Deep Insights (Gimme)

samtzu · Post by **samtzu** » Fri Oct 15, 2004 5:23 pm

my point, i guess, is that unconditional love can only exist in a healthy relationship, where things are balanced and honest...otherwise what you have is one person being unconditional and the other person taking advantage of it.
so there are conditions to unconditional love...?

BINGO!!

Sounds familiar. Unconditional love is one sided unless all parties engage in it... but it is also a choice. You can't force me to love you unconditionally and vice versa. But, being a choice, you can also choose to stop it. It is up to you.

CA and Stuart engaged in this thing:

stuart wrote:
Quote:
"who"

why is this in quotes?
who means what self and layer of reality you choose to identify with, your ego, small self, or your real, higher self.....like...who's really runnin the show? Me? I don't think so....then what?

It's one thing repeat what you have been told (and accept as true) and it is another to live it. You (whoever 'you' may be) will find out where you really live when you are put into the situation that regynalonglank is talking about. It's not a "pass/fail" test... it's more of a road test, to see how the tires hold the road, where the power is in the corners, and whether or not this is the road for you (mainly the latter). And the ego, no matter how much it is derided, is still a very important part of our Self. Go out in this world without it and you become roadkill.

Was that some obscure, obsfucated shit, or what?

cowboyangel · Post by **cowboyangel** » Fri Oct 15, 2004 5:43 pm

well, I'm utilitarian too Sam, but too often I think I and the Human race loose sight of the deeper mind...I'd much rather live my life there...and yes it's not easy.

samtzu · Post by **samtzu** » Fri Oct 15, 2004 5:56 pm

cowboyangel wrote:well, I'm utilitarian too Sam, but too often I think I and the Human race loose sight of the deeper mind...I'd much rather live my life there...and yes it's not easy.

Agreed. In the perfect world, the "I" is subsumed into the "ALL", and there is no "other", only "ALL". If that were even partially true in this world, monastaries wouldn't even be needed because the whole world would be one big spiritual ball o' fire...

But, even as things stand now, the vulnerable can be directed by subtlety and gentleness into this area of awareness the same way that an aikido master gently directs an attacker into a brick wall. The results, in both cases, is the same: an altered state of consciousness.

Freedom from consciousness can be considered unconsciousness, but only by the unawake. It actually is, as you know, a deeper consiousness.

Now that was obscure!

... and about as subtle as a sawed off shotgun...

Yeah, like you would know from 'subtle'...

cowboyangel · Post by **cowboyangel** » Fri Oct 15, 2004 6:24 pm

good Sam that's good....good

tisha2 · Post by **tisha2** » Fri Oct 15, 2004 7:00 pm

aaahhhh....'twas good. think i'm full for a while. yum!

robbidobbs · Post by **robbidobbs** » Fri Oct 15, 2004 8:19 pm

Ok Sam. I'm gonna read some Deng Ming-Dao now...

"Those who have some wisdom accept that they embody contradictory elements. Thus, even while they cleave to the good, they know that they will inevitably do bad, but they understand themselves when they do. Committing evil should not be intentional. Do not say, 'Today I must do my quota of bad deeds in order to fulfill my destiny.' That is an utter mistake. Rather, you must always strive to understand a situation before you act. You must take this action whether or not it conforms to petty morality. This is the way of the sages. "

Right...subtle as a sawed off shotgun.
Just keep throwing posers thru the paper walls, Sam.
Gawd I love this board. Where else can you go on about beer, blowing shit up, and taoism and feel more sane than when you came in?

aforceforgood · Post by **aforceforgood** » Fri Oct 15, 2004 8:37 pm

Regyna, I don't think you failed the unconditional love thing with that guy, you just didn't want to live that way, and so cleared the way for him to either change himself or to find someone who would be ok with his lifestyle.

Who says love can't mean giving someone a kick in the butt if they need/deserve it? If they didn't want that kick in the butt, then why would they act in the way that brings it to them over and over?

Simply Joel · Post by **Simply Joel** » Sat Oct 16, 2004 5:49 am

cowboyangel wrote:
tisha2 wrote:dammit with the avatar, CowboyAngel!!! Now you've gone too far!!
it's a religion.it's a religion..it's a religion...just keep repeating that and you'll soon understand, besides, this kind of fixation has its advantages in the bedroom

cowboyangel · Post by **cowboyangel** » Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:41 am

did you draw that yourself?

mars · Post by **mars** » Sat Oct 16, 2004 12:29 pm

Who says love can't mean giving someone a kick in the butt if they need/deserve it?

I want the people who love me to let me know when I'm off-track. The enabling of bad stuff is not unconditional love.

cowboyangel · Post by **cowboyangel** » Sat Oct 16, 2004 1:05 pm

stuart · Post by **stuart** » Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:57 am

Was that some obscure, obsfucated shit, or what?

yes

I gotta tell you boys, maybe it's because I have not looked around in this dusty place called my head enough but, there's only me in here.

samtzu · Post by **samtzu** » Mon Oct 18, 2004 12:49 pm

stuart wrote:
Was that some obscure, obsfucated shit, or what?
yes

I gotta tell you boys, maybe it's because I have not looked around in this dusty place called my head enough but, there's only me in here.

No biggie. For aeons, people sailed along the surface of the oceans, not knowing what was underneath. Every now and then, someone would say, "Here be monsters". So it is with whatever the fuck it is we are talking about. Diving is not required, but there are some pretty amazing things down there. As we dive deeper, we can recognize them for what they are in experience and not just call them "monsters".

Now, was that obscure?

stuart · Post by **stuart** » Mon Oct 18, 2004 1:23 pm

Now, was that obscure?

yes

Rian Jackson · Post by **Rian Jackson** » Mon Oct 18, 2004 1:56 pm

stuie wrote:
Now, was that obscure?

yes

i would have said, 'no'

stuart · Post by **stuart** » Mon Oct 18, 2004 2:02 pm

please see other thread regarding my use of analogies

Rian Jackson · Post by **Rian Jackson** » Mon Oct 18, 2004 3:19 pm

who, me?
jeebus, i don't wanna argue with you.
i'd rather kiss you and kick your little yetti-d butt.
argue with dana, for chrissakes.

you liken me to a squirrel, call me a rookie, and try to have some huge argument with me regarding issues which i've largely argreed with you!

bug up your ass, darlin?

and i don't even wanna hear 'cites'

smoooooooch

stuart · Post by **stuart** » Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:09 pm

who, me?

I aint arguin with you love. Just sayin I don't find that obscure analogies advance the discussion much.

you liken me to a squirrel, call me a rookie,

etc., etc..

there are dire consequences to using the 3 syllable name action

plus, I think it was more of a chipmunk comment than a squirrel comment

smoooch

Rian Jackson · Post by **Rian Jackson** » Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:13 pm

stuart wrote:there are dire consequences to using the 3 syllable name action

smoooch

two, sweetcheeks. stoo-ee. not three. must i do everything phonetically?

stuart wrote:there are dire consequences to using the 3 syllable name action

cites?

stuart · Post by **stuart** » Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:16 pm

stuart wrote:
there are dire consequences to using the 3<2> syllable name action
quote]

cites?

you liken me to a squirrel, call me a rookie, and try to have some huge argument with me regarding issues which i've largely argreed with you!

stuart · Post by **stuart** » Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:17 pm

that shit never comes out the way I want it to.

Rian Jackson · Post by **Rian Jackson** » Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:25 pm

stuart wrote:that shit never comes out the way I want it to.

there are various supplements you can take for that.

stuart · Post by **stuart** » Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:28 pm

touche

I am going to get a drink

join me?

cowboyangel · Post by **cowboyangel** » Mon Oct 18, 2004 8:38 pm

sorry to break the spell here..it is about deep insights ain't it? I found that the universe is my mind and that as the author of such, I have authorship rights, and I choose to exercise them now!

Simply Joel · Post by **Simply Joel** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 6:47 am

cowboyangel wrote:sorry to break the spell here..it is about deep insights ain't it? I found that the universe is my mind and that as the author of such, I have authorship rights, and I choose to exercise them now!

so, the chaos theory is correct?

Rian Jackson · Post by **Rian Jackson** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 8:45 am

stuart wrote:touche

I am going to get a drink

join me?

oops, sorry stuie, i left my work and the computer before your invitation popped. i'd love to get a drink today....

blyslv · Post by **blyslv** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 9:28 am

"Rian and stuart sitting in a tree,
K-I-S-S-I-N-G

...

well you know the rest.

Rian Jackson · Post by **Rian Jackson** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 9:32 am

blyslv wrote:"Rian and stuart sitting in a tree,
K-I-S-S-I-N-G

...

well you know the rest.

first comes love
absolutely. no qualms there.
then comes marriage
yeah, but he's already hitched and i have no desire to be
then comes a baby in a baby carriage
stuie and i agree on this - no ankle biters, either together or apart.

and hey, blyslv:
smooooooooooooooooch

Alpha · Post by **Alpha** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 10:08 am

Hey, easy on the ankle biters. The last time I bit someone's ankle, she rather enjoyed it. :-)

stuart · Post by **stuart** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 10:45 am

I'm laughing my head off

in a quiet in the office sort of way