Click here to go to the next issue.

Monday October 23rd


________________________________________________________________________________\
_____

Sky:

Jody wrote,

"I've never claimed anyone on the NDS is enlightened. I *know* however,
that many are Self realized."

I see no evidence of this. All I see is posts misunderstanding
other posts on NDS. The rules of the game are to negate the other's
words, either through oversimplification or through overcomplication.

Every such interaction proves, to me, that none see themselves
either as they are or as they would like to be seen. Thus, I see no
self realization on any level. Most, in either case, claim not to have a
Self.

With equal futility, I claim that each of us has a self which is
none other than a body and a mind. So you see, I disagree with you
completely.

I claim that to be "self realized" is to know that one is nothing
more or less than a mind and a body, both in concert and in conflict.
That's what makes us utterly vulnerable. Utterly vulnerable to both
ourselves and to others.

To deny this, I believe is but a dream. The dream of
invulnerability. When one dreams, as you do, of such invulnerability,
one finds one's vulnerability to be "crap." Thus you say,

"However, any crap that was in the mind before realization will
continue to exist after. Pain, shame, humiliation, desires, they all
continue to exist, in the *mind*."

But I insist that what you call "crap," is really our highest
blessing. Our feelings, anxieties, etc., these are our only touch stone
and connection to self, other, the universe. What connects us.

Despite your "dream," you are, unlike many, decent enough and
considerate enough to honor me with,

"Perhaps bitterness is an effective sadhana for you. Good luck with it
and God bless you.
--jody"

I accept your blessings. And I return them: Because, vulnerable as
I am, I'd rather be blessed, even by mistake, than cursed, even
deservedly.

Forgive me, then, if I insist, dream on. Perhaps that's your
sadhana. I fear, however, that you may never embrace your
vulnerability, your mortality. Thus, I fear, you will remain most
vulnerable to the violence of the dream of invulnerability. In this
sense, I honor that dream: the most vulnerable thing about you.

Yes, I've given it a lot of thought. (Thought, that's my mistake,
right? I disagree. Nevertheless.) And I'm convinced that on NDS, the
cost of conveyance is greater than the value of what is conveyed. It's,
as I've said before, a tower of Babel.

Just run a tally on the ratio of understanding (by any measure) to
misunderstanding (by any measure) Please. I will accept your evidence
in good faith.

You say I'm bitter. And yet I continue to post. Perhaps the bitter
sweet destruction of illusion is the most seductive of all delicacies.
My bitterness, in that case, might be seen as the highest of accolades.

I fully expect to be negated, it wouldn't be NDS, otherwise. Thus,
I insist, I post for the same reason as all do: to be negated,
misunderstood, defiled.

Why? Fear of true intimacy. Or, at least, a barking up the wrong
tree for it.

True intimacy, I believe, is all mind and all body. Only then is
the dream least but a dream. Yes, I dream of true intimacy, subtle,
self-revealing, delicate, anxious, fragile:

Most unenlightened.

Most un-self-realized.

Way too vulnerable for NDS. (That's why only the most reckless
post. Those most out of touch with their bodies, bodies wishing to
remain invisible, distant, remote, unfeeling, numb. Beyond insult.)

________________________________________________________________________________\
_____

White Wolf:

<...>
What is this thing we call language? What are words? Language, for me, is
the deliberate and symbolic arrangement of words which are nothing but
symbols of symbols.

I am honoured by your penetrating commentary. The experience of reading
your sharp refinements was delightful!

Sometimes words are vectors, sometimes they are waves. Either way, when
used properly, they allow us to share with each other our personal and
limited glimpse of a reality that is greater than the sum of its parts....,
en garde!
________________________________________________________________________________\
_____

Larry:

<...>
This is
from Dyczkowski's _The Doctrine Of Vibration_ and is concerned with the
means (upaya) to liberation. This last of the four means is "no-means"
(anupaya):

"In fact, there is nothing we can do to free ourselves. All forms of
practice,whether internal or external, depend on consciousness and so
cannot serve as a means to realise it. He who seeks to discover this
reality by practice is like a man who tries to see the sun by the light
of a fireflu. Those who are in the realms of "No-means" (anupaya)
recognize that the light of consciousness shines as all things. All the
opposites merge and their seeming contradiction is resolved. Liberation
and bondage become synonymous just like "jar" and "pot" indicate the
same object. No-means (anupaya) is the experience of the absolute
(anuttara) beyond both transcendence and immanence (Siva and Sakti).
Undefinable and mysterious, it is neither existent (sat) nor
non-existent (asat), neither is it both nor neither."

________________________________________________________________________________\
______

Gloria and Sky:


sky wrote:
Every such interaction proves, to me, that none see themselves
either as they are or as they would like to be seen. Thus, I see no
self realization on any level. Most, in either case, claim not to have a
Self.

With equal futility, I claim that each of us has a self which is
none other than a body and a mind. So you see, I disagree with you
completely.

I claim that to be "self realized" is to know that one is nothing
more or less than a mind and a body, both in concert and in conflict.
That's what makes us utterly vulnerable. Utterly vulnerable to both
ourselves and to others.
------------
Hello Sky,

I am glad you returned and that you have the courage to speak up. In this tower
of babel, people speak from a mixed bag of motives for sure, any open discussion
forum allows and expects that to happen. What I hear you noticing is a form of
spiritual egotism and competition, the need to defend one's special territory, a
pretense of superiority for our platform of ideas and particular way of
expressing them. We have very likely all done that at one time or another for a
variety of reasons, perhaps to escape this vulnerability, to make our 'selves'
by association with right ideas, also 'right'. However, there is no need to be
denying ones's body and mind to simply see that the 'self' being defended is
more than just that.. this "me" may be a rather vast complex mental
construction, woven of memories and future desires and ideas... an image perhaps
not unlike what you are calling a dream of a dreamer? It is this idea of a you,
that when closely examined is seen to be a mental fantasy of your imagination.
When we first see that "this fiction" is what we have been defending or what
other people think they are attacking, it's a relief and also pretty funny. So
that is an aspect of vulnerability that no longer bothers so much, one still
dodges traffic. This is at least one interpretation of what some people may mean
by saying there is no me, the harder you look for it the more you cannot find
it. The body and mind do not disappear at this point of seeing tho, do they? So
you are right, life goes on..

--------
sky:
Why? Fear of true intimacy. Or, at least, a barking up the wrong
tree for it.

True intimacy, I believe, is all mind and all body. Only then is
the dream least but a dream. Yes, I dream of true intimacy, subtle,
self-revealing, delicate, anxious, fragile:

------------
This intimacy is your own heart, Sky..not with but IS... you are this love in
the purity of your own heart. We are all heartbroken, broken open. No one
escapes this vulnerability, no matter how they may pretend otherwise. This heart
is big enough to include everyone. No one gets or owns enlightenment, it gets
you. It swallows you up whole and entire, takes all of you, body, mind, soul,
dreams of enlightenment, fears of vulnerability..you become all heart.

With love,
Gloria
________________________________________________________________________________\
______


It is not that there is
no self, that you are
not a body, that you
are not a mind.

It is not that at all.

It is not that there is a self,
that you are a body,
that you are a mind.

I'm not going to tell you what it is.
All the explanations about this fall flat.

Don't give up on this until you
really see that you never came
here and so, will never leave.

-- Dan
________________________________________________________________________________\
______

Tim G:


Neither denial nor clinging are conducive to wisdom. The people who
seem tender and vulnerable are reflections of our own ability to be
tender and vulnerable. Those who seem harsh and nasty reflect that
tendency in ourselves. This is the so-called "human condition."
Some call it "the cosmic play," others (such as myself) call it
unnecessary and cruel.

There are no others. There is no division between myself
and "others," so both practically and literally the concept
of "other" is a false one. There is only "I" -- and make no mistake,
that "I" includes the human race, the human condition and the human
soul.

When pernicious clinging occurs in "another," it is occurring Here
and Now. Likewise for tenderness, love and vulnerability. Both are
good, for they are Here and Now. As Dan-Ji has said, only This.
Just This. Refreshing simplicity.

Harshness is often a mask for tender vulnerability, and some of the
nicest people in the world use niceness as a mask (e.g. Ted Bundy).
Do not be deceived by surface appearances.

Look deep beneath the surfaces of things. Most of what's posted to
this list is pure surface, perhaps all of it. Below this surface of
crashing waves and thundering surf lies worlds, galaxies, universes
unexplored and unperceived. All this is yours for the asking.
Destiny has brought you to the door. Open it.

Know the depths and Reality Itself is yours. Stay on the surface and
grope blindly through forests teeming with vipers, rattlesnakes and
tigers.

Whoever is reading this... and has found this list and subscribed...
The offer has been made. That is a guarantee. If you are reading
this, you are among the chosen -- like it or not. You will not
escape the truth. You can run but you can't hide. You can spend the
rest of your life running, but it's no use. There is no hope for
you. Die now or die later, it makes no difference. But why not now,
when you can do it decently and properly, rather than on short notice?

Namaste
________________________________________________________________________________\
______

________________________________________________________
could anyone tell me the differences between Kundalini and
Kriya yoga. Or is one part of the other, or only different words for the
same ?

Thanks and blessings
Victor
_____________________________________________________
Hi Victor. Kundalini Shakti is really at the heart of all yoga and is
embedded in virtually all Eastern traditions regardless of the name or label
that is given. If you look at any school of yoga, tantra, or various
traditions (Shakti, Shaivite, Kashmiri Shaivism), there will usually be some
descriptions of Hatha Yoga, Pranayama, Kriyas, Mudras, Mantras, and
different types of meditations on the energy centers and Kundalini Shakti,
and descriptions of the Goddess, etc.

Even in Advaita Vedanta, we see that Shankracharya has written great hymns
to the Goddess. At a very practical level, the notion of the Divine Mother,
Shakti, the Goddess, is intertwined with most Indian Philosophies. Hatha
Yoga Pradipika, for example is one of the classics of Kundalini Yoga and
describes how one moves from the physical aspects to the mental aspects (Raj
Yoga) through various types of postures and mudras and pranayama.

As far as I know, Swami Vivekananda in the late 1800's introduced the notion
of Kundalini Shakti in the West. The term Kriya Yoga was popularized by
Swami Yogananda who came to the U.S in the early 1900s and settled here.
Again, awakening the Kudnalini Shakti is central to that tradition as well
although they do not engage in very heavy duty pranayama exercises.
Kundalini related literature from the East started to be translated into
English in the early 1900s, and one of the earliest translations which is
still widely available today was by Arthur Avalon (Shakti Yoga). It is a
translation of an esoteric text and describes the process of raising the
Shakti by a variety of Kriyas and Mudras and Pranayamas.

There are many good books on Kundalini Yoga from a variety of people
belonging to different schools. Swami Sivananda's books on Kundalini, Hatha
Yoga, and Pranayama are widely available and are quite comprehensive and
excellent. The Himaylayan Institute founded by Swami Rama also produces good
literature on the topic. Just look around and see what appeals to you. In
the past, many of these teachings were kept secret. Today, however, there is
enough literature on the topic to satisfy everyone's curiosity.

Love to all
Harsha

top of page