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

Digest, Friday, July 23

Expand Messages
  • umbada@xx.xxxxxxxxx.xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxxx)
    Here is the Digest for Friday, July 23. ______________________________________________________________________ Petros wrote: Trying not to get all muddled up
    Message 1 of 1 , Jul 25, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      Here is the Digest for Friday, July 23.

      Petros wrote:

      Trying not to get all muddled up in the words of this
      particular debate, I might just suggest that ALL experience
      is interpreted by necessity, by the very organs that channel
      it. Even seemingly 'simple' percepts (sight, sound) have to
      be mediated by the nerves that carry what we come to call
      'sight' and 'sound.' Without the optic nerves, there IS no
      'light' _in itself_. It's all interpreted.

      "Nondual - nontemporal - nonspatial experience" is a
      contradiction in terms. Or else it's everything all the
      time! It erases itself.


      A common problem we see is that people tend to make "It"
      more complicated or erudite than it really needs to be.
      Again, as before, it is all a matter or your own
      postulation, your own creation of that reality. Think about
      the sources of that belief -- where you first obtained it or
      read about it or heard about it, and why you accepted it.


      Organized religion is not necessary for some people, but it
      is for others. Ironically, I have often noted that the
      founders of religions (Siddhartha, Mahavira, Muhammed,
      Joseph Smith, LRH) tend to be arch-individualists who
      usually had some sort of conflict with organized religion
      and, having no place to go, ended up starting their own by
      default . . . on the other hand, those who later joined
      those new religions tend to be purely of a group-mentality.
      An inherent and inevitable contradiction.


      The following three selections are from Greg:

      One very good teacher, friend of mine, answered a question
      from a seeker
      who thought he was realized:

      "The difference between you and me, is that you think
      there's a difference between you and me."


      We don't *have* to talk about "being realized." I think
      realization is a conventional way of speaking, and it serves
      as an incentive for some people to get and stay interested
      in a path. But it is no more a real thing than "otherness,"
      which we always seem to be talking against on this list.

      1. It is based on the mistaken view that there is an entity.
      2. It encourages the belief in a real distinction between
      realized and unrealized (more dualities).
      3. This distinction then must be based on certain
      qualities (kindliness, saintliness, lack of ignorance,
      4. There is no agreement on just which qualities aptly
      5. Even for those who believe in something called
      realization and
      realized beings, those beings themselves almost always
      say that
      there isn't any such thing.


      I don't think anything blocks the knowing of the non-dual.
      All of
      everything is non-dual, is Knowledge right here and now.
      Nothing depends on a person's point of view or state or
      attainments. Isn't it really the other way around? Don't
      the person, the psychology, the objective knowledge, the
      language and definitions all appear WITHIN this knowledge?


      Tim G.:

      The "road signs" on the nondual "path" are (non-sensual)
      bliss, joy, peace and love, and the absense of the
      "opposites" of these. Follow these signs, and you will
      "reach" the nondual perspective without fail.

      Words can either be an aid or a distraction. They are crude
      tools, and
      should be viewed as such. Let experience be your guide.


      from the I AM list, a portion of the Initiation Verses of


      And through I AM find out who you are.

      You are not your name, position, body, thoughts, feelings,
      desires, or fears.

      You are not anything you can attend to.

      "Then I am not I AM," you say.

      I AM is initiation. It is the way, not the way IT is.

      That which can be attended to, may be the way,
      But it is not abidance within ultimate reality.

      So now you know the limitation of I AM,
      The limitation of attention.

      Therefore move quickly and straight to the final attention:
      I AM.

      So that you will be carried beyond it.


      Some rich contributions from Melody:

      I cast my eyes
      upon the waters

      seeing my image
      reflected before me.

      Yet when I reach down
      to closer inspect

      touching that face
      and staring into those eyes,

      it disappears...

      into the clear, cool waters
      as 'I' do.


      Religion need not always be considered
      by freedom seekers as a 'bad word',
      especially when used in its fullest

      The Traditons have served many a Master....
      even Jesus - who knew the Law (the Torah),
      and likely other traditions, well.

      Can we even begin to count the numbers
      who are said to be awakened thru the
      lineage (the tradition) arising out of the
      words of Ramana Maharshi or Papaji?
      Looking at these words just now, I see
      how imprecise they were in conveying my

      It is not simply the words written on a
      piece of paper or a sacred text that
      helps open the way, or point to What Is.

      It is the presence, the embodiment of
      Light, that is experienced by seeker,
      when in the presence of such an embodied
      Radiance - that not only catapoults us,
      it 'grounds' us.

      And all traditions (religions) have them.


      These past weeks I have delighted in the absolute
      freedom of my existence....AS I dance thru the
      images and symbols of the Christian tradition.



      Women for years were beaten, raped and (in some
      countries still today) killed by men living within
      organizational systems that not only allow, but
      encourages such treatment of women.

      The fact that a Middle Eastern country still
      today condones the killing of women if a man
      even 'suspects' her of being unfaithful, is
      not the 'fault' of Islam, but rather a natural
      reflection of the consciousness of the citizens
      within that country - who *use* Islam, and their
      manipulation of it's images, as justification
      of projection of their hatred and fear onto those
      who cannot fight back.

      Yet had there been a tradition in that country,
      within Islam - that *encouraged* it's followers
      to look inward, as these fears and hatreds
      danced thru them, how different would be the
      lives of everyone living there today....and yet
      'the structure of the organization' may be
      even more solid than ever before.

      It is the *consciousness* of people that determines
      the manifestations of these organizations.

      Structure, in and of itself, is neither 'good' nor


      For me, my best teacher in life has been my very own
      words. I find that in listening to them when
      they're flowing thru me to others, I receive
      all the guidance and inspiration I ever need.

      That's perhaps why talking to me can be so
      frustrating at times. I'm truly listening
      to my 'Self' speak to my 'self'.

      Now whether this is true for you as well, I
      cannot say. I simply offered it as a



      J. Krishnamurti, whose famous
      1929 speech includes the
      statement "I maintain that
      Truth is a pathless land, and
      you cannot approach it by any
      path whatsoever, by any
      religion, by any sect," when
      asked what he was in the
      vocational sense responded
      that he was "a religious man."


      Where the male and female are in full embrace,
      the two are one.
      Shiva joins Shakti in an embrace that is the universe.
      There is only a divine dance and gendered words about
      the divine are a human
      personification of this dance.



      Ignorance can be defined as whatever it is that interferes
      with nondual
      awareness. However, what if defining realization as the
      absence of
      ignorance is itself something that often blocks nondual
      awareness? That
      is, what if people who define the situation this way then
      try to "remove
      the ignorance," which in itself is a dualistic approach?


      Living through you is different than living you.
      Perhaps to be fully clear, I can say, living through
      me feels right for me, living me doesn't feel quite
      right. That which is living me is beyond words.


      God is always the First Person. He is the Heart. The Great
      Shakti, who is the Stunning and Supreme Beauty, whose eyes
      radiate innocence, love, and compassion, rises from the
      Supreme Person who is the Ocean of Consciousness. Ego, Mind,
      etc. are all manifestations of the Great Goddess known by
      many names. When She takes all the names and forms and
      merges back in the First Person, that is the Heart, there
      arises then the Great State in Perfect Self-Recognition. It
      is devoid of Mind or Ego or any of its manifestations having
      totally consumed them . That is Sat-Chit-Ananda. It is
      beyond all the Samadhis, Superconscious states and beyond
      the Supermind. That is Nityam and Poornum. It is the essence
      of Completeness and Eternally Free. Resting in Its Own
      Nature, which is Perfect and Supreme Satisfaction, It knows
      nothing other than IT Self and has no longing for anything
      what so ever.



      Could "realization" simply be the capacity to live only in
      the present
      moment, which, re: an earlier thread, is the present moment
      because of its absence of memory? "I eat when I eat; I sleep
      when I sleep."



      If Buddha had not been recognized,
      would he have died
      a simple vagabond in the streets,
      merely accepted
      by a culture that valued

      If Jesus had not been remembered and
      written about
      would he have simply died
      an executed, criminal
      in a culture that did not value
      mystics outside the hieararchy of the synagogue?

      Are there today, messiahs and wise ones,
      in the guise of tramps
      and the insane;
      when we look only to the modern synagogue,
      the therapists office
      and professor's office,
      for wisdom?

      We've been writing about ethics in corporations and the
      heart chakra but one of the things I have looked for here,
      that I haven't seen, is the
      interratlational aspect of healing. We talk about our
      spiritual journey as though it is singular, removed from
      relationships and contact with other people, except when we
      disclaim knowledge.

      We note the world has been ready to self-annihilate and that
      the masses are ignorant and in peril......but Co-Dependence
      theory and "healthy" ego concerns with boundaries have named
      rescueing, once used as a term to describe succor and help
      to one in need, into a symptom of an emotional disorder.
      Have we moved farther, in our personal journeys, from loving
      to thinking?

      Earlier I read that particularizing behavior associated with
      the Heart;
      kindness, generosity, etc....is a move back into
      duality....perhaps I
      misunderstood this but it seems to me that healing is
      pointless if it does not precisely impact on the manner in
      which we treat other people, and deal with conflict at the
      personal, tribal and universal level.

      Each of us with our wisdom, insight, knowledge and
      experience, yet know very little about each other, the
      quality of our personal relationships etc. I'm not
      suggesting we digest ourselves and each other in the
      list....but I am curious about the lack of evidence of that
      particular aspect of "that which we seek" and how it affects
      our dealings with the world.

      I also think that universal rhythms call to group
      consciousness to heal
      along generalized dimensions at a given point and time; we
      need desperately, coming from a culture suckled on sacrifice
      and guilt, to understand the nature of joy. Perhaps in the
      coming generations our (collective) harvest of the
      individual seeking we do now, will reap the wisdom and
      sophistication of kindness that will reach out to those
      "masses," and each other, not in fear that we are in danger
      of giving up something, but in the sure knowledge that we
      will get something. I understand, intellectually, the
      boundaries stuff, but it still leaves a niggling little
      something...isn't the point to live, not in fear, and in
      inclusion, not with walls.



      Ivan and Jan dialogue:

      Ivan: At first
      sight all sensorial inputs
      are processed in the brain
      -- *from within or without*
      -- and we call
      it perception in the usual
      meaning of the word. But
      what is the brain?
      It is also a perception,
      obviously. You may touch it,
      weigh it, smell it
      eat it (if you like) or
      sense it. A perception. So
      what is the implication
      of this short analysis? All
      is perception. Then where is
      the perceiver?

      1. The perception that All
      is a perception has to be a
      perception as well.
      2. The perception that the
      perception that All is a
      perception has to be a
      perception too...
      3. The perception that....
      (: to be continued ad infinitum :)

      Conclusion: The universe
      must have been created by
      MS. It hangs up :)

      Ivan: I am not sure if you
      are joking....but...
      No. There is no perception.
      There is no perceiver. It is
      being this.
      Anything I or you may say or
      conceive, is being it. When
      one says that the observer is the
      observed, is not a matter of
      trying to merge
      them, none of them is
      separate -- a new relation
      is born -- a non-relation
      -- the one and same is not
      said to relate to itself...


      Ivan and Xan:

      Ivan: I don't understand this. If you perceive something
      you may try to comunicate it. Obviously the words are not
      the fact
      you perceived. Whay do you say that they are always
      of a concept?

      Xan: How could you express in words without going by way of
      a concept, even if it is a concept of what is
      non-conceptual? *It* can't be communicated in words, but
      we do try to communicate 'about' it. In my experience, we
      can commune in/as It, but words have nothing to do with

      Ivan: Yes, I understand it. But obviously words that came
      from a source
      that is in touch with that has more meaning than words that
      came from
      a concept itself -- unrelated to directness. And words may
      *inspire* both to stand toghether -- but I agree, words are
      just air in vibration.

      Xan: Responsibility is for you only and your integrity of
      purpose. There is no way for anyone to guarantee how their
      words are heard.

      Ivan: Again, if I perceive something, it is my
      responsability the
      emiting of the words, and their purpose -- as you say. But
      in the position of the listener, may have a dislike for my
      or you may be in a competitive mood, or you may feel that
      have a reputation to defend...etc...and block any real
      coming from the conceived image you make from the writer. So
      it is
      also your responsability as the reader to be attent in order
      to avoid
      automatic associations/responses. Would you agree?

      Xan: I would say that if we get into deciding what other
      responsiblities should be we will begin forming a
      religion. One way of
      looking at responsibility is, it is just between you and God
      ... or you and Self, whichever word you prefer.

      -Certainly I like it better when I and other people take
      responsibiity for our ego-mind stuff, but there are no
      guarantees there either.

      Ivan: Yes, no guarantee. And you are right in saying that,
      on emiting
      the words it's up to me if I am or not playing with

      Xan: If your focus is on the communication, you will get all
      the variations of communication.

      Ivan: Thanks. This is a lesson for me. I never looked at it
      this way...

      Xan: If you want to know the truth of yourself and relax
      that, communication will occur but without an investment in
      its effect.

      Ivan: Yes. Otherwise is intelectual blablabla.

      Xan: Knowing what you are is primary, according to me.

      Ivan: Certainly. Any atempt into trying to convey words
      is secundary to that. If one wants, then one may go into
      whatever one feels is worthwile, reach into details if one
      feels like -- if the primary is present.

      Humor and wisdom from Glo:

      When I was reading one of those "this is your body" books
      to my
      then young son, he came up with an unforgettable answer to
      metaphysical questions. As I read the chapter title, "Why We
      Skin," He exclaimed, " I know. Its so people won't laugh at


      When I read those stories
      of Zen masters, who replied to their questioning disciples
      "Eat, your soup is getting cold."..golly, my Mom said that
      nearly every meal. If only I'd listened more to her...


      quoting Wei Wu:

      Why are you unhappy?
      Because 99.9% of what you think,
      And everything you do,
      Is for your self,
      And there isn't one.


      bless the wierdos
      and the freaks--
      i know one
      i am one,

      Me too.


      me three

      ---have a nice weekend!
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.