1998/04/22 09:01
kundalini-l-d Digest V98 #318
kundalini-l-d Digest Volume 98 : Issue 318
Today's Topics:
to paul west [ trexisATnospamjuno.com ]
Re: undefended are invulnerable [ "Ed Jason" <lobATnospamlineone.net> ]
Re: Be Well [ "Ed Jason" <lobATnospamlineone.net> ]
Truth and Love-Self-Realization [ Harsha1MTM <Harsha1MTMATnospamaol.com> ]
Re: curious [ Harsha1MTM <Harsha1MTMATnospamaol.com> ]
Re: curious [ Harsha1MTM <Harsha1MTMATnospamaol.com> ]
Re: curious [ "Sen Ashanka"<sashankaATnospamaismi.ais.it ]
Re: Be Well [ John Heaton <CttlemanATnospampsbnewton.com ]
Re: curious [ "Gloria Lee" <samyanaATnospamhotmail.com> ]
Re: Re: curious [ Harsha1MTM <Harsha1MTMATnospamaol.com> ]
Re: Be Well [ "Gloria Lee" <samyanaATnospamhotmail.com> ]
Re: Be Well [ "Brent Blalock" <blal0004ATnospammaroon.tc ]
Afraid to post? [ amckeonATnospamhsmail.nfld.k12.mn.us ]
Re: curious [ anandajyoti <anandajyotiATnospamgeocities. ]
Re: Re: curious [ Harsha1MTM <Harsha1MTMATnospamaol.com> ]
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 02:37:19 -0400
From: trexisATnospamjuno.com
To: kundalini-lATnospamlists.execpc.com
Subject: to paul west
Message-ID: <19980422.023720.3350.1.trexisATnospamjuno.com>
>>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 10:40:53 -0700
>From: Mystress Angelique Serpent <serpentATnospamdomin8rex.com>
>To: "Paul West" <paulATnospamstationone.demon.co.uk>
>Cc: kundalini-lATnospamexecpc.com
>Subject: Re: Only you
>Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980421104053.0091b1a0ATnospamdomin8rex.com>
>
>
>At 08:32 PM 20/04/98 +0000, Paul West wrote:
>>Hello.
>>
>>I have been wondering if anyone has been thinking along similar lines
>>as I have with regard to who it is that we interact with in life. I
>>have often found that any outburst I make seems to be me talking to
>>myself. People I've met and had to contend with seem to have been, in
>>effect, a personification of things about myself that need attention.
>>And when those things are resolved those people seem to slip away. I
>>know that there is such a thing as asking and receiving and I figure
>>that the whole structure of one's psyche forms a big thing that you
>>are asking for at the present time, and so receive it.
>
MAS
> Yes, precisely so. The Koan for it is "the inside is the outside"..
>everything you see outside of you is a mirror of an aspect of your
>Self,
>and You are All that Is. So give love to All that Is, and reach
>enlightenment whatever that is..) thru the Love flowing back to you.
>
>
>>
PW
>>I found myself asking some while ago wether it was possible to be
>>immune to bad people, wether there was some way of them not seeking
>>you out in a kind of magical way. What do you think? Most days there
>>is at least one thing I notice about the way I have treated someone
>in
>>the past which I had thought was me seeing something wrong with the
>>person as clearly as I could at the time. Even so I was not
>>necessarily right and instead it seems like I was lashing out at
>>myself.
>
MAS
> Well, there you have it.. stop judging folks as "bad", and you'll
>stop
>meeting "bad" people. Your judgments are a reflection of you, and
>Goddess
>wants you to get past them, so they will keep showing up till you do.
>>
PW
>>I had a dream several months ago in which there was me and three
>>mirrors. I was reflected in all of them and in each was a kind of
>>image of myself. Instead of a normal reflection, I saw in each a
>>certain part of my world view. There was in one mirror a self image,
>>how I feel about myself and how I feel I look to other people, in
>>another mirror there was this kind of spirit-me, grinning and knowing
>>something, and in the other mirror was this kind of intellectual mess
>>thing. And then I realised that if I added all these parts together,
>>the resulting whole was in fact the real me - the truth of my
>>identity. I realised I couldn't have an attitude towards anything
>>without forming that attitude out of my own consciousness and BEING
>>that thing. I couldn't hate evil without becoming that hatefulness.
> That is exactly right.
> So realize that there is no such thing as "evil", there is only
>humans
>acting in fear.
>
>>I have been having problems for some time with trying to please
>>everyone. I feel that I have to keep a person happy and that to
>>facilitate this I have to basically lie, and then it makes me
>>physically ill and I start to reach uncontrollably.
MAS
> Makes perfect sense, when you try to lie from this state, you
>negate
>yourself.
> Realize everyone has the power of Free will, and it is for them to
>choose
>to be happy, or sad, or anything else they feel like being.. it is
>their
>free will, and you do not control that. Be yourself, and act in
>alignment
>with your conscience, and let everybody else do the same.
>
PW
>>And then I feel
>>that I don't want to be there and that the only way to get away from
>>it is to lie even more. There seems to be a darker side to
>>pleasantness. I keep losing myself, keep denying the way I really
>feel
>>for the sake of not altering the way other people feel. This just
>>feels like depression and lately I have been wondering why I keep
>>waking up.
MAS
> You are setting yourself up in a no-win situation. Making yourself
>responsible for the free will choices of emotions that are occurring
>in
>another human. Stop.
Just be genuine.
All of those thoughts and feelings that you are putting so much effort
into
are just to maintain illusions. Aren't they? What could all of these
illusions
be needed to hide? Some AWEFUL UGLYNESS? Some idea that your ego
isn't perfect? Mabey the only one falling for all of this talk is you,
and everyone
can see that the naked emperor is just an asskissing dickhead?
Love and compassion are supposed to be EASY. Water flows, light shines,
love gives and forgives.
Stop.
Take off the masks.
tactfully yours
Edward
_____
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 06:02:12 -0700
From: "Ed Jason" <lobATnospamlineone.net>
To: "Gloria Lee" <samyanaATnospamhotmail.com>, <kundalini-lATnospamexecpc.com>
Subject: Re: undefended are invulnerable
Message-Id: <199804221012.LAA31083ATnospamboober.lineone.net>
> Sweet Lobbie,
> You know I just meant you could do without that crusty shell you
> pretend to hide your soft side with...you haven't fooled us here for so
> long..you may as
> well change your nick. (But don't, I love it!) Giving and receiving are
> essentially the same, since one requires the other to exist. You are
> most right that you don't require my advice, tho .
Sometimes we can *not* take the advice we need and are more than willing to take advice that is inapplicable, being easier but useless.
> Oh, still look both ways before crossing the street..hold hands so you
> don't get lost..but, very unseriously, have been shedding my emotional
> defense mechanisms, as best I am able. Being willing to be vulnerable is
> very much like being invulnerable, in some strange way.
> Oh, I admit..there are days I feel like just one raw, exposed nerve.
> But mostly, I do not get "stressed out" (I'm just a carrier..heheh)
> Disclaimer:
> "This is not spiritual advice. Do not try this at home. Best left to
> professionals. Taking emotional risks may be hazardous."
>
> There, feel better now Lobbie???
> Glo
Being open and transparent is indeed liberating and shedding the tendency to defend or confront means the emotional defence mechanism (another shell) is not required as much if at all.
Feel better? Yes, thank you.
Sweet Lobbie
Be Well
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 06:40:56 -0700
From: "Ed Jason" <lobATnospamlineone.net>
To: "Kundalini list" <kundalini-lATnospamexecpc.com>,
"Brent Blalock" <blal0004ATnospammaroon.tc.umn.edu>
Subject: Re: Be Well
Message-Id: <199804221012.LAA00231ATnospamboober.lineone.net>
> Ed said:
>
> > Demanding to
> > be treated as if capable of understanding. Firing questions without
> absorbing a little
> > first. Assuming one knows things or ones knowledge is applicable -
> perhaps I too
> > am rude. Perhaps so.
>
> Those things aren't rude. Rude is insulting people and not treating them
> with respect, not asking questions.
Really Brent? Can you please tell me your hat size? It is is very important to me.
Can you also explain to me why your thinking is so linear - omit no details? I also respectfully require the following information before I am able to understand you or why I should listen to you. I am sorry for my limited thinking - I am not really prepared to do anything about that - but I do apologise in advance. You see I wish to be wise but only in a way that I choose.
1. Your age?
2. The age of your first sexual encounter and how many partners you have had?
3. The books you have read. The spiritual practices and doctrines you have studied?
4. I also need to know everything that you know (you can email me privately) with detailed explanations of how you came to these conclusions. Please provide references to books I might easily obtain at a library in the UK. (I will provide the telephone of my local library so as to make this convenient for you)
5. Your ethnic origins?
I sincerely and humbly respect you but please understand that your opinions are just that until I know enough about you to make a full judgement (which I shall fax to you if required).
> I never started anything. All I did was ask a question when you insulted
> Jesus, Buddha, and Mohammed. If you really are interested in being less
> rude, then don't start running your mouth, insulting people you know almost
> nothing about. (You only have hearsay and texts thousands of years old to
> judge Jesus on, but you called him a fool.) But you know that.
In Sufism Saints are regularly referred to as Fools, Idiots or Madmen. In Zen repect for 'canon', 'doctrine' and spiritual authority is sometimes a barrier to understanding. So . . .
To be less rude?
1. Defend people who have not been insulted, or who have no requirement for protection.
2. Keep mouth shut unless asking 'sincere' questions
Most Kind Regards,
Instigating rudeness, mouth running, nothing knowing, name calling
Lobster
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 06:19:28 EDT
From: Harsha1MTM <Harsha1MTMATnospamaol.com>
To: umbadaATnospamns.sympatico.ca, anuragATnospamBhaskara.ee.iisc.ernet.in
Cc: kundalini-lATnospamexecpc.com
Subject: Truth and Love-Self-Realization
Message-ID: <6804169b.353dc432ATnospamaol.com>
In a message dated 4/21/1998 8:42:10 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
umbadaATnospamns.sympatico.ca writes:
<< I call my own nondualism thing foolishness while carefully looking after
my own website on it. You can't hold onto anything. Between the
foolishness of nondualism and the confessions of nondualism, there is a
seam of What Is. And that too breaks down to foolishness and
confessions...and so on...The trick is to stay within the seam, the
Interval. Some call the Interval Truth and Love. Okay. I call it the
Interval. Today. Tomorrow something else. It is not possible to hold
onto anything and survive that interval.
>>
Harsha: Self-Realization is Recognition of One's Own Self. It Is Here and
Never Absent. It is Total Clarity. It is not Beyond Any One. There are no
tricks to it. It is Simply Who You Truly Are. It is not a state of
confusion. (not that I would like to suggest that anyone is confused here-no
way!). Further a state of confusion is not "evidence" that one has discovered
Clarity or Self-Recognition. I say the obvious because many disciples claim
that because their Guru utters sheer nonsense, it must mean that he or she has
attained some great inexplicable state in the Great Beyond (not that anyone I
know fits that elite category, I would like to say with a certain amount of
sincerity). Although a state of confusion indicates that the potential for
clarity is there, still, Clarity and confusion can usefully be conceptualized
as being different in the realm of relative consciousness. "The Complete
Conscious Letting Go or the Complete Surrender to the Divine" is helpful in
Recognizing One's Own Nature.
Live the ordinary life and don't get anyone pregnant that you are not married
to (From the wild disco dance of enlightenment, chapter 5, page 272).
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 08:08:59 EDT
From: Harsha1MTM <Harsha1MTMATnospamaol.com>
To: divine_goddessATnospamhotmail.com, margolisATnospamtransbay.net
Cc: kundalini-lATnospamexecpc.com
Subject: Re: curious
Message-ID: <6e3b6651.353ddddeATnospamaol.com>
In a message dated 4/21/1998 9:51:14 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
divine_goddessATnospamhotmail.com writes:
<< It may be what people call
enlightened behaviour and what is enlightened behaviour is not the same.
>>
Harsha: Well put. One contemporary approach to this is seen in the claims of
"gurus" who claim to be "enlightened." The logic is that because the "guru"
is enlightened whatever he does and says must be enlightened behavior. Given
the sexual and financial and ethical scandals surrounding "enlightened gurus"
this logic is problematic. Indeed, most gurus claiming to be enlightened
exhibit a high degree of confusion and conduct not worthy of even our elected
officials. Yet many disciples insist that confusion, lack of restraint, lack
of any clarity are perfect evidence for the high state attained by their guru.
The spiritual circus is both a comedy and a tragedy in that it is very much
like life.
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 08:11:33 EDT
From: Harsha1MTM <Harsha1MTMATnospamaol.com>
To: divine_goddessATnospamhotmail.com, margolisATnospamtransbay.net
Cc: kundalini-lATnospamexecpc.com
Subject: Re: curious
Message-ID: <27d68b51.353dde78ATnospamaol.com>
In a message dated 4/21/1998 9:51:14 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
divine_goddessATnospamhotmail.com writes:
<< What if enlightenment is a dynamic process, non linear? Then Peswami
could feel he has lost his enlightenment. In church we used to say,
"once saved, always saved'. Are we once enlightened, always enlightened?
I am beginnging to think that the pursueing of enlightenment is
something of a cultural vanity, particularly when people are unable to
recognize or identify the traits of an enlightened person.
>>
Harsha: Excellent points Susan. Hope to address them in future posts.
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 14:53:10 +0200
From: "Sen Ashanka"<sashankaATnospamaismi.ais.it>
To: kundalini-lATnospamlists.execpc.com
Subject: Re: curious
Message-Id: <C12565EE.00450DB0.00ATnospamais.it>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Hello friends,
Susan wrote :
<< What if enlightenment is a dynamic process, non linear? Then Peswami
could feel he has lost his enlightenment. In church we used to say,
"once saved, always saved'. Are we once enlightened, always enlightened?
I am beginnging to think that the pursueing of enlightenment is
something of a cultural vanity, particularly when people are unable to
recognize or identify the traits of an enlightened person.
>>
About trying to "recognise" spiritually enlightened persons,
the problem of genuine versus fraud always exists. Spiritual
issues are far removed from the wordly issues, so no behaviour
could be labled as "enlightened" or "non-enlightened.". It
is not in outward show that makes someone recognised as being
spiritually enlightened.
If you have been to a place, you know it within yourself, and
need not prove to anyone else that you have been there. If you
have seen a beautiful river and felt happy about it, there is
nothing to prove to anyone else.
Similarly, when you realise your true self, you are so happy
about it, you do not have to prove anything to anyone after
this. You cannot prove to anyone that you are happy. Your
actions and behavour will show it. Just as different people
have different expressions of happiness and sorrow, so also
for the ultimate happiness of self-realisaton.
One person may jump and shout that he is happy, and cry and
howl when sad. Another person might smile and frown. A third
might not show any emotion on the face at all.... These are
all behaviours. But, there could be someone who does not even
feel happiness, sorrow, anger, jealosy.... This person then
is enlightened. His actions and behaviour are independant of
external world stimulus and situations.
>I am beginnging to think that the pursueing of enlightenment is
>something of a cultural vanity, particularly when people are unable to
>recognize or identify the traits of an enlightened person.
There is nothing in recognising the traits of an "enligtened
person". If there were traits, then simply emulating those
traits would make you enlightened. However, enlightement is
the result of deep deep introspection, self-negation, self-
control, mind-control and lots more. When you reach enlightement
you will know it. It does not matter that anyone else knows
it or not, because by then you will lose the distinction of
"me" and "you" and "someone else".
An enlightened person simply behaves the way he/she likes to
behave, irrespective of anything else. Whereas outwardly it
might look very ordinary, the mind of such persons always
travel far beyond the normal planes of thought and pleasures.
Suhc behaviour at times may be eccentric, sometimes egoistic,
sometimes happy, sometimes sad, for no apparent outward reason.
There is no way to categorise behaviour of enlightened persons
to say this is the way it should be and nothing else. God is
Infinite, and Infinite are His ways and His manifestations.
Who knows what He may be up to next ? :-)
Cheers and love to all
Ashanka
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 08:21:56 -0500
From: John Heaton <CttlemanATnospampsbnewton.com>
To: lobATnospamlineone.net
CC: Kundalini list <kundalini-lATnospamexecpc.com>,
Brent Blalock <blal0004ATnospammaroon.tc.umn.edu>
Subject: Re: Be Well
Message-ID: <353DEEF4.655AATnospampsbnewton.com>
Brent:
>
> > I never started anything. All I did was ask a question when you insulted
> > Jesus, Buddha, and Mohammed. If you really are interested in being less
> > rude, then don't start running your mouth, insulting people you know almost
> > nothing about. (You only have hearsay and texts thousands of years old to
> > judge Jesus on, but you called him a fool.) But you know that.
John:
"In much of the literature incorporating the teachings of ancient
wisdom, the first expression, or outpouring, of Supreme Being is said to
be Love, which became the Force and Energy of Creative Power. Thus the
first abgel is the source of all powers and the cause of all
manifestations....
In the tarot this angel is symbolized by the card numbered zero, while
the twenty-one major trumps represent manifesting aspects, expressions,
or emanations of the zero card. It's name is the *Fool*, which
paradoxically is very approiate. For example, just imagine what an
ordinary person would think if he or she overheard someone say, 'No
matter who you are or what you have done, I love you. I love you as my
Self with no strings attached. You are free, and I have no concerns
about you, for you are the Holy Light of God and you possess the
Kingdom. We have no obligation to one another except to give and receive
love. And through this love we rise above our personal needs, our
selfish desires, radiating our love universally for the good of all.'
How foolish something like this would seem! An honest response to such
'naive' comments might go something like this: 'If I followed that kind
of thinking, I would have to stop criticizing people and conditions. I
couldn't wear my feelings on my sleeve anymore, and I would have to give
up my rigid expectations of what other people should do and say and how
they should act. I'd have to stop meddling in the affairs of others even
though I have a better idea than they of what's good for them...."
From _The Angels Within Us_ John Randolph price
truly is a wonderful book. :-)
>
> In Sufism Saints are regularly referred to as Fools, Idiots or Madmen. In Zen repect for 'canon', 'doctrine' and spiritual authority is sometimes a barrier to understanding. So . . .
> To be less rude?
> 1. Defend people who have not been insulted, or who have no requirement for protection.
> 2. Keep mouth shut unless asking 'sincere' questions
>
> Most Kind Regards,
> Instigating rudeness, mouth running, nothing knowing, name calling
> Lobster
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 07:04:50 PDT
From: "Gloria Lee" <samyanaATnospamhotmail.com>
To: kundalini-lATnospamlists.execpc.com, sashankaATnospamaismi.ais.it
Subject: Re: curious
Message-ID: <19980422140451.18321.qmailATnospamhotmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
<BIG SNIP
>An enlightened person simply behaves the way he/she likes to
>behave, irrespective of anything else. Whereas outwardly it
>might look very ordinary, the mind of such persons always
>travel far beyond the normal planes of thought and pleasures.
>Suhc behaviour at times may be eccentric, sometimes egoistic,
>sometimes happy, sometimes sad, for no apparent outward reason.
>
>There is no way to categorise behaviour of enlightened persons
>to say this is the way it should be and nothing else. God is
>Infinite, and Infinite are His ways and His manifestations.
>Who knows what He may be up to next ? :-)
>
>
>
>Cheers and love to all
>Ashanka
>
>
>
Sounds suspiciously like freedom.....
Still smiling,
Glo
______________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 10:30:27 EDT
From: Harsha1MTM <Harsha1MTMATnospamaol.com>
To: sashankaATnospamaismi.ais.it, kundalini-lATnospamlists.execpc.com
Subject: Re: Re: curious
Message-ID: <bec4033.353dff04ATnospamaol.com>
In a message dated 4/22/1998, 8:57:19 AM, sashankaATnospamaismi.ais.it writes:
<<Sashanka: An enlightened person simply behaves the way he/she likes to
behave, irrespective of anything else.
Harsha: So does an ignorant person! Sorry Ashanka. I expect to be in this
mood until the end of the week. Its the position of the planets and the stars
you see.
Sashanka: There is no way to categorise behaviour of enlightened persons
to say this is the way it should be and nothing else.
Harsha: There is also no way to categorize the behavior of ignorant persons.
Infinite is the variety! :--)
Sashanka: God is Infinite, and Infinite are His ways and His
manifestations.
Who knows what He may be up to next ? :-)
Harsha: Agreed! Agreed! (By the way He is sipping some bengal spice tea right
now).
>>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 07:45:12 PDT
From: "Gloria Lee" <samyanaATnospamhotmail.com>
To: kundalini-lATnospamexecpc.com, blal0004ATnospammaroon.tc.umn.edu, lobATnospamlineone.net
Subject: Re: Be Well
Message-ID: <19980422144512.7431.qmailATnospamhotmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
>(You only have hearsay and texts thousands of years =
>old to
>> judge Jesus on, but you called him a fool.) But you know that.
>
>In Sufism Saints are regularly referred to as Fools, Idiots or Madmen.
=
>In Zen repect for 'canon', 'doctrine' and spiritual authority is =
>sometimes a barrier to understanding. So . . .
>To be less rude?
> 1. Defend people who have not been insulted, or who have no
requirement =
>for protection.
> 2. Keep mouth shut unless asking 'sincere' questions
>
>
>Most Kind Regards,
>Instigating rudeness, mouth running, nothing knowing, name calling
>Lobster
>
>
Dear Sweet, Foolish, Maddened, Saint Lobbie,
Gather you have noticed that people see the Jesus or Lobster they
want to see, or need to see, or "deserve" to see. Would you consider
changing your nick to Chameleon?? You may be over-doing the "let-me-be
your-mirror" routine, Crusty??? So, I am going to invoke your rule
#1..and defend Brent, too. He IS new to the list, this can be a very
wierd place to get familiar with, and once you get your claws into
someone..you merely provoke more squirming to get away. Please let go
and
let Brent swim another day. He can be most pleasant, just take my word
for it.
Never one to keep my mouth shut, even when I know better...
Glo
______________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 09:51:50 -0500
From: "Brent Blalock" <blal0004ATnospammaroon.tc.umn.edu>
To: <lobATnospamlineone.net>
Cc: "Kundalini - L" <kundalini-lATnospamlists.execpc.com>
Subject: Re: Be Well
Message-Id: <353e08944666002ATnospammhub1.tc.umn.edu>
From: Ed Jason <lobATnospamlineone.net>
To: Kundalini list <kundalini-lATnospamexecpc.com>; Brent Blalock
<blal0004ATnospammaroon.tc.umn.edu>
Subject: Re: Be Well
Date: Tuesday, April 21, 1998 8:40 AM
Ed said:
> Demanding to be treated as if capable of understanding. Firing questions
> without absorbing a little first. Assuming one knows things or ones
> knowledge is applicable - perhaps I too am rude. Perhaps so.
I said:
> Those things aren't rude. Rude is insulting people and not treating them
> with respect, not asking questions.
Ed said:
> Really Brent? Can you please tell me your hat size? It is is very
important
> to me. Can you also explain to me why your thinking is so linear - omit
> no details?
Why do you think those are rude questions?
[[[ Next point ]]]
Ed said:
> I also respectfully require the following information before I am
> able to understand you or why I should listen to you. I am sorry for my
> limited thinking - I am not really prepared to do anything about that -
but I
> do apologise in advance. You see I wish to be wise but only in a way that
> I choose.
>
> 1. Your age?
3.
> 2. The age of your first sexual encounter and how many partners you have
> had?
Never had any. I'm, um, saving my sexual energy for self-development...
> 3. The books you have read. The spiritual practices and doctrines you
have
> studied?
Seeker_After_Truth and, um... I guess that's it. I don't read much.
Don't have to, though, cuz' I already know everything.
> 4. I also need to know everything that you know (you can email me
privately)
> with detailed explanations of how you came to these conclusions. Please
> provide references to books I might easily obtain at a library in the UK.
(I will
> provide the telephone of my local library so as to make this convenient
for you)
Well, I don't know much at all, but I do know that I'm right, and that
people that disagree with me are, by definition, wrong. I'm also know I'm
a fool and freely admit to being one. But that knowledge doesn't stop me
from talking out of my ass.
> 5. Your ethnic origins?
1/2 Bohemian and 1/2 Mongoloid.
[[[ Next point ]]]
Ed said:
> I sincerely and humbly respect you but...
You've got a funny way of showing it - being continuously rude and all...
[[[ Next point ]]]
I said:
> I never started anything. All I did was ask a question when you insulted
> Jesus, Buddha, and Mohammed. If you really are interested in being less
> rude, then don't start running your mouth, insulting people you know
almost
> nothing about. (You only have hearsay and texts thousands of years old
to
> judge Jesus on, but you called him a fool.) But you know that.
Ed said:
> In Sufism Saints are regularly referred to as Fools, Idiots or Madmen. In
Zen
> repect for 'canon', 'doctrine' and spiritual authority is sometimes a
barrier to
> understanding. So . . .
> To be less rude?
> 1. Defend people who have not been insulted, or who have no
> requirement for protection.
It is not Jesus I defend, but those who take offense to inflammatory
remarks made about him.
> 2. Keep mouth shut unless asking 'sincere' questions
Not likely.
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 10:12:14 -0600
From: amckeonATnospamhsmail.nfld.k12.mn.us
To: kundalini-lATnospamexecpc.com
Subject: Afraid to post?
Message-Id: <l03130302b163c6d4395dATnospam[126.0.0.108]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
(If I've already sent this once, I apologize. It didn't bounce back to me
so I'm not sure...)
Forwarded from another list:
"Try my new skin thickener, it works! I invented my own skin thickener. Rub it
on every night at midnight all over your body, it smells a little, but never
mind that! Now here's the most important part, say ten times "I don't care
what others say, I am A OK" Sleep on it and in the morning your skin will be
just a tad thicker, in one months time you won't care who agrees or disagrees
with you.
Send 50$, cash only, to:
FairyGodmother
1234 Fairytale Lane
Land of Oz, State of confusion
Money back guarantee"
smelling funny,
amckeon
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 08:17:16 -0700
From: anandajyoti <anandajyotiATnospamgeocities.com>
To: Harsha1MTM <Harsha1MTMATnospamaol.com>
CC: sashankaATnospamaismi.ais.it, kundalini-lATnospamlists.execpc.com
Subject: Re: curious
Message-ID: <353E09FC.F69E8DFCATnospamgeocities.com>
Great people think alike and fools never differ.
just smiling.
Anandajyoti
Harsha1MTM wrote:
> In a message dated 4/22/1998, 8:57:19 AM, sashankaATnospamaismi.ais.it writes:
>
> <<Sashanka: An enlightened person simply behaves the way he/she likes to
> behave, irrespective of anything else.
>
> Harsha: So does an ignorant person! Sorry Ashanka. I expect to be in this
> mood until the end of the week. Its the position of the planets and the stars
> you see.
>
> Sashanka: There is no way to categorise behaviour of enlightened persons
> to say this is the way it should be and nothing else.
>
> Harsha: There is also no way to categorize the behavior of ignorant persons.
> Infinite is the variety! :--)
>
> Sashanka: God is Infinite, and Infinite are His ways and His
> manifestations.
> Who knows what He may be up to next ? :-)
>
> Harsha: Agreed! Agreed! (By the way He is sipping some bengal spice tea right
> now).
>
> >>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 11:24:06 EDT
From: Harsha1MTM <Harsha1MTMATnospamaol.com>
To: anandajyotiATnospamgeocities.com, Harsha1MTMATnospamaol.com
Cc: sashankaATnospamaismi.ais.it, kundalini-lATnospamlists.execpc.com
Subject: Re: Re: curious
Message-ID: <89fc54df.353e0b97ATnospamaol.com>
In a message dated 4/22/1998, 11:15:22 AM, anandajyotiATnospamgeocities.com writes:
<<Great people think alike and fools never differ.
just smiling.
Anandajyoti>>
Harsha: And they recognize each other instantly! :--)
DISCLAIMER!
Home | Archive Index | Search the archives | Subscribe
K. List FAQ | Kundalini FAQs | Signs and Symptoms | Awakening Experiences | K. list Polls | Member Essays | Meditations | List Topics | Art Gallery | Cybrary | Sitemap | Email the moderators.
symbol.