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

Wednesday, March 6, 2002

Expand Messages
  • Jerry Katz
    The Nondual Highlights outstanding posts sent to the Nonduality Salon email list Wednesday, March 6, 2002 The 995th Edition Search all Editions of the Nondual
    Message 1 of 1 , Mar 7, 2002
      The Nondual Highlights

      outstanding posts sent to the Nonduality Salon email list

      Wednesday, March 6, 2002

      The 995th Edition
      Search all Editions of the Nondual Highlights:

      Editors: Jerry Katz, Gloria Lee, Christiana Duranczyk,
      Michael Read, John Metzger

      Today's Highlights Edited by

      Jerry Katz

      (editor's note: there has been great concern for
      the well-being of Sandeep, who has not been heard
      from since the incidents in Gujurat, India. There
      were impressions that Sandeep might have been
      caught in the riots and violence. While the
      following information has not been confirmed, it is
      a word of hope.)

      Sandeep is alive.

      He was discharged from a hospital, somewhere near
      Godhra and is on his way back to Bombay.

      There is no information as to what were his
      injuries, how serious or how he got them.

      I cannot type anything more, right now.

      My whole being is shaking.



      Photos taken by cee are posted at

      Hope they upload in reasonable time.

      They are from the February 17, 2002, gathering in
      La Jolla, California, when we attended Inner

      See Jody, Petros, cee, Christiana, and others.
      There are a couple of photographs that say beyond
      words what these get togethers are all about. And
      there are others that really beg for a quote or


      Thanks for posting the photos, Jerry. I especially
      enjoyed the captions under the last picture.

      Did you ever notice how the guru-types look like
      they are right out of Central Casting? Chuck Hillig
      with his beard. Metta looking Great-Motherish.

      Jerry, maybe it would help your career in the
      NonDuality biz if you grew some facial hair. Of
      course, its harder to get donut crumbs out of a
      full beard...



      The new volume of HarshaSatsangh Magazine is out
      due to the hard work of our editors, Gloria, Greg,
      Amanda, and our webmaster David Hodges. I wrote a
      special dedication to Jerry Katz and Dolores and
      also talked about the old times when Jerry and I
      first met. You may enjoy reading.

      Lots of love




      hey, speck! how is it going?
        that good!? me too.

        have you got it right yet?
        no? oh why is that?

        ah, don't get discouraged, dear speck.
        yes, i know, but you only think you've tried everything.

        well, speck, just put little more heart into it.
        i know you can do it.

        yup, speck, you'll do allright.



      greetings nds,

      Here's a few paragraphs I typed up from a book on
      buddhist philosophy for another group. Thought some
      of you might be interested.

      Humans sometimes communicate in ways that are
      mutually experienced as profoundly meaningful, and
      yet seem to surpass our ability to fully grasp
      them. Conversations, like relationships, command
      our attention most effectively when they allow--or
      not infrequently, force--us to go beyond the limits
      of our previous understanding and to explore new
      avenues, and new destinations, in communication.
      Texts are raw material for conversation, with
      oneself and with others. Studying a text can compel
      us to reassess unquestioned assumptions, and in so
      doing, come to a better understanding of others and
      ourselves. Self-understanding means also
      understanding our relation to others; understanding
      relatedness, in the Buddhist sense of relativity,
      also means self-transcendence. The possibility of
      self-transcendence is what humans seek in
      communicating, and is what makes any relationship
      meaningful in the final analysis.

      To communicate meaningfully is to be transformed in
      realizing for oneself, in oneself, or as oneself,
      what was previously alien or unknown. To know
      somethong is to be transformed, to become
      different, and to acquire common ground with others
      of similar--or different--understanding. What
      enlivens a conversation is a perceived affinity
      between oneself and another, or at least the
      expectation of affinity. Even violent arguments are
      thus motivated, because expectations of agreement
      have been frustrated. Commuication is an exchange
      of meaning, and the most satisfying form of
      communication occurs when meanings are experienced
      as shared. This is even true of communications
      between persons who disagree with one another, and
      is especially the case in the context of Tibetan
      scholasticism, where Mahayana Buddhist teachings
      are a broad and solid common ground for meaningful
      differences. What makes Buddhist philisophical
      texts meaningful is the fact that they bring people
      together in the pursuit of ultimate concerns, in
      disagreement as well as in agreement.

      Texts mirror the dominant concerns of particular
      communities and historical periods. However, to
      study a text as an artifact embedded in a matrix of
      historical, cultural, and philosphical significance
      is only to look *at* it but not *through* it. In
      communicating it is not words alone--hence also not
      texts or their interpretations--that are the
      fundamental source of meaning. Rather, it is the
      process of communicating shared meanings--and
      personal differences--that makes philosophy come
      alive. In other words, viewed historically or
      psychologically, philosophical significance is a
      process in which persons (and personal experiences)
      are most essential, while texts play a subordinate
      role. It is people who give meaning to texts, not
      vice versa.


      The "truth" of presuppositions about ultimate
      reality does not appear to be fundamentally a
      question of rational certitude, although Tibetan
      scholastic traditions tend to understand them that
      way. Instead it is the process of generating
      meaning through relativity as relatedness that
      makes a philosophical point of view meaningful,
      valuable, and true for one person or another.

      In this sense there is nothing more or less "true"
      or significant about Mipham's "Beacon" or
      Tsongkhapa's "LRC", for example, to the extent that
      both serve the same function in their respective
      traditional contexts, namely, to show how reason is
      employed to realize the ultimate that is known by
      sublime gnosis. This is not simply a rehashing of
      the relativist vogue, but is, in my opinion, very
      much in line with how the Great Perfection (and the
      "Ratnagotravibha) understand the nature of Dharma
      (gnosemic) language. Salvific language is said to
      resonate in accordance with the needs of
      individuals best suited to understand them, as a
      spontaneous manifestation of enlightened wisdom and
      compassionate method. In this sense all
      philosophies that bring relief to weary minds are
      equally true, and equally Dharma.

      from "Mipham's Beacon of Certainty" by John Whitney



      ...reminded me of so many other times when I have
      difficulty telling whether or not someone is making
      the whole story up but the story is so good and so
      serious and delirious and perfectly funny that it
      matters to me less and less and so I just listen to
      the story and quiver on my magic carpet ride of
      reality slippage and think this is all there is,
      anyway, so why the hell not enjoy it?

      The other night I was dining with, among other
      people, my brother-in- law, Harrison. The
      conversation was wild and engaging and not long
      after we discussed at overlength what the ethical
      implications of fertility therapy and whether or
      not architecture can save the world, Harrison
      launched into an extended mention of how some
      people he knows have begun buying up used (yet
      still) $600 coffee grinding and espresso machines
      to support their ever-refining caffeine addictions
      and search for the highest and best caffeinated
      experience. There was mention of the snobbery that
      accompanies the search for the best- tasting and
      most nerve enlivening coffee experience. (What? You
      only have that perker you bought at Kmart? You know
      nothing! God forbid you don't even drink coffee,
      you heathen, infidel, heretic! Some people have
      soup, some people have coffee, Joyce!)

      Well, right around the time Harrison mentioned that
      he had called up his Personal Coffee Grinder the
      other day to consult on why his ground beans
      weren't tasting the same way they tasted the other
      day (What? You ordered from a different Columbian
      farm without consulting me?) I slipped right into
      that very serious state of truly not being able to
      tell whether someone was constructing an elaborate
      and delightful tale or just telling the plain old
      truth! Looking around, it seemed that the others
      all believed him fully, they shrugged and laughed
      when I asked them (seriously) if Harrison was

      There I was feeling the rude constraints of what I
      perceived to be the available and reasonable
      reality, totally flabbergasted by others' apparent
      acceptance of something beyond it! I was jambing a
      red plastic star-shaped piece into the round hole
      of my puzzle ball! Well!

      By the time Harrison had fully recounted the advice
      his Personal Coffee Grinder had conveyed to him, I
      had decided it didn't matter a whole lot anyway and
      was laughing at the ludicrousness of it all!


      AURORAS: http://www.spaceweather.com/aurora/gallery_24nov01.html


      JAN SULTAN contributes:

      Love And God
        Pointers From Nisargadatta Maharaj
        By Ramesh Balsekar
        Chapter 13

      The dialogue, one evening, was started by a young
      Canadian, wearing a Lungi and a thin Kurta. He said
      he was twenty-three, but looked barely out of his
      teens. He wore around his neck an elegant little
      silver cross on a dainty chain. He said he had come
      across the book I Am That in a bookshop in Bombay a
      couple of days ago. A cursory glance at a few pages
      impelled in him a desire to meet Maharaj
      personally. He had already gone through the book
      reading almost continuously, through the afternoon,
      evening and night, and had finished both volumes
      only a few hours ago.

      Maharaj: You are so young. I wonder since what age
      you have been interested in the spiritual quest.

      Visitor: Sir, ever since I remember I have been
      deeply interested in Love and God. And I strongly
      felt that they are not different. When I sit in
      meditation, I often......

      Maharaj: Wait a moment. What exactly do you mean by

      Visitor: I don't really know. All I do is to sit
      cross-legged, close my eyes, and remain absolutely
      quiet. I find my body relaxing, almost melting
      away, and my mind, or being or whatever merging
      into space, and the thought-process getting
      gradually suspended.

      Maharaj: That's good. Please proceed.

      Visitor: Quite often, during meditation, an
      overwhelming feeling of ecstatic love arises in my
      heart together with an effusion of well-being. I do
      not know what it is. It is during one such spell
      that I felt inspired to visit India -- and here I

      Maharaj: How long will you be in Bombay?

      Visitor: I really don't know. I rarely make any
      plans. I have sufficient money to live frugally for
      about fifteen days, and I have my return ticket.

      Maharaj: Now tell me, what is it exactly that you
      want to know. do you have any specific questions?

      Visitor: I was a very confused man when I landed in
      Bombay. I felt I was almost going out of my mind. I
      really don't know what took me to the bookshop
      because I don't do much reading. The moment I
      picked up the first volume of I Am That, I
      experienced the same overpowering feeling that I
      get during my meditation. As I went on reading the
      book a weight seemed to lift off from within me,
      and, as I am sitting here before you, I feel as if
      I am talking to myself. And what I am saying to
      myself seems like blasphemy. I was convinced that
      love is God. But now I think that love is surely a
      concept and if love is a concept God also must be a

      Maharaj: So, what is wrong in it?

      Visitor: (Laughing) Now, if you put it like that I
      have no feeling of guilt in transforming God into a

      Maharaj: Actually, you said love is God. What do
      you mean by the word 'love'. Do you mean 'love' as
      the opposite of 'hate'? Or, do you mean something
      else, although, of course, no word can be adequate
      to describe 'God'.

      Visitor: No. No. By the word 'love' I certainly do
      not mean the opposite of hate. What I mean is that
      love is abstaining from discrimination as 'me' and
      the 'other'.

      Maharaj: In other words, unity of being?

      Visitor: Yes, indeed. What then is 'God" to whom I
      am expected to pray?

      Maharaj: Let us talk about prayer later. Now then,
      what exactly is this 'God' you are talking about?
      Is he not the very consciousness -- the sense of
      'being' that one has -- because of which you are
      able to ask questions? 'I am' itself is God. What
      is it that you love most? Is it not this 'I am',
      the conscious presence which you want to preserve
      at any cost? The seeking itself is God. In seeking
      you discover that 'you' are apart from this
      body-mind complex. If you were not conscious, would
      the world exist for you? Would there be any idea of
      a God? And, the consciousness in you and the
      consciousness in me -- are they different? Are they
      not separate only as concepts, seeking unity
      unconceived, and is that not love?

      Visitor: Now, I understand what is meant by 'God is
      nearer to me than I am to myself'.

      Maharaj: Also remember, there can can be no proof
      of Reality other than being it. Indeed you are it,
      and have always been. Consciousness leaves with the
      end of the body (and is therefore time-bound) and
      with it leaves the duality which is the basis of
      consciousness and manifestation.

      Visitor: What then is prayer, and what is its

      Maharaj: Prayer, as it is generally understood, is
      nothing but begging for something. Actually, prayer
      means communion-uniting-Yoga.

      Visitor: Everything is so clear now, as if a great
      deal of rubbish has been suddenly thrown out of my
      system, blown out of existence.

      Maharaj: Do you mean that you now seem to see
      everything clearly?

      Visitor: No. No! Not 'seems'. It is clear, so clear
      that I am now amazed that it was not clear at any
      time. Various statements that I had read in the
      Bible, which seemed important but vague before, are
      now crystal clear -- statements like: Before
      Abraham was I am; I and my father are one; I am
      that I am.

      Maharaj: Good. Now that you know what it is all
      about, what Sadhana will you do to obtain
      liberation from your 'bondage'?

      Visitor: Ah! Maharaj. Now you are surely making fun
      of me. Or are you testing me? Surely, now I know
      and have realized that I am that -- I am, which I
      have always been and which I shall always be. What
      is left to be done? Or, undone? And who is to do
      it? And for what purpose?

      Maharaj: Excellent! Just be.

      Visitor: I shall, indeed.

      Then, the young Canadian prostrated before Maharaj,
      his eyes brimming with tears of gratitude and joy.
      Maharaj asked him if he would be coming again, and
      the lad said: "Honestly, I don't know." When he
      left, Maharaj sat for a while with his eyes closed,
      the gentlest of smiles on his lips. He then said
      very softly: "A rare one"' I could barely catch the

      I never saw the young Canadian again, and I have
      often wondered about him.



      Dear members, As I am new to the group, I would
      like to say hello to everybody. I read some posts
      and found them very interesting. Although 'human
      rights' are no usual subject for the group, I would
      like to invite you to read the following text. In
      this essay I try to develop a 'new' (nondual)
      perspective on human rights by combining the
      convergences and 'transcending' the contradictions
      between universalism and cultural relativism (or
      essentialism and non- essentialism (cfr. Rorty)).
      If this is no topic for you, I am sorry to have
      bothered you. Please do not hesitate to comment and
      criticise. I thank you very much for your time and
      help. Warm regards, jeroen

      you can find the text here:



        To know silliness
        is to know self

        How silliness is
        of course the mirror

        And how attributing silliness
        to another is denial of self

        To know  beauty
        is to know self

        How the beauty is
        of course the mirror

        And how attributing beauty
        to another is denial of self

        If self is accepted
        silliness and beauty
        leave the mirror

        The mirror thus cleansed
        reflects only nothing
        and that is self

        Reality is the mirror
        reflecting nothing
        but self



      Categorising is done by governments, by
      corporations, by institutions. It's a tool of the
      violence based dominance oriented patriarchal
      culture. It's hard to imagine how they could
      function without categorising people. Maybe they
      can't. An individual can.



      you were once a sophisticated advaita seeker
        you sat on designer cushions at your masters' feet
        you used to listen to the stories of legendary masters
        now you've become the legendary guru in your mind

        the spirituality game has changed for you
        instead of the gurus,
        you now seek the seekers
        the view seems different from the guru chair,
        soon a pretty follower will sit at your feet
        you'll beg her to switch positions
        how sweet it is to worship her youth and beauty!


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