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

Bliss states - Ramon

Expand Messages
  • Tony
    Hi Ramon, I love reading your posts, they are so descriptive! I think it is tremendous that you achieve these continuous states of bliss. Are these states the
    Message 1 of 15 , Sep 20, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Ramon,

      I love reading your posts, they are so descriptive!

      I think it is tremendous that you achieve these continuous states of bliss.
      Are these states the objective or are they the spin-off of a greater
      objective? The concern I think is that if you make higher states of bliss
      your focus you will always be disappointed.

      Is it possible to be completely satisfied with whatever state you are in?

      ...Tony
    • medit8ionsociety
      Dear Tony, I was going to reply by just quoting Kir Li Molari s Words! Words! Words! , but I just want to point out that it may be more beneficial to meditate
      Message 2 of 15 , Sep 21, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear Tony,
        I was going to reply by just quoting Kir Li Molari's "Words! Words!
        Words!", but I just want to point out that it may be more beneficial
        to meditate on "Who" is witnessing the so-called ego and "Self".
        Who is holding the "mirror"? ...
        The awareness, the consciousness, the Witness that is silent,
        everpresent, eternal, infinite, unchanging...the divine essence, and
        other similar adjectives, is how the Self is classically referred to.
        But these are just words, and the Self is only knowable
        experientially. Your "Self" is looking out of your eyes, listening
        with your ears, feeling with your senses and emotions, thinking with
        your mind, and so on, now and always. There is no-thing more near to
        you. Be. Don't think about. Don't judge, make comparisons, comment.
        Witness. And live happily ever after.
        "Tony" <tosime@l...> wrote:
        > Has anyone come across this idea of mirroring? How does it relate to
        > Meditation?
        >
        > Do you have any personal feelings on this subject?
        >
        > ...Tony
        >
        > ------------------------------------------------
        >
        > To be mirrored is to be understood, to feel that someone
        > empathetically follows our thoughts, feelings, experiences, etc. It
        > is a glaring deficiency in our culture that being right is more
        > highly valued than being related. Yet to mirror another person
        > requires a willingness to enter into his or her world, to suspend
        > critical judgment and reflect what is being offered.
        >
        > The need for mirroring from another is life long, and represents the
        > inevitable incompleteness that accompanies growth. For mirroring is
        > an externalization of an internal, psychic reality. It is based upon
        > the fact that consciousness and the unconscious exist in a
        > relationship of mirror symmetry. Ego consciousness is a mirror into
        > which the Self gazes, and as such the Self's consciousness of itself
        > and its development depends upon the consciousness of the ego.
        > Conversely, the ego is a reflection of the Self, its attitudes and
        > structure-a mirror replica of the Self.
        >
        > The ego's stability is dependent upon an inner sense of being
        > mirrored by the Self. As individuation is a process in which the ego
        > is challenged to develop toward greater wholeness (as imaged by the
        > Self), at every stage there is a need for external mirroring, all
        the
        > greater when really radical personality changes are necessary. When
        > this development stabilizes, mirroring of this kind becomes less
        > dependent upon another person's empathetic reflection, but is
        > inevitably required again to meet new challenges. Any creative task
        > is severely hindered by the absence of an external, mirroring
        > presence along the way.
        >
        >
        > Nathan Schwartz-Salant
      • Tony
        Thanks Bob, I needed that reminder... ... From: medit8ionsociety [mailto:no_reply@yahoogroups.com] Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2002 4:24 PM To:
        Message 3 of 15 , Sep 21, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          Thanks Bob,

          I needed that reminder...

          ...Tony

          -----Original Message-----
          From: medit8ionsociety [mailto:no_reply@yahoogroups.com]
          Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2002 4:24 PM
          To: meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: [Meditation Society of America] Re: Mirroring


          Dear Tony,
          I was going to reply by just quoting Kir Li Molari's "Words! Words!
          Words!", but I just want to point out that it may be more beneficial
          to meditate on "Who" is witnessing the so-called ego and "Self".
          Who is holding the "mirror"? ...
          The awareness, the consciousness, the Witness that is silent,
          everpresent, eternal, infinite, unchanging...the divine essence, and
          other similar adjectives, is how the Self is classically referred to.
          But these are just words, and the Self is only knowable
          experientially. Your "Self" is looking out of your eyes, listening
          with your ears, feeling with your senses and emotions, thinking with
          your mind, and so on, now and always. There is no-thing more near to
          you. Be. Don't think about. Don't judge, make comparisons, comment.
          Witness. And live happily ever after.
          "Tony" <tosime@l...> wrote:
          > Has anyone come across this idea of mirroring? How does it relate to
          > Meditation?
          >
          > Do you have any personal feelings on this subject?
          >
          > ...Tony
          >
          > ------------------------------------------------
          >
          > To be mirrored is to be understood, to feel that someone
          > empathetically follows our thoughts, feelings, experiences, etc. It
          > is a glaring deficiency in our culture that being right is more
          > highly valued than being related. Yet to mirror another person
          > requires a willingness to enter into his or her world, to suspend
          > critical judgment and reflect what is being offered.
          >
          > The need for mirroring from another is life long, and represents the
          > inevitable incompleteness that accompanies growth. For mirroring is
          > an externalization of an internal, psychic reality. It is based upon
          > the fact that consciousness and the unconscious exist in a
          > relationship of mirror symmetry. Ego consciousness is a mirror into
          > which the Self gazes, and as such the Self's consciousness of itself
          > and its development depends upon the consciousness of the ego.
          > Conversely, the ego is a reflection of the Self, its attitudes and
          > structure-a mirror replica of the Self.
          >
          > The ego's stability is dependent upon an inner sense of being
          > mirrored by the Self. As individuation is a process in which the ego
          > is challenged to develop toward greater wholeness (as imaged by the
          > Self), at every stage there is a need for external mirroring, all
          the
          > greater when really radical personality changes are necessary. When
          > this development stabilizes, mirroring of this kind becomes less
          > dependent upon another person's empathetic reflection, but is
          > inevitably required again to meet new challenges. Any creative task
          > is severely hindered by the absence of an external, mirroring
          > presence along the way.
          >
          >
          > Nathan Schwartz-Salant



          To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          meditationsocietyofamerica-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



          Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        • texasbg2000
          Hello all disputees: The yogi has one weapon against ill will towards him/her. Absence. A few years ago I got a call from an old friend, Eileen. She had been
          Message 4 of 15 , Oct 24, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            Hello all disputees:

            The yogi has one weapon against ill will towards him/her. Absence.

            A few years ago I got a call from an old friend, Eileen. She had
            been governess for my two boys one summer when she was young. I had
            not seen her for about fifteen years in which time she had gotten a
            Phd. in Psych and was teaching undergraduates in a major university.

            After catching up I found out that she had a male student that was
            stalking her. She is curvy, beautiful, and flirty. An ex-G.I. had
            fixated on her for almost a year. She was going mad with it and I
            know because I knew her history and fragility. She had called campus
            police, local police, and finally the FBI. They couldn't do anything.

            I gave her this advise, "Give him your absence!" She said he was in
            her class and had to counsel him in addition. She could not ignore
            him. Then the technique of mirroring came up. You just give back to
            them the same energy that they give to you. Nothing new. Nothing
            more. When they say "Hi" you say "Hi" with exactly the same
            intonation, etc. The caution is to resist being creative or acting
            like you are getting one over on them. You just give them 'your'
            absence by mirroring their state of mind to them. Give them nothing
            of yourself.

            I got a call back in a few days and she was relieved that it had
            worked in spades. The fellow lost control over her and eventually
            became disinterested.

            Love
            Bobby G.
          • Jason Fishman
            What was the ill will in this situation? Is the attempt to be closer to someone, ill will? Did he mean her harm, or was he more interested in being with her?
            Message 5 of 15 , Oct 24, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              What was the ill will in this situation? Is the attempt to be closer to someone, ill will? Did he mean her harm, or was he more interested in being with her?
               
              Often times I think people turn away from those that have intentions at all, regardless of what those truly are.
               
              One would think that her disinterest in him would be enough to simply let it pass, but if his intention was to be with her due to infatuation, how does that apply to ill will? Don't people in general enjoy being admired or adored?
               
              Peace and Love

              texasbg2000 <Bigbobgraham@...> wrote:

              Hello all disputees:

              The yogi has one weapon against ill will towards him/her.  Absence. 

              A few years ago I got a call from an old friend, Eileen.  She had
              been governess for my two boys one summer when she was young.  I had
              not seen her for about fifteen years in which time she had gotten a
              Phd. in Psych and was teaching undergraduates in a major university. 

              After catching up I found out that she had a male student that was
              stalking her.  She is curvy, beautiful, and flirty.  An ex-G.I. had
              fixated on her for almost a year.  She was going mad with it and I
              know because I knew her history and fragility.  She had called campus
              police, local police, and finally the FBI. They couldn't do anything.

              I gave her this advise, "Give him your absence!"  She said he was in
              her class and had to counsel him in addition.  She could not ignore
              him.  Then the technique of mirroring came up.  You just give back to
              them the same energy that they give to you.  Nothing new.  Nothing
              more.  When they say "Hi" you say "Hi" with exactly the same
              intonation, etc.  The caution is to resist being creative or acting
              like you are getting one over on them.  You just give them 'your'
              absence by mirroring their state of mind to them.  Give them nothing
              of yourself.

              I got a call back in a few days and she was relieved that it had
              worked in spades.  The fellow lost control over her and eventually
              became disinterested.

              Love
              Bobby G.



              To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
              meditationsocietyofamerica-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



              Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


              Do you Yahoo!?
              The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search

            • Nina
              Here is a link to one state s definition of stalking, in its various forms: http://www.cyber-stalking.net/legal_state_northcarolina.htm This site states it
              Message 6 of 15 , Oct 24, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                Here is a link to one state's definition of stalking,
                in its various forms:

                http://www.cyber-stalking.net/legal_state_northcarolina.htm

                This site states it clearly, for the layperson:

                http://www.ndcaws.org/stalkingharassment/stalkinglaws.asp

                If your presence in another person's life is not consensual,
                you need to remove yourself from that person's life.
                If you have trouble understanding why this is so, in the
                interpersonal as well as the legal senses, you had better
                look into receiving help for narcissistic personality
                disorders. Period.

                Nina

                --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, Jason Fishman
                <munkiman4u@y...> wrote:
                > What was the ill will in this situation? Is the attempt to be
                closer to someone, ill will? Did he mean her harm, or was he more
                interested in being with her?
                >
                > Often times I think people turn away from those that have
                intentions at all, regardless of what those truly are.
                >
                > One would think that her disinterest in him would be enough to
                simply let it pass, but if his intention was to be with her due to
                infatuation, how does that apply to ill will? Don't people in general
                enjoy being admired or adored?
                >
                > Peace and Love
                >
                > texasbg2000 <Bigbobgraham@a...> wrote:
                >
                > Hello all disputees:
                >
                > The yogi has one weapon against ill will towards him/her.
                Absence.
                >
                > A few years ago I got a call from an old friend, Eileen. She had
                > been governess for my two boys one summer when she was young. I
                had
                > not seen her for about fifteen years in which time she had gotten a
                > Phd. in Psych and was teaching undergraduates in a major
                university.
                >
                > After catching up I found out that she had a male student that was
                > stalking her. She is curvy, beautiful, and flirty. An ex-G.I. had
                > fixated on her for almost a year. She was going mad with it and I
                > know because I knew her history and fragility. She had called
                campus
                > police, local police, and finally the FBI. They couldn't do
                anything.
                >
                > I gave her this advise, "Give him your absence!" She said he was
                in
                > her class and had to counsel him in addition. She could not ignore
                > him. Then the technique of mirroring came up. You just give back
                to
                > them the same energy that they give to you. Nothing new. Nothing
                > more. When they say "Hi" you say "Hi" with exactly the same
                > intonation, etc. The caution is to resist being creative or acting
                > like you are getting one over on them. You just give them 'your'
                > absence by mirroring their state of mind to them. Give them
                nothing
                > of yourself.
                >
                > I got a call back in a few days and she was relieved that it had
                > worked in spades. The fellow lost control over her and eventually
                > became disinterested.
                >
                > Love
                > Bobby G.
              • Jason Fishman
                What was said specifically is, it is simple to take notice that another doesn t want you around and let it drop. There is no confusion there. If in fact
                Message 7 of 15 , Oct 24, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  What was said specifically is, it is simple to take notice that another doesn't want you around and let it drop. There is no confusion there. If in fact infatuation is only a mutual prospect, then stalking isn't infatuation, but an obsession.
                   
                  What was presented was, what was the ill will here? Were both parties clear? Did the stalker not care that she didn't want him around or did he care but didn't realize? This is where the ill will intent came in. Putting up the mirror seems to be a continuation of falcification and deceit.
                   
                  To often I read on these forums to let things go, which is to truly not care for the other, that it is bad to feel for someone else in an always so sort of way. Then I read about peace and freedom and how those things should be made vital persuits. How can humanity have peace and freedom if everyone is untrue and at odds? Let someone in, if it's ill will, it will change or it wont and they'll kill you (very rarely so), either way. Be truthful all the way, don't put up a front about your position to stave off others, they'll leave on there own accord if they don't like it. All this personal protection, that is what should be let go of.
                   
                  Peace and Love

                  Nina <murrkis@...> wrote:
                  Here is a link to one state's definition of stalking,
                  in its various forms:

                  http://www.cyber-stalking.net/legal_state_northcarolina.htm

                  This site states it clearly, for the layperson:

                  http://www.ndcaws.org/stalkingharassment/stalkinglaws.asp

                  If your presence in another person's life is not consensual,
                  you need to remove yourself from that person's life.
                  If you have trouble understanding why this is so, in the
                  interpersonal as well as the legal senses, you had better
                  look into receiving help for narcissistic personality
                  disorders. Period.

                  Nina

                  --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, Jason Fishman
                  <munkiman4u@y...> wrote:
                  > What was the ill will in this situation? Is the attempt to be
                  closer to someone, ill will? Did he mean her harm, or was he more
                  interested in being with her?

                  > Often times I think people turn away from those that have
                  intentions at all, regardless of what those truly are.

                  > One would think that her disinterest in him would be enough to
                  simply let it pass, but if his intention was to be with her due to
                  infatuation, how does that apply to ill will? Don't people in general
                  enjoy being admired or adored?

                  > Peace and Love
                  >
                  > texasbg2000 <Bigbobgraham@a...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Hello all disputees:
                  >
                  > The yogi has one weapon against ill will towards him/her. 
                  Absence. 
                  >
                  > A few years ago I got a call from an old friend, Eileen.  She had
                  > been governess for my two boys one summer when she was young.  I
                  had
                  > not seen her for about fifteen years in which time she had gotten a
                  > Phd. in Psych and was teaching undergraduates in a major
                  university. 
                  >
                  > After catching up I found out that she had a male student that was
                  > stalking her.  She is curvy, beautiful, and flirty.  An ex-G.I. had
                  > fixated on her for almost a year.  She was going mad with it and I
                  > know because I knew her history and fragility.  She had called
                  campus
                  > police, local police, and finally the FBI. They couldn't do
                  anything.
                  >
                  > I gave her this advise, "Give him your absence!"  She said he was
                  in
                  > her class and had to counsel him in addition.  She could not ignore
                  > him.  Then the technique of mirroring came up.  You just give back
                  to
                  > them the same energy that they give to you.  Nothing new.  Nothing
                  > more.  When they say "Hi" you say "Hi" with exactly the same
                  > intonation, etc.  The caution is to resist being creative or acting
                  > like you are getting one over on them.  You just give them 'your'
                  > absence by mirroring their state of mind to them.  Give them
                  nothing
                  > of yourself.
                  >
                  > I got a call back in a few days and she was relieved that it had
                  > worked in spades.  The fellow lost control over her and eventually
                  > became disinterested.
                  >
                  > Love
                  > Bobby G.




                  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                  meditationsocietyofamerica-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


                  Do you Yahoo!?
                  The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search

                • Swami-G
                  ... Absence. ... young. I had ... gotten a ... university. ... was ... and I ... campus ... anything. ... was in ... ignore ... back to ... Nothing ...
                  Message 8 of 15 , Oct 24, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com,
                    "texasbg2000" <Bigbobgraham@a...> wrote:
                    >
                    > Hello all disputees:
                    >
                    > The yogi has one weapon against ill will towards him/her.
                    Absence.
                    >
                    > A few years ago I got a call from an old friend, Eileen. She had
                    > been governess for my two boys one summer when she was
                    young. I had
                    > not seen her for about fifteen years in which time she had
                    gotten a
                    > Phd. in Psych and was teaching undergraduates in a major
                    university.
                    >
                    > After catching up I found out that she had a male student that
                    was
                    > stalking her. She is curvy, beautiful, and flirty. An ex-G.I. had
                    > fixated on her for almost a year. She was going mad with it
                    and I
                    > know because I knew her history and fragility. She had called
                    campus
                    > police, local police, and finally the FBI. They couldn't do
                    anything.
                    >
                    > I gave her this advise, "Give him your absence!" She said he
                    was in
                    > her class and had to counsel him in addition. She could not
                    ignore
                    > him. Then the technique of mirroring came up. You just give
                    back to
                    > them the same energy that they give to you. Nothing new.
                    Nothing
                    > more. When they say "Hi" you say "Hi" with exactly the same
                    > intonation, etc. The caution is to resist being creative or acting
                    > like you are getting one over on them. You just give them 'your'
                    > absence by mirroring their state of mind to them. Give them
                    nothing
                    > of yourself.
                    >
                    > I got a call back in a few days and she was relieved that it had
                    > worked in spades. The fellow lost control over her and
                    eventually
                    > became disinterested.
                    >
                    > Love
                    > Bobby G.


                    SG: mirroring can be dangerous if dealing with a
                    disturbed personality ........

                    not everyone will get it and could only serve to stoke
                    fires on occasion.......

                    while it sounds good on the surface it may not always
                    the best teaching method or solution.......


                    Om
                  • Nina
                    ... another doesn t want you around and let it drop. There is no confusion there. If in fact infatuation is only a mutual prospect, then stalking isn t
                    Message 9 of 15 , Oct 24, 2003
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, Jason Fishman
                      <munkiman4u@y...> wrote:
                      > What was said specifically is, it is simple to take notice that
                      another doesn't want you around and let it drop. There is no
                      confusion there. If in fact infatuation is only a mutual prospect,
                      then stalking isn't infatuation, but an obsession.

                      Please clarify your last sentence.

                      > What was presented was, what was the ill will here? Were both
                      parties clear? Did the stalker not care that she didn't want him
                      around or did he care but didn't realize? This is where the ill will
                      intent came in. Putting up the mirror seems to be a continuation of
                      falcification and deceit.

                      It may be assumed that if legal avenues have been investigated or
                      pursued by the one who is being harrassed, that the situation is
                      clear. Seeking legal protection from a stalker is usually not the
                      first signal to the stalker that his/her behavior is not acceptable.

                      The mirror technique is actually a very good technique, given the
                      woman's professional relationship to the man who was stalking her.
                      Given that she was unable to be out of his presence, putting as
                      little energy into feeding his interest as possible is good advice.
                      There is no deceit there, it is minimizing engagement in a situation
                      where any kind of engagement, good or bad, can be taken by the
                      narcissistic stalker to be an invitation to continue the unwelcomed
                      behavior.

                      > To often I read on these forums to let things go, which is to truly
                      not care for the other, that it is bad to feel for someone else in an
                      always so sort of way. Then I read about peace and freedom and how
                      those things should be made vital persuits. How can humanity have
                      peace and freedom if everyone is untrue and at odds? Let someone in,
                      if it's ill will, it will change or it wont and they'll kill you
                      (very rarely so), either way. Be truthful all the way, don't put up a
                      front about your position to stave off others, they'll leave on there
                      own accord if they don't like it. All this personal protection, that
                      is what should be let go of.

                      Stalking is a distortion of 'caring for another'. It is a state of
                      caring too much for oneself, at the expense of another. Is that peace
                      and freedom? No, not for the one who stalks, and not for the one who
                      is stalked.

                      The issue is not personal protection, but rather, the distortions
                      that lead to the need for personal protection. Untruth is in the
                      delusion of the one who stalks: in the belief that the other loves
                      them, or will love them, or should love them, and in any of the
                      jealous or obsessive thoughts that arise from that delusion. To
                      advise that someone allow this behavior to continue unchecked, in the
                      name of love, is to sink into that delusional untruth. Perhaps some
                      would call this 'codependency'. That is a distortion of love and
                      abidance as well as peace and freedom.

                      > Peace and Love
                      >
                      > Nina <murrkis@y...> wrote:
                      > Here is a link to one state's definition of stalking,
                      > in its various forms:
                      >
                      > http://www.cyber-stalking.net/legal_state_northcarolina.htm
                      >
                      > This site states it clearly, for the layperson:
                      >
                      > http://www.ndcaws.org/stalkingharassment/stalkinglaws.asp
                      >
                      > If your presence in another person's life is not consensual,
                      > you need to remove yourself from that person's life.
                      > If you have trouble understanding why this is so, in the
                      > interpersonal as well as the legal senses, you had better
                      > look into receiving help for narcissistic personality
                      > disorders. Period.
                      >
                      > Nina
                      >
                      > --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, Jason Fishman
                      > <munkiman4u@y...> wrote:
                      > > What was the ill will in this situation? Is the attempt to be
                      > closer to someone, ill will? Did he mean her harm, or was he more
                      > interested in being with her?
                      > >
                      > > Often times I think people turn away from those that have
                      > intentions at all, regardless of what those truly are.
                      > >
                      > > One would think that her disinterest in him would be enough to
                      > simply let it pass, but if his intention was to be with her due to
                      > infatuation, how does that apply to ill will? Don't people in
                      > general enjoy being admired or adored?
                      > >
                      > > Peace and Love
                    • Jason Fishman
                      ... another doesn t want you around and let it drop. There is no confusion there. If in fact infatuation is only a mutual prospect, then stalking isn t
                      Message 10 of 15 , Oct 24, 2003
                      • 0 Attachment

                        --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, Jason Fishman
                        <munkiman4u@y...> wrote:
                        > What was said specifically is, it is simple to take notice that
                        another doesn't want you around and let it drop. There is no
                        confusion there. If in fact infatuation is only a mutual prospect,
                        then stalking isn't infatuation, but an obsession.

                        Please clarify your last sentence.

                        If infatuation is only infatuation when it is mutal, then stalking isn't infatuation, but an obsession.

                        > What was presented was, what was the ill will here? Were both
                        parties clear? Did the stalker not care that she didn't want him
                        around or did he care but didn't realize? This is where the ill will
                        intent came in. Putting up the mirror seems to be a continuation of
                        falcification and deceit.

                        It may be assumed that if legal avenues have been investigated or
                        pursued by the one who is being harrassed, that the situation is
                        clear. Seeking legal protection from a stalker is usually not the
                        first signal to the stalker that his/her behavior is not acceptable.

                        The mirror technique is actually a very good technique, given the woman's professional relationship to the man who was stalking her. Given that she was unable to be out of his presence, putting as little energy into feeding his interest as possible is good advice. There is no deceit there, it is minimizing engagement in a situation
                        where any kind of engagement, good or bad, can be taken by the narcissistic stalker to be an invitation to continue the unwelcomed behavior.

                        What I'm saying is it isn't an invitation to continue the behavior. The stalker isn't looking for rejection and if they are distorting their actions in such a way that they must persue, bringing in those actions and being open to those distortions can prove to be a reflection of benificial behavior.

                        I've had what could be considered stalkers in the past, one a retarded man, and a few ex-girlfriends hell bent on making my life miserable since they were so unhappy. The retarded gentleman was regularly violent when unhappy, in bringing him in and going over the friendship, he is very well adjusted and a wonderfully good friend. The girlfriends I came back to were extremely bitter and angry, I brought them back in and went through the motions again, but this time without rejection. One is happily married and the other is dating someone regularly of which both remained great friends and have often mentioned that they understand how there actions affect others much better these days. No need for legal envolvement or anger management.


                        > To often I read on these forums to let things go, which is to truly
                        not care for the other, that it is bad to feel for someone else in an
                        always so sort of way. Then I read about peace and freedom and how
                        those things should be made vital persuits. How can humanity have
                        peace and freedom if everyone is untrue and at odds? Let someone in,
                        if it's ill will, it will change or it wont and they'll kill you
                        (very rarely so), either way. Be truthful all the way, don't put up a
                        front about your position to stave off others, they'll leave on there
                        own accord if they don't like it. All this personal protection, that
                        is what should be let go of.

                        Stalking is a distortion of 'caring for another'. It is a state of
                        caring too much for oneself, at the expense of another. Is that peace
                        and freedom? No, not for the one who stalks, and not for the one who
                        is stalked.

                        This is precisely why the mirror technique causes the stalker to continue the behavior, only with someone else. Caring for oneself too much, by way of protection and rejection only manifests more protection and rejection. A growing cycle to say the least. Family value is love for your siblings no matter how out-there they are. MAybe we should continue this craze of sueing everyone for all this stuff?

                        The issue is not personal protection, but rather, the distortions
                        that lead to the need for personal protection. Untruth is in the
                        delusion of the one who stalks: in the belief that the other loves
                        them, or will love them, or should love them, and in any of the
                        jealous or obsessive thoughts that arise from that delusion. To
                        advise that someone allow this behavior to continue unchecked, in the
                        name of love, is to sink into that delusional untruth. Perhaps some
                        would call this 'codependency'. That is a distortion of love and 
                        abidance as well as peace and freedom.

                        Maintaining personal protection from love and the fear of being hurt, is the actually delusion. Codependency is reliance on another to help, once helped through delusion, no dependency.

                        This is a major problem with raising children as well, by attempting to limit a childs experiences only makes the child "want" the experience more.

                        Thanks for this Nina,

                        Peace and Love


                        Do you Yahoo!?
                        The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
                      • Nina
                        J What was presented was, what was the ill will here? Were both ... N It may be assumed that if legal avenues have been investigated or ... N The mirror
                        Message 11 of 15 , Oct 24, 2003
                        • 0 Attachment
                          J> What was presented was, what was the ill will here? Were both
                          > parties clear? Did the stalker not care that she didn't want him
                          > around or did he care but didn't realize? This is where the ill
                          > will intent came in. Putting up the mirror seems to be a
                          > continuation of falcification and deceit.
                          >
                          N> It may be assumed that if legal avenues have been investigated or
                          > pursued by the one who is being harrassed, that the situation is
                          > clear. Seeking legal protection from a stalker is usually not the
                          > first signal to the stalker that his/her behavior is not acceptable.
                          >
                          N> The mirror technique is actually a very good technique, given the
                          woman's professional relationship to the man who was stalking her.
                          Given that she was unable to be out of his presence, putting as
                          little energy into feeding his interest as possible is good advice.
                          There is no deceit there, it is minimizing engagement in a situation
                          where any kind of engagement, good or bad, can be taken by the
                          narcissistic stalker to be an invitation to continue the unwelcomed
                          behavior.

                          J> What I'm saying is it isn't an invitation to continue the
                          behavior. The stalker isn't looking for rejection and if they are
                          distorting their actions in such a way that they must persue,
                          bringing in those actions and being open to those distortions can
                          prove to be a reflection of benificial behavior.

                          Jason, I am having a hard time understanding what you
                          are trying to say.

                          J> I've had what could be considered stalkers in the past, one a
                          retarded man, and a few ex-girlfriends hell bent on making my life
                          miserable since they were so unhappy. The retarded gentleman was
                          regularly violent when unhappy, in bringing him in and going over the
                          friendship, he is very well adjusted and a wonderfully good friend.
                          The girlfriends I came back to were extremely bitter and angry, I
                          brought them back in and went through the motions again, but this
                          time without rejection. One is happily married and the other is
                          dating someone regularly of which both remained great friends and
                          have often mentioned that they understand how there actions affect
                          others much better these days. No need for legal envolvement or anger
                          management.

                          I am glad your experiences along this line succeeded.
                          It is a matter of degree. I would hardly advocate this
                          approach for all cases.

                          It is perfectly ok to say: "this is my boundary, stay
                          out of it". One need not adopt the ones who chronically
                          transgress that boundary, not even in the name of spiritual
                          kindness. No, to cajole and cater to the one who cannot
                          see or respect your boundary is to tell that person that
                          you are not serious about the boundary. In fact, it
                          reinforces their ability to transgress others' boundaries.

                          Perhaps there are others here who can speak more
                          directly to odds that the object of obsession,
                          laden as he/she is with the projections of the obsessor,
                          could operate soundly as a vehicle of transformation.
                          Admittedly, the part of me that likes subversion would
                          dig a positive outcome on that one... but it seems
                          highly unlikely.

                          > > To often I read on these forums to
                          > > let things go, which is to truly
                          > > not care for the other, that it is bad
                          > > to feel for someone else in an
                          > > always so sort of way. Then I read
                          > > about peace and freedom and how
                          > > those things should be made vital
                          > > persuits. How can humanity have
                          > > peace and freedom if everyone is
                          > > untrue and at odds? Let someone in,
                          > > if it's ill will, it will change or it
                          > > wont and they'll kill you
                          > > (very rarely so), either way. Be
                          > > truthful all the way, don't put up a
                          > > front about your position to stave
                          > > off others, they'll leave on there
                          > > own accord if they don't like it.
                          > > All this personal protection, that
                          > > is what should be let go of.
                          >
                          > Stalking is a distortion of 'caring for another'. It is a state of
                          > caring too much for oneself, at the expense of another. Is that
                          > peace and freedom? No, not for the one who stalks, and not for
                          > the one who is stalked.
                          >
                          > This is precisely why the mirror technique causes the stalker to
                          continue the behavior, only with someone else. Caring for oneself too
                          much, by way of protection and rejection only manifests more
                          protection and rejection. A growing cycle to say the least. Family
                          value is love for your siblings no matter how out-there they are.
                          MAybe we should continue this craze of sueing everyone for all this
                          stuff?

                          In the world of I AM, there are no boundaries and unconditional love.

                          In the mundane world, there are boundaries and conditional love.

                          In this mortal lifetime, somewhere between I AM and the mundane
                          world, is a balance, that each person must find on their own.

                          To love another is not to become blind to or reckless with risks.

                          That said, let it be understood, that one can love their stalker, and
                          still have them legally barred from hanging around.

                          > The issue is not personal protection, but rather, the distortions
                          > that lead to the need for personal protection. Untruth is in the
                          > delusion of the one who stalks: in the belief that the other loves
                          > them, or will love them, or should love them, and in any of the
                          > jealous or obsessive thoughts that arise from that delusion. To
                          > advise that someone allow this behavior to continue unchecked,
                          > in the name of love, is to sink into that delusional untruth.
                          > Perhaps some would call this 'codependency'. That is a distortion
                          > of love and abidance as well as peace and freedom.
                          >
                          > Maintaining personal protection from love and the fear of being
                          hurt, is the actually delusion. Codependency is reliance on another
                          to help, once helped through delusion, no dependency.
                          >
                          > This is a major problem with raising children as well, by
                          attempting to limit a childs experiences only makes the child "want"
                          the experience more.

                          Jason, it is surreal to see you drawing relationships between your
                          children and stalkers. Are you suggesting that by 'limiting' a
                          stalker's ability to transgress boundaries, that the stalker comes to
                          desire that transgression even more? Are you suggesting that perhaps
                          this would support the thesis that one should 'allow the stalker in',
                          as a way of mediating the stalker's desire? All in the name of
                          compassion and love? Egads, perhaps, you might care to check in with
                          your own ability to mind others' boundaries, rather than lamenting
                          that it is so darn hard these days to transgress boundaries because
                          people are so concerned with their own self-protection. Ok, so you
                          didn't say it this way, but given that most of us write our posts for
                          our own information, "to ourselves", I can't help but put it in that
                          context...

                          Nina
                        • texasbg2000
                          ... had ... acting ... Dear SG: Dealing with a disturbed personality can be a dangerous thing. The Yogi will not want to harm the person to protect themselves
                          Message 12 of 15 , Oct 24, 2003
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "Swami-G"
                            <manjusrilotus@y...> wrote:
                            > --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com,
                            > "texasbg2000" <Bigbobgraham@a...> wrote:
                            > >
                            > > Hello all disputees:
                            > >
                            > > The yogi has one weapon against ill will towards him/her.
                            > Absence.
                            > >
                            > > A few years ago I got a call from an old friend, Eileen. She had
                            > > been governess for my two boys one summer when she was
                            > young. I had
                            > > not seen her for about fifteen years in which time she had
                            > gotten a
                            > > Phd. in Psych and was teaching undergraduates in a major
                            > university.
                            > >
                            > > After catching up I found out that she had a male student that
                            > was
                            > > stalking her. She is curvy, beautiful, and flirty. An ex-G.I.
                            had
                            > > fixated on her for almost a year. She was going mad with it
                            > and I
                            > > know because I knew her history and fragility. She had called
                            > campus
                            > > police, local police, and finally the FBI. They couldn't do
                            > anything.
                            > >
                            > > I gave her this advise, "Give him your absence!" She said he
                            > was in
                            > > her class and had to counsel him in addition. She could not
                            > ignore
                            > > him. Then the technique of mirroring came up. You just give
                            > back to
                            > > them the same energy that they give to you. Nothing new.
                            > Nothing
                            > > more. When they say "Hi" you say "Hi" with exactly the same
                            > > intonation, etc. The caution is to resist being creative or
                            acting
                            > > like you are getting one over on them. You just give them 'your'
                            > > absence by mirroring their state of mind to them. Give them
                            > nothing
                            > > of yourself.
                            > >
                            > > I got a call back in a few days and she was relieved that it had
                            > > worked in spades. The fellow lost control over her and
                            > eventually
                            > > became disinterested.
                            > >
                            > > Love
                            > > Bobby G.
                            >
                            >
                            > SG: mirroring can be dangerous if dealing with a
                            > disturbed personality ........


                            Dear SG:

                            Dealing with a disturbed personality can be a dangerous thing. The
                            Yogi will not want to harm the person to protect themselves if it is
                            avoidable. The police could not help. The practice of scaring women
                            is despicable.

                            Giving your absence to someone is acceptable. It is preferable to a
                            dispute that wastes everyone's time.

                            Love
                            Bobby G.

                            >
                            > not everyone will get it and could only serve to
                            stoke
                            > fires on occasion.......
                            >
                            > while it sounds good on the surface it may not always
                            > the best teaching method or solution.......
                            >
                            >
                            > Om
                          • Jason Fishman
                            Hi Nina, I can only touch on this, for I am preparing for attendence at the annual stalkers rights convention ;) No, really this seems to cover enough to
                            Message 13 of 15 , Oct 24, 2003
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Hi Nina,
                               
                              I can only touch on this, for I am preparing for attendence at the annual stalkers rights convention ;) No, really this seems to cover enough to possible see where it is I'm speaking from.

                              Nina <murrkis@...> wrote:
                               
                              Jason, it is surreal to see you drawing relationships between your children and stalkers. Are you suggesting that by 'limiting' a stalker's ability to transgress boundaries, that the stalker comes to desire that transgression even more?
                               
                               
                              Yes, what I am saying is that by allowing someone to uncover the mystery of the persuit, the solution is often presented by way of thier own admission, not by what I or any other dictates it to be. In other words I have to do nothing but be myself. If being myself includes having boundaries, then I'm binding myself to those as well as all others. Reality has boundaries that I cannot cross or manipulate, thats more then enough.
                               
                               
                              Are you suggesting that perhaps this would support the thesis that one should 'allow the stalker in', as a way of mediating the stalker's desire?
                               
                              No, quite the opposite. By partaking fully into what it is to be a stalker or the stalked there is no mediation or manipulation required, the chase is ended once the roles get played out.
                               
                              All in the name of compassion and love?
                               
                              All in the name of being human. In the name of having the ability to choose, in awareness that it isn't going to turn out as intended if I have no clue as to what I'm doing. What I would advocate is if a stalker or any other is a problem for you, then looking into what it is to not only be the stalked, but the stalker as well, will easily confirm this understanding.
                               
                              Egads, perhaps, you might care to check in with your own ability to mind others' boundaries, rather than lamenting that it is so darn hard these days to transgress boundaries because
                              people are so concerned with their own self-protection.
                               
                              I'm not lamenting here at all, I have long confirmed my ability to mind others boundaries (if they need those bounderies to keep them safe, thats just fine). I have also confirmed what it means for me to be bound, which brings clearly in the 2 seemingly different perspectives, which in essesence they are not. One puts up the wall to have the other tear it down, otherwise no wall is needed, not even for protection. In almost every single case (bared what is witnessed on tv, movies and in times of war etc.) people do not go on with the intent to destroy, partially for the laws in place, but for the majority it's a risk that is unneccesary, regardless of condition.
                               
                              A lil story...
                               
                              I worked in the heart of the ghetto for nine years and to this day I still proceed into "less the safe" neighborhoods. My protection is that I have nothing that needs protecting, if I get shot stabbed mamed, killed, that is exactly what is to happen, but thus far it has not and I would imagine will not for at least the next ten minutes. I had a great deal of good people that I conversed with, got to know about thier strifes and struggles and they did just fine by me, even though they talked of beating up the next door neighbor for bringing in drugs or having weapons that threatened thier safety. To me it was just another day in the walk of reality and no one felt threatened by that ever.
                               
                              Ok, so you didn't say it this way, but given that most of us write our posts for our own information, "to ourselves", I can't help but put it in that context...
                               
                              I agree, you will take from what you know to be true, thats good for knowing, it's not so good for understanding in compassion and peace through the other, of which my world has revolved around since my birth and will until my death.
                               
                              Peace and Love


                              Do you Yahoo!?
                              The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.