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

Saturday, March 9, 2002

Expand Messages
  • Christiana Duranczyk
    The Nondual Highlights Outstanding posts sent to the Nonduality Salon email list and other online communities Saturday, March 9, 2002 The 998nd Edition Search
    Message 1 of 1 , Mar 10, 2002
      The Nondual Highlights

      Outstanding posts sent to the Nonduality Salon email list

      and other online communities

      Saturday, March 9, 2002

      The 998nd Edition
      Search all Editions of the Nondual Highlights:

      Editors: Jerry Katz, Gloria Lee, Christiana Duranczyk, Michael Read, John Metzger
      Today's Highlights Edited by

      Today's highlights include an invitation, a shared revelation, a quirky query, quotes, and graceful direction and affirmation of *What Is* which arose through the fellowship of dialogue. Enjoy the variety of facets! 
      NDHighlights: a need, an invitation, an opportunity to listen in service
      Dear friends of this Salon,
      Jerry's website and his lists have been a gift to many of us for 3 1/2 years. Here we've learned, been challenged, made deep friendships, and mostly have been allowed the opportunity to witness and discern the movement of mind and the emptiness of being.
      For several years a very few loyal people (mostly Jerry, Gloria and Andrew Macnab) have selected the daily highlights and posted them to a parallel list NDhighlights. There are 100 or so people who read the highlights. Some depend upon it like a daily newspaper, others use it to catch up, for most it is just a pause with intelligence and clarity. Now it is only Jerry and Gloria doing this work for all seven days. I think it may be time for a call to support them by giving back a little of your time and heart.
      On occasion, Jerry has opened the door for volunteers, few have come forward. Most of us live busy lives and the thought of a steady commitment might be daunting, so I have proposed that we explore the idea of working in partnership or teams. Maybe you could commit to one or two days a month and be paired with two or three others. We are writing basic guidelines, but essentially this is not hard work, and we'll hand hold you through the basics. In fact, it can be an interesting exercise in self observation to note what moves you as a
      "highlight".. a line here, a phrase there.. creates a different order of truth revealed.
      If you have a few hours a month to offer, if you are curious about what this might involve, if you'd like to try it for a limited time, or if you have organizational ideas about how this might be accomplished, please write to one or all of us.
      Our email addresses are posted below.
      I will be doing the Sunday highlights (of Saturday's posts) and would like to work with one or two others. Any hearty souls out there?
      Thanks for your time and consideration,
      Affirmation of What Is
      James Traverse and Jan Barendrecht
      James: There is no way *to* Love. Love is The Way. To say that
      it should be nasty or nice is to define 'the way'. The action of
      Love is autonomous - it is always appropriate to the moment.
      1. There is only Love so how could there be a way to it? How could it be a way?
      2. Hence sentient life in its entirety is but Love.
      3. Remember, Love neither requires nor needs lovers but a true lover is ready to die for Love.
      4. When forgetting that, ample are the reminders: Love gives by
      seemingly taking until nothing is left.
      5. When ignoring that, also blessed are the hardest stones as even they can't resist the soft, gentle touch of flowing air or water.
      6. Don't count blessings - there is only 1 which "repeats until..."
      7. Love doesn't act: that is what lovers are for! What are you?
      8. Remember 1...7, especially when pain seems to get unbearable..... 
      9. Hence, love the smelly swamp called collective unconscious too
      - no way 'around' it: Emptying it is called "the Work".
      A way connects one place to another whereas there is no place to go. Hence there is NO way. Whatever the name, any imagined way but leads astray!
      James: Yes! a way connects one place to another and there is no
      place to go. Hence the place to be is HERE-NOW - that is Love and it is the only 'WAY' to be connected with HERE-NOW. And, Yes! Any imagined 'way' is just that imagination - it is a movement away from HERE-NOW.
      Jerry Katz on NoDoer@yahoogroups.com
      Mark Hovila asked: Jean Klein said that our establishment in our true nature is reached by a complete elimination of the world of objects. I would be very interested in hearing anyone's views on this statement. What does it mean to eliminate the world of objects? How is it done?
      Jerry responds:
      I 'll give my dollar fifty. But if it's a garage sale, will you take a dollar? Alright, a dollar twenty-five.
      'true nature' is awareness. The world of objects means not knowing true nature. To eliminate the world of objects, know one's true nature. There's no act that eliminates the world of objects, though perception can be modified through meditation so that the world takes on a flimsy, dream-like, subtle appearance. But what's that?
      "Complete elimination", as you say, has to be complete. I think it requires a constant return to inquiring, 'who am i?'. Or 'who is having this experience, THIS experience?' If the moment is caught rising NOW and in that moment one asks Who am I?, it's like two subatomic particles coming together and pure awareness results. That's the experience of enlightenment: the NOW moment colliding with I Am, yielding awareness. It's a partless dynamic known as awareness itself.
      That's what it means to eliminate the world of objects. Clearly. Because it is the elimination of what's already less than objects: the now moment and the I Am. And it's done through enquiry.
      That's the process.
      ~ Along those same lines Jerry, as Aweboss, wrote this to a friend in LiveJournal's Nonduality community http://www.livejournal.com/users/nonduality/
      It's possible to have the experiences you're having without knowing who is having them.
      The one having them has a real nature known as 'I Am'. The experiences you uniquely describe could happen as the knowing of 'I Am' develops. But they could happen independently of that.
      At the point of stability with I AM, a handshake occurs. It seems like the meeting of I Am with I Am. After that point, everything appears to happen on its own. It's another realm of 'doing'.
      This 'I Am' is 'the answer' to the inquiry: Who am I? Of course it's useless to simply give the answer. It has to be known as the only knowledge or occurrence. As one's real nature. I Am may not be known explicitly as I Am. It may be a feeling, a wordless knowing of one's real nature, a living or envisioned Guru, a mountain in India, etc. When it is known, it is known as the source, the only real knowledge, the only thing that ever happened.
      When that's known, then there's some stability, the handshake has taken place.
      To 'want' knowledge or stability isn't a right approach. Desire will push it further away. To be fascinated with the experiences of changing consciousness isn't a right approach either. There always has to be turning toward who is having the experiences.
      By staying where one is, taking off the shoes and feeling just one pebble on the path. That pebble is I Am! Just stay with that pebble.
      Don't move. Stay exactly here. There is attention happening. Attention to the most minute apparently insignificant thing. It is no different than attention to some exquisite dreamlike fabric of all of reality. Attention is attention is attention. Attention to attention is like touching the wrapper of I Am, of your true nature. Spontaneously the wrapper falls away. And there you are. Then the handshake.
      The main message is to constantly turn to the source and not to the experience. Aweboss: How do you turn to the 'source' and not the experience, when the experience is stressful?
      There has to be a relationship with the source that comes from somewhere. Whether it is from practice during times that are quiet and sane. This could be some meditation or mindfulness method. It doesn't have to be sitting still in a room. It could be walking, jogging, or anything that is conducive to looking at your real nature.
      It really could be anything. It could be refusing to search anymore and just being. But something has to happen that initiates a genuine relationship with source or real nature.
      It has to be check and mate with your real nature.
      A nice meditation method that relaxes you, isn't enough. Or
      something that someone says intended for someone else, may or may not help.
      As the relationship with source or real nature develops, it can be carried to times when there's a mildly stressful thing going on.
      Then the relationship can be maintained when a child is throwing things and screaming. It can be maintained.
      It's another relationship that takes work! But at least you're in control. And it gives perspective to all other relationships, and to existence.
      Gary Merrill and Dan Berkowitz from
      G: We could say that any 'thing' would have to be true now, or false now. Those categories would be meaningless outside of time. Perhaps we can still say that true and false continues to apply within a limited framework, a context, but not as a whole.
      D: It's a concept that presupposes a picture of reality that can define events in terms of other events, by measuring the proximity of one event to another in terms of a spatial metaphor (near and far to me, who is here) combined with a movement metaphor (events move past me, who is here).
      G:Yes, time implies some kind of relationship. 'To look', there would be a 'looker' to whom this would be relevant. The 'looker' would have to be present, seeing time change, come and go, seeing events. A much simpler explanation or understanding wouldn't need this 'looker', wouldn't need this separation of 'self' from events.
      D: Another way to say this is that memory is insubstantial, time has no ground, and volition and control depend on a developing being existing in time.
      What's developing turns out to be a complex of self-replicating memory associations, not a really existing being.
      There isn't anything brought forward, and countless beings protesting by screaming and killing, or by attaining and getting things, doesn't change this at all.
      Insight shows these beings for what they are, memory-complexes activated under certain conditions, which conditions involve other memory complexes.
      The self-replication of memory-complexes ad infinitum ends up in the same place it begins: nowhen ...
      G: Like the reflection on the water it doesn't mean anything. Putting 'oneself' in time is the attempt to give the 'self' meaning e.g. 'I am doing this'. Whilst it makes a good story, and makes the central character real, a good chase, 'I' will never catch myself, as 'my' movement is not mine. I never started moving, never acted, despite stories to the contrary.
      D: There is no really existing space in which memory could exist, nor an external reality for memory to encapsulate, let alone a user of memory to attain a purpose.
      Memory "manufactures" space and time, which are the assumptions that "carry" memory forward, in its ad infinitum self-replication feat/quest.
      G: Yes, I am not separate from my memory. I am memory. If I think I'm separate I can believe anything, because I think my
      knowledge is objective, real. But it's only real to me. So memory functions, but 'I' don't. 'Truth' then is not subjective or objective, but it is whole, if not defined and objectively certain.
      This replication, from the whole view, has no meaning. Obviously from a partial view it has tremendous meaning being a source of security. People being ready to kill for their imagined rights. So programs, behaviour, based on self continuance, must continue as long as 'self' has this independent meaning. So its something of a vicious circle i.e. 'I must act because I must go on and because I go on I must act'.
      We are suggesting that 'You can't act because you don't go on and you can't go on because you don't act' :-)
      D: "I" am not a real unity. "I" am a conglomerate: an association of memory-images whose only coherence turns out to be an imagined shared center of reference.
      Like the demon said in "The Exorcist": "We are many in here." And, "I am no one."
      Also, as the demon said to Jesus, "My name is legion."
      I am only a conglomeration of images, attempting to use imaginary belief as a means to continue a fragmentary existence.
      Hell is dissolved by the ending of any separable "me."
      Memory no longer constructs a hell for me, when there is no attempt to refer to a center conceived as having independent
      I have had the experience of all objects dropping way.
      If one's life is lived in service, and the mind is made pure and subtle. Then the heart shines brighter and brighter, and the world and objects become more and more beautiful, more transparent, as though backlit from behind. The mind stops dead in its tracks at the beauty, and is not creating distinctions and differences. The spiritual eye has opened and you feel as though you're spirit or the space in which everything happens. The body and all else is in your heart. The tiny bit of residual mind gets sucked into the heart and the light of the heart is so bright that everything disappears in pure radiance.
      Every night, in deep dreamless sleep, you are back in the Source, and the mind isn't moving outward, creating sleeping dreams or world dreams. As you awaken, there is pure radiance, then the "I am the body" idea, then the world. You may also look at it as a number of sheaths appear as layers constructed over the heart of pure light. If the seer is focussed on and kept in the heart, then you are looking from the Source, the heart. Without the seer, there is nothing to
      be seen.
      The substratum of everything is the Self, the heart. Creation flashes out from there each second. Then the mind splits it up into over here and over there, me and not-me.
      When you sink below and behind the mind, into your heart, in silence, then you are at one with everything.
      I don't think that the mind can be used as the tool to get there. Everything that the mind thinks is ignorance. It doesn't know of its Source in the heart. It is only after the mind has become silent and humble that the heart is felt and heard. The mind, turned outward IS the world, the mind, turned inward IS the Self.

      TRANSCENDENCE: The Birth of Homo novus. by MT Taylor
      Once you Know the Source, the dim consciousness of present
      level belief systems, currently ruling and determining
      experience, will seem like products of the Dark Ages. While
      the limitations or problems of these old beliefs may persist,
      the individual who has Known the Source can more
      consciously choose or not choose to operate those beliefs.
      The wholeness, peace and certainty you have sought all your
      life in substitute programs and beliefs lies right at the center
      of yourself. Find out who you are. Discover the fundamental
      Ground of all existence.
      When you go deeper you lose yourself, as it were, in the
      abysmal depths, then the Reality which is the Atman that was
      behind you all the while takes hold of you. It is an incessant
      flash of I-consciousness, you can be aware of it, feel it, hear
      it, sense it, so to say; this is what 'I call' Aham sphoorti.
      Sat-Darshana Bhashy and Talks with Maharshi, p. XXI
      Verses from the Avadhuta Gita of Dattatreya, conveying the
      message of nonduality with a Vedantic flavor.
                          * * *
      I do not know God; how shall I speak of Him?
      I do not know God; how shall I worship Him?
      If I am the Supreme One, who is the highest Truth,
      homogenous Being like space, how shall I speak of Him and
      worship Him?
                          * * *
      The Self transcends all, is indivisible and all-pervading.
      It is free from attachment, immovable and all-pervading. It is
      without day and night, and all-pervading. Why do you, who
      are the identity in all, grieve in your heart?
                          * * *
      As the self is filled with Self So is all filled continuously
      by you. There is no meditator or meditation. Why does your
      mind meditate shamelessly?
                          * * *
      As the space within a pot dissolves in the universal
      space when the pot is broken, so a yogi, in the absence of
      the body, dissolves into the supreme Self, which is his true
      Bobby Graham
      People are a peculiar group. Individually we always act like we know what we are doing. Each person is the final judge on their own activities. But when we see someone else do something we are quick to say they don't know what they are doing. It should be reasonable to assume that since we have the same equipment as they that we don't know either, but that idea just won't stick.
      When someone gets drunk on alcohol they are given license to do things not ordinarily acceptable. These impulses point to another "side" of people. So we put a name on it, subconscious, and go on thinking we know what we are doing. This seems to me a double standard. How can we know what we are doing at the same time we acknowledge a subconscious that we do not know about? Accepting this premise as food for thought is another indication of how peculiar we are.
      Another thing, we watch as people "go crazy". Someone drops out of the regular crowd and loses the ability to function within the given structure. There are reasons given why this happens: childhood trauma, abuse, chemical imbalance, heredity. But of course we can't ADMIT it could happen to us for fear it would happen, while accepting the double standard of KNOWING it could happen.
      We acknowledge our imperfectness (accepting a double standard) with aplomb. How dare anyone challenge my right to be imperfect.
      If there are reasons for imperfectness then it is not imperfect. It is perfectly natural to be this way, imperfect. Perfect! But no one can let it go at that. No matter how many time we say everything is perfect we still strive to be better, while pretending to others to be better than we know we are. Isn't this a peculiar way to be?
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.