Click here to go to the next issue.

monday march 26th


________________________________________________________________________________\
__




Melody wrote:

> Hi Jerry,
>
> you responded, in part:
>
> > From the viewpoint of Krishna, what can be said? My nature is to
> take the
> > most nondual position and that's what I did in my criticism of
> Adyashanti's
> > words as quoted.
>
> A *most* nondual position ??
>
> Nonduality that *prefers* one position over another??

Yes. Nonduality is as foolish as everything else, so why not? Nonduality is
duality. There are a few identifiable nondual perspectives.

> Some concepts cut deeper than others, to be sure.

> One of them being:
> nonduality is essentially what remains in a room
> 'of thousands' once the sense of 'me' - and all its
> likes and dislikes - is no longer present.



While I have you on the line, let me bring up another thing I'm seeing. Why
are people falling at the feet of Ramana, Nisargadatta and all those folks?
Yes, they're brilliant and wonderful, but I go right back to the days when I
was a kid in Hebrew school and I'd hear about Moses and them guys and I knew
as a 10 year old that I was the same as those biblical characters. So I never
bought into Judaism or any religion. I was those legendary religious
characters. That was a pure knowledge, not the result of reading a few posts
on an email list. And that's where I (should) come from in all my posts.

> I hear you.

> And I love how you placed the 'everyday Joe' next to
> the 'Ramanas' and the 'Nisargardattas' on your website.

> But let's not kid ourselves. There is a reason why people
> traveled thousands of miles to sit at the feet of a Nisargadatta
> or a Ramana. Had these dudes *not* been perceived as individuals
> who 'walked' their Nondual 'talk', I suspect, they too, would
> be known to the world as just another 'everyday Joe'.

> True, these 'giants' may have reached 'mythic' proportions,
> but even the 'myth' of who they express themselves to be

> is nothing but a reflection of the potential lying
> within each and every body/mind complex. And when
> we "fall at the feet of" someone else, we are falling
> in love with that mirror image of what IS, once the
> 'me' is not.

I come, to paraphrase Jan, from the vision of the innocent child. That's my
point of reference and my entire spiritual life has only been to understand
it in the context of open teachings and in the context of the knowings of my
friends.

I've tried to share it and have tried to let that purity stand free in a
spiritual society which falls at the feet of other Moses', namely Ramana,
Nisargadatta and those types. I am them. I am not as articulate or
subsequently free as they are, but I am them, the Guru. And this is the kid
talking who knew something. In that sense, no one can argue with me or talk
to me because I can't understand what anyone is saying, because I haven't
heard the word enlightenment yet, I haven't seen people flock to see a
teacher speak. I haven't read a book. I only know I AM and what it is to
stand in the common sun.

Jerry


> That's a beautiful point of reference, Jerry. One
> I can well appreciate. My question to you, is,
> though....


> Why the need to whack at the knees of 'giants'?

> If one needs to tear someone down, in order
> to elevate 'the masses',

> do you really perceive everyone as 'one and the same' ?


> Cheerios,

> Melody

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Hi Jerry,
The honesty and innocence of your words ... ring true.

We humans have a tendency to corrupt words by thinking about them
and making formulas out of them. This is one reason why
(especially with today's communication technologies) so many things
are cliche' shortly after they appear.

***Words are appropriate to the situation***. The words of sages
like Ramana etc. give some direction but *ultimately* one has to stand
naked and alone and 'innocently see' for opneself - not through
someone else's words.

If I say "I am That", with a childlike innocence and with the
discrimination of mature seeing - then it is a statement of fact. If
I make an intellectual formula out of it (or anything else like
nonduality, innocence, meditation ...) I perpetuate illusion.

It is the understanding of 'what is' - not the idea of 'what
should be' - that facilitates the flowering of intelligence/Love.

Love,
James

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



________________________________________________________________________________\
__


White Wolfe;

stop. listen. breathe....

allow the love of the beloved
to arise of itself as it wants
genlty lift you where it will
when it wants, such arising
is as soft as greywings lifting
to kiss silent wind winging
winging, peace and tranquilty
sweet order and harmony into
your tender heart's universe


________________________________________________________________________________\
___


Dustin;


Work in progress: I had a vision about taking this dialogue with
Nisargadatta and translating it into progressively more colloquial contexts.
This is the first translation from the original conversation. Any of you
die-hards may recognize its exact location in I Am That.

-----

Student: Well, here we are, the two of us, sitting here in front of each
other. I'm so grateful for this opportunity to sit with you alone. But I
have a question: I've dedicated almost my whole adult life to my study and
my practice, yet I still haven't attained samadhi. Am I doing something
wrong? What is the basic difference between you and me?
Teacher: There is no basic difference.

S: Okay, but there must be some basic difference. After all, I came to you
because you're enlightened - you certainly didn't come looking for me.
T: It's only because you imagine that there's a difference between us that
you think you're sitting with an enlightened being.

S: But you are enlightened! You claim to know the Truth, and I know I don't
know the Truth yet.
T: Have you ever heard me say that I know more about this "Truth" than you
do? I don't claim to know anything you don't know yourself. In fact, I
probably know much less than you do, with all of the study and practice
you've done.

S: See that? Just the way you said that proves my point: because you've
experienced the Absolute, your whole manner, your every word, is like a
direct reflection of God.
T: Okay, now you're talking crazy. Look, there is no significant difference
between you and me. My life is a succession of events, just like yours is.
The only difference is that I don't attach any real significant to those
events, while you do. I see the unfolding of life's events as the picture
show they are, while you stick to things and move along with them.

S: (in awe) What has made you so detached?
T: Nothing in particular. All I really did was pay attention to my own
teacher. She told me that I am nothing other than my self, and I believed
her. Trusting that, I acted in accordance with that, and I could stop
worrying about what was not me, or mine.

S: How come you were so lucky that you could understand your teacher so
fully? Your words sound enlightened to me, but I don't think I REALLY
understand what you're talking about.
T: Who knows? It just worked out that way for me. Nothing really happens for
any particular reason, and even if it did, what would it matter? Your
opinion is that I'm an enlightened being, but that's only your own opinion.
You can change your opinion any time you like, so why attach any importance
to opinions, even your own?

S: Still, you are different. Your mind always seems to be quiet and happy.
You're always at peace with yourself and the world.
T: My mind: what do you really mean by that? I don't have "my own mind"
that's "quiet and happy!" There is a consciousness in which everything
happens - everyone has experienced that. But you're not looking carefully
enough at what's beyond that so-called quiet mind. Quiet mind, stormy mind:
it makes no difference. The mind is not who you are. Look deeper, more
carefully, to see what I see.

S: What do you see?
T: I'm not seeing anything that you couldn't see for yourself if you'd just
focus your attention a little differently. You're not giving enough
attention to your Self. Your mind is cluttered all day and night with
thoughts and dreams of things, people and ideas, but never with your self.
Just observe how you function - watch the motives for your actions and
observe the results of your actions. Study this world of random things,
people and ideas that you have inadvertently constructed for yourself. By
studying what you have constructed in your own mind, you will come to
understand what you are not. By knowing what you are not, you will come to
know your self. Only through this refusal and rejection will you come to
understand what you are not, and then come to know what you are.

The Real is not imaginary, and by definition, it is cannot be a product of
your own mere mind. Even the sense 'I am' is not continuous, though it is a
useful pointer; it shows where to seek, but not what to seek. Just have a
good look at it, and you'll see what I mean. Once you are convinced that you
cannot truthfully say anything about your Self other than 'I am,' and that
nothing that can be pointed at or seen can be your Self, then the very need
for even 'I am' is over - you no longer need to verbalize your own
existence.

Once this obsession with the body goes, you will spontaneously and
effortlessly revert to your natural state. The only difference between us is
that I am aware of my natural state, while you are looking for your natural
state. The only way we differ is in appearance, and by how we are each
projecting our selves externally. But these appearances are not really US -
only through rejecting those experiences can we truly come to know what we
are.

________________________________________________________________________________\
___





> While I have you on the line, let me bring up another thing I'm
seeing. Why
> are people falling at the feet of Ramana, Nisargadatta and all those
folks?
> Yes, they're brilliant and wonderful, but I go right back to the
days when I
> was a kid in Hebrew school and I'd hear about Moses and them guys
and I knew
> as a 10 year old that I was the same as those biblical characters.
So I never
> bought into Judaism or any religion. I was those legendary religious
> characters. That was a pure knowledge, not the result of reading a
few posts
> on an email list. And that's where I (should) come from in all my
posts.





> I come, to paraphrase Jan, from the vision of the innocent child.
That's my
> point of reference and my entire spiritual life has only been to
understand
> it in the context of open teachings and in the context of the
knowings of my
> friends.

________________________________________________________________________________\
__


> > > If everything, every grain of sand and every living thing is
> > > Krishna, how can I discriminate spiritually?
> >
> >
>** there is no difference between "spiritually" or otherwise. Think
>of things "spiritual" as food. Do you want to eat crap, junk food, or
>do you want to eat a nutritious meal? Discrimination is a must
>otherwise you eat anything and toxify yourself. Little children,
>though innocent, are also very naive. In there naivite they will eat
>poisonous things. They must learn discrimination from adults.
>Learning discrimination for a child is not the end of innocence.
>Innocences and naivite are two very different things.Adults in their
>spiritual lives are also naive quite often and with no discrimination
>will poison themselves. At the same time adults can regain their
>innocence and still discriminate in "spiritual" and all matters.
>
>All are blessed (indiscriminantly:))
>justthis



Breathe the universe in and out.

What is toxic for one being,
is life-enhancing to another.

Breathe in all the beings
and breathe them out again.

The universe breathes itself.

-- D.


________________________________________________________________________________\
__




>CYBERDERVISH
>How do you explain non-duality to children? I don't want my
>children being taught to fear God or to fear Hell or Satan.
>Anybody with experience?


~ You can say, "Of course love is everywhere, right?
even when people don't notice it."
You can say, "You know this light in here..."
and tap your chest.
You can say, "People will tell you lots of things, but
you know what is true in yourself."
You can listen.


Xan, mother of 2


________________________________________________________________________________\
__



NDS

Arguing for or against a position is identification, revealing
unconscious shoring of existing identity.

To say that a POV is valid or invalid, based upon whether something
'exists' or 'does not exist', is to represent, unconsciously, a POV
that stands upon a discernable reference point.

All reference points are human constructs, made solid only as long as
they are useful.

Arguing for or against a position, can be done only from a point of
reference; all points of reference are ephemeral, volatile, and hold
no more validity than memory itself.

To hold to a point of reference, is to compound a synthetic reality
in which then to dwell, and as such,is the literal quitting of Eden.
No human-generated synthetic reality can successfully contest the
reality which generates the human.

It is widely imagined, that there is a POV which in itself, has
salvatory power; that one who finds and holds such a reference point,
has a significant advantage. While this may be true in the realm of
human commerce, and in the realm of physical survival, it is not true
in the realm of 'spiritual reality'.

Keep in mind, that the entire 'spiritual reality', as propounded by
humans, is in itself nothing more than a human construct, rather than
accurate reportage of reality. Descriptive metaphors may be stated,
but no human construct will give the traction desired by the
'spiritual aspirant'.

In fact, we may discern by careful listening, that every human
construct is in fact a barrier, rather than deliverance. But do not
take this pronouncement, as so many do, as a suggestion to purge the
mind of concepts.

The existence of concepts, as experienced by humans, is not harmful
unless attachment to concept arises; this is the point. Concepts run
freely through mind, as water runs freely in the bed of the river,
unless attachment blocks the flow, like a dam constructed in the bed
of the river.

One who decries concepts, can only do so by representing a personal
identification which is itself, built of sheer Ephemera, and thus
perishable. All concepts are disposable, but humans are not; yet, it
is widely held that humans who hold certain concepts, are made
disposable by their allegiances.

To lodge a criticism against another, based upon personally held
convictions, is to convict oneself; cautions against this common
error abound in the classical literature.

***

In the Disney version, every moment of existence is to be matched
with an 'appropriate emotion'; no moment of time is allowed to pass,
without the attachment of an emotional tag. In the Disney version,
the compounded sequence of emotional tags, are then computed via an
algebra, to yield conclusions based upon 'how this sequence of events
makes me feel'.

As you read this, if you let any of these concepts collide with your
personal dam, the pain of the collision will trigger defensive
reactions on your part. Defense of the configuration of
concreted/attached concepts which comprise your personal dam, is
evidence of the existence of accumulated identity-stones. Like a
kidney-stone, such artifacts of experience produce irritation and
pain, as they grow and grow and eventually block the flow of vital
energies.

Launching stone-shattering invective, is best done toward oneself,
rather than at the one who seems to cause your dammed fluids to boil.
Break your own dam first, before you attempt to 'helpfully' unblock
the apparently closed configuration of another.

***

Various 'masters' have tried to present key concepts, as
compassionate offerings to suffering people.
Perhaps one of the most powerful of these concepts, is the
pronouncement that "Samsara is Nirvana"; this statement is designed
to guide the careful listener to a most basic understanding of how
the human inevitably functions and dysfunctions.

The inevitable functionality of the human, inevitably includes the
potential for dysfunction; this must be understood; there is no
effective 'patch' for this inevitability. To live in this condition
consciously, is to let go of the search for patches; it is also to
allow the concretized configuration of identity-stones to erode, thus
to constantly reverse the tendencies of attachment.

Nirvana has nothing to do with Nirvana, and Samsara has nothing to do
with Samsara; Samsara operates powered by a motive to reconfigure
things into forms which seem more beneficial to personal gain, and
thus its operations are as invisible to itself, as those operations
are vital to the production of the desired outcome. The seeking of
spiritual remedies is itself, a guarantee of perpetual Samsara, even
in the midst of concerted efforts to transcend it.

***

No human values can possibly be based upon the dictum of 'do
nothing'. It is seen that to 'do nothing' is only done in response
and in reaction to perceived events, which seem to indicate that
'doing nothing' is the best thing to do.

To 'do nothing' cannot be done for 'no reason'; doing nothing can be
done successfully, only by simply doing it. Only by actually doing
nothing, will nothing be done.


Ever helpful,

==Gene Poole==

top of page