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

HighlightsMon3Apr

Expand Messages
  • andrew macnab
    _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
    Message 1 of 1 , Apr 4, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

      Marcia; Intelligence of the Body

      There is an intelligence in the body; the body has it's
      own form of informing. For years I read allot and
      meditated but until I began to work with attention
      in my body and work with my body through the
      art of gesture and working in groups with this
      there was an entire area of my existence I was not
      in contact with and working with this has opened
      up my work tremendously.
      ______________________________________________________________________________________

      Melody; Freedom(aspect)

      It was not until I quit trying to presume
      I *could* or *should* read her intent

      that I finally felt free to quit reading
      her *period*. :-) And with that
      freedom to ignore her, came the
      freedom to embrace her.

      M.
      ______________________________________________________________________________________

      Melody; Why?

      .... instead of working so hard to
      understand someone else, why not take that questions
      that arise from your interactions here, and use them
      to turn inward?

      For example, why not turn your response...around
      and ask,

      "Why am I trying so hard to understand?"

      "Why am I amazed she is enlightened?"

      "Why am I ........" (Get what I mean?)

      And when you get an answer, than take that
      answer and make it into a question

      "why...." going deeper and deeper
      with it....like peeling an onion.

      But I bet you already do that. :-)

      M.

      (Read *The Why Method* here; http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/umbada/why.htm )
      ______________________________________________________________________________________

      xan;

      ~ We are interchangeable
      faces in a mall
      called This World
      saying to each other
      "You don't know me"
      "You could never know me."
      Safe and secure in the illusion
      that this *me* is unique
      and precious
      and requires constant protection.
      ______________________________________________________________________________________

      Dan; uncommonly ordinary

      It is common: claiming enlightenment;
      less common: to die while alive.

      It is usual: to claim the truth;
      less usual: to be claimed by truth.

      It is easy: to be as meaningful as others;
      less easy: resting in that which is prior to meaning.

      Found often: passing the time;
      less often: being time.

      Frequently seen: lacking time for others;
      seen less often: timeless and alone.

      It is typical: to want to be special;
      less typical: the perfection of the ordinary.
      ______________________________________________________________________________________

      Mark; another mad-finger typing thingie

      Enlightenment:
      It's what I want
      and don't want
      It's what I want
      and don't want
      It's what I want
      and don't want
      Oh! It's what I AM (gosh)
      No, that couldn't be it...
      It's what I want
      and don't want
      It's what I want
      and don't want
      It's what I want
      and don't want

      Love, Mark
      ______________________________________________________________________________________

      Phil, Dan; Gracefully


      You look everywhere and struggle and one day you realize your looking is
      what keeps you from seeing, and your struggling only perpetuates itself.
      The short answer: Grace.

      Phil
      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
      Thanks, Phil.

      Also, I'm reminded of the Zen monk who said:
      Attention, attention, attention.

      He wasn't talking about maintaining attention on oneself.

      Now, where is it that attention meets Grace?
      Only where the brilliance of awareness
      and the nowness of exactly this moment as is,
      meet.

      It's only right here - when it hits you smack in the face,
      all its beauty and wisdom moving right through this
      instant, as this very moment. Not a moment in time.
      Time in a moment.

      Gracefully,
      Dan
      ______________________________________________________________________________________



      Mark:
      Do you lose your poignancy?


      View from pile:

      You don't lose anything, dear.
      And you don't gain anything either.

      You just wake up.

      And you still kill cats if they get in the way of your car.

      And if you feel poignant, then you got poignancy.

      If you don't, you don't.

      Course you asked this of enligthened ones, and oh is just a hag living
      on a garbage pile - the closest i ever come to bein' enlightened is
      sneakin' a peak at a trashed National Enquirer. ,^))

      boy, i am up late tongiht. Gotta head for the box.

      Take care all.
      love
      oh
      ______________________________________________________________________________________

      Gene and Dan; unknown interpenetration

      > >Gene: [snip]
      > >Interpenetration is possible, but ONLY when there are discrete,
      > >IE separate 'entities' (bodies, minds, cells) to enact this
      > >interpenetration. It takes an "I" and a 'thou' to enact this sort of
      > >intercourse.
      >
      > D: Gene, I have enjoyed your comments about membranes, boundaries,
      > and ego's. Ego gets used in so many ways, that it sometimes
      > confuses communication. For example, I've seen 'ego'
      > used to refer to the ability to delay impulse-gratification,
      > to a sense of identity, to awareness of boundary, and to a
      > self-centered self. None of these is equivalent to the others.
      > To take a position against ego seems doubly futile because:
      > 1) no one knows what it is, and 2) because it seems to require one
      > to be against one.

      Gene: Hi Dan. Yes. My own definition of 'ego' comes from 'depth
      psychology', and from 'transpersonal psychology'.

      I find it endlessly amusing, that 'new-agers' have discarded the
      notion of 'satan', but have found a new universal scapegoat; the
      almighty 'ego', the master trickster, the boogyman in the closet, in
      the basement, and under the bed; the 'whipping boy' of the mind, upon
      which endless heaps of blame get displaced, and to which so many
      fingers point, as the 'cause' of misery, delusion, and fear. Tch, tch.

      It seems that as long as there is suffering, that the sufferer will
      look to a 'foreign agency' to blame, and also as a source of help;
      first identify the 'cause' of the suffering and then 'eliminate' it.

      It is important to recognize, that as long as there is suffering,
      there will be blame, and the need to be 'saved' from that which is
      blamed. It seems that humans just cannot endure self-resonsibility;
      it seems that there must always be a scapegoat. I am saddened that so
      many otherwise seemingly intelligent people fall for this racket.

      Here is the central racket; this is how it works; this is very
      slippery, try to catch it.

      Denial requires hiding things from oneself; the first thing to hide,
      is the fact of denial itself. To aid in the task of hiding the fact
      of denial, one needs to fabricate a 'cause' of the trouble that
      denial brings, that cause being of course, something other than
      denial itself. So 'in order to' have a haven from the troubles caused
      by denial, one must invent (or conspire in the invention of) a
      plausible cause of the troubles (suffering) that denial brings. It
      used to be 'satan' (I guess it still is, in certain circles), but now
      it is 'ego'. Woe unto one who does not subscribe to the 'party line'
      that 'ego' is a cause of suffering!

      Phase two: To have an 'excuse' for the troubles brought about by
      denial is only the first part of this racket; the next phase it to
      make it virtually _impossible_ to eliminate 'ego', thus tacitly
      giving permission for the games of denial to go on forever. How is
      this trick accomplished? Here is how:

      To make 'ego' impossible to get rid of, and to thus give oneself
      permission to be 'dysfunctional' forever, all one has to do, is to
      assign the quality of 'egolessness' to the highest, mightiest, and
      holiest of persons, both dead and living. That is all there is to it!

      "Gee, I can never be egoless... look at what happened to Ghandi, to
      Jesus, even to mother Teressa! I cannot ever hope to reach those
      exalted heights... I guess I will be a _seeker_ forever! Hmmm...
      maybe I'd better join the SEEKER'S UNION! Maybe I should seek NEW
      DIRECTIONS, to find UNITY with a SOCIETY OF FRIENDS... maybe I should
      become a VEGETARIAN, or better yet, a BREATHAiRIAN! It should be
      OBVIOUS that the greater the degree of PURITY, the lesser degree of
      EGO will remain! Ego is the GREAT IMPURITY of the human Being!"

      "Take my ego... PLEASE!" (Nondual vaudeville, Jerry! Take note!)

      > Dan: However, my intention in writing to you now is to express
      > a key insight noted in your discourse: to infer
      > that boundary is "bad," to use "the real" against "the unreal"
      > to describe "fear" as something to be gotten rid of - all
      > of these positions set one thing against another, unnecessarily,
      > ultimately resulting in self-contradiction.

      Gene: Yes. The label of 'negativity' is certainly used freely, is it
      not? It is used, as though there is some _virtue_ in such ranking
      behaviours. I point out that here as elsewhere, such labels are used
      _exclusively_ for the purpose of _positioning oneself_ among those
      who share similar 'beliefs'. It is the behaviour of 'positioning'
      that we have had such a load of here, recently. The classical 'best
      position' to have, is that of the 'innocent'; it is significant that
      it is the self-positioned 'innocents' who have had such a rough time
      of it lately. It is also significant that the arrival of the 'rough
      and ready' bringers of hellfire has resulted in several 'cremations'
      of long held, dysfunctional identities. One extreme pole brings the
      other into existence!

      > I see it this way: the boundless and boundary are in no way
      > opposed. If looked at carefully, all bounded situations
      > necessarily interpenetrate all other bounded situations.
      > This reality is, itself, boundlessness. Nothing is reducible,
      > nothing is to be known in terms of something else. Everything
      > requires everything else, as is. This is love.
      >
      > Also, love is not hating yourself in the morning
      > for what you said today :-)
      >
      > Love,
      > Dan

      Gene: Well stated, Dan. Thank you!

      Yin and Yang are one in motion...


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