To encourage the exchange of thoughts about Deepak Chopra and his work, we will post your comments, inquiries, and opinions. Please feel free to respond to someone else's comments or questions, or simply post your own. Post a Message | Read the Forum | Sign the Guestbook Please Post Your Comments Name: Email Address: Comments:

click

FORMLESS

I bragged that I knew you
I started passing your picture around,
But when they asked, "Who is that?"
I couldn't reply,
Only saying, "I don't know"
So they laughed and went away in scorn.

You just sat there smiling.

I put you in every word
The secrets poured out from my heart.
But when they read the words
They asked, "What are you talking about?"
I couldn't reply,
Only saying, "I don't know."
So they laughed again and went away in scorn.

And you?
You just sat there smiling.

Is Dr. Chopra doing a desk calendar again this year and where can it be purchased?

Cathy, thanks for the follow-up comments on the game/life points. It does appear we don't differ all that much on the comparison(s). Yes, there may be more than one analogy at work.

Here's another: have you ever wondered why people "play" music?

Dave Thanks for Peggy's meditation method--you were right--I did not want a tutorial :-) I don't have enough time or interest in the archives to want to learn. But I am thankful that there are people who do know what I don't!

Regarding the Life/game analogy, your points were well taken. I do think though that play is a good word for how we best conduct ourselves (that is, light-heartedly and having fun). I don't think that this would necessarily show disdain, though carried to an extreme, I suppose it would...Anyway, the other thing I liked about the Life as a game analogy is that it implies that there is more going on. When the game is done, we pick up and go home (back to God/Spirit/whatever). Just now as I type, it occurs to me that we have two different analogies going here--I think you are saying that games are like Life, and I'm saying that Life is like a game?? Or I am now--who knows what I was saying earlier? ;-) Makes a difference :-) I agree with your analogy--and again , like the part about noting the "competetive" tendency to want to get to higher and higher levels (be they spiritual or other) which can lead to a sort of self-righteousness. But as with anything,it's not the desire to be your best (at a sport or in spirit) that is the problem but how you go about reaching that goal. Certainly people like Buddha and Jesus reached certain spiritual heights available to us all--and did so while remaining loving and compassionate to those still on their way. Indeed one's level of love and compassion might be a good indicator of how far along the path we actually are?? Especially in response to people we don't know or like. Just rambling thoughts :-)

Bob Glad to be of service :-) I like this kinder gentler you :-)

Happy Monday!

Cathy

A Warmfelt Thanks to All - I am trying hard to work on myself and will take all the help I can get - you help clean the mirror that often gets fuzzy when I try to look into it on my own.

Cathy - Thanks. You are very correct - patience is one of the big things I need to work on and the Forum is the perfect vehicle. It must be one of the reasons I come here and manifest the opposition. I have come a reasonable way since my corporate days and (other than here) have no opposition in my life whatsoever. In fact, I must be doing something right because everything keeps coming up roses and sunshine.

Anonymous Sources - Please take into account that the quote was two years ago before I went to two, one week seminars of Advanced Seduction of Spirit. The quote was from hearsay and since then, I have personally seen more than ample evidence for myself. Also - you are great at archive retrevial - must be following up on Dave's tips (or you are Dave).

Kate - Yes, do check with Jeff, Kitty and Denis. Jeff is in Agra as we speak taking the same instructions and should be back soon. Denis has been through it and Kitty may not have been to the seminar but has certainly been exposed to it. I like your mode of operation - wanting to check out the facts for yourself with an open mind.

Carol - Forgot to thank you for the Kahil Gilbran quote - love that book!!

Thanks again to all (yes, you too Dave R, Peggy and Dick Skep)

Cathy, in your comments about the chess analogy, you said "Anyway, I think the Life as a game analogy was a good one...but games are played for various reasons--fun, to win, distraction etc...just because we all might be playing the same game doesn't really say much ;-)"

I'd like to reply to just the last part of this statement (...just because we all might be playing the same game doesn't really say much).

If we can divorce the discussion from chess as such, and substitute whatever game we might have more enthusiasm for (say bridge, canasta, spades, tennis, golf, volley ball, track and field competition, other Olympic sports, football, basketball, Vegas gambling, you pick your own favorite game to consider) I firmly believe that our fascination with sports and games is in how much they do teach us about life.

I will admit that not everyone responds to games with that insight, may never even question why they are fascinated by the strategies, tactics, tricks, ploys, shows of strength and endurance, beating the odds, outlasting the opponent, breaking a record, and on and on. But I do suspect that the basis on which games succeed in catching our interest, holding it for some, intoxicating others, and becoming a passion for the few, is that well-played games combine art, drama, science and technology in a pleasing way to the player and the spectator alike.

I imagine that most people object to the "playing" connotation when using the "game" analogy to life. Most people probably take life way too seriously and see it as much more complex than a mere game. And if the sense of "play" includes the portion that relates to "deception" and "fooling others" then hardly anyone would openly admit to "playing" with life as such. That's reasonable and understandable.

But in the sense that some people choose "a game" to become expert at, to master, others pour that same energy into business, religion, art, science, etc., with the same devotion to learning the rules, polishing the techniques, and finding ways to surpass other players for their own personal gain and betterment.

Not everyone playing to win is out to "destroy the opponent" although many have such motives. To outperform is not automatically to demolish. (Some sports, like boxing and wrestling, give strong indications that destruction of the opponent is a requirement for success, but even in those sports you can find sincere friendships between competitors when they are "out of the ring").

Many people will never play a game seriously, and will treat any such activity as frivolous. Many treat life with the same disdain. But do you have any desire to "learn" from such people? I don't.

Cathy, when I reread your "flattery" thing, I saw that you just wanted Peggy's post with the meditation technique, and not so much a tutorial on searching the archives in general. (If you still want those details, just say so and I'll e-mail you some pointers and hints.)

Meanwhile...

On Sunday, October 1, 2000, Peggy (For Terry and Co.)@209.86.55.58 said:

One method that can be used for meditation. It is not the only way:

1. Set a timer so that the mind is released from questions about how much time has elapsed. I set the timer for thirty minutes. I don't recommend that amount of time in the beginning. Consider starting with ten to twenty minutes two or three times a day.

2. Take every precaution not to be interrupted. If someone else is in the house, I let them know that I will be meditating. I disconnect the phone and remove myself from potentially high traffic areas. I do not listen to music or rhythms as an aid. They are relaxing but occupy too much of the brain.

3. Get into a comfortable position. Usually for me this is with my feet at least slightly supported but not in a fully reclining position. I let my arms rest at my side or supported on the armrests of a chair.

4. Take one or two deep breaths through the nose, making certain to exhale normally. Take a few seconds for a mental muscular inventory to relax any tense muscles. I let my jaw go slack.

5. Begin to breath gently, smoothly and regularly through the nose. Focus attention on the breathing itself at the beginning.

6. When thoughts distract, gently push them aside and refocus on the breathing. Do not entertain feelings of frustration at these thoughts as they come.

7. Allow whatever happens to happen without judging it as a good meditation or a bad meditation.

8. When the timer goes off or when the time is right, continue to keep the eyes closed for a moment and gradually release yourself from the meditative state.

9. Practice this technique twice a day on a regular basis. There does seem to be a cumulative effect.

10. It is "okay" to use this technique for centering for shorter periods of time even when much is going on around you. I've used it in the ER of a hospital (where I think it once actually kept me breathing) and just before testifying in court. I've also used it when waiting in line. But I don't let these times "count" for the regular twice a day meditations.

Been there, done that. I would really like to hear from Denis, Jeff, and Kitty on some of the topics now on the screen, those three in particular because they, too, have undergone training and attended Chopra workshops, done some of their own, and so forth.

Chris

Loved your weightlessness examples and could even add a few like Michael Jordan's ability to leap tall buildings in a single bound. Still, especially with the freefall thing, I suspect that skydivers have some intuitive allegiance to the Law of Gravity, else why would they be wearing parachutes? :-)

I couldn't even try to improve on your "weight of evidence" comments. Quality of argument is not measured by how many accept it, but by how many can accept the reasoning involved.

Cathy

Your reading of that chess analogy is just what I was hoping to convey. So many of the Eastern approaches (martial arts included) are presented with all these belts and dans and levels of accomplishment that (as Geoff's cartoons have indicated) the underlying principles are dwarfed by the need to achieve some higher status. If that's not competition and "desire to succeed" I want to know what it is.

As for archive searches and techniques, I'll send you some e-mail on the subject.

Carol

So beautifully said! All of it!

Dick

Your ability to find just the right links is amazing. Thanks for finding that reward thing. The others are eye-openers, for sure.

This is what Bob F. posted about his exposure to levitation two years ago

On Monday, November 2, 1998, Bob (furge@conch.net)@208.242.3.221 said:

...."Pat - You might want to talk to Denis or someone who went to the alumni class in August. The feelings you are relating are exactly what was reported to be happening to them except they periodically did come up off the floor and then settle back down. In fact, the joke was they were more bouncing up and down rather than smoothly floating. Deepak jokingly even said the new Chopra motto ought to be "Come Fly With Me".

Love, Bob

about that ==> reward
(scroll down to the section "Transcendental Miracles")

i heard chopra has a plan to end world poverty. gee, i wonder if it involves butt-hopping!

bob, you said that yogic flying link you posted was serious. i looked at the entire site and though they make claims that there is scientific evidence, they give no references. now that's what i call a joke!

lemme see, let's say i know a technique that will produce world peace. but instead of making it available to everyone, i'll charge 3 grand per person to learn it. ya, that makes sense! nothing fishy smelling there.

i contend that deep down you know it's all b.s. that's why your ego feels the need to name-drop in order to fabricate support.

time for a ==> Reality Check
Analyzing the Maharishi Effect
Reassessing TM
Grounded?
Natural Law Party
The REAL Levitation
How TM Saved Texas
It's all B.S. (see question 9)

Profile of Deepak Chopra (i didn't know he was being sued for plagiarism...again)

@>----/----/--

Wow, busy day here :-)

Dave I liked your chess analogy, and the part about a lower level person beating a higher level person--what that says to me, which makes sense, and goes along with the seive analogy I had read wherever is that we can and do move back and forth among the levels we've passed through (as the higher ranked player must have played a game a notch or two below his "best"). As "time" goes on we tend to stay at the higher levels more consistently and then break through to a new level. I imagine this would apply to chess player ability as well :-)I also imagine that this might be true endlessly...though I can see that at some point, possibly understanding so well, that we did not move up and down, and were completely at ONE. Also this idea fits with my experience of having "good" days and "bad" days :-) Anyway, I think the Life as a game analogy was a good one...but games are played for various reasons--fun, to win, distraction etc...just because we all might be playing the same game doesn't really say much ;-)

Also, in your own analogy, you mentioned that one must actually PLAY the game to get ranked or move up the levels--I think the same is true for all this philosophical stuff...you can read and think about stuff--and that gets you pretty far. But at some point you have to "just do it"...now I suppose this does not apply to everything that is philosophical, but as far as expanding consciousness, I think it does. You asked me how far I thought my reading got me or something like that. Here's a good example--Carol's post about seeing everything around her as God is something I have read about and, from what I understand from quantum physics--and it all started with the serious scientists--they did not easily accept what they were seeing! Resisted it. Anyway, from what I have read, I agree that we are all, as is every bit of creation a part of God, Spirit made manifest. BUT, though I might think that as I look around, I don't actually see that--which is what I believe happens at the nondual levels of consciousness. And that's where reading's and thinking's service or usefulness to me ends. Reading and thinking opened me to such possibilities--and that is good. But the next step is one that only I can do for myself.

Bob

Patience :-) Your words are not falling on deaf ears--my ears just weren't around all day :-) I believe in the reality of "miraculous" events because there is a lot of evidence that supports it--The Holographic Universe gives many examples--some of modern day people who can manifest things from nothing. Dave and Dick-- Sure, it could all be a trick, I suppose, but, again, my understanding of quantum physics certainly makes it seem possible--as with many things, there is likely a scientific explanation for these things--they just aren't here yet- people from 200 years ago, witnessing things like cars, and lights, and computers etc...would likely think these things were impossible, miraculous etc...the thing with miracle workers is that they don't do it for show. They aren't out to prove themselves to the world. Their miracles are simply a by-product of their level of understanding of Reality---which includes this relative world and its dualities, but transcends it as well. So most of us have never experienced much that defies reason because most of us have never pursued understanding of the ultimate stuff of the universe to be able to do so. I take Jesus' comments about us doing deeds as he did and even more to heart--but first we have to "see" things as Jesus did. No free lunch ;-)

You know, in the medical world there are many "miracles"--spontaneous remissions, tumors disappearing--ever read any Bernie Seigel? Not quite the same as defying gravity, I suppose, but pretty damn impressive :-)

Thanks for all the meditation book ideas. TO No, I did not print Peggy's meditation technique--Dave any help in retrieving it? I do not navigate archives that well--and you do (is the flattery working? ;-))

Bob one last note-- I guess my point to you earlier was that talking with people who may not understand or agree with you, and learning to do so lovingly might well be an important thing for you who admits to having little patience, and wanting to move evr upward. Talking to people at lower levels does not "drag you down" as much as it gives you opportunity to show the validity of what you are experiencing at the higher levels--IMHO, that is :-) But, as Kate said, you know best what you need.

A blessed evening to you all! Cathy

Me thinks thou doth misquote too much.

And Bob did what no other had done. A united front was made manifest at the Forum.

Carol - You are one of the main reasons I keep coming back here. I learn every time you post. You truly know and experience That That IS and are content to leave it at that. I will do my upmost to follow your advice. I look forward to the day I am coming from where you are at. However, I miss your OSHO quotes!

Chris V - What you have said makes sense and I too, weigh things before making a decision as to their validity. As with your telescope, the main thing is to continue to question and explore.

Kate - Thanks for the input - now "time", there is one great topic for discussion.

Namaste'

Dave I'd love to learn more about that reward. I'm capable of brief moments of weightlessness (we are weightless in freefall), and am even capable of raising myself about 4 feet above the ground. I used to be able to high jump about 5 ½ feet, but I haven't practiced it in quite a while.

Bob I'm certainly not going to speak for Dave, but in my mind "weight of the evidence" is a lot more than just what is believed by the majority. I'd venture to guess that the majority of people believe in astrology, yet there is not much scientific evidence for it. The majority of people believe that rocks are solid, yet the scientific evidence suggests that they (and everything else for that matter) is made up of mostly empty space. Majority has little to do with "weight of the evidence", as science isn't (or I should say, shouldn't be) a democracy. Weight of the evidence is simply that. What is the evidence, how credible is it, what was the methodology that was used to acquire it, is there independent and repeatable confirmation of it? It really has nothing to do with what the majority thinks at all.

Regarding levitation, I'm open to the possibility. In high school a friend's mother was big into TM and claimed that she could levitate. She sounded quite convincing that she was able to do this, and I had no real reason to doubt her (except my middling skeptical nature and 100% of all of my life experience up to that point). I really wanted to see her do this, but she would never let me watch. So, in my world I'm still batting 1000 with Newton's Laws (OK, Einstein's Laws are better for astronomical things and Quantum mechanics is better for atomic things, but Newton seems to work just fine for my day to day existence). I'm not the type of person that requires that I understand HOW something works to accept that it DOES work, but I do need some evidence for something that does go contrary to 100% of my other life experience. I don't have a clue how acupuncture works, but I'm convinced that it does work because of a whole battery of independent evidence both personal and things I have read and seen. I don't have a clue how someone could levitate without doing some kind of magic trick AND I have no evidence other that a few people telling me that they have either seen it, or can do it. While that may be enough to get my curiosity up to investigate further, it isn't enough to convince me. If my friends mom had just let me watch her levitate I'd at least have some personal evidence.

Carol,that is one of the best examples I have ever read any where of how to be and live your truth.Thank you ,for being here Carol.

Thanks for your love and wisdom. I hope to follow your example when I can. :-) Patience is difficult to come by, as evidenced so clearly by the posts immediately preceding yours.

Bob, it's equally evident that it's up to you to decide what to do with your time, just as it is for us. Here's luck to you making the right decision for yourself.

dear Bob, i am familiar with all of the things that you are speaking of but i give it little consideration. what i do find important, is how i treat other people. i value it over everything. now you might ask why and i will try to answer from the place that i am coming from.

to me, everything is God, everything. that includes the things you are talking about and it includes Dave's Sat am chit chat. (which by the way, i hope becomes a tradition) that also includes you and Dave and even our anon posters, heh! God IS everything, everyOne, and everywhere, to me. therefore, i have no contest, any longer, with anyone.

it just happened, it just happened that way for me. now, mind you, i still have to give my kids a talking to, from time to time, and i have to get on my grand-daughter when she doesn't clean up her room, and i find myself intolerant of rude clerks, but Bob, they are God to me, all of them, and the moment i walk away i am saying All IS God.

maybe, in moments of human-ness, i slip up sometime, maybe i get hung up with some issue and for a moment i forget, then all of a sudden, with little notice, i begin to see God again, everywhere. i say to myself, oops, this being a spiritual Being and a human simultaneously is tricky, heh. i say yup and i forgive myself and go on with my business.

please, don't get me wrong, i am not advocating this for anyone else, they are doing things the way they do and i am doing things the way i do, but for me THIS IS IT! ALL OF IT! is IT!!! for years i posted quotes, i spoke on things, too, but i posted a lot of quotes and it was good for me and i am glad i spent that time sharing and reading and remembering all of it. and i suggest to you to post what will make you feel good, here. if there are complaints, read them and take what you need from it and leave the rest. or if nothing else works scroll, scroll, scroll. but get a grip on yourself and allow others to see their own wisdom, as best you can. showing your wisdom is wonderful for you and i love witnessing it but others might not see it, so be it. they will, in their own time.
Namasté dear friend

Dave R - Lets take this a step further. I have told you some of what I have seen (e.g. levitation) and some of what I have personally experienced (e.g. Kundalini, auras, Oneness, Witnessing, Manifestation, etc.) If pressed, I think Denis, Jeff Hart, Geoff, Kitty, TO, Carol and others will agree they have seen or experienced some of the same.

Yet, you do not believe us. Do you think we are lying? Do you think we are hallucinating? What do you think of us - how do you explain why we are coming from where we are coming? Are we just lunatics? And if any of the above is the case, why would you even care to take time to talk to us.

I contend that down deep, you know we are on to something. My guess is that in the depth of the night, you question that your post depression, WWII, religious and cultural environmental conditioning is not completly right. You may even be here with the secret hopes that eventually we will give you the evidence you need to stop believing the baggage and conditioning placed on you by society.

A little skepticism is healthy but there comes a point where there is a chance that Shakespear was right "Me Thinks Thou Doest Protest To Much". If you don't get the meaning, ask Peggy, she is the teacher.

Namaste'

Dave R - I take your "weight of the evidence" to mean that you will (in general) accept as correct what is commonly believed by the majority. If this were the early 1400s, I presume you would say the weight of the evidence would support the world as being flat and that the theory of it being round is hocus pocus. I contend that just because the majority believes something does not make it correct.

In the same vein, the scientific evidence of Quantum Physics (Particle Physics) is showing Newtonian Physics to be outdated - useful but not completely correct. The majority do not completely understand it as of yet so the skeptics will wait until the majority accepts it as fact before they believe it.

All this ties in with the old joke about sanity - who is sane and who is insane depends on which group is in the majority (the fence is always placed around the minority).

Dick Skep - I have never tried to post a link before but here goes. You can post a joke link, I will post a serious one. Deepak is not the only one who ends up with participants levitating as a by product of meditation.

TM Levitation

Does anyone else here agree with any of what I am saying and want to expand on it or am I wasting my time discussing something that is falling on deaf ears????

Namaste'

Peggy, a message of thanks for your teaching post from a reader who doesn't like to post. She printed it out for a teacher family member.

Don't want to over interrupt your implied advice, Greek, but it sure sounds right on the money. I quit. :-)

Righteous links, Dick!

Bob, I guess the short answer to your question about my beliefs (and disbeliefs) is just what you said (or hinted at).

The weight of evidence supports the notions that an atomic bomb was dropped in August 1945 on Hiroshima (I saw the newspaper reports the next day); that the earth is round (I believe an ancient Greek discovered this long before it was accepted by society at large); that Calcutta exists (here I must rely on the accuracy of maps and news reports again -- you are correct that I have not visited it nor have I visited Taos NM and must take your word that even that exists). Levitation, on the other hand, defies a law that I consider to be well-founded, postulated by Sir Isaac Newton several centuries ago.

If the majority of people were to switch over to the belief that levitation is for real, I think I would still be persuaded that the Law of Gravity carries more weight (pun intended). Besides, although many people seem to accept their horoscopes (including their birth signs) as having any basis in fact, I reject that concept as so much hocus-pocus. Nor do I call the Psychic Hotline (unlike a large number of people) for guidance in my daily affairs. Even though Tarot readings can be fun, so can Monopoly, and both have equal favor for predicting the future or divining the past, as far as my beliefs are concerned. Same goes for ouija boards, in spite of some fascinating stories told by others here on their experiences with them.

In a nutshell, you have pretty well described why I do believe some things and don't believe others. Weight of evidence, I suppose.

Learn to Levitate!

or is it just butt-hopping?

scientists cause a frog to levitate!

And lo! Bob granted choices to the masses and ascended unto the mountains.

But the snow would not melt upon his shoulders.

For a short time Dave took control of Bob and forced him against his will to post. Must he drag this man down by over "interrupting" him again?

Will Peggy let go of her need to teach Bob how to spell dharma?

Will Dick stop holding his sides?

Will TO wade through the B/S?

Will Kate and Cathy continue to leave messages after the beep?

Is there a doctor in the house?

What the hell - the snow can wait another 5 minutes (pun intended).

Dave R - Please help me understand. What is it that makes you believe that (assuming you do) the Atom bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, the Earth is round, and that Calcutta actually exists and makes you not believe people can levitate. Presumably, you did not see the bomb dropped, have not orbited the earth to see the blue ball in space, have not visited Calcutta and have not seen levitation. Why do you believe some things you have not seen for yourself and not believe others?

Is it that you have to wait for the majority to believe before you believe. As Hadi says, there is the less than 1% who have experienced many of the things we talk about - that does not make them any the less valid.

Dick Skep - As a start, try mushrooms without pizza - you will find it easier to realize that we are truly manifesting this movie film passing in front of our Spirit we call daily life! It wouldn't hurt you to try to experience versus throwing stones either!

At last the snow and mountains!!!!!

Namaste'

bob, thanks for the warning about meditation. i've heard alot about negative side effects

the mushrooms go better with pizza by the way

Dave - Your last post is keeping me from watching the snow but I have to respond.

You are always coming from "I will believe it when I see it" versus "I will see it when I believe it". It is a skeptic's role and you play it very well. However, even in that role, prove it to yourself - go see it first hand. Continue (or start) meditating, go to Deepak's Advanced Seduction of Spirit and see for yourself - people can and do levitate.

Also, start meditating heavily and consistently and you to will start seeing auras in nature, people and even inanimate objects. Since you are a skeptic, I understand your need to personally experience to believe - so go experience!

Now, I am again going to try and experience the beautiful snow on the mountains. I am not going to try and prove to you Dave that there is snow here and mountains - you can take my word for it, you can experience it for yourself or you can be skeptical - the choice is your.

Namaste'

Bob F., your first question was:

"What is it in those of us who know what we know, that makes us feel we must try to enlighten those who are not willing to use their innate intelligence to honestly question and explore what they don't know????"

That is a question about teaching.

Dave R - Please do not over interrupt what I say. I am willing to share my experiences here and would like to see more of others doing the same. I am happy to help people along the way and am personnally working on compassion (though that does not mean I should interfere with or change peoples' circumstances).

However, you are partly right. In my ideal world, people would be at a higher level of awareness and intelligence than myself so I could learn more quickly. I like to be dragged up not dragged down.

I think I will go and watch the beautiful snow falling on the mountains - have a great afternoon.

Namaste'

As for your response(s) to me, I would probably want to know what tricks were being used in that levitating thing. I read recently that somebody had offered substantial reward to anybody who could just lower their body weight by five pounds by meditation in a short span of time, much less lift themselves off the ground with it. I also saw that that person's reward hasn't been claimed yet.

I'm usually impressed by stage magicians, even TV ones, but I hardly ever suspect that they've overcome gravity. I guess that all goes to what we're willing to believe.

Bob, please correct whatever I have failed to understand in your latest post, but I see your response to Peggy as saying that you really are not concerned with sharing your own experiences here, and would prefer if somehow we could all be replaced by people of "higher levels" attainment, so that you could be learning from them as opposed to teaching us. Is that a fair reading of your words?

Peggy - "Karma" should read "Darhma"

Peggy - To be truthful, I am not really that interested in teaching (though I have been told time and again through different mediums that it is supposed to be my Karma in this lifetime). As all of you have witnessed, my Aries type personality and straight forward approach to things do not fit in well with your teaching principles. I tend to toss out the facts, give the support I feel is necessary for someone to comprehend and then I want to move on to the next step. My patience is limited and I want to say "come on - keep up" which doesn't work well in teaching. That is why in business, PR departments took my programs and policies and translated them into "people ease".

I am more interested in learning. The only way to really move up the consciousness ladder is to meditate/meditate/meditate (which is my main interest) but my mind likes to understand what is going on.

Dave R - There is a major difference in humans and it is also a major similarity. We are all working from different levels of consciousness (the difference) and we are all working on getting to higher levels of consciousness (the similarity). If you ever saw, first hand, people floating several feet off the ground (levitating) while meditating you would realize some people are more advanced than others. If you ever personally saw auras, felt Kundalinia awakening, experienced Oneness or Witnessing - you would want to keep pushing the edge of the envelope to go further. These things are by products of the awakening process (and should not be the goal) but they definitely show there is a difference in human awareness. One level of awareness is not good and the other bad but personally, I don't want to digress to the Hunter/Gatherer, Might makes Right level, I don't want to stagnate in a holding pattern where I am at, I want to progress onward and upward.

Namaste'

Cathy, the only book I've read on the subject of meditation is Wayne Dyer's Manifest Your Destiny. I liked the book but find that using a guided tape was the only way I could meditate at first. I started using Dyer's tape, Meditations for Manifesting, which is a companion piece to the above book.

I used this tape semi-regularly for about two years until I learned that the man who taught Dyer the meditation, Sri Guruji Pillai (now known as Sri Siva), had his own tape set out. I have been using this series for over two years now and really enjoy the meditations on it, especially the "Morning Meditations." A quick look at his website shows that he may not be selling the tapes anymore as he has now put them on CD, Sri Siva's Meditation CD Series. Since there is a lot of chanting in the Tamil language on Sri Siva's set, it may intimidate or even overwhelm some people. But Dyer's tape is fairly inexpensive and I found was a good starting point for me.

Maybe the chess analogy isn't all that clear to those who don't play it, or don't play it "seriously." But since I have spent many hours -- in the past, not lately (I haven't played a "serious game" in five years) -- on the game, I think I can draw some parallels to what we talk about a lot at this forum.

The rules of chess are fairly easy to teach to kids. They're involved but not overly complex, and anyone with a little patience can learn how the pieces move and what the object of the game is, in just a little time, maybe an hour or less.

But knowing the moves and the rules is only the beginning. One can play on one's "native ability" and "learn from experience" and become a competent player and manage to win significant numbers of games over time. I know several players, quite strong, who have rejected all other approaches to getting better at the game.

Then there are books! There were, at one time -- maybe still are -- more books on the subject of chess than on all other games combined. I have hundreds of them and have spent no telling how many hours studying them. These days there are also computer-based teaching techniques, too, including play over the internet. Most "serious players" engage in that same sort of thing.

But about the only way to get a higher rating, if that's part of your goal, is to play and play a lot. Only in the actual playing of the game do those principles and guidelines that the books expound become realized. And you have to remember that your opponent has probably read those same books and studied just as hard. It boils down to which of you can use those principles most effectively.

This is the part of "chess" that I associate with "life" and not just the movements of 32 pieces over 64 squares. It's the world of the players and not the pieces that I wanted to see as an analogy for life.

Is that any easier to swallow?

Cathy - In response to your wanting written information on types of Meditation, TO gave you a good start with Ram Dass. If you want a more comparative analysis of how the types are approached and how they all lead to the same end, you might want to pick up "Transformations of Consciousness" co-authored by Ken Wilber, Jack Engler and Daniel Brown.

The book has some great tables that lay the different approaches out side by side up through each level of consciousness. Also, there is a lot of text that explains each stage. It is a deep thought type book that may work great with your schedule. You can read a section for 20 minutes and then ponder what was said during the day while you are playing the Kids game. In fact, it is hard to digest in any more than short segments.

Namaste'

In my own opinion and based on my limited experience, when we are in a state of bliss we have no desires -- not even to teach. (And, this may come as a surprise to some who know me, we are not even concerned about feeding and sheltering our fellow human beings.)

Maybe it's a good thing that most of us don't remain in that state of bliss.

Once we leave that state of bliss, maybe it is natural to want to convey to everyone what we experienced. But it really doesn't translate well. Even Chopra, who is an excellent teacher, is limited by language.

Bob, what is it that you want to teach? If it is the principles that Chopra has written about, first begin to live these principles. I saw a glimpse of your doing just that in your post last night when you thanked even those of us who had been flippant.

When I suggested that the teacher must teach by example, I should have added:

And teach by setting an example.

terry already said it's all b.s. (and bob f agreed)

tells you where their coming from, i agree.

just hope i don't feel that way when my ability to overcome my conditioning fails

Well, Terry, one thing's for sure: I can't argue with that definition. :-)

There must be some activity or concept that, at least for analogy's sake, you associate with Life as you relate to it. Otherwise, I suspect, you would have trouble operating your keyboard, keeping yourself fed and healthy, moving around in traffic and crowds, tending to the job(s) you spend some of your energy on, and otherwise functioning in the day-to-day.

I know you enjoy being cryptic in your comments here, and that's one of your identifying characteristics. But it's much easier to relate to you when you speak as Terry or TO or to, and not as some other person you're just channeling for.

Your own life experiences carry much more weight -- for me -- than all the things you have read and assimilated. Just for what that's worth.

Thanks, Cathy, for the information about your reading, and your relationship to it. We seem to have similar responses to the reading part of it.

I'm looking forward to more from you about how you see all of this. I can't help with the meditation part, as I have only tried minimal amounts, with mediocre results.

While we were on vacation in September, to the Atlantic coast in NC and SC, I spent hours just sitting and grooving on the surf. I watched the full moon (and near full moon) several nights in a row as it rose over the ocean. At one point, Peggy asked me what all I was thinking about while I was doing all that sitting and watching. My response was "mostly nothing...just watching and enjoying." She said back, "You've been meditating then." And I said back, "Okay."

Most of the contemplative times I have spent have been without the formality of some exercise or deliberate focusing that I assume is involved in Meditation per se. However, I consider my private thoughts time to be of equal value -- for me -- to what others have described as their response to Meditation. As I see it, the time of "looking within" is not so much a matter of "how" as it is of "how well."

Pegasus........all points well taken. No disagreement on ANY of your hang-ups with lady.

Now Dave........you KNOW this is coming:

"It's".......

LIFE

(L)

Cathy I would hope you copied down Pegasus's "method" when she so graciously posted it a while back.

I might add that the copies I made were "eaten up" (received enthusiasticly) by many. The breath practice is the one "practice" I push in our society, just for the reason you state----time.

For MUCH more info, Ram Dass has a book called "Journey of Awakening" that covers many, if not all, the many and varied methods. Good source of information if nothing else.

Ok, Terry, if life isn't a game, then what is it?

hi dave...i have more to say to what you've asked...will have to be this evening... :-) Kids! Always demanding attention!Love! The nerve! ;-) Cathy

Dave--"life"-----No, it isn't a game. That is unless you THINK it is.

"It's" all a matter of where you're coming from.

Hi Dave,

I have been reading about philosophical kinda things since high school, and I'm almost 38--so quite a while. I also give thought when I'm not reading to what I've read and feel I've come a ways via that path...but I have never consistently meditated or practiced any thing similar--for me it's been talking to God, reading and contemplation.

However, I am very comfortable with what I've read and have long felt that what the masters acheived was what is possible for everyone...and it's what I am working toward--which is why I have come to a point where I'm not that interested in reading too much more (though certain things still catch my eye)--to me it's not so much a question of searching for what I believe anymore--I am fairly certain about the general ideas (some of the specifics are fuzzy, but not that important, IMO)It's more a matter of what path do I want to follow to get there ...which brings me to a question I wanted to ask those meditators out there...

I have read that all types of meditation will eventually lead to nondual consciousness, but that Zen and Vedanta focus on the causal and nondual levels of consciousness and might make the path "shorter". He also mentioned, but now I can't find the place, that certain methods are less "painful" than others as far as the changes that one goes through...I had never thought there had to be much pain involved ;-) And he does say at the end of the book that his experience (The dark night of the senses, and the dark night of the soul) was likely due to his conditioning that suffering was necessary....anyway...any suggestions on good books re meditation for a still newbie? And ones that can fit into a busy mothering/teaching schedule? :-) I'm shooting for 20 minutes once a day with brief moments during the day of stillness...

Thanks! Cathy

If that chess topic has more than passing interest, CLICK HERE for one of many web articles dealing with Kramnik's ascendancy, Kasparov's reactions, and other trivia.

Here's an attempt to "teach by example" that I would love some feedback on, as far as "effectiveness" is concerned.

In the world of chess, ratings (you can read that as "levels" with no harm done) are of great significance to the "serious player." As soon as a player participates in a USCF or FIDE event, how that player performs helps to determine his/her "rating" which is just a statistical measure of where that player fits in with all other "serious players." Those ratings range all the way from zero at the bottom to over 2800 at the upper levels. The "average rating" is somewhere around 1500 (no big surprise, right?)

In order to move up in rating a player has to continue to win against lower rated players, draw with those at roughly the same level while winning more than he/she loses, and win occasional games from higher rated players. There are even "ratings classes" extending from Class E for the lowest rung, through Class A on into Expert, Master, Senior Master, and (in international play) to International Master and International Grandmaster. These are just shorthand indicators of where a player's "current strength" is located. The more one plays and wins, the higher that rating goes.

But just to demonstrate how tenuous those ratings/classes/levels really are, the highest rated player of all time -- Garry Kasparov, with a rating over 2800 -- has just finished losing the title of World Champion to a lower-rated Grandmaster, Vladimir Kramnik.

The point is, I hope you can see, that "level" is just a momentary thing, and chess players will continue to play chess because it's something they're enjoying and trying to get better at. There are already computers and computer programs able to play at Grandmaster level. But you still find people (my grandson included) who want the intellectual challenge, and personal sense of accomplishment, of playing a "good game" of chess.

Isn't life just a sort of chess game?

Morning, Cathy. Thanks for the comment.

It appears to me that you have read quite extensively on the topics that crop up here. How comfortable are you with what you've read? How much do you feel it is possible to learn just from reading?

Dave--LOVED the quote about all being at the same level--being human! While we might say we knew that, it's a good reminder---all the other levels we talk about are true--but they pale in importance to remembering that we are all human, and, in my opinion, here together for a reason--

Cathy

Peggy

Nice teaching points! I'm printing out for myself :-)

Kate

Yes, my children teach me soooo much--and mostly spiritual things...they would have me practice what I preach, if you can imagine such an outrage ;-)It's funny, I read all these nice philosophical things, and then find my self with a three year old who's whining or not making sense and I wonder what Jesus or Buddha would do...:-) Probably not what I often do ;-) Polly Berends helps put the spiritual talk into parenting language, if any of you have kids...

Bob

I've read that seive analogy before...I think in Putting on the Mind of Christ? Anyway, as Kate said, I also think that we can learn from all levels--at the very least other levels offer practice of nonjudgment--a lovely ideal, but much harder when confronted with stuff one disapproves of or doesn't like. I would add that you might bring up discussion of topics that you want to talk about--I don't recall you doing so--or not much? Lastly, as you've often said here, and it would seem even more pertinent the higher one goes, it's really just a matter of continued practice--I believe your words were "meditate, meditate, meditate" :-) The kingdom of heaven is within and all that. For me, talking about ideas etc...is still helpful, but I suppose at some point it might not be. In other words, my own thought is that once we have chosen a path and have immersed ourselves in it truly, most questions would have their answers within us--which is true for all of us, of course....but once we have "heard" the still small voice, or whatever, we know this is true for us...I could be wrong! It's happened once or twice in my life ;-) And I would love to hear talk of things you're mentioning....oh yeah--one last point, it's been said that our lives are our best teachers, so whatever you have created in your life has something to show you--what that might be is something only you can know--but love and nonjudgment are two toughies in a world full of dualities...

Kate

Your mention of Path to Love has me wanting to read that --I had started it once, and wasn't "into" it at the time :-) I was reared as a Christian but don't consider myself one now, really. The idea of redemption as many Christians understand it is as you mentioned--a future event. But, after reading "Putting on the Mind of Christ" I would say that Christians also have an idea of redemption as an earthly possibility--that's what the Kingdom of Heaven within is about--and Marion equates this Kingdom with nondual consciousness, Deepak's 7th level, I believe... Marion also asserts that after many lifetimes etc...once we reach the nondual level, we join God in the nonearthly Kingdom of Heaven and suggests that there is likely stuff beyond this that we can't even fathom yet (I think I've got this right :-))But he also spoke about a time when life on earth would be the kingdom of heaven--when all people would have christ consciousness--I'm getting confused ;-)

Anywho, happy Sunday!:-)

Cathy

In addition to "sharing with equals" as an objective to be guided by, I also suggest "teaching by example" as an effective way of getting your views understood.

Before your questions post -- during some of the chit-chat that you seem uncomfortable with -- Kate made a very important point about how movies can bring out layers of "feeling" that other media may not be able to. She also said that books have that same ability in other contexts. The main idea there, as far as I'm concerned, is that if some concept or "mental construct" (one of Chris's favorite terms) is what you're trying to get across, one of the best ways -- for me -- to relate to that concept is by way of example.

Regardless of your position on Jesus, I hope you would endorse the idea that His parables and examples were a very crucial aspect of his teachings. Many of them are dense and hard to follow, not unlike Zen koan, but at least those stories and parables give the learner something more-or-less concrete to focus on.

This is just to say what I have said before, which is "use your own words" and avoid words that have vague meanings, even if you know what they mean.

As I read them, Bob, virtually every post since your questions were posted has been a serious (well, maybe semi-serious) effort to let you know that your eagerness to share your awareness is not being shunned. I see people, in their own ways, telling you several important things to consider (from their own perspective) while you make that effort. In my opinion, each of the posts since your questions deserves a careful and considerate re-reading. There's much wisdom -- and much caring -- in those posts.

From my own perspective, the point that I'm responding to most is that we're all at roughly the same level: that of being human. Other levels, to my way of thinking, are irrelevant. To deal with your fellow humans as equals is the best chance of learning while you teach.

Ego has been discussed here many times, I think. In A Path To Love Chopra says, "In spirit everyone is equal. This isn't just an abstract concept; it is the one perception that can overcome ego. If I feel superior to you, my superiority is rooted in self-image." I'd like to go beyond this level that I personally believe has been rehashed often to another aspect he talks about late in the book, that of Moksha, to be in ecstasy permanently. He describes three realizations and says "These three strokes of moksha require extreme purity and refinement of awareness to be sustained." (Italics mine) These three strokes are I am That, Thou art That, All this is That. Chopra equates moksha (roughly) with the Christian concept of redemption, but he interprets redemption as generally a future state, realized after death and therefore much more mystical than moksha which he says can be achieved here and now.

I'm interested in how the practicing Christians here perceive redemption, and also views on moksha--achieving ecstasy permanently. Here are a couple of other quotes from that section that might help:

"Ecstasy carries you completely outside your ego boundaries."

"In ecstasy you know yourself as cosmic ego, unbounded in time and space."

In light of your goals, perhaps, as someone else suggested, this forum really isn't the place for you. That is, of course, your decision to make. In the five years I've read and posted here, I've seen many discussions not only on the points Chopra makes, but--more importantly for me --discussions on how to apply those points to our lives and daily interactions. What is chat to you is learning for me. The hardest lesson is non-judgment and that translates to me as love and tolerance for all of the personalities and situations in which they live (or, if you prefer, the level to which they've either climbed or sunk). Everyone has taught me something about myself, but only I myself know what it is I'm doing with that knowledge.

Do you find you are learning from your children not only as you teach them, but in the other rooms of your lives together?

Bob F., I will share with you a few things that I learned from my days as a teacher. Take what applies and throw the rest away.

1. Get to know the students. Find out what they know and what they don't know. It takes time and the knowledge will vary from student to student.

2. Students are not usually interested in credentials but they can spot very quickly a teacher who is not well prepared.

3. Learn to love your students. They will know when you really love them. It can't be faked.

4. Teach by example. Demonstrate.

5. For every bit of negative feedback that you give, try to give at least three honest positive feedbacks. If you have trouble finding anything positive to say, you don't know your students well enough.

6. Be sure that you know the difference between proof and evidence. ;-)

7. Know your subject matter well but be aware that there is always more to learn. It's called continuing education and professional development.

8. Choose your "battles" carefully. There will be some things that you have no control over. Learn to live with it and teach around it. Or, better still, teach through it. (Use the chit chat.)

9. Learn what motivates each individual student.

10. On the day that you discover for yourself that you are learning from your students, then you can begin to teach.

11. Adapt your lesson plans. [When I was doing my student teaching, the college supervisor came to observe my class for the first time on just as theyearbooks were issued. As soon as the second bell rang, I told my students to put their yearbooks away. (We needed to get down to the serious stuff.)

In my follow-up conference, the college supervisor suggested that it would have been more practical just to acknowledge that their minds were going to be on those yearbooks and to allow them ten minutes or so to look through them before they had to put them away.

It was advice that served me well at various times over the next twenty years.]

12. Even the man known in many Western cultures as the greatest Teacher of all lost one in twelve.

13. LISTEN

cathy, yes i know which one you mean. in fact there is a link to it after the quote!

bob f, i KNEW you knew!

Cathy - We must have been composing at the same time but we are in agreement - there is no Right or Wrong level of awareness and we should not try and classify individuals in awareness levels - we all should lower our EGO barriers and keep our focus on learning.

However, awareness is like an inverted sieve. As you rise, you fit through smaller and smaller screens. At each level, you have to work on yourself to get through the next smaller screen. It is difficult for you to see upward through the screen to the next level but easy to see (and fall back) through the sieve to lower levels. You know what your level and lower levels are like but only conjecture on higher levels.

People at higher levels know where I am at in general - though I only have reasonable conjecture of what it is like to be at their level. There is nothing wrong with any of us but I definitely would like to learn from those with more awareness/consciousness and work my way up the sieve. If I can help someone move up the sieve along the way - great.

Namaste'

Oops! I really can spell ;-) I meant we've been at it ...pretty funny that a typo would occur while discussing education, eh? :-)

Richard

Yes, home-education is wonderful! We've be at it for 5 years "officially"--since my eldest began K...it has so many benefits in so many aspects of life...I am thankful everyday :-)

Blessings! Cathy

Dave R, Peggy, Cathy, Dick Skep - All very good responses to what I feel is a very legitimate question.

In reflection, I think I might have a possible answer - The thing that makes most of us defend our position rather than listen with open minds, regardless of our awareness level, is our EGO.

If we know something, it is hard to impart the knowledge without a little "Know It All" attitude - our ego neeeds the gratification. If someone is telling us something which is new to us, we often take the attitude "Oh Yea, Who Says" - our ego has the need to not appear dumb.

Also, we are each in both of these modes often. We are always encountering individuals operating from higher levels of awareness. More often, we encounter individuals operating from lower levels of awareness (just being here at the Forum for whatever reason implies a reasonable level of awareness). No one is Right and no one is Wrong - everyone is doing the best they can and what they must to increase their consciousness.

We all have been at the awareness level of being prejudice in one way or another. Hopefully, we have moved on from that level. However, it is impossible for us to tell a member in the KKK or the Neo Nazi Movements that they are wrong. They will not understand a thing we say. They are not Wrong and we are not Right - we are all Right given our level of awareness. However, both sides feel frustrated that others can't see their viewpoint.

The same goes for this Forum. You pick your level if you are into levels. I know where I am at and there are definitely people her operating from higher levels and from which I can learn and those operating from lower levels. I am here to learn and if I can help - great.

This place is a Forum for ideas, not a Chat Room. It is great to get little tid bits of peoples lives but the greater time here (IMO) should be spent on some good spirituality/awareness/consciousness issues. Topics - Synchronicity, Manifestation, Oneness, Duality, Meditation, EGO, Kundalini, Chakras, Karma, Askash, Awareness, Compassion, Love, Duality, etc., etc., etc.

Namaste'

Just perusing How To KNow God again...this caught my eye in the ground rules at the end :

"4. See everyone else in the light. The cheapest way to feel good about yourself is by feeling superior to others. From this dark seed grows every manner of judgment. Getting out of judgment is vital, and to plant that seed, you have to stop dividing others into categories of good and bad (knowers and unknowers ;-)) Everyone lives in the same light. A simple formula may help here. When you are tempted to judge another person, no matter how obviously they deserve it, remind yourself that everyone is doing the best he can from his own level of consciousness." Deepak Chopra

Neat quote Dick...sounds like the story about the master and the intellectual and the tea cup...know which one I mean? Thanks for sharing!

Cathy

It Is Okay Not to Know. By giving yourself permission not to know, you can overcome the fear that your ignorance will be discovered. When you can admit to ignorance, you will realize that if ignorance isn't exactly bliss, it is an ideal state from which to learn.
~Richard Saul Wurman

Empty your cup!

Geoff, thanks for the lovely link---I think the little green master (cyber-interruptus wormicus), should do more duty at this home.

TO, my coin isn't as big as the "congrats note", thanks much. My sponsor always says, "Richard,you've got one real enemy in this world, YOUR BIG FAT HEAD"

Cathy, very cool to hear you are doing home education. The three R's and the two L's (Love and Learning).

Curl up now with a sci-fi book, based on Quantum Mechanics.

Namaste' all!!!

Bob, perhaps if you would tell us what you know -- in your own words -- and give us some insight into those things you feel are valuable to us to know, your desire to share those things might lead us to a better understanding.

bob f: you don't know???

1. Failure to apply the law of detachment.

2. Karma? (See answer to question number 1)

Bob

What Dave said essentially covers how I view myself as well, so I can't answer from a personal perspective. But from what I do know, I think that those that truly know--vs just knowing intellectually--do not feel like they have to try to enlighten anybody. They might try to do so out of love for their fellow human and/or because they want to share the joy and peace that they know is available at a certain level of understanding. And it can be frustrating, I would think. I home-educate my children and know that it is frustrating when they don't "get" something that seems so simple to me or that we've discussed before...and I've also seen the difference it makes when I am patient vs not when that happens... you can't make anyone learn anything--from addition to metaphysics. But there are ways to draw people out, to educate them--which literally means to lead or draw out...and criticism of their knowledge level or of their motivation or lack thereof or of them personally is not very helpful--from my experience.

Your post suggests that you are one who knows--and I imagine you might with your 2 hours of meditation per day--I am impressed by your conviction and devotion to that practice. But the tone of your post is a bit judgemental as I read it, and impatient and doesn't convey any compassion for those who are not as in the know as you...I don't understand your seeming anger with the search...perhaps you'd be happier if this were a forum of people already at higher levels...but remember you were once like us--if not now, in some other life...how about a little patience? :-)Compassion for those of us that are trying and are confused. Understanding that not everyone is actually seeking to know what it is that you know...

I have a feeling that you might get angry with this post--I apologize in advance if that is the case...I am not writing to anger you...it just seemed a response was called for, and I was here...:-)

Cathy

C Silvia C

"What is it in those who don't know, that makes them feel they must defend their closed minded points of view at all costs, rather than explore new possibilities??"

I give up. What is it?

Just a postulation: maybe you are only assuming they are not willing to use their innate intelligence to honestly question and explore what they don't know. Bet you don't know my innermost thoughts and questions. :-)

Bob, maybe this link might shed some light on your questions.

Good evening, Bob.

You asked, "What is it in those who don't know, that makes them feel they must defend their closed minded points of view at all costs, rather than explore new possibilities??"

I count myself among the ones who don't know, but I don't think of myself as "closed minded" nor do I defend my point of view "at all costs." And I do like to explore "new possibilities." So, I don't think I can help much with your question.

I'm not qualified to answer that first question at all.

What is it in those of us who know what we know, that makes us feel we must try to enlighten those who are not willing to use their innate intelligence to honestly question and explore what they don't know????

What is it in those who don't know, that makes them feel they must defend their closed minded points of view at all costs, rather than explore new possibilities??

Namaste'

Terry, I used to use the word "boy" in the way that you do and it didn't "mean" anything to anyone who heard it. I would say things like, "Boy-hidey! It's hot in here!" It had nothing to do with whether or not the person that I was talking to was male or female.

But when I began to work with young African-Americans who had heard that word used to diminish their manhood, I realized that it had a very negative connotation for them and was hurtful. (There is more to the meaning of words than just the definition.) So I stopped using it. As a teacher, I wanted to have as few walls as possible between my students and me.

When I was a child, misbehaving boys were threatened with having to "sit with the girls." Someone who was a coward was a "sissy," another word with female connotations. If a drill sargent wants to insult male trainees what does she/he call them? Ladies. Being called any word associated with the female gender had the potential for being derogatory.

I very much appreciate your willingness to consider my feelings. I have figured out by now that I probably won't change your thinking. Your conditioning may not allow that to happen.

There are some men on the forum who have noticeably changed some of the traditional language patterns. Maybe it is a little thing to them but it made my heart sing! {{{Chris!}}} {{{Dave!}}}

Silvia, did you get that rush of adrenaline -- that natural high -- that comes with doing something that you are afraid of doing? I'm proud of you because I've been privileged to watch you blossom!

Terry:

I'm glad to know that you are willing to overcome your earlier conditioning.

Some of you know that I teach Kick and Box at the local community center and today I did something special. I faced one of my fears. I stood in front of an entire class & gave a workshop on how to teach the class to fellow instructors.I was nervous but I'm glad I did it and it seemed to have went well.

RICHARD!

FANTASTIC and CONGRATULATIONS

It's like I said earlier, no one but each individual incarnation really "knows" what it's taken to bring them to this time and place.

Very happy and proud of you and how you are manifesting today.

I bow.............embrace.........

LOL!

Pegasus I did just that (boy), and we became the best of friends (after the fight).

He gave me the "space" (understanding) to say it from then on, as it was just a part of my vocabulary. It still is.........."boy, am I tired", or "boy, that's great", or "oh boy",etc.

My grandmother taught me (explained to me) what a "lady" is and that's what I mean when I say it.

The "point" I'm trying to convey is that "who" ("what") is it that cares?

Not that you aren't a beautiful person now.....don't get this wrong........but underneath the habitual thought patterns, and RE-ACTION patterns, is that "place" within you of warmth, stillness, peacefulness......."LOVE".

That is real "soul" freedom.

"Thou art That", and that is the REAL you, and when we've let go of the fears that keep our worldly programming energized, we are in that "place", and can see as "God" sees.......the "observer".

No, I won't be using the word Lady except in a general usage, such as "ladies and gentlemen", or some such fashion, when/if I'm just speaking to the Akash.

Those quotes sound pretty good to me, especially the part about "continuing the search."

Hope we can exchange more ideas about this communication topic, since your insights have given me some food for further thought.

Enjoy the silence, if that ever happens in your life. :-)

Dave

I'm always around ;-) But after this post will be busy most of the day...no time to respond really, but a quote came to mind that I thought applied to the whole issue of communication...it's from CWG:

" Not knowing leads to knowing. Knowing it all leads to not knowing anything." "A little less assurance that you know it all, and a little more willingness to continue the search, to acknowledge that there may be something that you do not know--the knowing of which could change everything." Call it humility theology...

Later! Cathy

TO, thanks for asking.

woman: an adult female person

That's a perfectly good word. Why not use it?

"Lady" implies something about social standing and behavior. So it is really inaccurate in reference to me.

If you prefer that I refer to you as a "gentleman," I will be more than happy to accomodate your feelings. (At least it contains the word man!) :-)

Women my age were brought up to be "well-behaved" at the expense of our real selves -- our very spirits. That's why it is a sensitive issue with some of us.

Men have not had to make a point of their adulthood the way that women have.

Please read again the analogy to an African-American being called "boy." If an African-American seventeen year old asked you not to use the word boy in reference to him, would you quote the definition of boy or would you try to understand where he is coming from?

Finally, yes, I will take offense if you use the word lady in reference to me now that you know that I don't like it. Your use of it would tell us more about you than it would about me.

I do believe your take on the issue of analyzing or discussing and in-progress argument is a very wise one. The participants are most likely in one mode of thought/feeling that is most likely not shared at the proper level by the onlookers. Maybe anything said to any of the participants in such debates is only adding more fuel to the fire.

I personally feel deeply for Peggy when she happens to be one of the contestants in such a thing. We do have our private (offline) discussions about her feelings and interpretations, and I can give her feedback on how she's coming across and how I think she's being perceived by others. That's a luxury she and I have that may not be shared by others who post here. If there are other spousal units (or their counterparts) participating here, I'm unaware of it.

It puts me in a very awkward position. I want to defend Peggy when I know she's just being misunderstood, but I also trust her to speak for herself. She has no similar compunctions when I'm the one in the hot seat.

But that "special status" aside, since we do address these issues offline, I can see that intervening/interrupting in a debate in progress here is a much trickier affair. And I think the wise course is (if possible) to carry on other business without invading that space where the argument is taking place. Now, how do we use this same posting space without interrupting? Is that even possible?

Beautiful, Cathy! I'm going to take time to read your post carefully, but just wanted to say "thanks" for the extended reply! You going to be around to discuss this a little? I'll be back in less than five minutes!

Dave

Yes, that did help :-) I will offer my thoughts, for whatever value they might or might not have for others....my answers you "I" and "we"--but I am only speaking for myself and my own understanding of people--accurate or not :-)

1) What motivates us to be confrontational? I am typically confrontational when I perceive that my ideas shared are belittled or when the arguments against them make no sense to me or are offered in a "rude" way--BUT, I think the primary thing behind these things bothering me to begin with is an inaccurate understanding of the big picture :-)It's the separate me against the others out there idea that tends to reinforce one's desire to "be heard"...I see no problem with expressing our ideas etc...but have come to think that trying to persuade others to our position or doggedly saying the same thing until we get some acknowledgement is not necessary when we understand the nature of reality. Remember--this is my opinion :-). And I have not been put to the test to see if I can follow my own advice ;-) I guess the short answer is we become confrontational when we are attached to our ideas being understood or at least acknowledged as valuable by others.

2) Where should we stop in trying to make or defend some point or issue? I'd say after one or two exchanges if there appears to be no interest in your ideas or asking for more clarification by the other party--clarification not "proof" :-)

3) Using the actual posts at this forum as cases in point, without focusing so much on the individual personalities behind those posts as on the messages and their methods of presentation, what we can we provide as sensitive and constructive criticisms to the others who post here on ways of improving effectiveness of communication? This one is tricky, I think...I think people in general are not really open to comments or constructive criticism on how they communicate :-( Especially amidst a disagreement...I thought it big of Peggy to ask us recently about her style of discussion. Perhaps many of us here would be open to input--but not necessarily unsolicited? Add to this the issue of individual perception of styles and things said, and it gets complicated! I also think that comments about communication during an "argument" even if personalities are not mentioned, will be taken personally because it'd likely be apparent to whom the comment applied, don't you think? Then that person, already engaged, would just feel further "attacked"...I think it is the very nature of arguing that might close people off--not so much the suggestions themselves, but the mindset when offerred. Personally, I find it comforting when others post in my "defense" when I am persoanlly involved in a disagreement--and maybe it is helpful to the "other" party if they see that several people percieve them in a similar light...but the most helpful input in terms of wisdom in my view is the gentle reminders to be kind and to keep the big picture in mind (the ones that say in effect, this fighting is beneath me, I'll come back when you're at my level--while honest, perhaps, are not as helpful in my view, because they seem to be judging--though I will say that on occassion, sensing that my behavior "disgusts" someone, I do not react, but indeed look at what I'm doing---it all depends on who I am that day :-)

4) What can we provide, as people trying to live by some of the principles espoused by the wiser ones quoted here, as interpretations that maximize the quality of what we say, and minimize the personal attacks on personality? This question is similar to the previous one, for me...and I think the wisest principles expressed here have to do with love, non-attachment to the ego (which is not a rational idea and which does not really fit in with being logical and reasoning--which have their own merit to an extent), and realization that it's all BS, as TO says, though in a light-hearted sense :-)

5) How can we be more honest with each other, without hurting each other? I think by expressing our views and trying to see that whether or not others embrace them or agree with them or even give them the consideration we feel they deserve--is not the issue. On the other hand, I think we should try to consider what others are saying before we simply dismiss them out of hand--I suppose I see communication as a paradoxical issue: on the one hand what others say about what we say doesn't matter. But on the other hand, we do well to listen to what they say and can learn things that we might not otherwise see...two quotes come to mind that apply--"talk is cheap" and "there is no problem so big that talking it out will not work (or something like that--from a card I saw once :-))

Anyway, there you have it. :-) Perhaps a general discussion of these things while no one is fighting might be good...perhaps no :-).

Regardless, thanks for your efforts! Cathy

Interrupt? It's Saturday, for heaven's sake! This is chit-chat time, isn't it?

Terry, more to the spirit of your post, as I relate to it, I do think we all have to allow each other some leeway in how we find our words. We can be empathetic to each other's life experiences, especially after some have gone to the trouble to risk sharing those painful life experiences here. It often takes that willingness to share our "dark sides" for others to connect with us at some level other than the surface one.

I just feel that when we cling to "our rights" too hard and too vigorously, especially when we become defensive about those rights, it begins to heat up around here and communication takes a back seat while agendas drive (bad analogy and mixed metaphors aside).

interesting discussion, i won't interrupt but just say hello! Dave, To, and Kate, instead. hope you all have a great weekend! :)

Another word to find a synonym for: cosmic! But the intervention of Terry's post in the middle of ours helps me think it through. All three of us were thinking, separately and/or together, on the word problem. His post was synchronous for me which says that I attach more of a mental/intellectual meaning to the word synchronicity. Coincidence must to me denote more a physical occurrence.

Terry, as I read Peggy's responses to you about your choice to use "lady" in referring to Peggy, she will see it as your insensitivity to her feelings. If you just must use that word out of your own needs to express what you feel or mean, it just means your own needs take precedence over hers. She has tried many ways to tell you the word is offensive to her -- and why. If you must have it your way, she will have to adapt. You have every right to use the word of your choice. She has every right to be offended by it.

If you mean to be courteous to Peggy, try the simple word "Peggy" as a substitute for "lady." I bet you a week's pay she won't complain about it.

Well, Kate, I must confess that after I read F. David Peat's book on "Synchronicity" and found all the Jungian and Paulian influences on the concept, I still have the firm conviction that "coincidence" is the way I see the phenomenon.

Not that there haven't been those "startling coincidences" in my own life that I have had to cope with and try to understand. There have been. But to try to bring those coincidences into a context of something "cosmic" (your word) just seemed too big a stretch to have to make.

How familiar with "Occam's Razor" are you? That's a worthy principle to apply, as far as my thinking goes.

The ONLY way to explain my last post.

"synchronicity"

Have a great day ya'll.

Re: movie in particular. It is visually seeing people in situations you may have been in yourself, that you relate to. Sometimes the books are more meaningful because the author can express the feelings to you in a way you feel more intensely. Both have the value of making one feel "yeah, that's it!"

continuing with lady:

USAGE NOTES:
"Lady is normally used as a parallel to gentleman to emphasize norms expected in polite society or in situations requiring courtesies: “Ladies and gentlemen, your attention please. I believe the lady in front of the counter was here before me.”"

Pegasus from your comment earlier, am I to understand that if I use that "word" you'll take offense?

The reason I'm belaboring this is that maybe we'll all "see" where we hold different "concepts and opinions" about why, what, etc. a person would use "such language", and CLASSIFY that person in a "niche" from our experience.

For instance now, should I happen to use that word (lady), will you take it to mean I'm "in your face"-----not caring about your feelings?

In becoming "egoless"--- detached, defenseless, it requires that we have to assume that a person is coming from a place of "wanting to help".

IN MY OPINION, there are none here who aren't truly "seeking" (that have stuck around at least).

There's not ONE of us who hasn't "fought" their way to what we know and the hardships we've been thru to get to this time and place. AND ONLY WE KNOW what it's taken to BE HERE NOW.

Love you all.

Namaste'

Coincidence seems too haphazard for a synchronistic event. The latter implies to me that it was meant to happen for whatever reason, real or cosmic. I'll think on finding another word. Meanwhile, the one word that gets me every weekend isgrocery. Staples are dangerously low. Think I'd better pursue the practical quest. Hope to see you later...

As you *know* :-) Peg and I love movies, too. What do you think it is about a movie that makes so much more sense than a textbook (or even a book in general)? And how can that be related to when a book is so much "better" than the movie they make on it?

Okay, keep "synchronicity" if it is all you can think of to say that idea. But how about "coincidence" as a substitute? If that's not a good alternative, what's the major difference as you relate to it?

Certainly! The "show" versus "tell" approach does connect much better with me. Carl Sagan's "Cosmos" series (which, by the way, is due to be re-released on CD's and DVD's as well as videotape) was so fine in that respect. When you see that alternative presented, that different slant, that different perspective, it helps to clarify the fuzzy parts of what you "know" and eliminate the crud that you didn't really "know" to start with.

You have to filter out the b.s. in print and movies, but you do that in everyday exchanges, too. Hey, I still like synchronicity! :-)

Maybe that's why I so enjoy reading and watching movies. I find metaphors or stories that tell me the same thing, or show me something I hadn't thought of. Maybe that's why some people resist certain classes in school, i.e., they learn in a different way. Ever notice how interactive discussion classes appeal more than lectures? At least to me--did you feel that way, too? I could certainly learn facts in a lecture class, but a book (movie) about the double helix taught me faster and I retained the knowledge longer.

I would add to that list of words that have lost whatever punch they may have had somewhere in the past:

ego
IT
manifest
enlighten (and its offshoots)
illusion
synchronicity
karma
quantum

There must be dozens of others!

Those are some words that detract from my being able to relate, too. So often we get to thinking there's only one way to say sonething, as if those very words are all that can be used to describe that particular something. If we search for synonyms, or alternatives to the particular expression that is so common that it has become trite, we may just be able to bring the idea back into clearer focus.

Good point, Kate!

We posted at the same time! I had just posted two to go on!

You're a word meister, Dave. Don't you think just sheer terminology gets in our way? Think I'm going to drop the words "shadow" and "projection" and a few others from my vocabulary for awhile. :-) I'll retain the concepts and make up other words for myself.

A questionm you say. Okay.

What words are almost certain to stand in your way when someone is trying to get you to see their point? What words trigger such emotional response from you that the rest of what's being said just goes up in smoke?

Internal clocks. In the process we do learn, as Dick says.

Morning! Those are surely important things to consider. Remember all those "Be Here Now" admonitions and recommendations we saw a while back? That's mostly where I'm coming from.

Lots o' things to think about in what you ask. My first thought is that you've asked the questions and that's good, ergo maybe that's one way of dealing with what pisses us off about a statement someone else makes. Why not ask a question first to clarify? If we can't explain our thoughts/positions to someone after awhile, then the differences have to be accepted. Don't think there's any golden line in the sand shimmering there to tell us when to stop, though. Something inside has to guide that and that only develops with each day in our lives, each interchange. At least, that's what I have experienced so far.

Anybody lurking around this morning? Wanna say "Hi!" or something?

hi R!! :)

Richard

Good to hear from you. To read the words another Richard who writes about the beauty of nature and the great outdoors (which is where you all ought to be really instead of staring at this screen - you should all be ashamed) ...

Richard Jefferies

Have a nice day.

Cathy, I think your comments about what I was trying to advocate deserve a little more frankness from me. That passage is a bit dense, I agree.

How's this for plainer language:

1) What motivates us to be confrontational?

2) Where should we stop in trying to make or defend some point or issue?

3) Using the actual posts at this forum as cases in point, without focusing so much on the individual personalities behind those posts as on the messages and their methods of presentation, what we can we provide as sensitive and constructive criticisms to the others who post here on ways of improving effectiveness of communication?

4) What can we provide, as people trying to live by some of the principles espoused by the wiser ones quoted here, as interpretations that maximize the quality of what we say, and minimize the personal attacks on personality?

5) How can we be more honest with each other, without hurting each other?

Well said, Dick. Good points. Thanks for the observations.

hadi, where did you fall down from and who put you up there

dave, the message i got from your post is that you have a desire to improve your communication skills. if that was the message intended, then based on that post alone, i would have no recommendations for improvement.

except for hadi's, i really haven't seen many negative posts directed at you, especially regarding your communication skills. when asked "what's the beef" hadi gave no reason. if he had a problem with the way you communicate he didn't say so.

you may want to give more consideration to whether or not you want to allow negative feedback to "sting" you and also what the REAL message might be. if someone has to resort to namecalling, the feedback i get from that has little if anything to do with me and more to do with what's going on with them. if after careful consideration, it still stings, then maybe there is some truth to it, only you would know. in the case of hadi, it may just be that he is unhappy/angry/upset about something that has nothing at all to do with the forum. his latest posts have me convinced this is the case.

Hi Annie, I think we all had a good time. It has always been my experience, that if you can help someone/anyone connect with a wonderous Nature experience. Everyone connects around/through it. Those are some of the experiences that offset, some of the tougher days at work.

B&N gives a 30% employee discount, probably so they can pull books out of the hands of their "bookish" employees and set them aside for sale.

Funny experience at work, with a coworker. She overheard me and another employee saying, "everything happens the way it's supposed to". She was totally baffled, but seems like she's always struggling with control issues, rigidity, etc, and the resultant stress. Feel sorry for her, I used to think that the mind that got me into jams could "power" me out of them.

Hi T.O. (13yrs, last mo.), Carol, and the rest of you valiant scrappers, carry on. Namaste'

Funny. Tina and I grew up about thirty miles apart in a rural area.

Chris, you are right, of course, about taking the good and leaving the rest. Maybe I've already mentioned it here but one of my favorite books, Women Who Run with the Wolves was based on Jungian psychology. That book has been thoroguhly highlighted and underlined. It is not just for women.

I will just have to keep reminding myself that Jung was from a different age.

What's Tina got to do with it Hadi?

I hear you, Cathy! Thanks!

Now putting it into practice is something else...

Earlier today I said the following to Hadi:

"Although that (about my grandchildren being partly Irish) was not exactly what I said, do you really think that is a good example of the kind of labelling I was talking about?

I am specifically angry with you for the reasons that I gave a few days ago. I am also angry because you brought our private conversation here when my comments were made to you in a confidence that you agreed to. So now that seal is broken."

The confidence that you broke had to do with my comments to you about my grandchildren. That conversation took place in a private place.

Nevertheless, your comments on women speak for themselves.

Dave

I'm not sure I understand what you mean :-) You said

"my suggestion for "speaking up" about the act of these "heated debates" as opposed to the content of them (and by extension the personalities involved) was to try to use the whole notion of such processes to gain useful information about ourselves."

Do you think you could give me an example? I'm not trying to be dense, honest :-) And I too applaud the idea of trying to understand each other and "getting along"--I think these are important life skills :-)I just don't see how it would work---the talking about the act of a heated debate vs the content...

I'm thinking about things that have gone on here that I've read...as I see snide remarks or attempts to go back to original texts one too many (IMO) times, I then speak up and say something like "Snide remarks hinder good communication, in my opinion.."--something like that? I guess if several people read the comment as snide, it might cause the speaker to think...but otherwise, they might just think it was our own faulty perception...;-) Help me out here, please :-)

Peggy As for your post about how you communicate...I think it very big of you to be open to such a thing, first of all...I don't know...I think (my opinions :-)) your "attacks" are typically logical and direct...you have definite opinions and don't worry about angering people--which is good and bad...I do not see you as venomous until you are truly "mad"---and at that point it's going back and forth...you're quite tenacious :-) Again, good and bad, in my opinion :-) Anyway, I don't have much to offer in terms of advice...I think it's good that you are looking at how you are and think we all do well to always do that...I also thinkwe have to just accept that we do not all agree on things...and after a go or two at expressing our ideas just let it go...I've been reading about the nondual level of consciousness, and think that that is the ultimate truth--at least for now ;-) and so while we may champion certain causes etc...and that is well and good, in truth in the end it really doesn't matter that we convince people of our ideas etc...there are several Christian mystics you might enjoy reading about who've reached the nondual level...or maybe not :-)

Hope this helps?

Love, Cathy

There’s a plain moon in the sky
The kind you make your wishes on
Like the light in your eyes
The one I built my dreams upon
It’s not there any longer
Something happened somewhere
And we both no why
But me, I’m getting stronger
We must stop pretending
I can’t live this life
I don’t care who’s wrong or right
I don’t really wanna fight no more (too much talking babe)
Let’s sleep on it tonight, I don’t wanna fight no more (This is time for letting go)
I hear a whisper in the air
It simply doesn’t bother me
Can’t you see that I don’t care
Or are you looking right through me
Seems to me that lately
You look at me the wrong way and I start to cry
Could it be that maybe
This crazy situation is the reason why
I don’t really wanna fight no more (too much talking babe)
Let’s sleep on it tonight, I don’t wanna fight no more (Tired of all these games)
But baby don’t you know
That I don’t wanna hurt no more (It’s time, I’m walking babe)
Don’t care now who’s to blame
I don’t wanna fight no more (This is time for letting go)
Hanging on to the past
It only stands in our way
We had to grow for our love to last
But we just grew apart
No, I don’t wanna hurt no more
But baby, don’t you know
No I don’t wanna hurt no more (Too much talking babe)
Don’t care now who’s to blame
I don’t wanna fight no more (Tired of all these games)
I don’t care who’s wrong or right
I don’t wanna fight no more (It’s time, I’m walking babe)
So let’s sleep on it tonight
I don’t wanna fight no more (It’s time for letting go)

~ Tina Turner from "What’s Love Got To Do With It."

Anyway, just to set the record straight,it wasn’t such a private conversation, Peggy, it was here at the forum. We were having several debates in tandem. And if you were to visit the posts between September 3rd - 5th 1999 you would find they were in quite good humour. I was sharing the Christopher Hills wisdom on levels of consciousness and at the same time we were talking about feminist attitudes spurred on by your comment, "Do all men think stereotypically?"

I think I said something about this being a feminist attitude or something, and you said "There is no feminist point of view". To which I had responded :

"On Friday, September 3, 1999, Hadi .@200.36.14.48 said:

Dear Peggy: "There is no feminist point of view!" I never said there was. I talked about a feminist attitude, this is rather vague and general, I know. One does associate the word "feminism" with certain "models" of perception, and I am sure these are different from those of the feminists themselves. What I mean by this is the sort of forthright, indignant and often derisory and hostile attitude that some women "project" when it comes to female socio/political issues that often polarise the sexes. In short, the stereotyped feminist. I do not find that she represent the common woman at all, and I don't think she is out there. She is a media creation. Her attitudes are nevertheless reflected by other women in a "conditioned" parrot fashion when the appropriate stimulus or trigger appears. Personally I find it rather underdeveloped and tired. And yes, you are quite right there are some women who are men bashers. Surprisingly I have observed this rather primal projection often right here in the Forum, of all places. It is certainly very common in society and the media, and we men tend to take it with good humour because we recognise that there is some truth in it. But I am often surprised because "here" I felt the participants were more evolved. I would add that not all women are feminists. If you speak to feminist "leaders" of the sixties movement, many now openly admit that it was a Lesbian led movement. As such it was led by women who's sexuality was ambiguous."

It had all been perfectly friendly and playful up until here, but the lesbian comment made it a bit more lively and contentious, but still quite cordial, actually. You challenged my comment by naming the leaders you knew and the fact that you never had any notion that they were lesbian. I think you said something to the effect that none of them ever made a pass at you! We laughed!
Here is a bit more of what I actually said.:

On Saturday, September 4, 1999, Hadi .@200.36.14.61 said:

Peggy I am sorry that my understanding and information about the feminist issues appears in such stark variance with yours. I'm quite certain I am not anywhere near completely right, nor am I any authority on the feminist issue. It has never really interested me that much. My views are coloured by a narrow experience and perspective based on books, documentaries and my personal "sense" of women from different walks of life. I am not making up the Lesbian thing. It is something I read and also heard debated on British television with such speakers as Germaine Greer (sp?). Your responses educate me to realise what I already knew, "not all feminists are lesbians". Perhaps you thought I was making this generality.

So, it wasn’t even my opinion, I was just relaying what I had heard from the "horses mouth" in the form of Germaine Greer, the author of "The Female Eunuch". It wasn’t even my view.I had made it clear that I was nowhere near right but that there had to be some truth in the matter because of this "leaders" claims. Germain Greer was then dismissed as an unimportant "European" feminist, which is far from the truth. Greer is considered a feminist icon. I ended humorously with a red Splat *.

Let's just call it a mistake or a misunderstanding, shall we?

The past few weeks haven't done too much for my self worth and I would be lying if I said I was unaffected by what has passed. I'm sure I played my part in my own downfall, much as outlined by Jung in his passages on Shadow projection. In any case, I've had enough.

Unwashed: Buy some soap and don't forget to brush your teeth.

In the sense that there are valuable points to be taken from even the simplest post (the one word ones included)I would agree that "It's ALL good."

However, I think that some personal attacks -- such as some that you yourself have been subjected to -- are "good" only in the sense that you, Dick, (or whomever) can get a bit of feedback that you're not totally endorsed for your methods of injecting your observations. I have had similar feedback and it often stings.

I'm trying to take the negative comments to heart and to consider ways I can be more effective in stating my opinions so that it is the issue being addressed, instead of me as a person. If it's purely personal ill will, I can surely cope with that (I hope). But if I have failed to say something (that I had hoped would be useful to somebody) simply because I wasn't using the right words I would like to improve that much of my own technique in trying to communicate better.

Take this very post and tell me where I can improve in that respect. Please.

Dick, the full quote would read "When people disagree on something, there's a better chance at some mutual resolution of the issues by discussing them than there is by leaving them in the background to fester."

I still believe that.

It's ALL good!

My last post was addressed to Cathy simply because Cathy raised the point about "taking sides." It was really meant as a comment to the forum and not just to Cathy. Same holds for mentioning Dick and Bob, since their own reactions to the idea were things I wanted to reply to.

I honestly believe that with the energy some have been expending on posting here, that there ought to be some good we could all gain from it -- friends and foes alike.

Cathy, my suggestion for "speaking up" about the act of these "heated debates" as opposed to the content of them (and by extension the personalities involved) was to try to use the whole notion of such processes to gain useful information about ourselves. I am not suggesting taking sides. I am not, as Dick hinted, trying to move us to some Utopian mutual agreement on all these things. It would be foolish of me (or anyone else, I propose) to hope that the varying views on the spiritual matters discussed here would ever boil down to a few cliches and catch phrases we could all mumble to ourselves and make it through any tough situation that cropped up.

What I am suggesting is that we could examine some of the ways that these debates develop, and how discussion techniques might be improved if we focus on the "how to" aspect of disagreeing with each other. Since many of us have had a "nemesis" or "adversary" at one time or another (I could list several who have appeared in the three years I've been visiting here) I contend that each of those with that experience could share some insights on "what's effective" and "what's ineffective" in the challenging of ideas or positions.

As for choosing sides, and that sort of thing, I suspect each of us has some favorites and some not-so-favorites, and, as Bob suggests, actual parties in the "real world" might never include all of us, even if somebody had the audacity to invite us all. Many just wouldn't show up to such an event, for whatever reasons.

But since we have the opportunity here -- in this forum -- to deal with the issues at our leisure and in relative isolation from the dirty looks and physical threats that might come from that "actual party" somewhere, I would hope that we could be a little more forthright in how we see each other's techniques as working and not working for whatever good it might do.

At least it is something we can all see and recognize as having a high likelihood of being "real life" as we know it.

i am trying to locate three copies of depook chopra's 2001 page-a-day calendar. can you help me? thank you edwina mcedward

dear Unwashed, please don't speak for me. Hadi was critical and felt he had some issues but i do not feel he was nasty to me. i have chose not to argue or defend my viewpoints, here, many times and due to that, there has been many misunderstandings. i blame no one but myself for this.

It is a two way street.

I've read for a long time and agree it's mostly personalities. Hadi just can't stand disagreement with his opinions and beliefs. Everyone else is always wrong and he has to tell them how ignorant they are. Not long ago he was very nasty to Carol. I don't know how she can stand him. People are his friends until they disagree, then they're enemies. Until they agree with him again. He must keep a list that he adds to, then crosses off. He's jumped on Chris and to and Ravi and on and on. Looks like Peggy is on that list now, and Kate, too. (I think she was Karen trying to get in some of her thoughts, but Hadi didn't catch on and called her a "newcomer," explaining it all to the poor dumb thing like he did with Cathy.) When someone isn't in his good favour, he eventually belittles them whether he knows them or not. If he has an opinion of an author's viewpoint, why doesn't he just say that instead of heaping on scorn with namecalling? This is why I don't post. I'd just be labelled part of the rest of the group of The Unwashed. Why do I read? There are other people with interesting views, so I'm afraid I'll miss something, and I realise sometimes it is entertainment.

I am frequently misinterpreted here -- and by several different people. (Examples: several people have thought that I am a non-believer or that I don't find value in Deepak's writings.) That makes me wonder if the problem is within me. Is there any way that I can make my beliefs clearer?

Also, are my attacks as venomous as some people say? I've been very honest about my anger and I am aware that it causes problems for some. But I don't think that I have been as disrespectful as the posts which have been in response to mine. Is this just blindness on my part? Would anyone be kind enough to take the time to point out what I have said that is so awful other than those statements of my opinions? Should I refrain from expressing my opinions when they are not flattering? These are honest questions and not rhetorical. I would like to know what you think -- even if you feel more comfortable doing it anonymously. As long as it isn't an aggressive response, I will try to be non-defensive.

Hadi was right when he said that I often read with an eye for finding something to disagree with. (Those were not his exact words.) I don't know why I do this other than generalized anger and contentiousness. I will do some thinking about this but I don't know that it will change much. I've been this way for a long, long time.

I don't mind admitting when I am wrong and it is proven to me. I almost instantly open up to others who do that. I learn better from people who are willing to admit that they make mistakes and those people who demonstrate in their actions toward me the wisdom they have gained. When I am met with pretty words or lofty ideals by anyone who treats me like I am poison or who says as much, my response is anger rather than learning.

I hope that this message is read as an effort to communicate real concerns about my posts and my reading of the posts of others.

bob f, that's very interesting

In the spirit of Dave's post, I'm going to try to address some of the problems that I have with communication here. My comments are not directed toward any specific person. These are recurring problems I have had over the years.

I preface a lot of my statements with in my opinion or I believe or I think or it seems to me. If I were writing an essay, I would leave those statements out in order to be more forceful. But I use them at the forum for several reasons:

1. It is an admission that I might be wrong.

2. It makes my statements more truthful. For example, I can tell you that "in my opinion" the room is too cold. Since I'm the only one who knows what my opinion is, that statement is not in dispute.

3. I know that I am more open to comments posted with these qualifiers and there is always hope that others will be more open to my ideas.

4. Using these qualifiers makes the posts more assertive and less aggressive.

When I said that one person here was a sexist, I should have added "in my opinion." There have been other times that I have omitted it unintentionally.

It would be helpful to me if others used these expressions. You would be more likely to get your message across -- if that is what you want to do.

Dave, in the spirit of your request for openness, I want to let others here know that the Irish thing referred to so frequently took place at another site quite awhile back, and I, too, was a party to that disagreement. I didn't understand the vehemence into which it lapsed then and don't understand why that has lingered. I don't think it's appropriate to bring it here to the forum. I do have it printed out. I am a very visual person. If I want to re-read something in order to understand it better for myself (and to understand myself), I print it out to read more carefully. In addition, I felt at the time there was something beyond that discussion, too, and that "the Irish" was the tip of some iceberg.

TO, thanks for the "warning." None of those categories fit me. But even if a category did fit, I would still ask respectfully that you not use "lady" in reference to me.

When I was teaching, I always avoided using the term "boy" to describe any of my African-American male students. Even though my students were "boys and girls," I knew that it was a sensitive issue for them. They had to make a point of their manhood and I could understand and respect that.

I'm not the Virgin Mary and my social rank is irrelevent, don't you think?

Appreciate the feedback. :-)

Dick Skep - You make it sound like a bad thing. First of all, I do meditate to run away - to run away from thoughts, to run away from emotions and to run away from ego. Also, I run to meditation as a refuge in Spirit - all else as TO says is B/S.

Second, when those I dislike are in my face, I will do what I do at a party - outwardly say "That is very Interesting", inwardly ignore them and physically go to the other side of the room.

Carol - Thanks. I do loose it once in a while and invaribly it is when I have been meditating less than normal. The last few weeks we have had house guests and I have only been getting in my hour in the morning versus twice a day - I guess it showed! Gotta keep on top of meditate/meditate/meditate.

Namaste'

For future reference, please accept the following meaning when/if I use the word lady or ladies. From Merriam's:

la·dy
Pronunciation: 'lAd-E
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural ladies

1 : a woman of property, rank, or authority; especially : one having a standing equivalent to that of a lord -- used as a title
2 capitalized : VIRGIN MARY -- usually used with Our
3 : a woman of high social position

Thank you.

Right on the money Kate! I just love that first quote and thanks for the link. I feel we all could learn about our own stereotyping, and Dr. Thiedke's article is a great mind opener in my opinion.

instead of tossing out your beliefs ON the forum, how 'bout tossing them out before you come to the forum?

Found this while roving the other day. It seems applicable:

"There is widespread agreement among psychologists who study human behavior that we are all "cognitive misers." That is, we attempt on almost every occasion to reduce the real world to manageable terms. Thus, we do not perceive persons in all their multifaceted complexity. Instead, we simplify and categorize people to avoid being overwhelmed by information.1"

"The problem with stereotypes is that we usually treat people based on the assumptions we've made. We think we know much more about them than we really do. Although our assessment may seem quite valid to us, the truth is that these labels, these perceptions, don't come from the outer world but instead come from inside--from behind our eyes. These perceptions devolve for the most part from our past experiences. We can overcome these perceptions, but only with a lot of resistance and only if we are frustrated in our attempts to do something based on them."

This is where I found the above: http://www.aafp.org/fpm/961000fm/thiedke.html

but bob! what are you going to do when one of those people you dislike walks right up to you and starts talking to you?

are you going to run away and meditate?

good for you Bob!

great post, Chris!

I know who you are now, Dick! (VBS)

and to, don't forget meditate, meditate, meditate...

i would hate to see Peggy, Dave, or Hadi leave the Forum, too.

thank you, Cathy, good questions.

I have read quite a bit of Jung and feel he made some great contributions to consciousness/awareness/psychology.

Having the advantage of looking back in time, I feel he was a groundbreaker and in the forefront of Westerners starting to understand Eastern concepts. However, I believe he was fairly far off in left field when it came to understanding things like Kundalini and Spirit.

Then again, if he was alive and making observations today (given all we have learned), he would probably be able to add to our current understanding.

Jung and Gender
(from someone trying not to throw the baby out with the bath water)

(excerpt)
It is unlikely that a man can objectively perceive the psychology of women, viewing it, as he is, through his own male psyche. While there seems to be no way out from the subjectivity of perception, we must at least recognize that subjectivity and be careful of projecting male concepts onto women (and vice versa, of course). It is now generally recognized that women have been misrepresented by men’s distorted--either negative or overidealized--views of them, including some of the personality theories developed by male psychoanalysts.

I have taken a meditation/reading break and caught up on the recent postings.

When I stand back and look at the goings on, it reminds me of a party. You go to the party because you like most of the people and consider them friends. However there are always the same few there whom you don't like and with whom you would never socialize if it were just you and them. You can't ask them to leave the party, you can just keep your distance across the room.

From now on, when I do post, I will toss out my beliefs (for what they are worth), learn what I can and stay across the room from those with whom I would prefer not to socialize.

Namaste'

"When people disagree on something, there's a better chance at some mutual resolution of the issues..."

is mutual resolution of the issues the goal?

When people disagree on something, there's a better chance at learning.

there, that sounds better to me and may even help to explain some of my motivation (for people like cathy who inquired)

Namaste'

Keeping in "mind" (ha) it's all B/S.............play on.

practice.....practice.....practice

(clearing....clearing.....clearing)

thanks for explaining your motivation for calling people numbskull and stooge

but i already concluded that it was due to: a) your lack of ability to sustain an argument b) your limited knowledge of the subject matter c) your ego taking control

now tell me something i don't know

at least with "labels" there is some constructive feedback (truth hurts don't it hadi), but i'm not sure that playground namecalling has the same effect

Hi all

Dave, I'm not sure I agree that what you suggest is a good idea...though I do think that looking at what's behind "squabbles" is a good idea...the part I question is the comments from others not "involved" in a heated argument...I think that jumping in with outside "opinions"/judgements might just add fuel to the fire in a nonproductive way...might amount to taking sides. Since the arguments are largely personality based, it might therefore come across as judgements of the personalities involved?? Anyway, I'll consider what you're saying...but for example in this latest thing with Peggy and Hadi, I feel like I'm watching political ads ;-) One says he said, and the other says she said and they both quote things to support their "side" etc...I don't know who to believe :-)I have my own ideas about Peggy and Hadi, which I've expressed before, but don't see that my doing so amidst their arguing/discussion would help anything. From an outside point of view, it seems like the typical argument--where one hangs on to a point of view or making sure one's "side" is understood--which I think most of us agree is fairly futile---but when you're doing it, it seems quite reasonable (I should know ;-))

Let me know what you think about my concerns...and I will get back to you!

Chris--I liked what you said about not rejecting wisdom because of certain flaws in the messenger :-) Akin to the discussion way back about masters and walking the talk...Don't know enough about Jung to really comment on him specifically.

Peace to one and all!

Cathy

Re: last post. I'd hate to see Dave's posts go away. He tries to bring about resolution.

On the other hand, why don't you, Peggy and Hadi take a break from posting and beating each other up for a few days and see if the quality of the discussions here improves.

What I am advocating, (), is that anybody who feels capable of expressing their own reactions to the "heated arguments" would do so for the benefit of all who read here.

If that escalates to "war" (your term) I think that "war" is called for. There are many people who have hinted at their own responses to this method of exchange here. Others have been more vocal and direct about their reactions. I suspect there are many who only read these posts as if they were some magazine or newspaper, and don't even regard the posting process as a statement of their own personal agendas. I suspect there are some very wise people reading here who feel that the pettiness of some of these personality clashes is so beneath them that they don't even want it known that they have an opinion.

What I'm asking for is honesty and directness. If you like it, say so. If it pisses you off, say so. If you think it's comical, say so. Just say something so that the content of the posts moves away from petty squabbling onto more useful information.

Is that clear enough about what I want?

Are you suggesting that participants who stand on the sidelines and watch these escapades should be honest and call a spade a spade? Are you looking for all out war here at the Forum?

Excellent post Dave. Those discussions that seem to become so heated, in my view tend to be 90% personality conflict and maybe 10% substance.

The stuff I have read from Jung I rather enjoyed. A lot of it resonated with me and I feel that he has some tremendous insight into the human condition and spirituality. It is too bad that people are so willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater. If Jung really did say those things about woman, then I strongly disagree with him on that issue. However, I'm not willing to disregard all the tremendously insightful and interesting things Jung wrote because he may have been a sexist bigot at one point. Thomas Jefferson, whom I greatly admire, owned slaves. Martin Luther King Jr. was an adulterer, but that doesn't distract from my mind the great things he achieved in his life and the moral compass he provided for all Americans. Socrates, in all likelihood, had sex with little boys. Great men and woman are still men and woman. Even those that are ahead of their time are still a product of their time. I'm willing to take the "good" stuff from Jung, and leave the "bad".

Hello again, Dave. I liked what you said here.

"I do feel that very often the "issues" are just excuses to deal with those personality clashes, and that any substance being addressed in those "issues" is so below the surface, that any attempt to remove the issues from the words in those posts is nearly futile."

I find that it often becomes personal when one party is no longer able to sustain their arguments or if the discussion moves beyond their area of knowledge. My personal experiences in these situations is that labels like "stereotypical thinking" "arrogance" "Holyer than thou" etc., etc., seem to pop up, which are personal rather than intelligent lines of argument or reason. For me, this occurrence always demonstrates that the party using the labels to quantify the intellect or character of another is functioning with ego priorities rather than "reason". But, of course, it must be argued that to classify one as coming from a position of ego often can amount to similar labelling, even if it is not said out loud. I think patience and tolerance are areas we all need to work on and, in my experience, the best way to achieve this is through "mindfulness". Through awareness of our Self. I don't see that operating too often. Usually we are already coming loaded with emotional attachments of the past (previous posts) and projecting into desired outcomes of the future without staying "here now", or seeing "here now". I can only offer my post of last weekend as an example of how it was first read in one light, influenced by an earlier attachment, and later viewed more clearly.

What do you think? On the basis of your own understanding of people, what do you think is the motivating dynamic? What is it that causes us to be so destructive?

I'm going to take a stab at something I see here at this forum, and that I think I understand to some degree. I welcome other views on this topic.

The notion of confrontation or contention or questioning seems to affect each of the regular participants here in distinctly different ways. Some relish it, some abhor it, some are upset by it, some find it amusing, and some want to be right in the thick of it. It is my opinion that the very nature of this opposition of views is worth discussing as an issue here. It's a real-life phenomenon we (yes, all of us) can observe, respond to, and consider. If we can all be open to our own reactions to the acts of debating and arguing, and look less at the contents of those arguments, I suspect we can each gain some insights into things that may be worrying each of us to some degree. (Here, the use of "we" is less inclusive, and is meant to suggest rather than to conclude.)

My own response to the debating is that it's a healthy thing. When people disagree on something, there's a better chance at some mutual resolution of the issues by discussing them than there is by leaving them in the background to fester. While having that basic response, I also get jittery about the well-being of the more vocal and tenacious debaters. At times I fear that words become heated and thereby obscure the search for resolution of some topic. Personalities get involved and the issues fade in significance. That may also be a good thing, especially if there is residue from the festering feelings of unresolved personality conflicts.

I do feel that very often the "issues" are just excuses to deal with those personality clashes, and that any substance being addressed in those "issues" is so below the surface, that any attempt to remove the issues from the words in those posts is nearly futile.

In no way am I recommending that anybody modify their behavior here. There is some voyeuristic enjoyment in seeing the passion of the arguments. But I would hope that others will see the opportunity to take these real-life happenings for what they are -- actual evidence of "in the now" displays of who people "really are" as opposed to who or what they may claim to be.

If those real-life facts could be dealt with by more than just the participants in these heated exchanges, perhaps the whole forum could get heated up and these issues could be dealt with "out in the open" instead of being left to the private ponderings and analyses of the participating "litigants" in these issues.

In no way do I mean to "make light of" these heated exchanges, but I do see them as symptoms of some other dynamics that (as far as I can recall) have rarely been discussed here in any depth.

Deepak Chopra has been very instrumental in my life, profoundly impacting my awareness of my own true self and bringing more clarity and understanding to my journey. Thank you Deepak for your contributions to the Universe!

yes, Hadi, they are both worth attending....

Thank you, Carol. I appreciate your empathy. I think you would agree that I do and have responded to the good as well as the bad. They are both worth attending, don't you think? The dark and the the light? I have responded to all the positive posts since I have posted here at the Forum. It just so happens there are many darker ones to answer to these past few weeks. I don't really think the posts of the last few weeks represent the broader contributions of the past three years or so by any stretch. They do however seem to address some unresolved issues which seem to be of passionate importance to one or two, and I would just like my own side to be fairly represented. I also believe they are drawing to a conclusion.

Good morning, Hadi! i hope for continued peace in your life. i use to ask a friend of mine why he only responded to the hostile posts when there are so many other wonderful posts written here? i suggested to him that he look behind the dark to see the light. would that be good advice for you, too? not trying to intrude, my post is well meaning. i have enjoyed your responses to so many of the posts and was hoping that you would continue to post your wisdom to some of the topics going by. even tho, i understand there is a margin for mis-interpretation, still, all in all, i feel it is worth trying. good day and Namasté

Whatever is happening
is God's Will

I am not having trouble, Peggy, seeing the peaceful nature of other's comments. I fail to see any peace towards me in yours, Dick Skeps and Butt Cracks. The three stooges of egotism.

About your Irish grandchildren. That is exactly what you said. Your memory of that is confused and fragmented. I understand.

Peggy: Jung didn't say that. Just as I didn't say that ALL feminist leaders were lesbians. Just as i know I am not a sexist.

Is it any wonder that your opinions and views are not respected when you are so eager to form knee jerk "opinions" out of the vacuum of a butt-crack. You make up your mind about Jung based on one sound-bite presented out of context by a Skeptic? And you characterise me as sexist Peggy by referring to a "private" conversation which unfortunately, like many things, you remember poorly and with hostile bias. No, Peggy, I am not impressed.

i am a little late on this but the Gibran i posted seems to indicate that Peggy is Spirit And all she mentioned, simultaneously! that part of our understanding must be that one does not exist without the other, maybe?

Hadi, how would you feel about Jung if he had said the following?

"No matter how friendly and obliging an Iranian's Eros may be, no logic on earth can shake him if he is ridden by the anima. Often the Americans have the feeling - and they are not altogether wrong - that only seduction or a beating or a rape would have the necessary power of persuasion."

Or this:

"the worst sight...is the Iranian parading with a rag on his head...I often thought if only they knew how mercilessly ugly they looked."

Those are offensive remarks regardless of what human being Jung is talking about.

Hadi, you have said, "Actually, Peggy, I was taking my lead on the labelling from you and Dave." But the only example you gave for my labelling was that I had said that my grandchildren were "part Irish."

First, try to keep in mind that Dave and I are not the same person. (See "Dave-Peg Continuum" below for insight.) He speaks for himself and I speak for myself. We agree on some things and disagree on others. Pretty basic.

But you seem to have trouble directing comments to me without dragging DaveR into it. Try your best to see me as an individual.

Although that (about my grandchildren being partly Irish) was not exactly what I said, do you really think that is a good example of the kind of labelling I was talking about?

I am specifically angry with you for the reasons that I gave a few days ago. I am also angry because you brought our private conversation here when my comments were made to you in a confidence that you agreed to. So now that seal is broken.

There have also been those here who have extended friendship to both you and me through all of this. Are you having trouble seeing the peaceful nature of their comments?

What good is a knowledge of mysticism if it can't be or isn't put into practice by the teacher? Don't just tell us -- show us.

I don't think there is an "undercurrent" of hostility. I think there are some people who are pretty much unfront about their anger...or hostility or whatever.

Undercurrent?

B.C., am I the one showing contempt prior to investigation? I don't know who that comment was directed to!

But just in case it was moi, I want to begin defending myself!! I've read a lot of Jung -- but apparently not enough! Or maybe I didn't understand it when I read it. Or maybe my own views about women were unenlightened at the time. Or maybe the article I linked to was fraudulent.

Now if you were addressing Hadi, please excuse my pre-defensiveness. giggle

Anne, I wasn't asking for your identity. I asked if you posted here under another name. I think you have answered my question though.

Your sense-of-humor is what has kept me interested!

On cultural influences:

Sure, I think they are important, Hadi. I was born in a part of the country which has been singled out for its discrimination against African-Americans. My father's grandfather had slaves. My father's father was a Confederate soldier. The rural town where I lived was not known for its open-mindedness.

But for me that was more than compensated for by a father who was kind and generous and very, very liberal. His politics were somewhere to the left of Socialism and he backed up his beliefs with an active concern for his fellow human beings. So I was lucky. I grew up not looking down on any nationality or holding any nationality to be superior.

There were other "cultural" influences. Emotional and physical abuse when my father was not present played a big factor in my anger. So did forced silence. Eventually that led to a brief period of mutism.

Movies, serious music and books, especially biographies, were an escape. So was my imagination. So were religious activities.

Cultural attitudes about mental illness have certainly made their mark. Couple that with the cultural attitudes about women and you will understand that I got my self-esteem the hard way.

I suspect that the greatest specific influence on my life has not been a cultural influence at all. Do you know enough about me, Hadi, to know what that is?

and thanks for showing contempt prior to investigation!

thanks geoff, er, i mean anne, but the "voice" person is someone else. i won't make the same claim about the "wisdom??" person though.

hadi, sticks and stones...i hadn't heard someone called that since the 5th grade :)

reading a book does not make one an expert. if you have selective and fragmentary recall of what you think you remember and then apply your prejudicial filters, well that tends to make your blathering pretty much meaningless. nice you remembered that worthless author's name though.

terry, under what context would those jung quotes NOT be considered sexist? keep in mind the guy is not performing at the friar's club roast.

Hadi, you are delusional if you think that I dislike Jung because of you. I dislike Jung because I have just been presented with evidence of his racism and sexism. If you care to disprove either of those allegations with other quotations from him, I am willing to reconsider. I had rather judge him by his own words on those issues.

Surely you can't expect me to like anyone who perceives me as being second-class in comparison with men. But then, it doesn't matter what you expect from me.

Hadi, so...the conversation elsewhere is fair game now? I thought that discussion was confidential. It might be interesting to know, in retrospect, what was actually said among the three of us -- or others, if they were willing.

I do want to point out to you that YOU are the one who has kept bringing up our discussion about the Irish a few months ago. YOU were the one who couldn't let it go. But you projected that onto me.

People continue to confuse Dave and Peg. It is Dave who doesn't believe in life after death. Peg doesn't believe in death.

In person, Dave tends to be fuzzier than Peg.

Dave has not escaped the cultural influence of being Southern. Peg has not escaped the cultural influence of having a flashing "TILT" sign on her forehead.

Dave is the one who is logical and rational. Peg is the one who buys the Christmas presents.

Peg is the one who makes the small decisions like where to live and what car to buy. Dave makes the big decisions like what to do about the Middle East.

Peg is pro-life and pro-choice. Dave is anti-life.

Dave has the Irish surname with no known specific direct connections back to Ireland. Peg is the one whose great-great-great grandfather was from County Donegal. Another great-great-great grandfather was decended from Scottish immigrants. She doesn't know where the hell the other thirty great-great-great grandparents came from. Peg is into confrontation, judgment, environmental issues. Socialism and voting. Dave is into statistics.

Dave cries at movies. Peg laughs at Dave.

Peg wears red bossy-boots. Dave wears long toenails and thong sandals.

Dave plays the guitar. Peggy plays both ends against the middle.

I hope this helps to clear things up. Next time, leave the damned porch light on!

Richard, I envy you with your 'seasonal' job. Barnes and Noble is one of my favorite hangouts. If I had a job there, am afraid I would never get any work done because I would be spending to much time turning pages :)

It sounds as if you had an absolute wonderful day today with the clients. Can't help but ask - who enjoyed it more? You or them.

Have missed reading your comments on/about life. Hope this post will be the beginning of more.

Namasté

Hi gang,

Very busy, I see--been a'lurking you know. Had a wonderful day today. Took our clients out to eat, at a very nice Indian restaurant. Everyone enjoyed. Then for the afternoon, in was a ride to the Coast Range to see the season change and leaves. Stopped at a little creek and broke out the chocolate chip cookies and hot chocolate. Then started taking folks down to the creek to see the salmon spawning. Big native king/chinook salmon. Completing their life cycle and starting the next. The folks were just mesmerized, they were completely connecting with nature and the spirit there. Left when it was too dark to watch any more. Lots of fish...quite a treat to see native fish of that size, wild and close.

Got a cool "seasonal" second job. Working at Barnes and Noble, during the Holidays. Wallowing in books and people who read. Should be fun.

Carry On and Namaste', Love you all

Peggy

I have only read "A brief History of everything" by Wilber--it was very good...not light reading, for me, but good :-) he has a lot of books out there...the quote you gave, I believe came from the above mentioned book/title...as Polly Berends describes it we start off as "one" but unconscious of this fact as infants...then we develop/learn that we are separate from each other and God...and the goal is oneconsciousness--a conscious realization of our oneness w/God and each other...this simple approach seems to fit well with Wilber etc...and one problem is that people often-times confuse the wonderful but unconscious oneness of infancy as something we "lost" and need return to--like the Garden of Eden...whereas the path of evolution is ever forward...so the "better" path is forward and to conscious realization of oneness...anyway, I am a bit hurried as is often the case and may not be wording this just right...but I find it cool when the same idea comes from many sources--especially when I like the idea ;-)

BTW. Wilber is bald, no beard or mustache, and wears glasses--nice-looking still ;-)

Blessings! Cathy

In the case of Anthony Storr, I happen to have read two of his books, so my opinions are not based on fragmentary and selective internet sites. Some years ago, before I knew anything about Jung I was recommended Storr's book "The Essential Jung". For me this seemed like the easy way to get to know Jung. I had heard about him, read articles, seen references in many Woody Allen films and decided eventually to check him out for myself. But by going through Storr I didn't realise what a disservice I was doing to Jung. At the time I enjoyed the book. It relayed many wonderful ideas and was interspersed with "selective" quotes from Jung. But it was sketchy and left me wanting more.

Storr is a man who has written many books about some of the great minds of history in the realm of Psychology and Mysticism. Perhaps it wasn't his intention but I decided a year or so later to check Jung out for myself. What I came to realise was that Storr barely scraped the surface of Jung's work and further, he barely understood Jung’s writings or was able to relate with any of it. Storr is a wholly inadequate commentator in these matters in my opinion and uses Jung and others largely to peddle his own agenda, and his own interpretations, which are far from accurate. Paradoxically, he remains a sort of fan of Jung without truly knowing what Jung is driving at.

In more recent years I read his book "Feet of Clay - Saints, Sinners and Madmen: A study of Gurus."

Again this was a very disparaging book and amongst his subjects in this book were Jung, Rajneesh, Gurdjieff possibly Deepak and other notable Mystics. I think he even included Jesus and Buddha as the ultimate madmen, deluded by a psychotic episodes. The poor simpleton was quite unable to explain the fact that all these men seemed to have almost identical Psychotic episodes. He just paints them as mad con-men. Which is what JoelSkep would have you believe.

What I would say to the readers out there who are so easily swayed by such agenda riddled garbage as presented by the numb-skulled Dick Skep is, read the original works before you make your judgements. I HAVE.

I have also read Ken Wilbur. It is very dualistic thinking to attempt to compare one to the other (Jung to Wilbur) and put one above the other. Ken Wilbur is the voice of today, Jung of yesterday. Using Wilbur’s own models of "holons" (Which you should be familiar with now, Cathy) one could not exist without the other having preceded it and both are valid. To make comparisons is dualistic and while Wilbur is interesting, few would agree with EVERYTHING he has to say. I find these recent comments by Wilbur rather ironic, being as they are ego motivated, and ignoring as they do his own "holon" theory of inclusiveness.

Anonymous poster who asked about the undercurrent of hostility.: I think that your post and those that followed are perfect examples of what I was saying. There are people here who feel hostile towards me and as I said it doesn't matter what I say, it will always be read with a projection of hostility until they are able to let it go. Even Jung’s post by association is viewed through a clouded vision of hostility, which is the unconscious hostility Jung spoke of. Although, I don’t think it is that unconscious in this case. As to how it affects my Karma, not in the least. It is you who is experiencing and projecting hostility onto me. Not the other way around. It is you who is being nasty and cruel just for the fun of it. Not me. My Karma is fine and I remain unaffected by remarks which have no substance, intelligence or truth. Your anger and hostility will only effect your own Karma and that’s why you are as you are, and I am as I am. In fact, I believe my Karma is about to improve.

As Terry has already pointed out, quoting someone out of context when referring to specific psychological conditions which remain omitted from your Jungian quote is rather pathetic, and what is sad is that some people are not discerning enough to be able to tell the difference, clouded as their perceptions are by these projections. There are plenty of Jung bashers around, but at the end of the day it is Jung who is respected the world over not the author of the Jung Skeptic's site whose name isn't worth recording.

Actually, Peggy, I was taking my lead on the labelling from you and Dave. Not long ago at another site I made some clumsy remarks about the Irish and Dave took particular offence at my remarks and declared that he was part Irish and that I should be more careful about what I say. You also declared that your grandchildren were part Irish at the time. So, my describing Dave as an Irish American was in no way a political or derisory statement. I thought you were proud of your Irish American heritage. That's the impression I was left with anyway. I felt you both felt very passionate about that. Dave, your comments on our heritage or gene line leading us back to the jungle and further to the sea and all these labels being ultimately meaningless, I couldn't agree with you more. Well said.I wish you felt that way three months ago! Your current words largely reflect my view. That said, it is difficult to discount our immediate cultural influences, wouldn't you agree? In this life we are influenced by and do attach ourselves to our cultural influences, our patriotism, etc. For me this is more closely related as Anglo/Iranian, since I actually have the experience of living in both of those countries and I have living relatives there, including my father. I hope that clarifies my remark as not being negative.

Dick, you were'nt 'wrong' - there is only experimentation and feedback. 'Wrong' is an interpretation. :)

Peggy, thanks for sharing your experiences with those of the Bahai faith. My only experiences with organised religion were of the 'fire & brimstone' variety which put me off the whole business for some considerable time. You'd like to think any genuine faith would turn out people who are (in your words) 'absolute jewels -- loving, giving, humble and kind' ... you'd like to think that would be the case with all paths ...

I enjoy reading your posts - if we were all of the 'same' mind this really would be a cult. :) Thankfully it's a LONG way from being that. Thanks for sharing your perspective on Gary Zukav's thoughts about that which 'irritates' us. To me, the words ring true in the sense that the 'flaws' I tend to most notice in others are precisely those aspects of myself I need to work on. :) Quite apart from the fact that while we're focusing on the 'flaws' we're not focusing on seeing ourselves or the 'other' as divine. Another manifestation of 'Seek and ye shall find' - you'll see the flaws if you look for them or you'll see the divinity if you look for it. :)

I'm pleased you manage to find some nuggets in my posts - would you mind telling me where they are? :) As a wise man once said, "Fifty percent of what I say is complete nonsense and you can disregard the other fifty percent". As for my identity, my full name is Anne O'Nymous but what's in a name? As Deepak says, 'some thoughts are experienced more personally - I call them mine'. There are many Zen artists who make a point of NOT signing their work as a reminder of how fleeting and illusory the concept of 'ownership' really is. Deepak is on a similar tram when he advises that nothing should be clung to as 'me' or 'mine', which is kind of tough to do in the hurly-burly of the modern world. :)

Speaking of thoughts, I recently read some stuff by Bruce Moen about the 'afterlife' -

'To expand one's awareness of what's possible, there are places to learn and open one's imagination beyond its old limitations. There's a place that holds everything ever thought of or know by any human being who has ever lived. This Education Centre is open to anyone desiring to study there, and access to this information is limited only by the breadth of one's desire to know and one's willingness to explore'

Sounds like a souped-up version of the Internet! I have often wondered what happens to all of my thoughts after I have stopped thinking them. I wonder how much benefit 99% of my past thoughts would be to anyone else but it's nice to know they are being stored away for 'posterity', I suppose. :)

Bruce has an interesting website called 'Afterlife Knowledge', here's a little sample -

Bruce Moen is a lot like you. He's never had a near-death experience, nor does he claim any special psychic gift or ability. Yet, he's learned to do some special things. He has freed "lost souls" from their isolated, sometimes terrifying post-death existence; helped them regain freewill choice over their own destiny; brought comfort to those left behind when a loved one dies; moved earthbound ghosts to their place in the Afterlife; verifiably explored nonphysical human consciousness and other realities. Afterlife exploration has profoundly changed his life. It's taught him what Love is and shown him the purpose of his life. Through this Web site and his books, Bruce is sharing a continuing journey of discovery that began in 1992 at The Monroe Institute. It was there he first learned to explore the Afterlife during Lifeline, a program developed by noted out-of-body traveler and author, Robert A. Monroe.

After several years of perfecting the perceptual skills required, it's his hope others can use what he's learned to develop them more quickly. "The most important thing I discovered," Bruce says, "is that human beings with curiosity can learn to explore the Afterlife and find the truth for themselves."

'I'm just an ordinary human being whose curiosity about human existence beyond the physical world led to extraordinary experience. Throughout history we've wondered if there's a life after death. Along the way, our religions and philosophies offered beliefs and opinions to answer our question. However, their answers conflict with each other so deeply, it's difficult to know if finding the truth within them is possible.

In 1992 I began a journey of discovery that taught me how to explore beyond our physical world. At first, my beliefs blocked acceptance of my experience as real. Continued exploration brought undeniable proof of the Afterlife's existence. This Web site is dedicated to sharing what I've found hoping it will reduce fear and uncertainty about death and help you increase your Afterlife Knowledge. It's not my intent to change your beliefs about the Afterlife. Only your personal direct experience should do that. Perhaps what I've written will ring true with your experience. Maybe just knowing one other person claims it's possible to know the truth about the Afterlife will encourage you to begin your own journey of discovery.'

Bruce's site is ... www.afterlife-knowledge.com

I've also been exploring the links from Ulisse's 'Syntropy' site - much thought-provoking stuff too. Some of the Forum regulars might be interested in the Reluctant Messenger site, which attempts the (seemingly) impossible task of reconciling all the major religions AND science into a coherent 'whole' through syntropy.
www.reluctant-messenger.com/syntropy.htm

Thanks again, Ulisse, and I'm enjoying reading your book as well. :)

Namaste

Seeing as you are such a fan of Gary Zukav ... I was watching a video of one of his TV appearances last night. He speaks a lot about anger as he used to be a 'very angry young man'. For what it's worth, here's a little of what he said:

"Behind anger can be sadness ... or grief ... or disapointment - it's always disappointment that the world is not the way you want it to be and that is an excruciatingly painful experience and it's easier to be angry than it is to face the intense pain of the world not being the way you want it to be ... " He calls this experience 'rage against the universe' and I know just what he's talking about ...

... {a bit later} "Whenever you are angry, in that moment, stop and become aware of what you are feeling. Remind yourself that the thoughts you are thinking and the feelings you are feeling are coming from a part of yourself that is frightened. Remind yourself of that in that moment."

"What do you mean by frightened?"

"Scared." (audience laughs)

"Yes, I know frightened means scared ... but scared of what?"

"Of being alive ... scared that you don't have a place on the earth that is really yours ... frightened that people won't accept you ... frightened that you can't live up to the expectations of others ... and your own expectations ... frightened that you're not good enough ... frightened that you will never find the love in your life that you're so desperately seeking ... if you stop and become aware of what you're doing ... and before you start to analyse what you're afraid of, ask yourself if you want your decisions to be made by a part of you that is frightened ... The next step is to ak yourself what you would do in this situation if you were a wise and a compassionate person ... that's for you to decide - nobody can make that choice for you ... and it may be that you know what a wise choice would be but you decide not to make that choice and there is no shame in that ... there is learning potential in every decision that you make ... in this way you can experiement with your own life ... " {I could transcribe heaps more but that might be enough for today}

Voice, then wait! Come back! There's no great sin in being wrong! I'm wrong a lot myself. I like your most recent explanation for spirit.

Crown/Harmony Books

Comments by users are not endorsed by Random House. The Deepak Chopra Forum is intended to provide a place for the exchange of information, opinions, and comments. Random House does not necessarily endorse, support, sanction, encourage, verify, or agree with the comments, opinions, or statements posted in the Forum. Any information or material placed online, including advice and opinions, are the views of those who post the statements, and does not necessarily represent the views of Random House. Privacy Policy