Highlights, Thursday, Oct. 7
- The Nonduality Salon was very busy Thursday, which means
many posts as 'good' as the ones here were left out.
As for vows of poverty and chastity - these days, the people
I know following spiritual paths are uninterested in any
kind of vows at all. Do you know anyone taking vows? The
satsang teachers sometimes take on celibacy, but it's not as
deep as it's claimed to be - it's very emotionally reactive,
either to avoid their partner or because their partner has
Come to think of it, I have heard a few of the devotees
going celibate simply because their teacher did.
Poverty/prosperity - I know people who are uncomfortable
with the issue of money, think it's un-spiritual. To get
more money, one of my friends is practicing Chinese
energetics for the mind so that she'll be able to attract
We can bemoan the (post)modern trend to instant
enlightenment but there's little to do about it, as this is
our nature, at least so we are told. More and more will be
awakening to their true nature (and it can only happen
instantly, even if after years of sadhana) and
simultaneously more and more will be getting distracted by
the attractions of premature enlightenment syndrome. Maybe
we need a government board to certify these guys.
Dear Members, I would like to explain how I came to develop
an interest in Non-Duality.I was attending a Gnostic
organization for three years,and was told that there was an
ongoing war between the White Lodge and the Black Lodge.We
were encouraged to defend ourselves against the Black
Lodge,who actually comprised the vast majority of the human
race.I found myself getting more and more alienated from my
fellow beings,and I left the organization three months ago.
I feel that the way forward lies in the ideas of Non-Duality
Nonduality is the end result or the Ultimate Reality,whereas
Alchemy is a symbolic representation of the means to that
end.Alchemy should not be understood as prescribing specific
practices,but rather that it gives insights into the nature
of Consciousness which could have an influence on how one
leads one's life.
It is hard to see Nonduality in the maelstrom of daily
life,whereas Alchemy recognizes the opposites
(e.g.intellect/feeling,my point of view/your point of
points towards their reconciliation.
This is the link to your site:
It makes me think of some of Lobster's work on alchemy,
which is found at:
In fact, I have just ordered Lobster's book, Alchemical
Solution, by A. A. Aziz, from a distributor in England.
Correct me if I'm wrong. The nondual expression of your
writings rests in statements such as:
"The task of alchemy is to unite physical reality with the
spiritual world,and Consciousness is the bridge between
these two realms."
As well, there are other statements speaking of the
reconciling of opposites. This all bears on nonduality,
although the nondual, most radically, is something about the
atmosphere in which all this uniting and reconciling occurs.
It's kind of a 'source' of it all, a 'nothingness'.
Who is enlightened? Who wants to know?
Enlightenment is "default" so that's not the issue. A piece
of rock is enlightened just as well; the rock is failing the
apparatus to recognize that. At the same time, the rock is
failing the apparatus to care about that either. So
obviously, the act of recognizing requires sentience -
available at least to mammals. Even a cat or a dog can
recognize the real nature; it doesn't require thinking or
verbalizing. But only humanoids can realize that their real
nature can include the mind-body in a literal sense; this
realization can be described as a series of transformations,
requiring intelligent cooperation and it has been, still is,
the concern of conventional paths.
For me, it seems that no matter how much intellectual
knowledge I may have about the Qabalah, it matters not one
whit, if I cannot touch the energies of the Sacred Tree.
BTW, Ken Wilber says his Witness is present, even in
dreamless sleep(it was the last stage for him)except when
he's been drinking wine the evening before
Makes one wonder where this Witness goes then, doesn't it?
That could be called alcoholic regression :) A "normal"
development would be for "Ken Wilber" to go, ending the
duality of "the Witness and me".
Perhaps in this day and age we are in a transition stage
from what used to be sacred property of certain long
established teacher/student-traditions and its 'aftercare',
into non-teacher enlightenment. In an age where the
mind/body functioning has evolved to a point where it no
longer requires this kind of protective environment.
I think in many cases the mind/body functioning in western
society has gained such stability (eg. no worries about
survival), that it is indeed able to look after this
(supposed) path 'toward' and 'aftercare support' all by
itself, without the aid of a teacher.
This 'aftercare support' may take many forms (NDS list?). By
the way, I don't think a teacher is someone who proclaims
him/herself to be a teacher. I think it is The Student who
establishes and recognizes someone to be a teacher. Not the
other way around. People may consider you to be a teacher,
and you may not even be aware of it (you may not even like
it). Still, one has always great freedom to accept this
role or not, and to do so, will always be accompanied by a
lot of criticism.
My favorite quote on this matter:
"When you do something right, there will always be those who
criticize you; when you do something wrong, there will be no
one around to stop you."
Jan: It is obvious that a simple teaching like nondualism
does have a disadvantage; it is fairly easy to grasp and at
the first glimpse of recognizing one's real nature, the
proclamation of another EO follows.
Dan: IT has another disadvantage: IT has nothing to do
with "grasping a teaching." Those who think they have
grasped IT, haven't, and those that identify it with a
teaching are mistaken. Those who make claims are doing just
that, "making claims." The only thing that matters here is
I don't find it reassuring that there are spiritual
authorities defining how many years or lifetimes are needed
for awareness. I also am not reassured that authorities
have constructed paths that are supposed to guard against
human inclinations,as these authorities turn out to have
human inclinations of their own. In fact, when they pretend
that they don't comes across to me as somewhat deceptive,
and possibly self-deceptive. Their guards against personal
aggrandizement don't seem to prevent aggrandizement of their
doctrines, teachers, and structured version of reality. On
the other hand, I hear the constructive side of what you're
saying - it's like the idea of checks and balances in
democracy. Still, the individuals who have really "shaken
things up" and strongly affected spiritual vision turn out
to be individuals *not* involved in the organizational
structures of their time.
Many are *rebels* in one way or another. This is not
coincidence - far from it!
Dan: Enjoying the discussion about rocks, animals and
How can an object be "out" of its true nature when it is
"our" perception that gives it its nature? If there is any
doubt about the ability of a rock or antelope to be
enlightened, this doubt can best be applied to awareness of
our perception (of the "rock" and "antelope"). Peace all...
You're right again, as usual.Nothing has any intrinsic
meaning, it is only perception which makes it appear that
way. Rock is emptiness. It becomes a rock when perception
makes it appear so. It becomes an enlightened rock when my
imagination makes it appear so. The rock could care less,
and is still empty. As is my perception by the way.
Fantasy just loves playing the game of unenlightenment, in
order to achieve enlightenment. Isn't that a wonderful
game? It is a very user friendly game; for it is a game
that no one can loose. I love playing with rocks, with
animals, with words, with you. I enjoy playing "I send
message-You answer". There is only I. But it is so much fun
with "me" and "you" around to talk about that, and play the
Sitting with Francis Lucille in silence was the first time I
had experienced this type of 'teaching', although there was
talking that followed. I imagine that the silent approach
is powerful and probably even more so if the group is very
small, or even only two sitting together.
... just keep observing and the discoveries will come, you
don't have to force them or even look for them -- they are
reavealed-- and yes, mostly in very ordinary moments.
I found this today from a Satsang w/ Vartman:
"...the deepest recognition is that no thought is worthy of
your attention. Your attention is gold. Your attention is
the diamond. Wherever you put it, that's your reality. If
you put it on the emotions, the story that's arising in the
illusion of my life. That's your reality.
You let it rest in where it's coming from . This is "sat
chit ananda", awareness being aware of itself.
And there's a subtle trap in this. Because your attention
is so powerful that whatever you focus on can be produced,
can be manifested. ANd at the deepest level if you are
looking for bliss, as some confirmation that you're resting,
then it's a very easy place to get trapped.
"Cause the mind goes "Ah, ha. THere's bliss there. I'm
resting properly now". "Oh, bliss has gone. I've gotta
start resting more." "Oh, theres the experience of love here
I must be doing this right.""Oh, I'm not feeling love. I've
gotta rest more."
This layer of bliss, of love, of extraordinary peace,
happiness. That's the final veil. It's the most subtle
state of mind. In sanskrit they even have a word for this
it's called "ananda marga something or other."
Who you are needs no confirmation of any state of bliss, of
love, of peace, of anything.
You are already what you are looking for. Regardless of the
play of I've lost it.
You don't need anything to validate who you are. This that
you are has always been enlightenment.
So now the mind has nowhere to go. THe mind is not the
referee any more. The minds not saying "Yes. Good. You
are getting it." It's like too lazy to even believe the
conclusions of mind, of states, of feelings, of emotions.
Only then. Really, only then, does this deepening appear,
because until then you are still clinging to validation by
mind. When it's like "No. Mind will never, ever get this."
Then who cares what mind is thinking. Papaji used to say
"Don't get involved with thinking. Don't get involved with
thoughts, even if thinking is happening."
Nonduality Salon Website
Nonduality Salon Email Forum
Nonduality Salon Chat
Nonduality Salon List of Nondual People
Encyclopedia of Nonduality