Guest guest Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 Dearest Cathy, I'm awake. Can you tell? So, I was thinking about what I'd say to you and what I'd post on that Nisargadatta . And there were a few images I wanted to reconcile, you know, as " Michael Neill suggested that when you have two opposing thoughts, you find the common ground between them, and that is your purpose. " There was the image of (1) Hamlet seeking nobility, yet finding ignobility. (2) Most of the contributors to that N site as " ignoble, " in a way, or, in their way. (You needn't defend them, I already am, in my own mind, as well as explaining why I " bother/ed " with " them. " ) (3) What is the idea that I REALLY want to convey to myself and others about " how to be happy " ~ what IS it that I haven't yet been able to convey to " you " ? In other words, what IS advaita, or nonduality, unity, wholeness, Oneness, Nowness? What is it exactly that is making me feel so good about these, my most recent mantras? Why is it that, as much as these N Group people seem focused on nonduality, they just can't seem to get it right? What is it about me that can't quite get it " right " ? And my answer to all of the above questions is this: The question is NOT " does the ends justify the means? " (Or, in a hedonistic sense, " does the means justify the ends " ? As in, " let's eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we shall die. " ) That's dualistic, because it pits one thing against another, the means against the ends. There must be a UNITY between the means and the ends. The two must be exactly the same thing! Hamlet is all about the ends justifying the means. Punishment is ALL, TOTALLY, EXCLUSIVELY, about the ends ( " learning an important lesson " ) justifying the means (hurting a vulnerable and impressionable child). I'd go so far as to say that all suffering is all about the mistaken notion that the ends justifies the means (or, to put it another way, that the ends can or should be able to justify the means). And I'd go so far as to say that that notion is the pure essence of what profound nonduality actually opposes itself to, whether it " knows " it or not. So, here's my solution, BOTH 1) Seek and live for love, truth and inner beauty. " In his 'Ode on a Grecian Urn' Keats will say exactly the same thing, more elegantly but more cryptically as 'Beauty is truth, truth beauty'. " AND 2) There is no way to love, truth and beauty, love, truth and inner beauty ARE THE WAY. Love must be both The Way that one does things AND the destination of that way of doing things. The way, the Tao, the path, the manner, the style, the tone, must be one of love AND that tone, that way, that Tao, that manner, that style is, at exactly the same time, the path that leads to love. The ends IS the means and the means IS the ends. So, what bothers me about myself, about others, is that we seem to think that we need to find a way to be happy, a technique, a method, a truth, a material reality, a materiality, cold, hard and concrete, that factually and scientifically, objectively, starkly, neutrally, technically and practically, adds up to, constructs, builds, contrives to finally, in some moment of truth, manifest as, viola!, LOVE, HAPPINESS, FULFILLMENT!! But I'm equating that kind of thinking and feeling with pure punishment, pure suffering, pure illusion, confusion, etc. I'm saying that nothing can lead to love and truth and inner beauty but love, truth and inner beauty themselves, as they already are, in the NOW. There can be no " how?, " or " what? " to do! There can only be How As Love, What As Love: Now, Now, Now. Do you see what I'm saying? And so, when I read this Nis Group's rantings, what impresses me is that they're always talking about " IT " as being " right " and whatever isn't " IT, " as being " wrong. " And they do it in a very harsh, strident, unfriendly, punitive way. They seem completely oblivious to the " fact " that their " way " is the " real " message that they're sending. (And by " they, " I, of course, mean " me, myself and, not least, I. " ) People say, " the way you talk, one would think... " And I'd say, " yes, the WAY we talk: that IS our talk. " Life does not imitate art, nor does art imitate life: life IS art and art IS life. We Most Freely and Beautifully... Sky Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords wrote: > > So, what bothers me about myself, about others, is that we seem to think that we need to find a way to be happy, a technique, a method, a truth, a material reality, a materiality, cold, hard and concrete, that factually and scientifically, objectively, starkly, neutrally, technically and practically, adds up to, constructs, builds, contrives to finally, in some moment of truth, manifest as, viola!, LOVE, HAPPINESS, FULFILLMENT!! > One's 'original face' is right here. Right in front of one. Too close to notice. One has been looking at it all along, but believing it was something else. One merely realizes the clear and obvious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> wrote: > > > > So, what bothers me about myself, about others, is that we seem to think that we need to find a way to be happy, a technique, a method, a truth, a material reality, a materiality, cold, hard and concrete, that factually and scientifically, objectively, starkly, neutrally, technically and practically, adds up to, constructs, builds, contrives to finally, in some moment of truth, manifest as, viola!, LOVE, HAPPINESS, FULFILLMENT!! > > > > One's 'original face' is right here. > > Right in front of one. Too close to notice. > > One has been looking at it all along, but believing it was something else. > > One merely realizes the clear and obvious. > Fellow Poe-It's Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords wrote: > > > > > Dearest Cathy, > > I'm awake. Can you tell? > > So, I was thinking about what I'd say to you and what I'd post on that Nisargadatta . And there were a few images I wanted to reconcile, you know, as " Michael Neill suggested that when you have two opposing thoughts, you find the common ground between them, and that is your purpose. " > > There was the image of (1) Hamlet seeking nobility, yet finding ignobility. (2) Most of the contributors to that N site as " ignoble, " in a way, or, in their way. (You needn't defend them, I already am, in my own mind, as well as explaining why I " bother/ed " with " them. " ) (3) What is the idea that I REALLY want to convey to myself and others about " how to be happy " ~ what IS it that I haven't yet been able to convey to " you " ? > > In other words, what IS advaita, or nonduality, unity, wholeness, Oneness, Nowness? What is it exactly that is making me feel so good about these, my most recent mantras? Why is it that, as much as these N Group people seem focused on nonduality, they just can't seem to get it right? What is it about me that can't quite get it " right " ? > > And my answer to all of the above questions is this: > > The question is NOT " does the ends justify the means? " (Or, in a hedonistic sense, " does the means justify the ends " ? As in, " let's eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we shall die. " ) That's dualistic, because it pits one thing against another, the means against the ends. There must be a UNITY between the means and the ends. The two must be exactly the same thing! Hamlet is all about the ends justifying the means. Punishment is ALL, TOTALLY, EXCLUSIVELY, about the ends ( " learning an important lesson " ) justifying the means (hurting a vulnerable and impressionable child). > > I'd go so far as to say that all suffering is all about the mistaken notion that the ends justifies the means (or, to put it another way, that the ends can or should be able to justify the means). And I'd go so far as to say that that notion is the pure essence of what profound nonduality actually opposes itself to, whether it " knows " it or not. > > So, here's my solution, BOTH > > > 1) Seek and live for love, truth and inner beauty. " In his 'Ode on a Grecian Urn' Keats will say exactly the same thing, more elegantly but more cryptically as 'Beauty is truth, truth beauty'. " > > AND > > 2) There is no way to love, truth and beauty, love, truth and inner beauty ARE THE WAY. > > > Love must be both The Way that one does things AND the destination of that way of doing things. The way, the Tao, the path, the manner, the style, the tone, must be one of love AND that tone, that way, that Tao, that manner, that style is, at exactly the same time, the path that leads to love. The ends IS the means and the means IS the ends. > > So, what bothers me about myself, about others, is that we seem to think that we need to find a way to be happy, a technique, a method, a truth, a material reality, a materiality, cold, hard and concrete, that factually and scientifically, objectively, starkly, neutrally, technically and practically, adds up to, constructs, builds, contrives to finally, in some moment of truth, manifest as, viola!, LOVE, HAPPINESS, FULFILLMENT!! > > But I'm equating that kind of thinking and feeling with pure punishment, pure suffering, pure illusion, confusion, etc. I'm saying that nothing can lead to love and truth and inner beauty but love, truth and inner beauty themselves, as they already are, in the NOW. There can be no " how?, " or " what? " to do! There can only be How As Love, What As Love: Now, Now, Now. > > Do you see what I'm saying? And so, when I read this Nis Group's rantings, what impresses me is that they're always talking about " IT " as being " right " and whatever isn't " IT, " as being " wrong. " And they do it in a very harsh, strident, unfriendly, punitive way. They seem completely oblivious to the " fact " that their " way " is the " real " message that they're sending. (And by " they, " I, of course, mean " me, myself and, not least, I. " ) > > People say, " the way you talk, one would think... " And I'd say, " yes, the WAY we talk: that IS our talk. " Life does not imitate art, nor does art imitate life: life IS art and art IS life. > > We Most Freely and Beautifully... > > Sky NOT well said pancho. but it doesn't matter. it doesn't say anything but what you want to believe... about yourself. you separate yourself from " rantings " which you attribute to others... in your smarmy treacly over-sweet jabbering above. that's good! keep it separate that way. it's a rabbiting on of fetid puke. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 Sky, Nice lingo slingin'. I'd be more comfortable with the below, methinks, if you'd define " love. " I define love as, and only as, awareness. You? Consider that any thought can fly through your mind, and your awareness doesn't even flinch. 2 + 2 = 19. Hitler is the embodiment of wisdom. Twenty spiders crawling on your face. No flinching, right? Oh, did your ego flinch? -- but, that's not the awareness flinching, right? Odious thoughts might be triggering yet more thoughts; some emotions may hit the streets in panic, but the awareness is always -- and I do mean always = endlessly -- able to " receive " or " be with " the objects of consciousness -- nay, " be with " not just the objects, but " be with " so thoroughly that consciousness itself becomes objectified. Awareness is the equal opportunity attender. " Come one, come all, give me your tired, your downtrodden, your ugliest thoughts possible, and a place for an honored guest will be set at the table for each and all. " Let's face it: isn't that perfect love? -- an attention that unflinchingly and eternally is " upon " not only one's thoughts, but upon ALL THIS such that nary a sparrow can fall, nary a quark can dance without there being a completely attentive audience. There has never been a tree that fell that didn't make a sound -- awareness is an all time reality -- even when " reality " takes a rest. Awareness is the SILENCE offered to the sound, OM, as an " aural space " to be " heard within. " To me, the opposite of love is ignoring-ness -- not hate. Pay no attention to someone, and you're working them like a rented mule. Hate them and watch the egos involved nourish-flourish and puff up into dirigibles. To me, when an ego pretends to love, it is just like a toddler trying to do " what Dad does. " We are made in the image of God -- awareness, ya see? -- so, yeah, for sure, egos can be found " loving " objects of consciousness like Oprah finding someone she hasn't yet given a NEW CAR to. It's childish in the best sense of the word: innocent play acting, wearing Mom's high heels or Dad's hat -- egoic love is mood making that one is God. To me the essence of bhakti is just this: ego pretending to be sentient, loving, aware -- until these processes of consciousness are realized as symbolic reflections of those qualities eternally residing in the potency of the Absolute. 1. Fool, 2. folly, BAM: wisdom -- like that. You? Thanks for your post. Always nice to get warmed by a heart going supernova. Or is that just me projecting again? Edg Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords wrote: > > > > > Dearest Cathy, > > I'm awake. Can you tell? > > So, I was thinking about what I'd say to you and what I'd post on that Nisargadatta . And there were a few images I wanted to reconcile, you know, as " Michael Neill suggested that when you have two opposing thoughts, you find the common ground between them, and that is your purpose. " > > There was the image of (1) Hamlet seeking nobility, yet finding ignobility. (2) Most of the contributors to that N site as " ignoble, " in a way, or, in their way. (You needn't defend them, I already am, in my own mind, as well as explaining why I " bother/ed " with " them. " ) (3) What is the idea that I REALLY want to convey to myself and others about " how to be happy " ~ what IS it that I haven't yet been able to convey to " you " ? > > In other words, what IS advaita, or nonduality, unity, wholeness, Oneness, Nowness? What is it exactly that is making me feel so good about these, my most recent mantras? Why is it that, as much as these N Group people seem focused on nonduality, they just can't seem to get it right? What is it about me that can't quite get it " right " ? > > And my answer to all of the above questions is this: > > The question is NOT " does the ends justify the means? " (Or, in a hedonistic sense, " does the means justify the ends " ? As in, " let's eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we shall die. " ) That's dualistic, because it pits one thing against another, the means against the ends. There must be a UNITY between the means and the ends. The two must be exactly the same thing! Hamlet is all about the ends justifying the means. Punishment is ALL, TOTALLY, EXCLUSIVELY, about the ends ( " learning an important lesson " ) justifying the means (hurting a vulnerable and impressionable child). > > I'd go so far as to say that all suffering is all about the mistaken notion that the ends justifies the means (or, to put it another way, that the ends can or should be able to justify the means). And I'd go so far as to say that that notion is the pure essence of what profound nonduality actually opposes itself to, whether it " knows " it or not. > > So, here's my solution, BOTH > > > 1) Seek and live for love, truth and inner beauty. " In his 'Ode on a Grecian Urn' Keats will say exactly the same thing, more elegantly but more cryptically as 'Beauty is truth, truth beauty'. " > > AND > > 2) There is no way to love, truth and beauty, love, truth and inner beauty ARE THE WAY. > > > Love must be both The Way that one does things AND the destination of that way of doing things. The way, the Tao, the path, the manner, the style, the tone, must be one of love AND that tone, that way, that Tao, that manner, that style is, at exactly the same time, the path that leads to love. The ends IS the means and the means IS the ends. > > So, what bothers me about myself, about others, is that we seem to think that we need to find a way to be happy, a technique, a method, a truth, a material reality, a materiality, cold, hard and concrete, that factually and scientifically, objectively, starkly, neutrally, technically and practically, adds up to, constructs, builds, contrives to finally, in some moment of truth, manifest as, viola!, LOVE, HAPPINESS, FULFILLMENT!! > > But I'm equating that kind of thinking and feeling with pure punishment, pure suffering, pure illusion, confusion, etc. I'm saying that nothing can lead to love and truth and inner beauty but love, truth and inner beauty themselves, as they already are, in the NOW. There can be no " how?, " or " what? " to do! There can only be How As Love, What As Love: Now, Now, Now. > > Do you see what I'm saying? And so, when I read this Nis Group's rantings, what impresses me is that they're always talking about " IT " as being " right " and whatever isn't " IT, " as being " wrong. " And they do it in a very harsh, strident, unfriendly, punitive way. They seem completely oblivious to the " fact " that their " way " is the " real " message that they're sending. (And by " they, " I, of course, mean " me, myself and, not least, I. " ) > > People say, " the way you talk, one would think... " And I'd say, " yes, the WAY we talk: that IS our talk. " Life does not imitate art, nor does art imitate life: life IS art and art IS life. > > We Most Freely and Beautifully... > > Sky > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 Edg You make some good points, but I'm afraid that I may not have communicated mine as well as I'd like to have. I may be wrong, but I suspect that I may be able to communicate them to you because you have written what I consider some good poetry. In contrast, your poetry, below, I find a bit more scientistic, as I would call any effort at getting " behind " appearsnces with the expectation that what is behind is more than what is most apparent. That is to say, that even as you yourself suggest, that awareness is all there is, that there's nothing behind it because it's as radical and THERE as it gets -- you still seem to be saying that its is itself BEHIND some things that are more to the fore, but are somehow false. You're embracing everything, yet rejecting something, it seems. It's interesting. If I misunderstand you, I don't think I misunderstand your tone, your style, the feeling. And that sense, that aura, does have a schizoid quality to me. It's that schizoid quality that I equate with the punitive mind, the suffering mind. The combative, coercive, struggling mind. I only see it you, to a degree, however. Please recognize this modification. Still, when you say " slinging, " for example, I might surmise that you're not trying to offend me, that it's as light hearted as I often get, and that the " truth " of what you're saying is somehow going to compensate me for any initial touch of insult. Nevertheless, nevertheless, hat's what I'm referring to as " ends justifies means " thinking, and I'd admit to having engaged in it myself, but I'd also suggest that you are, here, below, too. Awareness as Love is beautiful to me, and I embrace it. Love as a cliche, however, is itself a cliche, from my point of view. I'd rather move on, let love be what we want it to be, at its best, as you, yourself, seem to advocate. Thus, let it be that I am being entirely authentic, not mimetic, not parroting parenting. The creative, poetic, artistic challenge, is to embrace awareness as love while also embracing love as a Tao, A Way, and most importantly, to me, a CHOICE: CONSCIOUS, DELIBERATE, INTELLIGENT, COURAGEOUS, DETERMINED. Yet NOT forceful, coercive, abusive, reckless. And I believe that's what made your earlier post, the symphony to compassion, so admirable. But to advocate a bare bones love, a radical love, a grass roots love that excludes its own cultivation, it's own elaboration and development to include BOTH it's higher, highest forms and its lower forms in an an ongoing symphony -- to exclude that passion, that I consider schizoid. It opposes, as I say, the means to the ends. This is very ironic and I even wonder whether you're being entirely transparent, here. How can you, at once, espouse your symphonic post with this one, below? To me they are completely compatible, and yet, in this post, you ALSO seem to suggest that they are not. Are you, perhaps merely trying to mirror me, didactically? Or are you genuinely as divided against yourself as I can, am, admittedly, at times? We may never know. It may simply not even matter. The inquiry may be more than enough. In the Purloined Letter, I'm, as far as I'm concerned, successfully reconciling my schizoid aspects. Perhaps you are too, as a mirror of a mirror of a mirror.... In any case, I appreciate y/our speculations and would offer you far more confirmation than contradiction. We Most Freely and Beautifully... Sky > Sky, > > Nice lingo slingin'. I'd be more comfortable with the below, methinks, if you'd define " love. " I define love as, and only as, awareness. > > You? > > Consider that any thought can fly through your mind, and your awareness doesn't even flinch. > > 2 + 2 = 19. > > Hitler is the embodiment of wisdom. > > Twenty spiders crawling on your face. > > No flinching, right? Oh, did your ego flinch? -- but, that's not the awareness flinching, right? > > Odious thoughts might be triggering yet more thoughts; some emotions may hit the streets in panic, but the awareness is always -- and I do mean always = endlessly -- able to " receive " or " be with " the objects of consciousness -- nay, " be with " not just the objects, but " be with " so thoroughly that consciousness itself becomes objectified. > > Awareness is the equal opportunity attender. " Come one, come all, give me your tired, your downtrodden, your ugliest thoughts possible, and a place for an honored guest will be set at the table for each and all. " > > Let's face it: isn't that perfect love? -- an attention that unflinchingly and eternally is " upon " not only one's thoughts, but upon ALL THIS such that nary a sparrow can fall, nary a quark can dance without there being a completely attentive audience. There has never been a tree that fell that didn't make a sound -- awareness is an all time reality -- even when " reality " takes a rest. > > Awareness is the SILENCE offered to the sound, OM, as an " aural space " to be " heard within. " > > To me, the opposite of love is ignoring-ness -- not hate. Pay no attention to someone, and you're working them like a rented mule. Hate them and watch the egos involved nourish-flourish and puff up into dirigibles. > > To me, when an ego pretends to love, it is just like a toddler trying to do " what Dad does. " We are made in the image of God -- awareness, ya see? -- so, yeah, for sure, egos can be found " loving " objects of consciousness like Oprah finding someone she hasn't yet given a NEW CAR to. It's childish in the best sense of the word: innocent play acting, wearing Mom's high heels or Dad's hat -- egoic love is mood making that one is God. To me the essence of bhakti is just this: ego pretending to be sentient, loving, aware -- until these processes of consciousness are realized as symbolic reflections of those qualities eternally residing in the potency of the Absolute. 1. Fool, 2. folly, BAM: wisdom -- like that. > > You? > > Thanks for your post. Always nice to get warmed by a heart going supernova. Or is that just me projecting again? > > Edg Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Dearest Cathy, > > > > I'm awake. Can you tell? > > > > So, I was thinking about what I'd say to you and what I'd post on that Nisargadatta . And there were a few images I wanted to reconcile, you know, as " Michael Neill suggested that when you have two opposing thoughts, you find the common ground between them, and that is your purpose. " > > > > There was the image of (1) Hamlet seeking nobility, yet finding ignobility. (2) Most of the contributors to that N site as " ignoble, " in a way, or, in their way. (You needn't defend them, I already am, in my own mind, as well as explaining why I " bother/ed " with " them. " ) (3) What is the idea that I REALLY want to convey to myself and others about " how to be happy " ~ what IS it that I haven't yet been able to convey to " you " ? > > > > In other words, what IS advaita, or nonduality, unity, wholeness, Oneness, Nowness? What is it exactly that is making me feel so good about these, my most recent mantras? Why is it that, as much as these N Group people seem focused on nonduality, they just can't seem to get it right? What is it about me that can't quite get it " right " ? > > > > And my answer to all of the above questions is this: > > > > The question is NOT " does the ends justify the means? " (Or, in a hedonistic sense, " does the means justify the ends " ? As in, " let's eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we shall die. " ) That's dualistic, because it pits one thing against another, the means against the ends. There must be a UNITY between the means and the ends. The two must be exactly the same thing! Hamlet is all about the ends justifying the means. Punishment is ALL, TOTALLY, EXCLUSIVELY, about the ends ( " learning an important lesson " ) justifying the means (hurting a vulnerable and impressionable child). > > > > I'd go so far as to say that all suffering is all about the mistaken notion that the ends justifies the means (or, to put it another way, that the ends can or should be able to justify the means). And I'd go so far as to say that that notion is the pure essence of what profound nonduality actually opposes itself to, whether it " knows " it or not. > > > > So, here's my solution, BOTH > > > > > > 1) Seek and live for love, truth and inner beauty. " In his 'Ode on a Grecian Urn' Keats will say exactly the same thing, more elegantly but more cryptically as 'Beauty is truth, truth beauty'. " > > > > AND > > > > 2) There is no way to love, truth and beauty, love, truth and inner beauty ARE THE WAY. > > > > > > Love must be both The Way that one does things AND the destination of that way of doing things. The way, the Tao, the path, the manner, the style, the tone, must be one of love AND that tone, that way, that Tao, that manner, that style is, at exactly the same time, the path that leads to love. The ends IS the means and the means IS the ends. > > > > So, what bothers me about myself, about others, is that we seem to think that we need to find a way to be happy, a technique, a method, a truth, a material reality, a materiality, cold, hard and concrete, that factually and scientifically, objectively, starkly, neutrally, technically and practically, adds up to, constructs, builds, contrives to finally, in some moment of truth, manifest as, viola!, LOVE, HAPPINESS, FULFILLMENT!! > > > > But I'm equating that kind of thinking and feeling with pure punishment, pure suffering, pure illusion, confusion, etc. I'm saying that nothing can lead to love and truth and inner beauty but love, truth and inner beauty themselves, as they already are, in the NOW. There can be no " how?, " or " what? " to do! There can only be How As Love, What As Love: Now, Now, Now. > > > > Do you see what I'm saying? And so, when I read this Nis Group's rantings, what impresses me is that they're always talking about " IT " as being " right " and whatever isn't " IT, " as being " wrong. " And they do it in a very harsh, strident, unfriendly, punitive way. They seem completely oblivious to the " fact " that their " way " is the " real " message that they're sending. (And by " they, " I, of course, mean " me, myself and, not least, I. " ) > > > > People say, " the way you talk, one would think... " And I'd say, " yes, the WAY we talk: that IS our talk. " Life does not imitate art, nor does art imitate life: life IS art and art IS life. > > > > We Most Freely and Beautifully... > > > > Sky > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 Sky, Hmmmm. I'm going to have to be careful with the likes of you -- what with that intuition of yours hovering above my posts like a magnifying lens -- one, say, that's 30 feet in diameter? I do have a " background " angst, a sourness that wants to spill into almost anything I write. My life has some impact scars that always seem to faintly show up in snapshots of me no matter how I try to get the camera angle and lighting " just so. " I tend to defend my polarities -- insisting that the whole spectrum of any event is to be grasped -- see the other edge of the two-edged swords that all events are. If I cannot see the idiosyncrasies in the nuances of, say, evil, then how can I expect my nervous system to be able to delicately enjoy-with-precision when I cup a blossom of goodness in my palm? If God can know with perfect exactitude the striations of Satan's weave, why not me too? Why can't I be embracing all knowledge -- not just the " good stuff? " Eve wouldn't get the apple back from me -- I'd eat the whole thing -- flesh, core and stem. There is a part of me that wants to join the catcallers here and just whomp on egos like playing Whack A Mole. I don't trust that I could ride that horse very well, so I try to hold back indulging in that kind of pleasure jaunt. But, yikes, you heard that part of me pissing and moaning in between my words at the back of the crowd-mob in my mind vying to get some time on the microphone. Ya's gut punching me....oomph. Is ya using that intuition in daily life as well as you have in piercing my veil? Hope so, but look out, you might be offered some hemlock tea for your being a gadfly with Cassandra's doom upon ya. I very much like your concept of seeing the bookends, the twoness of everything, the " containing the opposite " aspect of every quality. If I think of how an ego attempts to love, there's ignorance right there too, cuz, spotlighting is how egos love, and thus, all otherness is ignored -- unlit -- outside of attentioning -- and that ignorance is the problem. Nothing will satisfy a soul except the realization of awareness' never being upon anything except EVERYthing. Only egos spotlight things. Awareness shines upon all equally all the time despite egoic denial of that. Every religion teaches that God is omnipresent. Yet who hesitates to do anything? That's proof that the ego is atheistic -- for who could do anything if God was right there staring at ya? Why, I'd be on my face crying for mercy if God was here -- not paying attention to anything else. It's profoundly silly to imagine anyone doing anything in the presence of God other than utter abject worship. But here we all are posting blather, robbing banks, claiming sentience, etc. Who would do these things if God was in the room? Nah, egos blinker themselves like a toddler pretending that holding adorably small fingers over eyes is a way to play hide-and-seek. We all wear the Emperor's New Clothes, and rare is it in our lives when someone tells us we're naked -- naked before the witnessingness. So, hey, don't take me personally. I was merely a bull crunching china in general -- not your teacups in particular. I like your style -- you had me at: " Why is it that, as much as these N Group people seem focused on nonduality, they just can't seem to get it right? " Edg Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords wrote: > > Edg > > You make some good points, but I'm afraid that I may not have communicated mine as well as I'd like to have. I may be wrong, but I suspect that I may be able to communicate them to you because you have written what I consider some good poetry. In contrast, your poetry, below, I find a bit more scientistic, as I would call any effort at getting " behind " appearsnces with the expectation that what is behind is more than what is most apparent. That is to say, that even as you yourself suggest, that awareness is all there is, that there's nothing behind it because it's as radical and THERE as it gets -- you still seem to be saying that its is itself BEHIND some things that are more to the fore, but are somehow false. You're embracing everything, yet rejecting something, it seems. It's interesting. If I misunderstand you, I don't think I misunderstand your tone, your style, the feeling. > > And that sense, that aura, does have a schizoid quality to me. It's that schizoid quality that I equate with the punitive mind, the suffering mind. The combative, coercive, struggling mind. I only see it you, to a degree, however. Please recognize this modification. > > Still, when you say " slinging, " for example, I might surmise that you're not trying to offend me, that it's as light hearted as I often get, and that the " truth " of what you're saying is somehow going to compensate me for any initial touch of insult. Nevertheless, nevertheless, hat's what I'm referring to as " ends justifies means " thinking, and I'd admit to having engaged in it myself, but I'd also suggest that you are, here, below, too. > > Awareness as Love is beautiful to me, and I embrace it. > > Love as a cliche, however, is itself a cliche, from my point of view. I'd rather move on, let love be what we want it to be, at its best, as you, yourself, seem to advocate. Thus, let it be that I am being entirely authentic, not mimetic, not parroting parenting. > > The creative, poetic, artistic challenge, is to embrace awareness as love while also embracing love as a Tao, A Way, and most importantly, to me, a CHOICE: CONSCIOUS, DELIBERATE, INTELLIGENT, COURAGEOUS, DETERMINED. Yet NOT forceful, coercive, abusive, reckless. > > And I believe that's what made your earlier post, the symphony to compassion, so admirable. > > But to advocate a bare bones love, a radical love, a grass roots love that excludes its own cultivation, it's own elaboration and development to include BOTH it's higher, highest forms and its lower forms in an an ongoing symphony -- to exclude that passion, that I consider schizoid. It opposes, as I say, the means to the ends. > > This is very ironic and I even wonder whether you're being entirely transparent, here. How can you, at once, espouse your symphonic post with this one, below? To me they are completely compatible, and yet, in this post, you ALSO seem to suggest that they are not. Are you, perhaps merely trying to mirror me, didactically? Or are you genuinely as divided against yourself as I can, am, admittedly, at times? We may never know. It may simply not even matter. The inquiry may be more than enough. > > In the Purloined Letter, I'm, as far as I'm concerned, successfully reconciling my schizoid aspects. Perhaps you are too, as a mirror of a mirror of a mirror.... > > In any case, I appreciate y/our speculations and would offer you far more confirmation than contradiction. > > We Most Freely and Beautifully... > > Sky > > > > Sky, > > > > Nice lingo slingin'. I'd be more comfortable with the below, methinks, if you'd define " love. " I define love as, and only as, awareness. > > > > You? > > > > Consider that any thought can fly through your mind, and your awareness doesn't even flinch. > > > > 2 + 2 = 19. > > > > Hitler is the embodiment of wisdom. > > > > Twenty spiders crawling on your face. > > > > No flinching, right? Oh, did your ego flinch? -- but, that's not the awareness flinching, right? > > > > Odious thoughts might be triggering yet more thoughts; some emotions may hit the streets in panic, but the awareness is always -- and I do mean always = endlessly -- able to " receive " or " be with " the objects of consciousness -- nay, " be with " not just the objects, but " be with " so thoroughly that consciousness itself becomes objectified. > > > > Awareness is the equal opportunity attender. " Come one, come all, give me your tired, your downtrodden, your ugliest thoughts possible, and a place for an honored guest will be set at the table for each and all. " > > > > Let's face it: isn't that perfect love? -- an attention that unflinchingly and eternally is " upon " not only one's thoughts, but upon ALL THIS such that nary a sparrow can fall, nary a quark can dance without there being a completely attentive audience. There has never been a tree that fell that didn't make a sound -- awareness is an all time reality -- even when " reality " takes a rest. > > > > Awareness is the SILENCE offered to the sound, OM, as an " aural space " to be " heard within. " > > > > To me, the opposite of love is ignoring-ness -- not hate. Pay no attention to someone, and you're working them like a rented mule. Hate them and watch the egos involved nourish-flourish and puff up into dirigibles. > > > > To me, when an ego pretends to love, it is just like a toddler trying to do " what Dad does. " We are made in the image of God -- awareness, ya see? -- so, yeah, for sure, egos can be found " loving " objects of consciousness like Oprah finding someone she hasn't yet given a NEW CAR to. It's childish in the best sense of the word: innocent play acting, wearing Mom's high heels or Dad's hat -- egoic love is mood making that one is God. To me the essence of bhakti is just this: ego pretending to be sentient, loving, aware -- until these processes of consciousness are realized as symbolic reflections of those qualities eternally residing in the potency of the Absolute. 1. Fool, 2. folly, BAM: wisdom -- like that. > > > > You? > > > > Thanks for your post. Always nice to get warmed by a heart going supernova. Or is that just me projecting again? > > > > Edg > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dearest Cathy, > > > > > > I'm awake. Can you tell? > > > > > > So, I was thinking about what I'd say to you and what I'd post on that Nisargadatta . And there were a few images I wanted to reconcile, you know, as " Michael Neill suggested that when you have two opposing thoughts, you find the common ground between them, and that is your purpose. " > > > > > > There was the image of (1) Hamlet seeking nobility, yet finding ignobility. (2) Most of the contributors to that N site as " ignoble, " in a way, or, in their way. (You needn't defend them, I already am, in my own mind, as well as explaining why I " bother/ed " with " them. " ) (3) What is the idea that I REALLY want to convey to myself and others about " how to be happy " ~ what IS it that I haven't yet been able to convey to " you " ? > > > > > > In other words, what IS advaita, or nonduality, unity, wholeness, Oneness, Nowness? What is it exactly that is making me feel so good about these, my most recent mantras? Why is it that, as much as these N Group people seem focused on nonduality, they just can't seem to get it right? What is it about me that can't quite get it " right " ? > > > > > > And my answer to all of the above questions is this: > > > > > > The question is NOT " does the ends justify the means? " (Or, in a hedonistic sense, " does the means justify the ends " ? As in, " let's eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we shall die. " ) That's dualistic, because it pits one thing against another, the means against the ends. There must be a UNITY between the means and the ends. The two must be exactly the same thing! Hamlet is all about the ends justifying the means. Punishment is ALL, TOTALLY, EXCLUSIVELY, about the ends ( " learning an important lesson " ) justifying the means (hurting a vulnerable and impressionable child). > > > > > > I'd go so far as to say that all suffering is all about the mistaken notion that the ends justifies the means (or, to put it another way, that the ends can or should be able to justify the means). And I'd go so far as to say that that notion is the pure essence of what profound nonduality actually opposes itself to, whether it " knows " it or not. > > > > > > So, here's my solution, BOTH > > > > > > > > > 1) Seek and live for love, truth and inner beauty. " In his 'Ode on a Grecian Urn' Keats will say exactly the same thing, more elegantly but more cryptically as 'Beauty is truth, truth beauty'. " > > > > > > AND > > > > > > 2) There is no way to love, truth and beauty, love, truth and inner beauty ARE THE WAY. > > > > > > > > > Love must be both The Way that one does things AND the destination of that way of doing things. The way, the Tao, the path, the manner, the style, the tone, must be one of love AND that tone, that way, that Tao, that manner, that style is, at exactly the same time, the path that leads to love. The ends IS the means and the means IS the ends. > > > > > > So, what bothers me about myself, about others, is that we seem to think that we need to find a way to be happy, a technique, a method, a truth, a material reality, a materiality, cold, hard and concrete, that factually and scientifically, objectively, starkly, neutrally, technically and practically, adds up to, constructs, builds, contrives to finally, in some moment of truth, manifest as, viola!, LOVE, HAPPINESS, FULFILLMENT!! > > > > > > But I'm equating that kind of thinking and feeling with pure punishment, pure suffering, pure illusion, confusion, etc. I'm saying that nothing can lead to love and truth and inner beauty but love, truth and inner beauty themselves, as they already are, in the NOW. There can be no " how?, " or " what? " to do! There can only be How As Love, What As Love: Now, Now, Now. > > > > > > Do you see what I'm saying? And so, when I read this Nis Group's rantings, what impresses me is that they're always talking about " IT " as being " right " and whatever isn't " IT, " as being " wrong. " And they do it in a very harsh, strident, unfriendly, punitive way. They seem completely oblivious to the " fact " that their " way " is the " real " message that they're sending. (And by " they, " I, of course, mean " me, myself and, not least, I. " ) > > > > > > People say, " the way you talk, one would think... " And I'd say, " yes, the WAY we talk: that IS our talk. " Life does not imitate art, nor does art imitate life: life IS art and art IS life. > > > > > > We Most Freely and Beautifully... > > > > > > Sky > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords wrote: > > Edg > > You make some good points, but I'm afraid that I may not have communicated mine as well as I'd like to have. I may be wrong, but I suspect that I may be able to communicate them to you because you have written what I consider some good poetry. In contrast, your poetry, below, I find a bit more scientistic, as I would call any effort at getting " behind " appearsnces with the expectation that what is behind is more than what is most apparent. That is to say, that even as you yourself suggest, that awareness is all there is, that there's nothing behind it because it's as radical and THERE as it gets -- you still seem to be saying that its is itself BEHIND some things that are more to the fore, but are somehow false. You're embracing everything, yet rejecting something, it seems. It's interesting. If I misunderstand you, I don't think I misunderstand your tone, your style, the feeling. > > And that sense, that aura, does have a schizoid quality to me. It's that schizoid quality that I equate with the punitive mind, the suffering mind. The combative, coercive, struggling mind. I only see it you, to a degree, however. Please recognize this modification. > > Still, when you say " slinging, " for example, I might surmise that you're not trying to offend me, that it's as light hearted as I often get, and that the " truth " of what you're saying is somehow going to compensate me for any initial touch of insult. Nevertheless, nevertheless, hat's what I'm referring to as " ends justifies means " thinking, and I'd admit to having engaged in it myself, but I'd also suggest that you are, here, below, too. > > Awareness as Love is beautiful to me, and I embrace it. > > Love as a cliche, however, is itself a cliche, from my point of view. I'd rather move on, let love be what we want it to be, at its best, as you, yourself, seem to advocate. Thus, let it be that I am being entirely authentic, not mimetic, not parroting parenting. > > The creative, poetic, artistic challenge, is to embrace awareness as love while also embracing love as a Tao, A Way, and most importantly, to me, a CHOICE: CONSCIOUS, DELIBERATE, INTELLIGENT, COURAGEOUS, DETERMINED. Yet NOT forceful, coercive, abusive, reckless. > > And I believe that's what made your earlier post, the symphony to compassion, so admirable. > > But to advocate a bare bones love, a radical love, a grass roots love that excludes its own cultivation, it's own elaboration and development to include BOTH it's higher, highest forms and its lower forms in an an ongoing symphony -- to exclude that passion, that I consider schizoid. It opposes, as I say, the means to the ends. > > This is very ironic and I even wonder whether you're being entirely transparent, here. How can you, at once, espouse your symphonic post with this one, below? To me they are completely compatible, and yet, in this post, you ALSO seem to suggest that they are not. Are you, perhaps merely trying to mirror me, didactically? Or are you genuinely as divided against yourself as I can, am, admittedly, at times? We may never know. It may simply not even matter. The inquiry may be more than enough. > > In the Purloined Letter, I'm, as far as I'm concerned, successfully reconciling my schizoid aspects. Perhaps you are too, as a mirror of a mirror of a mirror.... > > In any case, I appreciate y/our speculations and would offer you far more confirmation than contradiction. > > We Most Freely and Beautifully... > > Sky LOL! ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 Edg, Dude! I'm having trouble correlating all your posts with just one person. Are you sure this isn't a serial post, with different people pretending to be one person. You're not the only one I suspect. That " Sky " guy is another. But I'd definitely prefer to be seeing eye to eye, I to I, rather than to either increase or decrease, either my elevations or my dimensions. And yes, I definitely recognize all of those selves put forth as mirrors, however accurate or distorted, of myself. Ah, yes, I re-cognize it all, it all!! Alas! Although you make it look like herding cats, I do feeline that they can be quite comfortable under the following roof, cozy and serene, however sleepy and sleek. Cats are primarily sensing, rather than optical, if I may shift the metaphorical sensorium. So, angst as dealt with, not visually, not angularly, but tactilely: the inner texture, rather than the outer context? THEN it can partake of a musical synchrony, without a single singe or sour note to note? (Seems to be working magnificently for me so far!) How about from two edged swords to two pronged tuning forks? Two poles sounding one harmonic note? Beyond good and evil, with Nietzsche, to ONE unified whole? Nuances on a widening spectrum of both vivid and subtle hues, shades and colors? And once having eaten the apple, " now you are as one of us, knowing the difference... " Now you are God, no less. Among the hell hounds, " once we love hell, we will be in heaven. " What's intuition but an indulgence, a luxury, a treasure of insight into none other than the ongoing now, blooming majestically before EVERYONE'S eyes: within. All as God. God as All. Self as Both. An ego is merely a half acknowledged angel, an angel is but a half acknowledged god, a god is but a half acknowledged Self, the Self is God. How would we be in a world where we rubbed shoulders with The Deity? Precisely as we already are, no? I take it all both personally and impersonally, two ends of the same tuning fork. The name of that fork is Love, Freedom, Beauty... I'm not saying anything you didn't invite me to say, nor you anything I didn't invite you to say. So, we just take turns with this dialog, playing the part of the moment, as it passes into eternity. Thanks for the harmonics! We Freely and Beautifully.. Sky > > Sky, > > Hmmmm. I'm going to have to be careful with the likes of you -- what with that intuition of yours hovering above my posts like a magnifying lens -- one, say, that's 30 feet in diameter? > > I do have a " background " angst, a sourness that wants to spill into almost anything I write. My life has some impact scars that always seem to faintly show up in snapshots of me no matter how I try to get the camera angle and lighting " just so. " > > I tend to defend my polarities -- insisting that the whole spectrum of any event is to be grasped -- see the other edge of the two-edged swords that all events are. If I cannot see the idiosyncrasies in the nuances of, say, evil, then how can I expect my nervous system to be able to delicately enjoy-with-precision when I cup a blossom of goodness in my palm? If God can know with perfect exactitude the striations of Satan's weave, why not me too? Why can't I be embracing all knowledge -- not just the " good stuff? " Eve wouldn't get the apple back from me -- I'd eat the whole thing -- flesh, core and stem. > > There is a part of me that wants to join the catcallers here and just whomp on egos like playing Whack A Mole. I don't trust that I could ride that horse very well, so I try to hold back indulging in that kind of pleasure jaunt. But, yikes, you heard that part of me pissing and moaning in between my words at the back of the crowd-mob in my mind vying to get some time on the microphone. Ya's gut punching me....oomph. Is ya using that intuition in daily life as well as you have in piercing my veil? Hope so, but look out, you might be offered some hemlock tea for your being a gadfly with Cassandra's doom upon ya. > > I very much like your concept of seeing the bookends, the twoness of everything, the " containing the opposite " aspect of every quality. If I think of how an ego attempts to love, there's ignorance right there too, cuz, spotlighting is how egos love, and thus, all otherness is ignored -- unlit -- outside of attentioning -- and that ignorance is the problem. Nothing will satisfy a soul except the realization of awareness' never being upon anything except EVERYthing. Only egos spotlight things. Awareness shines upon all equally all the time despite egoic denial of that. > > Every religion teaches that God is omnipresent. Yet who hesitates to do anything? That's proof that the ego is atheistic -- for who could do anything if God was right there staring at ya? Why, I'd be on my face crying for mercy if God was here -- not paying attention to anything else. It's profoundly silly to imagine anyone doing anything in the presence of God other than utter abject worship. But here we all are posting blather, robbing banks, claiming sentience, etc. Who would do these things if God was in the room? Nah, egos blinker themselves like a toddler pretending that holding adorably small fingers over eyes is a way to play hide-and-seek. We all wear the Emperor's New Clothes, and rare is it in our lives when someone tells us we're naked -- naked before the witnessingness. > > So, hey, don't take me personally. I was merely a bull crunching china in general -- not your teacups in particular. I like your style -- you had me at: " Why is it that, as much as these N > Group people seem focused on nonduality, they just can't seem to get it right? " > > Edg > > > > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> wrote: > > > > Edg > > > > You make some good points, but I'm afraid that I may not have communicated mine as well as I'd like to have. I may be wrong, but I suspect that I may be able to communicate them to you because you have written what I consider some good poetry. In contrast, your poetry, below, I find a bit more scientistic, as I would call any effort at getting " behind " appearsnces with the expectation that what is behind is more than what is most apparent. That is to say, that even as you yourself suggest, that awareness is all there is, that there's nothing behind it because it's as radical and THERE as it gets -- you still seem to be saying that its is itself BEHIND some things that are more to the fore, but are somehow false. You're embracing everything, yet rejecting something, it seems. It's interesting. If I misunderstand you, I don't think I misunderstand your tone, your style, the feeling. > > > > And that sense, that aura, does have a schizoid quality to me. It's that schizoid quality that I equate with the punitive mind, the suffering mind. The combative, coercive, struggling mind. I only see it you, to a degree, however. Please recognize this modification. > > > > Still, when you say " slinging, " for example, I might surmise that you're not trying to offend me, that it's as light hearted as I often get, and that the " truth " of what you're saying is somehow going to compensate me for any initial touch of insult. Nevertheless, nevertheless, hat's what I'm referring to as " ends justifies means " thinking, and I'd admit to having engaged in it myself, but I'd also suggest that you are, here, below, too. > > > > Awareness as Love is beautiful to me, and I embrace it. > > > > Love as a cliche, however, is itself a cliche, from my point of view. I'd rather move on, let love be what we want it to be, at its best, as you, yourself, seem to advocate. Thus, let it be that I am being entirely authentic, not mimetic, not parroting parenting. > > > > The creative, poetic, artistic challenge, is to embrace awareness as love while also embracing love as a Tao, A Way, and most importantly, to me, a CHOICE: CONSCIOUS, DELIBERATE, INTELLIGENT, COURAGEOUS, DETERMINED. Yet NOT forceful, coercive, abusive, reckless. > > > > And I believe that's what made your earlier post, the symphony to compassion, so admirable. > > > > But to advocate a bare bones love, a radical love, a grass roots love that excludes its own cultivation, it's own elaboration and development to include BOTH it's higher, highest forms and its lower forms in an an ongoing symphony -- to exclude that passion, that I consider schizoid. It opposes, as I say, the means to the ends. > > > > This is very ironic and I even wonder whether you're being entirely transparent, here. How can you, at once, espouse your symphonic post with this one, below? To me they are completely compatible, and yet, in this post, you ALSO seem to suggest that they are not. Are you, perhaps merely trying to mirror me, didactically? Or are you genuinely as divided against yourself as I can, am, admittedly, at times? We may never know. It may simply not even matter. The inquiry may be more than enough. > > > > In the Purloined Letter, I'm, as far as I'm concerned, successfully reconciling my schizoid aspects. Perhaps you are too, as a mirror of a mirror of a mirror.... > > > > In any case, I appreciate y/our speculations and would offer you far more confirmation than contradiction. > > > > We Most Freely and Beautifully... > > > > Sky > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sky, > > > > > > Nice lingo slingin'. I'd be more comfortable with the below, methinks, if you'd define " love. " I define love as, and only as, awareness. > > > > > > You? > > > > > > Consider that any thought can fly through your mind, and your awareness doesn't even flinch. > > > > > > 2 + 2 = 19. > > > > > > Hitler is the embodiment of wisdom. > > > > > > Twenty spiders crawling on your face. > > > > > > No flinching, right? Oh, did your ego flinch? -- but, that's not the awareness flinching, right? > > > > > > Odious thoughts might be triggering yet more thoughts; some emotions may hit the streets in panic, but the awareness is always -- and I do mean always = endlessly -- able to " receive " or " be with " the objects of consciousness -- nay, " be with " not just the objects, but " be with " so thoroughly that consciousness itself becomes objectified. > > > > > > Awareness is the equal opportunity attender. " Come one, come all, give me your tired, your downtrodden, your ugliest thoughts possible, and a place for an honored guest will be set at the table for each and all. " > > > > > > Let's face it: isn't that perfect love? -- an attention that unflinchingly and eternally is " upon " not only one's thoughts, but upon ALL THIS such that nary a sparrow can fall, nary a quark can dance without there being a completely attentive audience. There has never been a tree that fell that didn't make a sound -- awareness is an all time reality -- even when " reality " takes a rest. > > > > > > Awareness is the SILENCE offered to the sound, OM, as an " aural space " to be " heard within. " > > > > > > To me, the opposite of love is ignoring-ness -- not hate. Pay no attention to someone, and you're working them like a rented mule. Hate them and watch the egos involved nourish-flourish and puff up into dirigibles. > > > > > > To me, when an ego pretends to love, it is just like a toddler trying to do " what Dad does. " We are made in the image of God -- awareness, ya see? -- so, yeah, for sure, egos can be found " loving " objects of consciousness like Oprah finding someone she hasn't yet given a NEW CAR to. It's childish in the best sense of the word: innocent play acting, wearing Mom's high heels or Dad's hat -- egoic love is mood making that one is God. To me the essence of bhakti is just this: ego pretending to be sentient, loving, aware -- until these processes of consciousness are realized as symbolic reflections of those qualities eternally residing in the potency of the Absolute. 1. Fool, 2. folly, BAM: wisdom -- like that. > > > > > > You? > > > > > > Thanks for your post. Always nice to get warmed by a heart going supernova. Or is that just me projecting again? > > > > > > Edg > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dearest Cathy, > > > > > > > > I'm awake. Can you tell? > > > > > > > > So, I was thinking about what I'd say to you and what I'd post on that Nisargadatta . And there were a few images I wanted to reconcile, you know, as " Michael Neill suggested that when you have two opposing thoughts, you find the common ground between them, and that is your purpose. " > > > > > > > > There was the image of (1) Hamlet seeking nobility, yet finding ignobility. (2) Most of the contributors to that N site as " ignoble, " in a way, or, in their way. (You needn't defend them, I already am, in my own mind, as well as explaining why I " bother/ed " with " them. " ) (3) What is the idea that I REALLY want to convey to myself and others about " how to be happy " ~ what IS it that I haven't yet been able to convey to " you " ? > > > > > > > > In other words, what IS advaita, or nonduality, unity, wholeness, Oneness, Nowness? What is it exactly that is making me feel so good about these, my most recent mantras? Why is it that, as much as these N Group people seem focused on nonduality, they just can't seem to get it right? What is it about me that can't quite get it " right " ? > > > > > > > > And my answer to all of the above questions is this: > > > > > > > > The question is NOT " does the ends justify the means? " (Or, in a hedonistic sense, " does the means justify the ends " ? As in, " let's eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we shall die. " ) That's dualistic, because it pits one thing against another, the means against the ends. There must be a UNITY between the means and the ends. The two must be exactly the same thing! Hamlet is all about the ends justifying the means. Punishment is ALL, TOTALLY, EXCLUSIVELY, about the ends ( " learning an important lesson " ) justifying the means (hurting a vulnerable and impressionable child). > > > > > > > > I'd go so far as to say that all suffering is all about the mistaken notion that the ends justifies the means (or, to put it another way, that the ends can or should be able to justify the means). And I'd go so far as to say that that notion is the pure essence of what profound nonduality actually opposes itself to, whether it " knows " it or not. > > > > > > > > So, here's my solution, BOTH > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) Seek and live for love, truth and inner beauty. " In his 'Ode on a Grecian Urn' Keats will say exactly the same thing, more elegantly but more cryptically as 'Beauty is truth, truth beauty'. " > > > > > > > > AND > > > > > > > > 2) There is no way to love, truth and beauty, love, truth and inner beauty ARE THE WAY. > > > > > > > > > > > > Love must be both The Way that one does things AND the destination of that way of doing things. The way, the Tao, the path, the manner, the style, the tone, must be one of love AND that tone, that way, that Tao, that manner, that style is, at exactly the same time, the path that leads to love. The ends IS the means and the means IS the ends. > > > > > > > > So, what bothers me about myself, about others, is that we seem to think that we need to find a way to be happy, a technique, a method, a truth, a material reality, a materiality, cold, hard and concrete, that factually and scientifically, objectively, starkly, neutrally, technically and practically, adds up to, constructs, builds, contrives to finally, in some moment of truth, manifest as, viola!, LOVE, HAPPINESS, FULFILLMENT!! > > > > > > > > But I'm equating that kind of thinking and feeling with pure punishment, pure suffering, pure illusion, confusion, etc. I'm saying that nothing can lead to love and truth and inner beauty but love, truth and inner beauty themselves, as they already are, in the NOW. There can be no " how?, " or " what? " to do! There can only be How As Love, What As Love: Now, Now, Now. > > > > > > > > Do you see what I'm saying? And so, when I read this Nis Group's rantings, what impresses me is that they're always talking about " IT " as being " right " and whatever isn't " IT, " as being " wrong. " And they do it in a very harsh, strident, unfriendly, punitive way. They seem completely oblivious to the " fact " that their " way " is the " real " message that they're sending. (And by " they, " I, of course, mean " me, myself and, not least, I. " ) > > > > > > > > People say, " the way you talk, one would think... " And I'd say, " yes, the WAY we talk: that IS our talk. " Life does not imitate art, nor does art imitate life: life IS art and art IS life. > > > > > > > > We Most Freely and Beautifully... > > > > > > > > Sky > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords wrote: > > Edg, > > Dude! I'm having trouble correlating all your posts with just one person. Are you sure this isn't a serial post, with different people pretending to be one person. You're not the only one I suspect. That " Sky " guy is another. > > But I'd definitely prefer to be seeing eye to eye, I to I, rather than to either increase or decrease, either my elevations or my dimensions. And yes, I definitely recognize all of those selves put forth as mirrors, however accurate or distorted, of myself. > > Ah, yes, I re-cognize it all, it all!! Alas! > > Although you make it look like herding cats, I do feeline that they can be quite comfortable under the following roof, cozy and serene, however sleepy and sleek. Cats are primarily sensing, rather than optical, if I may shift the metaphorical sensorium. > > So, angst as dealt with, not visually, not angularly, but tactilely: the inner texture, rather than the outer context? THEN it can partake of a musical synchrony, without a single singe or sour note to note? (Seems to be working magnificently for me so far!) > > How about from two edged swords to two pronged tuning forks? Two poles sounding one harmonic note? Beyond good and evil, with Nietzsche, to ONE unified whole? Nuances on a widening spectrum of both vivid and subtle hues, shades and colors? > > And once having eaten the apple, " now you are as one of us, knowing the difference... " Now you are God, no less. > > Among the hell hounds, " once we love hell, we will be in heaven. " > > What's intuition but an indulgence, a luxury, a treasure of insight into none other than the ongoing now, blooming majestically before EVERYONE'S eyes: within. All as God. God as All. Self as Both. > > An ego is merely a half acknowledged angel, an angel is but a half acknowledged god, a god is but a half acknowledged Self, the Self is God. > > How would we be in a world where we rubbed shoulders with The Deity? Precisely as we already are, no? > > I take it all both personally and impersonally, two ends of the same tuning fork. The name of that fork is Love, Freedom, Beauty... > > I'm not saying anything you didn't invite me to say, nor you anything I didn't invite you to say. So, we just take turns with this dialog, playing the part of the moment, as it passes into eternity. > > Thanks for the harmonics! > > > We Freely and Beautifully.. > > Sky ROFLMAO! ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 At 01:58 PM 7/30/2009, you wrote: Edg, Dude! I'm having trouble correlating all your posts with just one person. Are you sure this isn't a serial post, with different people pretending to be one person. You're not the only one I suspect. That " Sky " guy is another. Edg: Definitely I'm a series of egos -- each thinking it " was " because of memory coupled with denial. The ego now is often not an ego-then, and so I am a hypocrite, a chorus line of weakly fleshed spiritually willing pix of me creating the illusion of motion by stop motion animation. Sky is a guy? Man, you come off so sweet. Are ya balanced such that both your yin and your yangy parts get equal time at the microphone? Or, was that " guy " as in " I love you guys " said at a sorority meeting? But I'd definitely prefer to be seeing eye to eye, I to I, rather than to either increase or decrease, either my elevations or my dimensions. And yes, I definitely recognize all of those selves put forth as mirrors, however accurate or distorted, of myself. Ah, yes, I re-cognize it all, it all!! Alas! Edg: Ain't that the truth. What a mouthful. It should be the topic of all Sunday sermons. All of us are cognizing, again and again. Straight out of the Absolute with every ego extant taking credit for it. Although you make it look like herding cats, I do feeline (Edg: pun intended no doubt...er, yes) that they can be quite comfortable under the following roof, cozy and serene, however sleepy and sleek. Cats are primarily sensing, rather than optical, if I may shift the metaphorical sensorium. Edg: When Carl Sandburg said: " The fog comes on little cat feet. " seems to me he was seeing cats as you do. Yet, who can stare more intensely than a cat about to pounce? That said, point at anything and a cat will look at your finger instead. So, angst as dealt with, not visually, not angularly, but tactilely: the inner texture, rather than the outer context? Edg: Mine is there all the time no matter which channel I click to -- and I've got extended cable services. Angst is a hulk standing behind me breathing heavily twirling a sword of Damocles like a helicopter blade. THEN it can partake of a musical synchrony, without a single singe or sour note to note? (Seems to be working magnificently for me so far!) How about from two edged swords to two pronged tuning forks? Edg: K Two poles sounding one harmonic note? Edg: Say, that's not a Polish joke is it? I grew up in a Polish neighborhood, so I'm sensitized. Beyond good and evil, with Nietzsche, to ONE unified whole? Nuances on a widening spectrum of both vivid and subtle hues, shades and colors? Edg: The funny part about harmony is that it is best when each note is as if heard separately -- like in a barber shop quartette's sound that is so deconstructable. And once having eaten the apple, " now you are as one of us, knowing the difference... " Now you are God, no less. Edg: I rush to each thought that arises and shout as I approach it " me, me, me that's me! " I have no idea how God bears the agony of creating perfection -- how can He not be attached like I am to my children only to have Shiva putting on His tap shoes over there in the corner? My identity leaps onto the slightest twitch of mentality and claims authorship, yep, sounds like God to me. Among the hell hounds, " once we love hell, we will be in heaven. " Edg: Say, you're a Star Trek fan, right? Ricardo Montalbán choosing abandonment on a barren planet -- better to rule that then serve in Federation shackles. Milton knew Satan well. Can you imagine his two daughters being awash with his verses as they took dictation? Musta been like church ritual, holy stenography! What's intuition but an indulgence, a luxury, a treasure of insight into none other than the ongoing now, blooming majestically before EVERYONE'S eyes: within. All as God. God as All. Self as Both. Edg: Hmmm. To me, intuition's quality of coming out of nowhere is far more important than that it has truth clutched very well. To me, the intuition is how the Absolute cheats Brahma out of control over His creations. If Brahma screws up, the Absolute sneaks in a miracle to tweak creation aright, and what is more miraculous than one's next thought appearing fully formed and approved for one's attention by THE UNKNOWN? If I were Brahma, I'd be miffed. An ego is merely a half acknowledged angel, an angel is but a half acknowledged god, a god is but a half acknowledged Self, the Self is God. Edg: Ah, that's worth rereading. Verah nyce. It's buttah, and now I'm verklempt. How am I to talk amongst my selves now? How would we be in a world where we rubbed shoulders with The Deity? Precisely as we already are, no? Edg: You're preaching to the choir. I take it all both personally and impersonally, two ends of the same tuning fork. The name of that fork is Love, Freedom, Beauty... Edg: Okay, then, if you're naming your dinnerware, what's your baloney's first name? Does it start with an O as in OM? I'm not saying anything you didn't invite me to say, nor you anything I didn't invite you to say. So, we just take turns with this dialog, playing the part of the moment, as it passes into eternity. Edg: Gotcha there -- nothing passes. HA! I believe that God is present in all times and places always. Always God is living right there at every moment of my life like He's in every possible mode of an infinitely fractaled holodeck. Wow, eh? God is living right there in every possible life I could have had had I taken Frost's other roads. How's that for omnipresence? Yet, literally, God doesn't know the half of IT. Thanks for the harmonics! We Freely and Beautifully.. Sky Edg: Are you old enough to remember Sky King? > > Sky, > > Hmmmm. I'm going to have to be careful with the likes of you -- what with that intuition of yours hovering above my posts like a magnifying lens -- one, say, that's 30 feet in diameter? > > I do have a " background " angst, a sourness that wants to spill into almost anything I write. My life has some impact scars that always seem to faintly show up in snapshots of me no matter how I try to get the camera angle and lighting " just so. " > > I tend to defend my polarities -- insisting that the whole spectrum of any event is to be grasped -- see the other edge of the two-edged swords that all events are. If I cannot see the idiosyncrasies in the nuances of, say, evil, then how can I expect my nervous system to be able to delicately enjoy-with-precision when I cup a blossom of goodness in my palm? If God can know with perfect exactitude the striations of Satan's weave, why not me too? Why can't I be embracing all knowledge -- not just the " good stuff? " Eve wouldn't get the apple back from me -- I'd eat the whole thing -- flesh, core and stem. > > There is a part of me that wants to join the catcallers here and just whomp on egos like playing Whack A Mole. I don't trust that I could ride that horse very well, so I try to hold back indulging in that kind of pleasure jaunt. But, yikes, you heard that part of me pissing and moaning in between my words at the back of the crowd-mob in my mind vying to get some time on the microphone. Ya's gut punching me....oomph. Is ya using that intuition in daily life as well as you have in piercing my veil? Hope so, but look out, you might be offered some hemlock tea for your being a gadfly with Cassandra's doom upon ya. > > I very much like your concept of seeing the bookends, the twoness of everything, the " containing the opposite " aspect of every quality. If I think of how an ego attempts to love, there's ignorance right there too, cuz, spotlighting is how egos love, and thus, all otherness is ignored -- unlit -- outside of attentioning -- and that ignorance is the problem. Nothing will satisfy a soul except the realization of awareness' never being upon anything except EVERYthing. Only egos spotlight things. Awareness shines upon all equally all the time despite egoic denial of that. > > Every religion teaches that God is omnipresent. Yet who hesitates to do anything? That's proof that the ego is atheistic -- for who could do anything if God was right there staring at ya? Why, I'd be on my face crying for mercy if God was here -- not paying attention to anything else. It's profoundly silly to imagine anyone doing anything in the presence of God other than utter abject worship. But here we all are posting blather, robbing banks, claiming sentience, etc. Who would do these things if God was in the room? Nah, egos blinker themselves like a toddler pretending that holding adorably small fingers over eyes is a way to play hide-and-seek. We all wear the Emperor's New Clothes, and rare is it in our lives when someone tells us we're naked -- naked before the witnessingness. > > So, hey, don't take me personally. I was merely a bull crunching china in general -- not your teacups in particular. I like your style -- you had me at: " Why is it that, as much as these N > Group people seem focused on nonduality, they just can't seem to get it right? " > > Edg > > > > > --- In Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> wrote: > > > > Edg > > > > You make some good points, but I'm afraid that I may not have communicated mine as well as I'd like to have. I may be wrong, but I suspect that I may be able to communicate them to you because you have written what I consider some good poetry. In contrast, your poetry, below, I find a bit more scientistic, as I would call any effort at getting " behind " appearsnces with the expectation that what is behind is more than what is most apparent. That is to say, that even as you yourself suggest, that awareness is all there is, that there's nothing behind it because it's as radical and THERE as it gets -- you still seem to be saying that its is itself BEHIND some things that are more to the fore, but are somehow false. You're embracing everything, yet rejecting something, it seems. It's interesting. If I misunderstand you, I don't think I misunderstand your tone, your style, the feeling. > > > > And that sense, that aura, does have a schizoid quality to me. It's that schizoid quality that I equate with the punitive mind, the suffering mind. The combative, coercive, struggling mind. I only see it you, to a degree, however. Please recognize this modification. > > > > Still, when you say " slinging, " for example, I might surmise that you're not trying to offend me, that it's as light hearted as I often get, and that the " truth " of what you're saying is somehow going to compensate me for any initial touch of insult. Nevertheless, nevertheless, hat's what I'm referring to as " ends justifies means " thinking, and I'd admit to having engaged in it myself, but I'd also suggest that you are, here, below, too. > > > > Awareness as Love is beautiful to me, and I embrace it. > > > > Love as a cliche, however, is itself a cliche, from my point of view. I'd rather move on, let love be what we want it to be, at its best, as you, yourself, seem to advocate. Thus, let it be that I am being entirely authentic, not mimetic, not parroting parenting. > > > > The creative, poetic, artistic challenge, is to embrace awareness as love while also embracing love as a Tao, A Way, and most importantly, to me, a CHOICE: CONSCIOUS, DELIBERATE, INTELLIGENT, COURAGEOUS, DETERMINED. Yet NOT forceful, coercive, abusive, reckless. > > > > And I believe that's what made your earlier post, the symphony to compassion, so admirable. > > > > But to advocate a bare bones love, a radical love, a grass roots love that excludes its own cultivation, it's own elaboration and development to include BOTH it's higher, highest forms and its lower forms in an an ongoing symphony -- to exclude that passion, that I consider schizoid. It opposes, as I say, the means to the ends. > > > > This is very ironic and I even wonder whether you're being entirely transparent, here. How can you, at once, espouse your symphonic post with this one, below? To me they are completely compatible, and yet, in this post, you ALSO seem to suggest that they are not. Are you, perhaps merely trying to mirror me, didactically? Or are you genuinely as divided against yourself as I can, am, admittedly, at times? We may never know. It may simply not even matter. The inquiry may be more than enough. > > > > In the Purloined Letter, I'm, as far as I'm concerned, successfully reconciling my schizoid aspects. Perhaps you are too, as a mirror of a mirror of a mirror.... > > > > In any case, I appreciate y/our speculations and would offer you far more confirmation than contradiction. > > > > We Most Freely and Beautifully... > > > > Sky > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sky, > > > > > > Nice lingo slingin'. I'd be more comfortable with the below, methinks, if you'd define " love. " I define love as, and only as, awareness. > > > > > > You? > > > > > > Consider that any thought can fly through your mind, and your awareness doesn't even flinch. > > > > > > 2 + 2 = 19. > > > > > > Hitler is the embodiment of wisdom. > > > > > > Twenty spiders crawling on your face. > > > > > > No flinching, right? Oh, did your ego flinch? -- but, that's not the awareness flinching, right? > > > > > > Odious thoughts might be triggering yet more thoughts; some emotions may hit the streets in panic, but the awareness is always -- and I do mean always = endlessly -- able to " receive " or " be with " the objects of consciousness -- nay, " be with " not just the objects, but " be with " so thoroughly that consciousness itself becomes objectified. > > > > > > Awareness is the equal opportunity attender. " Come one, come all, give me your tired, your downtrodden, your ugliest thoughts possible, and a place for an honored guest will be set at the table for each and all. " > > > > > > Let's face it: isn't that perfect love? -- an attention that unflinchingly and eternally is " upon " not only one's thoughts, but upon ALL THIS such that nary a sparrow can fall, nary a quark can dance without there being a completely attentive audience. There has never been a tree that fell that didn't make a sound -- awareness is an all time reality -- even when " reality " takes a rest. > > > > > > Awareness is the SILENCE offered to the sound, OM, as an " aural space " to be " heard within. " > > > > > > To me, the opposite of love is ignoring-ness -- not hate. Pay no attention to someone, and you're working them like a rented mule. Hate them and watch the egos involved nourish-flourish and puff up into dirigibles. > > > > > > To me, when an ego pretends to love, it is just like a toddler trying to do " what Dad does. " We are made in the image of God -- awareness, ya see? -- so, yeah, for sure, egos can be found " loving " objects of consciousness like Oprah finding someone she hasn't yet given a NEW CAR to. It's childish in the best sense of the word: innocent play acting, wearing Mom's high heels or Dad's hat -- egoic love is mood making that one is God. To me the essence of bhakti is just this: ego pretending to be sentient, loving, aware -- until these processes of consciousness are realized as symbolic reflections of those qualities eternally residing in the potency of the Absolute. 1. Fool, 2. folly, BAM: wisdom -- like that. > > > > > > You? > > > > > > Thanks for your post. Always nice to get warmed by a heart going supernova. Or is that just me projecting again? > > > > > > Edg > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dearest Cathy, > > > > > > > > I'm awake. Can you tell? > > > > > > > > So, I was thinking about what I'd say to you and what I'd post on that Nisargadatta . And there were a few images I wanted to reconcile, you know, as " Michael Neill suggested that when you have two opposing thoughts, you find the common ground between them, and that is your purpose. " > > > > > > > > There was the image of (1) Hamlet seeking nobility, yet finding ignobility. (2) Most of the contributors to that N site as " ignoble, " in a way, or, in their way. (You needn't defend them, I already am, in my own mind, as well as explaining why I " bother/ed " with " them. " ) (3) What is the idea that I REALLY want to convey to myself and others about " how to be happy " ~ what IS it that I haven't yet been able to convey to " you " ? > > > > > > > > In other words, what IS advaita, or nonduality, unity, wholeness, Oneness, Nowness? What is it exactly that is making me feel so good about these, my most recent mantras? Why is it that, as much as these N Group people seem focused on nonduality, they just can't seem to get it right? What is it about me that can't quite get it " right " ? > > > > > > > > And my answer to all of the above questions is this: > > > > > > > > The question is NOT " does the ends justify the means? " (Or, in a hedonistic sense, " does the means justify the ends " ? As in, " let's eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we shall die. " ) That's dualistic, because it pits one thing against another, the means against the ends. There must be a UNITY between the means and the ends. The two must be exactly the same thing! Hamlet is all about the ends justifying the means. Punishment is ALL, TOTALLY, EXCLUSIVELY, about the ends ( " learning an important lesson " ) justifying the means (hurting a vulnerable and impressionable child). > > > > > > > > I'd go so far as to say that all suffering is all about the mistaken notion that the ends justifies the means (or, to put it another way, that the ends can or should be able to justify the means). And I'd go so far as to say that that notion is the pure essence of what profound nonduality actually opposes itself to, whether it " knows " it or not. > > > > > > > > So, here's my solution, BOTH > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) Seek and live for love, truth and inner beauty. " In his 'Ode on a Grecian Urn' Keats will say exactly the same thing, more elegantly but more cryptically as 'Beauty is truth, truth beauty'. " > > > > > > > > AND > > > > > > > > 2) There is no way to love, truth and beauty, love, truth and inner beauty ARE THE WAY. > > > > > > > > > > > > Love must be both The Way that one does things AND the destination of that way of doing things. The way, the Tao, the path, the manner, the style, the tone, must be one of love AND that tone, that way, that Tao, that manner, that style is, at exactly the same time, the path that leads to love. The ends IS the means and the means IS the ends. > > > > > > > > So, what bothers me about myself, about others, is that we seem to think that we need to find a way to be happy, a technique, a method, a truth, a material reality, a materiality, cold, hard and concrete, that factually and scientifically, objectively, starkly, neutrally, technically and practically, adds up to, constructs, builds, contrives to finally, in some moment of truth, manifest as, viola!, LOVE, HAPPINESS, FULFILLMENT!! > > > > > > > > But I'm equating that kind of thinking and feeling with pure punishment, pure suffering, pure illusion, confusion, etc. I'm saying that nothing can lead to love and truth and inner beauty but love, truth and inner beauty themselves, as they already are, in the NOW. There can be no " how?, " or " what? " to do! There can only be How As Love, What As Love: Now, Now, Now. > > > > > > > > Do you see what I'm saying? And so, when I read this Nis Group's rantings, what impresses me is that they're always talking about " IT " as being " right " and whatever isn't " IT, " as being " wrong. " And they do it in a very harsh, strident, unfriendly, punitive way. They seem completely oblivious to the " fact " that their " way " is the " real " message that they're sending. (And by " they, " I, of course, mean " me, myself and, not least, I. " ) > > > > > > > > People say, " the way you talk, one would think... " And I'd say, " yes, the WAY we talk: that IS our talk. " Life does not imitate art, nor does art imitate life: life IS art and art IS life. > > > > > > > > We Most Freely and Beautifully... > > > > > > > > Sky > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 Edg, Dude! I'm having trouble correlating all your posts with just one person. Are you sure this isn't a serial post, with different people pretending to be one person. You're not the only one I suspect. That "Sky" guy is another. Edg: Definitely I'm a series of egos -- each thinking it "was" because of memory coupled with denial. The ego now is often not an ego-then, and so I am a hypocrite, a chorus line of weakly fleshed spiritually willing pix of me creating the illusion of motion by stop motion animation. Sky is a guy? Man, you come off so sweet. Are ya balanced such that both your yin and your yangy parts get equal time at the microphone? Or, was that "guy" as in "I love you guys" said at a sorority meeting?The babes lovThe hot babes love it!!it The dumb ones think it's wimpy That makes it easier to separate the wheat from the chaff. TThe Dumb ones don'the dumb ones don't!1 But I'd definitely prefer to be seeing eye to eye, I to I, rather than to either increase or decrease, either my elevations or my dimensions. And yes, I definitely recognize all of those selves put forth as mirrors, however accurate or distorted, of myself. Ah, yes, I re-cognize it all, it all!! Alas! Edg: Ain't that the truth. What a mouthful. It should be the topic of all Sunday sermons. All of us are cognizing, again and again. Straight out of the Absolute with every ego extant taking credit for it. That's why I no longer worry about the hell houds. I know that there but for the grace of God go I. Besides, I used to be worse. Although you make it look like herding cats, I do feeline (Edg: pun intended no doubt...er, yes) that they can be quite comfortable under the following roof, cozy and serene, however sleepy and sleek. Cats are primarily sensing, rather than optical, if I may shift the metaphorical sensorium. Edg: When Carl Sandburg said: "The fog comes on little cat feet." seems to me he was seeing cats as you do. Yet, who can stare more intensely than a cat about to pounce? That said, point at anything and a cat will look at your finger instead.Well, I'm not really talking about cats. I'm talking about their selected qualities. Didn't need to say that, of course. So, angst as dealt with, not visually, not angularly, but tactilely: the inner texture, rather than the outer context? Edg: Mine is there all the time no matter which channel I click to -- and I've got extended cable services. Angst is a hulk standing behind me breathing heavily twirling a sword of Damocles like a helicopter blade.I'm addressing that, precisely! I'm saying that it's not What we do that should concern Us, but how we do it. What do we want? I want what I 've been saying I want. By doing whatever I do in that Way, it is mine. My secret, don't tell anyone this, is the mantra at the end of my posts. I'm saying that angst, hell, suffering, is wanting what you aren't doing. Be the quality of what you want, is what works for me. THEN it can partake of a musical synchrony, without a single singe or sour note to note? (Seems to be working magnificently for me so far!) How about from two edged swords to two pronged tuning forks? Edg: KK: Kundalini Energy. Shakti. Feeling it: That Is The Way, The Tao, IMO Two poles sounding one harmonic note? Edg: Say, that's not a Polish joke is it? I grew up in a Polish neighborhood, so I'm sensitized. Ya! Das rrreelly out der beyond da pale, pole. Beyond good and evil, with Nietzsche, to ONE unified whole? Nuances on a widening spectrum of both vivid and subtle hues, shades and colors? Edg: The funny part about harmony is that it is best when each note is as if heard separately -- like in a barber shop quartette's sound that is so deconstructable.I hear each note both by itself and in relationship to the Whole @ the same time, I believe we all do. Unless we want something. Some thing. Some thingness: Separation. To BE separated. Then we see everything as separated. That's suffering, alright! BE that unity and see it everywhere. BE that separation and see separation everywhere.. And once having eaten the apple, "now you are as one of us, knowing the difference..." Now you are God, no less. Edg: I rush to each thought that arises and shout as I approach it "me, me, me that's me!" I have no idea how God bears the agony of creating perfection -- how can He not be attached like I am to my children only to have Shiva putting on His tap shoes over there in the corner? My identity leaps onto the slightest twitch of mentality and claims authorship, yep, sounds like God to me.Sorry, but I have to just keep repeating, it doesn't matter what we do, only how we do it, the feeling we convey. Convey to whom? To ourselves. The harmony of it. Just BE HARMONY vis a vis your Self. Really. Among the hell hounds, "once we love hell, we will be in heaven." Edg: Say, you're a Star Trek fan, right? Ricardo Montalbán choosing abandonment on a barren planet -- better to rule that then serve in Federation shackles. Milton knew Satan well. Can you imagine his two daughters being awash with his verses as they took dictation? Musta been like church ritual, holy stenography!What if it was just a serene meditation? What's intuition but an indulgence, a luxury, a treasure of insight into none other than the ongoing now, blooming majestically before EVERYONE'S eyes: within. All as God. God as All. Self as Both. Edg: Hmmm. To me, intuition's quality of coming out of nowhere is far more important than that it has truth clutched very well. To me, the intuition is how the Absolute cheats Brahma out of control over His creations. If Brahma screws up, the Absolute sneaks in a miracle to tweak creation aright, and what is more miraculous than one's next thought appearing fully formed and approved for one's attention by THE UNKNOWN? If I were Brahma, I'd be miffed.For me it's just a practice. I intend to do it, meditate on doing it, and it eventually becomes an ongoing everpresence. (But I make NO claims to mastery!) An ego is merely a half acknowledged angel, an angel is but a half acknowledged god, a god is but a half acknowledged Self, the Self is God. Edg: Ah, that's worth rereading. Verah nyce. It's buttah, and now I'm verklempt. How am I to talk amongst my selves now?Sure, just sink deep into every single feeling, deeper til one is behind that feeling, then behind that one, eventually only love is left. Check out Gangaji on YouTube. Works EVERY time!!! How would we be in a world where we rubbed shoulders with The Deity? Precisely as we already are, no? Edg: You're preaching to the choir. I'd rather sing along. I take it all both personally and impersonally, two ends of the same tuning fork. The name of that fork is Love, Freedom, Beauty... Edg: Okay, then, if you're naming your dinnerware, what's your baloney's first name? Does it start with an O as in OM?"The split worm forgives the plow," Blake. Everything forgives everything when I forgive everything. I'm not saying anything you didn't invite me to say, nor you anything I didn't invite you to say. So, we just take turns with this dialog, playing the part of the moment, as it passes into eternity. Edg: Gotcha there -- nothing passes. HA! I believe that God is present in all times and places always. Always God is living right there at every moment of my life like He's in every possible mode of an infinitely fractaled holodeck. Wow, eh? God is living right there in every possible life I could have had had I taken Frost's other roads. How's that for omnipresence? Yet, literally, God doesn't know the half of IT. Knowledge isn't the half of it, anyway. Rather, BEING is the Whole of It: Being pure White Light and shakti is good enough for me, us, I! For Sky, anyway. Thanks for the harmonics! We Freely and Beautifully.. Sky Edg: Are you old enough to remember Sky King? That's how I knew it was OK to be a dude wid dat name. Always wanted the name, from then on. Shakti said it was a good idea. So I still like it. When I don't, I'll drop it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords wrote: > > Edg, > > Dude! I'm having trouble correlating all your posts with just one > person. Are you sure this isn't a serial post, with different people > pretending to be one person. You're not the only one I suspect. That > " Sky " guy is another. > Edg: Definitely I'm a series of egos -- each thinking it " was " because > of memory coupled with denial. The ego now is often not an ego-then, > and so I am a hypocrite, a chorus line of weakly fleshed spiritually > willing pix of me creating the illusion of motion by stop motion > animation. Sky is a guy? Man, you come off so sweet. Are ya balanced > such that both your yin and your yangy parts get equal time at the > microphone? Or, was that " guy " as in " I love you guys " said at a > sorority meeting? > > The babes lovThe hot babes love it!!it The dumb ones think it's wimpy > That makes it easier to separate the wheat from the chaff. TThe Dumb > ones don'the dumb ones don't!1 > But I'd definitely prefer to be seeing eye to eye, I to I, rather than > to either increase or decrease, either my elevations or my dimensions. > And yes, I definitely recognize all of those selves put forth as > mirrors, however accurate or distorted, of myself. > > Ah, yes, I re-cognize it all, it all!! Alas! > Edg: Ain't that the truth. What a mouthful. It should be the topic of > all Sunday sermons. All of us are cognizing, again and again. Straight > out of the Absolute with every ego extant taking credit for it. > > That's why I no longer worry about the hell houds. I know that there > but for the grace of God go I. Besides, I used to be worse. > > Although you make it look like herding cats, I do feeline (Edg: pun > intended no doubt...er, yes) that they can be quite comfortable under > the following roof, cozy and serene, however sleepy and sleek. Cats are > primarily sensing, rather than optical, if I may shift the metaphorical > sensorium. > Edg: When Carl Sandburg said: " The fog comes on little cat feet. " > seems to me he was seeing cats as you do. Yet, who can stare more > intensely than a cat about to pounce? That said, point at anything and > a cat will look at your finger instead. > > Well, I'm not really talking about cats. I'm talking about their > selected qualities. Didn't need to say that, of course. > > > > So, angst as dealt with, not visually, not angularly, but tactilely: the > inner texture, rather than the outer context? > Edg: Mine is there all the time no matter which channel I click to -- > and I've got extended cable services. Angst is a hulk standing behind > me breathing heavily twirling a sword of Damocles like a helicopter > blade. > > > I'm addressing that, precisely! I'm saying that it's not What we do > that should concern Us, but how we do it. What do we want? I want what > I 've been saying I want. By doing whatever I do in that Way, it is > mine. My secret, don't tell anyone this, is the mantra at the end of my > posts. I'm saying that angst, hell, suffering, is wanting what you > aren't doing. Be the quality of what you want, is what works for me. > > > > > THEN it can partake of a musical synchrony, without a single singe or > sour note to note? (Seems to be working magnificently for me so far!) > > How about from two edged swords to two pronged tuning forks? > Edg: K > > K: Kundalini Energy. Shakti. Feeling it: That Is The Way, The Tao, > IMO > > Two poles sounding one harmonic note? > Edg: Say, that's not a Polish joke is it? I grew up in a Polish > neighborhood, so I'm sensitized. > > > Ya! Das rrreelly out der beyond da pale, pole. > > > Beyond good and evil, with Nietzsche, to ONE unified whole? Nuances on a > widening spectrum of both vivid and subtle hues, shades and colors? > Edg: The funny part about harmony is that it is best when each note is > as if heard separately -- like in a barber shop quartette's sound that > is so deconstructable > . > > > I hear each note both by itself and in relationship to the Whole @ the > same time, I believe we all do. Unless we want something. Some thing. > Some thingness: Separation. To BE separated. Then we see everything > as separated. That's suffering, alright! BE that unity and see it > everywhere. BE that separation and see separation everywhere. > > . > > And once having eaten the apple, " now you are as one of us, knowing the > difference... " Now you are God, no less. > Edg: I rush to each thought that arises and shout as I approach it " me, > me, me that's me! " I have no idea how God bears the agony of creating > perfection -- how can He not be attached like I am to my children only > to have Shiva putting on His tap shoes over there in the corner? My > identity leaps onto the slightest twitch of mentality and claims > authorship, yep, sounds like God to me. > > Sorry, but I have to just keep repeating, it doesn't matter what we do, > only how we do it, the feeling we convey. Convey to whom? To > ourselves. The harmony of it. Just BE HARMONY vis a vis your Self. > Really. > > > Among the hell hounds, " once we love hell, we will be in heaven. " > Edg: Say, you're a Star Trek fan, right? Ricardo Montalbán choosing > abandonment on a barren planet -- better to rule that then serve in > Federation shackles. Milton knew Satan well. Can you imagine his two > daughters being awash with his verses as they took dictation? Musta > been like church ritual, holy stenography! > > What if it was just a serene meditation? > > What's intuition but an indulgence, a luxury, a treasure of insight into > none other than the ongoing now, blooming majestically before EVERYONE'S > eyes: within. All as God. God as All. Self as Both. > Edg: Hmmm. To me, intuition's quality of coming out of nowhere is far > more important than that it has truth clutched very well. To me, the > intuition is how the Absolute cheats Brahma out of control over His > creations. If Brahma screws up, the Absolute sneaks in a miracle to > tweak creation aright, and what is more miraculous than one's next > thought appearing fully formed and approved for one's attention by THE > UNKNOWN? If I were Brahma, I'd be miffed. > > > For me it's just a practice. I intend to do it, meditate on doing it, > and it eventually becomes an ongoing everpresence. (But I make NO > claims to mastery!) > > > > An ego is merely a half acknowledged angel, an angel is but a half > acknowledged god, a god is but a half acknowledged Self, the Self is > God. > Edg: Ah, that's worth rereading. Verah nyce. It's buttah, and now I'm > verklempt. How am I to talk amongst my selves now? > > Sure, just sink deep into every single feeling, deeper til one is behind > that feeling, then behind that one, eventually only love is left. Check > out Gangaji on YouTube. Works EVERY time!!! > > How would we be in a world where we rubbed shoulders with The Deity? > Precisely as we already are, no? > Edg: You're preaching to the choir. > > > I'd rather sing along. > > I take it all both personally and impersonally, two ends of the same > tuning fork. The name of that fork is Love, Freedom, Beauty... > Edg: Okay, then, if you're naming your dinnerware, what's your > baloney's first name? Does it start with an O as in OM? > > > " The split worm forgives the plow, " Blake. Everything forgives > everything when I forgive everything. > > > I'm not saying anything you didn't invite me to say, nor you anything I > didn't invite you to say. So, we just take turns with this dialog, > playing the part of the moment, as it passes into eternity. > Edg: Gotcha there -- nothing passes. HA! I believe that God is present > in all times and places always. Always God is living right there at > every moment of my life like He's in every possible mode of an > infinitely fractaled holodeck. Wow, eh? God is living right there in > every possible life I could have had had I taken Frost's other roads. > How's that for omnipresence? Yet, literally, God doesn't know the half > of IT. > > > Knowledge isn't the half of it, anyway. Rather, BEING is the Whole of > It: Being pure White Light and shakti is good enough for me, us, I! For > Sky, anyway. > > Thanks for the harmonics! > > We Freely and Beautifully.. > > Sky > Edg: Are you old enough to remember Sky King? > > > > That's how I knew it was OK to be a dude wid dat name. Always wanted > the name, from then on. Shakti said it was a good idea. So I still > like it. When I don't, I'll drop it. :-) are we impressing ourselves yet? my goodness we can try and quote everyone.. we think is neat to think others think we think we read. it may have once upon a time.. back in junior high. before a lonely computer talked to itself. ROFLMAO! ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 31, 2009 Report Share Posted July 31, 2009 Sky: The babes lovThe hot babes love it!!it The dumb ones think it's wimpy That makes it easier to separate the wheat from the chaff. TThe Dumb ones don'the dumb ones don't!1 Edg: Dude, see a professional about your stuttering problem. Hee hee. I think that guys with in-your-face gal-dynamics are able to stand within a middle ground perspective that is not easily arrived at by being a pure gender. Real men, tough guys, are driven by concepts and, for them, emotional reasons cannot find purchase in their attentioning, and their counterparts, the girly-girls, are almost impossible to reason with if something " doesn't feel right. " They say that one can be the same gender only three lifetimes in a row, and then one must switch to the other gender for the next lifetime. These souls with two previous incarnations as a male or female are the tough guys and girly-girls. They are dominated strongly by one side of the brain. Being in the middle is no easy street though, cuz though one is balanced in perspective, it is almost impossible to be mostly one gender when it could really benefit one. There are times in life when a real man has to step to the fore and lead the masses with a high concept as a banner, and there are times when a woman's woman has to show the world that love is the only answer when logical conceits blind one: for instance: in a concentration camp, a man's man will be almost crippled with ideation about injustice, but the woman's woman will be a busy bee in the camp hugging and encouraging " for no reason. " In a lifeboat, the man's man is the leader you want, and the girly girl should be tossed over the side what with her wallowing-indulging in the feeling: " compassion for the group's probably fate. " The middle grounder cannot rise to these kinds of scenarios without mood making. Middle grounders are always scratching their heads about the spectrum-extremers -- why did that guy have to make such a big deal about that? -- and, why doesn't she get it that a group hug isn't enough of a solution? " Can't we all get along? " is the middle grounders mantra. Irony: they say John Wayne was a man's man on his third incarnation as a man, so get this: if he's incarnated right now, he'll be almost assuredly a lesbian -- his new woman's body just won't be enough to tamp down three lifetimes of locker room mentality. But, of course, there's no such thing as incarnation, let alone re-incarnation, but there is a wisdom that comes from this concept. Any perspective is a tar baby -- there's your nugget. snip Edg: Mine is there all the time no matter which channel I click to -- and I've got extended cable services. Angst is a hulk standing behind me breathing heavily twirling a sword of Damocles like a helicopter blade. Sky: I'm addressing that, precisely! I'm saying that it's not What we do that should concern Us, but how we do it. What do we want? I want what I 've been saying I want. By doing whatever I do in that Way, it is mine. My secret, don't tell anyone this, is the mantra at the end of my posts. I'm saying that angst, hell, suffering, is wanting what you aren't doing. Be the quality of what you want, is what works for me. Edg: Hmmmm, now you're treading on a slippery word: " should. " The idea cops are going to arrest you if you don't accompany every " should " with a technique for obeying a " should. " Ya gotta tell us how to fulfill the moral command. Tell me your " how. " Oh, I know, inquiry. But, if that's the word you want to toss, great, but tell me your understanding of inquiry such that I can see how you envision the clockworks COGnizing. Um, what do you do immediately after you've asked the question: " Who am I? " There's more than one issue here -- 1. technique for leaving falsity and 2. why this technique leads to a personality that is the perfect wandering monk that is vibing the world like someone spraying red paint with a fire-hose everywhere. Teach us about these. Sky: Beyond good and evil, with Nietzsche, to ONE unified whole? Nuances on a widening spectrum of both vivid and subtle hues, shades and colors? Edg: Sounds like Nietzsche was pretty clear about unity -- don't know, haven't read him (so sue me.) I think there's a finite limitation on any imaginable " widening spectrum. " To me there is a calculus of diminishing returns for being ever more able to discern how everything can be deconstructed. Angels on pin heads sort of thingy. Gets silly at some point to want more when more is the same only different. At some point, one's inner Bali the Demon King must denounce all things demonic -- not because evil is a bad color on God's palette, but because all seeking is done in a cul de sac. At some point the seeker must say, " My path ends at a cul de sac, and I must leave the road -- no map to guide me. " The perfection that an angel or a demon seeks is the same goal: THE PEACE. Edg: The funny part about harmony is that it is best when each note is as if heard separately -- like in a barber shop quartette's sound that is so deconstructable .. Sky: I hear each note both by itself and in relationship to the Whole @ the same time, I believe we all do. Unless we want something. Some thing. Some thingness: Separation. To BE separated. Then we see everything as separated. That's suffering, alright! BE that unity and see it everywhere. BE that separation and see separation everywhere. Edg: There you go again with a moral command: " BE! " Gotta pony up a " how, " dude. And, on top of that, let me challenge you to harmonize " BE " with the concept that " BEing is illusory and cannot produce non-being or the solutions to paradoxes. " Seems to me that " BEing " is not the goal. I'm guessing you can handle this challenge, but I wants ta see ya does it. Not busy work, a favor to all of us here. Sky: Sorry, but I have to just keep repeating, it doesn't matter what we do, only how we do it, the feeling we convey. Convey to whom? To ourselves. The harmony of it. Just BE HARMONY vis a vis your Self. Really. Edg: Yer preachin'! Pandora opened the box, and if you're going to sermonize, ya gotta tell her how to get all the imps, gnomes and fairies back into it. Show us how to pound that cork back in the hole. I mean, dude, you're telling the inner-Lazarus to rise. Sky: {{about " intuitition}} -- For me it's just a practice. I intend to do it, meditate on doing it, and it eventually becomes an ongoing everpresence. (But I make NO claims to mastery!) Edg: Gimme details on the practice methodology. Me hungry. A practical example from daily life -- deliver it hot and steaming and crackling. Sky: Sure, just sink deep into every single feeling, deeper til one is behind that feeling, then behind that one, eventually only love is left. Check out Gangaji on YouTube. Works EVERY time!!! Edg: Ah, now we're getting some nitty gritty. A technique! A technique! You're saying: " Dwell (put awareness upon) feelings and by doing so discover yet more refined feelings, and keep doing that until you crash into BEing. " This is bhakti, no? Is ya a spiritual lover-boy? Can ya give us an example of how one does this bloodhound emotion sniffing? Details, dude, details. Now, about Gangaji -- I've seen a few of her lectures, so I know her vibe. Me likey, but it's been a while for me, so I'd have to revisit her to see if she really does satisfy me that she's owning the mojo. She comes off like Byron Katie in how she deals with the seekers. I find her dry witted -- nice, but I want a little juice in my gurus. Nisargadatta had his abrasive dynamic. Ramana was karuna mandala karum. Does she get, (er, ahem, sue me,) wet when you watch a lot of her sessions? If you're her devotee, does ya have any behind-the-scenes gossip? Hee hee -- I'd love for someone to rat out what happens at Wayne's parties too. One gets the feeling that there's a " let my hair down " dynamic the public doesn't get to see. Ramesh, on the other hand, seems devoid of pretense -- but boring as the last spoonful from one's second pint of vanilla ice cream. Sky: Knowledge isn't the half of it, anyway. Rather, BEING is the Whole of It: Being pure White Light and shakti is good enough for me, us, I! For Sky, anyway. Edg: Here we have an issue maybe. Semantics mostly. To me, BEing, as you seem to be using it above, is a beginner's enlightenment in that one has amness as an all time reality, yes, along with " expressions of amness that yet do not drown out the sound of OM, yes, " but to me this is freedom from sin, a basic requirement of enlightenment, but it's not freedom from identification -- as in the phrase: " identification -- bad; Identity -- good. " Saints are blazing furnaces of love radiating on ALL THIS, but it's a golden barred prison. Dwelling in samadhi (your white light) is 100% fulfilling -- to an ego that's merged in unity, during samadhi, there can be no thought " I lack this, " since the " false thinker, ego, " is lost in OM. That's the trap laid to capture Brahma -- Lord Vishnu's practical joke. Being -- the ultimate tar baby. I think there's another step to take: getting out of identifying and residing solely in Identity. Becomingness ends. Silence only. As Nisargadatta always said: " I've eaten the world. " Dude, now let's keep this going even though .b.b.b is over there crapping his diaper with jealousy. Let's see if we can get his astral blood pressure to 200 over 180 and hope he has a spiritual heart attack -- gawd knows he needs to have his heart attack him. The boy needs to be whupped upside da haid with a heavenly two-by-four. You know how Jesus said, " Let he who is without sin throw the first stone? " Well, .b.b.b is this 's self-designated stoner. Stoner he be, but he's merely a heppy pretending to be a happy but he's no hippy even if he is living in Arcata, CA. Okay, my bad, othering on Bobby's ass is tawdry, I'll cease. Edg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 31, 2009 Report Share Posted July 31, 2009 Yeah, I share your speculations on the gender/agenda issue. But I would probably err on the side of giving the whole thing the bird. Birds select on the basis of aesthetics, fashion, art, dramatic trills, singing skills, not merely survival thrills, or so biologists tell us. But I say that aesthetics IS ethics, and social beings such as we birds of a feather, however bird brained, survive on the basis of our capacity to SEEM "more moral" or "holier than thou." We's continually being judged and judging. Appearing and appealing. Peeling to appeal, appease, applause, give pause.The question is not the question. The question is, "what will they think if I pose like this to pose this answer as opposed to that one?" Whether tis "nobler" (read: more seemingly aristocratic and above it all) to... Ie, "how will my acting, my plumage, my manner, my style, my comportment portend, be judged?" Yeah, we high flighers are a complex lot, flock, what?So, the highest flighers ask themselves, "how will I feel, when, above it all, I feel most myself?" Yeah, feel like I'm being most true to myself, to what feels most profoundly to be me, from the point of view of myself as my own witness. Or witless. Both: both as instinctual automaton and as omniscient Deity. Before, during, and after the court of all my selves. Whom I'm courting. In the court room of my heart/soul chambers.So, TECH. Yep, without tech, no pic, no picsel, no pick. Just 's no go, just snow. So: Ya meditate on yer body's innermost sensations, and ya get real, way real familiar with how that reel flickers before the screen of your mind's I. Make it real compared to "what?" !!Then you get real nuanced and sensitive to all the colors and spectra of the field of felt feelings. That inner plumage with its collisions of kaleidescopic dimensions, flowering and exploding beyond the screen of comprehension.Words like love and beauty and grace and wonder and infinite and joy and freedom and exquisite will bubble from your lips. The more time in, the more time out, the more the introspection-spectrum, the closer to eternity, timelessness, serenity.The Utopia (literally, "no place") now no longer myopia, the inner eye, third eye, developed, these states become your statements. What you say unto the whirled. They become your plumage, your style, your manner, your tone, your caliber. You Become One Who Has Become. The One Who Has ComeTo the Onely One That Matters: Your SELF: Deity.Behold You Are That Which You Have Sought:He Who Pleases Himself By Being HimselfHis Way Is The Way...or so I tell myself...snippets:"Just don't throw me in the briar patch." We's all been born and raised in a briar patch.Would not should. Opportunity not liability. Freed not obliged. Got not gotta.John Wayne was the biggest wimp of all. Alcoholic, constantly out of touch, dependent on what those immediately about him thought. No heart, no soul. A push over. A b.b.baby. Yet, nevertheless, colorful, definitely an important contribution, ass set to the whole archive of the stories we tell ourselves, a living leg-end. Part of the zoo. My roller blading is no fun without the pot holes! No grace without the possibility of falling on your face. Someone's gotta do it! Someone's gotta be either the good or bad example, we need them both, we play them both. In a word: its way more fun that way!!!To be con't..We Most Freely & Beautifully... ("We" is the whole kit n caboodle: Universe, Chosen Ones) Sky Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 31, 2009 Report Share Posted July 31, 2009 Re: Re: The Purloined Letter > Sky: The babes lovThe hot babes love it!!it The dumb ones think it's wimpy That makes it easier to separate the wheat from the chaff. TThe Dumb ones don'the dumb ones don't!1 Edg: Dude, see a professional about your stuttering problem. Hee hee. I think that guys with in-your-face gal-dynamics are able to stand within a middle ground perspective that is not easily arrived at by being a pure gender. Real men, tough guys, are driven by concepts and, for them, emotional reasons cannot find purchase in their attentioning, and their counterparts, the girly-girls, are almost impossible to reason with if something " doesn't feel right. " They say that one can be the same gender only three lifetimes in a row, and then one must switch to the other gender for the next lifetime. These souls with two previous incarnations as a male or female are the tough guys and girly-girls. They are dominated strongly by one side of the brain. Being in the middle is no easy street though, cuz though one is balanced in perspective, it is almost impossible to be mostly one gender when it could really benefit one. There are times in life when a real man has to step to the fore and lead the masses with a high concept as a banner, and there are times when a woman's woman has to show the world that love is the only answer when logical conceits blind one: for instance: in a concentration camp, a man's man will be almost crippled with ideation about injustice, but the woman's woman will be a busy bee in the camp hugging and encouraging " for no reason. " In a lifeboat, the man's man is the leader you want, and the girly girl should be tossed over the side what with her wallowing-indulging in the feeling: " compassion for the group's probably fate. " The middle grounder cannot rise to these kinds of scenarios without mood making. Middle grounders are always scratching their heads about the spectrum-extremers -- why did that guy have to make such a big deal about that? -- and, why doesn't she get it that a group hug isn't enough of a solution? " Can't we all get along? " is the middle grounders mantra. Irony: they say John Wayne was a man's man on his third incarnation as a man, so get this: if he's incarnated right now, he'll be almost assuredly a lesbian -- his new woman's body just won't be enough to tamp down three lifetimes of locker room mentality. But, of course, there's no such thing as incarnation, let alone re-incarnation, but there is a wisdom that comes from this concept. Any perspective is a tar baby -- there's your nugget. snip > Edg: Mine is there all the time no matter which channel I click to -- and I've got extended cable services. Angst is a hulk standing behind me breathing heavily twirling a sword of Damocles like a helicopter blade. > > Sky: I'm addressing that, precisely! I'm saying that it's not What we do that should concern Us, but how we do it. What do we want? I want what I 've been saying I want. By doing whatever I do in that Way, it is mine. My secret, don't tell anyone this, is the mantra at the end of my posts. I'm saying that angst, hell, suffering, is wanting what you aren't doing. Be the quality of what you want, is what works for me. Edg: Hmmmm, now you're treading on a slippery word: " should. " The idea cops are going to arrest you if you don't accompany every " should " with a technique for obeying a " should. " Ya gotta tell us how to fulfill the moral command. Tell me your " how. " Oh, I know, inquiry. But, if that's the word you want to toss, great, but tell me your understanding of inquiry such that I can see how you envision the clockworks COGnizing. Um, what do you do immediately after you've asked the question: " Who am I? " There's more than one issue here -- 1. technique for leaving falsity and 2. why this technique leads to a personality that is the perfect wandering monk that is vibing the world like someone spraying red paint with a fire-hose everywhere. Teach us about these. >> Sky: Beyond good and evil, with Nietzsche, to ONE unified whole? Nuances on a widening spectrum of both vivid and subtle hues, shades and colors? Edg: Sounds like Nietzsche was pretty clear about unity -- don't know, haven't read him (so sue me.) I think there's a finite limitation on any imaginable " widening spectrum. " To me there is a calculus of diminishing returns for being ever more able to discern how everything can be deconstructed. Angels on pin heads sort of thingy. Gets silly at some point to want more when more is the same only different. At some point, one's inner Bali the Demon King must denounce all things demonic -- not because evil is a bad color on God's palette, but because all seeking is done in a cul de sac. At some point the seeker must say, " My path ends at a cul de sac, and I must leave the road -- no map to guide me. " The perfection that an angel or a demon seeks is the same goal: THE PEACE. > Edg: The funny part about harmony is that it is best when each note is as if heard separately -- like in a barber shop quartette's sound that is so deconstructable > . Sky: I hear each note both by itself and in relationship to the Whole @ the same time, I believe we all do. Unless we want something. Some thing. Some thingness: Separation. To BE separated. Then we see everything as separated. That's suffering, alright! BE that unity and see it everywhere. BE that separation and see separation everywhere. Edg: There you go again with a moral command: " BE! " Gotta pony up a " how, " dude. And, on top of that, let me challenge you to harmonize " BE " with the concept that " BEing is illusory and cannot produce non-being or the solutions to paradoxes. " Seems to me that " BEing " is not the goal. I'm guessing you can handle this challenge, but I wants ta see ya does it. Not busy work, a favor to all of us here. Sky: Sorry, but I have to just keep repeating, it doesn't matter what we do, only how we do it, the feeling we convey. Convey to whom? To ourselves. The harmony of it. Just BE HARMONY vis a vis your Self. Really. Edg: Yer preachin'! Pandora opened the box, and if you're going to sermonize, ya gotta tell her how to get all the imps, gnomes and fairies back into it. Show us how to pound that cork back in the hole. I mean, dude, you're telling the inner-Lazarus to rise. Sky: {{about " intuitition}} -- For me it's just a practice. I intend to do it, meditate on doing it, and it eventually becomes an ongoing everpresence. (But I make NO claims to mastery!) Edg: Gimme details on the practice methodology. Me hungry. A practical example from daily life -- deliver it hot and steaming and crackling. > Sky: Sure, just sink deep into every single feeling, deeper til one is behind that feeling, then behind that one, eventually only love is left. Check out Gangaji on YouTube. Works EVERY time!!! Edg: Ah, now we're getting some nitty gritty. A technique! A technique! You're saying: " Dwell (put awareness upon) feelings and by doing so discover yet more refined feelings, and keep doing that until you crash into BEing. " This is bhakti, no? Is ya a spiritual lover-boy? Can ya give us an example of how one does this bloodhound emotion sniffing? Details, dude, details. Now, about Gangaji -- I've seen a few of her lectures, so I know her vibe. Me likey, but it's been a while for me, so I'd have to revisit her to see if she really does satisfy me that she's owning the mojo. She comes off like Byron Katie in how she deals with the seekers. I find her dry witted -- nice, but I want a little juice in my gurus. Nisargadatta had his abrasive dynamic. Ramana was karuna mandala karum. Does she get, (er, ahem, sue me,) wet when you watch a lot of her sessions? If you're her devotee, does ya have any behind-the-scenes gossip? Hee hee -- I'd love for someone to rat out what happens at Wayne's parties too. One gets the feeling that there's a " let my hair down " dynamic the public doesn't get to see. Ramesh, on the other hand, seems devoid of pretense -- but boring as the last spoonful from one's second pint of vanilla ice cream. Sky: Knowledge isn't the half of it, anyway. Rather, BEING is the Whole of It: Being pure White Light and shakti is good enough for me, us, I! For Sky, anyway. Edg: Here we have an issue maybe. Semantics mostly. To me, BEing, as you seem to be using it above, is a beginner's enlightenment in that one has amness as an all time reality, yes, along with " expressions of amness that yet do not drown out the sound of OM, yes, " but to me this is freedom from sin, a basic requirement of enlightenment, but it's not freedom from identification -- as in the phrase: " identification -- bad; Identity -- good. " Saints are blazing furnaces of love radiating on ALL THIS, but it's a golden barred prison. Dwelling in samadhi (your white light) is 100% fulfilling -- to an ego that's merged in unity, during samadhi, there can be no thought " I lack this, " since the " false thinker, ego, " is lost in OM. That's the trap laid to capture Brahma -- Lord Vishnu's practical joke. Being -- the ultimate tar baby. I think there's another step to take: getting out of identifying and residing solely in Identity. Becomingness ends. Silence only. As Nisargadatta always said: " I've eaten the world. " Dude, now let's keep this going even though .b.b.b is over there crapping his diaper with jealousy. Let's see if we can get his astral blood pressure to 200 over 180 and hope he has a spiritual heart attack -- gawd knows he needs to have his heart attack him. The boy needs to be whupped upside da haid with a heavenly two-by-four. You know how Jesus said, " Let he who is without sin throw the first stone? " Well, .b.b.b is this 's self-designated stoner. Stoner he be, but he's merely a heppy pretending to be a happy but he's no hippy even if he is living in Arcata, CA. Okay, my bad, othering on Bobby's ass is tawdry, I'll cease. Edg oh please do keep it going... i love watching schizoid mental self-incestuous behavior. why pancho and your " new self " .. edgy loser though he be... are the cat's ass. it makes me crap my pants with laughter. though your fixation with perversions have you see a diaper. " jealousy???? " OMG! you've deluded yourself beyond even the comical... you're a sick puppy pancho. and puppy barf like the above is more tragic than funny. but it still makes me giggle to believe you believe in it. ROFLMAO! ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 31, 2009 Report Share Posted July 31, 2009 Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords wrote: Yeah, I share your > speculations on the gender/agenda issue. But I would probably err on > the side of giving the whole thing the bird. Birds select on the basis > of aesthetics, fashion, art, dramatic trills, singing skills, not merely > survival thrills, or so biologists tell us. But I say that aesthetics > IS ethics, and social beings such as we birds of a feather, however bird > brained, survive on the basis of our capacity to SEEM " more moral " or > " holier than thou. " We's continually being judged and judging. > Appearing and appealing. Peeling to appeal, appease, applause, give > pause. > > The question is not the question. The question is, " what will they > think if I pose like this to pose this answer as opposed to that one? " > Whether tis " nobler " (read: more seemingly aristocratic and above it > all) to... Ie, " how will my acting, my plumage, my manner, my style, > my comportment portend, be judged? " > > Yeah, we high flighers are a complex lot, flock, what? > > So, the highest flighers ask themselves, " how will I feel, when, above > it all, I feel most myself? " Yeah, feel like I'm being most true to > myself, to what feels most profoundly to be me, from the point of view > of myself as my own witness. Or witless. Both: both as instinctual > automaton and as omniscient Deity. Before, during, and after the court > of all my selves. Whom I'm courting. In the court room of my > heart/soul chambers. > > So, TECH. Yep, without tech, no pic, no picsel, no pick. Just 's no > go, just snow. So: Ya meditate on yer body's innermost sensations, and > ya get real, way real familiar with how that reel flickers before the > screen of your mind's I. Make it real compared to " what? " !! > > Then you get real nuanced and sensitive to all the colors and spectra of > the field of felt feelings. That inner plumage with its collisions of > kaleidescopic dimensions, flowering and exploding beyond the screen of > comprehension. > > Words like love and beauty and grace and wonder and infinite and joy and > freedom and exquisite will bubble from your lips. The more time in, the > more time out, the more the introspection-spectrum, the closer to > eternity, timelessness, serenity. > > The Utopia (literally, " no place " ) now no longer myopia, the inner eye, > third eye, developed, these states become your statements. What you say > unto the whirled. They become your plumage, your style, your manner, > your tone, your caliber. > > You Become One Who Has Become. The One Who Has Come > > To the Onely One That Matters: Your SELF: Deity. > > Behold You Are That Which You Have Sought: > > He Who Pleases Himself By Being Himself > > His Way Is The Way > > > ...or so I tell myself... > > > > > snippets: > > > " Just don't throw me in the briar patch. " We's all been born and raised > in a briar patch. > > > Would not should. Opportunity not liability. Freed not obliged. Got > not gotta. > > > John Wayne was the biggest wimp of all. Alcoholic, constantly out of > touch, dependent on what those immediately about him thought. No heart, > no soul. A push over. A b.b.baby. Yet, nevertheless, colorful, > definitely an important contribution, ass set to the whole archive of > the stories we tell ourselves, a living leg-end. Part of the zoo. My > roller blading is no fun without the pot holes! No grace without the > possibility of falling on your face. Someone's gotta do it! Someone's > gotta be either the good or bad example, we need them both, we play them > both. In a word: its way more fun that way!!! > > > To be con't.. > > > We Most Freely & Beautifully... > > ( " We " is the whole kit n caboodle: Universe, Chosen Ones) > > Sky oooooh ~skyzie piezie.. you do such nice primary school artsy-fartsy colors and stuff. good boy! any two year old would be impressed and coo for you. how many robert amorys do we have writing today? in such pretty colors and everything. jesus you're a dumbass. and so lonely too. that suits you though pancho. my little gay caballero. go sit on the Edg of your lost mind. LOL! ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 31, 2009 Report Share Posted July 31, 2009 Sky, Thanks for the below. Great entertainment, and it bugged the hell out of ..b.b.b....still more hell to ream out of him, but it was a goodly hunk removed. He admits to crapping his diapers, so that's an improvement. Your poetry below doesn't bother me a bit -- now that's rare! I await your promised " cont. " Thanks, Edg Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords wrote: Yeah, I share your > speculations on the gender/agenda issue. But I would probably err on > the side of giving the whole thing the bird. Birds select on the basis > of aesthetics, fashion, art, dramatic trills, singing skills, not merely > survival thrills, or so biologists tell us. But I say that aesthetics > IS ethics, and social beings such as we birds of a feather, however bird > brained, survive on the basis of our capacity to SEEM " more moral " or > " holier than thou. " We's continually being judged and judging. > Appearing and appealing. Peeling to appeal, appease, applause, give > pause. > > The question is not the question. The question is, " what will they > think if I pose like this to pose this answer as opposed to that one? " > Whether tis " nobler " (read: more seemingly aristocratic and above it > all) to... Ie, " how will my acting, my plumage, my manner, my style, > my comportment portend, be judged? " > > Yeah, we high flighers are a complex lot, flock, what? > > So, the highest flighers ask themselves, " how will I feel, when, above > it all, I feel most myself? " Yeah, feel like I'm being most true to > myself, to what feels most profoundly to be me, from the point of view > of myself as my own witness. Or witless. Both: both as instinctual > automaton and as omniscient Deity. Before, during, and after the court > of all my selves. Whom I'm courting. In the court room of my > heart/soul chambers. > > So, TECH. Yep, without tech, no pic, no picsel, no pick. Just 's no > go, just snow. So: Ya meditate on yer body's innermost sensations, and > ya get real, way real familiar with how that reel flickers before the > screen of your mind's I. Make it real compared to " what? " !! > > Then you get real nuanced and sensitive to all the colors and spectra of > the field of felt feelings. That inner plumage with its collisions of > kaleidescopic dimensions, flowering and exploding beyond the screen of > comprehension. > > Words like love and beauty and grace and wonder and infinite and joy and > freedom and exquisite will bubble from your lips. The more time in, the > more time out, the more the introspection-spectrum, the closer to > eternity, timelessness, serenity. > > The Utopia (literally, " no place " ) now no longer myopia, the inner eye, > third eye, developed, these states become your statements. What you say > unto the whirled. They become your plumage, your style, your manner, > your tone, your caliber. > > You Become One Who Has Become. The One Who Has Come > > To the Onely One That Matters: Your SELF: Deity. > > Behold You Are That Which You Have Sought: > > He Who Pleases Himself By Being Himself > > His Way Is The Way > > > ...or so I tell myself... > > > > > snippets: > > > " Just don't throw me in the briar patch. " We's all been born and raised > in a briar patch. > > > Would not should. Opportunity not liability. Freed not obliged. Got > not gotta. > > > John Wayne was the biggest wimp of all. Alcoholic, constantly out of > touch, dependent on what those immediately about him thought. No heart, > no soul. A push over. A b.b.baby. Yet, nevertheless, colorful, > definitely an important contribution, ass set to the whole archive of > the stories we tell ourselves, a living leg-end. Part of the zoo. My > roller blading is no fun without the pot holes! No grace without the > possibility of falling on your face. Someone's gotta do it! Someone's > gotta be either the good or bad example, we need them both, we play them > both. In a word: its way more fun that way!!! > > > To be con't.. > > > We Most Freely & Beautifully... > > ( " We " is the whole kit n caboodle: Universe, Chosen Ones) > > Sky > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 31, 2009 Report Share Posted July 31, 2009 Nisargadatta , " duveyoung " <edg wrote: > > Sky, > > Thanks for the below. Great entertainment, and it bugged the hell out of ..b.b.b....still more hell to ream out of him, but it was a goodly hunk removed. > > He admits to crapping his diapers, so that's an improvement. > > Your poetry below doesn't bother me a bit -- now that's rare! > > I await your promised " cont. " > > Thanks, > > Edg ROFLMAO! and you can wait for more CDs too topo gigio. your poetry and your response to same are funny as hell lost beggar. keep smilin' and lyin' to yourself leetle gaucho.. your rocking horse rocks on for no one but you. :-) ..b b.b. p.s. bugs like you don't " bug me " . you can be as much of a pest to yourself as you want to be. or..as charlie would and did say: isn't that little fat bald loser funny! LOL! the below is snipped for the pleasure and enjoyment of all. except fot the identifying signature. :-) > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> wrote: > > Sky. Edg. mastrmumblejumble. coward. bum.< < Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 1, 2009 Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 Edg, Thanks! Your words are meaningful. OK, at this point, I guess I don't know whether there is something you wanted me to address, so I'll just rewrite: " to be con't? " (Is there?) Vis a vis influencing or otherwise reaming another self, I gotta tell ya, I think it's the biggest trap of all time. Whenever I want to control another in the slightest conceivable way, I feel the chains and tentacles of unfreedom wrapping themselves around my throat, heart and soul. I just want all my selves to feel free to do whatever. As soon as I detect that another is controlling him/herself on my behalf, I start to get nauseous. There's nothing I hate more than a sense of obligation. The enticement, " tell me what to do, " for me, inevitably ends in outrage. I NEVER do what I " have to. " I live for the sense of infinite possibility. Those who don't, I find infinitely boring. I know I might be setting myself up for charges of hypocrisy, if so, have fun: whomever. Already: We Most Freely and Beautifully... Sky Sky, > > Thanks for the below. Great entertainment, and it bugged the hell out of ..b.b.b....still more hell to ream out of him, but it was a goodly hunk removed. > > He admits to crapping his diapers, so that's an improvement. > > Your poetry below doesn't bother me a bit -- now that's rare! > > I await your promised " cont. " > > Thanks, > > Edg > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, I share your > > speculations on the gender/agenda issue. But I would probably err on > > the side of giving the whole thing the bird. Birds select on the basis > > of aesthetics, fashion, art, dramatic trills, singing skills, not merely > > survival thrills, or so biologists tell us. But I say that aesthetics > > IS ethics, and social beings such as we birds of a feather, however bird > > brained, survive on the basis of our capacity to SEEM " more moral " or > > " holier than thou. " We's continually being judged and judging. > > Appearing and appealing. Peeling to appeal, appease, applause, give > > pause. > > > > The question is not the question. The question is, " what will they > > think if I pose like this to pose this answer as opposed to that one? " > > Whether tis " nobler " (read: more seemingly aristocratic and above it > > all) to... Ie, " how will my acting, my plumage, my manner, my style, > > my comportment portend, be judged? " > > > > Yeah, we high flighers are a complex lot, flock, what? > > > > So, the highest flighers ask themselves, " how will I feel, when, above > > it all, I feel most myself? " Yeah, feel like I'm being most true to > > myself, to what feels most profoundly to be me, from the point of view > > of myself as my own witness. Or witless. Both: both as instinctual > > automaton and as omniscient Deity. Before, during, and after the court > > of all my selves. Whom I'm courting. In the court room of my > > heart/soul chambers. > > > > So, TECH. Yep, without tech, no pic, no picsel, no pick. Just 's no > > go, just snow. So: Ya meditate on yer body's innermost sensations, and > > ya get real, way real familiar with how that reel flickers before the > > screen of your mind's I. Make it real compared to " what? " !! > > > > Then you get real nuanced and sensitive to all the colors and spectra of > > the field of felt feelings. That inner plumage with its collisions of > > kaleidescopic dimensions, flowering and exploding beyond the screen of > > comprehension. > > > > Words like love and beauty and grace and wonder and infinite and joy and > > freedom and exquisite will bubble from your lips. The more time in, the > > more time out, the more the introspection-spectrum, the closer to > > eternity, timelessness, serenity. > > > > The Utopia (literally, " no place " ) now no longer myopia, the inner eye, > > third eye, developed, these states become your statements. What you say > > unto the whirled. They become your plumage, your style, your manner, > > your tone, your caliber. > > > > You Become One Who Has Become. The One Who Has Come > > > > To the Onely One That Matters: Your SELF: Deity. > > > > Behold You Are That Which You Have Sought: > > > > He Who Pleases Himself By Being Himself > > > > His Way Is The Way > > > > > > ...or so I tell myself... > > > > > > > > > > snippets: > > > > > > " Just don't throw me in the briar patch. " We's all been born and raised > > in a briar patch. > > > > > > Would not should. Opportunity not liability. Freed not obliged. Got > > not gotta. > > > > > > John Wayne was the biggest wimp of all. Alcoholic, constantly out of > > touch, dependent on what those immediately about him thought. No heart, > > no soul. A push over. A b.b.baby. Yet, nevertheless, colorful, > > definitely an important contribution, ass set to the whole archive of > > the stories we tell ourselves, a living leg-end. Part of the zoo. My > > roller blading is no fun without the pot holes! No grace without the > > possibility of falling on your face. Someone's gotta do it! Someone's > > gotta be either the good or bad example, we need them both, we play them > > both. In a word: its way more fun that way!!! > > > > > > To be con't.. > > > > > > We Most Freely & Beautifully... > > > > ( " We " is the whole kit n caboodle: Universe, Chosen Ones) > > > > Sky > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 1, 2009 Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords wrote: > > > Edg, > > Thanks! Your words are meaningful. > > OK, at this point, I guess I don't know whether there is something you wanted me to address, so I'll just rewrite: " to be con't? " (Is there?) > > Vis a vis influencing or otherwise reaming another self, I gotta tell ya, I think it's the biggest trap of all time. Whenever I want to control another in the slightest conceivable way, I feel the chains and tentacles of unfreedom wrapping themselves around my throat, heart and soul. > > I just want all my selves to feel free to do whatever. > > As soon as I detect that another is controlling him/herself on my behalf, I start to get nauseous. There's nothing I hate more than a sense of obligation. The enticement, " tell me what to do, " for me, inevitably ends in outrage. > > I NEVER do what I " have to. " I live for the sense of infinite possibility. Those who don't, I find infinitely boring. > > I know I might be setting myself up for charges of hypocrisy, if so, have fun: whomever. > > Already: We Most Freely and Beautifully... > > Sky ROFLMAO! you poor bastard. ..b b.b. 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.