deb's ghost / Judi

[Guest guest]

And the obsession continued, here, as one spoke of the other to

another.

 

Obsessions with the obsessions of others and obsessions with the

obsessions of the obsessions of others. And obsessions with the

obsessions of the obsessions of the obsessions of others. Gossip is

a fine recreation for stimulating the mind....which sounds like a

good thing....except everyone keeps saying it's a bad thing...so,

what to do, what to do?

 

 

Realization , " satkartar5 " <mi_nok> wrote:

> <judirhodes@z...> wrote:

> > > ******** Oh contraire, she told me to call it off, remember,

in her

> > usual self-serving holier than thou way. She turned tail and

ran.

> > As typical, when it gets too hot in the " kitchen " , she runs to

her

> > " silence " . :-) She's a sleeze coward of a woman, that's what it

> > comes down to.

> ----

>

> The end of the samadhi " love-talk "

> between G and judi:

>

> **** Hardly, it's me, Judi Rhodes, your nightmare.

>

> >

> > G: naw your not even a blip on the screen....

>

> hehehe, Karta

>

>

> > > ****** Ain't it the truth, she's not impressing anyone.

> > >

> > > Makes you wonder if she's not about 14. Sheesh!

> > >

> > > Judi

> >

> >

> > G: try........ 0

> >

> > now with that say on judi .... say on jody..... keep minds

> > engaged .... open mouths and insert feet...... for there

> > will be no more replies from here..... this has been and

> > remains a window of emptiness ..... a mirror which hold

> > no image ..... a play without a player.....

> >

> > watch the mental gyrations occur as they try assundry

> > moves to attempt to rise a response.......

> >

> > my final advice is to put away your sticks and stones

> > your empty words ..... go wash your hands ..... and relax......

> >

> >

> > Now here comes Judi's attempts to rise a response.

> >

> > ******* That's right, run you slime coward. Back under your rock

> > where you belong!

> >

> > Judi

[Guest guest]

> Gossip is

> a fine recreation for stimulating the mind....which sounds like a

> good thing....except everyone keeps saying it's a bad thing...so,

> what to do, what to do?

 

Turn off the computer and go for a walk?

 

-

" Onniko " <onniko

<Realization >

Saturday, April 19, 2003 12:00 PM

Re: deb's ghost / Judi

[Guest guest]

> > ******** Yes, several of us see through it and have called her on her game, you, me, Jason, Bruce, Gene, Lobster, Jody, Greg, Sandeep, that I know of, but she refuses and keeps it up. I suppose as long as she has some guppies, some "enablers" over there, she'll keep it up. That's her "gig" and she hangs on like a mad dog with his bone. It's sad really. She's obviously got some very deep wounds. > > JudiYes, it's so.On those occasions when the woundedness shows, the me versus my persecutors, there is a poignant sadness to it ...-- Dan

 

************ Yep. The way I see it is that she hasn't come "full circle".

It's too painful so remains "un-embodied". And her taking the name "Ganga" is

an example of it. If you get my drift, which I know you do.

 

Judi

 

 

[Guest guest]

<Turn off the computer and go for a walk? >

 

Now, that is some advice to live and die with. Unfortunately, but

not sadly as I know I mustn't have any emotion or self-interest, I

am stuck waiting for phone calls and customers, today. You enjoy the

walk for all of us, though, as we sit in your awareness with you,

all on our very best, quietest behavior =oD!!

 

 

 

Realization , " Rob Sacks " <editor@r...> wrote:

> > Gossip is

> > a fine recreation for stimulating the mind....which sounds like

a

> > good thing....except everyone keeps saying it's a bad

thing...so,

> > what to do, what to do?

>

> Turn off the computer and go for a walk?

>

> -

> " Onniko " <onniko>

> <Realization >

> Saturday, April 19, 2003 12:00 PM

> Re: deb's ghost / Judi

[Guest guest]

<Yep. The way I see it is that she hasn't come " full circle " .

It's too painful so remains " un-embodied " . And her taking the

name " Ganga " is

an example of it. If you get my drift, which I know you do.>

 

What does 'Ganga' mean? What does that weird other name you also use

mean? Are you sure you went far enough into that ego death? Did you

go to the land where there can be no separation between what you are

and what you think about ever and in no circumstances? All alone

where even a Ganga, a Karta, or a Bob, to direct an idea towards

cannot take it out of what you are? It's alot easier to be nothing

than it is to be everything, you know? Lose a persona, then rest in

nothing, then gain the personas of your whole world, then, accept

them for what they are.

 

 

 

Realization , " Judi Rhodes " <judirhodes@z...>

wrote:

>

> >

> > ******** Yes, several of us see through it and have called her

on

> her game, you, me, Jason, Bruce, Gene, Lobster, Jody, Greg,

Sandeep,

> that I know of, but she refuses and keeps it up. I suppose as

long

> as she has some guppies, some " enablers " over there, she'll keep

it

> up. That's her " gig " and she hangs on like a mad dog with his

bone.

> It's sad really. She's obviously got some very deep wounds.

> >

> > Judi

>

> Yes, it's so.

>

> On those occasions when the woundedness shows,

> the me versus my persecutors, there is a poignant

> sadness to it ...

>

> -- Dan

>

> ************ Yep. The way I see it is that she hasn't come " full

circle " .

> It's too painful so remains " un-embodied " . And her taking the

name " Ganga " is

> an example of it. If you get my drift, which I know you do.

>

> Judi

[Guest guest]

 

 

 

<Yep. The way I see it is that she hasn't come "full circle". It's too painful so remains "un-embodied". And her taking the name "Ganga" is an example of it. If you get my drift, which I know you do.>What does 'Ganga' mean?

 

******** I don't know, something "other worldly" I suppose.

 

What does that weird other name you also use mean?

 

****** Jai Hari Kaur, a name given to me by one of the heads of the Sikh religion, which means "Princess of the Victory of God".

 

 

Are you sure you went far enough into that ego death? Did you go to the land where there can be no separation between what you are and what you think about ever and in no circumstances? All alone where even a Ganga, a Karta, or a Bob, to direct an idea towards cannot take it out of what you are? It's alot easier to be nothing than it is to be everything, you know? Lose a persona, then rest in nothing, then gain the personas of your whole world, then, accept them for what they are.

******* You totally mis-understand, no one goes *anywhere* nor *becomes* anything, that's all a bunch of nonsense. It's the game of greed that runs itself in circles. The "world" itself is nothing but a big circle jerk. :-)

 

Judi

 

[Guest guest]

 

 

 

 

******* You totally mis-understand, no one goes *anywhere* nor *becomes* anything, that's all a bunch of nonsense. It's the game of greed that runs itself in circles. The "world" itself is nothing but a big circle jerk. :-)

 

**** Like George Carlin said, the world is but a revolving smorgasborg with weather. :-)

 

LOL

 

 

[Guest guest]

Realization , " Judi Rhodes "

<judirhodes@z...> wrote:

>

> >

> > ******** Yes, several of us see through it and have called her

> on her game, you, me, Jason, Bruce, Gene, Lobster, Jody,

Greg,

> Sandeep, that I know of, but she refuses and keeps it up. I

> suppose as long as she has some guppies, some " enablers "

> over there, she'll keep it up. That's her " gig " and she hangs on

> like a mad dog with his bone. It's sad really. She's obviously

got

> some very deep wounds.

> >

> > Judi

>

>

> Having looked through that list what I found there was telling.

> It wasn't Ganga that was promoting herself or her site but in

fact

> Judy. End of the Rope Ranch was listed over and over again .

>

> ******* Nope, I am not interested in the least in promoting

" Judi " .

> The ranch list description posted is a pointing and a teaching

unto itself.

>

> End of " story " .

>

>

>

> How you can say that she is looking for guppies is really

> laughable. Do you not see your persona in the mirror you

> attempt to put on Ganga? It looks like from here that what you

> accuse her of you are much more culpable in.

>

> ********** Nope, like I said, you're missing the point.

 

What point is that? That your posting about the ranch is not

looking for guppies, while simply because she says she is a

Guru that she is looking for guppies. I didn't see her posting her

sites and saying come follow me anywhere. I saw simply that

she was relating what her apparent reality base is and what it is

not. Just because one says they are a teacher or a Guru does

not necessarily mean that they are as you seem to think 'trolling

for students'.

 

>

> I daresay many have called you on your own apparent game

but

> all falling on deaf ears it seems. Looking at the posts it has

> been noted that she says that there is no longer any suffering

for

> her and that it is indeed possible to get beyond it. So perhaps

> that is in fact true . Perhaps her motivation lies simply within

the

> fact that she wishes to say that it " is " possible to transcend

> suffering. So what problem have you with that ?

>

> ********* Seriously Manju, you're not looking deep enough, her

promotion of her " non-suffering " IS in fact her suffering.

> It's nonsense Manju, and some of us who have been there,

done that, can see through it. And the proof of the pudding is

when it's pointed out to her, what in fact she's doing, she

" bristles " . She screams as a matter of fact, and then gets on her

high horse of how she's beyond it all. :-) How much more

obvious does it have to be? Seriously, it doesn't take a rocket

scientist to figure that out.

 

 

That my dear doesn't make any sense what-so-ever. If in Fact

someone IS out of suffering to state so is not suffering.

The fact that you wish to believe so may be simply that in your

case suffering goes on and so there is this belief that it must be

so with everyone else.

 

Perhaps she is simply stating a fact. The high horse may in fact

be yours in what appears to be the ever present need to keep

attempting to make something wrong, which may not be wrong

at all. What is bristling is your own mind at the thought that she

has stated where she is or is not. It doesn't take a rocket

scientist to see that it might just be you with the suffering

problem and not her at all.

 

 

 

>

> This is subtle stuff and the seeker who has his mind set on

getting " beyond " it all, buys into it, hook, line and sinker.

>

> Judi

 

 

Perhaps that is simply what is when it is over. You throw the

baby out with the bath water. What subtle stuff is she selling.

Advanced courses in Bliss 101. I saw no such evidence.

But what I do see is that there simply appears to be this heavy

conflict for you as to reading into what is there more than what is

being said.

 

My dear and what is it that you are selling or wanting others to

buy into? Once confronting the self does it not take one beyond

the suffering mind ? And if not what has your confrontation and

death which you claim to have entered afforded you ?

 

Your ever present nonsense of basically attempting to make

everyone appear foolish is an underlying need to negate their

reality. Can you truly say beyond a shadow of a doubt that she is

NOT where she says she is? Can you Truly say that she does

not live within the consciousness that she claims to? What she

is claiming has in fact been stated by many before her . Why is it

that you cannot accept that? Ramana spoke of such a

consciousness and also Chinul (who was a korean zen master)

and not only them but many others through the texts and writings

of the upanishads and other established and accepted wisdom

pages.

 

Perhaps you may wish to rethink this. Perhaps it is simply a

matter of semantics. Perhaps you attempt to read into it motives

and agendas which are not there at all. That my dear would be

the fallacy on your end. Instead of attacking why don't you

question? Or are you able to be within anothers

consciousness, ? As only and I stress Only then can you know if

there is suffering, silence, stillness, or not. Perhaps her way of

expressing it simply has a different flavor .

[Guest guest]

Realization , " Judi Rhodes "

<judirhodes@z...> wrote:

>

> >

> > ******** Yes, several of us see through it and have called her

on

> her game, you, me, Jason, Bruce, Gene, Lobster, Jody, Greg,

Sandeep,

> that I know of, but she refuses and keeps it up. I suppose as

long

> as she has some guppies, some " enablers " over there, she'll

keep it

> up. That's her " gig " and she hangs on like a mad dog with his

bone.

> It's sad really. She's obviously got some very deep wounds.

> >

> > Judi

>

> Yes, it's so.

>

> On those occasions when the woundedness shows,

> the me versus my persecutors, there is a poignant

> sadness to it ...

>

> -- Dan

>

> ************ Yep. The way I see it is that she hasn't come " full

circle " .

> It's too painful so remains " un-embodied " . And her taking the

name " Ganga " is

> an example of it. If you get my drift, which I know you do.

>

> Judi

 

 

 

Do you know why she has that name? Once again you are

simply assuming, and possibly quite wrongly as to why.

 

These blantant assumptions show there has been possibly

pre-judgements based upon externals.

 

Really that would be quite petty at best. I am sure that all here

get your drift so to speak. But your drift has an undercurrent of

judging externals rather than what is important.

 

What is in a name? When you get married do you not change

your name ? Is it because of some strange drift ? Or is it due to

social convention?

 

As I have heard it she was married in india and it is the social

convention and legality of that land and district to take a fully

hindu name in order to have the marriage registered legally in

the hindu marriage book. What you are judging her on in this

case is a totally bogus assumption. If you have never lived in

india I am sure you are unaware of this stipulation.

 

 

What I find facinating is the fact that due to a name or a clothing

preferance you are attempting to concoct this whole scenario.

I think this is right up there and blind assumptions rather than

looking at it objectively and without the pre-accepted filters and

leanings.

[Guest guest]

 

 

Realization , "Judi Rhodes" <judirhodes@z...> wrote:> > > > > ******** Yes, several of us see through it and have called her > on her game, you, me, Jason, Bruce, Gene, Lobster, Jody, Greg, > Sandeep, that I know of, but she refuses and keeps it up. I > suppose as long as she has some guppies, some "enablers" > over there, she'll keep it up. That's her "gig" and she hangs on > like a mad dog with his bone. It's sad really. She's obviously got > some very deep wounds. > > > > Judi> > > Having looked through that list what I found there was telling.> It wasn't Ganga that was promoting herself or her site but in fact > Judy. End of the Rope Ranch was listed over and over again . > > ******* Nope, I am not interested in the least in promoting "Judi".> The ranch list description posted is a pointing and a teaching unto itself.> > End of "story". > > > > How you can say that she is looking for guppies is really > laughable. Do you not see your persona in the mirror you > attempt to put on Ganga? It looks like from here that what you > accuse her of you are much more culpable in. > > ********** Nope, like I said, you're missing the point.What point is that? That your posting about the ranch is not looking for guppies, while simply because she says she is a Guru that she is looking for guppies. I didn't see her posting her sites and saying come follow me anywhere. I saw simply that she was relating what her apparent reality base is and what it is not. Just because one says they are a teacher or a Guru does not necessarily mean that they are as you seem to think 'trolling for students'.

********* There's a lot of subtlties you're missing here. So if you would like to "follow" me, if you get my drift, lissen up. Ganga is promoting methods to reach some "experience",

which is exactly the crap that needs be cut through. In other words, "understanding" is not finally reached through some experience. "Experience", whatever it is, is totally and completely besides the point. For instance, she promotes a silent mind. From the point of view of understanding, whether a person has a silent mind or not, makes not one wit, because understanding blows the hell of out of the "mind". If having a silent mind ever led anywhere, I assure you, millions upon millions of meditators throughout history would be realized. In short, there is no "experience" or "state" that ever "leads to" understanding. No "one" ever finally "reaches". There is only the understanding of that whole entire game which is "already the case" in the first place! And as Wayne Liquorman so succinctly puts it, "you can't here from there."

 

And as Jesus said, those with ears, let them hear!

 

Judi

 

 

 

 

> > I daresay many have called you on your own apparent game but > all falling on deaf ears it seems. Looking at the posts it has > been noted that she says that there is no longer any suffering for > her and that it is indeed possible to get beyond it. So perhaps > that is in fact true . Perhaps her motivation lies simply within the > fact that she wishes to say that it "is" possible to transcend > suffering. So what problem have you with that ? > > ********* Seriously Manju, you're not looking deep enough, her promotion of her "non-suffering" IS in fact her suffering.> It's nonsense Manju, and some of us who have been there, done that, can see through it. And the proof of the pudding is when it's pointed out to her, what in fact she's doing, she "bristles". She screams as a matter of fact, and then gets on her high horse of how she's beyond it all. :-) How much more obvious does it have to be? Seriously, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. That my dear doesn't make any sense what-so-ever. If in Fact someone IS out of suffering to state so is not suffering. The fact that you wish to believe so may be simply that in your case suffering goes on and so there is this belief that it must be so with everyone else. Perhaps she is simply stating a fact. The high horse may in fact be yours in what appears to be the ever present need to keep attempting to make something wrong, which may not be wrong at all. What is bristling is your own mind at the thought that she has stated where she is or is not. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that it might just be you with the suffering problem and not her at all. > > This is subtle stuff and the seeker who has his mind set on getting "beyond" it all, buys into it, hook, line and sinker.> > JudiPerhaps that is simply what is when it is over. You throw the baby out with the bath water. What subtle stuff is she selling. Advanced courses in Bliss 101. I saw no such evidence. But what I do see is that there simply appears to be this heavy conflict for you as to reading into what is there more than what is being said. My dear and what is it that you are selling or wanting others to buy into? Once confronting the self does it not take one beyond the suffering mind ? And if not what has your confrontation and death which you claim to have entered afforded you ? Your ever present nonsense of basically attempting to make everyone appear foolish is an underlying need to negate their reality. Can you truly say beyond a shadow of a doubt that she is NOT where she says she is? Can you Truly say that she does not live within the consciousness that she claims to? What she is claiming has in fact been stated by many before her . Why is it that you cannot accept that? Ramana spoke of such a consciousness and also Chinul (who was a korean zen master)and not only them but many others through the texts and writings of the upanishads and other established and accepted wisdom pages. Perhaps you may wish to rethink this. Perhaps it is simply a matter of semantics. Perhaps you attempt to read into it motives and agendas which are not there at all. That my dear would be the fallacy on your end. Instead of attacking why don't you question? Or are you able to be within anothers consciousness, ? As only and I stress Only then can you know if there is suffering, silence, stillness, or not. Perhaps her way of expressing it simply has a different flavor . ..........INFORMATION ABOUT THIS LIST..........Email addresses: Post message: Realization Un: Realization- Our web address: http://www.realization.orgBy sending a message to this list, you are givingpermission to have it reproduced as a letter onhttp://www.realization.org................................................

[Guest guest]

Realization , " Judi Rhodes "

 

> >

> >

> >

> > How you can say that she is looking for guppies is really

> > laughable. Do you not see your persona in the mirror you

> > attempt to put on Ganga? It looks like from here that what

you

> > accuse her of you are much more culpable in.

> >

> > ********** Nope, like I said, you're missing the point.

>

> What point is that? That your posting about the ranch is not

> looking for guppies, while simply because she says she is a

> Guru that she is looking for guppies. I didn't see her posting

her

> sites and saying come follow me anywhere. I saw simply that

> she was relating what her apparent reality base is and what it

is

> not. Just because one says they are a teacher or a Guru

does

> not necessarily mean that they are as you seem to think

'trolling

> for students'.

>

> ********* There's a lot of subtlties you're missing here. So if

you would like to " follow " me, if you get my drift, lissen up. Ganga

is promoting methods to reach some " experience " ,

> which is exactly the crap that needs be cut through. In other

words, " understanding " is not finally reached through some

experience. " Experience " , whatever it is, is totally and completely

besides the point. For instance, she promotes a silent mind.

From the point of view of understanding, whether a person has a

silent mind or not, makes not one wit, because understanding

blows the hell of out of the " mind " . If having a silent mind ever

led anywhere, I assure you, millions upon millions of meditators

throughout history would be realized. In short, there is no

" experience " or " state " that ever " leads to " understanding. No

" one " ever finally " reaches " . There is only the understanding of

that whole entire game which is " already the case " in the first

place! And as Wayne Liquorman so succinctly puts it, " you can't

here from there. "

>

> And as Jesus said, those with ears, let them hear!

 

 

I don't see her promoting silent mind I have seen her say she

resides within a stilled mind. Experience is Experience even if

you say it is a non-expereince. Once again I believe in this case

that it is simply semantics. Having read things from other sites

what she speaks of is not an experience within time and space.

It is not the same as what you are labeling as experience. And

stilled mind is not the same as a temporary silence that

happens in a meditative venue. In one the mind returns and in

the other it does not. This has been written of by many Realized

on what type of consciousness remains. So don't be so quick to

once again negate and pooh pooh .

 

Once again what I have seen is that she speaks not of a 'state'

that comes and goes. I can understand where you are coming

from and where she is and it is really saying the same thing in

the end. What reaches? She speaks that it is a death, you have

said it is a death ? She calls it knowing you call it

understanding. Everyone wants to point and tear apart worldly

vocabulary when that is really nonsense. It is called pointing for

the very fact that it Cannot be spoken of with any words that can

give what it IS. So what should be looked at is what remains.

Has there been a life altering and liberating remaining.

 

I think she has spoken of the need to confront the " I " identity so

what is different in that from what you say? What I have seen is

that many paths also sit with the mind where it stills enough to

be confronted. What remains afterwards is a quite open and

unhindered consciousness.

 

By the way you have done another Dan and simply ignored the

rest of the questions and post. Or does it simply not suit your

agenda to answer it ?

 

Sometimes what remains unanswered is just as telling as what

has been answered.

 

 

 

 

>

> > I daresay many have called you on your own apparent game

> but

> > all falling on deaf ears it seems. Looking at the posts it has

> > been noted that she says that there is no longer any

suffering

> for

> > her and that it is indeed possible to get beyond it. So

perhaps

> > that is in fact true . Perhaps her motivation lies simply

within

> the

> > fact that she wishes to say that it " is " possible to transcend

> > suffering. So what problem have you with that ?

> >

> > ********* Seriously Manju, you're not looking deep enough,

her

> promotion of her " non-suffering " IS in fact her suffering.

> > It's nonsense Manju, and some of us who have been there,

> done that, can see through it. And the proof of the pudding is

> when it's pointed out to her, what in fact she's doing, she

> " bristles " . She screams as a matter of fact, and then gets on

her

> high horse of how she's beyond it all. :-) How much more

> obvious does it have to be? Seriously, it doesn't take a rocket

> scientist to figure that out.

>

>

> That my dear doesn't make any sense what-so-ever. If in Fact

> someone IS out of suffering to state so is not suffering.

> The fact that you wish to believe so may be simply that in your

> case suffering goes on and so there is this belief that it must

be

> so with everyone else.

>

> Perhaps she is simply stating a fact. The high horse may in

fact

> be yours in what appears to be the ever present need to keep

> attempting to make something wrong, which may not be

wrong

> at all. What is bristling is your own mind at the thought that

she

> has stated where she is or is not. It doesn't take a rocket

> scientist to see that it might just be you with the suffering

> problem and not her at all.

>

>

>

> >

> > This is subtle stuff and the seeker who has his mind set on

> getting " beyond " it all, buys into it, hook, line and sinker.

> >

> > Judi

>

>

> Perhaps that is simply what is when it is over. You throw the

> baby out with the bath water. What subtle stuff is she selling.

> Advanced courses in Bliss 101. I saw no such evidence.

> But what I do see is that there simply appears to be this heavy

> conflict for you as to reading into what is there more than what

is

> being said.

>

> My dear and what is it that you are selling or wanting others to

> buy into? Once confronting the self does it not take one

beyond

> the suffering mind ? And if not what has your confrontation

and

> death which you claim to have entered afforded you ?

>

> Your ever present nonsense of basically attempting to make

> everyone appear foolish is an underlying need to negate their

> reality. Can you truly say beyond a shadow of a doubt that

she is

> NOT where she says she is? Can you Truly say that she

does

> not live within the consciousness that she claims to? What

she

> is claiming has in fact been stated by many before her . Why

is it

> that you cannot accept that? Ramana spoke of such a

> consciousness and also Chinul (who was a korean zen

master)

> and not only them but many others through the texts and

writings

> of the upanishads and other established and accepted

wisdom

> pages.

>

> Perhaps you may wish to rethink this. Perhaps it is simply a

> matter of semantics. Perhaps you attempt to read into it

motives

> and agendas which are not there at all. That my dear would

be

> the fallacy on your end. Instead of attacking why don't you

> question? Or are you able to be within anothers

> consciousness, ? As only and I stress Only then can you

know if

> there is suffering, silence, stillness, or not. Perhaps her way

of

> expressing it simply has a different flavor .

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

******* You totally mis-understand, no one goes *anywhere* nor

*becomes* anything, that's all a bunch of nonsense. It's the game

of greed that runs itself in circles. The " world " itself is nothing

but a big circle jerk. :-)

 

BUt, didn't you say that Judi died? You thought you were Judi, then

you saw that what you thought you were was just a phantom

thoughtform, then you were returned to awareness without the

interferance of concepts. That is still an activity that may or may

not have happened depending on what index of reality you want ot

use, but one which you may form enough of a memory of to put into

words. So, you must use memory.

 

But, the question is, why not accept people as they are? They know

what they really are or aren't. There is no way that they can't know

because they are the awareness that makes them. You can never help

them. You said you had no choice when Judi died. This is true, there

is no choice. I experience a miserable death on a day that started

out perfectly nice and normal and with no background to make me want

to disassemble whatever I was and with nothing but an average

personality and an average ego and an average life. I was never a

seeker, just a close observer that always felt the world was part of

me, but also felt that people were doing something that took me away

from myself. The something was giving me the need to cultivate the

ego more, of course. BUt, both nice people and mean people and most

of those in-between had a way of doing that. In other words, the

bullies or the bluntly honest either one never had a say in how or

when or why life decided to show me to myself from the inside out.

BUt, being shown allowed me to accept and appreciate others without

any fear of losing anything.

 

 

 

In Realization , " Judi Rhodes " <judirhodes@z...>

wrote:

>

>

>

>

> <Yep. The way I see it is that she hasn't come " full circle " .

> It's too painful so remains " un-embodied " . And her taking the

> name " Ganga " is

> an example of it. If you get my drift, which I know you do.>

>

> What does 'Ganga' mean?

>

> ******** I don't know, something " other worldly " I suppose.

>

> What does that weird other name you also use

> mean?

>

> ****** Jai Hari Kaur, a name given to me by one of the heads of

the Sikh religion, which means " Princess of the Victory of God " .

>

>

> Are you sure you went far enough into that ego death? Did you

> go to the land where there can be no separation between what you

are

> and what you think about ever and in no circumstances? All alone

> where even a Ganga, a Karta, or a Bob, to direct an idea towards

> cannot take it out of what you are? It's alot easier to be

nothing

> than it is to be everything, you know? Lose a persona, then rest

in

> nothing, then gain the personas of your whole world, then,

accept

> them for what they are.

>

> ******* You totally mis-understand, no one goes *anywhere* nor

*becomes* anything, that's all a bunch of nonsense. It's the game

of greed that runs itself in circles. The " world " itself is nothing

but a big circle jerk. :-)

>

> Judi

[Guest guest]

**** Like George Carlin said, the world is but a revolving

smorgasborg with weather. :-)

 

He has a wonderful way of describing things just as they are. I like

to eat and watch really bad thunderstorms....what can I say, I'm an

earth person.

 

 

Realization , " Judi Rhodes " <judirhodes@z...>

wrote:

>

>

>

> ******* You totally mis-understand, no one goes *anywhere* nor

*becomes* anything, that's all a bunch of nonsense. It's the game

of greed that runs itself in circles. The " world " itself is nothing

but a big circle jerk. :-)

>

> **** Like George Carlin said, the world is but a revolving

smorgasborg with weather. :-)

>

> LOL

[Guest guest]

> > ********* There's a lot of subtlties you're missing here. So if you would like to "follow" me, if you get my drift, lissen up. Ganga is promoting methods to reach some "experience",> which is exactly the crap that needs be cut through. In other words, "understanding" is not finally reached through some experience. "Experience", whatever it is, is totally and completely besides the point. For instance, she promotes a silent mind. From the point of view of understanding, whether a person has a silent mind or not, makes not one wit, because understanding blows the hell of out of the "mind". If having a silent mind ever led anywhere, I assure you, millions upon millions of meditators throughout history would be realized. In short, there is no "experience" or "state" that ever "leads to" understanding. No "one" ever finally "reaches". There is only the understanding of that whole entire game which is "already the case" in the first place! And as Wayne Liquorman so succinctly puts it, "you can't here from there." > > And as Jesus said, those with ears, let them hear!I don't see her promoting silent mind I have seen her say she resides within a stilled mind.

 

******** No, a stilled mind does not understanding make. She "resides" nowhere except in her fantasy. Understanding blows the hell out of the whole "residing" business itself.

She's a "fantasy" of her own making.

 

 

Experience is Experience even if you say it is a non-expereince. Once again I believe in this case that it is simply semantics. Having read things from other sites what she speaks of is not an experience within time and space.It is not the same as what you are labeling as experience. And stilled mind is not the same as a temporary silence that happens in a meditative venue. In one the mind returns and in the other it does not. This has been written of by many Realized on what type of consciousness remains. So don't be so quick to once again negate and pooh pooh . Once again what I have seen is that she speaks not of a 'state' that comes and goes. I can understand where you are coming from and where she is and it is really saying the same thing in the end. What reaches? She speaks that it is a death, you have said it is a death ? She calls it knowing you call it understanding. Everyone wants to point and tear apart worldly vocabulary when that is really nonsense. It is called pointing for the very fact that it Cannot be spoken of with any words that can give what it IS. So what should be looked at is what remains. Has there been a life altering and liberating remaining.

*******

"Life alterating" and "liberation" are for those that "need" such things. :-)

It "sells" really good though doesn't it? I rest my case! :-)

 

 

 

I think she has spoken of the need to confront the "I" identity so what is different in that from what you say? What I have seen is that many paths also sit with the mind where it stills enough to be confronted. What remains afterwards is a quite open and unhindered consciousness.

**** Unhindered by what? Sounds like Ganga doesn't want to be "hindered"? :-)

 

By the way you have done another Dan and simply ignored the rest of the questions and post. Or does it simply not suit your agenda to answer it ? Sometimes what remains unanswered is just as telling as what has been answered.

 

******** Sorry, I didn't mean to overlook anything. Show me again. But if you could keep stuff shorter and to the point I would appreciate it. Long ramblings I tend to skim over. Give me a break! :-)

 

Judi

 

 

[Guest guest]

ONNIKO SURE HAS GREAT INSIGHT.

LOVE,

RAMANA

******* You totally mis-understand, no one goes *anywhere* nor *becomes* anything, that's all a bunch of nonsense. It's the game of greed that runs itself in circles. The "world" itself is nothing but a big circle jerk. :-)BUt, didn't you say that Judi died? You thought you were Judi, then you saw that what you thought you were was just a phantom thoughtform, then you were returned to awareness without the interferance of concepts. That is still an activity that may or may not have happened depending on what index of reality you want ot use, but one which you may form enough of a memory of to put into words. So, you must use memory.But, the question is, why not accept people as they are? They know what they really are or aren't. There is no way that they can't know because they are the awareness that makes them. You can never help them. You said you had no choice when Judi died. This is true, there is no choice. I experience a miserable death on a day that started out perfectly nice and normal and with no background to make me want to disassemble whatever I was and with nothing but an average personality and an average ego and an average life. I was never a seeker, just a close observer that always felt the world was part of me, but also felt that people were doing something that took me away from myself. The something was giving me the need to cultivate the ego more, of course. BUt, both nice people and mean people and most of those in-between had a way of doing that. In other words, the bullies or the bluntly honest either one never had a say in how or when or why life decided to show me to myself from the inside out. BUt, being shown allowed me to accept and appreciate others without any fear of losing anything.In Realization , "Judi Rhodes" <judirhodes@z...> wrote:> > > > > <Yep. The way I see it is that she hasn't come "full circle". > It's too painful so remains "un-embodied". And her taking the > name "Ganga" is > an example of it. If you get my drift, which I know you do.>> > What does 'Ganga' mean? > > ******** I don't know, something "other worldly" I suppose. > > What does that weird other name you also use > mean? > > ****** Jai Hari Kaur, a name given to me by one of the heads of the Sikh religion, which means "Princess of the Victory of God". > > > Are you sure you went far enough into that ego death? Did you > go to the land where there can be no separation between what you are > and what you think about ever and in no circumstances? All alone > where even a Ganga, a Karta, or a Bob, to direct an idea towards > cannot take it out of what you are? It's alot easier to be nothing > than it is to be everything, you know? Lose a persona, then rest in > nothing, then gain the personas of your whole world, then, accept > them for what they are.> > ******* You totally mis-understand, no one goes *anywhere* nor *becomes* anything, that's all a bunch of nonsense. It's the game of greed that runs itself in circles. The "world" itself is nothing but a big circle jerk. :-)> > Judi..........INFORMATION ABOUT THIS LIST..........Email addresses: Post message: Realization Un: Realization- Our web address: http://www.realization.orgBy sending a message to this list, you are givingpermission to have it reproduced as a letter onhttp://www.realization.org................................................

[Guest guest]

 

-

Onniko

Realization

Saturday, April 19, 2003 1:10 PM

Re: deb's ghost / Judi

 

******* You totally mis-understand, no one goes *anywhere* nor *becomes* anything, that's all a bunch of nonsense. It's the game of greed that runs itself in circles. The "world" itself is nothing but a big circle jerk. :-)BUt, didn't you say that Judi died?

 

******* No one "died". It's just a way of pointing to understanding.

 

You thought you were Judi, then you saw that what you thought you were was just a phantom thoughtform, then you were returned to awareness without the interferance of concepts.

 

*********** No. No one "returned" anywhere. What you could say, is that where there was mis-understanding, now there is understanding. There is no "coming and going" or "becoming" by anyone.

 

That is still an activity that may or may not have happened depending on what index of reality you want ot use, but one which you may form enough of a memory of to put into words. So, you must use memory.

But, the question is, why not accept people as they are?

 

******* Oh contraire, I "accept" you more than you "accept" youself.

It's what you refuse to accept in and as yourself, you blame on me as my non-acceptance.

But that is not the case, it's your own "non-acceptance" that you're looking at, not mine.

In other words, if what I said didn't strike a chord in you, it wouldn't be an issue with you as something that you could accept or not accept. It wouldn't even be an issue.

 

 

 

They know what they really are or aren't. There is no way that they can't know because they are the awareness that makes them. You can never help them.

 

***** Another mis-understanding, I'm not looking to "help" anyone.

That's Ganga's deal. :-) You'll have to find a "guru" to play that game with you.

I look to destroy, not to "help". If you truly understood my position, you'd pity me. :-)

 

 

You said you had no choice when Judi died. This is true, there is no choice. I experience a miserable death on a day that started out perfectly nice and normal and with no background to make me want to disassemble whatever I was and with nothing but an average personality and an average ego and an average life. I was never a seeker, just a close observer that always felt the world was part of me, but also felt that people were doing something that took me away from myself. The something was giving me the need to cultivate the ego more, of course. BUt, both nice people and mean people and most of those in-between had a way of doing that. In other words, the bullies or the bluntly honest either one never had a say in how or when or why life decided to show me to myself from the inside out. BUt, being shown allowed me to accept and appreciate others without any fear of losing anything.

 

***** Yes, heaven forbid you should lose anything! :-) Can't have THAT now can you?

 

It's a constant "protecting" of yourself, if you could but see what you're doing?

 

It's but a mis-understanding, that you are a "somebody" that could "have", could "own" something in the first place. In other words, who *you* are, is nothing but an act of greed.

That's all anyone "amounts" to. Period, end of "story".

 

Judi

 

 

[Guest guest]

 

 

It's but a mis-understanding, that you are a "somebody" that could "have", could "own" something in the first place. In other words, who *you* are, is nothing but an act of greed.

That's all anyone "amounts" to. Period, end of "story".

 

******* And to prove the point, take a deeper look into your "love". It's nothing but selfish greed, of which your whole identity is wrapped up in and *is*! And if that's not enough to turn your stomach and bring your sorry ass to a halt, I don't know what will?

 

Judi

 

[Guest guest]

Oniko:

 

> <Yep. The way I see it is that she hasn't come " full circle " .

> It's too painful so remains " un-embodied " . And her taking the

> name " Ganga " is

> an example of it. If you get my drift, which I know you do.>

>

> What does 'Ganga' mean? What does that weird other name you also use

> mean?

 

 

Hi Oniko,

 

One of her ego-creation character's

name is Reverend Highwater oh!

 

Hari Jai -LOL, I call her the Jiving

Judi, since she learned the non-dual

jive and regurgitates it as she jumps

into conversations mindlessly with the

oneliners

 

same Teacher named me Sat Kartar Kaur

" Princess of Truth " because I have no

problem recognizing what is true and

what is BS

 

 

> Are you sure you went far enough into that ego death? Did you

> go to the land where there can be no separation between what you are

> and what you think about ever and in no circumstances? All alone

> where even a Ganga, a Karta, or a Bob, to direct an idea towards

> cannot take it out of what you are? It's alot easier to be nothing

> than it is to be everything, you know? Lose a persona, then rest in

> nothing, then gain the personas of your whole world, then, accept

> them for what they are.

>

>

>

>

******** Yes, several of us see

through it and have called her on

her [Ganga] game, you, me, Jason,

Bruce, Gene, Lobster, Jody, Greg,

 

these are the names of Ganga's club

the Guru_Satsang and they have

Judi's number down like I have

 

" endofstory "

 

:-) Karta

 

> > Judi

[Guest guest]

Realization , " Judi Rhodes "

<judirhodes@z...> wrote:

 

>

> I don't see her promoting silent mind I have seen her say she

> resides within a stilled mind.

>

> ******** No, a stilled mind does not understanding make. She

" resides " nowhere except in her fantasy. Understanding blows

the hell out of the whole " residing " business itself.

> She's a " fantasy " of her own making.

 

Once again that is your take about fantasy (and may it be said

judgementally so) Perhaps she would say the same of you.

She has said a stilled mind remains, that does not necessarily

say that the stilled mind was the break through nor the knowing

as she terms it. Having read her account it seems quite valid

and consistent with others such as Aja, and also in line with

buddhist texts on Satori and also Nirbana. The fact that you want

to call it 'fantasy' does not make it so. Once again you are

resorting to semantics of words. Residing, Being, Now,

No-Mind, so where are you ? Are you not residing in the Now

whether the mind is stilled or raging? There are in fact

numerous texts that indeed point to just this quality of stilled

mind which prevails after everything has been blown out. It is

what remains Not the falling away or death itself.

 

 

 

 

> Experience is Experience even if

> you say it is a non-expereince. Once again I believe in this

case

> that it is simply semantics. Having read things from other sites

> what she speaks of is not an experience within time and

space.

> It is not the same as what you are labeling as experience. And

> stilled mind is not the same as a temporary silence that

> happens in a meditative venue. In one the mind returns and in

> the other it does not. This has been written of by many

Realized

> on what type of consciousness remains. So don't be so quick

to

> once again negate and pooh pooh .

>

> Once again what I have seen is that she speaks not of a 'state'

> that comes and goes. I can understand where you are coming

> from and where she is and it is really saying the same thing in

> the end. What reaches? She speaks that it is a death, you

have

> said it is a death ? She calls it knowing you call it

> understanding. Everyone wants to point and tear apart worldly

> vocabulary when that is really nonsense. It is called pointing

for

> the very fact that it Cannot be spoken of with any words that can

> give what it IS. So what should be looked at is what remains.

> Has there been a life altering and liberating remaining.

 

 

 

> *******

> " Life alterating " and " liberation " are for those that " need " such

things. :-)

> It " sells " really good though doesn't it? I rest my case! :-)

 

 

OK once again you are avoding the issue and question that was

asked before. Since you negate liberation and the statement

that she has said which is " there is nothing to be liberated from

except your own mind " .

 

Just What have you gotten out of it ? What remains for you?

 

 

I believe that the statement of Ganga's that there is nothing to be

liberated from except your own mind about says it quite clearly.

It is not life that one needs liberation from but from themselves

as a personal image.

 

 

 

 

>

 

 

> I think she has spoken of the need to confront the " I " identity so

> what is different in that from what you say? What I have seen

is

> that many paths also sit with the mind where it stills enough to

> be confronted. What remains afterwards is a quite open and

> unhindered consciousness.

 

> **** Unhindered by what? Sounds like Ganga doesn't want to

be " hindered " ? :-)

 

This sentence is saying nothing. There is nothing that remains

as a hinderance. What part of that are you not getting ?

 

It doesn't seem to be saying at all the Ganga doesn't 'want' to be

hindered it is saying that the consciousness is unhindered. That

is a statement of fact not desire.

 

Sounds like is a speculation. Quit assuming and speculating

and look at what is being said at ground and core level.

 

 

 

 

 

 

> By the way you have done another Dan and simply ignored the

> rest of the questions and post. Or does it simply not suit your

> agenda to answer it ?

>

> Sometimes what remains unanswered is just as telling as

what

> has been answered.

>

> ******** Sorry, I didn't mean to overlook anything. Show me

again. But if you could keep stuff shorter and to the point I would

appreciate it. Long ramblings I tend to skim over. Give me a

break! :-)

>

> Judi

 

 

Go back in the posts and you will find it. 3/4 of a post was totally

swept under the carpet. The long ramblings as you call them

are all points being made. It is this very glossing over and

skimming that brings you to these erroneous conclusions and

assumptions rather than looking at the heart of what is being

said.

 

I am sure that you have enough of a brain to follow what is being

said. All it takes is reading one sentence at a time and then

answering in a comprehensive dialog.

 

This is not about proving one right and the other wrong. But in

fact about uncovering that what is being said from both sides

read by an impartial observer is really when stripped bare the

same.

 

One speaks in traditional language and the other in more

modern terms and renderings , same message in the end.

 

Unless you cop to remaining as a suffering personality which

understood something which hasn't given anything other than

simply something to be talked about. If there was no value in it

at all then why do you continue to speak of it ? If you died to

yourself then in fact what is it that remains?

 

Once more here is a chance to bring some clarity. Ganga says

there is only the Now. You say there is nowhere to go but here .

Ganga says there was nothing to be liberated from except the

mind ( the mind being that which holds the delusion of self) .

You say there is nothing to be liberated from. Once again

seems to come down to the same thing. The self Death

happens then all that remains is the Now. Liberation and

bondage were states of mind, there is nothing to be liberated

from.

 

Really I can't see any vast difference in what is being said except

for the external way of explaining .

[Guest guest]

Realization , " Judi Rhodes "

<judirhodes@z...> wrote:

>

> -

> Onniko

> Realization

> Saturday, April 19, 2003 1:10 PM

> Re: deb's ghost / Judi

>

>

> ******* You totally mis-understand, no one goes *anywhere*

nor

> *becomes* anything, that's all a bunch of nonsense. It's the

game

> of greed that runs itself in circles. The " world " itself is nothing

> but a big circle jerk. :-)

>

> BUt, didn't you say that Judi died?

>

> ******* No one " died " . It's just a way of pointing to

understanding.

 

 

So what happened ? Wasn't the thought of Judy the illusion.

Doesn't that in a way constitute a death, the death of an illusion?

Or did in fact nothing change with that understanding ? Did and

does the persona remain just as intact as before.?

 

 

 

 

 

>

> You thought you were Judi, then

> you saw that what you thought you were was just a phantom

> thoughtform, then you were returned to awareness without the

> interferance of concepts.

>

> *********** No. No one " returned " anywhere. What you could

say, is that where there was mis-understanding, now there is

understanding. There is no " coming and going " or " becoming " by

anyone.

 

 

Some see nothing momentarily of this world - this is spoken of

by Aja and Ganga also some just apparently drop some veiling.

But no one says that there was anywhere to go. ( Can there be

anywhere to go with everything is the same formless God,

Source, or whatever term you wish to describe it.) No one has

said that there was any becoming but it appears that what drops

is the shadow of what was never truly there.

 

 

>

> That is still an activity that may or may

> not have happened depending on what index of reality you

want ot

> use, but one which you may form enough of a memory of to

put into

> words. So, you must use memory.

>

> But, the question is, why not accept people as they are?

>

> ******* Oh contraire, I " accept " you more than you " accept "

youself.

> It's what you refuse to accept in and as yourself, you blame on

me as my non-acceptance.

> But that is not the case, it's your own " non-acceptance " that

you're looking at, not mine.

> In other words, if what I said didn't strike a chord in you, it

wouldn't be an issue with you as something that you could

accept or not accept. It wouldn't even be an issue.

>

>

>

> They know

> what they really are or aren't. There is no way that they can't

know

> because they are the awareness that makes them. You can

never help

> them.

>

> ***** Another mis-understanding, I'm not looking to " help "

anyone.

> That's Ganga's deal. :-) You'll have to find a " guru " to play that

game with you.

> I look to destroy, not to " help " . If you truly understood my

position, you'd pity me. :-)

 

 

 

Whether help is stated or destroy is stated it comes out to the

same difference in the end. Once again semantics. One sees

through the positive the other the negative in the end the same

value remains.

 

 

 

 

 

>

>

> You said you had no choice when Judi died. This is true, there

> is no choice. I experience a miserable death on a day that

started

> out perfectly nice and normal and with no background to

make me want

> to disassemble whatever I was and with nothing but an

average

> personality and an average ego and an average life. I was

never a

> seeker, just a close observer that always felt the world was

part of

> me, but also felt that people were doing something that took

me away

> from myself. The something was giving me the need to

cultivate the

> ego more, of course. BUt, both nice people and mean people

and most

> of those in-between had a way of doing that. In other words,

the

> bullies or the bluntly honest either one never had a say in how

or

> when or why life decided to show me to myself from the

inside out.

> BUt, being shown allowed me to accept and appreciate

others without

> any fear of losing anything.

> ***** Yes, heaven forbid you should lose anything! :-) Can't

have THAT now can you?

 

 

I believe that Ganga as well says this same thing in the opening

of her site . Basically she says it is not about gaining anything

but in losing what never was , or something to that effect. It is

not about collecting but about letting go. Still sounds pretty close

and similar although Judy says it with a more facetious edge.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

>

> It's a constant " protecting " of yourself, if you could but see

what you're doing?

>

> It's but a mis-understanding, that you are a " somebody " that

could " have " , could " own " something in the first place. In other

words, who *you* are, is nothing but an act of greed.

> That's all anyone " amounts " to. Period, end of " story " .

>

> Judi

[Guest guest]

 

 

-

satkartar5

Realization

Saturday, April 19, 2003 2:46 PM

Re: deb's ghost / Judi

 

Oniko:> <Yep. The way I see it is that she hasn't come "full circle". > It's too painful so remains "un-embodied". And her taking the > name "Ganga" is > an example of it. If you get my drift, which I know you do.>> > What does 'Ganga' mean? What does that weird other name you also use > mean? Hi Oniko,One of her ego-creation character'sname is Reverend Highwater oh!Hari Jai -LOL, I call her the JivingJudi, since she learned the non-dual jive and regurgitates it as she jumpsinto conversations mindlessly with theoneliners same Teacher named me Sat Kartar Kaur"Princess of Truth" because I have noproblem recognizing what is true and what is BS > Are you sure you went far enough into that ego death? Did you > go to the land where there can be no separation between what you are > and what you think about ever and in no circumstances? All alone > where even a Ganga, a Karta, or a Bob, to direct an idea towards > cannot take it out of what you are? It's alot easier to be nothing > than it is to be everything, you know? Lose a persona, then rest in > nothing, then gain the personas of your whole world, then, accept > them for what they are.> > > > ******** Yes, several of us see through it and have called her on her [Ganga] game, you, me, Jason, Bruce, Gene, Lobster, Jody, Greg, these are the names of Ganga's clubthe Guru_Satsang and they haveJudi's number down like I have

****** If you think they don't know the trip that she's running, think again!

They have all called her on it publically, to which she ignores, and the private

email that goes on making jokes and laughing behind her back is an eye opener.

The bottom line is, the woman's pitifully suffering and it's too bad and very sad.

And there's only a handful of us that can see it. I'm not too proud to say that she had me fooled for a while too until I could see the game she was actually running and I left her list, and I told her then, this is bullshit you're running, I won't no part of this shit.

 

And as for you Karta, you're not even aware of your own pitiful number, let alone anyone else's.

 

Judi

 

[Guest guest]

Hi Oniko,One of her ego-creation character'sname is Reverend Highwater oh!Hari Jai -LOL, I call her the JivingJudi, since she learned the non-dual jive and regurgitates it as she jumpsinto conversations mindlessly with theoneliners same Teacher named me Sat Kartar Kaur"Princess of Truth" because I have noproblem recognizing what is true and what is BS > > > ******** Yes, several of us see through it and have called her on her [Ganga] game, you, me, Jason, Bruce, Gene, Lobster, Jody, Greg, these are the names of Ganga's clubthe Guru_Satsang and they haveJudi's number down like I have

******* And lest I remind you again Karta, your adolescent jealousy's showing.

 

You and Ganga are about the same age emotionally, about 14 I think. Am I about right?

 

Judi

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

 

 

Realization , "Judi Rhodes" <judirhodes@z...> wrote:> > I don't see her promoting silent mind I have seen her say she > resides within a stilled mind. > > ******** No, a stilled mind does not understanding make. She "resides" nowhere except in her fantasy. Understanding blows the hell out of the whole "residing" business itself. > She's a "fantasy" of her own making. Once again that is your take about fantasy (and may it be said judgementally so) Perhaps she would say the same of you. She has said a stilled mind remains, that does not necessarily say that the stilled mind was the break through nor the knowing as she terms it. Having read her account it seems quite valid and consistent with others such as Aja, and also in line with buddhist texts on Satori and also Nirbana. The fact that you want to call it 'fantasy' does not make it so. Once again you are resorting to semantics of words. Residing, Being, Now, No-Mind, so where are you ? Are you not residing in the Now whether the mind is stilled or raging? There are in fact numerous texts that indeed point to just this quality of stilled mind which prevails after everything has been blown out. It is what remains Not the falling away or death itself. ******** No, it is all "fantasy", and that's what you're not seeing.

And the "texts" are full of them! That's where we part ways.

To me, that's all kindergarten stuff. Been there, done that.

 

Judi

 

 

[Guest guest]

 

 

-

manjusrilotus

Realization

Saturday, April 19, 2003 3:20 PM

Re: deb's ghost / Judi

 

Realization , "Judi Rhodes" <judirhodes@z...> wrote:> > - > Onniko > Realization > Saturday, April 19, 2003 1:10 PM> Re: deb's ghost / Judi> > > ******* You totally mis-understand, no one goes *anywhere* nor > *becomes* anything, that's all a bunch of nonsense. It's the game > of greed that runs itself in circles. The "world" itself is nothing > but a big circle jerk. :-)> > BUt, didn't you say that Judi died? > > ******* No one "died". It's just a way of pointing to understanding. So what happened ? Wasn't the thought of Judy the illusion. Doesn't that in a way constitute a death, the death of an illusion?Or did in fact nothing change with that understanding ? Did and does the persona remain just as intact as before.? ******** Sure, nothing has changed, except the seeking. If I could describe my position it would simply be one of "no seeking". Like that song, I'm still the same great rhumba-girl I always was. :-) But better! :-) But seriously, like I told you before, I don't even give myself a thought, unless someone asks and then I have to think about it. There's no mindset of "Judi" anymore. It's like walking around headless. Nothing between the ears. :-)

There's no "quality" to it, if that makes any sense to you? I guess you could say it's the absense of any "quality". Not to be trite and overstate the obvious, but it's just being with what is, whatever is the case.

 

Judi

 

 

 

> > You thought you were Judi, then > you saw that what you thought you were was just a phantom > thoughtform, then you were returned to awareness without the > interferance of concepts. > > *********** No. No one "returned" anywhere. What you could say, is that where there was mis-understanding, now there is understanding. There is no "coming and going" or "becoming" by anyone. Some see nothing momentarily of this world - this is spoken of by Aja and Ganga also some just apparently drop some veiling. But no one says that there was anywhere to go. ( Can there be anywhere to go with everything is the same formless God, Source, or whatever term you wish to describe it.) No one has said that there was any becoming but it appears that what drops is the shadow of what was never truly there. > > That is still an activity that may or may > not have happened depending on what index of reality you want ot > use, but one which you may form enough of a memory of to put into > words. So, you must use memory.> > But, the question is, why not accept people as they are? > > ******* Oh contraire, I "accept" you more than you "accept" youself. > It's what you refuse to accept in and as yourself, you blame on me as my non-acceptance.> But that is not the case, it's your own "non-acceptance" that you're looking at, not mine.> In other words, if what I said didn't strike a chord in you, it wouldn't be an issue with you as something that you could accept or not accept. It wouldn't even be an issue. > > > > They know > what they really are or aren't. There is no way that they can't know > because they are the awareness that makes them. You can never help > them. > > ***** Another mis-understanding, I'm not looking to "help" anyone. > That's Ganga's deal. :-) You'll have to find a "guru" to play that game with you. > I look to destroy, not to "help". If you truly understood my position, you'd pity me. :-)Whether help is stated or destroy is stated it comes out to the same difference in the end. Once again semantics. One sees through the positive the other the negative in the end the same value remains. > > > You said you had no choice when Judi died. This is true, there > is no choice. I experience a miserable death on a day that started > out perfectly nice and normal and with no background to make me want > to disassemble whatever I was and with nothing but an average > personality and an average ego and an average life. I was never a > seeker, just a close observer that always felt the world was part of > me, but also felt that people were doing something that took me away > from myself. The something was giving me the need to cultivate the > ego more, of course. BUt, both nice people and mean people and most > of those in-between had a way of doing that. In other words, the > bullies or the bluntly honest either one never had a say in how or > when or why life decided to show me to myself from the inside out. > BUt, being shown allowed me to accept and appreciate others without > any fear of losing anything.> ***** Yes, heaven forbid you should lose anything! :-) Can't have THAT now can you?I believe that Ganga as well says this same thing in the opening of her site . Basically she says it is not about gaining anything but in losing what never was , or something to that effect. It is not about collecting but about letting go. Still sounds pretty close and similar although Judy says it with a more facetious edge. > > It's a constant "protecting" of yourself, if you could but see what you're doing?> > It's but a mis-understanding, that you are a "somebody" that could "have", could "own" something in the first place. In other words, who *you* are, is nothing but an act of greed.> That's all anyone "amounts" to. Period, end of "story".> > Judi..........INFORMATION ABOUT THIS LIST..........Email addresses: Post message: Realization Un: Realization- Our web address: http://www.realization.orgBy sending a message to this list, you are givingpermission to have it reproduced as a letter onhttp://www.realization.org................................................

[Guest guest]

 

 

 

 

-

manjusrilotus

Realization

Saturday, April 19, 2003 3:20 PM

Re: deb's ghost / Judi

 

Realization , "Judi Rhodes" <judirhodes@z...> wrote:> > - > Onniko > Realization > Saturday, April 19, 2003 1:10 PM> Re: deb's ghost / Judi> > > ******* You totally mis-understand, no one goes *anywhere* nor > *becomes* anything, that's all a bunch of nonsense. It's the game > of greed that runs itself in circles. The "world" itself is nothing > but a big circle jerk. :-)> > BUt, didn't you say that Judi died? > > ******* No one "died". It's just a way of pointing to understanding. So what happened ? Wasn't the thought of Judy the illusion. Doesn't that in a way constitute a death, the death of an illusion?Or did in fact nothing change with that understanding ? Did and does the persona remain just as intact as before.? ******** Sure, nothing has changed, except the seeking. If I could describe my position it would simply be one of "no seeking". Like that song, I'm still the same great rhumba-girl I always was. :-) But better! :-) But seriously, like I told you before, I don't even give myself a thought, unless someone asks and then I have to think about it. There's no mindset of "Judi" anymore. It's like walking around headless. Nothing between the ears. :-)

There's no "quality" to it, if that makes any sense to you? I guess you could say it's the absense of any "quality". Not to be trite and overstate the obvious, but it's just being with what is, whatever is the case.

 

Judi

 

******* Oh, and something else, which ties in with the seeking, is that I don't go around suffering desire anymore. Desire, if any, when it comes up, are like toys to me now, a "deliciousness", whereas before I "suffered" them. :-) What can I say, I wasn't sharpest tool in the shed. :-)

 

Judi