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

Being what you are


Displaying posts 61 - 90 of 95 in total
Mon, 06 Nov 2017 #61
Thumb_img-0590 Mina Martini Finland 162 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
If it is just one more idea of 'being the image', it is a trick of the image itself upon itself, that continues itself.

Dn>Yes, the trick is that 'content' keeps projecting 'someone who is free' outside the perimeter (the 'box') of itself. So it goes until the realization that there is nothing outside. There is no 'outside'. Then it's not just the 'idea' that we are in a 'prison' but the realization that it is so. That is when it is seen that 'escape'(hope) is futile because there is nowhere to escape to. (only into projected images and beliefs). Then the description of our situation as a "prison' is also seen as false. It is only a prison when it is compared to our images of 'freedom'. It simply is 'what is'.

Mina: Yes, there is no outside, and that also means that there is no inside! In other words there is neither the observer nor the observed, there is neither the prison nor the one imprisoned. This is the Freedom from the known, the ending of the known. And THAT is the pure 'what is'.

This post was last updated by Mina Martini Mon, 06 Nov 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 06 Nov 2017 #62
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 756 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
Mina: Yes, there is no outside, and that also means that there is no inside! In other words there is neither the observer nor the observed, there is neither the prison nor the one imprisoned. This is the Freedom from the known, the ending of the known. And THAT is the pure 'what is'.

Do I want to see the truth of this or would I rather just stay 'inside' the box? :)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 06 Nov 2017 #63
Thumb_img-0590 Mina Martini Finland 162 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Do I want to see the truth of this or would I rather just stay 'inside' the box? :)

M:

Yes, if you really want to live the truth beyond the mere words, you must want it, not by the mind/image/box and so partially only, or intellectually, but with the whole of your being. And that very energy which moves you to the core and fills you up completely, IS the seeing, the real understanding.

Actually your comment feels a little odd, because it appears to take us back to speculating about wanting or not, instead of staying with the actual.

I wonder what is the state of mind asking the question you posed?

This post was last updated by Mina Martini Mon, 06 Nov 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 06 Nov 2017 #64
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2040 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
Yes, if you really want to live the truth beyond the mere words, you must want it, not by the mind/image/box and so partially only, or intellectually, but with the whole of your being

I think there's a lot more involved in understanding oneself... 'self-knowledge'.... than simple wanting. Aren't all our wants based upon thought....ideas....ideals?

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 06 Nov 2017 #65
Thumb_img-0590 Mina Martini Finland 162 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
I think there's a lot more involved in understanding oneself... 'self-knowledge'.... than simple wanting. Aren't all our wants based upon thought....ideas....ideals?

M: You have misunderstood the way 'wanting' was used. I talked of wanting 'with the whole of our being', and not by, or in, partial ideas.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 06 Nov 2017 #66
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2040 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
I talked of wanting 'with the whole of our being', and not by, or in, partial ideas

And such 'wanting' occurs when? When we 'want' it? Or is it some kind of spontaneous action...effortless...choiceless? Or must we make some kind of effort to achieve something or other? The phrase 'wanting with the whole of our being' is not totally clear. Wanting usually refers to something 'outside' of me or separate from me which I make an effort to get....to aquire the object of my 'want'...of my desire. So there's division, not wholeness.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Tue, 07 Nov 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 06 Nov 2017 #67
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 756 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
I wonder what is the state of mind asking the question you posed?

I could not understand how you came to this total seeming 'nihilism', going past the "observer is the observed" to, "there is neither the observer nor the observed":

Mina: Yes, there is no outside, and that also means that there is no inside! In other words there is neither the observer nor the observed, there is neither the prison nor the one imprisoned. This is the Freedom from the known, the ending of the known. And THAT is the pure 'what is'.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Tue, 07 Nov 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 07 Nov 2017 #68
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3818 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
Mina: What 'my point' was, is that there can never be any real separation from ´what is, because the separation, the self, is altogether a creation of illusion.

Actually Mina, when I wrote those words I was not responding to anything you had said, they were just expressing a perception that came to me.
"Any real separation" ..... that is not how I would use the word "real" Not saying that you are wrong in your usage. But I am reminded of K's response when somebody said to him: "The world is an illusion". He answered:

"No Madam, it is not an illusion, it is a dreadful reality".

The self is a creation of thought, of memory, is it not, rather than illusion? There is an implication of illusion in the movement, the responses of the self, because it responds with an implicit assumtion that it is NOT the creation of thought, but has an independent existence.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 07 Nov 2017 #69
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3818 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
This is why it is wrong to take the mere expression, like anger that you mention, for 'what is'.

This is my understanding of what K referred to when using the phrase "what is". That the 'what is' is what the mind/body actually goes through. Maybe this is the wrong interpretation ..... but often K used the phrase "A choiceless awareness of what is", and surely this did not refer to "the unmanifested", whatever that might mean. He also said the what is is constantly changing - does your "unmanifested" constantly change?

I am very wary of talking about the 'unmanifested' in this context. It seems contrary to K's basic approach, which was to remain with the fact. The fact of what is. Perhaps these facts may be what appears to be, but for me one remains with the appearance, until the appearance falls away naturally.

But as I described in relation to the K meeting I attended, this is exactly what people seem incapable of doing. They seemed compelled to bring is IDEAS, and treat those ideas as real, and not stay with the facts of what is.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 07 Nov 2017 #70
Thumb_img-0590 Mina Martini Finland 162 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
I could not understand how you came to this total seeming 'nihilism', going past the "observer is the observed" to, "there is neither the observer nor the observed":

Mina: Yes, there is no outside, and that also means that there is no inside! In other words there is neither the observer nor the observed, there is neither the prison nor the one imprisoned. This is the Freedom from the known, the ending of the known. And THAT is the pure 'what is'.

Mina afresh to Dan: Thank you for your comment, which reveals there needs to be more clarification to this.

Here it is seen that 'the observer is the observed' IS the absence of both. I did not come from 'one to another', since for me the above two apparently different sentences express exactly the same timelessness. They appear, to thinker/thought, or observer/observed, which IS a creation of opposites, as if saying two opposite things. They are not, in Reality, which is only One.

You talked of the realisation that there is no 'outside', right, and that it is only through comparison that an experience of prison is there, like comparing ideas of imorisonment and freedom, which are both from and in the content, thought. And I said that since there is no outside, there cannot be inside either, because only through comparison, opposites, is there an outside separate from inside, which are both ideas, right?

Now, the outside is the observed and the inside is the observer. They are not separate, but interdependent. The whole of human consciousness in its divided state is a constant creation of this division.

Now, the outside is a refection of the inside, right, inseparably, yes?

So, seeing this, how could either inside or outside survive if it is seen that they are one, because they exist only as an illusion of their separation?!

This is why I say that when the observer IS the observed, or when the inner IS the outer, there can be neither!! This means that the realiry created by thought collapses, ends, falls apart.

And THAT is the explosion of true meditation and the discovery of our true nature as all life, both manifested and unmanifested, both the expression and the source.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Tue, 07 Nov 2017 #71
Thumb_img-0590 Mina Martini Finland 162 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
But I am reminded of K's response when somebody said to him: "The world is an illusion". He answered:

"No Madam, it is not an illusion, it is a dreadful reality".

Mina: I feel it is of great importance to keep seeing for oneself, in the clarity where no words, be that the word 'illusion', 'thought', 'memory', whatever, can enter. For as long as the mind/thought is taking in what is being read, it is unavoidable that ALL words, like the word 'illusion' I have been using, is simply misunderstood. I use it as a synonym to thought and all the psychological reality created by it, in the centre of which is always the ego.

To state that 'the world is an illusion', if such a statement comes from thought/image, does not contain the real understanding of the word of course, but is only used with a conceptual meaning. So let us look together what is really meant by the word.

These words of Jesus were suddenly with me today, after reading your reply to me.

"No one can come to father expect through me."

The father is the source, the pure unmanifested, and Jesus (or Krishnamurti and also others) is the bridge between the that which is beyond human consciousness and human consciousness in its divided, fallen from innocence, state. They act like bridges, as fully human beings, and fully divine. (to be fully human is to discover divinity)

Now, with the above words I am not talking about 'some Jesus' or 'some Krishnamurti', or anyone else, (all 'anyone elses' are creations of thought, there is really no distance between any of us other than geographical), but I am talking about your essence. (or mine, anyone's, there is no owner, only the one essence) I am talking about you as fully human and fully divine.

What does this mean?

It means that you (me, anyone) can truly understand ourselves (the world, same thing) only when GOING THROUGH IT, and not by inventing ideas of 'an illusory world' or whatever other ideas. The going through, or rather the SEEING THROUGH is the intelligence, the source, looking. It always implies FULL UNDERSTANDING of the world of thought with the 'dreadful reality indeed that it has created and is creating. The divided world is SEEN THROUGH, which is understanding, and in seeing THROUGH the world is seen as a reflection, as an appearance, not the source! This is the shift where self-realisation takes place.

The basic misunderstanding in Christian belief (or in any belief!) lies in the illusion of the oberver being separate from the observed. This is why the mind sees Jesus or Krishnamurti or oneself ! from the illusory, not real, distance created by this division.

So, YOU are ultimately the bridge yourself you need to cross to fully realise that there is no bridge,no one to walk on it, no time, nothing to be united, as everything already 'is'.

This post was last updated by Mina Martini Tue, 07 Nov 2017.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Tue, 07 Nov 2017 #72
Thumb_img-0590 Mina Martini Finland 162 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
This is my understanding of what K referred to when using the phrase "what is". That the 'what is' is what the mind/body actually goes through. Maybe this is the wrong interpretation .....

Mina: This is only part of the understanding of 'what is', because the mind/body goes through things, experiences, states, because those states are not being fully let to be 'what is'!!!! To meet any state, any feeling, like that of frustration you have mentioned lately here (and which may be rising in you just now that you are reading these words!!!!:) ) FULLY, as 'what is', it does not stay at that level, as a reality created by contradicition, by thinker and thought separate. When you are fully and totally with the 'what is' of frustration, it is being transformed. And it is being transformed because it can survive only in a state of division, of resisting to be what one is. So, to not resist 'what is', is the unfolding, not of the 'what is as frustration', but the 'what is' as freedom from it! -But the mind, as division, gives the phrase 'what is', a divided limited meaning and stays in that meaning. The 'what is', is both the frustaration (any state, and its transformation), but since freedom is seen as the only Reality, and division as a false state thought imposes on itself, it is the 'what is' of freedom, of love, that is the only 'what is' that prevails when the false is being dropped through being 'what is', fully!

Clive: but often K used the phrase "A choiceless awareness of what is", and surely this did not refer to "the unmanifested", whatever that might mean. He also said the what is is constantly changing - does your "unmanifested" constantly change?

Mina: The 'choiceless awareness of what is' (of the frustration for example) IS the unmanifested in action through pure observation. But no need to use so many different words, since the essence is beyond any of them. By using the word 'unmanifested' I simply mean that which is beyond appearance, beyond expression, beyond manifestation. Oh yes, Krishnamurti uses the Unknown instead of the word unmanifested, but if we see beyond the words together, it does not matter which word is used. We can still realise we are talking about the same.

This post was last updated by Mina Martini Tue, 07 Nov 2017.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Tue, 07 Nov 2017 #73
Thumb_img-0590 Mina Martini Finland 162 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
He also said the what is is constantly changing - does your "unmanifested" constantly change?

Mina: The silent witness as choiceless awareness, or as the unmanifested, or as that which is taking no steps in appearance, in thought, but watches in silence instead, does not feel to be moving because it has no time in it, no distance in it. It is omnipresent, everything, everywhere. But it is not in some unmovable state either, it is beyond any states. Yes, it does not move itself but movement occurs in it, as one with it.

^^^^^

Is there some annoyance, or some deliberate distance in your words to me? Î may be totally wrong, just imagining, but somehow feeling it could be the case. Not judging it, if that is the case, but if it is, is it not these feelings that we should be talking about and not anything else.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Tue, 07 Nov 2017 #74
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2040 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
By using the word 'unmanifested' I simply mean that which is beyond appearance, beyond expression, beyond manifestation. Oh yes, Krishnamurti uses the Unknown instead of the word unmanifested, but if we see beyond the words together, it does not matter which word is used. We can still realise we are talking about the same.

Makes sense now that you explained further, this 'unmanifested'....glad you did :) Feeling the anger and labeling it as anger is making it what we could call 'manifest' anger...the known. Without the name/word/label it is an unknown movement....thus you might call it 'unmanifest'. That doesn't mean that the label is not also 'what is'. It is of course. But beneath the label is the unknown 'what is'.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Tue, 07 Nov 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 07 Nov 2017 #75
Thumb_img-0590 Mina Martini Finland 162 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
But beneath the label is the unknown 'what is'.

..yes, which encompasses everything..

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Tue, 07 Nov 2017 #76
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2040 posts in this forum Offline

I'm going to have to look that one up...'encompasses' :) Or perhaps you're simply saying it IS everything.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 07 Nov 2017 #77
Thumb_img-0590 Mina Martini Finland 162 posts in this forum Offline

Everything is love, in essence.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Wed, 08 Nov 2017 #78
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2040 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
Everything is love, in essence.

Please don't tell that to the man/woman who lost a child to a suicide bomber or terrorist attack.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Wed, 08 Nov 2017 #79
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2040 posts in this forum Offline

We were talking about the unmanifest or the unknown previously. Here's K in today's QOTD talking about the unknown:

Questioner: Must we always face the unknown?

Krishnamurti: The eternal is ever the unknown for a mind that accumulates; what is accumulated is memory, and memory is ever the past, the time-binder. That which is the result of time cannot experience the timeless, the unknown.

We shall always be faced with the unknown until we understand the knowable, which is ourselves. This understanding cannot be given to you by the specialist, the psychologist, or the priest; you must seek it for yourself, in yourself, through self-awareness. Memory, the past, is shaping the present according to the pattern of pleasure and pain. Memory becomes the guide, the path towards safety, security; it is this identifying memory that gives continuity to the self.

The search for self-knowledge demands constant alertness, an awareness without choice, which is difficult and arduous.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 08 Nov 2017 #80
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3818 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
the mind/body goes through things, experiences, states, because those states are not being fully let to be 'what is'!!!! To meet any state, any feeling, like that of frustration you have mentioned lately here (and which may be rising in you just now that you are reading these words!!!!:) ) FULLY, as 'what is', it does not stay at that level, as a reality created by contradicition, by thinker and thought separate. When you are fully and totally with the 'what is' of frustration, it is being transformed.

Well yes, this is the whole point of "being what is", surely. As long as there is avoidance of what is, it can never be fully experienced, and there can be no transformation of it (but if what is is approached with the idea of transforming it, then there is still division, still separation from it).

Mina Martini wrote:
it is the 'what is' of freedom, of love, that is the only 'what is' that prevails when the false is being dropped through being 'what is', fully!

By this logic it is impossible to face any what is, except the what is of freedom So how does that freedom come about, if the what is of frustration is never lived?

I think I have a fair idea of how you will respond to this, but let's see.

Mina Martini wrote:
The 'choiceless awareness of what is' (of the frustration for example) IS the unmanifested in action through pure observation.

So you are saying that awareness is never manifested?

Mina Martini wrote:
We can still realise we are talking about the same.

This may be a bit optimistic, Mina.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 08 Nov 2017 #81
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3818 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
Mina: I feel it is of great importance to keep seeing for oneself, in the clarity where no words, be that the word 'illusion', 'thought', 'memory', whatever, can enter. For as long as the mind/thought is taking in what is being read, it is unavoidable that ALL words, like the word 'illusion' I have been using, is simply misunderstood. I use it as a synonym to thought and all the psychological reality created by it, in the centre of which is always the ego.

I start to get the impression, Mina, that you keep saying that all words are invalid - except your own.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 08 Nov 2017 #82
Thumb_img-0590 Mina Martini Finland 162 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
I start to get the impression, Mina, that you keep saying that all words are invalid - except your own.

Mina: That is sad to hear. For me 'all this' is not about 'your words' or' my words', but about a possibility of looking together, understanding together, sharing together that which is no word and which can only be obscured by identification with any word. -My attempt was to undo the word 'illusion', or the words 'manifested' and 'unmanifested' from all interpretation, that is all, since it was felt from your replies that around these words misinterpretation had gathered.

This post was last updated by Mina Martini Wed, 08 Nov 2017.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Wed, 08 Nov 2017 #83
Thumb_img-0590 Mina Martini Finland 162 posts in this forum Offline

Clive,

Mina:>the mind/body goes through things, experiences, states, because those states are not being fully let to be 'what is'!!!! To meet any state, any feeling, like that of frustration you have mentioned lately here (and which may be rising in you just now that you are reading these words!!!!:) ) FULLY, as 'what is', it does not stay at that level, as a reality created by contradicition, by thinker and thought separate. When you are fully and totally with the 'what is' of frustration, it is being transformed.

Clive:Well yes, this is the whole point of "being what is", surely. As long as there is avoidance of what is, it can never be fully experienced, and there can be no transformation of it (but if what is is approached with the idea of transforming it, then there is still division, still separation from it).

Mina: Yes. So the 'what is' is only partially seen for as long as we mean a mere experience by it, of frustration as has been talked, for example. We have then not gone to the root of it where the transformation of it can occur. This is why the 'what is' created by thought is not the essence of 'what is'. And to stay at the level of experience/thought and label it as the 'what is', is nothing but continuation of the same state. We have to go to the essence of it, not stay at the level of reflection taking it for real.

This post was last updated by Mina Martini Wed, 08 Nov 2017.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 3 readers
Back to Top
Wed, 08 Nov 2017 #84
Thumb_img-0590 Mina Martini Finland 162 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Mina:>it is the 'what is' of freedom, of love, that is the only 'what is' that prevails when the false is being dropped through being 'what is', fully!

Clive:By this logic it is impossible to face any what is, except the what is of freedom So how does that freedom come about, if the what is of frustration is never lived?

Mina: You have misunderstood. You have misuderstood by making a separation between 'living the frustration fully' and 'discovering freedom from it'. I am saying they are the same, and this is being revealed only when living the frustration (any state, any experience created by thinker/thought division) fully. The seeing of the false IS the seeing of what is true. This is what I am also saying in the paragraph above.

It seems that the logic that you refer to, comes from the 'what is' of the mind, of experience, which is always in separation from itself, in time, in cause and effect and conclusion. It cannot see that two things are not two but one in essence. It is this mind that is the frustration, the experience, the state, the 'what is' that is not lived to its very end.

This post was last updated by Mina Martini Wed, 08 Nov 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 08 Nov 2017 #85
Thumb_img-0590 Mina Martini Finland 162 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
We can still realise we are talking about the same.

Clive:This may be a bit optimistic, Mina.

Mina: The feeling when reading those words of yours was like of a little child who asked another child to play with her, and this other child, if he could speak like an adult, replies: "It is a bit optimistic to think that I will run to the slide with you, Mina."

What I am expressing here is the feeling how thought is the weight, the denial, to live fully, simply, timelessly. Thoughts keeps thinking, weighing, measuring, analysing, holding back from life...

Where does that utterance of yours come from, I wonder... There was sorrow in reading those words..perhaps they were an expression of sorrow, in themselves, which was felt here..

This post was last updated by Mina Martini Wed, 08 Nov 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 08 Nov 2017 #86
Thumb_img-0590 Mina Martini Finland 162 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Mina:>Everything is love, in essence.

Tom:Please don't tell that to the man/woman who lost a child to a suicide bomber or terrorist attack.

Mina: This is not about words, so to say some words or not to say some words is not the point. This is about energy of love, which is the only energy that is whole. It is not the word 'love'.

And here it seems that the man or woman who you talk about, in the situation that you describe, would be in a most serious need of feeling this energy close to him/her.

This post was last updated by Mina Martini Thu, 09 Nov 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 08 Nov 2017 #87
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2040 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
And here it seems that the man or woman who you talk about, in the situation that you describe, would be in a most serious need of feeling this energy close to him/her.

That may be so, but not the words you shared. Not to the woman I knew as a child who lost her entire family in the holocaust. The Nazis and their acts of genocide were not an act of love...obviously. It's taken me several decades to come to some understanding of that unfathomable, unthinkable, horror. ...and how it was an insane example of the movement of division K talked about...division 'internally' in the Nazis themselves, and in the world...'us' vs. 'them'. We see it now in the news, even today, as we all know. What I'm getting at is that this movement of insanity in the world is not love. That's obvious of course.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Wed, 08 Nov 2017.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Wed, 08 Nov 2017 #88
Thumb_img-0590 Mina Martini Finland 162 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
What I'm getting at is that this movement of insanity in the world is not love.

Mina: And 'what I am getting at' is that it is high time to be totally focused and devoted to the transformation of the reality that is not love! This implies the full understanding of the origin of any division and contradiction in ourselves. The endless descriptions of the horrors, of expressions of division, (which are also the cause of division) is not a movement to end it, but to continue it. Descriptions do not take us deeper, only whole attention to ourselves AS thought/description/contradiction/limitation, does.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 08 Nov 2017 #89
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2040 posts in this forum Offline

M: And 'what I am getting at' is that it is high time to be totally focused and devoted to the transformation of the reality that is not love.

T: Well, you totally missed my point.
It sounds like you are preaching Mina. That doesn't feel like the best way to have a dialog or discussion, sorry to say.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Wed, 08 Nov 2017 #90
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3818 posts in this forum Offline

Above there are four posts addressed to posts I have made, Mina. Do not have time to reply for now, and do not want to dash off hurried replies. Feeling a need to slow down generally. But I certainly hope to come back to this discussion soon, perhaps later today (my NZ day).

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 61 - 90 of 95 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.)