Re: What the Heck is Reality?!

[Guest guest]

Hi, I'm not really new to the board as I have visited off and on for

a long time now. I started doing the Work more and more on my own

when I felt the need for LAA taking over the process.

But I'm cool now... LOL. Actually, I have a question I would like

to ask. I went to The School a few years ago and have since been

doing the Work, letting it grow and deepen. I finally decided to

read Tolle's book which is a fairly natural compliment to LWI. Some

of his ideas I do not agree with and some I do. One thing that both

he and (and so many others) stress is being in Reality. Being

in the Now.

This is where I have a bit of confusion. What exactly is Reality?

Is it just the sense perceptions? As in my reality right now

is " woman sitting in chair typing into computer. " Or does it also

include any thoughts that come up... which I believe it must

include. And, if reality includes both, then what does mean

when she says " There's a difference between reality and the story of

reality " ? Or when she says, " When I argue with Reality I lose - but

only totally. " It seems it is ALL a story... that one story is

simply vying with another story.

It seems only the Enlightened ones exist without a story... thoughts

arise for them but as Ramesh would say, there is no " horizontal

involvement. " There is no story that develops... just thoughts

appearing and spontaneous action arising. Is it a question of

choosing which story I want to live with? We investigate the painful

or stressful stories and then choose to live with (even enjoy or

foster) the stories we like or that bring us peace?

With appreciation for any feedback,

April

(Andy, I believe it was you who described so well the lack

of " choice " we actually have...and as a student of Advaita, that is

also my deep belief. To answer the above with this in mind

complicates matters, I know. My take is that I can only " act as if "

because whatever it is I " do " is God's will, the will of the

Functioning Totality. Really, all that means is that I do what I do,

choose what I choose, knowing it is essentially out of my hands. In

the final analysis, it doesn't change anything... I still have

to " make " decisions. But all that said, I am curious as to your own

opinion).

[Guest guest]

Dear April,

My story is that 's response to your post pretty well

answered your questions.

My thought was that you said:

" I finally decided to read Tolle's book which is a fairly natural

compliment to LWI. "

That was not my experience. I found Tolle's book unreadable (I tried)

and not at all in line with The Work. So for me it was not

complimentary to The Work at all. For me it was like taking several

steps backwards. (I know that is just my story.) Perhaps his book

is where you got these questions about " Being in the Now " and " what

is Reality " ?

Any thing one would think about these questions would exist in the

past and only serve to take me away from peace.

We don't need to understand what Reality is, or we would.

What would I get for holding a belief that I should understand

anything?

I don't know and I am happy with that.

Love, Steve D.

> Hi, I'm not really new to the board as I have visited off and on

for

> a long time now. I started doing the Work more and more on my own

> when I felt the need for LAA taking over the process.

>

> But I'm cool now... LOL. Actually, I have a question I would like

> to ask. I went to The School a few years ago and have since been

> doing the Work, letting it grow and deepen. I finally decided to

> read Tolle's book which is a fairly natural compliment to LWI.

Some

> of his ideas I do not agree with and some I do. One thing that

both

> he and (and so many others) stress is being in Reality.

Being

> in the Now.

>

> This is where I have a bit of confusion. What exactly is Reality?

> Is it just the sense perceptions? As in my reality right now

> is " woman sitting in chair typing into computer. " Or does it also

> include any thoughts that come up... which I believe it must

> include. And, if reality includes both, then what does mean

> when she says " There's a difference between reality and the story

of

> reality " ? Or when she says, " When I argue with Reality I lose -

but

> only totally. " It seems it is ALL a story... that one story is

> simply vying with another story.

>

> It seems only the Enlightened ones exist without a story...

thoughts

> arise for them but as Ramesh would say, there is no " horizontal

> involvement. " There is no story that develops... just thoughts

> appearing and spontaneous action arising. Is it a question of

> choosing which story I want to live with? We investigate the

painful

> or stressful stories and then choose to live with (even enjoy or

> foster) the stories we like or that bring us peace?

>

> With appreciation for any feedback,

> April

>

> (Andy, I believe it was you who described so well the lack

> of " choice " we actually have...and as a student of Advaita, that is

> also my deep belief. To answer the above with this in mind

> complicates matters, I know. My take is that I can only " act as

if "

> because whatever it is I " do " is God's will, the will of the

> Functioning Totality. Really, all that means is that I do what I

do,

> choose what I choose, knowing it is essentially out of my hands.

In

> the final analysis, it doesn't change anything... I still have

> to " make " decisions. But all that said, I am curious as to your

own

> opinion).

[Guest guest]

Dear April,

I comes to me to say:

There is only one Reality and you are that. If I say anything more

than that it would be redundant.

Love, Steve D.

> ---Some people will launch into a philosophical monologue about his

> question, and they will be detailed and interesting, but I like to

break it

> down into components a lot simpler than that. Alfred Korsybsky was a

> linguist, and wrote a tome called " Science and Sanity " . One of the

ideas he

> extolled was that " consciousness " understands the world in

variations of

> " deletions, distortions and generalizations " , problems in

perception that we

> betray in our language. What that means is everything we think

is " real " or

> " true " will always be inherently flawed, simply because the

apparatus we use

> to determine those things can only see the world through

personalized

> understanding, that is always distorted by experience

and " explanations " (or

> " stories " like this one), that the two brain hemispheres cook up to

help us

> understand what the hell is happening around us.

>

> ---What that means essentially is that while we think " reality " can

be

> defined in absolute terms, it is really infinitely malleable. When

you were

> a child it was your " reality " that your world never existed beyond

your

> crib, and then it never got higher than the floor, and later it

never

> existed as larger than your town or state, or country. In other

words for

> human beings, " reality " is always changing and redefining itself.

Allowing

> for that, asks us to challenge the " reality " we have chosen

at the

> moment, to guide how we navigate through life. Through the

applications of

> " the four questions " , we are asked to reexamine what we may be

trying to

> change, live with or simply endure. We are asked to identify

our " story " , or

> " explanation " as to why things are they way they are in our world,

not THE

> world...but our world. If we are examining these things at all, I

think we

> can assume that something we've created isn't making us happy, or

allowing

> us personal freedom, or helping us evolve. The next question is if

we

> discover this is something made up like everything is actually (Is

it true?)

> and it's not getting us what we want, then we are asked if we can

give it up

> for something as true or truer, something that will bring

us " peace " and

> clear the way for helpful problem solving, not just story weaving.

>

> ---The underlying theme of " Loving What Is " that I see a lot of

people

> struggle with (myself included) is the idea that the more we

grapple with

> " what is " and fight against it, the more we feel pain. Most people

look at

> that and say is asking them to give up and give in

to " reality " and

> simply null out. The conscious mind wants to solve that problem and

by God

> that's its job so " let me at it " . That comes from dualism, where

everything

> is a " battle " against opposing forces. But there is a holistic

Eastern

> philosophy that tries to get consciousness in a place called the

Tao, where

> there is no struggle, only unification with the flow of life,

acceptance and

> along with that the power to choose, comfortably, peacefully,

intelligently.

> In that place the battered wife says, " This is hell " , and she rises

from

> that hell not buffeted by her " explanations " and blinded by

the " drama " , but

> strong in the certainty that it is " real " for her that if she stays

the

> beatings will never end. This is painful, and scary, and unhappy,

but it is

> really all that's left once the stories that keep the abuse going

are set

> aside for something that is more liberating and definite. If it is

clear to

> me that the beatings will never stop, then it is equally clear to

me what I

> have to do now for myself and my children.

>

> ---My experience of " The Work " is one of " freedom " . I am free to

struggle

> with non-solutions and try to change things like the inevitability

of my

> death, the tragedy of war, the crushing hunger much of the world

experiences

> today...or I can simply allow those things to be " true " , and love

them for

> what they are, tools to use to define who I want to be, in how I

react to

> them and live with them in my world. I think the best way to love

someone,

> is to love them without stipulations. If you break this habit or

get a good

> report card I will love you. To love " what is " , you can make no such

> bargain. " What is " doesn't negotiate. Many people who are " left

brain

> problem solvers " see this as a defeat, but what it really is comes

to us as

> a surrender to " the facts " , a point of power from which real

solutions can

> arise, not just stories to nurture the pain with. This position

comes from

> realizing up front that the tool we are using to problem solve does

so with

> " deletions, distortions and generalizations " , so it will never be

able to

> " just observe " and " be with reality " . To love that is to love the

freedom,

> and sea of creative choices it liberates us to.

>

>

>

> Hi, I'm not really new to the board as I have visited off and on

for

> a long time now. I started doing the Work more and more on my own

> when I felt the need for LAA taking over the process.

>

> But I'm cool now... LOL. Actually, I have a question I would like

> to ask. I went to The School a few years ago and have since been

> doing the Work, letting it grow and deepen. I finally decided to

> read Tolle's book which is a fairly natural compliment to LWI.

Some

> of his ideas I do not agree with and some I do. One thing that

both

> he and (and so many others) stress is being in Reality.

Being

> in the Now.

>

> This is where I have a bit of confusion. What exactly is Reality?

> Is it just the sense perceptions? As in my reality right now

> is " woman sitting in chair typing into computer. " Or does it also

> include any thoughts that come up... which I believe it must

> include. And, if reality includes both, then what does mean

> when she says " There's a difference between reality and the story

of

> reality " ? Or when she says, " When I argue with Reality I lose -

but

> only totally. " It seems it is ALL a story... that one story is

> simply vying with another story.

>

> It seems only the Enlightened ones exist without a story...

thoughts

> arise for them but as Ramesh would say, there is no " horizontal

> involvement. " There is no story that develops... just thoughts

> appearing and spontaneous action arising. Is it a question of

> choosing which story I want to live with? We investigate the

painful

> or stressful stories and then choose to live with (even enjoy or

> foster) the stories we like or that bring us peace?

>

> With appreciation for any feedback,

> April

>

> (Andy, I believe it was you who described so well the lack

> of " choice " we actually have...and as a student of Advaita, that is

> also my deep belief. To answer the above with this in mind

> complicates matters, I know. My take is that I can only " act as

if "

> because whatever it is I " do " is God's will, the will of the

> Functioning Totality. Really, all that means is that I do what I

do,

> choose what I choose, knowing it is essentially out of my hands.

In

> the final analysis, it doesn't change anything... I still have

> to " make " decisions. But all that said, I am curious as to your

own

> opinion).

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Steve ~

My story is that 's response to your post pretty well

answered your questions.

*****To a certain extent I agree. But I feel that April's post does

raise some logical inconsistencies with comments made in LWI (and

other places) by Byron . One can ignore them or explain them

away, but such evasions allow one to justify just about anything,

regardless of how out-of-touch or ridiculous it is.

*****Byron makes a few connections: God is reality. What is,

at any moment, is God (and by extension, reality). If a thought

arises, is that not also reality since the momentarily-occuring

thought is what is at that moment, even if the thought is based on

confusion or a belief in something which has contrary evidence in

the " external " world.

*****Someone says a harsh, hurtful thing to me. A thought arises in

conscious: " He shouldn't have said that. "

Two.....happenings....yes? Are they not BOTH what is? Or is " what

is " reserved for everything except thought? [And I agree that the

thought " He shouldn't have said that " is contradicted by the fact

that he DID say that. To deny that is to argue with what is. But is

not the thought " He shouldn't have said that, " in its moment of

conception, also " what is " ?]

I see Byron inserting a false and misleading duality here; it

appears to me that she is saying: there is *reality* = what is. Then

there are also thoughts. But they aren't reality. If thoughts

aren't reality, what ARE they? Nice try, Byron. ;-)))

My thought was that you said:

" I finally decided to read Tolle's book which is a fairly natural

compliment to LWI. "

That was not my experience. I found Tolle's book unreadable (I tried)

and not at all in line with The Work. So for me it was not

complimentary to The Work at all. For me it was like taking several

steps backwards. (I know that is just my story.) Perhaps his book

is where you got these questions about " Being in the Now " and " what

is Reality " ?

*****I agree. I find some of what Tolle says spot on, but much of it

is wishful thinking and more perpetuation of the grand myth of

enlightenment.

Any thing one would think about these questions would exist in the

past and only serve to take me away from peace.

*****You can't know that until it happens. Perhaps thinking about

these questions, at some future time, will NOT take you away from

peace. Is this not possible also? My experience is that NO thoughts

remove peace unless there is an investment in the outcome of the

thinking (e.g., " What will they think of me if I say that? " ).

Genuine, open-ended thought is meditation, and sincere meditation

does not contain any stake in its outcome.

We don't need to understand what Reality is, or we would.

*****This makes sense, and I don't disagree. But when we use words

to communicate, effective interchanges can only happen if there

exists agreed-upon meanings for the words (or gestures or facial

expressions, all of which " communicate " ). If Byron (or anyone

else) utters the word " reality, " in order for there to be useful

communication, it is imperative that the listener at least have a

basic understanding of what " reality " means to Byron (the

listener need not agree with that interpretation however).

*****In the absence of a commonality of meaning, what you get are

communications such as iyp inaxh dpoytsli bza libsliyq lipsqpeycvj.

If I ask you to hand me a screwdriver and you understand that word to

mean " hammer " and thus give me a hammer, well, there is a failure of

communication ~ and nothing gets screwed except the transfer of

information. :-))))

*****If we're gonna talk, we're gonna use language which is built on

concepts. And in doing so we are operating in the context of

duality. If the concepts are not shared, at some fundamental level,

then the communication is pointless, like carrying on a conversation

with a sofa.

*****So yes, if we're going to use " reality, " we had better be able

to say what meaning that word holds for us. Otherwise, we should

just sit down and shut up!

[Guest guest]

---The underlying theme of " Loving What Is " that I see a lot of people

struggle with (myself included) is the idea that the more we grapple

with " what is " and fight against it, the more we feel pain.

*****Yes. Whatever we resist, persists.

Most people look at that and say is asking them to give up and

give in to " reality " and simply null out. The conscious mind wants to

solve that problem and by God that's its job so " let me at it " . That

comes from dualism, where everything is a " battle " against opposing

forces. But there is a holistic Eastern philosophy that tries to get

consciousness in a place called the Tao, where there is no struggle,

only unification with the flow of life,

*****Is there ever a non-unification with the flow of life? Is such

a state possible?

acceptance and along with that the power to choose, comfortably,

peacefully, intelligently. In that place the battered wife

says, " This is hell " , and she rises from that hell not buffeted by

her " explanations " and blinded by the " drama " , but strong in the

certainty that it is " real " for her that if she stays the

beatings will never end.

*****I question whether the inclusion of the future ( " the beatings

will never end " ) is necessary. Simply recognizing that she does not

like nor will she tolerate her current circumstances seems enough

clarity to get up and walk out. Will the beatings never end? At the

moment of getting beaten, it doesn't matter. What is happening right

NOW is the issue.

This is painful, and scary, and unhappy, but it is really all that's

left once the stories that keep the abuse going are set

aside for something that is more liberating and definite. If it is

clear to me that the beatings will never stop, then it is equally

clear to me what I have to do now for myself and my children.

*****Even if I *knew* that at some future time the beatings were to

end, that doesn't answer the quandry about right NOW. To resolve

that is to act in the moment.

---My experience of " The Work " is one of " freedom " . I am free to

struggle with non-solutions and try to change things like the

inevitability of my death, the tragedy of war, the crushing hunger

much of the world experiences today...or I can simply allow those

things to be " true " , and love them for what they are, tools to use to

define who I want to be, in how I react to them and live with them in

my world.

*****And one of the ways to live with them is to be " in " the world,

doing something about them. If one is so moved to protest war, work

with the homeless, donate to a hunger drive (either in time, money,

or skills - such as holding a concert), then one does so. These are

not, necessarily, non-solutions. Working with a homeless shelter may

not end homelessness, but it may provide comfort for some others.

That is good enough.

I think the best way to love someone, is to love them without

stipulations.

*****Another tricky word (like " reality " ): " love. " Before we discuss

actions involving " love " it is useful to define, at the outset, what

the word connotes to each of us. E.g., without some agreed-upon

meaning of " to love " you end up saying (and believing) such stupid

things as you " love " the wife-beater, rapist, pedophile, etc. Now,

if by " loving what is " you mean " accepting what is, " recognizing that

what is, is, then yes, " love " in that context makes sense. But if

you are thinking of " love " as " strong affection for " or " warm

attachment, enthusiasm, or devotion " or " felt affection and

tenderness, " then loving the one who is committing a horrific act is

clearly nonsensical. Certainly one can *accept* such actions (as

well as those who perpetrate them), but that is not the common use

of " love, " it is a variant.

[Guest guest]

*****Another tricky word (like " reality " ): " love. " Before we discuss

actions involving " love " it is useful to define, at the outset, what

the word connotes to each of us. E.g., without some agreed-upon

meaning of " to love " you end up saying (and believing) such stupid

things as you " love " the wife-beater, rapist, pedophile, etc. Now,

if by " loving what is " you mean " accepting what is, " recognizing that

what is, is, then yes, " love " in that context makes sense. But if

you are thinking of " love " as " strong affection for " or " warm

attachment, enthusiasm, or devotion " or " felt affection and

tenderness, " then loving the one who is committing a horrific act is

clearly nonsensical. Certainly one can *accept* such actions (as

well as those who perpetrate them), but that is not the common use

of " love, " it is a variant. Andy

Dear Andy~

Well, I do stupidly feel affection, tenderness and love for those who

are the wife-beaters, rapist, pedophile now.....They are me.

Who do you judge unworthy of your love? Byron , the rapist, the

murderer, the cancer, the zealot?

Love, nne

[Guest guest]

*****Another tricky word (like " reality " ): " love. " Before we discuss

actions involving " love " it is useful to define, at the outset, what

the word connotes to each of us. E.g., without some agreed-upon

meaning of " to love " you end up saying (and believing) such stupid

things as you " love " the wife-beater, rapist, pedophile, etc. Now,

if by " loving what is " you mean " accepting what is, " recognizing that

what is, is, then yes, " love " in that context makes sense. But if

you are thinking of " love " as " strong affection for " or " warm

attachment, enthusiasm, or devotion " or " felt affection and

tenderness, " then loving the one who is committing a horrific act is

clearly nonsensical. Certainly one can *accept* such actions (as

well as those who perpetrate them), but that is not the common use

of " love, " it is a variant. Andy

Dear Andy~

Well, I do stupidly feel affection, tenderness and love for those who

are the wife-beaters, rapist, pedophile now.....They are me.

Who do you judge unworthy of your love? Byron , the rapist, the

murderer, the cancer, the zealot?

*****It is not a matter of judging, and worth does not enter into the

equation. That is far too complicated, far too cerebral, much too

downstream from the immediacy of the visceral response. It is simply

what appears in this psychological-emotional grid. There is no

feeling of " affection " or " warm attachment, enthusiasm " for rapists,

wife-beaters, murderers, those who harmed others. There may be

sympathy for their plight, an appreciation of what drove them to

commit the acts, and even a deep understanding of the demons which

compelled them to behave as they did. But there is not present the

emotional vibration for which I use of the word " love. " I am not

saying that the emotional reaction towards these people is logical

nor can it be justified, but it is....what is, for me.

[Guest guest]

>

> *****Another tricky word (like " reality " ): " love. " Before we discuss

> actions involving " love " it is useful to define, at the outset, what

> the word connotes to each of us. E.g., without some agreed-upon

> meaning of " to love " you end up saying (and believing) such stupid

> things as you " love " the wife-beater, rapist, pedophile, etc. Now,

> if by " loving what is " you mean " accepting what is, " recognizing that

> what is, is, then yes, " love " in that context makes sense. But if

> you are thinking of " love " as " strong affection for " or " warm

> attachment, enthusiasm, or devotion " or " felt affection and

> tenderness, " then loving the one who is committing a horrific act is

> clearly nonsensical. Certainly one can *accept* such actions (as

> well as those who perpetrate them), but that is not the common use

> of " love, " it is a variant. Andy

>

> Dear Andy~

>

> Well, I do stupidly feel affection, tenderness and love for those who

> are the wife-beaters, rapist, pedophile now.....They are me.

>

> Who do you judge unworthy of your love? Byron , the rapist, the

> murderer, the cancer, the zealot?

>

>

> *****It is not a matter of judging, and worth does not enter into the

> equation. That is far too complicated, far too cerebral, much too

> downstream from the immediacy of the visceral response. It is simply

> what appears in this psychological-emotional grid. There is no

> feeling of " affection " or " warm attachment, enthusiasm " for rapists,

> wife-beaters, murderers, those who harmed others. There may be

> sympathy for their plight, an appreciation of what drove them to

> commit the acts, and even a deep understanding of the demons which

> compelled them to behave as they did. But there is not present the

> emotional vibration for which I use of the word " love. " I am not

> saying that the emotional reaction towards these people is logical

> nor can it be justified, but it is....what is, for me.

Dear Andy,

Your experience and truth are valid, real and wonderful. No need to

justify....as it is *what is* for you.

But I wonder what you are referring to that you see as *too

complicated, far too cerebral or too downstream from the immediacy of

the visceral response*? Your reaction?

Love, nne

[Guest guest]

> Dear Andy~

>

> Well, I do stupidly feel affection, tenderness and love for those

> who are the wife-beaters, rapist, pedophile now.....They are me.

>

> Who do you judge unworthy of your love? Byron , the rapist, the

> murderer, the cancer, the zealot?

>

>

> *****It is not a matter of judging, and worth does not enter into

> the equation. That is far too complicated, far too cerebral, much

> too downstream from the immediacy of the visceral response. It is

> simply what appears in this psychological-emotional grid. There is

> no feeling of " affection " or " warm attachment, enthusiasm " for

> rapists, wife-beaters, murderers, those who harmed others. There

> may be sympathy for their plight, an appreciation of what drove

> them to commit the acts, and even a deep understanding of the

> demons which compelled them to behave as they did. But there is not

> present the emotional vibration for which I use of the word " love. "

> I am not saying that the emotional reaction towards these people is

> logical nor can it be justified, but it is....what is, for me.

Dear Andy,

Your experience and truth are valid, real and wonderful. No need to

justify....as it is *what is* for you.

But I wonder what you are referring to that you see as *too

complicated, far too cerebral or too downstream from the immediacy of

the visceral response*? Your reaction?

*****No. I was referencing the sentence " It is not a matter of

judging, and worth does not enter into the equation. " I do

not " judge " a rapist " unworthy " of my love. THAT is the cerebral

interpretation I was alluding to. What simply happens is that there

is a not-love emotion arising around the thought of the rapist. That

emotional response is not a choice consciously made; it arrives out

of the " machinery " which is the innate conditioning-in-the-moment.

[Guest guest]

---Andy you're a smart guy with a copious amount of impressive

insights, but you make this too hard. Byron was a stressed out

housewife who had become so entangled in her problems she had to

admit herself to a half way house. Her " story " is not as complex as

it appears to be in your hands, and as simple as, " if it hurts, do

something else " .

*****And with that, I agree.

There's no part of what I said that should suggest that you need to

go up and hug a child molester today,

*****I didn't hear such a suggestion in what you had written.

but you can accept the fact that some people have made it a choice in

their life to molest children, and we can " love " that by allowing that

" reality " to exist in our lives without trying to " kill all the child

molesters " or " rehabilitate all the child molesters " .

*****Regarding child molesters...the response here - and I hope you

didn't get that from what I wrote - is not " to kill all the child

molesters. " That thought never entered my head. I don't see them

as " evil, " but as misguided individuals, in pain, who may - if not

stopped (gently) - perpetuate their misery on others. My concern is

for both, them and the others.

*****And I strongly disagree with your statement that " some people

have made it a choice in their life to molest children. " You know,

throughout history there were some really bad dudes: Hitler, Ghengis

Khan, Pol Pot, etc. But even they got some good rap, at least from

their followers. Not so for child molesters (unless, I suppose,

their followers are members of NAMBLA). Child molesters are really

the ultimate outcasts of society. You know, if you are a convicted

murderer, and have served your time (paid your debt to society), your

neighbors are not altered (via a 's Law) as to your

penal " history. " Your name is not published on a " watch list. " No.

Our society (and several others) hold pedophiles in particular

scorn. Given all that, who would " make a choice " to BE a child

molester, to live that way? C'mon, really!! I'm saying that the

choice wasn't " theirs " (as in " made consciously and willfully " ).

Clearly their behavior demonstrates a proclivity towards a particular

type of activity, but I see nothing to convince me that they " chose "

such behavior. Virtually all have been conditioned (like a rat in a

maze) by prior experiences (many of which involved their being the

recepients of such treatment). I suspect that we are no different in

that our behavior and choices arise out of our own conditioning.

You can " love' something without appreciating everything it is or

does. You can love someone and hate what they do. You don't have to

bring them flowers or have sex with them, you just have to recognize

their humanity even as you hate what they do against humanity.

*****I found this (above) to be beautiful. It was, for me, a very

heartfelt teaching, and, although I knew it on one level, your

expression of it, your words, were touching and helpful. Thank you.

Your words reminded me of the aftermath of a 1959 murder in the

basement of a Philadelphia home of a three-and-a-half-year-old girl.

A few hours later the father of the slain girl wrote a public

letter: " This comes from a profound lack of comprehension, a failure

of admission of the full range of human emotions which is our common

heritage and which, for convention's sake, we are so fond of

denying. It ought to be openly recognized that every human being

must, by his nature, express hostility, rage, fear and

destructiveness as well as love, creativity and joy. Let no feeling

of vengeance influence us. Let us rather help him who did so human a

thing. " ...... so *human* a thing. Recollections of Goethe's

confession, " I have never heard of a crime of which I am not myself

capable. "

It's an exercise in " freedom " to not get hooked in the drama of

vengeance against the child molesters of the world and all balled up

in judgments. You can council molested people, you can

discover your own healing from molestation, but when that starts to

weave into other people's business, you can actually let that go

because there...you have no control.

*****I hope what I had previously written was not heard by you as

suggestive of taking vengeance. Coming from the understanding that

child molesters (like all of us) have NO CHOICE in what they do,

vengeance or retribution severely misses the point. The point is to

protect, both the perpetrators and those on whom they " visit " their

actions. And I have no idea what is " other people's business. " I

think that, too, is a very nebulous area in which each person has his

or her own interpretation of its meaning. If a coworker is sitting

at her desk, crying quietly, am I in " her business " if I am moved to

go over and inquire " Are you OK? Is there something wrong? " I know

of some who do The Work who say even that gesture of concern is

being " in her business. " What if it's my wife, not a coworker, who

is clearly disturbed by something. Is my inquiry of her, " What's

going on? " being " in her business " ? Or is it an expression of

concern, connection, empathy?

---This is all the picture of simplicity. Children can do " The Work " ,

busy adults with not enough time to philosophize and research can

do " The Work " . It's not as complicated as trying to pare down and

dissect what " love " is, that's the job of philosophers and people who

want to define it, not just be in it. And those people...are " what

is " ...and that's why I love them, because they are what they are and

who they are, no matter what I think about them, or what they think

about themselves. See?

*****I don't agree. If we are to communicate, via words, we need to

share a common base of meaning, else communication is merely a

collection of sounds with no agreed-upon reference base. When

someone says they " love " child molesters, I would appreciate

knowing " in what sense " they are using the word " love. "

[Guest guest]

Much ado about nothing.

Love, Steve D.

>

> Am 27.09.2004 um 02:14 schrieb Matt Lamoreux:

>

> > ---Do you really know what I can or can't do ? Is that true?

> >

> > ^^^I don't see another possibility.

> >

> > ---You can " guess " that you know...and guesses are Ok, but they

are

> > what

> > they are too.

> " guess to know " and " know " ... it's the same.

>

> > ^^^What I am saying is, that I experience a feeling. And if I

direct

> > it

> > outside, it has no effect.

> >

> > ---You talk about a feeling like it's a thing to be shoved

around and

> > then

> > cast off.

> I am talking about joining instead of separating. It's not even a

> choice, it's my nature.

>

> > It is " inside " or " outside " . I have trouble picturing that. It's

> > like you can put a feeling in a wheel barrow.

> Yes, you can. The feeling you get when your favourite toy breaks,

is

> the feeling you project on that toy. And it has nothing to do with

the

> toy itself.

>

> > Maybe there's a less

> > metaphorical example of what feelings " do " ? If that's true, then

> > maybe your

> > story about them, can take on another dimension, and we can

discover

> > that

> > we're talking about a biological response that happens in our

brain

> > chemistry and tissues, that helps us react to things right there

in

> > our

> > environment...from the basis of our biology. That could be true

or

> > truer

> > than feelings that jump outside and run away. I don't know.

> Feelings, like thoughts don't come to stay. I don't care for brain

> chemistry. I mean, I find an explanation there, and then what would

I

> have?

> No need to go anywhere.

> Can you give an example of feelings not " jumping outside an running

> away " ?

>

> > ^^^I notice what hurts. And what doesn't.

> >

> > ---I do that too, I think that's good enough.

> >

> > ^^^And you are right, there are no negative feelings.

> >

> > ---I think so...only if we call them negative. And I understand

what

> > people

> > mean when they do that.

> yes.

>

> > >  ---What I always thought " The Work " was about, dealt with

whether a

> > > person

> > >  stayed in a story

> >

> > ^^^I find I can not 'stay' in a story. It's instantaneous. And

it

> > changes.

> >

> > ---Interesting, but when I try that on it feels chaotic.

> I understand that.

>

> > > that hurt them

> > > or impeded their personal evolution,

> >

> > ^^^that is not possible.

> >

> > ---You've never had your " personal evolution " impeded? Are you

as

> > smart as

> > you'd like to be? How about as rich? Are you as wise as you'd

want to

> > be?

> Oh, you mean the story about how I should be smarter, richer,

wiser,

> etc.? Yes, I do. It's an old one.

> And what does it have to do with where I am at in my personal

evolution.

> I found there is *nothing* I can do to influence my personal

evolution.

>

> > Do you live your dreams today, fully and completely?

> Yes, I do. Only a story would keep me from knowing that.

>

> > >  a story as simple as " should I stay with him or not "

or " Should I

> > be

> > > fearful or not? "

> >

> > ^^^that are no stories. That are questions.

> >

> > ---You don't think a story governs those questions? You don't

think

> > they

> > rose out of a story?

> Matt, show me one thing that does not have to do with a story.

> This discussion arose out of " what is story, what is real " ?

> And there is no difference. Because a story I attach to has the

same

> influence on me as *any* " real " thing could ever have.

> And that is not even true.

> And the stor(ies) above that could be causing pain... but why go

there?

>

> > Stories don't *do* anything. They are not bad nor god. They are

not

> > joyful nor hideous. The thought arising in the moment, just

*is*. If

> > that is true.

> > ---I think stories " do " something, they're created for a

reason...to

> > do

> > something.

> Good for you, wise man.

>

> > They keep us from being happy, or lead us to happiness. They are

> > a crutch, or they are our wings. Oh yes...they " do " something.

> Yes, and we have no crutch nor wings.

> I don't know if this can be heard?

>

> > > , and you didn't have to know what emotions really were or

where

> > >  they went or who can hate or love. That's not your job. Your

job

> > is to

> > >  fashion around you the story that will have the best fit for

what

> > > makes you

> > >  happy,

> >

> > ^^^not in my experience. I can't help the stories arising.

> >

> > ---That feels like " learned helplessness " .

> I understand.

>

> > If I told you to do the

> > impossible (don't think of a pink elephant) I bet you could find

a

> > way to do

> > that just to show me I really don't have that much control over

what

> > you

> > think.

> Chances are...

>

> > Wolensky ( " The Tao of Chaos " ) says that to be in " now "

you

> > move your perceptual field to the back of your head. There, it's

no

> > longer

> > engaged in what it " can't " do. It just is.

> yes.

>

> > >  and that can be all the things you state or all the things

contrary

> > >  to what you state, but where all that remains to be the

truest I

> > can

> > > think

> > >  of at this moment is inside your tool box of understanding.

My tool

> > > box has

> > >  none of those things in it, or maybe the same things, only in

> > > different

> > >  places. What's true is that we are not in charge of making

each

> > > others tool

> > >  boxes.

> >

> > ^^^So, what you are saying is, that I can not give you anything

that

> > would

> > aid you?

> >

> > ---I'm finding it hard to imagine a time when you couldn't help

me

> > with

> > something (you come up with a lot of good stuff here), but not

with

> > the

> > tools in your box. I have different fittings than you.

> ok.

>

> > >  ---What's real and readily acceptable to me, is that we have

> > differing

> > >  perceptions about " loving what is " .

> > leave away the " loving " and you have it.

>

> > >  That feels " true " to me, and that's

> > >  consistent with what I know about opinions. 

> >

> > ^^^I can not help my opinions.

> >

> > ---Why would you want to?

> >

> > ^^^I appreciate your thoughts.

> >

> > ---I like talking to you. You have interesting ideas.

> Thank you, Matt.

>

> Love,

>

[Guest guest]

> Much ado about nothing.

*****For YOU, Steve. They seem to be getting something out of it.

[Guest guest]

> *****No. I was referencing the sentence " It is not a matter of

> judging, and worth does not enter into the equation. " I do

> not " judge " a rapist " unworthy " of my love. THAT is the cerebral

> interpretation I was alluding to. What simply happens is that there

> is a not-love emotion arising around the thought of the rapist. That

> emotional response is not a choice consciously made; it arrives out

> of the " machinery " which is the innate conditioning-in-the-moment.

Dear Andy,

Thank you for this valuable information.

I appreciate that you would share this with me.

What I hear is what happens (the feeling of not-love) is not a

conscious choice. It is simply what happens.

As I inquire into my story of rape, I go within and see that we are

not what we say or do. We are not what we think we are. Thank you for

the nudge.

love, nne

[Guest guest]

>

> > Much ado about nothing.

>

>

>

> *****For YOU, Steve. They seem to be getting something out of it.

##You could be right, how would I know? However, of course, for me

that does not refute my story of " much ado about nothing " .

Blessings, Steve D.

[Guest guest]

Dear Matt,

In my reply to Andy, I said:

" Going back to the discussion on What the heck is Reality, I feel that

reality is your perception. It appears that when says " Arguing

with Reality is hopeless " is right on. The only way to change

reality is to change what is coming from the projector. "

Perhaps this response is less offense to you?

Blessings, Steve D.

>

>

> Much ado about nothing.

>

> Love, Steve D.

>

> ---I've been on this list before, and I remember then that it was

sort of

> exciting, to be able to explore the revelations that " Loving What

Is " always

> seemed to be able to provide people. The people here were really

focused on

> " The Work " , and able to contrive some powerful cathartic exchanges.

Lately

> though, it seems like the dialogues here have lapsed into things

that might

> be better suited for a philosophy list, shifitng into complexities

that are

> in sharp contrast to the simplicity of " the Work " and for me, mildly

> frustrating. But then I like to meet people at their model of the

world, and

> base my exchanges on that kind of philosophy. Having been brought

up in a

> family where individuality was recklessly crushed into numbing

silence, I

> usually try to abstain from labeling anything people want to talk

about as

> " much ado about nothing " , even though I might feel that at the

moment. That

> is a judgment I reserve for later, in case " wisdom " might prove me

wrong.

>

> ---If a mailing list has wandered away from it's original intent, I

usually

> rely on the " old hands " to bring it back again. They usually do

that,

> carefully and wisely, and finally the idea that created the list in

the

> first place is restored. Right or wrong I identify you as an " old

hand " , and

> yet your best shot this morning at brining us back home is " Much

ado about

> nothing " . If that's the best you can do, then I'm tempted to turn

around and

> label my assessment of your value to the list in the same manner. I

expected

> more. But then all this is a judgment on my part, a wide swipe at

something

> I've assumed no one else is getting anything from and therefore I

can reduce

> it to " nothing " , and make that pronouncement...on a list

about " Loving what

> is " .

>

> ---I hope you reconsider.

[Guest guest]

Much ado about nothing.

Love, Steve D.

---I've been on this list before, and I remember then that it was

sort of exciting, to be able to explore the revelations that " Loving

What Is " always seemed to be able to provide people. The people here

were really focused on " The Work " , and able to contrive some

powerful cathartic exchanges. Lately though, it seems like the

dialogues here have lapsed into things that might be better suited

for a philosophy list, shifitng into complexities that are in sharp

contrast to the simplicity of " the Work " and for me, mildly

frustrating.

*****Maybe what is being witnessed is evolution at work? The List

will do what it will, depending on the proclivities of the posters.

For me, that is a sufficient rudder for the List's direction.

But then I like to meet people at their model of the world, and

base my exchanges on that kind of philosophy. Having been brought up

in a family where individuality was recklessly crushed into numbing

silence, I usually try to abstain from labeling anything people want

to talk about as " much ado about nothing " , even though I might feel

that at the moment. That is a judgment I reserve for later, in

case " wisdom " might prove me wrong.

---If a mailing list has wandered away from it's original intent, I

usually rely on the " old hands " to bring it back again.

*****Perhaps the " new " intent is more vital, alive, incisive?

Certainly there is room for both. Anyway, change is the only

constant in the universe.

They usually do that, carefully and wisely, and finally the idea

that created the list in the first place is restored. Right or wrong

I identify you as an " old hand " , and yet your best shot this morning

at brining us back home is " Much ado about nothing " . If that's the

best you can do, then I'm tempted to turn around and label my

assessment of your value to the list in the same manner. I expected

more. But then all this is a judgment on my part, a wide swipe at

something I've assumed no one else is getting anything from and

therefore I can reduce it to " nothing " , and make that

pronouncement...on a list about " Loving what is " .

*****I found the comment in question surprisingly dismissive

(considering its source), but that is one person's opinion, and this

List is for the amusement of all.

[Guest guest]

> > Much ado about nothing.

>

>

>

> *****For YOU, Steve. They seem to be getting something out of it.

##You could be right, how would I know? However, of course, for me

that does not refute my story of " much ado about nothing " .

*****Nor does it refute your right to say so. I strongly defend

that. Sometimes, you know, there are rainbows in the dark.

[Guest guest]

Dear Matt,

I think we agree with with one another much more often than we

disagree, because we both value the 4 Questions so much. :-)

You said:

" but the question then arises if " Arguing with Reality

is hopeless " then why do " The Work " ? I believe that was the kernel of

seed

in the thread about " Reality " , or at least it is my kernel of seed.

---What's the answer? "

For me, the answer is " because it hurts if I don't. "

Love, Steve D.

>

> Dear Matt,

>

> In my reply to Andy, I said:

>

> " Going back to the discussion on What the heck is Reality, I feel

that

> reality is your perception. It appears that when

says " Arguing with

> Reality is hopeless " is right on. The only way to change reality is

to

> change what is coming from the projector. "

>

> Perhaps this response is less offense to you?

> Blessings, Steve D.

>

> ---It's not necessary for you to change what you say to lessen

any " offense "

> experienced on my part Steve. Whenever there is an exchange of

ideas you

> can't always assume that people will come out of a verbal sparring

> enlightend or pissed for some reason. Because you offend someone it

doesn't

> mean you weren't speaking the truth. The issues about feeling

dismissed and

> reading that into your brief remark is mine, the feed back about

how that

> temporarily pissed me off is yours. I think that's what's real.

>

> ---Your " fix " for that is why I read all your posts. You seem to

have a deep

> connection with " The Work " and always seem to offer pertinent

responses to

> people with questions about it...something I value a lot. One of

the things

> I know I stumble on, and it seems others might stumble on too, is if

> " Arguing with Reality is hopeless " and you understand that, where

do you go

> from here? In 's books and videos, that question is addressed

time and

> again through Inquiry, but the question then arises if " Arguing

with Reality

> is hopeless " then why do " The Work " ? I believe that was the kernel

of seed

> in the thread about " Reality " , or at least it is my kernel of seed.

>

> ---What's the answer?

[Guest guest]

---I've been on this list before, and I remember then that it was

sort of exciting, to be able to explore the revelations that " Loving

What Is " always seemed to be able to provide people. The people here

were really focused on " The Work " , and able to contrive some

powerful cathartic exchanges. Lately though, it seems like the

dialogues here have lapsed into things that might be better suited

for a philosophy list, shifitng into complexities that are in sharp

contrast to the simplicity of " the Work " and for me, mildly

frustrating.

*****Maybe what is being witnessed is evolution at work? The List

will do what it will, depending on the proclivities of the posters.

For me, that is a sufficient rudder for the List's direction.

---Andy I find it hardest of all to follow where you're going

with " The Work " .

[sorry. There is no intention to obfuscate issues or make nebulous

statements.]

I'm not one to try to be " the list police " anywhere and I do believe

that everything to be discovered about " Loving What Is " doesn't need

to be found within the context of " four questions " . But many times

I'm hard pressed to find the link back to " The Work " in things you

say, and for that we lose a " common ground " . I think even in an

evolutionary chain once in a while the original genes pop up. That's

not to say that I disagree with you, I just wish I saw more of what I

think is the essence of this discussion in things you add here. Maybe

somewhere in the archives you discuss how you came upon " The Work "

and how it changed your perspective on something. Maybe there are

issues you have that need to go to Inquiry and you want to share

them here? That's gives me a common ground with you and maybe I can

understand better what you're saying...that's all.

[Phew....a lot of ground covered above. I'm not a big fan of " The

Work. " I think it is a dandy tool for those so inclined and I,

personally, have gotten some things of value out of using it. I

don't formally use it any longer, the four questions & turnaround.

It is not necessary. It operates quite automatically, having been

hard-wired into the programming here. But that conditioning out of

which speaking happens also includes non-dual/Advaitic theory, 12

years of zen practice, 4 years of meditative inquiry. All of that is

synthesized in any comment I make. You mention issues......Oh, I

have issues! :-)))) But see, the thing is I have no investment in

them. And in that sense they are non-issues. Literally, I live the

old saw: " Don't sweat the small stuff, " and its followup, " It's all

small stuff. " Oh, don't get me wrong: I get annoyed, angry, upset,

insecure, from time to time. The realization is that none of these

states has any substance; they are empty (to use the zen

terminology). And as such they pass, like the clouds. So there is

no big hoopla around their arising. Same thing with joy, serenity,

happiness, bliss, humor, affection. They also come and go, like the

pictures on the tv screen. I make no effort to hinder one or

perpetuate the other. After all, who would want to feel bliss non-

stop? What a nightmare!]

---I think " The Work " makes dealing with philosophical issues a lot

easier, when you approach them with the " four questions " . That

doesn't mean you're not adding to the discussion or that you've

picked the wrong place to talk about what you want to talk about, I

just keep missing the parts about how might have lead you to

your insights or clarified something for you that has permeated your

life and helped you see things better.

[byron is nothing to me. An absolute Zero. She has done

nothing for me. And I thankful for that. And none of that is to

dismiss that she has apparently suffered a complete falling away of

the sense of personal doership. Good for her! " The Work " didn't

produce that. Grace did. " The Work " followed her....Opening. I

have no desire to deify another sage. Same goes for Christ, Buddha,

Krishnamurti, Ramana, Nisargadatta, and so on and so forth. No

deification is necessary. Byron is simply an insightful broad

who has packaged ancient meditative practices in a new-fangled way

which may be more effective than zen (or taoist) training for modern,

21st century westerners. In that context, any relief which is

engendered by using " The Work " is, I think, wonderful. I have

nothing negative to say about it. Now....how people become

sychophants of " The Work " and its creator...that's a whole other

bag! But it happened to Christ, to Buddha, to Lao Tzu. Seems to be

part of the human condition. Whether or not that will ever change is

an open question.]

I sense that story is in there somewhere, because you seem

pretty " clear " to me and I'm impressed. I just want to read the part

that played in all this for you, so I know we come from the

same place.

[byron played NO part in all this for me. Some of her comments

and a general, but fuzzy, application of " The Work " *may* have played

some role in the mental machinery which operates now. So did one

thousand other things. I don't rate them in a hierarchy, temporal or

otherwise. They happened; they may have participated in the

programming that operates now. I am " clear " ? How would anyone

know? Well, functioning happens, thoughts arise, some become

actualized in phenomenality. I don't know if that is " clear. " But

thank you for creating me that way. :-))) It's fun to be clear in

the muddy water of phenomenal life.]

But then I like to meet people at their model of the world, and base

my exchanges on that kind of philosophy. Having been brought up

in a family where individuality was recklessly crushed into numbing

silence, I usually try to abstain from labeling anything people want

to talk about as " much ado about nothing " , even though I might feel

that at the moment. That is a judgment I reserve for later, in

case " wisdom " might prove me wrong.

---If a mailing list has wandered away from it's original intent, I

usually rely on the " old hands " to bring it back again.

*****Perhaps the " new " intent is more vital, alive, incisive?

Certainly there is room for both. Anyway, change is the only

constant in the universe.

---See, you're very clear about things...and I wonder if " The Work "

played any part in helping you towards that kind of clarity? Is there

a story there?

[As I said, " The Work " played no more or less of a role than 20 years

of on-and-off-again psychotherapy; 12 years of zen practice; 4 years

of " meditative inquiry " ; 4 years deep in the bowels of nondualistic

theory and " walking " with an nondual teacher in India; having read

hundreds of books (most of them utterly useless). Then there's my

upbringing, my culture, going through two bouts of chemotherapy to

deal with a recurrent (and damned annoying!) cancer. (Spending three

weeks undergoing high-dose chemotherapy in a cancer ward gives one a

fascinating perspective on life and how to live it.) ALL this shit

goes into the hopper. But none is held in higher regard than any

other. After all, how can one compare, and of what value is

comparison. Any insight gleaned from that is valid only for " Andy "

(which is why comparison is useless).]

They usually do that, carefully and wisely, and finally the idea

that created the list in the first place is restored. Right or wrong

I identify you as an " old hand " , and yet your best shot this morning

at brining us back home is " Much ado about nothing " . If that's the

best you can do, then I'm tempted to turn around and label my

assessment of your value to the list in the same manner. I expected

more. But then all this is a judgment on my part, a wide swipe at

something I've assumed no one else is getting anything from and

therefore I can reduce it to " nothing " , and make that

pronouncement...on a list about " Loving what is " .

*****I found the comment in question surprisingly dismissive

(considering its source), but that is one person's opinion, and this

List is for the amusement of all.

---I think that and I could have resolved a lot of issues in our

" debate " , had we turned back to the source and just let tell us

how to reach that place where everyone is right and everything is how

it should be. In that respect Steve was correct in saying what we

were doing was " Much ado about nothing " . But was asking

legitimate questions that may not be framed the way they need to be

framed in the context of " The Work " , and so we met those questions at

that place and then worked our way back to the source. In the end I

learned things, and so did . I'm not afraid to wander into other

places to discover the vast treasure trove of knowledge " The Work "

can drum up there, it's just that sometimes I feel you and I lose

the thread of things, and get attracted to complications we needn't

inflict on one another...if we just fall back to the roots of things

for a moment, and sip from that well, not a bunch of streams.

---What do you think?

[i agree with your paragraph above. But it happened. And it may

occur again. I have no sense that it is in my power to control

whether or not it happens again. You asked me what I think.

Ultimately, what I think is encapsulated in two poems by Wayne

Liquorman's poetic alter-ego, Ram Tzu (the name being a contraction

of the two people Liquorman spiritually holds in high regard: Ramesh

Balsekar, his guru, and Lao Tzu, the " father " of Taoism).

" Silence may be the purest medium

For the transmission of truth.

But it makes for

Damned short books

And awful dinner parties. "

and

" Ultimately

All attempts at discussing Truth

Leave you sounding like a fortune cookie. "

:-)))))]

[Guest guest]

*****Oh-Ho! Somebody's buttons got pushed. :-)))))

---If you're not interested in " the Work " , then why are you here?

*****Good question! I guess I didn't get a better offer.

---I don't think you can makes mistakes or errors when you " Love What

Is " ,

*****Even if you don't " Love What Is " you can't make mistakes or

errors. " You " aren't doing any of it.

and here and there you are relevant, but your instrument is not in

tune with the orchestra.

*****Another possibility is that your auditory acuity [or some other

organ] is not functioning adequately enough for you to hear the

beauty of the tune.

As far as I can tell " The Work " is not so people can amaze us all

with their wisdom,

*****Who is amazed? And who has wisdom?

but to help a battered wife find security and courage as she leaves

her abusing husband, or an overweight woman who lost her husband to a

younger woman, find a way to recover her self esteem and go on living

completely and wholly, it is for a man dealing with cancer, a vet

dealing with PTSD, a child dealing with parental abuse. I don't think

it was ever meant for scholars, or mystical adepts, or people on a

spiritual mission. I don't think that was the " broad's " intent.

was a housewife drowning in her own self inflicted ocean of pain.

When she rose out of that place she wasn't translated into a guru or

Christ, she was a woman who had let her pain teach her how to ask the

right questions. The answers she evokes are not designed to raise our

consciousness or help us levitate or ascend to the cosmos, they have

a more simple course to take...for people who don't have the time for

degrees, or spiritual sabbaticals or hanging around with Zen masters.

---I think needs to be questioned and she will let you do that.

What I think is you are here as a " duck out of water " , because you

need help when you think you don't because hell...you have all this

learning and experience and your job is to help others as I think

your story goes. But the facts is your job is to help Andy first, and

I think that journey could begin if you did Inquiry on why you don't

need " The Work " .

*****For someone who is such a BIG advocate of " The Work, " you might

want to reread the paragraph above. Then ask yourself: whose

business are you in? ;-)))

My " job " is to help others? I am very clear on the fact that help

does happen but there is no certainty as to who is helping whom.

Help is probably symbiotic in any interchange.

I don't need " The Work " ? I never said that. In fact, I said " [The

Work] operates quite automatically, having been hard-wired into the

programming here. " Quite an endorsement, that!

[Guest guest]

>

> ---I guess there can be " beauty " in dissonance, but after a while

> people start to ask why the tuba player is in the trumpet section.

>

ROTFLOL ...

My thoughts exactly Matt

If a waiter brings me fish and I ordered chicken, I can still love

what is (the fish) and politely ask the waiter to return it to the

kitchen and bring me some chicken.

Or to use your analogy I can love what is (the tuba player in the

trumpet section) and still ask him polietly to return to the tuba

section, because I have a story that tuba's sound better in the tuba

section! A story which I suspect is shared by most members of an

orchestra (although I can never know that is true ... LOL)

Loving what is ...

[Guest guest]

*****Oh-Ho! Somebody's buttons got pushed. :-)))))

---If you're not interested in " the Work " , then why are you here?

---Just a question Andy. Relax. ;-)))

*****Good question! I guess I didn't get a better offer.

---Good question yes...and it still stands. ;-)))

[Asked and answered.

What was offered in response above ( " I didn't get a better offer " )

was the bottom line. This mindbody mechanism is drawn to access

this List when it is the primary compelling thought at the moment.

If a more forceful thought arrives, rest assured, it will be

attended to and visiting this List won't happen. Happenings are

really as simple as that. A non-negotiable thought with an over-

powering biochemical-electrical potential directs each bodymind

mechanism as to what actions it will take. It's not personal.]

---I don't think you can makes mistakes or errors when you " Love What

Is " ,

*****Even if you don't " Love What Is " you can't make mistakes or

errors. " You " aren't doing any of it.

---If I kick you in the ass can I say someone else did it? Come

on...I dig this Zen shit. ;-)))

[You have misunderstood the fundamental vehicle of transmission.

The statement that " you " aren't doing any of it was a flip-flop into

the Absolute. Sorry for shifting levels on you. It's the same kind

of understanding as " all is well, and everything is a mess. " ]

and here and there you are relevant, but your instrument is not in

tune with the orchestra.

*****Another possibility is that your auditory acuity [or some other

organ] is not functioning adequately enough for you to hear the

beauty of the tune.

---I guess there can be " beauty " in dissonance, but after a while

people start to ask why the tuba player is in the trumpet section.

[There is no dissonance.

Or rather, one person's dissonance is another's harmony. Your world

is as you create it (although you have no say in its creation). I

wouldn't argue with it. Recognize that there are more than 6

billion other worlds being created simultaneously.]

As far as I can tell " The Work " is not so people can amaze us all

with their wisdom,

*****Who is amazed? And who has wisdom?

---Whoever related to my remarks Andy, and can assign those traits to

whomever they choose...that's who. This thing we're doing is called

" dialoging " and it is flawed but you're stuck with it too my

friend. ;-)))

[And it is stuck with me too.]

but to help a battered wife find security and courage as she leaves

her abusing husband, or an overweight woman who lost her husband to a

younger woman, find a way to recover her self esteem and go on living

completely and wholly, it is for a man dealing with cancer, a vet

dealing with PTSD, a child dealing with parental abuse. I don't think

it was ever meant for scholars, or mystical adepts, or people on a

spiritual mission. I don't think that was the " broad's " intent.

was a housewife drowning in her own self inflicted ocean of pain.

When she rose out of that place she wasn't translated into a guru or

Christ, she was a woman who had let her pain teach her how to ask the

right questions. The answers she evokes are not designed to raise our

consciousness or help us levitate or ascend to the cosmos, they have

a more simple course to take...for people who don't have the time for

degrees, or spiritual sabbaticals or hanging around with Zen masters.

---I think needs to be questioned and she will let you do that.

What I think is you are here as a " duck out of water " , because you

need help when you think you don't because hell...you have all this

learning and experience and your job is to help others as I think

your story goes. But the facts is your job is to help Andy first, and

I think that journey could begin if you did Inquiry on why you don't

need " The Work " .

*****For someone who is such a BIG advocate of " The Work, " you might

want to reread the paragraph above. Then ask yourself: whose

business are you in? ;-)))

---I am making a point Andy, and not in anyone's business. I'm

allowed to do that right? ;-)))

[Oh cut the crap Matt. Use that kind of arm-waving with someone

less perspicacious than I. In Advaita, when someone uses the notion

of the Absolute to justify not taking action in the relative, it is

called " the Advaita shuffle. " I don't know what *understanding*

of " in someone else's business " you are applying, but from where I

sit, giving unwanted/unrequested advice such as " your job is to... "

or " if you did Inquiry on... " or " You need help when you think you

don't... " IS being " in someone else's business. " You also appear to

be approaching omniscience (congratulations!) since you knowingly

assert that my " job is to help others as I think your story goes. "

Wake up! Yes, the thought about how my story goes arose in your

consciousness; its mere appearance doesn't make it valid. The

validity of all thought is very much in question, especially when it

is about someone or something other than our immediate selves.]

My " job " is to help others? I am very clear on the fact that help

does happen but there is no certainty as to who is helping whom.

Help is probably symbiotic in any interchange.

---I guess I misread your purposes here. I thought you were helping

people, not just fucking with their heads. ;-)))

[What I am doing, what is happening *through* this bodymind

mechanism, is that responses are generating. YOU are ascribing the

motive (helping or fucking with). I recommend watching thought, see

that it is perpetually arising and decaying, and that ALL thought is

empty.]

I don't need " The Work " ? I never said that. In fact, I said " [The

Work] operates quite automatically, having been hard-wired into the

programming here. " Quite an endorsement, that!

---I guess I just don't understand this complex relationship

with " The Work " you have. " The Work " is hard wired in you, but you

don't use it because you have other ways to get the same effect.

[i never said or wrote that I don't use it. You are putting words

in my mouth. But maybe it's that you aren't reading clearly. I

said " I don't formally use it any longer, the four questions &

turnaround. " The essence of The Work happens here, quite frequently

throughout the day, when thought is not involved in mechanical

activities. AND there are other ways of seeing the same thing:

e.g., meditation (which is really the last step in The Work).]

Still it's there, and perhaps you use it after all, because it's

hard wired, but you have no use for the process,

[i never said I have no use for the process.]

except when it's operating automatically, and then you use something

else better, and that's what you want me to acknowledge? Remember

I'm a mortal, and deal with all the frailties of the English

language, so you'll have to spell all this out simply for me...in

English, and clearly...so I can get it.

---Why do you hard wire something that you don't favor when trying to

understand things? Why bother? ;-)))

[Yes, I hear that you are confused about this. And as part of the

Whole, I am certainly contributing (but not responsible). I think

the fundamental misunderstanding is that I see no " me " that does

anything. Things happen *through* the bodymind mechanism so-

labelled " Andy, " not " by " his will. I have no will of my own. I am

literally a puppet the control of which is dictated by the innate

conditioning-in-the-moment. The creation of that innate

conditioning-in-the-moment is God's doing.

So... " why do I hard wire something that I don't favor... " you ask.

First, I don't hold The Work in disfavor. Show me where I said that

please. I wrote, " any relief which is engendered by using " The

Work " is, I think, wonderful, " and " I think it is a dandy tool for

those so inclined and I, personally, have gotten some things of

value out of using it. " Does that sound like not favoring it? I

simply say that it is not the be-all and end-all of tools for

arriving at a less mixed-up understanding of What Is.

I simply don't idolatrize either The Work or Byron . Some

people do. One or the other (or both) becomes a lifeline mooring

the individual what he/she believes is sanity. Actually, it becomes

a dogmatic crutch. It's a situation similar to those people who in

great misery go into psychotherapy, find resonance with a particular

therapist, experience profound healing and a release of suffering,

and then go out into the world zealously proclaiming that the " THE

way " to solve all one's emotional problems is to go into

psychotherapy. They assert to all who will listen to them

that " EVERYBODY should be in psychotherapy! "

You wanted a story. Ok. Here it is. I discovered The Work about

four years ago. At that time I didn't find it " sexy " enough to

pursue it. I returned to it last summer (2003) and found LWI to be

thought-provoking and insightful. I " formally " did The Work (4

questions & turnaround) for a few weeks and soon found it to be

operating on its own, smoothly, effortlessly, and no longer felt

compelled to process each " issue " via the 4 questions/turnaround.

The understanding of thought's emptiness, the recognition that

beneath all thought are beliefs, and the realization that beliefs

are inherently not true, all this has become a functioning part of

the mental architecture here. It seems to take care of itself.

Ultimately, there was a dropping away of any concern for the

shifting moods, emotional states, peck experiences, or even

maintaining a peaceful state. None persist. All come and go. It's

not making the waves all nice and smooth; it's learning to ride the

waves and, hopefully, enjoy the ride. :-)))

[Guest guest]

> *****This makes sense, and I don't disagree. But when we use words

> to communicate, effective interchanges can only happen if there

> exists agreed-upon meanings for the words (or gestures or facial

> expressions, all of which " communicate " ). If Byron (or anyone

> else) utters the word " reality, " in order for there to be useful

> communication, it is imperative that the listener at least have a

> basic understanding of what " reality " means to Byron (the

> listener need not agree with that interpretation however).

>

> *****In the absence of a commonality of meaning, what you get are

> communications such as iyp inaxh dpoytsli bza libsliyq lipsqpeycvj.

> If I ask you to hand me a screwdriver and you understand that word to

> mean " hammer " and thus give me a hammer, well, there is a failure of

> communication ~ and nothing gets screwed except the transfer of

> information. :-))))

>

Thank you for this comment, Andy. I have to confess that I have a difficult

time

understanding some of the postings on this board for this very reason -- there

seems to be a certain slipperiness and lack of clarity as to word meanings.

When a word, such as story or reality, means anything the user wants, then it

means nothing. Communication and understanding, which surely is why

we're here, get left behind.

[Guest guest]

Thank you for this comment, Andy. I have to confess that I have a

difficult time understanding some of the postings on this board for

this very reason -- there seems to be a certain slipperiness and

lack of clarity as to word meanings. When a word, such as story or

reality, means anything the user wants, then it means nothing.

Communication and understanding, which surely is why we're here, get

left behind.

*****Oh THAT's why were here! I thought it was to pick up chicks!!

No wonder I've been having such poor luck with that. :-(((

Seriously.....I suspect each person is here for her own reason(s),

and there will be some overlap. If the itch is not getting

scratched by the interchanges here, the person will look elsewhere

for relief.