Sunday, September 29, 2002
- ...posted by John Metzger at HarshaSatsanghHighlights #1212Sunday, September 29, 2002Editor: Gloria LeeMACE MEALERHarshaSatsangh
Being ugly, but not too ugly
discourages those intent on breeding.
Being foolish, but not too foolish
discourages those seeking wisdom.
Being dishonest, but not too dishonest
discourages those that might consider you
more than a fraud.
Being inept, but not too inept,
discourages those who might think
that you are skillful.
"If you want the bed to yourself
Thus effectively providing the peace and
isolation necessary for practice.
That is, until you start glowing,
then all bets are off.
Beyond the "I am" - Nisargadatta
Just look away from all that happens in your mind and bring it to
the feeling "I am". The "I am" is not a direction. It is the negation
of all direction. Ultimately even the "I am" will have to go, for
you need not keep on asserting what is obvious. Bringing the
mind to the feeling "I am" merely helps in turning the mind away
from everything else. When the mind is kept away from its
preoccupations, it becomes quiet. If you do not disturb this quiet
and stay in it, you find that it is permeated with a light and a love
you have never known; and yet you recognize it at one as your
own nature. Once you have passed through this experience, you
will never be the same man again; the unruly mind may break its
peace and obliterate its vision; but it is bound to return, provided
the effort is sustained; until the day when all bonds are broken,
delusions and attachments end, and life becomes supremely
concentrated in the present.
Realization is but the opposite of ignorance. To take the world as~Sri Nisargadattaji Maharaj
real and one's self as unreal is ignorance, the cause of sorrow. To
know the self as the only reality and all else as temporal and
transient is freedom, peace and joy. It is all very simple. Instead
of seeing things as imagined, learn to see them as they are.
When you can see everything as it is, you will also see yourself
as you are. It is like cleansing a mirror. The same mirror that
shows you the world as it is, will also show you your own face.
The thought "I am" is the polishing cloth. Use it.
when you are fragmented and separated
the world is fragmented and separated
when you are whole
the world is whole
grasp of the senses
there is Wholeness
in the Wholeness there is a rhythm
coming and going
living and dying
everything has a reason
in this rhythm of
when you are divided
the reasons are veiled
when you whole
the reasons are apparent
before setting out to
fix the world
take a look at yourself
when you are whole,
the world is whole.
(Wahiduddin - "Resurrection" - mystical poems of
longing, surrender and joy)
"It is therefore a violence against nature to attempt to stop the
mind or body functions." ~Jean Klein
"Spiritual people can be some of the most violent people you
will ever meet. Mostly, they are violent to themselves. They
violently try to control their minds, their emotions, and their
bodies. They become upset with themselves and beat themselves
up for not rising up to the conditioned mind's idea of what it
believes enlightenment to be. No one ever became free through
such violence. Why is it that so few people are truly free?
Because they try to conform to ideas, concepts, and beliefs in
their heads. They try to concentrate their way to heaven. But
Freedom is about the natural state, the spontaneous and
un-self-conscious expression of beingness. If you want to find it,
see that the very idea of "a someone who is in control" is a
concept created by the mind. Take one step backward into the
Abiding and Depression
Quite unexpectedly, I received an invitation
to participate in a conference call with Dr.
David Hawkins (author of Power vs Force)
I had no expectations when dialing into that
call. It was more of a sense of it simply being
an experience.....something there for me to do.
I don't know that I could count how many
shocks this body-mind experienced in the
space of that one hour.
My first impression of him was lukewarm
at best. I was struck at first at what seemed
to be a real lack of enthusiasm in him for speaking
with us. :-) And then I was struck by
the fact that he didn't come across as
particularly dynamic (compared to an
Osho or Sandeep.....those I've gravitated
towards in the past).
But man, oh man, did his words speak
right to the core. Such a series of
little shocks..... one after another all in a
space of an hour.
For some reason I can't remember
specifically what he said.....only that
what he said throughout the call was
experienced by me as being hit "right
on target".....striking so many chords
all at once.
Right now I only recall the fallout: a series of
"ah haa's" happening... one after another....
being left with a sense of feeling totally opened....
exposed.....and feeling really, really
ok with it all.....albeit feeling rather muted
by it all.
So many echoes remain from that call,
not the least of which is the sense of
wonder for Life.
[..]The sense of unbalance remains - in being stuckin the 'downs'. What's different is a sense offeeling way ok in admitting that.Funny, I didn't know until after our talkthat Dr Hawkins was an MD, and not PhD....and that his specialty before becomingwell known as an author was psychiatry....having specialized for a time in SSRI'sand brain chemistry.That's the wonder of Life I was referringto! The way it perfectly orchestratedour connection at that very moment. :-)And that he could speak to me onso many different levels at once reallyknocked me out.
roger isaacs" wrote:
" What's the relationship between nothing and everything?"
Everything requires no-thing to be,
but no-thing doesn't require everything,
because it is neither being nor nonbeing.
Everything is no-thing, but understood as
if something existing in relation, as
Everything is relationship, no-thing
is not in relationship.
There is only relationship between
the idea of nothing and the idea of everything.
No-thing is not in relationship to anything,
everything, something, nor the idea of nothing.
THIS we have now
is not imagination
This is not grief or joy
not a judging state,
or an elation,
Those come and go
THIS IS THE PRESENCE THAT DOESN'T
It's dawn my friend
here in the splendor of coral
inside the Friend, in simple truth
of what Hallaj said
What else do human beings want?
when grapes turn to wine
they are wanting
when the nightsky pours by
its really a crowd of beggars
and they all want some of
that we are now
created body , cell by cell, like bees building a honeycomb
the human body and the universe grew
not THIS from the universe and the human body.
translation by coleman barks
Re: Why Jung did not meet RamanaToday I went to a football match.
Above the players
in the sunshine
I saw the silver thread
of a spider,
floating in the air
attached to nothing.With regards to his interest in syncronicity it was probably a pity
Jung did not meet Ramana.Two days ago I wrote this sentence as a reply to this thread, as I
thought about Jung and his patient's experience with a beetle
making him discover syncronicity.I did not continue on this line of thought, but went for a walk in
the forest instead. I found something I have never seen before. I
put the picture at the bottom of the page (only for the very
interested!) I actually had to use a stick to see if there were
beetles inside as well. It is something coming out of an animal
just crazy about beetles. I dont know what this is supposed to tell
me about his theory, or rebirth : )The most famous example he gives is that of the golden scarab.
As a patient detailed her dream of an unusual image, a golden
scarab, there was a tapping at the window. Jung opened the
window and a rose chafer, or Cetonia aureate, flew in, the beetle
which could be said to be the closest to the golden scarab,
Egyptian symbol of rebirth. The patient, needless to say, made
great progress with her problem of excessive rationality.In Jungs model of syncronicity , this is the first of his two
fundametal types.One in which the compensatory activity of the archetype is
experienced both inwardly and outwardly. [the event seems to
emerge from the subconscious with access to absolute
knowledge, which cannot be consciously known]
Melody wrote: My sense is, Roger, that you seem to already
know the answers to the questions you just asked.
The question "what is the relationship between nothing and everything"
(or whatever it was) came up in me regarding someone's post on the Paul
Brunton email list:
"Psychologically the void trance is deeper than the
world-knowing insight, but metaphysically it is not.
For in both cases one and the same Reality is seen." (PB)
After holding that for a day or so it occurred to me "'Nothing' which
excludes 'everything' is duality". Although I might hold that to see if
it evaporates and reveals something else... or perhaps nothing! This may
only be true on some level, it might only be another perspective... and
it may not even be an interesting question at all.
I'm not sure what you are proposing: On raising a question one should
not participate in further discussion? This the standard to which you
wish to be held?
If you say you don't like the way I express myself... well, that's open
for discussion too, I'm not sure I'm always comfortable with my
expression either. It's natural for me to challenge others when I feel
"NOT THIS!"... having done so here I suppose it's inevitable to be on
the receiving side. But in this case your accusation, your "sense", that
I am intentionally manipulating the conversation is false.
You imply my answer is the correct one and I certainly wouldn't make
Soon I will finish my studies at the Festus Hagan (character from the
old Gunsmoke TV series) school of English grammar. The arrival of this
achievement may herald improvement in my expression!
These comments are like passing clouds in the sky which have no more
substantive weight. Hey, it's a fall afternoon and the sun is out! A
walk in the park beckons!!! Maybe later some Mexican food with a dark
It seems you and I are talking about two
different things. When I responded earlier
today to the thought,
"Is your premise also your conclusion?"
that was all I was responding to. Not to
the full thread of discussions these past
few days. (I tried to make that clear by
only including that one sentence in my
response. Sorry if it was misleading to