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

May 19, 2002

Expand Messages
  • Gloria Lee
    The Highlights Sunday, May 19, 2002 Issue #1077 Edited by Gloria Lee Highlights Home Page: http://nonduality.com/hlhome.htm ... Where did I come from , and how
    Message 1 of 1 , May 20, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
       
       
      The Highlights
       
      Sunday, May 19, 2002
       
      Issue #1077 Edited by Gloria Lee
       
      Highlights Home Page: http://nonduality.com/hlhome.htm
       

       
       
      Where did I come from , and how ?
      Where am I going ?
      Will I know the road ?

      This life is empty breath.
      If I can hear one clear truth,
      I'll be fortunate.

      --------------------------

      Lalla
      Naked Song
      --------------------------

      posted by Viorica Weissman
       

       
      TEAWHISKERS from LiveJournal
       
      Moments make
      the day
      the week
      the month
      the year.
      One by one by one.
      Not the mind
      of the past -
      of the future.
      Not even this
      morning,
      afternoon or
      evening.
      It is this
      single moment
      again
      again
      again.
      I
      re-learn to count
      to one.
       

       
      ROGER ISAACS on NDS
      Re: Non-duality is a limited perspective
       
      Melody:
      Are you suggesting that any of our actions could
      really be inappropriate?   Can we ever really
      do anything outside of [shall we call it] God's will?
       ....
      I hear a 'pointing' to duality, rather than
      to non.

      Does [wo]man have free will? Do we need to consider the moral
      consequences of our actions?

      Maharishi Mahesh Yogi provides a clue: "Knowledge is structured in
      consciousness". "Knowledge is different in different states of
      consciousness."

      If you were to ask a group of people: "Is there a doer in you? Do you
      claim volition?" You will get different answers generally "always a
      doer" and very rarely "sometimes a doer" and even more rarely "never a
      doer".

      What is the use trying to convince someone who is "always a doer" that
      in fact there is no doer? Yes, some people will accept the belief system
      or delude themselves. But perhaps better to show the "doer" something
      that they can do, meditation, from which they can increasingly discover
      the truth for themselves? Meditation begins on the level of duality. An
      inclusive system would be able to explain effects on the level of
      duality (ie meditation), non-duality can't.

      This illustrates the exclusiveness of non-duality. Non-duality
      philosophy serves a narrow niche. An essential niche, but not an
      inclusive teaching.

      I find many of the commentators here very insightful, however, the scope
      of non-duality philosophy is exclusive. A philosophy which proclaims the
      moral tenets of religion, the practices of meditation which are so
      common to virtually all cultures ... to be "bondage" or proclaims
      "seeking is ignorance"... this is an EXCLUSIVE club!! I believe these
      practices (including religion) have value... but they are only a
      perspective. Non-duality is also a perspective... until it is realized.

      M:The body-mind machine looks after it, but leaves me out of
      it.  Just as you do not need to worry about growing hair,
      so I need not worry about words and actions.

      Actually... I do need to worry about growing hair but that is another
      story.

      Roger


      GARY MERRILL
       
      Hi Roger,

      Thanks for your response, some more grist.....

      R:Yes. Ramana Maharishi said something like (too lazy to look it up)
      "effort will arise when effort is needed... when effort is not needed
      none will arise".

      This quote is attributed to Ramana, but if it was effortless did 'he'
      say it?? :-)

      R: I like this description because it incorporates the subtle effort of
      meditation and effortless non-duality.

      Well, as mentioned, with this wonderful thing called hindsight, is
      there really an independent 'one' to make an effort or not make an
      effort. The 'efforter', 'doer', would be the illusion. In other words
      the 'self nature' or lack of one, is the same for both so-called
      'meditators' and 'non-meditators'. Both Gary and Roger are identical
      in this sense! :-) Neither of us are to blame or to be given credit
      for any meditating or non-mediating that arises.

      R: The two different approaches are not a "dilemma" as much as an
       opportunity for knowing: Watching vigilantly: can we discover what
       subtle efforts lead to the end of effort? The brain can know when it's
       invested & identified with emotion, with fear etc...? The brain can also
       recognize those highly individualistic subtle efforts which tend to
       break identification?

      To expound on the limited perspective thread..... 'self' is a limited
      perspective, but one that is taken for granted as real and one that
      that tends to frame understanding in a variety  of ways. A subject
      object relationship is taken for granted. So in talking about a
      'brain' or an 'observer' this is the same game of subject to object.
      It's suggested rather that the brain or self, whoever, is not
      independent ie the brain or self does not exist independently of
      consciousness. Objectivity is thus the illusion of independence, an
      independent actor, observer, brain etc. This is important because it
      changes the nature of our understanding of relationships, 'our' role
      in the drama.

      R: If the mirror needs polishing: polish. One can be a yogi in one instant
       (as needed) and a non-dualist the next...

      Yes identity can pretend to be anything, anyone..is the way of the
      world. Beyond pretense, who is there?

      Love,
      Gary

      RICHARD SCHWARTZ
       
      RE: Jehovah's Witnesses
       
      Hi All,

      My name is Richard and it is nice to meet you. I am
      the person with the exJW web site. Not a new religion,
      just a theraputic way of journalizing, which at first
      was nothing short from venting, that tranformed into
      personal growth, expressed in writing.

      I haven't been able to read all the email threads, the
      some I did I with a smile over here. I'm not religious
      myself, nor a member of any organized religion, nor
      intend to ever be. I certainly wouldn't condemn it,
      yet I find my walk is behind my eyes and in turn
      trying to help others - living fully, loving
      wastefully and having the courage to be.

      If anyone is from the wast coast (NJ), we had the most
      beautiful clouds here yesterday, a day that started
      out cold and wet, but transformed into a magical cool
      day with wind and cloud formations. Do clouds have two
      sides? An inside and out? Smile. I don't know, but the
      faces and shapes they make are sometimes beyond
      description, requiring an artist on the spot to put on
      canvas.

      Peace and love,
      Richard Schwartz

      ON Reliigion: "People aren't looking for a meaning to
      life; they're looking for an experience of being
      alive." JOSEPH CAMPBELL - mythologist


      GENE POOLE
      Rebuttal to 'nonduality is a limited perspective' thread
       
      NDS

      Confusion about nonduality?


      Just to clear up a few things, provoked
      by the recent thread:
      `nonduality is a limted perspective'.

      I know a troll when I see one, and Roger
      qualifies. Not only does he manifest
      significant confusion concerning
      nonduality, but he also asserts his own
      viewpoints as though they are true and
      real.

      Forgive me please, for being so exacting:

      Nonduality:

      Nonduality is NOT a perspective;

      Nonduality is NOT a philosophy;

      Nonduality is NOT a concept;

      Nonduality is nonduality.

      Nonduality is NOT "two things" as
      Roger has asserted. "Two things"
      is the definition of duality.

      The Philosophy of Nonduality:

      If one wishes to consider a
      philosophy of nonduality, then
      one may state a philosophy of
      nonduality; but a philosophy of
      nonduality is NOT nonduality.

      The Perspective of Nonduality:

      One may speak of a perspective
      of nonduality, but such a perspetive
      is NOT nonduality.

      If one (such as Roger) wishes to
      state that `nonduality is a limited
      perspective', that one is limited to
      stating only Hir own understanding;
      that one may QUOTE or refer to
      the words of another, but those
      references will be framed in the same
      understanding of the one who is
      stating the limitations.

      The Concept of Nonduality:

      The concept of nonduality is
      the concept of nonduality, NOT
      nonduality.

      On judging what is `limited':

      Roger has asserted (in a trolling
      fashion, it seems to me) that
      nonduality is a `limited perspective'.

      I would propose that the actual
      limitations exist in Roger's own
      perspective; yet, even if that is
      so, Roger is not stating anything
      about nonduality; he is instead,
      defining his own position in relation
      to certain concepts which he
      entertains as `nonduality'.

      Nonduality is nonduality.

      This entire issue would be easy to
      ignore, but for one thing; Roger
      continues to assert spiritual
      principles, states unconditional
      truths, and inevitable cause-
      effect relationships.

      Roger leaves a URL as the sig line
      of his postings, which site reveals
      that Roger is a `master in training'.

      I have no axe to grind concerning
      Roger's own path; however, I would
      be remiss if I neglected to point out
      that Roger's assertions and judgements
      concerning what he calls `nonduality'
      have little if anything to do with
      nonduality, in spite of the quotations
      and references which he has posted.

      So I can ask Roger: What is nonduality?

      Is it two things?

      Is it a philosophy?

      Is it a perspective?

      Is it a concept?

      Or can we simply state nonduality as `one'?

      And specifically (as opposed to duality) as
      `not two'?

      As I have stated in another post, the only
      thing we can say about nonduality, is to
      describe what stands in its place; and I
      say that Roger has done an admirable job
      of that.

      The reason that I am going to this degree
      of specificity, is to take away the limitations
      which may have inadvertantly formed in the
      mind of any reader; I offer exacting definitions,
      to create the distinctions necessary to clarify
      what otherwise sloppy use of language may have
      imposed upon as yet unformed understandings.

      When someone asks `what is nonduality',
      the correct answer is; nonduality.

      Now, Roger;

      What is the sound of one hand clapping?


      ==Gene Poole==



       
      NINA MURKISS
      what good is a window?
       
      Walking towards my front door, I was struck by the beauty of what I
      saw through the window at the end of the hall.

      Let me be clear: what I see through the window at the end of the hall
      is always beautiful. It includes, but is not limited to, a
      particularly nice view of a cut through one of the mountains that
      bounds downtown, raw rock face, the mountain ridgelines on each side
      crowded with trees and a house or two, down below the red brick old
      city, roof membranes dirty with age, a crowd of buildings and a tree
      or two, a long view down a hilly street. This evening, though, in the
      long end of summer's approach dusk, the light had had enough momentum
      from the high noon sun to swing broad around to a new angle. Yellow
      light, that liquid light, washed over reds and greens and blacks.
      Blue sky lavendering above. Aaaaah... the best I've seen in months.

      So, I thought, why stop at my front door? Why not go clear to the end
      of the hall and take a broad gander at that which had struck my
      interest? So, I attached my sights to that aforementioned rock face
      and strode to the window.

      With each step closer, that which I intended to move nearer moved
      farther away. Standing at the window, the rock face had become tiny,
      distant, unimportant, lost.

      The architect within laughed.

      I had found myself accidentally, innocently, directly experiencing
      something that I had known intellectually all along:

      The aperture of focus determines relative scale.

      More simply said:

      Without the window, you lose the view.
       
      ~~~~~~

      The scale of elements in the view is relative to the aperture is
      relative to the one with the eyeball.

      Or, it could be said that the scale doesn't change at all. I stay the
      same size, the window (the aperture) stays the same size, and that
      rock face stays the same size. Then why do we all seem so different?
      Relative position in space.



       
      ALAN LARUS
       
       
      A one eyed perspective may still see a limit in one hand clapping .
       
       
      I enjoyed reading the thread, instead of moving back to personal can anybody make it move on to perspicacious?
       
       
      Alan
       

      DAVID BOZZI
      Perspective Re: [NDS] Re: Non-duality is a limited perspective
       
      Hi Al,

      are you attached to the perspicacious?

      I only ask because as I was watching
      water in a brook flow today,
      I wondered if it could flow the other way. :)

      Funny thing about the personal I noticed ...

      It is some kind of a Doorway.

      I have discovered that when I most unaware of Truth
      it is when I have resisted passing through this Doorway.

      Blessings,
      David
      (Doorman)



       
      DAVID BOZZI
       
      Roger:I'm pointing out that the concept of ND in a dualistic brain is
       distinctly different from the experiential reality of ND. How can we
       tell the difference?

      In my case, experience preceded mumbo jumbo.
      I suppose I am 'lucky'.
      (though I could still provide a million reasons
      why I am not)

      I can't imagine why anyone would be attracted
      to talk about Oneness
      having not had at least a Glimpse.

      But having just stated that,
      now I can. :)

      For some it's a Sense
      that leads to intellectual pursuit
      that might lead to Experience.

      While for others,
      it's a Sense
      that slingshots directly into Experience.

      I don't imagine either path
      is better.

      The slingshot approach demands alot of pain.

      David
      (stone between Goliath's Eyes)


       
      MICHAEL READ
       
       
      Don't mention Buddhism

      -- Bodhiyana

       I'm guessing that Buddha's audience for his talks didn't hear him mention "Buddhism." As far as what got written down about his instructions, there was always the straight man, Subhuti, asking "how" to do it.

      In the Diamond Sutra, Buddha says: "As good and pious men and women come wishing to begin the practice of seeking to attain highest perfect wisdom, THEY WILL SIMPLY HAVE TO FOLLOW WHAT I AM ABOUT TO SAY, and very soon they will be able to subdue their discriminative thoughts and craving desires and will be able to attain perfect tranquillity of mind."

      The essential word is FOLLOW, for it means to go in your heart where the words take you, and to pay attention to where and how you do that. Sometimes all the words we use about how to do this actually get in the way of doing it. Our ideas of what it is form a barrier which keeps us from experiencing it. Sometimes a Christian's ideas or fears about what Buddhism is get in the way of following the instruction. The instructions themselves are VERY EASY to follow.

      This summer my 14-year old grandson and I went on our annual camping trip. We like this one place where there are campsites along a creek. You cannot see or hear anyone else because of the space between the camps. The altitude is 8,000 ft. The stream comes out of a clear mountain lake, and the 360 degree view is mountains, trees, and waterfalls.

      He was sitting across the picnic table from me one sunny morning, chatting about nothing, and asked me if I could teach him to meditate. I said sure. He said "how about now?" I said sure. With very few words I guided him through some body awareness, breath awareness, and then was quiet. I didn't use more than 6 or 7 sentences. He sat there at the table for about 5 minutes, no lotus position, and then smiled a big smile at me. He asked me some question about the experience which I answered by telling him this was like a gate. Not a real gate, but a doorway in your heart to pure awareness. He lowered his eyes and sat for another 5 minutes while I watched. He then said grandma, "what I got was that we are happy and we are free." That's it exactly and in that order. "Grandma, this is way cool. This is the coolest thing that happened to me this summer!"

      It is that easy when you want to look. When you are ready to follow where your guide, your teacher, or own heart leads you. It is an uncomplicated and direct experience devoid of any lables. Way cool!



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