differences in attention/the path of love

[Guest guest]

<snip>

 

> > >

> > > when there is " no focusing at all " .....real Self is remaining....

> > > there are no movements....no thoughts....and so also

> > > no " objects " ....which are there to enjoy....

> > >

> > > there is the joy of being....

> > >

> > > nothing else

> > >

> > > Marc

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > The joy of being is your problem.

> >

> >

> >

> > toombaru

> >

>

> strikes me as rude to attribute a " problem " to another

> in an unsolicited manner such as this.

>

> it is a low-ball technique... in my view.

>

> it is also totally subjective. Marc didn't say he had

> a problem. You did. That is your attribution to Marc.

>

> it would be just as sound a statement for me to declare:

> " You, toombaru, are totally confused, indeed pathetically

> and pathologically confused. " [i don't agree with that

> statement, BTW

>

> but if I *were* to state such it would have as much footing

> as your statement about Marc's putative " problem " .

>

> making unfounded " you statements " about other members of

> the list does not uplift but does the opposite.

>

> if what one thinks to say is not to uplift, then why say it?

>

> felt I needed to speak up on this.

>

>

> Bill

>

 

interesting how waking up from a nap brings insights so often:

 

when I just now woke up I was stuck by my earlier words:

" if what one thinks to say is not to uplift, then why say it? "

and how that suggestion is one I myself could well take heed of.

 

sometimes in the name of " speaking the truth " I can say something

to another that does not uplift, but merely vents my mind or some

feeling. I don't think such can be called love.

 

if what we have " discovered " spiritually does not lead us in the

path of love, how can it be considered truth?

 

 

Bill

 

 

[ps: sorry about empty reply before this]