In response to a video by Paul Hedderman:
Omnipotence (3rd godly aspect) includes the power of believing in the value of its mental activity to an extent where it distracts from itself, the source. The act of distracting can be exposed as ‘foreign’ as it pretends to be other than nondual.
One of the cherished traps is to romanticise ‘seeing God’s face’ (Sufi expression). While it is the only fulfilling art of living, entertaining romantic ideas about it veils the seeing. It is best to drop romantic notions. Then, seeing (love) is not mixed with ideas. Rather, it is the perfume of being nothing and everything.
In response to a beautiful video by Rupert Spira:
Veiling the screen is the most common, global habit. Repeating instant unveiling is portrayed as another habit that is ‘reinforced’ by like-minded people. That was also the purpose of genuine Ashrams etc. That second habit is getting used to seeing what is already the case, whereas the ‘veiling habit’ is repeating the act of believing what is not the case. In a way, the second habit exposes the fraudulent first habit. Once thoroughly exposed, the second habit is non-functional as there is nothing to expose as fraudulent anymore. Being of no use, the second habit has turned into a love affair with what is already the case.
To watch the video go here:
In response to the coaching of Cindy Teevens:
A happy feeling, not based on circumstances, is an activity that exposes its natural, nondescribable source. It should be clear that ‘not based on circumstances’ includes any beliefs about ‘to whom these feelings occur.’ A reference point would be another ‘circumstance’. One could say that this good feeling is suffocated as soon as any reference points are associated with it. That’s why happy stories can be so misleading since ‘happy’ is associated with the story’s action figure. Having said this, I also see that a happy feeling can be triggered by circumstances and then enjoyed to its fullest by ignoring the trigger.
This can be said to be one aspect of the ‘tantric’ way. The focus on ‘feeling happy’ is central to Cindy Teevens’ coaching.
Nice video by Tolle
Comment by someone: ‘We are everything’
De: That’s not exactly so. When we say ‘we are everything’ that can be a misunderstanding. Something that appears (everything) is not. It only appears. Therefore we could say ‘We are and appearances arise and disappear in us.’ Appearances do not have the status of ‘being.’ As soon as we see that we are not any appearance (body-mind), we have removed the belief that any appearances are. They just appear. There is nonduality since appearances appear in Being. There is nothing outside Being (such as everything) to be in union with. Only Being is (real). Appearances may appear real but are unreal.
We are free. We are not the person that wants freedom. What we are is the freedom from identification with a person that wants freedom!
The seeing itself is the freedom. It is entirely neutral and unbound to any idea of identification.
If everything is nondual, how come, that the identification with a person is not us? One would theorise that everything is us and that we should not say that ‘the person is not us.’
Here is the answer: The identification with a person is, indeed, us. We are dreaming this identification as part of a bigger dream. Once this particularly annoying identification within the large-scale dreaming has been exposed as a dreamed image, the identification doesn’t continue.
In both cases, nonduality is a fact. In the event of continued identification, we believe to be a separate entity. In the event of seeing the mistaken identification, we see that freedom from identification with anything is what we are.
The point is that the seeing of ‘what we are not,’ namely a separate entity, is not in conflict with nonduality. It is the realising of nonduality.
What keeps going is the dreaming without identification with anything.
We see that everything appears and disappears within this freedom.
Where is the borderline between ‘me’ and ‘not-me’? It’s usually pictured to be the circumference of a body.
On the other hand, we claim that we ‘have’ a body – similar to having a car, a house, etc. We also maintain that we ‘have’ a personality. Furthermore, we say that we have an ego, big or small, or that we have lost our ego. The challenging question is: who or what makes all these claims to have something or to have lost something? At closer investigation, there are merely attempts trying to encourage beliefs in borderlines, including the concept of a separate ‘me’ that has something or that doesn’t have something.
Where is the boundary between ‘me’ and ‘not-me’? Both me and not-me turn out to be just two labels, attached to appearances.
Because of constant repetition, these labels have produced feelings of and beliefs in independence and separation. Listening to music or engaging in any other sense perception – without diversions into fake worlds of believed in assumptions – can deliver a taste of the freedom that is inherent in living without the belief in boundaries.
(Further investigation shows that the belief in separation is the cause of all apparent troubles in ‘us’ and the ‘world.’)