Right.
I don´t use to talk on love (for others) nor do I trust much people who does it, same for humility and all the rest that is naturally given, not performed.
1 Like
Of course. We have been hurt. We have been tricked. We have been deceived. Also, we have hurt others, and tricked and deceived others too. This is our human history of love, yours and mine and the rest of the world’s. We hear the words, ‘I love you,’ and we are immediately suspicious of it. And then, when we want to utter these words to someone else, how are we to expect from them any different response other than suspicion?
So, before we say, ‘I love you,’ what does it actually mean to love another human being? Have we worked out the meaning before we say the words? Or are we using the words to find out the meaning?
Sorry, maybe I didn´t explain myself well. What I meant is that those who love, are humble and all the rest aren´t even aware of it so, they can hardly talk on it, they may point out to us that we don´t, though.
1 Like
Are they? I am not so sure about it. Maybe this is simply what it has all turned into over thousands of years of misuse. Surely those who love are very dangerous people because they have no rules to go by, no template to work from.
Are who what? I didn´t write what you put as quoting me, the comma I wrote between “those who love” and “are humble” has been removed from the quotation, that completely changes the meaning.
I didn´t write that those who love are humble, but that those who love or are humble and all the rest aren´t even aware of it whereas those who talk on loving one each other, on being humble and all the rest are, IMO, talking from ego so, I don´t use to listen to them, in case you´d like to insist on it.
Alright, it doesn’t matter if it got a bit muddled. I am still doubtful about it. I would say that they are very much aware of it. Don’t you yourself know when you love somebody? Isn’t it rather obvious? What’s not so obvious is why there is anything else to occupy the mind.
I noticed your post to “PaulDimmock” and here are my thoughts on it.
When one highlights the part one wants to quote, the exact part is automatically replicated in the reply box. Nothing needs to be done and the quote is left untouched.
Missing punctuations and attempts to deliberately change the meaning of what one is saying are signs of some intentional “no rules” kind of “dangerous muddlling”, Maybe it is the only kind of love the muddled one knows. The kind that comes from being shifty and shady. It is obvious, K’s statement, “death and love are the same thing”, doesn’t mean anything to them, except some words to be parroted and thrown around to justify their crookery. How lovely.
You don’t need to get your knickers in a twist. I was trying to make sense of a muddled sentence which has several possible interpretations. It has been sorted out very quickly and no-one got hurt. (By the way, I have corrected your spelling of the last word - so sue me, baby.)
It does matter when you misquote someone to make your argument, and matters even more when you say it doesn’t matter, and chide the offended party for making too much of it.
If you don´t understand something, ask, if you don´t agree with something, say it but do not lie and manipulate.
What you wrote pretending to be quoting me has nothing to do with what I wrote likewise your first question has nothing to do with your second one in spite of posing it pretending that they are one and the same.
It wasn´t my intention to say anything about it because I soon get terribly bored with people like you but in your response to “pickone” you have defined yourself, arrogant charlatan.
Thanks for the clarification.
I too think that it matters.
Baby, from your response it isn’t clear if you got your panties in a bunch or if you’re deliberately trying to divert attention from the fact. Most likely it’s a combination of both. But then intentional alterations is nothing new to you. In your newly found forum role (see me as shaking my head right now), whether it is altering the usernames of posters who are no longer here, selective deletions and editing of their (and others) posts/threads, or stealing forum exchanges and publishing them under your own name, you seem to have done it all, baby. People who have seen you for a while get it, honesty isn’t your strong suit. Krishanmaurti seems to be asking you, can you die to your dishonesty.
I misunderstood what he was trying to say. That’s all.
Now come back to the only question that matters: do we know what it means to love another human being? That means will you die to all your grievances? Every last one. Will you?
I am happy to go into any issue at any time with anyone. But you have to meet me at least halfway and come out into the open. Until then there is very little point in talking with any of you who remain behind closed doors. There it is.
Since you’re asking…really? I mean… reeaallly?
You’re ordering someone over whom you have no authority?! But I’m composed now, so, you have no authority over me, baby! You can untangle your bunched panties and “come back” anytime you want. Sounds like you’re on the right track, except, change the “you” to an “I” and you ought to be fine. But you may again fall into the ‘know it all’ mode and your so called questions which aren’t really questions per se, actually far from it, which are simply be your misunderstandings of K used for a myriad of reasons none of which in any way shape or form comes even close to the ones asked by an inquirer wishing to learn. You got that? Now feel free to continue with your “questioning”.
That is issue/s. In plural. Get that? Picking one out of many doesn’t make i singular. Doesn’t make it any less obvious.
But… oh boy, what is this a cookie cutter political statement from someone running for office, or a response to getting caught in dishonest acts who thinks his/her office is something important? Probably both. The implied self-importance is…putting it mildly, rather chucklesome.
Kinda reminds me of kooky ole hags who after running around like headless chickens for months claiming to be “thrashed” by this humble servant of yours, can think, imagine, or assert, they have what it takes to “annoy” your humble servant. I mean, these delusions are mind boggling. What I am trying to say here is you have made your bed and you are sleeping on it. I am not at all interested in “going over” YOUR “issues”. Got that? Good. Except when needed as a passing reference to substantiate points essential for the issue at hand. You can carry on doing whatever you do to appease your insecurities.
Yes, there it is, your prejudice against those who use pseudonyms…as if using one’s real name means one is not dishonest, duplicitous, and self-deceiving.
1 Like
I am out in the open. You are not. You are scared of something; I am not. If I am dishonest, duplicitous and self-deceiving that is exactly what I am. I don’t mind. I have been all of these things in the past; and I may be all these things again in the future too, I don’t know. But at the moment I am out in the open; and you are hiding in the dark. Why? What are you scared of? What are you actually protecting yourself from? I am here. Shoot at me, make fresh bullets and shoot at me some more; I really don’t mind. But, if you are going to shoot, for God’s sake come out into the open and shoot at the real target, which can only ever be yourself.
Then it is a fair duel. When there is a real person in front of me, I have no defence. I shall say, ‘Yes,’ to everything you ask of me. Don’t you see this? If you really want me or another to change, act upon it. Stop all the pretence, all the chicanery, all the false righteousness. Be supremely confident that you are right; and then you can never be wrong. But when you hide away in the dark, you are a useless, shrivelled human being, obsessing endlessly over what the rest of the world is doing wrong. But you are the world, gentlemen - there is no rest of it to be bothered about. Your fear, your shame, your guilt, your anger, your impatience, your pride and your loneliness - all of that is the global consciousness of man. There is but one consciousness, and you are at the centre of it. While you remain there, love cannot be.
So what will you do, reading this? Give me a virtual heart because you like what you hear since it chimes with what you already believe but don’t quite fully grasp? Will you make the same tired old accusations of imitation and mimicry? Such responses are as bad as each other because they are both meaningless.
Or will you tear it to pieces like a real man, (sorry to all the women, but they generally have a far different approach anyway) facing the fact that love is impossible while we are separate? And all that separates us are a few stupid words that were never our words in the first place.
You see, you don’t even consider the possibility that the concept of death is invented by thought in order to keep merely itself alive. Whereas the death of thought is the only actual death in the whole of the universe. Once thought has gone from consciousness, humanity is changed. Then for me it is only you that matters; and for you it is only me. So both of us have disappeared into the heart of each other, not into some shabby virtual excuse for love.
This is one of your self-deceptions. K said, “anonymity is greatness”, and you can interpret his words to suit yourself, but the point is that it doesn’t always matter who says what, but what is said. This is especially true in a forum like this where all that’s needed are words on a page, and how well or how poorly one uses them.
Be proud of yourself for using your name instead of a pseudonym if you must, but see if you can’t be honest enough to know why it doesn’t really matter in this forum.
for God’s sake come out into the open and shoot at the real target, which can only ever be yourself. Then it is a fair duel. When there is a real person in front of me, I have no defence. I shall say, ‘Yes,’ to everything you ask of me. Don’t you see this? If you really want me or another to change, act upon it.
So if you’re saying that your prejudice against those using pseudonyms is what determines your behavior; that you’re so vehemently opposed to what you call “hiding” that you won’t stoop to the level of those who do it because it is unfair, that’s the end of the matter. No one using a pseudonym can expect anything from you but your usual hogwash because your contempt for them is such that they deserve no better.
Stop all the pretence, all the chicanery, all the false righteousness. Be supremely confident that you are right; and then you can never be wrong.
There’s no doubt that you are “supremely confident that you are right”, and this is why you are so wrong. You are not open or honest because you are convinced that you are right when you make an issue of whether one uses a pseudonym or not (among other things you are supremely confident about).
But when you hide away in the dark, you are a useless, shrivelled human being, obsessing endlessly over what the rest of the world is doing wrong.
That’s like saying that if you don’t use your name and post a photo of your proud, bold face, you are the worst, most pathetic kind of human being.
So what will you do, reading this? Give me a virtual heart because you like what you hear since it chimes with what you already believe but don’t quite fully grasp?
That’s wishful thinking.
Or will you tear it to pieces like a real man, (sorry to all the women, but they generally have a far different approach anyway) facing the fact that love is impossible while we are separate?
As I’ve said to you on more than one occasion, I don’t presume to know what love is, so I never speak of it as if I do. You use the word frequently and recklessly because you think you know what love is. It’s just one of the many things you are supremely confident that you are right about.
Once thought has gone from consciousness, humanity is changed. Then for me it is only you that matters; and for you it is only me. So both of us have disappeared into the heart of each other, not into some shabby virtual excuse for love.
A lovely valentine.
Where is the self-deception? I am simply stating facts. I am visible; you are not. It has nothing to do with anonymity. This is about hiding.
Shall we discuss what it means to be anonymous? This may help us work it out.
That’s your distorted view of the matter. Another may see it as you being an exhibitionist, a preacher, an authority, and justifying it by accusing others of hiding.
So shall we talk about what it means to be anonymous?