Click here to go to the next issue.

Petros quotes Nisargadatta:

"When I recognize that I am nothing, that is wisdom; when I recognize
that I am everything, that is love. Between these two points I live my
life."
________________________________________________________________________

Gloria:

Some people get lost without a map and compass. Some are homing pigeons
like Dan. Me, I've been known to drive right past the turn to my own
house because I am daydreaming.
________________________________________________________________________

Jerry:

I once had a girlfriend: everything about her was deep
mystery. When she poured cream in her coffee, it stayed
black.
________________________________________________________________________

lou Monte wrote:

dear
friends, i'm the lou that greg goode mentioned and i am hosting a
gathering at my home on long island on sunday, october 17 from 10am-4pm.
we do several of the douglas harding experiments which help in the
discovery of who we really are. it is informal,free and a nice lunch
will be provided. if you are in the area and would like to attend or
would like more information, please feel free to contact me at
loumonte@prodigy.net. best wishes, lou
________________________________________________________________________

Rainbo and Dan:


Rainbo (quoting DL):
"It is in dependence upon sentient beings that one first generates this
altruistic aspiration to highest enlightenment,

Dan:
Highest enlightenment already is the case, and is independent of
anything - certainly of one's perceived dependence on sentient beings
or one's altruistic aspiration - - *nonetheless*,the aspiration and
the enlightenment are not separable from each other - - one's dependence
sentient beings and enlightenment are not separable...

Rainbo:
Highest enlightenment is already the case for whom? Dalai Lama?

Dan:
Highest enlightenment is "light" itself - it is already the case -
it already "lights" itself - there is no one "for whom" it is the case -
it is always already the "only" case -- ask not for whom the light
lights - it lights for thee..

Rainbo:
Independence is a western myth really. A really old and very
pervasive myth, but nonetheless a myth.

Dan:
That which has no other has no dependence - there is nothing outside
of it on which it could depend - the "myth" is when the "relative self"
or the "relative mind" tries to act as an independent agent. This
myth seems to me to be part of the basis for the "aspiration" which
the DL discussed. Feeling encumbered by dependencies and conditions,
the desire to be independent leads to awareness of confinement and an
aspiration to freedom - seeing that all already is free is the only
fullfillment of this aspiration - so aspiration is fulfilled in
non-aspiration.

Dalai Lama:
and it is in relation to
sentient beings that one practices the deeds of the path in order to
achieve enlightenment.

Dan:
While being aware there is no path, nothing to achieve, and no sentient
beings that need rescuing - following simply "aspiration" as it becomes
"inspiration"

Rainbo:
There is no path? There are a zillion paths.

Dan:
The pathless path is the only One which doesn't lead anywhere -
therefore the other paths are to be released --

Rainbow:
"nothing to achieve" there is always more ... past the mystic
experience, past the visions, past the stillpoint, always more
evolution.

Dan:
All this endless "becoming something more" - always the hidden
comparison between "what was" "what is" and "what will be" only dropping
all this will bring "nothing to achieve" - peace - the moment that is
beginningless and endless - that contains all evolutions and devolutions
while itself not evolving or devolving

Rainbow:
To say "there is no suffering, I"ll have a glass of champagne" (you did
not say this) is, I cannot think of a nice to phrase it. Let's see,
when sentient beings much more evolved than I hold a
dying child, they suffer.

Dan:
Famous saying of Herbie (a spokesperson for sentient beings
everywhere), "when drinking champagne - enjoy, when holding
a dying child - weep" (Herbie weeps, but he doesn't suffer :-) ))

Rainbo:
To say there is no suffering is to say I have no emotions,

Dan:
Only if taken merely intellectually is what you say true. If taken
"whole" then the reality of "no suffering" is the greatest hope for
"those who suffer" - and the "no suffering" reality, in my opinion,
naturally expresses as compassion, acceptance, hope, openness and
empathy when encountering "one who experiences suffering" - this is
the most helpful help - when there is "no one who is suffering" such
help doesn't have to get caught in anxiety, desires to "fix the other,"
"be the best helper," or "fix the world."

Rainbo:
Dalai Lama upon leaving Tibet collapsed from the visions of pain
he saw around him. To my knowledge he is the most advanced soul alive
in the world today. So, this list has people more advanced?

Dan:
I'm not claiming to be advanced, and I'm not claiming there's
anything wrong with emotions, or with someone collapsing from their
vision, or gastritis, or anything. From my perspective, I don't see any
special value in making claims about who is the most advanced soul alive
(by the way, why do you rule out the Pope? Indeed, why rule out anyone?
What criteria are you using? How many have been surveyed? Does your
survey include disincarnate beings?) Further, and more seriously - what
separates the "soul" of the Dalai Lama from the "soul" of Rainbo, or
Dan, or anyone? Is "That Which Shines" divided into pieces, with one
piece "more advanced" than another piece of it??

Rainbo:
Do tell me about your ability to heal others, I am listening.

Dan:
There is One healer. The same One who destroys. And this is also
the One who is being healed and destroyed. Therefore, creation,
destruction, healing, and decay are all transitory phenomenal
perceptions/descriptions. The "deepest reality" of the situation of
birth/death, healing/decay is the Shining mentioned before - and this
Shining isn't born, created, destroyed, or healed.

Rainbow:
Dan, thank you for the counterpoint, but if you observe a quantum wave,
your observation upon it, will itself change the measurement of the
wave, whether it is at that moment a particle or a wave. Therefore
"there are no objects of observation," makes no sense to me.

Dan:
What is, is. Making sense of it is something the relative mind will
never do. Quantum particles and waves are images we use to "make sense"
of It. It in itself isn't contained by our images. "No objects of
observation" is the observation when there is "Itself" alone. This is
already always the case. We don't need to make it happen, or make it
make sense. It's when we don't feel a need to add any meaning to "what
is" that It appears to Itself through us, so to speak, as "all that is."

Rainbow:
I had enough kundalini fire yesterday to dispel any myths i held
about myself to be at peace and awake and enlightened.

Dan:
Glad to hear it - still smiling here. *M*M - Mercy M'lady and L*L*L*
to you too...

L*L*L
~ Rainbo ~
________________________________________________________________________

Rainbo:
I grew up with a great-uncle who was the Devil's Advocate to several
Popes, so, I do not "rule out" the Pope, nor anyone. A sweet story to
share:.. There was a girl in Germany who claimed to have "the stigmata"
(the wounds of Christ) my uncle, James, was sent, by the then current
Pople, to observe the veracity of this claim (the Devil's Advocate's
qualifications normally include humility (they are normally Franciscans
who have taken vows of poverty, over a dozen languages and multiple
Ph.D.'s). He flew from Rome to Germany, took off his fancy Roman
vestments, put on an old monk's cowl, rubbed dirt in his face and hair
and went to beg bread from her. She answered him at the gate to her
home and said, "go away old man, I am awaiting an important dignitary
from Rome." (Which, was of course, was he.)

He flew back to Rome, and responded, "there is no saint living there."

I agree, there is nothing to separate the Souls of ourselves from
others, and it is this which is the unification of self with Mind, this
unification we make to Soul.
________________________________________________________________________

Hafiz:

All day long
the earth shouts
"Gee, thanks."

Such an exuberant gee,
It starts throwing
Things

As if God were passing by in a parade encouraging
Rowdy behavior
By looking so beautiful -
That a whole avalanche of mania swoops in!

I like this idea of throwing things at God,
And especially - His making us rowdy!

Thus, as soon as Hafiz is out of bed
I start stuffing large sacks
With old shoes, cucumbers
And
Prayers

For the upcoming
Consecrated

Free-for-all -
And who knows
What else.

****** Hafiz
________________________________________________________________________

Jerry posts more from
The Pathway of Nonduality
by Raphael:

I'd like to include some entries from The Encylopedia of
Eastern Philosophy and Religion, that might be helpful,
before getting into the chapter.

Darsana: a name for the six doctrines that form the six
schools of orthdox Hindu philosophy.... All six doctrines
have the same goal: to liberate the soul from the round of
births and deaths and to bring about union with God or the
Absolute. They are all represented in the Bhagavad-Gita.

Gaudapada: a profound Advaitin. He became well known through
his commentary (karika) on the Mandukya Upanishad.

Samkhya: one of the six ... darsanas. Founded by Kapila, it
teaches that the universe arises through the union of
prakriti (nature) with purusha (consciousness). According to
Samkhya, there are as many souls and units of consciousness
(purushas) as there are living beings.


The Pathway of Nonduality

by Raphael

Chapter 3

Ajativada and Asparsavada


Q. In the Mandukyakarika of Gaudapada, Ajativada and
Asparsavada are spoken of. But what are Ajativada and
Asparsavada?

A. In order to understand this metaphysical vision it is
necessary first of all to comprehend the philosophical
attitude of the Vedanta in general.

In the Hindu tradition, connected to the Vedas, there are
six darsanas which, unlike the Western kind of philosophical
systems (being the result of mere individual speculations of
single philosphers using the manas-mind), represent 'points
of view', 'visions' or 'perspectives' regarding Vedic
teaching.

It must also be kept in mind that in the East, philosophy
and religion -- in the purest sense -- are united;
philosophy is a 'way of being', it is a consciential and not
a simple mental attitude. In other words, philosophy implies
realization: to know is to be. Therefore, when we speak of
philosophy and metaphysics we intend them in their purest
traditional sense.

We could also speak of realizative philosophy and
metaphysics; those of Pythagoras, Plato, Plotinus, for
example, are realizative philosophies because they involve
the very consciousness of the being, not merely its mind as
a simple discoursive factor.

To grasp the Real, the darsanas, being points of view, start
from certain perspectives that may be more or less complete,
inclusive and universal. Thus, for example, the
Samkhyadarsana (samkhya means 'numeration') starts from the
empirical outlook rather than from the metaphysical one; it
counts all the 'modifications' that substance undergoes from
the primordial matter (prakrti) -- under the impulse of
purusa -- to gross physical matter.

Without any doubt this is a valid point of view which
considers becoming rather than Being. But, we must point
out, it is not a materialistic darsana, because the aim of
the Samkhya is to free purusa from the modifications of
prakrti. Purusa and prakrti correspond in an approximate
manner to essence and substance, or to spirit and matter, in
the Western sense.

We may say, however, that it is a dualistic point of view in
that it presents the two poles, purusa and prakrti, as
co-eternal. This does not mean that it opposes monism; only
that Kapila, codifier of the Samkhya, begins his treatise on
the One when it is already differentiated or polarized. For
example, we can study dense physical matter from the
molecular, atomic or sub-atomic point of view. It is obvious
that, according to the branch of studies, the point of view
changes, although there is no contradiction between one
field and the others.

If, therefore, we grasp the fact that the darsanas are
'points of view', we realize that the various authors,
codifiers of the darsanas, 'saw' Reality from different
consciential viewpoints which are the states of
consciousness reached by them, the positions realized by
them. Gaudapada -- to use the analogy mentioned before --
goes beyond the substantial texture, beyond the molecular
condition, beyond the atomic state, to touch the state of
elementary essence, beyond all manifested factors.

It is obvious, therefore, that Gaudapada (codifier of
Ajativada) and Kapila (codifier of the Samkhyavada),
starting from different standpoints, arrive at different
conclusions which are not opposed or excluding each other.
We should underline, however, that the molecular point of
view, compared with the elementary one, is characterized by
its relativity and non-absoluteness. The molecules are born,
they develop and disappear, while the elementary state
subsists. And indeed, the molecules dissolve into the
elementary state because they are non-absolute,
non-constant. The mass (body-compound) dissolves into
energy. In this perspective, and transposing the whole on to
a metaphysical level, Ajativada presents the characteristic
of absoluteness and universality as compered with
Samkhyavada which, however, valid, nonetheless reductive.

Q. Did Gaudapada 'see' Reality in its ultimate
non-determination?

A. Yes. Gaudapada, by adopting the perspective of the
Absolute as such, or of the pure Being (Advaita) was able to
say, rightly, that in It there is no birth or generation or
modification. Pure Being was never born, therefore it cannot
die or cease to be. And if it was not born there can be no
real manifestation. If the Absolute Being cannot transform
Itself or become multiple then, Gaudapada asks, what is it
that we see? This is the admirable metaphysical or Advaita
perspective of Gaudpada's Ajativada.

The atom on the gross-physical level is the first
determination from which the various physical compounds
arise, but beyond the atom there is no body-form, there is
only 'formless' energy; in other words, there is no
manifestation as we know it. Gaudapada, by going on to the
metaphysical level, went beyond the first
Determination-Being from which the formal universes arise,
but beyond the first Determination there is no universe, no
form, no compound, either atomic or molecular. We can say
that beyond the first Determination there is the
non-qualified (nirguna), non-caused state.

The Ajativada, seen within the perspective of the manifest
-- and the manifest includes the gross-physical, the subtle
and the causal-germinal states -- might seem a logical
absurdity and a pragmatic impossibility, but this is
understandable. The identification and assimilation with one
consciential state excludes the comprehension of another
state. If the individual, for example, identifies with the
formal becoming (dualism in general), he will never be able
to understand a point of view that goes beyond duality. If
the individual identifies with his physical body
(substance), he will never be able to understand himself in
terms of pure Being that is never born, never grows and is
never caused.

A metaphysical 'Vision' implies going beyond the
space-time-cause perspective; space, time and cause are
determinations inherent in form, in compounds, in phenomena.
The more the consciousness identifies with the formal
aspect, the greater will be the difficulty of going beyond
this perspective.

Q. Gaudapada also spoke of Asparsavada. What is this?

A. All told, Ajativada and Asparsavada are one and the same
thing. A-jati means non-generation or non-birth and jati
means birth, generation -- taken to mean the passage from
Non-being to Being. Asparsa is the yoga or the path that
leads to the non-generated state of pure Being. Besides,
sparsa means contact, relation, and a-sparsa means
non-contact, non-relation. Now the Absolute Being is often
considered as without relation, without contact with
anything because, being one without a second (Advaita), It
could establish a relation or have a contact with nothing.

Q. Asparsavada is also called the path without supports.
Why?

A. The support of the 'ego', which is relativity, is based
on the form-manifestation aspect and on the qualities
(gunas) which the substance expresses. Asparsa, being a vada
of a metaphysical nature, tends to remove all supports
inherent in being. By eliminating all formal supports the
'reflection or ray of consciousness' falls into That which
is pure Being without supports, without relations or
duality. From a philosophical point of view we could say
that Asparsavada tends to eliminate the time-space-cause
support which is the qualification of the phenomenon but not
of the noumenon.

Q. Is that why the path appears difficult?

A. Yes, because it is a realizative metaphysics that tends
to solve all the determinations of Being. The 'ego', in that
it is a manifested object, fears its annihilation because it
cannot imagine itself without form, without time or
determination. On the other hand this is right: the
molecular 'ego' could never conceive itself as an atomic
self because this belongs to another dimension.

Gaudapada in chapter III, karika 39, says:

"This yoga called asparsa is very difficult for many yogins
to understand because they, feeling fear where there is
none, are afraid of it."

And Samkara explaining this karika declares that this
metaphysical yoga is hard to be attained by yogins lacking
in true knowledge. "The yogins," say Samkara, "are afraid
(of this yoga) while they should not be. The
non-discriminating fear, while practicing this yoga, arises
out of the extinction of their individuality, although
(asparsa) is beyond all fear.

And again, in karika 2, chapter IV, it is stated:

"I bow to this yoga -- taught by the Scriptures -- well
known as asparsa, free from relations, beneficial, generator
of beatitude for all beings and free from oppositions and
contradictions..."

Why free from contradictions? Because a contradiction or an
opposition can be had only on the plane of duality. An
empirical experience can be contradicted by another
empirical experience. For example, the experience of waking
by dreaming, that of dreaming by waking, and both are
contradicted by deep dreamless sleep. But in Turiya (the
metaphysical state of pure Being) there can be no
contradiction, because in it the experiencer and the
experienced, or subject and object, do not exist.

top of page