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

Friday November 24, 2000

Expand Messages
  • Gloria Lee
    Hiya Jody, ... I am assuming this was your s, Jody. For me, duality is the state where seemingly opposites, actual define each to the other and that this very
    Message 1 of 1 , Nov 26, 2000
      Hiya Jody,

      > >
      > > So then, explain the difference between "duality" and being
      > > "dualistic."
      >


      I am assuming this was your's, Jody.


      For me, duality is the state where seemingly opposites, actual define each
      to the other and that this very apperception itself takes place in duality.

      Dualistic would be to try and choose one in lieu of the other.


      Mis dos centavos

      Cheers

      Sandeep

      _________________________________________________________

      Hi All,

      Here's a nice website for those who like to see past surface appearances.
      Nothing overtly "nondual" (more of a 'wholistic' type orientation), but
      some very interesting social commentary, and no "new-age pap" that I can see.

      http://www.transparencynow.com

      Enjoy,

      Tim

      ___________________________________________________________

      NDS

      Guru Dave, Dave Oshana from U.K., will be touring the U.S. this summer.
      If you like Dave's stylings and want to meet him, contact him through
      the Oshana list:
      http://www.egroups.com/subscribe/oshana

      --Jerry

      ______________________________________________________________

      Dear Andrew:

      ....deep gratitude....

      ....for the very poetic reflections and meditation...we dream ourselves from one
      dream into the next...we are only 'awake' as we slumber in relationship to
      others who also slumber with us on our journey toward somethng that is hidden
      there in the deep that we can neither name or describe...we are but
      passers-by...

      ...the closest i have been able to describing it is to say it is a child that
      came even before the multiplicity of gods and godesses, the triune Godhead, the
      One God...the icon that closest resembles it is a child cradled in manger
      surrounded by all creatures, nurtured by a Blue Virgin, worshiped by Wise Men,
      witnessed by Common Men, celebrated by Angels and commemorated by a Star...you
      do not even need to be a christian to see it, to know it, to feel it...as we let
      it flow through us the universe and all its sparkling toys becomes our home and
      our journey through its fire a holy dance of endless awe and wonder...^^~~~~

      ....to you my Brother of the Pack,

      Love, Joy, Equanimity and Joy!

      further up and further in,

      white wolfe

      ____________________________________________________________________


      What is Endless is Love

      "Forget. Surrender. Love."
      -Omkara

      white wolfe sits alone in the snowy darkness

      humbly sitting in drifting white snow
      his open ears hearing the cosmic wind
      his golden eyes burning the silver moon
      his sensitive nose touching the stars
      his wild voice and song in harmony
      with all that is within and that is beyond...

      humility is the beginning of surrender,
      surrender is the beginning of love,
      love is the beginning of compassion
      compasssion endures
      that which endures goes far
      that which goes far returns
      that which returns has no end
      that which has no end is endless
      compassion is endless
      > therefore, humility is endless,
      therefore, surrender is endless
      therefore, love itself is endless
      therefore the lover is endless
      therefore the beloved is endless

      Therefore, the lover and beloved are one
      i who am sometimes called Mark am endless
      i who recognize myself as white wolfe am free.

      I am the Lover in love with the Beloved.
      I am the white wolfe in love with the moon.

      with all that is within and that is beyond
      his wild voice and song in harmony
      his sensitive nose touching the stars
      his golden eyes burning the silver moon
      his open ears hearing the cosmic wind
      humbly sitting in drifting white snow

      white wolfe calls silently to you and me always
      to follow, follow him into and beyond the drifting Moon.

      white wolfe sits not alone in the snowy darkness.

      Mark Christopher Valentine
      ______________________________________________________

      OMKARRA & GENE POOLE

      G: > >Nondual studies may lead to the stripping of values from
      symbols, leaving only value-neutral pointers.

      O: > Often (at least here), the concepts themselves seem to drop. Not
      always, but where they do not, the attachment certainly does.

      G: Concepts are best seen here, as similar to the contents of the
      books in my library. They are 'just there', to be used if needed. I
      need not worry about them; they are 'at rest' in a static (written)
      state. I do not have to refrigerate them, unlike perishable foods.

      Certainly, some concepts are very valuable 'along the way', such as
      the concept of concept, or the concept of 'definition', as in: The
      definition of definition, and the definition of 'meme':

      <http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit/1998/vol2/blackmore_s.html>


      G: > >Without the values arising simultaneously with the perception
      of the symbols, choice enters as a possibility.

      O: > Yes, I see perfectly what you're saying.

      G: > >Tyrants modus is to leave no choice; thus, any system which
      leads to the stripping of values from symbols, is essentially anti-
      tyrannical.

      O: > That's a very interesting way of putting it, "the stripping of
      values from symbols." There are many ways to say the same thing, but
      that is indeed the heart of it.

      G: > >Such reformative systems include Zen, and Landmark Education,
      among others.

      O: > A "system" is not necessarily necessary, only a clear insight as
      to the suffering caused by "attaching values to concepts." Another
      seeing may involve the circularity/futility of "thought" and its
      basis in memory and "the past"... how the same symbols/concepts are
      regurgitated again and again, that nothing "new" ever appears.

      G: I could argue that it is impossible to perceive what may be 'new',
      unless what is 'new' also contains elements of what is 'known'
      already. I offer that what is 'new' is indeed obscured, by this very
      interference of vestigial 'knowledge'. 'New' is the direct experience
      of the Living Universe, raw, when and if it occurs. 'It' is always in
      the background. The 'salvatory' technique is to allow the foreground
      to become inactive or inert.

      The foreground is always the precious 'I' or 'Me' experience, to
      which everything is compared at fantastic speed. In that comparison,
      difference and similarity are perceived. This operation depends upon
      memory (primarily memory of impressions, not of concepts). It is this
      built-in machinery of 'recognition' which erects the Boolean binaries
      of 'desire' (movement towards the thing) or aversion (movement away).
      As in the example of fire and hand, impressions feed the
      difference-engine, leading to survival.

      The survival-instinct is the main obstacle to 'self-realization'. And
      it is the equation of the (existing solely in memory) precious 'Me',
      with physical survival, which is the primary error committed in that
      operation of the survival-instinct. The 'death of 'Me' is actually
      likened to amnesia, while the death of the physical body is the
      extinction of the very ground of existence (... but, not of Being?).

      To overcome the survival-instinct, is potentially a very risky
      proposition. Recall the daughter of Art Linkletter, who while
      influenced by LSD, stepped out of the 10th floor window, to fall to
      her death. Her 'realization' was valid, yet her identification
      with-as 'body' led to the extinction of body, rather than the loss of
      her precious 'Me'.

      The equation of 'Me' with body is thus stated to be an error, but
      this has been chopped to hash over the years. This concept of
      non-identification with the body was meant to release the attachment
      to the precious 'Me', not to the body. This is so subtle, that it has
      escaped the notice of many generations of 'realizers'.

      Nonduality states these things, but only as particles, blended in the
      confetti of concepts. It is easy to be mislead, by those who do not
      know where they themselves are going.

      To say it again, 'Me' (the experience AND the concept) can 'go
      away', be lost from perception, while the perceiver remains,
      perceiving 'what is new'. In this moment, the Living Universe is the
      only assertion, so it comes through loud and clear! It is in this
      moment, that the actual non-dual is experienced, as precisely 'This':
      Creation is Creator. The 'stall-state' is recognized as the
      compulsive application of the brakes, due to fear of driving.
      Relaxing the leg, allows Creation-Creator to resume drawing 'Display'
      in an uninhibited manner.

      Humbling, one knows to allow the advanced 'state' to do the driving,
      but to continue to pay attention to the signs along the way. Each
      sign is a hyperlink to the future; premonitory knowledge is thus
      possible.

      And this is all of it, for educational purposes. Redraws are
      infinitely possible, as long as there is no predetermine 'feared or
      desired outcome', inserted as data into NavCom. The trick is to know,
      that the entire Universe will bend to our will, and to avoid having
      such a 'will'. Attachment to suffering, as the need to escape
      suffering, will bend the entire universe to eventually *reveal*, the
      ghastly reality of circular-regressive-remedial 'thinking'. This
      moment is like getting a Photon-Torpedo up the fundament; a 'great
      flash' is described.

      O: > >>* Tyrants can control the physical body, ordering it here and
      > >>there, torturing it, locking it in a prison cell. Those who identify with
      > >>the physical body will feel tyrannized, and will suffer.

      G: > >Perhaps this is so. One may remind oneself of the 'realm of
      possibility'. Awareness can change anything.

      O: > The above is a "given" in all "my" communication... space is
      always "left open" for anything. Sometimes it may not seem to be
      so... it is so.

      G: Om, it is the 'natural' cohesion of the artifacts of memory, which
      make the insertion of a potential modifier so difficult or
      challenging. Jung described this to a 'T', in his exposition on the
      'complex'.

      <http://www.findingstone.com/professionals/monographs/kohutandjung.htm>

      My 'remedy' for this cohered condition, is to introduce as much
      'space' as possible. See below, in the discussion of 'power'. (Power
      lives in space; the more space, the more power.)

      To look deeper into this natural cohesion of the artifacts of memory,
      is to see the 'how' of association, and even deeper, is to see the
      'how' of _identification_ (in the context of 'Me', and of 'as body').

      The 'difference engine' of mind, running automatically, groups
      impressions and symbols and values into tight balls, or 'complexes'.
      Such grouped items are 'naturally concretized', like the geological
      rock known as 'Concretion'. It is often very challenging to do
      anything about these concretions, even it they are seen. LSD is like
      the TNT of earthscapers, only applied to the 'geological strata' of
      historical memory. Better, is the use of enzymes! Ramana's 'Who Am
      I' is one such enzyme; there are many others.


      G: > >The real 'tyrant' we all must face, is the compound known as
      the 'world-dream'.

      O: > Indeed...

      G: > >It is from this collective realm of artifacts (intangible as
      they may be), that we draw the components of identity.

      O: > Perhaps you mean identity with "particulars?" Identity in itself
      permeates Reality. The "I" or "me" is an echo of something.

      G: Well stated. Consider the difference between the echo of a shower
      stall, and the echo of mountain vastness. Only in great space, will
      the echo be a faithful reproduction of what originates it. The return
      of the complete phrase is possible, but if one is packed into a small
      space, only harmonics are heard.

      In the greatest of space, only completeness is perceived... as
      self/transmitter/receiver. It is only memory which transforms space
      into time, and understood, is what is responsible for apparent 'delay
      effects' (echoes). No memory, and 'I am Me'.

      G: > >As long as a person depends upon the world-dream as a source of
      identity, tyranny is possible.
      >
      O: > OK, I see how you're using "identity."

      G: Yes, and I hope more clear, due to above discussions. I can say
      that it is 'amusing' to see 'myself' as 'merely cohering complexes',
      the chief complex being named (by the 'authorities') to be 'ego'.

      Space itself, however, is the 'source' of all artifacts and
      complexes; it is formless, and has no 'destiny'. It is permanently
      'off the hook', no blame!

      O: > >>* Tyrants may rape and abuse nature as well. But nature
      herself is more violent to her inhabitants than any tyrant, and far
      wiser to her own condition. In the end, nature kills the tyrant long
      before the tyrant can harm her... and she heals faster than most
      suspect.

      G: > >Interesting speculation.

      O: > I'm not sure if it's a speculation or not. It appears as a
      speculation, but it's not known here why "I" wrote those words.

      G: It would appear to be derived from historical perspective.

      G: > >This view you offer, is why I am careful to state certain
      things with great care. Nothing need be eliminated; indeed,
      elimination is the way of the tyrant.

      O: > Things may "drop," though. Certainly, the "me" cannot drop
      anything, because the "me" is the composite of all symbols, and
      cannot drop "parts of itself," much less itself. A major mistake is
      the concept of "dropping the ego" or "killing the ego." Who is there
      to drop it?

      G: Partially agreed, here. To refine, is to also rearrange;
      eventually, all concepts will be mere info on shelf. Now, I can draw
      upon certain 'static' concepts, to wit: In the hierarchy of
      complexes, the 'ego' will always (unless psychosis occurs) be the
      nucleus around which all other complexes orbit. This is not harmful,
      but it is to be seen.

      In this seeing, is the knowing of the mechanics of 'consciousness' as
      it occurs in humans. It is in this knowing of the mechanics of
      consciousness, that 'automaticity' is understood. Understanding
      'automaticity' is to also understand the alternatives. One such is
      'abiding'.

      'Abiding' is the state in which the survival instinct can be seen for
      what it is, and also, the confusion between the survival of body, and
      the survival of the 'precious Me'. One must have compassion at this
      juncture, compassion for oneself.

      If one has been brought up by 'nazis', the reaction to this seeing,
      will be to 'eliminate' the nucleus. The effect of this, if done, is
      psychosis. And it is the avoidance of psychosis, which is at the top
      of the world-dream hierarchy of 'rules'. So we have a very
      interesting situation, in which it is not allowed to see, what may be
      tampered with, which could lead to the destruction, which would lead
      to psychosis. That is why the world-dream precludes any terminology
      which would reveal the mechanics of consciousness. "There are some
      things that man is not meant to tamper with" (oft said to Dr
      Frankenstein, in various movies).

      O: > The analogy is of a tree laden with ripe fruit.
      Concepts/attachments may "drop" when seen clearly as concepts or when
      the right atmosphere is present in some other sense.

      G: I would use the analogy of one who, under the influence of LSD,
      having entered a movie theatre and having taken the movie to be
      'real', eventually understands that it is just a reel of tape,
      imprinted with images. 'It is my projection'.

      G: > >I advocate to awaken _TO_ the dream, rather than _from_ the dream.

      O: > Certainly. "See the dream as dream." Nothing else can be "done."

      G: > >If this step is taken, if one awakens to (or within) the dream,
      the tools at our disposal may be used to dramatically reform the
      contents of the dream in which we find ourselves.

      O: > I'm not sure. If such awakening takes place, often it's seen
      that volition/causation is also part of the dream.

      G: Abiding during awakening, allows the full depth of the dream to be
      intuited, if not seen. There is no point, at which the dream 'ends',
      as long as there is an 'outside', from which vantage point to see the
      dream.

      Instead, the dream is seen to be "autonomous", the very Living
      Universe itself. This moment can be one of nauseating clarity; "what
      am I, in all of that?" (shock!). Fugue (aversive reaction) may occur
      at this point; that is why practiced abiding is valuable here.

      G: > >Finding one's controls, gives one certain powers (siddhes)
      which have direct application in shaping what I call 'DISPLAY' (ala
      Vajrayana).

      O: > This must be what Jerry speaks of when he refers to "spiritual power."

      G: 'Spiritual Power' is an interesting concept, but one which I avoid
      using. I say, that there is only one power, not a hierarchy of powers.

      "Power" is a property of space; the more space, the more power.
      Mindless, without concepts, is to be able to withstand 'seeing the
      face of God', for the great power afforded by being 'empty'.

      Space is 'not empty', but is 'all power'. It is this power which we
      see in action as 'Display'. And it is our natural love of power,
      which is the basis for our polarizing into 'aversion/desire' dyads,
      such as our esteemed 'Siva/Sakti' one-as-pair.

      Self-realization states: I am power. What occurs as a consequence of
      this realization, is the knowing that it is not 'power acting on
      power', but instead, 'power using power as force', which creates
      objects which then occupy space, and thus reduce power. To retain
      power, is to abjure from the use of force.

      But, humans (and all of life) use power as force, of necessity. And
      there is an exchange, and a sacrifice, in that operation. That is why
      the greatest way of power, is compassion; it is compassion to 'let
      oneself Be', to abide, to refrain from fixing what is not broken.

      'Spiritual rules and admonitions' stimulate movement to an imagined
      'ideal' state, and are thus to be forgotten. It all comes out 'in the
      wash'. No problems, no remedies, but a whopping good show!

      G: > >Display is what is apparent reality. It is possible to directly
      shape 'Display', thus to change what is apparently 'happening'.

      O: > Why bother to change what is apparent? Let destiny/God/whatever
      run the film. If it changes, it changes, nobody here to change
      anything and CERTAINLY nobody here who "desires" change.

      G: Yes. However, being able to open the 'preference menu' and to
      reset to 'default', is nice. It starts that way, and we in our
      imagined wisdom, configure away, leading to a monster on the loose.
      Love and 'harmless' are the defaults.

      G: > >'Most people' however, have no interest or awareness of the
      nature of 'Display', other than to go through formulaic rituals (such
      as 'working for money' and 'eating to live') to accomplish the
      repetitious recreation of yesterday.

      O: > Clear and obvious...

      G: > >Some of us are gifted by Grace,
      > >with direct perception of this conundrum, and choose to take
      >control, to the extent that compassion allows.

      O: > Gene, on the level of words/concepts we see things somewhat
      differently, yet the sense here is that in truth we see things
      exactly the same way. Do you get my meaning?

      G: Of course. And I have 'always known that' about 'us', OmTim.
      Refinement does happen, as you are noticing. Yesterdays gods are
      todays dustbunnies. And vice-versa.


      G: > >(I have always said, that good 'elimination' will greatly aid
      clear vision. Beware the syndrome of 'Ocular Rectumulosis'. )

      O: > Yes, I've always felt that way too. Some here have argued
      against "negation" as anything of value (claiming negation simply
      affirms that which is negated), but the sense here is they don't
      understand the "how" of negation, or its proper place and use.

      O: > Negation becomes effortless at some point, and the
      universe/world dream is seen to be ceaselessly "negating itself." All
      is unwritten at the precise point the "pencil" touches the paper.
      Thus, nothing ever appears, despite continued "writing."

      G: Is one 'jumping ahead of the reader-device', to assume a
      hypothetical 'ideal state', in which nothing appears? Or to restate,
      is one running, to exceed the speed of history?

      I would advocate this as a valuable (transitional) concept: Anything
      that 'apparently arises', is simply 'apparent'. There is no
      difference between 'apparent' and 'real'. It is 'I the Display' what
      is happening; in this, is only 'Display', and nothing else whatsoever.

      Attachment to any aspect of apparency which occurs in Display,
      becomes a particle which is destined to become part of a
      concretion/complex. Letting go is easy, if one 'knows' the transitory
      nature of what is 'in Display'. To allow Display to be what it is, is
      to remove the braking effect, and to allow the unfolding of 'what is
      new'. This is birth, and it (can be) continuous. Nova!


      ==Gene Poole==

      _____________________________________________________________________

      OMKARA & JAN

      O:
      º"The body" is a tricky topic from the nondual perspective. Many
      ºincluding Nisargadatta ultimately deny reality to the body entirely.

      J:
      In that case, wouldn't it be consequent to interpret the activities of the body
      unreal as well?
      And that includes statements like "the body is unreal".

      ºIn a homogenous Reality, is there room for 7 billion (human) bodies,
      ºnot to mention animals and trillions of insects?

      Why would Reality have qualities like homogeneity? Homogeneity is a material
      property...
      So would Reality exclude matter?
      º
      ºAdvaita Vedanta denies reality to anything temporary and not
      ºlasting.

      Yes, and that requires a construction to explain matter and it is called unreal.
      But because only reality exists, the two (seeming) opposites have to be
      "reconciled". Jokingly, the continuation of events is lasting so that must be
      Reality :)

      Then again, some who hold the nondual perspective do not
      ºdeny reality to the body, stating that the body is temporary, but
      ºreal "while it lasts" (clear and obvious from ANY perspective).
      ºThose who lean toward the Tantric (Kundalini, etc.) fall into this
      ºcategory.

      That the body is temporary can be observed, but whence the need for classifying
      it into "real" or unreal"? Would it make a difference if that issue would be
      discarded altogether?
      º
      ºBut the way "I" see it, the body is ultimately another mental
      ºcategory, another concept, an extension of thought. Quoting
      ºNisargadatta directly (from I Am That): "There is no such thing
      ºas 'body'."
      º
      ºLove,
      º
      ºTim (Omkara)

      What has been my interest are (practical) questions like" what is the use of
      classifying bodies into real or unreal?" Is anything solved by it? Denial of
      body in a serious degree could be classified as behavioral disorder :)
      Statements like "there are no others" and "body is illusion" show a certain
      likeness with the statement "the earth is flat": suggesting a limitation where
      there isn't one. The "ancient message" was of great simplicity: there is only
      Love, the mind-body is a temporary manifestation, a "product" of love, which in
      essence is Love, so "you are Love". Of course, realizing that is also the
      ultimate simplicity - unless in denial of the mind-body... The first and
      foremost goal of institutionalized religion is and always has been, setting up
      man in denial of the mind-body, so that man can be manipulated - as recorded
      history of this planet clearly shows... And then, the most complicated
      philosophies won't be able to repair the damage and only those talented will
      "get there", as can be observed.

      Love,
      Jan

      ____________________________________________________________________

      ABIDING. NON-ATTACHMENT, & DETACHMENT

      NDS

      A discussion:

      Abiding:

      Abiding admits to something to abide. In this admission, is the
      admission of the entire Universe. But unto what, is this Universe
      admitted? Is there a space, so big, in which to fit all of what is?

      Yes, and it is space itself, which is awareness; awareness can
      'contain' or encompass or 'know' the entire Universe. Awareness,
      properly understood, is 'omniscience', yet, what is 'having' this
      omniscience?

      It is space, itself, the originator, which perceives itself, as
      reflected by what arises within 'it'. It is space, which allows
      definition; that is, the difference between (the space between) two
      things, is defined by the shape (definition) of those things. Yet,
      space is 'not-two'.

      Space is one, things are many, yet all things return to the emptiness
      of space from which 'they' arise. In temporary display, things seem
      to become, to evolve, and to expire. And it is all happening 'in
      space'. In this regard, space is just like 'mind'; things arise, are
      entertained, and expire, in endless succession. The significances of
      things, are assigned by the one who gives rise to them; thus, all
      meaning is self-referential, all meaning is inspired and derived from
      the infinite pool of omniscience which is awareness.

      It is in this arena that we find ourselves; what is not defined, is
      the one who gives meaning, the omniscient one. It is 'bad form' (for
      everyone except Michael R) to refer to self as infinite and
      omniscient; it is 'good form' to police the manifestations of
      'others', to enforce the rules of decency and humility, to ensure
      that 'enlightenment' or 'self-realization' does not seem to occur,
      unless certain criteria are met, adhered to.

      Abiding, admits to all of this, and any more of it which may be
      apparent. It is this constant barrage of judgement, this harangue of
      holiness, this admonition to be angelic, which is the irritant which
      is abided. Abidance in not static nor is it decided; it is a dynamic
      balance, akin to that of a surfer 'hanging ten' while riding the
      never-ending 'big one', yes drenched, but hyper-aware of the need to
      be hyper-aware.

      The 'let's get it finished and over with and get on with our lives'
      approach, assumes that there are problems to be solved, states to
      experience, lives to live, deaths to die, and all in a linear
      fashion. What of simultaneity, one may ask? What of the (hinted)
      MultiVerse, containing this Universe, which is contained in awareness
      itself, as omniscience? What of the 'realm of possibilities?

      Is it necessary to 'deconstruct', to see what is under, behind, or
      precedent of that which is apparent? How about simply jumping to the
      end? But taking that leap, one leaves the grounding of self, to
      travel to an imagined ideal, for some 'reason' this is done or tried,
      as though, something can be 'done' about anything. Is this done, to
      illustrate, to teach, to example, to help? Or is it otherwise, and
      later, rationalized as having 'meaning'? Is it simply spasmodics, or
      is it 'enlightenment in action'?

      Detachment denies that there is anything to abide; instead, it sets
      up camp in a stasis-field, to keep away the bears and cougars and
      wolves and ants. Detachment has already decided 'how it is', and if
      that were the technique of the surfer, all waves would have to
      conform to that one form, which is already decided, or the surfer
      would take a header. This we see in the act of the control-artist,
      especially the control-artists who don the mantle of spiritual
      virtue, of superiority, of knowing the ethical prerequisites for
      entry to heaven, nirvana, or sunyata. Those who abstain from the
      struggle, are detached, while those who abide, those who are
      'non-attached', are swimming with the sharks, yet avoid the teeth.

      Abiding uses nonattachment, not detachment, as means, but not to an
      end, but as way of Being. Nonattachment allows the
      slithering/flashing/throbbing beauty/ugliness which is apparent, to
      continue on its way, noting, and letting go. Detachment is a
      pre-decided match, won in advance, the winner wearing the blue ribbon
      of 1st Place, and what competitor can dare claim victory, against the
      current champion? Detachment declares itself not only ahead of, but
      in abeyance of, any struggle whatsoever.

      Abiding says: "I see this situation, and I will keep my balance as it
      transpires, and I will not expect this ongoing fluctuating field of
      effects to end, nor will I complain of the buffeting that I receive
      as I maintain my desired and learned stance of balance".

      Says abiding: "I do not expect to reach the end of this job of work,
      so I will keep my tools sharpened; I do not long for the day on
      which, I can throw away my tools and skills, to sink gratefully into
      non-effort."

      Quoth abiding: As I abide, I also learn to abide; thus, abiding is
      also learning. As I abide I abide my own ignorance, and also my own
      enlightenment. If God shows up with a big 'stop sign', I can stop,
      but until then, my task is to recognize and to compensate for
      changing conditions. Indeed, I can afford to have no feelings about
      changing conditions, but instead, have feelings for my own dilemma,
      that of abiding I know not what."

      What is life, and what is death? Detachment knows not, but is
      self-defined as above or superior to those conundrums; nonattachment
      knows those puzzles intimately, yet, does not surrender to the
      contempt of familiarity. Wary for the next shift, abiding is dynamic,
      and if there is rest, it is in the flimsy assurance that disaster has
      been averted through the agency of non-reaction. The question is
      constant, and there are no final answers, only refinements of the
      question. Finally, there is no finality, and once that desire has
      been put to rest, all exertion is had in the context of acceptance;
      in that context, what comes, is a gift, as repulsive as it may be in
      the moment.

      We become adept at swallowing the toad, warts and all. Our
      preferences are deleted as rapidly as they are engendered. Our stance
      is movement, yet this movement is the economy of rest. What is not
      forbidden, is mandatory, and what is mandatory is to suffer in
      proportion to forgetfulness. Remembering replaces compensatory
      fantasy, and the only fantasy is that of more effective remembering.
      Amnesia is not desired, for one has not forgotten amnesia, and the
      long and painful climb out of that singularity, nor has one taken for
      granted the buoyancy of Grace, nor the intuition of phases of
      'growth'.

      We know that we get what we choose, and that we do not always know
      what we choose, and thus we know also, to accept what we get, yet to
      note what circumstances brought what we regret, so as to better
      choose. Knowing this is to be able to refine what choice is
      available, to accept what can not be chosen, and thus to be freed of
      one more attachment.

      Soon, what was a series of gross efforts, becomes as light as
      breathing, as light as the touch of wing of butterfly, as subtle as
      the odor of distant fragrant grasses in unseen mountain meadows, as
      light as the passing of seconds of pleasure; but to maintain
      vigilance then, is the work, for the job never ends, except in the
      myths of those who in their detachment, find finality, finished,
      ended, departed from this sphere of suffering, benumbed perhaps,
      maybe disabled and out on the sidelines, but in denial of wounds, and
      in imitation of the greater denial-artists, who in their smiling
      grace look down upon those still identified with the dynamism of the
      Great Breath of the Living Universe, and shake their heads in pity
      for those who by staying in the game, accept the only reward there
      is, that of enhanced skill and thus less effort expended, to the same
      or better effect.

      And so on.


      ==Gene Poole==

      <http://www.geocities.com/taramandala/mindnature/kalu/mind.html>

      ____________________________________________________________________

      Marcia:
      >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
      tells 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. >


      ~ Marcia, as I see it, this kind of confrontation fails
      because it is carried out by someone trying to
      imitate grace.

      Any of us who have received the truly transforming
      blessing of seeing our own bullshit before us in neon
      lights, have received it not by some human's plan or
      device, although people may serve as grace's tools.

      Moreover, blessed revelation of self-deception and of
      pure Self is not a once-in-a-lifetime event. Gratefully,
      Grace has more tricks up her sleeve than we could ever
      imagine; and like Mary Poppins medicine, each of them
      is designed perfectly for each of us idiots.

      And I agree... judgement is judgement is judgement...
      and is an expression of a lack of freedom no matter
      how 'enlightened' is the language in which it is couched.

      love
      Xan

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