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

Wednesday March 14, 2001

Expand Messages
  • Gloria Lee
    Die before you die and then ... realize there is no death. humanitate ... I m writing on behalf of my mom, Christiana. She was admitted to Kaiser last night
    Message 1 of 1 , Mar 15, 2001

      Die before you die and then ... realize there is no death.



      I'm writing on behalf of my mom, Christiana.  She was admitted to Kaiser
      last night after an asthma attack.  She continues to have trouble
      breathing, and the doctors are running test to figure out what's going
      on.  She requested that I let everyone know she will be offline for a
      few days.
      Please keep her in your prayers.

      Dear Christiana,

      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
      know sth.


      Hi Christiana,

      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.

      be well,

      Dear Christiana,

      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 -----
      Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 11:26 AM
      Subject: [SriArunachala] Renunciation continued

      The Requisites for Self-Realization continued:
      Renunciation P29&30:

      "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:

      Jake Rolandson
      Is 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
      own unfinishedness.



      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
                   vice versa?

      >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
      >answer. :o)
      > >

      And related questions:
         when do I become who
         I am?
      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,


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