The Answer

[Guest guest]

Hi Dan,

 

<snip>

> Everything you're describing sounds fine to me, and is

> within conceptuality. Conceptuality involves

> forming images of what has occurred, forming a choice-maker,

> and then having the imaged choice-maker formulate

> decisions. All of these images, including the choice-maker,

> are the past.

 

Yes.

> By openness, I mean the present that is not sandwiched

> between the past and the future. The inclusive timeless

> present. That present has nothing in it, no choice-maker,

> no decisions to be made, because it is not an invention

> of conceptuality.

>

> This openness, which actually is not a quality at all,

> is the end of decision-making, and the end of any thoughts

> about not making decisions.

>

> One could call this absolute presentness without a decision

> or decision-maker, or one could call it no-thingness,

> the unspeakable unnameable "what is" that is all that is.

>

>

> > In an absolute sense I agree that this has little to do

> with 'Spontaneous being' or 'love' which are, of course, not about

> choices, feelings, strategies or anything else within the field of

> the relative.

>

> Yes.

>

> The relative is not wiped out or done away with.

>

> The relative takes care of itself.

 

Yes, but from within the relative it doesn't look that way does it? 'We' seem to

have to take care of it.

> Conceptuality forms and dissolves choicelessly,

> and the choice-maker and the choices

> arise along with that choiceless conceptuality.

>

> There is nothing out of place.

 

No, I agree. But here's the rub, while I agree with what you say, while it is

what I hold to be the truth, I hold it so on the basis of my thought and belief

(or, at best, intuition). The truth that 'There is nothing out of place' is my

thought and belief (even, god forbid, my hope!), but not my experience. Indeed

my experience is that there's much out of place.

> One could call this love, because it is all

> inclusive and undivided, or one could call

> it the nameless, of no quality whatsoever.

>

> > > The strategy is an imposition.

> >

> > Yes, any strategy is an imposition.

>

> Strategy, being a conceptual formulation

> designed to improve the chances for

> a conceptual entity, ends up being

> an imposition if it is taken

> as the basis of ongoing reality,

> and there is an attempt to

> maintain and insert the strategy

> on "what is."

>

> Yet, there's a joke to all this.

>

> The joke being that even the attempt to

> maintain and impose a strategy is a choicelessly

> arising phenomenon that is not out of place

> whatsoever.

 

Indeed. Another joke is that the conceptual entity that creates strategies also

asks questions that cannot be answered with concepts; understands, conceptually,

why this is, and yet, the questions remain. Choicelessly.

 

Who knows, eh?

 

Thanks for the nudges Dan

 

Grant.

[Guest guest]

Hi Harsha,

 

, "harshaimtm" wrote:

> My dearest Michael,

>

> Why should I care about what Zen masters or Nisgradatta did or said

> or were nice or not nice? How is that at all relevant here? This is

> not Zen-a-Sangh, is it?

 

A good point... a mailing list isn't the same thing as a dialog with

Nisargadatta or a 'Zen master'. Or any guru, for that matter.

> You seem to assume that we only want nice things said here in a

> nice way. That is so totally simplistic that it would be irritating

> if I were not such a splendid person.

 

Why not just say it... you find the suggestion irritating :-).

> The truth is that we want to follow some basic standards for civil

> discourse. If you wish to equate that with being nicey nice and

> sweety sweet, that is your choice.

 

The question arising would be, "who sets the basic standard for

civility, on what is this based on?" If the question were raised on

the streets of the Gaza strip near Palestine, the answer might be a

different one than if it were raised at the meeting of the leaders of

two nations, or at a dinner party held by a very wealthy, prominent

man.

> We want comments that reflect some intelligence. If you wish to

> conclude from that we want to be nicey nice and happy mice, that is

> your choice.

 

Again, the question "what is intelligence, who decides?" arises.

Harsha, it seems to me that such statements can engender more

confusion than they clear up.

> We want humor with good taste, or at least with some sophistication

> and class. Is that too much to ask?

 

Again (seen here), sophistication and class are relative -- these

terms need a basic standard to be compared against in order to make

sense. Remember that this list is global, and members come from all

conceivable walks of life, financial and living situations.

> All I am saying is, get with the program. If you can't get with the

> program, it's OK. At least try to understand what the program is

> and what your words actually mean.

 

I'm trying to understand... thus this post. Can you go into more

detail?

 

Joy & Light,

 

Tim

[Guest guest]

Hi Grant,

 

, bardsley@c... wrote:

> > There is nothing out of place.

>

> No, I agree. But here's the rub, while I agree with what you say,

> while it is what I hold to be the truth, I hold it so on the basis

> of my thought and belief (or, at best, intuition). The truth

> that 'There is nothing out of place' is my thought and belief

>(even, god forbid, my hope!), but not my experience. Indeed my

> experience is that there's much out of place.

 

Have you ever considered that maybe it's only the way you view your

experience that is "out of place?"

 

How is experience interpreted? As something ongoing, continuous,

unbroken, and happening over the course of time.

 

And if you set aside time and memory for a moment, and simply "be

here now" (to coin a cliche), what's out of place?

 

Peace,

 

Tim

[Guest guest]

on 11/6/02 5:39 PM, fewtch at coresite wrote:

 

> And if you set aside time and memory for a moment, and simply "be

> here now" (to coin a cliche), what's out of place?

>

> Peace,

>

> Tim

 

 

What was the middle thing again?

 

;-)

[Guest guest]

I'm a little confused as to who wrote the original response to Michael, but

I have a question for anyone who would care to respond. (read on.)

on 11/4/02 6:22 PM, harshaimtm at harsha (AT) cox (DOT) net wrote:

> My dearest Michael,

>

> Why should I care about what Zen masters or Nisgradatta did or said

> or were nice or not nice? How is that at all relevant here? This is

> not Zen-a-Sangh, is it?

The following is an excerpt from the mission statement

of . If I am reading the statement correctly, it seems to

me that Zen is as relevant here as anything else.

This is an international gathering and fellowship of teachers and students

of Advaita Vedanta, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Jainism, Sufism,

Sikhism, Taoism, Yoga, Tantra, Meditation, Pranayama, and the practitioners

of all spiritual practices which are conducted in the context of Ahimsa,

the philosophy of nonviolence.

Am I incorrect in my understanding?

thanks,

jayani

[Guest guest]

Hi Dan,

>Dispassion would have to be toward something - it would

require someone viewing or experiencing something,

and then being dispassionate about that.

>Being, considered as not divided or split, would indeed

have no qualities. Including dispassion. Although I

see your point, for there wouldn't be anything outside

of itself to have passion toward.

 

: think the terms acausal or perhaps uncreated would fit

well for me here.

 

Dear Dan I have few observations about your words:

May be is just a question of proper wording or may be is more substantial.

I have to say first of all that I don't have a full realization of Being so

my observations come

from some glimpses plus some "I heard" from people that I know "they know

the Truth".

So I am perplexed about your stating being having no qualities.

For sure there is nothing outside the Universal Being

(I suppose we are speaking about the Manifest and not about the

Unmanifest??)

but being is sat chit ananda, is satyam shivam sunderam and is much more.

So at least two qualities are recognized by almost everybody in the past and

present times,

that is beauty and bliss, or are they not qualities?

And is not perhaps possible to view being, for sure unsplit,

but also in the same time composed of many, many parts,

that are not separate, but are distinguishable as different forms inside

being?

Among these forms all the potentialities of the Unmanifest,

manifest themselves in actuality as beauty, bliss, will, love, strength,

intimacy, etc.

(See A.H.Almaas "Facets of Unity" for a very beautiful description of the

fundamental qualities of being).

So I think that if we consider all the qualities that are manifested inside

being

it is hard to say that is without qualities.

All the ways parts of being "relate" to other parts of being,

plus a part to being itself as a whole are qualities of being., even oness

and separation!

And for sure in being there is a lot of passion or we were not here

discussing It,

for our enjoyment!

 

In love

Marifa

 

 

-

"dan330033" <dan330033

<>

Tuesday, November 05, 2002 10:14 PM

Re: The Answer

 

> Hi Bobby,

>

> > interesting.

>

> Good.

>

> > My turn will come to mess up and bother others so I want to

> > cultivate the ground for others understanding me. Perhaps this

> > is "spontaneous pretense".

>

> It's self-protection, the way you're describing it.

>

> > The central thesis of any discussion about subliminal activators

> or

> > vasanas is that they are what cause spontaneous actions.

>

> That's just a way of thinking about action in terms of

> cause and effect. Genes would be another.

>

> Once thinking of a present action as determined by a cause

> that tiggered the action it's not spontaneous.

>

> So, the question arises, could there be a truly spontaneous

> awareness, meaning an awareness that isn't premeditated,

> not based on an image that is brought from the past?

>

> Not that such awareness would cancel out the apparent causal

> factors, but transcend causation.

>

> In other words, can there be a knowing that isn't the knowing

> in terms of cause and effect, that doesn't cancel out

> the way that cause and effect works (for example, genes

> or vasanas for that matter) but doesn't depend on that

> way of viewing, in order to know?

>

> Classical

> > Yoga teaches one to impose a tendency on oneself that counteracts

> > these tencencies or blockages to liberation. So yes it is an

> > imposition.

>

> That's what I'm questioning.

>

> If it's an imposition it's not spontaneity, or

> perhaps a better word would be acausal,

> acausal as not of time.

>

> > I think your use of the term "spontaneous being" is misleading.

>

> Maybe so.

>

> > Being has no qualifying characteristic except dispassion.

>

> Dispassion would have to be toward something - it would

> require someone viewing or experiencing something,

> and then being dispassionate about that.

>

> Being, considered as not divided or split, would indeed

> have no qualities. Including dispassion. Although I

> see your point, for there wouldn't be anything outside

> of itself to have passion toward.

>

> I think the terms acausal or perhaps uncreated would fit

> well for me here.

>

> I don't

> > think there is some way of acting with others that is more "me"

> than

> > any other.

>

> There is the awareness that doesn't impose an ideal, an

> image. In that awareness there isn't a me to protect,

> or to make the center of things. There isn't a concern

> with being seen as loving, or fitting that image of

> being loving. You can call that awareness being

> without a quality, or acausal knowing, or the uncreated.

> You can call it love without division.

>

> It's not that it's more you. It's that it's you without

> any division from or of you, as the division of

> an ideal or image which is then brought into a situation

> and imposed.

>

> That's just me though.(smiley face) I think I could act

> > in a different way and I would be no different.

>

> I'm talking more about being aware than how you act.

>

> I'm not judging how you act.

>

> I'm looking at being aware in a way that the doing

> and the being aren't split, aren't divided by

> trying to fit the doing to an image.

>

> Nice talking to you, Bobby.

>

> You're thoughtful as usual.

>

> Love,

> Dan

>

>

> /join

>

>

>

>

>

> All paths go somewhere. No path goes nowhere. Paths, places, sights,

perceptions, and indeed all experiences arise from and exist in and subside

back into the Space of Awareness. Like waves rising are not different than

the ocean, all things arising from Awareness are of the nature of Awareness.

Awareness does not come and go but is always Present. It is Home. Home is

where the Heart Is. Jnanis know the Heart to be the Finality of Eternal

Being. A true devotee relishes in the Truth of Self-Knowledge, spontaneously

arising from within into It Self. Welcome all to a.

>

>

>

> Your use of is subject to

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Jayani,

 

Thanks for raising some important points.

 

I want to apologize to everyone for being waaay behind in my e-mail

replies.

 

First, I want to thank everyone who has said nice things about me and

about my humor, and encouraged me in other ways. Please keep it

coming if you don't mind.

 

Second, I want to thank everyone, who may disagree with the way I

handle things on this list and the various posts I write. I do the

best I can and that's good enough for me. Actually, that's perfect

for me.

 

One of my favorite posts here on this list was written by brother Tim

Gerchmez years ago and it went something like, "You are a fraud

Harsha..." Perhaps we can find it and repost it. Tim, do you have a

copy somewhere?

 

Now Jayani, as far as your understanding being correct, you must come

to the conclusion yourself. Since you just joined recently, why not

give it some time.

 

Wishing for all of you warmth and comfort of friendship.

 

Love to all

Harsha

 

 

 

 

 

, jayanni <jayanni1@n...> wrote:

> I'm a little confused as to who wrote the original response to

Michael,

> but I have a question for anyone who would care to respond. (read

on.)

>

>

> > on 11/4/02 6:22 PM, harshaimtm at harsha@c... wrote:

> >

> > > My dearest Michael,

> > >

> > > Why should I care about what Zen masters or Nisgradatta did or

said

> > > or were nice or not nice? How is that at all relevant here?

This is

> > > not Zen-a-Sangh, is it?

>

>

> The following is an excerpt from the mission statement of

> . If I am reading the statement correctly, it seems

to me

> that Zen is as relevant here as anything else.

>

> This is an international gathering and fellowship of teachers and

> students of Advaita Vedanta, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam,

Judaism,

> Jainism, Sufism, Sikhism, Taoism, Yoga, Tantra, Meditation,

Pranayama,

> and the practitioners of all spiritual practices which are

conducted in

> the context of Ahimsa, the philosophy of nonviolence.

>

> Am I incorrect in my understanding?

>

> thanks,

> jayani

[Guest guest]

, "dan330033" <dan330033> wrote:

dear Dan:

> Hi Bobby --

>

> > The will to live is an affliction (Patanjali- the other four are-

I

> > amness, aversion, attraction, Ignorance which propagates them all

> > [see end remark}).

>

> O.K. As in, ignorance of nonseparation.

>

> > Being in the moment at first is difficult as far as being

> spontaneous

> > is concerned. I believe this is a big sticking point for many.

> I'm

> > glad you brought it up. Analysis of causes I believe is the

result

> > of the momentary flash of Self.

>

> Makes sense.

>

> > The tendency is to shy off this as if is is a bad thing. For me

it

> > is the thing that is most interesting about life.

>

> Analysis of causes?

 

No I meant the momentary flash of self that degrades into the

analysis.

 

This flash to me is the space between thoughts. A chain of thoughts

will continue until for some reason I become aware of myself in the

moment. As long as that lasts another chain does not begin. I call

this the cessation of thoughts.

 

There is recognition of newness but more of an overview than being

caught up. This recurring experience is different than anything else

that happens in my life.

 

Participation is spontaneous with out making choices. You probably

have the same experience.

 

>

> It seems to me that one can only analyze causes when there

> is an analyzer who can define cause and effect in relation,

> and in relation to that analyzer.

>

> Wouldn't the analyzer and the activity of analysis of

> causes be essentially the same thing, and be the

> same thing as the ignorance you described earlier?

 

Yes.

>

> snip

> > Good point. To me the structure of concepts which defines

> the 'World'

> > necessitates that the knowing of any part is itself corrupted by

> > having to fit it into the already accepted "World".

>

> A very worthwhile observation.

>

> The known gets continued as there is the assumption

> of ongoing knowing taking place, which fits in.

>

> > Once the world disappears as in meditation, knowing is without

> > causation or seed. That is, if you are in the world that

awareness

> > must be in terms of cause and effect but if you Are the world, it

> > does not.

>

> True.

>

> And if there is no world, nothing to fit into,

> knowing is not the same knowing anymore.

 

Knowing can seem like thinking. If thinking stops what is left

except knowing? Knower known and knowing are the same. No

separation.

>

> > > Classical

> > > > Yoga teaches one to impose a tendency on oneself that

> counteracts

> > > > these tencencies or blockages to liberation. So yes it is an

> > > > imposition.

>

> Yes, that's interesting.

>

> You have the assumption that ignorance is happening,

> and some kind of movement against that ignorance

> to counteract it.

>

> It seems to me that counteracting something, affirms it

> as existing. And that the affirmation of ignorance

> as existing, is itself ignorance. That is, to

> believe that things have their own existence, to be

> counteracted by forces acting against those things

> (or tendencies) would itself be to take things

> as separate.

 

Right. It is this taking things as separate that is a function of

the mind. Just saying the words "things are not separate" does not

stop the tendency to create dualism.

 

What gives me the greatest feeling of love in the conceptual world is

the notion that there is way out of ignorance built within the

structure itself.

 

Involution is the process of going back through the sense of "I" to

its source. To stop that process because of a conceptual logjamb is

not necessary.

>

> snip

> > I have to think of out of time (acausal) as the perfect answer.

> What

> > I understand this to mean is that "I" become identical to

> the "Now".

> > No new karma is created and all actions are dedicated to working

> off

> > the tendencies.

>

> The tendencies would work themselves out, if they

> aren't being given new food, in the sense of

> the energy of belief that they have their own

> existence or determine some existing thing or being.

 

Yes, that is what I meant. If I am identical to the now then I

disappear and the now, since it has no personality or qualities

cannot creat karma.

>

> > I don't think it is possible to be a personality that is the real

> > you. To me it is all the working off of the vasanas.

>

> Yes, that makes sense to me.

>

> Which I would see as tendencies to believe in continuity

> of perceptible things, thus including the ideas you

> gave above as aversion, attraction, Iamness, and ignorance.

 

It is adopting a system that works to an end rather than being pushed

by any wind that blows. The methodology comes from Raja Yoga and the

conceptual understanding of non-dualism from Jnana Yoga. I bow to

your abiltiy to maintain the stance of Jnana.

>

>

> > I like this discussion. I fear that I will have to sound like I

> know

> > what I am talking about to continue it.

>

> Yes, how unfortunate.

>

> We could just assume that neither of us knows

> what we're talking about.

>

> > If I get corrected about a false assumption that i hold then

that

> > would be a good thing.

>

> O.K.

>

> Although to correct someone, there has to be a view of

> causality and a world into which knowledge is being fit.

>

> Which you did away with earlier :-)

>

> > The image I have of myself is an amalgam of my selective

awareness

> of

> > the vasanas. The source of the feeling of identity, or the

reason

> > why I have the feeling of "me" is that there is a real me always

> > present that is identical with "beingSelfNow".

>

> Okay. I'm taking this in and the way I'm understanding

> your words makes sense to me.

>

> One could say that the appearance of ignorance is because

> there is nonignorant reality always the case.

 

Well said

>

> > Avidya (ignorance) is ascribing reality to the conceptual self

> image

> > of the amalgam of vasanas instead of to this real me that is

always

> > present,and results in suffering and suffering to come. So to me

> > this issue is central to any methodology.

>

> That seems valid.

>

> Conceptual reality is not nonconceptual truth.

> Yet, conceptual reality can only seemingly occur,

> because nonconceptual truth is always the case.

>

> Methodology would have to fall into the conceptual

> aspect of this situation, wouldn't it?

 

Yes and no. The idea of methodology is conceptual. The

disappearance of ignorance is the opposite of conceptualization. It

is the natural state.

>

> Be well, Bobby --

>

> Peace,

> Dan

 

Love

Bobby G.

[Guest guest]

Dear Shawn:

 

, shawn <shawn@w...> wrote:

> on 11/6/02 8:18 AM, texasbg2000 at Bigbobgraham@a... wrote:

>

>

> > I have to think of out of time (acausal) as the perfect answer.

What

> > I understand this to mean is that "I" become identical to

the "Now".

> > No new karma is created and all actions are dedicated to working

off

> > the tendencies.

>

> Dedicated may be the wrong word here, as it implies motivation.

 

True. The "Now" has no motivation though.

>

> > I don't think it is possible to be a personality that is the real

> > you. To me it is all the working off of he vasanas.

>

>

> ...implying one who would desire to work off.

> the burning "happens" as the *dropping* of desires is spontaneous

and

> unmotivated,. "

 

You caught me again pretending to be a thing.

>

>

> > I have had the experience of watching actions occur. I have had

> > conversations where I continued to talk and listen while

observing.

> > There is an underiding sense of now.

>

> That now is now a concept. I think you are describing the sense

that there

> is something happening that transcends you, that you intuit

this "presence

> that is being you."

>

> This being aware is not the

> > usual but it is not alien either and the duration increases

> > gradually. The choices made while in this awareness came

> > spontaneously with out my actually making them.

>

> There is Someone or Something that is being us and you are becoming

aware of

> that. You are not That (in experience), but are the one that that

One is

> *being*. The bodymind is being beingged by That.

 

I see your point. We see things similarly except we say it

differently I think.

>

> > The image I have of myself is an amalgam of my selective

awareness of

> > the vasanas. The source of the feeling of identity, or the reason

> > why I have the feeling of "me" is that there is a real me always

> > present that is identical with "beingSelfNow".

>

> Really? Where does this feeling come from? If the "real" self has no

> attributes, then ....

 

What I mean by "the real self has no attributes": No matter what

tendencies i have at any moment liberation can obliterate them at the

source by absorbing the sense of doership. The real Self is

limitless (no boundaries) not bound by anything such as attributes.

Atributes are those tendencies which produce karma. The Real Self

has none. It is the source of everything including ignorance in the

sense of a spring is the source of a river.

>

> Ah, such a wonderful Mystery.

>

> Shawn

 

thanks

Bobby G.

[Guest guest]

Hi Harsha,

 

, "harshaimtm" <harshaimtm> wrote:

> One of my favorite posts here on this list was written by brother

> Tim Gerchmez years ago and it went something like, "You are a fraud

> Harsha..." Perhaps we can find it and repost it. Tim, do you have a

> copy somewhere?

 

I don't, but I'm wondering what the "Tim" that existed then has to do

with the "Tim" existing now? Do you consider that there's a "real

me" here, carrying on uninterrupted somehow, and that opinions and

attitudes don't change?

 

Harsha, the last thing I would ever expect from someone claiming Self-

realization is holding a grudge (and against what... a personality

that no longer exists in the form that made the statement?). Please

tell me I've misinterpreted your purpose for posting this here.

 

Peace,

 

Tim

[Guest guest]

You guys are too deep for me. I should have named this list Harsha's

cheese sandwich shop. No service without shoes or shirt.

 

Harsha

 

 

, "fewtch" <coresite@a...> wrote:

>

> Hi Harsha,

>

> , "harshaimtm" <harshaimtm> wrote:

> > One of my favorite posts here on this list was written by brother

> > Tim Gerchmez years ago and it went something like, "You are a

fraud

> > Harsha..." Perhaps we can find it and repost it. Tim, do you have

a

> > copy somewhere?

>

> I don't, but I'm wondering what the "Tim" that existed then has to

do

> with the "Tim" existing now? Do you consider that there's a "real

> me" here, carrying on uninterrupted somehow, and that opinions and

> attitudes don't change?

>

> Harsha, the last thing I would ever expect from someone claiming

Self-

> realization is holding a grudge (and against what... a personality

> that no longer exists in the form that made the statement?).

Please

> tell me I've misinterpreted your purpose for posting this here.

>

> Peace,

>

> Tim

[Guest guest]

Hi Tim,

 

<snip>

> Have you ever considered that maybe it's only the way you view your

> experience that is "out of place?"

 

I have Tim...

> How is experience interpreted? As something ongoing, continuous,

> unbroken, and happening over the course of time.

>

> And if you set aside time and memory for a moment, and simply "be

> here now" (to coin a cliche), what's out of place?

 

....and of course, you're right. These days my present is less squeezed between

past and future, more expansive; I'm here, now, more often, but still prey to

concepts of experience, continuity, separation, nonetheless, and when I am,

'out-of-placeness' seems to be. But it's not this way for you, Tim?

 

Grant.

[Guest guest]

You mean SRM wouldn't get in, Harsha?

 

Grant;)

 

> ** Original Re: The Answer

> ** Original Sender: "harshaimtm"

> ** Original 7 Nov 2002 23:11:16 -0000

> ** Original Message follows...

>

> You guys are too deep for me. I should have named this list Harsha's

> cheese sandwich shop. No service without shoes or shirt.

>

> Harsha

>

>

> , "fewtch" <coresite@a...> wrote:

> >

> > Hi Harsha,

> >

> > , "harshaimtm" <harshaimtm> wrote:

> > > One of my favorite posts here on this list was written by brother

> > > Tim Gerchmez years ago and it went something like, "You are a

> fraud

> > > Harsha..." Perhaps we can find it and repost it. Tim, do you have

> a

> > > copy somewhere?

> >

> > I don't, but I'm wondering what the "Tim" that existed then has to

> do

> > with the "Tim" existing now? Do you consider that there's a "real

> > me" here, carrying on uninterrupted somehow, and that opinions and

> > attitudes don't change?

> >

> > Harsha, the last thing I would ever expect from someone claiming

> Self-

> > realization is holding a grudge (and against what... a personality

> > that no longer exists in the form that made the statement?).

> Please

> > tell me I've misinterpreted your purpose for posting this here.

> >

> > Peace,

> >

> > Tim

>

>

> /join

>

>

>

>

>

> All paths go somewhere. No path goes nowhere. Paths, places, sights,

perceptions, and indeed all experiences arise from and exist in and subside back

into the Space of Awareness. Like waves rising are not different than the ocean,

all things arising from Awareness are of the nature of Awareness. Awareness does

not come and go but is always Present. It is Home. Home is where the Heart Is.

Jnanis know the Heart to be the Finality of Eternal Being. A true devotee

relishes in the Truth of Self-Knowledge, spontaneously arising from within into

It Self. Welcome all to a.

>

>

>

> Your use of is subject to

>

>

 

>** --------- End Original Message ----------- **

>

[Guest guest]

on 11/7/02 7:52 AM, texasbg2000 at Bigbobgraham wrote:

>

> What I mean by "the real self has no attributes": No matter what

> tendencies i have at any moment liberation can obliterate them at the

> source by absorbing the sense of doership.

 

Since the tendencies are an illusion, the obliteration of them is likewise.

The bodymind itself is a tendency and yet "awakening" does not obliterate

it.

 

Just mind jostling......

 

Namaste Bobbyji,

Shawn

[Guest guest]

on 11/7/02 1:28 PM, bardsley at bardsley wrote:

> There are two things in life you should always remember; the first is, never

> tell all you know.

>

>

 

Ah, what a post for an advaitin's list. Two things, hmmm?

 

)))))Shawn

[Guest guest]

, "harshaimtm" wrote:

> You guys are too deep for me. I should have named this list

> Harsha's

> cheese sandwich shop. No service without shoes or shirt.

>

> Harsha

 

Harsha, (honest), I'm not here to cause trouble. If I did post

something about you being a fraud (I don't remember) it was well over

a year ago!

 

For the record, I don't feel that you're a fraud. What is a fraud,

anyway? A label. You aren't a label. Labelling is of the mind, not

the heart -- all is what it is in/as the Heart, without words or

labels.

 

Peace,

 

Tim

[Guest guest]

Hi Grant,

 

, bardsley@c... wrote:

> ...and of course, you're right. These days my present is less

> squeezed between past and future, more expansive; I'm here, now,

> more often, but still prey to concepts of experience, continuity,

> separation, nonetheless, and when I am, 'out-of-placeness' seems to

> be. But it's not this way for you, Tim?

 

All I can say is that "it is and it isn't" -- which only obfuscates

things more.

 

If/when a sense of "I" arises (as when feeling as if discussing with

others on an Email list -- "I" and "thou" arise together, mutually),

then that feeling of "I" is subject to the same limitations as any

other sense of "being a center."

 

Thus, in the context of discussing this with someone else, it's

paradoxically impossible to really say what it's like "for me" -- if

the me seems to be around, then it's the same as for anyone else. If

the sense of "me" isn't around, then "what it's like for me" is an

invalid question, and doesn't even make sense.

 

Peace,

 

Tim

[Guest guest]

> Since the tendencies are an illusion, the obliteration of them is

likewise.

> The bodymind itself is a tendency and yet "awakening" does not

obliterate

> it.

>

> Just mind jostling......

>

> Namaste Bobbyji,

> Shawn

 

That's cool.

 

Love

Bobby G.

[Guest guest]

, "fewtch" <coresite@a...> wrote:

>

> Hi Grant,

>

> , bardsley@c... wrote:

> > ...and of course, you're right. These days my present is less

> > squeezed between past and future, more expansive; I'm here, now,

> > more often, but still prey to concepts of experience, continuity,

> > separation, nonetheless, and when I am, 'out-of-placeness' seems

to

> > be. But it's not this way for you, Tim?

>

> All I can say is that "it is and it isn't" -- which only obfuscates

> things more.

>

> If/when a sense of "I" arises (as when feeling as if discussing

with

> others on an Email list -- "I" and "thou" arise together,

mutually),

> then that feeling of "I" is subject to the same limitations as any

> other sense of "being a center."

>

> Thus, in the context of discussing this with someone else, it's

> paradoxically impossible to really say what it's like "for me" --

if

> the me seems to be around, then it's the same as for anyone else.

If

> the sense of "me" isn't around, then "what it's like for me" is an

> invalid question, and doesn't even make sense.

>

> Peace,

>

> Tim

 

Dear Tim:

 

What you say makes a lot sense to me.

 

Love

Bobby G.

[Guest guest]

Hi Grant --

 

snip

> > The relative takes care of itself.

>

> Yes, but from within the relative it doesn't look that way does

it? 'We' seem to have to take care of it.

 

There is no "from within the relative" -- there is no

you or me moving back and forth from the relative

to something else.

 

So, you are the relative, I am the relative.

The seeming taking care of it, is the relative.

The seeming not taking care of it, is the relative.

> > Conceptuality forms and dissolves choicelessly,

> > and the choice-maker and the choices

> > arise along with that choiceless conceptuality.

> >

> > There is nothing out of place.

>

> No, I agree. But here's the rub, while I agree with what you say,

while it is what I hold to be the truth, I hold it so on the basis of

my thought and belief (or, at best, intuition). The truth that 'There

is nothing out of place' is my thought and belief (even, god forbid,

my hope!), but not my experience. Indeed my experience is that

there's much out of place.

 

That experience that there is much out of place

is not arising out of place.

 

To know this isn't an experience.

 

It is "how experience forms as experience,"

or it is "the relative arising from and as the

unspeakable, which is neither relative

nor absolute"

 

snip

> >

> > Yet, there's a joke to all this.

> >

> > The joke being that even the attempt to

> > maintain and impose a strategy is a choicelessly

> > arising phenomenon that is not out of place

> > whatsoever.

>

> Indeed. Another joke is that the conceptual entity that creates

strategies also asks questions that cannot be answered with concepts;

understands, conceptually, why this is, and yet, the questions

remain. Choicelessly.

 

The joke is that the conceptual entity doesn't

understand anything.

 

It never had the ability or quality to understand

in reality, only as a passing conceptual

formulation.

 

It doesn't create strategies, it is a strategy.

 

And a strategy that dissolves, that never

really gets or holds anything.

 

The question arising is merely an aspect

of that strategy, which dissolves

along with it, when the strategy

has no way to be maintained.

> Who knows, eh?

 

Not a verbalization, nor a conceptuality.

> Thanks for the nudges Dan

 

Thanks for dialogue, Grant,

 

Dan

[Guest guest]

Hi Marifa --

> Dear Dan I have few observations about your words:

> May be is just a question of proper wording or may be is more

substantial.

> I have to say first of all that I don't have a full realization of

Being so

> my observations come

> from some glimpses plus some "I heard" from people that I

know "they know

> the Truth".

 

All you can know from others is the words they give,

or the pictures you form from what you experience

of them.

 

So, all of that is interpretation from your experience.

>From whence does this experience arise?

 

That question can't be answered by their words,

the ideas you form from your experience of them,

or from some intuition you experience that

perhaps they know something.

 

It can't come from elsewhere, from someone else,

from words and ideas, from outside.

> So I am perplexed about your stating being having no qualities.

 

Qualities arise as contrasts within experience.

 

Knowing how experience arises and is constructed

couldn't involve something that has a quality.

 

Qualities mean that experience has already

constellated and been known in contrast.

> For sure there is nothing outside the Universal Being

> (I suppose we are speaking about the Manifest and not about the

> Unmanifest??)

 

Why make that assumption?

> but being is sat chit ananda, is satyam shivam sunderam and is much

more.

> So at least two qualities are recognized by almost everybody in the

past and

> present times,

> that is beauty and bliss, or are they not qualities?

 

Yes, they are.

 

And your awareness forms these as qualities.

 

So how is your awareness formed?

> And is not perhaps possible to view being, for sure unsplit,

> but also in the same time composed of many, many parts,

> that are not separate, but are distinguishable as different forms

inside

> being?

> Among these forms all the potentialities of the Unmanifest,

> manifest themselves in actuality as beauty, bliss, will, love,

strength,

> intimacy, etc.

> (See A.H.Almaas "Facets of Unity" for a very beautiful description

of the

> fundamental qualities of being).

> So I think that if we consider all the qualities that are

manifested inside

> being

> it is hard to say that is without qualities.

 

You seem to think your being has an inside and

outside.

 

Any inside and outside have to arise in mutual

definition.

 

Prior to the arising of that mutual definition,

who are you, what is?

 

It is not inside anything or outside anything.

 

There is no quality to it.

 

It is not an it, merely who you are when

there is no me or you placed as a division.

> All the ways parts of being "relate" to other parts of being,

> plus a part to being itself as a whole are qualities of being.,

even oness

> and separation!

 

Let's not get hung up on the word being.

 

It is just a pointer.

 

"What is" beyond qualities is beyond the

qualities of being or nonbeing.

 

Oneness and separation are inferences,

are qualities.

 

You are beyond all those kinds of contrasts,

for you have formed them of your own

awareness.

> And for sure in being there is a lot of passion or we were not here

> discussing It,

> for our enjoyment!

 

I'm glad you're enjoying it!

 

 

Peacelove,

Dan

[Guest guest]

Hi Bobby --

 

You wrote:

> No I meant the momentary flash of self that degrades into the

> analysis.

>

> This flash to me is the space between thoughts. A chain of

thoughts

> will continue until for some reason I become aware of myself in the

> moment. As long as that lasts another chain does not begin. I

call

> this the cessation of thoughts.

 

Yes, there is a space between thoughts

that has no quality of thought,

nor time,

nor movement.

 

Thought arising doesn't really impede

or obscure that space.

 

It is only the attempt to have an identity

within the passing thought-formation,

that gives the impression of

time, a being, an obscuration.

 

Otherwise, thought dissolves as it arises.

> There is recognition of newness but more of an overview than being

> caught up. This recurring experience is different than anything

else

> that happens in my life.

 

Yes, there is nothing like no-thing!

> Participation is spontaneous with out making choices. You probably

> have the same experience.

 

It is the space in which there is no me nor you

having an experience.

 

It neither arises nor departs, and

has no dimensionality, no way

to be measured.

 

Choice can only be an image within an

arising thought -- in the space

between thought there is no choice

to be made, or not to be made.

> Knowing can seem like thinking. If thinking stops what is left

> except knowing? Knower known and knowing are the same. No

> separation.

 

Very true.

 

And thought is not in the space between

thoughts.

 

And that space is all that is.

 

There is no place that thought can occur,

because the imagined place where thought

occurs, is itself a thought construct

(or "ignorance" as you called it earlier

in this discussion).

 

So, thought occurs without taking place,

ignorance happens without ever being

anywhere that is real.

> > It seems to me that counteracting something, affirms it

> > as existing. And that the affirmation of ignorance

> > as existing, is itself ignorance. That is, to

> > believe that things have their own existence, to be

> > counteracted by forces acting against those things

> > (or tendencies) would itself be to take things

> > as separate.

>

> Right. It is this taking things as separate that is a function of

> the mind. Just saying the words "things are not separate" does not

> stop the tendency to create dualism.

 

I totally agree.

 

Those words are a thought, and if there is

an attempt to have an identification with

or through that thought, that attempt

is itself imagined separation.

> What gives me the greatest feeling of love in the conceptual world

is

> the notion that there is way out of ignorance built within the

> structure itself.

 

The way out is by not having a strategy

for a way out (such strategy being ignorance).

 

The structure dissolves, and that is the way out,

by not having a way out (for "youI" am that

dissolving structure) ...

> Involution is the process of going back through the sense of "I" to

> its source. To stop that process because of a conceptual logjamb

is

> not necessary.

 

It's not a process, for a process takes time.

 

And time is of thought.

 

And peace transcendent of I, you, and it,

is momentary, is present, is timeless, now.

 

Not of thought.

 

snip

>

> Yes, that is what I meant. If I am identical to the now then I

> disappear and the now, since it has no personality or qualities

> cannot creat karma.

 

Creation is destruction.

 

Nothing can be created, for

its moment of creation is its moment

of destruction.

 

Personality, qualities are the constructs

of perceiving, of knower dividing from

known, of thought ... seemingly

dealing with things, events, relationships ...

 

snip

> It is adopting a system that works to an end rather than being

pushed

> by any wind that blows. The methodology comes from Raja Yoga and

the

> conceptual understanding of non-dualism from Jnana Yoga. I bow to

> your abiltiy to maintain the stance of Jnana.

 

Okay.

 

Yet that space between thoughts isn't a stance.

 

It is simply "what is" unimpeded by a formulation

of what it is, not involved

in maintaining a relation to itself through

perception and quality, through experiences of

itself in time.

 

snip

> Yes and no. The idea of methodology is conceptual. The

> disappearance of ignorance is the opposite of conceptualization.

It

> is the natural state.

 

Yes.

 

It is the dimensionless space between

thoughts, in which perception, being,

time is not, and neither is there

any absence of perception, being,

or time. (One could as well say

aversion, attraction, and Iamness).

 

Love,

Dan

[Guest guest]

, bardsley@c... wrote:

> There are two things in life you should always remember; the first

is, never tell all you know.

>

>

 

Hey, that's pretty good, Grant.

 

How about this:

 

There are two things in life you should

always remember.

 

The first is, there is nothing you

need to always remember.

[Guest guest]

Hi Dan,

 

, "dan330033" <dan330033> wrote:

> Creation is destruction.

>

> Nothing can be created, for

> its moment of creation is its moment

> of destruction.

 

For some reason, the above reminded me of something Nisargadatta

said, which is a puzzle as far as analysis is concerned:

 

"Anything that begins and ends has no middle; it is hollow."

> It is the dimensionless space between

> thoughts, in which perception, being,

> time is not, and neither is there

> any absence of perception, being,

> or time. (One could as well say

> aversion, attraction, and Iamness).

 

Those particular words don't make sense logically: "there is neither

the presence nor the absense of something." As all discussion takes

place conceptually and ought to make sense logically, I don't get it.

 

Peace,

 

Tim

[Guest guest]

on 11/9/02 9:38 AM, dan330033 at dan330033 wrote:

 

> The way out is by not having a strategy

> for a way out (such strategy being ignorance).

>

Hi Dan,

 

Is this the strategy of "no strategy?"

 

How can the reflection find its way off the mirror?

 

liberal love,

 

Shawn