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

digest of Monday's postings

Expand Messages
  • Melody
    A sampling of postings from Monday, August 2, 1999 To subscribe to the Nonduality Salon please click below:
    Message 1 of 1 , Aug 3, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      A sampling of postings from
      Monday, August 2, 1999

      To subscribe to the Nonduality Salon please click below:

      <http://www.onelist.com/subscribe/nondualitysalon>

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      Andrew:
      > >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.

      Dan:
      > This "temporal sequence of knowing,"
      > this is where awareness tangles itself.
      > Whatever voice intellectual knowing
      > provides is helpful if it
      > returns awareness to where it already
      > is and can never leave. The
      > temporal sequence of knowing then
      > releases itself from itself.


      Andrew:
      The temporal knowing person senses
      atemporal awareness and that sense
      changes the person, makes the person whole.
      Otherwise, what's the point?
      And the whole person can speak.

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      From: "Tomas Diaz de Villegas" <legasser@...>

      This weekend I visited my grandparents. My grandmother is recovering from a
      mild heart attack and is now resting to get back her strength. I had a nice
      time but an old issue played itself out which latter became part of my
      reflection on the heart of fear.

      My grandmother is a very strong woman and is not generally one for beating
      around the bush. If she has certain strong opinions they will be heard.

      As everyone left the living room and she sat in her sofa chair, the sorrow
      came over her face and before she said anything I knew, from past
      experience, what was probably about to come out. As she began to speak I sat
      down near her.

      She told me the two greatest sufferings she bears is the death of her
      daughter (my mother died of cancer about 7 years ago)and the life of her
      son. Her son, my uncle, is gay and she went on to explain that this is
      unnatural and that the bible clearly states that it is a sin.

      There was deep suffering in her voice and face as she said this. She has
      been more civil over the years to my uncle but she still holds onto this.

      I listened and at the time I could only see my grandmother as the embodiment
      of fear and judgemnt.

      "what can I say? how can I dispell this?" I thought despairingly. I felt the
      futility of making any difference as she began saying "in the bible it says
      God made adam and eve- man and woman- not man and man, not woman and woman"

      At this time, my aunt came and sat down, then my sister and grandfather and
      soon, my cousin was heard from the bathroom down the hall "wait a second, I
      have something to say about this!"

      So things were starting up- not an atypical scenario but one that I have
      have come to feel repetative and futile. My sister began the argument of
      interpritation and then my cousin followed in with the same. He was
      particulary emotional- angry really- one could feel his long battle within
      this world view. He goes to church with my Aunt and sometime they go with my
      grandmother.

      As my Grandfather chimed in, with complete unblinking earnestness, "well
      yes, Adam was first and then woman was made from his rib"

      Deeper then my old reactions coming into awareness was the feeling of
      futility but also a feeling of fear and rejection.

      I wanted to combat this perspective that had so separated my family. This
      pain of withholding love has caused so much suffering for everyone of us-
      For my grandparents, for my aunt, for my mother, for my cousins, for myself
      and for my uncle.

      I also saw the suffering that this meant for so many others.

      I had asked her "do you know the mind of god?"
      and, without any hesitation on her face, she said "yes"

      and I at about this point I gave up- but not really. I continued to feel a
      disturbance. It cropped up latter the next morning when a got back home.

      There was a place inside me where the fear lives- the fear of hell, the fear
      of rejection, the fear of love removed, the fear of torture and pain, the
      fear of punishment, ultimate separation

      I noticed that on the surface of this was a running, a searching, a seeking-
      as I sank into it there where many images related to the fear itself.

      As I sat there I felt fear, I was afraid of hell, I was afraid of damnation,
      I was afraid of ultimate rejection and separation from all was love and
      lovable

      I asked myself,
      "what do you really really want?
      what does this fear really really want?"

      I dont want separation, I dont want destruction, I dont want pain
      I want peace, I want closeness, I want love, I want to just be able to love,
      to just let go into love, to let go into freedom and wonder

      This is the truth- this is at the heart of fear

      I could deny it for a more moderate version of what I want but that wouldnt
      be the whole truth- I would be holding back.

      Absolute love is what I want even if I have no idea that it is possible- it
      is nonetheless what I want

      even if I have memories of great experience- I am still capable of doubt of
      the possibility- but whether it is or isnt possible this is what I want

      full complete total acceptance

      I want it for everyone, I want it for everything

      I noticed I was afraid to let go Now for fear that I havent fullfilled the
      right conditions for letting go yet.

      "Maybe", I thought to myself, " there is something i need to say, think,
      feel, do, perform, beleive, rationalize, experience..etc before I can let
      go"

      Maybe I need to earn it- maybe I dont deserve to let go yet becuase i havent
      earned it in the eyes of others, in the view of other or in some view. So
      maybe I should keep searching, keeping looking, keep waiting until the day
      that a vision comes to me that says "yes, you are now saved, you are now
      good enough!"

      Maybe I need to wait for a huge group to convince me, or just some
      supernatural event, some superbeing in flowing robes and light. So until
      then I shouldnt let go, I shouldnt accept, I should reject, I should deny, I
      should fight, I should run

      In looking at this I saw fear as a rejection of Now, a rejection of Love, of
      Freedom. In fear I saw a waiting

      waiting, waiting, waiting

      why?

      I saw the rejection of the worst possibilities my mind could fathom

      By rejecting these possibilities I kept them alive, be rejecting the fear I
      kept it alive, By rejecting the possibilities of pain, rejection, damnation,
      hellfire, torture, death, annihlation- I was
      rejecting the very core and source for this whole movement

      and what is that?

      love

      and where is that?

      only here, only now

      By sudtly rejecting, defending against, rationalizing against the worst of
      the worst of possibilities- the very heart of fear, the very heart of hell,
      of pain, of suffering, of rejection, of abondonment

      I was rejecting what is in the heart- the blood pumping in that heart-
      Love

      I couldnt see my grandmother becuase I saw and felt only rejection- I
      rejected the fear that arose in me and this kept rejection in place. I saw
      her only as this- I didnt see that in the heart of her rejection was fear,
      and in the heart of fear was love and that all she ever truly wanted was
      love

      In rejecting that fear in herself, she has kept it going, she has been
      unable to have that love that is only here and now

      In rejecting the pain of separation, she has kept it going, she has been
      unable to have that love that is only here and now

      In other words, she has been unable to see that her son and duaghter live in
      the very core of her being, in the heart of fear. Accepting the heart of
      rejection, of pain, of seperation is to accept Love

      Just as i was rejecting her and myself, Just as I was rejecting Love,
      rejecting the here and now

      But what everyone is, is fear, and what fear truly is, is Love-
      everyone is truly love itself

      when we stop rejecting what we really want most, we can have it

      It is here, it has always been here


      what I truly want is the heart of the world, the heart of hell, the heart of
      satan, the heart of damnation, the heart of fear, the heart of pain, the
      heart of insecurity, the heart of abandonment, the heart of destruction, the
      heart of separation, the heart of impermanence, the heart of every other

      I started to weep as this sunk in deeper and deeper- thoughts of all those I
      know and dont know began to come up- the thought of so much rejection of
      love by how many? billions and for how long?

      I thought of those i knew and wept
      I thought of those i can only imagine and wept
      I thought of myself and wept

      In love,

      Tomas

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      Andrew offered:

      What Is Life?

      Resembles Life what once was held of Light,
      Too ample in itself for human sight ?
      An absolute Self--an element ungrounded--
      All, that we see, all colours of all shade
      By encroach of darkness made ?--
      Is very life by consciousness unbounded ?
      And all the thoughts, pains, joys of mortal breath,
      A war-embrace of wrestling Life and Death ?

      Samuel Taylor Coleridge


      aleks responds:

      my laugh at coleridge's ancient mariner set aside -- have long been in awe
      at the power of this poet, and the other romantics. perception being primary
      to them, and the intuition being true nature and logic contrived. . . .
      perception is creative vision-- these poets create their very lives. they
      evince the ability to melt into nature by projecting inward states on
      it--coleridge is master of this! see dejection: an ode. . . coleridge,
      especially, carries a lamp rather than a mirror. coleridge sought to
      reconcile contraries into a psychic landscape of nonduality and to unify
      science, religion and politics. whether or not he was successful is a matter
      of debate. to me, he is a very shrewd modern mystic and visionary. this
      particular poem , "What is Life?" sings infinity to me. thank you very much,
      andrew.

      here is coleridge's epitaph:
      (can be sung to the tune of the heart beat:) )
      "Stop, Christian passer-by!--Stop, child of God,
      And read with gentle breast. Beneath this sod
      A poet lies, or that which once seemed he.
      O lift one thought in prayer for S.T.C.;
      That he who many a year with toil of breath
      Found death in life, may here find life in death!
      Mercy for praise--to be forgiven for fame
      He asked, and hoped, through Christ. Do thou the same!

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      Jan:

      In the case of snakes, lizards, geckos, crocodiles the ego is just plain
      survival. In mammals, this changes; a dog can risk its life to save that of
      its master. In humans, this property is even stronger developed. As if the
      ego has a quality to sacrifice itself. Without this possibility, there
      wouldn't be religion. The extreme of course is, to consciously take leave
      from life before one has to, due to health/old age. Only this will end
      identification. The idea of transcending will not even arise; if everything
      known is consciously left behind, what could be transcended? In principle,
      it is sufficient to drop just one identification, that of " I am the body"
      and take the consequences. How many emotions are *not* related to the body
      and its perceptions? This shows the real problem; man isn't much of a
      thinker, but very much a feeler.
      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      Also from Jan:

      Unconditional surrender has a big advantage: it will end automatically,
      when nothing remains that can be surrendered. As long as there are
      experiences, they will be "explained" and despite the impact of the
      experience, life will continue as usual. In that case, mind and emotions
      aren't much influenced. In unconditional surrender, there is a striking
      difference: one has become the witness of the emotions instead of the
      subject. Because a witness is a witness, no matter of "what", it no longer
      makes a difference which emotions are witnessed. So "functioning as usual"
      is no more, but onlookers will rarely notice the difference. Anyone having
      been through such a phase, will know that memory seemingly remains almost
      empty: nothing makes an impression anymore. In that respect, memory and
      emotions are equally important. One cannot surrender memory however :)

      There is a more serious reason to witness emotions. Although the word "man"
      reminds of the Sanskrit word "Manas", referring to the sensual mind,
      Westerners consider man the "thinker". But what is fueling thought?
      Emotions of course. Self isn't a perception or an emotion. So witnessing
      emotions will decrease thinking and improve the chance of "sudden"
      recognition, Zen is famous for.

      At least to me it came as surprise that emotions are still possible without
      an "owner"and at this point the Buddha suggested: "enjoy or have them burnt
      too". It is true that K. burns out the various "assets" rather slow;
      motives, reacting, initiatives, these are impossible without emotions.
      Without an "owner" of these emotions, they can be dealt with in a rational
      way or just be ignored (strange as that may sound...). But if this
      functioning still can be called ego?


      Marcia responds:

      It is interesting that you wrote that Jan. Just in the last
      week or so I have had two experiencings where there
      was a situation which evokes a strong emotional reaction
      and I (witness?) just held still and watched it burn. There
      was a definite burning sensation and actually the two
      events were similar somewhat and when the second
      event happened I could see that the reaction was much
      less. In a way I was enjoying the intensity of the emotion
      but I was not identified with it. I didn't "do" what I normally
      do to fix the situation (which doesn't work anyway).

      I might
      be tempted to become an emotion junky to just experience
      that burn. :-)

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


      from Gene:

      Humiliation... is merely the effect of needing a 'new ego'. Do you get my
      point? That is why it is silly to 'kill the ego'... a new one simply is
      spawned, instantly.

      The question is not really of ego, is it? It is of awareness, and of how
      deeply and widely awareness 'is'.

      Ego is an assumed condition of the human Being, and thus, takes blame. (The
      human motto is this: "Whom to blame?")

      Humans who assume that they are controlled by conditions, never need to
      look at who it is, that is creating those conditions. Ego... is the easy
      target and scapegoat. For many, ego is the "monkey on the back", like a
      fierce power, dominating, controlling, ruining relationships of all kinds.
      For psychiatrists, ego is a fundamental structure of the human Being. For
      the ancient alchemists, ego was named the 'homunulcus' or 'little man'. It
      was seen as clever and wild, until tamed by alchemical rites. Then, it
      became the servant, one's own 'little man' servant.
      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
      Gene:

      As I said, it is possible to condition ego. Ego may be trained. The problem
      comes, in the assumption that there is only one 'ego', when in fact, the
      only continuity is in memory, and not in any other property. Thus, as a
      situation develops, a succession of 'egos' are spawned, each carrying the
      appropriate memories of the last similar trial. In this way, memories are
      gained through testing and noting responses in that which is tested. Humans
      are typically deficient, in that they test everything except themselves;
      self-testing will soon reveal the flaw of assuming that because something
      has a name, that it must be real. Ego is a creature of consensus reality,
      as far as the definition goes.

      I bother to speak of the workings of the imaginary, to show how harmless
      those fantasy entities actually are. I can take apart/dis-assemble just
      about anything, leaving nothing. It is called 'deconstructionism', and
      rather than leading to a better definition, is content with NO definition,
      allowing instead, things to be as they are.
      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      Gene:

      Even if in reality, there are no 'parts' such as ego/id/instinct, or
      center/VS/whole, discussion can show how harmless these parts are, and thus
      kill that much superstition. Superstition is real. It can be killed,
      whereas ego is endlessly reincarnating (spawning through time... ).

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      From: "Petros"

      "The Basic individual is not a buried unknown or different person, but an
      intensity of all that is best and most able in the person. The basic
      individual equals the same person minus his Pain and Dramatizations." LRH
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.