Click here to go to the next issue.

JAN BARENDRECHT

In poor countries, the wish is not to be happy, the wish is
to live life "Western style" and the perceived limitation
is "money". But the most obvious reason is the love for
change as life forms are optimized to perceive change in
one way or another. The want for a change into "changeless
bliss" still is the old groove of wanting change. So what
doesn't change isn't perceived although it is THE most
obvious; no change is for many the equivalent of boredom.
The "bliss part" is hidden very well and unconditional
happiness not just means "it shines for no reason at all"
but it also means "physical or mental events can no longer
veil it".

__________________________________________________________________

SHANKAR AND LYNNE ON THE I AM LIST:

SHANKAR: (The ignorant) were born to delude (themselves),
in the drunkenness of (involution into) the
enjoyable-external-object, and die ! - O, Parrot ! -(and,
they) forgot the 'Existence' (Sat).

Translation of verse 8 of the 'Parrot-Eye-Vision of the
Life of Sri Ramana' by Sri Sadhu Om Swamigal.

LYNNE HELWIG I'll admit to an amount of ignorance
necessarily being a factor of human "existence" - if we
both agree it means that we don't (and can't) know
everything. However, enjoyment of a dark river bank, with a
friend, under the stars, sitting on long, strong, slender
treeroots that extend into the water, smelling the warming
earth and the cooling air, listening to the gentle brooking
of the river can be such a transcendent experience.
Existence surely resides here - I think/feel/know.

So, also in the heartrending struggle to understand
"ourselves and others". That is our reality. What about
relationship?

_____________________________________________________________________

JAN: When using "projection" for what is perceived, that
has to be unlimited - in physics for instance, exceptions
often denote faulty theory. As all perceptions have to be
projections and equally unreal there is no way that a
collection of projections can know what is real because
non-perception, like deep dreamless sleep, is just the
suspension of projection, which can be a projection itself,
instead of a supposed unprojected and there is no way to
verify one or the other.

DAN: Yes. The challenge is to notice that a collection of
interacting projections is masquerading as oneself. The
verification of this can't occur via usual knowledge, which
is the reverberation of endless projections in a "private
mental space" -- itself constructed via projection. So, how
does "verification" then occur? A related question is, "how
can no-thing possibly be deluded into self-defining as
something via projections based no-where?" The answer to
the first question, "Reality" is the converse to the answer
to the second, "the persuasiveness of Unreality". This
leaves a dissatisfying state of affairs in which Reality
somehow can be persuaded (presumably by Itself, as it is
All) to perceive itself as being less than it is. In
Qabala, this is viewed as a contraction of Infinity for the
sake of constructing a universe, which might be viewed as
self-presentation of That which can't possibly present
itself. Such "answers" being constructs themselves (as of
course would be answers derived from physics) can only
suggest what might be meant by "dissolution" of
self-boundaries, when "dissolution" is equivalent to "being
with no other" "as is".

JAN: I prefer modern physics, in the infancy of denying the
existence of time. In terms of physics, the error of
perception has to be extremely large as the senses have
limitations. As the mind is processing these perceptions,
the result of processing could give an insight, intuitively
correct and yet wrong.

DAN: Yes. Thus, interpretation substitutes for reality,
until there is a shift to reality, and interpretation can
be understood as mediated (divided) perception rather than
"reality as such".

JAN: It is just as easy to state there is no incentive
whatsoever because when "God is everything", that will in
the course of events become self-evident. And then there is
the nice dictum "as above, so below", indicating that
perceiving a self, by itself will lead to perceiving a
Self. From that perspective, "i" to "I" could be called
just a matter of expansion, or the general insight that
whenever perceiving a limitation, that already denotes its
transcendence.

DAN: Yes. The difficulty seems to be "noticing" This. Why
so difficult? (A view of human history shows very
deep-seated difficulties and myriad ways to "get stuck".)
One answer is: The "feeling of being" is captured by a
persuasive "picture of reality" in which there is a
situated perceiver who needs to "do something" to survive,
and to assist the survival of loved ones, and species. This
"capture" by the sense of "one who must survive and enhance
the likelihood of survival" is linked to pain/pleasure
responses, identification of loved ones, memory and the
sense of time, genetically-encoded perception/response
involving threat. These are seen as played out on the stage
of history, the unfolding of individual personality, group
culture, and dramas of acquisition, control, protection
from acquisition and control, attainments, religions,
sciences, etc.

DAN: Or one could say "remain where one is, before
beginning" and all will be well.

JAN: That could be interpreted as suggestive of choice,
requiring the memory of beginning and it is obvious that
hardly anyone knows. But it could also be interpreted as
"keep dead" :) From another perspective still, it can be
argued there is nowhere to go nor is there anyone to go so
there is no remaining to begin with.

DAN: Yes, remain dead and suicide won't be necessary, thus
eliminating the need for the arms race and war in general
;-) Remain undisturbed and survival won't be required. When
there is 'no remaining to begin with', one is 'prior to
beginning' with no beginning to remember or possible, and
Silence reigns. According to this view, it is the
belief/perception that "beginning" is possible that leads
to time, and the possibility of suffering "within" time. It
is interesting to note that the first word of the first
chapter of the Book is entitled, literally, "with
Beginning," mistranslated as "Genesis". If that one word is
understood, there is no need to "go on" to the second -
similar to the Qabalic story about Jesus learning the first
letter of the alphabet, which Melody recently posted here.

__________________________________________________________________

REMAIN UNDISTURBED AND SURVIVAL WON'T BE REQUIRED Dan
Berkow and Christiana Duranczyk

CHRISTIANA writes: Hello Dan...

Your dialogues with Tim, Jan and others are striking as
many resonant chords as perplexing ones. The discussions on
these topics have been so rich, that I hesitate to
interject. Yet the taste of this is so close that it's
flavor moves me to speak.

These dialogues of projection, memory and the 'gap' seem to
be invoking within me a deep turning .. consequent of which
appears also to be a deep churning. This sense of the 'gap'
which you refer to, appears to hold the multidimentionality
you also refer to. I sense that you speak from the
spaciousness of the gap which contains, but is certainly
not bounded by the apparently multidimensional gap I have
heretofore known (projected?).

DAN writes: The projection is multifacetted and
multidimensional, with one level seemingly discrete from,
yet ultimately interactive with other levels, such that
each event is resonant with events on "all levels" - the
"butterfly principle" of the projected reality, perhaps.
What we are calling "levels" could also be called
"boundaries", "spheres" or "realms".

CHRISTIANA: For many years I have worked with, observed and
surrendered to this 'gap'. I have even used this as a
benchmark for 'integrity'.. as in.. when all such 'levels'
are integrated or aligned (much as the imagery of the
hollow flute) then self surrenders itself as chalice... as
vehicle Being lived. What arises as interference seems
endless, yet years of practice, study, observation,
devotion have yielded to an almost kinetic or magnetic
sense of "True North".

Yet, I see now that there has always remained some residual
memory-identity construct which you identify as...
"mediated (divided) perception rather than "reality as
such". You write:

DAN: Yes. The challenge is to notice that a collection of
interacting projections is masquerading as oneself. The
verification of this can't occur via usual knowledge, which
is the reverberation of endless projections in a "private
mental space" -- itself constructed via projection. So, how
does "verification" then occur? A related question is, "how
can no-thing possibly be deluded into self-defining as
something via projections based no-where?" The answer to
the first question, "Reality" is the converse to the answer
to the second, "the persuasiveness of Unreality". This
leaves a dissatisfying state of affairs in which Reality
somehow can be persuaded (presumably by Itself, as it is
All) to perceive itself as being less than it is. In
Qabala, this is viewed as a contraction of Infinity for the
sake of constructing a universe, which might be viewed as
self-presentation of That which can't possibly present
itself. Such "answers" being constructs themselves (as of
course would be answers derived from physics) can only
suggest what might be meant by "dissolution" of
self-boundaries, when "dissolution" is equivalent to "being
with no other" "as is".

DAN: "Intelligence" is evident in the organization of
thought, but even moreseo in the ability of Awareness to
use thought to transcend the limitations of thought, to
dissolve the boundaries "projected" by thought. Once these
boundaries are apparent as "unreal" as grounding for truth,
Truth as boundless Reality *is*, the "what is" that
Krishnamurti referred to when he brilliantly discussed
differentiating the operation of memory which separates
observer and observed from perception in which perceiver
and perceived are not-two."

CHRISTIANA: I've been observing my mind 'contract' around a
series of questions and dissonant noise. . The process I
refer to above has been a useful barometer for clearer
operation within the mundane world. One by one, however, I
seem to be perceiving the limitations of the boundaries you
speak of. This appears to be a different aspect of
perception for me. Previously, I seemed to need to perceive
their levels in order to function with more integrity. They
served their purpose. This newer perception seems to allow
their dissolution... or perhaps, better stated.. a
perception is appearing withinwhich there are no objects. I
must admit, it is also accompanied by some echoes of
restlessness. That there may be no "True North" is shocking
to the core. Somewhere, something knows it is dying. As Jan
said... this could be interpreted as 'keep dead'.

DAN: Remain undisturbed and survival won't be required.
When there is 'no remaining to begin with', one is 'prior
to beginning' with no beginning to remember or possible,
and Silence reigns."

CHRISTIANA: From these words tears of recognition arise.

with deep gratitude for All appearing as you,

Christiana

__________________________________________________________________

D.T. SUZUKI from "Zen and Japanese Culture" (contributed by
Gloria Lee)

The Buddhist stanza generally found affixed at the end of a
Mahayana sutra reads:

All composite things are impermament, They belong in the
realm of birth and death; When birth and death is
transcended, Absolute tranquility is realized and blessed
are we.

Tranquility, therefore, in the art of tea is a spiritual
quality transcending birth and death, and not a mere
physical or psychological one. This must carefully be kept
in mind when the tea is spoken of as a step toward devoting
one's life to a higher level from which one is to view our
ordinary world and to live in it as if not in it. The
following is the view on the tea held by Seisetsu
(1746-1820), a Japanese Zen master of the late Tokugawa
era:

"My Tea is No-tea, which not No-tea in opposition to Tea.
What then is this No-tea? When a man enters into the
exquisite realm of No-tea he will realize that No-tea is no
other than the Great Way (ta-tao) itself. In this Way there
are no fortifications built against birth and death,
ignorance and enlightenment, right and wrong, assertion and
negation. To attain a state of no-fortification is the way
is the way of No-tea. So with things of beauty, nothing can
be more beautiful than the virtue of No-tea. Here is a
story: A monk came to Joshu, who asked, 'Have you ever been
here?' 'No, Master,' was the answer. Joshu said, 'Have a
cup of tea.' Another monk called, and the master again
asked, 'Have you ever been here?' 'Yes, Master' was the
answer. The master said, 'Have a cup of tea.' The same 'cup
of tea' is offered to either monk regardless of his former
visit to Joshu. How is this? When the meaning of such a
story as this is understood to its depths, one enters into
the inner sanctuary of Joshu and will appreciate the
bitterness of tea tempered with the salt of sweetness,
Well, I hear a bell ringing somewhere."

As long as there is an event designated as 'Tea' this will
obscure our vision and hinder it from penetrating into
'Tea' as it in itself. When a man is all the time conscious
of of performing the art called tea serving, the very fact
of being conscious constrains every movement of his, ending
in his artificially constructing a 'fortification.' He
always feels himself standing against this formidable thing
which starts up a world of opposites, right and wrong,
birth and death, Tea and No-tea, ad infinitum. When the
teaman is caught in these dualistic meshes, he deviates
from the Great way, and tranquility is forever lost. For
the art of tea is of the Great way; it is the Great Way
itself.

____________________________________________________________________________

LARRY: Can anyone describe the nature of a deaf person's
discursive thoughts? Is it visual, or in what way
linguistic? I would think the deaf would have an advantage
in meditation but I've never heard of a deaf yogin. Who
knows about this stuff???

DAVE: If you'll bear with me for a minute, a little
prelude. It seems to me, IMO, that an objective is to get
to a point where sleeping dreams are more lucid, becoming
closer to waking life, while waking life becomes more like
lucid dreaming. Things finally reduce to two states: very
lucid dreaming and "deep sleep". From there it can be
considered, being that there is no time, all is now; the
two states become one.

Well in that end, I have been playing on the edges of
consciousness, between sleep and awake, noticing the
boundaries and expanding them. That lead to what I have
sensed about parts of the thinking process.

Thought originates from the process of communication
between the sub- conscious and the conscious. As the
conscious becomes aware of a sub- conscious component,
thought is sensed. "Vocalization" of that thought
highlights the concept for memorization, becoming the
conscious organization and acceptance of the sub-conscious
foolishness. If one can't "hear", that "vocalization" must
take some other form (something that can acknowledge and
mark the events...). The process itself forms concept
packages, that are stored associatively relative to the
sensual (vocal) reminders.

Funny, this weekend I was watching bees looking for nectar
in a large patch of flowers in the garden. I was imagining
them as deaf, not sure if they actually are, but it made me
think (there I go again). I felt this world as normal,
feeling the vibration of my wings, responding to direction
changes wind shifts, flooded with color and sweet aroma of
nectar, entering one flower picking up the goodies and
moving to another. All in a totally silent world, moving,
wisking yet gliding silently, effortlessly, how different
it was. Strangely enough, there were no thoughts as I know
them, just sensual packages of color, smell and movement.

______________________________________________________________

GREG GOODE

What is memory? Not in the courtroom, but when one is
investigating, looking to end suffering, to see what lies
beneath *all* this stuff. In the stream of thoughts, a
memory is a thought that seems to point to another,
previous thought. But oddly enough, these things are
mutually negating. If that previous thought even arose, the
memory-thought was not there at that time to record it. And
now, when the memory arises, that supposed previous thought
is not here now to lend present substantiation. The
situation is that memory requires the previous thought for
its verification, and the previous thought requires memory
for the very claim that it ever existed. Since each one
depends on the other, neither one ought to be believed or
taken seriously. Another angle: since a thought that isn't
there just simply ISN'T, then how can any thought really
represent or point to another thought? Two thoughts cannot
co-exist simultaneouly (or else they'd be one thought). So
when one thought is present, there simply ARE no other
thoughts. So how can any thought indicate or represent
another thought??? Not only that, but ponder - can the same
one thought ever arise twice??? What would prove it??

Does the brain cause memory? It's OK for science to
investigate like this and give us chemicals and enzymes to
improve memory. But what are memory and the brain REALLY??
If the body arises as nothing other than sensations and
thoughts, then that includes the brain. The brain doesn't
experience or generate experiences. Instead it itself is
experienced as, e.g., visual images of x-rays and gruesome
TV shows. These are sensations and thoughts. A thought
might precede or follow another thought. But how can a
thought *cause* another thought?? But even if we drop back
into the scientific view a moment. If the brain causes
memory, then what causes the brain? What causes the brain's
cause? Etc. This leads to an endless regress, and can allow
endless suffering. No end in sight! OK for science,
pharmaceuticals and the education industry, which all
assume without question a world external to awareness. But
to investigate into the ultimate nature of things, can this
line of inquiry ever close the loop of suffering?

top of page