Wednesday March 14, 2001
Die before you die and then ... realize there is no death.
humanitateI'm writing on behalf of my mom, Christiana. She was admitted to Kaiserlast night after an asthma attack. She continues to have troublebreathing, and the doctors are running test to figure out what's goingon. She requested that I let everyone know she will be offline for afew days.Please keep her in your prayers.Oriana
My heart is with you. I hope you will be well soon as the powerful flux
of good energy
will flow towards you from all our Hearts.
Dear Oriana, please, drop us a word on Christiana's condition when you
Welcome back. I hope you are feeling better. Hearing about your asthma
attack reminded me of the summer retreat in RI last year. I was sitting
on the bench down by the pond experiencing some kundalini energies (and
feeling a little sorry for myself to boot), and you and Michael were up
on the big porch overlooking the pond. At some point, I got up and
started walking up the path and you and Michael started walking down the
path, and when we met in the middle, you had such a sweet and sad
expression of concern on your face. It touched me very deeply. I just
want you to know that I love you.
You may not be hearing these words,
as you are away...
but your radical honesty
and solemn stillness
bring beauty to the world,
Like a majestic mountain.
You know you are well...
What comes will come...
What goes will go...
Life is living all of us.
I know you are not seeking recovery,
nor clinging to illness;
There is no sickness or health
but only What Is;
What Is is inherently healthy,
No need for words like "sick" or "healthy."
Knowing what you Are,
Nothing has changed.
My love goes out to you,
although you do not need it...
You are already love, and nothing
can add to what you are.
OM Namah Christiana
dear brothers and sisters...white wolfe was with christiana in San Francisco on sunday past...we went to high latin mass at St. Dominic's and then for a long stroll at Point Funston beach and then had sushi for dinner....she is going through a sea change in her life...she is a child of water...she is flowing into new places...she has allowed herself to be pushed too hard...i am confident she is fine....i will be speaking to her on the phone today...continue to send her love...she is a true bodhisattva and is living bodhicitta to all those she touches....^^~~~~further up and further in,white wolfe----- Original Message -----From: Infinite FreedomSent: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 11:26 AMSubject: [SriArunachala] Renunciation continuedThe Requisites for Self-Realization continued:
"The cessation of action, as above described, in this
renunciation naturally leads to the Knowledge that one
is not the body. Disidentification from the body has
the corollary of understanding that one is not the
performer of action. The body alone is active, and
the Self is free of movement, change, or action. This
is renunciation of doership.
Renunciation is part of every aspirant's practice.
Detachment must become total for complete spiritual
freedom. Renunciation is its expression or
reflection. How that expression manifests varies from
seeker to seeker, but there is always some expressed
renunciation. It is not reasonable to say that as one
liberates oneself from attachment and ignorance that
one will still maintain every action and habit, cling
to every object and relationship, and continue to
harbor the same delusive notion of possession as
previous to such spiritual development. When a person
joyfully and wisely relinquishes old habits, objects,
and such for the purpose of spiritual advancement,
such is known as renunciation.
Renunciation is born of contemplation upon the source
of peace and happiness. It is born of observation of
the facts of life and death. It is born of
recognition of the futility of worldly gain, be it
objects, wealth, fame, or anything similar. It is
born of meditation upon the dreamlike nature of the
experience of the world. It is born of meditation
upon the transitory nature of all things. It is born
of the intense yearning to know the Truth at any cost.
It is born of the comprehension that clinging is
worrisome bondage and detachment is blissful freedom.
It is born of the Knowledge of the immediacy of the
Truth of the Self."
To read the Teachings of Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi and other Sages of Advaita click:
http://home.talkcity.com/GaiaWay/Infinite_FreedomJake RolandsonIs time sentient?
locate, draw, aim, squeeze and wait
What is time? That has to be asked first. The reason being, because
if the conclusion is "there is no such thing," your question becomes
Hmmm... so what you are saying then TimG, if I am not mistaken and clearly I
Am as 'we only seem to agree' <perhaps tomorrow I will change my mind> at
this point of time, is that if time was sentient then it would be alive and
thus, as such, can be killed or at the least stilled. However, as time moves
without discrimination, it must already be dead and we are simply falling
out of 'know where'.
Thus, "Time (not God) is dead." as The Gospel According to Zen would
otherwise suggest.Doc Hobbes
On "tone of voice"Hi Tim,
I agree completely with you on this. I have a
very close friend who travels around the world so we
often keep in touch via email. Sometimes the tone of
his emails will be somewhat unsettling. It may be
that he is tired or frustrated about something totally
unrelated to me but I take it personally. I have
learned much from these interactions.
1. When offended by someone's words, always ask
yourself if there could be any other interpretation
that would be less offensive.
2. Ask the other person to clarify their meaning in a
nonjudgemental, nonemotional manner.
3. Be grateful to those who offend you or "push your
buttons". Often they merely hold the mirror to our
Beth and Dan continue...Hi Beth!
> > Thought plays tricks.
> > Only with questioning the root assumptions of
> > thought will the tricks be revealed as they are.
> > In looking into this idea about things going
> > on as before, one can ask: goes on for whom?
> > This is the same as the question: who lives, who dies?
>Is that like...if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it,
>does it make a sound? I know that if I die it will mean nothing to me what
>is left, it is only while alive that it bothers me...used to, not anymore.
D: Yes, it's like that.
How was it known that a tree
fell in the forest and no one was
there to hear it?
How were these data ascertained,
by whom, reported how?
Any question or observation has to
arise from a location, be placed
in a context.
Where and how is this location
Almost the same question is:
Where and how arises the universe
that is described and defined by sensory
What would something be if it had no
description, definition, or status
as an object of sensory
apprehension and/or cognition?
What is the universe when there is
no one there, when no senses,
thought, description, perception are?
Where is location when there is no
such thing as "place"?
What is substance and space when
there is nothing perceived as matter?
What events take place when there is
no observer to relate to an event or
>Goes on for those who are left...we have all lost someone, and my awe that
>life still pretty much hasn't changed, whenever I drag myself out of my grief
>long enough to look around, and it seems like there should be some
>cataclysmic change to ALL of what is around me, not this one disappearance.
>Interesting side note: I lost my father and my best friend all in the same
>year...there is NO reality to that time now, and I am hard put to remember
>things that went on around those two happenings...basically the year 1990 is
>a blur...so things did change for me. I existed during that time, but there
>is little memory of me existing.
Personal loss of loved
ones hits home.
Loss of orientation and
reality is even more
> > The center of "the universe" can be lost,
> > because there is no center.
> > "The universe" can not be lost, because it
> > is all that is.
> > The universe and who I am are not two.
>Not while alive...but...oh...well...not when we are dead either...that's when
>we are truly one with it...we become it? I am asking a question...I know the
And related questions:
when do I become who
And when do I stop
being who I am not?
> > I don't hear what you are saying as
> > a complete disagreement
> > with what I said.
> > The "I-being" that seemingly
> > dies, and the "universal
> > universe" that can't die,
> > aren't two different things.
> > There is no separation between
> > my universe and the universal
> > universe, except that my universe
> > depends on a point of view a
> > "me" that is never really there.
> > So, when my universe
> > ends, nothing ends, except for
> > an imagined point of view.
>Then this theory depends on the belief that we don't exist...jury still out
>on that for me, but I see the point you are making...ok it all makes more
>sense now. I don't think that I like the realization, but it is a real truth.
Nice to hear that.
It's not exactly a theory based on
the belief we don't exist.
It's being aware that our sense
of existence depends on the
belief that there can be retention
of an image of something we are.
Without dependence on the image
of something/someone existing,
there isn't something missing
(as would be the case with
the thought/feeling "I don't exist"),
neither is there something to be affirmed
(as "I exist").
The negation of the image of
something that exists is
just a way to say what
can't be said - beyond
the assumption inherent
in words that there are
describable and separable states,
entities, qualities, existences,
and things going out of existence.
> > Are you so sure that the foot
> > and what the foot steps on
> > are two separate things,
> > totally different in quality?
>No :o) I am not sure of anything anymore...they aren't different are they?
Not necessarily ;-)
> > Where is sentience located?
> > Who defines where sentience
> > is located? Where is that
> > one located? And who locates
> > that one?
>We who are sentient locate sentience...hmmmm...what you are saying flickers
>in and out...for split seconds at a time, I can see what you are saying, I
>can see the meaning to it.
It's not so easy to follow this through.
I agree. We tend to assume sentience
as something that wasn't there and
then appeared from nowhere in a specific
> > Is the one who defines the location
> > of sentience nonsentient?
> > How could that be possible?
>No because if it were non-sentient, how would it recognize sentience, and
>those of us who are sentient recognize only through our own filters. Lovely
>puzzle for me...the pieces fit, but I can't see the whole picture for very
>long at a time...it is not in your expression, it is in my comprehension.
It's an intriguing puzzle.
Related to the puzzle of
what "knowing" is,
and who is the knower,
where would that one
be situated, and how
would that be known ...
A pleasure discussing this with you,