Re: Dreams and Kicking Teachers

Hi Zenbob,

> Hi Dan:
>
> All this kicking can lead to bruises.

Who's kicking? Did you feel something?

> Awareness, as a term or condition
> should not be so easily dismissed.

Not if you think it's important.

>
> Word games aside, nothing can be communicated about the states of
existence,
> by anyone or any teacher without that precondition.

Who needs preconditions?

At some point we all
> must acknowledge that there are both wise and foolish individuals,
and simply
> dismissing "awareness" as a trap or foible of those who have not
entered into
> the purest state of non-duality is both likely to suggest that the
writer so
> stating this has fallen for the trap of hubris,

Also such a writer has fallen into the trap of
believing there's an individual who enters in.

Not at all, not at all...

> as well as patronizing those
> who might sincerely be attempting to come to greater understanding
of the
> nature of reality.

"Don't patronize me as I'm attempting a greater understanding,"
said the individual who believed
that it was another's hubris that needed looking into ...

> To sublimimate it all by saying "All is all" or that "awareness is
a trap"
> misses the essential nature of causality and conversation.

Well, an individual wouldn't want to miss out on knowing
that ...

> Someone says
> something and someone else replies. Agreement or disagreement is
> optional...but at no time in my recent memory or experience, has
the state
> of non-duality been so overpowering that neither the
> person beginning the conversation, nor those who reply(replied) had
opted for
> a state of silence because the non-duality thing was just so
obvious and
> intrinsic to their existence.

You assume that it's a state for an individual to be in,
and you assume that the result of that state
is to not participate in conversation ...

> Sure, I have no argument with you on the premise of non-duality as
an ongoing
> super-reality beneath our illusory existence(s); but really, even
that being
> noted--all of us engage in the functions of eating, sleeping,
working,
> talking, learning, etc. Since we do, despite the ongoing super-
reality, then
> this existence of learning and developing must have a purpose.

Yes, what is an individual without a purpose?
A purposeless individual -- but still there's
the purpose of being an individual ...

So, what seems purposeless to an individual
may just be truth with no individuals in it --
not lacking in purpose at all, just having
no purpose of its own --

> If it must have a purpose---then it seems reasonable to suggest
that learning
> (since it seems intrinsic to our existence) must be one of the
prime
> objectives.

As long as there's a learner seeking to gain something
from learning something ...

If folks pose questions and seek to arrive at deeper levels of
> cognizance in so doing, Dan, then I think it would be a lovely
thing if you
> would be supportive, rather than mock those attempts.

I'm not mocking anything.

If what I say doesn't fit your image of support, I
can't account for that image.

> All of us fall into various mind traps and illusions of
existence...because,
> by definition, we are all existing as creatures of flesh, blood,
mind, body
> and spirit.

That's what they said to Jesus after they crucified him,
I think. Just want you to see what you're made of,
Mr. Son of God ...

Sure, we're all just perfect and dandy on some vast cosmic
> scale...we're all on the journey to Samadhiville, but some of us
are just
> getting glimses, some of us have seen a lot, and will see
more...and none of
> us has the Perfect Apple of the Sun,

It's not something that someone has.

or else if we did, we could just Grok
> that knowingness and experience to all others

There are no others.

and we would all enter into the
> perfect non-duality state without effort,

No one enters in.

To be an individual is effortful.

> instantly and with no tickets
> requiring validation.

Punch your own ticket.

It has been said somewhere that
upon waking from a dream,
will you try to get the characters
that were in the dream to wake up?

> So, I say all this in good humor...not meant to be petty or picky...

Good, I'm the same way.

God humor to you, pardner.

>but folks
> out there might get the idea that you were suggesting that they
were in
> "error" and that you, naturally were above all that sort of
humaness.

If so, let me clarify.

For someone to be in error, in the way you're describing,
there would have to be an existing, separable individual
who could enter a state of error, or enter a state of
truth.

To perceive as if such separable entities were in existence,
and thus to conceive of a "me" who could be above
it all, and a "you" who would not -- that is the error,
so to speak.

The image of the lotus has been used to symbolize
what can float and live in a shitty pond,
but not get dirty.

What prevents me from being that lotus?

If I am worried that someone else sees me as living in shit,
and want to make sure he or she knows that he lives in
shit too -- might I not be distracting myself
from my own "lotus nature"?

Lotus Love,
also Lamborgini Love,
Dan




>
> Love,
> Blessings,
>
> Zenbob
> (Working on losing 25 pounds of his illusional, but overweight self
this
> summer!)

What prevents me from being that lotus?
Hi Dan:
Thanks for the thoughtful replies...
I particularly appreciated the "Lamborgini Nature" tag. Always
thought if one could have a "Lotus Nature" it only seemed fair that
one could have a Ferrari, BMW or Lambo nature, too.
I was hoping that you would appreciate that much of my direction in my
comments was intended to put the comments into a context that other
members of the Satsangh could appreciate, particularly if they were
not yet steeped in the ultimateness of the non-duality thingy.
I feared that some of our quick jibes and glib jibs might obscure the
truth rather than illuminate it. As Einstein aptly remarked, "...an
idea should be as simple as possible, but not more simple than
possible."
It is tempting to lunge for the too complex or the too simple.
Hitting that target is not easy...yet, as you realize, if you are not
trying to hit it, then you can.
I always like the image of the archer, the arrow and the target being
seen as one entity. Of course, if the target is another person, then
usually only the target screams when hit, even if they are all part of
the same greater non-duality thingy.
Peace, good Lambo-natured Dan man!
Love,
Zenbob

Hi Zenbob --

> Thanks for the thoughtful replies...

And thanks to you, as well ...

> I particularly appreciated the "Lamborgini Nature" tag. Always
thought if
> one could have a "Lotus Nature" it only seemed fair that one could
have a
> Ferrari, BMW or Lambo nature, too.

Or maybe a GTO nature, "Gone to ONE"

>
> I was hoping that you would appreciate that much of my direction in
my
> comments was intended to put the comments into a context that other
members
> of the Satsangh could appreciate, particularly if they were not yet
steeped
> in the ultimateness of the non-duality thingy.

With a hundred perceivers of a statement,
there will be a hundred versions of what
was meant ...

You're certainly welcome to put comments
in a context that suits your perception ...
as I'm sure I put comments into contexts
as well -- how else to understand a comment?

>
> I feared that some of our quick jibes and glib jibs might obscure
the truth
> rather than illuminate it.

Not to mention our frantic antics
and snide collides ...

Of course, whatever truth it is that
gets obscured, is known not to be
the truth that is never obscured.

So, maybe by obscuring, we're clarifying :-)

Oops, I've done it again. Another remark
to be placed into context. Thankfully,
I'm sure the Lamborgini Sutra will
allow you to do this in GTO style ... :-)

>As Einstein aptly remarked, "...an idea should be
> as simple as possible, but not more simple than possible."

Ah, and now those simple ideas have now led to
the possibility of world-wide holocaust.
A twist of irony with your simplicity, sir? ...

> It is tempting to lunge for the too complex or the too simple.
Hitting that
> target is not easy...yet, as you realize, if you are not trying to
hit it,
> then you can.

It hit me, I wasn't even aiming in the right direction :-)

> I always like the image of the archer, the arrow and the target
being seen as
> one entity.

It is -- and that's all she wrote ...
The shot and the outcome of the shot ...

Of course, if the target is another person, then usually only
> the target screams when hit, even if they are all part of the same
greater
> non-duality thingy.

Heh, heh ...

Another twist of irony with your nonduality, sir?

> Peace, good Lambo-natured Dan man!

Thanks, Zenbob.

May peace be heaped upon your head,
and on the heads of all your friends
and family, and may you land gracefully
in a GTO, rather than the other way
around :-)

Love,
Dan