Guest guest Posted July 28, 2006 Report Share Posted July 28, 2006 Where there is the possibility of pain, where there is the possibility of suffering in love, it is not love, it is merely a subtle form of possession, of acquisitiveness. J. Krishnamurti Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 28, 2006 Report Share Posted July 28, 2006 " Where there is the possibility of pain, where there is the possibility of suffering in love, it is not love, it is merely a subtle form of possession, of acquisitiveness. " - J. Krishnamurti As I reflected on the quote it brought me to wonder what it is that defines the " relationship " . I concluded that the relationship, whatever it may be, is *not* a set of feelings that I may have about the other. It is the feelings I have about the other that constitute expectations about the other and are the basis for potential disappointment. And hence, I concluded, the feelings I carry about the other are what is false. In a way it is like my own false identity clouding my realization of What Is, of Now. Because the feelings I have about the other are in effect my sense of identity as far as that relationship is concerned. When I realize that the set of feelings I carry in my own breast regarding the other are false, are not what is real, then they dissolve. And when they have dissolved what remains is a tremendous space. I still behold the other, but now what I behold is a vastness of possibilities, in place of what I held before as a confined set of necessities. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 28, 2006 Report Share Posted July 28, 2006 Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart wrote: > > > > " Where there is the possibility of pain, where > there is the possibility of suffering in love, > it is not love, it is merely a subtle form of > possession, of acquisitiveness. " > > - J. Krishnamurti > > > As I reflected on the quote it brought me to wonder > what it is that defines the " relationship " . > I concluded that the relationship, whatever it > may be, is *not* a set of feelings that I may > have about the other. > > It is the feelings I have about the other that > constitute expectations about the other and > are the basis for potential disappointment. > And hence, I concluded, the feelings I carry > about the other are what is false. > > In a way it is like my own false identity > clouding my realization of What Is, of Now. > Because the feelings I have about the other > are in effect my sense of identity as > far as that relationship is concerned. > > When I realize that the set of feelings I carry > in my own breast regarding the other are false, > are not what is real, then they dissolve. And > when they have dissolved what remains is a > tremendous space. I still behold the other, but > now what I behold is a vastness of possibilities, > in place of what I held before as a confined > set of necessities. > > > Bill > so, love is freedom from one's self? as toom says, self is suffering? any limitation on anything, then, is suffering? the idea, self/other, then, as limitation? any thing, i e limitation, then, as suffering? only no any thing, then, as freedom, as love, then? ~*~ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 28, 2006 Report Share Posted July 28, 2006 Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > " Where there is the possibility of pain, where > > there is the possibility of suffering in love, > > it is not love, it is merely a subtle form of > > possession, of acquisitiveness. " > > > > - J. Krishnamurti > > > > > > As I reflected on the quote it brought me to wonder > > what it is that defines the " relationship " . > > I concluded that the relationship, whatever it > > may be, is *not* a set of feelings that I may > > have about the other. > > > > It is the feelings I have about the other that > > constitute expectations about the other and > > are the basis for potential disappointment. > > And hence, I concluded, the feelings I carry > > about the other are what is false. > > > > In a way it is like my own false identity > > clouding my realization of What Is, of Now. > > Because the feelings I have about the other > > are in effect my sense of identity as > > far as that relationship is concerned. > > > > When I realize that the set of feelings I carry > > in my own breast regarding the other are false, > > are not what is real, then they dissolve. And > > when they have dissolved what remains is a > > tremendous space. I still behold the other, but > > now what I behold is a vastness of possibilities, > > in place of what I held before as a confined > > set of necessities. > > > > > > Bill > > > > so, love is freedom from one's self? > > as toom says, self is suffering? > > any limitation on anything, then, is suffering? > > the idea, self/other, then, as limitation? > > any thing, i e limitation, then, as suffering? > > only no any thing, then, as freedom, as love, then? > > ~*~ what exactly is it that 'gets free' when it loses 'self'? what is 'love' besides just saying that is some state or entity or event or substance or ? when 'self' is no more. why belioeve in love any more than no-self, self, atman, etc?.I'm just curious and am not saying that anyone is saying these things here, it's just my general take on a lot of things that are being said swirling around the issues herein discussed, and I would really like some type of answer or definition that is not just evasion, solipsism, tautology, etc. ........bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 28, 2006 Report Share Posted July 28, 2006 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > " Where there is the possibility of pain, where > > > there is the possibility of suffering in love, > > > it is not love, it is merely a subtle form of > > > possession, of acquisitiveness. " > > > > > > - J. Krishnamurti > > > > > > > > > As I reflected on the quote it brought me to wonder > > > what it is that defines the " relationship " . > > > I concluded that the relationship, whatever it > > > may be, is *not* a set of feelings that I may > > > have about the other. > > > > > > It is the feelings I have about the other that > > > constitute expectations about the other and > > > are the basis for potential disappointment. > > > And hence, I concluded, the feelings I carry > > > about the other are what is false. > > > > > > In a way it is like my own false identity > > > clouding my realization of What Is, of Now. > > > Because the feelings I have about the other > > > are in effect my sense of identity as > > > far as that relationship is concerned. > > > > > > When I realize that the set of feelings I carry > > > in my own breast regarding the other are false, > > > are not what is real, then they dissolve. And > > > when they have dissolved what remains is a > > > tremendous space. I still behold the other, but > > > now what I behold is a vastness of possibilities, > > > in place of what I held before as a confined > > > set of necessities. > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > so, love is freedom from one's self? > > > > as toom says, self is suffering? > > > > any limitation on anything, then, is suffering? > > > > the idea, self/other, then, as limitation? > > > > any thing, i e limitation, then, as suffering? > > > > only no any thing, then, as freedom, as love, then? > > > > ~*~ > what exactly is it that 'gets free' when it loses 'self'? what > is 'love' besides just saying that is some state or entity or event > or substance or ? when 'self' is no more. why belioeve in love any > more than no-self, self, atman, etc?.I'm just curious and am not > saying that anyone is saying these things here, it's just my general > take on a lot of things that are being said swirling around the > issues herein discussed, and I would really like some type of answer > or definition that is not just evasion, solipsism, tautology, etc. > > ........bob > it is, precisely, what you want, that very wanting, that is love ~*~ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 28, 2006 Report Share Posted July 28, 2006 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > " Where there is the possibility of pain, where > > > there is the possibility of suffering in love, > > > it is not love, it is merely a subtle form of > > > possession, of acquisitiveness. " > > > > > > - J. Krishnamurti > > > > > > > > > As I reflected on the quote it brought me to wonder > > > what it is that defines the " relationship " . > > > I concluded that the relationship, whatever it > > > may be, is *not* a set of feelings that I may > > > have about the other. > > > > > > It is the feelings I have about the other that > > > constitute expectations about the other and > > > are the basis for potential disappointment. > > > And hence, I concluded, the feelings I carry > > > about the other are what is false. > > > > > > In a way it is like my own false identity > > > clouding my realization of What Is, of Now. > > > Because the feelings I have about the other > > > are in effect my sense of identity as > > > far as that relationship is concerned. > > > > > > When I realize that the set of feelings I carry > > > in my own breast regarding the other are false, > > > are not what is real, then they dissolve. And > > > when they have dissolved what remains is a > > > tremendous space. I still behold the other, but > > > now what I behold is a vastness of possibilities, > > > in place of what I held before as a confined > > > set of necessities. > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > so, love is freedom from one's self? > > > > as toom says, self is suffering? > > > > any limitation on anything, then, is suffering? > > > > the idea, self/other, then, as limitation? > > > > any thing, i e limitation, then, as suffering? > > > > only no any thing, then, as freedom, as love, then? > > > > ~*~ > what exactly is it that 'gets free' when it loses 'self'? what > is 'love' besides just saying that is some state or entity or event > or substance or ? when 'self' is no more. why belioeve in love any > more than no-self, self, atman, etc?.I'm just curious and am not > saying that anyone is saying these things here, it's just my general > take on a lot of things that are being said swirling around the > issues herein discussed, and I would really like some type of answer > or definition that is not just evasion, solipsism, tautology, etc. > > ........bob > the " gets free " is mere idea... and this idea is only interesting if there is taking the " not yet free " thought seriously... when you take yourself for nothing...then no thought affects you... its not you that gives any one thought (idea) a (higher) value... it is another thought doing that... just dont take any one thought seriously...nomatter what... and you are who you are in ease... ....iietsa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 28, 2006 Report Share Posted July 28, 2006 Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " Where there is the possibility of pain, where > > > > there is the possibility of suffering in love, > > > > it is not love, it is merely a subtle form of > > > > possession, of acquisitiveness. " > > > > > > > > - J. Krishnamurti > > > > > > > > > > > > As I reflected on the quote it brought me to wonder > > > > what it is that defines the " relationship " . > > > > I concluded that the relationship, whatever it > > > > may be, is *not* a set of feelings that I may > > > > have about the other. > > > > > > > > It is the feelings I have about the other that > > > > constitute expectations about the other and > > > > are the basis for potential disappointment. > > > > And hence, I concluded, the feelings I carry > > > > about the other are what is false. > > > > > > > > In a way it is like my own false identity > > > > clouding my realization of What Is, of Now. > > > > Because the feelings I have about the other > > > > are in effect my sense of identity as > > > > far as that relationship is concerned. > > > > > > > > When I realize that the set of feelings I carry > > > > in my own breast regarding the other are false, > > > > are not what is real, then they dissolve. And > > > > when they have dissolved what remains is a > > > > tremendous space. I still behold the other, but > > > > now what I behold is a vastness of possibilities, > > > > in place of what I held before as a confined > > > > set of necessities. > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > so, love is freedom from one's self? > > > > > > as toom says, self is suffering? > > > > > > any limitation on anything, then, is suffering? > > > > > > the idea, self/other, then, as limitation? > > > > > > any thing, i e limitation, then, as suffering? > > > > > > only no any thing, then, as freedom, as love, then? > > > > > > ~*~ > > what exactly is it that 'gets free' when it loses 'self'? what > > is 'love' besides just saying that is some state or entity or > event > > or substance or ? when 'self' is no more. why belioeve in love any > > more than no-self, self, atman, etc?.I'm just curious and am not > > saying that anyone is saying these things here, it's just my > general > > take on a lot of things that are being said swirling around the > > issues herein discussed, and I would really like some type of > answer > > or definition that is not just evasion, solipsism, tautology, etc. > > > > ........bob > > > > the " gets free " is mere idea... > and this idea is only interesting if there is taking the " not yet > free " thought seriously... > when you take yourself for nothing...then no thought affects you... > its not you that gives any one thought (idea) a (higher) value... > it is another thought doing that... > just dont take any one thought seriously...nomatter what... > and you are who you are in ease... > ...iietsa I agree iieatsa.....as I've said in a few posts...... " don't believe anything " .....just BE and all things ARE. ...........bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 28, 2006 Report Share Posted July 28, 2006 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " > > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " > <pliantheart@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " Where there is the possibility of pain, where > > > > > there is the possibility of suffering in love, > > > > > it is not love, it is merely a subtle form of > > > > > possession, of acquisitiveness. " > > > > > > > > > > - J. Krishnamurti > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I reflected on the quote it brought me to wonder > > > > > what it is that defines the " relationship " . > > > > > I concluded that the relationship, whatever it > > > > > may be, is *not* a set of feelings that I may > > > > > have about the other. > > > > > > > > > > It is the feelings I have about the other that > > > > > constitute expectations about the other and > > > > > are the basis for potential disappointment. > > > > > And hence, I concluded, the feelings I carry > > > > > about the other are what is false. > > > > > > > > > > In a way it is like my own false identity > > > > > clouding my realization of What Is, of Now. > > > > > Because the feelings I have about the other > > > > > are in effect my sense of identity as > > > > > far as that relationship is concerned. > > > > > > > > > > When I realize that the set of feelings I carry > > > > > in my own breast regarding the other are false, > > > > > are not what is real, then they dissolve. And > > > > > when they have dissolved what remains is a > > > > > tremendous space. I still behold the other, but > > > > > now what I behold is a vastness of possibilities, > > > > > in place of what I held before as a confined > > > > > set of necessities. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > so, love is freedom from one's self? > > > > > > > > as toom says, self is suffering? > > > > > > > > any limitation on anything, then, is suffering? > > > > > > > > the idea, self/other, then, as limitation? > > > > > > > > any thing, i e limitation, then, as suffering? > > > > > > > > only no any thing, then, as freedom, as love, then? > > > > > > > > ~*~ > > > what exactly is it that 'gets free' when it loses 'self'? what > > > is 'love' besides just saying that is some state or entity or > > event > > > or substance or ? when 'self' is no more. why belioeve in love > any > > > more than no-self, self, atman, etc?.I'm just curious and am not > > > saying that anyone is saying these things here, it's just my > > general > > > take on a lot of things that are being said swirling around the > > > issues herein discussed, and I would really like some type of > > answer > > > or definition that is not just evasion, solipsism, tautology, etc. > > > > > > ........bob > > > > > > > the " gets free " is mere idea... > > and this idea is only interesting if there is taking the " not yet > > free " thought seriously... > > when you take yourself for nothing...then no thought affects you... > > its not you that gives any one thought (idea) a (higher) value... > > it is another thought doing that... > > just dont take any one thought seriously...nomatter what... > > and you are who you are in ease... > > ...iietsa > > > I agree iieatsa.....as I've said in a few posts...... " don't believe > anything " .....just BE and all things ARE. > > ...........bob > you probably see this point clearly... but the agreeing is part of the mind... its not really you that agrees... its the mind that agrees... you are the seeing...or the Being... and you see this agreeing taking place within you in perfect harmony ....iietsa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 28, 2006 Report Share Posted July 28, 2006 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " > > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " > <pliantheart@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " Where there is the possibility of pain, where > > > > > there is the possibility of suffering in love, > > > > > it is not love, it is merely a subtle form of > > > > > possession, of acquisitiveness. " > > > > > > > > > > - J. Krishnamurti > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I reflected on the quote it brought me to wonder > > > > > what it is that defines the " relationship " . > > > > > I concluded that the relationship, whatever it > > > > > may be, is *not* a set of feelings that I may > > > > > have about the other. > > > > > > > > > > It is the feelings I have about the other that > > > > > constitute expectations about the other and > > > > > are the basis for potential disappointment. > > > > > And hence, I concluded, the feelings I carry > > > > > about the other are what is false. > > > > > > > > > > In a way it is like my own false identity > > > > > clouding my realization of What Is, of Now. > > > > > Because the feelings I have about the other > > > > > are in effect my sense of identity as > > > > > far as that relationship is concerned. > > > > > > > > > > When I realize that the set of feelings I carry > > > > > in my own breast regarding the other are false, > > > > > are not what is real, then they dissolve. And > > > > > when they have dissolved what remains is a > > > > > tremendous space. I still behold the other, but > > > > > now what I behold is a vastness of possibilities, > > > > > in place of what I held before as a confined > > > > > set of necessities. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > so, love is freedom from one's self? > > > > > > > > as toom says, self is suffering? > > > > > > > > any limitation on anything, then, is suffering? > > > > > > > > the idea, self/other, then, as limitation? > > > > > > > > any thing, i e limitation, then, as suffering? > > > > > > > > only no any thing, then, as freedom, as love, then? > > > > > > > > ~*~ > > > what exactly is it that 'gets free' when it loses 'self'? what > > > is 'love' besides just saying that is some state or entity or > > event > > > or substance or ? when 'self' is no more. why belioeve in love > any > > > more than no-self, self, atman, etc?.I'm just curious and am not > > > saying that anyone is saying these things here, it's just my > > general > > > take on a lot of things that are being said swirling around the > > > issues herein discussed, and I would really like some type of > > answer > > > or definition that is not just evasion, solipsism, tautology, etc. > > > > > > ........bob > > > > > > > the " gets free " is mere idea... > > and this idea is only interesting if there is taking the " not yet > > free " thought seriously... > > when you take yourself for nothing...then no thought affects you... > > its not you that gives any one thought (idea) a (higher) value... > > it is another thought doing that... > > just dont take any one thought seriously...nomatter what... > > and you are who you are in ease... > > ...iietsa > > > I agree iieatsa.....as I've said in a few posts...... " don't believe > anything " .....just BE and all things ARE. > > ...........bob > that's what love is ~*~ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 28, 2006 Report Share Posted July 28, 2006 Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " > > > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " > > <pliantheart@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " Where there is the possibility of pain, where > > > > > > there is the possibility of suffering in love, > > > > > > it is not love, it is merely a subtle form of > > > > > > possession, of acquisitiveness. " > > > > > > > > > > > > - J. Krishnamurti > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I reflected on the quote it brought me to wonder > > > > > > what it is that defines the " relationship " . > > > > > > I concluded that the relationship, whatever it > > > > > > may be, is *not* a set of feelings that I may > > > > > > have about the other. > > > > > > > > > > > > It is the feelings I have about the other that > > > > > > constitute expectations about the other and > > > > > > are the basis for potential disappointment. > > > > > > And hence, I concluded, the feelings I carry > > > > > > about the other are what is false. > > > > > > > > > > > > In a way it is like my own false identity > > > > > > clouding my realization of What Is, of Now. > > > > > > Because the feelings I have about the other > > > > > > are in effect my sense of identity as > > > > > > far as that relationship is concerned. > > > > > > > > > > > > When I realize that the set of feelings I carry > > > > > > in my own breast regarding the other are false, > > > > > > are not what is real, then they dissolve. And > > > > > > when they have dissolved what remains is a > > > > > > tremendous space. I still behold the other, but > > > > > > now what I behold is a vastness of possibilities, > > > > > > in place of what I held before as a confined > > > > > > set of necessities. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > so, love is freedom from one's self? > > > > > > > > > > as toom says, self is suffering? > > > > > > > > > > any limitation on anything, then, is suffering? > > > > > > > > > > the idea, self/other, then, as limitation? > > > > > > > > > > any thing, i e limitation, then, as suffering? > > > > > > > > > > only no any thing, then, as freedom, as love, then? > > > > > > > > > > ~*~ > > > > what exactly is it that 'gets free' when it loses 'self'? what > > > > is 'love' besides just saying that is some state or entity or > > > event > > > > or substance or ? when 'self' is no more. why belioeve in love > > any > > > > more than no-self, self, atman, etc?.I'm just curious and am not > > > > saying that anyone is saying these things here, it's just my > > > general > > > > take on a lot of things that are being said swirling around the > > > > issues herein discussed, and I would really like some type of > > > answer > > > > or definition that is not just evasion, solipsism, tautology, etc. > > > > > > > > ........bob > > > > > > > > > > the " gets free " is mere idea... > > > and this idea is only interesting if there is taking the " not yet > > > free " thought seriously... > > > when you take yourself for nothing...then no thought affects you... > > > its not you that gives any one thought (idea) a (higher) value... > > > it is another thought doing that... > > > just dont take any one thought seriously...nomatter what... > > > and you are who you are in ease... > > > ...iietsa > > > > > > I agree iieatsa.....as I've said in a few posts...... " don't believe > > anything " .....just BE and all things ARE. > > > > ...........bob > > > > > that's what love is > > ~*~ that's what solipsism is ...........b Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 28, 2006 Report Share Posted July 28, 2006 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " > > > > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " > > > <pliantheart@> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " Where there is the possibility of pain, where > > > > > > > there is the possibility of suffering in love, > > > > > > > it is not love, it is merely a subtle form of > > > > > > > possession, of acquisitiveness. " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - J. Krishnamurti > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I reflected on the quote it brought me to wonder > > > > > > > what it is that defines the " relationship " . > > > > > > > I concluded that the relationship, whatever it > > > > > > > may be, is *not* a set of feelings that I may > > > > > > > have about the other. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is the feelings I have about the other that > > > > > > > constitute expectations about the other and > > > > > > > are the basis for potential disappointment. > > > > > > > And hence, I concluded, the feelings I carry > > > > > > > about the other are what is false. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In a way it is like my own false identity > > > > > > > clouding my realization of What Is, of Now. > > > > > > > Because the feelings I have about the other > > > > > > > are in effect my sense of identity as > > > > > > > far as that relationship is concerned. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When I realize that the set of feelings I carry > > > > > > > in my own breast regarding the other are false, > > > > > > > are not what is real, then they dissolve. And > > > > > > > when they have dissolved what remains is a > > > > > > > tremendous space. I still behold the other, but > > > > > > > now what I behold is a vastness of possibilities, > > > > > > > in place of what I held before as a confined > > > > > > > set of necessities. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > so, love is freedom from one's self? > > > > > > > > > > > > as toom says, self is suffering? > > > > > > > > > > > > any limitation on anything, then, is suffering? > > > > > > > > > > > > the idea, self/other, then, as limitation? > > > > > > > > > > > > any thing, i e limitation, then, as suffering? > > > > > > > > > > > > only no any thing, then, as freedom, as love, then? > > > > > > > > > > > > ~*~ > > > > > what exactly is it that 'gets free' when it loses 'self'? > what > > > > > is 'love' besides just saying that is some state or entity or > > > > event > > > > > or substance or ? when 'self' is no more. why belioeve in > love > > > any > > > > > more than no-self, self, atman, etc?.I'm just curious and am > not > > > > > saying that anyone is saying these things here, it's just my > > > > general > > > > > take on a lot of things that are being said swirling around > the > > > > > issues herein discussed, and I would really like some type of > > > > answer > > > > > or definition that is not just evasion, solipsism, tautology, > etc. > > > > > > > > > > ........bob > > > > > > > > > > > > > the " gets free " is mere idea... > > > > and this idea is only interesting if there is taking the " not > yet > > > > free " thought seriously... > > > > when you take yourself for nothing...then no thought affects > you... > > > > its not you that gives any one thought (idea) a (higher) > value... > > > > it is another thought doing that... > > > > just dont take any one thought seriously...nomatter what... > > > > and you are who you are in ease... > > > > ...iietsa > > > > > > > > > I agree iieatsa.....as I've said in a few posts...... " don't > believe > > > anything " .....just BE and all things ARE. > > > > > > ...........bob > > > > > > > > > that's what love is > > > > ~*~ > that's what solipsism is > > ...........b > yes. love is solipsism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 28, 2006 Report Share Posted July 28, 2006 Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " > > > > > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " > > > > <pliantheart@> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " Where there is the possibility of pain, where > > > > > > > > there is the possibility of suffering in love, > > > > > > > > it is not love, it is merely a subtle form of > > > > > > > > possession, of acquisitiveness. " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - J. Krishnamurti > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I reflected on the quote it brought me to wonder > > > > > > > > what it is that defines the " relationship " . > > > > > > > > I concluded that the relationship, whatever it > > > > > > > > may be, is *not* a set of feelings that I may > > > > > > > > have about the other. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is the feelings I have about the other that > > > > > > > > constitute expectations about the other and > > > > > > > > are the basis for potential disappointment. > > > > > > > > And hence, I concluded, the feelings I carry > > > > > > > > about the other are what is false. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In a way it is like my own false identity > > > > > > > > clouding my realization of What Is, of Now. > > > > > > > > Because the feelings I have about the other > > > > > > > > are in effect my sense of identity as > > > > > > > > far as that relationship is concerned. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When I realize that the set of feelings I carry > > > > > > > > in my own breast regarding the other are false, > > > > > > > > are not what is real, then they dissolve. And > > > > > > > > when they have dissolved what remains is a > > > > > > > > tremendous space. I still behold the other, but > > > > > > > > now what I behold is a vastness of possibilities, > > > > > > > > in place of what I held before as a confined > > > > > > > > set of necessities. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > so, love is freedom from one's self? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as toom says, self is suffering? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any limitation on anything, then, is suffering? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the idea, self/other, then, as limitation? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any thing, i e limitation, then, as suffering? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > only no any thing, then, as freedom, as love, then? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~*~ > > > > > > what exactly is it that 'gets free' when it loses 'self'? > > what > > > > > > is 'love' besides just saying that is some state or entity or > > > > > event > > > > > > or substance or ? when 'self' is no more. why belioeve in > > love > > > > any > > > > > > more than no-self, self, atman, etc?.I'm just curious and am > > not > > > > > > saying that anyone is saying these things here, it's just my > > > > > general > > > > > > take on a lot of things that are being said swirling around > > the > > > > > > issues herein discussed, and I would really like some type of > > > > > answer > > > > > > or definition that is not just evasion, solipsism, tautology, > > etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > ........bob > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the " gets free " is mere idea... > > > > > and this idea is only interesting if there is taking the " not > > yet > > > > > free " thought seriously... > > > > > when you take yourself for nothing...then no thought affects > > you... > > > > > its not you that gives any one thought (idea) a (higher) > > value... > > > > > it is another thought doing that... > > > > > just dont take any one thought seriously...nomatter what... > > > > > and you are who you are in ease... > > > > > ...iietsa > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree iieatsa.....as I've said in a few posts...... " don't > > believe > > > > anything " .....just BE and all things ARE. > > > > > > > > ...........bob > > > > > > > > > > > > > that's what love is > > > > > > ~*~ > > that's what solipsism is > > > > ...........b > > > > yes. love is solipsism. OK now without solipsism, without tautology, without evasion......what IS love? I 'believe' what you say, even though I don't know what belief is, who is believing or even actually 'what' it is that it is believing when I say " I believe in Self, I believe in Love.....I don't even know what I mean when I say I 'feel' these things(even if there are no 'things' of any kind. SOMETHING there is that is a SOMEWHAT of no definition..... and boy oh boy do I get lost in it sometimes....BUT (Here We Dare to Speak Further)......This whole thing has the 'feeling-tone' of that statement of Augustine's regarding Time. (I posted this earlier today, but it didn't go through). I love our dear Auggie, and have read as much of him as any other incarnate......but when he says re Time that he knows what it is, but when asked he cannot say.....well that just rings the bell of an evasive tautology to me. There MUST be some way to define these things without resort to the poetic, and then saying that it's all 'between the lines' or in the 'feeling' of the poem, or that all you need is what is and what that love is is 'what is' and that is all. I am aware of how circular this sounds, and it is in no way an attempt on my part to say that I am understanding anything, nor is it being coy or trying to entrap anyone. I'm just looking to see if someone, anyone, anywhere can give definition to this stuff, without coping out with something like it's the unknown that cannot be comprehended within the known, or is known but is undefinable....all that stuff we post and read all the time. It sounds sweet and profound and even 'right on', but in truth(whatever it is in reality, here I mean simply exactitude in definition and fidelity to the words/feelings under the microscope here. .........bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 28, 2006 Report Share Posted July 28, 2006 Re: What is love? Posted by: " pliantheart " pliantheart pliantheart Fri Jul 28, 2006 5:29 am (PST) < " Where there is the possibility of pain, where < there is the possibility of suffering in love, < it is not love, it is merely a subtle form of < possession, of acquisitiveness. " < - J. Krishnamurti < As I reflected on the quote it brought me to wonder < what it is that defines the " relationship " . < I concluded that the relationship, whatever it < may be, is *not* a set of feelings that I may < have about the other. < It is the feelings I have about the other that < constitute expectations about the other and < are the basis for potential disappointment. < And hence, I concluded, the feelings I carry < about the other are what is false. < In a way it is like my own false identity < clouding my realization of What Is, of Now. < Because the feelings I have about the other < are in effect my sense of identity as < far as that relationship is concerned. < When I realize that the set of feelings I carry < in my own breast regarding the other are false, < are not what is real, then they dissolve. And < when they have dissolved what remains is a < tremendous space. I still behold the other, but now what I behold is a vastness of possibilities, < < in place of what I held before as a confined < set of necessities. < Bill Hi PiantBill, Perhaps what you wrote is akin to a mirror that is not warped and is without anything on its surface such as dust, paint, etc therefore being able to reflect the so-called " other " as is and as *IS* and *AS* is. The " other " and " onself " then appear to exist as distinctions but not as separateness. One both is and is not the other and vice-versa. Michael Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 28, 2006 Report Share Posted July 28, 2006 Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " > > > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " > > <pliantheart@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " Where there is the possibility of pain, where > > > > > > there is the possibility of suffering in love, > > > > > > it is not love, it is merely a subtle form of > > > > > > possession, of acquisitiveness. " > > > > > > > > > > > > - J. Krishnamurti > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I reflected on the quote it brought me to wonder > > > > > > what it is that defines the " relationship " . > > > > > > I concluded that the relationship, whatever it > > > > > > may be, is *not* a set of feelings that I may > > > > > > have about the other. > > > > > > > > > > > > It is the feelings I have about the other that > > > > > > constitute expectations about the other and > > > > > > are the basis for potential disappointment. > > > > > > And hence, I concluded, the feelings I carry > > > > > > about the other are what is false. > > > > > > > > > > > > In a way it is like my own false identity > > > > > > clouding my realization of What Is, of Now. > > > > > > Because the feelings I have about the other > > > > > > are in effect my sense of identity as > > > > > > far as that relationship is concerned. > > > > > > > > > > > > When I realize that the set of feelings I carry > > > > > > in my own breast regarding the other are false, > > > > > > are not what is real, then they dissolve. And > > > > > > when they have dissolved what remains is a > > > > > > tremendous space. I still behold the other, but > > > > > > now what I behold is a vastness of possibilities, > > > > > > in place of what I held before as a confined > > > > > > set of necessities. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > so, love is freedom from one's self? > > > > > > > > > > as toom says, self is suffering? > > > > > > > > > > any limitation on anything, then, is suffering? > > > > > > > > > > the idea, self/other, then, as limitation? > > > > > > > > > > any thing, i e limitation, then, as suffering? > > > > > > > > > > only no any thing, then, as freedom, as love, then? > > > > > > > > > > ~*~ > > > > what exactly is it that 'gets free' when it loses 'self'? what > > > > is 'love' besides just saying that is some state or entity or > > > event > > > > or substance or ? when 'self' is no more. why belioeve in love > > any > > > > more than no-self, self, atman, etc?.I'm just curious and am > not > > > > saying that anyone is saying these things here, it's just my > > > general > > > > take on a lot of things that are being said swirling around > the > > > > issues herein discussed, and I would really like some type of > > > answer > > > > or definition that is not just evasion, solipsism, tautology, > etc. > > > > > > > > ........bob > > > > > > > > > > the " gets free " is mere idea... > > > and this idea is only interesting if there is taking the " not yet > > > free " thought seriously... > > > when you take yourself for nothing...then no thought affects > you... > > > its not you that gives any one thought (idea) a (higher) value... > > > it is another thought doing that... > > > just dont take any one thought seriously...nomatter what... > > > and you are who you are in ease... > > > ...iietsa > > > > > > I agree iieatsa.....as I've said in a few posts...... " don't > believe > > anything " .....just BE and all things ARE. > > > > ...........bob > > > you probably see this point clearly... > but the agreeing is part of the mind... > its not really you that agrees... > its the mind that agrees... > you are the seeing...or the Being... > and you see this agreeing taking place within you in perfect harmony > > > ...iietsa even here a problem is encountered with " agree " .....if agreement can obtain, there is ipso facto two things or thoughts or entities so that this agreeing or agreement can also obtain... one to another or with another or " other " . this cannot be part of mind. if mind exists, what is it? and to whom is it an aspect of?....surely not to itself...that doesn't say nor mean anything but something like 'white' is 'white' and is an aspect of 'white' and is found in 'white'.....one big circle of words that go on and on to nowhere and issuing from nowhere as well. the mind could only 'agree' if there was a somewhat to agree with.....and if that somewhat is a mere content of this mind that exists without owner, saying that the agreement is part of, occurs in, is none other than 'mind', says nothing....like Dada art. perhaps there is no 'Way' but a way around the issue, but it has been said that there is a Way of Identity, whereby and subsequent to it's Realization, as that which already is the case, one can even as the illusion and imaginative entity all 'ones' are......come to terms with this most puzzling of contingencies. Like the fathers of quantum mechanics were fond of saying, if one is not thouroughly amazed,astonished and incredulous of the whole matter, one hasn't even begun to have a taste of what is being stated....and yet, as unbelievable and unprovable it may appear, there is a way for it to become a 'part' of one's being or essence, so that there is given unto that one......no doubt. we all know what a peach tastes like, at least for ourselves...we assume that that is the same for otyhers without any possibility of knowing that that indeed is the case,,,,but for ourselves, that flavoor is known without doubt or description...and yet this is but a sensuous and sensational thing...the puzzlement of the ontological thing that somehow we find ourselves in and among as a part and as a creator and victim and participant and thinker....well this is a hhorse of a different color and of course is not a horse at all. ........bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 29, 2006 Report Share Posted July 29, 2006 <brahmanshines wrote: " seesaw1us " <seesaw1us> ... > Christ answered: " I am the truth. " Which reads: 'I am' is the first > truth. Without first being , there is no other truth. So yeah, truth > is a question about being. A question that has no other > answer, but, be! > > Pete > > but how about love then? > (gee, i use the word so rarely i almost misspelled it) > does Nisargadatta use it once? > eric > " That which you are, your true self, you love it, and whatever you do, you do for your own happiness. To find it, to know it, to cherish it is your basic urge. Since time immemorial you loved yourself, but not wisely. Use your body and mind wisely in the service of the self, that is all. Be true to your own self, love your self absolutely. Do not pretend that you love others as yourself. Unless you have realized them as one with yourself, you cannot love them. Don't pretend to be what you are not, don't refuse to be what you are. " ~Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj " Love is the actual form of God " ~Sri Ramana ..... Era Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 29, 2006 Report Share Posted July 29, 2006 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " > <Roberibus111@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " > > > > > > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " > <skywords@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " > > > > > <pliantheart@> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " Where there is the possibility of pain, where > > > > > > > > > there is the possibility of suffering in love, > > > > > > > > > it is not love, it is merely a subtle form of > > > > > > > > > possession, of acquisitiveness. " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - J. Krishnamurti > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I reflected on the quote it brought me to wonder > > > > > > > > > what it is that defines the " relationship " . > > > > > > > > > I concluded that the relationship, whatever it > > > > > > > > > may be, is *not* a set of feelings that I may > > > > > > > > > have about the other. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is the feelings I have about the other that > > > > > > > > > constitute expectations about the other and > > > > > > > > > are the basis for potential disappointment. > > > > > > > > > And hence, I concluded, the feelings I carry > > > > > > > > > about the other are what is false. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In a way it is like my own false identity > > > > > > > > > clouding my realization of What Is, of Now. > > > > > > > > > Because the feelings I have about the other > > > > > > > > > are in effect my sense of identity as > > > > > > > > > far as that relationship is concerned. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When I realize that the set of feelings I carry > > > > > > > > > in my own breast regarding the other are false, > > > > > > > > > are not what is real, then they dissolve. And > > > > > > > > > when they have dissolved what remains is a > > > > > > > > > tremendous space. I still behold the other, but > > > > > > > > > now what I behold is a vastness of possibilities, > > > > > > > > > in place of what I held before as a confined > > > > > > > > > set of necessities. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > so, love is freedom from one's self? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as toom says, self is suffering? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any limitation on anything, then, is suffering? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the idea, self/other, then, as limitation? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any thing, i e limitation, then, as suffering? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > only no any thing, then, as freedom, as love, then? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~*~ > > > > > > > what exactly is it that 'gets free' when it loses 'self'? > > > what > > > > > > > is 'love' besides just saying that is some state or > entity or > > > > > > event > > > > > > > or substance or ? when 'self' is no more. why belioeve in > > > love > > > > > any > > > > > > > more than no-self, self, atman, etc?.I'm just curious and > am > > > not > > > > > > > saying that anyone is saying these things here, it's just > my > > > > > > general > > > > > > > take on a lot of things that are being said swirling > around > > > the > > > > > > > issues herein discussed, and I would really like some > type of > > > > > > answer > > > > > > > or definition that is not just evasion, solipsism, > tautology, > > > etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ........bob > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the " gets free " is mere idea... > > > > > > and this idea is only interesting if there is taking > the " not > > > yet > > > > > > free " thought seriously... > > > > > > when you take yourself for nothing...then no thought > affects > > > you... > > > > > > its not you that gives any one thought (idea) a (higher) > > > value... > > > > > > it is another thought doing that... > > > > > > just dont take any one thought seriously...nomatter what... > > > > > > and you are who you are in ease... > > > > > > ...iietsa > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree iieatsa.....as I've said in a few posts...... " don't > > > believe > > > > > anything " .....just BE and all things ARE. > > > > > > > > > > ...........bob > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that's what love is > > > > > > > > ~*~ > > > that's what solipsism is > > > > > > ...........b > > > > > > > yes. love is solipsism. > > > OK now without solipsism, without tautology, without > evasion......what IS love? I 'believe' what you say, even though I > don't know what belief is, who is believing or even actually 'what' > it is that it is believing when I say " I believe in Self, I believe > in Love.....I don't even know what I mean when I say I 'feel' these > things(even if there are no 'things' of any kind. SOMETHING there is > that is a SOMEWHAT of no definition..... and boy oh boy do I get lost > in it sometimes....BUT (Here We Dare to Speak Further)......This > whole thing has the 'feeling-tone' of that statement of Augustine's > regarding Time. (I posted this earlier today, but it didn't go > through). I love our dear Auggie, and have read as much of him as any > other incarnate......but when he says re Time that he knows what it > is, but when asked he cannot say.....well that just rings the bell of > an evasive tautology to me. There MUST be some way to define these > things without resort to the poetic, and then saying that it's > all 'between the lines' or in the 'feeling' of the poem, or that all > you need is what is and what that love is is 'what is' and that is > all. I am aware of how circular this sounds, and it is in no way an > attempt on my part to say that I am understanding anything, nor is it > being coy or trying to entrap anyone. I'm just looking to see if > someone, anyone, anywhere can give definition to this stuff, without > coping out with something like it's the unknown that cannot be > comprehended within the known, or is known but is undefinable....all > that stuff we post and read all the time. It sounds sweet and > profound and even 'right on', but in truth(whatever it is in reality, > here I mean simply exactitude in definition and fidelity to the > words/feelings under the microscope here. > > .........bob > i find this very interesting. i know the impulse to define. i, too, have raged and raved for descartian clarity and distinction. for me, it was definitely an effort, a trying, a demanding, an interrogating, a suplication, a space to be in -- in relationship to others' not sharing that space. others, then, not making such demands, seemed shallow, sheepish, abstracted, not all there. i was, thus, defining myself as that clarity and distinction that did not exist outside of me in others, but that could. it was a potential to be more and for others to be more and for me to be more in others, through that delineation. that hard edged, well defined, perfectly integrated self, that was yet to be. ah, to be such pure and perfect.... potential..... i can only say, fine. it is what it is, that wanting to be more than it is. do you love that as yet unfulfilled potential? if so, then, we are at least together in this. love ~*~ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 29, 2006 Report Share Posted July 29, 2006 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " > <pliantheart@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " Where there is the possibility of pain, where > > > > > there is the possibility of suffering in love, > > > > > it is not love, it is merely a subtle form of > > > > > possession, of acquisitiveness. " > > > > > > > > > > - J. Krishnamurti > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I reflected on the quote it brought me to wonder > > > > > what it is that defines the " relationship " . > > > > > I concluded that the relationship, whatever it > > > > > may be, is *not* a set of feelings that I may > > > > > have about the other. > > > > > > > > > > It is the feelings I have about the other that > > > > > constitute expectations about the other and > > > > > are the basis for potential disappointment. > > > > > And hence, I concluded, the feelings I carry > > > > > about the other are what is false. > > > > > > > > > > In a way it is like my own false identity > > > > > clouding my realization of What Is, of Now. > > > > > Because the feelings I have about the other > > > > > are in effect my sense of identity as > > > > > far as that relationship is concerned. > > > > > > > > > > When I realize that the set of feelings I carry > > > > > in my own breast regarding the other are false, > > > > > are not what is real, then they dissolve. And > > > > > when they have dissolved what remains is a > > > > > tremendous space. I still behold the other, but > > > > > now what I behold is a vastness of possibilities, > > > > > in place of what I held before as a confined > > > > > set of necessities. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > so, love is freedom from one's self? > > > > > > > > as toom says, self is suffering? > > > > > > > > any limitation on anything, then, is suffering? > > > > > > > > the idea, self/other, then, as limitation? > > > > > > > > any thing, i e limitation, then, as suffering? > > > > > > > > only no any thing, then, as freedom, as love, then? > > > > > > > > ~*~ > > > what exactly is it that 'gets free' when it loses 'self'? what > > > is 'love' besides just saying that is some state or entity or > event > > > or substance or ? when 'self' is no more. why belioeve in love > any > > > more than no-self, self, atman, etc?.I'm just curious and am not > > > saying that anyone is saying these things here, it's just my > general > > > take on a lot of things that are being said swirling around the > > > issues herein discussed, and I would really like some type of > answer > > > or definition that is not just evasion, solipsism, tautology, etc. > > > > > > ........bob > > > > > > > it is, precisely, what you want, that very wanting, that is love > > > > ~*~ > Sky I 'get' what you mean....and in many ways I agree...but for some > people (exp. the BTK killer anmd Ted Bundy and others), people who > are mutants to our species in which there is no presence of this > want, any more than there is conscience in our way of understanding > the term,and for them, this definition by proxy does not hold true, > and yet within their world there must still exist > this 'Love' 'Somewhat', if it is to have the meaning without > definition that it suposedly does have. This way of defining Love is > somewhat akin to Augustine's stance on 'Time', to wit, he knows what > it is, but when you ask him, he can't explain nor define it, As much > as I admire and read our good Auggie, I was trying for someone to not > use this sort of evasion (for it is none other than an evasion). I'm > also not trying to be unfair....I too 'know' what Love is and 'feel' > it, and express it, and I have a feel for many of it's components, > but I don't know how to describe it. Everyone here speaks of it as a > substanative reality, if this is valid, then there should be a valid > way of being descriptive about it without comparison or reference to > sensual emotion or other evasive device. If not, than 'God' with a > capital G and the Devil and all 'things' that we speak of with even > greater clarity, but here, and on other lists, contend do not > exist.....MUST exist in the very same way as this 'love'. > > > ..........bob > well, those things do exist as much as this love. love merely permits you to decide what does and what does not exist. this is one of its definitions. whereas Devil and God, they, on the other hand, are defined as not permitting you to decide one way or the other. so, love is that which permits you to either define it or not define it, accept a definition or reject it. everything that is not love does not give you that choice. with all due respect to iietsa who would merely ask, so, what's the problem, these are all just mind things? why torture yourself thus? and i do ask, with him, why torture yourself thus? for me, the answer is, why abu graib and getmo? ~*~ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 29, 2006 Report Share Posted July 29, 2006 Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " > > <Roberibus111@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " > > > > > > > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " > > <skywords@> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " > > > > > > <pliantheart@> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " Where there is the possibility of pain, where > > > > > > > > > > there is the possibility of suffering in love, > > > > > > > > > > it is not love, it is merely a subtle form of > > > > > > > > > > possession, of acquisitiveness. " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - J. Krishnamurti > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I reflected on the quote it brought me to wonder > > > > > > > > > > what it is that defines the " relationship " . > > > > > > > > > > I concluded that the relationship, whatever it > > > > > > > > > > may be, is *not* a set of feelings that I may > > > > > > > > > > have about the other. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is the feelings I have about the other that > > > > > > > > > > constitute expectations about the other and > > > > > > > > > > are the basis for potential disappointment. > > > > > > > > > > And hence, I concluded, the feelings I carry > > > > > > > > > > about the other are what is false. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In a way it is like my own false identity > > > > > > > > > > clouding my realization of What Is, of Now. > > > > > > > > > > Because the feelings I have about the other > > > > > > > > > > are in effect my sense of identity as > > > > > > > > > > far as that relationship is concerned. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When I realize that the set of feelings I carry > > > > > > > > > > in my own breast regarding the other are false, > > > > > > > > > > are not what is real, then they dissolve. And > > > > > > > > > > when they have dissolved what remains is a > > > > > > > > > > tremendous space. I still behold the other, but > > > > > > > > > > now what I behold is a vastness of possibilities, > > > > > > > > > > in place of what I held before as a confined > > > > > > > > > > set of necessities. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > so, love is freedom from one's self? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as toom says, self is suffering? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any limitation on anything, then, is suffering? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the idea, self/other, then, as limitation? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any thing, i e limitation, then, as suffering? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > only no any thing, then, as freedom, as love, then? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~*~ > > > > > > > > what exactly is it that 'gets free' when it loses 'self'? > > > > what > > > > > > > > is 'love' besides just saying that is some state or > > entity or > > > > > > > event > > > > > > > > or substance or ? when 'self' is no more. why belioeve in > > > > love > > > > > > any > > > > > > > > more than no-self, self, atman, etc?.I'm just curious and > > am > > > > not > > > > > > > > saying that anyone is saying these things here, it's just > > my > > > > > > > general > > > > > > > > take on a lot of things that are being said swirling > > around > > > > the > > > > > > > > issues herein discussed, and I would really like some > > type of > > > > > > > answer > > > > > > > > or definition that is not just evasion, solipsism, > > tautology, > > > > etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ........bob > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the " gets free " is mere idea... > > > > > > > and this idea is only interesting if there is taking > > the " not > > > > yet > > > > > > > free " thought seriously... > > > > > > > when you take yourself for nothing...then no thought > > affects > > > > you... > > > > > > > its not you that gives any one thought (idea) a (higher) > > > > value... > > > > > > > it is another thought doing that... > > > > > > > just dont take any one thought seriously...nomatter what... > > > > > > > and you are who you are in ease... > > > > > > > ...iietsa > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree iieatsa.....as I've said in a few posts...... " don't > > > > believe > > > > > > anything " .....just BE and all things ARE. > > > > > > > > > > > > ...........bob > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that's what love is > > > > > > > > > > ~*~ > > > > that's what solipsism is > > > > > > > > ...........b > > > > > > > > > > yes. love is solipsism. > > > > > > OK now without solipsism, without tautology, without > > evasion......what IS love? I 'believe' what you say, even though I > > don't know what belief is, who is believing or even actually 'what' > > it is that it is believing when I say " I believe in Self, I believe > > in Love.....I don't even know what I mean when I say I 'feel' these > > things(even if there are no 'things' of any kind. SOMETHING there is > > that is a SOMEWHAT of no definition..... and boy oh boy do I get lost > > in it sometimes....BUT (Here We Dare to Speak Further)......This > > whole thing has the 'feeling-tone' of that statement of Augustine's > > regarding Time. (I posted this earlier today, but it didn't go > > through). I love our dear Auggie, and have read as much of him as any > > other incarnate......but when he says re Time that he knows what it > > is, but when asked he cannot say.....well that just rings the bell of > > an evasive tautology to me. There MUST be some way to define these > > things without resort to the poetic, and then saying that it's > > all 'between the lines' or in the 'feeling' of the poem, or that all > > you need is what is and what that love is is 'what is' and that is > > all. I am aware of how circular this sounds, and it is in no way an > > attempt on my part to say that I am understanding anything, nor is it > > being coy or trying to entrap anyone. I'm just looking to see if > > someone, anyone, anywhere can give definition to this stuff, without > > coping out with something like it's the unknown that cannot be > > comprehended within the known, or is known but is undefinable....all > > that stuff we post and read all the time. It sounds sweet and > > profound and even 'right on', but in truth(whatever it is in reality, > > here I mean simply exactitude in definition and fidelity to the > > words/feelings under the microscope here. > > > > .........bob > > > > > i find this very interesting. i know the impulse to define. i, too, > have raged and raved for descartian clarity and distinction. for me, > it was definitely an effort, a trying, a demanding, an interrogating, > a suplication, a space to be in -- in relationship to others' not > sharing that space. others, then, not making such demands, seemed > shallow, sheepish, abstracted, not all there. > > i was, thus, defining myself as that clarity and distinction that did > not exist outside of me in others, but that could. it was a potential > to be more and for others to be more and for me to be more in others, > through that delineation. that hard edged, well defined, perfectly > integrated self, that was yet to be. > > ah, to be such pure and perfect.... potential..... > > i can only say, fine. it is what it is, that wanting to be more than > it is. do you love that as yet unfulfilled potential? if so, then, > we are at least together in this. > > love > ~*~ I don't understand what you are trying to say. I do know that when I pose a question that you find difficult to answer directly or succinctly or definetivly, you accuse me of ranting and raging. These were merely questions given to anyone really, in a calm and inoffensive manner, as I would like to discuss the issues. You have not answered the questions, and that too is understandable in that as I said I have not read, heard or talked with anyone who could ever answer the questions as to what love, mind, knowing, unknowing, entity, soul etc ARE on or in any fundamental and straightforward way.Of course I love unfulfilled and even fulfilled potential. I love my family and friends and pets and a whole lot of the world and things and activities within this world....heck sky guy, I even love you. but that doesn't mean that I understand what I'm saying or feeling or meaning by any of that. Fact is, under a microscope they are a total bafflement for my essence or cognition, whatever those things are. This is not a negative way of seeing things at all. I'ts ultimate recognition of unfathomable Mystery.......but while we partake of thoughts and words on these lists, blogs, boards and what not, I think that those are valid questions to address and talk about without it having to be perceived as an harangue or rabbiting on. It's just grist for the mill and food for thought. that's all and that's it. I call this a sharing thing myself sky. .......bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 29, 2006 Report Share Posted July 29, 2006 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " > <Roberibus111@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " > > > <Roberibus111@> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " > > > > > > > > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " > > > <skywords@> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " > > > > > > > <pliantheart@> > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " Where there is the possibility of pain, where > > > > > > > > > > > there is the possibility of suffering in love, > > > > > > > > > > > it is not love, it is merely a subtle form of > > > > > > > > > > > possession, of acquisitiveness. " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - J. Krishnamurti > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I reflected on the quote it brought me to > wonder > > > > > > > > > > > what it is that defines the " relationship " . > > > > > > > > > > > I concluded that the relationship, whatever it > > > > > > > > > > > may be, is *not* a set of feelings that I may > > > > > > > > > > > have about the other. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is the feelings I have about the other that > > > > > > > > > > > constitute expectations about the other and > > > > > > > > > > > are the basis for potential disappointment. > > > > > > > > > > > And hence, I concluded, the feelings I carry > > > > > > > > > > > about the other are what is false. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In a way it is like my own false identity > > > > > > > > > > > clouding my realization of What Is, of Now. > > > > > > > > > > > Because the feelings I have about the other > > > > > > > > > > > are in effect my sense of identity as > > > > > > > > > > > far as that relationship is concerned. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When I realize that the set of feelings I carry > > > > > > > > > > > in my own breast regarding the other are false, > > > > > > > > > > > are not what is real, then they dissolve. And > > > > > > > > > > > when they have dissolved what remains is a > > > > > > > > > > > tremendous space. I still behold the other, but > > > > > > > > > > > now what I behold is a vastness of possibilities, > > > > > > > > > > > in place of what I held before as a confined > > > > > > > > > > > set of necessities. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > so, love is freedom from one's self? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as toom says, self is suffering? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any limitation on anything, then, is suffering? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the idea, self/other, then, as limitation? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any thing, i e limitation, then, as suffering? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > only no any thing, then, as freedom, as love, then? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~*~ > > > > > > > > > what exactly is it that 'gets free' when it > loses 'self'? > > > > > what > > > > > > > > > is 'love' besides just saying that is some state or > > > entity or > > > > > > > > event > > > > > > > > > or substance or ? when 'self' is no more. why > belioeve in > > > > > love > > > > > > > any > > > > > > > > > more than no-self, self, atman, etc?.I'm just curious > and > > > am > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > saying that anyone is saying these things here, it's > just > > > my > > > > > > > > general > > > > > > > > > take on a lot of things that are being said swirling > > > around > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > issues herein discussed, and I would really like some > > > type of > > > > > > > > answer > > > > > > > > > or definition that is not just evasion, solipsism, > > > tautology, > > > > > etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ........bob > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the " gets free " is mere idea... > > > > > > > > and this idea is only interesting if there is taking > > > the " not > > > > > yet > > > > > > > > free " thought seriously... > > > > > > > > when you take yourself for nothing...then no thought > > > affects > > > > > you... > > > > > > > > its not you that gives any one thought (idea) a > (higher) > > > > > value... > > > > > > > > it is another thought doing that... > > > > > > > > just dont take any one thought seriously...nomatter > what... > > > > > > > > and you are who you are in ease... > > > > > > > > ...iietsa > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree iieatsa.....as I've said in a few > posts...... " don't > > > > > believe > > > > > > > anything " .....just BE and all things ARE. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...........bob > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that's what love is > > > > > > > > > > > > ~*~ > > > > > that's what solipsism is > > > > > > > > > > ...........b > > > > > > > > > > > > > yes. love is solipsism. > > > > > > > > > OK now without solipsism, without tautology, without > > > evasion......what IS love? I 'believe' what you say, even though > I > > > don't know what belief is, who is believing or even > actually 'what' > > > it is that it is believing when I say " I believe in Self, I > believe > > > in Love.....I don't even know what I mean when I say I 'feel' > these > > > things(even if there are no 'things' of any kind. SOMETHING there > is > > > that is a SOMEWHAT of no definition..... and boy oh boy do I get > lost > > > in it sometimes....BUT (Here We Dare to Speak Further)......This > > > whole thing has the 'feeling-tone' of that statement of > Augustine's > > > regarding Time. (I posted this earlier today, but it didn't go > > > through). I love our dear Auggie, and have read as much of him as > any > > > other incarnate......but when he says re Time that he knows what > it > > > is, but when asked he cannot say.....well that just rings the > bell of > > > an evasive tautology to me. There MUST be some way to define > these > > > things without resort to the poetic, and then saying that it's > > > all 'between the lines' or in the 'feeling' of the poem, or that > all > > > you need is what is and what that love is is 'what is' and that > is > > > all. I am aware of how circular this sounds, and it is in no way > an > > > attempt on my part to say that I am understanding anything, nor > is it > > > being coy or trying to entrap anyone. I'm just looking to see if > > > someone, anyone, anywhere can give definition to this stuff, > without > > > coping out with something like it's the unknown that cannot be > > > comprehended within the known, or is known but is > undefinable....all > > > that stuff we post and read all the time. It sounds sweet and > > > profound and even 'right on', but in truth(whatever it is in > reality, > > > here I mean simply exactitude in definition and fidelity to the > > > words/feelings under the microscope here. > > > > > > .........bob > > > > > > > > > i find this very interesting. i know the impulse to define. i, > too, > > have raged and raved for descartian clarity and distinction. for > me, > > it was definitely an effort, a trying, a demanding, an > interrogating, > > a suplication, a space to be in -- in relationship to others' not > > sharing that space. others, then, not making such demands, seemed > > shallow, sheepish, abstracted, not all there. > > > > i was, thus, defining myself as that clarity and distinction that > did > > not exist outside of me in others, but that could. it was a > potential > > to be more and for others to be more and for me to be more in > others, > > through that delineation. that hard edged, well defined, perfectly > > integrated self, that was yet to be. > > > > ah, to be such pure and perfect.... potential..... > > > > i can only say, fine. it is what it is, that wanting to be more > than > > it is. do you love that as yet unfulfilled potential? if so, then, > > we are at least together in this. > > > > love > > ~*~ > I don't understand what you are trying to say. I do know that when I > pose a question that you find difficult to answer directly or > succinctly or definetivly, you accuse me of ranting and raging. These > were merely questions given to anyone really, in a calm and > inoffensive manner, as I would like to discuss the issues. You have > not answered the questions, and that too is understandable in that as > I said I have not read, heard or talked with anyone who could ever > answer the questions as to what love, mind, knowing, unknowing, > entity, soul etc ARE on or in any fundamental and straightforward > way.Of course I love unfulfilled and even fulfilled potential. I love > my family and friends and pets and a whole lot of the world and > things and activities within this world....heck sky guy, I even love > you. but that doesn't mean that I understand what I'm saying or > feeling or meaning by any of that. Fact is, under a microscope they > are a total bafflement for my essence or cognition, whatever those > things are. This is not a negative way of seeing things at all. I'ts > ultimate recognition of unfathomable Mystery.......but while we > partake of thoughts and words on these lists, blogs, boards and what > not, I think that those are valid questions to address and talk about > without it having to be perceived as an harangue or rabbiting on. > It's just grist for the mill and food for thought. that's all and > that's it. I call this a sharing thing myself sky. > > .......bob > ok, then, be very specific, clear and distinct, so that i know what that means to you. answer this question in the way that you would want me to answer you: what, exactly is wrong with " finitude is that which can be defined " " infinitude is that which cannot be defined " " love is infinite and is defined as that which cannot be defined " ? ~ ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 29, 2006 Report Share Posted July 29, 2006 Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " > > <pliantheart@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " Where there is the possibility of pain, where > > > > > > there is the possibility of suffering in love, > > > > > > it is not love, it is merely a subtle form of > > > > > > possession, of acquisitiveness. " > > > > > > > > > > > > - J. Krishnamurti > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I reflected on the quote it brought me to wonder > > > > > > what it is that defines the " relationship " . > > > > > > I concluded that the relationship, whatever it > > > > > > may be, is *not* a set of feelings that I may > > > > > > have about the other. > > > > > > > > > > > > It is the feelings I have about the other that > > > > > > constitute expectations about the other and > > > > > > are the basis for potential disappointment. > > > > > > And hence, I concluded, the feelings I carry > > > > > > about the other are what is false. > > > > > > > > > > > > In a way it is like my own false identity > > > > > > clouding my realization of What Is, of Now. > > > > > > Because the feelings I have about the other > > > > > > are in effect my sense of identity as > > > > > > far as that relationship is concerned. > > > > > > > > > > > > When I realize that the set of feelings I carry > > > > > > in my own breast regarding the other are false, > > > > > > are not what is real, then they dissolve. And > > > > > > when they have dissolved what remains is a > > > > > > tremendous space. I still behold the other, but > > > > > > now what I behold is a vastness of possibilities, > > > > > > in place of what I held before as a confined > > > > > > set of necessities. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > so, love is freedom from one's self? > > > > > > > > > > as toom says, self is suffering? > > > > > > > > > > any limitation on anything, then, is suffering? > > > > > > > > > > the idea, self/other, then, as limitation? > > > > > > > > > > any thing, i e limitation, then, as suffering? > > > > > > > > > > only no any thing, then, as freedom, as love, then? > > > > > > > > > > ~*~ > > > > what exactly is it that 'gets free' when it loses 'self'? what > > > > is 'love' besides just saying that is some state or entity or > > event > > > > or substance or ? when 'self' is no more. why belioeve in love > > any > > > > more than no-self, self, atman, etc?.I'm just curious and am not > > > > saying that anyone is saying these things here, it's just my > > general > > > > take on a lot of things that are being said swirling around the > > > > issues herein discussed, and I would really like some type of > > answer > > > > or definition that is not just evasion, solipsism, tautology, etc. > > > > > > > > ........bob > > > > > > > > > > it is, precisely, what you want, that very wanting, that is love > > > > > > ~*~ > > Sky I 'get' what you mean....and in many ways I agree...but for some > > people (exp. the BTK killer anmd Ted Bundy and others), people who > > are mutants to our species in which there is no presence of this > > want, any more than there is conscience in our way of understanding > > the term,and for them, this definition by proxy does not hold true, > > and yet within their world there must still exist > > this 'Love' 'Somewhat', if it is to have the meaning without > > definition that it suposedly does have. This way of defining Love is > > somewhat akin to Augustine's stance on 'Time', to wit, he knows what > > it is, but when you ask him, he can't explain nor define it, As much > > as I admire and read our good Auggie, I was trying for someone to not > > use this sort of evasion (for it is none other than an evasion). I'm > > also not trying to be unfair....I too 'know' what Love is and 'feel' > > it, and express it, and I have a feel for many of it's components, > > but I don't know how to describe it. Everyone here speaks of it as a > > substanative reality, if this is valid, then there should be a valid > > way of being descriptive about it without comparison or reference to > > sensual emotion or other evasive device. If not, than 'God' with a > > capital G and the Devil and all 'things' that we speak of with even > > greater clarity, but here, and on other lists, contend do not > > exist.....MUST exist in the very same way as this 'love'. > > > > > > ..........bob > > > > well, those things do exist as much as this love. love merely permits > you to decide what does and what does not exist. this is one of its > definitions. no that doesn't define love at all...it says what it 'does','allows' but says nothing regarding it's fundamental meaning or nature....I suppose, I know... love can do a whole lot more things as well. whereas Devil and God, they, on the other hand, are > defined as not permitting you to decide one way or the other. God in my Catholic upbringing was the creator and giver of Free Will, thereby allowing even more than love....you can perfectly as well hate God by his Self fiat of non intrusion on what you do.....if this wasn't the case and God did not permit you to do what tho wilt, 'sin' could not obtain. And the Devil from my understanding, was the first being to take God up on his freedom giving thing abd he rebelled. And if the Devil didn't permit you to do what you wanted to do, you wouldn't be able to turn away from sin....that's why he has to stoop to that 'tempting' trick. > so, love is that which permits you to either define it or not define > it, accept a definition or reject it. everything that is not love > does not give you that choice. this is wrong. those who hate and kill, and steal, and corrupt government, and business, and other people, all use various and varied routes and choose among them for the sake of efficacy not mandated necessity. > with all due respect to iietsa who would merely ask, so, what's the > problem, these are all just mind things? why torture yourself thus? Sky, Sky....I'm not tortured....I'm curious. You should know me well enough to know I don't let anything torture me....maybe like coffee, addict me..but never torture..when anything in my life got torturous whether a substance, circumstance or person....I quit them. End of story on my being tortured. > and i do ask, with him, why torture yourself thus? > > for me, the answer is, why abu graib and getmo? > > ~*~ well as I said I'm not tortured..not even opinionated on these things as I am on the abu graib and gitmo deals.......and that is something that I cannot not be opinionated and thoughtful and brooding on and about.......if ever we find ourselves on the losing end of the stick in this strange game of world dominance we are in....I will not stand with a nation of people who say they had no idea of what was going on as happened in germany after the fall of the reich........I see with mine own eyes and I will not deny and I will not be complicit by silence....not my game. .........bud bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 29, 2006 Report Share Posted July 29, 2006 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " > <Roberibus111@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " > > > <pliantheart@> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " Where there is the possibility of pain, where > > > > > > > there is the possibility of suffering in love, > > > > > > > it is not love, it is merely a subtle form of > > > > > > > possession, of acquisitiveness. " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - J. Krishnamurti > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I reflected on the quote it brought me to wonder > > > > > > > what it is that defines the " relationship " . > > > > > > > I concluded that the relationship, whatever it > > > > > > > may be, is *not* a set of feelings that I may > > > > > > > have about the other. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is the feelings I have about the other that > > > > > > > constitute expectations about the other and > > > > > > > are the basis for potential disappointment. > > > > > > > And hence, I concluded, the feelings I carry > > > > > > > about the other are what is false. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In a way it is like my own false identity > > > > > > > clouding my realization of What Is, of Now. > > > > > > > Because the feelings I have about the other > > > > > > > are in effect my sense of identity as > > > > > > > far as that relationship is concerned. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When I realize that the set of feelings I carry > > > > > > > in my own breast regarding the other are false, > > > > > > > are not what is real, then they dissolve. And > > > > > > > when they have dissolved what remains is a > > > > > > > tremendous space. I still behold the other, but > > > > > > > now what I behold is a vastness of possibilities, > > > > > > > in place of what I held before as a confined > > > > > > > set of necessities. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > so, love is freedom from one's self? > > > > > > > > > > > > as toom says, self is suffering? > > > > > > > > > > > > any limitation on anything, then, is suffering? > > > > > > > > > > > > the idea, self/other, then, as limitation? > > > > > > > > > > > > any thing, i e limitation, then, as suffering? > > > > > > > > > > > > only no any thing, then, as freedom, as love, then? > > > > > > > > > > > > ~*~ > > > > > what exactly is it that 'gets free' when it loses 'self'? > what > > > > > is 'love' besides just saying that is some state or entity or > > > event > > > > > or substance or ? when 'self' is no more. why belioeve in > love > > > any > > > > > more than no-self, self, atman, etc?.I'm just curious and am > not > > > > > saying that anyone is saying these things here, it's just my > > > general > > > > > take on a lot of things that are being said swirling around > the > > > > > issues herein discussed, and I would really like some type of > > > answer > > > > > or definition that is not just evasion, solipsism, tautology, > etc. > > > > > > > > > > ........bob > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is, precisely, what you want, that very wanting, that is love > > > > > > > > ~*~ > > > Sky I 'get' what you mean....and in many ways I agree...but for > some > > > people (exp. the BTK killer anmd Ted Bundy and others), people > who > > > are mutants to our species in which there is no presence of this > > > want, any more than there is conscience in our way of > understanding > > > the term,and for them, this definition by proxy does not hold > true, > > > and yet within their world there must still exist > > > this 'Love' 'Somewhat', if it is to have the meaning without > > > definition that it suposedly does have. This way of defining Love > is > > > somewhat akin to Augustine's stance on 'Time', to wit, he knows > what > > > it is, but when you ask him, he can't explain nor define it, As > much > > > as I admire and read our good Auggie, I was trying for someone to > not > > > use this sort of evasion (for it is none other than an evasion). > I'm > > > also not trying to be unfair....I too 'know' what Love is > and 'feel' > > > it, and express it, and I have a feel for many of it's > components, > > > but I don't know how to describe it. Everyone here speaks of it > as a > > > substanative reality, if this is valid, then there should be a > valid > > > way of being descriptive about it without comparison or reference > to > > > sensual emotion or other evasive device. If not, than 'God' with > a > > > capital G and the Devil and all 'things' that we speak of with > even > > > greater clarity, but here, and on other lists, contend do not > > > exist.....MUST exist in the very same way as this 'love'. > > > > > > > > > ..........bob > > > > > > > well, those things do exist as much as this love. love merely > permits > > you to decide what does and what does not exist. this is one of its > > definitions. > > no that doesn't define love at all...it says what it 'does','allows' > but says nothing regarding it's fundamental meaning or nature....I > suppose, I know... love can do a whole lot more things as well. > > whereas Devil and God, they, on the other hand, are > > defined as not permitting you to decide one way or the other. > > > > God in my Catholic upbringing was the creator and giver of Free Will, > thereby allowing even more than love....you can perfectly as well > hate God by his Self fiat of non intrusion on what you do.....if this > wasn't the case and God did not permit you to do what tho wilt, 'sin' > could not obtain. And the Devil from my understanding, was the first > being to take God up on his freedom giving thing abd he rebelled. And > if the Devil didn't permit you to do what you wanted to do, you > wouldn't be able to turn away from sin....that's why he has to stoop > to that 'tempting' trick. > > > > so, love is that which permits you to either define it or not define > > it, accept a definition or reject it. everything that is not love > > does not give you that choice. > > > this is wrong. those who hate and kill, and steal, and corrupt > government, and business, and other people, all use various and > varied routes and choose among them for the sake of efficacy not > mandated necessity. > > > > with all due respect to iietsa who would merely ask, so, what's the > > problem, these are all just mind things? why torture yourself thus? > > > Sky, Sky....I'm not tortured....I'm curious. You should know me well > enough to know I don't let anything torture me....maybe like coffee, > addict me..but never torture..when anything in my life got torturous > whether a substance, circumstance or person....I quit them. End of > story on my being tortured. > > > > and i do ask, with him, why torture yourself thus? > > > > for me, the answer is, why abu graib and getmo? > > > > ~*~ > well as I said I'm not tortured..not even opinionated on these things > as I am on the abu graib and gitmo deals.......and that is something > that I cannot not be opinionated and thoughtful and brooding on and > about.......if ever we find ourselves on the losing end of the stick > in this strange game of world dominance we are in....I will not stand > with a nation of people who say they had no idea of what was going on > as happened in germany after the fall of the reich........I see with > mine own eyes and I will not deny and I will not be complicit by > silence....not my game. > > .........bud bob > nevertheless, tell me, exactly, clearly and distinctly, what is torture? ~?~ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 29, 2006 Report Share Posted July 29, 2006 Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " > > <Roberibus111@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " > > > > <Roberibus111@> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " > > > > > > > > > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " > > > > <skywords@> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " > > > > > > > > <pliantheart@> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " Where there is the possibility of pain, where > > > > > > > > > > > > there is the possibility of suffering in love, > > > > > > > > > > > > it is not love, it is merely a subtle form of > > > > > > > > > > > > possession, of acquisitiveness. " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - J. Krishnamurti > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I reflected on the quote it brought me to > > wonder > > > > > > > > > > > > what it is that defines the " relationship " . > > > > > > > > > > > > I concluded that the relationship, whatever it > > > > > > > > > > > > may be, is *not* a set of feelings that I may > > > > > > > > > > > > have about the other. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is the feelings I have about the other that > > > > > > > > > > > > constitute expectations about the other and > > > > > > > > > > > > are the basis for potential disappointment. > > > > > > > > > > > > And hence, I concluded, the feelings I carry > > > > > > > > > > > > about the other are what is false. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In a way it is like my own false identity > > > > > > > > > > > > clouding my realization of What Is, of Now. > > > > > > > > > > > > Because the feelings I have about the other > > > > > > > > > > > > are in effect my sense of identity as > > > > > > > > > > > > far as that relationship is concerned. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When I realize that the set of feelings I carry > > > > > > > > > > > > in my own breast regarding the other are false, > > > > > > > > > > > > are not what is real, then they dissolve. And > > > > > > > > > > > > when they have dissolved what remains is a > > > > > > > > > > > > tremendous space. I still behold the other, but > > > > > > > > > > > > now what I behold is a vastness of possibilities, > > > > > > > > > > > > in place of what I held before as a confined > > > > > > > > > > > > set of necessities. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > so, love is freedom from one's self? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as toom says, self is suffering? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any limitation on anything, then, is suffering? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the idea, self/other, then, as limitation? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any thing, i e limitation, then, as suffering? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > only no any thing, then, as freedom, as love, then? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~*~ > > > > > > > > > > what exactly is it that 'gets free' when it > > loses 'self'? > > > > > > what > > > > > > > > > > is 'love' besides just saying that is some state or > > > > entity or > > > > > > > > > event > > > > > > > > > > or substance or ? when 'self' is no more. why > > belioeve in > > > > > > love > > > > > > > > any > > > > > > > > > > more than no-self, self, atman, etc?.I'm just curious > > and > > > > am > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > > saying that anyone is saying these things here, it's > > just > > > > my > > > > > > > > > general > > > > > > > > > > take on a lot of things that are being said swirling > > > > around > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > issues herein discussed, and I would really like some > > > > type of > > > > > > > > > answer > > > > > > > > > > or definition that is not just evasion, solipsism, > > > > tautology, > > > > > > etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ........bob > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the " gets free " is mere idea... > > > > > > > > > and this idea is only interesting if there is taking > > > > the " not > > > > > > yet > > > > > > > > > free " thought seriously... > > > > > > > > > when you take yourself for nothing...then no thought > > > > affects > > > > > > you... > > > > > > > > > its not you that gives any one thought (idea) a > > (higher) > > > > > > value... > > > > > > > > > it is another thought doing that... > > > > > > > > > just dont take any one thought seriously...nomatter > > what... > > > > > > > > > and you are who you are in ease... > > > > > > > > > ...iietsa > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree iieatsa.....as I've said in a few > > posts...... " don't > > > > > > believe > > > > > > > > anything " .....just BE and all things ARE. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...........bob > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that's what love is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~*~ > > > > > > that's what solipsism is > > > > > > > > > > > > ...........b > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > yes. love is solipsism. > > > > > > > > > > > > OK now without solipsism, without tautology, without > > > > evasion......what IS love? I 'believe' what you say, even though > > I > > > > don't know what belief is, who is believing or even > > actually 'what' > > > > it is that it is believing when I say " I believe in Self, I > > believe > > > > in Love.....I don't even know what I mean when I say I 'feel' > > these > > > > things(even if there are no 'things' of any kind. SOMETHING there > > is > > > > that is a SOMEWHAT of no definition..... and boy oh boy do I get > > lost > > > > in it sometimes....BUT (Here We Dare to Speak Further)......This > > > > whole thing has the 'feeling-tone' of that statement of > > Augustine's > > > > regarding Time. (I posted this earlier today, but it didn't go > > > > through). I love our dear Auggie, and have read as much of him as > > any > > > > other incarnate......but when he says re Time that he knows what > > it > > > > is, but when asked he cannot say.....well that just rings the > > bell of > > > > an evasive tautology to me. There MUST be some way to define > > these > > > > things without resort to the poetic, and then saying that it's > > > > all 'between the lines' or in the 'feeling' of the poem, or that > > all > > > > you need is what is and what that love is is 'what is' and that > > is > > > > all. I am aware of how circular this sounds, and it is in no way > > an > > > > attempt on my part to say that I am understanding anything, nor > > is it > > > > being coy or trying to entrap anyone. I'm just looking to see if > > > > someone, anyone, anywhere can give definition to this stuff, > > without > > > > coping out with something like it's the unknown that cannot be > > > > comprehended within the known, or is known but is > > undefinable....all > > > > that stuff we post and read all the time. It sounds sweet and > > > > profound and even 'right on', but in truth(whatever it is in > > reality, > > > > here I mean simply exactitude in definition and fidelity to the > > > > words/feelings under the microscope here. > > > > > > > > .........bob > > > > > > > > > > > > > i find this very interesting. i know the impulse to define. i, > > too, > > > have raged and raved for descartian clarity and distinction. for > > me, > > > it was definitely an effort, a trying, a demanding, an > > interrogating, > > > a suplication, a space to be in -- in relationship to others' not > > > sharing that space. others, then, not making such demands, seemed > > > shallow, sheepish, abstracted, not all there. > > > > > > i was, thus, defining myself as that clarity and distinction that > > did > > > not exist outside of me in others, but that could. it was a > > potential > > > to be more and for others to be more and for me to be more in > > others, > > > through that delineation. that hard edged, well defined, perfectly > > > integrated self, that was yet to be. > > > > > > ah, to be such pure and perfect.... potential..... > > > > > > i can only say, fine. it is what it is, that wanting to be more > > than > > > it is. do you love that as yet unfulfilled potential? if so, then, > > > we are at least together in this. > > > > > > love > > > ~*~ > > I don't understand what you are trying to say. I do know that when I > > pose a question that you find difficult to answer directly or > > succinctly or definetivly, you accuse me of ranting and raging. These > > were merely questions given to anyone really, in a calm and > > inoffensive manner, as I would like to discuss the issues. You have > > not answered the questions, and that too is understandable in that as > > I said I have not read, heard or talked with anyone who could ever > > answer the questions as to what love, mind, knowing, unknowing, > > entity, soul etc ARE on or in any fundamental and straightforward > > way.Of course I love unfulfilled and even fulfilled potential. I love > > my family and friends and pets and a whole lot of the world and > > things and activities within this world....heck sky guy, I even love > > you. but that doesn't mean that I understand what I'm saying or > > feeling or meaning by any of that. Fact is, under a microscope they > > are a total bafflement for my essence or cognition, whatever those > > things are. This is not a negative way of seeing things at all. I'ts > > ultimate recognition of unfathomable Mystery.......but while we > > partake of thoughts and words on these lists, blogs, boards and what > > not, I think that those are valid questions to address and talk about > > without it having to be perceived as an harangue or rabbiting on. > > It's just grist for the mill and food for thought. that's all and > > that's it. I call this a sharing thing myself sky. > > > > .......bob > > > > > ok, then, be very specific, clear and distinct, so that i know what > that means to you. answer this question in the way that you would > want me to answer you: > > what, exactly is wrong with > > " finitude is that which can be defined " absolutely nothing wrong here because things within finitude and finitude itself are definable just as you say. > " infinitude is that which cannot be defined " infinitude has been defined in mathematics for over a century....even multiple infinities and transfinities.....love has not. > " love is infinite and is defined as that which cannot be defined " > > ? > > ~ ? ??????????? love may be infinite, but in the definitive mathematical description of infinity, love is not an aspect considered. If you would like, I can supply some of these mathematical formulae, but for now, suffice it to say that without those mathematical definitions and delineations of infinities and imaginary number, no spacecraft and not many of the newer large scale superstructures designed by archetects, could be engineered nor constructed. I have not found any applications for 'love' that are manifest in this practical way. No doubt our greatest art, music, prose, poetry, acts of courage and goodwill and togetherness are inspired and driven by love among other things, but that does not give it definition it just gives effects to it's tones or being. yes I said it's being. I am as sure of it, and feel it and embrace it as much as you or anyone I know....but I still do not know WHAT it is anymore than I know WHAT I AM. I know this doesn't answer the question as to what love is, I've been saying this throughout this discussion....and I really don't suppose you can know what it is either. I haven't seen anyone who could define it fundamentally....but it does make for some hardy crosstalk....and who knows....perhaps an insight or two as a bonus. ...........bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 29, 2006 Report Share Posted July 29, 2006 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " > <Roberibus111@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " > > > <Roberibus111@> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " > <skywords@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " > > > > > <Roberibus111@> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " > <iietsa@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " > > > > > > > > > > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " > > > > > <skywords@> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " > > > > > > > > > <pliantheart@> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " Where there is the possibility of pain, > where > > > > > > > > > > > > > there is the possibility of suffering in > love, > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is not love, it is merely a subtle form > of > > > > > > > > > > > > > possession, of acquisitiveness. " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - J. Krishnamurti > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I reflected on the quote it brought me to > > > wonder > > > > > > > > > > > > > what it is that defines the " relationship " . > > > > > > > > > > > > > I concluded that the relationship, whatever it > > > > > > > > > > > > > may be, is *not* a set of feelings that I may > > > > > > > > > > > > > have about the other. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is the feelings I have about the other that > > > > > > > > > > > > > constitute expectations about the other and > > > > > > > > > > > > > are the basis for potential disappointment. > > > > > > > > > > > > > And hence, I concluded, the feelings I carry > > > > > > > > > > > > > about the other are what is false. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In a way it is like my own false identity > > > > > > > > > > > > > clouding my realization of What Is, of Now. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Because the feelings I have about the other > > > > > > > > > > > > > are in effect my sense of identity as > > > > > > > > > > > > > far as that relationship is concerned. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When I realize that the set of feelings I > carry > > > > > > > > > > > > > in my own breast regarding the other are > false, > > > > > > > > > > > > > are not what is real, then they dissolve. And > > > > > > > > > > > > > when they have dissolved what remains is a > > > > > > > > > > > > > tremendous space. I still behold the other, > but > > > > > > > > > > > > > now what I behold is a vastness of > possibilities, > > > > > > > > > > > > > in place of what I held before as a confined > > > > > > > > > > > > > set of necessities. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > so, love is freedom from one's self? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as toom says, self is suffering? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any limitation on anything, then, is suffering? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the idea, self/other, then, as limitation? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any thing, i e limitation, then, as suffering? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > only no any thing, then, as freedom, as love, > then? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~*~ > > > > > > > > > > > what exactly is it that 'gets free' when it > > > loses 'self'? > > > > > > > what > > > > > > > > > > > is 'love' besides just saying that is some state > or > > > > > entity or > > > > > > > > > > event > > > > > > > > > > > or substance or ? when 'self' is no more. why > > > belioeve in > > > > > > > love > > > > > > > > > any > > > > > > > > > > > more than no-self, self, atman, etc?.I'm just > curious > > > and > > > > > am > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > > > saying that anyone is saying these things here, > it's > > > just > > > > > my > > > > > > > > > > general > > > > > > > > > > > take on a lot of things that are being said > swirling > > > > > around > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > issues herein discussed, and I would really like > some > > > > > type of > > > > > > > > > > answer > > > > > > > > > > > or definition that is not just evasion, > solipsism, > > > > > tautology, > > > > > > > etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ........bob > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the " gets free " is mere idea... > > > > > > > > > > and this idea is only interesting if there is > taking > > > > > the " not > > > > > > > yet > > > > > > > > > > free " thought seriously... > > > > > > > > > > when you take yourself for nothing...then no > thought > > > > > affects > > > > > > > you... > > > > > > > > > > its not you that gives any one thought (idea) a > > > (higher) > > > > > > > value... > > > > > > > > > > it is another thought doing that... > > > > > > > > > > just dont take any one thought seriously...nomatter > > > what... > > > > > > > > > > and you are who you are in ease... > > > > > > > > > > ...iietsa > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree iieatsa.....as I've said in a few > > > posts...... " don't > > > > > > > believe > > > > > > > > > anything " .....just BE and all things ARE. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...........bob > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that's what love is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~*~ > > > > > > > that's what solipsism is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...........b > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > yes. love is solipsism. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > OK now without solipsism, without tautology, without > > > > > evasion......what IS love? I 'believe' what you say, even > though > > > I > > > > > don't know what belief is, who is believing or even > > > actually 'what' > > > > > it is that it is believing when I say " I believe in Self, I > > > believe > > > > > in Love.....I don't even know what I mean when I say I 'feel' > > > these > > > > > things(even if there are no 'things' of any kind. SOMETHING > there > > > is > > > > > that is a SOMEWHAT of no definition..... and boy oh boy do I > get > > > lost > > > > > in it sometimes....BUT (Here We Dare to Speak > Further)......This > > > > > whole thing has the 'feeling-tone' of that statement of > > > Augustine's > > > > > regarding Time. (I posted this earlier today, but it didn't > go > > > > > through). I love our dear Auggie, and have read as much of > him as > > > any > > > > > other incarnate......but when he says re Time that he knows > what > > > it > > > > > is, but when asked he cannot say.....well that just rings the > > > bell of > > > > > an evasive tautology to me. There MUST be some way to define > > > these > > > > > things without resort to the poetic, and then saying that > it's > > > > > all 'between the lines' or in the 'feeling' of the poem, or > that > > > all > > > > > you need is what is and what that love is is 'what is' and > that > > > is > > > > > all. I am aware of how circular this sounds, and it is in no > way > > > an > > > > > attempt on my part to say that I am understanding anything, > nor > > > is it > > > > > being coy or trying to entrap anyone. I'm just looking to see > if > > > > > someone, anyone, anywhere can give definition to this stuff, > > > without > > > > > coping out with something like it's the unknown that cannot > be > > > > > comprehended within the known, or is known but is > > > undefinable....all > > > > > that stuff we post and read all the time. It sounds sweet and > > > > > profound and even 'right on', but in truth(whatever it is in > > > reality, > > > > > here I mean simply exactitude in definition and fidelity to > the > > > > > words/feelings under the microscope here. > > > > > > > > > > .........bob > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i find this very interesting. i know the impulse to define. > i, > > > too, > > > > have raged and raved for descartian clarity and distinction. > for > > > me, > > > > it was definitely an effort, a trying, a demanding, an > > > interrogating, > > > > a suplication, a space to be in -- in relationship to others' > not > > > > sharing that space. others, then, not making such demands, > seemed > > > > shallow, sheepish, abstracted, not all there. > > > > > > > > i was, thus, defining myself as that clarity and distinction > that > > > did > > > > not exist outside of me in others, but that could. it was a > > > potential > > > > to be more and for others to be more and for me to be more in > > > others, > > > > through that delineation. that hard edged, well defined, > perfectly > > > > integrated self, that was yet to be. > > > > > > > > ah, to be such pure and perfect.... potential..... > > > > > > > > i can only say, fine. it is what it is, that wanting to be > more > > > than > > > > it is. do you love that as yet unfulfilled potential? if so, > then, > > > > we are at least together in this. > > > > > > > > love > > > > ~*~ > > > I don't understand what you are trying to say. I do know that > when I > > > pose a question that you find difficult to answer directly or > > > succinctly or definetivly, you accuse me of ranting and raging. > These > > > were merely questions given to anyone really, in a calm and > > > inoffensive manner, as I would like to discuss the issues. You > have > > > not answered the questions, and that too is understandable in > that as > > > I said I have not read, heard or talked with anyone who could > ever > > > answer the questions as to what love, mind, knowing, unknowing, > > > entity, soul etc ARE on or in any fundamental and straightforward > > > way.Of course I love unfulfilled and even fulfilled potential. I > love > > > my family and friends and pets and a whole lot of the world and > > > things and activities within this world....heck sky guy, I even > love > > > you. but that doesn't mean that I understand what I'm saying or > > > feeling or meaning by any of that. Fact is, under a microscope > they > > > are a total bafflement for my essence or cognition, whatever > those > > > things are. This is not a negative way of seeing things at all. > I'ts > > > ultimate recognition of unfathomable Mystery.......but while we > > > partake of thoughts and words on these lists, blogs, boards and > what > > > not, I think that those are valid questions to address and talk > about > > > without it having to be perceived as an harangue or rabbiting on. > > > It's just grist for the mill and food for thought. that's all and > > > that's it. I call this a sharing thing myself sky. > > > > > > .......bob > > > > > > > > > ok, then, be very specific, clear and distinct, so that i know what > > that means to you. answer this question in the way that you would > > want me to answer you: > > > > what, exactly is wrong with > > > > " finitude is that which can be defined " > > > absolutely nothing wrong here because things within finitude and > finitude itself are definable just as you say. > > > > " infinitude is that which cannot be defined " > > > infinitude has been defined in mathematics for over a century....even > multiple infinities and transfinities.....love has not. > > > > " love is infinite and is defined as that which cannot be defined " > > > > ? > > > > ~ ? > ??????????? love may be infinite, but in the definitive mathematical > description of infinity, love is not an aspect considered. If you > would like, I can supply some of these mathematical formulae, but for > now, suffice it to say that without those mathematical definitions > and delineations of infinities and imaginary number, no spacecraft > and not many of the newer large scale superstructures designed by > archetects, could be engineered nor constructed. I have not found any > applications for 'love' that are manifest in this practical way. No > doubt our greatest art, music, prose, poetry, acts of courage and > goodwill and togetherness are inspired and driven by love among other > things, but that does not give it definition it just gives effects to > it's tones or being. yes I said it's being. I am as sure of it, and > feel it and embrace it as much as you or anyone I know....but I still > do not know WHAT it is anymore than I know WHAT I AM. I know this > doesn't answer the question as to what love is, I've been saying this > throughout this discussion....and I really don't suppose you can know > what it is either. I haven't seen anyone who could define it > fundamentally....but it does make for some hardy crosstalk....and who > knows....perhaps an insight or two as a bonus. > > ...........bob > what's wrong with the definition: the infinite is that which cannot be defined? ~?~ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 29, 2006 Report Share Posted July 29, 2006 Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " > > <Roberibus111@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " > > > > <Roberibus111@> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " > > <skywords@> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " > > > > > > <Roberibus111@> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " > > <iietsa@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " > > > > > > > > > > > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " > > > > > > <skywords@> > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " > > > > > > > > > > <pliantheart@> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " Where there is the possibility of pain, > > where > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there is the possibility of suffering in > > love, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is not love, it is merely a subtle form > > of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > possession, of acquisitiveness. " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - J. Krishnamurti > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I reflected on the quote it brought me to > > > > wonder > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what it is that defines the " relationship " . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I concluded that the relationship, whatever it > > > > > > > > > > > > > > may be, is *not* a set of feelings that I may > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have about the other. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is the feelings I have about the other that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > constitute expectations about the other and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are the basis for potential disappointment. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And hence, I concluded, the feelings I carry > > > > > > > > > > > > > > about the other are what is false. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In a way it is like my own false identity > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clouding my realization of What Is, of Now. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Because the feelings I have about the other > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are in effect my sense of identity as > > > > > > > > > > > > > > far as that relationship is concerned. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When I realize that the set of feelings I > > carry > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in my own breast regarding the other are > > false, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are not what is real, then they dissolve. And > > > > > > > > > > > > > > when they have dissolved what remains is a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tremendous space. I still behold the other, > > but > > > > > > > > > > > > > > now what I behold is a vastness of > > possibilities, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in place of what I held before as a confined > > > > > > > > > > > > > > set of necessities. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > so, love is freedom from one's self? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as toom says, self is suffering? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any limitation on anything, then, is suffering? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the idea, self/other, then, as limitation? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any thing, i e limitation, then, as suffering? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > only no any thing, then, as freedom, as love, > > then? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~*~ > > > > > > > > > > > > what exactly is it that 'gets free' when it > > > > loses 'self'? > > > > > > > > what > > > > > > > > > > > > is 'love' besides just saying that is some state > > or > > > > > > entity or > > > > > > > > > > > event > > > > > > > > > > > > or substance or ? when 'self' is no more. why > > > > belioeve in > > > > > > > > love > > > > > > > > > > any > > > > > > > > > > > > more than no-self, self, atman, etc?.I'm just > > curious > > > > and > > > > > > am > > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > > > > saying that anyone is saying these things here, > > it's > > > > just > > > > > > my > > > > > > > > > > > general > > > > > > > > > > > > take on a lot of things that are being said > > swirling > > > > > > around > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > issues herein discussed, and I would really like > > some > > > > > > type of > > > > > > > > > > > answer > > > > > > > > > > > > or definition that is not just evasion, > > solipsism, > > > > > > tautology, > > > > > > > > etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ........bob > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the " gets free " is mere idea... > > > > > > > > > > > and this idea is only interesting if there is > > taking > > > > > > the " not > > > > > > > > yet > > > > > > > > > > > free " thought seriously... > > > > > > > > > > > when you take yourself for nothing...then no > > thought > > > > > > affects > > > > > > > > you... > > > > > > > > > > > its not you that gives any one thought (idea) a > > > > (higher) > > > > > > > > value... > > > > > > > > > > > it is another thought doing that... > > > > > > > > > > > just dont take any one thought seriously...nomatter > > > > what... > > > > > > > > > > > and you are who you are in ease... > > > > > > > > > > > ...iietsa > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree iieatsa.....as I've said in a few > > > > posts...... " don't > > > > > > > > believe > > > > > > > > > > anything " .....just BE and all things ARE. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...........bob > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that's what love is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~*~ > > > > > > > > that's what solipsism is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...........b > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > yes. love is solipsism. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > OK now without solipsism, without tautology, without > > > > > > evasion......what IS love? I 'believe' what you say, even > > though > > > > I > > > > > > don't know what belief is, who is believing or even > > > > actually 'what' > > > > > > it is that it is believing when I say " I believe in Self, I > > > > believe > > > > > > in Love.....I don't even know what I mean when I say I 'feel' > > > > these > > > > > > things(even if there are no 'things' of any kind. SOMETHING > > there > > > > is > > > > > > that is a SOMEWHAT of no definition..... and boy oh boy do I > > get > > > > lost > > > > > > in it sometimes....BUT (Here We Dare to Speak > > Further)......This > > > > > > whole thing has the 'feeling-tone' of that statement of > > > > Augustine's > > > > > > regarding Time. (I posted this earlier today, but it didn't > > go > > > > > > through). I love our dear Auggie, and have read as much of > > him as > > > > any > > > > > > other incarnate......but when he says re Time that he knows > > what > > > > it > > > > > > is, but when asked he cannot say.....well that just rings the > > > > bell of > > > > > > an evasive tautology to me. There MUST be some way to define > > > > these > > > > > > things without resort to the poetic, and then saying that > > it's > > > > > > all 'between the lines' or in the 'feeling' of the poem, or > > that > > > > all > > > > > > you need is what is and what that love is is 'what is' and > > that > > > > is > > > > > > all. I am aware of how circular this sounds, and it is in no > > way > > > > an > > > > > > attempt on my part to say that I am understanding anything, > > nor > > > > is it > > > > > > being coy or trying to entrap anyone. I'm just looking to see > > if > > > > > > someone, anyone, anywhere can give definition to this stuff, > > > > without > > > > > > coping out with something like it's the unknown that cannot > > be > > > > > > comprehended within the known, or is known but is > > > > undefinable....all > > > > > > that stuff we post and read all the time. It sounds sweet and > > > > > > profound and even 'right on', but in truth(whatever it is in > > > > reality, > > > > > > here I mean simply exactitude in definition and fidelity to > > the > > > > > > words/feelings under the microscope here. > > > > > > > > > > > > .........bob > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i find this very interesting. i know the impulse to define. > > i, > > > > too, > > > > > have raged and raved for descartian clarity and distinction. > > for > > > > me, > > > > > it was definitely an effort, a trying, a demanding, an > > > > interrogating, > > > > > a suplication, a space to be in -- in relationship to others' > > not > > > > > sharing that space. others, then, not making such demands, > > seemed > > > > > shallow, sheepish, abstracted, not all there. > > > > > > > > > > i was, thus, defining myself as that clarity and distinction > > that > > > > did > > > > > not exist outside of me in others, but that could. it was a > > > > potential > > > > > to be more and for others to be more and for me to be more in > > > > others, > > > > > through that delineation. that hard edged, well defined, > > perfectly > > > > > integrated self, that was yet to be. > > > > > > > > > > ah, to be such pure and perfect.... potential..... > > > > > > > > > > i can only say, fine. it is what it is, that wanting to be > > more > > > > than > > > > > it is. do you love that as yet unfulfilled potential? if so, > > then, > > > > > we are at least together in this. > > > > > > > > > > love > > > > > ~*~ > > > > I don't understand what you are trying to say. I do know that > > when I > > > > pose a question that you find difficult to answer directly or > > > > succinctly or definetivly, you accuse me of ranting and raging. > > These > > > > were merely questions given to anyone really, in a calm and > > > > inoffensive manner, as I would like to discuss the issues. You > > have > > > > not answered the questions, and that too is understandable in > > that as > > > > I said I have not read, heard or talked with anyone who could > > ever > > > > answer the questions as to what love, mind, knowing, unknowing, > > > > entity, soul etc ARE on or in any fundamental and straightforward > > > > way.Of course I love unfulfilled and even fulfilled potential. I > > love > > > > my family and friends and pets and a whole lot of the world and > > > > things and activities within this world....heck sky guy, I even > > love > > > > you. but that doesn't mean that I understand what I'm saying or > > > > feeling or meaning by any of that. Fact is, under a microscope > > they > > > > are a total bafflement for my essence or cognition, whatever > > those > > > > things are. This is not a negative way of seeing things at all. > > I'ts > > > > ultimate recognition of unfathomable Mystery.......but while we > > > > partake of thoughts and words on these lists, blogs, boards and > > what > > > > not, I think that those are valid questions to address and talk > > about > > > > without it having to be perceived as an harangue or rabbiting on. > > > > It's just grist for the mill and food for thought. that's all and > > > > that's it. I call this a sharing thing myself sky. > > > > > > > > .......bob > > > > > > > > > > > > > ok, then, be very specific, clear and distinct, so that i know what > > > that means to you. answer this question in the way that you would > > > want me to answer you: > > > > > > what, exactly is wrong with > > > > > > " finitude is that which can be defined " > > > > > > absolutely nothing wrong here because things within finitude and > > finitude itself are definable just as you say. > > > > > > > " infinitude is that which cannot be defined " > > > > > > infinitude has been defined in mathematics for over a century....even > > multiple infinities and transfinities.....love has not. > > > > > > > " love is infinite and is defined as that which cannot be defined " > > > > > > ? > > > > > > ~ ? > > ??????????? love may be infinite, but in the definitive mathematical > > description of infinity, love is not an aspect considered. If you > > would like, I can supply some of these mathematical formulae, but for > > now, suffice it to say that without those mathematical definitions > > and delineations of infinities and imaginary number, no spacecraft > > and not many of the newer large scale superstructures designed by > > archetects, could be engineered nor constructed. I have not found any > > applications for 'love' that are manifest in this practical way. No > > doubt our greatest art, music, prose, poetry, acts of courage and > > goodwill and togetherness are inspired and driven by love among other > > things, but that does not give it definition it just gives effects to > > it's tones or being. yes I said it's being. I am as sure of it, and > > feel it and embrace it as much as you or anyone I know....but I still > > do not know WHAT it is anymore than I know WHAT I AM. I know this > > doesn't answer the question as to what love is, I've been saying this > > throughout this discussion....and I really don't suppose you can know > > what it is either. I haven't seen anyone who could define it > > fundamentally....but it does make for some hardy crosstalk....and who > > knows....perhaps an insight or two as a bonus. > > > > ...........bob > > > > > what's wrong with the definition: > > the infinite is that which cannot be defined? > > ~?~ it doesn't define.......this is the SAME problem or perplexity with things like mind, nothingness, knowing and unknowing and a lot of these wonderful and strange things(even though not a thing is), that we talk about here. We can wax poetic and try and sound profound and get metaphorical like saying Quiescence and Flowingness, Quintessence of the prisine infinitude of Awareness, Being and Pre-being and Nonbeing....but we aren't saying anything. That we communicate something about a somewhat I grant you.....but that old preverbial peach may very well taste to you like an apple does to me and we would have no way of knowing or even unknowing that......same with love and many more of these terms....I know what they mean toi me and assume that they mean the same thing to you, but as long as they remain at rock bottom undefinable or incapable of being devised in formiula of science or math.......we can never know. period. listen sky, I think it is you who are now getting upset....I'm not...hell I'll take Romance and a Dance any day of the week, but I won't say that i know what it's all about, because i don't.....and thus far I have never seen. read, heard or heard about anyone who does. .......bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 29, 2006 Report Share Posted July 29, 2006 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " > <Roberibus111@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " > > > <Roberibus111@> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " > <skywords@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " > > > > > <Roberibus111@> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " > > > <skywords@> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " > > > > > > > <Roberibus111@> > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " > > > <iietsa@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " > > > > > > > > > > > > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " > > > > > > > <skywords@> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " > > > > > > > > > > > <pliantheart@> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " Where there is the possibility of > pain, > > > where > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there is the possibility of suffering > in > > > love, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is not love, it is merely a subtle > form > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > possession, of acquisitiveness. " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - J. Krishnamurti > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I reflected on the quote it brought me > to > > > > > wonder > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what it is that defines > the " relationship " . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I concluded that the relationship, > whatever it > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > may be, is *not* a set of feelings that I > may > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have about the other. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is the feelings I have about the other > that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > constitute expectations about the other > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are the basis for potential > disappointment. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And hence, I concluded, the feelings I > carry > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > about the other are what is false. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In a way it is like my own false identity > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clouding my realization of What Is, of > Now. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Because the feelings I have about the > other > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are in effect my sense of identity as > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > far as that relationship is concerned. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When I realize that the set of feelings I > > > carry > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in my own breast regarding the other are > > > false, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are not what is real, then they dissolve. > And > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > when they have dissolved what remains is > a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tremendous space. I still behold the > other, > > > but > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > now what I behold is a vastness of > > > possibilities, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in place of what I held before as a > confined > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > set of necessities. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > so, love is freedom from one's self? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as toom says, self is suffering? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any limitation on anything, then, is > suffering? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the idea, self/other, then, as limitation? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any thing, i e limitation, then, as > suffering? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > only no any thing, then, as freedom, as > love, > > > then? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~*~ > > > > > > > > > > > > > what exactly is it that 'gets free' when it > > > > > loses 'self'? > > > > > > > > > what > > > > > > > > > > > > > is 'love' besides just saying that is some > state > > > or > > > > > > > entity or > > > > > > > > > > > > event > > > > > > > > > > > > > or substance or ? when 'self' is no more. why > > > > > belioeve in > > > > > > > > > love > > > > > > > > > > > any > > > > > > > > > > > > > more than no-self, self, atman, etc?.I'm just > > > curious > > > > > and > > > > > > > am > > > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > > > > > saying that anyone is saying these things > here, > > > it's > > > > > just > > > > > > > my > > > > > > > > > > > > general > > > > > > > > > > > > > take on a lot of things that are being said > > > swirling > > > > > > > around > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > issues herein discussed, and I would really > like > > > some > > > > > > > type of > > > > > > > > > > > > answer > > > > > > > > > > > > > or definition that is not just evasion, > > > solipsism, > > > > > > > tautology, > > > > > > > > > etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ........bob > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the " gets free " is mere idea... > > > > > > > > > > > > and this idea is only interesting if there is > > > taking > > > > > > > the " not > > > > > > > > > yet > > > > > > > > > > > > free " thought seriously... > > > > > > > > > > > > when you take yourself for nothing...then no > > > thought > > > > > > > affects > > > > > > > > > you... > > > > > > > > > > > > its not you that gives any one thought (idea) a > > > > > (higher) > > > > > > > > > value... > > > > > > > > > > > > it is another thought doing that... > > > > > > > > > > > > just dont take any one thought > seriously...nomatter > > > > > what... > > > > > > > > > > > > and you are who you are in ease... > > > > > > > > > > > > ...iietsa > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree iieatsa.....as I've said in a few > > > > > posts...... " don't > > > > > > > > > believe > > > > > > > > > > > anything " .....just BE and all things ARE. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...........bob > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that's what love is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~*~ > > > > > > > > > that's what solipsism is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...........b > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > yes. love is solipsism. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > OK now without solipsism, without tautology, without > > > > > > > evasion......what IS love? I 'believe' what you say, even > > > though > > > > > I > > > > > > > don't know what belief is, who is believing or even > > > > > actually 'what' > > > > > > > it is that it is believing when I say " I believe in Self, > I > > > > > believe > > > > > > > in Love.....I don't even know what I mean when I say > I 'feel' > > > > > these > > > > > > > things(even if there are no 'things' of any kind. > SOMETHING > > > there > > > > > is > > > > > > > that is a SOMEWHAT of no definition..... and boy oh boy > do I > > > get > > > > > lost > > > > > > > in it sometimes....BUT (Here We Dare to Speak > > > Further)......This > > > > > > > whole thing has the 'feeling-tone' of that statement of > > > > > Augustine's > > > > > > > regarding Time. (I posted this earlier today, but it > didn't > > > go > > > > > > > through). I love our dear Auggie, and have read as much > of > > > him as > > > > > any > > > > > > > other incarnate......but when he says re Time that he > knows > > > what > > > > > it > > > > > > > is, but when asked he cannot say.....well that just rings > the > > > > > bell of > > > > > > > an evasive tautology to me. There MUST be some way to > define > > > > > these > > > > > > > things without resort to the poetic, and then saying that > > > it's > > > > > > > all 'between the lines' or in the 'feeling' of the poem, > or > > > that > > > > > all > > > > > > > you need is what is and what that love is is 'what is' > and > > > that > > > > > is > > > > > > > all. I am aware of how circular this sounds, and it is in > no > > > way > > > > > an > > > > > > > attempt on my part to say that I am understanding > anything, > > > nor > > > > > is it > > > > > > > being coy or trying to entrap anyone. I'm just looking to > see > > > if > > > > > > > someone, anyone, anywhere can give definition to this > stuff, > > > > > without > > > > > > > coping out with something like it's the unknown that > cannot > > > be > > > > > > > comprehended within the known, or is known but is > > > > > undefinable....all > > > > > > > that stuff we post and read all the time. It sounds sweet > and > > > > > > > profound and even 'right on', but in truth(whatever it is > in > > > > > reality, > > > > > > > here I mean simply exactitude in definition and fidelity > to > > > the > > > > > > > words/feelings under the microscope here. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .........bob > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i find this very interesting. i know the impulse to > define. > > > i, > > > > > too, > > > > > > have raged and raved for descartian clarity and > distinction. > > > for > > > > > me, > > > > > > it was definitely an effort, a trying, a demanding, an > > > > > interrogating, > > > > > > a suplication, a space to be in -- in relationship to > others' > > > not > > > > > > sharing that space. others, then, not making such demands, > > > seemed > > > > > > shallow, sheepish, abstracted, not all there. > > > > > > > > > > > > i was, thus, defining myself as that clarity and > distinction > > > that > > > > > did > > > > > > not exist outside of me in others, but that could. it was > a > > > > > potential > > > > > > to be more and for others to be more and for me to be more > in > > > > > others, > > > > > > through that delineation. that hard edged, well defined, > > > perfectly > > > > > > integrated self, that was yet to be. > > > > > > > > > > > > ah, to be such pure and perfect.... potential..... > > > > > > > > > > > > i can only say, fine. it is what it is, that wanting to be > > > more > > > > > than > > > > > > it is. do you love that as yet unfulfilled potential? if > so, > > > then, > > > > > > we are at least together in this. > > > > > > > > > > > > love > > > > > > ~*~ > > > > > I don't understand what you are trying to say. I do know that > > > when I > > > > > pose a question that you find difficult to answer directly or > > > > > succinctly or definetivly, you accuse me of ranting and > raging. > > > These > > > > > were merely questions given to anyone really, in a calm and > > > > > inoffensive manner, as I would like to discuss the issues. > You > > > have > > > > > not answered the questions, and that too is understandable in > > > that as > > > > > I said I have not read, heard or talked with anyone who could > > > ever > > > > > answer the questions as to what love, mind, knowing, > unknowing, > > > > > entity, soul etc ARE on or in any fundamental and > straightforward > > > > > way.Of course I love unfulfilled and even fulfilled > potential. I > > > love > > > > > my family and friends and pets and a whole lot of the world > and > > > > > things and activities within this world....heck sky guy, I > even > > > love > > > > > you. but that doesn't mean that I understand what I'm saying > or > > > > > feeling or meaning by any of that. Fact is, under a > microscope > > > they > > > > > are a total bafflement for my essence or cognition, whatever > > > those > > > > > things are. This is not a negative way of seeing things at > all. > > > I'ts > > > > > ultimate recognition of unfathomable Mystery.......but while > we > > > > > partake of thoughts and words on these lists, blogs, boards > and > > > what > > > > > not, I think that those are valid questions to address and > talk > > > about > > > > > without it having to be perceived as an harangue or rabbiting > on. > > > > > It's just grist for the mill and food for thought. that's all > and > > > > > that's it. I call this a sharing thing myself sky. > > > > > > > > > > .......bob > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ok, then, be very specific, clear and distinct, so that i know > what > > > > that means to you. answer this question in the way that you > would > > > > want me to answer you: > > > > > > > > what, exactly is wrong with > > > > > > > > " finitude is that which can be defined " > > > > > > > > > absolutely nothing wrong here because things within finitude and > > > finitude itself are definable just as you say. > > > > > > > > > > " infinitude is that which cannot be defined " > > > > > > > > > infinitude has been defined in mathematics for over a > century....even > > > multiple infinities and transfinities.....love has not. > > > > > > > > > > " love is infinite and is defined as that which cannot be > defined " > > > > > > > > ? > > > > > > > > ~ ? > > > ??????????? love may be infinite, but in the definitive > mathematical > > > description of infinity, love is not an aspect considered. If you > > > would like, I can supply some of these mathematical formulae, but > for > > > now, suffice it to say that without those mathematical > definitions > > > and delineations of infinities and imaginary number, no > spacecraft > > > and not many of the newer large scale superstructures designed by > > > archetects, could be engineered nor constructed. I have not found > any > > > applications for 'love' that are manifest in this practical way. > No > > > doubt our greatest art, music, prose, poetry, acts of courage and > > > goodwill and togetherness are inspired and driven by love among > other > > > things, but that does not give it definition it just gives > effects to > > > it's tones or being. yes I said it's being. I am as sure of it, > and > > > feel it and embrace it as much as you or anyone I know....but I > still > > > do not know WHAT it is anymore than I know WHAT I AM. I know this > > > doesn't answer the question as to what love is, I've been saying > this > > > throughout this discussion....and I really don't suppose you can > know > > > what it is either. I haven't seen anyone who could define it > > > fundamentally....but it does make for some hardy crosstalk....and > who > > > knows....perhaps an insight or two as a bonus. > > > > > > ...........bob > > > > > > > > > what's wrong with the definition: > > > > the infinite is that which cannot be defined? > > > > ~?~ > it doesn't define.......this is the SAME problem or perplexity with > things like mind, nothingness, knowing and unknowing and a lot of > these wonderful and strange things(even though not a thing is), that > we talk about here. We can wax poetic and try and sound profound and > get metaphorical like saying Quiescence and Flowingness, Quintessence > of the prisine infinitude of Awareness, Being and Pre-being and > Nonbeing....but we aren't saying anything. That we communicate > something about a somewhat I grant you.....but that old preverbial > peach may very well taste to you like an apple does to me and we > would have no way of knowing or even unknowing that......same with > love and many more of these terms....I know what they mean toi me and > assume that they mean the same thing to you, but as long as they > remain at rock bottom undefinable or incapable of being devised in > formiula of science or math.......we can never know. period. listen > sky, I think it is you who are now getting upset....I'm not...hell > I'll take Romance and a Dance any day of the week, but I won't say > that i know what it's all about, because i don't.....and thus far I > have never seen. read, heard or heard about anyone who does. > > .......bob > i really don't think you're listening to yourself. you are yourself answering your own question. (brilliantly, i might add. i think i might even accuse you of playing games, since you already know the answer, just as you have provided it. how socratic.) i'm dead serious! ~*~ 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.