- no past.
past is just
a thought arising
how marvelous is this!
future is just
a thought arising
how marvelous is this!
but if you really want
Ananda is not happiness. Ananda is bliss, which is experienced as happiness
by the jiva sometimes. Recognition of Brahman does not mean that one
has a "source" of Ananda. Brahman *is* Ananda. Minds seem to be able to
"render" Ananda as feelings of happiness at times, but this happiness
is not Brahman Itself.
Brahman is Sat, Chit, Ananda. Chit is universal awareness. All
consciousness is dependent on it. Recognition is the event whereby
Chit is recognized by Chit, spontaneously and unbidden. Upon
recognition, experiential knowledge of pure awareness, Brahman,
is present. You won't know it until you know it, but suffice to
say that it is ever present in everyone's life. All one needs
is "eyes" to see it with.
We cannot know Brahman by an understanding of our relationship to
It, because there *isn't* any relationship to It. It *is* our awareness.
The very foundation of our being, yours and mine. Understanding
a relationship entails a concept of what we are in relationship
with. You're talking concept, I'm talking eternity.
I'm not sure who your heroes are, but mine (including a number
on this list) understand exactly what I'm talking about. Not
because they share the same concepts I do about it, but because
they have been blessed the same way. It's really no big deal
at all, despite all the hoopla around it.
The root of suffering is the belief/perception
of a separate entity that isn't, and the attempt
to maintain the existence of something that
Never existed in the first place. The contraction
isn't the problem. The contraction is what is
taken as evidence of a problem that isn't there, that
MATTHEW: NO, the contraction is not evidence because we are
rarely ever aware of it. The root of suffering is not a belief
because beliefs are in the domain of the mind.The root of suffering is also
not a perception of the "separeate entity that isn't". Percieving
that "separate entity that isnt" is actually a step toward the end of
suffering. Right, contraction isnt the problem, contraction is what
happens upon the assumption of separation and thus we live our lives
from the context of contraction, of unlove, self-reference, narcissus.
Dear Gene and Melody..
I thank you both for all of that you offer here. Yet this particular
exchange stands out, for me, as one of the finest examples of authentic,
intelligent, respectful dialogue I've ever witnessed online. A fine
benchmark. As listener, I entrained upon the gifts of both of your
sharing and feel gently bathed.
>MELODY: Hi Gene,
>GENE: Hi Mel. Glad to hear that.
> Thank you for your response. What you
> say resonates with me.
MELODY: There is one question I'd like to revisit here with you.....
>GENE: Xan 'backed up' and clarified her statement, later, as you may
> I will ask it in a slightly different way...
> Earlier, in a response to Xan's statement, which included in part:
> >>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."
> you wrote:
> > I hope it is heard
> What I heard in xan's statement, and in your
> agreement was that a change takes place where
> ones identity changes from an identity of 'me'
> to an identity of 'unending Heart'.
Her statement was customized, aimed at "Neo", and was appropriate for
him, for the kinds of movements he has been doing. It occurs to me
that Xan is trying to implicate 'fixed identity' first, later to
point to 'no identity'. My enjoinder was designed to reinforce, for
Neo, the spirit of what Xan was 'doing'. Step by step is OK.
MELODY: What is tripping me here is the word 'change',
> and maybe it's just semantics? but I have heardGENE: Not 'just semantics', but a powerful distinction. I can put on
> 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??
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.
MELODY: Does this make sense? Am I being dense
> here, or is this just another way of sayingGENE: In regards to this 'issue', you nor anyone can be expected to
> that the question or idea or 'who am i' falls
> away along with the identity?
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.
MELODY: When 'I' melt into 'an other'.....there is no
> sense of 'I am you'....there is no 'I am God'GENE: I am uncertain what you are alluding to here, in 'melting into
> or 'I am Love' or 'I am the unending heart'
> ....none of that whatsoever.
an other'. Perhaps you have the experience of impersonal 'sharing' of
awareness-space, as do I. Please clarify.
MELODY: Am I missing something? Is this saying that
> there is a sense of 'I' past the experience ofGENE: Now is the time to reread what I posted above. Residual 'I' is
> 'union' or 'melting'?
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.
The Witness - A Short Essay
What is the Witness? It is that (in us) which is detached and observing
all phenomena, simply registering events (input through the five senses,
thought, emotions, everything). The Witness simply observes, and usually
the observation gets stored in memory - thus, it serves the function of
observing/recording, like a video camera or tape recorder. Even
remembering something from the past is witnessed and stored as a memory,
the memory of recalling memories.
In every state there is witnessing, but it is normally confused with the
person (= memory = thought = time). It is possible for the identity of the
person with the Witness to break, and this has occurred to me at least
once. One time I remember clearly -- it was a most curious sensation. I
was brushing my teeth at the time. Suddenly I was observing the body as it
went through the motions of tooth-brushing. It was like the body was
moving by itself, and I was watching - "I" was not doing anything but
watching as the body faithfully performed as it was supposed to. It was
most unusual, as if watching a puppet perform, but not at all
disconcerting. As emotions are a form of thought and arise from memory,
there was no emotion connected with the event.
At other times, I have experienced a most peculiar phenomenon, where I can
"feel" what others are feeling (as physical sensation). For example,
seeing someone grip the steering wheel in a car, I can feel the sensation
in their hands as they grip it (it is not felt in "my hands" but is simply
felt). This is so disconcerting that it can be immensely disturbing. It's
possible that so-called "depersonalization" experiences (where a person
sees themselves but does not recognize who they are seeing, or simply has a
dramatic (but usually temporary) sensation of not knowing who they are) are
experiences where the Witness is temporarily dis-identified with "the
person" (again, the person = memory).
Most depend on the Witness regularly, but are unaware of it. Anyone who
has driven home from work in a deep daydream or half asleep, and is
startled to "come to" suddenly and find themselves arriving home safely,
has been guided by the Witness. Some people have driven a car dead drunk
for miles, yet somehow managed to get home. The Witness obviously serves a
vital function, yet when confused with remembered events, appears as "the
Being universal (as consciousness), the Witness is not limited in
perspective as the eyes and other senses are. It can observe and register
from "above" the body, or to any side, similar to a movable camera. This
has been routinely observed in past-life regression therapy, where the
person observing themselves in their past life sometimes sees out their own
eyes, and sometimes from an "external" or third-person perspective (this
has puzzled some past-life regression hypnotists). It can also be observed
in near death experiences (NDE's), when the body is seen from above, being
worked on by doctors, and in so-called "out of body experiences."
It seems there is in reality only one universal Witness. Could this
account for so-called "ESP" or "mind-reading?" How about those times when
a person KNOWS something has happened to someone they are close to (despite
any supporting evidence) and it turns out to be true? It seems likely that
all minds are linked as the universal Witness. A lot of conclusions can be
drawn from this idea, and it certainly explains many unusual things that
are otherwise unexplainable.
The Witness is the bridge between the Absolute and the person. When the
Witness ceases to register "external" or "internal" events (for whatever
reason) and begins to witness ITSELF, the bridge is crossed. Since the
Witness is really the Self, if the Witness witnesses itself (sometimes
referred to as "awareness of awareness" or "awareness attending to itself,"
the Self is seen. This does *not* get recorded in memory, since there is
nothing to record (the Self is not an object of perception). Rather, a
radical change in perspective occurs. The Witness "becomes" the Self
(Reality, Absolute, Brahman) and is no more. It seems that this can be
either permanent or temporary, and that there is the illusion (created by
the mind) that this dissolution it is a process, taking time. I suspect
that it is really instantaneous (timeless) but the person (thought-memory)
perceives it as a process taking time to complete. The habit of perceiving
everything as process is a difficult one to break.
As the Absolute, identity remains. Transcendence does not mean
destruction. The body is really the mind (and vice-versa,) and to separate
the two is a falsehood. As long as the body-mind continues, identity
continues, although not memory-based personality. Some have said that a
sort of "shell" of an ego is left behind, but filled with Divinity (= Void
= Total Fullness) rather than memories and habits. When the body of a
"realized" person finally dies, the last of the identity dies with it,
leaving only the Absolute and nothing to be reborn as another body.
The storm was over, and the sun shines again :-))
Life goes on and on after so much emotion on the list :-))
But precisely I like [NDS] because
it is a non-moderated list. And I
think this is the strength of [NDS] :-)
I think [NDS] has a life by itself :-)
Thereupon, I am not against the
"harsh" methods used by some
people on the list. I myself is a fan
of Gurdjieff who is the best master
in the art of "shock" treatments :-))
According to Gurdjieff's teachings,
the Fourth Way, and considering
the actual "level" of mankind, the
appropriate work for a possible
transformation of man's consciousness
is not the work on the intellectual
center but the one on the emotional
Do you notice the enormous energy
released during every tumultuous occasion? :-))
Therefore, being harsh or nice, it doesn't matter :-))
What matters, what is important is the
*INTENTION* behind the words. And to
illustrate this point I will use a Buddhist
doctrine, the doctrine of Karma.
Karma means 'action', 'doing'. An action
could be physical, verbal or mental. And an
action, good or bad, would produce a good
or bad effect. "You reap what you sow."
This is the general meaning of karma as
believed by the Hindus with its corollary
that is the doctrine of reincarnation.
But according to Buddhism, "VOLITION IS KARMA".
This is a very important point. It means
that only INTENTIONAL action or action
with VOLITION bears a fruit or a result.
This point is very important because it
means that an unintentional action or an
action without volition bears no fruit, no
result. As an example found in the book
"The Way to Nirvana" by L. De La Vallee Poussin:
"By giving gold, while intending to give
a stone, a gift of gold is indeed made;
but, as it has not been premeditated or
willed, the act is as if it were not done .
It is not 'appropriated': it is not 'stored
up' (upacita); it will bear no fruit. In the
same way, if a man kills his mother
when striking at what is believed to be
a pumpkin, there is no matricide, there
is no murder, there is only destruction
of a fruit."
To illustrate this point, it is interesting
to contrast with the Jainist doctrine
of Karma . According to Jainism, an
action, either intentional or unintentional,
bears the same fruit. The man who
commits murder, or who harms in any
way a living being, without intent, is no
less guilty than the one who commits
murder with intent. It means that Jainism
gives importance to the bodily and verbal
But with Buddhism, when you give
"fuel" to your thoughts, when you have
intention, volition, even if you have not yet
expressed it in a concretely physical or
verbal action, there is already karma! :-))
Thus the importance of having GOOD intention.
And what is a *GOOD* INTENTION?
I think the answer is evident.
It must be LOVE :-))
Yes, LOVE, LOVE, LOVE .... :-))
Please, have LOVE in your heart :-))
So whatever is the use of your words
or your "methods" on the list, harsh or
nice, please have LOVE in your heart :-))
Intentionally yours :-)
No one has ever comprehended the One.
Not at all.
The One is all that is.
You know nothing; I know nothing.
I don't comprehend One.
My comprehension is in the
realm of words and concepts. One
that has no outside, is present,
is knowing, but can't be known
So, I say, "I don't know."
BRUCE MORGEN AND AJA
AJA: Well, its happened. Ive become bored talking with the
> pseudo-liberated.BRUCE: Understand boredom --
when you do, revisit
the issue with peeled
AJA: Im well aware of Advaita Vedanta-esque distinctions between Ishvara,
> Brahman, etc. Ive heard nothing new from you here.BRUCE: Understand expectation
-- when you do, revisit
the issue with peeled
AJA: Your repeated
> announcement of your own (and/or Advaita-esque) interpretations *asBRUCE: Understand impatience
> if* they
> were the very facts we were trying to establish begged the question
> beyond my patience.
-- when you do, revisit
the issue with peeled
AJA: Good luck with your "liberation" (those of you who feel you
> are liberated).BRUCE: I'm sure those who feel
that way thank you.
AJA: For my part, I am content in the knowledge the lowest
> rung on the ladder to God (read Absolute) is far above the pinnacleBRUCE: True enough, but what of
> of anyones self-assertion -
that which is not knowledge,
not merely stored data?
AJA: - farewell.
BRUCE: Baba Nam Kevalam
I admit that i am still pretty much identified with my identifications. I
also admit that i sincerely don't know who is identifying with whom. I even
do not know whether i can identify myself with my own sincerety or if this
is just another identity. Looking at my dog, am i that or is he this or is
he neither me nor him or is he just another identity of mine. I admit i do
not resemble my dog very much, but since i am on this list and a lot of
people signed their message with woof woof i wouldn't be very much surprised
that i am a dog with a lost identity looking at himself thinking he's human
but that of course is just a projection. Or maybe i have been looking at too
many cartoons. Of course, that's it. Problem solved. Next one, please.
The Myth Of The Cave
All they can see is the wall in front of them ...
The most famous passage in all Plato's writings occurs in the Republic, and
is know as the Myth of the Cave. In it Plato puts into symbolic form his view
of the human condition, and especially of human knowledge, in relation to reality
as a whole.
Imagine, he says, a big cave, connected to the outside world by a passage
long enough to prevent any daylight from penetrating into the cave itself. Facing
the far wall, with their backs to the entrance, is a row of prisoners. Nor only
are their limbs chained, they are also fastened by the neck so that they cannot
move their heads, and therefore cannot see one another, indeed cannot see any
part of themselves. All they can see is the wall in front of them. And they have
been in this situation all their lives, and know nothing else.
In the cave behind them is a bright fire. Unknown to them there is a rampart
as high as a man between the fire and them; and on the other side of this
rampart are people perpetually passing to and fro carrying things on their heads. The
shadows of these objects are cast on to the wall in front of the prisoners by the
light of the fire, and the voices of the people carrying them are echoed back from
this wall to the prisoners' ears. Now, says Plato, the only entities that the
prisoners ever perceive or experience in the whole of their existence are those
shadows and those echoes. In these circumstances it would be natural for them to assume
that shadows and echoes constitute all the reality there is; and it would be to
this 'reality,' and to their experiences of it that all their talk would refer.
If one of the prisoners could shake off his chains, so cramped would he be
by a lifetime of entrapment in the half-dark, that merely to turn around would be
painful and awkward for him, and the fire would dazzle his eyes. He would
find himself confused and uncomprehending, and would want to turn back again to
face the wall of shadows, the reality he understood. If he were dragged up and
out of the cave altogether into the world of blazing sunlight he would be blinded
and bewildered, and it would be a long time before he was able to see or
understand anything. But then, once he was used to being in the upper world, if he were
to return to the cave he would be temporarily blinded again, this time by the
darkness. And everything he said to the prisoners about his experiences
would be unintelligible to those people whose language had reference only to shadows
The way to begin understanding this allegory is to see us human beings as
imprisoned in our own bodies, with only other such prisoners for company,
and all of us unable to discern the real selves of one another, or even our own real
selves. Our direct experience is not of reality, but what is in our minds.
>From Bryan Magee's The Story of Thought - The Essential Guide to the Historyof Western Philosophy, A Quality Paperback Bookclub Exclusive, Published by DK
Publishing as The Story of Philosophy. Copyright 1998, Dorling Kindersley
Limited, London Text Copyright 1998.
Well, maybe if I (personally) get a bit less involved with my own walls,
there is some (slight) chance that I will reach out (or into my pocket)
to feed a child or two. Maybe not. pretty scary thought, that I may
have to think about someone else. nevermind... but it might be nice to
have a small window to see the sky... Which way does that window face?
gotta buy some blinds... that's it, I'll put the blinds up before I cut
the hole for the window.... Maybe I'll just paint a window on the wall,
yea, that's safer! Yup, got it! Now I have a prescription and I may
relax into permanent bliss. thank you list, I'm done.
i feel so much better.
MARCIA PAUL AND GREG GOODE
MARCIA: Interesting if true. It seems to be true in my experience. Once
"something" is stored in the brain or laid down in brain tissue
(ha ha not sure how to describe this), there is no difference
in whether it "really" happened or was a figment of my
imagination. The recalling of it is exactly the same. I haven't
quite got this memory business down yet.
GREG: Yes, memory is a trick, a thought or feeling that indicates, "This happened
before." To verify the memory of a past object, we'd need access to the
past object. To have access to the past object, we'd need memory. The
memory and object depend on each other, and neither one can ever be
...the following is what I remember from listening to
Wapnick's tapes and from reading his material. It works for me.
First of all I will sometimes speak in the past tense. But remember
that the Course says none of this happened. The separation never
The Creation Myth - The Four Splits
There is Heaven - a nondual state where there is no separation
between God and his Son. They are the same except that God created
the Son but the Son did not create God. That is the only difference.
Then suddenly there came a tiny mad idea to the Son that he is
separate and independent from his Source, also a creator like his
Source only He cannot create God. That is the first split. Now there
is duality but in abstraction or mind level. How or why this thought
came is a mystery . In Reality this thought never happened.
The Son of God believes he is separate and alone and feels that by
separating, he has "destroyed" Wholeness or Oneness. He feels
tremendous guilt that he has done that to God. And guilt always
requires punishment. (a psychological fact) Because his separation
is interpreted as an attack on God or Oneness, he assumes that God is
like him in that God will want to attack him , seeking vengeance.
The Son of God feels terror. This is still at the mind level.
God creates by extension. Love extends love. The Son as a split-mind
can only continue his own creation the way he started - by splitting
again. His mind now split into two - Right Mind (still has memory
of his oneness with God) and Wrong Mind (sees through the eyes of
ego). This is the second split.
His guilt and fear are so great over the separation or destruction of
Wholeness that he splits again, this time into billions and billions
of fragments in one instant (like the big bang) in order to "hide
from God's wrath". This is the third split. - Creation of the
physical universe and identification with the ego fragments - us. The
memory of the right mind is veiled and forgotten. That one instant
contains all of time- past, present, future.
Now fear and guilt and attack rule everything in the world. It's
victim vs victimizer, with victimizers having been victims and the
cycle continues. The fragmented sons of God still cannot bear to
look at the guilt they still carry within them and project outward
their guilt on others. This is the fourth split. And that's us,
living in guilt and fear of our world and of each other.
At the same instant that the split occurred, there was the Atonement.
The thought of separation was undone. Nothing happened. The
impossible never happened; the separation never happened for That
Which is Whole can never be divided. There was no separation and
there was no atonement. We are not here in the world because there
is no world. We are asleep dreaming this dream and identifying with
the individual egos. Within this dream we carry the memory of that
part of our Mind that still remembers our Home with God. And little
by little , one fragment at a time, a choice is made to undo the ego
thought system and to remember who we are and to wake up.
Probably I am hiding from something without knowing that I am or what from and also
looking for something without knowing that I am or what for. Shell game, where's the
pea, am I the pea. oh there's no pea? am I the shell? I am the act of hiding I am the
act not actor that's it there's the identity thing in a nutshell. hollow I am empty a
shell. I am nothing hiding nothing from nothing, everything hiding everything from
everything, everything hiding nothing from everything nothing hiding from everything
from nothing from from from and to to to Fromto the outside fromto the inside everted
no matter nowhere to stand. Action acts me, breathing breathes me, body bodies me,
thinking thinks me, dreaming dreams me, I me me, and the I I meed mes me again and
again but only now now now so me solitary in all diversity and meless at core so
hidden only by nonexistence. Time the only substance and only this moment at that.
The beauty of the movie (The Matrix) for me is that just like in the matrix people
believe that the world that they live in, their perceptions, and all
of their beliefs, even their own identity is real.
How many people go about living their lives in this world with the
constant realization that everything they see, hear, read, write,
believe is but a projection of their own mind?
That "everything" which you see is loaded. If you could see
"everything" you could not function. You see selectively, and what
you see is not you. Like we speak glibly of the "universe" and we are
merely pointing to some expansive emotion. In the context of the
Matrix, you may see what you are permitted to see: the display that
the system generates.