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

Friday March 30, 2001

Expand Messages
  • Gloria Lee
    JAN Feelings are the motivators... They determine behavior, not the arguments. Hence, swami Sivananda was caught eating pickles, although advocating
    Message 1 of 1 , Mar 31, 2001
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      JAN
       
      Feelings are the motivators... They determine behavior, not the arguments. Hence, swami Sivananda was "caught" eating pickles, although advocating "sattvic" food in his books... That is why philosophies, as a rule, end up as "dead meat" - only able to stir up discussion that "doesn't cut wood". But strictly speaking, there can't be a departure from sentient life - "insentient" life carries the potential for sentient life.

      The greatest blessing is to be born into a family with awakened parents - because then, awakening will
      be unavoidable and effortless. Having experienced that, how would one feel, living in a society where that is considered a sin? And being "classified" by the pundits as a "renouncer" too - because of insights and statements...

      So forget the samadhis: 'Oneness' or the 'natural state' is 'factual' already - what could make statements about
      it is what seemingly veils it. Do you need a reminder to remember your name - Melody - ? That is unlikely -
      even Alzheimer patients know their name. But the "natural state" is more natural than one's name given at birth - hence not a single thought about it will arise - unless as a response.

      Can you understand the tragedy of "leaving through samadhi" now?
      Can you understand now that with suffering, Buddha didn't mean "just" hunger or losing loved ones?

      Jan

      PS before I forget, although recommending fruitarianism, I don't mind eating spicy curry now and then and Liliana knows that too :)
       


      ON GURUS
       
      JERRY
       
      thanks, david. my apartment and city are full of ways to become distracted,
      but to sit with exactly what is going on is to sit with the guru. i still
      enjoy the distractions too much, though!

      ~~~~
      > > . i'm not saying to ignore the gurus, but to keep them
      secondary
      > > to being alone, lost, miserable, empty. that's the
      guru.
      > >
      > > jerry

      >Liliana:
      > Well, I've had this guru most of my life with
      rather poor results, one might
      > say, from one perspective. On the other
      hand a few simple answers printed on
      > a piece of paper, devoid of
      personal presence made me fall to the feet of the Master. And made me read for 3 years just one book, with the grace of his attention and Love, with his presense, however strange it may sound. This is the language I understand better than  misery and loneliness.
      > Paradoxically, I am not
      disagreeing with what you said - the inner guru you
      > mentioned brought me
      to this particular moment  and ultimately, is the master himself.
      >
      The two do not exclude each other. There is no end to the mystery and ways of
      > Grace...
      >
      > Liliana

      hi liliana,

      yes, mystery and Grace. Jesus said (?), 'Ask and ye shall receive.' Grace
      delivers. Someone else devised the curse, May all your dreams come true.
      Somewhere between Jesus' asking and the curse inventor's words, a person stops
      with everything the way it is. this is when the I AM is met. then penetrating the
      I AM, one moves out of the stream that flows from asking to receiving. one
      essentially leaves common life, attentionally. Attentionally, one may also return
      to assist people moving between Christ and the curse, to pull them out of that
      stream. that is what a guru does. yet the inner guru is the feeling that the
      stream is all wrong, it can bring no satisfaction. stopping with that, listening
      to that, is to be with the guru or the voice that lifts one out of the stream.
       
      jerry

      ~~~~~~~~
      Omkara wrote:

      > Hi Jerry,
      >
      > In my experience, it
      depends on the Guru.  Some really are concerned
      > to 'throw the
      disciple back to themselves'.  Deeply concerned.
      >
      > "The
      disciple" seems to be the issue here, not the Guru.  How many
      >
      Jnanis have been worshipped by Bhaktas throughout the ages... somehow
      > I
      feel Shankara or Buddha would not have been happy with the worship
      > of
      their name and form.  Not happy at all.
      >
      > If there were no
      Gurus, objects of worship would be found and
      > worshipped
      anyway.

      JERRY:
      i agree. people create their own leaders, gurus, etc. rajneesh said he had no
      need to be a guru but he recognized the need of the multitudes to be
      disciples. people want to break out of the prison of life and reach for many
      things in order to get out, when all they need to do is stop struggling and
      be with themselves.
       
      ~~~~~
       
      Namste All,

      The guru is the last impediment, the last vestige of form a god. Once
      you invest yourself in the guru and surrender to him. There is nothing
      else afterwards, so you become like Nisargadatta Maharaj you return to
      yourself. So it handy to have a guru even if it is to have the
      opportunity to dispense with this form.........ONS Tony.
      ~~~~~
      Gloria sent
       

               
              ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` `

              In reality only the Ultimate is.  The rest
              is a matter of name and form.  And as long
              as you cling to the idea that only what has
              name and shape exists, the Supreme will
              appear to you as non-existing.  When you
              understand that names and shapes are
              hollow shells without any content whatsoever,
              and what is real is nameless and formless,
              pure energy of life and light of consciousness,
              you will be at peace - immersed in the deep
              silence of reality.
                 
                                - Nisargadatta Maharaj

              ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` `

      This quotation is from:
      "I Am That"
      Talks with Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj
      The Acorn Press, 1973

              ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` `
             
              Eventually you have to get rid of the name and
              form of both your Master and yourself; you have
              to reject the finger in order to see the moon.
              Where there is name and form there is false-
              hood, there is an impediment to freedom
              because nothing that you see will give you
              freedom.

                                     - Papaji

              ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` `


       
      OMKARA
       
      "Never underestimate the wisdom of one following the path of devotion, or
      the devotion of one following the path of wisdom"

      ... Omkara ...
       

      NDS


      Samadhi loves me,

      I wonder who,

      I wonder who,

      I could be...

      (repeat)



      Singing,

      ==Gene Poole==


       
      That which is beyond words cannot be responded to, by words.

      Sandeep

          Harsha sent poem by Mace 

              As one perceives all
             in naked awareness,
             how then could one
             not feel the suffering
             and pain of all sentient beings
             and therefore the arising
             of resplendent compassion?

                 Mace



       
      FROM HARSHASATANGH, JOYCE SHORT quotes WEI WU WEI
       
      >
      > * Am I awake or am I asleep?
      > (I am neither awake nor asleep).

      "There is no such 'thing' as a dream (or a mirage, an illusion, an
      hallucination), the dream as a thing-in-itself is not such.

      There is phenomenon, an apparent dream-ing, just as there are ten thousand
      phenomena due to appparent see-ing, apparent hear-ing, feel-ing, smell-ing,
      taste-ing, apparent know-ing, but the objects apparently perceived by the
      senses are not entities at all.  There is only a perceiv-ing of apparent
      objects mov-ing in apparent space in the apparent seriality of time.

      In daily 'life' the apparently 'other' sentient beings who sensorially
      perceive the same phemonena that we perceive, synchronized in the same
      apparent time, are themselves also phenomena, mutually perceived or mutually
      not perceived, but there is nothing but the perceiv-ing, as in a dream there
      is nothing but the dream-ing.  If the dreamer awakes the dreaming ends, and
      there is no question regarding the 'beings' or other phenomena in the dream,
      as to whether 'they' are still pursuing their dream activities or are awake
      also.  So in liv-ing, the awakened does not consider whether his fellows in
      the 'living'-dream', for now he knows that neither these nor that one of
      them which appeared to be himself was anything but phenomenal object of the
      supposed dreamer.

      In both cases the apparent reality of the event dreamed has disappeared
      forever.

      Where second-degree dreaming is concerned this is obvious to all of us, for
      we were the supposed dreamer and we are now awake, but in the first-degree
      or 'living'-dream, which is essentially identical, we have difficulty seeing
      it, for we are still participants in our dream, and as such, we are unaware
      that we are being dreamed.

      However, in our 'living'-dream we have the possibility of becoming aware of
      this, and then each of us who does so can recognize that he is not the
      apparent entity in his particular dream that he believed himself to be, but
      the apparent dreamer of his own dream.  That recognition too is called
      'Awakening', but he cannot awaken the 'others' in his dream  -for they were
      only his objects and were not entities in their own right any more than he
      was in the dream.

      Therefore, each dreamer can only awaken from his own dream, from the dream
      in which he himself participated as 'himself', for even if his 'liv-ing'
      friends appeared in his dream they did so only as his objects-which is as he
      happened to visalize them.  'Others', therefore, are nothing but our
      objects; as we know them they are not entities in their own right, and they
      only appear to be such as dream of his own dream, that is subjectively.

      Awakened, however, each dreamer finds that he was the apparent subject of
      all the objects in his late dream of 'living', but now is still not an
      entity - for he no longer exists as an object except in the 'living' -dream
      of 'others'. He is the pure unconditioned subjectivity by means of which he
      was dreamed, as all other apparently sentient beings are dreamed, and whose
      apparent sentiency is nothing but that.

      When the dreamed awakened from his sleeping-dream he was never the dreamer
      but was himself still being dreamed.  There has never been a dream-er at
      all; there is just a phenomenon of dream-ing.

      That, then, is what the 'living'-dream is, i.e. an objectivization in Mind
      in which apparent entities are not such, and whose dreamer has never existed
      as an object and can never be an object in his own right - for there can
      never be any such 'thing'.

      From  "All Else Is Bondage" Non Volitional Living - Wei Wu Wei

       
      MIRROR replies to another's question:
       
      > * The waking state seems so much more real than dream...
      > (from which state is this asked?  In the dream state, the
      waking state is
      > not even imagined).

      You know what?
      Reality used to crash my dream all the time.
      Now my dream is crashing my reality....

      Mira


       
      JERRY
       
      What is any of us doing by writing to a list? What really takes guts is not
      one person calling another -- that's a personal choice and no one's obligated
      call anyone -- but oneself calling oneself. this whole list/internet thing is
      a big show. Admit it. i take responsibility for being part of it and
      encouraging it. The circus tent certainly needs to be taken down, bunched up
      into a ball and burnt, while each one formerly under it goes his and her own
      way into the surrounding wilderness.

      holding onto the tent for dear life,
      jerry

      ~~~
      ---------------------------------

      with you...holding the other end.
      beth 



      A dialogue with TIM and DAN
       
      Hi Tim!

      >I won't ask for a reply since this has been going on all day <g>...
      >but if you want to add
      something it's your call.

      Tomorrow is another day,
         and now tomorrow is today.

      Tomorrow never knows a thing,
         yet a million years of future
         today do sing.

      >This is really an interesting inquiry...

      For whom is it interesting?
        ( Just kiddin' -- doin' the advaita shuffle,
         kind of like the Ali shuffle, but with
         less danger of physical repercussions ;-)


      >The only conclusion that could come out of it is that everything ever
      >perceived, everything "being perceived now" and everything that
      'will
      >be perceived' "occurs" in an "instant" of no-time... and thus
      could
      >never have occurred.  In fact, nothing could ever have
      occurred.

      Yes -- What you say here is exactly on-target
          as perceived here.

      "Perception now" is an "instantaneous" formation.
         (Not "instantaneous" as opposed to "gradual"
          but "instantaneous" meaning timeless, nondurational).

      As there is no time involved, and formation is
          conceptual and thus necessitates time,
          formation cannot "really occur".
      The observer is formulated so the formation
          can be perceived, and the formation,
          through "the perceptual act"
          gives form to the observer.

      "This perception now" is inclusive of all
         possible perceptions everywhere in all
         possible time-space "moments".

      Although perception never "really occurs",
         it must appear to occur, so that all
         possible possibilities actualize (they
         can't help themselves, they must
         appear to actualize, because there
         is "nothing to prevent it", and because
         "there actually is nothing the whole
         time" -- thus, "they"
         actualize by appearing to form)...

      This imperative, this inevitability
         of formation of "time-moments"
         is the nature of infinity, the
         insubstantial yet "only real",
         every possible possibility = nowhen =
         the reconciliation and embodiment
         of all possible polarizations, oppositions,
         subject-object "experiences" ...

      This means that infinite time-space
         realities "occur" simultaneously, without
         interference, worlds within worlds, beings
         within beings, every perception of every
         life being lived seemingly real for the
         apparent duration.  Yet none of it
         occupying any "real" (in the sense of
         objectively verifiable) time or space.  No real
         duration or occurrence, all the diversity
         being unsplit, the manifest always
         being the unmanifest.

      As we're discussing what "never really
         occurs", we're implying "something
         real" -- however, that implication is
         misleading.  The "real" here is what
         never is perceived, nor involves a
         perceiver, yet which is what is
         being "perceiver and perceived".
         No inside or outside, hence
         inside and outside.

      >Others have stated that the "gap between thoughts" is an area of
      >inquiry... apparently requiring a regular
      practice of meditation in
      >order for thought to 'slow' enough so that
      these gaps could be
      >perceived...
      >
      >But I don't see how such
      an inquiry would be possible... who or what
      >would be examining these
      'gaps?'

      Yes, you're right as seen here.
      There is no one to perceive a gap
         between thoughts, the perceiver
         being a thought-formulation.
      So, the sense that there is a gap
         between thoughts to investigate,
         is the beginning of the recognition
         that thoughts aren't occurring,
         although they appear to be
         occurring.

      >Then again, supposedly "Who am I?" is a useful inquiry... it never
      >was effective 'in my case', but to remain
      with the sense of Beingness
      >(Awareness attending to itself) seems a
      useful approach, since 'just
      >being' doesn't require 'someone to
      be'.

      O.K.
      There is only one inquiry,
         however it seems to be
         given form, whether it
         is phrased as a question
         or an injunction (e.g., be
         who you are, be,
         be still and know I am [god]).

      Essentially, as construed here,
         it is the recognition that no
         barrier is a barrier, that
         everything the could conceivably
         be lost is already lost, and
         there is no foundation for the
         formulation of an observer
         of perception, or of "something
         or someone" anywhere,
         moving from point
         a to point b "in time" ...

      Phrased as question or injunction,
         the words which may be
         a catalyst, must dissolve,
         as the apparent
         thought dissolves, with it the
         apparent thinker, and nothing can
         be said at that point or about that
         point ...


      >This is all a bit heady :-).  It's fine and dandy to discuss these
      >things
      philosophically, but if it doesn't translate to
      >something 'experiential'
      (I.E. insight 'beyond thought') the
      >discussion is interesting but
      ultimately futile... which I suppose
      >everything is anyway
      :-).

      Yes, everything is anyway,
         and so, it isn't ;-)
      That is, because there is
         nothing to get anywhere,
         and nowhere to get,
         and no one to do the getting,
         the futility is itself "opening
         of/as infinity".

      Expression of/as "this"
         isn't prescription.
      There is nothing to be applied.
      Trying to apply words that are
         expression as if they could
         be used to get somewhere *is*
         absolutely futile.

      There is only "enjoyment of
         the expression", which is
         equivalent to "being as is",
         to which you referred above.

      No thought that any thought
         occurs, nor thinker to get
         something out of it, or get
         somewhere.

      Yet the play plays on
         and through ...
      Nothing to stop it ...
      And that means all the being
         of all beings, as is, and
         the world with everything
         we like or dislike ...

      With no duration, no volition,
         no substance, yet the
         reverberating fullness of
         infinity ...

      Love,
      Dan

      WHITE WOLFE excerpt from the poem
       

      an it harm none, do as we will

       

      arianrhod

      from the beginning

      nimue has come seeking me

      from the ending merlyn seeking her

      yielding our magick we perform the wiccan rede

       

      an it harm none, do this we will


      Bide the Wiccan Laws we must, in perfect love and perfect trust.
      We must live and let live, fairly take and fairly give.
      Cast the circle thrice about to keep unwelcome spirits out.
      To bind the spell well every time, let the spell be said in rhyme.
      Light of eye and soft of touch, speak we little, listen much.
      Deosil go by waxing moon, chanting out the Wiccan Runes.
      Widdershins go by waning moon, chanting out the baneful tune.
      When the Lady's Moon is new, kiss the hand to her times two.
      When the moon rides at her peak, then the hearts desire seek.
      Heed the North Wind's mighty gale, lock the door and trim the sail.
      When the wind comes from the South, love will kiss thee on the mouth.
      When the Moor wind blows from the West, departed spirits have no rest.
      When the wind blows from the East, expect the new and set the feast.
      Nine woods in the cauldron go, burn them quick and burn them slow.
      Elder be the Lady's tree, burn it not or cursed ye'll be.
      When the wheel begins to turn, let the Beltane fires burn.
      When the wheel has turned to Yule, light the log and the Horned-One rules.
      Heed ye flower, bush and tree, by the Lady, Blessed Be.
      Where the rippling waters go, cast a stone the truth to know.
      When ye have and hold a need, hearken not to others greed.
      With a fool no season spend, lest be counted as his friend.
      Merry ye meet and merry ye part, bright the cheeks and warm the heart.
      Mind the three-fold law ye should, three times bad and three times good.
      When misfortune is enow, wear the star upon thy brow.
      True in love ye must be, lest thy love be false to thee.
      These eight words the Wiccan Rede fulfill…

      An ye harm none, we  do what we will

      With this hand-fasting Mira, Mark does thee take!

      mark christopher valentine

      (march 28-29, 2001)

       



       



       

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