Wrong path?

March 17, 2000

Dear Greg,

Yes, this present discussion has probably run its course. Your kind

attention to these matters is very much appreciated. Like yourself, the

things we have been discussing does not play any real role anymore in my own

practice. It never went 'pop' for me, but they gradually wound themselves

to a standstill when it became simply apparent that they had serve their

function.

Allow me just to pick up on one or two points of interest.

You said:

>For the vast majority of people, these kinds of questions never come up!!

>Notice how not a lot of other folks are joining this discussion?

~~(M) Yes, this seems to be the case. But I was wondering, can there really

be a way out of this mess without such enquiry/observation? I know many

people have a sense of awakening, very often with little of such detailed

observations. But has it left them COMPLETELY free from circumstances

created both inwardly as thought realities or outwardly by the daily

happenings of life? I take this list. Everybody here is well-meaning,

sincere and with a vast amount of experience of matters pertaining to the

'spiritual' path. Thousands of words about the higher possibilities along

this way are shared each day. And yet, if I read carefully, I do not get

the impression that any of us has really broken completely out of the

illusion we find ourselves in. Of course I may be completely wrong here,

and would not want to trample on any person's sensitivities. On the other

hand, if there are still sensitivities left to be trodden on, how free are

we?

So, to you and everyone participating in this beautiful daily Satsangh,

would it be fair to ask if we are perhaps all on the wrong track? This

would not make us unique as far as these matters go, because millions before

us have tried to break out, and have not quite managed. And as far as

reports from some the great Names in the teaching fraternity go, it would

appear that even some 'highly developed' personages have shown to have feet

of clay. Or at least not free from circumstances.

Now if I understood Dan correctly in one of his postings, he intimated that

the problem might very be with the fact we are doing something which we

really believe to be a correct course of action, yet, this very action may

be a perpetuation, and strenghtening of the problem we are trying to solve.

I think a reasonably fundamental question here is to ask what it is we are

seeking? Why are we interested in these matters at all? Once this becomes

clear to us, we could then devise a practice or total life's strategy to

facilitate that which we are looking for. We talk of non-duality. But is

it clear to us what is actually involved in the process of translating our

current dualistic world view into that which is whole? It is my insight

that absolutely nothing of what I believe myself to be will remain. The

entire being has to be translated. That is, if non-duality is taken as the

end product. I cannot possibly remain Moller, and expect to enter Nirvana.

The two are mutually exclusive. So what is Moller doing wrong for him not

to be blown out so completely, despite his obvious clarity and commitment to

this path, that there remains at all times just the simple sense of non-dual

what is-ness? Moller is not a beginner anymore. Moller has no excuses.

Moller is not starry-eyed about this thing anymore. Moller can write a book

about these matters. It is true that Moller is getting thinned out by the

process he has involved himself in, and this is beautiful. But what is

still lacking? And can this not be said /asked of all of us?

Please don't tell me to speak for myself before you have deeply looked into

your own hearts for the seriousness and importance of these questions. If

you find them irrelevant, let them simply pass you by. But for those who

understand what I am talking about, please consider this matter with me.

Love, Moller

>

March 17, 2000

Dear Moller,

OK, I'll shift gears with you. What you are now bringing up might of

interest to many, and I suspect it's also much more relevant to you. It's

a lot less abstract too!!

You say, about enquiry, etc.:

>observations. But has it left them COMPLETELY free from circumstances

>created both inwardly as thought realities or outwardly by the daily

>happenings of life? I take this list. Everybody here is well-meaning,

>sincere and with a vast amount of experience of matters pertaining to the

>'spiritual' path. Thousands of words about the higher possibilities along

>this way are shared each day. And yet, if I read carefully, I do not get

>the impression that any of us has really broken completely out of the

>illusion we find ourselves in.

Then you say:

>And as far as reports from some the great Names in the teaching

>fraternity go, it would appear that even some 'highly developed'

>personages have shown to have feet of clay. Or at least not

>free from circumstances.

There seems to be a psychological bias in your formulation of this freedom

- your notion of freedom seems here to be a personal freedom. Freedom for

some kind of radiant, untouchable, super-entity, however subtle.

Untouchable, but separate. Other than some kind of entity, what other kind

of thing could be free of illusion, free of circumstances? Ramana and

Nisargadatta and Ramakrishna had cancer, it is said that Buddha died of

food poisoning, Jesus was murdered. Were they free from circumstances?

No entity can ever be free. The question is not freedom *for* the entity,

but rather freedom *from* the entity.

What are you really looking for?

Love,

--Greg

March 18, 2000

>Moller:

>Now if I understood Dan correctly in one of his postings, he intimated that

>the problem might very be with the fact we are doing something which we

>really believe to be a correct course of action, yet, this very action may

>be a perpetuation, and strenghtening of the problem we are trying to solve.

D: Yes. One's assumptions bring results that validate the assumption,

which is used to bring results, etc. To... stop, look carefully,

listen fully -- rather than assume and act, rather than expect

and proceed ... Yes!

>M: We talk of non-duality. But is

>it clear to us what is actually involved in the process of translating our

>current dualistic world view into that which is whole?

D: Living as Wholeness, Wholeness the "includes" differentiation, is the Way.

It is who we are, this instant, as it is the only "original

position/non-position" - the only Reality beyond possibilities and

actualizations of possibilities.

>M: It is my insight

>that absolutely nothing of what I believe myself to be will remain. The

>entire being has to be translated.

D: Yes. I would verbalize it as: nothing of what I believe to be myself

is there, except as a transitory belief. The reality is not the belief.

The entire being, as is, is reality. The belief is "relinquished,"

"dis-invested of meaning."

>M: That is, if non-duality is taken as the

>end product.

D: It is also the beginning position/non-position.

The end is in the beginning.

>M: I cannot possibly remain Moller, and expect to enter Nirvana.

>The two are mutually exclusive. So what is Moller doing wrong for him not

>to be blown out so completely, despite his obvious clarity and commitment to

>this path, that there remains at all times just the simple sense of non-dual

>what is-ness? Moller is not a beginner anymore. Moller has no excuses.

>Moller is not starry-eyed about this thing anymore. Moller can write a book

>about these matters. It is true that Moller is getting thinned out by the

>process he has involved himself in, and this is beautiful. But what is

>still lacking? And can this not be said /asked of all of us?

D: Yes. It could be asked. It seems to me that nothing is lacking in us,

by us, or for us. There is no "Dan" entity to do something right or

wrong. The difficulty is the conditioning, the system of associations,

beliefs, and reactions that say: the "Dan" entity is real, "Dan" must

get things that "Dan" needs, etc. This programming is basic to biological

survival and continuation of the species. So, for me, the difficulty

appears to be to allow the survival program to continue in whatever

fashion it continues, without investment in that program as a definition

of Reality. Then "I" am not, that is to say, "I" am only the "prior

Condition

of no-Condition" and am not "touched" by the survival program and

associated

thought-sensory-perceptual organization. That is, insofar as Reality

is concerned,

the program can function and self-organize, yet no self is there being

organized. This Awareness, which has been associated with Love,

Compassion,

Truth... is simply Original Nature. The survival program is simply a

by-product of the manifestation of All-possibility as "specific

possibilities."

All includes specific, and specific has no "being" without All.

>M: Please don't tell me to speak for myself before you have deeply looked

into

>your own hearts for the seriousness and importance of these questions. If

>you find them irrelevant, let them simply pass you by. But for those who

>understand what I am talking about, please consider this matter with me.

D: I've done what I can to express this. Thank you for sharing this

"journey of Now to Now"...

Love,

Dan

March 19, 2000

Dear Dan,

Thank you for your beautiful clarity. Please don't see this as a cop-out,

but I have nothing to add or question in what you have so beautifully

described. I bow, and say thatnk you. For now.

Love and respect,