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

Tuesday, October 3

Expand Messages
  • Jerry Katz
    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
    Message 1 of 1 , Oct 5, 2000
      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
      transforming ....



      Hi Jutta,

      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
      through Sandeep

      -Water without losing it's nature, enjoying the beauty of
      waves thereon.

      -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: 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?

      Love, Ed

      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.




      Hi Ed,

      I do. In fact, yesterday as I was driving around running
      errands, I noticed just those very thoughts running through
      my brain.

      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".

      Touching '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
      will follow.

      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
      responsibility, itself.

      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
      of consequences.

      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?"

      Most importantly:

      "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
      for that?

      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
      life-changing sources.



      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!

      Visit http://www.mbaartmans.demon.nl/index.html

      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
      "right" period?



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