"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
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
sender is. "
"If I do not seek anybody's validation, affirmation, acceptance,
acclaim, can anybody offend me?
And yet any validation, affirmation, respect, acclaim coming my way
a matter of great delight, if and when it comes.<s>"
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
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
If you have not visited the core yet, please take just a moment or two
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
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,
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
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
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?
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
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
anthropological and historical...his own non-dualistic perceptions on
discussion are that you are all wrong and all right....wrong in that
attempt to describe it (Jesus on the Cross) but not contain the
therein revealed and right in that each individual unveils a new
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
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
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,
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
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.
If this is clearly apperceived, then awakening which is another
within phenomenality, which has occurred in a sage, how can a sage
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
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
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
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.