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

HIGHLIGHTS - Tuesday 27th of June 2000

Expand Messages
  • Manchine
    MATTHEW and DAN more shuffle: Andrew Cohen from Halfway up the Mountain, Premature claims to enlightenment by Mariana Caplan. Many mistakenly feel relieved
    Message 1 of 1 , Jun 29, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      MATTHEW and DAN more shuffle:


      Andrew Cohen from "Halfway up the Mountain, Premature claims to
      enlightenment" by Mariana Caplan.


      Many mistakenly feel relieved from the burden of responsibility
      For their own behavior because of erroneous conclusions drawn from
      their spiritual experiences of no-separation. Realizing that "everything
      is the Self", they concluded that therefore there was nothing and
      nobody to be responsible for.

      Dan:
      What does it mean to say they realized "everything
      is the Self" and then concluded something?
      This is bogus. There is no conclusion from it.
      There is just *being* it. What does he mean
      about being mistakenly relieved of their burden
      of responsibility for their actions? Does he
      mean that people who feel burdened by the
      responsibility of their actions will behave more
      responsibly than those who don't? Baloney.

      Matthew:
      I take Andrews statement as tongue in cheek Dan. We do have
      experiences of the nondual reality and draw conclusions based on
      these powerful experiences.

      Dan:
      Okay, Matthew, I won't get too serious about this ;-).
      Now - drawing a conclusion from a powerful experience
      places a boundary between now, the moment
      I'm reflecting about it, and then, the moment
      when I had the "powerful experience". So,
      that boundary between "now" and "then", that
      very attempt to draw and have a conclusion,
      is itself limitation and separation...

      M:
      The "realizing that everything is the
      Self" is what Andrew is saying (imo) that people often believe upon
      having such experiences, when all that has happened is a little
      glimpse.

      D:
      Okay, got it.
      Here's what I'm saying:
      Once someone takes a belief about
      an experience as something to be retained
      and used, a belief has been substituted for
      present Reality. In other words, present
      Reality doesn't operate dependent on beliefs
      about itself.

      M:
      I don't think he is addressing "the real thing".

      D:
      Okay. We might look at this as a discussion of how people
      draw conclusions and employ beliefs as explanations,
      and how these explanations serve as limitations
      to awareness.

      M:
      As for the
      burden part i believe he is addressing the tendency in us to want to
      escape from the resposibilities of ordinary life, and those
      responsibilities are often percieved as burdens, especially when
      contrasted to the naive concepts of "freedom".

      D:
      Hmmmm, good point. I like your way of explaining it.
      At the same time, I am aware that the "common sense"
      idea of responsibility is a self-contradictory
      position that creates a great deal of tension.
      There is an isolated "me" that is supposed to
      function causally, which inevitably leads to
      blame of self or others. So, it's not surprising
      that this is felt as a burden, and in fact,
      the tension and not wanting the tension
      might serve as useful motivation
      to look into the situation. And you're right,
      using a belief that "there is no self" is a
      conclusion and belief, not openness.
      A more useful teaching might be, "what 'is'
      when a self is neither affirmed nor denied?"
      One might
      interpret A.C.'s perspective as saying that people rebel
      against this "me" by claiming there is
      no "me," while they still function according to a
      "me" that they don't acknowledge, and they want
      freedom for that "me". So what I see here is
      that it's a belief, a conclusion, not Reality as such.
      Responsibility, though, isn't from what someone
      tells me I should be like, society's image for
      me, it's my authentic responsiveness as "what is",
      and my response-ability and my being aren't two.


      .....................................................................

      AC:
      In this way of thinking, responsibility
      implies duality, and any notion of responsiblity is therefore seen
      to be an expression of ignorance. In this view almost any mode of
      conduct becomes acceptable- when one proponent was asked why he
      habitually acted rudely and with dishonesty, he said "oh that is
      not real, that's just my personality."

      D:
      It's a valid point. It reminds me of Hassan al-Hussein,
      master of assassins, saying "Nothing is true,
      everything is permitted." The catch here, though,
      is that in true emptiness, there simply isn't a motivation
      to hurt another. Why would there be?

      I remember what Lao Tzu said about civility and
      good manners. Beware what is really going on
      when people harp on the importance of behaving
      civilly. The truly civil ones don't make
      speeches about how others need to behave more
      civilly. There's a hidden agenda here somewhere ;-)
      To equate enlightenment with the ability to
      follow society's ideas about morality, civility,
      and responsibility is equally as erroneous as
      saying "I can do whatever I want because nothing is
      real, it's just the personality, etc."

      M:
      As you say "in true emptiness there simply isn't a motivation
      to hurt another". And this is exactly Andrews point.

      D:
      Okay. If he agrees with me, then he must
      be speaking the truth ;-)

      M:
      He is saying, so
      you say you are realized, you are empty, well look good and hard at
      your life, at how you show up in all of your relationships. Are you
      hurting others, are you creating suffering for others, if the answer
      is yes, think again about believing your self to be empty, free,
      rrealized.

      D:
      The question I have here is this:
      when I look at "my" life, I'm looking
      at constructed images. Is there really
      a "me" here, having "my" life? In other
      words, awareness is functioning in a split
      way, with "I" reviewing "my life". What is
      it like if there is no split in awareness?
      Are the conclusions of a split "I" reviewing
      "my life" ever going to end the split? Or
      does the ending of the split come only
      from an instant when awareness doesn't separate,
      doesn't review, doesn't draw a conclusion,
      and doesn't carry a belief about a situation?

      In most situations, yes, Hippocrates' principle
      of "do no harm" is generally a good idea. But I
      don't see liberation as being formularizable.
      It's not equated with "niceness" and the happy
      feeling that no one is being hurt. Sometimes,
      a person feels hurt but later feels useful learning
      has occurred, or sometimes hurt can't be avoided.
      What you and A.C. are talking about
      here, as I see it, are beliefs. There is the belief
      "I'm realized," then there is the assessment of
      one's life and what one believes after this honest
      assessment (e.g., "I'm really not realized after all").
      Yet, both of these are belief-based realities.
      I'm making a case for Reality as non-belief-based.
      That means one can't draw conclusions from It or
      about It, and one can't formulate the "proper belief
      system" by which to approach it or teach it.
      -----------------------
      ----------------------

      M:
      Come on Dan don't take it so blatantly out of context. The
      statement was used as an example of how the nondual rhetoric is used
      to ignore the motivation to hurt others. And the rhetoric is used
      because of having had a "partial view experience" of the truth of
      nonduality.

      D:
      Okay, Matthew, I see your point, and agree.
      The use of beliefs to avoid full awareness
      isn't fruitful.
      I'm questioning though, whether *any*
      authority's beliefs can't easily be used
      that way, including A.C.'s.

      M:
      "The thing is to go beyond opposites..." Well, it might be your
      thing but I am not so sure it is "the" thing. Is it your idea of the
      right way. If you don't understand the immense responsibility that
      comes with realiztion, well.....you just don't.

      D:
      Agreed, it's "a" thing.
      All it is is another perspective.
      I have mine and you have yours.
      You have your beliefs about responsibility
      and I have mine.
      These are simply perspectives and beliefs,
      not reality.
      Tell me, Matthew, what is the responsibility
      of the Universe for harming millions
      of living creatures when there are floods,
      earthquakes, viruses, forest fires, comets hitting
      planets, and suns going nova???
      Our human-centered values about responsibility
      and not hurting others, do they really get to
      Reality as is?
      As I said, I think "no harm" is generally a very good
      idea, but not as a formula, and not in every
      situation with no exception. None of us can
      live without other life dying. All of us die
      and will be used as fertilizer. Life includes
      pain/pleasure, loss/gain, sorrow/happiness.
      I am Life, you are Life, all this is Life.
      Our respons-ability is the responsiveness of
      Life, it's not an imposed morality, a belief
      system, nor a formula to impose judgments on others.

      Maybe I don't understand Reality the same as you,
      but maybe Reality has nothing to do with
      either of our separable understandings of it;
      as *is*, it's beyond either of our understandings
      of it. Call it the boundless Unknowable.
      --------------------------------

      M:
      You are right Dan, the person enslaves himself. I think that
      the reason he doesnt say "this view doesn't appeal to me" is because
      he is addressing the great disservice these types of teachings do for
      the vast majority of people. Nondual concepts are just way to easy
      for the mind to grasp hold of and twist around for it's own use (like
      it does with most everything)

      D:
      Well, what you're saying about the grasping mind
      seems on-target to me, Matthew. But let's
      not condemn the grasping mind, let's look
      carefully into it. Because in the
      very act of judging it, labelling it, we're
      already grasping (i.e., our adherence to beliefs
      and labels are our grasping).

      Let's really see how the mind struggles
      to grasp and hold things, to formularize
      things, to operate by opinions rather
      than "what is as is".
      We're looking at the ending of our taking
      beliefs and images about reality *as*
      reality. The "mind" is just this activity,
      isn't it, the attempt to formulate what can't be
      formulated?

      ...................................................................
      D:
      You know, he almost comes off sounding like this:
      "As an enlightened person, let me say that enlightened
      persons need to have the right view of enlightenment,
      which is to say, "my" view, and if they don't have this
      view they are deluded, which I can say because my
      view is that I'm not deluded and I know who is deluded."


      M:
      Not almost,he actually does come off sounding like this and i
      personally have no problem with that. I'm not sure why you or anyone
      would.

      D:
      My problem with it is that it's discussing beliefs about
      reality as if these are to be taken as reality,
      it's taking judgments and opinions as truth.

      M:
      His position is that he does know who is deluded, your
      position is that you don't know, is one position better than the
      other?

      D:
      As positions, they can both be transcended.
      Why would I want to identify with a position,
      when by releasing it, I open to wordless
      being beyond thought? Then, "I don't know,"
      isn't a position, it's the living Universe
      itself.
      ---------------
      M:
      So if for me the point is something other than "going beyond
      views", does that mean i have the wrong view? This taking, of
      geniuine responsibility is what he is talking about. There is not a
      right belief but there is "right action". If it has a hollow ring, is
      it because of the ringing, or the hearing?

      D:
      Going beyond views isn't something that's
      done to be right. It's undoing.
      And it's happening now. You are being
      undone, as am I. Do we see it, do we
      acknowledge it? I do acknowledge it.
      Yes, there is a very hollow ring to any
      authority setting up a formula to judge
      "right" and "wrong", the standard by
      which to evaluate others, the "real" definition
      of responsibility which others "should" adhere
      to. Have you noticed
      how often this happens, how many authorities
      constantly appoint themselves or are appointed,
      how they conflict, how different versions
      of right and wrong depend on culture,
      belief system, personality? Have you noticed
      how the results are never equilibrium and
      equanimity, but tension, discord, and separation?
      Anyway, this is how I've noticed it.

      Thanks for the dialogue.

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      MARK:

      Hi Gang,

      i have a metaphor for you about the earth experience. we are seeds.
      seeds are ingenious devices to defend the life of a new plant from a
      harsh dry environment. seeds are coatings surrounding a spark of life.
      what happens when we put a seed into water? the water soaks in and the
      coating expands. it expands and softens. it expands, softens and
      becomes more porous. it expands, softens, becomes more porous, and water
      gets into the spark in the middle and it expands until the coat pops,
      freeing the spark to grow. the water of our seed is love and we are
      already immersed in it. we are NOT in a dry dangerous environment, but
      we believe strongly that we are. all of us. (all of us who cannot yet
      say with knowingness that the seed has sprouted) the coat is the
      bargain we made with fear way back in the past, who knows when... when
      the water of love starts to soak in (when we loosen the fear enough to
      let it), the fear expands. we draw back and fear remains in control.
      if we (no, when we...) let the water in and stand the fear expansion, we
      can see the softening as well and when we let go completely and abandon
      ourselves to this, the water makes our heart swell and the coat bursts.
      it's nice. in some it's fast and in others it's slow. it doesn't
      matter. just let it go.


      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


      JUDI and the Pendulum:

      Questioner to Wayne:
      Are there ever glimpses of the merging and then coming
      back? I've heard other enlightened teachers, or supposed
      enlightened teachers say that you can come back out
      of it. You can become enlightened but then you can
      come back out of it.

      Wayne: No. What you can come back out of is that state
      you described. That is the state where all these people
      go and set up shop.

      Q: You mean they're up there permanently?

      W: They're up there at the top of the pendulum shaft
      saying, "This is my experience." And they';; say,
      "Yes, and we can fall out of that, back into identification,
      and then go back into that experience again." But that
      is not Awakening that the sages talk about. And the
      transient experience is not uncommon.

      You hear this within certain, what I like to think
      of as, multi-level marketing schemes for spirituality.
      :-) You have someone who's had an experience of Oneness,
      who says "Look, this is available to you! You can
      awaken! You can have this experience! Do what I did
      and you'll get this result." So, these people do what
      he did, they get this result, they have this sense
      of bliss, of
      not being involved with their thoughts, and they, (slap),
      "Okay, I'm awakened! NOw I'm going to teach you." And
      then he gets eight people under him, and then they
      'awaken'. Now you have this tremendous wave of 'awakening'
      that's going on. And the great guru up here that has
      helped all these people awaken is seen as a very wonderful,
      very fine, very profound, strong guru. And all of
      his sub-gurus, down through the pyramid and....:-)
      You can see them in action. It's a new spiritual movement.
      You don't have to look very far! :-)

      Nearly every seeker has had the experience of being
      at the top of the pendulum shaft - I'm sure you have,
      if you've been a seeker for a while. You feel that
      you are one with everything and no longer affected
      by everything. Everything is simply happening, and
      you are simply the witness of it. You're not involved
      in it, it's just going on, and it doesn't matter. There
      are a number of names for this mystical union, which
      is an impersonal connection with the very nature
      of existence. It is the absense of
      anyone to be involved with anything. It is your relative
      absense as the doer.

      So if this happens to you, you're very likely to think
      "I have done something to get here. Let's see, what
      was the last thing I did? Well, I went to that seminar,
      I practiced that meditation.." And so you double you
      efforts to either get back to the top of the pendulum
      shaft or to stay there! If you are lucky enough to
      be at the top for a period of time, you might start
      to think, "I've got this deal. This is what all the
      sages have been talking about, right? I'm witnessing!
      I've read Maharaj, you've
      got to be the witness! And I'm doing that! I am there.
      I Am That! What could be better? I can do my own
      seminars! People will come to hear me! This'll be
      great!"

      So you set up your shingle and begin giving satsang.
      The problem is that this point at the top of the pendulum
      is still a point in phenomenality, it is still a point
      of experience, albeit impersonal experience, and as
      such it is subject to change.
      Everything in phenomenality changes. Therefore, at
      some point when something happens such as being diagnosed
      with cancer or someone close to you dying - there is
      the realization that the pendulum shfat is 'greased',
      and you're sliding back down again for the big swing.
      :-) At this point the intensity
      of your feelings of dejction are 'double' what they
      were previously, because you feel as if you've lost
      something 'terribly' important, that you've lost
      your union with God or the Infinite,
      that you fallen from Grace. NOw you're back to being
      involved and swining with all the other plebes, when
      before, you and God were like this! (Holds up two fingers
      crossed, laughter)

      Now if you've put your shingle out and you've told
      everybody "It happened to me! I'm the guy!" :-) then
      you're triply screwed because you either have to come
      clean and say "Um...I 'thoguht' I was enlightened,
      but it was sort of a false alarm. Sorry about that."
      :-) Or you have to begin living a lie, which is not
      a fun thing to have to do. And actually there is a
      third option that is gaining in popularity :-)...you
      can redefine Enlightenment to include the 'flip-flop'.
      You say "I am Enlightneed, but I am 'stabilizing'
      into the experience." But when Enlightenment actually
      happens there is no longer anyone to stabilize or be
      delivered into anything!

      What is important to understand is that what the sages
      are talking about is not a movement from identification
      to disidentifcation within phenomenality. It is a
      total quantum movement fro identification with the
      entire pendulum shaft of phenomenality
      to identifcation with the fulcrum upon which the pendulum
      depends.

      The state in which there is identification at the fulcrum,
      is utter, complete quantum eradication of the sense
      of personal doership, of tha which gets involved with
      the movement. Then there is simply pure Beingness,
      which is not a change in anything. That is What Is,
      That is already here, That is the state that eternally
      exists. In That there can be no flip flop.

      Another important thing to remember about the fulcrum
      is that nothing happens there. All movement, all action,
      happens around the fulcrum, yet the fulcrum is completely
      unmoved by anything. Therefore, it is not that the
      sage is witnessing something, rather, in the most profound
      sense, the sage 'is' everything. As such, there is
      no experience associated with that. All experience
      is within a subject-object relationship within phenomenality.
      The movement to Ultimate Understanding, or that identification
      with the Totality that is called Enlightenment, is
      a movement in whcih nothing happens.

      A friend of mine called me a number of years ago from
      Hawaii. He had been going to a teacher who was describing
      this experience of oneness as being Enlightenment,
      and one day he got it! And he called me to tell me
      he had woken up. And he was describing this to me
      and how, "It hasn't gone away, andit's been a couple
      of days, and everything has a new light, and it looks
      different", and how h'es "One with
      all of this" And I'm listening to him and my heart
      sinks and I'm thinking, "Oh man...(laughter) not you!"
      And it was probably a year or year and a half after
      that he tried to kill himself.

      Q: So he experienced so much freedom and then to go
      back into the garbage again was too devastating to
      him?

      W: Mmhm.

      Q: How long did it last for him?

      W: I don't know. I never talked to him about the details.
      It wasn't important really. Nor did I, at the time,
      have the heart to tell him that this wasn't IT either.
      That what he was describing was a wonderful fabulous
      life experience, but an experience within phenomenality
      which 'will' eventually end.
      I can assure you, people do not appreciate being told
      this.



      ANDREW:
      This bit is right on Judi. I call that top of the pendulum
      state being in a bubble, or frozen in ice, the world is seen
      as unreal somehow, with you a detached witness. At some point
      the bubble has to burst, or the ice shatter, and that's when Grace
      may do its thing if you're lucky. That's when you dissolve into
      the cosmic ocean.
      Using Wayne's analogy, when you lose your grip at the top of the
      pendulum shaft, there are two things that can happen, either you try
      to hold on in fear, and slide down the shaft back into the tick tock,
      or you let go because anything even annihilation is better than that,
      and you plunge free of the clockwork mechanism, and endless plunge
      into no thing while yourself ablates away cell by cell from outside to
      core, burns away like a meteorite until there is only no thing.
      So this experience that Wayne speaks of is not all the way there
      he's right but it is the crucial point where the plunge into true
      enlightenment can happen.
      The sense of insulation and isolation must vanish at some point,
      it's a metamorphosis, the bubble is a cocoon.



      JUDI:
      For me what happened Andrew, was after having so many
      'enlightenment' experiences that I got to a point,
      and I'll never forget it, where I knew somehow the
      jig was up. Now keep in mind, I 'lived' for these
      experiences. And Stephen and I were together this one
      evening and I started into one of these blissful oneness
      experiences. And Stephen said something, something
      totally unrelated, and quickly, without thinking, I
      said to him -"Would you shut the fuck up, can't you
      see I'm having a spiritual experience here?" :-) And
      I laughed. And it wasn't too long after that, I don't
      remember how long, maybe a couple months or so, that
      the whole business crashed and I saw experience for
      what it was, subtle or mundane, high or low, made no
      diff. And it's that 'experiencer' that goes 'bye-byes'.
      :-)


      MATTHEW
      Nice piece judi, very inspiring. It warms the cockles of my heart.
      ....................matthew


      MARK:
      Thanks Judi,

      this is helpful. (not pleasant, but helpful.) wah.

      Love, mark

      ********
      That's the breaks kid. :-)



      MARK:
      Andrew,
      your words seem true to me. (well, I know they are)
      thank you,

      DAN:
      Your words seem false to me,
      and so do mine.
      Truly, I know nothing.

      Thanks and no thanks,


      MARK:
      AAAAUUUGHHHHH!!!/not-AAAAUUUGHHHHH!!!


      JUDI:
      **** Fire in the cockpit! Fire in the cockpit!!

      ANDREW:
      2 alternatives, jump without a parachute or go down with the plane,
      hi ho away we go.


      ANDREW:
      You are lost in the forest.
      You run this way and that but you can find no way out,
      You keep circling back and finding your own footprints.
      All you can do is stay where you are.
      Try and find something to eat and drink and a dry place to sleep.
      You may be here a while.
      Be still and something may happen.

      ---------------

      What, what, wound is this,
      how dare they shatter my dream.
      I mean it was perfect.
      So free to love every thing.

      But I'm bleeding, I mean
      well, it hurts.
      Just yanked away,
      I mean right here, see...

      Wait, where... there's
      nothing missing.
      They were just words.
      Theirs, and mine.

      Words, thoughts,
      that I posessed.
      That were posessed.
      About what?

      Love, can that be taken from me?
      Only when I posess it.
      Love, can that be taken from me?
      Only when it is seen to be mine.

      What does IT want from me?
      To really know Love?
      How can "I" know it,
      without letting it go?
      .
      .
      .
      .


      Oh...... Ohhhhhhhh



      MARK:
      it's all so easy, and it's all so hard,
      the still holding on mark

      JUDI:
      I love you very much.

      MARK:
      Good! I need a break!

      hee, hee,


      GREG:

      Hey ! I wuv youse guys too !



      XAN with Papaji:

      Papaji: It's your nature, you see. You can't help it.
      You can do anything you like. You can do anything in this silence.
      You can play tennis. Once you know what silence is. You can do whatever
      you want. You speak. It doesn't make any difference. You can speak.
      You can do whatever you want.

      Anything has to rise from silence. Nobody knows. If it rises from silence,
      activity has to rise from silence. If you know, 'I am the substratum'.
      Then you are free. If you lost in activity, then you are lost because
      the activity rises from ego, not from silence. Silence is your nature,
      mother, supreme.

      But then this, somehow this diamond rises and you identify yourself with
      the diamond, you see. And that brings in suffering, untold suffering, they
      say. They say, untold suffering, never ending. The cycle starts. This
      cycle is called the cycle of reincarnations. The world cycle starts.
      And this is only from the ego. Otherwise, never ever exist. And this is a
      fact.

      When you know it, you know it. Having known it, you have known everything.
      Having known this, you know everything. There is nothing else to be known.
      And if you have known everything and miss it, you have nothing known.
      Nothing that you have learned, nothing you have known. If you miss knowledge
      of your own Self, you have not known anything, you see. So first, know you
      own Self.

      Therefore, you will be able to know everything, past, present, future,
      you see. And return instantly present in this moment, and you are that
      itself.
      And it is ever available also, ever available to you. And it doesn't take
      time.
      Instantly, it is available. Instantly, this very moment. You have not to
      spend hours, minute, seconds even. Only you have to abandon all kind of
      notions
      that you have been entertaining so far. Notion, ideations, intentions,
      that's all
      you have got to do.

      That's why I'm very happy, I need not speak too much for you have already
      crossed the ocean. Thank you for that. I am asking you how was your trip to
      this emptiness, can you define?


      A NET of JEWELS

      One cannot but carry on with that which is false until it drops off by
      itself.
      ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

      To live naturally is to live as a mere witness, without control and
      therefore without mentation, want or volition, uninvolved in the dream-play
      of life and living.


      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      DAN with Miguel-Angel

      D:
      <skip>
      The separation of ignorance from truth is simply this:
      As truth is, ignorance isn't. Being true, I don't need
      to worry myself about the nature of ignorance.

      M.A.:
      Quite so. But only insofar as you are true. What about
      people who are in error? Would you say A) that in any
      case their ignorance is always imaginary, a mere
      projection, and therefore of no relevance; or B) that
      their ignorance, though real, will eventually succumb
      to truth?

      D:
      There is no one else's ignorance for me to
      be concerned about correcting. First-hand,
      I say this: if I am true, the universe is true.
      Others' errors don't need to be corrected by
      me. If I point to something and it isn't
      seen the way I want it to be seen, that's not
      *their* error - it's *my* attachment. I point
      as I point, what is received is received.
      As for whether error will succumb to truth,
      it's the same question as
      whether unreality or reality will prevail.
      Truth is unopposed, reality has no opposite.
      Error doesn't oppose truth, the error is in
      believing truth is opposed by something.
      Unreality doesn't oppose reality, the unreality
      is in believing reality is obstructed by something.

      MA:
      If it's A), then nothing needs to be done. Only truth
      exists, and it is non-conceptual, unknowable,
      unspeakable. What we take to be error is of no more or
      less value than "right knowledge", both being just
      conceptual constructions, equally groundless. Here
      there's no place for progress, as everything is as it
      must, perfect. All we have to do is sit back and enjoy
      it all.

      D:
      Well, when you say, "sitting back and enjoying it" isn't
      that also conceptual? Saying "it is perfect,"
      "nothing needs to be done," likewise?
      When it is nonconceptual, unspeakable, and unknowable,
      "it is" doesn't even apply ...
      We get to where "the mind stops" (obviously, that's
      conceptual, too, but words will always be that way).
      So the mind stops, and in stopping, ceases to exist
      as an entity; the mind-entity
      *was* this very effort to label,
      figure out, decide what to do.
      When the mind ceases, there can be no credence
      given to assertions such
      as "it is perfect," or "let me just enjoy this,"
      or "I'll do nothing." As far as doing goes, one
      might say there isn't something to be done,
      there isn't doing nothing, there isn't the category
      of doing vs. doing nothing. This might be described
      as "nondoing", but only to help dissolve biases
      toward conceptual "doings".

      If it's B), then there's some place for progress, for
      improvement. Whether it's through effort or grace is
      another matter. But at least there is ground for
      expectation, for hope in the dissolution of one's
      errors and miseries.

      D:
      I see it this way: the intention to improve
      splits the present and future, depends on
      an entity who wants to improve a perceived
      condition, and so distorts the unconditioned
      reality into something it isn't.

      MA:
      Which of the two is it, Dan? Knowing you, I expect you
      to choose A). But isn't that because you feel so sure
      and happy in your position? What about those who feel
      disoriented and miserable? Can they also be advised to
      say "It doesn't matter, it's all just imaginary, a
      mental construction" ? How can they be made to forget
      all their problems, their frustrations?

      D:
      Let's follow the mind, Migel-Angel,
      as it constructs all these
      things: achieving, improving, and the entity
      who wants to get out of feeling miserable.
      Can we notice so closely that we see it is
      the mind itself, in its striving, that *is* the
      impression of the entity, the fragmenting of
      being, the formation of an image taken as reality?
      If we don't follow this closely, we'll be mesmerized
      by the stream of talk and images, the constant
      material provided by thought, memory, and feeling.
      If we do notice closely, we aren't able to continue
      with the effort because we see its internal
      contradiction. The effort to escape the misery
      *is* the misery, the attempt to improve *is* the
      fragmentation, is the perception of a separate
      mind-entity that wants escape.

      When the effort collapses, the
      mind stops. Then there is silence. Then there is
      nonmovement, nondoing as discussed above. This
      has nothing to do with giving advice or telling people
      to forget anything. It only comes about when there is
      sincere inquiry, a willingness to notice carefully
      exactly how this construction occurs. It involves
      honesty, not forgetting something, and it comes from
      who I am, this awareness here, not someone's advice.
      It is urgent because the self-contradiction occurs
      here and is friction-generating. It's not someone
      else's problem, and someone else's advice can
      only be useful to a limited extent.

      Again, if it is A), which implies that everything is
      perfect, how is it that so very few are the lucky ones,
      the ones who are installed in Reality, beyond the
      projection; while the vast majority suffer taking the
      projection for Reality? Why the injustice of it all?

      D:
      Miguel-Angel - it's urgent. It involves all of
      who I am right now. If I fragment my energy
      into the conceptual endeavors of trying to
      figure out the justice of it all, or answer
      the "why" of everyone else's suffering, how will
      I attend directly to "this, here"? And it is
      "this, here" that demands energy and awareness.
      It is "this, here" that generates friction and
      contention through self-contradiction.

      Putting this off until I have solved the problems
      of the justice of the universe and the reasons
      why each person suffers is to defer awareness.
      To put it off even until one minute from now
      is to split awareness.
      Ultimately, the questions about "why" and "how
      can it be like this" drop away - as discussed
      above, the mind stops. This stopping
      shows that the "entity" tries to perpetuate
      itself by constructing questions that need
      to be answered in the future, gives itself
      a sense of continuity, and so avoids dealing
      immediately with the reality that *it isn't
      there* when the mind isn't preoccupying itself
      with various forms of effort. In fact, the
      sense the mind has of "itself" *is* the preoccupation
      with images, words, feelings, and sensations.
      When mind stops, there is profound silence, nothing
      "outside" or "inside" is: only the indescribable,
      which is indivisible. This indivisible is
      who I am, the true "in-divide-u-all".

      Thank you very much for sharing this dialogue
      with me, M.A.




      GENE / JERRY:

      JERRY:
      Hi Larry and Glo,

      I think that's a huge question, Larry. Another huge question
      is, What is esthetic experience?

      It has something to do with unity, transcendence and
      realization, so it has to do with 'love' and 'truth', as I
      see it. Art experience is an alternative to religion. I
      think Hinduism even accepts that.

      GENE:
      When our own pattern-buffers synchronize with apparent outside
      patterns, there occurs a deep moment of recognition of self. It is
      even more wondrous that we for a moment, identify what is outside, as
      separate from what we are. This is for me, a sweet kiss, a conveyance
      of love.

      I am surrounded by such gifting. When I am by myself, I do not bother
      to play the game of befuddlement; I have no-one to impress, no-one to
      avoid offending or scaring. When I am by myself, I accept raw, the
      offerings which shower upon me.

      It is apparent that statistically, the population is in the grips of
      a traditional, memetically-contagioned paranoia; and that popularity
      and acceptance is gained mainly through slavish obeisance to that
      shadowed harbinger of personal extinction. It is heartening to
      observe many individuals breaking through those gossamer figments of
      imposed imagination, even in the face of reactive assault by the
      covert standard-bearers of the world-dream.

      I convey my congratulations to those whose perseverance has brought
      them to this moment. Having tested your phantom shackles, you have
      found them mere ephemera. You have moved beyond seeking, or needing,
      the approval of putative authorities.

      Now, it may occur that you are subjected to more refined,
      higher-level testings. Remember what you have learned, that has aided
      you thus far. You have become your own authority. If you are
      subjected to 'field-intrusion testing', you may stabilize yourself
      into any configuration which pleases you, no matter what the apparent
      consequences. Remember that you need no justification for Being, only
      skill for existing.

      Eventually, each is subject to an onslaught of entirely novel
      circumstances. The challenge is to abide, as in your most perfect
      moments. It is in those moments of challenge, that we can discover
      that surrender is indeed, a two-way street.

      At the console,
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.