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

Tuesday, September 5

Expand Messages
  • umbada@ns.sympatico.ca
    Why objectify God? Subjectify That!! Go straight to the Light, immediately jump into It and don t write an article about it on the way. Keep Quiet, entertain
    Message 1 of 1 , Sep 7, 2000
      Why objectify God?
      Subjectify That!!
      Go straight to the Light,
      immediately jump into It
      and don't write an article about it on the way.

      Keep Quiet,
      entertain no doubt,
      raise no desire.

      Remove all objects and remain as That!
      All pain belongs to objectification.
      Do not let ego own Freedom,
      so do not objectify the Truth.
      Do not call it a gain or an acquisition,
      simply identify with it as you do
      when you see your face in a mirror.

      Forget this visitor called mind
      and just idenfity as That!

      - Papaji, via Xan



      Construction of reality by the self-contraction also
      constructs the world as you know it and it's problems and
      pain. It is absurd to think that, once the contraction is
      relaxed, that the world will stay the same. While billions
      of others' contractions will hold the shimmering mirage in
      place, for you the mirage will be pierced.

      Do not think for a moment, though, that the result will be
      featureless or blank or without detail. None of this is
      true. What is spoken of as the UnManifested has much
      greater depth and span, so that awareness is occupied and
      enriched and eroticized to a degree that would be hellish
      to someone unprepared. That is why those to whom this
      opening is offered are thoroughly prepared first.

      The unimprisoned awareness has available to it unparalleled
      opportunities for pleasure-producing contacts and
      encounters with other unimprisoned awarenesses across space
      and time. The net of Indra provides an easy and
      instantaneous method of transmission/travel to contact,
      meet, and delight in others whose degree of otherness is
      simultaneously far less than an Other in standard
      embodied/ego bound consciousness (i.e. relationships of a
      sexual/social nature) and far more due to increased
      opportunities for playful differentiation on this plane.

      Once you awaken to this level of erotics, contact even on
      the standard level are enriched as you are able to access
      and communicate and relate with the Over Self of each
      person you come in contact with.

      Most people live in ignorance of this Over Self, choosing
      the pain they know over the release and freedom and joy
      that erotics on higher planes can provide.

      --David Hodges (working toward a NonDual understanding of


      Dear Dave, I have a different point of view on this.
      Although presenting this immediately constructs a dualism
      between "your" view and "mine", I present it, simply for
      discussion's sake. I have no thought that "mine" is the
      "correct" perspective.

      It sounds to me that you are talking about an individual
      awareness that through its special preparation pierces a
      veil in a way that isn't accessible to other individual

      From here, there appears to yet be a dualism involved in
      this: "I" see things in a special way that "others" don't.

      From here, Awareness doesn't have an "I" or "you" to it,
      except as conceptual construction.

      The erotic aspect of the energy you sense also seems to
      imply an energy exchange between one and another.

      I enjoy erotic energy and enjoy the exchange of energy
      between one and another. Yet "behind" and "beyond" this
      exchange, I find energy with no other, no exchange, no

      What of energy when there is no other, no exchange? What of
      energy undivided, unspeakable, infinite and silent?

      Dan Berkow


      Absolutely, Dan. (pun intended). What of it? There is
      nothing to say about such energy, undivided, etc. There is
      nothing to say about it except, perhaps, "Ahhhhh". But even
      that "Ahhhh" would imply someone there experiencing the

      But Relatively speaking, isn't there still room to speak of
      erotic energy exchanges in a way that takes them out of the
      sphere of sexuality and emotionality and the illusion of
      the separate self? For example, when I was walking the
      other day I passed a family waiting in line outside a
      popular pizza restaurant. Each member of the family was
      smiling - glowing actually - in a way that made my heart
      fill up with joy. This to me is erotic - something that
      delights and gives pleasure.

      I have no problem writing from a position that still
      involves a subtle self/other dualism. Once the veil of the
      separate self is seen through I think there is still a vast
      terrain that can be explored and talked about. When the
      conversation becomes so radically NonDual that all is
      unspeakable, then I lose the ability to contribute to it.

      Thanks Dan! David H.

      P.S. If we keep on this way I'll have to dust off my copy
      of Norman O. Brown's "Love's Body"!


      Namaste, David.

      Thank you for sharing your thoughts here. (I thoroughly
      enjoyed Norman O. Brown's book.) And I agree with you,
      there is an eroticism to all of the "show", the endless
      expressions of energy movement with which we are always
      intimately entwined in the act of perception.

      The embrace becomes a non-embrace, neither yin nor yang are
      there to exchange, and eroticism fades.

      My lover, the universe, and I can't embrace here. There is
      nothing to touch, nothing to express. And you're right,
      even in saying this much there still is the "ahhhh"....

      Love, Dan


      Very good piece David.

      IMO this is about as real as you can get, and this
      approach, at least for me, represents one of the most
      "organized" and intuitive "methods" for realizing the
      truth. --Manchine


      Gene Poole's response to David:

      Yes, yes, yes!


      Once I experienced 'broadband' IndraNet connection, I knew
      I could never go back.

      For me, this started years ago, when I was lustfully
      attracted to become proficient in 'Tantra'. I envisioned
      myself as becoming magnetic to all of those long-legged,
      sari-wearing 'spiritual babes', who would then literally
      line up and wait their turn to 'use' me as a portal, for
      transport to the Divine Realms of Ecstatic Pleasure.

      I really gave it a good try, but the strangest thing
      happened along the way; I actually did become proficient at
      'Tantra', and somehow transcended the 'gross sexual' level
      of that multi-dimensional conversation. This was of course,
      completely unintentional on my part; I was in it for the
      pleasure, and never expected that I would ever take it

      Imagine my !shock! as I followed the Tantric formulae, and
      had my first wholly conscious connection with the essence
      of 'other'. The utterly overwhelming complexity of this
      experience was like being struck by lightning; I 'realized'
      so powerfully, that my previous conviction of what was the
      pleasure of orgasm, was essentially deleted.

      Focus on part-2

      Jungian Insights

      (Network) Transmission protocols

      <http://www.tibetart.com/image.cfm/90908.html> Network
      Admin, server/client config


      Imagine my chagrin as I realized; how humiliating! Now that
      an entirely new landscape was open to me, what would i do?
      My previous ways, which I had elevated to heavenly status,
      were now as useful as the diving-board left behind by the
      high-diver. My hair was on end and my eyes bulging; terror
      and ecstasy are quite a mix.

      I discovered an existing network, pictured (at that moment)
      as smiling indigo heads, floating in an infinite blue sky.
      Their calm and love was in stark contrast to my newbie
      emotions. I could see that they could see me, and were
      amused, mildly amused, by my terror and paralysis. I was
      shooting through their midst like a rocket. Whose momentum
      was this?

      I understood that if I accepted connection with this
      network, that my life would be changed 'forever'. I was
      writhing is indecision; I felt like a meteor, being
      stripped of substance as it streaked through atmosphere. I
      knew that I would become 'nothing' and that seemed wrong,
      at the time, so I blew myself up to a huge proportion, and
      encompassed all of the network that I could. I popped
      'back' and discovered how Kundalini feels in the physical
      body. But it was alright; I could see and feel and hear my
      new network connections happening within me. I felt
      basically warm and safe, if not electrified.

      All of this came my way, as a result of 'following my
      gonads' in a spiritual context. Years later, I began to
      attain an actual understanding, and saw how we, everyone,
      are actually already 'set up' to become consciously
      connected. Now, it is a matter of course.

      David, did I say that I love what you wrote?

      I call it:

      "... A bold and sober step into pleasure as the essential
      food and guide of life".

      Right On!

      The NeoTech people speak of 'Psychous Pleasures', and so it



      What I find for myself is that when things like this
      happen, there is lots to look at.

      For myself, I notice that somehow I want to make it all
      make sense. This is what I call the 'tucking in the loose
      ends' part of the process. I have found that this is just
      another thing to look at. In other words, another part of
      the process. I have no more control over this than over the
      other parts. I want to think that I do. This is all part of
      the illusion.

      The other thing is that when two are involved in this kind
      of struggle it has to do with power but also buried stuff,
      unfinished business. Great stuff to get a feel for and
      sense without trying to make sense out of it. If it just
      stays at two it will run down most likely and degenerate.
      What broke the deadlock was the entry of a third party.

      To me the important thing is to look at all this
      impartially without thinking that any of it is really me or
      that I can control or do anything about it.

      Grist for the mill; fuel for the fire; not who I AM.


      by SKY

      Ego or no ego, to have and to hold or to renounce and let
      go, to put up or to shut up, to expand or to contract, to
      look in or to look out...

      These seem to be the first and last questions we ask
      ourselves when confronting the deepest and most searching
      questions of being. And there are whole institutions based
      upon one or the other side of the answer: Empires of
      conquest, on the one hand, and religions of in quest, on
      the other hand.

      For me, the answer is a resounding, BOTH. I believe that
      life is energy, and energy MOVES. It seeks resistance, and
      it seeks to overcome that resistance. Thus, even passive
      awareness is a movement away from active and selective
      focus, and vice versa.

      Thus, I believe that we are, in an important sense,
      constantly focusing on something, even if that focus is on
      "not" focusing. So, the question for me is, what to focus
      on? And the answer is, from one thing to the next: from in
      to out and back again. I try to focus on that dance of
      opposites in harmony. I try to focus on timing. What feels
      most graceful at this time?

      But then, to remain consistent with my position, I would
      also have to "not" focus on timing, too, right? Right. But
      then, should I focus on that, or should I just literally be
      absent minded about it? I say, let absent mindedness be
      absent mindedness. I have no choice but to so be, at times.
      There is a time to be overwhelmed, not because I choose to
      be overwhelmed, but because I have no choice but to be
      overwhelmed. It just happens.

      Apparently, there is a time for that, as well.



      One of the things that we've puzzled over here on the list
      many times is the inherant dichotomy of nonduality. The
      impossible reality of life. There's something infront of
      our face that's always blocking our view to the fact that
      full consciousness, is a fabrication that we require to
      fill empty consciousness. Which is more impossible? Which
      is bigger? Which lasts longer?

      I like your BOTH answer, not so much as an interpretation
      for what goes on in the "full consciousness", but that the
      two "full and empty" exist simultaneously. ... The
      interesting part about looking at "full and empty
      consciousness" is that one can begin to see that "time" is
      somewhat of a fabrication that helps to normalize the
      anomaly. David Hodges' post, "the erotics of union on
      higher spheres" indirectly eludes to this.

      In the manner that consciousness expands to ever widening
      spheres, the consciousness begins to encompass everything,
      there is less sense that one thing came before or after
      another, it's all part of a bigger picture, and NOW the
      focus is "such and such". The wider that focus the better,
      because if some(one/thing) can narrow your focus to a small
      point, they/it can be diddling away at some other point
      without your noticing.



      For you: <http://www.thisisnotthat.com/gs/gs.html>

      From the above page:

      "General semantics, as a system formulated by Alfred
      Korzybski in his 1933 landmark book Science and Sanity, and
      written about in dozens of books since, provides a
      diagnosis of the symptoms, as well as a comprehensive set
      of antidotes to avoid these kinds of inter- (and intra-)
      personal problems.

      Korzybski himself stated that the basic formulations of
      general semantics constituted no more than "baby stuff".
      However, almost every one of us must, to some degree,
      unlearn years of automatic, learned behavior which
      conflicts with his scientific approach to living.
      Therefore, while we may be quick to nod in agreement that
      "this stuff makes a lot of obvious sense", we may also find
      it exceedingly difficult to apply this "baby stuff" in the
      practice of everyday living.

      General semantics refers to the study of how we as human
      beings evaluate what happens to us in our daily lives. You
      could also say it has to do with the study of how we
      ascribe meaning to what happens, and in some cases, to what
      doesn't happen. Since so much of our evaluating and our
      meaning-generation result from our verbal 'thinking',
      'assuming', 'inferring', 'interpreting', etc., a good deal
      of gs is about understanding the various mechanisms
      (neuro-logical, psycho-logical and physio-logical) which
      affect our thinking, our talking, our listening, our
      overall processing or evaluating of what happens to us."


      Also: <http://www.general-semantics.org/>


      What is time-binding? From the above site:

      "Time-binding describes unique behavioral characteristics
      of the human species. An individual group, etc., has
      certain experiences, makes certain inquiries, discoveries,
      mistakes, decisions, creates certain structures etc., lets
      say at 'time1.' At 'time2' these experiences, discoveries
      etc., can be represented by memory, symbols, rituals,
      physical structures and so on. And at 'time3' these 'time2'
      representations, when experienced by the individual
      (intrapersonal time-binding), or others (interpersonal
      time-binding), become inputs - starting points for further
      inquiries, explorations and so on. In a sense, then,
      'time1' experiences, though symbolic representations at
      'time2' are incorporated as part of the experiences of a
      'time3' experience. And it has the potentials for
      influencing many other future times experiences. (We don't
      have to keep inventing the wheel or keep making similar
      mistakes over and over).

      *This transmission of representational structures from an
      individual to him/herself, to others and across
      generations* provides us with tremendous opportunities to
      learn from ourselves and others. And if by "learning" we
      intend "modification of behavior in the light of
      experience", and are concerned to improve the quality of
      our personal and other relationships, we need to be more
      critical in evaluating information we receive, and more
      concerned with the quality of the representations we pass

      Children learn from adults - what we say, how we say what
      we say, what we do, how we do what we do; the way we behave
      with each other; the institutions we create, and so on. An
      overview of present human affairs suggests that we have a
      great deal to learn. But more urgently, we need to take a
      good critical look at what we have been learning and



      From the above site:

      "Wishing to talk about Zen philosophy, a professor visited
      a Zen master. As they sat together the Zen master poured
      tea. He kept on pouring as the tea overflowed onto the
      floor. "Stop!" said the professor, "you have filled the
      cup, no more will go in." The Zen master replied, "You are
      like that cup, full of your own ideas and speculations. If
      you wish to know Zen, you must first empty your cup."

      Like Zen, an important aspect of general-semantics (g-s)
      training involves guided practice in "emptying your cup":
      looking, listening, tasting, feeling, experiencing, etc.,
      at what Korzybski called "the silent, un-speakable level".
      This includes an attitude towards living that involves an
      awareness of yourself as an


      Note: All quotes taken under 'fair-use doctrine'; all
      credit to the respective authors.



      Mark, what is that you want? I mean really, really want.
      This is aside from money and a boat and any other kidding
      around that might go on. Wanting, deeply wanting, is
      important - especially if the Universe is, indeed, response
      to request.

      Do you have an image or a goal of what you are trying to
      achieve by being involved with these spiritual ideas, from
      whatever source, secular, scientific or sacred? If you are
      looking for, and are satisfied, with some vague,
      occasional, accidentally occurring warm and fuzzy warm
      feeling bordering on the verge of inappropriate laughter in
      mixed company - it seems you've achieved that. It is also
      an appropriate path, albeit a long one.

      Let's look at some things Mark wrote:


      (begin Mark's comments)

      If you prefer to talk about Gurdjieff's scheme of things, I
      am willing. I am close to totally ignorant of it, so I
      stand to learn a lot.

      Shall we hunt for holes in the Fourth way?

      we often pick the ones (thoughts) we believe to bring into
      the closet where we store words and clothe them enough to
      see them in our mind's eye.

      Oh I disagree!! words come from all sorts of places.

      As a scientist, I am much more comfortable with partial

      Partial explanations can be helpful if one keeps an open
      mind to a simplification to the model which shows how
      multiple partial explanations join together. I have not
      seen a single theory that describes all things,

      I am pretty antagonistic towards party lines. It's part of
      my training as a scientist.

      but most folks change their beliefs so often that it is
      difficult to make the correlation with any confidence...

      am personally convinced by my own experiences of the
      usefulness of the model as a map of reality. Of course,
      there is always the possibility that the schema is not
      inherently true until we use it as a map for exploration
      and that the exploration is part of the process by which we
      make the world in our own image. I have clearly
      demonstrated to my own satisfaction that my interpretation
      of the world is manifested in my experiences (and vice
      versa - it is a two way street.)

      I see dropping all party lines as fit, and so as a
      scientist, I am rather unfit.

      There are many voices in my head, with varying degrees of
      wisdom. I speak in many voices.

      Now, I may be confused, and that's fine. It often happens
      that when one is off the beaten path, one gets lost. so be
      it if that is what it is.

      (end Mark's comments)


      Maybe it's a movement towards Unity you're looking for?

      In the last post I had laid out some statements to define
      and qualify in what context any following discussion might
      take, since I would be quoting and expanding on some, how
      shall we say, "ideas and concepts (not my own) that cannot
      approached with a blunt tool of perception". These
      statements did not necessarily require your comment or
      agreement, although I am thankful for your opinions as an
      insight into your views of my mental and philosophical
      processes, which by the way, are of absolutely no value or
      significance whatsoever to you personally, only your own
      have any potential value to you.

      I tend not to continue threads on mail lists for a simple
      reason, the thread very quickly deviates from the intended
      aim of what was originally undertaken, usually becoming

      So let me answer, as best I can, what you originally asked
      before ending this discussion:

      Yes, I understand what you mean when you look at a baby. A
      baby is very much in what Gurdjieffian term 'essence'.
      "Essence" is what we are born with, it contains our as yet
      unfolded talents and tendencies. 'Personality' forms around
      essence as the maturation and socialization process
      proceeds, to protect the sensitive essence, and this is, as
      I understand it, as it should be. False Personality forms
      around Personality as we form imaginary pictures of
      ourselves and begin to worship these pictures. Imaginary
      pictures like being a 'good scientist' or a 'Fourth Way
      student' or that we never lie or that we are always
      objective or that 'I' am the final arbiter, by way of my
      subjective impressions, of the true nature of reality and
      all that exists.

      Essence, if it is other than just a word, or a debatable
      intellectual construct, would carry with it modes of
      personal existence, perception and sensitivities different
      than the dull, insulated and arbitrarily, culturally
      constructed personality and the almost purely imaginary
      composition of the pride and vanity driven False

      My task then, (or not), on understanding and trying to
      validate this model personally, would be to move (my sense
      of 'I') back towards essence while forsaking, as much as
      possible, False Personality while also trying to identify
      which parts of true personality serve my aim in
      accomplishing this goal (of experiencing essence), since,
      in the world in which we live (such as it is) essence still
      needs to be protected. The aim of getting in touch with
      essence is education of essence and quality, intensity and
      depth of field of experience of Life.

      Soul, which I am not prepared to discuss, may be glimpsed
      in your personal urge 'to be' and it has to do primarily
      with the emotions and the energy of consciousness. The 'I
      Am'. Essence has a designed, but such as we are nowadays,
      potential, connection with soul.

      Spirit, which I am also not prepared to discuss may be
      glimpsed in your urge 'to see (things) (the Big Picture)'
      and has to do with the intellectual function and 'Will'
      (not 'Will' in the sense of "I Won't Have a Cigarette",
      Will in this context means finding a 'way' to 'see' things
      as a whole, it is a Unitive function) and creative energy.
      This creative energy is the energy involved in defining a
      field for 'I Am" to exist in in a meaningful way, it also
      plays a role in sex, but this role, having nothing to do
      with the act itself, but with the unification of 'you' and
      'someone else' into a 'new being' goes on without awareness
      or conscious participation of either party that engaged in
      the act itself. As you can see, you have strength in this
      area since the very distant, quite removed child of these
      powers, accessible to man in everyday life, is curiosity.
      Soul has a potential connection with spirit subject to the
      same caveat as the essence-soul connection, that connection
      must come first.

      Taken at face value then, the path to soul and spirit is
      through an experiential connection with essence. The path
      to essence might be through recognizing and removing the
      considerable energy we invest daily from supporting what is
      false in us. Conservation of particular forms of human
      energy. (You must feel this in your heart). This formerly
      'wasted' energy (of consciousness) is then 'free' for other
      uses, one of which might be refinement into purer forms of
      energy . This, in effect, might be a way of looking at the
      choosing among 'beliefs' you would like to engage in, at
      your leisure, for as long as it suits you.

      For instance, I was once a good scientist, I have chosen to
      remove the energy from that 'belief'. As you requested of
      me and my 'beliefs' around the Fourth Way. Are you capable
      of the same? Simply put, you have to stop 'being' a
      scientist, or a Fourth Way student for that matter, to 'be'
      something else. It is about energies, a scientist, perhaps
      can understand this more easily than others, conceptually
      at least, for a lot of the same laws apply in the
      immaterial world of energies concerned with the human
      experience and apparatus of perception (sensual and
      psychological) like, "a being set in motion as a scientist
      tends to remain a scientist", or, "for every scientist
      there is an equal and opposite theologian or creationist
      (or Fourth Way student)".

      Those of other paths would be right in making the
      connection between these 'words' and the 'energies'
      mentioned. It is not lost or missed on people who study G.
      that the Universe is indeed interpenetrating energies of
      varying densities, the effects of some of which man is
      capable of observing (externally), some of which he is
      capable of experiencing personally (internally - the energy
      of consciousness), and some of which he may only know by
      their traces (creative), but may (perhaps) come to
      experience by a preparation of his 'vessel' to contain and
      transform such energies. All of which he cannot 'see' in
      any material sense, only their effects.

      It is a paradox that in the age we live in that, for
      instance, there is no such 'thing' as electricity, this
      energy remains an abstract concept, it does not exist in
      the material world, but around it we devise formulas to
      study its effects. We build machines that turn functional
      (mechanical) energy into electrical energy and machines
      that turn electrical energy back into functional energy to
      do high grade work, but in the process we can never 'see'
      these energies - only the effects they have in our material
      realm. This in itself is a miracle, it is also a measure of
      our sleep and lack of awareness of the true nature of the
      Universe in which we live.

      Warm regards,
      Coments welcome,

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