Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
A Quiet Space | moderated by Clive Elwell

Donald Trump's responses to the recent massacre


Displaying posts 31 - 60 of 67 in total
Sat, 07 Oct 2017 #31
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 388 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
if you say such a thing, it is the reality you are creating for yourself and all humanity.


that no compromise at any level with the world of thought/sorrow, is being made within you, when saying what you said about continuing in the same old path...

What are you doing, Mina? ... It's not you who says "I see only you and me or whomever, as the whole of humanity"? ... However you divide yourself from the other when you start interpreting his words putting later those interpretations in his mouth as if he had said what only you think he said ... This world does not need any saviors, but people who truly listen ... Are you one of them?

Mina: The 'madman' is the separation between observer and observed.

"When i talk to audiences, they know what i'm talking about ... another thing is that they do something about it" - K. Brockwood Park (Making ideas of the Teaching)

This post was last updated by Juan E Sat, 07 Oct 2017.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sat, 07 Oct 2017 #32
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 552 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Is not such attention to the the world – the world which is the outer manifestation of the human mind – really part of awareness?

Amsterdam is crying where it once was laughing
and with her the whole country even the other city Rotterdam
from left to right from high to low from diplomat to criminal
from native to immigrant, from heterosexual to gay
a mayor died and a show of unprecedented togetherness

also that exists in a world like ours !!!

Truth will unfold itself for those who enquire their own actions and only to them and for them and to or for no one else.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 07 Oct 2017 #33
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 388 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
if something is seen and lived as an absolute fact (anything absolute cannot be a creation of relative thought), there is no question, no doubt, no thought about it.

May i ask who resolve about its relativity or absoluteness within oneself? ... May i ask how many steps there are from this statement: "(anything absolute cannot be a creation of relative thought)", to "I have the absolute truth, follow me"?

"When i talk to audiences, they know what i'm talking about ... another thing is that they do something about it" - K. Brockwood Park (Making ideas of the Teaching)

This post was last updated by Juan E Sat, 07 Oct 2017.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sat, 07 Oct 2017 #34
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 388 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
To close one's eyes to it, to not feel it, does not seem to be an option, even if the collapse cannot be diverted.

The wise man or woman do not close their eyes to it, on the contrary they have their eyes wide open all the time, only that while "ordinary" people sees duality in conflict (ugly versus beautiful to use the example from another discussion) feeling impelled to act looking for one while rejecting the other, wise men or women don't see any duality but just ignorance in both of them (ugly/beauty) as well as in any action derived from that duality.

And of course, i'm not saying that Mina, or me, or any other person here is wise (or not) ... I'm only saying that to listen to the "truths" or facts that K, or Buddha (among some others), pointed out, trying to understand them from our duality can only lead to more duality (therefore more conflict) if we are not able to see that the only root of ugliness as well as beauty is our ignorance of not seeing what lies truly behind them.

"When i talk to audiences, they know what i'm talking about ... another thing is that they do something about it" - K. Brockwood Park (Making ideas of the Teaching)

This post was last updated by Juan E Sat, 07 Oct 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 07 Oct 2017 #35
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 388 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
The distance is created by thought, even when it thinks it is looking the inner and the outer as one. It is not!!!

A friend of mine sent me a WhatsApp the other day saying this "I just saw that when i have a dialog with myself, in fact it is as if i was talking to another person inside me!"

"When i talk to audiences, they know what i'm talking about ... another thing is that they do something about it" - K. Brockwood Park (Making ideas of the Teaching)

This post was last updated by Juan E Sat, 07 Oct 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 07 Oct 2017 #36
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 388 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
without interpreting what is seen.

Very difficult for the overall of us human beings, with a strong tradition behind us ... but not impossible.

Huguette . wrote:
Criticism is divisive - even where it is not expressed out loud but only internally. Criticism is positive action, action in which the self IS. That is, it is reaction.

Totally agree

Huguette . wrote:
And just the seeing of it engenders action - not reaction

Again totally agree, but for the overall of us the difference between that action arising from "the (real) seeing of it" and reaction is not seen ... In general we do believe that we're seeing it, and that the action originated from it is not reaction but action caused by the real seeing of it ... which is a disastrous mistake not seeing the conditioning from which we are really seeing it.

"When i talk to audiences, they know what i'm talking about ... another thing is that they do something about it" - K. Brockwood Park (Making ideas of the Teaching)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 07 Oct 2017 #37
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 388 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Is not such attention to the the world – the world which is the outer manifestation of the human mind – really part of awareness?

Yes it is if you, as Huguette says above, don't criticize what is seen through that attention, keeping yourself silently attentive to whatever is seen without chattering neither inwardly nor outwardly.

"When i talk to audiences, they know what i'm talking about ... another thing is that they do something about it" - K. Brockwood Park (Making ideas of the Teaching)

This post was last updated by Juan E Sat, 07 Oct 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 07 Oct 2017 #38
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 388 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
I do not see how such watching – can be dismissed as “a form of entertainment”, Dan.

I don't know in another countries, but here in spain there are many TV shows in many TV stations that make jokes with all those watchings you mention in #30, and people laugh out loud with them ... which means that in fact they are laughing at their own suffering, insecurities, fears and so on as an entertainment.

And would you like to know what they say when you point that to them?

Well, judge by yourself: "What are going to do, at least we can laugh before all what's happening in the world" ... That is, we use our own suffering as an entertainment to escape from it! ... What have you to say on that?

"When i talk to audiences, they know what i'm talking about ... another thing is that they do something about it" - K. Brockwood Park (Making ideas of the Teaching)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 07 Oct 2017 #39
Thumb_de4 Dan McDermott United States 789 posts in this forum Offline

Entertainment is not just about laughing, it's also about crying, commiserating, feeling sad, frightened, enthralled, outraged, etc. It is all a form of 'stimulation' isn't it? We get all our information about events going on in the world, second-hand. It is a huge industry. And like the Roman Circus in the Coliseum, more and more 'exciting' events had to be invented to please the 'sleeping' mass. There is genuine horror going on in the world as there always has been. Here in the US, the voters have given the keys to the nuclear arsenal to an 'ego-maniac' with the attitude of "let's see what happens". I think Mina was trying to express her view of all this, and I don't presume to understand it in her way. If we are an onlooker to the events around us, do we see ourselves as just one of the throng of good guys/bad guys or do we understand at least in part that we are the creator and perpetuator of what is going on? 'Awakening' can be very dangerous when everyone around you is 'sleeping'. But isn't that the only thing that is called for, that is 'really' important? To awaken?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sat, 07 Oct 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 07 Oct 2017 #40
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 388 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
as there always has been

Which means that 'now' is not different from 'before', i totally agree

Dan McDermott wrote:
'Awakening' can be very dangerous when everyone around you is 'sleeping'

Yes, that's for sure, you may put your own life at risk ... and i don't mean necessarily your physical life, 'cause nowadays there are many ways to 'kill' you without touching your body but your mind ... But as you yourself say, "isn't that the only thing that is called for? To awaken?"

Now, are we trying to say that we are afraid to awaken (whatever this can mean) and that this is the reason why we entertain ourselves laughing and crying about the present situation of the world while disguising that entertainment under the mask of a false awakening which in fact is nothing else than fear to raise our heads over all those around us who are sleeping?

If that was so, wouldn't that mean that we have no right to talk about others as "being 'sleeping'" because ourselves are sleeping too?

"When i talk to audiences, they know what i'm talking about ... another thing is that they do something about it" - K. Brockwood Park (Making ideas of the Teaching)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 07 Oct 2017 #41
Thumb_de4 Dan McDermott United States 789 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
wouldn't that mean that we have no right to talk about others as "being 'sleeping'" because ourselves are sleeping too?

No "right to", of course not, but from the looks of things, and generally speaking, we are all 'asleep'. (And 'self-interest' is in charge.)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 07 Oct 2017 #42
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 388 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
No "right to", of course not, but from the looks of things, and generally speaking, we are all 'asleep'.

Yes, but the one who is asleep and is able to say to oneself "I'm sleeping" is not awaken but also not fully asleep ... So the question is, where do we go from here, Dan?

"When i talk to audiences, they know what i'm talking about ... another thing is that they do something about it" - K. Brockwood Park (Making ideas of the Teaching)

This post was last updated by Juan E Sat, 07 Oct 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 07 Oct 2017 #43
Thumb_de4 Dan McDermott United States 789 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
where do we go from here, Dan?

I remember asking someone else once that very question...

The answer of course is that there is nowhere to go, there is only 'here'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 07 Oct 2017 #44
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 388 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
The answer of course is that there is nowhere to go, there is only 'here'.

Which means to stop, not only physical motion but mind motion ... Which means no more concepts/criticizes/opinions while looking at the world, but looking at it as it is silently.

And you said in some post above in this same thread "It can only happen one 'self' at a time Juan", which i feel also that it can not be other way ... But this world is not going to stop, because it has been always in motion with its concepts/criticizes/opinions and as we have said "now" is not different from "before" ... "It can only happen one 'self' at a time", yes! ... But do you think we'll have time to see a time in which each one of the selves that inhabit this world will come to an end or we will continue seeing selves thinking in an illusory way that they have come to an end (as usually)?

That's what people like K, Buddha, and the rest saw in the world, and they talked to the world and the world did not listen to them at all, 'cause after that they took their words to continue with its (un)natural motion guided by the ignorance of duality thinking that they were really talking of an inherent beauty and ugliness...

K said "I don't want money, but I need food and clothes and shelter, and if somebody gives me, it's all right, if somebody doesn't, I live where I am" and the world is still asking itself what he meant with "I live where i am" ... just because the world thinks that one has to live somewhere ... not seeing as you've said that there's nowhere to go but only where i am now.

I must leave to my sister's home now, will continue later with our dialogue if you post something in between.

"When i talk to audiences, they know what i'm talking about ... another thing is that they do something about it" - K. Brockwood Park (Making ideas of the Teaching)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 08 Oct 2017 #45
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3729 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
Amsterdam is crying where it once was laughing
and with her the whole country even the other city Rotterdam
from left to right from high to low from diplomat to criminal
from native to immigrant, from heterosexual to gay
a mayor died and a show of unprecedented togetherness

also that exists in a world like ours !!!

You seem to be referring to an incident of which I am not aware, Wim. But it came to me and this is a tangent) if you take away the last line, the poem has quite a different meaning. A more universal one, reflecting the basic sorrow of humankind.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 08 Oct 2017 #46
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3729 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
. I'm only saying that to listen to the "truths" or facts that K, or Buddha (among some others), pointed out, trying to understand them from our duality can only lead to more duality (therefore more conflict) if we are not able to see that the only root of ugliness as well as beauty is our ignorance of not seeing what lies truly behind them.

Yes. or to listen to the truths of Juan:-) Just joking. This to me is seeming the essence of problem, as has been pointed towards in many threads lately. I am the problem. In whatever I (=the self) attempt to do, see the truth, correct the mistake, clear up the confusion ..... I actually am continuing the problem.

Which points towards what? Towards the dying of thinker/thought structure, which is the duality of which you speak, is it not?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 08 Oct 2017 #47
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3729 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
I don't know in another countries, but here in spain there are many TV shows in many TV stations that make jokes with all those watchings you mention in #30, and people laugh out loud with them ... which means that in fact they are laughing at their own suffering, insecurities, fears and so on as an entertainment.
And would you like to know what they say when you point that to them?
Well, judge by yourself: "What are going to do, at least we can laugh before all what's happening in the world" ... That is, we use our own suffering as an entertainment to escape from it! ... What have you to say on that?

I don't watch such TV programs, any TV programs in fact. So I don't understand exactly what you are saying. Do you mean people turn the crises in the world into the butt of jokes?
Can you elaborate?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 08 Oct 2017 #48
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3729 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Entertainment is not just about laughing, it's also about crying, commiserating, feeling sad, frightened, enthralled, outraged, etc. It is all a form of 'stimulation' isn't it?

Yes. It is an artificial stimulation of sensation, in a semi-controlled sort of way. And in a strange way it "takes us out of ourselves" So it is very similar to taking drugs. And as with all drugs, it makes our senses less sensitive, so that we need more and more stimulous to make it work.

You mentioned the Roman circus.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 08 Oct 2017 #49
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 396 posts in this forum Offline

re 47:

Clive,

Maybe Juan is talking about shows like "Jerry Springer" in the U.S., if you're familiar with that one.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 08 Oct 2017 #50
Thumb_de4 Dan McDermott United States 789 posts in this forum Offline

K.from Commentaries (QOTD)

"We all place ourselves at various levels, and we are constantly falling from these heights. It is the falls we are ashamed of. Self-esteem is the cause of our shame, of our fall. It is this self-esteem that must be understood, and not the fall. If there is no pedestal on which you have put yourself, how can there be any fall? Why have you put yourself on a pedestal called self-esteem, human dignity, the ideal, and so on? If you can understand this, then there will be no shame of the past; it will have completely gone. You will be what you are without the pedestal. If the pedestal is not there, the height that makes you look down or look up, then you are what you have always avoided. It is this avoidance of what is, of what you are, that brings about confusion and antagonism, shame and resentment."

This speaks to what we were trying to understand about the experiment of "be what you are, whatever you are and be aware of it"...and also I think it applies to the way we look at the events of the world. We have been taught to have self-esteem as a way to live decently and successfully in the world. But if we look at ourself through the eyes of this self-esteem, we may or may not measure up to the standards we have set for ourselves. And when we see something in ourselves that 'falls short', we try to adjust it, change it, etc...that is what he is suggesting NOT to do, instead be what you are, whatever it is. Get rid of any "pedestal" you've placed yourself on, any standards of behavior you 'expect' from yourself and just be what you are, high, low, good, bad, ugly, beautiful...try to look with no resistance and no justification or condemnation or admiration etc. of what is seen.

In the same way, doesn't this apply to the way I should 'try' to look at the outer world: without expectation, without judgement, without bringing in my 'values', and just 'try' to observe it as it is?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sun, 08 Oct 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 08 Oct 2017 #51
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3729 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Maybe Juan is talking about shows like "Jerry Springer" in the U.S., if you're familiar with that one.

I had never seen it, but I just searched on youtube and watched a couple of excerpts.

Hmmm, it gives new depths to the word “vulgarity”.

But it is clear that the situations are not “reality” as is claimed, it is all very contrived, orchestrated. I don't know if the audience know this, at least with part of their mind. Very similar to the “sport” of wrestling, which is pure show, and is now known as WWE, World Wrestling Entertainment.

I guess “reality shows” are only an inevitable extension of what TV, radio, films, magazines, have been doing for some time (and books an even longer time), using human emotions, feelings, conflicts, as a source of entertainment, amusement (is there a difference between those two words?). And look at look at the old Greek symbol for theatre, the sad and happy face masks.

And one cannot avoid seeing similarities with the Roman Circus, which became, I believe, more and more brutal (and extravagant) as the empire collapsed.

Watching this “show”, and the occasional glimpses of TV in other people's homes, and newspaper headlines, it certainly brings home to me K's words “The crisis is in the human mind”. One tends to think of crises as being environmental, the dreadful damage man has wrought on the natural world. And also in terms of of the outwards manifestation of violence, war, terrorism, the enormous conflict between religions, ideologies. The vast inequality, deprivation. Of course one knows that all these things have their origins in the state of human conscious....... but watching this Springer circus really seems to directly expose the crisis, the deterioration, in the human mind.

And of course one sees the deterioration and vulgarity in "one's own mind", if indeed there is any such thing. And it is this inner seeing, rather than the outer awareness, that tends to bring about action, is it not?

This post was last updated by Clive Elwell Sun, 08 Oct 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 08 Oct 2017 #52
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 1992 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
And of course one sees the deterioration and vulgarity in "one's own mind",

But what exactly causes this 'vulgarity' would you say, Clive? Isn't the basic cause inner conflict caused by the contradiction between 'what is' and the ideal...or the belief? Isn't that what's making us all at least somewhat crazy? I was reading Bruce Springsteen's autobiography, and he talks about his upbringing in Catholic school. Such unbelievable cruelty done to little children ...in the name of religion...God...no less....conforming to the ideals of the church. Total violence there. And that is certainly a kind of 'vulgarity', too, though vulgarity is way too mild a word for what was done to kids in Catholic schools in the U.S. in the 1950's when Springsteen was growing up.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sun, 08 Oct 2017.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Mon, 09 Oct 2017 #53
Thumb_img-0590 Mina Martini Finland 97 posts in this forum Offline

Dan,

Dan:>In the same way, doesn't this apply to the way I should 'try' to look at the outer world: without expectation, without judgement, without bringing in my 'values', and just 'try' to observe it as it is?

Mina: Yes, and actually there is no difference between the observation of oneself (the inner) and another, or the world. (outer) They are not two things at all.

If it is real observation (by real i mean whole), there is neither the me or the world in it, because observation is not thought whereas the world is a creation of thought.

This is so utterly simple.

Neither you nor the world as images can survive the light of observation.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 09 Oct 2017 #54
Thumb_img-0590 Mina Martini Finland 97 posts in this forum Offline

Tom,

Clive:>Just pointing out, Mina, because one is concerned with the outer does not mean a lack of concern with the inner.

Mina: And if the concern comes from the whole of your being, both the inner and the outer are bound to collapse within you

Tom:How did that 'whole of your being' get into the picture, Mina? Many of us are deeply concerned, but as long as there's identification with any of the fragments....and without understanding anything about the fragmentation... this 'whole' is just an idea.

Mina: 'The whole of one's being' is an expression describing a total response, not a fragmented, from thought, response. The whole has no identification with anything because identification needs two at least supposedly separate parts and their relationship. Yes, true, not only words like 'the whoe of one's being', but EVERYTHING, one's whole life, remains only at the level of ideas, if there is no space in the mind for anything other, to happen.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 09 Oct 2017 #55
Thumb_img-0590 Mina Martini Finland 97 posts in this forum Offline

Juan and Clive,

Juan:The wise man or woman do not close their eyes to it, on the contrary they have their eyes wide open all the time, only that while "ordinary" people sees duality in conflict (ugly versus beautiful to use the example from another discussion) feeling impelled to act looking for one while rejecting the other, wise men or women don't see any duality but just ignorance in both of them (ugly/beauty) as well as in any action derived from that duality.

Mina: Yes, Juan, exactly. The wise man/woman has their eyes SO WIDE OPEN, beyond any measure, that no SEER can survive such look! No division in other words can survive such look! No thought, no world can survive!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 09 Oct 2017 #56
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 552 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:

Wim Opdam wrote:

Amsterdam is crying where it once was laughing
and with her the whole country even the other city Rotterdam
from left to right from high to low from diplomat to criminal
from native to immigrant, from heterosexual to gay
a mayor died and a show of unprecedented togetherness

also that exists in a world like ours !!!

You seem to be referring to an incident of which I am not aware, Wim.
But it came to me and this is a tangent) if you take away the last line, the poem has quite a different meaning. A more universal one, reflecting the basic sorrow of humankind.

Hi Clive,

Immediately understanding that it was not understood
it took a while for the reason for it to become clear.

the meaning of the word show must be searched in the verbs: 'to express, to utter, to demonstrate, to enunciate, to emit or to predicate'

It was a spontaneous expression of appreciation for the seven years that the man was mayor and for which he was valued both locally and nationally.

So, among other things, he has - against the pressure of the national government - refused to receive President Putin in Amsterdam because of his anti-gay policy.
He was wars of all sorts of exaggerated protocols, and he received both the appreciation of the ordinary man and of the King, who physically supported him in one of his last public appearances.

At the same time, it is clear that without knowing facts, one can not understand and pass into integration into the own conceptual framework.

It was not meant to write a poem merely to describe how compassion and gratitude the people connected without any distinction !!.

It was not a cynical poem but a light in a changing world, it's not all bad and at the same time it can not be used as an escape argument for the bad state in which humanity is occupied, that is also happening !!

P.S..:After 15 minutes:

all what is, is an expression of love or a cry for love.

Truth will unfold itself for those who enquire their own actions and only to them and for them and to or for no one else.

This post was last updated by Wim Opdam Mon, 09 Oct 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 09 Oct 2017 #57
Thumb_img-0590 Mina Martini Finland 97 posts in this forum Offline

Juan,

Mina:>if something is seen and lived as an absolute fact (anything absolute cannot be a creation of relative thought), there is no question, no doubt, no thought about it.

Juan:May i ask who resolve about its relativity or absoluteness within oneself?

Mina: If there was anyone, then that 'someone', would be an image, right? And could an image see and live anything absolute, anything that is beyond itself?

Juan: ... May i ask how many steps there are from this statement: "(anything absolute cannot be a creation of relative thought)", to "I have the absolute truth, follow me"?

Mina: Thought that is measure, contains the more and the less, the greater and the lesser degrees of something, the steps from one imagined state into another imagined state, in the form of becoming.

So, what is being seen here is that it is only if 'my' initial 'statement' was already an utterance from thinker/thought/measure, that taking more steps in psychological becoming, was possible.

But that which is not of thought and measure, can never become anything else than what it is! It never takes steps in time, in becoming. It never becomes divided, so it could never claim to have anything, (let alone those heavy words about having abolute truths and following someone'). There is never anything else but it, in it. That is why it can never be corrupted.

This post was last updated by Mina Martini Mon, 09 Oct 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 09 Oct 2017 #58
Thumb_img-0590 Mina Martini Finland 97 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Entertainment is not just about laughing, it's also about crying, commiserating, feeling sad, frightened, enthralled, outraged, etc. It is all a form of 'stimulation' isn't it?

Mina: Yes. We could say that entertainment is thought feeding and occupying itself, at large. It can happen in so many ways, as you point out above.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 09 Oct 2017 #59
Thumb_img-0590 Mina Martini Finland 97 posts in this forum Offline

Wim!

Wim:>all what is, is an expression of love or a cry for love.

Mina: Wow Wim i love this!!! So true!!!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 09 Oct 2017 #60
Thumb_img-0590 Mina Martini Finland 97 posts in this forum Offline

Juan,

MIna:>if you say such a thing, it is the reality you are creating for yourself and all humanity.

(Juan had said that it seems we are all continuing in the same psychological worn out path)

Mina:..that no compromise at any level with the world of thought/sorrow, is being made within you, when saying what you said about continuing in the same old path...

Juan:What are you doing, Mina? ... It's not you who says "I see only you and me or whomever, as the whole of humanity"? ...

Mina: Yes, talking to you as the whole of humanity indeed! This is why there is no distance or division between us. I am also the whole of humanity. :-)

(not talking about me and you as images. These clarifications, although at times tiring to keep referring to because it is so obvious already, but thinking about the readers mainly).

Juan: However you divide yourself from the other when you start interpreting his words putting later those interpretations in his mouth as if he had said what only you think he said ...

Mina: I am genuinely sorry if that is what you felt or what happened. I truly cannot say more because all I remember was the passion of insight that was somehow triggered by your words. And insights are never personal. Very difficult to go back to anything, but we can look afresh at what you said, if you want. Actually it already happened, on its own..:-) Posted it as a new thread.

Juan: This world does not need any saviors, but people who truly listen ... Are you one of them?

Mina: In receiving your question in silence, only silence remains. Not possible to see oneself as anything in it...because only silence is there. And it comes to me now that that is listening without a listener...and if there is healing for all, it is in the silence.

Love

This post was last updated by Mina Martini Mon, 09 Oct 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 31 - 60 of 67 in total
To quote a portion of this post in your reply, first select the text and then click this "Quote" link.

(N.B. Be sure to insert an empty line between the quoted text and your reply.)