Guest guest Posted June 17, 2006 Report Share Posted June 17, 2006 Nisargadatta , Pete S <pedsie5 wrote: > > >B: and if you see Nis as recourse for justification, note also > > that he said, " Don't criticise others! " > > P; ha, ha! What have you been doing but criticizing > and chastising Toomb for not living up to your > ideals about love and courtesy. Those are your ideals, > neither the world nor realization has to live up to > them. > > Besides, " the joy of being is your problem " hardly > sound like an insult, unless one reads into it a whole > load of residuals issues against Toomb. > > You woke up on the wrong side of bed from that nap? You LOL's strike me as sneering and derisive. It appears you missed the subtlety of the point I was making altogether. To start off with " your problem is that... " -- when the other has not affirmed themselves as having a " problem " -- is high-hand, and yes, rude. It is not a connecting-with kind of statement, but a shooting-at kind of statement. And shooting-at I am regarding as an insensitive/rude form of interaction. You seem to be zipping in from out-of-context making snap assessments and exemplifying the kind of insensitive attack I am trying to discourage here. I think I can fairly accuse you of sloppiness. It was many months ago when you encouraged me to help out with the Nis list, which at the time was SEETHING with attacks and rants between members. I note that you yourself have not been part of that effort (though help has come from others, most notably Dan). In trying to turn this list around my theme all along has been " vulnerability " . I believe that you do not consider that concept as one of value or significance. But it *is* the theme I will continue to advocate. Egoism, put-downs, and other attacks are zero-calorie contributions, in my view. You seem to consider that attacks are " healthy " and have a rightful place in testing the real " mettle " of list contributors. I disagree. Attacks create a climate that does not encourage openness and depth of dialog. Civility, in my view, is a reasonable minimum standard for conduct on the list. You implied that that I am a hypocrite for citing someone for not being courteous. But you were merely picking at words. I *was* courteous in what I had to say to toombaru. Your point that I was technically criticizing him and so a hypocrite is, well, not a good point. Attacking the post of another is a cowardly game any fool can play. What takes guts is to so stick one's neck out and say something of one's own, potentially opening oneself to attack. My strategy is to discourage the former and promote the latter, which in my view leads to richer and deeper list dialog. Since you don't have any strategy at all perhaps you could keep out of my way as I seek to carry out mine? Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 17, 2006 Report Share Posted June 17, 2006 Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Pete S <pedsie5@> wrote: > > > > >B: and if you see Nis as recourse for justification, note also > > > that he said, " Don't criticise others! " > > > > P; ha, ha! What have you been doing but criticizing > > and chastising Toomb for not living up to your > > ideals about love and courtesy. Those are your ideals, > > neither the world nor realization has to live up to > > them. > > > > Besides, " the joy of being is your problem " hardly > > sound like an insult, unless one reads into it a whole > > load of residuals issues against Toomb. > > > > You woke up on the wrong side of bed from that nap? > > You LOL's strike me as sneering and derisive. It appears > you missed the subtlety of the point I was making > altogether. To start off with " your problem is that... " > -- when the other has not affirmed themselves as having > a " problem " -- is high-hand, and yes, rude. It is not > a connecting-with kind of statement, but a shooting-at > kind of statement. And shooting-at I am regarding as > an insensitive/rude form of interaction. > > You seem to be zipping in from out-of-context > making snap assessments and exemplifying the kind of > insensitive attack I am trying to discourage here. I think > I can fairly accuse you of sloppiness. > > It was many months ago when you encouraged me to help out > with the Nis list, which at the time was SEETHING with > attacks and rants between members. I note that you yourself > have not been part of that effort (though help has come from > others, most notably Dan). In trying to turn this list > around my theme all along has been " vulnerability " . I > believe that you do not consider that concept as one of > value or significance. But it *is* the theme I will continue > to advocate. Egoism, put-downs, and other attacks are > zero-calorie contributions, in my view. You seem to consider > that attacks are " healthy " and have a rightful place in > testing the real " mettle " of list contributors. I disagree. > Attacks create a climate that does not encourage openness > and depth of dialog. Civility, in my view, is a reasonable > minimum standard for conduct on the list. > > You implied that that I am a hypocrite for citing someone for > not being courteous. But you were merely picking at words. I > *was* courteous in what I had to say to toombaru. Your point > that I was technically criticizing him and so a hypocrite is, > well, not a good point. > > Attacking the post of another is a cowardly game any fool > can play. What takes guts is to so stick one's neck out and > say something of one's own, potentially opening oneself to > attack. My strategy is to discourage the former and promote > the latter, which in my view leads to richer and deeper list > dialog. Since you don't have any strategy at all perhaps you > could keep out of my way as I seek to carry out mine? > > > Bill > Dearest Bill, et al, " Sticking one's neck out " on the net, isn't much sticking out, perhaps a few feathers get ruffled or feelings are hurt. It's all good since the stuff we need to work on comes up. (Let's not forget, the only 'it' that we truly ever work on 24/7 is ourselves.) " Sticking one's neck out " in real life, is what This is all about. True Relationship with All That Is. We can discourse non-duality to infinity and back, and unless we take the 'show on the road' so to speak, non-duality is an endless round of thoughts about. Good to create clarity butt stopping short as a Way of Living. And Living is about Life, wouldn't we agree? Do we live what we say? Do we engage in all aspects of life, or do we hide in our non-dual words, and if so, why? The world needs the living truth of of what non-duality truly means. and is. IMHO non-duality is the result of balancing all seeming " opposities " into one cohesive integral, unitive, intuitive, and loving way of living. And its fruits are clarity of intention, acting in loving-kindness and compassion. Love is two-fold. Giving and receiving what we give. Think about that one. Yes, it is all right to think in a non-dual reality. Yours In Love, Ana 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.