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

Highlights of Friday July 28, 2000

Expand Messages
  • Gloria Lee
    More on gurus and teachers and awakening ....too many good posts on Friday!! MICHAEL READ Daniel Heller wrote: Perhaps I really am the dullard I d always
    Message 1 of 1 , Jul 29, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      More on " gurus and teachers and awakening"....too many good posts on Friday!!

      MICHAEL READ

      "Daniel Heller" wrote:
      Perhaps I really am the dullard I'd always suspected, not being
      "enlightened" and all yet, and I'm one of the few who hasn't been
      let in on a colossal joke.

      In the book _A Buddhist Bible_ by Dwight Goddard I read
      these words purportedly uttered by Gautama Buddha:

      "When I attained pure and perfect enlightenment, I realized
      that there is no such thing as pure and perfect enlightenment.
      Marvelous! Marvelous!"

      Hah! Same thing here! Gained enlightenment only to find that
      there is no such thing as enlightenment. Quite a liberating
      experience, I must say. I do not say that I am enlightened. It's
      such a silly thing to say. :-)) There is no single separate
      person to be enlightened.

      So what is there if there is no enlightenment? Like Matthew posted
      today - just keep going - don't stop.

      Whenever I'm asked what the meaning of life is, I just respond
      that life is it's own meaning. To play in the fields of illusion
      without fear, ahhh!

      Buddhism is full of delightful contradictions. Buddha would say
      that we work towards the enlightenment of all sentient beings
      with on breath. Then, with the next breath, state there are
      no such things as sentient beings.

      As one human shadow in the great game of existance to another
      all I can say is your very conciousness is the realization
      of the so-called Self.

      In other words, the true guru is already there - inside of you.

      Enjoy! Not only is the joke on us, the joke is the thing.

      HAHAHAH and HOHOHO!

      Peace - boy are they gonna jump on me or what? - Michael

      ___________________________________________________________________

      MATTHEW

      "Daniel Heller" wrote:
      > 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?
      >
      -----------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!

      D.H.: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.

      -----------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.
      ------------------matthew.
      ________________________________________________________________

      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 snuggle up, as it were, to your fears. I mean, you been
      everywhere else, why not? :-) Think adventure! Heroic.
      --
      Happy Days,
      Judi
      _____________________________________________________

      MATTHEW

      ---------------------------------------------
      judi, i honestly don't give a rats ass who is enlightened. In fact i
      really care whether or not i am enlightened. It is a totally
      irrelevant issue to me. The above post of mine about testing for
      enlightenment was sarcasm about the need people have to test teachers.
      I live snuggled up with my fears. It's not an adventure and it's not
      heroic to me, none of it, it is just life.
      ..........matthew
      ___________________________________________________________

      DAN BERKOW

      Well-said, Judi.

      If I notice my own avoidance of
      Reality, that is useful.
      If I put energy into judging
      someone else, I may
      not be noticing my own
      avoidance in the process.

      For me, it comes down to this:
      How invested am I in maintaining
      an "outside position"?

      To judge someone else, I maintain
      an outside position from them,
      maintaining criteria into which
      they fit or don't fit.

      With no outside position, pure awareness
      alone is.

      Being pure awareness, I have a "natural
      sense" of awareness, allowing me
      not to be fooled by someone.
      Living with "no distance" I'm aware when
      someone is invested in constructing
      distance. It has nothing to do with
      needing criteria to evaluate categories
      such as "enlightened" and "nonenlightened".

      Being pure awareness, how much concern have
      I for someone's need to define self
      a certain way? Living beyond definition,
      how much time and energy do I mobilize to
      try to get people to define themselves
      "correctly"? How would that "pay off"
      in any useful way? Would it add one iota
      to the nature of "pure awareness"?

      All I can see evaluation doing is
      being used to construct hierarchies
      with the "accurate ones", "good ones",
      or "knowledgeable ones" on top. Have
      such hierarchies not proven to be
      the installation of human thought,
      evaluation, and politics? (I'm not against
      thought, evaluation and politics, just
      know that they in no way define Truth).

      I'm not fooled because I'm not busy trying
      to evaluate you, categorize you.
      I'm directly aware - I don't get tricked.
      And now, who's the trickster, *really*?


      -- Dan
      _______________________________________________________________

      JAN BARENDRECHT

      Daniel Heller wrote:

      >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?

      It depends on one's definition of the above terms. For instance, one can be
      "liberated" from the idea of "I and you" but yet have to cope with the sense of "I
      and you", and one can be "liberated" from the very sense of "I and you". And there
      isn't (yet?) a test to prove the absence of the sense of "I and you".


      >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.

      No, you haven't misunderstood: comprehension of nondualism is simple, whereas
      disciplines working with the body and the mind (several yogas) can be very
      complicated.

      It seems that the disciples of some teachers
      >could populate a small planet with all from their ranks who have
      >understood their true buddha nature. Perhaps I really am the dullard
      >I'd always suspected, not being "enlightened" and all yet, and I'm
      >one of the few who hasn't been let in on a colossal joke.

      Regarding understanding "only" of "buddha nature", its usefulness can be compared to
      the understanding of gravity when falling from the Empire State Building without a
      parachute :)

      Gravity works whether people understand it nor not and likewise, with
      "enlightenment": confessing one isn't enlightened has the same informational value as
      confessing one is enlightened. But just for the record, the term "enlightenment" is
      often used to denote recognition of "who one is". If one puts a mirror inside the
      cage of a pigeon, it won't have the recognition "I". For a monkey, that changes, it
      does recognize "I". For a humanoid, there is the option to recognize "my" body in the
      mirror and subsequently to recognize that "I" am not the body but... which
      recognition is called "enlightenment". As might be guessed, that recognition has (for
      good reasons) to be considered a "start".

      >Thanks all
      >
      >D

      You're welcome
      Jan
      ________________________________________________________________________________

      JERRY

      Daniel Heller wrote:
      >
      > What is a realizer? What is a confessor? I've never heard those
      > terms before.

      Hi Dan,

      Welcome!

      I take responsibility for using those terms. I can give my
      understanding of them, however it is only one
      interpretation.

      It's really one term: realizer/confessor. It is one who has
      known or who knows nondual nature. It could be a taste that
      occurs from time to time or a stable knowing in the one
      moment. And it is one who speaks intimately about his or
      her knowing.

      This from Michael Read is a good example of a confession,
      as I use the word:

      "I hold no beliefs. Have you lived this lifetime? I used to
      think that I had a life until Grace burned me up. Now I am
      enveloped in life. I did not know who I was until Grace
      consumed me. There is not really a creature called Michael
      Read. Only an abiding Presence."

      The statement of a realizer might be illustrated by the
      following written by Jan Barendrecht:

      "Ending the succession of the transformations of the
      thinking principle is the same as ending all
      identifications - that is why achieving siddhis (creating
      more identifications) is said to cause bondage. But for
      some, especially followers, the spontaneous siddhis will
      give a sense of certainty."

      The confessor is a realizer; the realizer may or may not
      lean toward being a confessor.

      The realizer/confessor is one, although the confessor tends
      to speak in the first person, but not always. Yet the 'I'
      the confessor uses, as I see it, refers not to the speaker,
      but to all individuals or to no individual; it refers to
      consciousness perhaps.

      When I started my website I found I very much enjoyed the
      utterances of realizers/confessors and thought they were as
      valuable as what was uttered by the recognized giants of
      spirituality, whoever they are. Why? Because the knowing of
      the Self or I Am is the same.

      You don't have to be Tiger Woods to play golf, to understand
      what it means to win and lose, or to speak articulately
      about the game. You don't have to have a great long-lived
      love or many loves to speak of love. A momentary glimpse, a
      passing in the night, can be the inspiration for
      heart-shaking poetry. The same with realization of
      nonduality. The people who speak of that realization I've
      called realizers/confessors.

      Now, whether realizers/confessors on these lists are 'fully'
      enlightened, is a subject I don't even recognize. The
      question doesn't arise for me. For others it arises. I have
      no need to know.

      If a person has a need to know to what degree another is
      'enlightened' then that's that person's nature and so be it.

      Having said that, I do a certain amount of judgment. I judge
      whether a voice is genuine and whether realization is
      nondual. Who am I to do that? I have no right to do that.
      Not enough people are embraced as realizers/confessors and
      recognized on my list. However, I think the point has been
      made that there are many, many realizers/confessors. Some
      day the list will be expanded.

      I hope I've addressed your questions fairly, Dan. Thanks
      again.

      Jerry
      __________________________________________________________________

      AND DANIEL REPLIES....

      We can reliably assume that Buddha's statement that he "attained"
      enlightenment was a mistranslation by someone with an incomplete
      understanding of Buddha's "bones"

      Similarly, I will assume that Michael misspoke when he wrote of
      "gaining" enlightenment. As there is no enlightenment and no
      non-enlightenment, and no person to gain or lose it or anything else
      in this nondual reality, gaining enlightenment would really be
      something!

      Speaking from experience, I spent several years as a Rajneesh (osho)
      disciple, and have reflected on the fact that he said several times
      that "a master like me only comes along every few thousand years.
      There are only a handful of people on the planet who know the living
      current. If you miss me, you may not have another chance for many
      lifetimes."

      So was he deluding others, himself, or both? or neither?

      I don't know if Rajneesh was "enlightened" - being part of that
      experience helped me, and obviously was part of this bodymind's
      destiny.

      And, as Greg and others have told me, there need to be different
      teachers for different people at different levels with different
      natures. To me, to speak about our true nature, without KNOWING it
      as Ramana and Maharaj did, is a waste of breath.

      And I've met my guru, I'm not shopping anymore. That is the ultimate
      answer to my questions.

      Also - are there really realizers and confessors, or is there just
      realizing and confessing?


      "The fate of the soul is determined in accordance with its prarabhda
      karma. What is meant to be will be, no matter what you do to prevent
      it. What is not meant to be will not be, no matter what you do to
      make it happen. Therefore the best course is to remain silent."
      - Ramana
      _______________________________________________________________________

      HARSHA



      When Ramana Maharshi's mother found him after some years of searching, she
      tried to convince the Sage to come back home. He ignored her and remained
      silent. She wept and wailed and begged him to come back. It went on for some
      time, perhaps several days. Ramana then wrote the above on a piece of paper
      and stayed silent. Disappointed and distressed, his mother returned home.
      Eventually, she gave up the worldly life and joined him on the Arunachala
      Hill. She was never away from him for even a day after that. Her fervent
      wish was to die with her son near her. She passed away with Ramana's hands
      on her head and heart. The Sage said that the Mother had gained complete
      liberation. The story of his mother's death and the last hours is quite
      beautiful and worth reading.

      Love
      Harsha
      _____________________________________________________________________

      MELODY & JERRY

      > 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'?

      The hollow bamboo is empty. The hollow bamboo can't ask or
      answer any questions. An answer, such as 'we are not in a
      position to know' is not the hollow bamboo's answer. I'm
      wondering if the answer is any better than the question.


      > 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 itself.
      >
      > It makes me wonder if this is not the
      > challenge for AC, and many others.
      >
      > my morning musings,
      > Melody

      The hollow bamboo allows God to sing through us, and that is
      the voice of Grace. Yes, that is the challenge, remaining
      empty. From my own seeing and from reading others, I find
      there's no one-time emptying and that's it, done and final,
      you're finished. God fills it, God empties it. Don't ask my
      why. Yes, that's the challenge. That's the purpose of life,
      as far as I know, keeping the bamboo empty in order to serve
      the voice of God.

      Jerry
      _________________________________________________________

      DAN BERKOW


      >July 28
      >
      >The intellect divides everything between what it considers pleasant
      >(acceptable) and unpleasant (unacceptable) and then opposes anything it
      >deems unacceptable as a "problem" that needs solving! Thus, any problem can
      >only be solved at its source, which is the intellect that conceived the
      >problem as a problem in the first place.
      >

      >In comparison with the inconceivable Infinity that we actually are, what we
      >think we are is a mere hallucination, an illusory and insubstantial shadow.
      Ramesh
      Balsekar
      D:
      Thank you, Ramesh!
      Please, I have a couple of
      questions here.

      I wonder,
      this idea that I'm inconceivable
      and infinite, well, it's just
      another thought after all, no?
      If I think that thought is true,
      and I hold onto that idea,
      I'm still focused on a concept, no?
      Now, I've perhaps changed from the
      concept that I'm limited to
      the concept that I'm
      "inconceivable and infinite."
      But it's still a concept of
      myself either way,
      isn't it?

      Just wanting to clarify here,
      probably you're just saying
      this as a helpful means
      to encourage me to drop
      any concept of "myself"
      of Reality, no?

      So then, I can drop even my
      concept of you as saying
      something "true" about Reality?
      Because, clearly, *I've already conceptualized*,
      the instant I've imagined/described
      myself as infinite and inconceivable.
      So, if I stick to that idea, I have
      become conceivable, no ...?

      And Ramesh, why blame the intellect for
      dividing things?
      That is just its job.
      It can't help itself anymore than
      a computer can avoid using binary
      coding.

      I've observed, as you apparently
      have, that delusion can be an
      attempted substitute
      for reality.
      Is the intellect to blame for this,
      or is it the way *we* use the intellect?

      It's our wishful thinking, our emotionally
      reactive belief that we can use
      the intellect to maintain a "self"
      that can be "owned"; that's
      the delusion, isn't it?

      What I mean here is that the division
      between acceptable and unacceptable
      is taken as reality, not by the intellect,
      but by the attempt of an energy system
      to function separately? The intellect
      divides things, and those things
      aren't ultimately separate, yet once
      I see through delusion, I can
      use the intellect without believing
      there are unacceptable pieces of reality,
      no?

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