Guest guest Posted March 24, 1999 Report Share Posted March 24, 1999 Gloria Greco [lodpress] Wednesday, March 24, 1999 4:26 PM Re: Thanks and Welcome back Gloria Greco <lodpress Dharma wrote: > > I'll put in my vote right now. Tim has his second chance now. If he > starts the same kind of abuse again, he should go. > > Let's make it a safe place for our fellowship... a safe place for people > to talk, to gather in satsangh... > Gloria: I agree he is in his second chance, but lets give him the benefit of the doubt and not project that he can't observe and let go so that this doesn't replay. Love is the bottom line here, knowing Harsha as I do, lets bring that love together so that rather then chase him out or put him down, we lift him up. It is easy to assume the worst when this is work of spirit, miracles happen at every turn. Harsha: Thank you Dharma and Gloria for making some excellent points. Both Linda and Chris earlier spoke clearly as well. M or M made a good point in suggesting that attention seeking behavior can be discouraged by simply not paying attention to it. I hope that Gene Poole, a very wise person, will speak to this issue. I invite others to speak freely as well, if they should so choose. I will listen carefully and try to learn from all of what you have to say. Everyone certainly deserves a second chance. We all make mistakes. However we want to avoid situations where history repeats itself again and again. This list is all about being in a Satsangha, a sacred fellowship. It means we need to love and respect each other. Our posts should reflect that philosophy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 25, 1999 Report Share Posted March 25, 1999 On Thu, 25 Mar 1999 22:12:56 +0100 Gloria Greco <lodpress writes: >Gloria Greco <lodpress > >Harsha (Dr. Harsh K. Luthar) wrote: >> >> "Harsha (Dr. Harsh K. Luthar)" <hluthar >> >> >> Gloria Greco [lodpress] >> Wednesday, March 24, 1999 4:26 PM >> >> Re: Thanks and Welcome back >> >> Gloria Greco <lodpress >> >> Dharma wrote: >> > >> > I'll put in my vote right now. Tim has his second chance now. If >he >> > starts the same kind of abuse again, he should go. >> > >> > Let's make it a safe place for our fellowship... a safe place for >people >> > to talk, to gather in satsangh... >> > >> Gloria: >> I agree he is in his second chance, but lets give him the >benefit of >> the doubt and not project that he can't observe and let go so that >this >> doesn't replay. >> Love is the bottom line here, knowing Harsha as I do, lets >bring that >> love together so that rather then chase him out or put him down, we >lift >> him up. It is easy to assume the worst when this is work of spirit, >> miracles happen at every turn. >> >> Harsha: Thank you Dharma and Gloria for making some excellent >points. Both >> Linda and Chris earlier spoke clearly as well. M or M made a good >point in >> suggesting that attention seeking behavior can be discouraged by >simply not >> paying attention to it. I hope that Gene Poole, a very wise person, >will >> speak to this issue. I invite others to speak freely as well, if >they should >> so choose. I will listen carefully and try to learn from all of what >you >> have to say. >> >> Everyone certainly deserves a second chance. We all make mistakes. >However >> we want to avoid situations where history repeats itself again and >again. >> This list is all about being in a Satsangha, a sacred fellowship. It >means >> we need to love and respect each other. Our posts should reflect >that >> philosophy. > >Gloria: > Perhaps Harsha, you can dialoge with Tim privately for a while >to help >him see where this is coming from. I feel his frustration and >anxiety, >he is asking for help even if he doesn't know it. If he can get into >observation and see that ego/self come in, it will help him to let >go. >Just something that came to me. >> An apt "something" indeed. I am not chiming in on this issue because Tim and I have a history -- I suggested Jerry's list to him, and that is where he learned of Harsha's. At this point we are cyber- estranged, Tim having publically declared that I am "plonked" (killfiled) at his end. http://www.users.uniserve.com/~samuel/brucemrg.htm http://www.users.uniserve.com/~samuel/brucsong.htm m(_ _)m _ _________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 25, 1999 Report Share Posted March 25, 1999 Harsha (Dr. Harsh K. Luthar) wrote: > > "Harsha (Dr. Harsh K. Luthar)" <hluthar > > > Gloria Greco [lodpress] > Wednesday, March 24, 1999 4:26 PM > > Re: Thanks and Welcome back > > Gloria Greco <lodpress > > Dharma wrote: > > > > I'll put in my vote right now. Tim has his second chance now. If he > > starts the same kind of abuse again, he should go. > > > > Let's make it a safe place for our fellowship... a safe place for people > > to talk, to gather in satsangh... > > > Gloria: > I agree he is in his second chance, but lets give him the benefit of > the doubt and not project that he can't observe and let go so that this > doesn't replay. > Love is the bottom line here, knowing Harsha as I do, lets bring that > love together so that rather then chase him out or put him down, we lift > him up. It is easy to assume the worst when this is work of spirit, > miracles happen at every turn. > > Harsha: Thank you Dharma and Gloria for making some excellent points. Both > Linda and Chris earlier spoke clearly as well. M or M made a good point in > suggesting that attention seeking behavior can be discouraged by simply not > paying attention to it. I hope that Gene Poole, a very wise person, will > speak to this issue. I invite others to speak freely as well, if they should > so choose. I will listen carefully and try to learn from all of what you > have to say. > > Everyone certainly deserves a second chance. We all make mistakes. However > we want to avoid situations where history repeats itself again and again. > This list is all about being in a Satsangha, a sacred fellowship. It means > we need to love and respect each other. Our posts should reflect that > philosophy. Gloria: Perhaps Harsha, you can dialoge with Tim privately for a while to help him see where this is coming from. I feel his frustration and anxiety, he is asking for help even if he doesn't know it. If he can get into observation and see that ego/self come in, it will help him to let go. Just something that came to me. > > ------ > Ta Da! Come see our new web site! > > Onelist: A free email community service -- Enter The Silence to Know God ... and... accept life as the teacher. Gloria Joy Greco e-mail me at : lodpress and visit our homepages at: http://users.intercomm.com/larryn/ & http://www.freeyellow.com/members/zg888/ Hope you enjoy them! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 25, 1999 Report Share Posted March 25, 1999 Re: ==Gene Poole== My contribution has been solicited... It was written; > Wed, 24 Mar 1999 > "Harsha (Dr. Harsh K. Luthar)" <hluthar > Re: Gene Poole > > ---Original Message--- > Gloria Greco [lodpress] Sent: > Wednesday, March 24, 1999 4:26 PM > > Re: Thanks and Welcome back > > Gloria Greco <lodpress > > Dharma wrote: > > > > I'll put in my vote right now. Tim has his second chance > now. If he > starts the same kind of abuse again, he > should go. > > > Let's make it a safe place for our fellowshipŠ a safe > place for people > to talk, to gather in satsanghŠ > > > Gloria: > I agree he is in his second chance, but lets give him the > beneÞt of the doubt and not project that he can't observe > and let go so that this doesn't replay. > Love is the bottom line here, knowing Harsha as I do, lets > bring that love together so that rather then chase him out > or put him down, we lift him up. It is easy to assume the > worst when this is work of spirit, miracles happen at > every turn. > > Harsha: Thank you Dharma and Gloria for making some > excellent points. Both Linda and Chris earlier spoke > clearly as well. M or M made a good point in suggesting > that attention seeking behavior can be discouraged by > simply not paying attention to it. I hope that Gene Poole, > a very wise person, will speak to this issue. I invite > others to speak freely as well, if they should so choose. > I will listen carefully and try to learn from all of what > you have to say. > > Everyone certainly deserves a second chance. We all make > mistakes. However we want to avoid situations where > history repeats itself again and again. This list is all > about being in a Satsangha, a sacred fellowship. It means > we need to love and respect each other. Our posts should > reþect that philosophy. Thank you, Harsha, for inviting me. What comes to mind, is that one who is branded as 'out-tribe', lives on the periphery, always looking in and longing to be included in the tribe. I must remember, however, that the banishment of one is actually the banishment of all; which 'group' is actually 'cast out'? A mere majority never makes 'right', and being in a minority does not guarantee 'wrong'. That being said, I have a sense that if and when one such 'singleton' shows up, that we are already sensing the 'out-tribe' status of that one; indeed, such an outcast, carries their banishment as a creed, while always hoping for a miracle of reversal of the situation. I am reminded of the 'hippies' who became 'yuppies', and henceforth quit blaming 'the establishment' as soon as they were accepted back into the tribe that they had rebelled against. What is going on here, as I have seen, is a direct emanation of 'family enmeshment', of 'co-dependence'; who is 'family' and who is 'not-family' is decided by the Great Father, the OverLord Patriarch. It is natural for an outcast from the family, to proclaim themself to be The Father, and so then to rank and punish other 'family members'. Again, this theme has been consistantly seen by me in my observing and dealing with 'chronic outsiders' or the 'singleton'. To be a 'singleton' is seemingly punishment in itself; but please consider this. If one is an outcast by choice, by acceptance, by habit, if one actually lives that life, I say that the outcast is an outcast because the 'main culture' is too toxic for them to bear. It is granted that such outcasts 'act out' the misuse of authority that originally wounded themselves; and that they thus project this 'authoritarian wounding' upon those who seem unwilling to allow them to be The Father. Nobody wants to live under the thumb of an authoritarian, toxic rulership; if such a rulership has wounded one, one then inevitably 'acts out' their pain and grief by the same methodology of the original wounder, the Great Father. Many people seek a 'Non-Toxic Great Father", and never suceed in finding one; this failure to find the 'perfect master' is not the failing of any master, but is instead based upon the assumption that such a Being exists. The search is doomed from the beginning, leaving one alone to contemplate what may one day become a wordless acceptance of oneself as the basis of what is. How is it, that one has this vision, this assumption, of one who is so perfect and good? I propose this to consider; that one who has been _controlled through threat of banishment_, is one who has the idea that there is someone 'better' than themself, and thus is birthed the model of the 'perfect master'. Yes, the 'perfect master' is (an unknown) who is 'better than me'. One who has been traumatically criticised for not being 'good enough' is one who seeks that one who is 'better'. And it is now a cliche, that one who seeks one who is better, eventually finds that one as themself. It all fits together, it is all one big picture, and we can see it if we momentarily abondon momentum and abide for a while. The more fiercely one who is an outcast is engaged in attacking, the quicker they will expend their own resources, and find that the battle is moot; such a one will find themself embarassed to be seen shadow-boxing, self-hypnotized into a fury of blaming and scapegoating. This being so, is it compassion to engage the attacker in such a way that their own momentum toward their own direction is unimpeded, if not gracefully accellerated, such as in Aikido. The 'final lesson' can happen in an instant, relieving the 'attacker' of the burden of further attacking behaviour. In this regard, 'mastery' is both yielding and guiding, bringing the one who is moving into conscious awareness of their own momentum and direction. It is at this point that the aggressor realizes that their momentum and direction are a 'bad fit'; one or the other must be immediatly neutralized in order to survive. When this is seen, a person may either slow down, stop, or change directions, or any combination of these modifications. It is a gift to me, when someone has skillfully done this to me. It is humiliating, but I acknowledge that there are beings wiser than me, more powerful than I am, and with more experience as well. I will say as well, that there is probably no virtue in 'defending against' such an attacker; I suggest that the use of conscious symbiosis will absorb the 'outcast' into the extant 'tribe' or family or community. However, such acceptance or incorporation of a wounded one, brings also the pain of that wounding. Such pain, acted-out reactively, tends to set off reverberating 'echos' of that pain. Such pain, when shared, also elicits every 'version' of advice, as well as every sort of imagined 'band-aid' and other 'fixes' for that pain. The existential pain of Being has no remedy; if toxic history can be sacrificed (eaten and digested, a 'living sacrifice'), this exquisite pain, which has given license to so many martyred idealists, will be interpreted instead as vast pleasure, called 'bliss'. To eat one's 'toxic history' is to incorporate into oneself, that which has been rejected/divorced/abondoned. It is properly used as fuel, to fire the furnace of life. As such toxic material is consumed by the flames of metabolism, the energy produced fuels a further growth _out_ of the 'lifestyle' of suffering. Finally, one must acknowledge that they have been attached to their suffering, as embodied justification for 'seeking justice' and 'telling truth' to 'masses of ignorant unbelievers'. It is those very 'masses' who comprise the 'tribe' to which the 'outsider' is preaching, and thus is attempting to lead. One of the problems with these 'spiritually-oriented' lists, is the (usually) heavy overlay of 'what is correct' versus 'what is incorrect', also seen as 'getting it' versus 'not getting it' or 'being a mile off the mark'. While some people are having fun, patiently playing with others, the diehard idealists among us insist that there is 'only one way' and 'only one appropriate language' in which that 'way' should be expressed. This behaviour is pretty much a constant, because it reflects the assumptions of the 'seeker', that there is something to 'seek' or to 'get', and that there is thus a 'proper way to seek' or get. All such practices are by nature _exclusive_ IE exclusionary, and thus are a 'red flag', waving in the face of one who has been living life in 'exile'. Do you get this point? Exclusive behaviour has become toxic to one who has _already_ been excluded and lives as a 'singleton' as a result. Such a one, will 'punish' by exerting this very 'excluding' behaviour upon those who are 'guilty' of exclusion. This is a constant fissioning/splitting/fractioning which can only result in 'the smallest particle and then nothing'. It is almost impossible to establish clear, productive communication between the 'seeker' and the other; the 'seeker' tends to be an idealist, who sees the 'nonseeking behaviour' of the other, as a flaw of character, an error of mind, or an emantion of some other ghastly deficiency. We may refer to the seeker as being 'hungry' for what they have been punished into leaving behind. Nobody can give this to anyone, each must find what they have 'excluded' and make their peace with each disparate particle. This goes for relationship between persons, as well as for 'particles of self' which have been judged and rejected. We should also be aware that language, as it is usually used in speech and thought, is based upon grammatical 'filters' which exclude objects and catagories of objects in order to create catagories and thus identify objects. Our language 'automatically' 'singles out' (objectifies) each thing to be defined, and is thus usually exclusive/exclusionary in execution; for example, 'nonduality' defines only duality, and in that definition, by describing (the nondual) by defining it as what _it is not_, sets us up to follow the path of 'not this, not that', which itself leads to 'me' as the 'realizer', but wastes time and creates a lot of smoke and engenders bushels of false assumptions along the way. It is no wonder that an intelligent person can see this, and thus feel perhaps justified in criticising 'it', even going so far as to assert that 'if it cannot be described, it cannot be'. In fact, if I state that "there is something that is indefinable", it is inevitable that someone will demand that I tell them 'what it is'. Our language does not entertain secrets. I would venture to say, that a majority of those who to these lists, have been through a long ordeal of rejection and of being misunderstood by others. Seeking and finding 'truth' is thus a priority, as is being acknowledged as 'living in that truth'. Such a defined one is defined as 'good', and is thus now 'in-tribe', as defined by others and as understood by the standards of standard language. That someone would be able to see right through this little ritual of 'symbolic inclusion' is not too astonishing to me. But this is not to say that we have nothing worthwhile to say; indeed, we all long to be free of the flypaper of what 'ego' sticks to, and to be able to fly free, and to also be seen by our peers (tribe and family) as being free. If then, anyone says to someone, "you are not free", that is the ultimate insult and perhaps also the ultimate challenge; in reacting to that challenge, the impulse to _destroy_ the one who insults, may indeed arise. Again, this is all, in my opinion, a matter of _family_ and tribal affilliation. It is about who is 'Big Father' and who is at the bottom of the veritable totem-pole. Because this is so, we all respond in our own 'family way'. It is not unusual to see the varieties of 'family way' displayed as _punishment, banishment, mockery, shaming_, etc... as well as the varieties of 'love' which are anything but love. I think you know what I am pointing out here, yes? And then there are those who, reading this long and elaborate posting, will say that all such considerations are properly subsumed by some greater principle of wisdom; while such is true, it is equally true that what I have said, can be said, and may be of some use to someone, at some time. Let me know how this strikes you, and feel free to quote only the parts which are relevant to your reply. Always here, ==Gene Poole== "Community is the sharing of the burden of personality" .. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 25, 1999 Report Share Posted March 25, 1999 Dear Gene, At 03:43 PM 3/25/99 -0800, you wrote: >To be a 'singleton' is seemingly punishment in itself; but please consider >this. If one is an outcast by choice, by acceptance, by habit, if one >actually lives that life, I say that the outcast is an outcast because the >'main culture' is too toxic for them to bear. It is granted that such >outcasts 'act out' the misuse of authority that originally wounded >themselves; and that they thus project this 'authoritarian wounding' upon >those who seem unwilling to allow them to be The Father. I bow to you for your Divine Intuition (which approaches mind-reading in its clarity of perception). I was raised in an authoritarian environment, with a domineering and egocentric father (a former officer in the Turkish military), who never allowed any of his children to be who they were. His dominance, fear, anxiety and own insecurity was so great that he allowed nobody else in the family an ego, nor any "boundaries" of their own. If I recall correctly, I wasn't even allowed to walk across the street by myself until age 10 or so. The mother "went along with" the father, and was constantly caught in the middle of "power struggles" between myself and my father. >Nobody wants to live under the thumb of an authoritarian, toxic rulership; >if such a rulership has wounded one, one then inevitably 'acts out' their >pain and grief by the same methodology of the original wounder, the Great >Father. Most perceptive. >To eat one's 'toxic history' is to incorporate into oneself, that which has >been rejected/divorced/abondoned. It is properly used as fuel, to fire the >furnace of life. As such toxic material is consumed by the flames of >metabolism, the energy produced fuels a further growth _out_ of the >'lifestyle' of suffering. I bow before you again, Gene. You are one of the wisest human beings I've ever encountered. >I would venture to say, that a majority of those who to these >lists, have been through a long ordeal of rejection and of being >misunderstood by others. Seeking and finding 'truth' is thus a priority, as >is being acknowledged as 'living in that truth'. My priority is BECOMING Truth through knowledge that I already am thus. Along with this comes renunciation of falsehood, of course. Gene, this was one of the most impressive posts I've ever seen on any mailing list. My bhakta for today goes to You. I love you. Tim ----- The CORE of Reality awaits you at: http://www.eskimo.com/~fewtch/ND/index.html - Poetry, Writings, Live Chat on spiritual topics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 25, 1999 Report Share Posted March 25, 1999 Hi Gene, How well you have described the dynamics and process. It really brings to my mind how quickly I respond in conditioned, 'family' ways without giving much thought to the why and how of the response. Thanks you very much for dissecting this process and making it understandable. Another reminder to be mindful. Love, Judy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 25, 1999 Report Share Posted March 25, 1999 Gemini wrote: > extroversion does not lead to understanding Self. On the contrary, > introversion is the way. Extroversion. Introversion. Each the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 25, 1999 Report Share Posted March 25, 1999 Look 'out'. Look 'within'. Only Self. Gemini wrote: > Quite the contrary. Extroversion deals with sense objects and the senses. Introversion > involves withdrawing the senses from sense objects, stilling the mind and turning > inward. Both with very different results. LM > > > David Bozzi <david.bozzi > < > > Friday, March 26, 1999 3:07 AM > Re: Gene Poole > Gemini wrote: > > > extroversion does not lead to understanding Self. On the contrary, > > introversion is the way. > > Extroversion. > Introversion. > Each the same. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 26, 1999 Report Share Posted March 26, 1999 Magus, Thank you for the excellent exposition on the psychology of group dynamics. You underscore two important points with clarity and abundance of information: extroversion does not lead to understanding Self. On the contrary, introversion is the way. Others may serve as an occasional rudder, but the voyage is highly individual and uniquely your own. The human language and dichotomising thought constructs will not lead to an understanding of that which is neither of multiplicity, or under the authority of spoken language. Gross speech is terminally inadequate and in fact an innapropriate means for understanding the Divine Principle. One is not going to "understand" the Divine principle with the fourfold psychic instrument. It must be "lived within." Even this is terribly inadequate language, but must do. Much light M ==Gene Poole== <magus < > Friday, March 26, 1999 12:10 AM Re: Gene Poole magus (==Gene Poole==) Re: ==Gene Poole== My contribution has been solicited... It was written; > Wed, 24 Mar 1999 > "Harsha (Dr. Harsh K. Luthar)" <hluthar > Re: Gene Poole > > ---Original Message--- > Gloria Greco [lodpress] Sent: > Wednesday, March 24, 1999 4:26 PM > > Re: Thanks and Welcome back > > Gloria Greco <lodpress > > Dharma wrote: > > > > I'll put in my vote right now. Tim has his second chance > now. If he > starts the same kind of abuse again, he > should go. > > > Let's make it a safe place for our fellowshipŠ a safe > place for people > to talk, to gather in satsanghŠ > > > Gloria: > I agree he is in his second chance, but lets give him the > beneÞt of the doubt and not project that he can't observe > and let go so that this doesn't replay. > Love is the bottom line here, knowing Harsha as I do, lets > bring that love together so that rather then chase him out > or put him down, we lift him up. It is easy to assume the > worst when this is work of spirit, miracles happen at > every turn. > > Harsha: Thank you Dharma and Gloria for making some > excellent points. Both Linda and Chris earlier spoke > clearly as well. M or M made a good point in suggesting > that attention seeking behavior can be discouraged by > simply not paying attention to it. I hope that Gene Poole, > a very wise person, will speak to this issue. I invite > others to speak freely as well, if they should so choose. > I will listen carefully and try to learn from all of what > you have to say. > > Everyone certainly deserves a second chance. We all make > mistakes. However we want to avoid situations where > history repeats itself again and again. This list is all > about being in a Satsangha, a sacred fellowship. It means > we need to love and respect each other. Our posts should > reþect that philosophy. Thank you, Harsha, for inviting me. What comes to mind, is that one who is branded as 'out-tribe', lives on the periphery, always looking in and longing to be included in the tribe. I must remember, however, that the banishment of one is actually the banishment of all; which 'group' is actually 'cast out'? A mere majority never makes 'right', and being in a minority does not guarantee 'wrong'. That being said, I have a sense that if and when one such 'singleton' shows up, that we are already sensing the 'out-tribe' status of that one; indeed, such an outcast, carries their banishment as a creed, while always hoping for a miracle of reversal of the situation. I am reminded of the 'hippies' who became 'yuppies', and henceforth quit blaming 'the establishment' as soon as they were accepted back into the tribe that they had rebelled against. What is going on here, as I have seen, is a direct emanation of 'family enmeshment', of 'co-dependence'; who is 'family' and who is 'not-family' is decided by the Great Father, the OverLord Patriarch. It is natural for an outcast from the family, to proclaim themself to be The Father, and so then to rank and punish other 'family members'. Again, this theme has been consistantly seen by me in my observing and dealing with 'chronic outsiders' or the 'singleton'. To be a 'singleton' is seemingly punishment in itself; but please consider this. If one is an outcast by choice, by acceptance, by habit, if one actually lives that life, I say that the outcast is an outcast because the 'main culture' is too toxic for them to bear. It is granted that such outcasts 'act out' the misuse of authority that originally wounded themselves; and that they thus project this 'authoritarian wounding' upon those who seem unwilling to allow them to be The Father. Nobody wants to live under the thumb of an authoritarian, toxic rulership; if such a rulership has wounded one, one then inevitably 'acts out' their pain and grief by the same methodology of the original wounder, the Great Father. Many people seek a 'Non-Toxic Great Father", and never suceed in finding one; this failure to find the 'perfect master' is not the failing of any master, but is instead based upon the assumption that such a Being exists. The search is doomed from the beginning, leaving one alone to contemplate what may one day become a wordless acceptance of oneself as the basis of what is. How is it, that one has this vision, this assumption, of one who is so perfect and good? I propose this to consider; that one who has been _controlled through threat of banishment_, is one who has the idea that there is someone 'better' than themself, and thus is birthed the model of the 'perfect master'. Yes, the 'perfect master' is (an unknown) who is 'better than me'. One who has been traumatically criticised for not being 'good enough' is one who seeks that one who is 'better'. And it is now a cliche, that one who seeks one who is better, eventually finds that one as themself. It all fits together, it is all one big picture, and we can see it if we momentarily abondon momentum and abide for a while. The more fiercely one who is an outcast is engaged in attacking, the quicker they will expend their own resources, and find that the battle is moot; such a one will find themself embarassed to be seen shadow-boxing, self-hypnotized into a fury of blaming and scapegoating. This being so, is it compassion to engage the attacker in such a way that their own momentum toward their own direction is unimpeded, if not gracefully accellerated, such as in Aikido. The 'final lesson' can happen in an instant, relieving the 'attacker' of the burden of further attacking behaviour. In this regard, 'mastery' is both yielding and guiding, bringing the one who is moving into conscious awareness of their own momentum and direction. It is at this point that the aggressor realizes that their momentum and direction are a 'bad fit'; one or the other must be immediatly neutralized in order to survive. When this is seen, a person may either slow down, stop, or change directions, or any combination of these modifications. It is a gift to me, when someone has skillfully done this to me. It is humiliating, but I acknowledge that there are beings wiser than me, more powerful than I am, and with more experience as well. I will say as well, that there is probably no virtue in 'defending against' such an attacker; I suggest that the use of conscious symbiosis will absorb the 'outcast' into the extant 'tribe' or family or community. However, such acceptance or incorporation of a wounded one, brings also the pain of that wounding. Such pain, acted-out reactively, tends to set off reverberating 'echos' of that pain. Such pain, when shared, also elicits every 'version' of advice, as well as every sort of imagined 'band-aid' and other 'fixes' for that pain. The existential pain of Being has no remedy; if toxic history can be sacrificed (eaten and digested, a 'living sacrifice'), this exquisite pain, which has given license to so many martyred idealists, will be interpreted instead as vast pleasure, called 'bliss'. To eat one's 'toxic history' is to incorporate into oneself, that which has been rejected/divorced/abondoned. It is properly used as fuel, to fire the furnace of life. As such toxic material is consumed by the flames of metabolism, the energy produced fuels a further growth _out_ of the 'lifestyle' of suffering. Finally, one must acknowledge that they have been attached to their suffering, as embodied justification for 'seeking justice' and 'telling truth' to 'masses of ignorant unbelievers'. It is those very 'masses' who comprise the 'tribe' to which the 'outsider' is preaching, and thus is attempting to lead. One of the problems with these 'spiritually-oriented' lists, is the (usually) heavy overlay of 'what is correct' versus 'what is incorrect', also seen as 'getting it' versus 'not getting it' or 'being a mile off the mark'. While some people are having fun, patiently playing with others, the diehard idealists among us insist that there is 'only one way' and 'only one appropriate language' in which that 'way' should be expressed. This behaviour is pretty much a constant, because it reflects the assumptions of the 'seeker', that there is something to 'seek' or to 'get', and that there is thus a 'proper way to seek' or get. All such practices are by nature _exclusive_ IE exclusionary, and thus are a 'red flag', waving in the face of one who has been living life in 'exile'. Do you get this point? Exclusive behaviour has become toxic to one who has _already_ been excluded and lives as a 'singleton' as a result. Such a one, will 'punish' by exerting this very 'excluding' behaviour upon those who are 'guilty' of exclusion. This is a constant fissioning/splitting/fractioning which can only result in 'the smallest particle and then nothing'. It is almost impossible to establish clear, productive communication between the 'seeker' and the other; the 'seeker' tends to be an idealist, who sees the 'nonseeking behaviour' of the other, as a flaw of character, an error of mind, or an emantion of some other ghastly deficiency. We may refer to the seeker as being 'hungry' for what they have been punished into leaving behind. Nobody can give this to anyone, each must find what they have 'excluded' and make their peace with each disparate particle. This goes for relationship between persons, as well as for 'particles of self' which have been judged and rejected. We should also be aware that language, as it is usually used in speech and thought, is based upon grammatical 'filters' which exclude objects and catagories of objects in order to create catagories and thus identify objects. Our language 'automatically' 'singles out' (objectifies) each thing to be defined, and is thus usually exclusive/exclusionary in execution; for example, 'nonduality' defines only duality, and in that definition, by describing (the nondual) by defining it as what _it is not_, sets us up to follow the path of 'not this, not that', which itself leads to 'me' as the 'realizer', but wastes time and creates a lot of smoke and engenders bushels of false assumptions along the way. It is no wonder that an intelligent person can see this, and thus feel perhaps justified in criticising 'it', even going so far as to assert that 'if it cannot be described, it cannot be'. In fact, if I state that "there is something that is indefinable", it is inevitable that someone will demand that I tell them 'what it is'. Our language does not entertain secrets. I would venture to say, that a majority of those who to these lists, have been through a long ordeal of rejection and of being misunderstood by others. Seeking and finding 'truth' is thus a priority, as is being acknowledged as 'living in that truth'. Such a defined one is defined as 'good', and is thus now 'in-tribe', as defined by others and as understood by the standards of standard language. That someone would be able to see right through this little ritual of 'symbolic inclusion' is not too astonishing to me. But this is not to say that we have nothing worthwhile to say; indeed, we all long to be free of the flypaper of what 'ego' sticks to, and to be able to fly free, and to also be seen by our peers (tribe and family) as being free. If then, anyone says to someone, "you are not free", that is the ultimate insult and perhaps also the ultimate challenge; in reacting to that challenge, the impulse to _destroy_ the one who insults, may indeed arise. Again, this is all, in my opinion, a matter of _family_ and tribal affilliation. It is about who is 'Big Father' and who is at the bottom of the veritable totem-pole. Because this is so, we all respond in our own 'family way'. It is not unusual to see the varieties of 'family way' displayed as _punishment, banishment, mockery, shaming_, etc... as well as the varieties of 'love' which are anything but love. I think you know what I am pointing out here, yes? And then there are those who, reading this long and elaborate posting, will say that all such considerations are properly subsumed by some greater principle of wisdom; while such is true, it is equally true that what I have said, can be said, and may be of some use to someone, at some time. Let me know how this strikes you, and feel free to quote only the parts which are relevant to your reply. Always here, ==Gene Poole== "Community is the sharing of the burden of personality" . ------ If you like orange and blue, then you will love our new web site! Onelist: Fostering connections and information exchange Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 26, 1999 Report Share Posted March 26, 1999 Gemini wrote: > Never will the aspirant achieve Self by looking for it in sense objects and > with the senses. This is a simple truth. > Agreed. I'd expand by saying Self can't be 'achieved' . The aspirant is a delusion. : ) By bringing together inner and outer with awareness there's an expansiveness. Something, someone transcends, encompasses inner/outter. Boundary dissolves in the fire of awareness. Include everything. Surrender is vital. But also required is devotion to this fire. So there's an element of effort too. > Once established in the Self, your statement is exact. > We are Self. Are we devoted to remembering when we forget? David (amnesiac aspirant) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 26, 1999 Report Share Posted March 26, 1999 At 10:27 PM 3/25/99 -0500, you wrote: >>>> Look 'out'. Look 'within'. Only Self. This is Truth... yet I'm reminded of the words of Sri Nisargadatta Marahaj: When the 'I am myself' goes, the 'I am all' comes. When the 'I am all' goes, 'I am' comes. When even 'I am' goes, reality alone IS... It seems to me that looking within can be more productive to seeing Self than looking "out," at least when initially "starting" on the level of maya. When looking from the "level of Self" (neither in nor out), all is Self. ----- The CORE of Reality awaits you at: http://www.eskimo.com/~fewtch/ND/index.html - Poetry, Writings, Live Chat on spiritual topics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 26, 1999 Report Share Posted March 26, 1999 Quite the contrary. Extroversion deals with sense objects and the senses. Introversion involves withdrawing the senses from sense objects, stilling the mind and turning inward. Both with very different results. L M David Bozzi <david.bozzi < > Friday, March 26, 1999 3:07 AM Re: Gene Poole Gemini wrote: > extroversion does not lead to understanding Self. On the contrary, > introversion is the way. Extroversion. Introversion. Each the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 26, 1999 Report Share Posted March 26, 1999 Look 'out'. Look 'within'. Only Self. There is only Shiva. One is not born, with few exceptions, established in this principle. Never will the aspirant achieve Self by looking for it in sense objects and with the senses. This is a simple truth. Once established in the Self, your statement is exact. L M Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 26, 1999 Report Share Posted March 26, 1999 David, Thats a right on. Once "liberated" the aspirant sees with clarity that there was never anything to be "liberated" from. The Self is found, which was never lost. A Cosmic "gotcha" : ) L M David Bozzi <david.bozzi < > Friday, March 26, 1999 7:53 AM Re: Gene Poole Gemini wrote: Never will the aspirant achieve Self by looking for it in sense objects and with the senses. This is a simple truth. Agreed. I'd expand by saying Self can't be 'achieved' . The aspirant is a delusion. : ) By bringing together inner and outer with awareness there's an expansiveness. Something, someone transcends, encompasses inner/outter. Boundary dissolves in the fire of awareness. Include everything. Surrender is vital. But also required is devotion to this fire. So there's an element of effort too. Once established in the Self, your statement is exact. We are Self. Are we devoted to remembering when we forget? David (amnesiac aspirant) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 26, 1999 Report Share Posted March 26, 1999 > magus (==Gene Poole==) [...] > What comes to mind, is that one who is branded as 'out-tribe', > lives on the > periphery, always looking in and longing to be included in the tribe. > > I must remember, however, that the banishment of one is actually the > banishment of all; which 'group' is actually 'cast out'? > > A mere majority never makes 'right', and being in a minority does not > guarantee 'wrong'. Correct, there are cases where the minority claims to be right because of a position of power and the majority isn't right too. > That being said, I have a sense that if and when one such > 'singleton' shows > up, that we are already sensing the 'out-tribe' status of that > one; indeed, > such an outcast, carries their banishment as a creed, while always hoping > for a miracle of reversal of the situation. I am reminded of the 'hippies' > who became 'yuppies', and henceforth quit blaming 'the establishment' as > soon as they were accepted back into the tribe that they had rebelled > against. Perhaps this was true for the US. In Europe, it could be observed both hippie and yuppie were "ego" based. So when being hippie didn't bring anything, the switch to yuppie was easy as this would at least bring money. In fact, the former hippies were zealous to make up for the "time lost". > What is going on here, as I have seen, is a direct emanation of 'family > enmeshment', of 'co-dependence'; who is 'family' and who is > 'not-family' is > decided by the Great Father, the OverLord Patriarch. It is natural for an > outcast from the family, to proclaim themself to be The Father, > and so then > to rank and punish other 'family members'. Again, this theme has been > consistantly seen by me in my observing and dealing with 'chronic > outsiders' or the 'singleton'. > > To be a 'singleton' is seemingly punishment in itself; but please consider > this. If one is an outcast by choice, by acceptance, by habit, if one > actually lives that life, I say that the outcast is an outcast because the > 'main culture' is too toxic for them to bear. It is granted that such > outcasts 'act out' the misuse of authority that originally wounded > themselves; and that they thus project this 'authoritarian wounding' upon > those who seem unwilling to allow them to be The Father. As the desire to be part of a community is a common meme, who would want be an outcast - outcast by choice? It could mean one's well-being doesn't depend on culture and it could even denote someone "well mannered". By habit is a different matter altogether; habit forms by repetition so there must have been a cause for it. No one can accept to be an outcast unless there is a reason why society isn't worthwhile; without a reason, there is no acceptance but suppression of feelings > Nobody wants to live under the thumb of an authoritarian, toxic rulership; > if such a rulership has wounded one, one then inevitably 'acts out' their > pain and grief by the same methodology of the original wounder, the Great > Father. Things are a bit more complicated. History shows there were "beloved" dictators, having brought prosperity even to occupied countries and nevertheless "hated" in those occupied countries. But if one sees sequences like: "the Chinese suffered from the Japanese and the British, look how they treat Tibetans; the Jews suffered for ages, culminating in the holocaust, look how the Palestinians were thrown out" one is tempted to see a pattern that can easily be extrapolated. In personal relations the same can happen too and it sometimes can lead to a mild sentence in criminal offense because of unaccountableness due too "bad youth". The "ingredient" for this to happen is a desire for revenge because of injustice. > Many people seek a 'Non-Toxic Great Father", and never suceed in finding > one; this failure to find the 'perfect master' is not the failing of any > master, but is instead based upon the assumption that such a Being exists. > The search is doomed from the beginning, leaving one alone to contemplate > what may one day become a wordless acceptance of oneself as the basis of > what is. The assumption is fueled a great deal due to the idealization of gurus in Indian lore. Contempt will arise when reading how some of them are behaving but it won't stop the search. > How is it, that one has this vision, this assumption, of one who is so > perfect and good? I would propose it is the "radiation" of one's real nature trickling through; the interpretation of it will depend on circumstances. I propose this to consider; that one who has been > _controlled through threat of banishment_, is one who has the idea that > there is someone 'better' than themself, and thus is birthed the model of > the 'perfect master'. But this "being better than me" is an accepted fact of life; isn't the entry level for Mensa-members an IQ of 140 or more? No matter how great one's skills, in the course of events someone will be considered "better". Yes, the 'perfect master' is (an unknown) who is > 'better than me'. It is quite possible the "perfect master" is the outward projection of what trickles through from one's real nature but isn't recognized as such. One who has been traumatically criticized for not being > 'good enough' is one who seeks that one who is 'better'. And it is now a > cliche, that one who seeks one who is better, eventually finds that one as > themself. It all fits together, it is all one big picture, and we can see > it if we momentarily abondon momentum and abide for a while. It can be observed, that some will take up a hobby or so and find out the judgment of "not being good enough" was rather narrow minded (and limited). One can only accept the "not being good enough" as a "truth" when the person saying so is seen as a kind of example. Someone, seeing that the authoritarian father actually has quite a few flaws, then seeing these flaws in others as well, is for ever immune to authority. > > The more fiercely one who is an outcast is engaged in attacking, the > quicker they will expend their own resources, and find that the battle is > moot; such a one will find themself embarassed to be seen shadow-boxing, > self-hypnotized into a fury of blaming and scapegoating. Wouldn't it be difficult to be sure of this on a mailing list? Doesn't this require too much seriousness? For several members, even the famous designers secret "by trial and error" will leave no doubt to what is happening: a puzzle with a few parts missing This being so, is > it compassion to engage the attacker in such a way that their own momentum > toward their own direction is unimpeded, if not gracefully accellerated, > such as in Aikido. The 'final lesson' can happen in an instant, relieving > the 'attacker' of the burden of further attacking behaviour. In this > regard, 'mastery' is both yielding and guiding, bringing the one who is > moving into conscious awareness of their own momentum and direction. It is > at this point that the aggressor realizes that their momentum and > direction > are a 'bad fit'; one or the other must be immediatly neutralized in order > to survive. When this is seen, a person may either slow down, stop, or > change directions, or any combination of these modifications. It is a gift > to me, when someone has skillfully done this to me. It is humiliating, but > I acknowledge that there are beings wiser than me, more powerful > than I am, > and with more experience as well. In the case of traumatization, it is likely one isn't aware of one's behavior being experienced as aggressive. This is a reason for a short-cut in communications systems. In an E-mail forum without further contacts, if someone's shows a "non-standard" behavior, one can't know the reason; trauma and illness are just two cases where the dictum "no blaming, no forgiving" is rather practical. > I will say as well, that there is probably no virtue in > 'defending against' > such an attacker; I suggest that the use of conscious symbiosis > will absorb > the 'outcast' into the extant 'tribe' or family or community. > However, such > acceptance or incorporation of a wounded one, brings also the pain of that > wounding. Such pain, acted-out reactively, tends to set off reverberating > 'echos' of that pain. Such pain, when shared, also elicits every 'version' > of advice, as well as every sort of imagined 'band-aid' and other 'fixes' > for that pain. The existential pain of Being has no remedy; if toxic > history can be sacrificed (eaten and digested, a 'living sacrifice'), this > exquisite pain, which has given license to so many martyred > idealists, will > be interpreted instead as vast pleasure, called 'bliss'. In practice, this would mean to recognize someone as "attacker". I doubt this is what happens. I remember the "real time" battle between the Korean monks recently; all what remained from Zen were the sticks ))) The first thing to learn is that "personal" is an illusion; the Impersonal has (exchangeable) assets. In essence, the Pope isn't holier than a lady from the red-light district. If one feels "bad" in any way, it merely shows the existence of "veils". The mentioned dictum and ignore could be a remedy. > To eat one's 'toxic history' is to incorporate into oneself, that > which has > been rejected/divorced/abondoned. It is properly used as fuel, to fire the > furnace of life. As such toxic material is consumed by the flames of > metabolism, the energy produced fuels a further growth _out_ of the > 'lifestyle' of suffering. Finally, one must acknowledge that they > have been > attached to their suffering, as embodied justification for 'seeking > justice' and 'telling truth' to 'masses of ignorant unbelievers'. It is > those very 'masses' who comprise the 'tribe' to which the 'outsider' is > preaching, and thus is attempting to lead. > > One of the problems with these 'spiritually-oriented' lists, is the > (usually) heavy overlay of 'what is correct' versus 'what is incorrect', > also seen as 'getting it' versus 'not getting it' or 'being a mile off the > mark'. While some people are having fun, patiently playing with others, > the diehard idealists among us insist that there is 'only one way' and > 'only one appropriate language' in which that 'way' should be expressed. > This behaviour is pretty much a constant, because it reflects the > assumptions of the 'seeker', that there is something to 'seek' or > to 'get', > and that there is thus a 'proper way to seek' or get. Correct vs. incorrect is only possible on an intellectual level; on the "astral" level I am reminded of someone who once analyzed Harsha's aura from a photo ) The various spiritual lists have differences. Some are limited to one brand of philosophy, some are limited to one issue (experience, philosophy, realization), others can be focused on secondary phenomena (side effects). The mechanisms that operate in a live Satsang are absent; I doubt anyone would exchange his/her Guru for the Internet So it doesn't come as a surprise that interpretations based on words will differ from the interpretation of the same words when spoken in a live interactive Satsang, unless one has an Internet Satsang with one's Guru. > All such practices are by nature _exclusive_ IE exclusionary, and thus are > a 'red flag', waving in the face of one who has been living life in > 'exile'. Do you get this point? Exclusive behaviour has become > toxic to one > who has _already_ been excluded and lives as a 'singleton' as a result. > Such a one, will 'punish' by exerting this very 'excluding' behaviour upon > those who are 'guilty' of exclusion. This is a constant > fissioning/splitting/fractioning which can only result in 'the smallest > particle and then nothing'. In an E-mail forum, this would mean those with a different native language would be targeted first, as they are exclusively " talking funny". Someone parroting scriptures would an easy prey too, analogous to TV preachers, doing what they are preaching as don't. > It is almost impossible to establish clear, productive communication > between the 'seeker' and the other; the 'seeker' tends to be an idealist, > who sees the 'nonseeking behaviour' of the other, as a flaw of character, > an error of mind, or an emantion of some other ghastly deficiency. We may > refer to the seeker as being 'hungry' for what they have been > punished into > leaving behind. Nobody can give this to anyone, each must find what they > have 'excluded' and make their peace with each disparate particle. This > goes for relationship between persons, as well as for 'particles of self' > which have been judged and rejected. It seems to me a seeker is insecure but not an idealist per se, perhaps dreamer comes closer. There is much of a distance between being insecure and having fear; when someone nullifies the few "securities" that are present, fear can turn into anger. > We should also be aware that language, as it is usually used in speech and > thought, is based upon grammatical 'filters' which exclude objects and > catagories of objects in order to create catagories and thus identify > objects. Our language 'automatically' 'singles out' (objectifies) each > thing to be defined, and is thus usually exclusive/exclusionary in > execution; for example, 'nonduality' defines only duality, and in that > definition, by describing (the nondual) by defining it as what > _it is not_, > sets us up to follow the path of 'not this, not that', which itself leads > to 'me' as the 'realizer', Not necessarily; it is quite possible to be well versed in scriptures so any phrase can even be checked on the proper syntax. In that case, under "attack" the behavior of the philosopher would contradict the scriptures. It is understandable that thinking to have "exposed" such a one would result in euphoria. but wastes time and creates a lot of smoke and > engenders bushels of false assumptions along the way. It is no wonder that > an intelligent person can see this, and thus feel perhaps justified in > criticising 'it', even going so far as to assert that 'if it cannot be > described, it cannot be'. This could be interpreted as being a plea for "original" expressions, using quotes only when they are "best choice". In fact, if I state that "there is > something that > is indefinable", it is inevitable that someone will demand that I > tell them > 'what it is'. Our language does not entertain secrets. So analogies are used, like one can't experience air either, only effects from its absence and its properties like moving, carrying fragrance, stink, visibility ( disabled by smoke). The question is: do we have to make a "list bible" where this all is neatly explained? > I would venture to say, that a majority of those who to these > lists, have been through a long ordeal of rejection and of being > misunderstood by others. Another reason is that in Western society individualism is advanced to a point where E-mail penpals are preferred over live ones. The threshold in a virtual forum is much lower than in a live one; no travel and accessibility on demand are important factors too. Seeking and finding 'truth' is thus a > priority, as > is being acknowledged as 'living in that truth'. Such a defined one is > defined as 'good', and is thus now 'in-tribe', as defined by others and as > understood by the standards of standard language. That someone would be > able to see right through this little ritual of 'symbolic > inclusion' is not > too astonishing to me. But this is not to say that we have nothing > worthwhile to say; indeed, we all long to be free of the flypaper of what > 'ego' sticks to, and to be able to fly free, and to also be seen by our > peers (tribe and family) as being free. I doubt that being free from the flypaper is the main reason; the desire is for lasting happiness. > If then, anyone says to someone, "you are not free", that is the ultimate > insult and perhaps also the ultimate challenge; in reacting to that > challenge, the impulse to _destroy_ the one who insults, may indeed arise. > Again, this is all, in my opinion, a matter of _family_ and tribal > affilliation. It is about who is 'Big Father' and who is at the bottom of > the veritable totem-pole. Yet it surprises me, as regularly someone remarks about student and teacher being equal. Perhaps it would be appropriate to mention in a guideline that feelings of being hurt, offended, insulted etc. denote the existence of ego, so one should be grateful for the reminder. Another matter is that of style. Some NG's are notorious for "professional" flaming and if one uses a style, even remotely reminding of it, the response is predictable. > Because this is so, we all respond in our own 'family way'. It is not > unusual to see the varieties of 'family way' displayed as _punishment, > banishment, mockery, shaming_, etc... as well as the varieties of 'love' > which are anything but love. I think you know what I am pointing > out here, > yes? I wonder if this goes for all of us. From early life on, "my way" was to avoid "family life" whenever I could. Perhaps it still is noticeable. How it worked out for others is outside the scope of my experience. > And then there are those who, reading this long and elaborate > posting, will > say that all such considerations are properly subsumed by some greater > principle of wisdom; while such is true, it is equally true that what I > have said, can be said, and may be of some use to someone, at some time. > > Let me know how this strikes you, and feel free to quote only the parts > which are relevant to your reply. > > Always here, > > ==Gene Poole== > > "Community is the sharing of the burden of personality" Rather vaguely I can remember a little of the "scholarship" required for anti-war activists. One of the issues was how humiliation, utter fatigue, bad food, suppression of sexuality, could turn men into robot-like soldiers who would obey like dogs; no questions asked. Apparently in a family, the same can happen. When it is clear in a NG or a mailing list there isn't any authority and no actions can be undertaken against one, it is possible all suppressed feelings will come to the surface and get discharged. The discharge is what gives satisfaction. Jan 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.