Click here to go to the next issue.

From: "Gloria Lee"

[...]
Just to open another whole can of worms, while I am confessing
here. I can't help but notice the duality between men and women
participating on this list. The women are off in one room, mostly
talking to one another, discussing relationships and approaching
nonduality from a more emotional, heart-centered point of view.

Jan:

That makes a lot of sense, because nonduality will ultimately mean a far
greater change regarding one's emotional make-up than it will be for the
intellect. It is forgotten that philosophers etc. are emotional as well;
they hide it behind their love of thinking and reasoning.

Glo:
> (Not that we aren't also in our heads with ideas, but ideas about
> what? Usually how people relate and feel.) I'm not sure I even
> have a clue what you guys are up to in your room.

Jan:
This biological unit (a convenient way of referring to someone with the "I"
missing) has lost any sense of relationship. One is always alone.
Relationships can only mask that fact.

Glo:
I read it, most
> of it I think I understand the what you are talking about, I just
> don't get the why it matters so much part. It seems so abstract
> and disconnected from life..what can you do with it?

Jan:
Why should one "do" anything at all? One might say that if nothing compels
to action anymore and there are no motives, one is free. No matter the
situation one gets into, this kind of freedom is rather practical.

Glo:
This is how I
> console myself. I'm sure I could understand stuff like higher
> mathematics if I put my mind into it, I just don't want to, I have
> other interests. Why do you guys have to make nonduality so
> intellectual and hard to understand?

Jan:
Hiding behind a veil of rationality and intellectuality just means another
"hard nut" to crack. As men often are "breadwinners", they can't risk being
at the verge of psychotic breakdown due to K. for a long time. This would
grind both rationality and emotionality to dust and one comes "out" nondual.

Glo:
> That's my over-simplified take..for what its worth. It creates a
> million miles of misunderstanding tho.
>

Jan:
It isn't that much over-simplified. Both intellectuality and emotionality
can be a stumbling block. Heart and head have to be unified before the
phoenix will rise from its ashes:)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Marcia wrote:

Personally I think that alot of talking about realized states
and realization is all in the head and not grounded in the
body.

Toon writes:

'Real' comes from the Latin word 'res', which means 'thing', 'case' or
'object'. It has got a bit mixed up w/'true' - maybe :-). IMPO
'real'ization of the Truth is therefor a very physical - a 'bodily'
case/phrase.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Ivan:

Ego is not the vehicle of humanness. The vehicle of humanness
is the human dimension, the mind-of-mankind that can only be fully
"touched", lived, when the selfishness of the ego is absent. What is the
mind of mankind? It is this light, these sounds, all that our human senses
convey us, all manifestation.

[]
Withinn the mind of mankind,
the possibility of fragmentation exists -- wich is the formation of the inner
centered observer. To fully embrace the human dimension, the inner observer
must be absent, obviously, wich doesn't mean that one becomes a toad.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Everything has fallen away.
Neither the sky nor the earth to hold.
The man is the child
And the child is composed.

---Jerry

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Gloria Lee:

Tim is so right when he says life is hard for
everyone.The childhood we should have had happened to no one. When
we hear of the worst examples, we may feel there is nothing
important to complain about by comparison. Yet the reason more of
us are not in touch with the joyous happy child within and cannot
bring that child into the present moment, is that first we
encounter the wounded child who suffered. Who wants to
re-experience all that pain?And after all I am now supposed to be
a grown-up. So, with whatever KIND of messages we first received,
we again tell that child "No, you cannot be yourself here."

If you think you cannot recall any of this, one only needs to look
at the messages you give to that child (your inner self) today.
Where do you think you learned this self-hate and self-denial??
How do you "control yourself" still today?
Listen to what you say to yourself and the reasons you give why
you "must be" any certain way.

If you truly have compassion for that child and learn to give
yourself the positive support you know in your heart you wanted to
receive then... what will happen? Why can we not love ourselves?
First we seem to have to UN-learn what we were taught to believe.
This is not easy. If you start by just listening for the negative
messages in your head... and truly question the validity of them.
. the happy, joyous child will feel it just may be safe enough to
appear now. You may recover what was lost.

This is not about do-it-yourself psychotherapy.. it is about
discovering the freedom of BEING!! And this has everything to do
with nonduality. What keeps us from being fully present to the
present? Why are sages and masters so often described as being
full of joy and innocent and harmless and loving? Is this
childlike? What is a nondual heart?

With love,
Gloria

PS. OK, so I WAS embarrased my whiny crybaby child showed up here.
If I were only taking better care of her myself, perhaps she would
not seek attention in such inappropriate ways?? This is not about
turning loose your child on an unsuspecting world... however, have
you noticed how many grown-up children are out there already
anyway, not consciously causing a lot of trouble..just really
believing they need to go to war aginst the world that is against
them??

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tim H:

Some interesting things that I thought I would throw out to you all here
in the Salon in regards to some 'philosophizing' (is that a word? It
should be... lol..) about dreams. More specifically, dreams vs. memories
and reality.

Using the triangle, I place my 'memories' in the positive position and
my 'dreams' in the negative position. The first thing that I notice is
that dreams and memories are recalled the same by the mind. Think back
to a fond memory. Now, consider a fond dream. In this 'reflection' (hehe
I like this term) mode, are not the dream and the memory the same in
terms of sensation and memory?

In other words, both are 'dream like' and the only separator is that
with one, you 'know' what happened in this reality and, the other, you
'think' happened in 'another' reality. Yet, in terms of the 'other'
reality, it unmistakably happened within 'this' reality in the form of a
dream that is also recognizable as happening in 'this' reality...
hmmmm?...? Therefore the two, dream and memory ( in the sense of
recollection of past 'events'), combine at the 'apex of the triangle' to
create 'this' reality or more accurately, what this reality 'was'.

Further, if we all assume that each of us here are nondual (but
restricted by the duality of words) and we are all basically on the same
sheet of music as far as 'time' is concerned, is it fair to suggest that
our dreams are not dreams at all, but rather, a look into a parallel
universe or reality? Further, the 'characters' we play in these
realities we associate with ourselves, yet, can we be sure that it is
indeed 'me'? Has anyone ever remembered, from a dream, a time when you
looked in the mirror to see what your physical appearance is? I can not.
Therefore, not knowing, I could technically be the I AM presence but
with no conception of my identity even if I am still called Tim Harris.
Which, come to think of it, I can not 'directly' remember being called
so in any dreams but this detail is not important.

Assuming so, then I submit that what we call 'this' reality as real, is
actually a reality where we 'believe' that we are, due to the details of
'where' we are (here/now). The details that I am referring to here is
'suffering'.. as we know, in our dreams, we first 'somehow' understand,
regardless of the intensity of the dream, that it is a dream and second,
there are no 'real' sense perceptions beyond that of 'observation' thus
creating 'emotional' feelings such as 'fear' and 'pleasure' which, in
turn create in 'this' reality actual physical reactions such as 'waking
up screaming' from a nightmare or 'having a wet dream' from a... well
you get the point... Why? The mind that dreams and the body that is,
have the 'same' connection they have in 'this' waking reality with the
exception of suffering which is created by feelings that are knee jerk
responses of 'past' suffering and pain.

What is missing from every dream? The memories of the days, weeks, or
years before. I am not referring to memory such as recognition of places
and people but, rather, what did you do the day before the dream in the
dream? And, what is it that you are to do tomorrow, in that dream? Is it
possible that the lack of these type of memories is what suspends the
reality of the dream itself? In other words, what if you found yourself
in a dream where you knew who you were and what your purpose was. What
if you knew what happened the day before and you were aware of the
appointments of the next day, week, year? Would this not then be what we
call 'this' reality? :o)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dan:

neediness is a feeling
in the body

how we relate to neediness
relects our view of the body

do we detach or include?

where do we locate our self?

are we inside it?
is it inside us?
are we dissociated from it?

how we answer these questions
will reflect
how we experience
ourselves, insofar as we are
"physical beings"
in relation to others

does being "One"
mean have no body?
being no body?

do we find One within, without, nowhere?

what does "emptiness" mean?

how we answer these questions
perhaps affects, perhaps stems from
our being

it's not that I think there
are right and wrong answers to these --
simply a process
of observation-awareness


andrew:

Searching and searching
One is found
Non temporal
Non spatial
Non existant
No thing at all
Only a state of being.
Human?--- No.
God?--- No.
What?--- Awake.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dan wrote:

The ego as self-conscious observer
is different from the ego as "I am"

The ego that expands to infinity
is no longer ego that "has itself"
has itself to talk about itself
and what it knows

The ego as form
is an attempt to hold onto form
so it is not the same form
as discussed in "form is emptiness"
rather, it is a clinging --
if the ego that is clinging
comes to "form is emptiness"
that ego is under extreme challenge
to notice its own insubstantiality

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Melody had said:

Before the tornado, Dorthy may had been
discouraged from beginning her journey if
she had felt loved and supported in her
daily life.

Once her journey began the love and support
she found along the way was not enough to
deter her from her Walk, though. On the
contrary, that encouraging support and caring
became the fuel that helped propel her along the
way. She surely would have had a tough time
walking that Walk if she had not aligned herself
with the characters she came face to face
with along the way. But before they could help
her, they each had a basic need that had to
be met.


Xan:

Yes. This is the value of a sanga -
a community of friends who share
the goal of awakening fully as Self.
For me the challenge is to let the
love that is around me in the form
of the Master and of the community
touch me more deeply. As well as
remembering to let the love that I am
fill me. From within and from without
the love is already here. Can I receive
it and if not, what are my barriers?

The Course in Miracles says something
about this in the introduction:

"This course does not aim at teaching the
meaning of love, for that is beyond what
can be taught. It does aim, however, at
removing the blocks to the awareness of
love's presence, which is your natural
inheritance."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dan:
>The ego as form
>is an attempt to hold onto form
>so it is not the same form
>as discussed in "form is emptiness"

Greg:
How is it different? Doesn't "form is emptiness" apply to all
phenomenality? Does it matter that some of the phenomena appear as if they
grasp or hold other phenomena?


>rather, it is a clinging --
>if the ego that is clinging
>comes to "form is emptiness"
>that ego is under extreme challenge
>to notice its own insubstantiality

Greg:
Is the ego what notices this? That is, let's say that insubstantiality
comes up. Is it anything more than an
"this-ego-thing-is-really-insubstantial" appearance? If it looks like the
ego is the one noticing this, isn't that still just an appearance? That
is, does it really make sense that the ego is the thing that appearances
appear to?? If the ego itself were something that appearances appeared to,
then it would be something other than form.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I notice a paradox here -
> your words say you've lost any sense of relationship
> and yet the words you wrote conveyed relationship.
>
> Perhaps aloneness includes resonation
> that allows communication?
>
> Shalom - Dan


Jan:
A few comments to the quoted pasages.

The paradox is unavoidable. Although from a perfectly black object no light
will be reflected, this cannot be observed without light. Life is full of
paradoxes. A nice one is that although artificial flowers have almost
eternal life and from a distance, are indistinguishable from their (short)
living counterparts, hardly anyone would consider the artificial ones a
proper gift for a birth- or Mother's day :)

Resonation reminds of the sound OM. One of the characteristics of a raga is
the presence of the so called drone. It resonates as the "ground note" in
various rhythms and changing harmonic content throughout the entire piece.
Likewise, to anyone for whom aloneness is a fact, the sound OM is the ground
of phenomenal existence.
>
> >This biological unit (a convenient way of referring to someone
> with the "I"
> >missing) has lost any sense of relationship. One is always alone.
> >Relationships can only mask that fact.

Jan:
In science, so called thought experiments can lead to valid conclusions. In
sadhana, this process would be called contemplation. In order to find out
for oneself what is the "essence" of relationship, go through a process of
elimination. For instance, if eyesight would suddenly cease, what would
happen to relationships? What would change when hearing suddenly ceased too?

>
> >Why should one "do" anything at all? One might say that if
> nothing compels
> >to action anymore and there are no motives, one is free. No matter the
> >situation one gets into, this kind of freedom is rather practical.

Jan:
From a practical point of view it makes sense to describe sadhana as a
series of transformations and invariably the spiritual or psychological
aspects are highlighted. Another part of the story is that mind and body
cannot be separated. Obviously, body language has a role too and this is
what "others" will notice. Depending on the speed of transformations, it is
possible the body-consciousness will be transformed also. In "common
language" this means, when for instance stung by a needle, no-thing is felt.
In a most literal sense, any feeling of "otherness" will be erased. So the
body can partake in "freedom" as well, for example as "unexplainable"
physical fitness.

> As men often are "breadwinners", they can't risk being
> >at the verge of psychotic breakdown due to K. for a long time. This would
> >grind both rationality and emotionality to dust and one comes
> "out" nondual.

Jan:
One of the differences between pigeons and eagles is that the pigeons are
the aggressive animals; they aren't equipped with the "weaponry" the eagles
need for capturing preys. Knowing one's limits, eventually by breakdown
would make one a "better" (less aggressive, more understanding, empathic
etc.) human too. Society could be changed in a generation by introducing
meditation and yoga/martial arts at school.

> Both intellectuality and emotionality
> >can be a stumbling block. Heart and head have to be unified before the
> >phoenix will rise from its ashes:)

Jan:
The intellect is a tool or a servant. As a rule, it works to satisfy desire,
be it to alleviate hunger in poor countries, a scientific breakthrough or to
bring world-peace closer. In this case, when the desire has been fulfilled,
another one pops up. With the intellect it is possible to understand that
being without desires can equal the simultaneous fulfillment of all desires
but this isn't the same as "experiencing" that.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Marcia:

I wrote two posts earlier and then sent and they
didn't show up. Then I went back and read them
they were written from my head center and also
I noticed a tendency to act as if I knew
something.

Anyway I am trying to just write as I see it. I
have heard my husband say to our son..."Didn't
you think before you spoke?" If I think before
I write I find I am comparing what I say to some
image of what I think I should sound like and I
end up censoring. In my son's case it is usually
good advice because it relates to a situation where
he is talking to a cop or something.

When I have something inside that I see and I
want to express it I find that if I just have
faith and start to talk somehow it comes out.
Often if it is buried deep and I don't have a good
feel for it, it comes out unclear and I have to try
again. Sometimes though someone else can help
me pull it up and out. But I have to stay clear of
being identified with how I look or how what I
say is going to make me look.

When I read what someone else has written I
have to go back and forth between what I am
reading and seeing if I can feel it inside. I am
using my mind differently here. I am trying to
find a match between what I am reading or hearing
with my own experience. Or a connection anyway.


Melody:
I think I hear what you're saying here.

I can often tell the difference in
censored posts, and those that simply
'speak' spontaneously.

Censored posts generally have a feel to
them as if they're 'etched in stone',
and aren't to be touched.

Which is okay. Many are quite lovely
But they are more a piece of art,
to be appreciated,
than a living conversation.

It feels like the conversations are becoming
more and more fluid (or uncensored) on this
list these days, and I'm loving it.

For example, speaking to you last
evening was really great for me in
exactly the way you suggest. It was not
until my last post of the evening that
I had a sense of what was really spoken
between all of us.

Fluidity of thought and feeling allowed
that to happen.


Marcia:

Yes. I feel it too. For me I am finally understanding
what spiritual materialism means. I have collected
quite a few "experiences" in my life. I have been a
spiritual experience collector. But it becomes artificial
when I look to the experience to define me. Then I
am always living in the past.

I have studied a specific system for twenty-five years
and have identified myself with it and it gets in the
way sometimes from being present. In some ways
it has become a burden. But it is also evolving. There
is an entire new generation. So if as I am looking and
seeing and feeling my way into something I stop to
see if it fits the already accepted framework I loose
flexibility. This ties in with you safety and security
reply to Dan.

Heck the entire system is about Being so if I end up
so stuck that I can't just be with folks and talk about
what is real to me, something ain't right. :-)





~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Contrary to human belief,
if it ain't simple
it ain't It.

Xan

top of page