Comments on: 49. Paul Hedderman – Recovery – Part 2

By: gilbert

gilbert — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 01:12:48 +0000

Some folk let me know that they don;t like what I do with these programs. Well, I don’t see much else going on out there, except toffee nosed interviewers asking mundane and silly questions, fidgeting with their rosary beads and playing,’Hey I am cool yeah’. They have been doing this stuff for many years and they are still seekers.
These programs here are entertaining and do not have a biased agenda.
Anyone who is clear is welcome to be interviewed. We have had many who insist that they SHOULD be interviewed and each one has been unsuitable. There are well over a thousand regular downloads happening. We must be doing something right. So, make a small donation sometime, if you can. This site does not run on the charitable nature of a few. Giving is receiving. Share with us the costs of making this site a growing influence for the benefit of many.

Rate it! +3

By: joshcircle

joshcircle — Wed, 16 Jun 2010 14:40:45 +0000

What Bob Dylan song is used?
(Editor: “It’s Alright Ma – I’m only bleeding” Good song eh. I have used a lot of Dylan, edited carefully and harmoniously)

Rate it! 0

By: Loci

Loci — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 09:56:21 +0000

The notion of personhood is not an illusion, it is a delusion.
Delsusions may happen to be trouble, or even dangerous, but to whom?
Who is at stake with such delusions?

Who will put there foot on the brake at the light?

Delusion exists in the manifest world, but it is not a cloud passing through the sky, is it?

Better to keep it all a secret…don’t “entertain” there is or is not an “I”.

Rate it! 0

By: Loci

Loci — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 01:07:46 +0000

Noumenon and phenomenon: essence and manifestation; subject with object!

Clouds, sound, light, dark, mind, no mind.
Certainly there is a person, however, a imagination, a symbolic, a real, confusion and clarity! (Ed: Mmmm…Clear enough?)

Mind, thoughts,emotions, sensations, perceptions, conceptions; these are phenomena. these change…the person, a mistaken identity, sure!…just as there are clouds across a clear sky, clear sky across space…space from essence,essence from stillness and stillness from mystery…what comes and goes?, what does not come and go?;these, the concepts, they are forms!

What, who is formless? can it ask!

subject without object now becomes object. Push this back, back, back…”trace back the radiance!”

Rate it! 0

By: Loci

Loci — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 03:35:45 +0000

Chinese culture never boasted a problem with this confusion.
With nonpictorial languages come these vaporous imaginings.

So, don’t use your feet to bake a cake!

Rate it! 0

By: Loci

Loci — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 02:58:50 +0000

If there is nothing that is simply genuine, with which to “resonate” WITH, then all the words, sayings and clever pointers won’t (can’t, i.e.) do the ‘trick’!

How to? Settle down!, and then settle down some more – use ‘descendal un-meditation

Look around, see what must be and just is, no fireworks needed; let what is seep in, and sense that “THAT” is meditating ‘you’ into presence!
This means presence is present, is here, yet not there (then)! Ha!

Rate it! 0

By: Stephen Met

Stephen Met — Sun, 16 Aug 2009 14:19:17 +0000

Indeed, many thanks !!

Rate it! 0

By: Shhh!

Shhh! — Sun, 16 Aug 2009 08:37:11 +0000

Ditto here. From a newbie who has a lot to look forward to. Thanks to your efforts.

Rate it! 0

By: Ralph

Ralph — Sun, 16 Aug 2009 06:39:00 +0000

Thank you Gilbert, Areti, and team for the 50 programs and all the work that was put into it. I’m sure it benefit many.

Rate it! 0

By: gilbert

gilbert — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 08:39:44 +0000

We were considering throwing a party to celebrate the 50th program. The logistics of getting everyone together just wasn’t practical, so we ask each and everyone of you to celebrate with us, in your own way. Have a hot cup of cocoa (hot chocolate) or whatever and listen to your favorite program while you drink it. Someone I respect took me aside recently and said that getting the UGC going is the best thing I ever did. Well, it wasn’t just me (no me), Areti does a fantastic job with the interviews and we also had some early on help from Eric and Eliot, on the technical stuff. Randall handles some of the technical stuff now and it all is (and was) necessary to make this canoe float. For a free service, I think it is excellent and I know of nothing quite like it. In the year or so of its life it has opened up some ‘minds’ to say the least. Of course all this is just concepts, so lets not have any smart ass comments about what I am saying here. Enjoy brothers and sisters. Cheers – Gilbert.

Rate it! 0

By: Shhh!

Shhh! — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 03:58:18 +0000

Of course I am.

That… and that… and that… and that, ad inifinitum.

You have a remarkable talent for pointing out the obvious.

Whatever description you want to tack on me henceforth…

I am that too.

Glad to resonate with you on this score.

Rate it! 0

By: Shhh!

Shhh! — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 16:00:05 +0000

Words/ideas/thoughts that directly issue forth from stillness/silence… come with the power of the stillness/silence (the root of a tree).

Words/idea/thoughts that issue from other words/idea/thoughts… come with the constrained power of words/ideas/thoughts (the tree’s branches).

One finger points at the moon.

The other at other fingers.

One attracts you to the conceptlessness of their source.

The other to the seduction of the mind.

It’s not the presence or absence of words/ideas/thoughts that’s the thing.

It’s where they issue forth from.

The root or the branches.

Rate it! 0

By: Richard

Richard — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 07:37:44 +0000

Interesting quote by Nisargadatta considering how many talks he gave. Good thing he did. His talking influenced Bob who in turn touched so many lives in a positive way.

Rate it! 0

By: Ralph

Ralph — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 06:02:31 +0000

“The analysis of pointers is pointless but the mind wants to have content so it will ask questions about the pointers instead of allowing the pointers to point. “

Rate it! 0

By: Shhh!

Shhh! — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 05:11:01 +0000

“Be careful. The moment you start talking you create a verbal universe, a universe of

words, ideas, concepts and abstractions, interwoven and inter-dependent, most

wonderfully generating, supporting and explaining each other and yet all without

essence or substance, mere creations of the mind. Words create words, reality is

silent.”

Sri Nisargadatta

Rate it! 0

By: Richard

Richard — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 04:53:33 +0000

tj,

The Absolute is beyond pointers. You already are the Absolute in which concepts, pointers, and consciousness itself come and go.

Is this not so?

Richard

Rate it! 0

By: big john

big john — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 02:03:57 +0000

Thanks for that Friar Tuck, its understood here what you are saying as this is what seems to be happening now naturally without any effort. The seriousness of this apparent search is diminishing somewhat with more of a sense of ease happening. Maybe it will continue “who knows.” Kind regards.

Rate it! 0

By: tj

tj — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 22:30:06 +0000

“From here I can see that all perspective and pointers have their place and with as diverse as people are (or oneness having infinite qualities), I think it is great to have a diverse amount of pointers to match the diverse qualities. I don’t see that as a mistake.”

Rate it! 0

By: gilbert

gilbert — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 21:24:57 +0000

How can anyone meet the seeker where they ARE? Ridiculous postulation. The seeker does not exist. Easier to meet a priest, if you can risk loosing you faith in one hour of non existing time. How many times does it have to hit home before such nonsense is cleared away for good? Me thinks this ‘home’ you speak of is just another fictional mind ‘icon’.
Still, what would I know? I am just the ‘Path Sweeper’ or is that the path remover?

Rate it! 0

By: Ralph

Ralph — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 18:35:12 +0000

Thank you Friar Tuck. I always love it when someone meets the seeker where they are and from there they reveal how it occured for them from their own experience. When one does this, it sure hits home. It seems to always resonate when one speaks from their own experience. Well said, my friend.

Rate it! 0

By: gilbert

gilbert — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 10:04:38 +0000

All postulations about becoming. The beauty of it all is it is all expressing spontaneously without an ‘entity’ anywhere to be found. There is no one doing anything. There is no one reading this text. Who knows this? No one. All there is is knowing.

Rate it! 0

By: Morgan

Morgan — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 04:53:30 +0000

Jake, nothing is needed for the “me” to melt away – there is no me. Wakefulness is the case – no awakening is needed. You are perfectly complete being right now. The images and thoughts that appear are just perceptions arising within your boundless nature.

Rate it! 0

By: Shhh!

Shhh! — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 00:49:51 +0000

“The Photographic Image Also Is Negative.

The Void only appears to be Emptiness or Nothing when it is regarded as the opposite of Something or Everything. Or it is only when Non-being is seen as the counterpart of Being that it appears as Nothing.

But when Something or Everything is seen as the counterpart of Nothing – then Nothing becomes Everything, and Non-being can be seen as Being.”

Wei Wu Wei

Rate it! 0

By: Richard

Richard — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 22:15:42 +0000

The big joke? It is all a joke and you are the butt of the joke.

The big joke? The son of a baron woman is trying to live in a castle in the sky.

The big joke? Two dream characters walk into an illusory cafe and one asks the other how to awaken. And the other dream character tells him how, as if they were both real.

Moral: Dream characters are fictional, illusory. They can never become awake. They can only appear awake within the dream. If there is discrimination between the real and the unreal, that is, between that which is unchanging, permanent, unseparated and Its dream (the changing characters), the joke will be seen in all it’s glorious humor.

Rate it! 0

By: gilbert

gilbert — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 20:39:59 +0000

“When put to use, it is inexhaustible!”
“You will know them by their fruits”.
“The only reality that you are absolutely certain of is………..”

Non conceptual awareness is not a concept.

It express itself as concepts but in essence it is no a concept.

The naked fan dancer is not the feathered fans. Now there is a concept. Ha.

Rumi:

Make yourself free from self at one stroke!

Like a sword be without trace of soft iron;

Like a steel mirror, scour off all rust with contrition.

Rate it! 0

By: suki

suki — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 20:05:57 +0000

Thoughts are perceived objects.In of themselves they can’t perceive or understand anything.That which is aware of all objects including thoughts, is what the pointers are pointing to.You are That.

Rate it! 0

By: tomvds

tomvds — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 19:58:52 +0000

The begging bowl of the mind is always empty; the basket of the mind is woven of fleeting words only. Sand that slips through the fingers…
“The hand tries to grasp the space it appears in, just like the mind tries to grasp the immaculately clear awareness”
Dead Ahead!
“Full stop!”

Rate it! 0

By: Jacob

Jacob — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 19:37:03 +0000

to pause thought and taste this presence over and over is that all that is needed for beliefs , the me thing to melt away , to do this during the day whenever possible or remembered will this do, nissagardatta sys , give attention to fact that you are, does it all fall into place with these directions, thoghts seek a wondering of when this will happen, how long all that stuff, love jacob

Rate it! 0

By: suki

suki — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 18:03:56 +0000

Therefore,
When the Way is expressed verbally,
We say such things as
“How bland and tasteless it is!”
“We look for it,
but there is not enough to be seen.”
“We listen for it,
but there is not enough to be heard.”
Yet, when put to use,
it is inexhaustible!
~ Tao Te Ching

Rate it! 0

By: tomvds

tomvds — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 17:42:29 +0000

In case of doubt simply say : Not-Two. The vista is completely filled to the brim with appearances, yet it leaves no trace. It is never saturated. That is why it’s called emptiness

Rate it! 0

By: Shhh!

Shhh! — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 17:14:19 +0000

LOL

Emptiness is a particularly inviting concept that many, who swim in the waters of advaita, like to evoke.

It has a particularly strong attraction indeed.

Rate it! 0

By: Ralph

Ralph — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 16:44:03 +0000

Shhh!, ….. is your basket of words almost empty too ?

Rate it! 0

By: Shhh!

Shhh! — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 15:43:28 +0000

“Resonance is not a concept, or are you going to tell me that it is?”

Yes, I am going to tell you that. Resonance and dissonance are complementary concepts. One defines the other. Any idea is a concept. And all ideas are products of the mind.

“You have no idea what concept will appear next. Is that a concept?”

Yep. It certainly smells like one. The concept of a “me having no idea what concept will appear next”.

“Concepts donâ€™t â€™causeâ€™ anything of themselves.”

Not even the concept of time? I dare say that the concept of cause and effect is very much directly linked with the concept of time, and vica versa.

Ditto for the concept of time with the concept of an “I” that appears to have duration.

“Can you truly find anything substantial in this phenomena, to pin point and say ‘This is what I am’?”

The concept of me can certainly put his hand into the grabbag of concepts and pull out some concepts to identify with. It is the nature of concepts to do that.

The conceptless-me, on the other hand, is another story (stated tongue-in-cheekly, since conceptless-me has no stories).

“And whatever that is, is that a concept also?”

The moment that you utter one solitary word or sentence… no matter the subject matter… you are swimming in the sea of concepts.

“You may think that they are â€˜your thoughtsâ€™ that appear. Do you choose them?’

The concept of me doesn’t think that I am the thoughts that appear. And no, the concept of me doesn’t believe that it chooses them too.

“And whatever that is, is that a concept also?”

All representations of thought are concepts. Including representations about truth (capitalized or not), justice, or the American way.

“Can you actually dictate what â€˜thoughtâ€™ will â€˜doâ€™?

The concept of me does not believe that it can dictate what thought will do.

“Do you truly have â€˜willâ€™ to â€˜doâ€™ anything?”

The concept of me does not believe that it does.

Rate it! 0

By: dan

dan — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:00:24 +0000

i got a sneaky feeling you’ll be back Gilbert! go have a cuppa…. !

Rate it! 0

By: gilbert

gilbert — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 08:43:45 +0000

Well, no one has thrown any virtual punches yet and no windows have been broken.
Excellent. Those who oscillate between hope and despair just may get a glimpse of something, if not only a bunch of ‘willing fingers pointing’ at the same no-thing.
Every expression is unique and always falls short. The field is full of weeds and flowers.
Each one has its place in the scheme of ‘things’. No other can occupy the same locality in space. Nothing can be removed and nothing can be added to THAT.
I don’t know about you but my basket of words is almost empty. I might take a break from all this back and forth. The next program will appear on Friday – I am guessing.
Warm regards – Gilbert.

Rate it! 0

By: Ralph

Ralph — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 07:08:45 +0000

hmm…. so, this is all just a world of appearances and beliefs.

Hey big john, maybe the ‘seeing’ of that is where the big laugh (cosmic joke) is.

Rate it! 0

By: dan

dan — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 06:50:25 +0000

To the ‘me’ the appearance of lots of different posts by many other apparent people may be misleading. It may hint that there truly are others ‘out there’ trying to convince you of something…… but words are all we have. In fact this pointing may indeed be the most potent way that THAT has in order to point back at itself and resonate, recognize itself to be THAT and only THAT.

It is all screaming out at the top of its voice saying “I AM THAT”

There are no substantial ‘others’ out there independent of what you are. All there is is this space-like Beingness. There is a space….. and that space appears AS all that is. There is no separation between that space and what appears. It is the very same. The very root-fabric of appearance is that space. It is Beingness.

Now, where are ‘you’ within all of this? There is none! That ‘you’ that you may think you are is just a momentary object of happening within that space. But, it is also THAT space. There is never any separation.

When pointing happens it can be a trigger. It may be that it is now appropriate for THAT to ‘hear’ that it truly is no-thing appearing as everything.

Rate it! 0

By: pishta

pishta — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 06:41:13 +0000

Shake the cage that you believe you are locked up in. The cage of belief.

Yet another unfortunate formulation? Trying to do ANYTHING about ‘teh cage’ (shake it, break it, even observe its locks) has one and only consequence: it asserts that it actually exists, along with the one who’s supposed to be in it. Can it get any more absurd?
Go make yourself a REAL cup of tea instead!

Rate it! 0

By: Ralph

Ralph — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 06:40:38 +0000

Okay now everybody …..just for a moment …… let’s all shhh !!!

See, there it is …….’stillness’…… our true nature.

…. now back to our regular programing.

Rate it! 0

By: big john

big john — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 06:31:35 +0000

“Being is not an experience. An experience is an appearance and, therefore, bound to fade.”
Thanks for that Morgan, subtle erroneous beliefs were added to this knowing, now exposed.

“All the psychological pain is nothing but resistance to WHAT IS. The me is resistance to what IS. That is what it is.”
Yes Gilbert much resistance to what IS mixed with erroneous belief also exposed.

“Some of the comments made here may seem ruthlessly non-compassionate – it is nothing but â€˜loveâ€™ is a different appearance.”
Always prefered a straight honest answer Gilbert. Sure did get my pennies worth, still waiting for that big (cosmic joke) laugh though hahah! Many thanks and warm regards.

Rate it! 0

By: gilbert

gilbert — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 06:29:52 +0000

Resonance is not a choice. What is true resonates naturally. Contrived resonance rings like a cracked bell. That is a concept, just in case you missed it.
Resonance is not a concept, or are you going to tell me that it is?
You have no idea what concept will appear next. Is that a concept?
Concepts don’t ’cause’ anything of themselves.
They are expressions no different to any other expression or appearance.
Can you truly find anything substantial in this phenomena, to pin point and say “This is what I am”?
And whatever that is, is that a concept also?
You may think that they are ‘your thoughts’ that appear. Do you choose them?
Can you actually dictate what ‘thought’ will ‘do’?
Do you truly have ‘will’ to ‘do’ anything?
Do a double back flip and try and catch your own shadow. Of all those who make comments here, you may just be the one that can do it.

Rate it! 0

By: Shhh!

Shhh! — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 06:07:51 +0000

I resonate with your above observations.

But I suspect that you don’t resonate with my observation that every single comment of yours, in the above, is a belief. And that ALL observations/comments are just various forms of beliefs.

Which prompts me, not surprisingly, to thank you for your entertaining beliefs as well.

Rate it! 0

By: gilbert

gilbert — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 05:59:48 +0000

All experiences are different, every single one.
The experienc-NG is undifferentiated. Only the translations of mind ‘appear’ to create experiences for a ‘me’ or ‘I’ and it is ALL stories about ‘me’ the experienc-er.
But there isn’t one. You cannot find the experienc-er – only a story about an experienc-er.
So, be inclined to believe whatever you wish to. Belief is not the actual.
The intellect is not intelligence. It is an expression of intelligence as a mechanical apparatus – that is its nature. It looks like you are an A grade Mechanic. Enjoy your craft.
Thanks for the entertainment.

Rate it! 0

By: billtys

billtys — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 05:59:41 +0000

“Everything takes care of itself.” (Gilbert’s words in the above post).

Simple but powerful words…

And has that not always been the case?

The imagined entity does nothing.

Rate it! 0

By: Shhh!

Shhh! — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 05:57:50 +0000

Richard says: â€œWhy do people who have experiences of the Seeing or Being or Knowing or whatever, conclude that they ARE the Seeing, etc?â€

What an incredibly poignant question, Richard. At least it appears to me as one.

When you do something without a do-er (i.e. cook a delicious meal, clean a motorcycle, take a very long shit, etc…. some of my favs), you are the doing.

Since there is no do-er in the doing, there is no conceptualization in and of the doing.

There is only doing taking place.

Could I suggest that the asking of why reveals the presence of a doer in any doing?

All explanations are aspects of the presence of a doer.

And when you are doing something without a doer, there is no interest in asking any questions.

Or evaluating the (de)merits of any answers offered by very willing (and sometimes anxious) pointing fingers.

But you will know this to be the case only by doing (fill in the blank) without a doer.

Done deal?

Rate it! 0

By: Shhh!

Shhh! — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 05:41:42 +0000

“Some of the comments made here may seem ruthlessly non-compassionate”

You raise an interesting subject here.

Is self-less compassion a different experience than a self-centered one?

When A is compassionate towards B, is it still compassion if B is viewed as separate and other than A?

Or is the ultimate compassion when B is seen and treated to be one with A?

You raise an interesting subject here.

I’m inclined to believe that compassion is the absence of an other… because of the absence of self.

Rate it! 0

By: gilbert

gilbert — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 04:52:50 +0000

It is all words being thrown around in a bid to expose what is at the core of the beliefs.
Reality Bites, as they say. Pain in the body is just a sign that something needs some attention. The story about the pain has a central fictional character and it is this that builds up into an unbearable, inescapable experience. Pain is usually bearable if it is left as it is in the immediacy. If it is too much for the body, the body will go into unconscious mode. That is the way it deals with it. All the psychological pain is nothing but resistance to WHAT IS. The me is resistance to what IS. That is what it is. As a mechanical device it works fine in everyday circumstances. When it turns into a self-destructive mode, all hell breaks loose. The ‘me’ squirms around trying to grasp some control of things.
The belief that this ‘me’ is locked into a cycle is not going to help at all. It actually perpetuates the story. With a genuine and sincere exploration of what is going on and of ‘whom’ it is all happening to, something remarkable opens up. Now, I can tell you about it until the cows come home and it is all hear say only.
Whatever it takes to bring about some genuine interest in what is truly going on is valid.
Some of ‘us’ have believed that we are stuck in that so-called cycle. It may take a good shake up of that belief of being stuck, to loosen the ‘bars’.
All I am doing is asking you to take a good look into the ‘matter’.
It is all quite obvious but the habit is to ‘look’ through the eyes of old beliefs and so all one finds is old beliefs.
If you actually SEE what I am pointing out, there may be an overwhelming gratitude arise.
Shake the cage that you believe you are locked up in. The cage of belief.
In the instant the intent to actually do that, the cage starts to reveal its ephemeral nature. This is not spiritual bullshit I am telling you. There was a time when I believed I was in that same cage. I know now that it doesn’t exist. But getting through to those who believe in the cage is exceedingly exhausting, so it would seem. 99% of the world is in that cage and the occupants will try to drag the free one back in, if only they could. So it seems. Some of the comments made here may seem ruthlessly non-compassionate – it is nothing but ‘love’ is a different appearance.
I have witnessed quite a few walk away from the cage of belief. It is a beautiful sight yet untold numbers remain in that fictional cage. Once freed from belief, the need for help disappears. Everything takes care of itself. Oddly enough, it is a thankless business ‘pointing out’ the erroneous beliefs of ‘mankind’.
Well, for what it is worth, you got your pennies worth.

Rate it! 0

By: Morgan

Morgan — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 04:47:49 +0000

Being is not an experience. An experience is an appearance and, therefore, bound to fade. No matter how grandiose of a feeling or vision one has, it will pass and one will be present as naked awareness. This is what is eternal (timeless) and real. Clinging to a thought, feeling or perception is futile as the one who would do so is also only a passing concept. What is true abides.

Rate it! 0

By: big john

big john — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 04:15:27 +0000

“Pontificating beggars on the path to enlightenment, full of self-doubt and dis-ease in being.
Desperate to be recognized as â€™someone specialâ€™.”

Seeking enlightenment or specialness is not my goal nor the reason for my questions, why tar everyone here with the same brush. Seeing there’s no me does not end suffering when the appearance of bodily disease and pain seems to re- introduce this believed in “me” very easily, its self evident almost. Knowing its a story is not much help either when the appearance is confirming the presence of a body/mind/me. It then leaves this “entity” locked in a cycle of belief that ” i must not see what is being pointed at. ” Yet it is known to be false.
Non duality paints a pretty picture of an end to suffering and peace when the “me” is seen through yet what appears cannot be denied or changed. This appearance seems a heavy burden. Yes i know story story story. Ahhh!! I’m gonna get blasted by someone now, ouch!

Rate it! 0

By: gilbert

gilbert — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 03:19:31 +0000

Richard says: “Why do people who have experiences of the Seeing or Being or Knowing or whatever, conclude that they ARE the Seeing, etc?”
There is NO separation. It is only a thought that seemingly divides the One Presence.
Experiences come and go.
Many have exceptional experiences. In the appearance of experiences, ‘I have had’ a dozen or so but I rarely speak of them at all. Every time I did speak of them, years ago, it sounded odd, felt odd and only ‘produced’ unexpected responses in those I was telling.
God is a word, a concept. Can you ever be anything other than this PRESENCE?
Call it whatever you want.
Seeing is happening and the ‘you’ that you name as your ‘self’ is only an appearance in that SEEING.
The mind divides and separates – only in the appearance of divisions and separations.
Isn’t that so very, very, very obvious?
‘You’ cannot get behind the pure awareness – which is everything appearing.
This is totally confounding for the mind that holds onto a reference point called ‘me’.
Drop it, without any pause to think about dropping it.

Rate it! 0

By: Kimo (Jim)

Kimo (Jim) — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 02:38:54 +0000

Any God experienced is little c consciousness and not the real thing.
There’s no conceptual leap concluding that WE ARE.
It is SELF EVIDENT.
It’s obvious that EXPERIENCING is.
Nothing ever got behind EXPERIENCING.
Any experience, sensation, visitation by God–is still an appearance; is it not?
The presence of knowing is air tight. No amount of doubt erases or even obscures it in the slightest.

Rate it! 0

By: Richard

Richard — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 02:29:15 +0000

In Feb.1979 while fasting and meditating, I was zapped by God. I saw a brilliant beam of light coming down toward me and felt great peace and bliss. Immediately afterward I saw people as being composed of little globules of love-light. For several months thereafter I felt the blissful presence of God. Have had other such experiences subsequently.

Question: Note in the above it was never stated that I felt I was God, just a closeness to Him. Why do people who have experiences of the Seeing or Being or Knowing or whatever, conclude that they ARE the Seeing, etc.? Why is such a leap made?

Thanks in advance for any answers.

Rate it! 0

By: gilbert

gilbert — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 02:24:07 +0000

Save the ink Kimo. So few can abide with the direct pointing. They just can’t let go of the little ‘c’ or the little ‘m’……me.
Besides finding a publisher that will actually print the book is like trying to find a needle in a hay stack, as the saying goes.
In certain ‘conditions’ there can be an openness to the message. Seekers generally have been filled to the brim with so much spiritual bullshit, by self-serving gurus, it is like shoveling runny shit up hill to get even to first base with them. Why bother? They find their own way to the clear message as they do.
The world doesn’t need any more teachers or gurus. It needs a good flush. Ha. Just stirring the pot. Some excellent new programs are lined up, so stay tuned.

Rate it! 0

By: suki

suki — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 02:21:26 +0000

The SELF cannot be framed into any concept or image, that is generated by ‘mind’.
Can you have a circumference if there is no center? Why look for something that’s not lost? There is nothing but Knowing.

Rate it! 0

By: Kimo (Jim)

Kimo (Jim) — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 02:15:16 +0000

Nothing that appears as little c consciousness can ever be said to describe what you are in and of itself.
Everything that arises appears as little c consciousness–including the conceptual you and all of your problems.
There always is a big C Consciousness that remains unseen and unmoving; registering all the little c consciousness children that spring forth from and resolve back into big C Consciousness.

Have you ever heard of not sweating the small stuff because it’s all the small stuff?
I’m thinking of writing a book that nobody will ever buy including those closest to me called “Don’t Sweat the Little c consciousness”

Rate it! 0

By: gilbert

gilbert — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 02:11:13 +0000

Entertainment is all included free of charge, just like everything else on offer here.
Spiritual ‘egos’ just love to ‘pretend to know’ what they can never know.
Pontificating beggars on the path to enlightenment, full of self-doubt and dis-ease in being.
Desperate to be recognized as ‘someone special’.
What have you ever done for anyone? It is all about ‘you’. WHO is offended by words?
These questions are directed at no one in particular – yet to be sure, ‘someone’ will be offended and in the flurry, they will miss the fact that the clear and empty silence of pure being is not actually disturbed by any activity at all.
What a wondrous display of infinite variabilities.
Listen to the programs. Don’t bother taking fencing lessons from ‘ME’. All your efforts fade away almost instantly. Who cares?

Rate it! 0

By: Michael

Michael — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 02:07:44 +0000

Why doesn’t Gilbert get interviewed, would be a good change from his oddly formed paragraph pointers. I’d like to hear him on the UGC, can’t seem to find one on here of just him speaking.

Rate it! 0

By: gilbert

gilbert — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 02:01:11 +0000

You could never draw a circle around your self because you would not be able to find the center point to put the compass point on.
There is NO duality in Non Duality.
SEEING that-KNOWING that, stills the mind totally. Not seeing it is non-recognition of ones true nature.
No Thing is self-evident (for no one).

Rate it! 0

By: Kimo (Jim)

Kimo (Jim) — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 01:52:00 +0000

Why draw any circles?
Every aspect of a world is in the Knowing, not behind it.
The only I that is in a world is the conceptual me that you take yourself to be.
Nothing can get behind the Knowing.
To identify something as greater than the Knowing instantly objectifies it as part of the Knowing. The concepts My Knowing, Your Knowing, My Different Perspective, Your Different Perspective are also in the Knowing. The concept of Nisargatta’s understanding is in the Knowing. Every great thing ever said or ever accomplished never appears anywhere else but Right Here Right Now in the Knowing and as the Knowing.

Rate it! 0

By: Shhh!

Shhh! — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 01:12:27 +0000

“Are you in the world or is the world in you?”

(Draws two circles; Circle A and Circle B. In Circle A, he writes “me” inside the circle and “world’ outside. In Circle B, he writes “me” outside the circle and “world” inside. Looks at both circles pensively.)

Hmm!

I must be both (the inside of the circle and its outside).

‘Cause when I am both, the circle no longer appears.

The inside (“me” or “world”) and the outside (“world” or “me”) are one.

No more circle…when they are.

How’s your circle doin’?

Rate it! 0

By: gilbert

gilbert — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 01:04:15 +0000

Everything is valid in the appearance. Nothing of the appearance amounts to anything substantial. It appears to.
Postulations about there being a ‘self’ and its relationships to ‘others’ is based on belief in self. This is why it is imperative to find that ‘self’ if there is one.
No one has EVER found the ‘self’. They may believe that they have but belief is NOT the actual.
In the appearance all manner of things take place. In Australia our last Prime Minister was bent on changing things to suit his ideals. He appeared to succeed. Now, a large number of potential employees are treated like shit by Employers. Respect flew out the window as ‘progress’ came in the door.
Pay rates are private negotiations that are in favor of the employer and they know it. Everything is for the share holders and the ones who do the work see little of the profits. Nations fight over who knows what? – and they throw up a smoke screen of stories to cover up what is really going on. Banks thrive on keeping everyone in debt, to them. Commerce is bent on convincing the public to buy, buy, buy – buy things they don’t really need. A $5 shirt miraculously costs a $100 once the small tag is sewn onto the collar and jumps to $200 once it is in the fancy dandy shop – on sale to those who need to ‘create’ the right image of ‘self’.
It is all images to serve the belief in images. It is all OF ‘the appearance’.
The image of self is the lynch pin.
Who do you think you are? Are you in the world or is the world in you?

Rate it! 0

By: Shhh!

Shhh! — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 01:02:28 +0000

Ralph asked, “Is â€˜freedomâ€™ and being at â€˜peaceâ€™ important to you at all? If yes, then look at yourself, look within and explore there instead of looking outside of yourself and trying to get what cannot be gotten.”

If the desire to be free and at peace becomes the reason for you doing anything, then what you achieve/acquire/discover will be measured by how free and how peaceful you feel at the moment of its achievement/acquisition/discovery.

This opens the door for a whole market place of vendors who are willing to sell you something for you to feel free and peaceful.

I dare say, too. that the mind will be the strongest vendor there.

Rate it! 0

By: Shhh!

Shhh! — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 00:31:37 +0000

“What is non-objective relation?

Wherever there are others there is a self,
Wherever there are no others there can be no self,
Wherever there is no self there are no others,
Because in the absence of self I am all others.

That is non-objective relation.”

- Wei Wu Wei

*******

I love Wei Wu Wei. Too bad that I never had the opportunity to have a tea with him.

Wei Wu Wei reminds me that it is your relations with others which more accurately reveals your relation with your self.

Not your personally expressed ideology re. self.

If you treat others as if they ARE you, than that tells me that you probably have no binding self in your life.

How you treat others… tells me more about your relation with your self… then your words do.

P.S. to Richard: Thank you for your welcome. I felt it before you expressed it.

Rate it! 0

By: gilbert

gilbert — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 00:28:58 +0000

Teach from MEMORY? NO ONE ever fell back into the Illusion. NO ONE ever came out of the Illusion. It is all stories.
There are NO PARTS to Non Duality.
All apparent parts are simply OF the appearance.
You can chase reflections in the mirror for a life time. You cannot take the ‘mirror’ back to the shop and get another one because this one is full of reflections.
You will never find pure awareness.
What you are IS pure awareness.
Believing the ‘personalized’ concepts that are expressed out of THAT is where the problem is – but WHO is it a problem for? It is the stirred up energy of belief that IS the problem.
But even that is nothing but a spontaneous expression, belonging to NO ONE.
When the light is turned off, the mirror does not cease from reflecting.
Awareness does not know darkness or light.
Take a very good close look at ‘who’ is being stirred up by mere words.
That is all that this Kerfuffle is in aid of – to reveal what is not.
What IS is obvious.

Rate it! 0

By: Ralph

Ralph — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 00:08:09 +0000

Quote:

I still know I am “nobody.” [Laughter] Even though all these “projections” come that I am “special.” And for many teachers that is a challenge, to be bombarded with projections of “specialness.” And even teachers who have already gone very deeply sometimes fall back into illusion. The impact of projections that they receive from all their followers or disciples is so strong that after a while the delusion of “specialness” returns. And that is often the beginning of the end of the power of the teaching that comes through. They may then still teach from “memory,” but when the “specialness” returns, that is the end of spiritual power coming through. Any idea of “specialness.” And I have seen it with spiritual teachers.

~ Eckhart Tolle

Rate it! 0

By: Vlad

Vlad — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 00:02:43 +0000

“I have pointed it out a thousand times. You cannot take my word for it – nor anyone elseâ€™s word for it. You MUST see it for yourself – that there is no â€™selfâ€™.”

Okay, so we can agree that the above comment is somewhat contradictory… yeah? (As Paul H. would say.) That’s what I’m getting at. Certainly incessant thinking isn’t necessary to function and be. The always-on life is here, however, there are these separate body-mind forms typing into Areti’s website — some much more cantankerous body-minds than others [hint, hint]. How is that not a part of what we are? Especially in light of reading your quote above regarding ‘you’ and ‘I’?

Dude, I know I’m not covering anything revolutionary here. It’s just confounding what you’re saying and makes little sense. RELAX, that’s not an attack, Uncle G! Granted I’m a moron, go easy… (in the appearance).

Peace & Lube

Rate it! 0

By: gilbert

gilbert — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 22:08:40 +0000

Speaking in a general way, ‘seekers’ are like children playing in the mud for hours. When Mother calls them to come in and clean up, they don’t want to leave the mud and clean up. The conceptual mud that most ‘seekers’ play in engrosses them in time and process.
When they are told that there is no time and no process, it is hard to bare such an ‘idea’ or possibility. It is not an idea or a possibility. It is not a concept.
Let go of all ideas and concepts – they are all second hand. You will NEVER arrange those concepts into a pretty pattern or into some ‘peace of mind’. There is no puzzle and no missing piece of the puzzle. What you are is what you ARE. What you are not, you will never become. There is no becoming – there is ONLY BEING.
That is direct and straight.

You will not find such information freely posted up at ‘the Ashram’ or in the publicity for a popular guru or teacher. Such information destroys the Gurus ‘business’ very quickly. The ‘guru’ must keep his followers in BELIEF – belief that they NEED him most earnestly, so that HE can deliver them into HIS self proclaimed ‘special’ STATE of being. BOLLOCKS.

Rate it! 0

By: gilbert

gilbert — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 21:07:02 +0000

I have pointed it out a thousand times. You cannot take my word for it – nor anyone else’s word for it. You MUST see it for yourself – that there is no ‘self’. NONE. Ziltch.
There is just SEEING-KNOWING. The mind’s translations are not the pure seeing-knowing.
The LIGHT by which you see and know is not a ‘personal light’. You may wish to claim it and even call yourself a ‘brother’ in need.
There is NO duality in non duality. No Brothers or Sisters, No Priests and No Abbey. The LIGHT reveals everything you need to know. WHERE are you SEEING from?
Duality is duality in appearance only. In this appearance ‘we’ can embrace each other or fight like cats and dogs. It makes NO difference. Who cares?
You wish to ‘fence’ with me? Your blade is blunt and there is no handle to your fighting implement. Fictional Egos fighting in cyberspace, like a rooster fight, may draw a good crowd and bets may be laid. It is all in the way that the DISPLAY (phenomena) plays itself out - IN the appearance.
Nothing ever really happened.
What will be your downfall? Doubt in your abilities? Slowness on the uptake? Your weak spot is on display? I have disarmed you a few times already and like a lame duck you return pleading a genuine case of dualism. It is all dualism in the appearance. There is no way out of the dream IN the dream. I cannot wake you up, because you are not asleep.
The believed in character does not exist, the dreamer cannot wake up. That is the frustrating stumbling block.
YOUR problem does not exist – so there is no need to plead for mercy.
The ‘self’ is non-existent – what you believe is ‘you’ is just made of words, ideas, memories.
The resistance to what you truly are is called ‘me’.
No one can cut that belief away for you. ‘I’ can wound your pride over and over, ‘I’ can insult your sense of being ‘someone’ and it may only raise the blood pressure.
All language is dualistic. For instance:There may be a keen awareness of that ‘fact’ or a loose awareness of that ‘fact’. One Awareness – two apparently different qualities.
What substance does ‘YOUR’ Genuine Stumbling Block HAVE?
The simple way is the easiest yet it ‘appears’ as the most difficult. Because it ‘appears’ to be the most difficult does NOT MEAN that it is difficult.
The ‘space-like awareness’ out of which SEEING is happening is NOT divided into two.
No time, no division whatsoever.
This is the most OBVIOUS and UNDISGUISED quality of ‘your’ LIFE.
It is not your life – it is NOT personal.
‘You’ insist in making everything ‘personal’. When I push a button or two it takes you over the edge.
What substance does that ‘edge’ have – truly?
There is no need to resort to abusive language or crude examples of how wounded the ego is. Simply cut off the supply of energy to that idea of being separate.
Simple – it is very simple. Go INTO the ‘anger’ and expand it, SEE whether it truly has any substance or any ‘pin-point’ to it. Recognize that it is all psychological.
All Psychology is ephemeral, simply ideas ‘passing through’. They come, they go.
Whatever comes and goes is NOT what you are.
Any apparent display of an ego here is just for display purposes only. It is not a red flag to inflame a bull’s rage. There is NO ‘person’.

Next please.

Rate it! 0

By: Vlad

Vlad — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 20:29:49 +0000

“Excuse my colorful language and YES, I am aware of the dualistic nature of these comments.”

Gilbert, this isn’t a smartass question, and God knows it’s been asked a gazillion times, but this ‘I’ you speak of is more than a simple convention of language, isn’t it? There’s a form and body-mind that processes said data and types out the words “I am aware…” That similar form over here certainly feels separate, although it’s animated by an inconceivable and incomprehensible life giving force/presence — hence, “God” in the trilogy of Abrahamic religions, etc. Maybe ‘snacks will wanna get in on this one…

Anyhoo, the point being is that there’s still a sense of separation in form. Hollering “there is no ME” and incessantly trying to stir up egos grows a little tiresome — for WHOM? The body-mind form — quite possibly similar to the “excuse my colorful language and YES, I am aware of the dualistic nature of these comments” separate body-mind form carrying on in Melbourne.

Again, this isn’t rudeness or undue smartassery, it’s a genuine stumbling block.

“Whoever loves his brother lives in the light, and there is nothing in him to make him stumble.” 1 John 2:10

Rate it! 0

By: Richard

Richard — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 19:44:20 +0000

Shhh!,

I like your name. Many of these posts are filled with wisdom. All are comical in that the posters think they can improve upon silence. Shhh!

I’m not an insider here or anywhere but nonetheless wanted to welcome you to this group.

Richard

Rate it! 0

By: Kimo (Jim)

Kimo (Jim) — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 19:19:49 +0000

Knowing isn’t a belief.
Any belief is simply a concept within/appearing in Knowing.
Let’s say someone awoke from a coma and they had no idea who they were, their name, their job, their religious preference. To all horrors, they may not even recognize their own family or their own wife.
Let’s assume that rudimentary english is still known. Ask the person if they know that they exist. Right away, they will confirm that THEY ARE.
That BEING is the LIGHT OF KNOWING and not a bodily appearance or a concept about what they are. The Knowing is the required substratum of all beliefs, sensations, perceptions, and all words that attempt to name or label all concepts, objects, and ideas.
The Knowing is ever-present and undeniable. Even somebody scrambling around frantically trying to figure out who they are just out of a coma or somebody reading websites non-stop about non-duality. If you halt them in their tracks, they will all agree that THEY ARE. And that’s what is sought and that’s what is found.

Rate it! 0

By: Ralph

Ralph — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 19:12:02 +0000

Never mind all this mumbo jumbo about trying to figure out or describe the indescribable. The ego mind is the only one interested in that kind of stuff. As it has been said many times, the mind cannot get this. You are not the mind. Who or what you truly are is beyond that.

Is ‘freedom’ and being at ‘peace’ important to you at all? If yes, then look at yourself, look within and explore there instead of looking outside of yourself and trying to get what cannot be gotten.

Know Thyself and all will be revealed .

Rate it! 0

By: Shhh!

Shhh! — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 15:45:56 +0000

“You canâ€™t even find an object called Mind.”

I resonate with this.

It is your belief in the non-existent mind which makes it (ap)perceived as real.

But the belief that you are “KNOWING”… without or sans the mind… is also a belief.

And all beliefs are products of the mind.

Including all kinds of beliefs in knowing versus KNOWING.

Including, too, beliefs in higher and lower understandings.

If a concept is differentiated from another one, it’s likely a product of the mind.

Pretending to be real, of course.

Rate it! 0

By: Kimo (Jim)

Kimo (Jim) — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 15:32:34 +0000

You can’t even find an object called Mind.
Even if one could, saying that the Mind likes to assume a guise of no-mind is a huge delegation of awareness to an object. Objects and thoughts have NO awareness. Objects can’t like to do anything.
The Knowing is identifying with concepts and then creating illusion traps of how it can’t free itself. Knowing is already free! Even in the contemplation of saying 1) I am a Person 2) I am no longer a Person but I am now a Mind with golden chains 3) I am No thing that still has not integrated fullness 4) I am the Natural State.
What did it take for any of those particular states to be assumed?
It is the Knowing. Shining brightly at all times. Try as it may to hide itself, it never does and never can.
The highest understanding ever uttered by Nisargadatta or by Bob and the lowest understanding ever uttered or contemplated by the most evil anti-social person is still observed in the bright shining light of Awareness.
The understanding makes ZERO difference to what you are. You are IT whether you like it or not. Say the most ridiculous thing and believe it or say the most sage thing and believe it and it matters not–the Knowing is non-stop.

Rate it! 0

By: big john

big john — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 15:09:10 +0000

There is gratitude here for your patience and understanding Gilbert, much appreciated. This inquiry is quiet new to this apparent “entity” and some of the terms and concepts used in pointing are a little confusing and some frustration arises. Other long standing issues (story) within the appearance seemingly cloud a clearer seeing also, its the “me” of course wants things to be better and a sense of urgency is felt/experienced because of this.
There is no doubt here that the message resonates deeply and your expression of it is totally uncompromising, its the only reason I’m here at all. Gurus and b…s… have no appeal here either, only the truth, whatever it is. Thanks again for UGC.

Rate it! 0

By: Shhh!

Shhh! — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 14:22:22 +0000

I enjoyed reading this thread over again. Being a newbie here, I am enjoying reading all of the threads that you have here. Thank you for that privilege. The bath water is very inviting to me.

I would only like to add the caveat that using the descriptor “to know” (capitalized or not) comes with a potential trap. It invites the mind to do the knowing for you, in the guise of no-mind.

The mind loves to assume the guise of no-mind, if it can remain on your throne by doing so.

Just like Satan or evil, it is purported, loves to assume the guise of good.

“I am (everything and everyone that crosses my path)”, on the other hand, removes the perceived separation between subject and object.

And requires no knowing. Or an opportunity for the mind to pretend that it is absent.

Rate it! 0

By: gilbert

gilbert — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 14:20:45 +0000

You are the ‘space-like awareness’ that all thoughts appear in.
Observe them disappearing – that is all you need to do.
The mind will quieten down all by itself.
You are the potentiality – be the SEEING only.
Simple. So simple. You don’t even have to do it – because SEEING is happening already.
Don’t worry, the apparent stupidity leaves with the conflicting thought patterns.

Rate it! 0

By: big john

big john — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 13:00:51 +0000

Thank you Gilbert, sorry if “my ” questions seem stupid or whatever, its just whats happening here I guess. Will need to re-read the above many times before it sinks in. To much thought going on here I know not much “i” can do about it.

Rate it! 0

By: gilbert

gilbert — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 12:09:39 +0000

Please NOTE before reading – This is not addressed to any ‘person’ fictional or otherwise, so DON’T take it personally.
Drop the stories about this guru did this and that guru did that.
Stories about any ‘other’ being will NOT help you.
So and so transcended into the Absolute. What a load of cods wallop.
None of it can mean a damn thing to you until it is YOUR direct and immediate experienc-ING. THEN there will be no need for stories about other beings and what they did or did not do.
It is truly pathetic how so many get hooked on stories of attainment and some vague and muddy ideas about how they will one day attain the image that is nowhere else than in their OWN BLOODY MINDS. Excuse my colorful language and YES, I am aware of the dualistic nature of these comments.
Everything is OF the APPEARANCE. Where does it APPEAR?
It is not a trick question for pretentious spiritual path treading, weary souls.
Where does ANYTHING appear?
In the SEEING.
IS there a SEER?
Find out………….is there anything with any substance, that you can say “This is what I AM”?
No Thing.
The witness is a concept, a reference point in mind.
What you are seeing is No Thing.
If you drop all concepts and cease from labeling ‘things’, does anything disappear.
No – everything still appears – it is not one blob of indiscriminate ‘matter’.
Everything is still as it is.
What ‘we’ get caught on is the translations of the so-called ‘mind’.
Experiences are descriptions of events pertaining to a central ‘figure’ which we, for practical purposes call ‘me’.
‘We’ take this translation to be reality.
The ‘witness’ is in essence pure seeing.
However, if you pay attention, you may detect a subtle narrative going on. A translation into words and images and mixed with this narrative is the ‘me of memory’.
“I experienced such and such” it is past tense, always. You cannot experience the future.
The pure functions of seeing, hearing, tasting, touch and thinking are happening spontaneously. The believed in ‘me’ (witness) is an appearance in Pure ExperiencING.
Present tense. The present is all there ever IS.
That which comes and goes is not what you ARE.
There is NO ANSWER IN THE MIND.
Why go looking there for one? It will continue to divide and flourish into a never ending story. Full Stop.

Rate it! 0

By: big john

big john — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 07:57:32 +0000

“I am THAT is not merely a statement. You do not have to wait until the physical death of the body to KNOW THAT.
There is NO â€˜heavenâ€™ or â€˜hellâ€™. There is only this KNOWING right NOW.”

“But do not cling to the â€˜witnessâ€™ – it will disappear also.”

Gilbert much appreciated if you can expand on the above. It seems to say the end of seeing/knowing, without the witness what can be witnessed what is the witness anyway. Is this Knowing right Now as temporary as the also?

Rate it! 0

By: pishta

pishta — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 06:58:49 +0000

The way you are answering some of the questions is just funny.
It is almost like if someone came to you on the street and asked ‘What’s the time, please?’ You would then persuade him that time is just a bull5hit concept and that the question is a complete nonsense.

Even though there seems to be some conflicts now and then in what some teachers are saying, I guess it doesn’t really matter as long as they point to the same direction. Therefore I am going to stick to the set of concepts which resonates most with me. Trying to resolve conflicts or figure it all out is unnecessary.

Rate it! 0

By: Richard

Richard — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 06:52:02 +0000

Shhh! raises a good point. In the Unicity where all is THAT and therefore nothing Essentially ever happens, what’s the point of pointing?

Ranjit Maharaj was drafted into teaching in his later years by a relative of his guru.

Many Ramana Maharshi disciples went on to lead isolated lives, mainly in a meditative state.

Yet there seem to be manifold forms of emptiness in the dream. Different strokes, as it were.

Rate it! 0

By: Richard

Richard — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 06:35:08 +0000

The I-Am is the primary illusion from which stem all other illusions.

Silent or noisy, the I-Am is a mental translation of the Absolute. It is on the mental level.

The I-Am is a step-down from the ultimate Absolute.

Nisargadatta contemplated the I-Am, got to know it well, and then it was transcended.

Rate it! 0

By: Shhh!

Shhh! — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 05:14:08 +0000

Create one single word or thought… just one.

“I” will do just fine. “I am” is just icing on the cake.

A soon as you create one solitary word, you are differentiating something from something else.

And that is the singular characteristic of the mind: it differentiates.

Anything that is differentiated is a product of the mind.

Including “I” and “I am”.

So while it would be fair to say that “I” or I am” is the root differentiation for all other differentiations, they are still products of the mind.

Whereas who you are is also undifferentiated, and, therefore, not a product of your mind.

So yes… “I” or “I am” are the root differentiations for all other differentiations… and still products of the mind.

But you are also undifferentiated, mind-less, and indescribable by words.

But that view of mine is always subject to change, of course.

“We do not possess an ‘ego’. We are possessed by the idea of one.” – Wei Wu Wei

Rate it! 0

By: Michael

Michael — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 04:59:08 +0000

Ok so the I AM is what I AM, I know the word is not the thing, but how else can I express to you my question? Obviously the thought I AM is not eternal, so is the wordless I AM ‘it’?

To me I see that I AM, then there is content appearing to I AM, which is I amness as well, but not what should be Identified with, not identifying with one thing in the river, but the whole river itself. You really confuse me now Gilbert, first saying the I AM is not it, now saying I AM is it.

Rate it! 0

By: Shhh!

Shhh! — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 04:39:32 +0000

If you asked me to tell you who I am, I’d be inclined to respond wordlessly… by offering you silence. And I wouldn’t feel any angst, at all, by responding that way.

If you believe that form is emptiness and emptiness is form, as I temporarily do (that’s only because I believe everything temporarily)…

do you also believe the forgetting is remembering and remembering is forgetting?

The two beliefs are kin to each other, I temporarily believe.

P.S. Re. “clinging to the words of dead gurus is a trap”… holds true for live ones too.

Rate it! 0

By: gilbert

gilbert — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 04:28:25 +0000

The only value that any pointing has is in the instant of recognition.
Recognition is re-cognition – the cognition of something already cognized.
The wordless ‘I am’ can not be spoken of with any true meaning.
It is what you ARE.
Now, tell me what you are.
You cannot do it.
You can say all kind of things but the word is not the actual.
It is a drop falling out of emptiness – falling back into emptiness.
The impressions register without any duration.
Welcome to LIFE as it is.
Emptiness IS form and form IS emptiness.
There is no separation.
“No Yesterday – No Tomorrow – No Today” as the ancient texts says.

Rate it! 0

By: Shhh!

Shhh! — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 04:12:07 +0000

I don’t understand your question, tj. Why would a pointer need or desire any patience?

Particularly if the pointer was pointing for people who were exactly where they need to be at all times.

I would also think that the pointer is pointing without any desired outcome or objective for any of the listeners. And, instead, be just pointing for the sake of pointing.

Since everyone is exactly where they need to be at all times.

I would also suspect that if there was a desired outcome or objective involved in the pointing, there might be a self-believing-in-its-self who is doing the pointing.

Desired outcomes and objectives are usually dead give-aways of a self-believing-in-its-self.

Rate it! 0

By: tj

tj — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 04:08:22 +0000

it must take alot of patience to be a ‘pointer’. does ‘one’ get burned out? whatever happened to jean pierre gomez? he started out sizzling and now…gone?

Rate it! 0

By: Shhh!

Shhh! — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 03:55:43 +0000

Gilbert said:

“Recognition comes unexpectedly. Once it is tasted, you may also be moved by a wish to â€˜point othersâ€™ to what you KNOW is true. But I can tell you now, there will be many who will be offended and want â€™something elseâ€™. Clinging to the words of dead gurus is a trap.”

And someone else (whose name escapes me at the moment) said, in response to a question of how the questioner can achieve enlightenment:

“No self, no problem.”

The few “enlightened” and “awakened” people, whose paths crossed mine, all had one thing in common:

they were practically invisible to the occupants of the world around them, and they enjoyed their invisibility without any desire to become visible.

It is my experience that having no throne-occupying self… leads many to be perfectly content with being invisible.

Rate it! 0

By: Michael

Michael — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 03:46:49 +0000

OK so the ‘I AM’ is the always changing, but not separate from the Eternal I AM, is this right gilbert? There is the BUCKET (will stand for source) and then the water = I AM? The bucket itself is I AM to as well though, no? Awareness IS, but it does not say I am, but I am talking about the wordless I AM for both the water and the bucket, in which there is no separation though. Maybe that makes the quote I AM THAT I AM.

This is how it makes sense to me, is it incorrect to say there is an eternal I AM with waves of I am in it?

Rate it! 0

By: Shhh!

Shhh! — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 03:43:51 +0000

Why all the interest in differentiating emptiness from form (i.e. thought) and form from emptiness?

Their (non)appearance may differ to the differentiating mind’s eye, but…

to the nondifferentiating no-mind’s eye…

they are one and the same.

Form and emptiness, that is.

Rate it! 0

By: Kimo (Jim)

Kimo (Jim) — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 03:32:53 +0000

That alleged quote from John Wheeler posted by Mark above is exceptionally good.
A thought cannot see a thought. There’s a presence of knowing registering thought within itself. Once that’s seen, put things on a larger more substantial scale than thoughts coming and going in what you are. Let’s make it material. A thought is an appearance and so is a personal character called Gilbert or Areti or a character called yourself. A thought knows nothing and any character that can be named also knows nothing–they appear from the knowing as sensations or perceptions and return from whence they came back into the knowing. Which brings us to our friend Huang Po who used to say–let me remind you that no object, including a Huang Po, is capable of knowing anything. The knowing is un-owned. The reference point that appears in the knowing doesn’t even try to claim the knowing because it can’t–it can’t do anything–you only assume it does–it does not. The knowing identifies with an imagined reference point and seemingly hides (in plain view) WITHOUT CHANGING IN ITS ESSENCE EVER. Did you notice that THE KNOWING NEVER STOPS even if you think you are a slow learner who just can’t get his stuff? The Knowing is the best hide-and-seek player ever and also the worst.

Rate it! 0

By: gilbert

gilbert — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 03:07:57 +0000

Very good – then question it thoroughly. You have ‘to be’ to question it.
The Eternal is prior to the ‘I am’ – it is No Thing.
The Primal Pulse of the Universe ‘throbs’ – it is LIFE itself expressing itself as all things in equanimity. Only the mind divides and separates THAT which is NEVER divided or separated. You are THAT.
What the mind translates will never arrive AT THAT – even though it is THAT in expression.
Just as a drop of water dripping from a tap will never be the tap (source).
The apparent repetition of the appearance is the SAME ‘drop’.
No one mastered it. No one ever existed as a separate ‘thing’ from THAT.
Everyone is THAT.
You can be smart and ‘point at me’ and accuse me of all manner of things – but can you find yourself?
That is the pointless point. Nothing will convince you of what needs to be recognized.
Recognition comes unexpectedly. Once it is tasted, you may also be moved by a wish to ‘point others’ to what you KNOW is true. But I can tell you now, there will be many who will be offended and want ‘something else’. Clinging to the words of dead gurus is a trap.
These ‘smart’ ones require God himself to come down out of the clouds to be their ‘personal’ teacher.
The KNOWING is absolutely stable. It is NOT ‘personal’.
Nothing in this world can rob me of it because it is known beyond a shadow of any doubt that I am THAT. Even if Nisargadatta came back and told me that I have got it all wrong, it would not threaten what is spontaneously known.
If you cannot see the total clarity of the direct message, then go back to your ‘teachers of process’ and there in their ‘embrace’ and fabricated ‘grace’ you will die of that pitiful process in ‘time’.
There is NO ‘me’ to be offended.
If you stir a bucket of water with a sick, it will swirl for awhile – but leave it alone and it will return to (relative) stillness.
If you sit and watch the surface of the water in the bucket, there is clear evidence that there is NO separation. Every sound and every movement of the breeze is found right there.

Rate it! 0

By: Michael

Michael — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 01:45:16 +0000

Dear Gilbert, is the I AM the eternal, or are we that which is watching the I AM, or is the I AM (wordless) the pure awareness?

Rate it! 0

By: Ralph

Ralph — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 01:12:02 +0000

Mind boggling… isn’t it ?

‘You’ will never get this. ‘You’ are in the way. Investigate this ‘you’ that appears to be obstructing ‘what is’. Trying to figure it out only keeps you in the game. You must lose to win at this game. Lose yourself to find your true self.

The ‘you’ (false self) will never get this except for Gilbert, of course. He mastered it.

Rate it! 0

By: suki

suki — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 00:53:47 +0000

Experiencing or perceiving is present tense.There is no ‘experiencer or perceiver’, just
a continual unbroken seamless streaming of Consciousness.Wherein everything arises including the concept of a ‘me’.
Once the ‘me’ is seen as a concept(another thought),albeit the most dominant and highest to maintain,it loses its strangle hold in the ‘mind’ and is rendered harmless.
Ghostlike and translucent, it joins the thousands of other thoughts that pass through or arise in Consciousness or Awareness.The accompanying mental narrative that usually goes along with the majority of experiences is diminished greatly and attention is no longer captivated by the ‘me’. This frees up tremendous energy and creativity as there is no center(thinker), only thinking arising in that infinitely vast empty space like Awareness that you Are.

Rate it! 0

By: pishta

pishta — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 00:18:20 +0000

- You have to BE, to say anything at all.

I don’t know about that. It seems obvious, but still I question it. I am not. Who says it? Or is there just a sound (of the words), but no ME that has to be in order to create them? Why put BEING of something as the cause of the saying? Please explain, I can’t wrap my head around this one.

- The â€˜witnessâ€™ is a conceptual appearance.

I am saying that all is appearance, therefore I must be no thing, not even the witness which I am aware of also => I am not. There is really only witnessing (experiencing/seeing/awareness) going on, the witness is mind-created after.

- Pretend if you want, you have been pretending all your life. Why stop now?

Pretending or not… does not matter. What I am can’t be affected by seeking or pretending. I can happily continue to pretend and identify as this body and believe whatever concept… There is no difference for I. It can’t be modified.

Even trying to stop pretending / stop the thoughts / stop the mind – it’s all just reassuring the false idea that there is someone who can do the stop. There never was anyone.
Trying to stop the seeking is only asserting the idea of the seeker, which is false in the first place.
Why then the suggestion to stop the thought for a moment and see? Isn’t that just asserting the idea that there is someone who can do it? You are in no way related to those thoughts, so how can you stop them?

the best way to get out of something is to realize you were never in it – paul h

Rate it! 0

By: Richard

Richard — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 23:30:47 +0000

Bob has also talked about seeing(?) nothing, which he called the highest.

Rate it! 0

By: Richard

Richard — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 23:23:05 +0000

Great post Gilbert (the one addressed to me)

I found it quite meaningful.

We could discuss Ishwara and I-AM and why this is a resting place to be transcended according to Nisargadatta’s tradition but that might be best for another group. (Besides, I’d have to look up quotes to back my case, and I’m lazy.)

About clinging to words and concepts, I like what Buddhadasa said, “Nothing whatsoever should be clung to as “me” or “mine”.

For years I had done daily the meditation practice of “Relax without conception or reference point” as recommended by Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso Rimpoche in a talk. Not unlike the “Full Stop” of the mind but for a longer period. It does give one a taste.

I don’t impune your motives. After all, anyone who like Bob Dylan can’t be all bad.

But how come you’re not insulting me anymore? Have I said something to offend you?

All the best,
Richard

Rate it! 0