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

Thursday, January 17

Expand Messages
  • Jerry Katz
    ED AND JAN BARENDRECHT ºGreat pic, Jan. Says it all without words. ºI would call it Mount Guru . It surely is: the name Teide is the name, the natives
    Message 1 of 1 , Jan 19, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      ED AND JAN BARENDRECHT

      ºGreat pic, Jan. Says it all without words.
      ºI would call it "Mount Guru".

      It surely is: the name "Teide" is the name, the
      natives gave and it means "devil", referring to
      the ordeal when spewing lava and rocks...

      For those sensitive and energetic, it's like
      a spiritual hothouse due several factors,
      naturally stimulating to be aware...
      Those places are rare... Can you imagine,
      the sanatorium at the base of the mountain
      was closed because swallowing medicines is
      more comfortable and cheaper?
      º
      ºThe lone, distant mountain drew me close,
      º"projecting me" into the infinite beyond,
      ºto which it subtly pointed, and to where there
      ºis neither a me nor a not me.
      º
      ºE.

      When de mind drops silent, who remains to comment
      or notice?

      ________________________________________________________________________

      JERRY KATZ

      Hi Paul,

      Osho was very alive and always changing, always contradicting
      himself. He moved with the moment. You quoted him from a talk
      given to American students in India in 1970. As a Master or
      Guru, or simply as a real person, he would move to elevate
      consciousness of people in his presence. He said what was
      appropriate for the people at the time. He took the title
      Bhagavan because it was called for at the time.

      What he said isn't worth analyzing for accuracy. He's not
      about accuracy. He's about moving people to a new state.
      That's what a Master does.

      You are about accuracy. So you might be more accurate. And
      some people may require you more than Osho. But I wouldn't
      want to compare the two of you. You serve different
      audiences.

      You speak of "The final answer to the question...".

      I never heard Osho or anyone speak in such terms.

      People who need a 'final answer' will be drawn to you, Paul.

      You need a final answer. Some people don't and they'd be
      drawn to Osho to play in the possibilities. Some people are
      fundamentalist in other religions and they believe they have
      the REAL final answer. You believe you have it.

      I'm drinking coffee.

      Jerry

      ----------------------------------------------

      >         I don't have time

      to get into details now, but, believe me, I
      > can hold my own.

      let go!

      you wonder what people on this list will think of you.

      many were on the trapeze at one time.

      they've fallen.

      you think you will hit a rock bottom

      but it is a soft grass

      you bounce gently

      there's no need to hold on

      for dear life

      let go

      fall

      the grass is soft

      then you can go back up and swing

      without fear of falling

      and you'll swing like you never have

      but i warn you

      you might be end up

      like Osho!

      ________________________________________________________________

      JAN SULTAN

      Self Inquiry in Modern Psychiatry
      Carlos G. Lopez, MD
      Child Psychiatry Fellow
      Harvard University
      Child Psychiatry Attending

      Boston University/Boston Medical Center

      Modern science has evolved, beyond expectations, to a high
      degree of complexity and sophistication. However, perhaps the
      most important subject of investigation has been kept in the
      periphery of Western science: The inquiry into the nature of
      the Self. The subject itself has not been the subject of
      scientific investigation. Despite the obvious fundamental
      relevance of this study, our current methodology does not
      seem to allow this. An objective, carefully controlled,
      operative research cannot be "applied" to the Self. This
      paper explores the relevance of Self-inquiry, the relevance
      of a deeper awareness of THAT which is before thought or
      experience and which is our own nature. This paper offers as
      an alternative an ancient, simple, scientific method —
      perhaps new for the majority on the West: By being Still, an
      instant awareness of the nature of the self spontaneously
      rises. Finally, this paper provides an opportunity to bring
      into focus the spirit of service in science and explores how
      a clear, introspective approach can deepen and advance this
      rather uncharted territory, namely, the field of modern
      neuropsychiatry.

      We propose that a scientist who takes to heart this
      invitation to be still and to attend to what is always still
      can immediately experience what cannot be taught and yet is
      present, “hidden” at the core of all therapeutic
      intervention: a natural state of peace and presence in the
      moment. Moreover, he or she will develop a broadening of the
      understanding of health, not merely in terms of a body-mind
      free from symptoms, but in terms of a natural state of
      beingness which is experienced as unbounded freedom and love,
      even in the presence of physical or mental illness.

      Those who keep track of the latest discoveries unveiled by
      the interrelated fields of physics and biology and other
      scientific disciplines know that an actual revolution in
      science is in progress. The most fundamental structure of all
      our scientific knowledge has been questioned as not only not
      being accurate but, perhaps, false in terms of our
      conceptions of the nature of matter, time and space. It is
      well known that by increasing the limits of our perceptive
      input — by virtue of modem technology, from both the
      macrocosmic and the microcosmic perspectives, what is
      revealed is a Reality which in actuality can not be
      perceived, or substantiated, or measured. The space between
      atomic particles and between celestial bodies is almost
      immeasurable, the particles themselves, "tendencies to
      exist,” rather than minute pieces of matter. The larger the
      exploration into outer space, the larger the "emptiness"
      discovered. Paradoxically, the fruit of our accumulated
      scientific knowledge expresses itself, in the most genuine
      fashion, with the scientist acknowledging his fundamental
      ignorance. Both the universe and the physical body being an
      epi­phenomenon of that intelligence/emptiness, science can no
      longer validate a reality that resembles a dream.

      One of the most important paradigm shifts in the modern era
      comes again from physics. That is the understanding that,
      fundamentally, evolutionary process does not take place
      longitudinally over thousands of millions of years during
      which matter appears and evolves into mind or consciousness,
      but rather that the underlying principle is, although known
      by other names, basically Consciousness, from which the
      body-mind with its ability to perceive and abstract and all
      that is perceivable arise and subside.

      It is not the purpose of this paper to elaborate about modem
      scientific discoveries, but to acknowledge that science, in
      these very times, finds itself in the position of true
      discovery. This is the perfect time for a True scientific
      Spirit to re-emerge, particularly within the field of
      neuropsychiatry. The True Spirit of science is an
      uncompromising willingness to realize That which is the
      Truth. By way of realizing what this subject is, what Self
      is, our own understanding and the understanding of the nature
      of suffering should be realized. In the Eastern traditions,
      this investigation has been, for centuries, a central,
      primordial task. The research method has been one of
      introspection, meaning, a patient, careful, lucid
      investigation guided inward, not necessarily in the religious
      sense, but as a response of an urge to discover the Truth.
      This is Self-inquiry. The essence of Eastern wisdom can be
      ultimately distilled in this simple invitation: Be still. The
      simplest of questions, "Who am I?," offers the opportunity to
      realize from direct investigation the nature of the
      questioner itself: what is it that perceives and
      conceptualizes upon perceptions and what is that which is
      perceived? Is there a connection between the perceiver and
      the perceived? Are they separate? Are they real or is it the
      perceiving that is real? This is the nature of the
      investigation. Again, and most paradoxical in the extreme
      complexity of modem times, the one necessary condition for
      this research is also the simplest: Be Still. Even though
      this may have religious or philosophical implications, the
      writer feels, from direct experience, that if one follows
      this question, "Who am I?," with a pure and clear scientific
      interest, the relevance of what is revealed becomes instantly
      apparent. As scientists, we have heard, and dismissed out of
      hand, this "wisdom" from the East. The Buddha claimed that
      there is indeed an end to suffering if we but realize what we
      are. It is a wonder how we so readily draw conclusions and
      how our conclusions are so easily turned to belief, even for
      the theoretician. It is a wonder how we spend so much thought
      on what we consider science, while our mechanism for learning
      truth lies dismantled.

      The analysis and the data that nourishes it are both to be
      found within. This method is almost too simple to be true but
      it is still True. It requires investigation. All
      distractions, doubts, restlessness, can only deepen this
      investigation — being Still within and beyond serious, mature
      critical thinking. Why is this presented in a scientific
      forum? This writer feels that this is most appropriate. This
      introspective approach offers an opportunity for the
      practitioner to experience what is at the core of all
      therapeutic intervention: Stillness. Throughout time in
      civilization, the unified claim of science, religion and art
      has been, as the perennial message still is, that to deny
      what you know in your Heart to be true, to avoid this Self
      discovery, is to suffer. Relative knowledge, if it remains
      relative, veils the nature of the Self, our own nature:
      absolute freedom in the heart, as Truth.

      ___________________________________________________________________

      GLORIA LEE

      Q. Why do we need God ? Priest: this is not really a right
      question,.. because he Exists! and we need him to take as
      beyond ourselves.

      Jb.

      ........

      Last night we watched a documentary about a small nomadic
      tribe of Mongols in some remote corner of the world. Their
      whole existence depends upon the reindeer they keep. They
      build temporary homes like teepees, with tree poles and the
      hides of the deer, so they can pack up and move frequently to
      new grazing grounds. They ride the reindeer and use them as
      pack animals to carry logs for fires. Their only source of
      cash income is the antlers, which the Chinese buy to make an
      aphrodisiac.

      Their religion consits of keeping and caring for a "sacred
      reindeer" which no one rides,nor does it carry any burdens,
      and they do not saw off it's antlers to sell, like with the
      others. When the deer finally dies of old age, the head man
      who is like a shaman must wait for a dream in which the
      spirit of the mountain will choose and show him the next
      sacred reindeer. When he went up the mountain on this quest,
      he chose a place to offer the antlers of the sacred reindeer
      back to the mountain spirit, and knelt to pray. There was
      such beauty in his face at that moment. I think we all want
      something beyond ourselves, something uncontaminated by our
      "use" of it, like the sacred reindeer.

      ___________________________________________________________________________
       

      BRUCE:
      ºThere is an old phrase, "stinking
      º>of Zen."  I would propose that
      º>such "stinking" is not limited to
      º>the Zen tradition.  Say hello to
      º>"Sri Krishna" for me that next
      º>time "that painting" comes to
      º>life -- thanks in advance!

      GREG:
      ºHi Bruce,
      º
      ºI agree, every tradition has its own stink!

      JAN:
      That reminds of garlic: if you don't like its stink, eat it!
      And that goes for Limburger too.

      GLO:
      Golly, even nonduality?

      GREG:
      Hi Gloria,

      Yeah, that was me, not Bruce-ji. Yes, even (especially?!)
      nonduality! Here's some nondual stink-talk, calling attention
      to itself, betraying its own falsity, nonsense, and desire
      for recognition.

         What, ME offended?  I simply AM.  When there's
         no one here, then there's no offense, no anger,
         no personal issues, and no one to get angry!
         No one to get angry at.  Only happiness here.
         Really.

      As you hear on the game shows when the nice music's over and
      the contestants give the wrong answer: (loud buzzer sound)

      NNNNGGGGHHHH!!!

      Love,

      --Greg

      BRUCE:
      Nonduality is a fact and
      not a tradition, it has no
      attributes -- however,
      various traditions nominally
      pointing toward nonduality
      have their own diSTINKive
      hazards, e.g. "The Advaita
      Shuffle," "Stinking of Zen,"
      "Sufi Sickness," and the
      infamous and insidious "Tao
      Toe."

      ___________________________________________________________________

      PAUL:
      Two nights later, while I had been absorbed in Bhagavad-gita
      for several hours, that painting _became_ Sri Krishna,
      personally. He instructed me personally until sunrise. I know
      from Him exactly what is samadhi, and what is prema.

      JODY:
      Hearing about these things from Krishna is not the same as
      knowing these things experientially. What he may have "told"
      you and what you'd come to understand from within the
      experience are definitely two different things.

      PAUL:
      What do you mean, two different things? There is no
      difference between hearing Krishna's words and experiencing
      the subject of His instruction.

      JODY:
      The one who hears Krishna's words doesn't exist nondually,
      nor does Krishna. To truly understand, one must be just what
      they are, stripped of any identification to anything,
      including being a devotee.

      PAUL:
      I don't understand your conception of nonduality. The
      nonduality I learned about was supposedly existing eternally,
      not only under certain circumstances. It does not disappear
      when a person is taking instruction or engaged in other
      activities. Absolute Truth does not cease to exist under any
      circumstance. If your 'Truth' only exists when some special
      condition is met, then it cannot be absolute. The Truth
      taught by Krishna is "acintya bheda-abheda tattva," meaning
      "inconceivable oneness and difference." In other words, all
      is one even while simultaneously full of variagatedness and
      activity.

      In His gita, Krishna says, "Everything is Mine." In my e-mail
      I say, "Everything is Krishna's." In other words, there is no
      duality in our instructions. However, I can and do disagree
      with you. A material example is that a hand is one with the
      whole body, as is the foot, but the foot and hand are not
      one. They are both part and parcel of the whole body,
      connected by their separate oneness with the whole. At the
      same time, neither is the hand or the foot equal to the body
      or in control of the body. The whole is in control of the
      parts. That whole is Krishna. I do not argue with Krishna,
      proposing myself as the proprietor or claiming some sort of
      communism. The oneness of all things is that they are all
      Krishna's energy. We are parts of Krishna's body, hence our
      oneness. Sri Krishna, however, is greater than the sum total
      of all of us.

      I also do not understand your logic claiming that Krishna's
      instructions about what is the Absolute Truth would be
      different between one jiva and another, and while in the same
      message claiming that loving Krishna would be the same as
      loving a jiva such as Kali. It is proper and wise to love
      Krishna, even as it is to water a root or to feed the
      stomach. The same result is not achieved by watering a leaf
      or feeding a hand. If nonduality were the Supreme Absolute
      Truth, how could we disagree about these concepts? Again, the
      Truth taught by Krishna is "inconceivable oneness and
      difference," which appears to be what is going on.

      JODY RESPONDS TO THE ABOVE LETTER:

      > > The one who hears Krishna's words doesn't exist nondually,
      > > nor does Krishna.  To truly understand, one must be just what
      > > they are, stripped of any identification to anything,
      > > including being a devotee.
      > >
      > >
      >
      >       I don't understand your conception
      of nonduality.

      It cannot be understood as a concept.

      > The
      > nonduality I learned about was supposedly existing eternally, not

      only
      > under certain circumstances.  It does not disappear when a person
      is
      > taking instruction or engaged in other activities.  Absolute
      Truth does
      > not cease to exist under any circumstance.  If your 'Truth'
      only exists
      > when some special condition is met, then it cannot be absolute. 
      The
      > Truth taught by Krishna is "acintya bheda-abheda tattva," meaning
      > "inconceivable oneness and difference."  In other words, all
      is one even
      > while simultaneously full of variagatedness and activity.

      Correct, we are always the Self.  However, you took instruction
      from Krishna.  You did so as an individual being, with all the
      limitations inherent in that.

      Your instruction happened outside of the nondual understanding.
      Therefore it is just speculative knowledge about the nondual
      nature of being, rather than the clarity that results from
      the direct understanding of the Self.
       

      >       In His gita, Krishna says, "Everything
      is Mine."  In my e-mail I
      > say, "Everything is Krishna's."  In other words, there is no
      duality in
      > our instructions.  However, I can and do disagree with you. 
      A material
      > example is that a hand is one with the whole body, as is the foot,
      but
      > the foot and hand are not one.  They are both part and parcel
      of the
      > whole body, connected by their separate oneness with the whole. 
      At the
      > same time, neither is the hand or the foot equal to the body or in
      > control of the body.  The whole is in control of the parts. 
      That whole
      > is Krishna.  I do not argue with Krishna, proposing myself as
      the
      > proprietor or claiming some sort of communism.  The oneness
      of all
      > things is that they are all Krishna's energy.  We are parts
      of Krishna's
      > body, hence our oneness.  Sri Krishna, however, is greater than
      the sum
      > total of all of us.

      The Lord is greater than his devotees, but is identical with
      their being.
       

      >       I also do not understand your
      logic claiming that Krishna's
      > instructions about what is the Absolute Truth would be different
      between
      > one jiva and another, and while in the same message claiming that
      loving
      > Krishna would be the same as loving a jiva such as Kali.  It
      is proper
      > and wise to love Krishna, even as it is to water a root or to feed
      the
      > stomach.  The same result is not achieved by watering a leaf
      or feeding
      > a hand.  If nonduality were the Supreme Absolute Truth, how
      could we
      > disagree about these concepts?  Again, the Truth taught by Krishna
      is
      > "inconceivable oneness and difference," which appears to be what
      is
      > going on.

      Prabhupad would be proud, but your understanding is hindered by
      your sectarian ideology.

      > > Krishna talked to you.  Who's you?  According to Danji

      you
      > > are a boundryless, beginningless silence.  How can that have
      > > a conversation with Krishna?  That's who we really are. 
      The
      > > one talking to Krishna is created by Krishna to play with,
      > > but the one you really are is quite beyond all that, way beyond
      it.
      >
      >       I am a spirit soul, an infinitesimal,
      eternally distinct part
      > and parcel of Krishna.  Krishna did not create me nor did anyone
      else.
      > I have not been created at any time, nor am I ever destroyed; I am
      > Krishna's eternal servant.  Formerly, when I was completely
      ignorant of
      > Him, I served Him without knowing it and without love for Him, and
      now I
      > serve Him actively developing my dormant love for Him.
      >
      > Sincerely,
      > Paul

      If there's a you and a Krishna, you aren't who you really are.

      PAUL:

      > >     I don't understand your conception of nonduality.
      >
      > It cannot be understood as a concept.
      >

      Yet you're claiming that my understanding is inferior to
      yours. While speaking of nonduality, you're reinforcing
      duality. Both are one-sided conceptions of the truth. Even if
      nonduality cannot be understood as a concept, it must be
      known if it is true. I am quite familiar with self-enquiry,
      neti-neti, etc., but I am asking for you to convey your
      experience. I do not argue that advaita is untrue, only that
      there is a greater truth which is infinite variagatedness and
      oneness which do not defy each other. I have practically
      bared my soul for all of you so that we can understand each
      other better; perhaps instead of criticizing, you could
      somehow give me the benefit of your own experience.

      JODY:

      > > >   I don't understand your conception of nonduality.
      > >
      > > It cannot be understood as a concept.
      > >
      >
      >       Yet you're claiming that my understanding
      is inferior to yours.

      I said that there is no understanding of the nondual without having
      the direct experience of it.

      > While speaking of nonduality, you're reinforcing duality.  Both

      are
      > one-sided conceptions of the truth.  Even if nonduality cannot
      be
      > understood as a concept, it must be known if it is true.  I
      am quite
      > familiar with self-enquiry, neti-neti, etc., but I am asking for
      you to
      > convey your experience.  I do not argue that advaita is untrue,
      only
      > that there is a greater truth which is infinite variagatedness and
      > oneness which do not defy each other.  I have practically bared
      my soul
      > for all of you so that we can understand each other better; perhaps
      > instead of criticizing, you could somehow give me the benefit of
      your
      > own experience.
      >
      > Sincerely,
      > Paul

      You've confessed some learning and an experience, which you
      appear to believe has led you to a greater truth. What I'm
      saying is that this truth is yours alone. There may be others
      who subscribe to the same ideology, but what you've all
      decided to believe is just one model of many.

      Just because a picture in a book talked to you does not mean
      you will be regarded as an expert in what that picture taught
      you.

      I cannot give you any benefit from my experience except to
      say that until you know yourself as the nondual reality, you
      will not understand the nondual reality.

      ___________________________________________________________________

      SHANKAR
      from the I AM list

      Long Live the Feet of (Sri) Ramana, the Liberated One, the High One, the
      Stainless One, the Transparent One.
      Long Live the Feet of the Siddha (One who is well-accomplished in
      Self-Abidance, Sri Ramana) who abides that all the world is the body of
      Isvara.
      Long Live the Feet of the Lord who says that the desire becoming
      non-existent is Gnosis
      Long Live the Feet of the One who utters 'If we rise (up as a separate ego),
      others will rise (up as being apart from us)"
      Long Live the Feet of the Friend who says 'If we subside (from the state of
      being a separate ego), others will subside (from the state of being apart
      from us).'

      Translation of Lines 3 to 7 of Song 3 of
      5 Jewels in praise of the Feet of Sri Ramana
      by Sri Sivaprakasam Pillai
       

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