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

Highlights, Saturday, Dec. 25

Expand Messages
  • umbada@xx.xxxxxxxxx.xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxxx)
    CYNDI ROY from Osho Zen Tarot Ice-olation We are miserable because we are too much in the self. What does it mean when I say we are too much in the self? And
    Message 1 of 1 , Dec 26, 1999
      CYNDI ROY from Osho Zen Tarot


      We are miserable because we are too much in the self. What
      does it mean when I say we are too much in the self? And
      what exactly happens when we are too much in the self?
      Either you can be in existence or you can be in the
      self--both are not possible together. To be in the self
      means to be apart, to be separate. To be in the self means
      to become an island. To be in the self means to draw a
      boundary line around you.
      To be in the self means to make a distinction between 'this
      I am' and 'that I am not'. The definition, the boundary,
      between "I"
      and "not I" is what the self is--the self isolates. And it
      makes you frozen--you are no longer flowing. If you are
      flowing the self cannot exist. Hence people have become
      almost like ice-cubes. They don't have any warmth, they
      don't have any love--love is warmth and they are afraid of
      love. If warmth comes to them they will start melting and
      the boundaries will disappear. In love the boundaries
      disappear; in joy also the boundaries disappear, because joy
      is not cold.


      AFAIK, the deepest desire is to keep up individuality and it
      is "holier"
      than a mind-body. Even the the label "Self" as expressed in
      the Upanishads is based on the impersonal sense of
      individuality that remains when samadhis are "over".
      Without having been so close to death that individuality
      fades away, one cannot know it is but another layer(be it a
      most tenacious one). It isn't a "necessity to know" as it
      sure is "far enough".

      Yama is the greatest teacher indeed. Everything one offers
      to him is returned as knowledge and one can only "travel" as
      far as revealed inner knowledge goes. The "devotees" of
      Yama give up self; dispassion, renunciation, tapas,
      meditation, subtle desires etc., this lot is superfluous for
      them as it pertains to a "self" and the little self can be
      sacrificed only once. Also, it is the one time "radical"
      decision the "self" can ever take: give up.

      It is said every thing has two sides. Kali Yuga has the
      disadvantage of "maximum ignorance regarding one's real
      nature". But without knowing even one's real nature exists,
      one can "seriously" take leave from life or discard the self
      with one blow and when else is this possible but in ...
      Kali Yuga.


      Selected from ABRAHAM'S BOSOM by Basil King

      Go back to what we said as to sight being not the action of
      a temporary optic nerve. We see God by what we understand
      of him; we understand him by his attributes; and we measure
      his attributes by their beauty and goodness and
      practicality. Wherever there has been a blessing to enjoy,
      you've seen God. Wherever love has cheered you or kindness
      helped you, you've seen God.

      In sunrise and sunset and moonlight and starlight, and trees
      and fields and harvest and flowers and ice and snow and air,
      and health and beauty and generousity and friendship, and
      all that gives to existence, you've seen God. He hasn't
      been invisible. There is not one world in which God is seen
      and another world in which he is not. There is not a life
      with God and another life away from him. There is only one
      world and God fills it; there is only one life, to which God
      is All-in-All.

      More blessed are they who learn to live in God as in One
      Vast Certainty -- which created everyone, and supplies
      everyone and upholds everyone and defends everyone and loves
      everyone; and does it all with unlimited intelligence and


      "The soul cannot move, awake or open the eyes without
      perceiving God. We peceive God by the soul as we feel air
      on the body.

      Shall I dare say it? We know God easily so long as we do
      not force ourselves to define him."
      ~Joseph Joubert


      My first attempt at understanding this nonduality thing hit
      me when I realized that I aready knew what it meant for me
      -- it was simply a matter of connecting the dots.

      It came this morning when I was in the midst of the annual
      family craziness at Christmas. What a great time to reflect
      on everything from the state of the world to relationships
      to spirituality to, uh, everything.

      The reason why this list is at first blush (my cheeks are so
      rosey red right now!) so useful is that it makes for a great
      sounding board. A sounding board for what? The best way to
      sum the 'what' of it up is to use a term Krishnamurti coined
      as "the content of consciousness". Specifically, this list
      is a great sounding board for what I imagine to be the
      content of my own consciousness, 'imagine' being the
      operative word here. (But you already knew that, right?)

      We talk about Unity, Awareness, Nirvana, whatever. I think
      the best word for me to use would be Truth. Truth begs the
      question: What is it? And that's where I am. Unity?
      Awareness? I'm not there in any permanent sort of way yet,
      I don't think.

      At the same time, my intuition tells me that I cannot attain
      Truth through any organization, creed, dogma, guru or
      ritual, nor through any philosophical knowledge or
      psychological technique. I must find it in the mirror of
      relationship, through understanding of the content of my
      mind, through observation. I won't find it through analysis
      or dissection -- though these tools are helpful to
      communicate in spaces like this one, they are limited.

      K. wrote:

      "When man becomes aware of the movement of his own thoughts
      he will see the division between the thinker and thought,
      the observer and the observed, the experiencer and the
      experience. He will discover that this division is an
      illusion. Then only is there pure observation which is
      insight without any shadow of the past or of time. This
      timeless insight brings about a deep radical mutation in the

      "Total negation is the essence of the positive. When there
      is negation of all those things that thought has brought
      about psychologically, only then is there love, which is
      compassion and intelligence."

      Is it mere coincidence then that the name of this list is
      *non*duality? Only the person who name this list can answer
      that, I suspect.

      Eventually, you may discover that you cannot attain Truth at
      all, because you already have it (and having it certainly
      prevents its attainment!). In fact, you may find that you
      cannot attain at all (it is all within you already), nor can
      you lose anything (there is nothing within you that can be
      Dwell in Truth. Don't look for it. It is ever-present,
      everywhere, so present that there is nothing else but
      Truth. To realize that deeply is 'realization'. There's
      not much more to it than that. It's so simple that it
      appears impossibly complex or difficult.
      The mind is trained to deal with complexity. Train it to
      deal in simplicity. Unlearn everything you've learned.
      Simplify until there is nothing remaining but what you are,
      what you have always been, and what you will always be.
      At times, everything is clear. At others, things seem
      Underlying all those times is Awareness, which is Timeless.
      Knowing this, knowing the temporality of everything, knowing
      that nothing changes but change, there is nothing here I
      could call "suffering."

      There is understanding here. I can claim no more and no
      less. I have no way to gauge "how much" understanding. I
      sense that understanding cannot be quantified, cannot be
      reduced to numbers or formulas of any sort.

      That's about all I can say.


      JAY: I think the issue here isn't whether I need to attain
      or search for anything -- forgive me of that word "attain".
      I know it's a humbug on this list. Rather, I would use "tap
      into" if I had to do that post over again.
      And where would I put the tap? In me, I suppose. Picture
      this: You run a tap on a rusty pipe and what comes out?
      Rusty water and then, gradually, clear water. You run a tap
      on a rusty person? I dare say I wouldn't like to be around
      when the first part of that stuff comes out!

      TIM G.: Why form a mental picture at all? It seems to me
      that such 'pictures' only serve to obfuscate, not clarify.

      JAY: But I digress. No...I play. Without playing around
      let me say that you seem to be of the school of thought that
      has claims to instantaneous "enlightenment."

      TIM G.: Actually, I don't consider myself a member of any
      school of thought at all.
      There's no need for "instant enlightenment." Enlightenment
      is Ever-Present. Not instant, but has always been there.
      There's no belief or school involved in that, it's
      wordless. Awareness is just Here, timelessly. There was no
      time when Awareness suddenly appeared, and no time when it
      gradually appeared.

      To be a member of a school of "instant enlightenment" still
      suggests "attaining something" that wasn't there before
      (only attaining it instantly, not after a period of work,
      contemplation, etc). If I had to be a "member" of
      something, call it a "school of non-thought." But I prefer
      freedom from all schools, all definitions, all labels.

      I can remember going through all sorts of scriptures,
      writings of Gurus etc, and that they seemed helpful at the
      time. They seem to have helped in some way, but I don't
      know how. Certainly not through the gathering of mental
      knowledge. They seemed simply to spur something that was
      already here, to clarify it, to make it visible somehow.
      But I can't be sure. I really don't know anything. I don't
      know causes. I sense there are no causes for anything, that
      things just happen as they do.

      JAY: I'm not really looking for enlightenment, either. I
      don't know what it is. My goal here is to share, to learn,
      to grow and to learn to let Truth come to me.

      TIM G.: I would like to say I have no goal for being on NDS,
      but that wouldn't entirely be true. But what the goal is,
      I'm unsure of. I used to think I knew what it was, now I
      don't have any idea why I'm on the list. Nor do I care to
      try and find out. Why interfere with something that seems
      to be a natural process, that seems to be 'working' just

      JAY: I can only respond by saying that for me things seem
      very clear sometimes but at others they are downright
      terrifyingly muddled -- with all shades in between. (I know
      I risk invoking the old fallacy of a continuum of awareness
      -- please don't take it that way...) Is there something
      called *non*awareness?

      TIM G.: Definitions of terms are always getting in the way
      of communication. But I wouldn't say (using this mind's
      definitions) that there is something that could be called
      non-awareness. Awareness is "Ground of Being." It cannot
      be non-present. It is Presence Itself. Can Presence be

      JAY: Why did you mention suffering?

      TIM G.: Because it seems to be pretty "universal." Or so it
      is said. People seem to suffer, and it's talked about all
      the time as being the reason for the "need" for
      enlightenment. So I mentioned it.







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