Click here to go to the next issue.

MICHAEL READ AND MATTHEW:

Michael:
Guess what? There is no such thing as the not-Self!
Jokes on us! :-))

Matthew:
this may be true from an absolute non-dual perspective michael but
we all live AS IF there were such a thing. We are totally (except in
moments) identified with/as this "illusory" not-self. Therefore
Self-inquiry is urgently needed to make that distinction and break
the identification.

Michael:
By all means make the inquiry. :-))
Honestly and with no expectations - ask!
That which asks is indeed the answer! :-))
It was always there
It is there now
It will be forever there.
You are THAT! :-)))))))

Loveya!

We only 'appear' to be separate - just for the 'heck' of it.

It's only rock 'n' roll but the I AM likes it!

HAHAHAH and HOHOHO!

Peace - beyond understanding - Michael




UARELOVE:

Pleasant news:
I am going to take a long break from
posting here and reading the posts here.


Michael:
Hey! Stick around you old button pusher!

HAHAHAH and HOHOHO!
Peace - Michael


HARSHA:
My dearest friend uarelove. I appreciate your passion and commitment to
Bhagwan Ramana's teachings. It is truly inspirational. Thank you for your
post commenting on what I had said.

My beautiful and wonderful friend, Self-Inquiry is indeed central to the
teaching of the Sage of Arunachala. Ceaseless inquiry into one's nature
means asking the question "Who am I?" and then bringing the full force of
one's attention to its own source. I have often in the past commented at
length on following the clue of the "I" and the practical aspects of this
Inquiry. In my view, holding on to the feeling of existence "I AM" under all
circumstances amounts to the same thing and leads to Self Realization.

When someone speaks of Ramana, my heart feels overjoyed as the teaching of
Sage is indeed the purest teaching that goes to the core of the matter.
Ramana Maharshi is the great light that shines in my heart. No one can go
wrong sincerely following the instructions of the Sage. Without worrying
about whether others are following the path properly or not, you should with
gentleness and steadiness and with compassion for yourself and others engage
in Self-Inquiry. The rest, as Sri Ramana often said, must be left in the
hands of the Guru, the Self, who sits in the Heart and Is the Heart.

Wishing you success on your path

Peace and Love


UARELOVE AND MIGUEL ANGEL CARRASCO

Uarelove:
In the last posting I looked at the dialogue that the quote
from page 496 came from and posted some more quotes from that
very same dialogue. In this posting I will do the same with the
following quote from page 422:

Miguel:
"The self-styled gurus talk of ripeness and effort, of
merits and achievements, of destiny and grace; all
these are mere mental formations, projections of an
adicted mind. Instead of helping, they obstruct." (I Am
That, page 422)

Uarelove:
From the same dialogue page 424:
Questioner: "Perception is primary, the witness-secondary.

Nisargadatta: "This is the heart of the matter.
As long as you believe that only the outer world is real,
you remain its slave.
To become free, your attention must be drawn to the 'I am',
the witness.
Of course, the knower and the known are one not two,
but to break the spell of the known
the knower must be brought to the forefront.
Neither is primary, both are reflections in memory of the
ineffable experience, ever new and ever now,
quicker than the mind. "

Nisargadatta just said "To become free,
your attention must be drawn to the 'I am', the witness."
Once again giving instructions on what must be done,
just as his Guru gave him the same instructions on what must be done.
Wait a minute Nisargadatta! You will never sell anything telling
people they have to do something. Oh yes, that is right,
it was not Nisargadatta who had something to sell so of course
he could tell people something needed to be done.
Then just who was that who says nothing needs be done,
no practise etc., who was that dynamic duo who just keep
repeating over, and over nothing needs to be done?
Nisargadatta how dare you contradict Wayne and Ramesh on every page
of the book I am that.
Where have I seen this pattern before?
Now lets see who came after Ramana Maharshi saying
nothing needs to be done? Could it be Papaji and his
ambassadors? Folks you aren't going to sell anything
telling people there is something they have to do,
a practise etc. If you have something to sell,
you have to tell them, there is nothing to do.

Still page 424, still same dialogue, and the very next question
and answer:

Questioner: "Sir, I am an humble seeker,wandering from
Guru to Guru in search of release. My mind is sick,
burning with desire, frozen with fear. My days flit by,
red with pain, grey with boredom. My age is advancing,
my health decaying, my future dark and frightening.
At this rate I shall live in sorrow and die in despair.
Is there any hope for me? Or have I come too late?"

Nisargadatta: "Nothing is wrong with you,
but the ideas you have of yourself are althogher wrong.
It is not you who desires, fears and suffers,
it is the person built on the foundation of your body
by circumstances and influences.

You are not that person.

This must be clearly established in your mind
and never lost sight of.
Normally, it needs a prolonged sadhana,
years of austerities and meditation."

Uarelove:
Most of you are already familiar with the
hunger site.

However it may be easy to forget to click
to donate the free food button everyday.
I am not familiar enough with computers to know
how one can initiate a reminder to click
every day.

The donations vary from 150,000 to 300,000 per day.
So people are not remembering everday to click.
Just in case there is some one not familiar with
the hunger site:

You can donate free food everyday just by clicking
your mouse. There is no charge to you.
Since there is no charge to you,
why not click everyday?
If it is that easy and only takes a few seconds
of your time to give food to a hungry human
everyday why not do it?

There is no cost to you.

The way it works is you click the link
then you click the yellow button
that says donate free food.

Please add this link to your favorites
and click it everyday:

http://www.thehungersite.com

Now regarding why do I bother in an imaginary
world to do that?

Well simple lets call it dream control.

If it is as easy as a click of a mouse
once per day to make the dream
less of a nightmare and more of a dream,
why not click it?



DAN:

To undo 'doing' involves
all of one's being.
This 'Nondoing' is far from passive,
has nothing to do with
doing nothing.

To practice no-method
is far from aimless,
it is not to be caught by
'knowledge', it involves
all of one's being.

The fullness of silence is
not a product of thought,
is "where no thought
could possibly
be constructed".

The mind seems to get caught
in 'right' and 'wrong'
quite easily.
Mind easily becomes involved in
debates:
Who has the right interpretation,
whose is wrong, what is
the right definition of practice,
who is practicing the wrong way,
who is right about the 'ego',
etc.

As long as the mind debates
who is right and who is wrong,
the mind has a mission, it
is preoccupied.

Reality has nothing to do
with the mind's activity
as it debates the right
approach and the wrong
approach.

So, 'nondoing' is just this:
the mind's relinquishment
of its project of self-continuation,
the release of unnecessary
mental and emotional activity.

Now, here is where That
which is not the product
of thought *is*.

-------------------------------------------------

DAN AND GLO:

Glo:
Hi Dan,

How you manage to say the same thing always so fresh and new.... so
beautiful.

This time we really are galaxies passing again... still have to pack, but
have to say at least...

I love you,
Glo

Dan:
Yes, dear Glo, there's always only
the same thing.
And it's never the same.

From this galaxy to that,
transmitting energy
for a happy
intertransubstantiation
as Space unfolds
itself.

Blessed be,
Dan


MELODY AND MARK:

Mark:
(does the "LOve, Mark" make you think or make you grin?) (or
neither...) (or both?)

Melody:
For me..... neither.

Mark:
Do you see what I'm saying, or am I pissing in the wind?
(no wonder i'm all wet...) what was that about showers?

Melody:
Frankly it sounds like blah, blah, blah to me, Mark.
But I'm certainly no gauge for such things nowadays.


Is this the first time you and I have directly interacted here? I was
walking out from my office to go to my lab yesterday just after you had
posted something (I seem to remember it mentioned a decision about
posting or not posting? maybe I misremember-I'd check but it's on my
computer at work and I am still home). Anyway, I noticed as I was
dashing along that Billy Joel song running around like a wise guy in my
head "Well we're all in the mood for a Melody, and you've got us feeling
alright..." I almost ran back to post it, but I've been pretty manic
lately and thought enough is enough. If the list is not tired of me
yet, they surely will be soon.

The "love, mark" thing is the only thing I ever say here. If I share
some personal story about unfolding (or folding back up for that
matter), it's my attempt (well, maybe once in a blue moon it's not so
much an attempt as a guided sharing), but mainly it's my attempt to
connect. People complain about the use of the word love because it
doesn't connect people, but why doesn't it connect people? because they
perceive it as not connecting people. If one demeans the word and
actively forbids the meaning to be present, of course it won't be there.
That's the free will. If I say it, but I don't mean it, sure I can
cover it over with the overuse, but am I doing that? Can you tell? Do
you allow the word to have no meaning by your treatment of it as an
incoming message. Oh, I've heard that one before... How will you treat
the word when it comes from someone who really means it? How many
opportunities for the real immersion into beingness with someone do we
miss because we have made the assumption that the words are lies? It's
this mass assumption that must be broken down, must be discarded. It's
false. There is an inherent thing that humans are, and the best word
I've heard for it is love. Beingness is a good word too, but I think it
was put to this use because of the jaded nature of our relationship to
love. Well, this is all just to avoid answering your question below, so
let me go there and try to answer. (see, you are right. it is just blah,
blah, blah. - but you are also wrong. it's blah blah blah-ness is a
defense I am using. defense against what? love, I answer.

Melody:

You seemed to be touching some anger....and then all of a
sudden it evaporated. What was that about?

Mark:
Oh my, how much time do you have to read my reply? How much time do I
have to type it? Well, not much, so let me try to start. Anger - I'm
afraid of anger because I have the perception that I have a lot of it
stored up, and when I let go and directly experience it, I have not yet
learned how to sit and do so quietly. I break things (like my hand for
example) and I get arrested for it and I harm relationships with people
about whom I care and... So I drink. heavily. I'm an alchoholic and
I'm completely out of control.(no, that's too strong, but I am not
completely safe either.) There. That's something to be angry about.
How can I post this? My email moniker is completely transparent and
there is a stigma about this disease. And I am posting to a nonduality
group - spiritual seekers and adepts, the kind of folks that are
(supposedly) in control of their lives and getting close to
perfection... blah blah blah. I can post it because it's true. I can
post it because I need to hear that truth. That's why I post everything
I post. I'm very selfish, you see. I know that my ego has me by the
balls. (or at least I think it does... I think it's squeezing. hard.)
I think it's appearing to do this because it's scared to death for it's
very life. There is so much talk here about ego death. kill the ego.
kill the ego. kill the ego. Well the ego is fucking pissed. I don't
like the ego. I don't like Mark. I think he's an asshole. But you
know? At the same time, I love Mark. He's a bone fide human being with
all that entails. He's scared shitless, and yet he continues. Now how
do I solve THAT one? Oh well, my ego is perfectly safe. clever and
resourceful...

How did it evaporate? I answered to a silly name which reminded me that
I already know this is not so serious. At least, i need not take my
story so seriously. It's just a story. It will end when another story
comes along to amuse me. Shifting between those levels helps, but I am
determined to tell the story that I embarked on 41 years ago, red faced
squalling infant that I still to a large degree am.

So how is this coming across? Is it blah, blah, blah? It's real
(inside the story). I am seriously wrestling with these issues, and I
personally (hear this as the projection that it is, but also hear it
from your guts if you are willing).. I personally think this list is an
opportunity (well, life is the opportunity, but the list is a part of
life...) to bring some honesty to what is happening. I don't think your
"snit-fest" with Marcia is very honest. I don't much care on who's side
that is, but I think Marcia's expression "pulled a Melody" was cute,
fun, useful, and RIGHT ON TARGET. So if you are that target, then be
peirced to the core. The arrow is healing if you let it in. honesty is
only painful if you want to continue the lie. the phrase "Mark is an
alchoholic", for example, is a lie. Mark is behaving like one and
heading for a fall, but Mark IS not anything. If you identify with some
behavior that you don't like, then you will suffer. If you have that
behavior in your repertore, but recognize it for what it is, a series of
thoughts and a series of decisions to act on those thoughts, that you
have written a script for and that you as an actor may either act on or
not act on, you will suffer less. (or so I'm told by that elite group of
special people who are enlightened teachers...hah.)

Melody:
For me, I found a kind of depression descend on me
today. Seemingly out of no where I noticed a heaviness
and a pitifulness fill me. Twice I noticed that I began
to distract myself away from it. It took a lot of effort
to stay with it, to allow it, and not slip into unconsciousness
in it.

Mark:
That sounds helpful. That's what i need to do with the anger. And I
need to do it sober and I need to do it without theatrics. see, I know
what I need to do. why don't I do it? because I'm afraid of the
consequences.

Melody:
After about 30 minutes of sitting and staying witness to it,
feeling it in my body, I began doing an EFT routine with it.
It only took about 10 minutes before it began to dissolve.

It's quite a different experience to actually watch a
depressive feeling dissolve, rather than simply 'wake up'
a few days later and notice the feeling had passed.

Mark:
Yes. My anger of Tuesday night took most of the morning Wednesday to
evaporate. The name game was very helpful in dispelling it. So was
slowing down my walking. I can walk through the outer office rapidly
and keep my rage, or I can slow down and interact with the kind loving
people there, but to do that I have to surrender. They know this and
use it mercilessly to get me to smile. It's a lovely setup.

Melody:
It was kind of like watching sugar dissolve into
water. Nothing has really changed, though.
The 'depressiveness' still has the capacity to crystalize,
to separate from water, at any given moment.

It was just really cool though watching it dissolve
today.

Mark:
thank you for sharing that. (now isn't that just one of those sickly
sweet phrases that makes you want to vomit? not for me, it isn't...)



MELODY:

I will say WOW, and thank you very much
for your sharing.

You asked if this was the first time we have
interacted directly, and yes I think it is. And
from what I've read in this post, I'm glad I waited.

Your sharing was so authentic, so open that
it felt as though you had cracked open your
chest, and invited us to see what lies 'underneath
the skin'. And in that openness it is easy for me to see
how similar you and I ( and everyone else) are....
underneath the masks we wear -

or as uarelove says, beyond the ego notion.

No blah, blah, blah read here today.

until later,




LYNNE:

Hi All of you,

Dahnae Radha stopped by our website today
and suggested that you visit the following URL:

http://www.inspirationpeak.com/poetry/iamthere.html

Here is their message....

Dear Friends,

Here is a doorway to a place I like to go.

I had hoped to travel to Providence Rhode Island to see some of you this
weekend. I will have to miss this time, but maybe next time? Wish me
luck...
does anyone have any info they can share with me on the 12 Manjus(h)ris?
I'd be grateful. It seems I'm to encounter them during this next week.
Love to all,




ED ARRONS AND DAN:

D: This inquiry is only this: looking into suffering
(friction between "me" and "it") experienced here,
and noticing how that friction occurs.

D: Suffering can arise in many ways; the response
is always simply to "look into 'what is'".

E: When it is seen that desire arises with
awareness, that "me"-"it" arises with desire, that
separation arises with "me"-"it", and that
suffering arises with separation, then our
dilemma/potential can be seen more clearly.


Thanks for being here, Dan

D: Glad to be here, Ed.
And appreciation here
for this communion ;-)

As, being here, silent presence
speaks through us, "this".

Let us see it clearly, this moment.

"I" and "it" - how each is placed
in contrast to the other, how
the situation of self against
other, and other against self
occurs this moment. How the
old response of thought and
emotion attempts to claim
a space that can't be claimed.

The moment of noticing is now.
There's no time to draw a conclusion,
to present a finding, or to
make an explanation.
Because in doing those things, one
has separated from "now".
No chance to imitate how someone else
looked, or to find what someone
else said was there.


GENE TO ED and DAN and DAVE

Ed, your remark

Typically the self vacillates between objective duality
and subjective nonduality according to the degree of
separation experienced. Within the swings is noticed
different points of identity according to conditioned
experience. At the very 'center' is a point of non-
identification, a 'transcendence point', which is the
key to Selfhood.


G:
Nice, Ed. What you said, does mean something; I am unsure what, but
it rings true to me.

Perhaps it is useful to point out, that as a person reaches out
'experimentally' in order to touch things, thus to 'see what
happens', that the feedback they receive (what seems to happen upon
touching something), is itself what eventually defines the boundaries
or 'parameters' of what is assumed to be self. That is to say, that
there are areas in which touch (of any kind) produces discernable
effects, and there are (apparently) areas in which touch produces no
discernable effect.

An example of this is 'prayer'. One intends to reach out, to touch,
to effect, but may notice a distinct lack of feedback; it is upon
this observation that one may decide that prayer is nothing, that God
is nothing, that this is an area which cannot be touched, and thus
must be let go of. For many, it seems that once having tried swimming
in the air, and having found no support, the effort is abandoned.

So if we assume that touching and 'verification' of touching, IE
feedback that we have actually touched something real, are the
criteria by which 'reality' is determined, that (touch and feedback)
'method' will prevail. Science comes to mind here.

This 'method' is commonly extended to what is defined as 'spiritual
awareness'. If we seek independent verification of 'spiritual
reality', we are expecting some kind of distinct feedback, which will
inform us of the 'realness' of what we have 'discovered' and are
touching. What ramifies from this extension of the 'scientific
method' into the territory of 'spiritual reality', is the phenomenon
of spiritual fascism.

Those who have been "world-dream" (Samsara) conditioned from birth,
will continue to use the methods of the dream, to attempt what is
defined as 'awakening'. The strategies of the world-dream will be
applied willy-nilly to the 'spiritual search and work'. Chief among
these strategies, is the criteria of PURITY. If you think about it,
this sort of 'purity' can only be defined _externally_, and thus we
have 'teachers', to whom we turn for help in 'parsing out
impurities', thus to aid us in 'awakening'.

In the world-dream, the qualities of DEVOTION and LOYALTY have high
value, and are carried over into the 'spiritual work'. The promise of
'salvation' (however it is defined) is a lure which will justify
devotion and loyalty; the 'aspirant' will parade this version of
purity in front of those soon to be left behind. In the world-dream,
it is acceptable to say to laggards, "Eat my dust!" (or verbutti, as
the case may be).

To appear to be a good and pure person, is to lock oneself into the
matrix of the world-dream; to continue to use any strategy
whatsoever, such as 'effort' or 'no-effort', depends for success upon
world-dream verification of success. Feedback from those who have
been 'left behind' is thus highly valued by those who have 'gone
beyond'. By now, you may be getting the idea that this whole defined
catagory of 'spirituality' is a circus of delusion and superstition,
which is one of the points I wish to make as I write this.

In truth, the world-dream (Samsara) can give no accurate feedback,
other than simply being what it is. If one realizes the difference,
one then exists apart, with no self-definition. All definitions are
grounded (rooted) in the world-dream, and thus fall short of
suitability for self-definition. A common error is to emanate the
finest, most subtle, rarified of poetic self-definitions, as a method
of pointing out the above-noted difference, but it becomes obvious
that to do so, merely establishes a 'higher bar' for the 'spiritual
aspirant' to leap over. Truly, there are no definable criteria for
proving (to oneself or other) the reality of 'true and utter
spiritual transcendence'. Any criteria proffered, if acted upon,
merely acts as deeper attachment to the world-dream.

If you (any reader) think about it, you may see that no matter how
subtle and rarified the criteria, all criteria are rooted in the
world-dream. The world-dream is simply a traditional matrix of
agreements, chief among which is the use of language. The use of
language is itself a very powerful agreement, a sort of consensus
among many people. Security is found in the world-dream; thus the
world-dream language, is devoid of any words which would disqualify
(dismantle) the dream. This is simply 'why' the use of language is a
virtual guarantee that one will stay in agreement (the world-dream),
to heroically fight to 'awaken', while remaining submerged in a
group-dream of consensus which states that nobody can escape from
'reality'. To actually escape, one needs to abrogate ALL agreements,
and to be ultimately comfortable carrying NO self-definition.

Here,

==Gene Poole==


Dan:

Well-said, Gene.

As the structureless reality
is seen appearing as structure
itself, there is nowhere to
cling. To call this 'void'
is far too much description.

"I have overcome the world."

-- Nameless One



Dave:
At first it seems as though it is human limitation
which distorts the structureless reality, that is to say
fault of intellect and senses to name two, but then
it is realized that such is the intention.

Where does it come from this image. Are there sensors,
intellect that is ours? Memory erased!

A swirl in the collective consciousness generates the relative
apparitions and THIS appears, but until the twinkling eyed
glance of Grace touches upon it, collective memory remains dormant.

Is it hidden on purpose? It seems so. Is it intended to
remain so? If it were not for Grace, one would have to say "yes"
there too.

So, here are all my words, along with all of yours to
touch the scintilating fabric in the intent to jog
the collective memory.

It's true, nothing here is the answer, and in the end the questions
and inquiries are of little significance.

Our models and words fall in ruins as the collective memory
begins to remember the truth, it's passed this way before until
achieving its blessed escape.



MIGUEL ANGEL CARRASCO:

Just one (double) question:
1. Who is to make Self-inquiry, who is to make the
distinction Self/Non-self?
2. Who is to put an end to identification?
Three possibilities: A) the mind, B) the Self; C)
nobody

If A, that's a vicious circle: the mind trying to stop
identification with the mind. Besides that is above the
mind's capacities: the finite mind trying to extricate
the infinite Self from its veil. So the mind can hardly
be the subject of Self-inquiry.

If B, then we have dualism: the Self before committing
the original sin of dentification, and the fallen Self
veiled by the nonSelf. But as the Self is one,
immutable and always without attributes, it follows
that there cannot be two kinds or states of Self. So
the Self is not the subject of Self-inquiry.

If C, then we have Self-inquiry as an automatic,
impersonal process, something that just happens, a sort
of self-induced elucidation of the mind's attitude. No
agent is needed here. Though then there is no place for
any idea of responsibility or choice, of method or
effort. It's all just automatic.

Any comments?

Miguel-Angel


MARK:

Miguel,

How about a combination play? Like an alley oop in basketball or a
double play in baseball (why am I using sports analogies - I am soooo
uninterested in sports...)

So, the mind (A) accepts that it can't end its delusions, but tries
anyway. This trying leads to moments of relative stillness (I call it
relaxation for some unknown reason). During such a moment of "guard-down
existence", the Self (B) is seen, having been obscured by all the mind
activity (kept away by all the defenses), and the Self (A is B) is
recognized (surrendered to), ending the illusion that the Self is being
sought. "Oh, my God - so simple, here all the time..." Yes, the joke
is on us. (how humiliating... how lovely.)

So, seeker seek until exhausted, then allow the finding to be done. Thy
will be done always - so seek if seeking is what you like. find, if that
is what you want. Howsoever it shall be. It's automatic only when
it's automatic. My driving, for example is often automatic (although I
drive a standard shift...), but I had to practice driving quite awhile
before it could become automatic. No, that's not it. Maybe I can get
closer... Breathing is automatic unless you are controlling it.
Perhaps the ego self is analogous to control of the breath, but even
worse because ego's on so much of the time that it seems like the only
possibility, and the ego is so capable, that it can distract us from
noticing the times when it's relaxed. To stop controlling it, one needs
to look at control and find its opposite - like NOT thinking of a pink
elephant when someone tells you not to think of a pink elephant. You
can't control the control into letting go of control, but can you get
close enough for it to happen by grace? I think so. Watching ego is
helpful (said he watching himself lie through his teeth...)

All either/or questions are suspect. (or aren't they?)


MARCIA and ED:
Ed:
Marcia you are quite right...resonating to
my thoughts. :-)

M: Isn't it possible "now" to notice the
arising of a thought? I don't have to identify
with the thought and actually begin to think
it is "me."

Ed: Of course it wasn't you, silly. :-)

M: I don't have to think I am the contents of
mind.

Ed: Heaven forbid. :-)

M: I don't have to draw a conclusion but
conclusions get drawn. As I notice elements,
a picture begins to form on it's own.


Ed: Now, now..don't go off half-cocked on
your own...and just keep smiling. :-)


XAN and PAPAJI:

When you have known thySelf,
you have known everything.
This is Awakening.
And this Awakening,
the whole universe is within yourSelf.
This is the ultimate knowledge.
And knowing this, you have known everything.
And if you have not known this, you have known nothing.

top of page