Click here to go to the next issue.

Thursday November 16th


Long-time contributor to NDS and HS, Michael 'Petals of Life' Johnson,
has a valuable new website into which he has put a tremendous amount of
work:

http://www.selfappreciation.com

There's also a good picture of Michael and some background about him. He
says, "My intention is to create a place where a person
can use the knowledge and wisdom contained in the nondual
literature in practical life supporting ways. We are all in
this together...we might as well make the best of it."

Congratulations, Michael!

Jerry


________________________________________________________________________________\
_____




The most recent back issue of What is Enlightenment, the one about ego, is now
available online. There are some very interesting interviews with both spiritual
and psychological perspectives on this important subject.

http://www.wie.org/index.html




________________________________________________________________________________\
_____






"Where are the ethics (or morality) in nonduality?

Comments:

There are no ethics or morality in nonduality. Neither is there a lack of
ethics or morality. Rather, things occur naturally as they do. There is
no "me-entity" to control things, neither are there other "me-entities."
In an unsplit, homogenous reality, there is simply nobody to control
anything, so events just (seem to) occur, and who can say whether a
particular event is "right or "wrong?" It may be right in one context,
wrong in another.

The entire universe is a single wave crashing on the rocks of a remote,
isolated beach. Solar systems are exploding, entire galaxies are self
destructing, universes are expanding and contracting. These grand events
take care of themselves without interference. Likewise, in nonduality,
"morality" and "ethics" take care of themselves in a similar fashion.
There are no volitional entities to influence the conflux of perceived
events. In reality, nothing is happening. The Here and Now are the only
place and time, morality and ethics relate only to the past and to
"somewhere else."

When the "me-entity" (consisting of the past, based on memory) gets out of
the way, peace and rightness of an order unknown to "duality" automatically
pervade everything, the universe is a safe place and physical birth and
death is a dream. Thus, in nonduality the question does not even arise.
If in "duality" it arises, the questioner may be turned back upon himself.
Until "Who am I?" is examined closely, there is no possible answer.
Afterwards, no answer is either necessary or desired.

Love,

Omkara Datta



________________________________________________________________________________\
_____



Hi Omkara,

Some conceptual dos centavos....

<SNIP>

> --- In NondualitySalon@egroups.com, "Michael Read" <maread@i...> >
> > Who is there to understand? Dear WW, who?
> > Who is there to cause harm or be harmed?
>
> In reality nobody. He who thinks he causes harm, however, suffers
> from the result of that action. I do not accept Jerry's definition
> of karma being "convenient fiction."
>
> The "me" that causes harm will suffer from those actions... at least
> until that "me" is out of the picture.


The "me", the song and dance of "me" and the consequential incurring of
karma by the "me", all within phenomenality.
Cause and effect of the cause, only relevant within phenomenality.

Now if phenomenality itself is apperceived to be illusory, then?


<SNIP>

> Use of the "G" word seems most presumtuous here... If there is a
> separate "God" to come to, then the separation exists as reality...
> and nothing could ever remove that separation.


Very apt.
If separation is an independently existential truth, then that's it.
It cannot be dissolved.
Only an illusion can be seen through.


> Reality is homogenous and inseparable. If there is "God," then I Am
> He.
>
> The "path" of "Bhakta yoga" is not a "path" at all... simply
> preparation for starting on a "path."


At it's height or at it's deepest depth, the essence of Bhakti is "Only
thou, not me".
Now when this depth occurs, what also occurs is the apperception as to who
is saying 'Only thou, not me".
And the Bhakt is no more.
It will be incorrect to even say the Bhakt is silent.
The Bhakt is no more.

On the path of Gyan, at it's height the apperception is "Only I".
Now if it is "Only I", to whom is this being said?
So the Gyani also drops.
The Gyani, is not silent, the Gyani is no more.

And the two spaces arrived from two different direction are not different.

Cheers


Sandeep




________________________________________________________________________________\
_____

The following is part of a discussion between Dan and Sky...


Dan:


Rage is the protective
reaction of bodily identification.

Rage is the fury of a being who
feels self to exist,
and has been denied, deprived, or attacked.

There is no point to deny or repress rage,
yet when "rage" is acted out, it only
encounters temporary gains at best,
followed by resistance and further
"problems" for the bodily-identified
awareness. It is a self-reinforcing
pattern - but so is the repression of rage...

Be with rage, sit with it - notice
that awareness and rage are not-two,
and notice that there is no object
for rage "out there" which will
give ultimate satisfaction.

Because any target "out there" can only
be temporary, and will need to be replaced
by other targets.

Note the sage wisdom offered in "Tombstone":
"Why does Johnny Ringo need to kill and
rob, on and on?"
"Because he can never kill enough people
or rob enough things to end his rage."
"What is it that he is so enraged about?"
"Being born" ...

Love,
Dan


________________________________________________________________________________\
_____




Dear Sky,

you wrote:

>Dan man,
>
>As usual, you shed good light.

Glad to hear that. A pleasure
raging with you here.

You'll probably rage against me more
then ever after this long-winded
reply, but I'm moved by your
perceptive comments - what can I say?

>
>Here are my buttons, though: when you caution against rage, IAT
>sanctimonious and moralizing, to me.

Sanctimonious? I'm just getting started.
Let me continue:
You should stop having such strong
opinions toward your superiors, Sky.
In fact, you should memorize
every word I spew forth, and learn
the right way to deal with life
from me, therefore assisting
me to feel powerful and to avoid
my vulnerability, rage, and sorrow.


>IAT the crisp and clear witnessing you advocate, is nevertheless,
>clouded by a patina of "just don't's."

Just don't even think about it.


>I would advocate a space and time (at least 38 minutes, in a quiet
>environment) to just look at the rage, unharnessed, unevaluated,
>unshackled.

Why not? That's about how
long it took to level Iraq.
Or take several years in
an out of the way place
like Viet Nam, or involve
all major world powers as
was accomplished in the 1940's.


>But, instead, you say,
>
>"Be with rage, sit with it - notice
> that awareness and rage are not-two, "
>
>I would stop right there, for at least 5 minutes, at least. But then
>you, hasty, add,

No haste -- take days, take years.
It would be more beneficial to
the planet than a world war,
or even a hold-up of a 7-11.


> "and notice that there is no object
> for rage 'out there' which will
> give ultimate satisfaction."
>
>But you know that NOTHING will EVER give ultimate satisfaction.

No-thing is the only ultimate satisfaction.
It's also the ultimate dread.
When satisfaction and dread cancel each other,
there can be nothing further to worry about.

I see
>this as a rush to judgement ON rage--just as rage tends to be a rush to
>judgement on something else (usually another's rage, not paradoxically
>enough).

No judgment against rage - just
a look into where rage is coming
from (often reaction to rage, as
you say -- an ongoing
cycle, as with thought's reactions
to thoughts)-- depends on something
to attack ...


>I advocate one's being satisfied to just witness rage. Whether, and
>what, one does anything about it might not even be addressed. Once one
>is thus permitted to "become" the rage, as Krishnamurti advocates, then
>(PERHAPS I say) the rage will burn itself out.

Yes, witnessing can "move into" not-twoness.
As there is not-twoness of witnesser and
witnessed, rage dissolves, as it needs
an object, rather than not-twoness.

Rage depends on something to defend,
something to attack.

Although "viewing" rage without distance dissolves
rage, the rage response can be habitual, and
if deeply seated and relatively
unconscious may take many years to
"burn itself out" to use your phrase,
as gradually "consciousness" opens
and awareness transforms the situation.

Viewing rage without distance isn't something
that is done to rage, so it can't have
a motive, such as dissipating rage.
That dissipation just happens. The energy of rage
isn't bad or good, and the energy is freed when
"rage doesn't have to be maintained as
rage" for attack and defense in service
to an existing separable entity.

Dissipation of rage involves time,
yet the seeing which is not-two takes
no time, can't involve time (time
always involves an observer apart
from what is observed).

In fact, even to know rage as rage involves
time.

So, we're talking about something that can't
be said - a wordless "seeing" which
is timeless, nonconceptual - and then
conceptually linking that with rage -
which is itself conceptual
on a preverbal level.

Although this is artificial it's a way to talk
about what can't be talked about by linking
it (and of course there really are no links)
with what can be talked about.

Dissipation of rage is the event occurring
in time that reflects timeless "seeing"
of a place in which no rage is, and
no rage has ever been. That place
is not "somewhere else" - it is here, now.
This very clarity which allows the entire
apparent experience of "me existing here with
rage arising physiologically" that clarity
is rage-free right now... It is just
ignored when there is identification
with rage, or with "being against rage" -
keeping it repressed and avoided, or
trying to get rid of "bad thoughts".

>But what if it doesn't? And what if it results in...

Rather than worry about what will happen with it
in the future, let's look as clearly as possible
"here, now". There is no intent then to
make something happen or not happen with it,
no judgment that it is bad and needs to
go, no fondness nor identification
with it...

This is not an attempt to be beyond rage, to be a wonderful,
good, rage-free person.

I'm "looking into" respecting rage with full awareness
unclouded by any attempt to avoid or deny.
Expressing rage "outwardly", although it continues
rage, is actually an attempt to be free of rage.
I unleash it on you, so I can be free of it and
you get what you deserve.
Sitting with rage calmly, I notice that its
"agenda" of attack and defense always reflects
on "me" - so rage cannot be separated from
feeling weak, vulnerable, often
accompanied by self-loathing. This is why
rage and suicidality are often linked.
Suicidality is when it is directed against
"me" by "me" - but this is also what is
happening when it's directed "outward".
What we call "war" is suicide as the "human mind"
doesn't belong to an entity.

And thus, the comment that
rage is about the "fact" of one's own existence.
Rage is ever linked with shame, mistrust,
and self-harm (though often this
is indirect and ignored).


>"Because any target 'out there' can only
> be temporary, and will need to be replaced by other targets.
>Note the sage wisdom offered in 'Tombstone': 'Why does Johnny Ringo need
>to kill and rob, on and on?' 'Because he can never kill enough people or
>rob enough things to end his rage.' 'What is it that he is so enraged
>about?' 'Being born'"?
>
>What stopped Ringo? Another's rage stopped Johnny Ringo. Another's
>rage.

If so, then rage continues.
The ending of the rage is
dissolution of any reaction to having been born;
ultimately, it is ending of having been born.


>I say, Ringo's rage was not at being born, but at the delusion that his
>rage was singular. Had he been permitted by the cosmos to just BE with
>that rage, it MIGHT have dawned on him that we live in a communion of
>rage. Just as love is all around us, so rage is all around us.

Not seen here like that at all.
Rage depends on psychological defense and attack.
The point where rage is not separate from love
there is boundlessness, no longer a basis for rage
as attack or defense.
Thus, with such "seeing", rage as "the emotional
set for attack and defense" is not.

There is "energy/awareness" alone.

>
>His rage against being born was the rage of feeling separated from the
>common rage. "My rage is different," so he felt separated from the
>communal rage:

Not seen like that here.
The separateness is the belief/perception that I was
born as a bounded entity that suffers within
a particular and encapsulated experience.
It "begins" preverbally as an experiential/perceptual
reality (real while it is able to be continued).
I hurt and I hate you for hurting me.
That's what generates the rage.
I hurt because I exist and I don't like
being so vulnerable and helpless - I'm
"outraged" -- this isn't fair.

It starts preverbally, way before there can be
any concept of "common rage". Johnny Ringo
enjoyed killing, he didn't spare much thought
about things like "common rage" and
having individual rage separate from common rage.

As far as the common rage for "justice" you mentioned,
that is a collectively-held and socially sanctified
version, I agree. I feel it's perceptive
of you to notice that. So, we're looking
not just at "me" and rage, but the collectively
held "me" and rage as "justice".
And gangs do have their kind of justice, as
do police, armies, and nations - agreed.

So yes, we're looking at the rage for social justice
as one aspect of this "rage that I exist" -
and this is always there when there is "moral
outrage".

The rage to live and the rage against life are
the same reaction expressed in different ways
toward objects viewed differently.

Out-rage-ous Love,
Dan



________________________________________________________________________________\
_____




Sky2:

Velvet Dan,

Since I actually agree and said most of what you've offered, I will
quibble only with the points where you most distinctly pretend to
disagree:

Dan:

Not seen here like that at all.

Rage depends on psychological defense and attack. The point where rage
is not separate from love there is boundlessness, no longer a basis for
rage as attack or defense. Thus, with such "seeing", rage as "the
emotional set for attack and defense" is not.

There is "energy/awareness" alone.

Sky2:

Yes, of course. But that still point you refer to is not pristine. It
never is, except in the IAT. It is always buffeted about and penetrated
by otherness. It is itself experienced as a strange dawning otherness.
And yet, since it remains our only point of orientation, we would place
it on that pedestal you keep so neat and tidy.

My point is that rage as rage, is experienced as rage only relative to
our "still point" (my words for your "There is 'energy/awareness
alone"). But that still point is far more unpredictable than your altar
suggest, at least to me.

That's why I try to counterbalance your balance with history, economics,
sociology, sociality, whim and more complex subjectivity. By complex
subjectivity, I am suggesting that you read Mein Kompf and other such
works, again, if you already have. You might notice that rage is by no
means as easily simplified as you seem to suggest.

I would insist that Ringo had to have been living up to a code, and a
very complex one at that. And that rage absolutely can remain and does
remain in the presence of love. This is because we are primarily
neither inner oriented beings nor outer oriented beings, but a very
complex combination of the two, where neither orientation dominates.

A rage out of love for one's children, one's family, one's "race," is
precisely what rage IS. It is ULTIMATELY a rage protective of: THE
STILL POINT.

Rage is vanity, as love is vanity, as Both separation from and union
with God is vanity. God is pure vanity. The still point is pure
vanity.

I'm not saying that you and I "actually" disagree, rather, IAT.

You pretended to disagree with the following, as well.

Sky1:

His rage against being born was the rage >of feeling separated from
the common >rage. "My rage is different," so he >felt separated from
the communal rage:

Dan:

Not seen like that here.

The separateness is the belief/perception that I was born as a bounded
entity that suffers within a particular and encapsulated experience. It
"begins" preverbally as an experiential/perceptual reality (real while
it is able to be continued). I hurt and I hate you for hurting me.
That's what generates the rage. I hurt because I exist and I don't like
being so vulnerable and helpless - I'm "outraged" -- this isn't fair.

It starts preverbally, way before there can be any concept of "common
rage". Johnny Ringo enjoyed killing, he didn't spare much thought about
things like "common rage" and having individual rage separate from
common rage.

As far as the common rage for "justice" you mentioned, that is a
collectively-held and socially sanctified version, I agree. I feel it's
perceptive of you to notice that. So, we're looking not just at "me"
and rage, but the collectively held "me" and rage as "justice". And
gangs do have their kind of justice, as do police, armies, and nations -
agreed.

So yes, we're looking at the rage for social justice as one aspect of
this "rage that I exist" - and this is always there when there is "moral
outrage".

The rage to live and the rage against life are the same reaction
expressed in different ways toward objects viewed differently.

Out-rage-ous Love,
Dan

Sky2:

In other words, you agree.

The phenomenon of Ringo as opposed to the phenomenon of a law abiding
citizen, is not determined by a feeling of separateness. The latter, we
all have. The Ringo jig, we don't all perform. But when we do, it's
also sanctioned by an other code that sees that jig as law abiding.
Just as Hitler's jig was law abiding, within it's own context.

Lastly, you do have a moralizing tone, for my money, because you say
that war, etc., is the result of rage. And it isn't. It's the result
of historic socioeconomic forces. Rage, like a sense of separation, is
always there. Socioeconomic forces, like the boom, bust, war cycle, are
periodic. IMO.

Rage-er-if-ic ally
~*~
sky





________________________________________________________________________________\
_____



Dear Sky,

I like what you said about the still point.
Very poetic. Like an image of a distant
shining point of light glimpsed from
the depths of darkness. I liked what you
said about rage being to protect the still
point. Beautifully said.
That seems very true as long as the still
point hasn't been "fully comprehended as
the one who is comprehending"...
So yes, protecting it is important until
no protection is called for. And it fits
with the fact that everyone follows
their idea of justice and rules.
However, it's important to note that
such "protection" is generally conceptualized
as "self-protection" or "getting me what I'm due",
and this is "anchored in illusion" -- it's
only the still point glimpsed as if from afar.

Thanks for such a poetic expression of this truth.

I "see" the still point as the only "solid
thing" there is. It's the "only thing"
there when nothing else is, it's what
won't pass when everything that can pass, has.

Its otherness is only
other to the extent that illusion seems
to be an anchor for reality, which
illusion isn't. As no real entity lives
in the illusion (that *is* the illusionary
aspect of illusion), the still point
is never really buffetted about. It
seems in terms of illusorily-anchored
perception to be buffetted about and
penetrated by otherness.

I'm pretending to disagree with
you on this:

I don't *know* that anything really causes anything
else, I just think something causes something else.

I think there are causes as I conceptualize
situations, and then
it seems like something caused something else.

So, now that I'm thinking, I'm talking as if
something can cause something else.

Causal thinking is useful for thinking,
because thinking likes to think of itself
as knowing causes and effects, which it doesn't
really, only provisionally, conventionally
and consensually. And that's fine as
far as thought-realities go. But *knowing*
is not of thought.
*Knowing* is causeless, hence effectless.

Thought can't really think about anything but
thought - it's limited in scope, whereas
reality beyond thought isn't (and therefore
can't be thought of).

What this means about the still point,
war, rage, and socioeconomic
forces is this:

It is what it is.

What it means about you and me talking here is
this:
It is what it is.

Because saying "it is what it is" wouldn't
be much fun to read over and over,
I say other things.

There's nothing to "get" about rage, war,
or frustration with economic setbacks.

It is what it is.

Love,
Dan


________________________________________________________________________________\
________________________________________________________________________________\
_____




I came into the manifested planes from the Light, to bring Peace and Truth
and Life and Light into this plane.
Unfortunately, the plane got hijacked and I lost my
luggage.

I did not come to exploit the
search, to exploit the tendencies of people only to descend and become
earth-inert. Neither did I come to exploit the tendencies to arise and
lose life by abandoning it.
I only came to exploit those who wanted to have
fun and bought their ticket at the door.
It seemed pretty fair to me.

Karmas do tend to become purified in satsang with me.
Except for the karmas developed through satsang with me.
But then, there's nose such ting as da free lunch.

Even while alive my devotees enjoyed all of the fundamental
blisses and realizations of Truth in my Company and in my Person. For my
Company and Person are capital!
They invested in my Company and the dividends were
closeness to my Person.

Group hug! Let's take a shower.



________________________________________________________________________________\
_____





Jan wrote:

In the case of a dead body, perceptiveness ends too but in the case of a
"dead ego", any notion of separateness will be absent: it will not be
replaced by a notion of "unity" as such a notion would be a conclusion
or an interpretation - an ect of mental activity.

"Realization is but the art of dying smart" "No love, no lord above, oh
yes - it's hard"
-----------------------
The process of erasing separateness seems to be a matter of recognizing
mental activity as a thing in itself, not representative of someone. It
_is_ hard and painful. The analogy of licking honey from a razor comes
to mind.

Larry




________________________________________________________________________________\
_____





To my Orthodox Brothers and Sisters of 'Radical' Non-duality from one who
insists on
following the wolfe and being a Heretic:

the image of the wolfe is an ancient and sacred symbol of non-dual wisdom and
one your
attempts to strip it and all great outward
manisfiestions of inward reality by depreciation, demeanding and patronizing are
appreciated and even quite amusing and yet like all
juvenalian cynicism still manage to cut deeply :-) ...i am not white wolfe and
white
wolfe is way beyond who i aspire to be...yet white
wolfe is who i am and who i am not...the wolfe is a creature of the sky and
existed
even before time...mock me as you will.. i send
you love and remind you to ask yourselves who are self-proclaimed teachers of
wisdom
to ask yourselves,

what lives beyond (the fish in the stream does not believe in the fangs of the
wolfe,
let alone the wolfe, until it is dying in her jaws)?

further up and further in,

white wolfie ^^ ~~~



never thought other than
that God is that great absence
in our lives, the empty silence
within, the place where we go
seeking, not in hope to
arrive or find.


-RS Thomas:

top of page