Tuesday, October 3
- Slow down!
All your hurrying to be the best thinker
leaves you believing there is something
to think about.
All your preaching convinces you there
is someone listening.
All these movements and counter-movements
of mind make it seem like someone
is doing something.
There is a hilarious joke here
for those quiet enough to feel
the universe laughing about
nothing at all.
well I am most merry in the mountains
and the notion of coming across you
neon-tubing like this most deliciously
sparks the freedom taste of memory
now splicing nicely with form ruin
thoroughly down to the dancing dust
in Love, Duncan
I've been listening to and watching coverage of the funeral
and remembrance of former (Canadian) prime minister Pierre
Trudeau. A friend of his recalled being on a canoe trip
with him many years ago and watching him take a canoe down
a particularly treacherous stretch of white water. He
recalled seeing a look of fear and terror in Trudeau's
eyes. Afterwards, he asked him how it went. Trudeau said
"Fine." His friend said "But there was a moment..." Trudeau
said "There's always a moment."
The very moment when there are words, duality is there!
There is no other way! Nonduality must express itself
through duality! At least now I relax into this. Yes, it is
not about "happiness", yes...It is about "truth", yes it
cannot be given at all! From whom to whom?
It reminds me of the picture of one who is climbing a high
mountain, in ardous effort, reaching at least the very top!
And another who is just put at the top of mountain by a
They both are at the same spot, but everybody is
experiencing this totally different. And we "humans" would
love to have the easy way but we are astonished that having
reached the goal does not feel the same, not deep, not
I loved your picture of the mountains. I lived in Tyrol
when I was young. And I know it is a total different
feeling to arrive on a mountain with a "Seilbahn" (Cable
railway) than just to come there from a long path sweating,
tired. The joy to finally arrive is so great that
everything is seen different. Perhaps it is fitting what I
often heard, the path is the goal.
Also love to you
It is one of thoise evenings, when Jnaneshwar speaks
-Water without losing it's nature, enjoying the beauty of
-It is Shakti who gave Shiva his very existence and status,
the form and name through the manifestation of the
universe. It was as if Shakti felt ashamed that her
husband, inspite of all his potentiality should remain
formless, nameless and so decided that he needed such
-You are not satisfied until you totally demolish the
identity of a disciple with the individual identity, so
that he should not have even the satisfaction of having
merged with you.
-A horse whether it is awake or asleep, is always on its
legs. In view of the unchanging posture, the two states do
not appear to be different. Similarly the appearance and
disappearance of phenomenality occurs without any change in
the noumenal unicity.
Oh Dobeee Dobeee Dooooo Oh Ladeelaaaaadeee Oh, Oh, Oh.
Ken Wilber has been useful in conceptually and
theoretically in linking developmental psychology with
concepts of spiritual development.
The shortcoming I see is that the reality of the opening of
awareness doesn't follow the linear stagewise sequence that
he lays out. His distinction of
prepersonal-personal-transpersonal doesn't work so well in
practice. People may have spiritual breakthroughs that
occur through clarification of the personal realm, during
times of great uncertainty or stress, or "re-visiting"
prepersonal events. They may evidenced spiritual insight
yet have trapped awareness in psychological aspects of
being that would seem earlier in terms of Wilber's temporal
sequencing. His conceptualization led to an article that
was rather dismissive of "schizophrenics" and this is a
troubling aspect of his work. It lends itself to a view
that certain people and even certain cultures are more
advanced in development than other people and cultures.
Rather than clarity that this is simply one lens, he tends
to write about this lens as if it were *the* lens (even
while he discusses some of the useful insights of
Some of his criticisms of post-modernism are well-taken,
yet he sometimes falls into the very pitfall that
postmodernism warns about - taking any one lens as *the*
lens, not fully exposing biases and prejudices inherent in
that lens or system being utilized.
Jung's work has been very useful to me in understanding the
nonlinear, "spiralling" aspects of awareness, the way that
awareness is all inclusive, prepersonal-
personal-transpersonal without linear dividing lines.
Awarness is at once nonmoving and spiralling. Hence was
have universal awareness and individual lives. An author
named Washburn did a good job of integrating the idea of a
dynamic unconscious with spiritual opening without relying
on a linear stage-like formulation. Grof's work also is
less linear than Wilber's formulation. Possibly, Wilber's
most significant contribution will be seen as his
delineation of the distinction
perpersonal-personal-transpersonal, and his tendency to
reify that distinction may be seen as his limitation. The
incredible amount of time and energy he has put into his
quadrant model of classification seems like
monument-building to me. Maybe it's useful for some.
ED ARRONS AND COMPANY
ED: Dear Dan,
I noticed, Dan, when you shone your illumination on me, a
certain glow that permeated me. I felt a resonance with
your energy. I also noticed that a deep, hidden, and subtle
need for attention seemed to resolve. To put it in other
words your focusing on 'me' made 'me' feel deeply loved in
a way that I had never known before.
It seems this subtle need for attention may exist in ALL of
us due to eons of overwhelming cultural conditioning of the
separate 'me'. Does this make sense from your perspective?
PS Does anyone have a take on this?
GENE: Your summary seems entirely correct, Ed.
I should point out, that your pictures, which are posted
for public view:
Are masterpieces of digital photo work. As a student of
this art, I find them very inspiring.
I do. In fact, yesterday as I was driving around running
errands, I noticed just those very thoughts running through
I observed this moment of feeling of love for Gene <s> and
then I cognized that this feeling must be what people feel
for their teachers when they talk about heart teachers and
then I cognized it was cause he was giving me attention. He
took the time to organize and respond to my real questions
and my real needs. Is this imagination? Maybe. But I feel
I thought of Melody and how she responds to Sandeep. It is
not that he is siding with her but he takes the time to
find the way to speak to her so that she can hear.
Is this what a teacher is? Someone who takes the time to
consider the other person and finds the language to speak
to the other person?
This is probably not what you are referring to Ed because
you most likely do not consider Dan as your teacher but
then again perhaps we are all teachers one to the other.
I may have a sense of what you are experiencing, Marcia.
A word I would use, in place of 'attention' or even 'love',
would be the word that Sandeep has used alot these past few
Sandeep was the first with whom I experienced a
'non-doer'... one who did not seem to be acting from a
position of 'self-interest'.
Sensing this lack of 'self-interest'......feeling as though
I am listening to Consciousness Itself speak directly to me
(and and subsequently *thru* me)
was for me to have a taste of 'Home".
(and experiencing the attendant willingness and ability to
stay open... come what may)
feelings of love naturally arise.
Seeing first the 'non-doer' in Sandeep opened the door to
seeing the 'non-doer' in All.
I hear that's what a satsang is designed to do.
You are correct in your understanding of the word
'responsibility'. It does indeed mean, 'the ability to
To get right to the point, as I was making in the letter to
Ralf, it is this:
We are able to respond, but should we respond?
How should we respond... in other words, what should the
nature of the response, be?
If we respond, do we create a situation in which further
and perhaps pleasant or unpleasant responses will be
required, as a result of out response? Do we, by
responding, create a chain of events, which leads to either
regret or to reward?
Is it possible to respond, without creating a chain of
Does response matter at all? If yes, why, and if no, why?
As you may intuit, these questions are very deep and
require a lot of consideration.
Here is my view:
We are able to respond, but if we live in 'choice', the act
of responding is done voluntarily, not by habit or by a
rule or criteria. Among the choice of response, is to
withhold response. To say 'withhold' means that there is an
acknowledgement of what is happening; this is important to
Humans are vulnerable to ideas and ideals. Ideas and ideals
act as prejudice to determine in advance, what sort of
response is given, in a given situation. Even more
troublesome, is the issue of 'belief', which takes ideas
and ideals and tends to make those intangibles into 'real
objects'. As you know, there is endless strife in the
world, for the reason that belief in humans, creates
'versions' of reality, which are then compared to those of
other humans. Religion and politics are examples of where
this happens, even in the midst of the desire for 'a better
So this makes the entire subject of responsibility an
important one. The ability to respond and the ability to
determine exactly what response, if any is given, is in the
realm of the individual, and cannot really be determined by
rules or ideals or beliefs imposed from without, by social
forces. It is the duty of the individual to realize this,
and to see that this is the first and primary
'responsibility'. It is from this first decision, the
realization that response can be had, that it can be done,
and that it indeed 'matters', that all subsequent reactions
Most of us 'know' that any response will become eventually,
merely part of a longer and longer chain of events.
War-like actions, or actions of response which signal
intolerance, become parts of some of the longest chains
which bind us, as social Beings.
So it is also with the choice of the response of 'abiding'.
This is an individual choice, but if this choice is made,
consider that the successive, subsequent links may be a
chain-reaction of abiding, exactly as any other response
may determine a chain of events.
Abiding is a behaviour, it is an action, and it
acknowledges that 'something is going on'. It is not a
denial of reality, it is a decision to be responsible for
Our responsibility is first to ourselves; awareness of
responsibility is the first responsibility. This must be
seen and understood. Each person indeed is the beginning of
reaction; exactly what that reaction will be, is known only
to the individual involved. Knowledge of response in others
is secondary; we are to tend to our own internal
conversation, to realize the nature of it, and if we share
with others, in ways that do not create unfortunate chains
Inside of ourselves, we monitor or observe or feel or
'know' what is happening. It is in this realm of our inner,
that our primary responsibility is found. Our reactions to
our own inner shifts, as they occur, are very important
responses. It is from these subtle shiftings that large
events of human society eventually grow.
"How do I feel?"
"How do I feel about how I feel?"
"What will I do about how I feel?"
"Is my first reaction to what I should do about how I am
feeling about how I am feeling, a good reaction to be
"What will occur, if I react to how I am feeling?"
"What will occur, if I withhold response?"
There are no rules, ways, ideas, ideals, paths, criteria,
or guides who can perform the above-written considerations
for us. It is up to each, to do this for themselves.
Anything less, is abdication of our primary responsibility.
The 'do-er' is identity, and identity is kept alive by
action. If no action (response) is taken, identity starves.
This is a great, challenging struggle, to be sure, but
abiding (with all of the above considerations) allows
identity to fade... to nothingness.
Behind identity, is emptiness, which is awareness. Identity
needs constant support, but awareness abides as itself.
Hi Dan, Greg, Harsha, Sandeep, and anyone else who has been
jumping on the anti-Ken Wilber bandwagon.
I don't know what to say to you guys. Have you read his
work? Do you know what his intent is? Is it really fair to
call a guy's life work a phantasmagoria? It is really fair
to refer to his charts of the four quadrants as
representing states of consciousness and then deride them
I think what I am hearing here is the old "straw man"
rhetorical ploy: Setting up a straw man of things the guy
never said, and then knocking him down for that.
Ken Wilber really needs no defense though. Perhaps he will
have to die for people to start recognizing his
I have said this before: Ken Wilber is NOT a guru, Sage,
Satsang-giver, etc. He is a writer and a scholar. He
engages in scholarship having to do with psychology,
consciousness, social sciences, and so on. His attempt has
been to bring in the spiritual into these studies.
His four-quadrants discussion is not meant to be a guide to
enlightenment nor is it a guide for the spiritual seeker,
though the spiritual seeker will find a much more balanced
discussion of spirituality than he or she is likely to find
in many other places.
Yes, I agree that people (such as your august selves) who
have a certain degree of realization will find the Wilber
work irrelevant to their own pursuits, but that doesn't
mean his work isn't relevant to others.
Personal note: Yes I have an ax to grind. Yes I see that
and I am willing to let go of this. But it was reading Ken
Wilber's "Sex, Ecology, and Spirituality" that lead me to
the great Aurobindo's work, and that lead me to the Sage
Ramana Maharshi. Without these mentions - with high praise
- from Wilber - I never would have encountered these
Pou, you seem to feel rather strongly that I admit to some
hurt (which perhaps would be good for me in your view). My
dearest Pou, I am certainly capable of feeling hurt and
pain and anger, yet this is not what I feel right now in
the context you are speaking of. But it is no big deal Pou,
if there is a misunderstanding or miscommunication. This is
life and I do not mind at all if someone has views in some
moment different from mine. How can it matter at all?
I have often said in general (and also specifically to you
Pou) that we are all One in our Humanity and also ONE in
Being. Being one in humanity implies that we (myself
included if there is any doubt) are all subject to what
human beings are subject to. In a recent post to Michele
perhaps, I stated that anger, hatred, rage, pain are felt
by all intelligent sensitive people and indeed are nothing
to be ashamed of. No one needs to feel shame for being
human whether it is me, Osho, you, whoever. Bringing
awareness to such emotions and asking "what is the nature
of my suffering" might be helpful. This is a potent
awareness. This reflection allows for the possibility of
seeing the nature of suffering and letting it go. Bringing
Awareness and Attention to its own nature is
Self-Remembrance and can remind us that we are ONE in BEING
as well as humanity. For me Pou, this ONENESS in BEING is
the source of compassion, love, and forgiveness, that
permeates my body and mind. And my dear brother, like
everyone else, I do the best I can with what I have, and
there is some feeling of comfort in that.
So many of the conservations here, while amusing, lack
Are you evolving or devolving? Are you Brahman or Atman?
Are you Damned or are you Saved? Are you Awake or are you
Asleep? Are you Individuated or are do you have Multple
Personality Disorder? Are you Enlightened or just another
self-anointed fool? Are you a child of the West with a
knee-jerk response to your past who runs to the East in
search of that which is already here? Do you look for that
which is without realizing it is within. Are you seeking
the Beloved? Are you a Lover? Must you be a prodigal in
order to return to what is obvious!
Non Duality is just another illusion. Answer the question,
"Who Am I?" Or, if you prefer, follow that command, "Know
Wouldn't it be simpler if we just give up needing to be
...the status quo of my life is not working for me anymore
(if it ever did). Something has to change. If the truth can
change me, then so be it. I welcome the truth with all my
heart, for without the truth, my heart is surely suffering.
(I think I am a dufus. I fear things like people's opinions
of me, my opinions of me, my opinions of others, lots of
things that clearly are not true, not the essence of either
me or other people. I know that there is an abiding love
for everyone and everything that is more true than anything
else I experience, but I forget it so often and so
thoroughly, and this must change. That's all I really care
about. Be well, folks.