Click here to go to the next issue.

Monday July 23, 2001

********

GARY MERRILL

Hi Mr Bold (Ed),

The last thing you want is another mail about non-division....

snip>
>But in confronting one's own conditioning, which is not
>separate from one's self, there needs to be an understanding
>that conditioning in the self does exist, and how to recognize
>it. Are you saying this is not possible? How can *anyone*
>comment intelligently, or at all, on conditioning without this
>understanding!

Its a good question Ed. The simple answer I profess is that there is
no understander separate from the understood. The understander only
appears to exist in hindsight in trying to analyse what is happening.
Right now where is the understander?
That 'conditioning' needs to be altered is the game of going from
a 'conditioned'state to an 'unconditioned' one, that there is an
entity to be improved.That there is no objective understanding is the
point really. So I have I just said something? No 'I' havent. But
perhaps communication is happening?

>Is it not possible to notice times when the signs of
>conditioning disappear and a great sense of freedom arises,
>and to notice certain conditions that correspond with such
>occasions? Yes, the understanding can grow and remedial
>intervention is possible.

Is this freedom personal or is it freedom from the 'self'. To be
clear - there is no self to be free and no self to be bound, that
would be self-less freedom that already is.
That conditioning goes on is OK and inevitable but it is not 'my'
conditioning and is not a source of conflict between how I am and how
I should be. There is only the machine, if you want to use that
analogy.

>There seems to be much concern with the issue of a limited
>entity *trying*, as if to try is to presage automatic failure.
>But any practicing artist will explain that real spontaneity
>occurs after many sessions of trying. The truth of this may
>occur more than once in life.

Another good question. Practise makes perfect as they say. But is
there ever a practiser separate from the practising, was there a
separate chooser that chose to be an artist, that chose practising?
Where is the tryer that is behind all this trying? Can spontaneity be
practised? Do we drive a car spontaneously or is it that the basic
skill has become learned so there is more freedom of attention?

>Such an entity would be better off having said nothing. :-)

I probably just have!
Last word - conditioning can't end by any process in time because
that involves the old carrot and stick, which is where we donkeys
came in!

Love,
Gary.


GARY

Hi Gene!,


>Differentiation rules, in the realm of 'name and form'.

Yes

>My fullness is my conditioning, my emptiness is my original nature.
>My fullness is in my emptiness, thus my emptiness is always more
>than my fullness.

Do 'you' believe 'you' have fullness or emptiness??!

>I would say, that the known is not limited, but rather, that the
>known is _delimited_, by none other than the unknown.

Yes, one could say that the unknown puts the known in perspective.
Knowing the limited as the limited.


>The five senses are well known, yet the sixth sense is what is
>knowing those five.

What 'is' this sixth sense? Its interesting to note that traditional
science has it basis in subject and object rational and that this
assumes the objective nature of the senses. It is assumed that there
is a seer behing the seeing and an independent object seen. There is
a system then of objective science and knowledge where it is thought
that the subject can be kept out of the picture, that the experiencer
is separate from the experience. Modern science has refuted that view
being clear that the osberver can't be set apart from the observed
and the experimenter is not separate from the experiment.

Our language structure however continues to uphold the old view and
is forever positng (posing) an obsever, a knower which is to continue
with the ghost of a 'soul'. Interesting also then is the question
of 'self observation' and 'self knowledge' which is widely touted
(touted as scientific as the science of self realisation) but from
here such attempts are always doomed to miss the mark. If observing
takes time (as implied by a separate observer in action) then its too
late, the truth of the moment has already passed, such truth not
being dependent on 'me'.

Regards,
Gary




Hi Dan!,

We posted almost the same mails only you found that all was
unconditioned and I found that all was conditioned!!

rolling around laughing,

Gary.

------

Oy vey!
Such a dilemma!

Turn off the air conditioner,
there are no conditions to be
aired.

I can't find the switch to turn it
off, it seems like a permanent
condition of conditioning.

Uh, oh.

I guess the only thing to do is
open the window!

Love,
Dan


DAN BERKOW


ED wrote:
>
>If the above statement is true, then the
>"one/knower/understander/commentator" etc.,
>
>can also not be known. Who would be making the above statement? How could it
>
>be made? To whom, and why? And, finally how would it be known that the
>
>statement is true without a knower?
>
>befuddlED

Hi Ed --

Enjoying looking at this with you!
For me, the discussion of these things isn't about
defining truth in words, but rather to point to
"being aware" ... realizing the words don't
give or define what "being aware" is -- yet
they can assist with "opening" as *this* --

So, with this understood, let's look at what it means
that a "knower/commentator/understander" cannot
be known. So much activity, including thought activity,
seems to be for the sake of a knower, doer, commentator ...
who is assumed to be there ...

Yet, when "being aware" fully, openly, is there any knower,
commentator to be found? Logically, it can be pointed out
that for a knower to be found, there would have to be a knower
of the knower, and a knower of that knower, etc. But it's
more to the point to look directly into this.

If no such "knower/commentator/doer" is found, then activity
taking place on the behalf of such a knower can cease.

You ask, "how would the statement be known to be true?"

But, without a knower being postulated, would there be a concern
to have such knowledge (about whether or not the statement is
true)?

Another way to say this is, "who you are is purely unknown."
You are never known because you can't make yourself an object
to yourself, nor are you an object for anyone else to know.

Conditioning, which we've been discussing, leads to taking the
object described by others as "me", for "me" as "I" appear to
"them" ... and to take "my" description and memory-images of
"myself" to be "me"...

As this conditioning becomes "transparent" ... it becomes clear
that "who I am" is not this conditioning, has never been an object,
has never been commented upon, and is not the commentator
or knower (which "commentator/knower" is seen to be another
version of conditioning, the known, thought-memory activation) ...

So to answer your question, "I am making this statement to you.
The statement is made like this. The reason the statement is
made is so you can hear it. The statement presents "being
aware", and doesn't attempt to give "being aware" through
verbal content, but uses the verbal content just to say
"be aware", "see through conditioning" ...

Namaste in every other way, too,
Peace,
Dan



ED


D: ...The commentator is the conditioning! Freedom from conditioning doesn't come by having the correct
commentary about conditioning, ...

E: I see, So you -Dan are not really making a correct comment about conditioning, just correcting my
incorrect comment. ;-)

Actually there is no freedom from conditioning. there is expansive and contractive conditioning. The
absolute itself is never free of the conditional. To think otherwise is the delusion of the absolutists. There's
always some debris floating around for which the "Absolute" Creator is responsible. :-)

Man thinks and God laughs,

puts a smile on my face,

hopefully yours,

Ed




JOYCE SHORT

Dashing Off...

"I, the supreme source, am pure and total consciousness. All the hundreds of
thousands of teachings transmitted by the teachers of the three dimensions,
my emanantions, are all based on effort. They aim at me. I transcend that
effort; however, by engaging in effort, they do not succeed in seeing me.
Thus I am considered the peak of the teachings.

I, the supreme source, pure and total consciousness, am called the core of
all vehicles. All teachings are nothing other than the single vehicle of
the real meaning: the universal vehicle that is the level of pure and total
consciousness.

Followers of the vehicles based on cause and effect hold diverse views about
the nature of existence. Some deem it poison and form the concept of
renuncation. Some deem it an object of mental attachment and develop the
principle of non attachment. Some deem it as something that needs to be
purified. Some deem the nature of mind is pure but needs to be realized
through approaches and accomplishments. Rending concepts that presuppose the
existence of something other than me, I, the supreme source, pure and total
consciousness, break the chain of the passions that issue from
discriminating thoughts.

The phenomena of existence are only myself! As all is already accomplished
in me, I, that am the source, all is in a state of absolute equality: I that
am equality have no need to enter into action to produce another "equality".

Instead of aiming for enlightenment, one has to understand the nature of
one's mind beyond action. On examining one's mind, one finds nothing, yet at
the same time there is clarity that is ever present. It does not manifest
concretely, yet its essence is all pervading; this is the way it's nature
presents itself.

I am the nature of potentiality of energy and teach that the nature of
consciousness is the source of all. To those attracted by oneness, I teach
that ineffable essence is one alone. As all phenomena are contained in the
single essence, I teach that the condition of pure and total consciousness,
the true nature of mind, is the source of all. Whereas, to those attracted
by multiplicity, I teach the infinite variety that manifests from me: it too
is my nature. One is my essence. Two is my manifestation, the multiplicity
of created phenomena. Numbers start from one and two, but their end cannot
be determined. The ineffable is the ultimate source of this existence; this
ineffable essence is the one. One is the supreme source, pure and total
consciousness. The phenomena of creation are duality.

There is nothing in this nature that is not perfect. One is perfect. Two
is perfect, everything is perfect. All actions are easy because they are
already accomplished and perfect. "One is perfect" signifies perfection is
pure and total consciousness. "Two is perfect", signifies perfection is the
manifestation of oneness. Everything is perfect" signifies perfection in
completeness."

Love,
Joyce



GARY & DAN

Hi Gary !


>Hi Dan!,
>
>Many good remarks about beyond science!
>(almost typed many god remarks!!)
>
>Some further add ons:
>
>Yes science as it is practised is mainly concerned with control and it is in
>the hands of technicians and politicians.

In fact, science depends on controlling conditions that affect
variables, so as to have repeatable experiments that show cause and
effect relations,
allowing hypotheses to be rejected.

If there is no control and no way to show something that repeats, there
can't be science.


>Once upon a time there was
>philosophy, which included science, religion and wisdom in general. In our
>specialised times 'scientists' mostly don't look at the philosophical
>implications they are paid according to the funding the government sees fit.
>So most science is developed by those with identity issues, hence the bombs
>etc etc.

Once upon a time, indeed.
And with no time involved, there can be no philosophy, science,
or religion, and nothing to make wise remarks about (nor wise-ass
remarks for that matter).


>So beyond science we look at the whole and at the limitations and the place
>of the unknown, at identity and relationships.Science is not generally
>concerned with value that is for another department.

Science values its version of objectivity, which claims
to have a value-free way of measuring and recording facts.

I agree - we are looking at the whole.

My, my -- look at this whole I am.
It is looking at itself and sees nothing but itself.
It must indeed be whole.
In fact, when it looks, it looks simultaneously
everywhere and nowhere.
Wholey, wholey, wholey, is YHVH of totality!



>Beyond science where is the heart. Where is the heart in all our
>conceptualising and knowing. Because if that does not have its place all the
>non-dual philosophy in the world won't count for much, won't satisfy. The
>heart I would say is brought out in the change in relationship from division
>to wholeness, from self to no-self. As a 'somebody' going 'somewhere' there
>is little space for love but as nobody, as nothing, there is no comparison,
>no competition with another.

Yes. Not a love done to get something or give something
or get somewhere. Just wholeness, meaning unsplitness.
Even partiality is this wholeness.
Even a fragment is totality.

Finally, there's neither knowing nor heart.

And neither words nor feelings have never gone *there* ...


>This heart is there when I am not, when I don't know, when we share sweet
>mystery together.

And where even mystery ends, with nothing to know or be known,
nothing to wonder about -- *here am I*

Truly unknown, not even a sense of mystery to
know about!

Love,
Dan

top of page