 |
| |
Welcome ye Grand Subscribers and Seekers of Truth and Inner Awareness.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ March 2004 - Page 1 ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Subject: Morning thought
From: Sharlene <sharlene@light-mission.org>
Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2004 08:54:32 -0800
Been awhile since anyone has written anything and so I would toss this morning thought out there for discussion.
It's all about enlightenment.
So many think that enlightenment is awareness of what is around you at any given moment. They think enlightenment is who and what state you are in within those moments of awareness. And that is partially it. And yet, to once again use mushroom picking as an example. To get into the state where you are aware of all that is around you, the sounds, the air, the environment, the trees, the grounds, and all the signs of the hidden mushrooms under the moss. That is focus, and that is what makes up the awareness, and what some deem as enlightenment in the real world. And yet, there is one more level that is instantaneous to the moment, and that level is the one where all this takes place, without attachment to it within the moment. Although you are aware, you are not aware of being aware. There is no you to be aware of. All just is what it is with no recognition to it and no attachment to it. The awe and the humility one feels about the experience comes after when it is a remembrance and not what is within the moment. It is the brain putting labels and emotions into it.
Enlightenment is like that. It is the space where you no longer exist or relate the situation to the self. Awareness is the space that you become aware of what is going on , in all levels around you, but you know or recognize that you are being aware. And that is the base of self inquiry. Awareness is not enlightenment.
and thats my thought to this point. lol any one want to add to take away my thought with some of your own? MA?
Shar
Subject: RE: Morning thought
From: Ma <MaheshPradeep@dakwala.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2004 16:21:33 -0800
Hello Sharlene, ->Been awhile since anyone has written anything and so I would toss this ->morning thought out there for discussion.
Yes this list is quite sparse on posts. But then, silence is better than a lot of personal chatter. Meaningful posts from the heart are far more enjoyable and rewarding.
->It's all about enlightenment.
Really? 'I' would not 'know'. And why should 'I'. In fact 'I' couldn't. Much is made of enlightenment, and many tales told of such, definitions and such, but since 'I' an not 'I' can only listen to the definitions. Though feeble they sound.
"Suppose you know the definitions of all substances and their derivatives, what good is this to you? Know the true definition of yourself. That is indispensable. Then, when you know your own definition, flee from it, that you may attain to the One who cannot be defined, O sifter of the dust." - Rumi
'I' am the 'experiencer' experiencing an experience, not apart from the experience. If that experience is enlightenment then 'I' would be the experience of enlightenment but since 'I' and the experience are not apart 'I' could never 'know' the difference from the experience and enlightenment. Even in retrospect, 'I' still being the experience (whether enlightenment or not) 'I' could not honestly say that enlightenment took place. Our definitions are not that which we define with those definitions, so 'I' would still have no clue as to this much flaunted word 'enlightenment'.
It seems more about the experiencer ('I') being the experience regardless of what anyone calls it. When we 'are' 'what is' there can be nothing else since 'what is' is all there is. Only the onlooker can see some difference, but even then any definition is feeble as to what the experiencer is experiencing though the onlooker likes to 'guess'. But 'guesses' are not 'reality' so even the onlooker can't be honest about what difference is seen.
As you say, 'I' can be 'aware'. And can even relate experiences that 'I' am experiencing even while the experience occurs. Yet what would 'I' call the experience other than the experience? Onlookers with their influenced definitions might call the experience just about anything they choose, perhaps even 'enlightenment'. But you see they don't 'know' either, they only 'guess'. So, 'honestly', can anyone actually call anything 'enlightenment'? As a 'fact'? All 'I' can say is that experiencing is very 'enlightening'. As Rumi says, 'I' can really only 'know' myself and anything else is a bunch of definitions stored away in 'baggage' we hike around with.
Good topic you brought up, though 'I' could not be of much help in the matter because 'I' can only experience the 'present' experience which is replying to your post. Because, again, 'I' can only guess about anything other than the 'present' since that is all there is. But thank you for bringing up an interesting topic. Perhaps others may have some guesses too.
Subject: Re: Morning thought
From: ejLight@light-mission.org (E.J.)
Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2004 04:59:30 GMT
Greetings Sharlene and Ma and all, ->It's all about enlightenment.
Hopefully it is okay to address just this one line of two great posts. Both of which have very good points, so this reply is only an addition to the previous offerings on this matter of Enlightenment.
It seems that the word "Enlightenment" implies such a static condition or *end goal*. Which does not seem to be the case when investigating those icons we mere mortals look to for some Pointers. They all seem to Point to the Fact that Enlightenment is a verb (action word) rather than a noun (name of some *thing*). That is, a never ending Journey Walking along the Path of Enlightenment. It would seem that when one becomes Enlightened, then *what's next*, if it were a static end-goal *position*. None, the likes of Siddhartha or Jesus or Muhammad, have ever said that there was some *end* in sight so it would seem that there is not one. If there was a goal then Enlightenment would be a *reward*, playing right into the conditioned pleasure/pain game. So it would seem that the never ending Journey would be far more Enjoyable than setting there twiddling our thumbs upon reaching the Enlightenment goal. At least that is what it seems from here.
Is not the fun in the chase? The hound seems to be quite satisfied in just treeing the fox. Thus "'I'" (as Ma said) do not really want Enlightenment IF it is an end-game. What fun is that?
Subject: Re: Morning thought
From: "belinda" <tink@nts-online.net>
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 23:26:04 -0600
If you had been enlightened than you frame of mind wouldn't be the same. Obviously you have not been and are in search of or you wouldn't refer to it as the "end". ----- Original Message ----- From: "E.J." <ejLight@light-mission.org> To: "Let There Be Light -- Always In All Ways" <MissionOfLight-l@Light-Mission.org> Sent: Monday, March 08, 2004 10:59 PM Subject: Re: Morning thought
Subject: Re: Morning thought/belinda
From: "Johannes Kieding" <lmrepresentative@hotmail.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2004 06:36:33 +0000
Belinda, to me it looked like EJ was saying the very opposite, that there is NO *end* in the enlightenment journey.
Subject: Re: Morning thought
From: ejLight@light-mission.org (E.J.)
Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2004 07:00:26 GMT
Greetings Belinda, you wrote: ->If you had been enlightened than you frame of mind wouldn't be the same. ->Obviously you have not been and are in search of or you wouldn't refer to it ->as the "end".
Though it seems that something was missed, it is True that no "end" goal has been reached here. The Present is an ongoing ever anew Moment to Moment Direct Experience of Life Lived. Enlightenment? Who knows? Who cares? Presently there is NoThing other than What-IS. And though it has been tried to be fathomed, it seems to escape all intellectual and even mental logical prowess. Such thinking just causes headaches so that was given up as a lost cause. Who likes headaches? Not worth it. Thus the so called Seeking was given up also. That also was a headache. So it would seem that Enlightenment is just another word for no conditioned notions left to get rid of. Such as *Blank*, Empty, Void, Still, Silent, Awake, Clear. Nada, just Look in Wonderment at the Miracle that IS. Without any goal or reward or even intention involved. Just *there it IS*, without even a name. Can not say as to the so called Enlightenment, but the continually ever anew Journey is quite Pathless and Wayless and Definitionless and even Mindless.
But for curiosity's sake, Enlightenment is different than what? And what frame of mind is Enlightenment?
Subject: Re: Morning thought
From: Sharlene <sharlene@light-mission.org>
Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2004 05:05:24 -0800
>Greetings Sharlene and Ma and all,
Good morning EJ, and all that is around this morning, evening whatever the case.
> That is, a never ending Journey Walking along the >Path of Enlightenment.
There is no such thing as enlightenment. Enlightenment is no-thing. Even the path is an illusion. How can it be reality, when there is no place to go?
> None, the >likes of Siddhartha or Jesus or Muhammad, have ever said that there was >some *end* in sight so it would seem that there is not one.
Guess I don't read enough. lol, and what I have read in the past, seems very little sticks to the mind. Not enough glue. Seriously though, I never read much that warrants the usage of memory. What one needs to know, is always there when you need it. Or so it seems.
> So it would seem that the never ending >Journey would be far more Enjoyable than setting there twiddling our thumbs >upon reaching the Enlightenment goal. At least that is what it seems from >here.
I really have a hard time understanding why people sit in meditation for hours on end. Am I missing something? You try and tell them that each moment can be their meditation and they think you are strange or deluded. And what is the point of gurus sitting with a flock at their feet for hours? Never could figure that one out. But then could never figure out why thousands would flock to India in search of a guru that sits for hours on end either. Other than to soak in their energy like a psychic vampire and call the high, enlightenment.
> Is not the fun in the chase? The hound seems to be quite satisfied in >just treeing the fox.
Or the mighty mushroom, the fun is in the seeking and it is never ending fun. As if wearing rain gear, getting cold, climbing mountains and getting filthy is fun. Yet, somehow it is. I seem to gravitate to the bush for grounding and balancing when life begins to overwhelm me.
>Thus "'I'" (as Ma said) do not really want >Enlightenment IF it is an end-game. What fun is that?
Is there ever an end to anything when everything is infinite? To think otherwise would be living in duality.
Subject: RE: Morning thought
From: Sharlene <sharlene@light-mission.org>
Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2004 04:38:07 -0800
>Hello Sharlene,
Good morning Ma and everyone. I knew there were some voices somewhere.
>Yes this list is quite sparse on posts. But then, silence is better than >a lot of personal chatter.
Thats why this is like home and one goes visiting to the others.
> Meaningful posts from the heart are far more >enjoyable and rewarding.
Yes.
>->It's all about enlightenment. >Really?
Well, when I had the thought it was. Thoughts seem to fly by at times and others seem to want to be discussed, if only for a moment. :)
>'I' would not 'know'. And why should 'I'. In fact 'I' couldn't.
I think no one really knows. It seems to be a concept or desire, and yet if was to happen, one would not recognize it or realize it.
>Much is made of enlightenment, and many tales told of such, definitions >and such, but since 'I' an not 'I' can only listen to the definitions. >Though feeble they sound.
ha ha, they do indeed and yet the word makes many conversations. I wonder who coined the word in the first place. Like what is the history of the word? Who was the first to label that state of being for their own convince and need for a box to put others in. Ah, the delight of the first morning coffee.
>"Suppose you know the definitions of all substances >and their derivatives, >what good is this to you?
Actually, none of that would make any difference, other than more intellectual knowledge. Understanding can only come from the actual experience. And once experienced becomes beyond explanation or the need for explanation. .
>Know the true definition of yourself. >That is indispensable. >Then, when you know your own definition, flee from it, >that you may attain to the One who cannot be defined, >O sifter of the dust." - Rumi
Ah so, dust through a sifter, what remains is no-thing.
>'I' am the 'experiencer' experiencing an experience, not apart from the >experience. If that experience is enlightenment then 'I' would be the >experience of enlightenment but since 'I' and the experience are not >apart 'I' could never 'know' the difference from the experience and >enlightenment.
Eloquently spoken.
>Even in retrospect, 'I' still being the experience >(whether enlightenment or not) 'I' could not honestly say that >enlightenment took place.
Yes. Thats basically my point. When one listens to others speak about it, they talk about it as if it is recognizable. When you hear others speak about their teachers and Gurus as being enlightened, and being in shock at their animalistic behaviors, desires, etc. one questions the validity of it all. I am not sure what they have experienced, or what criteria makes them a so called wise man/women, when the base of being, does not show anything wise about them, beyond their words. As they say, actions sometimes speak louder than words. So my point in a non clear way, was, how can one be enlightened when one is still residing in the base wiring of survival needs and desires? The fight or flight, or the needs for devotees and followers? And this need is evident when they have these huge gatherings and put some fancy name on them. When all it is , is a way to rake in cash for fancy cars, and huge mansions. What happened to enlightenment as they speak of it? And thats not my point in total either, to take it one step farther, perhaps enlightenment had been experienced for a moment, and perhaps a part of that moment remained as memory after the moment was over, you don't remember the experience, only the memory of that experience. Which of course is only explained by ones concepts of what enlightenment is or thought of to be. Can you follow this, or is it total circle speak? lol
>Our definitions are not that which we define >with those definitions, so 'I' would still have no clue as to this much >flaunted word 'enlightenment'.
Me either, and yet, for me, in the passing thoughts, I think I get a glimpse of what it is not. And thats the best I can do at the moment. I can't speak about what it is, because I don't know what it is. And if I do experience it, there will be no one around to tell you about it. :)
>It seems more about the experiencer ('I') being the experience >regardless of what anyone calls it. When we 'are' 'what is' there can be >nothing else since 'what is' is all there is.
Yes, mindless moments. Mindless moments seem to not register in the mind so one is not aware of experiencing them, you can speak of being in that groove, and yet, can not speak about that experience of being in that groove. I have moments of being there, recognize being there as an afterthought, but not remaining there. Can't seem to get past all the inner wiring and not always aware of what the inner wiring is when it is in play. And yet to deal with certain things and experiences I am aware of playing the role or part in the experience. It somehow seems that one has to pretend to be one way or another, as to be understood, or make a point. . One has to relate to some others in a way they understand. And you watch yourself playing this role, speaking in terms they can relate to, and you watch the words form in your mind before you speak them. It's like having your own interpreter in your head.
And speaking of head and minds, I had the strangest of nights a few days ago. and I interrupt this program, with a commercial, :) Usually when I go to bed, I fall asleep immediately, no dreams, no thoughts, no tossing and turning, Just sleep. This one night though, I knew I was asleep, I was aware of sleeping, I was watching myself and talking to myself about being asleep, and yet, the inner conversation didn't quit. It was like there were at least three of me. So there was the one sleeping, the one watching the sleep and being aware of the sleep, talking to another one, who was questioning about being asleep. I was aware of that it was me, and yet it wasn't me. Me was sleeping. and that is insane. lol but I woke up feeling rested. I dunno. These things don't happen very often, but when they do, there is no way I can understand it or really remember the whole conversation. anyway, back to the show at hand.
>Only the onlooker can see >some difference, but even then any definition is feeble as to what the >experiencer is experiencing though the onlooker likes to 'guess'. But >'guesses' are not 'reality' so even the onlooker can't be honest about >what difference is seen.
Like my strange night. I can only guess, and that is not reality of what really was. Only my interpretation of it.
>As you say, 'I' can be 'aware'. And can even relate experiences that 'I' >am experiencing even while the experience occurs. Yet what would 'I' >call the experience other than the experience?
Exactly. yes.
>Onlookers with their >influenced definitions might call the experience just about anything >they choose, perhaps even 'enlightenment'.
It's a hook. Another thing to cling to as a hope it's all true. A desire for something better or more romantic than what is within the moment.
>But you see they don't 'know' >either, they only 'guess'. So, 'honestly', can anyone actually call >anything 'enlightenment'?
I dunno. It's always being tried.
>As a 'fact'? All 'I' can say is that >experiencing is very 'enlightening'.
lol. very good.
>As Rumi says, 'I' can really only >'know' myself and anything else is a bunch of definitions stored away in >'baggage' we hike around with.
Yes, and I am getting to know me, with every new experience. As are others around me. Experiencing the death of both parents, has opened myself to experiences I haven't before experienced. I used to wonder how I would handle such things. And yet, one never knows until one is in the experience. In the same vein, how does one really know their issues until they arise and we become aware of them?
>Good topic you brought up, though 'I' could not be of much help in the >matter because 'I' can only experience the 'present' experience which is >replying to your post.
Always nice to hear from you speaking from your moment of experiencing.
>Because, again, 'I' can only guess about anything >other than the 'present' since that is all there is. But thank you for >bringing up an interesting topic. Perhaps others may have some guesses >too.
Perhaps. :)
Subject: RE: Morning thought
From: Ma <MaheshPradeep@dakwala.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2004 20:19:38 -0800
RE: Morning thought Hello Sharlene, ->Good morning Ma and everyone. ->I knew there were some voices somewhere. -> ->>Yes this list is quite sparse on posts. But then, silence is better than ->>a lot of personal chatter. -> ->Thats why this is like home and one goes visiting to the others.
Yes, good description.
->>->It's all about enlightenment. ->>Really? -> ->Well, when I had the thought it was. Thoughts seem to fly by at times and ->others seem to want to be discussed, if only for a moment. :)
Ah, flies, pesky. Like thoughts.
->>'I' would not 'know'. And why should 'I'. In fact 'I' couldn't. -> ->I think no one really knows. It seems to be a concept or desire, and yet if ->was to happen, one would not recognize it or realize it.
That's what the 'real ones' seem to be 'pointing' to.
->>Much is made of enlightenment, and many tales told of such, definitions ->>and such, but since 'I' an not 'I' can only listen to the definitions. ->>Though feeble they sound. -> ->ha ha, they do indeed and yet the word makes many conversations. ->I wonder who coined the word in the first place. Like what is the history ->of the word? Who was the first to label that state of being for their own ->convince and need for a box to put others in. ->Ah, the delight of the first morning coffee.
A wonderment perhaps to many. Hasn't seemed to "fly" around here. No flies at 'present'.
->>"Suppose you know the definitions of all substances ->>and their derivatives, ->>what good is this to you? -> ->Actually, none of that would make any difference, other than more ->intellectual knowledge. Understanding can only come from the actual ->experience. And once experienced becomes beyond explanation or the need for ->explanation. .
So he said. It's good that he has agreed with you.
->>Know the true definition of yourself. ->>That is indispensable. ->>Then, when you know your own definition, flee from it, ->>that you may attain to the One who cannot be defined, ->>O sifter of the dust." - Rumi -> ->Ah so, dust through a sifter, what remains is no-thing.
Shifters and sifter and parrots and carrots, all seem to 'be' only 'one'.
->>'I' am the 'experiencer' experiencing an experience, not apart from the ->>experience. If that experience is enlightenment then 'I' would be the ->>experience of enlightenment but since 'I' and the experience are not ->>apart 'I' could never 'know' the difference from the experience and ->>enlightenment. -> ->Eloquently spoken. -> ->>Even in retrospect, 'I' still being the experience ->>(whether enlightenment or not) 'I' could not honestly say that ->>enlightenment took place. -> ->Yes. Thats basically my point. When one listens to others speak about it, ->they talk about it as if it is recognizable.
And separate from them. When it's them all the time but don't see that. How can they 'be' it and recognize it? Does the eye see itself?
->When you hear others speak about their teachers and Gurus as being ->enlightened, and being in shock at their animalistic behaviors, desires, etc. ->one questions the validity of it all.
Ha ha ha, yes that's always so funny. The stage props look so good and inviting but when a wind comes along and the props fall over everyone has a lost look on their face. That's the funniest look.
->I am not sure what they have experienced, or what criteria makes them a so ->called wise man/women, when the base of being, does not show anything wise ->about them, beyond their words. As they say, actions sometimes speak louder ->than words.
Absolutely. Buddha said believe nothing even if he said it. He said to take his words and see if they make a difference in their lives first. Then they will know and won't have to believe anyway.
->So my point in a non clear way, was, how can one be enlightened when one is ->still residing in the base wiring of survival needs and desires?
Very clear my dear. And very true. The Buddha asked 'enlightenment' one time to go look in the mirror. Enlightenment came back to Buddha and said that the Buddha had tricked him because he didn't see anything in the mirror. So it seems that if there is 'enlightenment' there isn't anything else because everything else is gone.
-> The fight ->or flight, or the needs for devotees and followers? And this need is ->evident when they have these huge gatherings and put some fancy name on ->them. When all it is , is a way to rake in cash for fancy cars, and huge ->mansions.
Ha ha ha, yes much western gold was shipped to the east. But it helped both west and east economy. In the world of economics do you always get what you pay for?
->What happened to enlightenment as they speak of it?
Close your eyes and hold out your hand. Do you feel the space in your hand? Imagine the space in your hand. Feel the space in your hand. When you open your eyes do you see the space in your hand?
->And thats not my point in total either, to take it one step farther, ->perhaps enlightenment had been experienced for a moment, and perhaps a part ->of that moment remained as memory after the moment was over, you don't ->remember the experience, only the memory of that experience.
You can't remember the 'moment' because it is already gone, yet the experience is memory itself because it too is gone. All that isn't 'present' is memory. Clinging to the memory keeps it in remembrance, likewise the 'moment'. But never 'present'. A picture fading with each passing 'moment'. Eventually the picture gets fuzzy and blurry so even the memory is lacking. So you are agreed with here.
->Which of course is only explained by ones concepts of what enlightenment is ->or thought of to be.
Is there language without concepts? Not the spoken word anyway. Though concepts are problems they aren't the problem. The problem is thinking that 'enlightenment' can be explained at all. Explain the unexplainable? Okay.
->Can you follow this, or is it total circle speak? lol
Sounded pretty straight forward from here.
->>Our definitions are not that which we define ->>with those definitions, so 'I' would still have no clue as to this much ->>flaunted word 'enlightenment'. -> ->Me either, and yet, for me, in the passing thoughts, I think I get a ->glimpse of what it is not. And thats the best I can do at the moment. I ->can't speak about what it is, because I don't know what it is. And if I do ->experience it, there will be no one around to tell you about it. :)
Ha ha ha, true. Shanti.
->>It seems more about the experiencer ('I') being the experience ->>regardless of what anyone calls it. When we 'are' 'what is' there can be ->>nothing else since 'what is' is all there is. -> ->Yes, mindless moments. Mindless moments seem to not register in the mind so ->one is not aware of experiencing them, you can speak of being in that ->groove, and yet, can not speak about that experience of being in that groove.
But you can while "in the groove". After the fact is just memory.
->I have moments of being there, recognize being there as an afterthought, ->but not remaining there. Can't seem to get past all the inner wiring and ->not always aware of what the inner wiring is when it is in play.
"There"? Where is "there"? Someplace? Do you see this "inner wiring"? Do you know it? Is it your friend? It hasn't any force of its own. It doesn't cling to you. It is let play, but what force gives it power to play? There's only you, either 'present' or not.
->And yet to deal with certain things and experiences I am aware of playing ->the role or part in the experience. It somehow seems that one has to ->pretend to be one way or another, as to be understood, or make a point. .
Many "things" are hard to deal with but they are only "things". What are "things"? Where do they come from? Where do they get their life? There is only you, either 'present' or not. Pretence, is that not what all the world is? We should be part of that pretence? Do you really have time for such games? Does it matter whether anyone understands? Is it necessary to make a point? What "wiring" is that?
->One has to relate to some others in a way they understand. And you watch ->yourself playing this role, speaking in terms they can relate to, and you ->watch the words form in your mind before you speak them. It's like having ->your own interpreter in your head.
The inner interpreter is never 'present'. When 'present' there is no interpretation but just relating 'what is'. Either it is understood or isn't. What is your investment? Not being 'present' isn't worth worrying about what is understood or isn't. If they want to understand they will and if they don't they won't, so it isn't worth worrying about.
->And speaking of head and minds, I had the strangest of nights a few days ->ago. and I interrupt this program, with a commercial, :) ->Usually when I go to bed, I fall asleep immediately, no dreams, no ->thoughts, no tossing and turning, Just sleep. ->This one night though, I knew I was asleep, I was aware of sleeping, I was ->watching myself and talking to myself about being asleep, and yet, the ->inner conversation didn't quit. It was like there were at least three of me. ->So there was the one sleeping, the one watching the sleep and being aware ->of the sleep, talking to another one, who was questioning about being asleep. ->I was aware of that it was me, and yet it wasn't me. Me was sleeping. ->and that is insane. lol but I woke up feeling rested. I dunno. These things ->don't happen very often, but when they do, there is no way I can understand ->it or really remember the whole conversation. anyway, back to the show at ->hand.
Thank you for the commercial break.
->>Only the onlooker can see ->>some difference, but even then any definition is feeble as to what the ->>experiencer is experiencing though the onlooker likes to 'guess'. But ->>'guesses' are not 'reality' so even the onlooker can't be honest about ->>what difference is seen. -> ->Like my strange night. I can only guess, and that is not reality of what ->really was. Only my interpretation of it.
Why guess? Why not wait until you know? Guessing is conceptualization at its finest. Quite dualistic. Too much guessing leads to confusion.
->>As you say, 'I' can be 'aware'. And can even relate experiences that 'I' ->>am experiencing even while the experience occurs. Yet what would 'I' ->>call the experience other than the experience? -> ->Exactly. yes. -> ->>Onlookers with their ->>influenced definitions might call the experience just about anything ->>they choose, perhaps even 'enlightenment'. -> ->It's a hook. Another thing to cling to as a hope it's all true. A desire ->for something better or more romantic than what is within the moment.
A hook if you cling to it, if you don't cling to the views of the onlookers it's just an interpretation of the onlooker. Don't take what onlookers say personally. Are they an authority with their influenced definitions? Who is it who cares?
->>But you see they don't 'know' ->>either, they only 'guess'. So, 'honestly', can anyone actually call ->>anything 'enlightenment'? -> ->I dunno. It's always being tried.
Try try as they may, a rose will never pass for a prune to a rose. The rose knows a rose from a prune.
->>As a 'fact'? All 'I' can say is that ->>experiencing is very 'enlightening'. -> ->lol. very good. -> ->>As Rumi says, 'I' can really only ->>'know' myself and anything else is a bunch of definitions stored away in ->>'baggage' we hike around with. -> ->Yes, and I am getting to know me, with every new experience. ->As are others around me. Experiencing the death of both parents, has opened ->myself to experiences I haven't before experienced. I used to wonder how I ->would handle such things. And yet, one never knows until one is in the ->experience. In the same vein, how does one really know their issues until ->they arise and we become aware of them?
One can't know anything, all they can do is 'watch' arising thoughts as they arise and cut them off at the knees. Not before they arise or after they arise but only as they arise any given 'moment'. Then you know. But if you let them arise and brush them off and don't address them they will return over and over again.
->>Good topic you brought up, though 'I' could not be of much help in the ->>matter because 'I' can only experience the 'present' experience which is ->>replying to your post. -> ->Always nice to hear from you speaking from your moment of experiencing.
"Your" 'moment'? 'I' have no 'moment'. There is simply only one available so no one can have their own. But even that is unknown because the 'moment' can't be remembered. It is lived (experienced) but not remembered. Always nice to here you too.
->>Because, again, 'I' can only guess about anything ->>other than the 'present' since that is all there is. But thank you for ->>bringing up an interesting topic. Perhaps others may have some guesses ->>too. -> ->Perhaps. :)
Subject: Re: Morning thought
From: ejLight@light-mission.org (E.J.)
Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2004 20:54:53 GMT
Greetings Sharlene, you wrote: ->>Greetings Sharlene and Ma and all, -> ->Good morning EJ, and all that is around this morning, evening whatever the ->case. -> ->> That is, a never ending Journey Walking along the ->>Path of Enlightenment. -> ->There is no such thing as enlightenment. Enlightenment is no-thing. Even ->the path is an illusion. How can it be reality, when there is no place to go?
This is True, that is why it would behoove us not to cling to the 'letter of the word'. True Understanding is beyond and in the space betwixt the words. We must understand that language in itself is inherently Dualistic, thus only word meaning can be gleaned from it. Ah but the Silence between the utterance of words in where Understand really is. So words are but Pointers at best, not really to be looked AT but rather to where they Point. And as you say, that Understanding and everything that one needs is closer to them than their own bad breath.
->> None, the ->>likes of Siddhartha or Jesus or Muhammad, have ever said that there was ->>some *end* in sight so it would seem that there is not one. -> ->Guess I don't read enough. lol, and what I have read in the past, seems ->very little sticks to the mind. Not enough glue. ->Seriously though, I never read much that warrants the usage of memory.
We can not really *forget*, nor should we, but what we can do is not cling to what is in memory.
->What one needs to know, is always there when you need it. Or so it seems.
This is so from here as well.
->> So it would seem that the never ending ->>Journey would be far more Enjoyable than setting there twiddling our thumbs ->>upon reaching the Enlightenment goal. At least that is what it seems from ->>here. -> ->I really have a hard time understanding why people sit in meditation for ->hours on end. Am I missing something?
The real purpose of sitting meditation is actually simply to establish what is termed the Meditative State of Mind and thus BEing AND emanating that Meditative State of Mind/BEing into every aspect of ones life. Such that one IS then that Meditative State. Once this has been established THEN sitting meditation is simply a sort of regenerator so to speak, in the day to day interactions of perhaps a busy lifestyle. It also can be a means of taking a break/rest from the madness of life's many quirks in daily interactions. Rewarding to say the least but not a necessary evil AFTER the Meditative State has been established. There are of course many other methods of meditation, such as your own state while mushroom picking. It is just that "Meditation" is known as the so called "formal" method.
->You try and tell them that each moment can be their meditation and they ->think you are strange or deluded.
Well, in that case it is not you who are "strange or deluded" because obviously they do not understand what the True purpose of meditation is.
->And what is the point of gurus sitting with a flock at their feet for hours?
Good marketing {8->
->Never could figure that one out. But then could never figure out why ->thousands would flock to India in search of a guru that sits for hours on ->end either. Other than to soak in their energy like a psychic vampire and ->call the high, enlightenment.
*Roaring Laughter* Yes, vamps for sure. It is more the allure of the "Far East" and Eastern names. Westerners thrive on "names", they seem to think some mystical authority rests in someone with a Far East name. When in Reality they should be looking where the Guru looked rather than at the name of the Guru. If they look where the Guru looked they would Realize the Guru's Realization, but looking at the Far Eastern name all the find is the Far Eastern Guru with the Far Eastern name. Westerners are so fooled by the name, it is really no wonder that few of them make any real progress.
->> Is not the fun in the chase? The hound seems to be quite satisfied in ->>just treeing the fox. -> ->Or the mighty mushroom, the fun is in the seeking and it is never ending fun. ->As if wearing rain gear, getting cold, climbing mountains and getting ->filthy is fun. Yet, somehow it is. I seem to gravitate to the bush for ->grounding and balancing when life begins to overwhelm me.
I knew that you could not go very long without bringing up your worship, the *Great Mushroom*. Always over the next hill or under the next peice of moss. He is Omnipresent so you will locate Him sooner or later. The forever Shroomer prostrating to the Grand Shroomba. But you are correct, shrooming is a great meditation method {8->
->>Thus "'I'" (as Ma said) do not really want ->>Enlightenment IF it is an end-game. What fun is that? -> ->Is there ever an end to anything when everything is infinite? ->To think otherwise would be living in duality.
Have never seen a *beginning* nor will perhaps ever see an *end*, though neither can be verified at Present because the Present contains neither and both at the same Moment. A Duality for sure. But then anything/everything that is OF the phenomenal realm is Dualistic by nature. And though the Present is IN the phenomenal realm it is not OF the phenomenal realm thus NonDualistic. We are deep IN it (conceptually speaking) but the Key is not to be OF it (conceptually speaking).
Subject: Re: Morning thought
From: "belinda" <tink@nts-online.net>
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 12:26:06 -0600
Enlightenment is different because it is an unfoldment from the source from which we come and it's working's through us. It is not something one can hope to obtain merely by knowledge. It is a sincere dedication to the light in which we serve if it so happen's. The frame of mind in which you ask about is thus: We have two seperate modes of operating within our mind's. One is logical and the other is intuitive. The enlightened state occur's in the middle of these, for we must learn to let go of the "I" of our being (will) and allow the light, truth and the way to work through us. I reference enlightenment because my own happened to me in 1993. I have searched for spiritual truth all of my life. My son and I left our home, husband, father and we both started new live's together. He came down this weekend (he is in college) and we both dicussed how we both blossomed out of the blue when we made our change. I am a spiritual channeler and my son play's the drum's. Neither of us knew anything of our gift's before our dawn of awakening. I have many interesting stories to share about this unfoldment if you care to listen. I did not mean to put you down for your thought's, I only would like to help, if it is the will of our truth which comes from the light to show us our way. Please except my apologies for affending you! Belinda
Subject: Re: Morning thought
From: ejLight@light-mission.org (E.J.)
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 00:10:52 GMT
Greetings Belinda, you wrote: ->Enlightenment is different because it is an unfoldment from the source from ->which we come and it's working's through us. It is not something one can ->hope to obtain merely by knowledge. It is a sincere dedication to the light ->in which we serve if it so happen's. The frame of mind in which you ask ->about is thus: We have two seperate modes of operating within our mind's. ->One is logical and the other is intuitive. The enlightened state occur's in ->the middle of these, for we must learn to let go of the "I" of our being ->(will) and allow the light, truth and the way to work through us. I ->reference enlightenment because my own happened to me in 1993. I have ->searched for spiritual truth all of my life. My son and I left our home, ->husband, father and we both started new live's together. He came down this ->weekend (he is in college) and we both dicussed how we both blossomed out of ->the blue when we made our change. I am a spiritual channeler and my son ->play's the drum's. Neither of us knew anything of our gift's before our ->dawn of awakening. I have many interesting stories to share about this ->unfoldment if you care to listen. I did not mean to put you down for your ->thought's, I only would like to help, if it is the will of our truth which ->comes from the light to show us our way. Please except my apologies for ->affending you!
*Roaring Laughter* The "put down" in your posts are not taken as directed toward here Dear New Friend. So no offence was or is taken here. There is an old colloquial saying that goes something like "it is best to keep the mouth closed lest when opened ignorance is shown". One of Siddhartha's disciples asked him "how will I know when I am Enlightened?" To which Siddhartha said "I am the only one Enlightened". As if to say that the disciple would not know. Expectations have a funny way of manifesting themselves... in our head. Legends in our own mind. That is, we can only 'show' our Awakening because the Moment we Talk about 'our awakening' we obviously missed the boat. As said in a previous post, Awakening/Enlightenment is really just another word for nothing (no toxic conditionings) left to let go. But it is always good to hear some chatter in the Silent halls of this meditative Community, it lets us know that not everyone has gone off in Samadhi.
Can we really "come" from anywhere? Are we not the Source of all manifestation? No matter where we go, there we are. Most look "through" the telescope but the Wise seem to look AT the telescope. Do we "serve" the Light or ARE we Light? Jesus said "when you make the Two again One then you will Understand". Perhaps to say that any given "two" is only the appearance of One by some influenced perception, a Multiplicity of a Union? Does the "enlightened state" occur or is it simply Revealed because it was there all along? That by peeling away layer upon layer of conditioned notions that all of a sudden *there it is*? Because we are IN Dualism do we really have to be OF Dualism? Is there really anything 'other' than the Present? Is there 'other' than BEing Whatever-IS?
Subject: Re: Morning thought
From: "belinda" <tink@nts-online.net>
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 19:52:31 -0600
E.J. this is for you: If you don't care about being enlightened than why be on the mission of light? I thought about attsching some of my work's but thought better of it. Why I found myself asking; when you don't even believe? peace out, Belinda
Subject: Re: Morning thought/belinda
From: "belinda" <tink@nts-online.net>
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 19:57:26 -0600
You are correct because we can never know all or be all although we come from all that is. But personally I don't hink E.J. beleives in the state of enlightenment,as these are his word's: Expectations have a funny way of manifesting themselves... in our head. Legends in our own mind. That is, we can only 'show' our Awakening because the Moment we Talk about 'our awakening' we obviously missed the boat. As said in a previous post, Awakening/Enlightenment is really just another word for nothing (no toxic conditionings) left to let go. But it is always good to hear some chatter in the Silent halls of this meditative Community, it lets us know that not everyone has gone off in Samadhi. Belinda
Subject: Re: Morning thought
From: ejLight@light-mission.org (E.J.)
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 05:39:46 GMT
Greetings Belinda, you wrote: ->E.J. this is for you:
Leave it to Sharlene. She has this big spoon and keeps stirring everything up with it. Always asking strange questions thus getting me in trouble. She likes that old 60's song "Bridge Over Troubled Waters" no doubt. Anyway.....
->If you don't care about being enlightened than why be on the mission of ->light?
Well, no one said anything about not caring "about being enlightened", thought, admittedly, Enlightenment is not considered much at all here. If it is then it is and if it is not then it is not, but there is not going to be any sleep lost here about it either way. As Sharlene said, this little Oasis is like a Home so it is nice to be here.
When we stop looking for Enlightenment, because we invariably look in all the places where it is not thus never locate it, it seems to occur. So it becomes quite apparent that the whole Seeking Enlightenment undertaking is a gross waste of time. We Seek because we lack something and when we no longer lack it the Seeking is dropped. But it all depends on what you define as Enlightenment. Because like the word "love", everyone seems to have their own particular meaning for it. The same goes for the word Enlightenment, everyone has some opinion about what it means and what it is. Which turns out to be a foolish game like religion. Everyone's definition is the correct one, so they say. This is all too Dualistic to be Real. Reality, the Present, is not Dualistic so there can be neither Reality or Truth in any given Dualistic opinions/meanings. Reality/Truth is not this or that opinion/meaning because Reality/Truth is not opinion/meaning. Only the Dualists think so. In Duality there is always a meaning to some-thing and someone to glean some meaning. In NonDuality there is only THAT which all the Dualistic meanings are supposed to be. If there is only THAT, without meaning or anyone to glean a meaning, then THAT is all there IS. Unexplained, unobserved, uninterpreted, unheard, ONLY Realized to be so. Sort of obvious it would seem. To reduce Enlightenment to some phenomenal experience and still call it the Real Thing is like reducing the actual moon to a reflection in a pond and calling the reflection the moon.
-> I thought about attsching some of my work's but thought better of ->it. Why I found myself asking; when you don't even believe?
Did you Observe your reaction? Reactions are interesting creatures, they tell us all we need to know to be able to "know thyself".
It is True that there is not a believer here. Why merely "believe" when you can BE what most can only "believe" because they Fear finding out for themselves? It would seem that a belief is a poor substitute for BEing it. If you never get off the merry-go-round you will never know what it is like to stand and Watch the people on the pretend horses go round and round. There seems to be a lot of 'believing' going on, and there seems to be a lot of conflict and hatred and crime and war and greed and corruption. So perhaps another direction could be looked into.
->peace out,
*Roaring Laughter* How about AS Peace. You see, you really can not understand it, as Jesus eluded to, until you BE it. Why? Because there is no Duality in BEing Whatever-IS. And you can only NonDualistically BE it while Present. And THAT is not even 'known'. IT is just obvious.
Anyway..... where is that spoon? And when found it is not going to be stirred with. It is going to be used to raise some bumps. Now where is that spoon? Where did you hide that spoon Sharlene?
Subject: Re: Morning thought/belinda2
From: "Johannes Kieding" <lmrepresentative@hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 06:49:01 +0000
Thank you for your posts Belinda, I have enjoyed them :) Say, have you dwelled on the information Light Mission has to offer? I do not think EJ *believes* either, in enlightenment or anything else. It looks like he has passed the stage of wishful thinking, does it not? Feel free to share of your experiences, I am listening :)
Best regards,
Johannes
Subject: Re: Morning thought
From: Sharlene <sharlene@light-mission.org>
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 05:49:33 -0800
> Leave it to Sharlene. She has this big spoon and keeps stirring >everything up with it. Always asking strange questions thus getting me in >trouble.
uh uh uh , no way are you blaming me for the hot water you get yourself into.lol.
>She likes that old 60's song "Bridge Over Troubled Waters" no doubt. Anyway.....
That happens to be one of my favorite songs.
> Anyway..... where is that spoon? And when found it is not going to be >stirred with. It is going to be used to raise some bumps. Now where is >that spoon? Where did you hide that spoon Sharlene?
In plain sight
Subject: For MA and others
From: "Johannes Kieding" <lmrepresentative@hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 16:45:45 +0000
Dear MA, may I hear some of 'your' experiences with tackeling/getting rid of the approval game?
Thank you, J
Any others who want to give feedback on their hardships/successes/thoughts with getting rid of notions of needing other people's approval/acceptance/liking are welcome to share.
Subject: Re: Morning thought/belinda2
From: "Ram Varma" <ramvarma1@rogers.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 08:45:28 -0500
Hi Johannes, Belinda, Ma, EJ; et all,
If we are shy/dogmatic to use the word, "Enlightenment", can we replace it with "Wise/Aware" person. In that case, what are the signs of a wise/aware person in day to day living of our lives. And how does a person get to that state of awareness/wisdom? In this context, if I am right in extracting from Advaita philosophy it says that there are seven states/planes of wisdom. Knowing them a person is not caught in delusion. Pure wish is the first, equiry is the sesond, the third is when the mind becomes subtle because the enquiry thins out mental conditioning. Establishment in truth is the fourth, total freedom from attachment or bondage is the fifth, sixth is the cessation of objectivity (dissolving the gap between subject and object) ,and the seventh is beyond all this (maybe related to inter-connectedness with the infinte consciousness/cosmic energy or intelligence--unity-consciousness).
Does it make sense? Or is this philosophy too old fashioned? I guess truth is truth and it is eternal regardless of time and space. Thanks.
Regards.............Ram
Subject: Re: Morning thought/belinda2
From: "belinda" <tink@nts-online.net>
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 11:59:21 -0600
You are very close to being exactly right although I do not understand the word equiry? During my high school year's we had to take apptitude test's. I scored in the top 1% of the nation in logistic's. I was told that I had to learn to leave that part(logical) mind behind and learn to operate more on my intuitive mind. Let go Let God concept. I was so scared of that! I remember thinking ...but if I'm not in control how am I going to turn it over to somebody that I know is there but that I can't even see. This is called faith. Gut instinct. So I practiced. I have come to see it as this: We are all brought up in tribe's (family) and we learn to accept their truth's (as not only our own) but also who we are out of need for survival . In reality who we are has nothing to do with whom or what other people think (even our tribe); although it seem's a good deal of people stive to please their tribe in living their live's. It is to our source(God) in which we must answer and unto ourselve's. There is no one else. All road's are solitary. Which is referred to our will. Which lead's to choice of positive or negative. Everything in our live's is nothing more than the choice's that we make. It is not to lay blame on other's, etc. Life is our own creation and therefore we are responsible for the consequences of our action's and for those action's not only to ourselve's but to other's as well. I think one of the best thing's we can do is to look at ourselves in the mirror (directly) and to love and welcome that person as though it were holy, and except our truth that we are born from perfect seed! Life is nothing but constant change...death, rebirth, samsara. Love beget's Love. If we were only taught love; than we would only know Love. It is through other's eye's and their way's(choice's) that we know it's opposite. Dissolving the gap between subject and object is allowing the ego "I" to drop. Just as you do when you go to sleep. You drop off into another dimemsion. We are but grain's of sand in the milky way in our galaxy of the universe and more time's than not we seem to believe or think that our live's are omni-important. Here again, repeat from above. I am a spiritual channeler and in so being, I shift outside of myself and allow spirit to work through me. In order for me to allow this to happen I must drop off and leave the "I". It is a shift in literal sense. I step outside myself and allow my physical shell be to a vessel (for the grace to work through) as this is my purpose which lead's to Freedom which cannot be an investment. Freedom is an adventure with no end, in which we risk our lives and much more for a few moments of something beyond words, beyond thoughts and feelings. If we remain totally detached then we can have the energy to be free. A peculiar type of detachment - which is born not our of fear of indolence, but one of conviction. Freedom to fly off into that infinity out that. Freedom to dissolve, to lift off; to be like the flame of a candle, which, in spite of being up against the light of a billion starts, remains intact, because it never pretended to be more than what is it: A mere candle. To not just know these thing's but to live them. Start by realizing that the presense of grace is in-housed in your very being and it is up to you to ackowledge it, give thank's to it, and be impeccable. Put your life on the line in order to back up your decisions, and then do quite a lot more than the best to realize those decisions. When you are not deciding anything, you are merely playing roulette with your life in a helter-Skelter way. Courage to follow your own drummer (heartbeat) and create beautifully from that which is in housed is holy! Belinda
Subject: RE: For MA and others
From: Ma <MaheshPradeep@dakwala.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 12:26:06 -0800
Hello J, ->Dear MA, may I hear some of 'your' experiences with tackeling/getting rid of ->the approval game? -> ->Thank you, J
Approval for what? From whom? Other? Silly. Antiproductive. Single focussed on whatever is done there is no one to approve so nothing for them to approve. Single focussed on whatever is done there is no one doing anything so nothing is being done. Nothing done, no one doing, nothing to approve, no one to approve it. 'Present'. As Rumi said, you are just sifting dust with thoughts. Panning for gold in a flour bin. Fishing in a coal pile.
Subject: Re: Morning thought/belinda2
From: Ma <MaheshPradeep@dakwala.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 12:48:23 -0800
Hello Ram, ->If we are shy/dogmatic to use the word, "Enlightenment", can we replace it ->with "Wise/Aware" person. In that case, what are the signs of a wise/aware ->person in day to day living of our lives. And how does a person get to that ->state of awareness/wisdom? In this context, if I am right in extracting from ->Advaita philosophy it says that there are seven states/planes of wisdom. ->Knowing them a person is not caught in delusion. Pure wish is the first, ->equiry is the sesond, the third is when the mind becomes subtle because the ->enquiry thins out mental conditioning. Establishment in truth is the fourth, ->total freedom from attachment or bondage is the fifth, sixth is the ->cessation of objectivity (dissolving the gap between subject and object) ->,and the seventh is beyond all this (maybe related to inter-connectedness ->with the infinte consciousness/cosmic energy or ->intelligence--unity-consciousness). -> ->Does it make sense? Or is this philosophy too old fashioned? I guess truth ->is truth and it is eternal regardless of time and space. Thanks.
Makes sense but quite 'dual'. Do you think there is someone to be 'enlightened'? Who? 'I' can not be 'enlightened'. Can 'you'? Buddha said "'I' am the only one 'enlightened'". Who else would think of it but 'I'? Only 'I' thinks 'I' can be 'enlightened'. Who else is there? Only when there is no 'I' can 'enlightenment' 'be'. Since there is no 'I' how would 'I' know.
Subject: Re: Morning thought
From: "belinda" <tink@nts-online.net>
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 12:12:38 -0600
I never stated that it was enlightenement in which I seeked. Although it is a blessed gift I have received. And contrary wise, Love is Love, although it is different in regard's to our feeling's for other's. As we love no two people exactly the same because there are no two exactly the same created by God. You seem to study alot but apparently lack common sense. You speak of that which you have read but have not practiced. It is okay, in only that you see the flaw and try and correct it. Is this the direction in which you are seeking? Belinda
Subject: Re: Morning thought
From: "belinda" <tink@nts-online.net>
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 12:24:30 -0600
Enlightenment happen's as a miracle happen's in live's. If it were to happen to you, you would know it. you stated: If that experience is enlightenment then 'I' would be the > ->>experience of enlightenment but since 'I' and the experience are not > ->>apart 'I' could never 'know' the difference from the experience and > ->>enlightenment. In so stating you have admitted that you have not been enlightened.
You also stated: Know the true definition of yourself. > ->>That is indispensable. > ->>Then, when you know your own definition, flee from it, > ->>that you may attain to the One who cannot be defined, > ->>O sifter of the dust." - Rumi > -> > ->Ah so, dust through a sifter, what remains is no-thing. > > Shifters and sifter and parrots and carrots, all seem to 'be' only > 'one'. Since this is obvisouly study of the word, than why do you not undertand it? You got to practice what you preach or it make's no difference. Life does not exist within the three foot radius of yourself and reflect back in onto yourself. Life exists outside of that three foot radius (Aura of energy, light being). Don't give up the faith if you have already found it. Belinda
Subject: RE: For MA and others
From: "Johannes Kieding" <lmrepresentative@hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 21:46:08 +0000
Thank You Ma.
'Present'. As Rumi said, you >are just sifting dust with thoughts. Panning for gold in a flour bin. >Fishing in a coal pile.
Ah... in my attempts to better understand the mess I'm in or in entertaining/processing the approval game?
Agin, thank you.
Subject: RE: For MA and others
From: Ma <MaheshPradeep@dakwala.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 17:51:26 -0800
Hello J, ->Thank You Ma. ->'Present'. As Rumi said, you ->>are just sifting dust with thoughts. Panning for gold in a flour bin. ->>Fishing in a coal pile. -> ->Ah... in my attempts to better understand the mess I'm in or in ->entertaining/processing the approval game?
There is a difference? Who is attempting? Who can "better understand"? Who seeks "approval"? Who is the "game"?
Subject: MA/koan
From: "Johannes Kieding" <lmrepresentative@hotmail.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 17:19:36 +0000
MA :) Entrenched in the mud of temoral experience, I can only ask temporal questions. Thus: Have you worked a lot, and do you wish to share anything about it, the Koan "who am I?"
Thank you, Johannes
Subject: RE: MA/koan
From: Ma <MaheshPradeep@dakwala.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 12:39:19 -0800
Hello Johannes, ->Entrenched in the mud of temoral experience, I can only ask temporal ->questions. Thus: Have you worked a lot, and do you wish to share anything ->about it, the Koan "who am I?"
"Who am I" is what you have to answer to yourself. Not really meant as a koan but many use it as such because it takes a lot of 'soul searching' to arrive at what might be called an answer. Which turns out to be less than an answer though. People may think it's a koan because they can't figure it out. Who's "entrenched in the mud"? Who asks "temporal questions"? Is it you or what you became? Or made into? Discounting any education and learning, are you the same now as when you were when you were small and without a care or worry in the world? What have you picked up along the way from childhood to adulthood that now makes you worry and frightened and selfish and self-centered and temporally oriented? When you arrive at some insights about who you think you are now and who you were then you will understand why it is one of the most vital questions you will ever have to ask yourself. Yes, if anyone realizes that they have to do something about being "entrenched in the mud" they will have to ask themselves "who am I". Most like the "mud" though, so they never ask the question.
Subject: muddy snake/MA
From: "Johannes Kieding" <lmrepresentative@hotmail.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 21:10:35 +0000
Thank you for that MA. I suppose I brought it up to you because there was a ring inbwteen your words I felt a kinship with, a surging force that spoke to me in your previous mails. I have found it to be an aid to be inspired, and hearing someons struggels while in the mud/soul search has an uplifting effect on me, being in the mud myself (no, not liking it). Present moment presence tastes much better, but so slippery. Again, thank you.
*gasho*
Subject: RE: Morning thought
From: Sharlene <sharlene@light-mission.org>
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 07:08:26 -0800
>RE: Morning thought >Hello Sharlene, >->Good morning Ma and everyone.
Again, late as usual these days. Not that there is a time limit. :)
>Ah, flies, pesky. Like thoughts.
Shar: yes. I have been involved in a sanding meditation, and it turned into a varathaning meditation. Three days of sanding two coffee tables with steel wool, mindless but totally involved meditation.
>A wonderment perhaps to many. Hasn't seemed to "fly" around here. No >flies at 'present'.
Shar: yes, and you know what they say about flies being drawn to the dung pile.
>S;->Yes. Thats basically my point. When one listens to others speak about >it, they talk about it as if it is recognizable. > >M:And separate from them. When it's them all the time but don't see that. >How can they 'be' it and recognize it? Does the eye see itself?
Shar: yes, I never put that connection as separation together, now I see it but only because you pointed to it. The dual in search of the non dual.
>Ha ha ha, yes that's always so funny. The stage props look so good and >inviting but when a wind comes along and the props fall over everyone >has a lost look on their face. That's the funniest look.
Shar: Some take what their teacher does far to personally and all defence words arise.
> As they say, actions sometimes speak louder than words. >Absolutely. Buddha said believe nothing even if he said it. He said to >take his words and see if they make a difference in their lives first. >Then they will know and won't have to believe anyway.
Shar: and as you said, when you become it, there is nothing to believe.
>Very clear my dear. And very true. The Buddha asked 'enlightenment' one >time to go look in the mirror. Enlightenment came back to Buddha and >said that the Buddha had tricked him because he didn't see anything in >the mirror. So it seems that if there is 'enlightenment' there isn't >anything else because everything else is gone.
Shar: and I always thought that was a vampire trick. lol But yes, I know what you are saying. I never see enlightenment when I look in the mirror, but I see a reflection of what isn't who I am. The memory of looking in a mirror with the question arising, " who are you? I don't recognize you" It was kind of a shock.
>Ha ha ha, yes much western gold was shipped to the east. But it helped >both west and east economy. In the world of economics do you always get >what you pay for?
Shar: seldom.
>->What happened to enlightenment as they speak of it? >Close your eyes and hold out your hand. Do you feel the space in your >hand? Imagine the space in your hand. Feel the space in your hand. When >you open your eyes do you see the space in your hand?
Shar: nope. nada. but yet if I wanted to I can see the image that the imagination could imagine being there. Illusion.
>Is there language without concepts? Not the spoken word anyway. Though >concepts are problems they aren't the problem. The problem is thinking >that 'enlightenment' can be explained at all. Explain the unexplainable? >Okay.
Shar: can't do it. It would take every word in the world and then some not invented to do that. and even then it would still be a concept.
>"There"? Where is "there"? Someplace?
Shar: alright already, lol you are right, there is only here.
>Do you see this "inner wiring"?
Shar: no
>Do >you know it?
Shar: no
>Is it your friend?
Shar: no
>It hasn't any force of its own. It >doesn't cling to you.
Shar: right,
>It is let play, but what force gives it power to >play? There's only you, either 'present' or not.
Shar: gotcha
>Many "things" are hard to deal with but they are only "things". What are >"things"? Where do they come from? Where do they get their life? There >is only you, either 'present' or not.
Shar: right,
>Pretence, is that not what all the >world is?
Shar: ah so
>We should be part of that pretence? Do you really have time >for such games?
Shar: it seems more and more than I don't have time to play with such things.
>Does it matter whether anyone understands? Is it >necessary to make a point? What "wiring" is that?
Shar: not necessary. Pointing happens.
>The inner interpreter is never 'present'. When 'present' there is no >interpretation but just relating 'what is'. Either it is understood or >isn't.
Shar: You mean, thats really me? I thought I was the physical interpreter of what arose and is being spoken or what is being done.
>What is your investment?
Shar: I have no investments. I just do what needs doing. It's like much of what I do, the finishing touch is in the giving it away.
>Not being 'present' isn't worth worrying >about what is understood or isn't. If they want to understand they will >and if they don't they won't, so it isn't worth worrying about.
Shar: yes. I hear you.
>Thank you for the commercial break.
Shar: ha ha, there is no escape from them is there?
>Why guess? Why not wait until you know? Guessing is conceptualization at >its finest. Quite dualistic. Too much guessing leads to confusion.
Shar: That guessing is always short lived. When other doing takes place.
>A hook if you cling to it, if you don't cling to the views of the >onlookers it's just an interpretation of the onlooker. Don't take what >onlookers say personally. Are they an authority with their influenced >definitions? Who is it who cares?
Shar: agree
>Try try as they may, a rose will never pass for a prune to a rose. The >rose knows a rose from a prune.
Shar: thank goodness for that.
>One can't know anything, all they can do is 'watch' arising thoughts as >they arise and cut them off at the knees. Not before they arise or after >they arise but only as they arise any given 'moment'. Then you know. But >if you let them arise and brush them off and don't address them they >will return over and over again.
Shar: yes, I have learned that from experience. Time and time again. lol
>"Your" 'moment'? 'I' have no 'moment'.
Shar: lol
Thanks MA,
Subject: RE: Morning thought
From: Ma <MaheshPradeep@dakwala.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 18:54:27 -0800
Hello Sharlene, ->Shar: yes. I have been involved in a sanding meditation, and it turned into ->a varathaning meditation. Three days of sanding two coffee tables with ->steel wool, mindless but totally involved meditation.
Yes that is a good meditation practice. When you get so single minded in what you are doing that nothing else exists other than what you are doing you are 'present'. Since there is nothing else but the 'present' it should be how we do everything. Then there wouldn't be drifting in and out of the 'present'. Even thinking doesn't have to affect the 'present'. Unless thinking is of the past or future, then you are 'present' but your mind isn't.
->>A wonderment perhaps to many. Hasn't seemed to "fly" around here. No ->>flies at 'present'. -> ->Shar: yes, and you know what they say about flies being drawn to the dung ->pile.
Or the 'seeker' to 'enlightenment'. The moth is drawn to the flame but what happens to the moth when it reaches the flame? The moth is then consumed by the flame so no more moth. Thusly with the 'seeker' also.
->>S;->Yes. Thats basically my point. When one listens to others speak about ->>it, they talk about it as if it is recognizable. ->> ->>M:And separate from them. When it's them all the time but don't see that. ->>How can they 'be' it and recognize it? Does the eye see itself? -> ->Shar: yes, I never put that connection as separation together, now I see ->it but only because you pointed to it. The dual in search of the non dual.
Though there is no more moth there is still the flame. The flame sheds its light due to there being no more moth. The moth and flame are no longer two. So the message of the moth is still heard and even spoken by the moth. Though the moth can not know the flame the flame has always known the moth. The moth doth speak yet no words are issued from the flame, even as the flame consumes the moth. The dual will always seek the nondual as the moth will always seek the flame yet when the moth is consumed by the desire of reaching the flame then the flame can't consume the moth. Two can't be not two. Only when consumed by the flame is there neither.
->>Ha ha ha, yes that's always so funny. The stage props look so good and ->>inviting but when a wind comes along and the props fall over everyone ->>has a lost look on their face. That's the funniest look. -> ->Shar: Some take what their teacher does far to personally and all defence ->words arise.
There are teachers and there are 'teachers' as there are students and there are 'students'. Students seek what the teachers taught and 'students' seek what the 'teachers' sought. Real seeks the real and illusion seeks illusion.
->> As they say, actions sometimes speak louder than words. ->>Absolutely. Buddha said believe nothing even if he said it. He said to ->>take his words and see if they make a difference in their lives first. ->>Then they will know and won't have to believe anyway. -> ->Shar: and as you said, when you become it, there is nothing to believe.
Only when the moth is consumed by the flame will the moth know the flame.
->>Very clear my dear. And very true. The Buddha asked 'enlightenment' one ->>time to go look in the mirror. Enlightenment came back to Buddha and ->>said that the Buddha had tricked him because he didn't see anything in ->>the mirror. So it seems that if there is 'enlightenment' there isn't ->>anything else because everything else is gone. -> ->Shar: and I always thought that was a vampire trick. lol ->But yes, I know what you are saying. ->I never see enlightenment when I look in the mirror, but I see a reflection ->of what isn't who I am. The memory of looking in a mirror with the ->question arising, " who are you? I don't recognize you" It was kind of a ->shock.
Who's reflection is in the mirror? When your identity is not the reflection then there are two. What you see is what you get. When there is no identity there is neither. Not even the mirror.
->>->What happened to enlightenment as they speak of it? ->>Close your eyes and hold out your hand. Do you feel the space in your ->>hand? Imagine the space in your hand. Feel the space in your hand. When ->>you open your eyes do you see the space in your hand? -> ->Shar: nope. nada. but yet if I wanted to I can see the image that the ->imagination could imagine being there. Illusion.
Who wants? Who imagines? Who's illusion? Why two?
->>"There"? Where is "there"? Someplace? -> ->Shar: alright already, lol you are right, there is only here. -> ->>Do you see this "inner wiring"? -> ->Shar: no
Observe it. It can be funny.
->>Do ->>you know it? -> ->Shar: no
Know your enemies better than your friends. And know the difference.
->>Is it your friend? -> ->Shar: no
Strange bedfellows. Though friendly.
->>Does it matter whether anyone understands? Is it ->>necessary to make a point? What "wiring" is that? -> ->Shar: not necessary. Pointing happens.
So does drowning happen. Though drowning wasn't intended.
->>The inner interpreter is never 'present'. When 'present' there is no ->>interpretation but just relating 'what is'. Either it is understood or ->>isn't. -> ->Shar: You mean, thats really me? I thought I was the physical interpreter ->of what arose and is being spoken or what is being done.
Yes you are the interpreter, but never 'present' when engaged in such. At 'present' there is only seeing and understanding. Not speaker nor spoken nor what is done is 'present' when filtered by interpretation. Who's interpretation? The interpreter doesn't know, and the knower doesn't have to interpret. When the moth is consumed by the flame the moth knows the flame because there is no longer two, yet the moth still speaks as the flame can't.
Subject: RE: Morning thought
From: Sharlene <sharlene@light-mission.org>
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2004 05:58:55 -0800
Hi, it must be morning. Don't seem to find much free time in the day to sit here and will probably have less as I get my grandbabies for 5 days.
> Since there is nothing else but the 'present' >it should be how we do everything. Then there wouldn't be drifting in >and out of the 'present'.
Shar: Its true.
>Even thinking doesn't have to affect the >'present'. Unless thinking is of the past or future, then you are >'present' but your mind isn't.
Shar: Thats me sometimes lately. Working with this probate thing, seems like allot of waiting, anticipation, and thoughts of the future. So when there is a lull in what needs to be done, I find other things that need to be done. Although present in the moment, as yesterday I became an electrician, and had to change some old plug in receptacles and switches, I had to be in the moment to get it right. But another job done in preparation.
I find I do stress out though from time to time, waiting for others decisions. I am not sure what time frame they are in, but it doesn't jive with what needs to be done and many things are put on hold. It's hard to deal with or stay in the moment when one experiences frustration. Unless frustration is what is, within the moment. I find I have to just allow frustration to play out its act.
Outside influences have to be attended to and when there is no co operation from others involved, its hard to cover all grounds for the good of the group. As it stands, I end up doing what needs to be done, and end up listening to complaints. So, it gets to the point where I allow that to bring me down to the point of frustration.
The message I send out to them, is I need your opinion, I need your choices, and I need some input or I have to do things through guessing what you want, and that is usually not the way you want things done. It's not an easy task to make anyone happy, let alone three others. blah.
>Or the 'seeker' to 'enlightenment'. The moth is drawn to the flame but >what happens to the moth when it reaches the flame? The moth is then >consumed by the flame so no more moth. . The dual will always seek >the nondual as the moth will always seek the flame yet when the moth is >consumed by the desire of reaching the flame then the flame can't >consume the moth. Two can't be not two. Only when consumed by the flame >is there neither.
Shar: The image that comes to mind is one of a lantern glowing in the night, the moths are drawn by desire to the flame, and yet, can't reach the flame to be consumed by the flame, but are killed by the heat of the protective glass that surrounds the flame.
>Who's reflection is in the mirror? When your identity is not the >reflection then there are two. What you see is what you get. When there >is no identity there is neither. Not even the mirror.
Shar: yes, but the inquiry begins with the question, who am I.
>->Shar: nope. nada. but yet if I wanted to I can see the image that the >->imagination could imagine being there. Illusion. >Who wants? Who imagines? Who's illusion? Why two?
Shar: I do, I do, mine. because you asked if I saw something and I didn't. But I could use imagination to see it if I wanted to imagine it.
>->>Do you see this "inner wiring"? >->Shar: no >Observe it. It can be funny.
Shar: yes, it can when I see it or when it arises to be seen. Sometimes it sneaks up on me and it takes awhile before the signs of suffering appear. lol Then I realize I am being controlled by the mind.
>->Shar: no >Know your enemies better than your friends. And know the difference.
Shar: yes, recognition becomes quicker.
>->>Is it your friend? >->Shar: no >Strange bedfellows. Though friendly.
Shar: lol
>->Shar: not necessary. Pointing happens. >So does drowning happen. Though drowning wasn't intended.
Shar: lol Good way to make a point,
> The interpreter doesn't know, and the knower >doesn't have to interpret. When the moth is consumed by the flame the >moth knows the flame because there is no longer two, yet the moth still >speaks as the flame can't.
Shar: Yes, and when one is not "here" in every moment, there are times when one is seen as an interpreter, in hindsight. Even that perspective is what is within the moment. The words, where in the hell did that come from, arise. lol And when those words arise, I know I am out of the moment once again. Then the question arise, when will I quit bouncing and just be? And the reply to myself at that point is, you just never know. Inner dialogue. I really have to quit talking to myself. and yet, I have some great conversations. ha
Subject: RE: Morning thought
From: Ma <MaheshPradeep@dakwala.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2004 00:49:24 -0800
Hello Sharlene, ->>Even thinking doesn't have to affect the ->>'present'. Unless thinking is of the past or future, then you are ->>'present' but your mind isn't. -> ->I find I do stress out though from time to time, waiting for others decisions. ->I am not sure what time frame they are in, but it doesn't jive with what ->needs to be done and many things are put on hold. It's hard to deal with or ->stay in the moment when one experiences frustration. Unless frustration is ->what is, within the moment. I find I have to just allow frustration to play ->out its act.
There isn't any stress or frustration when 'present'. If there's waiting to be done then do whatever you have to do while waiting. That way waiting will not really be waiting. Does anything happen when you want it to? Then why think it might? It will happen when it happens because it's the only time it can happen. Just because you don't know what time, that shouldn't be a concern because it doesn't matter whether you know or not. Stay where there isn't any stress or frustration, 'present'. That is when everything happens and it can't happen at any other time.
->Outside influences have to be attended to and when there is no co operation ->from others involved, its hard to cover all grounds for the good of the group. ->As it stands, I end up doing what needs to be done, and end up listening to ->complaints. So, it gets to the point where I allow that to bring me down to ->the point of frustration.
All you can do is all you can do. When someone complains take them over to the mirror and tell them that is the complaint department. Tell that person in the mirror all your complaints. When all you can do is all you can do and still get complaints it is just about every time because the complainer didn't do all the complainer could do. This has been found to shock people into realizing that they are complaining about something about themselves.
->The message I send out to them, is I need your opinion, I need your ->choices, and I need some input or I have to do things through guessing what ->you want, and that is usually not the way you want things done. It's not ->an easy task to make anyone happy, let alone three others. blah.
When you ask for input and no input is given that means that no input is needed. So with that input do what you have to do. Complaints go to the mirror.
->>Or the 'seeker' to 'enlightenment'. The moth is drawn to the flame but ->>what happens to the moth when it reaches the flame? The moth is then ->>consumed by the flame so no more moth. . The dual will always seek ->>the nondual as the moth will always seek the flame yet when the moth is ->>consumed by the desire of reaching the flame then the flame can't ->>consume the moth. Two can't be not two. Only when consumed by the flame ->>is there neither. -> ->Shar: The image that comes to mind is one of a lantern glowing in the ->night, the moths are drawn by desire to the flame, and yet, can't reach the ->flame to be consumed by the flame, but are killed by the heat of the ->protective glass that surrounds the flame.
Yes the lantern gives the false impression that it is the flame so all flock to the lantern thinking it is the flame. Most interpret the flame shrouding it with a lantern thus all parish clinging to the lantern. And only the interpreter knows the difference. Flock not to the interpretation but rather what was interpreted. Then the moth is consumed by the flame and not the desire for such.
->>Who's reflection is in the mirror? When your identity is not the ->>reflection then there are two. What you see is what you get. When there ->>is no identity there is neither. Not even the mirror. -> ->Shar: yes, but the inquiry begins with the question, who am I.
Then who is 'I'? Is 'I'? Or is that a mere reflection in the mirror?
->>->Shar: nope. nada. but yet if I wanted to I can see the image that the ->>->imagination could imagine being there. Illusion. ->>Who wants? Who imagines? Who's illusion? Why two? -> ->Shar: I do, I do, mine. because you asked if I saw something and I didn't. ->But I could use imagination to see it if I wanted to imagine it.
Six times you used "I" in these two sentences. Must be pretty dear to you.
->>->>Do you see this "inner wiring"? ->>->Shar: no ->>Observe it. It can be funny. -> ->Shar: yes, it can when I see it or when it arises to be seen. ->Sometimes it sneaks up on me and it takes awhile before the signs of ->suffering appear. lol Then I realize I am being controlled by the mind.
And what do you do with this revelation?
->> The interpreter doesn't know, and the knower ->>doesn't have to interpret. When the moth is consumed by the flame the ->>moth knows the flame because there is no longer two, yet the moth still ->>speaks as the flame can't. -> ->Shar: Yes, and when one is not "here" in every moment, there are times when ->one is seen as an interpreter, in hindsight. Even that perspective is what ->is within the moment. The words, where in the hell did that come from, ->arise. lol And when those words arise, I know I am out of the moment once ->again.
Even the 'wise' are sort of schizophrenic, fading in and out of consciousness from pure to mundane. Pure as the knower and mundane as the speaker yet always 'present'. Response seems autonomic, nothing thought or interpreted. Simply relating what is responded to. Words arise yet not arising by themselves. A response to and at 'moment'. That's all there is. No concern because no one is present, just a 'prepense'. Everything is deliberate yet unplanned, everything is the same yet different. A model it seems.
->Then the question arise, when will I quit bouncing and just be? And the ->reply to myself at that point is, you just never know. Inner dialogue. I ->really have to quit talking to myself. and yet, I have some great ->conversations. ha
It is said talking to yourself isn't bad but be leery of the answers you get. But to stop the "bouncing" the model might help. Whatever you are doing is all there is, even when sleeping. So that's where your attention should be. When it's anywhere else you bounced.
Subject: RE: Morning thought
From: Sharlene <sharlene@light-mission.org>
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2004 06:46:17 -0800
>M:There isn't any stress or frustration when 'present'. If there's waiting >to be done then do whatever you have to do while waiting. That way >waiting will not really be waiting.
S: Most of time I can do that. But not when the courts or government set time limits. If it was my choice or time limit, there would be no matter in the waiting.
>Does anything happen when you want >it to? Then why think it might?
S: Some things have to happen when they need to happen, not when another thinks it should happen. That too is a form of control on their part. When questioned about a reply, I hear, "I don't want to think it yet, it stresses me out" . Not thinking that it may stress me out waiting so completion of whatever can take place on time. No matter what, we are still in the world of time limits. And then I hear, what have you done? Have you done this or that or this again? Duh, how can I when one has to follow certain order to make different things happen?
>It will happen when it happens because >it's the only time it can happen.
S: thats true.
>Just because you don't know what time, >that shouldn't be a concern because it doesn't matter whether you know >or not.
S: I agree with that in life, as a whole. And yet when dealing with those who set limits, one also has to set limits. And thats the frustrating part. Trying to live the moment that is, when the moment that is, has a time card.
>Stay where there isn't any stress or frustration, 'present'. >That is when everything happens and it can't happen at any other time.
S: yes, I do what I can do while waiting. Focus on whatever it is I do while waiting.
>All you can do is all you can do. When someone complains take them over >to the mirror and tell them that is the complaint department.
S: trust me when I say, I would even have to bring the mirror to them. :) First frustration was waiting ofr one brother to sober up long enough to realize what he was signing, and being able enough to hold a pen. A month sober now, so thats easier. The other bro lives in his own time limit. Does nothing until the eleventh hour. And the other one says, just do what you have too to make it work. Well, hey bro, I need your signature to make anything happen.
>Tell that >person in the mirror all your complaints. When all you can do is all you >can do and still get complaints it is just about every time because the >complainer didn't do all the complainer could do. This has been found to >shock people into realizing that they are complaining about something >about themselves.
S: I love that advise. That is good. Thanks. Most complaints are self directed anyway when you think about it. Kewl.
>When you ask for input and no input is given that means that no input is >needed. So with that input do what you have to do. Complaints go to the >mirror.
S: exactly. With the one though, it is avoidance. Thinks the world will wait forever for him. Surprised when it doesn't.
>And >only the interpreter knows the difference. Flock not to the >interpretation but rather what was interpreted. Then the moth is >consumed by the flame and not the desire for such.
S: right.
>Six times you used "I" in these two sentences. Must be pretty dear to >you.
S: sometimes it is. :) When there is stress present, the focus is around the I.
>->Shar: yes, it can when I see it or when it arises to be seen. >->Sometimes it sneaks up on me and it takes awhile before the signs of >->suffering appear. lol Then I realize I am being controlled by the >mind. >M:And what do you do with this revelation?
S: step out and re-center .
>Even the 'wise' are sort of schizophrenic, fading in and out of >consciousness from pure to mundane.
S: they do? I suppose they have to deal with the in the world stuff as well.
>Pure as the knower and mundane as >the speaker yet always 'present'. Response seems autonomic, nothing >thought or interpreted. Simply relating what is responded to. Words >arise yet not arising by themselves. A response to and at 'moment'. >That's all there is. No concern because no one is present, just a >'prepense'. Everything is deliberate yet unplanned, everything is the >same yet different. A model it seems.
S; yes.
>It is said talking to yourself isn't bad but be leery of the answers you >get. But to stop the "bouncing" the model might help. Whatever you are >doing is all there is, even when sleeping. So that's where your >attention should be. When it's anywhere else you bounced.
S: I know that, and yet have to remind myself of that. So for awhile there is an I and a myself to be reminded by a self and I. Until there isn't. It's not comfortable being in the I or myself mode. The I prefers the no I state. The no I state, doesn't give it a thought.
Subject: RE: Morning thought
From: Ma <MaheshPradeep@dakwala.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2004 11:10:14 -0800
Hello Sharlene, ->>M:There isn't any stress or frustration when 'present'. If there's waiting ->>to be done then do whatever you have to do while waiting. That way ->>waiting will not really be waiting. -> ->S: Most of time I can do that. But not when the courts or government set ->time limits. If it was my choice or time limit, there would be no matter in ->the waiting.
Too many 'buts'. If there was no such word (and associated concept and other forms) then what? Would you be forced to stay 'present'? Why not the mind catch up with the body since the body is always 'present'?
->>Does anything happen when you want ->>it to? Then why think it might? -> ->S: Some things have to happen when they need to happen, not when another ->thinks it should happen. That too is a form of control on their part. When ->questioned about a reply, I hear, "I don't want to think it yet, it ->stresses me out" . Not thinking that it may stress me out waiting so ->completion of whatever can take place on time. No matter what, we are ->still in the world of time limits. And then I hear, what have you done? ->Have you done this or that or this again? Duh, how can I when one has to ->follow certain order to make different things happen?
When the cat is an imaginary cat, and we put food on a plate and set it out for the cat to eat, we think the cat is sick because it did not eat. Or disappointed in the cat for not eating the food we painstakingly set out for it. Imagination is a wondrous tool but also creates our illusionary world. In our illusionary world we set up the very frustrations we encounter and wonder why we encounter them. The movie projector keeps showing the same old film and we get reserved seats as though we hadn't seen it before. It's just a film. It's just an illusion. It's all just in our head. When 'present' there isn't a head, there's just what's 'present'. A continuous flow of whatever is 'present'. When the imaginary cat doesn't eat the food you put out for it then just pick up the plate and wash it for when you set food out again. Imaginary cats don't get sick and there can't be disappointment when imagination doesn't do as intended.
->>Just because you don't know what time, ->>that shouldn't be a concern because it doesn't matter whether you know ->>or not. -> ->S: I agree with that in life, as a whole. And yet when dealing with those ->who set limits, one also has to set limits. And thats the frustrating part. ->Trying to live the moment that is, when the moment that is, has a time card.
"And yet" is just another form of "but". So when you are around girls of ill repute you engage in ill repute too? 'Who' would it be that gives a "time card" to the 'timeless'?
->>Stay where there isn't any stress or frustration, 'present'. ->>That is when everything happens and it can't happen at any other time. -> ->S: yes, I do what I can do while waiting. Focus on whatever it is I do ->while waiting. -> ->>All you can do is all you can do. When someone complains take them over ->>to the mirror and tell them that is the complaint department. -> ->S: trust me when I say, I would even have to bring the mirror to them. :) ->First frustration was waiting ofr one brother to sober up long enough to ->realize what he was signing, and being able enough to hold a pen. ->A month sober now, so thats easier. The other bro lives in his own time ->limit. ->Does nothing until the eleventh hour. And the other one says, just do what ->you have too to make it work. Well, hey bro, I need your signature to make ->anything happen.
Knowing all this, the predictability of others, should give you an edge on not worrying about it.
->>Tell that ->>person in the mirror all your complaints. When all you can do is all you ->>can do and still get complaints it is just about every time because the ->>complainer didn't do all the complainer could do. This has been found to ->>shock people into realizing that they are complaining about something ->>about themselves. -> ->S: I love that advise. That is good. Thanks. Most complaints are self ->directed anyway when you think about it. Kewl. -> ->>Six times you used "I" in these two sentences. Must be pretty dear to ->>you. -> ->S: sometimes it is. :) When there is stress present, the focus is around ->the I.
Then un-stress. If you have the power to stress then you have the power to un-stress.
->>->Shar: yes, it can when I see it or when it arises to be seen. ->>->Sometimes it sneaks up on me and it takes awhile before the signs of ->>->suffering appear. lol Then I realize I am being controlled by the ->>mind. ->>M:And what do you do with this revelation? -> ->S: step out and re-center .
And wait until it returns again. Ever wonder why thoughts arise? Ever thought of getting to the bottom of the causes of the suffering? Buddha said we had to get at the cause and not just the suffering. A good pointer, others say it too.
->>Even the 'wise' are sort of schizophrenic, fading in and out of ->>consciousness from pure to mundane. -> ->S: they do? I suppose they have to deal with the in the world stuff as well. -> ->>Pure as the knower and mundane as ->>the speaker yet always 'present'. Response seems autonomic, nothing ->>thought or interpreted. Simply relating what is responded to. Words ->>arise yet not arising by themselves. A response to and at 'moment'. ->>That's all there is. No concern because no one is present, just a ->>'prepense'. Everything is deliberate yet unplanned, everything is the ->>same yet different. A model it seems. -> ->S; yes. -> ->>It is said talking to yourself isn't bad but be leery of the answers you ->>get. But to stop the "bouncing" the model might help. Whatever you are ->>doing is all there is, even when sleeping. So that's where your ->>attention should be. When it's anywhere else you bounced. -> ->S: I know that, and yet have to remind myself of that. So for awhile there ->is an I and a myself to be reminded by a self and I. Until there isn't. ->It's not comfortable being in the I or myself mode. The I prefers the no I ->state. The no I state, doesn't give it a thought.
'I' and no 'I', seems it would be stressing just to keep track. Almost like masks, put on one for this and the other for that. Need to be a quick change artist. Unlike the spider, humans get caught in their own web. Nothing is confused, we confuse it. Everything is 'present', we drag it somewhere else.
Subject: Re: A Ray Of Light
From: ejLight@light-mission.org (E.J.)
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 00:28:01 GMT
Greetings Ram, ->Hi EJ, Ma, et all,
Seems that this was posted to the wrong mailing list, so forwarded: ->In your yester-day's post, you have said: -> ->>>> Consciousness, as it is understood throughout our life, from a ->social or even a psychological perspective, is simply the mental ability of ->being alive. We can think, we can plan, we can perceive, therefore we are ->conscious. Yet, there is an overt consciousness and an Inner Consciousness ->(sometimes called Spiritual Consciousness). It is the Inner Consciousness ->that I wish to impart -- the Consciousness Within. So, naturally, I say ->"Go Within INto Consciousness". And note that I said IN-to, meaning ->Dwelling AS that Consciousness. For it is only there that one can BE AS ->the very Present Moment IS.<<< -> ->You have hinted a fine point of going into the overt (open to review) and ->Inner consciousness (Cit Shakti that makes us aware). You say just dwell on ->that and you will BE as the very present moment is. My inquiry is: are you ->saying just imagine and make believe that you have entered the area where ->the Inner consciousness zone commences i.e. immediately where the ->intellectual consciousness zone finishes. I recognize we need not create a ->separation between the two zones; however; this entry process (if any) if ->explained in more detail could be very helpful in being our original nature. ->Could you kindly explain it more from a direct experience point of view ->wherein possibly a whole floodgate of inner infinite energy (cit shakti) ->could open that is waiting to be opened. -> ->Thanks for your anticipated detailed response, if possible. -> ->Regards........Ram
It seems that your referenced quote simply indicates that there is a difference between the way the word "consciousness" Points to. Like the word 'love' used to indicate just about anything from preference in clothing to Compassion, which simply leads to confusion and misunderstanding. Generally speaking, likewise, people seem to think that the consciousness that indicates an Earth life form is the same Consciousness referred to in Enlightenment/Awakening/Awareness. This use of a catch-all word "consciousness" also leads to confusion and misunderstanding.
Dwelling "on" (Dualistic) is not the same as dwelling "AS" (NonDualistic). Dualism is the disease that Causes this confusion and misunderstanding. And tends to convert everything to that perspective, rendering it invalid relative to a NonDualistic intent. For you see, to dwell "on", you would have to have one to dwell and something to dwell on. So Pointing to the Fact that the 'dweller' no longer exists would be to say the seeming dweller IS or AS or BEing whatever it is to dwell. The going INto Consciousness is actually to BE Consciousness. Dualistically you can not BE it. The Moment you "create a separation between the two zones" all you have is the consciousness of any life form on Earth. It is this very separation that keeps people from BEing anything. When you have a separation of that which is to dwell on that which dwells then there is only projected conditioned thinking between the two. Taking it a step further, you ARE Consciousness but you do not Realize/Recognize that because you 'think' that you are separate from it so you have to do something to attain it. When you remove the distance between you and it, THEN you will BE it. As long as that separation is part and parcel of the modus operandi, BEing it will never be Truly Understood or Directly Experienced.
So, to BE, one must dwell AS rather than ON. And it is not a matter of semantics. Rather, a state of BEing. This reply is not a mere "point of view" but rather the related "direct experience" of "a whole floodgate of inner infinite energy (cit shakti)"'. Not that "could open that is waiting to be opened" but rather BEing thus Open. The flaw in Duality is that there is something to attain and something/someone to attain it. When we take off the Dual Rose Colored Glasses that establishes a certain 'depth perception' we Realize/Recognize that there really is not Two.
Subject: Re: A Ray Of Light
From: "belinda" <tink@nts-online.net>
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 20:08:50 -0600
When you remove the distance between you and it, THEN you will BE it. Who's to say when you make love to somebody where that start's and where that end's? Oh master. Aren't we talking about walking the middle road here? The rugged path is the journey we all must take to higher and higher states of consciousness. The seeker must travel between the towers of good and evil to reach his goal. There you will find the mysteries of the Universe.
Subject: Re: A Ray Of Light
From: ejLight@light-mission.org (E.J.)
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 03:47:07 GMT
Greetings Belinda, you wrote: ->EJ: When you remove the distance between you and it, ->THEN you will BE it. ->B: Who's to say when you make love to somebody where that start's and where ->that end's? Oh master. ->Aren't we talking about walking the middle road here? ->The rugged path is the journey we all must take to higher and higher states ->of consciousness. The seeker must travel between the towers of good and ->evil to reach his goal. There you will find the mysteries of the Universe.
*Roaring Laughter* The best we can do Dear New Friend, is Master ourself. Which is accomplishing far more than most. "Middle road"? No, actually BEing the road. You ARE the road. Why complicate the simple?
If love begins and ends then it is not love. The action of sex begins and ends but that has nothing to do with love. Why compare an apple with an orange. Love simply is a state of BEing, which has nothing to do with sex. You are fooling yourself when you associate love with sex.
"Higher" must mean that there is a 'lower', and in Dualistic perception this would be true. But NonDualistically there is only Consciousness, none higher nor lower. NonDualistically there is no good nor evil, there is only What-IS. NonDualistically there is not even a "seeker", and there is no seeming "goal". And there is nothing to "find" because the so called "seeker" will invariable seek in all the wrong places (where there is nothing to be found anyway). And how can we "travel" when no matter where we go there we are? Dualistically you will only find what you want to find, which is the very Cause of our Suffering in the from of conflict and greed and corruption and war and strife and crime and all manner of ills we see every day.
And may it be added that there is actually only one Great Mystery, and that is each and every living thing that makes up the phenomenal realm. And if you have to look very hard for that you are in real trouble. The trees never stand in the way hiding the forest.
Anyway, that is how it is not seen by a non-seer not here.
Subject: Re: A Ray Of Light
From: "Ram Varma" <ramvarma1@rogers.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 20:56:34 -0500
Hi EJ,
Thanks for responding to my inquiry. You have said:
>>> Dwelling "on" (Dualistic) is not the same as dwelling "AS" (NonDualistic).<<<
Are we saying thatr we just meditate AS Self/Consciousness (not on Self) devoid of any objectivity. When the mind is quiet, in silence the consciousness that in itself is peace, love, freedom, awareness and bliss becomes a direct experience of its original nature as it is?
>>>The going INto Consciousness is actually to BE Consciousness. <<<
Are we saying that in silence of quiet mind keep silently affirming that I Am consciousness? Let the emphasis be on what we are in our original nature of Truth/freedom, awareness and joyfulness
>> Taking it a step further, you ARE Consciousness but you do not Realize/Recognize that because you 'think' that you are separate from it so you have to do something to attain it. When you remove the distance between you and it, THEN you will BE it.<<<
A beautiful realization indeed. There is already unity. Let's be with it rather than causing a mental conditioning of separation and then trying hard to remove the condition.
>> As long as that separation is part and parcel of the modus operandi, BEing it will never be Truly Understood or Directly Experienced.<<<
A great reminder to remain vigilant of the so-called separation. Let's keep dwelling on unity by affirming, " I AM.."
>>> So, to BE, one must dwell AS rather than ON. <<<
A great pointer indeed. Thanks EJ.
Just a small point that Consciousness is addressed by different people as Self, Energy, Self-knowledge, Truth, Order, Brahman, Existence and pure knowledge. Any comment?
Best Wishes.............Ram
Subject: Re: A Ray Of Light
From: ejLight@light-mission.org (E.J.)
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 04:22:16 GMT
Greetings Ram, you wrote: ->Thanks for responding to my inquiry. You have said: -> ->>>> Dwelling "on" (Dualistic) is not the same as dwelling "AS" ->(NonDualistic).<<< -> -> Are we saying thatr we just meditate AS Self/Consciousness (not on Self) ->devoid of any objectivity. When the mind is quiet, in silence the ->consciousness that in itself is peace, love, freedom, awareness and bliss ->becomes a direct experience of its original nature as it is?
Taking you mean 'object oriented' by "objectivity", yes BE Self/Consciousness/Silence/Void/Stillness. Meditate thusly, and yes you will Directly Experience "consciousness that in itself is peace, love, freedom, awareness and bliss" AS it IS. It has been called experiencing one's Original Face or True Nature. In meditation we concentrate on certain things or aspects to focus in on something, but when contemplating absolutely nothing (NoThing) it confounds the mind much like a Koan does in that one is left with the resolve of Consciousness itself. Consciousness/Self/Silence/Void/Stillness can not actually be fathomed with the mind, the intellect, so the Key is to give the mind something to chew on that it can not come to a closure about. Sort of a stalemate, where the mind has no moves left, still-point, singularity, blank, frozen in Timelessness. That is when the Miracle is Truly Seen.
->>>>The going INto Consciousness is actually to BE Consciousness. <<< -> ->Are we saying that in silence of quiet mind keep silently affirming that I ->Am consciousness? Let the emphasis be on what we are in our original nature ->of Truth/freedom, awareness and joyfulness
AS, not "in". There can be no one to be "affirming", especially an "I". Only when you are not, then is when you can BE. Not really an "emphasis" but rather BEing "what we are in our original nature of Truth/freedom, awareness and joyfulness". It is about setting the Great Processor the mind aside and BEing yourSelf, the True Nature you ARE.
->>> Taking it a step further, you ARE Consciousness but you do not ->Realize/Recognize that because you 'think' that you are separate from it so ->you have to do something to attain it. When you remove the distance ->between you and it, THEN you will BE it.<<< -> -> A beautiful realization indeed. There is already unity. Let's be with it ->rather than causing a mental conditioning of separation and then trying hard ->to remove the condition.
*Deep Bow* But what is with the Dualistic outlook Dear Friend, "with" indicates that there is something to be with and someone to be with it. *BE* is the Keynote.
->>> As long as that separation is part and parcel of the -> modus operandi, BEing it will never be Truly Understood or Directly ->Experienced.<<< -> -> A great reminder to remain vigilant of the so-called separation. Let's keep ->dwelling on unity by affirming, " I AM.."
Indeed "vigilant" but not "on" or "affirming". Why is it that you cling to Dualism? Beyond the inherent Duality of language? It is the Duality that is anti-productive to BEing.
->>>> So, to BE, one must dwell AS rather than ON. <<< -> ->A great pointer indeed. Thanks EJ. -> ->Just a small point that Consciousness is addressed by different people as ->Self, Energy, Self-knowledge, Truth, Order, Brahman, Existence and pure ->knowledge. Any comment?
And others address consciousness as life forms. You are conscious of this, correct?
->Best Wishes.............Ram
BE Well and Mindful Wonderful Friend, Shanti, Namaste, Metta, Zikr --
As Shanti is to say *may the Humility AS me Embrace the Humility AS you as a Humility of One*, so too Namaste is to say *may the Divine Essence AS me Embrace the Divine Essence AS you as a Divine Essence of One*, so too Metta is to say *may the Loving Kindness AS me Embrace the Loving Kindness AS you as a Loving Kindness of One*, so too Zikr is to say *may the Self-Remembering AS me Embrace the Self-Remembering AS you as a Self-Remembrance of One*. So *may the True Nature AS me Embrace the True Nature AS you as a True Nature of One*.
Subject: A Ray Of Light
From: Ray.of.Light@light-mission.org
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 05:51:00 GMT
Greetings,
Dualism is *thinking* that there is something *other* than you, NonDualism is *knowing* that there is not. In Dualism there is a creator and a creation, in NonDualism the creation IS the creator. The point is that Truth is NonDualistic and therefore the energy of Truth is NonDualistic. A Dualist will *think* that the rain and earth and sun and tree are four different things, yet the NonDualist will *know* that the tree is the rain and earth and sun for there would be no tree without them.
Subject: Re: A Ray Of Light
From: "Ram Varma" <ramvarma1@rogers.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 11:21:51 -0500
Greetings EJ,
> Dualism is *thinking* that there is something *other* than you, > NonDualism is *knowing* that there is not. In Dualism there is a creator > and a creation, in NonDualism the creation IS the creator. The point is > that Truth is NonDualistic and therefore the energy of Truth is > NonDualistic. A Dualist will *think* that the rain and earth and sun > and tree are four different things, yet the NonDualist will *know* that > the tree is the rain and earth and sun for there would be no tree without them.
Great analogy for inter-connectedness of non-dualism, EJ. How does one translate this analogy in day to day living of life so that there is no gap between the performer (of tasks) and the object of performance?
Thanks........Ram
Subject: Re: A Ray Of Light
From: ejLight@light-mission.org (E.J.)
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 02:51:05 GMT
Greetings Ram, you wrote: ->> Dualism is *thinking* that there is something *other* than you, ->> NonDualism is *knowing* that there is not. In Dualism there is a creator ->> and a creation, in NonDualism the creation IS the creator. The point is ->> that Truth is NonDualistic and therefore the energy of Truth is ->> NonDualistic. A Dualist will *think* that the rain and earth and sun ->> and tree are four different things, yet the NonDualist will *know* that ->> the tree is the rain and earth and sun for there would be no tree without ->them. -> ->Great analogy for inter-connectedness of non-dualism, EJ. How does one ->translate this analogy in day to day living of life so that there is no gap ->between the performer (of tasks) and the object of performance?
Simply do not think about it, just do it (whatever) autonomicly. A seasoned cabinet maker does not have to think about what he has to do, he just does it. He knows what tools to use and how to use them and the materials he will need, they are all right there at his disposal. So he *instinctively* takes the tools and instinctively works with the materials and instinctively puts the finished product where he instinctively knows where it goes. Or on the automotive assembly line, no one has to think about what they are going to do next, they instinctively do as they are trained. Speed reading, where you do not read every word but actually look at the words and move on to the next word. You know what the word is and what it means without reading it. Look around while talking to yourself or someone else, you will recognize what you see without naming it. Likewise, just look around without thinking about what you see, and when you see something that needs done just go ahead and do it without thinking about it. There is very little in the world around you that you have not seen before so you very well know where everything fits together, and know what it is for and how it works. What is to think about? Keep the mind processing incoming data without letting it mull over every little byte. A smooth operation.
It is a form of Walking or Mindful Meditation, as real life. Silence the chatter of the mind, gaze upon all the Wonders before you, instinctively doing whatever it is that is to be done, without a consideration or judgement or choice one. Without even a single arising thought. So you see, the "gap between the performer (of tasks) and the object of performance" is all in your head. Life is very NonDualistic, it is the relentless arising thoughts generated by toxic conditionings processed by the mind that makes life *seem* Dualistic. That is why many Wise Sages say that "life is an illusion". Life itself is not really an Illusion but the way Sleeping humanity *perceives* it is an Illusion. "It is all in your head". The "gap", that is. That is, the performer and the performance are actually one and the same, we separate them in our head. If you Openly and Honestly look around at "day to day living of life", this will be quite obvious. So obvious that you will Realize/Recognize that you too can make it a "day to day living of life" in your life. Try it, you might like it.
Subject: inferiority/superiority
From: Ma <MaheshPradeep@dakwala.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 08:29:46 -0800
Hello J,
You have asked about inferiority and superiority. How can there be either? Who is to judge? When there isn't a dualist to judge then there can't be either. It just comes from the idea that ther's someone to be inferior or superior. Who could that be? You also asked about "who am I?" Apparently you haven't solved that riddle or you would know that the 'I' is the only one who could think of being inferior or superior. When you "know yourself" you will know that there is neither. Because when you "know yourself" you will know that there isn't any self to be inferior or superior. It's a rudimentary social game of hierarchy. So just don't identify with it. No magic potion or pill to take, just don't buy it. As long as you buy into the hierarchy game, no matter how superior you think you are, there will always be someone more superior to you. So give up the self and no game and no hierarchy and no inferiority/superiority. Just you. Keep it simple.
Subject: RE: inferiority/superiority
From: "Johannes Kieding" <lmrepresentative@hotmail.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 17:24:52 +0000
*prostrates before MA*
Thank you! Very appreciated :)
*high five*
Working on that *I*, it's a bitch.
Subject: Re: inferiority/superiority
From: "belinda" <tink@nts-online.net>
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 11:41:55 -0600
Just out of curiousity do you also think that a flower tell's itself that there is no "I". There may be flower's that are lovelier, stronger, live longer etc. but what would make a flower better or less than another? If you were an untimate being as in Arch angel would there still be no"I" to differetiate him from any other Angel. Again, not saying one is better nor less than an another but there are no two thing's alike. If you do not know thyself and love thyself and in the "I" how do you explain free will and growth? There has to be dsome measure as to your character (ethic, morals, entigrity). Or are we just robot's and here to serve no purpose?
Subject: Re: inferiority/superiority
From: Ma <MaheshPradeep@dakwala.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 12:03:23 -0800
Hello Belinda, ->Just out of curiousity do you also think that a flower tell's itself that ->there is no "I".
A flower doesn't have to, it's already 'awake'. Talking to yourself is a human malady. You won't understand until you make the 'two' again 'one'.
-> There may be flower's that are lovelier, stronger, live ->longer etc. but what would make a flower better or less than another?
The perceiver's influenced perception and nothing more. Robots have a tendency to judge because they are influenced to do so.
->If you were an untimate being
All sentient beings are ultimate. Just too influenced to realize it.
->as in Arch angel would there still be no"I" to ->differetiate him from any other Angel.
Not to the arch angel. Only in the influenced mind of the perceiver is there need for duality.
-> Again, not saying one is better nor ->less than an another but there are no two thing's alike.
The fallacy in your thinking is that there actually are not "two things". When you start with the premise that there are many things then you will always be comparing and judging and choosing and chasing your tale. The foundation of the dual fixation. When you wake up to the fact that all the many things are actually just things then it gets a little clearer. But as long as you waste your time separating the things you will remain in confusion about them and everything else.
-> If you do not know ->thyself and love thyself and in the "I" how do you explain free will and ->growth?
When you "know yourself" you will know that there's no 'I'. And you will know that there's no "free will". Because with both there can't be any "growth". The 'I' is an ego aspect that has nothing to do with your true self, you are just influenced to think so. Arrogance is a sickness that leads to suffering and strife and war. That movie you play is all in your head though you project everywhere. Life is an ever anew flow, it's the so called 'will' of manifest form. We are manifest form. So whatever is done is done accordance with this flow. Influenced we think we have some control over this. Control over the things we separate, yes, but no other control. We are influenced to think so due to the arrogance/ego. You fight the 'will' of the flow by trying to have some 'will' of your own. Funny but sad.
->There has to be dsome measure as to your character (ethic, morals, ->entigrity).
So says the influenced realm. But to be truly free you can't be influenced in any way. You don't even listen to your own prophets. Jesus said eliminate influences, and there is not two. Yet you wallow in your own excretion. Does it give some pleasure? Does it avoid some pain? It's a mystery that everyone seems to think they can have their own little reality and not be a disruption to anyone else's reality. Funny, but sad when you look at the world in its sorry state of greed and conflict.
-> Or are we just robot's and here to serve no purpose?
Influenced are robots. Clinging to the influences there can't be any purpose to your life. Except for the things you separate. Which is momentary at best. Self purpose perhaps. Self pleasure, self pain, self foolishness, self destruction. You have to "know yourself" to understand the real purpose. And it will not be what you think.
Subject: Re: inferiority/superiority
From: "Ram Varma" <ramvarma1@rogers.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 17:40:36 -0500
Hi Ma, Appreciating fully as you have said: >>>... But as long as you waste your time separating the things you will remain in confusion about them and everything else.<<<
What does help Ma in keeping the things united and interconnected? What contemplation and what meditation and how? How can one feel-know more in non-duality and interconnectedness and translate the same feeling-knowing in day to day living of life.? And get a bigger picture.
Thanks...........Ram
Subject: Re: inferiority/superiority
From: Ma <MaheshPradeep@dakwala.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 15:54:04 -0800
Hello Ram, ->Appreciating fully as you have said: ->>>>... But as long as you waste your time separating the things you will ->remain in confusion about them and everything else.<<< -> ->What does help Ma in keeping the things united ->and interconnected? What contemplation and what meditation and how? How can ->one feel-know more in non-duality and interconnectedness and translate the ->same feeling-knowing in day to day living of life.? And get a bigger ->picture.
There is the crux of the problem, you can't do anything to "unite" them. You assume they aren't united/interconnected but they are already. You can't do something that's already done. So don't bother trying. The harder you try the harder it is to do. When you get out of the dual mode you won't have to "translate" anything either because it's already translated. So don't try to redefine/translate anything, the harder you try the harder it is to do. You are so hung up on method that you lose sight of what the method is for. You're so involved with the means that you don't see the ends. When you stand outside of life, just using some method to live it, you lose sight of the fact that you 'are' life. When you 'are' life you may as well just 'be' life, no method needed. In essence there really isn't any such thing as nonduality, other than pointing to that which is not dual. Because all of the universe is dual. When you stop identifying with the dual then there is just a state of 'presence', which we just call nonduality. 'Presence' at 'present' is what all the so called spiritual methodology is supposed to engender. Problem is that all it does is establish the method. It's real simple, just get lost in whatever is at 'present'. Good method? But it won't last if you keep chasing random arising thoughts. You can't chase those thoughts and remain 'present'. "Kill the monkey" some say. So it seems all you have to do is 'kill the monkey' and 'be present'. Good method?
Subject: Re: inferiority/superiority
From: "Ram Varma" <ramvarma1@rogers.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 20:43:54 -0500
Hi Ma,
Thanks for you considerate answer, however, I have some comments as follows:
1. Your magic formula for this dual world is present moment presence by first killing the monkey of the mind. Although I don't see anything wrong with it, my comment here is that the mind has been used to wandering and chattering for ages, wouldn't it be a wise strategy to control the mind through meditation or something else and use a blanket/sudden understanding of unity-consciousness at the same time. That's what I meant by method or mechanism. And this method may be free from "I" affirmations i.e. "I am free or I am one with All". It can be replaced by affirming, "The energy in me is the same as universal energy.", sort of.
2. Using the same logic we are used to duality for ages and at a certain stage of our evolution we need to be united again. It is the same way we need to revert to innocence with which we started our cycle of coming into this world as an innocent baby. Now all of sudden, again at a certain stage of evolution, we aspire to revert back to non-duality and interconnectedness. Of course through understanding and feeling we can gradually move to the unity-consciousness.
3. For both of the above to happen I thought some kind of non-duality and interconnected meditations would help as they are helping to control the wanderings of monkey (mind). Maybe just contemplating the silence (as is) as the mind is quiteneing is in itself a mechanism. It surely helps lots of people who are going this route.
Just saying point blank there is unity and we are all non-dual may be too much of an essence of non-duality to sink in or actually absorb within and feel-know it is working in reality.
Hope it makes sense from practical point of view.
Regards...............Ram
Subject: Re: inferiority/superiority
From: Ma <MaheshPradeep@dakwala.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 18:42:52 -0800
Hello Ram, ->Hope it makes sense from practical point of view.
Ha ha ha. Makes sense to the deluded masses still looking for a savior. It's fine to twist reality around to your liking, people have been doing for a long time. It's the modern thing to do. But just because that's the way it has been done for a long time doesn't make it so. But as long as you are happy with it, good luck. Keep smiling and waving, looks good. You could be a star. Have you looked into Hollywood? Or are you just a spectator movie goer?
Subject: (fwd) Re: A Ray Of Light
From: ejLight@light-mission.org (E.J.)
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 03:50:38 GMT
On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 21:39:22 -0500, "Ram Varma" <ramvarma1@rogers.com> wrote:
->Greetings to you EJ, -> ->You have so wisely pointed out: -> -> >>>*Meditative State of Mind* is emanated in every aspect of our ->life.So we eventually become that *Meditative State of Mind* in everything ->we do or say or think. Everywhere, all the time, continuously. *Meditative State ->of Mind* is emanated in every aspect of our life. So we eventually become ->that *Meditative State of Mind* in everything we do or say or think. ->Everywhere, all the time, continuously. THIS is Being the Moment, Being ->Present.<<< -> ->Indeed this is very beautiful state of present moment presence. Before we ->can spontaneously or instinctively utilize this state we have to be IN it. ->Is it through slipping the gap or through any meditative techniques that ->suit the best according to one's own inclinations? My only point here being ->that it doesn't make sense to being dogmatically against a method/system ->that brings us to that meditative state at a certain point of our journey in ->this life. Afterwards it may become natural/instinctive. -> ->Any comments?
Only one, you missed the Point. Dualists can not seem to let go of their conditioned foundational notion that there is something to attain and someone to attain it. Head games with closures, a winner and a loser. Until you can BE it there will not be any understanding of it. To BE it is to understanding, to be "IN" it is hazardous to the shoes. It is all an Illusion because there is nothing to attain, let alone anyone to attain it. All phenomenality is a Duality, thus as long as you identify with phenomenality you too will be Dualistic (perception, ideology). When you can let go of the identification to phenomenality you will no longer be Dualistic thus can Apperceive What-IS AS it IS. Until you can you will just have to settle for the dregs of life, uncertain and unknowing. And when you do let go of that self-identification association there will not be anyone to do any identifying because that is all you are, your self-image. You project that self-identification onto/into everything so you 'think' it is real. An impermanent mirage that looks good but has no milage. The Price to BE your Self will Cost you yourself. But if it feels good, hey, give it a test drive around the showroom. Just because it has no motor is no big deal. "Here's yer sign".
"Method/system" is dogmatic, though they do have their value to a point. Problem is that Dualistically you can not get past the "method/system" so they become useless and toxic to Awakening. And if you simply wait around for *something to happen* then you will also be waiting around 'next time'. Language is Dualistic by nature yet we use it to convey What-IS. Pointers really. Likewise "method/system" can convey some sort of attainment. Pointers really. But it is long after the Talk is done that we actually Walk what was Talked about. Yes we have to study and work on ourself and practice what we study, but then all that has to pass away too and we have to start BEing it. BEing Present Moment Presence is BEing it, Talking about it is just Talking about it. What we BE we BE, what we do not BE we do not BE. Simple really.
Subject: Re: inferiority/superiority
From: "Ram Varma" <ramvarma1@rogers.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 22:52:50 -0500
Hello Ma,
You have remarked:
>>>You could be star. Have you looked into Hollywood? Or are you just a spectator movie goer?<<<
I thought a non-dual person would be at least beyond sarcastic remarks if not seeing all beings in one's original nature and also in the supreme nature of the Nature.
Still respecting your views though............Ram
Subject: Re: inferiority/superiority
From: Ma <MaheshPradeep@dakwala.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 20:37:09 -0800
Hello Ram, ->Hello Ma, ->You have remarked: ->>>>You could be star. Have you looked into Hollywood? Or are you just a ->spectator movie goer?<<< -> ->I thought a non-dual person would be at least beyond sarcastic remarks if ->not seeing all beings in one's original nature and also in the supreme ->nature of the Nature. -> ->Still respecting your views though............Ram
Don't think, it's dualistic. Did you note your reaction? You seemed to be funning so more fun was added. A Roshi once hit a meditator on the arm with a stick, the meditator flinched a little, the Roshi said "is the stick uncomfortable? well don't nap".
Subject: Flash In The Pan
From: ejLight@light-mission.org (E.J.)
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 03:56:01 GMT
Greetings Community,
Well, Enlightenment was a *flash in the pan*, conceptually speaking. It seems that people are not actually interested in Enlightenment but rather just taking about being Enlightened. Talking about such things seems to have an element of osmosis, like walking around with a book on your head and expect the knowledge from the book to seep into the brain. It is seen all over and in just about every discipline and school of thought. Perhaps people think they are too busy to get fully engaged in any undertaking of this sort so they think talking about them being Enlightened that some will rub off on them. If it were that easy it seems like most everyone would be Enlightened. Seems they would show it if they were though, since they most likely would not know. Even show it in their words. Ma brought up the analogy about the moths and lantern and flame, the one who talks about their Enlightenment (lantern) is not the one Enlightened (flame). Enlightened they would not be drifting in and out of Enlightenment to say they are. Because at that point 'they' would not be around to say it or even know it. Sometimes you are a moth and sometimes you are not, as far as moths go. It seems to be an oxymoron to say "I'm Enlightened", in that there is someone who can attain something and something to attain. So it would seem, as has been said, that Enlightenment is really simply just another word for nothing left to let go (which includes the "I"). No bells and whistles about that, but then..... is Enlightenment?
So, has anyone worked with Self-Observation? Observing yourself, arising thoughts and reactions. Sort of a Self-Inquiry into who you think you are. Which could very well get into what Johannes was asking about as to the superiority/inferiority security/insecurity complex that most seem to have.
And try not to all speak at once {8-)
Subject: Re: Flash In The Pan
From: "R. Edge" <redgender@hotmail.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 01:16:28 -0500
Hello EJ, -> Well, Enlightenment was a *flash in the pan*, conceptually speaking.
I will have to read the archives of the list because I must have joined after that discussion.
->It seems that people are not actually interested in Enlightenment but ->rather just taking about being Enlightened. Talking about such things ->seems to have an element of osmosis, like walking around with a book on ->your head and expect the knowledge from the book to seep into the brain.
But it does help to talk about enlightenment as far as finding out various beliefs on the subject. No? Its an interesting topic but who really wants to be enlightened? What good is it? I'm too busy to be off in some nirvana or something. Is it going to help raise a family or make a living?
->It is seen all over and in just about every discipline and school of ->thought. Perhaps people think they are too busy to get fully engaged in ->any undertaking of this sort so they think talking about them being ->Enlightened that some will rub off on them. If it were that easy it seems ->like most everyone would be Enlightened. Seems they would show it if they ->were though, since they most likely would not know. Even show it in their
Yes but why bother with trying to be enlightened? Is there an advantage to it that people want it? Does it make you closer to God? Or does it make you into a God? Were we born to get enlightened?
->words. Ma brought up the analogy about the moths and lantern and flame, ->the one who talks about their Enlightenment (lantern) is not the one ->Enlightened (flame). Enlightened they would not be drifting in and out of ->Enlightenment to say they are. Because at that point 'they' would not be ->around to say it or even know it. Sometimes you are a moth and sometimes ->you are not, as far as moths go. It seems to be an oxymoron to say "I'm ->Enlightened", in that there is someone who can attain something and ->something to attain. So it would seem, as has been said, that ->Enlightenment is really simply just another word for nothing left to let go ->(which includes the "I"). No bells and whistles about that, but then..... ->is Enlightenment?
Is anybody enlightened? I've read about getting rid of conditioning but then what would we know? Is enlightenment not knowing anything? The ones you read about who were supposed to be enlightened seemed to know quite a bit. What did they let go?
-> So, has anyone worked with Self-Observation? Observing yourself, ->arising thoughts and reactions. Sort of a Self-Inquiry into who you think ->you are. Which could very well get into what Johannes was asking about as ->to the superiority/inferiority security/insecurity complex that most seem ->to have.
Don't feel either "superiority/inferiority security/insecurity". Just am. Evaluate myself, always. Always questioning my motives and actions. And thoughts too, I guess. Am I doing the right thing, as it effects those around me. And does what I do go along with what I say. And is what I do the best thing for my future. Its not the future yet but what I do right now will effect the future or anybody's future. This is not selfish looking out for myself but looking out for everybody because what I do will effect other people. There are other people in the world too so I feel I have to take that into consideration. Don't really react much because I am satisfied that I'm doing the right thing. I guest that is "Self-Observation".
-> And try not to all speak at once {8-)
How can more than one person speak at once with email?
Subject: Re: Flash In The Pan
From: ejLight@light-mission.org (E.J.)
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 15:15:07 GMT
Greetings R, you wrote: -> But it does help to talk about enlightenment as far as finding out various ->beliefs on the subject. No? Its an interesting topic but who really wants to ->be enlightened? What good is it? I'm too busy to be off in some nirvana or ->something. Is it going to help raise a family or make a living?
Well, yes, but beliefs are like butts, everyone has one and its best use is to set on. Mere beliefs do not help understand anything other than how badly one is conditioned. Some call it brainwashed. Nothing wrong with talking about Enlightenment to get an understanding of Enlightenment when facts are offered rather than beliefs. Those who are Enlightened do have an amazing sense of Clarity and Awareness and Understanding and Empathy, so it would be good for that. And it seems that those who talk about Enlightenment want the Clarity and Awareness and Understanding and Empathy so they say they want to be Enlightened. But saying that they are does not make it so. One would think that being Enlightened would be off in the ozone but actually those who are Enlightened are quite down to earth and practical in many ways. Yes, as has been seen, there is an aloofness to them in that though they are right there in front of you they do not seem to be there. Present but not present. Sort of vacant in a way. Does not Clarity and Awareness and Understanding and Empathy "help raise a family or make a living"? Whether you call it Enlightenment or CornFlakes, Clarity and Awareness and Understanding and Empathy would help in anything you do.
->->It is seen all over and in just about every discipline and school of ->->thought. Perhaps people think they are too busy to get fully engaged in ->->any undertaking of this sort so they think talking about them being ->->Enlightened that some will rub off on them. If it were that easy it seems ->->like most everyone would be Enlightened. Seems they would show it if they ->->were though, since they most likely would not know. Even show it in their -> -> Yes but why bother with trying to be enlightened? Is there an advantage to ->it that people want it? Does it make you closer to God? Or does it make you ->into a God? Were we born to get enlightened?
First of all "trying to be enlightened" will not get you Enlightened. As long as you keep your eye on Enlightenment you will miss what it takes to BE Enlightened. You have a better chance at it by not trying for it. What we Seek will always elude us because we invariably look in all the wrong places. But there must be an advantage to it or so many people would not want it. The advantage it seems is Clarity and Awareness and Understanding and Empathy. Enlightenment does not make you "closer" to anything, it is not a game of horse-shoes (3 points for a ringer and 2 points for a leaner and 1 for close). There is no Dual aspect about Enlightenment, so Enlightenment is all about BEing rather than being "closer". Likewise, Enlightenment can not "make you into" anything. Enlightenment just allows you to BE the True Nature of Clarity and Awareness and Understanding and Empathy you ARE. You are already Enlightened when born so Enlightenment can not be the reason for being born. It is just that in our sojourn through life we get quite Blind by all the conditioned notions we gather and cling to. Fun while it lasts, but then we have to work our butts off to get back to that Enlightened state before gathering up all the Baggage. Jesus summed it up with "be as little children".
->->words. Ma brought up the analogy about the moths and lantern and flame, ->->the one who talks about their Enlightenment (lantern) is not the one ->->Enlightened (flame). Enlightened they would not be drifting in and out of ->->Enlightenment to say they are. Because at that point 'they' would not be ->->around to say it or even know it. Sometimes you are a moth and sometimes ->->you are not, as far as moths go. It seems to be an oxymoron to say "I'm ->->Enlightened", in that there is someone who can attain something and ->->something to attain. So it would seem, as has been said, that ->->Enlightenment is really simply just another word for nothing left to let ->go ->->(which includes the "I"). No bells and whistles about that, but then..... ->->is Enlightenment? -> -> Is anybody enlightened? I've read about getting rid of conditioning but ->then what would we know? Is enlightenment not knowing anything? The ones you ->read about who were supposed to be enlightened seemed to know quite a bit. ->What did they let go?
There has been a few seen to be Enlightened, so yes those few are. It seems that a few from times of yore were also, but of course not see at Present. But the Fact that there are a few at Present indicates that there most likely was in times of yore also. *Roaring Laughter*, the knowns are what you have to get rid of so you would not "know" anything. Those Enlightened seen to know a lot but actually it is not a knowing at all, but rather an Awareness of and Understanding of and Empathizing with what is Clearly obvious. Those Enlightened let themselves go. As the title of a poem goes, "To Lose Oneself and Find One's Self". Only when 'you' as an image/identity are no longer is when there is only What-IS Present.
->-> So, has anyone worked with Self-Observation? Observing yourself, ->->arising thoughts and reactions. Sort of a Self-Inquiry into who you think ->->you are. Which could very well get into what Johannes was asking about as ->->to the superiority/inferiority security/insecurity complex that most seem ->->to have. -> -> Don't feel either "superiority/inferiority security/insecurity". Just am. ->Evaluate myself, always. Always questioning my motives and actions. And ->thoughts too, I guess. Am I doing the right thing, as it effects those ->around me. And does what I do go along with what I say. And is what I do the ->best thing for my future. Its not the future yet but what I do right now ->will effect the future or anybody's future. This is not selfish looking out ->for myself but looking out for everybody because what I do will effect other ->people. There are other people in the world too so I feel I have to take ->that into consideration. Don't really react much because I am satisfied that ->I'm doing the right thing. I guest that is "Self-Observation".
What you do is about what Self-Observation/Self-Inquiry is in step one. Step two is getting rid of the conditioned notions that make us think we should do or react in a way that is not "the right thing". Self-Observation/Self-Inquiry is about noticing the thought without acting upon it and if it is in line with "the right thing" act upon it and if not in line with "the right thing" trace it to the conditioned notion that caused that thought to arise and get rid of it so it will not cause such thoughts in the future. That way you do not have to re-evaluate the thought over and over again. Sort of an economy of effort {8-)
->-> And try not to all speak at once {8-) -> -> How can more than one person speak at once with email?
Well..... Wise Observation.
Subject: love
From: "Johannes Kieding" <lmrepresentative@hotmail.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 10:30:01 +0000
The quote below struck me, if anyone wants to comment on it it would be appreciated: "That which you seek to know/look at/on will only reveal itself to you if you love it".
Is that true?
Subject: Re: love
From: ejLight@light-mission.org (E.J.)
Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2004 02:26:54 GMT
Greetings Johannes, you wrote: ->The quote below struck me, if anyone wants to comment on it it would be ->appreciated: ->"That which you seek to know/look at/on will only reveal itself to you if ->you love it". -> ->Is that true?
That depends on what you mean by "love". Since they say that "love makes the world go around", who wants to "know/look at/on" that? Be Aware and Mindful of it but certainly not love it. Could you love yourself and lose yourself? Or do you love yourself to reveal yourself so you can lose yourself? Sounds a little backward, or even anti-productive. The word "love" is too universally misused thus misunderstood to give it much attention before any articulation of the use of the word is established. This is how subliminal conditioning works, eliciting a reaction of vague intent driven by vague understanding. A determined conditioned reaction to a determined stimuli.
Subject: Ugly SIght
From: "Johannes Kieding" <lmrepresentative@hotmail.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 10:25:29 +0000
> So, has anyone worked with Self-Observation? Observing yourself, >arising thoughts and reactions. Sort of a Self-Inquiry into who you think >you are. Which could very well get into what Johannes was asking about as >to the superiority/inferiority security/insecurity complex that most seem >to have.
So goddamn hard to let go fo these complexes, but I have noticed that in using an image as a crutch, of GURU/Divine Mother/whatever, surrendering to this, serving this, loving this, trusting this, the strength of the egoic chains loosen their grip. Perhaps it is a sign that so many saints were so devotional in spirit.
Thank you for your comments EJ.
*prostrates*
Subject: Re: Ugly SIght
From: ejLight@light-mission.org (E.J.)
Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2004 02:44:19 GMT
Greetings J, you wrote: ->> So, has anyone worked with Self-Observation? Observing yourself, ->>arising thoughts and reactions. Sort of a Self-Inquiry into who you think ->>you are. Which could very well get into what Johannes was asking about as ->>to the superiority/inferiority security/insecurity complex that most seem ->>to have. -> ->So goddamn hard to let go fo these complexes, but I have noticed that in ->using an image as a crutch, of GURU/Divine Mother/whatever, surrendering to ->this, serving this, loving this, trusting this, the strength of the egoic ->chains loosen their grip. Perhaps it is a sign that so many saints were so ->devotional in spirit.
"Ain't it da trute". It is True, most use some image to focus on to give one strength against the onslaught of endless arising thoughts. A focal point one can draw energy from. Once focussed one can turn upon the arising thoughts with a certain vengeance, a certain reckoning. A kind of backup like Krishna was to Arjuna in the Bhagavad Gita. We know better than fall for the folly of most arising thoughts, but it is nice to feel that we have a Real Gladiator behind us when we need to call in reinforcements in our battles with the Grand Trickster. Eventually though, we do not need any reinforcements because we Learned well from our backup Gladiator. When we look at Sages/Saints of yore we do see a Total 100% Surrender/Devotion, so it seems it would be a clue.
º°`°º¤ø¤º°`°º¤ø¤º°`°º¤ø¤º°`°º¤ø¤º°`°º¤ø¤º°`°º¤ø¤º°`°º°`°º¤ø¤º°`°º
Light Mission's E-Mail Discussion Community Forum
The great Path has no Gates, thousands of roads enter it. When one passes through this Gateless Gate he Walks freely between Heaven and Earth.
"Let There Be Light
-- Always in All Ways"
http://www.Light-Mission.org
"Light Mission's
Private Postings/Teachings"
Yogajyotii@Light-Mission.org
"Light Mission's
Newsletter/Lessons"
http://www.Light-Mission.org/Newsletter.html
"Light Mission's
Ray Of Light"
http://www.Light-Mission.org/Ray.of.Light.html
"Light Mission Books"
http://www.Light-Mission.org/LM_Books.html
If
you want to go to the main index page "Let
There Be Light", just click
on the icon to the left and you will be taken there.
|
|
If you have comments or suggestions or just want to talk, email me at
©
2004 - This page created and maintained by
Page Wizard: Page_Wizard@Page-Wizard.com
or see our services at:
Page Wizard Page Design