Guest guest Posted June 9, 1999 Report Share Posted June 9, 1999 In a message dated 6/9/99 11:16:22 AM Eastern Daylight Time, fewtch writes: > It should be noted that "arrogance" is a quality of the "me" (ego) only, > and should disappear upon realization. Maybe... maybe not. Realization of who? You or me? >Despite the admitted tendency of > the jnani to sometimes speak in an arrogant manner (which I freely admit > as being true), arrogance should not affect those who do not tend to > REACT rather than QUESTION. Agreed. I would add though, that *arrogance (*whoever interprets it as arrogance in the ego-sense as you did... including the self-proclaimed arrogant speaker) is the one *reacting*. Tim, you do not need the defense of the jnani to be who you are. >Those who respond to arrogance with a severe > emotional reaction need to assess what kind of authority figures they had > in their past that made them overly sensitive to those who speak from the > gut. Bringing the past to the present? If reacting, the past is already tHere. Allow the past that is here to be surrendered to the present. With the *present* understanding nothing really matters and arrogance is no more (even for the arrogant). Love,xxxtg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 9, 1999 Report Share Posted June 9, 1999 HEY!! LeTeeGee.. giggling.. so your name upgraded to french.. HUGs.. nice to see you around again.. Love, flute LeTeegee wrote: > > LeTeegee > > In a message dated 6/9/99 11:16:22 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > fewtch writes: > > > It should be noted that "arrogance" is a quality of the "me" (ego) only, > > and should disappear upon realization. > > Maybe... maybe not. Realization of who? You or me? > > >Despite the admitted tendency of > > the jnani to sometimes speak in an arrogant manner (which I freely admit > > as being true), arrogance should not affect those who do not tend to > > REACT rather than QUESTION. > > Agreed. I would add though, that *arrogance (*whoever interprets it as > arrogance in the ego-sense as you did... including the self-proclaimed > arrogant speaker) is the one *reacting*. > > Tim, you do not need the defense of the jnani to be who you are. > > >Those who respond to arrogance with a severe > > emotional reaction need to assess what kind of authority figures they had > > in their past that made them overly sensitive to those who speak from the > > gut. > > Bringing the past to the present? > If reacting, the past is already tHere. > Allow the past that is here > to be surrendered to the present. > > With the *present* understanding > nothing really matters > and arrogance is no more > (even for the arrogant). > > Love,xxxtg > > ------ > Looking for your kindred spirit? > > Go to ONElist: where kindred spirits connect and stay connected. -- flute http://www.create.org/healingarts/reiki.htm http://www.create.org/bbs - For Updates on REIKI HB 367 "The same stream of life that runs through my veins night and day runs through the world and dances in rhythmic measures." R. Tagore Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 9, 1999 Report Share Posted June 9, 1999 Greg Goode wrote:n ....... As far as bhakti and jnana not going together, > there are several outstanding counterexamples to this. More could be > added if we talked about more examples: > > -Shankara, who wrote devotional poetry > -Ramana, supremely devoted to the mountain Arunachala > -Nisargadatta, who performed puja twice a day to (I'm not sure to > whom/what) > -Ramakrishna, who is usually considered a tantric Kali worshipper but > who evinced great Knowledge > > I'd say that these two paths converge more and more, till at last they > meet. After all, the bhakta says there's nothing but Love or that > particular devotional object (at the lower levels they might say > there's also "me loving It"); the jnana practitioner says there's > nothing but That. How can they not agree? The Sat-Chit-Ananda > non-qualifying attributes of Brahman serve to remind practitioners of > the equivalence among the Being/Consciousness/Love aspects. Yes. Nisargadatta used to put it this way: 'When I see that I am Nothing, that is wisdom; when I see that I am Everything, that is Love.' Can it be said any better than that? Jelke. 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.