Guest guest Posted June 10, 1999 Report Share Posted June 10, 1999 [ ] Thursday, June 10, 1999 2:32 PM Digest Number 199 Looking to expand your world? ONElist has over 165,000 e-mail communities from which to choose! There are 25 messages in this issue. Topics in today's digest: 1. hear ye, hear ye, all satsanghers... "Amanda Erhart" <mumblecat 2. habit mind "Amanda Erhart" <mumblecat 3. Endpoint / jb "Amanda Erhart" <mumblecat 4. Re: hear ye, hear ye, all satsanghers... hbarrett (Holly N. Barrett, Ph.D.) 5. Re: Digest Number 197 "Steve Pruyne" <pruyne 6. Re: Endpoint / jb "jb" <kvy9 7. Re: habit mind "jb" <kvy9 8. What is self-realization? David Hodges <dhodges 9. Re: Tim, say it ain't so...? Greg Goode <goode 10. Re: I'm taking a vacation... Greg Goode <goode 11. Endpoint "Amanda Erhart" <mumblecat 12. Re: tidbits...to Greg Greg Goode <goode 13. Re: tidbits...to Greg Greg Goode <goode 14. Re: Endpoint / jb Greg Goode <goode 15. Re: Madhya/Bruce: Bwahahahaha! magus (==Gene Poole==) 16. Re: [NondualitySalon] Enlightenment is a Unicorn Barbeque "Harsha (Dr. Harsh K. Luthar)" <hluthar 17. Thanks to all "Harsha (Dr. Harsh K. Luthar)" <hluthar 18. Deconstructing the Mountain. umbada (Jerry M. Katz) 19. Re: Madhya/Bruce: Bwahahahaha! Bruce Morgen <editor 20. Re: [NondualitySalon] Deconstructing the Mountain. "Harsha (Dr. Harsh K. Luthar)" <hluthar 21. FW: [NondualitySalon] Enlightenment is a Unicorn Barbeque "Madhya Nandi" <madhya 22. Re: Endpoint / jb Dharma <fisher1 23. FW: [NondualitySalon] Deconstructing the Mountain. "Madhya Nandi" <madhya 24. hear ye, hear ye, all satsanghers... to Jelke "Madhya Nandi" <madhya 25. Re: FW: [NondualitySalon] Deconstructing the Mountain. "Harsha (Dr. Harsh K. Luthar)" <hluthar __________________________ ___ __________________________ ___ Message: 1 Thu, 10 Jun 1999 03:20:18 -0700 "Amanda Erhart" <mumblecat hear ye, hear ye, all satsanghers... On Wed, 09 Jun 1999 13:24:49 Madhya Nandi wrote: >Friends All; > > >I have been ardent (strident) in recent posts. Any whom I may have >offended, I offer my apology. Inasmuch as it is possible to love persons >whom you only know through email, I love you all. Madhya, There is no need to apologize. As someone else once told me: Your arguments are passionate because of a passion for the subject discussed. I always enjoy reading your views on non dualism and The Experience, even though I can*t always followe your lines of logic. They give me much to cogitate on and consider. Best regards, Amanda. Angelfire for your free web-based e-mail. http://www.angelfire.com __________________________ ___ __________________________ ___ Message: 2 Thu, 10 Jun 1999 03:30:55 -0700 "Amanda Erhart" <mumblecat habit mind On Thu, 10 Jun 1999 01:48:01 jb wrote: >---- > >THE DOUBLE-CONSCIOUSNESS OF A JIVANMUKTA > >A man who stands in water up to his neck has a twofold experience. His head >is exposed to the sun. He experiences both heat and cold. Such is the >experience of a Jivanmukta. He has double consciousness. He enjoys the bliss >of Brahman (God). He also has the experience of this world. He is like a man >who knows two languages. Nice image. Illustrative for someone not really understanding what being a Jivanmukta "means". >The Jivanmukta has a >consciousness of the body in the form of a Samskara (impression in the >subconscious mind). That is the reason why he eats and drinks. Though the >instinctive mind with low desires is destroyed, the Sattvic (pure) mind does >not perish in the Jivanmukta. How will he be able to do Vyavahara or worldly >dealings without an instrument, viz., the mind? > > >----------------------> >The above is from the perspective of Advaita where ignorance plays an >important role. The allowance of ignorance to explain behavior like eating, >drinking, walking etc. is rather artificial. Yes, I cannot see how the basic physical needs like eating, drinking and breathing can be labeled ignorant, unless one labels the entire body/mind ignorant. Maybe they do ? >A different view is attained by introducing the concept of habit mind. The >requirements for habit mind are memory and a rewarding mechanism. From this >perspective, it is possible to differentiate between inborn or "hard wired" >and acquired habits. The first category concerns matters like eating and >exercise whereas the second concerns matters like smoking, drinking >alcoholics, taking drugs and fetching a stick. Yes, I see your point. >So instead of explaining the behavior of a Jivanmukta by the admission of >ignorance, one could explain it by stating that only non-harmful habits >remain. These habits aren't habits in the proper sense as they have lost >their power (no more "reward"); turning them off would require a motive but >what motive could be left to do so? What about the "motive" of simply keeping the physical body alive ? Even with a radically lowered metabolism and/or activity level, the human body needs a certain amount of food intake every day to maintain healthy functions. As I am aware of yogic adepts suspending breath and eating of "impossible" amounts of time, this can hardly be combined with activities requiring more energy than meditation. Best regards, Amanda. Angelfire for your free web-based e-mail. http://www.angelfire.com __________________________ ___ __________________________ ___ Message: 3 Thu, 10 Jun 1999 03:35:36 -0700 "Amanda Erhart" <mumblecat Endpoint / jb On Thu, 10 Jun 1999 01:48:21 jb wrote: >It is very rare to have a dream (lucid or normal) with a content that >doesn't stem from daytime experience and this goes for the objects perceived >in dreams as well. There has been some scientific research into observation >from patients who experienced a kind of being awake despite being under >narcosis. A panel was hidden above a door and it could only be seen and >read, if the power of perception would move above the operating table. None >of the patients who became lucid under narcosis mentioned seeing the panel. >The difference between waking and dreaming is the amount and quality of >resources like intuition and analysis. Yes, good point. That is certainly how it feels. Thanks for sharing the research report. I*ve always remained sceptical to reports of OBE*s as I suspect they are only lucid "dream states" projecting visual content of familiar surroundings with a very high degree of fidelity onto the dreaming consciousness. Best regards, Amanda. Angelfire for your free web-based e-mail. http://www.angelfire.com __________________________ ___ __________________________ ___ Message: 4 Thu, 10 Jun 1999 07:57:02 -0500 (CDT) hbarrett (Holly N. Barrett, Ph.D.) Re: hear ye, hear ye, all satsanghers... Your passion combined with elegant articulation makes you a pleasure to read always, and I admire your fearlessness. Your differing views from some of the others help keep this group alive and vibrant. Love, Holly You wrote: > >"Madhya Nandi" <madhya > >Friends All; > > >I have been ardent (strident) in recent posts. Any whom I may have >offended, I offer my apology. Inasmuch as it is possible to love persons >whom you only know through email, I love you all. > > >Madhya > >----- - >ONElist: where real people with real interests get connected. > >Join a new list today! > __________________________ ___ __________________________ ___ Message: 5 Thu, 10 Jun 1999 08:04:56 -0500 "Steve Pruyne" <pruyne Re: Digest Number 197 ---------- > > > Digest Number 197 >Wed, Jun 9, 1999, 4:01 PM > > Neither have Christian mystics that I have read. > > > I found a site on Christian mystisism that y'all might be interested in > http://chrmysticaloutreach.com/ > > Also I highly recommend "The Gospel of the Nazirenes", found at Amazon.com. > The historical documentation is impressive showing this gospel as the > original Matthew. It was discovered in Tibet in 1870 written in Aramaic > with Hebrew letters. It is a link between the Gita and traditional > Christian philosophys. As a practicing Kriyavan ( Paramahamsa > Hariharananda is my gurudev) talking isn't nearly as important as > practicing whatever meditation technique your comfortable with. > > Keep your attention on the top. > > Namaste, > > Steve __________________________ ___ __________________________ ___ Message: 6 Thu, 10 Jun 1999 14:35:42 +0100 "jb" <kvy9 Re: Endpoint / jb > "Amanda Erhart" <mumblecat [...] > I*ve always remained sceptical to reports of OBE*s > as I suspect they are only lucid "dream states" > projecting visual content of familiar surroundings with a very > high degree of fidelity onto the dreaming > consciousness. > > Best regards, > > Amanda. Actually, to remain analytical and to use logic combined with intuition is what keeps one sane despite the many visions, sensations and flashing insights that come as "side-effects" of K. It is quite possible to separate the power of perception from the body but one is at a razor's edge between waking up and falling into dreamless sleep. The problem in that state is the impossibility to use any mental tool, there is only the power of perception that seemingly can go anywhere, yet has preferences and this is why I lost interest in phenomena like this long ago. Jan __________________________ ___ __________________________ ___ Message: 7 Thu, 10 Jun 1999 14:35:47 +0100 "jb" <kvy9 Re: habit mind > "Amanda Erhart" <mumblecat [...] > >The above is from the perspective of Advaita where ignorance plays an > >important role. The allowance of ignorance to explain behavior > like eating, > >drinking, walking etc. is rather artificial. > > Yes, I cannot see how the basic physical needs like > eating, drinking and breathing can be labeled ignorant, > unless one labels the entire body/mind ignorant. > Maybe they do ? The splitting up of mind into "higher" and "lower" brings a few problems. It is said that in a Jivanmukta the lower mind (instinctive mind) is annihilated but this picture is partially true at best. They don't call mind and body ignorant, because ignorance opposes knowledge; on attaining knowledge, ignorance disappears but the body remains and so does the mind. Therefore, it is said that body and mind are products of ignorance and the products of ignorance don't oppose knowledge. A better explanation is that body and mind have a finite capacity to experience bliss whereas the bliss of Being is infinite. So one's experience of bliss remains the same but the experience of anything else will fade. The analogy is with the ability of seeing and hearing senses to accommodate for a large dynamic range; this is why intensities are expressed on a logarithmic scale. Hearing a loud sound will drown the weaker sounds. [...] > >So instead of explaining the behavior of a Jivanmukta by the admission of > >ignorance, one could explain it by stating that only non-harmful habits > >remain. These habits aren't habits in the proper sense as they have lost > >their power (no more "reward"); turning them off would require a > motive but > >what motive could be left to do so? > > What about the "motive" of simply keeping the physical body alive ? Motive, will, no matter how it is called, it is always a result of an impression kept in memory and a perception. In the case of a Jivanmukta, this process is known and the storehouse of the past is emptied. > Even with a radically lowered metabolism and/or activity > level, the human body needs a certain amount of > food intake every day to maintain healthy functions. True, even in suspended animation there will be some use of energy. > As I am aware of yogic adepts suspending breath and > eating of "impossible" amounts of time, > this can hardly be combined with activities > requiring more energy than meditation. > > Best regards, > > Amanda. In the course of events, suspending breath will become spontaneous but only when not exercising. Breathing automatically tends to slow down at the minimum requirement. Eating isn't different; when K. was rising the amount of food was spontaneously reduced to an impossibly low quantity, just four crackers and four tomatoes a day, despite regular long walks. This phase took about a year and weight remained constant after an initial loss during the first months. There is far too little data on the physical effects to draw conclusions, apart from K. as a purifier. Jan __________________________ ___ __________________________ ___ Message: 8 Thu, 10 Jun 1999 09:51:33 -0400 David Hodges <dhodges What is self-realization? 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. - David Hodges __________________________ ___ __________________________ ___ Message: 9 Thu, 10 Jun 1999 10:00:51 -0400 Greg Goode <goode Re: Tim, say it ain't so...? At 09:50 PM 6/9/99 -0400, Bruce Morgen wrote: >Bruce Morgen <editor To Madhya-- I respect >both your steadfastness >and your flexibility. Me too! Madhya, it is discussions like we've been having that give e-mail lists their life-energy. (And who knows, you might be back in Tim-Land before too long...) --Greg __________________________ ___ __________________________ ___ Message: 10 Thu, 10 Jun 1999 10:05:42 -0400 Greg Goode <goode Re: I'm taking a vacation... At 07:04 PM 6/9/99 -0700, Tim Gerchmez wrote: >Tim Gerchmez <fewtch >It's time for me to take a vacation from these lists once again. I hope you're not gone long. --Greg __________________________ ___ __________________________ ___ Message: 11 Thu, 10 Jun 1999 07:08:03 -0700 "Amanda Erhart" <mumblecat Endpoint On Thu, 10 Jun 1999 14:35:42 jb wrote: >Actually, to remain analytical and to use logic combined with intuition is >what keeps one sane despite the many visions, sensations and flashing >insights that come as "side-effects" of K. Yes, absolutely. If one believes in everything one sees during K active periods, then one is at a peril of drowning in visions and missing out on their function altogether. It is like the film The Usual Suspects, can and should the source of the story be trusted. I usually view the visions as illustrations, practical advice transmitted by visual means, visual riddles to be solved so the impulses which give rise to the visions can be traced and hopefully let go of, which is always a great relief. I see this as one way of K to force a realization of the different layers of habit which governs the mind(/body). >It is quite possible to separate >the power of perception from the body but one is at a razor's edge between >waking up and falling into dreamless sleep. The problem in that state is the >impossibility to use any mental tool, there is only the power of perception >that seemingly can go anywhere, yet has preferences and this is why I lost >interest in phenomena like this long ago. Yes, I do see your point. Best regards, Amanda. Angelfire for your free web-based e-mail. http://www.angelfire.com __________________________ ___ __________________________ ___ Message: 12 Thu, 10 Jun 1999 10:46:56 -0400 Greg Goode <goode Re: tidbits...to Greg At 08:00 PM 6/9/99 -0700, Madhya Nandi wrote: 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 >>opinion.... Madhya wrote: >Now, Greg... come on. 'Fess up. I'm sure you've got ideas of your about how >to answer these questions. You are charming, but you are leading me on.... Really, I'm not being coy or disingenuous. I was really asking for your 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 enlightenment? 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. --Greg __________________________ ___ __________________________ ___ Message: 13 Thu, 10 Jun 1999 10:46:56 -0400 Greg Goode <goode Re: tidbits...to Greg At 08:00 PM 6/9/99 -0700, Madhya Nandi wrote: 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 >>opinion.... Madhya wrote: >Now, Greg... come on. 'Fess up. I'm sure you've got ideas of your about how >to answer these questions. You are charming, but you are leading me on.... Really, I'm not being coy or disingenuous. I was really asking for your 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 enlightenment? 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. --Greg __________________________ ___ __________________________ ___ Message: 14 Thu, 10 Jun 1999 10:51:31 -0400 Greg Goode <goode Re: Endpoint / jb At 03:35 AM 6/10/99 -0700, Amanda Erhart wrote: >I*ve always remained sceptical to reports of OBE*s >as I suspect they are only lucid "dream states" >projecting visual content of familiar surroundings with a very high degree of fidelity onto the dreaming consciousness. Douglass Harding once wrote that ALL our experiences are OBE's. Just look at your hand. Are you looking from the inside out or the outside in? If the latter, then it's an OBE! --Greg __________________________ ___ __________________________ ___ Message: 15 Thu, 10 Jun 1999 08:02:00 -0800 magus (==Gene Poole==) Re: Madhya/Bruce: Bwahahahaha! HS Re: Madhya/Bruce: Bwahahahaha! Madhya... Bruce... Gee whiz... I had to walk away, staggering into the kitchen to rinse my eyes, blinded by tears of laughter. Thank you so much for this! This is... beyond funny! Do I see true love in bloom, the eternal dance of Siva and Sakti here, as portrayed by two of my very favorite Mighty Minds of all time? Or what? This dialog is priceless! Is this a pre-planned, scripted 'conversation', a veritable 'nondual vaudeville act', or is it actually a spontaneous occurance? If this gets any 'better', I may have to wear 'Depends' as I read my mail! Bwahahahaha! > Wed, 9 Jun 1999 23:14:31 -0400 > Bruce Morgen <editor > Re: tidbits... > On Wed, 09 Jun 1999 19:54:33 -0700 "Madhya Nandi" <madhya writes: > >"Madhya Nandi" <madhya > >>Bruce Morgen <editor > >>There are no geniuses here, > >>Madhyaji, to "keep up" is a > >>matter of time and attention, > >>which we apportion according > >>to the propensities of our > >>nominally individual > >>incarnations. > >Wow, lighten up, Bruce. It was only a bit of humor! > OK. > >>As Sri Ramana might have > >>put it, such semantic > >>distinctions are surely > >>"for scholars." > >Now, Bruce, my sensors are detecting a reductionism coming on. Are > >you going to claim that it is meaningless to speak in any way about > >experience at all because, a) all experience of an 'absolute' nature is > >ontologically 'equal' or 'the same?' and, b) thereby claim that all >discourse > >regarding the absolute is valueless since it is 'absolutely' different >from the > >experience itself? > No, I'm not -- what I'm > saying is that discourse > because of the nature of > language itself cannot > be directly descriptive > and there are myriad > communicative choices > possible in what such > discourse actually is -- > a "pointing" toward the > indescribable. > >So, in order to deal with any and all viewpoints and > >expressions different from one's own, one need only negate the very > >possibility of discourse being at all relevant. Then one need never > >deal with any difference of view by reducing all possible discourse to > >"semanticism" or, in this case, nonsense. > No, but very elaborate > inference noted. > > I have every > >>confidence that the > >>perceptual states of Sri > >>Ramana and Gautama Buddha > >>were identical in essence. > >Despite your worthy confidence, Bruce, how can you possibly justify > >making such a claim? It is clearly invalid, since no possibility exists for > >verification. And first, you must successfully account for your > >implied assumption that 'all possible enlightened states are identical.' > >Please explain how this can be so...? > I can't, it is inexplicable. > >>Let us not confuse > >>charactarization -- yet > >>another communicative > >>preference -- for substantive > >>difference in consciousness > >>itself. > >Again, Bruce, you rely on psychologism: All talk about experience is > >absolutely incapable of saying anything 'real' about that experience > >and as such, is nothing more than 'characterization' or, 'communicative > >preference.' Bruce, this is not valid reasoning. > It is not based on > reasoning, so from your > chosen framework you > couldn't be more correct. > >>To dispense with this in the > >>most universal mannar I can > >>muster, "interpretation" is > >>yet another instance of > >>communicative preference. > >>To find the commonality that > >>underlies such apparent > >>differences, it surely > >>behooves us to see through > >>to the authentic resonance > >>between and behind what are, > >>after all, merely words. > >Bruce, your argument does not hold water. > As an "argument" it is as > leaky as a cheesecloth > dinghy. Once again you > are correct. > >IF one presumes that Unmanifest > >Reality is absolutely different from Manifest Reality, then one might > >be correct in asserting a substantive, ontological difference between > >one 'True' reality and another, 'False' reality. > Who is this "one" you are > arguing with -- surely not > here, I assure you! > >Then, one might successfully > >argue that words are absolutely 'different' from the 'true' reality. > >But first, one must successfully account for the proposed ontological > >difference between the assertion of two entirely 'different' forms of > >reality--one Real and the other Not Real. > If one is in an undergraduate > Rhetoric class, I suppose so. > Where have I supposed hinted > at "real" and "not real?" > >So, to your apparent chagrin, and the chagrin of many on this list, I > >have expressed another viewpoint. That perspective states that no > >ontological difference exists between manifest and unmanifest Reality. > I have no disagreement with > that expression, it is > accurate and quite eloquent. > >All reality is Real. > A truism, but true. :-) > >Words are not 'false' forms of some other Reality. They are > >true, dynamic expressions of the Real. > In other words they are real > *words,* another truism. > >This does not mean that all words have > >equal proportion, value or weight. > Words are just words -- all > "proportion, value or weight" > is in the eye of the beholder. > >In fact, this is partly the point. > This getting too muddy to > follow. > >Absolute Reality is absolutely Creative. Therefore, any accounting > >for enlightened experience must also account for the creative dynamicity > >of Enlightened Reality. From my perspective--and I have never stated my > >view as other than my own perspective--one cannot separate the creative > >Performance, including speaking, acting, et cetera, from the > >experience of Enlightenment. > In non-dual terms nothing > whatsoever is separable, > there is only the > seamless whole. > >>View noted -- and undoubtedly > >>correct for one without an > >>innate proprensity for jnana. > >An innate propensity, Bruce? Are you saying that I am > >jnana-challenged? > Apparently, and you are in > the vast majority imo. > >Is this condition genetic, environmental or perhaps, biological? > I don't know. ((Note: Bruce avoids the bait, and thus the hook, but also the question. He must be married!)) > >More importantly, you are making quite a value judgement regarding > >something for which you have very little information to go on! > It is a mere observation > based on your statements > about an approach you > admit not have followed. > >Its quite a big claim, > >Bruce! I don't believe we've ever even corresponded before. We > >certainly haven't met. Wouldn't you require more information to propose >such a > >judgement? > It's not a judgement, it's > an observation based on > your own words. > >Ah, Bruce! You leave me nearly speechless! > Ah Madhya, do consider that > that might be an improvement > over this hyper-intellectual > fugue you've posted. :-) How sweet it is! Try this: (From Jerry's NDS list, a bit of a recent posting by me) "If I find myself 'pressurized', with words spewing forth in a fountain of attachment, I know that I have tapped a deep pocket of unabreacted or unresolved material within myself. If that happens, I can usually succeed in reversing the polarity of my words (without turning them off), and to thus speak in poetry, rather than in defensive resentment. This is what Shakespear did, and why his words live on as they do. He was able to have the feelings, the sentiment, and the awareness of the actual relativity of the situation, all at the same time. His is a high art. The parsing-engine of 'real/unreal' is useable only in the world-dream. In the world-dream, the absolute is 'unreal'. The error of many is to assume that in the 'absolute', the the world-dream is 'unreal'. In 'reality', the absolute _contains_ (subsumes) the world-dream. Seen in this way, the world-dream is harmless. This is freedom." "The Unicorn barbeque is happening in the space between the two worlds. All are invited." Really, Bruce and Madhya, I am not trying to 'fix' anything going on here. Please... continue! I love it! Please... pass me a plate of Unicorn 'ribs'! You are both master chefs! Having a 'great time'... thanks again... please continue... please... ==Gene Poole== __________________________ ___ __________________________ ___ Message: 16 Thu, 10 Jun 1999 11:13:35 -0400 "Harsha (Dr. Harsh K. Luthar)" <hluthar Re: [NondualitySalon] Enlightenment is a Unicorn Barbeque 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 >>opinion.... Madhya wrote: >Now, Greg... come on. 'Fess up. I'm sure you've got ideas of your about how >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 your 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 enlightenment? 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. --Greg Harsha: I like this Greg. Experience appears in the light of the Self and disappears in the Self. __________________________ ___ __________________________ ___ Message: 17 Thu, 10 Jun 1999 11:22:25 -0400 "Harsha (Dr. Harsh K. Luthar)" <hluthar Thanks to all Thank you for your wise and insightful words Frankji and Sadaji and Ramji...Moorthyji, Madhavji, well I could go on and on and on. Perhaps we should express gratitude more often for company like this which pervades our mental atmosphere. Bowing to all who read this on all lists. Namaste................................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 parabrahmam. in fact, we are *already* That. OM ramanarpanamastu! __________________________ ___ __________________________ ___ Message: 18 Thu, 10 Jun 1999 13:41:08 -0300 umbada (Jerry M. Katz) Deconstructing the Mountain. 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 Mountain. 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, Jerry __ Nondual Digest (in affiliation with Nonduality Salon) "We pick the best of the day's postings, so you don't have to wade through a mountain of email!" Click below to : <//nondualdigest> __________________________ ___ __________________________ ___ Message: 19 Thu, 10 Jun 1999 13:06:59 -0400 Bruce Morgen <editor Re: Madhya/Bruce: Bwahahahaha! On Thu, 10 Jun 1999 08:02:00 -0800 magus (==Gene Poole==) writes: >magus (==Gene Poole==) > >HS > >Re: Madhya/Bruce: Bwahahahaha! > >Madhya... Bruce... > >Gee whiz... I had to walk away, staggering into the kitchen to rinse >my eyes, blinded by tears of laughter. Thank you so much for this! You are much more than welcome, Gene. As you can tell by the errors in my part of this very aerobic exercise, I was hard put to hold it together myself. Replying to Madhyaji is like encountering one of those mountainous waves out your way -- one either body-surfs or dies, and I've done some of each. :-) >This is... >beyond funny! Do I see true love in bloom, the eternal dance of Siva >and >Sakti here, as portrayed by two of my very favorite Mighty Minds of >all >time? Or what? This dialog is priceless! Is this a pre-planned, >scripted >'conversation', a veritable 'nondual vaudeville act', or is it >actually a >spontaneous occurance? If this gets any 'better', I may have to wear >'Depends' as I read my mail! Bwahahahaha! Unless Madhya objects, I plan to remedy my booboos and immortalize this on the website Samuel maintains for my words. Afterwards we will collaborate energetically on a new endeavor, The Burns & Allen Memorial Ashram. We'll flip a non-dual coin to decide who gets to be Gracie. Much love -- Bruce > >> Wed, 9 Jun 1999 23:14:31 -0400 >> Bruce Morgen <editor >> Re: tidbits... > >> On Wed, 09 Jun 1999 19:54:33 -0700 "Madhya Nandi" ><madhya writes: >> >"Madhya Nandi" <madhya > >> >>Bruce Morgen <editor > [matinee at Minsky's snipped] http://www.users.uniserve.com/~samuel/brucemrg.htm http://www.users.uniserve.com/~samuel/brucsong.htm m(_ _)m _ _________________ Get the Internet just the way you want it. Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month! Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj. __________________________ ___ __________________________ ___ Message: 20 Thu, 10 Jun 1999 13:12:29 -0400 "Harsha (Dr. Harsh K. Luthar)" <hluthar Re: [NondualitySalon] Deconstructing the Mountain. umbada (Jerry M. Katz) 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 Mountain. First there is a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is. 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? __________________________ ___ __________________________ ___ Message: 21 Thu, 10 Jun 1999 10:53:24 -0700 "Madhya Nandi" <madhya FW: [NondualitySalon] Enlightenment is a Unicorn Barbeque ---------- "Harsha (Dr. Harsh K. Luthar)" <hluthar <NondualitySalon >, < > Re: [NondualitySalon] Enlightenment is a Unicorn Barbeque Thu, Jun 10, 1999, 8:13 AM 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. --Greg Harsha: I like this Greg. Experience appears in the light of the Self and disappears in the Self. Now, Harshaji-- you've added something to Greg's presentation that he, possibly for good reason, chose not to say! Greg simply says, All is Light! NOT "appearing in the light of the Self and disappearing ...." Respectfully, my friend, you have made what is in my view, at least, an unwarranted addition to Greg's excellent presentation. Madhya-Me 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 love¹s 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 everyone¹s 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 __________________________ ___ __________________________ ___ Message: 22 Thu, 10 Jun 1999 12:54:30 -0500 Dharma <fisher1 Re: Endpoint / jb Hi Amanda, >I*ve always remained sceptical to reports of OBE*s >as I suspect they are only lucid "dream states" >projecting visual content of familiar surroundings >with a very high degree of fidelity onto the dreaming >consciousness. I don't have a lot of experience with going OBE... usually when I connect with another person(s), I just identify ("He/she and I are one") and we are in the same space... space is an illusion, after all. But one day Mystress Angelique Serpent invited me to sit in on a session with a client at her home in Vancouver, B.C., Canada. So I laid my body down here in San Antonio, Texas, and went. She wrote later that she was asking some questions of the client's high self or "heart voice," and he said there was another person in the room... a woman named Dharma. I have to say that my perception of what was going on in the room was not very clear at all... I think a person could learn to do that better with practice. I realized that usually, when I connect long-distance with someone, I'm not trying to perceive what's going on in the outer world... the gross physical... I'm interested in the inner world, the inner planes. Ingo Swann, the well-known psychic, has given a great deal of time to being the subject of experiments in the laboratory, and many of them involved remote viewing. Scientists in the lab say Swann just sits in his chair, smoking his cigars, and appears perfectly normal. He says he's there in the lab and _also_ travelling to the target area to see what's there. One series of experiments involved a closed box suspended above his head. In each experiment a different object was in the box, along with a lighted candle. One day Swann told the scientists that he couldn't see anything... that there was no light in the box. When they opened it, they found the candle had fallen over and gone out. Many experiments involved viewing scenes at considerable distances... the target area could be anywhere in the world. As I recall, in each case the experimenters listed maybe 7 target areas... and they always knew of someone who could go to each target area and take a photo immediately after the experiment. At the time of the experiment the target area was chosen from the list by a computer... at random... and Swann went there and described what he saw... sometimes drew pictures (he was an artist by profession). His success rate was extremely high, and in some of the published material from the reports, you can compare for yourself his drawings with the photos of the target areas. Looking on the web for the researchers Swann worked with, I found they were Russell Targ and Hal Puthoff in the SRI (Stanford Research Institute) remote viewing project. And I found more than that! A search for "Ingo Swann" and "remote viewing" will give you lots of very interesting material. And here's what appears to be Swann's home page: http://www.biomindsuperpowers.com/Pages/Superpowers.html Love, Dharma __________________________ ___ __________________________ ___ Message: 23 Thu, 10 Jun 1999 11:06:08 -0700 "Madhya Nandi" <madhya FW: [NondualitySalon] Deconstructing the Mountain. ---------- "Harsha (Dr. Harsh K. Luthar)" <hluthar <NondualitySalon >, < > Re: [NondualitySalon] Deconstructing the Mountain. Thu, Jun 10, 1999, 10:12 AM 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? Harshaji-- Enjoy the dressing--whichever you choose, it will also be YOU! You'll be eating the salad of yourself dressed by yourself as dressing! Of course, really, you are not you, Harshaji--you are ME! Yes, it is true! I am everyone and everything! This is all M Me-Madhya __________________________ ___ __________________________ ___ Message: 24 Thu, 10 Jun 1999 11:21:40 -0700 "Madhya Nandi" <madhya hear ye, hear ye, all satsanghers... to Jelke Jelke Wispelwey <wispj Thanks Madhya. One question (which I hope is not too strident!): How come you know so much without being a jnani? :-) (Did you ever notice the similarity of 'k n o w' and 'j n a n a'?) Jelke. Oh, Jelke--- haven't you heard? I'm... I'm... JNANA-CHALLENGED!!!!!!! Yes, it's a truism. Tragic, but truism. I was born without an innate propensity for jnana! I think I was switched at birth! No, It's My Parent's Fault!! They had lousy genes! After all, they were both Bhaktaholics! I was born with Toxic Ajnana Syndrome! ((Do I Get A Handicapped Sticker For T.A.S.?)) Madhya ------ Campaign 2000 is here! Discuss your thoughts; get informed at ONElist. See our homepage. __________________________ ___ __________________________ ___ Message: 25 Thu, 10 Jun 1999 14:32:38 -0400 "Harsha (Dr. Harsh K. Luthar)" <hluthar Re: FW: [NondualitySalon] Deconstructing the Mountain. 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? Harshaji-- Enjoy the dressing--whichever you choose, it will also be YOU! You'll be eating the salad of yourself dressed by yourself as dressing! Madhya Harsha: Thank you Madhyaji. That is a point of view. I do not hold on to any point of views, except the ones that I hold on to. To truly enjoy a Salad in its original essence, it should be eaten as it is. Adding the dressing changes the taste. The taste is not less enjoyable but it is different. So I often ponder; which dressing? Which taste? Too many layers of dressing can be confusing so the taste of the original food is not recognized. To See the Self, perhaps one has to become interested in undressing. All the different paths are only about undressing. Undressing so that the Essential Naked Being is Recognized as the Supreme Clarity It Self. How one undresses is left to one's own preferences. __________________________ ___ __________________________ ___ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 27, 1999 Report Share Posted June 27, 1999 I have been so busy lately that I'm again not having time to read my email.. So I need to Un at this time.. However I will be back when things get quieter and I have more time. Thanks Harsha for a great list.. Hugs, -- flute http://www.create.org/healingarts/reiki.htm http://www.create.org/bbs - For Updates on REIKI HB 367 "The same stream of life that runs through my veins night and day runs through the world and dances in rhythmic measures." R. Tagore Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 28, 1999 Report Share Posted June 28, 1999 Thanks Flute for your presence. It is always appreciated. Come back when you can and you will be embraced as always. Harsha Carolyn Maloney [flute] Sunday, June 27, 1999 12:04 PM Re: Un Carolyn Maloney <flute I have been so busy lately that I'm again not having time to read my email.. So I need to Un at this time.. However I will be back when things get quieter and I have more time. Thanks Harsha for a great list.. Hugs, -- flute http://www.create.org/healingarts/reiki.htm http://www.create.org/bbs - For Updates on REIKI HB 367 "The same stream of life that runs through my veins night and day runs through the world and dances in rhythmic measures." R. Tagore --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ---------------------------- How has ONElist changed your life? Share your story with us at ------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.