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

HighlightsSun16Jan

Expand Messages
  • andrew macnab
    Hi everyone, Last week in the highlights I mistakenly credited these beautiful star mandala images to Gene, in fact they are by Aya; http://starwheels.com/
    Message 1 of 1 , Jan 17, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi everyone,

      Last week in the highlights I mistakenly credited these beautiful star mandala images
      to Gene, in fact they are by Aya; http://starwheels.com/

      andrew
      __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

      If there is a quality of "selfness" comparable to "prettiness" it is in
      the sense of Being. "Self" in our parlance, on the contrary, refers to a
      discrete object (or subject). The sense of Being subsists without
      necessarily referring to objects. I am -- but I am no thing. In fact the
      "I" can be subsumed in the "Am" without a loss.

      "No self"/"empty self" seems to be merely speculative, as are the
      associations with particular teachers. If an "empty self" is really
      empty, then "it" is empty of self -- and thus no self. There you have it.
      Enjoy it.

      Phil
      _____________________________________________________________________________________

      Phil:

      Hey! I went to your web page at http://www.ewakening.net and there was
      nothing to navigate. I moved the mouse around the page and there was "End
      the Search" so I gave up.

      Petros:

      Excellent. It worked.

      Phil:

      Nice photo though. ;)

      Petros:

      Merely the outward form of a mystery. It shall one day be merely a skull,
      flesh eaten clean off by maggots.
      _____________________________________________________________________________________


      Here's a great Dzogchen text. http://www.catawampus.com/self11.html Very
      rich. It's a page of a site devoted to a rock band in Kentucky. Imagine
      that!

      :-)Larry
      _____________________________________________________________________________________

      <snip>

      Terry:
      Sometimes the way you express ideas appears to me to be open to being
      interpreted pretty well however you like. I have taken some pains to draw
      a distinction between 'mutual arising of phenomena' and the simplicity of
      cause and effect, or karma.

      Dan:
      It's not an openness to any kind of interpretation, rather it's
      an "integrative vision". It's like this: "mutual arising" once intuited,
      is never absent - all phenomena arise interdependently. Thus, this
      interdependent arising is seem as not absent when karmic "repercussions"
      are viewed. I agree that *ultimately* karma is a term that doesn't apply
      as a way to "make sense" of Reality - but then no term and no logical
      understanding does (not even dependent origination or mutual arising).
      When awareness notices the linking of phenomena perceived in time,
      this learning undermines the sense that the separate self is a viable
      conceptual entity. Thus, karma may begin as an undertanding that "I
      caused this by what I did before," but it becomes "before, after,
      and yet-to-come are so linked that using these terms to try to
      make sense of reality is limited, and this limitation includes
      the idea of the "I" that "makes karma". At this point, a leap
      beyond karma is possible, and we are in agreement about that leap
      being possible.

      So I see karma providing essential learning that eventually can
      undermine the separate self-sense, when that learning isn't avoided
      (including avoidance by prematurely concluding there is no "me,"
      so no "karma", so anything I do is just fine, regardless of
      obliviousness to consequences or feelings of those hurt).
      An example: major corporations need karmic awareness that the
      repercussions of pollution will affect "who I am," not "someone
      else".

      When there is total transcendence of any investment
      or identification of a "self that exists apart", then karma is dissolved
      as a learning tool. However, until then, karma is a useful tool,
      particularly when events are viewed in terms of time, volition,
      and consequence. A sense of responsibility, integrity,
      and non-avoidance of consequences of actions is useful
      for the "relative self." "Really" there is no separate relative self
      in the first place, no separable events, no way to establish time with
      separable moments, etc. The stickiness and hairsplitting in our
      conversation arose, as I see it, from the difficulty in discussing
      learning as related to relative or practical realities. Such learning
      has a "time and place", although in the *ultimate* non-perspective
      no such learning needs to, or can occur.

      T:
      I get the sense that you like to muddy the
      waters with prose that seems overblown to me at times; this view of karma
      really stretches the word. I prefer to either keep it simple or let it go
      until a situation arises which puts it into clearer perspective.

      D:
      To say it simply: I learn from karma until there is no "I" to which
      karma could pertain, and no view of time in which to situate
      any self. The learning from karma is perspective-specific, the
      learning of "no I" is perspectiveless, beyond any situation
      _____________________________________________________________________________________


      Hi, Tony..

      I'd like to ask you to join me on this bench for a bit.. as I read your
      response to me, these question/thoughs emerged about your wording and
      *beliefs*..

      Tony: "I'm afraid that I know 'all is one' but again following Sankara,
      one has to deal with the world whilst one is in it. One has to follow
      the feel or flow of one's karma also, even if it is to the extent
      of 'observing and witnessing what one is performing'. For it is
      happening to one at this level is it not, even if one does not do the
      happening.

      T: "I suppose one has to try and rise above the emotions of the leela.
      [snip] I am aware of these contradictions plus some other samkaras and
      personality problems this body/mind complex has."

      Christiana: What is this 'one has to' about for you? Have you looked at
      it's source.. particularly in light of the next comment:

      Tony: "I am also of the mind that it is actually easier in the end
      result to rise above them instead of trying to cure them. Cut the roots
      instead of trimming the branches so to speak."

      Christiana: So.. does this feel like an assigned different facet of
      'mind'? Does it's message still, however, have a 'feel' of an
      'imperative'? Are you rising above or inquiring into those 'roots'?

      I ask these questions because they are mine.

      Tony: "Some of the nuances of thought escape me for I am rather rough
      and ready in an Irish fashion, and have not been trained in this type of
      thinking. I am a tough old bird, and street fighter.

      Christiana: Well as one tough-ol'-Irish-(delightfully untrained yet
      entrained)-bird to another.. mazel tov!! I am discovering other layers
      . one being that I have been fighting with myself.. drop that one and
      what is left is an alive tickle. Just some thoughts.. in play with you.

      love,
      Christiana
      _____________________________________________________________________________________

      Does competition have to mean that someone
      has to win and someone has to lose or could
      it mean something else? Is there a need for
      competition in an abundant thinking universe?

      Michael
      _____________________________________________________________________________________

      Michael:
      >
      > Can a person seek challenges, disruption and crisis subconsciously?

      Gene:

      Moving through life with 'patches'/compensations for (assumed by normal
      standards) 'failure' is this very form of seeking. This action is
      continuous and produces effects...

      M:
      > How does the subconscious mind fit in with the concept of awareness?

      G:
      In that 'realm' are stored the 'buffered' information which are the
      criteria for valid-invalid, good/bad, productive/nonproductive, etc. A
      person comes to represent those criteria, and acts as though those criteria
      are valid. These criteria are the challenge, the dare, which is the
      above-mentioned action of seeking. Overall and over time, refinement may
      take place, as all criteria are ultimately replaceable/disposable.

      Awareness OF this ongoing dynamic of error-checking (the interplay between
      consciousness and criteria) can free one from the assumed necessity of
      taking it seriously. Thus is born a higher-level routine of error-checking,
      and so on, ad infinitum. The challenge is to exist with (over time)
      exponentially fewer critera for error-checking, always becoming aware of
      the birth of higher-level routines of error-checking as 'mere activities of
      consiousness', leading to 'no criteria for Being'.

      M:
      > How do feelings and emotions fit in with the concept of awareness?

      G:
      Such phenomenon can be understood as the product of the interaction of
      consciouness WITH specific criteria; the dangers inherent to holding ANY
      criteria are thus easily represented by such feelings and emotions. Such
      can be seen as yet another error-checking routine in action; the problems
      arise in the interpretation, of what is as neutral as the 'engine-check'
      light on the dashboard instrument-display of a car.

      Sensory perception is mirrored to the hypothalamus, which dictates emotion.
      If sensory information is not 'raw', the (buffered in the 'subconscious')
      biasing criteria will entrain the resultant neurohormonal products into a
      form which reflects the distorted sensory information; this distortion,
      projected as 'what is seen', is meant to act as a goad to keep us in
      balance. We are attracted to harmonious 'states' and repelled by chaotic
      ones. Problems arise when (introjected) criteria define the value of any
      state; the goal is to allow a return to the 'natural' or 'original'
      empty-of-criteria condition. In this condition, all data is accurately
      reflected, producing feelings which are an actual accurate reflection of
      what is being perceived. The peace (lack of aversive feelings) resultant
      from this condition, are the self-reward of 'bliss'.

      M:
      > Feeling like my heart is going to jump out of my chest,
      > like my solar plexus is churning...what does this mean?

      G:
      Conflicting critera are producing a storm of neurohormonal/endocrine
      products; the search for balance follows/is concurrent with this
      experience. When we stray to the right, the red light comes on; when we
      stray to the left, the blue light comes on. Neither-light-on means
      on-course; on-course enables clear-light illumination, VIS, neither red nor
      blue. This is a repicturing of the essential, built-in navigational power
      of the Human Being; peace is the criteria for maintenence of direction.
      This is 'why' we love peace.

      M:
      > I admit that expressing feelings is new to me and many times
      > produces pain and suffering inside me after I verbalize them
      > or just write them down as I do now.

      G:
      Thank you for applying for higher-level error-checking.

      M:
      > Could this be a result of energy stirring up inside me
      > and producing an out of balance effect as far as
      > my inside and outside world?

      G:
      'You' are refining introjected criteria, to find a 'valid' you. What will
      you eventually find?

      M:
      > How does one know when they have experienced
      > "awareness"?

      G:
      This is when 'you' recognized that 'you' are the only criteria, over,
      above, and independent of any criteria; this is when you are free of any
      criteria. It is also when you glimpse the possibility of this; that to be
      independent of any criteria is to be self-generating on no grounds
      whatsoever.

      M:
      > How do you, on this list, define bliss?

      G:
      See above discussion of 'no-error' signals produced by low-level
      error-checking routines (the 'subconsious' and its self-balancing
      activities of seeking).

      M:
      > How does bliss feel in the world of relationships?

      G:
      One facet I can report, is the peacefull awareness that there is nothing
      wrong with something being wrong. It is the awareness of abiding in the
      dynamic balance of self-balancing; it is further, the heartfelt desire to
      extend this awareness, in relationship.

      M:
      > What is the cycle of awareness, consciousness
      > and bliss composed of? Is there a standard?
      > Or is it different for each personality based on
      > their own "stuff", which they have inside them?

      G:
      Presumed 'self', when validated by criteria, is always at threat; no
      (defined) self exists when no criteria are held. Leaving behind criteria,
      over time, is represented by this cycle you mention. The movement
      'left-right-center' is always happening, and is represented in every facet
      of our experience. It is a completely neutral, and unstoppable, mechanism
      for survival. It will eventually crush ALL criteria to essence; going
      'with' it is bliss, fighting/resisting is only possible when criteria are
      held. Any held criteria will be ground to a finer and finer powder in the
      mills of the gods; it is all 'grist for the mill'.

      M:
      > I don't even know why I am asking these
      > questions...I am aware that I am asking them,
      > I am aware that feelings and emotions are
      > stirring up in me strongly as I write them.
      >
      > Tim has been a big help to me in understanding
      > surrender. I guess I have to experience surrender
      > to really understand it.
      >
      > Michael

      G:
      It is necessary to ask such questions; by these means are the higher-level
      error-checking routines spawned. We are built in such a way that this is
      all inevitable; and it is good that we see that something is wrong, and it
      is good to see that seeing what is wrong, is the possibility of
      continuance. It is also good to recognize the essentially automatic nature
      of all of this, and to step out of it's way. It itself, never needs fixing.


      ==Gene Poole==
      _____________________________________________________________________________________


      Took a tour of the book stores today and found some good new titles.
      InnerDirections has a new edition of "Talks With Ramana Maharshi", very
      tasty. Satyam Nadeen has a new book called "From Seeking To Finding".
      And, for the pandit, Roger Marcaurelle has a book on a controversial
      point of Sankara's view called "Freedom Through Inner Renunciation:
      Sankara's Philosophy In A New Light". I bought the Ramana one, but the
      others looked good too.

      Larry
      ~~~~~


      Chuck Hillig's, Enlightenment for Beginners may be the best
      introduction to nonduality available. With a few words on
      each page, it says what Is.

      I admit to getting goose bumps twice in my first reading.
      That's how effectively Chuck presents and builds the
      material.

      Nonduality is simple. What's difficult is letting it be
      simple. Enlightenment for Beginners is so
      Nonduality-friendly that it neutralizes that difficulty. It
      allows the reader to let nonduality be simple.

      Chuck's book is for adults and written, compassionately, as
      though for children. It's a vacation to the Clear and Plain
      Sky.

      More about Enlightenment for Beginners at

      http://www.blackdotpubs.com/

      --Jerry
      _____________________________________________________________________________________


      While taking a shower a short while ago,
      I seem to get some good thoughts there.
      It came into my mind that maybe I feel
      abandoned, lost because I am supposed to.

      Since we are all one seamless whole
      we must be born in a
      human body form in order to experience
      separation, abandonment. From the moment
      of birth we are separated from ourselves and
      we spend our lifetime searching for ourselves
      only to find that we have never really been
      abandoned to begin with. Aloneness is very
      different from being lonely. The thoughts that
      create my fear of being alone are not the same
      as the feeling of being alone.

      What does the feeling of being alone really feel like?
      I don't know. I just know what the thought of the
      feeling of being alone feels like...fear, anxiety,
      panic, frustration. So knowing that my very
      essence is aloneness,oneness,wholeness,
      totality, then I can no longer be afraid of the
      thoughts of being alone. The thought of being
      alone can dissolve itself as it comes back to
      the source of where that thought came from.
      The feeling of isolation...which I really kinda
      like...:) no longer has to bring fear and panic
      in me. So, if I am no longer afraid of being
      alone I can open my heart and allow love to
      come in knowing that the opposite of love,
      fear is just an illusion which I have created
      in order to experience the separation which
      began as a human experience some 50
      years ago.

      Michael
      _____________________________________________________________________________________

      Larry:
      I think I lost my voice. If anyone finds it, please return it
      immediately; I NEED it. There's no one speaking for me over here. I
      keep coming up with these great ideas, but ultimately they're not me.
      If they're not me, they seem kind of useless. Go figure.
      ~~~~~

      What I figure is that if I sound like someone else, it needs
      to at least be recognized. I can then recognize that others
      are sounding like others. In that recognition, I find
      sameness with others. In that sameness I can know my own
      voice. It is the lost voice. It is absolutely unlike any
      other voice, and one who speaks from it needs to exercise
      another kind of recognition that is not like the earlier
      recognition.

      Jerry
      ~~~~~

      ~ when one doesn't know what s~he is
      nothing else is understood
      not life nor death
      nor love

      xan


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