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

Nonduality Salon highlights for Wednesday, Jan 5

Expand Messages
  • Melody
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ XAN: I knew. I saw I didn t know what I thought I knew. I gave up knowing for not knowing with great relief Through not knowing Now I
    Message 1 of 1 , Jan 6, 2000


      I knew.
      I saw I didn't know what I thought I knew.
      I gave up knowing for not knowing
      with great relief
      Through not knowing
      Now I know.


      You knew before you thought you didn't know. Through thinking you
      didn't know, it opened you to what you already knew.


      SKYE quotes Eckhart Tolle:

      "Thinking has become a disease. Disease happens when things
      get out of balance. For example, there is nothing wrong with
      cells dividing and multiplying in the body, but when this
      process continues in dis-regard of the total organism, cells
      proliferate and we have disease.
      The mind is a superb instrument if used rightly. Used
      wrongly, however, it becomes very destructive. To put it
      more accurately, it is not so much that you use your mind
      wrongly-you usually don't use it at all. It uses you. This
      is the disease. You believe that you are your mind. This is
      the delusion. The instrument has taken you over.


      The beginning of freedom is the realization that you are not
      the possessing entity-the thinker. Knowing this enables you
      to observe the entity. The moment you start watching the
      thinker, a higher level of consciousness becomes activated.
      You then begin to realize that there is a vast realm of
      intelligence beyond thought, that thought is only a tiny
      aspect of that intelligence. You also realize that all the
      things that truly matter-beauty, love, creativity, joy,
      inner peace-arise from beyond the mind. You begin to awaken."

      also from ECKHART TOLLE:

      "Identification with your mind, causes thought to become
      compulsive. Not to be able to stop thinking is a dreadful
      affliction, but we don't realize this because almost
      everybody is suffering from it, so it is considered normal.
      This incessant mental noise prevents you from finding that
      realm of inner stillness that is inseparable from Being. It
      also creates a false mind-made self that casts a shadow of
      fear and suffering."


      Thanks for this.. I read this book two months ago and spent an evening
      with Eckhart Tolle. He is a very clear and a very softly powerful man.

      I have been in *just* this situation (described above) since receiving
      Judi's various posts yesterday and today.. they derailed me into *mind*
      big time. It has taken a fair amount of writing, listening, stillness
      and some good friends here to get clear.

      Judi your use of what I wrote as a springboard for a lecture (based on a
      lot of assumptions about who I am) brought, what my friend Elysha calls,
      the 'Shmee' (screaming me) to the foreground for defense. It has been
      humbling to observe this old mind pattern and intense vulnerability. I
      am working through a sense of betrayal. My issue... my mental stuff. I
      also see that I have betrayed myself in my assumptions.



      Someone do me a favor and go to


      And listen to Vartman on one of the sound files. I listened
      for about 5 seconds and had to shut it off. My question is,
      Why do all these Satsang people sound the same? The same
      pacing. The same pausing. The same eternal tone. The same,
      'You see'. The same little humor. The same 'in the moment

      Why do I feel like I'm being sucked into something? Why do I
      feel the current Satsang movement is no different than any
      religious movement with their intonations and rituals and
      fulfillment of expectations?

      Where is the unpredictability? Where is the rebellion? Why
      do I have to turn Vartman off and listen to the hum of my
      computer if I want to hear something real?

      As a boy required to attend synagogue I felt stifled. I felt
      more alive and in touch with life when I departed the
      synagogue. Somehow I had the insight that just being alone
      in the day's sun was as religious and spiritual and Godly as
      it gets.

      Now I have that same feeling with Satsang. It's bullshit.
      Just listen to Vartman. You know anyone can say anything
      they want with that pacing and tone of voice and it will
      sound spiritual and wonderful. Using Vartman's tone, try
      saying the following:

      "I'm going to sue your ass in court ... you see ... you
      slimy stinking good for nothing bastard ... you piece of
      human garbage, you are the lowest form of human existence
      ... you see ... you horrible ..."

      And don't you hate it when you're reading transcripts of
      Satsang and you come upon the clue-in: [laughter]. I hate
      that. Just let me read the transcript and I'll decide if
      it's funny or not.

      So what's my point? Nothing holds. Reality is not to be
      found in Satsang with all its good feeling and relaxation
      and mellowness and truth. Reality is not found. It is known
      to be here and now. You see.


      Very good points. For many people, they have to go to lots and lots of
      satsangs before they see that they don't really have too. Same as any
      other practice, even when satsang is stated to not be a practice :-) I
      myself see the satsang phenomenon as a hilarious divine comedy.

      One reason that so many sound alike is that many come from the same line of
      teachers. Papaji has perhaps the most in the West (maybe Osho has more).
      I first saw Vartman's info on the Papaji website called
      <http://www.poonja.com/Satsang.htm>, you'll see pictures and notices of
      those who are sharing what they got from Papaji. One person told me that
      Papaji had "officially authorized" 17 people to share satsang in the West.
      They have authorized others. I myself was authorized to share satsang in
      this same way, by Michael Rosker, who was authorized by Moksha, who was
      authorized by Prasad, who was authorized by Papaji.

      Here's a quote from that Papaji, according to which there are more than

      ...he sent out thousands of what
      he called "ambassadors". And so
      now there are literally thousands of
      "official" ambassadors, each one sharing,
      in their own way, what they received
      from the Master Poonjaji."

      And there's even a link to send mail so you can be added to that page as an
      ambassador carrying Papaji's message: <mailto:sanga@...>.

      In general, there are lots of satsang cultural conventions I've seen and
      been told about by world-traveling satsang attendees, including:

      -The measured, spiritual vocal delivery
      -Lots and lots and lots of hugs
      -The competitive locking of eyes to see who sees the
      most of the Self in the other person (a great friend
      of mine is the U.S. national champion!)
      -The well known Lucknow Disease of avoiding the "I" word in speech
      -The assumption on the part of some teachers that anyone sitting
      in a satsang can be given advice and told what to do because
      they are seeking

      Most of this There's lots more too!



      according to
      me there is 'awakening' and 'transformation'. Not knowing
      is awake and the continued dissolving of mind habits is
      transformation/deepening. Is that anything like what you mean?


      There is always this fascinated
      debate in many traditions (e.g. Zen,
      Tibetan Buddhism) about this question:

      (1) Awakening and "finished", nothing more to be done.
      (2) Awakening followed by transformation/deepening.

      I think the case of Ramana Maharshi
      is (1). Have you any commentary?


      This is a fascinating question....one that
      seems to ignite considerable debate and conflict.

      I would really appreciate hearing from
      both Jan and Harsha in particular on this question....


      Because Ramana almost could be called "publicly owned", it is possible to
      give facts. Ramana had this spontaneous flash that leaves neither doubt nor
      a choice. Yet he "meditated" (for lack of a better expression) for years
      and led a life that "others" would call the life of a renunciate. No one
      apparently bothered to ask Ramana; he would probably have said (in his case
      written down) something about the unparalleled bliss of Self. Evidenced in
      his biography: he wanted to be in physical solitude as well, in total
      forgetfulness of mind, body and senses. For Westerners, his total neglect
      of body would have caused a strong dislike, as C. G. Jung remarked in a
      commentary. Of course Ramana went through the usual sequence of samadhis
      and there can't be the slightest doubt on moksha. The Self doesn't
      transform; what happens is the de-identification to the point of what could
      be called "the weakest link with mind/body possible" and in youth, there is
      plenty of energy for de-identification by K.. So Ramana was thoroughly
      familiar with samadhis and Kundalini. Those who don't have such a bright
      flash as a starter, have to go through stages/phases where the hindrances
      to a radical giving up of "former worldly life" have been overcome, or
      these hindrances have to be overcome one by one as is the usual case for a
      householder. So I don't see a principal difference between 1. and 2., more
      a marginal difference. In 1., one is surrendered 100% immediately and in 2,
      100% is realized gradually. When 100% surrendered, transformations are


      Anyone who has been in the spiritual/religious field for any length of time
      will notice that it is no different than any other field. There is politics,
      intrigue, and competition for attention among teachers, gurus, etc. Everyone
      claims to have the superior way. Even in the area of exploring the nature of
      the Kundalini Shakti or Nonduality, the competition is heated and intense.
      Over the last 25 years, I have seen many
      teachers and gurus ridicule each other and different paths, and their
      disciples of course take their cue from their gurus. Sometimes the criticism
      might even be justified from some point of view. But this is how spiritual
      business is done. This is how spiritual business always has been done. El
      Collie on the K-List, mentioned examples of healers who could not heal
      themselves. This is not uncommon. That is just life. There is a long history
      of teachers and gurus hiding their own shortcomings and problems, sometimes
      serious, and acting as guides. Certainly people can still benefit from their
      teaching although some may be misled and harmed as well. This is why it is
      important for spiritual aspirants to take some responsibility and
      familiarize themselves with at least the basic religious, spiritual, and/or
      Shakti/Self/No Self
      literature which comes from the genuine spiritual traditions. Hinduism,
      Jainism, Buddhism and Taoism and to some extent the Judeo-Christian
      traditions have been the main sources for me. But there are many other veins
      of knowledge as well. These are there for all and can be studied and
      reflected on. The genuine aspirant cannot remain satisfied with endless
      intellectual questions and answers or endless psychic experiences through
      kundalini manifestations. But there are subtle questions arising from the
      longing of the Soul, such as (What does it all mean? Where is True Rest.
      What is the foundation of experience, any experience? Who seeks answers? Why
      are answers sought? Who asks questions?). If such questions do not trap one
      in the jungle of intellectual mumbo jumbo but are followed to the source,
      they can hint at the Pull of the Heart.



      So many people here on this list spend much of their thought-time (and that
      is all it is, really) here denying the physical reality of life and aspiring
      to Transcendence. They unwittingly anaesthetize themselves to the point
      where they imagine they have transcended "conditions", "illusions",
      "images", etc. They cloth their anesthesia in language that, without the
      benefit of
      experience and the subtlest ability to discern, obfuscates the truth. They
      make reckless assertions and decisions. This is the "schlock" I am
      referring to. I make these same mistakes. (Perhaps even now I'm falling down
      a slippery slope...)

      We are on the cusp of a great moral problem here. We are riding this problem
      like a wave, playing along the breakline. It is a very big wave and I
      believe we underestimate the potential for real danger here. At risk of
      creating more schlock, I paraphrase Beaudrillard.

      "As individuals, many of us can no longer or are no longer willing to
      produce the limits of our beingness. Or perhaps we are denying our limits.
      We can no longer produce ourselves as the mirror. We are a screen, a
      switching center for all the networks of influence."

      When we have lost the ability to discern our limits, we fail to see the
      seams where we are stitched together, and thus the world as well. We are in
      this world, regardless of how much we think we are outside of the influence
      of this world. Many of us here would chuck intelligence and discernment for
      the imagined panacea of one ideology or another -- any automatic process. We
      assume we are entitled to immortality before we know what it is. We
      assume that, before we have learned to walk, we are able to ride a bike...or
      navigate a spaceship, for that matter.


      DAN and JODY:

      Desire and Self are opposite sides of the same coin, like fire and its
      power to burn. They are *and* are not two all at the same time.


      By the way as one *is* two, and as twoness
      is not other than one, and as one is not the same as or
      other than two,
      communication can occur without there being separate entities.
      Communication is then understood from the perspective of the
      "coin" itself, not as something moving from point a to point
      b on one of the sides of the coin.

      Ok, I understand and accept your view. However, it still makes
      sense to view things as they are experienced, rather than holding
      to a conception of how they really are. Even while I agree that
      all is one, my experience (and that of any being in a body) *also*
      includes an understanding of separateness. This is Maya, in which
      we are all enveloped, realized or not.

      The problem I have with the "all is one" thing is that people
      go ahead and generate a *concept* of what this "all is one" thing
      is, thereby setting up an expectation of what realization is like.
      It is expectations about realization that form some of the biggest
      hindrances to Its being experienced.

      I know quite a few folk that expect that upon realization, their
      sense of themselves as individuals will be permanently obliterated,
      as they will then come to know that "all is one." This is in
      fact not true, at least not in every case of realization, and in
      fact not in a single case of realization that I've come to know.

      I've observed in my exploration of online discussions that some
      folk have a tendency to develop intellectual models of nondual
      being and then adopt them as their "reality" when in fact they've
      only applied yet another overlay of Maya.

      While reality can be *said* to be nondual, it is *us* as beings
      that *are* nonduality. The container of social experience will
      always be dual. People attempt to deny the dual nature of social
      existence in order to make it fit their ideas of nondual reality,
      when in fact all they've done is applied another concept and layer
      of hindrance between themselves and their realization.

      from CHARLES:


      I have given this out to over a thousand people over the years, and the
      reaction to it has been largely positive. I give it to all my friends in
      cyberspace in hopes that it will bless you and help us all to come a
      little closer to the reality that we are all in this thing we call Life
      together. A Native American friend once told me, "If we live as a
      species, we live together, no matter where we are. If we die as a
      species, we die together, no matter where we are." A good wake-up call!

      Here is the Mantrum:

      I am the Universe, and the Universe is myself.
      There is nothing without me, that dwelleth not in me;
      There is nothing within me that dwelleth not without me.
      I am the Microcosm in the Macrocosm.
      Out of the One, I have become the Many.
      I draw all the Many together, and cause them to be made One.
      So shall we be One throughout all eternity;
      As it is written, so mote it be!

      From the Guru Granth Sahib:

      "From within, from within,
      Let the self be as if it were nought.
      Put aside all sense of separation,
      And become One with God!"

      There is no sense of otherness when there is complete Unity. Oneness
      means more than just one of a kind. It means, also, this complete and
      unadulterated Unity of all that is with what we are. This has to be true
      on all dimensional levels for it to be complete. It gives us a sense of
      Order knowing that the One is in control of the ALL, since that is what
      the ALL is!

      We all strive for this Oneness, this Unity, this Completeness, for it is
      this that brings the End. This is what Jesus said (Matt. 24:14): "And
      this Gospel of the Kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a
      witness unto all nations, and then the end shall come." What is the
      Gospel of the Kingdom which brings on the end of the Age? It is the
      realization of the enate Unity of all things with That from which all
      things came, the Full Revelation of the One of which we are a part.

      But let us not forget that in the End comes a new Beginning, for Life is
      a spiralling circle that ever continues our evolution.

      i'm looking at this blank e-mail form, thinking about how good it is
      sometimes to leave as much space as possible-- to listen with big ears
      and not even have a "take" on anything. how can i express with words
      the song in my heart-- it is it's own last word.


      the following is a poem by yeats, and i like it, cause it's a song i
      know how to hum.

      i love you all

      A COAT

      I made my song a coat
      Covered with embroideries
      Out of old mythologies
      From heel to throat;
      But the fools caught it,
      Wore it in the world's eyes
      As though they'd wrought it.
      Song, let them take it,
      For there's more enterprise
      In walking naked.
      -- w.b. yeats


      My thoughts on thoughtlessness.

      Is it really possible to be thoughtless?


      Not only are feelings interpreted thoughts, the potential to feel is a
      thought as well, analogous to the "I" thought but much less "tangible".
      Apart from that, the process of thinking is layered as can be easily
      verified with a practice of repeating mantras.


      �What is the purpose of my brain,
      �... to think?

      To function properly, that is to think when required.

      �Should I struggle to be thoughtless
      �or should I allow my brain to just
      �do what brains do and think?

      The practice of suppressing thought is said to be analogous to plugging a
      kettle with boiling water. Sooner or later the pressure exceeds a threshold
      and thinking will resume. What is more, there are at least 3 levels of
      thought going on simultaneously and only the "top' layer is under control.

      �Of course, any thought without
      �action or emotional attachment
      �means nothing.

      Persons in coma don't think either but they're not in samadhi and they
      don't come out of the coma Self-realized. Thoughts running riot, caused by
      some event, is the automatism that is worthwhile being curbed. Getting hold
      of thoughts like arising anger is worthwhile too as it offers the
      possibility to give up instead of getting angry. Becoming aware what is
      going on "behind the scene" will decrease thinking by itself.



      . But what
      is Satsang? Isn't it the company of 'holy people' or the

      It's nothing more or less than that, and who's to say who
      'holy people' or the 'wise' are? We have come to think of
      Satsang as a highly formalized affair centered around a
      single person with recognized Guru status.

      In its purest sense, Satsang is ongoing, because who or what
      isn't holy or wise? How can someone discriminate?

      I was on the bus the other day and a teenage boy got on
      board with a box of donuts. There had to be dozen donuts in
      the box, all full of colors and glistening glazes

      And I watched him, as if in some panic of hunger, he
      devoured half a dozen in front of me. It took him about ten
      minutes. He couldn't tell I was watching because of the
      angle, so there was no self-consciousness.

      I thoroughly enjoyed his total passion and involvement and
      that nothing else was important. It's hard to live like
      that. So it was the company of the wise. It was Satsang. I
      made it Satsang. Dunkin' Satsang.


      -- talk
      about "literal
      thoughtlessness," there's
      no more spontaneous
      "meditation" than head-to-
      toe, hard-to-breath laugh!


      Amen and hallelujah! Laughing may well be the most accessible, available to
      everyone method of no-mind there is.
      It can also be used in a conscious (in the sense of deliberate) way. One of
      Osho's finest processes, which he recommended all his people do at least
      once, is called Mystic Rose. It consists of three "stages," laughing, crying
      and silent watching, one week of each for three hours a day. When done in a
      group, the usual format, the contagiousness of others ROTFLTAO helps keep
      everyone going. The same for the week of crying, which is aided by the
      tear-jerkingest, hopefully non-schlocky music that can be found, John
      Lennon's "Imagine," for instance. Major cleansing is possible with this
      process, leading into a great third week of silence.
      It is true that the laughter of the first week is not all spontaneous,
      sometimes it is work. As such it can be likened to any method. Nevertheless,
      much of it is spontaneous, making this a method of considerable
      accessibility and efficacy.
      Laugh on!

      From the enlightainment files:
      One night in Washington, when Nixon was president, there was a heavy
      snowfall. When the president woke up in the morning, he looked out of the
      window and saw a beautiful blanket of snow covering the White House lawn. He
      snapped out of his reverie when he noticed, written on the lawn in yellow
      snow, "Dick Nixon is an asshole."
      Nixon got very angry and summoned the FBI and the CIA. "I want that urine
      analysed," he ordered, "and I want to find the culprit right now, without
      delay! This is top priority!"
      Early in the afternoon a representative of the two agencies reported back to
      Nixon. He said, "We have tested the urine and we know whose it is. However
      there is some good news and some bad news; which would you like first?"
      "Oh no," said Nixon, "I guess you had better give me the good news first."
      "Well, sir," said the man, "we analysed the urine, did tests on everyone,
      and it is Henry Kissinger's."
      "Oh no," cried Nixon, and then suddenly the realization hit him."That's the
      good news? What could the bad news possibly be?"
      The man answered, "It was in your wife's handwriting."


      OH quotes HH the Dalai Lama:

      "Now, for example, in my own case, as a Buddhist monk, I believe in
      Buddhism and through my own experience I know that these Buddhist
      practices are very helpful to me.

      However, because of habituation, through many previous lifetimes,
      certain things may arise, like anger or attachment. So now what I do is:
      first learn about the positive value of the practices,
      then build up determination, and then try to implement them.

      At the beginning, the implementation of the positive practices is very
      so the negative influences are still very powerful. However, eventually,
      as you gradually build up the positive practices,
      the negative behaviours are automatically diminished.

      So, actually the practice of Dharma is a constant battle within,
      replacing previous negative conditioning or habituation with new
      positive conditioning."

      The world is a very dual place, and will always remain a very dual
      place. One encounters folk trying to apply ideas of nonduality to
      the world, but this changes neither their state of being or the
      conditions of the world around them.

      The world is dual. *We* are nondual. There is no matrix to
      escape to. It's us, right now. We're there dude, nonduality
      enveloped and enfolded into a very dual container. When the
      body drops off it drops off. It will not change who we really
      are one single bit.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.