Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Monday July 16th

Expand Messages
  • andrew macnab
    ... thank you, su. sometimes i find myself in a situation which, if i simply tell what it is, it turns out to be a poem . And i always know when i m in such a
    Message 1 of 1 , Jul 17, 2001
      > -----------------------
      > Beautiful pomes. Thanks.

      thank you, su. sometimes i find myself in a situation which, if i
      simply tell what it is, it turns out to be a 'poem'. And i always
      know when i'm in such a situation. like sitting with a stick of
      incense next to me and directly across the harbour the chimney which
      looked exactly like another stick of incense. if that's not a poem,
      what is? the challenge, for me, is to say as little as possible about
      the situation, so that the most is said. the first draft of the poem
      ended with 'two clouds of smoke'. That seemed unfinished. I looked
      more closely at the obviousness of the situation and saw the two
      clouds of smoke blowing in the same direction. This prompted the
      final line: One wind.


      Thanks for the xplanation, Jerry.
      It's all good.

      Now, what are the ingredients
      being held in place,
      and who's skin is thin?

      Is this a pome or a kone?
      What's the sound of
      thin skin in a cloud of smoke?

      Pass me a scone.

      I need to phone home.


      > When robbers broke in into Ramanashram, they gave Ramana
      > a thrashing in order to get to valuable items. He bore patiently
      > and when it was over, he cooked them a meal :)
      > He didn't say something like "you are violating the rules
      > of the ashram, get lost!". His behavior ( like starting a dialogue
      > with the burglars and cooking them a meal as "consolation" for
      > "no loot") was what melted their hearts :)

      Thanks for this story, Jan. It melted my heart
      towards Ramana, too.

      I'm reminded this afternoon of a wonderful post Sandeep
      had written on another list some time back....just
      before he (too) was tossed from the list for "violating the
      rules of the ashram".

      It certainly applies to the discussion here of non-violence:



      Do, think, act, exactly whatever comes up in you, for you to do,
      think and
      act, in the moment.
      With all the vim and the full of gusto.

      If subsequently the thought, the decision, gets actualized into a
      doing (not
      all decisions get actualized as you would have noted in your life),
      such a
      "doing" is exactly what Impersonal Consciousness or Micky Mouse
      desired to be
      enacted in that moment, through you.

      Otherwise it will not happen.

      The word inappropriate does not exist in phenomenon.

      "You" with no volition, how can you do any wrong?
      "You" with no volition, how can you do any right?

      For in all the "rights" and all the "wrongs" that have occurred
      phenomenality raised it's head, it is only impersonal functioning
      taking place
      through the billions and billions of sentient and non-sentient
      beings, moment
      after moment after moment.

      Which is what is, the "mosiac" of Life.

      Now for specific actions to occur, appropriate conditioned body-mind
      complexes are manifested.

      And how does Impersonal Consciousness function through the object-

      Through the occurrence of a non-volitional thought in the
      object-body-mind-complex which triggers of a chain of secondary
      thoughts, some
      of which gets externally actualized into "actions, a series of actions
      constituting the "precise behaviour" which was, what was to be

      Behaviourial scientists and neuro scientist call that non-
      acausally occurring thought , a particular "wave-function collapse"
      from that
      Infinite Field of all possible Wave-functions, in Quantum Mechanics

      Now to these "doings, the illusory entity, the illusory self,
      attaches a
      meaning and makes the doing either a "sin" or a "profoundity".

      Impersonal functioning does not get altered by "your" attached

      This is the true apperception of the truth of non-volitionality.

      Now there is one more step to be seen as a consequence of this

      When the action through "you" is seen to be the action of Impersonal
      Consciousness and thus there is no question of guilt for "sinful"
      acts and also
      no question of pride for "profound" acts, such a body-mind complex
      may face the
      consequences of such an act which was enacted through it.

      That consequence could be either condemnation by the "other" (as is
      by some on this List for Sandeep) or it could be praise/tears of
      gratitude (as
      is happening by some, on this List for Sandeep)

      Know that, in both the praise and the condemnation, there is also
      no "entity"
      in the other body-mind complex and that praise/condemnation, is as
      much the
      functioning of the same Impersonal Consciousness through that other

      With this total apperception, now Frank.........

      Who will you hate?

      Who will you despise?

      Who could disturb you?

      Who could anger you?

      Whom would you envy?

      For what will you take pride in?

      For what will you be anxious about?

      What will you fear, to lose or rush to safe-guard?

      No pride,
      no hate,
      no anger,
      no envy,
      no fear,
      no insecurity,
      nothing to seek,
      nothing to be renounced,
      nothing to be achieved,
      nothing to be negated

      AND existing in full bloom in the midst of the market place,
      call this state of beingness, whatever name you wish to give.

      La deeee Daaaaa Deeeee

      Doooobeeeee Dooobeeee Dooooo

      violent autumn?
      killing leaves and small creatures?
      that is what it seems

      find out why that does happen
      see things as they are


      ...*That* which is utterly nonviolent, has no
      word for violence, hence no concept of nonviolence.
      The concept of nonviolence implies one's capacity
      for violence.


      ...how many thrashings would Ramana have taken before getting pissed off?

      This got me thinking. My mother used to say to us when we were kids that if we're
      home alone and a robber comes in to make him coffee and something to eat. She was
      kidding of course, her way of avoiding the possibility of what could happen, but
      the truth behind it was that she was partly brought up by professional criminals
      in Brooklyn and she always said they were good men who were nothing but kind to
      her. 'That's how they made their living,' she said. So she knew the humanity
      behind criminals and thugs.

      My mother used to tell me all the time, 'Jerry, you could move mountains if you
      want to.' I used to get migraine headaches and she taught me how to put myself
      into another state mentally, because she suffered them too and had figured out how
      to get through them.

      She told me that once when I was three or four we were walking together in the
      woods (in the Catskills) and suddenly she felt profoundly peaceful and perfect, a
      moment of satori. She'd speak of it from time to time.

      She also frequently spoke of a little man that appeared on the edge of her bed one
      morning when she was a child. It did a dance for her. She called her mother who
      came in. At that instant the little man disappeared.

      My mother possessed an independent mystic consciousness that was overshadowed by
      the materialism of her day. Only those with the greatest hunger-to-know could
      pursue the mystic path, because it was tremendously contrary to the culture.

      My father, being a perfectly fine product of his day, and who I love very much,
      served to steal the development of my mother's mystic streak from her and me.
      It's okay. I've cooked him many, many meals.


      re-reading this, it sounds as though I'm putting my father in a harsh negative light,
      which I don't mean to do. I should say that he served as a symbol of an era and a
      generation. I don't really feel my father or the generation 'stole' anything, but one
      could take poetic license and look at the difficulty in pursuing mystical lifestyle as
      a kind of 'theft' at the hand of the material inclination of a generation. In other
      words, please don't hear me as complaining!

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.