That question of commitment is a tough nut to crack for someone as reluctant as I am to commit myself and yet haunted by the absolute necessity of a commitment. The tension between these two opposites has been present throughout my entire existence. Reading (or listening) 's merit is to point to the difficulties one will unavoidably encounter, help one identify the enemy. But by itself will not effect a deep change other than intellectual. However it may also help one realize what is really at stake. Commitment to truth is in no way abstract as I once experienced. It does demand that one exposes oneself to one's psychological fears and limitations if one is to grow out of them while having no certainty about the outcome..
As far as I can understand, the author describes adequately the process one has to go through if one is ever to tap into the unconditioned dimension of the mind. The order that ensues being the outcome of a natural process, decantation, rather than an order artificially imposed by an outside agency, the conditioned mind itself.
He makes it clear through his metaphor that meditation is not an escape from oneself but just about the opposite. One must face oneself as one is, one's double talk, one's avoidance of those things that may hurt and that have been brushed under the carpet out of complacency. That this requires a sense of order and responsibility, honesty, much skill needed in observation, sustained effort.
A great master of meditation talks of meditation as the greatest of all arts. And this I understand to mean that the art of transcending one's very self ( conditioned self) is not only the most difficult by its subtlety but that it is primarily concerned with perceiving the very essence of beauty.
Dear Conrad. I have let your comment seep in and it's now quite obvious I must reconsider my position. Thank you for mirroring the fact that the want to dissolve contradiction only leads to further and more radical separation. I am usually a bit more attentive to context but I completely missed out on what the author was pointing at, shooting off in a direction the context didn't call for. I can see that this is symptomatic of a reluctance to bear with the discomfort or tension that goes with contradiction. That this wanting to achieve a false sense of peace deadens relationship, and leads to isolation.
Thanks also to Krysztof for his suggestion about 'going raw' as opposed to 'going mental', an escape to avoid feeling those things on feels uncomfortable with under the skin. A movement away from what is that creates separation.
And thanks to Amy for her appreciation of Britt's beautiful comment. It had me look more deeply into it.
Thanks to all who share this space.
Thank you for your feedback Conrad. There is little tolerance in our culture for contradiction and ambiguity and this tendency reflects in some or may be all of my comments. I'll be looking into that. Thank you.
Beautiful, Britt, as I read you I feel I am in that big sweater with you. You would love Khalil Gibran and his poetry. But I am still confused and must go to the end of that tether, thought.
I can't identify with any set of religious beliefs. Faith has not saved me, it hasn't saved the world. So I rely on thought. Thought will see me through. The irony is I am a non believer that now believes in thought.. Thought proceeds from knowledge and knowledge is both necessary and enjoyable. Pleasurable to follow one's curiosity as far and deep as it can take you. As a result the frontiers of my world expand. Both Columbus and Jung have contributed to it. But the question remains: has knowledge helped me to dissolve my contradictions, has it unified me, has it unified the world I live in? Can it? Because if it can't then I am constantly deluding myself and my world.
In every day life and in the world as it goes thought is ever involved in trying to conciliate, unify, forgetting that it itself created the separation in the first place. Thought is always involved in creating and maintaining separation then ever involved in trying to bridge it. This is what it has been doing since Mathusala or near by. Is it because of its nature which is to dissect, take apart, analyse? Yet we tend to rely on thought to solve our relational problems and that of the world. The question is: can thought unify the world, unify me/you? The author says that thought can unfold in a way that unifies and heals. But then, logically and for the least, thought has to see itself, observe how it tends to create separation in its very proceedings. Religion at its root is the thirst to belong, to unify. Then see what the devil happens when thought gets hold of that. So, the question remains, can thought ever unify? There may be such a thing as a unifying insight but then is that related to thought?
Dear Rajeev, I did not mean righteousness as regards to sin but as regards to the assertion of one's faith. For instance I never quite understood the split between Judaism and Christianity nor their mutual antagonism. The bible scholars I mentioned have helped me see through it. So have the words reported to be of Jesus in the Gospel of Thomas ( logion 43, if you care to look it up).
A beauty of the Indian tradition is to acknowledge that people have different inward complexions and that what is right for one is inadequate for the other. This is why there are different types of Yoga to suit different types of people and help them progress on their way, none being exclusive of another.
What you say of Jesus son of God and son of Man is beautiful. But nothing can defeat one's faith better than feeling self-righteous about it. The history of religion has taught us that much and many have turned away from their native creed for exactly that reason. Actually, I owe to some of those modern gurus and thinkers to have re-discovered the great value hidden inside the perenial teachings of Jesus who spoke through symbols, as was the use in his time. Two very enlightening 'gurus' or rather scholars I would like to recommend are Bishop Spong, an Episcopalian scholar, and Andrew Harvey, author of Jesus Son Of Man, two persons whose faith cannot be questioned.
What I find interesting in this testimony from Krishna Das is that his teacher found a way to demonstrate that meditation does not center in one's personal suffering or discomfort. But rather that meditation encompasses the whole process of suffering in its impersonal dimension, is inclusive of all the suffering both inflicted and suffered by sentient beings since the beginning of time. Raja Yoga would have one inquire into the causes of suffering and one's participation and responsibility to bring one to realize the personal/impersonal dimension of suffering. While I understand this teacher to have a more devotional yet no less effective approach.
I have been touched by someone who did sustain an unchanging love for all beings but whose teachings might appear more abstract at first view. His concern for the world and its fate was immense.
To the degree I have faced my emptiness I have, to some degree, freed myself from a certain psychological dependence. To the degree I have freed myself from appreciation or depreciation coming from others I feel more alert and able to face and enjoy life just as it is. But this relative freedom, I can sense in myself. is not the whole deal. Because, up to that point, where does it relate to love? And is love the feeling of all-oneness (alone/all one) that comes with complete inward freedom and does one consistently feels it in one's daily experience? If not, then, I understand the author to say one has still to quit the drug. I can easily fool myself into thinking I am free. I have to test that against the reality of my experience.
Thank you, Rajnikant. It is the first time I hear of Syadvad and what it says makes a lot of sense to me. I must remember to pray each day for steadfastness in my practice of watchfulness and inner strength to withstand those things I find difficult to cope with. It is true that such an attitude as the one recommended is the only one helpful. I am coming to realize that there is absolutely no sense and no benefit in opposing other viewpoints and asserting my own. This includes being somewhat judgmental as regard to people that do not share my interest for inquiring into consciousness. In a sense what this philosophy recommends is profound humility. A humility based on the realization that each one is at a different stage of development. Of course any serious teaching will recommend the same for the reason that that the other is fundamentally not different from me in his/her vulnerability. An easy thing to forget. Thank you for this helpful reminder.
It is always a pleasure to discover a few new Sanskrit words such as 'arta' and 'raudra' where we find the root of the English words 'rude', 'rogue', etc. Often unknown to ourselves our Indian heritage is present in the words and structures of our modern European languages. To be aware that we create binds, attachments, for ourselves through suffering, jealousy and greed is at least a beginning. That awareness creates a movement towards inner freedom which I would'nt call a goal but rather a drive.
I don't think this passage means that one should have no goal and no direction, that one should deny the role of the intellect. There is a place for all this. But I think it means that meditation is an inquiry into the nature of the one mind, where all thoughts originate, whether yours or mine, traditional or not traditional., inefficient or efficient, futile or purpose oriented. What is the state of the mind when it is not identified with any thought? Is it different from silence and is silence different from beauty? When does one best see the great beauty present in nature? Can there be depth and beauty in the field of relationships or must there always be struggle. I think all this is part of meditation and I think meditation proceeds through endless observation and questioning. I may be wrong but this is what I understand Raja Yoga to be.
Unless one has inquired into meditation with the help of those who have made it into an art and a way of living it is very common to see silence as the doorway to some ultimate state. This is the essence of seeking and seeking implies one has a goal, a direction. Adyashanti says in another, closely related passage: 'Sitting in silence is not a goal. The goal of sitting is not to attain silence. There is just sitting in silence and recognizing yourself to be the silence...But if I seek silence as an object, as a state I am trying to sustain, it means I am still seeing silence as an object, as something different from me.' J. Krishnamurti made a very similar answer to someone somewhat stuck with seeking something beyond silence. His answer was: ' Can silence listen to silence in silence? '.
Both these statements make it very clear that meditation has neither goal nor direction. When this is clear, when one is not attempting to get somewhere one can, tentatively, 'feel the quality of silence'.
There is a time when one takes stock of all the benevolence one has met through life and the often unaccounted for kindness that surrounds one. So did the author in these monasteries. I remember a previous passage we were invited to reflect upon, from Albert Einstein, where the author suggested that, at some point, one had to answer for him/herself whether life was a good or a bad, let's say, event. A lot depended on that answer. If I answer that there is such a thing as goodness and that it manifested in my life in many occasions and still manifests, like, as it were, with this forum, then why be unhappy?
To me happiness cannot be directly aimed for, for then we look for it, as the author says, in the wrong places, we are the prey of illusion. I see happiness as the by-product of an inward balance, clarity. And if this state is not there to start with then I need first to look into my unhappiness. There is a lot to look at, a lot to see before, as someone said, one can feel free as a singing bird in a clear sky. The drive towards inward freedom is the same as the drive towards happiness.
This passage starts with the word 'imagine' which makes me wonder whether that state of being cannot be somewhat self-induced? The author's approach is not unlike that of sophrology: taking hold of one's imagination to create a serene climate within. Using the thinking mind to induce a certain state of being. And this is best done when relaxing and sitting quietly. I am not saying that this is wrong but I wonder if a more direct way is not to deliberately let go of the thinking mind as one comment suggested. This means accepting being vulnerable in relationship, a very difficult thing to do if one tends to be headstrong. I think this willingness is an expression of love. It creates space for all to flower.
I am clearer after reading this passage from Ram Dass as to the reality that lies beyond the words:'unconditional love'. Such sets of words may sometimes end up sounding like mere incantations, something detached from daily living or somewhat reserved to a few very saintly people. This reading reminds me that such love is not an abstraction and that I have already met its living expression although I may not have recognized it a such.
This passage is very dense with meaning, very accurate in its wording and I feel I may need to spend further time on it before I can fully digest it.
I agree with both John and jon that there is no other exit to such dramatic crises than getting over those feelings of hatred and revenge which might seem at first sight justified. And that, in such a situation, one is ultimately responsible for one's action. A very difficult thing to keep in mind in the midst of such a powerful mimetic process as unchained collective violence. Nevertheless, as John says, some people are wise enough not not give in to such a frantic and absurd emotional climate.
I think the problem of gurus , and this word, 'guru', I think, should be used very carefully, is also that they have to deal with the image the followers tend to build around their personality. This image distorts their relationship with the student and gets in the way of actual understanding. More often than not one has to understand in spite of the guru's personality.
Hi T. I think you mistook the word searcher for the word seeker. Watch out for 'faux amis' (false friends in French).
Is the searcher different from that which he/she searches? Won't its findings be thought projected? Can thought reach beyond itself? When thought observes its own process it comes to see its limitation and then, logically, comes to a standstill. Not to another conclusion. If it is a conclusion then it is just another production of thought. The observation of the thought process reveals that thought is not the proper instrument. This ends the search but creates space for something unknown to manifest. Not that it will! Or, as amy says, once seen the necessity to keep the restless seeker alone, let That come to you if That will. Supremely free.
There is more to nonviolence than just refrain from violence. Nonviolence stems from the philosophy of compassion which gets a person to understand that fundamentally all are one. Or, as J. Krishnamurti termed it : there is no other. So, the other is you, even though that other may not yet be conscious of the reciprocal and may act violently against you. His violence then is to be seen as a manifestation of that unconsciousness. But the moment one is aware, one's responsibility is to stand firm on the principle but not reciprocate the other's violence.
The will to dominate, to infringe on a weaker person's rights, such doing must be stopped. This by standing firm on the principle. But to fixate on anyone as an enemy only perpetuates the conflict and thus misses the mark which is to stop the wrong doing while leaving the door open to the doer so that he may eventually change his perspective. This is the compassionate answer.
The use of brutal force morally diminishes the doer. As do the transient goals, supremacy, dominance, that motivate his actions. No party, in the long run, can win over principles which are fundamentally just and speak to the human heart. This is what I understand from this interview of the Dalai Lama whose firm stand and intelligent response have gained worldwide respect and affection.
Great comment.The difference between Apatra and Gupta danam is very significant. Overprotective parents can do a lot of damage to their children when their giving is from attachment. This is commonly overlooked. I would like to know the meaning of Shraddha?
What need is there to categorise? Don't we know instantly when we give reluctantly and with some afterthought, and when we give in a limited way but with a clear intention? As for 'kingly' giving, has anyone given that kingly who did not first answer for himself the question: what would I give my life to? I feel this is the one important question that conditions all the rest if one can answer it whole-heartedly, without reserve. For all I know, those who have answered it do not think of theirs as a giving. They are happy to serve. Life is feeding them back their very generosity without any need for them to measure up their commitment to some sort of scale.
I did'nt say such love did not exist. I said I was impressed by those who consistently experience it. I would not venture to participate in this forum if some such people had not left a strong imprint on me and had not made me aware of my radical insufficiency.
I remember a time when I was 'in love' with the works of the great writer and poet D.H. Lawrence, a time when I felt devastated at the sight of a wildly beautiful girl, because this was what in loveness actually was for me: devastating! And, apparently also, in some way, for the author of The Girl And The Gipsy. And what remains of this great fire today is but gratitude for the man who taught me the love of the English language. No nostalgia whatsoever. And I see human in-loveness now as only the inspirer of good, great litterature, if one has the talent, or as a passion to be transmuted into something less fleeting, more encompassing yet no less vital. I must say I am impressed by some of the comments I just read. Because this transmutation is far from easy and something of the vitality inherent with the state of in loveness may be lost in the process. Whether transmuted into art, or in the wondrous kind of love of a Jesus or the limitless compassion of a Buddha. The author seems right to say that these moments are moments when we reconnect with something vital which is always in danger of being forsaken.
I am not a scholar in Latin but the Latin word for danger is 'periculum' which gave 'pericoloso' in Italian, 'peril' in French and English. Another Latin word 'perire' means: to die, from 'per'/ through and 'ire'/ to go. There is no 'ex perieri'. The Latin word 'experiri' means: to try out. Also generally understood to mean: going through.
The result of experience is stored in the brain as memory which in turn conditions further experience and limits it. A danger too often ignored.
To more or less understand this passage I first have to be sensitive to its peculiar context and stay close to the words the poet uses. Otherwise I might end up generalizing or drifting away from what it actually says. The context is that of a young poet turning for guidance to the great man whose poetry he loves and admires. Maybe seeking a form of assurance that poetry is really his vocation.
It is not that the world, the outside, can determine our fate, confirm or infirm that vocation through either appraisal or criticism, answers his mentor. Before 'this steps forth out of us to other people' (who will reflect it) an all too important process has taken place if we are receptive to the 'unfamiliar presence' that manifests itself in moments of sadness, melancholy. As this is felt, this becomes part of our being and alters our fate.This is how discreetly 'the future enters us' (through the present moment) and 'it is necessary' that this presence, unfamiliar as it may be, be absorbed, becomes 'our innermost being' as it is the agent of transformation itself.
So the making of a poet is in no way predictable from an outside perspective: 'the future stands still'. What we call fate owes nothing to the world outside but emerges from us long before the world can, in a way or other, reflect it. If we let infinite space move through us, we move in infinite space.
I have read this passage over and over and at this point I cannot grasp what the great poet is saying to his young friend. I have in stock another passage from Rainer Maria Rilke which struck me as very beautiful and insightful but I just don't have the key to this one. I will be on the look out for more inspiring comments.
I hear your question which is mine as well. It has been with me from the time I stumbled upon a truly intelligent and compassionate being, a great being. To such a man compassion means passion for all. As the word 'passion' implies, it is not something meek at all but something rather fierce like a fire within. It has great inner strength and endures in the face of tremendous adversity. And through such a being you see compassion walking hand in hand with intelligence, an intelligence far beyond the personal, an intelligence that perceives the cause of suffering, that has insight into the very root of problems and is tremendously creative .
At first sight, the author's extraordinarily civilized weapons, compassion and insight, seem pathetically frail, laughably so, seen from the perspective of the barbarian powers. Those powers do not claim to be barbarian as such. They do not see themselves as malevolent and more often than not claim that their point of view is that of reality, of the inherent competitiveness of life itself. Although they have assimilated the concept of evolution, they think in terms of 'mechanical' darwinian evolution only and do not see that further evolution on this planet will be determined by man's conscious evolution. Even faced with the announced planetary disaster they will affirm, with a very strange sort of faith, that life on earth will go on and that man's inventiveness alone is capable to work out miracles. This view point, although it manifests some spirit, is limited and geared to short term action. These barbarian powers are not only found in the elites but also in the great number of so called simple people who rather thoughtlessly share these views. So at first sight it would seem that civilisation, in the highest sense, stands defeated.
On second thought I think of the tremendous impact a few very determined spiritual activists have had in olden and recent times and also in the present time, if one considers the Dalai Lama's extraordinary moral and spiritual combat, fought with the apparently frail weapons of compassion and insight. The key, I believe, is for such activists to be free of either hope or despair.
The author is inviting us to be radically, absolutely still prior to seeking happiness, God or any kind of fulfillment for that matter. Is stillness then some sort of ideal state to be achieved as a means to an end? This is what the word ' cultivate' is generally understood to mean. It is not what I understand the author to actually say but rather that stillness is our true nature, not a state to be achieved but a state that naturally emerges once we stop seeking. Neither is he saying how to still the mind, indicating any sort of practice. What he is adamantly saying is just let go the mind, let it be still. Just do it then see what happens. The practice is: Just do it! At least this is how I interpret this brief passage that doesn't say much about the relationship between stillness and perception but just invites us to try out being radically, absolutely still... for a change. Thank you Gangaji.
A native, genuine gentleness is a very, very rare thing in a person. Most of us tend to be judgmental and opinionated and it takes a good deal of attention to our prejudices and a good deal of questioning to get to be a kinder person. And even so, it sometimes seems impossible to change our native character for the best. It is easier to change one's perspectives, one's world views, easier to sit alone with oneself in relative silence than it is to change one's own 'damned' irritability in the face of circumstances, people, etc. So the abrupt question of a gentle person sitting in a waiting room can be very pertinent: who is he/she that is so irritable if not the observer that so persistently thinks himself different from that which he/she observes? Who reacts with irritation? Who thinks things should be different?
Finally the 'good' doctor walked briskly into the waiting room and from the air of commiseration and undisguised contempt with which he greeted his patients I fully understood how the lady felt and how disquieting it was to be unassuming and defenseless in the midst of a crowd of somebodies.
I was sitting in the waiting room at an ophtalmologist's when a very shy and gentle looking lady entered. She seemed lost and asked me whether she should go and knock at the doctor's door or wait. I told her the custom was for the patient to wait for the doctor to come and fetch him or her, and we sat on in silence, I, rather impressed by her extraordinary timidity and gentleness. Then ,all of a sudden she asked me:' the observer is the observed, isn't it?' I was baffled that she would address such a question to a complete stranger, at such a time and in such a place. But she was so gentle and sincere that I heard me say, possibly out of compassion: 'Yes, the observer is the observed'. She looked relieved: 'You see, I feel so awkward, even with the simplest things'. I then must have said something like 'never mind that ' but I was curious to know why she had asked such a question and had trusted me with the answer? And after a few more exchanges I understood that she loved to paint gardens and that when she painted flowers and trees she felt she was what she painted and then felt unsure of being quite normal and how disquieting this could be.
I have just listened to an extraordinary interview of Andrew Harvey titled The Death and the Birth. I warmly recommend it to all. ( sites: Jason Elijah/ Andrew Harvey or andrewharvey.net
The feeling that I have time is certainly something we most 'naturally' take for granted. Time is the factor that has us think of death as something far away. So that, unconsciously, one has dissociated life from death and doesn't see anymore how both relate to the present. Time-thought, as J.K. would say, to signify that time is thought and reversely: would there be a sense of time if I had no memory, no thought? And our action results from this thought-feeling that I have time. If I could contract that span that is supposed to separate life from death, that would arouse in me that sense of urgency that is often so terribly lacking in my every day experience and resulting action. Time acts as the greatest of our 'shock absorbers' as Mr.G. would say, and is cause of all procrastination.
Seeing that and yet not acutely feeling the imminence of death, can I consciously bring dying in my every day experience? (P.S.: no time, presently, to elaborate!)
I understand the author to say that, for as much as we have not experienced the full flow of the river, we all have some access to at least some of its tributaries. We are not completely deprived of patience, endurance, honesty, etc. We are not disconnected from the source as long as we don't give up effort. Not the selfish effort to improve ourselves but the effort to open up and live from the heart. This has to be the axis of our conscious effort. Just about what I needed to hear. Thank you.
Will you then share your interpretation?
The last time I was reminded that drama is originally a sacred art is when I saw an interpretation of Shakespeare's King Lear by a troup of Kathakali actor's twenty years ago. I then realized what extraordinary demand was put on these actors and their immense capacity of impersonation. Prior to this experience I had the opportunity to see actual communion between these extraordinary actors and their Indian public. At the end of the representation there were no applause but something like great fervor emanated from the audience.
This is beautiful. But what other sort of drama am I playing on myself when I confuse accumulation of knowledge with learning. When I confuse practical knowledge with the problematic 'knowledge' I have accumulated about myself and 'others'. Does holding on to that knowledge give me the illusion of psychological security? So I am on my toes. I don't sit back and say 'Allelujha', I know all about Truth!
I don't think this passage deals with factual, objective knowledge as the one needed for daily living like professional learning, professional competence, etc. There experience and thereby knowledge are fully needed. And there experience adds to knowledge and knowledge to efficiency. I think the author is speaking about quite a different type of knowledge, the kind of knowledge that says: 'I have met this person yesterday she was rude to me' or 'I took this road yesterday I know all about it'. The kind of knowledge that does not really help meeting that same person today or doesn't make that road trip across a beautiful landscape much of an exhilarating experience. The kind of knowledge that diminishes your aliveness as well as that of everybody and everything you happen to encounter in the present. etc. There is truth in this passage but I may miss its factuality if I don't take in the psychological factor. My humble point of view.
The author addresses the people who have come to attend a talk. A talk not meant to communicate information, satisfy curiosity or entertain. The talk is about the 'difficult art of communion'. The author says communion can only come about if people are capable to listen and to learn.
He says people deny themselves this capacity when their concern is to add further knowledge to what they know or when they are 'caught up' in the process of accumulating knowledge. The author equates knowledge with experience and says 'it doesn't bring perception and the beauty of understanding'.
To dissociate learning from knowledge is, at first sight, a bit of a quiz for the conceptual mind. Aren't the things happening in the present automatically registered in the brain, imprinted on the mind? It is precisely the process of knowledge and if one is not aware of it one gets 'caught up' in it. In the field of relationship can one prevent the past obscuring the present and dulling sensitivity?
Learning then is the movement by which one knowingly relinquishes knowledge so as to be able to perceive the newness, the freshness and the depth of the present. Learning itself sees that it ceases to be movement the moment it accumulates and thus it is ceaselessly on the look out, vitally alert, seeking to commune with the environment.
Knowledge evaluates, compares, criticizes. This is its normal function and it definitely has its place. But when it is brought over in the field of relationship it brings in dis-function and dulls our capacity to commune with life.
There is much more to her comment but Amy is pointing to something important which is interpretation. One teacher I used to listen to with some intensity would constantly warn the listener at the beginning of his talks against his or her tendency to interpret what he said, or compare what he said with previous knowledge. In short, the danger was of translating the new into the old. Right from start, he made it clear that interpretation stood in the way of actual understanding. With the same intention he would warn the listener against his/her tendency to be influenced by his reputation, his appearance, in brief by some image the listener might have of the speaker. All things pertaining to the realm of personality and leading to miss understanding. That which G., if I am not mistaken, would call 'consideration'.
Beautiful sufi tale from Ricky!
Social man (woman), normally, takes from the environment to give his family, to give those he considers to be his own. And not without a lot of travail! It may be only recently that he was encouraged, through organized religions, to extend his instinctive 'generosity' to those he has not himself 'engendered'. All promised a form or other of retribution, a 'spiritual' incentive, in fact, a transaction: do this and you will get that in this world or in the other. Think about your next life, aquire merits.
The yet instinctive, ordinary chap was thus encouraged to become a 'do-gooder', a somewhat more refined and more complex kind of fellow. Up to the present time, where the incentive itself has become more refined and complex: the slogan of a foundation appealing for the leprous will be: 'If you do not love, do not give', meaning, if you do not love you are a cripple yourself. A slogan accurately directed at people's sense of self-esteem. Who wants to feel he or she is a cripple inside?
Interestingly, the author states an example of a person giving out of a sense of fullness. Feeding ants, the most invasive of all species after man, as all gardeners know, actually, is a conundrum. And this charming old lady may have meant exactly what she said: that she had little appetite and enjoyed just watching such forms of life. Yet, this may be at the very core of this question of giving as a way of being. Once asked why he gave his entire life to education, for what purpose, with what motivations, the person so adressed answered: ' Do you ask a flower why it gives away its fragrance?' An astounding answer! So, I believe, present day Teachers are well inspired when they address this obscure side in us that feels unfulfilled, lacking, deprived of energy and love.
Talking of the old story, in 1945, near Nag - Hammadi, in upper Egypt, the plow of a local peasant uncovered amphoras with parchments dating back to the time of Jesus. Among those parchments a gospel, a record by Thomas Jude Didyme, the 12th apostle, of the living words of Jesus. Among those here is Logion29 (translated from the French version):
"Jesus said: If flesh has come to exist by the cause of spirit, this is a marvel!... But if spirit has come to exist by the cause of body, this a marvel among marvels! But what feels me with wonder is this: how can this Being, who actually is, inhabit this no-thingness!"
Where one recognises, first, the "story" of creation; second, the "story" of evolution; then the wonderment at the mistery of beingness that passes understanding.
" All things exist as a communion of subjects", this sounds very true to me. Yet, the more aware of their subjectivity the subjects, the better. All science is often seen, these days, as reductionist. This view of science may well be reductionnist itself. The realisation that the observer interferes in the process of observation is an actuality for most scientists today. Take ethology as an instance, a science of observation, and look at the tremendous insights it gave us into animal behaviour. Is'nt it because those scientists have learned to see what actually is through the veil of human subjectivity. The scientific attitude, in that instance, is respectful of animals and thus truly compassionate.
As adults, with yet a tendancy to resist change as regard to ourselves and others, we are able to see what's implied in the psychological process of attachment. What does it actually mean when we say we are attached to someone? What we are attached to, in reality, is whatever past knowledge we have about that person. So much so that when he or she changes, meaning does'nt behave according to our expectations, we then feel insecure. So the attachment is not to the person for it's own sake but to the past and to the inner comfort we derive from thinking we 'know' that person. 'Detachment', when it occurs, is only towards this persistent seeking for inner comfort and security in relationship. As we grow aware of this compulsion we are more likely to allow space for ourselves and others to change. We gain inner space and others too, by the same token.
Conrad's reflection, including his quote, sums up fairly well what we are up against, at a personnal and collective level.
We live in a world where each of us is prey to a thousand influences and sollicitations many of them unnatural, and this can only accelerate with today's widespread means of communication. To live with or in simplicity would be far from obvious even if conditions were ideal. Even in a quiet, truly sane and nourishing environment one is prey to likes and dislikes, one may find himself or herself brooding over some deception and give in to the illusion that the grass is surely greener elsewhere. This tends to happen all too 'naturally'. Psychological unrest, by itself, creates disorder and attracts unwanted= unnatural conditions.
I remember reading Mr. Fukuoka's book, One Straw Revolution, twenty five years ago with the enthusiasm of one discovering about natural farming. I remember him saying that if you encapsulate the seeds you are about to sow in clay neither will these rot, neither will they be eaten by birds. This is a lot of unnecessary work if you consider, as I do now, that it is natural that some of the seeds should simply rot and some others be simply eaten by birds. Two weeks ago a cat of mine, Tam-Tam, was severely bittten by another cat. She quickly developped a very nasty abcess and would have died if a vet had not operated her. Was it unnatural to have her operated? Science is certainly not nearsighted: it has done more to enlarge my vision of nature, of the universe, of its marvelous complexity than have any fundamentalists in the realm of religion, nature and otherwise. Some of Mr. Fukuoka's observations are very true concerning modern unnatural farming methods. But his vision may be somewhat too dogmatic.
To Catherine: cooperation is the most difficult thing, ever. If your cooperation is not returned, it means it is not welcome. Just let it be. Don't fret about it. Turn the page.
The terms 'civil resistance' or non-violent resistance refer to protest as regard to civil laws. Like those wich used to enforce segregation in some states in the USA. The context may have been different in India but still, the country was administered according to laws established by the occupant. It was laws the people were called to resist non-violently. Speaking of non-violence at large may be very misleading. Pacifism may lead a country to be invaded!
I was impressed by the words of Martin Luther king jr. celebrating the spirit behind civil resistance . The context was that of the Civil Rights movement of which he was the leader in the Christian America of the early sixties. An organized, powerful and, today, historical movement inspired by the great example of Mr. Gandhi's India. When watching History in the making, as what is presently happening in some Arab countries, I may not find a movement that organized, with such inspired leadership and moral imperatives. But I find a same aspiration towards freedom, justice and human dignity. Another proof that, independant of culture and climate, this call can never be repressed.
The problem of inner and outer conflict is central to the teachings of J. Krishnamurti. Our brain is conditionned to see things in a dualist perspective. It creates an opposite to what is in the hope of changing what is. When violence comes up our conditionned reaction is to overcome it, struggling to achieve non-violence. This movement away from violence is what causes that gap, which is also a time gap. When this is observed you see that violence and the movement of thought away from it are one and the same. Then there is no gap to bridge because both terms of the duality are being annihilated in a single act of perception. Perception, unlike thought, is not of time, it has no past, no continuity. But there can't be perception as long as thought is struggling. This is why most of us go on living in that tragic gap. We go on relying on thought to solve the problem and thought, being of time, can only give continuity to the problem. May these teachings be of help to you!
Yes, unless we act out, we balance from one foot to the other, caught in that in-between: violence vs non-violence. But to what extent is the gap, the duality, real?
I understand what you mean, Umesh, but the context has changed dramatically. Liberation wars, including by the skillful mean of Ahimsa, are over. Today's world is composed of independant nations and today's focus is on interpersonnal as well as international cooperation. The gap between the ideal of non-violence and actual violence is as great as ever. What can change that predicament?
I doubt there is such a thing as a 'third way' that would miraculously resolve our conflicts. We cannot at the same time hold on to our own opinions, self image, personnal goals and hope for peace and cooperation. This is just another form of wishful thinking. The tragedy is that we go on clinging to our separate self sense while wishing for union. The sense of our self importance is bound to collide with somebody else's sense of self importance, our ego with their egos, creating havoc. So, in the end, instead of a solution comes a decision, that of the more influencial ego... and most other egos, in that business meeting, feel terribly frustrated. That's, more or less, how the system we are all contributing to, works. You have got to see the nature of that gap very, very clearly, not look for a third way but clear the way !
My appreciation of nature's generosity and beauty has grown ever since i started caring after a garden, a very sacred garden, in fact, where we may have raked a few dead leaves together, Satish, many years ago. But all land is sacred to a gardener. I feel the prevailing species-ism you are refering to is a cultural aberration, a monstruous denial of that humaneness which St. Francis exemplified.
To be non materialistic does'nt mean rejecting in a block society pretexting that it is all too materialistic. Is it what the rimpoche means? Taking philosophy as a pretext to be lazy and casual in what one does? I do not see that much intelligence is at play in that sort of posture. And who could be such a fool as to believe the material aspects of existence need not be taken care of. The fact that one is lazy or one is a workaholic needs not and should not be connected to any kind of philosophy.
But the way one relates to what one does and how one approaches one's work seems to me very important. However seemingly important or unimportant the work , one's work has an impact on other people, an impact on nature, it fits into a much bigger whole.
So I-You have different opinions, interpretations about reality. We may argue, express conviction, but, in the end, we have no certainty. Conviction is not certainty. So, I then come to a stand-still. I see that the only unshakable cerainty is that I am witnessing a me having an opinion, or rather, being an opinion. Now, I feel how it feels like to be that opinion: how limited, restrictive, divisive it feels. That perception dissolves the perceiver as well as the perceived. Opinions, judgements dissolve along with the thinker. In their place, a gap, a space a not-knowing. I have come to that only fact: I don't know! Can I stay with that awareness that thought is limited, that it cannot grasp, least of all figure out, what reality, God, whatever we call it, is?
Yes, sanity of mind is related to this question and he must be a very happy person the one who thinks he is free from all trace of insanity. Those people whose words bring sanity, not just normality, are a blessing to this world . I have come to the point where I understand that thought cannot grasp, cannot figure out the mystery of it all and I have stopped fooling around with interpretations about reality. This does'nt mean I have shut myself to those insights which come when the mind is somewhat more silent than pro-active. 'Magical' wishful thinking will more surely bring hell than it will paradise if there is the least trace of insanity in you. If you do not believe me, ask Mordred !
Hi Somik. I am enjoying this forum.
Humour : the teachers I feel endebted to , J.Krishnamurti, E.T., the Crazy Teacher (Andrew Cohen), all have ( or had) a great sense of humour, each in his own, unique style. But this humour sprouts naturally from teachings which focus on the real, actual tragi-comic foolishness of the egoic self . Their acute presence, the intelligence they so naturally convey does the job.
Some ideas or concepts or 'corecepts' may demand that we contemplate them, such as: belief comes before experience. We are, what we believe; we experience accordingly. That's difficult to believe if you believe it's difficult to believe! It was good fun walking the path of the avatar for a while. Until the moment I realised thought had created monstruous every day realities and much more rarely, miracles.
On Oct 26, 2013 Thierry wrote on Do we Use Thought, or Does Thought Use us?, by Dada:
It seems the author is speaking of the 95% of our so-called thinking which is vain, irrelevant, superficial, mechanical. The chattering mind. Yet to be aware of this chattering, of this wastage of energy, this also consumes energy while in a more focused way. It doesn't necessary follow that meditative watchfulness, must , of itself, generate new insights.. In my experience, insights come through sharing the thinking of others, whosoever whose thinking has meditative value, what is called wisdom. Which is in no way personal yet must make sense in my experience. The mind is like a huge reservoir not all of us can tap into directly. But we can tap into it indirectly through the mediation of others. This is how impersonal the mind is and how important thinking, in the meditative dimension, is.
Thought is restless, the more so as one does not attend to it. Yet this is only half of the deal. The fact is that the more one attends during daytime the more one is aware of that same restlessness at night. The more one wonders of what to make out of the confusing language of dreams. Speaking of a new dimensional existence, I wonder if this can be accessed through sheer discipline, least of all, by some sort of wishfulness.
Intuitive intelligence must include some capacity not only to read in between the words but also an ability to see through that wordless yet symbolic language which is also the language of myth.