Digest: July 9, 1999
- What follows is a selection of a longs day's posting. Some
of the 'best' is included, and some of the 'best' is not
included. Right now Melody and I are putting together these
Digests, but one or more others will soon be volunteering
their efforts so that the reader is sure to be seeing things
out of many eyes, like a fly. Thank you...
You may submit appropriate notices to the new Nondual
Bulletin Board at
Notices of meetings and satsangs anywhere in the world,
items for sale or wanted, swaps, personals, whatever you
think is appropriate as long as it is 'nondual' somehow.
Send submissions to <mailto:umbada@...>
This is how I discriminate in my own gradual
process. Am I trying and struggling or am I
allowing? Effort is the sign for me to stop
whatever I am doing in my mind and rest in
Self. Then whatever is done is done, but not
Each moment a completion. Nothing to say,
nothing to attest to. Communication happens, yet the moment
remains as it is.
In itself, of itself, by itself.
There is a profound silence and beauty here. The beauty is
itself, not the contents of the moment, not what is being
said about the
The relaxing, the no-effort. Yes. No longer any thought of
"my way" or
No thought about "the truth," or "explanations."
No effort because none is needed, none is called for, none
Surrender in this sense is where "ceasing" and "beginning"
The point of effort is to realize the extent of what is
being done with
no-effort. For example, it takes no effort to grow new hairs
on your head, to grow your fingernails, to grow every organ
in your body in fact.
If surrendering the "will to live and enjoy" would be so
effortless, anyone would be enjoying its consequence
(Self-realization before K. awakening). In the
Kathopanishad, Nachiketa visits Yama (symbolizing the
surrender of the "will to live and enjoy") and one boon
granted is Self-realization. It is the "fast" road to Moksha
as opposed to the slow, gradual (K.) awakening (with its ups
and downs), symbolized by the ritual fire-sacrifice. So this
kind of surrender could require a lot of effort
(preparation) but once surrendered, it is irrevocable.
Ramana spontaneously underwent the "visit to Yama" at age
In a gradual process there is always effort. What isn't
noticed, is that the borderline for the effort is shifting,
so that in the long run partial surrender becomes
unconditional surrender. In unconditional surrender there is
no such thing as a choice and the idea of effort cannot even
arise. In the NT this is depicted by statements like "in
order to find life, one has to loose it".
Instead of stopping whatever you're doing, consider how the
"effort" can arise in someone surrendered :) Wouldn't it
make sense to
surrender this notion in the first place?
This morning as I sat in meditation I noticed that I
was fussing about what I should do to really get my
show on the road in terms of my spiritual development.
The noise went something like should I blah, blah, blah
or should I always blah, blah, blah. I was trying to box
up whatever practice would do it for me.
Then I went deeper and deeper into a vast cavern of
silence where I realized that I had no choice in the
matter as I was not the decision maker. Then is when
I remembered Xan's arrogance. There is a wonderful
energy circulating throughout my body. I have heard
it said that sex energy is the circulatory system of the
astral body but who knows.
What's next? I look at what is right in my face. Two
teenagers, an elderly senile father and a huge pile
of unfolded laundry. :-)
Sensing expands way beyond the boundaries of the
physical body. It is only the limitations of our mental
constructs that keeps us from knowing and feeling
and working with that.
Thank you again Jan. And yes the borderline is shifting.
The teenagers and the elderly father are disguises for your
guardian angels :) Contrary to popular believe, a guardian
angel can be in the form of someone to take care of, if that
will bring "the best" out of someone. The pile of laundry is
just to test if the borderline still is present. Only a few
will be able to "realize" despite neglect, meditating in a
pigsty and they are allowed to be hermits. Others first have
to recognize to be "in" the perfect environment for
(Response to Marcia's post above:)
I wonder if you could play this -- kind of a game way:
What is the source of a chattering mind? If one goes into it
it becomes really interesting. All meaningless thoughts have
source. I wonder if you could share this intensity......They
all issue from a field that is taken as "unseen". It is a
"spot" in awareness that is out of the reach of observation.
How can that be? It is a very clever trick that we play --
we, as thought, call it, or better, consider it to be the
observer. By doing this, the wholle cenary is set. An
observer can not be observed by thoughts definition (from
itself to itself). Now that the cenary is set, the show may
go on freely. If not taken conceptualy this observation may
lead to a perception of the wholle field -- preventing,
through a continual attention -- the apearence of that dark
(Marcia's response to Ivan:)
My husband is at work. It is my father who is senile. Ha Ha.
So it should be to a senile's daughter.
Ivan you always make my headache but I will try to answer
this. I have to use concepts but I am not being the concept.
To me there is a very big difference between the observer
the witness. The witness is outside time and is changeless
an ever-changing ___________.(you fill in the blank)
The witness is the same as it was the moment I incarnated.
The observer is the dark spot and is the last thing to go on
the road back home. :-)
To me it is like this. First of all I am in the picture and
part of the picture is observing another part. One of these
is that dark spot you refer to. It constantly shifts but we
are unawares of the shifting and it is as good old William
said...."strutting and fretting his hour upon the stage."
We just don't see the actors entering and existing the
stage. We don't see the movement between the gestures
and only become awares of each actor as they are
centered on the stage. After a while it becomes possible
through the keeping of attention to anchor that dark
spot in such a ways that awareness begins to emerge
of all the myriad selves that have captured my identity
or that I have identified with. This begins to strengthen
the dark spot. At some point I become awares of being
aware of the dark spot and it becomes imperative to
nonidentify with it. The last thing to go. Then I am left
with pure witnessing. At this point I have a witness out
of the picture and a fully awares actor in the picture.
Emptiness and Presence are identical. Some experience the
Emptiness, some as Presence. These are identical. Why some
That as absolute fullness, and why some experience That as
emptiness, this mind does not know. But it knows that they
are the same.
Whatever verbal answer (given by "inner voice") you get, be
shure it isn't "THE" answer. Why bother about partitions
like ego, I am, Self when successful practice of meditation
will start blurring these seeming borders? Ramana once
answered that is doesn't make sense to ransack what will be
This is my experience of self-inquiry: The answer to the
"Who am I?" does not have a verbal answer. If you don't
keep it as only a mental process it can open your awareness
to Silence - silent emptiness or silent presence, however
you experience it. Ramana also said one can follow the
breath as well as thoughts with the question, "From what
does this arise?" because breath and thought have the same
source. I prefer watching the breath because it lets my
awareness be more relaxed and whole.
Why would the Self bother with little thoughts? A big
question. As you
investigate your Silence many questions will be answered and
some will remain mysteries, until all questions fade away.
I have been perplexed at times by postings
that I took as anti-physical. Some seem to
take a stance that spirit means turning
away from physicality, not relating to physicality,
etc. Seeing spirit as a leaving behind of
physicality seems to construct a duality (spirit vs.
Similarly, many postings about extraordinary
teachers and beings. Doesn't worship of the extraordinary
construct a duality of ordinary vs. extraordinary?
Then I thought, am I not contructing a duality
between me (who thinks the way I do) and them (who
think differently)? If I communicate without constructing
dualities, will I then be in a region where absolutely
anything can be said, everything is equally a statement
of truth, and nothing conflicts with anything else
of content or perpsective? It seems so to me, and
this means discrimination becomes a moment by moment
thing, highly relative and flexible.
Greg responds to Dan:
If I may be permitted a bit of socio-cultural babble, it
seems that this anti-physical tendency is the teaching
residue of the
conventional religions and purificatory paths.
If we dodge or negate phenomena in order to stay in a
transcendent realm, we're creating just another dualism that
will have to dissolve at some point. At best, this
technique is taught to rid the aspirant of the fixed belief
in inherently existing objects, but it is not a non-dual
teaching. Some call it the "witness state."
>Similarly, many postings about extraordinaryYes, more babble -- this seems to be the residue of the
>teachers and beings. Doesn't worship of the extraordinary
>construct a duality of ordinary vs. extraordinary?
There are so many of my friends who teeter on the edge
devotional path and an interest in the simplicity of
non-dual teachings. I have one friend, a former Muktananda
disciple, who thinks that
enlightenment is constantly seeing a blue pearl in the
visual field, during waking, dreaming and deep sleep. I
liken this to a constant logo or ad on the bottom left of
one's AOL screen. Another friend, a Guru Mayi disciple,
says enlightenment is constantly being in the same high
state he is in when he attends a Guru Mayi retreat. He also
said that she can make her automobile float 11 inches off
the ground as she drives it.
>Then I thought, am I not contructing a dualityIn a certain psychological sense perhaps, but not to worry,
>between me (who thinks the way I do) and them (who
because you are very embracing of all approaches. Besides,
a real, ontological duality can never be constructed, even
the one I mentioned above. So more enjoying of the show!
(The following is only the first paragraph of what became a
lengthy thread entitled 'From A Senile Ivan':)
I wonder if you could play this -- kind of a game way: What
is the source of a chattering mind? If one goes into it
deeply, it becomes really interesting. All meaningless
thoughts have the same source. I wonder if you could share
this intensity......They all issue from a field that is
taken as "unseen". It is a "spot" in awareness that is out
of the reach of observation. How can that be? It is a very
clever trick that we play -- we, as thought, call it, or
better, consider it to be the observer. By doing this, the
whole scenery is set. An observer can not be observed by
thought's definition (from itself to itself). Now that the
scenery is set, the show may go on freely. If not taken
conceptually this observation may lead to a perception of
the whole field -- preventing, through a continual attention
-- the appearance of that dark spot.
Gene Poole wrote:
My thesis is that 'ego' (read also 'mind'/thought) is
elaboration of the survival-mechanism of the _binary yes/no
I was thinking about this idea the other day. If one ceases
the "no" what happens?
Gene Poole wrote:
Please join me, as I decommission the ego/autopilot, and
release the brakes of this vehicle.
Ego has been greatly inhibited by its 'vision' of DEATH
'inevitable event-horizon'; unconcerned by such
considerations, I insert
the 'master key', putting 'ego/autopilot' into stasis.
Now I am in control of this vehicle; my first task is to
brakes. That done, we begin to move; ahead, the future
builds, free of any constraint. As speed increases, we sense
an expansion occuring; movement ahead has been transformed,
somehow, into sheer expansion.
Now expanding exponentially, we experience ourselves as
containing more and more of our (perceived) environment;
finally, an equalibrium is reached, wherein we are the
universe. Yet, the expansion continues...
Now it is noticed that what we notice is noticable via the
agency of light; light itself, that which illuminates, is
now seen to emanate from within us. We see, in a sudden
burst of expansion, by the light that we are, that we see by
the light that we are; we see that we are light, and that it
is by our own light that we see...
We now have seen that we are the light at the end of the
tunnel... that the tunnel ends as though it never existed;
that the aspect of "time" which formed the tunnel, was a
product of the now-decommissioned
difference-engine. We now see, that the 'death' which was so
actually the boundary of logic; that beyond that logic,
beyond difference, there is only light.
As pure light, we realize the ideal value of our lives; we
decide to rejoin what is "time". To do this, we decelerate,
and when red-shift occurs, we re-engage the
difference-engine. Immediately, we exist in a universe of
discrete coordinates; there is not only up and down, but
also life and death. We, however, due to our journey, have
vital insight as to the nature of reality, and so do not
take the activities of the difference-engine too seriously.
Instead, we ask it to direct us to a good eatery, for we are
famished after our journey beyond the end of time, into the
realm of light, and then back here, to our homes.
"Ensign, drop from warp speed, and engage the impulse
I'm not promoting a belief system, either of a nondual
or monistic nature. I use "nondualism" to mean "unsplit"
I am 'that' illusion.
The question is not 'who are you' as I may never know the
illusion that is you and even if I think I have you pegged,
I have only accomplished the creation of the new illusion...
the question is 'who am I?' To which Jesus said... "who do
you think I am?' For he knew that 'regardless' of what he
thought he was... the only definition that 'counted' was
what those around him defined.
The 'I AM' does not exist and Jesus knew that much
regardless of what
Christianity may say Jesus was.
It's enough you make me smile, you crazy loony-tuney guy.
cares if it makes any sense? You remind me of hitchhiking
the galaxy to explore strange new worlds. And why not? If
I have so seldom been praised for being confused, it
more. :) Is it really ok to NOT know?? Yes, we do grab for
answers, like we are drowning. When floating is so easy.
to the unknown tides is grace. "Tis grace has brought me
far, and grace will bring me home."
That gold dust you see may be the stardust in your own eyes.
Care to Subscribe to the Nonduality Salon?: