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

Saturday, January 20

Expand Messages
  • umbada@ns.sympatico.ca
    A net of lies, that starts out small, Soon appears to capture all. Defined and captured by its links I can t break free or so I think. But one day by some
    Message 1 of 1 , Jan 21, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      A net of lies, that starts out small,
      Soon appears to capture all.
      Defined and captured by its links
      I can't break free or so I think.
      But one day by some happenstance
      Some twist of fate or act of chance;
      It's all revealed as delusion
      And so it comes to a conclusion.




      On the non-duality circuit it has been heard that dzogchen is
      the equivalent of advaita. Yet, dzogchen seems to have far too
      many concepts, rituals and practices associated with it, so can
      it be compared to advaita which currently eschews such things?
      Or is it the shape of advaita to come (lord help us - I hear
      many a post-Lucknow teacher is offering all kinds of
      psychotherapy on the side - hope I haven't offended anyone only
      provoked reasoned discourse).



      We are discussing our spiritual practices on the NoDoer list
      (www.egroups.com/group/NoDoer) and I thought I would re-post my
      list here, with an additional practice I just thought of, number
      11. I will preface this by saying that it is obviously mostly a
      "wannabe" list of what I am working on rather than a "This is
      what I do all the time" list.

      1. Sitting silently in meditation posture, being aware of What
      Is. This usually begins with awareness of body sensation,
      but then expands to include awareness of thoughts arising
      and awareness of sounds and anything else that appears in my
      awareness. Sometimes I find myself trying to identify myself
      with this awareness, as if to say "I Am this awareness," but
      paradoxically, that seems to shut down awareness. It seems
      more fruitful to instead have the attitude of an inquirer
      into Who I Am, an openness rather than an asserting of Who I

      2. Same as number 1, but moving in yoga postures instead of
      sitting. Here there is naturally more attention given to
      body sensation, since the movements produce more and
      different sensations than are experienced in the sitting
      posture. The postures are generally done slowly, as that
      seems to facilitate the entry of awareness into each nook
      and cranny of my body. As the body relaxes and the
      sensations are witnessed in stillness, what is felt seems to
      be not only the physical body, but a more subtle,
      non-physical body, an "energy body." Sometimes, when this
      feeling is very intense, I will move this energy body while
      the physical body remains still. This is from the Kashmir
      Shaivist tradition as taught by Jean Klein. I am only toying
      around with this, though; I don't feel I really understand
      what I am doing. So I play with it. Come to think of it,
      that's all I'm doing with the physical movement, too, is
      playing with it. I don't really have to understand it, do I
      (with my mind, that is)?

      3. Same as number 1, but instead of sitting silently, I perform
      simple yogic breathing exercises.

      4. Same as number 1, but going about my daily routine instead
      of sitting silently. All activities to be done in awareness
      of What Is, as opposed to the usual condition, dwelling in
      What Isn't. (Daydreaming, anticipation, etc.)

      The following could be seen as practices in themselves, but I
      tend to see them more as pointers which are subsumed in, or
      equivalent to, the above practices.

      5. Being Here Now. Seeing that there is only Now, that thoughts
      of past and future are occuring only Now.

      6. Bare attention, mindfulness, self-remembering, the Witness.
      Same as #1, really.

      7. Noting that anything which appears is not an object unto
      itself, unrelated to the Whole, but an appearance within Me
      (Consciousness). And the Me, being Consciousness, is
      openness, not an entity. It is seeing, not a seer. The
      objects, the seen, refer back to this seeing. More
      precisely, they are not separate from this seeing.

      8. Feeling that there is no 'I." Functioning in my daily life
      as if everything is just Happening By Itself, with no
      controller, no volition, no doer. Sometimes I will say:
      Okay, for just the next hour, or the rest of the morning,
      everything is going to happen with no Person. It is just
      going to unfold spontaneously, with nobody there trying to
      "make things happen." Somehow everything seems to get done
      just fine!

      9. Feeling that I am Everything, the Totality, the Vastness,
      the Universe, and that everything is appearing within this
      Me. Same as #7, basically.

      10. Accepting everything just the way it is. Welcoming it, even.
      Understanding that this is the way it Must Be. Wanting
      anything to be different changes nothing, for whatever
      happens, happens. This does not mean that if a car is about
      to run over somebody you must just stand there and watch.
      The fact of you running to pull the person out of harm's way
      is also part of the way it is. If we are not accepting What
      Is, or everything that happens, from indescribable beauty to
      unbelievable horror, we are suffering.

      11. Conducting myself "impeccably." When I am impeccable I act
      as if I am on stage and everybody in the world is watching
      me. I am both the actor and the audience. I don't just
      mindlessly throw the towel on the towel rack; I fold it
      neatly and hang it. I am in no hurry to get anywhere, I feel
      no panic about something that needs to get done. Each
      movement is done with economy, efficiency and grace. When I
      interact with others with impeccability I am totally there
      for them, responding to their needs. True impeccability
      requires full non-localized attention, the forgetting of
      self and awareness as Self.



      It is only a human being who
      would refer to reality, or
      be concerned about
      not taking unreality for reality.

      The human being, believing
      a self to be formulating reality,
      inevitably questions what is,
      what is not reality. How can
      I manipulate reality to get
      what I want? How can I
      protect myself from reality's
      unwanted intrusions?
      How can I have the bliss of
      full reality?

      What is implied here is that when
      the human being is not, reality
      is. Yet, from reality, arises
      the "human being", which
      is an image, a formulation,
      and organization of vibrations
      into a "package".

      So, reality "knows" the human
      being, and so a human being
      seems to be. The human
      being never knows reality,
      which is unknowness.

      As reality knowing the human being,
      I know that this human being
      is the "one vibration" that is
      boundless, and is a differentiation
      of vibration which appears as if
      autonomous as if "interacting"
      with other "things" which are
      this same "one vibration" at
      different apparent rates.

      It is a dance. The dance happens.
      There is nothing "external" to restrict
      the "one vibration" from vibrating
      and infinitely differentiated rates.

      How marvelous, this dance I am,
      we are, none is! The dance
      in which "is" and "is not"
      *are* vibration ...

      The one that is many, one, and no-thing ...

      The one sense that differentiates into
      multiple senses, thus enabling images
      of beings, things, space ...




      Hi All...

      I picked up a used book yesterday:

      __"Polarity, Dialectic, and Organicity"__

      Author: Archie J Bahm

      Professor of Philosophy, U of NM

      Publication number 783, American Lecture Series

      Publisher: Charles C Thomas, USA

      Here is a link to Google:


      Impressive results. This guy has been 'at it' since 1946.

      This book seems to be the most particular 'grammar of
      nonduality' which I have ever found. I now know what 'extreme
      aspectism' is!

      Anyway, this is for the interest of those with brain-cells to

      (And I got this at Goodwill for $0.79... )

      Bon Apetite!

      Gene Poole

      And BTW, check out this 'meaning-based search-engine':




      I had Dr. Baum as a professor in a philosophy course in Ethics I
      took at the University of New Mexico in the early 70's.

      I remember his going on about sat chit ananda and not having a
      clue what he was talking about. I really didn't understand the
      class very well. I got a C.

      Dr. Baum was a twinkling man. That's the word that comes to
      mind. Looking back, he seemed amusingly exasperated at our
      inability to really understand. I never felt a resistance toward
      or from him. In other words, he 'felt' like he was a good

      He posed difficult, challenging questions continuously in class
      and he would laugh as he posed them. It was a kind laugh, almost
      as if to say, 'Excuse me for puncturing your ignorance, but I
      beg you to consider if you will.' He almost seemed embarrassed
      to pose such questions. That's the kind of laugh it was. And he
      laughed continuously in that way. I remember that. Part of the
      laughter must have been from that place that none of us could
      have imagined at the time. Also something about that laugh let
      you know that no one could possibly answer his questions.

      I remember Dr. Baum in a positive way. He was married to the
      same woman forever and forever. He looked like a twinkling,
      positive Archie Bunker. He seemed old even then. Unfortunately I
      didn't have a clue what he was talking about.



      Terry Murphy wrote:
      "To begin with, to the extent that there is any philosophical
      basis to this view it is one of 'pragmatism.' William James
      wrote a book called 'Pragmatism' and he explains that the value
      of philosphy is in the way it changes our behavior. In other
      words, a 'good' philosphy is one which supports goodness in
      human beings. We can *believe* anything we want to believe, but
      we are most likely to be happy if we believe that which supports
      a loving, happy attitude."

      There are some who believe that *no* philosophy can have value
      by this criterion. This seems a bit harsh to me but i would bet
      that very little of our behaviour is altered by philosophy
      alone. And in combination with other factors, philosophy is the
      weak cousin, dispensible, ie the other factors are by themselves
      sufficient to alter behaviour.

      Example: Thou shalt not hit. Not a bad idea for promoting
      general harmony and happiness, yet observed in most cases only
      because no impulse to hit arises. When the impulse to hit arises
      the philosophy comes into conflict (and harmony) with a number
      of other forces, which struggle with each other, or balance
      against each other or whatever. That philosophy will tip the
      balance is extremely unlikely given the primality of other
      forces potentially involved -- anger, alcohol, prejudice,
      repression, a need for self-defense, etc, or on the moderating
      side, a peaceful heart, insight born of experience, the
      availability of alternative action, etc. In my adult life there
      are two instances of my hitting another living being, both
      anger-related, which stand out as formative and much more potent
      in producing the "desired" outcome of non-hitting than
      philosophy. In both cases i hurt myself (my hand) rather than
      the intended recipient. Such an experience acts (acted) as a
      catalyst to understand viscerally that this is not the "best"
      course of action.

      Philosophy, especially its most apparently effective subcategory
      morality, is largely impotent when ranged against powerful
      primal impulses. If we have learned early only that hitting is
      bad -- perhaps even by getting hit by parents for hitting others
      -- we have not learned an effective way to deal with the hitting
      impulse, only a way of keeping it down for a while. Other
      subtler tools are needed.

      And sex! Centuries of sexual morality have created a monster
      where sexual abuse, to name but one direct consequence, has run
      amok all over the planet, never mind rape, harassment and
      hypocrisy in the highest places. Think of the better world it
      could be had we invested in empowerment of women and children
      instead of the tired, sick patriarchal repressive models we have

      Osho sez: "Philosophy is a blind man in a dark room on a dark
      night, searching for a black cat which is not there." Yes, this
      too is a philosophy, but one which has value by James'
      criterion: it is a mental system that helps us to understand the
      impotence of mental systems. It helps us to look in other
      directions than mental systems for ways to understand and go
      beyond our biology and conditioning. Mental systems are the most




      I respect the fact that Wilber or any traditional nondualist has
      chosen to take a linear, monopolar path as their personal path
      of spiritual unfoldment, for any such choice is their deep right
      and privilege. I have no respect, however, for the promotion of
      hegemonic claims, made on behalf of this path, that it is the
      preordained path for the whole of mankind, and for the very good
      reason that these claims can, for a while at any rate,
      intimidate and disempower people from making deep, creative
      structural choices about their own spiritual path.



      This current "NDE debate" is really funny. I've always
      associated the acronym "NDE" with "Near Death Experience." :-)

      The "Nondual Experience" both is and isn't an experience. All
      words are gross approximations.

      Paradoxically, what we're discussing here has nothing to do with
      nonduality. Nothing. Nonduality can't be talked about, only the
      question can be asked: "Who is talking?"


      Tim (Omkara)

      P.S... for those who believe in 'atmosphere' affecting things,
      maybe the current presidential administration change and
      resulting national protests and debates (even Internet mailing
      lists are filling fast!) are affecting us... maybe those of us
      "nondual types" are more sensitive to happenings in the
      'world-dream'? :-). Pure speculation, who knows? It's wild "out
      there" today... perhaps that translates to "wild in here" as


      Dan wrote:
      "To have opinions about the NDE (whether from a religious or
      nonreligious viewpoint) simply reflects a misunderstanding of
      what the NDE is."

      Terry replies:

      There are inherent absurdities in this statement. You are
      expressing an opinion of what the NDE is, while at the same time
      invalidating such opinions. Where I think you miss the boat (or
      raft) here is in not making a distinction between expressing a
      view or opinion and being attached to such a view or opinion.
      Everyone is entitled to an opinion, even opinions about
      enlightenment. It is not unreasonable to discuss the Buddha's
      enlightenment experience under the bodhi tree, all buddhists do
      so. That was the prototypical "NDE." I am not trying to explain
      it, or even discuss it; I was simply expressing the opinion
      that, in the phenomenal world, the Buddha's enlightenment and
      subsequent reflections of it are 'good' things, and have
      positive results. Another absurdity inherent in your statement
      is the concept of 'misunderstanding' 'what the NDE is.' If there
      can be a misunderstanding of the NDE then there can be an
      'understanding' of it. This is impossible, because the NDE, as
      an experience of the Ground underlying all understanding, is not
      amenable to being understood. In other words, if you can speak
      of someone misunderstanding the non dual experience, you don't
      realize the nature of the experience yourself; it is not
      something which can be understood or misunderstood. Of course, I
      take it for granted that the use of the word 'experience' refers
      to the phenomenal, not the absolute; you can attack anything I
      say on the grounds that the inherent duality of language renders
      all expressions of any sort false on their face. But then we
      would have no chance whatever to communicate. As a phenomenon -
      as the buddha's famous experience under the bodhi tree which
      changed his life and the lives of so many others - we can speak
      of Enlightenment (or the 'NDE' - Matthew's language, not mine)
      and have views about it. If we are true to the transformations
      (moksha, or liberation) which accompany an NDE, we will not be
      *attached* to our views; but that doesn't mean we are entirely
      without opinions. Everyone has a point of view. My views are
      generally expressed in tandem with opposing views, in the hope
      that the thoughtful reader of both views will come to a balanced
      appreciation of the subject. In this manner I express an opinion
      without being attached to it. I hope you understand now. ;-)

      aloha, terry



      Matthew said of NDE or mystical experience:

      "((Lot of f*cking good it did them, given that the suffering of
      mankind hasn't changed a lick since the beginning (whenever that
      was). And despite all the mystical experiences and presumed (and
      i do mean presumed) enlightenment and being "free" going

      Chuck replies:
      I agree only in part with matthew in the sense that having a
      mystical experience does not guarantee anything. A schizophrenic
      can experience nothingness and it can become the most terrifying
      "experience" that one could ever under go. For it can be like
      stepping into no gravity. All identity vanishes---where is
      everyone else?----where is it?---So there is more to
      "experiencing of consciousness without thought or image
      (no-thing-ness). This is called insight. If it is not
      "understood" or integrated then it may have little value. A
      pilot staring at a cloudless sky, can suddenly have a "white
      out" experience. He or she can loose all sense of perception and
      thought...not knowing what is up or down, etc.....for the pilot,
      it can be quite an annoyance and potentially very dangerous. I
      will have to elaborate at another time but, "we have to learn at
      long last that the mystical experience is what it is. It is to
      be "sought" not because it is noble as wisdom or goodness is
      noble, but because it is an additional skill: a skill which can
      confer delight. It can also yield a highly pragmatic result,
      which again is value-free, it can insure the practitioner
      against the vicissitudes of life, against boredom and despair,
      because these can be viewed as silly and unimportant in the
      radiance of successive mystical experiences, or just one
      mystical experience properly remembered. I have to add here, so
      I will not get corrected by the non-duality police......I am
      aware that there can be no realization of oneness within
      mystical consciousness since that would indicate the presence of
      the observing self. All descriptions of this "experience" ..God,
      Supreme Good, Samadhi, Pure Awareness, Void, etc. etc. are names
      bestowed in *remembrance* and shaped by the creeds, dogmas,
      spiritual belief systems of the participants. At another time I
      would like to bring up some issues such as the problem of
      imposing one state of consciousness on another, emotional
      intelligence, the multidimensional/relative nature of "reality",
      and taking responsibility for ones actions---not as judgment,
      but to get a feel where some on this list are coming from in
      regard to these dancing issues.

      just a void dance,

      chuck h


      one might say I had both and at the same time. The senses, with
      the exception of vision, were dead and there were no thoughts or
      feelings - just a peace of an unknown kind. There wasn't even
      awareness how blissful it was or how long as there was no sense
      of time either. Only when the police woke me up from coma, it
      became clear how blissful it was - the impossible mix of an
      extremely strong longing to "return" immediately, the reassuring
      knowledge that "death" had to be great after all and the
      devastation that one can take leave of life only once, so it
      couldn't be repeated...



      Tim (Omkara)

      P.S... for those who believe in 'atmosphere' affecting things,
      maybe the current presidential administration change and
      resulting national protests and debates (even Internet mailing
      lists are filling fast!) are affecting us... maybe those of us
      "nondual types" are more sensitive to happenings in the
      'world-dream'? :-). Pure speculation, who knows? It's wild "out
      there" today... perhaps that translates to "wild in here" as
      well? >>

      Hi Omkara,

      I have been following this assiduously from the beginning, but
      today, I have been avoiding everything outside and everything on
      tv...the result of this election has something not quite right
      about it...I don't mean legally, but I have a vast and vague
      dis-ease that I have never had with any other election...I agree
      with you...there is some sort of "thing " happening here that is
      still nebulous...and I don't want to start any sort of a
      political debate...this feeling that I have has nothing to do
      with that...I just feel that in the grand scheme of things, we
      have taken a step backwards...that what we are looking for,
      promoting in here, working towards has been swept into a corner
      for awhile. I am not saying this well...it is such a vague
      unease that it is hard to put into words, and I am no where near
      ready to put on a white robe and a sandwich board that says the
      end of the world is coming...am I all alone here? IS what i am
      feeling a little weird and unfounded?

      My opinions only.

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