Moller/impersonal processes

[Guest guest]

D: You have written beautifully about the inexpressible.

Thank you for sharing these observations.

 

Particularly your paragraph below attunes me to this:

 

This pine tree outside my window:

It has grown into itself "just so".

No human thought to form its

branches, nor its leaves,

Yet behold - each needle is placed

in perfect random order.

All these trees with branches twisted

this way and that - exquisitely

harmonized with the wind and rain.

 

Love,

Dan

>M: This is an impersonal path. What we experience as 'personal' has its

>rootsin absolutely impersonal processes, generally sub-liminal or unconscious

>to our ordinary awareness. Thought dominates our lives, and we suffer and

>enjoy the consequences of this, but we are generally totally unaware that we

>are thinking per se. We are content dominated. So if we want to

>investigate experience through self-awareness or enquiry, we will be well

>advised to look at the impersonal processes which bring appearances about.

[Guest guest]

Dear Brother D,

 

Gratitude for your understanding and kind heart.

 

I have after all decided not to reply to your beautiful letter regarding

Moller transcending dated 18/3. I am sorry but I have nothing to add or to

say. It stands completed and self-explanatory as is. For me it is only

again to say thank you.

 

But I have a little fairy tale to tell you, which I hope you will

appreciate.

 

When I opened your post early this morning just after my early morning

meditation, besides being moved by your open-hearted response to one of the

points I was trying to make in my letter to Roger, I was a little

bewildered by your use of the word 'inexpressible'.

 

You said:

 

D: >You have written beautifully about the inexpressible

 

~~(M) Somehow this word stayed with me, because I thought I was making just

a rather clear point about the things I said. Yet the word would not leave

me alone. I wondered why you had used this word. I was after all only

talking about a rather factual process underlying the manifestation of

thought in general.

 

So during my next meditation session a little later, I allowed this word to

ponder me again. I went through the same 'procedures' of moving from the

silence in the head to the silence and direct sense of being as the body and

stayed there for some time. Yet, somewhere this word still kept coming up

in thought. This was 'allowed' as part of the non-interference I was

talking about in my previous posting. Then, a clarity brought itself into

being where suddenly it became clear that absolutely everything is mystery.

All appearance has a simple mysterious quality. Not mystery as a thought.

But mystery as a living presense of being. In this the realisation dawned

why this word indescribable was so interesting. What was present then was

utterly unknowable and indescribible.

 

Before this, it was a simple insight that thought was a process prior to its

content. Now it became simply factuallly so that there was absolutely

nothing that could be said about the origin of the content of thought or any

other arising. The whole thing is just one, undescribable mystery. For the

first time I really 'understood' what could be meant by Emptiness is form

and form is emptiness. Absolutely everything arises out of emptiness, and

in the context of description one could say it is unfathomably mysterious.

there is no ground to it, nothing from which it came.

 

I am not sure if I can say more about this matter. But without your word to

trigger me into this depth of beingness, it would not have happened. This

is when words are very powerful. The meaning is left behind and the

pointing is taken up, as practice.

 

So, my brother, this is my little story for the day. Hope you understand

why I wanted to share it.

 

You are quite special, Dan.

 

hand in hand,

Brother M

[Guest guest]

>Dear Brother D,

>

>Gratitude for your understanding and kind heart.

 

Namaste, my friend Moller, for you have shared your heart.

>I have after all decided not to reply to your beautiful letter regarding

>Moller transcending dated 18/3. I am sorry but I have nothing to add or to

>say. It stands completed and self-explanatory as is.

 

This is beautiful to hear you say this of my letter - for your statement is

itself a wonderful perception of truth:

nothing to add, nothing to say. It stands *as is*, self-explanatory

and non-explanatory - for there is none to whom it would or could

be explained. It is completed before beginning.

 

For me it is only

>again to say thank you.

 

And I appreciate your gracious statement.

>But I have a little fairy tale to tell you, which I hope you will

>appreciate.

>

>When I opened your post early this morning just after my early morning

>meditation, besides being moved by your open-hearted response to one of the

>points I was trying to make in my letter to Roger, I was a little

>bewildered by your use of the word 'inexpressible'.

>

>You said:

>

>D: >You have written beautifully about the inexpressible

>

>~~(M) Somehow this word stayed with me, because I thought I was making just

>a rather clear point about the things I said. Yet the word would not leave

>me alone. I wondered why you had used this word. I was after all only

>talking about a rather factual process underlying the manifestation of

>thought in general.

>

>So during my next meditation session a little later, I allowed this word to

>ponder me again. I went through the same 'procedures' of moving from the

>silence in the head to the silence and direct sense of being as the body and

>stayed there for some time. Yet, somewhere this word still kept coming up

>in thought. This was 'allowed' as part of the non-interference I was

>talking about in my previous posting. Then, a clarity brought itself into

>being where suddenly it became clear that absolutely everything is mystery.

>All appearance has a simple mysterious quality. Not mystery as a thought.

>But mystery as a living presense of being. In this the realisation dawned

>why this word indescribable was so interesting. What was present then was

>utterly unknowable and indescribible.

 

Yes. Depth of unknownness, mystery beyond mystery. Never to be understood

from a position apart. Not a mystery that succumbs to analysis nor

euphoria. The final triumphant mystery. Not to be fathomed, nor explained

-- all-encompassing mystery. Indeed, something very profound lives here.

>Before this, it was a simple insight that thought was a process prior to its

>content. Now it became simply factuallly so that there was absolutely

>nothing that could be said about the origin of the content of thought or any

>other arising. The whole thing is just one, undescribable mystery. For the

>first time I really 'understood' what could be meant by Emptiness is form

>and form is emptiness. Absolutely everything arises out of emptiness, and

>in the context of description one could say it is unfathomably mysterious.

>there is no ground to it, nothing from which it came.

 

D: Your description of this "unfathomable" is moving and

clear. It is that to which we aspire, yet aspiration

takes it further away. It breathes me. It brings

me out of myself, into myself, through myself, and nowhere.

>I am not sure if I can say more about this matter. But without your word to

>trigger me into this depth of beingness, it would not have happened. This

>is when words are very powerful. The meaning is left behind and the

>pointing is taken up, as practice.

>

>So, my brother, this is my little story for the day. Hope you understand

>why I wanted to share it.

 

Yes, indeed. And I appreciate the mystery of a word that can drop like

a fluttering moth into a bottomless well. Whoever finds that moth

fluttering, is the air that gives the moth its life.

>You are quite special, Dan.

 

Ah, you've mistaken me for someone else.

I'm fully unspecial.

And deeply appreciative of what you've shared here.

 

Blessed love,

Dan