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

digest of Wednesday's postings

Expand Messages
  • Melody
    A sampling of the postings from the Nonduality Salon dated Wednesday, July 14. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Glo: I do understand that
    Message 1 of 1 , Jul 15, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      A sampling of the postings from the Nonduality
      Salon dated Wednesday, July 14.
      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
      Glo:
      I do understand that the separation cannot occur..my questions are
      more practical than theoretical. Would you agree that the
      assumption of being separate, as a feeling or experience does occur?

      Dan:
      Many conditions or situations may be assumed. If the assumption is
      not real, then it won't fit with what is experienced, if what is
      experienced is real. The question then is, what is "real" experience? The
      "real" experience isn't a feeling about something unreal, or an experience
      based on an assumption that is unreal. To whatever extent the feeling of
      being separate, or the experience of being separate is real, there is no
      separation even at the moment of that experience arising. (Since
      separation cannot occur - your words). To whatever extent experience isn't
      real, then this unreal aspect ends the instant the real is seen.


      Glo:
      Deluded tho you may consider this, most people at least
      imagine having this center or identity..or so they proclaim?? I'm
      asking more about the experience of imagining (?)being in Maya as
      some contrast with this clarity you call it..or being without a
      center that Ivan calls this. If I have understood somewhat your
      discussion here, Ivan seems to be suggesting that even the
      experience of being this imaginary personality would disappear? It
      seems to me that those who have traditionally been regarded as
      "realized" (sorry, not sure how else to say this) do continue to
      have minds with memories, and at least the appearance of a
      personality is experienced by others.


      Dan:
      Speaking only for myself, the disappearance of the imaginary inner observer
      seems real.
      Memories can function, and a personality can be seen by others, without the
      individual experiencing what can't be experienced (an imaginary inner
      observer). This observer is all implication with no reality, all
      assumption with nothing there.

      Gloria:
      Who can know what anyone
      else's inner experience is anyway?

      Dan:
      Exactly. Or even just their "experience" plain and simple. I'm with you
      here.

      Gloria:
      I am trying to ask if even the
      "pseudo-center" tho not real is not also as equally a
      manifestation as any other appearance of maya?

      Dan:
      If you take it as a moment to moment phenomenon, then it becomes energy
      manifestation, similar to anything else. Then it's not a pseudo-center
      anymore, just a momentary thought-blip.

      Glo:
      Are you and Ivan saying the same thing or is there some subtle
      difference I am imagining here?>

      Dan:
      I only speak for myself. That's all I've been doing. To me, the whole
      point is speaking from awareness as it is, as I find it, this moment.

      Glo:
      It's
      really intriguing that here in the midst of infinity you and I
      share these
      words about "awakening." Do we need to awaken? Or is this just
      "reality
      itself" with the words flowing out of it?

      Dan:
      You got me there..who knows? people imagine all sorts of things,
      don't they?

      Glo:
      Yes, exactly. It gets back to what you were saying about assumptions, I
      believe.

      Dan:
      Do I assume that there's a me that needs to awaken? How real is that? If
      I take what is real, then there is simply the real. I just want to "come
      from" that. Whether I'm doing well with that or not, who can evaluate?
      Like you said earlier, to evaluate, someone would have to be looking from
      "outside." From here, I want to come from "it" and when I see "it" it
      seems very big, unbounded. Seeing it, it makes sense to come from it,
      because the bounded comes from the unbounded. Seeing it, it wouldn't make
      sense to come from the bounded, as if this bounded reality were a separate
      autonomous zone...

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      Marcia:
      Just because the soul is not separate doesn't mean
      it isn't individual. Individual soul is connected
      through love to all other individual souls to
      form the collective soul of man.

      Dan:
      The separations aren't separate.

      Marcia:

      Help me here with this. Tell me more what you
      see.

      Dan:
      I visualize it as a vortex. The vortex moves from an outer
      edge at nothingness to an inner "surface" which is the four dimensional
      world. On the inner surface are manifested many apparently different
      beings and realities. Followed up the "cone" of each manifestation, each
      apparently individual manifestation eventually connects with everything
      else outside of the inner surface. So it is in reality one vortex.

      Now, apart from this visualization, one can experience separation as
      nonseparation.
      This occurs when the differentiations observed are seen as unitive. Thus,
      the distinction between tree and sky is the unity of tree and sky, the
      difference betweeen me and you connects me and you. If I separate from
      you, that gives me a relationship with you that includes you.

      So in both these ways, separation isn't separate.
      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      Jan:

      Visions, sounds and other phenomena belong the side-effects of Kundalini
      (K.) awakening / rising. Having been a member of a K. list for over a year,
      I could conclude that although many of the phenomena are similar for
      different experiencers, the stage of unfolding where a certain phenomenon
      occurs can greatly differ. For this reason I consider discussing the
      phenomena a serious drawback, unless they are causing distress. Those
      involved will invariably interpret their development being at the "highest"
      stage, if stages are known. Probably for this reason the Buddha choose to
      describe the accompanying K. phenomena at attainment of nirvana in such a
      way that it wouldn't make any sense "before", only "after".
      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      Marcia had said:

      It is not that I don't believe that what you and
      Xan are talking about is true. I just have not
      experienced it. I feel like I have experienced the
      eye in the center of the hurricane but I am
      awares of time flowing past even if I am in the still point.

      to which Jan responded:

      Belief doesn't serve any purpose. But neither does speculative theory.
      So it is just a matter of patience before experiential time will come to a
      standstill. But a few conclusions can be drawn that could have an occasional
      practicality. If one doesn't identify with one's mind, one cannot be
      impressed by (the products of) "other" minds either. If one doesn't identify
      with one's body, one doesn't see "other" bodies either - just bodies. But if
      a joker stings "your" or the "other" body with a needle, it becomes obvious
      that a difference between "own" and "other" still remains, no matter the
      ironed_out theory :) The eventual transformation of physical
      body-consciousness will overcome this "minor quirk" too.

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      Glo:

      Deluded tho you may consider this, most people at least
      imagine having this center or identity..or so they proclaim?? I'm
      asking more about the experience of imagining (?)being in Maya as
      some contrast with this clarity you call it..or being without a
      center that Ivan calls this. If I have understood somewhat your
      discussion here, Ivan seems to be suggesting that even the
      experience of being this imaginary personality would disappear? It
      seems to me that those who have traditionally been regarded as
      "realized" (sorry, not sure how else to say this) do continue to
      have minds with memories, and at least the appearance of a
      personality is experienced by others.

      Ivan:
      I am not sure I understand your question by I'll try to say
      something concerning the matter. There is nothing wrong with
      memory and knowledge itself. They are usefull to remember
      our names, adress, solve technical problems. But, as result of
      our predatory historic evolution, we developed a means of dealing
      with this world in a way that was quite usefull for porpuses of those
      times -- haunting, seeking protection, looking for food, in other
      words: self preservation. This same mechanism is going on
      today, but not for real survival porpuses, but for the survival of
      that inner entity. Now...our brain seeks order, a very sane impulse.
      The brain is deeply aware of the conflict that is happening (the inner
      self trying to become diferent in time, wich is impossible because
      it is assumed to be constant at the same time). So the brain is seeking
      order and can't find it. What is order? It is not the order that is in
      relation
      to some ideia or philosophy, no, instead it is the order that perceives
      all events as universal in nature. Rain, storm, tornado, a thought, a feeling,
      a body. All this events are from nature, belonging to universal order -- an
      order that is non comprehensible by man. When this kind of order is
      established,
      the mind *knows* that finaly order has been established, because an
      unmistakenbly peace becomes evident -- and a general feeling that
      all, including the closest events -- are of *that*. You see, without the
      definite
      intention, the ME is transformed to became also of *that* -- wich in away
      is not the old ME anymore.
      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      offered by Xan:

      from Arjuna Nick Ardagh
      Relaxing Into Clear Seeing


      "Realization, awakening, Satori - or simple sanity - is to recognize that
      there is no ego, no mind, no individual soul. There is not now, nor has there
      ever been, nor will there ever be. This is not the achievement of a higher
      state or the end of a long and arduous journey, but rather the recognition of
      what has always been the case. The ego has not been eliminated; it has been
      recognized as never existing in the first place."

      This quote gives me laughing in my heart.
      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      Ivan:
      What words would you utter as an answer to the question wether
      is it possible to *fall back* into time, once having met timelesness. Or,
      fall back to duality, once that unicity has been touched...c'ptain?


      Gene:
      This is my answer; time and timeless are always available. It is what is
      chosen that matters.

      That said, the one in 'time' is not the same one who is timeless, unless
      that one in time, has touched unicity, as you have said. Unicity, if I take
      your meaning correctly, gives voluntary access to either realm.

      So I see no limitation in what you propose; I do not see it an an either/or
      kind of situation.

      What is limiting is the fear that one may be trapped or disadvantaged. The
      fear of loss drives the search for attainment and the desire for a
      permanent state.

      To live... as a bridge between two worlds is possible. One need not burn
      any bridges, or call oneself any thing.

      Self definition limits only defined self. No self definition actually
      defines self.

      No time for the timeless,

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      Dan:
      I would like to carry this idea of
      "making nonsense of things," a bit further. It seems to me that Reality,
      as it is,
      constantly makes nonsense of things for us. All our biases about order,
      consistency,
      coherence, and meaning only allow us to include part of reality in our view
      of reality.
      The more we can release these biases, the more Reality can appear. I'm not
      talking about forming new biases against order and consistency, simply
      releasing biases and allowing the Real as is. I'm getting more comfortable
      with "nonsense" as this occurs.
      There is a sense of amazement that Reality can actually appear, with
      presence beyond human biases, assumptions, and expectations.

      Greg:
      Yes, I agree with your sentiments here. If there is any progression in
      this great matter (as they say in Zen), it seems to be a subtractive, not
      additive or substitutional process. That is, we don't add more sensible
      views, rather the various views and filters and rules and biases come to be
      seen as nonsensical. Until there's no nonsense.

      In actual paths, however, such as advaita vedanta, there is a progression
      or substitution of world-views and creation stories, each given to the
      student when the student is deemed ready. E.g., the external
      creation-by-Ishwara story. Later, the student can come to understand the
      internal creation (mind/perception creates the world). Then later, the
      ajata-vada or non-creation theory is given to the student. The process by
      which each view replaces the previous is called "sublation," each
      subsequent view being more subtle, more encompassing, and relying on less
      belief than the previous. The student, when exposed to the new view, comes
      to see the previous view as nonsensical.

      Some paths are better than others at ridding the aspirant of *all* views.
      "I have no view, not even this one!" :-)

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      Ivan:

      The less one knows about religions and philosophys,
      the clearer things became. I am always surprised to see serious people
      using the word God, or any similar -- they cary billions of volts voltage.
      But let's see this. Whay would manifestation be illusion? I don't know...

      Dan:
      Well, a lot of this has to do with traditional Hindu words and
      images. If we're saying those words and concepts aren't key, then this
      question about illusion might
      not be so "key."

      Ivan:
      What lot, apart of the word Maya, you are refering to?

      Dan:
      Manifestation is like the magician's trick. If you're
      caught up in the illusion of the trick, you react one way. If you see what
      is going on, you're not caught up in the illusion, so react another way.
      Your biases and assumptions have shifted. Now it's the play of energy.
      Before it was a matter of life and death.
      The magician is nondual Reality, the manifestation or "illusion" is
      particular "things," apparently causally linked events, identity, the
      perception of time and space... when you see through the "illusion," you
      end the false assumptions, expectations, and biases that have formed
      reality for you. The play of energy as manifestation continues. Now it's
      moment to moment expression of "what is."

      Ivan:
      it's not aparent to me here now, the possibility of illusion without
      the self/ego.
      The relative subjective objective relation seems to be inherent to the mind
      of man. After all one goes on living, loving, driving, talking, dancing etc...

      Dan:
      I think as I addressed above, the illusion is actually an expression
      of the Real, so in a sense is the Real, after one's biases and assumptions
      have shifted.

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