Click here to go to the next issue.

Friday March 30, 2001

JAN

Feelings are the motivators... They determine behavior, not the arguments. Hence, swami Sivananda was
"caught" eating pickles, although advocating "sattvic" food in his books... That is why philosophies, as a
rule, end up as "dead meat" - only able to stir up discussion that "doesn't cut wood". But strictly speaking,
there can't be a departure from sentient life - "insentient" life carries the potential for sentient life.

The greatest blessing is to be born into a family with awakened parents - because then, awakening will
be unavoidable and effortless. Having experienced that, how would one feel, living in a society where that
is considered a sin? And being "classified" by the pundits as a "renouncer" too - because of insights and
statements...

So forget the samadhis: 'Oneness' or the 'natural state' is 'factual' already - what could make statements
about
it is what seemingly veils it. Do you need a reminder to remember your name - Melody - ? That is unlikely
-
even Alzheimer patients know their name. But the "natural state" is more natural than one's name given at
birth - hence not a single thought about it will arise - unless as a response.

Can you understand the tragedy of "leaving through samadhi" now?
Can you understand now that with suffering, Buddha didn't mean "just" hunger or losing loved ones?

Jan

PS before I forget, although recommending fruitarianism, I don't mind eating spicy curry now and then and
Liliana knows that too :)



ON GURUS

JERRY

thanks, david. my apartment and city are full of ways to become distracted,
but to sit with exactly what is going on is to sit with the guru. i still
enjoy the distractions too much, though!

~~~~
> > . i'm not saying to ignore the gurus, but to keep them secondary
> > to being alone, lost, miserable, empty. that's the guru.
> >
> > jerry

>Liliana:
> Well, I've had this guru most of my life with rather poor results, one might
> say, from one perspective. On the other hand a few simple answers printed on
> a piece of paper, devoid of personal presence made me fall to the feet of the Master. And made me
read for 3 years just one book, with the grace of his attention and Love, with his presense, however
strange it may sound. This is the language I understand better than misery and loneliness.
> Paradoxically, I am not disagreeing with what you said - the inner guru you
> mentioned brought me to this particular moment and ultimately, is the master himself.
> The two do not exclude each other. There is no end to the mystery and ways of
> Grace...
>
> Liliana

hi liliana,

yes, mystery and Grace. Jesus said (?), 'Ask and ye shall receive.' Grace
delivers. Someone else devised the curse, May all your dreams come true.
Somewhere between Jesus' asking and the curse inventor's words, a person stops
with everything the way it is. this is when the I AM is met. then penetrating the
I AM, one moves out of the stream that flows from asking to receiving. one
essentially leaves common life, attentionally. Attentionally, one may also return
to assist people moving between Christ and the curse, to pull them out of that
stream. that is what a guru does. yet the inner guru is the feeling that the
stream is all wrong, it can bring no satisfaction. stopping with that, listening
to that, is to be with the guru or the voice that lifts one out of the stream.

jerry

~~~~~~~~
Omkara wrote:

> Hi Jerry,
>
> In my experience, it depends on the Guru. Some really are concerned
> to 'throw the disciple back to themselves'. Deeply concerned.
>
> "The disciple" seems to be the issue here, not the Guru. How many
> Jnanis have been worshipped by Bhaktas throughout the ages... somehow
> I feel Shankara or Buddha would not have been happy with the worship
> of their name and form. Not happy at all.
>
> If there were no Gurus, objects of worship would be found and
> worshipped anyway.

JERRY:
i agree. people create their own leaders, gurus, etc. rajneesh said he had no
need to be a guru but he recognized the need of the multitudes to be
disciples. people want to break out of the prison of life and reach for many
things in order to get out, when all they need to do is stop struggling and
be with themselves.

~~~~~

Namste All,

The guru is the last impediment, the last vestige of form a god. Once
you invest yourself in the guru and surrender to him. There is nothing
else afterwards, so you become like Nisargadatta Maharaj you return to
yourself. So it handy to have a guru even if it is to have the
opportunity to dispense with this form.........ONS Tony.
~~~~~
Gloria sent



` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` `

In reality only the Ultimate is. The rest
is a matter of name and form. And as long
as you cling to the idea that only what has
name and shape exists, the Supreme will
appear to you as non-existing. When you
understand that names and shapes are
hollow shells without any content whatsoever,
and what is real is nameless and formless,
pure energy of life and light of consciousness,
you will be at peace - immersed in the deep
silence of reality.

- Nisargadatta Maharaj

` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` `

This quotation is from:
"I Am That"
Talks with Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj
The Acorn Press, 1973

` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` `

Eventually you have to get rid of the name and
form of both your Master and yourself; you have
to reject the finger in order to see the moon.
Where there is name and form there is false-
hood, there is an impediment to freedom
because nothing that you see will give you
freedom.

- Papaji

` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` `



OMKARA

"Never underestimate the wisdom of one following the path of devotion, or
the devotion of one following the path of wisdom"

... Omkara ...


NDS


Samadhi loves me,

I wonder who,

I wonder who,

I could be...

(repeat)



Singing,

==Gene Poole==



That which is beyond words cannot be responded to, by words.

Sandeep


Harsha sent poem by Mace

As one perceives all
in naked awareness,
how then could one
not feel the suffering
and pain of all sentient beings
and therefore the arising
of resplendent compassion?

Mace




FROM HARSHASATANGH, JOYCE SHORT quotes WEI WU WEI

>
> * Am I awake or am I asleep?
> (I am neither awake nor asleep).

"There is no such 'thing' as a dream (or a mirage, an illusion, an
hallucination), the dream as a thing-in-itself is not such.

There is phenomenon, an apparent dream-ing, just as there are ten thousand
phenomena due to appparent see-ing, apparent hear-ing, feel-ing, smell-ing,
taste-ing, apparent know-ing, but the objects apparently perceived by the
senses are not entities at all. There is only a perceiv-ing of apparent
objects mov-ing in apparent space in the apparent seriality of time.

In daily 'life' the apparently 'other' sentient beings who sensorially
perceive the same phemonena that we perceive, synchronized in the same
apparent time, are themselves also phenomena, mutually perceived or mutually
not perceived, but there is nothing but the perceiv-ing, as in a dream there
is nothing but the dream-ing. If the dreamer awakes the dreaming ends, and
there is no question regarding the 'beings' or other phenomena in the dream,
as to whether 'they' are still pursuing their dream activities or are awake
also. So in liv-ing, the awakened does not consider whether his fellows in
the 'living'-dream', for now he knows that neither these nor that one of
them which appeared to be himself was anything but phenomenal object of the
supposed dreamer.

In both cases the apparent reality of the event dreamed has disappeared
forever.

Where second-degree dreaming is concerned this is obvious to all of us, for
we were the supposed dreamer and we are now awake, but in the first-degree
or 'living'-dream, which is essentially identical, we have difficulty seeing
it, for we are still participants in our dream, and as such, we are unaware
that we are being dreamed.

However, in our 'living'-dream we have the possibility of becoming aware of
this, and then each of us who does so can recognize that he is not the
apparent entity in his particular dream that he believed himself to be, but
the apparent dreamer of his own dream. That recognition too is called
'Awakening', but he cannot awaken the 'others' in his dream -for they were
only his objects and were not entities in their own right any more than he
was in the dream.

Therefore, each dreamer can only awaken from his own dream, from the dream
in which he himself participated as 'himself', for even if his 'liv-ing'
friends appeared in his dream they did so only as his objects-which is as he
happened to visalize them. 'Others', therefore, are nothing but our
objects; as we know them they are not entities in their own right, and they
only appear to be such as dream of his own dream, that is subjectively.

Awakened, however, each dreamer finds that he was the apparent subject of
all the objects in his late dream of 'living', but now is still not an
entity - for he no longer exists as an object except in the 'living' -dream
of 'others'. He is the pure unconditioned subjectivity by means of which he
was dreamed, as all other apparently sentient beings are dreamed, and whose
apparent sentiency is nothing but that.

When the dreamed awakened from his sleeping-dream he was never the dreamer
but was himself still being dreamed. There has never been a dream-er at
all; there is just a phenomenon of dream-ing.

That, then, is what the 'living'-dream is, i.e. an objectivization in Mind
in which apparent entities are not such, and whose dreamer has never existed
as an object and can never be an object in his own right - for there can
never be any such 'thing'.

From "All Else Is Bondage" Non Volitional Living - Wei Wu Wei


MIRROR replies to another's question:

> * The waking state seems so much more real than dream...
> (from which state is this asked? In the dream state, the waking state is
> not even imagined).

You know what?
Reality used to crash my dream all the time.
Now my dream is crashing my reality....

Mira



JERRY

What is any of us doing by writing to a list? What really takes guts is not
one person calling another -- that's a personal choice and no one's obligated
call anyone -- but oneself calling oneself. this whole list/internet thing is
a big show. Admit it. i take responsibility for being part of it and
encouraging it. The circus tent certainly needs to be taken down, bunched up
into a ball and burnt, while each one formerly under it goes his and her own
way into the surrounding wilderness.

holding onto the tent for dear life,
jerry

~~~
---------------------------------

with you...holding the other end.
beth



A dialogue with TIM and DAN

Hi Tim!

>I won't ask for a reply since this has been going on all day <g>...
>but if you want to add something it's your call.

Tomorrow is another day,
and now tomorrow is today.

Tomorrow never knows a thing,
yet a million years of future
today do sing.

>This is really an interesting inquiry...

For whom is it interesting?
( Just kiddin' -- doin' the advaita shuffle,
kind of like the Ali shuffle, but with
less danger of physical repercussions ;-)


>The only conclusion that could come out of it is that everything ever
>perceived, everything "being perceived now" and everything that 'will
>be perceived' "occurs" in an "instant" of no-time... and thus could
>never have occurred. In fact, nothing could ever have occurred.

Yes -- What you say here is exactly on-target
as perceived here.

"Perception now" is an "instantaneous" formation.
(Not "instantaneous" as opposed to "gradual"
but "instantaneous" meaning timeless, nondurational).

As there is no time involved, and formation is
conceptual and thus necessitates time,
formation cannot "really occur".
The observer is formulated so the formation
can be perceived, and the formation,
through "the perceptual act"
gives form to the observer.

"This perception now" is inclusive of all
possible perceptions everywhere in all
possible time-space "moments".

Although perception never "really occurs",
it must appear to occur, so that all
possible possibilities actualize (they
can't help themselves, they must
appear to actualize, because there
is "nothing to prevent it", and because
"there actually is nothing the whole
time" -- thus, "they"
actualize by appearing to form)...

This imperative, this inevitability
of formation of "time-moments"
is the nature of infinity, the
insubstantial yet "only real",
every possible possibility = nowhen =
the reconciliation and embodiment
of all possible polarizations, oppositions,
subject-object "experiences" ...

This means that infinite time-space
realities "occur" simultaneously, without
interference, worlds within worlds, beings
within beings, every perception of every
life being lived seemingly real for the
apparent duration. Yet none of it
occupying any "real" (in the sense of
objectively verifiable) time or space. No real
duration or occurrence, all the diversity
being unsplit, the manifest always
being the unmanifest.

As we're discussing what "never really
occurs", we're implying "something
real" -- however, that implication is
misleading. The "real" here is what
never is perceived, nor involves a
perceiver, yet which is what is
being "perceiver and perceived".
No inside or outside, hence
inside and outside.

>Others have stated that the "gap between thoughts" is an area of
>inquiry... apparently requiring a regular practice of meditation in
>order for thought to 'slow' enough so that these gaps could be
>perceived...
>
>But I don't see how such an inquiry would be possible... who or what
>would be examining these 'gaps?'

Yes, you're right as seen here.
There is no one to perceive a gap
between thoughts, the perceiver
being a thought-formulation.
So, the sense that there is a gap
between thoughts to investigate,
is the beginning of the recognition
that thoughts aren't occurring,
although they appear to be
occurring.

>Then again, supposedly "Who am I?" is a useful inquiry... it never
>was effective 'in my case', but to remain with the sense of Beingness
>(Awareness attending to itself) seems a useful approach, since 'just
>being' doesn't require 'someone to be'.

O.K.
There is only one inquiry,
however it seems to be
given form, whether it
is phrased as a question
or an injunction (e.g., be
who you are, be,
be still and know I am [god]).

Essentially, as construed here,
it is the recognition that no
barrier is a barrier, that
everything the could conceivably
be lost is already lost, and
there is no foundation for the
formulation of an observer
of perception, or of "something
or someone" anywhere,
moving from point
a to point b "in time" ...

Phrased as question or injunction,
the words which may be
a catalyst, must dissolve,
as the apparent
thought dissolves, with it the
apparent thinker, and nothing can
be said at that point or about that
point ...


>This is all a bit heady :-). It's fine and dandy to discuss these
>things philosophically, but if it doesn't translate to
>something 'experiential' (I.E. insight 'beyond thought') the
>discussion is interesting but ultimately futile... which I suppose
>everything is anyway :-).

Yes, everything is anyway,
and so, it isn't ;-)
That is, because there is
nothing to get anywhere,
and nowhere to get,
and no one to do the getting,
the futility is itself "opening
of/as infinity".

Expression of/as "this"
isn't prescription.
There is nothing to be applied.
Trying to apply words that are
expression as if they could
be used to get somewhere *is*
absolutely futile.

There is only "enjoyment of
the expression", which is
equivalent to "being as is",
to which you referred above.

No thought that any thought
occurs, nor thinker to get
something out of it, or get
somewhere.

Yet the play plays on
and through ...
Nothing to stop it ...
And that means all the being
of all beings, as is, and
the world with everything
we like or dislike ...

With no duration, no volition,
no substance, yet the
reverberating fullness of
infinity ...

Love,
Dan

top of page