Click here to go to the next issue.

Friday January 5, 2001



MATTHEW

on Attention and Intention

This reminds me of the story of the man who left the city one Sunday
to go for a drive in the country. As he was cruising the backroads he
came across a most unusual sight and immediately stopped to have a
closer look. There in orchard under a generous apple tree was a
farmer with a rather large pig. The farmer was walking around the
tree carrying this rather large pig, holding it up so that it could
eat the apples. It was clear to the man that this was no easy task as
the farmer was sweating and straining, stumbling over loose apples
in his attempt to feed the pig. After several minutes the man could
not contain his wonderment any longer and hopped the fence to talk
with the farmer. "Excuse me" said the man, "but just exactly what are
you doing?" "Feedin muh pig" replied the farmer, not stopping his
task." I don't mean to be rude", said the man "but wouldn't it be
easier and save a lot of time if you just let the pig eat the apples
on the ground?" The farmer stopped, turned to the man with a
quizzical expression and said, "What's time to a pig?"
.........matthew
___________________________________________________________

CEE

pause

at the interim
between
dream world
and
dream world

no idea who i is
no idea where i is

surprise!


________________________________________________

BRIAN PERKINS

Dear List

Here is a truly wondrous resource.

http://www.zenzorba.freeuk.com/index.html

It is an anthology of verbatim transcripts taken from Osho's
discourses, interviews, letters etc. The 1500 pages are arranged in
chronological order. They can be downloaded in Zip format.(2 MB)

Best wishes
Brian

_____________________________________________________________

STEPHEN LEVINSON

In a recent post Omkara wrote:

>"Certain Hindu scriptures state there is something like ignorance
>covering, obscuring or hiding our true nature.

>I say there is nothing of the sort. Does the presence of fog
>hinder the ability to breathe? Does it affect the oxygen in the air
>one single iota?"

--->It seems to me that the issue is not whether our true
nature is covered by "ignorance" or not... the issue is whether
WE LIVE IN THE AWARENESS of our true nature or not. It's all well
and good to say that from the highest perspective there is nothing
but the SELF and that "ignorance" and "the doer" are illusory. It
does the seeker NO GOOD to dwell in agreement or disagreement since
these are MIND STATES only. Dwelling in these arguments keeps one's
attention on the mind ... which is the opposite of where the true
seeker wants to keep his attention (namely on his true nature) ...
the content of the mind says NOTHING of our true nature which is way
beyond the mind. If one is not coming from one's experience then
relative truth is just more delusion, a way to keep the ego happy
("look how much I know") while avoiding real surrender.

--->I'm aware that even this very post could be viewed as an attempt
to appear wise, etc... so I'd like to state that my intention is to
share with others that miracle beyond the mind which is the true
nature of each of us, and do my bit in keeping our hearts focused on
THAT.

--With love, Stephen

DAN replies:

I raise these issues not to make a philosophical
point, nor to seek agreement, nor to disagree,
but to suggest that there is "seeing" beyond
"conventional assumptions that tend to govern
seeing", in which the existence and nonexistance
of an entity, or any entity, is not relevant.

I am not saying that I, Dan Berkow, am beyond
existing or not existing, but that the entity
defined as Dan Berkow (or the entity
defined as a "table" or "computer")
is a conventional formulation of reality only,
useful only for conventional purposes, and not
ultimately *real*, not determining of
"seeing/being/knowing THAT",
as THAT is never not-seen, never not,
and thus the categories of "being", "knowing" or
"not being", "not knowing" have no application HERE.

STEPHEN:
---> Your point is well received... Of course there is "seeing beyond
conventional assumptions" as there is awareness prior to any seeing
at all. However, in this *real???* world of people, computer, email
lists et.al. (assumptions galore, one could argue) it is at some
point convenient and perhaps a little humbling to admit that at some
level BELOW (another assumption!) all of that we are "jus' plain
folks" trying to talk to one another and share this search (another
assumption!... what search ... ) which gets terribly difficult if the
point is to be LOGICALLY correct... even cute... as opposed to "What
does it feel like to be inside this-here seeker ... where do I put my
attention? ... where are my REAL priorities??" ... I personally find
that focusing on theoretical-logical complexity can severely
interfere with the very SIMPLE process of relaxing into beholding a
MYSTERY... which seems to happen when one's awareness(whatever that
is!) moves away from the cerebral stream and is allowed to expand ...
wow!!

.... WOW!!!

--Love,Stephen

_______________________________________________________________

LILIANA PECHAL

I noticed that communication with animals is not much different than
that with humans. There is a certain, let me call it, "disposition" which
enables one a direct communication/connection with another, be it animal or
human. For me it is easier and happens much often with animals.
I think, on the part of the human, only the readiness/openness to this
interspecies dialogue is necessary. But this readiness is not
volitional, it comes on its own. I have the habit of smiling to the dogs I meet on
my way to a shop round the corner. I don't know why I do it, I am aware of
them, observe them and they make me smile. And usually they "respond",
funny as it may sound, sometimes they smile back, want to follow me,
sometimes they "look surprised" and turn back to give me this suprised
look.

Last week, I visited my friends who have a dog that gives
every visitor a friendly barking tour. It's a ritual that lasts around 4
min. She follows your footsteps, waves her tail and barks at the same time.
When I arrived, the little daughter of my friends had just fallen asleep
and the barking would most definitely wake her up. So I told the dog
to shut up and she did. The strange thing about it was, what my friends
immediately exclaimed, that she has never done it before, no matter
what, even when being friendly spunk by the owners.
The disadvantage of this type of communication and openness to our
"little brothers" world is the awareness of the suffering among them.
One is aware and spots every stray dog or cat, every sick pigeon,
even when they sit under the car or sth. And you can't help them.
They are too many (at least here, where I live). So, when one isn't,
like myself, established firmly in a detached certainty that all
is exactly as it should be, it always breaks your heart.

______________________________________________________________

DAN BERKOW

Hi, Omkarasan,

The "absolute" or "what is"
cannot possibly be
apart from or other than "the relativity
of the relative"
for if it were it would be limited.

The absolute is ignorance, the absolute
is bliss, the absolute is the nonabsolute.

There is no need nor possibility to realize
the absolute, as the absoluteness of
the absolute is its already present
full and total realization, even as
the "relativity of the relative"...

If a creature supposes itself to exist and strives
to recognize the absolute, not only is this
ignorance, it is fully appropriate, as it is
the absolute the whole time.

Any temporal event of realization is simply a
temporal event, like hitting a baseball,
taking a nap, getting bit by a flea.

What is not temporal can't be said because
anything said is temporal.

Trying to get someone to "see the truth"
is just another temporal activity,
like trying to hit a baseball.

All temporal events and activities are
nonseparate, beginningless and endless,
and the conceptual activities involved
in cognizing beginnings and endings
are themselves nonseparate...

Love,
Dan

__________________________________________________________

MARK OTTER


I just came across a lovely quote from Georges Braque (the painter that
played at cubism with Pablo Picasso - I've always loved the way they
riffed together...) Anyway, Georges said:

"You see, I have made a great discovery: I no longer believe in any
thing. Objects don't exist for me except insofar as a relationship
exists between them or between them and myself. When one realizes this
harmony, one reaches a sort of intellectual non-existence - what I can
only describe as a sense of peace - which makes everything possible and
right. Life then becomes a perpetual revelation."

........and more Braque

"There is only one valuable thing in art: the thing you cannot explain."

"Art is made to disturb. Science reassures."

"To define a thing is to substitute the definition for the thing
itself."

"Once an object has been incorporated in a picture it accepts a new
destiny."

"Reality only reveals itself when it is illuminated by a ray of poetry."
~~~~
PICASSO, not to be outdone:

Hmmmm... apparently Pablo had something to say as well...

"Every child is an artist. The problem is how to remain an artist once he
grows up."

"Everyone wants to understand painting. Why is there no attempt to
understand the song of the birds?"

"I am always doing that which I cannot do, in order that I may learn how
to do it."

"Anything new, anything worth doing, can't be recognized. People just
don't have that much vision."

"Art is a lie that enables us to realize the truth."

"Are we to paint what's on the face, what's inside the face, or what's
behind it?"

"When you start with a portrait and try to find to find pure form by
abstracting more and more, you must end up with an egg."

"One never knows what one is going to do. One starts a painting and then
it becomes something quite different."

"You have to have an idea of what you are going to do, but it should be
a vague idea."

"Drink to me." - Pablo Picasso's last words
_________________________________________________________________

ED & DAN

Ed:
>I have a few questions which I hope are not absurd
>or too personal.

Dan:
Your absurdly personal and personally absurd questions
will be considered.
Ed:
>You (Dan) wrote:
>I raise these issues not to make a philosophical
> point, nor to seek agreement, nor to disagree,
> but to suggest that there is "seeing" beyond
> "conventional assumptions that tend to govern
> seeing", in which the existence and nonexistance
> of an entity, or any entity, is not relevant.
>-----------------------------------------------------
>To whom are you referring in saying: the existence
>and nonexistance of an entity, or any entity, is not
>relevant, other than yourself?

Dan:
In this "seeing" which doesn't validate itself by conventional
assumptions, there is no relevance to the concepts
of existing and not existing, inside and outside. Hence
no entities can be formulated as having an inside, outside,
existing, or not existing.

Entities are not relevant to the "seeing", including
an entity such as you've postulated, labelled "myself".
Ed:
>What would your girlfriend, or other people dear to you,
>think if she/they knew you thought that their existence
>or nonexistence was irrelevant?
Dan:
If there is no entity
"me" being postulated, then there is no "me" to say
anything to "my girlfriend" about her existence being
irrelevant. There is no independent entity
"my girlfriend" to be addressed and told something about
her relevance or lack of relevance.

This means that when "I, Dan" seemingly interact with "my girlfriend",
what actually is occurring is a flash of light that can't be described
(this is always true, all the time -- it's all there is).

In this flash of light, there is a kind of residue that allows itself
to be filtered as "sense perception", which then can be thought
about, described, communicated. This residue, or after-image,
is "seen" for what it is. This is the "seeing" which "shows"
the beginning and end of all images as "now"...

In "seeing" there is only flashing light, and I'm using this as a metaphor.
It's like invisible, timelessly flashing light that is all that is
(metaphor, remember):
perception continues, space and time are there, all is as it is --
a bird flies in the sky, this body breathes in and out.

So, when"Dan" interacts with "Dan's girlfriend", the entire interaction of
"me", "her", the "space between",
is noticed as "residue" as "filtered reverberation of an after-image".

Same with words here.
Words appear and disappear.
Hands type.
Eyes read.
It is all reverberation of an after-image.

Ed:
>Have you told them THAT?
Dan:
It's not a matter of telling someone they aren't relevant, it's a matter
of direct "seeing". "Seeing" is in quotes because the
"seeing" and "that which is seen" are not two, and
there is no description possible. Description always
involves a space between the described and the description,
an objectification, if you will.

It's a question of "what actually is", not an assertion
made "about and to someone, for their own good"...

When I tell those about whom I care, "I love you", such
statements and feelings occur naturally, spontaneously.

So, I'm not talking about a philosophical position which I try to
bring to bear upon relationships by conceptualizing
things and people as irrelevant. It's not about taking
an intellectualized, distant perspective in which I aloofly
see everything and everyone as irrelevant. In fact,
it's not about maintaining a position which is carried
and brought to bear upon situations. It's not that at all.

As there are no entities, there is only this interwovenness
and resonance everywhere, in all things (which
aren't things)... "I, Dan" am just another reverberation
within reverberation...

Here is "actual invisible light" itself, "seeing" itself,
such that this entire sensory world is itself,
and no one, nothing, is excluded.

Because entities aren't relevant to it, love and resonance
are "truly possible" -- not as conceptual games
to be played out by entities, not as exchanges between
one and another, but as simple nowness, as is.

Which actually is already the case.
Yet, which explodes all the images being treated
as if independent, as if really separated, as if containing
their own reality and carrying their own structure.

It is the end of the bounded, cognized reality being
taken as anything more than fictional, descriptive,
constructed.

"be in the world, but not of the world,"
"let those who have eyes, see",
and, "if your eye is single, your entire body
will be filled with light".

Love,
Dan

__________________________________________________________

MELODY & MANCHINE (DAVE)

-- "Melody" wrote:
> Hi Dave,
>
> You said, in part:
>
> > The account of Don Juan's inorganic entities may seem
> > far fetched, A "reality" outside of our typical realm
> > of "conclusions". But looked at closely, this dark box/
> > dark man.... and perhaps more notably, the dark man...
> > is an entity, and an entity that is inorganic.
>
>
> By 'inorganic', do you mean it is a thought form?
>
> If so, can't thought forms be both/either conscious or
> unconscious?
>

Carlos Casteneda's work, through Don Juan, rode heavily on
work through the "dream body", he called it, the "other you".

In my opinion this work is very important, or at least it
has been for me.

Dream work connects one, in a disciplined and balanced way
to the unconscious, something as a hypnotic therapist you'd
certainly understand. One big difference however, is that
they work outside of the "World Dream" standard to bolster
or protect the ego. Their aim is to see reality, not to see
things that psychologists say is good for you.

Basically, through 1000's of years of development by those with
uninhibited vision, seeing the near impossibility of existence, had
to try to evaluate "what was real, and what was thought/imagined".

This of course covered both conscious and sub-conscious levels.

We talk here of timelessness, we talk of things beyond logic, we see
the depth and incredibility of existence. Others see nothing when
there is talk of consciousness and existence. So it can be seen that
interpretation has it's bounds, those bounds different for each one,
and those bounds heavily colored by our direct (usually painful)
experience.

In dreamwork, they disconnect from logic and past experiencial
influence, but in a very particular way. Visionaries of past
times, "elders" carried the truth, something that came from "dying",
giving up of anything and everything personal. From this they gained
a knowledge of "reality", it is this reality that holds through
anything, unbiased and consistent in timeless existence. With this
they would guide their dreamwork, and the dreamwork of others instead
of using our traditional logic and coloured feelings.

This "logic" spoke differently. World Dream logic says pish-posh on
non-organic sentient beings. World Dream logic says pish-posh to Non-
duality. So where do you draw the line?

All I know is that one day, this world was not completely physical
anymore. All I know is that this made sense when I saw what I really
was. All I know is that otherwise, my existence didn't seem possible,
logically.

What is this, here now, in front of our faces? THIS is proof, if we
will let ourselves see it, of Self.


> <snip>
>
> > Good luck with your dark man.
>
>
> Thanks. It sounds like what I need is 'attention'. :-)
>
You are getting it, and not necessarily from "us" here, but
from the truth, out there.

It's big, and its hairy and you will see at some point your imminent
death, the gun in your face or a dark engulfing shadow, it comes
sooner or later. Death will come. Look it in the eyes, knees shaking
barely capable of standing, and say thank you, it's been nice. Now is
my time! And you'll realize, that it always has been!

Truth is all around, more in death than in life. See it for the first
time, unfettered, as it is.... it's waiting.
In Tears,
Of Truth,
Dave

top of page