Click here to go to the next issue.

Friday, October 26

ERIC BLACKSTEAD

Dear Dan (& Friends),

Ennio Marricone, the Flamenco nondualist asks,
"When did a confirmed Advaitist decide that "that"
was "this"? I understand "You are That", but I'm
still working on "You are This".

DAN BERKOW

Yes, exactly.

This is *this* is this.

The subtlety of the utterly obvious
and unveiled.

As this is *this*, there is no
this that is not *That*, and
every this is entirely *That*,
so that each this is every
that and every that is *this* ...

<Whistling Ennio>

____________________________________________________________________

JAN BARENDRECHT

on a hazy day
sky and ocean seem to play
seek the borderline

those who know won't tell
birds of prey in brown
and black
silence is their way

no sound to be heard
silence and a borderline?
silence does not play
_______________________________________________________________________

DAN BERKOW

Reality is beyond the division
subject/object.

There is no ignorance except
when subject/object is taken
as if true.

There is no one to free from ignorance,
for that subject doesn't exist, and
the object "ignorance" from which to
be free, doesn't exist.

There is no "until" unless you have
accepted a subject/object separation
as real.

So, the only thing to do is be clear that
subject/object division is illusory,
based on memory and without substance.
This includes the
division into a "Dan" who once didn't
know something and now knows something,
and a "Matthew" who knows whatever he knows.

All previous reality, identity,
and time dissolves as memory
has no basis for the divisions maintained,
particularly subject/object.

The reason the subject/object division is
taken as real is, essentially, because
it seems real until its self-validating
structures are questioned.

The more deeply you question, the
more you reveal, the more you reveal,
the deeper the question.

You are the question and the answer,
beyond a subject or object.

______________________________________________________________________

JB789

.. gee, this one is difficult to put in words ..

All this ego-business, that we are so intersted in
to enquire into and tear to pieces.. I wonder now,
what is actually the point ?..

For example, Gary writes : "So is there anything
substantial to base memory on apart from other
memories? What is memory then but a conceptual
picture, an idealized form." He questions whether
Time is just a concept. It seems so. But how about,
"memory, picture, substantial", are these not Also
concepts ? If so, are we not still swimming in the
same 'soup' ? Saying that the soup-structure is not
'real', is part of the soup.. no?

But my question is .. what Is wrong with this
'soup' ? I am identified with the body.. take care
of it and if someone attacks I will probably do
what I can to protect it. It might be Mother
Nature's mechanics. What's wrong with that ? .. or
with the brain's preference for this or that,.. or
even making a picture of a person who is always
agressive, and so being on the watch. In that might
be involved anger even prejudice .. it does not
sound terribly nice .. but these soup-fragments Are
there, functioning for some purpose, to protect the
inner universe that extends to the skin. I do not
recall, 'me'/ego putting these there. And even if
it did/does, apart from the ego's becoming a
4-letter word, .. what's wrong with it ? But then,
there come the spiritual/enlightened ones, who tell
us :"Yes but listen.. living like that (as ego)
might be good for the protection of your personal
universe, BUT it separates/isolates you from THE
Universe. So leave your ego, and become a beatiful
and blissful Universal Identity". .. and being
tempted, the circus of 'spiritual' fragments
looking at and battling with and interpretting the
'not so spiritual' ones, begins. So now, one is
still in the soup, and the difference between a
spiritual-soup and the normal-soup being that the
spir.-soup has incorporated a tribe of
anti-normal-soup Anarchists .. which gives its own
extra aches to the head. And the play goes on.

And I wonder, whether the anti-normal-soup
'spiritual' gang, is of any benefit or brings a
mere extra complication to life ?

Why let that gang in, to begin with ?!

You might say.. "well you have already answered
that yourself.. 'cause that's the way mother nature
made you.. so what's wrong with that .. why make a
problem out of it ?" But the fact is that one does
make a 'problem' out of it.. and you might say "so
what's wrong with that ?.. it is as it is".

Well maybe that's "the end of the famous rope".. or
maybe not.. maybe just a big despair-'headache'..
and you might say : "so why do you make a problem
out of it ? .. he he .." So I just go home and turn
on the TV. Surrendering to my normal-soup. But the
'spiritual gang' is watching too.. commenting. But
if I turn on the TV volume high enough,.. I cannot
hear its comments so clearly any longer. And the
neigbour's Mother Nature makes him to come and kick
butt .. Now, That's a problem !

So .. what then ?!

I can hear you whisper "this chap is certainly Not
at the eotr.." .. So I say "what's wrong with that
?". And you say "your post says after all 'I was
Thinking'.. well, _That's_ your problem !" Yes but,
I thought you said why make problem out of anything
?!.. "Well, if you do not want to be the Universal
Self, that's your problem.." So back to square one.
No ?!

That was a monologue.. comments welcome.

GARY MERRILL

Yes I think I ended up saying it was all
conceptual. And to say 'conceptual' is still
conceptual. So there is no good guy or bad guy. I
think the mind would like it all worked out that
way so that it has a position and can keep
mechanically on in opposition.

If there is such a thing as 'love' which would be
the point rather than an intellectual exercise in
seeing the limitations of 'truth' then it would not
be bound by any concept or found (in time) in any
system. We have the system of 'conceptualising', a
system of 'non-conceptualising' would be the same
game.

So at the end of time, at the end of becoming,
changing; at the end of opposition, which is
implied in pursuit of any form, is there love?
Otherwise all our talk will not be enough.


MICHAEL READ


Ego! Who gives a rats ass! heeheehee

Yup, the so-called spiritual ones sure do give a
lot of weight (at times) to the BATTLE AGAINST THE
EGO. What a farce...

Ego is just a mechanism, a tool, for survival. Yah?
It is a natural thingy. Nothing to be afraid of.
Sure, it (ego) can become out of balance, so to
speak. No one cares for an ego-maniac - they tend
to be such boors. hohoho

Hmm... Just thought of something. Try this -
substitute the word elbow for the word ego. OK?
And, nose for the word truth.

Now, dear seeker, you must overcome the elbow to
find the nose.

Silly, isn't it?

JB789

thanks Michael, very clear ..

And yet (sorry :)) .. if overcoming the elbow will
Not bring me to the nose, how then, shall I
discover it ?

My 'something' says : 'by Not trying to overcome
anything.' But the trying Is happening.. say I, So
how is it going to stop, if it is not overcome by
something ? Is it going to stop if I just go thru
life stumbling while chanting my daily (b)la-(b)la
? "Well" 'something' says..: "ask Michael". But
Michael will call me a 'seeker' and say it's silly
... :o( "of course you're silly ! .. Michael will
just say : hohoho ".

Is that right Michael ? just : hohoho ?! :( Or
something a bit less nondualistic ? :)

GRACIE

i was also thinking, and i dont think time ends.
living creatures will lose their bodily forms, but
time will continue and consciousness will continue
with it i think. if what we know as time ceases to
exist, who or what would/could cause such a massive
change in the natural order of things? everything
that lives must age and die eventually, without
what we refer to as time, how would this be
accomplished? i think that it may be denoted
differently when we move beyond our bodily
constraints, but still exist. consider, even here
time is denoted differently in the ages of humans
and dogs. a dog is said to age 7 years to 1 human
year and to Grandfather(God), 10,000 years may be
but a day. what we refer to as time seems to be
timeless, it just varies in its denotation
depending on where we are in the great circle.


______________________________________________________________________

MICHAEL READ

turn attention away
from the toys of childhood
the things you suppose you want
and need

turn attention onto attention
onto awareness itself
then understanding dawns
and joy reigns supreme

whether you awaken
or remain in slumberous dream
you are the eternal awareness
of this there is no doubt

awareness is in bondage to itself
compassion and acceptance,
what else is there?
only shadows and reflections
of that eternal light

belief fails
in the passion
of understanding

peace - and pass the love around - michael

_______________________________________________________________________

MATTHEW FILES

If you can live without caffeine,

If you can be cheerful, ignoring aches and pains,

If you can resist complaining,

If you can eat the same food every day and be
grateful for it,

If you can understand when your loved ones are too
busy to give you time any time,

If you can overlook it when those you love take it
out on you when, though no fault of your own,
something goes wrong,

If yo can take criticism and blame without
resentment,If you can ignore a friends limited
education and never correct him/her,

If you can resist treating a rich friend better
than a poor friend,

If you can face the world without lies and deciet,

If you can conquer tension without medical help,

If you can relax without liquor,

If you can sleep without the aid of drugs,

If you can honestly say that deep in your heart you
have no prejudice against creed, color religion,
gender, or politics,

THEN, you have ALMOST reached the same level of
developement as your dog.

top of page