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

Fw:Monday, March 11, 2002 (NO roses, re-sent)

Expand Messages
  • Gloria Lee
    ******** Apologies to those with netscape email programs, for whom the roses were all over and obliterated the words. In MS Outlook, it was only a banner
    Message 1 of 1 , Mar 13, 2002
      Apologies to those with netscape email programs, for whom the roses were all over and obliterated the words. In MS Outlook, it was only a banner across the top. Thanks, Gloria

      The Nondual Highlights

      Outstanding posts sent to the Nonduality Salon email list

      and other online communities

      Monday, March 11, 2002

      The 1000th Edition

      Search all Editions of the Nondual Highlights:

                          Editors: Jerry Katz, Gloria Lee, Christiana Duranczyk, Michael Read, John Metzger
      Today's Highlights Edited by
      Gloria Lee

      First, to toss a few bouquets, as the odometer turns over.... 
      Thanks to their consistent dedication, most of these daily highlights were done by a handful of people.
      In June of  1999, they were started by Melody and Jerry, Andrew joined  soon joined them (and continued
      until recently!), and Gloria began with the year 2000.  Other editors have included Bruce, Lynn, Beth,
      Christiana, Mark, OH, and Manchine.
      Thanks to all those who write to the Nonduality Salon, for without you there would be nothing to offer!!
      And  also to the many other lists that have sprung up since NDS began. 
      In recognition of  his making these archives into a searchable resource, this milestone issue is dedicated to Jerry Katz.  There is no way to thank  him  for his constant presence. 
      First Issue, First Post
      From:  Melody
      Date:  Thu Jun 3, 1999  11:36 am
      Subject:  Digest #1

      From the NondualitySalon June 2, 1999:


      Envision the set of all existing things.
      Outside that set by definition nothing exists.
      Atma is not anything in that set.
      Atma is not the set as a whole.
      Atma is the quality of existence which defines the set.
      In other words,
      Atma does not exist,
      "Atma" is "existence".


      MIKE CARRIS                   

      Greetings Everyone-first post, from the Lankavatara Sutra

      Then said Mahamati to the Blessed One:  Why is it that the ignorant
      are given up to discrimination and the wise are not?

      The Blessed One replied:  It is because the ignorant cling to names,
      signs and ideas; as their minds move along these channels they feed
      on multiplicities and objects and fall into the notion of an ego-soul
      and what belongs to it; they make discriminations of good and bad
      among appearances and cling to the agreeable.  As they thus cling
      there is a reversion to ignorance, and karmas born of greed, anger
      and folly, is accumulated.  As the accumulation of karma goes on they
      become imprisoned in a cocoon of discrimination and are thenceforth
      unable to free themselves from the round of birth and death.

      Because of folly they do not understand that all things are like
      maya, like the reflection of the moon in water, that there is no self-
      substance to be imagined as an ego-soul and its belongings, and that
      all their definitive ideas rise from their false discriminations of
      what exists only as it is seen of the mind itself.  They do not
      realize that things have nothing to do with qualified and qualifying,
      not with the course of birth, abiding and destruction, and instead
      they assert that they are born of a creator, of time, of atoms, of
      some celestial spirit.  It is because the ignorant are given up to
      discrimination that they move along with the stream of appearances,
      but it is not so with the wise.

      Let me also add that in answer to Mahamatis question concerning what
      clear understandings the earnest disciple should have if he is to
      succeed in the discipline leading to self realization the Blessed
      Lord Buddha replied...in part....

      "First- he must have a clear understanding that all things are only
      manifestations of the mind itself;....

      ...As to the first; he must recognise and be fully convinced that
      this triple world is nothing but a complex manifestation of one's
      mental activities; that it is devoid of selfness and its belongings;
      and there are no strivings, no comings, no goings. He must recognise
      and accept the fact that this triple world is manifested and imagined
      as real only under the influence of habit-energy that has been
      accumulated since the beginningless past by reason of of memory,
      false-imagination, false-reasoning, and attachments to the
      multiplicities of objects and reactions in close relationship and in
      conformity to ideas of body-property-and abode. "

      Now the second understanding the Buddha said we must fulfill for self-
      realization is that we must -discard the notion of birth, abiding and

      Of this Lord Buddha explains," As to the second; he must recognise
      and be convinced that all things are to be regarded as forms seen in a
      vision and a dream, empty of substance, un-born and without self-
      nature; that all things exist only by reason of a complicated network
      of causation which owes its rise to discrimination and attachment and
      which eventuates in the rise of the mind-system and its belongings
      and evolvements. "


      HEIDI                Impertinent Questions

      Everything that seems to be the mind of Man, his ordinary
      consciousness, deals in form rather than energy. Energy flows through
      every human continually, and what seems to be the human drama can be
      defined as the form that the energy takes.

      What effect does the life in the sea, have on the sea?
      What effect does the sea, have on the life in the sea?

      What effect does the life on the land, have on the land?
      What effect does the land, have on the life on the land?

      What effect does the sea have on the land?
      What effect does the land have on the sea?

      What effect does the sky have on the planet?
      What effect does the planet have on the sky?

      What effect does "I" have on that which is deemed to be "not-I"?
      What effect does "not-I" have on "I"?


      It is possible to reroute some of the energy that is part of the
      circulatory system of Life flowing through Man, to bypass its usual
      destination, to keep it from taking form, as "you".

      That is the reality behind all of the strange dreams throughout
      history regarding enlightenment and being awake. Energy must be
      diverted to bypass the ordinary wiring of the nervous system (lest it
      "becomes you" - as in, "what you eat, becomes you"), and there is no
      simple, direct way to do it. It is the attempt to grow little stray
      molecules here and there that can run through all of the circuitry
      and not end up in a form.

      Assembled from parts of milk-cartons downloaded from the Internet in

      ----------------High Dee, 9/99 



      i went to a talk the other night
      given by the head of Shambhala Spiritual centers
      they publish Shambhala Sun
      Chogyam Trungpa and all that
      so anyway
      it was a very good talk
      i enjoyed it
      the speaker made a big point
      of going on how people value and seek
      the impermanent in our culture.
      namely entertainment, the media, money, etc.
      you know what i'm saying

      so my friend buys a copy of Shambhala Sun
      and gives me the copy
      great articles and all
      but the ads drove me crazy
      they're designed no differently than any other commodity
      offered by our culture to a public seeking the temporary pleasure
      of the impermanent.
      Brightly colored ads they make you feel
      you must
      go to this retreat center
      or own this prayer accessory
      'cultivate compassion'
      as a full page blue ad for Naropa implores.

      the whole thing makes a person feel
      like there's a need to do something to get
      that's it's not good enough to live one's ordinary life

      that evocation seems most un-Buddhist-like

      i guess they're figuring the steak will turn out more appealing than the

      so they probably know what they're doing.

      but that's another probem.
      do i want my spiritual community to know what it's doing


      JERRY KATZ                 Conscious Quantum Worldview           

      Shrikantha Shastry <shrikanthas@...> writes:


      "In this link, singularity identified as the
      essential consciousness brings about a drastic
      change in our view of the universe."

      The author of the article is seeking comments. Please send comments to
      Shastry as well as to NDS.


      see attachment for eml.poem


      JEROEN          Deconstructing human rights

      Dear Eric, Jan
      I hope the following citations clarify what I mean by normative

      "..The whole point of a normative ethic is to organise a determined
      set of good and bad actions, experiences and phenomena. In this way
      people are encouraged to treat themselves as abstractions instead of
      particular human beings; they look upon themselves as having to
      conform to certain abstract rules. As an abstraction of the
      respectful universalist or cultural relativist, they do not allow
      themselves or at least feel embarrassed to experience or express one
      of the 'bad' categories (experiences, roles, norms). In this way,
      people are constantly regarding themselves 'as something that ought
      not to be, so that one is always in the process of morally
      expurgating oneself'. Fundamental to this construction of moral
      abstractions is that for example when one cannot (and may not)
      express his negative feelings (anger, hatred,..), this energy is
      merely displaced onto other objects/subjects; it is turned inwards
      and can grow until it is anger towards everything or everyone. This
      brings us to the paradoxical observation that while a normative ethic
      is there to stimulate moral behaviour, it is in fact one of the root
      causes of its own definition of immoral behaviour.

      Sartwell adds succinctly: ".What is most real to the moralizer is
      sin.", and emphasises that: ".To take on a role, to live a life in
      one's roles, or to try to live as, or up to, a 'role model', is to
      turn away from one's own life. Each such role infests and falsifies
      you slowly from the top to the bottom, until you no longer even know
      what you want, what you fear, what you hate, what you love. Each role
      tries to turn you from what you are into what you 'ought to be'
      according to the role's demands. And to tell you what you ought to
      be - that entails that you ought not to be, as you are.". Thus, all
      sorts of roles, rules and norms are in fact a rejection of one's own
      existence (viz. the particular situation).

      Normative ethics are thus all the roles, norms, structures which
      turn us into something we ought to be.. viz. a moral subject..

      "..Consequently, to be ethical is to exist without taking up
      a 'role'; 'the point is to prefer being to seeming'. To be ethical in
      this sense is to act from the awareness of the situation; to live in
      the awareness that each situation is real and to allow the truth of
      that situation to be acknowledged. Sartwell defines this as 'ethics
      of authenticity'; a willingness and faith in one's own being in the
      situation without taking up a role, adding that: ".We are
      all 'ethical' merely by existing.". In fact, as 'we are all already
      real' in each particular situation, "The point is to live in an
      acknowledgement, enactment, and celebration of the
      fact."  Therefore; "The task of living in truth is a matter of
      keeping faith with oneself as a real, situated, particular being.
      The 'ethics' of authenticity emerges out of a willingness to hold on
      to oneself (thus not to 'roles', ed.), to allow oneself to be."

      In that way, you are right eric, that non-normative ethics also
      carries a certain norm.. its norm is that we 'constantly' ackowledge
      our own situation as being real and nondual.. in other words, to let
      your whole being get situated, instead of applying a set of
      prearranged, societally acceptable rules, norms.. to realise the
      present situation as real/nondual, instead of trying to make it
      'better', 'more real/nondual'..
      thus non-normative ethics are and flow from the 'perception'
      (realisation) of each situation as a 'nondual reflection'.. thus, non-
      normative ethics is letting yourself being situated by the situation
      because you 'know' that applying rules, norms, orders is exactly a
      negation of our nondual existence.. non-normative ethics flows from
      the realisation that no order needs to be established.. that no
      difference (duality) should be made between you and me.. that we are
      both 'one with all' and 'all with one'.. that each situation is
      already real, nondual.. and need not be approved.. that each
      situation is a perfect representation of the nondual reality..
      that it only needs to be acknowledged by opening up our whole being
      to the whole situation..
      the fact that you are standing there listening, walking, looking,
      thinking, talking, enjoying is pure ethics, non-normative ethics.. it
      has no goal, it is exactly the opposite.. it is letting yourself
      being situated without any goal and opening yourself to the present
      moment.. because you know the nondual 'order', the oneness, the
      oceanness, is always already there (in other words, the 'goal' was
      never away) .. the only thing is to open up to this nonduality, to
      let this 'order' move and express itself through you.. to be this
      nondual order..

      why is the difference between normative and non-normative ethics now
      so important? "...Fundamental is that two crucial 'modes' of our
      world, peace and love, are contradictory to normative ethics and
      exactly a result of non-normative ethic: ".Abstractions are precisely
      what it is impossible to love; love is always precisely what holds
      dear the particularity of the beloved. Love is an opening of the self
      to the particularity of the beloved, so that love is not an
      abstraction away from ugliness but an allowance of ugliness to be.
      Particular people are the hardest thing to love; on the other hand,
      they're the only people that can be loved.To love is to allow the
      beloved to be outside of one's control, or rather, to acknowledge
      that the beloved is outside one's control.We speak of loving
      people 'just as they are'.Peace flows from letting oneself go, as
      does humor, for example, which often occurs in an allowance of
      oneself and the world to be.".

      In other words, by applying rules, norms (normative ethics) to
      particular situations/beings, we negate/destroy the (nondual)
      oneness/oceanness which all these situations/beings are always
      representing.. applying normative ethics is exactly negating the
      oneness, 'pebbleness', nonduality of existence.. consequently, it is
      only through opening up our whole being to the situation that we can
      feel the oneness, oceanness, the buddhahood expressing through our
      bodies.. through opening to the situation we acknowledge, 'express'
      and become the oneness of nondual reality..

      in that way, non-normative ethics is living through constantly
      opening up to the one nondual oceanness..
      all is one..

      We are the birds of the same nest,
      We may wear different skins,
      We may speak different languages,
      We may believe in different religions,
      We may belong to different cultures,
      Yet we share the same home - our earth.
      Born on the same planet
      Covered by the same skies
      Gazing at the same stars
      Breathing the same air
      We must learn to happily progress together
      Or miserably perish together,
      For man can live individually,
      But can survive only collectively

      -Atharva Veda 


      BOBBY GRAHAM    Deconstructing human rights

      Dear Eric Jan and Jeroen:

      The only insight into the matter I can think of relates to being an
      artist.  Any heirarchial structure  (where one thing is considered
      more important than another) can be considered relative to the
      viewpoint of the observer or it can be considered a truth
      irrespective of the observer.

      This is what was so difficult about what Jeroen did.  He (or She,  I
      did not catch the gender here) seemed, at least to me, to present a
      case for human rights as beyond the relativist viewpoint without
      creating  an objective world we all should recognize or shut up about.

      It is hard to see something go down that you know is wrong and have
      no philosophic basis for that view (the ethical relativists argue it
      is their right to do as their culture dictates).  Just as it makes me
      feel odd when people in the art world say there is no such thing as
      intrinsic quality or beauty in art.  The 'Beauty is in the eyes of
      the beholder'  thing.  I believe this saying applies to the idea that
      if you love someone they are beautiful.  But when you abstract the
      action and take away the object of the love the statement does not
      stand on its own.

      This puts me in a pickle.  I see things I believe have intrinsic
      beauty but I don't admit to an objective world.

      It is a can of worms.  People have opinions they defend.  To me,
      beauty has an intrinsic quality regardless of viewer, but I can't
      defend this view philosophically the way Jeroen did with human

      When I paint I start with a blank canvas and make it better.  If I
      did not think there was something better than a white canvas I would
      not paint.  Once I start and it looks pretty good I am faced with the
      problem of making it better at the risk of making it worse.  I take
      something and make it better.  Is that intrinsic quality or relative

      The functional aspect of nature would describe 'better' in nature,
      but in ethics and art the line is blurred.

      Keats- "Truth is beauty, beauty truth."

      Bobby G. 


      GLORIA LEE  sends

      from Hafiz@yahoogroups.com

      Out of the Mouths of a Thousand Birds

      Listen -
      Listen more carefully to what is around you
      Right now.
      In my world
      There are the bells from the clanks
      Of the morning milk drums,
      And a wagon wheel outside my window
      Just hit a bump
      Which turned into an ecstatic chorus
      Of the Beloved's Name.
      There is the Prayer Call
      Rising up like the sun
      Out of the mouths of a thousand birds.
      There is an astonishing vastness
      Of movement and Life
      Emanating sound and light
      From my folded hands
      And my even quieter simple being and heart.
      My dear,
      Is it true that your mind
      Is sometimes like a battering
      Running all through the city,
      Shouting so madly inside and out
      About the ten thousand things
      That do not matter?
      Hafiz, too,
      For many years beat his head in youth
      And thought himself at a great distance,
      Far from an armistice
      With God.
      But that is why this scarred old pilgrim
      Has now become such a sweet rare vintage
      Who weeps and sings for you.
      O listen -
      Listen more carefully
      To what is inside of you right now.
      In my world
      All that remains is the wondrous call to
      Dance and prayer
      Rising up like a thousand suns
      Out of the mouth of a
      Single bird.

       ("The Subject Tonight is Love" -- versions of Hafiz by Daniel Ladinsky; original presentation by David Williamson)
      JOHN METZGER     More Impertinent Questions
      I think leaves are green from the chlorophyll, and tortoises think about running faster than rabbits.
      I don't know the rest. John  JOHN METZGER     More Impertinent Questions
      excerpt, Crazy Wisdom, Wes Nisker:
                                 One word less.
                                 One. Wordless.
          In the silence that follows, our crazy wisdom characters begin to
      disperse. The Taoist master wanders off toward some misty mountains, while
      the Jester heads back to the city to look for work. The clowns have decided
      to join the circus. The Zen masters sit down to meditate, agreeing that the
      here and now is as good as any space-time. The scientists pack up their
      notes; they have decided to become socially responsible by studying the
      greenhouse effect. A few philosophers want to go back to school to learn a
      trade. Meanwhile, Coyote is heard in the nearby bushes, taking part in some
      boisterous and energetic activity. He no doubt will be able to take care of
      himself. As the dust settles, we come across a poem by Pablo Neruda, titled
      "Flies Enter a Closed Mouth," a perfect epitaph for our questions and

      Why, with these red fires, are the rubies ready to burst into flame?

      Why is the heart of the topaz
      yellow with honeycombs?

      Why is it the rose's vagary
      to change the color of its dreams?

      Why did the emerald freeze
      like a drowned submarine?

      And why does the sky pale
      in the starlight of June?

      Where does the lizard buy
      fresh paint for its tail?

      Where is the subterranean fire
      that revives the carnations?

      Where does the salt get
      that look of transparency?

      Where did the coal sleep
      before it woke to its darkness?

      And where, where does the tiger buy
      the stripes of its mourning, its markings of gold?

      When did the honeysuckle first
      sense its own perfume?

      When did the pine take account
      of its fragrant conclusion?

      When did the lemons learn
      the same creed as the sun?

      When did smoke learn how to fly?

      When do the roots talk with each other?

      How do stars get their water?
      Why is the scorpion venomous
      and the elephant benign?

      What are the tortoise's thoughts?
      To which point do the shadows withdraw?
      What is the song of the rain's repetitions?
      Where do birds go to die?
      And why are leaves green?

      What we know comes to so little,
      what we presume is so much,
      what we learn, so laborious,
      we can only ask questions and die.
      Better save all our pride
      for the city of the dead
      and the day of the carrion:
      there, when the wind shifts
      through the hollows of your skull
      it will show you all manner of
      enigmatical things, whispering truths in the
      void where your ears used to be.


    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.