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

highlights Mon 10 April

Expand Messages
  • andrew macnab
    Harsha, Watchfulness; The great sage Mahavira said to his disciple Gautama that one does not know when it will be time to go. So always be watchful O
    Message 1 of 1 , Apr 11, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      Harsha, Watchfulness;

      The great sage Mahavira said to his disciple Gautama that one does not know when it
      will be time to go. "So always be
      watchful O' Gautama!"

      In Jainism, some say that the highest yoga is known as Upay Yoga or Yoga of Awareness.
      The highest rung of understanding in
      the great spiritual traditions emphasize being aware of the innate wakefulness of Pure

      Be Watchful.

      Watch your Watchfulness.



      xan, matthew, Dan, Mark, Hans, Identity, Separation, Traps;

      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

      ~ It could. Then again it could turn into just another false
      identity as a Kind Person.


      yes, ego can (and will) take anything, anything at all, even the most
      profound spiritual realization and put it to it's own use.
      I would say that it is not a change of identity that ends separation,
      but that when the illusion of separation is pierced,
      then identity begins to disolve.,,,,,,,matthew

      ~ Yes.
      Not a sequence, one then the other,
      but occuring all at once and out of time.



      Joining this fun debate just for
      more fun.
      Just want to posit another point
      of view, understanding
      that no point of view reveals
      the full truth, ever :-)

      I would say neither that a change of
      identity ends separation (no separation
      ever occurred that needs to end),
      nor that when the illusion of separation
      is pierced the identity begins to
      dissolve (no separation ever took
      place; thus, no illusion about an unreality
      needs to be "pierced"; such piercing
      would also be an illusion - the illusory
      piercing of an illusion, "bringing about"
      the dissolution of something that
      never occurred). I would
      say this: no "real" separation has
      ever occurred anywhere. Believe it,
      or don't believe it - your belief
      doesn't affect this fact one way
      or another. Act as "separate" as
      you want, your separation is never
      more than a supposition. Why try to
      end a supposition that itself
      has no independent reality?


      Hi guys,

      It's probably already clear, but if intentional kindness can turn into
      the trap of posing as a kind person, it's also possible that using the
      argument that intentional kindness can turn into the trap of posing as a
      kind person to avoid practicing intentional kindness can be a prior
      trap. I see this minefield of self exploration as a series of traps -
      out of one and into another. As long as I see that I'm in a trap and
      find a way out of it, I don't worry too much about the next trap. When
      I get there, I'll deal with it. For now, I'm just dealing with the
      present trap. No, that's a trap itself. I also try to keep an eye out
      for obvious traps and avoid them. But I live my life, so traps are
      inevitable. I have enough love to escape them when I need to and so the
      trap of believing in traps begins to (as Mathew says...) dissolve.

      Love, Mark

      Hi Mark, i never realized there were so many traps :) IMO, recognizing the
      trap means the realization that thinking about kindness is not the same as
      kindness. In fact, i wonder if somebody who is really kind, ever thinks
      about kindness ? I don't think so because this person simply does not become
      aware of a thing called kindness. It is simply what he is. The need to think
      about kindness results from some sort of inner conflict about *what you are*
      and *what you should be*.

      And of course you are right in your first paragraph but only as an argument,
      not as a reality. But probably this is so for all our (socalled) problems ?

      Enjoying the argument


      Larry and Jerry, Ideas;

      Is there any interest in dialogueing with other groups? I was thinking
      maybe egroups could set it up so a question or topic could be posted to
      several groups and responses to that thread could be shared with all the
      groups in the address column. Maybe list owners would have to make pacts
      or something. Conceivably certain questions could fall within the
      topical parameters of hundreds of groups. I think there is great
      potential for list groups to facilitate world communication. Who knows
      where it could lead???


      The City of Egroups/Onelist probably has a population of
      well over one million. In the Religion category there are
      about 5000 lists perhaps representing a hundred thousand
      people. I don't know where to go with your idea, Larry,
      other than to say, yes, there's a populace and the means to
      communicate with each other. Maybe the first thing to do is
      to stand back and see the whole forest.

      Maybe the next thing to do is to contact as many religion
      lists as possible and present the idea to them and get
      discussion started.

      Part of that discussion could be the formulation of
      significant questions. When questions have been stated then
      they can be discussed, summarized and made public.
      Translating the whole effort into actual world change is
      another story. Perhaps a foundation could be set up for that

      These are some ideas.



      Yes, there is no enlightening anybody,
      it's like trying to revive a corpse.

      Melody and Gene, identity, nakedness;

      > Melody:
      > What is tripping me here is the word 'change',
      > and maybe it's just semantics? but I have heard
      > it said by others that one begins to 'know who
      > they are'. I just can't get this. I'm wondering
      > if I'm missing something because once the
      > 'me' is dropped there is nobody to *be* something.
      > The question absolutely falls away! So how can
      > 'I' possibly know who 'I' am??

      Gene: Not 'just semantics', but a powerful distinction. I can put on
      any version of clothing, but as long as I am dressed, I am not

      Insight has allowed me to see the practical value in remembering that
      'beneath our clothes, we all are naked', but in any event, here I use
      'clothes' as an analogy to 'identity'.

      The one with penetrating insight can see the nakedness beneath the
      clothes... even though the one who is dressed, may be in deep denial
      of any 'covering up'.

      Every family, culture, and tribe depends upon a recognizable
      'uniform' for recognition of who is 'in' and who is 'out'. Here,
      there are several variations of 'uniform'. As an example, 'Neemyth'
      has tried to maintain a non-uniform appearance, but the fact that
      'he' has insight, has lent him our 'official' NDS uniform, by default.

      'Uniform' is either merely 'appearance' and a convenience, similar to
      the namebadge donned upon entry into a security-zone, OR it is a
      'sacred garb' which through deep identification, has come to actually
      represent the Being who wears it.

      The point here is to shed all garb. Naked is the way.

      In this regard, the 'answer' to your question is this; go naked.
      Identity will spontaneously reappear, over and over, even in dreams;
      there is no shortage of it for any of us. Not only is it assigned to
      us by virtually everyone we meet, but it also springs forth from our
      PRE-VERBAL memory-base. It is this inner origin of identity which we
      are trying to hunt down and 'turn off', know it or not.

      > Does this make sense? Am I being dense
      > here, or is this just another way of saying
      > that the question or idea or 'who am i' falls
      > away along with the identity?

      Gene: In regards to this 'issue', you nor anyone can be expected to
      be anything but 'dense'. What you are examining/tackling is the
      'ultimate return home'; it is steps on a journey which calls for the
      utmost in honesty and impeccability.

      When I say 'return home', what I am pointing to is the allowing of
      the conditioned implications which reside in the preverbal area of
      the brain, to become accessible to conscious awareness. This is easy
      for me to say or write... but it is NOT easy to 'allow' or to 'do'.
      For some, this 'event' is similar to inviting the devil himself to
      arise, like a malevolent phantom, up through the floor of one's

      The scary guardian of this area of the "unconscious" is the "Angel
      bearing a flaming sword" who guards the perimeter of Eden, against
      the return of Adam and Eve, after their banishment by God.

      For one to 'return home' is to be subject to the nature of this
      guardian; it is no wonder that this event of homecoming is so rare,
      and so scary for most. But it is inevitable that we return home, for
      it is home where the heart is. And heart is our original nature, our
      'Eden'. Only the bane of 'other people', existing as data in our
      preverbal areas, prevents this homecoming. All issues are actually
      with 'other'; but all other is simply self, mirrored. And like in a
      mirror, what is seen is 'backwards', and what is heard is gibberish.

      Alice went home 'through the looking-glass'; she stated to other:
      "Why, you are nothing but a PACK OF CARDS!". And so it is; Other is
      nothing but a pack of memory-cards, punched before we could use
      language. These cards, dwelling deep in the unconscious, create by
      default the nature of 'other'.

      Identity is always 'in contrast to' other; if we can release 'other',
      identity will at least shift, if not evaporate for a while. During
      the time of shifting, or of evaporation, original nature can be had.
      The contrast is too obvious to escape notice; it is always a
      life-changing event, no matter how perceived.

      > When 'I' melt into 'an other'.....there is no
      > sense of 'I am you'....there is no 'I am God'
      > or 'I am Love' or 'I am the unending heart'
      > ....none of that whatsoever.

      Gene: I am uncertain what you are alluding to here, in 'melting into
      an other'. Perhaps you have the experience of impersonal 'sharing' of
      awareness-space, as do I. Please clarify.

      > Am I missing something? Is this saying that
      > there is a sense of 'I' past the experience of
      > 'union' or 'melting'?

      Gene: Now is the time to reread what I posted above. Residual 'I' is
      completely natural, and with practice, will fade into nothing. Noone
      can be expected to have the 'perfect emptiness' at any given time,
      even though this _ideal_ is forcefully promulgated as one of the
      standards which signifies 'self-realization'.

      I have emphasized many times, how it is good and necessary to have
      compassion for oneself. This means patience and self-forgiveness, and
      especially self-acceptance. Tensions and frictions which mount
      within, as we attempt to clear the high bar of 'spiritual
      expectations', should be let go, for this is the compassionate way to
      deal with oneself.

      "Zero identity" is one such ideal; it cannot be 'attained', for there
      is (as is painfully repeated here) no holder of criteria present to
      ascertain what has 'happened' in this event.


      Maturation involves all of these factors, automatically, defined or
      described or not. It is our nature to move about in the universe of
      possibility. It is dangerous to suppose that there is any final
      resting place. Movement in this dynamic is painful if movement itself
      is defined as being lost; if movement is instead defined as life
      itself, this entire dynamic can be a great (if perhaps dramatic)
      adventure to enjoy.

      In conversation with other,

      ==Gene Poole==


      Having done nothing, ever,
      I, who never was and am not,
      am released from doing by
      the simple fact of doing nothing,
      ever. This simple fact is
      not recognized by anyone, as
      any recognition would be a
      doing by a nonexistent someone.


      Lynne, Life is Orange;

      I am peeling back
      this orange
      and looking behind the mask
      of orangeness

      We are all peeling away the terrible masks we wear

      Nothing rhymes with orange
      as if the language itself
      wants to keep something back

      maybe the juice, or the smell of rinds in
      the fingernails, or the seeds' compact voices

      or maybe the meaning of life is orange?

      love (yeah, suffering too)


      Judi sent this;

      An article by Todd Vickers published in a local newspaper here in Santa
      Cruz this week.

      The awareness that there is Truth that is unknown is divine discontent.
      Usually our awareness is of experience and the stories about those
      experiences. We build a concept of self around this story. In one
      instant of no though, this story disappears but, you still are.

      I express myself for two reasons. First, to provoke direct inquiry into
      your Being. This is ot inquiry into experience or phenomena. Second,
      to expose what obscures the obviousness of Truth. I don't teach
      anything because I can't give you what you are have. Realize who you
      are and enjoy the freedom. I'm not saying "Don't partake of life." You
      are Being in all that life offers both pleasant and unpleasant. You are
      sensitive, so delight in life. All desire is the desire for Truth
      because Truth will eliminate the discontent. If you always seek
      experience to feed this hunger you will be disappointed because seeking
      is endless and will become a life-long vicious circle. Rather than
      looking to the very source that al experiences arise from (Being), one
      endlessly seeks more experience, thus the vicious circle called karma.
      Identification with material or spiritual experience is ego. Truth is
      not an experience, it's the formless source and witness of all.

      One might say "If I embrace my discontent, I won't even want to live,
      I'll kill myself." This is not embracing it because the desire to kill
      oneself is the desire to avoid this discontent. Stop denying this
      hunger. The celebration of this hunger is bhakti, devotion, and
      ecstatic love of Truth. This is Tantra. You can give yourself to this
      inquiry. What is free in the midst of all that changes?

      To hunt a monkey you secure a gourd to a tree and then place something
      shiny inside as a monkey watches. Then leave. The monkey wants the
      shiny object and will grasp hold of it and as his fist closes around the
      object it becomes too big to fit through the hole in the gourd and he is
      trapped. The monkey would be free if he would just let go but even as
      the hunter approaches he will not, thus he forfeits his life. The
      hunter is karma, the gourd is experience, the monkey is the mind, the
      object is identity and the grasping is desire. If you are identified
      with experience then you are like this monkey.

      The way to inquire is meditation, yet our awareness is diverted by the
      story of life or spiritual experience, this is not noticing the source.
      Music needs silence to be, but silence doesn't need music to be, and so
      it is with the mind and experience. DO NOT TAKE THIS SILENCE FOR

      Even the worst pain can't take it from you, or the greatest joy. I am
      this nature speaking to you. I am suggesting you look and see who you
      are when there is no-mind. See that this so-called "I" is nothing but a
      concept of mind. I ask, "Who are you?"


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