Highlights for Saturday, April 8
- This was just posted on Petros-Truth@onelist.com:
Subject: [pTruth] Eckhart 1
"When the creature ends, there God begins to be. God asks only that you get
out of his way, in so far as you are creature, and let him be God in you.
The least creaturely idea that ever entered your mind is as big as God. Why?
Because it will keep God out of you entirely. The moment you get ideas, God
fades out and the Godhead too. It is when the idea is gone that God gets
-- Meister Eckhart, sermon on The Love of God
The End may not be clear when
one is holding on
to a position, an attempt
to gain attention,
to feel powerful and
Release and the End is.
All this shall pass.
Boasting and arrogance
Love be Awakening.
Here are some questions I might
use to look at assumptions:
What assumptions do I have
about letting go?
What do I think will be different?
How is this moment, as is, other
than letting go?
How is this determined except
by comparing this moment with
an image of "letting go"?
The shifting of thought from
this moment to the image
of "letting go" - how real
There is always only this moment.
The shifting occurs always as
How real is the idea of comparing
this moment to an image of letting go?
Who is the comparer other than the
activity of comparison?
...stop living in the lie,
and appreciate the illusion --
G: What is truth?
J: A lie when uttered
D: Now, ain't that the truth...
This....from Osho....for the 'feeling types':
" Devotion frees ": that is why we have glimpses of freedom
only in love. When you are in love, you have a subtle freedom.
This is paradoxical because everyone else will see that you have
become a slave. If you are in love with someone, those around
you will think that you both have become slaves of each other.
But you will have glimpses of freedom. Love is freedom.
Why? Because ego is bondage: there is no other bondage.
You may be in a prison and you cannot escape. If your
beloved comes into the prison, the prison disappears that
very moment. The walls are there still, but they do not
imprison you. Now you can forget them completely. You
can dissolve into each other and you can become for each
other a sky in which to fly. The prison has disappeared; it is
no more there. And you may be under the open sky, totally
free, untethered, without love, but you are in a prison because
you have nowhere to fly. This sky will not do.
Birds fly in that sky, but you cannot. You need a different sky -
the sky of consciousness. Only the other can give you that sky,
the first taste of it. When the other opens for you and you move
into the other, you can fly."
Love is freedom, but not total. If love becomes devotion,
then it becomes total freedom. So those who are of the
feeling type, for them is this sutra: "Devotion frees".
~ Osho's "Book of Secrets 2"
Here's a tasty tidbit from the introduction to "Mipham's Beacon Of
Certainty" by John Whitney Pettit. [brackets are mine]
"The Great Perfection [Dzogchen] teaches that reality is not an object of
verbal expression or conceptual analysis. Reality and enlightenment are
identical; in the final analysis "being" and "knowing" are the same. If
one truly knows, there is no need to discuss or analyze philosophically
how one knows, or what one knows. Great Perfection meditation is
described as effortless, free of concepts and subtle distortions; in
this way it conforms to the radical immanence of ultimate reality taught
in Vajrayana ["the pervasive, unfabricated presence of divine form,
divine sound, and gnosis-awareness"]. In the "Beacon" and elsewhere
Mipham argues that all philosophical views, including the Great
Perfection, are resolved in the principal of coalescence. Though
coalescence is defined in different ways in different philosophical
contexts, in essence it is the nonduality of conventional and ultimate
realities. Coalescence is the immanence of ultimate reality, which in
Madyamaka [Middle Way] philosophy is known as the inseparability of
samsara and nirvana.
In advocating nonconceptual meditation the Great Perfection might seem
to contradict the Madyamika method of discerning reality through
critical analysis and the contemplative enhancement of rational
certainty that analysis makes possible. The Great Perfection (and
certain other traditions which have been practiced in Tibet, including
Ch'an) has often been criticized by Tibetan scholars who thought it
utterly incompatible with the critical philosophical approach of
Madyamaka. This perceived incompatibility is based on the assumption
that the very different philosophical views and practical methods that
typify the subitist [immediate] approach of the Great Perfection and the
gradualist approach of the Madyamaka cannot both access ultimate
meaning. Mipham's writings suggest that this perceived contradiction
reflects a one-sided or impoverished understanding of the Madyamika
philosophical view. In the "Beacon", certainty mediates the causal
connection between theory and gnostic vision, and between soteric
[salvational] methods and the ultimate reality that those methods
reveal. Thus, the "Beacon" teaches that certainty belongs to both reason
and experience, to ordinary consciousness and sublime gnosis, and to
Madyamaka as well as the Great Perfection."
It all stems from this...without relying on the senses, or on memory, or on dreams
or reasoning, there is only one thing known; I am. Appearances change, forms change,
names change, being remains. Differences between us are real in appearance, and
subject to change. Consciousness manifests as an infinity of unique individuals,
that's what's so beautiful about the whole thing.
A J A responds:
You may know you are. So what? That does not establish you are me. You are not me. The statement "consciousness manifests as an
infinity of unique individuals" is unsubstantiated cant. The "whole thing" is indeed beautiful but not for the reason you suggest.
Only 'I am' is known, 'you and me' are appearances, known only through senses, memory,
reason or dream. 'You and me' are changeable manifestations. I don't know that you
exist as a separate entity from me except by my senses. I don't know that I exist as a
separate entity from anything except by my senses, by an image. It's the notion that
there is more than one consciousness that's unprovable, speculation.
Keeping quiet is an intimate, internal affair.
It has nothing to do with speaking or not speaking.
It has only to do with falling in love with the quiet.
Silent Heart, Robert Adams called it. I like the phrase.
NEO and XAN:
I remember at the end of a retreat with Gangaji, I was questioning a few
things and the other people were saying to drown me in the ocean (they were
joking on the surface). It
was if it had become a cult where everyone had to agree with
If I were to guess what those other people
meant, it was probably about you/your identity
and opinions drowning in the ocean of silent
awareness. The little time I have spent with
Gangaji's group showed me a little of what you
are describing. But she is quite tough-minded for
having such gentle grace, and doesn't put up with
that sort of thing.
What I saw from my first meeting with her was
that she is awake and continuing to deepen in
awareness, that she is uncompromising in her
genuineness, and that people are awakening to
Self in her presence.
The question is, how is the world - the human
mind - to be turned around? You seem to say
frequently that if people would just decide to be
kinder that separation would end. I see that as
putting the cart before the horse. It has been
tried for eaons and has never worked, to try to
change people's behavior by preaching that they
should, by making rules of conduct, by threatening
with hell, by guilt-tripping, etc. etc.
Change must happen from the inside and
behavior will follow. Awakening to the one
unifying compassionate force of life happens
within each person uniquely. This is why I keep
telling you about this real possibility for you -
that you can know this unending Heart, not as
an experience which comes and goes but as you,
yourself, your essence.
It is change of identity that ends separation.
if kindness were practiced intentionally (ie: not out of habit),it
could dramatically aid the internal changes that you speak
What I have been noticing in myself is that I have been
noticing behaviors and the feeling states that go with
them and then not noticing the feeling state that this
noticing evokes. If that makes sense. So, for example,
I walk around feeling like a piece of shit because I
have noticed I behave a certain way (which includes
feeling states itself). You could also call it becoming
identified with being identified. I have come to realize
that one thing that this second identification does
(not saying this is the motivation) is to keep the focus
on "me." I can now feel bad about how bad I am.
"A new improved lie..........."
So now to contain this new observation i.e. not
fall totally into it like narcissus. My friend today
called it staying parallel to himself. Hard to describe
but I knew what he meant.
The idea "all is consciousness" is just an idea. But let's find out if it
means anything. If it doesn't, then it doesn't.
Have you read much on quantum physics? How about the idea that a quantum
can either be a particle or a wave, depending on the observer? Or quantum
nonlocality? Or indeterminacy? The picture I get from this is of a
physical universe that is finely woven together and the weaving itself is
consciousness. But I don't have to believe the picture. I can see it
It seems to irritate you to say that there is only one consciousness. How
about an analogy -- one you suggested in the first place? You suggested
"stream of consciousness (individuated)" which can be extrapolated to
*water*. "Streams" of consciousness are nothing but water. Water is
water and the nature of water is to fit in any container. But no matter
how many containers, water is still water. There is water in this body
(lots of it). This water resonates to all water, because in essence it is
GLO, DAN, GENE and OH:
... I do wonder when it seems that most of the posts are revolving
around personality attacks, if we are not also destroying what
makes us human beings.
What is a personality? It is a well-worn groove of habit.
How does a groove become well-worn? By repetition.
And what is such repetition but the acting out of compulsion
How is 'personality' related to or different from 'identity'?
Dan, you seem to be speaking of the automaticity which is the
'mechanism' which continually 'patches' identity... that mechanism
which until seen, cannot be brought to a halt, voluntarily.
Understanding that we 'all have' this mechanism, is important; the
differences between 'us' could be characterized by how, we as
individuals, actually handle or deal with this mechanism.
To be able to 'let identity go' is a way of Being, in contrast with
the way of Being which is enslaved to the mechanism which continually
patches and repairs an identity which could be allowed to perish.
I offer this as a way to look at what happens when repetitive,
obnoxious, sexist, personalized messages are voiced
over and over, ad nauseum.
Yes; we can easily see this mechanism of 'sustenance of
identity' as it controls those who would rather fight to defend 'a
wisp of smoke', than to allow the death of that aggressive,
When anything positive that may be asserted here in the
way of "good" human values like even common decency, let
alone love, gets shot down and interpreted as being only
an ego fantasy. Certainly a human being is at least the
stage on which these struggles take place. It is all well
and good to point out that we are complex and
contradictory beings and anyone who aspires to what is
commonly considered "good" runs the risk of being in
denial of their own evil tendencies. However when every
"good" aspiration is labelled bad and tarred and feathered
with charges of pomposity and grandiosity, this creates a
world that denies reality as much as the good ship
lollipop version does. What is real and what is reality is
simply "what_is." Certainly this "what_is" does not
exclude beauty and love.
"What is" *is* that which we label as beauty and love,
and artificially set up against something that negates
in the form of ugliness and withdrawal.
It is our desire to "have" beauty that leads us to
separate it from "what is" itself.
And what could possibly be more beautiful than 'my'
personality? As the unimpeachable and absolute judge of all that is
good and bad, my supremacy cannot be contested. Anyone who attempts
to knock me off of my throne of Goodness will pay the supreme price!
As the Living Master of what is Good and Right, I am commissioned to
PUNISH those who contest my will! Let any fool who would displease
me, prepare to be CRUSHED!
What *is*, with no opposite, is hardly nothing
as conceived by the limited relative
thought-process. This "no-thing"
is fully alive, truth without
untruth, the Whole Being --
it just can't fully be expressed
in relative concepts such as beauty
If we wait around until someone can express FOR US what is, in
all of its glory and complexity, we will be missing the delight of
the moment-to-moment 'trip' that this life is.
Living this beautiful life, I have it all. Really! I do not wait for
someone to come along to validate me, nor do I fear that someone will
come along to invalidate me. I understand that my very Being is valid
Woooeee! Gassho, Gene dear!
"Every" one's being is valid just as it is, eh? There is nothing to
change far as i can see, 'cept a fiver for a veggie pizza with extra
cheese! Each being is Perfection just as she is!! ,^)) Perfection.
What would happen if each of us dropped, just like that - the whole
shebang of trying to figure out what is wrong or right with ourselves?
And took a good look in the Clear Lake of Reality? That reflection of
Perfection is our True Face. What a Beaut, eh?