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

Thursday, June 6, 2002

Expand Messages
  • Jerry Katz
    [Image] Graphic created by Gene Poole ... #1096 - Thursday, June 6, 2002 - Editor: Jerry Katz Home: ... MARALENA You are a
    Message 1 of 1 , Jun 8, 2002
    • 0 Attachment

      Graphic created by Gene Poole

      #1096 - Thursday, June 6, 2002 - Editor: Jerry Katz 
      Home: <http://nonduality.com/hlhome.htm>

      MARALENA

      You are a
      clear and spacious
      focal point
      through which
      the energy of Life
      manifests.

      Anything else
      with which you identify
      is only one small aspect
      of who and what
      you really are.

      ~M.Zetty

      ______________________________________________________
       

      KRISTI SHELLONER

      OK, here's a non-dual brainteaser....maybe it's only my
      brain that gets teased about things like this, but here
      goes:

      I like to dance in front of my mirror. Dance is sort of
      a form of worship or meditation....union with music,
      motion through time, etc., very elemental stuff. When
      it's great you lose your sense of self and time and you
      just hum and buzz with the universe.

      Well, today, not quite getting to the hum..... mind just
      wanted to keep working...; I decided to peek and see how
      this elemental union might look, like was it cool or
      what?

      I'm sure you know the punch line here. As soon as you
      look, or think to look, etc,. you're no longer with-in,
      and whatever coolness, or beauty or elegance or passion,
      that you might have physicalized from you in-ness, is -
      poof, gone!

      So, awareness is, at least in some sense, the process
      and state of being observer and observed at the same
      time and knowing you are these... But as soon as you
      look, it's gone. And if you don't look you can never
      experience what you've "seen."

      Does anyone else encounter this interplay between being
      "unaware" when immersed in activity or mind-work that
      one loves....and the practice of mindfulness...and does
      anyone experiece this interplay as contradictory....as a
      striving that gets in the way of being there?

      ____________________________________________________________

      HEIDI

      "The Body is Ourselves: So Be It"

      by Chet Raymo, Globe Columnist, 6/4/2002

      Philosopher Rene Descartes insisted that body and soul
      are different things. "I think, therefore I am," he
      famously said. His "am" was not made of flesh and bone.

      Science overwhelmingly refutes Descartes. "I am,
      therefore I think," is closer to the modern view.
      Biology and neuroscience have found not the slightest
      evidence that a human self can exist independently of
      the body - not even a glimmer of Cartesian body-soul
      dualism.

      Whatever the human self is, it is inextricably wrapped
      in flesh.

      But what is a self? How does it arise? How is it
      maintained? These questions are being vigorously
      investigated by immunologists, biochemists,
      neuroscientists, and philosophers. A recent issue of the
      journal Science (April 12, 2002) summarized where we
      stand in the science of self. The questions are still
      open, but outlines of the answers are becoming clear.

      From a biologist's point of view, even a single-celled
      bacterium qualifies as a self - a unit of life that is
      organized to nourish itself and protect itself from
      attack by nonself.

      At some point in the history of life, prokaryotes (the
      simplest cells, without nuclei or interior compartments)
      combined to form more complex cells known as eukaryotes
      (with nuclei and compartments such as mitochondria and
      chloroplasts). A new higher self came into being when
      the individual constituents of eukaryotes evolved ways
      to work together without conflict.

      Multicelled plants and animals evolved still later, and
      again found ways to merge separate cellular identities
      into higher and more complex selves.

      Our own bodies are colonies of trillions of cells that
      share the identity of a single self.

      Colonies of social insects such as ants have several
      levels of self identity. Individuals insects are selves,
      but the colony must be accorded its own kind of
      selfhood. Certainly, all members of a colony recognize
      the colony to which they belong, and resist incursions
      of other colonies, even of the same species.

      So what does science say about the human self?

      We might begin by looking for a self in all those
      trillions of cells that share the same genes. Forensic
      scientists can identify the perpetrator of a crime from
      a single hair or drop of semen. To the DNA scientist, a
      scrap of my skin is recognizably me.

      A second approach to self is embedded in the human
      immune system. Our bodies have astonishingly complex
      defenses against nonself invaders that can cause us
      harm. If it weren't for our immune systems, nonself
      pathogens and parasites might quickly destroy us. How
      the body recognizes threatening nonself (germs, snake
      venom) from harmless nonself (food, fetus) is one of the
      most intriguing problems being investigated in science
      today, and one of paramount importance to medicine.

      Of course, none of this is what we are usually thinking
      about when we say "I love you," "I'm depressed," "I
      stubbed my toe," or "You deceive yourself." Personal
      pronouns assume a self that is more than genetics or
      immunology. But even this conscious self is embedded in
      collections of interacting cells, as brain studies make
      crystal clear.

      Until now, definitions of self-awareness have been
      mostly the province of philosophers laboring under the
      lingering influence of Descartes. But philosophers are
      increasing turning to experimental neuroscience and
      cognitive science for clues to self-awareness.

      Writing in Science, philosopher Patricia Churchland
      guesses that the nervous systems of higher animals
      evolved out of the need for central control of the
      body's many organs - heart, lungs, viscera, liver,
      adrenal medulla. Clearly, any system capable of
      coordinating a bodywide response to danger signals, or
      even to coordinate the need for rest and digestion, has
      a high survival value and will be favored by natural
      selection.

      Eventually, evolving nervous systems gave rise to the
      human brain - and to self-awareness.

      As the creature with the most complex nervous system, we
      like to think of ourselves as somehow qualitatively
      different from other animals; thus our affection for
      Descartes and his idea of a disembodied soul. We like to
      imagine that our selfhood can float free of our physical
      bodies.

      But everything we have learned experimentally about the
      human self - from genetics, immunology, neurobiology and
      reproductive science - confirms that our precious
      selfhood is only the most elaborate of evolution's many
      levels of cellular organization.

      To my way of thinking, this does not lower our stature
      in the universe, but rather makes us part and parcel of
      the greatest miracle of all - life's grand thumbing of
      its nose at nature's law of entropy, which requires the
      universe to eventually grind every complexity to dust.

      ______________________________________________________________

      GENE POOLE

      You may use this picture as a means of inviting women to
      join NDS... it can be emailed or posted.

      JERRY

      we know that the men on this list can be put into one
      of two groups: the chevy men and the ford men. Gene, You
      are  touching on my vision of doing the NDS website
      version  for 1954.


      1955 Ford

      BRUCE MORGEN

      Chevy families had Republican  Dads and Ford families
      had  Democrat Dads. As far as I  could tell, only Dads
      could  choose cars or Presidents.  Two-tone paint was
      big, and a  lot of the Chevys had paint  jobs that
      involved salmon  pink. My Dad's '55 Ford was  a
      bottom-of-the-line two-door  with a three-speed shifter
      on  the steering column that was  originally one shade
      of light  blue, but we had the dealer  make it two-tone
      with dark  blue on the roof. It was his  first new car
      and of course  he was a Democrat who took me  to
      Stevenson rallies -- on  the way to one of them we met
      Senator Albert Gore, Senior;  he was lost and we gave
      him a  ride to the hall. I don't  think that sort of
      thing  happens any more, picking up  lost Senators in
      your Dad's  new two-tone, two-door Ford  and getting him
      to the hall  in time for him to introduce  one of the
      two bald guys who  wanted to be President.

      I honestly thought that you  had to be bald or have
      white  hair to be President, so  Kennedy vs. Nixon was a
      bit  of a shock to me because  they were like dads and
      not  like grandpas. My elder son  did similarly non
      sequitur  extrapolations when he was of  similar age --
      Ian thought  the whole world was  monochromatic before
      the  invention of color TV and he  asked me what is as
      like  back then. Smart kids can  get carried away like
      that...

      GENE POOLE

      Notes from my youth (sometime during the Jurassic era)

      Although my father, a staunch Republican, was a Ford
      user (Ford in-car-nated as Mercury, usually a montery
      station wagon... the 'woody' model was his fave), our
      family friends and relatives worked it the other way;
      the Democrats drove either Chevy or another brand.

      Studebaker was a top favorite among those of the more
      liberal persuasion, with 'most deviant' award  going to
      the owners of a Citroen Ds19.

      My cousin Norman, the most liberal of the bunch (he
      worked a a free part time consultant to the local free
      'commie' FM radio station) drove and lived in,
      part-time, a very large converted UPS delivery van.

      Before his death, my father 'converted' to foreign cars
      and trucks, leaving his old Ford truck to  slowly
      dissolve into a pile of annonymous rust.

      This 'conversion' occurred during the time of the
      Nixon/Reagan/Bush fiascos, which disillusioned and
      depressed him considerably. I suspect that he may have
      actually voted Democrat on occasion.

      Now, I observe similar trends, among those I know. I
      drove a Ford LTD SW for several years, but only  because
      it had been given to me as a love-offering.

      I prefer any GM brand over Ford. I see Ford technology
      as being essentially obsolete, in the same way that  the
      Wintel computer is obsolete; 'tried and true' X86 chips
      in PCs, VS RISC chips in the Mac. The Altivec engine in
      the G4 chip is truely a wonder, enabling 4X datarate
      while using enabled applications such as Photoshop, etc.

      But as much as I would like to make the claim that  the
      majority of liberals use Macs, I cannot; for the
      greatest source of global warming hot air himself, Rush
      Limbaugh, is a 'staunch' Mac user, and in fact regularly
      evangelizes the Mac on his show. Not the least of the
      true claims made for the Mac VS PC, is that the Mac is
      by nature, immune to all of the 30,000 virii  which
      plague Windoze users; Rush has crowed about this
      endlessly, as his co-workers PC have turned into innert
      lumps of plastic, while his Macs continue to  perform
      flawlessly.

      Besides that, I have noticed a strange syndrome  with
      the Ford; that being, exhaust system failures which
      occur with perplexing frequency. This was  true for my
      LTD; 3 replacements in 5 years, while  my various GM
      vehicles need only a muffler every five years or so.

      Anyway, enough nostalgia and innaccurate analogies of
      moral equivalencies for now. Corporate consumer culture
      continues to eat the world; and if you think it is
      worrisome now, just wait until the Chinese come online
      with full consumer power... goodbye, biosphere!


      1955 Citroen DS19

      ____________________________________________________________________________

      SU GANDOLF

      How do we relate with others in the face of intense
      emotion, whether  of love or hate, fear or longing?
      Well, allowing the emotion itself  to exist as its own
      entity, with its own "truth" that can be  examined,
      expressed or put aside, seems to allow a degree of
      freedom  not available if we either 1) don't recognize
      emotion as a player at  all, or 2) ascribe especial
      meaning and power to it.

      There is some question for me about the nature of the
      relationship  between bodily sensation and emotion, and
      how to name these  sensations. The understanding and
      identification seems to take time,  while "time" does
      not always seem to be available.

      In time, my child, in time.
       
      Love,
      Su

      MARALENA

      I can only answer as to what my ideal response (or
      non-response)  should be... or ultimately longs to
      consistantly be... and that would  be first as a
      detector and then a watcher. It would be good to
      recogonize that even though that intense emotion is very
      real in it's  appearance - it is only temporary. It is
      somewhat an illusion,  created by myself. I have created
      it from whatever I have pulled  from my mind. Maybe
      something of the past or something I think is  coming.
      Even if I am trying to convince myself that this emotion
      is  in the moment, it really isn't totally. It's a
      memory or fantasy. If  it was real ... I would be
      comfortable, because I would have somehow  convinced
      myself that this is what is now, and it simply needs to
      be  accepted. Emotion is a player, only if we allow it
      to be. The "game"  is our, and we have the freedom to
      make the rules. The only special  meaning or power it
      can have ... is the freedom we give it. We can  become
      it's slave so to speak, or it can bow to us.

      Regarding bodily sensation and emotion, and naming
      them...hummm  Again, for myself, it would be keeping
      them in perspective and in the  now... appropriately. We
      will "appropriately" experience sensations  and emotions
      as human beings... but keeping a healthy prespective
      that they can not define our "forever". Nothing like
      that can last  forever, and be truth. If we try to fool
      ourself into thinking that  even a "good" feeling or
      emotion can or should remain the same... we  are
      blinding ourself. I say, "Look at it, experience it for
      what it  is, and then step back... and let it play
      out"...


      View from a Lighthouse, by Stacie White. Contributed by Al Larus

      _______________________________________________________________

      KHEYALA

      January, 2002

      The other day Ananda (age 4) told me with tears in her
      eyes, "I don't want you to be bones. Then I won't have a
      mommy anymore."

      My eyes welled up too. After a few moments I responded,
      "Sweetie, when my body is just bones you won't see me
      outside of you anymore.  But you can see me inside,
      where I can be with you every single minute, every day."
       

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