Assorted Writings:

On Prayer | On Prayer, Part 2 | Usenet Shock Syndrome | Gene as Solomon. | Message to One Suffering Depression | The Tadpole and the Frog

Copyright 1998 by ==Gene Poole==. All rights reserved

On Prayer

By ==Gene Poole== for The Nonduality Solon Dec 1998

Greetings, fellow listmembers...

Our ongoing discussion of _prayer_ has led me to these thoughts.

The questions asked have raised these points:

_1 Does the concept of 'prayer' match the reality in which we are embedded?
Stated another way, is 'prayer' a possibility which if enacted, has a
discernable effect?

__a Is there an existing criteria by which to answer this question?
__b If this concept is indeed a reflection of the reality in which we are
embedded, are we now aware of the 'technique' of prayer which would make it
(prayer) effective?
__c If prayer is possible, how are we to know that it is not only properly
implemented, but also that it has had an effect?
__d If we perceive that effect may occur, what then if any, are the 'ethics
of Prayer'? Are there factors which would ethically constrain the nature,
intent, or content of our prayers?

_2 Is the concept of 'prayer' dependent upon the assumption that there is a
'higher power' to which to appeal for aid?

__a Does the assumption of a 'higher power' demolish the foundations of
__b Does the 'prayer of the Nondualist' address what is essentially
'themself'? If this is the case, what is the need of defining 'prayer', as
opposed to 'exercising intent'?
__c If the concept of 'prayer' does not presume a 'higher power', does it
then allude to a hidden or undiscovered function of consciousness, which is
triggered by the act of 'praying'? If this is so, is it possible to
directly access this function, thus to the point of increased efficacy?
__d Is the impulse to 'pray' grounded in an assumption that something is
'wrong, and needs to be fixed', or is it grounded in the assumption that
'there is nothing wrong, prayer being an affirmation of the greater
harmony', IE, "Thy will, not mine"?

Now that I have stated all of the above, (and I am certain that more
questions of this sort can be asked!), I would like to discuss this

The first issue is that of (as usual) language.

The common speech saying 'pray to God' may also be heard (experimentally)
as 'prey to God'.
Obviously, this shift of one letter changes the meaning of this phrase; or
does it?
The spoken words of this phrase 'pray/prey to God' are quite similar. Let
us discuss this apparent linguistic bridge, revealed as a similarity of
pronounciation. Note that I do not claim that there is a commonality
between 'prey' and 'pray'; I point out my own thoughts on this matter.

Is there any possible rational meaning in the phrase 'prey to God'? I offer
that there is, and significances worthy of note.

To 'prey to' is to 'stalk' or to 'hunt' what is desirable to the hunter.
Certainly, I as hunter desire 'God'. Thus I stalk 'God'.

If I 'prey to God', I am stalking the Ultimate Reality; I am seeking the
source of myself and of everything; I am following the River of Life to
it's headwaters.

The Nondual perspective eliminates obstacles to this migration of my self
to Self; Nonduality does not state that 'self is God', as does 'solipsism';
Nonduality offers a picture of wholeness which includes all particles,
including self, as an undisintegrated existing reality, which some call

Now, my use of the term 'undisintegrated' is deliberate; it is the
potential for disintegration, which is the risk of falling from integrity.
As I have stated elsewhere, 'integrity' is wholeness and immunity. The
ongoing risk of disintegration is characteristic of my human nature; by
owning my humanity as I do, I confess that I am at risk of loss of
integrity or of disintegration or 'disintegrity'.

By continually preying upon the Ultimate Reality, by means of surrender to
that Reality, I am thus remaining in integrity, and thus resist (am immune
to) disintegration. This is the nature of my preying, or stalking, of what
is desirable to me.

The issue of volition and intention are certainly highlighted in the above
discussion; one may ask (from an experimental Nondual viewpoint): "Is not
the effort and intention which you speak of, evidence of a presumed
separation from God?" To this I answer; that my confession of seeking
integrity and immunity, is the first step to effective prayer, in the sense
that the word 'prayer' is usually used.

As I see it, the first part of any prayer, must be a confession of personal
weakness or vulnerability. This confession is made from a position of
self-awareness; one is honestly confessing to 'partial realization', and
thus leaving 'blank' the unrealized part, which is then available to be
'filled' with the sought (stalked) realization, perhaps in the form of
direct communication 'from God'. One should be aware, that it is the strong
who are _able_ to confess weakness, _as it is the competent_ who know the
limits of their competence.

If one confesses, in the first part of prayer, to being a 'sinner', one is
confessing to having 'missed the mark', and is thus asking for improved
aim, or to restate, one is asking to be aided in one's hunting or stalking

It is here that we are able to see the crucial difference between 'applied
Nonduality' and 'theoretical Nonduality'. In the first case, the proper
application of Nonduality is the acknowledgement of the _unknown_, or God.
In the second case, that of 'theoretical Nonduality', the assumption that a
'realizer' is 'fully realized', _dismisses_ the unknown, or God.

It then becomes obvious (to me, at least) that the proper application of
Nonduality is 'open-ended' and never finished; that there is no 'final
stopping point'. This realization may be the very realization of
immortality ("never finished") which is so often sought, in response to the
(scriptual and contextual) inferrence that immortality is possible, and is
granted by God to the 'worthy'.

The comparison or restatement of God 'as the Unknown' is not unprecedented.
The unknowable nature of God is rumored, but not widely acknowledged. By
this I mean, that of the many assumptions of 'what God is', we find the
assumption that God 'is not me' or that 'God is Me'. I would propose that
both are true, and that this ' is/is not' paradox is one that must be borne
in abidance of the Unknown, or the unfulfilled part of oneself. To move to
resolve this paradox, to apply a rule of certainty in this case, is to
abolish the unknown, and thus to abolish God. Certainly however, we are
allowed to contemplate our own nature, and to compare this nature to that
of an imaginary god, in the full knowledge that we are merely worshipping
God by this act of devoted self-examination. The first finding in any such
examination, will be the realization of one's inability to 'know the
unknown'. It is in the honoring of the unknown _as a reality_ that we are
able to continue into the future, which is the portal of the Unknown

Those who cannot 'know the unknown as the unknown', are those who know
nothing of anything, for nothing can be known, without resorting to the
unknown. It is only the unknown, as the resevoir of 'what can be known, of
what is now not known', that can provide what can be known. Thus, the
confession of ignorance, is the first part of gaining knowledge; and the
first part of this confession of ignorance, is to become aware of the
unknown, or 'what one does not know'.

Even so, one is limited to imagining that what _can be known and which is
now unknown_, can be known by relative comparison to that which is 'already
known'. It is entirely possible that there is in the unknown, that which
cannot be _known, by_ an act of comparison to that which is now known. That
is to say, that we are allowed to imagine that the unknown contains that
which we cannot _NOW_ imagine. But it is also possible that what we are
about to learn, after our confession of weakness and ignorance, is the very
factor which would by comparison, illuminate that which is now
unimaginable. Such is the fruit of the confession of weakness and
ignorance, which is properly the first part of prayer; by opening and
emptying myself, I may then be filled.

These thoughts have occured in the context of my hunting for power,
immortality, integrity, immunity, and wisdom, and awareness of God the
Source. In my stalking, I found Nonduality, which is a powerful enhancement
of my ability as a hunter. I do not assume 'complete realization'; I have
hoped to show that it is the _hunger which drives the hunt_.

It is the _hunger which drives the hunt_; it is appetite, desire, and
acknowledgement of my ignorance which moves me forward. I stalk the
unknown, knowing that I do not know, what I do not know, and knowing also
that by acknowlegment of the void within me, that void may be filled by
God. That is my prayer.

On Prayer, Part 2

> "It is the _hunger which drives the hunt_; it is appetite,
> desire, and acknowledgement of my ignorance which moves me
> forward. I stalk the unknown, knowing that I do not know,
> what I do not know, and knowing also that by acknowlegment
> of the void within me, that void may be filled by God.
> That is my prayer."
> Melody:
> Good discussion here , Gene.
> I found myself nodding in agreement through it. I wonder,
> what part does 'Trust' and 'Faith' play for you in
> stalking the unknown and in the surrendering?
> And does there come a time when Trust or Faith is no
> longer needed? I'm reminded of a statement Joseph Campbell
> once made after being asked if he were a man of faith. He
> said, "I don't need faith, I have experience".
> Best regards,
> Melody

Dear Melody,

Thank you for your comments. As to your questions, to properly answer them,
I would need to see how you use those words in the context of your own
expression. Trust and faith are very powerful and pivotal words for some
people, and count for nothing in the speech of others. I take no issue with
either usage; but for me to give you an answer that is meaningful to you, I
would need to see just how you use those words in context. That having been
said, I will say this:

In using the words trust or faith, we must distinguish between two distinct
underlying contexts in which these words are embedded. In the first
context, and the most common one, the speaker who uses the words 'trust' or
'faith' assumes that there 'are' solid stepping-stones, a structure upon
which to stretch oneself, like hanging laundry on a clothsline. This
context sees a possibility of a progressive path or a hierarchical
structure which is 'real' in the same sense that the speaker assumes that
'the speaker is real'. This context is the 'relativist context', whose
reality is founded upon a 'prior reality', and so on, similar to the
'Turtle Island' model of how the Urth is supported in space; that it rests
upon the back of a giant turtle, which in turn rests upon another turtle,
and so on ad-infinitum. Where is the 'first turtle', and upon what does
that turtle rest?

In the 'relativist context', trust and faith relate to actualities; past
events which are 'real', present 'realities' and future 'possibilities'.
Certainly, we have seen challenges to the 'reality' of past, present, and
future; such challenges usually 'cause' the one of 'trust and faith' to
cling all the more tightly to the 'issues of faith' which are threatened by
a non-relativistic viewpoint, such as Nondualism.

Nondualism allows one to simply 'let go', because the Nondual viewpoint
prescribes "no-hazard" as a way of Being; this way of Being denies those
elements of reality which would call for trust and faith. Without 'hazard',
and thus nothing to defend against or to protect, faith and trust are quite

I have discussed the 'relativistic context of faith and trust'; I now go on
to discuss the 'other' context, which is more difficult to describe. I will
label this other context to be the 'functional context'. (This is not to
imply the opposite of 'dysfunctional'; I use the word 'functional' to
describe 'how it works', not 'how it should work'. )

In the 'functional' or 'functionalist' context, faith and trust are seen as
semantic directors only, not as solid and real things. In this context, one
who 'trusts' is merely speaking the word in order to make a statement about
something; the speaker does not mean to imply that 'they trust', beyond the
use of the word in the sentence. "I trust that you understand what I just
said". "I have faith in your ability to wade through these abstruse
laterallisms and to have a bit of fun as you do so".

The 'functional' context uses words as does the circus-performer use the
trapeze; merely as a means of getting from one point to another, quickly
and with perhaps a daring style, and often without a safety-net. The
'functionalist' does not ascribe 'reality' to the things that words _seem
to point to_; words are merely relay-points on a huge, shifting map of
meaning, which is the 'mind'. Communication is seen as a 'thing in itself',
and a thing to be done well.

The 'relativist' and the 'absolutist' are aroused to speak, much as the
grumpy bear from hibernation; annoying challenges to the 'reality' of that
reactive creature are met with returns as 'solid' as the challenge is seen
to be. To this creature, which prefers to slumber and dream of solid worlds
and solid rewards, 'faith' is as concrete as the log in which he snores.
'Articles of faith' are for this somnambulist, the very heart and soul
which is identity itself; thus this reactive grouch, hearing 'sacred words'
used in a way which is an insult to his 'identity', must then be obligated
to destroy the 'blasphemer'. It is this 'pragmatic' bruin, armed with teeth
and claws, who then must 'own the lexicon'; in other words, it is the
'relativist' and the 'absolutist' who fight to be in control of exactly how
words 'should be used and defined'. In this comical battle, the fur flies,
as each roars at the other, while the 'functionalist' moves past the
battleground, free of obligation, using words as navigational points only.

To summarize the above word-play into a whole, I am talking about
attachment and identification. Certainly, there is such thing as accuracy,
but if the hearer imagines the target to be other than that to which the
speaker is aiming, the speaker is accused of inaccuracy. If our goal is
freedom, we cannot attain freedom through the bondage of attachment and
identification. Taking that scenario to its bloody finish, there can be
only ONE 'free person', the one who 'owns the lexicon'. The
fascist/authoritarian person, bound to rigid assumptions of concrete
'realities', is obligated to homogenize all others into an image of
himself. This _one way only_ tendency is actuated soley to protect assumed
identity; beyond that, words have no use to the absolutist. For that one,
words act as the 'proof of tribal membership', and that fascistic fanatic
hyperactively scores and ranks others by the standard of themself and their
precious identity. Seeing this activity of humans, we can then see that the
warring tribes of today, are fighting over the ownership of a dictionary.

Usenet Shock Syndrome

For the consideration of all, I would like to share something that I have
been considering for a while. This concerns those who participate in USENET
newsgroups. I say this partially in mild jest, but also with concern that I
may refer to an actual disorder or syndrome.

As a longtime USENET participant, I have noticed what I call "USENET
Shock". This is a 'condition' which can apparently effect anyone who
indulges in that vast realm of stimulation which is USENET.

The symptoms of USENET Shock Syndrome (USS) include the following:

_1 The assumption that one must not only communicate, but must do so in
such a way as to (a) avoid being flamed, put down, ridiculed, scorned,
jeered, made fun of, or worse yet, ignored, and (b) to do so with a
distinctive style.

_2 (advanced symptom) One finds oneself _needing_ to flame, put down,
ridicule, jeer, make fun of, or otherwise mock, other posters.

_3 (terminal symptoms) One quits one's job, fails to eat or bathe, and
spends 20 hrs per day in interminable 'debate' on USENET. Because the modem
is tying up the phone line, one's friends eventually fade away. The spouse
leaves and the cat starves.

And so, I come to the Nonduality Solon, which is distinctly NOT USENET, but
I have my ingrained USENET habits; terse ping-pong style exchanges,
one-upmanship, sarcasm, etc.
I must realize that I 'have' USS; I must feed the cat, bathe, and call my
friends by phone. I swear not to spend more than 2 hrs per day on USENET,
and then, to find and share in less-stressful newsgroups, such as

Better yet, I come to the Nonduality Solon, and relax. I need not reply, I
need not read, I need not think. I can sleep if I want. Eventually I will
get around to expressing myself. No hurry. By reading the excellent,
non-competetive, loving postings, I learn that it is possible for me to
coexist with other people, without armor or weapons. I learn to let down
and relax. I realize that my 'mission' is to have compassion for _myself_.
And so, I cannot flog myself, and I cease to flog others. Peace reigns. The
cat is happy. The dishes are washed. All is well.

Is USS really any different than living a 'normal' life?

Anyway, just my semi-humorous offering about a serious thing. And I thank
Ritch for his kind participation. I feel that I am among friends here.

Gene as Solomon.

[Gene puts on special cone-shaped 'nonduality' hat]

Melody Anderson wrote:

> >>To jump from "that's not me" to "everythings me" is to
> miss a wonderful layer inbetween...which says you're not
> me, and I love you and honor you anyway. <s>

Now speaks Judi, whose tongue tends to be as sharp as her wits:

> >You call it *wonderful* because that's all you can come
> up with in light of your separate position. And if you can
> be honest with yourself and take a deeper look into what
> you call *wonderful and love*
> >is nothing more than saying "I'm suffering here in my
> aloneness and my ignorance." And that is what people call
> love. But that is not what love is. Real love is
> Understanding, it is Wisdom itself. So my advice is to
> courageously seek wisdom, and not stop along the way with
> all the sugar coating.

Now asks Melody, having felt once again the lash of the Divine Tongue:

> >Dear Gene,
> >It's my guess that the List may be getting as weary of
> these "back and forths" as I am.
> >I feel I have used the 'material' of it, all that I can.
> >Gene, I trust your insights. Judi seems to. What to do
> with all of this?

Bruce riposted (and just in time, I might add!)

> Gene is currently looking for
> his striped referee shirt,
> lanyard, and whistle. He has
> not to my knowledge accepted
> the mediator/arbitrator role
> as of yet, and is probably
> contemplating referring the
> entire matter to the wisdom
> of The United State Senate --
> or perhaps conferring with
> the Esoteric Master
> previously known as Solomon,
> Son of David and King of the
> Israelites.

Thanks, Bruce. As Soloman, I would have no choice but to ask Judi and Melody;

"Grrrlz, " (I know that Sol would never say that, Okay?)

"You come before me, disputing a rumored 'self', or as some call it, a
'Self'. Each of you claims ownership of this, uhhh, supposed 'thing'. You
have both claimed to have 'it', or at least 'knowledge' of 'it'. "

"Here is my Kingly Judgement! I hereby award to each of you, your very own
'self/Self'. In so doing, I state that Judi is Judi, and that Melody is
Melody. May any confusion of this matter be dispelled by this, my Kingly

[The crowd in the palace is heard to be mumbling; this gets Sol's attention:]

Sol: "What's that, back there? Do you dispute my Royal and Divine Prerogative?"

Peasant: "Um, no, yer lardship, we wuz jest a bit flabbergasted that them
wimmen gets to have a 'self', when none of us just plain old folks, gets to
have one. That's all, yer honor, sir."

Sol: [Groaning] "Look for a Kingly Decree, to be posted on the Palace Door,
very soon, which will alleveiate this, er, shortcoming. You were right, sir
peasant, to speak up."

[The peasants cheer and clap.]

[More mumbling is heard.. ]

Sol: "What's this? More dissent?"

Court Philosopher: "If it please Your Kingship, we philosophers would speak
our minds... "

Sol: [Thinking; 'And what 'minds' they are...'] "Yes, Phil? What say you?"

Phil: "Your Kingship, we philosophers were wondering, how it is, that you
have solved the prime mystery, one which has plagued us for many centuries,
in a brief moment of Kingly Meditation? Surely, Your Highness, as always
you are correct, as befits your Royal Wisdom; but may I ask, humbly, just
how You are so informed? Upon what eternal edifice did (or does,) this
absolute knowledge of self, repose? How are we, the most educated men of
the realm, (so justly administered by YourSelf, Your Highness!) to scale
that lofty peak, and to glimpse this jewel of glittering wisdom, upon which
your Kingly eye has so obviously rested, thus to attain a similar wisdom,
if of a lower calibre, as befits our rank? In other words, O Great King,
how do you know?"

Sol: [Wisely scratching his well-groomed beard] "Phil, as usual, you are a
'royal pain in the ass'. But rather than order your immediate execution, I
will let you in on my source."

Phil: [Eyes bulging in excitement] " Your tender mercies are graciously
accepted, O my King; and I would be deeply honored to hear of the source of
Your Ineffable Wisdom! Pray tell, Your Highness; should I sit upon yon
divan, lest the shock of your revealing, send me to the floor, in a grand

Sol: "Nay, good Phil, for it is but a simple telling, but a long time in
the understanding; and herein lies the difference between I and thou. It is
less of ranking of royalty, than ranking of experience; less of experience
than of knowing; and less of knowing, than of Being. For the experience of
knowing of Being, is the knowing of the experience of self. "

Phil: [Seems somewhat stunned... ] "Does your Majesty propose, or state,
that it is experience itself, which is your informant?"

Sol: "Well understood, philosopher. Do you wish to ponder that?"

Phil: "Yes, Your Majesty; I shall ponder it, even until I have the same, or
a similar, experience. Thank you, my One King, for your great gift of
eventual wisdom. Clearly, I am but a babe, compared to thine Royal Self. "

Sol: "You may note, Phil, that While there are obvious differences in our
respective ages, and therefore our experience and thus wisdom, that I do
not mock your ignorance; neither do I scathe your inexperience. This, I
state to be of a higher order of wisdom, than even that which you now set
to ponder. Do you take my words?"

Phil: [Startled] "Your most Gracious Majesty, I take not your meaning! Am I

Sol: "I have stated, philosopher, a fact of wisdom, to which even your
well-seasoned ears seem to be deaf. Shall I restate my pronouncement?"

Phil: "I admit to befuddlement, Your Highness; I know not of what you
speak. I ask humbly for you to repeat, if you please, what it was you have
just said. And this time, I will listen with all of my wisdom and knowledge
at the forefront."

Sol: "What I say unto you, is this: That there is no knowledge of self, or
of Self, which is so valuable, as to transcend that of a good relationship
of one person to another. Do you agree, or disagree, with this point?"

Phil: "Royal Sire, I do not hesitate to accept the truth you offer, even
though I see not, it's applicability in this moment. Would you care to
elucidate, O King?"

Sol: "Certainly, Phil. I am genuinely glad you are interested. Now; do you
agree that there is a place and a time, and a proper method, of

Phil: "Yes, Lord King; such is the role of teacher of the young, or that of
manager of foolish slaves. "

Sol: "Quite so. Now tell me this, Phil; If the teacher wrongly castigates
the child, what is the result?"

Phil: "Lord, you know, as do I, that the child who is wrongly castigated,
will resent such an unwise teacher; and that a teacher so unwise, is so
seen by his student, thus effectively negating the efforts of teaching".

Sol: "Wisely stated, Phil. Now, what occurs, if the manager of slaves,
wrongly castigates?"

Phil: "Woe be unto such an unwise manager, O King; for a slave treated
wrongly, will be all the less obedient, and will in fact, deliberately
bring calamity to the home, in retaliation for such mistreatment".

Sol: "What then is the use of castigation, philosopher?"

Phil: "Castigation is to be used only to prevent, and not to cause,
calamity; Castigation is seen as an act of last resort, O King; in fact,
castigation has caused more misery than has calamity itself, due to the
nature of man and woman. Do I speak truely, O king?"

Sol: "Rightly so, Phil. Now I ask this; of friendhip or castigation, which
is the proper currency of relationship? Of which, does the wise person
barter, and of which does the wise person seek?"

Phil: "O King, the wise take great stock of friendship, and wouldst soon
leave behind their parcel of castigation, if but they could, in all wisdom.
And further, O King, it is that seed of castigation, which if improperly
planted, does grow into the miserable tree of calamity."

Sol: "Again, wisely spoken. Now, Phil, inform me of this; where do the wise
carry their parcel of castigation?"

Phil: "O king, the wise carry castigation only in their hearts, for that is
where castigation is aimed, by one who is wise; and further, the heart that
carries castigation, knows of both the pain and the wisdom of such, and
that castigation is both a pain, and a wisdom, of the heart."

Sol: "You speak wisely, philosopher; you are worthy of your rank. Now, wise
one, suppertime draweth near, and our banter must come to an end, as
enjoyable as it has been. But one last question for you. It is this; of
what place has castigation, in the teaching of wisdom?"

Phil: "I see now, your previous meaning, O King; I take by your example, as
you speak to me, that instead of castigation, a path of inquiry is used;
that the studet castigated, flees and resents, while the student queryed,
will find within themself, the wisdom which the teacher desires them to
find. And in this, O King, I see why you are King, and I am philosopher;
for I admit that in my impatience, I have castigated the sincere student;
but if you, as King, can grant me this respect, then certainly I as
teacher, may grant respect to my students."

Sol: "It is truely so, Phil. If I am beloved as King, it is not because of
my wrath, but because of the respect which I harbor for my fellow man. And
it is this, which I wish to teach, far and wide, but this cannot be taught
in a disrespectful manner. And because of this difficulty in teaching, the
lesson of respect is all too-often the last lesson learned, rather than the
first. Do you agree?"

Phil: "O KIng, you put into words, that which is true and then obvious, but
which had escaped my thinking before this hearing of your wisdom. For this
wisdom, I thank you. I am humbled, and yet, O King, by your respect, I am
also edified."

Sol: "Hearing you speak thus, I too am gladdened, for I wish you to spread
this wisdom as you teach, and as you wander new lands seeking knowledge.
Now, go in joy."

[Thus spaketh King Solo-man to the court philosophers, on the issue of
self, castigation, relationship, and respect. ]

Transcribed by yr obdt svt,

==Gene Poole==

Message to One Suffering Depression

Thoughts of suicide are nothing more than the wish to escape one's own
HIGHEST SIDDHE, which is the power of creation itself. Our culture, which
is the living definition of 'dualism', relegates the power of creation to
'God'; yet, we all create our own individual dimension of reality via this
power of creation. I speak quite literally here, NOT metaphorically. The
'world-dream' gives us the pieces from which we then create our own
individual 'dream' or story.

Within this self-created story, we then attempt to create a power-source to
which we then assign the power of creation; this is "God". Ironically, the
"god" we create is the opposite of the 'satan' which is the devil of our
own karma. Within this self-created reality of 'dualism', any God or god or
escape or strategy will and can only be, the opposite of that which we have
already created. Thus, to escape one pole of our creation, we create the
opposite. This trap of DESIRE and aversion is the nature of the BIPOLAR

There is no answer to this dilemma to be found within the field of the
creation which is the manifestation of our highest SIDDHE-POWER; only the
voluntary suspension of creative power will allow the uncovering of the
underlyiing already-always of that which already is, which of course is our
original nature. Existing in the trap of our own creation, we have clear
evidence that nothing will ever succeed, that no plans are worth the
effort, and that death is the obvious solution to our dilemma; in a sense
this is true, but there is actually no escape from creation, except to own
it; to own creation is to understand just how to suspend the power of

Remember... just how the past-masters of Nonduality have stated repeatedly
to NOT become attached to ANY SIDDHE? Well... what I am saying here should
be obvious; that we create continually, as naturally as breathing, and as
compulsively and as needily as breathing, also. Our 'attachment' to
'reality' is what is going on here; we are very deeply addicted to the
SIDDHE of creation, to the extent that we hide it from ourselves, and
assign the responsibility to 'others' such as mom, dad, God, and Satan.
Them, we can blame and scapegoat, but as you know, such is merely an
ongoing hallucination, a refuge from what we have so carefully hidden from
ourselves that the acceptance of it is deemed to be the very betrayal of
the most basic roots of 'sanity' itself.

The absolutey UNTHINKABLE is the oposite of the 'world-dream'. That 'I am
God' is not true at all; I am not God because my creation of God is
entirely false. God has been created from pieces of desired or feared
aspects of the world-dream, claimed as our tribal heritage; and I am NOT
that God. I am God far beyond anyone's wildest dreams. I am the absolute
God of my own dimension, dream, or story; I am the only living Being in
existence in my own dimension. All 'others' are the apparently living
"interface with the living Universe", which is 'like' a giant machine which
inevitably obeys my every (conscious or unconscious) whim.

Chief among my 'whims' is the desire to 'fix it' or to 'make it right'
within the dream I dream, to 'rectify' my own creation, while persisting in
the act of denial that it is my own creation from beginninng to end. There
is no remedy for any ill to be experienced within my dream; dream-diseases
of course will respond to 'dream-medicine', but the COMPULSIVELY AND
UNCONSCIOUSLY EXERCISED power of the HIGHEST SIDDHE is the actual disease;
the addiction to the power of creation, the attachment to this greatest of
all SIDDHE, as warned against be the highest masters of consciousness, is
the actual disease. Only when this compulsive and addictive power of
creation is voluntarily suspended, will we understand the actual mechanics
of intention as the dynamic force which commands the vast living machine
which is the living universe itself.

As I Am the only living Being within the discreet dimension of my own
creation, so also are you a lone and isolated creator within your own
dimension of your own creation. You may feel this; you may also feel the
strange, movie-like flatness of the presence of so-called 'other people'.
Both feelings are accurrate; both feelings result from the cancellation of
the momentum of your own karma. You have a 'hot spot' to dwell within; this
is a blessed time for you, David. Momentum cancelled, machine being
revealed, you may now be groping futilly for the continuation of your "best
version" of your own dimension.

Be advised, that you can go that route. or you can sit still and
hallucinate the actuallity of the 'situation', which is this; you have been
creating reactively, in reaction to your own creation. That desire-aversion
ping-pong game will never stop, but it can be made harmless. To understand
that it is 'all the same thing' may be a good goal or exercise; I mean that
I would advise you to deliberately suspend any judgement whatsoever, thus
to allow a glimpse of the underlying mechanism which is the
'instrumentallity of reality itself' which is your will-power reactively
commanding a giant machine which can do anything _except_ give you the
will-power to stop using your own will-power.

It is possible to hallucinate 'reality' while we are 'dreaming in
unreality'; do you get this point? It is the calling for a literal
inversion of the deepest ingrained attachment of all, the attachmnent to
'making the dream better', which attachment covers-over the reality of the
creation and the vast living machine which impliments 'our' will-power. To
literally suspend the unconsciously exercised power of creation is to allow
'nirvana'; the statements of the 'masters' which state that we ' cannot
directly experience the nondual state' because there is 'literally no-one
there to experience it' are dead-wrong. I have news for everyone, but
addiction to the highest SIDDHE will always prove me 'wrong', time and time

I am saying that to suspend the highest SIDDHE is to exercise a type of
control so rare, so undefined, that it is unknown and thus unspoken. I
cannot 'uncreate' creation, but I can reveal the underlying machanism which
supports my SIDDHE. I can live consciouly in my own 'dream', harmlessly. I
can actually 'let go' of creation to the extent that I am able. I advise
you to think about this. I do not call for passivity; I call for abiding,

I can go about in my story, and I can love the characters whom I have
created. I can do this in awareness that I am always creating; I can also
let go of the power of creation. I am aware of the addictive nature of any
SIDDHE; and I am aware that culture is the living embodiment of denial of
our own Godhead. To be 'in' the world-dream while not being 'of' it is the
goal; to impliment this goal, consider that that the power of creation is
the highest SIDDHE. If we cannot let it go, we are stuck at that level of

Please remember that there can be no 'uncreating of creation'; there is no
'undo' command. But there is an alternative to 'quitting the program',
which is to abide the program. Please cultivate the awareness that you are
creating, from beginning to end; and that the puzzle you face has Self at
the center. Self, uncreated, is the reality in which all realty occurs. And
the knowledge-context of Siddhe and attachment is quite close to the actual
context which is the living interface with the instrumentation of creation
itself. It is big, alive, and friendly. I introduce you to it.

The Tadpole and the Frog

I say, that although 'it' (the sudden or gradual 'nondual experience')
seems _new_ to each experiencer, that it is the same story being retold for
each person. I know that we 'should' know this; as a longtime student of
the works of Carl Jung, who discovered the underlying commonality and
called it the 'collective unconscious' or the pool of symbolisms which all
humans share by nature, I am aware that someone has said this before.

We have here a confusion of the personal with the collective; what I mean
is that so many who experience Divine Revelation or Intervention, seems to
immediately assume that everyone else needs to be told and thus 'saved'.
This is akin to a frog evangelizing to a tadpole; it just upsets the
tadpole. As tadpoles do not understand 'frog language', the expressions of
the 'realized' are incomprehensible to the 'unrealized'. But it may be
useful to draw maps of progress and to post such maps here and there. Such
a map is an offering of one who has gone through the process of maturation.
It is a mistake to assume that one is 'lost' or 'unsaved' if one is not at
the designated 'endpoint'. Growth is a reality, and to grow means accepting
that one has some state to grow _from_. But again, the entire process is
preordained to occur; nothing is wrong, including feelings of lostness or

Again, realization is remembering.

It is interesting to note that the most highly regarded pronouncements of
the 'realized', which are an attempt to communicate with the 'unrealized',
are quite simple in nature; few in words, and no fancy terminology. This is
the mature talking to the immature, in a language that the immature can
comprehend and appreciate.

A tadple is not a frog, and the process of maturation/transfiguration is
inevitable, if allowed (abided) to occur. The tadpole is expected to want
to be with other tadpoles. What is the 'adolesence' of a tadpole? Grasping
for 'certainty' while in the midst of transformation is a painful
experience; the evangelicals of any 'faith' offer 'emergency measures' to
stabilize those who are in transformation, thus freezing the susceptable
into a halfway state, afraid to go ahead, and unable to go back. Our
churches are packed with examples of those who would rather remain in this
state of suspended evolution, rather than grow into a sober and mature
adult. For such, terror is a way of life, and the task of 'spreading the
word' serves to contagion this needless prolongation of maturation.

Gene Poole's Home Page