world of the psyche', there is only the phrase 'world of the psyche', which rears it's head in a few people here and there, from time to time, and is discussed as if being somehow, meaningful, significant, Important! (Do you know >>why<< such things are >>still<< being discussed - even after thousands of years, and multiple retranslations of significant terms?) There is no 'self inc.' (though that's a pretty catchy phrase), there is only the transient spikes of energy transfer (and transmission) called thoughts, but more often just feelings, complaining about, and criticizing the status quo. > Even spirituality, which on the surface seems > to seek the unlimited, secretly works to > maintain the limited corporation. > There is no 'spirituality', there is just the term 'spirituality' which doesn't seek anything at all - terms don't seek, thoughts don't seek. These transiently anomalistic energy spikes can sound this way or that way to the ear, but terms have no concept about the cause of their arising, nor what they are 'trying to do' (like, secretly working to maintain the corporation, 'self inc.') > How is this so? 'This' is so, only because you say it is so, there is no other reason - but, just because you say it is so, doesn't mean it is so. > We fall for the trick of seeking > the unlimited through definitions, explanations, > and labels. We can't stand to be undefined. There is no 'we' about it. 'We' have no part in the unfolding of this story, anymore than multinationals (the men supposedly in charge of those few companies) have some part in the unfolding of This Story. The nervous system in every living human is dynamically intertwined with the nervous systems of every other living human - whether they know or realize it - and 'together' IT is the real power behind all apparent 'powers'. Individually fluctuating spikes of energy - you, me, larry the lamppost - are merely the audience; we didn't WRITE the play, we aren't ACTING in the play - we are only and evermore, the critics, commentators, and pseudo-intellectuals trying to figure out what was in the mind of the AUTHOR. > If you don't believe me, try it. Try to stay with > perception without commentaries, labels or > definitions. Its almost impossible, like trying > not to touch a missing tooth with your tongue. > Understand that the role of definition and > labeling is to set apart, and nothing else. > Clearly see that wanting to be, means being > apart, and for that, a label is needed. It doesn't > matter if the label is body, matter, or > Consciousness. All labels are limitations. Until > you see that, you will be like a mole digging > deeper in the dark. > Pete Pete, your entire piece, was FULL of labels, and thus limitations. Are you even peripherally aware of that, or just a mole digging deeper in the dark? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 17, 2005 Report Share Posted March 17, 2005 Thanks, fmraerdy, for posting this and putting those " ideas " into the right light. I was holding myself back today... hoping that someone else would speak... :-) Greetings Stefan Nisargadatta , " fmraerdy " <mybox234@b...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > > Multinationals corporations run the world. > > They are the power behind the throne. > > You've already started out on the wrong foot! > No, they do not run the world. > There is no 'they' there. > 'Their' power is loaned to them, and 'they' only appear to be in > charge. > > There is real power behind the apparent power, of course (and then > there are the powerless - everybody else, including the historians > and critics) - but real power remains unknown (although it's effects > are to some degree known) to the masses, even though they while away > their lives trying to name it (God, Multinationals, the Conspiracy, > the Other, Self, Aliens from elsewhere, Etc.). > > > And so it's in the world of the psyche, all is > > done on behalf of 'Self Incorporated.' > > There is no 'world of the psyche', there is only the phrase 'world of > the psyche', which rears it's head in a few people here and there, > from time to time, and is discussed as if being somehow, meaningful, > significant, Important! (Do you know >>why<< such things are > >>still<< being discussed - even after thousands of years, and > multiple retranslations of significant terms?) > > There is no 'self inc.' (though that's a pretty catchy phrase), there > is only the transient spikes of energy transfer (and transmission) > called thoughts, but more often just feelings, complaining about, and > criticizing the status quo. > > > Even spirituality, which on the surface seems > > to seek the unlimited, secretly works to > > maintain the limited corporation. > > > > There is no 'spirituality', there is just the term 'spirituality' > which doesn't seek anything at all - terms don't seek, thoughts don't > seek. These transiently anomalistic energy spikes can sound this way > or that way to the ear, but terms have no concept about the cause of > their arising, nor what they are 'trying to do' (like, secretly > working to maintain the corporation, 'self inc.') > > > How is this so? > > 'This' is so, only because you say it is so, there is no other reason > - but, just because you say it is so, doesn't mean it is so. > > > > We fall for the trick of seeking > > the unlimited through definitions, explanations, > > and labels. We can't stand to be undefined. > > > There is no 'we' about it. > 'We' have no part in the unfolding of this story, anymore than > multinationals (the men supposedly in charge of those few companies) > have some part in the unfolding of This Story. The nervous system in > every living human is dynamically intertwined with the nervous > systems of every other living human - whether they know or realize it > - and 'together' IT is the real power behind all apparent 'powers'. > > Individually fluctuating spikes of energy - you, me, larry the > lamppost - are merely the audience; we didn't WRITE the play, we > aren't ACTING in the play - we are only and evermore, the critics, > commentators, and pseudo-intellectuals trying to figure out what was > in the mind of the AUTHOR. > > > > If you don't believe me, try it. Try to stay with > > perception without commentaries, labels or > > definitions. Its almost impossible, like trying > > not to touch a missing tooth with your tongue. > > Understand that the role of definition and > > labeling is to set apart, and nothing else. > > Clearly see that wanting to be, means being > > apart, and for that, a label is needed. It doesn't > > matter if the label is body, matter, or > > Consciousness. All labels are limitations. Until > > you see that, you will be like a mole digging > > deeper in the dark. > > Pete > > Pete, your entire piece, was FULL of labels, and thus limitations. > Are you even peripherally aware of that, or just a mole digging > deeper in the dark? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 17, 2005 Report Share Posted March 17, 2005 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: >To be free from limiting labels is to >accept those labels. Remove the no and only yes remains. Yes! Yes! Yes! Love Stefan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 17, 2005 Report Share Posted March 17, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@c...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > >To be free from limiting labels is to > >accept those labels. Remove the no and only yes remains. > > Yes! Yes! Yes! > > Love > Stefan LOL Eckhart Tolle said (here I go again nagging about what this Tolle chap has said that most people are walking No:s. Say yes to the now. Enormous power lies in that yes, Tolle said. It is the power of life itself. Even when we can't accept the now, then we accept that we are not willing to accept the now. That brings the yes into the no.........the yes into the no. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 17, 2005 Report Share Posted March 17, 2005 Pedsie2 wrote: Multinationals corporations run the world. They are the power behind the throne. And so it's in the world of the psyche, all is done on behalf of 'Self Incorporated.' Even spirituality, which on the surface seems to seek the unlimited, secretly works to maintain the limited corporation. How is this so? We fall for the trick of seeking the unlimited through definitions, explanations, and labels. We can't stand to be undefined. If you don't believe me, try it. Try to stay with perception without commentaries, labels or definitions. Its almost impossible, like trying not to touch a missing tooth with your tongue. Understand that the role of definition and labeling is to set apart, and nothing else. Clearly see that wanting to be, means being apart, and for that, a label is needed. It doesn't matter if the label is body, matter, or Consciousness. All labels are limitations. Until you see that, you will be like a mole digging deeper in the dark. Pete Right on. r. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 17, 2005 Report Share Posted March 17, 2005 Lewis Burgess <lbb10 wrote: --- Pedsie2 wrote: > > Multinationals corporations run the world. > They are the power behind the throne. And > so it's in the world of the psyche, all is > done on behalf of 'Self Incorporated.' > Even spirituality, which on the surface seems > to seek the unlimited, secretly works to > maintain the limited corporation. > > How is this so? We fall for the trick of seeking > the unlimited through definitions, explanations, > and labels. We can't stand to be undefined. If > you don't believe me, try it. Try to stay with > perception without commentaries, labels or > definitions. Its almost impossible, like trying > not to touch a missing tooth with your tongue. > > Understand that the role of definition and > labeling is to set apart, and nothing else. > Clearly see that wanting to be, means being > apart, and for that, a label is needed. It doesn't > matter if the label is body, matter, or > Consciousness. All labels are limitations. Until > you see that, you will be like a mole digging > deeper in the dark. > > Pete Geobo beena tabe kefuku awawee soo toko. See eekee bisono muharo himbo nakuru so eesee soso. Sabae goto ming chuo hee muho. Saysay goteebee oosusu! :-) According to vipassana teacher, Mr.Goenka, there are the absolute level and the conventional level. When he speaks he does so on the conventional level. What should I do,he asks, say that 'this group of energy patterns would like to speak to that group of energy patterns'? Mr.Goenka expresses this better than this group of energy patterns stated, but we are too lazy to look up the exact words. May all BEING be happy, richard ** If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: /mygroups?edit=1 Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 17, 2005 Report Share Posted March 17, 2005 Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > > > > > > > And so it's in the world of the psyche, all is > > > done on behalf of 'Self Incorporated.' > > > > There is no 'world of the psyche', there is only the phrase 'world of > > the psyche', which rears it's head in a few people here and there, > > from time to time, and is discussed as if being somehow, meaningful, > > significant, Important! (Do you know >>why<< such things are > > >>still<< being discussed - even after thousands of years, and > > multiple retranslations of significant terms?) > > > P: Yes, Bob. LOL! If you do, then please describe - in your own words - why you spend time each and every day, almost without a break, " discussing " religion, spirituality, and philosophy (which also go by other names) on multiple email lists with a bunch of people you've never met, and likely will never meet (and not only you, but hundreds of thousands of people worldwide). I do not think, nor do I believe for one second, that you have even a glimmer of a clue why you do it - and that you (and everyone, including myself most of the time) just " take it all for granted " ....( " Hey, I do it because I can. " ) ......( " And, if it's good enough for my ancestors, it's good enough for me! " ) > > > > There is no 'self inc.' (though that's a pretty catchy phrase), there > > is only the transient spikes of energy transfer (and transmission) > > called thoughts, but more often just feelings, complaining about, and > > criticizing the status quo. > > > > > Even spirituality, which on the surface seems > > > to seek the unlimited, secretly works to > > > maintain the limited corporation. > > > > > > > There is no 'spirituality', there is just the term 'spirituality' > > which doesn't seek anything at all - terms don't seek, thoughts don't > > seek. These transiently anomalistic energy spikes can sound this way > > or that way to the ear, but terms have no concept about the cause of > > their arising, nor what they are 'trying to do' (like, secretly > > working to maintain the corporation, 'self inc.') > > > > > How is this so? > > > > 'This' is so, only because you say it is so, there is no other reason > > - but, just because you say it is so, doesn't mean it is so. > > > > > > > We fall for the trick of seeking > > > the unlimited through definitions, explanations, > > > and labels. We can't stand to be undefined. > > > P: Bob, up to here you were digesting (translating) quite > nicely into your own lingo the dirt I dug up for you. What you obviously >>meant<< to say (but the realization surely escaped you at the time) was, " ... the dirt IT dug up for me (pete). " > But what you wrote below bout powers behind powers > and nervous systems intertwined is pure imagination and > bullshit, whether you know it or not. If you can't comprehend the idea that POWER is behind every manifestation, and that there is real power behind/above the apparent powers, which are behind/above the powerless, then so be it. The powerless - individual humans - think they are in charge of something, but clearly they are not. A few of them, think multinational organizations are in charge of something, but clearly they are not. A few of THEM, know what the real power is, that is running this factory of talking apes for the edification of the intellectuals and philosophers to discuss ad nauseum, but the information is not likely to get out into the public marketplace any time soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 18, 2005 Report Share Posted March 18, 2005 In a message dated 3/18/05 5:15:27 AM, mybox234 writes: > Could he do that, he would know and be able to discuss > (dispassionately): > 1) why people all over the planet are literally compelled to discuss, > ad nauseum, a multitude of religious, spiritual and philosophical > matters as though they actually meant something >>serious<<, and > 2) how power manifests on this planet from the top down, and from the > bottom up, with talking apes stuck in the middle of that dynamic with > only their lips and tongues flapping in the breeze. > > Come on, ol' pete, give it a go! > No, Bob, Thanks. I'm not going to foster your delusion (which you carry on ad nauseum at GR) that you are the only true and intelligent homo sapiens on the planet, and that the rest of humaniny is a herd of sheeps, apes, or whatever. Besides, it's time for my morning banana. > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 18, 2005 Report Share Posted March 18, 2005 Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: >P: Of course, Bob, you know the above is an exageration, I write >most days, two or three emails on average, and I do it because >you Bob, and people like you like to read it. Oh boy, is this your belief? Now I understand you better. It seems that this is your deepest wish. And your blind spot is that you believe it. Dreams do always come true for true believers. >P: Oh yeah, Bob, kid yourself, if it makes you feel better. >Sure! You >are in the know about the power behind it all. May the force >be wiith you, Bob skywalker. Dream on, pal! Now everybody look at Petes real face. He likes to be read, but not at all to be critisized (I would just call it questioned). You should be glad that once in a while one of your " essays " receives comments. It does not happen very often. Love Stefan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 18, 2005 Report Share Posted March 18, 2005 Stefan, Your lines are just demonstrating using Pete as your mirror. Please tell more what you think of " Pete " and so I learn more what you don't like to accept of yourself. Werner Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@c...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > > >P: Of course, Bob, you know the above is an exageration, I write > >most days, two or three emails on average, and I do it because > >you Bob, and people like you like to read it. > > Oh boy, is this your belief? Now I understand you better. It seems > that this is your deepest wish. And your blind spot is that you > believe it. Dreams do always come true for true believers. > > >P: Oh yeah, Bob, kid yourself, if it makes you feel better. > >Sure! You > >are in the know about the power behind it all. May the force > >be wiith you, Bob skywalker. Dream on, pal! > > Now everybody look at Petes real face. He likes to be read, but not at > all to be critisized (I would just call it questioned). You should be > glad that once in a while one of your " essays " receives comments. It > does not happen very often. > > Love > Stefan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 18, 2005 Report Share Posted March 18, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: >Your lines are just demonstrating using Pete as your mirror. > >Please tell more what you think of " Pete " and so I learn more what >you don't like to accept of yourself. What you really are just saying is, that my words did become a mirror to you (since you believe in such mirrors). So, it would have been more honest if you share with me what happened to YOU when you read my lines. Then it might be appropriate that I share something about me. Have a beautiful day, I have heard there is spring now in Germany? Stefan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 18, 2005 Report Share Posted March 18, 2005 Stefan, Throwing back the ball is the old game of being reluctant to see and to accept. You just don't like the soup I offered you to eat. Werner Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@c...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> > wrote: > > >Your lines are just demonstrating using Pete as your mirror. > > > >Please tell more what you think of " Pete " and so I learn more what > >you don't like to accept of yourself. > > What you really are just saying is, that my words did become a mirror > to you (since you believe in such mirrors). So, it would have been > more honest if you share with me what happened to YOU when you read my > lines. Then it might be appropriate that I share something about me. > > Have a beautiful day, I have heard there is spring now in Germany? > Stefan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 18, 2005 Report Share Posted March 18, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: >Throwing back the ball is the old game of being reluctant to see and >to accept. You just don't like the soup I offered you to eat. Hi Werner. I threw a ball back which was not my ball anyway. What else should I have done? It was your ball that you threw at me. What should I have said? I have no connection with this ball. You talked about a special kind of a mirror, assuming there was one. Mirroring non-acceptance of the self, as you said. But you must have meant your own mirror. You obviously believe in such a mirror of problems. This is all yours, you see? But, Werner, I want to tell you what I see in my own mirror. I look at it and I see all this: things are floating endlessly on its surface, changing any milisecond. It is like a undescribable stream from all sides. There is nothing I can do about it. The fact that I experience all this is unexplainable. The acceptance of it unspeakable. It is funny, but I just came across a talk of Nisargadatta, where he talks about the mirror. I type it in for you now. Q: By meeting people and watching them, one comes to know oneself also. It goes together. M: It does not necessarily go together. Q: One improves the other. M: It does not work that way. The mirror reflects the image, but the image does not improve the mirror. You are neither the mirror nor the image in the mirror. Having perfected the mirror so that it reflects correctly, truly, you can turn the mirror round and see in it a true reflection of yourself -- true as far as the mirror can reflect. But the reflection is not yourself -- you are the seer of the reflection. Do understand it clearly -- whatever you may perceive you are not what you perceive. Q: I am the mirror and the world is the image? M: You can see both the image and the mirror. You are neither. Who are you? Don't go by formulas. The answer is not in words. The nearest you can say in words is: I am what makes perception possible, the life beyond the experiencer and his experience. > Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@c...> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> > > wrote: > > > > >Your lines are just demonstrating using Pete as your mirror. > > > > > >Please tell more what you think of " Pete " and so I learn more what > > >you don't like to accept of yourself. > > > > What you really are just saying is, that my words did become a > mirror > > to you (since you believe in such mirrors). So, it would have been > > more honest if you share with me what happened to YOU when you read > my > > lines. Then it might be appropriate that I share something about me. > > > > Have a beautiful day, I have heard there is spring now in Germany? > > Stefan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 18, 2005 Report Share Posted March 18, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@c...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > > >P: Of course, Bob, you know the above is an exageration, I write > >most days, two or three emails on average, and I do it because > >you Bob, and people like you like to read it. > > Oh boy, is this your belief? Now I understand you better. It seems > that this is your deepest wish. And your blind spot is that you > believe it. Dreams do always come true for true believers. > Hi Stefan: Pete " believes " (in his dream) that people are literally falling all over themselves to login to , to find out what ol' agin' petey-boy has to say today - " ooh, ooh, maybe it's another ramblin' nondual story without a punch or a punchline... " > >P: Oh yeah, Bob, kid yourself,if it makes you feel better. > >Sure! You > >are in the know about the power behind it all. May the force > >be wiith you, Bob skywalker. Dream on, pal! > > Now everybody look at Petes real face. He likes to be read, but not at > all to be critisized (I would just call it questioned). You should be > glad that once in a while one of your " essays " receives comments. It > does not happen very often. Pete " believes " that his particular " handle on reality " is the best (naturally, " can't help that! " ), and if anyone tries to insert a different take on his au-natural viewpoint, he immediately sinks to the ad hominem attack (naturally, " can't help that! " ) But, what old and aging pete lacks (as seen in his: " You Bob, has (sic) no people skills to speak of (sic), or dog skills for that matter, and if you had a dog, probably the thing ran away, and plum left you. " ) is the grammar skills to carry on a lengthy conversation with someone who has the intelligence equal to or greater than himself. Could he do that, he would know and be able to discuss (dispassionately): 1) why people all over the planet are literally compelled to discuss, ad nauseum, a multitude of religious, spiritual and philosophical matters as though they actually meant something >>serious<<, and 2) how power manifests on this planet from the top down, and from the bottom up, with talking apes stuck in the middle of that dynamic with only their lips and tongues flapping in the breeze. Come on, ol' pete, give it a go! 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.