You concur, how redeeming and I do agree, the state of consciousness within which we, those who can, toss if off, water on a ducks back. I don't see it as the general rule considering the level of manifest anger in the world. At this point we should recognize the varying levels of anger distinguished by intensity and reactionary responses. There are those who become extremely irate due to trivialities, ie; traffic snarl. Others are as you say puppets of the ego master. Peacefulness is by far my general demeanor and recognized by those around me and by now through the numerous exchanges we've had something you should know; I'm more the voyeur and less the participant in the mundane experience and we've had our bouts on that level. Surely the amount of material written regarding this is enormous but I would venture to guess that it has been a topic of discussion before the written word; a recognition and inquiry into the why of it. The where does anger emanate and why does it exist may be the two most important questions regarding the dilemma of humanity; the dilemma of anger induced horror. Along with that I would toss in aggression, the need to conquer and enslave, the continual predation of one's own species and it should be noted that we are the only species capable of this aggression. I don't see birds sitting in their nest relaxing while other slave birds go out and deliver the goods, clean the nest and take care of the babies; but that is another subject entirely. The subject of linguistics is basic and possibly babel born but whatever the case many a disagreement and war has been started upon a communication snafu. The intimacy issue I'm not sure of as to what you are intimating but I might consider that some of our communication has been intimate; is it my pheromones? ;-)
On Sep 9, 8:24 am, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > Some people do live in a state of perpetual anger, it is true. There > are states of consciousness where we recognize anger and let it go > without externalizing, internalizing, identifying, projecting or any > of the other ego function reactions to anger that would limit a > persons state of consciousness to one where ego is master. I have > experienced the recognition and release of anger while in a state of > peace and joy. There is also an enormous amount of material written > about these states of consciousness, some current, some ancient, and I > have given many references over the years to them. All traditions, > religions, philosophies, viewpoints are but languages. We communicate > through verbal and non verbal language. When the communication is > deeply intimate, no interpretation from one to the other is > necessary. Our experience with others provides us myriad levels of > intimacy in communication, some shallow and difficult to navigate > because of barriers in understanding on many levels. Such is the > diversity of life. > > On Sep 8, 9:32 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > but do understand that this is not a level of > > consciousness for an expression of anger-mb > > > I don't get this "anger is not a level of consciousness" when of > > course it is a consciousness of anger in which some people spend their > > entire lives entrenched in it. > > > I think that you express out of your own personality which is the > > platform from which you not only view but from which you standardize > > the world and respond to it in that context, but it is not a general > > rule. You can't state as if it is fact. > > > Some people are born, live and die in a complete state of anger. For > > some it is the extreme but still it is their level of consciousness > > which they are confined to. > > > On Sep 8, 3:18 pm, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > got it. My point is, we are blowing, and the wind...no > > > difference...but do understand that this is not a level of > > > consciousness for an expression of anger, which would be a view of > > > separation, so true. In which case...I wouldn't want any of that > > > coming back to me. I often wonder if the person acting out anger is > > > even aware of what comes back. > > > > On Sep 8, 3:18 pm, ashok tewari <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > * smiling * The point, Molly, was it coming back on oneself. * tickled > > > > * > > > > > On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 12:44 AM, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I see your point, Vam. I didn't think the act made that much > > > > > difference, but I suppose it could! > > > > > > On Sep 8, 2:43 pm, ashok tewari <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > " ... blowing in the wind." > > > > > > > I suggest : ... spitting in th wind, for females. And : ... pissing > > > > > > in > > > > > the > > > > > > wind, for males ! > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 10:44 PM, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > It is interesting, in this thread, so many have taken the task to > > > > > > > tell > > > > > > > others how to express themselves. I have not found any problems > > > > > > > with > > > > > > > RPs posts (indeed, a great deal of understanding of the subject), > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > like gabby, don't think anyone should have to defend him, is > > > > > > > there a > > > > > > > gang forming here? Some of us make our sufi like responses, > > > > > > > others > > > > > > > make statements reflecting our views and give links with info to > > > > > > > back > > > > > > > them up. None of this is new and none of it is the basis for > > > > > > > opposition. We are all free to express our views in any post > > > > > > > within > > > > > > > the parameters of the guidelines, and all free to choose not to > > > > > > > post. > > > > > > > But unless a moderator steps in with a reminder of the guidelines, > > > > > > > anyone telling another what to say and how to act in here is just > > > > > > > blowing in the wind. > > > > > > > > In terms of the thread, these may be the very thoughts that > > > > > > > plague our > > > > > > > minds obsessively that we would be better off releasing than > > > > > > > indulging > > > > > > > in reaction. Thoughts about how the world comes up short, is > > > > > > > disappointing, how others should be are all malignant ego, and if > > > > > > > released, leave room within us for honest self examination. > > > > > > > Levels of > > > > > > > consciousness filled with thoughts of fear, anger, resentment etc > > > > > > > multiply these thoughts exponentially and uncontrollably until our > > > > > > > minds cannot turn off from them. Levels of consciousness filled > > > > > > > with > > > > > > > peace and quiet, compassion, love and gratitude allow us to better > > > > > > > witness the process of thought and mind in consciousness. This > > > > > > > kind > > > > > > > of self examination cannot occur in the first mentioned level, and > > > > > > > will inevitably occur in the second. Truth is, even the mystics > > > > > > > will > > > > > > > admit that it is human to move from state to state, and many > > > > > > > suggest a > > > > > > > spiral dynamic to the movement. > > > > > > > > On Sep 8, 12:05 pm, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Seems my vegetarian humor differs quite a bit from yours, > > > > > > > > Allan. ;-) > > > > > > > > See what I was going to reply to Darkwater: > > > > > > > > > I don't know why you are doing this, but I think RP can speak > > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > himself. Or shall I say: Let him speak for himself!? Watering > > > > > > > > down > > > > > > > > everything to Ken Wilbur does not help to build the arc in > > > > > > > > time. He > > > > > > > > says, his words are meant for people who want to understand > > > > > > > > them. > > > > > Fair > > > > > > > > enough. Take what you get and leave the rest behind is my > > > > > > > > advice to > > > > > > > > you, Darkwater. > > > > > > > > > On 8 Sep., 17:16, iam deheretic <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > LOL Oddly I know exactly what he is saying from different > > > > > > > > > sources. > > > > > it > > > > > > > has > > > > > > > > > been rumbling around fo eons,, does not make it true and > > > > > > > > > because > > > > > some > > > > > > > people > > > > > > > > > make something dogma and doctrine of their beliefs still > > > > > > > > > does not > > > > > make > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > true. Some things are interesting to look at but then you > > > > > > > > > let them > > > > > go. > > > > > > > To > > > > > > > > > me far to many beliefs are based promoted and twisted by > > > > > > > > > people to > > > > > meat > > > > > > > > > their own needs. > > > > > > > > > Allan > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 3:43 PM, DarkwaterBlight < > > > > > > > [email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Oddly, I understand much of what RP is trying to express > > > > > > > > > > but it > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > only on account of my relentless research into the subject > > > > > > > > > > of the > > > > > > > > > > thread. Culturaly, here in the west, it is not generaly > > > > > understood > > > > > > > > > > that there are two truths, relative and ultimate. Relative > > > > > > > > > > truth > > > > > can > > > > > > > > > > be described by means of science and assetions can be made > > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > something is true or false under the conditions assigned. > > > > > However, RP > > > > > > > > > > speaks of ultimate truth and non dual spirit and in doing > > > > > > > > > > so, > > > > > enters > > > > > > > > > > into the realm of contradiction as the ultimate is empty of > > > > > qualities > > > > > > > > > > and categorizations. Ken Wilbur describes this as "The Two > > > > > > > > > > Truths > > > > > > > > > > Doctrine" > > > > > > > > > >http://wilber.shambhala.com/html/books/kosmos/excerptG/part1.cfm > > > > > > > > > > > On Sep 8, 5:04 am, iam deheretic <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Words hold so much truth and what we say is but the > > > > > > > > > > > reflection > > > > > of > > > > > > > who we > > > > > > > > > > are > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 7:20 AM, RP Singh > > > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > My words are meant for people who want to understand > > > > > > > > > > > > them , > > > > > for > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > others > > > > > > > > > > > > of your ilk they are just ramblings of a madman and so > > > > > > > > > > > > this leaves me laughing and gives a smile > > > > > > > > > > > I learned a long time ago from Kipling and others to even > > > > > listen > > > > > > > to the > > > > > > > > > > > dull and ignorant for they to have their stories. > > > > > > > > > > > Allan > > > > > > > > > > > > Gruff , I ask you again to be happy as I did the last > > > > > > > > > > > time when > > > > > you > > > > > > > > > > clashed > > > > > > > > > > > > > with me. > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 10:21 AM, gruff > > > > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > >> "... On Sep 7, 9:33 pm, RP Singh <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > ..." > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > By using words like ' I believe' etc. doesn't make > > > > > > > > > > > >> > one > > > > > 's > > > > > > > words > > > > > > > > > > less > > > > > > > > > > > >> > arrogant. It is the content which matters. If you > > > > > > > > > > > >> > have > > > > > made up > > > > > > > your > > > > > > > > > > mind > > > > > > > > > > > >> to > > > > > > > > > > > >> > find fault in me you will continue to do so on one > > > > > > > > > > > >> > pretext > > > > > or > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > other. > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder and so does > > > > > > > > > > > >> > all > > > > > else. > > > > > > > > > > > > >> It is hoped that by use of such phrases over time a > > > > > > > > > > > >> true > > > > > respect > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > > > >> others will develop in other dimensions of your being. > > > > > Your > > > > > > > words do > > > > > > > > > > > >> not show any such respect for anyone elses words but > > > > > > > > > > > >> your > > > > > own > > > > > > > which > > > > > > > > > > > >> you seem to hold in the highest esteem. Your words > > > > > > > > > > > >> almost > > > > > > > demand some > > > > > > > > > > > >> form of worship just for you having said them. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > ( > > > > > > > > > > > ) > > > > > > > > > > > I_D Allan > > > > > > > > > > > > Be Paranoid. > > > > > > > > > > > God is always building a better idiot!!!- Hide quoted > > > > > > > > > > > text - > > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > -- > > ... > > read more »
