Ed note: Sunday's highlights were edited by Mark Otter, who has a
newfound respect for those who have gotten good at editing the NDS
discerning customers. (There is a LOT of NDS.) I probably snipped
good stuff and kept the drivel, but hey, someone has to do it
As context, on Saturday, and in response to Ivan, Michael Read wrote:
Tricky stuff, that ole' unconditional state of being. Most can't seem
to quite get it. No matter how well one explains it. Funny, one has
completely surrender and die and be reborn to know it. Tricky.
Peace - without conditions, only play - Michael
Now on to Sunday
Dear Michael & Xan,
If unconditional love is the actual present state of the Universe
everything is perfect as it is, and everything I said or you said, or
has ever been said, is the expression of this love, including your
verbal farting or drivel, and mine, and Hitler's. No distinction
between sense and nonsense? I really don't want that kind of "love"
and redemption to come anywhere near me. I judge and want to be
Dan also replied (thusly):
Resonations and a comment:
(Particularly enjoyed this):
>Tricky stuff, that ole' unconditional state of being. Most can't
to quite get it.
>No matter how well one explains it. Funny, one has to completely
>surrender and die and be reborn to know it. Tricky.
Along with this on-target observation,
one can include:
Only when one has no distaste
or aversion to every aspect
of utter insanity...
...is the possibility "fully sane"
able to blossom.
If one is wedded to one's philosophy,
outlook, point of view -
one's limited, precious, special,
well-thought-out and logical
version of sanity,
One will never know "Universal Sanity"
which fully includes all states,
experiences, and forms of "insanity"...
One doesn't die in order to be reborn
(this is where organized religion
seems to block itself)
One doesn't aim at a result in order to
One is "reborn" only as to fully die is
to fully open --
to get and care about no result
is to fully be...
And Michael Read came back to comment:
You go right ahead and judge. If that is what you need, that is what
you need. Just one question: WHO are you? This is the most perilous
question that a 'person' can attempt to answer. Perhaps one would
better off not to pursue inquiry along these lines. :-))
Judgment? Or, discrimination?
Since the name Hitler has been used, let's do a little exercise,
Imagining that there is a heaven. Mr. Soandso dies and goes to
Who does he meet at the gate? None other than the person he hated in
life, Adolph Hitler! Dumbfounded, and in a state of shock, he demands
to know why Hitler of all people is in heaven.
Peter explains to Mr. Soandso that all is not what it seems. Yes
Adolph truly is a member of heaven. Why? Because he did what the Lord
asked him to do.
Hitler explains that he had been visited by an Angel of the Lord and
directed to set the world aflame. From the ashes of this fire the
world was to be reshaped and renewed.
Now this is only a thought exercise. No offense or disrespect
or offered. You see, things are not what they seem. Not only is there
Maya, we are Maya. Only consciousness exists. Maya is neither good
is it bad. It is only the play of Consciousness.
Why unconditional love? All that exists or appears to exist is
Consciousness. Unconditional love offers what it gives
unconditionally. Karma is 'burned up' in this love.
Unconditional love is not offered here as something 'you' must do.
Rather, it is offered that unconditional love is the 'natural' state
of the Universe.
From the Ashtavakra Gita:
Because you think you are the body,
For a long time you have been bound.
Know you are pure awareness.
With this knowledge as your sword
Cut through your chains.
And be happy!
HAHAHAH and HOHOHO!
Peace - Love - Joy - Life! - Michael
Matthew Files contributed:
Unconditional love (not words) could be said to be the present (and
continual) state of Universe. Everything IS perfect in essence but
in form. Everything that you and I and hitler do or say, and all the
farting and drivel is NOT an expression of this love. Only an idiot
would think that everything that even jesus, or buddha or ramana (or
any of those cats) did or said was an expression of this love. One of
most common mistakes we make is to get a glimpse of the truth of
nonduality and assume that everything we do is an expression of this
Xan pitched in:
~ Dear Ivan
It would be a mistake not to make a distinction between the
unconditionality of love as it exists in unboundaried consciousness,
and the myriad and varied distortions in human expression.
That is what we are awakening to: It is our self mis-identification
body and mind that creates these distortions. It is Self rediscovery
that reveals the imperfection of the manifest universe and the
perfection of unmanifest Beingness.
with any kind of love you will accept,
Manchine (Dave) opined:
Without all "this", how would you know what existence is? Before you
were born, did you have any sense of existence? "Being",
as a unique entity has no physical character. Then, some spark of
life, created an interactive phenomenon called Ivan. Even with that,
it is difficult to see "being", unconditional existence, with or
without the physical. We have to imagine what it will be like when we
die. All for not? What are we doing with this amazing gift?
Whether it be verbal farting or mass murder of millions, all of this
is a drop in the bucket compared to that which put all of this
So very, very few actually see how impossible all of this is.
So go ahead, put your conditions on it. Oh great creator! Go ahead,
complicate your life.
What comes your way, comes your way, and there's nothing you can do
Your conditions will only cause you resentment.
Whoa there big fella! I have never called you any names! Nor am I
judging you. I love you without conditions.
If the 'manifestation' of Conciousness calling itself 'Ivan' chooses
to pretend that IT has never seen or experienced unconditional love,
that's OK! Someday you may see/experience THAT. Maybe not.
How can 'I' tell who is going to experience what? Does it matter?
in the unfolding appearance of the Divine Play. Perhaps. :-)
All 'Michael' can do in this appearance is point. Not at faults.
only. This truth is nothing new. It has been here in moment. This
truth has nothing to do with what we choose to believe or disbelive.
And, this truth cannot be spoken.
You are not the first to try to direct this list into a more
traditional form of Advaita. Somehow all those attempts have been
shunted aside. Why? Brahma likes to play!
Oh, we humans are a strange and delightful lot. We have this
propensity to mold the universe into a shape of our own making.
we are shrugged off without a thought.
We like to believe that we really exist. That there is some reward
being pure. Do we, exist that is? If we truly do, why? say that we
have been separated from the Divine. How can that be? If everything
is God, Brahma, Consciousness, etc., how can we be separate from
that? How can we even exist?
It is common among those who seek to attempt to hang on to their
individuality. To somehow remain separate from that which they seek.
Is this possible?
We crave to be shown the ultimate. It is so enticing. Ah! And aha! We
like to believe that we've 'got it'! Eureka! Follow me! How silly can
we become? Far too silly. Silly to the point of seriousness. We to
hold the keys to the kingdom. The sages only smile at our childish
You, the 'point of Consciousness' calling itself 'Ivan' are THAT
you seek. 'Your' beliefs have nothing to do with reality. 'I' calling
myself 'Michael' hold no beliefs. And yet, I do not rape, murder, or
perform intentional harm upon 'others'. This said not because of the
'claptrap' I spewed out earlier about *IT* being only *GOD*. This is
said because IAM here.
Oh well, I've probably spoiled it by talking too much! (Ed note:
HAHAHAH and HOHOHO!
Peace - Michael (at least that's the name on my id card)
Finally, Ivan finished it all up with: (Ed note: no, this didn't
really end this thread, but if you want more, check out the NDS
Dear Michael, Manchine, Andrew, Will, Marcia, Ed...
Thanks to you all for your responses. By participating in these
and reading your responses I am learning a lot every day about myself
and others, as I am sure, you do, too. For me, there is the duality
"myself" AND "others", (subjective AND objective reality) although I
know that ultimately (right now and here) we are integral parts of
Whole, and that everything is as it should be simply because it
be otherwise right now. Awareness of WHAT is the key.
P.S. Just for the fun of it I copied below something I wrote myself
about 1 month ago, when I started cutting-down on participation
(addiction?) to radio talk-shows (mostly after midnight, mostly on
politics & religion):
WHAT I LEARNED IN 1 YEAR AS A REGULAR CALLER ON TALK-SHOW RADIO
702 in South Africa)
I learned that
you can never hope to make ALL listeners like you.
jealousy is only what other people feel towards you,
never something you would admit that you feel towards others.
for every one person who says BE YOURSELF
there are 9 people who shout BE LIKE US.
for every 100 people who think they KNOW themselves
there is hardly one who really does.
don't worry too much: for everyone who cares about what you
said there are 100 others who only care about what they said,
and what others think about them and their call.
in any random group of people there is always one asshole too
many, and that it could be you.
despite any facts presented, people are usually much more
interested in confirming, strengthening and sharing their own
existing entrenched dogmas than in replacing them with something
the most vocal and critical backseat drivers are usually those
who cannot drive, and often cannot even see the road ahead.
for every original thinker there are 10 critics and hecklers
who think they know better.
for every one person who is clear on what's going on
there are at least two others who are terribly confused -
and will find it absolutely essential to share their confusion with
any fool can complicate something which is simple
and you have to be a bit of a genius to simplify that which is
complicated - but unfortunately this kind of geniuses are in a very
it is hundred times easier to be a backseat driver,
then the driver, or a critic rather than an original thinker.
most people's desire to talk generally by far exceed their
the person who signs or whistles badly out of tune
is usually the only one in the room who is not aware of it.
bad calls and inarticulate callers also serve an important
function: they make you feel much better about yourself,
and to appreciate the next lucid call so much more.
a caller's feeling of self-importance is often directly
proportional to the insignificance of his message.
those who profess to be non-judgmental are usually the most ruthless
the statement "don't judge" usually means "please don't judge
those who profess to be most loving are those who get most
vicious when you criticise them, or their opinions, religion or
brevity is something we expect from everyone else.
everybody's estimate of time is different:
it is halved when we speak doubled when someone else speaks and
quadrupled when we are holding on-line waiting to get on the air.
the amount of time one has to spend holding on-line waiting is
directly proportional to the urgency or importance of the message;
those with pure drivel will usually get through first.
regardless of how clearly and articulately you expresses yourself
there are bound to be at least some listeners who will badly
misunderstand, misquote and misinterpret you.
regardless of the strength of your facts there will be always people
who will disagree with them.
no matter how well you know your subject there will be many others
who will know better, or at least they will think they do.
you don't have to put yourself down other people will happily do it
no matter how careful you are not to offend anyone - you will.
common sense is still very uncommon among the general population and
the only consistency in the calls is constant inconsistency.
conscience is that still small voice in you that keeps telling you
how wrong, ignorant & inarticulate everyone else is.
for most people the worst nonsense, if sugar-coated, is more
palatable than bitter truth.
the worst crime you can do to many people is to force them to think
against their will when all they want is some bedtime lullaby.
we all know that there is no substitute for thinking but we are
often quite happy to settle for pre-packaged food of dogmas and
in analysing and examining our dogmas and prejudices we more often
than not end-up strengthening them.
the talk show host always favours others more than you, and gives
others more air time.
[Any resemblance to egroups is purely coincidental].
Sandeep also contributed some thoughts (of Jnaneshwar):
Jnaneshwar was a cool dude who used to swing the scene, some 800
back. At the age of 15, he laughed the primal laugh and by the age of
21, decided to move on.
Some expressions, from the translated Jnaneshwar' s "Amritanubhava"
-If a man wakes up and stretches his arms out to embrace the woman of
his dreams, all that he finds, is himself.
-Whatever a sage or a Jnani does is not done with any specific
purpose; therefore it matters nothing to or her whether he or she
it or not; or whether something comes of it or not.
-Wherever the Jnani places his foot is his pilgrimage, and if does go
on a pilgrimage, it is as if he has moved at all.
-Oh, my Guru, what a state, where I am the giver and I am the taker;
am both the giving and the wonder of the one that has awakened who
never asleep and that put to sleep who was never awake.
-Since I am awareness, unaware of awareness, for whose benefit should
I talk? And if I do not talk, is that awareness going to be lost?
Therefore, even if my lips have spoken, that teaching is really the
silence of silence because in fact there has neither been any talking
nor absence of talking.
It is like drawing the figure of fish in the water. There has been
the fact of drawing a fish but nothing remains of either the fish or
Sandeep also contributed this: (Ed note: I generally dislike
to relate physics to spirituality because they often (unnecessarily
my opinion) mangle the physics beyond recognition, but while this
passage may extrapolate the concepts of Quantum physics somewhat, in
my limited knowledge of the field I did not feel that it
misrepresented the physics itself.)
AN EXPOSITION OF THE SCIENTIFIC BASIS OF U.G.'S PHILOSOPHY
By Dr. O. S. Reddy
In nature things are as they are. Correlation is a concept which we
use to describe the connections we perceive. The word and concept of
`correlation' have no significance apart from people. This is because
only people use words and concepts. Correlation is a concept.
Subatomic particles are correlations. If we are not here to make
them, there would not be any concepts, including the concept of
correlation. The same is true of particles: if we were not here to
make them, there would not be any particles.
From a pragmatic point of view nothing can be said about the world
`out there' except via our concepts. Even in the world of our
particles do not have a separate and independent existence. They are
represented by wave functions (Schrodinger's wave equation); and the
meaning of the wave function lies only in the correlation of other
macroscopic things. Since the wave function is thought to be a
complete description of physical reality, and since that which the
wave function describes is an idea as well as matter, the world
be as it appears.
A macroscopic object like a table or a chair has an experienced
meaning. That is, we organize our sensory perceptions directly in
terms of it. These experiences are such that we can believe that the
object has an existence and a well-defined location in space-time
is logically independent of other things.
But the concept of independent existence evaporates at the subatomic
level. If it has an idea-like aspect, the physical world cannot be
substantive in the usual sense of the word.
One hundred percent matter is one hundred percent idea.
The Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum mechanics states that the
physical world is not what it appears to be. It states that what we
perceive to be physical reality is actually our cognitive
of it. This cognitive construction may appear to be substantive, but
the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics leads directly to
the conclusion that the physical world itself does not exist.
The mind is such that it can only deal with ideas. It is not possible
for the mind to relate to anything other than ideas. Therefore, it is
not correct to think that the mind can actually ponder reality. All
that the mind can ponder are its own ideas about reality. Therefore,
whether or not an idea is true is not a matter of how closely it
corresponds to the absolute reality, but how consistent it is with
Even the Copenhagen interpreters of quantum mechanics were forced by
their own findings to acknowledge that a complete understanding of
reality lies beyond the capabilities of rational thought.
The Copenhagen Interpretation and the Nature of Space and Time."
American Journal of Physics. 1977. pp.108-9.
The next contribution is from White Wolf:
"The earth and the sand are burning. Put your face on the burning
sand and on the earth of the road, since all those who are wounded by
love must have the imprint on their face, and the scar must be seen.
Let the scar of the heart be seen, for by their scars are known the
persons who are in the way of love..."
my search is not for an object of desire,
but for that which is worthy of pure longing
how much difference is there between
body desire, mind desire & heart desire?
we who are being burned by love
of the body are lost in sensuality and drugs
we who are being burned by love
of the mind are lost in sterility and words
we who are being burned by love
of the heart are lost in silence and stillness
those who burn with a longing for that
that which has no face, no name, no form
burn not with desire, but longing for longing itself,
they burn with a holy fire that will not burn out
they burn for that which is not body, mind or soul
they burn as only those who are triple dead burn.
when called to work their bodies are light with play,
when called to rest their minds are rich with dream
when called to know their hearts are simple and pure,
when called to share their song is subtle and rich
when called into battle they remain unassailable
when called to kill they slaughter us with love itself.
how much difference is there between
body desire, mind desire & heart desire?
my search is not for an object of desire,
but for that which worthy is pure longing ..
how do we know when we are becoming such a one?
when triple dead, we find ourselves becoming fourfold,
our complexity arises into simplicity as an uncarved block.
we begin to love all things good and bad, high and low
we love the present moment even as we stop to run
for what remains now and forever, for what lies beyond...
Mark Christopher Valentine
(November 12, 2000)
This is also from White Wolf:
Stop. Silence. Stillness. Allow yourself to be loved and to Love
To be little, to be nothing, to rejoice in your imperfections, to be
glad that you are not worthy of attention, that you are of no account
in the universe. This is the only liberation. The only true way to
--- The Sign of Jonas
Jan offered: (Ed note: I snipped the excerpt not because it was
uninteresting, but because I don't want the highlights to get too
long. Check the article out!)
An interesting article can be found at:
Xan offered this:
When we come under Grace, no laws operate. In the spiritual realm,
which is the state of Grace, there are not two powers operating, one
over another, one overcoming the other, or one removing the other -
there is but one.... We live in a state of awareness in which there
neither good nor evil - no degrees and no comparisons. There is only
Being; divine Being, spiritual Being, one Being.
Mary Bianco wrote:
reality and illusion,
love and fear,
duality and nonduality,
sinner and saint,
truth and lie,
there exists a crevice,
a line so fine as to be nearly invisible.
while walking barefoot in the snow
with your nose close to the ground in search of food,
you trip and fall into the abyss of the crevice.
In the falling you suddenly realize that you are gazing
into the compassionate eyes of the One
Who is gently cradling you in warm and loving arms.
And finally, Sandeep submitted the following two tidbits:
The Master would insist that the final barrier to our attaining God
was the word and concept "God." This so infuriated the local priest
that he came in a huff to argue the matter out with the Master. "But
surely the word 'God' can lead us to God?" said the priest. "It can,"
said the Master calmly. "How can something help and be a barrier?"
Said the Master, "The donkey that brings you to the door is not the
means by which you enter the house."
Anthony de Mello, SJ
MORSEL: It is impossible for a man to learn what he thinks he
already knows. --Epictetus (50-138 A.D.)