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

Re: [Meditation Society of America] Re: Truth does the work - Bobby

Expand Messages
  • Jason Fishman
    ... Jason: What I mean Bobby is there is no us against anyone/thing, regardless of knowledge. My son who is 10 years old can run me silly on a computer and
    Message 1 of 20 , May 6, 2003
      --- texasbg2000 <Bigbobgraham@...> wrote:
      > --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com,
      > Jason Fishman
      > <munkiman4u@y...> wrote:
      > >
      > > >
      > > > yes we agree that the power of words diminish
      > with
      > > > understanding.
      > > > Communication needs to be more powerful though.
      > We
      > > > need to come
      > > > together more.
      > > > (((((((((((((((((((((((((Group
      > > > hug.)))))))))))))))))))))))))))
      > > > I have said before that we all on this board are
      > > > very close together
      > > > in what we believe. There is an element of
      > > > disagreement but we do
      > > > speak the same language.
      > > >
      > > > Love
      > > > Bobby G.
      > >
      > > yes, Bobby I like what you say here. Although I
      > must
      > > reitterate the urgency of this closeness, as it
      > also
      > > defines our need to be apart. Not only this board,
      > but
      > > all places in every corner of the universe is this
      > > closeness as much a key as this apartness appears
      > to
      > > be.
      > Hi Jason:
      > I don't know what you mean, but I meant the
      > closeness in philosophy
      > and terminology. In cancer research the virologists
      > argue with the
      > immunologists about which is the most fruitful
      > approach to a cure.
      > But they know what the other is talking about. They
      > would both shun
      > me if I tried to join in a high level conversation.
      > A fundamentalist
      > Christian or Hari Krisna comes on and we look
      > askance. That is what
      > I meant, we are virtually the same against the
      > hordes of ...
      > ignorant, infidels, heathens, rednecks and all
      > management level
      > people.:o)

      Jason: What I mean Bobby is there is no us against
      anyone/thing, regardless of knowledge. My son who is
      10 years old can run me silly on a computer and I've
      been working on computers since I was 12. This doesn't
      mean he "knows" a damn thing about how computers
      function, yet he has the knack of learning how to get
      it to work. Knowledge is a limiting as an book is to
      an illiterate.


      > I don't think an idea qualifies the real person. It
      > is a
      > characteristic of some part of the personality of
      > that person. That
      > characteristic can vanish in a moment. If you take
      > a person in a
      > position to influence others and disbelieve every
      > idea they have
      > because of their position you will exhibit
      > prejudice. That does not
      > mean you are prejudiced. That is taking a specific
      > incident and
      > making it generalized about that person. Cubby
      > holing people.
      > People are free by nature. When you say "they are"
      > or "I am this",
      > you really mean that is the nature of the act they
      > committed and not
      > a statement about them.

      Jason: The generalization that you speak of is where
      it's at. Too many people attach money to cleverness,
      words to intellegence, pictures to art. I'm not saying
      these cannot be viewed as postitive things, what I'm
      saying is that those that attach this to that are
      limiting themselves to this and that.

      > But what happens? We look for and find that person
      > to 'be' the way
      > we have decided they 'are'. Love has to be seeing a
      > person as a new
      > thing each moment. Because they are. You can't
      > love an image of
      > that person. The real thing is without attributes
      > and the attributes
      > you atribute to them is in your head and not
      > inherent in them. The
      > attributes in your head are blocks to your loving
      > that person no
      > matter what acts they are involved in.

      Jason: Yes, exactly.. This is you telling me to love a
      person (i.e. Swami). This is me telling you I already
      do, have and always will love you and all other
      persons for exact who they are. What I cannot
      comprehend any longer is the limit to loving a person
      for an image of who they are. That this love has an
      end, that I should be or could be seeing a person in
      some new light in order to do something called loving
      them. I'm not even sure where we are missing each
      other here.

      > A person is lacking in character if they don't look
      > at ideas without
      > prejudice.

      Jason: Naw, extreme prejudice makes perfect sense to
      me, if your going down the road of love/hate there is
      no two ways about it.

      I have said many of the same things that
      > Sivananda said
      > because he was one of the great proponents of Raja
      > Yoga and I came up
      > through the same tradition for thirty years. I know
      > what he means in
      > his statements and he is correct according to my own
      > experience.

      Jason: I don't remember saying a thing about what your
      experience tells you to understand from his words. As
      long as you attach experiences to a version of truth,
      then thats what ya got a personal truth. Truth isn't
      about a person.

      > Here is the kick in the ass, Jason. You don't care
      > whether I believe
      > him from my own experience, do you? You only really
      > care what you
      > think of him.

      Jason: Exactly! Perfectly stated. I don't care, not 1
      iota. Not in what I think about a him or a you or any
      belief that I could ever attach to a him or a you or
      an anyone. If I did care then I most certainly would
      be selfishly loving a him or a you or an anyone,
      simply because I care what a him or a you have to
      offer in your interpretations. Caring/not caring isn't
      going to amount to a hill of beans when I'm done with
      what you have to offer, so what you have to offer is
      limiting to a me being done with it. I think I'll
      stick without imposing limits on who I do love and
      care for, as if there was a choice to do otherwise for
      a me.

      > Love
      > Bobby G.

      Thank you for this seeing truth discussion Bobby,
      Peace and Love

      Do you Yahoo!?
      The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.