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


Expand Messages
  • andrew macnab
    Vernal equinox and full moon too. Where did I leave that key? Before, it was, then it wasn t. Before, it wasn t, then it was. It wasn t, it won t be, and now
    Message 1 of 1 , Mar 21, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      Vernal equinox and full moon too.

      Where did I leave that key?

      "Before, it was, then it wasn't.
      Before, it wasn't, then it was.
      It wasn't, it won't be,
      and now isn't to be found."

      Buddha (udana 6.3)



      you're somewhere
      i'm somewhere
      we're nowhere at all


      You're nowhere
      I'm, nowhere
      We're a big nowhere




      responding to gene's comments about ego being like skin, and to 'please let
      go of any idealistic fantasies that may lead you to assume otherwise' than
      being in our skin, in our 'rightful place':

      gene said:

      also from GENE:

      "The I that is We

      Can only be

      When you are you

      And I am me"

      Understanding 'boundary issues' is a simple as understanding _skin_.
      We want perfect skin, skin suited for our chosen lifestyle; skin that
      is durable, yet sensitive. We desire touch and feeling and sharing...
      neither NO-SKIN or IRON-SKIN is called for here... instead, actual
      real skin. The same goes with 'psychic boundaries', the proper name
      for which is 'ego'. Ego is subject to the same gamut of
      disorders/dysfunctions as is skin, and responds exactly the same way
      to treatment. It is SO simple!

      {It is my wish for the reader to 'deeply meditate upon' this simple
      concept... for hours, days, and years, until it is realized: Ego is
      simply the 'skin' of the psyche. We have ego because we are
      _social-communal-tribal Beings; we _need_ this skin/boundary/ego,
      because our rightful place is to be embedded in the communality of
      the Living Universe. Please let go of any idealistic fantasies of
      'oneness' which would lead you to assume otherwise.}

      end of gene's comment

      I'm not generally one to argue, and especially with someone as
      intelligent, articulate, and given to long explanations as gene it is
      intimidating even to begin; but I hate to let statements like these go

      It seems to me that the great error is to assume that the boundary of
      skin delineates the difference between inside and outside. That skin is
      often related to 'boundary issues' I will grant. To say that 'everything
      within this boundary is *mine*' is to create the distinction of inside vs
      outside, or me-and-mine vs everyone else; and it is not necessarily just
      skin that marks those boundaries.
      The boundary of skin is typically the animal kingdom's sense of
      individual self, of 'inside,' as opposed to the world, which is ouside. One
      may observe that sex alters these boundaries (I have a BS in biology, and
      tend to take examples from biological systems, and see the human being as
      'just another animal' in many respects). When a male has sex with a female,
      the skin boundary is no longer the limit of inside and outside. We have the
      expression of what we know as *love* occurring between two sentient beings,
      and the ego as it has been known, as confined with one skin, becomes much
      more fluid. That which is outside the skin becomes as precious or more
      precious than that which is inside. Extending sex to having offspring, when
      the female detaches the newborn from her body, the ego is still fluid enough
      to include the offspring as 'self.' These are obvious examples where ego
      and skin are not coterminous.
      What are boundary issues? Basically, they are where we 'draw the
      line,' as to how far love will allow us to drop our egos and identify with a
      group, the ultimate group being the universe itself. Most people draw the
      line at the skin, though the lovers and the mother and babe do not.
      Boundary issues become evident when love and fear come into conflict
      (it has been talked about on the list that thinking is generally the result
      of conflict - there is truth to this). We set boundaries when we are afraid
      that we will lose control of that which we identify with. For most people,
      the skin is the final boundary, the line at which we most likely to mount a
      defense of our territory. We are afraid to let people into our bodies, and
      that includes our minds, generally regarded as being in our brains, which
      are within our skin boundary. Love, sex, family, and all other attachments
      and identifications create a lot of confusion and redrawing of boundaries on
      a regular basis.
      So I disagree with gene that this is simple. It is only simple when we
      either claim all territory as ours or none of it, the two aspects of
      nonduality. For most people, boundaries are very complex and shifting, and
      the skin is not only insufficient from the standpoint of the biological fact
      that we are sexual beings, but from the aspect of mind, the container of
      Language is what tells us who we are, is what identifies boundaries,
      what makes distinctions, friend or foe. Language is, at root, at its most
      fundamental nature (wittgenstein) *common*. ('In the beginning was the
      word, and the word was with God, and the word was God.') Without language
      there would be no consciousness, no knowledge. It is language which allows
      us to transcend our individual bodies, and their skins and any other
      boundaries which mind may create, and identify with that commonality which
      is awareness. Language is the heritage and continuous presence of our
      ancestors, and is our contribution to our future progeny.
      It is language which must be transcended to experience the essential
      world, the world that exists independent of labels: the ocean and the sky
      and the mountains; the animals and their noises, fears, loves, activities.
      Language is in black and white; is relative, phenomenal. It is
      fundamentally based on making the original distinction, yin and yang, inside
      and outside, me and you, us and them, and on and on to the 'ten thousand
      Fear makes boundaries, and love erases them. Transcending language
      erases all boundaries, and all fear gives way to Love.

      Leonard Cohen now lives in a zen monastery in california; he once spoke
      of shifting boundaries in the words, "It's just the way it changes, like the
      shoreline and the sea," in the following beautiful song:

      *Hey, That's No Way To Say Goodbye*

      I loved you in the morning, our kisses deep and warm,
      your hair upon the pillow like a sleepy golden storm,
      yes, many loved before us, I know that we are not new,
      in city and in forest they smiled like me and you,
      but now it's come to distances and both of us must try,
      your eyes are soft with sorrow,
      Hey, that's no way to say goodbye.
      I'm not looking for another as I wander in my time,
      walk me to the corner, our steps will always rhyme
      you know my love goes with you as your love stays with me,
      it's just the way it changes, like the shoreline and the sea,
      but let's not talk of love or chains and things we can't untie,
      your eyes are soft with sorrow,
      Hey, that's no way to say goodbye.

      I loved you in the morning, our kisses deep and warm,
      your hair upon the pillow like a sleepy golden storm,
      yes many loved before us, I know that we are not new,
      in city and in forest they smiled like me and you,
      but let's not talk of love or chains and things we can't untie,
      your eyes are soft with sorrow,
      Hey, that's no way to say goodbye.

      Remember, gene, I only get the highlights, so cc my address if you want
      to be sure I get any reply you may make.

      aloha, terry

      JOHN METZGER sent a piece of Chuang Tzu translated by Thomas Merton:

      Chuang Tzu and Hui Tzu
      Were crossing Hao river
      By the dam.

      Chuang said:
      "See how free
      The fishes leap and dart:
      That is their real happiness."

      Hui replied:
      "Since you are not a fish
      How do you know
      What makes fishes happy?"

      Chuang said:
      "Since you are not I
      How can you possibly know
      That I do not know
      What makes fishes happy?"

      Hui argued:
      "If I, not being you,
      Cannot know what you know
      It follows that you
      Not being a fish
      Cannot know what they know."

      Chuang said:
      "Wait a minute!
      Let us get back
      To the original question.
      What you asked me was
      'How do you know
      What makes fishes happy?'
      . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
      "I know the joy of fishes
      In the river
      Through my own joy, as I go walking
      Along the same river."

      Chuang Tzu translated by T. Merton


      *Bumper Cars*

      Hi Dave,

      As I was putting together the highlights for yesterday I reread your
      post here, and a few things kind of jumped out at me here....

      You say that whenever you directed anger at someone or
      something that you lost your connection.

      Does this mean that anger is not part of the 'now'
      ....that one cannot be connected to the present
      moment, and be angry at the same time?

      d: Anger is a focus in my ego. It sucks up all of my energy
      and slams the veil shut, even if only for just that particular
      moment. It's an extravagance I prefer not to indulge in. It's
      a waste of my energy.

      If not....could it be that one's judgment about
      anger is what breaks the connection to the 'now',
      rather than the arising of anger itself?

      d: No!

      You say that when you directed anger at someone
      else, that you know you were really cursing "yourself",
      and yet you still see them as "everybody else" when you're
      driving like 'bumper cars' thru traffic?

      So...when you're cursing at them they are "you",
      but when you're dodging their erratic driving
      they're "everybody else"?

      d: Cursing at me is stupid! It's a waste of energy that could
      be better focused on deepening my relationship in the infinite.

      Could this just be a 'mind trick'....to
      keep you at ease in traffic....rather than
      a movement to living life spontaneously
      and authentically?

      d: That I was so much more at ease in traffic, dawned on me quite
      a bit later, when I had another bout of egoic focus.

      Creation, God if you will, I will never understand. Sure I have felt
      incredibly strong visions of I AM, and have had a glimps of his wonder,
      but if you think you know him, it's because you are wasting your energy
      on trivialities.



      new to this room,
      i'm here to to express and enjoy the secret that is so obvious that it's
      impossible to see. i'm here to delight in myself in the form of you.
      i'm here
      to ponder and wonder and dissolve further.

      details of this dream life seem so trivial. searched for decades
      (lifetimes?). studied advaita vedanta with nome for the last few years.
      looking directly inside
      myself has uncovered vast freedom. i like to talk truth.

      happy to be here, cee

      *About nome*

      hi jerry,

      since you asked about nome,

      nome has taught pure nonduality in the vain of ramana maharshi for 25
      years. he teaches realization of absolute truth by looking directly into the
      core of ones' own existence. currently he teaches simultaneously with russ, a
      great cheshire cat kind of sage that makes spiritual practice seem easily
      accessible to everyone and not a bit frightening (even though one is destroyin
      g all sense of individual self).
      the thing about these two is that there is no show, no romantic guruism,
      no enery zapping (by looking into your eyes) etc. i guess that is why so few
      people come to them. just plain truth,-- and the most direct method to
      realise it. they tell you exactly how to find permanent knowledge of
      absolute being-consciousness-bliss by looking deeply inside your own self.
      i've been around the spirtual block, seen many teachers, and nome is a
      genuine living teacher who teaches with utmost integrity and no ego that i
      have ever seen.
      and if you want full, complete awakwning, nome will help you discriminate
      till you are done (gone). here is an example:
      after much practice i came to nome and russ really happy and said,

      "i don't see duality anymore. I am everything!"

      they smiled and nome said, "this is a common stopping place for
      you must look deeper. who perceives this everything?
      discern the nonreality of the perceiver."


      love, cee


      part of *A Twacky Conversation*

      >The twooth is a twackless
      >Swi Elmer Fudd (paraphrasing
      >"J. Kwishnamurti")

      "Now, Swi Fudd, have you found
      the twackless twain to be
      twully twackless, or is it
      indeed an off-twack twain
      waiting for a weck? How
      shall people in this multi-twacked
      world of twavesty and twagedy
      be able to twain themselves
      on your twain, that is, to
      untwain their minds and
      fwee their heart?"

      Ba Ba Wa Wa, intwepid weporter
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.