Click here to go to the next issue.

Jerry had asked:

Where are the responsibility and compassion in nondualism?

and Petros had responded:

It is the highest possible compassion to annihilate both the object and
the subject of compassion.



Jerry said, perhaps audaciously:

Beautifully said, and how many will understand it?



Harsha responded:

Maybe this is nonduality at its best :--). Here is a "nondual" truth.
Now "how many" will understand? Well, how many are out there Brother
Jerry? How are you apparently "separate" from the "many" going to
determine which of the "many" get it (the nondual truth). What is one
and what is many? I am being simplistic here. Perhaps it is enough that
One gets it. But get what?

Jerry says:

Thank you, Harsha. Yes, that's the process that always has to be going
on in response to everything, isn't it? And it has to be simplistic. And
it is enough that One gets it. And that is the question: Get What?, or
more fundamentally, 'Who is Getting?'.

So if a person thinks, 'I'm going shopping', a practitioner has to
consciously ask him- or herself, 'Who is going shopping?'. It's not
different than asking 'Who am I?'.

Perhaps that's the genius of Ramana. Because inwardly inquiring 'Who am
I?' may be the one real act of compassion and responsibility that there
is. It's so many things wrapped into one.

It brings the discussion back to what Petros said: "It is the highest
possible compassion to annihilate both the object and the subject of
compassion."

Isn't "the answer" to Ramana's inquiry a complete annihilation of the
universe? (Although it might be said, 'How can that which never existed
by annihilated?'.)

It seems that in nonduality dealings we're always playing on the edge of
annihilation. Those who fear it (and fearing it is cool), send others to
the edge for them in the forms of historical or legendary characters or
Gurus or scholars; they don't go too close to the edge themselves. Or
they point to others floating in the void beyond the edge.

Nonduality isn't about that, and it isn't about a lot of things, and it
isn't about nonduality at all.

What it is about is sitting one's ass in a chair and asking, Who am I?.
That can be done anywhere at any time, though at work it may be
difficult. I've suggested that when in the workplace, one inquire at
random times, 'Is this Who I am?'. Or, 'Is this I AM?'. Or, 'Is this the
Guru?'. Or, 'Is this the sound of the Mantra?'. The form of the inquiry
would depend upon the most meaningful focal point of one's practice.
Such an inquiry will serve to ground and re-center a person.

In my case it's a slice of cheesecake. But that's another story...

Jerry

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A few weeks ago, a visualization occurred to me in which I felt my body
entirely encased by twining tendrils of energy. Working with this image in
my mind, I saw
this body floating in infinite black void, then I found that inside it as
well as outside it
was the same black void. Staying further with the image, I found that the
tendrils could
unwind from the cocoon/body shape and spiral off in all directions, forever
in black void.
I can also feel these energy tendrils run through the heart of every being.
I can see each individual persona/mask as this same cocoon. When it
unwinds, there is nothing inside it.

andrew

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ivan wrote:

I find it useful to diferentiate the "human being" from "personality" and
"me".
The "me" is an image of myself using the atributes of memory. It may be
active, when I live the ilusion of an inner center.

The "personality" is the image I project in my social relations to others
and myself, when I am acting from the "me". I am fully identifyed with
habitual behaviour patterns.

But, the "human being" is not an illusion. When thought is not using the
memory to project the "me", then there is awareness of the human world. One
could call it the
"mind of mankind" as one tottality. P. ex., the way we sense the visual
objects, or tact objects, or auditive objects, or the functioning of the
thought procesess are proper to the "mind of mankind" as a wholle, it
seems. Within the mind of mankind is the possibility of fragmentation into
the ilusionary "me".

Someone in this list said that simplicity is a priority (in other words),
and I agree. So if the above should complicate matters, let's just drop it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Marcia wrote:

The thing I like about the 4th Way is the mountain
climbing metaphor. The idea is that we are a group
of mountain climbers all connected by those roaps
that mountain climbers use. Then if one or another
of us loses our footing we don't have to fall all the
to the bottom of the mountain only to have to start
over again. Those closer to the top theoretically
know more about mountain climbing than those
further down. Once one reaches the top one doesn't
need the ropes anymore but can choose to help
those still climbing. And those ropes are coated with
a great deal of love and affection and loyalty and
idealism and companionship but the core of the rope
is just plain desire to reach the top and the fortitude
to get there. Common aim. Group work.

Things things change from level to level. What is true
on one level becomes it's opposite on the next but....

A man alone is in bad company.
A man wrapped up in himself makes for a pretty small
package.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> ...objective reality is demonstratable from the perspective of relationship.
> For example, if you gather together a thousand people, and they all observe
> a tree and agree that the tree is there, it can be surmised that at the
> very least SOMETHING is there. In fact, that is how human beings come by
> their idea of objective reality -- through relationship with others.
> Without that relationship, all would be subjective.

Andrew responds:

This is not objectivity, it's inter-subjectivity, and there are fundamental
assumptions underlying it. -Reality is assumed to present itself to the
individual such that the individual and the observed object are distinct and
separate. However, the experience of many is that on deeper examination this
subject object distinction fades away.
-It is also assumed that underlying this apparent reality, there is a purely
abstract rational construct, which is then called 'reality' and what is
perceived is called 'appearance', then if many individuals agree about
appearance
it is assumed to reflect reality.
-Also there is group pressure, we learn to see things as others see them, and
anyone who does not is considered crazy or lost in fantasy or hopelessly
romantic
and ignored.
There is no logical basis for saying that because all agree on a thing it
is any
less subjective than if only one perceives it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Marcia writes:

My practice is a moment by moment thing. That is each
moment that I can remember to practice.

Each impression either internal or external I take that
second look in order to really see it for what it is and
not what I want it to be. If it is a thought I feel it and
sense it. If it is a feeling I think it and sense it. If it is
a sensation I feel it and think it.

If it is a "charged" impression all the better as it feeds
me somehow if I can take that second look. That is
if I can meet the reaction with an internal action in the
moment. Otherwise I am dead and the dead can just
bury the dead. If I can meet the reaction with an
internal action I can raise the dead. The reaction is
already dead as it comes from the past or from past
programming. Past is prologue. I have to continually
fall back into my past in order to be there in the moment.
If I march forward I am marching into my past. If I fall
back I am being in the present.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Tomas wrote:

>the body
>the thoughts, the images of body
>the dramas that reference body and qualities and functions
>
>they are all representatives
>
>this is clear this morning as a quiet revelation -a still small voice
>says these are all representatives
>
>all representatives- some know some dont know


Melody offered in response:

A couple of nights ago I had a Vedic astrology
reading. How amazing to have someone who has never
met me begin to describe me better than I could
have described myself.

Thru the reading I began to see layed out in
front of me, my own 'representatives' symbolized
by planets, houses, and such.....and noticing
the relationship and interaction between them.

There's something rather sublime about seeing
one's expressions layed out upon a table,
so to speak. Not only does it assist me in the
'detaching' from those representations...to see
that there is a 'me' beyond them, but it opened
the door for a 'sinking into' myself that nothing
else has provided for me up to now.

It provided a ground for acceptance, along with
a sense of awe at the beauty of the design....
that no assurances from others could.

For me the hard part has always been the giving
of permission ....permission to allow, permission
to live the greater design, rather than the dense
reality in front of my face.

For me, though it may seem silly, this
reading shows me permission is no longer an
issue. I can use this reading AS the permission
I seek. Or I can simply recognize that my
permission is rather meaningless. There is a
Life that is to be lived thru me. And it will.

I can choose to 'suffer' in doubt and resistance,
or I can simply let go, and "in-Joy" the ride.

Love,
Melody

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

johan offers:

I am a mountian climber. And climbers don't really like ropes. They only
give a false feeling of security and safety, because when one of the
climbers slips and falls, he usually (four times out of five) drags the
others with him. There is even more: without a rope, the one who falls has
a better chance to stop his fall.
When you climb without a rope, you learn more from the other climbers who
are with you then when you are roped, because you have their support and
their help, but you are not depending on them. There is a lot more
encouragement and less dependency.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

There is the healthy fear that we call 'respect' and then there is the fear we
feel when our hate gets the best of us... one of them forces us to act... the
other is the act it 'self'.....

Gentle Peace.

Tim Harris

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Jerry wrote:

Perhaps that's the genius of Ramana. Because inwardly inquiring 'Who am
I?' may be the one real act of compassion and responsibility that there
is. It's so many things wrapped into one.

It seems that in nonduality dealings we're always playing on the edge of
annihilation. Those who fear it (and fearing it is cool), send others to
the edge for them in the forms of historical or legendary characters or
Gurus or scholars; they don't go too close to the edge themselves. Or
they point to others floating in the void beyond the edge.

Harsha wrote:

Thanks for your thought Jerry. To go beyond the edge, you would have
to find the edge. Now where is the edge?

Jerry writes:

It lies in the sense that there is an edge. It is imaginary.


Harsha:

Assuming the existence of an edge is another condition, an imaginary
boundary, in order to
sustain---------------------------------------------what?


Jerry:

In order to sustain the imagination. Isn't that what we're doing here?
Dealing with imaginations of finer and finer substance until there is
only the atmosphere in which imagination exists?


Harsha:

I am not saying you should not compromise. It is just that there are no
compromises. It is not that I reject all doctrines, it is only that I
see all doctrines as they are and the cause of their existence. I
swallow that cause. Here is the earlier quote from the Mountain Path.

All doctrines are made by the ego and for the ego. The ego flourishes on
them. But on the Maharshi's path the very existence of the ego is denied
right from the start, both that of the teacher and that of the taught.
"There is no ego. If there were you would have to admit of two selves in
you. Therefore there is no ignorance. If you enquire into the Self,
ignorance, which is already non-existent, will be found not to exist and
you will say that it has fled."*

Here is what Antoine said:

One of my great teacher's who initiated me told me, in meditations we d
side to side while i was 21: "Look for Nothing in you until there is
Nothing looking".

Jerry:

Well, yes, what I said might be right for someone. Someone might be able
to identify with it. What I said arises out of a local interactions and
nuances. Whereas what you and Antoine and Ramana are saying are
fundamental anywhere and anyplace and hold up in all times.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[...]
> Yet doesn't one need a practice? Or have those of us here incorporated
> our practice into the moment, and so our concerns are not practice as
> such, but the nondual horizon toward which we are moving and upon which
> we are attempting to balance?
>
Jan writes:

Dividing life into practice and non-practice could imply a contradiction.
One's practice is to overcome separateness but by the division into practice
/ non-practice, separateness is created. If meditation doesn't come natural,
one could call it practice but if it comes natural, it isn't. If one can
realize that the one who is meditating is the witness when seemingly one is
engaged in activity, separateness will not arise.
Onepointedness is contemplating a subject, ignoring irrelevant thoughts and
this too is useful in daily life as the subject of onepointedness is
irrelevant. Because life is short, consider life as meditation.

A property of a horizon is that it cannot be reached; if nonduality would be
a chase to an ever distant horizon, liberation in a living body wouldn't be
possible. Yet the analogy of the horizon is appropriate in the sense that no
one can look over it (Marcia...!), despite availability of pictures, made by
those who are "at the other side" of such a horizon.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Jan offered:

An interesting link about Kundalini in various disciplines is:
http://www.sol.com.au/kor/

An excerpt:

Tao

In the Tao Te Ching the primordial power is described as that of a mother.
Lao Tze described Kundalini as the “spirit of the valley” (in which flows
the Nadi of Sushumna). The spirit of the valley never dies. The spiritual
instrument within us can be described as a microcosm (miniature form of
creation) which links us with the Divine. The ancient esoteric text
“Scripture of the Golden Flower” also spoke of the effects of the awakened
kundalini energy.

Buddhist

The Lord Buddha spoke of the “middle path” to achieve nirvana. He was
actually describing the central channel (sushumna) through which the
Kundalini ascends. Later Buddhist masters considered that the existence of
the path of liberation within a human being was the greatest secret. They
transmitted it to only a few deserving disciples.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Quoted from the Mountain Path -----------------------------------Harsha

All doctrines are made by the ego and for the ego. The ego flourishes on
them. But on the Maharshi's path the very existence of the ego is denied
right from the start, both that of the teacher and that of the taught.
"There is no ego. If there were you would have to admit of two selves in
you. Therefore there is no ignorance. If you enquire into the Self,
ignorance, which is already non-existent, will be found not to exist and
you will say that it has fled."*

top of page