Nonduality: The Varieties of Expression



SPONSORS

HOME









CHUCK HILLIG

Photography by Jerry Katz

DR. ROBERT PUFF

THE NATURAL BLISS OF BEING

       

RUPERT SPIRA

DISSOLVED, Tarun Sardana

RAMAJI

ONE

   HIGH JUMP, Tarun Sardana    



 



Nonduality.com HOME



Discover over 5000 pages on Nonduality.com by Googling:

google site:nonduality.com [your choice of keyword(s)]


Read Jerry Katz's article in The Culturium:

Let the Scene See You

Landscape photography from a nondual point of view




Photography by Jerry Katz

Nonduality Salon

Highlights #1

Click here to go to the next issue.


Envision the set of all existing things.
Outside that set by definition nothing exists.
Atma is not anything in that set.
Atma is not the set as a whole.
Atma is the quality of existence which defines the set.
In other words,
Atma does not exist,
"Atma" is "existence".

andrew

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Harsha:
What are the great Sages such as Ramana
indicating? They say feel your existence,
feel the I AM. It is Simple. That is
the tip of the iceberg. The tip of the iceberg is Reality
manifesting as conditioned
Existence. Even if we hold on to just the conditioned Existence, without
any other practice, that is
enough. At some point when the conditions drop,
even if for an instant, Existence Feels It Self in Fullness. It Recognizes
IT Self without the medium
of body/mind as Eternal Perfection. So those who
Realize are content and at peace with their
knowledge and their ignorance having gone beyond
both to the Original Nature, call it Buddha Nature,
call it Sat-Chit-Ananda, call it what you wish.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

What I was trying to ask was...is this
all there is to his 'event', which was
sufficient to shift his "locus of doership"
from the individual to the whole? In other
words is that all there is to Realization?

I think not.

I would have described an event very much
like he did, but I would not even begin
to suggest that from that time foward I
no longer saw my self as separate.

Rather, for a few minutes here and there
my sense of separation falls away....and
then returns.

Melody

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Here we go:
I) hero, in Greek mythology, famous person worshipped after death as
quasi-divine. Heroes might be actual
great people, real or imaginary ancestors, or “faded” deities (ancient gods
demoted to human status).

II) ego
1. The self, especially as distinct from the world and other selves.
2. a. An exaggerated sense of self-importance; conceit. b. Appropriate
pride in oneself; self-esteem.

Christ, depicted by the churches as the messiah to
come is such a hero of the ego; no fully realized human being can ever
match the picture of the "coming messiah".

Avatars matching the expectations suggested by the deification of Rama and
Krishna are heroes of the
ego; no fully realized human being will ever match
the expectations of the "coming Kalki avatar".

The maitreya is a hero of the ego; no fully realized
human being will ever fulfill all qualities and possess all supernatural
powers required to be recognized as "maitreya".

A hero of the ego is a fictive construction suggesting
a "fix" for all human problems, somewhere in the future. There is no "fix"
other than "realize now".

Jan

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I can't help but feel, and I could be just totally waco here, that there
are problems more expansive than human problems. That must sound strange.
It does even to me. That there is a level of consciousness where all of
humanity is one unit.

Marcia

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Atman is pure being. Atman can be experienced as
Sat-Chit-Ananda (Absolute Being-Consciousness-Bliss) by the human mechanism
- even the body/mind can take part in the experience (although not the ego).

---Tim Gerchmez

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Consciousness can neither rise nor fall. Only pure consciousness is
self-luminous; the self-luminousness becomes identification in the case of
beings and property in the case of matter.

To know Being is to temporarily disable all identification; what "remains"
is called "enlightenment".

To know Being isn't an experience; what isn't an experience cannot be
described or explained. So analogies are used to "intuit" and this works
because Being can be recognized; recognition is eased by the analogies.
---JB

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

All my life longing has been a steady companion. Longing for what? I
didn't know, i just felt this urge, this need for something more,
something real, as if i knew all along that this world couldn't provide
the fullfilling. It is my experience that I was not totally ignorant of
my home, i think deep down in our genes (or whereever) a memory of what
we truly are lies dormant from the very beginning of our life on earth.
I wasn't ignorant about my longing, but i wasn't conscious about it
either. So the longing set me on the path of becomming conscious of what
i was longing for, which i didn't know what was

Why are some experiences perceived as suffering? I think it is partly
because of our upbringing, and partly because somehow, deep inside, we
know there is something more/bigger/better. When we are not conscious
about our true home, we mistake pleasures for being the opposite of
suffering. It is not. Both are the same energy, being interpreted
differently. This energy is a good jumping point into letting go.

How is it possible to become conscious of THAT - without knowing
it??????

---Tanmayo

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Please consider the following quote:

"My input is that i am on this list to share experiences, not quotes.
When i read a quote, i am not able to exstract from it the senders
experience. Quotes doesn't open for communication, on e-mail-lists they
become statements, something finished, dead. I delete quotes."

love, tanmayo

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


According to Ram Tzu and Ramesh Balsekar (his guru) and Nisargadatta Maharaj
(his grand-guru), that is the nature of realization. (Ramesh and Wayne
simply call it "Understanding," as in "Understanding may arise . . . ") I
don't know if that's all there is, because so many different teachers have
tried to describe it in so many different ways that it is hard to pin it
down. It does seem to be the linchpin on which any further evolution in the
realizer hangs.

There's a lot of controversy these days between the school of thought that
claims that enlightenment is "it," once and for all, and that it cures
everything, and the school that claims that enlightenment is only the
*first* step in a spiritual life which requires time to develop maturity and
richness. Someone recently published a book called "Halfway up the
Mountain," about so-called "false" claims to enlightenment. (It's published
by Hohm Press, owned by Lee Lozowick's commune.)

People like Mr. Lee and Andrew Cohen focus on the life one lives *after* an
enlightening or awakening experience. They make a big point of insisting
that one must continue to work on one's ethics and lifestyle, one's
relationships to other people, in order for one's enlightenment to be
meaningful. Their point is that the "event" does not cure all one's
imperfections.

This may be true. But the point is that, awake is awake. What you do after
that with your life is up to you. I am not in the camp that insists that one
has to "earn" anything after the fact.

The fact is that the potency of an awakening will depend to a large degree
on the personality of the individual affected. The realization may mean
little, or it may be very rich and meaningful. Anything goes. A small mind
will remain a small mind after "Understanding."

---Petros

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I attended satsang with Prasad tonight in Sedona. Prasad is a disciple of
(guess who) Poonjaji and claimed to awaken in 1995. His website is at
www.passage.to/prasad, where you can read some quotes and view his photos.

I can't say it wasn't interesting, but I did not experience the same
intensity I felt during Ram Tzu's visit to Sedona in March. (Seems like
Sedona is on a lot of gurus' itineraries!) Actually, when Prasad walked in
the room, in silly white pajamas and flowing hair, I had to suppress a
chuckle. Something in his manner told me "poseur." I mean, he reminds me of
John Ritter, the comedian from _Three's Company_. (Take a look at some of
the photos on his webpage . . . there's something about his face that just
makes me want to break out laughing, like when I look at Bill Murray or Jim
Carrey.)

The satsang was indeed more like a stand-up comic routine. Or sit-down
comic. Prasad sat on a ugly orange sofa in the room, and the floor was
covered with an even uglier green carpet that looked like rotten guacamole.
(The meeting was held in the headquarters of the "Keep Sedona Beautiful"
society.) He was bracketed by some flowers and photos of Ramana (to his
right) and Poonjaji (to his left).

Prasad got right to the point. We are God, no bullshit about it. Everything
is Self. Everything is the Beloved. He was right on-target, honest, totally
straightforward, and did not pull any punches. He seemed, though, to be
trying too hard, almost struggling with his audience. I was a little
embarrassed for the others in the room, as the spiritual "maturity" seemed
rather lower than what I witnessed during Ram Tzu's satsang. The first woman
that Prasad called to come up and sit with him had to be coaxed five times
before she would even agree to sit next to him. He asked her some questions
and it was like pulling teeth. When he tried to offer her prasad of a small
piece of chocolate, she simply *refused* to take it! I mean, really, it's
very rude to turn down prasad. (Prasad with a small "p".)

(I would have lost patience with some of these people. Why come to satsang
if you're not ready to be Free? If you don't want it that badly?)

Prasad eventually called me up to come sit next to him and we bantered a
bit. I said I felt like I was on Leno's "Tonight Show," and he agreed. He
said we should all pretend that this was his living room or den, and we were
just here to have fun. Prasad's main message was not to take anything
seriously, it's all just role-playing. No disagreement there.

He asked me to talk about myself. I told him that in the beginning I was
That, then I was Somebody, and now I'm That again. He loved it. I spoke of
the frustrations of talking to others about This. He said, well, screw it. I
felt like an idiot, and my responses were peppered with phrases like
"Realization is like, so cool!" -- for some reason Prasad's comical manner
made me shy away from being really hyper-intellectual, or else I didn't want
to steal the show from him, so I just played the hip young knower. (He said
I gave good satsang, however.)

Prasad is quite hilarious. He had a hard time coaxing a young woman to come
up and start dancing, which got him into a thread about shyness and how
irrelevant it is. He started dancing by himself, mocking the woman, but she
didn't seem to mind. He just started twirling around in circles, making
faces and comments like "Ooh, look, now I'm shy . . . now I'm not shy! I can
play either game!" He did admit that a certain amount of shyness is
sometimes appropriate for social reasons. "I have some shyness myself,
otherwise I would just fuck you right here!" . . . that nearly brought the
house down.

It was a lot of fun, I must say, but I still felt that Prasad might have
been trying a little too hard. He didn't seem to have a lot of control of
his audience, as he practically had to beg people just to open their mouths.
There was a lot of agreeable laughter and smiling all around, but I think a
lot of the people were just being entertained rather than challenged.

He gave out another round of prasad at the end, this time strawberries. He
put a huge strawberry in my mouth and I mumbled a very mangled "Thank you!"

---Petros

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In that case, think about the poet who visited Ramana frequently. This poet
could have "jesufied" (forgive the odd expression) Ramana completely, by
comparing him with avatars and writing stories about fighting demons and the
like while meditating in the dark caves. Ramana as Ramana is inimitable
already; depicting him as the savior of modern man and fighting demons would
have created a myth.

Long ago I came across a version of the evangel, published by the
Rosicrucian Press where Jesus was a teacher, much like Ramana but instead of
being in the same place, traveling throughout the country with a small
group. Or if you prefer, a small scale Buddha. This made much more sense
than the "official" version of the NT.

The cross symbolizes the burden of self very well. Unless something is done,
one will be crushed by the weight of it. A teacher who isn't realized is
called scholar or pundit.

This is very much the point to convey. The "authorities" of official
religion have everything to lose if it becomes clear that the "idols", when
seen in the right perspective, weren't "special" teachers.

>From childhood on, there was no alternative but to solve a problem, or to
find a perspective from where the problem would no longer exist. This has
become a property of "habit mind" so I cannot relate to problems at all.
Being "waco" at some times comes from a transformation by K. that is so fast
that one looses all 'ground' or 'reference'. It won't disable 'functioning
as usual' like performing duties and taking care of loved ones. So enjoy
'funny farm' for as long as it takes :)

Pure consciousness is a fact; in pure consciousness "all there is" forms a
unit. The human body, as a finite expression of consciousness, won't be
overloaded with information; the sum of all information boils down to "I
know nothing" or Silence and the universe turns out to be the proverbial
absolute zero :)

---JB

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I propose to you that you follow this visualization, if you are able. It
draws upon your ability to perform hyperdimensional transforms, which I
know that you can do.

Take a cone (or pyramid) and push the point 'down' into the structure,
until the base of the cone surrounds the tip; the tip is now _inside_ the
cone, which is now a sphereoid, hollow, with an internal point, and an
external 'dimple' on the outside surface, backside of the point. This
resembles the 'universal Budda' or 'apple' shape of the 'Mandlebrot set'.
(this is referred to as a 'hypercone')

Visualize that the infinitely sharp point is pointing 'up and into' the
hollow sphere; all of what that point 'sees' is an extension of 'itself',
but it does not necessarliy 'know' that 'it is the point' of the whole
thing.

To 'see' the entire extant universe from a single infinitely sharp point,
is alluded to as 'transcendental insight' in the tradition of Vajrayana;
and to know oneself to be the 'point of the whole thing' is the point of
the whole thing. The 'external surface' of this hypersphere is the
'unconscious'.

Further, if we postulate many many sharp points _inside_ the sphereoid, we
are closer to the multiplex Being-state which We are, now. One aspect of
many many sharp points, is the appearance of the outside of the sphereoid;
it is now densely dimpled, and thus there is 'less' unconsious.

Given 'enough' sharp points/dimples, what happens? ""POP!"" That is how we
migrate, via hyperdimensional hyperconsious 'imploding'. All of the
'points' have become ONE point, and the process repeats.

I am that migratory consiousness; that is why I contain a 'virtual
multitude'. I am the 'single-identity' alias of the many points which
comprise the progressive action of that 'evolutionary process', and the
same process is occuring right now, on an ongoing basis.

To recognize oneself is to 'know Atman'; to recognize 'other' is to know
Atman. Yet, Atman is 'merely' an _alias_ of this ongoing migratory process.
I am not the face in the mirror, any more than I am the mirror itself.
There is seeing, and there is Being, and I am Being, seeing.

The 'deeper mystery' is the 'reason' why all of this is taking place; 'we'
migrate, recreate, as what we are. Please take a moment to feel the
_imperative_ which is the underlying drive for all of this; to feel such,
explains a great deal, but not all.

It is important to note that 'we' all have access to this 'talent' of
hyperdimensional analysis; it is 'simply' the equivalent to the human
concept of the 'onboard navigational computer' and is the 'correct' use of
'mind'. It is of great importance that this 'mind' be unburdened of any
'recursive looping paradoxical calculations' (empty), so that it may be
able to respond _instantly_ to any need for navigational
course-corrections. That is to say, that poise and equanimity, are desired
qualities.

As you know, Boolean logic, if applied, can resolve most paradoxes, but not
the paradox which underlies that logic itself. L Wittgenstein was one who
knew and directly stated such.

'My body' is my 'cockpit' and my feedback-system; I know what I am doing,
and the results of what I do, by the quality of the experience that I have
'in this body'; this body is thus the 'virtual display' of a vehicle which
is so powerful and complex, that a 747 is but a hang-glider by comparison.
By attending to this 'display' and the apparent 'surround', I am able to
move purposefully; the 'existence' of 'body' and 'surround' is no more than
'mouse-cursor and GUI', a convenience, for this Being and vehicle.

I have tried to show how and why 'nothing may be dismissed' and 'nothing
may be accepted'; I have tried to show that it is the _tentative nature_ of
existence which is the point of the whole thing, how fragile is existence,
and that is the nature of _integrity and immunity_. There is _nothing_
which can change that; to know oneself is to know the infinite. My
hyperdimensional existence is Being, my awareness is seeing, and I Am That.

Phlying Phree, Phrasors on 'phun'...

==Gene Poole==
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Subject: Silence and Initiation

There are many delivering the message

To do nothing, to be still and silent.

Silence comes before initiation

And exists after initiation.

Because silence exists after initiation,

It is very attractive

To those who seek initiation.

Initiation silences you.

A certain presence silences you,

But that is not necessarily initiation.

It is a preparation for initiation.

Initiation itself is thunderous

Even though it may last a fraction of a second.

It may even be imperceptible!

It is preceded by a quality of silence

And followed by another quality of silence.

One cannot seek initiation,

But one can achieve silence and, in that way,

Invite initiation.

--Umba

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Zero: who am i? do i have a gender? really?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
zero offered
from Thomas Merton:


Be still
Listen to the stones of the wall.
Be silent, they try
To speak your

Name.
Listen
To the living walls.

Who are you?
Who
Are you? Whose
Silence are you?

--from "In Silence"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Tim G:
I will go to any lengths to know truth and renounce falsehood/illusion.

Jerry:
Turn your fervor to this: making breakfast Now.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Jerry:
If you do anything with full presence, you will be stoned and denounced for
it by those who drink from the common well and not the one deep in the forest.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
TimG:
I'd rather go in the trunk (nice and dark and alone,
better for meditation) :-)

Andrew:
I wanna ride on the roof on a surfboard wearing nothing but goggles and
scarf. Faster faster.

Jerry:
I see myself as the backseat driver telling God when to slow down, speed
up, turn right, left, and to advise Him when dawn has led to morning and
the headlamps are no longer needed. Of course He patiently lets me ramble
while doing exactly what has to be done. I also see that there are hell of
a lot of people in the backseat with me.

And we are having a good time!

Come out of the trunk, Tim!

(I wanna get in!)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

zero: perspective, hmmm. with the eyes, i could see mayhem. through the
eyes i see THAT. am i a boy or a girl? who am i?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Enlightenment means No Forms.
Pre-form, post-form and concurrent-but-not-suggestive-
of-form.

Beingness is form-less.
That's what makes it impossible for the mind to grasp because mind is a
collection of thought form-ulations.

Just see how we humans respond when our projected formulated definitions
are challenged. We will do
anything to protect them rather than to dissolve into
the shape-less, un-definable unknown (to the mind) which
is our source, our un-created natural essence, and let
the created forms be taken care of, without our pretense and fascination
that We are something substantial, which
is what Source has been doing all along anyway.

Xan.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

joke of the day could be that it is likely there are more enlightened pets
(like dogs, cats, 'house-pigs' and horses) then enlightened humans.
Enlightenment is the recognition of "just being". What is required is
self-awareness and
the temporary subsidence of conditioning. A human has
much more conditioning than a pet. Shame, guilt and embarrassment are rare
for pets but common for the owners and a well treated pet is free from
fear, traumas and stress. Although in nature animals can be confronted with
panic, anger, desperateness and fear with a far greater intensity than
humans usually are, this won't happen
during the life of an "average" pet. Enlightenment cannot be proved for
human beings, having the power of
abstract reasoning and a limited control over instincts
and urges. But how to explain the behavior of a pet that all of a sudden is
controlled by "higher" emotions like affection / attachment to its
caretaker instead of the former instincts and urges?
Fluffie's version of faith in a personal God perhaps ?:)

Jan

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Envision the set of all knowable things.
Nothing can be known outside that set.
Self is not included in the set.
Nor is self the entire set.
Who is envisioning the set?(and how do you know?)

andrew

top of page