Click here to go to the next issue.

Glo:
I do understand that the separation cannot occur..my questions are
more practical than theoretical. Would you agree that the
assumption of being separate, as a feeling or experience does occur?

Dan:
Many conditions or situations may be assumed. If the assumption is
not real, then it won't fit with what is experienced, if what is
experienced is real. The question then is, what is "real" experience? The
"real" experience isn't a feeling about something unreal, or an experience
based on an assumption that is unreal. To whatever extent the feeling of
being separate, or the experience of being separate is real, there is no
separation even at the moment of that experience arising. (Since
separation cannot occur - your words). To whatever extent experience isn't
real, then this unreal aspect ends the instant the real is seen.


Glo:
Deluded tho you may consider this, most people at least
imagine having this center or identity..or so they proclaim?? I'm
asking more about the experience of imagining (?)being in Maya as
some contrast with this clarity you call it..or being without a
center that Ivan calls this. If I have understood somewhat your
discussion here, Ivan seems to be suggesting that even the
experience of being this imaginary personality would disappear? It
seems to me that those who have traditionally been regarded as
"realized" (sorry, not sure how else to say this) do continue to
have minds with memories, and at least the appearance of a
personality is experienced by others.


Dan:
Speaking only for myself, the disappearance of the imaginary inner observer
seems real.
Memories can function, and a personality can be seen by others, without the
individual experiencing what can't be experienced (an imaginary inner
observer). This observer is all implication with no reality, all
assumption with nothing there.

Gloria:
Who can know what anyone
else's inner experience is anyway?

Dan:
Exactly. Or even just their "experience" plain and simple. I'm with you
here.

Gloria:
I am trying to ask if even the
"pseudo-center" tho not real is not also as equally a
manifestation as any other appearance of maya?

Dan:
If you take it as a moment to moment phenomenon, then it becomes energy
manifestation, similar to anything else. Then it's not a pseudo-center
anymore, just a momentary thought-blip.

Glo:
Are you and Ivan saying the same thing or is there some subtle
difference I am imagining here?>

Dan:
I only speak for myself. That's all I've been doing. To me, the whole
point is speaking from awareness as it is, as I find it, this moment.

Glo:
It's
really intriguing that here in the midst of infinity you and I
share these
words about "awakening." Do we need to awaken? Or is this just
"reality
itself" with the words flowing out of it?

Dan:
You got me there..who knows? people imagine all sorts of things,
don't they?

Glo:
Yes, exactly. It gets back to what you were saying about assumptions, I
believe.

Dan:
Do I assume that there's a me that needs to awaken? How real is that? If
I take what is real, then there is simply the real. I just want to "come
from" that. Whether I'm doing well with that or not, who can evaluate?
Like you said earlier, to evaluate, someone would have to be looking from
"outside." From here, I want to come from "it" and when I see "it" it
seems very big, unbounded. Seeing it, it makes sense to come from it,
because the bounded comes from the unbounded. Seeing it, it wouldn't make
sense to come from the bounded, as if this bounded reality were a separate
autonomous zone...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Marcia:
Just because the soul is not separate doesn't mean
it isn't individual. Individual soul is connected
through love to all other individual souls to
form the collective soul of man.

Dan:
The separations aren't separate.

Marcia:

Help me here with this. Tell me more what you
see.

Dan:
I visualize it as a vortex. The vortex moves from an outer
edge at nothingness to an inner "surface" which is the four dimensional
world. On the inner surface are manifested many apparently different
beings and realities. Followed up the "cone" of each manifestation, each
apparently individual manifestation eventually connects with everything
else outside of the inner surface. So it is in reality one vortex.

Now, apart from this visualization, one can experience separation as
nonseparation.
This occurs when the differentiations observed are seen as unitive. Thus,
the distinction between tree and sky is the unity of tree and sky, the
difference betweeen me and you connects me and you. If I separate from
you, that gives me a relationship with you that includes you.

So in both these ways, separation isn't separate.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Jan:

Visions, sounds and other phenomena belong the side-effects of Kundalini
(K.) awakening / rising. Having been a member of a K. list for over a year,
I could conclude that although many of the phenomena are similar for
different experiencers, the stage of unfolding where a certain phenomenon
occurs can greatly differ. For this reason I consider discussing the
phenomena a serious drawback, unless they are causing distress. Those
involved will invariably interpret their development being at the "highest"
stage, if stages are known. Probably for this reason the Buddha choose to
describe the accompanying K. phenomena at attainment of nirvana in such a
way that it wouldn't make any sense "before", only "after".
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Marcia had said:

It is not that I don't believe that what you and
Xan are talking about is true. I just have not
experienced it. I feel like I have experienced the
eye in the center of the hurricane but I am
awares of time flowing past even if I am in the still point.

to which Jan responded:

Belief doesn't serve any purpose. But neither does speculative theory.
So it is just a matter of patience before experiential time will come to a
standstill. But a few conclusions can be drawn that could have an occasional
practicality. If one doesn't identify with one's mind, one cannot be
impressed by (the products of) "other" minds either. If one doesn't identify
with one's body, one doesn't see "other" bodies either - just bodies. But if
a joker stings "your" or the "other" body with a needle, it becomes obvious
that a difference between "own" and "other" still remains, no matter the
ironed_out theory :) The eventual transformation of physical
body-consciousness will overcome this "minor quirk" too.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Glo:

Deluded tho you may consider this, most people at least
imagine having this center or identity..or so they proclaim?? I'm
asking more about the experience of imagining (?)being in Maya as
some contrast with this clarity you call it..or being without a
center that Ivan calls this. If I have understood somewhat your
discussion here, Ivan seems to be suggesting that even the
experience of being this imaginary personality would disappear? It
seems to me that those who have traditionally been regarded as
"realized" (sorry, not sure how else to say this) do continue to
have minds with memories, and at least the appearance of a
personality is experienced by others.

Ivan:
I am not sure I understand your question by I'll try to say
something concerning the matter. There is nothing wrong with
memory and knowledge itself. They are usefull to remember
our names, adress, solve technical problems. But, as result of
our predatory historic evolution, we developed a means of dealing
with this world in a way that was quite usefull for porpuses of those
times -- haunting, seeking protection, looking for food, in other
words: self preservation. This same mechanism is going on
today, but not for real survival porpuses, but for the survival of
that inner entity. Now...our brain seeks order, a very sane impulse.
The brain is deeply aware of the conflict that is happening (the inner
self trying to become diferent in time, wich is impossible because
it is assumed to be constant at the same time). So the brain is seeking
order and can't find it. What is order? It is not the order that is in
relation
to some ideia or philosophy, no, instead it is the order that perceives
all events as universal in nature. Rain, storm, tornado, a thought, a feeling,
a body. All this events are from nature, belonging to universal order -- an
order that is non comprehensible by man. When this kind of order is
established,
the mind *knows* that finaly order has been established, because an
unmistakenbly peace becomes evident -- and a general feeling that
all, including the closest events -- are of *that*. You see, without the
definite
intention, the ME is transformed to became also of *that* -- wich in away
is not the old ME anymore.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

offered by Xan:

from Arjuna Nick Ardagh
Relaxing Into Clear Seeing


"Realization, awakening, Satori - or simple sanity - is to recognize that
there is no ego, no mind, no individual soul. There is not now, nor has there
ever been, nor will there ever be. This is not the achievement of a higher
state or the end of a long and arduous journey, but rather the recognition of
what has always been the case. The ego has not been eliminated; it has been
recognized as never existing in the first place."

This quote gives me laughing in my heart.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Ivan:
What words would you utter as an answer to the question wether
is it possible to *fall back* into time, once having met timelesness. Or,
fall back to duality, once that unicity has been touched...c'ptain?


Gene:
This is my answer; time and timeless are always available. It is what is
chosen that matters.

That said, the one in 'time' is not the same one who is timeless, unless
that one in time, has touched unicity, as you have said. Unicity, if I take
your meaning correctly, gives voluntary access to either realm.

So I see no limitation in what you propose; I do not see it an an either/or
kind of situation.

What is limiting is the fear that one may be trapped or disadvantaged. The
fear of loss drives the search for attainment and the desire for a
permanent state.

To live... as a bridge between two worlds is possible. One need not burn
any bridges, or call oneself any thing.

Self definition limits only defined self. No self definition actually
defines self.

No time for the timeless,

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dan:
I would like to carry this idea of
"making nonsense of things," a bit further. It seems to me that Reality,
as it is,
constantly makes nonsense of things for us. All our biases about order,
consistency,
coherence, and meaning only allow us to include part of reality in our view
of reality.
The more we can release these biases, the more Reality can appear. I'm not
talking about forming new biases against order and consistency, simply
releasing biases and allowing the Real as is. I'm getting more comfortable
with "nonsense" as this occurs.
There is a sense of amazement that Reality can actually appear, with
presence beyond human biases, assumptions, and expectations.

Greg:
Yes, I agree with your sentiments here. If there is any progression in
this great matter (as they say in Zen), it seems to be a subtractive, not
additive or substitutional process. That is, we don't add more sensible
views, rather the various views and filters and rules and biases come to be
seen as nonsensical. Until there's no nonsense.

In actual paths, however, such as advaita vedanta, there is a progression
or substitution of world-views and creation stories, each given to the
student when the student is deemed ready. E.g., the external
creation-by-Ishwara story. Later, the student can come to understand the
internal creation (mind/perception creates the world). Then later, the
ajata-vada or non-creation theory is given to the student. The process by
which each view replaces the previous is called "sublation," each
subsequent view being more subtle, more encompassing, and relying on less
belief than the previous. The student, when exposed to the new view, comes
to see the previous view as nonsensical.

Some paths are better than others at ridding the aspirant of *all* views.
"I have no view, not even this one!" :-)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Ivan:

The less one knows about religions and philosophys,
the clearer things became. I am always surprised to see serious people
using the word God, or any similar -- they cary billions of volts voltage.
But let's see this. Whay would manifestation be illusion? I don't know...

Dan:
Well, a lot of this has to do with traditional Hindu words and
images. If we're saying those words and concepts aren't key, then this
question about illusion might
not be so "key."

Ivan:
What lot, apart of the word Maya, you are refering to?

Dan:
Manifestation is like the magician's trick. If you're
caught up in the illusion of the trick, you react one way. If you see what
is going on, you're not caught up in the illusion, so react another way.
Your biases and assumptions have shifted. Now it's the play of energy.
Before it was a matter of life and death.
The magician is nondual Reality, the manifestation or "illusion" is
particular "things," apparently causally linked events, identity, the
perception of time and space... when you see through the "illusion," you
end the false assumptions, expectations, and biases that have formed
reality for you. The play of energy as manifestation continues. Now it's
moment to moment expression of "what is."

Ivan:
it's not aparent to me here now, the possibility of illusion without
the self/ego.
The relative subjective objective relation seems to be inherent to the mind
of man. After all one goes on living, loving, driving, talking, dancing etc...

Dan:
I think as I addressed above, the illusion is actually an expression
of the Real, so in a sense is the Real, after one's biases and assumptions
have shifted.

top of page