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

Friday November 17, 2000

Expand Messages
  • Gloria Lee
    ______________________________________ Yes, mental activity can be recognized as an independent activity, without owner or something like that. It is the
    Message 1 of 1 , Nov 18, 2000
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      ______________________________________


      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"
      :)

      Jan

      ______________________________________________________________

      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,
      Bob

      _______________________________________________________________

      Dear Sky,

      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
      as is...

      "Energy" transforms itself
      into matter/energy.

      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.

      Love,
      Dan
      _______________________________________________

      > But perhaps I will be able to help, after all :) I used to know a TV
      > 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.
      >
      > Love,
      > Liliana

      Hi Liliana,

      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.

      Krazy Katz

      ___________________________________________________________

      JODY & DAN

      D: How does one talk straight
      >> about something that has
      >> no edges?
      >
      J: By making a beeline to the heart of the matter.

      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 =
      "clarity"


      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 going
      >to get in Her way.

      D: You can't get in her way, as you are her way.

      D: If so, what determines the
      >> separation?
      >> If not, how is there a basis
      >> for one to judge the other?
      >
      J: It's frisky Ms. Maya, having Her way with "us". If She wasn't,
      >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
      sensory awareness.)


      J: Grandiosity transformed into gibberish *can* be seen
      >as a judgement. It wasn't the content, it was the
      >context. It appeared that you were "neutralizing"
      >my statements by babelfishing them into gibberish.

      D: Ah, but who am I to neutralize any statement?
      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 you
      >> avoided judgment and applied
      >> judgment - one swift maneuver
      >> to turn the table and get one
      >> up - looking down from
      >> grandiose heights on mediocre
      >> gibbering.
      >
      J: Precisely! Pretty swift, huh?
      >However, I *never* once thought the gibberish
      >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 that is built up falls down.
      Anything constructed deconstructs.

      Love,
      Dan

      ____________________________________________________

      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?
      >
      > Love,
      >
      > Tim (Omkara)

      Hi Tim,

      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.

      love,
      Jerry
      _____________________________________________________________

      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
      the lila
      ~*~
      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
      brain ..

      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
      sameness ..

      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,

      Col
      _____________________________________________________________________


      Melody sends:


      From Osho's book, "Tantric Transformation".....

      oo000oo


      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".

      Love,
      Jan

      *********
      Now there's a point! :-)

      Judi
      ~~~~~~~
      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!!!!!

      seeeee:

      love
      ~*~
      sky

      ~~~
      Yikes, this egroup is rapidly becoming a famous art style.

      Love, Mark

      _______________________________________________________

      Dan Poe:

      " I.

      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

      II.

      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 "

      - = +
      ~*~
      sky
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.