What does it mean to love? To love ....

Originally Posted by Gem

People like to make a particular impression, so they speak in high mysterious tones which might mean nearly anything, which is great in moderation, but vain posturing when it's a continual attitude.

I have strarted threads before and they just turn into a bunch of gurus dancing around the enlightenment pole together.

If people want to drop meaningless mysterious slogans from the air above, I can't talk to them, because it's nonsense. Although I do enjoy the occasional one.

Recently the members who are most prone to this pseudo guruizm have been quiet, and I have enjoyed speaking on equal terms in their absence, and feel the forum is much better for it.

Maybe people don't agree, but at least they understand what I'm saying

Adding to Jyotir's response...

I get what you see Gem.

Early this eyar I bought my first J.Krishnamurti book, This light in oneself -true meditation.
It's the only book by this guy i will ever buy.

I simply don't rez with his style of expression.
To me, he half finishes sentences, stops mid explanation of something.
Offers vague references that don't connect with other vague references within the same paragraph.

I could not finish the book because I had a ton of questions to ask to help me understand what he was saying.
Yet he was sharing basic stuff that other know and share of.
If Osho shared the same info, I would instantly get what he was saying.

If i were to have a conversation with Krishnamurti it would not go well because he has a particular way of expression to mine,
we simply do not rez, even though we may actually agree on particular topics.

Understanding each other may not always be possible, and it may be frustrating for both involved.
As i enquire to understand, and the other honestly does their best to explain things to me and I still don't understand,
I will put that down to highly different styles.

I still find it puzzling how two people cannot understand each other because of this difference in expression, but it happens.

Another related example is my son and me several years ago.
He was early teen age, and had just begun indepth expression of things.
i would listen intently to what he was saying, and at the end I could not fathom what he was talking about.
He was using basic words but i could not formulate an image of what he was describing.

Whenever I would ask him to reword it he would get upset because he took that as me devaluing his ability to express.
It took a year or so for him to understand no one was wrong, that it's just a basic communication glitch,
so when he began rewording when i couldn't understand something, and I then understood it, we were amazed.

That what looks clear to one person may not be clear to another, even when using the common language(no fancy big edumacated words).

Originally Posted by Humm

Just as you say, it can be a very complex knot - cycles within cycles, reactions on reactions, all interacting.

It takes a great deal of Awareness and mindful discernment to remain connected to the actuality of the situation.

If I could give one caution - which doubtless will never apply to you anyway - it is to avoid becoming so immersed as to see all situations as something to be healed. Not saying that would be necessarily 'wrong', but simply a caution of stepping out of the actuality through one's perspective and expectations from recent experience.

Your current circumstances, though powerful and of immense value, are but one aspect of human experience, IMO.

I'll get off my soap box now.

I don't see you on a soap box Humm. I see a person who loves me enough to share their wisdom and insight to help me with my task.

And you are correct in hilighting this.
It's easy to become enmeshed in things.
I used to be overwhelmed when i would see the complexity and hugeness of things.
Also of having a time based anxiety that things needed to be done in a certain amount of time.
And of thinking it's my responsibility to heal another, and other things.
All of this changed since hospital.

Originally Posted by Silvergirl

Don't feel bad, J ~ Last night at about 7:18 pm, is when I started posting stuff last night...page 94 and now there are 104? and Julesey and 3dnow, sound, whomever else has jumped in the fray, this is just magnificent and so much fun happenin' I Love it.

It's a most wonderful thread.
"It isn't always Shakespeare, but it's genuine. It's life." - Christof - The Truman Show

Greetings..

Originally Posted by ~J

There is no "go away Tzu", "dressing up", or "back patting conspiracies" - only so many members - the ones who haven't been suspended for reactively defending themselves or voluntarily disappeared - who will not tolerate a certain kind of condescension and who are therefore telling you a message you don't want to hear. You are the one who is not listening, not accepting the invitation.

Why not defend themselves with discussion, let's try another example, one from the forum..

"Love is all there is".. now, that doesn't make sense to me, i see direct irrefutable evidence to the contrary, so.. can we have an in-depth open discussion? A discussion where people don't tell me i can't understand because i haven't had the experiences they have had? Why is no one willing to tear into this popular concept, to find out if it is actually accurate? So far, people tell me i have to use the altered meanings they choose for words to mean, and that i just don't understand.. i'm still waiting for people to have an honest discussion about this, but.. it does seem that the consensus is that it's easier to avoid the discussion by doing just what you have done..

So, there's the invitation.. let's have a party!

Be well..

Originally Posted by Humm

Tzu- "...she may actually believe everything she posts..."
Seven words that seem to parse quite clearly to me.

There are two implications here. The wording questions both the content of her beliefs, and her veracity in expressing them. The emotive pointer is the adverb 'actually', which expresses some incredulity on the observers part of the factualness of the action described.

To say 'she believes everything she posts' is a statement of observation.

To say 'she actually believes everything she posts' is a statement of incredulity by the observer of the stated action.

To say 'she may actually believe everything she posts' is a statement of incredulity at the possibility of the subjects described action, conceding the possibility of the subject not actually believing everything she posts.

A not-so-subtle exposition questioning both her beliefs and her integrity.

If you disagree WS, please set me straight.

Yeah, I saw that as a possibility.
Perhaps it's because Tzu strongly believes Xan and some group here are trying to recruit people into false beliefs about reality.
I have no idea if this is true, Tzu was unspecific.

Originally Posted by TzuJanLi

Greetings..
Why not defend themselves with discussion

Perhaps they do not feel theatened.
Or perhaps, if they do feel threatened, they do not want to enter that type of environment, regardless if the threat is real or interpreted.

Why is no one willing to tear into this popular concept, to find out if it is actually accurate?

Perhaps others do not desire to be aggressive. Tearing into something is aggressive.
Perhaps others are not bothered by other's beliefs.
Perhaps other do not need to determine if anothers view is wrong in order to share their own view that they regard as right.
Perhaps others freely share their experiential wisdom and insights and freely allow others to make up their own minds.

i'm still waiting for people to have an honest discussion about this,

Tzu, you may never get that discussion.
When I enquire and I make no progress, and it appears to me that as I continue on my course of enquiry,
i continue to not make any progress of mutual understanding, I have to make a decision, continue to stop.
Oh yeah, part of me wants to continue, and it takes me a little while to let that go, as you have experienced first hand within our interactions regarding your decision to use the ignore function.
But when I fully realize another is not interested in exploring, then comes the joy and peace from stopping.

but.. it does seem that the consensus is that it's easier to avoid the discussion by doing just what you have done..

Huh? Where has Jyotir avoided?

So, there's the invitation.. let's have a party!

Be well..

Who's offered this invitation to a party?

Originally Posted by TzuJanLi

"Love is all there is".. now, that doesn't make sense to me...

Happy to see you admit it.

Originally Posted by TzuJanLi

i see direct irrefutable evidence to the contrary, so can we have an in-depth open discussion?

I see your direct irrefutable evidence and raise you my direct irrefutable evidence...

Originally Posted by TzuJanLi

A discussion where people don't tell me i can't understand because i haven't had the experiences they have had?

Exactly! - unless, of course, you are going to insist there is no experience you have not had, and nothing you cannot understand...

Originally Posted by TzuJanLi

Why is no one willing to tear into this popular concept, to find out if it is actually accurate?

Any time, big guy!

Originally Posted by TzuJanLi

So far, people tell me i have to use the altered meanings they choose for words to mean, and that i just don't understand...

I see - what really needs to happen is that everyone MUST stick to YOUR definitions and the perspective YOU understand - right?

Originally Posted by TzuJanLi

i'm still waiting for people to have an honest discussion about this...

Any time, big guy!

Originally Posted by TzuJanLi

...but, it does seem that the consensus is that it's easier to avoid the discussion by doing just what you have done...

I see exactly one person avoiding anything - you, avoiding discussion with me.

Originally Posted by TzuJanLi

So, there's the invitation.. let's have a party!

Any time, big guy!

Originally Posted by TzuJanLi

Greetings..


Hi James: I respect your decision.. i was was hopeful that we could find why my post inspired such a 'freakn' response from you (i do hope you appreciate the 'freakn' humor).. aside from this specific issue, generally i wonder why people are willing post, but aren't willing to explore what it is they post about.. and, it's not really criticism as much as it is sincere curiosity..

Be well..

I am curious of why you use the ignore function.
It's now apparent to me I wish to explore it further than you do.

You have had ample opportunity to internalize my intentions, and i have graciously played along, until it has become clear that you are not interested in a resolution.. you are ignoring my stated intentions for your own self-serving purposes.

And you percieve I have an agenda besides sincere curiosity.
You have finally made it clear you do not wish to discuss it, so i let it go.

Please note, I am not bringing this up as some sneaky way to re engage the ignore discussion.
I'm just using it as an example we both can relate to.

Originally Posted by TzuJanLi

what, to me, is indefensible is to post material that is ambiguous or so narrowly oriented to a select audience as to be questionable to an interested but 'excluded' observer, to post in that manner and refuse to clarify or openly discuss matters as important to the human experience as 'Spirituality'..

Thta's your problem though isn't it Tzu?
That you can't handle it when another, for reasons unknown, refuses to discuss what you regard as ambiguous and narrow.

There are those that need for me to be 'wrong',

Are there, or is this just your interpretation?

those that use Spirituality to attract attention to their specific perspectives..

Are they, or is this just your interpretation?

i do not, i intend to help people have their own direct personal relationship with Spirituality.. i do this by not telling them 'what to believe', but.. by helping them to see clearly what 'is happening'

Is it happening, or is this just your interpretation?

[BlueSky]

Originally Posted by Jyotir

Wow! You disappear for a few days and some threads really take off. I decided to respond to this even though it is now from 80 pages back, because left unanswered, it doesn't feel right - irresolute, tentative, undone in a number of ways. First, I generally want to respond when people address me directly and don't want to leave things hanging - unless it is better not to say anything. And for a single "out of character" outburst that would normally be the case, but it seems that some prominent themes put to my attention here for comment have become so generally persistent that I thought it might be constructive to respond. Also, I believe it is important that all the spiritual cliches and theories be put to the test of practical use and understanding, and that includes some of these issues, perhaps why this particular thread has endured, maybe as an example of process itself.

I have now seen this phenomenon of 'confrontation' brought up as a difficult issue (that even sparked a separate thread "questioning others beliefs"), in addition to having experienced it myself, plus the number of times and the way I have seen these problems justified/rationalized - and now, how these 'confrontations' have been characterized (imo, mistakenly) as either "a feud", or "mob mentality/ganging up". Also, inspired by the way some members have undertaken a patient discussion of these issues - which could be looked at in a spiritual context since this is a spiritual forum.

Perhaps paramount (for me, imv) is seeing someone in pain because they appear to keep beating their head against the wall and yet, insisting that it is the wall's problem.





---- ------- ------ ---



Tzu,

This approach is wearing thin. Speaking only for myself...I cannot buy it. It's not credible. In addition, I am becoming concerned for you in the sense that your rationalizing of your behavior is now becoming problematic. Your self-justification somehow involves a self-imposed mandate to teach and 'correct' others, defend the 'innocent', and to vanquish evil-doers - when nobody is asking you or needing you to do this. This is not a battle-field, or your academy, but a fairly democratic forum where people are expressing their beliefs and sharing their experiences openly according to their willingness to do so.

'Honesty' may not 'see', as much as it examines for truth within oneself what it observes - and the results of anyone's examination may differ from another's expectation. iow's...
I think I have been paying attention and that may be what is 'the problem' (according to your definition of conflict ie - the existence of another truth)

This is beginning to sound a lot like the kid on the playground who has invented a game in which he runs around bopping everybody on the head and then wonders why nobody wants to play with him. I honestly don't think anyone is trying to make anyone else "look bad". People do a good enough job of that for themselves.

You are not a "bad guy" Tzu, even if you may behave like one from time to time (jmo). Everyone has flaws and love accepts them equally. That is what allows for the possibility (and inevitability) of transformation of those imperfections that appear to be conflicts, internal and external. You have many admirable qualities, but being a bully is not one of them. The deeper question is why do you feel you need to do this?

Why so little faith in others and their own innate ability to grow spiritually that they need you to protect them, or demand their acceptance of your beliefs - or be punished? And why so little faith in the depth of your own experience that you have to rely on insistence/control to have a meaningful presence and an positive effect? Do you really need that much acknowledgement, appreciation or control that you are prepared to demand it, or cry "foul"?

Who doesn't want to have an open discussion? All I see here is an open discussion. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that people are going to - or have to - agree with you. That's what "open" means. That is what oneness provides. Or that when others don't agree, the exchange must consequently be characterized unilaterally as, ("they") "don't want to discuss the fundamental issues of spirituality", or that some kind of anti-truth, anti-Tzu conspiracy prevails - and, therefore requires your correction. That's pure nonsense.

Discussing the issues of spirituality is exactly what "they" are doing - in their own way, for their own needs, according to their own experience and capacity to express it. And if "they" don't want to participate - "they" won't...and don't. However as alluded to above - one reason why there could be any hesitation is that they may be tired of how they have been treated (or have witnessed same with others) having expressed their views o-p-e-n-l-y and have been hounded and derided as deficient in them - repeatedly, personally.

People usually have a sense of certainty concerning their own subjective views, beliefs and experiences - and a unique way of expressing them. That is entirely reasonable, and it seems to work well enough for Tzu, doesn't it? Through some innate sense of self-dignity, "they" may eventually stand up for themselves and refute what "they" see as gratuitous disparagements of their views and prerogatives of expression. It doesn't mean they are either "making you look bad", or are somehow being irresponsible and avoiding a mandate, one that is repeatedly and pretentiously postured as a "civil invitation" - to submit to the arrogation of your authority.

What are the "real issues" anyway? The ones you want to define for others for them? What then would be 'false' issues - the ones others see see differently from you? According to your own definition, that is a conflict that has to be inevitable by that definition. But acceptance of differences is the resolution of conflict - that is love - internally for oneself, and externally for others. Many of the discussions here are 'about' intangibles, abstractions, pure speculation, vagaries of subjective experience - all expressed through very relative, inadequate means, and uncertainly received. To assert, insist and vociferously demand that these highly elusive conundrums can and should be undertaken on a 'rational' basis, to insist on "common understanding" (is there such a thing?), to demand that others undertake this imposed responsibility to your satisfaction (not to mention as arbitrated by you) - may be representing numerous personal fallacies and conceits. To argue over the rightness, righteousness and right to demand what only can be proposition, suggestion, theory, speculation in terms of individual subjective belief and experience is absurd. (imv, of course).

Meanwhile the same and other intangibles in these dialogues - if not forced through expectation, demand, insistence, coercion, ridicule - do yield benefits spontaneously through resonance, intuition, acceptance, patience, receptivity, empathy, oneness, self-giving. Something does happen - and you have participated and acknowledged this approach. Everyone plays the role they want to play, and allows others the same in good faith - not disparagement - by allowing others in oneness to express, by accepting their views as right for them, what they offer as they offer it - unless and until they see fit to change themselves. You have something to offer like everyone else - but then why not just offer it - but OFFER it. No need to demand it. Iow's believe it or not - "clarity" is something every seeker probably wants (even if we may call it different names), but nobody can actually get it by having it beaten into them, and then (even if it was clarity) it wouldn't be their own clarity would it?

You have every right to take a stand for your own clarity - I think everyone would support that. But you do not have the right to "take a stand" for anyone else's, even if they call it something else, and especially without their consent to the process. That is their responsibility and prerogative - not yours.

You seem to want a lot of control, including going so far as to create persistent, almost incessant self-descriptive narratives that tell others how to perceive and evaluate the quality of your participation, instead of allowing members to draw their own conclusions by your "sincere" demonstration. It is a pre-emption of others individual subjective view - a super-imposition of your rationalized-as-objective self-view. Others may not accept that indefinitely - especially if what they experience is to the contrary from what they are told to believe. Yes, let's talk about magician's tricks and word play. "I have clarity", "I'm sincere", "I'm civil", "I'm inviting", "I'm compassionate", "I'm curious", "I'm doing this for the common good (and your benefit)", "I'm innocent", "I'm being lynched". Whaaa?

The latter is a tasteless (I know someone who lost her husband this way) cynical tactic, cheap shot, a distorted projected drama of something internalized - that is being used by someone who has imv repeatedly badgered others - to justify and defend their own (again, imv) questionable behavior. I see these imposed 'positive' self-reinforcing narratives as Pavlovian 'inoculations', defensive pre-conditioning of social space, so that when a 'conflict' arises (ie your provocation, and it is inevitable according to Tzu's definition of differing truth as necessarily mutually exclusive). When the inevitable conflict arises, people want to know why. Why does this happen? Well, it can't be Tzu, he's sincere, he's honest, he's civil, his intentions are honorable. How do we know? Because he told us so in his posts. So it must be the other person's bad.

This is not a feud. It is not 'ganging-up' or 'mob mentality' - or a lynching. Those are ridiculous characterizations for those who have been paying attention, because what has been tastelessly called a lynching, are simply accumulations of reactions by many individuals who have been harassed and insulted - their beliefs and form of expression, under the premise of their own necessary improvement, as determined by Tzu. It is not a feud when someone stands up for their self-dignity after repeatedly being disparaged in the pretense of "civil" "open" discussion about "real issues".

I don't think this is conscious, as many of these strategies and tactics are ones of survival internalized from childhood. As human beings we have all been victims of ignorance, even from those well meaning members of our own families and have learned to develop clever verbal disguises to talk our way out of getting caught for manifesting that same ignorance internalized in specific forms imposed by others now as projected conflict within themselves. That is perhaps the 'evangelical conspiracy' that is being searched for - only in all the wrong places.


The problem is that you are not inviting - you are demanding. People are already exploring "what works" just by being here, and there is much to choose from. People have minds and hearts and souls (my belief anyway) - they know what they need when they see it, and don't need to be poked, chided, brow-beaten and corralled. When you invite people to "explore what works", you forget to include the all important qualification - - what works for me - and everyone gets to make that qualification for themselves. Just the suggestion that "resistance to that invitation" constitutes some kind of egregious insult smacks of arrogance which has to be from insecurity - ego pure and simple. There is no "go away Tzu", "dressing up", or "back patting conspiracies" - only so many members - the ones who haven't been suspended for reactively defending themselves or voluntarily disappeared - who will not tolerate a certain kind of condescension and who are therefore telling you a message you don't want to hear. You are the one who is not listening, not accepting the invitation.

The aggressive insistence that others' views are not valid, that anything held to be true but not in agreement must intrinsically be a conflict. Because they conflict with and cannot be accepted to co-exist with yours is the basis of inevitable conflict - first and foremost within yourself and then projected. Think about how that belief leads to inevitable consequences. According to your definition, truths that don't agree with yours are simply a disaster waiting to happen. This is also where the implicit and even explicit absurd projections come from - that people who do not agree with you are supporting and contributing somehow to terrorism and child molestation, whatever is evil in the world. It is a ludicrous device based on neurotic exaggerated fear. So here is a direct "civil invitation": Why not take a break from the self-righteousness that comes from the insane burden of having to protect the world from itself?

Love renders conflicting beliefs to be mutually inclusive. It is more than a human expedient, It is a primary attribute of Source/Existence/Self - otherwise we would all cease to exist in overwhelming conflict. Love reconciles by being transcendent. Therefore imperfection is not static and permanent but transformable. The ability to participate in a scheme of unconditional acceptance of ignorant imperfection in and through its evolution is from love - and there is no place where love does not operate in this way - hence "love is all there is". This doesn't mean that there is no imperfection, or that imperfection does not appear to be conflict which is a surface appearance - or that we shouldn't be prudent and practical when dealing with the vicissitudes of life. But for spiritually aspiring people that also doesn't mean making fear and suspicion central organizing principles either.


Please stop projecting into the others' role - play your own, not the part that was imposed on you (I note the use of third person). Tzu isn't "bad", or Tzu doesn't need to "go away" - if Tzu will examine and recognize the behavior that is causing friction with others for what it is - instead of blaming others for it.

I hope I have been successful or at least helpful in exposing some of the illusions here through open and honest discussion.

~ J

Do you think you will be heard ~J?

Do you think that he thinks he will be heard?


It's all good...............Blessings, James