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

01/08/02 Tuesday

Expand Messages
  • Gloria Lee
    *********** COLETTE The BIG Question ... This is one place I fall out with the East and the West, both sound alike as they attribute creation and it s
    Message 1 of 1 , Jan 9, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      ***********
       
       
      COLETTE
       
      The BIG Question
       
      > > Louis Majors wrote:
      This is one place I fall out with the East and the West, both sound
      alike as  they attribute creation and it's manifestations as a fall or
      error.
      Colette:
      I think Louis what you might find interesting is the Buddhist theme
      of interdependent origination (in other words) one's desires could be
      said to be effected or even originate through a unique wholistic
      field effect (not confined just to one's own idea of individual
      consciousness).

      "Circuminsessional Interpenetration" (adapted from Religion and
      Nothingness, by Prof. Keiji Nishitani, translated with an introduction by Prof.
      Jan van Bragt, and with a foreword by Prof. Winston L. King, 1982, Berkeley
      1983)

      All things that are in the world are linked together, one way or the other.
      Not a single thing comes into being without some relationship to
      every other thing. Scientific intellect thinks here in terms of natural laws of
      necessary causality; mythico-poetic imagination perceives an organic,
      living connection; philosophic reason contemplates an absolute One. But on a
      more essential level, a system of circuminsession has to be seen here,
      according to which, on the field of shunyata, all things are in a process of
      becoming master and servant to one another. In this system, each thing is
      itself in not being itself, and is not itself in being itself. Its being is
      illusion in its truth and truth in its illusion.
       
      This may sound strange the
      first time one hears it, but in fact it enables us for the first time to
      conceive of a force  by virtue of which all things are gathered together and
      brought into relationship with one another, a force which, since ancient
      times, has gone by the name of 'nature' (physis).

      To say that a thing is not itself means that, while continuing to be
      itself, it is in the home-ground of everything else. Figuratively speaking,
      its roots reach across into the ground of all other things and helps to
      hold them up and keep them standing. It serves as a constitutive element
      of their being so that they can be what they are, and thus provides an
      ingredient of their being. That a thing is itself means that all other things, while
      continuing to be themselves, are in the home-ground of that thing;
      that precisely when a thing is on its own home-ground, everything else is
      there too; that the roots of every other thing spread across into its home-
      ground.
      This way that everything has of being on the home-ground of
      everything else,without ceasing to be on its own home-ground, means that the being of
      each thing is held up, kept standing, and made to be what it is by means
      of the being of all other things; or, put the other way around, that each
      thing holds up the being of every other thing, keeps it standing, and makes
      it what it is. In a word, it means that all things 'are' in the 'world'.

      To imply that when a thing is 'on its own home-ground, it must at the
      same time be on the home-ground of all other things' sounds absurd; but in
      fact it constitutes the 'essence' of the existence of things. The being of
      things in themselves is essentially circuminsessional. This is what we mean
      by speaking of beings as 'being that is in unison with emptiness',
      and 'being on the field of emptiness'. For this circuminsessional system is only
      possible on the field of emptiness or shunyata.

      http://www.euronet.nl/~advaya/excerpts.htm#nishitani"


      Louis:
      > Self is being that likes to express or create.
      > We sleep, we
      wake up and move and create, it's ALL good!

      Colette:
      The Eastern Vedic path led Maharishi Mahesh Yogi states that Being is
      absolute & beyond form, but its expression includes the whole range
      from absolute to relative ~ as creative intelligence or consciousness
      the unified field reverberates within Itself to manifest creation. He
      also describes It as Love.

      ~*~
      Louis:
      Thanks for sharing this as this is exactly what I remember from my memory as
      Self. I must have also awakened in YOgi.
       
      Colette:
      Yes like you I believe that activity is precious to creative
      intelligence. Lover & Beloved. Same.


      RASHMI

      Is repeating I Am a good approach. I begin and before half the day is
      over I feel well "it ain't for me." I wonder how Jerry did that for
      so many years.I prefer the "lazy man's approach" where even i
      couldn't think of witnessing or being aware. Is this a better
      approach. But then the world keeps saying awareness is the key. What
      is this term "awareness"? Is it witnessing and how is one to be aware?
      Is there a secret to it?

      DAN BERKOW
       
      Louis wrote:
      > It does resolve the quetion and is my point.
      > Our being has a
      desire.
      > A desire to be active or move.
      > It is inherent in our
      being and evolves into everything we are and
      > experience now.
      > We
      are literally inside our own being and outside our own being.
      > Nothing
      has to give the desirer the position - it's part of the
      nature of our being to be active and to be inactive, like the cycle indicated
      in the vedas.
      Dan:
      If being has a desire, then there is "whatever"
        is prior to being, which "composed" being with
        desire.  "Whatever" structured being with desire,
        didn't "compose being" out of desire, nor as an expression
        of its being (there is no being or nonbeing "here,"
        which needs to be expressed).

      Action doesn't necessitate desire.
      Movement doesn't require desire.
      Movement that isn't based on desire or
        lack of desire has been called "spontaneous,"
        "thusness," "wei wu wei" (action of non-action),
        and other names.

      Yes, nature considered in terms of activity
        must have an inactive aspect as well.

      When there isn't a division separating active from inactive,
        there is "undivided nature," which is perceived in
        relative terms as active and inactive, in which there isn't
        a desirer separable, hence no "desire" to be considered
        as such ("desire" implies one who desires, and something
        that is desired).

      "You" and "your desires" arise naturally from "whatever"
        is beyond desire.  This "whatever" has been called
        "original nature," "the Self," "Godhead"
        "emptiness" or "the unnameable."

      Namaste,
      Dan


      JERRY KATZ
       
      Hi Rashmi,

      hey, you make me sound like i was some kind of wandering monk in India or
      something.

      it doesn't take a lot of effort to pay attention to a toothache.

      you have your own toothache.

      just keep looking at the barest essence of what it is.

      follow it to the fundamental spark of energy that you are.

      keep attending to it.

      that is I Am.

      now

      having considered what i said

      doesn't walking around repeating 'I Am'

      seem kinda....

      dumb?


      ROBERT HUNTON
       
      > To me, the key to this paragraph is the phrase 'wake
      > up
      suddenly'. If
      > that happens in any setting, whether it's the
      woods
      > or at the desk, he
      > could have written that paragraph.
      >
      > Jerry
      >

       (Robert)

      Hello everyone, I am glad to start my conversatoin
      with all who attend non-duality salon.

      I am stationed in San Diego, CA.  I am in the U.S.
      Navy. I have been waiting to start this dialog for a
      while. So I will begin.

      I agree that the key phrase in Catherine's quotation
      above is, "wake up suddenly", and also that the
      paragraph above could be written after the "wake up
      has taken place."

      For those of you who have woken up, do you fall back
      to sleep?  I do. 

      I remember when I did wake up.  It was when I was
      about  16 years old.  I had clearity as though I was a
      crystal ball where all information passed through me
      and from every direction.  I could percieve and see
      things in a way that was ineffable.  I felt like I was
      a part of the whole universe and it was beating and
      alive like a living organism.

      As time went on this awareness diminished and I....

      Let me see if I can get this accross....

      I fell back into my conditioned being and reasumed my
      identity that I lived into thus far in my life. Which
      was definately not an entirely aware being.....

      I am 21 years old now and the great feeling I had when
      I became aware is not with me now.  In fact I have not
      had it but a few times since then.  Usually when being
      coached by aware people.

      Some times I wonder if it just because the excitement
      I had after the ah ha has diminished, that I think I
      am not aware.  I often distinguish between those
      around me who seem more conditioned than others.

      One reason I am starting this conversation is to get
      back into the conversation that exists today among
      aware people.  Why else?  For some reason I don't
      think a why is required, in fact, I am here and what
      ever comes from that can be called what happens.


      I look forward to hearing from anyone.

      Good Bye

      Robert



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