Click here to go to the next issue
Highlights Home Page | Receive the Nondual Highlights each day
Issue #1513 - Monday, August 4, 2003 - Editor: Jerry
Su Gandolf
Cool For You, by Eileen Myles http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/188712859X/104-9065180-3073500?vi=glance
"I went to sit in the park
one day. Washington Square Park. The one
in San Francisco. With the big church there. And the hill. I was
thinking Amadeo's apartment is over there. I hope he doesn't come
around. I was just sitting on the grass and I hadn't gotten much
sleep and I was thinking the same big questions I always thought
about: where should I go, what should I go, and slowly I seeped
into
this other thing. I was not connected. Something was sitting
there
but it was not "I". No I, not at all. I saw church,
green grass, no
I. I was not connected. Didn't know what grass was, didn't know
what
words were. The thing that had so delicately connected these
things
was gone and I was suspended in not being, not knowing, not
having a
body, not experiencing myself, no trivial thought, no complaint.
Surrounded but not attached. Not closer or further from the
surface,
but simply not "in" at all. Not outside either. It
wasn't like a
movie. Losing, simply losing. I got up. In the middle of that.
There
was a hill. I took it. No, that didn't bring me closer. I saw an
ice
cream shop. Chocolate. I bit into it. Nothing. No mouth. No
there.
Chocolate, yes, but so what. Kept walking. Opened apartment door.
Got in shower. Hot, cold. Hot, cold. Slowly something came back
and
I returned. I had been empty of me. I didn't want that."
Thomas Merton
"To allow oneself to be
carried away by a multitude of
conflicting concerns, to surrender to too many demands,
to commit oneself to too many projects, to want to help
everyone in everything is to succumb to violence. More
than that, it is cooperation in violence. The frenzy of the
activist neutralizes his work for peace. It destroys his own
inner capacity for peace. It destroys the frutifulness of his
own work, because it kills the root of inner wisdom which
makes work fruitful."
-- Thomas Merton
Conjectures of a Guilty Bystander, p
73
Jan Sultan
SufiMystic
Understanding can come only at
the appropriate time,
and no one can say when.
All that can be said is that the understanding
cannot come so long as there is expectation,
so long as there is a "me" wanting it.
Balsekar
Sri Sankaracharya
Brahman doesn't play ball
Om. Salutations to the Supreme Self.
Sri Sankara :
If the mind
ever so slightly strays from the Ideal
and becomes outgoing
then it goes down and down,
just like a play-ball inadvertently dropped on the staircase
bounces down
from one step to another.
The mind that is attached to the sense-objects reflects on their
qualities ;
from mature reflection arises desire, and after
desiring,
a man sets about having that thing.
Hence,
to the discriminating Knower of Brahman
there is no worse death than inadvertance with regard to
concentration.
But the man who is concentrated attains complete success.
Carefully concentrate thy mind.
Bob Rose
Meditation Society of America
Respect
\Buddhist concepts state that
everyone you see was once your mother in
another lifetime. Similarly, eventually
everyone will Realize and attain Buddhahood.
Therefore, respect is due to all.
Su Gandolf
NDS
I'm just getting turned on to this music, eclectic early mixing of jazz and (hindu)-devotional-- There's a "priceless jazz collection" compilation that I'm listening to now that I'd call... dreamy... And there's an album that has a good dose of gospel/ spiritual in it, I think that's "Transcendence". She stopped recording in the late 70s, founded a Vedanta Center in Cali, was a devotee of Satchidananda then Sai Baba. Also known as the Yoko Ono of the 60's jazz set, for the sin of marrying and influencing a famous genius named John.
http://members.aol.com/ishorst/love/alice.html
Enjoy, Su (I was going to say "my real name", then that reminded me of being in college and finding a paper written by a male "friend" about a hypothetical woman who happened to be a lot like me, wherein he had called her "Sue (not her real name)". We got a big kick out of that one for a while.)
Cheers, Joe
Cornelius
NDS
Cyborgs
From "Living Truth" (This is a long series of posts. --ed.)
Q: I am
interested to know what the relationship is between
consciousness and evolution. Did Neanderthal man have sages?
Or is awakened consciousness a recent phenomenon that is tied
in somehow with the evolution of the species?
Klein: This is
only consciousness. You cannot apply evolution
to consciousness. Conscious is. But the expression of
consciousness is without end, is a basket without a
bottom...though the form may change. What does it mean,
evolution? I is only a category of the mind. When the
prototype of a thing has changed, it is no longer here. It is
finished. It is only
the mind that "changes" it from one thing to
another thing. Because in reality all appears and disappears
in consciousness and there is no independent phenomental
continuity. But that brings us too far in the problem of
evolution.
Q: Are you saying evolution is a thing of the mind?
Klein: Yes, the mind.
Cornelius comments:
The notion that evolution is of
the mind may place Klein
squarely in the camp of anti-evolution theologists. With
Advaita Vedanta, unlike the proponents of
"God-Consciousness",
there is no source of our perceptions.
In Christianity, there are the
myths of creation. They inform
of how God breathed his spirit into man. How this
"spirit"
relates to our perceptions is a topic for discussion. Whatever
the relationship, according to anti-evolutionists these
perceptions did not evolve from those that we find in the
primates. Of course,
one gathers not an inkling of how we come to
perceive what we do from "two-lines" by Klein
dismissing
evolution as something of the mind. But like most everyone
else his understanding was based on a time-line of the past.
Instead of looking to the past, what challenges does biotechic
futurism pose to the debate between creationists,
evolutionists and advaitan vedantists, like Klein?
According to Advaita,
Consciousness is not the property of
Homo Sapiens. Moreover, the ways in which we perceive
Consciousness is not only unique to us, but that perception
has not evolved from that of other life forms.
Without research and
"processing" I'm not in the position to
argue in favor of the theory of Evolution as being the pattern
by which our perceptions have grown/changed over these
millions of years.
The theory of evolution (of
perception) is not odds with the
idea that our perception is unique to us, hence, not on an
continuum with that of lower primates.
But what of bio-technic futurism,
as presented in the
"Transhumanist" movement?
Such a label may conjure of UFO
sightings and whathaveyou, but
of course advancements along the frontiers of Cloning reminds
one that the line between science and fiction is in the "eye
of the beholder".
An article by Erick Baard, (I
refer to as) The Cyborg Movement
covered a three conference hosted by Yale's Interdisciplinary
Bioethics Project: Technology and Ethics: The World
Transhumanist Association on the efforts of
"Transhumanists".
A central focus in the conference was the protection of the
rights of "cyborgs".
A cyborg is a robot that is
physically part human and part
machine.
A fan of Star Trek has his share
of examples of cyborg
proto-types. And so sci-fic enterntainment has nicely
simplified a profound issue of bioethics.
Before framing the controversy on
how cyborgs may develop, I
wonder about a more fundamental issue: since the manifestation
of cyborgs seems inevitable or beyond our control, will their
"reflection" of Consciousness be a mere reflection of
our own?
----------------------------------------------
Mark Hovila on Cyborgs
We have made the mistake of
identifying ourselves with objects
(mind, body, etc.) which seem to be surrounded by other
objects. The mistake is immediately seen when we see that all
of the objects are appearance IN consciousness. What changed?
Our understanding changed. The reality did not change. If
there is evolution, it is an evolution, or shift, in our
understanding only.
But the phrase "appearances
in consciousness" may trouble some
people. Maybe they don't like the word "consciousness."
Fine.
How about this: Simply see the objects AS objects, period. To
whom are they appearing? No need to label it. Just look at any
object and ask that question. What more needs to be said?
Biological evolution is a
completely different subject, in my
opinion. The expressions of consciousness, the forms, are all
undergoing change. We can argue about whether the changes have
been or will be made by natural selection, God,
extraterrestrials, genetic engineering, etc. Who knows? I vote
for ETs creating us by genetic engineering. What else can
explain how just plain weird we are? :-)
I don't know what to say about
your question of whether the
cyborgs' reflection of consciousness will be a mere reflection
of our own. What do you mean by "our"? If we
manufacture a
chair out of a piece of wood, does that chair reflect
"our"
consciousness, or is it an appearance in the One
Consciousness? Sorry, no answers here, only questions.
-----------------------------------
Gene Poole on Cyborgs
If this is really of deep
interest for you,
you will certainly enjoy reading this
enlightening book:
Franke, Herbert W. "The Orchid Cage" DAW,
1973 (79)
1st printing (1st pb ed)
Earth explorers investigate mechanical alien city. $7.00
Buy it here:
http://www.strangewords.com/weirdbooks/DAW.html
Humans have yet to learn the most
elementary
things about 'consciousness'. Advaitin and other
sources tend to fall back into dependence upon
'religious' ideation in an attempt to make palatable
what has been perceived by 'realizers'. This unfortunate
tendency has provided a refuge for 'realizers', but
at the same time, has essentially halted any effective
research into the _capabilities_ of consciousness.
To equate 'consciousness' with 'spirituality' is an
error of the most basic sort. Because this error
takes place deep in the foundational levels of
semantical algebra, those two concepts are overlayed,
thus blurring the nature of each. It is not surprising
that 'our' attempts to make sense of this, lead to
such statements as 'it is and will always be a mystery',
and 'it is inexpressible', etc.
Humans have developed a body of concepts
which pertain to consciousness, but these
are principly applied to instances where something
is assumed to have gone wrong; the mechanics
of how consciousness operates in the human
has become the pervue of psychology and
psychiatry.
The eastern (Hindu, Mahayana and Vajrayana)
viewpoints treat consciousness through a body
of concepts that are brilliantly deployed analogies
and metaphors, but which have unfortunately become
(mis) interpreted as literal by western minds.
You can believe that western science will be using
a 'hacker' approach to the study of consciousness;
in other words, an experimental trial of any hypothesis
will supposedly 'prove' something. The problem
which your posting highlights, is that there is not
even a practical vocabulary with which to explore
and debate 'about' consciousness. Thus, the debate
settles into the familiar territory of ethics and morals,
an arena which is thoroughly occupied by western
media pundits. We can expect the usual 'bad vs good'
debates to go on as long as this condition (lack of
vocabulary) persists.
Start here:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics
I can offer a useful term that
applies; "staging".
Before using the word in a thought or sentence,
learn what it can mean, and what I intend it to
mean in this context:
Staging implies both incremental buildup
AND all of what has been built (staged).
The mere fact that we can see evolutionary
layers to be existing in the whole, does not
require that we see any layer (stage) as
separate. In fact, all layers (stages) which
exist, comprise the whole itself. The nature
of the whole, is not necessarily evidenced
by examination of the stages.
Staging (the dynamic function of) is itself
the "stage" or arena in which all functions
come into play. It is important to
recognize that a situation may provoke
re-staging, and the immediate re-staging
(which always occurs, without exception)
can be taken as evidence that staging is itself,
a deployment or 'extension' of the nature
of the fundament of reality itself.
If you read the above a few times, you
might see that what I am saying is that
'consciousness' is a dynamic which
does continually deploy itself in ways
which allow a multidimensional view
of any situation which calls for problem-
solving. Biological bodies are vulnerable
and use consciousness to solve the problems
of survival... of the species of human and of
the individual human. Until this is seen
clearly (staging, extension and deployment)
the 'cyborg' will remain a novelty.
If it is seen clearly, it will become apparent
that the cyborg is already a reality.
The challenge for the cyborg is to realize
its own cyborg nature, and to then move
to maximize the utility of that nature by
allowing staging to occur in the most
advantageous manner.
Again, the archeological interpretation
of staging (which we call evolution ala
Darwin), 'evidenced' by artifacts of what
we imagine to be 'prior eras', serves to
distract us from realization of the actual
real-time deployment of staging as
the basis of the operation of consciousness
itself.
The world does not exist as a place where
consciousness happens; the world happens
as a manifestation of how consciousness
naturally deploys itself. Our assumptions
about 'time' is the foundation upon which
our assumptions about 'evolution' are built;
if time is abolished, all 'eras' exist now.
The Yugas (gold, silver and iron) coexist
always. Where 'we are' in that deployment
of 'Yugas' (eras) is to an extent, determined
by our assumptions concerning time and
evolution.
The Universe springs into existence whole,
complete with evidence of how its deployment
is staged. The Universe is evidence of nothing
other than consciousness; staging (time and
evolution) phases, evidence the operation of
consciousness as a continuous deployment
of layered (staged) functionality. Any and all
circumstances (contexts) are already included
in that deployment, which is able to rearrange
itself so quickly (from the human POV) that
no time seems to pass.
This 'ability' of matter to arrange itself
according to intention of survival, remains
unseen by scientists, who buy into the
'necessity' of time (scalar) phasing. Staging
is simultaneous, not scaled. Seeing it this
way is apparently quite difficult. I am hoping
that this posting will provide a bit of help
to the interested reader.
--------------------------
Hur on Cyborgs
"I am interested to know
what the relationship is between
consciousness and evolution. Did Neanderthal man have sages? Or
is
awakened consciousness a recent phenomenon that is tied in
somehow with the evolution of the
species?"
i thinks that the west's biological definition of consciousness
and
the east's understanding of consciousness are on different
levels.
the west considers body/mind and consciousness are pretty much
the
same things whereas the east seems to suggest that the brain is
like
a radio receiver and what is transmitting through the
body/mind is
consciousness. then what is consciousness really? you
know it and i
know it...but when it comes to defining it, that's the fuel that
fires up the imagination in discussion boards.
since the east is much more advanced in spiritual talk, the
nondual
sages long ago figured out that God, the imaginary Other, is for
the
seekers at the kindergarden spirituality level. although
the sages
have taken away our divine objects, we still need divine concepts
to
hang on to that would give us the promise of eternity.
since then we
have replaced the belief in Spirit with Consciousness and
capitalized
It and raised It to the new subtle divine level. i say take
away
Cosciousness as well. without the formulation of nondual
Truth in
Consciousness to validate our enlightenment which also promises
us
impersonal eternity, would we still be interested in spiritual
treats
handed by the sages to comfort our unbearable pain of individual
suffering?
"Before framing the controversy on how cyborgs may develop,
I
wonder about a more fundamental issue: since the manifestation of
cyborgs seems inevitable or beyond our control, will their
"reflection" of Consciousness be a mere
reflection of our own?"
is nondual Consciousness the last spiritual castle left that's
not
destroyed by the advances of the logical scientist in us?
then why
raise Consciousness to the divine level and defend it as our last
hope? i say hand over the empty mirror called Consciousness
over to
the materialist scientist in us as well.
once the scientists understand the nature of matter, especially
at
the quantum level, they'll be able to create self-aware cyborgs
or
even develop ourselves partly as cyborgs. so
what?
it's not the process as to how consciousness seems to manifest
but
what happens in self-awareness that is always a source of
fascination
to "me."