Pavlovian Pete

[Guest guest]

G: pavlovian Pete -- what is it that you have in common with non-

duality?

The only thing I can find: anything to do with non-duality upsets

you/ego about 100% of the time. You are so consistent that it has to

be like a Pavlovian reflex.

 

P: Woof! Wooof! Sit, bad dharma dog! You're peeing

on that fine man dualist words!

 

Dharma dog: Can words be nondual? Has anyone ever

utter a nondual word? All words, even sages' words

are dual. Nonduality is only found in perception without

intellection. Maybe, Gene, can point to what he felt,

and experienced beyond words and how he got there,

instead of issuing platitudes sprinkled with Sanskrit

words. See excerpts below courtesy of Jerry Katz at NDS.

 

 

Voices of the Living Grail

 

by WB DeLong

 

 

We do not overcome duality. We restore ourselves to the One by merely

accepting nonduality. We cannot abolish darkness, greed, evil, and so

forth, because they do not exist in the harmony and balance that is the

essence of God.

 

 

 

~ ~ ~

 

 

Last Writings: Nothingness and the Religious Worldview

 

by Nishida Kitaro

 

 

If we turn to another tradition, we find the works of the Elizabethan

and Jacobean poets and dramatists to be replete with instances of the

paradoxical, or agonistic, form of articulation. (The tension of the

opposites is played out on a grander, religious scale in the poetry of

John Milton.) For our present purposes let us cite Shakespeare's " The

Phoenix and the Turtle " as an outstanding example of a poetic rendering

of the logic of nonduality.

 

Here the anthem doth commence:

Love and constancy is dead;

Phoenix and the Turtle fled

In a mutual flame from hence.

 

So they lov'd, as love in twain

Had the essence but in one;

Two distincts, division none;

Number there in love was slain.

 

Hearts remote, yet not asunder;

Distance and no space was seen

'Twixt this Turtle and his queen:

But in them it were a wonder.

 

So between them love did shine,

That the Turtle saw his right

Flaming in the Phoenix' sight;

Either was the other's mine.

 

Property was thus appalled

That the self was not the same;

Single nature's double name

Neither two nor one was called.

 

Reason, in itself confounded,

Saw division grow together,

To themselves yet neither either,

Simple were so well compounded:

 

That it cried, How true a twain

Seemeth this concordant one!

Love hath reason, reason none,

If what parts, can so remain.

 

It is almost as if Shakespeare had studied the logic of Nagarjuna or

the eight or none hypotheses of Plato's Parmenides before composing

these extraordinary verses.

 

Among the many literary examples that could be cited, one more will

have to suffice. The twentieth-century American poet Wallace Stevens

inscribes a beautiful version of the logic of contradictory identity in

his " Notes Toward a Supreme Fiction " :

 

Two things of opposite nature seem to depend

On one another, as a man depends

On a woman, day on night, the imagined

 

On the real. This is the origin of change.

Winter and spring, cold copulars, embrace

And forth the particulars of rapture come.

 

Music falls on the silence like a sense,

A passion that we feel, not understand.

Morning and afternoon are clasped together.

 

And North and South are an intrinsic couple

And sun and rain a plural, like two lovers

That walk away as one in the greenest body.

 

In solitude the trumpets of solitude

Are not of another solitude resounding;

A little string speaks for a crowd of voices.

 

The partaker partakes of that which changes him.

The child that touches takes character from the thing,

The body, it touches. The captain and his men

 

Are one and the sailor and the sea are one.

Follow after, O my companion, my fellow, my self,

Sister and solace, brother and delight.

 

Stevens' poem, too, resonates in uncanny ways not only with the verses

of Shakespeare's " The Pheonex and the Turtle " but with the

paradoxically articulated texts of Heraclitus, of Mahayana Buddhists,

and of Nishida.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , Pete S <pedsie4@e...> wrote:

>

> G: pavlovian Pete -- what is it that you have in common with non-

> duality?

> The only thing I can find: anything to do with non-duality upsets

> you/ego about 100% of the time. You are so consistent that it has to

> be like a Pavlovian reflex.

>

> P: Woof! Wooof! Sit, bad dharma dog! You're peeing

> on that fine man dualist words!

> ==============

Dear Pavlovian Pete

You bark very well. I assume that you also salivate to the sound of a

bell very intelligently.

 

Why do you, and the end-of-the-rope-ranch enthusiasts, remind me of

Monty Python's village-idiots: they are actually quite intelligent but

if they did not act like idiots then they would lose their identity.

 

I should know – there is no idiot on earth

stupid enough to fathom the stupidity

I need to be the Supreme Psychopath.

[Guest guest]

Gene,

 

Allow me to say some words to this.

 

You too are at the end of a rope but upside down like the fool of a

Tarot deck. The fool of Tarot is the symbol of a positive promising

situation: The beginning of seeing truth.

 

But you shouldn't stay to long in that fool's position but rather to

make the next step and let go the rope.

 

Werner

 

 

Nisargadatta , " Gene Polotas " <semmin@e...>

wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , Pete S <pedsie4@e...> wrote:

> >

> > G: pavlovian Pete -- what is it that you have in common with

non-

> > duality?

> > The only thing I can find: anything to do with non-duality

upsets

> > you/ego about 100% of the time. You are so consistent that it

has to

> > be like a Pavlovian reflex.

> >

> > P: Woof! Wooof! Sit, bad dharma dog! You're peeing

> > on that fine man dualist words!

> > ==============

> Dear Pavlovian Pete

> You bark very well. I assume that you also salivate to the sound of

a

> bell very intelligently.

>

> Why do you, and the end-of-the-rope-ranch enthusiasts, remind me

of

> Monty Python's village-idiots: they are actually quite intelligent

but

> if they did not act like idiots then they would lose their

identity.

>

> I should know – there is no idiot on earth

> stupid enough to fathom the stupidity

> I need to be the Supreme Psychopath.

>