Click here to go to the next issue.

Friday September 8, 2000



POU & DAN

Kia Ora and Greetings

It is almost as though this awakening in Consciousness at present has to
pass through the same stages as the human growth unfolding. i.e. womb,
mouth, anus, genitals, Oedipus complex, latency puberty into adulthood. It
is almost like a mapping system where one can see almost where different
teachers or realsiers are fixated. only of course if you are at the stage
immediately ahead

Many teachers today here in Western Europe claim there is no 'i' you can't
do anything here, there is no one to do it, etc. etc.. For myself my own
personal understanding is wake up and pay the taxes. We all need to continue
to grow up and at least bring some degree of awareness to responsibility in
this game we all play together 'I am here with you'

------------
Dan:
The teaching of "no I" is
only to address fixation
on an "I".

There is no intrinsic value
to teaching "no I" as if
this were something
to be given to someone else
(e.g., "here I give you this
teaching of "no I", now use
it well and live by it - LOL).

So, definitely, the teaching of
"no I" can be a fixation,
as can the teaching of "the
Eightfold Path", or "advaita",
or anything except my teaching ;-)

Of course, Pou, this applies to
the idea of stages unfolding.
Because it always places someone
somewhere in an assumed stance
by which to evaluate "others".
Even assuming I've reached a stage
of "nonevaluation", I remain in
this "stage trap".

So, which stage is the ending
of all stages? At what
"point" in the journey does
That arise?

The only "point" for the ending
of all stages is "no point",
It is the nonarising of any
journey at all.

Namaste,
There's only ...

(love),

Not-Dan

`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
POU

Kia Ora

Yes.. we are all the answer... asking the question.. "Who am I?"

Why.. because it loves to ask the question, in fact it delights in asking the
question who am I?" there has never been a point ever where it has not delighted
in asking the question.. it is really the only question it delights in asking...
hence why Rumi stated I long to revel in the drunken frenzy of your love and
one.. two .. three.. "Who am I?" oh octave higher in the key of G major "Who am
I?" hmmm..

Quick Mark.. before Love comes before sunrise to chain us all and drag us
off....

Pou -uoP

````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
DAVID HODGES sends "Indra, Come home!"

In the Hindu tradition, Indra is a god who runs the Heavens. One day he
decided to visit earth. He didn't come back. After a while, the other gods
got worried. They sent out messengers looking for him.

At last one of the messengers found him. Indra had become a pig.

"Indra" cried the messenger. "You must come back. The Heavens are coming
apart!"

"Come back?" said Indra, amazed. "I can't come back! I have a she-pig
and five little piglets!"

---from Soul Stories by Gary Zukav

````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
MARK & DAN

>So, which one of them is a realized being, and more importantly, who are
YOU? Yes, the price one pays to be able to let someone run a sword through you
and
not blink because you know it is not truly harmful to you is to die first. I
have
not done that. It looks to me like a very advanced teaching.
>
>Love, Mark


Hi, Mark.
I think this teaching was expressed
quite well by Obiwan Kenobi in
Star Wars ;-) It is a good story,
thanks for sharing it.

If a sword runs through this body,
and the body blinks, even screams,
what of it? The body reacts, there's
nothing inappropriate about that.

The barbarian is one appearance, a monk
that doesn't blink is another appearance,
yet, That in which they appear remains
"untouched" by either. The barbarian is
oblivious to That, the monk wants
to show the power of That to regulate
a body's reactions, yet That is not
"in" either the obliviousness of the
barbarian, nor the monk's "showing"
of regulation of a response to pain and death.

That, simply is That, regardless of
whether a barbarian appears or a monk
appears (or disappears). It's interesting
to note that although the monk and
barbarian initially seem to present with
very different attitudes, there is a striking
commonality. Each, in his own way, is being
"heroic" -- each is very "noticeable" as having
taken a stance toward life and death. In fact,
many warriors have prized those among them who
could "show" that kind of indifference toward
pain and death that the monk showed. The samurai
thus adopted Zen, and Viking "berzerkers" version
of an "ideal barbarian" included such indifference to
pain and death.

This "That" isn't heroic or non-heroic, isn't taking
a particular stance and doesn't interfere with
the taking of a stance. "That" isn't something other than
the barbarian or monk, nor is it identified
as barbarian or monk. Without That,
no barbarian or monk would seem to be there.

With regards to Hitler. Hitler appears in
That and is oblivious. Others appear in That
and feel empathy toward the victims. Some
others appear in That and suggest that even
Hitler can be accepted, as to be Reality is
to exlude nothing. However, That isn't "in"
the obliviousness, the empathy, or the acceptance.
That has never not been That, regardless of what
seems to be appearing. As we struggle to formulate
attitudes toward violence, pain, death, people who
use terror to achieve ends, people who don't have
ends to achieve, That remains as is.

It's funny to try to speak about This. Words
sometimes seem quite humorous. Yet, what's a poor
boy to do? Words, distorting as they are, are what
we have to play with on this computer screen.


`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
POU & DAN on conscious suffering

Pou:
Some of the Zen Masters have also stated 'awakening in its mature stages has
the ability to adopt any view point', and I stress the word 'any'

Our path up the Mountain is strewn with many fixations of attention, simple
to maintain the focus required to climb yet still higher, in the
metaphorical sense of understanding Journey of the Hero..ess

I belief if one is still long enough, to feel, and recognize, any fixation
of attention within one Self, there will be found to be also an accomplice
belief system.
-------------------------
Dan:
Yes, indeed, Pou. Freud did want
to understand the fixations
by which human energy becomes
bound, often outside
of the conscious awareness.
Our culture supports affirmation of a "me" that is
supposedly self-sufficient, self-determining,
and free to choose. That "me" is merely
a construction that is not at all independent,
is, in fact, completely dependent on society,
language, the past, and biological constraints.

Freud made the point that we are not the
master in our own house that we wish
to believe ourselves to be; that "master" is
essentially a self-constructed image that depends
upon the exlusion of the evidence that would expose
its lack of grounding.

As for "neurosis", it's a useful term
to place the one who defines "neurosis"
in a one-up position. After all, if I
can explain neurosis, I must be beyond it.

I sometimes find it useful to look at "neurosis" as
"the intrusion of reality". Neurosis
is then a gift, a potential opening
for awareness. Neurosis says "I won't
be ignored. Try to ignore me and I will
show up in your life anyway."

As for psychosis, that is a very risky teacher.
Psychosis is a swamp of disorganization
that conceals a pearl of great price.

Beyond neurosis, psychosis, and normalcy "I am".

If you ask me who I am, I may reply "not this, not
that". Or I may reply "I am the air you are breathing,
the space in which these words appear."

``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
GENE POOLE

The Overseer sees Self, self, the map, and the entire matrix; many
organisms are actually one 'big' organism; this Overself is the
entire environment in which all of this is taking place, and we
'know' it as SPACE. All activities in space, do not affect space;
space is the parent of all activities, and it is space which (in a
seemingly neutral way) connects and enables them all. Space is the
cradle of matter and energy, and of all possibility.

Space is synonymous with 'awareness'; everything is available both in
space, and in awareness.

The human is not a tiny dot in an infinite universe; the universe is
a tiny dot in space/awareness.

Virtual self is aware of none of this, although it may reference
these concepts; it may access these concepts, but only to the depth
necessary to maintain the virtual self. Self is aware of Self and
self; Self need not reference any of these concepts, but it may do so
if it wishes. It may do so for the purpose of gently pointing to a
mechanism which acts as though it has 'independent existence', when
in fact this mechanism is a dynamically-maintained _function_ of
Self; like a light-bulb, it will not shine without external power
being supplied.

During deep sleep, the power to the 'virtual self' is turned off;
upon awakening, the 'virtual self' is re-initialized, based upon
stored vector-memories, and is once again steered out into the map of
social inter-competition. Virtual self has no memory of being 'turned
off' or of being re-initialized.

Virtual self has no autonomy; for Self, autonomy is moot, because for
Self, there is no field in which to be autonomous; Self is itself,
that very field; and it is called space, or awareness.

``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
BRUCE sends more Krishnamurti

Comment: I find it impossible to be aware all the time.

K: Don't be aware all the time. Just be aware in little bits.
Please, there is no being aware all the time -- that is a
dreadful idea. It is a nightmare, this terrible desire for
continuity. Just be aware for one minute, for one second,
and in that one second of awareness you can see the whole
universe. That is not a poetic phrase. We see things in a
flash, in a single moment; but having seen something, we
want to capture, to hold it, give it continuity. That is not
being aware at all. When you say, "I must be aware all the
time," you have made a problem of it, and then you should
really find out why you want to be aware all the time --
see the greed it implies, the desire to acquire. And to say,
"Well, I am aware all the time," means nothing.

Is love, like marriage, for ever and ever? Are marriages
for ever and ever? You know better than I do. Is love for
ever and ever, or is it something totally stripped of time?

J. Krishnamurti, June 10, 1962, London, England

top of page