falling / feeling / aggression / Sky

August 16, 2006

Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords wrote:

>

> 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.

my " last implication " ??? Are you reaching?!

In the last month or more I've responded to a couple of Bob's

posts here, always in a positive spirit. I don't harbor negative

vibes about Bob at all. So I assume you did misunderstand.

>

> 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.

>

there is kinesthetic going on there: " *compressed* as to a point "

is kinesthetic, as is " at the core " . Actually the sense being

described is more kinesthetic than visual... note that the visual

terms refer to the *illusory* aspects... the flames, that shadows

dancing, the fleeting dreams... while there is a solidness of

" the core " that is not fleeting, and yet not a single sensation

either.

As to the vibrant livingness of the moment... it is a kind of

" buzz " sensation, visually there is a sense of " sparkling "

throughout... but it is all mixed, visual, auditory, kinesthetic.

No one has really brought up the aspect of sensory modalities

before, and I may tend to play down the kinesthetic in my writing.

But now that you mention it, yeah the kinesthetic is really the

stronger of the modalities. When I talk about heart I am also

talking about kinesthetic.

>

> 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

you and iietsa have both reacted pretty strongly to my response to

his question " do you believe in falling? " I wasn't following the

thread up to that point and did not intend to reflect on the meaning

of that expression to others.

I don't see a right/wrong with this stuff. I see it as all just

" programming " . When you said:

> > 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.

I think that is great. And the way I see it is that you have found

a " program " for the short term to leverage some fundamental change.

It is not that you have found some " metaphysical truth " but that

you have found a trigger that works for you. It is all very sky-specific.

Someone else might get inspired by what you say and come up with a

" program " for themselves as a result. But nevertheless it is all

(per my view) just programming. What we are doing here is passing

bits of programming back and forth. That's why I keep saying that there

is not such thing as The Way It Is... that trying to nail down in

words what is " Reality " is misguided.

So now that you are " falling " let me suggest...

that you now allow to fall in a further direction *orthogonal*

to the one you are now falling. Also try " factionating " ,

i.e. like a prism splitting colors allow whatever is falling

to factionate, falling at different angles, rates, an so on.

which reminds me of a line from Octavio Paz I read last night:

" we saw a butterfly land on the cashier's head, open its

wings of flame and shatter into reflections "

and if what I suggest above sounds bizarre, do know I've done

a lot of that kind of thing. I think perhaps what I have done

is expanded and expanded my programming to the extent that there

was no real " center " left, no " me " . So that now I feel just a buzzing

glow as a " field " programming scintillations, as if I am irrevocably

" shattered into reflections " ...

perhaps you can relate?

> 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?

>

I'm just looking for some real conversation, Sky. I'm pretty serious,

which in the past has been a point of departure for you and me.

Now you are sounding more serious. I like that.

The only thing I ever really enjoy on these lists is genuine

exchanges that go below the surface. Like I said to Pete, I love

it if someone can shake me up. But I also love the grit of real

honesty. Genuine exchanges bring things out, bring things to light.

Bill

>

> sky

> ~*~

>

August 16, 2006

> > 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.

>

> my " last implication " ??? Are you reaching?!

> In the last month or more I've responded to a couple of Bob's

> posts here, always in a positive spirit. I don't harbor negative

> vibes about Bob at all. So I assume you did misunderstand.

>

> >

> > 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.

> >

>

> there is kinesthetic going on there: " *compressed* as to a point "

> is kinesthetic, as is " at the core " . Actually the sense being

> described is more kinesthetic than visual... note that the visual

> terms refer to the *illusory* aspects... the flames, that shadows

> dancing, the fleeting dreams... while there is a solidness of

> " the core " that is not fleeting, and yet not a single sensation

> either.

>

> As to the vibrant livingness of the moment... it is a kind of

> " buzz " sensation, visually there is a sense of " sparkling "

> throughout... but it is all mixed, visual, auditory, kinesthetic.

>

> No one has really brought up the aspect of sensory modalities

> before, and I may tend to play down the kinesthetic in my writing.

> But now that you mention it, yeah the kinesthetic is really the

> stronger of the modalities. When I talk about heart I am also

> talking about kinesthetic.

>

> >

> > 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

>

> you and iietsa have both reacted pretty strongly to my response to

> his question " do you believe in falling? " I wasn't following the

> thread up to that point and did not intend to reflect on the meaning

> of that expression to others.

>

> I don't see a right/wrong with this stuff. I see it as all just

> " programming " . When you said:

> > > 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.

>

> I think that is great. And the way I see it is that you have found

> a " program " for the short term to leverage some fundamental change.

> It is not that you have found some " metaphysical truth " but that

> you have found a trigger that works for you. It is all very

sky-specific.

> Someone else might get inspired by what you say and come up with a

> " program " for themselves as a result. But nevertheless it is all

> (per my view) just programming. What we are doing here is passing

> bits of programming back and forth. That's why I keep saying that there

> is not such thing as The Way It Is... that trying to nail down in

> words what is " Reality " is misguided.

>

> So now that you are " falling " let me suggest...

> that you now allow to fall in a further direction *orthogonal*

> to the one you are now falling. Also try " factionating " ,

> i.e. like a prism splitting colors allow whatever is falling

> to factionate, falling at different angles, rates, an so on.

>

> which reminds me of a line from Octavio Paz I read last night:

>

> " we saw a butterfly land on the cashier's head, open its

> wings of flame and shatter into reflections "

>

> and if what I suggest above sounds bizarre, do know I've done

> a lot of that kind of thing. I think perhaps what I have done

> is expanded and expanded my programming to the extent that there

> was no real " center " left, no " me " . So that now I feel just a buzzing

> glow as a " field " programming scintillations, as if I am irrevocably

> " shattered into reflections " ...

>

> perhaps you can relate?

>

> > 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?

> >

>

> I'm just looking for some real conversation, Sky. I'm pretty serious,

> which in the past has been a point of departure for you and me.

> Now you are sounding more serious. I like that.

>

> The only thing I ever really enjoy on these lists is genuine

> exchanges that go below the surface. Like I said to Pete, I love

> it if someone can shake me up. But I also love the grit of real

> honesty. Genuine exchanges bring things out, bring things to light.

UPDATE:

Bill:

my " last implication " ??? Are you reaching?!

> In the last month or more I've responded to a couple of Bob's

> posts here, always in a positive spirit. I don't harbor negative

> vibes about Bob at all. So I assume you did misunderstand.

Sky:

Possibly. But bob seems quite alienated from you, if you'll note his

last post regarding this thread.

Bill:

there is kinesthetic going on there: " *compressed* as to a point "

> is kinesthetic, as is " at the core " . Actually the sense being

> described is more kinesthetic than visual... note that the visual

> terms refer to the *illusory* aspects... the flames, that shadows

> dancing, the fleeting dreams... while there is a solidness of

> " the core " that is not fleeting, and yet not a single sensation

> either.

Sky:

My understanding of " kinesthetic " is that it involves, primarily,

bodily Motion, not subjective sensation, such as I'm referring to when

I use the word, " visceral. " So, we seem to be talking about something

else, at variance. I am not meaning to be picky at all, when I say

that the kinesthetic IS NOT the visceral and that those I've known who

are primarily kinesthetic seem to be alienated from the visceral. For

example, I know many athletes who are very coordinated and love to

dance, but are very out of touch with their feelings. In fact, they

escape their feelings precisely through physical activity, especially

exuberance. I've done it myself. Similarly, I find that they have

pretty short tempers. I'm not getting on your case. I'm just

sticking to my original point and finding your responses consistent

with it -- not that I am stubbornly trying to insist on my point.

Bill:

As to the vibrant livingness of the moment... it is a kind of

> " buzz " sensation, visually there is a sense of " sparkling "

> throughout... but it is all mixed, visual, auditory, kinesthetic.

>

Sky:

Yes, in contrast to the visual, auditory and kinesthetic, I would say

that the " buzz " verges most closely to the visceral. But,

nevertheless, it is quite generalized and includes the head and the

rest of the body. By visceral, I mean, yes, the heart, the gut, the

trunk of the body, especially in localized areas, what kundalini yoga

calls the " chakras. "

Bill:

No one has really brought up the aspect of sensory modalities

> before, and I may tend to play down the kinesthetic in my writing.

> But now that you mention it, yeah the kinesthetic is really the

> stronger of the modalities. When I talk about heart I am also

> talking about kinesthetic.

Sky:

Yeah, your focus on the heart has been noticed, most certainly. But

this is not kinesthetic, as I am most familiar with the term.

Bill:

I think that is great. And the way I see it is that you have found

> a " program " for the short term to leverage some fundamental change.

> It is not that you have found some " metaphysical truth " but that

> you have found a trigger that works for you. It is all very

sky-specific.

> Someone else might get inspired by what you say and come up with a

> " program " for themselves as a result. But nevertheless it is all

> (per my view) just programming. What we are doing here is passing

> bits of programming back and forth. That's why I keep saying that there

> is not such thing as The Way It Is... that trying to nail down in

> words what is " Reality " is misguided.

Sky:

I appeciate your approval, and I hope I can reciprocate.

I wouldn't call it " sky specific " except in as much as I have yet to

convey it. Rather, my reading and my experience with others, pretty

strongly validates that what I'm saying has been experienced, is being

experienced and will be experienced. The falling sensation is pretty

universal, I'd say. The resistance to it is most commonly associated

with it. What I'm offering that's " fresh " here, in any case, is a

celebration of it. But it has been celebrated before, in an infinite

number of ways and contexts. For example, in the cliche, " falling in

love. "

In either case, all programming, as you put it, would have to be

germane to nonduality, part and parcel of it, since nonduality must be

all inclusive. Yes, there are angles that are completely unique to

each individual. But I believe it to be a characteristic of language

that it also, invariably, taps into that which is also universal, and

invariably so. So, I would say that there both is and is not such a

thing as The Way It Is.

Bill:

So now that you are " falling " let me suggest...

> that you now allow to fall in a further direction *orthogonal*

> to the one you are now falling. Also try " factionating " ,

> i.e. like a prism splitting colors allow whatever is falling

> to factionate, falling at different angles, rates, an so on.

>

Sky:

You mean, like, slow motion explosion? Well, yes, I must say, that

actually IS part of the " falling, " since that falling IS also, an

expanding, a widening. It is as though the whole body is becoming the

rest of the universe. This has certainly been alluded to here,

endlessly. Our becoming both Other and others. But I guess I would

have to say that this angularity you refer to is a bit coarse, and

again reminds me of the harshness I refer to, if you'll forgive my

harping on it: I want to maintain my thread. Because rather than

being mathematical or computer analogous, this is more biological,

more fluid, a melting, rather than a melding. If you'll be so

charitable as to allow a distinction that I find critical. Critical.

Because this is the difference between diamonds and organs, between

stones and cells, between hard and soft, warm and cold. For me, this

is huge. The difference between anger and tender. If you'll but

contemplate it for a few hours, at least.

Bill:

which reminds me of a line from Octavio Paz I read last night:

>

> " we saw a butterfly land on the cashier's head, open its

> wings of flame and shatter into reflections "

>

> and if what I suggest above sounds bizarre, do know I've done

> a lot of that kind of thing. I think perhaps what I have done

> is expanded and expanded my programming to the extent that there

> was no real " center " left, no " me " . So that now I feel just a buzzing

> glow as a " field " programming scintillations, as if I am irrevocably

> " shattered into reflections " ...

>

> perhaps you can relate?

Sky:

Yes, I CAN relate. Can you forgive me for saying that when I was

there, so to speak, there was something missing, as I look back on it.

No, at the time, it was so intensely fulfilling that I found none of

it wanting. But now, in retrospect, what WAS missing was an organic,

an organismic, communal sense of warm, biological, soft, confluent,

borderlessness. Like two or more living bodies merging into one, an

osmosis.

Bill:

I'm just looking for some real conversation, Sky. I'm pretty serious,

> which in the past has been a point of departure for you and me.

> Now you are sounding more serious. I like that.

>

Sky:

Hmm. I'd say I'm getting warmer.

Bill:

The only thing I ever really enjoy on these lists is genuine

> exchanges that go below the surface. Like I said to Pete, I love

> it if someone can shake me up. But I also love the grit of real

> honesty. Genuine exchanges bring things out, bring things to light.

Sky:

Well, I must admit, there tends to be a disconnect when everything

kind of depends on that instant of lucidity. That, " either you get it

or you don't. " It gets hermetic. Whereas, there is a kind of

" earnestness, "

what I'd call " openness, " with iietsa, that is just kind of plain old

direct communication. That is certainly what I'm doing in these last

few posts.

And I certainly hope there's nothing hermetic about the dramatic

contrast between metaphors that I've been trying to emphasize here.

And I hope there's nothing hermetic about my insisting that the

metaphors more than flavor, or favor, they determine.* (> > Sky: