Guest guest Posted June 4, 2006 Report Share Posted June 4, 2006 Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Mats " <hyl894t@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " > <Roberibus111@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Mats " <hyl894t@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " > > > <Roberibus111@> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The true teacher IS Freedom.......and he sets about to > free > > > you > > > > > from > > > > > > > ALL bondage from the first moment of contact. - He will > not > > > abide > > > > > > with > > > > > > > any posturing and bowing. > > > > > > > It's only your own resistance that stand in the way of > > > immediate > > > > > > > release. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I guess it takes courage or mindlessness to be free. > > > > > > But then, we're free already so who needs courage or a mind? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Correct > > > > > > > > Being correct has nothing to do with freedom. > > > > > > > > Saying that everyone is free from the beginning is just an idea > > > > overheard -- a repetition of gossip. (unless one knows one's > being > > > > " prior to conditions " -- and fully within and as > conditions: " from > > > > balls to bone " as the Oracle said to Neo.) > > > > > > > > True, this is not a personal possession, and doesn't depend on > > > > personally acquired qualities like courage or an imaginary mind > of > > > > one's own. > > > > > > > > Yet, apart from your personal being as it is right now, there > is no > > > > way to know this as is (not from an outside position). > > > > > > > > It's not by getting rid of one's personal being that truth is > > > > understood -- so back one comes to courage, commitment, and > > > > responsibility -- just no imputation of a separable being that > does > > > > those things! > > > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > > > > > > > > So you'd like to be courageous, committed and responsible without > > > separable being? > > > Free your mind Dan! (As Morpheus said to Neo) > > > Is there such a thing as courage without separable being? > > > > > > 1500 The devil made her do it, burn the witch! > > > 1976 My ego makes me do it, but hey I'm innocent! > > > 2006 ....................................... > > > > Mats - > > > > I don't think you hear what I'm saying. > > > > And that's just how it is. > > > > There is no separable being, ever, never has been, never could be. > > > > And yes, there is courage. > > > > Unless one is blind. > > > > A firefighter goes into a burning building and rescues a child. > > > > Lungs damaged for the rest of his life from smoke inhalation. > > > > But clever advaita talk will say, " oh well, that's just how it > > happened, there is no separate self, no choice, so no one to gain > any > > merit for a so-called courageous act. " > > > > Some who have read some advaita are way too clever now to be fooled > by > > ideas like " courage. " Those ideas just don't apply, thanks to the > > wonderful insight that no one is there. > > > > Unfortunately, I won't be able to explain further what this is, when > > there is courage, but not a separable someone being courageous. > > > > One knows this because it is so for the one who knows it, or one > > doesn't see it. > > > > And that is just how it is. > > > > But we all know there is no one there, so who is to know it? > > > > Smiling, > > > > Dan > > > > Courage *is*, quite simply, the courage to let go of > one's separateness, to " forget oneself " . > > The act of that fireman is not out of self-interest... > it is an action that transcends self-interest. > > The vulnerability to be completely open to the moment > without regard to self-interest... that in itself is > the dissolution of separation, and that in itself is > the essence of courage. > > Bill > The questions is; one type of forgetfullness could be called madness and another elightenment, yet having the same results?? Conclusion, enlightenment must be some sort of madness, not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 4, 2006 Report Share Posted June 4, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Mats " <hyl894t wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Mats " <hyl894t@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " > > <Roberibus111@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Mats " <hyl894t@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " > > > > <Roberibus111@> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The true teacher IS Freedom.......and he sets about to > > free > > > > you > > > > > > from > > > > > > > > ALL bondage from the first moment of contact. - He > will > > not > > > > abide > > > > > > > with > > > > > > > > any posturing and bowing. > > > > > > > > It's only your own resistance that stand in the way of > > > > immediate > > > > > > > > release. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I guess it takes courage or mindlessness to be free. > > > > > > > But then, we're free already so who needs courage or a > mind? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Correct > > > > > > > > > > Being correct has nothing to do with freedom. > > > > > > > > > > Saying that everyone is free from the beginning is just an > idea > > > > > overheard -- a repetition of gossip. (unless one knows one's > > being > > > > > " prior to conditions " -- and fully within and as > > conditions: " from > > > > > balls to bone " as the Oracle said to Neo.) > > > > > > > > > > True, this is not a personal possession, and doesn't depend > on > > > > > personally acquired qualities like courage or an imaginary > mind > > of > > > > > one's own. > > > > > > > > > > Yet, apart from your personal being as it is right now, > there > > is no > > > > > way to know this as is (not from an outside position). > > > > > > > > > > It's not by getting rid of one's personal being that truth is > > > > > understood -- so back one comes to courage, commitment, and > > > > > responsibility -- just no imputation of a separable being > that > > does > > > > > those things! > > > > > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So you'd like to be courageous, committed and responsible > without > > > > separable being? > > > > Free your mind Dan! (As Morpheus said to Neo) > > > > Is there such a thing as courage without separable being? > > > > > > > > 1500 The devil made her do it, burn the witch! > > > > 1976 My ego makes me do it, but hey I'm innocent! > > > > 2006 ....................................... > > > > > > Mats - > > > > > > I don't think you hear what I'm saying. > > > > > > And that's just how it is. > > > > > > There is no separable being, ever, never has been, never could > be. > > > > > > And yes, there is courage. > > > > > > Unless one is blind. > > > > > > A firefighter goes into a burning building and rescues a child. > > > > > > Lungs damaged for the rest of his life from smoke inhalation. > > > > > > But clever advaita talk will say, " oh well, that's just how it > > > happened, there is no separate self, no choice, so no one to > gain > > any > > > merit for a so-called courageous act. " > > > > > > Some who have read some advaita are way too clever now to be > fooled > > by > > > ideas like " courage. " Those ideas just don't apply, thanks to > the > > > wonderful insight that no one is there. > > > > > > Unfortunately, I won't be able to explain further what this is, > when > > > there is courage, but not a separable someone being courageous. > > > > > > One knows this because it is so for the one who knows it, or one > > > doesn't see it. > > > > > > And that is just how it is. > > > > > > But we all know there is no one there, so who is to know it? > > > > > > Smiling, > > > > > > Dan > > > > > > > Courage *is*, quite simply, the courage to let go of > > one's separateness, to " forget oneself " . > > > > The act of that fireman is not out of self-interest... > > it is an action that transcends self-interest. > > > > The vulnerability to be completely open to the moment > > without regard to self-interest... that in itself is > > the dissolution of separation, and that in itself is > > the essence of courage. > > > > Bill > > > > The questions is; one type of forgetfullness could be called madness > and another elightenment, yet having the same results?? > Conclusion, enlightenment must be some sort of madness, not? Question?........whose? ??????????????????? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 4, 2006 Report Share Posted June 4, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Mats " <hyl894t wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Mats " <hyl894t@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " > > <Roberibus111@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Mats " <hyl894t@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " > > > > <Roberibus111@> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The true teacher IS Freedom.......and he sets about to > > free > > > > you > > > > > > from > > > > > > > > ALL bondage from the first moment of contact. - He > will > > not > > > > abide > > > > > > > with > > > > > > > > any posturing and bowing. > > > > > > > > It's only your own resistance that stand in the way of > > > > immediate > > > > > > > > release. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I guess it takes courage or mindlessness to be free. > > > > > > > But then, we're free already so who needs courage or a > mind? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Correct > > > > > > > > > > Being correct has nothing to do with freedom. > > > > > > > > > > Saying that everyone is free from the beginning is just an > idea > > > > > overheard -- a repetition of gossip. (unless one knows one's > > being > > > > > " prior to conditions " -- and fully within and as > > conditions: " from > > > > > balls to bone " as the Oracle said to Neo.) > > > > > > > > > > True, this is not a personal possession, and doesn't depend > on > > > > > personally acquired qualities like courage or an imaginary > mind > > of > > > > > one's own. > > > > > > > > > > Yet, apart from your personal being as it is right now, > there > > is no > > > > > way to know this as is (not from an outside position). > > > > > > > > > > It's not by getting rid of one's personal being that truth is > > > > > understood -- so back one comes to courage, commitment, and > > > > > responsibility -- just no imputation of a separable being > that > > does > > > > > those things! > > > > > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So you'd like to be courageous, committed and responsible > without > > > > separable being? > > > > Free your mind Dan! (As Morpheus said to Neo) > > > > Is there such a thing as courage without separable being? > > > > > > > > 1500 The devil made her do it, burn the witch! > > > > 1976 My ego makes me do it, but hey I'm innocent! > > > > 2006 ....................................... > > > > > > Mats - > > > > > > I don't think you hear what I'm saying. > > > > > > And that's just how it is. > > > > > > There is no separable being, ever, never has been, never could > be. > > > > > > And yes, there is courage. > > > > > > Unless one is blind. > > > > > > A firefighter goes into a burning building and rescues a child. > > > > > > Lungs damaged for the rest of his life from smoke inhalation. > > > > > > But clever advaita talk will say, " oh well, that's just how it > > > happened, there is no separate self, no choice, so no one to > gain > > any > > > merit for a so-called courageous act. " > > > > > > Some who have read some advaita are way too clever now to be > fooled > > by > > > ideas like " courage. " Those ideas just don't apply, thanks to > the > > > wonderful insight that no one is there. > > > > > > Unfortunately, I won't be able to explain further what this is, > when > > > there is courage, but not a separable someone being courageous. > > > > > > One knows this because it is so for the one who knows it, or one > > > doesn't see it. > > > > > > And that is just how it is. > > > > > > But we all know there is no one there, so who is to know it? > > > > > > Smiling, > > > > > > Dan > > > > > > > Courage *is*, quite simply, the courage to let go of > > one's separateness, to " forget oneself " . > > > > The act of that fireman is not out of self-interest... > > it is an action that transcends self-interest. > > > > The vulnerability to be completely open to the moment > > without regard to self-interest... that in itself is > > the dissolution of separation, and that in itself is > > the essence of courage. > > > > Bill > > > > The questions is; one type of forgetfullness could be called madness > and another elightenment, yet having the same results?? > Conclusion, enlightenment must be some sort of madness, not? > you are calling vulnerability forgetfulness? madness is of the mind. vulnerability is of the heart. vulnerability is actually a returning to one's true nature. Not a forgetfulness at all. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 4, 2006 Report Share Posted June 4, 2006 Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Mats " <hyl894t@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Mats " <hyl894t@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " > > > <Roberibus111@> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Mats " <hyl894t@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " > > > > > <Roberibus111@> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The true teacher IS Freedom.......and he sets about to > > > free > > > > > you > > > > > > > from > > > > > > > > > ALL bondage from the first moment of contact. - He > > will > > > not > > > > > abide > > > > > > > > with > > > > > > > > > any posturing and bowing. > > > > > > > > > It's only your own resistance that stand in the way of > > > > > immediate > > > > > > > > > release. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I guess it takes courage or mindlessness to be free. > > > > > > > > But then, we're free already so who needs courage or a > > mind? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Correct > > > > > > > > > > > > Being correct has nothing to do with freedom. > > > > > > > > > > > > Saying that everyone is free from the beginning is just an > > idea > > > > > > overheard -- a repetition of gossip. (unless one knows one's > > > being > > > > > > " prior to conditions " -- and fully within and as > > > conditions: " from > > > > > > balls to bone " as the Oracle said to Neo.) > > > > > > > > > > > > True, this is not a personal possession, and doesn't depend > > on > > > > > > personally acquired qualities like courage or an imaginary > > mind > > > of > > > > > > one's own. > > > > > > > > > > > > Yet, apart from your personal being as it is right now, > > there > > > is no > > > > > > way to know this as is (not from an outside position). > > > > > > > > > > > > It's not by getting rid of one's personal being that truth is > > > > > > understood -- so back one comes to courage, commitment, and > > > > > > responsibility -- just no imputation of a separable being > > that > > > does > > > > > > those things! > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So you'd like to be courageous, committed and responsible > > without > > > > > separable being? > > > > > Free your mind Dan! (As Morpheus said to Neo) > > > > > Is there such a thing as courage without separable being? > > > > > > > > > > 1500 The devil made her do it, burn the witch! > > > > > 1976 My ego makes me do it, but hey I'm innocent! > > > > > 2006 ....................................... > > > > > > > > Mats - > > > > > > > > I don't think you hear what I'm saying. > > > > > > > > And that's just how it is. > > > > > > > > There is no separable being, ever, never has been, never could > > be. > > > > > > > > And yes, there is courage. > > > > > > > > Unless one is blind. > > > > > > > > A firefighter goes into a burning building and rescues a child. > > > > > > > > Lungs damaged for the rest of his life from smoke inhalation. > > > > > > > > But clever advaita talk will say, " oh well, that's just how it > > > > happened, there is no separate self, no choice, so no one to > > gain > > > any > > > > merit for a so-called courageous act. " > > > > > > > > Some who have read some advaita are way too clever now to be > > fooled > > > by > > > > ideas like " courage. " Those ideas just don't apply, thanks to > > the > > > > wonderful insight that no one is there. > > > > > > > > Unfortunately, I won't be able to explain further what this is, > > when > > > > there is courage, but not a separable someone being courageous. > > > > > > > > One knows this because it is so for the one who knows it, or one > > > > doesn't see it. > > > > > > > > And that is just how it is. > > > > > > > > But we all know there is no one there, so who is to know it? > > > > > > > > Smiling, > > > > > > > > Dan > > > > > > > > > > Courage *is*, quite simply, the courage to let go of > > > one's separateness, to " forget oneself " . > > > > > > The act of that fireman is not out of self-interest... > > > it is an action that transcends self-interest. > > > > > > The vulnerability to be completely open to the moment > > > without regard to self-interest... that in itself is > > > the dissolution of separation, and that in itself is > > > the essence of courage. > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > The questions is; one type of forgetfullness could be called madness > > and another elightenment, yet having the same results?? > > Conclusion, enlightenment must be some sort of madness, not? > > > > you are calling vulnerability forgetfulness? > > madness is of the mind. > > vulnerability is of the heart. > > vulnerability is actually a returning to one's true > nature. Not a forgetfulness at all. > > Bill > Hmmmm....I wonder if my or for that matter Niz idea of the heart is the same as yours? For instance if somebody told me " I would die for you! " I'd likely punch the person smack in the face to wake him/her up! How callous you might think, but think again. Is it the heart speaking, or the mind planning for a tight and cozy co-dependancy? " If you want to see the love of your life, look in the mirror " B.K. So die for yourself, if you have to do it. Isn't it bliss when we can do things for their own sake? Still we haven't answered why the fireman saved the child, was it for love of someone he'd never met, or was he in a state of no-mind were he acted instinctively? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 4, 2006 Report Share Posted June 4, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Mats " <hyl894t wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Mats " <hyl894t@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " > <pliantheart@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Mats " <hyl894t@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " > <dan330033@> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " > > > > <Roberibus111@> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Mats " <hyl894t@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " > > > > > > <Roberibus111@> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The true teacher IS Freedom.......and he sets > about to > > > > free > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > from > > > > > > > > > > ALL bondage from the first moment of contact. - He > > > will > > > > not > > > > > > abide > > > > > > > > > with > > > > > > > > > > any posturing and bowing. > > > > > > > > > > It's only your own resistance that stand in the > way of > > > > > > immediate > > > > > > > > > > release. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I guess it takes courage or mindlessness to be free. > > > > > > > > > But then, we're free already so who needs courage or > a > > > mind? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Correct > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Being correct has nothing to do with freedom. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saying that everyone is free from the beginning is just > an > > > idea > > > > > > > overheard -- a repetition of gossip. (unless one knows > one's > > > > being > > > > > > > " prior to conditions " -- and fully within and as > > > > conditions: " from > > > > > > > balls to bone " as the Oracle said to Neo.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > True, this is not a personal possession, and doesn't > depend > > > on > > > > > > > personally acquired qualities like courage or an > imaginary > > > mind > > > > of > > > > > > > one's own. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yet, apart from your personal being as it is right now, > > > there > > > > is no > > > > > > > way to know this as is (not from an outside position). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's not by getting rid of one's personal being that > truth is > > > > > > > understood -- so back one comes to courage, commitment, > and > > > > > > > responsibility -- just no imputation of a separable > being > > > that > > > > does > > > > > > > those things! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So you'd like to be courageous, committed and responsible > > > without > > > > > > separable being? > > > > > > Free your mind Dan! (As Morpheus said to Neo) > > > > > > Is there such a thing as courage without separable being? > > > > > > > > > > > > 1500 The devil made her do it, burn the witch! > > > > > > 1976 My ego makes me do it, but hey I'm innocent! > > > > > > 2006 ....................................... > > > > > > > > > > Mats - > > > > > > > > > > I don't think you hear what I'm saying. > > > > > > > > > > And that's just how it is. > > > > > > > > > > There is no separable being, ever, never has been, never > could > > > be. > > > > > > > > > > And yes, there is courage. > > > > > > > > > > Unless one is blind. > > > > > > > > > > A firefighter goes into a burning building and rescues a > child. > > > > > > > > > > Lungs damaged for the rest of his life from smoke inhalation. > > > > > > > > > > But clever advaita talk will say, " oh well, that's just how > it > > > > > happened, there is no separate self, no choice, so no one to > > > gain > > > > any > > > > > merit for a so-called courageous act. " > > > > > > > > > > Some who have read some advaita are way too clever now to be > > > fooled > > > > by > > > > > ideas like " courage. " Those ideas just don't apply, thanks > to > > > the > > > > > wonderful insight that no one is there. > > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately, I won't be able to explain further what this > is, > > > when > > > > > there is courage, but not a separable someone being > courageous. > > > > > > > > > > One knows this because it is so for the one who knows it, or > one > > > > > doesn't see it. > > > > > > > > > > And that is just how it is. > > > > > > > > > > But we all know there is no one there, so who is to know it? > > > > > > > > > > Smiling, > > > > > > > > > > Dan > > > > > > > > > > > > > Courage *is*, quite simply, the courage to let go of > > > > one's separateness, to " forget oneself " . > > > > > > > > The act of that fireman is not out of self-interest... > > > > it is an action that transcends self-interest. > > > > > > > > The vulnerability to be completely open to the moment > > > > without regard to self-interest... that in itself is > > > > the dissolution of separation, and that in itself is > > > > the essence of courage. > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > The questions is; one type of forgetfullness could be called > madness > > > and another elightenment, yet having the same results?? > > > Conclusion, enlightenment must be some sort of madness, not? > > > > > > > you are calling vulnerability forgetfulness? > > > > madness is of the mind. > > > > vulnerability is of the heart. > > > > vulnerability is actually a returning to one's true > > nature. Not a forgetfulness at all. > > > > Bill > > > Hmmmm....I wonder if my or for that matter Niz idea of the heart is > the same as yours? > For instance if somebody told me " I would die for you! " I'd likely > punch the person smack in the face to wake him/her up! > How callous you might think, but think again. > Is it the heart speaking, or the mind planning for a tight and cozy > co-dependancy? > > " If you want to see the love of your life, look in the mirror " B.K. > So die for yourself, if you have to do it. > Isn't it bliss when we can do things for their own sake? > > Still we haven't answered why the fireman saved the child, was it > for love of someone he'd never met, or was he in a state of no-mind > were he acted instinctively? my emphasis is not on heart, but vulnerability. can you face another human being sitting across from you (let us say a person that you can trust not to physically harm you) and be totally open, unguarded? can you speak your tenderest, deepest fellings without shame or fear? is there at least one person that you can so open up with absolute vulnerability? these are not concepts... this is the gristle of being I am talking about. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 5, 2006 Report Share Posted June 5, 2006 > > > > > > you are calling vulnerability forgetfulness? > > > > > > madness is of the mind. > > > > > > vulnerability is of the heart. > > > > > > vulnerability is actually a returning to one's true > > > nature. Not a forgetfulness at all. > > > > > > Bill > > > > > Hmmmm....I wonder if my or for that matter Niz idea of the heart is > > the same as yours? > > For instance if somebody told me " I would die for you! " I'd likely > > punch the person smack in the face to wake him/her up! > > How callous you might think, but think again. > > Is it the heart speaking, or the mind planning for a tight and cozy > > co-dependancy? > > > > " If you want to see the love of your life, look in the mirror " B.K. > > So die for yourself, if you have to do it. > > Isn't it bliss when we can do things for their own sake? > > > > Still we haven't answered why the fireman saved the child, was it > > for love of someone he'd never met, or was he in a state of no- mind > > were he acted instinctively? > > my emphasis is not on heart, but vulnerability. > > can you face another human being sitting across from > you (let us say a person that you can trust not to > physically harm you) and be totally open, unguarded? > can you speak your tenderest, deepest fellings > without shame or fear? > > is there at least one person that you can so open up > with absolute vulnerability? > > these are not concepts... > this is the gristle of being I am talking about. > > Bill > Having the need to know who's going to harm you or not will certainly ruin any kind of vulnerability? Isn't vulnerability the act of showing up inspite of any risks? Isn't it trusting that beneath our harsh outer we all/the universe has it's foundation in love? Aren't we all very vulnerable as life is? Then again, who's to be vulnerable and courageous? Who need to be corageous, loving and vulnerable having no-mind? Why develop skills when we can transcend all skills? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 5, 2006 Report Share Posted June 5, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Mats " <hyl894t wrote: > > > > > > > > > > you are calling vulnerability forgetfulness? > > > > > > > > madness is of the mind. > > > > > > > > vulnerability is of the heart. > > > > > > > > vulnerability is actually a returning to one's true > > > > nature. Not a forgetfulness at all. > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > Hmmmm....I wonder if my or for that matter Niz idea of the heart > is > > > the same as yours? > > > For instance if somebody told me " I would die for you! " I'd > likely > > > punch the person smack in the face to wake him/her up! > > > How callous you might think, but think again. > > > Is it the heart speaking, or the mind planning for a tight and > cozy > > > co-dependancy? > > > > > > " If you want to see the love of your life, look in the > mirror " B.K. > > > So die for yourself, if you have to do it. > > > Isn't it bliss when we can do things for their own sake? > > > > > > Still we haven't answered why the fireman saved the child, was > it > > > for love of someone he'd never met, or was he in a state of no- > mind > > > were he acted instinctively? > > > > my emphasis is not on heart, but vulnerability. > > > > can you face another human being sitting across from > > you (let us say a person that you can trust not to > > physically harm you) and be totally open, unguarded? > > can you speak your tenderest, deepest fellings > > without shame or fear? > > > > is there at least one person that you can so open up > > with absolute vulnerability? > > > > these are not concepts... > > this is the gristle of being I am talking about. > > > > Bill > > > > Having the need to know who's going to harm you or not will > certainly ruin any kind of vulnerability? > Isn't vulnerability the act of showing up inspite of any risks? > Isn't it trusting that beneath our harsh outer we all/the universe > has it's foundation in love? > Aren't we all very vulnerable as life is? > Then again, who's to be vulnerable and courageous? > Who need to be corageous, loving and vulnerable having no-mind? > Why develop skills when we can transcend all skills? > posted outside The Church of The Nazareen in North Royalton, Ohio: " Put yoursef out, Love must be sacrificed. " Ana Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 5, 2006 Report Share Posted June 5, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Mats " <hyl894t wrote: > > > > > > > > > > you are calling vulnerability forgetfulness? > > > > > > > > madness is of the mind. > > > > > > > > vulnerability is of the heart. > > > > > > > > vulnerability is actually a returning to one's true > > > > nature. Not a forgetfulness at all. > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > Hmmmm....I wonder if my or for that matter Niz idea of the heart > is > > > the same as yours? > > > For instance if somebody told me " I would die for you! " I'd > likely > > > punch the person smack in the face to wake him/her up! > > > How callous you might think, but think again. > > > Is it the heart speaking, or the mind planning for a tight and > cozy > > > co-dependancy? > > > > > > " If you want to see the love of your life, look in the > mirror " B.K. > > > So die for yourself, if you have to do it. > > > Isn't it bliss when we can do things for their own sake? > > > > > > Still we haven't answered why the fireman saved the child, was > it > > > for love of someone he'd never met, or was he in a state of no- > mind > > > were he acted instinctively? > > > > my emphasis is not on heart, but vulnerability. > > > > can you face another human being sitting across from > > you (let us say a person that you can trust not to > > physically harm you) and be totally open, unguarded? > > can you speak your tenderest, deepest fellings > > without shame or fear? > > > > is there at least one person that you can so open up > > with absolute vulnerability? > > > > these are not concepts... > > this is the gristle of being I am talking about. > > > > Bill > > > > Having the need to know who's going to harm you or not will > certainly ruin any kind of vulnerability? > Isn't vulnerability the act of showing up inspite of any risks? I nearly agree with this... I would say " spirit " rather than " act " . The external, objective, done-deal act is not what is important. > Isn't it trusting that beneath our harsh outer we all/the universe > has it's foundation in love? the ability to be vulnerable ultimately does rest in such trust. whether such trust is a necessary condition for vulnerability I cannot say. > Aren't we all very vulnerable as life is? whether that is a fact or not is not what is important. to deny one's vulnerability in an effort to be safe vs. the courage to be open, to allow oneself to be touched by life... that is what is important. > Then again, who's to be vulnerable and courageous? there is a " transition " between believing in a separative, individual self and openness to What Is. That transition must still imply the separative self. In the end it is seen that, yes, there *was* no one to be courageous, vulnerable. Bill > Who need to be corageous, loving and vulnerable having no-mind? > Why develop skills when we can transcend all skills? > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 5, 2006 Report Share Posted June 5, 2006 Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Mats " <hyl894t@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you are calling vulnerability forgetfulness? > > > > > > > > > > madness is of the mind. > > > > > > > > > > vulnerability is of the heart. > > > > > > > > > > vulnerability is actually a returning to one's true > > > > > nature. Not a forgetfulness at all. > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > Hmmmm....I wonder if my or for that matter Niz idea of the heart > > is > > > > the same as yours? > > > > For instance if somebody told me " I would die for you! " I'd > > likely > > > > punch the person smack in the face to wake him/her up! > > > > How callous you might think, but think again. > > > > Is it the heart speaking, or the mind planning for a tight and > > cozy > > > > co-dependancy? > > > > > > > > " If you want to see the love of your life, look in the > > mirror " B.K. > > > > So die for yourself, if you have to do it. > > > > Isn't it bliss when we can do things for their own sake? > > > > > > > > Still we haven't answered why the fireman saved the child, was > > it > > > > for love of someone he'd never met, or was he in a state of no- > > mind > > > > were he acted instinctively? > > > > > > my emphasis is not on heart, but vulnerability. > > > > > > can you face another human being sitting across from > > > you (let us say a person that you can trust not to > > > physically harm you) and be totally open, unguarded? > > > can you speak your tenderest, deepest fellings > > > without shame or fear? > > > > > > is there at least one person that you can so open up > > > with absolute vulnerability? > > > > > > these are not concepts... > > > this is the gristle of being I am talking about. > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > Having the need to know who's going to harm you or not will > > certainly ruin any kind of vulnerability? > > Isn't vulnerability the act of showing up inspite of any risks? > > I nearly agree with this... I would say " spirit " rather than > " act " . The external, objective, done-deal act is not what is > important. > > > Isn't it trusting that beneath our harsh outer we all/the universe > > has it's foundation in love? > > the ability to be vulnerable ultimately does rest in such trust. > whether such trust is a necessary condition for vulnerability > I cannot say. > > > Aren't we all very vulnerable as life is? > > whether that is a fact or not is not what is important. > to deny one's vulnerability in an effort to be safe vs. > the courage to be open, to allow oneself to be touched by > life... that is what is important. > > > Then again, who's to be vulnerable and courageous? > > there is a " transition " between believing in a separative, > individual self and openness to What Is. That transition > must still imply the separative self. In the end it is seen > that, yes, there *was* no one to be courageous, vulnerable. > > Bill *** ...and that my sweet Bill, is the beginning of Being REAL, being a Real human being, acknowledging our human-ness and our inherent capability to being at-one-ment with God, All There Is, who is left outside THIS IS? who is not part of the only One? who is kicked out of Paradise once " I " have returned? Only can bring us back to a place we never left but in thought... Ana > > > Who need to be corageous, loving and vulnerable having no-mind? > > Why develop skills when we can transcend all skills? > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 5, 2006 Report Share Posted June 5, 2006 Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <anabebe57 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Mats " <hyl894t@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you are calling vulnerability forgetfulness? > > > > > > > > > > > > madness is of the mind. > > > > > > > > > > > > vulnerability is of the heart. > > > > > > > > > > > > vulnerability is actually a returning to one's true > > > > > > nature. Not a forgetfulness at all. > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > Hmmmm....I wonder if my or for that matter Niz idea of the > heart > > > is > > > > > the same as yours? > > > > > For instance if somebody told me " I would die for you! " I'd > > > likely > > > > > punch the person smack in the face to wake him/her up! > > > > > How callous you might think, but think again. > > > > > Is it the heart speaking, or the mind planning for a tight > and > > > cozy > > > > > co-dependancy? > > > > > > > > > > " If you want to see the love of your life, look in the > > > mirror " B.K. > > > > > So die for yourself, if you have to do it. > > > > > Isn't it bliss when we can do things for their own sake? > > > > > > > > > > Still we haven't answered why the fireman saved the child, > was > > > it > > > > > for love of someone he'd never met, or was he in a state of > no- > > > mind > > > > > were he acted instinctively? > > > > > > > > my emphasis is not on heart, but vulnerability. > > > > > > > > can you face another human being sitting across from > > > > you (let us say a person that you can trust not to > > > > physically harm you) and be totally open, unguarded? > > > > can you speak your tenderest, deepest fellings > > > > without shame or fear? > > > > > > > > is there at least one person that you can so open up > > > > with absolute vulnerability? > > > > > > > > these are not concepts... > > > > this is the gristle of being I am talking about. > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > Having the need to know who's going to harm you or not will > > > certainly ruin any kind of vulnerability? > > > Isn't vulnerability the act of showing up inspite of any risks? > > > > I nearly agree with this... I would say " spirit " rather than > > " act " . The external, objective, done-deal act is not what is > > important. > > > > > Isn't it trusting that beneath our harsh outer we all/the > universe > > > has it's foundation in love? > > > > the ability to be vulnerable ultimately does rest in such trust. > > whether such trust is a necessary condition for vulnerability > > I cannot say. > > > > > Aren't we all very vulnerable as life is? > > > > whether that is a fact or not is not what is important. > > to deny one's vulnerability in an effort to be safe vs. > > the courage to be open, to allow oneself to be touched by > > life... that is what is important. > > > > > Then again, who's to be vulnerable and courageous? > > > > there is a " transition " between believing in a separative, > > individual self and openness to What Is. That transition > > must still imply the separative self. In the end it is seen > > that, yes, there *was* no one to be courageous, vulnerable. > > > > Bill > > > > *** ...and that my sweet Bill, is the beginning of Being REAL, > being a Real human being, acknowledging our human-ness and our > inherent capability to being at-one-ment with God, All There Is, > who is left outside THIS IS? who is not part of the only One? who is > kicked out of Paradise once " I " have returned? > > Only can bring us back to a place we never left but in thought... > > Ana > > > > > > > > Who need to be corageous, loving and vulnerable having no-mind? > > > Why develop skills when we can transcend all skills? > > > > > > " Only can bring us back to a place we never left but in thought... " That puts it beautifully. Thought defines the " problem " , defines " what is going on " , evaluates all supposed solutions, defines " who " has the problem... and effectively fences out anything that is not of thought. The very question, " Who am I? " has no meaning in the " being at-one-ment with God, All There Is.... " Vulnerability is not of thought. Vulnerability is the solvent that can dissolve the thought-fence. Vulnerability is the antidote to fear. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 5, 2006 Report Share Posted June 5, 2006 Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <anabebe57@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Mats " <hyl894t@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you are calling vulnerability forgetfulness? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > madness is of the mind. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vulnerability is of the heart. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vulnerability is actually a returning to one's true > > > > > > > nature. Not a forgetfulness at all. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hmmmm....I wonder if my or for that matter Niz idea of the > > heart > > > > is > > > > > > the same as yours? > > > > > > For instance if somebody told me " I would die for you! " I'd > > > > likely > > > > > > punch the person smack in the face to wake him/her up! > > > > > > How callous you might think, but think again. > > > > > > Is it the heart speaking, or the mind planning for a tight > > and > > > > cozy > > > > > > co-dependancy? > > > > > > > > > > > > " If you want to see the love of your life, look in the > > > > mirror " B.K. > > > > > > So die for yourself, if you have to do it. > > > > > > Isn't it bliss when we can do things for their own sake? > > > > > > > > > > > > Still we haven't answered why the fireman saved the child, > > was > > > > it > > > > > > for love of someone he'd never met, or was he in a state of > > no- > > > > mind > > > > > > were he acted instinctively? > > > > > > > > > > my emphasis is not on heart, but vulnerability. > > > > > > > > > > can you face another human being sitting across from > > > > > you (let us say a person that you can trust not to > > > > > physically harm you) and be totally open, unguarded? > > > > > can you speak your tenderest, deepest fellings > > > > > without shame or fear? > > > > > > > > > > is there at least one person that you can so open up > > > > > with absolute vulnerability? > > > > > > > > > > these are not concepts... > > > > > this is the gristle of being I am talking about. > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > Having the need to know who's going to harm you or not will > > > > certainly ruin any kind of vulnerability? > > > > Isn't vulnerability the act of showing up inspite of any risks? > > > > > > I nearly agree with this... I would say " spirit " rather than > > > " act " . The external, objective, done-deal act is not what is > > > important. > > > > > > > Isn't it trusting that beneath our harsh outer we all/the > > universe > > > > has it's foundation in love? > > > > > > the ability to be vulnerable ultimately does rest in such trust. > > > whether such trust is a necessary condition for vulnerability > > > I cannot say. > > > > > > > Aren't we all very vulnerable as life is? > > > > > > whether that is a fact or not is not what is important. > > > to deny one's vulnerability in an effort to be safe vs. > > > the courage to be open, to allow oneself to be touched by > > > life... that is what is important. > > > > > > > Then again, who's to be vulnerable and courageous? > > > > > > there is a " transition " between believing in a separative, > > > individual self and openness to What Is. That transition > > > must still imply the separative self. In the end it is seen > > > that, yes, there *was* no one to be courageous, vulnerable. > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > *** ...and that my sweet Bill, is the beginning of Being REAL, > > being a Real human being, acknowledging our human-ness and our > > inherent capability to being at-one-ment with God, All There Is, > > who is left outside THIS IS? who is not part of the only One? who is > > kicked out of Paradise once " I " have returned? > > > > Only can bring us back to a place we never left but in thought... > > > > Ana > > > > > > > > > > > > > Who need to be corageous, loving and vulnerable having no- mind? > > > > Why develop skills when we can transcend all skills? > > > > > > > > > > > " Only can bring us back to a place we never left but in thought... " > > That puts it beautifully. > > Thought defines the " problem " , defines " what is going on " , evaluates > all supposed solutions, defines " who " has the problem... and effectively > fences out anything that is not of thought. > > The very question, " Who am I? " has no meaning in the " being at-one- ment > with God, All There Is.... " > > Vulnerability is not of thought. > > Vulnerability is the solvent that can > dissolve the thought-fence. > > Vulnerability is the antidote to fear. > > Bill > Yet vulnerability and fear dwell within duality and are also to be transcended. For who needs opposites when there are none? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 5, 2006 Report Share Posted June 5, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Mats " <hyl894t wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <anabebe57@> > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " > <pliantheart@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Mats " <hyl894t@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you are calling vulnerability forgetfulness? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > madness is of the mind. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vulnerability is of the heart. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vulnerability is actually a returning to one's true > > > > > > > > nature. Not a forgetfulness at all. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hmmmm....I wonder if my or for that matter Niz idea of > the > > > heart > > > > > is > > > > > > > the same as yours? > > > > > > > For instance if somebody told me " I would die for you! " > I'd > > > > > likely > > > > > > > punch the person smack in the face to wake him/her up! > > > > > > > How callous you might think, but think again. > > > > > > > Is it the heart speaking, or the mind planning for a > tight > > > and > > > > > cozy > > > > > > > co-dependancy? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " If you want to see the love of your life, look in the > > > > > mirror " B.K. > > > > > > > So die for yourself, if you have to do it. > > > > > > > Isn't it bliss when we can do things for their own sake? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Still we haven't answered why the fireman saved the > child, > > > was > > > > > it > > > > > > > for love of someone he'd never met, or was he in a state > of > > > no- > > > > > mind > > > > > > > were he acted instinctively? > > > > > > > > > > > > my emphasis is not on heart, but vulnerability. > > > > > > > > > > > > can you face another human being sitting across from > > > > > > you (let us say a person that you can trust not to > > > > > > physically harm you) and be totally open, unguarded? > > > > > > can you speak your tenderest, deepest fellings > > > > > > without shame or fear? > > > > > > > > > > > > is there at least one person that you can so open up > > > > > > with absolute vulnerability? > > > > > > > > > > > > these are not concepts... > > > > > > this is the gristle of being I am talking about. > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Having the need to know who's going to harm you or not will > > > > > certainly ruin any kind of vulnerability? > > > > > Isn't vulnerability the act of showing up inspite of any > risks? > > > > > > > > I nearly agree with this... I would say " spirit " rather than > > > > " act " . The external, objective, done-deal act is not what is > > > > important. > > > > > > > > > Isn't it trusting that beneath our harsh outer we all/the > > > universe > > > > > has it's foundation in love? > > > > > > > > the ability to be vulnerable ultimately does rest in such > trust. > > > > whether such trust is a necessary condition for vulnerability > > > > I cannot say. > > > > > > > > > Aren't we all very vulnerable as life is? > > > > > > > > whether that is a fact or not is not what is important. > > > > to deny one's vulnerability in an effort to be safe vs. > > > > the courage to be open, to allow oneself to be touched by > > > > life... that is what is important. > > > > > > > > > Then again, who's to be vulnerable and courageous? > > > > > > > > there is a " transition " between believing in a separative, > > > > individual self and openness to What Is. That transition > > > > must still imply the separative self. In the end it is seen > > > > that, yes, there *was* no one to be courageous, vulnerable. > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > *** ...and that my sweet Bill, is the beginning of Being REAL, > > > being a Real human being, acknowledging our human-ness and our > > > inherent capability to being at-one-ment with God, All There Is, > > > who is left outside THIS IS? who is not part of the only One? > who is > > > kicked out of Paradise once " I " have returned? > > > > > > Only can bring us back to a place we never left but in thought... > > > > > > Ana > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Who need to be corageous, loving and vulnerable having no- > mind? > > > > > Why develop skills when we can transcend all skills? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " Only can bring us back to a place we never left but in thought... " > > > > That puts it beautifully. > > > > Thought defines the " problem " , defines " what is going on " , > evaluates > > all supposed solutions, defines " who " has the problem... and > effectively > > fences out anything that is not of thought. > > > > The very question, " Who am I? " has no meaning in the " being at-one- > ment > > with God, All There Is.... " > > > > Vulnerability is not of thought. > > > > Vulnerability is the solvent that can > > dissolve the thought-fence. > > > > Vulnerability is the antidote to fear. > > > > Bill > > > > Yet vulnerability and fear dwell within duality and are also to be > transcended. For who needs opposites when there are none? > Then you do not understand what I said about " transition " . To be vulnerable is to relinquish separativeness. I don't see your words as really cutting to the bone. Intellectual arguments do not cut it, in my view. And " For who needs opposites when there are none? " *is* an intellectual argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 5, 2006 Report Share Posted June 5, 2006 > > > > > > > > > > > Who need to be corageous, loving and vulnerable having no- > > mind? > > > > > > Why develop skills when we can transcend all skills? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " Only can bring us back to a place we never left but in thought... " > > > > > > That puts it beautifully. > > > > > > Thought defines the " problem " , defines " what is going on " , > > evaluates > > > all supposed solutions, defines " who " has the problem... and > > effectively > > > fences out anything that is not of thought. > > > > > > The very question, " Who am I? " has no meaning in the " being at- one- > > ment > > > with God, All There Is.... " > > > > > > Vulnerability is not of thought. > > > > > > Vulnerability is the solvent that can > > > dissolve the thought-fence. > > > > > > Vulnerability is the antidote to fear. > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > Yet vulnerability and fear dwell within duality and are also to be > > transcended. For who needs opposites when there are none? > > > > Then you do not understand what I said about " transition " . > > To be vulnerable is to relinquish separativeness. > > I don't see your words as really cutting to the bone. > > Intellectual arguments do not cut it, in my view. > And " For who needs opposites when there are none? " *is* > an intellectual argument. > Fair enough Bill. Plenty of other gurus out there, I might not be the one for you. I agree that intellectual arguments are redundant and it's to bad that every argument on this group can be classed as such. I prefer silence, but that's difficult to transfer via this channel. However, sitting silently I can see that " your " goals are identical to " mine " . For who needs opposites when there are none and no-one to want. To relinquish separativeness is to be vulnerable and simultaneously invulnerable in non-being. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 5, 2006 Report Share Posted June 5, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Mats " <hyl894t wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Who need to be corageous, loving and vulnerable having > no- > > > mind? > > > > > > > Why develop skills when we can transcend all skills? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " Only can bring us back to a place we never left but in > thought... " > > > > > > > > That puts it beautifully. > > > > > > > > Thought defines the " problem " , defines " what is going on " , > > > evaluates > > > > all supposed solutions, defines " who " has the problem... and > > > effectively > > > > fences out anything that is not of thought. > > > > > > > > The very question, " Who am I? " has no meaning in the " being at- > one- > > > ment > > > > with God, All There Is.... " > > > > > > > > Vulnerability is not of thought. > > > > > > > > Vulnerability is the solvent that can > > > > dissolve the thought-fence. > > > > > > > > Vulnerability is the antidote to fear. > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > Yet vulnerability and fear dwell within duality and are also to > be > > > transcended. For who needs opposites when there are none? > > > > > > > Then you do not understand what I said about " transition " . > > > > To be vulnerable is to relinquish separativeness. > > > > I don't see your words as really cutting to the bone. > > > > Intellectual arguments do not cut it, in my view. > > And " For who needs opposites when there are none? " *is* > > an intellectual argument. > > > > Fair enough Bill. > Plenty of other gurus out there, I might not be the one for you. As if I were looking for one! LOL > I agree that intellectual arguments are redundant and it's to bad > that every argument on this group can be classed as such. > > I prefer silence, but that's difficult to transfer via this channel. > However, sitting silently I can see that " your " goals are identical > to " mine " . > For who needs opposites when there are none and no-one to want. > > To relinquish separativeness is to be vulnerable and simultaneously > invulnerable in non-being. " To relinquish separativeness is to be vulnerable and simultaneously invulnerable in non-being. " Oh yes! I definitely agree with that! But I see the advice " be vulnerable " as one that someone can actually use. The recommendation: " relinquish separativeness " is something that may seem like mere words, an intellectual sleight-of-hand. One may as well recommend, " Be at one with All! " Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 6, 2006 Report Share Posted June 6, 2006 Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Mats " <hyl894t@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Who need to be corageous, loving and vulnerable having > > no- > > > > mind? > > > > > > > > Why develop skills when we can transcend all skills? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " Only can bring us back to a place we never left but in > > thought... " > > > > > > > > > > That puts it beautifully. > > > > > > > > > > Thought defines the " problem " , defines " what is going on " , > > > > evaluates > > > > > all supposed solutions, defines " who " has the problem... and > > > > effectively > > > > > fences out anything that is not of thought. > > > > > > > > > > The very question, " Who am I? " has no meaning in the " being at- > > one- > > > > ment > > > > > with God, All There Is.... " > > > > > > > > > > Vulnerability is not of thought. > > > > > > > > > > Vulnerability is the solvent that can > > > > > dissolve the thought-fence. > > > > > > > > > > Vulnerability is the antidote to fear. > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yet vulnerability and fear dwell within duality and are also to > > be > > > > transcended. For who needs opposites when there are none? > > > > > > > > > > Then you do not understand what I said about " transition " . > > > > > > To be vulnerable is to relinquish separativeness. > > > > > > I don't see your words as really cutting to the bone. > > > > > > Intellectual arguments do not cut it, in my view. > > > And " For who needs opposites when there are none? " *is* > > > an intellectual argument. > > > > > > > Fair enough Bill. > > Plenty of other gurus out there, I might not be the one for you. > As if I were looking for one! LOL > > > I agree that intellectual arguments are redundant and it's to bad > > that every argument on this group can be classed as such. > > > > I prefer silence, but that's difficult to transfer via this channel. > > However, sitting silently I can see that " your " goals are identical > > to " mine " . > > For who needs opposites when there are none and no-one to want. > > > > To relinquish separativeness is to be vulnerable and simultaneously > > invulnerable in non-being. > > > " To relinquish separativeness is to be vulnerable and simultaneously > invulnerable in non-being. " > > Oh yes! > I definitely agree with that! > > But I see the advice " be vulnerable " as one that someone > can actually use. The recommendation: " relinquish separativeness " > is something that may seem like mere words, an intellectual > sleight-of-hand. One may as well recommend, " Be at one with All! " > > Bill > No guru? Too bad, I was looking forward to the initiation-rite. You would have loved it! ;-) Isn't the trickery here that if we actually support " be vulnerable " we're likely to stay in duality trying and trying to make it work, like any good psychologist attempts? Whereas if our focus is on self/or lack of instead, we might not need any effort, in anything. Eventually we'll all give up on fixing duality, but perhaps try we must to recognize the futility of it all? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 6, 2006 Report Share Posted June 6, 2006 <snip> > > > Fair enough Bill. > > > Plenty of other gurus out there, I might not be the one for you. > > As if I were looking for one! LOL > > > > > I agree that intellectual arguments are redundant and it's to > bad > > > that every argument on this group can be classed as such. > > > > > > I prefer silence, but that's difficult to transfer via this > channel. > > > However, sitting silently I can see that " your " goals are > identical > > > to " mine " . > > > For who needs opposites when there are none and no-one to want. > > > > > > To relinquish separativeness is to be vulnerable and > simultaneously > > > invulnerable in non-being. > > > > > > " To relinquish separativeness is to be vulnerable and > simultaneously > > invulnerable in non-being. " > > > > Oh yes! > > I definitely agree with that! > > > > But I see the advice " be vulnerable " as one that someone > > can actually use. The recommendation: " relinquish separativeness " > > is something that may seem like mere words, an intellectual > > sleight-of-hand. One may as well recommend, " Be at one with All! " > > > > Bill > > > > No guru? Too bad, I was looking forward to the initiation-rite. You > would have loved it! ;-) > > Isn't the trickery here that if we actually support " be vulnerable " > we're likely to stay in duality trying and trying to make it work, > like any good psychologist attempts? The recommendation is not: " be vulnerable " . One does not simply " be vulnerable " . The recommendation is to relax and allow, and note if there is any tightening, any resistance, any hardness of heart. In short, note if there is a complete openness, a complete vulnerability. If not, that is a flag. If there is not openness/vulnerability, then inquire, go into it... be open and vulnerable about *that*! There is no simple: " do X " Someone might say, " BUT, *who* is supposedly so relaxing, allowing, etc.... " Such remarks come up all the time, as if a *flaw* has been caught with a great Aha! But telling someone who does have a separative sense of self that there is no such thing as a separate self is pretty pointless. This is what I meant when I spoke of a " transitional " quality to vulnerability. Vulnerability is just a shoehorn. Once the shoe is on the shoehorn can be left behind. > Whereas if our focus is on self/or lack of instead, we might not > need any effort, in anything. > > Eventually we'll all give up on fixing duality, but perhaps try we > must to recognize the futility of it all? There is no " fixing duality " . There is no problem with duality. You seem to make duality a problem. I have spoken of " transcending duality " , which is not to " fix " it. Duality can be as it is. True oneness has no problem with duality. True oneness sees no need to fix anything. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 6, 2006 Report Share Posted June 6, 2006 Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart wrote: > > <snip> > > > > > Fair enough Bill. > > > > Plenty of other gurus out there, I might not be the one for you. > > > As if I were looking for one! LOL > > > > > > > I agree that intellectual arguments are redundant and it's to > > bad > > > > that every argument on this group can be classed as such. > > > > > > > > I prefer silence, but that's difficult to transfer via this > > channel. > > > > However, sitting silently I can see that " your " goals are > > identical > > > > to " mine " . > > > > For who needs opposites when there are none and no-one to want. > > > > > > > > To relinquish separativeness is to be vulnerable and > > simultaneously > > > > invulnerable in non-being. > > > > > > > > > " To relinquish separativeness is to be vulnerable and > > simultaneously > > > invulnerable in non-being. " > > > > > > Oh yes! > > > I definitely agree with that! > > > > > > But I see the advice " be vulnerable " as one that someone > > > can actually use. The recommendation: " relinquish separativeness " > > > is something that may seem like mere words, an intellectual > > > sleight-of-hand. One may as well recommend, " Be at one with All! " > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > No guru? Too bad, I was looking forward to the initiation-rite. You > > would have loved it! ;-) > > > > Isn't the trickery here that if we actually support " be vulnerable " > > we're likely to stay in duality trying and trying to make it work, > > like any good psychologist attempts? > > The recommendation is not: " be vulnerable " . One does not simply > " be vulnerable " . > > The recommendation is to relax and allow, and note if there is any > tightening, any resistance, any hardness of heart. In short, note if > there is a complete openness, a complete vulnerability. If not, that > is a flag. If there is not openness/vulnerability, then inquire, go > into it... be open and vulnerable about *that*! > > There is no simple: " do X " > > Someone might say, " BUT, *who* is supposedly so relaxing, allowing, > etc.... " > Such remarks come up all the time, as if a *flaw* has been caught > with a great Aha! But telling someone who does have a separative sense > of self that there is no such thing as a separate self is pretty > pointless. This is what I meant when I spoke of a " transitional " > quality to vulnerability. Vulnerability is just a shoehorn. Once the > shoe is on the shoehorn can be left behind. > > > Whereas if our focus is on self/or lack of instead, we might not > > need any effort, in anything. > > > > Eventually we'll all give up on fixing duality, but perhaps try we > > must to recognize the futility of it all? > > There is no " fixing duality " . > There is no problem with duality. > You seem to make duality a problem. > I have spoken of " transcending duality " , which is not to " fix " it. > Duality can be as it is. True oneness has no problem with duality. > True oneness sees no need to fix anything. > > Bill > One o'clock, two o'clock, three o'clock rock.... True, how could the illusion of duality impose a problem on reality? But duality is a problem, as is any monster under my bed, when feared and respected by something such as me. Albeit a " personal " problem, still troublesome while spilling all over this planet literally. The only " fix " I'm selling is the one you mentioned - transcendence. Relax, allow, inquire, we do so agree I see. But, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I say, if we prescript anything to anyone, we might be heading south. True non-duality need not fix anything, anytime, anywhere, anyhow. We could keep our shoehorns, but be careful about prescribing them. When the shoe fits, gone! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 6, 2006 Report Share Posted June 6, 2006 <snip> > > > > There is no " fixing duality " . > > There is no problem with duality. > > You seem to make duality a problem. > > I have spoken of " transcending duality " , which is not to " fix " it. > > Duality can be as it is. True oneness has no problem with duality. > > True oneness sees no need to fix anything. > > > > Bill > > > > One o'clock, two o'clock, three o'clock rock.... > True, how could the illusion of duality impose a problem on reality? > But duality is a problem, as is any monster under my bed, when > feared and respected by something such as me. > Albeit a " personal " problem, still troublesome while spilling all > over this planet literally. > The only " fix " I'm selling is the one you mentioned - transcendence. > > Relax, allow, inquire, we do so agree I see. > > But, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. > I say, if we prescript anything to anyone, we might be heading south. > True non-duality need not fix anything, anytime, anywhere, anyhow. > We could keep our shoehorns, but be careful about prescribing them. > > When the shoe fits, gone! > complete agreement here. and " prescribing " ... ugh... don't like that term... any " suggestion " ... is always in context... and only as suggestion to *consider*... there is no recipe just relaxation... opening into awareness... ever softening.... the only struggle here is keeping what is in essence so very very simple just that very very simple Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 7, 2006 Report Share Posted June 7, 2006 Nisargadatta , Iam Whatever <pliantheart wrote: > > <snip> > > > > > > > There is no " fixing duality " . > > > There is no problem with duality. > > > You seem to make duality a problem. > > > I have spoken of " transcending duality " , which is not to " fix " it. > > > Duality can be as it is. True oneness has no problem with duality. > > > True oneness sees no need to fix anything. > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > One o'clock, two o'clock, three o'clock rock.... > > True, how could the illusion of duality impose a problem on reality? > > But duality is a problem, as is any monster under my bed, when > > feared and respected by something such as me. > > Albeit a " personal " problem, still troublesome while spilling all > > over this planet literally. > > The only " fix " I'm selling is the one you mentioned - transcendence. > > > > Relax, allow, inquire, we do so agree I see. > > > > But, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. > > I say, if we prescript anything to anyone, we might be heading south. > > True non-duality need not fix anything, anytime, anywhere, anyhow. > > We could keep our shoehorns, but be careful about prescribing them. > > > > When the shoe fits, gone! > > > > complete agreement here. > > and " prescribing " ... ugh... don't like that term... > any " suggestion " ... > is always in context... and only as suggestion > to *consider*... > > there is no recipe > > just relaxation... opening into awareness... > > ever softening.... > > > the only struggle here is keeping > what is in essence so very very simple > just that > very very simple > > > Bill > > True, so simple that it's mostly missed. But look! Here it is again! 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.