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

Friday April 13, 2001

Expand Messages
  • Gloria Lee
    SOMETHING stinks here anyway... The smell could only be called fishy . The question where is God not? is seen to have been asked, But who could have asked
    Message 1 of 1 , Apr 14, 2001

      SOMETHING "stinks" here anyway...

      The smell could only be called 'fishy'.

      The question "where is God not?" is seen to have been asked,
      But who could have asked it?

      Someone is seen to be answering "Who is the point?"
      But who could have answered?

      The discussion is between "Melody" and "Judi,"
      as if there could be two such separate, distinct entities.

      "Ignorance" and "illusion" are discussed,
      As if something that never existed can be talked about
      as something existing!

      The "subtle separation" always being made,
      "Us" vs. "Them,"
      "The Enlightened" vs. "The Ignorant,"

      The primal distinction: "Judi" vs. "Melody."
      Nowhere God is not, God talking to God,
      God trying to convince God to "get with the program,"

      The NondualitySalon list is a basket of fish,
      Stinking and rotting in the sun.
      The only basket of fish
      that can be smelled
      through all creation!

      Pfew!  There's something fishy going on,
      when the duality between "the manifest" and "the Ultimate"
      is made solid and distinct on the "Nondualitysalon list"....

      Yet the 'average joe' makes no such distinction,
      speaks not about 'The Manifest' or "The Ultimate"
      making up, imagining no such 'duality'!

      Fish Baskets Indeed!

      A bunch of babbling old men and women,
      spouting rainbow trout
      from all orifices,

      ** of course there is a standard jerry. each one of us has our own
      too. It is called by various names; conditioning, biases, prejudices,
      programming, or just plain preferences. It may have nothing to do
      with R or N but it is a standard none the less. Now, one could easily
      say that this is a bad thing, that our standards get in the way of
      relationship.If we say that we "should" enjoy all people for who they
      are,(ie: equally) then that is our new standard of enjoying people;
      it is  called the Standard Of Enjoying All People Equally. (SOEAPE).
      No different than any other standard.  And if we can't do that then
      we are lacking, missing or failing something. hmmmmm.

      We like to blame the mind. We say all suffering is due to the mind!

      I would like to know how many on this list are below average in
      intelligence? How many feeble minded people you know are Awakened/Realized?
      Try to explain non duality to your neighbors, specially those who are a
      little lacking in the mental department.

      I suspect most of those on this list have a high IQ. Most also I guess are
      well read and open minded. So! Are our minds the problem?

      Without a mind I would be a vegetable. Lying in a coma.

      ** Without a brain you would be dead. With a damaged brain you could
      be a vegetable in a coma. With a high functioning brain like you have
      now you can understand all the language of nonduality. But that
      doesn't have anything to do with abiding. Just because my mentally
      slow neighbor doesn't understand a lick of this nondual jive, doesn't
      mean he isn't fully abiding in the reality of it.

      All are blessed

             It is the nature of the mind to mind.

              Thought is a natural *function*

              Thinking does not require a thinker. The 'thinker' is
      identification with thought - this is the I-image which is a
      reaction to 'what is' and it is the source of all the mischief.

              I find it helpful to make a distinction between function 
      (the ego) which is natural and the I-image which is a reaction to
      'what is'.

              For example it is natural for me to be able to make this post,
      it doesn't require a doer, an 'I' who is doing it


      More than those who state that they are intelligent, or by writing want
      people to think they are..."The Fool on the Hill"   as an example.  Now I
      know that this is not the question you asked, about members on this
      list...but in my opinion, us feeble-minded persons have got it much better than those who think they are not.  And if we are known to be fools, then we have it even better because we are left alone to muddle about in our own "fool"-ishness.

      "The Fool On The Hill

      By John Lennon and Paul McCartney

      Day after day alone on a hill the man with the foolish
      Grin is keeping perfectly still,
      But nobody wants to know him, they can see that he's just
      A fool
      And he never gives an answer.
      But the fool on the hill sees the sun going down and the
      Eyes in his head see the world spinning 'round

      Well on the way, head in a cloud the man of a thousand voices
      Talking perfectly loud, but nobody ever hears him, or the sound he
      Appears to make
      And he never seems to notice.
      But the fool on the hill sees the sun going down and the
      Eyes in his head see the world spinning 'round

      And nobody seems to like him,
      They can tell what he wants to do
      And he never shows his feelings.
      But the fool on the hill sees the sun going down and the
      Eyes in his head see the world spinning 'round.

      He never listens to them, he knows that they're the fool.
      They don't like him.
      The fool on the hill sees the sun going down and the
      Eyes in his head see the world spinning 'round. "

         (i) have completely dissolved!
      gone gone gone
          i would say into thin air but
      there is no thin air

          who i thought i was, was exactly that!

          my precious teacher told me there will be
      no coming back
          far more wonderful
      there is no back 


      never dissolved,
      because i never
      could have been
      at all,
      i remain as i am.

      what i am
      isn't what i 'think' i am
      it is only 'what' i am.

      what i 'think' i am
      is the only 'unreality';

      unreality, being unreal
      never was thought about,
      only thought to have
      been thought about.

      freedom as default
      means no bondage
      and no freedom
      not now
      not ever

      empty of all
      ideas, i am
      like the sky


      Joining in... here.  One of the points about jnana yoga is to
      distinguish the permanent from the temporary, the "real" from the "unreal," the "I" from the "other than I." 

      Questions such as the following are deeply considered...

      When I go to sleep, am I still there?  Is there evidence at that time the
      body is present?  That the mind is present?  (It is not evidence that
      later, someone else says they saw you sleeping.  Rather, what was the
      evidence at the time??)

      When the body gets old, weak and gray, do *I* change? 

      When I get in a mood, do *I* change or is it the mind/emotions? 

      When anything changes, is there anything constant that observes this?  What would that be?

      If I see the body, observe the variations in the mind, feel the sensations in the body, then can I be any of the things observed?  If I am one or more of these things, then how could I be looking at them?  If I am not any of these things, then what could I be?

      These are a few of the questions asked in jnana yoga...  Another part of it is not to take anyone's answer for granted, it must be investigated on one's own...


      It's never truly personal, never really about you or me or I, however
      fascinating a seeming personal journey to implosion might seem.  It's not that when a person stops thinking/reacting in a certain way then the ego dissolves or is seen to be consciousness, and then one gets to rest as pure awareness.  It's not really even that there is now
      seeingness-of-true-nature when before there wasn't.  Seeingness happens to an I.  Where would that pivot-point of the I or the before/after, where would these reside?  If there is really a going, then what's to prevent another coming?  (This is why some teachings postulate a magnificent going, but then say that there must be eternal vigilance to deepen, and to prevent another coming.) 
      Where would the I or the before/after or the coming/going
      be located?  It's like trying to spin the world on a single hair.  So it's
      never about me or I.  Every I statement is the same.  Take a well-respected I-statement like this one,

         "I am There even if universes come and go"

      Its truth value never depends upon which seeming "sentient being" utters it.

      No sentence is true, even this one.


      Yes, exactly!
      We appear here
         as living, breathing
         answerless questions.

      The depth of "who I am"...
         unanswerable this
         question that lives,
         breathes, perceives,
         speaks ...


      Where are all these nondualists
          you are talking about?
      Where are the dualists who are
         supposedly a different species?
      All I see are all beings simultaneously,
         and everything they behold is me.


      To "be beyond mind" is to be "not against
         any thing" -- certainly not "mind" ...
         just "now" -- where is there something
         or someone to blame?

      To be beyond self is to drop concepts
         of self and other -- not to be "against
         those who have a self" ...

      Fully beyond mind and self is "just here, just this, just so" ...

      Nothing "now" outside, no one requiring an
         explanation to be provided, whatever is said
         is said whenever and however it is said ...


      > Your point is well taken.
      > There is no 'waste' unless
      something is *treated* as
      > waste, or attempted to be 'disposed
      > Even then, all will be 'eaten'.

      I guess that you are saying  'will be', as in 'eventually'. And yes,
      that seems to be true.

      Right now, all of what is treated or regarded as 'waste' is at this
      moment, available as 'food', but perhaps 'fuel' is a more appropriate
      word to use. Right now, it can go into the hopper, to be reintegrated
      into the pantheon of what is validated. Obviously, if we go about
      making categories of good and bad, the polarities thus synthesized
      induce tensions, a flow of energy which (while able to 'do work' or
      'induce change') is known as pain.

      The power or dynamic of the polar tensions, is energy available do do
      any kind of work, as is intended by the one doing the
      categorizations. It is like building cells into which force is

      A cell of charge, may be consumed at any time, for its energizing
      effects. And any cell may be eaten, as long as the value-charge of
      'bad' is removed. Unless, that is, one enjoys the spice which the
      'bad and nasty' imparts to the stew...

      > The question before me is
      "Are we our brother's keeper?"
      > and the answer "there are no
      brothers", "there are no
      > keepers" just doesn't cut it.
      My brother says that I am a keeper... maybe it is my magnetic personality?

      All seriousness aside though, the Great Plan of the Vast Living
      Universe consistently dictates that 'all sentient Beings' shall be
      guided to know their true nature, as being that of the Vast Living

      And that can be appreciated by one who has strayed far from home, now returned as the prodigal.

      How identity melts, when one sees oneself in the eyes of other.

      The End of the Internet

      Congratulations! This is the last page.

      Thank you for visiting the End of the Internet. There are no more links.

      You must now turn off your computer and go do something productive. (That means you too Letecia Jackson.)

      Go read a book, for pete's sake.

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