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

Saturday, September 14, 2002

Expand Messages
  • Christiana Duranczyk
    Highlights #1197 Saturday, September 14, 2002 Editor: Christiana Home: http://nonduality.com/hlhome.htm Art: Skydancer - Satori
    Message 1 of 1 , Sep 15, 2002
      Highlights #1197  
      Saturday, September 14, 2002   
      Editor: Christiana 
      Home: http://nonduality.com/hlhome.htm

      Shards of the Diamond Matrix
      Selections from the Notebooks of Lance Daybreak

      We ourselves are nothing but seeds grown within furrows
      dug and watered by the attention of others. Assessing the
      value of this prepared plot of land that is our "given" world is
      of primary spiritual importance. The path towards the
      Jewel-Net comes through preparing our own ground, for the
      furrows dug by the attention (our patterns of perception) in
      many ways determine the seeds, or objects, that will appear.
      So we should carefully prepare the patterns of our attention,
      its mode of organization, its blend of curves and grids,
      randomness and order. The ngHolos also emphasized the
      supreme momentum of rootless flight, the nomadic spread
      of weeds and wild poppies rather than the conscious
      cultivation of philosophical or material ground. As a famous
      slogan puts it, I become mushroom, without root, my dharma
      seeds scattered to the wind. 
      The soul weaves Indra's net. 
      Following the anatman doctrines of Buddhism, the Virtuals
      insist that any fixed notion of self, even the Universal Self, is
      an illusion. At the same time, the ngHolos emphasize that
      the self and the world are constantly produced, that the
      cosmos is both network and void. The allusion here to the
      Hindu myth of Indra's web, which the ngHolo's fused with the
      image of the universe as pictured in the Avatamsaka
      Sutra[4]: an infinitely nested and interrelated monadology in
      which each singularity reflects and embodies a boundless
      The Virtuals did not deny the conventional self, but rather
      filled it with space and emptiness. They call this "weaving the
      net." Like a net, the conventional self or ego is something we
      toss into the infinite potential of reality in order to "catch" our
      karmic desires, but it too is composed of emptiness[5]. If the
      net is too thick and tightly-wound, it will retain everything, for
      there is no void to escape into, and everything will become
      very heavy and egocentric. If the net is too loose and weakly
      bound, it will not function¬ólarger catches will break its
      threads, and the smaller will escape. 
      We never stop weaving the net or trawling the world of
      potential. Newly woven patterns catch new fish. Of course,
      the net of the self relates to the larger Jewel-Net. For the
      ngHolos, the fractal mandalas of the looms were the keys to
      maintaining the conventional self while weaving them into
      this larger pattern of multiplicity. 
      The path is a plateau. 
      For the ngHolos, the notion of a spiritual "path" is a
      misnomer, for spiritual reality is an endlessly proliferating
      manifold. The path is a network of paths, a plateau. One can
      not "follow" a network, but must constantly probe it. Each
      footprint is a node, which constantly re-produces a number
      of possible directions. Arrival and departure are fused. As
      such, immediate and fragmentary spiritual tactics (including
      these slogans) are prized more than grand strategic
      methods which attempt to lay out a well-organized hierarchy
      of stages towards gnosis. Many Virtual Masters achieved
      fame not for their diligence in pursuing one of the ngHolo's
      countless philosophical cults, but for the specific topology of the plateaus they created as they moved through different
      and frequently antagonistic fields of thought and experience. 
      One of the ngHolo's countless slogans:
      Here your eye does not follow the warp of the land.
      Here you follow the warp of your own eye.
      Art: Beyond Perception
      Bob Graham painting, Ed Arons photography

      Jan Sultan to NDS
      Osho Meditation
      Thanks to Jerry! Huge, 1585 pages, article here:
      [Get it before the Osho.org authorities forces Jerry to remove it.] 
      Here is the discourse on meditation mentioned by Jerry, nicely cleaned. It
      is wonderful, specially the witnessing part! (Read post 6628)

      diana shared with BeingOne@yahoogroups.com
      Metta Zetty's reflection on Contentment
      Life flows through each of us in a tidal wave of infinite
      expression. Contentment and satisfaction depend upon your
      ability to trust this unfolding process. 

      Twelve Hours Hadewijch of Antwerp
      The nature from which true love springs has twelve hours
      which drive love out of herself and bring her back in herself.
      And when love comes back in herself she brings with her all
      that makes the unspeakable hours drive her out of herself: a
      mind that seeks to know, a heart full of desire, and a soul full
      of love. And when love brings these back she throws them
      into the abyss of the mighty nature in which she was born
      and nurtured. Then the unspeakable hours enter nature
      unknown. Then love has come to herself and rejoices in her
      nature, below, above, and around. And all those who stay
      below this knowledge shudder at those who have fallen into
      the abyss and work there and live and die. For such is love's
      command and her nature. 
      <snipped intensely beautiful 12 hours of love>
      These are the twelve unspeakable hours of love. For in none
      of the twelve can love be understood, except by those I
      mentioned, those who have been thrown into the abyss of
      love's mighty nature and those who belong there, and they
      believe in love more than they understand her.

      John Duff offers Maurice Nicoll
      Note on Self-Observation 
      One object of self-observation is to make us feel distinctly
      our own existences. 
      We are carried along on the tide of life in a state of sleep. 
      We scarcely feel our own existences any more than does a
      But although we have become asleep and like machines,
      there is one great difference. The machine cannot become
      conscious of itself but we can. 
      Now unless we observe ourselves we will keep on doing the
      same thing over and over again without knowing that we are
      doing so. Only a special memory can show us our
      Some people still think that by self-observation they can at
      once arrest or change what they observe. I assure you it is
      But continual self-observation will make you gradually more
      and more aware that you always do this or always do that, or
      always react like this or like that. A special memory is
      This is why the Work says that self-observation should be
      It is, as the Work teaches, letting a ray of
      consciousness-namely, light-into yourself. It gradually
      reveals, not criticizes. 
      But it will take a long time before this ray of light let in by
      self-observation will lead to any inner change in yourself. 
      You must not think that simply because you observe for a
      moment that you are negative that will make it impossible for
      you to be negative again. 
      Amongst many ideas that I have had, connected with
      self-observation, one stands out in my memory. 
      I once said to Ouspensky something as follows: "Do you not
      think that the realization that we are always repeating our
      behaviour, our emotions, our thoughts, which we take as
      conscious, becomes distasteful only when we realize that we
      are machines? Everyone thinks he acts consciously at every
      moment, but when he realizes it is the machine, not him, that
      causes him to act as he does, he dislikes the idea." 
      I then said to him: "So Man has a fundamental hatred of
      feeling he is a machine ?" 
      He said, in so many words: "That is exactly the point. A
      human being who takes himself as conscious in everything
      he does or thinks or feels is greatly shocked when he
      realizes that he is nothing but a machine that always
      behaves automatically in the same way." 
      The Work teaches us that Man is not born a machine but he
      becomes one without knowing it. If he realizes that
      everything he does, says, thinks and feels is the work of a
      machine in him, he will hate being a machine and wish to be
      something different. This gives him force. 
      But only self-observation over a long time begins to show us
      that we do behave mechanically-as machines-and that we
      have been doing this for years and years. It is then that
      change is possible in a deep sense because the self-love
      weakens and so force is set free and not bound up in the
      Now observe your centres. Observe how you behave
      mechanically in each centre. Again, observe your most
      mechanical 'I's: they dwell in the most mechanical parts of
      centres. Notice them and keep on noticing them. Gradually
      something will alter. 
      Self-observation is the knife that begins to separate, to
      remove, what you take as you, from what is real. 
      Everything real leads to Real I: everything false leads to
      False Personality. 
      But it is the dislike of being mechanical that gives the force
      to separate from the false. 
      The illusion that we are conscious cleverly prevents this and
      keeps us asleep. The self-love will not permit us to realize
      that we are not conscious. So we justify all our behaviour. 
      Psychological Commentaries on the Teachings of Gurdjieff
      and Ouspensky Pages 1395-1396 

      Any assertion of self is a movement away from ground zero,
      simple awareness, God, what ever you call that which you
      actually are? Living in non-conclusion is inherently
      conclusive---- The conclusion being, "I exist as someone
      who could choose anything to begin with". It seems that to
      move on at that point and live a life of non-conclusion is
      (with a tip of the hat to Greg G.) .........Let me ask you a funny
      question: What makes you think you're Mark? Everything
      about you, including the present reading, thinking, sensation,
      the whole of you? You feel identified, right, at least to some
      aspect of you? What if the feeling of identification, the very
      core of what suggests you are you, (someone who needs to
      even consider living non-conclusively), is simply another
      object arising in featureless awareness which you are? Right
      now, in this experience. Lets really take a look at what is

      Gary Merrill  http://ConsciousnessIsAll@yahoogroups.com
      I'd like to try, if possible, to give a sense of two modes of
      awareness or understanding, in that it might give some more
      clarity to our mind.
      In doing so I'll make a division between what we might call
      direct and indirect awareness. Because of this all what is
      said will be in-direct, or the finger pointing at the moon.
      So here are two contrasted modes of being, perceiving,
      understanding (it would be nice to present this side by side
      in table form but for the moment I hope its' clear enough):
      Direct: Awareness is of the moment, the now.
      Indirect: Awareness is in time, past/future
      Direct: Awareness is non-verbal.
      Indirect: Awareness is verbal, via concepts
      Direct: Awareness is without self or observer
      Indirect: Awareness has a self or observer outside the process
      Direct: There is no actor or doer
      Indirect: An actor or doer makes it happen
      Direct: Knowing is just 'this' Indirect: Knowing is by a subject
      of an object
      Direct: There is no difference or duality
      Indirect: There is a comparison of right and wrong.
      Direct: There is no identity or clarity of form
      Indirect: Identity about 'what is' is established
      Direct: Silent, no word or thing
      Indirect: Articulated, given form, existence.
      This is a tentative start, to formulate, clearly, two different
      modes of Consciousness. That this formulation is in 'indirect'
      mode is obvious, yet, at the same time, it can never be out of
      'direct' mode either.
      Like a tense muscle, until it is touched upon, and the tension
      brought to light then it may not be possible to release and
      relax that tension. Ease may come through awareness of
      disease. Of course to some extent we are our tensions, so
      release may not be so easy. Our tensions and knowing
      having become a way of life, a survival strategy.
      Maybe someone can help me out by adding to my
      direct/indirect comparison, or do so (directly/indirectly) by
      debunking it.

      Christiana ponders http://nondualparent@yahoogroups.com
      the paradox of the warp of perception -  apperception
      I was reading the below from Ramesh's new book, and then
      went to the NondualParent list, and recognized how challenging
      it is for mind to grok that 'life' is a 'concept'...
      particularly when life is perceived in the fullness of our children. 
      Life has meaning only because we can perceive one
      another. Perceiving of things takes place only because they
      have volume (in space) and duration (in time). But 'space'
      and 'time' are not something objective and substantial, but
      only a notion, a concept. If space-time is only a concept,
      perceiving of things, impossible in the absence of
      space-time, must also be a concept. And, in the unreality of
      perceiving, 'life' too must be a concept, and therefore,
      The biggest impediment to the apperception of what-we-are
      is the difficulty of abandoning the concept of a live-er of life
      and a die-er of death, as a factual entity. All there is, is
      live-ing and die-ing, one being the absence of the other.
      Living is the appearance in space-time of the manifestation
      of what-we-are, and dying is its disappearance.
      What-we-are is 'Unbroken Wholeness'. What-we-are can
      neither live nor die. 
      There are three degrees of perception of "Reality" and
      its phenomenal representation available to the human being:
      a) 'Reality' perceived only by the awakened; b) the objective
      manifested universe in phenomenality; and c) the objective
      universe perceived by the human being as images and
      symbols which are interpreted by him through
      conceptualization by means of the sensorial apparatus of the
      body-mind mechanism. 
      'Reality' is the double absence - absence of
      the 'negative' representation (light and shade
      in two dimensions), and the absence of the
      conceptualized reproduction of the Reality. 
      Seeing through to the 'unbroken wholeness'
      however, seems a natural faculty of
      the heart's inner lens.
      ~ Photos: Dustin LindenSmith and Christiana perceiving 
      the paradox of "unbroken wholeness" as Grace 
      incarnates Love through our daughters Zoe and Oriana.
      ~ Excerpts from Ramesh Balsekar's new book
      The Ultimate Understanding, p.12, p.121

      Bobby Graham and Wim Borsboom HarshaSatsangh@yahoogroups.com 
      Bob: The efforts to be something that already is are no different
      than the efforts to live. 
      Wim responds: That is a very strong, true and positive
      statement. It ties in with what I said about the distinction
      between enlightenment and realization. Using your words
      slightly differently, one could say: . "what we already are" can
      be seen as the seed stage, the "patterns of what's to come"
      already laid out in blue print, preview mode so to say, within
      the seed - the enlightenment stage. . "the efforts to live" is
      the dynamic of becoming tangible reality of the flower from
      the seed - the realization stage. 
      Some of you know how I distinguish enlightenment from
      realization. To say it simply: enlightenment is the process of
      seeing the truth - knowing it; realization is the transformation
      of that into integrative reality. I use the word "realize" in the
      meaning of "realizing one's dreams", or "having a plan take
      shape in reality".
      Compare this distinction to a seed that may "know" in its
      seed state what it will look like in its flower state.
      Enlightenment is like that knowing, the actual growing into
      that flower is the realization process. That realization
      process is a non-linear sequence of going from one state of
      perfection to the next... With flowers there may be an end to
      it or a repeat process; with humans ... well what do we
      Just keep on realizing...

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