Click here to go to the next issue.

GENE & SANDEEP (cont'd)


SANDEEP:
Who continues to learn?
And is it learning or playing?
So I rephrase the question who continues to play through Gene, in
precisely the form and manner it does, as per the innate programming
of the biological computer labelled Gene?

GENE:
Activity continues, but purpose changes, refines, becomes one thing
only, which is the dance.

Learning is (for me at least) play, to the consternation of some
others, so I observe. So yes, as you ask, this comparison can be
made, and that itself implies some kind of movement.

My own advocacy, is that what this is, overall, is 'sharing'. But
this sharing is not a 'parcelling-out' of something limited, as would
robbers 'share' the spoils. No, it is Being, filled with the
ineffable effulgence of Self, the vast mystery, as intoxicating as it
is sobering. It is limitless, and cannot be given or taken, only
accepted as-it-is, and here is the 'rub', because it does not match
the expectations of many, it is rejected, and something else (as if
there were anything else) is sought.

One may simply journey, or one may journey with a 'purpose', as one
chooses, and this freedom itself expresses the truth that is being
sought with purpose, yet truth is unseen, for to see it is to end the
journey (of seeking) and thus be without purpose.

There, have I said it?

SANDEEP:
The "me-entity" can only exist on the bed-rock of the assumption of
it's volition and "personal doership.

Without that assumption or more correctly with the apperception
happening of the illusoriness of those assumptions, there is no
me-entity left.

GENE:
If no-one is looking, no-one is seeing? And then, to cease looking,
is to cease seeing? To cease seeing, is to cease Being? And thus it
is then, that to cease being, one ceases looking? Looking, then, is
the volition which perpetuates illusion, and thus not-looking is
not-seeing illusion, and ergo, nothing is seen, not even the seer,
who is the supreme illusion?

Sounds like magic, Sandeep. Bwahahaha!

But that is cool! I dig it!

SANDEEP:
So let's be clear, apperception cannot be apperceived by any
perceiver because then the "me-entity" in the form of the
"perceiver" is back in action and thus you have all those beautiful,
profound spiritual experiences.

GENE:
Yes, your point is taken. I would add, that not everyone classifies
such events as 'profound spiritual experiences'. In this forum, with
its (inevitable?) usage and falling-back on spiritual terminology,
such terms are used, but this is not the universal language of
understanding. On a more primary level, I personally experience it in
ways that are not expressible in this quasi-Hindu, crypto-Buddhist
lingo. I have made an effort to translate into that bastardized
lingua franca, but it is not my native currency. So let us get that
straight, between 'us'.

SANDEEP:
All experiences whether profane or profound can only occur in phenomenality.

GENE:
In accord with what I have stated above, I hereby deny the profane
and the profound.

POOF!

How be it, that one is thinking thoughts that resist easy
translation, no matter the temptation to render these thoughts in the
pabulum demanded by the many? Could it be (I am asking) that there is
beyond profound and profane, or better, beneath profound and profane,
an easy 'knowing' which laughs effortlessly at the towers of
self-congratulatory 'wisdom', which has made itself the de facto
standard of 'understanding'? Is it not time to kick that particular
sand-castle, back to the elementary particles from which it was so
painstakingly made? I hereby administer such a kick!

How is it, that survival is not an issue of defeating an enemy, but
of placating friends? And this urge to placate, this demanded
smoothness, this non-interference with the status-quo, is the ticket
to ride in ease, as you know, yes?

<getting bumpy!>

So then imagine, I ask you, to see that there are those among us, who
eschew such blandishments; seeing outright the inherent worthlessness
of such homogenizing forces, having a different preference
altogether. And seeing this, to ask yourself, by what words would be
expressed, what is the other?

It is not enough, I say, to say that 'words fail'. No, words do not
fail, only certain words fail, where others may succeed. And what in
this case, would those words be? Would they be mere equivocation, a
simple yet disguised recapitulation of the yore of yesteryear? Must
we tread in the footsteps of Krishna, or may we stand where no-one
stands, and survey from that point, the vastness of the territory
where Krishna walks? And standing in that place, we are unseen, for
no-one stands there, and yet it is from this vantage, which I observe.

What do I see, you ask? Go ahead... ask, if you dare.

SANDEEP:
As water, the crest is I, the depth is I.

What oscillations could I possibly have?

GENE:
I experience the oscillations of the greater system, they occur in
me, as day and night, etc.

SANDEEP:
With all due respects Gene, a greater wave is still a wave.

GENE:
Indeed, and I stated it as such, not a denial, but an affirmation!

Here, have some more tea.

SANDEEP:
Self realization is an oxymoron statement or a self contradictory
goal, no matter what particular song and dance you adopt to move
towards self realization.

GENE:
Yes. But everything must have a convenient label. Perhaps I should
sell 'angel-wings in a can', just as real. Think of the profits!

SANDEEP:
That's why I said earlier , if you had a choice (which you don't)
between a million bucks and enlightenment, go for the million bucks.
You will at least be around to get to enjoy the million bucks.

GENE:
I'll take both, thanks, In fact, I'll take it all!

SANDEEP:
You need to be handing out dikshas, meditations, mantras, malas,
some good old sex-energy exchanges, some Kundalini power surges
through the third eye, be able to quote the Scriptures and a nice
set-up is up and about, running.

GENE:
Yes, I admit that I am a little rusty in these arts. But
nonetheless, today I turned into a driveway. Does that count?

SANDEEP:
Sure.
That must have got the cops following you. (assuming you mean you
crashed, please don't forget I am not native English born, the
language mystifies me)

GENE:
No, to steer the car from the street to the private drive, is
colloquially called 'turning into a driveway'.

But even more miraculous, this morning I will make myself a plate of eggs!

SANDEEP:
And yet if that is what gets to occur, it's only Consciousness
having a good laugh at itself.

GENE:
The laughter never stops, it is just not always appreciated.

SANDEEP:
Yes.

Thank you for the walk Gene.

Prost ( I never learn)
Sandeep

GENE:
Do you like Scotch? Is so, what is your favorite?

Happiness continues!

Aways open,

==Gene Poole==


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
GENE & POU

GENE:
NDS

Greetings Pou, to continue:

POU:
Gene you wrote me:

'That is why I say that the sword cuts both ways'.

Gene, I enjoyed your lengthy and well presented argument. It's very
rare that I print off postings, but more than one of yours has made
it through the printer.

I'm particularly fascinated in light of some of your comments re the
motivations of the unconscious patterns for an individual. Many
years ago I realized that as individuals awaken, they also awaken in
accordance to where and how they as individuals consciously are. I
do not feel to be awake is an automatic qualification to be
'conscious human being'. That I believe is a time honored process.

GENE:
Perhaps you have been following or have looked into the metaphors
involved in the 'larval/post-larval/post-terrestrial' model of human
evolution/growth/neural maturation.

The awakening of the post-larval is a significant event, but does not
convey wisdom. There is much work to be done.

POU:
I feel each individual can only be in accordance to their personal
understanding at the time of awakening 'Wie viel ist aufzuleiden'
How much suffering there is to get through!

GENE:
Yes... the cocoon-wrappings of the larval, are the attachments to
world-dream materials; these attachments must be consumed (put in
correct place). An individual is capable only of imbibing into
wisdom, only what has been experienced, and that is all suffering of
one sort or another.

POU:
Initial awakening is also a great opportunity to experience denial.
Shree Rajneesh has spoken much on this topic as with many others.
Nisargadatta, Ramana, Suzuki Roshi, Papaji... A person suddenly
released from the contructs of identification, a 'mental prison'
called 'mind' often does and can experience dramatic consequences
due to sudden liberation of a sort.

GENE:
Yes, I have personal experience with this event.

POU:
You may be aware that many schools of enlightenment do not allow a
person to teach until one has deeply cultivated their understanding
of awakening.

GENE:
Yes. What of independents, those outside of administered circles?

POU:
Here in Europe, there is a mass awakening of people that one might
call, the recognition 'that I'm not the thinker of my thoughts',
'that I am that'.

GENE:
Yes, I hear of this.

POU:
In the very early 90s a friend of mine came back from being with a
gentleman called Papaji in Lucknow in India. It was obvious from the
moment I looked into his eyes that something had transpired for him
while he was there. His entire use of language radically changed.

It was certainly fascinating watching my friend speak from the
'enlightened state' or what he called the enlightened state, and
also continued to witness his clear demonstration of identifying
with the arising of particular emotions in the bodymind complex.
Several of us watched this and it was obvious, even though myself
not being "enlightened", there was massive identification taking
place with this person. Of course it rubbed up seriously with all of
my ideas and concepts of what I "thought" the awake state was, how
it should look, and how one should act. Dead from the neck down!

GENE:
Yes, a common enough assumption. 'Spiritual paraplegia'.

POU:
The bodymind complex psyche still contained massive programming. A
programming of self-condemnation, unworthiness, seeking approval and
massive identification with the arising of shame.

GENE:
Indeed.

POU:
My point being here Gene, is that I strongly believe with the new
current phase of young enlightened people that along with this
arises a whole new possibility to bring new conscious awareness at a
both individual and collective level. If anyone has the time, they
really only need to read some of the writings written by others who
have walked the path: Lord Buddha, Zen masters, Ramana Maharshi,
Rajneesh, and a huge number of other powerful realizers to
consciously realise much work is required after awakening. I
understand from your post this is also your insight.

GENE:
Similar, yes. I see this happening around me.

POU:
Gene, I have immense respect for your presence along with others. I
honour your ability to express yourself with intelligence and yet
with delicate vulnerability.

My basic position or structured belief system that I adhere to, is
that the unfolding of events in day to day life is predetermined. By
predetermined I don't mean for an individual for I believe that
there is only 'Consciousness'.

GENE:
Yes, it can be expressed this way. "Predetermined", as you use the
word, would refer to the behaviour of the whole, as manifested by
every aspect of that whole. The whole cannot conflict with itself,
but it can internally change in ways that astound humans. Such
changes do not imply that the whole (self) is anything less than
whole, only that humans mistake higher harmony for deficiency.

POU:
Choice, my concept is one identifies with that which arises, or witnesses.

GENE:
Understood. I am that which arises, and I am the witness to that arising.

POU:
For me I place the emphasis on the work in consciousness in bringing
awareness to where identification is taking place with that which is
already predetermined.

GENE:
Pointing to the endless circle.

POU:
If suffering to be had, then suffering it is to be. If being rich is
to be had, then to be rich it is.

GENE:
To each... as it is said.

POU:
The ability to witness is where I believe the work in consciousness
lies. Right up to that final moment of death which is always now..

GENE:
Witnessing is abiding.

POU:
one of your sentences, and I quote "others have not as yet
discovered that this choice is possible".

You may have read Victor Frankl's book 'Mans search for meaning' but
if not, the whole message of this book is that choice is absolutely
and totally available under any circumstances, as he so painfully
experienced in the KZ's of Nazi Germany.

GENE:
I first read that book in school grade 11, then again later in
college/philosophy. It had a profound influence in me (and others).
This led me to read Rollo May, Bruno Bettleheim, Erich Fromm, and
others who offered the fruits of their own amazing survival in worst
possible conditions. I discovered CG Jung during my 21st year, and
years later, studied deeply of Wilhelm Reich. I read with great
interest, your report from A Lowen, which reinforced my own opinions
of those matters.

I will point out that there is a subtle yet infinite difference
between 'choice' and 'choices'. Although I live in choice, I have no
choices, only choice. Living in choice has been referred to as the
'choiceless choice'.


Sitting by the broad, broad river

==Gene Poole==

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DAN & CARLA, touching:

CARLA:
Dr. phys. Carla says mind is just energy and will fall in a black
whole.


DAN:

Thanks for this.
It only looks black
when you're outside of it ;-)


CARLA:
Thank you for your loving answers I enjoy .

Do you mean the black whole as conciousness?
Love back Carla

DAN:

Loving your responses as well... ;-)

This black whole absorbs even
"consciousness", for there is
nothing to be conscious of,
not even itself.

Imagining ourselves to be outside
of it, it looks black.
When seen we are, in fact, already
"in" it, it doesn't have a "look"
at all.

On the "other side" of this black
whole is a white whole from which
all that has been absorbed, emanates.
At the "point" where black whole meets
white whole, consciousness
immediately *is* "all the objects of consciousness"
which are now viewing themselves. Who
can say from where or how?

Love in a black whole,
Dan


CARLA:
What puzzels me is how you can know a black whole if you still
have a body?


DAN:

I know this black whole well,
because it is knowing me
right now.

I don't know it from a position
in the body. I know it as
the knowing that unforms and
forms the body, the universe.

No body could exist without
space to be in.
Thus, space is all bodies,
all bodies are space.

Space has all bodies, so
whatever "I" there is
that has a body, is
the "I" that is space.

Love,
Dan


CARLA:
I touch another to feel myself.
Carla


DAN:
Yes. So who is touching whom? ...and what is
touch when the toucher and touched are
not-two? Is there ever even one moment
of separation when what is being touched
is not the toucher? (My answer to this
is "no", there is no such moment)

Untouchably touching,
Dan


CARLA:

Your words made tears come to my eyes ,It feels so true .
I feel the Love for God , Halleluja
Love Carla

DAN:

In the exact moment of "touching"
who is being touched and who is
the toucher? Before there is
time to refer to memory.
This exact instant of touching,
am I inside "behind" the touch,
or am I outide, "being touched"?
If, this moment, no memory brought in,
is "touching" -- there is only touching,
no one touching or being touched.
Same for all senses.

My daily life is daily life. Get up,
go to work, say hi to friends, spend time
with my partner. Catch up with
paperwork (like now - ha, ha).
Just a life being lived.

Love,
Dan

MICHELE:
Dear Dan,

your reply to Carla inspired me to remind mySELF:

...can I do something different than what I am doing right now?

Movements are happening, nobody doing anything... Ahhh! That's total
freedom! FREEDOM & PEACE!

Thank you & much Love to you-mySELF

Michèle

top of page