Guest guest Posted July 20, 2006 Report Share Posted July 20, 2006 Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , OConnor Patricia <gdtige@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > --- skywhilds <skywords@> a écrit : > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , OConnor > > > > Patricia <gdtige@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- dan330033 <dan330033@> a écrit : > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , OConnor > > > > > > Patricia <gdtige@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey Anna -- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There isn't any " after enlightenment " -- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > except as an idea to make people feel > > > > > > special > > > > > > > > about themselves. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > well danny boy, two things: yes, you are > > > > > > right > > > > > > > > and yes, you are > > > > > > > > > wrong. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > so be it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ;-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Right and wrong isn't what this is about > > > > Ana. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nor is there any specialness available. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Clearly, dropping self-constructed illusions > > > > and > > > > > > > > deceptions isn't > > > > > > > > going to be attractive. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There's nothing in it for " me. " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No wonderful feelings, no spiritual > > > > experiences, > > > > > > no > > > > > > > > great insights. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Just releasing, in and of itself. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if there wasn`t wonder in releasing, would > > > > there > > > > > > be a > > > > > > > let go of Dan??? > > > > > > > Or maybe wonder isn`t the right word, but > > > > since > > > > > > there > > > > > > > are no right words.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Patricia > > > > > > > > > > > > from my perspective, the release is automatic, > > > > > > simply when it is time. > > > > > > > > > > > > when " holding " is, literally, impossible. > > > > > > > > > > > > as long as " holding " seems possible to continue, > > > > the > > > > > > attempt continues. > > > > > > > > > > > > I can't release, in order to get a result, like > > > > > > wonder, love, or awe. > > > > > > > > > > > > That is because " I " am what is released, and > > > > there > > > > > > is nothing in it > > > > > > for " me. " > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > > > > > good, i like that. > > > > > Still, is it taboo to talk about a process > > > > involving > > > > > time, > > > > > about a situation (self-created) that is so > > > > unbearable > > > > > that one let go? > > > > > About a death that has a begining and yet no end? > > > > > > > > > > Patricia > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >I only want to know how you yourself are feeling. > > > > Please do not > > > > talk to me about no-self, nor about abstract > > > > situations. So that I > > > > may feel your love and offer mine in return. > > > > > > > > I am no longer interested in the semantics of being > > > > an island. If you > > > > suffer, open the door to love in love. If you do > > > > not suffer, why > > > > list, why anything? > > > > > > > > Listing, being, is suffering, anyone who denies this > > > > is suffering too > > > > much to admit it. > > > > > > > > Love is beautiful suffering in hope of healing > > > > transformation though > > > > another, is it not? > > > > > > > > No one is beyond hope, beauty, transformation, the > > > > longing for another > > > > to love and be loved. > > > > > > > > ~*~ > > > > > > > > > Love isn`t someone or for someone. It is. > > > Nobody is going to give you what is. > > > And you can`t dispense love to another since you don`t > > > own it. > > > is that too abstract? > > > > > > Patricia > > > > > > > Don't mean to be too contentious, but, yes. > > > > Because you wouldn't have posted if you'd not had a need for > > recognition (which is love). Nor would you have posted directly to my > > post, if love were merely autonomous, generic. > > > > You might protest that " love just happens, no need, just burgeoning. " > > But I know there's anticipation. And that's all I'm talking bout: > > > > Expectation, appreciation, disappointment, patience, impatience, these > > are all specific to each person, place, situation. > > > > What you're saying is as abstract as, " no one need make a distinction > > between fog and smog, it's all air, anyway. " > > > > ~*~ > > Sky > > (not bob in any but an abstract, > > " we're all human offering love, " sense) > > > > > P.S.: All I'm saying is that love is always more, not less, > discriminating. And this makes ALL the difference. > > Even when it reaches the point of " not caring, " it only does so > because it already cares so much more, most thoroughly. It cares > beyond caring. Only then can it be said to be absolute (not > abstract). I wonder if I'm making any sense. I hope so. > P.P.S.: OK, in a word: Am I projecting when I see attachment to detachment? I don't think so. There's the masculine version and there's the feminine version. There's the sage's version, and there's the novice's version. Each feeds the other. Love is neither attached nor detached. Right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 20, 2006 Report Share Posted July 20, 2006 Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , OConnor Patricia <gdtige@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- skywhilds <skywords@> a écrit : > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , OConnor > > > > > Patricia <gdtige@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- dan330033 <dan330033@> a écrit : > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , OConnor > > > > > > > Patricia <gdtige@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey Anna -- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There isn't any " after enlightenment " -- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > except as an idea to make people feel > > > > > > > special > > > > > > > > > about themselves. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > well danny boy, two things: yes, you are > > > > > > > right > > > > > > > > > and yes, you are > > > > > > > > > > wrong. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > so be it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ;-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Right and wrong isn't what this is about > > > > > Ana. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nor is there any specialness available. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Clearly, dropping self-constructed illusions > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > deceptions isn't > > > > > > > > > going to be attractive. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There's nothing in it for " me. " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No wonderful feelings, no spiritual > > > > > experiences, > > > > > > > no > > > > > > > > > great insights. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Just releasing, in and of itself. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if there wasn`t wonder in releasing, would > > > > > there > > > > > > > be a > > > > > > > > let go of Dan??? > > > > > > > > Or maybe wonder isn`t the right word, but > > > > > since > > > > > > > there > > > > > > > > are no right words.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Patricia > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from my perspective, the release is automatic, > > > > > > > simply when it is time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > when " holding " is, literally, impossible. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as long as " holding " seems possible to continue, > > > > > the > > > > > > > attempt continues. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I can't release, in order to get a result, like > > > > > > > wonder, love, or awe. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That is because " I " am what is released, and > > > > > there > > > > > > > is nothing in it > > > > > > > for " me. " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > > > > > > > good, i like that. > > > > > > Still, is it taboo to talk about a process > > > > > involving > > > > > > time, > > > > > > about a situation (self-created) that is so > > > > > unbearable > > > > > > that one let go? > > > > > > About a death that has a begining and yet no end? > > > > > > > > > > > > Patricia > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >I only want to know how you yourself are feeling. > > > > > Please do not > > > > > talk to me about no-self, nor about abstract > > > > > situations. So that I > > > > > may feel your love and offer mine in return. > > > > > > > > > > I am no longer interested in the semantics of being > > > > > an island. If you > > > > > suffer, open the door to love in love. If you do > > > > > not suffer, why > > > > > list, why anything? > > > > > > > > > > Listing, being, is suffering, anyone who denies this > > > > > is suffering too > > > > > much to admit it. > > > > > > > > > > Love is beautiful suffering in hope of healing > > > > > transformation though > > > > > another, is it not? > > > > > > > > > > No one is beyond hope, beauty, transformation, the > > > > > longing for another > > > > > to love and be loved. > > > > > > > > > > ~*~ > > > > > > > > > > > > Love isn`t someone or for someone. It is. > > > > Nobody is going to give you what is. > > > > And you can`t dispense love to another since you don`t > > > > own it. > > > > is that too abstract? > > > > > > > > Patricia > > > > > > > > > > Don't mean to be too contentious, but, yes. > > > > > > Because you wouldn't have posted if you'd not had a need for > > > recognition (which is love). Nor would you have posted directly to my > > > post, if love were merely autonomous, generic. > > > > > > You might protest that " love just happens, no need, just burgeoning. " > > > But I know there's anticipation. And that's all I'm talking bout: > > > > > > Expectation, appreciation, disappointment, patience, impatience, these > > > are all specific to each person, place, situation. > > > > > > What you're saying is as abstract as, " no one need make a distinction > > > between fog and smog, it's all air, anyway. " > > > > > > ~*~ > > > Sky > > > (not bob in any but an abstract, > > > " we're all human offering love, " sense) > > > > > > > > > P.S.: All I'm saying is that love is always more, not less, > > discriminating. And this makes ALL the difference. > > > > Even when it reaches the point of " not caring, " it only does so > > because it already cares so much more, most thoroughly. It cares > > beyond caring. Only then can it be said to be absolute (not > > abstract). I wonder if I'm making any sense. I hope so. > > > > P.P.S.: OK, in a word: Am I projecting when I see attachment to > detachment? I don't think so. There's the masculine version and > there's the feminine version. There's the sage's version, and there's > the novice's version. Each feeds the other. > > Love is neither attached nor detached. Right? > only let thy own door totaly open... and nothing whatsoever (neither attached nor detached)... will never touch you... openness is love... love is openness... all is in you... ....iietsa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 20, 2006 Report Share Posted July 20, 2006 <snip> > > P.P.S.: OK, in a word: Am I projecting when I see attachment to > > detachment? I don't think so. There's the masculine version and > > there's the feminine version. There's the sage's version, and > there's > > the novice's version. Each feeds the other. > > > > Love is neither attached nor detached. Right? > > > only let thy own door totaly open... > and nothing whatsoever (neither attached nor detached)... > will never touch you... > openness is love... > love is openness... > all is in you... > ...iietsa > yes love = openness = vulnerability = What Is and bottom line that is all that matters I prefer the word vulnerability to the other two. the word love is pretty much meaningless in my view with all the overloaded meanings piled on it (sorry Ana)... much like the word God no one *has* love no one *gives* love Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 20, 2006 Report Share Posted July 20, 2006 Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart wrote: > > <snip> > > > > P.P.S.: OK, in a word: Am I projecting when I see attachment to > > > detachment? I don't think so. There's the masculine version and > > > there's the feminine version. There's the sage's version, and > > there's > > > the novice's version. Each feeds the other. > > > > > > Love is neither attached nor detached. Right? > > > > > only let thy own door totaly open... > > and nothing whatsoever (neither attached nor detached)... > > will never touch you... > > openness is love... > > love is openness... > > all is in you... > > ...iietsa > > > > yes > love = openness = vulnerability = What Is > > and bottom line that is all that matters > > I prefer the word vulnerability to the other two. > > the word love is pretty much meaningless in my view > with all the overloaded meanings piled on it (sorry Ana)... > much like the word God > > no one *has* love > no one *gives* love > > > Bill > Love just is. " Love " implies all manner of archaic, past enmeshment. But any alternative implicates all manner or anarchic, prospective enmeshment in semantics and jargonic stipulations. (By the way, whence to Cambria?) ~*~ 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.