Click here to go to the next issue.

Hello. I recently discovered this
list. Thank you, whoever started
this! It's wonderful to
discover so much like mindedness.
Following is a poem that occurred
awhile back.

With much love for us all,

MPaul

Being Precedes Representation

“I think. Therefore,
I am.” However,
I am before
I think.

I am
before I think
“I am.” At least,
that’s what
I think.

But, can I be sure
that I’m the thinker
of what I say
I think?

Don’t ‘my thoughts’
arise from nowhere
then vanish in a blink?

What is this ‘I’
I think I am?
Where could I ever
find it?

Perhaps the fact that
‘something is’
has nothing else behind it?

But am I only certain
of this fact that
‘something is’?

Or rather that
whatever is
is in the Way
it is?

Swadharma is
the Ethos
of Tao.

-MPaul
98.06.07
________________________________________________________________________
xan:

...anyone else every felt God
was making love to them?

Bruce:

Absolutely. Why do you
think there's something
called "The G Spot?" :-)

On a more serious note,
I've always seen the
interrelatedness of
naked awareness and
unfettered sexuality --
the effect of what I
call "gender polarity"
at certain points of
revelation in
relationship is
stunning, the say the
least. Yes, "God" is
the perfect, ever-
faithful lover -- and
quite the matchmaker
too!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dan: ...Anyone ever feel like every
cell of their body was God making love to God?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dan: ... When I was young,
a woman posed a koan to me: "Does
this universe ever strike you as an
endless orgasm?" I ran across this same
koan years later from a man who had studied
a kind of Christian mysticism taught my a Russian
fellow. A useful koan to work on, he assured me.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Ah, so intimate, this me and me.
Delicious secrets without a sound
Tenderest touches suspended in air
Hello's and goodbye's nonexistent in love
Embraces entwining like river in ocean
Like ocean in space and in space overflowing
Passion so sweetly dissolving illusions
Endless, beginningless heart of us all.


xan
________________________________________________________________________

Hiya Glo,

Thich Nhat Hanh is a very quiet, simple monk ... I don't know if
his type of Buddhism contributed to his particular manner of
expressing himself, or, the fact that he lived through the Vietnam
War, treating people on both sides. The retreat I went to was
specifically geared to Vietnamese people, who are in general very
happy and warm people. The five days were also directed towards
healing the war, although we few white people were allowed to attend,
we did attempt to be very quiet and unobtrusive.

The days were geared towards quiet, meditative, reflective awareness,
very much in stillness and mindfulness of each action, word, thought,
movement, bite of food, etc. He does have a center in France,
given the opportunity I'd go live there for a Summer in a heartbeat.

Don't know if this is what you were looking for, but, perhaps you could
contrast this experience I had with Thich Nhat Hanh with the one you
had with the Dalai Lama. I first saw Thich Nhat Hanh, my guess is
about ten years ago, our first evening of meditation, he said "and, you
don't have to have your back so straight there is steel in it." I went
beet red *g*.

Love,
Annette
________________________________________________________________________


Dear friends,

The question of the Buddha and God is an interesting one.


>> I would appreciate any thoughts related to this
>> experience, to the Void, to God, and what I believe to be
>> Buddhist thought that there is no God.
>>
>> Peace, neo

>To my understanding, Buddhist 'thought' does not deny the 'existence of
>God'. Instead, Buddhist thought creates/advocates/maintains the space in
>which God may be intuited/seen/experienced.

>Regarding Buddhism, It is useful to keep in mind, that Buddha is the most
>vigilant of those gatekeepers, who will not allow any confusion about God
>to occur. Buddha, foremost of any, stands ready, cleaning equipment in
>hand, to remove any stains which we may spill upon God. Buddha says nothing
>about God; in this, Buddha stands as the foremost proponent of God. Of all,
>Buddha protects the space in which God may appear. Leaving open this space,
>is exampled by Buddha; following Buddha, are the guardians of the Dharma,
>who keep alive the doctrine of empty space.

==Gene Poole==

(great name, btw)


Buddhism, from the Mahayana standpoint, can only be understood in
relation to two different aspects of reality, the phenomenal and the
essential. The Buddha refused to talk about God; I don't think this
makes
him a proponent of God, though Gene's argument is an interesting twist.
Certainly it must be admitted that the buddha did not eff the ineffable.

One of the fundamental doctrines of buddhism is *anatta*, the idea
that
there is no individual self, personality, soul, or anything like it.
But
when pressed, the buddha would say that the self neither exists nor does
it
not exist. Such philosphical questions don't really matter, it is
ending
suffering that matters. If a person has an arrow through their chest,
the
immediate need is to remove the arrow, not debate the issues involved.
The beauty of Buddhism is that all beings, of any spiritual
condition,
may be helped by the buddhadharma, that there are room for innumerable
different interpretations. They may not all agree with each other, but
if a
person is led along the path, any way this may be accomplished is
considered
to be skillful means.
For many people, dualism is completely taken for granted, it is
the
way things are. They see objects as individual things, they see people
as
individual beings, and for them the fundamental principle of goodness
and
truth and forward evolution is God (or, maybe, it isn't).
Other people may realize that there really are no individual
things,
that separations exist only in the mind as distinctions of convenience.
The
mind works in such a manner as to describe the universe and all it
contains
in terms of continua, pairs of opposites. 'Things' are characterized in
relative terms, things are relatively large in relation to things which
are
smaller, that which is thought of as good is better than that which is
bad.
As this is 'the nonduality salon' I'm sure this is familiar ground to
most
of us. Simply to use language requires us to speak in phenomenal terms.
Even if we know ourselves to be indivisible from the universe which is
nondual and all-inclusive, we necessarily *speak* in dualistic terms.
The Buddha, being the Enlightened One, knew that 'good and bad' was
a
continuum in which the good was created by the bad, and vice versa. He
knew
that to be aware of being happy a person had to know unhappiness. He
knew
that people could be liberated from these false dichotomies and know the
entire universe to be perfect and pure; that darkness was not the
opposite
of light, but merely its absence. That everything is made of the One
positive substance, Love if you will, and that this substance had no
second
by which it could be known (thus being nondual rather than monistic).
He
also knew that in practice anyone may know the good from the bad,
suffering
from happiness, and that the language of nonduality could be abused to
confuse people into thinking that anything goes. The Buddha's doctrines
were soteriological, not philosophical. He was concerned with improving
people's lives, relieving their suffering, salvation. He knew that if
they
did what they knew was good and refrained from what they knew was bad,
they
would be happier.
The buddha lived in a time in which itinerant preachers and holy
men
were one of the main forms of entertainment for the indian villager.
People
were going about preaching all sorts of doctrines and creating a great
deal
of confusion; and most of these 'holy men' claimed they knew god
personally
and knew just what He or She wanted everyone to do. The Buddha simply
swept
all this aside, and taught a practical way for a person to be free from
suffering, without either indulging themselves in the sensual pleasures
some
preachers claimed God approved of, or in the extremely ascetic practices
others claimed god required; he advocated a Middle Way. He taught
people
first of all to 'wake up!'; to be aware that they were unhappy with the
way
things were, that their lives involved suffering, and that it was
obvious
that anyone would rather be happy than suffer. He showed them that
suffering was caused by wanting things, either by not having what they
wanted or by losing what they had which they craved. He preached to
them
that there was a way to be free from suffering, by being free from
wanting
things. And he taught them the way to be released from craving and its
consequence of suffering. In this very basic, simple set of ideas, the
Noble Truth, he very pointedly left the idea of God out of the whole
business. The Indian subcontinent was the most religious place on
earth,
and all these competing gods were just causing a lot of division and
unhappiness ('sects, sects, sects, that's all you holy men ever think
about!').
The Buddha didn't deny that God existed, but he wanted people to
understand that the practical means of slavation were at hand, and
didn't
require any belief in anything. If they simply did what they knew was
right, practiced right meditation, engaged in right speech, held right
views, pursued right ocupations and so on, happiness would follow 'as
the
wheel of the cart follows the horse.'
So even in the phenomenal world, the Buddha saw no need for people
to
worship any God.
How much less is there a need for a concept of God in nondual
terms?
What continuum is God a part of? If we down here are looking up to and
worshiping some being far above us, then we are what is low, and God is
what
is high. God, then is opposed to Man, in dualistic terms. The more we
elevate God, the more we worship and honor and obey, the more we are
weak,
slave-like, sinful little creatures. If God alone is perfect and good,
we
are not.
So, as far as Buddhist doctrine is concerned, God is not denied,
but is
regarded as very much a non-essential idea.

One of the things that makes Buddhism a great religion, popular
even
with the post-modernists who are skeptical of any of the 'grand
narratives,'
is that it is tolerant of any philosophy you want to add to it.
Buddhism,
philosophically, is basically a form of pragmatism. If the idea of god
works for you, and makes it easier for you in practice to do good works,
to
be good to people, speak and think in terms of high ideals without
demanding
that others conform to them, then you can practice Buddhism and retain
your
religious beliefs. The Buddha saw no value in the concept of a separate
self, but he always avoided speaking about God, and accepted all
different
sorts of religionists as followers. But on the other hand, many
atheists
have been attracted to Buddhism as well, and have been equally welcomed.
Many Buddhist atheists quite fiercely defend their idea of the purity of
Buddhism by opposing any addition of belief in God to it, and their view
is
valid. Buddhism regards 'right view' as one of the keys to the path,
and to
have 'right view' is to not be attached to any view, to not favor any
view
over any other view, and not contend with others about the supposed
superiority of one view over another. Every buddhist is entitled to
their
own opinions and are expected to be guided by their own lights.

aloha, terry
________________________________________________________________________


#YOUnity
is what I AM
salvation
forgiveness
there is only life and
being alive--
the ego tries but
self overpowers
yes.
unity is a witness
of dreams and there is
only the experience of this
there is nothing to judge decide
or condemn. there is PEACE
in this.
no snake, no rope, nobody
no fear of darkness IAM
the light.
yoUnity need nothing--
fear is gone
"you've been left behind" is
affirmative. "where is this "i"
no need to particularize
there is no gen:
grace is
grace
God is my father
IS
LOVE
PEACE
to all who are my own self in Him
gen
________________________________________________________________________


hi
bit from Nial
from sister gen:

Nial's reading William Blake:
"an island in the moon! exactly! seperation anxiety prose that bubbles
out me brain at all angles and must make it's way to paper. Yes Yes
Yes, the answer to every question, because everything will be granted if
you *believe.*** Believe it or not. Everything has meaning even though
many people choose to ignore the fact that the divine is right in their
face beating 'em with a stick. I think Blake stepped through that door
too, circles of cycles, timelessness, humanity, humility and being kind
to others.

It would be so wonderful if the whole world never grew up. Innocence
and wonder. I sort of believe that evil is taught somehow. Those
schoolyard horrors: man I can only remember a few bloody noses; it's
vio-nography and humans are pulling the strings. "

Nial would like to see more readers and less television in the world.
Less nintendo and more as is intended.

he says
"i would be happy to correspond via snail mail with any of our web
friends. i have some questions and i have a few ansers if they can
handle mindfullness not religion, that doesn't enter unless you want it
to, but after you start perceiving things differently that tends to
follow. . .

you may end up happy with a big round rock in golden gate park and if
that works, go van go!"

Nial is big brother, Doug. he is being time
at:
Douglas Diehl
#96162-011
FCI Sheridan
P. O. Box 5000
Sheridan, OR
97378-5000

if anyone would like a pen pal who understands prison and how to be free
within the illusion. . .

my latest holiday card from him said:
"wish you were here!" I am. . .. :-)
I Love You
gen
________________________________________________________________________





neo:
Has anyone here actually met a fully enlightened being? Are there
some here?
~~~~~~~~~~

Jerry:
Has anyone here seen Neo's image of a fully enlightened being?
~~~~~~~~~~

Neo is a fully enlightened being who prefers to think of himself as an
unenlightened being working toward it :-)

With Love,

Tim
~~~~~~~~~~

>Dear Tim

>Somehow this does not ring quite true. At the heart of neo is the one
>fully enlightened being that is at the core of us all.

That's a much better description than I gave. Thanks for the clarity.

>neo is a combination of enlightenment and ego, God and the Devil, clarity and
>confusion.

> neo is a
>combination of enlightenment and ego, God and the Devil, clarity and
>confusion.

Perhaps 'neo' is an illusion altogether, and what he really is is what
is
'at his heart', which is something wordless and inexpressible. Maybe
that's what we all are.

>A change has occurred as I have often wandered off of the
>path before. I do not believe this will happen again.

>Peace, neo
________________________________________________________________________


Kundalini could be called the "the supreme undoer of all
identifications";
the consequence is that Kundalini and doership (effort) are an
impossible
mix that sooner or later will cause serious problems. This is the
reason,
why for instance in Upanishads and the Patanjali Yoga Sutras, nothing is
said to arouse K... Compared to artificial methods (doership), surrender
and devotion will arouse Kundalini far stronger but safe, by awakening
the
heart center first.

Jan
________________________________________________________________________

Joshua:

..."Ego" is really a useless word because
nobody can agree on a satisfactory definition. Let's call the body-mind
as the "instrument." Let's call the origin of folly as "ignorance" or
"unconscious." I think this terminology will save a great deal of
misunderstanding.
________________________________________________________________________

Xan:
I heard through a reliable friend, of a woman he knows
in Detroit who does not eat (I think her name is Isabel)
and there are enough of them around that they have a
label - breatharians.

When I ran across these people in my reading, it
became apparent that none of them did any practices
to achieve this. The common element among them in
various religions, cultures and time periods is complete
Surrender.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dan: And then sometimes the whole sheebang looks like
one big process of surrender. Everything surrendering
to everything else. Surrendering in the process of being
eaten, surrendering in the process of being born, and in
the process of dying. It's really something, 'cause nothing
gets left out! It's All always surrendering everything to Itself!
________________________________________________________________________

Papaji: You are the baby thinking it must take care of its mother. You
must only learn to let Self take care of you, as it has always done
but
you did not know.

Dan: Beautiful. Reminds me of Tim saying that people don't get
enlightened, "Enlightenment gets 'peopled'." Also, Alan Watts's
statement that people don't live in the universe. Instead, It's a
"peopling universe", we're a world that "peoples."
________________________________________________________________________


Ramana: Just realize that you are dreaming a
dream you call the world, and stop looking for ways out. The
dream is not your problem. *YOUR PROBLEM IS THAT YOU LIKE
ONE PART OF THE DREAM AND NOT ANOTHER.
________________________________________________________________________


This is what I wonder about you:

What is your definition of enlightenment?
Why are you holding on to a definition of enlightenment?
What makes you think someone's level of consciousness
can be determined by appearances and actions?
What difference does it make who is enlightened and who is not?

Your life is just about you and your own awakening.


xan

top of page