Click here to go to the next issue.

Thursday October 5th


________________________________________________________________________________\
________________________________________________________________________________\
__________



JERRY


Scott Morrison has died. These are excerpts from two letters I received:

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

portion of a letter from Tomas Diaz de Villegas:

I wanted to share some news with you. I got some sad news
today when doing my daily checking-in on Scott Morrisons
web site. He passed away- apparently it happened yesterday
and they posted the funeral dates.

He was a friend and teacher. He was a tremendous support
for clarity for me and many others and was the embodiment
of childlike wonder.

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

from Rob Rhodes:

Scott Morrison transitioned to eternity this last weekend,
after complications from an illness. I have posted some
timing on the http://www.openmindopenheart.org web site.
Please be assured that we will keep his web site up. I will
not be very available this week, as I am going to Oklahoma
for the funerals. But when I return, I will be able to
provide more information and set up a way for people who
knew Scott to contact each other....thanks

________________________________________________________________________________\
_____



There is a new ezine type list dedicated to Ramana which includes Q&A quotes and
pictures. It is not a discussion list, and there were only 5 messages all of
September. You may want to subscribe and or take a look at the back issues by
web only..whatever. It is called Bhagavan.

Love,
Gloria

________________________________________________________________________________\
_____


MICHAEL+MARCIA

Marcia Paul wrote:
> I confuse myself. The point of confusion is about concrete
> experience and abstract theory.
>
> If anyone understands my confusion, I would appreciate input.
> This is somewhat in the nature of a 'burning question.'
>
> Marcia

I appreciate your situation.

On the one hand the teaching tells us
that all is an illusion, maya. Taken to heart this can mean that
everything is part of that maya. Bliss, enlightenment, and awakening
can be seen as illusion, also.

On the other hand the teaching tells us that all is Buddha nature.
Twelve hundred years ago Tsung-mi said: "The Hung-chou school asserts
that our arousing the mind and moving thoughts, snapping the fingers,
moving the eyes, etcetera, is wholly the activity of Buddha nature
itself, and not the movement of anything else. In a word, the
entirity
of our wanting something, getting angry at something, or arousing the
passions - whether good or evil, pleasurable or painful - is all
Buddha nature. For example, just as from wheat flour are made
noodles,
crackers, and carious other foods, is is every single one of thes
products still the same wheat flour."

My experience mirrors this. When the viel dropped from my eyes I saw
that indeed we are all that thing that we seek. I was astounded and a
little chagrined. IT had been here all along.

Life up until that 'awakening' had been full of passion and drama and
a deep attachement to it all. Now, life is still full of passion and
drama. Only the attachement to the drama and its outcome is
practically lessened. I never get upset in heavy traffic anymore! :-)

There is still an appearance or 'flavor' of Michael here. That comes
with the history I suppose. It is alright to be a 'character' in this
wonderful existance.

I have a theory. The I AM so enjoys being people that IT persists
in maintaining the illusion of separateness. Just a theory!

I now live my life with compassion, gentleness and love. If ones
delivers a single blow to another's head, then ten thousand blows
land
on one's own head. If one delivers a single act of compassion, the
rewards cannot be measured.

Love and kindness to you, Marcia.

HAHAHAH and HOHOHO!

Peace - pie is good - Michael

________________________________________________________________________________\
_____

ELLY+GENE


Elly, thank you for replying. In response:

>From: ellyseidel@aol.com
>Subject: Response: Elly, you asked:
>
>Dear Gene,
>
>Thank your for your respond about responsibility. I loved to read it
>very much and to follow your clear description of your view. I want
>to respond. Till now for me a pleasant chain of events happened.

This is pleasant to know.

>You have written at the end:
>
> >Our responsibility is first to ourselves; awareness of
>responsibility is the first responsibility. This must be seen and
>understood. Each person indeed is the beginning of reaction; exactly
>what that reaction will be, is known only to the individual
>involved. Knowledge of response in others is secondary; we are to
>tend to our own internal conversation, to realise the nature of it,
>and if we share with others, in ways that do not create unfortunate
>chains of consequences.
>
>I like what you write about sharing with others, not to create
>unfortunately chains of consequences. You have written earlier:
>
> >there is endless strife in the world, for the reason that belief in
>humans, creates 'versions' of reality, which are then compared to
>those of other humans.
>
>The question arises how to be with the other? Is there another way
>than the way of comparison? Can humans who have woken up to their
>responsibility be together in a conscious way?

You will be with others, as you are with yourself.

>Is it possible that they can create in awareness together in this
>play of consciousness without creating unfortunate chains of
>consequences?
>
>I have this vision that this is possible. What is your viewpoint there?

Yes, it can be so.

Each person will have experiences, and the quality of those
experiences which each person has, is determined by the nature of the
inner conversation which each person has.

If each person cares for self, each person will also as consequence
of self-care, also care for each other person.

If a person is brutal towards self, that person perceives that others
are brutal. One who so perceives, also may feel that brutality is a
proper response. Sometmes it may feel that we are living in a brutal
world; in this case, is it possible to avoid behaving (and even
thinking) brutally? Yes, each person must live in peace within self,
but this means to honest with self, or to say it more clearly, to be
honest self. Your honest self is not the self stated or implied by
others.

We can understand, that if we allow self to be created by other, that
other is then held to be responsible for self. This schema is exactly
called blaming. It is stated: "You _make_ me feel (this) way".
interestingly, this is also the rationalization which is also used in
"romantic love".

If you can follow this description, you can probably see that what is
going on with people, is the 'externalization' of an internal
conversation. This conversation consists of a 'pro' and 'anti'
argument; the 'pro' aspect is 'pro-me', which automatically makes all
others 'anti-me'.

Each sees others as 'anti-me', and thus campaigns for the 'pro-me'
and against the 'anti-me'. You may be able to see this happening on
this mailing list right now. Mark is struggling to overcome the
'anti-me', yet he is also willing to abandon the 'pro-me' side of the
argument. Neo is strictly the 'pro-me' argument, and is very
sensitive to the 'anti-me, which he tries to suppress or control, by
promulgating his contrary.

Sandeep is taking the useful and productive 'no-me' argument, while
another takes the 'all-me' or 'everyone is me' point of view.

Each in their own way, sustains identity, however that identity is
defined by each. It is only in private, deep inside, that each may
from time to time, acknowledge to self, "I do not know". Wisdom of
not-knowing, resists reaction, and so identity starves and eventually
disappears. But socially, it is unpopular to 'not-know', for fear of
being looked upon by others as "stupid". Action is thus valued more
than is abiding, and only through action is identity fed and
sustained.

So it is, that identity falls away, but only many years after it
might have, had wisdom been allowed to prevail over action. I say,
consider abiding to be action, but action which satisfies the need to
act, without initiating chains of unfortunate consequences.


>You have also written about identities:
>
> >The 'do-er' is identity, and identity is kept alive by action. If
>no
> >action (response) is taken, identity starves. This is a great,
>challenging struggle, to be sure, but abiding (with all of the
>above
> >considerations) allows identity to fade... to nothingness.
>
>Yes I agree identities are kept alive by action. They are acted out
>and not seen as a role in the play. For me the important thing that
>they can starve is first to bring them full into consciousness and
>feel them. You have spoken also about feeling as the realm of the
>inner. (Gene I love your language !!! Mine is poor German
>translation, so I love to repeat what you said).

I appreciate that you love my language. I take care to speak to you.
You speak well and with care, as I hear you. Your care makes it easy
for me to speak in response to your speaking.

> So I wanted just to point to this that before identities fade they
>have to be brought into light and felt.

Elly, what you say above is true. That is why it is so important to
take every opportunity to present oneself honestly, even at risk of
appearing in a way that displeases others. Posting to this list is a
perfect example of opportunity to develop fully the identity, in the
way that you describe. And a harmless experience, to allow ripening
of identity, and eventual falling away of identity, through this
'trial by fire' of public speaking, and being willing to take the
consequences of embarrassment or humiliation. By persistence, even
one who resolutely defends cherished identity will eventually
encounter effective mirroring and thus insight. Really, there is
nothing to defend. When this is seen, fun can be had.

But beyond fun, is nourishment of other, with the compassion which
one has given to self.

>Thank you also Gene
>
>Love
>
>Elly

Able to respond,

==Gene Poole==

________________________________________________________________________________\
_____

NEO+SANDEEP



> Hi Sandeep
>
> When we are caught in the identification of individual self then that self
> needs to dive. Ultimately there is no individual self, no diving, there is
> only self. Unfortunately there are still so many separated ones that need
to
> dive.


I understand what you are saying.
That is the essence of all "doing" whether it be a dive into Vipassana,
breathing techniques, or any other form of meditation techniques.

Or whether it is diving into the bhakti path with a conceptualized "God" or
JK's mindfulness or whatever else there is floating about under the name of
spirituality.

They all are based on this illusory self with an sense of individual
identification and the aim, the goal, being to break, wipe out, erase,
dissolve, transcend, "drop", this sense of individual identification.

In essence , a self or a "me-entity" to itself drop itself, whatever be the
particular methodolgy adopted for the dropping to take place.

Is it possible?

Can you lift yourself by your own bootstraps?

Yes it relatively quite easy to convince yourself that you can levitate,
that you ARE levitating.

No matter what manner, what form of the "dive" that you advocate Neo, would
not the "me-entity" get perpetuated in the very act of diving?

Even JK who disdained all "practices", himself went on and one about
attaining mindfulness.(This became JK's practice).

Who was to attain that mindfulness?

The illusory self, which itself is the very obstacle, being attempted to be
removed?


Now on the reverse, a rejection of all paths, all doings, all practices, is
again the "me-entity" doing it's reverse stuff.

That's the same game, just a directional change.

Doing happens and there is no "doer" thereof
Non-doing happens and there is no "doer" deciding not to do, either.

How do I know, if and when "doing" is happening, whether it is a "me-entity"
acting out of a sense of "personal doership" or it is "Impersonal doings"
going on?

In a sense the me-entity" can never know.

But a conceptual "pointer" would be, when I don't give a shit about whether
doing/non-doing is taking place or not in this conceptual entity and more
importantly, I don't give a shit for the consequences of that
doing/non-doing to this conceptual entity. (speaking in a corrupted
conceptual manner, for there is no longer any "I" for whom the issue to give
a shit ot not, arises.)

There is no longer, any more, any agenda.

Enlightenment IS, when there is no-one in that conceptual body-mind complex
to care whether Enlightnement has taken place, is taking place or will ever
take place.

Excuse me while I dive into my French Fries.

Cheers

Sandeep

________________________________________________________________________________\
_____

MARK

<...>
I love you, God, so please make me happy...

I hate you God, because I'm not happy

Oh, my hating you is my unhappiness...

I love you God, because you made me happy

Ooops.


Love, Mark

________________________________________________________________________________\
_____

JERRY


books in boxes

shelves empty...

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

HARSHA

Shelves gone, books empty.........


________________________________________________________________________________\
_____
_____



Dear Ed,
All these "me's"
in various "places"
of forgetting/remembering
are not separated
except by whatever
extent the belief
in a personally separate
existing body-mind
"grabs attention".

"I" am all these body-minds simultaneously.

When "I" *remember*, "I" *remember*
all this, all these, as non-separate
the whole time.

There is no "trigger" for an individual
body-mind to remember. That is
mere conceit and fabrication
of the individual body-mind,
another loop or twist
in the "forgetting"
that seems to "capture a quantity"
of attention/awareness (which actually
is not quantifiable).

My *rememberance* isn't the Dan entity
*remembering*.
It is the *rememberance* through which
all apparent entities are re-called
(just like Firestone tires) by
and as the Nonseparate, Nonconstructed.

There's no point in a body-mind waiting for,
or seeking to get, a "triggering" that
will never take place for it. The "triggering"
is the "arising" of the entire field
of Awareness, of all apparent entities,
simultaneously. Nothing in the universe
is left out or expendable.

Don't be fooled because one person seems to get
it and another doesn't. I was really fooled
by someone who made such a great demonstration
of anxiety and pleaded with "me" to somehow
"give him" what he "believed" or "perceived"
that "I" the Dan-entity "had" (in "his"
mind).

That was so tough for me, because his anxiety was
very strong and palpable. His sense of separation
was so intense, and the needing to "get"
something from me was so strong. I felt,
at the time, a sense of suffering because
"I" couldn't convey to "him" that
he wasn't apart from "It" at all,
he was (and is) fully included
as is. (So, in this sense,
"he" was an excellent teacher
for me.)

That was years ago. Now I realize that such
remonstrations of "need" are no more or less
fictional than any other event.

For years after that I kept a very low profile,
and still do in many ways. There is nothing
that needs to happen. There is no "triggering
event that needs to occur". There is literally
no one there for any of this to happen to.

Perhaps the Roman centurian who stuck Jesus with
a spear was thinking, "See, you're there. You're
flesh and blood, and you bleed. Forget all
your talk, you're nothing special, you have
no special awareness to give."

So, people "want and need", but then they
also seek to "reduce and make everything
equal to me".

They're two sides of one coin, the needing
to "get" something, and the needing to
"reduce" everything.

Neither applies. The only triggering event
is this "Now" right here, as is. The only
"rememberance" is the "re-call" of "Now",
the never past, never future, never present,
"all-Now". Not only is each included in
this All, but every each is included in
and as every other each, and that is All.
It is exactly, "This", as is, no triggering
event needed. You don't need to do or not
do anything. Your past, family history,
doesn't preclude or predispose to trigger
a response to Now, a re-cognition of Now,
because you, in fact, are Now, right Now,
and that is *rememberance*.

"This" ("Reality") *is* what we are calling
here "rememberance", which is only
the Present as is.

I have no mouth, but I am screaming
at the top of my lungs.
That is why and how this universe appears.

Love,
Dan

________________________________________________________________________________\
_____

SERA


When I was little I remember going to my grandmother's for dinner now
and then. Whenever Gram knew my Mom was coming, she'd make her
favorite dessert, chocolate pudding. It always seemed to happen like
this...

My Mom would take a bite and say, "Oh Mama, this is the *best*
chocolate pudding!"

And my Uncle would throw down his spoon, almost in disgust, and push
his pudding away saying, "Arlene (my mom) how do you know that what
chocolate pudding tastes like to you isn't what shit tastes like to
me."

And the "battle" continued...for hours, and on and on, during any and
every get together. We talked about everything and nothing from this
beginning...it was pointless, half the time my Uncle would leave the
room, or the table while everyone else "debated."

I think he didn't mean to start any philosophical debates. I think
he
just didn't like chocolate pudding.

love
sera

________________________________________________________________________________\
_____

XAN


Sever the head of your selfness.

You are happy when drunk.
I am drunk when happily headless.

You are a lover with laughing lips.
I am laughing without any mouth.

--Rumi

top of page