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

Highlights of Tue/Feb 8

Expand Messages
  • Gloria Lee
    ¤From: (Larry Biddinger) ¤ ¤Jan, thanks for your very thought provoking reply concerning the death ¤or end of I . One more question, if I may. If all
    Message 1 of 1 , Feb 9, 2000
      �From: (Larry Biddinger)

      �Jan, thanks for your very thought provoking reply
      concerning the death
      �or end of "I". One more question, if I may. If all feeling
      �"dissolved", what is the good of "That"?

      �thanks very much, Larry

      Jan B:
      There's a little known secret about perception; only when
      feeling is absent, "That" appears as pure radiance, yet
      transparency itself and It is far "better" than just good :)
      From another perspective, anything that can be called feeling,
      is something one will get used to. But it is impossible to get
      used to "no feeling"; it is ever the same yet never boring...
      An impossible paradox. From still another perspective, when
      all feelings are considered the same, when one is neither
      attached nor detached to any of them, in the course of events,
      differentiation halts and they will arise no more. The undoing
      of all identifications, a very logical and simple but rather
      rewarding "practice" ...

      For a Bhakta, it is relatively easy to see that love is the
      substratum of all feelings but when there is nothing but love,
      differentiation halts. To me, is has been clear from the onset
      (the recognition) that one's real nature isn't a feeling.
      Recognition is simplicity itself, possible for a young child.
      Taking the consequences, physical and spiritual maturity (no
      "I") should coincide, between age 20...30. Sentient life with
      "pure" feelings could be enjoyed then and midlife would bear
      the sign of the undoing the last identification. Thus, society
      would be based on "That" as it probably was taught to mankind
      at the beginning of the satya-yuga.


      >From: "Annie Heppingstone"

      >Maybe finding the realisation of life somehow causes events to give us the
      >best chance to grow with our knowledge. I am so thankful. Other changes have
      >occured in my life without me doing anything. I'm so graced it is still a
      >source of surprise to me.
      >Life is exciting, hey? viva la changes...

      Someone asked the great Zen teacher Shunryu Suzuki to sum up Buddhism in
      one sentence. He said: "Everything changes."




      From: "Annie Heppingstone"

      Hi Greg,

      I'm not advocating the book for other people because it may do absolutely
      nothing for everyone else. I have no idea.

      It is called Concentration A Guide to Mental Mastery
      by Mouni Sadhu.

      It was special for me. I dont know any more than that.

      Love Annie

      From: "Laura Olshansky" <editor@...>

      Hi Annie and others,

      There's an article by the author you mention, Mouni Sadhu,
      on the web here:


      I think I may feature Mouni Sadhu tomorrow on our website,
      as a result of your mentioning him here. Thanks.



      Xan shares quotes of Mouni Sadhu from his book "What is Meditation."

      Thought must always have an object, however sublime it may be, thus there
      must always be two, not one.Therefore, thought and its process is a blind


      ... when the mind is still, there arises a strong urge to be united with the
      whole, but what this whole is, cannot yet be conceived and I feel that I
      could never attain it alone. The closest comparison is melting and dissolving
      in That which alone Is. It is different to leaving the body or ego for there
      is no movement. One remains where one is, but is not what one was before.
      Everything that could be seen or felt before is now apart from me. No more
      can be told.

      ... the state of unity with the whole brings an unshakable certainty that
      only this state is real and permanent. That it is that last refuge which one
      has always sought, and from which one can never more be lost.There is nothing
      beyond it, for - it is all.

      The conception that we know as 'death' is obliterated, but this does not mean
      that we are in that state thought of as 'life after death'. The only fact one
      knows is, that this life will always go on.

      In this state of being there are no such false distinctions of time as past,
      present, and future.

      It is possible to force language to convey to the mind something of that
      which one brings back from such a meditation, but it is likely to be of no
      avail, and more likely to be misunderstood.

      From: (Jerry M. Katz)

      In the early 80's I was given a gift certificate to one of
      the chain bookstores in the days before the huge bookstores
      like Chapters. They had a New Age section, and the only book
      that looked decent was the one you named: Concentration, by
      Mouni Sadhu.

      While reading it, I recall receiving a distinct push toward
      the obvious. The book brought clarity, and in clarity it is
      possible to know what to do and how to do it. However, I
      must have given the book away or traded it in.

      It's good to have you here, Annie.

      Here's a question to everyone; it is prompted by Arjuna Nick
      Ardagh, a guy who peels away all spiritual nonsense and cuts
      to the bone lightly and humorously: Do you merely know
      freedom, or are you free?


      I dont think I 'know' freedom. I'm not even sure if I'm free. I don't really
      care. I just am.

      Are you merely free, or are you Freedom?

      *** Joshu: MU!!! (and a whack with Skye's stick!!!)
      *via Daniel san

      The "you" being an object in a world of interdependent objects, is never
      free. Freedom has no positive content or description. Freedom has no
      history. We can only claim to be free *from* something, but not say what
      that freedom really is. Saying "what it is" contradicts freedom.

      > >Andrew: In this moment, which is all of reality, what is death?
      > Larry: separation
      > ~ Change.
      > No longer able to play in this manifest dimension.
      > Shifted into another level of the game.
      > xan

      How things are before and after this body walks the earth seems meaningless and
      irrelevant. There's no boundary. There's past and future in terms of eating and
      sleeping and other bodily needs, but apart from that, all's here now.


      _~ No more or less interesting than journeys to the exotic dimensions of
      *California* or *The East Coast*. To each his own Here Now.


      It's like flying into a brick wall at a thousand miles an hour, and it seems
      to *solid* and you can't see past it, or you can't see your existence past
      it; then perhaps you find out it is not so solid after all, that really
      there never was anything there at all; but you have to hit it first.


      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)

      We are all one, in a timeless existance. I figure that probably at one time
      I was a member of the KKK, and perhaps once JFK and maybe once you. Could be
      that we / I pass through everybody that's ever been. All the more reason I
      should treat my neighbour well, no? Anyways, even if we don't carry the
      reasoning to that point, that's how I like to see my relation with other
      people, i'm all of them, they're all me, because we're one, I love them all.

      I care less about my special states than I do the special states of others.
      Of the 6 billion souls on Earth, how many are hungry? 3 maybe 2 billion? If
      they had what we have, it could be easier for them. Why do I care, that's
      what you're really asking?

      Petros said, while watching the ocean on a clear day in the place where 180
      people died that he sensed that like the ocean that didn't even whince in
      the tragedy, the imensity of all creation just swallows us up, our petty
      concerns pale at the unimaginable intent of creation. (Sorry Petros,
      something like that :-) Actually I don't disagree, but there's just this
      teeny weeny detail.... why were we given a little piece of Earth, why does
      his "mind" (phew that's a stretch) dabble here.

      We're here for something, and it has its place. Nobody's going to convince
      me it's to lay back with a big wide smile and say I'm O.K. I can't make it
      any clearer Annie, my choice is, sit back and say I'm O.K. or try to show
      others that there's more to it.


      From James Bean:

      In some sense, the Sants are to the Sikhs what the Sufis are to Islam
      -- the mystics. A Sant is a holy person. In Sant Mat, a Sant is a Saint or
      Master of the Community.

      A major point of agreement between Sikhism and Sant Mat is the Adi
      Granth, sometimes called the Guru Granth Sahib -- the Sikh Bible. Sant Mat,
      like the Sikhs, hold it to be a wonderful collection of banis (hymns or
      psalms) of the Masters, Sat Gurus, and Sufis. The Sants hold the view that
      both Kabir and Guru Nanak were born-Saints, and very great Souls that
      uplifted humanity.

      The entire Granth (1,430 pages!) is now online! The website is:
      http://www.sikhs.org Click onto the open book, then choose "English
      Translations," choose a selection, and you'll have access to some amazing
      compositions of great beauty.


      Roger Isaacs wrote:

      �Enjoyed your comments Jan. Some word play: (on guard!) you say "only
      �feeling is absent, 'That' appears..."

      �By "feeling" I think you mean sensation plus identification, or
      �plus the individual interpertation? Pure sensation can be without
      �or in other words simple direct sensation can be without emotional
      �involvement? I'm thinking of a tantric book that advises: "become the

      Jan B>:
      Yes, I mean sensation plus identification; they cannot be separated. An
      analogy is a person, let's say 100 lbs too heavy. When nevertheless
      healthy, it won't be a problem to walk up a steep hill. When having lost
      the 100 lbs, having to carry the same weight uphill has a very different
      feel; the difference is the identification (with body, independent of being
      fat/lean). I don't differentiate between basic feeling (like hunger,
      thirst, touch etc.) and emotions; they are closely related. The advice from
      the tantric book would among others, result in a very high threshold for
      sensations, in a sense of tolerating them before getting uneasy. This in
      its turn certainly facilitates meditation in adverse conditions, resulting
      in unbroken meditation.

      �I like the term "differentiation": when 'differentation halts' sensation
      �continue, however, no differentation is experienced because the seer is
      �unchanged the sensation.

      When becoming a sensation, differentiation will halt too and this will
      increase the threshold for that sensation (the next time, more energy is
      required to become aware of the sensation). Yet the practice could be
      called surrender as well (don't run, don't hide, don't fight, don't make
      associations, in short, do nothing or "keep dead") and it could arouse the
      Shakti in the course of events and when aroused, to raise Her effortlessly.


      Evelyn and Dan wrote re: Ramesh Balsekar article.

      > >E:
      > >Who is this "God" who "wills?" Is it not on the same
      > plane as ego?
      > D: This "God" is a fictional device used as a teaching tool
      > by R.B., to make a point about there being no "doer" -
      > such a tool certainly has limits - and one limit is
      > the resulting dualistic concept of a "God" who wills
      > "something" which then "happens".

      There's something grotesquely funny to me about the retired chief executive of
      Bank of India sitting in his luxury apartment telling
      foreign seekers that it's all God's will whatever happens while all around are
      millions and millions of hungry and homeless people. There is something
      and defensive and willfully blind about it, and it is not fundamental to
      nonduality at
      least to express it that way. I know I may be being unfair to Mr. Balsekar
      this, it's not my intent to criticize him. Besides, I'm not responsible for
      this, right?

      love, andrew

      From: Phil <

      You're right. It is grossly unfair. The article in "What Is
      Enlightenment?" was loaded by the interviewer's assumptions in the first
      place. I am really profoundly distrustful of anything that comes from
      Andrew Cohen's gang. The spirit there is poisonous.

      Elsewhere (in _Consciousness Speaks_ I think) Ramesh has addressed the
      issue of "what about the poor?" To the effect that, yes, it is God's will
      (which admittedly over-simplifies) that some people are destitute. It is
      likewise God's will that destitute people are helped by those who are more
      fortunate. But real help does not come from obligation but from love. In
      other words, there is a spontaneous urge to render assistance, and that
      love is also "God's will." *-Phil
      Petros:_Why blame Balsekar for simply describing things as he sees them? It is
      God's will that you find his philosophy grotesquely funny. He is not making
      a prescription for nonaction, merely observing the obvious fact of reality.

      Perhaps that's why the Dalai Lama has always held a
      special place in my heart....because he embodies 'That'
      which has called out from within the depths of me....'That'
      which is waiting to be allowed expression....to be made
      'room' for.

      I *know* that when my surface (emotional) heart is still...
      is at rest...that the world around me changes. I watch
      time and time again at how my son shifts when my
      heart has shifted. I know that whenever my mental and
      emotional polarities are 'centered'....when the
      the pendulum is at rest, that people around me 'open',
      laugh, share, relax.

      I have never sought 'enlightenment'. I have only
      sought a silent heart.....a heart at peace.... which
      then opens to Deepest Heart....to communion...
      ....to Love....and yes, even planetary transformation.

      To have a silent heart is to me to be like Osho's bamboo
      flute....clearing the center...allowing Existence to sing
      thru you.

      My challenge is to stay focused on that clearing....
      staying 'conscious' of all my activity, and at the
      same time abiding and accepting that which does
      not support or affirm my focus.


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