digest of Thursday's postings
- A sampling of postings from
the Nonduality Salon and a
few other places, as well....
for Thursday, August 5, 1999
From the NDS:
Xan: From the position of emerging out of doer identity we discover doing
to be so much simpler, more creative and effective without an intervening
least I do. I think we do not know how it would be to grow up without
assuming identities - the "natural" way. :-)
Dan: What would it be to grow up and never identify yourself as a name, a
body, a memory system? To never identify with things you liked (e.g.
beauty, pleasure, happiness, joy) and never want to separate from things
you didn't like (e.g., ugliness, pain, disgust, unhappiness)? If this were
the case, how would you ever identify yourself as involved in a growing
process? How would you ever locate yourself? Insofar as we are
identifiable beings, we can come to an ending of this identification, an
ongoing rebirth. Yet, to the extent we are never identifiable beings, we
were never born in the first place. Then, there is only the Unborn and
From a Gathering:
Suppose it was a butterfly dreaming away that it had become a [John Doe] in
it's dream, a [John Doe] engaged
in meaningful activities to avoid becoming
emasculated, to avoid death?
With the opening blink of the butterfly's eyes waking up, all this goes
Can you at least admit the possibility<g>
How do you [ ] anything of all "this" has an
existential reality? Just because you wake up every morning and through the
course of the day, run
through various myriads of plesant and unpleasant sensations?
And that you have been doing this for the last 50-60-70 years?
And that there is a memory of yesterday and a hope for tomorrow?
Well it is perfectly possible that a full lifetime (70-80 years of sensation
experiencing) can be compressed into a sleep-dream of 4 hours.The concept of
time is relative in the dream state and the waking state.
So why not a butterfly sleeping say for 3 hours and dreaming a full dream in
which 50 years of [John Doe] is played out, with
all his issues, meaningful
actions, hopes, desires, creatings etc etc.
That is why those who know have talked about the veil of illusion for the
outer, and re-focussed the disciple's attention to re-discovering, not
whether it is a butterfly dreaming or not, whether all this is real or
illusion or not, but to re-discover that which remains whether dreaming or
Now this re-discovery cannot even get started if the fascination, if the
seeking is for satiation with the nuances of the dream, with the myriad
aspects of the outer.
Does it mean the outer is to be discarded, shunned?
No, that means a reaction and any reaction positive or negative means you
are still bound to what you are reacting to.
No, what is to be seen is the identification of oneself with the nuances of
the outer and in that seeing is the shedding of the identification.
From the NDS:
Yes. Personally, I have experienced this 'ego loss' as a catastropic
event, only later appreciated as a process of (hopefully) inevitable
maturation. "Losing it" was actually 'getting it'. I can see this now, but
at the time (1973) it seemed like the end of the world, literally.
>This simultaneous realization shows that theGene: Yes. The problem associated with this process, when it occurs
> 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.
unbidden, is the lack of the second part, or the lack of the realization
that 'I am creator'. Having it all 'go away', is a great shock; I regret
that the 'world-dream' lacks the common information that 'I am the
creator', to move in as the second realization, when the first collapse
occurs. I applaud the promulgation of this simple logic of Being and
Gene: Yes. I am the one who rides the waves, calm or storm. I am not so
selfish as to suffer, for the particular state I desire or have aversion
to. Such selfishness leads to much suffering, and is not worth the cost. My
attachments... are now kept at a distance, and are becoming only artifacts
of historical interest, markers of a past which I am letting go of.
Marcia: Somehow this causes me to think that the aim of "realization" isto
free oneself from psychological problems.
Dan: Realization frees one from those psychological problems that result
from taking illlusions as realities. This freedom is simply inherent in
the dynamic between reality and illusion. Please don't take this as saying
there is some kind of aim to realization. The "attempt to get somewhere
other than where one is" is itself an aspect of "being caught."
Marcia: Which bases it all
on a "fix it framework". I think that it can be a very subtle trap in
a way to justify something because that is the way you want it to
Dan: There is nothing to be fixed. Seeing that is itself liberation from
the psychological problems that result from trying to fix onself, others,
and the world. There is nothing to justify here, no one who can be
trapped, and no attempt to make anything be what it isn't.
Marcia: I am not trying to be picky.
This just haunts me. You know
what I mean?
Dan: If I understand you correctly, you don't want to see realization as
an attempt to fix things. Reality itself is the ending of those
psychological difficulties based on an unreal position. However, if we
take this understanding to mean reality is something to pursue in order to
gain freedom, we simply perpetuate the same kind of difficulty in a new
form. I think this is what you're getting at, and that seems true to me.
Marcia: I mean to have to actually occupy a material body
and have goals which just might conflict and to make decisions
and be productive. These things take maturity and strength of
Dan: Perhaps there is no one occupying any material bodies. Perhaps the
material bodies themselves are constructs from the "ground of awareness."
Goals and decisions can take care of themselves. The illusion is that
there is a "doer" and a "decider". What does it take to end this illusion?
to end the belief that there is someone who is being courageous? The
character to end the belief that there is someone who demonstrates a
> Dan: Realization is awareness itself as it is. It is clear how awarenessimagined
> itself "caught" in its projection of a body-mind, the associatedMarcia: The imagining of being "caught" is identification.
> 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.
Projecting or developing being exists. It is the investment
which causes "caughtness". Surviving, continuing, and social
viableness seem like perfectly good things for a human "being".
Dan: What makes the projection and developing seem to exist? Is it not
awareness? Without the investment, what is it that survives and maintains
continuity? If the illusion of continuity is dropped, what then is the
human being if not the universe itself?
Marcia: It is the investment which is the difficulty. The identification.
I mean after all.....Eternity is in love with the products of
Dan: When eternity enters time, it is the ending of time as we have known it.
It is a very different time now, time/eternity or eternal time.
Timelessness in the midst of time, or time surrendered into eternity.
The unknown in the midst of all that one had believed to be known.
> Gene: Yes. Personally, I have experienced this 'ego loss' as a******** I can relate. In fact, it was 1973 for me too. The world did
> >event, only later appreciated as a process of (hopefully) inevitable
> >maturation. "Losing it" was actually 'getting it'. I can see this
> now, but
> >at the time (1973) it seemed like the end of the world, literally.
come to an end as I knew it, the world of separate identities was no
and there was no ever going back. I knew it was a process, but at that
I didn't know *what for*?? It was a spontaneous
thing, I had no idea what I was getting into when I sat there one night
life at a deeper level. I was just simply curious. :-) Ask and you
shall receive - WHAM!! But I was totally lost in it, so I became a
seeker. And I basically
stayed that way for twenty four years until 1997, when I got the *second
like Gene said, the fulfillment, after the original falling away of
separatenes. And as to why I didn't get the whole thing at first, I can
speculate and say that I wasn't ready, and looking back on it, nor could
appreciated it. You can't really appreciate something unless
you earn it. And if you can't appreciate it, it's useless. And no smart
from you wise guys about uselessness. :-) Dontcha love it?? :-)
Gill had sent this poem last month and I am posting it again as it is of
I WAS READY TO TELL
the story of my life
but the ripple of tears
and the agony of my heart
wouldn't let me
i began to stutter
saying a word here and there
and all along i felt
as tender as a crystal
ready to be shattered
in this stormy sea
we call life
all the big ships
board by board
how can i survive
riding a lonely
with no oars
and no arms
my boat did finally break
by the waves
and i broke free
as i tied myself
to a single board
though the panic is gone
i am now offended
why should i be so helpless
rising with one wave
and falling with the next
i don't know
if i am
while i exist
but i know for sure
when i am
i am not
when i am not
then i am
now how can i be
coming to life again
since in this world
i have many times
like my own imagination
been born again
that is why
after a long agonizing life
as a hunter
i finally let go and got
hunted down and became free
~Rumi, ghazal number 1419,
translated April 17, 1991,
by Nader Khalili
from the NDS:
In my past, attention arose very naturally out of where I was in my life.
Somehow it was so organic that there really was no trying. Now, it's not
that way. So this makes me wonder about the nature of awareness. Since
it's always there, why should I be looking for it? But there has to be some
sort of effort. Perhaps there is a very fine distinction between effort and
no effort at all.
<< >Okay, let's try these to see if we can get a handle on this ego thing.
Why? Why try to "get a handle on" it? It's the ego itself that's trying
to understand ego. I suspect it can't be done, and furthermore, why should
it be done? Better to focus on understanding what lies behind thought,
what "causes" thought, rather than to try and understand the nature of
thought itself. Thought cannot "grasp" thought, because any such grasping
is itself more thought. It's an exercise in frustration, and personally,
peace of mind is much better appreciated here :-)
>>It can be useful to see how the ego/mind is perpetuating itself in order to
stop doing that. Not for the mental gratification of defining but for
from a Gathering:
Prayer is a dialogue.
Dialogue requires two.
Prayer to whom?
To a conception, to an apriori assumption?
Of what worth will such a prayer be, if it is remain within the bounds of
one's conditionings from which springs our conceptions, or assumptions.
also from Sandeep:
Look to yourself.
Look to identify your poverty.
Look to re-discover your richness.
Look to discover what blocks your richness to manifest, for your mastery to
Look to discover how you cannot see the perfection in an imperfection, in an
evolution, in the discarding of a cocoon for a butterfly to be the beauty it
Look to see how the so called anguish for the "other" is game that you play,
have played for lifetimes, to avoid the real work or confronting oneself,
Look to see how to avoid this intrinsic aloneness, which one senses, one
goes forth to change the world, to better the world.
Look to healing yourself, by discarding the masks that you have donned
through several lifetimes, before you can even contemplate to deal with the
Look at oneself, Look at oneself, Look at oneself.
When that pureness is discovered, in that purity, in that mileu of purity,
much takes place, much gets accomplished, much gets done and there is no
"doer' for this doing.
Till that re-discovery takes place, all "doing" are games that ego plays.