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

digest of Wednesday's posts

Expand Messages
  • Melody
    From: Melody Nonduality Digest of posts dated Wednesday, July 21, ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Xan offered: from
    Message 1 of 2 , Jul 22, 1999
      From: Melody <melody@...>

      Nonduality Digest of posts dated Wednesday, July 21,


      Xan offered:

      from Master Ta Hui

      "'Just get to the root; don't worry about the branches.'

      Emptying the mind is the root, the fundamental, then all kinds of language
      and knowledge and all your daily activities as you respond to people and
      adapt to circumstances, through so many upsets and downfalls, whether joyous
      or angry, good or bad, favorable or adverse - these are all trivial matters,
      the branches. If you can be spontaneously aware and knowing as you are going
      along with circumstances, then there is neither lack nor excess."


      The "conventional path" isn't a single but a plural as there are many
      variations. What is in common, is finding Guru(s) (physically dead or
      alive) / teacher(s) to whose presence /statements / methods etc. one
      feels strongly attracted.

      And of course "here" the question is: "who is attracted?" If the ego,
      disillusion could follow and seekership could end in another disappointment
      (presupposing that one doesn't become a seeker because of having a pleasant
      "interesting worldy life").
      But from the spiritual perspective, "drinking the cup of
      bitterness" is always a sweet necessity when seen in retrospect

      So all unconventional paths have in common that (for the sake
      of explanation) the "inner" Guru takes the initiative, no
      matter how strange that may sound. The "inner" Guru isn't a
      seeker and doesn't have a path; the pathless path could be
      called top-down or flash awakening (as opposed to bottom-up or

      Which unavoidably is leading back to the issue of " the Grace
      of God" and the wounded ego. For a starter, how would you
      describe prince Gautama's ego, when going for the homeless life
      on being confronted with suffering for the first time, leaving
      loved ones behind? A big healthy ego, like Ken Wilbur described
      in one of
      his books ??

      Path.....From the first moment I ran across Gurdjieff and the
      Work I knew there was something there that had tremendous
      weight. I struggled and worked with the application of the
      ideas, I did personal work with other people in groups, and
      I even attempted in small ways to pass some of the ideas
      along to others. This must be the gradual bottom-up way.
      The conventional modality.

      But the real awakening was a flash-down experience. How
      could it be any other way?

      In fact that is what the Work says. All we can do is work
      to balance the lower centers in order to receive from the
      higher centers. In fact all this talk about ego and therapy
      really isn't germane as one will not receive unless one can
      bear it. If reception occurs in an unbalanced machine the
      gears will freeze and the person will be crystallized
      wrongly forever.

      Regarding the ego, it always reminds of Ramana's remark, not to
      ransack what will in the course of events be discarded. Among
      others, spontaneous K. awakenings can occur after one has
      experienced a severe loss and for those unprepared, there can
      be problems; they are always solved when the insight of the
      "don't" arises: resist, fight, blame and regret. Without the
      "don't", one can receive quite a lot.

      From: andrew macnab <a.macnab@...>

      When asked to sum up his teaching in one sentence, J. Krishnamurti said;

      "Attempt without effort to live with death in futureless silence."

      There is no memory in this silence.




      It feels that facing what is is like standing at the gate of the
      Infinite, and that the Infinite comes uninvited and with no other
      reason than compassion to pick you up from that gate.

      Tony (from HarshaSatsangh):

      Fear is the primeval subconscious feeling of separation from the
      source. It manifests in many ways, all to do with bodily attachments.
      If one is in communion with the source then it is 'Why fear when 'I'am
      here'. Referring to the 'I'Atma of course. For all is one and then who
      is to fear and what is there to fear.

      Colette responds:
      Nice Tony, thanks. I also have found lately that ego as inner child may then
      project on the return journey back home to Atma, the pains and fears
      encountered during teh intitial separation and even with own parents as
      unconditional love is impossible to have flowing all the time. The child
      learns to weather separation over and over and over - yet fear and defense
      mechanisms get built. Can I trust Love if it means separation too asks my
      inner child self?

      To me, and from my experience of childhood, fear is not the primeval
      subconscious feeling of separation. Amazement, or the beauty of
      strangeness, is more.

      "There is no excellent beauty that hath not some strangeness in the
      proportion." (Francis bacon)

      This amazement brings a taste for adventure, and like a little child's
      touching with no fear the fire for the first time, a fear from it is
      born from pain. From the amazement of our own beauty that we want to
      touch, and with habit and pain, comes the "other" one, or the "something
      else", we come to fear.

      This picture nicely express the amazement i am referring to:


      As amazement was an entry door into the world of separation it may also
      be the door out of it. But it's a more delicate path than just killing
      the fear...


      The disidentification with everything is quite
      a leap. In my mind, it is not the ego that makes the leap. We agree on
      this. It is "itself" that leaps to "itself." It is just that the ego needs
      to be in readiness to accept this movement. An ego that might look to
      other to be unbalanced might actually be quite balanced. It's not a matter
      of how "others" perceive it, it's a matter of its readiness for a movement
      like that, and its willingness to give itself over to that movement.


      Feelings leave impressions behind in the mind; when
      the old impressions are erased, the impressionability is erased
      as well. This is what makes the difference between suffering
      and pain. In many discussions it is assumed one's "assets"
      remain unchanged; they are changed thoroughly and this makes
      "all" the difference. Because the past does not consist just of
      facts, but of impressions and facts, it takes some analysis to
      verbalize "the" difference, as seemingly memory remains the
      same; the facts remain, but all impressions are gone as is
      impressionability. Which is the explanation for the absence of
      the entire "individuality structure", because that is rooted in
      accumulated impressions.


      Jung saw the unconscious as sometimes
      "taking over" in
      ways that hurt the person, particularly if the ego was not
      able to relate,
      communicate, and assimilate the messages from the
      unconscious. So he saw
      the journey as somewhat unpredictable and at times dangerous. This is the
      archetypal "hero's journey." For me, it's not really a
      hero's journey, and
      the dangers are more mind-made than real. Yet, while the
      intention is to
      remain ego-centered, there are dangers simply related to the ongoing
      challenges that ego may have difficulty assimilating or
      perceiving accurately.

      I wouldn't be surprised if many cases of psychosis turn out to
      be K. related; this must be the one of the dangers. If one
      can't relate to inner events, there is the possibility to stop
      interpreting, putting one as it were in a no-man's land, or to
      adopt a fight or flight reaction pattern (possibly developing
      into psychosis). The unpredictability of the no-man's land can
      be associated with the archetypal hero's journey. It reminds of
      an introduction, Jung wrote in a book on Ramana Maharshi, that
      wasn't finished by his close friend Heinrich Zimmer. Jung
      visited India but didn't visit Ramana; he was considered
      absolutely predictable. Instead, Jung was overjoyed by meeting
      a householder, firmly rooted in "worldly" life, who was a
      disciple of Ramana. This was the "proof of the pudding"; the
      validity of Ramana's teaching / method for John Doe.

      Whether you call it the "inner guru" or "the unconscious
      self" that wants
      to "integrate the conscious mind," there is a similar thrust here. The
      person may find themselves doing thing not expected,
      encountering events
      that are challenging or discomfitting. The outcome feels
      predetermined" from ego's perspective (and the outcome ends up being the
      "unknown" itself). I agree that this is very important. It doesn't really
      fit that well with Wilber's rather linear and forward-moving ideas about
      spiritual evolution and development, although he does make
      some good
      points. In my opinion his tendency to see spiritual
      development as
      predictable, controllable, and fitting with conceptual maps is why some of
      his statements about ego have the kind of sound to them that you detected.

      The excellent point you make is that "ego is never master in its own
      house," which is essentially the point Freud wanted to make, although Freud
      didn't clearly see how related this was to spiritual

      The predictability of those, who in Jung's words, follow their
      own nature, irrespective of society, family ties etc, is a
      fact. For them, ego was never an issue, nor wanting to realize.
      One "flash" is enough to see the "work ahead". Then, all other
      issues suddenly have become non-issues; the biography of Ramana
      reveals this clearly. For others, without such a flash, it is
      different. The analogy of having pulled out a number of nasty
      thorns all at once, or having them pulled out one by one. IMO,
      ego has become a problem because of societal overrating of
      individuality and tabooing death. This causes egos to behave
      according to the laws of the jungle, with predictable
      consequences too ;-( At best, ego is a sincere servant.


      Here's what "not the doer" meant to me. Arjuna wished to
      renounce action altogether, but giving up
      actions based on ego desires is only half way to truly
      relinquishing all attachment to "results of action" - sacrificing
      all notions of success or failure and all ownership of the actions
      performed. Krishna did mention the lucidity of knowledge that
      would see in all creatures one existence, a single undivided
      presence. When Arjuna speaks of his delusion of ignorance being
      destroyed, he also says he has by grace regained his memory. That
      appears to be the remembrance of I AM. So it implies that only
      with this awareness in place by remembering who one is - not
      separate - only then
      is it possible to act freely. THIS includes recognizing what one
      was born to do, not resisting one's destiny. Awareness
      (transcendent type) may be a rest stop or oasis
      of peace, yet it is not a stopping place from which one ceases
      participation in the life of apparent duality. Only with
      transcendent awareness does immanence have the possibility to
      manifest as heaven on earth..the return to heaven is to the
      "Edenic garden where
      God's (I AM) presence is readily available" - this is to end the
      exile, to
      return home. To bring eternity into time. And it is here and now,
      IMHO. Where else is there to go?



      Since Dan mentioned TV commercials it reminded me
      of an experience I had twice actually. Twice when it
      was time for me to "get" something a character in a TV
      program looked me right in the eye and gave me the
      message. There was no doubt about it.He looked me
      right in the eye and said a personal direct thing to me.

      The first time my husband was with me watching also
      and I asked him if he got what the guy just said. He
      mumbled something or another but it was clear that
      the effect was not at all the same.

      It was very strange. Direct eye contact through the
      TV with a message.

      Followed to its logical conclusion,
      the bodisattva vow results in
      a whole bunch of bodissatvas
      standing around saying
      "go ahead", "no please after you",
      "no I insist"...
      The only solution
      is for them all
      to be one.



      I have been watching a man dressed in rags. He carries a sign that says

      His eyes burn with fervor; the fervor of mental illness? Perhaps. His eyes
      are fired by a gentleness and a smile for everyone he passes that cuts to
      the quick, and despite my walls, makes me feel as though I have been seen to
      the very core of my being and found good. His presence on the street corner
      is reassuring somehow...I notice his smile and his grace; his gentleness and
      openness to any who will return his glance, his absolute respect for any who
      do not...I wonder about him...I do not notice his rags or his unkempt hair.
      I think about Jesus, as I watch the many who walk pass this man revile him
      and move away in fear.


      The flash comes: nothing matters, walk lightly, be real, our errors work as
      well as our successes...words get in the way...words are fun...words give me
      a headache...joy bubbles up with the dishwater...it doesn't matter if it
      matters....be unreal....it doesn't matter, errors don't exist...great
      joy...I am alive!, it doesn't matter....


      Harsha (from HarshaSatsangh):

      Sages tell us that in the tree of
      life, most fruits are bitter sweet. However, Satsanga (Company of the Truth
      or of the wise sages who know the Truth) and meditation on the nature of the
      Self lead to the fruit which is only sweet and extinguishes all bitterness.
      We bow to the great sages in all religions and spiritual traditions and
      those who are outside and independent of all traditions - who have pointed
      to the true nature of the spirit. We bow to the sweetness which is our
      eternal nature.

    • Melody
      A sampling of postings from Wednesday, August 4, 1999To subscribe to the Nonduality Salon please click below:
      Message 2 of 2 , Aug 5 5:19 PM
        A sampling of postings from
        Wednesday, August 4, 1999

        To subscribe to the Nonduality Salon please click below:



        Skye: Human love, is a great spoiler of *actual intimacy*. Most
        humans only reach the belief levels of love which they use to gloss over
        the warts and all. They prefer to fantasise that their lover is the most
        perfect human being *a* god. Human love is incredibly self-centred,
        demanding, wanting and needing ... it must HAVE....so in the world
        of duality it always goes. It is an unfortunate force that comes
        into ones life, which can be transcended along with our limited
        intellectual concepts of everything. I don�t take much notice of the
        human measurement of love.

        In actual intimacy, when you are with another person one hundred per
        cent, unemotionally, there is neither attraction nor repulsion and
        you *see clearly* what other people call attractive or repulsive �
        and that's delicious because it's actually what is, which is actual

        In actual intimacy this whole moment, everything, is magnificent.

        Dan: Thanks for this, Skye. You're pointing to the difference between
        love as wanting/needing and love as Being. This is the difference between
        referring love to a self that is a center and not referring love to
        anything. To be with someone as simply that moment, the person is what is
        in that moment - you are relating to everything that appears in that moment
        the same way - no distinctions. You yourself are not actually "relating
        to" that moment, as that moment is inseparable from your own awareness. So
        there is no relating to anything, yet there is relationship. And there is
        what is beyond relationship, simply being. To me, what you said here is
        what it's all about - what we might be able to learn from this human


        andrew: The temporal knowing person senses
        atemporal awareness and that sense
        changes the person, makes the person whole.
        Otherwise, what's the point?
        And the whole person can speak.

        dan: The atemporal awareness
        constructs and deconstructs
        "the temporal knowing person"
        in one instant. The temporal
        person is always a "being in transition".
        The point of knowing "between"
        temporal and atemporal awareness
        is where the "whole person"
        (i.e., the atemporal reality itself)
        is seen to be speaking (and manifesting)
        "through the image" of a person in time.


        Petros wrote:
        Krishnaji says some great things, but someone has to really pay
        and make the effort of following his train of thought to the end.
        Understanding is there for those who want to really confront it.

        I know what you mean. I opened my first K book at 22 yrs old and was
        immediately uninterested, I also bought the Ch'an translations "The
        Transmission of the Mind Outside the Teachings" by Charles Luk at
        the same time, but it was 10 years before I could bare to confront
        their nullification of my precious beliefs.


        Andrew offered:

        You might be interested in checking out Tolstoy's
        version of the Gospels, if you haven't seen it;


        chapter headings from the preface;

        1. Man is the son of an infinite source: a son of that Father not by the
        flesh but by the spirit.
        2. Therefore man should serve that source in spirit.
        3. The life of all men has a divine origin. It alone is holy.
        4. Therefore man should serve that source in the life of all men. Such is
        the will of the Father.
        5. The service of the will of that Father of life gives life.
        6. Therefore the gratification of one's own will is not necessary for life.
        7. Temporal life is food for the true life.
        8. Therefore the true life is independent of time: it is in the present.
        9. Time is an illusion of life; life in the past and in the future conceals
        from men the true life of the present.
        10. Therefore man should strive to destroy the illusion of the temporal
        life of the past and future.
        11. True life is life in the present, common to all men and manifesting
        itself in love.
        12. Therefore, he who lives by love in the present, through the common life
        of all men, unites with the Father, the source and foundation of life.



        Developmentally, it is appropriate that each of us invents a
        sense of the "doer," just as it is appropriate that perceptually
        we develop the ability to construct "things" that we "see" and "experience."
        Our perceptual world of "things" is a world of "thought constructs" in
        tangible form. When awareness loses its illusory anchoring in "the doer,"
        it simultaneously loses its perceived noninvolvement in the construction of
        the sensory "world of things." This simultaneous realization shows that
        the construction of "the doer" is associated with a construction of a
        "world" in which the doing takes place, and that identification with the
        first requires separation and disidentification from the second. My guess
        is that, although there are significant differences in cultural
        interpretations of the doer and the world, this construction of doer and
        world occurs in all cultures (at least all which I have studied).

        When we developed as children, we needed to be able to intiate
        action when needed (or expected) and to have such action be based on
        perception. If we would have been unable to initiate such action, this
        would be a problem socially and in terms of survival. This "doing" ability
        gets elaborated as
        we develop, so as to include the ability to self-reflect, to
        contemplate options and consequences, to delay action until
        the best time. This interaction of memory, perception, associations,
        conceptualized options, and action could be termed the
        developing self or the ego of time. This sense of self includes
        functioning as an initiator, perceiver, doer, and reflector.

        The end of the "doer" (and perceiver, etc.) is the end of binding awareness
        around roles associated with specific modes of perception. The end of the
        doer is the end of attaching awareness "to" any particular state or
        experience. States and conditions may come and go, awareness remains, and
        awareness is not separate from, nor identified with any particular state.
        The doer ends when awareness is simply known by itself as itself, which is
        no-thing. This no-thing is not "in existence," and doesn't initiate or
        make anything happen (as such would require conditionality and
        identification). One then realizes that there "never has been any entity
        anywhere" - neither in the world of things or within the body. There
        simply cannot be any independently initiating entities
        of any sort (the doctrine of dependent origination) and no objects separate
        from awareness. Such realization is the source of freedom from every
        psychological problem based on "doing" (e.g., guilt, anxiety,
        preoccupation), and every social problem based on conflicting goals and

        Realization is awareness itself as it is. It is clear how awareness imagined
        itself "caught" in its projection of a body-mind, the associated
        biopsychsocial process of "development of being," and the concomitent
        investment in surviving, continuing, and being socially viable. It is
        clear that the ending of this
        connection of awareness with "any entity" is simply awareness as it is.



        Change... it seems to be the only constant in life. But even change
        undergoes changes (speeds up, slows down, etc). I don't believe change is
        a constant (which would negate the fact that there is only change!), as
        there is something undefinable that is unchanging.

        The Internet seems to have pointed that out to me lately. Some speak of
        "Internet time," where a regular business-year occurs in weeks.

        The other day, I was encoding a movie in RealAudio format. I realized that
        RealPlayer may not even be around in a few years anymore (who knows), or
        the formats might change, or the company might get bought up... then how
        could I play back my movie? The software requires registration, constant
        updates, and finally expires, AFAIK. This seems to be two new trends that
        really illustrate change: Software that requires registration before it
        will run, and self-updating software that connects to the Net to update.

        Thinking about these things the other day, there was a very deep
        realization that life is flux, change, that "I" cannot observe change
        because I myself *AM* change, am part of the process, and change cannot see
        change. Who is the observer of change? And is there an observer behind
        that observer?

        It's so freeing just to let go... so much peace and bliss to realize that
        NOTHING, nothing at all, is permanent, and to go with that. "Going with
        the flow" is not an adequate description. One must let go, and let go, and
        let go, and let go... and I believe that is our natural state. Clinging
        and attachment are unnatural and products of ignorance and the need for
        security. Drop that fucking need, any way possible! There is no security.
        There never has been, and never will be. Let yourself out of prison.



        Had satsang with Yudhishtara tonight at the Bodhi Tree along with about
        fifty really great people, some of whom I recognized from Neelam's satsang a
        few weeks ago.

        Y opened, as is his custom, by expressing gratitude to everyone for making
        it to satsang, and how he recognized that people really have to make a
        concerted effort -- making time in their schedule, then fighting the traffic
        and looking for a place to park -- to be present. He thanked everyone for
        that and noted that it exemplifies a genuine inner need to be here. Y also
        expressed gratitude, as always, to his teacher Papaji (Poonjaji).

        As is also his custom, Y apologized if his expression of Truth was not as
        "pure" (in a philosophical sense) as some people might prefer. He suggested
        that those who might be dissatisfied with his down-to-earth approach might
        themselves not be as "pure" as they would like to believe.

        He followed his opening by retelling a funny anecdote. Evidently someone
        called his home a few weeks ago and left a message on his answering machine
        asking for Y to provide an explanation of the "ultimate truth." The caller
        instructed Y to call him back, and said that if he wasn't home, Y should
        just leave the answer on the machine!

        Later someone asked about "levels" of Truth and Y was careful to point out
        that he doesn't see it in terms of levels, but of *facets*. All
        expressions being simultaneous but slightly different, not one above or
        below another.

        At another point, Y said that the natural state *is* the ultimate state, not
        samadhis and "super-samadhis" and such; that the ultimate state is just
        accepting yourself as you are, finally.

        Someone came to Y's feet and sang a song; a little bit later someone else
        played a flute.



        There was this rabbi guy at this synagogue who was praying and he puts
        his hands to his heart and looks to heaven and cries out, "Lord, I am
        nothing"!!, and throws himself on the floor. This other rabbi walks by
        and sees him on the floor and does the same thing, pounds his hands to
        his chest and says "Lord I am nothing", and throws himself on the floor
        besides him. Now this other guy, this non-jew, (jews always have
        non-jews to do their work), walks by and sees these guys on the floor
        and he does the same thing, pounds his hands to his chest and looks to
        heaven and says "Lord I am nothing!", and throws himself on the floor.
        So the first jew says to the second jew, "Hey, look who thinks he's
        nothing?" :-)
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.