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

HIGHLIGHTS - Friday 14th July 2000

Expand Messages
  • Manchine
    Dave wrote: BE THAT ... Be what? Be your point of view which looks like nothing in a natural and ordinary way. Being that nothing, you will be everything which
    Message 1 of 1 , Jul 15, 2000
      Dave wrote:
      BE THAT
      Be what? Be your point of view which looks like nothing in a natural and
      ordinary way. Being that nothing, you will be everything which looks
      like something because there is nothing to keep it out. So be nothing be
      everything at once. It's you!



      A NET of JEWELS

      July 14

      The apparent differences that constitute our world of separate existences
      are not intrinsic but only in the eyes of the beholder.

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

      Life and living is a flow, and if we accept that flow and get into that
      flow, life can be tremendously simple.



      Don't quote me. I'm a fake.

      No you're not!
      Words are nothing.
      You know the heart is not that which beats.
      It is always the way back.

      Anything else, is separation
      Mark is not
      Mark is NOT
      Mark, you are not what you believe yourself to be.

      Come home Mark,
      I love you
      BE THAT

      Good morning, Dave....

      What do you mean when you say "I love you"
      to Mark?

      What is it you love about him?

      What is it exactly that is UNIQUELY 'Mark'.....which
      is NOT 'fake' as he claims.....that you love? Do you
      mind specifying?

      Do you love me as much as Mark, or in the same

      If so, then what does 'I love you' mean?

      If not, then what does your 'I love you' mean?

      Also, the question arises,

      "What do you mean when you say to Mark,
      'BE THAT' "?

      Are you suggesting he should BE something he is
      not presently being? Maybe be THAT, but not THIS?

      How can he possible be anything other than
      what he is?

      Be WHAT?


      Hey Melody, Are you trying to break up our happy home?? (hee,

      Nothing REAL can be broken, isn't that what THEY say?

      We should write a fake fakir FAQ,

      I love the way this email conversation makes me higher than a

      AHA! I knew it!

      This is just too perfect, too funny,
      just too synchronistic for words.

      All I can do is roll on the floor with
      joyous laughter.

      And then hug you and
      call you Brother.


      Hi all,

      Well, now that we're all gathered!

      When I wrote this, it just came out. Something
      of the moment. I don't want to interpret it for Mark,
      because he already has his opinion, and there was no more intention
      than that.

      Every word was from the heart.

      Mark: "I love the way this email conversation makes me higher than a

      Dave: You see!
      Now if Mark wants to know more, he can call me on it.
      I have no problem.

      Melody: What do you mean when you say "I love you" to Mark?

      Dave: THAT which to BE, and that he is not Mark.

      Melody: Do you love me as much as Mark, or in the same way?

      Dave: YES, and more so!

      I hope I have answered your questions Melody. If there are others
      that you have not asked, fire away.

      Meantime, if Mark wants more, then perhaps I could give "my"
      interpretation, or you could give yours.

      True Love!



      Guess what? There is no such thing as the not-Self!
      Jokes on us! :-))

      this may be true from an absolute non-dual perspective
      michael but we
      all live AS IF there were such a thing. We are totally
      (except in moments) identified with/as this "illusory" not-self.
      Therefore Self-inquiry is urgently needed to make that distinction and
      break the identification.

      Miguel Angel:
      Just one (double) question:
      1. Who is to make Self-inquiry, who is to make the
      distinction Self/Non-self?
      2. Who is to put an end to identification?
      Three possibilities: A) the mind, B) the Self; C)

      If A, that's a vicious circle: the mind trying to stop
      identification with the mind. Besides that is above the
      mind's capacities: the finite mind trying to extricate
      the infinite Self from its veil. So the mind can hardly
      be the subject of Self-inquiry.

      ..............well the mind can't stop anything but we've gotta start
      where we are and since most of us live in/through/as mind that seems
      to be the place to start. When we first begin to investigate Inquiry
      it begins initially as an activity of mind, a thinking process.We say
      the words "who am I" ("who am I kidding" is what i use)we verbalize
      it, think about it, using the mind to investigate, to question. We
      begin at the begining. No point in getting ahead of ourselves.

      If B, then we have dualism: the Self before committing
      the original sin of dentification, and the fallen Self
      veiled by the nonSelf. But as the Self is one,
      immutable and always without attributes, it follows
      that there cannot be two kinds or states of Self. So
      the Self is not the subject of Self-inquiry.

      ---------------hmmm. Nonduality may be the truth of all existance but
      like it or not we always have dualism. Always. We can use any
      language we want to explain our existance, but we can't explain away
      the hard and persistant fact of living in a dualistic world .There is
      no such thing as nondual activity, or nondual speech. One can't
      behave nondualistically. As long as there is a body with my name on
      it there is a dualistic world, whether there is identification with
      the body/mind or not.

      Original sin? You must be catholic. Shit happens and so does
      identification. It has been a given of human existance since day one
      and hasn't changed at all.Fallen Self? You are definitely catholic.
      Self becomes hidden as a very mechanical and predictable process of

      If C, then we have Self-inquiry as an automatic,
      impersonal process, something that just happens, a sort
      of self-induced elucidation of the mind's attitude. No
      agent is needed here. Though then there is no place for
      any idea of responsibility or choice, of method or
      effort. It's all just automatic.

      ....................more hmmmm. I don't buy this automatic thing.
      Perhaps way down the road, but for 99.9999999% of us, that is really
      jumping the gun. Lots of people have mystical visions, or piercing
      nsights into the nature of reality and make assumptions of "progress".
      There is a book out that I think is great called "Halfway Up the
      Mountain, Premature claims to Enlightenment" by Mariana Caplan. It
      really addresses the need to always Inquire, and never make
      assumptions about what we take to be progress. A lot of people on
      this site will be turned off though because it is written around
      interviews with various spiritual "authorities" most all of whom are
      proponents of the teacher/student-guru/devotee path, which alone i
      think is enough to set most people here to gagging.



      Dear Matthew,

      I see it this way:
      Nonduality isn't a category,
      isn't a realm that is separate
      from duality.

      Nonduality, not a category, subsumes
      all categories; not a realm,
      subsumes all realms; not a body,
      subsumes all bodies; not an activity,
      subsumes all activities.

      This body-mind does not need to be
      shed for nonduality to be real,
      (i.e., to be "realized"). Rather,
      what is shed is investment
      in, identification with, the categories
      constructed by the body-mind, and taken
      as grounding of reality. Ultimately,
      the category "body-mind" is also
      shed as a point of identification.
      If I shed the body-mind as a point of
      identification, no one needs know I
      did this. No celebration needs
      to occur. In fact, there is
      no one "else" here to know.

      Other body-minds can
      look at a particular body-mind to
      try to decide whether disidentification
      has occurred. However, that is
      simply judgment on the level of the

      If each day, I open to Reality as is,
      that is enough.

      As the Real is known as Real, the
      unreal previously taken as "known"
      is shed.

      As the Real is omnipresent, opening
      may occur, potentially, in any
      situation. For some, opening my
      occur through a guru-devotee relationship;
      for others, opening may occur because
      a breath was taken at a particular moment
      and sensed in a particular way.

      As the unreal falls away, one opens
      to the Real as omnipresent, and
      one sees that there are many, many
      ways the Real my present itself.

      Teacher-student relationships,
      guru-devotee realtionships, friend-friend
      relationships, lover-lover relationships,
      or someone living alone with minimal
      human relationships - any of these
      may assist opening. Who is in a position to
      know what will be the facilitative experience
      for all body-mind constructs?
      People have talked about ways
      that war-time experiences or being in jail
      were facilitative for spiritual awakening.
      There can be no prejudgment about this unfolding.

      Reality may shine through any moment,
      and "you" may help "me" as teacher, friend,
      guru, student, lover, but the "ultimate
      help" is when there is disidentification
      from any and all constructs.

      There is no way that full disidentification from
      constructs could depend on any particular
      construct (e.g., "God," "guru", "lover," etc.).
      Full disidentification can only occur as simultaneous
      non-definition by or through any and all
      constructs. This "sudden awareness" might occur
      in the presence of a teacher or not, with
      others or in solitude, there are many, many
      stories that show what a gamut is involved.

      Yet no story can show the side of this that is
      wordless, not happening "to" anybody, not
      a space-time event.

      Out of words,
      Blessed be,


      DAN and DAVE:


      So, here are all my words, along with all of yours to
      touch the scintilating fabric in the intent to jog
      the collective memory.

      It's true, nothing here is the answer, and in the end the questions
      and inquiries are of little significance.

      Our models and words fall in ruins as the collective memory
      begins to remember the truth, it's passed this way before until
      achieving its blessed escape.

      The ancient city lies in ruins,
      its vanities and frailties
      exposed, jungle vines growing
      over its remains.

      If one listens quietly, echoes
      of its many past lives are heard,
      the shouts of its claims to truth,
      the laughter of its enjoyments,
      quivers of its fears and doubts,
      cries and whimpers of its
      various cruelties.
      Echoes seem to reverberate
      in what is left of its
      edifices, yet fade softly
      and easily into silence.

      Shards of thought and fragments
      of memory scattered here and there,
      Questions and answers strewn about,
      corroding in the sunlight.

      And the sunlight streams everywhere,
      not caring whether or not
      a new city is constructed,
      knowing that the light will stream
      on, regardless of how many
      cities come and go.

      More ancient than time,
      newer than the morning's breeze,
      This is the true city, having no buildings,
      absent of all artifice,
      only living sunlight itself.


      MARK and MARY

      Have you seen this web site:

      I like this excerpt from it:

      THIS TOO, SHALL PASS, A powerful king, ruler of many domains, was in
      a position of such magnificence that wise men were his mere employees.
      And yet one day he felt himself confused and called the sages to him.

      He said: 'I do not know the cause, but something impels me to seek a certain
      ring, one that will enable me to stabilize my state. 'I must have such a
      And this ring must be one which, when I am unhappy , will make me joyful.
      At the same time, if I am happy and look upon it, I must be made sad.'

      The wise men consulted one another, and threw themselves into deep
      contemplation, and finally they came to a decision as to the
      character of this ring which would suit their king. The ring which they
      devised was one upon which was inscribed the legend: THIS TOO, SHALL PASS.
      WHAT SHALL I BE?, I have again and again grown like grass; I have
      experienced seven hundred and seventy moulds. I died from
      minerality and became vegetable; And from vegetativeness I died and
      became animal. I died from animality and became man. Then why fear
      disappearance through death? Next time I shall die, Bringing forth
      wings and feathers like angels:

      After that soaring higher than angels--What you cannot imagine. I
      shall be that! (Jalaludin Rumi)

      Love, Mary


      MARCIA and DAN:

      I don't have to draw a conclusion but conclusions
      get drawn. As I notice elements, a picture begins
      to form on it's own.

      Where is this picture situated?
      I have come to no conclusions
      about this...

      I guess it is a 'sense' of how things really are or what
      is needed in the moment. A total information processing.
      If I am standing directly under the light no shadow is cast.
      The 'response' comes through me. 'Nothing' is blocking or
      being blocked. Mind if free to process information and
      when enough has been accumulated, right action occurs.

      How can there ever be
      enough information to
      know the picture is
      complete enough?

      Accumulating more and
      more, then suddenly,

      What about this:
      no information,
      no gap,
      immediate response?


      Hi Gang,

      I wrote this a few years ago and just rediscovered it:


      I look into marble, see the smooth path along the grain;
      Feel an insistent tugging and I enter, naked, alone, wondering...
      How I move in there is just how I move.
      I don't know if you can hear these words - don't know how to guide you,
      Except to say, look for the grain and follow it to your source.
      I don't mean follow it back to your source - Follow yourself forward and
      find It.
      The source of the ocean is the ocean!
      Rain and stream are but experiences along the way.
      They are no different.
      Just be.

      Dunno what it means, but I like it. (It's only knock and know-all, but
      I like it - Genesis)

      MELODY responding to MARK:

      Hi Mark,

      After letting your post sit with me for a day, I particularly
      struck by these parts of your sharing I respond to below,
      because I see 'me' so much in these words from 'you':

      The "love, mark" thing is the only thing I ever say here. If I
      share some personal story about unfolding (or folding back up for that
      matter), it's my attempt (well, maybe once in a blue moon it's not
      so much an attempt as a guided sharing), but mainly it's my attempt to
      connect. People complain about the use of the word love because it
      doesn't connect people, but why doesn't it connect people? because
      they perceive it as not connecting people. If one demeans the word and
      actively forbids the meaning to be present, of course it won't be
      there. That's the free will. If I say it, but I don't mean it, sure I can
      cover it over with the overuse, but am I doing that? Can you tell?
      Do you allow the word to have no meaning by your treatment of it as an
      incoming message. Oh, I've heard that one before... How will you
      treat the word when it comes from someone who really means it?

      As I hear what you're saying here, you say 'love, Mark' as
      your way of connecting to people.

      If I understand what you're saying, I truly do believe you
      'mean it', but the question arises,

      Why do you want to connect to people?

      What's the payoff?

      Why does it matter if someone believes you 'love them',
      or not?

      Sunlight is reflected by a lake.

      Does the sun INTEND to be reflected by the lake?

      Does the lake INTEND to reflect the sun?

      And yet the two are connected....you can
      see the sun in the lake....because both the
      sky and the lake are clear enough....are both
      free of cloudiness.....that they can touch one another.

      Yet here we are, you and I, Mark....INTENDING
      to share and connect with one another, and
      giving a damn whether anything reflects our 'love'
      or not.

      I realize that for me.....when I feel the need
      or desire to 'connect'.....I am wanting to get
      OUT of myself....to escape what I'm currently
      experiencing......which, in my case, is generally
      a kind of depression, a sense of being 'small'
      or empty.

      I realize that in this 'smallness', I am looking
      to be fed.....looking to 'eat' or 'drink' somebody
      in ....and to be made to feel 'fuller'.

      I wonder if it is similar with you.

      I'm not suggesting that this 'connecting' I
      do is wrong in anyway. Quite the contrary. It
      is perfect. I'm only suggesting that we do this
      'sharing' and 'connecting' wide awake....

      to do what we're doing, until we're finished doing
      it.......until we're ready or willing to completely
      be eaten by the emptiness (in my case),

      and by whatever this 'connecting' might save YOU
      from experiencing.

      My computer time is short these days, and if you're
      going to the retreat, yours will likely be as well.

      But if you're willing, I'd like to continue looking at
      'me' through 'you' .... as time permits.



      Spiritual Awakening: http://www.egroups.com/group/spiritualawakening

      From the Wisdom Radio/Internet website:

      Series Name: Spiritual Awakening
      Host: James Bean

      Series Synopsis: James Bean is the host of the radio program "Spiritual
      Awakening" and a book reviewer, with a broad familiarity with global
      religious and spiritual traditions.


      Program Name: James Bean's topic is "Inner & Outer Peace Through
      Meditation," Part 1 (#34)

      Episode Synopsis: Join Spiritual Awakening with James Bean as he talks
      about "Inner and Outer Peace Through Meditation. (Part One):

      In this society we’re taught about developing ourselves both physically and
      mentally, yet almost no one teaches us how to develop spiritually. Rajinder
      Singh’s book "Inner and Outer Peace Through Meditation," Element Books,
      covers many aspects of meditation: meditation and world peace, meditation
      and social justice, meditation and individuals becoming peaceful in thought,
      word, and deed, meditation and mysticism --the near - death experience and
      OOBE’s (out-of-body-experiences), meditation and self-realization -- knowing
      who we really are as a soul, and God-realization -- knowing our Creator. The
      forward to this book is by the Dalai Lama.

      Date / Time: Sunday July 16, 2000 9:00 AM (all times Eastern),
      repeated again:

      Sunday July 16, 2000 12:00 PM
      Sunday July 16, 2000 3:00 PM
      Monday July 17, 2000 1:00 AM


      Spiritual Awakening is heard on the internet via Wisdom Radio every Sunday
      morning at 9 Eastern Time (6 a.m. Pacific), and at other times.

      Got to: http://www.wisdomradio.com then "radio," "live." You'll need the
      G2 or G7 Player, Real Audio.

      Also available 24 hours a day (24/7) at the Wisdom site are several archived
      editions of Spiritual Awakening, under: "programs on demand," "radio shows,"
      "Spiritual Awakening."
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.