Amma & Mazie

[Guest guest]

, "hrtbeat7" <hrtbeat7> wrote:

> , "jodyrrr" <jodyrrr> wrote:

>

> I have been to San Ramon and I have been to Santa Fe. While

> they may not contain any mansions or palaces, these are very

> expensive properties in very nice areas that have been

> developed with multiple buildings and improvements, and these

> are only a fraction of what her organization owns.

>

>

>

> ....It's nice to have a place to come and enjoy Satsang, wouldn't you

> agree? you seem to imply that ownership of properties carries some

> kind of onus, perhaps not quite measuring up to your concept of what

> it means to be "spiritual". are you willing to examine that belief?

 

It is nice to have a place to come and enjoy Satsang, but having

properties does carry an onus, and that is to continue to pay

for the properties. I *never* questioned the spirituality of

any of it, I just pointed out that it is just as economic as

it is spiritual. The two are not mutually exclusive. However,

is was exceedingly clear to this mind that the organization

was deeply invested in presenting the view that Amma is

some kind of *exclusive* source for this love, and that if you

want to continue getting this love you *must* continue to see

Amma at her ashrams.

> >You are mistaken about my projecting as I do have firsthand

> knowledge.

>

> ...i apologize for any offense i may have given, Dear Brother. there

> is an old saying that when a thief looks at a saint's robes, he sees

> only the pockets. i have also seen, over many years, the tendencies

> of some who are so busy minding the costs for the feast that they

> never enjoy the food.

 

I did not take offense nor have I any designs on Amma's

money. I'm merely pointing out the economic underpinnings

of the ideology her organization presents. They have good

reason to do so as the cost of maintaining such an organization

are high.

> >Amma's organization

> has proven itself quite adept at meeting this demand, in part

> due to their being able to persuade people that she is a divine

> being rather than just a really nice lady who is enlightened.

>

>

>

> ....anyone can draw their own conclusions about divinity,

> enlightenment, etc.. i have been visiting with Amma for a number of

> years, and nobody has ever asked me for a dime, or tried to convince

> me about anything, except where to park when there are larges crowds.

 

Then we have had a different experience of her organization.

> this has also been the experience of many, many people with whom i

> have personally communicated with. you seem to have a chip on your

> shoulder regarding large organizations, etc.. this has nothing to do

> with my original message, and belongs in another conversation, imo.

 

Ok. Your observation is noted.

> >What these eyes have seen

> *firsthand* has led this mind to conclude that much of what

> goes on is generated from within the devotee by the devotee

> using cues provided (knowingly or unknowingly) by the guru

> and his/her organization. As the cues come from "above",

> so the devotees are led to believe that the love comes

> from "above". And whether or not anyone did it on purpose,

> the end result is money going from the devotee to the

> organization and its leaders and figureheads.

>

>

> ....money goes where it will. concepts about separation between guru

> and devotee abound. people believe many things. can you account for

> the existence of anything at all? does your hair stand on end at the

> mere contemplation of the Grace of Beloved? do you know what any of

> this is -- what it Is?

>

> LoveAlways,

>

> b

 

Sometimes I know when to stop asking questions.

 

love--jody.

[Guest guest]

, "dan330033" <dan330033> wrote:

 

Still, the label hasn't added to what is ...

 

Only love ...

 

 

 

 

.....Namaste, Dan!

[Guest guest]

, "dan330033" <dan330033> wrote:

 

When someone shares a wonderful, glowing,

fulfilling experience, this is yet

in the realm of experiencing, and

can be contrasted with the "opposite"

experiences: unwonderful, nonglowing,

or maybe relatively neutral experiences.

 

And nothing against Amma, nor anyone who

enjoys her presence, nor someone

who perhaps might post on a different

list about enjoying

and feeling a peak experience at a

rock concert ...

 

And ... is there not a *knowing* which is love,

which doesn't depend on the quality

of an experience?

 

 

 

......very insightful, Dan!

Yes, fixation of identity in any experience -- from ego to witness to

formless to unity -- does not amount to Freedom. all experience

appears and disappears within a context that is itself not a state or

condition, but embraces all states and experiences simultaneously.

what it seems Loves wants to do is to enter into every possibility of

its own expression as form in order to liberation that expression,

that form, into the recognition of Itself, Love. this is a Mystery

that initiates Devotion and Surrender, and reveals "Thy Will" as what

we Are.

 

 

LoveAlways,

 

b

[Guest guest]

, "jodyrrr" <jodyrrr> wrote:

>It is nice to have a place to come and enjoy Satsang, but having

properties does carry an onus, and that is to continue to pay

for the properties. I *never* questioned the spirituality of

any of it, I just pointed out that it is just as economic as

it is spiritual. The two are not mutually exclusive. However,

is was exceedingly clear to this mind that the organization

was deeply invested in presenting the view that Amma is

some kind of *exclusive* source for this love, and that if you

want to continue getting this love you *must* continue to see

Amma at her ashrams.

I did not take offense nor have I any designs on Amma's

money. I'm merely pointing out the economic underpinnings

of the ideology her organization presents. They have good

reason to do so as the cost of maintaining such an organization

are high.

 

 

.....as you said above, economics and spirituality are not exclusive

of each other. in fact, the concept that anything is independent of

anything else begins to become suspect, and ultimately collapses, in

the dawn of awakening.

 

>Then we have had a different experience of her organization.

 

 

 

....apparently. :-)

 

 

>Sometimes I know when to stop asking questions.

 

 

.....i never stop hugging you.

 

LoveAlways,

 

b

[Guest guest]

, "hrtbeat7" <hrtbeat7> wrote:

 

[snip]

> ....as you said above, economics and spirituality are not exclusive

> of each other. in fact, the concept that anything is independent of

> anything else begins to become suspect, and ultimately collapses, in

> the dawn of awakening.

 

Actually not. That is, awakening does not cause the suspension

of the critical mind. One may come to know themselves as the Self,

yet still find their mind functioning *exactly* as it did before,

with the feature of critique intact. Vivekananda was an example

of this.

 

love--jody.

[Guest guest]

, "jodyrrr" <jodyrrr> wrote:

> , "hrtbeat7" <hrtbeat7> wrote:

>

> [snip]

>

> > ....as you said above, economics and spirituality are not

exclusive

> > of each other. in fact, the concept that anything is independent

of

> > anything else begins to become suspect, and ultimately collapses,

in

> > the dawn of awakening.

>

> Actually not. That is, awakening does not cause the suspension

> of the critical mind. One may come to know themselves as the Self,

> yet still find their mind functioning *exactly* as it did before,

> with the feature of critique intact. Vivekananda was an example

> of this.

 

 

 

....actually, Dear Jody, if you review what i said:

 

"the concept that anything is independent of

anything else begins to become suspect, and ultimately collapses, in

the dawn of awakening."

awakening has nothing to do with critical mind, or any other kind of

mind. one may continue as Bozo the Clown, for all practical purposes,

and thoughts will continue, just as they do, and synapses will

continue to fire, just as they do. the differenece is, one is no

longer prone to fixate and identify with them.

 

LoveAlways,

 

b

[Guest guest]

, "hrtbeat7" <hrtbeat7> wrote:

> , "jodyrrr" <jodyrrr> wrote:

> > , "hrtbeat7" <hrtbeat7> wrote:

> >

> > [snip]

> >

> > > ....as you said above, economics and spirituality are not

> exclusive

> > > of each other. in fact, the concept that anything is independent

> of

> > > anything else begins to become suspect, and ultimately collapses,

> in

> > > the dawn of awakening.

> >

> > Actually not. That is, awakening does not cause the suspension

> > of the critical mind. One may come to know themselves as the Self,

> > yet still find their mind functioning *exactly* as it did before,

> > with the feature of critique intact. Vivekananda was an example

> > of this.

>

>

>

> ...actually, Dear Jody, if you review what i said:

>

> "the concept that anything is independent of

> anything else begins to become suspect, and ultimately collapses, in

> the dawn of awakening."

> awakening has nothing to do with critical mind, or any other kind of

> mind. one may continue as Bozo the Clown, for all practical purposes,

> and thoughts will continue, just as they do, and synapses will

> continue to fire, just as they do. the differenece is, one is no

> longer prone to fixate and identify with them.

>

> LoveAlways,

>

> b

 

Yes, quite!

 

love--jody.

[Guest guest]

, "jodyrrr" <jodyrrr> wrote:

 

 

Yes, quite!

 

 

 

"Nor is there any difference between the jnani and the ignorant

(ajnani) in their conduct; the difference lies only in their angles

of vision."

 

Ramana, Absolute Consciousness

[Guest guest]

Hi Mazie --

 

Thanks for what you've shared.

 

Including:

 

.... ~~~~~As It Is Now, This Moment, perpetual Delight in all things,

for that is All there is or ever was or ever will Be, is it not so my

Dearest Brother Danji? Bright Kissing to the Heart of conceptual-

Crimson, Colorless, Odorless, Formless, and yet, of course all things

and nothing, just the the Radiant Loving Heart, the Home, the

OneHeart...Dan, Good Morning my Love, and this computer will not

conform to form,atting yet and so you see this strange non-ability to

get "enter" to enter, and how humorous to coin that coinage Love,

Mazie.

 

Namaste and love to you.

 

And this love transcends love,

having no other whatsoever.

 

Radiating in the space that is itself

beginninglessly.

 

Alone, not as a human aloneness,

but alone without ever having

known another, or known a something.

 

Yes, there is only this heart.

 

And a human heart aches to feel

what can't be felt:

this heart that doesn't have thought

or feeling,

doesn't know anything,

yet alone

is.

 

And from/as which all that appears to be,

assumes seeming forms in spaces ...

 

Love,

Dan

[Guest guest]

Well-said, Bob, and namaste!

 

I'll take yours and Al-Hallaj's word about the

eye-gouging part.

 

Enough gouging going on already :-)

 

LOL!

 

Much love,

Dan

 

 

 

> .... The path of Jnana and the path of Bhakti:

>

> The way of surrender, the way of Bhakti, finally

> converges with the way of Jnana.

>

> How?

>

> In surrender, in Bhakti, after all the song and dance,

> the expression " Not me, Only Thee" flows unimpeded.

>

> And most on this path remain in this ecstasy.

>

> In a Bhakti, a question might arise from that very

> ecstasy:

>

> Who is expressing this "Not me, Only Thee".

>

> Who is surrendering?

>

> And surrendering what?

>

> What do I have, that I can surrender?

>

> And "Not Me, Only Thee" also drops.

>

> And

> any of us can ask this question at any time.

>

>

> In the path of Jnana, the "Who am I" Inquiry culminates in

> "I Am", or "Tat Twam Asi" (That art Thou).

>

> And most remain at this state.

>

> In a Jnani, a question might arise from that very

> recognition:

>

> If only I,

> to whom is this statement relevant?

>

> IOW: If all is I,

> to whom can this ever be affirmed?

>

> If all is I,

> who would need to babble "All is I"?

>

>

> And "Tat Twam Asi" also drops.

>

> And

> any of us can ask this question at any time.

>

>

> Surrender happens when there is not even an iota of hope

> that the Lord will even look towards me to pick up the pieces.

>

> Consider Massood's surrender:

>

> When fundamentalists, angered by his ecstatic pronouncement "A' nal

> Huq" ( I am God), hacked off his limbs, gouged out his eyes, and

> finally decapitated him, Massood continued laughing,

> laughing and exclaiming:

>

> "You cannot fool me!

> I see that it is only You,

> only You,

> Beloved!"

>

>

> (Gratitude to Sandeep )

[Guest guest]

Dear Jody,

 

Quite clear.

 

Another view that leads to a similar view is "memes."

 

Memes, or continuing meaning-themes that promulgate

their continuity.

 

The "special teacher" meme.

 

The "organization and hierarchy" meme.

 

The "you will get something special" meme.

 

Meme-ingredients that cook into the

souffle you describe quite well.

 

You describe one flavor, and of course,

there are many: fundamentalist flavors,

Christian flavors, nondual, Jewish, Moslem --

 

.... powerful memes ...

 

And where memes can't tread:

the story of no-story: that can't be told!

 

Namaste,

Dan

 

> , shawn <shawn@w...> wrote:

> >

> >

> > Dear Jody,

> >

> > It sounds to me like you have a "bone to pick," or "sour grapes."

or

> "chip

> > on your shoulder," an axe to grind! Take your pick....

>

> I'd characterize it as a critical view to present.

>

> > Just what is considered an OK number of people to have sit in

> satsang? Is

> > 200 too much, how about twenty, fifty....?

>

> I didn't say Amma's satsang wasn't ok. I said it is designed

> to harvest money as much as provide access to Amma.

>

> > How much land can a guru have before you think he's bilking

people?

>

> I never said they are bilking people. I've only pointed out

> that they are an economic machine that must continue to harvest

> money to survive.

>

> > Can an enlightened one be a millionaire and not share a dime?

> >

> > Are there rules?

> >

> > Is sandals the proper attire.

> >

> > Or are we to make a cult of not following, a do-it-yourself cult?

I

> think

> > Krishnmurti already covered that one! People flocked to him to

hear his

> > mental mastabatory admonishment of "don't follow."

>

> And he provided the cleanest presentation of Advaita the

> USA has had the blessing of hosting.

>

> > Whether or not you template the person of freedom and love out of

> your own

> > always existing nature or you get "enhanced vibes", the fact

remains

> that

> > the one who "has" is a catalyst even if only in inspiration.

>

> I agree 100%. However, it is in the best interests of the economic

> interests of the satsang to present the relationship as one that

> flows from top to bottom. Amma's org does exactly that.

>

> > I am glad they are here and don't just remain aloof! What good is

> that? The

> > fact that someone else sees my own suffering as an illusion does

not

> help

> > alliviate my experience of suffering, especially if they keep

quiet!

>

> The only true cure for your suffering is to become your own Amma.

>

> > I get the distinct feeling that all this talk about looking

> out..don't get

> > caught in *that* trap is like so many people with dog doo on their

> finger

> > pointing and saying, "watch out, don't step in it!"

> >

> > Love,

> >

> > Shawn

>

> That is called having learned the lesson by experience.

>

> [snip]

[Guest guest]

> .....very insightful, Dan!

 

I'm glad for the resonance, Bob.

> Yes, fixation of identity in any experience -- from ego to witness

to

> formless to unity -- does not amount to Freedom. all experience

> appears and disappears within a context that is itself not a state

or

> condition, but embraces all states and experiences simultaneously.

 

Yes, and is how they can seemingly be experienced,

and is how they all include one another,

and is the seeming experiencers,

and yet is not within experience.

> what it seems Loves wants to do is to enter into every possibility

of

> its own expression as form in order to liberation that expression,

> that form, into the recognition of Itself, Love.

 

Yes, well said.

 

And a key word above being "seems."

 

What it is to itself, as itself, with no observer present,

isn't what it seems -- nor something else.

 

As is, not doing anything, not entering, leaving,

liberating or being liberated ...

 

This is not for me to say, I realize that.

 

I speak as a "me" -- how can any speech be otherwise?

 

> this is a Mystery

> that initiates Devotion and Surrender, and reveals "Thy Will" as

what

> we Are.

 

Yes.

 

Well-said.

 

And, as you mentioned earlier,

this, too, drops.

 

Peace,

Dan

[Guest guest]

.... and just then a truck pulled out

> in front of us, and splashed across the back of the truck, in bold

> letters, was the following:

>

> NEW BERN

>

>

>

> funny how things work, eh?

>

> LoveAlways,

>

> b

 

Indeed!

Sometimes painfully funny,

but luckily your brakes were intact!

 

Allways Love,

d

[Guest guest]

, "dan330033" <dan330033> wrote:

 

Indeed!

Sometimes painfully funny,

but luckily your brakes were intact!

 

 

..... Oh Dan, you are such a sweet man! i am happy to chat with you,

and all of our friends here, and i appreciate this opportunity for

satsang.

 

LoveAlways,

 

b

[Guest guest]

....there is no such thing as a "state of imperfection". to believe

otherwise is what obstructs that realization.

LoveAlways,

b

>>>>>>>>

Then the very "need" for an Ashram, teacher, or person such as Amma is

negated by your belief that everyone is already "perfected." Why

visit anyone else in search of Love, wisdom or Bhakti?

And no, I am not projecting my own "issues" to use the psychobabble

term you toss lovingly at me. But, this humble one has been there,

done that, seen much and from such beingness reached a state of

non-devotion to humans.

Just that. No more. I love 'em, but I don't worship, nor practice

worshipfulness, lest I contribute to the problem, too. A devotee is

more in danger of "projection" than someone who takes a more equal

approach.

Also, it is best, I think to discuss the situation being described,

rather than to shift the focus on "you or me issues." That is both

unseemly and acts to obscure the discussion of the issues. We can

all have different opinions about the elephant (blind men each

describing based on where they are in contact with elephant), but

such discussions should not devolve into talk about the intent or

motives of those describing the animal. And, may I also remind that

it was not I who introduced this subject for our Satsangh to chew

upon? Therefore, kindly separate my comments from any form of

psychological interpretation or analysis. If I require analysis, I

will seek the assistance of a nearby professional in the field. Or

maybe not. But that is not the issue being discussed here.

Can we love and not be worshipful? Certainly. We can also learn and

appreciate the wisdom that others share with us, without the need to

"give up anything of our own nature, mind or material possessions"

too.

Blessings

Love,

Zenbob

(High atop Mount Meru, incased in a cask of Divine Bliss, whilst whistling the tune to "Happy Days")

[Guest guest]

The idealized and the idealizers are in a dance,

> each playing off the other ...

> > Dancing,

> Dan

>>>>>>>>

Amen Brother Dan! Good, no, excellent discussion of the topic. Keep

us all focused on the goal.

Blessings,

Love,

Zenbob

[Guest guest]

Subj:Re: Re: Amma & Mazie

Date:09/06/02 19:50:41 GMT Daylight Time

zen2wrk (AT) aol (DOT) com

Reply-to:

To:

Sent from the Internet

In a message dated 6/6/02 2:30:29 PM Pacific Daylight Time, jodyrrr writes:

The idealized and the idealizers are in a dance,

> each playing off the other ...

>

> Dancing,

> Dan

>>>>>>>>

Amen Brother Dan! Good, no, excellent discussion of the topic. Keep

us all focused on the goal.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Which is?

curious

eric

Blessings,

Love,

Zenbob

[Guest guest]

, zen2wrk@a... wrote:

>Then the very "need" for an Ashram, teacher, or person such as Amma

is negated by your belief that everyone is already "perfected." Why

visit anyone else in search of Love, wisdom or Bhakti?

 

 

....Dear Z-bob:

 

There is a certain presumption in your reply that perfection is a

matter of belief, and that there is some kind of searching going on

for some kind of whatever. can you observe your assumptions in this

case? can you consider the possibility that this just might be a

matter of your own interpretation, and have nothing to do with our

simply visiting friends to enjoy good company, also known as Sangha

and Satsang, and sharing the experience with other friends?

 

 

>And no, I am not projecting my own "issues" to use the psychobabble

term you toss lovingly at me. But, this humble one has been there,

done that, seen much and from such beingness reached a state of non-

devotion to humans.

 

 

.... LOL!!!

this so-called "humble one" who has supposedly been there (as if

there is some kind of there that some fictional one has been)

methinks doth protest too much!

 

>I love 'em, but I don't worship, nor practice worshipfulness, lest I

contribute to the problem, too. A devotee is more in danger

of "projection" than someone who takes a more equal approach.

 

 

....nobody has ever been in any danger, except in their imagination.

nor is there any problem, whether one worships or refrains. nobody is

taking any approach -- there is nothing to approach -- what is is

already happening, despite any concepts you may form about it. in

fact, your formation of concepts is also it, as are the bars of ice

around your dear heart.

 

 

>Also, it is best, I think to discuss the situation being described,

rather than to shift the focus on "you or me issues." That is both

unseemly and acts to obscure the discussion of the issues.

 

....."It's all personal."

Yogananda

 

>Can we love and not be worshipful? Certainly. We can also learn

and appreciate the wisdom that others share with us, without the need

to "give up anything of our own nature, mind or material possessions"

too.

 

 

.....the belief that we can do this or that -- love or not love,

worship or not worship -- is a kind of irony particular to those who

are still striving to be a somebody, even though they secretly

suspect that has never been who they really are.

 

LoveAlways,

 

b

[Guest guest]

, "hrtbeat7" <hrtbeat7> wrote:

 

[snip]

 

> your formation of concepts is also it, as are the bars of ice

> around your dear heart.

 

Now that's what I call presumption!

 

love--jody.

 

[snip]

[Guest guest]

....the activity of labeling phenomena as this or that requires one to

construct an imaginary separation between subject and object.

LoveAlways,

b

Actually that separation is not imaginary, although it is difficult to

discern usually--that separation is called "time."

Hugs,

Blessings,

Zenbob

[Guest guest]

, zen2wrk@a... wrote:

 

Actually that separation is not imaginary, although it is difficult

to discern usually--that separation is called "time."

 

 

 

In Europe few months back the London Sunday Times carried a report on

an experiment carried out at the NEC Research Institute in Princeton,

New Jersey where "light pulco" has been accelerated to 300 times

their normal velocity of 186,00 miles per sec. The details of the

findings had been submitted to the International Scientific

journals "Nature" and "Science" for verification and validation

before open publication. This validation and verification took place

in the last few days. The experiment has been validated and reported

by the Science magazines and journals, including BBC, Washington Post

and other leading newspapers. The implications of this finding are

not mind- boggling but mind-annihilating. The Human Genome project is

nothing in comparison. The experiment showed that light pulse existed

in two places at once. In effect, it is "leaping forward in time"

(Sunday Times). What is making the scientists aghast is that "if

light can travel forward in time, it could carry information". This

(carriage of information) is being hotly argued against by the rest

of the scientific community, but that is like a Scientific DNS (Dark

Night of the Soul, where all life-long dearly cherished beliefs are

getting exposed for what they are. Obviously you are pissed off, in

agony) The breaching of the speed of Light would breach one of the

basic principles in Physics-Law of causality, which is based on the

premise that cause must come before effect. It would also shatter

Einstein's theory of Relativity." (Sunday Times). However, the

Princeton experiment is completely aligned to the premise or concept

that mystics have indicated for the last 5,000 years -- that

everything that has happened, is happening, is to happen, has all

already happened. And thus has anything ever happened? Is there

anything like a cause, an effect or are both "existing" together

simultaneously? Is the totality of the Picture already IS? If yes,

the concept of karma goes out of the window, the concept of effort

which really is a process of becoming (from an un-enlightened state,

you meditate or whatever your favorite poison, towards

enlightenment), all that is OUT.

 

Let's take the concept of enlightenment first. In the conceptual

world of phenomenality, something has a meaning only on the basis of

it's opposite. "Good" has no meaning unless the definition of "evil"

is in place and mutually agreed. Bin Laden and George Bush may not

have a mutually agreeable definition, for example. The concept

of "enlightenment" has no meaning unless one defines what that state

is to be, (which of course is a joke) and this is determined by

defining what an "Un-enlightened" state is to be. After all, one can

only know about freedom when one defines what bondage is, by

accepting that one is bound in the first place -- the very pursuit

perpetuating the bondage. One then assumes that one is currently "un-

enlightened" and then proceeds to

adopt "paths", "efforts", "practices", etc. which one believes will

move oneself from one state to the other. Bow Wow Mind: the

absurdity of all this -- dog chasing it's own tail -- but let's get

back to the consequences of the breaching of the Speed of Light. When

one defines the two states of "un-enlightened" and a

separate "enlightenment", one is actually accepting the process

of "becoming". You are "this" and you believe that you can

become "that". And you assume that this "becoming" can be achieved

through X, Y, Z, etc, etc. With the assumption of "becoming", you

give birth to the concepts of "time", as you need a postulate

of "duration" in which this "becoming" is to be completed, and you

give birth to the concept of space, in order to cognize

the "becoming". With the birth of the concepts time and space, you

give birth to the concept of the Causality, a cause, which occurs in

time and gives birth to an effect, also in time and space. (X,Y,Z

can get me enlightenment or a Million dollars, ability to walk on

water or seduce that blonde, whatever, a cause and an effect of that

cause). Now, with the breaching of the speed of Light, the experiment

reached 300 times the current record at Cosmic Olympics of 300,00-

kms per sec.. So, why not 30,000 times the current standard, why not

3 Million times, why not infinite times? If speed of light is

actually infinite (another concept), we have only been able to

recognize it as 300 times 300,000 kms per sec as of now. What you are

really seeing is that there is not even a trillionth of a nanosecond

difference between the starting point of light and ending point of

light. Existence in two places, is simultaneous. Existence in

infinite points is simultaneous. (At the moment, even the team at

NEC, Princeton, does not claim this is possible, but as said earlier

that is like a Scientific DNS). Cause and effect IS simultaneously.

All that has happened, is happening, is to happen, has already

happened. The totality of the picture is already there, was always.

Hence the postulate of time goes out of the window and with that

movement is an impossibility, and with movement becoming an

impossibility, the postulate of space is a joke. Ergo, "becoming" is

a joke, if the totality of the picture IS already. Cause, "becoming"

an effect, is a joke, because there is really no cause and effect.

Causality is thus a joke. The states of "un-enlightenment"

and "enlightenment", and movement between the two, is a joke. In

oneness, which is nothing but "existing" at infinity simultaneously,

what is there "un-enlightened" which is to become "enlightened"?

Let's now take our good old friend karma. The concept of karma

(essentially being the consequences of a previous "self" effecting

the current "self") is all based on the process of "becoming", which

is a joke. In oneness, who is laying karma on whom? My right hand

reaches out in love and clasps my left hand, earning "good" karma, or

reaches out in anger and slaps my left hand, earning "bad" karma --

it's all I, isn't it?

 

 

(Sandeep)