Jerry Katz
photography & writings

The wind carves shapes into the beach sand

Search over 5000 pages on Nonduality:


Nonduality Salon (/\)

Highlights #234

Click here to go to the next issue.

Ron Philo:

The death of a loved one would not be a
reason for an enlightened
person to seek solace, in my opinion.
The soul is eternal, the loved
one has merely changed shape. The loved
one is, in my belief, in a
place where there is no pain and no
attachments, only joy. Perhaps
we seek comfort because we have not
resolved our attachments and
needs that we ourselves had with that


You might want to read the
account of J. Krishnamurti's
response to his brother's
death as related in the
famous Mary Lutyens biography.
There is a great deal of
speculation offered about the
behavior of enlightened folks
and the great bulk of it is
pretty much not worth the
paper or CRT space it takes up,
perhaps because of confusion
between enlightenment and the
Christian-Western notion of
sainthood and/or due to
misunderstanding of
"attachment" as it applies to
human relationship.


Sadhana Louise posted:

"You can do what you like, as long as you do not take
yourself to be the body and the mind. It is not so
much a question of actual giving up the body and all
that goes with it, as a clear understanding that you
are not the body......"
"Be aware that whatever happens, happens to you, by
you, through you, that you are the creator, enjoyer
and destroyer of all you perceive and you will be unafraid.
Unafraid, you will not be unhappy, nor will you seek happiness."

- Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj



This from OH:

Hello all dears: ,^))
Here is a quote from al-Ghazali, an 11th Century Sufi:

"Whoever leaves the world behind him passes away from mortality, and
when she has passed away from mortality, then she attains to
immortality. If thou findest thyself bewildered, o heart, pass over the
bridge (which is thinner than a hair, sharper than a knife-edge) that
spans the burning fires of hell. Grieve not, for the flames from the
oil in the lamp give forth smoke black as an old crow, but when the oil
has been consumed by the flame, it has ceased to exist as oil.

If thou dost desire to reach the abode of immortality, and to attain to
this exalted station, divest thyself first of self,
then summon a winged steed out of nothingness to bear thee aloft.
Clothe thyself in the garment of nothingness, and draw over they head
the robe of non-existence.

Set thy foot in the stirrup of complete renunciation and, looking
straight before thee, ride the steed of non-being to the place where
nothing is.

Thou wilt be lost again and again.
Yet go on thy way in tranquility,
until at last thou shalt reach the world where thou art lost altogether
to Self."


Victor on the perfect googoliferous multiplicity of That:


Googols and googols of points and waves of light changing moment by moment,
easily seen but indescribable.


Googols and googols of sound waves changing monent by moment, easily heard
but indescribable.


Googols and googols of pressure points changing moment by moment, easily
experienced but indescribable.


Googols and googols of flavors changing moment to moment, easily experienced
but indescribable.


Googols and googols of odors changing moment to moment, easily experienced
but indescribable.


Googols and googols of combinations of seeing, hearing, touching, tasting,
and smelling all interpenetrating and changing from moment to moment, easily
experienced but indescribable.

The problem:

We in our hubris think we can describe and improve on that "that".

The solution:

Just be in "that".

With Love,



This morning while doing my laundry I was thinking about
how to make the shift from recognizing "not me" to "being" Self. It
occurred to me that if the "problem" is not me then the shift doesn't
matter. Is this correct (advisable) or am I in danger of getting stuck
in an inferior realization?


"~ It is only a shift of attention from the identity of "me" or "not me"
to Self. There is always danger of getting stuck in any idea. Hence the
need for vigilance.


so you are saying I could make a career of "analysis" and
cultivate all sorts of experiences of release, but that's not it. Is it
a matter of looking "in" without a point of view? without analysis?

"How" relates to doing. Whatever doing there is is not working. I can no
more tell you how to release, than I can tell you how to go to sleep when
the body needs rest. The body-mind knows "how", That which you are can
handle the release. The answer arrives at the right moment. It is just:
giving up what you think you are, and What you are shines. In a moment
when the mind is at rest and not worrying over doubts and opinions, what
are you? That's the ticket.


Chuck on satsang with Amber:

Last evening, I finished up the last of four satsangs that
Amber Terrell held here in my home town of Ojai, California. It was truly
a beautiful meeting of heart, music and the Love-that-Is. Amber is very
articulate, centered and her lilting voice singing her own songs of Truth
moved me to tears.

We've had many advaita teachers hold satsangs here in Ojai (e.g.
Francis Lucille, Yukio Ramana, Arjuna, Adyshanti, Prasad, Prajnaji, Carlos,
Neelam) but Amber's presence moved me the deepest. This week, (and for the
first time), I'm going down to San Diego to sit with her guru, Gangaji.
More later.

With Blessings,


top of page