|Dr. Robert Puff|
The Best of the Internet's Nonduality Email Lists, Forums, Web sites, and More
Editors: Jerry Katz,
Gloria Lee, Christiana Duranczyk, Michael Read,
Highlights Issue #1043
Tuesday, April 16, 2002
Compiled, Edited, and Designed
Search all editions of the
Highlights Home Page: <http://nonduality.com/hlhome.htm>
Click here to go to the next issue
The psychiatrist asks the Zen Master, "How do you deal with neurotics?"
The Zen Master replies, "I get them to the point where they can't ask anymore questions".
--- In NondualitySalon@y..., "viorica weissman" wrote:
As odd as all this might initially sound , the insight that
no separate self has been obvious to the mystics and sages of
all times , and forms one of the core points of the perennial
philosophy. Although there are numerous quotations that could
illustrate this insight , the celebrated summory of the Buddha's
teachings really says it all :
Suffering alone exists , none who suffers;
The deed there is , but no doer thereof ;
Nirvana is , but no one seeking it ;
The Path there is , but none who travel on it.
NO BOUNDARY , Ken Wilber
--- In NondualitySalon@y..., "texasbg2000" wrote:
"Complaining-Cursing: Complaining can be a habit.
When something is
not right and you don't have the power to fix it, you complain to
other people. Something may get done about it. To complain without
the hope of something being done is another source of Complaining.
(See Whining of the Ego on the Mental Branch). Swearing or Cursing
is Complaining although the habit has other causes. Modern usage has
cursing for moments of joy, astonishment, etc."
from: "Mental Tree" By Bob Graham
--- In NondualitySalon@y..., Gene Poole wrote
Having attempted for years to 'hack to root',
I subsequently discovered that the System
is much larger and more intense than I could
This discovery came about during an 'episode'
in which what I can only refer to as 'What Is'
revealed It-Self to me and spoke to me.
It was revealed to me that 'the only valid prayer'
that can be enacted, is to literally love oneself.
Perhaps the first and most difficult aspect of this
'only valid prayer', is the act of accepting oneself.
How can one accept oneself, when the very
root of identity is self-loathing? It seems that
actual acceptance of oneself is possible only
if and when, utter honesty is the attitude, once
and for ever. One slip from the integrity of
honesty, and self-acceptance vanishes along
with whatever aspect that we are reluctant to
view in all honesty.
By rejecting any aspect of myself, I doom myself
to partial awareness; awareness minus any rejected
information, awareness lacking self-knowledge.
As a partially aware person, I will be subject to the
experience of 'suffering', and will have, of necessity,
no clue as to the actual 'cause' of my suffering, for
I have buried the very information which I would need
to have complete awareness.
An aspect of my 'experience' during the Self-revealing
of What Is, is that of what is called 'catharsis', and it
was no small event in itself. During this experience of
catharsis, I was able to see very clearly that the
difficulties that I had been experiencing in my life,
were happening because I had hidden from myself,
memories which were too painful or humiliating to
bear. Or at least they were that way, to the child I
Clearly, if I were to allow myself to proceed with
such buried and hidden aspects, I would continue
to suffer. It dawned upon me that if I could see these
things in the moment of now, that I could continue
to see them; and the issue became one of self-
acceptance, rather than finding better strategies
for coping with suffering.
In that moment, I 'swallowed the toad', as Jung
put it. As ghastly as my history seemed to be, I
am living; I am Being. I found myself embraced
by a love that I had never before known, the instant
that I allowed myself to simply Be as I am. This
is why I say that self-acceptance is a big thing.
Now that I understand that Being is primary, my
history of 'doings' have been put in perspective;
and as if by magic, the 'doings' of others are also
re-scaled. It is Being which comes first, and if
allowed, Being will always be at the forefront.
To the issue of praying, I know that 'somewhere
in me' is the whole and complete person
who I actually am. This can be the first part of
a good prayer. I acknowledge that I can be
myself; and it is this to which my appeal is voiced.
"Allow me to accept myself" can be the second
part; and "Give me the strength to love myself
as I am" could be put in there someplace.
A couple of years later, during a Sunday service
at a local FourSquare Christian church, which I
was attending at the insistence of my (genuine)
Vampire girlfriend, the Pastor's sermon concerned
the concept that 'God loves powerful people'.
I sat there and reveled in the sermon, which was
literally a verbatim accounting of my experience
of getting in touch with myself. To say the least,
this was a very validating experience. I was reminded
quite clearly of the revelations which I received during
my meeting with What Is. What Is had said those
very same things to me, and I had taken advantage
of the opportunity.
It may seem strange, or at least paradoxical, that
I have come to be where I am now, through this
very eclectic mixture of so many varied experiences.
There has been only one theme, which is that it
is all 'for me'. This is what Jesus said, and it is also
the creed of the (genuine) Vampire. God does love
powerful people, people who have the audacity to
claim what is before them at all times. It seems to
be about waking up to true nature, which is Being,
existing by Grace...
God is love; to actually pray to God is to love yourself.
--- In NondualitySalon@y..., "highdee999" wrote:
"Interesting" is an interesting word. You could look
it up in the
dictionary, the thesaurus, the encyclopedia, but why bother - you
already know what it means and use it a lot.
But do you? I think not.
What is interesting, and to whom? Why is something interesting
you, and yet objectionable or un-interesting to another? If something
is genuinely interesting, why is it not interesting to everyone with
a brain, who can perceive what you perceive?
If you were not interested in this list, and the subject
referred to herein, you would likely not be here. You'd get bored or
irritated and leave. So are you really interested? Or is something
What if "interest" is a molecular transfer of energy
in you that you
are not totally aware of, yet feel - the way you feel heat on the
skin, or a pinprick? What if you could control what you are
interested in? What if you could move the energy in you from one
place to another, and benefit in some unknown way?
That would mean that you either could be interested in
NOTHING - your choice. You would not be driven by such interests,
you'd be driven by your own inner desire for the directed movement of
energies, from one place to another, for a purpose of which only you
What if such a capability would allow you to SEE things, that
don't see, and thereby extract information which goes unextracted by
the masses. In that way, you would not need any particular external
source to stir your interest - which is, presently, without such
capability, the only way you derive enjoyment out of life at all. If
you're not interested in religion, you'll not spend hours a day
reading religious books. If you're not interested in sports, you'll
not spend hours a day reading about sports.
Also, and this is key, if you're not properly interested in
Enlightenment, you'll never achieve the benefits pointed to by those
whose interest is real, or essential. You'd be, what is derogatorily
described, a dilettante. Dilettantes do not achieve anything, because
they can not extract the pith - the important or essential part.
They are still driven by "interest" and they have no
What they are interested in, nor Who is actually interested.
Just a thought for your smike to pope on.
--- In NondualitySalon@y..., "markwotter704" wrote:
I didn't mention the third group so that you would.
Thank you for
acting according to the situation.
> Hi Mark,
> How come you don't mention the 3rd group?: Those knowing the
> adverse effects of labeling a situation as "problem", hence "just"
> act according to the requirements of the situation. That doesn't
> leave room for musings on the existence or non-existence of an
> "i or a you", "Maya or reality", "bondage and liberation" either!
> (Unless the situation requires it ;-))
There was a young monk in China who was a very serious practitioner of the Dharma.
Once, this monk came across something he did not understand, so he went to ask the master. When the master heard the question, he kept laughing. The master then stood up and walked away, still laughing.
The young monk was very disturbed by the master's reaction. For the next 3 days, he could not eat, sleep nor think properly. At the end of 3 days, he went back to the master and told the master how disturbed he had felt.
When the master heard this, he said, "Monk, do u know what your problem is? Your problem is that YOU ARE WORSE THAN A CLOWN!"
The monk was shocked to hear that, "Venerable Sir, how can you say such a thing?! How can I be worse than a clown?"
The master explained, "A clown enjoys seeing people laugh. You? You feel disturbed because another person laughed. Tell me, are you not worse than a clown?"
When the monk heard this, he began to laugh. He was enlightened
|Dr. Robert Puff|