Guest guest Posted December 22, 2004 Report Share Posted December 22, 2004 Dear Lynn, > Hi > > Boy, these are the e-mails when I wish I could talk rather > than type - lol! I think some people have much to say to each > other . > I'll answer inbetween but I'll have to snip some of it I don't see a problem in that. > or we'll have a book . I don't see a problem in that, either! ;-) .... >> 'what is' is reality as I see it. 'That' should be different is >> arguing >> with what is. 'Murder', 'rape', 'war' and 'loss' are labels we put on >> 'what is'. And we may not perceive them as labels in the moment, but >> as >> 'what is'. And that's the only reality one can look at. At the moment. > Words are symbols for the concepts or images we have. The idea > is to be able to match up the words to these concepts or images > to the best of one's ability so the other person or people can > understand. However, if we all lived in a more telepathic or > psychic society, there would most likely be a whole lot less > words or symbols representing images. I mention this because > our perceptions and then conveyance of these is how we " vibrate " > our wavelengths and energies to each other. When happy you get > a lighter and less dense energy and vibration. Less solidity of > particles. When you are sad or angry, and all the other lower > emotions, then energy becomes more dense and there's a different > vibratory level. All words do is describe these moments. Well, without the energy and vibration thing: I can still use any word I want, and still describe the same thing you experience, even if I don't attach a meaning to it. 'war' for instance would describe people (or countries) fighting - whether or not that is a 'bad' thing and causes stress, is not up to the word, but to attaching to the thought it does. >> My experience is that when I get to love what I call 'ugly', my >> perception of this uglyness fades away, and I call it no longer >> 'ugly'. > That's neat. But that doesn't happen for me. I love ugly - as > ugly. Meaning that there is still a comparison happening. I > may still think something or someone is ugly but it doesn't mean > I can't love it. I actually fell in love with a guy once who I > at first sight thought was " kinda " ugly. But after awhile I > loved him anyway. I still thought he was kinda " ugly " , but I > saw how he really was and it didn't matter. Ok. I have several thoughts to that: For one I understand how you can love uglyness as unglyness. I hear you saw the beauty inside of him. And I can relate to someone calling 'ugly' where I see 'beauty'. And vice versa, for that matter. Now I can see how someone would find him 'ugly', without necessarily experiencing what I used to experiencing when attaching to the thought that he is ugly. About this whole beauty/ugly thing I can perceive a person as ugly I may have seen as a beauty (and the other way around, of course). So, what is it about? One place I can go with it, is to say: " 'ugly'=repel, 'beauty'=attract " , and the only thing that can cause repellition or attraction are my thouhgts. I haven't found anything else that's real, yet. >> As long as I see it as 'war', 'rape', 'ugly', 'loss', 'hate' it may >> be a spiritual attitude to love it. > I understand, but again, as I mentioned, this is usually from a > spectating point of view. When you are knee deep in mud and you > have a gun in your hand and your buddy or platoon is getting > ripped to shreds and your bleeding somewhere, tell me what you > feel then. I don't know if I can. > Tell me that you are loving every minute of it and that you have no > fear because you love what is. Oh, Lynn! How could I know about that? Where does *such* a thing happen, unless in my mind? Unless it *does* happen. (and maybe even then, only in my mind, actually) I expect that if I put no story on it, and experience all that scene just as movement, as God, that I can love it. I don't say I am there. Sometimes I do love what is, sometimes I don't. And I don't expect that to change, ever. Just trying to love what is, now. What I do experience, is that stressful thoughts seem to appear less often. And I can't really know that, either. I can only talk about that moment. And I could try to go into that mud place. I can tell that I do experience pain less and less often. And that it really seems to be something going, not coming. And I can tell that sometimes, in the moment that I think I should be more loving, I separate from the other. And it feels that I could join better without the thought. I can tell that I do experience less pain from others. I can't *make* it hurt, when I see someone in pain. So, when I did experience pain, when I saw someone in pain, who's pain was it I experienced? But I am getting off topic here, am I not? ;-) > Maybe just before you die, you might love what is, but after the body > goes, you'll be more in spectating mode rather than participating > mode. Oh, I have *no* clue what happens after the body goes. Until now, as far as I can remember, it has *always* been there. > How easy it is for me to sit here and say how beautiful war is. Is that true? Where is the difference, if you are not in the middle of it, or if you are in the middle of it? I can go to *any* place and time. When you read about war in the papers, do you experience peace? > I'm not in the middle of anything right now and so I can look at > all the wonders of the military, etc. But I don't know if I > could tell you that in times of hardship and emergencies. It > would take someone who loved the military and all it represents, > so much that everything was accepted. There are a few out there > like that. And in times of hardship and emergencies, where does that happen, if not in your mind? I don't say it doesn't happen, (because that may be hard to hear) but as long as I argue with it, there's war outside *and* inside. So, maybe I can take care of the one inside first (because I am the only one who can), and *then* take care of the one outside. >> But when the love comes from deep of my heart, all the " negative " >> labels make no sense any more. And I can still see how someone else >> would see it as less than perfection. > I wrote something about perfection. I said that we are always > perfect no matter what. We are because whatever it is that we > are emanating or putting out is what comes to pass no matter if > its on a high level or low level. As a matter of fact, we are > so perfect, we have to make up that we aren't just for something > to do. Negative labels are reflections of the areas we feel are > either thwarting us or stopping us from what we want. They also > represent what we consider to be survival vs. non-survival. > This would pertain to all " physical " things, even identities. > It would not pertain to a spiritual being as it just is - it > doesn't need to " survive " . You know, as far as it concerns me, the only thing I can see that can keep me from experiencing 'happiness' is an unexamined thought. I don't care if the thought existed before it came, nor where it went after it was here, nor how many thoughts there may be, other than the one that is here in the moment. Because that's the *only* thing I can, and could ever take care of. So, why do we make up that *anything* is not perfect? - I don't know. And I don't see how knowing that could help me in *any* way. >> But what 'doing' is there other than perfection, when I don't label >> it? >> Or what 'feeling', for that matter? Feeling may be a doing I don't >> control, yet. > Again, labeling only helps us to orient ourselves in the physical > world and allows us to communicate our likes and dislikes to others > and self, more than anything else. Feelings are more along the lines > of perceptions being translated to the body (my opinion). Sometimes a > change in viewpoint can help change perceptions, which is why the TA > part of the process is pretty good . > > Thanks for replying You're welcome. Thanks for explaining. > Warmly, > Lyn Love, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 23, 2004 Report Share Posted December 23, 2004 Hi --- wrote: When happy you > get > > a lighter and less dense energy and vibration. Less > solidity of > > particles. When you are sad or angry, and all the other > lower > > emotions, then energy becomes more dense and there's a > different > > vibratory level. All words do is describe these moments. > Well, without the energy and vibration thing: I can still use > any word > I want, and still describe the same thing you experience, even > if I > don't attach a meaning to it. > 'war' for instance would describe people (or countries) > fighting - > whether or not that is a 'bad' thing and causes stress, is not > up to > the word, but to attaching to the thought it does. I never said the idea about giving meanings to words was perfect - lol!! But in a way, that's the " fun " of the " story " , isn't it? You give words to something which could really be communicated to another in seconds, if people knew how to be more telepathic. Words are what I call a " package deal " , meaning that they have more than just one use to them. You can use them to confuse, clarify, make communication slower, faster, place all kinds of connecting sensations to them and keep them in the " storage locker " (the mind) to be used as reference later, use them to " hide " one's intent or be more honest or even bold, as learning processes, and most likely other things I didn't think of here. Words have several different purposes in my opinion . > > >> My experience is that when I get to love what I call > 'ugly', my > >> perception of this uglyness fades away, and I call it no > longer > >> 'ugly'. > > That's neat. But that doesn't happen for me. I love ugly - > as > > ugly. Meaning that there is still a comparison happening. > I > > may still think something or someone is ugly but it doesn't > mean > > I can't love it. I actually fell in love with a guy once > who I > > at first sight thought was " kinda " ugly. But after awhile I > > loved him anyway. I still thought he was kinda " ugly " , but > I > > saw how he really was and it didn't matter. > Ok. I have several thoughts to that: For one I understand how > you can > love uglyness as unglyness. > I hear you saw the beauty inside of him. Yes, he could " emanate " beauty. It was more of a " wavelength " thing or aesthetic level which appealed to me. > And I can relate to someone calling 'ugly' where I see > 'beauty'. And > vice versa, for that matter. > Now I can see how someone would find him 'ugly', without > necessarily > experiencing what I used to experiencing when attaching to the > thought > that he is ugly. > About this whole beauty/ugly thing I can perceive a person as > ugly I > may have seen as a beauty (and the other way around, of > course). > So, what is it about? Its all just a matter of consideration and agreement . A person " can " change their views about so many things. > One place I can go with it, is to say: " 'ugly'=repel, > 'beauty'=attract " , and the only thing that can cause > repellition or > attraction are my thouhgts. I haven't found anything else > that's real, > yet. That's true. Neither have I . > > >> As long as I see it as 'war', 'rape', 'ugly', 'loss', > 'hate' it may > >> be a spiritual attitude to love it. > > I understand, but again, as I mentioned, this is usually > from a > > spectating point of view. When you are knee deep in mud and > you > > have a gun in your hand and your buddy or platoon is getting > > ripped to shreds and your bleeding somewhere, tell me what > you > > feel then. > I don't know if I can. Maybe a bad example - I was just saying what happens when you are actually in the middle of a situation where you are experiencing some type of emergency or possible loss. > > > Tell me that you are loving every minute of it and that you > have no > > fear because you love what is. > Oh, Lynn! How could I know about that? I'm gonna stick my neck out here and say, that if you were to actually take a look at it, you'd most likely know. Where does *such* a > thing > happen, unless in my mind? Unless it *does* happen. (and maybe > even > then, only in my mind, actually) I think one of the things to keep in mind is that as long as a person has a body there is a program or a very solid reality, that we keep it going in some way or other, meaning " survive " . With that in mind, and with all the sensations involved, unless you have successfully numbed out every nerve or emotion you have, then basically, what will " kick in " is the automatic " must survive " mode. Usually, its in the form of " protect " and I've seen some things that are meant to protect actually do the person harm instead, later on. Like keeping someone from doing something they want to do, but it protected them at the time of the perceived harm, so it automatically gets used again. So, it isn't " just " a mind thing, its also a body thing and a spiritual thing. They all seem to work hand-in-hand. > I expect that if I put no story on it, and experience all that > scene > just as movement, as God, that I can love it. You'd still have a story on it - it would be of love and God, whatever that scenario is for you. And maybe a much shorter story . Almost to a simple concept . But that's my opinion . > I don't say I am there. Sometimes I do love what is, sometimes > I don't. > And I don't expect that to change, ever. Just trying to love > what is, > now. I know what you mean . I do exactly what you're saying as well . > What I do experience, is that stressful thoughts seem to > appear less > often. And I can't really know that, either. I can only talk > about that > moment. To me, either you know, or you don't . If its " yours " then in my opinion, its okay to give yourself permission to " know " how you feel about the comparisons of how you used to think and feel and how you think and feel now. I assume its before and after doing either The Work or some other form of self-help. > And I could try to go into that mud place. > I can tell that I do experience pain less and less often. And > that it > really seems to be something going, not coming. That's good, right? > And I can tell that sometimes, in the moment that I think I > should be > more loving, I separate from the other. And it feels that I > could join > better without the thought. What thought would you have in order to join better? > I can tell that I do experience less pain from others. I can't > *make* > it hurt, when I see someone in pain. So, when I did experience > pain, > Pain = pressure. If you have too much pressure from something, you'll get pain. If you are trying to stop a loss from happening and " pushing " against that idea of the event having happened, you'll get some type of a pain which then can react on the body. The body gets the pressure. This is why the buddhists like to detach. They aren't detaching from a problem, or its solution, they're detaching from the emotional importance. The suffering is from the pushing one thought against another in the effort to stop the undesired effect. I learned this from someone who had been teaching me a healing technique called " Johrei " which is Japanese (my teacher was Japanese). The founder of this technique was a Buddhist. I had never fully understood the idea of detachment before. > > But I am getting off topic here, am I not? ;-) Not really . > > > Maybe just before you die, you might love what is, but after > the body > > goes, you'll be more in spectating mode rather than > participating > > mode. > Oh, I have *no* clue what happens after the body goes. Until > now, as > far as I can remember, it has *always* been there. Your body has always been there? > > > How easy it is for me to sit here and say how beautiful war > is. > Is that true? Where is the difference, if you are not in the > middle of > it, or if you are in the middle of it? I can go to *any* place > and > time. When you read about war in the papers, do you experience > peace? As a consequence, perhaps . I did another technique on war. It involved glory, beauty, pride, calm and yes, peace. But I wasn't in the middle of killing or charging or any of those things when all that came to me. Besides, it was a recall of another life somewhere. I don't think it was even mine . From peace comes war and from war comes peace. I guess its all on how you look at it as to how this would come about. And also how you study history. > > > I'm not in the middle of anything right now and so I can > look at > > all the wonders of the military, etc. But I don't know if I > > could tell you that in times of hardship and emergencies. > It > > would take someone who loved the military and all it > represents, > > so much that everything was accepted. There are a few out > there > > like that. > And in times of hardship and emergencies, where does that > happen, if > not in your mind? I did mention the area of body,mind,soul type of thing . I think it all counts . > I don't say it doesn't happen, (because that may be hard to > hear) but > as long as I argue with it, there's war outside *and* inside. Outside and inside is a consideration of " borders " . You have to have a dividing line in order to have outside/inside. > So, maybe > I can take care of the one inside first (because I am the only > one who > can), and *then* take care of the one outside. What's considered as outside and what's considered as inside? > > >> But when the love comes from deep of my heart, all the > " negative " > >> labels make no sense any more. And I can still see how > someone else > >> would see it as less than perfection. I can understand that. But for me, it " all " makes sense once I can smoothly go up and down the scales from negative to positive and be objective about the whole thing at the same time . > You know, as far as it concerns me, the only thing I can see > that can > keep me from experiencing 'happiness' is an unexamined > thought. Is that true? (sorry, I had to ask) . > I don't care if the thought existed before it came, nor where > it went > after it was here, nor how many thoughts there may be, other > than the > one that is here in the moment. I can relate to that. But sometimes I like to know where I got something from, how it came to be. But that's because I sometimes like mysteries and the solving of them, depending on what it is. > Because that's the *only* thing I can, and could ever take > care of. > So, why do we make up that *anything* is not perfect? - I > don't know. Nothing else better to do? ) > And I don't see how knowing that could help me in *any* way. Its all part of the games we play. If you know everything all the time, there's no game in that. If you got everything you wanted with no effort there's no game in that. There's not much to do, not as much sensation, if you are addicted to sensation. Where's the fun of that? > > >> But what 'doing' is there other than perfection, when I > don't label > >> it? None that I can think of - that's what labels are for, so you can have a change of view. > >> Or what 'feeling', for that matter? Feeling may be a doing > I don't > >> control, yet. Maybe at times you do and aren't exactly aware of it . Warmly, Lyn __________________________________________________ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 29, 2004 Report Share Posted December 29, 2004 Intersting thoughts. >>> You give words to something which could really be >>> communicated to another in seconds, if people knew how to be >>> more telepathic. Words are what I call a " package deal " , >>> meaning that they have more than just one use to them. You can >>> use them to confuse, clarify, make communication slower, faster, >>> place all kinds of connecting sensations to them and keep them >>> in the " storage locker " (the mind) to be used as reference >>> later, use them to " hide " one's intent or be more honest or even >>> bold, as learning processes, and most likely other things I >>> didn't think of here. Words have several different purposesin >>> my opinion . >> I don't think that goes for words. I think that goes for thoughts. > Some thoughts aren't composed of words, but I understood that > many thoughts have words as their components. What is your > meaning of " thought " ? Words are a model to describe thoughts. And thoughts we hold true and sacred are beliefs. That came up first. I don't know, Lynn. When I read your words, about the " package deal " , I think: to believe I can clarify, confuse, hide, show anything to someone else, would be a story. And in that I can use words. Anyway, what do I need to know the use of words for? I seem to use them, and no belief could keep me from what I do, can it? >>> Yes, he could " emanate " beauty. >> He has nothing to do with it. Not in my experience. > Ok What's your experience and why do you think he had > nothing to do with it? Well, turn it around. Then you have my experience. >>> Maybe a bad example - I was just saying what happens when you >>> are actually in the middle of a situation where you are >>> experiencing some type of emergency or possible loss. >> I relate to that and call it fear. >> I need a future to experience fear. > I thought it was in the past that one relates more to fear. How > can you relate to a future fear, without a past one, unless you > make it up. But you'd still have to know what fear is to do > that, which means its already been experienced somewhere, IMO. What I was saying, was: You want to experience fear? Get yourself a story of the future. One who has no future, doesn't experience fear. I can only be afraid of something that might happen. Not of something that has happened. Nor of something that is happening. >> And only a thought can tell me what there is to protect, or go >> along >> with a certain feeling. >> No future, no fear. >> No past, no blame. >> Even pain is something that *always* goes away, as long as I >> don't have >> a story of time. >> >> Every feeling I have ever had, had an origin in a thought. >> >> Isn't that how feelings come up? > What about the idea of " caution " . Its a low level fear to me, > but how do you get around that? Everytime you drive, walk > across the street, etc., do you use any caution? If so, why? > If there is no future, no past and only the present, could you > just simply drive, walk, etc., in places and have it go right > and not even think about it? But the minute you stop at a > stoplight, are you using caution or not? Now, this is about motives: why do you stop at a stop light? Why does the chicken cross the road? I was told that stopping at a stoplight is what we do here. And I see many people who don't stop at a stoplight. Sometimes I cross the street, although the light is read. So, how could it be about caution? the short answer is: I stop, because I do. >>>> I don't say I am there. Sometimes I do love what is, sometimes I >>>> don't. >>>> And I don't expect that to change, ever. Just trying to love what >>>> is, now. >>> I know what you mean . I do exactly what you're saying as well . >> Yes, what else is there to do? > I suppose you could love all the time, but some people don't > actually wish to do that. Some like variety . I notice that I must be one of them. I attach to story's instead. It's been enough. >>>> What I do experience, is that stressful thoughts seem to appear less >>>> often. And I can't really know that, either. I can only talk about >>>> that moment. >>> To me, either you know, or you don't . If its " yours " then in >>> my opinion, its okay to give yourself permission to " know " how >>> you feel about the comparisons of how you used to think and feel >>> and how you think and feel now. I assume its before and after >>> doing either The Work or some other form of self-help. >> I say I don't know, because I can't really remember. I can't make me >> feel it. And if I have a feeling with it, I don't know if it is the >> one >> I used to have back then. > If stressful thoughts seem to appear less often, for you, who > else could know that as well as you? Maybe its time to start > asking what you do know and if it " works " for you, and maybe you > could just leave it at that until you perhaps learn something > else. Just a thought . Thank you for that. >>>> And I can tell that sometimes, in the moment that I think I should >>>> be >>>> more loving, I separate from the other. And it feels that I could >>>> join >>>> better without the thought. >>> What thought would you have in order to join better? >> Thoughts seem to always create separation. > I can see your viewpoint on that. But what about thoughts that > bring you closer to someone? It might be still a separation at > first, but it might be the stepping stone towards oneness. I > don't know if I'm explaining that too well. Well, show me a thought that does not create separation. I haven't found one. And it may not look like separation to you, I don't know that. >>> The founder of this technique was a Buddhist. I >>> had never fully understood the idea of detachment before. >> Yes, pain is wanting two things at the same time. > Well, you can want two things at the same time, but not feel > pain. You can push hard or resist against something and get > pain as a result because its considered as pain. " We are not disturbed by what happens to us, but by our thoughts about what happens. Nothing external can disturb us. We suffer only when we want things to be different from what they are. " -Epictetus " We suffer only when we want things to be different from what they are. " ... I always want what is. When I want things to be different, as well, I want two things at the same time and get pain. (not physical, I mean " suffering " - the only pain that seems to exist, anyway) >>>> So, maybe >>>> I can take care of the one inside first (because I am the only >>>> one who can), and *then* take care of the one outside. >>> What's considered as outside and what's considered asinside? >> Inside here is what I can change. >> And by doing that I may experience that the outside changes as well. >> And by that I may experience that no outside exists. That all is me. > There are others involved, or at least its considered as such or > most likely The Work wouldn't even exist. But I understand more > of what you're saying. No one affects me. Only my story of him can affect me. I do suppose that it is the same for him. And I listen to his song, that states something different. And I believe him. And it doesn't have to be true for me. And in the way of him not affecting me, he doesn't exist. >>> Is that true? (sorry, I had to ask) . >> Well, it's all I ever found. >> And that is good news, because here's something I can do: >> examine the >> thought. >> So far, it *always* worked. > Sounds good to me! >>>> Because that's the *only* thing I can, and could ever take care of. >>>> So, why do we make up that *anything* is not perfect? - I don't >>>> know. >>> Nothing else better to do? ) >> Right. Nothing else to do, at all. > Sounds kinda limiting in a way, doesn't it? But I don't know > another way either, at this time. I'll bet I've forgotten . Wow, you call that limiting? I call it *creation*. Yesterday I did the work with a friend of mine. We went to a cocktail bar, and all of a sudden she pulled out two sheets of paper, and we started going through them. It was a lot of fun seeing how well she just undid one after the other. Like: " He should adore me! " , then realising it was a wonderful dream, and it just wasn't true. Reality is much better. But to create that dream, to hold it up, to put *so* much energy into that, spending a *lifetime* to support it, that's devotion! Admirable, don't you think? And you call that limiting? >>>> And I don't see how knowing that could help me in *any* way. >>> Its all part of the games we play. If you know everything all >>> the time, there's no game in that. If you got everything you >>> wanted with no effort there's no game in that. There's not much >>> to do, not as much sensation, if you are addicted to sensation. >>> Where's the fun of that? >> So I make up that there is something to get and something to know. >> And by that create a whole universe. >> And then I forget. > Bingo!! >>>> But what 'doing' is there other than perfection, when I don't label >>>> it? >>> None that I can think of - that's what labels are for, so you >>> can have a change of view. >> >>>>>> Or what 'feeling', for that matter? Feeling may be a >> doing I don't >>>>>> control, yet. >>> Maybe at times you do and aren't exactly aware of it . >> What kind of control is control without awareness? > Automaticity. I think that humans have quite a few. It may be all there is... and the control of that is an illusion. >> Ultimately, I control *everything*. And sometimes I am not aware of >> *that*. >> Well, there's names for it. >> Like destiny, for instance. > Isn't destiny something that was set-up far in advance and then > forgotten about? Sort of. I like that description. > Love, > Lyn Love, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 29, 2004 Report Share Posted December 29, 2004 Hi --- wrote: > Intersting thoughts. Yes I like things that have realizations to them, do you? > What is your > > meaning of " thought " ? > Words are a model to describe thoughts. And thoughts we hold > true and > sacred are beliefs. > That came up first. I used to think that way too. But when I take a good look at certain decisions I've made, I realize that sometimes there are actual words there. Its not only a feeling, sensation, concept, image, etc. Sometimes its sort of an energy shape of some sort containing several things at once. > > I don't know, Lyn. > > When I read your words, about the " package deal " , I think: to > believe I > can clarify, confuse, hide, show anything to someone else, > would be a > story. And in that I can use words. > > Anyway, what do I need to know the use of words for? For the above of what you just wrote ? I seem to > use > them, and no belief could keep me from what I do, can it? Well, I guess not. I wonder what people who are born deaf do as far as words go. They have symbols and such and ways to understand some of those symbols, but really, I have no idea what goes on in their head. Makes me think that we program ourselves to such a degree regarding words, that it seems solid and real, no matter what language you speak. But yet, I know its a creation used for a non-telepathic purpose as you described above. > > >>> Yes, he could " emanate " beauty. > >> He has nothing to do with it. Not in my experience. > > Ok What's your experience and why do you think he had > > nothing to do with it? > Well, turn it around. This is where I sometimes wonder at TA because there are several ways to turn something around and parts and pieces of beliefs that can be turned as well. But in my opinion, the more I can turn around, the more views I get. Let's see I could emanate beauty. But that doesn't mean he couldn't. He could feel me emanating beauty. But that still doesn't mean he isn't doing that. I could be believing he's emanating beauty because I want him to and also I want to believe it. But I know when someone is emanating something for the most part. I have a tendency not to allow myself to say " no " that I don't perceive another person's intention. Learned that lesson long ago because of not going with what I instinctively knew. > > Then you have my experience. Not really . Its okay with me that he had that ability and its okay with me that I wanted to see it or feel it. So, I'm open to you helping out with the turn around - I might not be doing it right . > > >>> Maybe a bad example - I was just saying what happens > when you > >>> are actually in the middle of a situation where you are > >>> experiencing some type of emergency or possible loss. > >> I relate to that and call it fear. > >> I need a future to experience fear. > > I thought it was in the past that one relates more to fear. > How > > can you relate to a future fear, without a past one, unless > you > > make it up. But you'd still have to know what fear is to do > > that, which means its already been experienced somewhere, > IMO. > What I was saying, was: You want to experience fear? Get > yourself a > story of the future. > One who has no future, doesn't experience fear. What happens if in planning out their day (some people do that) something gets triggered. Its not coming from the future of " what if " , its coming from the past (whether it be a personal experience or one of having watched someone else going through whatever they fear) of already been there done that. Again, how can a person be in fear of anything if they haven't already experienced something similar? If you haven't experienced anything in the past that has fear, then the future won't hold fear either because its not in the story. One would just go ahead and do things without any fear and plan things without any fear because they don't know what that is. Sorry, I'm having a hard time with not acknowledging the past and thinking it could only be coming from some supposed future which hasn't happened yet. > > I can only be afraid of something that might happen. Not of > something > that has happened. > Nor of something that is happening. But the fear is that it might happen " again " or something similar to the " again " part. The again part is from the past, not from the future. > > >> And only a thought can tell me what there is to protect, or > go > >> along > >> with a certain feeling. > >> No future, no fear. > >> No past, no blame. > >> Even pain is something that *always* goes away, as long as > I > >> don't have > >> a story of time. > >> > >> Every feeling I have ever had, had an origin in a thought. > >> > >> Isn't that how feelings come up? > > What about the idea of " caution " . Its a low level fear to > me, > > but how do you get around that? Everytime you drive, walk > > across the street, etc., do you use any caution? If so, > why? > > If there is no future, no past and only the present, could > you > > just simply drive, walk, etc., in places and have it go > right > > and not even think about it? But the minute you stop at a > > stoplight, are you using caution or not? > Now, this is about motives: why do you stop at a stop light? Cuz you don't want to get run over providing there are cars there? > Why does the chicken cross the road? Cuz the farmer wants him for dinner and the other side of the road might be a fighting chance for survival - lol!! Or, he doesn't even know its a road and he's taking a stroll - " we " think he's crossing the road ). > I was told that stopping at a stoplight is what we do here. > And I see > many people who don't stop at a stoplight. Sometimes I cross > the > street, although the light is read. > So, how could it be about caution? I see . So, you cross a highway with a light during a time when there are cars going 50 mph at rush hour? There have been people who " test " their death ratio, I suppose. Of course there will always be exceptions to the rule . If you noticed traffic was either far enough away or there was no traffic, then of course one could cross on a red light. But it would still be a cautious act to even look in the first place, IMO. Even if only for a " split " second. > > the short answer is: I stop, because I do. Its automatic then? Well, not to " over " analyze things here, but basically to some degree perhaps its done so fast that one doesn't even know there might be an element of caution attached. I mean as odd as this may sound - I " do " agree with what you're saying, I'm just saying that behind the quick " I do " part is usually a start of a reason somewhere, even if it wasn't started by you. > > >>>> I don't say I am there. Sometimes I do love what is, > sometimes I > >>>> don't. > >>>> And I don't expect that to change, ever. Just trying to > love what > >>>> is, now. > >>> I know what you mean . I do exactly what you're saying > as well . > >> Yes, what else is there to do? > > I suppose you could love all the time, but some people don't > > actually wish to do that. Some like variety . > I notice that I must be one of them. I attach to story's > instead. > It's been enough. I suppose it depends on what the stories are . > > > >>>> And I can tell that sometimes, in the moment that I think > I should > >>>> be > >>>> more loving, I separate from the other. And it feels that > I could > >>>> join > >>>> better without the thought. > >>> What thought would you have in order to join better? > >> Thoughts seem to always create separation. > > I can see your viewpoint on that. But what about thoughts > that > > bring you closer to someone? It might be still a separation > at > > first, but it might be the stepping stone towards oneness. > I > > don't know if I'm explaining that too well. > Well, show me a thought that does not create separation. > I haven't found one. The thought - I'm now merging with my cat and experiencing all his energies. As I do that - no separation. > > And it may not look like separation to you, I don't know that. There may be a " moment " of separation, just before I do merge, but very shortly there is no separation. > > >>> The founder of this technique was a Buddhist. I > >>> had never fully understood the idea of detachment before. > >> Yes, pain is wanting two things at the same time. > > Well, you can want two things at the same time, but not feel > > pain. You can push hard or resist against something and get > > pain as a result because its considered as pain. > " We are not disturbed by what happens to us, but by our > thoughts about > what > happens. I agree here. Nothing external can disturb us. We suffer only when > we want > things > to be different from what they are. " -Epictetus I agree with the dude and you as well > " We suffer only when we want things to be different from what > they > are. " ... I always want what is. When I want things to be > different, as > well, I want two things at the same time and get pain. (not > physical, I > mean " suffering " - the only pain that seems to exist, anyway) Well, thoughts will do that . But I also know that emotions will do that as well which are of course attached to thoughts - they seem to go hand-in-hand. Its my experience so far - that if you can also eliminate the emotion, that the thought has no power in it. Its sometimes easier to handle it that way, but not always. > > >>>> So, maybe > >>>> I can take care of the one inside first (because I am the > only > >>>> one who can), and *then* take care of the one outside. > >>> What's considered as outside and what's considered > asinside? > >> Inside here is what I can change. > >> And by doing that I may experience that the outside changes > as well. > >> And by that I may experience that no outside exists. That > all is me. > > There are others involved, or at least its considered as > such or > > most likely The Work wouldn't even exist. But I understand > more > > of what you're saying. > No one affects me. Only my story of him can affect me. Yes, I see what you mean. What you would have liked from either him or from yourself. > I do suppose that it is the same for him. And I listen to his > song, > that states something different. And I believe him. > And it doesn't have to be true for me. > And in the way of him not affecting me, he doesn't exist. We can all decide to accept or turn down another person's invitation to be or feel a certain way, can't we? I guess we don't have to buy into another person's story if we aren't all caught up in wanting to do that . Makes for a very effective objectiveness . > > >>>> Because that's the *only* thing I can, and could ever > take care of. > >>>> So, why do we make up that *anything* is not perfect? - I > don't > >>>> know. > >>> Nothing else better to do? ) > >> Right. Nothing else to do, at all. > > Sounds kinda limiting in a way, doesn't it? But I don't > know > > another way either, at this time. I'll bet I've forgotten > . > Wow, you call that limiting? I call it *creation*. When I said it - there was something just " nagging " me in the back burners of ethereal land - I still can't exactly place it. Like there was something totally different - a different paradigm altogether. That while this was a great creation and seemingly unlimited amount of possibilities of combinations of dualities, etc., that there was something else that was different and that the duality game like " perfect vs. not perfect " was more or less belonging to the arena of dualities. Hope I'm making sense . I'm sorry to be so vague - I haven't gotten my finger on it yet . > > Yesterday I did the work with a friend of mine. We went to a > cocktail > bar, and all of a sudden she pulled out two sheets of paper, > and we > started going through them. It was a lot of fun seeing how > well she > just undid one after the other. Like: " He should adore me! " , > then > realising it was a wonderful dream, and it just wasn't true. > Reality is much better. > But to create that dream, to hold it up, to put *so* much > energy into > that, spending a *lifetime* to support it, that's devotion! > Admirable, don't you think? > And you call that limiting? I more admire that you sat down with her and she did quite well with it. Well, not limiting for her . I mean it gave her a freedom. But, ya know, somewhere I feel its only the start. The start of " what " , is what I'm not sure about yet. I wish I really could be much more articulate or pinpoint that feeling. > > > >>>> But what 'doing' is there other than perfection, when I > don't label > >>>> it? > >>> None that I can think of - that's what labels are for, so > you > >>> can have a change of view. > >> > >>>>>> Or what 'feeling', for that matter? Feeling may be a > >> doing I don't > >>>>>> control, yet. > >>> Maybe at times you do and aren't exactly aware of it . > >> What kind of control is control without awareness? > > Automaticity. I think that humans have quite a few. > It may be all there is... and the control of that is an > illusion. Here's a little story . Once I had this session with someone (using a different technique). It blew an " automaticity " . This automaticity was " typing " . I did this for a living, this is the " last " thing I needed to totally vanish. All the " control " mechanisms I had in place for typing were gone. I couldn't friggin' believe it. I didn't know how to type. I went from 100 wpm to not knowing how to type within a few hours. Fortunately, when I sat down and started to practice, " some " of it came back to me. Do you know, I had to " practice " to get back up to speed again? And yes, I put that automaticity back in - darned if I was going to have to keep on learning over and over again. So, its possible to have those automaticities vanish and not be totally made of them. But boy, they sure are convenient in some areas . Love, Lyn __________________________________________________ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 30, 2004 Report Share Posted December 30, 2004 Dear Lyn, >> Intersting thoughts. > Yes I like things that have realizations to them, do you? things? I like realizing something, yes. >>> What is your >>> meaning of " thought " ? >> Words are a model to describe thoughts. And thoughts we hold >> true and sacred are beliefs. >> That came up first. > I used to think that way too. But when I take a good look at > certain decisions I've made, I realize that sometimes there are > actual words there. Its not only a feeling, sensation, concept, > image, etc. Sometimes its sort of an energy shape of some sort > containing several things at once. And an example of that would be..? >> Anyway, what do I need to know the use of words for? > For the above of what you just wrote ? I wrote it. So I don't need to know anything in addition to do it. > >> I seem to use >> them, and no belief could keep me from what I do, can it? > Well, I guess not. I wonder what people who are born deaf do as > far as words go. They have symbols and such and ways to > understand some of those symbols, but really, I have no idea > what goes on in their head. Maybe the very same things that go on in yours. Chances are. Do you think you're different? > Makes me think that we program > ourselves to such a degree regarding words, that it seems solid > and real, no matter what language you speak. But yet, I know > its a creation used for a non-telepathic purpose as you > described above. >>>>> Yes, he could " emanate " beauty. >>>> He has nothing to do with it. Not in my experience. >>> Ok What's your experience and why do you think he had >>> nothing to do with it? >> Well, turn it around. > This is where I sometimes wonder at TA because there are several > ways to turn something around and parts and pieces of beliefs > that can be turned as well. But in my opinion, the more I can > turn around, the more views I get. > > Let's see > > I could emanate beauty. But that doesn't mean he couldn't. > > He could feel me emanating beauty. But that still doesn't mean > he isn't doing that. > > I could be believing he's emanating beauty because I want him to > and also I want to believe it. But I know when someone is > emanating something for the most part. Oh, really? Good. > I have a tendency not to > allow myself to say " no " that I don't perceive another person's > intention. Learned that lesson long ago because of not going > with what I instinctively knew. Where I was going is: " I could perceive his beauty " And what does that have to do with what he is emanating? >> Then you have my experience. > Not really . Its okay with me that he had that ability and > its okay with me that I wanted to see it or feel it. So, I'm > open to you helping out with the turn around - I might not be > doing it right . I think you are doing it right. If that emanation thing feels comfortable, I'd keep it. When I think that someone else is making me comfortable, I start let my comfortness depend on him. And that's ok, as long as he holds my other beliefs, as well. And hopefully he won't. >>>>> Maybe a bad example - I was just saying what happens >>>>> when you >>>>> are actually in the middle of a situation where you are >>>>> experiencing some type of emergency or possible loss. >>>> I relate to that and call it fear. >>>> I need a future to experience fear. >>> I thought it was in the past that one relates more to fear. How >>> can you relate to a future fear, without a past one, unless you >>> make it up. But you'd still have to know what fear is to do >>> that, which means its already been experienced somewhere, IMO. >> What I was saying, was: You want to experience fear? Get >> yourself a story of the future. >> One who has no future, doesn't experience fear. > What happens if in planning out their day (some people do that) > something gets triggered. Its not coming from the future of > " what if " , its coming from the past (whether it be a personal > experience or one of having watched someone else going through > whatever they fear) of already been there done that. > > Again, how can a person be in fear of anything if they haven't > already experienced something similar? If you haven't > experienced anything in the past that has fear, then the future > won't hold fear either because its not in the story. One would > just go ahead and do things without any fear and plan things > without any fear because they don't know what that is. I don't know. Nothing that has never happened or been imagined by me comes into my mind. And planning is creating a future. And as soon as reality has other plans for me, I may experience stress, or fear. Because I believe that my plan of what I am supposed to do, of where I should be, is higher than God's. > Sorry, I'm having a hard time with not acknowledging the past > and thinking it could only be coming from some supposed future > which hasn't happened yet. Well, do you really want to know the truth? Give an example of what's so hard to acknowledge. It may be. >> I can only be afraid of something that might happen. Not of something >> that has happened. >> Nor of something that is happening. > But the fear is that it might happen " again " or something > similar to the " again " part. The again part is from the past, > not from the future. Yes. And I am afraid, " now " . And can I really know that what I am afraid of will really happen? And that it will really happen the way I think, the one that makes me afraid? >>>> And only a thought can tell me what there is to protect, or go >>>> along with a certain feeling. >>>> No future, no fear. >>>> No past, no blame. >>>> Even pain is something that *always* goes away, as long as I >>>> don't have >>>> a story of time. >>>> >>>> Every feeling I have ever had, had an origin in a thought. >>>> >>>> Isn't that how feelings come up? >>> What about the idea of " caution " . Its a low level fear to me, >>> but how do you get around that? Everytime you drive, walk >>> across the street, etc., do you use any caution? If so, why? >>> If there is no future, no past and only the present, could you >>> just simply drive, walk, etc., in places and have it go right >>> and not even think about it? But the minute you stop at a >>> stoplight, are you using caution or not? >> Now, this is about motives: why do you stop at a stop light? > Cuz you don't want to get run over providing there are cars there? And you know it's against the law to cross a road when there is a stop light. >> Why does the chicken cross the road? > Cuz the farmer wants him for dinner and the other side of the > road might be a fighting chance for survival - lol!! > Or, he doesn't even know its a road and he's taking a stroll Oh! Wise answer. We may not know, either. > - " we " think he's crossing the road ). We even think *we* are crossing a road. >> I was told that stopping at a stoplight is what we do here. >> And I see many people who don't stop at a stoplight. Sometimes I >> cross the >> street, although the light is read. >> So, how could it be about caution? > I see . So, you cross a highway with a light during a time > when there are cars going 50 mph at rush hour? So, now you are talking about a more specific light. " It's not always caution, but in certain areas, it may be. " - is that what you are saying? > There have been > people who " test " their death ratio, I suppose. Of course there > will always be exceptions to the rule . If you noticed > traffic was either far enough away or there was no traffic, then > of course one could cross on a red light. But it would still be > a cautious act to even look in the first place, IMO. Even if > only for a " split " second. Yes. >> the short answer is: I stop, because I do. > Its automatic then? Well, not to " over " analyze things here, > but basically to some degree perhaps its done so fast that one > doesn't even know there might be an element of caution attached. > I mean as odd as this may sound - I " do " agree with what you're > saying, I'm just saying that behind the quick " I do " part is > usually a start of a reason somewhere, even if it wasn't started > by you. Yes, there may be. And what difference does it make? Where is the difference, between " no control " and " control without awareness " ? Looks the same to me. >>>>>> I don't say I am there. Sometimes I do love what is, sometimes I >>>>>> don't. >>>>>> And I don't expect that to change, ever. Just trying to love what >>>>>> is, now. >>>>> I know what you mean . I do exactly what you're saying as well >>>>> . >>>> Yes, what else is there to do? >>> I suppose you could love all the time, but some people don't >>> actually wish to do that. Some like variety . >> I notice that I must be one of them. I attach to story's >> instead. >> It's been enough. > I suppose it depends on what the stories are . Oh? For instance? >>>>>> And I can tell that sometimes, in the moment that I think I should >>>>>> be more loving, I separate from the other. And it feels that >>>>>> I could join better without the thought. >>>>> What thought would you have in order to join better? >>>> Thoughts seem to always create separation. >>> I can see your viewpoint on that. But what about thoughts that >>> bring you closer to someone? It might be still a separation at >>> first, but it might be the stepping stone towards oneness. I >>> don't know if I'm explaining that too well. >> Well, show me a thought that does not create separation. >> I haven't found one. > The thought - I'm now merging with my cat and experiencing all > his energies. As I do that - no separation. Ok, if it works, I'd keep it. Sounds beautiful. >> And it may not look like separation to you, I don't know that. > There may be a " moment " of separation, just before I do merge, > but very shortly there is no separation. >>>>> The founder of this technique was a Buddhist. I >>>>> had never fully understood the idea of detachment before. >>>> Yes, pain is wanting two things at the same time. >>> Well, you can want two things at the same time, but not feel >>> pain. You can push hard or resist against something and get >>> pain as a result because its considered as pain. >> " We are not disturbed by what happens to us, but by our >> thoughts about what happens. > > I agree here. > >> Nothing external can disturb us. We suffer only when >> we want things to be different from what they are. " >> -Epictetus > > I agree with the dude and you as well > > >> " We suffer only when we want things to be different from what >> they >> are. " ... I always want what is. When I want things to be >> different, as well, I want two things at the same time and get pain. >> (not >> physical, I mean " suffering " - the only pain that seems to exist, >> anyway) > Well, thoughts will do that . But I also know that emotions > will do that as well which are of course attached to thoughts - > they seem to go hand-in-hand. Its my experience so far - that > if you can also eliminate the emotion, that the thought has no > power in it. Its sometimes easier to handle it that way, but > not always. Well, I tried elimination for a long time. Guess what? I didn't make it. Now, I try acceptance, welcoming. >>>>>> So, maybe >>>>>> I can take care of the one inside first (because I am the only >>>>>> one who can), and *then* take care of the one outside. >>>>> What's considered as outside and what's considered asinside? >>>> Inside here is what I can change. >>>> And by doing that I may experience that the outside changes as well. >>>> And by that I may experience that no outside exists. That all is me. >>> There are others involved, or at least its considered as such or >>> most likely The Work wouldn't even exist. But I understand more >>> of what you're saying. >> No one affects me. Only my story of him can affect me. > Yes, I see what you mean. What you would have liked from either him > or from yourself. Yes. >> I do suppose that it is the same for him. And I listen to his song, >> that states something different. And I believe him. >> And it doesn't have to be true for me. >> And in the way of him not affecting me, he doesn't exist. > We can all decide to accept or turn down another person's > invitation to be or feel a certain way, can't we? I guess we > don't have to buy into another person's story if we aren't all > caught up in wanting to do that . Makes for a very effective > objectiveness . Yes. It's when we *want* something from him, that we don't. >>>>>> Because that's the *only* thing I can, and could ever take care >>>>>> of. >>>>>> So, why do we make up that *anything* is not perfect? - I don't >>>>>> know. >>>>> Nothing else better to do? ) >>>> Right. Nothing else to do, at all. >>> Sounds kinda limiting in a way, doesn't it? But I don't know >>> another way either, at this time. I'll bet I've forgotten . >> Wow, you call that limiting? I call it *creation*. > When I said it - there was something just " nagging " me in the > back burners of ethereal land - I still can't exactly place it. > Like there was something totally different - a different > paradigm altogether. That while this was a great creation and > seemingly unlimited amount of possibilities of combinations of > dualities, etc., that there was something else that was > different and that the duality game like " perfect vs. not > perfect " was more or less belonging to the arena of dualities. > Hope I'm making sense . I'm sorry to be so vague - I haven't > gotten my finger on it yet . >> Yesterday I did the work with a friend of mine. We went to a cocktail >> bar, and all of a sudden she pulled out two sheets of paper, and we >> started going through them. It was a lot of fun seeing how well she >> just undid one after the other. Like: " He should adore me! " , then >> realising it was a wonderful dream, and it just wasn't true. >> Reality is much better. >> But to create that dream, to hold it up, to put *so* much energy into >> that, spending a *lifetime* to support it, that's devotion! >> Admirable, don't you think? >> And you call that limiting? > I more admire that you sat down with her and she did quite well > with it. Well, not limiting for her . I mean it gave her a > freedom. The story didn't seem to give her freedom. It gave her what she wanted at the time. > But, ya know, somewhere I feel its only the start. Oh Lynn, it always is. > The start of " what " , is what I'm not sure about yet. I wish I > really could be much more articulate or pinpoint that feeling. My thought is that you don't know because you don't need to know. Yet. ;-) >>>>>>>> Or what 'feeling', for that matter? Feeling may be a doing I >>>>>>>> don't >>>>>>>> control, yet. >>>>> Maybe at times you do and aren't exactly aware of it . >>>> What kind of control is control without awareness? >>> Automaticity. I think that humans have quite a few. >> It may be all there is... and the control of that is an illusion. > Here's a little story . Good. I *love* stories! > Once I had this session with someone > (using a different technique). It blew an " automaticity " . This > automaticity was " typing " . I did this for a living, this is the > " last " thing I needed to totally vanish. All the " control " > mechanisms I had in place for typing were gone. I couldn't > friggin' believe it. I didn't know how to type. I went from > 100 wpm to not knowing how to type within a few hours. > > Fortunately, when I sat down and started to practice, " some " of > it came back to me. Do you know, I had to " practice " to get > back up to speed again? And yes, I put that automaticity back > in - darned if I was going to have to keep on learning over and > over again. > > So, its possible to have those automaticities vanish and not be > totally made of them. But boy, they sure are convenient in some > areas . Yes, aren't they? > Love, > Lyn Love, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.