Zelfkennisforum  

Ga terug   Zelfkennisforum > Advaita Vedanta > Je kunt hier een (advaita georienteerd) onderwerp starten

Je kunt hier een (advaita georienteerd) onderwerp starten Je onderhoud dit draadje vervolgens zelf.

Reageren
 
Discussietools Zoek in deze discussie Weergave
Oud 4 november 2012, 13:26   #21
Renoir
Forumbaas
 
Renoir's schermafbeelding
 
Geregistreerd: 28 maart 2010
Berichten: 1.654
Standaard

Friend: The way I can understand that is when my own violence arises, I know it comes from that place.

BK: Yes. It's a hunger. It's the hunger for God. And we demand it. That's why I love going into the prisons. They're really clear?they've done it all. And it didn't work. So when you step in with The Work, they leave the prison in the mind?those who are tired of it. They leave the prison inside of them, as we're doing. What do you get when you hold the belief that perpetrators are sick in the first place? You get to become a therapist and try to fix them. What do you get when you hold the belief that perpetrators are the enemy?

Friend: I get a whole world of enemy. I get a whole world where something's wrong and if they only would do something, then it might be right. Wanting them to change.

BK: Yes. And look who you are when you hold that. Those of you listening, go inside with this question also? do your work.

Friend: I'm aloof, I'm scared, I'm judgmental. I'm on hold.

BK: Yes, and who would you be without the lie?

Friend: First, I get a picture of just a lot of love, but then the next thing that comes in is I feel inept. I don't know a thing!

BK: Good. Good! Good! That's the therapist I want to step into the presence of. Because there's something inside of me that will buy that. With the other?I just get to be right. And they get to be proud of me. And I get to go away wondering what's the matter. And then I come back again, with my nightmares?so now let's analyze those.

Friend: You know, I hold a picture of my mother looking at me and wanting me to know what's wrong with her. So if I don't know, then I can't give her what I think she needs from me.

BK: Oh, that's a good one. You're supposed to give her what she needs?is it true?

Friend: That's the whole story, right? I guess not,because couldn't at that moment.

BK: That's an absolute truth. You're supposed to give her what she needs? You don't even know what it is. Mother, I don't know. That's the integrity of it. Who would you be in the presence of your mother if you did not hold the belief that you were supposed to know what her solution would be?

Friend: Sweet, Innocent. Standing there.

BK: Daughter. Listener. So, let's turn it around.

Friend: I am angry at me because I am sick and power-hungry. It feels that it's not so much sick and power hungry toward the client as much as towards the explanation of the perpetrator with them.

BK: That's pretty sick and power hungry. That's how it feels inside.

Friend: Yes. Like I was telling you this morning, what apparently happens when children have been molested is they feel like they're bad. So I work and work to make sure they don't think they're bad, but in doing that, I'm convinced the perpetrator is the one who's bad. So to sit there not feeling anyone is bad?

BK: So just give us candy instead. Give us chocolate.

Friend: What do you mean?

BK: Well, you're just giving us a feel good. Just pass out candy canes. It would be possibly more honest for you. You could sit us down and give us a sweet cup of tea, and listen. And you might say, "I understand. And, sweetheart, by the way, go inside of you?is that really true?"

Friend: That feels sweet.

BK: You might say to your mother, "Mother, you appear confused. I wish I could help you. And all I can do is just be here with you now.

I don't have any answers. And I love you." But the mind moves into how to make them feel better. So now give me morphine. You know I've had all the chocolate my body can handle. And also, good for the chocolate, good for that kindness, good for that validation. It sustained me until I could go in a little deeper. And that's just another story, but it's an old one?it's a newer old one in history. You know love doesn't deny anything. It just says let's take a look.

Several years ago I was so confused that I could not leave my bedroom. I was literally dying for years. There was no one to step in and say, sweetheart, go inside of you, write it down, and see. Your family should care about you?go inside of you, is it love? Is it really true they should care about you? And can you know that they don't? Be still. Go inside. The television, the radio, my family, the world, everyone puts out this system of therapists, that there's something out there to fear. And if you don't get it right, you're dead. But not a fast death, it's torture. And I was living the worst torture that could be lived, when I looked at what I thought would happen. It's already happening. The worst that I thought could happen would have been easy compared to what I was experiencing. Just like you, sweetheart. Gentle. Gentle. Gentle. Let's look at the next.

Friend: I'm angry at perpetrators because they use people.

BK: They're not supposed to use people?What is the reality of it?

Friend: They appear to.

BK: That's the story. So is it true they're not supposed to use people?

Friend: No.

BK: How do we know they're supposed to use people? They do. That's the story. That's what is. So, what do you get?look how you've lived since you were a little girl?when you hold the belief that your mother, or people, are not supposed to use you.
__________________
Ordnung muss sein
Renoir is offline   Met citaat reageren
Oud 4 november 2012, 13:35   #22
Renoir
Forumbaas
 
Renoir's schermafbeelding
 
Geregistreerd: 28 maart 2010
Berichten: 1.654
Standaard

Friend: Like you would say, it's a whole picture of not being my nature.

BK: Yes. So go back to a time where you knew she was going to use you?you had a pretty good idea?and you didn't step outside the house, or whatever it would be, because you wanted something. What was it?

Friend: I'm pretty clear, one of the things I wanted was to not feel like I knew more than she did.

BK: Okay, so who's the user?

Friend: I'm using her...

BK: You're using her to appear as wise. At the cost of yourself. I use my clients to appear as wise. I use victims to appear as wise. I use sick people to appear as wise. The pattern starts so young. So why don't I feel wise? So, sweetheart, who would you be without your lie? I ask you if it's true that people are not supposed to use people, and you say no, that it's not. And I trust that you went in to find that, rather than use your intellect. So, who would you be without the lie that people are not supposed to use people? What if you became honest and did not resort to that lie to appear as wise? Who would you be in your life without that story, sweet therapist?

Friend: I wouldn't feel like I knew something about the perpetrators, so-called. I wouldn't know anything. I'd be open.

BK: Yes. You would be present with your client. A listener.

Friend: I wouldn't feel like I had to show them that they know something.

BK: Yes. If you think wise?in those turn-arounds we've been looking at?is the way, then you try to duplicate that. You try to procreate it. You try to give them what you have, so they can go off and appear as wise. What we have experienced is the limitation that we teach?the experience that we teach. So let's turn it around.

Friend: I'm angry at me because I use people.

BK: You use perpetrators to appear as wise. And you use apparent victims to appear as wise. Hopeless. Let's look at the next.

Friend: I want perpetrators to want to look at themselves.

BK: They're supposed to want to look at themselves. Can you know that they don't?

Friend: No.

BK: That could be why they continue to do it again and again and again?they're looking at themselves, and terrifying themselves with what they see. We have to be lost until we're found. You know, where's the therapist we can go to, to heal? Where's the therapist who doesn't say you're sick, you need help, you're doing it wrong. Where's the therapist that can understand? Where is the therapist that I can hear?

Friend: I'm just trying to imagine what it would be like to sit with a client holding the picture you just described of their father, or whatever. It'd be pretty open. (Sighs deeply.)

BK: Yes.

Friend: Not having to take sides?I can imagine convincing my mind that somehow the perpetrator's really the victim, but not to have anybody be the victim, and just be open- that's so open!

BK: That's very sweet. Ultimately, you just described who you are. You just described an awareness that's comfortable. It's a beginning. Even that is a beginning. What a sweet beginning. No victim. No perpetrator. Only truth, the presence of truth. Let's turn it around.

Friend: I want me to want to look at myself:

BK: Yes. So, sweetheart, let's look at the next.

Friend: I want me to stop.

BK: Yes, I want me to stop being the perpetrator against perpetrators, and the perpetrator against victims. I keep perpetuating that perpetrators are doing it wrong, that there's something wrong with them, that they're less than God. You know what this Work does, dear friend, when you take it into your practice or anywhere, it sets you up to be crucified. So just know it up front, and make friends with that. Because what we're living, until we do, is the actual crucifixion?the rest is a piece of cake. Even if they burned you at the stake, it's easier than what you've been living. To give this Work is a human sacrifice because it opposes the dream. It opposes what people think they know. So, when you know that up front, it can be clear and fearless, joy and perfection revealed. And the sweet thing about this Work is it looks like everyone else and it speaks like everyone else. Finally. Let's look at the next.

Friend: I want perpetrators to go inward.

BK: What for?

Friend: So I can see that they're like me.

BK: So skip them and turn it around. (Chuckling.) Quit inflicting that on us ! Quit inflicting that on us and just turn it around.

Friend: I want me to go inward.

BK: Yes, and if it looks like it has value, we'll connect with it. It all begins with you?you're id Let's look at the next.

Friend: Perpetrators should get help.

BK: Is that true?

Friend: I can't know that.

BK: Turn it around.

Friend: I should get help.

BK: Yes. If you think a perpetrator needs help, you need help. In that moment. You're saying
__________________
Ordnung muss sein
Renoir is offline   Met citaat reageren
Oud 4 november 2012, 13:40   #23
Renoir
Forumbaas
 
Renoir's schermafbeelding
 
Geregistreerd: 28 maart 2010
Berichten: 1.654
Standaard

everyone is made in the image of God, but not that man or woman. God is good, and God is everything, but not that one.

Friend: I can really feel this crucifixion that you said. I was ostracized as a therapist because I went to twelve-step groups.

BK: Yes. Oh, honey, are you good! Who you really are becomes so visible when you look at how you'd do anything for love. Even be ostracized. It's great courage. But this internal stuff?you have the courage, your life reveals it. So let's use it again. Let's look at the next.

Friend: Perpetrators should feel their own needs.

BK: Is that true?

Friend: No.

BK: Can you feel your own needs? Turn it around.

Friend: I should feel my own needs.

BK: That's a lifetime's project. You know, you live what you say we should live. Your own need is to stay out of our business, and be still with us. And when you think we're supposed to go within, you go within. Let's look at the next.

Friend: I need perpetrators to grieve.

BK: That's a good one for you. Turn it around.

Friend: (Softly.) I need me to grieve.

BK: Yes. Allow you to grieve from the death of all these belief systems that you just don't buy anymore.

Friend: That's what was happening last night.

BK: Yes. What was the statement that you heard me say in the dream?

Friend: "Don't you think your mother should go to a treatment center?"

BK: So her mother was about to abuse her in the dream, and then I appeared in the dream, and I said, `Don't you think your mother needs to go to a treatment center?' And she heard it as?as we worked with it?she heard it as me telling her that her mother should go to a treatment center. So we worked with, "Your mother should go into a treatment center?is it true?" Can you hear the difference? The words I used were a question that she heard as?

Friend: An indirect way of making a statement. That's what I heard in the dream.

BK: Yes, you heard it as a statement rather than a question. So, isn't that what we do? We take anything to validate the system to keep it intact, rather than go inside. And the dream was, you asking you, as you know. Then we turn it around. Let's look at the next.

Friend: I need perpetrators to want to change.

BK: Is that true?

Friend: Not as much as I did an hour ago.

BK: So you need them to want to change. Why? What you want, sweetheart, is their happiness at any cost. That's what you want. You want their freedom. But what The Work shows is you can't get it through the back door. You have to go through it yourself. And it insists. It always has. So you want them to get their freedom, and you don't have your freedom yet. In the moment. What do you get for holding the belief that they should want to change? And can you know that they don't?

Friend: No. No.

BK: So what do you get when you hold the belief that they should want to change? You totally miss the awareness of the possibility that they do. You're already so far apart from them that you can't be heard. There's no awareness there for you. You see them as an enemy?

Friend: It's more that they should know?I believe they want to change. I feel like they should know they want to change‑

BK: And is that true?

Friend: No.

BK: Turn it around.

Friend: I need me to want to change.

BK: Especially in the moment you think they are supposed to need to want to change. Or to want to change. Lethal stuff. Let's look at the next.

Friend: Perpetrators are sick, unconscious, cruel, power hungry, wrong, dangerous.

BK: Okay. In the presence of apparent perpetrators and victims, I am?or I have been?

Friend: In the presence of apparent perpetrators and victims, I am?I have been sick, unconscious, cruel, power hungry, wrong, and dangerous.

BK: And that's what you've been experiencing. So, you know?healer heal thyself?always. Is there another one?

Friend: Number six. I don't ever want to accept a world with violence and power needs.

BK: I'm willing?

Friend: I'm willing to accept a world with violence and power needs.

BK: I look forward to?

Friend: I look forward to accepting a world with violence and power needs.

BK: Yes, like you had a choice? This is your world. This is the world that you created. All we can do is inquire and see the illusion of the world we created, and experience the freedom of that. Because this apparent world is what you have created?with its violence and its perpetration and victims. So keep breaking through this. And when you see something that's not okay, know that it's your mind that's off, not ours, 100 percent. Yes, 100 percent. 1f! look out and think that you need healing, I need healing. You know what 1 say?until you see the perpetrator as God, your work's not done. It's a beginning. It's a beginning. It's a beginning. So I just love that you just continue to take it higher and higher?to give more and more. Because that's who you are?infinite. More and more. You know if I were to experience sadness, it would sadden me that anyone looked out at an apparent perpetrator, and wouldn't fall totally in love with that person. Know that that is the only joining. Anything between that end and where I am needs to be healed. We try to dictate what the world should look like?this one should live, this one should die, this one shouldn't be bent, this one should be standing upright. This one shouldn't be raped, this one shouldn't experience hunger, this one shouldn't be so fat, thin, tall, short, black, white. If you could see the perfection of the whole !

You are NOT God as long as you oppose what is. You can't see the beauty. You can't BE the beauty. You can't be a part of it. You can't have that experience?you deprive yourself of it. Dictating. Dictatorship. Talk about Hitler?it's you?in direct conflict with goodness. And that's my freedom?I don't care if I'm raped, or killed, or tortured, or old or young?I GIVE UP.

I am a lover of what is. Now just step aside from these internal lies and take on your role. Be that that you are?the awareness of that. Simply that! Not tough. Rape me? Good. Bring me wealth? Good. Take it all away? Good. Healthy? Good. Cancer? Good. Old. Young. Yes. Yes. Yes. To oppose it is the only loss of health that we can ever experience. To love reality is to join it?to be it. To oppose it is the absence of awareness. There's nothing more painful than that. That is the pain. That is the confusion.
__________________
Ordnung muss sein
Renoir is offline   Met citaat reageren
Oud 4 november 2012, 13:45   #24
Renoir
Forumbaas
 
Renoir's schermafbeelding
 
Geregistreerd: 28 maart 2010
Berichten: 1.654
Standaard

APPENDIX C:

SAMPLE OF THE WORK

I Am/ I Am Not



BK: Okay, let's begin by reading what you have written.

Friend:

#1?I am forlorn because of an identification with thinking that creates the illusion of a "me" that wants and needs.

#2?I'm wanting to break the identification with any thoughts of desire or fear, that create an illusional.), "me."

#3?I am perceiving that everything that is, is all right? and am amazed that there is an identification with thoughts that hold beliefs that something or someone should be any different.

#4?I Am" needs to break an identification with the thought process that creates an illusionary suffering.

#5?I Am" IS.

#6?I never want to identify with thoughts of desire and fear that create the illusion of a "me."

BK: Good. Let's start at number five.

Friend: I am forlorn because of an identification?

BK: Let's start at number five.

Friend: Oh, start at number five? "I Am" IS.

BK: Is that true? Can you really know that that's true?

Friend: I don't think I know about the "is"?

BK: Drop the "is." I am. Is that true? Can you really know that that's true?

Friend: As much as I can see. As much as any concept?

BK: I don't see you going inside.

Friend: Okay, I don't know.

BK: Say it again.

Friend: I Am.

BK: Is it true? Can you REALLY know that that's true?

Friend: Hmm?No, I can't.

BK: And how do you treat the world and your patients, and your friends, and yourself, when you hold the belief "I am?" When you hold that concept that's not even true for you. How do you talk to us? How do you treat us? How do you do it?

Friend: Well, as if you're separate. As if there's something I want or need from you.

BK: And how do you talk to us?

Friend: I talk to you from a place of wanting.

BK: What do you use it for? How do you treat us, when you hold that lie of "I am" and use it?

Friend: The only thing that's coming to mind is it seems that the "I am" is connected to loss and gain. Or pleasure and pain.

BK: Superiority. Separation. Specialness.

Friend: For sure.

BK: How does it feel when you treat us in the way that you have mentioned?

Friend: Well, it obviously creates dissonance. Lack of resonance. Lack of peace. Lack of harmony.

BK: You're naming your condition. The condition that you create. It's not very comfortable is what I'm hearing.

Friend: Definitely not comfortable.

BK: So who would you be without the concept "I am?"
Friend: (Sighs deeply.)

BK: Who would you be without your story?

Friend: (Long pause.) I feel I would not be separate from who you are.

BK: So, let's turn it around. What's the opposite of "I am?"

Friend: Am I?

BK: That would be one way, but the way we turn it around is we go to the opposite polarity.

Friend: You are?

BK: Do a complete flip?"I am" becomes "I am not."

Friend: I am not. What's coming up are three different ways of doing it.

BK: Don't do anything. I am. I am not. Which feels more comfortable?

Friend: I am not.

BK: That's my experience. It's truer. That's what it's like? it's the experience of truer, without your concept of "I am." Without your concept?not ours?yours. Okay, let's look at number four.

Friend: "I am" needs to break an identification with a thought process that creates an illusionary suffering.

BK: Can you REALLY know that that's true?

Friend: Well...

BK: I'm just asking YOU.

Friend: I have to go in, it's not easy. When I wrote this I left a few words out?If "I am" ever wants to be happy, "I am" needs to break an identification‑

BK: You just did break the identification if you went in. Now read #4 again.

Friend: "I am" needs to break an identification with a thought process that creates an illusionary suffering.

BK: Can you really know that that's true?

Friend: Well, no, if the "I am" doesn't exist, then I don't have to break the identification.

BK: Good. In fact, impossible.

Friend: The "I am" can never break its identification.

BK: It wouldn't. It doesn't bother. It doesn't exist. What do you get for holding such a wise and unreal concept? For you.

Friend: I see I've been trying to do that for 25 years. 1 mean I knew this thought that there's an "I am" that identifies with the mind-body mechanism when I was in India 25 years ago.

BK: Oh, well!

Friend: It hasn't worked yet.

BK: I've got a new one for you: Wisdom sucks. So, sweetheart, let's continue inside of your process.

Friend: Let me, this is a quote from?

BK: Sweetheart, you're the book to read.

Friend: I just want to say this, it comes up?"Love tells me I am everything/Wisdom tells me I am nothing/Between the two my life flows." That's a quote from Nisargadatta. So, where I'm at is "I am" is not. So, that's wisdom. That's the wisdom that sucks.

BK: What do you get from holding this concept that "I am needs to break an identification with a thought process?"

Friend: Suffering.

BK: Yes. You get to teach the world suffering. With all the concepts that aren't even your truth. Who would you be without it?

Friend: I'd give up trying to do anything. It feels like I'm trying to DO that breaking of an identification. So, I'd just give up doing anything‑

BK: It sounds like peace to me.

Friend: Right. One could just watch the "I am" identified and see it has nothing very much to do with truth.

BK: It's as though you could leave it alone...

Friend: Let it just be identified.

BK: It's identified. Can you really know that that's true? Or, could it be just more drivel? And I don't mean for us. For you.

Friend: I mean these questions are hard.... I don't know if this helps, but I dropped my camera in the water and there's a sense in which I think if "I am" is not, it could watch that sopping camera and it would just be the joy of observing a sopping camera.

BK: Yes, that's who you are without your concept.

Friend: I could just relax. I can see that if "I am" is not, there's a huge release.

BK: So, can you see a reason to drop it?

Friend: Yeah, I'd like to not suffer.

BK: Can you see a legitimate reason to keep it?other than pain and suffering?

Friend: No. And it still seems that the way this "I am" is structured, that it is identified with‑

BK: This "I am"?what is that? You mean this "I am not?"

Friend: This "I am not."

BK: (Chuckling.) It was your truth!

Friend: Right. This "I am not" is watching?

BK: This "I am not" wouldn't bother; it stops there. Nothing to do?no one to be. No one to teach.

Friend: Okay. I'm just going to watch the "I am" do what it does.

BK: It does nothing, according to you. It is not.

Friend: Right. It's not. I got it.

BK: If I am not, how can it answer?

Friend: it can't answer. There's no answer.

BK: Who's answering?

Friend: No one.

BK: Is that true?

Friend: Well, it just is whatever it is...that is answering. just totally in the present. A tree is a tree. Not even quite that. (Speaks very softly.) What's coming to mind is...

BK: just stay there.

Friend: ...your comments about "the last judgment."

BK: I noticed that! That's why I call it "the last judgment"? it's a tree, is it true? Can you really know that?

Friend: No.

BK: What do you get for holding the belief?

Friend: Separateness.

BK: Yeah, you get a tree and a you. Does it ring really true to you? Who would you be without the word "tree?" No object. Who would you be without that concept in the presence of an apparent tree? Who would you be without that concept?

Friend: I certainly couldn't have a special tree.

BK:There certainly wouldn't be, there wouldn't be a tree at all. Not for you. You see, that's my world?there are no trees. It's a word. It means nothing. Who told you it was a tree?

Friend: My mother. We read Dick and Jane and I remember there was a tree in Dick and Jane.

BK: So you attached to it, because you got something from it. You borrowed the word because you wanted something from your mother?what was it?

Friend: Attention. Love. "Good boy, you're learning to read so quickly."

BK: So, it still doesn't make it a tree. It just makes a "you"?it was just an attempt at approval. It doesn't make a tree. It's not ever going to be a tree. Prior to word. In the beginning was the word?separation. I moved away from itself?"I-I." Let's look at the next one. Let's look at number three.
__________________
Ordnung muss sein
Renoir is offline   Met citaat reageren
Oud 4 november 2012, 13:45   #25
Renoir
Forumbaas
 
Renoir's schermafbeelding
 
Geregistreerd: 28 maart 2010
Berichten: 1.654
Standaard

Friend: I am perceiving that everything that is, is all right, and am amazed that there's an identification with thoughts that hold beliefs that something or someone should be any different.

BK: You're amazed that there is identification with thoughts?is that true? You're surprised at that?is that true?

Friend: I have to go in....No longer?no. I'm not surprised at that any longer.

BK: Good. So, it's just a flat-out lie.

Friend: Well, let's just see if that's true.

BK: When I asked if it's true, you said no. Which is it?

Friend: I have to see, there's maybe some other middle ground‑

BK: You're finding something legitimate here? Okay, so you're amazed that you identify with, we'll say, a tree?is that true?

Friend: No, I'm not amazed.

BK: Yes, angel. Who would you be without your story?

Friend: I would not be separate from who you are.

BK: Who would you be internally?if you were not amazed at the ego identified?

Friend: The first that's coming up is I would be totally alone.

BK: (Sighs.) Oh, honey... sounds very sweet to me. Since that's the true condition. Without that lie, you might be just a lover of what is arising. Not judging it because it identifies, or it doesn't identify?all of that nonsense. Just a lover of what is arising, just peaceful. Can you see a reason to keep it?

Friend: No.

BK: Can you see a reason to drop It? And I'm not asking you to drop it.

Friend: Say in your words exactly what I'm dropping. The identification?

BK: The concept: "I'm amazed at the identification"?

Friend: Yes, I see it's a concept. I'm not amazed?I see that it's quite natural for the "I am" to identify?

BK: Yes. Oh, my, are you good or what ! That's my experience also. You see how all these spiritual concepts can just become dogma?

Friend: Yes.

BK: So when we speak them it can be with much more respect and awareness and it shifts until it's truer for us. More understandable. More peaceful maybe. Kinder. That's how these beautiful concepts get turned into religions and dogma and ...people spout them so they can appear to be wise or connected. Or in the "in" crowd. Ah, but to go inside and know yourself, to know for yourself these things that you've been holding for so long that you considered so sacred! Know Yourself. Like a child says, "tree," and forgets what it was like before that. It just goes on with the approval-seeking, on with the seeking for love outside of itself.

Friend: What I'm getting is that those thought patterns might continue to go on but?if "I am" does not exist, I'm just observing. It doesn't have anything to do with what is real.

BK: You're talking about awareness here. People can tell you the beauty of a tree. I can tell you the shade of a tree. I can tell you all kinds of things about a tree, and there's still just me describing me. I'm just describing myself. There's no tree?there's only One.

Friend: Because you don't exist.

BK: And with descriptions of anything, investigate, come to know. All of the attachments to concepts drop away? you can't make them real again. "1 am"?every time you hear it you may just find it to be mildly interesting or laughable or just respected. But not believed. It appears "I am not" is truer for you.

Friend: It does seem that way. What's happening is I'm watching the desire to please?what I'm getting is that desire is just the mind doing its habits.

BK: Are you starting to see the innocence of the mind? It's totally innocent. A carefree child. It doesn't care what it says?it's totally uncensored. No meaning whatsoever. It's just beautiful, that's all. It's not real. It's not?it doesn't know anything. It's just playing.

Friend: What I feel is helping me so much, and maybe this is the key to all that's happening?is you've been telling me all I have to do is be in my business. The old pattern would be that I would evaluate myself for being, let's say, boring, intrusive, monopolizing, whatever. But now what I see is that everyone here can take care of themselves. They can leave, they can do what they want. So it's like all of a sudden all I'm doing is my business. My business in this moment is as much as possible to go inward and tell you the truth. Does that sound right?

BK: For your sake.. .Just don't think that I care about it. If you're talking about The Work, I ask the questions so that you can know. I have no other interest, other than your interest.

Friend: Right, but if who you are is part of me, part of whatever, there's no separation between these flows.

BK: I'm the heart that asks, but it's always asked of you. Apparently outside of you, I'm just your heart inside of you. That's all. I think you've got it. Anything you're uncomfortable with, go within and know yourself. That's all this Work is. It asks four questions and invites you to turn some of them around. If you ever want peace, go inside and know yourself as peace. Now we know how.

THE END
__________________
Ordnung muss sein
Renoir is offline   Met citaat reageren
Oud 5 november 2012, 08:10   #26
glans
Voormalig lid
 
glans's schermafbeelding
 
Geregistreerd: 28 april 2010
Berichten: 2.156
Standaard

Citaat:
Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Gargamel Bekijk bericht
DIALOGEN OP BASIS VAN NON DUALITEIT EN VOLGENS DE UITGEVER NIET VOOR IEDEREEN GESCHIKT MET NAME HET LEZEN VAN HOOFDSTUK 3 WORDT STERK ONTRADEN TE LEZEN OMDAT HET NOGAL CONFRONTEREND IS



ondanks de waarschuwing heb (direct) alleen dit hoofdstuk 3 gelezen.
glans is offline   Met citaat reageren
Oud 5 november 2012, 12:19   #27
Aart
Drommedaris
 
Geregistreerd: 6 augustus 2011
Berichten: 3.650
Standaard

Citaat:
Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Gargamel Bekijk bericht
Friend: So, the corn chip just goes in the mouth, but as soon as it's "I want that corn chip," it's time to investigate?

Katie: Yes. But not with the motive of not eating the corn chip. You investigate for the love of truth because that's what you want. A corn chip is a metaphor for that that you really want.

Friend: Let's say it's true now that all I want is the truth. Now, how could I know that to be totally true?

Katie: Well, it's true until you see the corn chip. And then you switch, you've moved. So, at that moment you want a corn chip more than you want truth. When it's true you don't want the corn chip, and you're tired of the effects, it's as though apparent form starts to shift because it really is your body. And it could be obesity, or swelling from the salt, or indigestion, whatever the effects are?those are God also. When you stop preferring the corn chip, and corn chip is all the guilt, the shame, the happiness, the joy, the indigestion, all of it?that's the package. That's what is.

When you don't prefer any of that, then there's no corn chip. I mean they could be all over the place, and you would never see one. It'd be like you don't want to sit in that chair forever, and so you don't. That's where the apparent world field starts to shift. It leaves when you leave. It's the end of everything. And then you notice, it wasn't just. the corn chip. Or it wasn't just the sex partner. You do this work on sexuality, and you notice the desire

3

for everything?it's across-the-board. Because it's all just a metaphor for the same thing. What happens is it just starts to do its own flow without attachment. It's like a "what is," with no ups or downs.

Friend: There's no "you" doing it. It's that impersonal thing that's almost impossible to get until you get it.

Katie: Well, it's not impossible to get because it's always there. The illusion is impossible to get, and not there.
Als er geen 'you/ik' is dan is de wereld neutraal, pas als er een ik ontstaat vanuit een gehechtheid dan ga ik betekenis geven aan die wereld vanuit die gehechtheid.

Zonder die ik/gehechtheid is er gewoon het leven waarin alles vanzelf plaatsvind, zonder gehechtheid, zonder ups en downs.

Shit dat wil ik ook wel.

Ho ho waarom wil ik dat, wat is er nu mis? Waar komt plots die 'ik/gehechtheid' vandaan.

Zou ik nou de woorden die ik van Katie en Friend gelezen heb wel zo vertaalt hebben zoals ze bedoelt waren?
Aart is offline   Met citaat reageren
Oud 6 november 2012, 07:50   #28
Rennie
Singularis
 
Geregistreerd: 18 april 2010
Berichten: 9.992
Standaard

Citaat:
Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door glans Bekijk bericht
ondanks de waarschuwing heb (direct) alleen dit hoofdstuk 3 gelezen.
Oef? ik was er al bang voor dat het de aantrekkingskracht zou vergroten.

Het is echt confronterend en niet het meest aanbevelenswaardige stuk om te lezen als je niet echt vertrouwd bent met non dualiteit.

Maar wat vond je er van ?
Rennie is offline   Met citaat reageren
Oud 6 november 2012, 08:00   #29
Rennie
Singularis
 
Geregistreerd: 18 april 2010
Berichten: 9.992
Standaard

Citaat:
Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Aart Bekijk bericht
Als er geen 'you/ik' is dan is de wereld neutraal, pas als er een ik ontstaat vanuit een gehechtheid dan ga ik betekenis geven aan die wereld vanuit die gehechtheid.

Zonder die ik/gehechtheid is er gewoon het leven waarin alles vanzelf plaatsvind, zonder gehechtheid, zonder ups en downs.

Shit dat wil ik ook wel.

Ho ho waarom wil ik dat, wat is er nu mis? Waar komt plots die 'ik/gehechtheid' vandaan.

Zou ik nou de woorden die ik van Katie en Friend gelezen heb wel zo vertaalt hebben zoals ze bedoelt waren?
De wereld is zonder gehechtheid aan 'ik' ook neutraal. Verder is daar waar geen 'ik' is, ook geen ander er is zelfs geen wereld.
Maar de schijnbare werkelijkheid van de wereld is daarmee niet opgelost.

Wat me, ook hier in het verhaal van Byron Katie, blijft verbazen is de discrepantie van enerzijds toch het hebben van lijfsbehoud (de situatie van de bedreiging met het mes), de desinteresse in het welzijn van de (als zodanig schijnbare aanwezige en lijdende) ander in relatie tot de interesse tot het bedrijven van The Work ter lediging van de kennelijk erkende smart van de niet aanwezige 'ik'.

De droom wordt half als werkelijkheid, half al niet bestaand beleefd. Dus je kunt alleen maar uitkomen op het functioneren van een niet bestaand ik in een vermeende wereld. Je leeft de droom, daarmee is ook weer alles terug, de identificatie met je 'ik' de emoties, de mogelijkheid van verlies, de hele mikmak ligt weer op je bord met als enig verschil dat je nu 'weet wat je bent'.
Rennie is offline   Met citaat reageren
Oud 6 november 2012, 08:57   #30
Aart
Drommedaris
 
Geregistreerd: 6 augustus 2011
Berichten: 3.650
Standaard

Citaat:
Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Renoir Bekijk bericht
De wereld is zonder gehechtheid aan 'ik' ook neutraal. Verder is daar waar geen 'ik' is, ook geen ander er is zelfs geen wereld.
Maar de schijnbare werkelijkheid van de wereld is daarmee niet opgelost.

Wat me, ook hier in het verhaal van Byron Katie, blijft verbazen is de discrepantie van enerzijds toch het hebben van lijfsbehoud (de situatie van de bedreiging met het mes), de desinteresse in het welzijn van de (als zodanig schijnbare aanwezige en lijdende) ander in relatie tot de interesse tot het bedrijven van The Work ter lediging van de kennelijk erkende smart van de niet aanwezige 'ik'.

De droom wordt half als werkelijkheid, half al niet bestaand beleefd. Dus je kunt alleen maar uitkomen op het functioneren van een niet bestaand ik in een vermeende wereld. Je leeft de droom, daarmee is ook weer alles terug, de identificatie met je 'ik' de emoties, de mogelijkheid van verlies, de hele mikmak ligt weer op je bord met als enig verschil dat je nu 'weet wat je bent'.
Renoir, ik beleef dat toch anders mits ik je woorden juist vertaal.

Ik ervaar hier geen ik meer (bedoel ik mee, ik ken de tijd dat er wel dat ik-gevoel was) maar voor mij is er gewoon wat er is en dat is de wereld die er is, met alles er op en er aan.

Alleen er is niet meer dat wat ik 'het filter van de ik' noem die door dat filter de wereld beziet/ervaart.

Er is hier gewoon het lichaam met zijn eigen functies dat niet meer gestuurd wordt door dat 'ik-filter' maar dat heus wel reageert op direct gevaar.

Er is hier gewoon een bepaalde bewustzijnstrilling wat aan de hand van die trilling' 'zijn ding doet'.

Voor mij is dat een/de werkelijkheid.

Ik zie niet een droom of een vermeende werkelijkheid.

Als er geen ik-gevoel is dan zijn er ook niet meer die sensaties die horen bij/een logisch gevolg zijn van dat ik-gevoel.

Zonder ik kan er geen identificatie met iets zijn.

Althans zo is het hoe het bij mij is.

Zo lees/herken/vertaal ik ook de schrijvens van Byron Katie.
Aart is offline   Met citaat reageren
Reageren

Discussietools Zoek in deze discussie
Zoek in deze discussie:

Geavanceerd zoeken
Weergave

Colofon
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB-code is Aan
Smileys zijn Aan
[IMG]-code is Aan
HTML-code is Uit

Forumnavigatie


Alle tijden zijn in GMT (+ 1:00 uur), het is in deze tijdzone nu 13:26.


Forumsoftware: vBulletin®, versie 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Cultural Forum | Study at Malaysian University