Guest guest Report post Posted September 25, 2002 Dear Wim: Rather than try to sort out any differences of opinion between two ships which have obviously passed in the night I will back into the recesses of my own beliefs and let you have yurs. Love Bobby G. , Wim Borsboom <wim@a...> wrote: > Hi Bobby, > > >>> Having a wife is different than having lovers, and the potential for > harming someone, I believe, would stop a jnani from doing that. > > OK Bobby, :-) make that "Having a spouse..." > > I have a spouse and love others as intimately as I do Emmy. Also I am a > spouse and am being loved by others who have their own loving spouses (or is > that spice?)... and nothing of that under the table... :-) > > By the way, the potential for harming, danger or some difficulty is no > reason for not pursuing a goal, it is all the more reason to work more > steadfast, diligent and compassionately at it... to attain freedom for > all... to prevent another from being harmed by not being loved ... this > Helen of Krishnamurti maybe??? > I can tell you my story... well, some already know... > > It is a story of hard work infinitivally and unwavering resolve... > > To "rework" ourselves to our original steady state of unconditional love, a > love that at the same time allows all conditions is not uncommon at all to > humankind. It may be rare, but rarity does not mean that it is not in origin > part and parcel of living as human in this divine milieu. > > Unconditional love allows all conditions as it is independent from those > conditions. > > >>> Your suggestion that you are a jnani and so can speak about it with > authority is not backed up with any evidence I can see. <<< > > >>> Love and laughter <<< > > Laughing and loving as well... > I may, but do not have to back this up with evidence... :-) > At some point jnani, bhakti and other yogic characteristics re- merge... > That is one of the meanings of "yoga": integration into wholeness, or as I > like to say "reintegration". > > How that is with me, is as clear as can be..., as evident as the fact that > you are not sleeping while you are reading this. I don't have to see that > you are reading... you are reading.... > > Anyway, whether something is true or not has not much to do with others > believing it... > Belief is a concern of the doubter. Truth cannot be believed anyway, truth > is, it stands on its own. As long as something is believed, there is still a > remnant of doubt... > > I say... away with doubt Bobbie...! > > This has nothing to do with me, whether you believe me or not, it is nothing > to me, in the final analysis belief has to be suspended, gotten rid of... > > Still loving and laughing, like you... > > Wim > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.386 / Virus Database: 218 - Release 9/9/2002 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 25, 2002 Hi Bobby, You wrote: >>> Rather than try to sort out any differences of opinion between two ships which have obviously passed in the night I will back into the recesses of my own beliefs and let you have yours. <<< It's only opinions, my dear Bobby, don't worry... Nowadays ships that pass each other in the night still know each other... Is it really worth holding on to any belief? Does it make one see and love the other more when one does? Wim --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.386 / Virus Database: 218 - Release 9/9/2002 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 25, 2002 Hi Dan, Some are here to perceive the whole, others are here to perceive the parts... It all depends on where one is coming from. It does not matter where one is going. We have it together we see there is nowhere to go... Just like form is emptiness and emptiness is form, the whole and the parted do not exclude or negate each other... If we consider separation a conception, then wholeness is one just as well... Beware of concepts, any concept... What we consider the most sacred notion may well be the greatest deception... in the guise of a sacred cow... Wim dan330033 [dan330033] Wednesday, September 25, 2002 1:41 PM Re: Krishnamurti Hi Wim -- That there is no separation means that whatever we conceive of as separation, hasn't really separated anything. -- Dan , Wim Borsboom <wim@a...> wrote: > Hi Dan, > > You wrote to Shawn, > > > Where there is no assumed separation, > > self and other don't pertain. > > > > Words all imply an inside and outside, > > but words can be used without > > being deceived. > > > > Thought, memory, sensation, perception-- > > these occur without any real inside > > or outside taking place -- no > > separated observer is ever situated. > > Of course there is nothing wrong (and I am not assuming that you mean that) > with separation in the sense that parts and partners are pared off entities. > > > ...words can be used without > > being deceived. > > Indeed, the Sanskrit root PAR means parting off in the strong sense of > preparing them for sharing. PAR or pre-pare means separating something in > order to join it up somewhere else... Basically that is what play or lila is > about, is it not? > > It is nice to have a "partner" eh?! :-) > > The words pair, pare (paring knife) and par (as in "at par") are quite > likely related through the same root. > > Thus separation in essence is not a bad thing at all...! > > What is fallacious and caused by illusive manipulations is that denatured > humans have been forced to think that separation is a punishment, > everlasting doom or the like.. > > Again, like so many other words such as karma and maya (which originally > meant harmony and matter) here we have another example of a word that over > time has been assigned negative connotations. > > To separate is what you do to pare similar entities and to prepare them for > sharing space and time in a different combination- to pair them up again. > > What a loving activity really... want to dance with me? > > I am coming more and more to the conclusion that when we use our words in > their original designed and invented (yes) meanings that we get it together > again. Or... that we just speak no words..., but that is a bigger ticket...! > In fact, is it not so that quietude follows when quibbling stops? > Good thing is that etymology is not semantic quibbling. > > Word fragments, or archeo-mimeologic linguistic remnants, can, like broken > pieces of pottery, be joined up again, and it shows that in times of yore, > there indeed lived a kind of human who was still wholly natural and divine. > In fact, when we use our language thus, clearly and purely and in its > originality, we get something more whole than a restored glued together > vessel. We get a seamless integrity... a language of truth that is not > fragile like restored artefacts that end up in musea, we get a spoken word > (logos) with the original inspiration, making life divine current an > actual... > The oral tradition of the realized of yore is still fully useful and > applicable. > > Here is to truth and words that speak of it...!!! > > Wim > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.386 / Virus Database: 218 - Release 9/9/2002 /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. Your use of is subject to --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.386 / Virus Database: 218 - Release 9/9/2002 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.386 / Virus Database: 218 - Release 9/9/2002 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 25, 2002 , Wim Borsboom <wim@a...> wrote: > Hi Bobby, > > You wrote: > >>> Rather than try to sort out any differences of opinion between two ships > which have obviously passed in the night I will back into the recesses of my > own beliefs and let you have yours. <<< > > It's only opinions, my dear Bobby, don't worry... > > Nowadays ships that pass each other in the night still know each other... > > Is it really worth holding on to any belief? Does it make one see and love > the other more when one does? > > Wim > >Well, there is nothing though that stops you from seeing it that >way... you <can in fact as you say, "... see a person of value and insight and i>ntermittant brillance, filled with love, being both loved and >lover" and >that to the fullest extent... >Wim Dear Wim You stated your beliefs. Good luck to you. Love Bobby G. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 26, 2002 Hi Bobby, You wrote: >>> You stated your beliefs. Good luck to you. <<< I have no use for luck, no need for it either, Bobbie. The world simply does not operate that way... Also I cannot recall that I stated any beliefs for a very long time... :-) What about beliefs then? As soon as one assigns a notion of reality to a concept and when one holds that concept to be true one has created a belief. It is OK to use a concept "in proviso", which "almost but not quite" turns it into a belief. A concept is a handy suitable hypo-thesis (literally a sub-position as in, "Let's suppose for argument sake that such and such is true, then we can conclude that...) Concepts are "mind gadgets" if you will, that one can use just for the time being, just to make sense of a larger and seemingly overwhelming reality. Concepts are by design disposable after use. Beliefs are often concepts that should have been disposed off... It is just too bad that many concepts have turned into beliefs, systems of it, basements full of them, filled with garage sale items that serve nothing but the "garage sale circuit", lovely to collect, to categorize even, to talk about, to understand, but not really suitable to use anymore other then to have them as coffee table items. Koffee Klatch in German. Happy garage sa(i)ling... Wim --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.386 / Virus Database: 218 - Release 9/9/2002 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 26, 2002 Dear Wim -- The idea you are sharing to beware of concepts, is a concept. So, if I follow your advice, I would have to beware of your advice. -- Dan > Hi Dan, > > Some are here to perceive the whole, others are here to perceive the > parts... It all depends on where one is coming from. It does not matter > where one is going. We have it together we see there is nowhere to go... > > Just like form is emptiness and emptiness is form, the whole and the parted > do not exclude or negate each other... > If we consider separation a conception, then wholeness is one just as > well... > Beware of concepts, any concept... What we consider the most sacred notion > may well be the greatest deception... in the guise of a sacred cow... > > Wim > > > > dan330033 [dan330033] > Wednesday, September 25, 2002 1:41 PM > > Re: Krishnamurti > > > Hi Wim -- > > That there is no separation means that > whatever we conceive of as separation, > hasn't really separated anything. > > -- Dan > > > , Wim Borsboom <wim@a...> wrote: > > Hi Dan, > > > > You wrote to Shawn, > > > > > Where there is no assumed separation, > > > self and other don't pertain. > > > > > > Words all imply an inside and outside, > > > but words can be used without > > > being deceived. > > > > > > Thought, memory, sensation, perception-- > > > these occur without any real inside > > > or outside taking place -- no > > > separated observer is ever situated. > > > > Of course there is nothing wrong (and I am not assuming that you > mean that) > > with separation in the sense that parts and partners are pared off > entities. > > > > > ...words can be used without > > > being deceived. > > > > Indeed, the Sanskrit root PAR means parting off in the strong sense > of > > preparing them for sharing. PAR or pre-pare means separating > something in > > order to join it up somewhere else... Basically that is what play > or lila is > > about, is it not? > > > > It is nice to have a "partner" eh?! :-) > > > > The words pair, pare (paring knife) and par (as in "at par") are > quite > > likely related through the same root. > > > > Thus separation in essence is not a bad thing at all...! > > > > What is fallacious and caused by illusive manipulations is that > denatured > > humans have been forced to think that separation is a punishment, > > everlasting doom or the like.. > > > > Again, like so many other words such as karma and maya (which > originally > > meant harmony and matter) here we have another example of a word > that over > > time has been assigned negative connotations. > > > > To separate is what you do to pare similar entities and to prepare > them for > > sharing space and time in a different combination- to pair them up > again. > > > > What a loving activity really... want to dance with me? > > > > I am coming more and more to the conclusion that when we use our > words in > > their original designed and invented (yes) meanings that we get it > together > > again. Or... that we just speak no words..., but that is a bigger > ticket...! > > In fact, is it not so that quietude follows when quibbling stops? > > Good thing is that etymology is not semantic quibbling. > > > > Word fragments, or archeo-mimeologic linguistic remnants, can, like > broken > > pieces of pottery, be joined up again, and it shows that in times > of yore, > > there indeed lived a kind of human who was still wholly natural and > divine. > > In fact, when we use our language thus, clearly and purely and in > its > > originality, we get something more whole than a restored glued > together > > vessel. We get a seamless integrity... a language of truth that is > not > > fragile like restored artefacts that end up in musea, we get a > spoken word > > (logos) with the original inspiration, making life divine current an > > actual... > > The oral tradition of the realized of yore is still fully useful and > > applicable. > > > > Here is to truth and words that speak of it...!!! > > > > Wim > > > > > > --- > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > > Version: 6.0.386 / Virus Database: 218 - Release 9/9/2002 > > > > /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. > > > > Your use of is subject to > > > --- > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.386 / Virus Database: 218 - Release 9/9/2002 > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.386 / Virus Database: 218 - Release 9/9/2002 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 26, 2002 Dear Wim: There are lots of ways to respond to your message. All I feel would be met with a type of disagreement that is time consuming and like I said before like two ships passing in the night. There are so many areas where my intent in the original message was misconstrued I would rather drop it. I take full blame for not being able to phrase my messages properly. more below: , Wim Borsboom <wim@a...> wrote: > Hi Bobby, > > You wrote: > >>> You stated your beliefs. Good luck to you. <<< > > I have no use for luck, no need for it either, Bobbie. The world simply does > not operate that way... > Also I cannot recall that I stated any beliefs for a very long time... :-) > > What about beliefs then? > > As soon as one assigns a notion of reality to a concept and when one holds > that concept to be true one has created a belief. > > It is OK to use a concept "in proviso", which "almost but not quite" turns > it into a belief. A concept is a handy suitable hypo-thesis (literally a > sub-position as in, "Let's suppose for argument sake that such and such is > true, then we can conclude that...) > > Concepts are "mind gadgets" if you will, that one can use just for the time > being, just to make sense of a larger and seemingly overwhelming reality. > Concepts are by design disposable after use. Beliefs are often concepts that > should have been disposed off... It is just too bad that many concepts have > turned into beliefs, systems of it, basements full of them, filled with > garage sale items that serve nothing but the "garage sale circuit", lovely > to collect, to categorize even, to talk about, to understand, but not really > suitable to use anymore other then to have them as coffee table items. > Koffee Klatch in German. > > Happy garage sa(i)ling... > > Wim About beliefs: You believe you will be understood. So did I. Beliefs I believe are deeper than the adopted concepts. You have related a simple statement of mine that indicated we had different views and try to make it seem that I need to be lectured on dropping belief systems. This is an example of why I did not want to discuss the issue with you. Your message has an undercurrent of hostility. Belief is an interesting word though. "I believe" means both "I have doubt" and "I am certain" (in the sense of a religious belief). "I hope" also fits in there somewhere. By wishing you luck I mean I hope things ultimately work out well for you. I can't imagine why that should irk you so or that you should want to claim that your statement- "I have no use for luck, no need for it either, Bobbie. The world simply does > not operate that way..." is not stating a belief of yours. The certainty of it on your part is a double standard in that You get to believe something is true and hence not a belief but I don't. People cannot converse that way. And too many double standards in one's mind will result in a lot of mental energy wasted causing too much misunderstanding. Love Bobby G. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 26, 2002 Hi Dan, You wrote: >>> The idea you are sharing to beware of concepts, is a concept. So, if I follow your advice, I would have to beware of your advice. <<< :-))) You might or you might not... It depends. As I tried to say, there is nothing wrong with the concept of a concept, as long as it is seen as a temporary aid to get insight into more overwhelming structures and/or dynamics of existence and/or being. Let's say that one particular concept enabled you to attain deeper insight and clarity, now you can let go of that concept unless it could get you or others further insight. One can keep doing this, until that concept is not useful anymore. You then stack it away for common use as it may still be useful to some. By then it may have become a garage sale item... it may now be a handy concept for someone else to use to get clarity. Instead of the price though, the price tag should clearly indicate, "This is a tool, a temporary concept... not a belief to stay attached to". All this to regain clarity. Concepts are mind gadgets, temporary tools, provisionary. Concepts are comparable to the effectiveness of chemical catalysts. Catalysts do their work and move on. Catalysts however are matter, they DO matter... Concepts are not matter... Concepts eventually DO NOT matter. :-) At some point I promised that I would explain the roots in the past of card games, especially Solitaire. This seems the right moment. Uh? It will become clear, just bear with me or... just ignore... :-) The way one works with concepts is the way one places or holds cards in the game of Solitaire (Patience). Solitaire was (as most card games) originally invented to teach the monarchy (oh yes) patience, forbearance, appropriateness, weighing choices, learning to make or hold moves, equanimity, honesty (no cheating) and... insight into the rules of chance (rudimentary statistics). By the way, the word monarch means sole ruler... hence... solitaire. Just like chess and many such strategic board games, this game (even more so then chess) helped the monarch to rule judiciously. (The word "judging" comes from the Latin "ius dicere" or "saying what is just" or... pointing out the Dao.) Card games, again more so than strategic games, helped the ruling class to attain insight into or regain trust in the * laws of the universe as well. * The Latin for the word law is "ius" or "what is just the way it is, what is right, suchness, straightforward. Scottish "recht", Dutch "rechter". "Make straight [according to] the way (Dao) of the lord... All very comparable to the Dao. The Dao De Jing just like the Bhagavat Gita was also meant to teach rulers.) One has to consider that the monarch position was inherited, thus monarchs often had to be taught. One also has to keep in mind that a monarch (royal, roi, ruler, RAG, raj, maha-raja) was originally considered to be the "place holder" or "lieutenant" of God on Earth (something like a pope or Sai Baba :-). This by the way goes all the way back to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob and David... The connection with between Abraham, the Indus valley, gypsies and card games is currently well investigated and recovered in Europe (compare the documentary Latcho Drom). Well there's more... but my next move is... to put the roof on the construction I am doing at the moment. Anyway, there is a lot to pick up from playing Solitaire... It helps with overcoming procrastination... there is a right time for everything... This is the time to stop... Wim --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.386 / Virus Database: 218 - Release 9/9/2002 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 26, 2002 Dear Bobbie, The hostility that you sensed definitely did not come from me... That the way I write is felt by you (and others I presume) as lecturing also does not come from me... Nor (and that is nice) does it come from you... Something I wrote and the way I wrote it, triggered something from your past that triggered those sentiments. I'm sorry that I triggered them... but then, it may be good to trace it, to see it for what it really was... Something was there between you and me... I mean literally "between". It is there, we may as well find out where it came from so that we can let it go as not being ours... Oh and really, my life is going well, I need no luck... :-) You wrote: >>> Belief is an interesting word though. "I believe" means both "I have doubt" and "I am certain" (in the sense of a religious belief). "I hope" also fits in there somewhere. <<< Glad you are saying this yourself, if it would have come from me, it would quite likely have felt like me lecturing you again... :-) Anyway, if I would have said what you just wrote, I would have seen it as so ambiguous, I would have dropped it right then and there... But that is what I do... Wim, Hey on now, Bobbie... Keep laughing and loving and smiling... --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.386 / Virus Database: 218 - Release 9/9/2002 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 26, 2002 Hi Bobby -- > You have related a simple statement of mine that indicated we had > different views and try to make it seem that I need to be lectured on > dropping belief systems. This is an example of why I did not want to > discuss the issue with you. Your message has an undercurrent of > hostility. Sometimes one can point to the obvious, even while knowing there is a great likelihood that the response will misconstrue the pointing. The more obvious the pointing, the more likely it will be misconstrued. snip > The certainty of it on your part > is a double standard in that You get to believe something > is true and > hence not a belief but I don't. People cannot converse that way. > And too many double standards in one's mind will result in a lot of > mental energy wasted causing too much misunderstanding. This topic of double standards relates to the topic of double-binds. Double-bind communication often matches a verbal message with a contradictory nonverbal message. But it can also match two contradictory verbal messages, one which is the content and one which is the way that the content is delivered. For example, if I am saying "this is the way it is," but then, in the way I am telling you the way it is, contradict myself, there is a double bind. Thus, if I say, "everything is about love," and in the process of telling you about that, manage to put you down in a subtle way, perhaps by inferring that you are missing out on knowing or feeling this, there is a double-bind. The double-bind is used to hypnotically induce a situation in which one person is too confused about the rules to organize an effective response, and the other person seemingly achieves the upper-hand, being in control of how the rules have been defined and used. So, thanks for the energy you put into your responses. I thought you shared useful information, so you see -- nothing is in vain. Peace, Dan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 26, 2002 Hi Wim -- A simple response does not always receive a simple answer. And yet, simplicity remains the way, as always. Peace, Dan > Hi Dan, > > You wrote: > >>> The idea you are sharing to beware of concepts, is a concept. > So, if I follow your advice, I would have to beware of your advice. <<< > > :-))) > > You might or you might not... It depends. > > As I tried to say, there is nothing wrong with the concept of a concept, as > long as it is seen as a temporary aid to get insight into more overwhelming > structures and/or dynamics of existence and/or being. > Let's say that one particular concept enabled you to attain deeper insight > and clarity, now you can let go of that concept unless it could get you or > others further insight. One can keep doing this, until that concept is not > useful anymore. You then stack it away for common use as it may still be > useful to some. By then it may have become a garage sale item... it may now > be a handy concept for someone else to use to get clarity. Instead of the > price though, the price tag should clearly indicate, "This is a tool, a > temporary concept... not a belief to stay attached to". > > All this to regain clarity. > > Concepts are mind gadgets, temporary tools, provisionary. > Concepts are comparable to the effectiveness of chemical catalysts. > Catalysts do their work and move on. > Catalysts however are matter, they DO matter... > Concepts are not matter... Concepts eventually DO NOT matter. > > :-) > > At some point I promised that I would explain the roots in the past of card > games, especially Solitaire. This seems the right moment. > Uh? > It will become clear, just bear with me or... just ignore... :-) > > The way one works with concepts is the way one places or holds cards in the > game of Solitaire (Patience). Solitaire was (as most card games) originally > invented to teach the monarchy (oh yes) patience, forbearance, > appropriateness, weighing choices, learning to make or hold moves, > equanimity, honesty (no cheating) and... insight into the rules of chance > (rudimentary statistics). > > By the way, the word monarch means sole ruler... hence... solitaire. > > Just like chess and many such strategic board games, this game (even more so > then chess) helped the monarch to rule judiciously. (The word "judging" > comes from the Latin "ius dicere" or "saying what is just" or... pointing > out the Dao.) > > Card games, again more so than strategic games, helped the ruling class to > attain insight into or regain trust in the * laws of the universe as well. > > * The Latin for the word law is "ius" or "what is just the way it is, what > is right, suchness, straightforward. Scottish "recht", Dutch "rechter". > "Make straight [according to] the way (Dao) of the lord... > All very comparable to the Dao. The Dao De Jing just like the Bhagavat Gita > was also meant to teach rulers.) > > One has to consider that the monarch position was inherited, thus monarchs > often had to be taught. > One also has to keep in mind that a monarch (royal, roi, ruler, RAG, raj, > maha-raja) was originally considered to be the "place holder" or > "lieutenant" of God on Earth (something like a pope or Sai Baba :- ). This by > the way goes all the way back to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob and David... > The connection with between Abraham, the Indus valley, gypsies and card > games is currently well investigated and recovered in Europe (compare the > documentary Latcho Drom). > > Well there's more... but my next move is... to put the roof on the > construction I am doing at the moment. > > Anyway, there is a lot to pick up from playing Solitaire... > > It helps with overcoming procrastination... there is a right time for > everything... > > This is the time to stop... > > Wim > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.386 / Virus Database: 218 - Release 9/9/2002 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 26, 2002 Hi Dan, You wrote: >>>A simple response does not always receive a simple answer. And yet, simplicity remains the way, as always.<<< True enough, Wim :-))) --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.386 / Virus Database: 218 - Release 9/9/2002 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 26, 2002 , "dan330033" <dan330033> wrote: > Hi Bobby -- > > > You have related a simple statement of mine that indicated we had > > different views and try to make it seem that I need to be lectured > on > > dropping belief systems. This is an example of why I did not want > to > > discuss the issue with you. Your message has an undercurrent of > > hostility. > > Sometimes one can point to the obvious, even > while knowing there is a great likelihood > that the response > will misconstrue the pointing. > > The more obvious the pointing, the more > likely it will be misconstrued. > > snip > > > The certainty of it on your part > > is a double standard in that You get to believe something > > is true and > > hence not a belief but I don't. People cannot converse that way. > > And too many double standards in one's mind will result in a lot of > > mental energy wasted causing too much misunderstanding. > > This topic of double standards relates to the topic > of double-binds. Double-bind communication often > matches a verbal message with a contradictory nonverbal > message. But it can also match two contradictory verbal > messages, one which is the content and one which is > the way that the content is delivered. For example, > if I am saying "this is the way it is," but then, > in the way I am telling you the way it is, contradict > myself, there is a double bind. Thus, if I say, > "everything is about love," and in the process of telling > you about that, manage to put you down in a subtle way, > perhaps by inferring that you are missing out on > knowing or feeling this, there is a double-bind. > The double-bind is used to > hypnotically induce a situation in which one person is > too confused about the rules to organize an effective > response, and the other person seemingly achieves the > upper-hand, being in control of how the rules have > been defined and used. > > So, thanks for the energy you put into your responses. > > I thought you shared useful information, so > you see -- nothing is in vain. > > Peace, > Dan That's for sure! I thank you both, because Bobby's response triggered Dan's response, which I found Extremely valuable...which then triggered Kheyala's response, and which, if it isn't too obvious and doesn't double-bind itself, will at the very least elicit a smile or two. See? Love, Kheyala Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 26, 2002 Hi Dan and Bobbie, To prevent confusion with other readers, the following from Bobbie was directed to me and I have no problem with that: >>> You have related a simple statement of mine that indicated we had different views and try to make it seem that I need to be lectured on dropping belief systems. This is an example of why I did not want to discuss the issue with you. Your message has an undercurrent of hostility. <<< I responded to you, Bobbie separately on that... Dan, you wrote to me: >>> A simple response does not always receive a simple answer. And yet, simplicity remains the way, as always. <<< Glad that in your response on the double bind to Bobbie, you wrote at "at length". Simplicity sometimes needs to be expressed in more than a few words... :-) The simple thing that the sun is the center of our solar system had many writings to endure, and Galileo, who helped figuring it out had to endure even more... like the inquisition... How many words are written on the theme, " Who am I?" I would also like to say to Bobbie that I often use posts as a starting of point for some different (not necessarily differing) view point on a topic. When I do this, I do not necessarily quarrel with that what urged me to write. But I can easily see how such can be perceived as a some kind of misconstruction, misunderstanding or criticism. That is why I use emoticons sometimes profusely. Anyway Bobbie, I caused you some anguish and I apologize for that... Wim --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.386 / Virus Database: 218 - Release 9/9/2002 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 27, 2002 , "dan330033" <dan330033> wrote: > Hi Bobby -- > > > You have related a simple statement of mine that indicated we had > > different views and try to make it seem that I need to be lectured > on > > dropping belief systems. This is an example of why I did not want > to > > discuss the issue with you. Your message has an undercurrent of > > hostility. > > Sometimes one can point to the obvious, even > while knowing there is a great likelihood > that the response > will misconstrue the pointing. > > The more obvious the pointing, the more > likely it will be misconstrued. > > snip > > > The certainty of it on your part > > is a double standard in that You get to believe something > > is true and > > hence not a belief but I don't. People cannot converse that way. > > And too many double standards in one's mind will result in a lot of > > mental energy wasted causing too much misunderstanding. > > This topic of double standards relates to the topic > of double-binds. Double-bind communication often > matches a verbal message with a contradictory nonverbal > message. But it can also match two contradictory verbal > messages, one which is the content and one which is > the way that the content is delivered. For example, > if I am saying "this is the way it is," but then, > in the way I am telling you the way it is, contradict > myself, there is a double bind. Thus, if I say, > "everything is about love," and in the process of telling > you about that, manage to put you down in a subtle way, > perhaps by inferring that you are missing out on > knowing or feeling this, there is a double-bind. > The double-bind is used to > hypnotically induce a situation in which one person is > too confused about the rules to organize an effective > response, and the other person seemingly achieves the > upper-hand, being in control of how the rules have > been defined and used. > > So, thanks for the energy you put into your responses. > > I thought you shared useful information, so > you see -- nothing is in vain. > > Peace, > Dan Dear Dan: The double bind you mention is well worth remembering. It is a topic that is dificult to speak clearly on but you definitely did it. Thanks, it helps me understand a little better. Discussion is to be cherished and accomplished as effectively as possible. Road blocks such as the double bind should be pointed out. Is this the same thing as dissembling? My take on that is to act as if something is true when the author knows it is not, in order to mislead. (Without being held accountable for a verbal message to that effect.) I think an effective countermeasure to the tactic you mentioned is to maintain an overview of what is right regardless of self interest about the issue. LOve Bobby G. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 27, 2002 > Anyway Bobbie, I caused you some anguish and I apologize for that... > > > Wim > My anguish does not come from you Wim, but I do aprecitate your considerate reply. Love Bobby G. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 27, 2002 You guys are so beautiful! I feel another group hug coming on! :-)...:-). Love, Harsha --- texasbg2000 <Bigbobgraham wrote: > > > > Anyway Bobbie, I caused you some anguish and I > apologize for that... > > > > > > Wim > > > > > My anguish does not come from you Wim, but I do > aprecitate your > considerate reply. > > Love > Bobby G. ===== /join New DSL Internet Access from SBC & http://sbc. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 27, 2002 You're welcome, Bobbie texasbg2000 [bigbobgraham] Friday, September 27, 2002 8:42 AM Re: Krishnamurti > Anyway Bobbie, I caused you some anguish and I apologize for that... > > > Wim > My anguish does not come from you Wim, but I do aprecitate your considerate reply. Love Bobby G. /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. Your use of is subject to --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.386 / Virus Database: 218 - Release 9/9/2002 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.386 / Virus Database: 218 - Release 9/9/2002 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 27, 2002 Harsha proposing a group hug... urging Bobbie and Wim to start. We seem nonplussed, a double bind maybe? You're looking pretty youthful Harsha, what happened? -----Original Message----- Harsha [harshaimtm ] Friday, September 27, 2002 8:46 AM Subject: Re: Re: Krishnamurti You guys are so beautiful! I feel another group hug coming on! :-)...:-). Love, Harsha --- texasbg2000 wrote: > > > > Anyway Bobbie, I caused you some anguish and I > apologize for that... > > > > > > Wim > > > > > My anguish does not come from you Wim, but I do > aprecitate your > considerate reply. > > Love > Bobby G. ===== /join New DSL Internet Access from SBC & http://sbc. ------------------------ Sponsor ---------------------~--> Home Selling? Try Us! http://us.click./QrPZMC/iTmEAA/MVfIAA/bpSolB/TM ---~-> /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. Your use of is subject to --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.386 / Virus Database: 218 - Release 9/9/2002 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 27, 2002 , "texasbg2000" <Bigbobgraham@a...> wrote: > , "dan330033" <dan330033> wrote: > > Hi Bobby -- > > > > > You have related a simple statement of mine that indicated we had > > > different views and try to make it seem that I need to be > lectured > > on > > > dropping belief systems. This is an example of why I did not > want > > to > > > discuss the issue with you. Your message has an undercurrent of > > > hostility. > > > > Sometimes one can point to the obvious, even > > while knowing there is a great likelihood > > that the response > > will misconstrue the pointing. > > > > The more obvious the pointing, the more > > likely it will be misconstrued. > > > > snip > > > > > The certainty of it on your part > > > is a double standard in that You get to believe something > > > is true and > > > hence not a belief but I don't. People cannot converse that > way. > > > And too many double standards in one's mind will result in a lot > of > > > mental energy wasted causing too much misunderstanding. > > > > This topic of double standards relates to the topic > > of double-binds. Double-bind communication often > > matches a verbal message with a contradictory nonverbal > > message. But it can also match two contradictory verbal > > messages, one which is the content and one which is > > the way that the content is delivered. For example, > > if I am saying "this is the way it is," but then, > > in the way I am telling you the way it is, contradict > > myself, there is a double bind. Thus, if I say, > > "everything is about love," and in the process of telling > > you about that, manage to put you down in a subtle way, > > perhaps by inferring that you are missing out on > > knowing or feeling this, there is a double-bind. > > The double-bind is used to > > hypnotically induce a situation in which one person is > > too confused about the rules to organize an effective > > response, and the other person seemingly achieves the > > upper-hand, being in control of how the rules have > > been defined and used. > > > > So, thanks for the energy you put into your responses. > > > > I thought you shared useful information, so > > you see -- nothing is in vain. > > > > Peace, > > Dan > > Dear Dan: > > The double bind you mention is well worth remembering. It is a topic > that is dificult to speak clearly on but you definitely did it. > Thanks, it helps me understand a little better. > > Discussion is to be cherished and accomplished as effectively as > possible. Road blocks such as the double bind should be pointed > out. Is this the same thing as dissembling? My take on that is to > act as if something is true when the author knows it is not, in order > to mislead. (Without being held accountable for a verbal message to > that effect.) > > I think an effective countermeasure to the tactic you mentioned is to > maintain an overview of what is right regardless of self interest > about the issue. > > LOve > Bobby G. Hi Bobby -- I appreciate the honesty and sincerity you bring to your looking into things. --- Dan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
