Jerry Katz
photography & writings

Search over 5000 pages on Nonduality:


Highlights #542

Click here to go to the next issue.

Friday November 24, 2000

Hiya Jody,

> >
> > So then, explain the difference between "duality" and being
> > "dualistic."

I am assuming this was your's, Jody.

For me, duality is the state where seemingly opposites, actual define each
to the other and that this very apperception itself takes place in duality.

Dualistic would be to try and choose one in lieu of the other.

Mis dos centavos




Hi All,

Here's a nice website for those who like to see past surface appearances.
Nothing overtly "nondual" (more of a 'wholistic' type orientation), but
some very interesting social commentary, and no "new-age pap" that I can see.





Guru Dave, Dave Oshana from U.K., will be touring the U.S. this summer.
If you like Dave's stylings and want to meet him, contact him through
the Oshana list:



Dear Andrew:

....deep gratitude....

....for the very poetic reflections and meditation...we dream ourselves from
dream into the next...we are only 'awake' as we slumber in relationship to
others who also slumber with us on our journey toward somethng that is hidden
there in the deep that we can neither name or describe...we are but

...the closest i have been able to describing it is to say it is a child that
came even before the multiplicity of gods and godesses, the triune Godhead, the
One God...the icon that closest resembles it is a child cradled in manger
surrounded by all creatures, nurtured by a Blue Virgin, worshiped by Wise Men,
witnessed by Common Men, celebrated by Angels and commemorated by a
do not even need to be a christian to see it, to know it, to feel we
it flow through us the universe and all its sparkling toys becomes our home and
our journey through its fire a holy dance of endless awe and wonder...^^~~~~ you my Brother of the Pack,

Love, Joy, Equanimity and Joy!

further up and further in,

white wolfe


What is Endless is Love

"Forget. Surrender. Love."

white wolfe sits alone in the snowy darkness

humbly sitting in drifting white snow
his open ears hearing the cosmic wind
his golden eyes burning the silver moon
his sensitive nose touching the stars
his wild voice and song in harmony
with all that is within and that is beyond...

humility is the beginning of surrender,
surrender is the beginning of love,
love is the beginning of compassion
compasssion endures
that which endures goes far
that which goes far returns
that which returns has no end
that which has no end is endless
compassion is endless
> therefore, humility is endless,
therefore, surrender is endless
therefore, love itself is endless
therefore the lover is endless
therefore the beloved is endless

Therefore, the lover and beloved are one
i who am sometimes called Mark am endless
i who recognize myself as white wolfe am free.

I am the Lover in love with the Beloved.
I am the white wolfe in love with the moon.

with all that is within and that is beyond
his wild voice and song in harmony
his sensitive nose touching the stars
his golden eyes burning the silver moon
his open ears hearing the cosmic wind
humbly sitting in drifting white snow

white wolfe calls silently to you and me always
to follow, follow him into and beyond the drifting Moon.

white wolfe sits not alone in the snowy darkness.

Mark Christopher Valentine


G: > >Nondual studies may lead to the stripping of values from
symbols, leaving only value-neutral pointers.

O: > Often (at least here), the concepts themselves seem to drop. Not
always, but where they do not, the attachment certainly does.

G: Concepts are best seen here, as similar to the contents of the
books in my library. They are 'just there', to be used if needed. I
need not worry about them; they are 'at rest' in a static (written)
state. I do not have to refrigerate them, unlike perishable foods.

Certainly, some concepts are very valuable 'along the way', such as
the concept of concept, or the concept of 'definition', as in: The
definition of definition, and the definition of 'meme':


G: > >Without the values arising simultaneously with the perception
of the symbols, choice enters as a possibility.

O: > Yes, I see perfectly what you're saying.

G: > >Tyrants modus is to leave no choice; thus, any system which
leads to the stripping of values from symbols, is essentially anti-

O: > That's a very interesting way of putting it, "the stripping of
values from symbols." There are many ways to say the same thing, but
that is indeed the heart of it.

G: > >Such reformative systems include Zen, and Landmark Education,
among others.

O: > A "system" is not necessarily necessary, only a clear insight as
to the suffering caused by "attaching values to concepts." Another
seeing may involve the circularity/futility of "thought" and its
basis in memory and "the past"... how the same symbols/concepts are
regurgitated again and again, that nothing "new" ever appears.

G: I could argue that it is impossible to perceive what may be 'new',
unless what is 'new' also contains elements of what is 'known'
already. I offer that what is 'new' is indeed obscured, by this very
interference of vestigial 'knowledge'. 'New' is the direct experience
of the Living Universe, raw, when and if it occurs. 'It' is always in
the background. The 'salvatory' technique is to allow the foreground
to become inactive or inert.

The foreground is always the precious 'I' or 'Me' experience, to
which everything is compared at fantastic speed. In that comparison,
difference and similarity are perceived. This operation depends upon
memory (primarily memory of impressions, not of concepts). It is this
built-in machinery of 'recognition' which erects the Boolean binaries
of 'desire' (movement towards the thing) or aversion (movement away).
As in the example of fire and hand, impressions feed the
difference-engine, leading to survival.

The survival-instinct is the main obstacle to 'self-realization'. And
it is the equation of the (existing solely in memory) precious 'Me',
with physical survival, which is the primary error committed in that
operation of the survival-instinct. The 'death of 'Me' is actually
likened to amnesia, while the death of the physical body is the
extinction of the very ground of existence (... but, not of Being?).

To overcome the survival-instinct, is potentially a very risky
proposition. Recall the daughter of Art Linkletter, who while
influenced by LSD, stepped out of the 10th floor window, to fall to
her death. Her 'realization' was valid, yet her identification
with-as 'body' led to the extinction of body, rather than the loss of
her precious 'Me'.

The equation of 'Me' with body is thus stated to be an error, but
this has been chopped to hash over the years. This concept of
non-identification with the body was meant to release the attachment
to the precious 'Me', not to the body. This is so subtle, that it has
escaped the notice of many generations of 'realizers'.

Nonduality states these things, but only as particles, blended in the
confetti of concepts. It is easy to be mislead, by those who do not
know where they themselves are going.

To say it again, 'Me' (the experience AND the concept) can 'go
away', be lost from perception, while the perceiver remains,
perceiving 'what is new'. In this moment, the Living Universe is the
only assertion, so it comes through loud and clear! It is in this
moment, that the actual non-dual is experienced, as precisely 'This':
Creation is Creator. The 'stall-state' is recognized as the
compulsive application of the brakes, due to fear of driving.
Relaxing the leg, allows Creation-Creator to resume drawing 'Display'
in an uninhibited manner.

Humbling, one knows to allow the advanced 'state' to do the driving,
but to continue to pay attention to the signs along the way. Each
sign is a hyperlink to the future; premonitory knowledge is thus

And this is all of it, for educational purposes. Redraws are
infinitely possible, as long as there is no predetermine 'feared or
desired outcome', inserted as data into NavCom. The trick is to know,
that the entire Universe will bend to our will, and to avoid having
such a 'will'. Attachment to suffering, as the need to escape
suffering, will bend the entire universe to eventually *reveal*, the
ghastly reality of circular-regressive-remedial 'thinking'. This
moment is like getting a Photon-Torpedo up the fundament; a 'great
flash' is described.

O: > >>* Tyrants can control the physical body, ordering it here and
> >>there, torturing it, locking it in a prison cell. Those who identify with
> >>the physical body will feel tyrannized, and will suffer.

G: > >Perhaps this is so. One may remind oneself of the 'realm of
possibility'. Awareness can change anything.

O: > The above is a "given" in all "my" communication... space is
always "left open" for anything. Sometimes it may not seem to be
so... it is so.

G: Om, it is the 'natural' cohesion of the artifacts of memory, which
make the insertion of a potential modifier so difficult or
challenging. Jung described this to a 'T', in his exposition on the


My 'remedy' for this cohered condition, is to introduce as much
'space' as possible. See below, in the discussion of 'power'. (Power
lives in space; the more space, the more power.)

To look deeper into this natural cohesion of the artifacts of memory,
is to see the 'how' of association, and even deeper, is to see the
'how' of _identification_ (in the context of 'Me', and of 'as body').

The 'difference engine' of mind, running automatically, groups
impressions and symbols and values into tight balls, or 'complexes'.
Such grouped items are 'naturally concretized', like the geological
rock known as 'Concretion'. It is often very challenging to do
anything about these concretions, even it they are seen. LSD is like
the TNT of earthscapers, only applied to the 'geological strata' of
historical memory. Better, is the use of enzymes! Ramana's 'Who Am
I' is one such enzyme; there are many others.

G: > >The real 'tyrant' we all must face, is the compound known as
the 'world-dream'.

O: > Indeed...

G: > >It is from this collective realm of artifacts (intangible as
they may be), that we draw the components of identity.

O: > Perhaps you mean identity with "particulars?" Identity in itself
permeates Reality. The "I" or "me" is an echo of something.

G: Well stated. Consider the difference between the echo of a shower
stall, and the echo of mountain vastness. Only in great space, will
the echo be a faithful reproduction of what originates it. The return
of the complete phrase is possible, but if one is packed into a small
space, only harmonics are heard.

In the greatest of space, only completeness is perceived... as
self/transmitter/receiver. It is only memory which transforms space
into time, and understood, is what is responsible for apparent 'delay
effects' (echoes). No memory, and 'I am Me'.

G: > >As long as a person depends upon the world-dream as a source of
identity, tyranny is possible.
O: > OK, I see how you're using "identity."

G: Yes, and I hope more clear, due to above discussions. I can say
that it is 'amusing' to see 'myself' as 'merely cohering complexes',
the chief complex being named (by the 'authorities') to be 'ego'.

Space itself, however, is the 'source' of all artifacts and
complexes; it is formless, and has no 'destiny'. It is permanently
'off the hook', no blame!

O: > >>* Tyrants may rape and abuse nature as well. But nature
herself is more violent to her inhabitants than any tyrant, and far
wiser to her own condition. In the end, nature kills the tyrant long
before the tyrant can harm her... and she heals faster than most

G: > >Interesting speculation.

O: > I'm not sure if it's a speculation or not. It appears as a
speculation, but it's not known here why "I" wrote those words.

G: It would appear to be derived from historical perspective.

G: > >This view you offer, is why I am careful to state certain
things with great care. Nothing need be eliminated; indeed,
elimination is the way of the tyrant.

O: > Things may "drop," though. Certainly, the "me" cannot drop
anything, because the "me" is the composite of all symbols, and
cannot drop "parts of itself," much less itself. A major mistake is
the concept of "dropping the ego" or "killing the ego." Who is there
to drop it?

G: Partially agreed, here. To refine, is to also rearrange;
eventually, all concepts will be mere info on shelf. Now, I can draw
upon certain 'static' concepts, to wit: In the hierarchy of
complexes, the 'ego' will always (unless psychosis occurs) be the
nucleus around which all other complexes orbit. This is not harmful,
but it is to be seen.

In this seeing, is the knowing of the mechanics of 'consciousness' as
it occurs in humans. It is in this knowing of the mechanics of
consciousness, that 'automaticity' is understood. Understanding
'automaticity' is to also understand the alternatives. One such is

'Abiding' is the state in which the survival instinct can be seen for
what it is, and also, the confusion between the survival of body, and
the survival of the 'precious Me'. One must have compassion at this
juncture, compassion for oneself.

If one has been brought up by 'nazis', the reaction to this seeing,
will be to 'eliminate' the nucleus. The effect of this, if done, is
psychosis. And it is the avoidance of psychosis, which is at the top
of the world-dream hierarchy of 'rules'. So we have a very
interesting situation, in which it is not allowed to see, what may be
tampered with, which could lead to the destruction, which would lead
to psychosis. That is why the world-dream precludes any terminology
which would reveal the mechanics of consciousness. "There are some
things that man is not meant to tamper with" (oft said to Dr
Frankenstein, in various movies).

O: > The analogy is of a tree laden with ripe fruit.
Concepts/attachments may "drop" when seen clearly as concepts or when
the right atmosphere is present in some other sense.

G: I would use the analogy of one who, under the influence of LSD,
having entered a movie theatre and having taken the movie to be
'real', eventually understands that it is just a reel of tape,
imprinted with images. 'It is my projection'.

G: > >I advocate to awaken _TO_ the dream, rather than _from_ the dream.

O: > Certainly. "See the dream as dream." Nothing else can be "done."

G: > >If this step is taken, if one awakens to (or within) the dream,
the tools at our disposal may be used to dramatically reform the
contents of the dream in which we find ourselves.

O: > I'm not sure. If such awakening takes place, often it's seen
that volition/causation is also part of the dream.

G: Abiding during awakening, allows the full depth of the dream to be
intuited, if not seen. There is no point, at which the dream 'ends',
as long as there is an 'outside', from which vantage point to see the

Instead, the dream is seen to be "autonomous", the very Living
Universe itself. This moment can be one of nauseating clarity; "what
am I, in all of that?" (shock!). Fugue (aversive reaction) may occur
at this point; that is why practiced abiding is valuable here.

G: > >Finding one's controls, gives one certain powers (siddhes)
which have direct application in shaping what I call 'DISPLAY' (ala

O: > This must be what Jerry speaks of when he refers to "spiritual power."

G: 'Spiritual Power' is an interesting concept, but one which I avoid
using. I say, that there is only one power, not a hierarchy of powers.

"Power" is a property of space; the more space, the more power.
Mindless, without concepts, is to be able to withstand 'seeing the
face of God', for the great power afforded by being 'empty'.

Space is 'not empty', but is 'all power'. It is this power which we
see in action as 'Display'. And it is our natural love of power,
which is the basis for our polarizing into 'aversion/desire' dyads,
such as our esteemed 'Siva/Sakti' one-as-pair.

Self-realization states: I am power. What occurs as a consequence of
this realization, is the knowing that it is not 'power acting on
power', but instead, 'power using power as force', which creates
objects which then occupy space, and thus reduce power. To retain
power, is to abjure from the use of force.

But, humans (and all of life) use power as force, of necessity. And
there is an exchange, and a sacrifice, in that operation. That is why
the greatest way of power, is compassion; it is compassion to 'let
oneself Be', to abide, to refrain from fixing what is not broken.

'Spiritual rules and admonitions' stimulate movement to an imagined
'ideal' state, and are thus to be forgotten. It all comes out 'in the
wash'. No problems, no remedies, but a whopping good show!

G: > >Display is what is apparent reality. It is possible to directly
shape 'Display', thus to change what is apparently 'happening'.

O: > Why bother to change what is apparent? Let destiny/God/whatever
run the film. If it changes, it changes, nobody here to change
anything and CERTAINLY nobody here who "desires" change.

G: Yes. However, being able to open the 'preference menu' and to
reset to 'default', is nice. It starts that way, and we in our
imagined wisdom, configure away, leading to a monster on the loose.
Love and 'harmless' are the defaults.

G: > >'Most people' however, have no interest or awareness of the
nature of 'Display', other than to go through formulaic rituals (such
as 'working for money' and 'eating to live') to accomplish the
repetitious recreation of yesterday.

O: > Clear and obvious...

G: > >Some of us are gifted by Grace,
> >with direct perception of this conundrum, and choose to take
>control, to the extent that compassion allows.

O: > Gene, on the level of words/concepts we see things somewhat
differently, yet the sense here is that in truth we see things
exactly the same way. Do you get my meaning?

G: Of course. And I have 'always known that' about 'us', OmTim.
Refinement does happen, as you are noticing. Yesterdays gods are
todays dustbunnies. And vice-versa.

G: > >(I have always said, that good 'elimination' will greatly aid
clear vision. Beware the syndrome of 'Ocular Rectumulosis'. )

O: > Yes, I've always felt that way too. Some here have argued
against "negation" as anything of value (claiming negation simply
affirms that which is negated), but the sense here is they don't
understand the "how" of negation, or its proper place and use.

O: > Negation becomes effortless at some point, and the
universe/world dream is seen to be ceaselessly "negating itself." All
is unwritten at the precise point the "pencil" touches the paper.
Thus, nothing ever appears, despite continued "writing."

G: Is one 'jumping ahead of the reader-device', to assume a
hypothetical 'ideal state', in which nothing appears? Or to restate,
is one running, to exceed the speed of history?

I would advocate this as a valuable (transitional) concept: Anything
that 'apparently arises', is simply 'apparent'. There is no
difference between 'apparent' and 'real'. It is 'I the Display' what
is happening; in this, is only 'Display', and nothing else whatsoever.

Attachment to any aspect of apparency which occurs in Display,
becomes a particle which is destined to become part of a
concretion/complex. Letting go is easy, if one 'knows' the transitory
nature of what is 'in Display'. To allow Display to be what it is, is
to remove the braking effect, and to allow the unfolding of 'what is
new'. This is birth, and it (can be) continuous. Nova!

==Gene Poole==



º"The body" is a tricky topic from the nondual perspective. Many
ºincluding Nisargadatta ultimately deny reality to the body entirely.

In that case, wouldn't it be consequent to interpret the activities of the body
unreal as well?
And that includes statements like "the body is unreal".

ºIn a homogenous Reality, is there room for 7 billion (human) bodies,
ºnot to mention animals and trillions of insects?

Why would Reality have qualities like homogeneity? Homogeneity is a material
So would Reality exclude matter?
ºAdvaita Vedanta denies reality to anything temporary and not

Yes, and that requires a construction to explain matter and it is called
But because only reality exists, the two (seeming) opposites have to be
"reconciled". Jokingly, the continuation of events is lasting so that must be
Reality :)

Then again, some who hold the nondual perspective do not
ºdeny reality to the body, stating that the body is temporary, but
ºreal "while it lasts" (clear and obvious from ANY perspective).
ºThose who lean toward the Tantric (Kundalini, etc.) fall into this

That the body is temporary can be observed, but whence the need for classifying
it into "real" or unreal"? Would it make a difference if that issue would be
discarded altogether?
ºBut the way "I" see it, the body is ultimately another mental
ºcategory, another concept, an extension of thought. Quoting
ºNisargadatta directly (from I Am That): "There is no such thing
ºas 'body'."
ºTim (Omkara)

What has been my interest are (practical) questions like" what is the use of
classifying bodies into real or unreal?" Is anything solved by it? Denial of
body in a serious degree could be classified as behavioral disorder :)
Statements like "there are no others" and "body is illusion" show a certain
likeness with the statement "the earth is flat": suggesting a limitation where
there isn't one. The "ancient message" was of great simplicity: there is only
Love, the mind-body is a temporary manifestation, a "product" of love, which in
essence is Love, so "you are Love". Of course, realizing that is also the
ultimate simplicity - unless in denial of the mind-body... The first and
foremost goal of institutionalized religion is and always has been, setting up
man in denial of the mind-body, so that man can be manipulated - as recorded
history of this planet clearly shows... And then, the most complicated
philosophies won't be able to repair the damage and only those talented will
"get there", as can be observed.





A discussion:


Abiding admits to something to abide. In this admission, is the
admission of the entire Universe. But unto what, is this Universe
admitted? Is there a space, so big, in which to fit all of what is?

Yes, and it is space itself, which is awareness; awareness can
'contain' or encompass or 'know' the entire Universe. Awareness,
properly understood, is 'omniscience', yet, what is 'having' this

It is space, itself, the originator, which perceives itself, as
reflected by what arises within 'it'. It is space, which allows
definition; that is, the difference between (the space between) two
things, is defined by the shape (definition) of those things. Yet,
space is 'not-two'.

Space is one, things are many, yet all things return to the emptiness
of space from which 'they' arise. In temporary display, things seem
to become, to evolve, and to expire. And it is all happening 'in
space'. In this regard, space is just like 'mind'; things arise, are
entertained, and expire, in endless succession. The significances of
things, are assigned by the one who gives rise to them; thus, all
meaning is self-referential, all meaning is inspired and derived from
the infinite pool of omniscience which is awareness.

It is in this arena that we find ourselves; what is not defined, is
the one who gives meaning, the omniscient one. It is 'bad form' (for
everyone except Michael R) to refer to self as infinite and
omniscient; it is 'good form' to police the manifestations of
'others', to enforce the rules of decency and humility, to ensure
that 'enlightenment' or 'self-realization' does not seem to occur,
unless certain criteria are met, adhered to.

Abiding, admits to all of this, and any more of it which may be
apparent. It is this constant barrage of judgement, this harangue of
holiness, this admonition to be angelic, which is the irritant which
is abided. Abidance in not static nor is it decided; it is a dynamic
balance, akin to that of a surfer 'hanging ten' while riding the
never-ending 'big one', yes drenched, but hyper-aware of the need to
be hyper-aware.

The 'let's get it finished and over with and get on with our lives'
approach, assumes that there are problems to be solved, states to
experience, lives to live, deaths to die, and all in a linear
fashion. What of simultaneity, one may ask? What of the (hinted)
MultiVerse, containing this Universe, which is contained in awareness
itself, as omniscience? What of the 'realm of possibilities?

Is it necessary to 'deconstruct', to see what is under, behind, or
precedent of that which is apparent? How about simply jumping to the
end? But taking that leap, one leaves the grounding of self, to
travel to an imagined ideal, for some 'reason' this is done or tried,
as though, something can be 'done' about anything. Is this done, to
illustrate, to teach, to example, to help? Or is it otherwise, and
later, rationalized as having 'meaning'? Is it simply spasmodics, or
is it 'enlightenment in action'?

Detachment denies that there is anything to abide; instead, it sets
up camp in a stasis-field, to keep away the bears and cougars and
wolves and ants. Detachment has already decided 'how it is', and if
that were the technique of the surfer, all waves would have to
conform to that one form, which is already decided, or the surfer
would take a header. This we see in the act of the control-artist,
especially the control-artists who don the mantle of spiritual
virtue, of superiority, of knowing the ethical prerequisites for
entry to heaven, nirvana, or sunyata. Those who abstain from the
struggle, are detached, while those who abide, those who are
'non-attached', are swimming with the sharks, yet avoid the teeth.

Abiding uses nonattachment, not detachment, as means, but not to an
end, but as way of Being. Nonattachment allows the
slithering/flashing/throbbing beauty/ugliness which is apparent, to
continue on its way, noting, and letting go. Detachment is a
pre-decided match, won in advance, the winner wearing the blue ribbon
of 1st Place, and what competitor can dare claim victory, against the
current champion? Detachment declares itself not only ahead of, but
in abeyance of, any struggle whatsoever.

Abiding says: "I see this situation, and I will keep my balance as it
transpires, and I will not expect this ongoing fluctuating field of
effects to end, nor will I complain of the buffeting that I receive
as I maintain my desired and learned stance of balance".

Says abiding: "I do not expect to reach the end of this job of work,
so I will keep my tools sharpened; I do not long for the day on
which, I can throw away my tools and skills, to sink gratefully into

Quoth abiding: As I abide, I also learn to abide; thus, abiding is
also learning. As I abide I abide my own ignorance, and also my own
enlightenment. If God shows up with a big 'stop sign', I can stop,
but until then, my task is to recognize and to compensate for
changing conditions. Indeed, I can afford to have no feelings about
changing conditions, but instead, have feelings for my own dilemma,
that of abiding I know not what."

What is life, and what is death? Detachment knows not, but is
self-defined as above or superior to those conundrums; nonattachment
knows those puzzles intimately, yet, does not surrender to the
contempt of familiarity. Wary for the next shift, abiding is dynamic,
and if there is rest, it is in the flimsy assurance that disaster has
been averted through the agency of non-reaction. The question is
constant, and there are no final answers, only refinements of the
question. Finally, there is no finality, and once that desire has
been put to rest, all exertion is had in the context of acceptance;
in that context, what comes, is a gift, as repulsive as it may be in
the moment.

We become adept at swallowing the toad, warts and all. Our
preferences are deleted as rapidly as they are engendered. Our stance
is movement, yet this movement is the economy of rest. What is not
forbidden, is mandatory, and what is mandatory is to suffer in
proportion to forgetfulness. Remembering replaces compensatory
fantasy, and the only fantasy is that of more effective remembering.
Amnesia is not desired, for one has not forgotten amnesia, and the
long and painful climb out of that singularity, nor has one taken for
granted the buoyancy of Grace, nor the intuition of phases of

We know that we get what we choose, and that we do not always know
what we choose, and thus we know also, to accept what we get, yet to
note what circumstances brought what we regret, so as to better
choose. Knowing this is to be able to refine what choice is
available, to accept what can not be chosen, and thus to be freed of
one more attachment.

Soon, what was a series of gross efforts, becomes as light as
breathing, as light as the touch of wing of butterfly, as subtle as
the odor of distant fragrant grasses in unseen mountain meadows, as
light as the passing of seconds of pleasure; but to maintain
vigilance then, is the work, for the job never ends, except in the
myths of those who in their detachment, find finality, finished,
ended, departed from this sphere of suffering, benumbed perhaps,
maybe disabled and out on the sidelines, but in denial of wounds, and
in imitation of the greater denial-artists, who in their smiling
grace look down upon those still identified with the dynamism of the
Great Breath of the Living Universe, and shake their heads in pity
for those who by staying in the game, accept the only reward there
is, that of enhanced skill and thus less effort expended, to the same
or better effect.

And so on.

==Gene Poole==



> has expressed (more or less, I may be wrong) that the
idea is to smother. The belief behind the belief seems to be
(again I could be wrong) that this is good for people to be
confronted with how they really are. Seems to me to be the
encounter psychology or the Fritz Perls mentality. I was in a
group for twenty-five years which was based on this
particular mentality. IMO no one ever changes when attacked.
The defenses go up and with them the chances of really seeing
oneself goes down. It just doesn't work.

>I, for one, do not want to be told how I am either by myself
or by anyone else. This inner critic, mirrored by external
critics, IS the culprit itself. Do you get this? This is a
vital point. It is the critic itself which is the problem and
not the solution. The critic is always quick to tell me how I
am. The "telling me how I am" is the illusion. The person who
tells the other guy how they are is merely turning their inner
critic outward. It is still an illusion. It gives concreteness to
an image. What needs to be seen is the critic itself. Anything
else is already at least one step down the yellow brick road. >

~ Marcia, as I see it, this kind of confrontation fails
because it is carried out by someone trying to
imitate grace.

Any of us who have received the truly transforming
blessing of seeing our own bullshit before us in neon
lights, have received it not by some human's plan or
device, although people may serve as grace's tools.

Moreover, blessed revelation of self-deception and of
pure Self is not a once-in-a-lifetime event. Gratefully,
Grace has more tricks up her sleeve than we could ever
imagine; and like Mary Poppins medicine, each of them
is designed perfectly for each of us idiots.

And I agree... judgement is judgement is judgement...
and is an expression of a lack of freedom no matter
how 'enlightened' is the language in which it is couched.


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