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

NDS Highlights, Sunday 8th October, 2000

Expand Messages
  • Manchine
    OLD or WHAT? GENE: NDS If I may be so bold... Michael, you opened the floodgates of autopoesis by asking... MICHAEL: Hey everybody! I have a small question to
    Message 1 of 1 , Oct 9 8:43 PM
      OLD or WHAT?



      If I may be so bold...

      Michael, you opened the floodgates of autopoesis by asking...

      Hey everybody!
      I have a small question to pose.


      Why does anything exist at all!?!?

      You know, it's such a small question.

      Probably not important that it be answered...


      Peace - walk in beauty - Michael

      ps Be careful if you choose to answer that one. :-)
      It was posed by the 4,000,000 year old entity. ;-))

      Michael, exactly 4,000,001 years ago, it was decided to have this
      forum. Everything that has ever 'happened' and 'exists' has been in
      service of this very exact moment, right now.

      And we are meeting here, right on schedule, as we decided then, so
      long ago, it seems but a moment.

      I commend you for your punctuality!

      ==Gene Poole==

      It's a set up!

      Blackbird singing in the dead of night
      Take these broken wings and learn to fly
      All your life
      You have just been waiting
      For this moment to arrive!

      Happy Days,

      Loveya, Gene.
      Your answer was gently recieved and did generate a few smiles.

      But...Sorry, you only get an E for effort! ;-)

      This has not all happened before or been pre-arranged. It may, of
      course, been 'fore-seen'. ;-)


      Peace - hey, let go of my leg! - Michael

      You think, you are older than me,
      only because I've forgotten how old I am?

      BTW you don't know your axact age either.

      You are granted a special commendation for the 'Zen' flavor
      of your 'non-answer'. *^)

      When I have 100 points am I getting a washing machine?

      BTW the 4,000,000 year old entity only 'admits' to being 4,000,000
      years old. I would call it the 4MYOE but, it 'hates' nicknames! ;-)

      Apart from the jokes:
      There seems one reality behind the 4-something age, which
      is subjective, but seems to be shared among several persons.
      I've the same feeling: it's 4-something, not 3-something or

      I think Adam Kadmon is that old or the life on earth.


      Christmas is coming, the evenings are getting dark,
      and funny tales are told around the fire...


      This technique is called "abstraction" or
      "rationalization" and it breaks down to avoidance
      of the situation HERE and NOW. This tendency
      is supported at large by Mikaire and in
      his Sangha.


      Shame comes when a personal, unwanted truth
      is uncovered.

      Dear Jivano,

      the best result of an e-mail-list is to meet and to experience
      each other alive. Here are some members of Munich
      like 'super-shakti'-Tamara, it is so easy to meet herenow!
      (Safe with the master, unsafe in life, LOL!)

      These funny letters about spiritual subjects are an excuse
      not to write about our own simply life, friends, car, home,
      work, taxes, German ''criminal-police'' (LOL): here-now-reality.

      One of the Mikaire-disciple is very well trained already
      for years and by chance living in a splendid famous body.

      We got an accidentialy, enthusiasitic aquaintance for some
      short nights .... and these fingers played tenderly about
      these sexual-healings in most shameless truth: our reality.

      And this poor-ashamed-ego-''I'_dentity felt so proud about
      his little story and dedicated it to his adored Lady-of-Delight
      with the IMHO submissively title: ''The Book of Nailing''....

      Now this crude jewel of tenderly fingertips is banned
      in the ruins-of-shame forever by juristical threat of
      German-Criminal-Police to defend the shame of good girls.


      has fun to complain about these cruelties of life ... here-now!


      Can somebody help?

      I have been asked

      1)What were the actual gifts of the Magi (you know the wise men and their
      visit to the birth of Jesus etc etc)

      2)What were these wise men looking for, when they were following the star?

      3)Who told them to do so?

      4)What is the significance or symbology associated with each of the gifts?

      My knowledge is zilch on most things, particularly this subject, so can
      somebody help this poor soul?




      My help is to indicate that regarding the NT, not much help can be expected

      The story of the birth of Jesus and his "development" into a savior of men
      is an allegory, cleverly and skillfully mixed with historical events. This
      was done on purpose, to save it for those with eyes to see and to hide it
      from the power hungry profane who would certainly have eradicated all traces
      - when required, by destruction like the burning of Alexandria's library.

      The first indication is conception, despite remaining virgin - an old Dutch
      translation says "found to be pregnant from the Holy Spirit". The name
      isn't a coincidence - the root is the Latin word "mare" (sea) - indicative
      an "ambiance" of Silence. The nearest equivalent for the Holy Spirit, also
      named Consolator, is Kundalini.

      From this perspective, the wise men symbolize the power and authority of
      worldly knowledge, paying obeisance to an "enlightened one (EO)" by offering
      the most precious gifts... When they are able to recognize. This is not
      significance, it could be called an investment in "caring and sharing" that
      will bear fruit (will be returned manifold for the benefit of society).

      The star of Bethlehem symbolizes the fact that it will be possible to
      such an event by astrology - both astronomy and astrology were quite
      in ancient Sumeria and there wasn't a separation like "scientific" for one
      "superstition" for the other.

      This little I know, apart from the fact that the description of the
      on Golgotha (not coincidentally meaning skull, denoting the crown chakra)
      the story on the crown of thorns (denoting the "feel" of nadis), will get
      actualized in any aspirant of the "direct path of surrender" before the
      proverbial phoenix will burn and rise from its ashes in full splendor within
      three days. "Be my followers" was meant in that way...

      But some Rosicrucians could know much more - however those, most
      "left" the body and then, I could always feel their restraint as these
      were not meant for the "general public".


      Hi Jan,

      Thank you for your kind help.

      The objective of teh request to me, I am told is a presentation which
      the reasons why O' Henry in his Collection of short stories had one story
      the Gift of the Magi.

      Why that particular title and it's significance?

      The O'Henry story as you may know, is of a poor couple, cannot afford any
      for each other. The wife has long beautiful hair which she cuts and sells
      hair to buy a watch strap for her husband who had a watch which was sort of
      heirloom. Off course the husband went and sold the watch to buy a
      for the hair as a gift for his wife.

      Both the actions by both the people, were without the knowledge of the other
      and hence, the gifts finally proved to be functionally useless.
      But a greater gift was shared between the two.

      In what way does O' Henry's story relate to the wise men bringing gifts to
      infant Jesus, thereby justifying the title of the O'Henry story, is the
      subject of the presentation.

      Can you Jan/anybody help?


      All I can offer on this is my own understanding/reading of both
      stories and how they relate.

      It is said that the gifts that the Magi brought to honor the infant
      Jesus were gold, frankincense and myrhh...now, it is possible that
      there is some smybolic meaning of these "worldy" gifts but to relate
      this to the story by O'Henry I think it only matters that they were
      material things...costly, rare things and the reason for the giving
      was to show love and honor and respect...in the story the husband and
      wife are willing to give up the material possesions that they hold
      most dearly and the motivation is the same as the 3 magi...they do it
      out of love. And the love is the only thing that matters. Just like
      in the saying, "It's not the gift that counts, but the thought behind

      Hope that helps!


      Hi Sandeep,

      The day the Magi found the infant Jesus is called 'Epiphany', a Greek word
      translates as 'an apparition of the divine being'. In earlier days, not just
      the visit
      of the Magi but also the baptism of Christ, and the perfomance of his first
      (turning water into wine) were celebrated on that day, all of them being
      It has also been called the feast of the declaration, and the feast of the
      manifestation. The O Henry story is also the story of an epiphany,
      manifestation of
      the divine in the form of the love between the two characters.



      Hi Sandeep,

      In light of our discussion of free will, and following your question about
      the Magi, I
      was looking up epiphany and found this passage from an old
      text of an epiphany rite;

      "Today the unseen is seen, that he may reveal himself to us.
      Today the Increate is of his own will ordained by his own creature.
      Today the Unbending bends his neck to his own servant, in order to free us
      Today we were liberated from darkness and illumined by light of divine
      Today for us the Lord by means of rebirth of the Image reshapes the

      Jesus was a teacher who showed that we and the divine are not two.
      The only free will is the will of the divine and the divine is us.



      Hi Andrew,

      That was very nice.
      Thank you.

      Always though Jesus would have freaked out on the NDS, here (that is, if he
      is not all ready one of the lurkers).
      We have dated NDS at about 4 Million years back or is it 40 Million.
      Need to check with Jerry when did we meet just after the Big Bang and
      thought up the NDS.

      Would have been interesting to check out with Jesus on all that Father, Holy
      Ghost stuff.



      That quote of Ramana's that "there is neither destiny, nor free will" is
      very Taoist and also middle way Buddhist. With 3 confirmations, might be
      something to it.. :):)

      Yes! Gloria, you have the eyes of an eagle! A reflection on the free
      will/determinism dichotomy can be critical and helpful at a spiritual
      juncture for some in furthering their understanding or perhaps refining it.
      But the beauty of Self-Realization is utterly overwhelming and its
      breathtaking simplicity renders all concepts moot including those of destiny
      and free will.

      Ramana Maharshi's statement that "there is neither destiny, nor free will"
      has a certain magnificence and majesty and grace for me as it hints at the
      state, "The Original Nature" in which It Is Known in Fullness that nothing
      remains to be "free of" or "bounded to". The Sage of Arunachala spent all of
      his life after his teen years on the sacred hill and made no attempts to
      teach or preach and essentially responded only to questions his whole life.
      Yet, the greatest yoga masters, masters of meditations, monks and swamis and
      the India's highest spiritual dignitaries, and Shankracharyas sat at his
      feet to be in his presence.

      Ramana was and is the Sun in full blaze as if in the middle of a bright
      sunny summer day. His simplicity, directness, and clarity is often blinding.
      I remember living with that book and sleeping with it besides my head when I
      was 21-22, "Talks with Ramana Maharshi." I remember the force of Ramana's
      words. Repetitive and yet striking. Never deviating, uncompromising, and yet
      utterly accepting of all human frailties and limitations. Ramana's essence
      is that of compassion and his life exemplified Ahimsa in every form. I have
      reflected many times, that, the True Guru is the most beautiful principle
      and best part of the world-dream. He is One's Own self reflected on the
      image of the mind, hinting at One's Own Reality. Upon Awakening, One Knows
      that Guru's Self and One's Own Self are the Same. Guru- Being, Self-Being,
      God-Being, all the Same. The Same Taste of Sameness Everywhere.



      Knowing the Truth of the Heart, one becomes free of all seductions,
      philosophies, and teachings. Saying that we have no free will, and,
      therefore should not make any efforts, is not a sacred truth. It is not on
      some higher ground than saying that we have free will, and therefore, should
      make an effort. A sage, a great master, may resort to either perspective
      without the least bit of conflict. But for the novice (sometimes they are
      considered wise teachers also!), it becomes a big issue. A very big issue!
      Then the students are forced to partake in the spiritual immaturity of their
      teacher. The usual "company line" that, "There is no free will" becomes the
      mantra for entrance to their temple of ignorance. Well why not? Something
      for everyone!

      The Wise know directly that the "Truth of the Heart Is Here" and is not to
      be discovered "else where" in a particular belief or conviction or concept
      about free will or anything else.

      Here, the futility of obsessing with dichotomies is seen for what it is.
      Giving undue importance to certain mental constructs keeps the mind hopping
      with joy! Naturally! And that is OK. The mind is the ultimate trickster and

      The mind grasps at the "truth" through refinement of concepts. But the
      grasping itself is false because the mind/personality fundamentally is a
      particularized condition that arises in consciousness. To change and
      paraphrase somewhat a Bruce quote of Krishnamurti speaking of the "I".

      Leave it alone, if you can! (:-).

      Love to all




      Labeling emotions as 'negative', is denial, and is also self-victimization.

      Greetings ALL,

      This may be simply a small point of semantics, but I would like to
      toss this concept into the ring.

      I propose that to use the word 'negative' to describe feelings, is a
      self-sabotaging behaviour.

      The word 'negative' when used in this way, it seems, is a 'new-age'
      euphemism for 'bad' or 'undesirable'. Am I correct in this assessment?

      From this euphemism, is then derived the wonderful word 'negativity',
      which may have been coined by that renowned wordsmith, Spiro T Agnew
      ("nattering nabobs of negativity"). 'Negativity' could be said to
      actually mean, 'I am calling you bad, without owning that I am doing

      How would you sound, if you said to someone: "I am having a bad
      emotion", or "I am having an undesirable emotion". This kind of talk
      can be effectively argued against (for instance, I could say in
      reply: "Who is making it bad?")

      To use 'negative' in labeling emotional states, removes one from
      ownership of that state, and elevates the emotion to the status of an
      autonomous force, over which control is difficult if not impossible.
      This usage of 'negative' implies that the sufferer is victimized, and
      implies also that there is a gulf between the source of the emotion,
      and the place where it happens and is experienced.

      What comes from this, is an enabling of the 'blame-game', in which
      one person accuses another of 'causing' an unpleasant emotion to be
      felt. The label of 'negativity' is then plastered onto the one
      accused, which is a tactic of one person invalidating another. This
      in turn is a tactic of control, to force a change of behaviour upon
      threat of social embarrassment.

      If we (the participants of this forum) continue to use the euphemism
      'negative' for what is really stated to be 'bad', are we not
      facilitating the very sort of dodge/denial which we usually eschew?

      I see that there is a clear divide in the human population, between
      those who know that they are responsible for their own emotions, and
      those who do not. Makers of conflict and war, typically hold others
      to blame for states which occur within themselves, and use this
      accumulated resentment as fuel for their aggressions.

      Below are some definitions of 'negative'. Look them over and
      determine if any allow the use of 'negative' to describe emotion.

      Bottom line: To say 'negative emotion' is to state 'positively' that
      the only 'real' emotions are pleasant ones. If you disagree with
      this, please post your reasoning.

      Thanks for considering,

      ==Gene Poole==

      Reversed \Re*versed"\, a.
      1. Turned side for side, or end for end; changed to the
      contrary; specifically (Bot. & Zo["o]l.), sinistrorse or
      sinistral; as, a reversed, or sinistral, spiral or shell.

      2. (Law) Annulled and the contrary substituted; as, a
      reversed judgment or decree.

      {Reversed positive} or {negative} (Photog.), a picture
      corresponding with the original in light and shade, but
      reversed as to right and left. --Abney.


      Negative \Neg"a*tive\, a. [F. n['e]gatif, L. negativus, fr.
      negare to deny. See {Negation}.]
      1. Denying; implying, containing, or asserting denial,
      negation or refusal; returning the answer no to an inquiry
      or request; refusing assent; as, a negative answer; a
      negative opinion; -- opposed to {affirmative}.

      If thou wilt confess, Or else be impudently
      negative. --Shak.

      Denying me any power of a negative voice. --Eikon

      Something between an affirmative bow and a negative
      shake. --Dickens.

      2. Not positive; without affirmative statement or
      demonstration; indirect; consisting in the absence of
      something; privative; as, a negative argument; a negative
      morality; negative criticism.

      There in another way of denying Christ, . . . which
      is negative, when we do not acknowledge and confess
      him. --South.

      3. (Logic) Asserting absence of connection between a subject
      and a predicate; as, a negative proposition.

      4. (Photog.) Of or pertaining to a picture upon glass or
      other material, in which the lights and shades of the
      original, and the relations of right and left, are

      5. (Chem.) Metalloidal; nonmetallic; -- contracted with
      positive or basic; as, the nitro group is negative.

      Note: This word, derived from electro-negative, is now
      commonly used in a more general sense, when acidiferous
      is the intended signification.

      {Negative crystal}.
      (a) A cavity in a mineral mass, having the form of a
      (b) A crystal which has the power of negative double
      refraction. See {refraction}.

      {negative electricity} (Elec.), the kind of electricity which
      is developed upon resin or ebonite when rubbed, or which
      appears at that pole of a voltaic battery which is
      connected with the plate most attacked by the exciting
      liquid; -- formerly called {resinous electricity}. Opposed
      to {positive electricity}. Formerly, according to
      Franklin's theory of a single electric fluid, negative
      electricity was supposed to be electricity in a degree
      below saturation, or the natural amount for a given body.
      see {Electricity}.

      {Negative eyepiece}. (Opt.) see under {Eyepiece}.

      {Negative quantity} (Alg.), a quantity preceded by the
      negative sign, or which stands in the relation indicated
      by this sign to some other quantity. See {Negative sign}

      {Negative rotation}, right-handed rotation. See
      {Right-handed}, 3.

      {Negative sign}, the sign -, or {minus} (opposed in
      signification to +, or {plus}), indicating that the
      quantity to which it is prefixed is to be subtracted from
      the preceding quantity, or is to be reckoned from zero or
      cipher in the opposite direction to that of quanties
      having the sign plus either expressed or understood; thus,
      in a - b, b is to be substracted from a, or regarded as
      opposite to it in value; and -10[deg] on a thermometer
      means 10[deg] below the zero of the scale.


      Negative \Neg"a*tive\, n. [Cf. F. n['e]gative.]
      1. A proposition by which something is denied or forbidden; a
      conception or term formed by prefixing the negative
      particle to one which is positive; an opposite or
      contradictory term or conception.

      This is a known rule in divinity, that there is no
      command that runs in negatives but couches under it
      a positive duty. --South.

      2. A word used in denial or refusal; as, not, no.

      Note: In Old England two or more negatives were often joined
      together for the sake of emphasis, whereas now such
      expressions are considered ungrammatical, being chiefly
      heard in iliterate speech. A double negative is now
      sometimes used as nearly or quite equivalent to an

      No wine ne drank she, neither white nor red.

      These eyes that never did nor never shall So much
      as frown on you. --Shak.

      3. The refusal or withholding of assents; veto.

      If a kind without his kingdom be, in a civil sense,
      nothing, then . . . his negative is as good as
      nothing. --Milton.

      4. That side of a question which denies or refuses, or which
      is taken by an opposing or denying party; the relation or
      position of denial or opposition; as, the question was
      decided in the negative.

      5. (Photog.) A picture upon glass or other material, in which
      the light portions of the original are represented in some
      opaque material (usually reduced silver), and the dark
      portions by the uncovered and transparent or
      semitransparent ground of the picture.

      Note: A negative is chiefly used for producing photographs by
      means of the sun's light passing through it and acting
      upon sensitized paper, thus producing on the paper a
      positive picture.


      Negative \Neg"a*tive\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. {Negatived}; p. pr. &
      vb. n. {Negativing}.]
      1. To prove unreal or intrue; to disprove.

      The omission or infrequency of such recitals does
      not negative the existence of miracles. --Paley.

      2. To reject by vote; to refuse to enact or sanction; as, the
      Senate negatived the bill.

      3. To neutralize the force of; to counteract.


      Demonstration \Dem`on*stra"tion\, n. [L. demonstratio: cf. F.
      1. The act of demonstrating; an exhibition; proof;
      especially, proof beyond the possibility of doubt;
      indubitable evidence, to the senses or reason.

      Those intervening ideas which serve to show the
      agreement of any two others are called ``proofs;''
      and where agreement or disagreement is by this means
      plainly and clearly perceived, it is called
      demonstration. --Locke.

      2. An expression, as of the feelings, by outward signs; a
      manifestation; a show.

      Did your letters pierce the queen to any
      demonstration of grief? --Shak.

      Loyal demonstrations toward the prince. --Prescott.

      3. (Anat.) The exhibition and explanation of a dissection or
      other anatomical preparation.

      4. (Mil.) a decisive exhibition of force, or a movement
      indicating an attack.

      5. (Logic) The act of proving by the syllogistic process, or
      the proof itself.

      6. (Math.) A course of reasoning showing that a certain
      result is a necessary consequence of assumed premises; --
      these premises being definitions, axioms, and previously
      established propositions.

      {Direct}, or {Positive}, {demonstration} (Logic & Math.), one
      in which the correct conclusion is the immediate sequence
      of reasoning from axiomatic or established premises; --
      opposed to

      {Indirect}, or {Negative}, {demonstration} (called also
      {reductio ad absurdum}), in which the correct conclusion
      is an inference from the demonstration that any other
      hypothesis must be incorrect.


      Eyepiece \Eye"piece`\, n. (Opt.)
      The lens, or combination of lenses, at the eye end of a
      telescope or other optical instrument, through which the
      image formed by the mirror or object glass is viewed.

      {Collimating eyepiece}. See under {Collimate}.

      {Negative}, or {Huyghenian}, {eyepiece}, an eyepiece
      consisting of two plano-convex lenses with their curved
      surfaces turned toward the object glass, and separated
      from each other by about half the sum of their focal
      distances, the image viewed by the eye being formed
      between the two lenses. it was devised by Huyghens, who
      applied it to the telescope. Campani applied it to the
      microscope, whence it is sometimes called {Campani's

      {Positive eyepiece}, an eyepiece consisting of two
      plano-convex lenses placed with their curved surfaces
      toward each other, and separated by a distance somewhat
      less than the focal distance of the one nearest eye, the
      image of the object viewed being beyond both lenses; --
      called also, from the name of the inventor, {Ramsden's

      {terrestrial}, or {Erecting eyepiece}, an eyepiece used in
      telescopes for viewing terrestrial objects, consisting of
      three, or usually four, lenses, so arranged as to present
      the image of the object viewed in an erect position.



      I see little difference in referring to something someone has said as
      negative or bad. In fact I prefer negative because, to me, it refers to the
      statement only whereas the word bad seems to add the added implication that
      the person is a bad person. It is all semantics, definitions, and judgments.

      Why does this concern you so?



      While I'm waiting for food to magically appear on the table

      Re: coming to the point of labelling. How I label anything is in accordance
      to what I decide to belief. If I see it as good, bad, ugly, beautiful,
      mean, open, closed, all of this is seen throu a belief filter.

      Much of what I see is through a or several transparent beliefs.

      I am not aware of the belief filter that 'I am' seeing what is now here..
      there and then..

      First of all, if I can describe the structure of my understanding of seeing.

      Seeing anything.

      If I can begin with how "I as Consciousness" see an object, seen within the
      physical plane of phenomenality.

      For example,

      A vase of flowers, an object in time and space.

      So what sees the object? What is the process of seeing? ie, the vase with
      the flowers. The first thing that sees in the process of seeing is the
      camera (the eye).

      From the eye (physical eye), the optic nerve feeds the visual object into
      seven different areas of the brain.

      The major one brings most of the information to the visual cortex which as
      you are aware is in the occipital region posterior.

      Now the visual cortex has the information of the image of the vase and
      flowers just as this information on the screen appearing in front of you
      right now is appearing on the screen of the visual cortex.

      So far we have: vase eye optic nerve visual cortex

      Of course you are aware of this, but just for arguments sake, how we see the
      vase is in accordance to what we/ I believe. The beliefs were fed to us/'i'
      through various systems of information.

      So we're clear, the physical brain is simply a receptor for the mind and the
      mind is a collection of beliefs. The first belief being "i" which then
      follow all other beliefs.

      So how I see the vase/anything physical/ mental is in accordance with what I
      believe. And for arguments sake 99% of these beliefs I've received from
      others. For most of us, our caretakers.

      You mention you are aware of.... You are applying the fact you are aware of
      the belief you chose to expereince the meaningless of the objective world.

      So I'm seeing the vase in accordance to what I believe. Deciding to belief
      where or not I am conscious of this is another matter!!

      So the mind is simply another structure made up of its various belief
      systems and of course due to due experience these belief systems are in
      constant flux. ie, I'm always deciding what I want to believe in accordance
      to my conscious awareness. And I will only except a belief if I beleive it
      is true!

      So what is it that sees the mind?

      The ego, yes.

      So what is the ego?


      So the ego is that which arises simultaneously as the idea that 'I Am'.

      It is when absolute subjectivity, that which is prior to 'all' and I mean
      anything, that state of absolute subjectivity which is who I am, but that
      which I am there is no awareness that I am that.

      The reason there can be no awareness of what I am is because there is
      nothing separate from what I am. There is no other to define.

      If we reverse it, first of all there is absolute subjectivity, the state
      that I am but there is no awareness that "iAm'.

      Sugar doesn't know its own sweetness.

      Chilli doesn't know it's own fire.

      Flame doesn't know it's own heat.

      Out of the innate nature of consciousness at rest, the state of absolute
      subjectivity simultaneously arises 'I Am' as the state of consciousness. I
      am now conscious

      Arising also is the 'ego' that brings awareness to the state that I am.

      Now, the state of I am is now aware of the mind. Mind at rest!

      The mind is a collection of belief systems or organized thoughts, or a sea
      of thoughts.

      So I am now uses the mind in order to recognize the visual image of the vase
      on the brain, the visual cortex.

      The visual cortex contains the image of the vase which continue along the
      optical nerve to the eye which then is the camera lens seeing ( the process
      of seeing) the object.

      So the whole crux of the matter of how I see this email or anything
      contained within it, about it, anything else in life, what I read what I
      see, is always in accordance to what I am believing. I see through my beleif

      And whatever I'm believing whether conscious or not is the direct experience
      of what I am experiencing.

      Now a lot of the time, whatever I am experiencing, I may or may not be
      conscious of the fact of what I decide to believe.

      I mean it's pretty obvious isn't it that as I as consciousness can view the
      objective world in accordance to what I decide to believe.

      There is only consciousness and the phenomenal world arises or appears
      within that which I am. There is no separation. There never has been, as
      you know.

      So this magnificent dance is an eternally being played out of how I as
      consciousness decide to see anything.

      One object can be viewed a million different ways in accordance as I as
      consciousness have identified with billions of bodymind organisms. I see
      through the eyes of everyone.

      And the delightful thing is I experience the phenomenal play a billion
      trillion different ways in accordance to what I believe.

      It's obvious of course that if I'm not conscious about what I believe, and
      everything is a belief. Show me something that is not a belief or a

      The more conscious I am simulatenously arises the conscious awareness of how
      I experience and consciously choose to experience my own manifestation. For
      I am.

      Victor Frankl developed his whole logos therapy through this understand in
      the middle of the experience of a Nazi KZ.

      I don't know how it is for anyone else, how they experience the phenomenal
      appearance but it sure ain't anything but through what "i" as consciousness
      decide to believe. And if I as CONSCIOUNESS decide to believe some thing
      else... still this is yet another belief



      What about the facts of life?
      Do the senses need sensations?
      Do the longues need air to breath?
      Does the cells needs liquid?
      Does the body needs food?
      Is there a area of blood-temperature to exist?
      Does our skin restrict our bodily area?
      Are physical conditions prerequisite for pondering?
      For what purpose those endlessly thoughts?
      Feeling the heartstroke is a belief of life?
      Sensing the breath is a concept of longues?
      Watching the thoughts play is a concepts of awareness?

      a rose is a rose is a rose

      a belief is a belief is a belief


      Please allow me to give my own 'version' of what is 'ego'.

      Ego is a discrete mechanism of the 'unconscious mind', in other
      words, it is simply an activity of consciousness. The nature and
      behaviour of 'ego' is known accurately only to a very few, of which I
      am one.

      _1 Ego is a machine which acts like a pump; it supplies pre-selected
      parts of 'identity', of which self-concept (identity) is made. Ego is
      not self-concept and it is not 'false-self'. Ego is a 'machine' which
      assembles identity. Ego is not identity, it is responsible for
      establishing identity.

      _2 Ego can supply only what is in memory; it is from this database
      of memory that ego siphons fragments, to be assembled (during the
      process of awakening from sleep) into a viable identity.
      Identity/personality is 'intialized' during the process of waking
      from sleep; this is the important responsibility of ego.

      _3 The identity of a child can be assembled only from what is
      available in the memory of that child. However, the child will
      scavenge _images and impressions_ from awareness, and compound these
      images into virtual (false) memories; in this way do children come to
      resemble their parents in every manner.

      _4 The adult 'ego' is replete with a plethora of memories from which
      to compound identity. If identity is threatened (as may be happening
      as someone is reading this), the ego-mechanism-pump will place its
      siphon-hose into whatever compartment of the database of memory as
      may be useful, to prevent disintegration of (desired) identity.

      _5 If the memory-database of the adult contains predominantly
      aversive memories, identity will be of unpleasant nature, both to
      self and other. Ego is powerless to supply what is not in the
      database of memory. It is profoundly important to understand this

      _6 If the adult is exposed to compelling information of an
      archetypal nature (especially under the influence of music, sex,
      drugs, or extreme emotion), the archetypal materials may form a
      database of impressions and images, exactly as happens in the child,
      as I mention above in [3]. These impressions are false memories.

      _7 Ego may apply its siphon-hose to these false memories, of [6]
      above, and thus supply identity-components which will then form a
      'false identity'. This false identity is built, only if the actual
      memory-database does not contain sufficient valid (desirable)
      material with which to assemble a viable identity.

      Aversion to a specific self-concept will program ego to avoid
      bringing those specific components to identity; instead, false
      (assimilated from imagery) components will be used, in 'compensation'
      for the lack of desirable ones.

      _8 Ego will do only what it is 'told' by aversion and desire.
      Understand that aversion is always opposed by desire; thus, aversion
      has twice the power of desire. Undesired identity is thus always
      under attack by ego, which simply deletes and then resupplies
      identity components in rapid succession. The subjective impression of
      this process is extremely unpleasant and is known as 'suffering'. If
      this suffering continues, it may become what is known by psychiatry
      as 'decompensation'.

      Certain drugs (chlorpromazine, etc) are known to interrupt this
      'interruption' of identity.

      _9 In an emergency, when identity is fragmented beyond the ability
      of ego to repair, deeper archetypal components of 'unconscious' or
      collective historical human memory will be used to supply desired
      identity. The 'emergency identity' will then be of a powerfully
      mythical nature. This is when the identity of 'hero' may emerge, or
      may as well, that of demon.

      _10 It is possible to control entire populations by supplying false
      memories which serve to supplant literal memories which are aversive
      in nature; this is what happened in pre-WWII Germany. A population
      living in shame, grasped the archetypal ancestral imagery offered by
      the expert propagandists of the Reich; individual egos then siphoned
      identity-components of an archetypal/heroic nature in compensation
      for aversive shame and intense suffering.

      _11 Carl G Jung warned: "Do not identify with the archetype". By
      abandoning literal personal memory in favor of archetypal imagery, it
      was not only the hero who was unleashed from the unconscious, but
      also the demon. The people of Germany were destroyed by the very
      forces which they had subscribed to.

      _12 Beware of false beliefs and true beliefs; abide only in awareness.


      Greetings, Greg... you responded to my letter:

      Hi Gene-ji,

      Many of my friends use the term 'negative' in referring to some
      mental or physical states. I think all they mean about them is that
      these states are unpleasant. The way they see things, they see
      themselves as being in these states, and wish they were in a
      "positive" or pleasant state instead. For most people, it is natural
      to prefer the pleasant to the unpleasant. In fact, it's built into
      what preference means: "I'd rather have X than Y. I have Y, and I
      wish it would go away and that I could have X."

      Yep. Good old aversion and desire at play in the wonderful realm of
      human consciousness.

      I don't think most people mean to imply that the "negative" states
      are any less real, any less their-own, than the positive states. In
      other words, they don't seem to attribute anything else
      ontologically to these states, a lesser kind of reality. Most people
      don't think about real vs. unreal, but they do think about things
      being easy, smooth, pleasant. It's just that they'd rather not be in
      those certain states.

      A good analysis, but one which also misses the point I had attempted to

      I stated that the use of 'negative' as euphemism for 'bad' is part of
      a chain of unconscious reasoning, which ultimately is damaging to the
      one who so uses that euphemism.

      I think the mental dodge you are outlining is more a result of
      taking on a metaphysical theory *in addition to* the normal
      labelling of states. On top of (or maybe instead of) people's normal
      preferences, they adopt a theory that teaches something like "the
      negative is the unreal, the positive is your true nature" or
      something like that. Or, the idea that negative states are evidence
      of a lower spiritual attainment. This can result in the pushing
      away, the separation from some kinds of states, and the grasping
      onto other kinds of states (the "positive" ones).

      The original users of 'negative' as euphemism for 'bad', are the same
      who insist on the use of the term 'void' instead of 'piss'. Distaste
      concealed, remains distaste.

      What is communicated in this concealment of distaste, is disdain for
      the others being communicated to; it is similar to using tongs to
      pick up dog-shit.

      It is this usage, to which I point, and none other.

      Maybe what you are saying is that the very term "negative" has some
      of these ontological connotations. That is, why not remain satisfied
      with the terms "bad" or "unpleasant"? I do agree here! Maybe it
      originally came from a metaphycial theory, whereas "bad" is right on
      the surface. Most people I know who use "negative" for states have
      all been exposed to some kind of new-age language or model. But I
      still don't think they are thinking along metaphysical lines. They
      really seem to be saying nothing less down-to-earth than "it's
      negative, it's unpleasant, give me something pleasant instead --

      Interesting points, but I say that what we have here is memetic
      contagion, an unfortunate and ultimately toxic, yet socially
      sanctioned form of snobbishness. Those who disdain bad, prefer
      negative. This leads directly into our ongoing discussion of shame.
      It is shame, which is behind disdain.

      This is not to say, however, that all those who speak so, are snobs.
      It is similar to the '60s, during which times it was possible for
      thugs to blend invisibly with hippies, whom they resembled in
      grooming and attire. AKA, the Manson clan.

      And as for the issue of (i) believing that we are responsible for
      the onset of our states versus (ii) believing that states come and
      go spontaneously -- these are both elements in spiritual paths.
      Compared to these, the belief (iii) someone else is responsible for
      the onset of our states, is not usually a spiritual path (unless
      that other is God), but leads to strife and war like you say. Number
      (iii) includes the attribution of negative :-) states to other
      people, which is not usually welcomed by the other - "He is being so
      negative," "She is coming from such a negative place right now," etc.

      'Negative' in the above context is a definition of interpersonal
      alienation, by choice of the speaker of that term in those

      "He is so bad" sounds so... judgmental. And as we all know,
      'judgmentalism' is sheer negativity.

      Positively going out for a bike ride now!



      Thank you for the opportunity to clarify my meanings, Greg. It is an
      activity at which you excel.


      ==Gene Poole==


      To All:

      Judi posted the gem that became the inspiration of and epigraph to this
      poem, this meditation. It is posted in the hope that it will please and

      White Wolf

      The Beloved is a Rose

      "Search, no matter what situation you are in.
      O thirsty one, search for water constantly.
      Finally, the time will come when you will reach the spring."


      When first I fell in love with the Beloved

      My heart was as a Red Rose

      It was aflame with a Profane Fire

      A prodigal heat that scorched the flesh

      My Beloved lead me into the jungle

      And there we sampled the pleasures of dark things

      Of the mysterious intoxications and alterations

      To be experienced by surrendering to desire

      To the cravings of the body

      When second I fell in love with the Beloved

      My heart was a Blue Rose

      It was aflame with a Sacramental Fire

      A purifying heat requiring me to run on blistering sands

      My Beloved lead me into the desert

      And would not be satisfied with adolescent games

      Bored, she demanded that there be something more

      To be experienced and ran away, left me alone to suffer

      The delusions of a tormented mind

      When third I fell in love with the Beloved

      My heart was a White Rose

      A Holy Fire began to smolder in my soul

      My Beloved returned to lead into the mountains

      But I stumbled, could not keep up and let go of her hand

      Now she stands by the Sacred Spring as the summit

      Waiting for me to renounce not only my body and mind

      But also my frail and thrice broken heart

      When fourth I fell in love with the Beloved

      My Sacred Heart is a Golden Rose

      I no longer seek to be with the Beloved.

      For now I am she who is always before me.

      Rather should I say, I am the lover, he who always follows.

      Rather should I say, I am both the Beloved and Lover.

      I am the lust of the body, the craving of the mind,

      the longing of the chaste heart for redemption.

      My Sacred Heart is a Golden Rose

      I am in love with love itself

      My love is pure and without form

      I am the Beloved's and She is mine!

      Hail Mary, Mirror of Love

      Sweet Mary, Mirror of Compassion

      Clement Mary, Mirror without Blemish

      I am in your arms of bliss.

      -Mark Christopher Valentine

      (October 8, 2000)


      I agree that it is no so important how we feel about stuff but it is
      important how we feel. If we are feeling hatred or fear that is not such a
      good thing. If we are feeling love that is a good thing. It is what we are
      for it is us in the moment.

      ~ Consider this, neo. If there truly is only One, only Self, then
      fear, hatred and love are all expressions of that. Good and bad,
      pleasure and pain, you, me and we have no meaning other than
      images flickering within this eternal and undivided awareness.

      When attention shifts away from the form expressions and
      back into awareness itself one is free and therefore able
      to give freedom.

      I understand what you are saying. I still have this feeling/thought/belief
      that pure awareness is only the beginning. Intimately tied to it is Love. It
      is this Love we really want, need, and will become.

      ~ We agree.
      The discovery of pure awareness, and that it is
      one's own Self, is only the beginning. Description
      becomes more difficult as the transformation of
      mind and the deepening become more subtle.

      Yes. It is Love that we are, have always been,
      and are re-discovering.

      FRANZ & JUDI


      dear judi,

      just want to let you know:

      "i am ready and willing to loose face!"


      Hey Franz! Great, that's what it's all about. Now the thing is, that
      we can't really lose anything until it's ours to lose, then we can throw
      it away. Sort of like a hot potato. :-) In other words, when you see
      that you're doing something stupid, you don't keep on with it, right? So the
      idea is to see what we're doing. And like I said, the realization is not
      'other' to us, or in some feeling that we may be having, one way or the
      other. It comes in seeing what we're doing. I take issue with Ramana, I
      think the real question should be "what am I doing?", not "who am I?"
      They're tied in together of course, but the quickest way at it, I think,
      is thru what am I doing? So, with that in mind, turn the mirror on
      without judgement of any kind absolutely whatsoever, it's a hands off deal,
      getting at the truth. You don't have to worry about quieting your mind or
      such nonsense.

      You've got a mind, so put it to good use. This is strictly an
      intelligent process,forget the "up-up-and-away" foo-foo, "I feel so good",
      "I'm somebody else" crap. This is a "get-down dirty" get real deal.
      Exposing yourself. Please, keep your pants on though. :-) Just kidding,
      juuuuust kidding. :-) That part comes later. :-) Juuuust kidding again. :-)

      So, now back to your statement, "I am ready and willing to lose face".
      And my question to you is: What face is that? I'd want to lose it
      too if I was you. :-) Expose the seeking and see that it's you!!
      And that's all "Franz" amounts to! There is nobody here!! :-)))

      Happy Days,




      A friend of a friend is supposedly going to call me because she is doing
      a paper on Advaita for her Hinduism class and she is having a very hard
      time understanding what Advaita is. She's 21. How would you explain to
      her what nonduality is? We have dozens of pages of definitions of
      nonduality but I don't know if any of them would satisfy a college
      student who simply wants to do a paper for a course and who perhaps may
      not yet have a lot of insight into the play of consciousness.

      This is where the definitions are:



      What a pity that the expression has to be verbal. With 3D printing
      it is already possible to create (complicated) structures like spare parts
      for US army vehicles so in principle one could construct a light source with
      manifold reflectors made out of the same material, nothing at all being
      when "light off", but showing a multitude of lights when "light on", all
      lights looking exactly the same, as if there is no illuminating source at
      the visualization of "there is only you and your perceptions" :) 3D printing
      has the promise for creativity unlimited :)

      I found this on USENET a while ago and saved it. It should be
      properly attributed if it is used.

      I will keep thinking about this question.

      ==Gene Poole==

      [begin quote]

      Re: selfless Self...lines and boundaries
      Posted by: c.w.deVos
      Date: 2000/09/14
      Group: alt.psychology.synchronicity

      The mental symbols we employ to delineate our reality
      operate by means of duality; which is to say that
      something only has meaning in relation to its
      opposite. This is the basis of rationality; could we
      after all ever have a left without its collarary right? An
      up without a down? Is there ever an inside
      without an outside? Can we possibly envision a mountain
      without a valley? Of course not- there is no one without
      the other. A word requires an
      antonymous counterpart in order to carry any meaning
      whatsoever. Yin/yang, masculine/feminine,
      good/bad, time/space, each set of conceptual opposites is
      divided by the one single line of duality that is the
      rational mind.

      Under heaven all can see beauty as beauty
      only because there is ugliness.
      All can know good as good
      only because there is evil.
      Therefore having and not having arise together.
      Difficult and easy complement each other.
      Long and short contrast each other;
      High and low rest upon each other;
      Voice and sound harmonize each other;
      Front and back follow one another.
      Therefore the sage goes about doing nothing, teaching no-talking.
      The ten-thousand things rise and fall without cease,
      Creating, yet not possessing,
      Working, yet not taking credit.
      Work is done, and then forgotten.
      Therefore it lasts forever.

      - Lao Tsu- Tao te Ching

      "Jesus said, 'When you make the two one, and when you
      make the outside like the inside and the inside like the
      outside, and the above like the below, and
      when you make the male and the female one and the sameĀŠ
      then you will enter the Kingdom of God.'"

      -Gospel of Thomas

      Eastern mystical traditions place a crucial emphasis upon
      which means taking a step beyond dichotomy and
      recognizing reality as it always already is, without
      preconceptions or prejudice. Through intensive
      contemplation and meditation in which the mind is turned
      to reflect upon itself (visualize the infinite succession
      of images that unfold when one mirror is
      held to another) it becomes apparent that our entire
      empire of cognitive knowledge is not itself real but a
      reflection of reality, an illusion of convenience
      established for the sake of communication. To construct a
      mental symbol is to cleave the infinite Kosmos with the
      shimmering blade of rationality- it is
      exactly like drawing a circle upon an unmarked piece of
      automatically summoning an opposing pair of conceptual
      and inside and an outside. Obviously these do not exist
      before the boundary is drawn; they are a direct by-product
      of the circle and only exist when
      observer from within the symbolic realm of consciousness.
      The circle thus distinguishes the inside from the
      outside, but it does not separate the inside from the
      outside, as one can never be isolated from the other.
      The opposites are not separated by the boundary; they
      are, in fact, united by it.

      "The point is that all of the lines we find in nature, or
      even construct ourselves, do not merely distinguish
      different opposites,
      but also bind the two together in an inseparable unity. A
      line, in other words, is not a boundary. For a line,
      whether mental, natural,
      or logical doesn't just divide and separate, it also
      joins and unites.

      Boundaries, on the other hand, are pure illusions- they
      pretend to separate what is not in fact separable. In this
      sense, the actual world contains lines but no
      real boundaries.

      A real line becomes a boundary when we imagine its two
      sides to be separated and unrelated; that is, when we
      acknowledge the outer difference of the two
      opposites but ignore their inner unity. A line becomes a
      boundary when we forget that the inside co-exists with the

      A line becomes a boundary
      when we imagine that it just separates but doesn't unite
      at the same time. It is fine to draw lines, provided we do
      not mistake them for boundaries. It's fine
      to distinguish pleasure from pain; it is impossible to
      separate pleasure from pain.

      - Ken Wilbur- No Boundary
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.