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

#1920 - Monday, September 13, 2004 - Editor: Jerry

Expand Messages
  • Mark Otter
    #1920 - Monday, September 13, 2004 - Editor: Jerry Highlights Home Page and Archive: http://nonduality.com/hlhome.htm Letter to the Editors: Click Reply on
    Message 1 of 1 , Sep 14, 2004

      #1920 - Monday, September 13, 2004 - Editor: Jerry
      Highlights Home Page and Archive: http://nonduality.com/hlhome.htm
      Letter to the Editors: Click 'Reply' on your email program, compose your message, and 'Send'. All the editors will see your letter.

      This issue features an excerpt from a newly published book, The Nature of Man According to the Vedanta, by John Levy. This series will constitute the first lengthy quotation of Levy on the internet; there is virtually nothing at present. Also there are quotations from the thoughtful Alpha World list. And there is an installment of In Nonduality Salon.

      The Nature of Man According to the Vedanta
      by John Levy
      from Chapter III: Dreamless Sleep and the Real Self
      The Singleness of Non-Mental Experience
      Unconditioned being, non-dual consciousness, and perfect peace, these three characteristics of profound sleep correspond to the three constituents of individual experience, namely, life, thought and feeling. But they are not more than aspects of the real self which must be single and immutable, single because it observes, and therefore transcends, the variety of objective experience, whenever the latter arises; and immutable because it remains unaffected by the appearance or the non-appearance of that variety. We could not, however, know anything about it if we departed from our unconditioned state on seeming to enter the objective domain. It follows that non-duality continues as the background of duality. Not until we approach the end of this work will all the implications of the present paragraph have been appreciated.
      The Interval between Two Thoughts
      Mental action is not continuous. Each thought, feeling or sensory perception has a beginning and an end. It follows that between one conscious mentatation and another there is an interval. From the dualistic point of view, the interval will appear to be infinitesimally brief. But in itself, it transcends the notion of time, time being experienced only when there is mental activity. Here there is none and so it normally escapes our attention. If we try to think of it, it will appear as a state of nescience.
      Now this periodic suspension of mental activity is identical with dreamless sleep, which we thus experience at every other moment, so to say, in the midst of waking and dreaming experience. I have stated in another connection (The Singleness of Non-Mental Experience) that non-duality continues as the background of duality. It may be compared to the paper on which these words are printed.
      ~ ~ ~
      The Nature of Man According to the Vedanta
      by John Levy

      Alpha World
      “”… history is always written by the winners. When two cultures clash, the loser is
      obliterated, and the winner writes the history books - books which glorify their own
      cause and disparage the conquered foe. As Napoleon once said, ‘What is history, but a
      fable agreed upon?’” He smiled. “By its very nature, history is always a one-sided
      (Robert Langdon) Dan Brown, The Da Vinci Code.
      ~ ~ ~
      “The primordial image, or archetype, is a figure -- be it a daemon, a human being, or a
      process -- that constantly recurs in the course of history and appears wherever creative
      fantasy is freely expressed. Essentially, therefore, it is a mythological figure… In each
      of these images there is a little piece of human psychology and human fate, a remnant of
      the joys and sorrows that have been repeated countless times in our ancestral history.”
      C.G. Jung, On the Relation of Analytical Psychology to Poetry
      ~ ~ ~
      “Considering Language then as some mighty potentate, into the majestic audience-hall of
      the monarch ever enters a personage like one of Shakspere’s clowns, and takes position
      there, and plays a part even in the stateliest ceremonies. Such is Slang, or indirection, an attempt
      of common humanity to escape from bald literalism, and express itself illimitably, which
      in highest walks produces poets and poems, and doubtless in pre-historic times gave the
      start to, and perfected, the whole immense tangle of the old mythologies.”
      Walt Whitman, Slang in America, 1892
      ~ ~ ~
      "Nations! What are nations? Tartars! and Huns! and Chinamen! Like insects they swarm. The
      historian strives in vain to make them memorable. It is for want of a man that there are
      so many men. It is individuals that populate the world."
      Henry David Thoreau
      ~ ~ ~
      "That is what the highest criticism really is, the record of one's own soul. It is more
      fascinating than history, as it is concerned simply with oneself. It is more delightful
      than philosophy, as its subject is concrete and not abstract, real and not vague. It is
      the only civilized form of autobiography."
      Oscar Wilde

      In Nonduality Salon
      The Highlights of the Nonduality Salon list from between August, 1998 and May, 1999, the period of time prior to the creation of The Highlights.
      ~ ~ ~
      Marcia Paul and Jan Barendrecht
      Marcia writes:
      Hi Jan,
      I can't seem to locate your post where you said (I think) that to qualify as a Buddhist I
      would need to understand the world as suffering. I am probably making a mess out of that.
      But the idea was I wasn't going to get it by reading books.
      This is a subject which has been of some interest to me. I think I arrived at it from a
      different route but I think the result was the same. It was interesting because I think
      that most people get there through actual suffering and my experience was in an altered
      state. What was interesting to me was that the memory is exactly the same as a memory of
      something which might have actually happened to me. I read all sorts of books afterwards
      to try to come to some understanding of what I had experienced. But the experience was
      first. It felt as if I had accessed an entirely different level of consciousness. I
      describe it as a planetary level of consciousness as my sense was that of all mankind and
      not as a personal me at all.
      But it was through the personal that I got there. My personal heart was broken wide open.
      It was an extremely painful moment. It was so painful that there was nothing at all to be
      "done" about it. Then it just "gave way" and I "was in". Inside the pain and I accessed
      my higher mind. Or my higher mind accessed me. :-) Everything expanded. I saw large time
      cycles. All on the level of mankind and not me personally.
      Then I started reading Steven Levine. In one of his books he talks about a really mean
      spirited woman with back cancer in a hospital dying. She was so mean the nurses did not
      like to go into her room. She had alienated all her family and so was alone. During the
      middle of one night she was in such pain and agony and she just suddenly became awares of
      all people who had had that kind of pain. Men dying in battle with back wounds. Women in
      labor with back pain. Stuff like that. She accessed that planetary level. She was
      transformed. She immediately began to make the necessary calls and healed the wounds. She
      still died of back cancer but as a different person.
      Is this what you mean?
      Jan responds:
      Yes, it is a good example. Suffering can only be known by experience and the experience
      enables one to recognize suffering in others. Because all suffering was kept far from
      prince Gautama, the shock of being confronted with old age, disease and death caused him
      to find deliverance. He practiced a form of meditation / asceticism for 5 years and it
      was in vain. Consider the state of mind, having abandoned loved ones and having sought
      salvation for 5 years without result. It was suffering and when it is strong enough, the
      identification with self is broken; one recognizes one's true nature. So Gautama became
      the Buddha; compassion and suffering became the central theme of his speeches.
      The Buddha was thoroughly familiar with nondualism. Once he addressed two young Brahmins
      who asked him to explain to them the requirements for achieving union with Brahman. Yet,
      five years of it did bring (ex) prince Gautama to desperation.
      So realizing that one's suffering isn't unique and that it always can be worse, often
      causes one to spontaneously give up identifications. Dropping all identifications reveals
      one's true nature, one aspect being a peaceful kind of happiness (bliss) and the contrast
      with the state of suffering couldn't be higher. For some, a little suffering combined
      with insight can do the same, as the process of dying means suffering from the (forceful)
      ending of all identifications. It is the end of self and unavoidable. The alternative is
      to undergo the process of dying while the body is alive and then it is found there is no
      self; the identifications with a non existing self were preventing the "experience" of
      the natural state of spontaneous, quiet bliss.
      ~ ~ ~
      Robert and Dustin
      When you think about the fact that a movie is made up of images, and those images placed
      one after the other in a sequence create the illusion of moving pictures. And sounds out
      of speakers, add to the suspension of disbelief, we are left with what there has always
      been, sound and light. These are basic ideas of course to a group who is familiar with
      the subject we're discussing, but is there anyone out there who watches their life like a
      play on stage or a film on a screen? That's what I'd like to know. Thanks.
      Robert, this movie metaphor is one to which I myself have given a lot of thought
      throughout recent months. I try to spend my day simply observing that play as the
      "objective witness" within me. I also agree with the tone of Harsha's excellent musing:
      The play, is the play, is the play. It is a never-ending cycle of sameness and illusion.
      Where is that place with no origin from which the play originates?
      Yours in service,
      ~ ~ ~
      Gene Poole
      Being abiding

      A Being abiding, abides being

      A Being abiding, abides abiding Beings

      A Being nonabiding, does not abide being

      A Being nonabiding, does not abide abiding Beings

      A Being nonabiding, does not abide nonabiding Beings

      Abiding, abides nonabiding


      To abide, tolerate. To tolerate is to admit that there is something to
      tolerate. The honest admission that there is something to tolerate, is the
      same as the honest admission of nonattachment; nonattachment admits that
      there is something to be attached to, that there is a reality which is of
      by either desire or aversion born.

      The internal conversation which we have with others as we read and write
      this, is to the point of obviating all conversation; and this point is the
      point of true relationship with other. Thus, our internal conversation is
      for the point of establishing abidance of other.

      By tolerating, and eventually abiding other, we come to the point of
      tolerating the self of other; and this may be the first practical step
      towards tolerating and eventually abiding self.

      By tolerating and eventually abiding self, self and other may become known
      as only self.

      One who abides self, also abides Self. One who abides self, eventually
      abides as Self.

      One who abides as Self, may abide self as Self.

      One who abides, abides as Self.

      Self-abiding is Self, for there is no other to abide.

      ==Gene Poole==
      ~ ~ ~
      Marcia Paul
      I have been studying the Sermon on the Mount.
      Particularly the Beatitudes as the "conditions"
      for the Kingdom of Heaven as a state of being.
      The Kingdom of Heaven may be other things
      as well.

      "Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the
      Kingdom of Heaven."

      To me 'poor in spirit' means empty or nothing.
      In other words blessed are those who have
      seen their own nothingness.

      And it is spiritual nothingness as it says poor in
      spirit. As long as I labor under the illusion that
      I possess spiritual wealth I am not able to enter
      the Kingdom of Heaven.

      I know nothing and in that nonknowing, I know.

      Here's another way to see it:

      I know nothing and in that non knowing, I am humbled.

      In humility, I surrender.

      Thru Grace, I AM.

      Mic Clarke
      He who knows that it is incomprehensible,
      He who conceives of it comprehends it not.
      It is unknown to the knowing ones;
      Known to the unknowing.

      ....Kena Upanishad.

      I reckon the person who wrote this had an outrageous sense of humour, and a
      twinkle in their eye.
      prior to concept I am
      mist steams off the valley
      whip birds sing and black cockatoos screech
      drunk on morning dew

      ~ ~ ~
      David Bozzi
      Hello, this came in from Spirit Web,

      Look at any object in front of you. In order to direct your attention
      clearly, in a focused way, point your finger at that object. (Using your

      finger in this way will become particularly important at the end of the
      experiment.) Look along your finger at the object and notice that it is a
      'thing' - in other words, it has form, colour, edges, detail, opacity
      etc. After a moment move your finger and point at the floor. Notice that it
      too is a 'thing' with the same kind of general characteristics. Now point at
      your feet, or your shoes. These also are things - wiggle them about and
      watch them move! Now point at your tummy - this too is a 'thing' with
      form, colour, opacity etc. Point at your chest and notice it is a 'thing' as

      Now we come to the most important bit - looking back at you the Looker.

      Point at where others see your face. Turn your finger around and point
      back at yourself, at you the Looker. Are you pointing at a 'thing' now? Going
      by present evidence, not by memory or belief, is there any colour or shape
      or opacity or thingness here?

      Only you are in a position to say since you alone are your side of that
      pointing finger. And all I am asking you to do is look - not think, or
      work anything out.

      Here is my experience: When I point here, at this place where others see
      my face, I see nothing. Over there is my pointing finger with a background
      around it, but over here is no face, no background. I am 'space' here,
      empty for that finger and for the rest of the world.

      This is who I really am.

      What do you find?

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