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

Digest: July 9, 1999

Expand Messages
  • umbada@xx.xxxxxxxxx.xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxxx)
    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
    Message 1 of 1 , Jul 10, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      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
      by Me.



      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
      the moment
      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
      "the way."
      No thought about "the truth," or "explanations."

      No effort because none is needed, none is called for, none
      is produced.

      Surrender in this sense is where "ceasing" and "beginning"
      come together.



      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
      notion of
      "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
      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 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
      Absolute as
      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.

      ---Tim G.


      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 extraordinary
      >teachers and beings. Doesn't worship of the extraordinary
      >construct a duality of ordinary vs. extraordinary?

      Yes, more babble -- this seems to be the residue of the
      devotional path.
      There are so many of my friends who teeter on the edge
      between the
      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 duality
      >between me (who thinks the way I do) and them (who
      >think differently)?

      In a certain psychological sense perhaps, but not to worry,
      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
      'simply' an
      elaboration of the survival-mechanism of the _binary yes/no

      Xan responded:

      I was thinking about this idea the other day. If one ceases
      the "no" what happens?

      Gene Poole wrote:

      Greetings, Xan...

      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
      being the
      '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
      release the
      brakes. That done, we begin to move; ahead, the future
      looms. Momentum
      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
      feared, was
      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
      engines"... Capt
      Jean-Luc Picard


      I'm not promoting a belief system, either of a nondual
      or monistic nature. I use "nondualism" to mean "unsplit"
      awareness and



      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.

      ---Tim H.


      Dear Dan,

      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
      its an

      I have so seldom been praised for being confused, it
      confused me
      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
      here thus
      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?:

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