Guest guest Posted September 13, 2006 Report Share Posted September 13, 2006 the above is b.s. Dan, and you know it. > > > > Anna > > > > > > oh, and how did that make you FEEL Dan? > > wink. I felt that although your response didn't indicate an understanding of what I had written, it perhaps made you feel good -- so I accepted that was as much of an exchange as we would have about this message. -- Dan P: Sorry, I still have to give you a " C " What you said below was totally correct, and Anna was just testing if you would stand by it, or feel attacked. To give you an 'A', you would have to 'stay the course' not 'cut and run.' What you said below was right, and you should not retreat until she unconditionally accept it. NNB Can totality be attacked? If one is less than totality, and can be attacked, one is identified as a partial being. Nothing wrong with that -- but one can learn from observing it. What else is a partial being, other than a process of being attacked -- and the various defenses and denials that allow that process to go on while pretending one isn't being attacked, one is having a good time, one is involved in all kinds of good things? > We are now at the end of all our dharma battles that would demean, > belittle or in anyway hurt 'ourselves'. We are, after all, > One and the Same. Self-Same-One-ness. We are identified as partial beings. We locate consciousness in and as selves that each (and as groups) have their desires, requirements, fears, pleasures, successes, failures, gains and losses. As such, we strive for oneness, long to be one, and in that striving and longing, affirm our partialization. > We need to serve each other/one another as examples of loving- > kindness; there is no other way that leads us out of our perpetual > aloneness and longing for connection--Communion heart to heart and > soul to soul. Yes, we long for connection. That is because we are identified as partial beings. The best we can do is to partially connect, to partially commune - such experiences come and go. The truth that dissolves the partialized beingness has never been separated, thus never has a connection to make or break. > What feels right? And it's never really ever been about thoughts, eh? Yes, nor about feelings, nor about having relationships, nor about not having relationships. I, as a partialized beingness, will never be able to know this truth. My connections with other beings, although valuable to me for a time, will always pass away. What can be connected with, will be disconnected with, what arises falls, what comes together comes apart. There is nothing wrong with this coming and going, connecting and disconnecting. It's just that the " me " who connects and disconnects, remains as if a center. For one who sees this, there is nothing left but to inquire into this center, the one who connects and disconnects. And that inquiry involves no denial, no pretense. If it does, then it's not inquiry, it's avoidance and maintenance of partialized being. That inquiry shows that this me center has no actuality of own-existence, and has never been anything more than an attempt to hold, a tensioning of a desire to have own-being held against whatever forces threaten that own-being (with disconnection perhaps, or with loss of love, loss of pleasure, loss of significance - or with self-consciousness, or fear, or limitation). -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 13, 2006 Report Share Posted September 13, 2006 Nisargadatta , Pete S <pedsie5 wrote: > > No, Anna. > > It's not b.s. to me. > > The inquiry I described is far from b.s. to me. > > Apparently it is to you. > > And, I suppose, that's just how it is. > > > - Dan > > P; Hey, Dan, you are missing the point, > Anna is using her pedagogic method > of confrontational compassion. Well, > you passed the exam, but only with a C. I got her pedagogic method. I gave a sincere answer. I think I deserve an F; you are being generous. -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 13, 2006 Report Share Posted September 13, 2006 Nisargadatta , Pete S <pedsie5 wrote: > > the above is b.s. Dan, and you know it. > > > > > > Anna > > > > > > > > > > > oh, and how did that make you FEEL Dan? > > > > wink. > > I felt that although your response didn't indicate an understanding of > what I had written, it perhaps made you feel good -- so I accepted > that was as much of an exchange as we would have about this message. > > -- Dan > > P: Sorry, I still have to give you a " C " What you > said below was totally correct, and Anna was just testing if > you would stand by it, or feel attacked. To give you an > 'A', you would have to 'stay the course' not 'cut > and run.' What you said below was right, and you > should not retreat until she unconditionally accept it. > > NNB Sorry, you should give me an F; again, I simply answered sincerely. I should, of course, disregard your statements about what I should do. You should continue presenting yourself as a teacher, and people should continue to do whatever it is they do anyway. -- D. 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.