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

thursday october 12th

Expand Messages
  • andrew macnab
    _____________________________________________________________________________________ The thought that I am going to die is the basis of all religions and
    Message 1 of 1 , Oct 13 8:10 AM
      _____________________________________________________________________________________


      The thought that "I am going to die"
      is the basis of all religions
      and all religious practices.

      Jim Morrison said "the idea of death is at the
      center of every game."

      Religion is the game that makes meaning of life.
      The end of the game is the end
      of the thought on which it is based.

      -- Dan
      _____________________________________________________________________________________

      And that reminds of UG Krishnamurthy visiting Ramana, finds Ramana giggling
      over a comic strip.

      UG asked whether he Ramana can given him (UG) enlightenment.

      Ramana is reported to have replied "I can, but can you take it?"

      UG went away and states elsewhere, that Ramana was the most arrogant entity
      he had met because if UG was not able to receive it, who else could?
      (Obviously there is no arrogance in that statement.<LOL>)

      And the joke was UG did finally awaken and now has a greater arrogance than
      Ramana.

      Oh, the Leela of Consciousness!!!!

      Sandeep
      _____________________________________________________________________________________



      At times like these, if I want
      to 'get it',

      I find I must first be willing to
      'drop' what I'm already holding onto.


      love,
      Melody
      _____________________________________________________________________________________


      Hi Dan, you asked recently, in response to my posting a quote from USENET:


      >Dear Gene,
      >
      >Thanks for sharing these statements.
      >It raises the fascinating query:
      >Who, how, what delineates?

      Who is only who to a who; how is only how to one bound in time; what
      is only what to a thing.

      Answer: A who, bound in time, assumed to be a thing.

      >If pain is distinct from pleasure,
      >who marks this boundary?

      Pain is a contraction, pleasure an expansion. The subjective
      difference is hard-wired into our biological systems. Pleasure moves
      toward, pain moves away. The ultimate pain is when contraction is
      global, leaving no area to expand in compensation; a sphere in pain,
      shrinks to a dot.

      >We can rely on "the body-mind system"
      >as our fall guy, but who delineates
      >the body-mind system as an entity
      >that can be described apart from
      >other entities?

      Only the one taking the trouble to memorize and use those
      descriptors; words may be used to bless or to curse. Blessed use of
      words opens the opportunity to use them to curse. Once the currency
      of terminology is in common use, anything may be purchased with it.

      >It seems that there must be a way
      >to emphasize, to throw weight
      >behind, to "contract", to contrast --
      >otherwise, there will be no
      >"dark" and "light", no "before"
      >and "after".
      >
      >So, just how am I doing this trick?

      By solidifying the foreground energies into 'objects', which then
      return the echo of the movement of your scrutiny, as sense-data.
      Exactly as 'SONAR' works, as well as RADAR.

      In a moment of pleasure, foreground becomes less dense;
      scrutiny-movement is allowed to permeate the background, returning
      entirely different sense-data. This is known as 'bliss'.

      When an echo returns from a great distance, entire words and phrases
      may be heard.

      >I've formed a universe by contrast, by
      >delineating. I can see that lines
      >unite whatever seems to have been
      >bounded. But how did this occur in
      >the first place? How did I forget
      >"Now" so as to construct "time"?
      >How did I emphasize "me" so as to
      >allow a "you"? How did "space" come
      >to be distinguished from "matter"?

      There is no 'now' without time. Without time, 'reality' becomes a
      story told to a listener, who may someday learn to listen to the
      story-teller, rather than become lost by identifying as a character
      in the story. It is this story which is being told, which we love so
      much, that we embellish it with our special cultural projections. In
      a sense, this reveals that we are jealous of the storyteller, and
      want to claim the story as our own. However, the closest we come to
      this, is to have our own, personal story, which serves mainly to
      obscure the Big Story.

      >At best, one can say this is a spontaneous
      >act, occurring now, just as Judi's quote of Da referred to the
      >construction of "suffering".

      Yes. As neurological science is revealing, our conscious impressions
      actually occur after the inner reactions have been had. We flatter
      ourselves that anything is more than automatic and spontaneous.

      >This spontaneous movement has a dual tendency,
      >to move and remove simultaneously.
      >I have moved, and have removed, and now
      >"this" and "that" appear in contrast.
      >Yet this movement happened purely spontaneously
      >with nothing to "make" it happen.
      >It moved without having been moved.
      >
      >Love,
      >Dan


      Understanding of potentialities, allows prediction to be made on an
      ongoing basis. The homeostatic 'brain' of a guided missile rules out
      movement which would take the vector off-course.

      For the human, the database which allows prediction is known as the
      "past". In this way, by the act of aiming, humans always are moving
      forward while looking back. It is no wonder that occur so many
      accidents, collisions, calamity. Facing forward deprives of the roots
      of identity, which are embedded in the past. Or perhaps I could say
      that from a Tantric point of view, turning to face forward, cuts the
      roots of identity.

      And if any of this makes any sense at all, it is only in a relative
      way, relative to itself.


      ==Gene Poole==
      _____________________________________________________________________________________

      ELLY:

      <...>

      When I answer you I can only do it from my mind, from my collection
      of thoughts. Even the reading of your letter is perceived through
      this. So exchanging with you is like a play in consciousness and I
      love it. It is all happening in who I am. But what I say has to do
      with what I believe is true and even this is a belief.

      <...>

      _____________________________________________________________________________________

      JIVANO:

      <...>


      For me it is a fact, that this awakening of the
      whatever-we-call-it is needed for growth above
      the usual border of our lives (our conditioned
      limits in a way) to happen. Or as Bhagwan put it
      "What is signified by the word 'kundalini' is
      bound to be there in some way or other as an
      inward flow of energy."

      For me it is also a fact, that the majority of the
      teachers do not inform about this process (at least
      not in public), although the energy works through them
      in their groups and Satsangs. And the ones who
      advertise Kundalini are mostly would-like-to-be gurus.

      And for me is also a fact that nobody else up to
      now informed in public about this "esoteric"
      information hiding and ego fattening which is
      going on in the spiritual scene since about 1970
      when the development of the whole setup started
      with Bhagwan's talks to attract people and bring
      them into contact with spiritual ideas.

      Spiritual ideas - not spiritual practise.


      But it's quite common to play down the nesseccity
      of energy- and body-work, as this is an area where
      one would get immediate personal experiences and
      insights. THE WHOLE SHOW WOULD FALL APART.

      All this 'talking about' would cease in the light of
      personal experiences.

      So those who know, continue to talk cryptic about
      all kind of things from shame to nonduality, from
      enlightenment to meditation, while they seem to
      be waiting that the spiritual scene as a group
      becomes ready to really go for what they've been
      talking about now for 30 years.

      With cars a prefer those, where the motor is running.

      The esotheric show I see is giving theoretical
      driving lessions for 30 years by now.
      The ignition keys are not given in most cases,
      and the ignition key is the awakening of
      the energy - according to my experiences -
      the reconnection of each one of us with
      the cosmic energy, with the inner master,
      with your inner child, with your soul or
      however you call it.

      Not in theory but in practise.

      Not everybody seems to be ready for it, and the ones
      who are not ready have the best explanations against
      it.

      <...>

      _____________________________________________________________________________________


      The colorless point is
      at the horizon line.
      All lines converge there,
      but none ever reaches it.
      It is the point from which
      this entire universe appeared.

      Love,
      Dan
      _____________________________________________________________________________________

      GREG:

      From the _The Sutra of 42 Sections_
      (Recently posted on the Dharma-Direct list)

      20 DIFFICULT THINGS
      ===================

      The Buddha said :

      "There are twenty difficult things which are hard for human beings:
      1. It is hard to practise charity when one is poor.
      2. It is hard to study the Way when occupying a position of
      great authority.
      3. It is hard to surrender life at the approach of inevitable death.
      4. It is hard to get an opportunity of reading the sutras.
      5. It is hard to be born directly into Buddhist surroundings.
      6. It is hard to bear lust and desire without yielding to them.
      7. It is hard to see something attractive without desiring it.
      8. It is hard to bear insult without making an angry reply.
      9. It is hard to have power and not pay regard to it.
      10. It is hard to come in contact with things and yet remain
      unaffected by them.
      11. It is hard to study widely and investigate everything thoroughly.
      12. It is hard to overcome selfishness and sloth.
      13. It is hard to avoid making light without having studied the
      Way enough.
      14. It is hard to keep the mind evenly balanced.
      15. It is hard to refrain from defining things as being something or
      not being something.
      16. It is hard to come into contact with clear perception of the Way.
      17. It is hard to perceive one's own nature and through such
      perception to study the Way.
      18. It is hard to help others towards Enlightenment according to
      their various needs.
      19. It is hard to see the end of the Way without being moved.
      20. It is hard to discard successfully the shackles that bind us
      to the wheel of life and death as opportunities present themselves."

      (From: The Sutra of 42 Sections)

      _____________________________________________________________________________________



      dear Judi,

      i am liar and i am not.

      fact is, that i can see all and everything rising.

      every identity and every identification.

      i see seeking for oneness , the elimination of the witness!!

      i ask: "who sees seeking?", and i am source.


      but when i understand you right, then you talk about the death of
      this "i" which experiences and witnesses itself as source.

      do you see that i am again and again talking to you? right now, i
      actually do not see what is, alltogether. i read your text, and my
      heart starts to burn. literally. do you know what i am talking about?

      i know the state of no witness. but it does not stay . and i know
      there is always some more emptiness behind. i know i am it. i sat on
      a bench one year ago, and out of nothing i saw , i knew , that i am ,
      what i seek. i laughed and cried at the same time ...

      but it never stays. the struggle for this oneness starts always
      again!!!.

      fuck. I THINK; NO I KNOW; THAT ONLY TO SEE; THAT I AM THAT; WHAT SEES
      THE I THOUGHT RISING; IS FUCKING NO AWAKENING!!!AND MOMENTS OF
      ONENESS SPACE AND EMPTINESS; ARENT EITHER!!!!!


      to ask :"who am i", gives non- identification, and seeing of being
      the source, but this is no awakening.

      as long there is an i longing, fuck it, there is lie.

      and fire in my heart, what is it?

      who is feeling it? what is burning there?

      judi - thanks for carering. there are SO MANY viewpoints + traditions
      out there, it makes me dizzy.

      the present hook for my mind is :" Thy Will Be Done"!

      i am utterly to crying frustrated of my longing, and i love and i
      love it and i love loving my love loving god...POUGH!!

      i feel ungreateful to god and my teacher to have written this to you.
      franz
      _____________________________________________________________________________________
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.