Guest guest Posted April 12, 2005 Report Share Posted April 12, 2005 True love has nothing to do with time. Hate has to do with time. Without the mental projection called time there cannot be any hate. The same with conditional 'love'. When we _think_ about something or someone we love, we are only looking at our own memories and projections. Conditional love is the shadow, or the past imprint of true love. Past moments of true love has been stamped into our memory and what we are looking at in conditional love is those past imprints. Life is always flowing, and if we look for love in our memories we will only find something not flowing. We try to preserve a flowing river by collecting some buckets of its water. And sure, some water is muddy and some water is clear, but not fresh and moving as the river itself! Many people feel very alive when they experience intense hatred. And if we try to find love looking into past experiences or future expectations, then that love will be shoddy and shallow. Hatred however, will feel alive even though it cannot appear other than as a reaction to past experiences or future expectations. Thus the thinking mind can 'produce' hate more easily than conditional love with same feeling of 'aliveness'. But both conditional love and hate are contaminated by fear. al. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 13, 2005 Report Share Posted April 13, 2005 u r going in the " GOOD WAY " by saying what is " LOVE " AND THE " BAD WAY " by saying what is hatred. Try the third way - stop defining and expecting love. then all trying & discussion stops ... anders_lindman [anders_lindman] Tuesday, April 12, 2005 8:14 PM Nisargadatta What is love? True love has nothing to do with time. Hate has to do with time. Without the mental projection called time there cannot be any hate. The same with conditional 'love'. When we _think_ about something or someone we love, we are only looking at our own memories and projections. Conditional love is the shadow, or the past imprint of true love. Past moments of true love has been stamped into our memory and what we are looking at in conditional love is those past imprints. Life is always flowing, and if we look for love in our memories we will only find something not flowing. We try to preserve a flowing river by collecting some buckets of its water. And sure, some water is muddy and some water is clear, but not fresh and moving as the river itself! Many people feel very alive when they experience intense hatred. And if we try to find love looking into past experiences or future expectations, then that love will be shoddy and shallow. Hatred however, will feel alive even though it cannot appear other than as a reaction to past experiences or future expectations. Thus the thinking mind can 'produce' hate more easily than conditional love with same feeling of 'aliveness'. But both conditional love and hate are contaminated by fear. al. ** 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 April 13, 2005 Report Share Posted April 13, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Ramanath, Murali H \(GE Healthcare\) " <Murali.Ramanath@g...> wrote: > u r going in the " GOOD WAY " by saying what is " LOVE " AND THE " BAD WAY " > by saying what is hatred. > Try the third way - stop defining and expecting love. > then all trying & discussion stops ... > > Maybe you are correct. But wouldn't that form of trying still be the 'good way'? But I agree we have to try to come more into the present moment, because that's where the action is. There is no action in the future. The real future will aways come as now. For the thinking mind, the third way (into the now) is really horrible. What is there for the thinking mind to do without past and future? For the thinking mind, its own future is more important than the real future (which always comes as now). al. > > > > anders_lindman [anders_lindman] > Tuesday, April 12, 2005 8:14 PM > Nisargadatta > What is love? > > > > True love has nothing to do with time. Hate has to do with time. > Without the mental projection called time there cannot be any hate. > The same with conditional 'love'. When we _think_ about something or > someone we love, we are only looking at our own memories and > projections. Conditional love is the shadow, or the past imprint of > true love. Past moments of true love has been stamped into our memory > and what we are looking at in conditional love is those past imprints. > Life is always flowing, and if we look for love in our memories we > will only find something not flowing. We try to preserve a flowing > river by collecting some buckets of its water. And sure, some water is > muddy and some water is clear, but not fresh and moving as the river > itself! > > Many people feel very alive when they experience intense hatred. And > if we try to find love looking into past experiences or future > expectations, then that love will be shoddy and shallow. Hatred > however, will feel alive even though it cannot appear other than as a > reaction to past experiences or future expectations. Thus the thinking > mind can 'produce' hate more easily than conditional love with same > feeling of 'aliveness'. But both conditional love and hate are > contaminated by fear. > > al. > > > > > > ** > > 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 April 13, 2005 Report Share Posted April 13, 2005 The 'thinking mind' is YOU, Anders, There is no YOU which is thinking, there is no thinker. Werner Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Ramanath, Murali H \(GE > Healthcare\) " <Murali.Ramanath@g...> wrote: > > u r going in the " GOOD WAY " by saying what is " LOVE " AND THE " BAD WAY " > > by saying what is hatred. > > Try the third way - stop defining and expecting love. > > then all trying & discussion stops ... > > > > > > Maybe you are correct. But wouldn't that form of trying still be the > 'good way'? But I agree we have to try to come more into the present > moment, because that's where the action is. There is no action in the > future. The real future will aways come as now. > > For the thinking mind, the third way (into the now) is really > horrible. What is there for the thinking mind to do without past and > future? For the thinking mind, its own future is more important than > the real future (which always comes as now). > > al. > > > > > > > > > anders_lindman [anders_lindman] > > Tuesday, April 12, 2005 8:14 PM > > Nisargadatta > > What is love? > > > > > > > > True love has nothing to do with time. Hate has to do with time. > > Without the mental projection called time there cannot be any hate. > > The same with conditional 'love'. When we _think_ about something or > > someone we love, we are only looking at our own memories and > > projections. Conditional love is the shadow, or the past imprint of > > true love. Past moments of true love has been stamped into our memory > > and what we are looking at in conditional love is those past imprints. > > Life is always flowing, and if we look for love in our memories we > > will only find something not flowing. We try to preserve a flowing > > river by collecting some buckets of its water. And sure, some water is > > muddy and some water is clear, but not fresh and moving as the river > > itself! > > > > Many people feel very alive when they experience intense hatred. And > > if we try to find love looking into past experiences or future > > expectations, then that love will be shoddy and shallow. Hatred > > however, will feel alive even though it cannot appear other than as a > > reaction to past experiences or future expectations. Thus the thinking > > mind can 'produce' hate more easily than conditional love with same > > feeling of 'aliveness'. But both conditional love and hate are > > contaminated by fear. > > > > al. > > > > > > > > > > > > ** > > > > 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 April 13, 2005 Report Share Posted April 13, 2005 anders_lindman [anders_lindman] Wednesday, April 13, 2005 12:36 PM Nisargadatta Re: What is love? Nisargadatta , " Ramanath, Murali H \(GE Healthcare\) " <Murali.Ramanath@g...> wrote: > u r going in the " GOOD WAY " by saying what is " LOVE " AND THE " BAD WAY " > by saying what is hatred. > Try the third way - stop defining and expecting love. > then all trying & discussion stops ... > > Maybe you are correct. But wouldn't that form of trying still be the 'good way'? >> This trying is actually effortless trying... It is like reading Maharajs books - u read the book.. after that u read no further ...for u have understood " Who is the subject ?? " ...then u will forget abt the subject in the book... >> But I agree we have to try to come more into the present moment, because that's where the action is. There is no action in the future. The real future will aways come as now. For the thinking mind, the third way (into the now) is really horrible. What is there for the thinking mind to do without past and future? For the thinking mind, its own future is more important than the real future (which always comes as now). al. > > > > anders_lindman [anders_lindman] > Tuesday, April 12, 2005 8:14 PM > Nisargadatta > What is love? > > > > True love has nothing to do with time. Hate has to do with time. > Without the mental projection called time there cannot be any hate. > The same with conditional 'love'. When we _think_ about something or > someone we love, we are only looking at our own memories and > projections. Conditional love is the shadow, or the past imprint of > true love. Past moments of true love has been stamped into our memory > and what we are looking at in conditional love is those past imprints. > Life is always flowing, and if we look for love in our memories we > will only find something not flowing. We try to preserve a flowing > river by collecting some buckets of its water. And sure, some water is > muddy and some water is clear, but not fresh and moving as the river > itself! > > Many people feel very alive when they experience intense hatred. And > if we try to find love looking into past experiences or future > expectations, then that love will be shoddy and shallow. Hatred > however, will feel alive even though it cannot appear other than as a > reaction to past experiences or future expectations. Thus the thinking > mind can 'produce' hate more easily than conditional love with same > feeling of 'aliveness'. But both conditional love and hate are > contaminated by fear. > > al. > > > > > > ** > > 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 April 13, 2005 Report Share Posted April 13, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > > The 'thinking mind' is YOU, Anders, > > There is no YOU which is thinking, there is no thinker. > > Werner Thinking is more like a part than a whole person. The thinking must blend into the heart and into the whole field of awareness, both within the body and outside the body. The whole person must relax and become balanced into the now. al. > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Ramanath, Murali H \(GE > > Healthcare\) " <Murali.Ramanath@g...> wrote: > > > u r going in the " GOOD WAY " by saying what is " LOVE " AND > THE " BAD WAY " > > > by saying what is hatred. > > > Try the third way - stop defining and expecting love. > > > then all trying & discussion stops ... > > > > > > > > > > Maybe you are correct. But wouldn't that form of trying still be the > > 'good way'? But I agree we have to try to come more into the present > > moment, because that's where the action is. There is no action in > the > > future. The real future will aways come as now. > > > > For the thinking mind, the third way (into the now) is really > > horrible. What is there for the thinking mind to do without past and > > future? For the thinking mind, its own future is more important than > > the real future (which always comes as now). > > > > al. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > anders_lindman [anders_lindman] > > > Tuesday, April 12, 2005 8:14 PM > > > Nisargadatta > > > What is love? > > > > > > > > > > > > True love has nothing to do with time. Hate has to do with time. > > > Without the mental projection called time there cannot be any > hate. > > > The same with conditional 'love'. When we _think_ about something > or > > > someone we love, we are only looking at our own memories and > > > projections. Conditional love is the shadow, or the past imprint > of > > > true love. Past moments of true love has been stamped into our > memory > > > and what we are looking at in conditional love is those past > imprints. > > > Life is always flowing, and if we look for love in our memories we > > > will only find something not flowing. We try to preserve a flowing > > > river by collecting some buckets of its water. And sure, some > water is > > > muddy and some water is clear, but not fresh and moving as the > river > > > itself! > > > > > > Many people feel very alive when they experience intense hatred. > And > > > if we try to find love looking into past experiences or future > > > expectations, then that love will be shoddy and shallow. Hatred > > > however, will feel alive even though it cannot appear other than > as a > > > reaction to past experiences or future expectations. Thus the > thinking > > > mind can 'produce' hate more easily than conditional love with > same > > > feeling of 'aliveness'. But both conditional love and hate are > > > contaminated by fear. > > > > > > al. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ** > > > > > > 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 April 13, 2005 Report Share Posted April 13, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Ramanath, Murali H \(GE Healthcare\) " <Murali.Ramanath@g...> wrote: > > > > anders_lindman [anders_lindman] > Wednesday, April 13, 2005 12:36 PM > Nisargadatta > Re: What is love? > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Ramanath, Murali H \(GE > Healthcare\) " <Murali.Ramanath@g...> wrote: > > u r going in the " GOOD WAY " by saying what is " LOVE " AND THE " BAD WAY " > > by saying what is hatred. > > Try the third way - stop defining and expecting love. > > then all trying & discussion stops ... > > > > > > Maybe you are correct. But wouldn't that form of trying still be the > 'good way'? > >> This trying is actually effortless trying... > It is like reading Maharajs books - u read the book.. after that u read no further ...for u have understood > " Who is the subject ?? " ...then u will forget abt the subject in the book... This understanding you describe, it is more like a sense of being than some bits of knowledge I imagine. al. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 13, 2005 Report Share Posted April 13, 2005 Hi Werner, thank you for your statement. I have tried to understand the meaning of it. Since I accept that you are an " authority " in this group, I even more feel obliged to get to the bottom of this rather unconventional sentence. You write: " The 'thinking mind' is YOU, Anders, There is no YOU which is thinking, there is no thinker. " The first half is quite plain and I can draw from it two statements: A1.The mind thinks ( " thinking mind " ). A2.That thinking mind is identic with YOU. From those clearly follow: A3: The " YOU " = " the thinking mind " . And: A4: the " YOU " is " thinking " . Up to this point I can follow. But I cannot follow the second statement, which is exactly contradicting the first statement, IMO. B1.There is NO you which is thinking. (This is contradicting A2, where you have defined " YOU " as the " thinking mind " ) B2.There is no thinker. (This contradicts A1 and A2, where you have stated that the you = the mind is " thinking " , which means that the " YOU/MIND " is the thinker). Basically I have the feeling that you present two different, contradictory models of thinking. I have difficulties to understand how they can be seen as parts of one idea. I have to add, Werner, that my questioning is honest, I dont want to fight against you as an authority figure. I - sadly - have to add this " disclaimer " because some people, you included, seem to interprete my attempts to approach truth through dialog in this way. But really I am eager to hear what you have to say. But never mind, if your description was not meant seriously or was just a spontaneous momentary mental aberration I will understand if you would prefer not to discuss this any further. Respectfully Stefan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 13, 2005 Report Share Posted April 13, 2005 - Ramanath, Murali H (GE Healthcare) Nisargadatta Wednesday, April 13, 2005 2:08 AM RE: What is love? u r going in the " GOOD WAY " by saying what is " LOVE " AND THE " BAD WAY " by saying what is hatred. Try the third way - stop defining and expecting love. then all trying & discussion stops ... anders_lindman [anders_lindman] Tuesday, April 12, 2005 8:14 PM Nisargadatta What is love? True love has nothing to do with time. Hate has to do with time. Without the mental projection called time there cannot be any hate. The same with conditional 'love'. When we _think_ about something or someone we love, we are only looking at our own memories and projections. Conditional love is the shadow, or the past imprint of true love. Past moments of true love has been stamped into our memory and what we are looking at in conditional love is those past imprints. Life is always flowing, and if we look for love in our memories we will only find something not flowing. We try to preserve a flowing river by collecting some buckets of its water. And sure, some water is muddy and some water is clear, but not fresh and moving as the river itself! Many people feel very alive when they experience intense hatred. And if we try to find love looking into past experiences or future expectations, then that love will be shoddy and shallow. Hatred however, will feel alive even though it cannot appear other than as a reaction to past experiences or future expectations. Thus the thinking mind can 'produce' hate more easily than conditional love with same feeling of 'aliveness'. But both conditional love and hate are contaminated by fear. al. A bubble bursts..... and sees its first Sunrise.... flying as a Bird.........at first the body is very heavy........ love, Anna ** 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 April 13, 2005 Report Share Posted April 13, 2005 Hi Stefan, 1. That I am an authority in this group is a statement of Pete (maybe aimed at to bring me in troubles with people like you in order from now on being left in peace by you himself because you have foud a new target for your crooked way of having discussions). 2. Your affirming that your post is meant honest imputes that I see you as dishonest. But I affirm you I am not interested in you honesty because I already know that you are not able to be honest, ha ha ha ha. 3. I am not interested in a discussion with you. Werner Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@c...> wrote: > > Hi Werner, > > thank you for your statement. I have tried to understand the meaning > of it. Since I accept that you are an " authority " in this group, I > even more feel obliged to get to the bottom of this rather > unconventional sentence. > > You write: > > " The 'thinking mind' is YOU, Anders, > There is no YOU which is thinking, there is no thinker. " > > The first half is quite plain and I can draw from it two statements: > > A1.The mind thinks ( " thinking mind " ). > A2.That thinking mind is identic with YOU. > > From those clearly follow: > A3: The " YOU " = " the thinking mind " . And: > A4: the " YOU " is " thinking " . > > Up to this point I can follow. But I cannot follow the second > statement, which is exactly contradicting the first statement, IMO. > > B1.There is NO you which is thinking. (This is contradicting A2, where > you have defined " YOU " as the " thinking mind " ) > > B2.There is no thinker. (This contradicts A1 and A2, where you have > stated that the you = the mind is " thinking " , which means that the > " YOU/MIND " is the thinker). > > Basically I have the feeling that you present two different, > contradictory models of thinking. I have difficulties to understand > how they can be seen as parts of one idea. > > I have to add, Werner, that my questioning is honest, I dont want to > fight against you as an authority figure. I - sadly - have to add this > " disclaimer " because some people, you included, seem to interprete my > attempts to approach truth through dialog in this way. But really I am > eager to hear what you have to say. But never mind, if your > description was not meant seriously or was just a spontaneous > momentary mental aberration I will understand if you would prefer not > to discuss this any further. > > Respectfully > Stefan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 13, 2005 Report Share Posted April 13, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Anna Ruiz " <nli10u@c...> wrote: > > - > Ramanath, Murali H (GE Healthcare) > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, April 13, 2005 2:08 AM > RE: What is love? > > > u r going in the " GOOD WAY " by saying what is " LOVE " AND THE " BAD WAY " > by saying what is hatred. > Try the third way - stop defining and expecting love. > then all trying & discussion stops ... > > > > > > anders_lindman [anders_lindman] > Tuesday, April 12, 2005 8:14 PM > Nisargadatta > What is love? > > > > True love has nothing to do with time. Hate has to do with time. > Without the mental projection called time there cannot be any hate. > The same with conditional 'love'. When we _think_ about something or > someone we love, we are only looking at our own memories and > projections. Conditional love is the shadow, or the past imprint of > true love. Past moments of true love has been stamped into our memory > and what we are looking at in conditional love is those past imprints. > Life is always flowing, and if we look for love in our memories we > will only find something not flowing. We try to preserve a flowing > river by collecting some buckets of its water. And sure, some water is > muddy and some water is clear, but not fresh and moving as the river > itself! > > Many people feel very alive when they experience intense hatred. And > if we try to find love looking into past experiences or future > expectations, then that love will be shoddy and shallow. Hatred > however, will feel alive even though it cannot appear other than as a > reaction to past experiences or future expectations. Thus the thinking > mind can 'produce' hate more easily than conditional love with same > feeling of 'aliveness'. But both conditional love and hate are > contaminated by fear. > > al. > > > A bubble bursts..... > and sees its first Sunrise.... flying as a Bird.........at first the body is very heavy........ > > love, > > Anna > And so the God-force shines, from your heart lifting you up higher and higher Where are you now? Suspended in the eternal light of redemtion Between heaven and hell... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 13, 2005 Report Share Posted April 13, 2005 - anders_lindman Nisargadatta Wednesday, April 13, 2005 7:30 AM Re: What is love? Nisargadatta , " Anna Ruiz " <nli10u@c...> wrote: > > - > Ramanath, Murali H (GE Healthcare) > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, April 13, 2005 2:08 AM > RE: What is love? > > > u r going in the " GOOD WAY " by saying what is " LOVE " AND THE " BAD WAY " > by saying what is hatred. > Try the third way - stop defining and expecting love. > then all trying & discussion stops ... > > > > > > anders_lindman [anders_lindman] > Tuesday, April 12, 2005 8:14 PM > Nisargadatta > What is love? > > > > True love has nothing to do with time. Hate has to do with time. > Without the mental projection called time there cannot be any hate. > The same with conditional 'love'. When we _think_ about something or > someone we love, we are only looking at our own memories and > projections. Conditional love is the shadow, or the past imprint of > true love. Past moments of true love has been stamped into our memory > and what we are looking at in conditional love is those past imprints. > Life is always flowing, and if we look for love in our memories we > will only find something not flowing. We try to preserve a flowing > river by collecting some buckets of its water. And sure, some water is > muddy and some water is clear, but not fresh and moving as the river > itself! > > Many people feel very alive when they experience intense hatred. And > if we try to find love looking into past experiences or future > expectations, then that love will be shoddy and shallow. Hatred > however, will feel alive even though it cannot appear other than as a > reaction to past experiences or future expectations. Thus the thinking > mind can 'produce' hate more easily than conditional love with same > feeling of 'aliveness'. But both conditional love and hate are > contaminated by fear. > > al. > > > A bubble bursts..... > and sees its first Sunrise.... flying as a Bird.........at first the body is very heavy........ > > love, > > Anna > And so the God-force shines, from your heart lifting you up higher and higher Where are you now? Suspended in the eternal light of redemtion Between heaven and hell... and if one would speak: ---it is well and good... This is enough.....in gratitude. ** 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 April 13, 2005 Report Share Posted April 13, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > >Hi Stefan, > >1. >That I am an authority in this group is a statement of Pete (maybe >aimed at to bring me in troubles with people like you in order from >now on being left in peace by you himself because you have foud a >new target for your crooked way of having discussions). Hi Werner! I know that it was Petes statement. It made me think and I wish to show you that I am treating you as respectfully as I would like to be treated. I am once more surprised how harsh you are reacting upon some objective questions. I do not want to force you into a discussion. But as long as I am receiving your emails from an open list I feel it is appropriate to post comments. If you refuse to react then this speaks for itself, but it certainly is not received with any kind of mockery here. It was not my intention to prove someone wrong or right. I just pointed my finger to which might be one of your blind spots. If it leads to that I can see one of my own blind spots... the better. The only meaningful reason we are here is, as I can see, to help each other. >2. >Your affirming that your post is meant honest imputes that I see you >as dishonest. But I affirm you I am not interested in you honesty >because I already know that you are not able to be honest, ha ha ha >ha. At the moment my humor and ability to lough has left, I hope it comes back in a minute. Ahhh... here it is again. Funny how serious a play can become. Yes... something seems to go on, emotionally. Believe me, I always try to be honest. But I guess I am not perfect. Maybe I am not " adult " in the sense you use this criteria. And maybe, you should also take this into consideration, you have misunderstood something. Your still and forever adolescent Stefan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 13, 2005 Report Share Posted April 13, 2005 Hi Stefan, Why do you bother at all if others see you as honest or not ? You cannot change their view of you. Its all a question of the courage to be alone. If you really could be alone then maybe you also can see that all that babbling about love, compassion and beauty is just a means to make oneself attractive and highly acceptable - as an artist you already have learned how to be your own advertising agency. Werner Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@c...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> > wrote: > > > >Hi Stefan, > > > >1. > >That I am an authority in this group is a statement of Pete (maybe > >aimed at to bring me in troubles with people like you in order from > >now on being left in peace by you himself because you have foud a > >new target for your crooked way of having discussions). > > Hi Werner! > > I know that it was Petes statement. It made me think and I wish to > show you that I am treating you as respectfully as I would like to be > treated. I am once more surprised how harsh you are reacting upon some > objective questions. > > I do not want to force you into a discussion. But as long as I am > receiving your emails from an open list I feel it is appropriate to > post comments. If you refuse to react then this speaks for itself, but > it certainly is not received with any kind of mockery here. It was not > my intention to prove someone wrong or right. I just pointed my finger > to which might be one of your blind spots. If it leads to that I can > see one of my own blind spots... the better. The only meaningful > reason we are here is, as I can see, to help each other. > > >2. > >Your affirming that your post is meant honest imputes that I see you > >as dishonest. But I affirm you I am not interested in you honesty > >because I already know that you are not able to be honest, ha ha ha > >ha. > > At the moment my humor and ability to lough has left, I hope it comes > back in a minute. > > Ahhh... here it is again. Funny how serious a play can become. Yes... > something seems to go on, emotionally. Believe me, I always try to be > honest. But I guess I am not perfect. Maybe I am not " adult " in the > sense you use this criteria. And maybe, you should also take this into > consideration, you have misunderstood something. > > Your still and forever adolescent > Stefan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 13, 2005 Report Share Posted April 13, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > >Hi Stefan, > >Why do you bother at all if others see you as honest or not ? You >cannot change their view of you. Its all a question of the courage to >be alone. Hi Werner, I do not bother, I have no problem. But if someone calls me a " liar " I react, wouldn't you? In my eyes it takes more courage to open up and to relate... especially when old scars are still hurting. >If you really could be alone then maybe you also can see that all >that babbling about love, compassion and beauty is just a means to >make oneself attractive and highly acceptable - as an artist you >already have learned how to be your own advertising agency. Haha, yes, I see what you mean. I certainly enjoy the feeling to be attractive, this is true. I can also see now that this is partly a motivation behind my postings, so thanks for sharing this. I only wonder, do you feel that this is something bad or reprehensible? Is it not most natural and even helpful? Or do you believe it creates suffering. At the moment I dont see it this way. I often think: if only those who feel jealous could see how beautiful they are. Greetings Stefan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 13, 2005 Report Share Posted April 13, 2005 Ok Stefan, You have no problems with others seeing you as dishonest ? In this case I think you are a liar. And ok you enjoy being attractive. You are hooked to that joy, right ? The whole thing is a social dependency - the path of youth and adolescence. How old are you, between 3 and 35 ? Question: Are you enjoying those downs too when you are getting rejected ? Or have you found a way of perfect self deception no longer realizing when getting rejected ? You know that old song ? It goes like: Super duper, trying hard to look like Gary Cooper. Werner Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@c...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> > wrote: > > > >Hi Stefan, > > > >Why do you bother at all if others see you as honest or not ? You > >cannot change their view of you. Its all a question of the courage > to > >be alone. > > Hi Werner, > > I do not bother, I have no problem. But if someone calls me a " liar " I > react, wouldn't you? In my eyes it takes more courage to open up and > to relate... especially when old scars are still hurting. > > >If you really could be alone then maybe you also can see that all > >that babbling about love, compassion and beauty is just a means to > >make oneself attractive and highly acceptable - as an artist you > >already have learned how to be your own advertising agency. > > Haha, yes, I see what you mean. I certainly enjoy the feeling to be > attractive, this is true. I can also see now that this is partly a > motivation behind my postings, so thanks for sharing this. I only > wonder, do you feel that this is something bad or reprehensible? Is it > not most natural and even helpful? Or do you believe it creates > suffering. At the moment I dont see it this way. I often think: if > only those who feel jealous could see how beautiful they are. > > Greetings > Stefan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 13, 2005 Report Share Posted April 13, 2005 In a message dated 4/13/05 2:18:25 PM, wwoehr writes: > ndeed Pete, > > It is a contradiction on one hand having a big mouth like I > definitely do and on the other denying being an authority. > > But it is definitely not a good idea consciously acting like an > authority because that makes one self-conscious and is a hindrance > for a freely flowing big mouth > > Werner > P: True! That is the 2nd paragraph ! > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 13, 2005 Report Share Posted April 13, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > >Ok Stefan, > >You have no problems with others seeing you as dishonest ? In this >case I think you are a liar. Shure, I might have such problems, I never said I dont have. But I have no problem when you say you think I am a liar. It only makes me wonder what brought you there. >And ok you enjoy being attractive. You are hooked to that joy, >right ? The whole thing is a social dependency - the path of youth >and adolescence. How old are you, between 3 and 35 ? I experience: it is enjoyable to attract. You did not answer my question: do you feel that this is something bad or reprehensible? I am not " hooked " to it. Rejection is as normal as attraction. I would be hooked to attraction if I would avoid it out of fear to be rejected. And I dont get your argument about age. Do you believe someone below 35 is less valuable than someone above? If I look at the ad-clips in TV the opposite seems to be the case. >Question: Are you enjoying those downs too when you are getting >rejected ? Or have you found a way of perfect self deception no >longer realizing when getting rejected ? I do accept rejections as a normal part of social interaction. It happens all the time. Sometimes I enjoy them (so it was a lot of fun when Pete " rejected " me). In other cases it does not touch me. But there have been events in my life when a rejection has hurt me very deeply, and those were most important lessons to learn. But to be creative, as a writer, a musician, a dancer... I feel behind those is the life force itself which naturally wants to attract. This is not dependent on appreciation, appreciation is inherent in the act itself. All that said, this is my personal experience. I dont know about you. What drive is behind the act of posting here, for you? What do you want to show, to express, to gain? For example, what did you want to show when you suggested that I am hooked to attraction? Are you hooked to attraction or do you want to find out more about it. Or do you want to look better than me and suggest WERNER is not hooked to attraction? ;-) And what was the drive behind your emotional reaction to my posting where I had questioned your opinion about " the thinking mind " ? Should we not better talk about this, instead of rather meaningless and funny posing? >You know that old song ? It goes like: Super duper, trying hard to >look like Gary Cooper. Yes I remember. It has an ironic tone, doesnt it? So, I think this kind of irony is a good way to get a more distant view onto those normal, human, worldly aspects of our lifes. I do not believe that we both are much different... Greetings Stefan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 13, 2005 Report Share Posted April 13, 2005 Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: >P:LOL. Don't be chicken, Werner, accept the mantle of authority. What does it mean? Nothing more that you speak with certainty, that you don't say: " In my opinion, or I think, or I believe. It means that you mean what you write, and you don't care if others think you are right or wrong. As far as being a target, that's nothing new to me.I have been a target all my life. People have even aimed real bullets my way, yet my big mouth is still flapping. ) Wow, Pete, this is the right attitude. This sounds much better to my ears than " teacher " and " anti-teacher " and sitting back and meditating about all that before we dare to write a word. Let the bullets fly... we do not let our mouth be shut by some half dead know-it-all. Only one thing: who likes to shoot must also take a bullet like a man... you know what I mean. Salute Stefan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 13, 2005 Report Share Posted April 13, 2005 Indeed Pete, It is a contradiction on one hand having a big mouth like I definitely do and on the other denying being an authority. But it is definitely not a good idea consciously acting like an authority because that makes one self-conscious and is a hindrance for a freely flowing big mouth Werner Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > > In a message dated 4/13/05 9:32:27 AM, wwoehr@p... writes: > > > > That I am an authority in this group is a statement of Pete (maybe > > > >aimed at to bring me in troubles with people like you in order from > > > >now on being left in peace by you himself because you have foud a > > > >new target for your crooked way of having discussions). > > > > > > > P: LOL. Don't be chicken, Werner, accept the mantle of authority. > What does > it mean? Nothing more that you speak with certainty, that you > don't say: > " In my opinion, or I think, or I believe. It means that you mean > what you > write, and you don't care if others think you are right or > wrong. As far as being > a target, that's nothing new to me. I have been a target all > my life. > People have even aimed real bullets my way, yet my big mouth is > still flapping. ) > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 13, 2005 Report Share Posted April 13, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > >Indeed Pete, > >It is a contradiction on one hand having a big mouth like I >definitely do and on the other denying being an authority. Oh boy, this you would call a big mouth? You should come to my area, there you can hear some real big mouth. Your mouth I would call a rather complicated little mouth :-) >But it is definitely not a good idea consciously acting like an >authority because that makes one self-conscious and is a hindrance >for a freely flowing big mouth I tell you what is the hindrance for your mouth to freely flow: it is your lack of spontaneity. I tell you, you are the greatest authority of the world, and moreover, in your own words: you are the mind, there is no you. So, what do you have to lose? S. 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.