Dear Highlights reader, this is only a small part of the great posts, your editor just
stopped adding posts to it when it got too long.
beliefs, concepts, laws of nature
colours, sounds, smells feeding the senses
is this a media concept of nature?
this breath streaming in and out
makes the longues believe in air?
this blood-pulse felt between crossed fingers
is this believed as imaginated concept?
this breakfast celebrated with the girlfriend
is this a German concept to get started?
this food digested in toilet-ritual
did the stomach invent this belief?
this body moving on two feet
is the concept of the legs?
this absorbing swirl diving in love
is a hypnotic magical belief?
has to pinch his ear for awakening
from believing in conceptional words!
Dear all !
The computer broke -
the I was in panic -
everything gone -
remembering the Self -
slowly finding my way back
to the wave of communication -
it is not about me -
the river is flowing between us -
Quoting Sandeep Chatterjee <sandeepc@...
Incidentally do you suppose there will be no occurrences of "pain" after
the so called awakening? There is a difference between pain and suffering,
Suffering occurs because the thought process has built up this
imaginary thought-created you who has all these so-called problems ---
then to stop the suffering somehow this type of thought process is
dropped either through grace or grace-induced practices. This seems
like a type of psychological suffering happening to an illusionary
entity. This you is now gone, however, the luminous, bright, sparkling
awareness/consciousness, in which the old illusionary entity existed,
still simply is and this is what you are. Critique this please.
Now what is it that still exists that can have pain, laugh, love,
follow directions, build bridges, get sick and die? What mode of life
is this? It's difficult to accept that there is no volition. This
almost seems to say that we are merely minute random combinations of
energy patterns dancing with all the innumerable energy patterns
throughout the galaxies --- and that all is sheer accident. So what is
the relationship of the luminous, bright, sparkling
awareness/consciousness to this accidental random dance? Or indeed is
this the accidental random dance and who might be the director or
non-director? Lots of fun and games.
Had a Baileys Irish Creme last night. Fantastic.
Here's to Bondi Beach.
Yes and all know don't we.. the instructions to get out of the box, are
written on the outside of the box.
I am the incarnation of everybody and the zones of reassurance.
I am the obstetrician of good fortune, I live in the social cages of
It is morning, afternoon or evening. Begin.
I too have slept here in my stolen Cadillac.
I too have understudied the Paradise swan.
Thomas Merton, Cables to the Ace
I too am the incarnation of everybody less a few truckdrivers and my
reassurance are strongest on payday.
I am the love doctor for real, I live in a ramshackle trailer which
small for a cage but the spirit of joy being formless needs minimal
so we socialize periodically.
Begin to just 'dobedobedo' it.
I have slept in the cab of Mack trucks which I hoped somebody would
I have never had all my ducks in a row but knew a woman named Swan
daily experience: sharings (god-me-you) are only possible via
filters: Music, poems, words, pictures, art-of-healing, satsangs,
energy-darshans, palm-tarot-crystal-astrologie-readings, and so on.
because every need has to be fullfilled in the market-of-master,
people find their favorite dish easily: one taste likes a ''friendly
gangster'' in form of Isaac Shapiro, other taste chooses a calming
device like Swami Samarpan, other prefer petty tyrants - looks like
Pou. Third buy ''golden tools'' from Palmer.
nobody asks: how long will you go on like this? does this end or
change projections-beliefs-concepts? teacher sell similiary
achievments no-mind, no-thought ... to the commodity seeker -
nothing, what ever was sold. therefor in all scriptures
found the advice: steal!
In that moment of total concentration
Performing that action without thought
Mind body energy melded as a seamless whole
There is a taste of transcendence
Dream becomes reality
Reality becomes dream
Thunder is the gateway to silence
Silence is the gateway to ....
HAHAHAH and HOHOHO!
Peace - Michael
In a gap
What is a gap? The absense of something, or concerning speaking: the
inability to speak about anything. When I start to observe it becomes
interesting: it is actually like waiting. When I let go of waiting
there is nothing left. From this space words start to come again.
Actually there is much which wants to be said. That I love life. That
sometimes I find myself suddenly in no-action, no-thinking - no-
creation. It feels like empty space, before creation. It is freedom
to create everything. Responsibility starts: what do I want to
create? Life is creation, is meant to create. So obviously the best
is to create consciously, deliberately. This means participation in
the leela, living life now, with open eyes. Fear starts: to maybe
make a mistake - but what is a mistake?? Just a concept. So let go of
this. What remains is before creation and creation. An endless stream.
All this stuff
Okay, so I have been reading, and it goes around and around. This is
understandable, these circles, because everyone is 'at' a different
place of understanding. Please do not mistake; I am not asking for
clarification. I see that at anyplace in the circle, one may exit,
and that it is all the same. Outside of the circle, the circle is
like a 'merry-go-round' (carousel), it goes and goes, and each rides
the beast of choice; some say they are 'riding a body', others say
they are riding 'conditioning', others say they are riding 'only what
is', but the view from here, from off-circle, makes all riders look
the same. They are all going up and down and around and around, and
they all speak of the rush and whiz and the blur of the world as it
seems to rush by. But from here, it is apparent that the whole thing
is one thing, and that each chooses (one way or another) to
experience it in the way that they do.
So that is how it looks, and I am not on it. I am here looking at it.
I am able to hear the stories told by those on the ride, I can
estimate the stories, compare them, and find certain commonalities in
A favorite story is this one, the story of 'things are not as they
seem', but what is being said? Is it not usually, 'things are not as
they seem... to YOU'? These stories are offered, really, as a way of
becoming closer, of banishing isolation, and that could be called
'sharing'. But some of the stories are offered in order to cancel the
stories of all of the others; this is like saying that I have the
'supreme story', against which all others are meaningless. This is
not sharing to become closer, but to remove the threat that is
presented by the presence of other people. It is the presence of
other people which triggers both kinds of story-presentation, both
the sharing and the domination.
So now we have the real scenario; it is the presence of others, and
that context alone, which triggers this, all of this communication.
Our usual version of what is going on here, is that it is the
'illusion of separateness' which should be overcome, and that is the
high spiritual goal, toward which we can march, shoulder to shoulder,
eyes uplifted, eventually to 'become one'. This however seems to be a
plan to overcome the troublesome presence of 'other', of other
people. This plan, this story of overcoming 'separateness', is thus
nothing but an embarrassed attempt to dismiss the obvious pains which
emanate from our 'relationship with other'. It is our failure to come
to grips with relationship which drives this whole thing, this
roundabout 'search and destroy the ego' mission.
Obviously to me... is the attempt to overcome the fear of other, and
the attraction one has for other, by somehow building a reality which
then has to be torn down for one to become "whole", "enlightened",
etc. The tearing-down part is the heroic quest for the True Self, but
the building-up part is done in secret... in secret, even from
ourselves. And this building of something to be torn down, is nothing
other than putting on clothes, which are then removed, either for
utilitarian reasons, or for doing a 'strip-tease' act, like the ilk
of Ramana and Ramesh perform, for the delight of all who come to
If we consider this oh-so-traditional human behaviour, as I have
outlined above, certain conclusions can be had. The first and most
obvious one, is to simply refuse to put on the clothes in the first
place, and thus to go naked all the time, no matter the consequences.
This is similar to the antics of UG Krishnamurti, and look what it
gets for him.
But really, it is not about building things or finding things or
eliminating things or going naked or selling your sexy spiritual body
to everyone and being a great helper of all, or anything remotely
related to those things, at all. It is about 'relationship' and only
In relationship, some would say, there is the necessity of 'two', and
so then relationship would cancel or invalidate 'nonduality', because
there, there are 'not two' but only one. But if you look deeper, you
will see that this is not the case. Using your own example, you have
relationship with yourself, and you are 'one' and not two. Take this
example to the ground of 'other' and you will see that other also has
the same basic relationship with one.
Our skill and competence breaks down and becomes a fractally
distributed maze of Boolean forks, when we confront 'other' without
first understanding that relationship is with self only; and that in
this relationship there are no other relationships. Other is
negotiated ONLY from WITHIN the only relationship and this is not
known or acknowledged; soon, it will probably be denied. But this is
how I see it and present it to you now.
To say it again, like a formula, is easy: Relationship is with self
only. If in that relationship, there are dishonesties, difficulties
arise in relationship with 'other'.
Each has the choice. Each has the power. Each has one relationship
and only one, and that concept is expressed sometimes as 'Advaita' or
'nonduality'. But these convenient concepts have become goals rather
than mere touchstones; individuals who do not understand, will seek,
as though there is a remedy, and there is no remedy. There is only
This is a powerful thing to say, but I mean it literally; there is
only self, and relationship is that self; self is relationship. That
is what it is and has always been. And I am it; I am relationship
'itself'. Because I have this essential awareness, my sight, my view
and my understanding of 'other' is that I negotiate 'with other' only
through my relationship with self. If there is dishonesty in me, I am
having a dysfunctional relationship; this is with me, and with
everyone. If there is no dishonesty, relationship is clear, 'empty'
as it is said.
I may, I am privileged to, maintain my empty relationship, and to
thus be off of, or on the circle, the carousel, the world-dream, but
this is only through exacting honesty. This honesty is not a goal,
and it is not a state; it is a realization of 'how things work', or
is also said, of 'what is'. What is, is relationship, and it is only
relationship, and this relationship is self.
Now I will crack for you, the ancient code of semantics, which serves
to obscure just how our language already has in it, all of these
keys, but which keys are used in the wrong locks. The wrong locks are
simply the holding of the wrong context; please allow me to provide
the correct context.
This is the context: Two being as one, the great heartfelt goal, is
accomplished through relationship with self, and with self only. Each
self which is exactingly honest with self, each self which functions
with utmost integrity in relationship with self, each self which is
impeccability, is the realization. It is this realization which is
self, and self alone.
Each self alone, is thus self, and thus self of other also, and thus,
'two being as one' is not the merging of two, but the realization of
one, and of one only.
The failure of relationship with 'other' is inevitable, for there is
no other but self. Other, scary other, desirable other, enviable
other, hateful other, loving other, is none other than self, and it
is the 'same' self that you are, and if you do not know this, it is
because you are not living in absolute (pure) honesty in relationship
with self, you. You, self, have choice of honesty or endless
rationalization, seeking 'ways' to attain 'something', a goal, a
means, an arrival. But the actual is self, and it is you. If you do
not realize this, you are fixated in the maze of fractally
distributed Boolean forks, and you will use language and thought to
follow that maze, learning slowly of 'truth' (truth are valid forks,
leading to the center of the maze, with the little board that says on
a map, with an arrow, 'you are here'), and you will suffer, and all
because of dishonesty.
In reality, you have nothing to say to other. In reality, there is
only self and the realization of self. In reality, you are either in
reality (honesty) or not. If not, reality is hell, suffering,
searching, 'trvth', and all of the accessories of the seeker, the
victim, the hero. If you are reality, you are realization, you are
impeccability, you are self, and self alone. Alone, you are honest,
and so now, there is nothing projected upon the putative 'other'.
Other is empty, and is only what you give it, in your honesty or your
self-deception, and what you 'experience' is the product of that
relationship with self, alone.
Honesty says, 'if I do not know, then I do not know'. This is honesty. Try it!
> Dearest Sandeep,
> many thanks for your words. They are true, no doubt, but they are
> spoken from a level, which does not touch me really at this point in
> my live.
> I am drawn to the words of Tim Jane. He speaks about experiencing
> nonduality in duality, with all the inherent love and all the
> inherent pain.
The concept of non-duality has a meaning, a relevance only in the context of
In Oneness, who is to spout non-duality to whom?
Do you get in my prattlings a sense of discounting of love and pain?
If yes, the error is solely in my ability to communicate in English, not
being native English born.
Love and pain are indeed "experiences" in the realm of relationships.
And Life is nothing but a complex of multitude of relationships.
So love and pain are "truths" within the phenomenal, conceptual context.
My suggestions were really about suffering associated with pain, the two not
being the same.
My pratlings were about the immediate sense of insecurity that arises with
the advent of love.
And what seems to be the dynamics behind the arising of these feelings which
can only be felt by a "me-entity".
I know words are bandied about about Impersonal Love, or Love being the
essence etc etc.
>From the phenomenal context these are mere concepts.
> This is my experience. I have glimpses of the beyond, yes, something
> has happened. I have also glimpses of the real world. When I feel
> bliss, I feel sadness and vice versa.
As soon as you have defined "bliss", you have defined terror or horror, or
As soon as you have defined beauty, you have "birthed" ugliness.
As soon as you have defined good, you have defined evil.
And that is how Life works, on a dialectic principle, where it is evil which
actually makes goodness good.
But all experiences are only for Consciousness through the manifested
The problem comes when the "me-entity" takes delivery of these experiences
and as I shared somewhere creates a personal Hell or Heaven.
> I am not beyond everything.
The "I" cannot go beyond it's alloted role in any case.
The beauty is that the alloted role is not etched in stone and always
remains a mystery for the dreamed character.
> love it.
> I can only write about where I am.
And that's a great posotion.
To know exactly where one is is a tremendous state.
Often we fool ourselves.
Anything else is a lie (and I do
> not discuss if everything written is a lie).
> I am simply more touched by an earthly god, by Zen Mastas, by Tim
> Jane, although it is incredible what you write, sandeep.
Where you are, that's exactly where you are to be, at this moment.
Next moment who knows what the mystery is to be?,<s>