Friday November 17, 2000
- View Source______________________________________
Yes, mental activity can be recognized as an independent activity, without
"owner" or something like that. It is the mental activity that works like a
conjurer; when that activity decreases enough, "what is" shows spontaneously and
when temporarily it stops completely, that is the "classical" zen or dogchen
enlightenment. From then on, the mental activity is clearly recognized and the
attention spontaneously will fix on "me" or "I". No need to say, in the course
of events that will mean the demise of the sense of "I and you". But still
mental activity can be observed, this time on "what makes a human" as compared
to for instance "what makes a tiger". And no need to say, in the course of
events that has to mean the demise of "what makes a human" as well. Rather
painful of course - not something nature primarily intended and apart from
that, "nature" invested a lot of energy in this part of the "mental structure"
How do you own God?
Wrapping the millions of filaments of the mind around the concept? By an
argument contest for the purpose discovering the mind with most ownership?
Can a blanket of spirituality give you the warmth in the quest for rest?
Just a question,
Enjoying our dialogue.
The one apparent disagreement is
around "illusion". Because
illusion is noticed as illusion,
reality is "seen". If illusion
is "anchored into" as reality,
reality is not "seen". When
reality is "seen" then the
reality of illusion as reality
is *known* and there is no
"fight against illusion" (no
rage against the dying of the
light) ... When reality
is only glimpsed or is missed,
then illusion appears as if
independent reality, and all
kinds of things to rage against
(or be psychologically fearful, avoidant,
or desire to control) seem real.
All of this being real, all is
"appropriate" exactly as is.
On to "energy" and its
"double movement", its
reversal in being itself
"Energy" transforms itself
The "Nondual" transforms itself
into the "entire dual shebang".
The reversal of matter/energy
to "Energy", of "entire dual shebang"
to "Nondual" is itself the original movement,
which reverses itself by its very nature.
To reverse ("manifest") is to reverse reverse
("unmanifest the manifest").
Everything perceptually appearing as reality
is the reversal of reality, is reality
having turned itself inside out.
Amazing stuff this reality, if I
don't say so myself, about myself,
which I can't, so I do.
> But perhaps I will be able to help, after all :) I used to know a TVHi Liliana,
> producer who lives in NY. If I manage to trace him I can ask him to
> talk to you and give some advice. I am not sure if he still is in
> bussiness but he knows the people to talk to and definitely could
> give a good advice. That is, if I can find him.
This sounds like real-world advice. I know you've been very much
involved in the world of television. Actually I was referring to public
access tv, where costs used to be very low and I assume still are, and
where 'anyone' can put on their own tv show. Profit is not a
consideration, so public access tv can be an interesting experience. At
least that was my experience in Los Angeles. There were public access
shows I used to watch regularly, everything from spirituality to gossip
to the sex. Those three things are what I'd like to put into my show! I
want at least one nondual person who is up on all the show biz news --
yes, I want to know WHY Pamela left Tommy, I want to know WHY Darva left
Rick, I want to know WHO Winona Ryder is dating -- one nondual chick in
a bikini who's throwing confetti and glitter all around and hugging Mr.
Almaas, or Mr. Ramana, were he around; let us all have some fun. I want
people to get into physical fights. I want chairs landing on people's
heads. I want pies in spiritual teachers faces. I seriously would like
to take a highly respected spiritual teacher and genuinely surprise him
with a pie in the face. I should go on the web and find out more.
Thank you again, Liliana.
JODY & DAN
D: How does one talk straight
>> about something that hasJ: By making a beeline to the heart of the matter.
>> no edges?
D: My beeline is this:
the anchor of "reality" within thought = "me".
thought's process requires time and is time.
the de-anchoring of reality within thought
cannot take time -- it is no-time.
an instant of no-reason, no unreason, no thought-center =
J: The jiva known in this life as Jody, nonexistent in Reality,
but very much real here due to Maya's desire to play BarbieT.
D: Maya = thought's reality.
D:>> Are they different entities?
>J: Not from the regard of the Self. However, Ms. Maya is quite
>insistent that She gets to play Her games. I'm sure not goingD: You can't get in her way, as you are her way.
>to get in Her way.
D: If so, what determines the
>> separation?J: It's frisky Ms. Maya, having Her way with "us". If She wasn't,
>> If not, how is there a basis
>> for one to judge the other?
>this whole little exchange wouldn't appear to be taking place.D: If thought didn't appear, none of this would appear
to take place. (Thought including nonverbal, emotional and
J: Grandiosity transformed into gibberish *can* be seen
>as a judgement. It wasn't the content, it was theD: Ah, but who am I to neutralize any statement?
>context. It appeared that you were "neutralizing"
>my statements by babelfishing them into gibberish.
I am only another statement.
What is the value of any statement?
It is only the value it is given by one believing
that this one can make a statement, have a statement,
depend on a statement.
The gibberishing shows that the one believing itself
to make a statement actually is itself a statement
(that tries to make itself real by
claiming that it can believe itself to have meaning).
Because its ability to believe is contingent on
its finding meaning in its believing,
and its meaning is contingent on its believing
it is meaningful,
all of its beliefs are empty, all of its
meanings are meaningless.
I am guessing that many people will read the
preceding sentence as gibberish, and miss
the flawless logic of the gibberish.
Anyone who "gets" the gibbering logic will
immediately be undone, the belief-system
and meaning-making activity construed as
"self" will instantly fall apart.
Take away the meaning of the statement
trying to believe itself into existence,
and there is no "one"
to have a statement or make a statement.
Now, instantly, is a shift (without moving at all)
from "thought-centered reality" (which takes
Maya as if an independent reality) to
Nonconceptual (in which, to use Hindu
phraseology, Maya is revealed as
no independent agent, and as having
no independent agents -- it is only
always the nondoing Self's "doing")
D: So, it appears here that by labeling
>> these words as gibberish youJ: Precisely! Pretty swift, huh?
>> avoided judgment and applied
>> judgment - one swift maneuver
>> to turn the table and get one
>> up - looking down from
>> grandiose heights on mediocre
>However, I *never* once thought the gibberishAnything that is built up falls down.
>was mediocre. I'm actually your admirer, and
>I believe that there is much value in your gibberish,
>even if my straight-lined mind has no receptors for
>the wisdom it contains.
>>D: Enjoy the view!
>J: It's not so bad really. It will fall off all on its
>own when its time is up
Anything constructed deconstructs.
Tim Gerchmez wrote:
> Dear List,
> Just got done watching the second half of the movie "The Perfect Storm,"
> where the Andrea Gail gets caught between two storms and a hurricane and
> capsizes, leaving no survivers.
> Then I got to thinking... we *ARE* on that boat. All of us. Not all will
> go at the same time. But everyone on this list, every single person, is
> going to die.
> We are on that boat. The Andrea Gail is about to capsize beneath us.
> Do we know it? Do we care? How are we reacting as the waves hit? Do
> words matter so much when the ship is about to be capsized by a wave the
> size of a small mountain?
> How are we helping each other to survive?
> Tim (Omkara)
Dolores and I lived in a small fishing village in Nova Scotia for four
years, ran the local post office, a restaurant, bed and breakfast. We
knew literally everyone in the village.
I also knew one guy, Steven Morash, who would go out when no one else
would. He was a sensitive intelligent man who collected fountain pens.
He was afraid of nothing and lived to be on the water; that was his
home. The land was like the ocean might be to you and me. He also had
the best crew. One of his crew used to buy metaphysical books from me,
lots of Kundalini books, Rajneesh and other things I used to buy in
California and re-sell in Nova Scotia. Everyone in his crew was
intelligent, educatated, sensitive to nature and reality. Other fishing
crews were more like what a person might expect: rustic, salt of the
earth guys who had no choice but to fish in order to make a living.
Steven Morash's guys could have done anything in this life, but they all
loved the water and Steven's leadership. Not surprisingly, Steven's was
the most successful boat, making the most money.
So, yes, if we are where we are meant to be and not afraid of going out
into storms, then we are on Steven's boat and we're successful. While
Steven takes risks, I don't think he takes every risk. I don't think he
works out of the desparation for money and reputation the skipper in The
Perfect Storm sought. Steven's out there because he loves the water. The
water comes first. If the water swallows you, then that's the way it is,
but there's no sense intentionally entering its mouth.
Hello everyone. This post relates to Frank Maiello's recent post on Natura on
the advaitin list ~ My post may be interesting for anyone who is relating to
animal totems & Nature sprites & the many symbolic archetypes form plays in for
Duality Neutrality Singularity ~ From Personality to Witness to Totality
I know that many of us in returning to oneness awareness sometimes wonder about
what is the realtionship of form to formless (absolute to duality). Are we just
absolute (nothing zero), or is absolute Self also the one playing as form (zero
dancing ~ totality)? Lately I have been exploring the two as one, & would like
to share this ..
it is my present theory that formless first forms as Nature & the spirits &
caretakers of those forms, then as human beings in a seemingly concrete jungle.
The way back may be through Nature .. through our Nature archetypes. We see
these spoken of in the mythologies of every culture. This writer below shares
how he feels our primal Nature becomes integrated with our thinking dualistic
His name is Rodolfo Scarfalloto .. the book is "Alchemy of Opposites"
"We experience duality by thinking. We experience singularity by feeling ..
The correlations of duality with thinking, & of singularity with feeling, is
simplistically reflected in the anatomy of the brain. The cerebrum or New Brain,
houses the capacity to think, discern, dissect, analyse & compare. The
brainstem, or Old Brain, contains centers for raw animal desires, impulses &
instinct .. Like two partners in a dance, they interact in a seemingly infinite
variety of ways to create the unique tapestry of physical & psycholgical
qualities of the individual ..
The two parts of the brain are reunited when the cerebrum recognizes &
accurately gives voice to the urges & feelings rising out of the brainstem. In
other words, the cerebrum uses its power ofdiscernment to simply report the
truth without censoring or distorting it ..
The harmonious blending of human discernment in the new brain withthe primal
impulses of the old brain results in the everyday experiences of compassion,
kindness, kinship, honor & integrity. This blending of the new & old brain
deepens as the former trains itself to be still, so that it can listen more
deeply to the echoes of singularity rising up (as feelings) from the Old Brain.
The deeper & fuller integration of new & old brain may translate into religious
ecstasy, transpersonal bliss, timeless peace, & the feeling we are one ..
To be in duality is to perceive opposing forces. To be in singularity is to
perceive unity. Duality sees life in its diversity. Singularity sees life in its
Singularity is not neutrality. Going beyond duality does not mean we are
"neutral". Neutral is just another way of being in duality. Neutral is zero;
singularity is infinity. Neutrality is neither, singularity is both. Neutrality
sees the two opposing forces as mutually exclusive; singularity sees them as the
two sides of the same coin. Neutrality
sees incompatibility; singularity sees that one contains (& is contained
within) the other.
Neutrality perceives that one side can destroy the other; singularity does not
judge for it sees no separation. neutral means, "I don't care who wins",
singularity means, "I care about both, for I am both." Neutrality is the earnest
attempt to forgive sins; singularity is the awareness that there never was any
sin. Neutrality is dispassionate;
singularity is intensely passionate. Neutrality is androgenous; singularity is
simultaneously both male & female. Neutrality is a thought we contemplate in the
mind; singularity is a feeling.
Neutrality is reached by being disengaged, propped squarely between two
polarities. Singularity is reached by being fully engaged & going all the way to
one side which allows us to discover the seed of the other.
The inner call to go beyond duality compels us to move beyond neutrality. As
long as we remain neutral on any two opposing views, we cannot discover that one
is contained within the other; we do not experience the birth of one in the
heart of the other, so that we can know them to be singular."
Thanks for sharing,
From Osho's book, "Tantric Transformation".....
I have heard a very beautiful story, a very ancient one....
In a province no rain had fallen for a long time. Everything
was dried up; at last the citizens decided to fetch the rainmaker.
A deputation was sent to see him in the distant town where he
lived, with the urgent request to come as soon as possible and
make rain for their parched fields.
The rainmaker, a wise old man, promised to do so on condition
that he be provided with a solitary little cottage in the open
country where he could withdraw by himself for three days;
no food or drink would be required. Then he would see what
could be done. His requests were met.
On the evening of the third day abundant rain fell, and full of
praise a grateful crowd make a pilgrimage to his house and
exclaimed, "How did you do it? Tell us."
"It was quite simple," the rainmaker answered. "For three
days all I have done is to put myself in order. For I know
that once I am in order, then the world will be in order, and
the drought must yield place to the rain."
"Ultimate nonseparateness" doesn't have a pointer as that would mean
separateness between pointer and "ultimate nonseparateness".
Now there's a point! :-)
It's impolite to point, especially at another's point, even worse, to
compare points! (Unless you prefer mine, of course.)
Judi, are you a fine arbiter of points in geniral, or an arbiter of fine
points in parrticular?
I AM BEING friendly!!!!!
Yikes, this egroup is rapidly becoming a famous art style.
I wish I was you
'Cause I don't like to be me
I wish I could be me
'Cause I don't like to be you
I don't wish I was you
'Cause I'd rather be me
I wish I wasn't me
'Cause I'm you
I'm glad I'm not you
'Cause then I can be glad I'm me
I'm glad I'm you
'Cause then I don't have to be me
I'm glad I'm not you
'Cause I'm not glad I'm me
I'm glad I'm you
'Cause I'm glad I'm me "
- = +