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

digest of Wednesday's posts

Expand Messages
  • Melody
    A sampling of postings from Wednesday, August 4, 1999To subscribe to the Nonduality Salon please click below:
    Message 1 of 2 , Aug 5, 1999
      A sampling of postings from
      Wednesday, August 4, 1999

      To subscribe to the Nonduality Salon please click below:



      Skye: Human love, is a great spoiler of *actual intimacy*. Most
      humans only reach the belief levels of love which they use to gloss over
      the warts and all. They prefer to fantasise that their lover is the most
      perfect human being *a* god. Human love is incredibly self-centred,
      demanding, wanting and needing ... it must HAVE....so in the world
      of duality it always goes. It is an unfortunate force that comes
      into ones life, which can be transcended along with our limited
      intellectual concepts of everything. I don�t take much notice of the
      human measurement of love.

      In actual intimacy, when you are with another person one hundred per
      cent, unemotionally, there is neither attraction nor repulsion and
      you *see clearly* what other people call attractive or repulsive �
      and that's delicious because it's actually what is, which is actual

      In actual intimacy this whole moment, everything, is magnificent.

      Dan: Thanks for this, Skye. You're pointing to the difference between
      love as wanting/needing and love as Being. This is the difference between
      referring love to a self that is a center and not referring love to
      anything. To be with someone as simply that moment, the person is what is
      in that moment - you are relating to everything that appears in that moment
      the same way - no distinctions. You yourself are not actually "relating
      to" that moment, as that moment is inseparable from your own awareness. So
      there is no relating to anything, yet there is relationship. And there is
      what is beyond relationship, simply being. To me, what you said here is
      what it's all about - what we might be able to learn from this human


      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.

      dan: The atemporal awareness
      constructs and deconstructs
      "the temporal knowing person"
      in one instant. The temporal
      person is always a "being in transition".
      The point of knowing "between"
      temporal and atemporal awareness
      is where the "whole person"
      (i.e., the atemporal reality itself)
      is seen to be speaking (and manifesting)
      "through the image" of a person in time.


      Petros wrote:
      Krishnaji says some great things, but someone has to really pay
      and make the effort of following his train of thought to the end.
      Understanding is there for those who want to really confront it.

      I know what you mean. I opened my first K book at 22 yrs old and was
      immediately uninterested, I also bought the Ch'an translations "The
      Transmission of the Mind Outside the Teachings" by Charles Luk at
      the same time, but it was 10 years before I could bare to confront
      their nullification of my precious beliefs.


      Andrew offered:

      You might be interested in checking out Tolstoy's
      version of the Gospels, if you haven't seen it;


      chapter headings from the preface;

      1. Man is the son of an infinite source: a son of that Father not by the
      flesh but by the spirit.
      2. Therefore man should serve that source in spirit.
      3. The life of all men has a divine origin. It alone is holy.
      4. Therefore man should serve that source in the life of all men. Such is
      the will of the Father.
      5. The service of the will of that Father of life gives life.
      6. Therefore the gratification of one's own will is not necessary for life.
      7. Temporal life is food for the true life.
      8. Therefore the true life is independent of time: it is in the present.
      9. Time is an illusion of life; life in the past and in the future conceals
      from men the true life of the present.
      10. Therefore man should strive to destroy the illusion of the temporal
      life of the past and future.
      11. True life is life in the present, common to all men and manifesting
      itself in love.
      12. Therefore, he who lives by love in the present, through the common life
      of all men, unites with the Father, the source and foundation of life.



      Developmentally, it is appropriate that each of us invents a
      sense of the "doer," just as it is appropriate that perceptually
      we develop the ability to construct "things" that we "see" and "experience."
      Our perceptual world of "things" is a world of "thought constructs" in
      tangible form. When awareness loses its illusory anchoring in "the doer,"
      it simultaneously loses its perceived noninvolvement in the construction of
      the sensory "world of things." This simultaneous realization shows that
      the construction of "the doer" is associated with a construction of a
      "world" in which the doing takes place, and that identification with the
      first requires separation and disidentification from the second. My guess
      is that, although there are significant differences in cultural
      interpretations of the doer and the world, this construction of doer and
      world occurs in all cultures (at least all which I have studied).

      When we developed as children, we needed to be able to intiate
      action when needed (or expected) and to have such action be based on
      perception. If we would have been unable to initiate such action, this
      would be a problem socially and in terms of survival. This "doing" ability
      gets elaborated as
      we develop, so as to include the ability to self-reflect, to
      contemplate options and consequences, to delay action until
      the best time. This interaction of memory, perception, associations,
      conceptualized options, and action could be termed the
      developing self or the ego of time. This sense of self includes
      functioning as an initiator, perceiver, doer, and reflector.

      The end of the "doer" (and perceiver, etc.) is the end of binding awareness
      around roles associated with specific modes of perception. The end of the
      doer is the end of attaching awareness "to" any particular state or
      experience. States and conditions may come and go, awareness remains, and
      awareness is not separate from, nor identified with any particular state.
      The doer ends when awareness is simply known by itself as itself, which is
      no-thing. This no-thing is not "in existence," and doesn't initiate or
      make anything happen (as such would require conditionality and
      identification). One then realizes that there "never has been any entity
      anywhere" - neither in the world of things or within the body. There
      simply cannot be any independently initiating entities
      of any sort (the doctrine of dependent origination) and no objects separate
      from awareness. Such realization is the source of freedom from every
      psychological problem based on "doing" (e.g., guilt, anxiety,
      preoccupation), and every social problem based on conflicting goals and

      Realization is awareness itself as it is. It is clear how awareness imagined
      itself "caught" in its projection of a body-mind, the associated
      biopsychsocial process of "development of being," and the concomitent
      investment in surviving, continuing, and being socially viable. It is
      clear that the ending of this
      connection of awareness with "any entity" is simply awareness as it is.



      Change... it seems to be the only constant in life. But even change
      undergoes changes (speeds up, slows down, etc). I don't believe change is
      a constant (which would negate the fact that there is only change!), as
      there is something undefinable that is unchanging.

      The Internet seems to have pointed that out to me lately. Some speak of
      "Internet time," where a regular business-year occurs in weeks.

      The other day, I was encoding a movie in RealAudio format. I realized that
      RealPlayer may not even be around in a few years anymore (who knows), or
      the formats might change, or the company might get bought up... then how
      could I play back my movie? The software requires registration, constant
      updates, and finally expires, AFAIK. This seems to be two new trends that
      really illustrate change: Software that requires registration before it
      will run, and self-updating software that connects to the Net to update.

      Thinking about these things the other day, there was a very deep
      realization that life is flux, change, that "I" cannot observe change
      because I myself *AM* change, am part of the process, and change cannot see
      change. Who is the observer of change? And is there an observer behind
      that observer?

      It's so freeing just to let go... so much peace and bliss to realize that
      NOTHING, nothing at all, is permanent, and to go with that. "Going with
      the flow" is not an adequate description. One must let go, and let go, and
      let go, and let go... and I believe that is our natural state. Clinging
      and attachment are unnatural and products of ignorance and the need for
      security. Drop that fucking need, any way possible! There is no security.
      There never has been, and never will be. Let yourself out of prison.



      Had satsang with Yudhishtara tonight at the Bodhi Tree along with about
      fifty really great people, some of whom I recognized from Neelam's satsang a
      few weeks ago.

      Y opened, as is his custom, by expressing gratitude to everyone for making
      it to satsang, and how he recognized that people really have to make a
      concerted effort -- making time in their schedule, then fighting the traffic
      and looking for a place to park -- to be present. He thanked everyone for
      that and noted that it exemplifies a genuine inner need to be here. Y also
      expressed gratitude, as always, to his teacher Papaji (Poonjaji).

      As is also his custom, Y apologized if his expression of Truth was not as
      "pure" (in a philosophical sense) as some people might prefer. He suggested
      that those who might be dissatisfied with his down-to-earth approach might
      themselves not be as "pure" as they would like to believe.

      He followed his opening by retelling a funny anecdote. Evidently someone
      called his home a few weeks ago and left a message on his answering machine
      asking for Y to provide an explanation of the "ultimate truth." The caller
      instructed Y to call him back, and said that if he wasn't home, Y should
      just leave the answer on the machine!

      Later someone asked about "levels" of Truth and Y was careful to point out
      that he doesn't see it in terms of levels, but of *facets*. All
      expressions being simultaneous but slightly different, not one above or
      below another.

      At another point, Y said that the natural state *is* the ultimate state, not
      samadhis and "super-samadhis" and such; that the ultimate state is just
      accepting yourself as you are, finally.

      Someone came to Y's feet and sang a song; a little bit later someone else
      played a flute.



      There was this rabbi guy at this synagogue who was praying and he puts
      his hands to his heart and looks to heaven and cries out, "Lord, I am
      nothing"!!, and throws himself on the floor. This other rabbi walks by
      and sees him on the floor and does the same thing, pounds his hands to
      his chest and says "Lord I am nothing", and throws himself on the floor
      besides him. Now this other guy, this non-jew, (jews always have
      non-jews to do their work), walks by and sees these guys on the floor
      and he does the same thing, pounds his hands to his chest and looks to
      heaven and says "Lord I am nothing!", and throws himself on the floor.
      So the first jew says to the second jew, "Hey, look who thinks he's
      nothing?" :-)
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.