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

Re: The Rose

Expand Messages
  • Nina
    ... That is arguable, when one has constructed a way of understanding compassion/unconditional love. That is also arguable, because elements that co-exist,
    Message 1 of 10 , Feb 3, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "carolina112900"
      <freyjartist@a...> wrote:
      > Concept and reason and true compassion/unconditional
      > love don't really have anything to do with each
      > other.

      That is arguable, when one has constructed a way of
      'understanding' compassion/unconditional love.

      That is also arguable, because elements that co-exist,
      such as 'being human' and 'Being being', do have a
      relationship. If nothing else, they are 'juxtaposed',
      and so, do have some something to do with the other.

      > Maybe this understanding you're referring to,
      > thinking one understands where another is coming from,
      > it's just more of a way of viewing the world with heels dug
      > in even deeper that one can truly understand
      > or judge something-anything.

      Nope.

      > The human reasoning perspective, perceptual mechanism, is limited.

      Yep, it is limited, but it is 'what we have'...
      no matter whether or not you feel you are coming
      from a place of "unconditional love/compassion".

      > The vastness of unconditional love/compassion
      > embraces all of it. Not what the mind thinks it
      > knows. Unconditional love/compassion sees no other.
      > Everything, exactly the way it is, is the truth.
      >
      > ~~freyja
      >
      >
      > > To suggest that because someone can recognize lies
      > > or cheats they are lies and cheats, is a false logic.
      > > Have you checked to see if they can recognize
      > > straight-talk and generosity? What if they can recognize
      > > all of those? What, then, by your logic, does that
      > > make them? What, then, by your logic, are you, based on
      > > your recognition that tightwads recognize other tightwads?
      > >
      > > Meditation and self-study are ways of getting beyond this
      > > way of viewing the world and the 'others' in it.
      > >
      > > You can give yourself away freely and recklessly to other
      > > humans, or you can give yourself away freely and recklessly
      > > to yourself. Your choice.
      > >
      > > Nina
    • texasbg2000
      ... freyjartist@a... ... something ... controlled ... with ... dont ... Dear Nina: I think the lyric is intended to make us see there is something valuable in
      Message 2 of 10 , Feb 3, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "Nina"
        <murrkis@y...> wrote:
        > --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "texasbg2000"
        > <Bigbobgraham@a...> wrote:
        > > --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com,
        freyjartist@a...
        > > wrote:
        > > >
        > > > It's the heart, afraid of breaking
        > > > That never learns to dance
        > > >
        > > > It's the dream, afraid of waking
        > > > That never takes the chance
        > > >
        > > > It's the one who won't be taken (or tricked or manipulated)
        > > > Who cannot seem to give
        > > >
        > > > And the soul, afraid of dying
        > > > That never learns to live
        > > >
        > > > ~from "The Rose"
        > > > sung by Bette Midler
        > >
        > > Nice poetry Freyja. People who want to run others lives or 'con'
        > them
        > > into giving up their money or freedoms lose something.
        > >
        > > That one line that one who won't be taken cannot give is
        something
        > I
        > > believe.
        > >
        > > People who want to 'take' others look at others as if they were
        > > trying to do the same to them. A person who lies is more
        > suspicious
        > > of others lying than one who does not. An honest person will
        > forgive
        > > a cheater sooner than another cheater will.
        > >
        > > The worst part is that they do not want to be controlled. They
        > want
        > > to control others. If it becomes an obsession to not be
        controlled
        > > then you probably should look to see if you are manipulative or a
        > > control freak yourself.
        > >
        > > Resisting being controlled by circumstances seems to interfere
        with
        > > giving to me. It sets one aside from a situation and interferes
        > with
        > > participation. Sure you get taken in a lot by people but you
        dont
        > > have to keep a tight asshole all the time like they do.
        > >
        > > Just some thoughts
        > > Love
        > > Bobby G.
        >
        > There is a way of viewing the world that is neutral
        > and allows that there are liers and cheaters as well
        > straight-talkers and generous people. In fact, it
        > may be seen that we each carry a mix of these manifestations
        > within us, to differing ratios. Once this is realized,
        > it is even easier to understand where another person
        > is coming from... with compassion of the sort Bruce
        > Morgan has described.

        Dear Nina:

        I think the lyric is intended to make us see there is something
        valuable in being vulnerable. I wrote a short essay years ago about
        manipulators resisting manipulation themselves and the way it
        distorts interaction, and this touched a nerve on that topic.

        It is my way to try to see the effects on myself of my actions and
        that is the direction I intended for this response to the lyrics.
        That is, if I manipulate others to my advantage, when I know it is to
        their disadvantage, what sort of fallout will I receive from that?
        My idea is that it limits my involvment in a general sense. It
        separates me and creates dualism of the fourth type (Ken Wilber- the
        Shade and the Personna).

        Acts of the Shade type are acts which I think are not typical of me.

        The "Me" acts which I think are typical of me are are the actions I
        admit to, those of the Personna.

        It is typical to believe that the things I do that I believe are
        negative is just a slip up. But in this dualism way of describing
        events they would simply be actions of the Shade, the 'me' that I do
        not admit is me.

        Of course the reverse is true too. The personna can be negative
        things and the shade are 'good' things I do that I cannot admit are
        me.

        So if I manipulate others I can believe I really am a negative person
        and the positive things I do are all faked for whatever reasons. Then
        everything gets complex.

        >
        > To suggest that because someone can recognize lies
        > or cheats they are lies and cheats, is a false logic.

        "A person who lies is more
        suspicious
        of others lying than one who does not. An honest person will
        forgive
        a cheater sooner than another cheater will." It still seems right
        to me. I dont personally know anyone who is not a cheater or a
        liar. If you did not ever encounter a lie in someone else are you so
        sure that you could lie?

        > Have you checked to see if they can recognize
        > straight-talk and generosity? What if they can recognize
        > all of those? What, then, by your logic, does that
        > make them? What, then, by your logic, are you, based on
        > your recognition that tightwads recognize other tightwads?

        > Meditation and self-study are ways of getting beyond this
        > way of viewing the world and the 'others' in it.
        >
        > You can give yourself away freely and recklessly to other
        > humans, or you can give yourself away freely and recklessly
        > to yourself. Your choice.

        It is a dangerous world. But it is reckless in a sense to become too
        protective.

        If I see others as myself then I dont mind if they get something from
        me. But if they get hurt more taking something from me (because they
        increase the shade-personna split) then I dont want them to take
        advantage. Is this giving myself to myself?

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