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

NDS highlights for Saturday, Nov 11

Expand Messages
  • Melody
    SANDEEP: Each conceptual entity is uniquely wired. A web based forum is only about idea, words, concepts. In itself a word or series of words are a sound, or
    Message 1 of 1 , Nov 12, 2000

      "Each conceptual entity is uniquely wired.

      A web based forum is only about idea, words, concepts.
      In itself a word or series of words are a sound, or in this case a
      sight on
      your PC screen.
      In itself they are inert.
      The recipient adds a meaning to that sight appearing on his/her PC
      and then that sight turns into, for the lender of the meaning,
      profound or offensive profanity.

      In either case, it is the recepient at play, no matter what the
      intention of
      sender is. "

      "If I do not seek anybody's validation, affirmation, acceptance,
      respect or
      acclaim, can anybody offend me?

      And yet any validation, affirmation, respect, acclaim coming my way
      will be
      a matter of great delight, if and when it comes.<s>"

      from ANTOINE:


      Just wanted to let people, on this list, know that a new list wanting
      to explore the concept of Sri Yantra as been created.



      From Osho's Transformation Tarot
      comes this story about Moses:

      "He was passing through a forest and he saw a man praying. The man was
      saying such absurd things that Moses had to stop. What the man was
      saying was profane, sacrilegious. He was saying, "God, you must be
      feeling sometimes very alone--I can come and be always with you like a
      shadow. Why suffer loneliness when I am here? And I am not a useless
      person either--I will give you a good bath, and I will take all the
      lice from your hair and your body..."

      Lice?! Moses could not believe his ears: what is this man talking
      about? "And I will cook food for you--everybody likes what I cook. And
      I will prepare your bed and I will wash your clothes. When you are ill
      I will take care of you. I will be a mother to you, a wife to you, a
      servant, a slave--I can be all kinds of things. Just give me a hint so
      I can come..."

      Moses stopped him and said, "What are you doing? To whom are you
      talking? Lice in God's hair? He needs a bath? Stop this nonsense! This
      is not prayer. God will be offended by you."

      Looking at Moses, the man fell at his feet. He said, "I am sorry. I am
      an illiterate, ignorant man. I don't know how to pray. Please, you
      teach me!"

      So Moses taught him the right way to pray, and he was very happy
      because he had put a man on the right track. Happy, puffed up in his
      ego, Moses went away. And when he was alone in the forest, a
      thundering voice came from the sky and said, "Moses, I have sent you
      into the world to bring people to me, to bridge people with me, but
      not to take my lovers away from me. And that's exactly what you have
      done. That man is one of the most intimate to me. Go back and
      apologize. Take your prayer back! You have destroyed the whole beauty
      of his dialogue. He is sincere, he is loving. His love is true.
      Whatsoever he was saying, he was saying from his heart, it was not a
      ritual. Now what you have given to him is just a ritual. He will
      repeat it but it will be only on the lips; it will not be coming from
      his being."



      Hi List,

      If you have not visited the core yet, please take just a moment or two
      do so:


      Then if you like what you see, please tell your friends.

      Nonsectarian, totally noncommercial, no conflict with any religion,
      or other belief system. Enjoy a musical selection of the month
      (Realplayer) and original poetry and writings.



      One can "explain" perfectly coherently
      that there is no past, hence causality
      is a dead horse to beat - yet
      no such explanations will suffice
      to "open" if there is not yet "readiness
      to open".

      This is because any explanation, no matter
      how brilliant or coherent, reinforces
      the concept of "explanation",
      and if there is not readiness to open,
      will imply "engagement in a process",
      "a transmission of information",
      "a dialectic in which points are established" :
      all dead horses to beat.

      Paradox can be presented, nonexplanation
      offered in response to query, yet
      if readiness is not yet, paradox
      will be misconstrued as contradiction
      or anti-logical foolishness.

      "Now" leaves explanation, ceases
      the attempt to apply "what has been learned
      previously" to "now".

      This is "unsplit Now", or "Now of
      the unique order-nonorder: Itself".

      The explainer and explanation dissolve
      simultaneously in and as "now".

      This is where Lao Tzu rested, saying,
      "those who know don't speak".
      When he spoke on, he didn't speak.
      Knowing, he never spoke.
      The interpretation given to his words as
      "an expression by someone who
      spoke" was, for him, who
      is nowhere, utter nonsense.

      His open invitation to the pure
      nonsense of Tao is utterly
      beautiful, just as was the
      Buddha's invitation to the
      poignant tranquility and
      awesomeness of "transience",
      and Jesus's invitation to
      live as "the Way, the Truth,
      the Life."

      These are not expressions nor
      explanations - they are
      doors to walk through.

      Walk through, and there is no door,
      no one walked through,
      and the Way is clear.


      Also from Dan:

      I was there when Jesus was
      Not only did I observe him
      with my eyes and heart,
      I knew him as awareness
      knows awareness.

      Jesus was not a suffering
      The words of anguish uttered
      were simply the automatic
      movements of parched lips
      and a body in pain.

      The fact that people perceive
      themselves as needing to interpret
      Jesus's words is the folly of
      those people, not the folly of

      Did Jesus ever write down a single
      word for posterity? No!
      He did not want to aid and
      abet the tendencies to "want
      to 'bring something with' and 'add
      something on'. Anyone who heard
      him speak of the lilies of the field
      would know this.

      He is "nowness itself" - crucified
      in appearance only - as the past
      sought to "maintain itself as
      real" through activity to
      prove a point, to show the power
      of entities (self-verification
      of nonexistent entities), to maintain
      tradition which he revealed
      as dead.

      The body of Jesus crucified did
      not do anything to Jesus,
      and the expressions of anguish
      expected of a crucified
      body are meaningless. The attempt
      to make meaning of these sounds
      is diversion from the Nowness
      which is "the true body of Jesus".



      I am a realist, and I am guided by my own philosophy in life, which
      I call ABSOLUTE RELATIVISM or PARADOXISM, which is definitely
      not "just monism (nondualism)" or "just dualism" of any kind, but an
      inseparable mixture of both, i.e. I believe in the existence of an
      objective reality 'out there' AND subjective reality 'in here'. So
      although I believe that SOME or even MANY of my perceptions, feelings
      and thoughts may be projections of my own, subjective, internal
      states and prejudices, not ALL of them are so. Like a scientist, I
      observe things as well as I can, think a lot, and if I am not sure, I
      check with others, especially those whose judgements I learned to
      trust (which is usually those that agree with me, ha-ha-ha). If many
      such people agree with my perceptions, instincts, feelings, thoughts
      and conclusions, and confirm their validity I usually assume that my
      judgement was correct, unless my own or someone else's better
      reasoning (judgement) convinces me otherwise. Usually I trust my own
      judgement and am the final judge of whether my conclusions are
      acurate of not, projections or not... Sometimes, "that which I see"
      may be influenced by "what I wish to see", but most of the time I
      don't think it is. I trust my Awareness. To me Awareness is the key,
      and Awareness I don't lack.



      Anything other than what is already here, no matter how beautiful and
      captivating, will always turn out to be a mirage. A mirage can never
      your thirst. Therefore, you have to truly understand what is already
      What is always here? People speak of being in the present moment. It
      just a way of speaking. Truly, you are not in the present moment, You
      Always The Present Moment. You Are the Presence. The Self-Knowing
      The True Presence, reveals It Self as the spring of wisdom having no
      location. Where does it reside other than where you already are. Is it
      possible to truly understand anyone's suffering other than your own?
      Is it
      possible to know anything other than One's Own Self?


      MANUEL quotes from "A Net of Jewels":

      Tranquility means acceptance of what is without wanting to change it.
      Acceptance of what oneself is without wanting to become something else



      white wolfe has certainly had a grand tour of some contemporary
      thoughts on
      who Jesus is and is not and the 'meaning' or 'significance' of the
      Jesus on the Cross...white wolfe (an Oblate of the Camaldolese
      has read a huge selection of the theology of Jesus as Christ, both
      and heretical, from platonic and mystical to aristotlean and rational
      to the
      anthropological and historical...his own non-dualistic perceptions on
      discussion are that you are all wrong and all right....wrong in that
      one can
      attempt to describe it (Jesus on the Cross) but not contain the
      therein revealed and right in that each individual unveils a new
      aspect of
      this mystery unique to its perspective...Jesus on the Cross is a
      teaching intended for both the Mystic Mind and the Sacred
      when non-dualists discuss Christianity they often do not see or
      that the teachings of Jesus (i include here also The Gospel of Thomas)
      the end, stand for a permanent and transcendent concept of Self in its
      relationship to the Godhead and a subtle shift in the advaitanist
      point of
      view regarding the nothingness of Selfhood...my personal expereince of
      arising of my consiousness from from selfhood into subtle Selfhood is
      journey into Compassion for all Creatures and is thus subtly closer to

      the image of Jesus on the Cross is like all great spiritual icons...it
      reveals itself to each individual according to its relative state of
      consciousness at each moment of perception...here is a Meditation on
      on the Cross (Lectio/Meditatio/Oratio/Contemplatio), that is the
      Mysteries of the Most Holy Rosary as it reveals itself to me at this
      in my life....Son of Man is a phrase replete with associations
      reaching deep
      within Judaism....



      unconditional love is not reasonable.

      If you have not yet been the recipient of this exquisite
      unconditionality then you have an experience beyond belief
      waiting for you. If you have not yet served as the conduit
      ...well, hold on to your hat!!!


      TIM and GENE:


      The so-called "separation" between "maya" and "nirguna brahman,"
      the "wheel of karma" and "buddha-nature," is not there. Not even for
      purposes of discussion. Therefore, I am the Supreme Reality talking
      you, or I am Tim Gerchmez, or I am Omkara, and there is no difference.


      Well, Supreme Reality... you finally show up! Not that I was worried!

      Now that We/I have at least two voices, we can kick some serious ass!

      "Anyone" else on board?

      (Invasion of the Bodiless Snatchers!)

      ==Gene 'Nondual' Poole==

      [Note: Protoplasmic manifestations are temporary spaceholders,
      vehicles, nodes, etc. Any resemblance to entities living or dead is
      inevitable, not coincidental, but perhaps transcendental, if not
      incremental, but certainly not sentimental. This is your chance, take
      it now. Involve yourself in this ongoing instrumentation; by doing
      so, you will take leave of your woe-begotten attachments, and subject
      your lawn to gradual dethatchments. And a sodding lot of good it will
      do; ultimately, an exercise in futility, of no great utility, which
      however can lead to humility. It does matter, which side you part
      your hair, but if bald, you have no use for a brush, nor a toupee,
      Herr Doktor. Wigging-out can be hairy, and scary, but not contrary,
      to your Ultimate Nature, which is none other than none other. And I
      said other, not otter, those fun-loving and frolicking fur-bearing
      funballs, sliding on slippery slopes, to their destiny of wetness,
      and this I witness, as I am witless.]

      Yeah, like its SUPPOSED to mean something?


      SANDEEP, speaking to Robert:

      It would obviously be unfair to expect that you have seen all the
      through Sandeep over cyber space over the years.
      So I am sharing again, one prattling as far as this
      issue is concerned.
      For me, a sage (defined as a conceptual entity in which the erasure of
      "me-entity" has occurred) is nobody superior or at a higher plane in
      comparison to say a non-sage.

      If we truly apperceive that as a conceptual entity, as an appearance,
      as a
      manifested psycho-somatic apparatus with a specific programming,
      conditioning, purely meant for a specific series of actions to occur
      it, such an object, such a conceptual entity has no volition to
      deviate from
      it's innate conditioning, which is a combination of the basic DNA-gene
      structure as well as the continued conditioning it receives from the
      external environ throught it's life span.

      No volition.

      If this is clearly apperceived, then awakening which is another
      within phenomenality, which has occurred in a sage, how can a sage
      take any
      personal kudos for that awakening?

      Similarly, how can a non-sage take any guilt that "awakening" has yet
      occur, despite all the rounds it has made in the spiritual bazaar?

      In one, a metanosis has occurred, in another it hasn't.

      Both still remain conceptual entities, both continue to remain
      in Consciousness with their alloted roles being played during their
      life span.

      So Robert, a sense of superiority/inferiority is just an indication
      apperception has yet to occur.

      And that is why for a sage, the entire phenomenality, the world, the
      of the billions of sentient beings, the whole panorama, the whole
      mosiac, is
      perfect AS IT IS, in the moment.

      Having said this, this prattling itself may arrive as condescending to

      As I said earlier, there is no intention whatsoever from me, but hey
      might well be the way, the conceptual entity labelled Robert is wired


      SKY, speaking to WHITE WOLF:

      In all sincerity, I'd like to demur somewhat, but not too much, from
      your statement, below,

      "his [WW's] own non-dualistic perceptions on this discussion are that
      you are all wrong and all right....wrong in that one can attempt to
      describe it (Jesus on the Cross) but not contain the mystery therein
      revealed and right in that each individual unveils a new aspect of
      mystery unique to its perspective..."

      Is this not true of all Rorkshaw tests? Many say that all religions
      basically the same. But this can also be said to be true of all
      Or of all cultures, nations. If all are the same, from whence the
      problem? Why do we seem so disoriented?

      Clearly, we seek a particular orientation, one which excludes
      possibilities and directs our focus. Any statement that all
      calibrations on the compass will lead us north, is hardly a statement,
      however true it might actually be (eventually any path, followed long
      enough will lead north. But so, too, even a broken clock is right at
      least twice a day).

      We seek orientation because not only do we want to get to our
      destination as quickly as possible, but we want to be made able to
      that we, indeed, got there when we arrive.

      Just wanted to point this out. For me, the question is not what song
      sing, but what singer to enjoy. You're a good singer, WW, and whether
      agree fully or not with your song, I like the way you sing it.

      The same, I feel, holds true for religion and its symbols. All can be
      viewed as Rorkshaw tests: mysterious and to be uniquely interpreted
      each individual.
      Like the Rorkshaw, it isn't the religion that concerns me, so much as
      the one who interprets it. It is he or she who provides me with the
      orientation I seek.

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