Guest guest Posted January 2, 2006 Report Share Posted January 2, 2006 On Jan 2, 2006, at 2:44 AM, Nisargadatta wrote: > Hi Pete, > > Your assumption that according to you Larry apparently CAN and DOES > " believe that words of others can insult " , also speaks to the > conclusion that you - possibly underhandedly and possibly unbeknownst > to you - also still believe that very same belief, the only difference > being that you may profess not to be affected by that belief, thus > being uninsultable or some such. P;: Wim, good to see you here! Glad to see you are getting brave in your old age! Posting here is an act of bravado for you, since your nemesis is here, and she can sure push your bottoms, Did Hur assure you that she was gone? What you say above is your usual pseudo-psychological BS. To say such, is as fallacious as to say that for me to see that someone owns a dog, I must somehow own a dog too. There was a time I could be insulted by words, but I could be free of that delusion, and see it in others. > W: That is not at all the same though as having " dropped the belief " > altogether. When the belief is dropped radically altogether, suddenly > a deep insight into suffering and insult results... an insight > accompanied and exemplified by what we tend to recognize as > 'compassion' in bodhisattvic beings. P: Is that so? And are you implying you have become such bodhisattvic compassionate being? I do feel compassion for people who suffer unnecessarily, and I try to help, even when helps annoys them and is resented, and they think of me as a sadistic asshole, but that doesn't mean I consider myself a bodhisattva. A bodhisattva is just another silly ideal. > > W: Hence, Pete, might it not be good to inquire for yourself if you > yourself have actually really fully " dug, " applied and realized your > own statement that " all beliefs must be dropped to become 'What is'?! P: Wim, I consider certain ideas useful as hypothesis, hypothesis become beliefs when considered true, or as a representation of reality. I'm not that vain to think my ideas are so large they could embrace reality. > > W: Of course the statement " ...to BECOME 'What is'... " is in itself > somewhat flawed, you might as well also inquire into that also. > > Obviously one cannot " ...become 'what is'... " , one just simply > recognizes that 'what is' is already. Hence 'tat tuam asi' & 'tat sat'. P: Picking on words, Wm? We always speak metaphorically, and people always attack the metaphorically cape and ignore the bullfighter ( that which the metaphor points too) > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 4, 2006 Report Share Posted January 4, 2006 Nisargadatta , Pete S <pedsie4@e...> wrote: > P: Wim, good to see you here! Glad to see you are getting > brave in your old age! Posting here is an act of bravado for you, > since your nemesis is here, and she can sure push your bottoms, > Did Hur assure you that she was gone? Many assumptions you are making here Pete None of them bearing any resemblance to what is actually the case. > P: What you say above is your usual pseudo-psychological BS. And that is of course your usual way of deflecting. > P: To say such, is as fallacious as to say that for me to see that > someone owns a dog, I must somehow own a dog too. There > was a time I could be insulted by words, but I could be free of > that delusion, and see it in others. What I'm saying is subtler than how you preferred to have understood what I wrote to you. > > W: That is not at all the same though as having " dropped the > > belief " altogether. When the belief is dropped radically > > altogether, suddenly a deep insight into suffering and insult > > results... an insight accompanied and exemplified by what we tend > > to recognize as 'compassion' in bodhisattvic beings. > P: Is that so? Now that you are asking..., Yes it is! :-) > P: And are you implying you have become such bodhisattvic > compassionate being? One cannot BECOME a 'bodhisattvic compassionate' being, one discovers that one is... > P: I do feel compassion for people who suffer *unnecessarily*,... Notice your use of the word " unnecessarily " ! Does that mean that you see some kind of necessity in suffering for others, those who - in your possible view - may have run into it 'rightfully', somewhat 'deservedly'? If you mean that, that might come dangerously close to something called 'Schaden Freude' Hmmm, suffering and pain... Pain... Whereas pain could be used to some positive advantage - the body can learn that way, people can learn that way, animals can - there are ways to learn though without the affliction of pain. Suffering... Suffering though is NOT the same as pain. Suffering is actually totally unnecessary, that's why we CAN be free from it. ('moksha' from 'dukkha'). Pain is a different matter, we cannot be free from it, pain is one of the conditions of life. About suffering though, there is no merit in suffering, except... in some perverted way (and there it is!) for the meritous gain to the person who has subjected someone to suffering. (By now you might have expected me to say something along the lines of what you just read. > P: I do feel compassion for people who suffer unnecessarily,... Hmmm, compassion... Where half an apple is still apple, I suggest that the same may not so for compassion... Something like pregnancy, one cannot be half pregnant or a little... Compassion is either fully unconditional or it is something that only carries the label but is not the genuine thing. What you are talking about is a 'c o n d i t i o n a l' sentiment! > P: I do feel compassion for people who suffer unnecessarily, and I > try to help, even when helps annoys them and is resented, and they > think of me as a sadistic asshole, but that doesn't mean I consider > myself a bodhisattva. A bodhisattva is just another silly ideal. Did you ever try to understand what the notion of 'bodhisattva' really entails? Why keep resorting to a stance showing your habitual skepticism and/or reactivity? At any rate, bodhisattvic characteristics are not about the popularized notions of bodhisattva-hood that one reads or hears so much about, e.g the 'Bodhisattva Vow', the 'Nirvana can wait' type of thing, etc. If those flawed understandings do anything, they only support 'quasi-compassion'. The conditionality of such sentiments is a clear sign of their 'quasi-ness'. A 'half truth' being the most perplexing form of a lie, maybe the same can be said about quasi-compassion... It is not hard to find out what the motivation behind quasi-compassion is and it also quite understandable why and how it develops. It is also not too hard to see how it is perused - by whom and to whom. Unfortunately it is too often gloated about by 'the one' and unfairly suffered from by 'the other'. One could say that quasi-compassion is stamped into one side of the same coin, on which suffering/illusion is stamped into the other side. Quasi-compassion and suffering/illusion go hand in hand, the one manipulates the other and... unfortunately the 'perused' has learned from the 'peruser' how to reciprocate through reverse manipulation. Those who see some meritous value in suffering are very often also the ones who dole out their own personal brand of compassion, especially when... especially when they expect pay-offs on their investment in the game of power and subversion, dominance and dependence. The wheels of pseudo-life are well greased by those illusive and deluding maneuvers. Once the workings of 'dominance/dependence' manipulations are seen (there are mild forms of it and one may need to look carefully) and looked through - inspected with clarity (vipassana) - and once one has worked at an understanding of the potentially mala fide mechanics of them, they will gently and slowly disappear while the obfuscating veils of their illusiveness dissolve. Illusion being illusive anyway, it CAN easily dissolve. Only the seemingly real appearance of it in a dysfunctioning mental pseudo-reality makes illusion look more real than reality ('What is') itself. > > W: Hence, Pete, might it not be good to inquire for yourself if > > you yourself have actually really fully " dug, " applied and > > realized your own statement that " all beliefs must be dropped to > > become 'What is'?! > P: Wim, I consider certain ideas useful as hypothesis, hypothesis > become beliefs when considered true, or as a representation of > reality. I'm not that vain to think my ideas are so large they > could embrace reality. It has nothing much to do with vanity (or even humbleness), one either embraces reality or one is still - mildly or not - feeding into or feeding off illusion/suffering. > > W: Of course the statement " ...to BECOME 'What is'... " is in > > itself somewhat flawed, you might as well inquire into that also. > > Obviously one cannot " ...become 'what is'... " , one just simply > > recognizes that 'what is' is already. Hence 'tat tuam asi' & 'tat > > sat'. > P: Picking on words, Wm? :-) You can call me Wim (-: > We always speak metaphorically, and people always attack the > metaphorically cape and ignore the bullfighter (that which the > metaphor points too) That may often be true, and I like it when you respond that way when it IS applicable, but it seems that you have turned it into a handy but habitual rejoinder as your statement has in this case nothing to do with the topic at hand... that of being - in your own words! - 'What is'. Wim 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.