Glo/Remove the untruth

[Guest guest]

Thanks for sharing this, Glo.

 

Words of wisdom, ringing true,

As truth, presented without

obligation to support

existing beliefs.

 

Especially this part rings very true:

> It is false to speak of realisation. What is there to realise?

>The real is as it is always. We are not creating anything new or

>achieving something which we did not have before.

 

Once an illustration is provided, we have a picture.

A picture is simply to help the mind form an image.

The image will be discarded, perhaps for another image,

perhaps for no image when the mind releases itself from

its images.

 

Once explained, something has been added.

The explanation is for the mind, to give it direction -

until it releases itself from its need for explanations,

hypotheses, proofs.

 

What is Alone, stands Alone, without explanation, cause,

proof, or path. Reality with no second.

 

To add anything just gives one more thing to be taken away :-)

 

As the real Alone is, talk about realizing it is deluded.

As the real Alone is, belief in lacking something is deluded.

As the real Alone is, belief in needing to get something is deluded.

 

Really,

Dan

[Guest guest]

At 06:09 PM 3/16/00 -0500, Dan Berkow, PhD wrote:

>What is Alone, stands Alone, without explanation, cause,

> proof, or path. Reality with no second.

>

>To add anything just gives one more thing to be taken away :-)

 

One of my favorite Ch'an sayings chimes in right here:

 

The Zen Master addressed the assembly, speaking symbolically of the wooden

Zen staff often carried by teachers:

 

If you have a staff, I give you a staff.

If you have no staff, I take away your staff.

 

Bye for today,

 

--Greg

[Guest guest]

>>Hi Glo,

>>

>>Some things? You mean like ... everything?

>>Now, that's a hell of a diet!!

>>

>>Love,

>>Dan

>>

>Dear Dan,

>

>Yeah, it was a silly example..

 

I thought it was a good example - I just took it

a bit further :-)

 

diet happens to be on my "to do list." I admit

>I'd love to find a "weasel clause".. who wouldn't?

 

The weasel clause is:

"I love you exactly as you are" :-)

 

And not to say that is what

>jody is doing and I don't know exactly how jody really means "only

>disidentify"...but still I would find it difficult to know I had even

begun to

>disidentify with my innate tendencies without some sort of "Reality" check.

 

Debates over the difference between "disidentify" and "release tendencies"

isn't worth the effort for me. Disidentification with no change in

tendencies doesn't seem like full disidentification, as tendencies

to perceive lack, need, to try to protect self, etc. all *are*

identifications.

Sometimes on this list we seem to get caught up in definitions and

explanations, and "tend" to go back and forth. Meanwhile, there is "That"

which depends not in the least on our definitions and explanations. The main

thing for me is that we "don't lose sight of That" by getting "too

identified" with our positions or "too involved" in our tendencies to want

to be right, be seen as knowing something, etc. ;-)

 

Self

>deception itself being one of those very innate tendencies.

 

The only way to truly be beyond self-deception is when there is

no "framing of reality" by words, ideas, or sense-based images.

Words, ideas, and senses can be used as needed, they're just not

assumed to be the basis of reality. Then, one won't be deceived

by one's own or others' words, ideas, or images. :-)

 

It's a tricky

>business this giving up. .. and I'm in no place to be amending Ramana myself.

>Sometimes tho, the Self does seem to shine through no matter what..and for

that

>I am grateful.

 

D: Yes! That is my experience. When "IT" shines through, it is shining

through itself to itself. It "reveals" to itself its own nature -

which is "all there is" -- this is awesome -- nothing intereferes,

it is indeed "no matter what". Funny that there was the impression

that there could be something blocking it. But that impression

has somewhat of a "life of its own," that will "run its own course"

as it cycles itself like a washing machine that will eventually

"run out of energy" - that is, if there is awareness such that

the cycle doesn't continually reinforce itself. Call the cycle

"identification" or "tendencies" - the main thing is that awareness

interrupts the self-perpetuation of the cylce - the explanation

and language used are secondary. ;-)

>What exactly are all these samskaras?? My understanding of untruth undergoes

>constant remodeling.

 

D: Reactive tendencies. Tending to construct an illusion of

separated awareness. I'm no expert on this concept, as it's

from another cultural context, and I'm certainly open to hearing

about it from someone whose studies and practice have been

focused on it. :-)

 

For me, when people use words from other cultures and schemes of reality,

I stay open, learn about them, and see how and where they apply in

"my" scheme of reality. However, I am not under any illusion that any

scheme of reality is a substitute for Reality. The scheme of reality

is mainly a means for the "relative mind" to formulate discussions,

plans, explanations, practices, observations, etc. The value of

all of this is ultimately for the "relative mind" to prepare

itself for "giving itself away".

 

Our strategies for ending mind-body anchoring are far secondary to the

"Shining Through" you discussed above. The "Shining Through",

called by different names (Grace, Original Awareness, Clear Light)

isn't the result of a body-mind strategy, not dependent on

thought and language. My observation is that "Shining Through" doesn't

depend on how I understand reactive tendencies, karma, identification,

atman, Brahman, anatma, no-thingness,

trisna, love, Self, God, infinity - and all the

wonderful concepts we use as we share our "journey into Now"...

All this wonderful sharing, yet the "Beyond" is here fully Now,

and *is* Now, and none of our words add or subtract :-)

 

Love,

Dan

[Guest guest]

>"Dan Berkow, PhD" <berkowd

>

>

>diet happens to be on my "to do list." I admit

>>I'd love to find a "weasel clause".. who wouldn't?

>

>The weasel clause is:

>"I love you exactly as you are" :-)

>

> And not to say that is what

>>jody is doing and I don't know exactly how jody really means "only

>>disidentify"...but still I would find it difficult to know I had even

>begun to

>>disidentify with my innate tendencies without some sort of "Reality" check.

>

>Debates over the difference between "disidentify" and "release tendencies"

>isn't worth the effort for me. Disidentification with no change in

>tendencies doesn't seem like full disidentification, as tendencies

>to perceive lack, need, to try to protect self, etc. all *are*

>identifications.

 

Dan,

 

It all reminds me of a favorite cartoon that I kept until it fell into shreds.

This guy was saying, "I am going to give up one bad habit a day until they are

all gone." And this old crone, who come to think of it was a lot like our Old

Hag, says, " I am sorry I will not live to see the victory celebration."

 

So maybe the point of all our spiritual practices that struggle with innate

tendencies is to finally see the hopelessness of ever winning. I'm pretty sure

that skipping over that struggle and taking someone else's word for it does not

have nearly the same effect. In the way that a Zen master, or any good teacher,

knows it is far better to let the student discover his own answer rather than be

handed one, a second hand realization is no realization. I am not talking about

this stuff to debate anyone's definitions, Dan, tho I like to hear other's

thoughts on the quote. I am saying that even knowing it's pretty much impossible

to remove all these innate tendencies, (that's one hell of a lot of digging!) I

still want to "make the effort" because freedom beckons. I don't just throw in

the towel and let myself and everyone around me suffer because of them, all the

while saying that ultimately none of this matters. This seems to be what

Buddhism is about after all, ending the suffering here and now. The "Reality"

check is that this is not a hypothetical discussion or debate, it is real life.

I happen to have been blessed with enough experiences of "on earth, as it is in

heaven" or "nirvana is samsara"...to know its mostly a matter of my own vision

being clouded. I have seen the Light shine and felt the Love in enough strange

and unexpected places to know this. It is always here.

 

Dan, I got this far and started to write something about how to remember more

often...when suddenly it came to me.

 

So I may as well go pick some daffodills before the freeze tonight kills them.

That How is a killer too, isn't it? Right up there with Why?.. Ha!

 

Hugs,

Gloria

 

>

[Guest guest]

>Glo:

>It all reminds me of a favorite cartoon that I kept until it fell into

shreds.

>This guy was saying, "I am going to give up one bad habit a day until they

are

>all gone." And this old crone, who come to think of it was a lot like

our Old

>Hag, says, " I am sorry I will not live to see the victory celebration."

>

>So maybe the point of all our spiritual practices that struggle with innate

>tendencies is to finally see the hopelessness of ever winning.

 

D: In many religions are found metaphors about victory. Victory over

ignorance, victory over evil impulses, victory over selfish tendencies,

even victory over the world! Also found are metaphors in which

victor and conquered are not-two, in which nothing is split.

One aspect is transcendent of everything, the other aspect is

inclusive of everything. The paradox is that both are true, everything

is included, nothing excluded - also, everything is transcended and

"left behind". I guess it's a case of winning by not rejecting,

victory by not-contesting, conquering by being conquered, being

by releasing all existence.

>I'm pretty sure

>that skipping over that struggle and taking someone else's word for it

does not

>have nearly the same effect. In the way that a Zen master, or any good

teacher,

>knows it is far better to let the student discover his own answer rather

than be

>handed one, a second hand realization is no realization. I am not talking

about

>this stuff to debate anyone's definitions, Dan, tho I like to hear other's

>thoughts on the quote. I am saying that even knowing it's pretty much

impossible

>to remove all these innate tendencies, (that's one hell of a lot of

digging!) I

>still want to "make the effort" because freedom beckons. I don't just

throw in

>the towel and let myself and everyone around me suffer because of them,

all the

>while saying that ultimately none of this matters.

 

Yes. This seems true. We each do the best we can :-)

 

This seems to be what

>Buddhism is about after all, ending the suffering here and now. The "Reality"

>check is that this is not a hypothetical discussion or debate, it is real

life.

>I happen to have been blessed with enough experiences of "on earth, as it

is in

>heaven" or "nirvana is samsara"...to know its mostly a matter of my own

vision

>being clouded. I have seen the Light shine and felt the Love in enough

strange

>and unexpected places to know this. It is always here.

 

D: A beautiful observation, Glo.

>Dan, I got this far and started to write something about how to remember more

>often...when suddenly it came to me.

 

D: Blessings :-)

>So I may as well go pick some daffodills before the freeze tonight kills

them.

>That How is a killer too, isn't it? Right up there with Why?.. Ha!

 

D: Oh, yes! This sounds like a good time to pick daffodils!

 

Much love,

 

Dan

[Guest guest]

Greg Goode wrote:

> One of my favorite Ch'an sayings chimes in

> right here:

>

> The Zen Master addressed the assembly,

> speaking symbolically of the wooden

> Zen staff often carried by teachers:

>

> If you have a staff, I give you a staff.

> If you have no staff, I take away your

> staff.

>

> Bye for today,

>

> --Greg

 

Hello for today ,

 

A nice thing to know, for those who don't, is

that those staff had a weight between 30 to

60 pounds. Not a small thing to take away or

give, in a blink of an eye... Quite a zen

master he is... Weight is also a symbol...

 

Antoine