Click here to go to the next issue.

Friday June 8, 2001



***********************
Jan's poem& picture is the attachment
****************************

Even if there's one truth. You can make a hundred paintings of it.
Pablo Picasso

(A comment sent by Gloria)

Hi,

Anyone trying to get to Nonduality Salon website via
<http://www.nonduality.com>, will find that it is down for the next
24-48 hours.

Please use <http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/umbada>.

Thank you.

Jerry Katz

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

All in all
Each man in all men
all men in each man

All being in each being
Each being in all being

All in each
Each in all

All distinctions are mind, by mind, in mind, of mind
No distinctions no mind to distinguish

--R.D. Laing (Knots)



Glaciers

I have seen the heart of glaciers...
Cold, ponderous, inexorable,
And with the right glasses,
Seen to ebb and flow;
Tidelike, yearning to be close to the moon;
Wishing to be free to play with dolphins;
To rise in plumes of rainbow mist;
To wet parched lips; to Love.

I too, wish to be more fluid,
More quickly in my natural state;
More responsive to the playful ways of water;
Lighter and more full of light;
More able to meet your needs,
Especially your need to melt.

Love, Mark
ps it was on the fridge because I wrote it for Mary awhile ago.



From The Chuang Tzu
In The World of Men


I want to tell you something else I have learned. In all human relations, if
the two parties are living close to each other, they may form a bond through
personal trust. But if they are far apart, they must use words to communicate
the loyalty, and words must be transmitted by someone. To transmit words
that are either pleasing to both parties or infuriating to both parties is
one of the most difficult things in the world. Where both parties are
pleased, there must be some exaggeration of the good points and where both
parties are angered, there must be some exaggeration of the bad points.
Anything that smacks of exaggeration is irresponsible. Where there is
irresponsibility, no one will trust what is said, and when that happens, the
man who is transmitting the words will be in danger. Therefore the aphorism
says, "Transmit the established facts; do not transmit words of
exaggeration." If you do that, you will probably come out all right.

Allspirit Website: http://www.allspirit.co.uk
Gill Eardley

Manuel Hernandez sent:
RAMESH S. BALSEKAR

Whatever is sensorially perceived is like the wrapper of the real thing, a
sample, a description, an advertisement, a mask, merely the seemingly real
outward appearance of what lies behind. Reality is therefore not the
presence but the absence, not the positive but the negative, not the seen
phenomena but their unseen source, not the known actual but unknown
potential.


........the wrapper is no less real than the thing itself. the
outward appearance and what lies behind are not two. the seen
phenomena and their unseen source are one.

........matthew

Jerry sent:
From Chinmayo's Wide Open Windows List:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
And a new Satsang link: Satsang MLM on
http://www.fortunecity.com/marina/tidal/2339/index.htm

Many view enlightenment as the end of all life's problems, a state of
permanent bliss and being beyond the turmoil of the mind. Is this
true of SatangMLM's masters?

Yakaru: Certainly not. That's the OLD idea of enlightenment.
Professor Richard of Byron Bay has defined this concept as
"An outdated intellectual construct of cognitive bicameral over-
myelinated neurobiologically framed non-actual psuedo-functional
illusoriness which is seated in the hypothalamus."

Our NEW idea is much simpler.

And what is that?

Yakaru: Basically if I can get away with it then anyone can.

lots of love
Chin
http://www.wideopenwin.com/vot/



Hi Jan,

I guess my phrase "how do we make it 'work'?" was vague at best. sorry.
What I meant was perhaps simultaneously a rephrasing of the subject
line, and a call to arms around the environmental problems that beset
us. Greg Goode recently (in response to a challenge from Gene Poole)
gave us a list of "dualities" to look at for a deeper understanding of
nonduality. The one I didn't see that is bothering me recently is
man/nature. (I see that this is similar to self/other, except that for
many I'll be that "self/other" automatically assumes the split between
man and nature, as we tend to ascribe "self/other" to the human inside
one body, which one cannot readily see from a distance compared to one
that can walk away and be seen that way. (yikes, don'tcha love the
convoluted way things sound when one is trying to be unambiguous?)

Anyway, the split between man and nature, which is illusory, is also
gonna kill our great grandchildren unless we see it as the terrible
choice we made 10,000 years ago (our aggressive style of agriculture and
the idea that whatever we do to secure food, shelter, etc for humans is
justified) and reverse our whole mindset about Earth and our place on
it. Maybe this doesn't matter to one who has realized because it's just
a dream anyway, but hey, it's a potentially cool dream, if we can let go
of our foolish idea of superiority and the divine right we believe we
have to take advantage of our prefrontal cortices to other species (and
other cultures) detriment.

still on my environmental kick, and working to figure out how what I
learn here can be made to solve the problem,
Mark
ps so I didn't mean work as in career, or enterprise, but work as in
success at altering a very fundamental assumption of duality that
mankind has taken for granted, but which I suspect represents "the
fall". (leaving the garden - what an ironic way to describe it.)

Hi Mark,

> Anyway, the split between man and nature, which is illusory, is also
> gonna kill our great grandchildren unless we see it as the terrible


Have you read the book 'Ishmael' by Daniel Quinn?

It tries to put the situation from the natures point of view and is regarded
as 'non-dual'.

Anyway it gives the case for environmentalism by 'non interference' as well
as being a very enjoyable and moving read.

Regards,
Gary.


Gloria asked: How does this approach respond to the fact that man is already interfering
on such a large scale? Is it saying stop interfering with nature, or don't
interfere with whatever man is already doing?
Gary:
Yes that is the question that generally goes unanswered with regard to 'non
interference' in general and a good example is with regard to the
'enviroment'. The book is regarded as 'non dual' but good as it is it
doesn't really fully address this as I recall.

My own take on this is that division into dual/non-dual as well as
man/nature is the essence of the problem. As if we could choose to interfere
or not interfere? Where is the chooser? Where is the interferer? It is still
the working of subject/object separation. 'Man' working 'as if' he was
separate and in control, 'as if' he needed to be.

The positive change comes out of the negative insight of non-division. The
'world' may change when we see that it does not need to change. The whole
thing of consumerism may slow down as the futility of trying to fill the
bottomless pit of self interest abates. One may rejoice in 'not having'!
just as much as having. Of course there is no guarantee of this, its the
search for security that is part of the problem. That life has an ending is
part of it and not something to be conquered.

The end of self-importance, and the end of division I think clears away
these problems as non problems. This is not an 'answer' nature doesn't seem
to need one.

Love,
Gary.


Neo-Advaitist movement - escape from real life?

http://www.wie.org/j18/wilber.asp
Indeed, so simple yet so complex. What I find so encouraging about this is
that all of us-all of us teachers and students of enlightenment-are at this
time in history involved in a truly grand experiment. Never have all of the
world's "growth technologies" been fully available to a single culture: we
have access not only to all of the forms of Western psychotherapy and human
potential techniques, we have access to virtually all of the world's great
wisdom traditions as well. And we are all now engaged in this "simple yet
complex" experiment in how best to balance all of these approaches,
including the relative and absolute, and thus find the best ways to both
awaken to our ever-present Self-awaken to the absolute-and then skillfully
and compassionately express that ultimate Reality in the relative world,
balancing nirvana and samsara in each and every gesture we make. We are
involved in this grand experiment, this gesture of balance, this graceful
acknowledgment that we are both the One and the Many in every move we make.

excerpts sent by Jan Sultan

Hi Jan,

snip
>"With the neo-Advaitist explosion that we seem to
>be in the midst of, I almost always take the opposite position. Their
>insistence that only consciousness is real usually results not in genuine
>liberation, but rather tends to provide the easiest (and scariest) escape
>from real life and the ever-challenging real implications of being a fully
>human being.

Of course there is no such 'Neo-Advaitist movement' its just an attempt by
AC and WIE to distinguish their own methodology and promote dualism under
the guise of 'non-dualism'.

As if there is such a thing as 'genuine enlightenment'!! which can be bought
by taking expensive courses and accepting someone as an 'enlightened being'.
Self publicity abound in this 'New Age'. There is no movement in time
towards anything and no teachers, imho anything else is a set up. The whole
concept 'What is Enlightenment' is a joke is if there was something to be
identified and worked towards. Whatever that is its not non-dualism.

On my soap box,
Gary.

Love, Mark
nonduality means "both." It's not that difficult, guys. (now, how do we make it "work?")
Dear Mark,

If nonduality means "both", then
we'll have to come up with
a new word for nonduality --
one that means nonduality.

I suggest "Mork" ...

Love,
Dan

top of page