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

Highlights for Monday May 1st

Expand Messages
  • andrew macnab
    You say, let God answer in HER way... . There is such a thing as Grace. How does action relate to Grace? Grace is food from the Absolute. To eat Grace
    Message 1 of 1 , May 2, 2000
      You say, 'let God answer in HER way...'. There is such a
      thing as Grace. How does action relate to Grace? Grace is
      food from the Absolute. To eat Grace directly is to engage
      in proper action. To eat Grace that's been chewed like a
      quid of tobacco, is to engage in action in which one will
      know resistance and then seek to go beyond resistance (which
      causes more resistance).

      How to eat directly of Grace? The same old answer. The same
      old quid of tobacco.




      My friend you who claim to know me, look around my room.

      Open my wardrobe, it has nothing to show that is specially me.

      My lover and dog know how i caress them, but i remain unknown to them.

      My old instrument is well aware of my hands contours, it too cannot sing without me.

      Yet i am not in hiding, simply, i do not exist.

      I act, i suffer as all do, but my essential core is non-existence itself.

      My friend you must not regard me as having secrets, i am as transparent as glass.

      How then, do you imagine you can really see me?

      *The Wonder of Utter Futility*

      Most of the world ignores "This", seeing no use
      or value for "This". Most of the world values
      tangible things, status, power, or enjoyable or
      rewarding experiences. Thus, through ignorance,
      "This" which is not tangible nor an experience
      is never noticed.
      Of those who begin to break through ignorance, many
      continue on fruitless paths in pursuit of This,
      believing they "see glimpses" and thus generate
      beliefs that reinforce their vain pursuit.
      Others vainly claim they are "being This", lost
      in self-delusion and their own positive
      conceptual affirmations.
      Still others futilely try to negate what is "not-This",
      never able to reach an end to that which must be negated.

      Only when their is no investment in ignorance,
      and when the utter futility of all approaches and non- approaches is
      seen, will there be the dropping away
      of avoidance, useless efforts, and the unrewarding pursuit
      or self-conscious non-pursuit of an imagined effortless
      mode of being.

      Pursuit and the attempt to gain This through non-pursuit
      are both grounded in thought.
      Thoughts are understandable only in the context
      of prior thoughts. Thus, thought ultimately has
      no ground.
      Experiences register in the context of previous experiences.
      Thus, experience ultimately has no ground.
      Similarly, feelings relate to prior feelings, and
      sensations are interpreted against the background
      of other sensations.

      "This" which has nothing prior to itself
      cannot be experienced, intuited, felts,
      sensed, remembered, or cognized.
      To speak of "This" is completely paradoxical, because
      speech about "This" always occurs as simply more
      speech, thought, and reference to experience.
      Because such speech is paradoxical, some consider it
      ludicrous. However, This Itself is neither paradoxical
      nor absurd. It is merely speaking of This that is paradox
      and absurdity. Such speech has never occurred for any
      meaningful reason other than to bring attention to
      the prevalence of ignorance.

      It is futile to call It "That" which experiences,
      remembers, or cognizes, or to call It
      "consciousness", "awareness", "Self", or "God" --
      all of these concepts are merely ways to formulate
      an idea and a relationship to an idea,
      more thoughts interpreted
      against the background of other thoughts.
      Similarly, saying there is "no one" who is doer
      or cognizer simply contributes additional
      thought-statements about reality, depending
      as do other thoughts on a prior thought context for

      Negating thoughts and concepts will never lead to It.
      The activity of negating depends on something to be
      negated. This very dependency doesn't allow This
      with nothing prior to Itself to emerge from the
      activities of negation. Similarly, inquiry is
      dependent on a question being there, and meditation
      is dependent on the context in which meditation has
      meaning. That which has nothing beyond Itself will
      never be found, constructed, nor recognized -
      and neither inquiry nor meditation/contemplation
      will lead to This.

      One may seek a teacher or spiritual path, but such
      will only provide more sensation, thought, and

      One may seek to let go, but this activity will always
      depend on there being something to let go.

      One may attempt to do nothing, but passivity will
      have no power to interfere with thought seeking after
      thought, experience leading to accumulation of
      further experience, etc.

      Indeed, there cannot be shown to be anything "out there"
      beyond sensation and thought that is being sensed and
      thought about. Anything said to be "out there"
      is a thought interpretation about sensory or
      intuitive experience. The so-called "reality beyond"
      or "reality out there" turns out to
      be more data in the realm of concept and experience.
      Thus, claims about "'Something' beyond thought
      and sensation" are as absurd and paradoxical as
      any other speech about This.

      When nothing is "placed 'out there'", there is nothing
      "in here".
      Then, nothing can be said to be or not to be.
      Then, neither concepts of death, nor birth, nor
      deathlessness, nor birthlessness apply.

      This is beyond any statements, activities, or inactivities.
      Now is recognized the futility of any efforts
      and non-efforts intended to find This, be This,
      reveal This, or negate what is not This.
      There is literally nothing else at this point
      other than recognizing the utter futility of all
      efforts and non-efforts, cognitions, feelings,
      and experiences.

      As far as this statement itself being addtional
      futile verbiage interpreted
      in the context of prior words and ideas - it is so.
      This statement itself cannot lead to "This" any more
      than can any other statement, question, negation, or
      assertion. Neither a path nor a pathless way of
      being will reveal "This".

      -- Dan --


      Or, for that matter, stop looking (just popped up and i wanted you to know
      that looking and not looking are both okay) Try this one : looking and not
      looking at the same time. If you can manage to do that, you' ll be right in
      the middle.



      Hi Hans,

      thank you for your thoughts. I think I am looking and not looking at
      the same time. Or (sometimes) looking without being to attached to
      seeing... Or flitting back and forth between looking and not looking...
      Or getting fierce about looking until I collapse, and rest until I get
      fierce about looking again. I like the idea of the middle way, but it's
      not always clear what that is. My behavior reminds me of being a child,
      and spinning around and around until dizzy, collapsing to the ground and
      just enjoying the way things spin by themselves for awhile. It's
      putting in energy and effort until things have a momentum, and then
      letting go and enjoying the ride created by the momentum. That can be
      either a ride of joy or sorrow, fear, whatever... When I stop resisting
      even these can be lovely rides. By seeing a bit of fear and then
      focusing it, making it big and riding it, I find I can ride it, and not
      be lost in it... and venom of a personal nature can become venom of a
      universal nature, and yet it's just venom. just fear, just anger just
      despair, just abject terror, just universal loss, just total
      annihilation. just... just ice. pure justice.

      Love, Mark

      Ambling Gene, now i want to know once
      and for all, do we have to doubt or not ?
      Or better still, confirm i am right :
      ==everything is possible==
      ==everything is right and wrong==

      In total imaginary confusion about doubt
      Galoping Hans

      Hello Hans,

      Thanks for asking!

      The issue of doubt: ALL doubt is actually doubt of one's own 'realness'.

      When attention is focused on variables, what is taking place is
      _navigation_. If I am in Seattle and I know that to be the case, I
      can stop navigating to Seattle.

      The Famous Dead Guys and latter-day wannabes point to this obvious
      'fact'; you cannot get to where you already are, so you may as well
      stop trying. It is the assumption that there is a better place to be
      (which assumption is promoted by suffering, yes?) which is the
      momentum of the search.

      If I am 'me', I can stop trying to 'become me'. If I am not 'me', how
      can I ever become 'me'?

      Here we have the issue of doubt. Am I real, or not? If I am not real,
      how can I become real? Is there a proven path (AKA the Yellow Brick
      Road) by which to become real, realized, loving, whole, etc?

      The issue of doubt is revealed by the movement which is the search.
      Navigation Services, a subsection of mind, is either in action or
      not. If it is not, you are either stoned, post-orgasmic, or have no

      (Perhaps I should include, among the possibilities which can
      interrupt the 'search', the 'religious conversion/believer syndrome'.
      This however, is indeed merely an interruption, not an ending.)

      I say that it is the profoundly simple realization of one's own
      "realness" which takes doubt out of the picture. Of course, one must
      wade through veritable oceans of
      existential-ontological-philosophical issues, before one's dearly
      held criteria will ALLOW one to validate oneself as real. Or is this
      always the case? Are there those among us, who realize WITHOUT
      QUALIFICATION the 'realness' of oneself?

      Please ask yourself; "Am I real?"

      If the answer is an _unconditional_ "Yes", doubt has ended.

      If doubt arises hereafter, be aware that you are being subtly
      influenced (by memories, words, feelings) to find a new and better
      category of criteria-qualified _identity_. We remain vulnerable to
      such influences as long as we do not see the subtle interior
      interplay between _agreement_ and identity. On this issue...

      Please consider; were you 'real' when you were born? Or did you
      become real, only at a certain point in time in your personal
      history? This is a profoundly important question to contemplate.

      Many of us have memories of 'becoming real', which reveal that
      'becoming real' was essentially an unwelcome event.

      At birth, the 'reality of me' is unconditional, but there is no
      memory in place by which to place oneself/navigate by; there is no
      preceding frame of reference to reference to. Thus, there is no
      memory by which to remember unconditional Being!

      Later, some time after birth, interaction with environment is
      conducted in a sparse framework of memory. Mother figures prominently
      as OTHER (My Other or M'Other) during this time. Her value-system is
      the lens through which she sees you; she can see of you, only what
      she sees in her own memory, and nothing more. Because she has no
      memory of unconditional Being, she does not see you as that; indeed,
      she assumes that your Being is dependent upon her and her mothering.

      Because M'Other is possessed of values (criteria) accumulated via her
      own _agreements_ with her OTHER, she has no choice but to project
      these same values upon you, as the new baby. She sees you as
      vulnerable to the same things that she is vulnerable to; hunger,
      cold, pain, as well as love, nurturing, and also coercion.

      Eventually, baby and OTHER come to agreement as to what baby is; this
      is the genesis of identity, which is nothing but an accumulation of
      agreements compiled over time. It is vital to know that all
      subsequent agreements made, up to this very day, must comply with the
      criteria/values which comprise this original
      agreement/identity-structure. It is this original infant identity,
      which is being maintained to this day.

      If M'Other has do doubt, she is either naive of wise; if she was
      doubtless in a naive way, naive doubtlessness is 'your style'. If she
      was doubtless in wisdom, doubtlessness in wisdom is your style.

      It is, however, rare that M'Other has no doubt. Doubt is one of the
      major values which is passed on by agreement, and thus doubt is
      intrinsic to the structure of agreement which is identity. It is by
      removal of doubt, that identity may be allowed to dissolve, IF doubt
      is a keystone of identity structure.

      It is more likely that M'Other was literally riddled with doubt. In
      this case, the same standard applies; either naive doubt, or wise
      doubt, become the underlying style of doubt.

      Naive doubt is groundless stupidity; wise doubt is scientific
      investigation. Groundless stupidity is the natural counterpart to
      science. But it is doubt that drives both stupidity AND scientific
      'investigation'. It is doubt that opens the door to searching and
      'finding'. It is doubt that creates the universe of polarity and
      meaning, inhabited by warring factions of naive doubters and wise
      doubters. Off on the sidelines, roundly ignored, sit the naive
      doubtless in their faith, and the wise doubtless in their wisdom-mind.

      If you are to remove the keystones of the structure of identity,
      doubt is an excellent place to start. Remember that style of doubt
      will determine how this operation goes...

      One who is naively doubting, cannot remove any keystones, but such a
      one may KICK WILDLY AT THE ENTIRE STRUCTURE; this is known as
      'fighting ego'. As observed by the wise, 'fighting ego' is merely
      doubling suffering in the name of relieving suffering.

      One who is wisely doubting, will remove components, but will avoid
      removing the keystone of doubt until it is the very last one
      remaining; this is because, it is doubt which drives the entire
      operation, and without doubt, the operation would cease. There is a
      major clue here, for the wise. The naive doubter cannot see this
      clue, however eagerly they may read these words.

      Without identity, but with existing framework of memories intact, one
      who removes doubt will have a unique experience; this one will
      experience their own reality without doubt. Yes, it is doubt of
      reality of oneself, which underlies suffering. Buddha called this
      doubt 'dukkha'. Remove dukkha and suffering ceases, as much suffering
      as was resulting from the "wrongful" existence of identity as primary

      I want to emphasize at this point that it is the extant verbal and
      written mythology of 'spirituality' which itself generates and
      sustains doubt; it is thus no surprise that doubters are drawn to
      spirituality and to its counterpole, scientism. In both cases, it is
      'fact' which is the issue; but 'fact' is 'artifact' of meaning, and
      meaning is entirely artificial. Thus, all 'facts' are artificial. In
      this we can see the futility (as Dan has rightly pointed out, in NDS
      Digest#1569) of fact-finding as an avenue of salvation, if salvation
      is imagined to be needed.

      Naive or wise, doubting or doubtless, all come to this: Identity will
      parish. Death of identity is not physical death, but in the human
      tradition, " 'tis better to die of body, than of spirit". The human
      tradition is riddled with naive doubt, but held together by wise
      doubt. Status-quo is to keep these two dominant forces balanced, both
      socially and personally.


      ==Gene Poole==


      Jerry: How to eat directly of Grace?

      ~ Become Grace's lunch.
      Let her devour you.



      Realization is not acquisition of anything new
      nor is it a new faculty.
      It is only removal of all camouflage.

      ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` `

      Self is always Present, Bliss is always Present.
      You are not to work at attaining it,
      just remove the obstacles by which you can't see it.
      The hindrance is only one: Attachment to the past.


      ~ Until we noticed we've always been
      what we've longed for, avoided,
      resisted, wanted, imagined,
      speculated about, believed,
      denied, intellectualized, trivialized,
      suffered over, romaniticized,
      tried hard to get to,
      pretended not to be
      Until Now.




      Electrostatically charged meat is Beautiful?


      And I will accept the charges.

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