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

digest of Saturday's postings

Expand Messages
  • Melody
    A sampling of postings from Saturday, July 31, 1999 To subscribe to the Nonduality Salon please click below:
    Message 1 of 1 , Aug 2, 1999
      A sampling of postings from
      Saturday, July 31, 1999

      To subscribe to the Nonduality Salon please click below:



      Jerry offered:

      There were two elders living together in a monastic cell,
      and they had never had so much as one quarrel with one
      another. One therefore said to the other: Come on, let us
      have at least one quarrel, like other men. The other said: I
      don't know how to start a quarrel. The first said: I will
      take this brick and place it here between us. Then I will
      say: It is mine. After that you will say: It is mine. This
      is what leads to a dispute and a fight. So then they placed
      the brick between them, one said: It is mine, and the other
      replied to the first: I do believe it is mine. The first one
      said again: It is not yours, it is mine. So the other
      answered: Well then, if it is yours, take it! Thus they did
      not manage after all to get into a quarrel.

      ---from The Wisdom of the Desert, Thomas Merton


      Skye offered:


      It started out innocently enough.
      I began to think at parties now and then to loosen up. Inevitably
      though, one thought led to another, and soon I was more than just a
      social thinker.
      I began to think alone - "to relax," I told myself - but I knew it
      wasn't true. Thinking became more and more important to me, and
      finally I was thinking all the time.
      I began to think on the job. I knew that thinking and employment
      don't mix, but I couldn't stop myself.
      I began to avoid friends at lunchtime so I could read Thoreau and
      I would return to the office dizzied and confused, asking, "What is
      it exactly we are doing here?"
      Things weren't going so great at home either. One evening I had
      turned off
      the TV and asked my wife about the meaning of life. She spent that
      night at her mother's.
      I soon had a reputation as a heavy thinker. One day the boss called
      me in. He said, Skippy, I like you, and it hurts me to say this, but
      your thinking has become a real problem. If you don't stop thinking
      on the job, you'll have to find another job."
      This gave me a lot to think about.
      I came home early after my conversation with the boss. "Honey," I
      confessed, "I've been thinking..." "I know you've been thinking,"
      she said, "and I want a divorce!" "But Honey, surely it's not that
      serious." "It is serious," she said, lower lip aquiver. "You think
      as much as college professors, and college professors don't make any
      money, so if you keep on thinking we won't have any money!"
      "That's a faulty syllogism," I said impatiently, and she began to
      cry. I'd had enough. "I'm going to the library," I snarled as I
      stomped out the door.
      I headed for the library, in the mood for some Nietzsche, with the
      NPR (Nature of Personal Reality) station on the radio.
      I roared into the parking lot and ran up to the big glass doors...
      they didn't open. The library was closed.
      To this day, I believe that a Higher Power was looking out for me
      that night. As I sank to the ground clawing at the unfeeling glass,
      for Zarathustra, a poster caught my eye...
      "Friend, is heavy thinking ruining your life?"
      You probably recognize that line. It comes from the standard
      Thinker's Anonymous poster.
      Which is why I am what I am today: a recovering thinker.
      I never miss a TA meeting.
      At each meeting we watch a non-educational video; last week it was
      "Porky's." Then we share experiences about how we avoided thinking
      since the last meeting.
      I still have my job, and things are a lot better at home. Life just
      seemed... easier, somehow, as soon as I stopped thinking.


      >You know, I almost hate to mention that ego word again..but does anyone else
      >suspect that transcending can sometimes be just another survival skill for
      >that pesky ego? Sorta like realizing the gig is up with the bodymind, so as
      >a last resort, it says"ok, I'll identify with the universal then".... Or is
      >being an enlightened egoist considered normal around here?


      Normal? uh oh.
      Does the meaning of the above questions change if
      the word "awareness" is substituted for the word ego?
      In other words, can ego be universal ego, and if so,
      is it then the same as universal awareness?
      Or is ego always defined by a barrier?


      One meaning of "transcend" is: To pass beyond the limits of: "emotions that
      transcend understanding" (The American Heritage� Dictionary of the English

      This is interesting, because in the case of "ego", the meaning should be:
      "understanding that transcends emotions". It is very convenient to forget
      the all-time taboo, that of dying. Self (Sat Chit Ananda) is independent of
      mind-body so in theory the emotions have to be transcended as well. It will
      be clear this is impossible and if this is impossible, it is likely
      transcending is always a kind of survival or intellectual jugglery. There
      is nothing to identify with, as there is only Self. Before all
      identifications are burned down ( by K.), they will have to be given up
      first. People can be made to give up (surrender) almost anything (like
      "me", "bad" habits), but not their emotions :)

      the word ego is an impediment by definition. If
      there is no impediment, then and only then, ego is not.
      But an expanded awareness is still an object trying to
      appear as "the presence". Unity is not any kind of object
      that can be pointed to....and I am not stating that you are
      projecting such object, but that would awlready be an impediment
      and indication of ego -- although many will refute this statement.


      Skye Chambers wrote:

      One needs to be a brave warrior to question the collective wisdom
      and find out for oneself the fact of the matter.
      One needs to be fearless and daring to proceed
      where many talk of but few dare go � so one is often
      castigated and misunderstood for that boldness.


      I find when I am doing the most talking I am doing the
      least going.

      As far as castigation and misunderstanding goes it seems
      to me that only those advertising their boldness suffer
      from that.



      There is infinite continuum
      from what we speak of here
      to one thing , 2 things, 3.......
      and from stillness to constant
      Every one of the infinite number
      containing the entirety.
      So that each of us as human beings
      is the universe,
      which is changing
      at a constant variety of rates
      from unchanging constancy
      to continuous total annihilation
      and simultaneous reconstruction.

      All awake.

      In all of this,
      the temporal sequence of knowing
      is odd; upon intellectual discovery
      it feels as if it was always known
      in another way, but not consciously
      recognized, as if intellectual
      knowing provides a voice.


      Antoine responds to Gene's post:

      > > "S�same ouvre toi" (Sesame open yourself) said the little kid to the
      > > door containing the treasure of the 40 thief's. And the door opened by
      > > itself.
      > >
      > > Antoine
      > Greetings, Antoine. I will try to fulfill your wish.
      > I think of the movie "The Matirx"... how the 'agents' (enforcers of the
      > world-dream) lived 'inside' every dweller of the Matrix, and thus could
      > 'take over' and thus be on-the-spot for enforcement of world-dream ethics.
      > The goal of the 'agent/enforcer' is to deny the possibility that anyone
      > will escape the matrix/world-dream.
      > In the same way, it is not the _external_ enforcers which are our actual
      > worry; it is the internal ones. That is, it is the existence of the
      > internal voices and ethics of our social conditioning which on a continuing
      > basis, draw abitrary (chosen) boundaries, and dare us to cross them. As in
      > the movie, our 'only choice' is to _run like hell_ when the agent/enforcer
      > arrives from within, because in our experience, those agents have _always_
      > defeated us.

      It was Neo only choice, to stick to the film, until he comes over is
      experienced fear of death _inside_ world-dream ethics. He becomes King
      and resurrected Jesus of his world dream.

      > Likewise, in our dual existence (actual AND world-dream realities, both)
      > when we get to a certain place, the map says 'here be monsters', yet we
      > 'know' (as a result of study and intuition) that the map is incomplete and
      > inaccurate. We dare to face the monsters, yet when they appear, we run
      > away, back to the security of 'not knowing' (agnostic) as a way of Being.
      > It is much safer to 'not know' then to 'know', if what is known is death,
      > extinction, suffering, pain, torture.

      Or what is known is also, life, eternity, joy, pleasure, love.
      "Monsters" in a way no to forget.

      I love to sleep, a place of not knowing as others.

      "If I'm dreaming, never let me wake. If I'm awake, never let me sleep."
      "There are two perfect men; one dead, and the other unborn."
      Chinese Proverbs

      > The subtle refinements which characterize the movement (transformation)
      > into the nondual, give us the power to question the existence of the
      > monsters which stand guard at the boundaries of the world-dream. We may at
      > some time, perceive those monsters/agents/enforcers as nothing but symbolic
      > representations of our own fear. At that point, does the journey of the
      > hero really begin.

      It's where the film ends, and it all starts.


      Bruce fowarded a satsang report
      from Judi:

      I went down to Carmel last nite and met Wayne. What
      a delight he turned out to be. He was standing outside
      when Gyan and I arrived a bit late, (in his brand new
      175 MPH screaming canary yellow Corvette btw :-) .Anyway,
      I wasn't sure if it was Wayne at first, so went up
      to him and said, Wayne?, and he said, yes and I smiled
      and said, I'm Judi and he said, "Oh", and got this
      big smile on his face and gave me a big hug. And we
      stood there and smiled at each other and and then I
      introduced Gyan and Chris was there and we did introductions
      all around. Wayne's talk was very clear and hard hitting.
      I really enjoyed it, I chuckled a lot, some of the
      things he said I thought were really hysterical, but
      I don't think the others there saw the humor in it,
      so I ended up laughing by myself sometimes. :-) Wayne
      would look over at me every now and again with this
      beautiful smile. What a beauty he is. Gyan asked him
      a question aobut him getting enlightened and Wayne
      told him that he may not! :-) And Gyan said, well I
      don't think I like that idea. :-) And I said, "Gyan,
      that should come as good news." :-)
      And I laughed of course. And then Wayne told Gyan a
      couple jokes to drive his point home. And Gyan just
      sat there not thinking it was very funny at all. :-)
      Well I thought it was funny anyway. :-)
      Gyan ended up buying his book afterwards and on the
      drive home was telling me how he has been with Saniel
      for 3 years now and how he is really not getting it
      and maybe it is time for a change. And he really enjoyed
      Wayne and wanted to know when he will be back. I didn't
      have a chance to speak with Wayne afterwards to tell
      him how much I enjoyed the evening cause he left right

      From Petros:

      (Following is an excerpt from a small unpublished book of satsang dialogues
      with Neelam called "In this Moment." It was compiled spontaneously by a
      devotee of Neelam and is now circulating around a few people. [ ])

      These satsangs took place in England in the Fall of 1997, I think.

      FEAR OF MISSING IT: "What do you mean by 'you'?"

      Q. I was hoping to visit Poonjaji in October. Now he's no longer here.
      Have I missed something?

      Neelam. You're missing something right now. That fear needs to be
      experienced in this moment. There's no need to wait for anything. As you
      are willing to actually do it, you will discover if you are missing
      something or not. Fear you don't see. Is the fear present here?

      Q. It's like being the odd man out.

      N. But before that description, what is the experience? What is the very
      quality? What are the sensations?

      Q. A sense of heat and of being closed off in my heart.

      N. So just stay here. The sensations are present here.

      Q. I feel like time has stopped. I feel this love for you.

      N. Not even a moment in time, do you see? In that instant there is no
      missing. Everything is absolutely, purely available here, you see. And
      that is the bare essence of Papaji, as it is the very essence of you and of
      everybody. Trust enough in this and everything will sort itself out.

      Q. Can you guarantee that 'the God in you' will provide everything?

      N. The moment there is a guarantee, then you want something to hold onto.
      And in that you create what makes you suffer again. Therefore, what is this
      whole business with guarantees? After all, we are not selling something.
      First look and discover what you mean by God. What do you mean by 'you'?

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