Comments on: 60. Rodney Stevens – Radiance of Being – part one

By: Formless

Formless — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 01:16:48 +0000

Does anyone know the name of the second song? It starts at about 2:53 in the recording. THANK YOU!
Ed: It is Sting (or Police) and it is an edited version of a song, which I edited for the program and I know the song as “Fragile”.

Rate it! 0

By: suki

suki — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 23:26:51 +0000

The appearance of a ‘thought’ and a ‘witness’ that observes the thought arise mutually. In the same way they disappear mutually.
The ‘thought’ and the ‘witness’ are NOT two different things, though it may appear that way. What can appear can disappear and vice versa endlessly.
What they appear and disappear in or to is that which NEVER changes……timeless non-conceptual presence/awareness which is always here and now. And that is what you ARE.

Rate it! +2

By: claudia

claudia — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 22:20:29 +0000

Okay, let me try, as a manner of “sharpening my knife”, to answer this question:

There seems to come a moment when nothing else is wanted, but to recognize THIS. There is nothing that one can do to bring about this moment. By witnessing the disappearance of thought, thought is seen for what it is, as unsubstantial as clouds that form and dissolve again. Awareness never appears and disappears, it is only seemingly clouded by thoughts. In the absence of thoughts it is seen that everything is registered effortlessly, that life lives itself – life doesn’t need a “me” or a “you” to happen – everything, absolutely everything happens simultaneously spontaneously. The mind “jumps in” and attempts to interprets it – but the mind is such a heavy clumsy instrument when it comes to describe THIS, that it is doomed to fail… for it can only think one thought at the time – “in the next second”, what it had just interpreted is’nt there anymore…

Gilbert’s pointer: “witness the disappearance of thought… observe the absence of the witness” is such a powerful one! In the witnessing there seems to still be an identification: a “somebody” watching, to whom it appears like a “gradual process”. However, the disappearance of the witness – that is – the falling away of identification, is “sudden, and once and for good”. Waiting for this to happen is useless. Get the “me” out of he picture and everything will take care of itself…

Rate it! +2

By: Cheryl

Cheryl — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 16:03:21 +0000

Sorry Gilbert if it’s off topic…Rodney or anyone can respond to this.

Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj

“Whatever is conceived by the mind must be false, for it is bound to be relative and limited. The real is inconceivable and cannot be harnessed to a purpose. It must be wanted for is own sake.”

Rate it! +5

By: Jacob

Jacob — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 13:05:54 +0000

a qoute from john wheeler

Don’t over-complicate. Pause all doubts and questions. That “full stop” is IT. Or, rather, what is present in that full stop is your simple being, in all of its aware simplicity and nakedness. When the idea of a “me” arises IN that naked awareness, simply see it for what it is — an empty idea coming and going in your natural state. This is what we overlooked in the past, but can see now. Seeing this simple point is all that is needed, because you simply are what you are. No concept can change this. If, here and now, you ARE that, then who is meditating or working — and for what?

love Jacob

Rate it! +9

By: gilbert

gilbert — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 07:05:25 +0000

Comments about the program content are welcome here. We can invite Rodney to answer questions. Of course everyone is free to comment, so long as it is appropriate. The ‘popularity’ of the programs is kicking along well, after our ‘system breakdown’ a few weeks ago. That hick-up slowed things down considerably for a little while. Spread the word and lets see if we can reach the ‘tipping point’.

Rate it! +4

By: billtys

billtys — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 01:50:24 +0000

This morning I said to my wife “Let’s grab a pizza for dinner and go and see 2012!”

She said “Let’s see how the day goes…and just take it as it comes!”

I know why I roared with laughter, I know why that comment just impacted so incredibly strongly, I know why that comment just struck home so powerfully. What else could I do except “take it as it comes”.

Is the imagined entity in control? No! Can I change what is happening? No! Will I go to the movies and see 2012 tonight? Who knows? When it is happening…it is happening!

The imagined entity does nothing, the imagined entity is an animation…a character in a comic book.

The existence of a creative intelligence is obvious…just look around. Anyone pushing buttons to control the planets? No. How can we exclude ourselves from this Grand Principle? Everything is natural functioning.

The appearing manifestation is happening…from the finest to the most gross…all is appearing in what or who You are!

But don’t wait for anything to change…don’t wait for illumination or “…for that pure intelligence to kick in…” (I love those words used above by Cheryl).

Words or thoughts that suggest there is a “becoming” or “when I understand this non dual stuff it will all be OK” just simply appear in what You are.

The wave, the whirlpool, the spray, the ebbing tide, the current…all essentially water but appearing as creation.

And how would it be possible for You not to be the creation? You and the creation are not separate.

This case of mistaken identity puts the emphasis on the body/mind.

The body/mind appears in That…and That is what you are.

Rate it! +3

By: Cheryl

Cheryl — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 01:20:03 +0000

Here is something I found in N’s book I Am That

Q: When do I know that I have discovered truth?

M: When the idea ‘this is true’, ‘that is true’ does not arise. Truth does not assert itself, it is in the seeing of the false as false and rejecting it. It is useless to search for truth, when the mind is blind to the false. It must be purged of the false completely before truth can dawn on it.

Rate it! +5

By: claudia

claudia — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 00:50:15 +0000

Exactly the words “I needed to hear”!

Rate it! +1

By: Cheryl

Cheryl — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 19:03:30 +0000

Yes I understand too about the judgemental thoughts…just seeing them, along with other thoughts, does ‘appear’ to happen more than once, as does dropping them. Look with earnestness, that is all. It seems like a ‘process’, but it’s just seeing what’s there already. Still trying to understand what is present, longing for that pure intelligence to kick in. There is some fear in letting it just happen, how do I know the difference between ego and pure intelligence? Yes I hear the answer, who feels fear, who is trying to drop it or understand pure intelligence? Letting go of the concept of ‘I’ is the solution – who am I? What am I? Who is this ‘me’ that wants to label experience? It does appear as an ongoing process in time, ugh. If I am being lived what choice is there except what arises in the present – seeing it and dropping it again and again.

Rate it! +3

By: Ronna

Ronna — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 15:02:06 +0000

“Once this has ‘happened’ you will NEVER be able to believe in anything ever again.”

Last night I was asked “Well, what do you believe then!” and I was silent and it was clear to me that I don’t believe anything. I only KNOW one thing and it can’t be described and so the challenge arose as to how to answer this person. I was elated at the knowing of this, at the impossibilty of belief!

Rate it! -1

By: gilbert

gilbert — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 08:59:06 +0000

I can almost hear the objections to “You only have to do the investigation once”.
For the mind that statement just does not sit neatly into the picture of what ‘people’ believe is the case.
“I have done the investigation many times and the shit keeps hitting the fan” may be a response.
What Bill is pointing out is correct – that is not a mere opinion I am expressing. I know it is true. I also know that the mind kicks up a dust storm at the suggestion of only doing it once.
So, let me say that it can appear that the investigation is done many times. And it may appear that ‘the block of ice is reduced with each strike of the ice pick’.
The point is that ‘when’ the seeing reveals the mirage for what it is, it is not a ‘doing’ by a ‘someone’. It is pure seeing.
Pure Seeing is happening right now (for everyone, even the blind SEE, it is just not including the seeing that belongs to the eyes).
The only ‘thing’ that seemingly obscures this SEEING is concepts about ‘not seeing’.
Sit quietly and look around you, without labeling anything and Seeing will ‘make itself obvious’.
Don’t make a new story out of the experiencing and let the seeing reveal ‘What is’.
Non-conceptual awareness is not a concept.

Rate it! +12

By: Ronna

Ronna — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 03:45:24 +0000

Thanks Jason, I did get in last night and thanks for all your help it was really amazing listening to everyone “there”. It is a bit challenging so “getting there” early is a good idea.

Rate it! 0

By: billtys

billtys — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 02:18:58 +0000

We can all relate (so to speak) to Joe’s story above. A flash of understanding arrives unexpectedly… but then “the s**t hits the fan!”

The sea appears blue, but on investigation… the water is clear. Just like a mirage…it seems there is water just ahead…but on investigation, there is no water. The sea STILL appears blue. The mirage STILL appears like there is water there.

Do the investigation…and although it still SEEMS that we are the body that has thoughts…the investigation reveals that this is not so.

It is only necessary to do the investigation once. One pointer will do it…then just carry on…because this is it…just now…right here…nothing changes…there is no becoming…

Investigate and the truth will set you free.

You are That…start from there.

Rate it! +12

By: gilbert

gilbert — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 22:56:54 +0000

Trying to discredit the speaker in some way.
The vibration or pattern that appears as the voice (sound) and the vibration or pattern that appears AS the ear which appears to ‘pick up’ the sound and the brain that translate it all are ‘made’ in the same instant by the same energy.
The immediacy has NO duration and nothing is stored in time. Memory appears in the immediacy and nowhere else.
The mind is time.
Whatever appears as mind appears in the immediacy.

Trying to get something or trying to discredit something is mind stuff.
It is a feeble attempt to protect an image of ‘self’ and there isn’t one. There is no self.

If there were a self then surely you would be able to explain what it is. All we do is stick labels on emptiness and then identify with the labels.
Can you truly find anything, any point in this consciousness that you can say “This is what I am”….?

When you truly see that there is no point or thing that you can say this is what I am, then that investigation self-eliminates the search. The seeker is vanquished by a simple ‘process’ of investigation in the immediacy and the ACT is performed by intelligence.
There is no separation.
The next thought, any thought, cannot be separated from THAT which cognizes it.
WHO has a problem?

Rate it! +15

By: Joe Cap

Joe Cap — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 22:24:54 +0000

Rodney seems to have that direct, unwavering clear voice. It is distinguished right away unlike the salesmen and traps I followed for years. Even though there is an ‘i’ that still feels separate, something is in this teaching that resonates. From the first words I read of John Wheeler- then Roy, Jason, Randall, Gilbert, Bob, Paul, etc. I cannot put exact words to it but can say that it sounds ego-less.
Last night in second life frustration came up and I all of the sudden witnessed thoughts that were trying to expose the speakers ego’s or discredit them in some way, but it would not stick. It was like a “yeah but…” but it had nothing after that. Here I am with these beings that have been nothing but generous to me, over and beyond anything I have encountered and thoughts appear like this!
Bob of all people was sitting on the floor for Christ sake.
So then I sit here and recognize that these were just thoughts and thoughts are not what I am- but when I wake up in the morning, and that first stunning thought of the tax bill punches me in the face, this is ALL out the window and I am back to being a separate me.
What’s recognizing this? I do not know, because I am it, yet it is just not clear.
This brings me to something I heard John Wheeler say on Charlie’s gig the other day: “start by the fact of who you are” or something… ok, I’ll start over.

Rate it! +4

By: gilbert

gilbert — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 21:28:56 +0000

Transcripts of what? If you mean the meetings in SL….the questions are either verbal or text but the answers are almost always verbal and as far as I know, no one is transcribing what it said and it is not recorded. So you hear it and then it is gone.
Such is the nature of each moment.
When a pointer hits its mark, recognition happens.
The pointers are just pointers.
The cognition is already (ever-)present and the re-cognition is like a sunbeam piercing the cloud.
The sun IS (was) always present……..and the cloud never truly obscured the sun at all.

Rate it! +2

By: fernando

fernando — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 21:00:24 +0000

No one ‘inhabit another body’. There is only ONE.
One seeing, One knowing. One existing.
Body-minds are only appearances in this ONE.

Rate it! +1

By: Cheryl

Cheryl — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 18:59:04 +0000

Somone had ask about UGC SL transcripts for those of us computer challenged, are they available?

Rate it! +1

By: Scarfox

Scarfox — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 18:05:46 +0000

It has nothing to do with the seeking game, just interesting that you can inhabit another body. What I was wondering though was about completely removing yourself means, but I guess it was answered as there is no not existing. Death is just a thought anyway.

Rate it! -3

By: billtys

billtys — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 07:33:10 +0000

You are That on or in which the everpresent dance of life appears… and disappears (including the concept of death).

Sometimes there is no dance at all.

Everything appears in You…silence and activity…and You are all of It.

Rate it! +9

By: gilbert

gilbert — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 07:06:02 +0000

Eckhart talks shit sometimes and the odd thing is that seekers love it to pieces. It is the One Essence expressing itself………
Who has a problem?

Rate it! +12

By: gilbert

gilbert — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 07:01:54 +0000

The ‘One’ appears to play a game of being ignorant.
The seeker is a story and that story wants to add to the story to keep the story going.
You can’t remember being born and you certainly can’t remember dying.
The Ultimate Knowledge is clear and obvious in the ‘place’ out of which seeing is happening.
You look ‘out there’ for non duality and for answers and you worry about finding a better life and about rumors of ‘death’.

The sense of separation is an attachment to the body image along with the story of me.
There is no other way to go beyond it all other than going right into it and expand it out until it is seen for what it is.

In the true essence of what you are there is no need to do anything.
The ‘seeker’ has no interest in its own annihilation.

This is why it is said that one must be earnest.
So long as their is a belief in someone escaping something (death or whatever) then everything is colored by that limited view.

It should be mentioned that it is not a matter of juggling concepts into a perfect pattern. Whatever pattern is constructed in the mind, the mind will immediately start to pull it apart and go on searching.
The mind is time.
The Timeless, deathless spirit is not in time.
How can you not see what is being pointed out? It is plain English.
There is no hidden agenda. Nothing is being asked of you – no fees, no worshiping of some idol.
The signpost is silent and simply points in the right direction.

Rate it! +10

By: Jackson

Jackson — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 06:17:36 +0000

Do you really believe Eckert Tolle or anyone else really knows what is going to happen after death? Forget death… it’s just another mind game!

Rate it! +5

By: Scarfox

Scarfox — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 06:00:50 +0000

I found some Eckhart Tolle interview where he answers questions that awakened ones don’t usually answer. They asked what will happen to you when you die, and he said that consciousness may lose the body, and still have a physical form temporarily, and then there is a choice as to whether to take on another body, with a fairly quick ignorance but not for long. The other option would be to completely remove yourself, whatever that means. Second option sounds scary, unless he means just the physical forms, but then what the hell do you do as consciousness without an object for eternity? Gilberto?

Rate it! -6

By: gilbert

gilbert — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 04:29:32 +0000

Very Clear Bill.
The bean shooting up through the dirt or a sunbeam cutting through a cloud – same – same intelligence in action.
The silent understanding that I AM THAT is actually wordless.
Our clumsy words always fail – not because we are inept but simply because the word is NEVER the thing it points to.

Rate it! +9

By: admin

admin — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 04:28:19 +0000

New pictures in the Virtual UGC section of the site – Sailor Bob attended this evening along with Jason, Gilbert, Kimo and Randall. If you have the ability, it’s a nice thing to be able to hear these speakers and directly ask questions.

Rate it! +9

By: billtys

billtys — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 04:10:22 +0000

What is the finest relative appearance? A quark? Maybe it is intent or a notion or a thought. Perhaps we could say it is consciousness.

Whatever the finest manifesting appearance is, it could only have its beingness as a result of You. If You were not,there would be no quarks or intent or consciousness. In the same way, if You were not, there would be no body, no thoughts, no world.

The quark and every other appearance, is You. How could the quark appear without You. There is no separation between the seer, the seen and the seeing.

Rate it! +13

By: Eric

Eric — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 22:56:10 +0000

Randall: “Oneness isn’t found by going deeper in your self and pulling out something new. If Oneness was something attained it could not be Oneness. How can Oneness or the totality be attained? If we speak of Oneness, can it ever be a state which comes, an appearance or experience?”

Thanks! I was almost enlightened there for a moment! hahaha

Rate it! -1

By: gilbert

gilbert — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 22:25:49 +0000

We love to be. This love of being will naturally protect itself.
Self preservation. The word self has appeared twice already.
One teaching says that there is no self. Another says it does exist and that this self needs to evolve.
What I have been attempting to point out in so many ways in so many days is impossible to point out with words simply because it is indescribable. It is also the most obvious and so the simplest of pointers is often the most direct and most potent – yet it is the simple expressions that the mind turns aside and dismisses because the belief is that “it can’t be that simple”. “I have been into this for twenty years and it can’t be that simple….please tell me it is not that simple” etc.
‘We’ are flogging a dead horse when we insist that the answer is contained in a concept or belief.
When all doubts vanish, it is not the result of someone’s effort.
The masquerade requires a mask.
The mask cannot SEE or KNOW anything, it is made of ideas and serves as an interface.
The mask is not aware.
There is ONLY one awareness, one knowing, one seeing.
It is not limited by some feeble concept that appears in a mind.
Only the believed in entity is limited and it is limited because it is not the actuality of seeing-knowing.
Simple.
What is being pointed out is not a matter of belief – it is knowing.
It is not ‘your knowing’.
It is ALL Knowing.
The persona is not the essence of what you are.

Rate it! +16

By: Jason Swanson

Jason Swanson — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 21:56:26 +0000

Tuesday night (tonight!) meetings are held @7pm Pacific Standard Time. If you have any more questions regarding the meetings email me, or feel free to consult the Virtual UGC link:

http://urbangurucafe.com/virtual-urban-guru-cafe/

Rate it! +2

By: Cheryl

Cheryl — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:32:16 +0000

First, thank you Gilbert for answering my question in Spira’s comments about ‘relative experience’. About the ship’s noise stopping…beautiful. I do feel the relief in almost every moment and am thankful for non-duality, because, otherwise, I would still be caught in the vortex of self-improvment – of being good enough – what a relief!

As to the question of reliance on a Teacher and/or Guru – well Nisargadatta puts it best – just have no doubt about what I am saying then you will SEE the truth for yourself. In the traditon I came from, prior to non-duality, it was taught that to abandon the Guru was a sure fire ticket to the hell realms. That was a Tibetan teaching. Nisaradatta says his only purpose is to take you beyond further help. I had never heard this before in any Buddhist teaching I attended. It was always more more more worshipping at the feet of those illustrious Buddhas to get those all important merit points. Such bullshit!

As to Randell’s pointers above…is it to say we feel no fear because the ‘Self’ (capital S) will never not exist? We can relax because there is nothing to work toward preserving? It seems that to not exist in some way IS our greatest fear.

Rate it! +3

By: Randall Friend

Randall Friend — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 15:31:33 +0000

Eric,

Yes, great point. So take it farther. Consciousness is the very necessity for anything to be known – the world, body and mind cannot be known without Consciousness. It is the very capacity by which the world is known. The world, body and mind have never once appeared without Consciousness.

Yet, as you have pointed out, you know that Consciousness comes and goes. How do you know this? How do you know that Consciousness came this morning and will go tonight? Consciousness must be another appearance TO YOU. Is it not true? So whatever that Consciousness is, it is a temporary state which is dependent on your presence. Can this be denied? Don’t you, whatever you are, absolutely know that Consciousness ends and begins?

That beingness, that presence of awareness, must remain to know the fluctuations of Consciousness. In the absence of Consciousness (unconsciousness), your being-awareness remains to receive the appearance of Consciousness. This is, in fact, the most obvious statement yet it is seemingly covered up by the concept that you are an individual who sleeps, an individual who suffers unconsciousness.

No one sleeps. Sleep and death are both taking a changing state and applying it to your true being – this applying of a limited concept to your Self IS the individual – the individual is nothing but the result of binding concepts like sleep and death, body and mind, time and space. Your being never came INTO existence. It was the event of Consciousness which came upon you and on which has been applied concepts – so as an individual who suffers unconsciousness there is the fear that the final end of Consciousness is the end of YOU.

But we already know this intimately. We don’t fear sleep, because we conceptualize that Consciousness will return. In fact we look forward to it, because the mind is in abeyance – the spinning intellect and conceptualizing mind is paused. If Death is the end of Consciousness, then you die each night and are reborn each morning. But is that true? No. So is Death actually true? Death is simply a concept for the certainty that Consciousness will NOT return. Yet in either case, is your beingness, THAT which witnesses the coming and going of Consciousness, ever affected?

There is no individual who IS Conscious and loses Consciousness, at night in sleep or ultimately at death. The individual is dependent on Consciousness to be known, and Consciousness itself is dependent on YOU to be known.

The world, body, mind, even Consciousness can be negated as concept. The only thing which cannot be negated is YOU – you are Self-Evident. You do not require Consciousness to BE. Yet the mind, in placing a concept ON you, seems to LIMIT you. None of these concepts can actually limit you, for you are the limitless reality already. We’re simply noticing this, noticing what IS, that is all.

Yet as an appearance, Consciousness cannot be apart FROM Awareness. As an appearance, Mind cannot be apart FROM Awareness. As such the same goes for the body and the world. These so-called “things” have never once been apart from the Awareness that you are. There is no distance between Awareness and Consciousness, the mind, the body and the world. If we point out the world, we are directly pointing out Awareness and nothing else. Awareness is the beingness or IS-ness of any appearance and is therefore not separate from it.

To even speak of an appearance is to imply duality. The first stirring of Consciousness is your Self – no matter what comes after, your Self is always found. Therefore ALL experiences ARE your Self. You are the absolute, undeniable reality – any appearance is your Self. This is, in fact, already your experience. Nonduality isn’t the product of the search. Advaita isn’t a new attainment. Oneness isn’t found by going deeper in your self and pulling out something new. If Oneness was something attained it could not be Oneness. How can Oneness or the totality be attained? If we speak of Oneness, can it ever be a state which comes, an appearance or experience? Can an individual find Oneness? No. Oneness realizes the individual is false, so to speak, therefore Oneness remains as it is without the apparent dividing concept.

You are Oneness or undivided reality. THIS right here is it.

Rate it! +14

By: gilbert

gilbert — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 11:55:59 +0000

Many ‘people’ appear to have moments of realization.
Gurus rest on one or two experiences as a source of endless stories of their accomplishment.
Many ‘people’ appear to have no realization at all.
Which is true? Are they not all concepts and stories about an entity of some sort?
Is there such a thing as an entity or a person?
Without thinking about it, can you find the ‘person’ that ‘others’ believe that you are?

One answer covers it all:
The mind is time.

Be still and SEE.

Rate it! +8

By: Jackson

Jackson — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 06:15:15 +0000

Do many people have a moment of realization, awakening, SEEING or whatever you call it without meeting with an awakened person or guru? I quess Rodney proves you don’t necessarily have to meet face to face to SEE this, right?

Rate it! +1

By: su

su — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 05:48:35 +0000

Thanks Jason, I am interested.
Perhaps we should e mail – my address is whoami@lando.co.za.
Appreciate the offer.
Thanks
su

Rate it! 0

By: Scarfox

Scarfox — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 05:03:50 +0000

Well Eric, I have to admit that their is some faith involved in this, whether Gilbert or anyone else denies that, it is true to our collective paradigm. In your case I think there has to be faith in Consciousness without an object-is. There ‘appears’ to be faith, Nisargadatta put his faith in his guru and the truth was realized. Bob Adamson trusted Nisargadatta, and Gilbert trusted Bob or the whole enlightenment thing, and Randall Friend had faith that Gilbert was genuine. And others will have put faith into what Randall says, for a lineage example.You have faith with being, a resonance I think, something knows this is right. With the whole YOU KNOW YOU EXIST thing, there has to be faith that this existence is eternal to even look at that pointer, or you might discard it since we all know we exist but we what does that matter if we think we perish. So the moral of the story is TRY IT OUT and find out for yourself, take the leap of faith that these guys are not bullshitting you, and you might be in for a surprise. Trust me it feels much better when the realizations to your questions are answered through your own awareness or self-inquiry.

Rate it! -8

By: Ronna

Ronna — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 02:42:12 +0000

Okay how about “Just like anything else arising, only an appearance”

Rate it! -4

By: Ronna

Ronna — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 02:19:59 +0000

Just like anything else arising, bullshit.

Rate it! -4

By: Scarfox

Scarfox — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 01:38:34 +0000

What’s with this 2012 bullshit?

Rate it! -6

By: Ronna

Ronna — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 01:23:10 +0000

Is the Second life meeting on Tuesday at 6:00am Pacific time or 7:00 pm Pacific time? Thanks

Rate it! -1

By: gilbert

gilbert — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 00:41:19 +0000

It appears to go away because the translation ceases in sleep. ‘We’ take ourselves to be the concept of whatever it is that the sense of ‘I’ associates with as itself via thoughts, concepts and sensations. That is usually called identified consciousness.
If someone bangs loud enough while you are asleep, the consciousness will stir and the eyes will open. If the KNOWING was not present, how could the knocking sound stir the consciousness?
What are you WITHOUT a thought?
‘People’ take the translations in mind as being reality.
Now, you will never work this out in the mind. The mind will only go on dividing itself into more concepts.
When a concept appears that you like, you embrace it. When a concept appears that you dislike, you shun it.
They are not your thoughts. Thoughts appear and disappear.
What you are can never disappear because it never ever appeared in this First and only Instant.
This moment right now is THAT First Instant, that ONLY Instant – before you think about it.
Be quiet and SEE.
The answer is not in the mind.

Rate it! +12

By: Jason Swanson

Jason Swanson — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 22:27:50 +0000

Su,

If you’re interested, I can meet you in Second Life and help you get those virtual legs up and dancing?

Rate it! +3

By: Eric

Eric — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 22:15:39 +0000

If asked “do you exist?” while I am asleep… I would not be able to say YES – I am.

It all assumes you are conscious (not physically asleep) to begin with, it seems.

If am that presence of knowing or aware-ness – that changeless presence – how does that exist when I am unconscious? If such a knowing is changeless, why does it seem to go away when I am unconscious?

Rate it! +7

By: Ronna

Ronna — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 16:13:53 +0000

Gilbert, I can’t get on to Second Life because the computer I use is my work one. I would very much appreciate listening to any recordings or reading notes from these meetings. If you know of anyone who is doing this would you please let me know.

Rate it! -2

By: Randall Friend

Randall Friend — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 15:53:10 +0000

There is a constant effort, it seems, to create what you are, to make it better, to make it perfect. There is a constant effort going on to change the appearance or presentation of what you are to the world. It is like building a facade, a storefront – the curb appeal must be right, the paint on the shutters must match. This process extends to the thoughts – manipulation of thought to create the right intention, the moral righteousness, the spiritual outlook. This is always going on and shows the absolute incorrect understanding of what you are.

During all of this, what remains untouched? What remains unchanged? If asked “do you exist?” you can undeniably assert YES – I AM. I exist. And how do you know this with such certainty? Is it because the shutters are a certain color? Is it because the bushes are trimmed nicely? Is it because thoughts are perfectly spiritual? No.

It’s because you are always here. Something about yourself is always here. That always-here-ness is what is being pointed to. Something about yourself is always knowing – that pure knowing is unchanged by the parallel thought processes going on, the habitual mental translations. That pure knowing or awareness is not subject to this changing facade – in fact the changes of the facade or persona or accomplishments or appearance of the body or content of thought are noticed BY or WITHIN this always-here-ness, this presence or always-aware-ness.

You are always here – that presence of knowing is always the case, always shining – the first thought comes within that. The first change comes within that changeless presence. That always-here-always-aware-ness is undeniable and not dismissable – it doesn’t come within thought or concept – it cannot be negated or reduced.

If you are asked “are you present?” – you will undoubtably say “YES!”. THAT is the recognition of what you are, right there. We are looking for what we are in the spiritual search – your certain answer of “YES” IS the recognition of what you are. Anything after that is purely conceptual.

Just stay with that absolutely certain and intimate knowledge that you are present and aware – you are that presence of knowing or aware-ness – THAT is what is being pointed out as something already there, something not achievable but only overlooked. It may become obvious that this space-like presence is the nondual reality being indicated by all these pointers.

There is a constant mental translation going on, almost instantaneously translating what IS. The concurrent mental translations are NOT the knowing. The mental translations appear IN the knowing

By: gilbert

gilbert — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 14:11:54 +0000

Well done. Mind you, we don’t need all the other 4,698 visitors to this site in the last 30 days making comments or the site will overload. Comments are not necessary of course. The site is mildly buzzing with activity around the clock. Thanks for being part of the ‘action’. Warm regards – Gilbert.

Rate it! +1

By: claudia

claudia — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 13:44:57 +0000

“What is it, that I am looking at, but can’t see?” This question, that Rodney mentions in the interwiev, sounds and resounds like the ultimate koan…

Rate it! +4

By: claudia

claudia — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 13:42:40 +0000

i have downloaded like 45 or 50 programs till “I dared” to post my first comment…

Rate it! +1

By: gilbert

gilbert — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 12:07:24 +0000

At this point in ‘time’ there are 376 downloads for this program and 14 comments. I guess the ‘silent majority’ rules.

Rate it! 0

By: su

su — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 06:19:03 +0000

Hi Gilbert,
I tried to get onto Second Life several times but found myself stuck on an island with no way to move anywhere.
I am too incompetent technically to find my way around there -
if there are any other luddites out there would it be possible to make a recording of the meeting where you would be answering questions.
Just thought I would ask.

Rate it! +1

By: gilbert

gilbert — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 03:43:49 +0000

Don’t forget about the Urban Guru Cafe meetings in Second Life. This Tuesday is the next one.

Rate it! 0

By: gilbert

gilbert — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 23:08:56 +0000

It is so simple – there is only one knowing – one awareness – it is never divided by what appears in the mind.
Reality is ‘solid as the Rock of Ages’.
Thoughts ‘appear’ to divide THAT which is Non Dual.
Drop the concepts and SEE that you are actually looking out of this immediate ‘space-like awareness’.
There is no duality in non duality.
Duality is an appearance – of multiplicity and the appearance appears on THAT which is Non Dual.
Be quiet and SEE.
Thoughts will seemingly drag you away from THAT – the truth is that the ‘you’ of belief is only thought and what you truly are never changes.
(I don’t get into big C and little c debate)
The pointers are pointers – they are dead sign posts compared to this immediate knowing.
The LIVINGNESS of it all, for the mind, is simply the recognition of what I am – and this LIFE is the Pure Cognition.
Un-mediated Knowing.
It is so simple.
The mind cannot divide what you ARE – it can only divide what you are not and it seemingly does that consistently.
How obvious is it that you have never moved out of awareness?

Rate it! +13

By: Scarfox

Scarfox — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 21:20:06 +0000

Thank you Suki, that makes perfect sense.

Rate it! 0

By: suki

suki — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 20:38:24 +0000

We have been graced by another amazing interview by Areti and Gilbert.
Enjoyed listening to Rodney share his experiencing on this subject.
Much appreciated.

Rate it! +3

By: Ronna

Ronna — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 20:04:08 +0000

If it is possible I would like to hear Greg Goode interviewed about his view on emptiness.

Rate it! +1

By: suki

suki — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 19:47:27 +0000

My understanding of ‘consciousness’ being spelled with a small *’c’ is that aspect of Awareness which is ‘personal’ or local (‘mind’, memories, thoughts, emotions, feelings,etc.).
Awareness is that Immediate Impersonal Presence where ‘consciousness’ is being registered. There is actually NO separation or division between ‘them’, except Conceptually of course!

*Consciousness spelled with a capital ‘C’ is often used as a pronoun for Awareness.

Rate it! +3

By: Scarfox

Scarfox — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 19:09:27 +0000

The only question I have is about the differentiation of awareness and consciousness that rodney points out but doesn’t define. It can get confusing when other podcasts like Spira’s say it is consciousness, and then some say awareness is prior to consciousness. In which way does Rodney mean here?

Rate it! +2

By: fernando

fernando — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 17:17:53 +0000

Rodney is great.
Thank you Areti and Gilbert, nice program.

Rate it! +1

By: Ronna

Ronna — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 16:17:10 +0000

Thanks again for another “hit” of pointers and music!! The music just seems to get better and better

There is no 2-ality in non-2-ality

Rate it! +1

By: gilbert

gilbert — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 13:05:56 +0000

Well Bert, that is our ‘intention’ from the very beginning.
Pleased it all ‘hits a home run’ for you.

Rate it! +4

By: gilbert

gilbert — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 13:04:07 +0000

Yes, thanks for the suggestion. Some may not make the connection from your comment. We were aware of Rodney before your suggestion of course but your suggestion played a role in bringing forward – in ‘the appearance of things’. Unnecessary comments may be frowned upon by some. Don’t take it personally. We will continue to bring fresh voices to these programs so long as the speaker is clear of erroneous beliefs. There are not so many ‘out there’ but they are increasing in number thanks to some clear pointing happening from folks like Bob Adamson. Enjoy.

Rate it! +5

By: Scarfox

Scarfox — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 06:51:01 +0000

Hey why the thumbs down? You don’t like my recommendation of Rodney Stevens?

Rate it! -4

By: IdahoBert

IdahoBert — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 05:54:51 +0000

I am so grateful that this amazingly ordinary place can allow such gracefully unadorned pointing flourish. The UGC is sort like “that low door in the wall, which others, I knew, had found before me…” that Evelyn Waugh spoke of. Thank you so much Areti and Gilbert and Rodney.

Rate it! +8

By: Scarfox

Scarfox — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 03:30:33 +0000

Ah, someone listened to me. Thanks.

Rate it! -2