- So much today!
* Miranda part 2*
here's part two of the Miranda Soliloquy's.
we find Miranda now pondering immortality and eternity as she paces
about in the grave yard where she lives with the undertaker:
"'fixed 'gainst self-slaughter'" oh shakespeare, she said.
Miranda finds a path amidst the dead. thinks
FERN FLAGONS FUNERAL
ORNAMENTS TEARS FALLEN LEFTBEHIND. WEEP WALK.
You decay, she thought, living,
disintegrating at a rather rapid pace.
gleams back confusion. dying demons.
world, you have your subway cars
jammed full of them.
i have pondered, considered my face
in the smoky black glass--a tram window.
many-a-time. and i have, many-a-time,
IN THE GLASS.
The face which reflected her quiet gaze now met her grief-grin in the
polish of a marble tomb. and she thought:
SMUDGED SCRATCH OF WEATHER
BEATEN GLASS PALE PHANTOM. EYES FOCUS DISTORTED. VISION DILATED.
PERSPECTIVE SULLIED. TERMINAL FOCAL NEGATION.
She thought, having reaced a familiar spot.
Where somebody'd buried her mother, dead, dead, a quiet and cancerous
death. buried Rose, who died Naturally, and Grace, who took her own. . .
and she thought:
I had a nice idea for myself-- a nice one,
AND SOMEBODY BURNED THE DAMED THING DOWN.
**WHICH WE HAD BUILT
**SWORDS WE HAD BRANDISHED
**TRAILS TO DESTRUCTION BLAZED
that isn't funny, is it? in those days, we decayed more slowly than the
NOW EVEN THE EYES STRIKE OUT BLAZING BLIND AT THE THOUGHT OF YOU. COME
BIDE TIME AT THE TOMB.
I could not see you, but i tripped you
and you fell, spitting up profanities.
YOU STOOD UP AND INVENTED
I raged and drank your poison, created passion, rich alongside
--rigid-fixed-- your dank ambition and i attended your six o'clock
BUT WE CANNOT BELIEVE THEM LIES. SAY THAT AGAIN IN JAPANESE?
gaze out your windows --frost past opacity--which allow to our view
--elusive, strange-- phantom shapes not reached but only comprehended.
I CANNOT SAY YOU.
under your biggest bridge i
can see that your living spans
nothing. your lust is dust.
isn't it? and so
with a mean left hook, i floored you.
and though you swore AGAIN, you
bought me a micro chip for christmas.
well, i ate the fool thing and our brain did NOT EXPLODE. but i hear
tell i could make a quick buck in the telling of it. would ya be buying
it? would i be buying it or. . .
really, no really, i only wanted to die.
but then i courted demons and sought sex and i liked sex because it
slayed me. wrap me up one of those thrill-chills to go, will ya? to
oh and that wasn't it...
HAVING FAILED TO FIND THE LOST LOVER--oh where did you go?--i had some
of your roaring wonderful
dreamed of a demon
then watched it all happen
on t.v. to a me
that was somebody else.
SO EMPTY SPENT THE DAYS, TRA L
the thoughts are but scurrying beetles in a forrest of rot. somebody
drugged my instant tea and i drank. some body tried to sell me the big
lie. radio sang
"i want to live until i die." uh huh.
i am asking now
who am i
my silence diggging mole paths to super dimensions and i live
till a crow flies-falls outa the sky and talon transports me to
not-death with NO NAME, NOFRAME, NO END.
or. . .sweet no-thing. . .
Miranda sits silent staring at the blank screen. she scraped together
those ashes of thought, which warmed her, and waited for that bird. . ..
Larry and Annie and Greg:
Since there's a lot of new people on the list maybe Greg and Judi can
give us a logical analysis of the cause of suffering, the end of
suffering, and the way to the end of suffering, preferably from their
own experience. And I would like to hear from Annie or anyone else who
has something to say about this. In one form or another this subject is
discussed almost continuously here but I still don't think we've got it
quite right. I have a hard time coming to a STOP.
I am not sure how to separate suffering from all that is. I have not
previously considered it as separate from non suffering. If suffering is,
then it is meant to be. Maybe it just needs the courage and patience for a
person to accept suffering ... because this too will pass... thy will be
If there is a lesson to be learnt from suffering that lesson will become
obvious if it needs to... I don't usually look for a lesson... just accept
suffering as I accept non suffering.
I use not too feel emotional pain because I would block it. It would then
manifest as moodiness, temper, stress of all types...
Now I am unable to block it and actually feel emtional pain as an ache in
the heart area... I find pain now passes much more quickly and I don't have
all the behavioural hangovers I use to have. Life is much easier and more
joyful for me now. It works for me... but who knows if it would work for
I have not suffered any serious physical pain over the last two months so I
have no idea how I will handle that. I will deal with that if it ever
Don't know if this will give you any answers Larry.
Logic is a beautiful thing to me too. To be able to look at a puzzle at any
depth and use logic to find the perfect solution is a real buzz! I seem to
have always had the belief that there is always a perfect answer... if we
keep persevering and enjoying...
I seem to have lucked onto the most wonderful puzzles of all in the last two
months and am finding the most incredible answers... aint life grand? :-)
I am amazed at the beauty and simplicity of life just now... all because of
grace and logic... How did we get so lucky :-)
Since the topic of logic came up from Annie, we got into it, and you asked
about the logic of suffering, its causes and the path to its cessation, as
in our experience. In my case, the logic of suffering was the equivalency
between the suffering and the one who suffers. There are lots of ways to
talk about this and categorize this of course, but the following scheme I
hope captures the logic of your question...
One's own suffering and its cause:
(a) My suffering = there is an I/Greg (which is suffering)
(b) Cause of my suffering = the beliefs and feelings that there's a
"Greg" which things happen to
Others' suffering and its cause:
(c) Others' suffering = there are others (who are suffering)
(d) Cause of others' suffering = the beliefs and feelings that there's
an other which things happen to
In each one, (a) - (d), both sides of the equation come about at the same
time. Suffering and the entity that suffers. The cause of suffering and
the beliefs about a subject of experience. In experience, these two sides
arise together and subside together.
In my case, the equivalency (b) snapped. There was seen not to *be* this
I, a Greg. There was nowhere for it to reside, nothing for it to be made
of. So, after this initial seeing, there were never any more beliefs or
feelings that said "Things happen to me, Greg." When (b) snapped, the rest
snapped as well, that is (d), (a), and (c). For the exact same reasons.
There is nothing special or independent about what used to be seen as
"Greg," so therefore the same for all the others!
Now, about the logic of the path to the end of suffering? That is why
there is NDS, HarshaSatsangh, and all the world religions and paths!! In
my case, it was continual investigation into just what this "I" consisted
of. If any of it led to any of it, it would be that investigation. It so
happens that at the time, I was standing on a crowded subway platform in
Grand Central station waiting to go home after work. I was reading a
chapter about free will in Ramesh Balsekar's CONSCIOUSNESS SPEAKS.
One friend of mine like this story, and owned the book, and so asked me,
"What page?" But this is totally unpredictable, and different for everybody!
Trevor, Christiana and Dan:
Hi I have not posted before so a short introduction. my main exposure to the nd
teaching has come throught contact with Adi Da, N.Norbu, and study of the texts along
with my own developing understanding through 26 odd years of practice. other
influences have been through many extended insight retreats including time at IMS at
my question concerns a dichotomy I experience both philosophically and more
intuitively between the nondual and the social intstitutions of marriage, coupledom
and the like.
my progressive development of the nondual perspective seems to have dissolved the
capacity and interest in exclusive romantic / marital attachments and the insecurities
that often seem to underpin these.
an obvious counter to this is the criticism about avoidance/selfishness and all the
very plausible argument about the benefits of marriage or a de facto equivalent and
the great psychological and moral gains to be had therein.
I have examined that and can't get much of a foothold....it all seems very relative
and conventional. I have been in three long term (monogamous) realtionships and have
been single for extended periods also.
I would be greatful for any comment or referral to any writing that might support my
clarity about this.
kind regards Trevor
All day long I've hoped someone might respond to your very interesting
question. Perhaps someone still might. I thought I'd at least begin
dialogue with you.
I have no answer to your question, but find myself understanding the
essential (or apparent) paradox of intention you are addressing.
The first thing that occurs to me to ask, is this: Is the timing of this
question in your life a consequence of bouncing or being bounced off of
the 'idea' of relationship? It seems to me that it is a relative
non-issue unless either you are seeking a more permanent relationship
and find that your energy is not aligning with your intent... or...
someone is seeking relationship with you and you are not engaged (or not
engaged in the ways that you *knew* yourself to be at a previous time in
your life). I suppose, another variant... as you have addressed the
subject line 'morality'... would be that you find yourself in an open
field of Love which appears to subsume boundaries and individuals, and
which could lead towards a tendency of cultural definitions of
On a number of occasions I have known this breadth of love. Several
years ago I knew an equanimity of love with an entire group of 12
people. There is a grace in this expansion and a liberation from the
tiny boxes we have tried to fit our huge beings into. It is Spirit's
gift to us, and likely requires a certain impeccability and gratitude.
On the other hand... there is something profound and powerful when two
people enter an agreement to become a single-point-of-origin (borrowing
this phrase from my friend Thomas Murphy). The focused intent entrains
body-mind to show up in specific ways in service to Spirit. The
cultivation of roots as well as the circle drawn around a partnership,
affords a deepening of listening individually and collectively. There is
also a third living presence which is drawn from the two aligned hearts.
Becoming a vessel is our gift to Spirit and we in turn are gifted with
the opportunity to intimately know two as One. We humans are fledglings
in this new form of partnering.
Well.. it appears I've said more than I anticipated I would. I hope
others will also answer as, in spite of what I have said, I also find
myself in a new way of knowing self which is blessedly absent of
partnering projections. Perhaps, the directive is that when real
relationship emerges, there is no question in the Living Heart, and no
where else to go.
Welcome and thanks for your honest inquiry,
Hi Trevor. Re: your request for responses about relationship -- Clearly,
there are many ways to use the biopsychospiritual energy associated with
"desire". The question for each individual is: what intuitively/logically/
emotionally/spiritually feels right? Which expression suits my nature
as well as not harming others or myself? If a committed relationship
is chosen, the potential benefits are: exposure of underlying tensions/
longings/anxieties that could otherwise easily be supressed through
a regimen of meditation, reading of texts, and nonconnection in any
sexual/romantic sense with another person. The commitment to include
another's growth with one's own and vice versa may often raise awareness
of the way one belief system interacts with another in ways that wouldn't
be clear if one only discusses and interacts in a spiritual setting with
those who share beliefs and goals. Although the path of a wandering mystic
or a celibate monk may be right for some, involvement in a committed
relationship may equally express spiritual awareness, and in some ways
seems a very appropriate expression in the current social/cultural/historic
Two Dans and Annie:
I always seem to remember its all just consciousness so
what! I keep reading books by Balsekar, Nisargoddatta. I have all there
books. And just got two books by Jean Klein. When I get them home I feel its
no use what anyone says or what I read. What can be done? Who can do
anything? Surely not this illusive, ephemeral me? Well, Im just feeling
Frustrated and uncomfortable tonight and thought to reach out. Thank you
for your patience and Kindness.
Dan, I fully agree with you that there is a limit to the value of
books by others giving profound advice and observations. Some of them
even start having the sound of self-help books, with statements that
sound like "everything is so clear," and "just look at it this way,"
and "just do (or don't do) this, and everything will be perfect".
Every so often, one reads something that is very useful, or hears
something from someone that strikes home. Most of the time, statements
from others don't really add that much. To me, this is because our
experience as "given" is already the exact teaching needed. The more
we try to assimilate something someone said and look at our experience
from their perspective, the more we are assisting whatever tendencies
already are being dealt with to get away from "things exactly as they
are here, now". Now, me saying this doesn't "help" in any way to "be
here, now" just as that famous book by Ram Dass couldn't provide help
by using that language formula. Being here, now, simply isn't a formula
and isn't language based. We are living, moving through whatever we're
moving through, and there is no "me" moving through it. The words
stating this don't help awareness in any way. Resolving what needs
to be resolved so that clarity is, is already what we're doing
to the utmost we possibly can. It is "nature's way," or "the way
of the universe," and there simply isn't anyone there to make it
be any other way.
When people imply that it should be easy, simple,
just a matter of a little old shift, they minimize what's really involved,
from my perspective and experience. If it were so easy, no one would
be going through any of this (of course, it's easy enough to say no
one is). But it's the full realization that shatters reality, that
shatters any complacent sense of continuity of form, of maintaining
a predictable continuing view of self and universe.
That's why it's not so easy, and why I can relate to your expression
of frustration and discomfort. It's important to "sit with" such
feelings, not demanding they go away, not replacing them with a slogan
from a book, and not making assumptions that such feelings "shouldn't
be occurring," or "aren't real," IMO.
-- Love -- Dan
The above paragraphs are so very much the reality that has adopted me in the
last couple of months... It is beautiful and amazing to me to see someone
totally independent state truths that I am still expanding (?) to put into
practice every day.
Annie and Dave
We have to keep meeting like this :-)
It was the choice of a segment of the collective consciousnes to create this physical
"sweatshop". It was left as our choice to find
our way back.
('physical sweatshop'? I presume you mean Earth?)Where does choice start and how?
This physical world is a web of energy a very inward focus of the
collective consciousness. It's intricately weaved "product" is full >of
marvels ..and pain.. The inward nature of the focus erases / hides >the the
very fabric of it's creation. If it's beautiful, who needs >more, if its
painful, why me!! Our choice is to read the signs... >seems there was a lot
of that recently... and to see beyond the >shallow skin of the physical.
Finding our way back is acting on what >we see, and that's a lot different
than feeling guilty for doing or >not doing, also it's a lot different than
not feeling guilty for >doing or not doing. Is's merely not focusing
inward... that to me >means more than just feeling O.K. with where I am.
quote "its merely not facing inward..." I agree, all else comes from this.
We'll make it I think, but only after we learn to ride the bike.
so if you learn to "ride the bike" and I don't, does that put you in a more
enlightened place? heaven? samadhi? what?
Not as easy as trusting that it's all taken care of, even though in the end....
It IS easy to trust that it is all taken care of when it is obvious that this is fact.
Don't you think?
It all depends how many times you wanna' go around.
I don't mind how many times I go around... thy will, not mine...( not that I
have a choice). Do you actually believe that Dave has the ability to achieve
things that will allow him to reach special states/places that others cannot
reach, and that this is a matter of choice? Do you think that you could
never have ended up as member of the Klu Klux Klan? (Is this question too
ambiguous? I could make it clearer if it is)
Curious (I know... killed the cat :-)
Gloria and Jan B:
Ran across this poem which so reminded me of your long ago "advice" to me and
also seems to describe you so well.
With love and gratitude always,
As I understand you to be a man
who has grown weary of the world,
I only think of you as not at all longing for
a temporary shelter.
~~~~Saigyo from "Sankasha" poems
Glo, the poem describes it very well. Yet a "live" meeting would probably
offer a big surprise :) There has been a period when, on the occasion of
someone showing gratitude, I responded with: "Thank you for having provided
the opportunity of having been of service to you. It is I who is to show
Grown weary of the world but with investigating mind
Nowhere to go nor anywhere to hide
Nothing to resist nor anything to fight
Nothing to seek and nothing to find
When nothing is found, Self becomes delight
When Self becomes delight, Self becomes the sight
Skye and Annie:
As if its not enough to see myself unembellished, *what
is* is appearing ruthlessly before me in everyone i meet.
What does the above sentence mean? It sounds interesting
but I don't understand it.
Okay, to put it more playfully, everyone's naked! :-o :-).
The emperor's clothes - my conditioning or "mental habit
patterns" - (as Goenka the burmese founder of our vippassana
meditation centers over here, calls them) - have no
substance! well almost ;-)
For example i can see my partner's japanese mental
conditioning and that of my own western culture much more
clearly now. His sense of space has always been so different
and his approach to finding alternate solutions and
overcoming obstacles. But there's an understanding now a
kind of transparency and so much doesn't really matter
anymore at least not the way it used to....
Larry and Jan B:
Jan, you seem to be saying two deaths are better than one, correct?
Not really. In terms of Rosicrucianism and the N.T., the first death is the
death of the "I" which is the "esoteric" meaning of the N.T.; from birth
(enlightenment, the birth of Christ) to resurrection (rising from the death
of "I"). The second death refers to the dissolution of "non-essentials"
that remain, for instance compassion_as_feeling; the complete dissolution
of all qualities is unavoidable as Self is without any.
However, I still don't understand what dies. If there is no "I" then
death and everything else is inconsequential. If there is an "I" then
the "I" continues, doesn't it? So is death just a scary movie or what?
Seems like the only real death is the death of the "I" which seems like
the last thing we want to give up. But then again, why should we?
For a nondualist, there are no others so what dies are your feelings. One's
loved one at age 20 looks a bit different at age 50 but one doesn't love
her/him less for it; hardly anyone can be known better as a truly loved
one, "no separation" and the usual lingo but when suddenly her/his life
force leaves... tears probably will flow abundantly, irrespective of that
lingo; one's feelings are what is dying. Identifying with feeling (like the
"I") results in dying with it...
The "I" could be called a magnifying glass. It makes it possible to enlarge
a little meaningless flesh wound to a life endangering contagious infection
for someone who is fearful, and to belittle random killing of innocent
civilians as if flattening flies, by persons labeled war criminals. Also,
to magnify the importance to material goods so out of proportion that in
New Scientist one could read that what a huge meteor impact meant for the
dinosaurs, humans will mean for the planet...
For a youth, the death of the "I" is a myth: instead, shortly before *the*
event it is likely a strong, spontaneous notion of rebirth will emerge and
because of that, the thought will arise "no birth without death". For those
aged 40+, the matter will be very different because of the "load of crap",
gathered around the "I"; dissolving feelings will give the impression of
dying, whether feelings concerning "I", "others" or "properties" (so called
mid-life crisis). A proficient yogi of course will know that feelings are
nothing but pranic currents and for such a one, there is no obstacle as the
proper course of action will be undertaken...
Without the "I", means that the root of suffering has been extracted and
that is the sole reason for "stopping the wheel". Perception has become "as
is" which includes feelings and those generated by perception. Strictly
speaking, the end of "progress" as knowledge of one's real nature is
complete and one can live a 100% satisfactory life, knowing to "end" as
*That*. This "end" is nothing else but the death of "pure" feelings,
leaving *That* as the undifferentiated substratum. This the so called
"second death"; when it is seen that it is but the end of pranic currents
disguised as feelings, for the resourceful and energetic yogi it is
possible to advance this second death and what is "left" could be
symbolized by the image of Shakti, dancing on the insentient body of Shiva;
the immovable Self and mind as Power.
++ The like for logic is a feeling, the like for philosophy is a feeling,
in short, all life revolves around feeling; sentience precedes
Joyce and Dan:
How about taking the middle ground BETWEEN "being Something" (someone?) and
"being Nothing" (No one?)
WHO? is nothing?
Yes. That middle point is exactly that which is "No-thing-ness,"
as it's neither this nor that. It's not nothing and not something,
not yes nor no. There's no who that is nothing. There's no nothing,
-- Love -- Dan
Skye and Dan:
huge delighted smiles here dan.
Dan: Yes, traveling over oceans and mountains, received
here with smiles, Skye... And you thought I had
no gratitude for my drubbing. Fooled you, huh?
S: I don't think i'm really *being* nothing at this point in
D: Well, thinking I'm being nothing isn't better than thinking
I'm something, in my book. Trying not to think about it isn't
great, and even actually not thinking isn't really special.
Nope. I don't get to know that I'm being nothing, and that's
because I'm really nothing. If I could know I'm being nothing,
I wouldn't be nothing :-) It's very funny, thinking I'm here
when I'm nowhere, thinking I'm located in a place, when I'm
not separate, thinking there's a defined body that has a me.
It's funny thinking that I'm suffering, or anxious, or happy,
or ecstatic when these things are nothing -- absolutely nothing.
I'm not telling you this to help, God forbid.
I'm not saying these words will do any good, or did me any good.
All I'm saying is that the underlying Peace of the nothing that is
"who is the only one here" is undisturbed by any of the apparent messes
we believe we are. "Nothing" is so undisturbed that the gentle humor
and undeniable grace, love, and compassion of nothing are everywhere
s: I think i'm still conceptualizing, which is *being*
in its way too i guess. Conceptualizing and consciousness
seem inseparable at the moment, so i'm pretty confused :-).
D: Well, me too. Excerpt from "True Confessions of Nothing":
I'm stuck in my conceptual reality and I can't get out :-)
I think I'm a body that needs to eat and have a good, fun life as
long and as well as possible, and avoid suffering and bad things if I can.
I deal with stress on a daily basis.
Nothing is resolved and I suspect nothing will be resolved as long as I
live. I deal with people on a daily basis some of whom suffer in
very real ways from sometimes radically atrocious circumstances.
They can't help it, and it would be ridiculous to say, "wake up,
you're nothing, don't you see." It just doesn't work that way :-)
Sometimes I feel touched by what someone is dealing with and feel
sadness. Other times, I feel joy when I see someone rise above
circumstances with resiliency and vibrance.
The longer I experience all this, the less I feel like a helper.
Helping seems more and more like a very limiting word to me lately,
although it is my livelihood. Also, in personal relationships, seems
the less I help, the better. The whole idea of fixing anything
seems ludicrous unless applied to simple concrete realities like a
sink or car.
s: thank you for the delicious warm fuzzies
D: I have so many more for you, you wouldn't believe.
Not enough ink in the world to write to you all the love
I send, which is still much less than the love you are.
Annie and Dan and Dave:
Dan: Being nobody sounds easy until you're nobody but involved in
making a decision that will affect lives, or nobody and needing
to express a truth people don't want to hear, or nobody and
involved with suffering of people, or nobody and contending with
important differences between people's views, etc.
A: Yes, then being nobody would be very hard. I am lucky to be a nobody who
isn't involved in making decisions that affect other people's lives. I like
being a nobody nobody. I don't need to express a truth that others don't
want to hear. I would like to stay a nobody nobody. I also greatly admire
those that did do it hard in order to help others.
D: Your humor and good sense are much appreciated here, Annie.
I've heard of someone being a "man's man," but your idea of being
a "nobody nobody" may be a first! It has a nice ring to it.
I think that's my problem - not staying a nobody nobody.
But the universe is teaching me - never fear!!
And NDS has helped a lot!!!
Struggling to deal with work, friends, mates,
who at first all seem to want to destroy your connection to the oneness.
Dan: This rings so, so true. And sometimes they managed to do it so
well, with just the right way of putting across how real their
perceived separation is for them, and how desparately they needed
something they didn't have, etc.
-- Love --