No headache here rigsy. England's batsmen have a few against Pakistan spinners though. The cycle I see us as in is broadly one of a potential escape from ignorance and superstition and the fear of this. We are held in this almost as England's batters are in the spell of Pakistan spin.
On Jan 28, 5:10 am, James Lynch <[email protected]> wrote: > Though I know what you are saying and your thoughts are very familiar > they are often out of my grasp. I decided to write my thoughts or I'd > be stuck saying nothing when I have too many thoughts and result in no > words, like staring into the dark recesses of the mind will coax some > convergence of arcane geometries. I find that the rhythm of learning > is stochastic but over time undulations emerge. Echolocation without > the echo is how my sight seems to work. It seems to be a tough spot > kinda in between or outside that I'm in. You are right about seeing > things for yourself, holding whatever truth, there is a profound > difference in what we assume things to mean. I mean that simply, as > things have become evident to me over time from many perspectives. I > am grateful to understand most of what you've said, even though a > little unsure of what Zero and Bliss Infinite mean. > > In humor, I think if there are multiple lives this one's a lesson in > humility. In my terms I would call your ideas on Home and Vanity > 'living truth' of great value. We 'begin again'? > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 10:26 PM, Vam <[email protected]> wrote: > > "Is this not an important part of the dynamic multidimensional mind > > Vam, can you find nothing of value with meeting this view at least as > > a challenge?" > > > James, starting with God is a bad idea. Perhaps, ending up at it is > > what needs to happen. Dawkins was in Jaipur here and I found his view > > a lot more balanced, less bigoted and militant. > > > And Neil is right : it must deal with morality. Where his discourse > > runs dry is when he is quoting other people ! That is also my > > compelling logic against intellectual property rights. What damned > > "rights" on knowledge of any kind ? Or, why must we have to give > > references, when all we wish to say is ours, with us ? If it's not > > ours, for us to say, we should STFU ! > > > The formal aspect of Truth or truths is onerous. There are libraries > > out there where it goes dry. It is the informal one that I wish to put > > across : it is mine... and for that reason should be everyone's, of > > everything. And that ( informal aspect ) is... HOME. The search for > > that place which is truly ours, where we can rest without fear, free > > and fulfilled, which nothing in the whole universe can take away from > > us. Truth is our Home. > > > This is no parable I've begun. People are spent for and on a " home " > > for themselves. They build, buy, rent one for the body... house or > > apartment, car or craft. But then the worst a-holes amongst us come to > > believe that home they are so invested on is also the " home " to > > their emotion, to their thought, their identity, and their happiness > > too ! Well, it is and it definitely isn't. > > > The better ( a-hols ) take on a wife, friend, progeny or pet, > > community or cause, to engage their emotion-thought-identity where, > > with whom or which, one then feels at home. Of that our thought is > > preoccupied... that same ' faculty ' that had been used to focus on > > money to buy the home, on the value of food and worth of delicacies, > > on the relevance of what is beneficial and serves our purposes and > > what does not. > > > That pitch of ' acquisition,' value, worth, relevance... is also there > > in our thought and eye, as in it pre-exists and is consciously or > > subconsciously applied, for the home-objects of our emotion as well. > > For a lifetime, we carry that pitch to manage, manipulate, decide and > > deal with what is outside us to acquire the material home-object in > > our aim ... a domain that, for all practical purposes, encompasses > > everything. For everything, external and internal, is outside the > > agency, the ego-person, we are through the pursuit after our aim. > > > What is concurrent within, inside of us - the "ego-person," is a build > > up and an intensification of VANITY... which expresses as : " I > > possess;" " I win;" " I will acquire;" " I am successful." It is all a > > matter of process that is normal to our drive and inevitable to our > > search. But, as surely as sure can be, it is Vanity that also blocks > > our evolution and progression into the true Home to our emotion - > > which is Love, to our thought - which is Silence, to our identity - > > which is Zero, and to our spirit - which is Bliss Infinite. Because it > > limits us to what we have, even as it automatically makes us pore over > > all that we does not have; and, it is limiting because while with it > > we can never give up that " pitch " we have internalised along the > > journey and can hence never view and see things with Love and Silence, > > and be Zero with Bliss Infinite. > > > These are the real aspects and issues to spirituality : Home and > > Vanity. It is these that I find more pertinent than God or whatever. > > It is these that will make us be better and excel, that will address > > the monstrous twists with which people reduce the best of systems and > > opportunities to gutter, that will redress the moral deficit in our > > public and personal lives.
