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

4947#4947 - Friday, June 14, 2013 - Editor: Jerry Katz

Expand Messages
  • Jerry K
    Jun 15, 2013
      #4947 - Friday, June 14, 2013 - Editor: Jerry Katz

      The Nonduality Highlights http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NDhighlights 


      Here are a couple contributions posted to Nonduality Salon recently.


      Tboni (long time Saloner who is both a psychotherapist and psychiatrist)

      There is a condition called Folie a deux where the paranoia is shared by another. Yet another case recorded is Induced delusional disorder: a case report of Folie A' Famille where a whole family shares the same paranoid delusions.

      I reckon a good case could be made for extending the diagnosis to whole nations.

      The USA could be the first documented case of Tboni's syndrome 

      which I have called:-

      "Folie a Nationale."

      When a whole nation goes barmy.

      A brand new psychiatric disorder that needs to be included in the New DSM5.

      That over 20% of its population is already taking psychotropic medication simply confirms the diagnosis. 

      Now they are extending it to medicate toddlers.

      If the USA suffers from a 'Folie a Nationale' one does not have to look far for the cause of this Massive National Psychiatric Disorder that has afflicted the USA. 

      It is (and must be) occurring on a huge scale for the thinking of its citizens to be so subjugated and for all reasoning to be extinguished and replaced by paranoia without even a comment!

      The cause is of course a chemical imbalance.

      A chemical imbalance in the brains of its citizens on a vast scale.

      A chemical imbalance Induced by the propaganda of Big Pharma and the APA who have bribed its entire population into wolfing down toxic medications that do not work for illnesses that do not exist, in order to make money.

      The treatment??

      I leave with you..


      Enough for now!




      Dan Berkow

      To say "everything already is enlightened" is to say "there is nothing that is not who I am" which is to say "nothing is being said that isn't already what is so."

      You raise the notion of "representation." Has anything ever really been represented? Or is it that we suspend disbelief, so to speak. We allow ourselves to be conned, or participate in conning ourselves, in other words. That way, we can attach emotions to representations, formulate a sense of time and personal continuity (of representations we take as self).

      When I look at representation, whether that be through word, image, or memory (even memory of what took place one millisecond ago), that representation is claiming to be able to formulate something (whether that be an emotional reaction, an image, a sensory memory) that can "stand in" for what was, but is not now.

      And yet, one has to acknowledge, if being clear, that the only actual sensing occurring is "now."

      The "representation" actually is a present sensing, and so is fluctuating, and so isn't really able to "capture" what is not present.

      So, to me, it's not a matter of being able to give your attention to something for a long time. In fact, the sense of time passing and how long something is taking, is shown to be imagined (although a powerful aspect of our imagining process, a very convincing aspect of it).

      If I look at the common-sense notion of duration, of passage of time, I see that I'm constructing it through how I represent events - and we just said that representation (as commonly understood) is not really possible, is not happening (as it is taken to be, through common-sense ways of speaking, remembering, relating - all based on consensus agreements about representation - including culture, including talking through this list, including "buddha", spirituality; "seeing" etc.).

      You mention "being in love" - by which I think you may mean something like "the love which is engaging fully as present" -- in which case, yes, I agree. A lot of times people who say they are in love are obsessing about someone, thinking about them often, feeling that they are very important to be close to - in other words, "being in love" as commonly understood is a process through which thought, memory, and emotion get obsessively intertwined around an object (a beloved person) who represents a series of experiences that are desired (feeling close, feeling attracted, enjoying touching and being touched by, enjoying the feeling of sharing) ... which psychologically are opposed to other experiences that are not wanted (feeling distant, feeling repulsed, disliking the sensation of touching or being touched by, feeling pain predominantly involved rather than pleasure, etc.).

      Now, it seems odd to me, and yet true, that simply being present (which in fact is all that is) seems to be what people (in terms of the common-sense understanding existing as a person) want to avoid. People seem to want, first of all, to exist as a located self, which has experiences of its own, which continues over time, which can get what it wants for itself (whether that be the feeling of being in love, or sex, or enlightenment, or status, or power, or recognition, etc.) and to avoid what it doesn't want for itself (feeling lonely, rejected, being ill, hurting, experiencing pain, being ignorant, not being recognized, being powerless, etc.).

      So, getting back to "people who are practicing seriously" - what are they doing? They are assuming they continue as centers that hold a sense of being aware of themselves, that this center is continuing a located existence over time (and so can engage in "practice";) that they are aware of a personal mind that belongs to them and which is separate from someone else's mind (e.g., "I am now attending to my present experience and staying with it" - whereas someone else who is sitting to my left is fidgeting, not paying good attention, etc.)

      In this sense, "practicing" is a way to continue the common-sense identification with a location for a personal existence, a belief in a personal mind that is one's possession, so to speak, that one has volition as a center (e.g., I can pay attention well or poorly, I can commit to what my teacher wants me to commit to, or reject it) and so on.

      If the assumption of personal existence is undermined, if assumptions about existing as a separated mind or awareness is undermined, what happens to practice, to religion, to a spiritual path? 

      Nothing really.

      One is free to continue on with whatever drama seems to be unfolding as one's life - whether that be involvement in a spiritual path, or working as a banker, or living homeless on the street and having to go through dumpsters to find food to survive to the next day ...

      Indeed, it's not just that "one is free to continue" it's that one sees that the sense of continuity, the sense of representation (e.g., I exist as a human being who is sitting in a zendo, or going through a dumpster), is arising and sort of weaving itself together as a construction, non-volitionally, choicelessly, already fully present as is without division (from anything else that is choicelessly present).

      The sense of "here" where I am existing and experiencing and "there" where I am not existing and experience, is seen to be as much a cognitive construction as any other aspect of representation.

      - Dan