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

Monday, May 20, 2002

Expand Messages
  • Jerry Katz
    [Image] Chocolate Donut Dawn, by Al Larus Is attachment to donuts possible? MICHAEL READ in the beginning was the hole and it was alone and without substance
    Message 1 of 1 , May 21, 2002

      Chocolate Donut Dawn, by Al Larus
      "Is attachment to donuts possible?"


      in the beginning was the hole
      and it was alone and without substance
      and the hole said "LET THERE BE DOUGH!!"
      and dough did appear and surround the hole
      and the donut did appear with great power
      and all glory and much goodness
      the power of the donut is that it shall be eaten
      thus returning to the hole!


      The Highlights


      Monday, May 20, 2002

      Edited by Jerry Katz

      Today's selections are all from the Nonduality Salon list


      'Observe' said Karl Popper when he sat down in front of
      a full class room.. after 15 minutes a student asked '
      yea but, observe what?'


      The Buddha forbore to specify: as long as there is any '
      one' to suffer - he will. Wei Wu wei


      '..if we would think the same, we would not think
      anymore..(si nous pensions la même chose, nous pensions
      plus rien..)' jacques chirac, re-elected president of



      "Awake!" - is a system!
      "Jesus Saves" - is a system!
      "Remember Yourself" - is a system!
      "Nonduality is nonduality" - is a system!
      "Nonduality does not purport to explain anything" - is a system!


      Systems are built of smaller embedded systems, and are
      themselves part of greater systems.

      Nicely said. A view is always limited, knowledge is
      always limited. If this is forgotten then there arises
      belief and bigotry. A view is the same as 'theory' a way
      of looking. A system of relations.

      The idea of 'self' is also a system, a subject/object
      relationship taken for granted as real. Well shame to
      spoil the story :-)

      The question could arise as to whether it is possible to
      'see' without any view without any object in mind. To
      see as is, as it is, this moment, without
      conceptualization. One can always tell a story about it
      afterwards ie what I did, what I saw etc. But right now,
      this very instance, what is there, and where is the
      seer? Not in terms of words, but actually.

      The view of non-duality becomes no-view. To view is not
      to view and not to view is to view. This is only
      paradoxical in language, because views and systems are
      always limited, partial. The wordless now is not



      If it's a perspective, then it's not non-dual. If is
      non-dual, then there isn't anything that it is.


      But there are individuals who exist in the context of
      nondual understanding. These folk can be said to have a
      nondual "perspective" even while there is no such thing
      itself. The perspective is the result of the
      experiential understanding being present in a life


      And there isn't anything that it isn't! If nonduality is
      inclusive, then it includes (apparent) duality?


      Not necessarily. Nonduality is what it is, and nothing
      else. Anything else, including the entire context of
      duality, is something else, and as a  something else, is
      not nonduality.




      The question was asked (in response to my assertion that
      there is a vast difference between one and oneness):

      What is the difference between one, and oneness?

      One is what is

      My most charitable definition of oneness is that oneness
      is the nature of what is.

      Less charitable definitions are as follows:

      Oneness is a state desired by those who are plagued by a
      persistent assumption of separation.

      Oneness is a concept used by some, to provoke an other
      to drop boundaries.

      This is a common tactic used in brainwashing situations;
      the assumption of separation must first be established,
      and then, there is some act which must be performed in
      order to attain oneness.

      Because all humans suffer, and because most humans have
      an aversion to suffering, it is easy to hook most humans
      into various schemes which imply that attaining oneness
      will stop or reduce suffering.

      Loneliness is not aloneness, yet, without thinking about
      it, people assume that loneliness is caused by being
      alone. The longings which accompany loneliness can be
      experienced as a form of suffering which 'can be
      remedied by oneness with another person'. And what
      follows from this assumption, is the question; "Why
      can't I make a relationship work?"

      It seems that the majority of people are subject to the
      afflictions which accompany the assumption of
      separation; and this common assumption is challenged by

      It is difficult to disabuse a person of assumptions of
      separation, when this person's life has been chiefly
      informed by feelings of deprivation, exclusion, and
      regimentation. The desire for freedom often manifests as
      a desire to change the world, or to change other people,
      but can be satisfied by deeply examining why there is an
      assumption of separation. If we question the assumptions
      embodied in the common definition of oneness, we will
      begin at least, to understand the power of the
      assumption of separation.


      Without going into the whole 'Brainwashing' issue - I
      feel that  there is the same distinction betweem One and
      Oneness when you say  that 'One is what is' and
      'Oneness' (in the way that you qualified it)  'is the
      nature of what is.'

      Since I agree you may wonder why I asked...it is because
      you  said,


      > I have not implied 'oneness',
      > but instead, 'one'. There is
      > a vast difference, a distinction
      > that cannot be escaped.

      I feel that the difference is 'vast AND subtle' (if it
      was  only vast - I feel that it would be more easily
      seen) and that since  this difference is also subtle
      that it can be 'escaped' or mistaked. And I feel that
      this 'mistake' is the lens through which some  view -
      hence Oneness is (insert the other definitions you
      provided in  this space).


      AL LARUS

           Is a boat attached to water?
           We can move either way on this river of words.
           At the end is also the beginning.
           Downstream from perspective is:
           Perspicuous, pertaining pertinacity.
           Against the flow we find:
           Personal, persistent persecution.
           This river bends at non-duality on its way to alfa-omega.

           Some kind of doorway:
           These words are backwards
           going from the screen
           to be thought
           and turn abstract,
           untouched by concept
           creating these forms.
           This abstract is returning,
           slipping into the spring,
           back to its origin.
           And as the rotations of the flaming sun
           turned by the liquids two
           finally comes to a halt.
           Now,  that's beyond dualism.

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