Monday, May 20, 2002
Edited by Jerry Katz
Today's selections are all from the Nonduality Salon list
Click here to go to the next issue
Chocolate Donut Dawn,
by Al Larus
"Is attachment to donuts possible?"
in the beginning was the hole
and it was alone and without substance
and the hole said "LET THERE BE DOUGH!!"
and dough did appear and surround the hole
and the donut did appear with great power
and all glory and much goodness
the power of the donut is that it shall be eaten
thus returning to the hole!
'Observe' said Karl Popper when he sat down in front of
a full class room.. after 15 minutes a student asked '
yea but, observe what?'
The Buddha forbore to specify: as long as there is any '
one' to suffer - he will. Wei Wu wei
'..if we would think the same, we would not think
anymore..(si nous pensions la mÍme chose, nous pensions
plus rien..)' jacques chirac, re-elected president of
"Awake!" - is a system!
"Jesus Saves" - is a system!
"Remember Yourself" - is a system!
"Nonduality is nonduality" - is a system!
"Nonduality does not purport to explain anything" - is a system!
Systems are built of smaller embedded systems, and are
themselves part of greater systems.
Nicely said. A view is always limited, knowledge is
always limited. If this is forgotten then there arises
belief and bigotry. A view is the same as 'theory' a way
of looking. A system of relations.
The idea of 'self' is also a system, a subject/object
relationship taken for granted as real. Well shame to
spoil the story :-)
The question could arise as to whether it is possible to
'see' without any view without any object in mind. To
see as is, as it is, this moment, without
conceptualization. One can always tell a story about it
afterwards ie what I did, what I saw etc. But right now,
this very instance, what is there, and where is the
seer? Not in terms of words, but actually.
The view of non-duality becomes no-view. To view is not
to view and not to view is to view. This is only
paradoxical in language, because views and systems are
always limited, partial. The wordless now is not
If it's a perspective, then it's not non-dual. If is
non-dual, then there isn't anything that it is.
But there are individuals who exist in the context of
nondual understanding. These folk can be said to have a
nondual "perspective" even while there is no such thing
itself. The perspective is the result of the
experiential understanding being present in a life
And there isn't anything that it isn't! If nonduality is
inclusive, then it includes (apparent) duality?
Not necessarily. Nonduality is what it is, and nothing
else. Anything else, including the entire context of
duality, is something else, and as a something else, is
ONE VS ONENESS
The question was asked (in response to my assertion that
there is a vast difference between one and oneness):
What is the difference between one, and oneness?
One is what is
My most charitable definition of oneness is that oneness
is the nature of what is.
Less charitable definitions are as follows:
Oneness is a state desired by those who are plagued by a
persistent assumption of separation.
Oneness is a concept used by some, to provoke an other
to drop boundaries.
This is a common tactic used in brainwashing situations;
the assumption of separation must first be established,
and then, there is some act which must be performed in
order to attain oneness.
Because all humans suffer, and because most humans have
an aversion to suffering, it is easy to hook most humans
into various schemes which imply that attaining oneness
will stop or reduce suffering.
Loneliness is not aloneness, yet, without thinking about
it, people assume that loneliness is caused by being
alone. The longings which accompany loneliness can be
experienced as a form of suffering which 'can be
remedied by oneness with another person'. And what
follows from this assumption, is the question; "Why
can't I make a relationship work?"
It seems that the majority of people are subject to the
afflictions which accompany the assumption of
separation; and this common assumption is challenged by
It is difficult to disabuse a person of assumptions of
separation, when this person's life has been chiefly
informed by feelings of deprivation, exclusion, and
regimentation. The desire for freedom often manifests as
a desire to change the world, or to change other people,
but can be satisfied by deeply examining why there is an
assumption of separation. If we question the assumptions
embodied in the common definition of oneness, we will
begin at least, to understand the power of the
assumption of separation.
Without going into the whole 'Brainwashing' issue - I
feel that there is the same distinction betweem One and
Oneness when you say that 'One is what is' and
'Oneness' (in the way that you qualified it) 'is the
nature of what is.'
Since I agree you may wonder why I asked...it is because
> I have not implied 'oneness',
> but instead, 'one'. There is
> a vast difference, a distinction
> that cannot be escaped.
I feel that the difference is 'vast AND subtle' (if it
was only vast - I feel that it would be more easily
seen) and that since this difference is also subtle
that it can be 'escaped' or mistaked. And I feel that
this 'mistake' is the lens through which some view -
hence Oneness is (insert the other definitions you
provided in this space).
Is a boat attached to water?
We can move either way on this river of words.
At the end is also the beginning.
Downstream from perspective is:
Perspicuous, pertaining pertinacity.
Against the flow we find:
Personal, persistent persecution.
This river bends at non-duality on its way to alfa-omega.
Some kind of doorway:
These words are backwards
going from the screen
to be thought
and turn abstract,
untouched by concept
creating these forms.
This abstract is returning,
slipping into the spring,
back to its origin.
And as the rotations of the flaming sun
turned by the liquids two
finally comes to a halt.
Now, that's beyond dualism.