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

Sunday/June 11

Expand Messages
  • umbada@ns.sympatico.ca
    being nothing, nobody is exactly the same as being something, somebody __________________________________________________________________________ Dave
    Message 1 of 1 , Jun 13, 2000
      being nothing,
      the same as
      being something,


      Dave (Manchine):

      In the last 8 months, I have experienced a wonderful
      transition. Let me explain.

      My original experience of "I AM" was at age 12. That was
      about 10 years or so before I had tried any drugs. It was
      basically a very similar sensation to that which I later
      experienced with LSD. In both cases, it was a very strong
      and challanging experience. The natural "I AM", I could
      turn off... I was usually only able to take a few seconds
      at a time.

      It was an overwhelming experience of incredibility, a
      sensation of an impossible reality. That's why I've called
      my web page Impossible Reality. (Not a shameless plug). I
      had sensed a being that was not consistent with what I knew
      to be possible. I couldn't mold "time" or space to allow
      this reality to be consistent with what I was really

      Somewhere along the line, several things happened in the
      following order: it was made clear to me that I must tear
      down whatever I had to, to get to the answer, I saw a model
      that did not include "me", and I understood that the terror
      that I felt, should be able to be "tempered" by Love.

      I could "call up" my experiences of "I AM" almost at will.
      There were several levels of consciousness; regular every
      day, heightened and "I AM". Gradually I shifted from being
      more in regular to being more in heightened. I began to
      call up more regularly "I AM", to come to terms with it,
      but in the end, what happened was that "going there too
      much" blocked my capacity to call it up, it was just too
      de-stablizing. Right about when I was calling up "I AM" a
      lot, Oct. 99, is when I arrived at the stage where I
      decided I must tear down whatever I had to, to get to the

      Shortly after, I lost the capacity to "call up" I AM, but
      my heightened level of consciousness was predominant. There
      I saw "the separation" and the real truth of unity! Me and
      the car into oblivion.

      That lead me to NDS, through some excellent people here.

      Recently, in coming to terms with "I AM not", or more
      precisely " " AM, and understanding unity and compassion,
      it has become exquisitely clear. I was able to call up "" "
      AM", and it was powerful but soft, I didn't have to turn it
      away. It brings tears to my eyes now, writing about it, but
      being it, was sooo calm yet sooo powerful.

      And it's just begining!


      Gene Poole:

      Thanks for this, Dave.

      Since you bring up 'personal history', I remember now, my
      first conscious experience of what you seem to speak of. I
      had the experience of being a 'snowball in hell', or
      perhaps like that of a meteor entering the atmosphere of
      Urth. I saw that as I went, that nothing would be left of
      me. This was the ultimate terror, at about age 5. My
      screams brought back my desired environment, and my
      startled parents attention.

      Interestingly, I remember also, that I 'personalized' the
      'opponent', somehow vowing never to have that experience
      again. Interesting, that now I am that. Was it me,
      contacting myself? It is possible that all children could
      be inhabited by their 'future selves', if parents, having
      had the same experience, could make way for that to occur?
      It took all these years for me to come to what I had
      feared, and to see it harmless. Perhaps, my 'invisible
      playmates' were also this, though a gentler blessing.
      Refinement does seem to lead to compassion; perhaps I have
      somehow matured?



      Marcia Paul:

      Power is interesting. It is possible to become a man of
      power and not be a force for the 'good.' In fact, this is a
      real trap. A certain level is reached and it can get taken
      for (I was going to say ego but it seems more than mere

      Gurdjieff had the ability to hypnotize people but he put
      this outside himself. It is written about how certain
      powers come one's way along the path but can end up being a
      distraction or much worse. Hitler was no ordinary man.

      I can see that as I learn about forces on the 'inner plane'
      of existence it becomes possible to learn to manipulate
      them but to what end? That is why, I believe, G. concerned
      himself with objective conscience.


      Gene Poole:

      In his books, (The Lord of the Rings Trilogy) Tolkein
      outlined the dangers of power. Gollum was totally corrupted
      by the ring of power, being reduced to an idiot of the
      lowest ranking.

      This is not the kind of power I am speaking of in my
      postings. I am referring to a power akin more to sunlight,
      or cosmic radiation, or 'Zero-Point Energy', rather than
      'power over' persons.

      I speak of compassion as being the highest power; Hitler
      and his sociopathic kin self-immolate, for the very reason
      that they 'have no power'. You can read about Hitler's
      obsession with power in 'The Spear of Destiny'. His total
      lack of compassion (btw, revealed by his sentimentality, as
      shown by Eric Fromm in 'The Anatomy of Human
      Destructiveness') created an unquenchable hunger for power,
      but his understanding of power was based on resentment,
      revenge, and control. This may seem paradoxical, but it is
      entirely logical. 'Verify'.

      I advocate that each see that they are the only one; this
      is to see that social context is fictional, and proceeds
      from each as the only one. Many only-ones should be seen;
      this view removes the temptations which are bred by
      resentment and fear.

      The issue of "objective conscience" may be resolved by
      understanding that Being is unconditional, while existence
      is conditional. "Objective conscience", if I am
      understanding your term, is concrete as understood through
      existence, but not-concrete if understood through Being.
      The actual non-concrete nature of 'objective conscience'
      was seemingly what Mr G was pointing out, for our benefit.
      We have to 'make it real' to realize it; that is why he
      objectified it 'for us'.

      The steps of harmonic progression are built upon 'nothing'
      and return to nothing; any reality noticed in this, is an
      emanation of the one doing the energetics, the 'doer'.
      Seeing automatic doing is to notice Being; it is at that
      point that actual (non-automatic) choice is possible. One
      who chooses compassion for self, terminates striving over
      others; self and other are seen in the light of the only


      Larry Biddenger:

      (The jiva) is a magical manifestation of Brahman and can do
      anything. He can know.

      Miguel-Angel Carrasco:

      But if the jiva knows, then he is a real subject of
      knowledge. If he can do anything, then he is a real agent.
      Both attributes would imply that he is an entity, because a
      non-entity neither can do anything nor can know anything.
      Is the jiva really an entity?

      If he were a real entity, then we would have dualism:
      Brahman + jiva-entities. But nondualism asserts that
      Brahman is the only reality. So there is nothing else. So
      jivas are not real entities, so they can neither do
      anything nor know anything. They just appear to do so.

      In that case, what is the knower and what is the known in


      John Metzger contributes this:

      You take the body, the emotions, the mind, and the
      subconscious, and you screw up your present reality, which
      is perfectly existing right now.

      Even your screwing up everything is perfect in its
      existence of being screwed up right now. That's the paradox
      of the whole thing, and that's why nothing is happening.

      Your depression, your illness is perfectly manifesting
      right now. Then you say you need to do something. Why do
      anything with it? Because it's there? No, it's here. Being
      here, it's already being taken care of, but if it's there,
      you can never take care of it, so forget it.

      Right now is the time to partake of everything.

      - John-Roger (From: The Tao of Spirit)


      A while back Cee's website was mentioned. I've
      re-discovered it. An Internet treat:
      http://www.presentnonexistence.com --Jerry


      Where there is Awe, Laughter, or Bliss, there is no
      chattering mind. --Kir Li Molari

      Laughter can be like unto a holy earthquake, shaking "mind"
      and its edifice of conditioning down past their foundations
      -- and when it's not quite *that* big a deal, at least it's
      aerobic as all get out.... --Bruce Morgen


      Xan contributes this:

      Q: If 'I' also be an illusion, who then casts off the

      Ramana Maharshi: The 'I' casts off the illusion of 'I' and
      yet remains as 'I'. Such is the paradox of
      Self-Realization. The realised do not see any contradiction
      in it.


      Rabbi Yossi Markel:

      Section 1 - Hisbonenus - Part 2

      Kabbalah Series


      Understanding the Unity of G-d

      The realization of the essence of the beauty is the level
      of CHACHMA.

      But the understanding of the reason for its beauty ,why it
      is beautiful is not the essence of the beauty only [the
      explanation] which is drawn down from how the essence of
      the beauty spreads out.This '' why'' of the beauty becomes
      a garment for the essence of the beauty,and is called BINA.

      And all this is CHACHMA and BINA - the realm of Sechel- in
      the world of ASYA) ACTION.

      And through that we will understand these two
      levels-CHACHMA and BINA-in the realm of MIDDOS,like a
      directive in a thing [do it, don't do it, right-wrong,
      yes-no etc.]

      Like we see in Vol.Beya of the Talmud (Pg.6-side B) In the
      case where Rav Kahana and Rav Ashi differed with Rav [I
      think why is an egg more muksa than an calf that is born
      from a traif mother. anyway] even though Rav didn't answer
      their logical objection he stuck to his opinion in applying
      the law.

      The reason he didn't answer them was because the
      realization of the correct application of the law came to
      him in a way of seeing its truth (Chachma) higher than the
      level of letters, therefore he couldn't answer them.

      Not so Rabba bar Nachmaini who understood Rav's reason with
      his power of Bina therefore he was able to give the reason
      and explanation for Rav's decision,

      And this thing of a reason in a logical thought -
      explanation is how the Sechel is dressed into letters of
      thought and speech and is called Bina.


      Rabbi Yossi Markel


      MOSHIACH <http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/5246/>

      The material in this series is authored and copyrighted by
      Rabbi Yossi Markel


      I guess I don't care much about gurus and original knots,
      or whether some thought is real ofr knot. I just know I
      love. It's fine. --Mark Otter


      I make an expresso with vanilla beans and then I steam
      vanilla soy milk. It is wonderful. Nutty and vanilla


      I tried it. YUM. :-)


      We are the Nonduality Generation.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.