Click here to go to the next issue.

LARRY

Here's a snippet from Sobottkaji:
If I am not anything, then what am I? The answer is simple: I am the
pure Awareness that is aware of all things, and the pure Presence that
is the Presence in all things. I am the Awareness of Presence, and the
Presence of Awareness. What could be more simple, and yet so profound
and so liberating
------------------------------
What does "the pure Presence that is the Presence in all things" mean,
and how can it be "not anything"?

__________________________________________________

>
> What's Tonglen? Never heard of it?

Jerry:
Other than experiencing it through those who know it, there
is an article and excellent links at
http://www.nonduality.com/tonglen.htm

__________________________________________________________

MARCIA

My father has been dead now almost two months.
It is really different to have my parents dead. Both
of them. I never really grieved for my mom as I had
my dad and all his needs. Now they are both gone.
It is strange to walk the planet knowing neither one of
them is here.

They were so much a part of my life. I never moved
away from them. I never really left home in a way.
Now they are gone and it is a much different world
without them. There is a big hole in my heart and yet
in a way they are not gone. I don't feel as if I will
never see them again cause I have them right here.
But I miss their immediate presence.

It gives me a much broader outlook on life. I see
life in a much bigger way. The time expanse of
life seems all as one whole. I travel from childhood
to old age in a seamless way. It is all one whole.

I feel very honored to have been present at each
of their deaths. It wasn't smooth. I mean John
(my husband) and I were not even sure my dad
was dead. It was one of those life situations where
nothing prepares you for it. But we managed. We
did the right thing. We made him look good. We
got the kids up and we each said good-bye.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
GILL EARDLEY

Rainer Maria Rilke on the death of his father:

*Within my deepest hope*

As for myself, what has died for me has died, so to speak, into my
own heart: when I looked for him, the person who vanished has
collected himself strangely and so surprisingly in me, and it was so
moving to feel he was now only there that my enthusiasm for serving
his new existence, for deepening and glorifying it, took the upper
hand almost at the very moment when pain would otherwise have
invaded and devastated the whole landscape of my spirit. When I
remember how I - often with the utmost difficulty in understanding
and accepting each other - loved my father! Often, in childhood, my
mind became confused and my heart grew numb at the mere thought
that someday he might no longer be; my existence seemed to me so
wholly conditioned through him (my existence, which from the start
was pointed in such a different direction!) that his departure was to
my innermost self synonymous with my own destruction.. . , but so
deeply is death rooted in the essence of love that (if only we are
cognizant of death without letting ourselves be misled by the
uglinesses and suspicions that have been attached to it) it nowhere
contradicts love: where, after all, can it drive out someone whom we
have carried unsayably in our heart except into this very heart,
where would the "idea" of this loved being exist, and his unceasing
influence (: for how could that cease which even while he lived with
us was more and more independent of his tangible presence).., where
would this always secret influence be more secure than in us?! Where
can we come closer to it, where more purely celebrate it, when obey
it better, than when it appears combined with our own voices, as if
our heart had learned a new language, a new song, a new strength!

(To Countess Margot Sizzo-Noris-Crouy, January 6, 1923)

Allspirit Website
http://www.allspirit.co.uk

____________________________________________________________

MARCIA and DAVE (Manchine)

> Marcia wrote:
>
> Hi Dave,
>
> I do get identified when I go to talk about what I see.
> It doesn't make what I see any less real; it just
> means ego grabs it up. I am the mouse in the corner
> who always wants to please. I take care of people
> and their needs, most of the time because of ego, but
> underneath it is part of my essential nature.

It's a real bitch, we, all of us, are born with the problem.
That's what makes it so complicated. We inherit this stuff. And to
top it all off, we're made innocent. There's nothing we can do
about it until it's too late. If we get to where we see that
the ego's getting in the way, we start to feel guilty or
try to make excuses for it. That is normal! It's part of the
essential nature of all individuals.

>
> Anyway.......the ego is blind to the treasure. When the
> ego sees a paradise it is still ego. Only the ego is interested
> in self-satisfaction. The treasure is not personal. Man's
> personal paradise fantasy is still man putting himself in the
> middle. It is ego that the treasure has to be hideth from.
> And not by ego.

I completely agree with most of what you say here, except the
first sentence, and the last two.

"The ego is blind to the treasure", seems to coincide with the
sentences that follow, and in that sense I agree. Where ego is NOT
blind to the treasure, is in the fact that it knows that the
treasure can only exist without the ego. I think we have to remove
a disguise right now! The treasure is "the kingdom of heaven" or
Self. The image of ego and ego's world hides Self.

Why does Self have to be hidden from the ego? Because exposing it
would destroy ego?! There are thousands of people who don't even
want to talk about this, because they "know", deep down inside
that it's threatening!

By all means, expose the ego to Self, I say!

>
> Gurdjieff said man gets things upside down. I am coming
> more and more each day to see the truth in this.

Man will stand on his head to make things look safe.

>
> I "take the bait" by taking personally what people say to
> me. That is my ego. I was an only child; no siblings.
> My parents were older. I never learned to fight. I do
> back down. It is easy to punch my lights out. I am one
> of those sensitive kinds.
>
> The difficulty I can see when I read your reply back to
> me is that many things are mixed together. Your thinking
> is not clear. You are trying to prove a point and are grabbing
> whatever is at had. It paints a nice picture but it doesn't
> feel real.

I try my best, it's a very confusing point, and the ego is a
very adept opponent with every thing on its side. One cannot
help but accept all the reasons one has for responding as they do.
It's all we've ever, ever known.

There's a consolation. Many have made the sacrifice, and can
say with all honesty that they were fools for not doing it sooner.

The ego amplifies "things". From the viewpoint of the ego, there's
a lot of things to give up. From the viewpoint of Self we're suffering
for nothing.

__________________________________________________________


NOTE:
There is a lengthy continuing discussion of differences between Ramana and
Papaji's
recommended teaching methods with regard to self-inquiry, ego preservation
strategies and effort vs "no effort." If this interests you, you may want to
read
those messages at egroups. They seem to this editor anyway too many to include
here.

________________________

XAN sends

You are joyous and alive by His breath.
You move by the power of His love.


Rumi

top of page