Photography by Jerry Katz





DISSOLVED, 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 #266

Click here to go to the next issue.

From: you are love

I have started a new one list club
called Ramana
Nisargadatta. I will be posting the
teachings of
Ramana Maharshi and Nisargadatta there
with no
commentary. The postings will not be
just a small
quote here and there, instead an in
depth presentation
of the teachings will be presented. If
you think you
would like to read the postings of the
teachings of
Ramana and Nisargadatta click on:
http://www.onelist.com/group/RamanaNisargadatta when
you reach the page look to the upper left of the page
and click subscribe. I have started with the book:
"Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi" -uarelove

Dear Friend of the Truth,

Francis Lucille's website has moved to:

http:// www.francislucille.com

Remember to hit the reload button everytime you visit the
website in
order to get the latest info.

You can find there the latest info about upcoming events,
new books,
audio tapes and video tapes along with excerpts of dialogues
or other texts.

Dave "Manchine"

Attachment is a natural human trait, a construct of personal importance,
that in part is hereditary and in part learned.

What we have here on NDS is special, it is a special group of individuals
that are sharing a timeless vision, and such it is even more prone to be
dear to us. But that of which it talks is all around you, in every instant,
and as such you will never loose it. Think of that, anything, anything in
the whole wide universe is only a piece of the tremendous All. If NDS goes
away, it sould be a glow in your heart showing you the marvel of its source.
You carry that source with you, it is THAT which is important, nothing else.
Everything else is a little sign signaling its presence.


This may or may not have been an amazing prediction, but
Rajneesh/Osho said this in 1975, and it strikes home:

"Sooner or later man will devise small computers which you
can carry in your pockets. They will carry all the knowledge
of all the libraries in the world. It will not be necessary
to teach it to you: you can simply push a button and the
computer can supply you the knowledge ... And the computer
is more efficient than any memory system can be, because a
computer is completely dead -- and knowledge is dead. A
computer carries it more efficiently than your mind. Your
mind is not so reliable; it is somehow attached to an alive
being, and the life also goes on flowing through it -- that
life disturbs it. Knowledge is part of the memory system,
not of your being. Knowing is part of your being. So KNOWING
means BEING that which you want to know. If you want to know
God, God is not hiding somewhere that you have to reach

Skye sends a website from which the following quote is an excerpt.

Unblocking a malfunction in consciousness
John Wren-Lewis

The big question now, of course, is whether there are less drastic (and less
haphazard) means by which the spell of separated selfhood can be lifted before
the moment of death, and I hope my research may eventually shed some light on
this. For while there are mystical traditions the world over which offer 'paths
to higher consciousness', it doesn't seem to me that any of them has a very
encouraging success rate in bringing about the kind of liberation which NDEs
bring immediately to anyone, high or low, good or bad, believing or
trained or untrained. In fact, my studies of these traditions, ancient and
modern alike, suggest that while there are almost always valuable insights to
gained from them, they all get bogged down in their own basic idea of a 'path',
which inevitably suggests that 'higher consciousness' is a goal to be achieved,
thereby reinforcing that very preoccupation with one's personal future which is

the cause of all the trouble Wren-Lewis, 1991).


Samsara is only the stream of becoming that is the wonderful ever-changing
live in.
Samsara is inseparable from Nirvana, they are two aspects of the ultimate
Smoke from the triple fire of hatred, lust and illusion gets in our eyes.
Desire for self fuels the fire.
Personally knowing I am Self removes the desire for self.
Without fuel the fire burns down, the smoke clears...

How does a person come to personally know that they are Self/self? The desire
is based in illusion, the person is seeking something they are already. The
desire itself feeds the smoky fire that prevents finding. Finding comes about
understanding, being alert and attentive to the working of the mind/body, being
consistent and even minded in accepting whatever arises.

From: "Manchine"

The life of a Guerilla Spiritualist is a fight to the death,
the enemy is formidible.
The goal is liberation of the soul.

In the discussions of "what is the me for", we got a glimps of part of the
enemy, the "me" itself. It is relentless, it exists in every one of us here
on this Earth, in varying degrees granted, but it presents a continuous
untiring battle.

Death combines with the "me" to tremendously complicate the scenario. It is
there in every moment, waiting to touch our shoulder. It takes the "me" with
it. We are left with the tools we have developed to face the One. Will we
recognize it?

Death has come, no me, no nothing. I missed NDS when it was down for a few
days, um, I didn't receive the salesman like I should have, O.K. I'm
meditating... for another 300 gajillion years! God it's quiet here. It was
almost more exciting when I was back on Earth fighting over who was right.

WHAT! says a voice.

Er, ah, is there anything I can do?

I am Creation, Love, Compassion, what can you do for me?

I can love..

I Am Love.

I want to be part of you.

You are.

What should I do?

I am Creation, Love, Compassion....

Then I was 12 and I had this incredible vision.

From: "Joyce Short"

"Its names are countless in various contexts. Some call this mind, "the
mind-reality." Some fundamentalists call it "self." Some Disciples call it
by the name of, "mind." Some call it, "transcendent wisdom." Some call it
"buddha nature." Some call it "the Great Seal." Some call if "the Sould
Drop." Some call it "the Truth Realm, "the Foundation." The "Ordinary."

Your own awareness right now is just this! It being just this uncontrived
natural clarity, this uninterrupted clarity intelligence. The thinker in
the mind is just it! There is nothing to be done. Your very intelligence
is just this! There is no thing not included in the mind.

Tasting the sugar in your mouth
You don't need others to explain it.

If they don't understand this reality, even pandits will err.

I realize that we are speaking of apples and oranges.. knowledge and

As I recall the myth...

'Twas eating of 'apples'... which caused our 'fall'...
'oranges' it seems... cause no problems at all... :-))
From: Mark Otter

Dear NondualitySalon,

I just joined you today, and I'm enjoying the discussions. My name is
Mark, and the discussion of trying to realize versus realizing is very
interesting to me.

Roger said

"I was reading something from Ramana Maharishi last night. He was saying
the effort is necessary right up to the point of realization."

, and I have noticed that when I try to relax, it often helps to first
tense the muscles I want relaxed, to get a feel for tension, so that I
recognize the absence of tension as I let go. I wonder if this may be a
metaphor for that grand finale we are calling "the moment of
realization"? I think that in the course of waking up, one discovers
that things as they are - with our personalities fully armed for defense
is unacceptable, and one begins trying to let go of the tension of all
that defense. For awhile, that works by itself, because the tension is
HUGE. As we let go and let go and let go, it becomes subtle, but there
is still letting go to be done. Perhaps the effort is simply helping us
remember what effort feels like so we can then allow effort to fall
away, just as I clench my jaw more tightly than normal to remember how
to unclench my jaw when I want to relax that bit of the effort.

jodyr said:

"I sure wish someone would have stepped up and explained to me the
difference between self confirmation and Self realization."

Is this not the same idea? The reason we are not "realized" is that we
are so busy confirming our being. (applying effort to be). Realization
is dropping that struggle to be and accepting that we don't really "be"
after all. We think we are human "beings", but we are concerned that
maybe we aren't, so we practice being on a constant basis. Indeed, as
we get closer to not being (the "true" state of affairs), it may well be
increasingly frightening, so validating oneself at Satsang is making use
of that all important defense against dissolution in the place it is
most important to use it - the very place where there is the pregnant
possibility of dissolution. It's not surprising that people want to do
that, and it is also quite appropriate to try to get them to stop it if
they want realization. That's why it is so useful to make everywhere
and everywhen into Satsang. The Sangha is the entire Universe, and
everything points to your identity with the whole thing, if you
cultivate that way of looking. Cultivating that way of looking is of
course the effort that finally exhausts you so you finally give up and
realize the thing you were working so hard to find has been there all
along. (Whew!) I don't think it IS a paradox. I just think we've
become so accustomed to the trying (the tension) we've forgotten that
it's possible to relax, so we don't know how to anymore.

One more metaphor and I will quiet down awhile. I think it's like
spinning when we were kids. The effort is the using our muscles to spin
around and around, and realization is the letting go and falling to the
ground to enjoy the ride. You've all been spinning long enough, so let
go and enjoy. (Aren't those great words for it? "Let go (let what
go?)" "en-joy". Letting yourself go IS joyous.)

I hope this helps. May all beings be free.
Love, Mark


There is most certainly nothing *wrong* with enjoying understanding with the
mind, any more than anything *wrong* with the enjoyment of life's variety of
expressions that skye talks about, or the notion of feeling giving a texture
to life that Melody has mentioned. And yet above, you identity the veil over
full awakened Awareness.

What, do you suppose, is this veil comprised of? It is none other than
whatever forms of self-gratification through the world of illusion are held
onto - sensory pleasures, mental understanding, emotional drama. The little
personal self is terrified to lose what it has found to fill up awareness so
much that Awareness itself is hidden. It has even convinced itself that to
relinquish its hold on the small pleasures it considers so beautiful and
fulfilling to become dissolved in the source of all this beauty would be
sterile, hurtful, boring, torturously annihilating, _____________ You fill
in the blank with your personal worst fear.

Despite the Western personality's determination to have-it-both- ways it
can't be done. There is no substitute for uncompromising commitment to Self
and the surrender of any and everything that perpetuates the small,
gratification-hungry self.

Here - another voice from All - sent with love to you, my friend.

Larry sends Mahamudra 3:

Nowadays some people, having derived the idea from some old sayings of
previous gurus of this meditational order, construe the term "ordinary
mind" to be a pure nondiscriminating state and use it as such. They may
not have grasped the proper meanings as explained by Je Takpopa and his
nephew Gomchung. According to them ordinary mind means the mind in its
natural mode, unveiled by any substantiality of dualistic concepts. In a
general sense, accepting a state of nondiscrimination and rejecting the
discriminating mind [in meditation] cannot be the meaning of ordinary
mind and its unmodulated naturalness. Gampopa in his instruction to
master Gomchung explains:

In summary, ordinary mind is an unmodulated simplicity, which must be
left to manifest freely and unaltered by any exertion of accepting or
rejecting it as being positive or negative, empty or not empty,
conceptual or nonconceptual, good or bad, superior or inferior.

Je Gampopa further provides the meaning of the relevant terminology:

Leaving aside "unmodulated," the term "ordinary mind" refers to
primordial awareness, not distorted by any dogma or dialectics. The term
"unmodulated" refers to letting [that awareness] be as it is, without
altering it.

If one wonders about the meaning of the adjective "naked" that Je
Yanggonpa uses to denote ordinary mind, it means the essential or
intrinsic nature because it is detached from any conceptual
discrimination, and being undeluded, it is identical with nondual
awareness. What is generally known as "nondual awareness of intrinsic
reality" is imminent in every substance of reality. If one realizes the
intrinsic nature of every thought or appearance, it is not different
from awareness itself. Based on this standpoint Yanggonpa states:

In summary, this natural, unmodulated ordinary mind, which cognizes its
own identity, is described as the dawning of mahamudra meditation.

It is of the utmost importance for the meditator to understand perfectly
the intrinsic nature of mind, thoughts, and appearances. Otherwise, he
can neither understand exactly the meaning of unmodulated ordinary mind,
nor can he achieve the awareness of certainty about it. He would be like
a blind person trying to examine a body. Once he gains such an
understanding he will in due course attain a deep awareness of certainty
that the unmodulated, uncorrupted existential or abiding mode of the
mind is no other than ordinary mind itself and that it is indeed the
dharmakaya. Such a realization is achieved through a proper and
persistent meditational practice because an exact understanding of the
abiding mode of ordinary mind will be difficult to achieve.

¤"Jan Barendrecht" wrote:
¤>Yes, attachments can be lethal. There is no difference
between being addicted to a life of activity or yogic confinement; this
must have been the reason why Aurobindo is said to have advocated
"realize while engaged in wordly life" after having been in seclusion for
20 years. The "I" thrives on change, be it from worldly activity or
"improvement" from sadhana :)

¤Liliana asked:
¤In another place you mentioned also that one should be
ready to give up yoga (as the form of ultimate surrender if I
understood it correctly (?)). Is it detachment from the
fruit/result of yogic "activities" that you meant here?
¤If yoga is the path and the ultimate goal, atma vicharya
and eventualy Ultimate Reality, how can one give it up? What
do you mean by yogic confinement? Please, expand on it.
Jan continues:
The ultimate surrender is unconditional and eventually this
could follow from a long practice of yoga but such a practice
isn't a requirement. Detachment has to mean being the witness
and is a yogic practice by itself. No practice can lead to the
direct experience of *what is*; eventually practices can lead
to calming the mind so that it becomes transparent.

Yogic confinement is long, solitary retreat for many years and
what else could be the purpose but doing practices? It can
increase the false sense doership and create attachment to
samadhis. As man is designed to function in a community, it
has to be also the means for a reality check of "yogic
achievements". When the sense of bliss evaporates (or
transforms into yuck) while attending duties or events like
having a flat tire, the "achievement" is worthless.

A gradual path could be called a shovel to dig up obstacles
(identifications) one by one and has to be used quite often. A
direct path or no-path has to take everything away, won't
provide shovels, so that *what is* is pristine clarity, and is
used only once. When not following the Heart, what remains to
follow but the mind? When a follower, follow the Heart :)

top of page