Click here to go to the next issue.

8/11/01

***********


GENE POOLE
Subject: [NDS] Val: What is, is... what is

Hi Val,

Here is my reply, delayed... enjoy! (If your right brain has
solidified by this time... )

> From: v <akvalerian@yahoo.com>
> Date: Sun Aug 5, 2001 1:06 pm
> Subject: Re: [NDS] Val: What is, is what?
>
> hello Gene
>
> > >v: hello - this issue reminds me of
> > >acceptance
> > >of the "what is" and
> > >where is Paul Cote?
> >
> > gene: Missed the referenceS
>
> the acceptance of the "what is" - seems neccessary to know what it is in
> order to accept itS yada yada - maybe not - putting the cart before the
> horse might work just as well -

Uh, I got that part...

> Paul posted several really great articles on acceptance, which i lost,
> alasS

That was the part I did not get.

> > >v: there is the maya - the illusion,
> > >okay - i got that -
> > >then there is the "what is" -
> > >and is it by it's nature is it permanent
> > >and stable and unchanging?

> > gene: It could be argued that 'Maya' is a permanent Þxture of 'what is'.

> that makes sense - just as negative space is part of the artistic
> composition - the yin and yang - the 'what is' and the 'what is not' :-)

Yes... all form depends on emptiness. That is the definition of definition!

"What is, is... what is not, is not".

Is it true 'then' that we know what is, only by what is not; or, is
it true that we know what is not, only by what is? Or are both
propositions true, or perhaps false? If a philosopher pees in the
forest, does anyone care?

> > gene: However, 'what is' is (IMO) that the _human_ is like a tunable radio
> > receiver; what is received, is what is tuned in; to the human, all
> > other stations are 'conceptual entities', to be 'believed only when
> > seen'.
>
> and so you are saying that the other entities are not part of the 'what is'
> unless one believes in them?? wild! so - let me get this - to "tune out"
> another conceptual entity is to make them unreal to one's "what is"? so now
> we all have individualized - "designer" if you will - "what is's" (pl.)?

NO... I am not saying that. I am saying the opposite; that 'belief'
is the 'dog in the manger', usurping the place of reality. I say,
kick the beast out (the dog), but it hangs on doggedly, drooling
damaging doggerel.

> > gene: You, like others, have _heard of_ these 'exclusive' broadcasts, but
> > somehow lack the equipment or decoding methods to experience them
> > directly. This whole concept, which lurks as the background
> > assumption of many people, is of course completely bogus.

> oh wellSI guess we're talkin blinders and earplugs here thenS?

No... again, you have somehow transposed my meaning.

What is bogus, is the assumption that something must be 'added'
in-order-to have 'this awareness'. 'This awareness' is the constant
background; humans obsess with the foreground, applying their own
puny powers in order to (that phrase again!) fix what is 'wrong'. And
this whole thing, this assumption that something is wrong, and that
fixing is good/necessary/do-able, is happening because of an
essential discontent, which is an attitudinal sort of learned
conditioning, an imbibed-from-the-culture signal of tribalness, the
tribe of tribulation...

The scent of home, is the group consensus that 'something is wrong',
and the commitment of every family/tribal member, to proceed forward
to 'fix' what is wrong, a proud and patriotic mass movement of
pre-programmed automatons, doddering their passionate way to the
brink of the abyss...

> > gene: There is no penalty or fee due for 360-degree, timeless awareness.

> except for perhaps a strait jacket and padded cell unless of course one has
> the luxury of residing on a magniÞcent mountaintop or other idyllic
> conditionsS
> you're talking cosmic penalty no doubt ?

Try for a moment to pretend that really, nothing is wrong. How
difficult is that to do?

If you succeed in breaking through to the space of 'nothing is
wrong', to thus establish handshaking with the background, you will
find that the mountain top idyl has come to you.

But this is usually difficult; one cannot imagine, giving up the one
vital marker which designates tribal membership. Especially, when the
masses of doddering automata are following the only leader they know,
who is the one who points out most vociferously, 'what is... wrong!'.

> > gene: All that is 'required' is to delete the presets/default settings of
> > your receiver.

> can you go into this a little bit more?

Sure. A common type of car-radio has not only a tuning-knob, but
preset-buttons as well. You can tune to a desired station, and then
set the button. Whenever that button is pushed, that station is
played.

Similarly, when your buttons have been preset, all someone has to do
is push your buttons, and the station which they desire, will occupy
your squirming, throbbing brain! Oh, the humiliation!

Our 'presets' are embodied in us, as values; values are determiners
of 'what is good and what is bad'.

One should know, the subtle differences between 'good and bad' 'right
and wrong' 'correct and incorrect', as categories of essential
dualities. The (unconscious) repetitive use of these
words/phrases/values makes the dog take residence in the manger, and
reality soon becomes a stranger.

> > >v: I connote in meditation the other levels,
> > >but still not to that level where there is a
> > >"what is" which is immutable
> > >and unchanging.
> > >I only get the visions and the movies.
> >
> > gene: As well you should!
> >
> > 'Other levels' appear to "us" as analogical symbols; it is possible,
> > through understanding of that universal symbolism, to navigate*
> > around our speciÞc blockages/biases/preferences, into what is a
> > richer and quite evidently alive universe.

> yes - I grok what you say here! The universe is alive - and will present the
> other levels to one's conscious "what is" according to the preset
> expectations/beliefs/preferences/biases, etc etc.!
> such as in psychedelic awareness!?!

Yes, exactly.

> and STILL! - how utterly bafþing sometimes - the movies - the symbolism,
> then. Rather like dreams. More often than not, I see myself more like a
> Lipton þow-thru teabag, or an antennae picking up other people's thoughts
> and pictures and movies - such little sense to me do they make!

Have you seen the (sci-fi B-movie) 'Scanners'?

Only the drug could free the mutant human, from the overwhelming
barrage of psychic artifacts of the Being-presence of 'others'.

> > gene: Attachment prevents this from occurring, citing the need to 'leave
> > behind' the criteria for deciding what is good and what is bad. This
> > 'armor' of differentiation is perhaps the most difÞcult thing to
> > deal with.
>
> okay now - I am not judgemental either way of what I can now construe along
> with you as deep universal archetypical symbols, but am very curious how to
> be more selective of the tuning of the broadcasts! The reception -- what is
> picked up.

First, give up any idea of immediate gain or remedy.

Experiment with simply not listening to what you hear, or seeing what
you see. Try to avoid forming attachment to any perception; allow the
flow to see you as transparent, as nothing, with no snags or hooks or
places to acquire anything at all.

Allow the ever-present background to show, through what you have been
trained to see; allow the foreground to become transparent, as
nothing, and thus to see what is beyond, by making nothing.

As form arises in emptiness, emptiness is the mother of form; form is
the son of the womb of emptiness, penetrating, yet embraced in the
most gentle of all grips, so subtle, we do not even recognize that it
is 'there', in our constant attempt to purloin the fruits of the
moment.

That is why I say, to avoid attachment to any outcome, during your
ongoing experiments. Give up any thought of fixing, finding a remedy,
or of eventually having someone approve of your 'works'. It is the
background which is doing all the 'work' anyway; how can I take
credit for that?

But this is sounding like 'advice', eh? Not my intention... merely sharing...

> > gene: (*actually a form of conversation consisting of learning a very old
> > language and then uploading the navigational coordinates into your
> > navigational computer [NavCom])
>
> hmmm - lost me here. could you go into this a little more?

A proper translation would take hours, and be very complicated.
Suffice it to say, that omni and uni are superior coordinates, for a
formless Being. Those are our 'factory default settings'. That, cuts
to the chase, as the saying goes.

> > >v: to me - the nature of everything
> > >is change - and even
> > >random chaos, and
> > >I have trained myself to
> > >operate according to these
> > >principles, aka "living by my wits".
> >
> > gene: Not a bad ad-lib, but it is an adaptation. To leave behind an
> > adaptation is not hard, if the evaluation of the situation which
> > provoked the speciÞc adaptation can be re-framed. This is done in an
> > operation which uses memory in conjunction with the desire to delete
> > value-assessments which were originally imprinted into the
> > memory-Þle. It is the layered memory Þles en masse, which must be
> > bulk-rewritten to delete value-assessments, to make present freedom
> > an immediate reality. For this reason, the usual aim is to Þnd the
> > earliest memory, to which value was written, and to then neutralize
> > that value-Þeld. All 'downstream' (from past to present) memories
> > will then be auto-purged of value-assessments.
>
> alrighty - again I need help here! while I follow you and agree with your
> logic - the original imprinting being one that the "what is" is akin to
> random chaos - since there is no other freeing concept with which to replace
> it, where does it go from there??? ;-)

Freedom is the original default, thus, no work is required to attain
it, unless there is baggage to be searched, suspects to be rounded
up, and contraband to be confiscated at the border of awareness.

> > gene: The problem with this, (which has been widely publicized here) is
> > that the outcome of such an operation is the essential extinction of
> > the personality known as 'you'. The container and the memories will
> > remain intact, but there will be no motive for action or thought,
> > until body-criteria are exerted by physiologic need, once the
> > value-Þeld of memory has been emptied.
>
> oh gee - i see. so this process is one in which one can purge oneself of
> previous experiential data in a more 'down to earth' form than what is the
> "what is" - and I've learned it's nature is change akin to random chaos, is
> this correct?

From my POV, there is no 'random chaos' at all. That is a pet phrase
of the tribal sorcerer; pay it no mind.

> Like - i.e. - someone is afraid of men because of being raped and beaten
> early on by the father, one can go back and purge the memory and replace it
> with neutral energy. (?)

Yes, that can be done. I would prefer to use a less strong example,
such as the fear of bees. That can be understood. But yes, it can be
done. There are perceivable orders of magnitude, of impact and of
conditioning.

> Is this done in conjunction with psychological therapy, or is it possible
> for an individual to reprogram their consciousness using the extremes of
> logic and internal reprogramming alone?

My best answer to this very important question:

Memory... is retained on the basis of association... of one thing
with another thing.

If the bond of that association is of the nature of VALUE, the glue
which is holding the personality together will become liquid or even
gasify, if basic values are changed. Memory will be reindexed on
another basis. The most basic assumptions of a person are thrown
over, in the event of a radical change of values.

Basically, every event (remembered or not) is tagged with value. This
value is entered in the 'value-field' of the memory file. In this
operation, value is the equivalent _of meaning_. So every event 'has
a value which is known' and really, what is known is the 'meaning of
the value'.

As an example, 'Good' means 'I want it' and bad means 'take it away from me'.

Whenever a current event (in the now) is associated with a memory,
the experience is of the already-entered value which is the 'meaning'
of the past event. In this way, do people succeed in living in the
past, while being alive in the present.

Our already-written-to-memory values, form the basis of our many
tastes, preferences, and criteria for judgement. People generally do
not wish to purge ALL VALUES, only the ones which obviously bring
grief. But in our line of work, all values are seen as foreign to the
field of consciousness.

On the other hand, the values of the organism (the so-called
'body-mind complex') are built-in, and serve to protect us from
dangerous levels of damage. Pain, hot and cold, sharpness, etc,
emanate from the survival-center of the body, and should not be
interrupted without good reason.

When the values of the _identity_ (the acquired personality) come
into direct conflict with the values of the body, we are presented
with the opportunity to observe just how 'psychosomatic illness' is
produced.

> and - what's with the extinction of the personality known as "you"? could
> you please go into that a little more? :-)
>
> hum de dum - questions, questions!

'You' are (in the context of this discussion) a collection of
memories, called a personality, persona, or identity.

Because 'you' are essentially a collection of memories; without
memory, there is no you.

If on the other hand, your memories can be selectively edited (to
modify the entries in the value-field of significant memories), which
will result in a 'change of personality'.

We usually see this as it occurs in the slide into cynicism which
accompanies a lifetime of living in the combat-zone of duality; we
see it as a bad thing, when the personality of a loved one sours.

But it also can occur the other way, causing a revolution within the
person, opening the realm of possibility, and this is generally seen
as a good thing. It is not uncommon to hear 'I am a different person
now', when memories have been reframed, when fear and the expectation
of constant re-injury and victimhood have been abolished.

> > v:>please tell me!
> > >IS THERE some nice stable
> > >"what is" behind the seeming
> > >random chaos and
> > >constant change that
> > >one can aspire to and
> > >eventually relax into?
> >
> > gene: Yes, in a manner of speaking.
> >
> > Chaos isS the detectable Þeld of what remains of order, similar to
> > a mud-puddle being the detectable remains of a rainstorm.
> >
> > FormS is mutable, always. What is unchanging, is the space in which
> > form changes. All change will eventually deteriorate into chaos; all
> > organization will eventually decay into 'random particles'. What is
> > unchanging is the stage upon which this takes place, which is called
> > emptiness, space, or most relevantly, awareness. All things occur in
> > space (awareness).
>
> ah soSare we talking black holes, or hyper space or some advanced physics
> term which requires us to twist our brains into squishy little balls in
> order to compute?? ;-)

No. Right now, there is a space between your eyes and the screen of
the computer. It is that very space. And that space is identical with
all space; it is in that space, that all things take form. Think
about it.

> > v: >you know i am NOT
> > >just seeking attention!
> > >I have had a past life as
> > >an eminent court musician
> > >if i could i would for certes
> > >serenade you
> > >and i am certain that i have
> > >also been the court fool.
> > >so maybe it is lucky i am here
> > >to ask such foolish questions.
> >
> > gene: You fool! Everyone here knows the answers!
> >
> > "Neurotics have problems; psychotics have answers".
> >
> > "You have to recognize that every out-front maneuver you
> > make is going to be lonely. But if you feel entirely
> > comfortable, then you are not far enough ahead to do any
> > good. That warm sense of everything going well is usually
> > the body temperature at the center of the herd." -John
> > Masters

> LOL! Thanx! *slap slap!* I needed that! :-)

My pleasure, Madame.

> > v: >Today I understood that
> > >one must accept the "what is"
> > >of "what is" instead of trying
> > >to change
> > >it 's nature - right?
>
> > gene: Yes, andS can you accept that you are overtly or subtly trying to
> > change 'what is', and that, itself is thus 'what is'? THAT is the
> > actual question! Bwahahaha!
>
> the changing or not changing of "what is" is what is "what is" is???

Yup. Simple, eh?

> ouch! my right temporal lobe is twitching!

Perhaps you can learn to enjoy that.

> > v: >But, what is the nature of the
> > >*beyond* what we are
> > >capable of accepting or changing?
>
> > gene: Ultimately, it is self-acceptanceS the puny phrase, 'accepting
> > other as self' can lead toS
>
> > S MahaMudraS letting the entire Living Universe have sex with
> > you, all at once, and the discipline of staying openS
> > continuallyS (Caution: May lead to Photonic Orgasm!)
>
> but but but S what about the children??? ;-)

That is the question, is it not?

> > v: >Is there the immutable and
> > >unchanging "what is" back beyond
> > >the horizon awaiting us
> > >somewhere?
>
> > gene: Yes.
>
> > It is called 'you' if you know yourself as 'self', as self is known
> > as is 'all that is', and is 'what is'. Even the so-called 'sense of
> > separation' is a 'sacred aspect' of self-as-what-is. Devotion is the
> > continual celebration of this awareness.
>
> okay now - here's the Þfty thousand dollar question!

Oh, boy. Check, money order, or cash?

> why is our "self" if we are "what is" sacred "all that is" and so on -
> why are we trapped inside these puny arse leetle mortal bodies with
> leetle mortal brains, and leetle mortal pinhead consciousnesses which we
> must spend lifetimes seeking to evade and/or escape???
> what's the point?

The point is to experience ALL of that, in passing, while learning to
focus on the Big Picture. You do not pass 'GO' or collect $200, until
you let go. Then you can see and say, "I am the Big Picture".

> i mean, the *higher intelligence* seems really cruel to do this to us!

Yes, this is a common complaint. The key to understanding is the word
'seems'. Seems like... a good or a bad thing. Seems like... something
I remember, some association from memory, called cruelty, injustice,
etc. And to whom, I ask, is this seeming? Why, to an identity made of
memories, all of which have value-field entries which prejudice
perception.

> > >or is it ever-changing?
> > >oh please tell me do
> > >if you understand this question?
> > >all my best,
> > >valerie

> > Enjoy yourself!
> >
> > ==Gene Poole==

> aaarg, my right brain!!!
> valerie
> (sorta awake only)

It is a process.

==Gene Poole==



JERRY

Hi Eric and List Members,

Thank you. You can learn more about Gene by going to

<http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/umbada/gene.htm>

The difference between HarshaSatsangh and NDS is quite distinct right now,
and I think Gene's the guy to keep the gap existent as he has no ties with
Harsha's group, as far as I know. That gap gives people choices. It would
make sense for people to belong to both lists in order to enjoy the full
meal!

Jerry

EBlackstead@cs.com wrote:

> Gene Poole & friends,
>
> I'm a newcomer here, but already a great appreciator, who is an
> openly acknowledged admirer of what Jerry has done here. His choice
> of you, so quickly seconded by Harsha, seems felicitous.
>
> As you work your way through the intricacies of your new game, please
> know that many of us who don't know you wish you well. As to your
> notes on moderation, it seems to me that it is good to re-emphasize
> what has proven to be valuable in the past, even as we move forward
> into an uncertain future.
>
> yours in the bonds,
> eric


JAN B.


On 8/11/01 at 5:02 AM Jan Sultan wrote:

ºI have gained a lot of insights from my study of Advaita Vedanta and
ºBuddhism. However the explanation for not being conscious or aware or even
ºa witness during deep sleep does not make sense.

It does - but experiential verification is hard to get at :)
º
ºIn fact the total absence of awareness during deep sleep suggests that
ºother than the workings of our conscious mind we do not exist! Thus we are
ºjust a projection of our brain as the scientists are insisting.
º
ºAny explanation will be helpful.

Deep sleep is but a veil - the one i refer to as "the coin with sides of
pleasure and pain". And when this veil has dissolved, deep sleep while
yet awake remains - dissolving this veil is the "goal" of transfiguration.
Comprising the total of "human functioning", its dissolution is rare, could be
classified as "not in the interest of nature" and the Buddha hardly made
any comments about it, although he was "more" than familiar with it..
So it remains an undocumented discovery left to those,
for whom "nondual" has become "too" trivial but still are curious :)

Love,
Jan


HARSHA

In Nirvikalpa Samadhi, one is in deep sleep and yet fully awake. Have you
read my post on The Deep Awake? Ramana Maharshi has addressed these issues
clearly. Intellect can only go up to a point.

Love
Harsha


JAN B.

On 8/11/01 at 5:04 AM Jan Sultan wrote:

ºAnother thing that I have failed to get a clear answer on is the question
ºabout freewill.
º
ºAre we here just as witnesses, observers and nothing we do influences any
ºworldly outcome as suggested by Ramana and Nisargadatta.

A witness of what? Tendencies rising as responses for instance?
Did you ever here of the dictum that observing influences the
observed, like is documented in quantum physics? So what does that make
of witnessing?
º
ºOr do we have an active role to play to make this world a better place as
ºsuggested by others?

Isn't that a matter of identifying with "acting out tendencies", not
observing their arising? The laugh, that it wouldn't make a difference
with "mere" witnessing isn't it? Because, there is no such thing as
"just" witnessing.
º
ºYour opinions and explanations will be highly appreciated.

In order to do the dishes, one doesn't have to be familiar with
X-ray diffraction patterns of quartz...
Only studying those patterns, the dishes surely will start to pile up :)

Love,
Jan


LARRY


Here's a thought:

The question of free will or destiny hinges on the word "free." In
rigorous buddhism, karma is determined by intention. One could argue
that intention is will and karma is destiny. Therefore, will determines
destiny. However, intention like everything else is subject to influence
and therefore not free.

Generally speaking, there are two ways of understanding freedom. Freedom
_from_, and freedom _to_. "Freedom to" means freedom to do as one
pleases. This kind of freedom is always severely qualified. I am free to
drive to the store if my car works, if someone doesn't run into me, if
the store doesn't blow up, if I don't forget where the store is etc,
etc, etc. "Freedom from" usually means freedom from some affliction and
is unqualified. It could be said that one's true self is free from
affliction and therefore free from destiny _and_ will.

That's about as far as I can take it. Anyone else?

Larry



JAN B.


One could argue that "will" is but the resulting tendency one becomes aware of...
Activated as a response, one wasn't aware of.... When suffocating, the
"will to breathe" is such a response...
......
The "freedom from" means free from desires too - not a negative
condition but it is as if fulfillment (happiness) is complete and no behavior
whatsoever can change that. Hence there are no feelings to be fulfilled
either. So "freedom to" is rendered ineffective as it no longer brings anything..

This is the happiness the Buddha meant - the coin called "pleasure and pain" literally
absent. However, "life" isn't served by that, as among many others, communication also
will change from "free to" into "free from the need". Hence, the emphasis on for
instance Bodhisattvahood. When that has become a habit, behavior continues...

And the warning against samadhis will be clear too - they belong to the class
"free to" and create attachment due to the bliss.

Jan

top of page