Click here to go to the next issue.

Vernal equinox and full moon too.


Where did I leave that key?

"Before, it was, then it wasn't.
Before, it wasn't, then it was.
It wasn't, it won't be,
and now isn't to be found."

Buddha (udana 6.3)
________________________________________________________________________________\
______


JERRY KATZ:

*nowhere*

you're somewhere
i'm somewhere
we're nowhere at all
________________________________________________________________________________\
______

LARRY BIDDINGER:

You're nowhere
I'm, nowhere
We're a big nowhere


________________________________________________________________________________\
______



TERRY MURPHY:

*skin/ego*

responding to gene's comments about ego being like skin, and to 'please let
go of any idealistic fantasies that may lead you to assume otherwise' than
being in our skin, in our 'rightful place':



gene said:

also from GENE:

"The I that is We

Can only be

When you are you

And I am me"

Understanding 'boundary issues' is a simple as understanding _skin_.
We want perfect skin, skin suited for our chosen lifestyle; skin that
is durable, yet sensitive. We desire touch and feeling and sharing...
neither NO-SKIN or IRON-SKIN is called for here... instead, actual
real skin. The same goes with 'psychic boundaries', the proper name
for which is 'ego'. Ego is subject to the same gamut of
disorders/dysfunctions as is skin, and responds exactly the same way
to treatment. It is SO simple!

{It is my wish for the reader to 'deeply meditate upon' this simple
concept... for hours, days, and years, until it is realized: Ego is
simply the 'skin' of the psyche. We have ego because we are
_social-communal-tribal Beings; we _need_ this skin/boundary/ego,
because our rightful place is to be embedded in the communality of
the Living Universe. Please let go of any idealistic fantasies of
'oneness' which would lead you to assume otherwise.}

end of gene's comment


I'm not generally one to argue, and especially with someone as
intelligent, articulate, and given to long explanations as gene it is
intimidating even to begin; but I hate to let statements like these go
unchallenged.

It seems to me that the great error is to assume that the boundary of
skin delineates the difference between inside and outside. That skin is
often related to 'boundary issues' I will grant. To say that 'everything
within this boundary is *mine*' is to create the distinction of inside vs
outside, or me-and-mine vs everyone else; and it is not necessarily just
skin that marks those boundaries.
The boundary of skin is typically the animal kingdom's sense of
individual self, of 'inside,' as opposed to the world, which is ouside. One
may observe that sex alters these boundaries (I have a BS in biology, and
tend to take examples from biological systems, and see the human being as
'just another animal' in many respects). When a male has sex with a female,
the skin boundary is no longer the limit of inside and outside. We have the
expression of what we know as *love* occurring between two sentient beings,
and the ego as it has been known, as confined with one skin, becomes much
more fluid. That which is outside the skin becomes as precious or more
precious than that which is inside. Extending sex to having offspring, when
the female detaches the newborn from her body, the ego is still fluid enough
to include the offspring as 'self.' These are obvious examples where ego
and skin are not coterminous.
What are boundary issues? Basically, they are where we 'draw the
line,' as to how far love will allow us to drop our egos and identify with a
group, the ultimate group being the universe itself. Most people draw the
line at the skin, though the lovers and the mother and babe do not.
Boundary issues become evident when love and fear come into conflict
(it has been talked about on the list that thinking is generally the result
of conflict - there is truth to this). We set boundaries when we are afraid
that we will lose control of that which we identify with. For most people,
the skin is the final boundary, the line at which we most likely to mount a
defense of our territory. We are afraid to let people into our bodies, and
that includes our minds, generally regarded as being in our brains, which
are within our skin boundary. Love, sex, family, and all other attachments
and identifications create a lot of confusion and redrawing of boundaries on
a regular basis.
So I disagree with gene that this is simple. It is only simple when we
either claim all territory as ours or none of it, the two aspects of
nonduality. For most people, boundaries are very complex and shifting, and
the skin is not only insufficient from the standpoint of the biological fact
that we are sexual beings, but from the aspect of mind, the container of
language.
Language is what tells us who we are, is what identifies boundaries,
what makes distinctions, friend or foe. Language is, at root, at its most
fundamental nature (wittgenstein) *common*. ('In the beginning was the
word, and the word was with God, and the word was God.') Without language
there would be no consciousness, no knowledge. It is language which allows
us to transcend our individual bodies, and their skins and any other
boundaries which mind may create, and identify with that commonality which
is awareness. Language is the heritage and continuous presence of our
ancestors, and is our contribution to our future progeny.
It is language which must be transcended to experience the essential
world, the world that exists independent of labels: the ocean and the sky
and the mountains; the animals and their noises, fears, loves, activities.
Language is in black and white; is relative, phenomenal. It is
fundamentally based on making the original distinction, yin and yang, inside
and outside, me and you, us and them, and on and on to the 'ten thousand
things.'
Fear makes boundaries, and love erases them. Transcending language
erases all boundaries, and all fear gives way to Love.

Leonard Cohen now lives in a zen monastery in california; he once spoke
of shifting boundaries in the words, "It's just the way it changes, like the
shoreline and the sea," in the following beautiful song:


*Hey, That's No Way To Say Goodbye*

I loved you in the morning, our kisses deep and warm,
your hair upon the pillow like a sleepy golden storm,
yes, many loved before us, I know that we are not new,
in city and in forest they smiled like me and you,
but now it's come to distances and both of us must try,
your eyes are soft with sorrow,
Hey, that's no way to say goodbye.
I'm not looking for another as I wander in my time,
walk me to the corner, our steps will always rhyme
you know my love goes with you as your love stays with me,
it's just the way it changes, like the shoreline and the sea,
but let's not talk of love or chains and things we can't untie,
your eyes are soft with sorrow,
Hey, that's no way to say goodbye.

I loved you in the morning, our kisses deep and warm,
your hair upon the pillow like a sleepy golden storm,
yes many loved before us, I know that we are not new,
in city and in forest they smiled like me and you,
but let's not talk of love or chains and things we can't untie,
your eyes are soft with sorrow,
Hey, that's no way to say goodbye.


Remember, gene, I only get the highlights, so cc my address if you want
to be sure I get any reply you may make.

aloha, terry
________________________________________________________________________________\
______

JOHN METZGER sent a piece of Chuang Tzu translated by Thomas Merton:


Chuang Tzu and Hui Tzu
Were crossing Hao river
By the dam.

Chuang said:
"See how free
The fishes leap and dart:
That is their real happiness."

Hui replied:
"Since you are not a fish
How do you know
What makes fishes happy?"

Chuang said:
"Since you are not I
How can you possibly know
That I do not know
What makes fishes happy?"

Hui argued:
"If I, not being you,
Cannot know what you know
It follows that you
Not being a fish
Cannot know what they know."

Chuang said:
"Wait a minute!
Let us get back
To the original question.
What you asked me was
'How do you know
What makes fishes happy?'
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
"I know the joy of fishes
In the river
Through my own joy, as I go walking
Along the same river."

Chuang Tzu translated by T. Merton
________________________________________________________________________________\
______

DAVE "MANCHINE" and MELODY ANDERSON:

*Bumper Cars*


Hi Dave,

As I was putting together the highlights for yesterday I reread your
post here, and a few things kind of jumped out at me here....


You say that whenever you directed anger at someone or
something that you lost your connection.

Does this mean that anger is not part of the 'now'
....that one cannot be connected to the present
moment, and be angry at the same time?

d: Anger is a focus in my ego. It sucks up all of my energy
and slams the veil shut, even if only for just that particular
moment. It's an extravagance I prefer not to indulge in. It's
a waste of my energy.

If not....could it be that one's judgment about
anger is what breaks the connection to the 'now',
rather than the arising of anger itself?

d: No!

You say that when you directed anger at someone
else, that you know you were really cursing "yourself",
and yet you still see them as "everybody else" when you're
driving like 'bumper cars' thru traffic?

So...when you're cursing at them they are "you",
but when you're dodging their erratic driving
they're "everybody else"?

d: Cursing at me is stupid! It's a waste of energy that could
be better focused on deepening my relationship in the infinite.

Could this just be a 'mind trick'....to
keep you at ease in traffic....rather than
a movement to living life spontaneously
and authentically?

d: That I was so much more at ease in traffic, dawned on me quite
a bit later, when I had another bout of egoic focus.

Creation, God if you will, I will never understand. Sure I have felt
incredibly strong visions of I AM, and have had a glimps of his wonder,
but if you think you know him, it's because you are wasting your energy
on trivialities.

love,
Melody
________________________________________________________________________________\
______

CEE:


new to this room,
i'm here to to express and enjoy the secret that is so obvious that it's
impossible to see. i'm here to delight in myself in the form of you.
i'm here
to ponder and wonder and dissolve further.

details of this dream life seem so trivial. searched for decades
(lifetimes?). studied advaita vedanta with nome for the last few years.
looking directly inside
myself has uncovered vast freedom. i like to talk truth.

happy to be here, cee
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

*About nome*

hi jerry,

since you asked about nome,

nome has taught pure nonduality in the vain of ramana maharshi for 25
years. he teaches realization of absolute truth by looking directly into the
core of ones' own existence. currently he teaches simultaneously with russ, a
great cheshire cat kind of sage that makes spiritual practice seem easily
accessible to everyone and not a bit frightening (even though one is destroyin
g all sense of individual self).
the thing about these two is that there is no show, no romantic guruism,
no enery zapping (by looking into your eyes) etc. i guess that is why so few
people come to them. just plain truth,-- and the most direct method to
realise it. they tell you exactly how to find permanent knowledge of
absolute being-consciousness-bliss by looking deeply inside your own self.
i've been around the spirtual block, seen many teachers, and nome is a
genuine living teacher who teaches with utmost integrity and no ego that i
have ever seen.
and if you want full, complete awakwning, nome will help you discriminate
till you are done (gone). here is an example:
after much practice i came to nome and russ really happy and said,

"i don't see duality anymore. I am everything!"

they smiled and nome said, "this is a common stopping place for
aspirants,
you must look deeper. who perceives this everything?
discern the nonreality of the perceiver."

..)

love, cee
________________________________________________________________________________\
______

BRUCE MORGAN and DAN BERKOW:

part of *A Twacky Conversation*

>The twooth is a twackless
>twain.
>
>Swi Elmer Fudd (paraphrasing
>"J. Kwishnamurti")

"Now, Swi Fudd, have you found
the twackless twain to be
twully twackless, or is it
indeed an off-twack twain
waiting for a weck? How
shall people in this multi-twacked
world of twavesty and twagedy
be able to twain themselves
on your twain, that is, to
untwain their minds and
fwee their heart?"

Ba Ba Wa Wa, intwepid weporter

top of page