Guest guest Posted January 3, 2006 Report Share Posted January 3, 2006 In a message dated 1/3/2006 9:39:06 AM Pacific Standard Time, pedsie4 writes: > P: No. You are kidding yourself. Existence > itself can't be offended by words. It's > your inflated ego who gets offended. > L.E. I agree with the first and disagree with the second. And whose ego is speaking about an " inflated ego. " ? Ego is just another word for the individual self that feels and experiences everyday life. You are writing from ego, you are thinking from ego, yet you pretend that you are above, beyond, and invulnerable to ego. You are a fake. A self-important rude and insulting fraud. Larry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 3, 2006 Report Share Posted January 3, 2006 In a message dated 1/3/2006 10:53:33 AM Pacific Standard Time, wwoehr writes: > You called Pete an " rude and insulting " fraud. > > Can't you see that rude and insulting are qualities which totally > depend on the sensibility of the receiver and have nothing to do with > the sender ? > > btw, this is a very important topic ! > > Werner From the Absolute that is true. From the everyday ordinary experience it is not true. People have relationships with each other. In everyday life there is cause and effects. Each person is not an isolated thing inventing his own reality. Come back to earth moon-child. Larry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 3, 2006 Report Share Posted January 3, 2006 ....so clear... love Nisargadatta , epston@a... wrote: > > In a message dated 1/3/2006 9:39:06 AM Pacific Standard Time, > pedsie4@e... writes: > > > P: No. You are kidding yourself. Existence > > itself can't be offended by words. It's > > your inflated ego who gets offended. > > > > L.E. I agree with the first and disagree with the second. And whose ego is > speaking about an " inflated ego. " ? Ego is just another word for the > individual self that feels and experiences everyday life. You are writing from ego, > you are thinking from ego, yet you pretend that you are above, beyond, and > invulnerable to ego. You are a fake. A self-important rude and insulting fraud. > > Larry > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 3, 2006 Report Share Posted January 3, 2006 Larry, You called Pete an " rude and insulting " fraud. Can't you see that rude and insulting are qualities which totally depend on the sensibility of the receiver and have nothing to do with the sender ? btw, this is a very important topic ! Werner Nisargadatta , epston@a... wrote: > > In a message dated 1/3/2006 9:39:06 AM Pacific Standard Time, > pedsie4@e... writes: > > > P: No. You are kidding yourself. Existence > > itself can't be offended by words. It's > > your inflated ego who gets offended. > > > > L.E. I agree with the first and disagree with the second. And whose ego is > speaking about an " inflated ego. " ? Ego is just another word for the > individual self that feels and experiences everyday life. You are writing from ego, > you are thinking from ego, yet you pretend that you are above, beyond, and > invulnerable to ego. You are a fake. A self-important rude and insulting fraud. > > Larry > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 3, 2006 Report Share Posted January 3, 2006 Larry, I am taking you now very serious, please respect that: I see you as someone who honestly wants to get near or even unite with the Absolute. Therefore you cannot allow, for the sake of honesty, that you are vulnerable. When you feel insulted then by all means, do not fight the seeming attacker but see the root of vulnerability in the clashing between your ideals with reality which approached you in taking the form of an insulter, in this case as Pete. And you are not allowed to take in consideration or respect the standards of others who are vulnerable. You have to be radically strict on your path to be honest with yourself: NO VULNERABILITY. Werner Nisargadatta , epston@a... wrote: > > In a message dated 1/3/2006 10:53:33 AM Pacific Standard Time, > wwoehr@p... writes: > > > You called Pete an " rude and insulting " fraud. > > > > Can't you see that rude and insulting are qualities which totally > > depend on the sensibility of the receiver and have nothing to do with > > the sender ? > > > > btw, this is a very important topic ! > > > > Werner > > From the Absolute that is true. From the everyday ordinary experience it is > not true. > People have relationships with each other. In everyday life there is cause > and effects. Each person is not an isolated thing inventing his own reality. > Come back to earth moon-child. > > Larry > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 3, 2006 Report Share Posted January 3, 2006 An interesting post Werner. But I am puzzled by a connection you seem to make between honesty and " no vulnerability " . It seems to me, and by this I mean per my own experience, that honesty *requires* vulnerability. I don't have to be vulnerable to others, but I certainly must be so to myself. Otherwise, I am not being honest with myself. And honesty, as far as I am concerned, is really about honesty *with myself*. Bill Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > > Larry, > > I am taking you now very serious, please respect that: > > I see you as someone who honestly wants to get near or even unite > with the Absolute. Therefore you cannot allow, for the sake of > honesty, that you are vulnerable. > > When you feel insulted then by all means, do not fight the seeming > attacker but see the root of vulnerability in the clashing between > your ideals with reality which approached you in taking the form of > an insulter, in this case as Pete. > > And you are not allowed to take in consideration or respect the > standards of others who are vulnerable. You have to be radically > strict on your path to be honest with yourself: NO VULNERABILITY. > > Werner > > > Nisargadatta , epston@a... wrote: > > > > In a message dated 1/3/2006 10:53:33 AM Pacific Standard Time, > > wwoehr@p... writes: > > > > > You called Pete an " rude and insulting " fraud. > > > > > > Can't you see that rude and insulting are qualities which totally > > > depend on the sensibility of the receiver and have nothing to do > with > > > the sender ? > > > > > > btw, this is a very important topic ! > > > > > > Werner > > > > From the Absolute that is true. From the everyday ordinary > experience it is > > not true. > > People have relationships with each other. In everyday life there > is cause > > and effects. Each person is not an isolated thing inventing his own > reality. > > Come back to earth moon-child. > > > > Larry > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 3, 2006 Report Share Posted January 3, 2006 Can someone explain the meaning of the word 'projection' to me? I would look it up but I have to get ready for work now. If no one else here looks into it by the time I get back, I'll do the research myself. I figure it's an important word for some odd reason. " Silver " Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > > Larry, > > You called Pete an " rude and insulting " fraud. > > Can't you see that rude and insulting are qualities which totally > depend on the sensibility of the receiver and have nothing to do with > the sender ? > > btw, this is a very important topic ! > > Werner > > > Nisargadatta , epston@a... wrote: > > > > In a message dated 1/3/2006 9:39:06 AM Pacific Standard Time, > > pedsie4@e... writes: > > > > > P: No. You are kidding yourself. Existence > > > itself can't be offended by words. It's > > > your inflated ego who gets offended. > > > > > > > L.E. I agree with the first and disagree with the second. And > whose ego is > > speaking about an " inflated ego. " ? Ego is just another word for > the > > individual self that feels and experiences everyday life. You are > writing from ego, > > you are thinking from ego, yet you pretend that you are above, > beyond, and > > invulnerable to ego. You are a fake. A self-important rude and > insulting fraud. > > > > Larry > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 3, 2006 Report Share Posted January 3, 2006 Hi Siver, You could also look for 'transference' and 'counter-transference'. Werner Nisargadatta , " s_i_l_v_e_r1069 " <silver- 1069@h...> wrote: > > Can someone explain the meaning of the word 'projection' to me? I > would look it up but I have to get ready for work now. If no one > else here looks into it by the time I get back, I'll do the research > myself. I figure it's an important word for some odd reason. > > " Silver " > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> > wrote: > > > > Larry, > > > > You called Pete an " rude and insulting " fraud. > > > > Can't you see that rude and insulting are qualities which totally > > depend on the sensibility of the receiver and have nothing to do > with > > the sender ? > > > > btw, this is a very important topic ! > > > > Werner > > > > > > Nisargadatta , epston@a... wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 1/3/2006 9:39:06 AM Pacific Standard Time, > > > pedsie4@e... writes: > > > > > > > P: No. You are kidding yourself. Existence > > > > itself can't be offended by words. It's > > > > your inflated ego who gets offended. > > > > > > > > > > L.E. I agree with the first and disagree with the second. And > > whose ego is > > > speaking about an " inflated ego. " ? Ego is just another word for > > the > > > individual self that feels and experiences everyday life. You > are > > writing from ego, > > > you are thinking from ego, yet you pretend that you are above, > > beyond, and > > > invulnerable to ego. You are a fake. A self-important rude and > > insulting fraud. > > > > > > Larry > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 3, 2006 Report Share Posted January 3, 2006 Bill, You don't need honesty to be vulnerable but you need ideals which hurt (they produce tension) when meeting reality. The honesty you need is to confess that YOU (and therefore your ideals) are the source of vulnerability. Maybe the word vulnerability can cause some misunderstanding when you tend to substitute it with sensitivity (which I think you do). But I use it in this topic to talk about being hurtable because of being sensible and because one's self's security strategies get questioned. Werner Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illieusion@h...> wrote: > > An interesting post Werner. > But I am puzzled by a connection you seem to make > between honesty and " no vulnerability " . > > It seems to me, and by this I mean per my own experience, > that honesty *requires* vulnerability. I don't have to > be vulnerable to others, but I certainly must be so to > myself. Otherwise, I am not being honest with myself. > And honesty, as far as I am concerned, is really about > honesty *with myself*. > > Bill > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > > > > Larry, > > > > I am taking you now very serious, please respect that: > > > > I see you as someone who honestly wants to get near or even unite > > with the Absolute. Therefore you cannot allow, for the sake of > > honesty, that you are vulnerable. > > > > When you feel insulted then by all means, do not fight the seeming > > attacker but see the root of vulnerability in the clashing between > > your ideals with reality which approached you in taking the form of > > an insulter, in this case as Pete. > > > > And you are not allowed to take in consideration or respect the > > standards of others who are vulnerable. You have to be radically > > strict on your path to be honest with yourself: NO VULNERABILITY. > > > > Werner > > > > > > Nisargadatta , epston@a... wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 1/3/2006 10:53:33 AM Pacific Standard Time, > > > wwoehr@p... writes: > > > > > > > You called Pete an " rude and insulting " fraud. > > > > > > > > Can't you see that rude and insulting are qualities which totally > > > > depend on the sensibility of the receiver and have nothing to do > > with > > > > the sender ? > > > > > > > > btw, this is a very important topic ! > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > From the Absolute that is true. From the everyday ordinary > > experience it is > > > not true. > > > People have relationships with each other. In everyday life there > > is cause > > > and effects. Each person is not an isolated thing inventing his own > > reality. > > > Come back to earth moon-child. > > > > > > Larry > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 3, 2006 Report Share Posted January 3, 2006 Thank you, Werner. I now have the time to do the research because I just decided to take the next few days off from work. Silver is officially on vacation, starting Now. One could say, " Now is a permanent vacation. " But, alas! Life has a way of projecting one back into the game of illusoriness and transiency. Recognizing the backdrop of permanency upon which this game is played certainly helps to put the rules to which the players must adhere into proper perspective. The psychoanalytic definition of classical or defensive 'projection' is the one I had in mind. Here's a link to a very pertinent article: http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~dewall/psp725980.pdf One must read it for himself. Enjoy! " Silver " Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > > Hi Siver, > > You could also look for 'transference' and 'counter-transference'. > > Werner > > > Nisargadatta , " s_i_l_v_e_r1069 " <silver- > 1069@h...> wrote: > > > > Can someone explain the meaning of the word 'projection' to me? I > > would look it up but I have to get ready for work now. If no one > > else here looks into it by the time I get back, I'll do the > research > > myself. I figure it's an important word for some odd reason. > > > > " Silver " > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> > > wrote: > > > > > > Larry, > > > > > > You called Pete an " rude and insulting " fraud. > > > > > > Can't you see that rude and insulting are qualities which totally > > > depend on the sensibility of the receiver and have nothing to do > > with > > > the sender ? > > > > > > btw, this is a very important topic ! > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , epston@a... wrote: > > > > > > > > In a message dated 1/3/2006 9:39:06 AM Pacific Standard Time, > > > > pedsie4@e... writes: > > > > > > > > > P: No. You are kidding yourself. Existence > > > > > itself can't be offended by words. It's > > > > > your inflated ego who gets offended. > > > > > > > > > > > > > L.E. I agree with the first and disagree with the second. And > > > whose ego is > > > > speaking about an " inflated ego. " ? Ego is just another word > for > > > the > > > > individual self that feels and experiences everyday life. You > > are > > > writing from ego, > > > > you are thinking from ego, yet you pretend that you are above, > > > beyond, and > > > > invulnerable to ego. You are a fake. A self-important rude and > > > insulting fraud. > > > > > > > > Larry > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 4, 2006 Report Share Posted January 4, 2006 Thank you too, Silver, It was the right link and as far as I could see pretty promising. Regarding the text of your post after 'alas!', sigh, I don't understand what you are writing of. Werner Nisargadatta , " s_i_l_v_e_r1069 " <silver- 1069@h...> wrote: > > Thank you, Werner. > > I now have the time to do the research because I just decided to take > the next few days off from work. Silver is officially on vacation, > starting Now. One could say, " Now is a permanent vacation. " But, > alas! Life has a way of projecting one back into the game of > illusoriness and transiency. Recognizing the backdrop of permanency > upon which this game is played certainly helps to put the rules to > which the players must adhere into proper perspective. > > The psychoanalytic definition of classical or defensive 'projection' > is the one I had in mind. > > Here's a link to a very pertinent article: > > http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~dewall/psp725980.pdf > > One must read it for himself. Enjoy! > > " Silver " > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> > wrote: > > > > Hi Siver, > > > > You could also look for 'transference' and 'counter-transference'. > > > > Werner > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " s_i_l_v_e_r1069 " <silver- > > 1069@h...> wrote: > > > > > > Can someone explain the meaning of the word 'projection' to me? > I > > > would look it up but I have to get ready for work now. If no one > > > else here looks into it by the time I get back, I'll do the > > research > > > myself. I figure it's an important word for some odd reason. > > > > > > " Silver " > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Larry, > > > > > > > > You called Pete an " rude and insulting " fraud. > > > > > > > > Can't you see that rude and insulting are qualities which > totally > > > > depend on the sensibility of the receiver and have nothing to > do > > > with > > > > the sender ? > > > > > > > > btw, this is a very important topic ! > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , epston@a... wrote: > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 1/3/2006 9:39:06 AM Pacific Standard Time, > > > > > pedsie4@e... writes: > > > > > > > > > > > P: No. You are kidding yourself. Existence > > > > > > itself can't be offended by words. It's > > > > > > your inflated ego who gets offended. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > L.E. I agree with the first and disagree with the second. > And > > > > whose ego is > > > > > speaking about an " inflated ego. " ? Ego is just another word > > for > > > > the > > > > > individual self that feels and experiences everyday life. > You > > > are > > > > writing from ego, > > > > > you are thinking from ego, yet you pretend that you are > above, > > > > beyond, and > > > > > invulnerable to ego. You are a fake. A self-important rude > and > > > > insulting fraud. > > > > > > > > > > Larry > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 4, 2006 Report Share Posted January 4, 2006 Thank you, Werner. So yes, you are using the term vulnerability in a different way. To check that I understand your usage, if one is " hurtable " (and I guess you mean here hurtable by insults, challenges to ones ideas, and so on, rather that hurtable in the sense of physical harm), then one is clinging to ideas. Is that correct? Bill > > Bill, > > You don't need honesty to be vulnerable but you need ideals which > hurt (they produce tension) when meeting reality. > > The honesty you need is to confess that YOU (and therefore your > ideals) are the source of vulnerability. > > Maybe the word vulnerability can cause some misunderstanding when you > tend to substitute it with sensitivity (which I think you do). But I > use it in this topic to talk about being hurtable because of being > sensible and because one's self's security strategies get questioned. > > Werner > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illieusion@h...> > wrote: > > > > An interesting post Werner. > > But I am puzzled by a connection you seem to make > > between honesty and " no vulnerability " . > > > > It seems to me, and by this I mean per my own experience, > > that honesty *requires* vulnerability. I don't have to > > be vulnerable to others, but I certainly must be so to > > myself. Otherwise, I am not being honest with myself. > > And honesty, as far as I am concerned, is really about > > honesty *with myself*. > > > > Bill > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> > wrote: > > > > > > Larry, > > > > > > I am taking you now very serious, please respect that: > > > > > > I see you as someone who honestly wants to get near or even unite > > > with the Absolute. Therefore you cannot allow, for the sake of > > > honesty, that you are vulnerable. > > > > > > When you feel insulted then by all means, do not fight the > seeming > > > attacker but see the root of vulnerability in the clashing > between > > > your ideals with reality which approached you in taking the form > of > > > an insulter, in this case as Pete. > > > > > > And you are not allowed to take in consideration or respect the > > > standards of others who are vulnerable. You have to be radically > > > strict on your path to be honest with yourself: NO VULNERABILITY. > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , epston@a... wrote: > > > > > > > > In a message dated 1/3/2006 10:53:33 AM Pacific Standard Time, > > > > wwoehr@p... writes: > > > > > > > > > You called Pete an " rude and insulting " fraud. > > > > > > > > > > Can't you see that rude and insulting are qualities which > totally > > > > > depend on the sensibility of the receiver and have nothing to > do > > > with > > > > > the sender ? > > > > > > > > > > btw, this is a very important topic ! > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > From the Absolute that is true. From the everyday ordinary > > > experience it is > > > > not true. > > > > People have relationships with each other. In everyday life > there > > > is cause > > > > and effects. Each person is not an isolated thing inventing his > own > > > reality. > > > > Come back to earth moon-child. > > > > > > > > Larry > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 4, 2006 Report Share Posted January 4, 2006 Correct, Bill, Werner Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illieusion@h...> wrote: > > Thank you, Werner. > > So yes, you are using the term vulnerability in a different > way. > > To check that I understand your usage, if one is " hurtable " > (and I guess you mean here hurtable by insults, challenges > to ones ideas, and so on, rather that hurtable in the sense > of physical harm), then one is clinging to ideas. > > Is that correct? > > Bill > > > > > > Bill, > > > > You don't need honesty to be vulnerable but you need ideals which > > hurt (they produce tension) when meeting reality. > > > > The honesty you need is to confess that YOU (and therefore your > > ideals) are the source of vulnerability. > > > > Maybe the word vulnerability can cause some misunderstanding when you > > tend to substitute it with sensitivity (which I think you do). But I > > use it in this topic to talk about being hurtable because of being > > sensible and because one's self's security strategies get questioned. > > > > Werner > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illieusion@h...> > > wrote: > > > > > > An interesting post Werner. > > > But I am puzzled by a connection you seem to make > > > between honesty and " no vulnerability " . > > > > > > It seems to me, and by this I mean per my own experience, > > > that honesty *requires* vulnerability. I don't have to > > > be vulnerable to others, but I certainly must be so to > > > myself. Otherwise, I am not being honest with myself. > > > And honesty, as far as I am concerned, is really about > > > honesty *with myself*. > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Larry, > > > > > > > > I am taking you now very serious, please respect that: > > > > > > > > I see you as someone who honestly wants to get near or even unite > > > > with the Absolute. Therefore you cannot allow, for the sake of > > > > honesty, that you are vulnerable. > > > > > > > > When you feel insulted then by all means, do not fight the > > seeming > > > > attacker but see the root of vulnerability in the clashing > > between > > > > your ideals with reality which approached you in taking the form > > of > > > > an insulter, in this case as Pete. > > > > > > > > And you are not allowed to take in consideration or respect the > > > > standards of others who are vulnerable. You have to be radically > > > > strict on your path to be honest with yourself: NO VULNERABILITY. > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , epston@a... wrote: > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 1/3/2006 10:53:33 AM Pacific Standard Time, > > > > > wwoehr@p... writes: > > > > > > > > > > > You called Pete an " rude and insulting " fraud. > > > > > > > > > > > > Can't you see that rude and insulting are qualities which > > totally > > > > > > depend on the sensibility of the receiver and have nothing to > > do > > > > with > > > > > > the sender ? > > > > > > > > > > > > btw, this is a very important topic ! > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > From the Absolute that is true. From the everyday ordinary > > > > experience it is > > > > > not true. > > > > > People have relationships with each other. In everyday life > > there > > > > is cause > > > > > and effects. Each person is not an isolated thing inventing his > > own > > > > reality. > > > > > Come back to earth moon-child. > > > > > > > > > > Larry > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 4, 2006 Report Share Posted January 4, 2006 Hi werner. I just finished reading the article I proposed for research and I found it long but quite informative. It seems that people who repress awareness of unfavorable character traits in themselves tend to see those very traits in others. An interesting study. Uh...never mind what I wrote after the " alas! " thing. After re- reading it, I myself can't really explain what I meant. Lol. C'est la vie! " Silver " Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > > Thank you too, Silver, > > It was the right link and as far as I could see pretty promising. > > Regarding the text of your post after 'alas!', sigh, I don't > understand what you are writing of. > > Werner > > > Nisargadatta , " s_i_l_v_e_r1069 " <silver- > 1069@h...> wrote: > > > > Thank you, Werner. > > > > I now have the time to do the research because I just decided to > take > > the next few days off from work. Silver is officially on vacation, > > starting Now. One could say, " Now is a permanent vacation. " But, > > alas! Life has a way of projecting one back into the game of > > illusoriness and transiency. Recognizing the backdrop of > permanency > > upon which this game is played certainly helps to put the rules to > > which the players must adhere into proper perspective. > > > > The psychoanalytic definition of classical or > defensive 'projection' > > is the one I had in mind. > > > > Here's a link to a very pertinent article: > > > > http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~dewall/psp725980.pdf > > > > One must read it for himself. Enjoy! > > > > " Silver " > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> > > wrote: > > > > > > Hi Siver, > > > > > > You could also look for 'transference' and 'counter- transference'. > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " s_i_l_v_e_r1069 " <silver- > > > 1069@h...> wrote: > > > > > > > > Can someone explain the meaning of the word 'projection' to > me? > > I > > > > would look it up but I have to get ready for work now. If no > one > > > > else here looks into it by the time I get back, I'll do the > > > research > > > > myself. I figure it's an important word for some odd reason. > > > > > > > > " Silver " > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " > <wwoehr@p...> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Larry, > > > > > > > > > > You called Pete an " rude and insulting " fraud. > > > > > > > > > > Can't you see that rude and insulting are qualities which > > totally > > > > > depend on the sensibility of the receiver and have nothing to > > do > > > > with > > > > > the sender ? > > > > > > > > > > btw, this is a very important topic ! > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , epston@a... wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 1/3/2006 9:39:06 AM Pacific Standard > Time, > > > > > > pedsie4@e... writes: > > > > > > > > > > > > > P: No. You are kidding yourself. Existence > > > > > > > itself can't be offended by words. It's > > > > > > > your inflated ego who gets offended. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > L.E. I agree with the first and disagree with the second. > > And > > > > > whose ego is > > > > > > speaking about an " inflated ego. " ? Ego is just another > word > > > for > > > > > the > > > > > > individual self that feels and experiences everyday life. > > You > > > > are > > > > > writing from ego, > > > > > > you are thinking from ego, yet you pretend that you are > > above, > > > > > beyond, and > > > > > > invulnerable to ego. You are a fake. A self-important rude > > and > > > > > insulting fraud. > > > > > > > > > > > > Larry > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 4, 2006 Report Share Posted January 4, 2006 To me, honesty means being fully transparent. If one makes the choice to live transparently, then one must also completely accept the possibility that one may not like everything he sees about himself or others. Living transparently means being vulnerable to the painful discovery of unwanted self/others-knowledge. On the other hand, the choice to live transparently should eventually nullify the pain with acceptance and understanding of it and render one invulnerable. The issue of vulnerability would then become a moot point. " Silver " Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illieusion@h...> wrote: > > An interesting post Werner. > But I am puzzled by a connection you seem to make > between honesty and " no vulnerability " . > > It seems to me, and by this I mean per my own experience, > that honesty *requires* vulnerability. I don't have to > be vulnerable to others, but I certainly must be so to > myself. Otherwise, I am not being honest with myself. > And honesty, as far as I am concerned, is really about > honesty *with myself*. > > Bill > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > > > > Larry, > > > > I am taking you now very serious, please respect that: > > > > I see you as someone who honestly wants to get near or even unite > > with the Absolute. Therefore you cannot allow, for the sake of > > honesty, that you are vulnerable. > > > > When you feel insulted then by all means, do not fight the seeming > > attacker but see the root of vulnerability in the clashing between > > your ideals with reality which approached you in taking the form of > > an insulter, in this case as Pete. > > > > And you are not allowed to take in consideration or respect the > > standards of others who are vulnerable. You have to be radically > > strict on your path to be honest with yourself: NO VULNERABILITY. > > > > Werner > > > > > > Nisargadatta , epston@a... wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 1/3/2006 10:53:33 AM Pacific Standard Time, > > > wwoehr@p... writes: > > > > > > > You called Pete an " rude and insulting " fraud. > > > > > > > > Can't you see that rude and insulting are qualities which totally > > > > depend on the sensibility of the receiver and have nothing to do > > with > > > > the sender ? > > > > > > > > btw, this is a very important topic ! > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > From the Absolute that is true. From the everyday ordinary > > experience it is > > > not true. > > > People have relationships with each other. In everyday life there > > is cause > > > and effects. Each person is not an isolated thing inventing his own > > reality. > > > Come back to earth moon-child. > > > > > > Larry > > > > > > > > > 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.