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

HIGHLIGHTS of Friday September 15, 2000

Expand Messages
  • Gloria Lee
    ```````````` SKY on Enlightenment Hi Greg, You ask some very appropriate and constructive questions, in my opinion. Thank you for putting them in as gentle,
    Message 1 of 1 , Sep 16 3:38 PM
      SKY on "Enlightenment"

      Hi Greg,

      You ask some very appropriate and constructive questions, in my
      opinion. Thank you for putting them in as gentle, considerate and
      respectful a way as you have. Although I feel that most if not all off
      your questions would have been answered had you been reading my posts.
      In which case I don't think you would have made that scurrilous and
      gratuitous reference to my ~*~ coat of arms, which has been passed down
      to me for 7 generations, kidding ;^).

      To answer your first question,

      "May I ask - what's your concept of enlightenment?"

      For me, it's a process of deepening love, sensitivity, awareness and
      mirth characterized by a sense of intimacy with all that is as oneself:
      light heartedness. Compassion, understanding, gentleness, levity,
      openness, flexibility....

      The most important thing about "enlightenment," for me, is that it
      is a relationship, not to others, but to All, to Oneness, to "God," to
      the Universe, to the Self (vs merely the self). Therefore, it is really
      NOT my calling to determine whether another person is or is not
      enlightened. My calling is to Love Allness, and only to love or not
      love others as an expression of my Love for the ALL.

      Whatever I do is only secondarily a relationship to whatever object
      or objective may appear. It is primarily to my ALL, as an expression of
      Love and Devotion to Heart.

      The only reason I may gratuitously say that someone is or is not
      enlightened is if they challenge my ego with theirs. As I've posted,
      it's merely a childish ego thing.

      If someone wants to play the game of "I'm enlightened and you're
      not," then I may egotistically throw the ball back into their court with
      the same (goof)ball. As I say, it's not my call whether someone is
      "really" enlightened or not.

      In fact, my want is to say that if you think you're enlightened,
      then you are. I would even go so far as to say, "fake it till you make

      But it's fun to play versions of the childish game, "I know you are
      but what am I?" That's all I'm doing with Judi. Psychoanalysis and
      most popular psychology today, calls this projection. It assumes that
      if one person can't accept something about themselves, they may insist
      that it is not they who have this unacceptable blemish, but some other.
      In which case I have to say that Judi has to insist that she has it and
      others don't, she is in denial about she herself not having "it."

      I could further project that since I think of myself as gentle and
      loving, she is harsh and brutal. She might even cooperate with that

      I've also said that I subscribe to Osho's interpretation of the
      Ashtavakra Gita, that enlightenment requires no requisites, no
      cataclysmic psycho-physical trial, such as the one Judi insists on.
      (Osho changed his mind. Earlier his position was consistent with

      Yet, the Ashtavakra Gita doesn't insist on Love, nor does it
      emphasize feelings and the heart chakra, as I do. I could play that
      since Judi doesn't either, she's not enlightened.

      But, as I've said in my posts, it's just an ego game. Ego games
      are OK. It is OK to have an ego. It is also OK not to have an ego.
      I've written that I believe we go through cycles, as well.

      I believe that politics are OK. And I respect that you feel that
      Judi has paid her dues among the NDS crowd. Maybe she's the initiator,
      at this point, the boogie master of the ceremony. If you've studied
      anthropology and fraternal societies, as well as other organizations,
      you might recognize what I'm talking about.

      Have I answered your questions, below? I'd be happy to discuss
      these issues further, if you'd like.



      POU on "Shame & Enlightenment"

      Kia Ora

      Tena koutou katou

      In relationship to 'shame' neither state.. either recognizing ones self, or
      awakening to one self bears any escape from the experience of shame...

      The condition for knowledge is a belief.. So what do I belief? What I
      belief is how I will experience objectivity, either inner or outer.

      Outer: objects of substance materialized manifestations

      Inner: objects of thought, feelings, concepts ideas beliefs
      fantasy etc..

      Before we enter into this subject and it is clear that I have neither of
      your permission to enter into this but this is seen in the ongoing light the
      subject of shame. The first thing I would like make clear from my
      understanding is that mentioning or speaking of the word shame evokes shame
      deep in all areas of the unconscious mind. It also has to be made clear
      here that enlightened beings still have deep unconscious areas of their own
      mind. Freud was looking for the unconscious mind endlessly and it is my own
      personal opinion that the bodymind is the unconscious mind.

      My own understanding is that the difference between shame and guilt is that:

      Guilt: is I made a mistake

      Shame: is I am the mistake

      Today older German feel the guilt of their mistake of acting unconsciously
      in giving over to Hitler

      Many of the young German people feel the shame.. do you see my point?

      All humour related to shame is a way of trying to avoid the unavoidable fact
      that all of us are connected into the unconscious collectively held belief
      system of shame, that we're wrong, that I'm wrong. Why? Well of course, this
      in my own opinion, is because as the unmanifested state of consciousness, the
      absolute subjectivity, the nominal, the empty set, nirvana, Tao, whatever
      label one feels comfortable with, has manifested from the absolute state of
      pure subjectivity manifesting in the phenomenal state as objectivity. The
      objective world in other words.

      As the absolute subjectivity manifests itself into objectivity it
      immediately experiences itself through duality. In the state of dualism of
      course is witnessing itself through me and you, us and them, etc. Wherever
      there is separation or the idea of separation, simultaneously arises the
      creation called fear. Fear is a self-fulfilling prophecy. The more it is
      rendered unconscious the stronger it manifests surrounding us, to prove to
      us we're right about what we believe.

      On the integrity tone scale, shame is the lowest state of integrity there
      is. And the glue that holds it together is created through the substance of
      denial, apathy, hopelessness, terror, and subjugated to covert hostility.

      There is no way out of shame until one starts telling the truth.
      Consciously decides to stop pretending and start telling the truth.

      The fascinating thing about shame is witnessing it in the enlightened
      state. I became fascinated with this topic many many years ago having grown
      up in an extremely dysfunctional past. Shame became a fixation for me,
      eventually leading for me to work professionally within this field.

      But watching shame today in the enlightened ones and the denial that it even

      Everyone's enlightenment naturally is extremely unique but the fact is the
      state of awakening, the state of enlightenment can only express itself
      through the individual bodymind, through the individual to the degree of the
      openness of that person, and this is where we start to hit on shame. It's
      where a schizophrenic split starts between the enlightened state and that of
      the psyche. The psyche literally splits and where shame is involved the
      dominant or that where the attention judges it is better to be placed
      identifies there and the shame part of the psyche, the second part of the
      split is rendered unconscious.

      To elaborate on this point further the attention all goes to the state or
      this newly discovered state of oneness, peace, stillness, bliss, etc. Are
      you following me? The attention is literally in a state of anaesthesia. It
      is no longer free. A new prison is now created in terms of the psyche
      called enlightenment. People start to feel comfortable in their newly
      enlightened prison. They begin to redecorate it and hang the Master's photo
      up on the wall. Talk about their new rediscovered Plato's Cave. Unaware
      that should they ever become conscious enough to decide to move out of this
      prison the concepts become the prison bars.

      Shame and the new state of awakening can be felt, it can have conscious
      awareness brought to it, if one first, is willing to stop the denial process
      and accept and become conscious of the feeling, the initial defense
      mechanism to avoid feeling what has just arisen. Do you understand me? For
      most people in the newly enlightened state from what I have witnessed within
      myself also, is rather than feel the feeling that themselves desiring to
      come into conscious awareness, the belief becomes apparent that this feeling
      is not alright to be felt, renders it unconscious and the attention is
      refocused back into the enlightened state.

      We also have to be clear here, "attention" is not enlightenment, it is the
      tool or the aspiration that arises in consciousness as the ego arises in
      consciousness, for the ability for consciousness to recognize itself in it's
      diverse manifestation.

      .....all of us have to look seriously into seeing how we all became involved in
      this creation. While there is blame there's going to be the repetitiveness
      of ongoing shame.

      Shame. Mmmmmmmm.

      Love Pou

      (note: edited somewhat for length, yes really.)

      DAN on "forgetting enlightenment, breaking with known"

      I forget who's
      writing this.
      It doesn't matter.

      The concept of enlightenment
      is just a construct that
      contrasts with the
      concept ignore-ance.

      Reality is nonattempt
      to ground
      awareness in constructed
      truths, including the
      constructs "reality",
      "enlightenment", "ignore-ance".

      It is the attempt to ground one's self
      that fosters insecurity about
      losing one's mind, one's reality.

      With no attempt, no insecurity.
      With insecurity, awareness may open
      simply by noticing, by being
      with insecurity.

      To deny, ignore, resist insecurity,
      conceptual reality repetitiously substitutes
      as Reality until it seems to become Reality.

      To give up the "false life"
      based on conceptualization
      requires a break
      from everything known.

      The tendency to cling to what is
      known, to thought, to memory,
      to body, to world, to concepts
      is inevitable.
      This inevitability arises along
      with the identification that
      maintains the system of
      "mental constructs".

      To break from this is a spontaneous
      "act" of nonaction.

      To describe it in any way is misleading.

      It's not the result of effort, neither
      is it the result of effortlessness.

      It's not what you thought it would be.

      It's not the image of love, of peace,
      of God, of bliss.

      Because the tendency to maintain the
      reality based on images and concepts
      is ingrained as the sense of what
      is "factual", conceptual
      reality is "seen" and "experienced"
      as if it were the "real," the "tangible".

      Breaking with reality opens as
      Maintaining reality: the continuity
      of self resisting its own
      non-entitihood as ignore-ance.

      Once spoken as "To gain [have]
      the world is to lose one's soul [Self].
      To lose the world [constructed reality]
      is to gain [open as] one's soul [Reality]."

      No one can possibly be correct
      or incorrect about ways to
      state "this".
      There can only be pointers, and
      none of them can even be true,
      let alone be truth itself.

      No one has ever stated a true
      idea or perception of It,
      let alone been able to be

      No one is enlightened nor

      Every being/creature with
      qualities is construct.

      Who knows anything?


      The Beatles sang
      >Turn off your mind, relax and float down stream. It is not dying. It is
      >Love, Mark
      >(I think George wrote it)

      There is no mind,
      relax, float without stream.

      It is not being. It is not being.

      Love plays the game existence to
      the end, of its beginning.

      Lay down all thoughts, surrender
      is this Void; it is shining.

      It is shining.

      (Pardon the liberties
      I took with this, George.)

      But then, your inside is
      out and your outside is
      in, so come on!



      On sharing nonduality with others...

      > [...]
      > ºMy honest question to you all:
      > ºHow do you communicate to your collegues and friends and to your
      > ºfamily the grace that is given to you? Or do you believe, that there
      > ºis no need to communicate and whoever finds the way to God will do it
      > ºon his own?
      > ºI really need support on that point.
      > ºThanks.
      > º
      > ºLove.
      > ºHans

      I see family occasionally, and have a few close friends. A
      few family and friends I can talk to with an assumption of
      the nondual viewpoint. The others I'm connected to by a
      compatible sense of humor. The latter will talk to me about
      what I'm interested in and even ask questions, but the
      conversation very quickly turns goofy. The reason they'll
      ask me about my spiritual interests is because they know it
      will lead down another avenue of goofing around and having a
      good time.

      So perhaps a good way to communicate spiritual interests to
      a friend or colleague is to do it in terms of what your bond
      is. If your bond isn't spiritual, you can't get spiritual on
      a person. You can only go deeply into the bond you have and
      let the other person see you as honestly as possible.


      GREG answers Royal's questions on enlightenment

      Hello Royal,

      Here's Judi's web page. She might have another one someplace, but this one
      accompanies her signature in most of her mail messages.


      Her notes on enlightenment are here, called "What enlightenment is":


      You ask what Is-ness is. Without being too fancy, it is things-as-they-are
      (D.T. Suzuki said "Things as it is"!). It is This Moment Now, though these
      things say a bit too much. This is to emphasize that Is-ness is not in the
      future, the past, in hopes or dreams or wishes, or in woulda-coulda-shoulda
      conditions. It is not in India, Tibet, Mecca, one's childhood home, the
      womb, heaven, God, one's guru, Buddha, or anything or anyplace else. And,
      EVERY moment is just like that!!

      You ask about the X... The X is the criterion or the cataclysmic
      experience that is said to happen when enlightenment dawns. In many
      teachings about enlightenment, there is a kind of condition or criterion or
      description about what happens when enlightenment occurs, or what happens
      just before, or just after. I call that a picture-theory of enlightenment.
      Sometimes the picture can get very subtle and look like it's not a
      picture. Some of the more subtle picture-theories or descriptions of
      enlightenment might be like "enlightenment is when you stop caring about

      About the stages - depends on the teaching. Some teachings have graded
      levels, some are unitary. The highest number of levels of enlightenment I
      ever heard someone seriously believe is 172. The lowest is zero. Which
      teaching does one choose? One that resonates with you, draws you.

      You ask about my concept of enlightenment.... "Love loving Love" is good.
      "Consciousness shining in its own glory" is good. "No extra, no lack."
      "No presence, no absence." But seriously :-) ,I just happen to have a page
      that Jerry put together, where I discussed very similar things with someone
      else. It is here, on the NDS site:


      Look for the link called "Experiences of Enlightenment." There are two
      sub-sections, "The Problem of the Criterion," and "The Problem of Arm's

      AND MORE...

      Yes, sky,

      It's not my definition either, actually. When I say "it's all light" it's
      not because I believe it, but it's used as an antidote to a notion that
      might cause suffering. We tend to hear more often 'my enlightenment' or
      'I'm enlightened' than we hear 'your enlightenment' or 'you're
      enlightened'. Other times, people have an impossible notion of
      enlightenment that makes them feel left out. "She has it but I don't."
      Sometimes I call that a "doo-doo club" notion of enlightenment, like "I'm
      not enlightened, I'm in the doo-doo club."

      I've got to go now (still at work), but I'll write later with some thoughts
      about your notion. It is very honest and inclusive, the emphasis on Love
      is great. More later!




      º (For me, whatever the Buddha is said to have said may or may not be
      º"true." So, I prefer to get as much spiritual truth as I do directly
      ºfrom experience or from that of others, provided that it sounds
      ºcredible, and that I can identify with it.)

      To me, the mentioned statements by the Buddha are more or less "proven" by
      experience (with the exception of "the laws of nature do no longer apply") - it
      is always the requirement for a quote being used.



      "What is" just "IS" - both mandatory and "forbidden" denote authority. Surrender
      is possible due to insight or Love; unconditional surrender entirely does away
      with the sense for authority.

      ºPerhaps this is connected with the idea, anyway, of both
      ºan affirming and a receptive aspect to will. When I try
      ºon surrender, it seems we are looking at surrender on
      ºboth a vertical and horizontal scale. On the horizontal
      ºscale, I surrender to all that passes through me; feelings
      ºthat arise and fall, thoughts that are triggered associatively,
      ºsexual arousal. But doesn't there seem to be a higher
      ºauthority to which I surrender also? This higher authority
      ºis internal.

      I agree surrender can be divided into two types - no interference with whatever
      arises (not the same as passivity though) - and surrender to what could be
      perceived as "higher" power or as still goes in the East, a guru. Yet, surrender
      can simultaneously of both types when for instance it is clear that Love cannot
      be interfered with in any way yet is "power supreme". But in unconditional
      surrender, no sense of authority can arise because when it would, one could
      surrender to it and that would indicate surrender isn't unconditional.

      MARCIA (to sky)

      IMO, you have some things powerfully confused. :-)

      Social obligations strikes me as phony, false
      type stuff; stuff you don't really have to do
      but do for social reasons. Social reasons,
      by definition, would be false i.e. for
      image or something like that.

      Having to take care of the physical needs of
      yourself or your loved ones is not a social
      obligation. Essence connections such as
      relating to a parent or a child is not a social
      obligation. These can be carried out in a
      false way but they are real obligations not
      social ones.


      I am not trying to straighten you out. I am trying
      to straighten me out after following your logic.

      I know what you are talking about. I am asking
      you to look deeper. I think you are mixing all
      sorts of things up together in one pot that don't
      belong together.

      If you are talking about what to say to people
      who perceive that they have social obligations
      that come to you for help, send them to Miss
      Manners or a school counselor.

      I say...you can't make insanity sane no matter
      how hard you try.


      I wonder. :-)

      I am kind of confused. In a way it may be a guy kind of

      It seems to me that under certain circumstances or around
      certain influences, I can't help but respond. Either I lack
      discrimination, have no boundaries, or some other
      dysfunction or......

      It seems to me that had I been around Mr. Gurdjieff or
      Jesus or someone with great being, I couldn't help
      but respond. Is this surrender? Is this a female response?
      Is that component >inside< as well? It seems to me that
      the answer is yes.


      We have talked about this. :-)

      Surrender, in a way, is faith. Belief in things unseen over
      that which the senses cry out as true. I see these things
      in sittings and then I get caught up in the cogs of life,
      the teenagers, the animals, taking care of the household.
      To maintain this awareness, this grounding, from the
      sitting as I move through the cogs of life.

      In our sitting when I couldn't stop coughing. I kept having
      this belief come up which said...."I am not going to be able
      to stop coughing." This would trigger another round of
      coughing. Something, or somewhere inside, a knowing
      which said to just let go of the belief. I was clinging
      to the belief. All I had to do was let go or surrender
      it. Panic, fear to let go, and then letting go and all the
      need to cough was gone.

      Another thing, I have joined the gym. All these stories
      about how hard this is come up. I have reached this
      point of surrender where I just get on the stairmaster
      and go till the sweat is running off me. I feel the
      muscles in my legs and my foot as it hits the stair
      and I keep on climbing way past what I would consider
      the breaking point. A letting go here, a surrendering
      to the pure joy of the body working hard.

      POU replies:

      I know this is a very male thing to do...I do fully appreciate that what I
      have to say here.. is not in good standing with the seriousness of this
      discussion... .. but.....the question of surrender.. is a wonderful pass
      time... until one is really serious about really surrendering...

      If we truly absolutely want to really surrender.... we need to find out..
      who is surrendering to whom..

      As soon as the 'i' who surrenders.. you know comes out with both hands on
      the white flag...it is seen to be yet another game of hide and seek. the
      real...I..zation there is no one to surrender to anyone.. or thing.. that
      all there is.. is.. the act of surrender.. not to.. or for.. anyone.. or
      thing.. the real surrender.. takes place.. and that surrender has never ever
      not been taking place for the SELF knows of no other activity worth while...
      accept surrendering unto it own Self..

      and how does that take place here in the phenomenal plane of events

      through me and you and we do not exist as separate things...


      JAN & SKY A dialogue

      S: I don't believe anything is futile. But I know what you mean.
      ºHowever, I believe that the spiritual is something that requires
      ºseeding. I hope to plant the seeds. At worst, it's fun to talk about
      ºthese things.

      J: Agreed, talking about it is fun. But there is also the expression "don't open
      a freshly laid egg" as no living bird will leave from it. Unless someone is
      insisting on instruction, I behave like a so called "normal" human being who is
      an amateur regarding nonduality. Futile means, it is tried to open the egg
      before enough brooding has occurred.
      S: Anyone wholly into spirituality is probably already "enlightened" anyway.
      º Still, I know what you mean, feel what you mean.
      J: Correct, the thought "(s)he is/is not enlightened" doesn't enter my mind
      either. Mind is like the night sky at new moon - mainly empty space...


      S: It's funny you should say you're not a teacher!

      J: But there is a good reason for it - the sense of "I am this, (s)he is that,
      this is a teaching" cannot enter the mind. So what remains is just
      communication, irrespective of its subject or those attending.

      J: Aloneness means that (temporarily) absolutely nothing is felt, in trying to
      express it, "empty space" would qualify. When closing the eyes and ears, it
      would be easy to forget phenomenal life instantly. It isn't Oneness because the
      sense of unity isn't felt either. Disembodied while remaining alive is another

      ºI call that meditation. Yeah, I do it all the time. (Not literally.)

      J: For a good reason, the causal body ( the potential to feel, the substrate of
      human behavior) is very tenacious. So it takes a very long time before one can
      say to be disembodied with the body remaining alive; usually that occurs shortly
      before the body gives up.

      J: But there is a good reason for it - the sense of 'I am this, (s)he
      is that, this is a teaching' cannot enter the mind. So what remains is
      just communication, irrespective of its subject or those attending.

      S: Yes, the Ashtavakra Gita says that one is not anything, no caste, no
      age, etc. I'm totally with this. When said gently. But, for me, to
      hear it said aggressively sounds more like an insult than a liberation.
      For those who say it aggressively, I'm sure it is liberating. Again, a
      social environment thing, in my opinion.

      What's your experience with the A. Gita?

      The A. Gita is a nice read - for an aggressive tone there could be a reason, to
      make a strong impression that cannot be forgotten easily. How would one change
      the behavior of a chain smoking dad who is used to smoke near the baby? Not by
      argument or reason - by imprinting a strong emotional impression that will pop
      up each time a cigarette is lighted - nothing else works. For those, addicted to
      the dream of maya, it can be useful to apply a similar approach.

      S: Yes, aggression can be the only last resort. But when it is the
      first resort!?


      ON space

      S: Yes, space. That's what I like about you. You know how to live
      ºwithout the need for indulgence in violent triumph.

      J: In a certain sense, the sensations in chakras are a sure sign of what is
      going on in the mind-body. So I know the effects of indulgence, ecstasy, food,
      and many more.
      S: But it may have to do with few social obligations, as I defined
      ºthem for Marcia. Judi, who seems to me to be constantly overwhelmed
      ºwith them, seems to need to refuse that kind of serenity. Who's to say
      ºshe's "wrong." Yet I'll wager that she loves to rip eggs out from under
      ºbirds. I don't mean to disparage her. I mean to say that we are all a
      ºfunction of our relationships to others.

      J: It is quite possible that reading one's posts and meeting the poster "live"
      will give very different impressions. So I am rather reluctant to make
      conclusions on E-mail exchange only... But regarding "ripping eggs" you could be
      right :)
      S: I may like you because I too have few obligations.

      J: No inhibition to express, is what I like about you - but in a world full of
      strongly inhibited people, having few obligations probably is a prerequisite...
      S: I also like your,
      º"Correct, the thought "(s)he is/is not enlightened" doesn't enter my
      ºmind either. Mind is like the night sky at new moon - mainly empty
      I feel that way about what I have to "offer," that non-violent,
      ºunimposing patience. And yet, I ALSO have my other side. The social
      ºobligation, violent side, again, because of my environment. I am in no
      ºway an island.
      J: At work, I had lots of patience for the "bright" students - I taught them all
      the tricks of the trade. But the bright students were passionate about their
      study, they loved it, showed zeal, good judgment and incentive whereas what I
      called "bad" students, were those, only wanting the good money that came after
      graduation; they performed what they perceived as duty, and with a dislike; with
      them I had no patience and at times could even be rude. That behavior could be
      called "the other side" but heck, no-body is perfect... this one right now
      requires some rest - it is 3.41 AM :)

      AND, if you made it this far, we end with these immortal words:

      ºI don't know anything.

      LOL - you know that you don't know anything, right?


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