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

HighlightsSun19Dec

Expand Messages
  • andrew macnab
    ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Hello. I
    Message 1 of 1 , Dec 20, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      ________________________________________________________________________
      ________________________________________________________________________

      Hello. I recently discovered this list. Thank you, whoever started
      this! It's wonderful to
      discover so much like mindedness. Following is a poem that occurred
      awhile back.

      With much love for us all,

      MPaul

      Being Precedes Representation

      �I think. Therefore,
      I am.� However,
      I am before
      I think.

      I am
      before I think
      �I am.� At least,
      that�s what
      I think.

      But, can I be sure
      that I�m the thinker
      of what I say
      I think?

      Don�t �my thoughts�
      arise from nowhere
      then vanish in a blink?

      What is this �I�
      I think I am?
      Where could I ever
      find it?

      Perhaps the fact that
      �something is�
      has nothing else behind it?

      But am I only certain
      of this fact that
      �something is�?

      Or rather that
      whatever is
      is in the Way
      it is?

      Swadharma is
      the Ethos
      of Tao.

      -MPaul
      98.06.07
      ________________________________________________________________________
      xan:

      ...anyone else every felt God
      was making love to them?

      Bruce:

      Absolutely. Why do you
      think there's something
      called "The G Spot?" :-)

      On a more serious note,
      I've always seen the
      interrelatedness of
      naked awareness and
      unfettered sexuality --
      the effect of what I
      call "gender polarity"
      at certain points of
      revelation in
      relationship is
      stunning, the say the
      least. Yes, "God" is
      the perfect, ever-
      faithful lover -- and
      quite the matchmaker
      too!
      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      Dan: ...Anyone ever feel like every
      cell of their body was God making love to God?
      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      Dan: ... When I was young,
      a woman posed a koan to me: "Does
      this universe ever strike you as an
      endless orgasm?" I ran across this same
      koan years later from a man who had studied
      a kind of Christian mysticism taught my a Russian
      fellow. A useful koan to work on, he assured me.
      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      Ah, so intimate, this me and me.
      Delicious secrets without a sound
      Tenderest touches suspended in air
      Hello's and goodbye's nonexistent in love
      Embraces entwining like river in ocean
      Like ocean in space and in space overflowing
      Passion so sweetly dissolving illusions
      Endless, beginningless heart of us all.


      xan
      ________________________________________________________________________

      Hiya Glo,

      Thich Nhat Hanh is a very quiet, simple monk ... I don't know if
      his type of Buddhism contributed to his particular manner of
      expressing himself, or, the fact that he lived through the Vietnam
      War, treating people on both sides. The retreat I went to was
      specifically geared to Vietnamese people, who are in general very
      happy and warm people. The five days were also directed towards
      healing the war, although we few white people were allowed to attend,
      we did attempt to be very quiet and unobtrusive.

      The days were geared towards quiet, meditative, reflective awareness,
      very much in stillness and mindfulness of each action, word, thought,
      movement, bite of food, etc. He does have a center in France,
      given the opportunity I'd go live there for a Summer in a heartbeat.

      Don't know if this is what you were looking for, but, perhaps you could
      contrast this experience I had with Thich Nhat Hanh with the one you
      had with the Dalai Lama. I first saw Thich Nhat Hanh, my guess is
      about ten years ago, our first evening of meditation, he said "and, you
      don't have to have your back so straight there is steel in it." I went
      beet red *g*.

      Love,
      Annette
      ________________________________________________________________________


      Dear friends,

      The question of the Buddha and God is an interesting one.


      >> I would appreciate any thoughts related to this
      >> experience, to the Void, to God, and what I believe to be
      >> Buddhist thought that there is no God.
      >>
      >> Peace, neo

      >To my understanding, Buddhist 'thought' does not deny the 'existence of
      >God'. Instead, Buddhist thought creates/advocates/maintains the space in
      >which God may be intuited/seen/experienced.

      >Regarding Buddhism, It is useful to keep in mind, that Buddha is the most
      >vigilant of those gatekeepers, who will not allow any confusion about God
      >to occur. Buddha, foremost of any, stands ready, cleaning equipment in
      >hand, to remove any stains which we may spill upon God. Buddha says nothing
      >about God; in this, Buddha stands as the foremost proponent of God. Of all,
      >Buddha protects the space in which God may appear. Leaving open this space,
      >is exampled by Buddha; following Buddha, are the guardians of the Dharma,
      >who keep alive the doctrine of empty space.

      ==Gene Poole==

      (great name, btw)


      Buddhism, from the Mahayana standpoint, can only be understood in
      relation to two different aspects of reality, the phenomenal and the
      essential. The Buddha refused to talk about God; I don't think this
      makes
      him a proponent of God, though Gene's argument is an interesting twist.
      Certainly it must be admitted that the buddha did not eff the ineffable.

      One of the fundamental doctrines of buddhism is *anatta*, the idea
      that
      there is no individual self, personality, soul, or anything like it.
      But
      when pressed, the buddha would say that the self neither exists nor does
      it
      not exist. Such philosphical questions don't really matter, it is
      ending
      suffering that matters. If a person has an arrow through their chest,
      the
      immediate need is to remove the arrow, not debate the issues involved.
      The beauty of Buddhism is that all beings, of any spiritual
      condition,
      may be helped by the buddhadharma, that there are room for innumerable
      different interpretations. They may not all agree with each other, but
      if a
      person is led along the path, any way this may be accomplished is
      considered
      to be skillful means.
      For many people, dualism is completely taken for granted, it is
      the
      way things are. They see objects as individual things, they see people
      as
      individual beings, and for them the fundamental principle of goodness
      and
      truth and forward evolution is God (or, maybe, it isn't).
      Other people may realize that there really are no individual
      things,
      that separations exist only in the mind as distinctions of convenience.
      The
      mind works in such a manner as to describe the universe and all it
      contains
      in terms of continua, pairs of opposites. 'Things' are characterized in
      relative terms, things are relatively large in relation to things which
      are
      smaller, that which is thought of as good is better than that which is
      bad.
      As this is 'the nonduality salon' I'm sure this is familiar ground to
      most
      of us. Simply to use language requires us to speak in phenomenal terms.
      Even if we know ourselves to be indivisible from the universe which is
      nondual and all-inclusive, we necessarily *speak* in dualistic terms.
      The Buddha, being the Enlightened One, knew that 'good and bad' was
      a
      continuum in which the good was created by the bad, and vice versa. He
      knew
      that to be aware of being happy a person had to know unhappiness. He
      knew
      that people could be liberated from these false dichotomies and know the
      entire universe to be perfect and pure; that darkness was not the
      opposite
      of light, but merely its absence. That everything is made of the One
      positive substance, Love if you will, and that this substance had no
      second
      by which it could be known (thus being nondual rather than monistic).
      He
      also knew that in practice anyone may know the good from the bad,
      suffering
      from happiness, and that the language of nonduality could be abused to
      confuse people into thinking that anything goes. The Buddha's doctrines
      were soteriological, not philosophical. He was concerned with improving
      people's lives, relieving their suffering, salvation. He knew that if
      they
      did what they knew was good and refrained from what they knew was bad,
      they
      would be happier.
      The buddha lived in a time in which itinerant preachers and holy
      men
      were one of the main forms of entertainment for the indian villager.
      People
      were going about preaching all sorts of doctrines and creating a great
      deal
      of confusion; and most of these 'holy men' claimed they knew god
      personally
      and knew just what He or She wanted everyone to do. The Buddha simply
      swept
      all this aside, and taught a practical way for a person to be free from
      suffering, without either indulging themselves in the sensual pleasures
      some
      preachers claimed God approved of, or in the extremely ascetic practices
      others claimed god required; he advocated a Middle Way. He taught
      people
      first of all to 'wake up!'; to be aware that they were unhappy with the
      way
      things were, that their lives involved suffering, and that it was
      obvious
      that anyone would rather be happy than suffer. He showed them that
      suffering was caused by wanting things, either by not having what they
      wanted or by losing what they had which they craved. He preached to
      them
      that there was a way to be free from suffering, by being free from
      wanting
      things. And he taught them the way to be released from craving and its
      consequence of suffering. In this very basic, simple set of ideas, the
      Noble Truth, he very pointedly left the idea of God out of the whole
      business. The Indian subcontinent was the most religious place on
      earth,
      and all these competing gods were just causing a lot of division and
      unhappiness ('sects, sects, sects, that's all you holy men ever think
      about!').
      The Buddha didn't deny that God existed, but he wanted people to
      understand that the practical means of slavation were at hand, and
      didn't
      require any belief in anything. If they simply did what they knew was
      right, practiced right meditation, engaged in right speech, held right
      views, pursued right ocupations and so on, happiness would follow 'as
      the
      wheel of the cart follows the horse.'
      So even in the phenomenal world, the Buddha saw no need for people
      to
      worship any God.
      How much less is there a need for a concept of God in nondual
      terms?
      What continuum is God a part of? If we down here are looking up to and
      worshiping some being far above us, then we are what is low, and God is
      what
      is high. God, then is opposed to Man, in dualistic terms. The more we
      elevate God, the more we worship and honor and obey, the more we are
      weak,
      slave-like, sinful little creatures. If God alone is perfect and good,
      we
      are not.
      So, as far as Buddhist doctrine is concerned, God is not denied,
      but is
      regarded as very much a non-essential idea.

      One of the things that makes Buddhism a great religion, popular
      even
      with the post-modernists who are skeptical of any of the 'grand
      narratives,'
      is that it is tolerant of any philosophy you want to add to it.
      Buddhism,
      philosophically, is basically a form of pragmatism. If the idea of god
      works for you, and makes it easier for you in practice to do good works,
      to
      be good to people, speak and think in terms of high ideals without
      demanding
      that others conform to them, then you can practice Buddhism and retain
      your
      religious beliefs. The Buddha saw no value in the concept of a separate
      self, but he always avoided speaking about God, and accepted all
      different
      sorts of religionists as followers. But on the other hand, many
      atheists
      have been attracted to Buddhism as well, and have been equally welcomed.
      Many Buddhist atheists quite fiercely defend their idea of the purity of
      Buddhism by opposing any addition of belief in God to it, and their view
      is
      valid. Buddhism regards 'right view' as one of the keys to the path,
      and to
      have 'right view' is to not be attached to any view, to not favor any
      view
      over any other view, and not contend with others about the supposed
      superiority of one view over another. Every buddhist is entitled to
      their
      own opinions and are expected to be guided by their own lights.

      aloha, terry
      ________________________________________________________________________


      #YOUnity
      is what I AM
      salvation
      forgiveness
      there is only life and
      being alive--
      the ego tries but
      self overpowers
      yes.
      unity is a witness
      of dreams and there is
      only the experience of this
      there is nothing to judge decide
      or condemn. there is PEACE
      in this.
      no snake, no rope, nobody
      no fear of darkness IAM
      the light.
      yoUnity need nothing--
      fear is gone
      "you've been left behind" is
      affirmative. "where is this "i"
      no need to particularize
      there is no gen:
      grace is
      grace
      God is my father
      IS
      LOVE
      PEACE
      to all who are my own self in Him
      gen
      ________________________________________________________________________


      hi
      bit from Nial
      from sister gen:

      Nial's reading William Blake:
      "an island in the moon! exactly! seperation anxiety prose that bubbles
      out me brain at all angles and must make it's way to paper. Yes Yes
      Yes, the answer to every question, because everything will be granted if
      you *believe.*** Believe it or not. Everything has meaning even though
      many people choose to ignore the fact that the divine is right in their
      face beating 'em with a stick. I think Blake stepped through that door
      too, circles of cycles, timelessness, humanity, humility and being kind
      to others.

      It would be so wonderful if the whole world never grew up. Innocence
      and wonder. I sort of believe that evil is taught somehow. Those
      schoolyard horrors: man I can only remember a few bloody noses; it's
      vio-nography and humans are pulling the strings. "

      Nial would like to see more readers and less television in the world.
      Less nintendo and more as is intended.

      he says
      "i would be happy to correspond via snail mail with any of our web
      friends. i have some questions and i have a few ansers if they can
      handle mindfullness not religion, that doesn't enter unless you want it
      to, but after you start perceiving things differently that tends to
      follow. . .

      you may end up happy with a big round rock in golden gate park and if
      that works, go van go!"

      Nial is big brother, Doug. he is being time
      at:
      Douglas Diehl
      #96162-011
      FCI Sheridan
      P. O. Box 5000
      Sheridan, OR
      97378-5000

      if anyone would like a pen pal who understands prison and how to be free
      within the illusion. . .

      my latest holiday card from him said:
      "wish you were here!" I am. . .. :-)
      I Love You
      gen
      ________________________________________________________________________





      neo:
      Has anyone here actually met a fully enlightened being? Are there
      some here?
      ~~~~~~~~~~

      Jerry:
      Has anyone here seen Neo's image of a fully enlightened being?
      ~~~~~~~~~~

      Neo is a fully enlightened being who prefers to think of himself as an
      unenlightened being working toward it :-)

      With Love,

      Tim
      ~~~~~~~~~~

      >Dear Tim

      >Somehow this does not ring quite true. At the heart of neo is the one
      >fully enlightened being that is at the core of us all.

      That's a much better description than I gave. Thanks for the clarity.

      >neo is a combination of enlightenment and ego, God and the Devil, clarity and
      >confusion.

      > neo is a
      >combination of enlightenment and ego, God and the Devil, clarity and
      >confusion.

      Perhaps 'neo' is an illusion altogether, and what he really is is what
      is
      'at his heart', which is something wordless and inexpressible. Maybe
      that's what we all are.

      >A change has occurred as I have often wandered off of the
      >path before. I do not believe this will happen again.

      >Peace, neo
      ________________________________________________________________________


      Kundalini could be called the "the supreme undoer of all
      identifications";
      the consequence is that Kundalini and doership (effort) are an
      impossible
      mix that sooner or later will cause serious problems. This is the
      reason,
      why for instance in Upanishads and the Patanjali Yoga Sutras, nothing is
      said to arouse K... Compared to artificial methods (doership), surrender
      and devotion will arouse Kundalini far stronger but safe, by awakening
      the
      heart center first.

      Jan
      ________________________________________________________________________

      Joshua:

      ..."Ego" is really a useless word because
      nobody can agree on a satisfactory definition. Let's call the body-mind
      as the "instrument." Let's call the origin of folly as "ignorance" or
      "unconscious." I think this terminology will save a great deal of
      misunderstanding.
      ________________________________________________________________________

      Xan:
      I heard through a reliable friend, of a woman he knows
      in Detroit who does not eat (I think her name is Isabel)
      and there are enough of them around that they have a
      label - breatharians.

      When I ran across these people in my reading, it
      became apparent that none of them did any practices
      to achieve this. The common element among them in
      various religions, cultures and time periods is complete
      Surrender.
      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      Dan: And then sometimes the whole sheebang looks like
      one big process of surrender. Everything surrendering
      to everything else. Surrendering in the process of being
      eaten, surrendering in the process of being born, and in
      the process of dying. It's really something, 'cause nothing
      gets left out! It's All always surrendering everything to Itself!
      ________________________________________________________________________

      Papaji: You are the baby thinking it must take care of its mother. You
      must only learn to let Self take care of you, as it has always done
      but
      you did not know.

      Dan: Beautiful. Reminds me of Tim saying that people don't get
      enlightened, "Enlightenment gets 'peopled'." Also, Alan Watts's
      statement that people don't live in the universe. Instead, It's a
      "peopling universe", we're a world that "peoples."
      ________________________________________________________________________


      Ramana: Just realize that you are dreaming a
      dream you call the world, and stop looking for ways out. The
      dream is not your problem. *YOUR PROBLEM IS THAT YOU LIKE
      ONE PART OF THE DREAM AND NOT ANOTHER.
      ________________________________________________________________________


      This is what I wonder about you:

      What is your definition of enlightenment?
      Why are you holding on to a definition of enlightenment?
      What makes you think someone's level of consciousness
      can be determined by appearances and actions?
      What difference does it make who is enlightened and who is not?

      Your life is just about you and your own awakening.


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