falling / feeling / aggression / Sky & co.

[Guest guest]

<snip>

 

> >

> > >>>>>>>>>

> >

> > no, because falling is relative motion...

> > it is already inherently dual.

> >

> > and why believe in anything

> > when the dissolution of all beliefs

> > so poignant...

> >

> > Bill

> >

>

> Bill & co,

>

> Forward

>

> One thing that I've noticed is that people who often tend to get angry

> also seem to both be judgmental and kind of out of touch with their

> their feelings.

> Out of touch with their bodies, they also tend to be kind of hyper

mental.

>

> I've noticed that you seem to be rather quick to judge harshly.

> Specifically, I feel you were harsh with me, with bob, with lulu, and

> others.

 

really...

I had no idea...

any examples?

 

> I think it possible to be nice. To get the same point across without

> being punitive or aggressive. The very same point actually gets

> across more effectively when delivered in a non aggressive way.

>

> I'm not saying that I have this mastered, as you'd be the first to

> point out. But I will say that I am now making such an effort.

>

> I hope that I don't sound either harsh or judgmental. I'm simply

> offering you what I experience to be an insight. If only about

> myself. I'm sure you'll take it or leave it, as suits you.

>

> Feeling

>

> So, this was, then, a preamble to the issue of " falling. " Because I

> consider that a feeling very directly associated with the surrender to

> the very state of awareness that you've been addressing recently.

>

> Let me say that I've appreciated the focus and insight you've offered

> on this subject. Yet I've experienced it is as more mental and

> theoretical than as completely authentic.

>

> You've been judging people on this list on such an intuitive basis,

> applying the word, " fresh. " And so, I'm sure you know that there is a

> very corporeal element to non duality.

>

>

> Falling

>

>

> So, when I talk about falling, I'm addressing a corporeal experience

> that is more than palpable. It is the experience of letting go of the

> things I feel attached to. There's a tremendous sense of complete

> relaxation into the a widening universe. It is, therefore, by it's

> very nature, dual, since it's leaving one place and entering another.

 

OK... makes sense.

 

 

 

> If you mean to imply that you are already there, I have to question

> it. Since I doubt that you or anyone is ever permanently there,.

> Rather, the sense of duality can't ever be completely abandoned, to

> use your word. Rather, non duality includes duality.

 

Here's something that I feel addresses what you speak of:

 

In the living moment all thoughts and forms collapse. In the intense

vibrance of the moment consciousness becomes as a plasma, compressed

as to a point, but also seemingly everywhere. The dream of events and

happenings continues after a fashion, but diaphanously, transparently,

as fleeting dreams, as shadows dancing on a wall. At the core is a

vibrance of such intensity that whatever shadows there are instantly

fade in significance. As the tongues of flame in a fire, such is the

impermanent non-lastingness of events as they unfold from the vital

life of the burning Now.

 

In other words, a continual arising and dying of forms, of " others " etc.

 

> Aggression

>

> So, for you to respond with what appears to be a strictly theoretical

> or mental or abstract evaluation -- this seems quite consistent with

> the aggressiveness that I associate with some of your statements.

 

You think *I* am agressive????

I'm the one that historically has been considered the wimpy,

milk-toasty nice guy. Pete should get a real laugh out of this.

Have I morphed into a fierce Thor-type throwing thunderbolts

without my realizing it?

 

> This is very central to me, because I feel quite confident that, as

> Nis says, going beyond anger and aggression is pivotal to the teaching.

>

> But I'm certainly not merely addressing you here. My impression is

> that people seek spiritual paths precisely because they find

> themselves overwhelmed by aggression. Inevitably, I see plenty of

> aggression here.

>

> It should be expected. But I am now insisting that it should be

> addressed. Addressed as, really, one of the topmost priorities.

>

>

> Lastly, I'd like to observe that not only do I feel that aggression is

> unnecessarily employed. It appears to be actually encouraged. I'd

> like to suggest, then, that it's a lot better on every level to be

> nicer. Not only that, but since many of us here seem to value

> cleverness, I'd like to suggest that niceness is a whole lot smarter,

> as well.

>

> As I wrap this up, it occurs to me that this is actually an issue that

> you, Bill, had been grappling with before I began posting. So maybe I

> should expect that you, in particular, might be sympathetic with this

> point of view.

>

 

I don't relate to your characterization of me as aggressive/angry.

I do relate to aggression/flaming etc. as being unhealthy for the

list climate. I have worked *very hard* to counter some of the

flaming that goes on here in the past. More recently I haven't

bothered. I just read what suits me and leave it at that.

 

So if you want to emphasize keeping the heat down I second the motion.

As for all your focus on me here, though, I hardly ever respond to

your posts Sky. Almost never. Same for Bob and Lulu. To say I have

been harsh with you all is quite a distortion, in my view, unless

you are going back quite a bit in time. Care to back up with some

examples? I can't remember the last time I commented about you or

Bob, but am sure it has been a long time. As for Lulu, just the one

comment:

using a pseudonym is one thing

misrepresentation is another

Are you calling that harsh?

If so, then we are working from very different perspectives.

That comment re Lulu/Eric was quite manicured/genteel if I do say so.

 

And why all the focus on me, anyway?

 

Bill

 

 

> sky

> ~*~

>