Nowhere to go but the heart - Rumi
lovers,* there is no seeking (done) by themselves,
(for) there is no
additional seeker in the world other than Him.*
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
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
All good and bad (qualities) are parts of
not like this, is not a
Whoever has gone beyond "place," his (only)
place is the heart --
such a heart* for which there is no place in the
Translated from the Persian, with
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
("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
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.
a satori aficionado, satsang savvy person, it could be quite your cup
Can you give a capsule summary of the movie?
Also, K-PAX might be
" Waking Life " is a philosophical " yellow submarine ". This guy is
by an amphibian car driven by a zen-like cab driver and after being
randomly at a street corner his fate is determined. After
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
It's up at thInternet Movie Database; http://us.imdb.com/Title?0243017
ANDREW & DAN
> > > There is nothing that doesn't appear
> disappear.> > There is
nothing that appearing and
> > disappearing.
> That too. That
> > > Who is there to say real or
> > There is only the real.
> > What
isn't real, isn't there.
> Dan, you were the one who spoke of
> 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
doesn't arrive, go away,
so doesn't fall into
zone of "is" vs. "isn't" ...
It may seem like things are
and going away. We discuss "seeming"
taking things the way they
"seem" to be leads to
when it is not what they are, aka
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
> > 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?
> > > Always changing
compared with what?
> If I understand you, you are saying
> change is only inferred by comparing
> the present to the
past. Or changing to unchanging.Yes.
> Not so...
> The felt
> all the worldself is change.Felt aliveness compared with
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
is he? If he is an inference based
on nothing, how valid or real are
the comparisons? Perhaps real
for day to day conversations, but
we are discussing
"insight" here (at
least I am :-), so not wanting to
that consensus ideas about what
is real are "true", not wanting
limit vision to "what everyone knows
to be true"
> > > Time is the being of
> > Who's version of time is the being
> of the world? Yours, an ant's,
> > a
> 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
"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"
> > talking about? The concept of
> time isn't "this" ...
> Time is this. The
quick, alive, changing :)
> worldself is this.So, the unquick and unalive
> > >
> > >
*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
> Which is fine, as long as is understood
statements depend on your
> comparison. The one who
seems to be
> there, to make the comparisons,
> is he? If he is an inference
> on nothing, how valid or real are
the comparisons? Perhaps real enough
> for day to day
> we are discussing "insight" here
> 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
> to be true" ...
Excuse me for snipping
, time constraints :-)
You're right of course. Dammit Dan you're always
Oh I know, right compared to what? Really you're not always
I wouldn't curse you with that. Neither always right nor
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
Excuse me for snipping , time constraints :-)
> You're right of
course. Dammit Dan you're always
> Oh I know, right
compared to what?
Really you're not
> right, I wouldn't curse you with that.
Namaste! L'Chaim! To your health!
> not always right nor both nor neither :-) Anyway, I
> presence my friend, at least insofar as any of us
Me, too. Always a pleasure :-)
Who wants to go into "this" really?
Not many. Who wants
to be "undone",
so much so that no trace of a former
future existence or nonexistence
> I wonder, does
language hold up to discussion of
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
For the ordinary reader has
the concern to continue
> understood by an
> in crowd,
They don't get it either,
like 'serious' art
criticism, or some
> obscure dialect.
If so, it's just a joke, and
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,
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
or a way of talking, or all the happy
faces, or all
the charismatic salespeople ...
Nothing whatsoever ... not even a little
"Nothing new under the sun" says the preacher