the Dreaming River

[Guest guest]

On 7/31/02 at 10:45 PM dan330033 wrote:

 

º> The use of adjectives for what doesn't need them is a source of

ºhumor.

º> The expression of what doesn't need it is counted by the amount of

º> objects reminding of that :-)

º>

º> Jan

º

ºHi Jan --

º

ºIt is so.

º

ºNo expression of what has no need

º to demonstrate, and no adjectives

º that can attach, so what fine

º attributes will be provided?

 

The fine attributes of non-attribution?

º

ºThe river unfolds of itself; where

º will a fish find time for admiration

º or a place in which to find a reflection?

 

A fish will find time for admiration, served in a dish.

A place for reflection on the consumer's eyes.

 

Jan

º

º-- Dan

[Guest guest]

, "ecirada" <janb@a...> wrote:

>The use of adjectives for what doesn't need them is a source of

humor.

 

 

))) Humor is the activity of Buddha.

 

>The expression of what doesn't need it is counted by the amount of

objects reminding of that :-)

 

 

)))) Who's counting?

 

 

Dear Brother,

 

Isn't it curious how some are convinced that it is necessary to sever

another's head in order to appear taller to themselves?

For example, many historical religions and philosophical systems

suggest, and even presuppose, a distinction between so-called Divine

Love and Human Love, often assigning some particular status to one

over and against the other. Most of these conceptual programs may

even deny or poo poo the possibility of simultaneous interpenetration

and, indeed, prior union, which is the Nature of Love as it unfolds

within space/time. Some may attribute a particular arbitrary and

conditional significance to their own interpretation of perception

and attendent notionality in this regard, creating the inevitable

belief in, and fixation on, an identity which ensues. The separative

sense of self is referenced to a presumed center, thereby further

enhancing a belief in division (within being) which was initially

promted by its habitual recoil from Life, or What Is. This becomes a

self-perpetuating loop, fed by the elaboration of societal myths

which are geared towards that very presupposition of man's separation

from God, as well as the microcosmic conflict within the body/mind

organism itself, where the dreamy split is cored. A recent example

here might be the assumption that "hot endorphins" are something

other than the perfect expression of very Divine, while the pondering

of frogs and soap bubbles might be a truer or superior approach to

the inquiry into one's original nature. Many even get disturbed by

the way others might choose to worship and express, in their own

unique and perhaps adjectival way, heart-felt praise of the limitless

wonder and kiss of Love. Of course, extremes of this separative

activity are seen in the current global conflicts raging between

opposing and intolerant adversaries, but perhaps it can be seen that

this all stems from something akin to an innocent misunderstanding

about identification and the nature of consciousness. Perhaps not

yet. Or "perhaps some day you'll join us, and the world can live as

one."

 

LoveAlways,

 

b

[Guest guest]

I must confess that although I savvy *namaste* - it is on a completely

different level. And these rednecks round here are all looking for a

"significant other", which doesn't work for me either. But I don't

understand this "burning love for everybody" - burning love - same

flame, etc. and it's making me cry because I really feel like I'm

missing something out, either that or everyone is being deliberately

cruel, which I doubt. How can someone be mated and still have burning

love for all the other men and women? What kind of love is that? Is it

agape the kind of love withheld for God, or is it real love for the

person as a person? I mean - noone knows me and as such no one loves me

and so I assume it is a love where the loved one is known by the lover

and returned by samesaid lover - so - what kind of love is that? Are we

talkin "romantic love" here? Or is it an especially hot "brotherly love"

which I am missing out on?

Is it a level one reaches after so many years of prayer and meditation?

Either way - it feels to me as if someone has gutted me with a fish

knife and my insides are spilling out, and the pain of the non-stop

tears, so I guess I don't get it.

Have a pleasant evening.

valerie

[Guest guest]

, shawn <shawn@w...> wrote:

>Satsang is company, therefore let us put this advaita not-two talk

away. It seems sometimes like some One is trying to one upmanship

another...why should this be if there's only one? Who would it be

that complains of adjectives, ...me thinks me smells an ego.....

 

Perhaps One with no other is only a "phase."

 

 

)))) Dear Brother,

 

You ought to be the one called "Laser", since you have deftly cut

through the barricades once more wearily erected by the Non-dual

Police, intent on preserving the "No", exclusive of the recognition

that "Yes" is also a form in which Freedom manifests.

You may recall an essay over at the Adya forum in which we discussed

the evolution of Consciousness. I may copy it here (in a subsequent

post tomorrow) for those interested, in which the various points of

view (phases) or states (Formless, Unity, Egoic, etc.) all could be

realized to dance together simultaneously, rather than being clung to

exclusive of the others. In other words, the Natural State, which is

a Way of Living that the presumption of limitation on Love cannot

persist long in.

It is also something that Dear Wim alludes to, and is a rather new

paradigm emerging, liberating the entrenched doctrinal provincialism

which has stigmatized the legacy of Communion and Awakening.

 

LoveAlways,

 

b

[Guest guest]

, v <amused@p...> wrote:

>I must confess that although I savvy *namaste* - it is on a

completely different level.

 

)))) each one seems to enjoy a variation on the theme, each in their

own way.

 

 

 

> And these rednecks round here are all looking for a

"significant other", which doesn't work for me either.

 

 

))) perhaps one never really knows what "works for me",

but it is common to assume so, until one attempts to

determine who the the hell this "me" is, and what it is

that's looking.

 

 

>But I don't understand this "burning love for everybody" -

 

 

)))) it is not a matter of understanding, or of some kind of

strategic manipulation of circumstances or interpretations on

perception. what happens is that "you" are taken. when resistence to

what life wants to do with you first becomes suspect, then is

investigated, and then recognized to be simply a way you have been

pinching yourself, a good deal of the previously conflicted energy

converts to literal transformation, often expressed as heart-opening,

but truly indescribable with words. In some mystical musings, the

metaphor of "burning" has been used to reference certain phases,

which mainly represents a narrative of the actual felt experience of

submission to Beloved at the Heart.

 

>burning love - same flame, etc. and it's making me cry because I

really feel like I'm missing something out, either that or everyone

is being deliberately cruel, which I doubt.

 

 

)))) that feeling of "missing out" is the yearning. if one follows

that yearning to its source, the Beloved is always standing Radiant

before you, Welcoming!

> How can someone be mated and still have burning

love for all the other men and women? What kind of love is that? Is it

agape the kind of love withheld for God, or is it real love for the

person as a person? I mean - noone knows me and as such no one loves

me and so I assume it is a love where the loved one is known by the

lover and returned by samesaid lover - so - what kind of love is

that? Are we talkin "romantic love" here? Or is it an especially

hot "brotherly love" which I am missing out on?

 

 

)))) your natural curiosity is a blessing!

it is like a loving guide, and somtimes like a chauffer.

Images of what we presume Love to be all eventually give way to a

kind of resting in a Mystery beyond any comprehension, no longer

predisposed to superimpose limitation on what Love wants to do

through and as us, whether it be to burn or cool.

 

>Is it a level one reaches after so many years of prayer and

meditation?

 

 

 

)))) There is no accounting for Grace.

 

a saint once said:

"Take one step towards God, and God will take a hundred towards you."

 

some time later he might have added:

 

"....and that's if you still imagine you were ever divided in the

first place!"

 

 

>Either way - it feels to me as if someone has gutted me with a fish

knife and my insides are spilling out, and the pain of the non-stop

tears, so I guess I don't get it.

 

 

))))) You never will --

"IT" gets you.

 

occasionally, the effort itself to "get it" is seen to have been

obscuring "it" all along. a relaxing exhale invariably follows.

 

>Have a pleasant evening.

valerie

 

)))) can't complain so far!

 

LoveAlways,

 

b

[Guest guest]

, Wim Borsboom <wim@a...> wrote:

>PS

From whom is this....

 

"The way you make love

is the way

God will be with you."

 

 

 

~ Rumi, a good Pal!

 

 

(In the wonderful poem about the up-tight Brahmin the king invited to

the banquet, got drunk on wine, the ensuing dalliance in the

courtyard with one of the king's wives, breadmaking as lovemaking,

and other merry analogies.)

 

LoveAlways,

 

b

[Guest guest]

, Wim Borsboom <wim@a...> wrote:

 

And let me laughingly paraphrase that and offer it to You, Mazie and

Robert:

>Pretend that I am cold

and hard to warm up

keep sending me your flames of love.

That way all of us will turn into one burning love.

 

 

)))) LOL ---

 

Things aren't what they seem!

 

We're all already burnt offerings,

set upon an altar in an abandoned temple,

where sometimes, unbidden, the moonlight

slides through the roof,

and in that light

the perfect echo of our longing is

resolved in a stillness that

"has never been experienced

by beings at all, except

in their moment of vanishing, when

they slide upon the light of which

forms are made."

 

 

LoveAlways,

 

b

 

>Love you guys burningly... laughingly

Wim

 

 

))) Mazie got a good deal on Heineken the other day, fyi. :-))

[Guest guest]

, "dan330033" <dan330033> wrote:

 

~ The river unfolds of itself; where

will a fish find time for admiration

or a place in which to find a reflection?

 

 

)))) Come to think of it,

we just grilled halibut last night!

 

Mazie got a good buy, and we had

cool cooked beets on the side.

 

I normally am rather neutral about

halibut, but I must say

"It was tasty!"

 

LoveAlways,

 

b

[Guest guest]

On 8/1/02 at 4:19 AM mazie_l wrote:

 

º, "ecirada" <janb@a...> wrote:

º

º>The use of adjectives for what doesn't need them is a source of

ºhumor.

º

º

º))) Humor is the activity of Buddha.

 

Which is?

º

º

º>The expression of what doesn't need it is counted by the amount of

ºobjects reminding of that :-)

º

º

º)))) Who's counting?

 

That which is asking :-)

[Guest guest]

, v <amused@p...> wrote:

 

Hi Valerie...

 

<I must confess that although I savvy *namaste* - it is on a

completely

<different level. And these rednecks round here are all looking for a

<"significant other", which doesn't work for me either.

 

I'm so happy to hear you are listening to yourself.

 

<But I don't understand this "burning love for everybody" - burning

love - same

<flame, etc. and it's making me cry because I really feel like I'm

missing something

<out, either that or everyone is being deliberately cruel, which I

doubt.

 

You are not missing anything! It is because you think you don't

understand this 'burning love for everybody' that is making you feel

something is missing... because you aren't feeling it.

 

< How can someone be mated and still have burning

<love for all the other men and women? What kind of love is that?

Is it agape the <kind of love withheld for God, or is it real love

for the person as a person?

 

Like Jan said, let's take away the adjectives -- burning. And what

do you have left? Just plain ol' Love, which is all there is... It

is neither burning nor not burning. Maybe acceptance would be a

better word? Like you said in your first paragraph, "And these

rednecks round here are all looking for a "significant other", which

doesn't work for me either." -- You have accepted where they are AND

where you are. THAT is unconditional love. Period. No more, no

less. No burning. (ouch)

 

Burning? Nah. That is left for those in the honeymoon stages of

love.

 

< I mean - noone knows me and as such no one loves me

<and so I assume it is a love where the loved one is known by the

lover

<and returned by samesaid lover - so - what kind of love is that? Are

we

<talkin "romantic love" here?

 

Yep. You got it. Another adjective that describes how one will

choose their love to be with another, but not all. Romantic love is

not real in the sense that it is saved for one *special* person. Now

if we could all be romantically in love with each other, that would

be cool. I find the more I let go of the idea of romantic love for

that one special person, the more I fall in love with others (not in

the 'as a couple' sense). My friends become lovers and my lovers

become friends. None of it is burning or 'hot babyburnin'love', but

a deep sense of acceptance.

 

<Or is it an especially hot "brotherly love" which I am missing out

on?

 

You are not missing out on anything, and don't listen to anyone that

says differently! I used to yearn to be all this loveydovey (more

adj) with others like those I surrounded myself with. I couldn't

understand why I didn't feel it -- What was wrong with me?! Even

group hugs from these people felt strained on my part. I mean here,

I'm an empath and I couldn't pick up on the ''Love''? LOL

 

Valerie, I've watched you over the years, and you are quite the

empath too. You are as confused as I was (and still am at times)

because what we see and hear and what we feel are not matching. No

wonder we get confused. Trust the feelings at this time if they are

not matching.

 

Love cannot be seen nor heard, but it can be extended. Love is who

you are. And if you are not feeling the love as what you think you

should be feeling, that is perfectly okay and probably more on the

nose that you would truly think. You know what is real and what is

not real. I've seen your beauty, your creativity, and fantastic

abilities to know and express exactly what you are feeling. The

only thing I've seen you possibly err with, is not honoring what you

are feeling. And if I am right in you being the empath I think you

are, that is perfectly normal.

 

Look at your confusion or doubts to see if you want to keep them or

not. Are you doubting yourself or another? Bring it back to you,

the doubts about what you are feeling.

 

Honor that what you are feeling (no *burning* love for everyone) is

what you, or someone else, may have defined love to be as " _(fill in

the blanks_") and that you've taken it to heart. You Valerie, are

just pure Love itself -- I feel it in every post of yours. Keep

being yourself, as it is quite beautiful for all of us. That is all

you need do.

 

You are Love, just as we all are. And we can extend this love to

manifest it by accepting others exactly where they are. By doing

this, we accept where we are. Here. Now. Others may get offended

by this because they want you to go where they are... to a place of

nonacceptance of where you are. But that is perfectly okay too, as

this is where they are!

 

There is no right or wrong place. We are all here now.

 

There is no better gift than this.

 

<Is it a level one reaches after so many years of prayer and

meditation?

 

There is no level one needs to reach inasfar as I know, and I've been

on so many levels it would make your head spin. The best level is

where you are now. You can do loads of prayers and meditation, or

you can do nothing. Just be yourself, which you have always done.

Be who you are -- Valerie. The more you begin to know and accept

yourself, and honor this beautiful being instead of being confused by

it, the more you will let go of all that is not you, easily.

 

<Either way - it feels to me as if someone has gutted me with a fish

<knife and my insides are spilling out, and the pain of the non-stop

<tears, so I guess I don't get it.

 

Oh, you get it. You just haven't accepted you. You've accepted how

you *should* be. That is not you. I really love just the way you

are and have been for years - your posts always make me feel

refreshed.

 

If you became all burning love for everyone, I'd have to gut myself

with a fish knife. :-)

 

Big Hugs -- Now take that fish knife out and let your insides go

ahead and spill out.

 

With Love,

xxxtg

[Guest guest]

, "ecirada" <janb@a...> wrote:

>The use of adjectives for what doesn't need them is a source of

humor.

 

))) Humor is the activity of Buddha.

>Which is?

 

 

))) Humorous.

 

>The expression of what doesn't need it is counted by the amount of

objects reminding of that :-)

 

 

)))) Who's counting?

>That which is asking :-)

 

 

))) which is an expression of what doesn't need it, eh? :-))

 

 

A stimulating and revealing discussion, Dear Brother --

perhaps somewhat reminiscent of the Hinayana (small vehicle)/Mahayana

(great vehicle) Buddhist dialogues, which contrasted the rigid "Neti,

Neti" isolationist stance of the former with the embracive, "Y'otta

get off the island more often", life-affirming approach of the latter.

They even got down to physiognomy. The Arhat, or cave-dwelling

Pratyekabuddha, of the Hinayana ideal was said to have a pointed

head, while the Bodhisattva of the Mahayana had a round one.

 

"There are many heads in my Father's mansion."

 

Heads-up,

 

b

[Guest guest]

, "teegee555" <Teegee555@a...> wrote:

>Burning? Nah. That is left for those in the honeymoon stages of

love.

 

 

 

)))) i used to think so too.

 

 

 

LoveAlways,

 

b

[Guest guest]

, "hrtbeat7" <hrtbeat7> wrote:

> , "teegee555" <Teegee555@a...> wrote:

>

> >Burning? Nah. That is left for those in the honeymoon stages of

> love.

>

>

>

> )))) i used to think so too.

>

>

 

Hi b...

 

Then you have been very blessed!

Thanks for responding.

 

Love & Blessings,

xxxtg

[Guest guest]

, shawn <shawn@w...> wrote:

>

> Satsang is company, therefore let us put this advaita not-two talk

away.It

> seems sometimes like some One is trying to one upmanship

another...why

> should this be if there's only one? Who would it be that complains

of

> adjectives, ...me thinks me smells an ego.....

>

> Perhaps One with no other is only a "phase."

>

> Shawn

 

One without an other, knows no other,

of which to smell an ego or egolessness.

 

Making a statement is not the same

thing as complaining, so what is

involved in changing a statement

to a complaint?

 

-- Dan

[Guest guest]

> A fish will find time for admiration, served in a dish.

> A place for reflection on the consumer's eyes.

 

Food for public consumption ...

 

-- Dan

[Guest guest]

> snip

> Perhaps One with no other is only a "phase."

 

A phase only has meaning if there is a previous

phase and a subsequent phase.

 

Thus, one phase leads to another, endlessly.

 

The sense of "progression" depends completely

on the one believed to be moving from

one phase into another.

 

This one who moves through phases, can never

be one with no other; for that one,

the phase being moved into, and from,

always constitutes an "other" ...

 

-- Dan

[Guest guest]

, "leteegee" <Leteegee@a...> wrote:

>Then you have been very blessed!

 

 

 

 

)))) unable to account for any of this,

such freedom indeed is blessing.

 

today i found a tuber rose in my lunch bag --

so fragrant!

 

yesterday a stellar jay peered back at us,

surrounded by ancient redwoods and

the translucency of greeen.

 

 

looking along the beach strand,

scavenging for stones and Buddha

the Sea gave up our head again.

 

millennia resting,

a rock amidst rocks,

now airborne.

 

steamy July afternoon,

cool watermelon juice drips

Rorschach shirt calligraphy.

 

bright hot July night,

sticky Mashuq Essence clings

Balinese Bhatik body.

 

 

echoing sounds of lovers,

breathless night

gradually recovers

its composure.

 

 

Shivallah!

 

 

LoveAlways,

 

b

[Guest guest]

, "mazie_l" <sraddha54@h...> wrote:

> , "dan330033" <dan330033> wrote:

>

> ~ The river unfolds of itself; where

> will a fish find time for admiration

> or a place in which to find a reflection?

>

>

> )))) Come to think of it,

> we just grilled halibut last night!

>

> Mazie got a good buy, and we had

> cool cooked beets on the side.

>

> I normally am rather neutral about

> halibut, but I must say

> "It was tasty!"

>

> LoveAlways,

>

> b

 

Thanks for reporting on your dinner,

Bob.

 

I was at a convention last night,

where we had steak, string beans,

broiled tomatoes, and shrimp with

noodles.

 

It was *very* tasty.

 

The speaker was very interesting, too.

 

He talked about the state of affairs

with respect to delivery of services

to persons dealing with addictions.

 

Celebrating taste buds of the tongue

and brain,

Dan

[Guest guest]

, "dan330033" <dan330033> wrote:

>Celebrating taste buds of the tongue

and brain,

Dan

 

 

 

))) Ah Dear Brother!

 

i have been meaning to ask you what line of work you are in

(psychologist?). we recently had the pleasure of meeting the lovely

Christiana D., btw, who reported fondly that you were quite a dear

fellow (but we knew that already). we really enjoy meeting others

from these lists, and if you ever have a convention in the S.F. Bay

area, let us know in advance -- last night my tofu tabouli

transcended any discourse, but we also know where to get good garlic

crabs!

 

LoveAlways,

 

b

[Guest guest]

Patanjali: Feuerstein

I. 31 Pain, depression, tremor of the limbs, [wrong] inhalation and

exhalation are accompanying [symptoms] of the distractions.

 

I. 32 In order to counteract these [distractions] [the yogin should

resort to ] the practice [of concentration] on a single principle.

 

I.33 The projection of friendliness, compassion gladness and

equanimity towards objects-[be they] joyful, sorrowful, meritorious

or demeritorious--[bring about] the pacification of consciousness.

 

and then:

 

III. 23--Through constraint on friendliness et cetera, he acquires

powers.

 

It seems to me that Patanjali writes that friendliness is the

cureall. He listed the nine distractions {before the quote} and then

the cure. Friendliness. Then later he mentions friendliness again.

He says that constraint {focus} of friendliness gives one power. He

later says that if one does not use this power it becomes like the

elephant (infinite).

 

Jesus used the word love in the same way. It is up to people to

figure out what he and Patanjali meant. They obviously knew already

and said these things which have been preserved for our benefit.

 

What we project should be noted if we are sincere. Any problem is

overcome by projecting friendliness toward objects, ideas, and

ourselves.

 

Love

Bobby G.

 

 

, v <amused@p...> wrote:

> I must confess that although I savvy *namaste* - it is on a

completely

> different level. And these rednecks round here are all looking for a

> "significant other", which doesn't work for me either. But I don't

> understand this "burning love for everybody" - burning love - same

> flame, etc. and it's making me cry because I really feel like I'm

> missing something out, either that or everyone is being deliberately

> cruel, which I doubt. How can someone be mated and still have

burning

> love for all the other men and women? What kind of love is that? Is

it

> agape the kind of love withheld for God, or is it real love for the

> person as a person? I mean - noone knows me and as such no one

loves me

> and so I assume it is a love where the loved one is known by the

lover

> and returned by samesaid lover - so - what kind of love is that?

Are we

> talkin "romantic love" here? Or is it an especially hot "brotherly

love"

> which I am missing out on?

> Is it a level one reaches after so many years of prayer and

meditation?

> Either way - it feels to me as if someone has gutted me with a fish

> knife and my insides are spilling out, and the pain of the non-stop

> tears, so I guess I don't get it.

> Have a pleasant evening.

> valerie

[Guest guest]

Dear Bob,

 

Having been among Asian Hindus, Theravada and Mahayana Buddhists,

i couldn't detect a difference regarding the 'frame of mind': it was devotional.

The Buddha was able to give advice regarding "attainment of union with Brahman",

Marpa the translator (Mahayana Buddhism/tantra) instructed the ascetic Milarepa.

Sivananda, (Advaita), having benefited from neti-neti, freely distributed

medical

aid to the poor while instructing basic Advaita.

 

What is overlooked is that these men were therapists, able to instruct mankind

in

the art to attain "lasting happiness", and in no way were limited by beliefs,

often summarized

as "-isms". The scriptures are no more than what practitioners considered the

basic therapies

of their time plus their conclusions or goals. Overlooked again is that the

Buddha didn't found

Buddhism but as a former prince could easily convince even the wealthy class

that ultimately,

sentient life is suffering. "Suffering", "attachment", "ignorance"

are but the

labels of the same

conditioned mind which when cured, means uncaused happiness, nirvana, moksha,

sat_chit_ananda etc.

>From the perspective of the therapist, only curing matters, not what it takes

;-)

 

Peace,

Jan

 

On 8/1/02 at 3:35 PM hrtbeat7 wrote:

 

º, "ecirada" <janb@a...> wrote:

º

º>The use of adjectives for what doesn't need them is a source of

ºhumor.

º

º))) Humor is the activity of Buddha.

º

º>Which is?

º

º

º))) Humorous.

º

º

º>The expression of what doesn't need it is counted by the amount of

ºobjects reminding of that :-)

º

º

º)))) Who's counting?

º

º>That which is asking :-)

º

º

º))) which is an expression of what doesn't need it, eh? :-))

º

º

ºA stimulating and revealing discussion, Dear Brother --

ºperhaps somewhat reminiscent of the Hinayana (small vehicle)/Mahayana

º(great vehicle) Buddhist dialogues, which contrasted the rigid "Neti,

ºNeti" isolationist stance of the former with the embracive, "Y'otta

ºget off the island more often", life-affirming approach of the latter.

ºThey even got down to physiognomy. The Arhat, or cave-dwelling

ºPratyekabuddha, of the Hinayana ideal was said to have a pointed

ºhead, while the Bodhisattva of the Mahayana had a round one.

º

º"There are many heads in my Father's mansion."

º

ºHeads-up,

º

ºb

º

º

º

º

º/join

º

º

º

º

º

ºAll paths go somewhere. No path goes nowhere. Paths, places, sights,

ºperceptions, and indeed all experiences arise from and exist in and

ºsubside back into the Space of Awareness. Like waves rising are not

ºdifferent than the ocean, all things arising from Awareness are of the

ºnature of Awareness. Awareness does not come and go but is always Present.

ºIt is Home. Home is where the Heart Is. Jnanis know the Heart to be the

ºFinality of Eternal Being. A true devotee relishes in the Truth of

ºSelf-Knowledge, spont

ºaneously arising from within into It Self. Welcome all to a.

º

º

º

ºYour use of is subject to

[Guest guest]

, "ecirada" <janb@a...> wrote:

 

>Peace,

Jan

 

 

)))) Yes

 

 

 

LoveAlways,

 

b

[Guest guest]

mazie_l wrote:

, v <amused@p...>

wrote:

>I must confess that although I savvy *namaste* - it is on a

completely different level.

)))) each one seems to enjoy a variation on the theme, each in their

own way.

really!! everybody's loving God/dess sacredness inside is tailormade

for each one!!! Who'da thunk it? I'da thunk it'd be a still bright light

of pax vobiscum engulfing purely no matter who or what...

> And these rednecks round here are all looking for a

"significant other", which doesn't work for me either.

))) perhaps one never really knows what "works for me",

but it is common to assume so, until one attempts to

determine who the the hell this "me" is, and what it is that's

looking.

I guess it's best to know who's looking before

looking for what - do I read you roger?

>But I don't understand this "burning love for everybody" -

)))) it is not a matter of understanding, or of some kind of

strategic manipulation of circumstances or interpretations on

perception. what happens is that "you" are taken. when resistence

to

what life wants to do with you first becomes suspect, then is

investigated, and then recognized to be simply a way you have been

pinching yourself, a good deal of the previously conflicted energy

converts to literal transformation, often expressed as heart-opening,

but truly indescribable with words. In some mystical musings, the

metaphor of "burning" has been used to reference certain phases,

which mainly represents a narrative of the actual felt experience

of

submission to Beloved at the Heart.

psychobabble - and - does the Beloved of the Heart live in each one's heart

or only when invited?

>burning love - same flame, etc. and it's making me cry because

I

really feel like I'm missing something out, either that or everyone

is being deliberately cruel, which I doubt.

)))) that feeling of "missing out" is the yearning. if one follows

that yearning to its source, the Beloved is always standing Radiant

before you, Welcoming!

so there's somewhere to go that would appease the yearning.

in other words, "get thee to a nunnery", right?

> How can someone be mated and still have burning

love for all the other men and women? What kind of love is that?

Is it

agape the kind of love withheld for God, or is it real love for

the

person as a person? I mean - noone knows me and as such no one

loves

me and so I assume it is a love where the loved one is known by

the

lover and returned by samesaid lover - so - what kind of love is

that? Are we talkin "romantic love" here? Or is it an especially

hot "brotherly love" which I am missing out on?

)))) your natural curiosity is a blessing!

it is like a loving guide, and somtimes like a chauffer.

Images of what we presume Love to be all eventually give way to

a

kind of resting in a Mystery beyond any comprehension, no longer

predisposed to superimpose limitation on what Love wants to do

through and as us, whether it be to burn or cool.

My yearning feelings drive me to know!

>Is it a level one reaches after so many years of prayer and

meditation?

)))) There is no accounting for Grace.

nicely said!

a saint once said:

"Take one step towards God, and God will take a hundred towards

you."

some time later he might have added:

"....and that's if you still imagine you were ever divided in the

first place!"

>Either way - it feels to me as if someone has gutted me with a

fish

knife and my insides are spilling out, and the pain of the non-stop

tears, so I guess I don't get it.

))))) You never will --

"IT" gets you.

AIYIYIIIIIIIIIIII!!!! what is meant by that? Is it something that works

it's will on one in it's own space and time?

occasionally, the effort itself to "get it" is seen to have been

obscuring "it" all along. a relaxing exhale invariably follows.

good to know.

>Have a pleasant evening.

valerie

)))) can't complain so far!

LoveAlways,

b

thanx for the fish!

:-)

valerie

/join

 

All paths go somewhere. No path goes nowhere. Paths, places, sights,

perceptions, and indeed all experiences arise from and exist in and subside

back into the Space of Awareness. Like waves rising are not different than

the ocean, all things arising from Awareness are of the nature of Awareness.

Awareness does not come and go but is always Present. It is Home. Home

is where the Heart Is. Jnanis know the Heart to be the Finality of Eternal

Being. A true devotee relishes in the Truth of Self-Knowledge, spontaneously

arising from within into It Self. Welcome all to a.

 

Terms of Service.

Attachment: (image/gif) /SofiaMoon/Temporary%20Items/nsmail7.gif [not stored]

[Guest guest]

One of my favorite children's records is The Point by Nilsson...He's the guy

that does the Lime in the coconut song as well.

 

Highly recommended for parents with young children as well as all of us who

still cherish our childheart...

Thank you for the repost, b...reminds me of the driving all the way to the

east coast only to find it resembled the west only the sun went up there and

down in Cally. But the inbetween!

love Shawn

 

 

on 8/1/02 5:35 AM, hrtbeat7 at hrtbeat7 wrote:

> , "ecirada" <janb@a...> wrote:

>

>> The use of adjectives for what doesn't need them is a source of

> humor.

>

> ))) Humor is the activity of Buddha.

>

>> Which is?

>

>

> ))) Humorous.

>

>

>> The expression of what doesn't need it is counted by the amount of

> objects reminding of that :-)

>

>

> )))) Who's counting?

>

>> That which is asking :-)

>

>

> ))) which is an expression of what doesn't need it, eh? :-))

>

>

> A stimulating and revealing discussion, Dear Brother --

> perhaps somewhat reminiscent of the Hinayana (small vehicle)/Mahayana

> (great vehicle) Buddhist dialogues, which contrasted the rigid "Neti,

> Neti" isolationist stance of the former with the embracive, "Y'otta

> get off the island more often", life-affirming approach of the latter.

> They even got down to physiognomy. The Arhat, or cave-dwelling

> Pratyekabuddha, of the Hinayana ideal was said to have a pointed

> head, while the Bodhisattva of the Mahayana had a round one.

>

> "There are many heads in my Father's mansion."

>

> Heads-up,

>

> b

>

>

>

> Sponsor

>

> /join

>

>

>

>

>

> All paths go somewhere. No path goes nowhere. Paths, places, sights,

> perceptions, and indeed all experiences arise from and exist in and subside

> back into the Space of Awareness. Like waves rising are not different than the

> ocean, all things arising from Awareness are of the nature of Awareness.

> Awareness does not come and go but is always Present. It is Home. Home is

> where the Heart Is. Jnanis know the Heart to be the Finality of Eternal Being.

> A true devotee relishes in the Truth of Self-Knowledge, spontaneously arising

> from within into It Self. Welcome all to a.

>

>

>

> Terms of Service

> <> .

[Guest guest]

On 8/1/02 at 8:46 PM dan330033 wrote:

 

º> snip

º> Perhaps One with no other is only a "phase."

º

ºA phase only has meaning if there is a previous

º phase and a subsequent phase.

 

Two phases do for oscillation, like solid/fluid, depressed/ecstatic.

º

ºThus, one phase leads to another, endlessly.

 

Not if the condition for it gets removed.

And the phase of life called "last breath" leads to nowhere :-)

º

ºThe sense of "progression" depends completely

º on the one believed to be moving from

º one phase into another.

 

Oh? That contradicts the perception, once the potential for fear gone,

the issue no longer is. That isn't a matter of progress, it just feels better

:-)

º

ºThis one who moves through phases, can never

º be one with no other; for that one,

º the phase being moved into, and from,

º always constitutes an "other" ...

 

The assumption is there is movement whereas there isn't.

Not all mind-bodies remain fettered by feelings like fear,

guilt, shame, embarrassment and the like. What about calling

those feelings and the behavior caused by it, self-deception

(whether "enlightened" or not) instead of a phase?

Feel better already? :-)

 

Jan

º

º-- Dan

º

º

º

º

º/join

º

º

º

º

º

ºAll paths go somewhere. No path goes nowhere. Paths, places, sights,

ºperceptions, and indeed all experiences arise from and exist in and

ºsubside back into the Space of Awareness. Like waves rising are not

ºdifferent than the ocean, all things arising from Awareness are of the

ºnature of Awareness. Awareness does not come and go but is always Present.

ºIt is Home. Home is where the Heart Is. Jnanis know the Heart to be the

ºFinality of Eternal Being. A true devotee relishes in the Truth of

ºSelf-Knowledge, spont

ºaneously arising from within into It Self. Welcome all to a.

º

º

º

ºYour use of is subject to