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

HIGHLIGHTS of Friday May 26

Expand Messages
  • Gloria Lee
    Manuel V. Hernandez sends: RAMESH S. BALSEKAR The entire manifested creation presents a cosmic dance by the Divine Dancer, executed
    Message 1 of 1 , May 27, 2000
      Manuel V. Hernandez sends:

      The entire manifested creation presents a cosmic dance by the Divine Dancer,
      executed to the tune of time on the stage of space, and the dance cannot be
      differentiated from the dancer.



      This brings back what could be called the two "methods" or "main types" of
      sadhana, negation (neither am I the mind nor the intellect nor the senses)
      or affirmation (there is only God, God is everything). Perhaps it is good
      to know that negation has its base in nirvikalpa samadhi, (world, mind and
      senses are temporarily suspended, only existence, knowledge and bliss is as
      One) whereas affirmation has its base in natural samadhi (existence,
      knowledge and bliss "plus" world, mind and senses).



      Without deciding anything, choicelessly aware,
      projection isn't misunderstood.
      Then there is only the Real.
      No worries about an unreal life,
      life itself is Reality. The livingness
      of life is clear, including loved
      ones, pets... it's simply unfragmented Life.
      Perceptual/emotive/intellectual fragmentation
      is when taking projection
      as self-existing realities of separately
      existing entities.

      There is no problem with projection per
      se, as there is nothing apart from "what is".
      Seeing projection from the unprojected Reality,
      there is only Reality, duality is subsumed by
      "what is" with no conflict. The nature of
      such "seeing" is when the observer is the observed.

      It's clear that one instant of believing/perceiving
      a separation to be real is enough to
      construct endless unresolvable dilemmas.
      Words will never fully heal these.
      Only being where one is, and seeing/being
      the choicelessness of such Reality,

      Hi Harsha,

      This is probably one of the quotes you were remembering.
      It's from page 64 of "The Teachings of Sri Ramana Maharshi"
      edited by David Godman. (There's a lot more there than what
      I'm reproducing here):

      "Without this enquiry he will go into a long trance or deep
      sleep [yoga nidra]. Due to the absence of a proper guide at
      this stage of spiritual practice, many have been deluded and
      fallen a prey to a false sense of liberation and only a few
      have managed to reach the goal safely."

      (...skip a few paragraphs from the quote, then....)

      "One must therefore watch one's spiritual progress carefully.
      One must not allow oneself to be overtaken by such spells of
      stillness of thought. The moment one experiences this, one must
      revive consciousness and enquire within as to who it is who
      experiences this stillness. While not allowing any thoughts to
      intrude, one must not, at the same time, be overtaken by this
      deep sleep [yoga nidra] or self-hypnotism. Though this is a sign
      of progress towards the goal, yet it is also the point where the
      divergence between the road to liberation and yoga nidra takes



      Thanks Rob for that beautiful passage. David Godman has done a wonderful job
      of summarizing the most important conversations with Ramana Maharshi. I
      highly recommend that book!

      The best of Indian Yogis and Swamis sat at the feet of the Sage of
      Arunachala. Ramana's influence was extremely subtle but profound and
      universal. Although he went no where and did not lecture or travel at all,
      His potency is truly overwhelming and unlimited. Ramana Maharshi often gave
      different answers to different people according to their need and
      understanding. The Sage said that there are two ways to overcome the sense
      of ego-self. First, to enquire, to whom has this sense arisen (Who am I?) or
      from where does this sense arise (Where am I?). The second way is to
      surrender everything (the path, the method, the goal, the practice, the
      sense of self or no-self, etc.) to the Guru. Either way, all questions and
      answers become moot.


      HANS and DAN discuss intent and limits of the mind

      >Seeing that duality is, for the biggest part, misery, creating as many
      >conflicts as there are grains of sand , the mind seems to be very much
      >capable of creating nonduality to escape into. In the beginning it looks as
      >though things change, but after while one starts noticing that nothing
      >changed at all. The only thing that changed is the label. One has given it
      >another name. It is now called nonduality.
      >The concept of nonduality creates it's own reference framework.

      >The illusions created by the mind are very strong and looking very real.
      >This is a serious trap as long as we attach value or importance to the mind,
      >resulting in the tendency to change it or to escape it.
      >How come most of us are not capable of ignoring the mind ? Not suppressing
      >it, but ignore it, let it have it's way, but without re-acting. I wonder if
      >there is a reply at all to such a question and many other questions in this
      >field for that matter.
      >Some things change, but it is still very much within the limits of the mind.
      >By this i mean to say that the mind is still a controlling factor in one's
      >The question then arises of course why one wants to become limitless ? Are
      >there any limits at all anyway ? Or is one just creating them ? If so, why
      >is that happening ? The intention (why one wants to find out) seems to be a
      >more important key than to have answers. So instead of focussing on answers
      >(results) , one should perhaps focus on intention. Does one really want to
      >know the truth about the mind or is one merely trying to find a wayout for
      >his problems ? Is one ready to see the ways of the mind ? Or is one looking
      >for favourable answers ?
      >Just some thoughts.

      Hans, intent in the way you
      are discussing is indeed
      key. Thank you for sharing
      your clear observations here.

      To look closely at the intent
      or agenda of looking, one
      will need to be in a
      "place of no agenda" in
      order to see clearly.

      To observe the implicit
      goals and hidden biases
      of one's observations
      and perceptions, one
      will need to be in a
      "place with no goal".

      To be agenda-less, choiceless,
      without a predetermined goal, is
      itself the "answerless answer"
      to the question "what is?".

      The "mind" is the agenda-based
      system of perceiving, is
      the belief in an agent,
      is the motive, is the

      So yes, seeing this clearly
      is to notice one's avoidance
      of the "answer" that is
      "where" one is. (The answer
      is no-thing, and the place
      one is, is not-a-place.)

      To be able to
      see that one is avoiding, to
      be clear on why one is avoiding,
      is to be in the "place" that
      is the "answer" to avoidance.
      At this point, one isn't an agent,
      one has nothing, one seeks to gain
      nothing, questions lapse into silence.

      The real beauty of this has nothing to
      do with these words; as pointers
      they are like yesterday's newspaper,
      of little value "now".


      MIGUEL on Foul! Duality!

      Jan :
      >It is funny how duality continues to creep in, whether
      >projected-unprojected, Real-unreal, lover and beloved
      >or God and the Devil. (...)

      The reason is quite simple, and double:
      a) You can't even start speaking without resort to
      opposites. Because that's how all language has been
      built. Sometimes it gets tiresome trying to express
      something on this list: immediately somone jumps
      shouting: Foul! Duality! Well, even saying "I am" is a
      dual expression. What is important is the non-dual
      direction of the latent meaning, not just the words
      themselves. If one wants to communicate, the price is
      duality. And non-dual extremists would do well burning
      all (their own) books and dictionaries and keeping

      b) Of course there is duality. There is duality
      everywhere. Bilogical duality between the sexes.
      Electromagnetic duality between the poles of a magnet
      and in all atoms between electrons and nucleus.
      Psychological duality between all opposite emotions.
      Meteorological duality between weathers. Mental duality
      between subject and object. Metaphysical duality
      between being and appearance. Artistic duality between
      classical and romantic. Sociological duality between
      developed and underdeveloped... Not only language, the
      whole world is full of duality. What's so bad about it?

      So what is Nondualism about? you may ask. Quite simple:
      the absence of duality in absolute Reality, not in the
      world. Whereas Reality is permanent, the world is
      transient. Whereas Reality is unchangeable, the world
      is in constant change. Whereas Reality is unknowable,
      the world is what is known.

      But as Reality itself is not an object, no thing to be
      found, we won't find non-duality anywhere. Whatever we
      find, whatever we perceive or conceive, is dual. All
      things are dual. Only Reality is not dual. But, as we
      can't speak about Reality, which is not an object, then
      we can only speak of the dual, and in a dual way. So
      please stop crying "Foul! Duality!" whenever someone
      opens his mouth.

      Jan :
      >Could this be called "inherent escapism" that will
      >remain until +knowing+ "verily everything is Brahman"?

      You're contradicting yourself. Brahman is non-dual. If
      everything is Brahman then how is it that what I said
      was dual? You aren't supposed to see duality anywhere,
      why did you in my post? Aren't you introducing duality
      where there is none? :-)

      From the standpoint of Brahman (as you call Reality)
      itself, of course there's no duality. There's only
      being. But we never speak from that standpoint or
      perspective. From Brahman only silence is possible.

      Miguel, this is my unanswered question: what is *it* that says there is
      duality ? Is * it* separate from the duality ? Is duality appearing in
      nonduality ? If so, are they separate entities ? If not, then duality and
      nonduality are the same thing. If "I" am not there, is there still duality ?
      Can this can be known ?

      Questions. They just dwell in my mind. No answers needed.


      I don't know about fish dreaming but I have always wondered what
      newborns dream about. I can remember watching my children as
      they "appeared" to be in a blissful dream....

      Michael Johnson

      >Life is not a race or a pursuit, it's a dance. Spread the word.

      A friend of mine told me once...
      "Slow down Michael...you are not behind.:)


      MELODY shares:
      [Originally posted on the "HeartWalk" list this morning,
      part of a talk given by Adyashanti :]

      "...... The way we
      usually listen is a way in which whatever we hear or read, we take in through
      our filter. So whatever we take in, either unconsciously or very
      consciously, we are comparing it with what we already know

      ........... Usually, this happens almost unconsciously
      but very often we are comparing everything we hear with what we know, with
      our own experience, with what we've heard, read, and thought. So in fact, we
      are not listening so much to what is said as to whatever is triggered within
      us by what is said."

      The reason this is so important, especially in spirituality, is because when
      you truly listen, for just one split moment, to something that's true, then
      your get what is being said. Traditionally, this has been called
      transmission between the teacher and the student. The transmission is not
      the understanding by the mind of what is said, which is usually mixed up with
      everything that's heard and known, and with the whole internal process. But
      when you truly listen to someone in this way, you not only perceive what
      they're saying (the words), but also where the words are coming from. That's
      the transmission!

      HANS and DAN

      >i wanted to write a post. something came in between and completely forgot
      >what is was. There is a saying here that if you do not remember what you
      >wanted to say, it was a lie. Ok.

      D: What is it that we can't remember in order to tell,
      that we forget as soon as spoken, that
      makes a lie of all our truth, and so is treated
      as if it were a lie, by us?

      Many years ago, this was said to me without
      any explanation offered, by a young man
      struggling with many difficulties:

      'The truth is an untold lie.'


      ON "Marcia and Harsha"

      ¤You feel great, look great, and it sounds great saying your
      names together!
      ¤Thanks Sri Greg-ji. Please repeat as many times as you
      ¤To find joy in the simplest things is the mark of a sage.
      Perhaps we have
      ¤fulfilled the minimum requirements: --).


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