Jerry Katz
photography & writings

Search over 5000 pages on Nonduality:
Nonduality Salon (/\)

Highlights #63

Click here to go to the next issue.

From: "Christopher Wynter"

Echoes of the crying stone
Overshadowed, vast,
tremendous vibration echoing
distant yet close.
Am I afraid?

I listen, attentive, silent,
the throbbing of my heart beats.
I hear only the voices of man,
voices of the lost ...

Yet there must be balance, there must be found.

And the heart beats louder, louder, louder
as a drum beats nearer, nearer.

It shall reach breaking point,
the reality of who I am,
The vastness of Self, the Truth of Self
seems magnified as the beating continues

I have become my heart.
There is no body
I am free
All that remains is the beating of my heart.

My spirit, it soars.
I fly high,
high to the temple of the angels.
In golden light I await me
In golden light I am bathed
I stand
and face the mirror of who I am.

I smile,
step through the mirror into nothing
for I am only my own imagination.

I step through the nothing,
through the mirror,

content to dwell ...


Skye wrote:

Most people just talk about transcending the ego while they wait for
their elite master to choose them and help save their egosouls
(which only reinforces it), few are brave enough to *actually* live
it out themselves by looking deeply into and beyond it's belief
packed nature.

Enlightenment (a concept) only transcends the opposites but still
leaves a gap so one remains alone in conceptual Oneness. The
opposites must be eradicated to bridge the distance between
individuals, only *actually* extinguishing the egoself and Self does
that, going beyond enlightenment and merging fully with the nature
of our universe.

Maybe if Buddha had not declined this final step out of the human
condition this list might not need to exist.

With Love, Skye
....with ego extant but blowing my mind more each day.



Consciousness is all that is.
Indivisible, the very state of existence.
'I and i' am. (consciousness)
Everyone senses this.
I don't know why people
are unaware that they sense this.
A confusion that arises with language and logic?
People distrust their senses,
preferring to believe what authority tells them.
People accept the "thousands of years of
spiritual expoundings", out of respect, as received
wisdom, Gospel Truth, instead of testing them
against experience, tearing them apart and
building them up again.
Does it matter why, or can that question
be put aside?
I only know that I hear feel smell
touch taste and otherwise sense
one constant loving unity.
I can't explain it.
Things and people and thoughts
and words and beliefs come and go,
but reality persists,
and is directly sensually available
to the human being I presently believe myself to be.
But don't take my word for it.

Further to the above, the more one thinks and talks,
the more confused and distracted one becomes.
Temporary suspension of the analytical function of the
brain allows perception to become strong and stable.
Then, perhaps it becomes possible to talk about it.




Everyone follows the spiritual practice that they are inclined
towards. In truth, the Guru is only the Heart, One's Own Self. Therefore, no
external medium is required for contact. However, without perfect
recognition of the Self, there is duality and maya appears as something
happening outside. The Guru then appears as part of that Maya and instructs
the devotee to be aware of his true nature. The Sage of Arunachala has
beautifully stated that just as an elephant wakes up upon seeing the fierce
lion in his dream, the devotee upon seeing the Guru in his dream wakes up.


The Reality of Awareness appears to manifest through the mind/body, and at
the same time it seems that mind/body, ego, manifestations of siddhis, and
indeed all and any related perceptions, only exist within the Reality of
Awareness. It is the experience of the Sage that Reality exists along with
and independent of the conditions of the mind/body as well. Siddhis are only
the conditions of the mind. But the mind itself can be seen as only a
condition that appears to emanate from the Source of Knowing and disappears
into that. Therefore, Reality embraces all conditions and is limited neither
by duality nor nonduality or any particular theology, philosophy, radical
point of view, etc. Once an ice cube melts into water, it is hard to know
which portion of the water was the ice cube. Similarly, once the mind is
absorbed in the Heart, One Is the Heart. Yet, how can one ever have been out
of the Heart? The disappearance of this mystery might be called

It's on tv again''''''''''''''
> 9 people have died *in fear* at the hands of a lost religious man.
> Exuse me '''''''''
> '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''while I weep an ocean'''''''''''

It almost makes me want to believe in karma.Why did Jesus say that
the wise man built his house on
the rock when he knew all along that there is no rock?
There are no leaders and no followers,
each person is a solitary wanderer.
Born helpless, hopeless, and fearless.
We grow up and develop the illusion of control.
But there is no absolute control in the relative world.
There is a step beyond clarity,
which is to forget all about it.

Ivan: I think that the definition of ego by modern psichology is not
good. Psichology deals with the limited area of brain/mind.

Dan: There is a place in life for dealing with "limited areas." The ego
of the brain and body is important to understand, since it is involved with
many aspects of physical and social existence. Saying it is "not good"
doesn't do away with the importance of biopsychosocial self-regulation in
day to day life.
It is important to understand how the "limited" and "unlimited" relate.
Otherwise, you run the risk of ignoring aspects of reality.


>Dan: You are saying that what people consider love is not love. But to
>them, it is love as they know it. Sorry, but I don't think it helps
>someone to tell them what they think of as love is self-centered desire, so
>therefore they should forget it. You will only know love when you are pure
>like me, have died to yourself, and are universally loving toward all.
>Because what does that really mean? It means someone has set themselves up
>as an ultimate authority about love, invalidated love that the person
>experiences as love, and told that person that he or she must die to self.
>Now, how selfless is that authority -- really?

Thank you, Dan..this is a very important often when we speak of
the transcendent dimensions of love, it seems to deny the immanent and very
personal way of experiencing this love. Yet how can one way invalidate the
other? This is to interpret detachment as only indifference and denial to
the immanent and manifest reality..which after all IS an appearance of the
absolute. The ego discrimination of "my" child - "my" mother can be looked
upon as simply our limited bodily manifestation without any need to deny
that same transcendent value exists in others. It is possible to affirm a
personal love without in any way denying love to others. To express
poetically a transcendent experience of love for example... when I give
birth to my child I am every woman who has ever done so.. as I partake
personally of this universal experience of motherhood. When I love a man, it
is an instance of Shakti worshipping Shiva. This sort of simultaneous
experience does not require one to "give up" one's body or personal family
or human limitations in order to "have" the transcendent love. It is seeing
this as only "either/or" which requires a choice. Why not both?



If one is
not committed, then one will be blown around like a leaf in
the wind … or drift aimlessly through life relying upon others to
look after one. One needs to fend for oneself. One has to operate
and function in the world of people, things and events in a sensible
confident way.

I was talking with one man once about what it
would be like when everything came mystically and
miraculously correct for him. He maintained that everything would be
supplied. I asked him what he meant … he would still have to go to
the shops, wouldn’t he? He said no. Seriously, he expected that
trees would start growing sliced bread. Literally.

I asked him how he could say that and he said he had
had an experience of “living in the present” and he had had no
plans, no income, no whatever and, for example, a cheque arrived in
the mail. I asked where the check came from and he said it was his
income tax return. “It just arrived,” he said, “and I had money to
live on. So that’s how it will be.” I pointed out that he had had to
work a job in order to pay tax in order to get a tax return … that
comes out of his past, not out of living ‘in the present’. “Once you
have used that cheque up, where will the next come from?” I asked.
He said: “Oh, they’ll just come”. He was absolutely convinced that
the cheques would just arrive in the mail and he would not have to
DO anything for them.

So I said to him: "I see, so that means that there are other people
out there beavering away to produce these cheques for you. Where
would their cheques be coming from?” but he was adamant that that
was the way it would be! So I took him further into this to
demonstrate the fantasy of his belief. I said “So, you are sitting
in this armchair and that tree is growing sliced bread. You have to
get up and walk out and pick it of the branch. Why do you not have
it in
your fantasy that the sliced bread appears on your table already
buttered and with cheese on it? All you have to do then is pick it
up and put it in your mouth to chew it. But then I
enquired why, in his fantasy, he does not make the food appear in
his mouth and all you have to do is chew away to your heart’s
content or take it one step further and do away with the
whole business of eating altogether. Infact if you're going to have
a real ego power fantasy make an entirely new body that is not
dependent upon eating. No mouth, no stomach, no bowels … you will
not have to go to the toilet!”

His fantasy actually is. No BODY, you see.

It’s such nonsense … mostly, people don’t want to be here.
There's a basic resentment against being a body and being here.
One cannot examine something fully if one is busy denying its

It's no use whatsoever to be swapping one belief for
another, going from a negative belief to a positive belief still
leaves you living in the land of belief. Seeing the fact is what is

The fact is that this universe is already perfect. It is only the
who is seeing it wrongly. The ‘I’, as an IDENTITY, a self,. My ‘I’
lives in mortal danger of being found out for the usurper it is …
ready and eager to BELIEVE in “Whatever”
to keep it's throne. My ‘I’ has avoided looking at the fact, for
such a
“seeing” will lead to ‘my’ inevitable demise. My ‘I’ has spun
fantasies of it's after-life to ensure it's immortal separation from
all that is…anything to deny the inevitable death of it's possessive
separative identities.

What are we saving ourselves for?, reach out into the Universe.
The death of psychic illusions before leaving physical substance
will reverberate benevolently through untold dimensions. All one
gets by waiting is yet more waiting. Patience may be a virtue, but
procrastination is an abomination.

Have confidence in the Universe, which is not the illusory
confidence of the opinionated ego.


I am The Absolute,
I am birthless, deathless, eternal;
The baseless base of beginnings
The sure foundation unmeasured
The causeless Cause of causation
The Living Root of illusion.
All these am I
And other things unmentioned -
The sum total of reality expressed in Nought;
Unmoved, unquestioned, undefined,
I am Omnipotent.

Veiled by the robes of empty space
I dream
The troubled nightmare of Creation's Plan
To wake
And find Creation's Plan dissolved again in me .

Of me you little know, and yet
I am the Sum
Of all that has been, is, or yet to come -
The Plan, the Planner and the Planned For - all in one.

I am the Absolute
I, the one before the beginning,
The word unspoken in my Name;

I am The All Pervading


What is love? Is not love that wich exists per se, as universal
>order, when the Me is absent? Is not love only possible when all
>duality and all ilusion is gone?
>The love that can coexist with hate as a human condition is not love
>at all, Dan. It may be passion, or romantic-love, or sex-based-desire,
>but not love. Love is condition-less, object-less, non-cultivable, and
>independent of feeling. How could it coexist with hate?


When I first became homeless, I went from being a middle-class housewife and
schoolboard member to transient in about 72 hours - it was such a dramatic
turn of events, that clouded every belief I held and every "reality" I
understood that I really just let go and fell far into...well, the present
moment, for lack of a better description. For the next two months I was
incapable of seeing anything except incredible light and goodness in every
situation. I was suffused with enormous tenderness, patience, acceptance,
and compassion for everyone and everything. I experienced a total lack of
anxiety or desire for anything to be different. I gave up on everything and
was free....I believe that this was an experience of what is possible and
offered to us to of God's windows, if you will...I had no
sense of my body, no concern about food or comfort (the food always came),
minor cuts, scrapes and bruises healed literally overnight, I had a
superabundance of energy and the desire and will and capacity to be only
harmless and helpful, ...I believe I was blessed with the experience of
becoming loving consciousness, for a made me believe that love
simply is or is not, we can't love a little, or in only one direction...if
love is specific to a person, place or thing, it is not love....those
experience may run parallel to love and indicate the direction that we may
choose for our consciousness to travel, but in and of itself it is not love...

My task since then has been to remember this phenomenon and integrate it
into the "real world" where there are demands to be "normal." In the street,
I could hold a very drunk man in my arms while he retched and wailed and
poured out his griefs, real or perceived is irrelevant....I didn't have to
get to a job, take care of children or wonder what the neighbors would
think....Love and Fear, which are the primary irreducibles of consciousness,
are mututally exclusive phenomenon, and I believe that when we speak of
Awareness or Falling or the inexpressible joy of aliveness that IS the
experience of love, however fleeting...



I think of the movie "The Matirx"... how the 'agents' (enforcers of the
world-dream) lived 'inside' every dweller of the Matrix, and thus could
'take over' and thus be on-the-spot for enforcement of world-dream ethics.
The goal of the 'agent/enforcer' is to deny the possibility that anyone
will escape the matrix/world-dream.

In the same way, it is not the _external_ enforcers which are our actual
worry; it is the internal ones. That is, it is the existence of the
internal voices and ethics of our social conditioning which on a continuing
basis, draw abitrary (chosen) boundaries, and dare us to cross them. As in
the movie, our 'only choice' is to _run like hell_ when the agent/enforcer
arrives from within, because in our experience, those agents have _always_
defeated us.

Likewise, in our dual existence (actual AND world-dream realities, both)
when we get to a certain place, the map says 'here be monsters', yet we
'know' (as a result of study and intuition) that the map is incomplete and
inaccurate. We dare to face the monsters, yet when they appear, we run
away, back to the security of 'not knowing' (agnostic) as a way of Being.
It is much safer to 'not know' then to 'know', if what is known is death,
extinction, suffering, pain, torture.

The subtle refinements which characterize the movement (transformation)
into the nondual, give us the power to question the existence of the
monsters which stand guard at the boundaries of the world-dream. We may at
some time, perceive those monsters/agents/enforcers as nothing but symbolic
representations of our own fear. At that point, does the journey of the
hero really begin.

For language-users, it is language itself which is the web of strands which
conducts or carries us in the realm of the symbolic. As Alice said, "you
are nothing but a deck of cards!". We may say the same to language and to
the enforcers. As in The Matrix, I have taken on the appearance of the
'agent', as did Neo, the star/hero of the movie. I am free to use these
words in any way I choose; no longer am I forbidden to use them, only in
the ways approved by the agents/enforcers. I use them as a drill, to
penetrate the noise of the world-dream distraction, to touch others with my
point. As long as words are the value-neutral building-materials of
symbolic reality, I am free to build or to demolish any word-reality which
I choose. I am not assuming that ANY structure which I build is going to
be real or permanent; I build or demolish to show the flexible nature of
languaging, as opposed to the rigidity which is assumed to be necessary for
safety and certainty in the world-dream. Thus I do not speak of truth, or
falsity. My words are for representational or demonstrative purposes only;
they are neither true nor false. I seek only to take others on a ride
through what I see, and in this medium, words are the vehicle for that
ride. Still, it is necessary to take into account the feelings of others.

Christ said that we should take our enemies into our hearts. This is His
brilliant way of inducing us to eventually realize that this is where they
live, anyway. It is the internal enemy, projected onto others, which is the
external enforcer of the world-dream; it is our realization of this that is
the 'key to the kingdom'. When we learn to listen to the internal voices,
we will hear only wisdom, our own wisdom, being spoken. It is our wisdom
which must eventually take control. It is the hierarchy of wisdom, which we
must rule as kings and queens of wisdom; this does not banish or destroy
anything or anyone, it merely puts things in a perspective which allows
'unicity', as Ivan calls it, or 'abiding', as I refer to it.

Arguments are merely the sorting-out or parsing of our wisdom. It is the
parser which will eventually be seen and appreciated, not that which is
parsed. Similarly, it is the one who is reading this which is the point,
not that which is written here. There is nothing written here which
transcends the one who reads this; the one who reads this, is the parser,
and is wise, and that is all.

Now to mow my lawn...

top of page


Nonduality: The Varieties of Expression Home

Jerry Katz
photography & writings

Search over 5000 pages on Nonduality: