DIVERSITY OUR MOTHER: CONFESSIONS OF JODY
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.
While I'm sure that meditation practices have measurable
physiological effects, realization is not dependent on the
brain. However, communicating about it certainly is.
The unity that the universe is does not cancel or hinder its
The unity that the universe is exists as the very ground of
our beings *as* individuals. It is our very diversity as
individuals that allows us to access ourselves as the unity
the universe is.
This unity and diversity coexist in each being, as they do
in the universe at large. There is simply no reason to
ignore the diversity in favor of the unity, because the
diversity will be our Mother until the moment She calls us
...whilst no entity is in a body, there is a sense of
ourselves as entities in bodies, even after liberation. It
may be just a convention once one is realized, but the
convention stays with the body, and so therefore it is
acceptable to me to view it as such.
What I'm doing is contending with the idea that nonduality
obliterates the very real diversity that is my Mother. I'm
defending my Mother Shakti, that's all. She is very real to
me and I hate to see people deny that She exists.
Even amongst those of us who are liberated, the work of
development never ends, as long as the brain is making new
What I'm seeking is to present a view that complies with my
What my experience is can always be called into question,
and I recommend to any and all that they chuck it over their
back fence if they don't accept that it is experientially
valid with regards to realization.
THE BODY IS A WORD: CONFESSIONS OF NEO
I believe the body is a projection of the mind. There are
deeper levels of reality and at the core is pure awareness
or pure love (I am unclear if there is a difference).
Suffering is real because it is felt in the moment.
My clothes do not become alive when I put them on.
I am not aware of anything that is not in the moment. I do
not believe that identification is a problem. It becomes a
problem when identification is limited, as to one body.
Suffering comes from desire.
Thought can dissolve as easily as the body. I am not
attached to thought. Most of the time I have no thought.
Even while typing this there is no thought most of the
time. I do not reject the experience of the body, only that
of the body itself. I do not attempt to exist, I exist.
There is much suffering and it is all my suffering as there
is no distinction between I and the rest of the world.
I believe that all that exists, exists in awareness.
Without awareness nothing else could exist. The world of
diversity or change is in that awareness, it could not exist
without it. Awareness on the other hand does not depend on
diversity or change and exists with the world of change or
not. Diversity exists in the moment but no thing exists
because in the next moment it has changed. Even using the
word moment is imprecise because there are not a series of
discrete moments but a continuous flow.
What I am saying is to not confuse words or concepts with
the reality that they represent. It all depends on your
definition of real. I believe, and science has shown us,
that the body cannot exist as a discrete I-object and that
it is continuously going through rapid changes.
What I am saying is that the body is a word or concept that
attempts to separate out one aspect of the whole. I believe
that in reality the body is united with everything else, is
undergoing rapid change, is more than 99% emptiness, and is
never the same at any moment. This is what I mean when I
say that the body is not a real. It is not solid, it is
constantly changing, and it is united and not discreet from
This is the nature of the mind, to create words and concepts
and artificial separation where there is none.
LITMUS AND AUGENBLICK: BRUCE MORGEN
I haven't any notion of "how long" thought has stopped here,
it's never occurred to me to put such things to a
stopwatch. In the timelessness of true perceptual silence,
measurements of duration are entirely without meaning -- an
augenblick is an epoch.
Every augenblick between thoughts -- the continuity of
thought is a mere appearance -- is exactly equivalent to
your vaunted long-term literal thoughtlessness, and
immediately ends the dictatorship of psychological time. The
presence of thought per se does not occlude the timeless
state you tout, the role/position of thought as a perceptual
lens and filter does.
Literally millions follow a formal yoga or meditation regime
to no effect other than diversion or superficial relaxation,
and many others for whom such practice has become a crutch
or an ego inflater. On the other hand there are those
blessed with nondual realization long after any semblance of
formal practice has ceased, and even non-meditators who have
received the gift of realization spontaneously, with no
discernable cause. With no disrespect to anyone's practice,
"There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt
of in your philosophy, Horatio."
There is no litmus test for spiritual authenticity other
than perhaps the inexplicable "resonance" effect among the
realized. As Jody sometimes puts it, "Ma is one crazy
bitch." "She" doesn't give a flying fahootch for the human
propensity to fashion rules based on her notoriously fluid
countenance and does what "she" will, whenever "she"
wants to do it.
FROM TURBO-BOOST TO USELESS: SRI PADRE BARENDRECHT
Suffering pertains to mind/body which you are in denial of,
so suffering has to be delusion according to your very "own"
reasoning. The proverbial dog chasing its tail :)
...the "primitive" Tuiavii could make his lecture on the
"bad habit" of thinking too much. In a primitive society,
periods of absence of thoughts are the rule, not the
exception. Being spontaneously without thoughts apparently
is quite normal. With any practice of meditation/
concentration, the number of thoughts will decrease without
any conscious effort. The analogy that without providing
fuel, the fire will die out by itself.
Suffering pertains to the body which can easily be verified
by noting down the subjects of thoughts.
The body by itself is inert (has no feelings) but
identification causes one to believe there is such a thing
as suffering. To me suffering is just as unreal as a "me",
even when feelings still are present. There have been nice
booklets on the power of thought, among others by John
Woodroffe (pseudo: Arthur Avalon) and the summary of a
summary is that thoughts do have the power of fulfillment;
thoughts materialize. The consequence is that thinking of
suffering will become a self-fulfilling prophesy.
Are you aware of feelings that are not in the moment? No
suffering without identification. Apparently you can enjoy
certain movies. That is identification too. The more
identifications, the more is suffering. Without
identification, how could one know something means
There is a rather elementary experiential basis for unity.
It is the Self as the underlying essence of all things.
Those familiar with nirvikalpa samadhi will know there is a
last time for entering that samadhi, because one will not
leave it but the senses and mind start functioning again
(from the perspective of the raja yogi, they come "under
control" again). When entering nirvikalpa samadhi, one has
the possibility to notice there is "something" being the
essence of "you" and everything else and while marveling
over this, one enters the samadhi "where" no differentiation
whatsoever remains. As this "experience" doesn't belong to
the "milestones", I never looked for scriptural verification
but accidentally came across a few statements by Krishna in
the B.G. that could be based on the same "experience".
Anyway, the experience isn't "lost" because when mind and
senses are coming under control again, the sense of objects
as non-Self is lost, which doesn't mean volunteering for
being overrun or offering the body to a hungry predator. So
why discuss what can easily be verified by elementary yogic
The only "practice" I am familiar with is 100% surrender and
it can be argued that isn't a practice because everything
goes on spontaneously.
Habits are changed within a wink of an eye whereas otherwise
such a change would be absolutely impossible. Here, the
dictum "knowledge arises spontaneously when needed" is valid
and this includes the knowledge of one's sadhana. In
retrospect, I can only conclude that no matter one's
"personal quirks", the knowledge of sadhana will compensate
for it which makes the journey surprisingly easy and fast.
Only when returning "to one's sense" one can marvel how
things work out, because what was perceived as "necessity",
giving a turbo-boost at one phase, turned out to be empty
and useless, at another.
When surrendered, there is nowhere to run, nowhere to hide,
nothing to defend, nothing to gain and nothing lose.
Performing ones duties to the best of one's ability, caring
for those who depend on one as a privilege, not demanding
anything in return, never to judge from the perspective of
"me" but from the perspectives of "others" or, when the
occasion arises, the "whole". Instead of running from
suffering, accepting it "as is" because it is one side of
the coin called "pleasure and pain". Surrender is not the
same as total passivity; it is passivity for "me" because of
the insight that for "me", there is nothing to gain or to
For me satsang is more fun than a barrel of monkeys.
What is this involvement with thoughtlessness - recognizing
that you think and then stopping it - when silence is all
around and between all thoughts and never left you.
Of course any thought, action, emotion or attachment means
nothing anyway. Meaning is a made-up thing, as just another
"When there seems to be a choice, I choose.
When there seems to be no choice, there I am."
BEANS AND BEETS: BURTON
When there seems to be a choice, there seems to be a
choice. The way a river flows faced with an obstacle is
dependent on a number of factors in chaotic flux. The way
it goes is just the way it goes. "I choose" just does not
ring true: it would mean that "I" am in command of nature
In this experience when attention is brought to bear on
attention, when awareness cognizes Awareness, it is seen to
have been *so* always already. There has never been a choice
but to be and manifest my nature. "Choice" is an issue
because of ignorance. It is not known what will be, so it
appears there is "choice" between beans and beets.
"Personal identity" is a concept rather than a direct
observation of what is the case.
It's hard to communicate in the English language. It's
paradoxical (in the sense of language) what is actually
quite clear (in the sense of direct experience).
It is clear that emotions, for example, are no more personal
than the weather is personal. Fear, elation, aggression,
"competition" -- are claimed by thought as "mine" but are
simply patterns of energy, like wind and rain. In fact, no
component of "personal identity" is essentially personal at
all. Even the name "Phil" is conferred by a social and
legal nexus. No choice involved. But even to replace
"Phil" with something else ... does not make it more
"personal". Another name is just a name.
I am Nameless.
SAILOR AND SKYE
Have you met Sailor Bob in Australia? Or Isaac Shapiro? Or
Alas, no i haven't greg, although i did meet Goenka,
founder of the vippassana meditation
retreats when i did my first 10 day meditation (9 days
sacred silence, 1 sacred speech). There is a fabulous one
up here on the edge of the Blackheath ridge in the Blue
Mountains west of Sydney. Its dining rooms, meditation hall
and dormitories all look out over these blue gaseous
eucalyptus ranges, with views for miles. It has a classic
Zen monastery gate entrance complete with gong (which is
rung 4am!). One automatically starts whispering the
serenity is glorious
...there'd be no flavour (energy or enitity) to call mother,
even divine, without form on some level or dimension, some
Maharishi says that unity offers itself to diversity &
diversity offers itself to unity AND there is a relationship
... between the two!
SPLIT MIND SOUP: SRI SRI DAN BERKOW
The idea of oneness creates conflict. True oneness isn't
opposed in anyway to apparent twoness. In fact, we are
immediately perceiving "oneness" regardless of whether we
call "It" twoness, or generate beliefs about separation.
The difference between one who "directly perceives" and one
who doesn't is that the one who doesn't is convinced that
"this, now" is a separated reality experienced by a
In spite of this conviction, no such separation exists. So,
it is release from assumptions and beliefs that is
"liberating", not the generation of beliefs about "oneness",
particularly if "oneness"
is conceptualized as "other than" something described as
Maya is a veil when Maya's illusion of a separated being who
needs to seek reality is convincing. When Maya pulls her
veil, she shows that the being who wanted liberation is,
itself, an artifice of Maya.
Maya, knowing her direct nonseparation with Brahman, is seen
as none other than "liberation" itself. Desire, now
goalless, is the meeting point of "Being" and "becoming",
the point where "appearance" and "reality" are not-two,
where "this moment", exactly as it is, is Brahman.
No entity is in a body. There is the manifestation of
perception, perception that is organized *as* body, thoughts
that pertain to the feelings, memories, and wishes of the
body that are organized around a "me". Careful attention
shows that this moment, there is no "self"
"in" the body. You may use the term "Maya" to describe
manifestation and "Shakti" to define the energy of
manifestation. Regardless, the manifestation of perception
is simply an immediate activity that *appears* to depend on
conditions (e.g., memory, physical substances, etc.). With
close attention, it turns out that the immediate activity
(present perception) *constructs* the apparent conditions on
which thought-beliefs generate the notion of dependency.
That is, the Present constructs memory, the appearance of
physical substantiality, etc. The unveiling of Maya is the
direct seeing of this construction as occurring presently.
It is the ending of the habituation of thought-forms that
maintain the image of an "internal observer" looking out
through the eyes, or the belief that being is dependent on
conditions, and is "produced by the past". None of this
insight in any way is a "negation" of the body, thought, or
perception. Thus, perception continues, leaves are green, I
can get in my car and drive (and avoid collisions with other
cars, hopefully). Nothing is negated, except for
contradictory beliefs and contradictory ways of organizing
Spiritual awakening, from this perspective, is the "journey
of presentness" in which the goal and the path are the same
and are "this, here".
My experience is that sensory awareness occurs without any
being inside a body. There is bodily organization of
feelings, thoughts, and perceptions. Sometimes the thought
arises that these feelings and perceptions relate to
"someone" named "Dan" who is identified with this body.
However, these thoughts that arise also depart. The whole
time, there is no one there to whom such thoughts refer.
Thus, the "observer" is simply a thought construct, and no
actual entity can be found, even as such thoughts occur.
Perception can occur without any entity in a body - indeed,
from "here" it can be said that all perception is actually
occurring without any entities inhabiting bodies.
One could say that the generation of such a concept of
"oneness" or "enlightenment" is actually an avoidance of
present awareness. Such avoidance allows pursuit of an
ideal state, or allows one to pose as having such an ideal
state, and in either case ends up with denial of present
contradictions in awareness which would benefit from
attention. Indeed, the pursuit (and promotion) of concepts
of "oneness" is a splitting of awareness into an acceptable
aspect (thoughts and perceptions of oneness) and an
unacceptable aspect (thoughts and perceptions of
anti-oneness). Only when awareness rests in presentness
will this dichotomy cease to perplex awareness. The setting
of a desirable aspect against an undesirable aspect is the
root of split awareness, underlies all those psychological
problems that aren't simply biophysical reactions to stress
or trauma, is the basis for all compulsions to identify with
something, and is the basis for the so-called "spiritual
search". Our everyday mind is enlightenment, our day to day
awareness is Reality. But then again, not, because for most
folks, everyday mind is split mind.
The belief in obliteration of individuality, the attempt to
stop being an individual, is a distortion and involves an
based on conceptualizations that set "good" against "bad".
On the other hand, the ending of belief in a separate
individual is an opening into true individuality
This moment is expression of uniqueness. The ending of
attachment to beliefs about a self that one "should" be or
"must" be (whether a "oneness" self or a "material" self) is
the shedding of a straightjacket that prevents true
individuality, that is, which limits the expression of
uniqueness emanating from presentness.
Yes, and one might get caught in the Maya of believing that
one is fighting Maya, and is being liberated, when in fact
one is maintaining and promoting a self-satisying belief
system (in which perhaps one even believes one is "losing
Is that tune on the jukebox "Sympathy for Duality"? "Just
as heads is tails call me Lucifer 'cause I'm in need of some
Catchy tune, but not for that guy who was stabbed while he
was high on god knows what. I see your point, Jodi. For
me, seeing that nonduality is not opposed to what is
commonly considered duality doesn't mean that "duality
rules". To the contrary, duality doesn't rule, and I don't
give duality any dues. Duality, to me, would mean that
there "really" is an ultimate split between things.
No, there isn't.
Distinctions and differences don't mean splits in awareness.
Conflict between self and other is a place for awareness to
inquire, not something to be accepted and perpetuated as a
means to give duality its due. Self defines other, and
other defines self, so drop self and other, or recognize the
self is other, but don't act as if self is opposed to other
because for all actions there are consequences (yes, karma).
This is my humble opinion, based on nothing but my immediate
experience, and not even that. Based literally on no-thing,
so ignore this if it's not useful or doesn't fit.
ANDREW OFFERS U.G. KRISHNAMURTI:
U.G., from -The Mystique of Enlightenment-:
"This consciousness which is functioning in me, in you, in
the garden slug and earthworm outside, is the same. In me
it has no frontiers; in you there are frontiers -- you are
enclosed in that. Probably this unlimited consciousness
pushes you, I don't know. Not me; I have nothing to do with
it. It is like the water finding its own level, that's all
-- that is its nature. That is what is happening in you:
life is trying to destroy the enclosing thing, that dead
structure of thought and experience, which is not of its
nature. It's trying to come out, to break open. You don't
want that. As soon as you see some cracks there, you bring
some plaster and fill them in and block it again. It
doesn't have to be a so-called self-realized man or
spiritual man or God-realized man that pushes you; anything,
that leaf there, teaches you just the same if only you let
it do what it can. You must let that do. I have to put it
that way. Although "let that do" may imply that there is
some kind of volition on your part, that's not what I mean."
FEEDING THE CAT: TIM HARRIS
"Seek and ye shall find."
Exactly! The difficulty then is how one 'chooses' to define
'seek'. If one 'seeks' by a 'going out' then the 'finding'
evades. If one 'seeks' by 'going in' then the 'finding'
evades. Thus 'seeking' must be a going 'through' but then
we must ask, 'through what'?
To which we see the very thing that we know we have...
...perhaps we should spend more time 'working' in meditation
then sitting on our asses for hours on end and flushing our
minds empty. can you not take the meditative state and the
wisdom derived from it into a bleeding world. Is that not
the purpose? Is not meditation the means and not the end?
Life is meditation.
...we place our world in the hands of those that seek to
eliminate the 'diveristy' by perpetuating 'fear of
diversity' which only serves to keep less han enlightened
minds apart as we, are obviously not fooled by the 'evil'
Should a single man not be more concerned with the
'ownership' of the single 'space' where his feet are planted
or ass is seated that he can physically occupy rather than
ownership of the world under his command?
Should he not focus on meeting the needs of his family where
he is able? Contribute all his 'masterful' talents to his
community to make it a healthy place for all to live?
Chaos is not an 'evil' element, it is a 'random' element.
Society, if left alone, is already ordered if we take our
mind off hating what we can not understand and fearing the
things that make us different. Is there not room in this
infinite universe of energy, dynamics, and light for each of
us to hold our own beliefs? Do we not all prosper in this?
Hmmm... is their anything I have forgotten?... nope...
my glasses... on my head... ahhhh let's see... nope, did
'that' and I'll be taking 'this' with me...
hmmm... well that seems to be all... ahhhh ...Good luck,
feed the 'cat', love the 'dog' and turn the lights out when
Thank you Nonduality Salon for the fun and insight...
I will try to get back as soon as I can but for now...
just center your 'self' in this moment and I promise I will
be back in the 'next' one...
Wherever your paths may lead, no matter how hot the fire,
and no matter the climb or descent... please 'Take care'.
HIGHLIGHTS FROM THE MAILING LIST
PHOTOS, GRAPHICS, ARTWORK, OTHER FILES
New to Chat?