Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org

behind the mind

Rate this topic


Guest guest

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

In a message dated 4/18/2006 6:14:55 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

Nisargadatta writes:

 

Tue, 18 Apr 2006 06:58:03 -0000

" dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33

behind the mind

 

 

 

is a blue sky.....

 

Marc

 

 

 

 

Maybe it was a dream?.................

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

In a message dated 4/19/2006 12:12:06 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

Nisargadatta writes:

 

Wed, 19 Apr 2006 06:49:07 -0000

" dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33

Re: behind the mind

 

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote:

>

>

> In a message dated 4/18/2006 6:14:55 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

> Nisargadatta writes:

>

> Tue, 18 Apr 2006 06:58:03 -0000

> " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33

> behind the mind

>

>

>

> is a blue sky.....

>

> Marc

>

>

>

>

> Maybe it was a dream?.................

>

>

LOL

 

behind the mind is like a....blue sky.....up there.....behind the

clouds .....

 

as i see....your mind is still working nicely.....

there....and here.....in this nice and wonderful world (dream)

 

:)

 

Marc

 

 

 

Behind the mind, I see nothing, and out of that nothing can come anything,

though I don't see the Source, much to my dismay. A blue sky is a mental image

which I assume you don't actually see. As a simile, it doesn't seem

appropriate. Perhaps a starless night would be more so. And so I figure you

must be

engaged in one of those dreams you always talk about.

 

You'll look for a way to devalue my perception, based on the way I see you

talk to everyone who disagrees with your here, but could you consider the

possibility that my perception is okay the way it is and I don't have to be

devalued? Just an idea, Marc. No judgments being made here either way.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote:

>

>

> In a message dated 4/18/2006 6:14:55 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

> Nisargadatta writes:

>

> Tue, 18 Apr 2006 06:58:03 -0000

> " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33

> behind the mind

>

>

>

> is a blue sky.....

>

> Marc

>

>

>

>

> Maybe it was a dream?.................

>

>

LOL

 

behind the mind is like a....blue sky.....up there.....behind the

clouds .....

 

as i see....your mind is still working nicely.....

there....and here.....in this nice and wonderful world (dream)

 

:)

 

Marc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote:

>

>

> In a message dated 4/19/2006 12:12:06 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

> Nisargadatta writes:

>

> Wed, 19 Apr 2006 06:49:07 -0000

> " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33

> Re: behind the mind

>

> Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote:

> >

> >

> > In a message dated 4/18/2006 6:14:55 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

> > Nisargadatta writes:

> >

> > Tue, 18 Apr 2006 06:58:03 -0000

> > " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33@>

> > behind the mind

> >

> >

> >

> > is a blue sky.....

> >

> > Marc

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Maybe it was a dream?.................

> >

> >

> LOL

>

> behind the mind is like a....blue sky.....up there.....behind the

> clouds .....

>

> as i see....your mind is still working nicely.....

> there....and here.....in this nice and wonderful world (dream)

>

> :)

>

> Marc

>

>

>

> Behind the mind, I see nothing, and out of that nothing can come

anything,

> though I don't see the Source, much to my dismay. A blue sky is a

mental image

> which I assume you don't actually see. As a simile, it doesn't seem

> appropriate. Perhaps a starless night would be more so. And so I

figure you must be

> engaged in one of those dreams you always talk about.

 

 

yes....this " behind the mind " is a wonderful subject....

 

there is nothing to tell about " behind the mind " .....

 

when there is meditation.....means, when the mind is calm......

 

then there is Self......an infinite nothingness......

 

so yes Phil (the analyst)....this " blue sky " is like a " picture " of

It.....but it isn't It....for real

 

i'm sorry, again Phil....i don't think that i'm " engaged in one of

those dreams..... "

not less than you.....and many others here

maybe there are some people in here who believe that you are " closer

to God " than " others " ......but this, still, remain ignorance....of

both sides

 

 

> You'll look for a way to devalue my perception, based on the way I

see you

> talk to everyone who disagrees with your here, but could you

consider the

> possibility that my perception is okay the way it is and I don't

have to be

> devalued? Just an idea, Marc. No judgments being made here either

way.

>

 

not many appearing people in here with whom i could agree mostly.....

whenever i disagree....i tell....and yes....maybe i tell it on a

way.....that you don't appreciate much....i can understand that

the " way " of talk.....is not " confortable " for some

great " intellects " in here

 

i have no problem with your perception......

but if you want to give the impression that you are " closer to God "

than " others " .......then i'm sorry......for this " others " who believe

you

 

i don't read most of your posts.....to be sincere

 

so i try to don't have discussions with you......

made the experience that this make no sense......

 

you ask me to " accept " your perceptions.....?.......

 

don't worry Phil......i don't care much about your perceptions....

 

Marc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

In a message dated 4/19/2006 1:44:41 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

dennis_travis33 writes:

 

> i have no problem with your perception......

> but if you want to give the impression that you are " closer to God "

> than " others " .......then i'm sorry......for this " others " who believe

> you

>

 

L.E: No judgment here! Are you trying to give the impression that you are

closer to God than others Phil?

He has pity on you, and for those you influence. That's a nice thought,

right Phil? You see, you weren't able to dodge the bullet after all your

careful

effort. Ha ha!

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

In a message dated 4/19/2006 5:42:34 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

Nisargadatta writes:

 

Wed, 19 Apr 2006 08:44:13 -0000

" dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33

Re: behind the mind

 

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote:

>

>

> In a message dated 4/19/2006 12:12:06 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

> Nisargadatta writes:

>

> Wed, 19 Apr 2006 06:49:07 -0000

> " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33

> Re: behind the mind

>

> Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote:

> >

> >

> > In a message dated 4/18/2006 6:14:55 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

> > Nisargadatta writes:

> >

> > Tue, 18 Apr 2006 06:58:03 -0000

> > " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33@>

> > behind the mind

> >

> >

> >

> > is a blue sky.....

> >

> > Marc

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Maybe it was a dream?.................

> >

> >

> LOL

>

> behind the mind is like a....blue sky.....up there.....behind the

> clouds .....

>

> as i see....your mind is still working nicely.....

> there....and here.....in this nice and wonderful world (dream)

>

> :)

>

> Marc

>

>

>

> Behind the mind, I see nothing, and out of that nothing can come

anything,

> though I don't see the Source, much to my dismay. A blue sky is a

mental image

> which I assume you don't actually see. As a simile, it doesn't seem

> appropriate. Perhaps a starless night would be more so. And so I

figure you must be

> engaged in one of those dreams you always talk about.

 

 

yes....this " behind the mind " is a wonderful subject....

 

there is nothing to tell about " behind the mind " .....

 

when there is meditation.....means, when the mind is calm......

 

then there is Self......an infinite nothingness......

 

so yes Phil (the analyst)....this " blue sky " is like a " picture " of

It.....but it isn't It....for real

 

i'm sorry, again Phil....i don't think that i'm " engaged in one of

those dreams..... "

not less than you.....and many others here

maybe there are some people in here who believe that you are " closer

to God " than " others " ......but this, still, remain ignorance....of

both sides

 

 

> You'll look for a way to devalue my perception, based on the way I

see you

> talk to everyone who disagrees with your here, but could you

consider the

> possibility that my perception is okay the way it is and I don't

have to be

> devalued? Just an idea, Marc. No judgments being made here either

way.

>

 

not many appearing people in here with whom i could agree mostly.....

whenever i disagree....i tell....and yes....maybe i tell it on a

way.....that you don't appreciate much....i can understand that

the " way " of talk.....is not " confortable " for some

great " intellects " in here

 

i have no problem with your perception......

but if you want to give the impression that you are " closer to God "

than " others " .......then i'm sorry......for this " others " who believe

you

 

i don't read most of your posts.....to be sincere

 

so i try to don't have discussions with you......

made the experience that this make no sense......

 

you ask me to " accept " your perceptions.....?.......

 

don't worry Phil......i don't care much about your perceptions....

 

Marc

 

 

 

 

And so even when I ask you if you could consider not trying to devalue me,

you do it anyway. It seems like it's automatic for you, doesn't it? When folks

agree with you, you're pleasant. When they disagree, you devalue them.

There's rarely a question asked, or an alternative view presented or even a

simple

disagreement voiced. The other has to be devalued.

 

Now, where do you get the impression that I or anyone sees me as " closer to

God " ? Haven't I stated repeatedly I'm the most ignorant person alive? I'm part

of a minority here who has not implied that I'm somehow enlightened or that

I've had some woo woo experience that nobody else could possibly understand.

And yet you think I'm trying to convince others of my superiority? Don't you

think I could do a better job than that? So, apparently, that idea comes from

you and has nothing to do with my intentions.

 

That's not an attack, Marc. It's an honest question. Do you really see me

trying to convince others that I'm closer to God (whatever that means), or could

you be misperceiving?

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

In a message dated 4/19/2006 11:08:33 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

Nisargadatta writes:

 

Wed, 19 Apr 2006 08:44:22 EDT

epston

Re: behind the mind

 

In a message dated 4/19/2006 1:10:46 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

ADHHUB

writes:

 

> You'll look for a way to devalue my perception, based on the way I see you

 

>

> talk to everyone who disagrees with your here, but could you consider the

> possibility that my perception is okay the way it is and I don't have to

be

>

> devalued? Just an idea, Marc. No judgments being made here either way.

>

L.E: Sure thing Phil. No judgment either way. And don't take this as a

criticism, O.K? ( lets call this trying to dodge the bullet)

 

 

 

Don't understand what yer trying to say, Larry.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

In a message dated 4/19/2006 11:08:33 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

Nisargadatta writes:

 

Wed, 19 Apr 2006 08:48:58 EDT

epston

Re: Re: behind the mind

 

In a message dated 4/19/2006 1:44:41 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

dennis_travis33 writes:

 

> i have no problem with your perception......

> but if you want to give the impression that you are " closer to God "

> than " others " .......then i'm sorry......for this " others " who believe

> you

>

 

L.E: No judgment here! Are you trying to give the impression that you are

closer to God than others Phil?

He has pity on you, and for those you influence. That's a nice thought,

right Phil? You see, you weren't able to dodge the bullet after all your

careful

effort. Ha ha!

 

 

 

I'm thinkin I haven't been able to trick anybody into believing I'm closer

to God, but maybe I'm wrong and some lurker has a little altar set up in their

home to honor me, ya think?

Wasn't trying to dodge the bullet but I thought maybe if I suggested there

were alternatives to his pattern that he might actually look for one. That

didn't work out so well.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

In a message dated 4/19/2006 8:06:28 PM Pacific Daylight Time, ADHHUB

writes:

 

> >You'll look for a way to devalue my perception, based on the way I see

> you

>

> >

> >talk to everyone who disagrees with your here, but could you consider the

>

> >possibility that my perception is okay the way it is and I don't have to

> be

> >

> >devalued? Just an idea, Marc. No judgments being made here either way.

> >

> L.E: Sure thing Phil. No judgment either way. And don't take this as a

> criticism, O.K? ( lets call this trying to dodge the bullet)

>

>

L.E: I was trying to say he is going to devalue and put you down whatever you

say, and he did. That is his bullet, and you were trying to avoid his

criticism or dodge the bullet.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

In a message dated 4/19/2006 8:15:18 PM Pacific Daylight Time, ADHHUB

writes:

 

>

> In a message dated 4/19/2006 11:08:33 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

> Nisargadatta writes:

>

> Wed, 19 Apr 2006 08:48:58 EDT

> epston

> Re: Re: behind the mind

>

> In a message dated 4/19/2006 1:44:41 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

> dennis_travis33 writes:

>

> >i have no problem with your perception......

> >but if you want to give the impression that you are " closer to God "

> >than " others " .......then i'm sorry......for this " others " who believe

> >you

> >

>

> L.E: No judgment here! Are you trying to give the impression that you are

>

> closer to God than others Phil?

> He has pity on you, and for those you influence. That's a nice thought,

> right Phil? You see, you weren't able to dodge the bullet after all your

> careful

> effort. Ha ha!

>

>

>

> I'm thinkin I haven't been able to trick anybody into believing I'm closer

> to God, but maybe I'm wrong and some lurker has a little altar set up in

> their

> home to honor me, ya think?

> Wasn't trying to dodge the bullet but I thought maybe if I suggested there

> were alternatives to his pattern that he might actually look for one. That

> didn't work out so well.

>

L.E: No no! I don't do well talking with you. No, it didn't work out so

well but trying to avoid it, is what I called trying to dodge the bullet. But

he

shot the bullet anyhow with his absurd " closer to god comment. " And you

weren't able to dodge it, or keep him from trying to devalue you.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

In a message dated 4/19/2006 9:07:49 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

Nisargadatta writes:

 

Wed, 19 Apr 2006 23:59:52 EDT

epston

Re: behind the mind

 

In a message dated 4/19/2006 8:06:28 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

ADHHUB

writes:

 

> >You'll look for a way to devalue my perception, based on the way I see

> you

>

> >

> >talk to everyone who disagrees with your here, but could you consider

the

>

> >possibility that my perception is okay the way it is and I don't have to

> be

> >

> >devalued? Just an idea, Marc. No judgments being made here either way.

> >

> L.E: Sure thing Phil. No judgment either way. And don't take this as a

> criticism, O.K? ( lets call this trying to dodge the bullet)

>

>

L.E: I was trying to say he is going to devalue and put you down whatever

you

say, and he did. That is his bullet, and you were trying to avoid his

criticism or dodge the bullet.

 

 

 

Oh, I see. Again, the bullet is of no importance. I did want to see if the

pattern could be broken.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

In a message dated 4/20/2006 12:28:54 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

Nisargadatta writes:

 

Thu, 20 Apr 2006 07:03:57 -0000

" dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33

Re: behind the mind

 

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote:

>

>

> In a message dated 4/19/2006 5:42:34 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

> Nisargadatta writes:

>

> Wed, 19 Apr 2006 08:44:13 -0000

> " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33

> Re: behind the mind

>

> Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote:

> >

> >

> > In a message dated 4/19/2006 12:12:06 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

> > Nisargadatta writes:

> >

> > Wed, 19 Apr 2006 06:49:07 -0000

> > " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33@>

> > Re: behind the mind

> >

> > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > > In a message dated 4/18/2006 6:14:55 AM Pacific Daylight

Time,

> > > Nisargadatta writes:

> > >

> > > Tue, 18 Apr 2006 06:58:03 -0000

> > > " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33@>

> > > behind the mind

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > is a blue sky.....

> > >

> > > Marc

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Maybe it was a dream?.................

> > >

> > >

> > LOL

> >

> > behind the mind is like a....blue sky.....up there.....behind

the

> > clouds .....

> >

> > as i see....your mind is still working nicely.....

> > there....and here.....in this nice and wonderful world (dream)

> >

> > :)

> >

> > Marc

> >

> >

> >

> > Behind the mind, I see nothing, and out of that nothing can come

> anything,

> > though I don't see the Source, much to my dismay. A blue sky is

a

> mental image

> > which I assume you don't actually see. As a simile, it doesn't

seem

> > appropriate. Perhaps a starless night would be more so. And so

I

> figure you must be

> > engaged in one of those dreams you always talk about.

>

>

> yes....this " behind the mind " is a wonderful subject....

>

> there is nothing to tell about " behind the mind " .....

>

> when there is meditation.....means, when the mind is calm......

>

> then there is Self......an infinite nothingness......

>

> so yes Phil (the analyst)....this " blue sky " is like a " picture "

of

> It.....but it isn't It....for real

>

> i'm sorry, again Phil....i don't think that i'm " engaged in one of

> those dreams..... "

> not less than you.....and many others here

> maybe there are some people in here who believe that you

are " closer

> to God " than " others " ......but this, still, remain ignorance....of

> both sides

>

>

> > You'll look for a way to devalue my perception, based on the way

I

> see you

> > talk to everyone who disagrees with your here, but could you

> consider the

> > possibility that my perception is okay the way it is and I don't

> have to be

> > devalued? Just an idea, Marc. No judgments being made here

either

> way.

> >

>

> not many appearing people in here with whom i could agree

mostly.....

> whenever i disagree....i tell....and yes....maybe i tell it on a

> way.....that you don't appreciate much....i can understand that

> the " way " of talk.....is not " confortable " for some

> great " intellects " in here

>

> i have no problem with your perception......

> but if you want to give the impression that you are " closer to

God "

> than " others " .......then i'm sorry......for this " others " who

believe

> you

>

> i don't read most of your posts.....to be sincere

>

> so i try to don't have discussions with you......

> made the experience that this make no sense......

>

> you ask me to " accept " your perceptions.....?.......

>

> don't worry Phil......i don't care much about your perceptions....

>

> Marc

>

>

>

>

> And so even when I ask you if you could consider not trying to

devalue me,

> you do it anyway. It seems like it's automatic for you, doesn't

it? When folks

> agree with you, you're pleasant. When they disagree, you devalue

them.

> There's rarely a question asked, or an alternative view presented

or even a simple

> disagreement voiced. The other has to be devalued.

>

> Now, where do you get the impression that I or anyone sees me

as " closer to

> God " ? Haven't I stated repeatedly I'm the most ignorant person

alive? I'm part

> of a minority here who has not implied that I'm somehow

enlightened or that

> I've had some woo woo experience that nobody else could possibly

understand.

> And yet you think I'm trying to convince others of my superiority?

Don't you

> think I could do a better job than that? So, apparently, that idea

comes from

> you and has nothing to do with my intentions.

>

> That's not an attack, Marc. It's an honest question. Do you really

see me

> trying to convince others that I'm closer to God (whatever that

means), or could

> you be misperceiving?

>

>

>

>

i remember that you started to talk about " God " ....during an

intensive discussion......a discussion where different " perceptions "

met.....

 

if you are this your mentionned " most ignorant person... " .....why

writing a book.......?.....

would be a book about your " ignorance " ....?...

 

please.....you know well, that there have been different " views,

perceptions.... " concerning many subjects in some of our

discussions.....

 

it's interesting to a certain degree to have some nice

discussions........but why having endless discussion when there

mainly arise emotions ....and when there is " God " required to " solve "

all problems....?

 

you talk still about " devaluation " ....

what, ever, could be devaluated other....than ignorance about

Self.....?

 

you fear the (healty) ego-mind to be devalutated?.....

 

it would make no sense to discuss about subjects when it would only

give evaluation of ego-mind.......at least, this is my point of view

 

if i hurted you in the past with some " devaluation " .....i'm sorry

about

 

recently i tried realy to don't react on some of your messages you

exchange with different people in here.....

i remind you that you tried the last weeks....with some little

words .....and (provocative) questions.....to enter in discussion

again.....

 

you see.....you have already the opinion....and you have been

repeating since yesterday....that i wish to " devalue " everybody who

has different perception than me........

thats not true.....i tried to answer to this Your view above

 

i feel that the discussion in the group got more and

more " scientific " only......it's true that the last weeks i rarely

read messages in here which let me remind " behind the mind " .....

and then with this " ego " discussions....means, this discussion which

are sooo much attached to " oranges and teeth... " .....i felt to be on

the wrong place........

 

wish a nice day Phil

 

Marc

 

 

 

And you may be correct about the misguided direction of the discussions of

ego and such. I can't say for sure and I don't believe you can either. If self

inquiry or direct perception or ego integrity are not of interest to you, I

fully understand. They are of interest to me and so I discuss them.

 

Why am I writing a book without being enlightened? Seems to me lots of folks

do that, and I also believe teachings have their place, as conceptual as

they are. Perhaps you can recall a time when you at least believed some teaching

that came from an unenlightened human was of value.

 

I don't understand your comment about God and " different perceptions " , but

apparently you heard something that sounded like a claim of enlightenment or

spiritual superiority. Again, I make no such claims.

 

" Discussions where emotions arise " ? Maybe you mean the recent ego blow ups.

Well, it's potentially good ego work from my perspective, although I admit it

isn't very inspiring.

 

 

You have not " hurt " me with the devaluation. That wasn't the point. The

point was that there is apparently a need on your part to do so. Again, it's my

focus and not yours, but when I see patterns and apparent needs in others, I

wonder if they know or care to notice them and how they may be obstructions to

the realization of Truth. I'm not the ego police, it's just my way of

exploring myself as reflected in others, and believe me, I'm always looking for

that

reflection. I'm a selfish bastard and what I want is far more important to

me than whatever you or anyone else is being/doing, so there's never any

judgment about what's said. I don't think I can take anybody's words that

seriously anymore.

 

Thanks for taking the time to answer sincerely.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote:

>

>

> In a message dated 4/19/2006 5:42:34 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

> Nisargadatta writes:

>

> Wed, 19 Apr 2006 08:44:13 -0000

> " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33

> Re: behind the mind

>

> Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote:

> >

> >

> > In a message dated 4/19/2006 12:12:06 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

> > Nisargadatta writes:

> >

> > Wed, 19 Apr 2006 06:49:07 -0000

> > " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33@>

> > Re: behind the mind

> >

> > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > > In a message dated 4/18/2006 6:14:55 AM Pacific Daylight

Time,

> > > Nisargadatta writes:

> > >

> > > Tue, 18 Apr 2006 06:58:03 -0000

> > > " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33@>

> > > behind the mind

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > is a blue sky.....

> > >

> > > Marc

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Maybe it was a dream?.................

> > >

> > >

> > LOL

> >

> > behind the mind is like a....blue sky.....up there.....behind

the

> > clouds .....

> >

> > as i see....your mind is still working nicely.....

> > there....and here.....in this nice and wonderful world (dream)

> >

> > :)

> >

> > Marc

> >

> >

> >

> > Behind the mind, I see nothing, and out of that nothing can come

> anything,

> > though I don't see the Source, much to my dismay. A blue sky is

a

> mental image

> > which I assume you don't actually see. As a simile, it doesn't

seem

> > appropriate. Perhaps a starless night would be more so. And so

I

> figure you must be

> > engaged in one of those dreams you always talk about.

>

>

> yes....this " behind the mind " is a wonderful subject....

>

> there is nothing to tell about " behind the mind " .....

>

> when there is meditation.....means, when the mind is calm......

>

> then there is Self......an infinite nothingness......

>

> so yes Phil (the analyst)....this " blue sky " is like a " picture "

of

> It.....but it isn't It....for real

>

> i'm sorry, again Phil....i don't think that i'm " engaged in one of

> those dreams..... "

> not less than you.....and many others here

> maybe there are some people in here who believe that you

are " closer

> to God " than " others " ......but this, still, remain ignorance....of

> both sides

>

>

> > You'll look for a way to devalue my perception, based on the way

I

> see you

> > talk to everyone who disagrees with your here, but could you

> consider the

> > possibility that my perception is okay the way it is and I don't

> have to be

> > devalued? Just an idea, Marc. No judgments being made here

either

> way.

> >

>

> not many appearing people in here with whom i could agree

mostly.....

> whenever i disagree....i tell....and yes....maybe i tell it on a

> way.....that you don't appreciate much....i can understand that

> the " way " of talk.....is not " confortable " for some

> great " intellects " in here

>

> i have no problem with your perception......

> but if you want to give the impression that you are " closer to

God "

> than " others " .......then i'm sorry......for this " others " who

believe

> you

>

> i don't read most of your posts.....to be sincere

>

> so i try to don't have discussions with you......

> made the experience that this make no sense......

>

> you ask me to " accept " your perceptions.....?.......

>

> don't worry Phil......i don't care much about your perceptions....

>

> Marc

>

>

>

>

> And so even when I ask you if you could consider not trying to

devalue me,

> you do it anyway. It seems like it's automatic for you, doesn't

it? When folks

> agree with you, you're pleasant. When they disagree, you devalue

them.

> There's rarely a question asked, or an alternative view presented

or even a simple

> disagreement voiced. The other has to be devalued.

>

> Now, where do you get the impression that I or anyone sees me

as " closer to

> God " ? Haven't I stated repeatedly I'm the most ignorant person

alive? I'm part

> of a minority here who has not implied that I'm somehow

enlightened or that

> I've had some woo woo experience that nobody else could possibly

understand.

> And yet you think I'm trying to convince others of my superiority?

Don't you

> think I could do a better job than that? So, apparently, that idea

comes from

> you and has nothing to do with my intentions.

>

> That's not an attack, Marc. It's an honest question. Do you really

see me

> trying to convince others that I'm closer to God (whatever that

means), or could

> you be misperceiving?

>

>

>

>

i remember that you started to talk about " God " ....during an

intensive discussion......a discussion where different " perceptions "

met.....

 

if you are this your mentionned " most ignorant person... " .....why

writing a book.......?.....

would be a book about your " ignorance " ....?...

 

please.....you know well, that there have been different " views,

perceptions.... " concerning many subjects in some of our

discussions.....

 

it's interesting to a certain degree to have some nice

discussions........but why having endless discussion when there

mainly arise emotions ....and when there is " God " required to " solve "

all problems....?

 

you talk still about " devaluation " ....

what, ever, could be devaluated other....than ignorance about

Self.....?

 

you fear the (healty) ego-mind to be devalutated?.....

 

it would make no sense to discuss about subjects when it would only

give evaluation of ego-mind.......at least, this is my point of view

 

if i hurted you in the past with some " devaluation " .....i'm sorry

about

 

recently i tried realy to don't react on some of your messages you

exchange with different people in here.....

i remind you that you tried the last weeks....with some little

words .....and (provocative) questions.....to enter in discussion

again.....

 

you see.....you have already the opinion....and you have been

repeating since yesterday....that i wish to " devalue " everybody who

has different perception than me........

thats not true.....i tried to answer to this Your view above

 

i feel that the discussion in the group got more and

more " scientific " only......it's true that the last weeks i rarely

read messages in here which let me remind " behind the mind " .....

and then with this " ego " discussions....means, this discussion which

are sooo much attached to " oranges and teeth... " .....i felt to be on

the wrong place........

 

wish a nice day Phil

 

Marc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...