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


Expand Messages
  • andrew macnab
    Message 1 of 1 , Jan 25, 2000

      Jan K:

      There are many circles and there is no way out. We can observe all these
      circles, so, these circles are just parts of us. We are not part of the
      circles. Wanting to get out is based on the thought that we are in some kind
      of circle. There is no way out, because we were never in the circle, we just
      thought we were. What do I mean when I say 'we'? Nothing. Could 've used the
      words 'I', 'You', etc. Makes no difference, but in words.
      Call it Love, God, Parabrahman, Awareness...

      ~ Yes. All of this story stuff
      is past. The question is, what
      favorite bits of it are clung to?


      Jan B:

      Recognition of "who you are" doesn't depend on conditions, it is
      spontaneous when conditioning is temporarily forgotten. What happens "next"
      depends on how "resumed" conditioning is interpreted. When the joyful
      forgetfulness of all conditioning leaves a desire beyond compare, that
      could mean the lethal "I" disease has been caught :)

      Sadhana Louise and Jerry:


      It is surprising however that an enlightened person

      would need to seek solace. Over the death of a loved

      one, sure maybe. But over a lack of appreciation

      and acknowlegment?

      Enlightenment sure isn't what it used to be.



      Isn't there a certain beauty in an enlightened person
      needing solace for lack of appreciation? That lack of
      appreciation for Her/Him/God/Reality IS death of a loved


      I don't follow this. Sorry.


      If the enlightened one is ever depicted with a tear in the
      eye, what do you think that tear is for? There is beauty in
      the unattached one living in and feeling the world and
      welcoming solace, comfort.

      The enlightened one is neither a steady gaze nor a beautiful

      The enlightened one is not exempt from any particular
      feeling nor from any particular need, whether it be sleep,
      food, sex or understanding.


      ... We all always talk to ourselves, don't we.....along the
      way our words may provide a mirror to others without intention, without
      purpose.....the bird sings not because it has an answer but because it has a
      song.....and even birds singing a song of answers are singing to

      Love, Kristi

      Dream stuff, that's all we are. Dreaming dreams us.


      Dan: Dream stuff is Reality: dreaming us in, dreaming us out,
      just like breathing... nowhere to go, not even another
      dream - awakeness isn't anything other than dream-stuff

      ~ Dreaming that this dream stuff is bad stuff
      There's the rub.


      Dan: And dreaming there's good and bad stuff
      coming from somewhere else - that really rubs.
      And no where to wake up except the dream stuff itself.

      "In order to feel replete, the `intellectual sense' needs to masticate,
      digest, and excrete. The intellectual appetite needs to be directed
      away from the processed abstractions of philosophical junk-food.
      Intellect itself needs to taste the manner in which it functions as a
      method of obscuring the nature of Mind. This is where the use of
      intellect stops being a pass-time or a conspiratorial battlefield of
      conflicting notions. This is where intellect becomes a valuable tool
      with which we can begin to prompt interesting departures from the
      experiential myopia of the materialistic rationale. This is where we
      can give birth to the possibility of looking directly into the nature of
      Mind. Through study, through wholesome inquisitive scepticism, we could
      arrive at the point where looking directly into the nature of Mind
      becomes a feasible proposition. This is known as the development of

      >From a forthcoming book "Roaring Silence" by Ngak'chang Rinpoche and
      Khandro Dechen.

      If the above resonates with you checkout the following URL for more:


      With Love,


      This quote was posted by Muni on the AlongtheWay list, just thought I'd
      relay it.

      I do not negate the world. I see it as appearing in
      consciousness, which is the totality of the known in the
      immensity of the unknown.

      What begins and ends is mere appearance. The world
      can be said to appear, but not to "be". The appearance may
      last very long on some scale of time, and be very short on
      another, but ultimately it comes to the same. Whatever is
      time bound is momentary and has no reality.

      - Nisargadatta Maharaj



      A quick survey doesn't find
      *anyone* -- including some of
      the "Five-Sarlo" folks with
      impressive toolboxes -- all
      that effective either.
      Influential, yes, but
      effective in the sense of
      being consistent catalysts to
      others' realizations? Very
      hard to say one way or
      another, even Ramana devotees
      generally acknowledged as
      realized can be counted on
      ones fingers, and that's after
      a entire lifetime replete with
      near-universal veneration and

      A useful observation, Bruce.
      As seen from here - it doesn't fit to see
      someone as causing someone else's enlightenment.
      Enlightenment is the dissolving of thinking
      in terms of cause and effect, "me" having
      this experience and "you" having that experience.
      Sometimes someone happened
      to be there, saying the "right" thing at
      the right moment. How many enlightenment
      experiences have been "initiated" by a bird
      chirping? Does this mean a bird-sound is the
      cause of enlightenment? The idea that someone
      will "make" someone be enlightened just doesn't
      fit here. In fact, the word enlightenment itself
      is so loaded, it's nearly useless. Like the
      words "God," "Love" "Being" - they sound great,
      important, wonderful - but the word is never the thing,
      and generally just stirs up a lot of images and
      associations. Apparently associations with
      enlightenment are that it is an experience
      that someone has and another doesn't, that someone
      can give it to someone else, that someone can get
      it from someone else other than who they are already -
      quite a divisive concept actually -
      a lot like God, Love, Being, etc., so far as that goes.
      But still we'll talk about Love, God, enlightenment, etc.
      And people will talk about these things in various ways.
      Who's talking about them the right way?
      Hard to tell - the only thing to do is experience directly.
      Then, talk about it as best you can, and
      don't be fooled by talk - yours or any one elses.

      -- Love (well, what the hell else is there to say here?
      Love you All) -- Dan


      Interestingly, Ramana didn't seek freedom. He only sought truth. It is
      coincidental that truth is freedom. There was apparently no quality of
      great dissatisfaction or frustration in his journey. He just really
      wanted to "be" at Arunachala. So that's what he did.

      From Kabir:

      "But that formless God takes a thousand forms in the eyes of His creatures;
      He is pure and indestructible,
      His form is infinite and fathomless,
      He dances in rapture, and waves of form arise from His dance,
      The body and the mind cannot contain themselves,
      When they are touched by His great joy,
      He is immersed in all consciousness, all joys, and all sorrows;
      He has no beginning and no end;
      He holds all within His bliss."

      Om Namah Shivaya


      Harsha:...and I think Old Hag is a Princess....

      ~~~Sorry, Harsha dear, that kinda talk won't git you no sway. Old hag
      only kisses frogs.....and....a wild man with black, matted hair, an
      antelope skin 'cross his shoulder, who dances,.....dances the world

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