falling / feeling / aggression / Sky & co./ Bill, only

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart

wrote:

>

> <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

> > ~*~

> >

>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bill:

 

 

 

really...

> I had no idea...

> any examples?

 

 

 

Sky:

 

 

I am talking about the distant past, vis a vis, me. As far as

Lulu/Eric, yeah, I think your comment is hash, precisely, in its

brevity and in its support of Pete's judgment. About bob, your last

implication was cuttingly curt, unless I misunderstood it.

 

But my point is primarily that cold mentation corresponds with a level

of insensitivity to the body and corresponding aggression. It isn't

primarily that you in particular are an aggressive person. I don't

feel that way about you. That's why I'm not talking about Pete. Pete

is another story all together, from my point of view, within the

context of your response to " falling. "

 

So, no, I don't think you are particularly aggressive, and I

acknowledge, below, your history here. But what I am saying is that

for one who champions the cause, you seem unrestrained, to me:

 

 

Bill:

 

 

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?

>

 

 

 

Sky:

 

 

You make a very good acquittal for yourself, here:

 

 

 

Bill:

 

 

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.

>

 

Sky:

 

 

Nevertheless, these seem to me to be primarily visual, rather

than corporeal metaphors. Thus, I feel assured in my appraisal that

they represent a state more mental than visceral. Thus one cut off

from the body. Why exaggerate, as in the following? Isn't it enough

to subtly acknowledge the potential for some truth in what I say?

This need for potential ridicule of what I'm earnestly and

conscientiously putting forth seems a bit insensitive. There's

something in between Thor and wimp, wouldn't you admit? And if

there's no room for nuance in nonduality, then somebody's way off.

 

 

 

So, regarding your last post:

 

 

 

Bill:

 

 

> 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?

 

 

 

Sky:

 

 

 

Seems I've addressed each of your points. Any more questions?

 

Just to underscore: I'm addressing your response to the " falling "

issue within the context of the past. I am not primarily addressing

the issue of aggression as separate from your comment. Nor am I

suggesting that you are to be singled out. And I continue to

acknowledge, precisely, that you have championed the cause. I'm

asking you to take it to its ultimate conclusion. Why only go half way?

 

Oh, and by the way. No, not Thor, but condescending, yes. I hope you

will do me the honor of focusing on the distinction. You seem quite

perfectionistic at times, about wording, and yet

here you seem to overlook the most obvious. That's what I would call

high handed. Do you see my point?

 

 

 

 

sky

~*~

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart@>

> wrote:

> >

> > <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

> > > ~*~

> > >

> >

>

>

>

>

>

>

Bill:

>

>

>

> really...

> > I had no idea...

> > any examples?

>

>

>

> Sky:

>

>

> I am talking about the distant past, vis a vis, me. As far as

> Lulu/Eric, yeah, I think your comment is hash, precisely, in its

> brevity and in its support of Pete's judgment. About bob, your last

> implication was cuttingly curt, unless I misunderstood it.

>

> But my point is primarily that cold mentation corresponds with a

level

> of insensitivity to the body and corresponding aggression. It isn't

> primarily that you in particular are an aggressive person. I don't

> feel that way about you. That's why I'm not talking about Pete.

Pete

> is another story all together, from my point of view, within the

> context of your response to " falling. "

>

> So, no, I don't think you are particularly aggressive, and I

> acknowledge, below, your history here. But what I am saying is that

> for one who champions the cause, you seem unrestrained, to me:

>

>

> Bill:

>

>

> 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?

> >

>

>

>

> Sky:

>

>

> You make a very good acquittal for yourself, here:

>

>

>

> Bill:

>

>

> 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.

> >

>

> Sky:

>

>

> Nevertheless, these seem to me to be primarily visual,

rather

> than corporeal metaphors. Thus, I feel assured in my appraisal that

> they represent a state more mental than visceral. Thus one cut off

> from the body. Why exaggerate, as in the following? Isn't it

enough

> to subtly acknowledge the potential for some truth in what I say?

> This need for potential ridicule of what I'm earnestly and

> conscientiously putting forth seems a bit insensitive. There's

> something in between Thor and wimp, wouldn't you admit? And if

> there's no room for nuance in nonduality, then somebody's way off.

>

>

>

> So, regarding your last post:

>

>

>

> Bill:

>

>

> > 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?

>

>

>

> Sky:

>

>

>

> Seems I've addressed each of your points. Any more questions?

>

> Just to underscore: I'm addressing your response to the " falling "

> issue within the context of the past. I am not primarily addressing

> the issue of aggression as separate from your comment. Nor am I

> suggesting that you are to be singled out. And I continue to

> acknowledge, precisely, that you have championed the cause. I'm

> asking you to take it to its ultimate conclusion. Why only go half

way?

>

> Oh, and by the way. No, not Thor, but condescending, yes. I hope

you

> will do me the honor of focusing on the distinction. You seem quite

> perfectionistic at times, about wording, and yet

> here you seem to overlook the most obvious. That's what I would

call

> high handed. Do you see my point?

>

>

>

>

> sky

> ~*~

>

sky it's not worth your time.....forget the 'all blesseds' and

the 'all knowings' and just keep giving your gifts. there are

relationships that go way back here, and a mutual admiration society

that will have none of their betters........ and they do anything to

try and put stop to the postings of those better than they...that

shame their sorry attempts at being lucid, let alone gifted. It's a

joke really, but just have a good laugh at it, and leave it and them

alone in their sandbox. they can be condescending to their

sandcastles and even more mirthful to see......to each other! ha ha

ha!!

 

..........bob