Re: Where are we?

[Scott Green]

Hi all,

 

A question arose after digesting the last thread: Is there a limit to what can be seen/ what we discuss and point to here? If so, is that where we find ourselves, pointing at the same thing, albeit in different ways? Or, is new ground being covered?

 

Curious to hear your perspectives.

 

Scott

 

 

[Dan Kilpatrick]

Hi Scott,

Just a couple impressions around what you shared here as questions. To the first one, I wonder if there is such a limit as to what is seeable, if I am phrasing this correctly. I mean it in the sense of whether living as any sort of final landing place or limit as to what it might reveal. Some folks that were close to Krishnamurti once told me that he said not everything had been seen. And as I look at it now, maybe this has more to do with the fact that living really has no content at all, other than what we endow it with (at least as I am seeing it in the moment).

At the same time, our expressing all this in some form or another seems to always have its limits. it can never reproduce that which it describes. So at a certain point, words lose their meaning. Time to move on with living..... But as you are saying, we may all be expressing perspectives that are being touched by the same thing, and in different ways. This certainly makes sense to me.

As to new ground, what occurs to me is that maybe all that seems to arise is new ground, arising freshly. I have always felt that even if I were the last person on earth to come to see something about myself and my way of viewing things, it wouldn't matter in the least. There is no measuring in this. 

And it also occurs to me that what is really being revealed to us, more than anything, are the underlying assumings in which we are living and experiencing unconsciously. They become exposed. Would this have a limit to it? I think that is an interesting question, which itself may be unfathomable. How would we possibly know? Maybe the universe itself has no limit, is unfathomable.....

Thanks Scott for sharing your interesting questions. These themselves seem fresh and new, at least to me.  -Dan

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Diehard Group" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to diehard-grou...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/MW4PR16MB4742EF0E0E4607472BDA1141C4D92%40MW4PR16MB4742.namprd16.prod.outlook.com.

[JIM PETERSON]

Scott, Dan, Janet, and All,

 

Dan, I really appreciate your response to Scott's questions.  And Scott, I appreciate your questions.  And Janet, I very much appreciate your sensitivity to possible assumptions underlying the comments that are arising on this forum.  I think we have to be willing to challenge each other.

 

Dan, what you are saying in this response is just about all that needs to be said, to me at least.  Unconscious assumptions are so often being revealed in me that I find the simple seeing of them as they arise just about all that is happening "inwardly," which tends to free up a kind of clear seeing and appreciating "outwardly"—because the inward "side" becomes more quiet and receptive.  I hope that makes sense.  Somewhat like Janet, I often am sensing the underlying assumptions of what pretty much everyone in Diehards is saying.  The presence of my own assumptions sometimes makes it very difficult for me to post here because my words are just misleading and I have to stop and wait for more clarity.  Sometimes it doesn't come.  Sometimes I post something that's just a mess.

 

Many years ago (decades) when I was first following everything that K was publishing in the form of transcribed talks and dialogues, I had a sense that he was constantly attempting to turn over the soil of his own exploring, not allowing it to become stagnant.  I remember being a bit shocked when the word "mutation" appeared in his most recent book.  What did mutation have to do with what he was pointing to?  Those kinds of shifts in his approach kept me exploring and investigating, learning to not settle for attractive conclusions.  For some people, these shifts mean that he is inconsistent, but not to me.  The content overall was somewhat inconsistent, but that was due to he "process" of constantly renewing the investigation in a spirit of openness.  Maybe I'm giving him too much credit, but that's how I see him.  Dan, I often see what appear to me to be underlying assumptions in your posts and in Paul's and in just about everyone who posts on the Diehards.  So what?  In an attempt to escape the chaff in the wheat of what we are, some teachers have taken vows of silence, or have retreated into total solitude.  But I prefer those of us who are living with all of the wheat and the chaff in the ordinary world of daily life.  Maybe there isn't really any chaff.  Maybe it's all wheat when seen in clarity.

 

Jim  

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/CAGgGDoBfkBGTW-EfS0uu6ATxc2EhgfY3-k6sLEi2rrpnSdNaaQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Scott Green]

Dan/Jim,

 

Really enjoyed reading both of your responses. Dan, you said,  “as I look at it now, maybe this has more to do with the fact that living really has no content at all, other than what we endow it with.” I’ve been stewing on this one since you sent it. Perhaps there is more you can share on this point, although I am happy just continue to stew.

 

Scott

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/1736714765.5710006.1742410051064%40connect.xfinity.com.

[Janet Asiain]

Diehards, Scott

Your questions and your response to responses to it really make me feel like I’m hearing someone say something new, at least in this forum. I am always waiting for something to touch me on my growing edge. Maybe that can only come from the growing edge of whoever I’m listening to. 

Where “in me” is what I’m tapping out now coming from? It’s a place of uncertainty, of tentativeness, but also of aliveness, of real curiosity. 

I love the little story about K that “not everything had been seen” especially because when I used to listen to/read his talks and writing a lot (also decades ago), it felt like he was going over and over the same old ground. Yet his thinking did evolve, I think at least partially as a result of his dialogues with people like David Bohm. Well there aren’t any people quite like DB but other people did visibly move him into new territory and/or challenge him. 

The thing is that is so easy to get into a mental rut once we think we’ve understood something, even if we imagine our minds are still open. Habits of thought send us into them before we know it and each time they get deeper and more difficult to climb out of. All this is metaphor for the mechanicalness of the operations of the organism through which what we say to each other must come. 

I used to wonder why K would speak repeatedly to groups composed of the same people he’d said it all to before. It clearly exasperated him. In the same way I wonder why we repeat ourselves here in our little group (or almost certainly in our daily lives). Do we believe that if we say the same thing enough times (perhaps in different words, if we have that facility), people will finally “get it?” Ruts upon ruts!

The only conversations worth having are those on the learning edges of what we already know or understand. Where something new can arise.  Where conclusions (which become assumptions) are identified and viewed with suspicion by the speaker/writer as they arise. Or can at least be pointed out by those who listen/read in the spirit of mutual aid. 

Living up to my own suggestions is no easier for me than for anyone else. I’m sure that’s obvious. 

To the edges!

Janet

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 19, 2025, at 10:49 PM, Scott Green <sgr...@sdglawoffices.com> wrote:



To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/PH7PR16MB47488A5F06CE9F11EF0E8341C4D82%40PH7PR16MB4748.namprd16.prod.outlook.com.

[Dan Kilpatrick]

Jim, Scott and All,

Thanks so much for responding here. I am involved with stuff today but would like to continue this exploring when I can, hopefully later today. Thanks again, 

-Dan

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/PH7PR16MB47488A5F06CE9F11EF0E8341C4D82%40PH7PR16MB4748.namprd16.prod.outlook.com.

[Scott Schmit]

Diehards, All,

I have been slowly digesting many of the recent threads, especially the conversations between Janet & Paul.

For the past 6-12 months, I've really stepped away from much of the "spiritual" discussions, readings, analyzing, etc. I have read very little here on the Diehards group. I have been fully absorbed in family life, work, and spending time in nature/various hobbies. Since joining Diehards in early 2022, I found myself resonating (but I do think I was probably seeking/slightly self-deceiving) with some of what many would post on this forum.

In the past couple weeks, as I (for some reason or another) jumped back on the forum, I found myself resonating less and less with some of the language that was used on here, and recently, pretty much fall into the similar camp as what Janet is reflecting in many of her recent posts. I think sometimes, we (as faulty humans) hold others' opinions/viewpoints in high regard, even if the intent isn't there. For me, personally, I think spending some time away from the "world of words" as it relates to these matters over the past year made me realize that quite simply: No one has any fathomable idea. I don't say that in a pejorative way, but it just seems obvious. 

And I have felt that in the spiritual community there tends to be a lot of "listen to me" implication guised by "but don't listen to me" type verbiage. It can be tricky to spot.

We (as individuals) certainly are not in any position to say what another human being's experience is, but we are in a position to call out and question things when they are posited as truth (or adjacent to truth). That seems to be healthy discourse, and in an environment such as the one here on Diehards, can lead to truly wonderful conversations.

I always enjoy reading what everyone has to say, no matter the viewpoint.

Scott S.

[Paul Rezendes]

Diehards,

Thanks Scott for starting this thread. It just brings up a few questions for me: what is not new? Is there anything permanent?

Paul

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/16b035db-bc65-40cd-80e1-fc033b055539n%40googlegroups.com.

[Scott Green]

Paul,

 

I see no permanent anything. So we could say that what can be seen is limitless. We don’t know how the universe will show up to reveal itself. But, there does seem to be a limit to what “I” can see -  thought being limited. The word is not the thing. So, is there a limit to what we can actually communicate about and point to?

 

Scott

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/4DFB9F86-BDC5-43EA-BD13-50A8830AD287%40paulrezendes.com.

[Paul Rezendes]

Scott G. All,

It seems to me what we are looking at is what Bohm called infinite potential.

Paul

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/SJ0PR16MB474996549D51CD849D06C056C4D82%40SJ0PR16MB4749.namprd16.prod.outlook.com.

[Dan Kilpatrick]

Scott, couldn't resist replying here just now, with an impression. Does communicating or pointing involve words alone, or is there something nonverbal taking place, whether words are involved or not? Seen in this light, words are not limiting or a hindrance, they are simply part of communicating. The limiting factor may lie in how we are receiving the words, whether something beyond the words is coming through nonverbally. It seems to me that from where we are speaking from, from where the words arise, and just as much, from where we are listening, is what is being communicated. So the words are not what seems important, in this sense.  -Dan

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/SJ0PR16MB474996549D51CD849D06C056C4D82%40SJ0PR16MB4749.namprd16.prod.outlook.com.

[Scott Green]

Dan,

 

Yes. This pointing is itself, new. That is seen.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/CAGgGDoASTuab0vv159tMJvMvQRQHAkKa4sy2u1jwgaR9TzcK%3DQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Janet Asiain]

Diehards

I just got something new, again! Twice in two days!  Dan says nothing is permanent — that’s not new — but that everything is spontaneous, even the repetition of exactly what someone has said before, perhaps repeatedly — that gives new life to an old saw. So the point is that the content doesn’t matter at all, everything is in the spontaneous saying and hearing. Actually there’s really nothing to understand at all! 

Have I understood what Dan at least is saying in the most recent post? In light of what came to me to say about it, that’s a nonsensical question! But wait — the words are unimportant, only the inner “where” of the speaker and the hearer. So there is no nonsensical question, because there’s no sense to be made! 

I can go with this but I’m not sure there isn’t something solipsistic about it. How does it strike others? I also don’t see how it’s communication in this context. How do you mean (Dan) that communication takes place beyond words, even without them? Telepathically? Or are you talking about all the things that being in the physical presence of another person communicate? Or something else? Something takes place, but I’m not at all sure it’s communication. It’s just Being, maybe, which carries  on happening whether we send emails to each other or not. Probably better if we don’t !

I’m also not sure that the idea that people are not really saying what comes up for them but only pointing has the ring of sincerity, either. The idea that there may be limits to what we (humans, I guess) can communicate, or point to, sounds less hubristic. 

Finally, we all hope, the questions about anything being either new or permanent are, if asked too soon, simply conversation stoppers, or at least subject changers, which amounts to the same thing. 

I’m really asking people to take a fresh look at what’s going on here. Even dialogue can get stale. Or maybe it’s just gotten stale for me, in which case I should drop out, at least for a while, maybe like Scott did. 

Wonderingly,

Janet

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 20, 2025, at 12:25 PM, Scott Green <sgr...@sdglawoffices.com> wrote:



To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/SJ0PR16MB4749A0C8792ACAB59ED91B4EC4D82%40SJ0PR16MB4749.namprd16.prod.outlook.com.

[Dan Kilpatrick]

Janet,

What a wonderfully interesting email. Sounds like maybe something was coming up on its own. 

Relating to your insight about the spontaneous being new, I seem to hear you loud and clear. Another way to say the same thing is that anything actual or actually happening is unavoidably spontaneous. So let's say you listened to the same tape of K speaking over and over, and each time or another something not appreciated before comes through. This would be new..... But more fundamentally, the very playing of the tape and your listening is always new and spontaneous. How else could it be? Is it really the same situation each time? Aren't all the circumstances unique, even the playing of the tape itself as it actually happens? This is what I hear you saying, if I am hearing you clearly.

To your question about communication not needing words. When someone smiles at you, isn't this communicating something that comes out of its context, without words? This is the spontaneity you are referring to, at least as I see it. It happens without needing introduction, a framework of some kind, just spontaneously. I can't see how understanding requires words or ideas, and the words are not the understanding itself, at least as I see it now.

I sense there may be something very interesting in what you said here: So the point is that the content doesn’t matter at all, everything is in the spontaneous saying and hearing. Actually there’s really nothing to understand at all! 

What jumps out to me is what the word understanding might point to here. To my mind, understanding is always spontaneous and immediate. It might not show up for decades, but when it does it shows up. I'm wondering if the word is being used here in a different way. For example, that understanding requires a kind of sorting things out, a sort of process that might involve forming concepts or what you will. Understanding as content.....  If so, then we are using the word understanding in different ways. Understanding to me is not contained within concepts, is not content and is wholly non-verbal. Perhaps you can enlighten me on this. I wonder if this is something "new".

This brings things back to what I feel Scott was getting at earlier, or at least an impression. All that is, exists and happens now, really is now. Actual is always now. So when you or I ongoingly experience time, for example, either psychologically (how will things be for me tomorrow....) or simply the movement of the second hand on the clock, all of it is happening now. Again, is there any other possibility? So our sense of time is really not in or of time, we only experience it as if there is time. Now is showing up as (experienced) time. At least this is how it occurs to me for now.

To your last point, how can anything said here be a conclusion, something permanent? It is all subject to the flow and flux of living, it seems to me. Our very conclusion-making is moving as now when it is happening, turning something into a fixed point in time. How can now be caught in the net of conclusions, when this whole affair can only be revealed for what it is now?

Sorry for going off here, -Dan

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/88B0B73E-94A6-4AD9-8CE8-F63EAB62E27A%40gmail.com.

[Scott Schmit]

Dan, Janet, All,

I don't really have much to add after reading Janet's email. It sums up a lot of my wondering as well. 

Scott S.

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Diehard Group" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/diehard-group/PD9c4AjD2tY/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to diehard-grou...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/88B0B73E-94A6-4AD9-8CE8-F63EAB62E27A%40gmail.com.

[Janet Asiain]

Dan, Diehards

I was really just trying to restate what I thought you were saying! Apparently I embellished —

What can I say? If, as we “know”, the entire universe is recreated at every moment, then of course everything is eternally and infinitely new. (Or even more essentially, nothing is created, much less recreated, in the first place) But also of course, that is not how we experience it. We superimpose “time” and “space” on the creation and then we live within these self-created limitations. But everyone does this, so it’s clearly part of the program, unless we also imagine the program. In which case we’re also imagining the “we.” 

How much farther can one go with this? The rest is silence. But seriously, silence. So what are all these long streams of words about? Not the spontaneous reality, which can’t be communicated, there being no such thing.. And still I carry on, as do we all, as if time and space exist and things have a kind of permanence. Don’t we? I’m making myself dizzy

Janet

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 20, 2025, at 6:32 PM, Scott Schmit <schm...@gmail.com> wrote:



To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/CAE8Dg0gRAPUw3gShrhmj%3DzGm3Oae9q%3DzR-7L-XaHnAYaKzCE5w%40mail.gmail.com.

[Dan Kilpatrick]

Janet, apologies. I didn't mean to detract in any way from what you shared. In particular I left out what to me was the understanding reflected in what you shared.

-Dan

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/A1C738E2-9FF7-4651-9A29-A2A7AEE7D678%40gmail.com.

[Janet Asiain]

Dan, Not at all. No detraction inferred! J any

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 20, 2025, at 7:05 PM, Dan Kilpatrick <kilp...@gmail.com> wrote:



To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/CAGgGDoBF7c_z7DwnBK_q2MgS411pnYMav_%2B7OSWai8nY_P9N4Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Dan Kilpatrick]

Janet,

The only thing I seem able to say is that even the arising of our words is spontaneous. This is not meant in a philosophical or conclusory way, but pointing to the possibility of the immediacy of their very arising spontaneously in the moment to be evident to us, an appearing that is wordless and can't be captured in words, as you say.   -Dan

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/8F0F73C4-D9FA-4AF9-A980-FE0A36D5600D%40gmail.com.

[Rani Madhavapeddi]

Janet et al,

👌💐🙏🏻

and we each spin our fancy web into ‘existence’.

Rani Madhavapeddi Patel

On Mar 20, 2025, at 11:14 PM, Janet Asiain <janet...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dan, Not at all. No detraction inferred! J any

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/8F0F73C4-D9FA-4AF9-A980-FE0A36D5600D%40gmail.com.

[Janet Asiain]

Diehards, Rani

And why do we do this web-spinning? I begin to think it’s yet another way of insulating ourselves from the actual felt difficulties of existence. 

Janet

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 21, 2025, at 12:21 AM, Rani Madhavapeddi <rmadha...@gmail.com> wrote:

Janet et al,

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/1C47CD8F-0E44-4947-8EAE-6BC499AD01F3%40gmail.com.

[Rani Madhavapeddi]

Escape routes from Reality 😂🤣💜

Don’t we love ourselves perpetuating the non reality? 

😁🥳

Life is fun isn’t it 

Rani Madhavapeddi Patel

On Mar 21, 2025, at 11:26 AM, Janet Asiain <janet...@gmail.com> wrote:

Diehards, Rani

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/B9E3A0EB-8DAE-4200-B63D-C11D87BF7A5F%40gmail.com.

[Scott Green]

Janet,

 

I agree this is a possibility that is worth looking at.

 

Scott

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/B9E3A0EB-8DAE-4200-B63D-C11D87BF7A5F%40gmail.com.

[Janet Asiain]

Rani, Scott, Diehards

There’s either actual existence — or — illusions illusorily creating additional illusions, because there’s no such thing as existence — just trying to follow the thread and see where it goes — Janet

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 21, 2025, at 7:55 AM, Scott Green <sgr...@sdglawoffices.com> wrote:



To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/SJ0PR16MB47490ABF1213ABD96D8158C6C4DB2%40SJ0PR16MB4749.namprd16.prod.outlook.com.

[Scott Green]

Janet, can’t say I see it that way. The fact that I exist (what “I” am being a total mystery) is perhaps the only thing that one can be sure of. I don’t find anything illusory there.

Get Outlook for iOS

---

From: diehar...@googlegroups.com <diehar...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Janet Asiain <janet...@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2025 7:30:55 AM
To: diehar...@googlegroups.com <diehar...@googlegroups.com>

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/A6D8ACB6-55E0-4537-92CF-CAF057C251BE%40gmail.com.

[Rob LO]

Diehards

To me we walk between awe and nihilism

If it is all illusion then what?

I am in awe that is a-WE, as in Ubuntu.

And our body is land, poison the land and we poison our home and ourselves 

Their is more implicit intelligence distributed around the systemic tissues of our bodies than in the spaces between our ears and ...

It seems to me we are embodied for a reason to attune to the cosmic music of the spheres...

But any which way I look at it without the evolution of implicit unminded intelligence we would not be having these allegedly explicit minded "intelligent conversations" for an alternative irreverent ironic look at intelligence and stupidity take a look at  Cipolla's Five Basic Laws of Human Stupidity and the 2x2 matrix of giving very broad brush four categories 

- Top Left Helpless

- Top Right Intelligents

- Bot Left Stupid

- Not Right Bandits

https://bonpote.com/en/the-5-basic-laws-of-human-stupidity/

I tried to articulate elsewhere that the real elephant in the room is humanities inhumanity to humanity and the rest of the planet [Our SOURCE, our home, our commons] for that matter.

Maybe nothing matters!

But I always loved the circularity in the phrase "nothing matters" in that it implies _Everything Matters!"

Including every character, word, sentence, paragraph, post, thread on Diehards ... Until the backup fails and the servers stop humming and it ends.

Else where again on here I reported a visceral "rug pull" when Art Ticknor pointed on a retreat Sept 2023 in his way "Understanding is a dead end!

Reminds me of a retreat attended in Taos New Mexico Nov 1990 with an Englishman Stuart Wilde who suggested understanding was more about "standing under" 🤔🤔

Just saying

In Friendship 

🙏💙😢

Rob L-O

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/A6D8ACB6-55E0-4537-92CF-CAF057C251BE%40gmail.com.

[Janet Asiain]

Diehards

Rob, “ It seems to me we are embodied for a reason to attune to the cosmic music of the spheres...” (and enjoy the of the show) sounds good to me. I’m not the one always pointing to nothingness and nobody-ness. 

Scott, your affirmation of a totally mysterious “I” is fine as long as you don’t simultaneously deny the actuality of everything that co-arises with it. IMO. 

We can’t have it both ways. Or can we?

If so, how? 

Janet

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 21, 2025, at 11:34 AM, Rob LO <bein...@gmail.com> wrote:



Diehards

To me we walk between awe and nihilism

If it is all illusion then what?

I am in awe that is a-WE, as in Ubuntu.

And our body is land, poison the land and we poison our home and ourselves 

Their is more implicit intelligence distributed around the systemic tissues of our bodies than in the spaces between our ears and ...

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/CAPa3K%2B7vyTnxCktyxRCLd9anDRfcr%2BLDuACd3GEcww71hy0Kuw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Dan Kilpatrick]

Jim, Scott and All,

My apologies to Jim and Scott for taking so long to respond to your much earlier emails here. It may be pointless to do so at this point, but I came across something that grabbed my attention and which might reflect what you were both getting at, not sure. It is a heading for an online article:

"The universe doesn't care about your precious model...." (!).   -Dan

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/1736714765.5710006.1742410051064%40connect.xfinity.com.

[Rob LO]

Dan, Diehards 

🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂

👏👏

Rob L-O

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/CAGgGDoDn09fE%3DEG%2BK3xsKswA-i8-eyxyXESNVCRyBNHaOeWkcw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Paul Rezendes]

Dan, All,

"The universe doesn't care about your precious model...." (!). Thanks for sending that in, Dan. Here is what came up for me when I read it. I think the universe is showing up as "liking my precious model of it." In other words, my "liking my precious model of the universe" is the whole universe showing up doing that. At least that's how it seems to me.

LOL,

Paul

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/CAPa3K%2B48D%3DaomVkpZvjx-4WnJiy8u0QgXTmoVrAb-i9bAH-uyQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Dan Kilpatrick]

Paul, so the universe is having a good laugh with itself as it sees itself in the mirror.....-Dan

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/2438B577-329D-47D4-BBD4-BF00BC679C54%40paulrezendes.com.

[Paul Rezendes]

😁

Paul

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/CAGgGDoABtY7k9Gq%3D_TWeX2nCRenNC%2Be%3Dgu%3DRHBA9xcUEOpzQEQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Jim Peterson]

I’m in the hospital right now, and it’s funny how little anyone’s precious model matters to me.  I do find the question, “Is there another way to see this?” to be helpful in almost all circumstances.  So far at least.  Paul, when I become fond of a model, that’s when “awareness” reveals that fondness, goes into it.  Is that fondness related to the blindness?  This awareness isn’t fond of anything it seems to me.  So whose fondness is it?  The awareness and the inquiry are one movement for me.  Not sure what all this means.  I’m not drawing any conclusion.  There’s not anything wrong with fondness, obviously I suppose.  Just reporting what is going on here.  I’ll have another heart catheterization on Monday or Tuesday.  I’ll keep you posted.       Jim 

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 22, 2025, at 1:47 PM, Paul Rezendes <pho...@paulrezendes.com> wrote:

Dan, All,

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/2438B577-329D-47D4-BBD4-BF00BC679C54%40paulrezendes.com.

[Janet Asiain]

Diehards

Projection, projection, all is projection. What we’re wired for. No escape without deep skepticism of what presents itself and a huge struggle to wake up and then stay awake. Channeling Gurdjieff pretty obviously here. Nevertheless. 

Fingers crossed for you, Jim. 

Janet

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 22, 2025, at 2:45 PM, 'Jim Peterson' via Diehard Group <diehar...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

I’m in the hospital right now, and it’s funny how little anyone’s precious model matters to me.  I do find the question, “Is there another way to see this?” to be helpful in almost all circumstances.  So far at least.  Paul, when I become fond of a model, that’s when “awareness” reveals that fondness, goes into it.  Is that fondness related to the blindness?  This awareness isn’t fond of anything it seems to me.  So whose fondness is it?  The awareness and the inquiry are one movement for me.  Not sure what all this means.  I’m not drawing any conclusion.  There’s not anything wrong with fondness, obviously I suppose.  Just reporting what is going on here.  I’ll have another heart catheterization on Monday or Tuesday.  I’ll keep you posted.       Jim 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/5B7ACFD1-8105-4644-87ED-068A87841FBC%40icloud.com.

[Dan Kilpatrick]

Jim, sincere bedt wishes for the upcoming surgery. And I hear you here. There can be a fondness maybe of a different sort for our fondness just as it is, it seems to me. We might call it love. Not sure this makes sense to anyone.

-Dan

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/89EA6AF6-CDA6-4218-8C37-0072C488BE5F%40gmail.com.

[Janet Bates-Miller]

Jim, 

❤️  

Janet M (Thursday zoom)

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/5B7ACFD1-8105-4644-87ED-068A87841FBC%40icloud.com.

[Paul Rezendes]

JIM,

❤️

Paul and Paulette

Paul Rezendes Photography

3833 Bearsden Road

Royalston, MA 01368-9400

USA

Tel: 978 249-8810

pho...@paulrezendes.com

http://www.paulrezendes.com

Photography

Check out our new rotating images on our home page: http://www.paulrezendes.com

Search Online Photo Library:  https://www.agpix.com/results.php?agid=PaRe12

Drone Photos: http://www.agpix.com/results.php?agid=PaRe12&keyword=drone

Videos 

On Vimeo: https://vimeo.com/user84556629

On YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCO0dHJqaQ7irSCKZSTBmSaQ

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/CAH67c%2BLU-DHDw2PqHuHjEvMT0yKbivYXK2Acce2B4CYWU-KmKQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sheri R]

All, 

“This awareness isn’t fond of anything it seems to me.” JP

Dan, it seems like love to me. That resonates. 

So much so, I’d say Awareness is so fond of everything and anything, It’s all things in that unconditional acceptance way it has. 

Death, violence, birth, peace, joy……..

Love to you, Jim. 

 Where are we? 

Here? Everywhere? All things? No thing? Both? All? 

I’m collapsed in the awe and mystery of it all. 

With Metta, 

Sheri 

Sheri Rink Dip.PT, Acup., RYT

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/A00117E4-F88B-4870-9C08-AC2A00EF592D%40paulrezendes.com.

[Jim Peterson]

Hey Sheri, 

Thanks for this. Let me then amend my statement to this, and I’m really just re-stating what you said Sheri:  awareness isn’t fond of any particular model, concept, or thing over any other model or thing, but is as you say fond of everything—all models of the universe for example.  Another way to say this is that awareness isn’t against anything but is for everything.  This is just one point of view.  Awareness is for every point of view.  Awareness IS every point of view.  All of them at once as one and each of them separately.  For me, this sort of makes a word like “fond” moot.  We can use any word we are fond of.  Now for goodness sake forget this nonsense statement of mine. It is just another fond model like all the rest.  I too am fond of the word “love.”  Thanks Sheri and Dan and all of you.  

Jim 

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 23, 2025, at 10:07 PM, Sheri R <anne...@gmail.com> wrote:



To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/CAAfzGUTP%2BAEt7TwG7tONNQe4teQ6YTPD9z793NHaDiP6Ge9iTQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[alphiesnowbear]

Awareness has a pretty bizarre sense of humor.

Jim, hope everything goes well. 😘

Mary

-------- Original message --------

From: 'Jim Peterson' via Diehard Group <diehar...@googlegroups.com>

Date: 3/23/25 10:54 PM (GMT-05:00)

To: diehar...@googlegroups.com

Subject: Re: Where are we?

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/8C71FC08-72BE-4731-8B14-FEC8C36DD79D%40comcast.net.

[Dan Kilpatrick]

Jim, Sheri and Everyone,

Sheri, thanks for coming in, what you shared resonates back to you as well. It seems to me that Love is even "fond" of our very fondness, as an expression of itself. 

Just impressions, it seems impossible to speak for love..... -Dan

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/8C71FC08-72BE-4731-8B14-FEC8C36DD79D%40comcast.net.

[Rani Madhavapeddi]

Jim ,

Our best wishes for a quick and fast recovery and return back to your normal life. 

💐💜🙏🏻✌️

Rani Madhavapeddi Patel

On Mar 24, 2025, at 12:50 PM, alphiesnowbear <alphies...@gmail.com> wrote:

Awareness has a pretty bizarre sense of humor.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/67e15512.050a0220.2bc340.69c1%40mx.google.com.

[Willow]

Jim,

Best Wishes!

💜

Willow