Click here to go to the next issue.

MIRROR

In my humble vision,
nonduality
is not the same as
denying duality.


with love
________________________________________________________________________

PAMALA

When one witnesses the void one sees (or becomes knowing) no-thing
exists in it and, in it's duality, every-thing exists in it and that
they are the same. At least that's how I experienced it and it did seem
that there was no doubt.

My name is Pamala, I'm new to the list.

Namas.
________________________________________________________________________

JERRY

Updated Nonduality Salon website. For the hypertext version,
please visit:

http://www.nonduality.com/new.htm

November 15, 1999

Freshened over two dozen dead and dying links, for your
reading and browsing pleasure. Profound thanks to Ton
Haarman, webmaster of The Headless Way site, who inspired
this work by informing me of the actual dead links. It was
an act of great generosity. If you enjoy the list of
nondual realizers on this site, you will find even more
names on The Headless Way site.

Added artist and essayist Anthony Padgett to the
Realizers/Confessors list.

Updated the address of The Core.
________________________________________________________________________

FIRAK replying to SARLO

...Doing what i feel is mostly right for me,
i trust my intuition now more than my wavering mind
and when my intelligence and my compassion tell me afterwards, that it
was right, the better.

Your Master is also my Master, Osho, and he's right.
Maitreya doesn't want to be a Master, so he refuses disciples.
But it's nice to have an enlightened Friend, who can help you to make
your DIRECT connection to THAT.

JACQUELINE

uhm,,,,,masters,,,,i am interestingly enough thinking of this recently,
why does one take on the role of a master,,,and why does one reach out
to a master,, is the person a master because he/she has mastered
technical skills that enable them to bring others along with them,,,,or
is the person a master,,,,solely because of the worshipping aspect,,,,i
am truly interested in this,,and i ask that the replies be one of
complete honesty,,,and rid of hostility,,,,thanks

SARLO

Rhis is one of the great questions! I hope my answering is not based on
an unconscious need to project my own master. . .

The amount of technical skills varies tremendously from one master to
another but are not necessarily a criterion of whether they are up to
the job. And if their technical skills are of value in their job, they
will not necessarily have acquired them in any kind of formal way. So
certification is not an issue. Why some people take on the role of
master and others not has to remain a mystery it seems. I have heard
that 90% of those who awaken to That State decline to take on that role.
Buddha is said to have struggled with this question after he became
enlightened, and even the greatest non-dualist of this century, Ramana,
had to be convinced to do it. It is said that the vast majority of us
sleepers will wake up or not (mostly not) with or without their help.
Why we reach out to a master is much more straightforward. We want some
help, even if we are told that in the end it is our own intelligence,
love, awareness, determination, totality, surrender or whatever quality
which enables us to break free of our self-imposed shackles. And the
master can help to a point. By just being an example, by providing a
milieu in which the search is easier and more natural, and so on.
The worshipping aspect, depending on you and the master can be anywhere
from zero to full-on. Are you the worshipful type? If not, just bag it
and don't go with anyone who insists on it. My master allowed worship
(because it is a valid expression of love and can be very transforming)
and even at times encouraged it for the same reason, but never insisted.
He has always been very clear that tthe ultimate responsibility for our
awakening rests with us.

Jerry has a great non-judgmental list of many people in the biz on his
website at http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/umbada/morea.htm
I also have a site which aims to evaluate as well as inform (ha ha) at
www.globalserve.net/~sarlo/Ratings.htm. Both sites have links to the
home pages of the various people in the biz.

There is a large category of people in the biz who should not be. That
is, they are not enlightened, and cannot help you except peripherally
with some relaxation and meditation and self-acceptance techniques.
Their unconscious agendas and stuff should totally disqualify them
but there is no one to stop them, which is as it should be since the
idea of regulating this profession is even more abhorrent than the idea
of these guys doing harm.
Caveat emptor!
Love
___________

XANMA

The masters I know and know of have not so
much 'taken on' the role as found it given to
them. Some began to teach on order from
their masters. Some found it 'just showing
up' and accepted the obvious.

Here are three I know best:

Ramana Maharshi spent many years mostly
silent, even though people came every day
to sit near him. One day spontaneously he
began responding to questions. There was
no 'personal' decision.

Poonja Ji (Papaji) was sought out by people
for his presence and his clarity even as a youth.
In later years he would sometimes avoid and
other times submit to the demands of people
for contact and teaching. He never allowed
an ashram to be formed around him as he did
not want his freedom of movement restricted.

Gangaji was instructed by her teacher to take the
teaching of Self Enquiry to the Western world,
despite her reluctance to do so.

None of these demonstrated any desire to be
worshipped, and the skill in this teaching to
Silence, as I have seen it, is not trained but
develops and evolves as it is carried out.

I feel it is important to be aware of the mind's
tendency to assume and project motivations
onto others. If you have questions about a
particular master, why not spend time with
him/her. Who could be known as a class or
at a distance?


with love
________________________________________________________________________

BRUCE posted Roger Ebert's review of the movie *Dogma*;

"Those whose approach to religion
is spiritual will have little
trouble with "Dogma," because
they will understand the
characters as imperfect, sincere,
clumsy seekers trying to do the
right thing. Those who see
religion more as a team, a club, a
hobby or a pressure group are
going to be upset. This movie
takes theological matters out of
the hands of "spokesmen" and
entrusts them to--well, the
unwashed. And goes so far as to
suggest that God loves them.
And is a Canadian."

GLORIA

Sound like a good flick, if for no other reason than questioning our
usual assumptions. As long as we are making up God in in our own
favorite images, I like to have a little fun with it. I try to remember
that mankind's choice of spiritual heroes is not so unlike the way we
choose our movie stars and politicians. God is far more eccentric than
we care to imagine and the preferences border on the whimsical. Its very
much like those couples where everyone cannot fathom, "What does she see
in him, anyway?" I mean who knows what looks like a work of art to God?
________________________________________________________________________

XANMA posted excerpts from Maitreya Ishwara's piece that was posted
yesterday;

Non-Being is beyond the capacity of anyone to articulate
or remember fully.

The remedy is to stick rigorously to direct experience.

The truth believed is a sweet lie.

The solution is to become an inner scientist and verify
the hypothesis by direct experience.

Silence is the answer. The gap of silence a seeker
experiences is a taste of the truth. It becomes
permanent by remaining in the gap of silence for as long
as possible, every day until the ego dissolves forever.

There is nothing to do but what you feel, with the
awareness that your feeling is the voice of Source
guiding you moment to moment.

Silence is the answer. Those who are close to awakening
will feel pulled into silence.

Ramana’s enquiry is perfect. Ask: Where do I come from?
And wait silently for silence.


Love
Maitreya


---
I pulled out these excerpts for underlining.
Give my thanks to Maitreya for this sweet clarity.
________________________________________________________________________

ARUNA

All this mental dialog about satsang leaders is totally
missing the point. The satsang leader points the mind to
the silence to know the Self and instead of going to silence
the writers on this page are focusing thoughts on the
satsang leader.


XANMA

Now that Aruna mentions it I see a vast difference between direct
quotations from teachers and descriptions of their style. I have
experienced many
moments of opening and deepening to Silent Self from the words of
teachers or others who are speaking from that. Descriptions however
only encourage comparison and evaluation and are beside the point, at
best.

with love

BRUCE

I disagree somewhat, in that
a review can help "pre-screen"
a satsangh for style so that
we don't spin our wheels at
satsanghs with aspects which
we see as non-conducive to
where we are at the moment.
No point going to a gentle,
soft-spoken teacher if we tend
doze off, no point going to
someone who is confrontational
if confrontation tends to shut
us down.

MICHAEL


I think we should not be too critical. Unless we are
perfect, some mistakes will be made. Let's just
accept them.

If the soft-spoken teacher is a Saint, then we should
pay attention. Some Saints have even been
confrontational. Kabir was one of them. Let's just
try to absorb the message, and not be too critical.
We should adjust to the Master, and not vice-versa.
________________________________________________________________________

SKYE

...i found the following post from
another list...


<<'Nothing has ever happened and there is no one to whom any
sort of "realization" could ever happen, yes.'>>

<<So nothing happens? Am I going mad? I have happened. This is
happening. At this moment you who are reading this are
seeing, recognising letters, words, patterns and the
meanings associated with them and is currently what you are.

Isn’t that actually "happening?"

DAN

This statement might be meant as a "catalyst" for awareness.
Taken as a literal truism, it doesn't seem that useful to me.

A statement such as this might serve as a nonlinear pointing
to something outside of the ballpark of usual logic. "None of this is
happening" might be shorthand for "None of the dualities involved
in 'happening' (now, then; this, that) define anything real."

A statement such as this can then be dropped when "nonduality" is
"awareness". When there are no dualities, can we meaningfully indicate
"nothing" or "something", or say that the categories "happening" or "not
happening" have any value? Yet, with "nonduality" as "awareness" we
still may wish to communicate, and then we might use words
conventionally, such as "I was hit by a car and need to get to a
hospital," without concern about apparent dualities. We might also use
words nonconventionally to catalyze awareness, such as saying "nothing
has ever happened." This seems like saying, "time is illusory," or
"memory refers to nothing real".

It would not be a great idea to call 911 to report an accident and then
say "nothing has ever happened", or "I can't say when this nonoccurrence
didn't take place, since time is illusory".
________________________________________________________________________

TIM H.

> If no one shook your cage from time to time... how would you know you were in
one?Sometimes, those that are shaking our cages are merely fiddling with the
lock.

ANTIONE

Looking in the eyes of someone where i do not find any cage to shake,
for i only see loving eyes, sure does shake the cage i did not see
before, like no warrior ever did... Until a single breath of air comes
to shake my left cages, not see before. Away from any grounding, only
cages are left shaking.
________________________________________________________________________

ANTOINE

*nondual infants/the other side*

I think I know so less,
My eye not formed yet,
Like leafs swirling under the wind,
Having loss their attachment to the rigid trunk in Fall.

I Think i know so less and less
Looking for my pride, my ignorant structure,
And the desire to from a fixed eye to see,
In the absence of walls to contain my sand.

Sometimes my flying mind,
Would need the glue of carress.

Antoine
http://pages.infinit.net/carrea/
________________________________________________________________________

GLORIA

...And I think it's ok to use your mind, keeping in mind its
limitations. Nothing like a thought that clears out some cobwebs, opens
up some new space.

XANMA

It is definintely ok to use anything and everything to direct one's
attention toward the truth. The nature of empty-full-awareness however,
can never be >known by 'the mind'. It can be known in silent stillness.

GLORIA

Ok, I did mention keeping in mind its limitations. But now that you use
words like never, the rebel in me has to ask: If the fullness is just as
empty as the emptiness what's the big difference? I've known some noisy
moving moments that seemed (to me) just as full of this awareness as
silent still ones. Not claiming some great expertise here, but honestly
"the truth" is everywhere and always present once you learn to recognize
it. So maybe it's we who put such limits on this knowing??

Now really, I love the way you express yourself, its just that I want a
"silent stillness" that travels with me wherever I am, even to the
grocery store. An awareness that goes "aha, I see" over words in books
and noisy children at play as well. Limiting truth is risky and hardly
necessary, it has so many faces.

Love, Glo
_________

BEN

I have really enjoyed this discussion....

This statement hit me in the heart. Yes, I want a "blue collar" working
person's "silent stillness" that travels with me wherever I am, even to
the grocery store, to work, to the bathroom, to the hospital,
everywhere. What is the bottom line on all of this, or does it depend
on how it is approached?

Glo, I did not understand why you spoke about limiting truth. I think
that I missed something, please explain?

Take Care!
Ben
_________

GLORIA

First, let me say it's NOT like Xan was doing this.. she is a kind and
most loving soul. She expresses how she sees truth most elegantly and
she is very inspirational. I was just saying that words like never and
any definitions that would narrowly limit the truth to "just that" or
seem to say this is the only way to discover, the only path... that can
be risky. Xan usually speaks in few words and we are probably using the
word truth in different ways here. We just need to be careful that
describing our own ways does not limit other people or seem to make
their perspective on truth "wrong."

For example, we know people learn best in different ways. Some are
auditory, others are visual and have to see. The kinesthetic learners
need to "do" to learn. Similarly with expression, some will play and
write music. some paint, some dance. Painting in no way makes music
"wrong." This can be a kind of "heady" intellectual list sometimes.. at
others we get more poetic writing, more emotional and devotional
oriented expressions. Or humor and fun..and so on.

So Ben, only you can find out what "approach" suits you. If you are a
blue-collar kind of guy, great! We would welcome a more down to earth,
regular kind of guy's way of expression..or whatever that might mean to
you. What's important is to feel good about what way works for you. Ever
seen a really enlightened kind of waitress handling a busy lunch crowd?
They are out there..people in all walks of life, not just sitting in
meditation all day. I'm just all for broadening the way we "see
enlightenment" and how it comes in all flavors, not just vanilla.
Perhaps this is not ultimate, absolute truth. Truth is what helps..
whatever helps is love.

BEN

XAN's words work well for me. They speak directly to my heart. The
words are short, to the point, and oh so sweet. I am truly in love with
XAN's spirit. She has brought tears of happiness to me. I recognize
something very lovely that her words touch so tenderly. I say that with
no embarrassment. They penetrate into a fragile place that few seem to
touch. I'm a listener and contemplator for the most part. This is not to
say I can't ramble, because I can, but I usually end up confusing myself
in forgetting where my windy speech began :o) Typically, it is a sign
of confusion from me.

I was having difficulty understanding your point. I did not want to
assume any understanding without asking you first. Now that you have
explained, I understand what you meant by limiting. Glad I asked. It
is clear, and compassionate. A great deal at current prices :o)

What I define as the "blue collar" approach is clear, simple, crisp, and
straight to the heart. Most of all it is real in a day to day kind of
way. Even Bubba gets it. No offense to anyone named Bubba. Just a
generic name or expression from where I live in the southern United
States.

I like the intellectual discussions too. Its just that I find it hard
to remember the essential points 30 min. later. They are enjoyable
(mostly, not always) in the reading moments. The only difficulty for me
is that there can be assumptions in them based on knowledge that I do
not have, although wholly appropriate for many of the other members. No
blame just as it is.

This does seem like an intellectual list at times. I look for expansion
in the daily living kind of way based on years of not knowing how to
live. I have spent years as an adult learning kiddy lessons. Beginners
mind is not something I had to cultivate in my initial steps on the
spiritual path(s). So each day a beginner in Naked Awareness is where I
am most happy and fulfilled.

Lately, I am understanding that nonduality is something I am most happy
being. I am not so good at holding it in my mind as a moment to moment
reference intellectually. So I ask you again in a different way how you
stay centered in the silent stillness wherever you go? My heart tells
me that you were on your way to saying something that was going to
pierce it when this limiting idea came up.

Take Care!
Ben
__________

LARRY

Re: the limits of thought

1. That "I am this thought" is erronious or at least misleading is an
insufficient reason to invalidate all thought EVEN IF that thought
accompanies all of one's thoughts.
2. What about the limitations of experience? Experience requires
special situations, you have to coax it along, and it's never there when
you need it. Whereas, with thought, any time you want, bing*, there it
is, even sometimes when you don't want it. (I will conceed that thought
without experience isn't worth a hill of beans) Surely anyone can see
that both thought and experience have limitations.
3. When you advise "silence" whom do you address, myself or this
keyboard? How can anything be more silent than this voiceless,
soundless, puissant pulchritude which is my self which is so silent you
can't even hang a silent hat on it?
However, having said all that, I must say//I AGREE! :-x silence and
a kiss are the same
way-ward, Larry
silent for awhile

top of page