Click here to go to the next issue.

Teegee and Gene continue a dialogue on ACIM (A Course in Miracles)

G:> > IMO, ACIM 'contains' much wisdom borrowed from quoted masters, yet is
> > itself, completely 'aDharmic'.
>
TG:> Since I don't know what Dharmic or aDharmic means, I won't comment, unless
> you choose to explain.

Gene: Glad you asked. 'aDharmic' means 'against the truth', which is
different than 'false'. It is more difficult to see what is against
the truth, than what is not the truth. Much in the 'world's way of
thinking', as you point out below, is conducted in the context of
fear; as I see, this fear is actually only fear of extinction, which
in itself in not necessarily a bad thing in itself. But when that
context of fear is deliberately propagated ALONG WITH a supposed
remedy for fear... that is a reason to fear! This is what I really
want to communicate here... which is why I am going to all this
trouble.

When I point out (agree or not with my pointing!) that ACIM needs
'fear' or 'negativity' for it's own survival, what I am saying is
this; it may be time to graduate from ACIM, and to leave the fear AND
the supposed remedy, far far behind.

If every wrong, ill, or 'negativity' has a specific counteractant,
the life of the counteractant literally depends upon the continuation
of that specific ill, etc.

I could sum up my 'criticism' of ACIM this way: ACIM is prescribed as
a medicine, for which there is no disease.

G:> > I do not intend to cause anyone pain by what I say about ACIM, but in
> > my experience, ACIM is actually about _control_, in all levels of
> > relationship, and especially on the social level. This is what I have
> > seen. Has anyone else see this?
>
TG:> If you think ACIM is about control -- which is a form of fear -- then this
is
> what you would perceive.... it is no wonder you *see* this. ACIM is about
> the relinquishment of the world's way of thinking, which is a thought system
> based on fear, and the acceptance instead, of a thought system based on love.

Gene: I am not aware of a thought system based on fear, but I am
aware that much thinking is conducted in the context of fear.

Please tell me; what is wrong with fear? Are you afraid of fear? Fear
is a 'real enough' feeling, with the typical drug-like side-effects
that all other 'feelings and emotions' also bring.

I am aware, acutely aware, of the tragedy of those who actually live
daily in fear; I can think of many instances in of today and history
in which humans have every reason for fear. Fear has a voice and it
says 'HEY LOOK AT THIS!'. It has a useful purpose; fear in itself is
not a suitable target for fixing, or is it?

Ask yourself... WHY would anyone want to do away with fear?

***

Hey... I know! Let's come up with something STRONGER than fear! But,
something that feels GOOD!

TG: > Impossible. ACIM is nothing already but what you think it is. To you,
it
> represents 'control'. ACIM might be a great path for you to learn to let go
> of that control you so desire to take away and your contrasts of right and
> wrong. :-)

Gene: Impossible, you say?

TG: > Try reading it next time, if there is a next time, with an open mind.
For
> many, the text (which I assume you read) remains abstract without the
> lessons. This is where many close the book as they have closed their minds
> while reading it.

Gene: There you go again with this 'open mind' thing. I did read the
book and I did take 'lessons'...

I found that ACIM can be an exquisite 'hiding place', affording a
'better rush' than fear, but that fear must be carried along, to get
that 'better' rush. That is my point. Can you address it in other
than a doctrinaire way? Perhaps this the the first time that anyone
has ever said these things about ACIM; perhaps there is no precedent
for this viewpoint of mine on ACIM.
_________________________________________________________

Hans on "my crap, your crap"

It just occurred to me if i let go of my crap then your crap will be gone
too. What a relief :) if ever i saw a good reason to let it go, this is the
one :)
_________________________________________________________

Dan on "universe, cell"

Hi Kristy -
It's totally natural and unselfconscious.
There's no thought about doing or not-doing,
nor harming or not harming the Whole Body.
There is trust in the Whole Body, which has
no outside. The Whole Body is beyond
being harmed or helped. Each blood cell
plays its part, but the boundary around
the blood cell is simply how it shows
that it is the Whole. There only is the
Whole. Boundaries arise within the Whole
and are the Whole. Thus the boundary cell/universe
doesn't interfere with the cell being the universe.

Love,
Dan
__________________________________________________

Mark and Dan "on altering ego's dream"

Mark wrote:
>Okay, it's time for me to come clean. Mark is an alter ego of the being
>named neemyth and neo is an alter ego of Mark. (or is it some other way
>around?) All altar egos, none worth leaving offerings at...

D: Exactly. Well said, alter boy ;-)
It takes an alter ego to alter ego's dream,
which after all, is endless alternative
realities that never are all-there.
All the dreams revolve around a nonexistent
center.
With no center, it flies apart.
Flying apart, it returns to what is always
the constant situation.

M:>I don't think any of this stuff is getting heard. Do you?

D: Yes.

M: Is that the
>fault of the receiver or the messenger? Or just the delivery system?
>Perhaps we can just receive for awhile...

D: What else is there?

M: >silence on the list for one day. I say boycott it for 24 hours.

D: No one's here.

>Starting whenever you receive this suggestion. Oh well, just another
>crazy thought from the mad fingers.
>
>Love, Mark
>P.S. neemyth, your delivery sucks, you suck, you have been sucked dry,
>there is nothing left to suck out. (Just a compliment to make you happy
>enough to be quiet for a day...) SUCKSSESS!!!! I know, I'm
>responding from my own shit. Okay.

Dan:
Neemyth is an example of
the raining of shit on the parade of
the purified ego.
Nameless is the abyss from which nothing
arises.
On the other side of the abyss is Light,
but within the Light is utter Nothingness.
Nothingness doesn't arise, it's not
the word or concept nothingness.
Neemyth wants no games to obscure
the reality that games won't
defer the abyss.
Neemyth is a game.
The game to end all games
ends the game of me, you,
and all the me's and you's.
End the game. End me and you.
Now.
Because this isn't a game.

Love,
Dan
______________________________________

Mark writes:

Hi neo,

I feel a wee bit attacked by your assertion that

> IMO, this entire list is sick mentally
>

and, I wonder what madness suggests to you that "Seems like this list
would be useful for us to work on getting ourselves right." (See how I
use your slur on my mental health to frame a response that says the same
thing? Does it make you feel better? Have I cured your "problems"?)
Will you cure mine? Do you care if I'm mad?

Who writes your material? If you are in between writers, I'd like to
volunteer for the position. Here are my editorial suggestions:

"IMO, this entire list is exactly as it is, and that's just the way it
is... (sung to the tune of "That's Just The Way IT is"....) Seems like
this list would be useful for mirroring ourselves so we can decide if
how we are is how we want to be..."

I can't tell if I'm joshing you or being completely serious... like I
say, the fingers are mad and the rest of me is in no way responsible for
any of it... gosh that sounds ambivalent to me...


mad, mad, mad,
Mark
P.S. Feel free to take a post of mine (or two or three) and show me how
they would make more sense from where you sit. I could use the
reflections to do my makeup...
P.P.S. This might be an attack, or it might be funny as Hell, or it
might be deep wisdom from an understanding soul, or it might be a big
bore. It's up to you. I sent it with all the good intent I can muster
at this instant, and I expect little more from myself. The rest is up
to you. I wish you the very best of luck negotiating it all.
__________________________________________________________

A J A and Phil and jody and Jan on "not dead yet"

On Fri, 7 Apr 2000, A J A wrote:

|Hi,
|
|I just read John Hick say (in his book "The Fifth
|Dimension") that he doubts claims to have merged
|with "the One" (Absolute, Brahman, etc.) because
|the individuated stream of consciousness which
|subsequently reports this could only be the one
|which was supposedly terminated. He quotes a
Sufi
|who says such claims are made while temporarily
|intoxicated with the Divine but are subsequently
|known by reason to be false. Hick does however
go
|on to say such total effacement may well happen
|after physical death.
|
|So that's question #1 - how (if at all) is
*total*
|union possible before physical death?
|
|cheers,
|
|AJA
~~~
What is an "individuated stream of consciousness"?
I doubt if there is
such a thing apart from Mr Hick's imagination. As
I understand the sages
of nonduality, the supposed "individual" never
existed, and so has no
"before or after." The only true individual is
the undivided whole of
consciousness. John Hick requires that, for there
to be something to
say, there must be "someone" to say it. Question
this assumption.

Phil
~~
In some disciplines there is talk about merging whereas in
others there is nothing to merge with: instead, it is said one
has temporarily forgotten one's real nature so it can be
recognized again. The recognition causes another recognition
to happen, that there are many identifications, centered
around "I". In the course of events, the "I" (together with
its identifications) will dissolve/burn out and the event
where the "I" cannot arise again goes under various names,
depending on the discipline:

Annihilation of lover into the beloved (Sufis)
Alchemical wedding (some Gnostics, Rosicrucians)
Moksha (Hindus)
Nirvana (Buddhists)
Kingdom of heaven (early Christians)

This isn't the end of de-identification - it can go on to a
point where pain no longer can be felt but usually this
coincides with the death of the body.

Jan
~~~~

AJA:
Thanks very much for your input Phil (and Jan).
To respond to your question "what is an
'individuated stream of consciousness'?" I'd say
you, I, and John Hick are examples. You
presumably see no problem in distinguishing
"Mr.Hick's imagination" from your own and. Is
this the kind of distinction you suggest I
question?
~~~~~~~~

You just can't escape the fact that this list is
apparently comprised of individual beings engaged
in discussion.

However, individual beings aren't individual streams
of consciousness, for consciousness cannot be objectified.

While we can objectify our bodies and minds, our being
is pure, absolute, and completely undifferentiated.
In pure being there are no distinctions of self of
other.

How this gets wrapped up in a body and a mind and a
concept of individual being is a mystery that science
may never answer. It just does. You can blame it on
Maya. It worked for Shankara.

--jody
_______________________________________________

Marcia and Hans on "lies, liars and other truths"

This idea of lying is key. We are all liars (although not perfect ones) if only
because we have defined ourselves in a limited way buffering the other
definition that will come up in a subsequent moment. Everytime we believe
(identify with) any single definition we are lying. It is easy to see the lie in
the other guy. It is hard to see the lie in oneself because of denial. We
have it buffered. We don't point out the lie in the other guy because we
don't want the lie in ourselves pointed out to us. It is called a contract.
We contract with the other guy not to point out his lie if he won't
point out our lie. Soon we even begin to lie about the contract and
then it becomes consensual reality. It is like a breath of fresh air
when someone comes in and breaks all the contracts. Glo is right
about that. Best thing to do is just agree with the observation. It
is all the avoidance which causes all the problem. If Nixon would
have just come clean things would have been a lot easier for him.

Marcia

Even admitting i am a liar can be a lie because i can tell you i am liar to
end the discussion or to make myself believe i am not ! As far as i am
concerned everything is possible in all shades and colours. Anyway, knowing
you tell a lie implies that you know what's true and what's true is only a
point of view and that's what a lie is, just another point of view.
sometimes i think i am telling a lie on the list and then someone tells me
it is true. Surprise, surprise :) or i tell something that, at that
particular moment , sounds very true and sincere to me and the other day it
sounds 100% opposite. To be honest (?) i am not at all interested in honesty
because that can very well make a person very hypocrite. So, there we are,
sometimes (?) I tell lies. so beware :) and i am not a bit upset if someone
else tells a lie (or i think he/she does) or we can start a discussion to
find out what is hypocrisy.

True or not ?
Hans
~~~~

Point of view is always the same. What is viewed shifts and changes and
apparently is endlessly fascinating but point of view is something else
altogether. Always here, inescapable, ungraspable. What is it?

Larry

____________________________________

Neemyth offers:

Yup, relative love lays like slick oil on the surface of an ocean of
self deception. Dive deep and the oil sloughs of and the shallow
farce of oneself and all appears. Oh what a mighty belly laugh it is
to discover all the preening peacocks are really pigs wollowing in
shit. HAHAHAHA HOHOHOHO

Bravo Melody, keep diving, even beyond that.
_________________________________________________

Neo...
> Subject: RE: Groundhog Day
>
> I am just watching the movie Groundhog Day. It really is very much
> like what we do in life. We just have to do it over and over and over
> until we get it right; otherwise we are stuck in time.
>
> Seems like this list would be useful for us to work on getting
> ourselves right.
>
> Love, neo

The point was
That when you _can_ see your own shadow
You notice the light.


==GP==

You just summed up the whole justification for spiritual psychotherapy
Gene. Thanks.

--jody.
___________________________________________________


Dave wrote in response to Mary's post on I AM -illusion?
>
>There are so many things that we can't "know", but there are also
>so many coincidences that some truths just show up by themselves
>without logical support.
>
>That which is written above I have seen before, yet, in the moment
>that I "saw" this, I hadn't ever heard of ACIM or Nisargadatta or most
>of the other "so related" material. Mine had been a closely guarded
>secret for quite some time.

Mary:
An independent verification!
Is it still a secret, Dave? Can you share? I've read up to l65 in
the archives so I still don't know if you had shared this experience
with the group, yet. (Also, your experience of the "void" really
interests me, Neo. And I'd like to share something that happened,
too, sometime.)

d:>There seems to be a slight difference in the ACIM context than that
>of Nisargatta's, the latter implying more of the existence of a time
>before conscience, as opposed to the separation of a segment of THE
>conscience forming a segmented "self centered" conscience.
>

According to ACIM, before Consciousness was aware of itself, there
was only Beingness or "God is". And the creations of God are
referred to as Christ. There was nowhere that God ended and Christ
began, no differentiation; there was just nonduality.There was only
that "isness". The essence of this "isness" is Love. That's all
that can be said of it. There was no time as we know it. And because
Consciousness became aware of itself (Course does not explain how and
why; it's a mystery and all this explanation is myth anyway) it is
considered not whole, away from its home, separated, dreaming of
exile, etc. So now there is duality.

This is the kicker...The Course says that this separation never
happened. This world, you, me never even happened. So all of
this...us,etc...is just a dream we (the dreamer sonship) are dreaming
and identifying with the dream figures. (Similar to what the sages
have been saying)

Nisargadatta said in Prior to Consciousness "My own experience is
that nothing has really happened in this world...nothing is
happening.. everything that goes on in the world is a fraud...
That which has never happened at all, that is the child of a barren woman...".

d:>My vision was channeled, of course I claim no responsibility... the first
>instance happened when I was too young to even understand what
>responsibility
>meant. The seed that opened the door in my case was "elimination of time".
>
>For that reason, my vision sees conscience as something that has always
>existed. For the same reason I suppose, some could say that it has never
>existed.

This is precisely what brings my thinking to a halt. It's a real
KOAN. Please, if you can, do some more explaining of this
ineffable event. (I'm serious. What happened? What did you think
at the time? Were you frightened? etc.)

>It is a dream, a very real dream. Multiply your dream by 6 billion, and
>that's just
>the human focus (past and present are only directed focuses). How many
>physical
>alien species are there? ( 1000's, millions ?) Add them to the focus, that's
>just
>the physical focus. That kind of conscience hums!
>
>Un-friggen believable!
>
>Not sure if I'm ready for the whole choir yet!
>
>d.
>>
The Mind is truly incredible. I, as Mary, am just starting to
recognize the immensity of the Mind's power. This whole universe is
just mind stuff. Does anyone here truly believe that? (serious
question). Dave, you've had experience to back you up regarding your
statements above. But how is one to believe such events/nonevents
without such direct experience? Trust that your experience is a
sample of the Truth? I sure would like to do that.
Independent verification has always been important to me. Example:
Ramana says this is all illusion, a dream, etc. and that you are
THAT. If Gangaji says the same thing, I don't listen because she of
Ramana's lineage. But when Nisargadatta says the same thing, and
then Wei Wu Wei in his own way does, too. And then Robert Adams has a
similar conclusion after his experience and I start to
listen.....Then I feel more peaceful...not because they speak the
truth but because they all point to the fact that there is, indeed,
Truth to point to.

Mary
___________________________________________________

>> Mark wrote :
> "I'm listening, but still don't hear. I feel like velcro; like brer
> fox in
> the tar pit; like I'm focusing on being nailed to the cross, not to
> the
> freedom of no more decisions that the nails provide... Part of me
> says,
> yeah, yeah, yeah, more words, more clever disguises, and part wonders
> how
> much longer can I keep this crap up? I'm bored and tired. oh, I
> thought I
> let go, but here I am still holding on. not very fine. When I'm
> ripe, will
> I really and truly fall? "
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________________________
>
Hans and Mark on "altering ego's dream"


> Mark wrote :
> "I'm listening, but still don't hear. I feel like velcro; like brer
> fox in
> the tar pit; like I'm focusing on being nailed to the cross, not to
> the
> freedom of no more decisions that the nails provide... Part of me
> says,
> yeah, yeah, yeah, more words, more clever disguises, and part wonders
> how
> much longer can I keep this crap up? I'm bored and tired. oh, I
> thought I
> let go, but here I am still holding on. not very fine. When I'm
> ripe, will
> I really and truly fall? "



> Hi mark,
> This morning when i got up from bed i was sad, an hour later i was
> having
> fun, an hour later i was sad again and so on and so forth. I regularly
> have
> all kinds of bizar nightmares and i feel terrible when i wake up. This
> is
> not the problem, but there is something in the background that keeps
> checking if what i am thinking or feeling is * right* or * wrong*.
> The
> eternal comparison. We have build up a framework of right's and
> wrong's and
> we keep comparing one with the other. It seems almost automatic. If i
> become
> aware of this *framework* i say STOP (okay, sound like a technique :)
> Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. That's how it work with
> techiques, i guess. But i won't turn my head away again. I keep
> looking.
> And, oh yes, i want to achieve something. I don't want to think
> anymore and
> i don't want problems anymore. That'll be the day :) when i'm feeling
> sad,
> something in me keeps saying, you should not be sad. This is so
> because this
> feeling of sadness somehow does not fit in the framework i've build up
> of
> how things should be. To be continued ? words, words.
>
> Hans
>
Dear (and I mean that) Hans,

I like your words. There is an aspect of cycling in my moods and sense
of who I am, and I do judge that cycling. I can see that the judging is
more the problem than the cycling, but I hear (here and there...) of an
end to uncertainty, and I go into the "intoxication" of love, and am so
delighted by seeing everything as perfect and shiny and radiating waves
of loving kindness, but I guess I don't go all the way, I hold something
back and it all recedes. Or I'm hallucinating and getting caught in the
desire for mirage. Which is it? Is it an either/or question? What
happens when it wears off? I get disappointed, I feel disgusted with
my hesitancy, I complain, I go back into it, I cycle once again (maybe
deeper - perhaps it's a helix... like a snail shell growing all the
time). Is there a clear cut moment when one has arrived? Is arrival a
pipe dream preventing acceptance of what actually is. (must be that
one, cause I used a period not a question mark) (I look for "signs"...)
Should I expect liberation, or succumb to existentialism, or continue
hunting for the middle way? I keep asking these questions as if once I
got on this merry-go-round, it became impossible to get off. I need a
vacation from my seeking. Is THAT why people say where I am seems
auspicious? Is where I was a day or two ago auspicious, and where I am
now a dead end? I ask these questions from where I am sitting, but I
hope that they may be helpful to those who site nearby in some way...
Well, whatever.

Hunhhhhhhhhhh... (heavy sigh - how IS that spelled?) Knowing I'm not
alone helps, but I am looking forward to losing all pretense and leaping
to my "death". For now, I spend my days looking at the parachute and
checking the shroud lines. I don't say much of anything that isn't a
metaphor these days. No one understands me, and I'm too lazy to
explain.

It is nice to have a place to express this.
Love (and more than just a smattering of fear),
Mark
Sorry if this is just a boring drama going nowhere. (VERY sorry!)
_______________________________________________________

I would like to offer that the generation most of us belong
to, the Baby Boomer, be changed in name to the Nonduality
Generation.

I know it's ultimate duality to identify ourselves as a
group and to give that group a name and all that, but there
have only been about 60 generations since Jesus and we may
as well pick a more fitting name. Besides, EVERYTHING'S
ultimate duality.

I'll be getting bumper stickers made up that say, "I AM
Nonduality Generation"

Let's all chant it together: I AM Nonduality Generation, I
AM Nonduality Generation, I AM Nonduality Generation.

Okay, let's NOT chant it. Whatever. I'm tired of being
called a Baby Boomer. Sheesh.

All I know is that it is OUR generation. How about one last
hurrah for our generation? Afterall, the interest in
nonduality is clearly a generational thing. This is going to
be a hell of a way to go out. I say let's start planning one
huge forty year party that begins in, say, a couple of
years. Just remember, no double dipping at the nonduality
party.

Your host,
Jerry

top of page