Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
Skip to search.

31digest for June 29

Expand Messages
  • Melody
    Jun 30, 1999
      Nondual Digest - for Tuesday, June 29, 1999:

      Tuesday was a particularly quiet day in
      the Salon. With the exception of a few
      postings, included below, the discussion
      focused around the issue of copyrighting
      spiritual material written to inspire

      Thanks to Samuel for bringing this issue up,
      and inspiring us all to look a little deeper
      as to where our motivations lie.

      (LOL! I had not intended a play on words, but
      I think I'll leave it. :-) )



      To join the Nonduality Salon please go to


      From: Tim Gerchmez <fewtch@...>

      Breaking the silence with a whisper...


      I have been called Luminous Awareness.
      I am Sat, pure Being, absolute *IS*ness.
      I am *IS*ness beyond the ability of the mind to comprehend.
      The intensity of My Being lies in Infinite Presence.

      I AM. I have always BEEN. I always SHALL BE.
      My *IS*ness cannot be overemphasized.
      Indeed, I am Pure Being. I am Consciousness.

      Whoever knows Me as Themselves knows pure Bliss;
      The Bliss of freedom from ego domination;
      The Bliss of freedom from limitation;
      The Bliss of freedom from fear;
      Perfect Contentment.
      Whoever knows Me as Themselves will never desire.

      Whoever knows Me *IS* Me,
      They will remain Me
      even in dreamless sleep.
      There is no unconsciousness
      For He who is IS-ness.

      I am *IS*ness, so who can hurt me?
      Who is there to feel fear?
      Who is there but Me? I am One.
      How could I die? I AM BEING ITSELF.
      How could there be birth? THERE IS ONLY ME, THAT WHICH IS.
      There is nothing but me, for I AM. I AM BEING.
      I am Presence Itself. Who else could be present?

      ...Tim Gerchmez

      OM Shanti,


      From: Xanma@...

      So many eastern writings speak against desires.
      It is not what one is desiring that creates difficulty.
      It is the existing energy of desire that demonstrates
      the condition of believing ourselves to be what we
      are not. Wantingness reveals our fragmentation,
      a sign that the wholeness that is all of existence
      including humans has been forgotten, neglected,

      Accepting an idea that desires are the barrier rather
      than the symptom we may manipulate ourselves by
      denial and suppression. If we instead learn what it
      is that will quiet all desire, and desire that only, we
      are free. Turning each hunger for love from others,
      recognition, pleasure, fulfillment, proof of our existence
      and our power into desire for our real selves, for the Divine
      we find the core longing for Truth, for Home, for Self.

      Holding on to nothing not even to the longing,
      in the next breath desirelessness may appear.
      Desireless because one is whole, natural, complete,
      original. This is the effect of inclusion, whether it is
      reached by negating the appearance of anything
      external, any objectification; or by acknowledging
      the unified essence of all appearances.

      What joyful freedom in gently turning every desire,
      every thought, the attention of every moment
      to the purity of whole beingness, in the surrender
      of our individual ways and means to stillness until
      there is nothing more to turn. Restored!


      From a discussion concerning the
      copyrighting of words written as
      a 'pointing' to nonduality....

      initiated by this posting of Samuel's:

      Apologies to those I may offend...
      this is written... as a friend... to a friend.

      It astounds me to see... 'enlightened' souls,
      still copyrighting their verse and their proses.

      When we know the source of the words we hew,
      we know they don't belong to... 'Me' or 'You'.

      When we copyright words we chance to scribe,
      we proclaim our kinship... with Mammon's tribe.

      The "Prime Directive".... of Nonduality...
      should be... *To Share*... unconditionally.

      ( /\ ) Namaste,


      We can't help or establish anything by acting as though non-duality is
      true. Nevertheless, in the conventional manner of speaking, it's good to
      publish freely when one can, and it's also good to respect a writer's
      copyright, honor their efforts, and help them pay the rent. In the
      everyday sense, it's worthy to aspire on both sides of this fence.

      It does remind me of the lament that many
      Oldtimers have over the state of professional
      sports today. How they long for the days when
      guys played the game for the love of it, and
      not for all the 'babes and baubles'.

      What a challenge to fulfill one's physical
      obligations, and at the same time delight
      in offering the world one's 'God-given'
      expressions and talents.


      My primary reason for
      retaining copyright is to
      keep track of where the
      words are reprinted (I've
      never turned down anyone
      who wanted to use them)
      and through the
      "permission request"
      mechanism to prevent
      misuse of my words to
      promote harmful

      I see no "sin" in copyrighting stuff that has nothing to do with
      spirituality. But once the realm of spirituality is entered, things grow
      fuzzy. If you are walking on Holy Ground, dare you copyright the words of


      If we experience our
      writings as equivalent to
      a pointing finger, then
      misuse can be seen as the
      imposition of an alien
      context between the
      finger and that to which
      it points. Given the
      subtlety of such
      pointings, that context
      can be anything from the
      aforementioned suicide
      advocacy to promotion of
      all manners of whacky
      belief systems.


      Samuel offered:

      It just seems a bit 'unspiritual'... to expound 'Oneness'
      and/or 'Nonduality' and/or 'Spirituality'... and then claim
      *ownership* of the words used to express the thought.

      From my 'odd point of view', it seems, that 'spiritual thought'
      should be treated like pollen... and blown into the breeze.
      Then left to "Do its thing,"... whatever that might be.

      It is not my concern whether it pollinates a seed, is collected
      by bees for food and ends up as excreta, or falls into the dirt 0
      and becomes part of the fossil record of life on Earth.


      My thoughts around this belief say, "you can make
      money baking bread, babysitting kids, or teaching
      the ABC's. But you can't make money assisting people
      in Awakening."

      But this does seem kind of silly, doesn't it?

      How is writing poetry or being a spiritual 'guide'
      any more holy than baking bread or holding a crying child?

      It's not. It's the Heart that makes a work


      Perhaps it is silly... but some how 'to me', there seems to be
      a code of behavior which says, spiritual = share / secular = sell


      What I want to know is what is it that
      wants to define 'spiritual', and that has
      standards of behavior for 'enlightened'

      Would Silent Self ever have an opinion
      about copyrights, or anything else for
      that matter?

      The enlightened masters I know of
      are as varied as snowflakes and are
      free to act not from prescription or


      Gloria Lee:

      my thought for today (given away free
      here for what it is worth..LOL) was that your posts seemed to be talking
      about how
      our egos use even our spirituality to create just another "thing" to own.
      "As if" we could own and control where this spirit flows from or goes,
      right? And
      yeah, we do that...blah, blah, blah...so I thought, yeah... and we imagine
      we can see
      and understand this ego at work only because we have egos that imagine such
      things. So now today, the ego is our jabberwocky, have a nice ride??


      This reminds me of an earlier 'Ahimsa'
      discussion :

      "Is Ahimsa the natural outcome of Awakening?
      Or is it a noble pathway to Awakening? Or

      Can we not use 'non-attachment' or
      'non-ownership' or 'no copyright' as
      a vehicle, much the way some dedicate
      themselves to 'non-violence'?


      it's interesting, this discussion about copyright. I'm a composer myself, &
      a lot of my music I couldn't have written if I had taken copyright laws
      seriously, because I simply wouldn't have had the money to pay for all the
      quotes & samples. But when I radicalized this point of view, it became
      impossible to take credit for my own creative endeavours - now it's all
      very idealistic to say that it doesn't really matter through which
      individual certain things come to existence (especially texts about
      'spiritual matters'), but in the end this attitude has harmed me, & made it
      impossible for a while to write music at all. How so? Because in the world
      out there ('in here' ??) of buying & selling, people mistook this stance
      for not taking myself seriously - now this could be a great mystical
      quality, but it doesn't really sell. I realize now that what matters most
      is to take the loving way. If it is to protect (even if it may be weakness
      to want to have your music out there) copyright is a great agreement.
      On the other hand, if you're a copyright genius (like one I know working in
      advertisement) & all you do is make other people's music yours to make
      money - I think that's called stealing, & is ultimately not even a loving
      thing to do to yourself. To me that's like striving for 'enlightenment' by
      imitating just the moves & words of a saint - it will more often lead to
      emptiness or even severe physical damage than towards anything remotely
      like 'enlightenment'. What fun would there be in the world if we ALL got
      nailed to a cross?


      Samuel responds to Xan:

      >From: Xanma@...

      >What I want to know is what is it that
      >wants to define 'spiritual', and that has
      >standards of behavior for 'enlightened'

      'ego'... no doubt about it.

      >Would Silent Self ever have an opinion
      >about copyrights, or anything else for
      >that matter?

      Not likely.

      >The enlightened masters I know of
      >are as varied as snowflakes and are
      >free to act not from prescription or

      I can only confess...
      to not being 'aware' nor 'here'... yet,
      perhaps... 'tommorow'... or...

      ( /\ )


      From: Tim Gerchmez <fewtch@...>

      I am free. I know I am free, therefore, I am free.

      Why was I bound? Wanna know a dirty little secret? I was never bound.
      All along I had the key to my prison cell in my hand. Why did I not use
      it? Because I was afraid. I was afraid of freedom and what that might
      mean. It was so much safer and more comfortable in my little cell. Three
      hots and a cot. Who could complain? Safer to stay inside, to be watched
      over by many jailers.

      I take full responsibility for any prior bondage. In no way was I bound,
      except by ignorance and fear and attachment.