Jerry Katz
photography & writings

Search over 5000 pages on Nonduality:
Nonduality Salon

Highlights #9

Click here to go to the next issue.

Mother holds me in velvet dark presence.
Father shimmers silvered fullness around and through me.
And I?
A kinetic kaleidoscope of impossibilities
entirely unlike Mum and Dad.

Sinking back into my birth
Re-merging into my conception
Reversal of where I thought I wanted to go
Accomplishes my goal in its disappearance.



The Melody one writes:

"I admit the woundedness,...the pain
of the constant threat of separation,
rejection, eviction. I quit trying
to pretend it isn't there...or that it
isn't my achilles heel. I feel it,
but I can't 'go' anywhere with it. And
it doesn't justs sits like
this big weight of sorrow on top of me."

And this is the felt gutness of it;
repeated deep
in the self-soul,
yet still heard loudly
a tin drum, drumming
the march of time,
crying out its own wilderness
deep abandonment by god...
sorrow and guilt sorrow and guilt
goes the drum in time, and time again...
or is it I who have abandoned god?

This weighty sorrow of sorrows hidden
in every relationship...

"Images of being cast out,
of being alone, left behind...

and the sorrow
keeps spilling forth."

What's a tin drummer to do?
The little flapping of wings
and here we are, hardly dry behind
the tears...and still,
out of fear,
I blame the moon
for having a dark side...


in my tiredness,
I stop.

I stop thinking,
stop remembering,
stop imaging.

I just focus on the body,

which has held the pain
for years...

and thru which
the pain has flowed outward.

And suddenly I notice
there is no Sorrow.

There is no experience
of suffering,

without the thoughts of
suffering to feed it."

You "think" so? *This* suffering
needs no thought; it only goes
underground to grow and wait until,
perhaps, you need to feel dispair
to remind you that you still exist...
on that you can depend, even in the
last beat of the tin drum you cling
to time as the drug of sorrow...

"Like fire
without oxygen...

sorrow disappeared
when the mind shut off."

Is this your solution? Kill the
mind and millions of years of
evolution. It was just a mistake.
Let's go back to being apes...or
reptiles, or ...maybe something dead?
Who do you "think" you are?

"Mind" never shuts off, not even
in sleep or death. But yes it dis-
appears that can drug it,
divert it, by becoming insensitive
or intoxicated... for after all, this is
the common life, the unexamined life,
the life of sleep and substitute projects
and entertainments, politics and education,
religion and computer games, divorce and
jacket labels... until the little hands
of time get too tired to beat the drum...
but there is no escape; for you will hear
the flapping of the wings again and again,
drawn toward the birth of time and the
death of god...(or maybe you might
transcend it).

"And then the 'wondering'
begins again.

Continue to allow the sorrow....

until there are
no more tears to 'burn'...

or simply stay still
and sit in the Silence?

Stillness appeals to me,

but I know my mind
will return again and again.

And what will she bring with her
next time?"

why not just leave it alone?

Let it be.

Let it roar
if it wants to.

Or die naturally,
from lack of attention.

I can see now

though I 'thought' so before,

I am not the fire."

Are you sure?

"Nor am I the one
who's trying
to put it out."

Are you sure about that?

"So, who am I?"

Remember, a kiss is just a kiss...
The fundamental things apply,
as time goes bye bye.



> Man of LaMancha (I Am I, Don Quixote)
> From Man of LaMancha
> I shall impersonate ... a man.
> Come, enter into my imagination, and see him:
> Boney, hollow faced, eyes that burn with the fire of inner vision.
> He conceives the strangest project ever imagined ...
> To become a knight errant
> And sally forth into the world, righting all wrongs!
> Hear me now, oh thou bleak and unbearable world
> Thou art base and debauched as can be!
> And a knight with his valors all bravely unfurled
> Now hurls down his gauntlet to thee!
> I am I, Don Quixote,
> The Lord of LaMancha,
> My destiny calls, and I go!
> And the wild winds of fortune
> Shall carry me onward ...
> To wither so ever they blow ...
> Wither so ever they blow ...
> Onward to glory I go!
> I'm Sancho, yes, I'm Sancho
> I'll follow my master till the end ...
> I'll tell all the world, proudly,
> I'm his squire ... I'm his friend.
> Hear me heathens, and wizards, and servants of sin:
> All your dastardly doings are past!
> For a holy endeavor is now to begin
> And virtue shall triumph at last!
> I am I, Don Quixote,
> The Lord of LaMancha,
> My destiny calls, and I go!
> And the wild winds of fortune
> Shall carry me onward ...
> To wither so ever they blow ...
> Wither so ever they blow ...
> Onward to glory I go!

I would like to include Don Quixote on the Realizers/Confessors list on
my website, if others who know the story better than I, think so.

If someone can post other quotes or information, I'd appreciate it.
Thanks. We can start a whole threads on fictional realizers/confessors
of nondual reality. The works of P.K. Dick have been mentioned
frequently. We talked about The Matrix quite a bit.

So we have a few fictional people: Don Quixote(and Sancho), Neo, and one
or more from P.K. Dick. Neo's been discussed here, but not the others.
We also touched on Salinger. A lot needs to be done, in case anyone
wants to 'specialize' in this. It's an open field. A whole new list can
be started! (In case anyone's not receiving enough email!)



From: [email protected]

I wrote to my master, "I love you".
He read back, "There is love."
I understood, and knew I didn't understand.


How much I have shunned.

Continuous, unbroken is-ness.
This minute contraction
Makes every thing appear,
appear as real,
appear as differences.

It was always only me


All from an ever-so-slight contraction.

There is only me.

How funny is that!



> Hi Gene,
> When I am asleep, I'm in the dark,
> When I am awake, I'm 'in the light'.
> Could enlightenment be the difference between 'being awake' and 'being
> asleep'? If so, then what IS this difference?
> Just wondering,
> Jelke.

Hi Jelke,

To attempt to give you a satisfactory answer:

It is I who sleep,

It is I who am awake,

It is always I,

There is no difference in I;

In light or dark,

My life is a walk in the park.

Thank you very much, sir.

==Gene Poole==


Petros said:

I had an old friend tell me once that he didn't think I had a spiritual bone
in my body. This rather shocked me, seeing as how I've been "practicing" for
ten years. This was a fellow from my old hometown who knew me from many
years back. I understand what J.C. said about a prophet being without honor
in his own country.

Another weird thing was that it really *bothered* me. Silly, huh?


Skye offered:

.thinking of Goldie's and Meryl's comedy "Death
Her"....eeyow darn these arms arn't long enough, this heads stuck
like glue!
can't a girl take a simple walk in the park without a head once
in a while! what's going on here! ;-)


From: David Hodges <[email protected]>

This is from a dialogue with Sri Nisargadatta:

Questioner: What is realized in self-realization?

Nisargadatta: To know that the known cannot be me or mine, is liberation
enough. Freedom from self-identification with a set of memories and habits,
the state of wonder at the infinite reaches of the being, its inexhaustible
creativity and total transcendence, the absolute fearlessness born from the
realization of the illusoriness and transiency of every mode of
consciousness - flow from a deep and inexhaustible source. To know the
source as source and appearance as appearance, and oneself as the source
only is self-realization.


Harsha: This might be of interest to some (The "hard core" especially :--).
Forwarding from HarshaSatangha.

Greg wrote:
>>What is it about an experience that makes it an experience of
>>enlightenment? Whatever defining characteristics you give such an
>>experience, there have to be major presuppositions at work there. So in
>>what sense can such a definition be true, or taken seriously? There's no
>>general sense of agreement amon traditions on it. So we can say it's just

Madhya wrote:
>Now, Greg... come on. 'Fess up. I'm sure you've got ideas of your about
>to answer these questions. You are charming, but you are leading me on....

Greg: Really, I'm not being coy or disingenuous. I was really asking for
ideas on these questions, since you have written about different kinds of
enlightenment expereinces. Here are my answers, based on my concept of
enlightenment: all is light; there is no enlightenment or
non-enlightenment, no enlightened one, no unenlightened one.

Q: What is it about an experience that makes it an experience of
A: That it is an experience is sufficient. All experience is the same, in
this respect.

I'll show you how a contrary answer leads to problems. Let's assume that
there is at least one special experience that is an experience of
enlightenment. OK, for this to be true, we'd have (a) the experience,
which stands in relation to (b) enlightenment. We say that (a) refers to
(b) by being "of" (b). This leads to 2 problems:

Problem 1 - If there is an experience of enlightenment,
then some are, some are not.
Some experiences are of enlightenment, and some are not. So this brings up
the need for some kind of criterion, such as a feeling of oneness, or lack
of limitations, or bliss or expansion. The criterion is usually in terms
of a subjective state, and must come and go. What makes any one criterion
better than another? And in the case of *any* criterion, it means that
enlightenment as an experienced state also comes and goes. But the mystics
usually speak of something eternal and not coming and going.

Problem 2 - If there is an experience of enlightenment,
then enlightenment is outside the experience.
This is actually a more subtle problem, though more severe as well. If our
experience is "of" enlightenment, it means that enlightenment stands
outside the experience, being pointed to. The experience is one thing, the
enlightenment is another. This puts us always at arm's distance from
enlightenment. We can't get there from here.

But worse, if enlightenment stands outside of experience, it makes no sense
to talk about enlightenment. In general, we have no knowledge or no
evidence or no experience to talk about ANYTHING outside our experience.
There's no proof that anything outside of experience exists. Why? Because
even a logical or verbal proof to the contrary puts it in some sense IN our
experience, so it can never point to outside.

But we can't deny that experience appears, is seen. From this, we can tell
that we aren't the experience (because we're looking at it). Instead, we
are the seer of that experience, or THAT which is appeared to. We are that
which LIGHTS UP the experience.

In this way, all experience is the same, all is lit up by the light that we
are. Since the experience appears and disappears in this light, it is not
separate from this light. So all is light.


Harsha: I like this Greg. Experience appears in the light of the Self and
disappears in the Self.

(sent by Harsha)

Sri Frank Ji of the advaitin list: hariH OM! friends,

from the advaitin point of view, witnessing
philosophic debates has value insofar as its
affording the opportunity to learn, not from
the ideas, per se, but rather their implication
in the wider context of what drives the mind in
its need to relatively know. of course this
brand of knowing is the polar opposite of the
knowing implied in jnana, which is the noumenal
[viz. beyond the phenomenal].

in approaching any of these classic debates:
first we have the matter of semantics with words,
then semantics with ideas, and finally we involve
ourselves with the wild goose chase of philosophical
speculation, with the ulterior mission of securing
a hands-on knowledge of 'what's what.'

and this pursuit for a 'hands-on knowledge of
what's what' is precisely where we're making
our biggest mistake. because the answer we
seek is not amenable to reason or relativity.

we should never lose sight of the fact that
the goal, not only of advaita but dvaita and
visisthadvaita, is to stop the mind from plaguing
[and thereby reinforcing] the illusion of the
separative-bound jiva. of course this sounds
impossible, simply because it *is* impossible!
nevertheless our charge is to extricate such
hypnotic delusion--which is afterall accomplished
by the simplest means, sooner or later, in the
course of our 'pathless path.'

although the three methods differ in their
approach to accomplish this destruction of the
[philosophical] Mind, their goal is the same.
and it merely depends on the temperament of the
individual, as to which method is chosen. the
tyagi who can truly renounce the fruit of his/her
actions, the bhakta who can truly sacrifice his
jiva to isvara, or the jnanayogin who can truly
realize that brahman is the lone reality, *all*
become jivanmuktas in the end, all become One in

in fact, we are *already* That.

OM ramanarpanamastu!


The images that were offered up
inside me yesterday...of there being
a 'fire' (suffering)...and a 'me'
trying to put out the fire... while
an 'I' looked on, really spoke to me.

I saw 'my' attempts to put out the fire
as many different approaches to exploring
the nondual perspective.... quieting
the mind (suffocation), pouring water (as
diving into the feeling of suffering),
and kicking the embers apart (breaking
it down with the mind, and attending to
all the pieces of 'it')

I also saw the attempts at stopping
the fire as 'resisting' the fire..which
my mind says will surely lock me
into the pendulum of duality.

So, here I sit.

from Jerry:

Entire confessional texts and scriptures go past my eyes, but never is
the word enlightenment seen. To me it's a generic term such as 'Eastern
Spirituality'. So it's not a word to which I give much attention at all.

The word 'enlightenment' (or even the term "Eastern Spirituality") is a
very distant mountain whose shape many recognize, as they would Fuji
through a mist. And even as Gene Poole painstakingly points out what is
required to 'hear' correctly, the vision of a mountain in a haze must be
'seen' correctly.

To see it correctly is, first of all, to know that it is not the
feelings it evokes. Mt. Fuji is not romance, thrill, foreign travel, an
exotic past life, life under the volcano. If it is seen as those, it is
not being seen correctly, radically.

Those feelings are the mist before the mist, and the mist is well before
the mountain.

To truly hear or see anything, the layers of mist must be recognized.
And there are seemingly endless layers of mist. The Skandhas are the
mist makers. So proper seeing of Mt. Fuji must take place in
consultation with the Skandhas. Doing that, one will deconstruct the

First there is a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is.

Thank you, Gene, for your work in pointing people home and for giving us
a pair of roller blades to facilitate our trip. I hope I look as good as
I feel taking the banked corner of the present discourse.

glad i got knee and elbow pads,
(to which Harsha replied:)

Harsha: Thanks for this Jerry. I was thinking about the notion of mountains
a few hours ago but not the mist angle. So let us boil this down Jerry. I
don't climb mountains, and I don't see mist, and I don't see mountains. I am
the Mountain. And I have swallowed the Whole Mountain. Don't ask me how
:--). In fact, earlier today in my short morning walk such thoughts were
passing through me. I don't experience enlightenment. I am Enlightenment. I
am not steadfast in any wisdom, or any spiritual state of clarity. I am It
Self the Supreme Clarity. I am the laughter of the Universe, rippling
through everywhere (especially in my office). I am the Silence of the
Essence. I am the Heavenly Embrace. My Smile is Whole, Perfect, Complete and
Everywhere. I am going to go have a salad now. Now which salad dressing?

from Madhya:

The Light Under The Bushel

This morning between the front
door and my old white Toyota,
I discovered the sky,was a
forest of lavender and sage,

I reached out my arm,
which telescoped to
macroscopic proportion,
and drew a clutch of blossoms
to my nose-- ah, how sweet a scent!

Do you ever notice how
the afterburn of gasoline on a
busy street can carry away your
heart to a sun-drenched village
where musicians on a white
gazebo play Souza and Sgt. Pepper
on shiny brass instruments and
puffing accordions?

Whence cometh this parfum
coloring every odor in
the aroma of love?

What is this world where each
step into a shopping mall or
grocery is like swimming in
a living sea of Chanel, an
ocean of lovešs potion #9?

How came I to be so helpless
in rapture? Has my love a
name to match her scent?

O Beloved, (and I am laughing now),
it is Me--only Me--all me!
How could there be any Other?

You there, woman with strawberry
hair and cherry lips--
We are Me!

And Mister-- yes, you with that
little paunch and crooked smile--
Me are We!

Oh, and how do YOU know? I hear
you doubtful say. Such boldness,
so forthright. What presumption.

Now we shall share our secret,
a very simple one, not so
hidden, really--

You see that man? Yes, him.
And those two women?
Look at their eyes...
Do you see?
Can you see?
The light in those eyes--
all of them.

Yes, a light, and
in everyonešs eyes.

Cherished One, I have
seen this light,
recognized the light,
worshipped this light for
a thousand lives and have
realized a small,
important thing:

There is only One Light.

Madhya Nandi
Gloria wrote:

My "understanding" of Don Quixote is that his own purity of vision
determined what he saw in the world. Thusly, the common whore, was seen as a
princess in need of his rescue and protection, and righting the wrongs done
unto her became his "holy endeavor." Because he was "good" he saw only
goodness in her and believed in a holiness no one else could see, including
her. While on the surface this may seem like the usual good/bad dualism, it
is far from it.

When the quest requires one to hold to a vision totally unseen and
misunderstood by others, the resulting "crazy wisdom" and devotion to that
invisible truth, which is contrary to all appearances, has the power to
transform others. Its not a refusal to listen or see, so much as a refusal
to believe one's own eyes and ears when they contradict the inner vision.

Just like Don Quixote, Melody brings out the 'goodness' in others with her
willingness to lay bare her heart and soul. She evokes from "you" that same
tenderness, touches your heart. WE think we are "seeing Melody"..yet she is
seeing us. She is looking at us from the inner-space of her vision...

All this reminds me of something I read in a pamphlet
called Intelligent Uncertainty written by Tony Blake.

He talks about the world being intelligible to me because
it is made of the same substance that I am made of.
He suggests to "see that what you seem to be looking
at is seeing you."

He suggests that we insist on imagining that only we
have perception and that "It is only if we are seen,
that we can 'see even as we are seen'."

"Not by meditating in a cave, not by retreating
inside our minds, not by being hyped up with
concern over the state of ourselves; but just by
being meaningful people.The signals are everywhere.
The information is everywhere. It is coming at us
from every direction, waiting for us to pick up.
So please log-on."


> I read a quote of Ouspenski or Gurdjieff, I can't remember which:
> Student: What is the Enneagram?
> Teacher: It shows which kind of idiot you are.


This is a confusion of two things. Alot of the teaching
is oral and not written down at all. The system of
idiots has nothing to do with the Enneagram. There
is a toast to the idiots. There are a certain number of
idiots. The main idea here is that at first you are an
idiot and then after a long time and alot of stuff you
end up as the same exact idiot only now a
conscious idiot. This is not a new idea.
One example is the zig-zag idiot. This is the person
who always seems to get around you no matter what
you do. You know the type. Supposedly there were
long, long dinners with much food and brandy and so
forth and each idiot was toasted in its turn. I don't
remember all their names but one idiot will agree
with what you say as long as you admit first that they
have a right to be the way they were. In other words they
will get off it as soon as you say they had a right to be
it in the first place. I should ask my husband. He attended
a few of these dinners. It was before my time.


This reminds me......I watch television mainly for
the commercials. I love to watch the really clever
ones. But have you noticed some of them are too
clever? You remember the commercial but not what
was being sold. of my favorites is the one where
the guy is standing up like in an AA meeting and
saying he did a stupid thing. A lady, obviously the
moderator, says..."There are no stupid things here."
So he goes on to tell how he spent all this money
for a one time ad on the internet but forgot to tell
his server and it crashed the entire system. Then it
zeros in on her face and she says..."That was stupid."
That makes me laugh every time. I even have to
interrupt my worrying to laugh.


At 09:19 AM 6/10/99 -0700, you wrote:
>From: Marcia Paul <[email protected]>
>I am known as the fusser. If there is something to worry
>about give it to Marcia. She will do our worrying for us.
>Give it to someone else if you want something done
>about it. :-)

This is a great deal, Marcia. Vicarious worrying.

One of my biggest worries this week is if the deer
will get to my new garden starts before I get the
fence extension up. A related worry is whether I
should have put in a subterranean perimeter mesh
to keep out voles and such..

Would you kindly just worry about all this for me? I
really appreciate it. I have quite a few more for
you if you're not too booked up. Lemme know.




From: "Madhya Nandi" <[email protected]>

From: Greg Goode <[email protected]>

>"All the different paths...?" Why must I undress to recognize that I am
>fully clothed? Can't I just look around myself, recognize that everything
>everywhere everywhen is me and recognize that I am transcendentally,
>vibrantly, immanently, absolutely alive and that I am the creator of this
>all out of my own Universal Consciousness? Can I not be both Shiva and
>Shakti--each equally real and equally Me? Isn't this a very healthy,
>all-inclusive, non-exclusive Realization? Am I truly guilty of experiencing
>a blasphemous Enlightenment?


One must be very careful when making statements in or about the first
person, it *can* lead to attachment to certain ideas/ideals. There's a
difference between the "I" or "me" as body/mind, and the "I" or "me" as

Greg, I can certainly appreciate what you are saying. That perspective is
widely, (but not universally) held. However, there is a very real, very
important reason for my expressing myself in just this way!

What is "I-Consciousness?" Abhinavagupta says: "The entire world gleams as
the wondrous delight of pure I-consciousness. Indeed I know not what the
sound 'world' is supposed to refer to." Jaideva Singh says: "...the world
no longer appears as mere 'earth, earthy', but as 'apparrelled in celestial
light', as an expression, and play of the Universal Consciousness, and the
aspirant feels himself also as nothing but that consciousness. Then the
world is no longer something to be shunned, but an eternal delight. Then
does one truly acquire...pure I-consciousness in which the world does not
stand over against the I in opposition but is the expression of that I

Now, the question arises: What is 'I-consciousness'? Singh further

"The Shaiva... does not conceive of the Supreme as a logomachist but as an
Artist. Just as an artist cannot contain his delight within himself, but
pours it out into a song, a picture or a poem, even so the Supreme Artist
pours out the delightful wonder of His splendour into manifestation or

So, what is the pure essence of I-ness? Self-consciousness--the awareness
of myself as ME. This 'me-ness' is the very essence of the possibility of
consciousness's self-consciousness. Now, 'me' means the undifferentiated
awareness of the quality of uniqueness, 'personal-ness', indeed,
individuality. When one experiences 'pure I-consciousness', one experiences
the entire Universe as h/her OWN UNIQUE CREATIVE BEING. Self-recognition,
then, means recognizing that the actual awareness of myself as a unique,
individual person is absolutely the same as my own Universal Personality.
All beings ARE because they 'belong' to themself. This very quality of
'belonging to myself' that all beings, human or otherwise experience, is the
Universal Me-ness of Self-recognition.

Light, we are informed, is both wave and particle. Universal consciousness
is universal self-awareness. Awareness is always awareness of one's very
own self--one's own universal uniqueness.

In very practical, experiential terms, the kinetic aspect of Universal
Consciousness is known as Sakti. The Pure Awareness aspect of Me-ness is
called Shiva. But these are not two. The whole raison d'etre of Kundalini
Yoga is the recognition (constant experiencing) of my Self as pure, dynamic
energy--and the recognition that Pure Energy and Pure Awareness of my own
Energy is One Experience. This is what is meant by Divine Maithuna.

This means that all consciousness is Pure Self-consciousness of Myself as
Universal Me.



> > >The Unicorn barbeque is happening in the space between the two worlds.
> > >are invited.
> > >==Gene Poole==
> > >************Is this the same as,
> > "Out beyond our ideas of right and wrong
> > there is a field. I'll meet you there."?
> > Sounds like a good place for a barbeque to me.
> > Susan
> Yes, Seer Susan. That is indeed 'where it is at'. A most emphatic YES.
> As the Unicorn turns,
> ==Gene Poole==

The danger in accepting an invitation to a unicorn barbecue... you may be the

On the edge of the field, in the side of the mountain, there's a cave with
philosophers chained inside disputing over shadows on the wall. We could
build a
fire on the threshold of the cave and roast the unicorn there.



from: Bruce Morgen
subject: jnanaBanana

It's a perfectly ripened
tropical fruit selected
via a painstaking
culling process based on
the ancient principle of
yogic discernment. The
results of this unique
quality assurance
procedure are carefully
packed for shipment in a
matched pair of hand-
woven mesh sacks called
a "neti-neti."


>I would like to include Don Quixote on the Realizers/Confessors list on
>my website, if others who know the story better than I, think so.

The original 'realizer' was Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, 1547 - 1616,
who because of "the age of unreason" in which he lived, would most likely
have literally been 'toast'... had he not written his insight as fiction.

If you are still in the video business Jerry, watch the video a couple of
and listen carefully to the words of the songs. The *essence of I am* is

Which also means, the playwright who adapted the original script, and the
songwriter also knew of what they wrote.


top of page