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

Wednesday, December 13

Expand Messages
  • umbada@ns.sympatico.ca
    ANDY LESMANA SASTRAHADIJAYA Personally, Sandeep s question-- How does this nondualism apply to everyday life? was in a way my question, too when I first
    Message 1 of 1 , Dec 15 9:12 AM
    • 0 Attachment

      Personally, Sandeep's question--"How does this nondualism apply to
      everyday life?" was in a way my question, too when I first joined this
      list. I am still asking myself (too shy to ask you!) how I can practise
      this wonderful nondualism in my life. Being an adult who has been so
      heavily conditioned with diabolical dualism since my childhood, I find
      it difficult to really understand what you guys talking about in your
      posts, let alone practise it. It is as if you were all using calculus,
      whereas what I know is just a simple arithmetics. Despite this utter
      confusion, I can feel the vibration of loves among us, which keeps me
      from saying "bye" as Tim (Omkara) does. What is funny is that when I
      talked about it "offline" with my wife a couple days ago, she said that
      I might have gone nuts and made fun of me of this nonduality stuff. Am
      I really going nuts? Please help this miserable creature called Andy.
      Thank you!


      Dear Andy,

      Don't worry about the conditioning since early childhood. That
      conditioning now may look like a maze, where you seem to be caught. But
      be assured there is a perspective, where the maze can can be seen from
      "above", and then, you're no longer feeling a captive, no matter the
      complexity of the maze, and it will appear to have been that way

      Understanding on an intellectual level is only needed to convince that
      thinking cannot give any answer, the final "answer" arrived at by
      thinking is that it can't give an answer to questions like "Who am I?,
      where am I from, where am I going?" An easy way is to be the witness of
      "whatever happens" - perceptions (both "inner", like thoughts, and
      "outer", like sounds) arising and subsiding are witnessed. A witness
      doesn't interfere with "what is happening" and isn't affected by it.
      Difficult or easy? For the witness, that question is moot :)


      Dear Andy,

      Welcome, from another Andy. Being 'a witness of whatever happens' lifes
      runs along, smooth or rough, still one thing seen is that I try to do
      the best with what I have, whether that's choice or fate, that's part
      of the happening, but there's no longer paralysis with fear of screwing
      up (which there was, in my case), of what other people might think.
      Whatever outcomes, they are seen in their unending novelty, people have
      become transparent.

      love, andrew


      Hi Andy,

      Something is going on with you. The words you read resonate in some
      way. The important thing is the resonation and what is going on "here,
      now". The words are only catalysts.

      If you take a concept about nondualism and apply it to life, you have a
      dualism: the dualism of the concept and the life to which it is

      My suggestion is to forget dualism and nondualism, forget about
      applying something to life, and notice that the whole concept that "I
      exist as a being who goes through time by applying concepts to life" is
      simply a concept. Like any other conceptual construction, it seems to
      come together for a while, then it dissipates.

      Talking about nonduality is, indeed, nuts, as any talking involves
      duality (the words themselves, the communicator and the one
      communicated to, etc.). So, as you talk about it, laugh, and don't take
      it too seriously ;-)




      Dear List,

      Here's a quote from Papaji:

      "When mind is pure you will see Self in all Beings. Purify the mind by
      removing all concepts, especially the concept of purity. Then Self
      reveals itself to the Empty mind which is Consciousness."

      snip Peace,

      Tim (Omkara)


      Dear Tim:

      This is what Papaji's statement means to me:

      The concept of purity, freedom from sin or guilt, must dissolve before
      freedom is a reality instead of just another concept.

      The thought, I am pure, is just another concept that the ego grabs a
      hold of to make itself better than someone who "is not pure". For me to
      be pure, there must be an opposite of "not pure".

      Asking who is pure reveals that there is no one that is pure no one who
      is not pure.

      Who wants to know?

      The answer is that the questioner is just a concept asking another
      concept to reveal that which is just a concept.

      Papaji was speaking to this person spontaneously and naturally based on
      his perception of the erroneous concepts espoused by the questioner.

      The mind loves to question and challenge other minds, it justifies it's

      The desire to know, the fear of not knowing creates imagination which
      is life as we know it. All creation is born of desire. The last desire
      to go is the desire to be pure and free. Purity and freedom can not be
      found because it is already here and has always been here.

      We have just forgot. We have millions of years of conditioning to drop
      before we can see the divine which is here now.

      Duality is the playground of the mind. Duality loves drama, can not be
      without drama, so it creates melodramas which can be called Mind
      Generated Movies, or MGM....-:)

      When all questions cease.

      When all concepts dissolve.

      That which is...will shine forth to reveal what always has been and
      will always be.

      Pure Consciousness.

      Pure Awareness.

      Read between the lines, forget the words, forget the ideas, forget the

      Drop them all like a cheap suit.

      Peace and Love Brother Tim.



      Greetings, Tim...

      The short answer to your question is this:

      Papaji's statement makes perfect sense; it refers to the complete
      removal of criteria.

      There is no criteria by which to judge criteria.

      It is the human tendency to ground oneself in a (given) criteria, thus
      to determine the correctness of criteria, which Papaji refers to in
      your quote.

      Gene says: "There are no criteria".

      Your letter:

      >Here's a quote from Papaji: > >"When mind is pure you will see Self in
      all Beings. Purify the mind >by removing all concepts, especially the
      concept of purity. Then >Self reveals itself to the Empty mind which
      is Consciousness." > >Does anyone (else) feel the above statement is
      especially obtuse, >convoluted and really makes no sense? > >The
      question arises: Who is Papaji speaking to? Obviously, "the >mind."
      The mind is composed of concepts. So Papaji is asking a >bundle of
      concepts to remove all concepts?!?

      Not exactly, Tim. It is more basic than that. Papaji is launching
      something, an 'anti-meme', which is designed to hit the very center of
      'identification' in any person. It is designed to provoke an
      involuntary dissociation, a shock, which will serve (in a moment) to
      separate the Being from the assumptions which that Being has become
      cloaked in.

      This momentary denuding, if successful, is the essence of Papaji's
      'work' with others.

      We can see in Papaji, and others of his 'ilk', the ability to remain,
      through effort, in this state of dissociation, a voluntary psychic
      nudism, a lifestyle of letting drop any protection.

      This is in a sense, if it can be seen, the highest glorification of
      'Self'. It is 'making a joyful noise unto the Lord'. And it is also
      the very embodiment of 'the end of seeking'.

      >The kind of statement above by Papaji represents what I would call
      >"dualism in practice," which is pretty roundly condemned by any sage
      >worth their salt. In other words, "I" am supposed to "purify my
      >mind" by "removing all concepts." Yet this "I" is itself thought and
      >concepts, and the "I" cannot remove anything.

      Contrary to popular (here in NDS) opinion, the 'I itself' is not
      thoughts and concepts; thoughts and concepts are static, while the "I"
      is movement.

      "I" can remove anything. Conceptualize stepping out of one's clothing.

      "I" can remove my shades.

      >Also, what's this B.S. about "purifying the mind by removing the
      >concept of purity?" Is this supposed to be some sort of "Gee, I'm
      >cool because I can speak in paradox that makes no sense either
      >'dually' or 'nondually'" thing?

      The mind is an engine of unceasing movement. This engine, simply
      processes 'concepts' and makes 'meaning' out of it, as yours has done,
      as it processed Papaji's statement.

      A question is this: Is the 'output' of the engine, an improvement on
      the 'input'?

      ( a reminder of the 'sausage factory' is appropriate here.)

      >So what's up with the above quotation? It's confusing, nonsensical,
      >obfuscating and meaningless both as a "beginning teaching" and as an
      >"advanced teaching" (apologies to Papaji's fans and followers, but
      >he really should be more careful). > >Peace, > >Tim (Omkara)

      I am not a fan of Papaji, but the quote you have offered, is not one
      that I would take issue with, personally. More likely, it would be one
      that was uttered, out of the context of formal presentation.

      Even then, one may pick bones, taking care to avoid breaking teeth.


      Dear Gene and Tim,
      Tim, you raised a useful question. Gene, you provided an answer with

      Papaji's words might or might not catalyze something. Although clarity
      of words is helpful, there is a question as to whether the
      transformation actually is catalyzed by anything. That is, one can say
      the transformation is no-transformation, as the *clarity* is that there
      is nothing to be transformed.

      Words seem to catalyze because they can, like acid, erode a position
      that "held" a criterion or conditionality to being, including day to
      day experiential being.

      Yet, how real is the position that is being eroded?

      Is "reality" dependent on anything? Is "reality" only there when
      positions are eroded and holding is not?

      The unconditioned can never not be, because it never has claimed a
      position in the first place.

      Words such as these, Papaji's, yours, and theirs all amount to a dance,
      a game, which can be mud-slinging, graceful ballet, hip-shaking boogie,
      or sophisticated waltz.

      Take your pick (or, more precisely, choicelessly the dance dances
      itself, including the dance-step known as "choice").

      The unconditioned, never being subject to conditionality, doesn't
      depend on the "right" words to be said.

      There are no "right" words and "wrong" words, just words.

      Of course, "we" determine the rightness and wrongness depending on our
      perceptions of situations and what "fits" the situation. Yet that very
      perception is the dance dancing itself.

      Another View: (practical)

      Is Conscious Reasoning Logical? (from http://www.medfaq.com/intc1.htm)

      When people engage in conscious reasoning, they almost never follow the
      rules of logic. Not only is it unfamiliar to most people,
      experimentation has shown that most people cannot do logic.

      In one of my experiments, subjects had to solve 16 logic problems.
      These problems were about as simple as logic problems can be — they
      contained only two premises, and the goal was simply to derive the
      claim that followed from the premises. Most subjects in my experiment
      didn't even get a quarter of these problems correct.

      The following is one of the most difficult of these problems. You know
      that there is a room full of people, and somewhere in the room are
      people who are bankers, farmers, and artists. The two premises are:

      No artists are bankers All bankers are farmers.

      What can you conclude about the relationship between artists and
      farmers? Your choices are:

      1. All artists are farmers.
      2. All farmers are artists.
      3. No artists are farmers.
      4. No farmers are artists.
      5. Some artists are farmers.
      6. Some farmers are artists.
      7. Some artists are not farmers.
      8. Some farmers are not artists.
      9. none of the above—there is no valid conclusion

      In one study by Marvin Levine, 40 subjects tried to solve this problem,
      and none of them got it correct. (The answer is at the below.)

      Don't feel bad if you didn't get the answer to the logic problem, which
      was that some farmers are not artists. Did I mention that people are
      not very good at logic?



      Greetings Beloved One,

      I celebrate this Moment with You! Holy are You as a Child of Divine
      Love, Pure Oneness.

      I am so very happy to share that our Awakening Mind Musicians'
      Pavillion is now open and you can enjoy a free holiday concert of
      profound and inspired music through your computer.

      Some truly God inspired musicians (Oman & Shanti, Donna Marie Cary,
      Susan McCullen, Christian & Julien, MaryBeth Scalice, & Angelica) have
      granted us permission to share what God has expressed through them, so
      sit back and turn your computer speakers up and let some of the most
      inspired music on this planet wash over you, as you bask in the Glory
      of God's Love. This music has always been in your heart and you will
      recognize it instantly.

      The concert has 10 songs, an intermission, and 10 more songs. You will
      need RealPlayer to enjoy the concert, and a button link is provided on
      the Musicians' Pavillion to download the Player for free if you don't
      yet have it on your computer. Once RealPlayer is installed on your
      computer and your speakers are turned on, sit back and allow yourself
      to feel the Love of God. The concert is truly a meditation on the

      You can enter the Musicians' Pavillion from clicking on the link on the
      left hand column near the top of our Awakening Mind web site at:


      All of the videos and songs and thoughts are inspired by the Spirit.

      Be prepared to be Graced and Blessed. Bask in the Glow. You are Beloved
      Holy Child of the Living God.

      Peace & Blessings always,




      As a rule, I take for granted that the majority of books is relating to
      specifics, regarding disciples. Ramana however stated various simple
      views meant for the "general public" and they are very clear (like the
      one of the projector, the screen and the movie). Nonduality could be
      called "ultimate simplicity" and it would be strange indeed if
      "factual" realizing that would require "a great deal of complexity,
      whether from teachers or books".



      Hi Andy,

      It is so refreshing to hear your questions. You mention knowing deep in
      your heart, but at the same time claim total confusion. You are not
      alone in this, so relax and enjoy. I love the way you point out that
      the size of the hole matters in the square versus round peg metaphor.
      That is such a clear and enlightening point. I believe we (humans) love
      to make pretend we understand the universe by grabbing hold of one
      aspect of it and repeating it over and over until it sounds like a
      summary of the whole thing. So, while it's true that similar sized pegs
      of different shapes don't fit easily into each other's holes, it is not
      true that all square pegs cannot fit into all round holes. Bingo! If
      the hole is big enough, any peg fits. I find that to be a far more
      interesting metaphor than the standard one about not fitting. The whole
      of NDS is large, so for my money, we all fit. (and I rather enjoy
      showing off my odd shape here, as you may notice now and then.) So when
      you say " I do not even know whether it is right or wrong to post this
      silly writing of mine in this list that is full of enlightened
      people.", I say that you are bringing light to the discussion, and that
      we are all enlightened by that. (so thank you.)

      As for your very important questions "If we are poor and lead a
      miserable life now and,OK, we let the so-called Source lead and guide
      us to a happier life. Will it happen just like that? Is the Source the
      same entity as us (nonduality)?", the only answer I can see clearly is
      another question "What happens when you try it out?" No one can tell
      you. (It's a mystery)

      If you have been reading the list awhile, you may know that I am in the
      process of losing my job and (hopefully) making a major change in what
      I do to support myself - moving from bioengineering to experiental
      (transpersonal) psychotherapy. Well, I can tell you that I have done a
      fair amount of kicking and dragging my feet during the process, and
      that it has increased my angst. I can also tell you that now and then I
      sit down and relax and trust the process, and when I do that, I feel
      much better. As for how it will all play out, I don't know. (and I'm
      glad about that because it makes it interesting.)

      Love, Mark



      See message 48209:



      Even the scientists are getting close to the destruction of time. Just
      as the world was once flat, we will laugh at the belief that time
      really existed! So we loose this opportunity... not to worry, it will
      come to us. :-)


      When it comes to a nondual theory of time, Dogen rules. His text the
      Uji chapter of Shobogenzo is here; <http://www.zenki.com/time01.htm#UJI>

      I recently found this website with a commentary;




      Hi Matthew,

      Please tell me more. I am intrigued. (how is "allowing" a deeper
      phenomenon than "relaxing"?)

      Love, Mark


      well they could
      be the same thing depending on how the words are used. But when
      relaxing is used in context with uptightness i take that to mean it is
      being used in referring to our psychology, not to a true surrendering
      to god. Then again "i" ("you") cannot surrnender. Ego cannot undo
      itself. Ego will not (cannot) give itself over. What ego can do though
      is cause us to believe (in our heart of hearts) that there is no longer
      any self-referencing going on, (no self-sense). Ego can and will do
      anything to maintain control over the organism, the machine. So, back
      to relaxing. Non duality is a given. Enlightenment is all there is,
      ever was or ever will be. But we don't live that. We live as a knot of
      contraction, of vital recoil from life itself,(even if appearances are
      happy,happy, happy) based on the false assumption that we are separate,
      that there is "other". And there is no way that "you" (or "i") could
      ever relax enough to loosen this knot one smidge. All techniques are
      useless, as they propogate the search for something we feel we don't
      have. "what you are looking for is what you are looking with"-werner
      erhardt .............................matthew
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.