Click here to go to the next issue.

Search all Editions of the Nondual Highlights

Nondual Highlights Home Page: access to all issues by number

Wednesday, March 6, 2002

(editor's note: there has been great concern for
the well-being of Sandeep, who has not been
heard
from since the incidents in Gujurat, India.
There
were impressions that Sandeep might have been
caught in the riots and violence. While the
following information has not been confirmed,
it is
a word of hope.)
Sandeep is alive.
He was discharged from a hospital, somewhere
near
Godhra and is on his way back to Bombay.
There is no information as to what were his
injuries, how serious or how he got them.
I cannot type anything more, right now.
My whole being is shaking.
Madhurima
___________________________________________________________
Photos taken by cee are posted at
http://nonduality.com/retreat3.htm
Hope they upload in reasonable time.
They are from the February 17, 2002, gathering
in
La Jolla, California, when we attended Inner
Directions.
See Jody, Petros, cee, Christiana, and others.
There are a couple of photographs that say
beyond
words what these get togethers are all about.
And
there are others that really beg for a quote
or
two.
DAVID HODGES
Thanks for posting the photos, Jerry. I especially
enjoyed the captions under the last picture.
Did you ever notice how the guru-types look
like
they are right out of Central Casting? Chuck
Hillig
with his beard. Metta looking Great-Motherish.
Jerry, maybe it would help your career in the
NonDuality biz if you grew some facial hair.
Of
course, its harder to get donut crumbs out
of a
full beard...
_____________________________________________________________
HARSHA
The new volume of HarshaSatsangh Magazine is
out
due to the hard work of our editors, Gloria,
Greg,
Amanda, and our webmaster David Hodges. I wrote
a
special dedication to Jerry Katz and Dolores
and
also talked about the old times when Jerry
and I
first met. You may enjoy reading.
Lots of love
Harsha
http://www.harshasatsangh.com
______________________________________________________________
MICHAEL
READ
hey, speck! how is it going?
  that good!? me too.
  have you got it right yet?
  no? oh why is that?
  ah, don't get discouraged, dear speck.
  yes, i know, but you only think you've
tried everything.
  well, speck, just put little more heart
into it.
  i know you can do it.
  yup, speck, you'll do allright.
__________________________________________________________________
LARRY
greetings nds,
Here's a few paragraphs I typed up from a book
on
buddhist philosophy for another group. Thought
some
of you might be interested.
Humans sometimes communicate in ways that are
mutually experienced as profoundly meaningful,
and
yet seem to surpass our ability to fully grasp
them. Conversations, like relationships, command
our attention most effectively when they allow--or
not infrequently, force--us to go beyond the
limits
of our previous understanding and to explore
new
avenues, and new destinations, in communication.
Texts are raw material for conversation, with
oneself and with others. Studying a text can
compel
us to reassess unquestioned assumptions, and
in so
doing, come to a better understanding of others
and
ourselves. Self-understanding means also
understanding our relation to others; understanding
relatedness, in the Buddhist sense of relativity,
also means self-transcendence. The possibility
of
self-transcendence is what humans seek in
communicating, and is what makes any relationship
meaningful in the final analysis.
To communicate meaningfully is to be transformed
in
realizing for oneself, in oneself, or as oneself,
what was previously alien or unknown. To know
somethong is to be transformed, to become
different, and to acquire common ground with
others
of similar--or different--understanding. What
enlivens a conversation is a perceived affinity
between oneself and another, or at least the
expectation of affinity. Even violent arguments
are
thus motivated, because expectations of agreement
have been frustrated. Commuication is an exchange
of meaning, and the most satisfying form of
communication occurs when meanings are experienced
as shared. This is even true of communications
between persons who disagree with one another,
and
is especially the case in the context of Tibetan
scholasticism, where Mahayana Buddhist teachings
are a broad and solid common ground for meaningful
differences. What makes Buddhist philisophical
texts meaningful is the fact that they bring
people
together in the pursuit of ultimate concerns,
in
disagreement as well as in agreement.
Texts mirror the dominant concerns of particular
communities and historical periods. However,
to
study a text as an artifact embedded in a matrix
of
historical, cultural, and philosphical significance
is only to look *at* it but not *through* it.
In
communicating it is not words alone--hence
also not
texts or their interpretations--that are the
fundamental source of meaning. Rather, it is
the
process of communicating shared meanings--and
personal differences--that makes philosophy
come
alive. In other words, viewed historically
or
psychologically, philosophical significance
is a
process in which persons (and personal experiences)
are most essential, while texts play a subordinate
role. It is people who give meaning to texts,
not
vice versa.
...
The "truth" of presuppositions about ultimate
reality does not appear to be fundamentally
a
question of rational certitude, although Tibetan
scholastic traditions tend to understand them
that
way. Instead it is the process of generating
meaning through relativity as relatedness that
makes a philosophical point of view meaningful,
valuable, and true for one person or another.
In this sense there is nothing more or less
"true"
or significant about Mipham's "Beacon" or
Tsongkhapa's "LRC", for example, to the extent
that
both serve the same function in their respective
traditional contexts, namely, to show how reason
is
employed to realize the ultimate that is known
by
sublime gnosis. This is not simply a rehashing
of
the relativist vogue, but is, in my opinion,
very
much in line with how the Great Perfection
(and the
"Ratnagotravibha) understand the nature of
Dharma
(gnosemic) language. Salvific language is said
to
resonate in accordance with the needs of
individuals best suited to understand them,
as a
spontaneous manifestation of enlightened wisdom
and
compassionate method. In this sense all
philosophies that bring relief to weary minds
are
equally true, and equally Dharma.
from "Mipham's Beacon of Certainty" by John
Whitney
Pettit
_____________________________________________________________
NINA
...reminded me of so many other times when I
have
difficulty telling whether or not someone is
making
the whole story up but the story is so good
and so
serious and delirious and perfectly funny that
it
matters to me less and less and so I just listen
to
the story and quiver on my magic carpet ride
of
reality slippage and think this is all there
is,
anyway, so why the hell not enjoy it?
The other night I was dining with, among other
people, my brother-in- law, Harrison. The
conversation was wild and engaging and not
long
after we discussed at overlength what the ethical
implications of fertility therapy and whether
or
not architecture can save the world, Harrison
launched into an extended mention of how some
people he knows have begun buying up used (yet
still) $600 coffee grinding and espresso machines
to support their ever-refining caffeine addictions
and search for the highest and best caffeinated
experience. There was mention of the snobbery
that
accompanies the search for the best- tasting
and
most nerve enlivening coffee experience. (What?
You
only have that perker you bought at Kmart?
You know
nothing! God forbid you don't even drink coffee,
you heathen, infidel, heretic! Some people
have
soup, some people have coffee, Joyce!)
Well, right around the time Harrison mentioned
that
he had called up his Personal Coffee Grinder
the
other day to consult on why his ground beans
weren't tasting the same way they tasted the
other
day (What? You ordered from a different Columbian
farm without consulting me?) I slipped right
into
that very serious state of truly not being
able to
tell whether someone was constructing an elaborate
and delightful tale or just telling the plain
old
truth! Looking around, it seemed that the others
all believed him fully, they shrugged and laughed
when I asked them (seriously) if Harrison was
serious.
There I was feeling the rude constraints of
what I
perceived to be the available and reasonable
reality, totally flabbergasted by others' apparent
acceptance of something beyond it! I was jambing
a
red plastic star-shaped piece into the round
hole
of my puzzle ball! Well!
By the time Harrison had fully recounted the
advice
his Personal Coffee Grinder had conveyed to
him, I
had decided it didn't matter a whole lot anyway
and
was laughing at the ludicrousness of it all!
---------
AURORAS: http://www.spaceweather.com/aurora/gallery_24nov01.html
____________________________________________________________
JAN SULTAN
contributes:
Love And God
  Pointers From Nisargadatta Maharaj
  By Ramesh Balsekar
  Chapter 13
The dialogue, one evening, was started by a
young
Canadian, wearing a Lungi and a thin Kurta.
He said
he was twenty-three, but looked barely out
of his
teens. He wore around his neck an elegant little
silver cross on a dainty chain. He said he
had come
across the book I Am That in a bookshop in
Bombay a
couple of days ago. A cursory glance at a few
pages
impelled in him a desire to meet Maharaj
personally. He had already gone through the
book
reading almost continuously, through the afternoon,
evening and night, and had finished both volumes
only a few hours ago.
Maharaj: You are so young. I wonder since what
age
you have been interested in the spiritual quest.
Visitor: Sir, ever since I remember I have been
deeply interested in Love and God. And I strongly
felt that they are not different. When I sit
in
meditation, I often......
Maharaj: Wait a moment. What exactly do you
mean by
meditation?
Visitor: I don't really know. All I do is to
sit
cross-legged, close my eyes, and remain absolutely
quiet. I find my body relaxing, almost melting
away, and my mind, or being or whatever merging
into space, and the thought-process getting
gradually suspended.
Maharaj: That's good. Please proceed.
Visitor: Quite often, during meditation, an
overwhelming feeling of ecstatic love arises
in my
heart together with an effusion of well-being.
I do
not know what it is. It is during one such
spell
that I felt inspired to visit India -- and
here I
am.
Maharaj: How long will you be in Bombay?
Visitor: I really don't know. I rarely make
any
plans. I have sufficient money to live frugally
for
about fifteen days, and I have my return ticket.
Maharaj: Now tell me, what is it exactly that
you
want to know. do you have any specific questions?
Visitor: I was a very confused man when I landed
in
Bombay. I felt I was almost going out of my
mind. I
really don't know what took me to the bookshop
because I don't do much reading. The moment
I
picked up the first volume of I Am That, I
experienced the same overpowering feeling that
I
get during my meditation. As I went on reading
the
book a weight seemed to lift off from within
me,
and, as I am sitting here before you, I feel
as if
I am talking to myself. And what I am saying
to
myself seems like blasphemy. I was convinced
that
love is God. But now I think that love is surely
a
concept and if love is a concept God also must
be a
concept.
Maharaj: So, what is wrong in it?
Visitor: (Laughing) Now, if you put it like
that I
have no feeling of guilt in transforming God
into a
concept.
Maharaj: Actually, you said love is God. What
do
you mean by the word 'love'. Do you mean 'love'
as
the opposite of 'hate'? Or, do you mean something
else, although, of course, no word can be adequate
to describe 'God'.
Visitor: No. No. By the word 'love' I certainly
do
not mean the opposite of hate. What I mean
is that
love is abstaining from discrimination as 'me'
and
the 'other'.
Maharaj: In other words, unity of being?
Visitor: Yes, indeed. What then is 'God" to
whom I
am expected to pray?
Maharaj: Let us talk about prayer later. Now
then,
what exactly is this 'God' you are talking
about?
Is he not the very consciousness -- the sense
of
'being' that one has -- because of which you
are
able to ask questions? 'I am' itself is God.
What
is it that you love most? Is it not this 'I
am',
the conscious presence which you want to preserve
at any cost? The seeking itself is God. In
seeking
you discover that 'you' are apart from this
body-mind complex. If you were not conscious,
would
the world exist for you? Would there be any
idea of
a God? And, the consciousness in you and the
consciousness in me -- are they different?
Are they
not separate only as concepts, seeking unity
unconceived, and is that not love?
Visitor: Now, I understand what is meant by
'God is
nearer to me than I am to myself'.
Maharaj: Also remember, there can can be no
proof
of Reality other than being it. Indeed you
are it,
and have always been. Consciousness leaves
with the
end of the body (and is therefore time-bound)
and
with it leaves the duality which is the basis
of
consciousness and manifestation.
Visitor: What then is prayer, and what is its
purpose?
Maharaj: Prayer, as it is generally understood,
is
nothing but begging for something. Actually,
prayer
means communion-uniting-Yoga.
Visitor: Everything is so clear now, as if a
great
deal of rubbish has been suddenly thrown out
of my
system, blown out of existence.
Maharaj: Do you mean that you now seem to see
everything clearly?
Visitor: No. No! Not 'seems'. It is clear, so
clear
that I am now amazed that it was not clear
at any
time. Various statements that I had read in
the
Bible, which seemed important but vague before,
are
now crystal clear -- statements like: Before
Abraham was I am; I and my father are one;
I am
that I am.
Maharaj: Good. Now that you know what it is
all
about, what Sadhana will you do to obtain
liberation from your 'bondage'?
Visitor: Ah! Maharaj. Now you are surely making
fun
of me. Or are you testing me? Surely, now I
know
and have realized that I am that -- I am, which
I
have always been and which I shall always be.
What
is left to be done? Or, undone? And who is
to do
it? And for what purpose?
Maharaj: Excellent! Just be.
Visitor: I shall, indeed.
Then, the young Canadian prostrated before Maharaj,
his eyes brimming with tears of gratitude and
joy.
Maharaj asked him if he would be coming again,
and
the lad said: "Honestly, I don't know." When
he
left, Maharaj sat for a while with his eyes
closed,
the gentlest of smiles on his lips. He then
said
very softly: "A rare one"' I could barely catch
the
words.
I never saw the young Canadian again, and I
have
often wondered about him.
____________________________________________________________
JEROEN
Dear members, As I am new to the group, I would
like to say hello to everybody. I read some
posts
and found them very interesting. Although 'human
rights' are no usual subject for the group,
I would
like to invite you to read the following text.
In
this essay I try to develop a 'new' (nondual)
perspective on human rights by combining the
convergences and 'transcending' the contradictions
between universalism and cultural relativism
(or
essentialism and non- essentialism (cfr. Rorty)).
If this is no topic for you, I am sorry to
have
bothered you. Please do not hesitate to comment
and
criticise. I thank you very much for your time
and
help. Warm regards, jeroen
you can find the text here:
http://www.vub.ac.be/boerplato/jeroenscriptie.html
_____________________________________________________________
GENE POOLE
  To know silliness
  is to know self
  How silliness is
  of course the mirror
  And how attributing silliness
  to another is denial of self
  To know  beauty
  is to know self
  How the beauty is
  of course the mirror
  And how attributing beauty
  to another is denial of self
  If self is accepted
  silliness and beauty
  leave the mirror
  The mirror thus cleansed
  reflects only nothing
  and that is self
  Reality is the mirror
  reflecting nothing
  but self
________________________________________________________
ANDREW MACNAB
Categorising is done by governments, by
corporations, by institutions. It's a tool
of the
violence based dominance oriented patriarchal
culture. It's hard to imagine how they could
function without categorising people. Maybe
they
can't. An individual can.
__________________________________________________________
GURUDRA
you were once a sophisticated advaita seeker
  you sat on designer cushions at your
masters' feet
  you used to listen to the stories of
legendary masters
  now you've become the legendary guru
in your mind
  the spirituality game has changed for
you
  instead of the gurus,
  you now seek the seekers
  the view seems different from the guru
chair,
  soon a pretty follower will sit at your
feet
  you'll beg her to switch positions
  how sweet it is to worship her youth
and beauty!
  -ra

top of page