"The Dharma has no tradition."

~ His Holiness the 17th Karmapa


From personal notes,
posted to DailyDharma

The mind that is not baffled is not employed.
The impeded stream is the one that sings.
~ Wendell Berry

thanks to nm rai

Life may not have any real "meaning" other than
the one that you have superimposed upon it.

In short, life will tend to mean for you whatever
you say that life means.  For example, when you
say that:

"Life is a drag!"
"Life is a challenge."
"Life is terrible."
"Life is a dance."
"Life is a Game."
etc. etc. etc.

then Life won't disappoint you.

Life will mysteriously show up for you in ways
that fully support your heart's definition of it. No
matter how self-limiting that definition might be.

But you'll have to take some position on it.

If you're not willing to give your life any meaning
at all, then your inner fear that "My life is probably
meaningless!" will automatically win by default.


                 - Chuck Hillig, Seeds for the Soul

posted to AlongTheWay

When you see a truck bearing down on you, by all means jump out of the way. But spend some time in meditation, too. Learning to deal with discomfort; is the only way you’ll be ready to handle the truck you didn’t see.

            Bhante Henepola Gunaratana from Mindfulness in Plain English

Nonduality Highlights: Issue #3190, Saturday, June 7, 2008

Nonduality Highlights: Issue #3191, Sunday, June 8, 2008

In issue #3189, responses were invited to the following blog entry located at http://lifeislikethat999.blogspot.com/2008/06/misty-perception-question.html. A few responses were sent directly to the Highlights editors, and a few were posted to the blog as comments. Here's the blog entry, followed by the responses. The reader contributions are very much appreciated. Thank you.

Hello,

 I've been studying the philosophy of Advaita, Buddhism and Taoism as well as trying to find a cognitive shift in my perception so that I can experience the world as non-dual. One night I read something regarding the question of truth. What is true and what isn't? Should we proceed from the standpoint of everything being false? An illusion? Something clicked in my mind and the next day I was experiencing extreme panic attacks and have been ever since (that was a week ago).  

Now when I look at my fiancee I doubt her existence and feel a flooding of panic that is overwhelming. I also feel this with everyone else as well as objects, time and existence itself. I know that this is an odd question, however, I was wondering if you have any insight into how I should proceed. Thank you for your time and expertise.

Response to anonymous contributor:

The panic attacks you are experiencing coincide with the meditative realization of emptiness. Prior to meditative awareness we accept at face value the doings of mind. Once meditative absorption is attained it becomes apparent that consciousness configures the world of appearances; just as consciousness, when dreaming, creates the world of dreams. Although the rules of both states of consciousness are different, from the vantage of the witness of consciousness (meditative absorption) it can be seen that both worlds arise in consciousness, and are non-dual, and without inherent truth. There is no secondary vantage from which the arising in consciousness can be validated. The world of dreaming and the world of waking are non-dual in that for both states there is a singularity that does not correspond precisely to whatever there is out there beyond consciousness. What is beyond consciousness is an ineffable and eternal mystery.

Considered from another perspective if all that you view has no inherent existence on its own side, indeed having no side of its own, then you as the perceiver also do not have any essence of validity or truth on your side. Although you as the perceiver may not have been directly aware of the impending death of the egoic self, with its ongoing story in consciousness, certainly subconsciously you are very aware. Hence, the ‘flooding of panic’ when doubting the existence of your fiancé, and by inference your very own being.

With further meditative exploration, and enlightened guidance, you will resolve the death of the illusory self in consciousness with a permanent turning about in the seat of consciousness, and simultaneous emergence of the greater Self, or God realization.

Edward Plotkin

http://www.FourYogas.com

The Four Yogas Of Enlightenment:

Guide to don Juan’s Nagualism & Esoteric Buddhism

Archived issues of the NDHighlights are available online:
http://nonduality.com/hlhome.htm

Nonduality Highlights: Issue #3197, Saturday, June 14, 2008




----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

When personal identification vanishes, all that then remains is a
sense of presence without the person, which gets translated into a
feeling of life as total freedom.

- Ramesh Balsekar, posted to ANetofJewels



----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying at
Varanasi in the Game Refuge at Isipatana. There he addressed the
group of five monks:

'The body, monks, is not self. If the body were the self, this body
would not lend itself to dis-ease. It would be possible (to say) with
regard to the body, "Let my body be thus. Let my body not be thus."
But precisely because the body is not self, the body lends itself to
dis-ease. And it is not possible (to say) with regard to the
body, "Let my body be thus. Let my body not be thus."

'Feeling is not self.... Perception is not self.... Mental processes
are not self...

'Consciousness is not self. If consciousness were the self, this
consciousness would not lend itself to dis-ease. It would be possible
(to say) with regard to consciousness, "Let my consciousness be thus.
Let my consciousness not be thus." But precisely because
consciousness is not self, consciousness lends itself to dis-ease.
And it is not possible (to say) with regard to consciousness, "Let my
consciousness be thus. Let my consciousness not be thus."

'How do you construe thus, monks--Is the body constant or
inconstant?' 'Inconstant, Lord.' 'And is that which is inconstant
easeful or stressful?' 'Stressful, Lord.' 'And is it fitting to
regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: "This is
mine. This is my self. This is what I am"?' 'No, Lord.'

'...Is feeling constant or inconstant?... Is perception constant or
inconstant?.... Are mental processes constant or inconstant?...

'Is consciousness constant or inconstant?' 'Inconstant, Lord.' 'And
is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?' 'Stressful,
Lord.' 'And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful,
subject to change as: "This is mine. This is my self. This is what I
am"?' 'No, Lord.'

'Thus, monks, any body whatsoever--past, future, or present; internal
or external; blatant or subtle, common or sublime, far or near: every
body--is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment
as: "This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am."

'Any feeling whatsoever... Any perception whatsoever.... Any mental
processes whatsoever...

'Any consciousness whatsoever--past, future, or present; internal or
external; blatant or subtle, common or sublime, far or near: every
consciousness--is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment
as: "This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am."

'Seeing thus, the instructed Noble disciple grows disenchanted with
the body, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with perception,
disenchanted with mental processes, and disenchanted with
consciousness. Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through
dispassion, he is released. With release, there is the
knowledge, "Released." He discerns that, "Birth is depleted, the holy
life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this
world."'

That is what the Blessed Onesaid. Glad at heart, the group of five
monks delighted at his words. And while this explanation was being
given, the hearts of the group of five monks, through no clinging
(not being sustained), were released from the mental effluents.

- The Sermon on the Not-Self Characteristic (Anattalakkhana Sutta,
Samyutta Nikaya XXII, 59)



----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

All my thoughts, hopes and fears about the future have changed
radically since I fell asleep one night in October 1985 and woke next
morning without a self. I don't know what happened to it, but it
never returned... I experience this Empty-ness as a boundless arena
in which life continually manifests and plays, rising and falling,
constantly changing, always transient and therefore ever-new.

-Ann Faraday in "Towards a No-Self Psychology."



----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

John Wren-Lewis was deliberately poisoned by a thief on a Thailand
bus in 1983, and went into a coma. "What I knew was that I'd emerged
from something quite unlike any previous experience of sleep or
dreaming. It was a kind of blackness, yet the absolute opposite of
blankness, for it was the most alive state I've ever known -
intensely happy, yet also absolutely peaceful, since it seemed to be
utterly complete in itself, leaving nothing to be desired... For that
dazzling darkness behind me did indeed transform my perception of the
outside world, and here, too, I'm driven to religious or mystical
language in trying to do the experience justice. The peeling paint on
the hospital walls, the ancient sheets on the bed, the smell from the
nearby toilet, the other patients chattering or coughing, the nurses
and the indifferent curry they brought me for supper, my own somewhat
traumatized middle-aged body, even my racing, bewildered mind - all
were imbued with that sense of utter nothing-to-be-desired
completeness, because "not I, but the Shining Darkness within me,"
was perceiving them."

- from "Aftereffects of Near-Death Experiences" in The Journal of
Transpersonal Psychology, 1994, Vol. 26, No. 2.



----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

The personal self was gone, yet here was a body and a mind that still
existed empty of anyone who occupied them. The experience of living
without a personal identity, without an experience of being somebody,
an "I" or a "me," is exceedingly difficult to describe, but it is
absolutely unmistakable. It can't be confused with having a bad day
or coming down with the flu or feeling upset or angry or spaced
out... The mind, body, and emotions no longer referred to anyone -
there was no one who thought, no one who felt, no one who perceived.
Yet the mind, body, and emotions continued to function unimpaired;
apparently they did not need an "I" to keep doing what they always
did. Thinking, feeling, perceiving, speaking, all continued as
before, functioning with a smoothness that gave no indication of the
emptiness behind them.

Suzanne Segal, from "Collision with the Infinite"



----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

Archived issues of the NDHighlights are available online:
http://nonduality.com/hlhome.htm

Nonduality Highlights: Issue #3198, Sunday, June 15, 2008




----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

June 11, 2008

The End

I am no longer burdened with the concerns of the world that you are.
I have no connection to that world. I see sights and hear sounds, and
all kinds of stuff goes on, but I'm not emotionally attached to any
of it. I walk around in your world, but it doesn't touch me.

I still see a framework within which things operate - objects,
bodies, actions, relationships - but what happens within that
framework is unimportant to me. I have no interest in what happens.

I just live. I get up, do a day's worth of stuff, and then it's time
to go to bed. And the next day I do that again.

And what I notice is: there is freedom itself, just being free. There
is joy itself, just being joyous. There is life itself, just living.
That's all. Not "me" being those things - those things being
themselves. Nothing, being nothing.

So how did this happen to me? How did I lose interest in the world?
How did I step out of this picture? How do I see only joy, only
freedom?

Well, I stopped believing in the unreal. When I got a good look at
the intricate fabrication called "me" that I had been taught to build
and reinforce for many decades, and found it to be a fabrication, all
of the emotional attachment to events and objects and people was
rendered irrelevant.

Now, if you think this emotional attachment is what makes us "human,"
and you like that whole human experience of action and reaction,
desire and satisfaction of desire, read no further. The rest of this
essay will not interest you.

If, on the other hand, you find "humanness" to be the equivalent of
insanity, and seek the eternal peace and love that is promised by
every holy man and woman that ever walked the Earth, then maybe you
will be interested in what follows.

If what you want is out of this game completely - out of the
insanity, off the wheel of human suffering - then direct your
attention to one thing only, and that is: Is this - the separate me
that seems to be real - real? Am I real?

I don't know what led me to this inquiry inward, to the question of
the veracity of the sense of "me." Many things. Reading "I AM THAT"
and meeting John Wheeler really began turning my thinking around, but
it was just a bunch of coincidences that led me to those things. So
who knows? But I do know that the focus was turned inward, to the
question of "I" - not a psychological inquiry into what made me tick,
or what my obstacles to "awakening" were, but to the question of
whether there actually exists an "I" at all.

Up to that point, my search had been a normal one. The first twenty-
five years of it were focused outwards, on what could be gotten, by
me, for me, to end my pain. I was looking in the wrong place. Looking
outward only brings more of the same insanity. Something finally led
me to discover the final question: Am I real?

If it is found that "I" am not real, then all of the concerns I have
been wanting to be free of apply to no one! This is a radical,
drastic ending; it is not a palliative for the old mindset. This is
done in private, not in public. This is done alone, not in a group,
not even with a guru. This is really a solo flight.

I never did desire enlightenment. I never wanted some kind of
blissful state. I had enough "bliss" from all the bad habits I had
cultivated to get me through the day. I didn't need another
diversion. What I did need was to end the pain of feeling alienated
from my own source. It was this pain of feeling cut off that led me
on this journey. Millions - billions! - of people never face, feel,
or even notice that pain, and are never called to make this drastic
move. But when you feel it, it's got to be dealt with. There's no
option. Eventually, the pain will be eradicated at the root.

So what is the most noticeable thing about this, in my experience? No
thought. There is registering of sensory information, and there is
registering of some passing mental activity, but all of it is
immediately let go of. Nothing lingers from one moment to the next.
Nothing niggles at me, nothing needs to be planned or remembered. My
mind is at peace.

This is what I always wanted. I just wanted my mind to be at peace. I
wanted to quit wanting. I wanted to quit feeling like more was
needed. I wanted to stop. I wanted my mind to stop.

Is this what enlightenment is? I don't know. I know that I'm not
looking for anything anymore. I know that my day is filled with ease
and flow, and I see softness in the hearts of all people, no matter
what they project. I have no concerns and no worries. So whether this
is enlightenment or not is of no interest to me.

And in the three years that I've been writing about this experience,
the sense of a solid, individual person has been lessening. Now,
after three years, there is no more sense of a separate person at
all. Learning I was a separate "me" took time; the unlearning of it
also took time.

I still function completely normally. You wouldn't know the
difference. My closest friends probably notice that I'm not fearful
anymore, and I don't try to control things. They probably notice that
I rarely go anywhere, that I find pleasure in the simple things, and
that my life has become very peaceful. Some of my habits have
changed. But my life appears pretty much the same, from the outside.

What now? Can I tell you how to find out that you are not real? At
this moment, nothing like that is arising, but perhaps it will. I
don't think it's possible to tell another person how to begin or
conduct this inquiry. Yours is unique, it is intimate. It is your
business. What you need will come to you when you need it.

If I offer a pointer, it assumes that you are "ready" to hear it like
I was when I met John Wheeler. Otherwise, you'll just continue the
way you are going, and you'll distort my words into something that
fits your existing mental view. But just in case you really are done
with looking to your mind for solutions, this would be a solid
pointer:

Ask, Am I real? Look for no other information. Ask no other
questions. Find out if you are real - that's all. If you are not
real, then the boundary between you and the source of all life is not
really there, is it? If the boundary between you and the source of
all life is not really there, then you would notice yourself as the
source of all life, wouldn't you?

- Annette Nibley



----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

Just a few years ago, I had very few options when people asked me for an accessible introduction to Kabbalah. Usually I referred them to Daniel Matt’s “The Essential Kabbalah” (HarperSanFrancisco, 1995) and left it at that. The anthology is still the best introduction for interested laypeople — though not for scholars, due to its selectivity and ahistoricism.

But since then, some big guns have gotten interested. In 2003, Arthur Green published “A Guide to the Zohar” (Stanford University Press), which is much more than its title suggests, and is in fact an excellent historical introduction to the development of Jewish mysticism. Arthur Goldwag’s “The BeliefNet Guide to Kabbalah” (Three Leaves, 2005) is a kind of whistle-stop tour to Kabbalah, straddling the fence between belief and skepticism. And 2006 saw the publication of “Kabbalah for Dummies” (For Dummies, 2006), which — contrary to my fears — was written by a knowledgeable and trustworthy author, Arthur Kurzweil, who does not disappoint readers: The book is an excellent, readable and reliable guide to Jewish mysticism.

If even those texts are too demanding on your time, there are now numerous new indexes of Kabbalah that provide at-your-fingertips definitions of key terms and concepts. One of the best in English is Gabriella Samuel’s “The Kabbalah Handbook: A Concise Encyclopedia of Terms and Concepts in Jewish Mysticism” (Penguin Group, 2007). Another is Geoffrey Dennis’s “The Encyclopedia of Jewish Myth, Magic and Mysticism” (Llewellyn, 2007). Dennis’s is the more useful and thorough book, providing sources and scholarly information. Samuel’s is a bit more popular in slant; it includes entries on mandala and mantra as well as messiah and Mishnah, and is clearly in the camp of the practitioners rather than of the scholars. Fair enough; there’s something here for everybody, and both of these indexes are convenient, insightful and easy to read.

A raft of other introductions has appeared, as well. Two of the best are Byron Sherman’s “Kabbalah: An Introduction to Jewish Mysticism” (Rowman & Littlefield, 2006) and David Ariel’s “Kabbalah: The Mystic Quest in Judaism” (Rowman & Littlefield, 2006). Sherman’s book is one of those rare finds: an accessible introductory work written by a distinguished scholar. The author’s command of the historical material is very capable, and he leavens the scholarship with personal perspectives and even meditation instructions. Ariel’s volume is similar. An updated version of his 1990 book, “The Mystic Quest,” it too unites scholarly rigor with a style intended for intelligent spiritual seekers.

[Equally important information deleted. For copyright reasons, the entire article can't be reproduced. Please read the entire article: http://www.forward.com/articles/13611/]

Finally, the academic and popular trends are beginning to converge, often in surprising ways. First, more and more scholars are studying contemporary Kabbalah, with fruitful results. Jody Myers’s excellent debunking of The Kabbalah Centre, “Kabbalah and the Spiritual Quest: The Kabbalah Centre in America” (Praeger, 2007), for example, is marked by a scholarly rigor, objectivity and depth of analysis that is absent among the center’s usual promoters and detractors. It’s a must-read for those interested in the truth and hucksterism behind the red strings and expensive bottles of water. Other scholars find that they are as much participants and observers in the work they do. Chava Weissler, for example, embraces the “participant-observer” role in her studies of Jewish renewal. Avraham Elqayam, a professor at Bar-Ilan, has questioned the very basis of academic study of Kabbalah, charging that it is elitist and Eurocentric. Even this article, by someone who teaches Kabbalah both in universities and at retreat centers, and who is writing both a non-academic book on nondual Judaism and an academic dissertation on Jacob Frank, is in some respects an exercise in participant-observation and boundary-crossing.

Perhaps Kabbalah has not gone out of style so much as it has come of age. For some, Kabbalah answers an unmet need for myth, symbol and access to the trans-rational. For others, it is a flowering of Jewish poetic imagination, worthy of study and examination. And for others still, it’s a flash in the pan. As they say, all that glitters is not gold. But after 10 years, maybe some of it is.

Read the full article at http://www.forward.com/articles/13611/

Nonduality Highlights: Issue #3204, Saturday, June 21, 2008

Nonduality Highlights: Issue #3205, Sunday, June 22, 2008

Nonduality Highlights: Issue #3211, Saturday, June 28, 2008

Nonduality Highlights: Issue #3212, Sunday, June 29, 2008