Tuesday, October 1, 2002
- The source of all light is light.
Tuesday, October 1, 2002
Edited by Michael
--- In NondualitySalon@y..., Jerry Katz wrote:
Effective website with a good title, and an interesting approach which
takes a popular self-help style and pushes it toward the nondual, sort
"There's only Life and through it all things are possible. Even the
"Cut that cholesterol, fight against terrorism, get good grades,
don't talk back, make sure those kids sit in their car seats,
don't go out at night you might get raped. But fear is a trap, a
prison that prevents us from experiencing the majesty and
magnitude of who we really are. We don't die because we're not
bodies. Let's start living and see what happens."
"I honestly believe that my childhood friend is somewhere with a
big grin on her face---the same grin she had when we were girls
riding in the last row of the camp bus where we could see quite
clearly that the pain in one kid's neck was not "life's cruel
hand," but really just another kid blowing spit balls at him
through a straw."
"If time is an illusion, why is my past still pissing me off?
In Illuminata@y..., Mace Mealer wrote:
If Rigpa is a state devoid of concept,
what grants it the definitive parameters
allowing it to be approached through a
system composed of doctrine and guided action
based in concept?
If the sudden exclamation of PHAT! at precisely
the appropriate time during the contemplative
process is conducive to the heightened effectiveness
of such process, why is considered, specific intent
necessary for it's implementation, in that the end result
of such process is considered to be devoid of
temporally based cognitive predisposition.
If a state is summoned through endeavor
how can it be other than contrived and and it's
purity compromised by the means with which
it is effected?
If all is empty from where stems the awareness
If all is mind, then how can it perceive other than
Why does the moon laugh at the sun?
> Is it really so muchfun putting down gurus who you don't
understand at all?
I wonder if it's possible to really understand
anybody at all....guru or non-guru.
What can we really understand other
than our own response to what another
does, or what they say?
Our own response based on experience,
preference and expectation.
I wonder if this is part of what Sharlene
has been trying to communicate: the
way our own thoughts, needs, preferences
and avoidances are filters thru which we
'hear' and 'see' other people.....and how
then we wind up responding to them,
rather than the heart of what is being
expressed by another.
I wonder if this doesn't better account
for the way conversation gets deterred
from the original focus.
As kids my brothers and sisters used
to place bets when our uncle would come
to visit as to how long it would take him
in conversation to tell a story about how
"this reminds me of the time when I
was in the Navy......" There was
absolutely nothing that could be said
that wouldn't in some way remind him
of when he was in the Navy. :-)
PEACE - michael