Click here to go to the next issue.

Tuesday, September 5



Why objectify God?
Subjectify That!!
Go straight to the Light,
immediately jump into It
and don't write an article about it on the way.

Keep Quiet,
entertain no doubt,
raise no desire.

Remove all objects and remain as That!
All pain belongs to objectification.
Do not let ego own Freedom,
so do not objectify the Truth.
Do not call it a gain or an acquisition,
simply identify with it as you do
when you see your face in a mirror.

Forget this visitor called mind
and just idenfity as That!


- Papaji, via Xan

_____________________________________________________________

DAVID HODGES, DAN BERKOW, MANCHINE, GENE POOLE ON THE
EROTICS OF UNION ON HIGHER SPHERES

Construction of reality by the self-contraction also
constructs the world as you know it and it's problems and
pain. It is absurd to think that, once the contraction is
relaxed, that the world will stay the same. While billions
of others' contractions will hold the shimmering mirage in
place, for you the mirage will be pierced.

Do not think for a moment, though, that the result will be
featureless or blank or without detail. None of this is
true. What is spoken of as the UnManifested has much
greater depth and span, so that awareness is occupied and
enriched and eroticized to a degree that would be hellish
to someone unprepared. That is why those to whom this
opening is offered are thoroughly prepared first.

The unimprisoned awareness has available to it unparalleled
opportunities for pleasure-producing contacts and
encounters with other unimprisoned awarenesses across space
and time. The net of Indra provides an easy and
instantaneous method of transmission/travel to contact,
meet, and delight in others whose degree of otherness is
simultaneously far less than an Other in standard
embodied/ego bound consciousness (i.e. relationships of a
sexual/social nature) and far more due to increased
opportunities for playful differentiation on this plane.

Once you awaken to this level of erotics, contact even on
the standard level are enriched as you are able to access
and communicate and relate with the Over Self of each
person you come in contact with.

Most people live in ignorance of this Over Self, choosing
the pain they know over the release and freedom and joy
that erotics on higher planes can provide.

--David Hodges (working toward a NonDual understanding of
relationships)

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

Dear Dave, I have a different point of view on this.
Although presenting this immediately constructs a dualism
between "your" view and "mine", I present it, simply for
discussion's sake. I have no thought that "mine" is the
"correct" perspective.

It sounds to me that you are talking about an individual
awareness that through its special preparation pierces a
veil in a way that isn't accessible to other individual
awarenesses.

From here, there appears to yet be a dualism involved in
this: "I" see things in a special way that "others" don't.

From here, Awareness doesn't have an "I" or "you" to it,
except as conceptual construction.

The erotic aspect of the energy you sense also seems to
imply an energy exchange between one and another.

I enjoy erotic energy and enjoy the exchange of energy
between one and another. Yet "behind" and "beyond" this
exchange, I find energy with no other, no exchange, no
eroticism.

What of energy when there is no other, no exchange? What of
energy undivided, unspeakable, infinite and silent?

Namaste,
Dan Berkow

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

Absolutely, Dan. (pun intended). What of it? There is
nothing to say about such energy, undivided, etc. There is
nothing to say about it except, perhaps, "Ahhhhh". But even
that "Ahhhh" would imply someone there experiencing the
energy.

But Relatively speaking, isn't there still room to speak of
erotic energy exchanges in a way that takes them out of the
sphere of sexuality and emotionality and the illusion of
the separate self? For example, when I was walking the
other day I passed a family waiting in line outside a
popular pizza restaurant. Each member of the family was
smiling - glowing actually - in a way that made my heart
fill up with joy. This to me is erotic - something that
delights and gives pleasure.

I have no problem writing from a position that still
involves a subtle self/other dualism. Once the veil of the
separate self is seen through I think there is still a vast
terrain that can be explored and talked about. When the
conversation becomes so radically NonDual that all is
unspeakable, then I lose the ability to contribute to it.

Thanks Dan! David H.

P.S. If we keep on this way I'll have to dust off my copy
of Norman O. Brown's "Love's Body"!

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

Namaste, David.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts here. (I thoroughly
enjoyed Norman O. Brown's book.) And I agree with you,
there is an eroticism to all of the "show", the endless
expressions of energy movement with which we are always
intimately entwined in the act of perception.

The embrace becomes a non-embrace, neither yin nor yang are
there to exchange, and eroticism fades.

My lover, the universe, and I can't embrace here. There is
nothing to touch, nothing to express. And you're right,
even in saying this much there still is the "ahhhh"....

Love, Dan

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

Very good piece David.

IMO this is about as real as you can get, and this
approach, at least for me, represents one of the most
"organized" and intuitive "methods" for realizing the
truth. --Manchine

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

Gene Poole's response to David:

Yes, yes, yes!

Whew!

Once I experienced 'broadband' IndraNet connection, I knew
I could never go back.

For me, this started years ago, when I was lustfully
attracted to become proficient in 'Tantra'. I envisioned
myself as becoming magnetic to all of those long-legged,
sari-wearing 'spiritual babes', who would then literally
line up and wait their turn to 'use' me as a portal, for
transport to the Divine Realms of Ecstatic Pleasure.

I really gave it a good try, but the strangest thing
happened along the way; I actually did become proficient at
'Tantra', and somehow transcended the 'gross sexual' level
of that multi-dimensional conversation. This was of course,
completely unintentional on my part; I was in it for the
pleasure, and never expected that I would ever take it
'seriously'.

Imagine my !shock! as I followed the Tantric formulae, and
had my first wholly conscious connection with the essence
of 'other'. The utterly overwhelming complexity of this
experience was like being struck by lightning; I 'realized'
so powerfully, that my previous conviction of what was the
pleasure of orgasm, was essentially deleted.

<http://www.newcastle.edu.au/department/so/samuel/saag95.htm>
Focus on part-2

<http://www.sfu.ca/~wwwpsyb/issues/1995/summer/reid.htm>
Jungian Insights

<http://www.tibetart.com/exhibits/transmission.cfm/22.html>
(Network) Transmission protocols

<http://www.tibetart.com/image.cfm/90908.html> Network
Admin, server/client config

<>

Imagine my chagrin as I realized; how humiliating! Now that
an entirely new landscape was open to me, what would i do?
My previous ways, which I had elevated to heavenly status,
were now as useful as the diving-board left behind by the
high-diver. My hair was on end and my eyes bulging; terror
and ecstasy are quite a mix.

I discovered an existing network, pictured (at that moment)
as smiling indigo heads, floating in an infinite blue sky.
Their calm and love was in stark contrast to my newbie
emotions. I could see that they could see me, and were
amused, mildly amused, by my terror and paralysis. I was
shooting through their midst like a rocket. Whose momentum
was this?

I understood that if I accepted connection with this
network, that my life would be changed 'forever'. I was
writhing is indecision; I felt like a meteor, being
stripped of substance as it streaked through atmosphere. I
knew that I would become 'nothing' and that seemed wrong,
at the time, so I blew myself up to a huge proportion, and
encompassed all of the network that I could. I popped
'back' and discovered how Kundalini feels in the physical
body. But it was alright; I could see and feel and hear my
new network connections happening within me. I felt
basically warm and safe, if not electrified.

All of this came my way, as a result of 'following my
gonads' in a spiritual context. Years later, I began to
attain an actual understanding, and saw how we, everyone,
are actually already 'set up' to become consciously
connected. Now, it is a matter of course.

David, did I say that I love what you wrote?

I call it:

"... A bold and sober step into pleasure as the essential
food and guide of life".

Right On!

The NeoTech people speak of 'Psychous Pleasures', and so it
is:
<http://www.neometro.net/Expressions/Writings/Psychous_Lover's_Journal.htm>

________________________________________________________________

MARCIA PAUL ON WHEN THINGS GO WRONG BETWEEN PEOPLE ON THE
LIST

What I find for myself is that when things like this
happen, there is lots to look at.

For myself, I notice that somehow I want to make it all
make sense. This is what I call the 'tucking in the loose
ends' part of the process. I have found that this is just
another thing to look at. In other words, another part of
the process. I have no more control over this than over the
other parts. I want to think that I do. This is all part of
the illusion.

The other thing is that when two are involved in this kind
of struggle it has to do with power but also buried stuff,
unfinished business. Great stuff to get a feel for and
sense without trying to make sense out of it. If it just
stays at two it will run down most likely and degenerate.
What broke the deadlock was the entry of a third party.

To me the important thing is to look at all this
impartially without thinking that any of it is really me or
that I can control or do anything about it.

Grist for the mill; fuel for the fire; not who I AM.

________________________________________________________________

TO BE OR NOT TO BE, THAT IS THE ANSWER
by SKY

Ego or no ego, to have and to hold or to renounce and let
go, to put up or to shut up, to expand or to contract, to
look in or to look out...

These seem to be the first and last questions we ask
ourselves when confronting the deepest and most searching
questions of being. And there are whole institutions based
upon one or the other side of the answer: Empires of
conquest, on the one hand, and religions of in quest, on
the other hand.

For me, the answer is a resounding, BOTH. I believe that
life is energy, and energy MOVES. It seeks resistance, and
it seeks to overcome that resistance. Thus, even passive
awareness is a movement away from active and selective
focus, and vice versa.

Thus, I believe that we are, in an important sense,
constantly focusing on something, even if that focus is on
"not" focusing. So, the question for me is, what to focus
on? And the answer is, from one thing to the next: from in
to out and back again. I try to focus on that dance of
opposites in harmony. I try to focus on timing. What feels
most graceful at this time?

But then, to remain consistent with my position, I would
also have to "not" focus on timing, too, right? Right. But
then, should I focus on that, or should I just literally be
absent minded about it? I say, let absent mindedness be
absent mindedness. I have no choice but to so be, at times.
There is a time to be overwhelmed, not because I choose to
be overwhelmed, but because I have no choice but to be
overwhelmed. It just happens.

Apparently, there is a time for that, as well.

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

MANCHINE

One of the things that we've puzzled over here on the list
many times is the inherant dichotomy of nonduality. The
impossible reality of life. There's something infront of
our face that's always blocking our view to the fact that
full consciousness, is a fabrication that we require to
fill empty consciousness. Which is more impossible? Which
is bigger? Which lasts longer?

I like your BOTH answer, not so much as an interpretation
for what goes on in the "full consciousness", but that the
two "full and empty" exist simultaneously. ... The
interesting part about looking at "full and empty
consciousness" is that one can begin to see that "time" is
somewhat of a fabrication that helps to normalize the
anomaly. David Hodges' post, "the erotics of union on
higher spheres" indirectly eludes to this.

In the manner that consciousness expands to ever widening
spheres, the consciousness begins to encompass everything,
there is less sense that one thing came before or after
another, it's all part of a bigger picture, and NOW the
focus is "such and such". The wider that focus the better,
because if some(one/thing) can narrow your focus to a small
point, they/it can be diddling away at some other point
without your noticing.

_____________________________________________________________

GENE POOLE'S 'LINKS TO IMPORTANT STUFF'

For you: <http://www.thisisnotthat.com/gs/gs.html>

From the above page:

"General semantics, as a system formulated by Alfred
Korzybski in his 1933 landmark book Science and Sanity, and
written about in dozens of books since, provides a
diagnosis of the symptoms, as well as a comprehensive set
of antidotes to avoid these kinds of inter- (and intra-)
personal problems.

Korzybski himself stated that the basic formulations of
general semantics constituted no more than "baby stuff".
However, almost every one of us must, to some degree,
unlearn years of automatic, learned behavior which
conflicts with his scientific approach to living.
Therefore, while we may be quick to nod in agreement that
"this stuff makes a lot of obvious sense", we may also find
it exceedingly difficult to apply this "baby stuff" in the
practice of everyday living.

General semantics refers to the study of how we as human
beings evaluate what happens to us in our daily lives. You
could also say it has to do with the study of how we
ascribe meaning to what happens, and in some cases, to what
doesn't happen. Since so much of our evaluating and our
meaning-generation result from our verbal 'thinking',
'assuming', 'inferring', 'interpreting', etc., a good deal
of gs is about understanding the various mechanisms
(neuro-logical, psycho-logical and physio-logical) which
affect our thinking, our talking, our listening, our
overall processing or evaluating of what happens to us."

***

Also: <http://www.general-semantics.org/>

<http://www.general-semantics.org/gs/md_tb.shtml>

What is time-binding? From the above site:

"Time-binding describes unique behavioral characteristics
of the human species. An individual group, etc., has
certain experiences, makes certain inquiries, discoveries,
mistakes, decisions, creates certain structures etc., lets
say at 'time1.' At 'time2' these experiences, discoveries
etc., can be represented by memory, symbols, rituals,
physical structures and so on. And at 'time3' these 'time2'
representations, when experienced by the individual
(intrapersonal time-binding), or others (interpersonal
time-binding), become inputs - starting points for further
inquiries, explorations and so on. In a sense, then,
'time1' experiences, though symbolic representations at
'time2' are incorporated as part of the experiences of a
'time3' experience. And it has the potentials for
influencing many other future times experiences. (We don't
have to keep inventing the wheel or keep making similar
mistakes over and over).

*This transmission of representational structures from an
individual to him/herself, to others and across
generations* provides us with tremendous opportunities to
learn from ourselves and others. And if by "learning" we
intend "modification of behavior in the light of
experience", and are concerned to improve the quality of
our personal and other relationships, we need to be more
critical in evaluating information we receive, and more
concerned with the quality of the representations we pass
on.

Children learn from adults - what we say, how we say what
we say, what we do, how we do what we do; the way we behave
with each other; the institutions we create, and so on. An
overview of present human affairs suggests that we have a
great deal to learn. But more urgently, we need to take a
good critical look at what we have been learning and
doing."

***

Also:
<http://www.transmillennium.net/brucekodish/emptying.htm>

From the above site:

"Wishing to talk about Zen philosophy, a professor visited
a Zen master. As they sat together the Zen master poured
tea. He kept on pouring as the tea overflowed onto the
floor. "Stop!" said the professor, "you have filled the
cup, no more will go in." The Zen master replied, "You are
like that cup, full of your own ideas and speculations. If
you wish to know Zen, you must first empty your cup."

Like Zen, an important aspect of general-semantics (g-s)
training involves guided practice in "emptying your cup":
looking, listening, tasting, feeling, experiencing, etc.,
at what Korzybski called "the silent, un-speakable level".
This includes an attitude towards living that involves an
awareness of yourself as an
organism-as-a-whole-in-an-environment."

***

Note: All quotes taken under 'fair-use doctrine'; all
credit to the respective authors.

_______________________________________________________________

JOHN DUFF AND MARK OTTER

Mark, what is that you want? I mean really, really want.
This is aside from money and a boat and any other kidding
around that might go on. Wanting, deeply wanting, is
important - especially if the Universe is, indeed, response
to request.

Do you have an image or a goal of what you are trying to
achieve by being involved with these spiritual ideas, from
whatever source, secular, scientific or sacred? If you are
looking for, and are satisfied, with some vague,
occasional, accidentally occurring warm and fuzzy warm
feeling bordering on the verge of inappropriate laughter in
mixed company - it seems you've achieved that. It is also
an appropriate path, albeit a long one.

Let's look at some things Mark wrote:

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

(begin Mark's comments)

If you prefer to talk about Gurdjieff's scheme of things, I
am willing. I am close to totally ignorant of it, so I
stand to learn a lot.

Shall we hunt for holes in the Fourth way?

we often pick the ones (thoughts) we believe to bring into
the closet where we store words and clothe them enough to
see them in our mind's eye.

Oh I disagree!! words come from all sorts of places.

As a scientist, I am much more comfortable with partial
explanations.

Partial explanations can be helpful if one keeps an open
mind to a simplification to the model which shows how
multiple partial explanations join together. I have not
seen a single theory that describes all things,

I am pretty antagonistic towards party lines. It's part of
my training as a scientist.

but most folks change their beliefs so often that it is
difficult to make the correlation with any confidence...

am personally convinced by my own experiences of the
usefulness of the model as a map of reality. Of course,
there is always the possibility that the schema is not
inherently true until we use it as a map for exploration
and that the exploration is part of the process by which we
make the world in our own image. I have clearly
demonstrated to my own satisfaction that my interpretation
of the world is manifested in my experiences (and vice
versa - it is a two way street.)

I see dropping all party lines as fit, and so as a
scientist, I am rather unfit.

There are many voices in my head, with varying degrees of
wisdom. I speak in many voices.

Now, I may be confused, and that's fine. It often happens
that when one is off the beaten path, one gets lost. so be
it if that is what it is.

(end Mark's comments)

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

Maybe it's a movement towards Unity you're looking for?

In the last post I had laid out some statements to define
and qualify in what context any following discussion might
take, since I would be quoting and expanding on some, how
shall we say, "ideas and concepts (not my own) that cannot
approached with a blunt tool of perception". These
statements did not necessarily require your comment or
agreement, although I am thankful for your opinions as an
insight into your views of my mental and philosophical
processes, which by the way, are of absolutely no value or
significance whatsoever to you personally, only your own
have any potential value to you.

I tend not to continue threads on mail lists for a simple
reason, the thread very quickly deviates from the intended
aim of what was originally undertaken, usually becoming
contentitious.

So let me answer, as best I can, what you originally asked
before ending this discussion:

Yes, I understand what you mean when you look at a baby. A
baby is very much in what Gurdjieffian term 'essence'.
"Essence" is what we are born with, it contains our as yet
unfolded talents and tendencies. 'Personality' forms around
essence as the maturation and socialization process
proceeds, to protect the sensitive essence, and this is, as
I understand it, as it should be. False Personality forms
around Personality as we form imaginary pictures of
ourselves and begin to worship these pictures. Imaginary
pictures like being a 'good scientist' or a 'Fourth Way
student' or that we never lie or that we are always
objective or that 'I' am the final arbiter, by way of my
subjective impressions, of the true nature of reality and
all that exists.

Essence, if it is other than just a word, or a debatable
intellectual construct, would carry with it modes of
personal existence, perception and sensitivities different
than the dull, insulated and arbitrarily, culturally
constructed personality and the almost purely imaginary
composition of the pride and vanity driven False
Personality.

My task then, (or not), on understanding and trying to
validate this model personally, would be to move (my sense
of 'I') back towards essence while forsaking, as much as
possible, False Personality while also trying to identify
which parts of true personality serve my aim in
accomplishing this goal (of experiencing essence), since,
in the world in which we live (such as it is) essence still
needs to be protected. The aim of getting in touch with
essence is education of essence and quality, intensity and
depth of field of experience of Life.

Soul, which I am not prepared to discuss, may be glimpsed
in your personal urge 'to be' and it has to do primarily
with the emotions and the energy of consciousness. The 'I
Am'. Essence has a designed, but such as we are nowadays,
potential, connection with soul.

Spirit, which I am also not prepared to discuss may be
glimpsed in your urge 'to see (things) (the Big Picture)'
and has to do with the intellectual function and 'Will'
(not 'Will' in the sense of "I Won't Have a Cigarette",
Will in this context means finding a 'way' to 'see' things
as a whole, it is a Unitive function) and creative energy.
This creative energy is the energy involved in defining a
field for 'I Am" to exist in in a meaningful way, it also
plays a role in sex, but this role, having nothing to do
with the act itself, but with the unification of 'you' and
'someone else' into a 'new being' goes on without awareness
or conscious participation of either party that engaged in
the act itself. As you can see, you have strength in this
area since the very distant, quite removed child of these
powers, accessible to man in everyday life, is curiosity.
Soul has a potential connection with spirit subject to the
same caveat as the essence-soul connection, that connection
must come first.

Taken at face value then, the path to soul and spirit is
through an experiential connection with essence. The path
to essence might be through recognizing and removing the
considerable energy we invest daily from supporting what is
false in us. Conservation of particular forms of human
energy. (You must feel this in your heart). This formerly
'wasted' energy (of consciousness) is then 'free' for other
uses, one of which might be refinement into purer forms of
energy . This, in effect, might be a way of looking at the
choosing among 'beliefs' you would like to engage in, at
your leisure, for as long as it suits you.

For instance, I was once a good scientist, I have chosen to
remove the energy from that 'belief'. As you requested of
me and my 'beliefs' around the Fourth Way. Are you capable
of the same? Simply put, you have to stop 'being' a
scientist, or a Fourth Way student for that matter, to 'be'
something else. It is about energies, a scientist, perhaps
can understand this more easily than others, conceptually
at least, for a lot of the same laws apply in the
immaterial world of energies concerned with the human
experience and apparatus of perception (sensual and
psychological) like, "a being set in motion as a scientist
tends to remain a scientist", or, "for every scientist
there is an equal and opposite theologian or creationist
(or Fourth Way student)".

Those of other paths would be right in making the
connection between these 'words' and the 'energies'
mentioned. It is not lost or missed on people who study G.
that the Universe is indeed interpenetrating energies of
varying densities, the effects of some of which man is
capable of observing (externally), some of which he is
capable of experiencing personally (internally - the energy
of consciousness), and some of which he may only know by
their traces (creative), but may (perhaps) come to
experience by a preparation of his 'vessel' to contain and
transform such energies. All of which he cannot 'see' in
any material sense, only their effects.

It is a paradox that in the age we live in that, for
instance, there is no such 'thing' as electricity, this
energy remains an abstract concept, it does not exist in
the material world, but around it we devise formulas to
study its effects. We build machines that turn functional
(mechanical) energy into electrical energy and machines
that turn electrical energy back into functional energy to
do high grade work, but in the process we can never 'see'
these energies - only the effects they have in our material
realm. This in itself is a miracle, it is also a measure of
our sleep and lack of awareness of the true nature of the
Universe in which we live.

Warm regards,
John
Coments welcome,

top of page