Thursday, May 3
- GILL EARDLEY
What allows love to be love? I am not being flippant here, I really want
to know. It seems to me it is quite easy to talk about unconditional love
and something entirely different to achieve it, to practice it, to *be* it.
What *does* allow love to be love?
You asked some provocative questions...
>What is humanity?
That is the property of being human, individually and collectively.
> What does humanity have to do with non-dualism.
Humanity collectively subsumes humanity individually
Humanity individually contains humanity collectively
Individual humans have as basic default psychic configuration,
the nondual, while collectively, the default configuration is dualistic.
The conflict between individual default nondual ('original nature')
and collective default (dualistic: right vs wrong, good vs bad)
serves as a necessary and inevitable evolutionary stressor,
which will eventually either break the system, or result in a new
mutation. Ramana is one of the first such mutants of public note.
Nonduality as a way or movement is gaining in popularity, for the
same reason that shoes and dictionaries have 'caught on'; it is
potentially a superb tool for the enhancement of survival.
Ramana and others are attractive because they offer tools
which may be applied for enhancement of survival. This is more
clear, if we acknowledge that unblemished clarity of mind and
nonattachment are useful for the alleviation of personal
suffering, and enhancement of the collective imperative.
>Melody sent in a
> quote from another list criticizing non-dualists for lack of some
> quality relating to their concept of being human.
Yes, and well deserved. Mimickery and image-seeking, not to
mention the thrill of close-pass to the infinite, are very attractive.
We can see ample examples, close at hand, of the dangers
inherent in the misuse of powerful tools. Adopting nonduality
'way' as compensation for personal suffering, does indeed
present the possibility of a new species of sociopath, as has
happened via Christianity and Islam.
>A few people
> have raised psychological issues. What is the relationship of
> spiritual practice and psychology, non-dualism and psychology?
A big question as stated.
All of those occur in individual humans, are reflected to and back from
the collective, which results in alteration of both individual and
collective. The pronounced tenets of those systems will to a large
extent, determine the good or bad effects on individual and collective,
but the inherent latent functions (side-effects) of those systems will
eventually emerge. We can see some preliminary evidence of unwanted
dysfunction even now, but the fine-tuning will continue for a long
> Wilber critic writes that Ramana Maharshi, put forward by Wilber
> example of a highly evolved human being, was incapable of takingcare
> of himself, and was basically disfunctional. Is this evolution?
Yes, see above.
Paranoia and Schizophrenia are both emergent evolutionary phenomena.
Both reflect the radical extremes of functionality which are
potentially available for everyone.
The demand of the original nature to re-exert itself is undeniable;
what venues for this to arise within, how and where and when the
collective gives permission for this arising, is the real question.
Formerly, tribal societies allowed and made a place for the Shaman, the
'wounded healer', generally someone who had gone mad and returned.
What is the difference between genius and madness?
- The Genius uses madness creatively
- The madman uses genius destructively
> do we live our lives?
We resist death until we die.
>Why are there so many question?
Because there are so many undiscovered answers.
You are a refugee, homeless at heart though you have shelter and money.
This is all temporary. Laughter will change to tears, tears to
laughter. Be steady. Your journey is incomplete.
Hi there Perhaps you would like to have a look at the synopsis of
Godels Incompleteness Theorem at <http://www.miskatonic.org/godel.html>
It is related to mathematics and logic but is defintely nondual. It is
thought to be as revolutionary as Einstien theories.
The originality in Goedel's incompleteness theorem is it's application
to mathematical systems. Basically it is the same thing as Epimenides
the Cretan (7th century B.C.), who declared that All Cretans are liars.
So in a language that I find straightforward it would be something like
a mute person suddenly uttering "Everything I say is a lie" and then
never saying anything again.
Is that true or false? Well, it can't be either. This kind of paradox
arises from self-referencing systems, and it does seem quite relevant
to nonduality, huh?
> What is the relationship of spiritual practice and psychology, non-
> dualism and psychology?
Why not use some of the various thousands of 'practices' (for
example, Nisargadatta... "spend as much time with Beingness as you
can spare, just be") -- and find out, rather than gathering second-
hand "information" from books, others... Why not spend some time
Don't listen to a word I say (or anyone else), 'be a lamp unto
yourself'. Thought can be satisfied and smug, but unless this
becomes 'direct experience' -- it's all secondhand nonsense.
Again, I say this... even as applying to all of the above, please
don't listen to me... follow 'your intuition' only.
"Truth is a pathless land." I quote "the masters" only because
people are far more likely to pay attention to 'their words' than
> If i can make this better, i would, i am just not sure how to do
> it. I havent chosen sides, i wont choose sides, If i could
> you all and make you forget, that i would do. --gracie
Again, you display far greater wisdom and insight than most of the
other fools ('myself' included) on the list.
Don't worry, when the browser is closed, it is forgotten
instantaneously. If/when the NDS is accessed again, the 'situation'
again arises along with its perceiver.
Life is a series of discontinuous situations, given continuity by
memory or 'obsessive thinking'. It's natural for thought to subside
when there's no use for it... and when it subsides, 'all this' is gone
as though it had never been.
(hint: it never really has been -- the 'state' of no-mind is the
'natural state' :-).
Relationship is the *condition* that we find ourselves. Which is not
two, yet it includes it. Beautifully I might add. :-)
what people normally think of as love is not really love
at all. In fact it's just the opposite. So it can never be enough,
it's constantly self defeating.
It's about love, it's not about winning and losing. Everyone wants to
play a *winning* game. But that's not what it's about. It's about love,
relationship. Not to be corny, but love is the way and love is the
The stillness of no-thought.
Past, present, future are
shadows that have dissolved.
If a thought arises, no-thought
Indeed, we are where
With attention nowhere
on nothing, this moment
simply is as is --
and attention focusing
on this or that changes
nothing, anymore than
the arising or departing
of a thought changes no-thought.
There is only everywhere to
be -- and this everywhere
being all-that-is, allows
this as is, to
be perfect simply
by being uncompared
Yes, there is nowhere to
get to, nothing to be gained.
This is the moment of lying
on the deathbed.
This is the moment of opening
character in "The Shootist"
had a simple credo:
'I won't be disrespected,
lied to, or laid a hand on.
I don't do these things to
others, and I require
Nobody saw this movie,
"A character in a movie
requiring other characters
to behave as required,
is a wonderful thing to see.
When others characters
misbehave, they are
behaving as required,
The drama unfolds, each
line occurring inevitably
where it occurs.
When the movie is over,
where have all the characters
When space is enfolded
in a point of no dimensions;
there is no one to make
it friendly for all, safe
for anyone, nor is
there any animosity
Where's the Nondual Marshall?
NDS and ego problems
IMHO, however advanced you are spiritually, you have still a long way
to go if you haven't conquered or tamed your ego.
Another thing is compassion. If you cannot put yourself in another's
shoes and see a fellow human being with faults you also have a long way
to go. Ideally of course you should see 'yourself' in every human being
you meet. For in reality [non-dual] there is only one of us!
Also if your heart is not overflowing with love and you are easily
irritated ... need I say more?
I am not being preachy here, just honest. I love you all and am a fan
of each and every one of you. I have learnt a lot from all of you on
this list and am very grateful.
Let the faultless cast the first barb! [For those who like to play it
rough, nothing wrong with that as long it is understood as such ... you
all are a bunch of idiots!] [Sorry cannot give a quick response or
engage in a playful tit for tat as down here in Kenya the connections
to the Internet are a nightmare! Plus who cares what you dimwits have
to say, anyway!?]
Be kind to yourself, [for you are me]. I am head over heels in love
with you all. Love-Sick Earthling
For me, to be fully 'present' to what one has said, is to be present to
the movement of my body as it responds to "notions in thought".
The 'disconnect' between 'feeling' and 'thought' can easily go
unnoticed. In seeking to 'bridge' the apparent 'split' , I have found
the body to be a much more reliable 'barometer' for observing whether
there was indeed 'no response' or not.
The body does not participate in the deceptions of the mind.
first i was asleep
then i awoke
first i thought i was doing it
then it was doing me
oh my sweethearts
if i smile you smile
if i frown you frown
if i dance you dance
if i cry you cry
i had no power to awaken
surrender did that
now i babble and am happy
dry up those tears
a feast is being served!
hahahah and hohoho!
peace - storm - michael
God? I know a few hunters that are specifically looking just for you.
Too serious you suggest? Let me ask you God, how shall you squeel when
the people you serve come out of the desert and into the light for a
supper that you called and promised heaven and all you have prepared
are rice cakes?
It is hard to explain the ocean to one who has never seen it.
It might also be noted that a lead pipe, the densest of substances, may
carry pure and clean water. If we use the analogy that love is water,
and that water may be contaminated or combined with many substances
(sewer water, salt water, milk, blood, muddy water), then the
contaminants could all be regarded as 'conditioning.' Then, according
to you, all the water of love provided by humans to each other is mixed
with some contaminants, and is either unsuitable for drinking and
washing or is only suited to a particular purpose. You grant that there
is 'higher love,' presumably love with fewer contaminants or at least
ones that are not poisonous. In my view, even seriously flawed
individuals can deliver pure water, pure love, at times. How many of us
have not received enlightened instruction which moved us deeply from
someone we *know* is seriously flawed, a Rajneesh or a DFJ, perhaps our
hometown preacher merely quoting some brilliant passage from the bible,
something which washed us clean or quenched our thirst? Even drunks,
children, homeless crazies and the like may show us pure love; and
countless animals and plants. My dog Lou loves me unconditionally. So,
my original point was that 'conscious' people may practice
unconditional love; but I would be willing to extend that even to the
unconscious, who after all are representatives of god, or the
underlying spiritual order, the divine Ground which is composed of pure
love. Jesus said, 'if thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full
of light.' In order to see the divine, we must have a divine eye.
Meister Eckhart, in a similar vein, said 'The same eye with which I
look at God is the eye with which He looks at me.' One who loves
unconditionally sees unconditional love all around.
I continue on this thread because I think these ideas are important,
that 'conditioned' love is actually 'attachment' and is bad for people.
An example: I 'love' my child, and I want them to do well in school or
make the football team or whatever. They do badly or quit the team, and
I am angry. My love then is *conditioned* by how well the child does in
achieving goals which are important to *me*. Unconditional love would
be consoling the child and helping them set new, more realizable goals,
without a whiff of disappointment. As a practice, unconditional love is
the ideal, and we try to recognize our attachments, which cause pain
and are contaminants in the stream of pure love. Thus we purify
ourselves of negative emotions as we see the damage that they do, and
through this *practice* of unconditional love we undergo
transformation. This practice, carried out through time, is itself
Thank you for your deep honesty here. I believe that the letting go of
protective shells that I have done in my life has made me lighter. I
can feel that place two finger widths to the right of the sternum,
across from that muscle-heart. Sometimes, sorrow flows through there as
sweet as a cool breeze on a hot day. I look at people and just marvel.
When I do get emotional, sometimes can't tell if I'm laughing or
crying, and it doesn't matter at all. It is hard work though, and often
I am not sure that I'm up to it. (Been in a real funk the past month or
two in fact. And I've watched myself in horror do things that I cannot
understand. There can be some real fireworks when you start letting the
repressed energy up. But, stuffing more down just makes it worse,
dear.) Anyway, I wish you well, and think you are just grand exactly as
Checkin it out with you Guys/Gals:
About conditioning, practice, and grace....
These factors of spiritual unfoldment, which were once seen as
significant separate conditions, now appear to be dissolving into one
It began at the stillpoint of self, followed by "knowing" that practice
and grace are really one "process". Then comes the realization that
grace and conditioning are also one. Soon other factors fall into line
and I suddenly find myself without conceptual crutches, wandering about
freely, going nowhere. It all seems very new, a feeling of blissful
wonder in seeming to be "someone else", just born.
Will somebody please pinch me and see if I'm real. :-)