Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.


Expand Messages
  • andrew macnab
    Mar 29, 2000
      Back online, computer problems fixed for now, here are Monday's highlights a day late.



      Larry: I forgot what we're calling ultimate truth.

      Jerry: Stop! Stay right there!

      James Bean sent this:

      "Love is a pervading principle. Had it not been present everywhere, the
      world would not have come into existence. It is Love that creates, it is
      Love that multiplies, and it is Love that finds room for every body. We are
      born, we live, we die, and are absorbed in Love, for God is nothing but
      Love. Had there been no Love, there would have been no God. Had there been
      no God, there would have been no Love. Love and God are the same thing."

      "They say 'Love is blind,' and it is quite so, for, where there is Love,
      there is no reasoning and no wrangling of words. Love is its own proof. It
      requires no proof for its Presence or Existence."

      --- Baba Faqir Chand

      Klaus Wieben: *Einen Augenblick*


      Einen Augenblick is like saying: “ just a moment “.
      What does this moment hold? Nothing ?, this moment right now stretched into
      eternity holds eternity.
      I am utterly and totally consumed by this moment,I am filled by it to such an
      extent that I don’t exist . But who is talking ?,where do these thoughts come
      from ? A paradox within Non-duality ?

      Sharing a moment touched by thought,has it become duality ?
      Love Klaus

      There is only this moment.
      It doesn't even express itself, ever.
      To whom would it express itself?

      Our thoughts don't divide this moment
      from itself.
      Our thoughts only think they can divide
      this moment.
      Once this is seen, is ended
      the illusory centrality
      of thought in its self-contructed domain.

      And this moment, this undefined
      instant - merely all that is,
      what can be said about it?


      dear one,

      making ourselves a separate somebody
      we urgently strive for something else
      gridlocked by the form of our own identity
      we never quite make it to the unity hotel

      just one deep clear look at this ancient folly
      blows us right off the map of making a self
      in the boundless freedom of our true nature
      the concept of unity never occurs

      love, cee

      ~ And therein lies illusion!
      What you think you really are is not what you are. What appears to be a
      personality within a skin is just an idea, or collection of ideas.

      I agree, but if I understand this correctly, everything is still real in
      the sense that misunderstandings are real misunderstandings and realness
      itself is to some extent a misunderstanding but also not. Or something
      like that, I think?


      ~ Yes, stuff happens, no doubt about it.
      The mind thinks, understands, thinks it understands ......
      What do you identify as yourself?



      Greetings, Gloria. You spoke to me, and I reply:

      > >
      > >Gene: Yes, Dan. It is helpful to see boundaries this way.
      > >
      > >Boundaries maintain distinction. It is well and good to be able to
      > >see also, properties which are held to be _similar_ or even
      > >identical. Boundaries themselves have this property; every boundary
      > >indeed defines what is distinct, and by doing so, opens the
      > >possibility of perceiving what is similar or even identical.
      > >
      > >This is a very subtle point to make; I am saying that boundaries can
      > >be seen to exist as challenges to perceive that what is apparently
      > >distinct, discrete, or separate, are also similar or even identical.
      > >
      > >My conversation about skin as boundary, offers this challenge, and
      > >Terry and Tim have risen to it. I hope to successfully communicate
      > >that 'even though' we are within our self-distinction-maintaining
      > >boundaries of skin (and ego), that such boundaries are (superficial)
      > >challenges to see that "we" are actually similar or even identical.
      > >
      > >Language is a set of filters (properly called grammars) which are
      > >used exclusively to create distinction; it is difficult to use
      > >language in a way that makes distinction work to illustrate
      > >similarity.
      > >
      > >"Things are not as they seem; nor are they different".
      > >
      > >Discussions of similarity use distinction-creating words to 'prove'
      > >similarity by a process of eliminating difference, to the point of
      > >revealing similarity. In reality, only words create this distinction,
      > >but few speakers have mastered the art of using words in a manner
      > >that does not inherently lead to separation. If we could 'learn to
      > >talk' in a manner that could transcend the usual inherent effect of
      > >words, we could speak without creating illusory boundaries between
      > >ourselves.

      > Dear Gene,

      Hi Gloria...

      > Glo: This suggestion of yours really intrigues me. Given that
      > this very subject, verb, object structure that is the
      > basis for most languages happens to have a high
      > correlation with the way our brains and perceptions are
      > hard wired, this speaking is difficult. The brain is a
      > difference engine, or difference detector, as you have
      > often pointed out...the source of our language is our
      > thinking process itself.

      Gene: Gloria, what you say above seems to be true, but I would like
      to point out that while 'the source of language is our thinking
      process itself', that language itself my also shape this thinking
      process. In fact, some students of human systems have speculated that
      language has a much greater shaping effect on the thinking process,
      then does our hard-wired brain itself. I would point you to the
      various links on Jerry's page, that deal with the concept of the MEME.

      The MEME (pronounced 'meem') is 'contagioned' between speakers of a
      given language; like a virus, it replicates itself in each newfound
      host. Having taken root, it is then further transmitted to others,
      and so on. This process has forwarded from the dim past, the most
      dysfunctional 'ideas' (read 'assumptions') that we have to deal with
      today. Chief among these dysfunctional assumptions is the presumption
      of 'racial superiority' and its handmaiden, the assumption of
      individual 'superiority' and 'inferiority'.

      Language as driven by these central themes of 'superiority', has
      become a system of passwords which if used properly (IE, speaking in
      submissive or dominating voice, as is deemed socially appropriate),
      allow the upward climb on the monkeybars of hierarchical social
      strata. Used in this way, language communicates LESS of content and
      MORE of social privilege. It might even be said that our cultural
      'religion' of Narcissism is itself a meme, embedded in language, and
      transmitted as 'a sense of entitlement' from parent to child. The
      child who picks up on this meme, becomes one of the newly renowned
      'children from hell', a tyrannical king or queen at age 7, to be
      featured on daytime TV shows as living symptoms of our culture's
      'moral decay'. In reality, these kids are simply enacting the 'deal'
      which their parents have unwittingly passed along from their own
      bosses/Top Monkeys. "Language as password" is what we have here; and
      the robotic reaction of speaker and hearer is what we here in the NDS
      have vowed to 'awaken from'.

      > Glo: The presumption of a subject
      > having these perceptions, for example, is so pervasive. To
      > see differently and know how to transcend that programming
      > is not easy, to say the least.

      Gene: I know the 'password to your heart' if I can read your
      submissive or dominating tendencies, as you embed them in your
      language. Beware; we all do this, unwittingly. A skilled student of
      human nature makes the most effective 'con-man', due to ability to
      read these embedded signals. Most of the 'false gurus' of history
      have had this talent 'in spades'. It is so easy to exploit people,
      when their system of permissions/passwords is 'worn on the sleeve',
      sometimes proudly.

      I am saying that if we intend to take language-use to a higher level,
      that we must become aware of just how language is being used right
      now, today, and why this form of usage is so prevalent. The
      discussion of boundaries can be resumed at this point, because our
      system of permissions/passwords is conveyed as the initial
      _agreements_ made with our parents (who of course are the living
      agents of their culture), before we as children acquired the talent
      of speech.

      Our initial agreements, made during our pre-verbal phase of
      existence, form the basic CRITERIA which is the template of identity.
      ALL subsequent agreements MUST conform to this basic criteria, or
      identity will shatter and fail.

      The common, daily experience of _challenge to identity_ is easily
      seen by example here in NDS. We can see open disputes, challenges,
      claims and counterclaims, all for the purpose of MAINTAINING
      IDENTITY. 'Attackers' and 'defenders' are both working as powerfully
      as they are able, to make _self and other_ rigidly conform to the
      basic criteria of the _original agreements_.


      In the field of psychology, our constant 'patching' of identity is
      called by a special word, "compensation". The event of
      "decompensation" is defined as 'psychosis'. Loss of identity is thus
      defined in our (western) cultures as _insanity_. Yet, here in the
      NDS, we are determined to jettison identity, for the event of
      realization of a 'larger, common 'SELF'. It is no surprise that all
      of the 'spiritual traditions' advocate some form of this
      'conversion', usually defined as 'God-Realization' or something

      I will point out that the most successful 'religions' are those that
      state that 'God is Love', that the Great Spirit creates and nurtures
      us all. Sadly, most of those 'religions' also have included special
      _criteria_ by which God's love is parcelled out to individuals, based
      upon those persons conformance with such criteria. I direct your
      attention to the most basic of criteria, right now; that being, that
      submission to Greater Authority is the guarantee of acceptance and
      thus love and nurturing BY that Greater Authority. This meme is often
      enforced violently.


      Those in our culture (and our list!) who are the most deeply
      'infected' by the Criteria of the Greater Authority, will always
      demand _submission_, before granting acceptance and love.
      Traditionally, such deeply infected individuals have acted as 'God's
      Gatekeepers', and have been known as 'priests' or 'prophets'. Entire
      civilizations have come under their sway, as you know. The
      authoritarian 'tendency' exists in everyone, be it manifested as
      dominance OR submission.

      > Glo: As you said below, it is
      > more often evident in poetry, or unconventional speech.
      > There are some here on our list who do exemplify this and
      > it is certainly evident when one sees it, the artistry of
      > it. If the "place" from which one speaks is a more
      > unified vision ("assumption of
      > similarity")....an_all_seeing_eye... is this what you mean
      > by not seeing (or being deceived) by illusory boundaries?

      Gene: Basically, yes. Our greatest heros are those who are
      'anti-authoritarian', in the sense that they are neither submissive
      nor dominating. This is why 'Lucifer' is such an attractive
      character; the original 'rebel', eternally reveling in hell, embodies
      (mythically) those attributes which characterize resistance to
      'authority'. The 'Luciferian tendency' is found mainly among those of
      us who are creative and expansive; this tendency is the counterpoint
      to the 'One Way Only' authoritarian 'representative of all-powerful'
      state of contraction.

      Carl Jung illustrated how these wildly disparate poles of Being, the
      expansive VS contractive impulses, may eventually be 'wedded' in the
      process of the 'mystical wedding'. This event is also known as 'loss
      of identity' and being 'reborn' as 'greater than before'. We admire
      those who have had this powerful transformative 'experience', for
      their speakings and writings are typically _inclusive_ rather than
      _exclusive_. We are validated and assured by such speakers, whose use
      of language has been transformed in the same process which
      obliterated the _criteria of the original agreement_. Yes, I am
      saying that what characterizes the 'nondual realizer' is the event of
      the obliteration of all foundational assumptions of criteria of
      _acceptance_. Try to understand this basic point; when all criteria
      of acceptance have been dissolved, there is no longer an issue of
      acceptance, and by extension, no longer an issue of DOMINATION or

      For such a one, Being itself is a given. What is given is a gift, and
      the gift is 'grace'. Life itself is seen as the 'goal', already
      accomplished by grace. In this context, there is no conflict.
      Further, one in this position, perceives that 'nothing is wrong', and
      that what had been perceived as 'wrong' with the 'world' was merely a
      side-effect of fanatical _maintenance of identity_.


      The irony of the 'human condition', good friend Gloria, is that our
      ongoing 'compensations' keep us in the prison of the 'god of
      authoritarianism'. Rather than experience 'primary Being' as the
      foreground of life, compensation keeps us safely locked up in bitter
      cycles of submission and dominance, around and around, until
      something happens to smash identity to 'pieces'. Of course, we must
      maintain our _original agreements_ and that means that we must
      enforce our Sacred Criteria not only upon ourselves, but also on
      everyone we meet. If we let just ONE soul escape, and our Empire of
      Identity (the world-dream) will surely be shattered!

      > Glo: Especially in view of your recent comments about necessary
      > boundaries. I would really like to hear more from you
      > about how to "learn to talk" in the way you have pointed
      > at here. Differences which make no difference between us?

      Gene: To speak, without the expectation that any 'doing' will be
      accomplished, is the art of the poet. To simply express words as
      painting imagery, laden with personal meaning, will be as profound as
      that meaning is to that one. Others, reading or observing, will feel
      something of this expansive expression, and will report being 'moved'
      (and not necessarily in a pleasant way!).


      Words spoken with the intent of 'doing', are really a diatribe, a
      launching of force _at_ perceived resistance. Always, such attempted
      'doing' is _in service of_ the need to maintain identity. What is
      perceived resistance, is actually simply _difference_, and when
      difference is spoken "of" OR "to", criteria of _acceptance_ is what
      is being stated. We can see that clearly here in the NDS.

      > Glo: Overcoming habitual ways of unexamined speech assumptions
      > comes to mind, what else? I liked your biological example
      > of permeable membranes in cells, where the boundary lets
      > in and out selectively, where the process both protects
      > and allows life.


      Gene: Yes. My attempt is to show how those who are caught, via their
      unwitting maintenance of identity, in the 'black iron prison' of the
      gods of authoritarianism, will always point to 'ego' as the 'what is
      wrong'. I point out that 'ego' is simply a mechanism, not identity
      itself, and that when 'ego' has been co-opted to be 'in service of'
      maintenance of identity, that it is the _type and style of
      compensation_ that is the problem, not 'ego' itself. Ego, like skin
      and membrane, protects and allows life. If enlisted in the task of
      Narcissistically dominating others, this mechanism can be employed as
      a fist, rather than the open palm of union. Handshaking that is based
      upon _criteria of acceptance_ is a judgement of _worthiness to live_;
      and we have all been birthed into a culture in which such judgements
      have been put in place, to supplant the gift of Grace, life itself.

      > Another idea that intrigues me is how every sentence "has"
      > to have a subject..an actor noun. Our brains appear to
      > make us seek for causation in everything we observe. You
      > call it "me." I call it "you."


      Gene: Yes, you come to the crux of the issue here.

      There is a little 'joke routine' that I do sometimes in my classes.
      I ask, "If you are not me, raise your hand". Most people raise their
      hands, of course. I then ask those who raised their hands if they are
      me or you. If they say "I am me", I exclaim: "Well, if you are me,
      why did you raise your hand, when I asked if you were 'not me'?"

      If they say I am "You", I exclaim: "No, you am you, and you are me!"

      I do this to illustrate how we so automatically switch 'persons' in
      our habits of speech. I am of course BOTH me and you, 'depending upon
      who is speaking'. It is forgotten that every person is both me and
      you, simultaneously. In this forgetting is the key to allowing the
      graceful dissolution of identity. If remembered, moment to moment
      always, wonderful perceptions will follow.

      It should be noted that embedded in this habit of language, the habit
      of suddenly switching 'identity' from 'me' position to 'you'
      position, is the veritable separator of which you inquire.

      It is very sloppy to say that 'there is no you and no me'. It is
      accurate to say 'I am me and you', because our slippery, invisible
      identity, based upon _social criteria of acceptance_ is both poles of
      Being, both self and other, at the same time, always. Speaking from
      this space of universal identity, I am able to have both parties at
      once, both self and other. I am conscious of this.

      If we forget this vital bit of knowledge, we need to carry maps of
      TWO universes; and this is called 'duality'. Simultaneous you and me
      is 'just one map' and is thus 'nondual'.

      My 'map of other' is filled with the monsters who have bitten me,
      treacherous swamps of ravenous crocodiles lusting for my blood. Using
      this map, I live in fear.

      My 'map of self' is filled with the humiliating failures of a
      lifetime, losses, and the inevitable 'failure' which is 'mortality',
      my decrepitude and eventual 'death'. My personal map 'needs' to be
      used to 'navigate' my map of 'other', because only then, can I be
      certain that I am _positioning myself correctly_.

      If I have only one map, there is no self and other, there is only
      Self, the unified, resolved map, the one that calls for no special
      _positioning of myself_. In this map, there are no 'gods of
      authority' and no 'punishing devils'; in this map, I am free, but in
      this map, freedom is NOT an issue, because the counterpoint of
      freedom, which is _imprisonment_, is absent. Absent one pole, is
      absent the other pole. Without polarity, no criteria is of any use.

      Thank you, Gloria, for this opportunity to practice this speaking to
      your listening.

      ==Gene Poole==