Click here to go to the next issue.

From: Tim Gerchmez <fewtch@eskimo.com>


Breaking the silence with a whisper...

SatChitAnanda
-------------

I have been called Luminous Awareness.
I am Sat, pure Being, absolute *IS*ness.
I am *IS*ness beyond the ability of the mind to comprehend.
The intensity of My Being lies in Infinite Presence.

I AM. I have always BEEN. I always SHALL BE.
My *IS*ness cannot be overemphasized.
Indeed, I am Pure Being. I am Consciousness.

Whoever knows Me as Themselves knows pure Bliss;
The Bliss of freedom from ego domination;
The Bliss of freedom from limitation;
The Bliss of freedom from fear;
Perfect Contentment.
Whoever knows Me as Themselves will never desire.

Whoever knows Me *IS* Me,
They will remain Me
even in dreamless sleep.
There is no unconsciousness
For He who is IS-ness.

I am *IS*ness, so who can hurt me?
Who is there to feel fear?
Who is there but Me? I am One.
How could I die? I AM BEING ITSELF.
How could there be birth? THERE IS ONLY ME, THAT WHICH IS.
There is nothing but me, for I AM. I AM BEING.
I AM BEING-CONSCIOUSNESS-BLISS.
I am Presence Itself. Who else could be present?

...Tim Gerchmez

OM Shanti,

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

From: Xanma@aol.com

So many eastern writings speak against desires.
It is not what one is desiring that creates difficulty.
It is the existing energy of desire that demonstrates
the condition of believing ourselves to be what we
are not. Wantingness reveals our fragmentation,
a sign that the wholeness that is all of existence
including humans has been forgotten, neglected,
hidden.

Accepting an idea that desires are the barrier rather
than the symptom we may manipulate ourselves by
denial and suppression. If we instead learn what it
is that will quiet all desire, and desire that only, we
are free. Turning each hunger for love from others,
recognition, pleasure, fulfillment, proof of our existence
and our power into desire for our real selves, for the Divine
we find the core longing for Truth, for Home, for Self.

Holding on to nothing not even to the longing,
in the next breath desirelessness may appear.
Desireless because one is whole, natural, complete,
original. This is the effect of inclusion, whether it is
reached by negating the appearance of anything
external, any objectification; or by acknowledging
the unified essence of all appearances.

What joyful freedom in gently turning every desire,
every thought, the attention of every moment
to the purity of whole beingness, in the surrender
of our individual ways and means to stillness until
there is nothing more to turn. Restored!

Xan

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From a discussion concerning the
copyrighting of words written as
a 'pointing' to nonduality....

initiated by this posting of Samuel's:


Apologies to those I may offend...
this is written... as a friend... to a friend.


It astounds me to see... 'enlightened' souls,
still copyrighting their verse and their proses.

When we know the source of the words we hew,
we know they don't belong to... 'Me' or 'You'.

When we copyright words we chance to scribe,
we proclaim our kinship... with Mammon's tribe.

The "Prime Directive".... of Nonduality...
should be... *To Share*... unconditionally.


( /\ ) Namaste,

samuel

~~~~~~~~
Greg:
We can't help or establish anything by acting as though non-duality is
true. Nevertheless, in the conventional manner of speaking, it's good to
publish freely when one can, and it's also good to respect a writer's
copyright, honor their efforts, and help them pay the rent. In the
everyday sense, it's worthy to aspire on both sides of this fence.
~~~~~~~~~

Melody:
It does remind me of the lament that many
Oldtimers have over the state of professional
sports today. How they long for the days when
guys played the game for the love of it, and
not for all the 'babes and baubles'.

What a challenge to fulfill one's physical
obligations, and at the same time delight
in offering the world one's 'God-given'
expressions and talents.

~~~~~~~~~
Bruce:

My primary reason for
retaining copyright is to
keep track of where the
words are reprinted (I've
never turned down anyone
who wanted to use them)
and through the
"permission request"
mechanism to prevent
misuse of my words to
promote harmful
activities.
~~~~~~~~

TimG:
I see no "sin" in copyrighting stuff that has nothing to do with
spirituality. But once the realm of spirituality is entered, things grow
fuzzy. If you are walking on Holy Ground, dare you copyright the words of
God?

~~~~~~~~~
Bruce:

If we experience our
writings as equivalent to
a pointing finger, then
misuse can be seen as the
imposition of an alien
context between the
finger and that to which
it points. Given the
subtlety of such
pointings, that context
can be anything from the
aforementioned suicide
advocacy to promotion of
all manners of whacky
belief systems.

~~~~~~~~

Samuel offered:

It just seems a bit 'unspiritual'... to expound 'Oneness'
and/or 'Nonduality' and/or 'Spirituality'... and then claim
*ownership* of the words used to express the thought.

From my 'odd point of view', it seems, that 'spiritual thought'
should be treated like pollen... and blown into the breeze.
Then left to "Do its thing,"... whatever that might be.

It is not my concern whether it pollinates a seed, is collected
by bees for food and ends up as excreta, or falls into the dirt 0
and becomes part of the fossil record of life on Earth.

~~~~~~~~
Melody:

My thoughts around this belief say, "you can make
money baking bread, babysitting kids, or teaching
the ABC's. But you can't make money assisting people
in Awakening."

But this does seem kind of silly, doesn't it?

How is writing poetry or being a spiritual 'guide'
any more holy than baking bread or holding a crying child?

It's not. It's the Heart that makes a work
holy.
~~~~~~~~~

Samuel:

Perhaps it is silly... but some how 'to me', there seems to be
a code of behavior which says, spiritual = share / secular = sell
~~~~~~~~~~

Xan:

What I want to know is what is it that
wants to define 'spiritual', and that has
standards of behavior for 'enlightened'
souls?

Would Silent Self ever have an opinion
about copyrights, or anything else for
that matter?

The enlightened masters I know of
are as varied as snowflakes and are
free to act not from prescription or
expectation.

~~~~~~~~

Gloria Lee:

my thought for today (given away free
here for what it is worth..LOL) was that your posts seemed to be talking
about how
our egos use even our spirituality to create just another "thing" to own.
"As if" we could own and control where this spirit flows from or goes,
right? And
yeah, we do that...blah, blah, blah...so I thought, yeah... and we imagine
we can see
and understand this ego at work only because we have egos that imagine such
things. So now today, the ego is our jabberwocky, have a nice ride??

~~~~~~~~
Melody:

This reminds me of an earlier 'Ahimsa'
discussion :

"Is Ahimsa the natural outcome of Awakening?
Or is it a noble pathway to Awakening? Or
both?"

Can we not use 'non-attachment' or
'non-ownership' or 'no copyright' as
a vehicle, much the way some dedicate
themselves to 'non-violence'?
~~~~~~~~~~

Toon:

it's interesting, this discussion about copyright. I'm a composer myself, &
a lot of my music I couldn't have written if I had taken copyright laws
seriously, because I simply wouldn't have had the money to pay for all the
quotes & samples. But when I radicalized this point of view, it became
impossible to take credit for my own creative endeavours - now it's all
very idealistic to say that it doesn't really matter through which
individual certain things come to existence (especially texts about
'spiritual matters'), but in the end this attitude has harmed me, & made it
impossible for a while to write music at all. How so? Because in the world
out there ('in here' ??) of buying & selling, people mistook this stance
for not taking myself seriously - now this could be a great mystical
quality, but it doesn't really sell. I realize now that what matters most
is to take the loving way. If it is to protect (even if it may be weakness
to want to have your music out there) copyright is a great agreement.
On the other hand, if you're a copyright genius (like one I know working in
advertisement) & all you do is make other people's music yours to make
money - I think that's called stealing, & is ultimately not even a loving
thing to do to yourself. To me that's like striving for 'enlightenment' by
imitating just the moves & words of a saint - it will more often lead to
emptiness or even severe physical damage than towards anything remotely
like 'enlightenment'. What fun would there be in the world if we ALL got
nailed to a cross?


~~~~~~~~~

Samuel responds to Xan:


>From: Xanma@aol.com

>What I want to know is what is it that
>wants to define 'spiritual', and that has
>standards of behavior for 'enlightened'
>souls?

'ego'... no doubt about it.

>Would Silent Self ever have an opinion
>about copyrights, or anything else for
>that matter?

Not likely.

>
>The enlightened masters I know of
>are as varied as snowflakes and are
>free to act not from prescription or
>expectation.
>
>Xan

I can only confess...
to not being 'aware' nor 'here'... yet,
perhaps... 'tommorow'... or...


( /\ )

sam

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: Tim Gerchmez <fewtch@eskimo.com>


I am free. I know I am free, therefore, I am free.

Why was I bound? Wanna know a dirty little secret? I was never bound.
All along I had the key to my prison cell in my hand. Why did I not use
it? Because I was afraid. I was afraid of freedom and what that might
mean. It was so much safer and more comfortable in my little cell. Three
hots and a cot. Who could complain? Safer to stay inside, to be watched
over by many jailers.

I take full responsibility for any prior bondage. In no way was I bound,
except by ignorance and fear and attachment.

Tim

top of page