| Author |
Stu and alt.yoga regulars, where are we from here?
|
|
| omjaroo 2006-09-28, 2:32 am |
| Hi,
I was doing some research and I ran across this thread. I read it from
one end to the other and I wondered... Where have we come from here?
Have we learned anything? Have we grown? Is it beneficial to revisit
conversations of the past? Can we gain perspective? Or do we just
"harden" our position?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt....ae85795e91953f2
What do you think?
Jared
o
^
| |
|
| On 2006-09-27 23:15:03 -0700, "omjaroo" <omjaroo@yahoo.com> said:
> Hi,
>
> I was doing some research and I ran across this thread. I read it from
> one end to the other and I wondered... Where have we come from here?
> Have we learned anything? Have we grown? Is it beneficial to revisit
> conversations of the past? Can we gain perspective? Or do we just
> "harden" our position?
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt....ae85795e91953f2
What
>
> do you think?
>
> Jared
> o
> ^
Great reading. Almost 3 years ago. Its funny how I have no memory of
the thread and could read my own posts as if they were written by some
other idiot.
I must say everyone in the thread is quite brilliant. Nobody is
disagreeing as much as finding common points of approval.
Wonder if Michael D read it and decided never to come back?
> Or do we just
> "harden" our position?
My position has become more "hardened" as time goes by. I am becoming
a greater cheerleader for all things non-dual. (what a wonderful self
contradictory premise.)
--
~Stu
| |
| Narayana 2006-10-02, 8:28 am |
|
Have we grown? Is it beneficial to revisit
conversations of the past?
That is a nice observation!
For those who came to an ocean of BLISS - to an origin of all LIFE and
Consciousness
with the waves of thoughts and temporary identifications...
For those who know that sweet flavor of Enlightenment in your throat
in the morning when all in the house left to work leaving you alone...
For those who know, the school is finished and the bliss will consume
their brain completely, opening a door in a new space and eternal time
- just to be at the feet of the Beloved.
With compassion ? heh...
Now with a blissful ecstasy!!
Narayana
| |
| howdydave 2006-10-02, 9:31 pm |
| Howdy!
Since I wasn't posting at that time I'll make this
objective (?) observation...
Nobody can really make any valid observations
about what progress WE have made.
You can only observe the changes and judge
whether or not YOUR OWN change is progress.
Dave
| |
| omjaroo 2006-10-02, 9:31 pm |
|
howdydave wrote:
> Howdy!
>
> Since I wasn't posting at that time I'll make this
> objective (?) observation...
>
> Nobody can really make any valid observations
> about what progress WE have made.
>
> You can only observe the changes and judge
> whether or not YOUR OWN change is progress.
>
> Dave
Howdy Dave,
Hence my question :-)
Jared
o
^
| |
| Narayana 2006-10-03, 2:31 am |
|
Nobody can really make any valid observations
about what progress WE have made.
We are all that ONE who is Himself as a many -
heh..
try this - the love of the baby for the parent is different from the
parent's love - but the both also one love in some view
So we are.
He divided us by His love to love us as many - but it is just one love
as we cannot withhold it and we have a need to express it back to Him -
can you see it?
The progress we made is not of the technology or wealth, or personal
goals. The real progress is to make visible that spirit of recognition
of ourselves in others.
By seeing yourself in someone else, the true experience of
enlightenment is revealed.
Narayana
| |
| howdydave 2006-10-03, 2:31 am |
|
Narayana wrote:
> Nobody can really make any valid observations
> about what progress WE have made.
>
>
>
> We are all that ONE who is Himself as a many -
>
> heh..
> try this - the love of the baby for the parent is different from the
> parent's love - but the both also one love in some view
>
> So we are.
> He divided us by His love to love us as many - but it is just one love
> as we cannot withhold it and we have a need to express it back to Him -
> can you see it?
>
> The progress we made is not of the technology or wealth, or personal
> goals. The real progress is to make visible that spirit of recognition
> of ourselves in others.
>
> By seeing yourself in someone else, the true experience of
> enlightenment is revealed.
>
>
> Narayana
Howdy Narayana!
I don't see it that way...
I am the One...
You are the One...
but I am not You.
I can't see myself in someone else because in that
case we are talking about "self" rather than "Self."
Others in me -- maybe; but not me in others.
"Me in others" is external perception.
Dave
| |
| howdydave 2006-10-03, 2:31 am |
|
Narayana wrote:
> Nobody can really make any valid observations
> about what progress WE have made.
>
>
>
> We are all that ONE who is Himself as a many -
>
> heh..
> try this - the love of the baby for the parent is different from the
> parent's love - but the both also one love in some view
>
> So we are.
> He divided us by His love to love us as many - but it is just one love
> as we cannot withhold it and we have a need to express it back to Him -
> can you see it?
>
> The progress we made is not of the technology or wealth, or personal
> goals. The real progress is to make visible that spirit of recognition
> of ourselves in others.
>
> By seeing yourself in someone else, the true experience of
> enlightenment is revealed.
>
>
> Narayana
Howdy Narayana!
I don't see it that way...
I am the One...
You are the One...
but I am not You.
I can't see myself in someone else because in that
case we are talking about "self" rather than "Self."
Others in me -- maybe; but not me in others.
"Me in others" is external perception.
Tough to put into words... but as soon as we make
the differentiation between me and others, the unity
is lost.
I blame it on the dualistic vocabulary that we use
while attempting to communicate concepts that
don't fit into the "framework" (an essential Jnani
buzzword.)
Dave
| |
| Hari Har Singh 2006-10-03, 8:29 am |
| omjaroo schrieb:
> Is it beneficial to revisit conversations of the past?
Its a bit strange to laugh about a joke I made 3 years ago and singing
Wades alt.yoga Hymn in front of the computerscreen :-)
Hari Har Singh
Hari Har Singh wrote:
> Looks like a party of 'teachers' lacking 'students' to bother
> ;-)
LOL, I would nominate that as one of the alt.yoga's funniest remarks
of 2003.  )
Wade
Where have all the students gone?
Long time passing...
Where have all the students gone?
Long, long time time ago...
Where have all the students gone?
Become teachers, everyone.
When will they ever learn?
When will they ever learn?
| |
| Hari Har Singh 2006-10-03, 8:29 am |
| Stu schrieb:
> On 2006-09-27 23:15:03 -0700, "omjaroo" <omjaroo@yahoo.com> said:
>
> Wonder if Michael D read it and decided never to come back?
>
Is he posting somewhere in the Usenet yet?
Or did he possibly left this planet?
>
> My position has become more "hardened" as time goes by. I am becoming a
> greater cheerleader for all things non-dual. (what a wonderful self
> contradictory premise.)
Yes. Mr. Spock would say "that is not logic!" :o)
Hari Har Singh
| |
|
| On 2006-10-03 01:27:42 -0700, Hari Har Singh <ffg67@gmx.net> said:
>
>
> Its a bit strange to laugh about a joke I made 3 years a
The usenet makes it possible to tickle ourselves.
--
~Stu
| |
| Narayana 2006-10-04, 9:30 pm |
|
"I am the One...
You are the One...
but I am not You."
Some devotee asked an Indians saint - How can you sit here all day long
and give this prasad to all those beggars passing you by?
The saint replied -
" It is only because you see yourself as a separate body. For me, all
these people are known to me; and they are not separate from this body
as you see it from yours."
If you put 100% meaning in to
I am the One...
You are the One...
Then the third line will be - we are the same (regardless of any
relative differences)
But you do not believe that we are 100% that "an abstract" One. As
any abstract form is a mental, not spiritual projection. That
perception will give right to say: "but I am not You."
With indescribable bliss,
Narayana
| |
| howdydave 2006-10-06, 4:28 pm |
|
Narayana wrote:
> "I am the One...
> You are the One...
> but I am not You."
>
> Some devotee asked an Indians saint - How can you sit here all day long
> and give this prasad to all those beggars passing you by?
>
> The saint replied -
> " It is only because you see yourself as a separate body. For me, all
> these people are known to me; and they are not separate from this body
> as you see it from yours."
>
> If you put 100% meaning in to
> I am the One...
> You are the One...
> Then the third line will be - we are the same (regardless of any
> relative differences)
>
> But you do not believe that we are 100% that "an abstract" One. As
> any abstract form is a mental, not spiritual projection. That
> perception will give right to say: "but I am not You."
>
>
> With indescribable bliss,
>
> Narayana
Howdy Narayana!
I don't have a clue what you mean by "100% meaning"
it is a VERY fuzzy term.
I think that a good illustration may be coin of the relm.
(I live in the USA so I will use my currency as an example)
25 pennies is 25 cents.
5 nickles is 25 cents.
1 quarter is 25 cents.
BUT 25 pennies is not 5 nickles is not a quarter.
Talking about the second or third person is
dependant on perceptual differentiation.
There is no escaping the catagorical framework of the
language. We need to do one of the following:
Invent new words,
Invent a new language or
Come to a mutual understanding of our terminology
used within the context of a specific conversation.
Dave
| |
| howdydave 2006-10-06, 4:28 pm |
|
Narayana wrote:
> "I am the One...
> You are the One...
> but I am not You."
>
> Some devotee asked an Indians saint - How can you sit here all day long
> and give this prasad to all those beggars passing you by?
>
> The saint replied -
> " It is only because you see yourself as a separate body. For me, all
> these people are known to me; and they are not separate from this body
> as you see it from yours."
>
> If you put 100% meaning in to
> I am the One...
> You are the One...
> Then the third line will be - we are the same (regardless of any
> relative differences)
>
> But you do not believe that we are 100% that "an abstract" One. As
> any abstract form is a mental, not spiritual projection. That
> perception will give right to say: "but I am not You."
>
>
> With indescribable bliss,
>
> Narayana
Howdy Narayana!
I don't have a clue what you mean by "100% meaning"
it is a VERY fuzzy term.
I think that a good illustration may be coin of the relm.
(I live in the USA so I will use my currency as an example)
A penny is money.
A nickle is money.
A quarter is money.
BUT a penny, a nickle and a quarter are not the same thing.
Talking about the second or third person is
dependant on perceptual differentiation.
There is no escaping the catagorical framework of the
language. We need to do one of the following:
Invent new words,
Invent a new language or
Come to a mutual understanding of our terminology
used within the context of a specific conversation.
Dave
| |
| Hari Har Singh 2006-10-06, 9:33 pm |
| Stu schrieb:
> On 2006-10-03 01:27:42 -0700, Hari Har Singh <ffg67@gmx.net> said:
>
>
> The usenet makes it possible to tickle ourselves.
A space for mental masturbation? ;-)
Hari Har Singh
|
|
|
|