Jerry Katz
photography & writings

The wind carves shapes into the beach sand

Search over 5000 pages on Nonduality:


Highlights #453

Click here to go to the next issue.

Sunday August 27th 2000


For some reason I'm remembering my friend from New
Mexico a lot these days.....the one who was trained by
the Hopi medicine man. I remember she was telling me
about maintaining balance....and that she found she can
'take the edges off' by simply sitting still with whatever is
moving thru her. She found that whenever she acts upon
some sort of frenzied energy....she begins swinging like a
pendulum.....far one way, which is always followed then
by a swing to another....with her moods, feelings and
thoughts. By simply sitting still, and allowing it all, and
not trying to diffuse it, or fix it, or amplify it.....just watching
it all, observing it, accepting it, loving it.......the edges
naturally soften, and she stays much more on an even keel.

To 'reach outward' sometimes is the perfect response.

To 'sit still' sometimes is the perfect response.

The trick is to be willing to see which brings temporary
relief, and which leads you a step closer to freedom.

The answer certainly isn't the same for everybody.....
nor the same from one time to a next.



BELIEF 1 a : state or habit of mind in which trust,
confidence, or reliance is placed in some person or thing FAITH.

Yes, I suppose I have all those things. I'm living life.

I see, its not Life having you huh?.

You're not going to play the 'I see' game are you? in which
one assumes an air of superiority and moves discussion to
one of an infinitude of vacant chambers, are you?

Its 'You' who is the
glorious Godman 'having' life :)

That's more of the superior one's 'I see' game.

Living it indirectly through the undwelt on personal survival
instincts of the 'Me' (and occasionally wondering why it has
never led to freedom).

What does it mean to live life directly? (Notice I posed a
question instead of play the 'I see' game.)

Iconoclasts are welcome. What do people have to do with
emotions? How about sitting with them and letting them be? ...
[snip] I don't dwell on a person's survival instincts.

From your response i can see that iconoclasts are welcome here,
as long as they don't rock Advaita's sacred religious images of the
God Self, or look with any depth into the largely unexplored
territory of the human condition.

Again you're saying 'I (can) see'. Who is seeing? Forget
trying to see the depths of the neo-cortex. Look at what is
in front of you. Look at the 'I' who is seeing.

How about looking with depth into anything at all? How about
into the slightest movement of the hand or the mind? There
is nothing to be found in the most hidden, repressed,
survival instinct, that isn't to be found by penetrating
that which appears to be most obvious. And by penetrating I
mean seeing. I mean freedom from thought contagion. I mean
being the original person.

If a person's fascination is the psyche and all its depths,
then so be it. It's one path and the findings can benefit
all of us. All I see is that I'm being squeezed into a
corner instead of hearing findings. The statement below is a
last ditch effort to squeeze me into that corner. Instead of
doing that, let me be, assume I'm a hopeless case, or
whatever you wish, and educate all of us. Maybe I'll come
around. No doubt I'll come to see human workings more

It appears that my path is to ask who the 'I' is. Yours is
to delve into survival mechanisms of the Me. One path isn't
better than the other. I'd like to hear more about what you
have come to know. And if you get frustrated that we're not
'hearing' you, you might want to keep trying. If the
greatest spiritual masters have had to same the same thing
in different ways over and over again, its probably true for
those who are not yet recognized as spiritual masters.

Which at this point in time is still governed by the instincts
and a mere glimmer of the neo cortex's awakening intelligence
(which BTW is quite capable of disagreeing non-conclusively
without conjuring up a 'who').


The inside is only apparent
because of the outside.
The outside is placed
only in relation
to the inside.

Each depends on the other
to be, in order to be
As neither can be first
without the other there,
neither has a place to

As neither inside nor outside
have ever been established,
the imaginary realm of inside
and outside is exposed
for what it is: the
after-image of a photograph
that could never be taken;
the camera never existed.

Nonetheless, I go inside
my apartment when a heavy
rain occurs. ;-)

This is the joy and practicality
of this ingenious, nonexistent
land of perception.


i bow to xan who voiced the great passion
of all hearts
i bow to dan who told the great non-story
of the only one
i bow to each and every one of you
in this bright room
where we all take risks
to find our own same truth
where jerry happily and humbly
opens the windows and doors again and again
sometimes it's so bright in here
can't tell the difference between in and out

in the joy of your company,



I wonder and this is a question only. Perhaps you
can address it. What I have found from experience
is that what I can 'do' is bring attention to my body
by sensing and then, depending on Grace (I think),
love flows in. It doesn't feel like I can go from head
to heart but I can go from head to body and heart
finds me. Can you address this?

Well, actually, if I am into it with someone like a
daughter, if I remember myself (which is get in
touch with my body), then I see (full three centered
vision) and image of my daughter as she is and I
am flooded with compassion. But it doesn't feel
like I can invoke compassion directly. Compassion
comes into me. I can think directly but I receive
compassion. I am struggling here for words to describe
an experience.


What you describe has been my experience, also and the words
describe it well. Clearly not a non-dual experience, but hey, I'm grateful
for it anyway. Someday, (OOPS! Perhaps today, maybe *this Moment*) my sense
of 'I' might be in that ocean of Compassion and I might extend it to myself.
Well, maybe not.

At any rate, entertainment of the Thankfulness for such a perception
combined with the restlessness of knowing there is *more* combined with
knowing there is payment for *More* combined with my mechanical aversion of
principal of Payment combined with the knowledge that payment lessens my
mechanical suffering (i.e. Payment is Good) makes for an interesting
emotional state. Perhaps it is even closer to the Moment. I don't know. I
just know I live my life more intensely, see people more clearly, experience
things more deeply and trust (conscious faith) that everything is working
out for my benefit (awakening).

Ahhh! That's better. More coffee.


Examining the 'I' (as ego) with its delicate connection to the
emotions and belief systems, doesn't threaten me, perhaps i don't
fear its non-existence. But the 'I am a Godman' seems to be a
particularly live and sensitive belief here. Most interesting. I am
studying the survival instincts and consequently the tendency of the
human condition to glorify and immortalize itself, quite the contrary
to projecting airs of superiority or vacant chambers. I am not
interested in playing 'I see' games either, so i end this
discussion wishing you and everyone days of great peace.



The desire for immortality
is indeed a clearly observable
aspect of human functioning.
In Buddhism, this has been
called the desire for "permanence,"
sometimes called "eternalism."

There is no permanent state, reality,
being for oneself.

To notice this is to open from preconceptions,
images, and desires "to exist," "to hold on,"

The wish to survive implies a perception of
oneself as existing. With no perception of
one's existence, how could survival arise
as concern?

Questioning the perception that "I exist," and
that "this exists as I see (experience) it,"
seems relevant. Further, questioning the
one who can question, who can make assertions
about the nature of reality seems included
in this inquiry.

Good luck with your inquiry.

Hmmmm... Defense is an interesting word. To defend... Isn't to "fend"
to push away? (eg to fend off). fend off folks... (no, that's not what I
wanted to say.) so to de-fend would be to welcome in, wouldn't it?
Similarly, to fence is to wall off, to separate, so wouldn't de-fence
mean to welcome in? Perhaps the only true defense is surrender. I see
Jerry as welcoming in Chaz' contributions, inviting a discussion that
doesn't involve the taking up of stances (that removes distance) What
DOES it mean to live life directly? Can anyone say? Or is it a
continuing experiment the outcome of which is uncertain? I agree that
there is an aspect of "godman" on the list, but I wonder whether it is a
game or something potentially interesting to explore? I only suggested
killing Michael so that he might show us his resurrection. (but not in
the shower, please) Okay, I'm babbling again (and covering up and
justifying my very real frustration and pain, but that's another story
for another day).

Anyway, it's hard to end discussions around here. It seems to me that
the ego wishes for immortality and elevation, and I hear people who I
respect saying that there is immortality and not so much elevation - but
being high (such a dirty word...) - available, but that the egoic drive
for survival obscures it. I hear it said that it is already there,
always has been, always will be but the idea that it is not, and the
panic that such an idea creates causes all of our suffering. I hear
Jerry suggesting that we look directly at it, ignoring the egoic fear
that it can't be seen, and I hear Chaz suggesting that such a suggestion
is born of the egoic desire for that very thing that ego suggests isn't
there. (apologies if I have grossly misunderstood your arguments -
either of you) So there are two options. Accept that ego is right and
that death is the final reality, but then continue to wish this weren't
so (I haven't been able to deconstruct this wish no matter how hard I've
tried). OR accept that ego is wrong and life is here. right now. right
here. Now what? Ah, that's the price one has to pay for eternal life -
one has to live it (maybe even "directly"). pretty scary. Oops. gotta
go hide in the closet for awhile.

carry on folks,



Kia Ora

It is beautiful you share this acceptance process from your Hopi friend.
Thank you I will pass it on to others.

Also the feminine meditations, passive, listening to the soundless sound ie
Devavani.. Allowing sounds to arise from the unfamiliar part of the brain
and making the sound with out force is a powerful
centering process.

In my own process I discovered the importance of inquiring into 'why I
desired to feel this feeling'. It immediately moves from limited identity
to.. oh I decide to feel this experience this feeling of
limitation or expansion.... Acceptance arises openness.. View point shift

I discovered it requires a large handful of self honesty to see why I decide
to feel the way I do. I discovered over many years never to underestimate
the power of denial from where the 'edge effect' always seems to arise
where there is non ownership of the experience at hand .. yes.. then of
course freedom arise immediately. Throws us back into where you can be
ordinary if you try.


High Pou,
This morning I got up deciding to feel my life outside, beyond,
"reality." Beyond space and time. It is very refreshing. I used
to think I needed drugs to feel this way. You seem to have discovered
the same thing when you wrote, the above. Are you, like me, saying that
we can convince ourselves of ANYTHING, and thus live, feel and be ANYTHING
(from ecstasy and enlightenment to hell and perdition)? "Just DO IT!"?
I say we have that freedom, some of us just don't know it yet. I'd like
to talk to you about this.

love sky

High Marcia,
In one of your posts you wrote,

> "So I think some of us don't have strong boundaries. But does this
> make sense in terms of the aim of not having boundaries? Know what I mean?

> Discrimination is important. My husband can go anywhere and people take
> one look at him and leave him alone. He doesn't buy anyone's bullshit.
> On the other hand, this leaves him socially alone but he doesn't seem
> to care. On the other hand again, if we have asocial problem, he always
> sends me into navigate the waters."

I believe we can "program" ourselves to feel ANYTHING, ANYWHERE, AT ANY

So, in your above example, I imagine that your experience with the car
dealer was "preprogrammed." Maybe you've "preprogrammed" yourself to
feel what others want you to feel by telling yourself that "having no
boundaries" is good? Do you tell yourself that it's better not to be
like your husband because he seems too closed to others?

Might I suggest that you "program" yourself to believe that it's possible
to have very specific boundaries that BOTH permit you to avoid others'
yet which don't close you off from others?

What I usually do, when standing before salespeople, is say, "I'm not going
to buy anything today; because I need to think about it first. I may come
back later." Some statement like that usually "programs" me and the
sales person to leave plenty of breathing space open. Know what I mean?


Hi Sky,

We can talk about this if you wish.

The important thing to remember in talking about these things
is that I am not identified with the behavior. In the moment of
the behavior I was identified and that is why I was interested in
talking about it. This is an important distinction. I spent a fair
amount of time describing this particular situation to my friends
and one friend insisted on trying to solve my problem or as I
call it, put band aids on it. The person standing in the car
dealership is not who I really am. In that moment it was all
that I was and so subsequently I was interested in seeing the
dynamics of the situation.

I really think that in anxiety producing situations the body
chemistry changes and I was really poisoned for at least
a day. I made myself sick.

I do not believe that a person can preprogram themselves.
I think that is the illusion that Gurdjieff talks about when he
says man, as he is, cannot do. The thinking center is much
slower than the instinctual center and the emotional center.
You can tell yourself all sorts of stuff but if your instinctual
center floods your body with fear, your mind is much too
slow. If you can reside in your body, which takes attention,
then you can work with your instinctual center. But your
mind alone is almost useless, IMO. Doesn't work. Your
mind can work on bringing attention to your body if you
can remember.

Make sense?


Greetings Marcia

Beautifully written if I may say so and Thank you Marcia
for your openness.

May I offer one more view point here.

I belief different Masters appear in accordance naturally
with what is required in that or this time.

If I adopt the viewpoint that all there is is consciousness,
and the various appearances are reflections of that one consciousness,
then it can also be said that Gurdjieff's teachings are not necessarily
applicable to here now. What I feel is clear is that right here now
all of us can choose to become conscious of the fact that "I decide".

Try as we might to coerce or manipulate the situation into believing that
others decide for me, only creates the experience of holding. The moment a
human being fully is able to recognize that 'I decide' then simultaneously I
am responsible for what I feel and do and experience.

The held collective agreement between us in the unconscious collective, is
that we ideally accept the existence of a pre-programmed existence for an
individual as a blocking device which is always reminiscent of fear in order
not to simply experience 'I decide'.

Or more simply put, pretending is resisting what I have decided to believe.

It is clear in my own life that I need to be clear today about what it is I
believe. If you can accept the concept that everything is a belief, and
naturally we get to experience what we believe, then the intelligent person
who is capable of feeling, deepends their awareness to what they're

Make sence?

High Marcia,
These are CRUCIAL points! Did you read what Pou wrote under the same subjec
heading? I'm in TOTAL agreement with him. And forgive me, Pou, if I add
that our "enlightenment/bliss" rests squarely on these issues. In a word,
"we" (forgive me, Pou, if I misrepresent you) EXPERIENCE that we DO PROGRAM
ourselves to feel what we feel. I may not have the space, here,to quote you,
Marcia, but you seem to be saying, 1) that the most important thing is to
identify with your experiences, 2) most other solutions are band aids,
3) anxiety, etc, are a body chemistry issue that 4) the mind is too slow to
control. But, 5) one can witness the body, be with it, and thus, "Your mind
can work on bringing attention to your body if you can remember."

I hope that I've paraphrased you accurately and that you feel more or less
satisfied that I understand you, more or less. You may want to examine three
basic points that I'd like to offer:

1) When I say Pre-Program,I don't mean in the now, while one is experiencing
an emotion or "instinct" such as fear. I mean way before that, when, for
one decides that it's better to be open and with flexible boundaries as
to inflexible ones.

2) I'm not talking about very primal instincts like hunger or sleep. I'm
about clearly cultural interpretations of life, such as "I am happy," "I am
with/without boundaries," "I like football but not tennis."

3) And this is the most important point, because for me experience, not
is the acid test of any spiritual practice: have you TRIED BOTH telling
to have (eg) just the right kind of boundaries, AND believing that you can?
My (and Osho's) favorite scripture is the Ashtavakra Gita, the essence of
is, "as you believe, so it is." Spiritually and subjectively, of course. I
don't believe I can literally move mountains with my imagination, beliefs.
But I do believe, in an important sense, that "imagination rules the world,"
Napoleon once said. It didn't "objectively" save him at Waterloo, but is
sure gave him "subjective" self-confidence! But again, you have to try it to
believe it!!!!!
(Wouldn't you agree,Pou?)
I hope I'm making sense.

High Open Hearted Ones,
I, too, have been impressed by those who have the courage to open up and
share their grief, feelings of powerlessness. It seems that women have more
permission than men to do this, in many cultures. It will take courage for
me to offer my own response, as well, for I fear it may not be welcome.
Nevertheless, I may be surprised if it is, and I like surprises. It will
be worth the risk, whatever the outcome.

My heart sings with compassion when others speak so openly of their
suffering. And it is with compassion that I remind you that Osho said,
in "My Way, the Way of the White Clouds," that suffering is learned, not
spontaneous, not innate. Remember, he said that children learn to suffer
because, through it, they get love and attention.

LESSWORTHY OF COMPASSION!! But it does shed some light on it. I've been
thinking up exercises for my "spiritual growth" (I put it in quotations
because Osho scoffed at the term) class, and I wonder if this one may
not be of some help:

Imagine what it would be like if we are PAID to have FUN in life.
(Instead of being paid for "working.") And imagine what it would be like
if the more fun we have, the more we get paid. How would we change our
lives, today, right now?

Even more radically, imagine what it would be like if we were told that
if we didn't have a high level of fun at every moment, we would be
brutally killed. How would our attitude toward death change?

Hopethese words are useful to some.

love, sky



There is power and all it entails. And there is the heart,
which I like attach love to. The more power one desires, the
less love? The more love one desires, the less power?
Either one, but not both?
Smiles, Robert

Not a dichotomy. One without the other is useless.
If all you have is heart, of what use is it? Power, without
heart, is destructive.
It is a trinity. Intelligence, Love and Will;
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; Function, Being,
and Will; Body, Mind, and Emotions.


In reading a discussion you were having with Chaz, you made the
following statement. "It appears that my path is to ask who the 'I'
is. Yours is to delve into survival mechanisms of the Me." A few
days ago, in your message to Melody, after I unsubbed, you said "The
movement seems to be cloaked in a kind of desparation which might
have gotten in the way of any 'Who am I?' type of dialogue with

I am interested in 'Who am I?' dialogue. My exposure to spiritual
philosophies has been somewhat limited. Having grown up in the West,
Christianity of course. And the Eastern philosophy I encountered
during my years with the Yoga group. The precepts to which I was
introduced during my study/practice of yoga, stuck a chord within
me. So when considering the phrase 'Who am I', I gravitate to the
philosophy that 'I' am a manifestation of Supreme Consciousness. Not
this body. Not this human being named Royal. Not the previous nor
future incarnation.

In your discussion with Chaz, you differentiate between the 'I' and
the 'me'. Would you be willing to expand on this for me?

The terms could be interchangeable. I said, "It appears that
my path is to ask who the 'I' is. Yours is to delve into
survival mechanisms of the Me. One path isn't better than
the other."

The important difference isn't the terms as much as the way
attention is focused on the I or Me.

My understanding is that, by way of practice, one could
focus attention upon the nature of who one is, by inquiring,
'Who am I?';

or by focusing attention upon anything else, whether it is
the psyche, scientific knowledge, philosophy, art, religious
practice, or what one is doing right now.

The difference I was pointing out to Chaz, was that my
nature is to attend to who I am. To another, something else
shows up as being most fundamental and as the greatest
attractor of attention.

As I see it, it doesn't matter what a person attends to, as
long as the attention reveals the suchness of what is being
attended to. By 'suchness', I mean 'what is', what's 'real',
what's unchanging.

I hope I've made clear, then, what I meant in the statement:
"It appears that my path is to ask who the 'I' is. Yours is
to delve into survival mechanisms of the Me."

Again, the difference is not in the terms 'I' and 'Me' as
much as the way attention is placed.

You say, "So when considering the phrase 'Who am I', I
gravitate to the philosophy that 'I' am a manifestation of Supreme
Consciousness. Not this body. Not this human being named Royal.
Not the previous nor future incarnation. "I am a manifestation of
Supreme Consciousness."

This is a great statement: "I am a manifestation of Supreme
Consciousness." How important is it to you to delve into it

By way of entering into a 'Who am I' type of dialogue, I
ask, If you went very deeply into that statement, where
would it take you? You may have to focus on it like a
mantra. Perhaps keep repeating it, looking at its

I hope I've clarified my original statement and opened the
door to further investigation for you. Let me know!



Greetings Gene,

After a slightly shaky start, I feel well come indeed!

Hi Royal. For one, I am glad that you resubscribed.

Perhaps with an abiding spirit, you will gain the experience needed
to withstand such 'negativity'.

The spirit is willing (also glad I resubscribed). Perhaps the answer
is to see even what is perceived as 'negativity' as positive? Hmm...
I'm going to have to think about that.

Several years ago, I lived on the Big Island of Hawaii. I met
there, an interesting woman, who practiced Agnihotra. She joined my
Self-Healing study group, and I invited her to bring her equipment
and paraphernalia and give us a demonstration. We decided to meet
outdoors, on a certain morning, to conduct the ceremony.

I was at the time, amused by much of her seriousness. But at some
point, I realized that what she was doing was at the least, a fine
and effective way to focus herself upon what she wanted in her
life, and for everyone. I was actually tempted to send away for the
copper device. But I did not. I did come away with a generally
'positive' impression. And the odor of the smoke was quite
pleasant to me.

Yes contrary to what one might think, dried cow dung, when burned
with the rice and ghee, actually gives off a rather pleasant, sweet
odor. The ritual, combined with breathing exercises, is quite
relaxing and conducive to meditation. Of course, it is necessary for
the area to be well ventilated.

This is one way to hear what you say; the "path to", the processes,
practices, journeys, specifications, ways, means, and criteria of
'getting there'.

A question: How does one 'know where to go' if they have never
been 'there'?

But has one never been 'there'? Will the child who leaves home to
pursue its own existence not remember the way back?


Good answer!

No, if the child has 'amnesia'.

Yes, if the child gets a little help.

No, if the child is sent in errant directions by well-meaning but
ignorant guides.

Yes, if the child, like Dorothy in OZ, realizes that 'there is no
place like home'.

"There is no place like home;

There is no place like home;

There is no place like home."

On this list, there is still tolerance for and even glorification
of 'personality'. When personality expresses, difference is
apparent. We also have glad-handing, stroking, and all of the rest
of the standard world-dream 'ways' of identity. It need not be so,
but so it is.

This personality is glad that it is so!!

Mind is an engine which unceasingly dissects, divides, compares,
and thus creates separation, categories, planes, dimensions, time,
space, and everything. It can never leave alone 'what is', but
'what is' is always PURELY 'what is', in all its apparent
vicissitudes, regardless of the actions of mind.

Can you expand upon this for me?

Yes. Briefly put, we may see that individual interpretations are
formed by 'what makes us who we are', which is the past. The past is
memory only.

So, aside from memory, everything is just as it is.

Mind, as informed by memory, cannot help but paint today with the
colors of yesterday.

In reality, what is, is unknown, but like the blind men and the
elephant, is interpreted endlessly. Nontheless, all interpretations
fail to actually change anything of what is, which is itself, the end
of time. We live at the end of time; our awareness has the capacity
(if used) to perceive 'this moment' untainted by what has been known

It is easy to assume that the universe that you see, is the same
one that everyone sees; it is also easy to assume that if you
suffer, if you have values which point to what 'should be', that
others should also follow those same values which you hold.

Yes, this is a limitation to which I fall prey.

It is not easy to know, that each has their own path, which is
their life, and that those who advocate 'ways' often do not take
this subtle fact into account. But it is easy to perceive that we
all have 'boundaries', especially if we encounter what is to us,
a 'negative manifestation'. It is at that point that our self-
protective barriers materialize, and defense of our own sacred
path/life is initiated.

Yet in the joy of discovery of one's own path, there is such an
irresistable urge to share it with others. Though that is
impossible, is it not?

Thank you for your words of welcome, encouragement and wisdom.
In just a few days, I have been exposed to so much my mind is
spinning. I apologize that it has taken me so long to respond to
your message, but I just had Lasik on my left eye and it's difficult
for me to spend long periods staring at a monitor. And your message
was so thought full, I wanted to take my time in the reading and
answering of it.

My love to you Gene,



Hi Royal,

Sorry it took so long to get back to you on this! You say -

Perhaps I could ask you to expound further on point 3 -- "Hinduism
and Buddhism both have instantaneous and long progressive paths"? In
my study of yoga, I was taught that the soul comes from the Supreme
Consciousness/Infinite/Divine, is purified through countless
incarnations (the grand illusion) through the physical/astral cycle
to the astral/causal cycle and finally achieves blissful reunion with
the Infinite -- That Which Is. How does this relate to the Absolute
Self of Hinduism and the No Self of Buddhism?

Tiny partial listing of instantaneous and progressive paths:
- Instantaneous (Ch'an, Zen, Pure Land,
Japanese Jodo Shinshu)
- Progressive (Vipassana, Theravada,
tantric and many other Mahayana forms)
- Instantaneous (advaita from Gaudapada
(MANDUKYA UPANISHAD), advaita from
Krishna Menon (ATMA DARSHAN), various
forms of Western advaita
- Progressive (Orthodox hinduism, orthodox
Advaita Vedanta from some schools in the
U.S. such as the Chinmaya Mission and the
Arsha Vidya Gurukulam; qualified non-dualism
as in the Ramakrishna Mission (many U.S. branches),
devotional paths (ISKON, Guru Mayi, Ammachi),
and also many westernized advaita paths.

In general, the "instantaneous" is more instantaneous when there has been
some preparation in the progressive paths.... :-)

You also ask a very good question - what about different teachings
vis-a-vis consciousness? Such as that we progress through a reunion with
consciousness, or a merging with consciousness, or taking one's stand now
already as consciousness, or a no-self teaching, or seeing all things and
people as not having a self.... There is no kind of teaching that is right
for everyone or wrong for everyone. The best criterion of a good fit is --
what speaks to your heart?

And a teacher! The real teacher is your innermost Self or true essence,
whether there is a human being occupying that role helping out or not. The
human teacher can come in many forms - books, friends, e-mail, etc. "Do I
need a living human teacher?" The question is its own answer. The more
strongly you feel the force of the question, the more you will seek - and
find - a human teacher!!



I've seen a number of basic beliefs or core tenants (since belief is a
dirty word in Gurdjieffian circles) expressed on this list. It seems
any differences or mis-alignments we have stem from our notions of our
conceptions of our objective points-of-arrival;
no-man (the not! island)
belief projection-man

Let me take the easy answer off the plate and say 'all of these'.

At a high level, what is it we're aiming at? I think this essential to
productive dialog (if dialog even enters into your view) to gain some mind
and heart-share about the target. Let me say that, to certain degree, I
have *some* understanding of what everyone is saying, although I miss some
of the subtler distinctions students of a particular form of approaching
these topics are familiar with. But like most here (I guess), the way I
stumbled upon serves me best, so there is no personal burning need to fully
understand another approach, yet I appreciate the exercise of trying to view
what I consider 'the same thing' from a different angle.

Anybody from Phoenix?

Let me start. I once was seeking escape from this mortal coil of suffering.
Union with the divine, dissolution in bliss. Eastern philosophy seemed to
fit this bill, so I soaked up what I could in between rock concerts on the
East coast. Culturally ill-fitting, although there was some resonance,
something in me concluded. Not to discount the previous and inevitable
Christian approach of eternal bliss after a life of suffering (this in many
flavors, Baskin-Robin-ish, with Presbyterian, Baptist, Catholic, some
Unitarian), some Judaism. I was hungry a half-hour later. This is not to
imply there is not something deep and real at the heart of all of these
religions - it is just not apparent to someone at the drive-thru window.

Now I am somewhere else. I am not sure how to define it, even if I could,
its sort of a mixture. Here and not here, Heaven and not Heaven and
occasionally if I don't watch myself - Hell, bliss and not bliss. All the
while - it is okay.
Okay may be translated into 'fun' - for some. I've seen the power of
positive projection. I've seen the aspect of creation (god) in myself, I
have verified I am nothing. I have verified the power awareness has in
making my life more fulfilling and deeper. Koans, hmmmm?

Am I missing something? Should we really be correcting each other? Looking
at differneces, even mentally? I wonder.

In conclusion. Live my life most fully and deeply, including the infinite
in that experience, as creator. Aware of being created and my
responsibility to those around me. To the Earth who is my Mother, to the
Sun who feeds us both. That everything is sentient and lives - even atoms,
even galaxies, all suffused with the Consciousness of the Absolute, which I
cannot appraoch conceiving as it knows the state and being of everything
every atom to every glaxay within itself which is the Universe.

For starters.



i still have a bunch of unread NDS mail
to wade thru so i hope i'm not redundant
Marcia, i think i'm a fairly social person,
but i'm pretty good at resisting salesmen
of cars and such- as much so as my highly
unsocial husband---so maybe the two don't
always go together--but what i really want
to know is--what did you name your kitty
and what does she look like?
also--all this talk of junk food--faugh!
devil dogs? puh-leeze--as all current
and former Delaware Valley residents
TASTYCAKE kicks ass!!
all the rest of snack cakes are dreck.
love, nora

Yes, Tastycakes! Maybe I was confusing them for Devil Dogs.
There's nothing like a Tastycake cupcake. Bring some next
time! Here's a story about cakes. Bear with me, if you will.
When I was around 13 I had a best friend who was a nice guy
but was being raised to be a criminal. He mother taught him
how to drive when he was 13. We would bomb around in their
green Rambler convertible. Remember those?

Well one day I go over his house to play and his mother
says, "Joe (not his real name) get us some cakes, honey."
She was very sweet. There was also a daughter who was very
beautiful and she did the first airline commercials where
'stewardesses' were featured. It was revolutionary at the
time. I loved to be in the same room as her. She was
tenderly beautiful.

Joe also was very good looking and at ease with girls. He
was getting laid at age 12 and 13. So Joe said okay. Like he
was running out to the store for a loaf of bread. He goes to
get on his bike and I said I'll go home and get mine. He
said no, that he had to ride fast. I didn't ask for
explanation. Next thing I'm sitting on the bar of Joe's bike
between him and the handle bars. And he's riding like a

I'm begging him to slow down, but he won't. We're skipping
over curbs, barely passing people walking, down another
curb, in front of a car coming, down a steep hill at full
speed. "Stop!" I'm yelling. This goes on for a few miles,
through the industrial area of Paterson, it was Sunday so
there was nobody around, past Guernsey where ice cream was
seven cents a scoop and I'd walk in leisurely with my Dad,
we whizzed past, bumping over the tracks that lead to New
York and beyond, on which we flattened many a penny and on
which a classmate was killed the day after my brother wrote
with ink on his shirt, a short cut through a vacant field
and finally in front of a factory. The Miuone Bakery.

"Wait here," Joe said. He slipped between the fence and the
old brick building. He hopped a fence. I waited for probably
ten minutes. He came running back with his spring jacket
bulging with cakes.

And it was back on the bike. This time faster! He was
peddling like the devil. Back through the factory lands of
Paterson, dodging traffic, people, rocks, cracks in the
road, racing up driveways and onto sidewalks, skimming
against bushes, and then flying off curbs to land hard on
the metal bar and more mad peddling until the neighborhood
became home, past some kids singing 'Hang down you head Tom
Dooly,' past my house, we coasted into Joe's driveway and
peddled up to the back of this house.

His mother was all calm and sweet. The house clean and
gleaming as always. Joe was quite calm about it too. Because
they were calm, so was I. Oh, with such calmness, I could
have had a sweet life of crime and cakes!

As usual, I wondered of Joe's sister would be around. No.
She rarely was. I wondered if maybe we'd get some cake, but
Joe's mother stashed it away. So Joe and I went out to play.
In a life of crime you've got to start small, as a bit
player, and in time you are awarded sweetness all around. It
wasn't my time, nor would it ever be with Joe's family. I
remained an outsider swept along in adventure.

Uh oh... I was with you on the first ride, but this sounds like guilt
talkin to me... guilt built a worn out quilt. Hey wait, that could be a
song... Ooh!!! or a t-shirt. The point is you are a natural at taking
money from people, Jerry. A born thief! Yes!!! we could be partners.
You could take the dive and I would stand to prophet. Yeah, that's the
ticket... just need a boat, that's all... a getaway boat, just like in
MacGiver... Yeah, I like this NonDuality street. So it's hilly is it?
Do you have a criminal record? I have a phonograph player. We could
partner. Mary could be our Moll. (She has big hair, she's a natural)
Yeah, yeah... I can see it now... Umbada and Otta... Whew, the FBI will
be so happy...(they get bored, you know)

lemme know when the first heist is on. I'll be dere.

Love, Mark


Scholars have long debated the exact ethnicity and nationality of Jesus.
Recently, at a theological meeting in Rome, scholars had a heated debate
on this subject.
One by one, they offered their evidence......


1. His first name was Jesus

2. He was bilingual

3. He was always being harassed by the authorities

But then there were equally good arguments that.......JESUS WAS BLACK

1. He called everybody "brother"

2. He liked Gospel

3. He couldn't get a fair trial

Then there were equally good arguments that......JESUS WAS JEWISH

1. He went into His Father's business

2. He lived at home until he was 33

3. He was sure his Mother was a virgin, and his Mother was sure he was

Then there were equally good arguments that.......JESUS WAS ITALIAN

1. He talked with his hands

2. He had wine with every meal

3. He used olive oil

Then there were equally good arguments that.......JESUS WAS A

1. He never cut his hair

2. He walked around barefoot

3. He started a new religion

Then there were equally good arguments that.......JESUS WAS IRISH

1. He never got married

2. He was always telling stories

3. He loved green pastures

But perhaps the most compelling evidence..... THREE PROOFS
WAS A WOMAN........

1. He had to feed a crowd at a moment's notice when there was no food!

2. He kept trying to get the message across to a bunch of men who JUST

3. Even when He was dead, He had to get up because there was more work
him to do!


Gene Poole wrote:

Dear Jerry and NDS,

While I agree that banner ads are annoying, I disagree with the
policy of paying Yahoo to keep such ads from the pages of NDS.

Yahoo bought eGroups, and is now 'Yahoo-izing' (similar to
'AOL-izing, but not as bad) all of the pre-existing lists.

If Yahoo would just say, "We need to start charging $5 per list per
year to break even", I would respect that. But, instead, they try to
sneak money both from advertisers AND from list-users. That is a
practice which has been tried in many venues. In short, IMO, it

Yahoo began as an exciting venture, but has become corrupt. Not as
corrupt as AOL, or as MicroShaft, but corrupt nonetheless.

If we moved this list to another free and non-blinking/non-html
listserver, it might make a difference to Yahoo. If many people made
that move, it would certainly 'send a message' to Yahoo, and it would
also discourage advertisers, who probably have already figured out
that Yahoo is capitalizing on the obnoxiousness of banner ads, as a
means of making money. Yuck!

I agree with Gene that this new policy boads ill for future happy family
with Yahoo but I think we should wait and see what $50 will buy for a
year of advertising. Maybe we could sell the space ourselves to someone
we like and use the money to buy off Yahoo. Wayne Liquorman ought to be
good for it with all the free advertising he gets here. I'm against
passing the hat among list members. I think we should either live with
the ads or go elsewhere.

Hi Gene and List:

I see your point of view though. It pisses me off too. They
go out of their way to bother us enough so that we'd pay
them to shut up.

I don't really want to switch. The lists most of us belong
to are here. Most of the nonduality lists are on egroups,
though Gill's Allspirit recently moved.

Majordomo would be a nightmare to manage.

We'll see what people say. We can run a poll.

Some thoughts about paying and relocating.

Regarding collecting fees, what I'd like to propose is that whomever
feels move to do so, send me at least $5 (either through Paypal or by
check). I'll pay the fee for this list when I've collected $59.40, and
would then offer any additional collected money to the various other
members here who have their own lists (Harsha, Dave (Manchine), Petros,
Melody, James Bean, Manuel, Mark Hovila, Thomas Murphy, others?). Hmm..
maybe I should take out a Yahoo ad.. "one stop ombudswoman for one stop

About relocating. Thanks Phil for the offer and Gene for the earnest
suggestion. While I agree that the new financial twist which
egroups/Yahoo is employing is a tad suspect, as life battles go, this
one doesn't feel like one that I am interested in taking up.

I've been on majordomo lists, and they do not offer nearly as many
services as we are offered here (e.g. photo/file loading; web access;
easy changes made to method of mail receipt; as well as, to changes in
list moderator capacities, etc.). Perhaps, there are new services
available, but more than likely, these will also eventually begin
charging fees for extra services. We are give much for free or for a
small fee.

While it may be politically feasible to boycott these mega corporations,
I am more inclined to choose to be grateful for the many services they
do provide and to offer my energy in more direct service areas (such as
education and housing).



The following is on Shabda Yoga, meditating upon the inner Light and
Sound of God. I found it under "essays," at the website of the Kabir
Association of Canada. By the way, there's some great Kabir poems posted
there as well:




by Dr. J. Das

Surat Shabd Yoga is the yoga of meditation on the Word. The Word is the
soul or the spirit of God dwelling in every cell of our being. This
is an inner journey to realization of God dwelling within. The whole
process occurs above the level of the physical body, the mind, and the
intellect. This is why the physical methods taught by traditional yoga
are not necessary. The goal is realization of, or identification with,
God, Who dwells in all of us and is nameless, formless, self-existent,
unconditioned, and the causeless cause. The preparation and approach
to Surat Shabd Yog requires three conditions to be fulfilled:

1. Sat Guru. A Sat Guru is necessary to teach and guide the devotee in
cleansing himself in thought, word, and deed, and make him fit to meditate
and to realize God. He shows the devotee the proper way of meditation
and helps him along the path. Kabir Saheb stated, "The Master is greater
than God," as God put us in this physical life of bondage, but devotion
to the Master carries one back to God and liberation." The understanding
is that God created you and put you into this world, but the Master shows
you the way back to God. It is often difficult to find a spiritual teacher
sufficiently qualified to give an in-depth teaching to the student, but
if the student has an earnest desire to follow a spiritual path, and
an enquiring mind, he or she can do very much to promote spiritual growth.

2. Sadachar or Dharma. This consists of righteousness in thought, word,
and deed. It consists of high thinking and noble living. Kabir Saheb
has clearly outlined the various qualities necessary in the Gyan Gudri
(Quilt of knowledge). He tells us to develop patience, perseverance,
virtue, simplicity, reason, love, good conduct, spiritual discrimination,
kindness, compassion, attachment to God, forgiveness, noble conduct,
discipline of the body and mind, steadfastness, and to contemplate on
the Reality of God and soul being one, and to worship the Divine Sound,
the Eternal Energy of God, and realize that there is no other God than
the Supreme Unattached Brahm or Sat Purush. Sant Kirpal Singh, speaking
of Sadachar, states: "In brief, it stands for the good and pure life.
It does not imply any rigid code or set moral formulae, but suggests
purity and simplicity, which radiate from within and spread outwards,
permeating every action, every word, every thought. It is as much concerned
with one's personal habits, good and hygienic, as with one's individual
and social ethics." It consists of non-injury to any living being,
purity, universal love, and selfless service to all. A study of the Tisa
Yantra (thirty beneficial instructions) of Kabir Saheb, which consists
of the distilled wisdom of all spiritual teachings, will definitely put
the student on the proper path to a spiritual life. The student must
daily and systematically examine himself or herself, and remove lust,
anger, attachment to worldly things, greed, and egoism. Only by diligent
effort will the student make proper progress on the spiritual path, and
be able to meditate effectively to realize union with God.

3. Sadhana (discipline). In order for the student to achieve results,
he should live a disciplined life. He must be committed to the spiritual
goal and be regular in the practice of meditation. He must wake up early
in the morning to meditate. He must practice concentration of the mind

He must persevere with his practice daily at regular times. He must be
willing to make some sacrifices and undergo some hardships in order to
achieve results. He should make it a regular habit to study noble books.
Throughout the day he should practice remembering God and feeling the
presence of God within himself and in all beings everywhere. He should
sit in a comfortable upright position in a quiet area, and focus his
attention between the eyebrows at the Trikuti or third eye. He should
make his breathing easy and regular, keep all external thoughts away
from his consciousness, and meditate on the Word as energy or sound or
soul which permeates the whole being. He should feel the presence of
the Divine Being within. By constant practice, the process will become
easier and easier. Along with the meditation, the student should endeavor
to feel and realize that all beings are one, as all proceed from God.

By following the methods outlined above, the student will be on the path
of God-realization. He will experience inner peace, joy, tranquility,
harmony, and love. His aim is to have inner experience of Reality as
Kabir Saheb said to some theoretical pandits: "How can we agree when
I speak from inner experience and you only from bookish learning?"

top of page


Home Search Site Map Contact Support

Non-duality books

Specialises in book and audio resources on Advaita and non-duality

Awakening to the Dream

The Gift of Lucid Living.

"This book will be of great assistance to the seeming many." Sailor Bob Adamson
"The Enlightenment Trilogy"
by Chuck Hillig
Enlightenment for Beginners Read the Reviews
The Way IT Is
Read the Reviews
Seeds for the Soul
Read the Reviews | Order now
"Pure Silence:
Lessons in Living and Dying"
Audio CD by Mark McCloskey
Highly recommended."
--Jan Kersschot, M.D.
Reviews | sample track | Buy Now
The Texture of Being
by Roy Whenary
"We do not need to search in order to find our true Being. We already are it, and the mind which searches for it is the very reason why we cannot find it."
Reviews, excerpts and ordering info.
For over two years this website has been hosted expertly by Experthost
~ ~ ~
Search engine sponsored by
Spiritually Incorrect Enlightenment