NDS highlights for Saturday, May 6
You can see this operating on the list all the time. One person
introduces a subject and then others resist it and sooner or
later a third person enters and attempts to reconcile it.
This produces a result which is objective because each
person is playing only one part.
I see your point, Marcia, but if in the scenario you mention, the
'third' party is merely trying to synthesize or reconcile the two other
points, (thus, rendering yet another 'objective' position), that is not
the 'third' force to which I refer (nor the one I hear Dan referring to
below). There is always available, the potential, which also frequently
occurs on this list, of the gestalt of opening to clarity beyond
subject-object. It is a movement of seeing beyond synthesis or
reconciliation and subsumes all parts. Are you familiar with David
Bohm's work on Dialogue? Reconciliation, as a term, seems to imply
harmony between opposing forces, which can have an exoteric dance of
compromising the foreground or a more esoteric one of clearly seeing the
background. How are you understanding this movement?
To All Dears,
(Sorry Oh, I couldn't help steeling this one from you - I absolutely adore it. As much as every other word you utter/write).
If you go to the NDS Files and open "TwoFoldWay" folder (looks like it is a day for borrowing) you can find some picts from my trip
to the Canaries sometime ago.
I am afraid I didn't do a good job with photography this time - most of the pictures are wothless as I kept
photographing...clouds....from the inside.
Almost every day Jan B. would take me to the mountains above the cloud level.
One could say that we would go to the sky (in Polish, my mother tongue, the same word denotes "sky" and "heaven" - this probably
explains why it made me even forget my favourite summertime activity which is walking deserted beaches :)
I promised you some gossiping about Jan B., so here it goes. Please, stop reading from this moment, Jan. A gossip needs to be a
Jan is...well, Jan isn't...but what is - is very lively and energetic.
Jan is a sage and...a boy at the same time which is a very sweet combination. And a cage monk. Don't ask me to explain this last
one. I can't. When you pay him a visit you will understand :) Ah, one more thing, Jan still has a very strong liking for experiment.
The last one, currently in progress, aims to discover how long the vegetation in his garden can survive without water. I did my
best to ruin this one :)
If you ever plan to pay Jan a visit here are two useful tips.
1. Try to prepare your body a bit. Leave chips and bear right where they are and join some training camp in the area (Olimpic
preparation traing camps would do, only try to stay for two "runs", they will understand).
2. Never accept the ride home from Jan after you have eaten out. Unless you haven't eaten nor drank anything. You may drive with Jan
to the place but take a taxi back home. If you still don't get it, Jan's family nickname in the old times was Mach II :))
Last but...there is a goldfish for each of you in the Files so you may wish sth good on it.
The inquiry is automatic and choiceless. The mind realizes deeply
that all thought is old, is coming directly from memory. In a sense,
Dan-Ji is right, thought has no ground... because memory is
beginningless and uncaused. It's just data, witnessed and stored
away somewhere. From that past witnessing, thought arises. From the
seeing of thought's limitations, the question "Why think?" arises
One would think that an ideal inquiry is automatic and
choiceless, arising in a flash. In that arising, it answers
itself. This accords with what is attributed below to Jean
Klein; it's also another response to Mary's question in
which she asks what it means when it is said that the answer
is in the question. It's where I was coming from when I
answered Mary by saying the question is sufficient in
itself. From its very arising to its standing presence, to
its disappearance, it is sufficient.
Such an ideal inquiry might be said to come forth from the
bottom up, and when it comes forth it stands forth as its
own answer. Why think? Indeed. THAT is the answer. The
inquiry and the answer arise simultaneously. Still, the
inquiry stands present so that depths of the answering may
be heard, until one instant the inquiry is simply gone and
all existence is the answer.
Other valid inquiries are one's given by a Guru, or read in
a book, or even concocted. Upon being heard or designed,
such inquiries may or may not IMMEDIATELY provide their own
answer. They may stand forth as bold questions and not
possess the degree of intimacy or organic integrity as the
inquiry arising automatically. What is important is that any
inquiry be valued and persistently attended to.
From where does any inquiry -- spontaneous, given, heard, or
concocted -- arise? It arises out of violation of
equinimity. It starts as an irritation and builds until it
forms a pearl which somehow finds release either
automatically and choicelessly or by Grace in some other
The *me* is a thought, but cleverly disguised, that's why it feels like an
*entity* separate from thought. Once this is understood, the thinker is
dissolving. sometimes with a bang, sometimes without even noticing.
Grace is another word for higher emotional center.
Have you never fallen to your knees in tears because
you *received* emotionally?"
I have never fallen to my knees in tears (i have sore knees :), now what is
going to happen to me ? I wonder, what about somebody who has never given
this a thought. What if he does not know anything about centers, higher
and lower centers, emotional centers and so on ? Can he not grow ? Can he
not be happy ? Can he not live a normal live ? Maybe he won't get
enlightened ? (anyway, nobody seems to know what it is). I am no trying to
degrade anything, but i just can not see the usefulness of all this
knowledge, at least not to me, it would feel like a burden to me rather than
anything else. On the other hand, what's the difference, the *me* is the
*me*, one *me* being this and the other *me* being that, but it still is the
*me*. And that's the tricky thing.
I've been picking at Evelyne Blau's
"Krishnamurti: 100 years" recently. A picture I get of "K" is of a man of
great charisma, his physical presence profoundly attracted people.
Fascinating to see that his charisma alone attracted & held the attention of
people, yet many or most of these people really didn't understand his
ROGER posts Tarabilda's comments regarding "K" from
with the caveat: " that doesn't necessarily mean I totally agree with him." :-)
Tarabilda from www.newu.org
2-1-98 J.R. KRISHNAMURTI
Few persons have had a greater influence on how we view spirituality than
this man. At times he could be quite merciless in how he strips away our
preconceived ideas and notions relating to God, man and the universe. He was
the only spiritual teacher I know of who rejected an already existing
organization of disciples (Order of the Star) in order to stay true to his
own convictions. He is often criticized for not teaching meditative
techniques and merely offering a "pathless path". Of late, he has also been
criticized for not practicing what he preached in regards to celibacy and
other moral and ethical issues. Even the great thinker and physicist, David
Bohm, who interacted with Krishnamurti for many years both publicly and
privately, had serious reservations about him in later years (See "Infinite
Potential: The Life and Times of David Bohm" by F. David Peat). So what
insights does "The Art of Multi-Dimensional Living" offer in regards to this
most influential man?
Most religions and followings "spring up" around a central figure,
and gradually the teachings become diluted and changed. Nothing
wrong with that, but it's the *way* they become diluted and changed
that concerns me. Dogmas invariably start to creep in and become
established, and in the end, I wonder if the person or figure upon
whom the religion was founded might not, if they were alive now,
disband the religion in total dismay and disgust.
I have to say I admire J. Krishnamurti very much for disbanding
the "Order of the Star" before he (and his followers) could become
its prisoner. There is very much of worth in his saying, "Truth is
a pathless land."
Tim, I like that saying and K as well. I see your point about dogmas
and distortions, but I think when you choose to focus mostly on the
negatives, you miss something extremely vital. Religions have, with
all their flaws, made a better world. They have preserved important
teachings and truths and passed them on for generations. Millions have
led better lives, and there is more overall love and justice and
understanding. Often, the original words of the founder are
re-discovered by a new generation, inspiring many good results. The
idea that the world would be better off without them is highly
questionable. I can't prove this, but I don't think I need to really,
if anyone really looks at history. There would have been wars and
suffering anyway as well too, if not over religion, some other excuse
would be found. They weren't really about religion in the first place,
it was a smokescreen for territorial greed usually. Just as your bias
against organized religions is a smokescreen for something else.
Has you or anyone else here discovered all your important truths and
ideas on your own? We all stand on many shoulders.
Those who stand on the shoulders of others are liable to fall and
break their necks. It is only useful until the "inner Guru" (Grace,
Satguru, the Self) is discovered. After that, there is only standing
alone. You do yourself a great disservice by clinging to the belief
that others are necessary on a spiritual "quest."
Did the Buddha stand on the shoulders of others? Did Sri Ramana
Maharshi? Did Jesus?
I like your recent posts very much, but the ideas are
recognizablely derivative..as is most of what gets posted here. Lets
just be honest enough to admit that.
Any or all of these posts may appear derivative, but cannot be
reasonably judged either/or, because you do not know from whence the
All thought is derivative, but "Being-knowing" (see Jean Klein) is
not derivative. If you do not believe in the presence of an "inner
Guru," it is because you have not discovered It yet within yourself.
It *is* yourSelf.
Christiana, what's the difference between feeling and emotion. Are
you not feeling your emotions ? Is a feeling not being triggered or, if
you think there is a difference, is an emotion not triggered. Are those
not picked up by your mind and translated to suit your needs. Good
emotion, bad emotion, strong emotion, weak emotion, overwhelming
emotion, etc. etc. If not, how can you know what you are feeling ? It
will be just a feeling, an emotion, without a name, but you can not give
it a name because if you do your mind is involved, one way or the other.
Good question and one I've been pondering myself as I am indeed, at
present, feeling many emotions as I observe my mind wandering down
familiar corridors which have tended to elicit a depressive state.
I tried to identify a different sensibility of 'feeling' in what I wrote
above, as I have directly experience this presence of a different state
throughout my life. Even that description, using words like "I",
"experience" and "state" isn't accurate. Perhaps, there is a better term
Last week It touched me again. I had been bouncing around mind corridors
for days with all of their associated emotions and evaluations. Then I
entered a small old pueblo church in New Mexico.. more as a tourist than
from a space of devotion. Yet, when I sat down and my eyes gazed upon a
golden plaque of the Sacred Heart on the altar, my energy-body,
centering in my chest seemed to explode with fire and for quite a while
there was no sense of me or thought or body on the screen. The best I
can describe it was that later, when my daughter came in and found me
sitting with tears streaming down my face, I could only say.. movement,
space, Love and a recognition that I was being Thought through... being
Loved through. The resonance of this alignment was experienced as a
'feeling' (still is), but not one associated with mind patterns. What
term would you use?
Gives me a pause
To avoid concluding
My life I am blowing,
Should that give me terror?
Does the sea suck the river,
Does the air draw a flame?
Does ignorance bring knowing
Does harm bring a blame?
By it's scary demeanor?
Does it stim us to live ever keener?
Does night escort day
On its perpetual rounds?
Of forests and trees
What makes the sounds?
Excitement bring in it's wake,
Does opposite attract
Or does it make?
Does hunger drive eating,
Or does food cause starvation?
Does sin always harm
Or does it bring salvation?
Birth clarity in all of its glory,
Does contrast prove opposite,
A concept so hoary?
Does the light of my mind
Cause the sun to shine?
'Tis fun to think so
'Cause it is mine...
Agree or abstain,
Arranging the pieces
Of stuff in your brain...
The patterns we make
A pattern of logic
As winter follows fall,
As much do we argue
So much we contend,
So much we assert
This much we pretend,
To have our own sayings
To have our own way
Finding sooner or later
For that we will pay,
A steep price for connection
A palaver for nought
When opinions are valued
Is when wars are fought...
To admit it is charming
To commune this way
By email message
This game we do play,
Offering faces and masks
"Improving the lot"
Onward and ever upward
While decrying thought!
The new Good and Evil
Ego versus Nondual
This taking of sides
Makes every one a fool...
Admit it, you clowns
You just like to hang out
Even if an aside
Makes you time out
The attraction of fun
And communing with others
Affirms our true status
As sisters and brothers.
And at the risk of being though verbose (wouldn't want THAT to happen),
let me post something that has taken a few years to assemble. It happens
to be the requirements for the successful life.
A mind at peace.
A heart at rest.
A contented soul.
A healthy body.
A noble purpose.
A good attitude.
The courage to act or refrain.
The freedom to choose.
The wisdom to choose wisely.
And one more day with:
An excess of the means of exchange.
Allowed all these things,
One can take care of the
Without having to bother anyone with the
Trivialities of our lives.
Have I left anything out?
If the journey is the goal, then a question arises :
Whose journey? The mind's? The Self's?
It seems here the journey doesn't have to "belong." There is only
the journey, the journey is not taken by anyone or anything. One
might say that the Self is the journey, going from nowhere to
nowhere. No movement, no arrival at any goal. As Dan-Ji once said,
a homeless wanderer, with an empty backpack and no destination.
The most beautiful words, and the deepest knowledge is "I don't
know." The "I don't know" is as meaningful as the "I AM," perhaps
even more so.