Click here to go to the next issue.

Skye: Human love, is a great spoiler of *actual intimacy*. Most
humans only reach the belief levels of love which they use to gloss over
the warts and all. They prefer to fantasise that their lover is the most
perfect human being *a* god. Human love is incredibly self-centred,
demanding, wanting and needing ... it must HAVE....so in the world
of duality it always goes. It is an unfortunate force that comes
into ones life, which can be transcended along with our limited
intellectual concepts of everything. I don’t take much notice of the
human measurement of love.

In actual intimacy, when you are with another person one hundred per
cent, unemotionally, there is neither attraction nor repulsion and
you *see clearly* what other people call attractive or repulsive …
and that's delicious because it's actually what is, which is actual
freedom.

In actual intimacy this whole moment, everything, is magnificent.

Dan: Thanks for this, Skye. You're pointing to the difference between
love as wanting/needing and love as Being. This is the difference between
referring love to a self that is a center and not referring love to
anything. To be with someone as simply that moment, the person is what is
in that moment - you are relating to everything that appears in that moment
the same way - no distinctions. You yourself are not actually "relating
to" that moment, as that moment is inseparable from your own awareness. So
there is no relating to anything, yet there is relationship. And there is
what is beyond relationship, simply being. To me, what you said here is
what it's all about - what we might be able to learn from this human
experience.

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

andrew: The temporal knowing person senses
atemporal awareness and that sense
changes the person, makes the person whole.
Otherwise, what's the point?
And the whole person can speak.

dan: The atemporal awareness
constructs and deconstructs
"the temporal knowing person"
in one instant. The temporal
person is always a "being in transition".
The point of knowing "between"
temporal and atemporal awareness
is where the "whole person"
(i.e., the atemporal reality itself)
is seen to be speaking (and manifesting)
"through the image" of a person in time.

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


Petros wrote:
Krishnaji says some great things, but someone has to really pay
attention
and make the effort of following his train of thought to the end.
Understanding is there for those who want to really confront it.

Skye:
I know what you mean. I opened my first K book at 22 yrs old and was
immediately uninterested, I also bought the Ch'an translations "The
Transmission of the Mind Outside the Teachings" by Charles Luk at
the same time, but it was 10 years before I could bare to confront
their nullification of my precious beliefs.

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

Andrew offered:


You might be interested in checking out Tolstoy's
version of the Gospels, if you haven't seen it;

http://member.aol.com/Tolstoy828/gospel.txt

chapter headings from the preface;

1. Man is the son of an infinite source: a son of that Father not by the
flesh but by the spirit.
2. Therefore man should serve that source in spirit.
3. The life of all men has a divine origin. It alone is holy.
4. Therefore man should serve that source in the life of all men. Such is
the will of the Father.
5. The service of the will of that Father of life gives life.
6. Therefore the gratification of one's own will is not necessary for life.
7. Temporal life is food for the true life.
8. Therefore the true life is independent of time: it is in the present.
9. Time is an illusion of life; life in the past and in the future conceals
from men the true life of the present.
10. Therefore man should strive to destroy the illusion of the temporal
life of the past and future.
11. True life is life in the present, common to all men and manifesting
itself in love.
12. Therefore, he who lives by love in the present, through the common life
of all men, unites with the Father, the source and foundation of life.

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

Dan:

Developmentally, it is appropriate that each of us invents a
sense of the "doer," just as it is appropriate that perceptually
we develop the ability to construct "things" that we "see" and "experience."
Our perceptual world of "things" is a world of "thought constructs" in
tangible form. When awareness loses its illusory anchoring in "the doer,"
it simultaneously loses its perceived noninvolvement in the construction of
the sensory "world of things." This simultaneous realization shows that
the construction of "the doer" is associated with a construction of a
"world" in which the doing takes place, and that identification with the
first requires separation and disidentification from the second. My guess
is that, although there are significant differences in cultural
interpretations of the doer and the world, this construction of doer and
world occurs in all cultures (at least all which I have studied).

When we developed as children, we needed to be able to intiate
action when needed (or expected) and to have such action be based on
perception. If we would have been unable to initiate such action, this
would be a problem socially and in terms of survival. This "doing" ability
gets elaborated as
we develop, so as to include the ability to self-reflect, to
contemplate options and consequences, to delay action until
the best time. This interaction of memory, perception, associations,
conceptualized options, and action could be termed the
developing self or the ego of time. This sense of self includes
functioning as an initiator, perceiver, doer, and reflector.

The end of the "doer" (and perceiver, etc.) is the end of binding awareness
around roles associated with specific modes of perception. The end of the
doer is the end of attaching awareness "to" any particular state or
experience. States and conditions may come and go, awareness remains, and
awareness is not separate from, nor identified with any particular state.
The doer ends when awareness is simply known by itself as itself, which is
no-thing. This no-thing is not "in existence," and doesn't initiate or
make anything happen (as such would require conditionality and
identification). One then realizes that there "never has been any entity
anywhere" - neither in the world of things or within the body. There
simply cannot be any independently initiating entities
of any sort (the doctrine of dependent origination) and no objects separate
from awareness. Such realization is the source of freedom from every
psychological problem based on "doing" (e.g., guilt, anxiety,
preoccupation), and every social problem based on conflicting goals and
intentions.

Realization is awareness itself as it is. It is clear how awareness imagined
itself "caught" in its projection of a body-mind, the associated
biopsychsocial process of "development of being," and the concomitent
investment in surviving, continuing, and being socially viable. It is
clear that the ending of this
connection of awareness with "any entity" is simply awareness as it is.

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

TimG:


Change... it seems to be the only constant in life. But even change
undergoes changes (speeds up, slows down, etc). I don't believe change is
a constant (which would negate the fact that there is only change!), as
there is something undefinable that is unchanging.

The Internet seems to have pointed that out to me lately. Some speak of
"Internet time," where a regular business-year occurs in weeks.

The other day, I was encoding a movie in RealAudio format. I realized that
RealPlayer may not even be around in a few years anymore (who knows), or
the formats might change, or the company might get bought up... then how
could I play back my movie? The software requires registration, constant
updates, and finally expires, AFAIK. This seems to be two new trends that
really illustrate change: Software that requires registration before it
will run, and self-updating software that connects to the Net to update.

Thinking about these things the other day, there was a very deep
realization that life is flux, change, that "I" cannot observe change
because I myself *AM* change, am part of the process, and change cannot see
change. Who is the observer of change? And is there an observer behind
that observer?

It's so freeing just to let go... so much peace and bliss to realize that
NOTHING, nothing at all, is permanent, and to go with that. "Going with
the flow" is not an adequate description. One must let go, and let go, and
let go, and let go... and I believe that is our natural state. Clinging
and attachment are unnatural and products of ignorance and the need for
security. Drop that fucking need, any way possible! There is no security.
There never has been, and never will be. Let yourself out of prison.

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

Petros:


Had satsang with Yudhishtara tonight at the Bodhi Tree along with about
fifty really great people, some of whom I recognized from Neelam's satsang a
few weeks ago.


Y opened, as is his custom, by expressing gratitude to everyone for making
it to satsang, and how he recognized that people really have to make a
concerted effort -- making time in their schedule, then fighting the traffic
and looking for a place to park -- to be present. He thanked everyone for
that and noted that it exemplifies a genuine inner need to be here. Y also
expressed gratitude, as always, to his teacher Papaji (Poonjaji).


As is also his custom, Y apologized if his expression of Truth was not as
"pure" (in a philosophical sense) as some people might prefer. He suggested
that those who might be dissatisfied with his down-to-earth approach might
themselves not be as "pure" as they would like to believe.


He followed his opening by retelling a funny anecdote. Evidently someone
called his home a few weeks ago and left a message on his answering machine
asking for Y to provide an explanation of the "ultimate truth." The caller
instructed Y to call him back, and said that if he wasn't home, Y should
just leave the answer on the machine!


Later someone asked about "levels" of Truth and Y was careful to point out
that he doesn't see it in terms of levels, but of *facets*. All
expressions being simultaneous but slightly different, not one above or
below another.


At another point, Y said that the natural state *is* the ultimate state, not
samadhis and "super-samadhis" and such; that the ultimate state is just
accepting yourself as you are, finally.


Someone came to Y's feet and sang a song; a little bit later someone else
played a flute.

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

top of page