Sunday, April 8
I've re-organized the web pages entitled 'What Is Nonduality?'.
Scores of definitions and explications are included. I started
collecting these definitions after I was unable to find
nonduality or nondualism defined in the English Oxford
Dictionary. I was at the library and looked through numerous
dictionaries and found definitions of nonduality or nondualism
in only one or two, and they were very brief and general
definitions. Please take a look at the link below when you have
time. Thank you, and thanks to all contributors over the years.
By the way, I'm always collecting contributions from all
perspectives, the most recent one from James Traverse posted a
couple of days ago.
Jerry Katz What is Nonduality - Nondualism - Advaita?
I got up at an unusually early hour for a Saturday to catch the
7:00 AM train to New York to attend Susan Dane's Seminar for
WBAI, "When All Systems Fail, Spiritual Answers Beyond
At the reception desk, Susan gave me a warm greeting (we have
corresponded by e-mail, and spoken on the phone, but never met
in person before). The first person I laid eyes on after that
was our very own Victor Torrico! He was sitting there at the
reception desk filling out his registration form. He told me
that he and his wife were in New jersey, visiting family, and he
decided to take the bus trip into the city for Susan's Seminar.
So it was fun to share the experience with Victor throughout the
day. (I met Victor at the HarshaSatSangh-NDS retreat last
Susan's audience was diverse in terms of race, age, and
background. There were many African Americans and Hispanics, as
well as whites. There were Catholics, Jews, one fellow named
Pedro who quoted the Tao Te Ching, and a couple of NonDualists
at least (Victor and I!)
Susan has a very compelling speaking style. She is dynamic,
speaks extemporaneously, throws in a lot of humor, and often has
her audience hanging on her every word. I won't attempt to
summarize her message, you can get a flavor for it at her web
site (http://www.susandane.com). But there is nothing "new"
about what she is saying, of course, yet she has devised a way
to present it that attempts to bypasses what people already know
of spirituality from their own traditions and seeking, in order
to point them towards what she calls "Ground". If her work has a
basis in any tradition, it is the Christian, specifically
Christian Science. But she presents it in terms of a lived,
practical, un-sugarcoated spirituality. She was always quick to
correct people who wanted to turn it into a feel-good message,
Susan is also a skilled interlocutor when answering people's
questions. She doesn't comfort or coddle people, but forces them
to examine the assumptions within their questions. She is like
that one-on-one as well. More than once things she has said to
me have zapped me with an uncomfortable truth.
Here are some notes I took. Most are direct quotes but some are
my condensed paraphrases:
"Spirit is going to work to dismantle self, to bring us to the
wall. It makes an inside out thing happen. We start to have
space. Spirit deconstructs everything that is in its way. Spirit
wants to be the only ground."
"The authentic ground is not beyond words, there is
"Learning to be wise about the technology of the human..."
"There is a Chooser and it is Choosing: reclaim that ground"
"We have to have a relationship to the Chooser: the Chooser is
always free, always free to not be bound by its habit and its
"Be conscious of your ability to choose that which your rational
mind cannot choose."
"Spirit is also that thing within us that is doing the Choosing.
Spirit is choosing us, which allows us to choose Spirit."
"Spirit has a feel and a sound and a sense to it."
"That which is required of me is impossible for me. That is the
way Spirit wants it."
"Our human destiny is not a human event, it is a divine event."
"The ground we are looking for is us."
"Change happens when someone operates out of a different
"Spirit want to be the ground and the expression at the same
As I said, people seemed to be hanging onto her every word, and
there were many urgent questions. During the lunch break I went
out with Susan and her friend Meredith. We took sandwiches to
nearby Gramercy Park. This gorgeous, gardened urban square is
surround by a Black Iron Fence, to which only the neighborhood
people have keys. Needless to say the park was deserted. We sat
on the ledge by the fence, and soon were joined by 5 other
people from the seminar, and Susan was holding forth again,
right there on the sidewalk. To have a gorgeous but empty garden
just the other side of the fence seemed like an apt metaphor for
what was going on, the Garden - so close, but seemingly locked
away - being the Ground that she was talking of.
After the seminar a group of about 12 people gathered around her
and continued the discussion for another hour or so. I felt that
people were reluctant to leave her presence. Victor and I helped
carry Susan's stuff down to the street and loaded into a cab,
and we all said our farewells. I made it back to Grand Central
in time for the 7:10 train. I feel like it was a day well spent.
It was good to meet Susan and to see her in action. I felt
warmed and welcomed, and buoyed by her strong expression of that
which so vibrantly operates in her and through her.
Warm regards to all, David
It's funny how much courage it takes to be 'loose and natural'
...not just in sharing deep insights, ...but even in more
'superficial' forms of expression.
For example, I love hats. I buy them all the time. Problem is, I
never wore then - always afraid of being seen as 'silly' in
public. And so I had a closet full of them, many with the price
tags still hanging.
A couple of months ago I started wearing my hats. That first
day, I don't mind telling you, I really braced myself -
anticipating, and receiving a lot of 'second looks', smiles, and
good hearted kidding.
And I got all that....and more. :-)
Not too long ago that good natured kidding would have been
enough to get me to put those hats back away into boxes.
Funny thing, though.....just last week I was in a mall during
one of our school trips with another driver. We were walking
thru a woman's section of a store when he spotted a rack of
hats. He picked one up and said, "Hey look! This one looks just
That was about the dearest thing I had heard in a long time.
When I looked at the hat I had to wholeheartedly agree. It was
just like what a 'natural and loose' Melody would wear.
I wear my hats now all the time. And people continue to smile
and point and nod when they see me in them.
Even though I chose to wear them *in spite of* public
the 'public' seems to enjoy seeing me in them every bit as much
as I enjoy wearing them.
"The Nondual Highlights list includes the 'best' of the day's
posting to NDS, as well as posts from other lists (sometimes")
I'm glad to see you put the word 'best' in quotes, Jerry.
Clearly what is presented as 'best' each day more reflects the
preferences and flavor of each editor. At least it did while I
was editing and reading them.
It's a first person accounting of what happened in a day.....as
filtered thru one individual's lens of preference, perspective
I found, speaking for myself, that it told me much more about
the 'editor' than it ever really told of the day's list
I remember the day I quit doing the editing. I had forgotten it
was my day to do the highlights, and so had to go back and
reread thru a bunch of posts.
To my surprise, almost all the posts that day I had deleted as
either unread, or mostly unread.
I thought, "oh shit! I got to go back and actually READ all that
stuff !?" LOL
And yet, I knew, that what was in my 'trash pile' was probably
someone else's treasure.
But I quit that day, nonetheless. :-)
Bemused (and refreshed) by Gene's recent letter "in the context
of a recent letter by TerryM," I thought I would venture a
reply. I am not sure what letter gene refers to ("without
quotes" he said), I don't think it made the highlights, but all
my letters probably could use such background music as this,
thanks. (And I don't know what a "phase-lock with space" is but
it has a nondual ring to it.)
~ It is seen that everything is happening in space, but that
humans pay attention primarily to what happens in space, rather
than to space itself. It is seen, that all forms are actually
information, and that the common confusions of the human, result
from attachments and aversions (values added) to information.
~ If values are stripped from information, the actual and
intricate interrelationship of all things becomes very apparent;
it is apparent that humans, while immersed in a vast and
powerful field of information, prefer to both censor and
embellish, rather than to simply receive.
terry m responds (without the usual need to censor and
Very perceptive remarks here, reminiscent of my old friend,
Diogenes the Cynic. The word 'cynic' actually comes from a greek
root referring to seeing, but it got a bad name because people
like Diogenes made fun of the speeches of the rabble-rousing
'democrats,' who zeroed in on people's aversions and attractions
and exaggerated them in order to gain a following. Diogenes is
probably best known for walking the central square in Athens
with a lit lamp in the middle of the day. When asked what he was
doing he replied, "I am looking for an honest man." The heart of
Diogenes' philosophy was the perception that people were
helplessly incapable of seeing how things really are because
their desires distorted their perceptions. Even though it was
bright daylight, it might as well have been full dark for those
blinded by desire. And Diogenes' bright lamp might help these
people - who for all their inability to see were not blind, they
had fully functional eyes in their heads - to see what was
around them, at least momentarily. One of Diogenes
contemporaries - and a favorite target for his barbs - was Plato
(what a time that must have been!). Plato had his 'cave
analogy,' which similarly used the metaphor of a darkness so
great that people with perfectly good eyes saw little and
understood less. ("Why do my eyes hurt?" asked Neo. "Because you
have never used them before," said Morpheus.) The darkness is
ignorance, the ignorance is due to our powerful desire to enjoy
a world which doesn't exist, never did and never will. We
"censor and embellish" and thereby generally live in a world
wherein 'what is' is constantly interfering with our dream of
reality. Our desires are not even our own, as any Cynic knows;
we are constantly being sold things which we don't want and know
are bad for us for the profit of others, and we sell in our
turn. Helplessly. Can we do anything about this condition, other
than "phase-lock with space" or maintain our own integrity?
Another of my favorite stories about Diogenes occurred during
one of Athens' frequent wars. While Socrates fought alongside
the citizens, Diogenes generally avoided service - Diogenes
never wore clothes, lived in a bathtub, and generally speaking
was not the sort of guy you wanted to stand next to while he had
a weapon in his hands. But one day, in the midst of war
preparations, Diogenes commenced to rolling around an empty
wheelbarrow, very industriously, accomplishing nothing. The
townsfolk, accustomed to his antics, laughingly asked him what
he thought he was doing this time, and he responded, "I just
wanted to show everyone I was doing my bit for the war effort."
This, folks, is integrity. What do you do or say when people
live in a darkness so thick they can't see the sun in the sky or
the moon at night, a silence so great they can't hear babies cry
or birds sing? Diogenes the Cynic (sometimes he was called 'the
Dog' because he and his group would go naked and copulate in the
gutter) found his integrity in acting out parables for the
people in the town square. His integrity was so great that when
Alexander the Great came to claim Athens, the two things (this
story is from Plutarch) he wanted to see were the Parthenon and
Diogenes. Alexander asked to be taken to Diogenes, and was led
to a place along the river where Diogenes was sunning himself.
Alexander approached Diogenes and said to him, "Hello, I'm
Alexander, the Conqueror." Squinting up at him, the philosopher
said, "Hello, I'm Diogenes, the Cynic." Alexander smiled and
told him he had come out to see him because he admired his work.
The most powerful man of the age went on to say, "I like you,
and would like to offer you a boon; anything you desire, if it
is in my power to give it, I will give it to you." Diogenes
thought for a moment and said, "Would you please move over a
bit, you are blocking my sun." At this Alexander laughed out
loud and exclaimed, "If I were not Alexander, I would be
Diogenes." Each of us, in living out the integrity that Gene is
speaking about here, is responsible for living the truth of our
insight in such a manner as to dispel the darkness, the
ignorance of mankind, in whatever way we can. It is actually
painful not to, as Gene says. Integrity is truth - or, as Dogen
would say, 'practice is enlightenment.'
Question: If space could talk, what would it say?
Answer: After you...after you are silent, I will speak.
GENE POOLE via Christiana Duranczyk
Tonight.. while reading Jerry's archives from a discussion we
had two years ago on Bernadette Roberts, I reread this post from
Gene Poole. It is so powerful for me, that I am reposting it. It
is long, and like much of what Gene writes, requires a slow
Submitted with respect and gratitude.. Chrsitiana
We, I, every one of us, are the living recapitulation of the
By this I mean that the entire unfoldment of the drama of birth,
life, and death is embodied as _me_ and as you.
This is not a small thing to say. To say this is to say that I
have, in at least a potential or possible way, the entire past
and future history of
all that has been and will ever be, 'within' myself.
Bernadette Roberts had no choice in that matter; she had to
allow the conscious replaying of the entire record of the
Cosmos. In this experience, she found herself as 'no-self', IE,
as the 'record-player'. She, the 'personal identity of
Bernadette', was then experienced as being played on that
record, and simultaneously, as 'no-self', the record itself. It
is extremely odd to have this experience of both 'Being and
not-Being' at the same time; indeed, it is seeing one's identity
as that of 'puppet' and also as 'puppetmaster'.
I propose that none of us have the choice to avoid or to
particpate in this unfoldment; we do have the choice of attitude
through which to have the experience, however. Surrender and
abiding allow the process to proceed with minimal pain and fear.
If I am not mistaken, this is what we are talking about here in
The nondual perspective is to me, the voluntary adoption of the
attitude which allows surrender of personal identity. This is
stated to be 'not a loss, but a gain'. Yes, such a shift of
attitude may be 'inflicted' via Kundalini or Shaktipat or
'Grace', and that is in my opinion, a blessed event; but such
'affliction' of Grace is potentially a complete disruption of
social normalcy and thus the loss of the view into the mirror
which confers social identity. Anyone who undergoes this shift
to 'blindness' may have the experience of terror, yet this very
experience is what is described in the Tibetan Book of the Dead
as the awakening of the 'dead' in the realm of the 'Bardos'. One
who is blind, cannot be faulted for hallucinating gods and/or
monsters. It is further seen that even the sighted, hallucinate
in that way.
The 'other' has made a lot of noise, which I have heard; I can
choose to make sense of it if I want to. The 'others' of the
'past' have said certain things, have provided what is judged to
be guidance and caution and encouragent; yet, I persist in
having to experience all of this on my own. No-one has a
'solution' for _me_; yet, 'others' persist in casting about for
'answers', when in fact, 'clues' are all that are provided. It
is my own willingness to continue on in life, to keep on living,
that allows me to actually mature; in this process of maturing,
of moving from 'larval' to 'post-larval', certain things are
'revealed' to me. But I say that it is none of my work which has
made this 'seeing' possible; I am guilty of no 'mystical
attainment'. It is the process of living and maturing which is
the natural unfoldment of my Being-nature, which is the
revealing of the 'vision' which I can now speak of. If I have
accomplished anything that has helped me, it is the learning of
the value of patience. I have learned that by _abiding_, by
being nonreactive, that I can know. By ceasing to stir the
sediment into the broth, the media clarifies, revealing the
confines of the pot.
The story of Bernadette, as recently related by Jerry, seeks to
tell this significant tale, but for reasons unknown to me, fails
to do so. The simple fact of the matter is that we are all
destined to relive every moment of what is seen as the classical
unfoldment of the drama of creation, from the first moment to
the last. Every one of 'us' embodies every iota of the richness
of this Universe; Cosmic Consciousness allows this vision to be
had. The effort to attain a clear 'nondual perspective' is the
effort to 'have' Cosmic Consciousness, and thus to be in the
clear as to our actual relationship with 'God' and all of
All of this is to lead to the banishment of amnesia.
It is futile, it seems, to caution against becoming bogged down
in the myriad details which comprise the experience of 'other'.
The vocabulary, syntax, traditions, etc, can become a veritable
bog of quicksand, which if swallowed, may become incorporated as
personal belief or criteria. The holding of personal 'opinion'
as 'faith' leads, as we have abundantly seen, to conflicts of
personal and global scale. To avoid these conflicts is
difficult, without simply dismissing the entire array of
traditions and pronouncements as mere chaff blowing in the wind
of Being itself. Nonduality has the possibility of doing this
very thing, in a way that does not rankle the ire of any
'organized religion' or of the adherants of such.
So the core or seed of self "is our deepest experience of life
and energy." Out of this seed grows the affective system, the
feeling-self, the will, emotions and feelings.
Yes; this is self-creation, as growing in the ground of Self.
Consider a board balanced on a fulcrum, like a child's seesaw
ride, Roberts suggests. The fulcrum is the cognitive system, the
knowing-self. The board is the affective system, the feeling
self. The ends of the board represent the extremes of attraction
and repulsion, while the part closest to the unmoving center
represents subtle, unconscious movements.
Yes, a good analogy. The 'middle' or point of the fulcrum is
that very point which we so very often are unconscious of,
especially during emotional 'storms'. But it is this very point
which seems to be the connection to the whole emotive experience
of being human.
Optimum stability exists at the center of the two systems. The
non-contemplative one gains and maintains equilibrium despite
forces that exist to unbalance the whole system.
Yes. That is the 'work' of living, of Being incarnate.
The contemplative seeks to go a step further and move from
awareness of the center point of equilibrium of the affective
system, to the still point or true center of being (I AM).
That is a 'good' step to make. Probably a necessary one, at
that. The qualifying word here is 'contemplative', which is a
deliberately undertaken behaviour, in contrast to headlong
flight from suffering.
Now the will is the center of the affective system, Roberts
says, and the provider of energy for the affective system. Also,
underlying the will is the still point or true center of being.
So when the will does not move, or is free of desire, the
affective system does not move, a state of desirelessness
exists, and it is easier to access the still-point (I AM).
Yes. 'But'... there is more.
To know desire, is to know the alternative. Both together are
the whole picture of our assumptions of what is reality. To see
beyond this assumption of reality is to see the ground upon
which the fulcrum rests.
This is to see not only the playground of our desires and
aversions, but also to see upon what that playground is built.
All action takes place on that playground. The very ground of
Being is usually ignored and assumed to be 'what is'.
This center or will, can be known independent of the cognitive
system, which also touches the center of the affective system.
Yes. That is the 'feed' for all disturbance/perturbation; that
is the 'valve' of the Siddhe of creation.
Once the contemplative knows the still-point (IAM) and turns
attention there, the movement of the affective system comes to a
stop, and there is a sense of stillness and peace.
Yes. I would point out that when the emotional storm rages, that
is called suffering. Persistant guilt, fear, unrequited desires,
Going to this point, as driven by suffering, is a natural
reaction. Catatonic shizophrenics can arrive there, and dwell
there. But reactive movement always has a counterpart, so the
storm continues, if the movement has indeed been reactive. The
desire to hide or escape is the opposite of that of the
If on the other hand, the arrival to the still-point has been
the product of deliberate abiding in stillness, conscious
awareness still prevails. Thus, one may record the event of
arrival and abiding, and talk about it later with others,
because it can be remembered.
The nature of this unitive state is union of human and divine
will and power, so that will is now God's will, not contrary to
that. Here is where one may become further tested by the world.
Now situations arise that would test movement of the will, test
the integrity of the unitive state. The requirement is for
attention to be unceasingly on the still-point (I AM).
I offer that at this cruical point of personal evolution, that
it would be helpful to understand deeply the difference between
God's will and personal will. This can become very confusing,
unless one remembers that it is God who set this whole thing up
'in the first place'. Apparently, we are 'meant to be' or
'designed to be' so-tested. And what that means is that the
whole thing is a larger ground upon which to behave. On this
larger ground, one may see that God is indeed testing us;
specifically, to see if we have the wisdom to suspend creating,
and thus to fall into the pre-existing creation of God.
The common dilemma is this; "If I stop creating, if I do not
persist in creating the very best 'version' of reality, there
will be NOTHING; I will be extinct". This assumption is
destroyed, upon voluntary or involuntary suspension of the
Siddhe of creation.
To know of the power of creation, is to be able to develope
workarounds to avoid exercising it. Upon suspension of this
Siddhe of creation, the creation of God may be experienced in
it's 'raw' form. I must mention that this can be the most
shocking moment in a person's life.
Yogic technique can lead to the suspension of the Siddhe of
creation, but one should undergo the prerequisite yogic training
before attempting such advanced yogic technique. The mishaps of
drug-experiences and improperly invoked Kundalini, that of
hurtling into the void of no-creation and the experience of the
anihilation of 'self' (self as self-creation), serve as standing
proof of the care which might be exercised by those who accept
the guidance of wisdom-Guru.
What Roberts learned is that while there was no more wavering
from abidance at the still-point, no longer any tipping of the
board symbolic of the affective system, there was still the
movement of the ever-horizontal board up and down. This was
Roberts way of saying that she was tested at her innermost core.
I would call that a test of 'faith'; if the board moves 'up'
from the fulcrum, it may be perceived as God moving 'away'. The
test is this; can one accept the loss of self, to be replaced
(by a moment of realization of) Self?
And what she observed and discovered was that there was a gap
between herself and God. What demonstrated this gap was the
initial spontaneous movements in response to life events. These
movements were automatic and harmless, yet mystifying to
Roberts, as she was not sure of their source, whether it was
herself, or God, or some subtle instinct. But these movements
demonstrated that there was a gap between herself and God.
Within that gap between the center of the board or affective
continuum, and the still-point (I AM), was the battleground
between the forces of self-preservation and self-extinction.
This battleground appeared to be separate from consciousness and
untouchable, not under one's control or will.
Yes; that is the issuance-point of immunity and integrity. That
is the portal through which actual Self-creation (That What Is)
arrives recognizably. To allow this gap to remain, is to
increase immunity and integrity. One may, in faith, allow this
gap to remain, and to grow to any size which God ordains, even
to the point of Jesus' question of being forsaken by God. In my
opinion, such abidance of this variable gap, allows one to be a
servant of God. The apparent connection comes and goes; I am
expected to have the intelligence to be able to know when I am
being guided, versus when I am being tested.
Seeing this battle for what it was, understanding it, the battle
simply ceased. Roberts found that the initial spontaneous
movements also stopped, and the still-point (I AM) was then able
to further draw the affective system into its silence.
At this point, noise and silence are the same; all silence. In
this vast silence, _any_ creative movement is seen. This is the
'governer' of spiritual life. To know this is to be able to use
the Siddhe of creation sparingly, and with proper timing. To
discerne the difference between the 'already always' background
of what is, and the assumed background of self-creation, is to
know that one is small, but also that one may become large. This
recognition allows one to avoid doing harm.
To know noise as silence is to know that this is all God's
creation; and that my Siddhe of creation has been created by
God. This may be looked upon as a paradox. I find it helpful to
do so; by doing so, I am able to suspend my Siddhe of creation.
"First there is a mountain, then there is no mountain, then
there is". When the 'drawing' was complete, the continuum was no
more, self was no more, and the still-point was no more. The gap
between the still center of the affective continuum (self) and
the still-point (God) was no more. Therefore, no self, no God
there remained. Only what Is.
And what a 'what is' it is.
I see that to use the Siddhe of creation wisely is to use it in
reverence of God. My own experience is that I am 'Okay' if I use
my creative powers to decorate, respectfully, the 'Christmas
Tree' of God's creation. To such, I offer this tiny ball.
"The mind gives meaning to some things, and denies meaning to
others. Things in themselves neither have meaning nor lack
meaning, but the mind makes it seem so. To see everything as it
is, without either attributing some certain meaning or denying
some certain meaning is to see things as they truly are." --
The entirety of "manifested life" could be gathered under the
denominator of "conditioning" and after a visit to his lordship,
(Yama) conditioning will start to surface like "buttons" that
can't be pushed anymore. That is something to be observed
When thinking is required, think - when not
required, don't think... But for most, that isn't what
happens... And thinking won't provide a "remedy". And knowing
that won't stop the automated, ongoing thinking either... Oh,
how hard to be a human :)
To me futile means ineffective or incapable of producing a
desired result, so I was wondering what it is that thought fails
to accomplish. If there is nothing like that in mind, why say
it's futile? That's like saying the scent of roses or the view
out the window is futile.
Thought for a human is not
intrinsically futile any more than flying is for a bird or
running for a dog. If bird is caged or dog is chained, then
flying or running could be said to be futile. It seems to me
that there is a similar implication in the statement that
thought is futile. I can see that thought about thought is
futile, and that thought as a means to understand reality is
futile, but thought in and of itself is neither futile nor
utile, so it seems.
The description of "Here is how I'm speaking" is interesting,
but useless as a pointer. No pointers point to anything but what
they point to. Pointers being useless here, since 'here' is
'what is', the description is appreciated, but point(er)less
The most foolish thing in the universe would be to read a
description like the one below and 'attempt to emulate it' or
derive meaning from it. Something like this would immediately
create the entity- illusion 'seeing like Dan sees' or 'seeing a
certain defined way'.
Nobody sees like anybody sees. You are not even speaking like
you are speaking! :-)
Nobody seeing, no volition in posting the description below, no
point to posting the description below, nobody reading the
description below, it can only be the pointless play of whatever
is playing :-).
Whether there are or aren't thoughts doesn't matter to me, as I
don't have any means to validate the matter either way ...
Here is how I'm speaking: Each word, each instant spontaneously
is as is, without anything making it be that way -- no cause, no
premeditation by an entity, no time. Each word brings with it
the concept of time in which it unfolds. Its unfolding is its
time. Its assumption of something that was before is the
"assumed observer", the assumed premeditator or volitional
entity. It is the same with any "being" and the same with any
universe - unfolding out of/as no-thingness (or "God"), there is
no place "else" it could be, or that it could be.
No separated intellect is here.
Words are comprehended however they're comprehended. The
comprehension is "in the moment of the word arising" -- each
thought-moment is its own comprehension of itself by itself.
Thus, each thought-moment is dissolved before it arises, and the
same is true of any being or universe.
These moments of word-comprehension, these beings, these
universes can't be said to really be here nor not to be here.
Hardly. Intuition spontaneously manifests speech in the moment
as fits the moment. Interacting with an "entity" dealing with
depression occurs according to "where the 'entity' has presented
itself as being" ...
"Nonduality" is "going beyond the "mind of opposition" ... only
if/as clarity is, can such "opening" *is* ...
Exploring a perspective that is the undermining of any assumed
perspective is indeed the "razor's edge" ...
To be really "loose and natural" is to be able to partake in
customs, convention and ethics of society with no resistance to
them. As somebody said somewhere "to be in the world but not of