A sampling of postings from the Nonduality Salon
for Monday, July 12.
Petros: this spiritual openness can be
misinterpreted as sensuality when that is
not the message one is intending to send.
This touches on an aspect I am still not comfortable with.
I have recognized that because we are essentially all the love there is in
miriad expressions, at core we are all totally in love with each other all
the time. There are some expressions (people) who are easier to be in this
love with, but rather than making it easier to be with them, it frightens me.
Since it's fear it has to be based in memory, not present Self.
As one well known to Mother Shakti there are times when pure love is felt so
passionately that it can be mistaken for romantic attraction - by me or by
There is one solution for every discomfort, every fear and every expectation.
I am present with this in myself, watching the complex of responses, and
resting as I feel and watch. There is good news in seeing how I have tried
to manage this vulnerability and letting management go.
>I'd just rather let the world go and rest in Self now. >Everything is
taken care of in that.
At one time did you not strive? And after you strove and were
exhausted, did you not rest? And then, when your energy was restored,
did you not strive again? Like a boulder rolling down a mountainside,
its descent often blocked, yet eventually each obstruction comes to be
cleared and the boulder is free once again to seek a more lasting state
there came a time when for me, there was no past, no history ... just like I
wrote about ...
and that's real scary at times ...
for the identity sense suddenly has nothing ... no foundation on which to base
thats when living in the moment comes in ...
and from my experience ... living in the moment is something the body
ain't real good at ... lets face it ... for most of our history, the images we
get of that state are of some geeza sitting on a rubbish tip smelling of
staring into space with a vacant look on his face ... maybe going OM ...
Gene had said...
> "Duality" is... a 'universal analogy', a symbolic map of actual 'reality'.
> Duality is experieced as 'real', until an individual experiences a
> 'disconnect' or interruption of 'duality'. Duality... is not the enemy, it
> is similar to the GUI (Graphical User Interface) of a modern user-friendly
> computer; 'duality' is a way to 'point and click', to be able to navigate
> in utter ignorance of actual 'reality'. Most users have no idea, what is
> 'underneath' the icons and symbols which they point to and click on;
> similarly, most people have no idea what an visial image really 'is', only
> what it can 'do for them'.
> Ivan: Let's clear something here. The very usefull relation subject-object
> doesn't imply in duality, I feel. The human dimension, the human field, the
> human mind as a whole, have implicit in it the proper GUI --as you call it--
> everything that is needed to lead an apropriate life, with all it's
> Duality apears with the assumption of the internal centered entity, it
> Without the center, awarenwss is it's content, and there is not duality,
> the healthy multiplicity inherent to manifestation. The ability to
> my body from another is not duality. One knows that all is one coin
> with two sides, manifestation-non manifestation, creation-created -- so I
> wouldn't call it duality. So it is not clear your statement: *duality is
> enemy* -- I'm sure a matter of words.....(?)
Okay... I finally get where you are 'coming from'. Yes, you are correct,
IMO, in your response to me. I blame myself for not stressing enough, the
'etiology' of 'duality'. From my viewing, all of the natural phenomenal
world, is an elaboration on a theme, as you say below ("as above, so
below"), which as I see it, 'permeates' the human experience ("order").
What you are referring to as 'duality' is in my view, the consequence of
thousands of years of uncritical acceptance of 'appearances', a gloss or
surface examination only perhaps, but looking within was seen to be against
the interests of the tribe (except the Shaman).
'Duality' is not the enemy', as a statement, is meant by me, to offer that
we 'see' through 'dualistic lenses', because those lenses are what we are
gifted with as young children. Be this as it may, my effort is to show the
smooth, indistinguishable line of demarcation between the 'world of
phenomenon' (based in time, memory) and the assumptions which are carried
as to the nature of reality (duality). It is not suprising that humans
model their thoughts on the basis of thoughts that are modeled to them
first. The 'entire exisiting universe', the playground of 'science', serves
to bolster the traditional human asumptions as to what is real, and why
things are the way they are. "Methods of verification" are based on...
what? What is the 'metric of reality'?
> Nonduality, then, is the revealing of the Being underlying reality, the
> basic fundament of Being, which is of course, me. (for me, of course. For
> you, it is you.) That is why it is said... that I am That. Only I may say
> that, and only you may say that. I cannot legitimately say, "You are That",
> without again becoming entangled in the analogy (duality).
> Ivan: I am that...yes it is clear from here...the centered observer is
> Not my name, no the image of me...
Gene: I am glad that you can see some use in my 'universal analogy'
metaphor; duality is easier to see, as something to avoid, as a trap, or
error. it is not so easy to see that 'duality' is what validates this
entire written vocabulary (looked at from a social perspective, I mean).
> Ivan: Well, definitly your use of the word *ego* is very peculiar, not
> unique or personal. In the usual sense of the word, it is not the ego
> the translator, it is the almoust insctintive function of brain/memory.
>It is the
> proper functioning of the healthy human mind. Ego, as I said above, in the
> usual meaning of it, is the centered observer conceptualised by thought, as
> that inner entity that feels that knows what and who it is -- mistakenly.
> if we could clear this words...
Gene: Ahhh... now we are getting somewhere. From my view, there is no
distinct boundary between the theorized 'parts' of a human Being or human
psyche; it all 'telescopes into itself' and is able to be talked about this
way, through the invention of particularizing/dissecting words. That such
words are used, does not in my opinion, create the pieces/parts which are
referred to. So for me, there is literally no center (never has been,
except in times of very extreme pain) and thus no difference; all apparent
differences, I state to be 'functional' rather than 'organic'.
So my pointing is to the 'spectrum' of apparent phenomenon, from gross to
subtle, which includes 'duality' as a 'near-spiritual' perception. Usually,
nondual seeing requires special training, or at least the validation of an
Finally, I see 'ego' as a concept which fits only in the world-dream model
(duality), along with all of the other particular discriptors of human
nature. Still, I enjoy talking about this, for there is certainly a way for
all of the supposed pieces to fit together 'properly'. The common error is
to suppose that there is something real, which can be known, and which then
is to be used as the basis for all further comparisons; this is the error
of duality, with its supposed abilty to perceive and know 'right from
wrong'. I am unaware of anything outside of myself; this is a trick
Gloria posted some of Jerry's old posts:
Subject: Re: IS-NESS-Taking non-duality seriously
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 17:40:41 PDT
I call my own nondualism thing foolishness while
carefully looking after my own website on it. You
can't hold onto anything. Between the foolishness of nondualism and the
confessions of nondualism, there
is a seam of What Is. And that too breaks down to foolishness and
confessions...and so on...The trick
is to stay within the seam, the Interval. Some call
the Interval Truth and Love. Okay. I call it the
Interval. Today. Tomorrow something else. It is not possible to hold onto
anything and survive that
I hate email. I hate the computer. I hate everybody
I ever met. I hate everybody and everything. It's
just not fair.
P.S. Okay, now that I've calmed down... I do not take seriously nondualism
or any other "way" of relating to reality. One cannot relate to reality.
One cannot talk about anything. Therefore, I can say anything I want.
Nondualism allows for that. While I don't take it
seriously, nondualism is where I always end up.
It is a good test for anyone. Whatever you know, stop taking it seriously.
If it is still where you end up,
it is real knowledge. Take breathing, for example. Tell yourself you are
not going to take it seriously. Tell people how crazy it is to breathe.
Then watch yourself.
It is happening. You are breathing. But you can say whatever you want about
it in order to demonstrate that
it is your nature. I take neither nondualism nor
breathing seriously, because they cannot be taken
at all. They are what is.
>I trust you. I am not different than you. I do not live >by the
remembrance of a single word.
Jerry: Yes. It is okay to say Truth is beyond Love, and Truth and Love are
the same. That is clear. I accept either one and both together and neither
one, all at
The forest is big with people moving through it. It doesn't matter which
tree falls, there's somebody
there to hear it. Truth is the space the forest is in. Love is every living
and non-living thing in the
forest. Anything can happen in the forest, including
total annihilation of every living and non-living thing. You still have the
space the forest occupies. That is Truth. Unchanging, including all things
Xan offered some Rumi:
Those who don't feel this love
pulling them like a river,
those who don't drink dawn
like a cup of springwater
or take in sunset
those who don't want to change,
let them sleep.
is beyond the study of theology,
that old trickery and hypocrisy.
If you want to improve your mind
that way, sleep on.
I've given up on my brain,
I've torn the cloth to shreds
and thrown it away.
If you're not completely naked,
wrap your beautiful robe
of words around you
There's a strange frenzy in my head,
of birds flying,
each particle circulating on its own.
Is the one I love
who taught me
poetry being a process and not words
poetry ing a process and not words
poetr ng a process and not words
poe g a process and not words
po a process and not word
p process and not wor
rocess and not wo
ocess and not w
cess and not
ess and no
ss and n
s and n
ss and no
ess and not
cess and not
ocess and not w
rocess and not wo
p process and not wor
po a process and not wo
poe g a process and not w
poet ng a process and not
poetr ing a process and no
poetry eing a process and n
poetry being a process and not
yes and no
happy monday. this morning i was
watering the lawn against 104 degree heat, sending thought forms to tim g,
and knowing it is frustrating not to be able to touch the earth and not to
seem to be in the arms of the beloved either. to be in possession of divine
intellect and these seeming contraries can be hell. much love to you, your
awareness, brother. this is beautiful and hard discrimination.
got to thinking about all of these prayer flags i see all over when i go into
town. they are colorful, and i like the idea of the wind carrying prayers on
its way. i like the idea of disintegration of the fabric field. i looked
at one closely, and i can't read it. i don't understand the language that's
i think i would like pure white prayerflags of surrender in my yard.
since we're rumi-nating, here's one that tears me apart and reassembles me
all in one blow:
tr. by coleman barks
"I used to want buyers for my words.
Now i wish someone would buy me away from words.
I've made a lot of charmingly profound images,
scenes with Abraham, and Abraham's father, Azar,
who was also famous for icons.
I'm so tired of what I've been doing.
Then one image without form came,
and i quit.
Look for someone else to tend the shop.
I'm out of the image-making business.
Finally I know the freedom
A random image arrives. I scream,
"Get out!" It disintegrates.
Only the holder the flag fits into,
and wind. No flag. "
aleks: and all of that white linen flying just past my window shall signify
she's doing her laundry today.
Now I am curious. How do you guys live in the moment
When driving, keeping the eyes on the road in order
not to harm lizards, pets and the occasional goat, no matter what a
passenger is saying.
The content of perception is perception.
This statement brings a picture to my mind,
A collision between matter and anti-matter...
And thus, the content of awareness is clean,
bare of the superfluos...The emptiness that is
death for the me. The orderly aloness -- that
is the lonliness for the me.
perhaps a thought ....
"I don't mind ...
and it doesn't matter ...."
Papaji said, "The ego is the idea that I am the doer."
As simple as that. It's the biggest possible joke, that this little spec of
an I existing in the vastness of unlimited consciousness thinks of itself as
the source of anything at all. In the cloud of thought where we hide from
ourselves we specs appear to be all that exists. One inviting shove from
Grace into infinity, however, and I feel I will never stop laughing. What an
idiot I have been!
How much we struggle and strive to make sense of the totally insensible, and
how pathetic our attempts. The fantasy that I am the creative force in my
small identity gives me a sense of responsibility, a drive to figure things
out, a belief that there must be rights and wrongs.
No wonder effort has become so popular. Look at how much effort it takes to
pretend to be what you are not and to spend every waking moment maintaining
"Go back before the beginning." What is there?
Who cares whether there is an "I" thought or not? As I am revealed as that
which is doing me all concerns fall away.
Love is the flame which when it blazes,
consumes everything other than the Beloved.
The lover wields the sword of nothingness
in order to dispatch all but God:
consider what remains after nothing.
There remains but God: all the rest is gone.
Praise to you, O mighty Love, destroyer of all other "gods."
Rumi, from: 'Mathnawi' V, 588-590
Translated by Camille and Kabir Helminski
Awakening for Beginners, and experts, too.
do at least 200 times a day
1. Stop talking
2. Stop thought
3. Look around
4. goto 1
oh sure, i could give you my url and charge you $19.95 for my book, or,
oh sure, you could elaborate/argue with me on each and every point until
you were blue/pink in the face, as you're wont to do, but, that would
awakening is bred in the bone, is genetic.
and as your hormonal system evolves, your mind will follow - thank god.
*The voice you hear is your own.
Yjr eptfd upi trsf str ,omr/