Click here to go to the next issue.

Friday February 23, 2001



DAN BERKOW

Ramesh Belsekar,
realizing the Ultimate Principle had
got itself into a pickle pursuing
experiences in Pandora's Box,
recommended the following:

"Self-realization is not meant for one whose intellect has been deadened by a
firm belief in the illusory reality of himself as an entity in the
phenomenal world and who thus pursues fulfillment in the illusory pleasures
of the senses. Such a person, who has objectivized the phenomenal world in
his own mind, does not realize that it is the same illusory mind which
destroys both himself and his world. He therefore remains subject to, and
victim of, his own notions of birth, suffering and death."

Was the Ultimate Principle listening?
Or did the pickle of pursuing non-existent
experience continue?

If you tune in for further developments,
you are still listening for gurus speaking
into Pandora's Box...


DAN & CEE

At the point where it is clear that the idea of
something observing something is groundless,
there is no need to give a name to what has
never been something observing something
in the first place ...

Love,
Dan



yes, and we are so free to name it!

brilliant and crystal clear like thin thin space
nothing has ever occurred

love cee

Hi cee --

Brilliant, clear, dim and dark --
thin, thin, and fat
where nothing but fatness has
ever not-occurred --

I am not free to give a name,
this is my freedom ...

Love,
Dan



HARSHA

The play of concepts is endless. Concepts about the body, the mind, spirit,
etc. It is the quicksand which entangles one more and more. It is the stuff
of religion, philosophy, spirituality, great writers, great thinkers, great
teachers, great leaders, etc. The presumption to teach and help others to
improve themselves reveals the unrelenting grip of the ego. The wise say,
that, "I am the doer" notion is bondage. To go to the root of the ego, one
should bring the awareness upon its own essence and thus stare at the
originating point of thoughts and feelings. It is the essence of simplicity.
Spiritual practitioners seek complex and glamorous practices leading to rich
experiences. That is OK. Ultimately one must come to face with the
directness of one's own awareness.



SUSAN DANE, RADIO INTERVIEWS & WBAI LIVE LEADS


Hi Susan:
One last time: the best immediate worldwide link over the internet to WBAI is:

http://www.2600.com/offthehook/hot2.ram

Just select, copy, paste on your browser and GO!
Try it.
Good luck.
JayR


OR

I can only get live audio from WBAI by going to http://www.wbai.net/ and
selecting the "WBAI Live Stream" link. Please have someone knowledgable
check this out if you want the out-of-the-listening-area listeners to be
able to hear your programs.

---------

Dear jerry:

How about "unknowing laughter?" Or better yet, "The laughter of Unknowing."
ohmygod, I am actually "joining" the banter on the NDS network. (laughter)

Thank you for your very sweet thoughts. At this point the radio interviews
seem so long awaited, that I can't remember if I've already been doing them
for years. (Remember, I used to do a lot of this before I closed down shop
for five years.) Now, I am better reconciled to necessity, and totally
looking forward to it.

I do hesitate to write anything on this general mailing as I feel as if every
word will be put through the semantic ND filter--ah-ahh! "Looking
forward"--rank dualistism.

Susan


JAN-Seeker & GENE POOLE

Seeker, you wrote:

> Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 18:04:44 +0300
> From: Jan
> Subject: To seek or not to seek is the question
>
> To seek or not to seek is the question

The question actually is; "why is there a question?"

> seek and ye shall find

Where, how, and when, to find the one who seeks?

> as Rumi would put it:
> get thirsty, really thirsty... and God will do the rest

Rumi makes beautiful metaphor, best appreciated 'after the fact'.

> I think the fear is, getting too used to seeking or to the
> journey and not wanting to arrive

The fear is, of the extinction of the 'favorite me'.

> [These are not my opinions, friends ... just a newbie
> thinking out aloud]

Do you always think in the opinions of others?

> To give my example, I am reluctant to meditate, to inquire
> the question of 'who am I' until I have read enough on the
> subject. I fear starting out on the wrong footing [so to
> speak].

First be sure that you have caught up on your sleep.

> Though I do try it out for a few minutes every now and
> then. Isn't the quality of meditation or inquiry more
> important than the quantity?

Who judges quality?

> I don't think controlling thought is that difficult.
> Shutting out all sensation, etc. can be done. You get the
> blank mind than what? Are we supposed to maintain this
> blank mind for a long time?

If you can self-instill sensory deprivation, the next step is to pay
attention to yourself.

> In fact why meditate at all? Isn't this freedom, this
> stillness, this self-awareness supposed to be ever present
> even while going about our everyday duties? Why cannot it
> just creep in unnoticed? Cannot it grow from mindfulness,
> heedfulness, constancy? Suddenly you realize that this
> stillness has always been with you. It is just that you
> have not been paying attention to it?

You may do as you wish.

> Isn't all achievement nonlinear? It comes to you out of
> the blue when you least expect. As if it is not for us to
> achieve but for God to grant in his sweet time? Or do we
> accumulate stamps of some sort and when the required
> amount is accumulated, bingo! jackpot?
>
> forgive this slow newbie learner ...
>
> love,
> seeker

Questions of 'what and how to do', occur when doing is given
precedence over Being.

> From: Jan
> Subject: Exhaustion or Stillness
In perfect fitness, and when exhaustion is not an issue, the
stillness allows detailed examination of the entire surround.
Stillness is not without purpose, and there is purpose to our ability
to 'access' stillness.

> I used to daydream a lot. In fact most of my spare moments
> were spent day dreaming.
> Now with this new found interest in 'God' I have almost
> stopped day dreaming. All I do is read and think;
> download, read and think.

Perhaps you intuit the deep and present need to replace your current
set of vocabulary, concepts, and assumptions. If this is so, you
could examine the difficulty of validating anything, by the use of
what is by all evidence, invalid itself... meaning, all current
vocabulary, concepts, and assumptions.

> Sometimes my mind seems to rebel and just goes blank.
> Thoughts do not want to come. Sometimes they start to form
> and disappear midway!

You are observing the behaviour of a 'mechanism'. 'You' are not this
mechanism, this mechanism is your servant. Learn how to properly
prioritize the activities of this mechanism, and it will do all of
the 'work' for you. It will bring many things to you. But none of
these things will have any relevance to you, yourself; instead only
to what it is that you remember of yourself in this life.

If you in stillness examine the entire surround, find what is not
relevant to you, in memory in this life.

> Is this exhaustion or a precursor to 'stillness'? I
> suspect the former, however couldn't it be an aid to
> stilling the mind?
>
> =============================
> love,
> seeker

Your constant recitation of your vocabulary, will convince you that
there is nothing which is beyond it.

What is all vocabulary built upon?


==Gene Poole

Beloved Gene,

Many thanks for your detailed reply. Much appreciated.
Vocabulary is based on memory? Past experience? So cannot help me where I
want to go?


OMKARA & GOMU & DAN

"Omkara Datta" wrote:
>
> Ultimately, where consciousness "arises" is irrelevant, because
> consciousness is an impermanent and constantly changing state.
> Consciousness can be observed or witnessed, which indicates there is
> something beyond consciousness as a witness to it.

It is a simple problem with terminology. What you have refered
to as "a witness" in the last line is what is commonly referred to
as "Consciousness" in Indian Philosophy. Personally I prefer to call
it as "the Subject", so that there is no confusion. And the Subject
cannot "know" itself. It can only "Be" itself. When there is no
"knowing" other things, it is called purly "Being", which is again
refered to by various names in various philosophical and religious
systems.

With love,
Gomu.
DAN:
It's also a problem with the idea that
there is something that observes something.

As long as there is this thought, there can
be the idea of "one who knows" "one who sees"
a "witness" or "being"...

At the point where it is clear that the idea of
something observing something is groundless,
there is no need to give a name to what has
never been something observing something
in the first place ...



DAN & JAMES



They say, "those who say, don't know.
Those who know, don't say." ;-)

Love,
-- They

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

Hi Dan,

"He who speaks does not know. He who knows does not speak." -
Lao Tsu

If I say, "I will let Silence speak" I would sound very
much like Lao Tsu and folks who only reads the words could say, "James
spoke, therefore he doesn't know" and they would be right. They would
also miss the significance of what the words are pointing to (as in many
of your posts).
Today we have extraordinary technologies for connecting with
each other and just as in Lao Tsu's time what really facilitates
communication is our ability to listen.

Love,
James
Hi James!

Namaste --

Silence listens.
When/as silence speaks, there is only
silence listening.

What kind of dialogue is this?

What kind of world is this, in/as which
all that "happens" is silence, the
one to whom it happens is silence,
and where it occurs is silence?

Speak, speak! ;-)


Love,
Dan



JAN-seeker & ANDREW

Jan wrote:

> What does Nisagardatta mean by the following?
>
> "Just keep in mind the feeling 'I am',
> merge in it, till your mind and feeling become one.
> By repeated attempts you will stumble on the
> right balance of attention and affection
> and your mind will be firmly established
> in the thought-feeling 'I am'. "
>
> What does he mean by 'right balance of attention and affection?

My impression on this is that by attention he means the action of the
discriminating
analytical mind and by affection, he means loving acceptance. He's talking about
the
right mood for self enquiry, neither too anxiously attentive, nor too laissez faire
blissed out.

> And 'thought-feeling' ?

Not only a thought or a feeling but both at once.

> What does he mean by:
>
> "The idea - 'I am the witness only'
> will purify the body and the mind
> and open the eye of wisdom."

He's suggesting that you see yourself as the witness of the actions and states
and
perceptions of the body and mind, rather than as the actor or the doer of them.
It's a
way of seeing that you are not the body or the mind or anything else you can
identify.

I found Nisargadatta somewhat impenetrable, only reading excerpted quotes
taken out of
context. If you can get a copy of I Am That, and read what he has to say in full,
it's
much easier to understand. Someone is posting it chapter by chapter in full
here...
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nisargadatta


andrew


JERRY

http://www.wwfwwffw.net/parahumanism/mind.htm



SARLO

Hi Kellie,

I've posted your letter to Nonduality Salon, as you seem to have
intended it for the list. Also check Banyen books in Vancouver for their notices.
I'll also send your letter to someone in Vancouver who is also interested in the
Community Initiative. -JERRY

There's always Eckhart Tolle at http://www.eckharttolle.com/, or if you want
more obscure, Burt Harding at
http://home.talkcity.com/spiritcir/sivia/burtharding.html or Anami at
http://www.meditate.com/.

Love, Sarlo

top of page