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

10/29/01 Monday

Expand Messages
  • Gloria Lee
    ********************* Nowhere to go but the heart - Rumi [from: sunlight@onelist.com] For the lovers,* there is no seeking (done) by themselves, (for) there is
    Message 1 of 1 , Oct 30, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
       
      *********************
       
      Nowhere to go but the heart - Rumi
      [from: sunlight@onelist.com]

      For the lovers,* there is no seeking (done) by themselves,
      (for) there is no additional seeker in the world other than Him.*
           This world and the next are a single substance; in reality,
      there is no unbelief, religion or faith.*
           O you whose breath (is like that of) Jesus!* Don't breathe from
      (such) a distance! I am the admirer* of the one who is not far
      thinking.*
           If you say, "I'll go behind," Don't go! (There's) no behind.
      (And) if you say, "[I'll go] ahead," No! There's no way ahead.*
           Open (your) hand [and be generous], (and) grab (the hem of) your
      own robe* [and be merciful]. (For) there is no bandage for this
      wound except this garment.*
           All good and bad (qualities) are parts of the dervishes;*
      whoever is
      not like this, is not a dervish.
           Whoever has gone beyond "place," his (only) place is the heart --
      such a heart* for which there is no place in the world!


                  -- Ghazal 425
                     Translated from the Persian, with commentary
                     (C) Ibrahim Gamard
                     Oct. 7, 1999

      *the lovers: means the lovers of God.
      *other than Him: Chittick translated this (single) line as, "Lovers
      themselves do not seek-- in the whole world, there is no seeker but
      He."
      ("The Sufi Path of Love," 1983, p. 210). Sufis have often extended
      the Islamic creed, "There is no divinity except God," to obtain further
      mystical realizations, such as: there is no (ultimate) being,
      existence, reality, actions, qualities, etc. except God's Being, Existence, etc.-
      - and here, that there is no seeker except God. This is another way of
      saying, "Seek God within, not outside of yourself, and you will find that you
      don't exist, because there exists only God who is the Seeker of Himself"--
      seeking the reflection of His own Divine Attributes in the completed
      human being. *or faith: means that all of creation (including this world
      and the next world, good and bad) is a unity (reflecting the Divine Unity of
      God). And in contrast to the mystic's direct experience of the overwhelming
      reality of the Presence of God, mental beliefs about the Divine are
      irrelevant.
       

      BENOIT
       


      Greetings

      How many of you have seen the movie " Waking Life " by Richard Linklater ?

       I have  found it quite provoking, at times heavy heady with some onanistic
      mentations yet interesting.

      For a satori aficionado, satsang savvy person, it could be quite your cup of
      tea.
       
      ~~~~~~~
      Can you give a capsule summary of the movie?

      Also, K-PAX might be interesting too.

      --Greg

      ~~~~~~
       
      " Waking Life " is a philosophical " yellow submarine ".  This guy is picked up
      by an amphibian car driven by a zen-like cab driver and after being dropped off
      randomly at a street corner his fate is determined. After losing  consciousness,
      he wakes up wondering if he's dreaming or if he's awake and with this doubting
      he  meets many persons with their reflections, theories about life,
      consciousness and the " dilemma " of existence.

      It's up at thInternet Movie Database;

       http://us.imdb.com/Title?0243017


      ANDREW & DAN
      > >
      > > > There is nothing that doesn't appear
      and
      > disappear.
      > >
      > > There is nothing that appearing and
      > >   disappearing.
      >
      > That too.

      That alone.

      >
      > > > Who is there to say real or
      unreal?
      > >
      > > There is only the real.
      > > What
      isn't real, isn't there.
      >
      > Dan, you were the one who spoke of
      reality and
      > unreality,  when you said, a post ago,
      > " >
      Nothing real can be made to disappear.
      >                     > Only unreality can go away."

      Yes.  It can go away because
        it isn't really there.
      What is really there/here
        doesn't arrive, go away,
        so doesn't fall into the
        zone of "is" vs. "isn't" ...

      It may seem like things are coming
        and going away.  We discuss "seeming"
        because taking things the way they
        "seem" to be leads to difficulties,
        when it is not what they are, aka
        the old snake and rope gambit.

      Things are not what they seem, nor are
        they some other way.


      >
      > > > Look around; this is the world, changing, always
      > > > changing.
      > >
      > > For whom?
      > > Who is looking at the
      world and
      > >   noticing how it changes?
      > >
      You?  Are you changing or not?
      >
      > Yes me. I am changing, the world is changing,
      > we are not two.

      If not-two, how can change be ascertained?
      Compared with what?

      >
      > > Always changing compared with what?
      >
      > If I understand you, you are saying that
      > change is only inferred by comparing
      > the present to the
      past. Or changing to unchanging.

      Yes.

      >
      > Not so...
      > The felt aliveness of
      > all the worldself is change.

      Felt aliveness compared with
        unfelt deadness?
      What is unfelt deadness like?
      At any rate, you are comparing,
        as you say above, to make
        your statements about change.

      Which is fine, as long as is understood
        these statements depend on your
        comparison.  The one who seems to be
        there, to make the comparisons, where
        is he?  If he is an inference based
        on nothing, how valid or real are
        the comparisons?  Perhaps real enough
        for day to day conversations, but
        we are discussing "insight" here (at
        least I am :-), so not wanting to
        think that consensus ideas about what
        is real are "true", not wanting to
        limit vision to "what everyone knows
        to be true" ...

      >

      > > > Time is the being of
      the world.
      > >
      > > Who's version of time is the being
      > >   of the world?  Yours, an ant's,
      > >   a
      galaxy's?
      >
      > I am time, the ant is time, the galaxy is
      time.

      I thought you were Dogen :-)

      How can you know that you are time?
      Again, how can you make the necessary
        comparison of "time" to "intemporality"?
      Where are you situated to be able to know
        "I am time" ... ?


      >
      > > >
      > > > Sometimes it's fun to speak of 'beyond'
      > > >
      but come on, who're ya foolin'?
      > > > This is it folks.
      >

      > > What is it?  What "this" are you
      > >   talking about?  The concept of
      > >   time isn't "this" ...
      >
      > Time is this. The quick, alive, changing :)
      > worldself is this.

      So, the unquick and unalive
        is something else?



      > > >
      > > >
      *Certified correct* by andrew
      > >
      > > So, uncertify it :-)
      > >
      > > Uncertify all statements
      > >   about reality,
      >
      > Oh ok.

      O.K.

      > > and be it :-)
      >
      > No alternative.

      Yes.  No alternative
        equals "compared with what?"

      -- Dan


      ANDREW
       

      > Which is fine, as long as is understood
      >   these
      statements depend on your
      >   comparison.  The one who
      seems to be
      >   there, to make the comparisons,
      where
      >   is he?  If he is an inference
      based
      >   on nothing, how valid or real are
      >  
      the comparisons?  Perhaps real enough
      >   for day to day
      conversations, but
      >   we are discussing "insight" here
      (at
      >   least I am :-), so not wanting to
      >  
      think that consensus ideas about what
      >   is real are "true",
      not wanting to
      >   limit vision to "what everyone
      knows
      >   to be true" ...
      >

      Excuse me for snipping , time constraints :-)
      You're right of course. Dammit Dan you're always right.
      Oh I know, right compared to what? Really you're not always
      right, I wouldn't curse you with that.  Neither always right nor
      not always right nor both nor neither :-) Anyway, I do value your
      presence my friend, at least insofar as any of us are present.
      I wonder, does language hold up to discussion of insight? or does it
      become incomprehensible to an ordinary reader; only understood by an
      in crowd, like 'serious' art criticism, or some obscure dialect.


      DAN
       
      Excuse me for snipping , time constraints :-)
      > You're right of
      course. Dammit Dan you're always
      > right.
      > Oh I know, right
      compared to what?

      Exactly.

       Really you're not
      >
      always
      > right, I wouldn't curse you with that.

      Thanks.  Namaste! L'Chaim!  To your health!

       Neither
      > always
      right nor
      > not always right nor both nor neither :-) Anyway, I
      > do
      value your
      > presence my friend, at least insofar as any of us
      >
      are present.

      Me, too.  Always a pleasure :-)
      Sincerely so.

      Who wants to go into "this" really?

      Not many.  Who wants to be "undone",
        so much so that no trace of a former
        or future existence or nonexistence
        is viable?

      > I wonder, does
      language hold up to discussion of
      > insight?

      No.  Language can't convey it.
      Language can only give information,
        not who you are before anything
        was "in-formed" ...

      or does it
      >
      become incomprehensible to an ordinary reader;

      Yes.  It must be so.
      For the ordinary reader has
        the concern to continue ...

      only
      > understood by an
      > in crowd,

      No.  They don't get it either,
       just pretend.

      like 'serious' art criticism, or some
      > obscure dialect.

      If so, it's just a joke, and not
        very funny, a joke on the critic
        and talker ... :-)

      Part of the joke is that it has nothing
        to do with Buddhism, Buddhist teachings,
        advaita, Dzogchen, Jesus, mysticism, meditation,
        not-meditating, what Judi said, or
        I said, or Lee Lozowick said ...

      It's who Jesus and Buddha and Lee and you
        am/be before any am/be ...

      Nothing to do with a way of looking at things,
        or a way of talking, or all the happy
        faces, or all the charismatic salespeople ...

      Nothing whatsoever ... not even a little bit ...

      "Nothing new under the sun" says the preacher :-)

      (Sigh)  :-)

      -- Dan


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