what "Dan" says about silence

February 18, 2000

At 03:40 PM 2/18/00 -0500, you wrote:

>"Harsha (Dr. Harsh K. Luthar)" <hluthar

>

>Roger Isaacs wrote:

>

>> Dan says "One can't still the mind sufficiently"

>>

>> I think we can agree that the mind can be stilled. Everyone has experienced

>> a relatively stiller mind at various times? But how to accomplish this is

>> THE question.

D: Well, that's not exactly what Dan says. It's an interpretation

of what Dan said. And who is Dan? Dan is a name hung on a body.

The body is ever-changing as energy constantly moves through

its space. It's merely an apparent pattern, and the pattern, observed

closely, is never static, constantly novel. According to "Dan"

what you call THE question, is not "Dan's" THE question at all.

Dan's THE question is "what is the stillness that is before mind

and body, which doesn't depend on any intention, isn't an achievement,

and has nothing to do with comparison of one state with another?"

It's not that "one can't still the mind sufficiently" according

to this present Dan (the Dan which is the current configuration of

ever-changing patterning here). There is no separate one to still

a separate mind. The silence of the mind that has been stilled

by a thought-entity is a conditional silence. It depends on

suppression and depends on achieving a conceptual goal of

a "silent mind". This conceptual goal is formed by comparison.

There is a totally different kind of silence, Roger. It's not

a silence formed by an intentional attempt to quiet the mind.

It's the silence that pre-exists any concept, any formation of

a mind. That silence is before the beginning, is present,

and will be after the end. That silence is All. The stillness

of that all is nothing like the silence of the mind that has

been quieted. This is what "Dan" meant to say. Hope that

"Roger" hears "Dan". The silence of the quieted mind is conditional

and temporary and isn't a stepping stone to Original Silence.

Original Silence simply is, without any observing entity.

Love,

Dan

February 19, 2000

Dear Dan,

You are either just a great intellect enjoying combatting the finer

intellectual arguments of the 'non-dual' perspective which such a mind can

integrate, refine and reproduce, very cleverly, or

you are talking from the disposition of non-dual reality.

May i please ask you this: Without your usual clever arguments about words

and so on, which of the two are you?

I really respect what you write. You are VERY clear in the way you describe

things. But because I sense that you are not describing the non-dualistic

condition from that 'perspective' (as your own living truth) but rather

from an intellectual perspective, I would appreciate your truthfulness in

this matter.

Or is this an unfair question?

Love and appreciation,

Moller.

Message-----

Dan Berkow, PhD <berkowd

< >

19 February 2000 02:35

Re: what "Dan" says about silence

>"Dan Berkow, PhD" <berkowd

>

>At 03:40 PM 2/18/00 -0500, you wrote:

>>"Harsha (Dr. Harsh K. Luthar)" <hluthar

>>

>>Roger Isaacs wrote:

>>

>>> Dan says "One can't still the mind sufficiently"

>>>

>>> I think we can agree that the mind can be stilled. Everyone has

experienced

>>> a relatively stiller mind at various times? But how to accomplish this

is

>>> THE question.

>

>D: Well, that's not exactly what Dan says. It's an interpretation

> of what Dan said. And who is Dan? Dan is a name hung on a body.

> The body is ever-changing as energy constantly moves through

> its space. It's merely an apparent pattern, and the pattern, observed

> closely, is never static, constantly novel. According to "Dan"

> what you call THE question, is not "Dan's" THE question at all.

> Dan's THE question is "what is the stillness that is before mind

> and body, which doesn't depend on any intention, isn't an achievement,

> and has nothing to do with comparison of one state with another?"

>

> It's not that "one can't still the mind sufficiently" according

> to this present Dan (the Dan which is the current configuration of

> ever-changing patterning here). There is no separate one to still

> a separate mind. The silence of the mind that has been stilled

> by a thought-entity is a conditional silence. It depends on

> suppression and depends on achieving a conceptual goal of

> a "silent mind". This conceptual goal is formed by comparison.

> There is a totally different kind of silence, Roger. It's not

> a silence formed by an intentional attempt to quiet the mind.

> It's the silence that pre-exists any concept, any formation of

> a mind. That silence is before the beginning, is present,

> and will be after the end. That silence is All. The stillness

> of that all is nothing like the silence of the mind that has

> been quieted. This is what "Dan" meant to say. Hope that

> "Roger" hears "Dan". The silence of the quieted mind is conditional

> and temporary and isn't a stepping stone to Original Silence.

> Original Silence simply is, without any observing entity.

>

> Love,

> Dan

>

>--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------

>

>Get what you deserve with NextCard Visa. Rates as low as 2.9 percent

>Intro or 9.9 percent Fixed APR, online balance transfers, Rewards

>Points, no hidden fees, and much more. Get NextCard today and get the

>credit you deserve. Apply now. Get your NextCard Visa at

><a href=" http://clickme./ad/NextcardCreative1 ">Click Here</a>

>

>------

>

>//

>

>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.

>

>To from this list, go to the ONElist web site, at

> www., and select the User Center link from

the menu bar

> on the left. This menu will also let you change your

subscription

> between digest and normal mode.

>

February 19, 2000

Dan said:

.. The silence of the mind that has been stilled

> by a thought-entity is a conditional silence. It depends on

> suppression and depends on achieving a conceptual goal of

> a "silent mind". This conceptual goal is formed by comparison.

> There is a totally different kind of silence, Roger. It's not

> a silence formed by an intentional attempt to quiet the mind.

> It's the silence that pre-exists any concept, any formation of

> a mind. That silence is before the beginning, is present,

> and will be after the end. That silence is All. The stillness

> of that all is nothing like the silence of the mind that has

> been quieted. This is what "Dan" meant to say. Hope that

> "Roger" hears "Dan". The silence of the quieted mind is conditional

> and temporary and isn't a stepping stone to Original Silence.

> Original Silence simply is, without any observing entity.

>

Dear Dan,

Perhaps you are capable of creating a concept of a silent mind and then

experience such a concept as silence. It seems to me that this is one of

the few things thought cannot do. It cannot create an image of silence ie,

an image of where it is not -because clearly such an image would be part of

thought and therefore part of the noise.

You somehow assume that the silence of thought brought about through some or

other practice along the way is of necessity just another thought creation.

My experience is different.

I agree with you that the relative silence of thought is conditional, or

still not complete silence of mind . But this is not because it is created

by thought, but rather because it is still held in place (however subtly) by

will and attention. True, the mind as thought can become very quiet but in

such silence the subjective quality which is the basis of duality has not

been left behind. Such silence manifests only a relatively quiet mind, and

it is relative because even the slightest subjective sense or presence is

still part of the noise. This to my experience this is how far mind as

thought can go along the path of its own silence.

You then speak of an Original Silence, prior to all manifestation. Perhaps

you have experience of such silence. Perhaps you can relate what takes

place between the relative silence of thought, and the manifestation of this

Primordial Silence. What is your ACTUAL experience? I am very interested

in this question.

And why would you say the relative silence of thought is in no way 'a

stepping stone to Original Silence'?

Your valuable comments will be much appreciated.

Love

Moller