Click here to go to the next issue.

Friday January 19, 2001


OMKARA sends "A Few from Wei Wu Wei"

* * *

Why are you unhappy?
Because 99.9 per cent
Of everything you think,
And of everything you do,
Is for yourself -
And there isn't one.

* * *

A man who is seeking for realisation is not only going round searching for
his spectacles without realising that they are on his nose all the time,
but also were he not actually looking through them he would not be able to
see what he is looking for!

* * *

It is necessary to understand that I Am,
In order that I may know that I Am Not,
So that, at last, I may realise that,
I Am Not, therefore I Am.

* * *

We do not possess an 'ego'.
We are possessed by the idea of one.

* * *

Let us live gladly! Quite certainly we are free to do it. Perhaps it is our
only freedom, but ours it is, and it is only phenomenally a freedom.
'Living free' is being 'as one is'. Can we not do it now? Indeed can we
not-do-it? It is not even a 'doing': it is beyond doing and not-doing. It
is being as-we-are.

* * *

______________________________________________________________

CEE

dear omkara,

teachings about real and unreal are most profound
can only be understood from the real itself
where there is no possibility of anything temporary

the real does not have unreal parts floating in it
there never ever has been any division ever
not even temporarily

there is no duality between real and unreal
the real is unborn because it always is
the unreal is unborn because it never was

with love and respect,
cee

_____________________________________________

DAN

Dear Cee,

Nice post. Namaste.

There is no way to divide
temporary and eternal
except through words
and concepts.

Teachings, no matter how profound,
are conceptual.
Teachings about real and unreal
are conceptual, understanding
of the teachings
is conceptual.

If you are what is being taught,
there is no need for the teachings.

Which is to say, what is nonconceptual
is unborn, therefore not subject
to being taught or understood.

Indeed - there is no duality of real and unreal,
nor of temporary and eternal.

What is Unborn and what is here
are not-two.

So, whatever is said here amounts
to exactly whatever is said here.

Love,
Dan

________________________________________________

MARK offers Tagore

I slept and dreamt that life was joy,

I awoke and saw that life was service,

I acted and behold, service was joy.
_______________________________________________

MARK adds Hafiz

Yo!

I needed a poem break just now, and found this gem by Hafiz at this
site: http://www.allspirit.co.uk/hafizlaughing.html

laughing at the word two

Only

That Illumined
One

Who keeps
Seducing the formless into form

Had the charm to win my
Heart.

Only a Perfect One

Who is always
Laughing at the word
Two

Can make you know

Of

Love.



From: 'The Gift' translated by Daniel Ladinsky

________________________________________________

OMKARA

> So, words are always false, although they
> can be used in relatively "true" ways,
> depending on the situation.

That's an interesting thing to say, because it postulates "relative
degrees of falsehood." Then again, the medium being used to
postulate, is itself relative.

Thus, it all points back to a circular system. Again and again
thought demonstrates itself to be a circular, closed system, like a
snake eating its own tail. Entirely derived from memory, thought
exists only in the past. It has no present existence at all.

How can something even remotely 'true' penetrate the barriers thought
erects? The only alternative is for awareness to disengage from
thought.

And it's interesting to note that NOTHING thought can do will cause
this to occur. Seeing this is the beginning of truth.

Love,

Omkara
__________________________________________________________

LILIANA re-sends a classic GENE POOLE post
here is a slightly snipped excerpt:

All this stuff

Okay, so I have been reading, and it goes around and around. This
is understandable, these circles, because everyone is 'at' a
different place of understanding. Please do not mistake; I am not asking
for
clarification. I see that at anyplace in the circle, one may exit,
and that it is all the same. Outside of the circle, the circle is
like a 'merry-go-round' (carousel), it goes and goes, and each
rides the beast of choice; some say they are 'riding a body', others say

they are riding 'conditioning', others say they are riding 'only
what is', but the view from here, from off-circle, makes all riders
look the same. They are all going up and down and around and around,
and they all speak of the rush and whiz and the blur of the world as
it seems to rush by. But from here, it is apparent that the whole
thing is one thing, and that each chooses (one way or another) to
experience it in the way that they do.

So that is how it looks, and I am not on it. I am here looking at
it. I am able to hear the stories told by those on the ride, I can
estimate the stories, compare them, and find certain commonalities
in those stories.

A favorite story is this one, the story of 'things are not as they
seem', but what is being said? Is it not usually, 'things are not
as they seem... to YOU'? These stories are offered, really, as a way
of becoming closer, of banishing isolation, and that could be called
'sharing'. But some of the stories are offered in order to cancel
the stories of all of the others; this is like saying that I have the
'supreme story', against which all others are meaningless. This is
not sharing to become closer, but to remove the threat that is
presented by the presence of other people. It is the presence of
other people which triggers both kinds of story-presentation, both
the sharing and the domination.

So now we have the real scenario; it is the presence of others,
and that context alone, which triggers this, all of this
communication.

Our usual version of what is going on here, is that it is the
'illusion of separateness' which should be overcome, and that is
the high spiritual goal, toward which we can march, shoulder to
shoulder, eyes uplifted, eventually to 'become one'. This however seems
to be a plan to overcome the troublesome presence of 'other', of other
people. This plan, this story of overcoming 'separateness', is
thus nothing but an embarrassed attempt to dismiss the obvious pains
which emanate from our 'relationship with other'. It is our failure to
come to grips with relationship which drives this whole thing, this
roundabout 'search and destroy the ego' mission.

Obviously to me... is the attempt to overcome the fear of other,
and the attraction one has for other, by somehow building a reality
which then has to be torn down for one to become "whole", "enlightened",
[...]
I may, I am privileged to, maintain my empty relationship, and to
thus be off of, or on the circle, the carousel, the world-dream,
but this is only through exacting honesty. This honesty is not a goal,
and it is not a state; it is a realization of 'how things work',
or is also said, of 'what is'. What is, is relationship, and it is
only relationship, and this relationship is self.

Now I will crack for you, the ancient code of semantics, which
serves to obscure just how our language already has in it, all of these
keys, but which keys are used in the wrong locks. The wrong locks
are simply the holding of the wrong context; please allow me to
provide the correct context.

This is the context: Two being as one, the great heartfelt goal,
is accomplished through relationship with self, and with self only.
Each self which is exactingly honest with self, each self which
functions with utmost integrity in relationship with self, each self
which is impeccability, is the realization. It is this realization which is
self, and self alone.

Each self alone, is thus self, and thus self of other also, and
thus, 'two being as one' is not the merging of two, but the realization
of one, and of one only.

The failure of relationship with 'other' is inevitable, for there
is no other but self. Other, scary other, desirable other, enviable
other, hateful other, loving other, is none other than self, and
it is the 'same' self that you are, and if you do not know this, it
is because you are not living in absolute (pure) honesty in
relationship with self, you. You, self, have choice of honesty or
endless rationalization, seeking 'ways' to attain 'something', a goal, a
means, an arrival. But the actual is self, and it is you. If you
do not realize this, you are fixated in the maze of fractally
distributed Boolean forks, and you will use language and thought
to follow that maze, learning slowly of 'truth' (truth are valid
forks, leading to the center of the maze, with the little board that
says on a map, with an arrow, 'you are here'), and you will suffer, and
all because of dishonesty.

In reality, you have nothing to say to other. In reality, there is
only self and the realization of self. In reality, you are either
in reality (honesty) or not. If not, reality is hell, suffering,
searching, 'trvth', and all of the accessories of the seeker, the
victim, the hero. If you are reality, you are realization, you are
impeccability, you are self, and self alone. Alone, you are
honest, and so now, there is nothing projected upon the putative
'other'.
Other is empty, and is only what you give it, in your honesty or
your self-deception, and what you 'experience' is the product of that
relationship with self, alone.

Honesty says, 'if I do not know, then I do not know'. This is
honesty. Try it!


==Gene Poole==

top of page