The Highlights

Sunday, May 19, 2002

Issue #1077 Edited by Gloria Lee

Highlights Home Page: http://nonduality.com/hlhome.htm

Click here to go to the next issue

Where did I come from , and how ?
Where am I going ?
Will I know the road ?

This life is empty breath.
If I can hear one clear truth,
I'll be fortunate.

--------------------------

Lalla
Naked Song
--------------------------

posted by Viorica Weissman



TEAWHISKERS from LiveJournal

Moments make
the day
the week
the month
the year.
One by one by one.
Not the mind
of the past -
of the future.
Not even this
morning,
afternoon or
evening.
It is this
single moment
again
again
again.
I
re-learn to count
to one.



ROGER ISAACS on NDS
Re: Non-duality is a limited perspective

Melody:
Are you suggesting that any of our actions could
really be inappropriate? Can we ever really
do anything outside of [shall we call it] God's will?
....
I hear a 'pointing' to duality, rather than
to non.

Roger:
Does [wo]man have free will? Do we need to consider the moral
consequences of our actions?

Maharishi Mahesh Yogi provides a clue: "Knowledge is structured in
consciousness". "Knowledge is different in different states of
consciousness."

If you were to ask a group of people: "Is there a doer in you? Do you
claim volition?" You will get different answers generally "always a
doer" and very rarely "sometimes a doer" and even more rarely "never a
doer".

What is the use trying to convince someone who is "always a doer" that
in fact there is no doer? Yes, some people will accept the belief system
or delude themselves. But perhaps better to show the "doer" something
that they can do, meditation, from which they can increasingly discover
the truth for themselves? Meditation begins on the level of duality. An
inclusive system would be able to explain effects on the level of
duality (ie meditation), non-duality can't.

This illustrates the exclusiveness of non-duality. Non-duality
philosophy serves a narrow niche. An essential niche, but not an
inclusive teaching.

I find many of the commentators here very insightful, however, the scope
of non-duality philosophy is exclusive. A philosophy which proclaims the
moral tenets of religion, the practices of meditation which are so
common to virtually all cultures ... to be "bondage" or proclaims
"seeking is ignorance"... this is an EXCLUSIVE club!! I believe these
practices (including religion) have value... but they are only a
perspective. Non-duality is also a perspective... until it is realized.

Melody:
The body-mind machine looks after it, but leaves me out of
it. Just as you do not need to worry about growing hair,
so I need not worry about words and actions.

Roger:
Actually... I do need to worry about growing hair but that is another
story.

GARY MERRILL

Hi Roger,

Thanks for your response, some more grist.....

R:Yes. Ramana Maharishi said something like (too lazy to look it up)
"effort will arise when effort is needed... when effort is not needed
none will arise".

G:This quote is attributed to Ramana, but if it was effortless did 'he'
say it?? :-)

R: I like this description because it incorporates the subtle effort of
meditation and effortless non-duality.

G:Well, as mentioned, with this wonderful thing called hindsight, is
there really an independent 'one' to make an effort or not make an
effort. The 'efforter', 'doer', would be the illusion. In other words
the 'self nature' or lack of one, is the same for both so-called
'meditators' and 'non-meditators'. Both Gary and Roger are identical
in this sense! :-) Neither of us are to blame or to be given credit
for any meditating or non-mediating that arises.

R: The two different approaches are not a "dilemma" as much as an
opportunity for knowing: Watching vigilantly: can we discover what
subtle efforts lead to the end of effort? The brain can know when it's
invested & identified with emotion, with fear etc...? The brain can also
recognize those highly individualistic subtle efforts which tend to
break identification?

G:To expound on the limited perspective thread..... 'self' is a limited
perspective, but one that is taken for granted as real and one that
that tends to frame understanding in a variety of ways. A subject
object relationship is taken for granted. So in talking about a
'brain' or an 'observer' this is the same game of subject to object.
It's suggested rather that the brain or self, whoever, is not
independent ie the brain or self does not exist independently of
consciousness. Objectivity is thus the illusion of independence, an
independent actor, observer, brain etc. This is important because it
changes the nature of our understanding of relationships, 'our' role
in the drama.

R: If the mirror needs polishing: polish. One can be a yogi in one instant
(as needed) and a non-dualist the next...

G:Yes identity can pretend to be anything, anyone..is the way of the
world. Beyond pretense, who is there?


RICHARD SCHWARTZ

RE: Jehovah's Witnesses

Hi All,

My name is Richard and it is nice to meet you. I am
the person with the exJW web site. Not a new religion,
just a theraputic way of journalizing, which at first
was nothing short from venting, that tranformed into
personal growth, expressed in writing.

I haven't been able to read all the email threads, the
some I did I with a smile over here. I'm not religious
myself, nor a member of any organized religion, nor
intend to ever be. I certainly wouldn't condemn it,
yet I find my walk is behind my eyes and in turn
trying to help others - living fully, loving
wastefully and having the courage to be.

If anyone is from the wast coast (NJ), we had the most
beautiful clouds here yesterday, a day that started
out cold and wet, but transformed into a magical cool
day with wind and cloud formations. Do clouds have two
sides? An inside and out? Smile. I don't know, but the
faces and shapes they make are sometimes beyond
description, requiring an artist on the spot to put on
canvas.

Peace and love,
Richard Schwartz

ON Reliigion: "People aren't looking for a meaning to
life; they're looking for an experience of being
alive." JOSEPH CAMPBELL - mythologist



GENE POOLE
Rebuttal to 'nonduality is a limited perspective' thread

NDS

Confusion about nonduality?

Just to clear up a few things, provoked
by the recent thread:
`nonduality is a limted perspective'.

I know a troll when I see one, and Roger
qualifies. Not only does he manifest
significant confusion concerning
nonduality, but he also asserts his own
viewpoints as though they are true and
real.

Forgive me please, for being so exacting:

Nonduality:

Nonduality is NOT a perspective;

Nonduality is NOT a philosophy;

Nonduality is NOT a concept;

Nonduality is nonduality.

Nonduality is NOT "two things" as
Roger has asserted. "Two things"
is the definition of duality.

The Philosophy of Nonduality:

If one wishes to consider a
philosophy of nonduality, then
one may state a philosophy of
nonduality; but a philosophy of
nonduality is NOT nonduality.

The Perspective of Nonduality:

One may speak of a perspective
of nonduality, but such a perspetive
is NOT nonduality.

If one (such as Roger) wishes to
state that `nonduality is a limited
perspective', that one is limited to
stating only Hir own understanding;
that one may QUOTE or refer to
the words of another, but those
references will be framed in the same
understanding of the one who is
stating the limitations.

The Concept of Nonduality:

The concept of nonduality is
the concept of nonduality, NOT
nonduality.

On judging what is `limited':

Roger has asserted (in a trolling
fashion, it seems to me) that
nonduality is a `limited perspective'.

I would propose that the actual
limitations exist in Roger's own
perspective; yet, even if that is
so, Roger is not stating anything
about nonduality; he is instead,
defining his own position in relation
to certain concepts which he
entertains as `nonduality'.

Nonduality is nonduality.

This entire issue would be easy to
ignore, but for one thing; Roger
continues to assert spiritual
principles, states unconditional
truths, and inevitable cause-
effect relationships.

Roger leaves a URL as the sig line
of his postings, which site reveals
that Roger is a `master in training'.

I have no axe to grind concerning
Roger's own path; however, I would
be remiss if I neglected to point out
that Roger's assertions and judgements
concerning what he calls `nonduality'
have little if anything to do with
nonduality, in spite of the quotations
and references which he has posted.

So I can ask Roger: What is nonduality?

Is it two things?

Is it a philosophy?

Is it a perspective?

Is it a concept?

Or can we simply state nonduality as `one'?

And specifically (as opposed to duality) as
`not two'?

As I have stated in another post, the only
thing we can say about nonduality, is to
describe what stands in its place; and I
say that Roger has done an admirable job
of that.

The reason that I am going to this degree
of specificity, is to take away the limitations
which may have inadvertantly formed in the
mind of any reader; I offer exacting definitions,
to create the distinctions necessary to clarify
what otherwise sloppy use of language may have
imposed upon as yet unformed understandings.

When someone asks `what is nonduality',
the correct answer is; nonduality.

Now, Roger;

What is the sound of one hand clapping?


==Gene Poole==

NINA MURKISS
what good is a window?

Walking towards my front door, I was struck by the beauty of what I
saw through the window at the end of the hall.

Let me be clear: what I see through the window at the end of the hall
is always beautiful. It includes, but is not limited to, a
particularly nice view of a cut through one of the mountains that
bounds downtown, raw rock face, the mountain ridgelines on each side
crowded with trees and a house or two, down below the red brick old
city, roof membranes dirty with age, a crowd of buildings and a tree
or two, a long view down a hilly street. This evening, though, in the
long end of summer's approach dusk, the light had had enough momentum
from the high noon sun to swing broad around to a new angle. Yellow
light, that liquid light, washed over reds and greens and blacks.
Blue sky lavendering above. Aaaaah... the best I've seen in months.

So, I thought, why stop at my front door? Why not go clear to the end
of the hall and take a broad gander at that which had struck my
interest? So, I attached my sights to that aforementioned rock face
and strode to the window.

With each step closer, that which I intended to move nearer moved
farther away. Standing at the window, the rock face had become tiny,
distant, unimportant, lost.

The architect within laughed.

I had found myself accidentally, innocently, directly experiencing
something that I had known intellectually all along:

The aperture of focus determines relative scale.

More simply said:

Without the window, you lose the view.

~~~~~~

The scale of elements in the view is relative to the aperture is
relative to the one with the eyeball.

Or, it could be said that the scale doesn't change at all. I stay the
same size, the window (the aperture) stays the same size, and that
rock face stays the same size. Then why do we all seem so different?
Relative position in space.

ALAN LARUS

A one eyed perspective may still see a limit in one hand clapping .


I enjoyed reading the thread, instead of moving back to personal can anybody make it move on
to perspicacious?


Alan


DAVID BOZZI
Perspective Re: [NDS] Re: Non-duality is a limited perspective

Hi Al,

are you attached to the perspicacious?

I only ask because as I was watching
water in a brook flow today,
I wondered if it could flow the other way. :)

Funny thing about the personal I noticed ...

It is some kind of a Doorway.

I have discovered that when I most unaware of Truth
it is when I have resisted passing through this Doorway.

Blessings,
David
(Doorman)

DAVID BOZZI

Roger:I'm pointing out that the concept of ND in a dualistic brain is
distinctly different from the experiential reality of ND. How can we
tell the difference?

In my case, experience preceded mumbo jumbo.
I suppose I am 'lucky'.
(though I could still provide a million reasons
why I am not)

I can't imagine why anyone would be attracted
to talk about Oneness
having not had at least a Glimpse.

But having just stated that,
now I can. :)

For some it's a Sense
that leads to intellectual pursuit
that might lead to Experience.

While for others,
it's a Sense
that slingshots directly into Experience.

I don't imagine either path
is better.

The slingshot approach demands alot of pain.

David
(stone between Goliath's Eyes)



MICHAEL READ

from: http://www.serve.com/cmtan/buddhism/Contempl/bodhiyana3.html

Don't mention Buddhism

-- Bodhiyana

I'm guessing that Buddha's audience for his talks didn't hear him mention "Buddhism." As far as what
got written down about his instructions, there was always the straight man, Subhuti, asking "how" to
do it.

In the Diamond Sutra, Buddha says: "As good and pious men and women come wishing to begin the
practice of seeking to attain highest perfect wisdom, THEY WILL SIMPLY HAVE TO FOLLOW WHAT I
AM ABOUT TO SAY, and very soon they will be able to subdue their discriminative thoughts and
craving desires and will be able to attain perfect tranquillity of mind."

The essential word is FOLLOW, for it means to go in your heart where the words take you, and to pay
attention to where and how you do that. Sometimes all the words we use about how to do this actually
get in the way of doing it. Our ideas of what it is form a barrier which keeps us from experiencing it.
Sometimes a Christian's ideas or fears about what Buddhism is get in the way of following the
instruction. The instructions themselves are VERY EASY to follow.

This summer my 14-year old grandson and I went on our annual camping trip. We like this one place
where there are campsites along a creek. You cannot see or hear anyone else because of the space
between the camps. The altitude is 8,000 ft. The stream comes out of a clear mountain lake, and the
360 degree view is mountains, trees, and waterfalls.

He was sitting across the picnic table from me one sunny morning, chatting about nothing, and asked
me if I could teach him to meditate. I said sure. He said "how about now?" I said sure. With very few
words I guided him through some body awareness, breath awareness, and then was quiet. I didn't
use more than 6 or 7 sentences. He sat there at the table for about 5 minutes, no lotus position, and
then smiled a big smile at me. He asked me some question about the experience which I answered by
telling him this was like a gate. Not a real gate, but a doorway in your heart to pure awareness. He
lowered his eyes and sat for another 5 minutes while I watched. He then said grandma, "what I got
was that we are happy and we are free." That's it exactly and in that order. "Grandma, this is way
cool. This is the coolest thing that happened to me this summer!"

It is that easy when you want to look. When you are ready to follow where your guide, your teacher,
or own heart leads you. It is an uncomplicated and direct experience devoid of any lables. Way cool!