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

8/11/01

Expand Messages
  • Gloria Lee
    *********** GENE POOLE Subject: [NDS] Val: What is, is... what is Hi Val, Here is my reply, delayed... enjoy! (If your right brain has solidified by this
    Message 1 of 1 , Aug 12, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      ***********
       
       
      GENE POOLE
      Subject: [NDS] Val: What is, is... what is

      Hi Val,

      Here is my reply, delayed... enjoy! (If your right brain has
      solidified by this time... )

      > From: v <
      href="mailto:akvalerian@...">akvalerian@...>
      > Date:
      Sun Aug 5, 2001 1:06 pm
      > Subject: Re: [NDS] Val: What is, is
      what?
      >
      > hello Gene
      >
      > > >v: hello - this issue
      reminds me of
      > > >acceptance
      > > >of the "what is"
      and
      > > >where is Paul Cote?
      > >
      > > gene: Missed
      the referenceS
      >
      > the acceptance of the "what is" - seems
      neccessary to know what it is in
      > order to accept itS yada yada - maybe
      not - putting the cart before the
      > horse might work just as well
      -

      Uh, I got that part...

      > Paul
      posted several really great articles on acceptance, which i lost,
      >
      alasS

      That was the part I did not get.

      > > >v: there is the maya - the illusion,
      > > >okay - i got that -
      > > >then there is the "what is"
      -
      > > >and is it by it's nature is it permanent
      > > >and
      stable and unchanging?

      > > gene: It could be argued that 'Maya' is
      a permanent Þxture of 'what is'.

      > that makes sense - just as negative
      space is part of the artistic
      > composition - the yin and yang - the 'what
      is' and the 'what is not' :-)

      Yes... all form depends on emptiness. That is the definition of definition!

      "What is, is... what is not, is not".

      Is it true 'then' that we know what is, only by what is not; or, is
      it true that we know what is not, only by what is? Or are both
      propositions true, or perhaps false? If a philosopher pees in the
      forest, does anyone care?

      > > gene: However, 'what is'
      is (IMO) that the _human_ is like a tunable radio
      > > receiver; what is
      received, is what is tuned in; to the human, all
      > > other stations are
      'conceptual entities', to be 'believed only when
      > >
      seen'.
      >
      > and so you are saying that the other entities are not
      part of the 'what is'
      > unless one believes in them?? wild! so - let me
      get this - to "tune out"
      > another conceptual entity is to make them
      unreal to one's "what is"? so now
      > we all have individualized -
      "designer" if you will - "what is's" (pl.)?

      NO... I am not saying that. I am saying the opposite; that 'belief'
      is the 'dog in the manger', usurping the place of reality. I say,
      kick the beast out (the dog), but it hangs on doggedly, drooling
      damaging doggerel.

      > > gene: You, like others, have _heard of_ these 'exclusive' broadcasts, but
      > > somehow lack the equipment or decoding
      methods to experience them
      > > directly. This whole concept, which
      lurks as the background
      > > assumption of many people, is of course
      completely bogus.

      > oh wellSI guess we're talkin blinders and earplugs
      here thenS?

      No... again, you have somehow transposed my meaning.

      What is bogus, is the assumption that something must be 'added'
      in-order-to have 'this awareness'. 'This awareness' is the constant
      background; humans obsess with the foreground, applying their own
      puny powers in order to (that phrase again!) fix what is 'wrong'. And
      this whole thing, this assumption that something is wrong, and that
      fixing is good/necessary/do-able, is happening because of an
      essential discontent, which is an attitudinal sort of learned
      conditioning, an imbibed-from-the-culture signal of tribalness, the
      tribe of tribulation...

      The scent of home, is the group consensus that 'something is wrong',
      and the commitment of every family/tribal member, to proceed forward
      to 'fix' what is wrong, a proud and patriotic mass movement of
      pre-programmed automatons, doddering their passionate way to the
      brink of the abyss...

      > > gene: There is no penalty or fee due for
      360-degree, timeless awareness.

      > except for perhaps a strait jacket
      and padded cell unless of course one has
      > the luxury of residing on a
      magniÞcent mountaintop or other idyllic
      > conditionsS
      > you're
      talking cosmic penalty no doubt ?

      Try for a moment to pretend that really, nothing is wrong. How
      difficult is that to do?

      If you succeed in breaking through to the space of 'nothing is
      wrong', to thus establish handshaking with the background, you will
      find that the mountain top idyl has come to you.

      But this is usually difficult; one cannot imagine, giving up the one
      vital marker which designates tribal membership. Especially, when the
      masses of doddering automata are following the only leader they know,
      who is the one who points out most vociferously, 'what is... wrong!'.

      > > gene: All that is 'required' is to delete the presets/default settings of
      > >
      your receiver.

      > can you go into this a little bit more?

      Sure. A common type of car-radio has not only a tuning-knob, but
      preset-buttons as well. You can tune to a desired station, and then
      set the button. Whenever that button is pushed, that station is
      played.

      Similarly, when your buttons have been preset, all someone has to do
      is push your buttons, and the station which they desire, will occupy
      your squirming, throbbing brain! Oh, the humiliation!

      Our 'presets' are embodied in us, as values; values are determiners
      of 'what is good and what is bad'.

      One should know, the subtle differences between 'good and bad' 'right
      and wrong' 'correct and incorrect', as categories of essential
      dualities. The (unconscious) repetitive use of these
      words/phrases/values makes the dog take residence in the manger, and
      reality soon becomes a stranger.

      > > >v: I connote in meditation the other levels,
      > > >but still not to that level where
      there is a
      > > >"what is" which is immutable
      > > >and
      unchanging.
      > > >I only get the visions and the movies.
      > >
      > > gene: As well you should!
      > >
      > > 'Other
      levels' appear to "us" as analogical symbols; it is possible,
      > >
      through understanding of that universal symbolism, to navigate*
      > >
      around our speciÞc blockages/biases/preferences, into what is a
      > >
      richer and quite evidently alive universe.

      > yes - I grok what you say
      here! The universe is alive - and will present the
      > other levels to one's
      conscious "what is" according to the preset
      >
      expectations/beliefs/preferences/biases, etc etc.!
      > such as in
      psychedelic awareness!?!

      Yes, exactly.

      > and STILL! - how utterly bafþing sometimes - the
      movies - the symbolism,
      > then. Rather like dreams. More often than not, I
      see myself more like a
      > Lipton þow-thru teabag, or an antennae picking up
      other people's thoughts
      > and pictures and movies - such little sense to
      me do they make!

      Have you seen the (sci-fi B-movie) 'Scanners'?

      Only the drug could free the mutant human, from the overwhelming
      barrage of psychic artifacts of the Being-presence of 'others'.

      > > gene: Attachment prevents this from occurring,
      citing the need to 'leave
      > > behind' the criteria for deciding what is
      good and what is bad. This
      > > 'armor' of differentiation is perhaps
      the most difÞcult thing to
      > > deal with.
      >
      > okay now - I
      am not judgemental either way of what I can now construe along
      > with you
      as deep universal archetypical symbols, but am very curious how to
      > be
      more selective of the tuning of the broadcasts! The reception -- what is
      >
      picked up.

      First, give up any idea of immediate gain or remedy.

      Experiment with simply not listening to what you hear, or seeing what
      you see. Try to avoid forming attachment to any perception; allow the
      flow to see you as transparent, as nothing, with no snags or hooks or
      places to acquire anything at all.

      Allow the ever-present background to show, through what you have been
      trained to see; allow the foreground to become transparent, as
      nothing, and thus to see what is beyond, by making nothing.

      As form arises in emptiness, emptiness is the mother of form; form is
      the son of the womb of emptiness, penetrating, yet embraced in the
      most gentle of all grips, so subtle, we do not even recognize that it
      is 'there', in our constant attempt to purloin the fruits of the
      moment.

      That is why I say, to avoid attachment to any outcome, during your
      ongoing experiments. Give up any thought of fixing, finding a remedy,
      or of eventually having someone approve of your 'works'. It is the
      background which is doing all the 'work' anyway; how can I take
      credit for that?

      But this is sounding like 'advice', eh? Not my intention... merely sharing...

      > > gene: (*actually a form of
      conversation consisting of learning a very old
      > > language and then
      uploading the navigational coordinates into your
      > > navigational
      computer [NavCom])
      >
      > hmmm - lost me here. could you go into this a
      little more?

      A proper translation would take hours, and be very complicated.
      Suffice it to say, that omni and uni are superior coordinates, for a
      formless Being. Those are our 'factory default settings'. That, cuts
      to the chase, as the saying goes.

      > > >v:
      to me - the nature of everything
      > > >is change - and even
      > > >random chaos, and
      > > >I have trained myself to
      > > >operate according to these
      > > >principles, aka "living by
      my wits".
      > >
      > > gene: Not a bad ad-lib, but it is an
      adaptation. To leave behind an
      > > adaptation is not hard, if the
      evaluation of the situation which
      > > provoked the speciÞc adaptation
      can be re-framed. This is done in an
      > > operation which uses memory in
      conjunction with the desire to delete
      > > value-assessments which were
      originally imprinted into the
      > > memory-Þle. It is the layered memory
      Þles en masse, which must be
      > > bulk-rewritten to delete
      value-assessments, to make present freedom
      > > an immediate reality.
      For this reason, the usual aim is to Þnd the
      > > earliest memory, to
      which value was written, and to then neutralize
      > > that value-Þeld.
      All 'downstream' (from past to present) memories
      > > will then be
      auto-purged of value-assessments.
      >
      > alrighty - again I need help
      here! while I follow you and agree with your
      > logic - the original
      imprinting being one that the "what is" is akin to
      > random chaos - since
      there is no other freeing concept with which to replace
      > it, where does
      it go from there??? ;-)

      Freedom is the original default, thus, no work is required to attain
      it, unless there is baggage to be searched, suspects to be rounded
      up, and contraband to be confiscated at the border of awareness.

      > > gene: The problem with this, (which has been widely publicized here) is
      > > that the outcome of such
      an operation is the essential extinction of
      > > the personality known
      as 'you'. The container and the memories will
      > > remain intact, but
      there will be no motive for action or thought,
      > > until body-criteria
      are exerted by physiologic need, once the
      > > value-Þeld of memory has
      been emptied.
      >
      > oh gee - i see. so this process is one in which
      one can purge oneself of
      > previous experiential data in a more 'down to
      earth' form than what is the
      > "what is" - and I've learned it's nature is
      change akin to random chaos, is
      > this correct?

      From my POV, there is no 'random chaos' at all. That is a pet phrase
      of the tribal sorcerer; pay it no mind.

      > Like - i.e. - someone is afraid of men because of being raped and beaten
      > early
      on by the father, one can go back and purge the memory and replace it
      >
      with neutral energy. (?)

      Yes, that can be done. I would prefer to use a less strong example,
      such as the fear of bees. That can be understood. But yes, it can be
      done. There are perceivable orders of magnitude, of impact and of
      conditioning.

      > Is this done in
      conjunction with psychological therapy, or is it possible
      > for an
      individual to reprogram their consciousness using the extremes of
      > logic
      and internal reprogramming alone?

      My best answer to this very important question:

      Memory... is retained on the basis of association... of one thing
      with another thing.

      If the bond of that association is of the nature of VALUE, the glue
      which is holding the personality together will become liquid or even
      gasify, if basic values are changed. Memory will be reindexed on
      another basis. The most basic assumptions of a person are thrown
      over, in the event of a radical change of values.

      Basically, every event (remembered or not) is tagged with value. This
      value is entered in the 'value-field' of the memory file. In this
      operation, value is the equivalent _of meaning_.  So every event 'has
      a value which is known' and really, what is known is the 'meaning of
      the value'.

      As an example, 'Good' means 'I want it' and bad means 'take it away from me'.

      Whenever a current event (in the now) is associated with a memory,
      the experience is of the already-entered value which is the 'meaning'
      of the past event. In this way, do people succeed in living in the
      past, while being alive in the present.

      Our already-written-to-memory values, form the basis of our many
      tastes, preferences, and criteria for judgement. People generally do
      not wish to purge ALL VALUES, only the ones which obviously bring
      grief. But in our line of work, all values are seen as foreign to the
      field of consciousness.

      On the other hand, the values of the organism (the so-called
      'body-mind complex') are built-in, and serve to protect us from
      dangerous levels of damage. Pain, hot and cold, sharpness, etc,
      emanate from the survival-center of the body, and should not be
      interrupted without good reason.

      When the values of the _identity_ (the acquired personality) come
      into direct conflict with the values of the body, we are presented
      with the opportunity to observe just how 'psychosomatic illness' is
      produced.

      > and - what's with
      the extinction of the personality known as "you"? could
      > you please go
      into that a little more? :-)
      >
      > hum de dum - questions,
      questions!

      'You' are (in the context of this discussion) a collection of
      memories, called a personality, persona, or identity.

      Because 'you' are essentially a collection of memories; without
      memory, there is no you.

      If on the other hand, your memories can be selectively edited (to
      modify the entries in the value-field of significant memories), which
      will result in a 'change of personality'.

      We usually see this as it occurs in the slide into cynicism which
      accompanies a lifetime of living in the combat-zone of duality; we
      see it as a bad thing, when the personality of a loved one sours.

      But it also can occur the other way, causing a revolution within the
      person, opening the realm of possibility, and this is generally seen
      as a good thing. It is not uncommon to hear 'I am a different person
      now', when memories have been reframed, when fear and the expectation
      of constant re-injury and victimhood have been abolished.

      > > v:>please tell me!
      > > >IS THERE some nice stable
      > > >"what is" behind the seeming
      > > >random chaos and
      > > >constant change that
      > > >one can aspire to and
      > > >eventually relax into?
      > >
      > > gene: Yes, in a manner of speaking.
      > >
      > >
      Chaos isS the detectable Þeld of what remains of order, similar to
      > >
      a mud-puddle being the detectable remains of a rainstorm.
      > >
      > > FormS is mutable, always. What is unchanging, is the space in which
      > > form changes. All change will eventually deteriorate into chaos;
      all
      > > organization will eventually decay into 'random particles'.
      What is
      > > unchanging is the stage upon which this takes place, which
      is called
      > > emptiness, space, or most relevantly, awareness. All
      things occur in
      > > space (awareness).
      >
      > ah soSare we
      talking black holes, or hyper space or some advanced physics
      > term which
      requires us to twist our brains into squishy little balls in
      > order to
      compute?? ;-)

      No. Right now, there is a space between your eyes and the screen of
      the computer. It is that very space. And that space is identical with
      all space; it is in that space, that all things take form. Think
      about it.

      > > v: >you know i am
      NOT
      > > >just seeking attention!
      > > >I have had a past
      life as
      > > >an eminent court musician
      > > >if i could i
      would for certes
      > > >serenade you
      > > >and i am certain
      that i have
      > > >also been the court fool.
      > > >so maybe
      it is lucky i am here
      > > >to ask such foolish questions.
      > >
      > > gene: You fool! Everyone here knows the answers!
      > >
      > > "Neurotics have problems; psychotics have answers".
      > >
      > > "You have to recognize that every out-front maneuver
      you
      > > make is going to be lonely. But if you feel entirely
      > > comfortable, then you are not far enough ahead to do any
      > > good.
      That warm sense of everything going well is usually
      > > the body
      temperature at the center of the herd." -John
      > > Masters

      >
      LOL! Thanx! *slap slap!* I needed that! :-)

      My pleasure, Madame.

      > > v: >Today I understood that
      > > >one must accept the "what is"
      > > >of "what is" instead of trying
      > > >to change
      > > >it 's nature -
      right?
      >
      > > gene: Yes, andS can you accept that you are overtly
      or subtly trying to
      > > change 'what is', and that, itself is thus
      'what is'? THAT is the
      > > actual question! Bwahahaha!
      >
      >
      the changing or not changing of "what is" is what is "what is" is???

      Yup. Simple, eh?

      > ouch! my
      right temporal lobe is twitching!

      Perhaps you can learn to enjoy that.

      > > v: >But, what is the nature of
      the
      > > >*beyond* what we are
      > > >capable of accepting
      or changing?
      >
      > > gene: Ultimately, it is self-acceptanceS the
      puny phrase, 'accepting
      > > other as self' can lead toS
      >
      > > S MahaMudraS letting the entire Living Universe have sex with
      > >
      you, all at once, and the discipline of staying openS
      > > continuallyS
      (Caution: May lead to Photonic Orgasm!)
      >
      > but but but S what about
      the children??? ;-)

      That is the question, is it not?

      > > v: >Is there the immutable and
      > > >unchanging "what is" back beyond
      > > >the horizon awaiting
      us
      > > >somewhere?
      >
      > > gene: Yes.
      >
      > > It is called 'you' if you know yourself as 'self', as self is known
      > > as is 'all that is', and is 'what is'. Even the so-called 'sense of
      > > separation' is a 'sacred aspect' of self-as-what-is. Devotion is
      the
      > > continual celebration of this awareness.
      >
      > okay
      now - here's the Þfty thousand dollar question!

      Oh, boy. Check, money order, or cash?

      > why is our "self" if we are
      "what is" sacred "all that is" and so on -
      > why are we trapped inside
      these puny arse leetle mortal bodies with
      > leetle mortal brains, and
      leetle mortal pinhead consciousnesses which we
      > must spend lifetimes
      seeking to evade and/or escape???
      > what's the point?

      The point is to experience ALL of that, in passing, while learning to
      focus on the Big Picture. You do not pass 'GO' or collect $200, until
      you let go. Then you can see and say, "I am the Big Picture".

      > i mean, the *higher intelligence* seems really cruel to do this to us!

      Yes, this is a common complaint. The key to understanding is the word
      'seems'. Seems like... a good or a bad thing. Seems like... something
      I remember, some association from memory, called cruelty, injustice,
      etc. And to whom, I ask, is this seeming? Why, to an identity made of
      memories, all of which have value-field entries which prejudice
      perception.

      > > >or is it
      ever-changing?
      > > >oh please tell me do
      > > >if you
      understand this question?
      > > >all my best,
      > > >valerie

      > > Enjoy yourself!
      > >
      > > ==Gene
      Poole==

      > aaarg, my right brain!!!
      > valerie
      > (sorta
      awake only)

      It is a process.

      ==Gene Poole==
       


      JERRY
       
      Hi Eric and List Members,

      Thank you. You can learn more about Gene by going to

      <http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/umbada/gene.htm>

      The difference between HarshaSatsangh and NDS is quite distinct right now,
      and I think Gene's the guy to keep the gap existent as he has no ties with
      Harsha's group, as far as I know. That gap gives people choices. It would
      make sense for people to belong to both lists in order to enjoy the full
      meal!

      Jerry

      EBlackstead@... wrote:

      > Gene
      Poole & friends,
      >
      > I'm a newcomer here, but already a great
      appreciator, who is an
      > openly acknowledged admirer of what Jerry has
      done here. His choice
      > of you, so quickly seconded by Harsha, seems
      felicitous.
      >
      > As you work your way through the intricacies of your
      new game, please
      > know that many of us who don't know you wish you well.
      As to your
      > notes on moderation, it seems to me that it is good to
      re-emphasize
      > what has proven to be valuable in the past, even as we move
      forward
      > into an uncertain future.
      >
      > yours in the
      bonds,
      > eric

       
      JAN B.
       

      On 8/11/01 at 5:02 AM Jan Sultan wrote:

      ºI have gained a lot of insights from my study of Advaita Vedanta and
      ºBuddhism. However the explanation for not being conscious or aware or even
      ºa witness during deep sleep does not make sense.

      It does - but experiential verification is hard to get at :)
      º
      ºIn fact the total absence of awareness during deep sleep suggests that
      ºother than the workings of our conscious mind we do not exist! Thus we are
      ºjust a projection of our brain as the scientists are insisting.
      º
      ºAny explanation will be helpful.

      Deep sleep is but a veil - the one i refer to as "the coin with sides of
      pleasure and pain". And when this veil has dissolved, deep sleep while
       yet awake remains - dissolving this veil is the "goal" of transfiguration.
      Comprising the total of "human functioning", its dissolution is rare, could be
      classified as "not in the interest of nature"  and the Buddha hardly made
      any comments about it, although he was "more" than familiar with it..
      So it remains an undocumented discovery left to those,
      for whom "nondual" has become "too" trivial but still are curious :)

      Love,
      Jan

       
      HARSHA
       
      In Nirvikalpa Samadhi, one is in deep sleep and yet fully awake. Have you
      read my post on The Deep Awake? Ramana Maharshi has addressed these issues
      clearly. Intellect can only go up to a point.

      Love
      Harsha

       
      JAN B.
       
      On 8/11/01 at 5:04 AM Jan Sultan wrote:

      ºAnother thing that I have failed to get a clear answer on is the question
      ºabout freewill.
      º
      ºAre we here just as witnesses, observers and nothing we do influences any
      ºworldly outcome as suggested by Ramana and Nisargadatta.

      A witness of what? Tendencies rising as responses for instance?
      Did you ever here of the dictum that observing influences the
      observed, like is documented in quantum physics? So what does that make
      of witnessing?
      º
      ºOr do we have an active role to play to make this world a better place as
      ºsuggested by others?

      Isn't that a matter of identifying with "acting out tendencies", not
      observing their arising? The laugh, that it wouldn't make a difference
      with "mere" witnessing isn't it? Because, there is no such thing as
      "just" witnessing.
      º
      ºYour opinions and explanations will be highly appreciated.

      In order to do the dishes, one doesn't have to be familiar with
      X-ray diffraction patterns of quartz...
      Only studying those patterns, the dishes surely will start to pile up :)

      Love,
      Jan

       
      LARRY
       

      Here's a thought:

      The question of free will or destiny hinges on the word "free." In
      rigorous buddhism, karma is determined by intention. One could argue
      that intention is will and karma is destiny. Therefore, will determines
      destiny. However, intention like everything else is subject to influence
      and therefore not free.
       
      Generally speaking, there are two ways of understanding freedom. Freedom
      _from_, and freedom _to_. "Freedom to" means freedom to do as one
      pleases. This kind of freedom is always severely qualified. I am free to
      drive to the store if my car works, if someone doesn't run into me, if
      the store doesn't blow up, if I don't forget where the store is etc,
      etc, etc. "Freedom from" usually means freedom from some affliction and
      is unqualified. It could be said that one's true self is free from
      affliction and therefore free from destiny _and_ will.
       
      That's about as far as I can take it. Anyone else?

      Larry


       
      JAN B.
       

      One could argue that "will" is but the resulting tendency one becomes aware of...
      Activated as a response, one wasn't aware of.... When suffocating, the
      "will to breathe" is such a response...
      ......
      The "freedom from" means free from desires too - not a negative
      condition but it is as if fulfillment (happiness) is complete and no behavior
      whatsoever can change that. Hence there are no feelings to be fulfilled
      either. So "freedom to" is rendered ineffective as it no longer brings anything..

      This is the happiness the Buddha meant - the coin called "pleasure and pain" literally
      absent. However, "life" isn't served by that, as among many others, communication also
      will change from "free to" into "free from the need". Hence, the emphasis on for
      instance Bodhisattvahood. When that has become a habit, behavior continues...

      And the warning against samadhis will be clear too - they belong to the class
      "free to" and create attachment due to the bliss.

      Jan



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