Guest guest Posted November 11, 1999 Report Share Posted November 11, 1999 Dear Dharma, That was me that posted about Meister Eckhart's death, not Jan. You seem to have confused me with Jan more than once, but no harm done. After all, what's in a letter of the alphabet? you wrote: >Dharma <fisher1 > >Hi Dan, > >>snip< >>methodology has its uses, but that its uses can never include producing the >>simple uniqueness of a moment, the creative freedom of all that is, or the >>undivided nature of reality. So, from my perspective, the "All" that we >>generally term "spiritual" isn't dependent in any way on methodology of any >>kind. > >No, of course not. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't use _any_ >method. Dan: You say of course not, as if this is a simple thing that once covered, can be left to go onto other things. From my perspective, it's not like that. There's no "of course" and let's move on. Seeing it, is being it, and is a door opening to omnipresence and omniversality. One may or may not be involved in a method toward some kind of goal, yet the One arises alone, and not toward a goal, only toward its own nature. >>Essentially, >>if I want a method, it is so I can imitate someone else. I think that this >>someone else has gotten somewhere where I should be, or could be, or would >>be better off being (as compared with where and who I am). So a method >>gives me a technique to replicate that person's experience or even "way of >>being." > >Dharma: >By this criterion, we shouldn't teach people anything at all... Dan: You've reached a conclusion that has nothing to do with what I'm saying. By my criterion, we can use methods when we want to imitate another. We may very well want to imitate another's driving ability, or their way of breathing, or any number of things. The One, from my perspective, is not Itself by any criterion of imitation. One, without a second, by nature is inimitable. Here is where methodology has reached its limit. >Dharma: driving a >car, doing math, etc., etc... because it's only imitation. Let them do >their own thing! ) Dan: I think I've explained this above. I can only say things as clearly as I'm able, but I can't control you're interpretation of these words. Please read carefully, as I've never said anything about how everyone "should do their own thing" and nothing should be taught about anything! This matter has a lot to do with understanding the appropriate use of memory, as memory is involved in learning from methodology, and yet memory can never store the being of One. > >Dharma: >But of course, we are human very much _because_ we can remember what we >have done and pass on that experience to others... If I want to learn >something, I don't try to invent the whole field myself... I start by >looking to see what's already been done and what look like the best sources >and methods for doing/learning it. Dan: My perspective is the we feel free to teach what we have to teach, and feel free to learn what there is to learn. There are many fields that require learning. Then, there is the Field of Unknowing/Knowing. That Field is not a matter of getting it from "elsewhere" or "outside" of oneself. Nonetheless, if a teacher/student relationship arises within this Field, so it is! I am in no way suggesting any restriction on what arises from "what is" (as if any individual could do so!) > >Dharma: >When I teach meditation, I just teach people how to put the lower bodies to >sleep and stay fully conscious. But I don't determine what's going to >happen to them then... what they're going to discover, what visions they >may see on the inner planes, what music they may hear. I can offer a >couple of suggestions after they have much experience and are adept at >going inside and moving about among the various planes/states of >consciousness... but while they're getting that experience, they can be >learning anything, meditating on anything. I just teach a technique for >accessing the inner planes. Dan: Thanks for sharing what you teach. From my perspective, the One is unteachable Reality. The fact that you teach doesn't add or subtract from One in any way. By all means, if you feel a call to teach, teach... If you teach compassionately, then all is well... >Dharma: >After I had active K., I studied for a while with a young teacher, because >he had some techniques I wanted to learn. Physically active, overt >Kundalini was new to me, and I saw some specific techniques for using it >and developing it... for "putting my resources on line," as he said. I >didn't want to become what he was... or have the experiences he has had... >and today I am in disagreement with him on many things... but immensely >grateful for the techniques. Dan: Thank you for sharing your experience with your teacher. A teacher can provide techniques. The tecniques are means to ends. The One is not a means to an end, and might be said to be simultaneously "Alpha and Omega" rather than something resulting from a technique. A teacher/student relationship can be useful, as can a brother/sister relationship, mother/daughter, friend/friend, etc. All relationships arise in One. I have done my best to clarify how I see this. --- Peace --- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 11, 1999 Report Share Posted November 11, 1999 HI Dan, >That was me that posted about Meister Eckhart's death, not Jan. You seem >to have confused me with Jan more than once, but no harm done. After >all, what's in a letter of the alphabet? I most humbly and deeply beg your pardon for my inexcusable oversight. I must have noticed Jan's name, which was on the post just above yours. Mea culpa, mea culpa... >>>methodology has its uses, but that its uses can never include producing the >>>simple uniqueness of a moment, the creative freedom of all that is, or the >>>undivided nature of reality. So, from my perspective, the "All" that we >>>generally term "spiritual" isn't dependent in any way on methodology of any >>>kind. >> >>No, of course not. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't use _any_ >>method. > >Dan: You say of course not, as if this is a simple thing that once covered, >can be left to go onto other things. From my perspective, it's not like >that. There's no "of course" and let's move on. You said "the 'All'... isn't dependent in any way on metholodology..." I said, "No, of course not," because the All isn't _dependent_ on anything whatsoever. How could it be? >Seeing it, is being it, >and is a door opening to omnipresence and omniversality. One may or may not >be involved in a method toward some kind of goal, yet the One arises alone, >and not toward a goal, only toward its own nature. The One does not arise... it is All. It cannot go "toward" anything... there is nothing else. >>>Essentially, >>>if I want a method, it is so I can imitate someone else. I think that this >>>someone else has gotten somewhere where I should be, or could be, or would >>>be better off being (as compared with where and who I am). So a method >>>gives me a technique to replicate that person's experience or even "way of >>>being." >> >>Dharma: >>By this criterion, we shouldn't teach people anything at all... > >Dan: You've reached a conclusion that has nothing to do with what I'm saying. >By my criterion, we can use methods when we want to imitate another. We may >very well want to imitate another's driving ability, or their way of >breathing, or any number of things. The One, from my perspective, is not >Itself by any criterion of imitation. One, without a second, by nature is >inimitable. Here is where methodology has reached its limit. It doesn't follow. The One is not something you may wish to learn, by imitation or otherwise. >>Dharma: driving a >>car, doing math, etc., etc... because it's only imitation. Let them do >>their own thing! ) > >Dan: I think I've explained this above. I can only say things as clearly as >I'm able, but I can't control you're interpretation of these words. Please >read carefully, as I've never said anything about how everyone "should do >their own thing" No, I said that. I was joking about the extreme difficulty of learning without depending on anyone else's prior experience. >and nothing should be taught about anything! This matter >has a lot to do with understanding the appropriate use of memory, as memory >is involved in learning from methodology, and yet memory can never store >the being of One. The One cannot be taught... or learned. >>Dharma: >>When I teach meditation, I just teach people how to put the lower bodies to >>sleep and stay fully conscious. But I don't determine what's going to >>happen to them then... what they're going to discover, what visions they >>may see on the inner planes, what music they may hear. I can offer a >>couple of suggestions after they have much experience and are adept at >>going inside and moving about among the various planes/states of >>consciousness... but while they're getting that experience, they can be >>learning anything, meditating on anything. I just teach a technique for >>accessing the inner planes. > >Dan: Thanks for sharing what you teach. From my perspective, the One is >unteachable Reality. Yes. That's what I said above. >>Dharma: >>After I had active K., I studied for a while with a young teacher, because >>he had some techniques I wanted to learn. Physically active, overt >>Kundalini was new to me, and I saw some specific techniques for using it >>and developing it... for "putting my resources on line," as he said. I >>didn't want to become what he was... or have the experiences he has had... >>and today I am in disagreement with him on many things... but immensely >>grateful for the techniques. > >Dan: Thank you for sharing your experience with your teacher. A teacher >can provide techniques. The tecniques are means to ends. Exactly. And very useful. >The One is not >a means to an end, and might be said to be simultaneously "Alpha and Omega" >rather than something resulting from a technique. It does not result from technique, but that is not a useful argument for not using techniques. The One does not result at all. It IS. > A teacher/student >relationship can be useful, as can a brother/sister relationship, >mother/daughter, friend/friend, etc. All relationships arise in One. Nothing arises in One. No relationship exists in One. There is nothing in One but One. Love, Dharma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 11, 1999 Report Share Posted November 11, 1999 This is funny; I didn't notice the different letter until reading your post. Having a visual handicap, the mind synthesizes an image based on probabilities in order to compensate for the defective vision. Most of the time, the "automated guess" is right, causing to forget the handicap altogether, but this time, it was wrong. Dan and Dharma, thanks for the reminder Jan On 11/11/99 at 11:16 AM Dan Berkow, PhD wrote: >"Dan Berkow, PhD" <berkowd > >Dear Dharma, >That was me that posted about Meister Eckhart's death, not Jan. You seem >to have confused me with Jan more than once, but no harm done. After >all, what's in a letter of the alphabet? > >you wrote: >>Dharma <fisher1 >> >>Hi Dan, >> >>>snip< >>>methodology has its uses, but that its uses can never include producing the >>>simple uniqueness of a moment, the creative freedom of all that is, or the >>>undivided nature of reality. So, from my perspective, the "All" that we >>>generally term "spiritual" isn't dependent in any way on methodology of any >>>kind. >> >>No, of course not. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't use _any_ >>method. > >Dan: You say of course not, as if this is a simple thing that once covered, >can be left to go onto other things. From my perspective, it's not like >that. There's no "of course" and let's move on. Seeing it, is being it, >and is a door opening to omnipresence and omniversality. One may or may not >be involved in a method toward some kind of goal, yet the One arises alone, >and not toward a goal, only toward its own nature. > >>>Essentially, >>>if I want a method, it is so I can imitate someone else. I think that this >>>someone else has gotten somewhere where I should be, or could be, or would >>>be better off being (as compared with where and who I am). So a method >>>gives me a technique to replicate that person's experience or even "way of >>>being." >> >>Dharma: >>By this criterion, we shouldn't teach people anything at all... > >Dan: You've reached a conclusion that has nothing to do with what I'm saying. >By my criterion, we can use methods when we want to imitate another. We may >very well want to imitate another's driving ability, or their way of >breathing, or any number of things. The One, from my perspective, is not >Itself by any criterion of imitation. One, without a second, by nature is >inimitable. Here is where methodology has reached its limit. > >>Dharma: driving a >>car, doing math, etc., etc... because it's only imitation. Let them do >>their own thing! ) > >Dan: I think I've explained this above. I can only say things as clearly as >I'm able, but I can't control you're interpretation of these words. Please >read carefully, as I've never said anything about how everyone "should do >their own thing" and nothing should be taught about anything! This matter >has a lot to do with understanding the appropriate use of memory, as memory >is involved in learning from methodology, and yet memory can never store >the being of One. > >> >>Dharma: >>But of course, we are human very much _because_ we can remember what we >>have done and pass on that experience to others... If I want to learn >>something, I don't try to invent the whole field myself... I start by >>looking to see what's already been done and what look like the best sources >>and methods for doing/learning it. > >Dan: My perspective is the we feel free to teach what we have to teach, >and feel free to learn what there is to learn. There are many fields that >require learning. Then, there is the Field of Unknowing/Knowing. That >Field is not >a matter of getting it from "elsewhere" or "outside" of oneself. Nonetheless, >if a teacher/student relationship arises within this Field, so it is! I am >in no way suggesting any restriction on what arises from "what is" (as if >any individual could do so!) > >> >>Dharma: >>When I teach meditation, I just teach people how to put the lower bodies to >>sleep and stay fully conscious. But I don't determine what's going to >>happen to them then... what they're going to discover, what visions they >>may see on the inner planes, what music they may hear. I can offer a >>couple of suggestions after they have much experience and are adept at >>going inside and moving about among the various planes/states of >>consciousness... but while they're getting that experience, they can be >>learning anything, meditating on anything. I just teach a technique for >>accessing the inner planes. > >Dan: Thanks for sharing what you teach. From my perspective, the One is >unteachable Reality. The fact that you teach doesn't add or subtract from >One in any way. By all means, if you feel a call to teach, teach... If >you teach compassionately, then all is well... > >>Dharma: >>After I had active K., I studied for a while with a young teacher, because >>he had some techniques I wanted to learn. Physically active, overt >>Kundalini was new to me, and I saw some specific techniques for using it >>and developing it... for "putting my resources on line," as he said. I >>didn't want to become what he was... or have the experiences he has had... >>and today I am in disagreement with him on many things... but immensely >>grateful for the techniques. > >Dan: Thank you for sharing your experience with your teacher. A teacher >can provide techniques. The tecniques are means to ends. The One is not >a means to an end, and might be said to be simultaneously "Alpha and Omega" >rather than something resulting from a technique. A teacher/student >relationship can be useful, as can a brother/sister relationship, >mother/daughter, friend/friend, etc. All relationships arise in One. >I have done my best to clarify how I see this. >--- Peace --- Dan > >>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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 12, 1999 Report Share Posted November 12, 1999 >HI Dan, Hi Dharma - >>That was me that posted about Meister Eckhart's death, not Jan. You seem >>to have confused me with Jan more than once, but no harm done. After >>all, what's in a letter of the alphabet? > >I most humbly and deeply beg your pardon for my inexcusable oversight. I >must have noticed Jan's name, which was on the post just above yours. Mea >culpa, mea culpa... No need to beg any pardon. Just wanted you to know who posted it. >The One does not arise... it is All. It cannot go "toward" anything... >there is nothing else. Dan: We agree on this. In relative terms, the One arises in awareness of a person. The One as All doesn't arise, doesn't depart. It's "arising" is only in the realm of relativity, the realm of an individual's awareness. And, of course, we can say, there is no individual, there is only One. And we can say no words mean anything, because any word is a fragment, and One is unfragmented. And then we can say the word One is not reality either, as reality cannot be defined. Then we have no words, no speech, no One -- simply clarity. > Dharma: The One is not something you may wish to learn, > by imitation or otherwise. Dan: It seems to me, then, we're in agreement. I'm essentially saying there is no methodology to get to the One, and that's consistent with you saying the One is not learned, and is not gained through imitation or any other way. >>This matter >>has a lot to do with understanding the appropriate use of memory, as memory >>is involved in learning from methodology, and yet memory can never store >>the being of One. > >The One cannot be taught... or learned. Again, we're in agreement. Memory is involved in teaching and learning. The being of One is not a product of memory, so memory is irrelevant. Teaching and learning doesn't interfere with it and doesn't add to it. >>The One is not >>a means to an end, and might be said to be simultaneously "Alpha and Omega" >>rather than something resulting from a technique. > >It does not result from technique, but that is not a useful argument for >not using techniques. The One does not result at all. It IS. I never said there are no uses for techniques. After all, we live in a highly technological society that has produced techniques for all kinds of things. What I said is that methodology and technique won't produce awareness as One, Awareness as such - which is not an end from some means. It seems you agree essentially, at least as far as I can tell from your last post. What I'm suggesting is that it's important to understand the limits of techniques and methodologies, so you see what they can be used for and what where they're not applicable. >> A teacher/student >>relationship can be useful, as can a brother/sister relationship, >>mother/daughter, friend/friend, etc. All relationships arise in One. > >Nothing arises in One. No relationship exists in One. There is nothing in >One but One. I agree with this, too. Because there is nothing in One but One, all that we consider as relationships arise in One. Would they arise outside of One? You and I speak, we relate. Is that occurring outside of One? It's precisely because One is One is One that relationship involves everything with everything else simultaneously, and precisely because One is One is One that methodology reaches a limit. As words are a methodology, they also reach a limit. That limit is reached, for example, when it is seen that One is not fully or accurately described by the word or concept "One". --- Peace --- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 12, 1999 Report Share Posted November 12, 1999 Hi Dan, >>The One does not arise... it is All. It cannot go "toward" anything... >>there is nothing else. > >Dan: We agree on this. In relative terms, the One arises in awareness of >a person. The One as All doesn't arise, doesn't depart. It's "arising" is >only in the realm of relativity, the realm of an individual's awareness. It seems to me that if it seems to be arising in awareness in the relative world, that means that the person is getting closer... getting more sense of the existence of the _mysterium tremendum_ and its nearness... But when he actually goes into the All, he will not be in the relative world. That's why none of our terms for talking in the relative world are very good for talking about THAT. >And, of course, we can say, there is no individual, there is only One. And >we can say no words mean anything, because any word is a fragment, and One >is unfragmented. And then we can say the word One is not reality either, as >reality cannot be defined. Then we have no words, no speech, no One -- simply >clarity. Outside the All, it's all symbol and metaphor. So we choose our metaphors... or we are silent. >> Dharma: The One is not something you may wish to learn, >> by imitation or otherwise. > >Dan: It seems to me, then, we're in agreement. I'm essentially saying >there is no methodology to get to the One, and that's consistent with you >saying the One is not learned, and is not gained through imitation or any >other way. Here's another metaphor: it's like wanting to communicate with China or India by radio, but you have to build your own ham radio first. But in this case the instrument we need is not built of any external parts. We are our own instruments. We use the methods and techniques to build our energies and bodies into the kind of instrument we need. Without a radio, the air can be full of radio waves and we never know it. Without a refined and rebuilt instrument, the glory flashes all around us, the All is nearer than near, but we won't know it. >>> A teacher/student >>>relationship can be useful, as can a brother/sister relationship, >>>mother/daughter, friend/friend, etc. All relationships arise in One. >> >>Nothing arises in One. No relationship exists in One. There is nothing in >>One but One. > >I agree with this, too. Because there is nothing in One but One, all that >we consider as relationships arise in One. Would they arise outside of One? >You and I speak, we relate. Is that occurring outside of One? Metaphor... ) Relationships take place in the relative world. Our experience of the relative world is radically different from the experience in/as the All. "Outside" is metaphor... but useful. Yes, we are relating in the relative world and not in the All. You can say, but the All includes everything, and so we must be relating in the All. But that is to confuse two very different kinds of experience. We are relating in the relative world... if we were in the All, we would not be relating. I/We would be One. All. Love, Dharma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 12, 1999 Report Share Posted November 12, 1999 Hi Dharma, >>>The One does not arise... it is All. It cannot go "toward" anything... >>>there is nothing else. >> >>Dan: We agree on this. In relative terms, the One arises in awareness of >>a person. The One as All doesn't arise, doesn't depart. It's "arising" is >>only in the realm of relativity, the realm of an individual's awareness. > >It seems to me that if it seems to be arising in awareness in the relative >world, that means that the person is getting closer... getting more sense >of the existence of the _mysterium tremendum_ and its nearness... But when >he actually goes into the All, he will not be in the relative world. >That's why none of our terms for talking in the relative world are very >good for talking about THAT. D: Our words can't speak the name of the Unspeakable. And yet, THAT is speaking right now, right here. >>And, of course, we can say, there is no individual, there is only One. And >>we can say no words mean anything, because any word is a fragment, and One >>is unfragmented. And then we can say the word One is not reality either, as >>reality cannot be defined. Then we have no words, no speech, no One -- simply >>clarity. > >Outside the All, it's all symbol and metaphor. So we choose our >metaphors... or we are silent. We speak as we will, or we're silent. :-) >>> Dharma: The One is not something you may wish to learn, >>> by imitation or otherwise. >> >>Dan: It seems to me, then, we're in agreement. I'm essentially saying >>there is no methodology to get to the One, and that's consistent with you >>saying the One is not learned, and is not gained through imitation or any >>other way. > >Here's another metaphor: it's like wanting to communicate with China or >India by radio, but you have to build your own ham radio first. But in >this case the instrument we need is not built of any external parts. We >are our own instruments. We use the methods and techniques to build our >energies and bodies into the kind of instrument we need. > >Without a radio, the air can be full of radio waves and we never know it. >Without a refined and rebuilt instrument, the glory flashes all around us, >the All is nearer than near, but we won't know it. My metaphor is that we are fish looking for water. >>>> A teacher/student >>>>relationship can be useful, as can a brother/sister relationship, >>>>mother/daughter, friend/friend, etc. All relationships arise in One. >>> >>>Nothing arises in One. No relationship exists in One. There is nothing in >>>One but One. >> >>I agree with this, too. Because there is nothing in One but One, all that >>we consider as relationships arise in One. Would they arise outside of One? >>You and I speak, we relate. Is that occurring outside of One? > >Metaphor... ) Relationships take place in the relative world. Our >experience of the relative world is radically different from the experience >in/as the All. "Outside" is metaphor... but useful. Yes, we are relating >in the relative world and not in the All. You can say, but the All >includes everything, and so we must be relating in the All. But that is to >confuse two very different kinds of experience. We are relating in the >relative world... if we were in the All, we would not be relating. I/We >would be One. All. D: I see it this way: the relative is not something I conceptualize as separate from the absolute. Each are aspects of the other. Thanks for sharing metaphors with me, Dan 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.