The Answer

[Guest guest]

--- lastrainhome <lastrain wrote:

> Is it our choice to be nice or not nice?

>

> Michael

>

 

Bob (Dylan) would say,

 

The answer my friend is blowing in the wind. The

answer is blowing in the wind.

 

Harsha

 

 

=====

/join

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now

http://hotjobs./

[Guest guest]

, Harsha <harshaimtm> wrote:

> --- lastrainhome <lastrain@w...> wrote:

> > Is it our choice to be nice or not nice?

> >

> > Michael

> >

>

> Bob (Dylan) would say,

>

> The answer my friend is blowing in the wind. The

> answer is blowing in the wind.

>

> Harsha

>

>

> =====

> /join

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now

> http://hotjobs./

 

 

Dear Harsha,

 

 

It was a sincere question.

 

We are encouraged to only post nice things by the list moderator.

 

Implicit in that request is an entity with a choice and consensus on what "nice"

really is.

 

I am not being argumentative.

 

I really would like to know what you think.

 

Love

 

Michael

[Guest guest]

> Dear Harsha,

>

>

> It was a sincere question.

>

> We are encouraged to only post nice things by the list moderator.

>

> Implicit in that request is an entity with a choice and consensus

on what "nice" really is.

>

> I am not being argumentative.

>

> I really would like to know what you think.

>

> Love

>

> Michael

************************

Michael, if we (and I) have no choice, and there is no entity here,

who are you asking and about what?

 

I am also being sincere (just in case I am entity and stuff like

that).

 

Love,

Harsha

[Guest guest]

lastrainhome wrote:

> > Is it our choice to be nice or not nice?

> >

> > Michael

> >

In the printing

of even one word

the relative

is enjoined.

It is not that

we have expressed

some venal attribute

of our character

that obviates

into a conceptual venue

distinct within

it's self.

But that we

have expressed less than

our Selves,

and the joy of our perfection,

which must by

it's nature be ever constrained

to the unspoken.

Therefore if

speaking,

speak through

the heart,

letting it be

known to all,

and rest in

its sufficiency.

..

[Guest guest]

, "harshaimtm" wrote:

> > Dear Harsha,

> >

> >

> > It was a sincere question.

> >

> > We are encouraged to only post nice things by the list moderator.

> >

> > Implicit in that request is an entity with a choice and consensus

> on what "nice" really is.

> >

> > I am not being argumentative.

> >

> > I really would like to know what you think.

> >

> > Love

> >

> > Michael

> ************************

> Michael, if we (and I) have no choice, and there is no entity here,

> who are you asking and about what?

>

> I am also being sincere (just in case I am entity and stuff like

> that).

>

> Love,

> Harsha

 

 

Consciousness asking consciousness about consciusness.......no entity.....no

doer.....no choice

[Guest guest]

, "lastrainhome" <lastrain@w...> wrote:

 

Consciousness asking consciousness about consciusness.......no

entity.....no doer.....no choice

****************

Then no problem

[Guest guest]

, "harshaimtm" <harshaimtm> wrote:

> , "lastrainhome" <lastrain@w...> wrote:

>

> Consciousness asking consciousness about consciusness.......no

> entity.....no doer.....no choice

> ****************

> Then no problem

 

 

 

Do I still have to be nice?

 

 

:-)

 

 

Love

 

Michael

[Guest guest]

, "lastrainhome" <lastrain@w...> wrote:

 

Do I still have to be nice?

 

:-)

*********************

Only if you want others to be nice to you

 

:-).

[Guest guest]

I think of it like playing chess. You move the pieces to the best

advantage of the ability of the piece in conjunction to the

limitations of the positions of the other pieces. Being nice is like

a blockage remover. Teachings of the spiritual sort are IMO designed

to limit blockages.

 

The mental restrictions are as real as the physical ones and vice

versa.

 

I responded to a message one time by a fellow who was having

difficulty with an overweight upstairs neighbor that he could no

longer deal with. I wrote that I have gotten a lot of milage out of

pretending to be nice. People generally want to help me when I do.

 

Well the word 'pretend' caused a stir among a lot of people that the

truth about my real feeling will come out. I thought about that a

lot. Should I vent emotions or not?

 

I think tolerance is the best word for how to act for anyone not able

to surrender completely and irretrievably to God. And I think

pretending to be tolerant is just as good as really being tolerant.

 

Love

Bobby G.

 

 

, "lastrainhome" <lastrain@w...> wrote:

> , "harshaimtm" <harshaimtm> wrote:

> > , "lastrainhome" <lastrain@w...> wrote:

> >

> > Consciousness asking consciousness about consciusness.......no

> > entity.....no doer.....no choice

> > ****************

> > Then no problem

>

>

>

> Do I still have to be nice?

>

>

> :-)

>

>

> Love

>

> Michael

[Guest guest]

, "harshaimtm" wrote:

> , "lastrainhome" <lastrain@w...> wrote:

>

> Do I still have to be nice?

>

> :-)

> *********************

> Only if you want others to be nice to you

>

> :-).

Now this really is satsang kindergarten

[Guest guest]

, "harshaimtm" wrote:

> , "lastrainhome" <lastrain@w...> wrote:

>

> Do I still have to be nice?

>

> :-)

> *********************

> Only if you want others to be nice to you

>

> :-).

 

There is a story of a zen master tossing a student out of a two story window,

screaming "Now, have you got it!"

and then jumping on them.

 

..........The student, according to the story, got it.

>From accounts, Nisargadatta, could be quite un-nice, sometimes yelling at

followers and banning their return.

 

If un-nice is the appropriate medicine.......I a willing to take

some..........(in small doses of course)

 

 

Love

 

Michael

[Guest guest]

> There is a story of a zen master tossing a student out of a two

story window, screaming "Now, have you got it!"

> and then jumping on them.

>

> .........The student, according to the story, got it.

>

> From accounts, Nisargadatta, could be quite un-nice, sometimes

yelling at followers and banning their return.

>

> If un-nice is the appropriate medicine.......I a willing to take

some..........(in small doses of course)

>

>

> Love

>

> Michael

 

Hi Michael --

 

I enjoyed reading your comments.

 

Truth, "what is," doesn't involve itself in judgments about

nice and not-nice. The human mind makes such

judgments to support the image of self-esteem

or to manipulate the environment to get

expected results. Truth isn't encapsulated

by the machinations of the human mind, which

depends on relating thought images and rationales.

 

Zen teachers who did things that seemed not-nice

weren't doing those things to be not-nice, not

if they were authentic teachers.

 

They were acting in a way that fit the situation,

without consciously trying to figure out what

would be seen as nice or spiritual.

 

Truth isn't trying to be nice or spiritual.

 

If the student "got it" that was only because

the student was ready, and was open at that

moment to the unexpected and unpremeditated.

 

What is "getting it"?

 

Is it being now able to tell others I got it,

I am self-realized, I am Self, and so on?

 

Or is it wordless, unpremeditated, unexpected,

and not something one conveys to another,

not something involving either a self or

an other?

 

Is it a show-and-tell, or is it beyond all those

human concerns about having someone else see

oneself as nice, or see oneself as being in the know?

 

I am not raising these questions because I think there's

a right answer.

 

The questions are raised only because an image isn't

the reality that can't be fit into an image.

 

Love to all,

Dan

[Guest guest]

Hi Bobby,

> I think of it like playing chess. You move the pieces to the best

> advantage of the ability of the piece in conjunction to the

> limitations of the positions of the other pieces. Being nice is like

> a blockage remover. Teachings of the spiritual sort are IMO designed

> to limit blockages.

>

> The mental restrictions are as real as the physical ones and vice

> versa.

>

> I responded to a message one time by a fellow who was having

> difficulty with an overweight upstairs neighbor that he could no

> longer deal with. I wrote that I have gotten a lot of milage out of

> pretending to be nice. People generally want to help me when I do.

>

> Well the word 'pretend' caused a stir among a lot of people that the

> truth about my real feeling will come out. I thought about that a

> lot. Should I vent emotions or not?

>

> I think tolerance is the best word for how to act for anyone not able

> to surrender completely and irretrievably to God. And I think

> pretending to be tolerant is just as good as really being tolerant.

 

Absolutely. What you say here reminds me of something written by William Peter

Blatty in 'The Excorcist' (which is a fabulous book as well as a top spiritual

text, believe it or not!). Lankester Merrin (the eponymous) is being served by a

greasy cafe owner in Turkey whom he is repelled by. He smiles at the man and

leaves him a generous tip, reflecting that in his youth, his inability to *feel*

love for the man would have caused him torment, whereas in his maturity he sees

that loving is *acting* with love, not (necessarily) feeling it.

 

Confidence is another quality that is just as good (effective, useful) in the

simulating as in the experiencing.

 

I don't think we should vent emotions if that doesn't serve a useful purpose for

us (or anyone else). This is not to advocate supression/repression of emotion,

which rather results from the failure to acknowledge feelings, and not from the

choice to keep them to ourselves. I often have petulant feelings of annoyance

and chagrin for my wife, for my children. No one would gain from the expression

of these feelings so I keep them to myself. I don't have any choice about

whether I have these feelings or not, but I can choose what I do with them.(I

feel compelled to add that I have lots of lovely and blissful feelings about my

wife and children too, before anyone starts thinking 'what a monster!')

 

Grant.

[Guest guest]

, "lastrainhome" <lastrain@w...> wrote:

> There is a story of a zen master tossing a student out of a two

story window, screaming "Now, have you got it!"

> and then jumping on them.

>

> .........The student, according to the story, got it.

>

> From accounts, Nisargadatta, could be quite un-nice, sometimes

yelling at followers and banning their return.

********************

My dearest Michael,

 

Why should I care about what Zen masters or Nisgradatta did or said

or were nice or not nice? How is that at all relevant here? This is

not Zen-a-Sangh, is it?

 

You seem to assume that we only want nice things said here in a nice

way. That is so totally simplistic that it would be irritating if I

were not such a splendid person.

 

The truth is that we want to follow some basic standards for civil

discourse. If you wish to equate that with being nicey nice and

sweety sweet, that is your choice.

 

We want comments that reflect some intelligence. If you wish to

conclude from that we want to be nicey nice and happy mice, that is

your choice.

 

We want humor with good taste, or at least with some sophistication

and class. Is that too much to ask?

 

We don't ask people to leave just because they act up once in a

while, for a day or two or even a week, or a month, or periodically

once every three weeks. This list has a history of tolerating jerks

and schmucks for years. Hey, that's just the kind of beautiful people

we are.

 

All I am saying is, get with the program. If you can't get with the

program, it's OK. At least try to understand what the program is and

what your words actually mean.

 

Love,

Harsha

[Guest guest]

The one who thinks he is acting with love without

feeling love, merely acts according to a mental

image being carried.

 

Acting according to a mental image being carried

is not anything more, or other, than the strategy

it is.

 

Certainly, there is no confusing acting according

to a strategy, anagenda, with maintaining no

strategy and no agenda.

 

Spontaneous being doesn't involve

fitting an image, and if your idea

of love restricts you from openness

by requiring an image to fit one's

actions to, you will be dealing with

the repercussions of that.

 

The strategy is an imposition.

 

-- Dan

 

 

, bardsley@c... wrote:

> Hi Bobby,

>

> > I think of it like playing chess. You move the pieces to the

best

> > advantage of the ability of the piece in conjunction to the

> > limitations of the positions of the other pieces. Being nice is

like

> > a blockage remover. Teachings of the spiritual sort are IMO

designed

> > to limit blockages.

> >

> > The mental restrictions are as real as the physical ones and vice

> > versa.

> >

> > I responded to a message one time by a fellow who was having

> > difficulty with an overweight upstairs neighbor that he could no

> > longer deal with. I wrote that I have gotten a lot of milage out

of

> > pretending to be nice. People generally want to help me when I

do.

> >

> > Well the word 'pretend' caused a stir among a lot of people that

the

> > truth about my real feeling will come out. I thought about that

a

> > lot. Should I vent emotions or not?

> >

> > I think tolerance is the best word for how to act for anyone not

able

> > to surrender completely and irretrievably to God. And I think

> > pretending to be tolerant is just as good as really being

tolerant.

>

> Absolutely. What you say here reminds me of something written by

William Peter Blatty in 'The Excorcist' (which is a fabulous book as

well as a top spiritual text, believe it or not!). Lankester Merrin

(the eponymous) is being served by a greasy cafe owner in Turkey whom

he is repelled by. He smiles at the man and leaves him a generous

tip, reflecting that in his youth, his inability to *feel* love for

the man would have caused him torment, whereas in his maturity he

sees that loving is *acting* with love, not (necessarily) feeling it.

>

> Confidence is another quality that is just as good (effective,

useful) in the simulating as in the experiencing.

>

> I don't think we should vent emotions if that doesn't serve a

useful purpose for us (or anyone else). This is not to advocate

supression/repression of emotion, which rather results from the

failure to acknowledge feelings, and not from the choice to keep them

to ourselves. I often have petulant feelings of annoyance and chagrin

for my wife, for my children. No one would gain from the expression

of these feelings so I keep them to myself. I don't have any choice

about whether I have these feelings or not, but I can choose what I

do with them.(I feel compelled to add that I have lots of lovely and

blissful feelings about my wife and children too, before anyone

starts thinking 'what a monster!')

>

> Grant.

[Guest guest]

, bardsley@c... wrote:

> Hi Bobby,

>

> > I think of it like playing chess. You move the pieces to the

best

> > advantage of the ability of the piece in conjunction to the

> > limitations of the positions of the other pieces. Being nice is

like

> > a blockage remover. Teachings of the spiritual sort are IMO

designed

> > to limit blockages.

> >

> > The mental restrictions are as real as the physical ones and vice

> > versa.

> >

> > I responded to a message one time by a fellow who was having

> > difficulty with an overweight upstairs neighbor that he could no

> > longer deal with. I wrote that I have gotten a lot of milage out

of

> > pretending to be nice. People generally want to help me when I

do.

> >

> > Well the word 'pretend' caused a stir among a lot of people that

the

> > truth about my real feeling will come out. I thought about that

a

> > lot. Should I vent emotions or not?

> >

> > I think tolerance is the best word for how to act for anyone not

able

> > to surrender completely and irretrievably to God. And I think

> > pretending to be tolerant is just as good as really being

tolerant.

>

> Absolutely. What you say here reminds me of something written by

William Peter Blatty in 'The Excorcist' (which is a fabulous book as

well as a top spiritual text, believe it or not!). Lankester Merrin

(the eponymous) is being served by a greasy cafe owner in Turkey whom

he is repelled by. He smiles at the man and leaves him a generous

tip, reflecting that in his youth, his inability to *feel* love for

the man would have caused him torment, whereas in his maturity he

sees that loving is *acting* with love, not (necessarily) feeling it.

>

> Confidence is another quality that is just as good (effective,

useful) in the simulating as in the experiencing.

>

> I don't think we should vent emotions if that doesn't serve a

useful purpose for us (or anyone else). This is not to advocate

supression/repression of emotion, which rather results from the

failure to acknowledge feelings, and not from the choice to keep them

to ourselves. I often have petulant feelings of annoyance and chagrin

for my wife, for my children. No one would gain from the expression

of these feelings so I keep them to myself. I don't have any choice

about whether I have these feelings or not, but I can choose what I

do with them.(I feel compelled to add that I have lots of lovely and

blissful feelings about my wife and children too, before anyone

starts thinking 'what a monster!')

>

> Grant.

 

I concur Grant. I lack real confidence now and then, but I try to be

tolerant of myself when I'm not nice because of it.

 

Love

Bobby G.

[Guest guest]

, "dan330033" <dan330033> wrote:

> The one who thinks he is acting with love without

> feeling love, merely acts according to a mental

> image being carried.

>

> Acting according to a mental image being carried

> is not anything more, or other, than the strategy

> it is.

>

> Certainly, there is no confusing acting according

> to a strategy, anagenda, with maintaining no

> strategy and no agenda.

>

> Spontaneous being doesn't involve

> fitting an image, and if your idea

> of love restricts you from openness

> by requiring an image to fit one's

> actions to, you will be dealing with

> the repercussions of that.

>

> The strategy is an imposition.

>

> -- Dan

 

interesting.

My turn will come to mess up and bother others so I want to

cultivate the ground for others understanding me. Perhaps this

is "spontaneous pretense".

 

The central thesis of any discussion about subliminal activators or

vasanas is that they are what cause spontaneous actions. Classical

Yoga teaches one to impose a tendency on oneself that counteracts

these tencencies or blockages to liberation. So yes it is an

imposition.

 

I think your use of the term "spontaneous being" is misleading.

Being has no qualifying characteristic except dispassion. I don't

think there is some way of acting with others that is more "me" than

any other. That's just me though.(smiley face) I think I could act

in a different way and I would be no different.

 

Love

Bobby G.

>

>

> , bardsley@c... wrote:

> > Hi Bobby,

> >

> > > I think of it like playing chess. You move the pieces to the

> best

> > > advantage of the ability of the piece in conjunction to the

> > > limitations of the positions of the other pieces. Being nice

is

> like

> > > a blockage remover. Teachings of the spiritual sort are IMO

> designed

> > > to limit blockages.

> > >

> > > The mental restrictions are as real as the physical ones and

vice

> > > versa.

> > >

> > > I responded to a message one time by a fellow who was having

> > > difficulty with an overweight upstairs neighbor that he could

no

> > > longer deal with. I wrote that I have gotten a lot of milage

out

> of

> > > pretending to be nice. People generally want to help me when I

> do.

> > >

> > > Well the word 'pretend' caused a stir among a lot of people

that

> the

> > > truth about my real feeling will come out. I thought about

that

> a

> > > lot. Should I vent emotions or not?

> > >

> > > I think tolerance is the best word for how to act for anyone

not

> able

> > > to surrender completely and irretrievably to God. And I think

> > > pretending to be tolerant is just as good as really being

> tolerant.

> >

> > Absolutely. What you say here reminds me of something written by

> William Peter Blatty in 'The Excorcist' (which is a fabulous book

as

> well as a top spiritual text, believe it or not!). Lankester Merrin

> (the eponymous) is being served by a greasy cafe owner in Turkey

whom

> he is repelled by. He smiles at the man and leaves him a generous

> tip, reflecting that in his youth, his inability to *feel* love for

> the man would have caused him torment, whereas in his maturity he

> sees that loving is *acting* with love, not (necessarily) feeling

it.

> >

> > Confidence is another quality that is just as good (effective,

> useful) in the simulating as in the experiencing.

> >

> > I don't think we should vent emotions if that doesn't serve a

> useful purpose for us (or anyone else). This is not to advocate

> supression/repression of emotion, which rather results from the

> failure to acknowledge feelings, and not from the choice to keep

them

> to ourselves. I often have petulant feelings of annoyance and

chagrin

> for my wife, for my children. No one would gain from the expression

> of these feelings so I keep them to myself. I don't have any choice

> about whether I have these feelings or not, but I can choose what I

> do with them.(I feel compelled to add that I have lots of lovely

and

> blissful feelings about my wife and children too, before anyone

> starts thinking 'what a monster!')

> >

> > Grant.

[Guest guest]

Hi Bobby,

> interesting.

 

Good.

> My turn will come to mess up and bother others so I want to

> cultivate the ground for others understanding me. Perhaps this

> is "spontaneous pretense".

 

It's self-protection, the way you're describing it.

> The central thesis of any discussion about subliminal activators

or

> vasanas is that they are what cause spontaneous actions.

 

That's just a way of thinking about action in terms of

cause and effect. Genes would be another.

 

Once thinking of a present action as determined by a cause

that tiggered the action it's not spontaneous.

 

So, the question arises, could there be a truly spontaneous

awareness, meaning an awareness that isn't premeditated,

not based on an image that is brought from the past?

 

Not that such awareness would cancel out the apparent causal

factors, but transcend causation.

 

In other words, can there be a knowing that isn't the knowing

in terms of cause and effect, that doesn't cancel out

the way that cause and effect works (for example, genes

or vasanas for that matter) but doesn't depend on that

way of viewing, in order to know?

 

Classical

> Yoga teaches one to impose a tendency on oneself that counteracts

> these tencencies or blockages to liberation. So yes it is an

> imposition.

 

That's what I'm questioning.

 

If it's an imposition it's not spontaneity, or

perhaps a better word would be acausal,

acausal as not of time.

> I think your use of the term "spontaneous being" is misleading.

 

Maybe so.

> Being has no qualifying characteristic except dispassion.

 

Dispassion would have to be toward something - it would

require someone viewing or experiencing something,

and then being dispassionate about that.

 

Being, considered as not divided or split, would indeed

have no qualities. Including dispassion. Although I

see your point, for there wouldn't be anything outside

of itself to have passion toward.

 

I think the terms acausal or perhaps uncreated would fit

well for me here.

 

I don't

> think there is some way of acting with others that is more "me"

than

> any other.

 

There is the awareness that doesn't impose an ideal, an

image. In that awareness there isn't a me to protect,

or to make the center of things. There isn't a concern

with being seen as loving, or fitting that image of

being loving. You can call that awareness being

without a quality, or acausal knowing, or the uncreated.

You can call it love without division.

 

It's not that it's more you. It's that it's you without

any division from or of you, as the division of

an ideal or image which is then brought into a situation

and imposed.

 

That's just me though.(smiley face) I think I could act

> in a different way and I would be no different.

 

I'm talking more about being aware than how you act.

 

I'm not judging how you act.

 

I'm looking at being aware in a way that the doing

and the being aren't split, aren't divided by

trying to fit the doing to an image.

 

Nice talking to you, Bobby.

 

You're thoughtful as usual.

 

Love,

Dan

[Guest guest]

on 11/5/02 8:21 AM, texasbg2000 at Bigbobgraham wrote:

> , bardsley@c... wrote:

>> Hi Bobby,

>>

>>> I think of it like playing chess. You move the pieces to the

> best

>>> advantage of the ability of the piece in conjunction to the

>>> limitations of the positions of the other pieces. Being nice is

> like

>>> a blockage remover. Teachings of the spiritual sort are IMO

> designed

>>> to limit blockages.

 

 

 

 

The first thing you need to do is get in touch with negative feelings that

you're not even aware of. Lots of people have negative feelings they're

not aware of. Lots of people are depressed and they're not aware they are

depressed. It's only when they make contact with joy that they understand

how depressed they were. You can't deal with a cancer that you haven't

detected. You can't get rid of boll weevils on your farm if you're not

aware of their existence. The first thing you need is awareness of your

negative feelings. What negative feelings? Gloominess, for

instance. You're feeling gloomy and moody. You feel self-hatred or

guilt. You feel that life is pointless, that it makes no sense; you've got

hurt feelings, you're feeling nervous and tense. Get in touch with those

feelings first.

 

The second step (this is a four-step program) is to understand that the

feeling is in you, not in reality. That's such a self-evident thing, but

do you think people know it? They don't, believe me. They've got Ph.D.s

and are presidents of universities, but they haven't understood this. They

didn't teach me how to live at school. They taught me everything else. As

one man said, "I got a pretty good education. It took me years to get over

it." That's what spirituality is all about, you know:

unlearning. Unlearning all the rubbish they taught you.

 

Negative feelings are in you, not in reality. So stop trying to change

reality. That's crazy! Stop trying to change the other person. We spend

all our time and energy trying to change external circumstances, trying to

change our spouses, our bosses, our friends, our enemies, and everybody

else. We don't have to change anything. Negative feelings are in you. No

person on earth has the power to make you unhappy. There is no event on

earth that has the power to disturb you or hurt you. No event, condition,

situation, or person. Nobody told you this; they told you the

opposite. That's why you're in the mess that you're in right now. That is

why you're asleep. They never told you this. But it's self-evident.

 

Let's suppose that rain washes out a picnic. Who is feeling negative? The

rain? Or YOU? What's causing the negative feeling? The rain or your

reaction? When you bump your knee against a table, the table's fine. It's

busy being what it was made to Be -- a table. The pain is in your knee,

not in the table. The mystics keep trying to tell us that reality is all

right. Reality is not problematic. Problems exist only in the human

mind. We might add: in the stupid, sleeping human mind. Reality is not

problematic. Take away human beings from this planet and life would go on,

nature would go on in all its loveliness and violence. Where would the

problem be? No problem. You created the problem. You are the

problem. You identified with "me" and that is the problem. The feeling is

in you, not in reality.

 

The third step: Never identify with that feeling. It has nothing to do

with the "I." Don't define your essential self in terms of that

feeling. Don't say, "I am depressed." If you want to say, "It is

depressed," that's all right. If you want to say depression is there,

that's fine; if you want to say gloominess is there, that's fine. But not:

I am gloomy. You're defining yourself in terms of the feeling. That's

your illusion; that's your mistake. There is a depression there right now,

there are hurt feelings there right now, but let it be, leave it alone. It

will pass. Everything passes, everything. Your depressions and your

thrills have nothing to do with happiness. Those are the swings of the

pendulum. If you seek kicks or thrills, get ready for depression. Do you

want your drug? Get ready for the hangover. One end of the pendulum

swings to the other.

 

This has nothing to do with "I"; it has nothing to do with happiness. It

is the "me." If you remember this, if you say it to yourself a thousand

times, if you try these three steps a thousand times, you will get it. You

might not need to do it even three times. I don't know; there's no rule

for it. But do it a thousand times and you'll make the biggest discovery

in your life. To hell with those gold mines in Alaska. What are you going

to do with that gold? If you're not happy, you can't live. So you found

gold. What does that matter? You're a king; you're a princess. You're

free; you don't care anymore about being accepted or rejected, that makes

no difference. Psychologists tell us how important it is to get a sense of

belonging. Baloney! Why do you want to belong to anybody? It doesn't

matter anymore.

 

A friend of mine told me that there's an African tribe where capital

punishment consists of being ostracized. If you were kicked out of New

York, or wherever you're residing, you wouldn't die. How is it that the

African tribesman died? Because he partakes of the common stupidity of

humanity. He thinks he will not be able to live if he does not

belong. It's very different from most people, or is it? He's convinced he

needs to belong. But you don't need to belong to anybody or anything or

any group. You don't even need to be in love. Who told you you do? What

you need is to be free. What you need is to love. That's it; that's your

nature. But what you're really telling me is that you want to be

desired. You want to be applauded, to be attractive, to have all the

little monkeys running after you. You're wasting your life. WAKE UP! You

don't need this. You can be blissfully happy without it.

 

Your society is not going to be happy to hear this, because you become

terrifying when you open your eyes and understand this. How do you control

a person like this? He doesn't need you; he's not threatened by your

criticism; he doesn't care what you think of him or what you say about

him. He's cut all those strings; he's not a puppet any longer. It's

terrifying. "So we've got to get rid of him. He tells the truth; he has

become fearless; he has stopped being human.'' HUMAN! Behold! A human

being at last! He broke out of his slavery, broke out of their prison.

 

No event justifies a negative feeling. There is no situation in the world

that justifies a negative feeling. That's what all our mystics have been

crying themselves hoarse to tell us. But nobody listens. The negative

feeling is in you. In the Bhagavad-Gita, the sacred book of the Hindus,

Lord Krishna says to Arjuna, "Plunge into the heat of battle and keep your

heart at the lotus feet of the Lord." A marvelous sentence.

 

You don't have to do anything to acquire happiness. The great Meister

Eckhart said very beautifully, "God is not attained by a process of

addition to anything in the soul, but by a process of subtraction." You

don't do anything to be free, you drop something. Then you're free.

 

It reminds me of the Irish prisoner who dug a tunnel under the prison wall

and managed to escape. He comes out right in the middle of a school

playground where little children are playing. Of course, when he emerges

from the tunnel he can't restrain himself anymore and begins to jump up and

down, crying, "I'm free, I'm free, I'm free! A little girl there looks at

him scornfully and says, "That's nothing. I'm four."

 

The fourth step: How do you change things? How do you change

yourselves? There are many things you must understand here, or rather,

just one thing that can be expressed in many ways. Imagine a patient who

goes to a doctor and tells him what he is suffering from. The doctor says,

"Very well, I've understood your symptoms. Do you know what I will do? I

will prescribe a medicine for your neighbor!" The patient replies, "Thank

you very much, Doctor, that makes me feel much better." Isn't that

absurd? But that's what we all do. The person who is asleep always thinks

he'll feel better if somebody else changes. You're suffering because you

are asleep, but you're thinking, "How wonderful life would be if somebody

else would change; how wonderful life would be if my neighbor changed, my

wife changed, my boss changed."

 

We always want someone else to change so that we will feel good. But has

it ever struck you that even if your wife changes or your husband changes,

what does that do to you? You're just as vulnerable as before; you're just

as idiotic as before; you're just as asleep as before. You are the one who

needs to change, who needs to take medicine. You keep insisting, "I feel

good because the world is right." Wrong! The world is right because I

feel good. That's what all the mystics are saying.

 

 

 

Anthony de Mello, SJ

[Guest guest]

Wotcha Dan,

> The one who thinks he is acting with love without

> feeling love, merely acts according to a mental

> image being carried.

 

Yes, the image or idea of love, tolerance, kindness, etc.

> Acting according to a mental image being carried

> is not anything more, or other, than the strategy

> it is.

 

Indeed.

> Certainly, there is no confusing acting according

> to a strategy, anagenda, with maintaining no

> strategy and no agenda.

 

Certainly.

> Spontaneous being doesn't involve

> fitting an image,

 

No.

> and if your idea

> of love restricts you from openness

> by requiring an image to fit one's

> actions to, you will be dealing with

> the repercussions of that.

 

My everyday idea of love is a relative notion to suit the relative world in a

common sense way, and is expressive of an apparent choice within a field of

apparent choices (the 'loving' choice). The point I was making (in the field of

the relative) was that emotions and behaviour do not have to tessellate; that

we can feel one way and act another according to our choice. I'm not sure in

what sense you intend 'openess' but in the sense that closedness might equate to

repression, I was also suggesting that the choice to express or act on emotion

or not to do so doesn't necesasarily have to sit with closedness, that you can

decide what to act on or express or what not and still remain open (to the truth

of your feelings). In an absolute sense I agree that this has little to do with

'Spontaneous being' or 'love' which are, of course, not about choices,

feelings, strategies or anything else within the field of the relative.

> The strategy is an imposition.

 

Yes, any strategy is an imposition.

> -- Dan

 

Grant.

[Guest guest]

Hi Grant --

> My everyday idea of love is a relative notion to suit the relative

world in a common sense way, and is expressive of an apparent choice

within a field of apparent choices (the 'loving' choice). The point I

was making (in the field of the relative) was that emotions and

behaviour do not have to tessellate; that we can feel one way and act

another according to our choice. I'm not sure in what sense you

intend 'openess' but in the sense that closedness might equate to

repression, I was also suggesting that the choice to express or act

on emotion or not to do so doesn't necesasarily have to sit with

closedness, that you can decide what to act on or express or what not

and still remain open (to the truth of your feelings).

 

Everything you're describing sounds fine to me, and is

within conceptuality. Conceptuality involves

forming images of what has occurred, forming a choice-maker,

and then having the imaged choice-maker formulate

decisions. All of these images, including the choice-maker,

are the past.

 

By openness, I mean the present that is not sandwiched

between the past and the future. The inclusive timeless

present. That present has nothing in it, no choice-maker,

no decisions to be made, because it is not an invention

of conceptuality.

 

This openness, which actually is not a quality at all,

is the end of decision-making, and the end of any thoughts

about not making decisions.

 

One could call this absolute presentness without a decision

or decision-maker, or one could call it no-thingness,

the unspeakable unnameable "what is" that is all that is.

 

> In an absolute sense I agree that this has little to do

with 'Spontaneous being' or 'love' which are, of course, not about

choices, feelings, strategies or anything else within the field of

the relative.

 

Yes.

 

The relative is not wiped out or done away with.

 

The relative takes care of itself.

 

Conceptuality forms and dissolves choicelessly,

and the choice-maker and the choices

arise along with that choiceless conceptuality.

 

There is nothing out of place.

 

One could call this love, because it is all

inclusive and undivided, or one could call

it the nameless, of no quality whatsoever.

> > The strategy is an imposition.

>

> Yes, any strategy is an imposition.

 

Strategy, being a conceptual formulation

designed to improve the chances for

a conceptual entity, ends up being

an imposition if it is taken

as the basis of ongoing reality,

and there is an attempt to

maintain and insert the strategy

on "what is."

 

Yet, there's a joke to all this.

 

The joke being that even the attempt to

maintain and impose a strategy is a choicelessly

arising phenomenon that is not out of place

whatsoever.

 

-- Dan

[Guest guest]

, "dan330033" <dan330033> wrote:

> Hi Bobby,

 

Hi Dan:

> > interesting.

>

> Good.

>

> > My turn will come to mess up and bother others so I want to

> > cultivate the ground for others understanding me. Perhaps this

> > is "spontaneous pretense".

>

> It's self-protection, the way you're describing it.

 

The will to live is an affliction (Patanjali- the other four are- I

amness, aversion, attraction, Ignorance which propagates them all

[see end remark}).

>

> > The central thesis of any discussion about subliminal

activators

> or

> > vasanas is that they are what cause spontaneous actions.

>

> That's just a way of thinking about action in terms of

> cause and effect. Genes would be another.

 

Hormonal triggers is another.

>

> Once thinking of a present action as determined by a cause

> that tiggered the action it's not spontaneous.

 

Being in the moment at first is difficult as far as being spontaneous

is concerned. I believe this is a big sticking point for many. I'm

glad you brought it up. Analysis of causes I believe is the result

of the momentary flash of Self.

 

The tendency is to shy off this as if is is a bad thing. For me it

is the thing that is most interesting about life.

>

> So, the question arises, could there be a truly spontaneous

> awareness, meaning an awareness that isn't premeditated,

> not based on an image that is brought from the past?

>

> Not that such awareness would cancel out the apparent causal

> factors, but transcend causation.

>

> In other words, can there be a knowing that isn't the knowing

> in terms of cause and effect, that doesn't cancel out

> the way that cause and effect works (for example, genes

> or vasanas for that matter) but doesn't depend on that

> way of viewing, in order to know?

 

Good point. To me the structure of concepts which defines the 'World'

necessitates that the knowing of any part is itself corrupted by

having to fit it into the already accepted "World".

Once the world disappears as in meditation, knowing is without

causation or seed. That is, if you are in the world that awareness

must be in terms of cause and effect but if you Are the world, it

does not.

>

> Classical

> > Yoga teaches one to impose a tendency on oneself that counteracts

> > these tencencies or blockages to liberation. So yes it is an

> > imposition.

>

> That's what I'm questioning.

>

> If it's an imposition it's not spontaneity, or

> perhaps a better word would be acausal,

> acausal as not of time.

 

I have to think of out of time (acausal) as the perfect answer. What

I understand this to mean is that "I" become identical to the "Now".

No new karma is created and all actions are dedicated to working off

the tendencies.

>

> > I think your use of the term "spontaneous being" is misleading.

>

> Maybe so.

>

> > Being has no qualifying characteristic except dispassion.

>

> Dispassion would have to be toward something - it would

> require someone viewing or experiencing something,

> and then being dispassionate about that.

>

> Being, considered as not divided or split, would indeed

> have no qualities. Including dispassion. Although I

> see your point, for there wouldn't be anything outside

> of itself to have passion toward.

>

> I think the terms acausal or perhaps uncreated would fit

> well for me here.

 

I like this too.

>

> I don't

> > think there is some way of acting with others that is more "me"

> than

> > any other.

>

> There is the awareness that doesn't impose an ideal, an

> image. In that awareness there isn't a me to protect,

> or to make the center of things. There isn't a concern

> with being seen as loving, or fitting that image of

> being loving. You can call that awareness being

> without a quality, or acausal knowing, or the uncreated.

> You can call it love without division.

>

> It's not that it's more you. It's that it's you without

> any division from or of you, as the division of

> an ideal or image which is then brought into a situation

> and imposed.

 

I don't think it is possible to be a personality that is the real

you. To me it is all the working off of he vasanas.

>

> That's just me though.(smiley face) I think I could act

> > in a different way and I would be no different.

>

> I'm talking more about being aware than how you act.

>

> I'm not judging how you act.

>

> I'm looking at being aware in a way that the doing

> and the being aren't split, aren't divided by

> trying to fit the doing to an image.

 

I like this discussion. I fear that I will have to sound like I know

what I am talking about to continue it.

 

If I get corrected about a false assumption that i hold then that

would be a good thing.

 

I have had the experience of watching actions occur. I have had

conversations where I continued to talk and listen while observing.

There is an underiding sense of now. This being aware is not the

usual but it is not alien either and the duration increases

gradually. The choices made while in this awareness came

spontaneously with out my actually making them.

 

The image I have of myself is an amalgam of my selective awareness of

the vasanas. The source of the feeling of identity, or the reason

why I have the feeling of "me" is that there is a real me always

present that is identical with "beingSelfNow".

 

Avidya (ignorance) is ascribing reality to the conceptual self image

of the amalgam of vasanas instead of to this real me that is always

present,and results in suffering and suffering to come. So to me

this issue is central to any methodology.

>

> Nice talking to you, Bobby.

>

> You're thoughtful as usual.

>

> Love,

> Dan

 

Good talking with you.

 

thanks

Love

Bobby G.

[Guest guest]

on 11/6/02 8:18 AM, texasbg2000 at Bigbobgraham wrote:

 

> I have to think of out of time (acausal) as the perfect answer. What

> I understand this to mean is that "I" become identical to the "Now".

> No new karma is created and all actions are dedicated to working off

> the tendencies.

 

Dedicated may be the wrong word here, as it implies motivation.

> I don't think it is possible to be a personality that is the real

> you. To me it is all the working off of he vasanas.

 

 

....implying one who would desire to work off.

the burning "happens" as the *dropping* of desires is spontaneous and

unmotivated,. "

 

> I have had the experience of watching actions occur. I have had

> conversations where I continued to talk and listen while observing.

> There is an underiding sense of now.

 

That now is now a concept. I think you are describing the sense that there

is something happening that transcends you, that you intuit this "presence

that is being you."

 

This being aware is not the

> usual but it is not alien either and the duration increases

> gradually. The choices made while in this awareness came

> spontaneously with out my actually making them.

 

There is Someone or Something that is being us and you are becoming aware of

that. You are not That (in experience), but are the one that that One is

*being*. The bodymind is being beingged by That.

> The image I have of myself is an amalgam of my selective awareness of

> the vasanas. The source of the feeling of identity, or the reason

> why I have the feeling of "me" is that there is a real me always

> present that is identical with "beingSelfNow".

 

Really? Where does this feeling come from? If the "real" self has no

attributes, then ....

 

Ah, such a wonderful Mystery.

 

Shawn

[Guest guest]

Hi Bobby --

> The will to live is an affliction (Patanjali- the other four are- I

> amness, aversion, attraction, Ignorance which propagates them all

> [see end remark}).

 

O.K. As in, ignorance of nonseparation.

> Being in the moment at first is difficult as far as being

spontaneous

> is concerned. I believe this is a big sticking point for many.

I'm

> glad you brought it up. Analysis of causes I believe is the result

> of the momentary flash of Self.

 

Makes sense.

> The tendency is to shy off this as if is is a bad thing. For me it

> is the thing that is most interesting about life.

 

Analysis of causes?

 

It seems to me that one can only analyze causes when there

is an analyzer who can define cause and effect in relation,

and in relation to that analyzer.

 

Wouldn't the analyzer and the activity of analysis of

causes be essentially the same thing, and be the

same thing as the ignorance you described earlier?

 

snip

> Good point. To me the structure of concepts which defines

the 'World'

> necessitates that the knowing of any part is itself corrupted by

> having to fit it into the already accepted "World".

 

A very worthwhile observation.

 

The known gets continued as there is the assumption

of ongoing knowing taking place, which fits in.

> Once the world disappears as in meditation, knowing is without

> causation or seed. That is, if you are in the world that awareness

> must be in terms of cause and effect but if you Are the world, it

> does not.

 

True.

 

And if there is no world, nothing to fit into,

knowing is not the same knowing anymore.

> > Classical

> > > Yoga teaches one to impose a tendency on oneself that

counteracts

> > > these tencencies or blockages to liberation. So yes it is an

> > > imposition.

 

Yes, that's interesting.

 

You have the assumption that ignorance is happening,

and some kind of movement against that ignorance

to counteract it.

 

It seems to me that counteracting something, affirms it

as existing. And that the affirmation of ignorance

as existing, is itself ignorance. That is, to

believe that things have their own existence, to be

counteracted by forces acting against those things

(or tendencies) would itself be to take things

as separate.

 

snip

> I have to think of out of time (acausal) as the perfect answer.

What

> I understand this to mean is that "I" become identical to

the "Now".

> No new karma is created and all actions are dedicated to working

off

> the tendencies.

 

The tendencies would work themselves out, if they

aren't being given new food, in the sense of

the energy of belief that they have their own

existence or determine some existing thing or being.

> I don't think it is possible to be a personality that is the real

> you. To me it is all the working off of he vasanas.

 

Yes, that makes sense to me.

 

Which I would see as tendencies to believe in continuity

of perceptible things, thus including the ideas you

gave above as aversion, attraction, Iamness, and ignorance.

 

> I like this discussion. I fear that I will have to sound like I

know

> what I am talking about to continue it.

 

Yes, how unfortunate.

 

We could just assume that neither of us knows

what we're talking about.

> If I get corrected about a false assumption that i hold then that

> would be a good thing.

 

O.K.

 

Although to correct someone, there has to be a view of

causality and a world into which knowledge is being fit.

 

Which you did away with earlier :-)

> The image I have of myself is an amalgam of my selective awareness

of

> the vasanas. The source of the feeling of identity, or the reason

> why I have the feeling of "me" is that there is a real me always

> present that is identical with "beingSelfNow".

 

Okay. I'm taking this in and the way I'm understanding

your words makes sense to me.

 

One could say that the appearance of ignorance is because

there is nonignorant reality always the case.

> Avidya (ignorance) is ascribing reality to the conceptual self

image

> of the amalgam of vasanas instead of to this real me that is always

> present,and results in suffering and suffering to come. So to me

> this issue is central to any methodology.

 

That seems valid.

 

Conceptual reality is not nonconceptual truth.

Yet, conceptual reality can only seemingly occur,

because nonconceptual truth is always the case.

 

Methodology would have to fall into the conceptual

aspect of this situation, wouldn't it?

 

Be well, Bobby --

 

Peace,

Dan

[Guest guest]

on 11/4/02 6:22 PM, harshaimtm at harsha wrote:

> My dearest Michael,

>

> Why should I care about what Zen masters or Nisgradatta did or said

> or were nice or not nice? How is that at all relevant here? This is

> not Zen-a-Sangh, is it?

>

> You seem to assume that we only want nice things said here in a nice

> way. That is so totally simplistic that it would be irritating if I

> were not such a splendid person.

 

 

I spin around on my fourth foot eating popcorn with my second left hand,

dancing Shiva music everywhere...sometimes I get frustrated at the crap on

TV and so throw down the TVguide and wipe out a galaxie of beings much

smaller than I. I weep for their lives but smile at the humor of Harsha.

 

Shawn