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

Re: You Don't Say

Expand Messages
  • walto
    Again, who is this Walto you re pretending to address? BTW, as to suffering, much as it sucks, I agree with Camus: truth is better than illusion. W
    Message 1 of 15 , Oct 25, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Again, who is this Walto you're pretending to address?

      BTW, as to suffering, much as it sucks, I agree with Camus: truth is better than illusion.

      W

      --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "dan330033" <dan330033@...> wrote:
      >
      > Hi Walto -
      >
      > One may attempt to retain a logical mind, and maintain assumptions in order to derive conclusions, and live according to a linear logic (in a non-linear and dynamic reality). Such an attempt is bound to lead to suffering for the assumed separately existing mind and its assumed holding of a logical view (or a non-logical view, for that matter).
      >
      > If one is employed as a scientist, one is able to formulate logical views that pertain to science, and one can gain employment and be paid as a scientist. Yet, seeing into one's nature is to see beyond the role, beyond the linear logic required by the pursuit of science - indeed is to see beyond constraints of time, and assuptions such as "if ... then" or cause-and-effect.
      >
      > If one lives according to an attempt to preserve a rational formulated way to respond, the attempt to preserve a linear format to dictate responses in a non-linear process of being, leads to a sense of friction - one is a prisoner of one's own conceptions, thought-based assumptions, linear logic, and projections of what is assumed ...
      >
      > On the other hand, one living as presence, is freely present.
      >
      > One responds, this moment, as one is moved to respond.
      >
      > In other words, one is not separate from the spontaneous movement of being, which is "the universe."
      >
      > There isn't any guideline or rule-book - if compassion moves you to provide food to someone - go for it. Or don't, if not so moved.
      >
      > It's not a matter of behaving correctly, according to some assumed guideline or rule-book -
      >
      > One accepting what is, via being what is - has no choice to not-be what is. Thus, isn't trying to fix everything - but simply responds in/as the moment according to what is perceived and experienced.
      >
      > Indeed, everything already is doing this - without exception and without division. Beholding what one already is - is peace.
      >
      > - D -
      >
      > --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "walto" <calhorn@> wrote:
      > >
      > > Q: What's the difference between a ridh family in Westchester County and a starving child in Somalia?
      > >
      > > A: Absolutely nothing.
      > >
      > > Q: So there's no need to help the kid?
      > >
      > > A: No. There's really no kid there at all. There are no separate selves.
      > >
      > > Q: But see, I have all this money and food! Shouldn't I help if I can?
      > >
      > > A: It's all illusion.
      > >
      > > Q: So I can keep it all?
      > >
      > > A: Keep it--Give it. Makes no difference.
      > >
      > > Q: And what about the arguments I've been hearing between evolutionary theory defenders and creationists?
      > >
      > > A: No difference--they're both wrong (and there aren't really two of them).
      > >
      > > Q: Good science--bad science--alchemy--Tinkerbell--All the same?
      > >
      > > A: Yep.
      > >
      > > Q: I suppose there's no need for me to vote or even care who's running or what the issues are?
      > >
      > > A: None.
      > >
      > > Q: How about eating--should I bother with that?
      > >
      > > A: Doesn't matter.
      > >
      > > Q: OK, thanks.
      > >
      > > W
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "dan330033" <dan330033@> wrote:
      > > >
      > > > Nice one, Bob.
      > > >
      > > > People confirm their expectations, if at all possible...
      > > >
      > > > ... including their expectation to exist as a separable person.
      > > >
      > > > A so-called "master" can say, "have no expectations," and then people will set about trying to confirm what they think is supposed to be involved in having no expectations, or what they think it is supposed to be like, to be like their "master" ...
      > > >
      > > > So the "unexpected" reality can only be clear as is - from within (so to speak -- as it is not divided into within and without).
      > > >
      > > > But it can't come from outside, such as through wise words that can impart its nature ... and thus one can say "from within" - the within that has no outside or inside ... the present.
      > > >
      > > > - D -
      > > >
      > > > --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, medit8ionsociety <no_reply@> wrote:
      > > > >
      > > > > "When you speak about Reality," said the Master,
      > > > > "you are attempting to put the Inexpressible into
      > > > > words, so your words are certain to be misunderstood.
      > > > > Thus people who read that expression of Reality
      > > > > called the Scriptures become stupid and cruel for
      > > > > they follow, not their common sense, but what they
      > > > > think their Scriptures say."
      > > > >
      > > > > He had the perfect parable to show this: A village
      > > > > blacksmith found an apprentice willing to work hard
      > > > > at low pay. The smith immediately began his instructions
      > > > > to the lad: "When I take the metal out of the fire,
      > > > > I'll lay it on the anvil; and when I nod my head you
      > > > > hit it with the hammer." The apprentice did precisely
      > > > > what he thought he was told. Next day he was the
      > > > > village blacksmith.
      > > > >
      > > > > Anthony de Mello
      > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------
      > > > > This article is being posted for non-commercial and
      > > > > for educational purposes only and thus is allowable
      > > > > as per the Fair Use Statutes
      > > > >
      > > >
      > >
      >
    • dan330033
      You signed your e-mail with Walto, so I addressed my response to Walto. If this is a great mystery for you, then I admire your ability to be mystified. Truth
      Message 2 of 15 , Oct 25, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        You signed your e-mail with Walto, so I addressed my response to Walto.

        If this is a great mystery for you, then I admire your ability to be mystified.

        Truth and illusion are relative concepts.

        A verbal construction of truth depends on the reader and the reader's interpretation for its meaning.

        Thus, the sense of truth or illusion comes from the one who interprets the perception, and that interpretation itself, is
        also perceived.

        One sees through and beyond language, beyond concepts of illusion and truth - one sees the full picture of one's perceptual formulations ... the relativity and changeability of contrasts between reality and illusion ...

        one sees ... beyond ideas of "whose perception is this" ... the actuality of the perception-formation, including any ideas of who's and what's.

        - d -

        --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "walto" <calhorn@...> wrote:
        >
        > Again, who is this Walto you're pretending to address?
        >
        > BTW, as to suffering, much as it sucks, I agree with Camus: truth is better than illusion.
        >
        > W
        >
        > --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "dan330033" <dan330033@> wrote:
        > >
        > > Hi Walto -
        > >
        > > One may attempt to retain a logical mind, and maintain assumptions in order to derive conclusions, and live according to a linear logic (in a non-linear and dynamic reality). Such an attempt is bound to lead to suffering for the assumed separately existing mind and its assumed holding of a logical view (or a non-logical view, for that matter).
        > >
        > > If one is employed as a scientist, one is able to formulate logical views that pertain to science, and one can gain employment and be paid as a scientist. Yet, seeing into one's nature is to see beyond the role, beyond the linear logic required by the pursuit of science - indeed is to see beyond constraints of time, and assuptions such as "if ... then" or cause-and-effect.
        > >
        > > If one lives according to an attempt to preserve a rational formulated way to respond, the attempt to preserve a linear format to dictate responses in a non-linear process of being, leads to a sense of friction - one is a prisoner of one's own conceptions, thought-based assumptions, linear logic, and projections of what is assumed ...
        > >
        > > On the other hand, one living as presence, is freely present.
        > >
        > > One responds, this moment, as one is moved to respond.
        > >
        > > In other words, one is not separate from the spontaneous movement of being, which is "the universe."
        > >
        > > There isn't any guideline or rule-book - if compassion moves you to provide food to someone - go for it. Or don't, if not so moved.
        > >
        > > It's not a matter of behaving correctly, according to some assumed guideline or rule-book -
        > >
        > > One accepting what is, via being what is - has no choice to not-be what is. Thus, isn't trying to fix everything - but simply responds in/as the moment according to what is perceived and experienced.
        > >
        > > Indeed, everything already is doing this - without exception and without division. Beholding what one already is - is peace.
        > >
        > > - D -
        > >
        > > --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "walto" <calhorn@> wrote:
        > > >
        > > > Q: What's the difference between a ridh family in Westchester County and a starving child in Somalia?
        > > >
        > > > A: Absolutely nothing.
        > > >
        > > > Q: So there's no need to help the kid?
        > > >
        > > > A: No. There's really no kid there at all. There are no separate selves.
        > > >
        > > > Q: But see, I have all this money and food! Shouldn't I help if I can?
        > > >
        > > > A: It's all illusion.
        > > >
        > > > Q: So I can keep it all?
        > > >
        > > > A: Keep it--Give it. Makes no difference.
        > > >
        > > > Q: And what about the arguments I've been hearing between evolutionary theory defenders and creationists?
        > > >
        > > > A: No difference--they're both wrong (and there aren't really two of them).
        > > >
        > > > Q: Good science--bad science--alchemy--Tinkerbell--All the same?
        > > >
        > > > A: Yep.
        > > >
        > > > Q: I suppose there's no need for me to vote or even care who's running or what the issues are?
        > > >
        > > > A: None.
        > > >
        > > > Q: How about eating--should I bother with that?
        > > >
        > > > A: Doesn't matter.
        > > >
        > > > Q: OK, thanks.
        > > >
        > > > W
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "dan330033" <dan330033@> wrote:
        > > > >
        > > > > Nice one, Bob.
        > > > >
        > > > > People confirm their expectations, if at all possible...
        > > > >
        > > > > ... including their expectation to exist as a separable person.
        > > > >
        > > > > A so-called "master" can say, "have no expectations," and then people will set about trying to confirm what they think is supposed to be involved in having no expectations, or what they think it is supposed to be like, to be like their "master" ...
        > > > >
        > > > > So the "unexpected" reality can only be clear as is - from within (so to speak -- as it is not divided into within and without).
        > > > >
        > > > > But it can't come from outside, such as through wise words that can impart its nature ... and thus one can say "from within" - the within that has no outside or inside ... the present.
        > > > >
        > > > > - D -
        > > > >
        > > > > --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, medit8ionsociety <no_reply@> wrote:
        > > > > >
        > > > > > "When you speak about Reality," said the Master,
        > > > > > "you are attempting to put the Inexpressible into
        > > > > > words, so your words are certain to be misunderstood.
        > > > > > Thus people who read that expression of Reality
        > > > > > called the Scriptures become stupid and cruel for
        > > > > > they follow, not their common sense, but what they
        > > > > > think their Scriptures say."
        > > > > >
        > > > > > He had the perfect parable to show this: A village
        > > > > > blacksmith found an apprentice willing to work hard
        > > > > > at low pay. The smith immediately began his instructions
        > > > > > to the lad: "When I take the metal out of the fire,
        > > > > > I'll lay it on the anvil; and when I nod my head you
        > > > > > hit it with the hammer." The apprentice did precisely
        > > > > > what he thought he was told. Next day he was the
        > > > > > village blacksmith.
        > > > > >
        > > > > > Anthony de Mello
        > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------
        > > > > > This article is being posted for non-commercial and
        > > > > > for educational purposes only and thus is allowable
        > > > > > as per the Fair Use Statutes
        > > > > >
        > > > >
        > > >
        > >
        >
      • walto
        ... You misunderstand me. I only wonder how and why if there are no separate people you would take the trouble. ... Sentences need to be interpreted and may
        Message 3 of 15 , Oct 25, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "dan330033" <dan330033@...> wrote:
          >
          > You signed your e-mail with Walto, so I addressed my response to Walto.
          >
          > If this is a great mystery for you, then I admire your ability to be mystified.
          >

          You misunderstand me. I only wonder how and why if there are no separate people you would take the trouble.

          > Truth and illusion are relative concepts.
          >
          > A verbal construction of truth depends on the reader and the reader's interpretation for its meaning.
          >

          Sentences need to be interpreted and may be interpreted differently. Communication depends on common intepretations--otherwise we are all always talking about different matters.


          > Thus, the sense of truth or illusion comes from the one who interprets the perception, and that interpretation itself, is
          > also perceived.
          >

          The sense of truth is one thing, truth is another. We may think we are right and be wrong--that depends on there being such things as right and wrong. It's always important to distinguish between ratio essendi and ratio cognoscendi--being and being known.


          > One sees through and beyond language, beyond concepts of illusion and truth - one sees the full picture of one's perceptual formulations ... the relativity and changeability of contrasts between reality and illusion ...

          I have no wish to argue with you about what you "see"--I don't deny that you and I are different people with different views about things. It's you who insists there are no different, individual selves. That we see things differently is both true and fine with me.

          >
          > one sees ... beyond ideas of "whose perception is this" ... the actuality of the perception-formation, including any ideas of who's and what's.
          >

          Again, knock yourself out. I have other views of these matters, but that's the way of the world: different strokes for different folks and all that.

          W
        • dan330033
          ... D: Why not? It is because there isn t any division that this all happens as it does. ... D: Now, it is you who are misunderstanding me. There are no
          Message 4 of 15 , Oct 25, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "walto" <calhorn@...> wrote:
            >
            >
            >
            > --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "dan330033" <dan330033@> wrote:
            > >
            > > You signed your e-mail with Walto, so I addressed my response to Walto.
            > >
            > > If this is a great mystery for you, then I admire your ability to be mystified.
            > >
            >
            > You misunderstand me. I only wonder how and why if there are no separate people you would take the trouble.

            D: Why not?

            It is because there isn't any division that this all happens as it does.

            > > Truth and illusion are relative concepts.
            > >
            > > A verbal construction of truth depends on the reader and the reader's interpretation for its meaning.
            > >
            >
            > Sentences need to be interpreted and may be interpreted differently. Communication depends on common intepretations--otherwise we are all always talking about different matters.
            >
            >
            > > Thus, the sense of truth or illusion comes from the one who interprets the perception, and that interpretation itself, is
            > > also perceived.
            > >
            >
            > The sense of truth is one thing, truth is another. We may think we are right and be wrong--that depends on there being such things as right and wrong. It's always important to distinguish between ratio essendi and ratio cognoscendi--being and being known.
            >
            >
            > > One sees through and beyond language, beyond concepts of illusion and truth - one sees the full picture of one's perceptual formulations ... the relativity and changeability of contrasts between reality and illusion ...
            >
            > I have no wish to argue with you about what you "see"--I don't deny that you and I are different people with different views about things. It's you who insists there are no different, individual selves.

            D: Now, it is you who are misunderstanding me. There are no actual divisions, separations - the way there seem to be divisions and separations when mental activities arise and are misconstrued as accurately representing what is. Language, memory and related emotional reactions, thought - can imply divisions that are imagined to be actual - but not as directly perceived. With no mediation, no thought form in between, no memory-oriented "self" directing things.

            Differences, such as emerge through dialogues, and in many other ways, aren't problematic, don't require there be any actual division in the nature of reality. This is perceived directly, immediately.

            > That we see things differently is both true and fine with me.
            >
            > >
            > > one sees ... beyond ideas of "whose perception is this" ... the actuality of the perception-formation, including any ideas of who's and what's.
            > >
            >
            > Again, knock yourself out. I have other views of these matters, but that's the way of the world: different strokes for different folks and all that.

            D: Those kinds of differences don't change the non-division that is actual. It is like a multi-colored, multi-dimension picture appearing all-at-once and undivided. The non-division doesn't take anything away from the multidimensionality and multi-textured picture that appears.

            - D -
          • walto
            ... Very possibly. ... OK, as I read that you claim that apparent divisions are created as a result of, inter alia, language, memory and related emotional
            Message 5 of 15 , Oct 25, 2011
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "dan330033" <dan330033@...> wrote:

              >
              > D: Now, it is you who are misunderstanding me.

              Very possibly.


              >There are no actual divisions, separations - the way there seem to be divisions and separations when mental activities arise and are misconstrued as accurately representing what is. Language, memory and related emotional reactions, thought - can imply divisions that are imagined to be actual - but not as directly perceived. With no mediation, no thought form in between, no memory-oriented "self" >directing things.


              OK, as I read that you claim that apparent divisions are created as a result of, inter alia, language, memory and related emotional reactions/thought. So let me ask you this. Are there real divisions among the languages, memories, thoughts and emotional reactions (because, of course, if there were no real divisions there, we couldn't get these ideas of divisions in re which you claim to be illusory.

              But, if those things may be distinguished, we've got items that are really different, haven't we? And....why stop there?

              >
              > Differences, such as emerge through dialogues, and in many other ways, aren't problematic, don't require there be any actual division in the nature of reality. This is perceived directly, immediately.
              >


              FWlittleIW, many years ago, I did a Ph.D. dissertation on Spinoza, a philosopher who held many of the same views you espouse above. I found his philosophy comforting. It's a beautiful picture.

              The thing is, even though he wrote his _Ethics_ "in more geometrico" the more I studied, the more I realized--to my dismay--that so many of his freaking inferences were fallacious. I hated that....but what can you do? There's a world out there and we've got to deal with it--make decisions, live well, grow old, etc. (and that's an extremely unpleasant "etc.") I wish it weren't so, and if your views give you comfort, I have no wish to dissuade you. I object only to the assuredness with which you claim them. It's really possible to have thought about these things and not agree.

              Best,

              W
            • dan330033
              ... D: Yes, that is what I m saying. Although, I m not making a claim. I m expressing myself through language the best I can, while acknowledging
              Message 6 of 15 , Oct 25, 2011
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "walto" <calhorn@...> wrote:
                >
                >
                >
                > --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "dan330033" <dan330033@> wrote:
                >
                > >
                > > D: Now, it is you who are misunderstanding me.
                >
                > Very possibly.
                >
                >
                > >There are no actual divisions, separations - the way there seem to be divisions and separations when mental activities arise and are misconstrued as accurately representing what is. Language, memory and related emotional reactions, thought - can imply divisions that are imagined to be actual - but not as directly perceived. With no mediation, no thought form in between, no memory-oriented "self" >directing things.
                >
                >
                > OK, as I read that you claim that apparent divisions are created as a result of, inter alia, language, memory and related emotional reactions/thought.

                D: Yes, that is what I'm saying. Although, I'm not making a claim. I'm expressing myself through language the best I can, while acknowledging limitations of language that suggest I don't see myself as making a claim, nor take anyone else's language "claims" (if that's how they see them) as establishing anything definitive. In other words, we are not figuring out what reality is through exchanging words. One may be having fun communicating, is how I see it.

                > So let me ask you this. Are there real divisions among the languages, memories, thoughts and emotional reactions (because, of course, if there were no real divisions there, we couldn't get these ideas of divisions in re which you claim to be illusory.

                D: I disagree. The idea of division doesn't meant there is actual division. It means there are provisional treatments of reality, through words, thoughts, emotion associated with thought - as if division were fact. However, once one sees through the illusion involved - one sees that the thoughts, the ideas of division, and so on, are arising without any actual division occurring.

                One sees this in a timeless instant - but expressed through words it seems to take time, seems to involve some kind of progression and association - which it doesn't.

                So, for example, one could say, "I have a thought of division and a related emotional reaction of anger and mistrust because my daughter is dating a young man of a different race and ethnicity than ours." However, seeing/being the full picture of what is, one sees that thought arising in a context, including history, various events in memory, in a manner that all perceptual events are mutually defining and co-arising. So, history, experience, time, breathing, air, food, a planet, space, thought, etc., are all mutually arising without division - past, present, and future, so this event is perceived, including whatever sense of separation (my race vs. that other race, mistrust, etc.)

                I realize this sounds very involved, but as immediate awareness, it isn't complicated. You sound interested in understanding what I'm saying, so, what the heck. That's the best I can put it.


                > But, if those things may be distinguished, we've got items that are really different, haven't we? And....why stop there?

                D: Again, difference doesn't involve any actual division. Indeed, differences imply non-division. It is through relativity that difference is perceptible. And relativity implies non-division, this co-arising with that, black seen against white, and white seen against black, etc.

                > > Differences, such as emerge through dialogues, and in many other ways, aren't problematic, don't require there be any actual division in the nature of reality. This is perceived directly, immediately.
                > >
                >
                >
                > FWlittleIW, many years ago, I did a Ph.D. dissertation on Spinoza, a philosopher who held many of the same views you espouse above. I found his philosophy comforting. It's a beautiful picture.

                D: I have read very very little Spinoza.

                > The thing is, even though he wrote his _Ethics_ "in more geometrico" the more I studied, the more I realized--to my dismay--that so many of his freaking inferences were fallacious. I hated that....but what can you do? There's a world out there and we've got to deal with it--make decisions, live well, grow old, etc. (and that's an extremely unpleasant "etc.")

                D: Yes, and all of these perceived events unfold as you're expressing it, choicelessly, nondivided.

                I am not denying that choices are made. Choices are made every day, in all kinds of different situations, that are formed and perceived without division, without a separately existing chooser, and thus, choicelessly. (The notion that choices can be made in an ultimately choiceless way seems fairly logical to me, by the way).

                > I wish it weren't so, and if your views give you comfort, I have no wish to dissuade you.

                D: I don't find the views I'm expressing to be comforting. It's just how language is being used to express perception. If an elephant steps on my foot, I will scream, and my foot will swell, etc.

                > I object only to the assuredness with which you claim them. It's really possible to have thought about these things and not agree.

                D: Disagreement can be fun. If I sound assured it's just that I'm expressing direct perception the best I can. That's all there is to it. I'm not taking the expression through words, which is indirect, to stand in for the perception as the moment of being - which is direct.

                - D -
              • walterhorn
                ... Hi again. I wonder if observers have noticed how when you want to urge unity, you give an example of race and ethnic distinctions to be overcome, while
                Message 7 of 15 , Oct 25, 2011
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "dan330033" <dan330033@...> wrote:

                  >
                  > So, for example, one could say, "I have a thought of division and a related emotional reaction of anger and mistrust because my daughter is dating a young man of a different race and ethnicity than ours." However, seeing/being the full picture of what is, one sees that thought arising in a context, including history, various events in memory, in a manner that all perceptual events are mutually defining and co-arising. So, history, experience, time, breathing, air, food, a planet, space, thought, etc., are all mutually arising without division - past, present, and future, so this event is perceived, including whatever sense of separation (my race vs. that other race, mistrust, etc.)
                  >


                  Hi again. I wonder if observers have noticed how when you want to urge unity, you give an example of race and ethnic distinctions to be overcome, while when I wanted to highlight differences, I juxtaposed a starving Somalian child and a rich Westchester resident, evolutionary science and creationism, etc. Rhetorical flourishes are big, no?

                  Anyhow, come to Boston sometime, I'll buy you a beer (but not one of Sandeep's stale ones, hopefully), and maybe we'll convince each other of the errors of our ways--or have fun trying!

                  Cheers,

                  W
                • dan330033
                  ... D: Interesting. I work on a multi-ethnic college campus, where issues of race related to dating can be major in some families. ... D: Sounds good.
                  Message 8 of 15 , Oct 25, 2011
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "walterhorn" <calhorn@...> wrote:
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "dan330033" <dan330033@> wrote:
                    >
                    > >
                    > > So, for example, one could say, "I have a thought of division and a related emotional reaction of anger and mistrust because my daughter is dating a young man of a different race and ethnicity than ours." However, seeing/being the full picture of what is, one sees that thought arising in a context, including history, various events in memory, in a manner that all perceptual events are mutually defining and co-arising. So, history, experience, time, breathing, air, food, a planet, space, thought, etc., are all mutually arising without division - past, present, and future, so this event is perceived, including whatever sense of separation (my race vs. that other race, mistrust, etc.)
                    > >
                    >
                    >
                    > Hi again. I wonder if observers have noticed how when you want to urge unity, you give an example of race and ethnic distinctions to be overcome, while when I wanted to highlight differences, I juxtaposed a starving Somalian child and a rich Westchester resident, evolutionary science and creationism, etc. Rhetorical flourishes are big, no?

                    D: Interesting. I work on a multi-ethnic college campus, where issues of race related to dating can be major in some families.

                    > Anyhow, come to Boston sometime, I'll buy you a beer (but not one of Sandeep's stale ones, hopefully), and maybe we'll convince each other of the errors of our ways--or have fun trying!

                    D: Sounds good. Convincing someone else to talk like me seems like a losing proposition. I'd rather just enjoy hearing them talk in whatever way seems natural for them, and if they accept me doing the same - great!

                    > Cheers,

                    ... and beers.

                    ... or actually, a glass of a good wine, would be fine,

                    - D -
                  • walto
                    ... Wine is fine by me. But...if you want it to be GOOD wine, you ll have to pick it! (I m a $10 a bottle guy.) While we plan the venue, How about a little
                    Message 9 of 15 , Oct 26, 2011
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "dan330033" <dan330033@...> wrote:
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "walterhorn" <calhorn@> wrote:
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "dan330033" <dan330033@> wrote:
                      > >
                      > > >
                      > > > So, for example, one could say, "I have a thought of division and a related emotional reaction of anger and mistrust because my daughter is dating a young man of a different race and ethnicity than ours." However, seeing/being the full picture of what is, one sees that thought arising in a context, including history, various events in memory, in a manner that all perceptual events are mutually defining and co-arising. So, history, experience, time, breathing, air, food, a planet, space, thought, etc., are all mutually arising without division - past, present, and future, so this event is perceived, including whatever sense of separation (my race vs. that other race, mistrust, etc.)
                      > > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > Hi again. I wonder if observers have noticed how when you want to urge unity, you give an example of race and ethnic distinctions to be overcome, while when I wanted to highlight differences, I juxtaposed a starving Somalian child and a rich Westchester resident, evolutionary science and creationism, etc. Rhetorical flourishes are big, no?
                      >
                      > D: Interesting. I work on a multi-ethnic college campus, where issues of race related to dating can be major in some families.
                      >
                      > > Anyhow, come to Boston sometime, I'll buy you a beer (but not one of Sandeep's stale ones, hopefully), and maybe we'll convince each other of the errors of our ways--or have fun trying!
                      >
                      > D: Sounds good. Convincing someone else to talk like me seems like a losing proposition. I'd rather just enjoy hearing them talk in whatever way seems natural for them, and if they accept me doing the same - great!
                      >
                      > > Cheers,
                      >
                      > ... and beers.
                      >
                      > ... or actually, a glass of a good wine, would be fine,
                      >
                      > - D -
                      >

                      Wine is fine by me. But...if you want it to be GOOD wine, you'll have to pick it! (I'm a $10 a bottle guy.)

                      While we plan the venue, How about a little Beckett (from _Endgame_):

                      CLOV: Why this farce, day after day?

                      HAMM: Routine. One never knows. (Pause.) Last night I saw inside my breast. There was a big sore.

                      CLOV: Pah! You saw your heart.

                      HAMM: No, it was living. (Pause. Anguished.) Clov!

                      CLOV: Yes.

                      HAMM: What's happening?

                      CLOV: Something is taking its course. (Pause.)

                      HAMM: Clov!

                      CLOV (impatiently): What is it?

                      HAMM: We're not beginning to…to…mean something?

                      CLOV: Mean something! You and I, mean something! (Brief laugh.) Ah that's a good one!

                      [And then, a few pages later]

                      HAMM (shouting): Use your head, can't you, use your head, you're on earth, there's no cure for that! (Pause.) Get out of here and love one another! Lick your neighbor as yourself!


                      W
                    • dan330033
                      ... Funny! Laughing, sort of out loud, slightly But ... laughing, - D - P.S. With an initial like that, I hope no one confuses you with George Bush ... hey,
                      Message 10 of 15 , Oct 26, 2011
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "walto" <calhorn@...> wrote:
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "dan330033" <dan330033@> wrote:
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "walterhorn" <calhorn@> wrote:
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > > --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "dan330033" <dan330033@> wrote:
                        > > >
                        > > > >
                        > > > > So, for example, one could say, "I have a thought of division and a related emotional reaction of anger and mistrust because my daughter is dating a young man of a different race and ethnicity than ours." However, seeing/being the full picture of what is, one sees that thought arising in a context, including history, various events in memory, in a manner that all perceptual events are mutually defining and co-arising. So, history, experience, time, breathing, air, food, a planet, space, thought, etc., are all mutually arising without division - past, present, and future, so this event is perceived, including whatever sense of separation (my race vs. that other race, mistrust, etc.)
                        > > > >
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > > Hi again. I wonder if observers have noticed how when you want to urge unity, you give an example of race and ethnic distinctions to be overcome, while when I wanted to highlight differences, I juxtaposed a starving Somalian child and a rich Westchester resident, evolutionary science and creationism, etc. Rhetorical flourishes are big, no?
                        > >
                        > > D: Interesting. I work on a multi-ethnic college campus, where issues of race related to dating can be major in some families.
                        > >
                        > > > Anyhow, come to Boston sometime, I'll buy you a beer (but not one of Sandeep's stale ones, hopefully), and maybe we'll convince each other of the errors of our ways--or have fun trying!
                        > >
                        > > D: Sounds good. Convincing someone else to talk like me seems like a losing proposition. I'd rather just enjoy hearing them talk in whatever way seems natural for them, and if they accept me doing the same - great!
                        > >
                        > > > Cheers,
                        > >
                        > > ... and beers.
                        > >
                        > > ... or actually, a glass of a good wine, would be fine,
                        > >
                        > > - D -
                        > >
                        >
                        > Wine is fine by me. But...if you want it to be GOOD wine, you'll have to pick it! (I'm a $10 a bottle guy.)
                        >
                        > While we plan the venue, How about a little Beckett (from _Endgame_):
                        >
                        > CLOV: Why this farce, day after day?
                        >
                        > HAMM: Routine. One never knows. (Pause.) Last night I saw inside my breast. There was a big sore.
                        >
                        > CLOV: Pah! You saw your heart.
                        >
                        > HAMM: No, it was living. (Pause. Anguished.) Clov!
                        >
                        > CLOV: Yes.
                        >
                        > HAMM: What's happening?
                        >
                        > CLOV: Something is taking its course. (Pause.)
                        >
                        > HAMM: Clov!
                        >
                        > CLOV (impatiently): What is it?
                        >
                        > HAMM: We're not beginning to…to…mean something?
                        >
                        > CLOV: Mean something! You and I, mean something! (Brief laugh.) Ah that's a good one!
                        >
                        > [And then, a few pages later]
                        >
                        > HAMM (shouting): Use your head, can't you, use your head, you're on earth, there's no cure for that! (Pause.) Get out of here and love one another! Lick your neighbor as yourself!
                        >
                        >
                        > W



                        Funny!

                        Laughing, sort of out loud, slightly

                        But ... laughing,

                        - D -

                        P.S. With an initial like that, I hope no one confuses you with George Bush ... hey, wait a second, you're not ... ?
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.