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

Monday July 23, 2001

Expand Messages
  • Gloria Lee
    ******** GARY MERRILL Hi Mr Bold (Ed), The last thing you want is another mail about non-division.... snip ... Its a good question Ed. The simple answer I
    Message 1 of 1 , Jul 24, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      ********
       
      GARY MERRILL
       
      Hi Mr Bold (Ed),

      The last thing you want is another mail about non-division....

      snip>
      >But in confronting one's own
      conditioning, which is not
      >separate from one's self, there needs to be
      an understanding
      >that conditioning in the self does exist, and how to
      recognize
      >it. Are you saying this is not possible? How can *anyone*
      >comment intelligently, or at all, on conditioning without this
      >understanding!

      Its a good question Ed. The simple answer I profess is that there is
      no understander separate from the understood. The understander only
      appears to exist in hindsight in trying to analyse what is happening.
      Right now where is the understander?
      That 'conditioning' needs to be altered is the game of going from
      a 'conditioned'state to an 'unconditioned' one, that there is an
      entity to be improved.That there is no objective understanding is the
      point really. So I have I just said something? No 'I' havent. But
      perhaps communication is happening?

      >Is it not possible to notice times when the signs of
      >conditioning disappear and a great sense of freedom arises,
      >and
      to notice certain conditions that correspond with such
      >occasions? Yes,
      the understanding can grow and remedial
      >intervention is possible.

      Is this freedom personal or is it freedom from the 'self'. To be
      clear - there is no self to be free and no self to be bound, that
      would be self-less freedom that already is.
      That conditioning goes on is OK and inevitable but it is not 'my'
      conditioning and is not a source of conflict between how I am and how
      I should be. There is only the machine, if you want to use that
      analogy.

      >There seems to be much concern with the
      issue of a limited
      >entity *trying*, as if to try is to presage automatic
      failure.
      >But any practicing artist will explain that real spontaneity
      >occurs after many sessions of trying. The truth of this may
      >occur more than once in life.

      Another good question. Practise makes perfect as they say. But is
      there ever a practiser separate from the practising, was there a
      separate chooser that chose to be an artist, that chose practising?
      Where is the tryer that is behind all this trying? Can spontaneity be
      practised? Do we drive a car spontaneously or is it that the basic
      skill has become learned so there is more freedom of attention?

      >Such an entity would be better off having said nothing.
      :-)

      I probably just have!
      Last word - conditioning can't end by any process in time because
      that involves the old carrot and stick, which is where we donkeys
      came in!

      Love,
      Gary.

       
      GARY
       
      Hi Gene!,


      >Differentiation rules, in the realm of 'name and
      form'.

      Yes

      >My fullness is my conditioning, my emptiness is my
      original nature.
      >My fullness is in my emptiness, thus my emptiness is
      always more
      >than my fullness.

      Do 'you' believe 'you' have fullness or emptiness??!

      >I would say, that the known is not limited, but
      rather, that the
      >known is _delimited_, by none other than the
      unknown.

      Yes, one could say that the unknown puts the known in perspective.
      Knowing the limited as the limited.


      >The five
      senses are well known, yet the sixth sense is what is
      >knowing those
      five.

      What 'is' this sixth sense? Its interesting to note that traditional
      science has it basis in subject and object rational and that this
      assumes the objective nature of the senses. It is assumed that there
      is a seer behing the seeing and an independent object seen. There is
      a system then of objective science and knowledge where it is thought
      that the subject can be kept out of the picture, that the experiencer
      is separate from the experience. Modern science has refuted that view
      being clear that the osberver can't be set apart from the observed
      and the experimenter is not separate from the experiment.

      Our language structure however continues to uphold the old view and
      is forever positng (posing) an obsever, a knower which is to continue
      with the ghost of a 'soul'. Interesting also then is the question
      of 'self observation' and 'self knowledge' which is widely touted
      (touted as scientific as the science of self realisation) but from
      here such attempts are always doomed to miss the mark. If observing
      takes time (as implied by a separate observer in action) then its too
      late, the truth of the moment has already passed, such truth not
      being dependent on 'me'.

      Regards,
      Gary


       
      GREG GOODE
       
      Hey Judi,

      I like this part,

      At 06:20 AM 7/23/01 -0700, Judi wrote:
      >Snipped from another list from EJ:
      >It will cost you
      everything you thought you were, in fact everything you
      >thought anything
      was.  

      As you might say, "I ain't goin' down alone!"  As I might say, "It's all or
      nuthin."

      Since when you have the tip of the hair, you've then got the whole lion,
      the reverse is also the case: you can't disappear just by yourself.  This
      gives the lie to grandiose claims of the sort, "I disappeared, there is no
      one here - but you have yet to experience this."  If the sayer of that sees
      you, then they can't be gone!

      Love,

      --Greg


       

      Hi Dan!,

      We posted almost the same mails only you found that all was
      unconditioned and I found that all was conditioned!!

      rolling around laughing,

      Gary.
       
      ------
       
      Oy vey!
      Such a dilemma!

      Turn off the air conditioner,
         there are no conditions to be
         aired.

      I can't find the switch to turn it
         off, it seems like a permanent
         condition of conditioning.

      Uh, oh.

      I guess the only thing to do is
         open the window!

      Love,
      Dan

       
      DAN BERKOW
       

      ED wrote:
      >
      >If the above statement is true, then the
      >"one/knower/understander/commentator" etc.,
      >
      >can also not
      be known. Who would be making the above statement? How could it
      >
      >be made? To whom, and why?  And, finally how would it be
      known that the
      >
      >statement is true without a
      knower?
      >
      >befuddlED

      Hi Ed --

      Enjoying looking at this with you!
      For me, the discussion of these things isn't about
         defining truth in words, but rather to point to
         "being aware" ... realizing the words don't
         give or define what "being aware" is -- yet
         they can assist with "opening" as *this* --

      So, with this understood, let's look at what it means
         that a "knower/commentator/understander" cannot
         be known.  So much activity, including thought activity,
         seems to be for the sake of a knower, doer, commentator ...
         who is assumed to be there ...

      Yet, when "being aware" fully, openly, is there any knower,
         commentator to be found?  Logically, it can be pointed out
         that for a knower to be found, there would have to be a knower
         of the knower, and a knower of that knower, etc.  But it's
         more to the point to look directly into this.

      If no such "knower/commentator/doer" is found, then activity
         taking place on the behalf of such a knower can cease.

      You ask, "how would the statement be known to be true?"

      But, without a knower being postulated, would there be a concern
         to have such knowledge (about whether or not the statement is
         true)?

      Another way to say this is, "who you are is purely unknown."
      You are never known because you can't make yourself an object
         to yourself, nor are you an object for anyone else to know.

      Conditioning, which we've been discussing, leads to taking the
         object described by others as "me", for "me" as "I" appear to
         "them" ... and to take "my" description and memory-images of
         "myself" to be "me"...

      As this conditioning becomes "transparent" ... it becomes clear
          that "who I am" is not this conditioning, has never been an object,
          has never been commented upon, and is not the commentator
          or knower (which "commentator/knower" is seen to be another
          version of conditioning, the known, thought-memory activation) ...

      So to answer your question, "I am making this statement to you.
          The statement is made like this.  The reason the statement is
           made is so you can hear it.  The statement presents "being
           aware", and doesn't attempt to give "being aware" through
           verbal content, but uses the verbal content just to say
          "be aware",  "see through conditioning" ...

      Namaste in every other way, too,
      Peace,
      Dan


       
      ED
       

      D: ...The commentator is the conditioning! Freedom from conditioning doesn't come by having the correct commentary about conditioning, ...

      E: I see, So you -Dan are not really making a correct comment about conditioning, just correcting my incorrect comment. ;-)

      Actually there is no freedom from conditioning. there is expansive and contractive conditioning. The absolute itself is never free of the conditional. To think otherwise is the delusion of the absolutists. There's always some debris floating around for which the "Absolute" Creator is responsible. :-)

      Man thinks and God laughs,

      puts a smile on my face,

      hopefully yours,

      Ed


       
      JOYCE SHORT
       
      Dashing Off...

      "I, the supreme source, am pure and total consciousness. All the hundreds of
      thousands of teachings transmitted by the teachers of the three dimensions,
      my emanantions, are all based on effort. They aim at me.  I transcend that
      effort; however, by engaging in effort, they do not succeed in seeing me.
      Thus I am considered the peak of the teachings.

      I, the supreme source, pure and total consciousness, am called the core of
      all vehicles.  All teachings are nothing other than the single vehicle of
      the real meaning: the universal vehicle that is the level of pure and total
      consciousness.

      Followers of the vehicles based on cause and effect hold diverse views about
      the nature of existence.  Some deem it poison and form the concept of
      renuncation. Some deem it an object of mental attachment and develop the
      principle of non attachment. Some deem it as something that needs to be
      purified.  Some deem the nature of mind is pure but needs to be realized
      through approaches and accomplishments. Rending concepts that presuppose the
      existence of something other than me, I, the supreme source, pure and total
      consciousness, break the chain of the passions that issue from
      discriminating thoughts.

      The phenomena of existence are only myself! As all is already accomplished
      in me, I, that am the source, all is in a state of absolute equality: I that
      am equality have no need to enter into action to produce another "equality".

      Instead of aiming for enlightenment, one has to understand the nature of
      one's mind beyond action. On examining one's mind, one finds nothing, yet at
      the same time there is clarity that is ever present.  It does not manifest
      concretely, yet its essence is all pervading; this is the way it's nature
      presents itself.

      I am the nature of potentiality of energy and teach that the nature of
      consciousness is the source of all.  To those attracted by oneness, I teach
      that ineffable essence is one alone.  As all phenomena are contained in the
      single essence, I teach that the condition of pure and total consciousness,
      the true nature of mind, is the source of all. Whereas, to those attracted
      by multiplicity, I teach the infinite variety that manifests from me: it too
      is my nature.  One is my essence.  Two is my manifestation, the multiplicity
      of created phenomena.  Numbers start from one and two, but their end cannot
      be determined. The ineffable is the ultimate source of this existence; this
      ineffable essence is the one. One is the supreme source, pure and total
      consciousness.  The phenomena of creation are duality.

      There is nothing in this nature that is not perfect.  One is perfect.  Two
      is perfect, everything is perfect. All actions are easy because they are
      already accomplished and perfect.  "One is perfect" signifies perfection is
      pure and total consciousness. "Two is perfect", signifies perfection is the
      manifestation of oneness. Everything is perfect" signifies perfection in
      completeness."

      Love,
      Joyce


       
      GARY & DAN
       
      Hi Gary !


      >Hi Dan!,
      >
      >Many good remarks about
      beyond science!
      >(almost typed many god remarks!!)
      >
      >Some
      further add ons:
      >
      >Yes science as it is practised is mainly
      concerned with control and it is in
      >the hands of technicians and
      politicians.

      In fact, science depends on controlling conditions that affect
         variables, so as to have repeatable experiments that show cause and
      effect relations,
         allowing hypotheses to be rejected.

      If there is no control and no way to show something that repeats, there
         can't be science.


      >Once upon a time there was
      >philosophy,
      which included science, religion and wisdom in general. In our
      >specialised times 'scientists' mostly don't look at the
      philosophical
      >implications they are paid according to the funding the
      government sees fit.
      >So most science is developed by those with identity
      issues, hence the bombs
      >etc etc.

      Once upon a time, indeed.
      And with no time involved, there can be no philosophy, science,
         or religion, and nothing to make wise remarks about (nor wise-ass
         remarks for that matter).


      >So
      beyond science we look at the whole and at the limitations and the place
      >of the unknown, at identity and relationships.Science is not
      generally
      >concerned with value that is for another
      department.

      Science values its version of objectivity, which claims
         to have a value-free way of measuring and recording facts.

      I agree - we are looking at the whole.

      My, my -- look at this whole I am.
      It is looking at itself and sees nothing but itself.
      It must indeed be whole.
      In fact, when it looks, it looks simultaneously
         everywhere and nowhere.
      Wholey, wholey, wholey, is YHVH of totality!



      >Beyond science where is
      the heart. Where is the heart in all our
      >conceptualising and knowing.
      Because if that does not have its place all the
      >non-dual philosophy in
      the world won't count for much, won't satisfy. The
      >heart I would say is
      brought out in the change in relationship from division
      >to wholeness,
      from self to no-self. As a 'somebody' going 'somewhere' there
      >is little
      space for love but as nobody, as nothing, there is no comparison,
      >no
      competition with another.

      Yes.  Not a love done to get something or give something
         or get somewhere.  Just wholeness, meaning unsplitness.
         Even partiality is this wholeness.
         Even a fragment is totality.

      Finally, there's neither knowing nor heart.

      And neither words nor feelings have never gone *there* ...


      >This heart is there when I am not, when I
      don't know, when we share sweet
      >mystery together.

      And where even mystery ends, with nothing to know or be known,
         nothing to wonder about -- *here am I*

      Truly unknown, not even a sense of mystery to
         know about!

      Love,
      Dan






       

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