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

Originally Posted by Alternate Carpark

...i notice the strongest changes in mum occur after she has reacted the strongest.
She reacts more because her wound was penetrated more.
So even though it hurts more, the good stuff went in further.
Even though i focus on the least amount of discomfort, i have no idea how she will repsond each day...

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.

[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.

Originally Posted by TzuJanLi

No, is the way people try to make me look like the bad guy, because they don't want to actually have an open discussion about the real issues.. so, it's easier to try to make Tzu look bad, than to simply say, that you don't want to discuss the fundamental issues of spirituality.. please have the honesty to see this

So, if i substitute clarity for those other values, what happens? You really haven't been paying attention.. it's just too easy to join a lynching in progress that to take a stand for.. clarity..

I am inviting people to explore what works, and resistance to that invitation is dressed-up like this and so many other posts that actually say "go away Tzu".. but, you and others will pat each other on your backs and praise yourselves for all the Love you show someone asking for honest discussion..

Conflicting beliefs, when held to be true, ARE mutually exclusive..

Yes, J.. the clarity is the same.. Tzu bad, Tzu go away.. magicians hate it when somebody exposes the illusions, and everybody's a 'magician'..

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

Originally Posted by TzuJanLi

No, is the way people try to make me look like the bad guy, because they don't want to actually have an open discussion about the real issues.. so, it's easier to try to make Tzu look bad, than to simply say, that you don't want to discuss the fundamental issues of spirituality.. please have the honesty to see this

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?

Originally Posted by TzuJanLi

So, if i substitute clarity for those other values, what happens? You really haven't been paying attention.. it's just too easy to join a lynching in progress that to take a stand for.. clarity..

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.

Originally Posted by TzuJanLi

I am inviting people to explore what works, and resistance to that invitation is dressed-up like this and so many other posts that actually say "go away Tzu".. but, you and others will pat each other on your backs and praise yourselves for all the Love you show someone asking for honest discussion..

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.

Originally Posted by TzuJanLi

Conflicting beliefs, when held to be true, ARE mutually exclusive..

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.

Originally Posted by TzuJanLi

Yes, J.. the clarity is the same.. Tzu bad, Tzu go away.. magicians hate it when somebody exposes the illusions, and everybody's a 'magician'

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

[Silver]

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.

[hybrid]

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

You did jyotir.
Thanks

[Jyotir]

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

You crack me up Gem,

Yes, I do understand what you are saying, yet maybe I don't agree in principle when it comes to your declaration of impotence (even if I do get the priapic reference).

Honestly, I can't see any difference whatsoever between your own guru-isms and anyone else's here, at all. None.
Just because you 'style it up' as the curt, cranky, cynical, curmudgeon variety doesn't mean you are immune from your own disgust. It's a good disguise though. And maybe that is the real point, the real issue - not about anyone else's deficiency, efficiency or constancy in self-giving, experience, or expression.

So, when you speak about "mysterious slogans", I take note of this gem (ahem):

Originally Posted by Gem

"I have enjoyed speaking on equal terms in their absence"

Man, that is one helluva guru koan.

Life happens and we can't control it, but ourselves - that may be another story.
It's just not credible that some minute fragment of Infinity, voluntarily encountered on an internet forum is so effective in inhibiting or prohibiting your own participation - and since you do participate, one may only conclude that nobody but yourself is forcing you. So if you, "can't talk to them", then don't. That same self has the capacity to determine the quality of one's own participation too - and, that quality is within both active and receptive processes.

If people don't change to suit your astute preferences and aversions what will you do - run away? Or, depend on them to do the same? Is that what will give relief? To me that is weakness, and making it worse is the continual approaching and receding which can be tedious and tiresome. Within the context of any communal spiritual discussion it is understood that anyone and everyone is going to sound like a guru to anyone or someone at any time, simply by participating. It's inevitable, and at the same time no big deal.

Besides, speaking of what one gets accustomed to (eg., their own reactiveness) - is listening to someone's whining and complaining (I'm wondering if that is exactly equivalent to "vain posturing"), really that much less distasteful than 'guru talk'? I don't think so.

Imo, it is an unfortunate mistake to feel that your own participation is in any way diminished by others' imperfections, if they are indeed that - in the forum or in life in general. Since all human beings embody ignorance and imperfection, why not just accept them with it? That way, the imperfections are diminished and not the souls who temporarily manifest any flaws. Because it is temporary - meaning, transformable - there is no need for useless, ineffectual, debilitating, tiring cynicism that becomes its own prison which must somehow be escaped from.

More guru talk fwiw,

~ J

[Silver]

...just my kneejerk, j ~ it's not all that and it's not all that bad, just sayin'

[Xan]

Thank you for sharing your clarity, Jyotir... like sunshine thorough clouds.


Xan

Originally Posted by Jyotir

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

~ J

Same here.
I appreciate your indepth and clear expression of part of the issues.

Greetings..

Hi ~J: Nope, you're just another that wants to have your way, who doesn't like what i say.. but, you won't discuss substance.. for some reason, it seems you have decided that o-p-e-n-l-y means f-a-n-t-a-s-y, and.. by fantasy, i mean the rationalization that the following is somehow a measure of Spirituality: "for their own needs, according to their own experience and capacity to express".. why? Because at its root, Spirituality is about ALL of us as One, and not just the way a select group wants One defined, but how an entire planet of people experience it..

Originally Posted by ~J

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.

Yes, your version of it IS "pure nonsense".. really, character assassination is a bit 'unSpiritual'.. now, to be sure, YES: "magicians hate it when somebody exposes the illusions, and everybody's a 'magician'", and you are an angry 'magician'.. you cobble together some seething animosity from 80 pages back, and i ask only one thing, a balanced perspective.. not "right or wrong", just balanced.. i see you've decided Gem isn't worthy, either.. are you the new Spiritual Defender?

Would you care to discuss substance, ~J, Spiritual substance?.. the waiting line for people who question my character is at its limit, so, take a number and your complaint will be answered in the order in which it was received (i'm thinking about another 80 pages or so..)

I will enter into evidence a planet and a civilization in distress, largely due to this thought process, that "for their own needs, according to their own experience", is sufficient for the purposes of healing the distress and suffering, and.. it is not. i am eager for people to entertain their own understandings, but.. the issue you are overlooking, is my often stated intention to find commonality, an understanding with which all of our brothers and sisters can evolve in harmony.. i beg you to suspend your quest to prosecute Tzu for crimes against beliefs, and work toward a common understanding that preserves individuality while advancing Unity..

"Open" means that if one has the courage to post ambiguous concepts and claim they are 'true', they have the equal measure of courage to either engage in determining the actuality of their claims, or to state that they will not engage in such processes as might determine actualities.. where i have not honored someone's wish to avoid scrutiny of their beliefs, i have apologized.. even when the same person re-engages, i sense their intent is not to be questioned and i try to honor that.. it is those that want avoid scrutiny through clever wordplay or ad hominem attacks that have naught to do with the actual issues that inspire my own quest for clarity..

I will conclude this response to your post with the suggestion that you read with at least one eye focused on the substance of my posts.. you see, you find it acceptable to treat me the way you believe i am treating others, which is fine if it regards substantive Spiritual issues, but it really doesn't.. you haven't asked me anything about my understandings of Spirituality, nor have you indicated any understanding of my intentions.. you do ask 'questions', but you answer them in a way that advances your prejudiced agenda, so.. if you're interested, start over ask real questions, and i will do my best to answer consistent with my understandings.. ask sincerely, not with 'leading questions' followed with your own prejudiced and speculative answer, as you did in these examples: "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?".. i just want to be able to have open discussions with people about their beliefs, or have them honestly declare they are not interested in that.. i do not care for this drama, but.. it seems to be the preferred format. And please, do not dictate to me what my 'rights are', as you are now doing what you are accusing me of, i.e.: "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 are speaking on behalf of others, do you have their consent?

Be well..

[sound]

Originally Posted by Jyotir

Since all human beings embody ignorance and imperfection, why not just accept them with it?

Why the character assassinations then if this is your way?

(EDIT- just for the record, i didnt even realize Tzu was online and had made the above post before making my comment ... )