Thursday, January 17
- 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?
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.
When de mind drops silent, who remains to comment
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
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.
to get into details now, but, believe me, I
> I don't have time
> can hold my own.
you wonder what people on this list will think of you.
many were on the trapeze at one time.
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
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
Self Inquiry in Modern Psychiatry
Carlos G. Lopez, MD
Child Psychiatry Fellow
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
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.
Q. Why do we need God ? Priest: this is not really a right
question,.. because he Exists! and we need him to take as
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
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.
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!
ºI agree, every tradition has its own stink!
That reminds of garlic: if you don't like its stink, eat it!
And that goes for Limburger too.
Golly, even nonduality?
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
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.
As you hear on the game shows when the nice music's over and
the contestants give the wrong answer: (loud buzzer sound)
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
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.
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.
What do you mean, two different things? There is no
difference between hearing Krishna's words and experiencing
the subject of His instruction.
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. 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
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,of nonduality.
> > 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
It cannot be understood as a concept.
> nonduality I learned about was supposedly existing eternally, not
> under certain circumstances. It does not disappear when a personis
> taking instruction or engaged in other activities. AbsoluteTruth 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," meaningis one even
> "inconceivable oneness and difference." In other words, all
> 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, "Everythingis Mine." In my e-mail I
> say, "Everything is Krishna's." In other words, there is noduality 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 parcelof 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 inThat whole
> control of the body. The whole is in control of the parts.
> is Krishna. I do not argue with Krishna, proposing myself asthe
> proprietor or claiming some sort of communism. The onenessof all
> things is that they are all Krishna's energy. We are partsof Krishna's
> body, hence our oneness. Sri Krishna, however, is greater thanthe sum
> total of all of us.
The Lord is greater than his devotees, but is identical with
> I also do not understand yourlogic claiming that Krishna's
> instructions about what is the Absolute Truth would be differentbetween
> one jiva and another, and while in the same message claiming thatloving
> Krishna would be the same as loving a jiva such as Kali. Itis proper
> and wise to love Krishna, even as it is to water a root or to feedthe
> stomach. The same result is not achieved by watering a leafor feeding
> a hand. If nonduality were the Supreme Absolute Truth, howcould we
> disagree about these concepts? Again, the Truth taught by Krishnais
> "inconceivable oneness and difference," which appears to be whatis
> 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
> > are a boundryless, beginningless silence. How can that haveThe
> > a conversation with Krishna? That's who we really are.
> > one talking to Krishna is created by Krishna to play with,it.
> > but the one you really are is quite beyond all that, way beyond
>eternally distinct part
> I am a spirit soul, an infinitesimal,
> and parcel of Krishna. Krishna did not create me nor did anyoneelse.
> I have not been created at any time, nor am I ever destroyed; I amignorant of
> Krishna's eternal servant. Formerly, when I was completely
> Him, I served Him without knowing it and without love for Him, andnow I
> serve Him actively developing my dormant love for Him.
If there's a you and a Krishna, you aren't who you really are.
> > 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.
> > > I don't understand your conception of nonduality.is inferior to yours.
> > It cannot be understood as a concept.
> Yet you're claiming that my understanding
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
> one-sided conceptions of the truth. Even if nonduality cannotbe
> understood as a concept, it must be known if it is true. Iam quite
> familiar with self-enquiry, neti-neti, etc., but I am asking foryou to
> convey your experience. I do not argue that advaita is untrue,only
> that there is a greater truth which is infinite variagatedness andmy soul
> oneness which do not defy each other. I have practically bared
> for all of you so that we can understand each other better; perhapsyour
> instead of criticizing, you could somehow give me the benefit of
> own experience.
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
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.
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
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
Translation of Lines 3 to 7 of Song 3 of
5 Jewels in praise of the Feet of Sri Ramana
by Sri Sivaprakasam Pillai