Guest guest Posted March 3, 2000 Report Share Posted March 3, 2000 Moller: I do not regard communications as 'unworthy'. May I indulge and say that I certainly DO deem certain FORMS of communication more or less worthwhile. Tg: Indulge away. It seems because of what I don't know right now, it is difficult for me to understand and know what is more or less valuable or worthwhile. One of my favorite books these days used to be a book I thought was worthless. Like you, I like to say that all things are worthwhile and valuable... but to what extent, we really don't know. These days, I go off which is the most helpful to me in the moment. Moller: So I will try to communicate some of these to you and we may take it from there. May I just say that it is out of respect for the clear genuineness of your enquiry that I am writing back. This writing business is very difficult and can be equally confusing. So please approach this from your heart. Tg: My heart is open to you, and I'll do my best for what I know. Thank you for responding... it is much appreciated. Moller: Even if I will make statements, they are made in the full knowledge that they may be confused, wrong or right. This is an enquiry, not my ultimate and final position on the matter. May the gods prevent me from ever reaching such a point of stagnancy. Tg: Ditto. Moller: I see man (person, woman etc) as the measure of all things. High or low, Nirvana or Samsara, states of bliss, kundalini, Self etc, all of these, in order to be real for us as a psycho-physical manifestation, must manifest through and as this manifestation. Only man can experience the things we are talking about on this plane. So this brings the whole thing down to a kind of humanistic 'spirituality'. Nothing outside of man will enlighten him, and nothing outside of man can hold him in bondage. It is already all here. No human enlightenment will be possible outside of the body and no human suffering is possible outside the body. And each one of us on this list stands at some point of relative or complete awakening in terms of the things we discuss. Some are simply less awakened than others. Tg: Are you certain of this? I ask this not from a point of arrogance, but seeing my own certainty in that statement too. Wouldn't that be just a perception on our part? I am also including perceptions of ourselves, that we are less, or more, awakened than others. I am not clear on this point. I can agree that others can be more knowledgeable of certain things. I'm wondering if there is a difference between knowledgeable and awakened. I think we have to look at the *facts* on what awakened means. I just don't know what the facts are quite yet. LOL Let's keep talking. Moller: Now if my suggestion that man is indeed the measure of all things, is correct, then it would be worthwhile for us to discuss around the possible human functions, or human doings, which are preventing the realisation of that which is the wholeness of our being. We will have to consider that we may be actively involved in every moment of dualistic perception,( even if we are generally unaware of our participation in such processes active in us) which create the dualistic notion. Tg: I'm just not sure if 'man is the measure of all things' - to me, that would be a perception, based on our thoughts. I would say a more accurate perception would be that our 'thoughts of man are a measure of all things within our own mind based on our perceptions'. I could be wrong too on this point and an open to change. Moller: So, to my understanding, our unenlightenment is something we Do, which gives us the sense that it is something we ARE. The I-sense for instance, may be an ongoing process, rather than a thing. And if we see ourselves and our investigation into both fragmentation and wholeness as an investigation into human processes, we will be dealing directly with that which supports the dualistic world view. Tg: Agreed. I think we have to take into consideration that 'because' we see ourself, and others, as both fragmented and whole (depending on a good or bad hair day in my case), that the responsibility lies within each of us to do, or not do, whatever is necessary to having our own perceptions corrected. Moller: You may ask what I have in mind as processes. My own investigation along these lines have shown me that I have to become very sensitive to activities such as the random, habitual and unconscious movement and projection of thought, the habitual association of attention with thought (which is the source of identification), the role of will in meditation (with its result in concentration), emotions, sense perception (or for that matter the entire issue of 'perception' as such) , conditioning, intelligence, consciousness, awareness and so on. It seems reasonable to suggest that if we were to investigate these functions with the clarity of insight and tentativity, we will find in their interaction all the factors of bondage. It may very well be that it is due to their unconscious activities that the individual is left with a sense of dualism. Tg: Right. The only dualism one is seeing is but our own. There is nothing outside of us. Is this what you are talking about, or are we talking about someone else's sense of dualism? Moller: But such investigation cannot take place if we are certain about anything. Certainty is the death of enquiry and growth, because it can only exist, (this side of insightful clarity), in but one aspect of the above mentioned functions - ie thought. And thought accounts for too a fragmented understanding to be able to present (or be) the whole. Unfortunately I see no other way out of the mess we are doing to ourselves. Perhaps you may have a better approach, or could suggest something categorically different which will not have its base or bias in one or two of the above functions at the exclusion of the others. Tg: As I began my path, I wanted to wipe away all the tears of the world -- I wanted everyone to be happy! I was certain many were not, because I wasn't! Eventually, I realized they were but my own tears from my screwed up perception of what's happening 'out there'. Now, I still want the same -- I still want everyone to be happy. I still want me to be happy. My approach is different now though. I realize I cannot measure another's happiness or unhappiness, wholeness or fragmentation -- I can only measure my own, via my thoughts about another. If I see someone as anything other than at whole and complete, where does the thought begin? Does it begin with my own incompletion being projected out to you, my own thoughts based on what I *see*? Granted, it is difficult to go beyond perception, and I don't believe that is called for. At least that has been my experience. I do believe we have to be willing to go beyond appearances, beyond our own thoughts and perceptions, and communication to me, seems to be the better way for myself. We can know, and with certainty, what another (and ourself) is truly. We are innocent. We are safe. We are whole and complete. We are light. We are love. These things I am certain of, and I hold dear to my own heart. The only thing I need to remind myself of is that the suffering in the world is but my own. It is my own thoughts, not another's, that need to be healed in order for me to truly see. It is through the body that we can communicate to another of their own innocence and safety, their wholeness, their light. In doing this, do we see our own completion, thereby transcending our own conditioned fragmented thoughts. In this case, certainty IS required, and is just another path. Thanks Moller for your responses. Please feel free to communicate freely with me as I see this 'thought processing' is a mutual concern for both. Much Love, xxxtg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 5, 2000 Report Share Posted March 5, 2000 Dear leteegee, re: certainty etc. You said: >Tg: Are you certain of this? I ask this not from a point of arrogance, but >seeing my own certainty in that statement too. Wouldn't that be just a >perception on our part? I am also including perceptions of ourselves, that >we are less, or more, awakened than others. I am not clear on this point. >I can agree that others can be more knowledgeable of certain things. I'm >wondering if there is a difference between knowledgeable and awakened. ~~ It would probably be fair to say that there are people in this world who's lives as living reality to themselves are more reflective of the freedom inherent in the non-dual condition of being than others. For instance, realist as I am, I have to admit that if I read the personal first hand accounts of the experiences of some of the great teachers of mankind, that they are very ofetn taliking of living in a sense of being which is clearly not my functional reality yet. I say 'yet', because the only faith I have is that this thing is possible for all of us. So, looking at myself and others around me, I think one can say with reasonable certainty that they, like myself, are still somewhere in the midst of Samsara, but at different levels of integration into the wholeness of life. That is why I believe this Satsangh could be so valuable to us. If we can bring our our actual experiences to one another, we may soon fins out where we stand and possible learn fromone another, instead of keep on repeating the mantra: We are already whole. You ask about the difference between 'knowledgeable and being awakened'. This is a very tricky question. But if I have to venture a short answer, I would say that it depends how you arrived at your knowledge. One could either arrive at knowledge through getting it from an outside source like books, hearing someone talk etc, or one could gain it from seeing into the complexity of one's own being. Such knowledge is then based on one's actual experience and becomes initially a DESCRIPTION of what such an experience was. Memory can recall at a later stage some of the deatail and this could then be described as knowledge, but for the person who had the experience, such knowledge is clearly seen as knowledge ABOUT the real thing and not the real thing itself. The clarity and ability to see this difference seems to me to be a revelation of being or becoming awakened to the dream of knowledge, conditioning . I guess there is so much more one could have said about your profound question. You also said: <>Tg: I'm just not sure if 'man is the measure of all things' - to me, that >would be a perception, based on our thoughts. I would say a more accurate >perception would be that our 'thoughts of man are a measure of all things >within our own mind based on our perceptions'. I could be wrong too on this >point and an open to change. ~~ Yes I think I have not made myself clear. I was trying to say that nothing any human being can experience can happen outside of his/her humanity. From the highest to the lowest, enlightened or not, no enlightened person has ever walked this earth without first being human. Everything we talk about, even the ability to talk, all is possible because we are human. This is clearly observable and I am merely trying to point to this for the purpose of our enquiry. No state of bliss, unity consciousness, non-duality etc has any meaning or can even manifest to a human body, outside of the human context. No suffering has ever existed for a human being without being human. So I was trying to say that in view of this, we may have to become sensitive what it is in us as humans that hold us from the already existing truth of non-duality to which the great teachers point. I am not sure if I have made this any clearer than in my first attempt. Thanks for your commitment to this enquiry. It is much appreciated. In love, Moller leteegee <leteegee < > 03 March 2000 07:41 Certainty, Worthiness & Stuff (Moller/Tg) >leteegee > > >Moller: I do not regard communications as 'unworthy'. May I indulge and >sar >worthwhile. One of my favorite books these days used to be a book I thought >was worthless. Like you, I like to say that all things are worthwhile and >valuable... but to what extent, we really don't know. These days, I go off >which is the most helpful to me in the moment. > >Moller: So I will try to communicate some of these to you and we may take it >from >there. May I just say that it is out of respect for the clear genuineness >of your enquiry that I am writing back. This writing business is very >difficult and can be equally confusing. So please approach this from your >heart. > >Tg: My heart is open to you, and I'll do my best for what I know. Thank you >for responding... it is much appreciated. > >Moller: Even if I will make statements, they are made in the full knowledge >that they may be confused, wrong or right. This is an enquiry, not my >ultimate and final position on the matter. May the gods prevent me from >ever reaching such a point of stagnancy. > >Tg: Ditto. > >Moller: >I see man (person, woman etc) as the measure of all things. High or low, >Nirvana or Samsara, states of bliss, kundalini, Self etc, all of these, in >order to be real for us as a psycho-physical manifestation, must manifest >through and as this manifestation. Only man can experience the things we >are talking about on this plane. > >So this brings the whole thing down to a kind of humanistic 'spirituality'. >Nothing outside of man will enlighten him, and nothing outside of man can >hold him in bondage. It is already all here. No human enlightenment will >be possible outside of the body and no human suffering is possible outside >the body. And each one of us on this list stands at some point of relative >or complete awakening in terms of the things we discuss. Some are simply >less awakened than others. > >Tg: Are you certain of this? I ask this not from a point of arrogance, but >seeing my own certainty in that statement too. Wouldn't that be just a >perception on our part? I am also including perceptions of ourselves, that >we are less, or more, awakened than others. I am not clear on this point. >I can agree that others can be more knowledgeable of certain things. I'm >wondering if there is a difference between knowledgeable and awakened. > >I think we have to look at the *facts* on what awakened means. I just don't >know what the facts are quite yet. LOL Let's keep talking. > >Moller: Now if my suggestion that man is indeed the measure of all things, >is >correct, then it would be worthwhile for us to discuss around the possible >human functions, or human doings, which are preventing the realisation of >that which is the wholeness of our being. We will have to consider that we >may be actively involved in every moment of dualistic perception,( even if >we are generally unaware of our participation in such processes active in >us) which create the dualistic notion. > >Tg: I'm just not sure if 'man is the measure of all things' - to me, that >would be a perception, based on our thoughts. I would say a more accurate >perception would be that our 'thoughts of man are a measure of all things >within our own mind based on our perceptions'. I could be wrong too on this >point and an open to change. > >Moller: So, to my understanding, our unenlightenment is something we Do, >which gives us the sense that it is something we ARE. The I-sense for >instance, may be >an ongoing process, rather than a thing. And if we see ourselves and our >investigation into both fragmentation and wholeness as an investigation into >human processes, we will be dealing directly with that which supports the >dualistic world view. > >Tg: Agreed. I think we have to take into consideration that 'because' we >see ourself, and others, as both fragmented and whole (depending on a good or >bad hair day in my case), that the responsibility lies within each of us to >do, or not do, whatever is necessary to having our own perceptions corrected. > >Moller: You may ask what I have in mind as processes. My own investigation >along these lines have shown me that I have to become very sensitive to >activities such as the random, habitual and unconscious movement and >projection of thought, the habitual association of attention with thought >(which is the source of identification), the role of will in meditation >(with its result in concentration), emotions, sense perception (or for that >matter the entire issue of 'perception' as such) , conditioning, >intelligence, consciousness, awareness and so on. > >It seems reasonable to suggest that if we were to investigate these >functions with the clarity of insight and tentativity, we will find in their >interaction all the factors of bondage. It may very well be that it is due >to their unconscious activities that the individual is left with a sense of >dualism. > >Tg: Right. The only dualism one is seeing is but our own. There is >nothing outside of us. Is this what you are talking about, or are we talking >about someone else's sense of dualism? > >Moller: But such investigation cannot take place if we are certain about >anything. >Certainty is the death of enquiry and growth, because it can only exist, >(this side of insightful clarity), in but one aspect of the above mentioned >functions - ie thought. And thought accounts for too a fragmented >understanding to be able to present (or be) the whole. > >Unfortunately I see no other way out of the mess we are doing to ourselves. > >Perhaps you may have a better approach, or could suggest something >categorically different which will not have its base or bias in one or two >of the above functions at the exclusion of the others. > >Tg: As I began my path, I wanted to wipe away all the tears of the world -- >I wanted everyone to be happy! I was certain many were not, because I >wasn't! Eventually, I realized they were but my own tears from my screwed up >perception of what's happening 'out there'. Now, I still want the same -- I >still want everyone to be happy. I still want me to be happy. My approach >is different now though. I realize I cannot measure another's happiness or >unhappiness, wholeness or fragmentation -- I can only measure my own, via my >thoughts about another. If I see someone as anything other than at whole >and complete, where does the thought begin? Does it begin with my own >incompletion being projected out to you, my own thoughts based on what I >*see*? > >Granted, it is difficult to go beyond perception, and I don't believe that is >called for. At least that has been my experience. I do believe we have to >be willing to go beyond appearances, beyond our own thoughts and perceptions, >and communication to me, seems to be the better way for myself. > >We can know, and with certainty, what another (and ourself) is truly. We are >innocent. We are safe. We are whole and complete. We are light. We are >love. These things I am certain of, and I hold dear to my own heart. > >The only thing I need to remind myself of is that the suffering in the world >is but my own. It is my own thoughts, not another's, that need to be healed >in order for me to truly see. It is through the body that we can communicate >to another of their own innocence and safety, their wholeness, their light. >In doing this, do we see our own completion, thereby transcending our own >conditioned fragmented thoughts. > >In this case, certainty IS required, and is just another path. > >Thanks Moller for your responses. Please feel free to communicate freely >with me as I see this 'thought processing' is a mutual concern for both. > >Much Love, >xxxtg > >------ >GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates >as low as 0.0% Intro APR and no hidden fees. >Apply NOW! >http://click./1/975/3/_/520931/_/952105173/ >------ > >// > >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. > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 5, 2000 Report Share Posted March 5, 2000 In a message dated 03/05/2000 4:44:45 AM Eastern Standard Time, moller writes: << That is why I believe this Satsangh could be so valuable to us. If we can bring our our actual experiences to one another, we may soon fins out where we stand and possible learn fromone another, instead of keep on repeating the mantra: We are already whole. >> Morning All, We keep going through this same drill. Here's an answer, perhaps one of many. Many people bring this question to this list and challenge those who have already been through this many times, so... here's a short little illustration. If someone explains triple integration of calculus to someone who doesn't understand, then one person understands the level of understanding of the other. If one person is brilliant it can be recognized in another. If one person has perfect musical pitch, this person can hear~recognize this in another. It is the same with spiritual awakening. Those who are more awake are in a position to help those of us who are less awake. They recognize where we are and where we are not and are able to help us, and they do so, quietly and gently and compassionately. Ask and ye shall recieve, but remember patience is a virtue ... this is not a command performance :>) L*L*L ~ bo ~ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 5, 2000 Report Share Posted March 5, 2000 Dear Rainbolily, re: Certainty, etc. (Moller/tg) You've said it! Beautiful. Love moler Rainbolily <Rainbolily < > 05 March 2000 06:06 Re: Certainty, Worthiness & Stuff (Moller/Tg) >Rainbolily > >In a message dated 03/05/2000 4:44:45 AM Eastern Standard Time, >moller writes: > ><< > That is why I believe this Satsangh could be so valuable to us. If we can > bring our our actual experiences to one another, we may soon fins out where > we stand and possible learn fromone another, instead of keep on repeating > the mantra: We are already whole. > >> > >Morning All, > >We keep going through this same drill. Here's an answer, perhaps one of >many. Many people bring this question to this list and challenge those >who have already been through this many times, so... here's a short >little illustration. > >If someone explains triple integration of calculus to someone who doesn't >understand, then one person understands the level of understanding of the >other. If one person is brilliant it can be recognized in another. If one >person has perfect musical pitch, this person can hear~recognize this >in another. > >It is the same with spiritual awakening. Those who are more awake are >in a position to help those of us who are less awake. They recognize >where we are and where we are not and are able to help us, and they >do so, quietly and gently and compassionately. Ask and ye shall recieve, >but remember patience is a virtue ... this is not a command performance :>) > >L*L*L > ~ bo ~ > >------ >GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates as low as 2.9% >Intro or 9.9% Fixed APR and no hidden fees. Apply NOW! >http://click./1/936/3/_/520931/_/952272393/ >------ > >// > >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. > > > > 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.