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

Thursday, July 27

Expand Messages
  • umbada@ns.sympatico.ca
    GENE POOLE Reinranting still, again How does one reincarnate in timelessness? For that matter, how does one incarnate in timelessness? Conventional identity,
    Message 1 of 1 , Jul 29, 2000
    • 0 Attachment

      Reinranting still, again

      How does one reincarnate in timelessness? For that matter,
      how does one incarnate in timelessness?

      Conventional identity, that old pattern, is what stands in
      place of what is always already 'here'.

      It is conventional for conventional identity to ask about
      identity other than conventional identity.

      In that old pattern of convention, identity classifies
      information according to broad classes or categories. The
      broadest of these classes is 'time'. Naturally,
      conventional identity shelves gathered data (memory) in
      bins labeled 'past, present' and future'. I say 'naturally'
      because it seems quite natural to 'have a past' and to
      'have a future', so much so that people are fond of saying
      "there is only 'now'".

      For conventional identity, 'now' is a difference which
      arises only in comparison to past and future. For the
      timeless, there is no 'now'; for the timeless, the
      information which is labeled by conventional identity
      categorically as 'past, present, and future', still exists
      as information, but is labeled differently.

      'Simultaneous' is also a time-based contrast, but comes
      close to timelessness, closer to timelessness than a model
      of reality which is a linear progression of interdependent
      events, labeled as past, present, and future. Inevitable
      simultaneity, or better, unstoppable simultaneity, certain
      simultaneity, or a description of events as all the same
      event, is even better.

      All events are the same event, thus there are no separate
      events; with no separate events, there is no difference;
      thus, 'nothing ever happens'.

      Consider conventional ideas about reincarnation in light of
      simultaneity. In this model, there is not a linear
      progression of lives, but instead, a present and permanent
      current bloom of all of what is. In this model, all lives
      occur simultaneously. The question is then, why do we
      insist on having one life at a time? If there is doubt that
      we insist on having one life at a time, look at the current
      state of assumption concerning identity; many individual
      synthetic identities long to merge, but are incompatible,
      kept separate by the divide of language.

      The answer to this question is this; conventional identity
      is 'mine', and I am separate from all other lives. I am
      self and not other. I am me and you are you; I know things
      and do things which you do not know and do not do. I am a
      unique individual; I was born and I will die, and in the
      meantime, all of you others are a royal pain in the ass. I
      am dependent upon you to give me monetary rewards for
      accomplishing tasks which I would rather not do, but do for
      the money. I depend upon you to validate my 'humanness', to
      have empathy for me, to respect me, and to communicate with
      me. These are all expectations of conventional identity,
      and woven into these expectations is the classification of
      time as past, present, and future. Perhaps it could be
      said, that it is human awareness of time, and the ability
      to classify time, and to classify information according to
      time, which has convinced us that we have a sort of mastery
      of ourselves, and by extension, of the universe in which we
      live. Is one willing to give all of this up, simply to know

      Conventional identity is very allergic to timelessness; in
      fact, a prolonged exposure to timelessness will inevitably
      produce the effect of 'anaphylaxis', to a fatal degree,
      leaving nothing of conventional identity, but the (non
      time-based) classified information of 'what is'; with the
      expiration of the librarian, the books remain. Timeless is
      not mortal, being outside of time, being undeceived by
      convention, and not entertaining expectation of time or its
      products. It is all here right now, not to be found later,
      and not to be missed; it is also nowhere, because now, only
      what is happening is happening, a constant mutation, and
      the danger is to track the changes on the basis of time,
      rather than intention.

      One may use the phrase 'sentient Being' to refer to
      timeless awareness, aware of beginningless (not even a
      word!) and endless, non-time based perception, as being
      that which is the stage upon which what is, is happening, a
      continual blooming of one thing, and it is awareness itself
      which is the organic substrate in which all of this blooms,
      and it is the bloom. How dare we focus on one petal, when
      there is this incredible flower to consider and to

      Awareness speaks simply as what is, yet, conventional
      identity invents and uses language to go 'what is' one
      better, lying continually about time, and suffering the
      torments of self-castration, as it uses language to
      delineate, limit, and then falsely 'explain' what is
      happening, all the while having to speak very loudly in
      order to drown out the incredible, total-bandwidth
      expression of what is, as the shout, whisper, and silence
      of awareness itself. Awareness naturally organizes its
      products as its own expression, yet conventional identity
      defines the apparent universe as partly alive and partly
      nonliving and partly dead, all according to time. Ideas
      about reincarnation emanate from the assumption of time,
      and from nowhere else. Those ideas are nothing but the
      naturally secreted glue which holds the barnacle to the
      rock against the violence of the pounding tides; it is the
      nature of the barnacle to do this, to cope with predictable
      events, to insure survival.

      Of course, free-swimming fish do not suffer from the needs
      of the barnacle; they have entirely different mechanisms
      for coping, and survive glueless, riding the tides, moving
      with the currents. This is how timeless Being considers
      human dilemma of time-bound consciousness; conventional
      identity secures to 'stationary objects' and needs more
      than anything, to have at least one 'real thing' by which
      to 'know the reality of all other things'. For many humans,
      this 'one real thing' is called 'God'; God is considered to
      be the one reality, all other being transient or even
      illusory. Upon this rock of certainty is thus built
      language, which like a superb net, ensconces not only the
      fish upon which it is cast, but also the unwitting
      fisherman who casts it. Caught in his own net, he is
      limited by its confines; yes, he has fish to eat, but he is
      in the position of the barnacle, stuck in the 'present' and
      able only to fantasize other times and spaces. Like a dunce
      facing the corner, he delimits his reality with force when
      deemed necessary, scourging all non-barnacle genes from the
      pool, and keeping pure the language-bound, time-bound

      Speaking of God, if we understand God, we know that God
      neither exists nor non-exists; as the model of timeless
      awareness, as the One True Self, God is the foundation upon
      which all barnacles are glued, and is the tides which
      batter them, and the fish which eat them, and the ocean in
      which the fish swim, netted by the self-netting fishermen,
      those deaf and blind tool-users, who habitually cut
      themselves into bait which attracts calamity, trolling as
      they do for the 'big catch' of understanding, trapped of
      course in their own sacred limiting-words. The Urth is
      flat; stay with the conventional identity, for over the
      edge, is the void, inhabited by unimaginable monsters,
      which of course are purely imaginary.

      Conventional identity is incarnate, and certainly
      reincarnates; of this there is no doubt. It takes great
      pains, quite literally, to replicate itself, and to
      enshrine itself in temples defined as timeless. Like the
      pyramids of Egypt, conventional identity is a shrine to
      itself, fooling itself that it is immortal, thus inventing
      myths of immortality which star various versions of
      conventional identity.

      So far, the discussion has been around the topic of
      'realization', and has ignored for the most part, the
      possibility that space itself is aware and intelligent; and
      yes, immortal; for when is there no space, though invisible
      it may be? Awareness is this space of immortality, giving
      birth to all objects, and also being their grave.

      Identity incarnates in this awareness, and like the
      ocean-born fish, is unaware of the natural amniotic fluid
      which is awareness. Stalked by self-generated calamity,
      humans invent ideas of 'Karma', which are expressed in the
      same language which, like the sharp bait-knife, divides one
      into many, and this knife is carried with pride, always at
      the ready, the perfectly imperfect tool. Based upon the
      assumption that there is one verifiable thing, all other
      things, imagined or imagined not to be imagined, are thus
      cut from the same formless jelly, and set upon the table as
      suitable food for growth. Until humans see the jelly that
      they are, they are unable to simply assimilate nothing;
      nothing is another allergen, the void of everything, which
      is itself an invalidation of conventional identity; nothing
      is unimaginable.

      Living space is nothing, awareness is nothing, and nothing
      incarnates as identity; thus, nothing is what reincarnates,
      but the allergy to nothing makes something from nothing,
      and also language to classify it. Like the body expresses
      boils in allergy, so identity is the expression of
      something in nothing. Clinging to the rock of 'reality',
      adhering against death, silly superstition supercedes
      superb Self, describing what is vast in terms scaled to a
      ruler of confusion, and the most confused measure is that
      of time, the vast net of misunderstanding cast upon what is
      assumed to be seen.

      Clinging to the beautiful blossoms of spring, afraid to go
      into that long night of summer, lest a petal should fall,
      humans preserve unto embalming, the compilation of memories
      which obscure the clear view of space. These objects,
      infused with life only in the imagination of the
      puppet-master, dance to the script of a shared dream,
      playing dolls under the direct gaze of God. Chief among the
      games of this worldly script, is the routine of 'seeking
      God or true knowledge of God'; socially-reinforced
      ignorance of God validates this seeking, but each seeker
      feels the gaze upon Hir back; otherwise, this game would
      expire of sheer boredom.

      No puppet has ever become enlightened; enlightenment is the
      awakening of the puppet-master. People define 'you' as this
      non-enlightened puppet, agitating to educate you, to
      enlighten you, to make you better, to make you the best of
      all puppets, just like your parents agitated to make you
      'good'. No puppet can be 'good' or 'bad' except in the
      bizarre consensus dream-world of the doll-game. It is
      identification with and as the puppet which is the
      anesthesia of the puppet-master; how to get sober, as long
      as the game is to continue until 'everyone gets it right'?
      Certain drunks may assume that the cure for drunkenness is
      alcohol; similarly, certain people may assume that the cure
      for identification as being a puppet, is to work to perfect
      the doll-play. Slogging about in the dream, picking up
      clues to how the dream can be ended and reality finally
      begun, fleeing the annoying bell of the alarm-clock of
      suffering, all the while picking up and reattaching fallen
      body-parts, the puppet moves only as the master dictates.
      But the master, drunk upon game-bound success, hurls the
      doll ever more skillfully into perfecting the game, slyly
      positioning for the hinted rewards.

      Doll contests are no match for this missive from awareness;
      flashing diamond sharp cutter effortlessly cuts strings,
      thus breaking feedback loop between master and puppet. At
      this moment, master is suddenly sober, but as addict, must
      patch those severed threads which lead to created identity,
      thus to continue chosen trance-state. Focusing right on
      through threatened breakup of familiar reality-patterns,
      holding firm while sensorium wavers, reapplying the
      familiar to the unknown, master reinitializes puppet,
      throwing away timeless and conventionally meaningless
      impressions, to continue on to mastery of puppet-hood. A
      doll judged by other dolls, shutting out the true voices
      which would give the lie to the entire game, attached to
      world-dream success, master continues on, stoned out of Hir
      mind by the fantastic events of the imaginary, always
      declining credit for that authorship.


      Beautiful piece Gene. While it lends a great perspective as
      to the how or why, it also does great justice in the
      understanding of nothing.

      It is sensed that there is a truth behind this game. I AM
      perhaps touches that truth, but ever so distantly. Getting
      to " " AM is closer, but that too is a sense, even when
      empty consciousness is achieved. This simultaniety in
      living space permits transposing empty and full
      consciousness such that a sense of awareness materializes.
      So where awareness is the possible "reason" for filling
      consciousness, it is full consciousness that leads to
      awareness... timelessly speaking. Such a transposition
      permits a "living interface", keeping in mind that it is an
      arbitrary interface. Greater meaning however is given to
      "living" space.


      Hi Gene-ji and Dave,

      I like this! This view of simultaneity is actually taught
      as one of the more abstract teachings in advaita vedanta.
      The teaching is that all of phenomenality is actually dying
      and being re-instantiated at every moment. In that moment,
      all lives are parallel and simultaneous as in a flash.
      There is no succession of anything, because the flash is of
      zero (0) duration.

      Actually the present moment comes complete with its own
      built-in seeming pointers to a past and a future. Only
      "seeming" -- because the pointers themselves as well as
      their targets are inseparable from the present flash. So
      there's no evidence that the pointers actually ever refer
      to anything outside the moment. The present flash cannot
      truly refer to another flash.


      Gene, I never thought you could outdo yourself but in this
      case you have. Your message itself is a "missive from
      awareness" which "effortlessly cuts strings". The master
      who writes through YOU, truly stoned out of Hir mind to pop
      such puppety poppety dreams through your keyboard to we
      meat-puppets, this Master obviously is ecstatically
      effortlessly writing for the sheer joy of it, and it is
      quite an amazing performance to be able to attend.


      Dear Gene,

      You raised several worthy points here - gracias. *And* all
      of the points were the "apparent unfolding" of That which
      might be termed "unstoppable simultaneity" or, perhaps,
      "unopposed synchronicity", which must not even have
      "apparent unfolding" (and only seems to have this when we
      believe ourselves to be commenting upon it).

      As you noted, there is One Event, sans subevents, hence no
      "real unfolding" is possible, which might be termed, as in
      your piece, "nothing happens," or could be stated as "there
      can be no such thing as a discussion about whether
      something happens or doesn't happens."

      As there is One Event, it can never be, has never been
      commented upon.

      When you ask: Is one willing to give all of this up, simply
      to know timelessness?

      it only sounds like you are commenting upon, and raising a
      question about a subevent.

      the question is a resounding reverberation in
      soundlessness, a tidal wave of nothing, a mighty echo of
      the snuffing out of a candle that appeared in a dream.

      or something like that ;-)

      (not really)


      DANIEL: Does the list on this site, of teachers or people
      you can contact, purport to offer names of those who are
      fully "liberated/awakened/realized" or whatever other term
      you prefer?

      MATTHEW: well daniel, this list and others have lots of
      names of teachers. Their "status" is purely subjective. I
      particularly like "Sarlos hum-drum-guru -ratings", because
      he rates everyone so low. Though there are a select few i
      think he should bump up a few notches. Everyone has their
      own opinion of who is at what level. Personally, i look
      around at the scene today and i couldn't imagine having to
      find a "real one" out of that mess. I consider my self
      fortunate that i never had to do that search and just sort
      of stumbled into my guru quite by accident not even knowing
      i was looking for one, some 23 years ago. To many he is a
      fraud, charlatan, liar, a fool, or totally deluded. To me
      is the One with no second. So like i said, it's totally
      subjective. Happy hunting!

      DANIEL: I have long been under the impression that
      receiving the full understanding was somewhat rare, perhaps
      extremely rare. Now, surfing some sites such as NDS and
      realization.org, I'm wondering if I've misunderstood.

      MATTHEW: I think you understand just fine.i think i'm in
      the minority on this one around these parts but i agree
      with you. The way people talk you would think that the
      whole of humanity is just waking up left and right. What a
      crock! Wouldn't it be so nice and easy if there was a way
      of testing for enlightenment. Like a ph test or something.
      So that with anyone who claimed enlightenment, we could
      just test them and if they failed or passed then that
      proved it for sure. Oh, we already do have that in each of
      our own little minds, with our own special criteria. Ah but
      is it accurate? hmmmmm good question.

      JUDI: Matthew, May I ask why is it a concern to you whether
      someone else is enlightened or not? Wouldn't you agree that
      your concern should be with the fact that you're not? I
      mean it seems to me there should come a time, when you let
      everyone else go and just look to your own present
      experience itself - presently. I was down the bookstore
      this evening and Saniel Bonder was giving a talk. And he
      talked about 'greenlighting' yourself. In other words, you
      finally give yourself the go ahead to go those places where
      you really don't want to go. You allow yourself to go into,
      even fall into, right into your failure. You allow yourself
      to snuugle up, as it were, to your fears. I mean, you been
      everywhere else, why not? :-) Think adventure! Heroic.


      Welcome Dan! (Dan Heller's a buddy from NYC, new to this
      There are a couple of things to keep in mind...

      -- there are many different definitions of enlightenment,
      some definitions are restrictive and exclusive, some are
      inclusive, some definitions make sense, some make no sense;
      some definitions are intentionally used only as expedient
      means or teaching devices only, and aren't meant to be
      taken as true.

      -- one can't ignore the personal and political aspects of
      this stuff. E.g., in some cases there might be plain old
      selfish personal motives for perpetrating a notion of
      enlightenment that includes just me and a tiny handful of

      -- choose a definition, any definition. One must *still* be
      careful: not all those who have famous celebrity status fit
      the characteristics. And not all those who fit the
      characteristics have famous celebrity status.

      Let 'er rip!!

      (editor's note: there should be more on this topic in the
      next highlights)


      JERRY: In the name of functioning optimally in the world,
      the one with the Absolute perspective can still identify
      the false self and say, Hey, this false self is a drag, and
      proceed to improve. That's merely work, like looking after
      a garden in a backyard. However, it really doesn't matter
      if the yard is overgrown and full of poisonous plants, or

      MELODY: I enjoyed your garden metaphor, Jerry.

      To continue this metaphor with some of my own observations
      this morning:

      A 'garden' has no conscious motivation to feed someone, or
      to be a thing of beauty, it doesn't care if the yard is
      overgrown and filled with poison....or whether it is

      It does seem to, however, have a 'motivation' towards
      living. Each and every plant in the garden will stretch and
      search for food and light....sometimes 'overshadowing'
      others (and thur reducing their chances of
      living)....sometimes 'drinking' more than its 'fair' share
      of nourishment.

      With this picture in my mind, I began thinking:

      If the plants in a garden carried the desire to be
      compassionate, how would they behave differently?

      I wonder if their acts of 'compassion' would begin at
      home....in that the older, more established plants might
      begin to share more with the up 'starts'.....

      maybe develop a consciousness of 'everyone should be fed'
      and given the same chance to grow.

      The question then arises

      what if ...'in their compassion'... they no longer were
      capable of bearing fruit? What if, in their zest to 'share
      light' they stopped drinking in enough for themselves to
      continue growing?

      I'm reminded now of Osho's "bamboo" metaphor...the one
      where he suggests we empty ourselves of all intention
      (including compassion) and simply allow God to sing thru

      He seems to be suggesting (weaving his thought into this
      metaphor) that what may look like an act of of uncaring
      self-interest (when one plant overshadows another, or grabs
      all the water for himself) might be Existence's perfect

      This leads me to wonder....concerning compassion:

      Do me best serve God by 'cultivating' a heart of
      compassion? Do we best serve ourselves? And how do we know
      what's 'best'?

      The moment we ask such a question....doesn't it show us
      that we are NOT in the position to know? Doesn't it show us
      that we are not at that moment being AS a 'hollow bamboo'?

      One of my biggest struggles of all is in giving up this
      notion of 'having a Christian heart' ....of being a helper
      or healer....of being my bothers' keeper. And yet, my
      observations (of my self and others) show me that this
      'compassionate' intent can not only CREATE considerable
      sorrow and suffering,

      it is the fastest way for this 'bamboo' to become full of

      It makes me wonder if this is not the challenge for AC, and
      many others.



      Absolute Grace abounds and yet they worry and whine and
      argue and fight and even kill each other.


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