Some highlights of postings from Wednesday, Feb. 16:
An interesting and difficult question. Without all the words that we're
supposed to say, using the memeory of what it was really like, how did "I
that I am" feel like to you in its first moments?
Thank you, Dave. It happened when I was seven years old and
playing with toy cars on the hardwood floor of my bedroom in
Paterson, New Jersey. I spontaneously uttered, "I Am I Am
and I Am I Am." The question couldn't be easier to answer.
Those first moments are always with me. It feels like
reality. Like waking.
Now, am I the proud owner of a thousand human frailties and
shortcomings along with that? Yeah. It's just that reality
never changes and there is no doubt associated with it, no
searching, it is being.
Since 1977, it has been as if there is only one day; that
comes out of the permanence of the knowing of I AM. But I
still eat too much junk before I go to sleep and that causes
Biology still goes haywire. Like my late wife Dolores said
more than once, when her body was succumbing to cancer: "I
can't walk anymore, Jerry. It's kind of funny, isn't it,
She rarely was able to see that clearly, to see the humor in
the body being born and living and giving forth healthy
children and then decaying, but she taught me about that
depth of humor.
Now when something goes haywire, like my gall bladder or
something, I say, "It's kinda funny to be in all this pain,
isn't it, Dolores?" And I laugh with her. "It's kinda funny
to be running to the E.R., isn't it Dolores?" It eases my
concern and brings some relief to move from personal concern
into the bigger picture of love and reality.
Reality is the same, and that's the feel of I AM. Everything
else is a joke because it changes.
well Dave, when it first 'hit' me I went into a different
state for a few weeks... like I was on some weird sort of
drug... It wasn't easy all the time because it was quite
I also found myself with tears of joy running down my face
quite a few times a day and was very glad that my desk in
my office faced away from the door so that noone noticed
my strange behaviour.
It was an incredibly exciting thing for me...
from YOU ARE LOVE:
 For most people
when a conclusion is arrived at they forget about the
fact that there were so many thousands of other
possible conclusions if their thoughts had simply
taken another course than the one it did. Thought
justifies the particular conclusion reached by its
reasoning, but it forgets in that justification all
the other courses the line of reasoning could have
taken. A person my be very appreciative of the
subtlety and complexity of the conclusion and this can
give a false sense of validity.
Sounds like Moses was a non-dualist. Perhaps the prohibitions against naming
God are a suggestion that we worship the formless nameless infinite: I AM.
One becomes what one worships.
If one worships a thing, one becomes a thing.
Relinquish the worship of things or persons -
the Name of the ultimately real cannot be spoken --
This is clearly the nondual wisdom at the heart
of the Jewish religion.
"Commandments," edicts come
from above rather true
morality welling up from
As there ultimately is no inside
nor outside, "above" is "within" --
Truth comes from "beyond"
but is "right here" --
Moses "came down" with the Commandments
(going up and coming down is quite
symbolic, as with Jacob's dream of a ladder),
saw everyone worshipping the golden calf,
and immediately broke the commandment
"thou shalt not kill" by putting
to death the ones who instituted
the golden calf worship (a version of a local
It's like the Buddhists have often
said - when a child needs a toy
to be satisied, its given a toy.
When it can deal with Reality,
a toy (prescription) isn't needed.
It was said that one cannot see
YHVH face to face and live.
Jacob saw YHVH face to face and
Perhaps if this were written...
"It is said that 'a persona' cannot see
YHVH face to face and live."
It might be easier to understand what is meant.
Hello everyone, I wrote the following letter to another site earlier, but
would like your opinion about it if you are interested. Dear ---- I'd like
hear your opinion regarding compassion.. I've listened to Ken Wapnick's
on True Empathy and I think I understand what he is saying about compassion
"do-gooders". I've read a few of books that address compassion (Gangaji's
Are That, for example). I've also heard Carolyn Myss (Energy Anatomy) say
many if not all of us join each other by using our wounds. She calls this
"woundology".She says we get stuck in that mode and find intimacy with each
other through our wounds. She also mentions compassion as a separate thing.
Isn't compassion, though, a more lofty form of woundology? Aren't we using
seeing suffering as a way of joining with each other instead of seeing the
Christ in each of us and join at that level? How do you view compassion? .
is quite possible that I don't understand what Myss means when she talks of
woundology. Any ideas? By the way, I'm still trying to find a way to
this vertically instead of horizontally; I keep getting a message that
Error Code (E.) after I type in the subject and push return. The only thing
can then click on is the horiZontal bar; the vertical bar is not dark. I
this is harder to read.
You are only allowed one good question a day!! Yikes!! Look at all the posts
generated with that I AM question. If only we really could archive
Mostly it needs to arise in the moment as a response to someone, tho a
may be more or less predisposed or willing. Here's my understanding of
stuck" in woundology as a sort of permanent response to life. Rather than
or just keeping a stiff upper lip as was formerly expected in society,
were really encouraged to come forth and disclose "wounds" of the past. Self
help groups were formed to assist incest survivors, battered women and adult
children of alcoholics to finally speak up and process their painful
Finally they receive understanding and compassion long denied them. But the
to the other shore then becomes like a cruise ship no one wants to leave.
become addicted to receiving what they see as support and compassion and
for dear life both to the problem and the support groups. If all their
relationships become centered around this wound, how to move on? All their
problems are seen as resulting from this wound, forgetting that life is full
problems for everyone. It's a tricky issue.
What Myss pointed out so well with this problem, is that IF we define the
"healed" state as totally the opposite of "needy"...no one ever gets there.
is seen as some mythical state of always happy and positive, always sure of
oneself, and never needing anyone or any support. No one ever arrives at
shangri-la. The timing is obviously very individual and crucial. Has some
only just begun or are have they made the wound their total identity? At
point it becomes time to "let the dead bury the dead" and live in the
moment. People become afraid that by choosing to heal they will lose perhaps
only way of getting support they have ever found. They can relate to others
as a wounded person. Learning what "normal" is becomes the next task.
Compassion is kinda a whole 'nother subject, if you want to look at it apart
from this woundology concept. Thanks for bringing this up.
re: The Magic Pull
This vision is mighty because there are no creases in it
not riddled with curiosity it avoids not tears or laughter
The slightest meeting of our eyes will surely make you see it
you might feel the pull of the Heart, before but not after.
JAMES offers a Rumi quote:
"In truth everything and everyone is a shadow of the Beloved,
and our seeking is His seeking and our words are His words.
We search for Him here and there, while looking right at Him.
Sitting by His side, we ask: "Oh Beloved, where is the Beloved?"
Enough with such questions.
Let silence take you to the core of Life.
All your talk is worthless when compared
with one whisper of the Beloved."
-- "God's Whisper, Creation's Thunder," Brian Hines, Threshold
GLO introduces us to Theodore Melnechuk:
SEEING AND BELIEVING
Cezanne said, "Though the world appears
Complex, it's made of cubes and spheres,
Along with cylinders and cones:
Four fundamentals that, like bones
In flesh, uphold whatever drapes
Variety upon their shapes."
"They're doubly basic," Freud said. "These
are more than just geometries:
Your simple solids symbolize
The organs that attract our eyes;
The only subject of the arts
Is men's and women's private parts."
The body can as well express
Our sadness and our happiness
And even sex's mindless dance
Portrays the spirit's circumstance
Of oscillation to and fro
Between the cosmic Yes and No.
"The world," VanGogh said, "is a face
In which I see my soul's grimace."
But has reality become
Merely emotion's medium?
O universe of forms, I ask
Are you a mirror, or a mask?
I've come to accept that I'm the dreamer of the dream or The I Am , but
now I'm investigating that maybe the dreamer is not real either, and that
the I Am is an illusion also. Any thoughts? Mary
HARSHA, SAM, and JERRY respond:
Illusion... is that... which we seem to see.
Delusion... is that... which we seem to be.
'Tis all... misunderstood... Whole-ography*.
'Tis all just Divine*... that we see... and be.
* = whatever word the reader chooses.
See The Nisargadatta Song of I AM
and The Nisargadatta Song of Beyond I AM
I believe, the highest spiritual truth is maya, although I
could be wrong. It could actually be the highest spiritual
You could be right, Jerry. Maya is only maya for the "I"
(LOL). Those, healed from the "I" disease will immediately
recognize the following from the gospel of Thomas,
irrespective of background (Buddhist, Hindu, Islam etc. or
1 The Lord is on my head like a crown, and I shall not be
without Him. 2 They wove for me a crown of truth, and it
caused thy branches to bud in me. 3 For it is not like a
withered crown which buddeth not: but thou livest upon my
head, and thou hast blossomed upon my head. 4 Thy fruits are
full-grown and perfect, they are full of thy salvation.
also from JAN:
Hermes Trismegistus gives some "explanation" on maya ceasing
to be perceived as maya:
Keep it not, father, back from me. I am a true-born son;
explain to me the manner of Rebirth.
Hermes: What may I say, my son? I can but tell thee this.
Whene'er I see within myself the Simple Vision brought to
birth out of God's mercy, I have passed through myself into a
Body that can never die. And now i am not as I was before; but
I am born in Mind.
The way to do this is not taught, and it cannot be seen by the
compounded element by means of which thou seest.
Yea, I have had my former composed form dismembered for me. I
am no longer touched, but I have touch; I have dimension too;
and [yet] am I a stranger to them now.
Thou seest me with eyes, my son; but what I am thou dost not
understand [even] with fullest strain of body and of sight.
Jesus from the Gospel of Thomas:
52) His disciples said to him, "Twenty-four prophets have spoken in
Israel. and they all spoke of you."
He said to them, "You have disregarded the living one who is in your
presence, and have spoken of the dead."
When he says "in your presence" he must mean the knowledge "I AM" within
the one hearing/reading the words?
No, only that apart from God, nothing is alive. Compare this with a
statement by Gurdieff:
A considerable percentage of the people we meet on the street are people
who are empty inside, that is, they are actually already dead. It is
fortunate for us that we do not see and do not know it. If we knew what a
number of people are actually dead and what a number of these dead people
govern our lives, we should go mad with horror.
I read Arjuna Nick Ardagh's new book, How About Now? Satsang
with Arjuna. He's in the lineage of Ramana and Papaji, but
he speaks for himself. You don't get the feeling Arjuna's
trying to be someone else or to speak as though he were
A lot of people are familiar with Arjuna's first book,
Relaxing Into Clear Seeing. I hear it recommended all the
time. How About Now? is another book that will push people
to the next level.
Here's an excerpt or two that I really like:
"In the 1960's, when (spiritual) teachers first arrived,
there was no way for us to have direct realization. It was
next to impossible. You could listen to the right words and
repeat them verbatim, but it was not possible until a few
years ago to sit firmly in the realization that 'I am
awareness, infinite and eternal.' Such realizations were not
happening for ordinary Westerners, or at most very
fleetingly. The consciousness began to shift in our culture
in this decade, in the 1990's. Now, if we seek out teachings
of awakening, they are mostly being shared by ordinary
Westerners -- people just like you and me. There are very
few Indian teachers left. These days, spiritual teachers of
note ... are all Western people. There is a new generation
now, and it is all up to us. The good news is that if this
shift from the identification with form to being
formlessness itself can happen to an ordinary Western person
with children, a bank balance and the rest of it, it can
happen to you, too. There is really no reason left for
anyone to be a seeker."
Question: Is it merely a coincidence that Awakening and the
coming demise of seeking, parallel the growth of the
Internet? It's a side question that some of us may care to
ponder. Clearly the Internet plays a role. Without the
Internet, it might be asked, would Awakenings spread so
quickly and broadly?
Here's some more from How About Now?:
"You could come up with the most extreme reason why you
think that you can't have this awakening right now: 'Well, I
get irritated with my kids.' So do I. 'Well, I get anxious
about my financial situation.' So do I. 'Well, when I
haven't had enough sleep, I get grouchy.' So do I.
"None of this is as it seems to the mind. It has nothing to
do with changing anything at all. There is nothing wrong
with trying to improve things...(but)...The personality can
be fairly neurotic and still this realization is absolutely
available to you.... There is a way that whatever is
happening in your life, including the worst, can become an
invitation to go even deeper into wakefulness. Suffering is
probably the best way to reach depths of understanding.
Suffering cuts attachment. This is profoundly good news.
This is the time right now...when there can be widespread
TWO OM's UP!!
I'll quote more from the book later. Andrew Macnab and I,
topping off a five hour 'lunch' replete with good food,
cigars, and wine (but no women, the massage parlor was
closed [laughter]) watched an Arjuna Satsang video. It was
good stuff. We liked it because Arjuna is a straight-shooter
and he made sense to us. He cuts right to the bone, while
being gentle and humorous. We give the video, entitled
Beyond Flinching, Two OM's Up.
Here's Arjuna's website:
< Papaji when asked about
those he sent to teach said that many people can fool
other people into thinking they are liberated. He had
some other very strong words to say about that. >
~ Here's another Papaji story on this topic:
A student came to Papaji and said, "Some people who have been here in
with you have gone back to their countries and are telling everyone they are
enlightened. Papaji laughed his lion's laugh and said, "Well, that's better
than saying they are not enlightened!"
What i want to know, you who are love, is what possible difference could it
make to you in the intimacy of your awakening, what state of purity of
consciousness someone else is or is not?
As my friend often said "Your own enlightenment is none of your business,
could anyone else's be?"