Jerry Katz
photography & writings

Search over 5000 pages on Nonduality:


Nonduality Salon (/\)

Highlights #123

Click here to go to the next issue.

Student: "Master, I don't have anything at all."
Master: "Good, now throw it away."
Student: "But if I don't have anything, how can I throw it away?"
Master: "Well, then keep it!"

Koan posted by Greg.


He who sees clearly, is not even able to either identify or dis-identify
with anything. There is no separate identity, (and there never was), in
order to proceed in taking a distance from 'it'. Mind may play, but this
is only its playful nature. If mind were not Self, then what is it?


I heard Francis Lucille on Friday night. I asked him about having
experienced (what do you call it??) freedom, seen the way thought works,
etc. He said a lot of things, one of them being that I had turned this
"state" into an object more or less and subsequently became attached to
it. Thus, the thought that I had lost it, however incorrect. (Greg,
please clarify if I misunderstood him).


Yes, I agree. I think you did understand his comment. Francis's
comments come experience, and from Jean Klein and Sri Atmananda. And my
experience is the same: All thoughts and states are objects. What
makes it an object is that it (i) is seen or known, and (ii) it comes
and goes.


What is a state really then? Is that all there is, different states of
being? Is it the same as feelings?


A state is the way the mind or body seems to be. The difference between
a state and a feeling is really that states are long, feelings are
short. They both come and go. In fact, the mind and body themselves
are nothing more than bundles of thoughts and feelings and sensations.

When we prefer one state to another, that preference is an attachment
(it's another feeling too). The attachment is to something that is no
longer there. What we really are however, our true nature, is not a
state or a feeling. It is That which is aware of states, thoughts,
feelings. It is That which is reading these words now. So it cannot be
seen. It can never be an object, and never was.

What we truly are, we can never lose; it never goes away. We ARE it!
We say we "lose" something because it went away. This is why Francis it
is incorrect that you had "lost" it. Yes, a state or feeling went
away. But YOU were there all the time.

Phillip Burton:

When one is in pain, it's not possible to "face" it. The pain must be
relieved and then the cause of pain can be faced on another level.
"Neti, neti" means understanding what I am not. What does it mean that
I am not the body, not the mind? It means that "body" and "mind" are
not fixed entities or objects with which one can reasonably identify.
It is even possible to say "body" and "mind" do not exist. The quotes
are used to emphasize that talking about them is talking about concepts,
not about realities. You speak of "my body" and thus separate from the
body of the cosmos, the body of the universe. Body is form and form is
appearance. Appearance is illusion, because illusion is something
grasped that vanishes upon grasping. The only "real" body is the
ever-changing display of consciousness as a whole. To illustrate what I
mean ... I will be in attendance at my funeral, as I am Life itself ...
how could I not be there? There will be birds singing ... that is I.


Tomas Diaz de Villegas:

I got another one for the nonduality movie list- just saw it this
"American Beauty" and, it was beautiful. I give it two thumbs up.
go out and see it- have fun!


Yes, it was excellent.

I also recommend "Breakfast of Champions," with Bruce Willis. It's based
on the Kurt Vonnegut novel about a car dealer and small-town celebrity
who suffers a crisis of identity (early in the film he asks himself "Who
Am I?") and basically goes wacko until he encounters a science fiction
writer whose novel (in the form of a letter written from God to
humanity) explains the mystery of the universe, viz., "I put you here as
a test to see how much you can take."

It is getting lousy reviews, but I enjoyed the concept of the film. I
presume Vonnegut's book is far more complex and I plan to read it.


Honestly, it seems simpler to me just not to be a person if you're not.
This alleviates all the strain in acting as a person so you can
celebrate that you're not one. Of course, then there's no strain, but
there's no celebration either. It's just more direct and simple that
way :-) Now, in being direct like this, there doesn't seem to be any
"act" from which to "alleviate others' suffering." Isn't that
inevitable though? If I am following your perspective - at some point,
suffering becomes an ungrounded nonreality, based on nothing, and
therefore the concept of alleviating suffering becomes meaningless.
This raises the question of whether there is some kind of helping that
has no intention to help anyone, has no aversion toward hurt, and some
kind of being with others that doesn't need to be with others. It seems
to me that ultimately that's where we're going here...

top of page