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

Tuesday, November 21

Expand Messages
  • umbada@ns.sympatico.ca
    ANDREW MACNAB It s as though we are houses. The light and air inside each house has its own qualities. To be enlightened is to have the doors and windows open.
    Message 1 of 1 , Nov 23, 2000

      It's as though we are houses.
      The light and air inside each house has its own qualities.
      To be enlightened is to have the doors and windows open.
      When we die the walls fall down.



      Reading this in tandem with what Jan has written about
      quantum physics, I'm struck thinking that the air that
      circulates thru my "house", then circulates thru yours, and
      then thru another, and another. I'm struck when I consider
      this 'sharing process'....not only of air, but of thought and

      'Separation' is, indeed, only in our "minds".



      Jack Handy's Deep Thought.

      -The most unfair thing about life is the way it ends. I mean,
      life is tough. It takes up a lot of your time. What do you
      get at the end of it? A death. What's that, a bonus? I think
      the life cycle is all backwards. You should die first, get it
      out of the way. Then you live in an old age home. You get
      kicked out when you're too young, you get a gold watch, you
      go to work. You work forty years until you're young enough to
      enjoy your retirement. You do drugs, alchohol, you party, you
      get ready for high school. You go to grade school, you become
      a kid, you play, you have no responsibilities, you become a
      little baby, you go back into the womb, you spend your last
      nine months warm, happy, and floating...you finish off as an



      Hi Tim,

      Thank you for asking. (I think...) You asked for an honest
      reply, so I will try. I see a couple of "games" "I'm" playing
      here, and wonder what "games" "you" may be playing too (being
      only able to infer them from your posts - it's wonderfully
      more ambiguous than speaking face to face, isn't it, and it
      points out to me how ambiguous speaking face to face is, and
      how seldom I really understand what someone else is feeling
      or thinking.) It (the activity on the list) also shows me how
      much I care about such things and how much I modulate how I
      feel in response to my inferences about what others are
      feeling, so I repeat that your observation that my posting is
      primarily about my projection is accurate.

      I am surprised at how important the list is to me, so that
      may be worth exploring. I think the list is a community,
      perhaps even a family to me, one that fills a need, as I have
      not established a traditional supportive community around
      myself in my life. Well, who has in this fast age?
      Communities provide a sense of belonging, a sense of safety,
      support, as well as challenge and confrontation. Both the
      security and the confrontation are valuable, the
      confrontation being a stimulus for growth and the security
      allowing the lowering of defenses required to take advantage
      of the opportunity. NDS provides both and I think it's
      helping me in my growth.

      Now how do our interactive posts the past few days fit into
      this context? Well, I have indeed been frustrated by the
      following apparent inconsistency. You mention your desire to
      offer love (eg:

      "All I can do is offer. Whether anyone accepts or not is a
      matter of destiny, but giving without thought or desire for
      return is in My Nature. With my alias "Omkara Datta," "Datta"
      means "gift" in Sanskrit."

      then you appear to be defending yourself from belittling...

      "Dear Jerry,

      OK, here's "my offer." In exchange for Sky ceasing with the
      belittling labels ("timmmy", etc.) and if he is willing to
      forget about "me" entirely (unless he chooses to address me
      respectfully and with courtesy), I'll be happy to forget he
      ever existed.

      Actually, I'll likely end up doing that anyway. But since
      you're asking for volition in the matter, an exchange of
      courtesies is called for.

      Again, if Sky knocks off with the "belittling," he doesn't
      exist as far as I'm concerned, and I will make no further
      remarks directed at, toward or about him.


      Omkara "


      Then you complain about the whole list (which includes me,
      the witty urban kind guy that I am...):

      "Oh, how tiresome you are, and how tiresome this list has
      become. It's like watching the same movie 10 times/day."

      And finally, you sum up

      "And clearly, the recent deterioration of "communication" on
      NDS points only to the fact that egos cannot communicate with
      one another. Egos cannot experience intimacy, love,
      innocence, peace or freedom. As long as Reality is apparently
      split into "many," there will be violence. As "i" have seen
      this, so have 'you.'"

      So, what do I make of all this? I perceive that you have hit
      the nail on the head, that egos cannot communicate with each
      other without some friction, and that you appear to be an
      ego, causing some of that very friction, but I don't see you
      offering constructive suggestions about how to solve that
      problem on the list, nor do I see you accepting any personal
      responsibility, or expressing any humor about your own ego
      involvement. I do see you advertising your internet site
      repeatedly, but I don't see you sharing any of the insights
      that have been posted there on an ongoing basis here. So what
      would I have you do to change? I have absolutely no clue. Be
      who you are, do as you wish, and I will be who I am and do as
      I wish, which may occasionally include flaming you here, but
      I welcome you to flame me if you like. I enjoyed the response
      to my invitation to the "dance", and I repeat that our kids
      would be ugly (just like us), but we would love them anyway
      (just as we love each other, warts and all), and I do love
      you, but your warts remind me of my warts, which makes me
      uncomfortable, so sometimes I act out. I wonder if my acting
      out is a sort of wart that reminds you of your wart and makes
      you uncomfortable and so on? Perhaps so, perhaps not. Que
      sera, sera.

      As for the bait and switch, a "bait and switch scheme" seems
      to imply a conscious desire to be two-faced, while I think I
      am less than conscious about this one. When I flamed you, I
      was annoyed at you and expressing that annoyance, and I meant
      to piss you off. I was pissed because I felt your little
      fight with Sky was a pretty obvious example of being part of
      the problem, and not part of the solution and I expected
      better from you. I hereby acknowledge that my expectations
      don't mean a damn thing, and I should just relax and take
      care of my contribution to the world dream and let you take
      responsibility for yours. At the time, however, I was not
      quite to restrained. This morning, I was feeling a wee bit
      embarrassed by the outburst, so I tried to save face by
      turning it into a joke. You caught me neatly and so here I am
      rambling on for hours and probably not adding much to the

      I am a human being and as such, I very definitely spend a
      great deal of energy worrying about how I look to others and
      trying to hide my fear of judgement. I think this is dumb
      behavior and I would like to end it, and I appreciate your
      calling me on my posts to you so that I could take a look at
      my motivation. I imagine I have some more to look at, but
      this seems like enough for now.

      Love, Mark PS as a postscript, I wonder if anyone is
      frustrated with Judi for providing a similar apparent
      dichotomy between a kind caring heart (as discussing the
      Ronald McDonald house with a couple of men) and an apparent
      sharp tongue (as insulting some women on the list)? Is it the
      insulting tone alone that offends, or is the dichotomy also
      part of the problem. Perhaps we dislike apparent
      inconsistencies, and perhaps I have been suggesting that Tim
      should pick a stance and stay with it so I can pigeonhole him
      and not have to worry about having to change my labels. I
      think so, so yes, Tim...

      I am trying to control you so that my level of comfort can be
      maintained at as high a level as possible. I suspect you will
      continue to do as you do, and so what can I say? I tried, I
      failed, and I'm laughing at it in the present moment. (sorry
      this was so long. I could trim it down and just say this, but
      what the heck - have it all, my friend.



      I am beginning to see the appeal of this room. The real food
      here is not so much that of intoxifying poetry as it is in
      the smorgasbord of opportunity here to discover and witness
      our own intolerances.


      There's nothing wrong with being in a "lower place", Jody.
      The challenge is not: how to ESCAPE it. The challenge is to
      no longer care one way or another what kind of "place" you
      occupy at any given time.



      The need for attention seems deeply seated in the psyche and
      difficult to recognize in the self. Even the giving of
      attention can be a reflection of that need.

      Rarely does a person see their need for attention, since it
      is neatly concealed in their wisdom, their humor, their love,
      or some attitude. It can be more readily seen in the words
      (and behavior) of others as being one's own projection. With
      clear observing it can be seen that no one who is active on
      this list has risen above that need.

      The real meaning of Self-realization may be understood when
      the need for attention can be seen in the self. The total
      elimination of the unseen *need* for attention (a process of
      administering undivided Self-attention) may be useful as a
      working definition and understanding of Self-realization.

      It may be useful for the apparent "me" to identify the need
      for attention and let that "me" become attention itself.
      After all what is attention but a ray of Awareness that
      becomes "it" when undivided.



      This purgatory being taken for
      real life is the making
      of the so-called "human mind"
      giving forms, placing things
      here and there, and acting
      out desires and fears.

      There is beauty and wonder in
      the expressions of this "mind",
      also conflict and believed-to-be-real
      separation being acted out. When
      such conflicts are "resolved" between
      apparent "human beings", they
      go underground and resurface
      somewhere else in space and time.

      There is no resolution by getting people
      to agree, act in a certain way, or
      believe certain things (nor by deciding
      not to agree, to act however one wants,
      and believe whatever one wants).

      The only resolution that seems real from here
      is the resolution of and as that very "mind"


      DAN:The reason I can't enter anyone's dream is that anything that
      enters the dream is the dream.

      And if they wake up, they won't know about it. If they know
      something about it, they're just in another dream called
      "waking up from a dream."

      OMKARA: "In my experience," the second paragraph above is not
      necessarily true. Buddha saw the dreamers, not as Buddha, but
      as Clear Seeing, and uttered, "I am awake."

      Clear Seeing occurs without a seer. The wide-awake Witness
      sees the seven billion dreamers tossing and turning, moaning
      and laughing and screaming, in their private worlds, seven
      billion universes dreamed by seven billion imaginary splits
      in a homogenous Reality.

      There is no "one world" and no "one universe." However, there
      is open space, which is Clear Seeing, which is This, which is
      beyond the dream, which is Awake.



      Focus all of your will and intent.
      The object of your desire
      is closer than you realize.
      Scratch the itch that you cannot reach.

      Accept that all is illusion.
      All realms, all beings, all systems are illusion.
      Let go of judging this as either good or bad.
      Simply accept illusion as the natural state of things.
      Yes, accept even that you are an illusion.

      The gaining of knowledge.
      The understanding that comes.

      True seeing.
      True feeling.
      All is one and one is all.

      The natural state of the universe.
      In that state all activity ceases.
      In that state all activity increases.

      Dear List, life is full of promise and joy.
      May each one prosper and be well.
      May suffering be laid aside.
      May understanding fill your hearts.
      May seeking stop and awareness reign.

      As we move about in the dramatic illusion of creation may we spread
      compassion and love.

      Live without fear - know who you are.


      Peace - sure, i'm nekkid! So? - Michael



      Farewell from Gabriel Garcia Marquez

      Gabriel Garcia Marquez has retired from public life due to
      health reasons: cancer of the lymph nodes. It seems that it
      is getting worse. He has sent a farewell letter to his
      friends and, thanks to the Internet, it is spreading.

      "If, for an instant, GOD were to forget that I am a rag doll
      and GIFTED ME WITH A PIECE OF LIFE, possibly I wouldn't say
      all that I think but rather, I would think of all that I say.
      I would value things not for their worth but for what they
      mean. I would sleep little, dream more, understanding that
      for each minute that we close our eyes, we lose sixty seconds
      of LIGHT.

      "I would walk when others hold back, I would wake when others
      sleep. I would listen when others talk, and how I would enjoy
      a good chocolate ice cream!

      "If GOD were to GIVE ME A PIECE OF LIFE, I would dress
      simply, throw myself face first into the sun, baring not only
      my body but also my soul. MY GOD, if I had a heart, I would
      write my hate on ice, and wait for the sun to show ... Over
      the stars I would paint with a Van Gogh dream, a Benedetti
      poem; and a Serrat song would be the serenade I'd offer to
      the moon. With my tears I would water roses to feel the pain
      of their thorns and the red kiss of their petals ...

      "MY GOD, IF I HAD A PIECE OF LIFE ... I wouldn't let a single
      day pass without telling the people I love that I love them.
      I would convince each woman and each man that they are my
      favorites, and I would live in love with love. I would show
      men how very wrong they are to think that they cease to be in
      love when they grow old, not knowing that they grow old when
      they cease to be in love! To a child I shall give wings, but
      I shall let him learn to fly on his own. I would teach the
      old that death does not come with old age, but with
      forgetting. So much have I learned from you, oh men...

      "I have learned that everyone wants to live on the peak of
      the mountain without knowing that real happiness is in how it
      is scaled. I have learned that when a newborn child squeezes
      for the first time with his tiny fist his father's finger, he
      has him trapped forever. I have learned that a man has the
      right to look down on another only when he has to help the
      other get to his feet.

      "From you I have learned so many things, but in truth they
      won't be of much use, for when I keep them within this
      suitcase, unhappily shall I be dying."


      --------------------------- Added info from Biff:

      Garcia Marquez, pronounced gahr SEE ah MAHR kayz, Gabriel
      Jose (1928-...), is a Colombian novelist. Many critics
      consider him one of the most important authors in the history
      of Latin-American literature. He won the 1982 Nobel Prize for

      Garcia Marquez achieved international fame in 1967 with the
      publication of One Hundred Years of Solitude. This novel
      tells the story of the Buendia family, who live in the
      isolated jungle town of Macondo. The exploits of the family
      and the history of the town are often tragic. However, Garcia
      Marquez describes these events in the form of a humorous tall
      tale. The novel has been interpreted as a symbolic history of
      Latin America told with mythical characters and places.

      Garcia Marquez was born in Aracataca, Colombia, near
      Fundacion. In 1954 and 1955, he worked in Paris as a foreign
      correspondent for a Colombian newspaper. During that period,
      the newspaper published a series of articles by Garcia
      Marquez that angered the Colombian government. The government
      shut down the newspaper, and Garcia Marquez has lived outside
      of Colombia most of the time since.

      Colombians greatly admire writers, especially poets. Many
      Colombian lawyers, teachers, and other professionals write
      poetry in their spare time. Maria (1867), a novel by Jorge
      Isaacs, became the first work of Colombian literature to win
      popularity throughout Latin America. It is a sentimental tale
      of love and death set in rural Colombia. Colombia's most
      outstanding writer today, Gabriel Jose Garcia Marquez, won
      the Nobel Prize for literature in 1982. His tales about life
      in Latin America combine fantasy with realistic description.

      Recent developments. The most important development in
      Latin-American literature since the 1950's has been the
      sudden and unprecedented international attention enjoyed by
      novelists. The large number of important novels produced by
      these writers has been called the "boom." The original boom
      novelists were Carlos Fuentes of Mexico, Julio Cortazar of
      Argentina, Mario Vargas Llosa of Peru, and Gabriel Garcia
      Marquez of Colombia. All four use literary invention in their
      narratives to express their cultural heritage. They
      experimented with language and structure, often injecting
      fantasy and fragmenting time and space. The boom produced a
      style known as "magical realism," which blended dreams and
      magic with everyday reality.

      The most famous boom novelist is Gabriel Garcia Marquez, who
      won the 1982 Nobel Prize for literature. His novel One
      Hundred Years of Solitude (1967) ranks as a landmark of
      Latin-American fiction. The novel contains much historical
      fact, but the author also includes fantasy, extraordinary
      characters, bizarre events, suspense, and unusual humor.
      Garcia Marquez maintained his international reputation with
      such works as The Autumn of the Patriarch (1975) and The
      General in His Labyrinth (1989). Isabel Allende of Chile
      blended magical realism and history in her novels The House
      of the Spirits (1985) and Eva Luna (1987).

      [From "the novel today] One group of writers created highly
      imaginative and inventive novels. In some cases, they
      modernized myths, fairy tales, and other old stories, or they
      created fantasy worlds. Latin American fiction gained
      recognition with a kind of novel called magic realism, which
      blends dreams and magic with everyday reality. The originator
      of this style was the Argentine writer Jorge Luis Borges. The
      Colombian writer Gabriel Garcia Marquez wrote a classic of
      magic realism, One Hundred Years of Solitude (1967), about
      generations of a strange Latin American family. Manuel Puig
      of Argentina wrote Kiss of the Spider Woman (1976), about the
      relationship between two men who share a prison cell.


      this has been brought to my attention, so in the interests of
      truth and justice and all that, is passed on to you. It is
      true that Marquez however is suffering from cancer.

      'Farewell poem' fools readers


      MEXICO CITY (Reuters) -- A poem published in several Latin
      American newspapers this week and said to be a farewell ode
      by Colombia's ailing Nobel laureate Gabriel Garcia Marquez
      turned out on Wednesday to be the work of a little-known

      The poem titled "La Marioneta" -- "The Puppet" -- appeared
      under Garcia Marquez's name on Monday in the Peruvian daily
      La Republica. Mexico City dailies reproduced it on Tuesday
      and it was read on local radio stations.

      "Gabriel Garcia Marquez sings a song to life," read a
      headline in Mexico City's La Cronica, which on Tuesday
      published the poem superimposed on a photo of the novelist on
      its front page.

      More info here.....the LA times link on this page tells more
      about it:




      One of the driving questions of G.'s life was what caused

      Each of us comes here (NDS) with a belief (maybe not
      everyone) and then how what happens measures against that
      belief, we react/respond.

      Judi has expressed (more or less, I may be wrong) that the
      idea is to smother. The belief behind the belief seems to be
      (again I could be wrong) that this is good for people to be
      confronted with how they really are. Seems to me to be the
      encounter psychology or the Fritz Perls mentality. I was in a
      group for twenty-five years which was based on this
      particular mentality. IMO no one ever changes when attacked.
      The defenses go up and with them the chances of really seeing
      oneself goes down. It just doesn't work.

      I, for one, do not want to be told how I am either by myself
      or by anyone else. This inner critic, mirrored by external
      critics, IS the culprit itself. Do you get this? This is a
      vital point. It is the critic itself which is the problem and
      not the solution. The critic is always quick to tell me how I
      am. The "telling me how I am" is the illusion. The person who
      tell the other guy how they are is merely turning their inner
      critic outward. It is still an illusion. It gives
      concreteness to an image. What needs to be seen is the critic
      itself. Anything else is already at least one step down the
      yellow brick road.



      while at the monastery over the weekend past i read Ken
      Wilbur's lastest..., non-duality is ever before us...KW's
      challenge remains the same for himself as it has been since
      the beginning...what lies beyond...a subtle change has
      occurred in his writing...Openness, Honesty, Vulnerability,
      Accessibility, Poetry, Compassion..., white wolfe is half way
      through his second reading...he commends it to you and asks
      you to ask yourself...what color are you...(white is not a


      "The point is simply that the very high developmental stance
      of green pluralism ('It is not east to be be green.' Kermit
      the Frog)----the product of at least six major stages of
      hierachical transformation (we can talk of non non-duality,
      but we cannot talk of non-duality)----turns around and denies
      all hierarchies, denies the very path that produced its own
      noble stance. It consequently extends an eglaitarian embrace
      to every stance, no matter how shallow or narcissistic (do
      any of you dhrama-bums remember reading Herman Hesse, i.e.,
      Narcissus and Goldmund). The more egalitarianism is
      implemented, the more it invites, indeed encourages, the
      Culture of Narcissism (i.e., the suggestion that
      enlightenment does not enfold infinite suffering). And the
      Culture of Narcissism is the antithesis of the integral
      culture (arising non-duality). -Ken Wilbur, A Theory of
      Everything, p. 26 (parenthetical comments mine) ^^ ~~~


      The Source

      How does one look madness in the eyes
      and still say
      I see myself in your heart, soul, your spirit

      How does one hold the hand of infinite suffering
      and not find
      that our skin has been blistered, charred and fused.

      How does one embrace unmitigated hatred
      and yet discover
      so much love within the mind, heart, soul, the spirit

      that an everlasting well of Compassion
      sweet, cool and wet
      arises and flows into the universe relentlessly

      With stillness, openness, emptiness, with tranquility,
      One touches the secret Beloved within and finds herself revealed
      in that madness, suffering, that hatred and must needs embrace oneself.

      Only fools fail to discover that Love is the one true Source.

      Mark Christopher Valentine



      Found this in a speech therapist's office in the physical
      rehabilitation hospital where I work.

      From The Advocate, Spring 1991, by Mayer Shevin. Strategies
      for crisis intervention & prevention The Language of 'Us' and

      We like things;
      They fixate on objects.
      We try to make friends;
      They display attention-seeking
      We take a break;
      They display off-task behaviors.
      We stand up for ourselves;
      They are noncompliant.
      We have hobbies;
      They self-stim.
      We choose our friends wisely;
      They display poor peer socialization.
      We persevere;
      They persevorate.
      We love people;
      They have dependencies on people.
      We go for a walk;
      They run away.
      We insist;
      They tantrum.
      We change our minds;
      They are disoriented and have short
      attention spans.
      We have talents;
      They have splinter skills.
      We are human
      They are?????



      Perceptiveness absorbed in itself
      The perceiver of the perceiver of the perceiver of...

      Nonplussed ultra,
      or bewildered by non-phenomena,
      not taking place
      as witnessed by a non-ace.

      Perception "changes" the perceived,
      without quantum physics, not believed.
      The perceiver changing the perceiver by perceiving
      Seeing the play of Shiva-Shakti is quite relieving

      I was particularly struck by these lines above.

      Yes. I recall when I first heard from quantum physics
      that the observed is changed simply by being observed.

      I related it to an experiment I had done once during
      a meditation group: I had noticed that a friend
      of mine had been acting rather stand-offish that
      evening....even avoiding my gaze. And I wondered if
      I had hurt her feelings somehow. As we were supposed
      to be 'meditating' during that time, I closed my
      eyes and concentrated on picturing her in my
      mind's eye. I began first imagining a ray of green
      light being sent from me to her. And soon warm
      and loving feelings flowed thru me, toward her as well.

      After the meditation was over, I looked up at her
      and found her looking at me and smiling.

      I knew when I heard "observation changes the observed",
      that this was so.

      And then, in later years, while raising a son, it
      became increasingly obvious that my thoughts
      and feelings....whether directed towards him
      or not.... 'changed' him, everybit as much as they
      changed me....moment by moment.

      The nicety of you discovering too, that "a perceiver changes
      the perceived" also has validity on a macroscopic scale, is
      that awareness isn't some kind of an abstraction but
      potentially, entails a force as well (Shakti). That is why
      "karma interpreted as fate" is such a sad, self-fulfilling
      BS. Awareness has the potential to change anything and as the
      "fabric of life" is an interdependent fabric, the outcome is
      essentially unpredictable, reminding of nonlinear dynamics
      (chaos theory, the classical example being a Chinese
      butterfly causing a hurricane in Texas). It is THE reason why
      "one's first and foremost duty in life" could be called "WAKE



      Dear List,

      You have a choice. You can take the blue pill, and wake up at
      home in bed. Or take the red pill, and I'll show you how deep
      the rabbit hole goes...

      All the drama on this list...

      Dots of light!

      What's your screen resolution set to? If 640x480, you're
      looking at 307,200 dots of light. If 1024x768, you're looking
      at 786,432. If 1280x1024, you're looking at over a million

      So what the hell is going on?

      Bits turning on and off. Dots being interpreted by YOUR brain
      as letters (because the dots are so close together!), which
      in turn get interpreted as WORDS, which in turn get
      interpreted as LANGUAGE.

      From this point, LANGUAGE gets endowed with meaning by
      learning (conditioning).

      Haven't you realized you're in The Matrix yet??????

      So many dots of light, causing all this fricking drama!!

      See as Neo did, right at the end of the film.

      Who are you arguing with???
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.