Self importance...self promotion.
stance or attitude of self importance demands subtle self promotion.
Sometimes not so subtle. Always noticeable...always jarring to the ear,
I wonder why I bother.
If you are existence, who else has the right to express, and
promote your importance other than yourself? Non-existing things?
Rise up and announce you are here!
Well now I am confused even more than usual. How can this one who does not
know what he is much less what existance is, only that he is claimed by some
sense of beingness, proclaim his self importance. Is there some grand scheme of
things wherin there is some important role for me to play that would justify
promoting? And to whom or what other should I promote my self importance to?
Good question. You are not announcing yourself to anyone else,
because there is no one else other than yourself. All "others" are
merely neurons in your own mind, even if you can talk to them or even
any one of them can take you for a lunch. They are still neurons
in your own
It is just yourself announcing yourself to your own self which is
spread all around. Or to put it in different words, all these things
see around which you think are "others" are just an expression of
You are expressing yourself through all this.
So well put...
It does my heart good, to see
this plain truth plainly stated.
> It is just yourself announcing yourself to your own self which is
> spread all around. Or to put it in different words, all these things
> you see around which you think are "others" are just an expression of
> yourself. You are expressing yourself through all this.
> More Love
Metaphorically, this is true.
However, you've got to give Shakti
Her due. The Self is
actionless. The one who appears to be making
announcements is in fact
Maya, right along with all the other
We as pure being ride
the experience of making announcements, yet
we remain untouched by it.
It isn't by the exuberance of the Self
that we make such announcements, but
by the play of Shakti's lila.
We're all puppets on Her strings, silently
witnessing the drama
of our lives, even while we imagine that we have a part
Those who are over awed with themselves... with their moment of
satori...samadhi, whatever, will sometimes trap themselves by the remembrance of
that event and instead of accepting that moment as an attaboy will instead
presume to be a spokes person for the non dual. Like I got IT! And let me now
explain it to you...of course what is explained is explained through that
laminate of conditioning that is self importance...and self importance in this
psychological sense demands self promoting, and self promoting always jars my
ears. So my first post recognized my own history in this regard...just a
confession that's all.
And sometimes, rather than feel self-important, people
feel the opposite. They feel neglected because the experience came and went. And
they spend their lives trying to re-create what they imagine are conditions that
would bring the experience about, when all the while they're -- as Jody said --
'soaking in it'.
I think what the feeling of self-importance teaches a
person about, is the danger of celebrity. Because with slightest taste of
self-importance there is a taste of celebrity. With the taste of celebrity there
is the almost irresistible seduction by celebrity. I think anyone who stands
before an audience has tastes of celebrity: teachers, professors, lawyers, even
real estate agents who post their photos everywhere are a kind of celebrity. I'm
fascinated with it. I guess that's why I'm a big fan of the Survivor television
show. Besides the entertainment value of the show, it amazes me how ordinary
people doing little
more than appearing on television every week for a few
months, are instantly turned into celebrities.
In today's world, perhaps
the enlightened one is best defined as the one who sees no difference between
the celebrity and the 'ordinary' person. Certainly in our culture, and in the
culture of spirituality, celebrity is a huge issue. It's never been discussed
here, I don't think.
I am famous, therefore I am.
Dear Jerry: Have you become a nondual
Hi Sarlo and All...
There is nothing wrong with shining
brightly, excellence, joyful
expansion, and sharing such a flow with All,
some have noticed an
actinic crackle of effusion, as the stars themselves
outshown by a human nova or two, as it occurs.
is nothing wrong, anyway, but in this world-dream pantheon of
value-stories, wrongness and rightness outshine the very Beings
entertain this conversation, ideals overshadowing the idealists who
promulgate and advocate rules and species of criteria, which eventually
form noticable clouds overhead, then emanating bolts of lightning to
burn those who deviate from popular or mandatory systems of thought and
Rather than resort to asbestos underclothing, one may choose
radiate, thus to evaporate the overcast of enforced correctness; those
who have done so, are known as stars, in the loose grammar of the
Someone should be tracking, just how classical
advocacies, interfere with real-time expression of flowing
which may or may not need to be expressed in any particular
way, if at
Modern philosopy does state that what cannot be
described is not real;
how many are slaves to this ideal?
And if the
only vocabulary available to one, is that of the classical
variety, how then
are descriptive means to be employed, to share vision
and possibly thus
experience, if the modern lexicon denies the meanings
of the classical?
Much of the complaint and wranglings observed on the way to syncretism,
if indeed that goal is sought, exists for the reason of neglect to
first, the subtlety of the fine gradations of meaning, embedded
vocabulary. Consequently, even if identical pictures are shown,
different names given to them, are afforded more credence than is
Tim Rowe wrote:
> Hi Jerry,
> Thought you might
like to know (if you don't already) that NDS got a
> mention in a
supplement which came with today's "Independent"
> newspaper here in the
> The review reads as follows:
> 'According to
the great Nisargadatta Maharaj, a guru of the Nath sect,
> nondualism is
"when you go beyond awareness - in which there is no
> cognition, only
pure being. In the state of non-duality, all
> As you can see, the ideas contained at the Nonduality
Salon will make
> for perfect reading over your morning
> I've CC'd the reviewer if you want to e-mail him /
Thank you very much for telling me about this. I'll certainly write
Also, I went to your website and subscribed to your
newsletter, and had
the pleasure of discovering more about you through your
bio. I'll pass the
good word along to the NDS list. I like the simple and
direct design of
your websites. Very fresh and crisp. Like my
> Does Shakti or Maya have Her own separate self other than the Self
> which is actionless? If she has her own self there is no more
> duality. If she does not have her own self, does she borrow
> somebody's self? or is she
Nonduality isn't everything
existing as one, it is the oneness of
all being. There is a
Because you and I are having this discussion, we cannot deny
there isn't a difference between you and I *as* conversants.
and the converstation we are having happens within the field
The being that is the foundation of our awareness of
this conversation is the
Self, and the Self is One. That is
nonduality. However, there
would still appear to be two talking
to one another. That happens by
Shakti's grace within Her lila.
The Self is utterly beyond the Maya, and
to the Self there only
exists the Self. That is nonduality.
However, Maya does exist.
This cannot be denied. Therefore, Maya does
have Her own existence
apart from the Self, but the Self has no existence
apart from It
self. So the answer is yes, Maya does have Her own
but no, the underlying reality remains nondual
(jody)> Action is always one sided, but if you consider the
> all actions in the universe there is no action. Being
> also mean combination of all actions which cancel out.
100 - 100 = 0.
This is an intellectual conceit held so that things
make nondual "sense." The activity of the world cannot be
even by the jnanis. They can see that it is all Maya, and
not the Self, but even they acknowledge that Maya exists.
> >We as pure being ride the experience of making
> >we remain untouched by it. It isn't by the
exuberance of the Self
> >that we make such announcements, but by the
play of Shakti's lila. (jody)
> > When we express we also hide
something else! What we express and what
> we hide cancel out. The
combination of all actions is again zero. The
> expression of Existence
and Maya cancel out likewise, leaving only
> the Self.
Another intellectual conceit that just isn't the experiential
Just ask a jnani. Maya exists to the embodied being who has
blessed with realization. This being knows it's only Maya,
therefore based in illusion, but the illusion has an apparent
to anyone in a body. Even if it is seen as essentially
doesn't cease to exist. (jody)
> >We're all puppets on Her strings,
silently witnessing the drama
> >of our lives, even while we imagine
that we have a part in it. (jody)
> > Maya or Shakti holds what
we hide. It is the essence of future
> action. The expression of
Existence that we see around in terms of
> this universe is what the
existence had already expressed in the
> past. Future and past cancel out
leaving no sense of time.
> Lots of more love
Again, quaint ideas do not the nondual experience
To the jnani, time does exist as long as he/she is in a body.
can know ourselves as the Self, eternal and beyond time,
and still experience
the multiplicity of Maya. It may begin
to fade as we become more
identified with the Self, but She
doesn't go away or become absorbed in one
big blob of nonduality.
Thanks Jodi, I agree that non-duality is not only about existence, it
can also be about non-existence. The oneness of being is the central
theme in each case. Unfortunately I do not accept Maya, so we can not
discuss any further :-)
Have fun, and
Fair enough. However, I would contend that you live in a state
denial about Maya, and that is not jnana yoga.
The aspiring jnani
understands that Maya does indeed exist.
He/she may spend their days
discriminating the real from the
unreal, or the Self from Maya, but in order
to do so one must
first understand that there is a Maya to be discriminated
That is where I differ with tradition. I deconstruct mAya, avidya and
ajnAna. When I deconstruct these items all that remains is jnana.
see Maya, when they can't see the whole, just excusively IMO.
I enjoyed the recent discussion of Douglas Adam's books and
I've just read a paragraph from a book (Singer by the Sea) by
Tepper, that reminded me of Adam's take on dolphins. Well, I
"Fingers," she murmured, remembering the words of
the spirit. "We got
fingers before we got good sense. You know,
one of our early ancestors
was called Homo habilus, the toolmaker. We
learned to manipulate and
change things before we learned to look at what we
were changing. So
did the whales and the dolphins, long before us, but
they have bigger
brains than we do, and after they made a few mistakes, they
philosophically, you understand - that it would be better to go
the sea and practice humility first by thinking things out
Then, when they'd done that, they could crawl back up on land in
million years or so. Only they never got the chance because of
We... we made mistakes too, but we didn't have any humility. We
bothered to think things out. We just... went on. Wreck
that, gamble our souls on the odds of whether we'd ever do it