Note -- Letters are used here without permission, and without any particular order as to date/time. All contributors will remain anonymous, unless otherwise specified.
Note: "Letters" continues on page two, at the bottom of this page.
> Dear Omkara,
>
> I'm afraid I have no indication that you understand me when you say,
>
> "I'm glad you said "appear to be," because although three does fit
> the strict definition of "not-two," it cannot be related
> to "nondual" by any stretch of the imagination."
>
> I hope you're kidding. In which case, LOL!
I was kidding up to about age 11. At that age I began adolescing,
and now I am adulting. I hope you don't consider that insulting.
> But you have made some good points, in my opinion, in some of your
> posts. So I expect that you're capable of understanding me.
I'm capable of understanding nothing. My capacity to understand
disappeared one night, never to return. Now I know nothing, and am
unable to know anything... nor do I have the desire to know.
> But that doesn't mean that you're not also capable of
> misunderstanding me, either.
If I can't understand, how could I possibly be capable of
misunderstanding?
> Please note that I've made no reference, below, to nonduality,
> directly.
Since you said please, I went ahead and noted it. My notebook is
full now, though, and I need to buy a new one... so further notes
will be impossible.
> If one asks where, in this triumverate, nonduality "appears," I
> would have to ask that one tell me, precisely, which "nonduality"
> is being referred to.
See the following webpage. All definitions are being referred to at
the same time.
http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/umbada/whatis.htm
> The force of your statement, above, would have to fall under
> category #1, below.
Nonduality is not monism, so categorization cannot be monistic
either. Ponder this: "The Supreme Reality is void of the divided and
the undivided." And this: "Every word I say here is a lie... and
that's the HONEST TRUTH!"
Namaste,
Omkara
------------------------------------------------------------------
> Dear Omkara,
>
> I'm now getting the impression that you really don't understand.
> In my earlier post, I thought maybe you did. No problem.
I'm glad you're beginning to see that I'm incapable of understanding
or knowing anything. I am nothing, nobody, a non-entity. You
may "entify" me, but this is in your own mind only. If you think
communication with me is actually possible, you're sadly mistaken.
Your words are not heard... because there's nobody here to hear them.
> Yes, you do practice what you preach.
HEY! So it's you that's been hiding in that tree outside my window
watching me chant "OM!" Glad to have figured that one out! ;-) The
building manager has been notified, so quit :-)
> Unfortunately, you sacrifice
> something by it
I myself am the sacrifice. Everything has been put upon the
sacrificial altar and burned. Nothing remains, not even nothing.
> You may be, however, on
> the verge of understanding.
I cannot go back to understanding again. I lost my mind awhile ago,
and don't expect it to return. You have to see that I cannot move
backward, nor can I move forward... nor up, down, sideways, crossways
or on any three- or four-dimensional plane. I cannot go anywhere or
do anything.
> If I've pushed one of your buttons, then there is "hope," so to
> speak.
When I lost the ability to understand, all the buttons vanished as
well. Then I realized there never were any buttons, only the idea
that I existed.
> I may never know, you may.
I said, I know nothing and am incapable.
> (Please note that (anon) has also invited me to be as meticulous
> as I please.)
Very well, I'll stay out of further discourses between you and
(anon).
> By the way, when I find something dull, I generally just either
> gloss it or ignore it.
Nothing ever seems dull here. Awareness gives everything such
bright, sparkling life that at times it's almost unbearable. Only a
deep, unshakable inner peace makes life tolerable. I have lived 500
years in the last 36.
Love2U2,
Omkara
------------------------------------------------------------------
>T: It is impossible for "someone" to stop thinking, because
>that "someone" is itself thought. The "me" is thought.
>
>When thought sees its own futility (and sees it deeply), it dies of
>its own accord. There is nobody to "make an effort" to stop doing
>anything. All effort (or even intent) in the direction of stopping
>thought is only going to perpetuate thought, because the
>effort/intent is itself thought.
>
>Love,
>
>Tim
Tim, these words ring very true to me.
Thought is recognizing a problem,
for example: suffering repeated
as a pattern.
Thought then recognizes that itself,
the very structure by which it is
able to conceptualize the problem,
*is* the problem.
Thought's dilemma - it relies on assuming
its own existence in order to *do* anything.
The solution - no to assume or *do* anything.
This is thought's dilemma.
As your words suggest -
the structure/activity/
influence of thought runs "deep".
Futilely/lovingly,
Dan Berkow
------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Tim,
Your recent comments about memory
the nonlocalization of mind,
and the unreality of causation
reflect the depth
to which thought can question
the assumptions of its own
operations.
And now thought is undone, like
a cocoon bursting for a butterfly,
or a space commander giving birth
to an alien...
It's a reality of a different order,
a non-order by the standards of
consensus "truth".
Reality of no causation, hence no
explanation. Reality of no
inside nor outside, hence of
no definitions or entities.
One can "explain" perfectly coherently
that there is no past, hence causality
is a dead horse to beat - yet
no such explanations will suffice
to "open" if there is not yet "readiness
to open".
This is because any explanation, no matter
how brilliant or coherent, reinforces
the concept of "explanation",
and if there is not readiness to open,
will imply "engagement in a process",
"a transmission of information",
"a dialectic in which points are established" :
all dead horses to beat.
Paradox can be presented, nonexplanation
offered in response to query, yet
if readiness is not yet, paradox
will be misconstrued as contradiction
or anti-logical foolishness.
"Now" leaves explanation, ceases
the attempt to apply "what has been learned
previously" to "now".
This is "unsplit Now", or "Now of
the unique order-nonorder: Itself".
The explainer and explanation dissolve
simultaneously in and as "now".
This is where Lao Tzu rested, saying,
"those who know don't speak".
When he spoke on, he didn't speak.
Knowing, he never spoke.
The interpretation given to his words as
"an expression by someone who
spoke" was, for him, who
is nowhere, utter nonsense.
His open invitation to the pure
nonsense of Tao is utterly
beautiful, just as was the
Buddha's invitation to the
poignant tranquility and
awesomeness of "transience",
and Jesus's invitation to
live as "the Way, the Truth,
the Life."
These are not expressions nor
explanations - they are
doors to walk through.
Walk through, and there is no door,
no one walked through,
and the Way is clear.
Love,
Dan Berkow
------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Omkara,
Resonation with seeing truth
and fiction as inseparable,
and with what you shared
about resistance to
anxiety actually being the anxiety.
Synchronicity here, as I was discussing this
fact with a friend the other day,
with regard to her tendency to fight
against fear -- without recognizing
that the fight against the fear,
*is* the fear.
Will she be aware that the observer is
the observed, that as "the one trying
to control fear is fear" there is
at this "point of awareness":
"standstill" -- peace ...
She will/is, as there is a time for every
fruit to drop - and that time is
now. Until that particular now
arises, there is "patience as now" --
and that patience has no object,
no goal, strives for no result ...
In response to your beautiful
observations about
Maya and the Absolute:
This instant
unmoving
the absolute fully
is relativity
and all relative movement
Relativity fully is
motionless absolute
The play of Maya is
the universal reality
as it is ...
Dream, fiction *is*
primal origin -
as no separate one
is there experiencing ...
Only when there is
attachment to a fragmented
point of view, is Maya
experienced as the clash of permanently
separated realities, as samsara -
a conflict between beings, realms
and states of being.
With no identification with
a fixed perspective,
samsara is nirvana,
apparent conflict is peace,
apparent separation is
not ultimately separated
things...
There is no conflict between
apparent realms.
All states of being/consciousness,
exactly "as is" *are* the
misnamed "Universal Awareness"
(nothing other than this, here).
Not-phenomenality is a name for the
nameless, as is Nonconceptuality.
The bringing of the unspeakable into
speech is actually the nature of
all speech, the bringing of the
imperceptible into perception
is the nature of all perception.
Thus, there is no division ever between
the nonconceptual and any concept that
seems to arise, between the nonphenomenal
and any phenomenon experienced.
Love,
Dan Berkow
------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi No Identity This Morning,
Can I call you NIDTM for short?
Hey, that spells TIM ND when you
sort it out; pretty cool...
Glad you enjoyed my humor, NIDTM.
Or, as Jessi "the Adi" Ventura might say,
"Participate in my Humor --
the pleasure is all yours"...
Anyway, some feedback on recent
sharings of TIM ND:
Resonations with the concept that
identification with this body
that "seems near" is delusion.
Thus, all bodies are equally
"not far, not near" ...
Resonations also with words
to the effect:
"no desire for debating who's
right, nor for argumentation about
who's view is correct" ...
Such debates generally occur from
the identification with "this body
which is supposedly 'near and dear'" and
which supposedly can have the 'right view',
or often just, 'have an effect'
Of course, debate can occur with awareness
of its dancelike, illusionary quality,
and if so, it can be an intense duet danced
without any volitional entities assumed
to be present ...
There are no positions to be held, and
expressing any position is equivalent
to saying, "Yowsah," or "Hey" ...
Otherwise, debate is the playing out of
the delusion of a separable entity having the right
view, and maintaining a static existence in
space and time, as you've noted ...
And, resonate with your statement in the post
below about thought looking at thought -
thought looks at thought through the
illusion of thought-constructed space.
In fact, this illusion is how an "enitity"
who "exists in/as a body in space time"
seems to occur. Thought can look at
thought looking at thought, thus allowing
all kinds of reflection, strategizing,
planning -- basic skills for relationship,
career, financial management, and war ...
Yet, finally, thought realizes that no
real distance was ever constructed by
thought. Any time thought seems to look
at thought, there is only "this instant, now".
Thus, thought can never "really take place"
the way it seems to itself to take place,
and none of its assumed-to-exist realities
are independent from it... thus, none of
these reality "really take place" either ...
This is the ending of the thought-based
drama taken as real, of all thought-based
entities (including, but not limited
to "me"), of taking space-time as
really existing somewhere
with independent things running around in it ...
Namaste...
Love,
Don't Desire Any Name Now
(DDANN -- ND DAN)
------------------------------------------------------------------
Dearest Friend,
"White Wolf"... wrote:
> i awake within a dream from a dream into a dream to discover a
> friend i have forgotten and can only say i am sorry
In a dream, there's no need to say "I'm sorry." More dreams may be
forthcoming, more friends forgotten and rediscovered, a return to
prior dreams, on to new ones. This dream is bound to change to
another soon. Only Gratitude that this one is lucid.
> ....i am bacp with the pack after a long walk-about in the last
> dream kingdom...
Tell me of your adventures!
> it is good to remember love and feel love ....^^~~~
The Best. And outside the dream, where the dots of light, the
sleepers, toss and turn... moaning and smiling... No sorrow, no fear,
no crying and no dying. Eternal peace beyond all possibility of
dream-understanding. At last, ultimate rest, pure and untainted. A
peace so profound it defies comprehension. A mountain-fountain of
Love, cascading miles into the sky, circulating and circulating,
Let's wake up together. Together and together and together.
Only Love,
()mkara
------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Brother,
"White Wolf"... wrote:
> Kemosbe..., Tanto knows a Brother when he touches one..., if you
> will carry my pack i will carry yours and thus we will climb the
> Sacred Mountain, Mount Tallac, together...
I am willing... but will it not still be within this dream? I appear
within your dream, you appear within mine... Awaken together, we can
and will, but without control the dream will change before we reach
halfway up the slippery slopes.
> the Cross of Snow is ever too steep and slippery for me to ascend
> alone....
Let's begin then... and if the dream changes, try to remember me. If
you cannot, I am still with thee.
Love,
Omkara
------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear White Wolf,
"White Wolf" wrote:
> Brother Omkara Data (the dream name you have discovered is a deep
> one, i am learning something about this just now....)
It carries much ancient meaning. The sound of drums accompany it,
and the unstruck, inaudible OMKARA, That Which Cannot Be Chanted. I
am Brahma the creator, Vishnu the Preserver and Shiva, the
destroyer. Perhaps until now you have only met Shiva, the Dangerous
One, the Snake in the Rope, only part of My three-fold nature. My
Shiva-nature carries a weapon with three points, and if this nature
encounters an entity calling itself "me," it stabs and stabs that
entity until it is dead. Shiva does not mind the spray of blood.
But this is only a third of My Nature. In this dream you have met
all three as One.
The name White Wolf carries for me the image of a silver wolf against
a snowy background and dark, standing alone against a deep blue sky,
sharp and clear in the cold, clean air, visible for miles... also an
ancient vision.
> i dream at your side..., i run with you...., we are of the same
> pack..., white wolfe never betrays a brother (so far, at least, in
> this, life-dance).^^ ~~~
I will remain as One in My Three Natures while we are together.
> further up and further in,
I never really considered that saying before... it's quite meaningful.
Love,
()mkara |)atta
------------------------------------------------------------------
Dearest Brother Wolf,
"White Wolf" wrote:
> to my lost and now found brother,
>
> tears from a wild dog who does not even know how to cry the tears
> of joy at re-union....but can only howl at the silver moon...
The wolf *is* the howl and is in the howl. The howl is the same as
the OMKARA, the OM, and the moon is Datta, my gift to you (and yours
to me), Awakening. That is why you cannot cry. You are awake, your
wolf-nature is your dream-nature. There is no crying in Awakening,
only unshed tears of joy. The joy is Love, the Gift, the moon.
No need to leave the wolf behind in Awakening, the wolf will always
be in your Nature. But remember the howl, for the sound is A-U-M,
the OMKARA, the sound that was never sounded. Soundlessly you howl
My Name. The howl takes you to Me and we are One. The howl is your
gift to me and the OMKARA is mine to you. So Here and Now we
communicate without words, the dream dissolves, and we are One.
Love,
()mkara
------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear white wolfe,
You wrote:
> your friendship makes me strong enough for the journey...
> you are a deep one oh my brother...
You partake of the same depth, for we are not-two. My way is
deep, yet dazzlingly simple. My way is your way, for "there"
is Here and you appear in my dream (and I assume vice-versa).
Appearing in the same dream, we are one even on the level of
thought. We are the same thought-stream.
At the same time, there is a paradox in which we are as
different as two snowflakes. Yet consider what makes all
snowflakes exactly alike: None are alike! Their difference
is their similarity.
In knowing you, I am one with he who is known, in the
knowing. This is not easily perceived simply reading these
words, but as an example:
Look at a chair. Notice that **you are the looking itself**.
There is no separating yourself from the looking. You *are*
the looking (or seeing). At the same time, the looking *is*
the chair. The chair appears, and that appearance *is* the
looking. "Chair" is a convenient word, but actually it is
only seeing.
This is best actually experienced, or contemplated. It may
not make much sense just reading it.
There is only one Subject that has no corresponding (apparent)
object, and that is Beingness or I AM. I AM (by itself) has no
object, but is only pure Subject.
It is not that I perceive beingness, or feel beingness, or am
aware of beingness, but I *am* Beingness, and thus there is
only Beingness, "AM" with no "I," and that AM is Bliss or
Satchitananda. AM 'absorbs' "I."
When I say "I am consciousness," the "I" is superfluous.
Consciousness IS.
Love Always...