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

Highlights Mon29Nov

Expand Messages
  • andrew macnab
    Message 1 of 1 , Nov 30, 1999


      has a newer look and is changed almost daily. You never know
      what you'll find on the home page. Please knock on a
      neighbor's door and tell them about it. I would love to find
      some one or more people willing to give a nondual take on
      current news issues. I will give the story front page


      skye: Love has great value. It is the divine content of all
      that is. To me value fulfillment creates the internal and
      external furniture of the universe.


      See how our points of view differ?

      To me "great value" indicates relativity.
      Instead I would say Love is invaluable - beyond comparison,
      as the divine content of all that is.

      For me the silent universe has no furniture,
      no internal or external,
      no fulfillment or lack of fulfillment.
      It is complete as it is eternally.

      I am losing interest in the universe of form.
      You are interested in it.
      Shall we argue about who is *right* ?


      Dan: Nondelusion means seeing That which is not lacking in anyone,
      which is never lacking anywhere.

      Xan: Consider this: What we see is determined by where we are seeing
      from. One of my teachers sat with me as I wept out my anguish. She said
      "Just beautiful." It took me years to understand beauty is all she
      ever sees.

      Here's something to sleep on, or wake up to. It's from "Fingers
      Pointing Toward Moon" by Wei Wu Wei. He's quoting Ramana.
      He also said, "That which you take to be your normal state is, on the
      contrary, an abnormal state....Do you have to search for a long time
      before finding this "I" that is none other than yourself? This is what
      I mean when I declare that no spiritual discipline (sadhana) is
      necessary in order to realise the Self. All one asks of you is that you
      abstain from doing anything whatever (of a disciplinary nature), that
      you remain calm, and finally that you be that which you really are. You
      have only to free yourself from the hypnotic spell in which your
      abnormal state holds you."


      Larry - This is sage advice. Thanks. The hypnotic spell occurs
      whenever something "outside" is added into the picture. If I live with
      no "outside", that is waking from the hypnotic spell. The "outside"
      arises with thought, language, fixation of awareness on appearances, and
      social assumptions about persons. The ideas of methods and disciplines
      are associated with thought, language, social assumptions, and so on, so
      how could they yield freedom? There is only One capable of the freedom
      you discuss. Much is said about this One, but all those words take
      appearance, they are brought from "outside" in. How much value, then do
      these words have in comparison with the One who is never not there,
      never "outside"?

      -- love -- Dan

      >I have an internal dilemma of understanding that I could use some shared
      >insight to resolve. Seems the answer is obvious either way so I assume I
      >have framed the "problem" wrong...but it haunts me and is at the root of
      >great fear....


      No, you have done a good job of framing the problem in the way it is
      taught. Your question represents the pulling together of two different
      strands of teaching on desire.

      >1. The issues of desire: some say the root of all suffering
      > some say an expression of the search for joy

      Suffering isn't just a hard life, sickness, death of a loved one, a car
      accident, a terminal disease. It is the anguished desire that things be
      different from how they now are. The depth of suffering is akin to the
      distance between how things are, and how we would like them to be.
      That's why they say "pain *and* suffering," because you can have one
      without the other.

      There *are* teachings that say to reduce desire. These I call
      progressive path teachings. They can involve ascetic lifestyles even
      out of monastic settings. Lifestyles such as avoiding sex, spicy foods,
      too much sun, too much/little sleep, avoiding music with beautiful
      melodies or exciting rhythms, etc. The idea is to polish the mirror
      until all the specks are gone. Some teachings say this will end up in
      realization. Other paths, such as advaita, and Middle Way Buddhism, use
      it as a precursor to direct inquiry.

      In the advaita tradition, the mirror polishing isn't meant to result in
      realizing the Self. (Indeed, the orthodox advaita explanation of this
      is, that if the obstructions to clear seeing have accumulated over an
      infinitude of lifetimes, then how in the world can we polish the mirror
      perfectly clean in *one* lifetime?) Rather, the polishing is a
      preliminary technique to direct inquiry, to make the mind and heart
      quiet enough so that meditation and deep enquiry can begin. The
      meditation and enquiry are difficult enough, but with a desire-filled
      mind, even harder. So the progressive path is used for some quiet
      space. It *may* even be continued beyond that, but for a different
      motive (not goal-oriented at that point, but for celebration, etc.).

      This enquiry takes many forms that we're all familiar with, and it is
      sometimes called "the direct path." Examples: Ramana's "Who am I,
      Advaita's jnana yoga, Nisargadatta's dialogues, and his "Understanding
      is All"; and the various reasonings on selflessness of persons and
      objects in Madhyamika Buddhism, Krishna Menon's teachings on the
      objectlessness of the world, body and mind.

      So what about desires? Here's a scenario that I've personally seen
      happen to people who have found themselves on the direct path.

      The enquiry comes to an end when desires (and other thoughts and
      feelings) are seen as nothing but arisings in consciousness, happening
      to no one. The supposed owner of the desires is seen as nothing other
      than a thought, or another object arising in consciousness.
      Consciousness is seen as our nature, not the body/mind complex. So if a
      desire seems to arise after that, "it is not taken delivery of," (to
      quote Nisargadatta), not taken seriously, not seen as belonging to
      anyone. It might have to be inferential at first, like "Oh yeah, that
      *can't be a desire, because it's arising and falling in consciousness,
      just like its supposed owner." But this process gathers momentum over
      time, and kicks in sooner and sooner with each arising - and life
      becomes sweeter and sweeter, no matter what circumstances go on. Even
      if the bills increase, sickness dawns, loved ones leave, etc.

      In that respect, it is the end of desire, not by being cleaned or
      polished, but by being seen.

      And Kristie, *that's* where the gusto, verve, joy, lightness and
      spontaneity come in. Life is then lived as a celebration of all that
      is, of our very Self.

      >2. To live life with gusto and passion or to let go the attachment to a
      > desire for gusto and passion so that one may experience gusto and
      > passion in any situation.

      Yes, the desire for joy and gusto are just like any other desires. To
      continue in that scenario, the true fulfillment of these desires comes
      when desires "end" by being seen as arisings in the Self, occurring to
      no entity.




      ...I would ask here, Kristy, "What is really the root of
      'great fear'? Is it desire, or is it the "I-thought" to which Jan
      alluded? To me, the separative structure of thought, based on an
      assumed-to-exist "outsider" which is the thinker, can't help but
      generate fear and desire. The problem isn't desire per se, but desire
      associated with perpetuating the "I" of the "I-thought". This outsider
      that wants security, things, and experiences can only have its
      pseudo-existence while thought is continuing its self-reinforcing
      "game". End the game, end the fear, end the desires associated with
      the "separate self". Ending the game isn't easy, because we tend to
      invent games within games, rarified games to replace obvious games. It
      thus seems to me that only simple clarity can end all the games.
      As I see this: Clarity is not something that someone else can give, it
      is one's own nature when self-constructed impediments are absent. In
      simple clarity, there is no "outside" for this outsider to even begin to
      think about existing or not existing. It's one thing to philosophically
      propose "no outside" - it's another thing to truly live it in each
      moment, regardless of what arises in this moment.

      -- love -- Dan

      ...i used to read all about how to be a better person at the expense of
      my social life. consequently no people were in my life. i just read
      about them. in that moment i realize love and sharing was all i wanted
      and longed for. well, you know me, and i am no secret-- landed me in
      the looney bin. i'm back out and my only slogan goes kinda like this:

      "if you have ever loved, you are loving right now. . .
      if you have ever had a tuna sandwhich you are eating it right now. ..
      if you have ever watched a movie, you are watching it right now. ..
      now is now
      now is
      please slap me if i ever write like this again. ...

      heart sent ...
      heart received

      Old Hag+Tim G.

      Response to TimG dear:

      i'm just an old woman who lives on a garbage pile. What do i know?

      Posts from Sunday:
      With respect, and gratitude, Tim G, for all the intriguing posts you
      have been offering lately:

      Tim: The content of consciousness is not of interest in coming to the
      nondual state. Rather, consciousness itself is the focus. Don't focus on
      what you're full of, focus on that which causes the illusion of

      Why "focus" at all?

      Because consciousness always has a focus, of some sort. It has to, or it
      would be unconsciousness. It always has some sort of content. Without
      content, consciousness ceases to be.
      In Nisargadatta's words, it would take a million years to rid yourself
      of every desire. That is not the way to emptiness.

      There ain't no "way" to emptiness. No way!

      Sure there is. Abandon all false ideas. The door will open. Walk through
      it. It really is *that* simple. Rather, take the focus *off* the
      fullness, and the "cup" will naturally empty itself.

      Stop right there! take the focus off. Period. OK, that's another way of
      looking at it. By taking the focus off the false, you're inadvertently
      putting the focus on the door to the real (the I AM). Again,
      consciousness ALWAYS has content of one sort or another. Sure, your
      explanation is as good as mine. I think we're saying the same thing.

      I understand what you are saying Tim, and it is a good point. Trying to
      take it a step further. Why study the cup? Why "study" anything?

      To understand it. If you don't understand yourself, you're walking in a

      How about letting all focusing, all studying go?

      If that were all it took, then sleeping 24 hrs/day would result in
      enlightenment. Sorry, doesn't wash.

      Just...see...that there ain't no difference....between the cup....and
      anything else....we ARE the cup, AND its fullness, AND its emptiness.
      That's all.

      Not enough. You're describing "reality" in positive terms. Reality can
      only be described in the negative. Not this, not this, not this, until
      only THIS remains. Everything has to be negated, or you get stuck
      halfway in the witness state (which is where 99% get stuck). Such a
      state is a clearer reflection of the Absolute than "everyday life,"
      that's all. It isn't the Absolute, really BEING the Absolute. The
      Absolute is absolutely beyond anything describable, anything definable,
      beyond time, space, body, mind, stars, supernovas, universes, ideas,
      memories..... and you propose to describe THAT in positive terms? "I am
      That" is the biggest lie ever told.
      "I AM" is much truer.

      With Love,


      Here's a quote from Papaji:

      "You simply have to watch:
      where does mind arise from?
      Where does thought come from?
      What is the source of this thought?
      Dive together with this mind
      to its Source from where it began.
      Then you will see that you have always been Free
      and that everything has been a dream.

      Watch your thoughts come from nowhere.
      If something comes from nowhere
      how can it be anything?
      Anything must come from somewhere.
      If it doesn't come from somewhere it is nothing at all.
      So if thought comes from nowhere it must be nothing at all,
      because only nothing comes from nowhere.

      It's easy.

      >You had suggested to undress, and yes, I am undressed. This moment.
      >What I am wearing is totally transparent to any who "see", that is to
      >any who "be" according to your way of expressing this.


      This is beautifully put - "What I am wearing is totally transparent to
      any who 'see'."

      Krishna Menon said that what we take ourselves to be, is what we see.
      So, personalities see personalities, and being sees being.



      > In Nisargadatta's words, it would take a million years to rid yourself
      > of every desire...

      Empty every desire of yourself. Desires rise and die away, without me in
      them. The bodymind is what it is, I am not it, desires rise and fall in
      the bodymind they do not rise and fall in me. I am no thing, there is
      nothing in me. I am in everything. No big deal.

      love, andrew

      To the crowd appearing on the screen of my heart..

      Reading through over a hundred posts since yesterday morning.. has
      afforded an internal razor's edge. Allowing wise and wacky thoughts
      alike to pass through me.. listening for those which are my teachers.
      Remaining unformed.

      I hesitated some in posting what I did about Advent, as it might appear
      as conceptual ideation thrust upon a list ostensibly eschewing concept.
      I was moved, however, to do so from a current beyond my ideas. I enter
      each cycle authentically surrendering form.

      I listen to all the voices expressing here.. finding each within myself
      Yesterday I heard..

      only self.. no self/
      desire.. desireless /
      empty .. full /
      positive.. negative /
      focus.. no focus /
      form... formlmess/
      delusion.. nondelusion

      I am grateful for all.. these which I've extracted particularly hold
      Life for me in this moment.

      Jerry: I acknowledge suchness and intelligence. By inquiring Who Am
      I?, I acknowledge suchness. By praying to God, I acknowledge

      Suchness is the mark of Intelligence, and Intelligence the
      mark of Suchness. Acknowledging Intelligence, the Suchness
      is known; knowing Suchness, potential of Intelligence is

      Gratitude is not separate from inquiry.

      Greg: The enquiry comes to an end when desires (and other thoughts and
      feelings) are seen as nothing but arisings in consciousness, happening
      to no one. The supposed owner of the desires is seen as nothing other
      than a thought, or another object arising in consciousness.
      Consciousness is seen as our nature, not the body/mind complex.

      Dan: Ending the game isn't easy, because we tend to invent
      games within games, rarified games to replace obvious games.

      As I see this: Clarity is not something that someone else can give, it
      is one's own nature when self-constructed impediments are absent. In
      simple clarity, there is no "outside" for this outsider to even begin to
      think about existing or not existing. It's one thing to philosophically
      propose "no outside" - it's another thing to truly live it in each
      moment, regardless of what arises in this moment.

      Andrew: Desire observed in the present in its arising without judgement
      or looking ahead to its fulfillment or nonfulfillment is understanding
      and contains no suffering. Suffering is in looking back and condemning
      desire or in looking ahead to its anticipated result.

      Xan: Yes. That which has no form or personality confronts that which
      identifies as qualities and comparisons through presence alone.
      I like that - nondelusion is nonlacking.
      All perceived fragments are undermined by what is whole.

      Tim: Rather, take the focus *off* the fullness, and the "cup" will
      naturally empty itself. Take the focus of consciousness off its
      content, and put it on consciousness itself.

      xan: ~~~According to me, focus *is* the cup. Both are words denoting
      location and specificity which do not exist in emptiness.
      And to the host of other wise quotes submitted, may I add..

      "You have already been cleansed by the word that I have spoken to you.
      Abide in me as I abide in you. Just as the branch cannot bear fruit by
      itself unless it abides in the vine, neither can you unless you abide in
      me." John 15 3-5

      Thy Will Be Done
      Thy Will Be
      Thy Will

      Observing, reflecting with, and loving the crowded One appearing upon my




      Monk: What should the mind dwell upon?

      Hui-Hua: It should dwell upon not dwelling.

      M: What is nondwelling?

      H: It means not allowing the mind to dwell on anything whatsoever.

      M: What does that mean?

      H: Dwelling upon nothing means that the mind does not remain with good
      or evil, being or nonbeing, inside or outside, emptiness or
      nonemptiness, concentration, or distraction. This dwelling upon nothing
      is the state in which it should dwell; those who attain it are said to
      have nondwelling minds-in other words they have Buddha minds.

      excerpt 2:

      M: When the mind reaches the state of not dwelling upon anything, and
      continues in that state, won't there be some attachment to its not
      dwelling upon anything?

      H: If you are fully aware of a nondwelling mind - a mind that remains in
      the state of nondwelling. If you are fully aware of a nondwelling mind
      in yourself, you will just discover that there is the fact of dwelling,
      with nothing to dwell upon or not dwell upon. This full awareness in
      yourself of a mind that dwells upon nothing is known as having a clear
      perception of your own mind or your own true nature. A mind that dwells
      upon nothing is the Buddha mind, enlightenment mind, uncreated mind. It
      is what the sutras call "patient realization of the uncreated."

      When you finally understand, your mind will be free from both delusion
      and reality. A mind that is truly free has reached the state in which
      opposites are seen as empty. This is the only freedom.


      When I was a child a child and occasionally as an adult, as I was
      falling asleep, I would sometimes have this experience. I was a very
      tiny dot in the corner of a doorless, windowless white room. I would
      feel this tremendous pressure in my heart chakra. On the other corner
      of the room a glob of what appeared to be clay would grow until it took
      over the entire room, taking me, the tiny dot over. I would disappear
      into the clay and while expanding, become one with it. Then the room
      would disappear, as the entire universe and universes also became one
      with me, now the clay. I, the infinitely large clay that was
      everything, would suddenly be an itty bitty infinitesimal hole. This
      hole would keep getting smaller and smaller. The smaller the hole
      became the more intense and tight the energy of All that is became. At
      that point it would frighten me and I would wake up (or fall back into a
      deep sleep. Depends on which side your looking from. LOL). I had this
      experience until about 10 years ago when I decided to get past the fear
      and stay with it. I don't have any recollection of what happened, but I
      never had the experience again.
      No need, since lesson learned.

      Love, elaine :)

      This arrived from Petros:

      Attended a lecture by Eckhart Tolle at Mahayoga here in
      L.A. last Friday night. He keeps the message very simple:
      Just focus on the Now. That is the only moment that we can
      truly every have, all else is imagination. He's been
      teaching and counselling for a decade but it seems that he's
      become more popular lately because of his recent book (The
      Power of Now), as there must have been sixty people packed
      in there to listen to him. And we really had to sit
      silently to hear him; Eckhart is a soft-spoken man, he
      almost seemed a little nervous to be in front of all those

      Harry Dean Stanton, the actor, showed up to hear Eckhart as
      well. A lot of people obviously recognized him but in the
      spiritual context, they were gracious enough just to smile
      and pay attention to Eckhart.

      Although I admit this book can be pretty dry (here's a
      reason to celebrate: there's only one more installment
      left!), this chapter says something about Siddhis, 'powers',
      and it might strike home with some.


      The Pathway of Nonduality

      by Raphael

      Chapter 14

      The Siddhis

      Q. When one speaks of yoga or of Oriental teachings, the
      so-called 'powers' or siddhis come immediately to one's
      mind. But what are these powers?

      A. Much confusion and misunderstanding can arise with regard
      to this particular topic. Quite apart from the correct
      attitude of consciousness that is required towards the
      different kinds of yoga or traditional Doctrines, we have to
      recognize the fact that many conceive of Realization as the
      achievement or acquisition of the so-called 'powers'.

      First of all, we must make some distinctions. In
      psychological terms, a power is a faculty or an ability
      inherent in matter itself, and it may be considered as a
      quality or attribute of it. In philosophical terms 'power'
      means 'possibility': the possibility of a being to perform
      or express an act.

      We should make a further distinction between what is called
      a 'psychic power' and a psychological faculty; the latter
      bears reference more specifically to the mind in general.
      The mental perception, that everyone has, is a psychological
      faculty which concerns the psyche and not the soma aspect.

      The psychic power as such represents the development of
      particular 'senses' or sensory organs which grants the
      ability to 'hear' and 'see' upon planes that go beyond the
      dense physical one. As at the physical level we have the
      senses which bring us into contact with the gross-material
      plane, so too at the subtle, supraphysical level we have
      other senses which connect us with that existential level or

      Besides physical, we have psychic seeing (clairvoyance), and
      hearing (clairaudience) by which we perceive subtle objects
      and sounds which escape the ordinary range of physical
      perception. We can say that a psychic power is a faculty of
      the 'psyche' existing as a reality apart from the

      The majority seek psychic powers for two reasons:

      (1) because, being a simple extension of the empirical self
      upon the subtle psychic plane, the self is not hampered by
      them, rather it is magnified and strengthened. The majority
      are after the expansion of their ego, not its solution and

      (2) because they represent a compensation for the weakness,
      failings and limitations of individuality.

      Similarly, at the physical level many are after wealth,
      which is a material 'power', in order to feel stronger, more
      confident and ego-centered. Not having found security and
      peace of mind within themselves they compensate this failing
      through wealth. In fact we know that wealth becomes an
      all-important compensation for those who are not. Even
      intellectual 'power' may be a compensation. The wealth given
      by the psychic power meets this need, it compensates for
      many a deficiency of the empirical self because, in truth,
      the ego is not.

      However, if psychic powers belong to the self, and the
      worldly or empirical self is marked by uncompleteness, by
      lacking and by relativity, then the powers inherent in it
      belong to the realm of avidya.

      An entity may be clairvoyant, clairaudient, levitating,
      telepathic, psychometric, etc., but this is of little
      importance because such a person belongs to and moves within
      the sphere of avidya.

      Those who are after the psychic power for its own sake may
      represent interesting subjects for psychoanalysis. At times
      these persons waste an entire existence in order to become
      mediocre clairvoyants, extra-sensorially perceptive
      'mediums', etc.

      With reference to psychic powers there is a very revealing
      anecdote concerning the Buddha. As the story goes, one day,
      upon entering a woody place, the Buddha met a meditating
      'santon'. On seeing the Buddha, he went out to meet him and
      asked him to express his opinion about the axcesis he had
      carried on for so many years.

      A large river was nearby and the 'santon', lifting himself
      up into the air, crossed over the waters. When he came back
      before the Buddha he urged him to pronounce himself. The
      Buddha, not in the least ruffled, asked: "How long has it
      taken you to acquire the power of levitating?" The 'santon'
      replied: 'Twenty years'. And the Buddha said: "With five
      rupees I can cross the river in a boat is as few as five

      The 'power' is not Realization of the atman because, being a
      faculty, it belongs to prakriti. 'Powers' operate within the
      sphere of duality; they imply three factors: an entity
      holding a power, the power, and an object to which the power
      is applied. The power, by operating in the dual and multiple
      world, cannot be the fount of ananda, cannot be the source
      of Completeness-Pax profunda which is connatural to Being.

      The greatest power that can be attained is that of
      Illumination, or the satori, the Para Vidya, the gnosis and
      this power does not belong any longer to the psychic realm
      but to the strictly spiritual one. In this sphere the
      individual, with all his toy-powers, no longer exists
      because he is completely transcended.

      Q. However, we know of true Saints who use powers.

      A. They are Saints not because they use powers but because
      they are Illuminated. If occasionally they use some psychic
      faculties, it is to make an emotional impression upon the
      massess -- which in fact need such things -- rather than to
      indicate the pathway of Illumination.

      A Saint may make use of powers as a momentary means by which
      to draw the attention of the unbeliever, while mere
      individuality needs power as psychological compensation.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.