Comments on: 38. You are NO THING – Randall Friend – Part 1

By: Chang Chebsum

Chang Chebsum — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 20:45:21 +0000

This site presents nihilism coupled with vagueness, a grievous error in confirming the essence. It is typical of the contemporary travesty of pointing out of this kind.

Rate it! 0

By: Morgan

Morgan — Tue, 12 May 2009 15:23:50 +0000

“When the â€˜Iâ€™ thought â€“ the primary thought â€“ has been assumed, then the succession of arising thoughts appears to form a continuous solid entity called â€˜mindâ€™. Itâ€™s like a propeller: when itâ€™s still, itâ€™s seen as two or three blades, but when itâ€™s whirling around â€“ the apparent succession of thoughts â€“ then it appears as an entity.”

I thought this was a great pointer from Nathan. – There is no “mind”.

Rate it! 0

By: gilbert

gilbert — Tue, 12 May 2009 07:35:52 +0000

The human condition is not what THIS is about. Still, I don’t expect that point to be understood by those trying to work things out through their human condition.
If you keep buying back into the limited point of view, the belief in ‘me’ will propagate a hundred new branches every day. The 12 Step program is excellent for what it is. Deflation at depth etc.
As Bob points out in the very next program, we take it a step further. See that the self center never existed. You are then immediately ‘out of it’ all.

Rate it! 0

By: Mike in SF

Mike in SF — Tue, 12 May 2009 06:21:56 +0000

I went to one of Paul’s AA talks tonight. He actually does a pretty a good job of pointing out the human condition. I’m guessing his talks have benefited quite a few.

Rate it! 0

By: Kimo (Jim)

Kimo (Jim) — Mon, 11 May 2009 14:03:53 +0000

I enjoy Nathan Gill as well. I remember 4 or 5 years ago his book “Already Awake” was released and I thought, “what a cocky sort of fellow to be thumping his chest and announcing to the world that he’s already awake and above all of the seeking”.
Then I realized it’s an excellent and beautiful name for the book BECAUSE IT’S REFERRING TO YOU. YOU ARE ALREADY AWAKE. There’s no entity or concept that could possiblly be enlightened and life is fully-on right here right now.

Rate it! 0

By: Lev

Lev — Mon, 11 May 2009 11:41:37 +0000

Other beautiful pointer: “the objective content is an appearance OF YOU” Randall Friend.

Rate it! 0

By: big john

big john — Mon, 11 May 2009 09:25:44 +0000

Much appreciated Gilbert and thanks for this opportunity and your patience.

“Be warm towards your own being” has hit home especially… And “follow the resonance…… it is life itself,”

Life resonating with Life itself, feels like home actually. Beautiful pointers.

Rate it! 0

By: gilbert

gilbert — Mon, 11 May 2009 08:28:30 +0000

What appears in the mind is only animated by the life essence. On their own, these thoughts have no power whatsoever. They cannot DO anything of themselves.
The mind knows nothing, it is a mechanical apparatus.
The subtle warmth of the body could be said to be ‘feeling’ – the fire of being.
The coldness of the intellect is cut off from the subtle ‘feeling-sense’ usually.

Basically, keep it simple: Be warm towards your own being – and those around you will feel it – and respond accordingly.

See that thoughts are just thoughts – many do not need to be acted upon.

Without labeling ‘anger’ as anger, it is simply energy, life expressing itself.

Energy moves into ever new patterns……….shapes and forms.

It is all light…..appearing as matter.

Simply be that which is prior to the light by which you see and know.

This may seem too subtle or just theoretical nonsense – but if there is a resonance with what is being ‘pointed to’ in yourself, then everything is resolved, seemingly transformed, before the mind has a chance to grasp anything.
Follow the resonance……it is life itself.

Rate it! 0

By: big john

big john — Mon, 11 May 2009 08:15:43 +0000

Gilbert, thanks again. I have read your reply several times.

This knowing then is knowing what “you” are not, is this correct ? its not a knowing in the mind that appears ?.
Leaving unadorned presence awareness seems to resonate.

What more do “you” want ? cuts through. Very good !

Rate it! 0

By: gilbert

gilbert — Mon, 11 May 2009 07:31:26 +0000

NEW PROGRAM on its way…….You chaps keep me busy……..

As you look around the room you are in, isn’t everything understood without waiting for any words to arise as a description?
Words themselves are understood. Thing don’t become understood.
There is only BEING.
Words can’t understand anything at all.
That which suffuses the body and animates it is the same as that which animates words.
Words in themselves are harmless. Add belief and all sorts of trouble can enter ‘center stage’.
Understanding IS Being. These apparent two cannot be separated.
What could separate being-understanding? A concept? An idea? There is no ‘reason’ that can divide the ONLY fact that you are certain of – the fact of your own being.
The mind seemingly divides all things, compart-mentalizes things and itself. Where does all this activity take place? Find out. You won’t believe what you are told, so explore and SEE for yourself. Belief is useless anyway.

What merges with the expansive? What you ‘think you are’ merges into emptiness, where it appeared from in the first instance.
There is no ‘Model of the Universe’ that can measure up against what is real.
All conceptualizations spontaneously appear.
‘You’ have no ‘idea’ about what concept may arise in the next moment.
The ‘clever’ intellect is an erroneous belief. There is no shortage of cocky types who are ‘getting into this non dual stuff’. It is probably the most challenging ‘puzzle’ of all.
The trouble is that is isn’t a puzzle in any way shape or form. It only appears to be a puzzle for the one who is trying to juggle concepts in an attempt to ‘arrive’ at a new understanding.
There is only One Understanding. It is neither old nor new. It is not in ‘time’ at all.
You can never know what you are. In knowing what you are not, what you truly are is left unadorned – presence-awareness. No locality in space or time is it.
Space and time appear in IT.
That is the understanding. Simple and uncomplicated.
There is no ‘I’ that understands anything. Where does that leave you?
Present and aware. What ‘more’ do you want?

Rate it! 0

By: Lev

Lev — Mon, 11 May 2009 07:27:54 +0000

“Keep it simple and direct”…I would add without the dualistic verbiage of becoming!
have a listen to the “crashing californian game” podcast with John Wheeler!

Rate it! 0

By: big john

big john — Mon, 11 May 2009 06:52:06 +0000

Thanks for your response Gilbert. Perhaps I should have wrote the pointers are causing some confusion here instead of not bringing clarity and saying they were useless was not what was said.

Can you elaborate a little here where you write,
understanding is silent.

Understanding is mind, ” i understand” while Being is silent, is it not.

You also said,

“Being, seeing, knowing cannot be separate.
When was being not present?”

Being is always present, yes. Seeing/knowing while not separate seems to come and go does it not ? leaving only Being.

In examining these subtleties one merges with the expansive and subtle sense of being.

Again, who is the “one ” that merges with the expansive if there is only that. Also the subtle “sense” of being is feeling/sense which may come and go, it cannot be held on to it seems.

Rate it! 0

By: dan

dan — Mon, 11 May 2009 05:20:59 +0000

this one from Gilbert is a keeper, and deserves to be repeated here:

————————————————
The search is invalid.
The â€˜youâ€™ that searches cannot SEE.
————————————————

Gilbert has asked for comments……

fwiw – what is most appealing about this website is that it cuts straight and direct. No bullshit. No straying from the simplicity. And the simple message is one that makes no difference to that which it is pointing to. Far be it from me to push this website into any direction be it one way or another…. I would like to softly urge Gilbert to keep the content as crisp, clean and clear as it always has been. Not that Freke is way off target or anything like that…. but it perhaps falls more into the realms of phase 3 or 4….. The whole idea of spreading the word (much like Candice’s Great Freedom Network) is admirable but has nothing to do with the ‘first instance’, the direct pointing to That which doesn’t dabble in or have any interest in consequences or a ‘scene’ or a ‘network’ other than in appearance – the Dance.

That’s not to say that it isn’t applicable. Quite the opposite. What ever is applicable is applicable. What ever happens is necessary. But that would just be the colour, the ‘story’, the flavour. Some may find this applicable… and, if it applies, then it applies, spontaneously and in harmony. However, what seems to be most effective is this cutting to the core of what this is all about, of which the appearance is a nothing but a non-essential, inconsequential (other than in the dream) side-effect! As far as the 5 senses and the ‘mind’ is concerned all that appears is all that we have. As far as what you really are, the “only capital you have is this consciousness.”

John Wheeler has said countless times that he finds it most effective to keep it simple and direct. I think many, many others would agree.

Also, I just wanted to give a big pat on Tony Parson’s back. I think his style is wonderful. It may be too direct and cutting for a lot of folk, but what Tony doesn’t do is leave you anything to hang on to. He simply will not humour any idea that there is a tangible ‘you’ there, other than as an assumption. This is very similar to Bob’s message “start from the fact that you are.” The bottom line = That (no thing) and leaves no possible negotiation from the mind thereafter. Very immediate and actually incredibly sincere.

On the flipside, the technique of ‘bending’ is equally valid for those for whom it is valid! I like to see it more as an open invitation to investigate and challenge assumptions. To this end I’d like to suggest Rupert Spira. His book takes the reader through a systematic breakdown of the assumptions we make and in doing so reveals the ‘obviousness’.

keep it clean! keep it simple!

cheers!

Rate it! 0

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Mon, 11 May 2009 05:16:22 +0000

Silent lurkers on this comment page, just take the jump and post your nonsense. Let your ideas be annihilated. You don’t have to climb a mountain in Tibet, you can just type your nonsense out while you eat Cheetosâ„¢. What’s the worst that can happen? Getting offended? Gasp.

Rate it! 0

By: gilbert

gilbert — Mon, 11 May 2009 04:52:31 +0000

Well, there are some who think the opposite Jeremy. The point is that ‘you’ never ever thought a thought. Thoughts just appear ‘out of the blue’. In letting them be just as they are, without engaging in wanting to accept or reject them, they disappear without incident. As soon as they are referred to the ‘me of memory’, the habitual momentum kicks in. Habits can be broken.
Anything anyone says can be pulled apart.
The ‘seeing-knowing’ cannot be touched or altered, reshaped or reformed.
Our true nature needs no reformation.
Immaculately clear and present – the ONLY fact you are ABSOLUTELY certain of.
The rest is conceptual.
How simpler can it be expressed?
The clear message is on offer – yet few actually are drawn into its profundity.
The ‘me’ resists because it cannot ‘deal with’ emptiness or even ‘One-ness’.

Rate it! 0

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Mon, 11 May 2009 04:41:27 +0000

Jeremy sends Gilbert email about ‘seeing through story of me’. Gilbert sends nice email back ‘ sounds like message sinking in’. Jeremy thinks ‘I am getting it’. Jeremy posts some nonsense on UGC. Gilbert points it out as such. Jeremy feels hurt, ‘oh no, I’m not getting it’. Then suddenly . . . funny. REALLY funny.

Gilbert you’re a real peach. Truly. Peaches may not be for everyone but they are welcome here.

Rate it! 0

By: gilbert

gilbert — Mon, 11 May 2009 04:37:58 +0000

First off, clarity does not arrive from somewhere else. It is already here, clear and obvious. What is it that seemingly obscures it? Conceptual beliefs.
The question: Where are you seeing from?
It is a directive. There is no ‘you’ that is seeing but if there is a belief that there is, then the directive assists in the exploration, does it not?
Just because this directive is thought to be useless for ‘you’, does not mean it may well be exactly what is necessary for (a so-called) ‘another’.
Knowing is not limited to the known. That is a concept which is actually erroneous.
The belief in the ‘known’ as being something substantial is the limitation for the ‘mind’ of belief. That limitation appears in the seeing-knowing. It is also discarded easily.
Being, seeing, knowing cannot be separate.
When was being not present?
In examining these subtleties one merges with the expansive and subtle sense of being.
Thoughts dissolve naturally without incident. The ‘witness’ also dissolves.
So, there is nothing one can say about it.
Understanding is silent.

Rate it! 0

By: big john

big john — Mon, 11 May 2009 03:19:13 +0000

These pointers are not resonating or bringing clarity here.

“Where are you seeing from”

This seems to point to a location from which there is seeing. Is seeing limited to the seen and is there a you to see ?
Surely there is no location and no you seeing from any where.

“Being is knowing”

Being is Being, while knowing is limited to the known. Surely Being IS with or without any knowing but knowing may arise in Being ?

Being is prior to knowing/seeing is it not.

Rate it! 0

By: Bob Seal

Bob Seal — Sun, 10 May 2009 23:00:23 +0000

Dead right Gilbert, re: Nathan.

Before I knew Sailor Bob, I read Nathan’s piece on his website called “Clarity”
That blew me away! So simple!

It pointed directly with no escape.
Omnipresent!
Total and absolute!

There’s no room left for a mind, nothing, no one and no where to go from here!

Each word and each foot step leads away from here.

Rate it! 0

By: gilbert

gilbert — Sun, 10 May 2009 22:12:04 +0000

Nathan speaks clearly and it is very direct.
For the one who is struggling, the direct pointing can be indigestible. Too confronting.
The resistance (me) usually sets itself up by disregarding such directness. A lot of mental noise may appear. Even if the message is heard, if the mind is left to ‘return’ to its habits, it will form into a defense mechanism. It will appear as a denigration of the things that were pointed out. “Anyone normal, would think these guys are lunatics, if they read what they are saying” etc. It is a mechanical response that seemingly protects the ‘me’ concept.
We have all seen how ‘ugly’ things can get when a few ‘buttons’ get pressed.
It isn’t as simple as choosing the red pill or the blue pill, as depicted in The Matrix movie.
Everything depends upon a recognition, a recognition that cannot be contrived by the mind. Seeking is the problem, expectation of the unexpected is a smoke screen.
The ‘mind’ has no power whatsoever yet it appears to struggle very fiercely to survive.
Love of being is a key element.
The ONLY fact you are ABSOLUTELY certain of is the fact of your own being.
Through investigating this individual being-ness, the ‘ownership’ vanishes into Cosmic Being – Cosmic Consciousness.
The introduction to your own true nature can take many forms, each totally validated in the moment of recognition.
All arguments for or against any particular ‘way’ are just conceptualizations held onto by a fixation with being ‘someone who knows’…etc.
Who are you?
Where are you seeing from?

Rate it! 0

By: Mike in SF

Mike in SF — Sun, 10 May 2009 21:29:24 +0000

Paul H. said that thought was the problem. He later talked about who we really are, or awareness, is like the “host” and selfing is like a parasite. I don’t remember the exact wording but he went on for a long time with the host/parasite analogy. Again, he was doing some great direct pointing at the beginning of the meeting but then things went off track, imo.

Maybe the parasite thing had to do more with addiction. He talked fast. Being familiar with AA’s lingo and teachings might have made his pointers make more sense. I might check him out again this week. He gives talks 3 times a week nearby. Wheeler’s talks are simpler and more direct, for me anyway.

Rate it! 0

By: dualdave

dualdave — Sun, 10 May 2009 18:03:17 +0000

I would encourage ‘those that aren’t quite there yet’ to have a listen to some of the MP3s on the Zen Bitch Slap web site. It’s a slightly different description of the basic problem all the good folks at UGC are trying to help ‘us’ see through.

The description definitely rang a bell here. Nothing to do or not do, just a slightly different description of the basic ‘problem’ in very straightforward language.

Thanks for mentioning that stuff Mark.

Rate it! 0

By: Fernando Rozas

Fernando Rozas — Sun, 10 May 2009 17:41:49 +0000

An interesting fragment of a dialog with Nathan Gill (It would be interesting an interview with him):
Q: So there is this body-mind and a thought arises â€“ for instance, â€˜I am hungryâ€™ â€“ and the brain reacts to that thought.
A: No, itâ€™s simpler than that. Thereâ€™s no cause and effect. There is a play of images being presently registered. A body is appearing, simultaneously with a sensation of hunger, and also simultaneously with the thought, â€˜I am hungryâ€™.
Q: So whatâ€™s doing the registering then?
A: No-thing is registering every-thing. This registering, or no-thing, is what the concept â€˜awarenessâ€™ points to.
Q: It canâ€™t be the â€˜Iâ€™ thought because the â€˜Iâ€™ thought, the person, doesnâ€™t exist anyway.
A: The â€˜Iâ€™ thought is part of the content, part of what is being registered. No-thing is registering.
Q: So are we trying to understand this with the mind?
A: There is no mind. The term â€˜mindâ€™ is used in a somewhat confusing way to represent the thoughts appearing and disappearing presently in awareness, and so seeming to constitute a stream of thoughts. This apparent stream of thoughts â€“ when seen objectively as single images appearing and disappearing â€“ is not problematic, but when labelled â€˜mindâ€™, it is presumed to constitute an actual entity. It is a phantom. No thought can understand anything. Thoughts are merely inert images â€“ message balloons.
Q: Where do they arise from?
A: Itâ€™s a complete mystery, as is all of the arising content. They simply appear within awareness as part of the content.
Q: The difficulty of course is that the mind shifts these thoughts together into a time sequence and so spins its own story, doesnâ€™t it? Is that how it is?
A: There is no mind. The mind is the succession of thoughts, so there is no mind as an entity that could do anything with thoughts or spin a story. The apparent succession of thoughts is already the story.
Q: So the thoughts are doing the weaving â€“ itâ€™s the other way around?
A: The thoughts arenâ€™t actually doing anything. They are merely images, arising in succession and so appearing to form a story.
Q: And we donâ€™t know where the thoughts come from â€“ itâ€™s a complete mystery.
A: Yes.
Q: So weâ€™re on a hiding to nothing really! But who strings the thoughts together?
A: When the â€˜Iâ€™ thought â€“ the primary thought â€“ has been assumed, then the succession of arising thoughts appears to form a continuous solid entity called â€˜mindâ€™. Itâ€™s like a propeller: when itâ€™s still, itâ€™s seen as two or three blades, but when itâ€™s whirling around â€“ the apparent succession of thoughts â€“ then it appears as an entity.
Q: The story.
A: Yes. This is what weâ€™re calling â€˜mindâ€™, but in fact mind has no existence â€“ itâ€™s just an apparent succession of arising thoughts. The story formed in thought is no more real than a story formed by a succession of messages strung together to form a novel. There can be involvement in a novel, but only when itâ€™s picked up and read. It could just be left on the shelf.
Q: Can you say also that thereâ€™s actually no control over whether there is mesmerisation or not â€” it just happens?
A: Thatâ€™s right, yes.
Q: And the apparent unfolding â€“ you have no control over that either.
A: No, there is simply unfolding.
Q: So to say that youâ€™re going to do something or not do something…
A: Thatâ€™s the thought story. But itâ€™s not â€˜yourâ€™ thought story â€“ itâ€™s just the thought story presently appearing or happening.
Q: So you just let it all happen.
A: â€˜Youâ€™ donâ€™t let it all happen â€“ itâ€™s already happening. Maybe the â€˜Iâ€™ will be
undermined, maybe not.
Q: This is all heard over and over and over, but it still occurs that doing takes place. And that feels wrong.
A: All of this is the thought story â€“ maybe it appears within this play that it seems to need to be heard over and over again. That is the nature of these talks. There is simply this continual reminding of our true nature, that there is only already awake-ness, oneness.

Rate it! 0

By: gilbert

gilbert — Sun, 10 May 2009 14:36:03 +0000

Conceptualizing is not the naked awareness.
Awareness ‘appears’ as conceptualizing, thoughts, states of being etc…as the content of awareness.
The mind must be understood.
If you think you are an expert on this ‘stuff’ then you have missed the boat.
True understanding is silent.
Out of that silent understanding many things may be expressed.
If the expression is from the biased notions of the intellect, then the understanding is distorted in proportion.
The mind is time – the mind is me.
The mind can serve well, but if that biased self-center is actively engaged, it runs a muck.

Rate it! 0

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Sun, 10 May 2009 13:38:48 +0000

Does it equal 0? Can you at any time deny that you exist? Was there ever such a time? THIS is much simpler than thought. The thought process finds it boring. Just acknowledge that you ARE, that you never doubt this, never have. Keep coming back to that.

It is pointed to all the time that thoughts appear and disappear. This happens many times a day and it’s easy to overlook. Just pay attention to that. It is nothing magical. When engaged in activity, thoughts appear and energy is not invested in ‘me’, and they disappear just as quickly as they appear. Once this is noticed, and perhaps it will take a few times, it becomes clear that all questions are the same. The questions can’t all be answered. But they WILL just drop away, because in truth, there is no one there to receive them.

Rate it! 0

By: Mark Ellis

Mark Ellis — Sun, 10 May 2009 12:52:29 +0000

Interesting, Mike… Somehow, I Never got that about him, nor would it matter, really.
Principles before Personalities. Alcohol was the previous addiction here, before spirituality & enlightenment reared it’s ugly head as a possible Bigger and Better RUSH. He speaks the language I recognize from 22 years in the rooms of AA and NA and it somehow really resonates. If I didn’t listen to or read “Teachers” that were possibly acting out of ego and self involvement, I would have never ‘heard’ the message in the first place. It took me 35 years to pick up the bible and give it a read, (pre-judging) and when I finally did,,, All I saw was a beautiful Non-Dual teaching (at it’s essence) that had become warped through self involvment, fear and control. Just “One” opinion, floating in a sea of…….. Well, Ya Know~!

Rate it! 0

By: Morgan

Morgan — Sun, 10 May 2009 12:37:09 +0000

In some advaita circles, there seems to be an implied duality between “teachers” and “students” (or gurus and disciples). To consider oneself a “teacher”, a story of some entity who “got it” still has to be believed in. I went to see one such “teacher” and almost immediately instinctively knew that I didn’t need them. The skinny is this: You are the timeless source of all appearances, how can an appearance give you anything? How can a mirage put more water in the ocean?

Rate it! 0

By: Morgan

Morgan — Sun, 10 May 2009 12:11:48 +0000

I don’t think it matters what you call it as long as you know yourself as what is pointed at. If you take yourself to be thoughts, there will be an attempt to get the words perfect according to some image. If you know what you are the words don’t matter so much as they are transient/fleeting and you are not. Just my .02. Carry on.

Rate it! 0

By: gilbert

gilbert — Sun, 10 May 2009 12:09:32 +0000

No. Gilbert is going to be quiet. Maybe. See what goes on without my input. Still, mind you, unsuitable comments will be deleted as usual. I have some other matters to attend to. Warm regards – Gilbert.

Rate it! 0

By: E

Sun, 10 May 2009 10:57:01 +0000

Does Gilbert ever have fun?

Rate it! 0

By: tomvds

tomvds — Sun, 10 May 2009 10:40:07 +0000

It just equals ZERO.
For the mind*.

*habitual thinking existing of words (sound) and images (light)

Rate it! 0

By: E

Sun, 10 May 2009 08:09:37 +0000

Is it ONE without a 2nd, or does it just equal 0?

(Serious question, BTW.)

Rate it! 0

By: Mike in SF

Mike in SF — Sun, 10 May 2009 06:49:05 +0000

Mark, that’s interesting you posted about Paul H. I just checked out his meeting on Wednesday. I gave up drinking and other things about 10 years ago and was curious to see him speak. He had some great pointers and he’s quite a character but it seemed kinda culty. Towards the end he started talking about what it’s like when you get free and then did what Wheeler calls “inserting himself back in as the teacher”, or words to that effect. He started talking about how he was transmitting etc. It’s such a turn off and just another belief system and totally highlights the me vs. not me.

Rate it! 0

By: gilbert

gilbert — Sat, 09 May 2009 22:48:07 +0000

Gross forms seem far from it and rare forms appear closer.
All forms are actually empty.

It is so simple.
The ONLY fact that is Absolutely Certain….is the fact of being.
There is no ‘you’ separate from that fact.
THAT is ONE without a second.

Some laugh, some cry ‘when’ the recognition unexpectedly ‘happens’.

Cognition already IS.

Tat Twam Asi.

Rate it! 0

By: Kimo (Jim)

Kimo (Jim) — Sat, 09 May 2009 22:37:44 +0000

Hey, I’m glad that you are a 4-line paragraph and I’m just one-line. They’re both wrong, ye Advaita commissioner of police. When the apparent person seemingly drops away, the pointers hit the mark with ever increasing raw accuracy (dualistic or not). The last couple days of posting by Gilbert have been in rare form. It’s almost like the knowing is a samurai sword getting another strengthening fold in its steel blade with every post. There’s a certain happiness that is undeniable in a continued non-search and resonation in just staying put, with no choice, as what we are.

Rate it! 0

By: gilbert

gilbert — Sat, 09 May 2009 22:27:58 +0000

All Knowing. No center. No Boundary.

Where am I not?

How can I find myself when I have never been lost?

Recognition happens unexpectedly.

Cognition is Ceaseless.

Rate it! 0

By: tomvds

tomvds — Sat, 09 May 2009 21:35:00 +0000

“What I am knows every-thing except itself”, introduces a subtle duality apparently. What I AM is the formless and immaterial know-ING that appears as EVERYTHING, as the apparent multiplicity of ‘many things’; Because It is formless and immaterial you cannot grasp IT and IT is called VOID. Although IT is called VOID, ‘facing’ the ‘many things’ IT functions intelligent as the pure function of know-ING, so it is also described as not void

Rate it! 0

By: Kimo (Jim)

Kimo (Jim) — Sat, 09 May 2009 19:37:43 +0000

What I am knows every-thing except itself. You cannot grasp what I am. You can only be what I am.

Rate it! 0

By: Mark Ellis

Mark Ellis — Sat, 09 May 2009 15:35:31 +0000

possible interview:
Paul H. of zenbitchslap.com has a clear and potent message and with a background is substance abuse, really knows the “Addictive” mind and its manifestations.

Watch: http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/1253587

Peace In,
Mark

Rate it! 0

By: Kimo (Jim)

Kimo (Jim) — Sat, 09 May 2009 13:17:43 +0000

Back in the groovy 60s, gnosis was pretty hip. Even Timothy Leary was able to get beyond the dualistic rational mind and lose himself in the knowing through hypnosis.

Rate it! 0

By: gilbert

gilbert — Sat, 09 May 2009 11:07:48 +0000

This is an excellent ‘sign’. The mind cannot divide the simplicity of naked awareness.
A question is a biased thought which requires an answer to resolve it.
By simply staying with the open presence and a genuine desire to ‘know’, the questions that arise dissolve of themselves. The ‘energy’ stays with the seeing-knowing.
All questions are undermined simply and without incident. Doubts and questions then stay in the background as simple patterns appearing and disappearing. No one grabs them and runs with them.
THIS is so simple no one believes it. As I say over and over, it is NEVER a matter of belief.
It is knowing.

Rate it! 0

By: Linda

Linda — Sat, 09 May 2009 06:12:25 +0000

In drafting a question, an answer often comes without a need to post.

Not sitting on a picket fence, more like the two sided coin.

Rate it! +1

By: gilbert

gilbert — Sat, 09 May 2009 04:34:23 +0000

Yes………a question of balance is it?
Is it?
The ‘problem’ is that ‘we’ cannot process No Thing in the mind. The mind can’t even deal with ‘One’. It want to add ‘two’, three etc.
First you must know what you are NOT.
Once the view is clear of habitual beliefs, then it does not matter what is discussed.
I don’t know what Charlie is concerned about. There is no need to be concerned over ‘others’ getting confused. If ‘I am confused’ then some investigation clears that up quick smart.
Some seek attention endlessly and can never be quiet.
Some deal with increased attention given to them without getting dragged back into the drama of ego. Others sit on the fence. If you ever sat on a fence for awhile, you know it gets pretty damn uncomfortable. Especially a picket fence. Is this you?
Well, if there is some ‘taking this personally’ then yes it is you. Did I have to point it out?
‘The Non Duality fence’ is sharp as a razor. No one can stay balanced for very long, if at all. There is no way to get comfy on it at all.

Rate it! 0

By: Linda

Linda — Sat, 09 May 2009 03:38:03 +0000

I relate very much to Charlie’s comment,
“Though it IS certainly clear, simple and obvious that No Thing is the true nature of what is, over here there is a bit of â€¦ I donâ€™t know â€¦ â€œconcernâ€ â€¦ that when the â€œother sideâ€ that No Thing is EVERYTHING is not also pointed out, there can be a sense of nihilism, and the assumed entity can experience a deep depression (been there, ainâ€™t fun)â€¦ As my friend Tony calls it, THIS is Nothing Being Everything â€¦ I found Jeff Fosterâ€™s sharing about this here on UGC to be especially â€œon pointâ€ so to speak.”

I would appreciate some additional attention to this aspect of, nothing being everything. Balance it out a bit with more focus on the seeing/experiencing/knowing of I am everthing.

This website is AWESOME.

Rate it! -1

By: Roger

Roger — Sat, 09 May 2009 02:44:24 +0000

I’d really like to hear a podcast with the Dalai Lama. Oh, and Wayne Dyer would be great too.

Rate it! -1

By: billtys

billtys — Fri, 08 May 2009 23:22:55 +0000

See everything out there? Even see the body and mind as ‘out there’…

Then imagine this big open space ‘behind’ or ‘prior to’ that body/mind…

Is that what is being pointed to?

NO!

What is imagined to be the seeing/knowing, is not it! That imagination/concept is appearing in the seeing.

There is only seeing…there is only immediate cognition.

Rate it! -1

By: gilbert

gilbert — Fri, 08 May 2009 23:22:15 +0000

‘I’ is the label we put upon the knowing. ‘Am’ is the verb ‘to be’ – being, self evident.
Duality is ‘I know’. It is splitting the knowing up into a seeming two-ness.
‘Me’ and its ‘story of me’ is the series of labels ‘we’ as ‘thought beings’ put upon this clear presence of knowing.
This knowing does not need anything at all to be what it is.
It does not need ‘time’, or duration, to be what it is.
It is only ever this immediate expression, or movement, energy expressing itself.
It is All Knowing, All inclusive.
How can you be anything ‘other’ than THIS?
‘We’ take ourselves to be ‘other’ and try to get to this immediacy of knowing and we fail.
Start from the fact that you ARE this Knowing and all the ‘problems’ and misunderstandings vanish quickly.
No one can ‘do it’ for you. ‘You’ can’t do it for yourself.
You ARE that Knowing and nothing ‘other’ than THAT.

Rate it! -1

By: The Eternal State

The Eternal State — Fri, 08 May 2009 21:23:44 +0000

…and …
Being Is Knowing

Rate it! -1

By: gilbert

gilbert — Fri, 08 May 2009 21:10:52 +0000

Yes and another ‘story’ goes……the Gospel of Thomas was removed from the Bible because it was ‘causing’ problems – it was delivering the message too well. Cutting out the middle men. ‘When’ you cut out ‘the middle man’ in yourself – let no man (mortal) come between you and your God (immortality) – the sense of separation vanishes – just like a thought vanishes, quickly and forever.
You cannot have the same thought twice. It may appear to be similar but it is not the same thought. Remove belief from thought and it slips away with great ease.
The ‘me’ is a thought. A doubt is a thought.
What you truly are is NOT a thought.
Knowing is all there is.

Rate it! 0

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Fri, 08 May 2009 20:54:39 +0000

Mike, those were really cool suggestions (I know I’m not supposed to think someone talking about non-duality is cool). The Gospel of Thomas was the first hint in this life that there was more than meets the eye in life, when I was a teen. It’s really neat to hear Gnosis stated so clearly. No more wondering about that! Charlie, I will give Jeff Foster another listen.

Rate it! 0

By: gilbert

gilbert — Fri, 08 May 2009 20:46:07 +0000

Good advice – stick with the direct simplicity.
Do not hold onto opinions for or against anything.
Who takes that advice?
Non Duality is no less new age than esoteric new age?
Non Duality has no age whatsoever. It is THIS Eternal Moment.
Whether ‘you’ understand it or not makes no difference.
Whether the ‘persona’ is clearly a thin mask or a thick mask, the KNOWING shines out of every living eye.
Cast the beam of light from your own eye and stop getting involved in what you imagine that someone else sees or knows.
In the appearance of things…….everything appears to happen – no one is choosing to make anything happen.
An interview can reveal many things. A website is like the persona.
‘People’ judge ‘persona’ while the essence has nothing to say for its defense.
Many so-called Christians get upset around Easter time – isn’t it about your own self? Isn’t the symbolism about your own self – the death of something mortal and the resurrection of the eternal moment of clear and present knowing (Gnosis)?
In the STORY of ME, ‘We’ may get impressions of ‘this or that’ about anyone or anything. Those impressions are translated by a biased mind and are included into the story as being true. The impressions of this activity of ‘adding onto the story’ is somehow missed. If we truly could SEE it happening, it would not be so misleading.
Do ‘we’ actually choose which impressions register and which impression do not?
As Bob Adamson so poignantly points out: “The thought ‘I see’ cannot see”.
The pattern cannot know itself – the knowing is beyond the pattern.
‘Because’ the mechanical mind is so closely aligned with the pure intelligence, through BELIEF, it has come to believe that it is the intelligence.
That ‘point’ is pivotal to understanding ‘our situation’.
This movement of immediate knowing doesn’t go anywhere – it is silent and stable – the thoughts, concepts and ideas that float through this presence are very obviously transient – while what I am is obviously ever present. You cannot recall a time when you were not.
All you can say is “I don’t remember”. You do not remember being born and you know not death. Life is all there is. There is only One LIFE – THIS is IT.
This singular, One Essence expressing itself just as it is.
Gnosis is knowing.
The ‘message’ about your own true nature is not delivered by ‘someone’ from ‘outside’.
It is recognition – unexpected and clean, unattached knowing.
Knowing cuts through beliefs. This is very obvious, if you simply pay a little attention.
If the mind is fixated in mis-identified consciousness (me), this obviousness is missed.
As with all the major religious texts, the direct pointing is there, for anyone to see.
Most miss it and go on looking for something in the erroneous details of the text. Looking for something that will support their beliefs.
At any moment our beliefs can be shaken up and when the ‘balls on the table’ get scattered enough, the underlying ‘presence of knowing’ (Gnosis) may make itself unmistakably known (to no entity).
We can get too limited in a fabricated ‘unlimited outlook’.
Those who get the message, do not need to come back here, but they may just because of the entertainment value.
I think ‘Gnosis’ is an excellent ‘subject’ to explore.
Whatever it takes to bring about the recognition of our true nature is VALID.
Isn’t that what this is all about. It isn’t about ‘experts’ and ‘people’ playing the guru game.
Also remember that the Pipe Piper always throws back a couple of rats, as he leaves town, after ridding the town of vermin. It is his insurance policy for future work.

Rate it! 0

By: Lev

Lev — Fri, 08 May 2009 20:09:11 +0000

I just had a look at Timothy freke’s website,and it looks like more esoteric new age than non duality…also he seems to promote the law of attraction which is a non sense business…why not stay in the simplicity of non dual pointing?

Rate it! 0

By: The Eternal State

The Eternal State — Fri, 08 May 2009 20:04:13 +0000

Though it IS certainly clear, simple and obvious that No Thing is the true nature of what is, over here there is a bit of … I don’t know … “concern” … that when the “other side” that No Thing is EVERYTHING is not also pointed out, there can be a sense of nihilism, and the assumed entity can experience a deep depression (been there, ain’t fun)… As my friend Tony calls it, THIS is Nothing Being Everything … I found Jeff Foster’s sharing about this here on UGC to be especially “on point” so to speak. Taken in concert with John Wheeler’s expression there is a power-packed one-two punch, at least so it seems here….

PS: How do you know a fake “Nonduality Teacher” is lying? His or her lips are moving!

Rate it! 0

By: The Eternal State

The Eternal State — Fri, 08 May 2009 19:56:37 +0000

FWIW “Gnosis” is also used to “translate” the Tibetan “Rigpa” in some Longchenpa texts on Dzogchen …

Rate it! 0

By: The Eternal State

The Eternal State — Fri, 08 May 2009 17:38:51 +0000

A guy that was here at a meetiing recently sent this (Timothy Freke video)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=orPuzjxU9gE
Cheers, charlie

Rate it! 0

By: gilbert

gilbert — Fri, 08 May 2009 11:04:17 +0000

Timothy would certainly be good value, if we can find him. Gnosis is actually the ‘Knowing’ that is being pointing at here consistently.
His comments about wading knee deep through bullshit in the spiritual scene, is spot on. We get our fair share here too.
Nathan also would be a valuable one to contact. We shall do some research on these.

Rate it! 0

By: Mike in SF

Mike in SF — Fri, 08 May 2009 06:42:14 +0000

Ah, I thought of a few people who might be interesting to interview: Timothy Freke, and Nathan Gill.

Thanks,
Mike

Rate it! 0

By: gilbert

gilbert — Fri, 08 May 2009 02:38:41 +0000

You cannot avoid THIS moment….this moment is all there is.

Rate it! 0

By: billtys

billtys — Fri, 08 May 2009 01:59:03 +0000

Yes…Naked Awareness needs no trillion dollar defense budget either…

It is invincible, unconquerable and ever present.

Enjoy it while you can!

Rate it! 0

By: gilbert

gilbert — Fri, 08 May 2009 00:49:31 +0000

The recognition of our true nature is always unexpected.
In the appearance, the Sun creates the clouds and the Sun evaporates the same clouds.
The Sun simply shines of itself.

We are taken by surprise by every thought, we claim it as my thought more or less instantly. Beyond this activity, pure understanding is free from all appearances.
The activity of knowing is the basis of all appearances. There is no ‘how do you know’ to it – there is knowing. Doubt-less knowing. Acknowledge it.

Don’t bother with psychological explorations, they go on forever.

The yeah, blah blah blah is no defense mechanism worth having but the ‘me’ has no choice.

The intelligence that you are dissolves all defense mechanisms one way or another.

Naked Awareness needs no defense council.

P.S. Some members of the ‘God Squad’ write to me in colorful language, accusing me of all kinds of things. Zealous Religious types. Their rationale doesn’t stand up all that well.
They do not recognize that ‘belief in God’ is the problem. In their own terms: GOD knows you – ‘you’ will never know God. God is ALL Knowing. The limited intellect can only struggle trying to understand….while understanding itself is beyond the intellect.

Rate it! 0

By: Roger

Roger — Thu, 07 May 2009 22:50:37 +0000

yeah! and blah, blah, blah!!! and blahh, blahh, blahh, blahhh!!! blah!!! so there!

Rate it! 0

By: billtys

billtys — Thu, 07 May 2009 21:46:29 +0000

Look at the mountains, look at your front garden, look at the stuff in your house.

All objects!

Look at your toes, look at your hands…touch your nose and your hair….

All objects!

‘Look’ at your thoughts and concepts and ideas.

All ‘objects’ appearing in the pristine seeing…

Investigate. The activity of knowing is in full swing… and that’s all there is.

Rate it! 0

By: gilbert

gilbert — Thu, 07 May 2009 17:48:01 +0000

Yes, and NO THING is HAPPENING.
Nothing other than No Thing is happening.
In the appearance a few words are energized by belief and an apparent ‘someone’ in the thinking ‘looks’ for something ‘other’ than ‘what is’. That pattern of ‘believed in words’ can’t SEE at all. Basically it is the ‘me’ and the me can’t see. That activity, like all activities is also the No Thing happening. Words can’t really unravel themselves. The belief in words simply falls away, leaving naked awareness. The expression continues as the appearance.
The oscillation between hope and despair is the nature of the ‘me’ – a pendulum swinging between the polar opposites in the mind. Never finding peace, it continues to be uneasy, vulnerable and insecure.
There is no one there – but if the belief is that there is someone there, then that someone is called ‘me’. The ‘me’ never arrives at any destination it aims for.
How could it? – it is just a description floating in empty space.

Rate it! 0

By: Lev

Lev — Thu, 07 May 2009 09:39:23 +0000

Some look for miracles…the irony is that the only true miracle is that no thing is happening!

Rate it! 0

By: gilbert

gilbert — Thu, 07 May 2009 05:04:54 +0000

Whatever appears IS awareness. Or Awareness appears as everything….without exception.
It just isn’t how it appears to be.
Whatever it takes, to ‘bring about’ the recognition of what is already being cognized in THIS immediacy is totally VALID.
No appearance can give anything to another appearance.
The appearance of body-mind is believed to be what I am, that the is common belief.
It is functional as an expression of the singular essence, which is not busy manifesting anything. All these ‘entities’ including this apparent one, are merely appearances.
There is only one awareness. What you are is THAT.
There are no others.
‘People’ say Everything is One.
NO.
Everything is the nature of the appearance, multiplicity.
One appears as everything.

Rate it! 0

By: Vlad

Vlad — Thu, 07 May 2009 05:02:10 +0000

“Before Abraham (Jim), I AM.”

Rate it! 0

By: Kimo (Jim)

Kimo (Jim) — Thu, 07 May 2009 04:19:21 +0000

The seeker constantly talks himself out of awareness as anything significant. “There must be more…there must be an experience”. Even the guru sometimes says “Awareness falls short”… Falls short of what? The words in a book you’re trying to sell? Oh my! Another says “The student has passed the guru— in a left-handed compliment” Never could a three-dimensional gray haired object in fathomless awareness ever be taken as a guru to that awareness except in a state of utter confusion. These objects have no awareness. The aspirant has no trouble recognizing awareness but then projects and believes his projections–”Bob has awareness like me but in Bob’s awareness there is not only peace but incredibly liberating understanding”. PSSST! I have a secret for you…Bob doesn’t stand alone as any separate entity and certainly has no claim on awareness. The awareness mistakenly called “my awareness” round the globe is THE AWARENESS. The characters of Bob, Kimo, Gilbert seem three dimensional but they may as well be made of cardboard because those characters don’t do or own anything. Any wonderful thing said or any blah blah blah said only appears in this awareness I am. You’ve already conceptualized a character named Bob Adamson, you know what his body and face look like, you have an idea of how sacred he is and how his understanding must be….and you say I WANT TO BE LIKE THAT. No matter how complex or dreamy your imagination of Bob, he’s still just a reduced conceptual nugget or pebble hardly making a splash in that AWARE-BEINGNESS you are that registers all. Remember that awareness you keep dismissing as kid’s stuff or only for simpleton’s? It’s the answer!

But of course, you’ll file this one anyway as mere nonsense and try to tease your mind with more limericks and complicated descriptions of non-duality that conveniently keep you seemingly hid away and out of reach.

If you look at what I’m saying it will all fall into place. You’ll see that there is no freakin’ way that you could ever stand separate as a body or be successfully described as the combination of any attributes in the face of that self-shining, formless, being, awareness.

There’s only that immeasureable beingness that you already know and it’s registering all of these talking heads, experiences, feelings of “my body”, thoughts that you used to take as descriptions of yourself, laughter over the pompousness of those cardboard effigies who pump out their chests with the masters degree book knowledge of advaita. There is a gettingness but not a person who gets it because any person can only appear as a conceptual nugget in what you already are. More descriptions for more clarity…still only arising in that beingness. You’ve seen great major’s degree, earth shattering descriptions about what advaita says about what you are on the website, you’ve seen buttons linking to a donations page, but you’ll never see a button that links to what you are on this site. Just push away the computer and have a good meditation on what experience or perception or enlightenment feeling could possibly surpass your aware nature and then contemplate all of those ideas and images you have/had about yourself and see what they amount to in that awareness. Mere pebbles, less than pebbles….appearing in no-thing. (or loving presence if you can’t resist!)

Rate it! 0

By: gilbert

gilbert — Thu, 07 May 2009 01:25:02 +0000

The search is invalid.
The ‘you’ that searches cannot SEE.

Rate it! 0

By: Mike in SF

Mike in SF — Thu, 07 May 2009 01:10:18 +0000

Oh yea, I agree with Jeremy above, more from John Greven would be great.

I also like the idea of hearing from someone outside the Nisargadatta lineage although now that I think about it, I can’t come up with a specific recommendation. Haha.

Rate it! 0

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Thu, 07 May 2009 00:46:34 +0000

I hope my comments didn’t come across as an assessment of any particular expression. Tony Parsons is awesome, for the record. It was just my opinion about this format. I highly recommend to ‘others’ watching Tony Parsons in video form.

Rate it! 0

By: gilbert

gilbert — Thu, 07 May 2009 00:24:07 +0000

Phase Three of the Urban Guru Cafe, which may never happen, is the systematic exposure of various gurus and why their message does NOT work. Their ‘appointed’ devotees, who have the gurus seal of ‘now you are enlightened’ will also be exposed as just imitation of the guru. The problem is that it deviates from the direct message too much, or could do.
Various ‘people’ would get very upset and some ‘heavy’ shit would spill out all over the place. Also, why go sticking your head into a hornet’s nest?
In the past 9 years, I have made a lot of friends around the globe, friends I have never met ‘in person’. I have also ‘made’ a few ‘enemies’, it would seem, ones who can’t let go of some ‘challenge’ that was presented to them, through this pattern here. Some of those ‘enemies’ transformed into friends once it was recognized for what it was.
‘People’ can hang onto ‘shit’ for decades and they miss the ‘point’ of it all, over and over.
They are usually the ones who profess that it is all about Love….and that there is a process of purification necessary. The hanging onto ‘their own shit’ goes unnoticed. The biased view is attachment to a concept of ‘me’. Whatever it takes to free up that fixation is valid BUT they don’t want to let go of the ‘me’. They prefer to listen to their guru who feeds them with spiritual nonsense about some future time, when everything will be ‘good’.
I know full well (the knowing is) that that is a crappy story and is totally invalid. What is forever true, is right here right now. The question is, why is it ignored?
‘I’ as this appearance, can’t give anyone anything – that is understood.
For some there is a wonderful opportunity available through ‘the challenge’ of beliefs.
Gross beliefs are easy to catch a glimpse of – subtle beliefs often need to be stirred to the surface. This is no ‘picnic’. What is on offer is radically transformational.
The lotus blossoms on the surface of the pond. The sustenance of that subtle ‘fragrant’ expression is fed by the stinking muck at the bottom of the pond.
“Nirvana and Samsara are not two” – Buddha (awake).
You cannot ignore the shit, shit happens. It too is an expression of the One Essence.
Spiritual self-image is an illusion – one that is subtly fixated upon – the story of me.
There is no me, so why not see that and be done with the story once and for all.

Rate it! 0

By: gilbert

gilbert — Wed, 06 May 2009 23:45:51 +0000

Those in this lineage are easily approachable and available. The natural state is no stranger to them and they don’t play ‘the guru game’.
Many of the ‘others’ are too busy and ‘engrossed’ in ‘saving seekers’, usually masses of them. Many have followers who have never spoken one to one with them. One to one is highly effective when the pointing is direct and not story telling.
I say set them free quickly. What is the point of keeping seekers hanging around, unless the ‘guru’ needs the seekers to remain as seekers?
Every box of apples has some perfectly ripe apples, some almost ripe and some on the way to ripening. Some will never ripen and others are rotten – food for fungi.
Keeping apples in cold storage allows them to go flour like in texture….the life essence is drained away. You can coat them with wax to delay the decay……but…..
At the ‘right moment’ an apple picked straight from the tree is best.

Rate it! 0

By: Al

Al — Wed, 06 May 2009 23:31:23 +0000

“Totally impossible for any of those bubbles to separate from stream and achieve true independent self status at any time. Its (the bubble) literal ground of being is that air pocket caused by its watery shell connected to the entire stream at all times at its base. When the shell runs out of strength, the bubble doesnâ€™t separate from stream, it disappears (pops), and we see again that there was only stream.”

So death of a person (ending of a particular appearance) is the end of it?

Niz says “There is no compulsion [to be reborn]. You get what you want. You make your own plans and you carry them out. We grow through investigation, and to investigate we need experience. We tend to repeat what we have not understood.”

“It [death] is very much like sleep. For a time, the person is out of focus and then it returns. The person, being a creature of circumstances, necessarily changes along with them, like the flame that changes with the fuel. Only the process goes on and on, creating time and space.”

“The memory of the past unfulfilled desires traps energy, which manifests itself as a person. When its charge gets exhausted, the person dies. Unfulfilled desires are carried over into the next birth. I do not say that the same person is reborn. It dies and dies for good. But its memories remain and their desires and fears. They supply the energy for a new person. The real takes no part in it, but makes it possible by giving it the light.”

Sounds like unless one sees their true nature in this life something of it continues still in the dream of separateness.

On the podcasts, all good. Would like to hear from others outside of the Nisargadatta ‘lineage’. For some contrast.

Rate it! 0

By: Mike in SF

Mike in SF — Wed, 06 May 2009 23:22:18 +0000

Note: What I meant to say regarding “subtle editing” is that I like it when the dialogue is the main focus and the music weaves in and out without drawing too much attention to itself. The John Wheeler Part 1 clip is the best example of this that I’ve heard yet.

You asked to hear what people like and dislike about the clips Gilbert.

Rate it! 0

By: Morgan

Morgan — Wed, 06 May 2009 23:21:10 +0000

In appearance, it can seem that some pointers are more helpful than others. There’s nothing at all wrong with that. The crucial point of a pointer (!) is that it points directly at one’s being.

Rate it! 0

By: gilbert

gilbert — Wed, 06 May 2009 23:12:31 +0000

And a man in a dress wearing lipstick is also That…
Even the bum on the street and the one who looks like the butcher from Hell is That.
and……Even Charlie is That….appearing as a ‘Nother’.
Whatever resonates for you is the key.
It only takes one clear pointer with its accompanied direct insight, one recognition of own true nature, for the story of me to start crumbling.
It may appear to take a little time, but it crumbles.
The resonance is nothing but the life essence stirring up into conscious awareness.

What you truly are is un-touched.

As mind content, you are the simplicity of being the witness – of all that transpires – even the witness is content of mind….and will be recognized….and dissolve back into emptiness.
Follow that disappearance…….ance………nce……….ce………e.
and realize that it is the mind that (appears) follows and disappears – yet you remain – as you are, without any qualities apart from Seeing-knowing.

This is liberation from bondage……..a fictional bondage that never truly existed. It is all ‘stories’.

‘All that ‘happens’ is that the fixation on conceptualizations falls away.

(Then) All you can say is that Everything flows as it does. Which it already does.
So nothing happens.’

Rate it! 0

By: Morgan

Morgan — Wed, 06 May 2009 23:08:53 +0000

I am.
If I was not, no experience could arrise.
The thought “I am” is not what I am.
I am that which is prior to thought, which is it’s precondition.
I have never been limited, no borders impinge on me.
In my clarity, impressions and thoughts arise.
Some of these thoughts pretend to describe me.
Other thoughts reference these images.
Being is never sullied by appearances.
Our nature is freedom, we only suffer in thought.
In reality, oneness is all that ever appears.
There isn’t anyone who “gets this” and “doesn’t get it”.
There is only this.
Thoughts of confusion and separation will pass and this will still be.
Thoughts couldn’t appear without this.

Rate it! 0

By: The Eternal State

The Eternal State — Wed, 06 May 2009 23:03:47 +0000

Tony Parsons is THAT. Jeff Foster is That. BOB is THAT. John Greven/John Wheeler IS THAT.
YOU are That. One-Without-A-nother.
Who assesses one “expression” as “better than?” Gilbert IS Oneness Speaking. So are You.
So what? So … No Thing IS and I-AM/YOU-ARE … Just THAT. No Thing/EVERYTHING.
No-One Falling in Love with What Is.
Radical Unbounded ALIVENESS. a silent WOW……..

Rate it! 0

By: gilbert

gilbert — Wed, 06 May 2009 23:03:44 +0000

Note: If anyone wants to learn how to make dynamic podcasts, edit music and voice in an undetectable way – make Radio Programs that kick ass – and you have heaps of money, come to Australia and get some lessons.

Rate it! 0

By: gilbert

gilbert — Wed, 06 May 2009 22:55:56 +0000

The Van Morrison song at the head of the program has a key in it.
“Enlightenment – it keeps changing to something different”.
and “Don’t know what it is”.
The movement, change, is the expression.
The singular Essence is unchanging – in expression is is constantly changing.
If you cease from TRYING to grasp the changing pattern and rest in the pure SEEING, everything is known to be clear and obvious – self-evident
JUST AS IT IS.
………..As it is.
……………it is.
………………IS.

Rate it! 0

By: dualdave

dualdave — Wed, 06 May 2009 21:05:44 +0000

Thanks Morgan.

That is a very clear description of what is obvious here.

I experienced a profound sense of unity in my early twenties (I’m 41 now) that kicked this search into high gear. That’s what has made the nondual ‘teachings’ so attractive because it was clear ‘they’ saw what ‘I’ saw.

The no-thing/presence-awareness/non-conceptual awareness that appears again and again in these teachings is evident and undeniable, yet impossible to pin down.

The recognition of the ever present gap, space or stillness *seems* to have little to do with the with the experience of ‘one-thing’ I saw and that seems to be at the root of so many of these teachings.

Sailor Bob and the folks who had their doubts cleared up by him have spoken of subtlety, and that clear open knowing is certainly subtle. I can’t help but go back to an earlier question I posted here about an ‘event’ and there is absolutely an expectation of an ‘event’.

The ‘event’ is certainly something that was pretty much directly described by Ramana and indirectly referenced by Nisargadatta.

In the interim (ha ha) ‘I’ will ‘abide as that’/'be concious of conciousness’/'look inward’ until it becomes apparent just how ridiculous these notions are.

Actually right now I think I will go for a walk and then grab a cheeseburger. I picked up a really cool bottle of hot sauce I can’t wait to try on that cheeseburger.

Rate it! 0

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Wed, 06 May 2009 20:04:19 +0000

Roger,

My comments weren’t meant to state anything with authority. Feedback was asked for. Some may find those gentlemen very helpful. What would you suggest for future podcasts?

Rate it! 0

By: Jeff

Jeff — Wed, 06 May 2009 19:09:17 +0000

Gilbert asked for some feedback so here goes. The variety of the programs are great. The Nisargadatta tapes with sound issues and translations don’t do much for me. Written translations of his dialogues are much more powerful.

As someone else mentioned, I found John Greven very direct and helpful. I value simplicity in the message, where the mind can’t get actively involved and start asking questions and clarifications. Once that happens, I need to just let it go.

Sailor Bob is always very simple and clear. I find Mooji to be very clear and simple as well as Isaac Shapiro, Jac O’Keeffe. Those are the types that are of most value for me. They keep it very simple.

I truly enjoy reading everything you, Randall and someone like John Wheeler say but it is usually too complicated. It activates the mind and then I just need to let it go. What you are saying is not obvious, as shown by all the follow up questions. This appears to be the nature of pointing to non-duality. Those who realize it are exasperated trying to point it out to the rest!

Everyone resonates with different teachers, so I say keep the variety coming and thanks for all you, Randall and the others are doing.

The best answers are those that stop the mind, not engage it. That’s about the best I can convey from here.

You might be thinking, if the “simple” teachers were so clear, why haven’t I gotten it yet?” That would be a fair question. These teachers provide reference points I can quickly return to — that will calm the mind and show the illusion of “ME.”

Rate it! 0

By: Mike in SF

Mike in SF — Wed, 06 May 2009 19:03:22 +0000

My comments on the programs:

I like the musical interludes. My favorite podcast for content as well as the music selection and the subtle way it’s edited is John Wheeler Part 1. Part 2 has great content as well but there is 3 minutes of music and stuff before the dialogue begins which seems a little much.

Basically I like the clips with subtle editing that you don’t really notice.

I’ve been enjoying Jean Pierre Gomez’s site which someone on the boards suggested. Oh wait, I’m not supposed to enjoy good pointing. Ok, I’ve been reading his site and think there are some good pointers there. I wouldn’t mind hearing Areti interview him. It might be interesting particularly since his web site is just sitting there and he doesn’t seem to be holding meetings, taking donations, or doing any formal “pointing”.

Overall, all the pointing is sinking in. But here’s what my “search” often looks like: I read or listen to pointers. As I’m taking them in, I become aware of the presence or beingness. It feels good all over. But it often seems focused in my body from the neck down. Maybe it’s just pleasure I’m experiencing? Then I’ll simply enjoy the experiencing of this presence for a while. I’ll feel grateful that work is so slow and that I have all this free time to just rest as this presence. Later I will get hungry, or it will be time to go somewhere, and I’ll go about my day. Then I’ll find myself back in a story about how I’m lonely and if I was more successful I’d be happier in various areas of my life etc, etc. Where is the presence? Ahh, I need to focus on it. Maybe I should go back to my comfortable bed where I often rest as this presence for hours at a time. But then I wonder if I need to stay in bed for a long time to stabilize this experience. And what kind of life would that be? And aren’t I suppose to be able to experience this presence all the time?

I was at a Wheeler talk a few weeks ago and was enjoying the presence but then I started getting lower back pain which often happens after sitting for a while. I believed this pain was getting in the way of enjoying the moment and seeing what John was talking about. At least it sure seemed like it was. But then John said something about everything including thoughts and aches and pains being an expression of That. I had a direct experiencing and seeing of the pain that I’d never really had. I can’t put it into to words. The pain dissolved in that moment when I saw I was creating it. But it returned later.

Ok, I’m starting to ramble. I never really know what to ask when it comes to this non duality stuff. Basically I know this beingness and this presence. It’s totally clear, present and it feels good. And then suffering starts up when I separate from it as a thought or judgement about “me”. Is that it?

Rate it! 0

By: Morgan

Morgan — Wed, 06 May 2009 18:33:11 +0000

Hey Dave. You are the wholeness that thoughts arise in. You are whom they occur to and you still are when they subside. This is the proof that thoughts aren’t who we really are. If we were a thought, there wouldn’t be any present awareness when they were absent. Thoughts come and go. Bodily and worldly impressions appear and disappear. What remains? That is who you are.

Rate it! 0

By: Roger

Roger — Wed, 06 May 2009 16:07:20 +0000

“…. no more Jeff Foster, no more Tony Parsons… these messages donâ€™t offer much.”

Uhh, isn’t that the point? I mean, what would you expect them to offer in regard to NO-THING?

Rate it! 0

By: dualdave

dualdave — Wed, 06 May 2009 15:56:06 +0000

Hi Morgan,

I think you nailed it:

“The glaring gaps in itâ€™s stream go unnoticed, I guess because thereâ€™s no content to be aware of”

Whats left in those gaps is no thing and ‘you’ can’t really put a finger on it, but is somehow undeniable.

It’s slowly dawning that that undeniable ‘no thing’ is what all this fuss is about, but that recognition hasn’t blown away this ‘me’ notion (yet).

It *seems* the common refrain is to abide as that until it becomes evident that it is impossible to not abide as that because that’s what ‘I’ have been the whole time.

Rate it! 0

By: kale

kale — Wed, 06 May 2009 15:13:08 +0000

The podcasts are excellent; and so are the comments…(well, for the most part barring a few odd ones here and there).
I have listened to Mark West’s interviews on his website/ blog and find him extremely clear; a request to have him over would be wonderful. More Nisargadatta is always welcome….but seriously speaking, Gilbert’s written expression is enough to destroy the personality…

Rate it! 0

By: Morgan

Morgan — Wed, 06 May 2009 13:14:38 +0000

It’s strange that there appears to be so much identification with thought. The glaring gaps in it’s stream go unnoticed, I guess because there’s no content to be aware of. That which is absolutely obvious is overlooked because it isn’t an object.

Rate it! 0

By: Morgan

Morgan — Wed, 06 May 2009 12:47:35 +0000

I like the music and how the program is put together overall. Kudos to whoever chooses the musical clips – I think they choose some tasty stuff. I think I’ve listened to 6 or 7 of the podcasts on here and enjoyed all of them. As I said before – “Favorite podcast ever!”. To me, John (Wheeler) is the most direct pointer I’ve come across so far, I’ve also had the chance to speak to him a couple of times and alot of misconceptions were cleared up. Tony Parsons was the first of the advaita type dudes that I came across and, at the time, it seemed a powerful revelation but I think unless one sees how this all relates to one’s experience, advaita philosophy isn’t going to be very helpful.

Using any particular word (“being”, “presence”, “awareness”, etc) isn’t going to bring one any closer or further from what is described. The words are unimportant and only serve as pointers to what is. How can words stick to something that doesn’t have any qualities (except perhaps that of sentience which has no tangilble form)?

Enlightenment “stories” are utterly useless and tend to keep the imaginary seeker looking for a special experience. No special experience is needed to be what one is. If there is an enlightenment story, it seems it would be better to keep it to oneself because it only seems to cloud the issue (and, regardless, is only a happening in appearance). The earnestness or purity or whatever else of an imaginary character is irrelevant – it’s just a fiction anyway! YOU ARE. I AM. These statements are saying the exact same thing. As Bob always says – “You can’t say ‘I am not’.”

Rate it! 0

By: gilbert

gilbert — Wed, 06 May 2009 11:56:38 +0000

Yep, More Bob is on the way and I agree about the ‘every word’ comment about Bob. Some of Charlie is already recorded. Foster and Parsons, no plans for any repeats at the moment. No ‘airy fairly’ stuff either. We have some surprises in store and some ‘new folk’ lined up – and all the men wear trousers and the women wear blue jeans or nice dresses.

Rate it! 0

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Wed, 06 May 2009 10:40:21 +0000

Content-wise, no more Jeff Foster, no more Tony Parsons. I don’t mean those guys in particular, just from my 2 cent worthy perspective, these messages don’t offer much. At least in this particular format. The idea of a ‘teacher’ or whatever word you like that bends to meet the question seems to this meatbag to be more pragmatic. John Greven was great and I would love a followup. I would love to hear Charlie Hayes. His typed words don’t amount to much (direct correspondence notwithstanding) but listening to him speak it is obvious that he speaks from a place of real stability and balance. More Sailor Bob would be welcome too. That meatbag doesn’t waste a word. Don’t let the nonchalant delivery fool you. Every word he says counts. Break it down a sentence at a time if you must.

But what do I know.

Rate it! 0

By: Lev

Lev — Wed, 06 May 2009 10:39:48 +0000

Nothing is happening!

Rate it! 0

By: gilbert

gilbert — Wed, 06 May 2009 10:11:09 +0000

Apart from the regular crew who make comments here, the majority are pretty quiet. From the hundreds who download these programs, as soon as a new one comes out, it would be useful to get some feedback now and then about the programs. How are they for you? Have you listened to many of the programs?
What do you like about them and/or what do you dislike about them? No need to complain about the music, we get too many emails saying they like the music and have found new music to purchase for their collection. We don’t intend to have dry recordings of endless voice. Let’s have some comments or questions about the things that come up for you in regard to the ‘pointing’. The Nisargadatta Tapes will continue periodically between other programs. Warm regards – Gilbert.
P.S. Individuals have been sitting on tapes from Nisargadatta’s meetings for three decades. Since the Urban Guru Cafe started airing some of these tapes, others have been animated to do the same. The quality may not be as good as what we present here, since we restore the sound via specific skills, but at least the material is being shared.

Rate it! 0

By: johny

johny — Wed, 06 May 2009 08:09:03 +0000

The word Awareness is not it. The word Being comes closer, in my vocal bury easier to understand. It is without attributes, and is immediately available in the present moment. Infact it can only be recognised in the present moment, it stands before anything that arise in it. You are being, stay with it. You need nothing else, everything that arise in it cannot touch you.

Rate it! 0

By: gilbert

gilbert — Wed, 06 May 2009 05:40:08 +0000

Awareness is the ‘sub harmonic’ that every ‘thing’ rests upon.
You can’t work it out in the mind.
Understanding is concept-less, silent and wordless.

And in that ordinary awareness, elaborate imaginary postulations appear and are rejected, “I don’t want it”. Etc. ad infinitum. The dream of a stadium full of seekers there to hear a clear message is nothing but a dream.
A room full is about the limit.
Teachers are many but one who is truly ready to hear what must be heard is very rare. Yet the trying to get to that genuine ordinary awareness is what drives the seeker on and on, in his imaginary journey.
Simply being conscious of consciousness dissolves the minds content. Who wants that?
“Not ME”.
Crowd consciousness is tribal by nature. Even a close knit family will divide into opposition over the most ridiculous detail and belief.
THIS is the most intimate of all – being consciously open and aware, without taking delivery of the thought that ‘I am the knower’- ‘I am the thinker’ – ‘I am the doer’.
There is no peace of mind.
There is ease of being – yet few want it.

Rate it! 0

By: Kimo (Jim)

Kimo (Jim) — Wed, 06 May 2009 04:39:19 +0000

We’re trained to take the description to be what we are: I am the body, I am my thoughts, I am my separate eternal soul created by God.
Later we take a guru’s description of what we are: you are not the body, you are not the thoughts, you are that awareness. And we KNOW that AWARE-BEINGNESS-EXISTENCE, but we subsequently ignore it and look for “better things” because we still believe in the descriptions. “Nisargadatta is someone who got it and is someone who is peaceful, Bob is someone who got and is someone who is peaceful, and I want to be that too”….I don’t….because there’s never a forgetting of that awareness and nothing that ever trumped it yet IN A LIFETIME.
You could sit in a stadium on center stage, surrounded by 1,000 of the best books on non-duality and Bob could be walking around stage with a microphone in his hand and accompanied by all of his best students. They could have every line and every word of those 1,000 spiritual books memorized and recite them perfectly on cue for the crowd’s uproarious cheer and even recycle them into better-to-understand verses. Then Bob could resurrect Jesus and Nisargadatta and then Bob, Jesus, and Nisargadatta could recite to the crowds delight how beautiful it is to be in natural state recognition and you would say “I want to be that too”…I still say “I don’t”….Because, no matter what happens, no matter what anyone says, no matter what religious experience, no matter what display of perfect peace is rendered, those are still just perceptions, experiences, and conceptual descriptions you will commit to memory and regurgitate tomorrow as “something you want to be or something you want to attain”. Have you forgotten so quickly my friend about that ordinary awareness? That luminosity of Being that is required as the GROUND for all of those experiences, labels, descriptions, concepts to even register?

Rate it! 0

By: suki

suki — Wed, 06 May 2009 03:41:12 +0000

“When you are deluded and full of doubt, even a thousand books of scripture are not enough. When you have realized understanding, even one word is too much.”
~Fen-yang (Fun’yo Zensho) 947-1024

Rate it! 0

By: gilbert

gilbert — Wed, 06 May 2009 03:33:13 +0000

Love is giving.
The need for love is the ignoring of our own true nature.

Be warm towards yourself. “Be extremely friendly with that consciousness”(Nisargadatta).

It is all you have.

Sharing it openly is what is most refreshing.
Hiding it away behind a facade of fear is really quite a pathetic way to be.

Recognize that some reach out for contact. Do not ignore them because they are yourself.

“Do the thing you fear and the death of fear is certain” – Ralph Waldo Emerson

It is better to love and lose than to not love at all….is another one…….

I see it all, it is all so obvious………there is no hiding place.
People think they hide their crap but it is written all over their face and body language.
What strange creatures we are when clear knowing is ignored and belief is our master.

Openness is a rare thing – but everyone is attracted to someone who is open.
Natural confidence in being open may take a little while to settle in – but it sure beats the hell out of scraping around for some sustenance in the confines of a cut off and limited false idea of who I think I am (twisted personality).

Rate it! 0

By: gilbert

gilbert — Wed, 06 May 2009 02:38:09 +0000

“The body is not like a bodhi tree and there is no mirror bright.
Since everything is empty to begin with,
where can the dust alight?”
- Hui-neng – Sixth Patriarch

Rate it! 0