Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Highlights for Monday April 24th

Expand Messages
  • andrew macnab
    Message 1 of 1 , Apr 25, 2000

      Mary, xan, Mark, Love

      Dear every one of me:

      When I saw that anything you wrote was me writing to me (and I saw
      myself in every post,) and when I stopped telling any stories about the
      posts or about their writers, I found that what was left was


      P.S. I appreciated all the posts on love that you sent me.

      >Mary asked:
      >So I ask all of you who care to answer. What is your definition of
      love? How does it manifest in your life? I know what it feels like to
      be angry, to be fearful, to be peaceful (sometimes). I can say I love
      my husband, my children, my friends. and God. (can I really say I love
      God?) But is that the kind of love you all mean when you sign with
      "love" at the end of your posts?

      ~ When I sign "love" at the end of my posts it is because the center
      of my chest has heated up and an indescribable flood of energy
      fills my body.
      Or because I have a feeling of connection and tenderness with
      another person. This happens for me more often when I am
      giving than when I am getting.
      (If this sounds just too "spiritually correct," forgive me.
      I can't help it if it happens to be the truth. :-) )

      > I've heard the expression "be love". Is that the same as unconditional
      love? My guess is that it is. When you have no conditions on anyone,
      is that when love just expresses itself? If that is the case, then I guess
      I have not experienced Love.

      ~ Beingness is unconditional, all-inclusive.
      This eternal Love may be expressed in and through the body or not,

      I am aware of this Love that loves the trees
      even when they are falling or burning.
      It excludes nothing, judges nothing, never rejects or objectifies
      but knows each "thing" as expression of itself.
      It is the small, personal self that has conditions and imagines
      states of loving and not loving. Your present, silent Self
      has no conditions. Trying to get the personal self to love
      unconditionally is futile. Why not just discover where Love,
      perfect and pure, has always been and waits for your return
      in awareness now.

      with love

      HI Gang,

      Xan said "When I sign "love" at the end of my posts it is because the
      of my chest has heated up and an indescribable flood of energy
      fills my body.
      Or because I have a feeling of connection and tenderness with
      another person. This happens for me more often when I am
      giving than when I am getting"

      Mark replies YES, YES, YES!!!!!! (hee, hee, hee!).

      Xan: (If this sounds just too "spiritually correct," forgive me.
      I can't help it if it happens to be the truth. :-) )

      Mark: I think we (as humans) need to stop apologizing for love. It is
      and that's just fine and dandy! (better'n candy) Liquor may be quicker
      but nothing makes me sicker... Love is the drug that I'm speaking
      of... Giving is the BEST!!!!!

      Enjoy the rush. It's real. And it's fine. (but it is catching, so

      LOVE, Mark (not narc)
      P.S. I'm watching the PBS special about George Wallace. I've always
      though he was evil, but he's just human. Went for power and fell.
      OUCH! Doesn't your heart just go out to him? When you see the game for
      what it is, there's no need for conditions. Selfishness causes
      suffering and giving causes joy. Recognizing that and accepting it is
      love. But don't feel bad if you are needing love right now. Needing is
      love because it gives the opportunity to give, and giving giving is an
      act of love. So GIMME a HUG! (Can I be a Baptist? Can I have a
      witness?) Gimme LIFE!!! It's all love, and there ain't NOTHIN else...
      Hmmmmmm. someone oughta arrest me. Test me, test me, why don't you
      arrest me? I need a rest. I need the rest. Gosh, babbling like this
      is fun. I'm tigger, I'm tigger, why don't you pull the trigger? Ooops
      I'd better be careful here... (bigger, folks, bigger...) Whew, I'd
      better go sleep this love off...

      It climbs up, and it climbs down
      There ain't no need to wear a frown.
      We are ALL heaven bound.
      If you're lost then please be found,
      If you're deaf, then hear the sound
      If you tire, then be awake
      If you won't do it for yourself, then do it for my sake.

      MMMMmmmmm, ask me about love again. (and again - don't let me forget)

      George was just looking for love. (so what IS love?)

      If the tree falls, don't worry about the house, let your heart go out to
      the tree.


      Jerry, what is love?

      I don't know what love is either. Romantic love that
      eventually becomes a contract to stay together, is based on
      something very much like a chemical bond, it seems, two
      people who need to be together for some reason they really
      can't explain. Personally, it drives me crazy, because I
      like being alone.
      It's a touch, a recognition of what's plain and perfect, a
      sheet hanging in a crisp breeze.
      Love is deeper than mathematics. It's beyond order and
      Love in relationship is best shown by letting another be who
      they are and making room for their gifts to develop freely.

      Romantic love is based on an indescribable chemistry.
      There's almost a danger to it at first. It is sexual, fresh,
      new and a kind of threat to those living staidly. Then that
      relationship becomes contractual and a safe haven which
      itself becomes threatened by hot new romantic love.

      Real love allows all things to be while being in all places
      at all times.

      Love to all,


      I had mentioned I was going to submit a selection from the
      naive nondualism of Richard Oddo. It is featured in today's
      Nondual Daily Nugget:


      The home page is updated 7 days a week.



      Mark, accident

      Like many, I suppose, I have had
      moments of clarity due to some powerful stimulus (for example, a car
      accident, in which no one got hurt, but during which time slowed to an
      amazing degree so that there seemed to be hours to discuss strategies
      for who would exit the van first, and where they would stand on the
      highway and how we would move away from the van in case it exploded, all
      in the 10 or 20 seconds that it took the van to slide along the dividing
      rail and come to a stop. Then the space in which crossing the highway
      calmly occurred, and then the speeding back up as the situation
      collapsed back into normality, and the adrenaline high came crashing
      down.) There was a certainty of a different way to see things. Was
      that the same as experiencing death and knowing it was safe? No, I
      don't think so, but it was a cutting through of the position that there
      is only this "normal" routine way to perceive. I think I've taken
      normal wakefulness, deep sleep and dreaming sleep for granted, and
      alternative (nonordinary) states of mind open up the possibilities, and
      return me to beginner's mind. So, I agree that there is only experience
      and belief, but I think that not-knowing is a good thing. I find great
      enjoyment from relaxing into it and wondering what will happen next? I
      think that is love, relaxing into it and deciding to ride it even if it
      isn't safe. (haven't been hurt yet...and I don't think that death will
      hurt me either.) As for confirmation, I recall a firm knowingness that
      occurred during a variety of states that was stronger and more certain
      than my current state, but right now, that is just memory, so I enjoy
      hearing other's stories of similar states, as that makes me more
      confident that mine were real. But from here, it is belief... or

      Love, Mark


      Marcia, The Moving Center (Dancing)

      I thought this was an interesting discussion for two reasons.
      The first is that it is between two friends of mine who are in
      the Work (Gurdjieff) and the second is that the friend who
      takes Latin dancing was with Rajneesh also and has something
      to say about the difference between G. and Rajneesh.



      > The ability of the moving center to imitate can be very
      > useful; sometimes it imitates *with* thinking, and with
      > feeling, as well. "Conscious acting" requires this.


      This is interesting. As I have mentioned once or twice, I do Latin dancing -
      sambas, rumbas, paso dobles. I realised recently that the conscious or
      intentional use of moving centre is an entirely different way to approach
      dancing. When you learn dancing, the idea is to perfect the steps, and to
      get to dance them like the champions. So, here I am wanting to learn some
      steps, the teacher says "Show me", and I do them. The teacher then stops me,
      and comments: "Don't bounce up in the chass'e", "Don't sit back when you do
      the lock step", "Turn your foot out", whatever. If it's left at an
      intellectual instruction like this, then, when I come to do the steps again,
      I'll be trying to correct the mistake, but it will be my idea of what she
      means. The words cause me to do some movement or other. So, a better way is
      for the teacher to show me, to do the steps in front of me, and for me to
      watch. Now, I can watch in two ways, with or without the participation of
      moving centre. Mostly, it seems, we watch without, or with little,
      participation of moving centre - in personality. I see the movement, but I
      do no more than recognise - "mind observation". I don't really see, or
      follow, the movement. And when I do the steps again, I will again be doing
      something that may only grossly resemble what she does. If, on the other
      hand, I watch her with moving centre, what happens? This is an entirely
      different way of seeing movement. I put my attention on myself, relax and,
      as it were, come down into the body - self-remembering. From this state I
      watch her. Her movements have become more pronounced (vivid, perhaps), and
      also, I am aware of her movements in my own body, including the tensions,
      the subtleties, etc.. "Sympathetic micro-movements", I think K. once called
      them. If I continue to stay in touch with moving centre and do the steps,
      moving centre may do the steps exactly the way she does them.

      There is another way of learning to dance and that is for the teacher to do
      the steps continuously for a while and for me to do them with him. The other
      day a dance teacher did just that, he danced and I imitated. I danced, aware
      of my body, watching him, alert. Moving centre was learning the movements in
      the separate parts of his body, the changes of direction, delays and
      restarts, tensing and relaxing, etc. This was new. When he wanted to stop I
      said: "Continue. I'm learning by doing what you do." Soon it seemed to me I
      did the steps the way he did them. Dance teachers don't do this often
      enough, dance with students imitating them. Possibly because it takes a lot
      more effort on their part (they have to dance themselves, and dance well),
      and also, they are too quick to want to see how the student does the steps.
      And of course they do not think, and cannot instruct, in terms of moving
      centre (or moving-instinctive centre), imitation, attention and
      self-remembering, allowing and not interfering, etc.

      Then there is the whole area of staying aware of the woman as you dance.
      Ideally you are aware of her movements all the time. (You _present_ the
      woman at all times in Latin ballroom dancing.)

      I wanted to verify all the above at dancing the other night. When I was
      remembering myself and was aware of moving centre, there was movement
      everywhere; everything was alive with movement. I was struck by the little
      effort that, in the state I was in, was required to continue to perceive all
      this movement.

      In order to do conscious acting, it seems, I need a store of memories of
      conscious moving centre observation of people and their movements.

      I dare say that one big difference between Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh and
      Gurdjieff was that Rajneesh knew little about moving centre.

      Who said moving centre was the easiest centre to observe?

      (You know who does a terrific samba? Donald Duck. He dances along those
      coloured swirls on the pavements of Rio - like a Carioca! He's got the
      little arse for it. I wish I could follow him when he does the samba. :-))

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.