Jerry Katz
photography & writings

Search over 5000 pages on Nonduality:


Highlights #441

Click here to go to the next issue.

Monday August 14th

Hi there, I'm the guy putting together the Wei Wu Wei website mentioned here
last week
... I have one problem though. I don't have a copy of'Unwordly Wise', though I
do have
all the others. If anyone has a copy and could be bothered photo-copying part
or all
of it and sending it to me here in Bangkok, Thailand, I'd appreciate it, and
would pay
any costs, etc., thanks, Matt.


>>>Michael Read:

I, for one, do not have any expectations that 'others' will have the
faintest idea concerning what I am talking about when I speak of
universal conciousness. Even in face to face dialogues
misunderstanding continues. Actually, I find this infinitely amusing
and ironic. Knowing that we are all One, seeing the living Flame
in each, and then there you are telling God that he/she is God!
And he/she says, "No, I'm not! I'm a spiritual soul who is seeking
God!" Or, they may deny everything. Or, they often ask for
validation of thier personal beliefs. And, all you see before you
is God! Too, too rich! HOHOHO!


It happens occasionally but is not really necessary. I think these things
often enough, or at least entertain the possibility. I think everyone
should, especially those who have fantasies of being enlightened. Keeps a
useful perspective on things, helps to keep the ego from running amok. If
you lose sight of the fact you might be an idiot, or might be doing
something idiotic or robotic, i see precious little chance of awakening or
of Grace being attracted.

Or to put it another way, perhaps it's fine if the ego runs amok. This may
be the only way to get to see what it's up to. But there still has to be
space for seeing. This space cannot happen if you think you're infallible.

Love, Sarlo


>>>Melody and Gene dialogue:


Melody: Afterthoughts

> From: "Melody" <[email protected]>
>Subject: Re: Melody: Compassion for self VS world-dream ploys
>Hi Gene,

Hi Melody,

>Thanks to your post here, I finally realized why I
>could not hear what you and others are saying about

Most excellent!

>What I have called compassion for a number of years
>is not anywhere near what you call compassion. My
>definition of compassion changed with my hypnotherapy
>practice when I discovered that when I focused so
>completely on the experience of another, all sense of
>MY 'self' dropped away. It would be as if I were
>residing for that period of time IN another's experience.
>I found that when that happened, all movements and
>dialogue flowed effortlessly.....and that when I was
>'suffering with' that individual such that there was no longer
>any 'self' sense of 'me'....
>that healing naturally happened.....often in the most
>surprising and 'uncalculated' ways.
>That focusing of attention was what I came to call
>So when you said compassion and enlightened self interest were
>the same, I knew we weren't on the same page....but only
>as long as the WORD compassion was used.
>I also am surprised to realize today....with the help of
>this thread and Sandeep's.....that what I've been wanting
>all this time is for some person, any person, to 'step inside'
>my experience with me.....the way I used to do for others.
>I did not realize that's what I've wanted..... until today.

Gene: Yes.

There may be a period of embarrassment and regret. You are accepted
into the dimension which you now can see. Nothing need be proved.
Your Being is your ticket.

>And I see now that I call it a 'compassion game' because
>I'm surrounded in cyberspace with all these people who
>say over and over again that they're guiding 'spiritual'
>principle was that of compassion.....and yet not once have
>I met someone who seemed the least bit interested in 'stepping
>into my shoes'. Instead, it seemed they were beating down
>the door to get away from me, or to chastise me, or to
>shock me, or convince me....etc. And all they had to do
>was push me away once, or mock me, whatever....and I
>would toss them away as 'not the one'.

>I didn't realize until today that I carried the belief.....the
>expectation.....that if someone would just be willing to
>do that.....'to suffer with' would somehow 'sanctify'
>my presence.
>I didn't realize until today that the archetype of 'Jesus
>on the cross'....of a savior....was at play in my life.

Gene: 'Christian' or not, this is a universal archetype; it is
built-in to all humans.

Funny thing about saviours; the real ones do not mistreat us. And
they seem to depend upon our own innate capacities for healing.
Central to the aspect of the saviour, is the concept and expectation
of justice; saviours bring justice. Trouble is, the human concept of
justice is as whacky as is the human concept of the 'saviour'.

Justice... is the actual test of human integrity, unrelated to
'fairness'. In relationship, there is no transaction, but the concept
of fairness demands one.

So the upshot of this is that the saviour actually brings the ways
and means to re-establish human integrity. Integrity equals justice,
and fairness does not enter into the equation at all. Fairness is
however, a major aspect of the transactions of the world-dream, and
when dealing with dreamers, it is wise to pay attention to fairness
as an ethical principle.

>I know how I open myself to all kinds of responses to
>that admission, but somehow it needed to be expressed,
>Thanks for your help, Gene, in getting this stuff
>out onto the table where I could see it.

My pleasure, Melody.

It is (almost) unexpressably paradoxical, this realization of the
ultimate selfishness being the same as the greatest good for all. To
live in compassion is to take advantage of the entire universe; and
it is set up that way for us, to take advantage of.

There is no-one to sanctify us, but the moment of self-realization
takes care of that, and shows in the same instant that there is no

Many speak of Grace, but fail to comprehend that Grace is impartial.
"He helps those who help themselves".

Concerning the issue of how you have been treated here...

I have always expected you to defend yourself, but it seems that ...
is set against you, seemingly to the degree of 'ego conflict' in
which she must prevail and you fail. I object to this state of

I point out that if one commits a technical error, fails to use words
'properly' or submits in HTML or with broken stairstepped text, that
no flaming usually occurs. Yet, it seems that when certain people
(and I include you, Melody, in this category) are perceived
to have committed errors of any sort, that she considers it 'open
season' and all bets are off. It seems that you are one of the few to
have stood up to her erratic and unreasonable bullying, as
'well-intended' as it may be.


==Gene Poole==



The list is the list is the
list. I try not to do too much to it. It's a place where a
person can come and be tested and pushed, but nobody should
be abused. It's not an easy place, always. But I know that
people who spend time here find that any other 'spiritual
setting' is a piece of cake. If you can make it here you can
make it anywhere. This place forces one to find equanimity
or to split the scene. In any case, a break from here is
always good. I try to make weekends list-free.


Perhaps you mean to say any other spiritual list is a piece of
cake. After all, this is a mail list. I don't consider a mail list
where we don't even meet in person is much of a threat
to one's ego structure if that is what you mean by 'making
it.' It is squiggles on a computer screen. Real people
in real proximity is much more real. :-)

top of page