I hope I'm not the only one thoroughly enjoying the writing and
photographs of David Hodges:
There is a permanent link to David's journal on my home page:
SANDEEP and MELODY:
What comes to me, as I write this
now, is Adi Da's quote from earlier
today in which he said describes
the "unqualified state" of awareness in
"The zero of the heart is expanded as the world.
Consciousness is not differentiated and identified.
There is a constant observation of subject *and*
object in any body, any functional sheath, any realm,
or any experience that arises."
This is witnessing (constant observation) of the undifferentiated
un-identified Consciousness at play.
Who does that?
That's exactly my question!
The moment one 'witnesses', isn't one
then in a 'differentiated' state of awareness?
How can a 'differentiated' consciousness *observe*
an 'undifferentiated' Consciousness at play?
When I am 'witnessing' ......it is not the 'Undifferentiated'
I am witnessing,
but the 'differentiated' field of play.
Witnessing, from my experience, is simply
a great method for detaching from any
*identification* in that field of play.
But when I am witnessing, there is still "two".
It's just that I am no longer identifying with
either one of those "two".
Whoever, whether you call him/her a sage or Micky Mouse, that entity
is still within phenomenality.
Otherwise, witnessing is not possible.
Any and all "dreams" (that is, phenomenally-experienced
realities) are itself, are this unsplit moment.
The apparent splits and continuities that give
dreams their appearance are known as "not
having ever occurred" as reality simply is
unsplit and noncontinuous. This knowing
seems secret, because is cannot be articulated.
However, it is simply and clearly present,
because it doesn't depend on articulation.
It is because
of the constant "breaking apart" of dreams,
even as they occur, that the dream sequencing
is never "tight". It is as if I, seemingly
"in" this dream, know that the entire dream is
myself. As I speak, I speak to myself, within
myself. The unfolding dream is a sequence of
moments, but the sequencing is broken "now" --
as awareness. So each moment is timeless,
is the only moment that is.
Each now-moment is "only now", regardless of apparent
unfolding. No now-moment is registered "in
reality", so all dream is known as dream,
as always only "unsplit nowness".
The dream of a "nondual moment" is known as
a dream-moment, and the dream of a "nondual
moment" is known as a dream moment.
That each can be distinguished from the
other is fine, is discrimination.
Discrimination knows itself as "mind alone".
Thus, these discriminated moments,
and their relative qualities,
are known as always unsplit,
and nonretained reality --
as there is only "this mind",
which some have called "Mind Alone".
Even as this dream unfolds as time,
there is no dream, only the timeless.
Time is the timeless.
That which we call "Mind Alone"
clearly is not that name,
clearly is unnameable.
With no location, how could
it be identified?
LOTHAR and SANDEEP:
> Who observes that "I" have left?
Well, the me-entity A F T E R it's been constructed anew.
So no observing takes place in the moment, it is only in recollection,
in the memory of "an" experience, that the conclusion of the "I"
during a past event is arrived at.
Secondly as you rightly indicated there is once again a "me-entity"
into the picture.
Whether it is the old one pretending to have learnt a new language of
meditation, "I- leaving", Advait, non-duality, whatever or maybe a
"me-entity", is really immaterial.
Can it be seen, it is the same circle again, fleeting glimpses and
flip-flop, the "me", the "not-me"?
Round and round the mulberry bush.
> But in any way, why can't it be noted through me, as consciousness
> keeps continuously noting through you, that there was something
> on? ...no matter whether or not there is somebody around to conceive
> of an 'after' or 'before'...
Oh that something, some behind the scene giggling, is going on, can be
noted, is noted.
All I am saying climbing 126 stairs, you do notice the crossing over
the 125th to the 126th, but if the 126th is to be the last step for
biological computer labelled "Lothar", the "me-Lothar" will never know
fact, if and when that occurs.
Apperception (just another terminology) is not subject to memory
And yet identification with the biological computer may continue for a
period of time.
Where it has not, history has no record of such entities for obvious
> Hey, I'm not gonna let you mess up my whole point with that
> prattling! ;) When you say 'apperception occurs', what are you then
> referring to exactly?
That there is no perceiver to attain the apperception.
> The end of the identification with any
The end of "personal" identification with either the experience (any)
apparatus through which experiencing happens.
> It can, however, if not experienced, be noted...that's
> what I am enjoying to see you doing all the time! I am saying that
> some meditations it might be quite likely for apperception to take
> place...then consciousness might be noting that fact through me!
If apperception is taken to be acausal, non-volition, then being in
meditation is no obstacle for the occurrence.That might well be the
role for the bilogical computer lablled "Lothar".
Yes what is an obstacle is the personal identification with the state
in, whether that be in meditation, or being drunk on some cheap German
(Sorry Lothar, I go French with the wine, maybe once in a while some
> don't quite understand how you are clearly identifying something to
> be an experience...you must locate that transition, the
> occuring', somewhen, right?
In the phenomenal context, experiencing, actioning, whether as
actualized external behaviour, continues all the time through a
computer during it's "alloted life-span", through the billions of the
And in no instance there is an "experiencer", a "doer" in any of the
individual dreamed character for any of the experiences, or for any of
deeds which got occurred.
And since enlightenment, awakening, apperception are all events in
phenomenality, even for these so called profound events, there is no
getting enlightened, getting awakened, or receiving apperception.
> Do I understand you correctly when I summarize what you're
> essentially saying as "When there is no non-doing now, you cannot
> make non-doing happen" ? ...so there would be not point in
> meditating for that specific purpose?
All this stuff and methodolgy involved in that stuff, of transcending
to go to No-Mind is hilarious.
Who moves from Mind to No-Mind?
"You" cannot make "doing" happen and "you" cannot make "non-doing"
Both are non-volitional happenings, if they happen.
...you stop being a seeker and become a finder, instead... it's
really that simple :-) get your dictionary and remove words
like 'spiritual', 'non-dual', etc... give up every idea of a way you
need to go... the only reason for your going that way is that you
want to find that place where you then can rest, right? So why not
sit down right now? IMO, every walking on a way is spiritual ego
building... accept everything and everybody as already perfect,
especially yourself...feel whole and complete! and then you have all
the time in the world to start to play, love and laugh.
Melody had written:
I have not known moments in which the nondual AND the dual was seen at
exactly the same moment.
This bears on the age old conundrum of multiplicity in unicity. Here's
relevant Nisargadatta quote from Miguel Angel Carrasco's site "Asmi"
"The state of identity is inherent in reality and never fades. But
identity is neither the transient personality (vyakti), nor the
karma-bound individuality (vyakta). It is what remains when all
self-identification is given up as false - pure consciousness, the
of being all there is, or could be. Consciousness is pure in the
beginning and pure in the end; in between it gets contaminated by
imagination which is at the root of creation. At all times
remains the same. To know it as it is, is realization and timeless
Here's another good one:
"There must be love in the relation between the person who says "I am"
and the observer of that "I am". As long as the observer, the inner
self, the higher self, considers himself apart from the observed, the
lower self, despises it and condemns it, the situation is hopeless. It
is only when the observer (vyakta) accepts the person (vyakti) as a
projection or manifestation of himself and, so to say, takes the self
into the Self, the duality of "I" and "this" goes, and in the identity
of the outer and the inner the Supreme Reality manifests itself. This
union of the seer and the seen happens when the seer becomes conscious
of himself as the seer; he is not merely interested in the seen, which
he is anyhow, but also interested in being interested, giving
to attention, aware of being aware. Affectionate awareness is the
crucial factor that brings Reality into focus. When the vyakti
its non-existence in separation from the vyakta, and the vyakta sees
vyakti as his own expression, then the peace and silence of the
state come into being. In reality the three are one: the vyakta and
avyakta are inseparable, while the vyakti is the
XAN shares some words of HAFIZ:
Your whole mind and body have been tied
To the foot of the Divine Elephant
With a thousand golden chains.
Now, begin to rain intelligence and compassion
Upon all your tender wounded cells
And realize the profound absurdity
Of thinking that you can ever go Anywhere
Or do Anything
Without God's will.
BOB shares a talk from
" The whole system is really very much like a plant that is sitting in
ground, and it rains and this thing reaches up and absorbs the water;
roots go out, and grow and spread. Its a very casual, a very natural
you don't find a plant screaming and jumping up and down in anyway and
disturbing its potential. It really manifests its potential by
whatever energy, whatever nourishment is put to it, and it grows. And
your own mind have to understand that. Your sitting here has to do
assimilating, by taking your nourishment and growing. And if you are
breathing and having your attention inside and feeling these muscles
and absorbing and digesting as a conscious thing, then nothing is
Because it's like sitting in water and this thing will stay on the
bottom. It's not going up and circulating, so this energy that you are
given, the information that you are being given, just lays there and
rot you out. Because it will lay at your feet, it will just lay there
eventually you will get ill.
You have to really take and absorb, and really feel this thing
in you, feel the energy coming down from the mind through all the
through your sex organs and moving up your spinal column. It's very,
essential. Otherwise, you are sitting and listening and you are
disagreeing and you are going through a whole number and this is not
is all about. It's that you really inside feel the flow of your energy
coming down then feel it at the base of the spine and feel it go up
And as you grow, and as you really keep growing up and up, you will
transcend yourself and all of the things you are concerned about. All
your problems will be drawn into you by this root system as a tree
and it will go up and up and all the problems that you think you have,
that your are born into will disappear because they will be absorbed
energy. Your being concerned about anything has to do again with your
You haven't learned to live quietly in your head and be grateful for
problems, because all these problems that we have represent all of our
natural resources. This is what you are given to break down and make
ON THE LIGHTER SIDE:
> By the way, did Nobody win?
Probably not. There *was* an actual person running for Lt-Gov of
state some mebbe ten years back whose legal name was Absolutely Nobody
whose entire platform -- concomitant with his name -- was to abolish
particular job. Again i didn't hear the results but i guess his
rumoured to be Business As Usual beat him out.
> Still waiting for Nobody to reply,
Nobody has -- how about