At the edge of the woods behind our house, there is a small gazebo. Often, we sit there, and consider seeker’s stuff. There are no rules governing considerations in the gazebo except this: There are no rules. The mind, guided by the heart, is encouraged to explore whatever spiritual ideas it can conceive. Sometimes, these are ideas we are working on. Sometimes they are ideas that are working on us.
On this page, we report those considerations. They are in reverse chronological order; that is, most recent at the top.
Him I hold to be the supreme yogi
who looks on the pleasure and pain of all beings
as he looks on them in himself.
Forum was active, some comments, observations, and other items that might
ordinarily have been posted here, were instead posted there. Now, although Open
Forum is inactive, everything on it remains available for reading. To go there
now, please click here.
The following is a long excerpt from “The Teachings of Ramana Maharshi in His Own Words” by Arthur Osborne.
“The mind is merely thoughts. Of all thoughts the thought ‘I’ is the root. Therefore, the mind is only the thought ‘I’. Whence does this thought ‘I’ arise? Seek for it within; it then vanishes. This is the pursuit of Wisdom. Where the ‘I’ vanishes, there appears an ‘I-I’ by itself. This is the Infinite (Purnam).
“If the ego is, everything else is also. If the ego is not, nothing else is. Indeed the ego is all. Therefore the inquiry as to what this ego is, is the only way of giving up everything.
“The state of non-emergence of ‘I’ is the state of being THAT. Without questing for that state of non-emergence of ‘I’ and attaining It, how can one accomplish one’s own extinction, from which the ‘I’does not revive? Without that attainment, how is it possible to abide in one’s true state, where one is THAT?
“Just as a man would dive in order to get something that had fallen into the water, so one should dive into oneself with a keen, one-pointed mind, controlling speech and breath, and find the place whence the ‘I’ originates. The only enquiry leading to Self-Realization is seeking the source of the word ‘I’. Meditation on ‘I am not this; I am not that’ may be an aid to enquiry, but it cannot be the enquiry. If one enquires ‘Who am I?’ within the mind, the individual ‘I’ falls down abashed as soon as one reaches the Heart, and immediately Reality manifests itself spontaneously as ‘I-I’. Although it reveals itself as ‘I’, it is not the ego but the perfect Being, the Absolute Self.”
November 9, 2017
The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never worshipped anything but himself.
Richard Francis Burton
The other evening, Nancy and I watched the first episode of the television series “Orphan Black.” Well, I should say we watched part of the first episode. It seemed to us too violent for our simple minds, so we turned it off. But before we did so, it became apparent to us that the story is about clones, and that reminded me of Ibn ’Arabi’s powerful instruction, “Thou art not thou, thou art He, without thou.” If God is Infinite, as surely God must be, then “thou art He” has to mean “thou art wholly, entirely, completely He.” In other words, the He in the line “thou art He” is wholly, entirely, completely He without any differentiation, separation, distinction from any other He. That is, a clone, or Clone.
Well, not exactly, because clones, while identical replicas, are separate. That is, there is the original, and there is the clone. Two. Not so as regards He, for here there is only One, the One.
But still the suggestion does serve as a device to rattle the mind, which is always a good exercise for a seeker.
Think about it. Perceiving everyone in our life, everyone and everything, animate and inanimate, in our reality, as a Clone of He has to be a healthy practice.
Wait … did I say “inanimate”? Yes, what we call inanimate, too, every bit of it, is a Clone. Recall Jesus’s and Ramana’s remarks about stones (see here). Similarly, I have read that some interpret Qur’an 2:24 to mean that all creation is animate, meaning presumably all without exception. Years ago, I had occasion to ask a Tibetan monk how Buddhism defines “sentient beings,” (he had used that term numerous times in a talk); he responded, “people and animals.” I did not think then to ask where stones fit into Buddhism!
But I digress … Again, yes, perceiving Clones as a practicce is not enough, because it has limitations, and so it must be, it will be, eventually abandoned; but that is true, isn’t it, of every practice?
Anyway, the next day, Nancy and I had tea made from loose leaves, not tea bags. After finishing a cup, I observed the leaves remaining at the bottom of the cup, and those who claim to read tea leaves, and tell fortunes thereby, came to mind.
Well, why not? If the tea leaves, too, are He, then the Secrets of all the Universe are therein to be seen … by those with eyes to see.
So, what this Clone meditation device can teach us is, when we look upon an other, any other, remember that what is happening is He looking upon Himself. Just as, drawing on one of my favorite lines from Ibn ’Arabi, speaking of the Prophet and the Qur’an, “He sent Himself with Himself to Himself.”
October 8, 2017
Light! More light!
Last words of Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
The last few entries here have generated a line of thought which Nancy and I had occasion to explore with a long time friend of TZF who visited the other day.
Here, edited for brevity, it is: I am convinced the mind is the residence or seat of desire, and that it is desire that formulates (if not creates) how we project ourselves, how we behave, indeed perhaps our personality itself. Just so, whether we “change our mind” or change our desire, the outcome is about the same: a change in behavior, in how we seem, in our personality.
Thus, desire shapes the mind that shapes us. Or the mind chooses desire that shapes us.
Anyway, these and other thoughts about the mind and desire generated this sequence: The mind absorbs or accomodates or adopts or becomes (I am not sure what verb should apply here) a desire which generates fear (that the desire will not be fulfilled or will be fulfilled improperly or will be counterproductive or …) which generates suffering which generates anger (at myself, at someone else, at life generally, at God, at …).
If that makes sense, then when we’re angry or suffering or fearful, we need to consider and recognize that it all began with a desire. Find the desire, identify it, and that will defuse the rest. We may still be uncomfortable, but at least we will know the real reason for our discomfort.
In the book “In The Beginning,” I propose that the story of the Garden of Eden is about God’s wanting to perceive Himself separatively, to know what it is to be able to perceive “I am me, and that is a tree.” To do that, He had to generate the desire “I want to be me,” implant it in an apparently separate mind, and set it loose. The rest is history, our history.
As we churn this stuff, we must not let ourselves forget Ibn ’Arabi: “Thou art not thou, thou art He without thou.” That is, the apparently separate mind is just that, apparently separate. We are He, the sense of separation, the Veil, is He, and the outcome (we and our lives) is He. In a word, the Eden event was produced from start to finish with a Divine Wink.
September 3, 2017
More tears are shed over answered prayers than unanswered prayers.
Saint Teresa of Avila
A few mornings ago I awoke considering the similarity (the identity?) between Ibn ’Arabi’s assertion “Thou are not thou, thou art He, without thou,” and “I and the Father are One” (John 10:30), both of which sound a lot like Nisargadatta (“There is no such thing as a person”), Ramana, and so many others. That process led to a consideraton of the Hindu and Buddhist concept of karma and its fundamental presumption that I am a person separate and unique from other persons (and of course from God). The logic is unavoidable: To accumulate my own distinct sum of actions generating consequences specific to me, that is, to generate my own karma, I must be a separate person.
But how can I have my own karma if there is no such thing as a person, if I am not a person?
I tossed that apparent contradiction about in my head for some long while. I even got to the point where I prayed for forgiveness for my karma, the karma I had generated.
And then I heard, clear as crystal, “It’s not your karma. It’s My Karma.”
As I heard it, the capitalization of the letters em and kay was just as apparent as the words themselves: I could see them: My Karma.
There it was, unmistakably: It’s not your karma, Stefan. It’s My Karma.
To be sure, it makes sense. If there is no such thing as a “Stefan,” if “Stefan” is an illusion, then clearly there is no such thing as “Stefan’s karma.”!
Stefan is an illusion, so of course Stefan’s karma is an illusion. And that is true of you, too, whoever you are.
Let those words run loose in your mind for a few minutes, and observe as the ramifications reach out in every direction.
To me, it sounded like a ripping of the Veil (again, Ibn 'Arabi: “nothing veils other than He”), a tear of the Curtain (Matthew 27:51).
A few words, an overwhelming image.
This obviously requires the shift in perspective that the spiritual path is fundamentally all about (“There is no God but God, and God is All There Is”), but “It’s not your karma, Stefan. It’s My Karma” brings it into an unforgiving focus. By “unforgiving” here, I mean there is no room left for “yea, but this” and “yea, but that.” For me, this one demands a clean sweep. The mind cannot do it because as I have said and written, I am convinced the mind is the heartbeat of the illusion, and so cannot erase itself. But it can read the handwriting on the wall.
The next day, Nancy and I talked about this for a couple of hours, over breakfast and in the car enroute to an appointment. It has been rattling around in my brain ever since. And likely will continue to do so.
This is one of those Moments that change everything.
July 19, 2017
Update: Inevitably, all of the above applies to the question of reincarnation.
Who among us has not wondered, “Is there reincarnation? Who was I in a previous life? Who will I be in my next life?”
What is true about karma must be true about reincation: “It is not you who incarnates. It is I Who Incarnates.”
Likewise, “It is not you who reincarnates. It is I Who Re-Incarnates.”
Once again, we can know all of this by reading or hearing about it; we can even absorb it by meditating on it or otherwise spiritually ingesting it. But none of that will render it Known to us.
We cannot Know It until we Are It. That is, until the perception “I am me, and you are not” is irretrievably dissolved, the Veil removed, the Curtain torn. And That can be Accomplished only by God, the One, the I Than Which There Is No Other.
In a word, the Veil can be removed only by the One Who Put It There, the One Who is It.
July 30, 2017
A round stone with special marks is the emblem of Vishnu, the Omnipresent, worshipped in the shrine. Each morning a priest comes in, bathes the image, clothes it, and puts his own Divine Spirit into it to “make it alive.” Then he worships it with flowers and other offerings, waves incense before it, and finally puts it to bed, apologizing to God for worshipping Him in that way because of his inability to conceive Him without the help of an image or some other material object.
Consider this quotation from Lao Tsu:
The nameless was the beginning of heaven and
A couple of days ago, Nancy and I watched (again!) a DVD “I Am That I Am” by Stephen Wolinsky talking (brilliantly) about the Teachings of Sri Nisargadatta. Later that evening, there came to mind the lines quoted above from Lao Tsu, and particularly the word “desires” in them.
Instead of a basket of thoughts (see here and here), or maybe as well as a basket of thoughts, is it a basket of desires? And if so, is it possible (in an infinite universe, of course it's possible!) that what I am is simply (!) undifferentiated awareness that somehow from time to time (whatever that may mean in this context) latches onto a floating by desire, and instantly becomes that desire by indentifying itself with it. That is, the desire, every desire in the basket, contains or includes a unique “I” which I then adopt as “mine” and “me.”
Gurdjieff, I think it was, talked about our having “multiple I’s” which he used to explain why our behavior is so inconsistent: we are, in effect, more than one personality, although not in a clinical sense. In other words, as I understand the argument, each of us behaves not necessarily according to a well-defined, consistent set of standards, but instead our reactions, our performances, are defined or informed by the conditions or circumstances in which we find ourselves, not by any concrete standard “within” us. In a word, the I that I think I am is pliable, constantly (or at least frequently) changing, and therefore so, in effect, am I.
Further to this basket of desires idea: Perhaps each and every desire contains or includes not only its own I whose traits and characteristics are consistent with the desire, but includes also specifications that design, configure, inform the world associated with the desire, the world in which the desire lives, manifests, is executed. Thus, the world, the reality, we perceive at any given momet (including the people, things, activities within it) is consistent with, is shaped by, the desire we have adopted as our personality, and are pursuing (inhabiting, incarnating). We see the entirety that each of us call “my life” through the I (eye) of the desire we are enlivening. The world (reality) appears according to the specifications of the desire.
In the lines above, Lao Tsu tells us that having desires, or as I might be suggesting here, being desires (adopting or accepting the desire’s I as our own), enables us to observe “manifestations,” but to know the “secrets” we need to be free of desires (of any sense of being a self, a me). That’s in line with the Teaching of Nisargadatta, Ramana, et al.
These Lao Tsu lines are from the Wang Pi (sometimes Wang Bi) text which I came across recently. The more common text (translation) apparently is the Ma Wang Tui text. I do not know what the significant historical or critical differences are between the two; but I know this, one line leapt out at me when I first read the Wang Pi: “These two are the same”! In other words, whether we are observing (being) with desires or without desires, we are perceiving (being) the same “thing”. Of course, that idea appears throughout TZF, but nowhere as clearly as in that line by Lao Tsu in the Wang Pi text.
These two are the same. The Ma Wang Tui text (which I believe is more common) translates those words “These two have the same origin”; a Gia Fu Feng & Jane English translation has it, “These two spring from the same source.”
To be sure, those latter two are close in meaning to the former, but they are not quite as powerful, as attention-getting, as startling as the simple expression, “These two are the same.” No matter how intently, no matter how devotedly, no matter how sincerely we struggle spiritually, we are going to end up in the same place we started: Right Here. Because the One and the other are the Same, the Same One. (Compare Ibn ’Arabi “Thou art not thou, thou art He without thou.”)
April 3, 2016
In the context of the Lao Tsu quotation above, think of the mind as the line between “rid yourself of desires” and “allow yourself to have desires”; or, in Ibn ’Arabi’s language, it is the mind that is “the veil” (that which conceals or obscures “His existence in His oneness”). Thus, it is the mind that latches on to a desire, incorporates or assumes its “I,” and which then we take on as ourself, and behave accordingly. Or is it that desires themselves are the veil (I am going to start capitalizing that word as Veil because it just seems right to do so)? In other words, is there any difference, any space, between “my mind” and “my desire” (at any given moment)? I am beginning to think not. As my mind changes, my desire changes; as my desire changes, my mind changes. When I am rid of desire(s), I am rid of (my) mind. Is it possible to have a mind and not have a desire? At the very least, there would remain the desire to be. Rid ourself of every desire, and we rid ourself of “ourself.”
And all of this “activity” takes place on what we might call this side of the line, this side of the Veil, because it is on this side that the mind resides, on this side that multiple I's can surface, each associated with, each manifesting, it’s specific desire. On the other side (or is it Other Side?) of the Veil, there is only His “I” … and so there are no desires, no mind. From the perspective of His side of the Veil, there is no Veil: If the Veil is desire (AKA mind), and desire has dissolved (coincidentally erasing or dissolving “the line”), then all that remains is “His oneness” — which is all there ever was anyway … except “veiled”by desire.
And the beat goes on.
April 19, 2017
The way that can be spoken of
Is not the constant way;
The name that can be named
Is not the constant name.
The nameless was the beginning of heaven and earth;
The named was the mother of the myriad creatures.
Hence always rid yourself of desires in order to observe its secrets;
But always allow yourself to have desires in order to observe its manifestations.
These two are the same
But diverge in name as they issue forth.
Being the same they are called mysteries,
Mystery upon mystery —
The gateway of the manifold secrets.
Well, last evening, reading Ramana Maharshi in The Teachings of Sri Ramana Maharshi, I came across a line that I do not recall having seen before … never mind that Nancy and I have each read this book several times, underlined and margin-noted numerous passages. This line takes place in a discussion between Ramana and a seeker about the effects on the mind of the foods we eat, and so predictably the subjects of vegetarianism and non-violence (ahimsa) arise. Here is a piece of it:
Questioner: Are there
restrictions for the realized man with regard to food?
So too the slabs you sit on! Who can read that line, and not have leap immediately to mind this passage from the Gospels:
And some of the Pharisees in the multitude said to him, “Teacher, rebuke your disciples.”
He answered, “I tell you, if these were silent, the very stones would cry out.”
Ramana and Nisargadatta and others like them tell us repeatedly that from the perspective of their Self-Realized Position, their body is the Universe, not the physical human organism we believe them (and of course ourselves) to be. In other words, for them the universe is itself alive, one single, undifferentiated living organism, and It is They, They are It. (Actually, they would not use the plural pronoun “They”, because from their perspective there is only One, only I.)
Here are the words of Nisargadatta, speaking of the Nature of a gnani (sometimes jnani), like himself: The entire universe is his body, all life is his life.
Our instinct, our first inclination, is to take words like these of Nisargadatta and those of Jesus and Ramana as metaphor or even poetry. On reading such lines, we insist to ourselves that Jesus and Ramana do not really mean that stones and slabs are alive, not literally. I mean, look at them, we say: They are obviously lifeless.
But by whose definition of life?
Are we to believe ourselves, we who do not even know or understand the true nature of our own life, of our own nature?
Here’s Lesson 3 from A Course in Miracles: I do not understand anything I see.
March 18, March 24, May 23 2016
From a Sanksrit word meaning “without injury, or non-harming”, ahimsa describes the principle and practice of non-injury to any living beings, whether by action, word, or thought. For many, it is the basis of vegetarianism. Consider this: Human beings arbitrarily separate the physical world into three distinct kingdoms — animal, plant, and mineral, by drawing lines across the face of reality based upon parameters which we define. Then, we decide which inhabitants of those kingdoms are alive and which are not, and which among those which we consider to be alive, are more alive than others. So, for example, human beings conclude that lava is not alive, and cows are more alive than carrots. Naturally, we label ourselves as the most alive (most advanced) of all. As we see it at The Zoo Fence, there is only One Kingdom, the One, and it is entirely, absolutely, indivisibly, and thoroughly alive, for it is Life Itself, and all the lines, separations, definitions, labels, and distinctions which human beings place upon the One are false, illusory, and misleading. For us, ahimsa means living a life which seeks to understand, to apply, and to Real-ize That Truth. So, we consider what we eat to be less important than why we eat, or than what we think about what we eat. We believe that to look upon a thing as separate and distinct from, not to mention less than, ourselves, does both it and ourselves harm and injury, whether the thing be a ledge of rock, a leaf of lettuce, or a leg of lamb.
The other day, reading The Underground Church by Robin Meyers, and particularly the quotation there of lines by Walt Whitman (repeated at TZF’s Here’s A Thought) that include, “Only those who love each other shall become indivisible,” I was reminded of TZF’s essay on marriage as a spiritual path, and that in turn reminded me of the passage in the Gospels in which Jesus is asked about the lawfulness of divorce, to which he replied, Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother, and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.
For obvious reasons, those words have been, and continue to be, the indisputable basis for the prohibition of divorce in many Christian sects.
But is that what Jesus intended? This surprising question popped into my head while reading Meyers’ book, which I am thoroughly enjoying. (Now, I must stress here that my reaction came from somewere far out in left field, and that it was not, I am certain, Meyers’ message or his intention. As far into the book as I am now, the subject of neither marriage nor divorce has arisen.)
In some of my writing (for example here), I have suggested that as seekers we do well to assume that, when speaking, Jesus chose his words carefully, knowing (hoping) that his disciples and others, including us, were listening intently and with earnestness. Just so, on the subject of divorce, I noticed today — for the first time, I confess — that Jesus does not specifically prohibit divorce; rather, he prohibits man from putting asunder what God has joined. However absurd the suggestion may be (and before reacting, please recall that in The Gazebo at TZF, pondering spiritual absurdities is not only allowed but encouraged), I heard myself wondering whether it is possible that Jesus actually meant for us, as regards divorce, to read more than we have into his distinction between what God can do and what man may do.
In a word, is it possible that Jesus is telling us that man (we) may not effect a divorce not because divorce is forbidden, but because man did not effect the marriage. God did. Focus for a moment on the words what God has joined together, let not man put asunder. Notice that Jesus does not say, what God has joined together cannot be put asunder; he says, what God has joined together, man cannot put asunder.
Here, then, is the question that Meyers’ words, albeit unintentonally, shoved into my brain: Can God put asunder what God has joined? Is that what Jesus meant by making a distinction between what God has done and what man may do?
Has any Christian sect ever considered this? If not, why not? Did it never occur to someone, for example, in the court of Henry the eighth, when the Pope in Rome refused His Majesty’s request for permission to divorce, thereby forcing him to establish his own Christian sect? Would it not have been easier simply to parse Jesus’ words differently, perhaps even properly?
So, could one justify and devise a religious divorce ceremony, a ceremony similar in sanctity and pomp and circumstance to the marriage ceremony, to which, as in the marriage ceremony, God is specifically invited, but in which God is asked by a married couple together with a priest not to perform a joining but instead to put asunder what He earlier joined in an earlier ceremony?
It’s crazy, I admit, even preposterous, but is it untenable?
Happily, it has nothing to do with me or anything in my passage along the path. But as the thought got itself into my brain, I needed to rinse it out, and where better than here among friends on The Zoo Fence?
In the words of William Allman, “the brain is a monstrous, beautiful mess.”d couple together w
(If you came hereich God is asked byfrom our essay “The Bliss ofd couple together wTravelling Together”, and would like to return,ich God is asked byplease
Dr Sarno believes that tensiontt—otconscious or unconscious — causes constriction of blood vessels leading totttheotmuscles and nerves in the back, and often to those in the shoulders andttneck asotwell. The deprivation of blood, and of the oxygen it carries, can causettpainfulotmuscle spasms and nerve pain. The pain itself creates fear, whichttprompts moreottension and anxiety, and this leads to further constriction of thettbloodotvessels. The result is a vicious cycle of pain. Dr. Sarno calls thettconditionotTension Myositis Syndrome or TMS. It is the diagnosis he makes fortttheotoverwhelming majority of his back patients he sees. Surgery is rarelyttindicated.ot… Perhaps most radical of all is Dr. Sarno’s style of treatment. Itttis, inoteffect, a talking cure — knowledge therapy.
And itotworks. Dr. Sarno is right, knowing the true source of the paintterases it. Justotreading the article, and religiously following its guidance,ttworked for me.ot
Dr. Sarno has written several booksttabout his approachotto pain and its treatment, among themtt
But today my inters est stems from alls the conditionotdifferent Sarno book, The Divided Mind: The Epidemic of MindBody Disorders, whichight, knowing the tI.
VirtuallyMind-Body Connectioall of the
Surely that’s a reason for rage.Mind-Body Connectio
Consider thisf="http://www.amazoparagraph from my bookMind-Body Connectio
Andniverse of other seangry. Even enraged.
At second, the sourcethemselves, at life, atniverse of other seGod.
I do second, the sourcenot mean to suggest here that childhoodniverse of other seexperiences may not be second, the sourcea legitimate source of resentment, frustration,niverse of other sediscomfort, second, the sourceeven anger, for all of us, but rage? That seems too strong a word.niverse of second, the sourceother seAnd yet, Dr. Sarno uses the word repeatedly, and he is specific too in second, the sourcethe useniverse of other seof the word universal, second, the sourcemeaning all of us. To beniverse of other sesure, sexual, physical, emotional, second, the sourcepsychic abuse warrants rage, but surely notniverse of other seall of us are second, the sourcesubjected to such offenses in childhood. And yet, every personniverse of other second, the sourcesewhose fundamental, life-defining perspective is “I am me, and you aren’t me” — second, the sourceaniverse of other secondition which describes all of us — is living an second, the sourceexistential falsehood, and isniverse of other seaccordingly inexorably stressed second, the sourceand unavoidably enraged, albeitniverse of other seunconsciously.
Anyway, here are a few paragraphsniverse of other sefrom second, the source“The Divided Mind,” paragraphs whose observations, as I hear them, soundniverse second, the sourceof other seequally spiritual as medical:
Generally, peopleniverse of other sefind it difficult to conceptualize the second, the sourceidea of unconscious rage. Some find itniverse of other seabhorrent, while others second, the sourcesimply can’t believe it can be there inside them withoutniverse of other setheir second, the sourceknowledge. They think anger and rage are such strong emotions that oneniverse of second, the sourceother semust be aware of them. The idea that emotions — raw, heated, towering second, the sourceemotions —niverse of other secan exist outside of consciousness is hard to second, the sourceaccept. Even when peopleniverse of other seintellectually acknowledge that these second, the sourcemight exist, they find it hard to imagineniverse of other sethem because they second, the sourcedon’t feel them.
We live in theniverse of other second, the sourceseworld of the conscious, and most of us think it is our only world. Weniverse second, the sourceof other seacknowledge only what we are aware of, what we feel consciously. second, the sourcePeopleniverse of other seexhibiting psychosomatic symptoms have to make an second, the sourceeffort to imagine painful orniverse of other sethreatening internal feelings second, the sourceand, equally important, reflect on the magnitudeniverse of other seof their second, the sourcefeelings and their potential for doing great harm. One must learn toniverse of second, the sourceother sethink of these unconscious feelings in volcanic terms, and understand second, the sourcethat theirniverse of other seintensity has the potential to wreak havoc in our second, the sourcelives or would simply be tooniverse of other sepainful to bear.
That is how the decision maker inniverse of other seour second, the sourcebrains — the ego — must conceive of the situation, for it stimulates theniverse second, the sourceof other seproduction of physical or affective symptoms
But the psychosomatic second, the sourceprocessniverse of other sedoes not allow us a choice. The second, the sourcethreat to the ego must seemniverse of other semortal (italics mine), and the intellect isniverse of other second, the sourcesenot permitted to participate in the decision. It is bypassed. The ego second, the sourceactsniverse of other sedecisively and swiftly, and induces symptoms. It will not second, the sourcebe denied …
Note: Among second, the sourcetheniverse of other seother potentially psychosomatic conditions mentioned by second, the sourceDr. Sarno are:niverse of other segastroesophageal reflux, peptic ulcer, second, the sourceesophagospasm, hiatus hernia, irritableniverse of other sebowel syndrome, second, the sourcespastic colitis, tension headache, migraine headache, frequentniverse of other second, the sourceseurination, prostatitis, sexual dysfunction, tinitus, tennis elbow. (
January second, the source20, 2016niverse of other se
The inevitableniverse of second, the sourceother secompromise is the belief that the body must be healed, and not the second, the sourcemind.
(I have been writing this entry over severalniverse of other sedays. I am second, the sourcenot sure it says exactly what I wanted it to say. What I intended toniverse of second, the sourceother seexpress here is the perception, after reading again for the umpteenth second, the sourcetime theniverse of other sewondrous selection by Ibn ’Arabi at TZF’s Ampersand,niverse of other sethat in some sense which I second, the sourcehave difficulty putting into words, we seem to haveniverse of other secome full second, the sourcecircle. Borrowing from the Beatles, it’s all coming together now.)niverse of second, the sourceother se
second, the source
AAmpersand,nivtranslation I came across somewhere a long timeintended to expressago of chapterAmpersand,niv24, verse 35, of the Qur’an teaches that God speaks to man inintended toAmpersand,nivexpressmetaphors. You can say that again.
In one ofAmpersand,nivmyintended to expressfavorite passages of the Bhagavad Gita, Arjuna (who is youAmpersand,nivand I) asks Krishnaintended to express(God) to show Himself to him. KrishnaAmpersand,nivresponds “these eyes of yours cannot seeintended to expressMe” (11:8, in the
This is the “cloud ofealment unknowing” (from the extraordinary book of the samether than He. Histitle). Hereealment is what’s on TZF’s definitions page about that: The “cloud ofrsArjuna a Divine eyecannot see Me”unknowing” … is that which forever hides perception of the One,Arjuna a Divine eyeGod, from ourrs cannot see Me”every separative, egoic faculty. That is, howeverArjuna a Divine eyeclever we may become, as longrs cannot see Me”as we think, in effect, “I am me,Arjuna a Divine eyeand God is an other,” there must exist anrs cannot see Me”invisible, impassableArjuna a Divine eyeboundary between us. For, it is indelibly true that in thers cannot see Me”One,Arjuna a Divine eyethere are no others, and so, the only way truly to Know It, is to Be It.rsArjuna a Divine eyecannot see Me”There is Surrender, which is Union.
The cloudrs cannot see Me”of unknowing is the veil of concealment. Or isArjuna a Divine eyeit the other way around?
Notice too inrs cannot see Me”this contextArjuna a Divine eyethat in Genesis, God delegates to Adam the function of namingrs cannot seeArjuna a Divine eyeMe”“every living creature”. To God in His Wholeness, there is no need for names.Arjuna a Divine eyeInrs cannot see Me”Truth, there is only One “living creature”, God, and it isArjuna a Divine eyenameless, at least tors cannot see Me”Itself. After all, what use to name It?Arjuna a Divine eyeWho would address It? There is no other.rs cannot see Me”It is only from theArjuna a Divine eyeperspective of those with “the knowledge of and”, those whors cannot see Me”seeArjuna a Divine eyethe One as many, that things need to be named, to be distinguished each fromrsArjuna a Divine eyecannot see Me”another, to be addressed. To God it is all One, Himself. It’s AllArjuna a Divine eyethe Same tors cannot see Me”Me, God might say; but as Adam, it is quite anotherArjuna a Divine eyestory. To Adam, it is boysrs cannot see Me”and girls, and cats and dogs, andArjuna a Divine eyechickens and foxes …
My argument inArjuna a Divine eyethat book is that the Fall was Intentional, part of thers cannot see Me”GrandArjuna a Divine eyePlan of Creation. I suggest there that the purpose of the Fall was thers cannotArjuna a Divine eyesee Me”creation of self-consciousness, leading ultimately to Self-ConsciousnessArjuna a Divine eyeorrs cannot see Me”Self-Realization (to Resurrection after The Fall). TheArjuna a Divine eyecreated Adam knowsrs cannot see Me”nothing, is happy, but asleep, unaware; theArjuna a Divine eyeResurrected Adam knows EveryThing,rs cannot see Me”is Blissful, Awake, DivinelyArjuna a Divine eyeAware. Adam-and-Eve’s “purpose” (our purpose?) isrs cannot see Me”the CreationArjuna a Divine eyeof Self-Consciousness.
In my otherrs cannot seeArjuna a Divine eyeMe”book, Take Off Your Shoes, I write about how itArjuna a Divine eyeisrs cannot see Me”that we see the One as many. That is, the other book is aboutArjuna a Divine eyethe why; this bookrs cannot see Me”is about the how:
Consider the simple prism, anrs cannot see Me”ordinary piece ofArjuna a Divine eyemultifaceted glass. As any school child knows, if we hold ars cannot seeArjuna a Divine eyeMe”prism up to a source of white light, and view the light through the glass,Arjuna a Divine eyewhatrs cannot see Me”was a single color will suddenly be seen quite differently:Arjuna a Divine eyeas a spectrum ofrs cannot see Me”separate, distinct colors. What was one (theArjuna a Divine eyesingle color white) now appears asrs cannot see Me”many (purple, blue, green,Arjuna a Divine eyeyellow, orange, and red). Explaining this phenomenonrs cannot see Me”in theArjuna a Divine eyeclassroom, we say that the prism has refracted or broken down the whiters cannotArjuna a Divine eyesee Me”light into its component parts. But, having said that, we must take careArjuna a Divine eyenot tors cannot see Me”conclude that the parts exist independently of the whole.Arjuna a Divine eyeThat is, the colorsrs cannot see Me”are not themselves separate, self-sustainingArjuna a Divine eyethings which exist apart from thers cannot see Me”white light. They are notArjuna a Divine eyereally parts at all. They are aspects of the whole andrs cannot seeArjuna a Divine eyeMe”inseparable from it. The individual, apparently separate colors are justArjuna a Divine eyeanotherrs cannot see Me”way of seeing the one white light. Indeed, they areArjuna a Divine eyewhite light, seenrs cannot see Me”differently. The spectrum purple-through-redArjuna a Divine eyeis not a thing of itself, butrs cannot see Me”simply white light viewed throughArjuna a Divine eyea prism, and to demonstrate that point we havers cannot see Me”only to removeArjuna a Divine eyethe prism, and the “other” colors disappear. They never reallyrs cannot seeArjuna a Divine eyeMe”could exist at all without the white light, and they certainly were notArjuna a Divine eyeseparaters cannot see Me”entities, although in the glass they seemed to be.Arjuna a Divine eyeAgain, the apparent separaters cannot see Me”and distinct reality of theArjuna a Divine eyespectrum is created by the prism (one color seen asrs cannot see Me”many).Arjuna a Divine eyeNotice, too, that during our use of the prism, the white light is notrs cannotArjuna a Divine eyesee Me”itself actually changed, does not cease to exist as it was before orArjuna a Divine eyeafter ourrs cannot see Me”use of the prism, and in a very real sense, it is allArjuna a Divine eyethat was ever reallyrs cannot see Me”there.
…Arjuna a Divine eyeCompare Paul at 1rs cannot see Me”Corinthians 13:12: “ForArjuna a Divine eyenow we see through a glass, darkly ….”
In the image of the prism metaphor,asGod holdsonthe glass to His Eye, looks at Himself, and sees not One, but many.as
November 8 - 15, 2015
Updated Decemberas21, 2015, & in 2016,onJanuary 26, February 20
Reading todayasan article about authoronMary Gaitskill in the November 8, 2015 issue of The NewasYork Timesas
The worldes them as barns, passs="twoblue left">Ianimals experience it, beyond language.
Is thereesss="twoblue left">Ithem as barns, pa world before the prism, a world absent the veil? Is theress="twoblue left">Ilanguage before thees them as barns, pprism or the veil? Why would there be? Thess="twoblue left">Ipurpose of language is toes them as barns, pcommunicate; language is a toolss="twoblue left">Ienabling us to speak or write to one another. Ifes them as barns, pthere is noss="twoblue left">Iperception of “one another”, why have language? Ditto thought. Arees them asss="twoblue left">Ibarns, pthought and language essentially (from a seeker's perspective)ss="twoblue left">Isynonymous?es them as barns, p
Anyway, here's anss="twoblue left">Iexchange between
Ileft">Questioner: People come to you fores them as barns, padvice. How do youss="twoblue left">Iknow what to answer?
Maharaj: As I hear the question, soes them as barns,ss="twoblue left">Ipdo I hear the answer.
Q: How do you know that your answer is right?
ss="twoblue left">IM:es them as barns, pOnce I know the true source of the answers, I need notss="twoblue left">Idoubt them. From a purees them as barns, psource, only pure water will flow.
Nisargadatta doesn’t hear ass="twoblue left">Iquestion, and then think of an answer, as wees them as barns, pdo. He hears thess="twoblue left">Ianswer at the same time he hears the question.
Ipleft">The prism — or the veil — creates (is) the perception of separation, ofesss="twoblue left">Ithem as barns, pseparation between APPARENT things, whatever they may bess="twoblue left">I(people, animals,es them as barns, pbuildings, clouds, ideas, sounds, memories,ss="twoblue left">Ithoughts, moments, et cetera: thees them as barns, pOne as many). It isss="twoblue left">Iimpossible for our minds fully to grasp this in anyes them as barns, pmeaningfulss="twoblue left">Iway because the concept of separation is inherent, intrinsic to oures them asss="twoblue left">Ibarns, pmind. Literally beyond the mind.
Whichss="twoblue left">Isuggestses them as barns, pthis question: Is the mind the prism? Is the mind thess="twoblue left">Iveil? Is the mind Hises them as barns, pconcealment to Himself of His existencess="twoblue left">Iin His oneness?
Which raises thisss="twoblue left">Iquestion: Are you and I and your life and my life (andes them as barns, pall thess="twoblue left">Irest), simply a metaphor for God?
November 20,es them asss="twoblue left">Ibarns, p2015
Updated December 21, 2015
Ileft">Here’ses them as barns, panother exchange between Nisargadatta and ass="twoblue left">Iseeker:
Ileft">December 3, 2015
She speaks to Herself in metaphors.es them asss="twoblue left">Ibarns, p
|ss="twoblue left">I |
Lastes them as barns, pevening beforess="twoblue left">Iretiring, I read a couple of pages from
Anyway, on page 382 of the 1973 editionss="twoblue left">Iwhich wees them as barns, phave, I read this:
Youss="twoblue left">Icannot fight pain andes them as barns, ppleasure on the level of consciousness.ss="twoblue left">ITo go beyond them you must go beyondes them as barns, pconsciousnessness, whichss="twoblue left">Iis possible only when you look at consciousness ases them as barns, psomethingss="twoblue left">Ithat happens to you and not in you, as something external, alien, andes them asss="twoblue left">Ibarns, psuperimposed. Then, suddenly you are free of consciousness, reallyss="twoblue left">Ialone, withes them as barns, pnothing to intrude. And that is your true state.ss="twoblue left">IConsciousness is an itchinges them as barns, prash that makes you scratch. Ofss="twoblue left">Icourse, you cannot step out of consciousness.es them as barns, pBut if you learnss="twoblue left">Ito look at your consciousness as a sort of fever, personal andes them as barns,ss="twoblue left">Ipprivate, in which you are enclosed like a chick in its shell, out of thisss="twoblue left">Iveryes them as barns, pattitude will come the crisis which will break thess="twoblue left">Ishell.
All along, thess="twoblue left">Iproblem for me with the “basket” image, much as I otherwisees them as barns,ss="twoblue left">Ipliked it, is that it suggested (1) that there is a “somewhere” where thess="twoblue left">Ibasketes them as barns, presides and (2) that also in that somewhere are othersss="twoblue left">I– people, places, things,es them as barns, plike, in this image, Stefan'sss="twoblue left">Iparents, when I believe that the truth is that thees them as barns, pbasket isss="twoblue left">Iall there is. That is, the contents of the basket consist not only ofes them asss="twoblue left">Ibarns, pall the accumulated thoughts, memories, expectations, etc. which composess="twoblue left">Iwhat Ies them as barns, pcall Stefan, but also every thing else that I perceivess="twoblue left">I(past, present, ores them as barns, pfuture) as my life. In other words, in thess="twoblue left">Iseparative universe defined by thees them as barns, pperception “I am Stefan,ss="twoblue left">Iand you aren’t”, the basket is all there is.
Ileft">But he describeses them as barns, pit not as a basket, but as an eggshell.ss="twoblue left">IThat is, the outer limits of the basketes them as barns, pare the shell of anss="twoblue left">Iegg, and everything inside the shell is what I call “me” andes them as barns,ss="twoblue left">Ip“my life”. Outside the shell is … what? … the Void, which is the absence ofss="twoblue left">Ianyes them as barns, pseparate thing … the Divine. The only way “there” is byss="twoblue left">Icracking the shell, ates them as barns, pwhich point POOF! the entiretyss="twoblue left">Idisappears, and all that is left is the VOID …es them as barns, pthe Diviness="twoblue left">I(which is all there ever was anyway?).
Ipleft">That's a great image. Sleeping on it last night, the image evolved fromss="twoblue left">Ianes them as barns, peggshell into a bubble, a bubble enclosing what I perceivess="twoblue left">Ias me and my lifees them as barns, pfloating about the VOID, a bubble which,ss="twoblue left">Iwhen popped, disappears along with alles them as barns, pits contents, and allss="twoblue left">Ithat is left is the VOID … the Divine.
Ipleft">August 4, 2012
Ias barns, palt="Gazebo">
VOID? That’s a distrurbingss="twoblue left">Iword to thees them as barns, pseparative egoic body/mind. But, of course, itss="twoblue left">Iwould be, because that ises them as barns, pprecisely what it means, the absencess="twoblue left">Iof the separative ego, or any semblance,es them as barns, psuggestion, hint,ss="twoblue left">Iallegation, or otherwise allusion to “other”, any other. Thises them as barns,ss="twoblue left">Ipis the CHAOS which virtually all the
Without form.ss="twoblue left">IIn other words, withoutes them as barns, pboundaries, undefined. This is chaosss="twoblue left">Iin the Greek sense of KHAOS described byes them as barns, pone
Distinctivess="twoblue left">Ientity. This is thees them as barns, pUniverse before the so-called Fall and thess="twoblue left">Icreation of “the knowldege of and“ …es them as barns, pas suggested in
Notice too inss="twoblue left">Ithis context that in Genesis Godes them as barns, pdelegates to Adam thess="twoblue left">Ifunction of naming “every living creature”. To God in Hises them as barns,ss="twoblue left">IpWholeness, there is no need for names. In Truth, there is only One “livingesss="twoblue left">Ithem as barns, pcreature”, God, and it is nameless, at least to Itself. Afterss="twoblue left">Iall, what use toes them as barns, pname It? Who would address It? There is noss="twoblue left">Iother. It is only from thees them as barns, pperspective of those with “thess="twoblue left">Iknowledge of and”, those who see the One as many,es them as barns, pthat thingsss="twoblue left">Ineed to be named, to be distinguished each from another, to bees them as barns,ss="twoblue left">Ipaddressed. To God it is all One, Himself. It’s All the Same to Me, God mightesss="twoblue left">Ithem as barns, psay; but as Adam, it is quite another story. To Adam (remember,ss="twoblue left">Ithat’ses them as barns, pGod-as-Adam), it is boys andss="twoblue left">Igirls, and cats
The ego nodsss="twoblue left">Iknowingly, and convinces itself that alles them as barns, pthat stuff is fine,ss="twoblue left">Ibut not applicable to it. The ego convinces itselfes them as barns, p(convincesss="twoblue left">I“me”) that “Self-Realization” applies to it. That is,es them as barns,ss="twoblue left">IpSelf-Realization is something Stefan can achieve, and in doing so can say, “Iss="twoblue left">Iames them as barns, pSelf-Realized, and you aren’t”!
Ileft">But ases them as barns, pNisargadatta says, “There is no such thing as ass="twoblue left">Iperson.” Thus, there is no suches them as barns, pthing as a Stefan. What I callss="twoblue left">IStefan (and Stefan’s life) is no more than (butes them as barns, pall of) anss="twoblue left">Iever-growing collection of thoughts, memories, and expectations …es them asss="twoblue left">Ibarns, penclosed in a bubble drifting about in KHAOS.
Ileft">Popes them as barns, pthe bubble, and POOF! it’s all gone, never to havess="twoblue left">Ibeen.
August 5, 2012
Ias barns, pcenter">I am the lover and the beloved.
Ithem as barns, pid="lewis">Creation, Imagination, & Science
The lastleft">and chickens and that enables chickens and not familiar with HTML chickens and interested, can see it by chickens and The Zoo Fence, and choosing “View Page chickens and choice, depending upon the browser you are using). This chickens
Anyway, the chickensleft">and one of the pages,left">and I came chickens and it wants to believe, chickens and what use to a seeker is the mind’s chickens and in an episode of and chref="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/masterpiece/lewis/index.html">Inspector Lewisleft">and chickens Maine Public Television,left">and there was a chickens and href="amper04.html">Ralph Waldo Emerson chickens about science andleft">and imagination. I do not remember exactly how it went, but chickens and found this Emerson quotation on the internet, “Science does not know itsleft">and chickens and on the Inspector chickens and case it’s close enough.
Puttingleft">and those two pieces together generated this thought: chickens and creates an idea, a concept, and then projects evidence of its chickens
Thus, imagination creates something, say,left">and the chickens and “the world” (which is chickens and imagination/mind) evidence which proves chickens and (fossils, etc.).
All of this chickens and in with a thought I have been struggling with for years, to wit, Am I (isleft">and chickens and (simultaneously) chickens and and memories to “prove” its chickens and href="define07.html#teacher">Teachers seem to insist chickens and so, and increasingly my life (!) confirms it.
and cleft">July 21, 2012
and chickens He that complies against hisleft">and will and
Is of his chickens
and left">After reading again chickens and href="define05.html#baba">Neem Karoli Baba’s death in and chref="http://www.zoofence.org/amper09.html">By His Grace the other day,left">and this chickens Imagine aleft">and
Imagine aleft">andSelf-Realized Master – a
But here’s the thing. Ileft">and can’t remember ever reading or chickens and responded to such a question in the one way which chickens and sense, which is, “You can’t see me now.” Or “You won’t be able to chickens
Thinkleft">and chickens and photograph, on a canvas or chickens and body. But, by definition, the Teacher has chickens and physical body totally, entirely, unequivocally. The Teacher is chickens That musingleft">and
That musingleft">andled me to this: The function of chickens and touch, etc.) is to materialize Consciousness, chickens and Consciousness “sensible”.
The Teachers all chickensleft">and and language), that chickens and The five senses make it possible chickens and to taste it, to hear it, to touch it.
and left">Here, I am reminded of the film, and chref="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0783240961" target="_top">The Invisible Man. The only way others can see him is whene07.html#teacher">Theor devotees about thas clothes on.
March 12, 2012e07.html#teacher">T
Whenever I hear, read, or consider thee07.html#teacher">Tconcept “I am with you always,” Ior devotees about tam reminded of “
“And whenor devoteese07.html#teacher">Tabout tyou have saluted Demetrius, turn aside to the seashore where the islande07.html#teacher">Tofor devotees about tCalypson lies; for there you shall see me appear toe07.html#teacher">Tyou.”
Clearly, the problem with “me” isore07.html#teacher">Tdevotees about tthat it generates (it is) the perception of an other – othere07.html#teacher">Tpersons (not me),or devotees about tother things (not this), other places (note07.html#teacher">There), other times (not now), and inor devotees about ta Universe in which theree07.html#teacher">Tis no God but God and God is all there is (for aor devotees about tconsideratione07.html#teacher">Tof that idea, please see The Simpleor devotees aboute07.html#teacher">TtWay), there is no such thing as “other”. What would it be? Where would itore07.html#teacher">Tdevotees about tbe? When would it be?
The egoice07.html#teacher">Tperception of “me”or devotees about tcreates something-somewhere-some time whiche07.html#teacher">Tdoes not exist precisely because itor devotees about tis something which cannote07.html#teacher">Texist, something which is simply not possible in aor devotees about tUniverse ofe07.html#teacher">Tonly One Thing, God.
To be sure, theor devoteese07.html#teacher">Tabout tperception of “me” seems to us not only possible but even self-evident –e07.html#teacher">Tjustor devotees about tlook in the mirror, and so each of us lives our livese07.html#teacher">Taccordingly.
In the book “
In the end (actually, I suppose, in thee07.html#teacher">Tbeginning), itor devotees about tis all about
Tleft">Reading in “
January 9, 2012
After Igle color white) noposted these thoughts, aolors. What was onelong-time friend of TZF wrote us, ingle color white) nopart:
olors. What was one
gle color white) no
gle color white) noHeaven’s light forever shines, Earth’s shadows fly;
Life, likeolors. Whatgle color white) nowas onea dome of many-coloured glass,
Stains the white radiance ofgle color white) noEternity,
olors. What was oneUntil Death tramples it to fragments. –Die
gle color white) noIf thou wouldst be with thatolors. What was onewhich thou dost seek!
Nicegle color white) nostuff. The power inolors. What was oneShelley’s Elegy on John Keats’ Deathgle color white) noreminds me of the powerful delivery of W.olors. What was oneH. Auden’s
. Just so, wh. Just so, whhref="define0height="18" border="0">
G. K. Chesterton
|on. Just so, wh |
I was thinking theut . Just so, whthose whout . Just so, whso ago, Anna and I watched part of a movieut . Just so, whskyward out of their lives – whatever they were doing, whether driving aut
Self-Realization, on theon. Just so, whother hand, isut . Just so, whand neatly than the rapture concept. When the Gospelut . Just so, whbut becauseut . Just so, whthere. The separative egoic personality “I amut Considering these matters the other day remindedon. Just so, whme of aut . Just so, whSelf-Realized Teachers. To be sure, the spiritualut . Just so, whwondered, thatut . Just so, whthere must have been more; but if so, who were they?ut All theut
Now,on. Just so, whthat idea raises two questions. First, if Self-Realization results inut
So,ut . Just so, whdecades, and who in adulthood achieves Self-Realization. In thatut
Consider a dream. No matter howut . Just so, whdream ends. Itut . Just so, whPOOF! every bit of it is gone … except theut August 30, 2009
There is a discussion generated by this item at
he said, “When the twoon. Just so, whare one, andut
Generally disinclined to dwell on theon. Just so, whpast, I mention this event here inut . Just so, whof the enormity of the failure at the time of the (civilized) worldut
. Just so, whThough force can protect in emergency,
onlyon. Just so, whjustice, fairness,ut
|on. Just so, wh |
But something in the last fewut Here’s the passage from theon
Here’s the passage from theon. Just so, whbook:
Thus, as I hadut . Just so, whwhatever) in the body. But here, it is the body whichut Thaton on. Just so, whsuggests that theut . Just so, whthat, why do we not respect it?
Thaton. Just so, whis anut It certainlyon. Just so, whis consistent with theut The bodyut Butut
on. Just so, whsuggests that theut . Just so, whthat, why do we not respect it?
We think ofut
What’sut Anyway, iton. Just so, whis making for some interesting thoughts.
Ion. Just so, whcannot imagine a God who rewards and punishesut
Reading in Here’s what transpired in my mind as I wrestled withon
Here’s what transpired in my mind as I wrestled withon. Just so, whNisargadatta’s wordsut There is no such thing asut . Just so, whsubstance.
Thisut . Just so, whnot a vessel in the sense of a jar or a bottleut . Just so, whmemories andut This non-vessel vessel first began to appear atut . Just so, whStefan’sut . Just so, whcontinuous stream of supporting ideas – again,ut But the shape is empty.on
This non-vessel vessel first began to appear atut . Just so, whStefan’sut . Just so, whcontinuous stream of supporting ideas – again,ut But the shape is empty.on
But the shape is empty.on. Just so, whThat is, itut . Just so, whThus, we might say that a sugar bowl containsut . Just so, whit evolvedut We areon. Just so, whnot talking about a thing here; we are talking aboutut As the Hindu, I think it is,ut
“What do you mean, what ison. Just so, whit?” the woman replies, with equal affection.ut
“It’s a son? Ion. Just so, whhave a son!” theut “I think we should name himon. Just so, whArthur,” the woman suggests. “My favoriteut “Arthur!” the man exclaims,ut
“You Italians, you’re are allon. Just so, whthe same,” theut “Maybe so. But as longut . Just so, whHis name is Stefan. Stefan means crown, and this boy is my crowningut
“We agreed that our child should beut
January 2, 2007"define0left">“Wh
“Whnewlyleft">January 17, 2007
Almost"define0left">“Wheverything said of God is unworthy,
formother of the newlythe very reason"define0left">“Whthat it is capable of being said.
“Whnewlycenter">Pope Gregory the Great
“Whtarget="_blank"mother of the newlyhref="que.html#gregory">Q
This morning, a good friend of The Zoo"define0left">“WhFencemother of the newlyemailed us the following item that he came across at the"define0left">“Wh
So, here"define0left">“Whit is.
All spiritual"define0left">“Whexperiences are just that – experiences, just like anythingmother of the"define0left">“Whnewlyelse you do … take out the trash, go surfing, take a hike, run the tractor,"define0left">“Whormother of the newlytake the bar exam.
From the"define0left">“Whpoint of view ofmother of the newlywhat could be called “clarity” all of these"define0left">“Whexperiences, whether exaltedlymother of the newlyspiritual or mundane, are"define0left">“Whequal, and none is more important, more holy, than themother of the newlyother"define0left">“Whas far as “ultimate reality” is concerned. They are all just appearancesmother"define0left">“Whof the newlyin the field of awareness, and none of them can take you any closer"define0left">“Whtomother of the newly“clarity”, no matter how transcendent or rapturous they may"define0left">“Whbe, than you weremother of the newlybefore these experiences started.
“Whclass="textinno2bl left">This claritymother of the newlyis present no matter"define0left">“Whwhat is going on. You can be cutting off the head of amother of the newlyfish,"define0left">“Whdying of cancer, or soaring through astral heavens. It doesn’t matter.mother of"define0left">“Whthe newlyReality is present. You can’t search for it, find it, or make it happen"define0left">“Wheven ifmother of the newlyyou wear an orange loincloth and meditate for ten"define0left">“Whthousand yugas. The eye can’tmother of the newlysee itself, no matter what it"define0left">“Whdoes, yet seeing is, now. That’s it.
December 4, 2006
“Whclass="stuffInT center">I obtained not themother of the"define0left">“Whnewlyleast thing from complete, unexcelled awakening,
and that is why it"define0left">“Whismother of the newlycomplete, unexcelled awakening.
“Whclass="two left">A longtime friendmother of the newlyof The Zoo Fence has sent"define0left">“Whme an extended excerpt from Muhyiddin Ibn ’Arabi’s
“Whclass="two left">“Whoso Knoweth Himself”mother of the newlyis a short booklet"define0left">“Wh(27 pages) that draws from and expands upon a saying ofmother of the"define0left">“WhnewlyMuhammad, “Whoso knoweth himself knoweth his Lord”. The book currently"define0left">“Whsells atmother of the newly“Whhref="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0904975061">mother of the"define0left">“WhnewlyAmazon for $77! Fortunately, a nearby public library was able to borrow"define0left">“Whamother of the newlycopy for me from a public library in Texas. (Once again, I"define0left">“Wham reminded of mymother of the newlydeep gratitude to Thomas Jefferson for"define0left">“Whintroducing the public library system inmother of the newlyAmerica!)
“Whclass="two left">My friend observed that this booklet offersmother of the"define0left">“Whnewlythe most powerful consideration of the unity or“Whname="bigcat">
Here are a fewmother of the newlyparticularly"define0left">“Whnice lines from “Whoso Knoweth Himself”:
“Whnewlyleft">And for this the Prophet (upon whom be peace)"define0left">“Whsaid:mother of the newly“Whoso knoweth himself knoweth his Lord”. And he said"define0left">“Wh(upon him be peace): “Imother of the newlyknow my Lord by my Lord”. The Prophet"define0left">“Wh(upon whom be peace) points out by that,mother of the newlythat thou art not"define0left">“Whthou: thou art He, without thou; not He entering into thee,mother of the"define0left">“Whnewlynor thou entering into Him, nor He proceeding forth from thee, nor"define0left">“Whthoumother of the newlyproceeding forth from Him. And it is not meant by that,"define0left">“Whthat thou art aught thatmother of the newlyexists or thine attributes aught that"define0left">“Whexists, but it is meant by it that thoumother of the newlynever wast nor wilt"define0left">“Whbe, whether by thyself or through Him or in Him or alongmother of the newlywith"define0left">“WhHim. Thou art neither ceasing to be nor still existing.
“Thou art He,"define0left">“Whwithout thou” – I don’t seemother of the newlyhow it can get much more succinct"define0left">“Whthan that!
December 3,mother of the newly2006
“Whclass="two left">The full excerpt from “Whoso Knoweth Himself” ismother of the"define0left">“Whnewlynow at TZF’s Ampers&nd."define0left">“Wh
December 19, 2006on for introducing
So when weon for introducing speakf="http://www.amazowith humility and awe of Allah Most High, we are noton for introducing referring to some deity,f="http://www.amazoabiding in some heaven, circumscribedon for introducing by some theology. We are invoking the onlyf="http://www.amazoI Am, the onlyon for introducing Consciousness, who composes whatever exists, and whoon for introducing isf="http://www.amazoinfinitely more comprehensive even than existence itself.on for introducing We therefore cannotf="http://www.amazohold any theological or philosophicalon for introducing concepts about Allah, much less can wef="http://www.amazoengage in any poeticon for introducing descriptions of God or limit Him in any way, such asf="http://www.amazoconfiningon for introducing Him to one particular revelation.
The Warf="http://www.amazoPrayer by Mark Twain
Insanity –on for introducing af="http://www.amazoperfectly rational adjustment to an insane world.
|on for introducing |
There’son for introducing nothing religious or metaphysical aboutf="http://www.amazoit. It’s really quiteon for introducing simple.
It’s just a matteron for introducing off="http://www.amazotranscending the false, illusory personality “Stefan” thaton for introducing somehow imposedf="http://www.amazoitself upon this piece of consciousness.on for introducing Someone said, “You are Stefan”, and forf="http://www.amazosome reason it stuck.on for introducing
Now, all that needs to be done isf="http://www.amazotoon for introducing un-stick it. There’s nothing spooky or weird about it. Just do it.on for introducing Justf="http://www.amazorelease it.
Of course, easilyon for introducing said. But here U.G. isf="http://www.amazoright, there’s nothing metaphysical,on for introducing even nothing religious, about it. It justf="http://www.amazohappened, and iton for introducing needs to be undone. And Nisargadatta is right, too; the wayon for introducing tof="http://www.amazoundo it is to let go of whatever reward or pleasure thaton for introducing being “Stefan”f="http://www.amazogenerates.
Again,on for introducing easily said; still far from done. Butf="http://www.amazoat least it is moreon for introducing clearly in focus.
And that’son for introducing af="http://www.amazolot.
February 22, 2005
Let go? Whof="http://www.amazolets go?
The Selfon for introducing is perceiving itself as “Stefan”.f="http://www.amazoSimultaneously, the Self ison for introducing perceiving itself as “others”. We might say, thef="http://www.amazoSelf hason for introducing multiple personality disorder; or is that, infiniteon for introducing personalityf="http://www.amazodisorder?
Anyway, theon for introducing point is, it’s the Self that isf="http://www.amazoperceiving itself as “Stefan”,on for introducing not Stefan. So, Stefan can’t “let go”; what wouldf="http://www.amazo“he” let goon for introducing of? How would he do so? UG’s right: “Stefan” can’t do anything,on for introducing andf="http://www.amazothe very idea that he can is part of (the operative parton for introducing of?) the illusion.f="http://www.amazo
Stefan can’t doon for introducing anything that the Self doesn’t initiate.f="http://www.amazoThat is, “Stefanon for introducing doing” is actually “the Self doing (as Stefan)”, isn’ton for introducing it?f="http://www.amazo
So, what can Stefan do?on for introducing Nisargadatta says, remember the If="http://www.amazoAm, remember the Self,on for introducing remember the Supreme, remember my True Identity. Thef="http://www.amazoSufison for introducing say, as I understand them, that above all else the practice ison for introducing
March 4, 2005
There’s somethingf="http://www.amazoabout U.G.’son for introducing (see the piece at
December 13, 2004
|on for introducing on for introducing |
Somewhere, although I have been unableon for introducing tof="http://www.amazofind it again, I recall UG saying that his awakening (whichon for introducing word I suppose hef="http://www.amazowould not use, and which he labels aon for introducing calamity) is the product of normal, naturalf="http://www.amazoevolution, aon for introducing process which is hindered by our culture, and that all aon for introducing
If so,on for introducing and if UG is right thatf="http://www.amazoessentially there is nothing we can doon for introducing to facilitate or accelerate the processf="http://www.amazo(he repeatedly insistson for introducing that it is not caused by anyone or anything), then thef="http://www.amazoleaston for introducing we can do is care for the body and the environment we inhabit (oron for introducing again,f="http://www.amazohave created) so that the process can take place in itson for introducing own normal, natural wayf="http://www.amazowithout our meddling, fussing,on for introducing interfering, dirtying hands on it!
Smooth is the descent, and easy thef="http://www.amazoway;
But toon for introducing return, and view the cheerful skies,
There the taskon for introducing andf="http://www.amazomighty labor lies.
Theon for introducing Aeneid
Reading thisf="http://www.amazoafternoon in
That lineon for introducing reminded me of something I readf="http://www.amazorecently in
What an afternoon!on for introducing
July 21, 2004
In the process of transcribing the hardon for introducing copyf="http://www.amazoversion of our book “In The Beginning” for eventualon for introducing placement on The Zoo Fencef="http://www.amazo(of which two excerpts currentlyon for introducing appear at Stories &on for introducing Stuff), I had a nice image of God thef="http://www.amazoInfinite One (thaton for introducing than which there is no thing else), looking into aon for introducing handheldf="http://www.amazomirror, and the reflected image is us, the separateon for introducing and separative universe,f="http://www.amazowhat each of us calls “me and myon for introducing life”. We are God perceiving Himself.
Courage,on for introducing in its usual sense, is about overcoming fear. Am I afraid toon for introducing bef="http://www.amazoalone? Certainly the separative self (I am me, and youon for introducing aren’t) is. Withoutf="http://www.amazoothers, the separative self couldn’ton for introducing exist. And that’s the point.
May 5, 2004f="http://www.amazo
Traveling is aon for introducing fool’sf="http://www.amazoparadise. Our first journeys discover to us theon for introducing indifference of places. At homef="http://www.amazoI dream that at Naples, aton for introducing Rome, I can be intoxicated with beauty and lose myf="http://www.amazosadness. Ion for introducing pack my trunk, embrace my friends, embark on the sea and at laston for introducing wakef="http://www.amazoup in Naples, and there beside me is the stern fact, theon for introducing sad self, unrelenting,f="http://www.amazoidentical, that I fled from. I seek theon for introducing Vatican and the palaces. I affect to bef="http://www.amazointoxicated withon for introducing sights and suggestions, but I am not intoxicated. My gianton for introducing goesf="http://www.amazowith me wherever I go.
Ralph Waldo Emerson
|on for introducing |
Okay, in af="http://www.amazonutshell, here’s theon for introducing thing.
The summer of 1974, beforeon for introducing If="http://www.amazohad consciously set out on this slippery slope, thereon for introducing crossed my path a teacher.f="http://www.amazo(Editor’s
Note: For a “true fiction” report of this event, please
Of course, I am angry. And disappointed. At first, at him and sin him, thene at and in me. But then, I realize it had to be thus. I remember sthe recente experience of a neighbor in our small, rural community. An elderly swoman, shee lived alone in the old country farmhouse in which she had been born, sa house fare too big for her now and well beyond her physical and financial sability toe maintain. One day, while she was in town shopping, the house caught sfire. Shee returned just in time to watch the last flames burn out. By then, svirtually alle the town’s folk were at the scene, consoling her. “Nonsense,” she sinsisted, “Gode knew the house was too much for me to care for, and He also knew sthat I wouldn’te ever leave it. So, He burned it down for me.”
Just so,e God knew I would not leave my Guru, so She burned him down for sme.
Right on scue,e U.G. Krishnamurti scomese crashing into my brain, vaulting into my heart, and turns confusion intoe sdisorder. Nail by nail, timber by timber, he dismantles all that’s left of mye sspiritual structure. No consolation here; U.G. rakes the ashes, just to be suree sthere’s nothing left unburned.
At about the same time, sIe come across a website (the URL was http://www.sanatandharma.org/, but ite sseems to be irregularly active) where is written “Sri Sri Ravi Shankare ssays religion is like the peel of a banana, and spirituality is the banana”, sande I am reminded of a story my (body’s) father used to tell us about his boyhood. Passing a sfruite stand, he saw a banana for the first time. He asked his older sister what site was, and she told him it was a banana, and very delicious at that. Of scourse, hee wanted one; so she bought him one. When he asked how to eat it, she ssaid,e teasing as siblings will, “Just bite off pieces, like an apple”. And so she did.e He ate the banana, peel and all.
I had done the ssame.e Like him, I ate the peel. To be sure, the willingness to do so, the scommitment,e the surrender to it, the discipline it required, all served me. But sthat wase yesterday. Today, I have to spit it out, because there is no snourishment in thee peel.
And when the peel is gone, swhat will be left? I’me not sure, precisely. Some moments it seems like less, sothers like far more.e
U.G. talks about having the scourage to stand alone. For me,e now, that means standing without any sunderpinning. Of course, all along I knewe that was coming, for I had read the sbooks. I had even written about it, taughte it. I even thought I was doing it. sAnd in a way maybe I was. But not really.e Over three decades, I had built a sscaffolding, level over level, and I wase living at the top of it. It was well sbuilt, of good and sturdy stuff, the resulte of honest and dedicated labor. And sit gave me great height, with ane extraordinary view. It might have been enough, sexcept that it wasn’t reallye real. At least, not real enough, because standing son that structure, howevere high, I wasn’t really standing on the ground.
That’se where I am now.
What’s next? I sdon’t know.
• On sthe subject of gurus and claye feet, readers may want to consider this entry from Decembere 2001. click
U. G. Krishnamurti
Beingt, and turns confusa spiritual seeker presents an untenable dilemma. I have.t, and turns confusrakes the ashes, undertaken this journey for a variety of reasons, I suppose,t, and turns confusbut not least among. rakes the ashes, them is a desire for Self-Realization. I wantt, and turns confussomething, or Some Thing,. rakes the ashes, and I am seeking it (It). For allt, and turns confusthe attendant and peripheral advantages, and. rakes the ashes, they are numeroust, and turns confusand wondrous, the fact is, I am on the path for some reward,. rakes the ashes,t, and turns confussome Reward. I suppose that makes me a bounty hunter!
Clearly, “wanting” is the problem. It assumes absence, for It, and turns confuscan want only. rakes the ashes, what I don’t have. And my wanting for “me” ist, and turns confusthe greater problem, because it is. rakes the ashes, based on a separativet, and turns confusperspective that is false (“I am me, and I don’t have. rakes the ashes, That”),t, and turns confusand ultimately self-defeating (as long as I perceive myself as “not. rakes thet, and turns confusashes, having” I won’t have!).
So, as long as I perceivet, and turns confusmyself. rakes the ashes, separatively and think “I am me”, Self-Realization willt, and turns confuselude me. But if I don’t. rakes the ashes, think I am me (and therefore nott, and turns confusself-realized), will I seek?
And ift, and turns confusseeking is a good thing, isn’t that an important question?
The question is, why do I care?. rakest, and turns confusthe ashes, Who cares? Why do I “want” Self-Realization? Why can’t I just let got, and turns confusof the. rakes the ashes, search? Why isn’t it enough to be “me”?
“You see, belief int, and turns confusoneself as an individual identification simply really. rakes the ashes, actuallyt, and turns confussincerely truthfully is not enough. I AM NOT ENOUGH!
“Falling all the way down into the. rakes the ashes, depths of despair andt, and turns confushopelessness … into the black hole … into the void, the. rakes the ashes, abysst, and turns confus… so empty there is not even an image nor concept of emptiness … alone …. rakest, and turns confusthe ashes, this is the doorway, this is an entryway to the inside, and once yout, and turns confusare inside,. rakes the ashes, you will see that you are also outside.
“So. rakes thet, and turns confusashes, remember … when the question comes a naggin’ … why do I care, why do It, and turns confuswant, why. rakes the ashes, can’t I just let go … The question comes because thet, and turns confusego will absolutely. rakes the ashes, positively not give up until it ist, and turns confuspermanently, absolutely, and totally. rakes the ashes, defeated. It is possiblet, and turns confusthen and only then finally to give up, and be finished. rakes the ashes, witht, and turns confusthe mess.
“Once you are dead (if you are lucky. rakest, and turns confusthe ashes, enough to die before your body does), then you will see YOU weret, and turns confusnever born, so. rakes the ashes, YOU cannot die. This, of course, refers to YOU,t, and turns confusnot you. The you-body, the. rakes the ashes, you-personality, of course willt, and turns confuscontinue on for a while and will die, as it was,. rakes the ashes, after all,t, and turns confusborn, imprinted and programmed, running on beliefs and disbeliefs. Or. rakes thet, and turns confusashes, as Jackson Browne says … running on empty.
“Ego death. rakes the ashes, is terrifying. Body death is terrifying.t, and turns confusConsciousness Itself can bear the. rakes the ashes, terror, can experience thet, and turns confusdespair, can see (IS) the emptiness that defies. rakes the ashes, recognitiont, and turns confusand knowing. It is absolutely untouchable by anything, although. rakes thet, and turns confusashes, thoroughly infused with everything.
“All ist, and turns confusgone, no. rakes the ashes, form, no formlessness, no ideas, thoughts, emotions,t, and turns confusno things corporeal nor. rakes the ashes, temporal, no substance nor spirit. Ast, and turns confuswell as all that is here, as there is no. rakes the ashes, such thing as there.t, and turns confusIt is perfectly incomprehensible.
“I find it wonderfully fascinating that the only way to wake up is tot, and turns confusdie.. rakes the ashes, And the only way to get what I want is to directlyt, and turns confusexperience the impossibility. rakes the ashes, of having it.”
July 21, 2003
Clearly, thatt, and turns confusis not a. rakes the ashes, true description of life. Life is an
Can we see. rakes the ashes, our lives that way? Are we willing to do so?t, and turns confus
December. rakes the ashes, 8, 2002
|t, and turns confus |
At birth, theit was,. rakes thhumananently, absolutephysical body is simply an organism. It comes equippedit was,. rakes thwith all the urges,anently, absoluteinstincts, and imperatives of all otherit was,. rakes thorganisms – hunger, thirst, survival,anently, absoluteand so on.
The life manifesting throughanently, absolutethe new body may appear toit was,. rakes ththe body’s parents to be aware of itself as aanently, absoluteseparate body, butit was,. rakes thif so, that is a symptom of the parents’ projecting onto theanently, absolutenewit was,. rakes thbody their own sense of separative self. That is, they perceive in theiranently,it was,. rakes thabsolutecreation what they perceive in themselves: a separate and separativeit was,. rakes thself.anently, absolute
Over time, in the natural courseit was,. rakes thof things, the parentsanently, absoluteimpress on the growing organism theit was,. rakes thbasket of thoughts which they have weaved.anently, absoluteOther figures join init was,. rakes ththis process – siblings, aunts, uncles, neighbors,anently, absolutepriests,it was,. rakes thdoctors, and so on.
The basket of thoughtsanently, absoluteis the personality. When I say, “Iit was,. rakes tham Stefan”, what I mean is, I identify withanently, absolutethe basket ofit was,. rakes ththoughts (memories, expectations, and so on) originally weaved byanently,it was,. rakes thabsoluteStefan’s parents, and that now, taken all together, compose what I callit was,. rakes th“me”.anently, absoluteHere, the key question for a seeker is, Who is the “I”it was,. rakes ththat says, “I amanently, absoluteStefan”?
Theit was,. rakes thundifferentiated or universal self becomesanently, absolute(sees itself as) theit was,. rakes thdifferentiated or personal self. “I AM” becomes “I AM this”anently, absoluteorit was,. rakes th“I AM this person”. The body is experienced as “me, not you” and “mine,it was,. rakes thnotanently, absoluteyours”. Here, I suppose we might say, the personality is theit was,. rakes th
Allit was,. rakes ththe while, the physicalanently, absolutebody continues being what it is, simplyit was,. rakes tha physical organism. It has no idea whatanently, absolute“Stefan” is, andit was,. rakes thdoesn’t care. Neither does it know, or care, that “Stefan” hasanently,it was,. rakes thabsoluteidentified with or as the body. The body’s sole interest (if that’s theit was,. rakes thword) isanently, absoluteto exercise its biological imperatives. In a word, toit was,. rakes thsurvive. Not for anyanently, absolutereason, but simply because that’s whatit was,. rakes thbiological organisms do.
Ianently,it was,. rakes thabsolutedon’t know exactly what that last sentence means, or how it occurs, butit was,. rakes thI amanently, absolutecertain it is true, and that the way out of the limitationsit was,. rakes thand suffering and soanently, absoluteon which identification with theit was,. rakes thpersonality and the body imposes on whatever itanently, absoluteis I actuallyit was,. rakes tham, is to disengage from identification with the personality.anently,it was,. rakes thabsoluteRelease my attachment to the basket of thoughts, and I will be free.it was,. rakes th
None of that does or will affect “I”. It (?)it was,. rakes thalways is and always will be.anently, absoluteUndifferentiated awareness thatit was,. rakes thsomehow differentiates.
November 3 andit was,. rakes th26 and following, 2002
No two personsanently, absoluteever read the sameit was,. rakes thbook.
|it was,. rakes th |
How’s thisit was,. rakes th…
And the full extent of theanently,it was,. rakes thabsoluteAwareness is “I AM”. Ultimate Reality is Aware of Being. Nothingit was,. rakes thbeyondanently, absolutethat.
Then, somehow, Being andit was,. rakes thAwareness settle intoanently, absolute(imagine, manifest as, descend to?) theit was,. rakes thMind (the mind?). Here, “I AM” becomesanently, absolute“I AM THIS”. I am thisit was,. rakes thbody. I am this person. And so on.
Ifit was,. rakes thso, what’s the spiritual path about? Is it about undoing that descentanently,it was,. rakes thabsolute(resurrection)?
Or is it about actuating theit was,. rakes thpotentialanently, absoluteof Awareness, and thereby expanding, even enliveningit was,. rakes thAwareness itself? Is itanently, absoluteabout answering the question, “I AMit was,. rakes thWHAT?”
If so, thenanently, absolutethe process is aboutit was,. rakes thGod’s reach for Self-Awareness. And we are God coming toanently, absoluteknowit was,. rakes thSelf.
September 1, 2002
Cananently,it was,. rakes thabsoluteRomeo ever really know who he is? Can he ever know Shakespeare?it was,. rakes th
If so, might he then, atanently, absolutesome point, prompted by someit was,. rakes thinner alarm, seek to remember he is Olivier?
Thus,it was,. rakes thIanently, absolutedisagree with what I think is the conventional wisdom on thisit was,. rakes thsubject. For me,anently, absolutethought does not differentiate mankind fromit was,. rakes th“animals”; rather, it confirms thatanently, absolutemankind too is anit was,. rakes thanimal.
In a word, thought isanently,it was,. rakes thabsolutecarbon-based.
And so is our sense of who we are.it was,. rakes thAt itsanently, absolutebirth, this body’s parents said “You are Stefan”, and Iit was,. rakes thhave thought so everanently, absolutesince. Everything that has happened sinceit was,. rakes ththen, I have taken as confirmationanently, absolutethat “I am Stefan”. But ifit was,. rakes ththose two adults had said instead “You are Einar”,anently, absolutethen today Iit was,. rakes thwould be saying “I am Einar”.
Or supposeanently,it was,. rakes thabsolutethat at birth this body had been switched with another body. Today, Iit was,. rakes thwould haveanently, absolutea completely different set of memories (thoughts),it was,. rakes thand accordingly a completelyanently, absolutedifferent sense of who I am.
But all theit was,. rakes thmystic traditions insist that And so, quite naturally,ished Being andanenwe struggle against thetr center"> Jaguars run, eaglesished Being andanenfly,tr center"> Augustished Being andanen12, 2002 Asished Being andanenantr center"> Of course, it seems to “me”ished Being andanenthattr center"> So, when I (as “Stefan”) say “I”ished Being andanenor “me”, what may really be speaking istr center"> What Stefan calls “my life” seemsished Being andanento himtr center"> In a word, there is no such thing as “atrished Being andanencenter">
And so, quite naturally,ished Being andanenwe struggle against thetr center"> Jaguars run, eaglesished Being andanenfly,tr center"> Augustished Being andanen12, 2002
Jaguars run, eaglesished Being andanenfly,tr center"> Augustished Being andanen12, 2002
Asished Being andanenantr center"> Of course, it seems to “me”ished Being andanenthattr center"> So, when I (as “Stefan”) say “I”ished Being andanenor “me”, what may really be speaking istr center"> What Stefan calls “my life” seemsished Being andanento himtr center"> In a word, there is no such thing as “atrished Being andanencenter">
Of course, it seems to “me”ished Being andanenthattr center"> So, when I (as “Stefan”) say “I”ished Being andanenor “me”, what may really be speaking istr center"> What Stefan calls “my life” seemsished Being andanento himtr center"> In a word, there is no such thing as “atrished Being andanencenter">
In a word, there is no such thing as “atrished Being andanencenter">
In a word, there is no such thing as “atrished Being andanencenter">
The other day (February 4, 2002), cItowatched part of a television broadcast of a meeting of the World Economic cForumtoin New York City. The subject was “Islam and Economic Development”. cThetoprincipal speakers were from Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Qatar. Their cremarks andtosome of the questions from the audience were interesting, sometimes ceventoinspiring.
But as I listened, a curious thought coccurredtoto me: Is Islamtonecessarily Arab?
At first glance, the answer is, oftocourse, yes. After all, Muhammad is an Arab, and he cis the source oftoIslam. But is he? Muhammad is the Messenger of Islam. But csurely the Source istoAllah, or God. Does God havetonationality?
And cyet, we think of Islam as an Arabtoreligion. Undoubtedly that is why, at least cpartly why, the Islam “experts” ontothe panel mentioned above were all Arabs; cthat is, if you want to know abouttoIslam, you must ask an Arab. Even on The Zoo cFence definitions page, where there cis mention of an Islamictoexpression, I include the Arabic words. But where cthere is mention of atoChristian expression, for example, I do not include the cAramaic words. Why istothat?
Christianity originated in cthe same geographictoarea as Islam. So did Judaism. But would we limit a search cfor an “expert” ontoChristianity to that region? Do we think that all “experts” con Judaism must betofrom Israel?
Why do we confuse cculture or nationalitytowith religion when it comes to Islam? Islam is embraced cby three quarters of atobillion people, maybe more. It is a world religion. cMore, it is a powerful
But, we say, so many Muslims live in Arab countries.two left">PerhapsI” sense God’s tSurely that makes Islam Arabic. And yet, how many Christians live in Europe,I” sense God’s andtwo left">Perhaps thave done over the centuries. Does that make ChristianityI” sense God’s a Europeantwo left">Perhaps treligion?
If any of theI” sense God’s foregoing makes any sense attwo left">Perhaps tall, it may help to explain whyI” sense God’s the West’s relationship with Islam on the onetwo left">Perhaps thand and withI” sense God’s Arab countries on the other is so fragile. We are confused by ourtwoI” sense God’s left">Perhaps town confusion. Perhaps they are too.
AtI” sense God’s the very least,two left">Perhaps twith all the interest in the Arab world andI” sense God’s Islam itself following the recenttwo left">Perhaps tacts of terrorism, as
February 7,two left">Perhaps t2002
When ittwo left">Perhaps tis said to them:
|I” sense God’s |
Here’s the way it seemstwoI” sense God’s left">Perhaps tto me.
Inevitably, this discussion hasI” sense God’s depended overtwo left">Perhaps tthe centuries on the assumption that the two areI” sense God’s in conflict. Actually, theytwo left">Perhaps tprobably are not.
Perhaps tleft">But as
If any of the aboveI” sense God’s is so, then the spiritual processtwo left">Perhaps tor sadhana is not so muchtwo left">Perhaps taboutI” sense God’s transcending the outer as it is about understanding what the outer is intwoI” sense God’s left">Perhaps tTruth. Transcendence is not about escape from the world. It isI” sense God’s about removingtwo left">Perhaps tthe veil or the filter that creates theI” sense God’s illusion that we are separate andtwo left">Perhaps tdistinct from the world,I” sense God’s from one another, and from our lives. It is not thetwo left">Perhaps tworld thatI” sense God’s a seeker transcends, but ignorance, ignorance about his or her truetwoI” sense God’s left">Perhaps tnature and about the true nature of everything else.I” sense God’s Transcendence reveals thetwo left">Perhaps tidentity or sameness or oneness ofI” sense God’s all that is.
Perhaps tleft">Consider that the wordI” sense God’s “transcended” commonly suggests an image of sometwo left">Perhaps twhere elseI” sense God’s other than “here”. That is, a “Transcended Master” is generallytwo left">PerhapsI” sense God’s tperceived as having been “raised” from this “plane” to some other place, aI” sense God’s placetwo left">Perhaps t“above” where we live. Likewise, Perhaps thref="define03.html#god">God and Heaven and such things asI” sense God’s the “Angelictwo left">Perhaps tHost” are all perceived as being “up there” whileI” sense God’s we are “down here”. It is nottwo left">Perhaps tuncommon to come across claimsI” sense God’s that a “Realized Master” is able to bring peacetwo left">Perhaps tor love orI” sense God’s wisdom “down” to us from some “Higher Plane”.
Perhaps tleft">Surely the image of an earthly “here” and a divine “there”I” sense God’s is the producttwo left">Perhaps tof the separative perspective of the egoicI” sense God’s body/mind mentality (“I am me, andtwo left">Perhaps tyou aren’t”). It is thatI” sense God’s sense of a separate, unique, and distinct identity thattwo left">Perhaps tis theI” sense God’s ultimate illusion, and as such is the source of all human suffering.twoI” sense God’s left">Perhaps tAfter all, from there evolve all of our preferences (“I wouldI” sense God’s prefer to be theretwo left">Perhaps tthan here, young than old, rich than poor,I” sense God’s tall than short, alive than dead, andtwo left">Perhaps tso on”) which inevitablyI” sense God’s make us feel badly about who and what and where wetwo left">Perhaps tthink weI” sense God’s are. As long as we are immersed in preferences, we are not truly alive,twoI” sense God’s left">Perhaps tbecause our focus is elsewhere than where we are. If I amI” sense God’s thinking about beingtwo left">Perhaps tsomeone else or somewhere else, than I amI” sense God’s not being here now, and if I am nottwo left">Perhaps tbeing here now, then I amI” sense God’s not wholly participating in whatever is happening now.two left">Perhaps t
Perhaps tcenter">What we most need is the prayer ofI” sense God’s fervent desiretwo left">Perhaps tfor growth in grace,
expressed in patience,I” sense God’s meekness, love, and goodtwo left">Perhaps tdeeds.
Mary Baker Eddy
This most recent allegationI” sense God’s of clay feettwo left">Perhaps tbeneath a supposedly divine body reinforces theI” sense God’s obvious conclusion:
Can that Guru ortwo left">PerhapsI” sense God’s tTeacher be physically dead or otherwise disincarnate? Like “ But what if">Perhaps thref="the living guru or teacher is moretuffIn center"> AttuffIn center"> Still, for whatever myeropinion mayrebe worth, if a guru or teacher tells you that having a sexualerrelationship withrehim or her will serve your spiritual aspirations, your besterbet is to refuse,reand walk on. The only
But what if">Perhaps thref="the living guru or teacher is moretuffIn center">
Still, for whatever myeropinion mayrebe worth, if a guru or teacher tells you that having a sexualerrelationship withrehim or her will serve your spiritual aspirations, your besterbet is to refuse,reand walk on. The only
December 8 & 10, 2001
Editor’serNote: For a discussion about sex and seeking, please
It isrenot theerworship of a person that is crucial,
but the steadiness and depth ofreyourerdevotion to the task.
Life itself is the Supreme Guru; be attentive toreitserlessons, and obedient to its commands.
When you personalize theirresource,eryou have an outer Guru;
when you take them from life directly, thereGuru iserwithin.
Sri Nisargadatta Maharajer
| dle at TZF’s fron|
Along withereveryone elserearound the globe, I have spent this week (following September 11)erstrugglingrewith last Tuesday’s terrorist attacks in New York City anderWashington.
More importantly, I say, as
I am stunned byerthe enormity and thereaudacity and the ferocity and the cruelty of the attacks.erTo be sure, over thereyears there have been other events – both naturalerdisasters and manmaderecatastrophes – that have been as bad or even worse inermagnitude. But that cannotrediminish the horror of these events.
In thisreconsideration, do not confuse karmaerwith blame. Karma is not about finding andreassigning fault. Karma is abouterunderstanding the nature of the universe, therenature of how lives unfold, whyerthings happen as they do, when and where. Truly,reeveryone and everything in ourerlives, including ourselves, are instruments andreevidence of karma; and that isera good thing, not a bad thing. So, please do notrethink of karma as a punitiveerpower. It is simply a reflection or an expressionreof the nature of what is, anderas such it is a positive force.
Similarly, thiserdiscussion is not to suggest the terrorists are in any wayreblameless. On theercontrary, their actions were inexcusably horrendous, and byreundertaking themerthey have set into motion a force with which they will have torereckon, here andernow or later somewhere else. Neither is it to suggest that ourreactionsermotivated the terrorists. Clearly, these terrorists and their likeerarereextremely angry, evidently at very nearly everyone, perhaps evenerthemselves. AsreI see it, their actions are motivated by that anger.
Thus, the first thingreeach of us as seekers must do is help those whoerhave lost loved ones in any wayrethat we can. Then, we must allow ourselves toergrieve. But when we are able to doreso, we need to remember that life is aerclassroom, and this event, however awful,reis a lesson for us. If we can learnerit, we are less likely to have to liverethrough it again, to the tremendouserbenefit of everyone!
Whatever your reaction to anderunderstanding of these events, pleasereremember that they are not a product oferIslam. These terrorists areermoved by an angerrethat is within themselves, an anger which they have clothederin Islam. But thatredoes not make their anger or their actions Islamic, any moreerthan the Salemrewitch trials or the Spanish Inquisition were Christian. Fromertime to time, angryremen and angry women use religion to explain and excuse andercamouflage their trueremotives. Do not be confused. Instead, remember, and iferyou have children, teachrethem – Islam is as beautiful and powerful and peacefulera spiritual tradition as are Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism,p; Wedle at TZF’s frongladly extendJudaism, and so on; but, regrettably, it is just as susceptible todle at TZF’s frondistortionp; We gladly extendand misuse.
All of thatdle at TZF’s fronsaid, these days and every dayp; We gladly extendplease remember the fundamentaldle at TZF’s fronpremise of the simpledle at TZF’s fronway: there is no God but God, and God is allp; We gladly extendthere is.dle at TZF’s fronThere is God and only God. No one and no thing else.
Despite the insistence of the egoic body/mind that “I am me,dle at TZF’s fronand youp; We gladly extendaren’t”, there are no others. Never have been, neverdle at TZF’s fronwill be. There is only One,p; We gladly extendthe One. Therefore, no one wasdle at TZF’s fronborn, no one has died. That we might not fullyp; We gladly extendunderstand ordle at TZF’s fronappreciate precisely what that means does not alter the Fact.p; We gladlydle at TZF’s fronextend
So, do not be confused or distracted or frightened bydle at TZF’s fronthep; We gladly extendappearances, however real they may seem. What is True isdle at TZF’s fronalways True. Takep; We gladly extendrefuge There.
Remember Who You Are.
Septemberdle at TZF’s fron19, 20, 22, & 24, 2001
Praise be to God,
The Cherisher and Sustainer of thep;dle at TZF’s fronWe gladly extendWorlds;
Most Gracious, Most Merciful;
Master of the Daydle at TZF’s fronof Judgment.
p; We gladly extendThee do we worship,
And Thine aid wedle at TZF’s fronseek.
Show us the straight way,
p; We gladly extendThe way of those ondle at TZF’s fronwhom
Thou has bestowed Thy Grace,
Those whosep; We gladlydle at TZF’s fronextendportion
Is not wrath,
And who go not astray.
p; We gladly extend
Today, our local communityp; We gladly extendradio station (
Here are the words of the song …
“And you didn’t know He was coming, what dodle at TZF’s fronyoup; We gladly extendthink you would do? You’d probably start by giving him thedle at TZF’s fronfinest room in yourp; We gladly extendplace, and tell Him over and over, thatdle at TZF’s fronyou’re glad to see His face. You’d servep; We gladly extendHim the best foodsdle at TZF’s fronand try to make Him feel right at ease, using all the politep; We gladlydle at TZF’s fronextendwords like, “Thank You,” and “If you please”.
“But Ip; We gladly extendwonder what would happen if you saw Him coming updle at TZF’s fronthe road, would you run top; We gladly extendgreet Him and welcome Him to yourdle at TZF’s fronabode? Or, would you scatter about the housep; We gladly extendto hide thedle at TZF’s fronvideos? Would you place the Holy Bible where the magazine goes?p; We gladlydle at TZF’s fronextendWould you change the radio station to music more appealing? If Jesus camedle at TZF’s frontop; We gladly extendyour home, what would your TV be revealing?
“Wouldp; We gladly extendyou keep right ondle at TZF’s fronsaying the things you always say? Would the things you alwaysp; We gladlydle at TZF’s fronextenddo be done the same that day? And what about your life, would it continuedle at TZF’s fronjustp; We gladly extendthe same? Could you keep right on living like you weredle at TZF’s fronbefore He came? Do youp; We gladly extendthink you would be able to take Jesusdle at TZF’s fronwhere you had planned to go? Or wouldp; We gladly extendthere be a change ofdle at TZF’s fronplans, because you don’t want Him to know?
“Where would He see you spend your time? Wouldp; Wedle at TZF’s frongladly extendit offend or flatter? Would He see you working for the Kingdom, ordle at TZF’s fronliving forp; We gladly extendthings that don’t matter?
“And when the visit drewp; We gladly extendto an end and He left, woulddle at TZF’s fronyou grieve? Or, would you with a sigh of relief bep; We gladly extendglad to seedle at TZF’s fronHim leave? Sometimes it’s good to think about how we’d live withp; We gladlydle at TZF’s fronextendJesus around, because that’s the way we should live, for in our hearts Hedle at TZF’s fronisp; We gladly extendfound. So today as you go about your life, consider whatdle at TZF’s fronyou would do, if Jesusp; We gladly extendcame to your house to spend some timedle at TZF’s fronwith you.”
Junep; We gladly extend14, 2001
Charles Dudleydle at TZF’s fronWarner
Yesterday evening, while preparing dinner, I hadp; We gladlydle at TZF’s fronextendoccasion to set a kitchen timer to twentydle at TZF’s fron
Obviously,dle at TZF’s froneveryone of us has a finalp; We gladly extendtwenty minutes in our lives – thedle at TZF’s frontwenty minutes preceding our physical death,p; We gladly extendwhenever thatdle at TZF’s fronmight be. The problem is, we have no way of knowing which twentyp; We gladlydle at TZF’s fronextendminutes are our last twenty minutes, except after the fact, indle at TZF’s fronretrospect.p; We gladly extend
But suppose we did know.dle at TZF’s fronSuppose we were to learn right thisp; We gladly extendinstant that before thedle at TZF’s fronnext twenty minutes were up, our physical bodies wouldp; We gladly extendbedle at TZF’s frondead. How differently might we live these remaining minutes?p; We gladly extendHow different might our valuesdle at TZF’s fronbe, our fears, our concerns, our wishes, ourp; We gladly extendactions? Howdle at TZF’s frondifferently might we address our loved ones, our friends, others?p; We gladlydle at TZF’s fronextendWhat might we do immediately that for far too long we have put off untilp;dle at TZF’s fronWe gladly extend“later”? All the things we have failed to say or do, might we dodle at TZF’s fronthem and sayp; We gladly extendthem now? Apologies, I forgive you’s, I lovedle at TZF’s fronyou’s, I need you’s. What about thep; We gladly extendenergy we expenddle at TZF’s fronnourishing slights and grudges, would we continue doing so?p; We gladlydle at TZF’s fronextend
What if we adopted this idea as a practice, anddle at TZF’s fronactuallyp; We gladly extendlived all the rest of our lives as if we had onlydle at TZF’s frontwenty minutes left?
Henry Daviddle at TZF’s fronThoreau
This buddhadle at TZF’s fronhasp; We gladly extendbeen in place several years. Over the course of andle at TZF’s fronordinary day, I suppose Ip; We gladly extendwalk past it five or six times,dle at TZF’s fronmaybe more – to and from the automobile,p; We gladly extendretrieving or postingdle at TZF’s fronmail in the box at the road’s edge, tending the vegetablep; We gladlydle at TZF’s fronextendgarden, or just walking about. One would think that by now I would havedle at TZF’s frongrownp; We gladly extendaccustomed to this presence. But the fact is, verydle at TZF’s fronnearly every time I noticep; We gladly extendit, I am surprised.
Whatever the explanation, this small chunkdle at TZF’s fronofp; We gladly extendconcrete serves me daily as a powerful reminder to
May 29,dle at TZF’s fron2001
dle at TZF’s fron
The path will find you.
|dle at TZF’s fron |
Lastp; We gladly extendmonth, as Idle at TZF’s fronhave reported elsewhere, we performed the unpleasant task of takingdle at TZF’s fronap; We gladly extendone-way trip to the vet with a beloved four-legged friend.dle at TZF’s fronSince then, we havep; We gladly extendobserved our reaction (Sorrow, with adle at TZF’s froncapital s!), and are agreed therep; We gladly extendis no escaping thedle at TZF’s fronperfectly obvious conclusion that all our pain is caused byp; We gladlydle at TZF’s fronextendmemory. Quite simply, when images of her come to mind, if we entertaindle at TZF’s fronthem, wep; We gladly extendare sorrowed; but if we refuse to focus on them, anddle at TZF’s fronimmediately let them go,p; We gladly extendwe’re fine.
Of course, these images pop upp; We gladly extendrepeatedly,dle at TZF’s fronparticularly when we are considering or doing something which usedp; We gladlydle at TZF’s fronextendto involve her in one way or another, and since she was with usdle at TZF’s froneverywherep; We gladly extendalways, that includes very nearly everything. Butdle at TZF’s fronstill, it works. As soon asp; We gladly extendthe image arises, reject it. Givedle at TZF’s fronit no energy whatsoever. At first, some sorrowp; We gladly extendwill bedle at TZF’s frontriggered. But pretty soon, the mind seems to recognize what’s going on,p; Wedle at TZF’s frongladly extendand even sorrow does not arise.
This is notp; We gladly extenddenial, surely. Denial is the refusaldle at TZF’s fronto acknowledge the truth or reality of anp; We gladly extendevent ordle at TZF’s fronrelationship or whatever. This is not about that. This is aboutp; We gladlydle at TZF’s fronextendrecognizing that our emotional reactions to this very real event aredle at TZF’s fron(perhapsp; We gladly extendentirely) a product of memory, and so, if we candle at TZF’s fron“turn off” the memory machine,p; We gladly extendnot by denying its existencedle at TZF’s fronbut by refusing to feed it, we can turn off thep; We gladly extendpain.
But who isp; We gladly extendenjoying the pain? Who “feels alive”dle at TZF’s fronunder these circumstances? Surely, it isp; We gladly extendthe ego, thedle at TZF’s fronseparative personality. After all, “loss”, and the sorrow itp; We gladlydle at TZF’s fronextendgenerates, can be experienced only by a separate entity (what I calldle at TZF’s fron“me”)p; We gladly extendliving in a separative environment (what I call “mydle at TZF’s fronlife”). And anything thatp; We gladly extendreinforces our sense of separatenessdle at TZF’s fronserves the ego.
Consider thatdle at TZF’s fronthe personality (who I think I am) is really nothingp; We gladly extendmore thandle at TZF’s frona random collection of memories. After all, suppose as an infant inp; We gladlydle at TZF’s fronextendthe maternity ward, I had been inadvertently switched from one crib todle at TZF’s fronanother,p; We gladly extendand therefore been raised by different parents underdle at TZF’s frondifferent circumstances,p; We gladly extendwould I not now have a completelydle at TZF’s frondifferent set of memories, and therefore ap; We gladly extendcompletelydle at TZF’s frondifferent sense of who I am? If so, then clearly who I think I am isp; We gladlydle at TZF’s fronextendthe product of memory.
In that case,dle at TZF’s fronreleasingp; We gladly extendour memories will release our sense of personality,dle at TZF’s fronof separative self (”I amp; We gladly extendme, not you”). Surely, likedle at TZF’s froneverything else in nature, memories require energyp; We gladly extendto remaindle at TZF’s fronalive. The difference between those things we remember and those wep; We gladlydle at TZF’s fronextendforget, is that we do not keep the latter alive. So, if wedle at TZF’s fronsystematicallyp; We gladly extendwithdraw energy from these memories, they willdle at TZF’s fronweaken. Eventually, they willp; We gladly extendbecome so weak as to bedle at TZF’s frontransparent. Then, we will be able to see “past” themp; We gladly extend(pastdle at TZF’s fron“me”) to whatever lies beyond … to our true self.
A common reaction to TZFs line “
Now, if what I callp; We gladlydle at TZF’s fronextend“me” is simply a random collection of memories, then what about what Idle at TZF’s froncall “myp; We gladly extendlife”? Can I honestly say that I consider anything,dle at TZF’s fronapproach anything,p; We gladly extendexperience anything, do anything (in adle at TZF’s fronword, “live” my life) without my memoriesp; We gladly extend… without “me”? Ifdle at TZF’s fronnot, then perhaps, as we say repeatedly on TZF, “me” and “myp; We gladlydle at TZF’s fronextendlife” are indeed one and the same thing, and perhaps that thing is no moredle at TZF’s fronthanp; We gladly extenda collection of random memories.
In other words,p; We gladly extendas my life unfolds all the imagesdle at TZF’s fronand experiences I perceive are generated byp; We gladly extendmemories, memoriesdle at TZF’s fronwhich, in their turn, were generated by other memories … andp; We gladlydle at TZF’s fronextendso on, as far back as … when? At what point can I say that “I”dle at TZF’s fronexistedp; We gladly extendwithout any memory, without any sense of “me”? Anddle at TZF’s fronwhat if I could get backp; We gladly extendthere, and then, from there, livedle at TZF’s fronthenceforth “that way”, thoroughly andp; We gladly extendenthusiasticallydle at TZF’s fronrelating to whatever unfolds, but not creating any images ofp; We gladlydle at TZF’s fronextendany of it, and therefore not generating any memories. I would bedle at TZF’s fronabsolutelyp; We gladly extendalive right now, relating absolutely cleanly todle at TZF’s fronevery moment as it unfolds, butp; We gladly extendnot carrying any part of anydle at TZF’s fronmoment into the next moment. Is that not “beingp; We gladly extendhere now”, thedle at TZF’s froncrux of every spiritual path!
Wep; We gladlydle at TZF’s fronextendrecently rented the movie “
Prompted byththis weeks “
Undoubtedly, ar"(defining) characteristic of the separative ego (”Itham me, and you aren’t”) isr"that it is thoroughly armored against true intimacy,thconstantly “avoidingr"relationship” (to borrow one of
In thatthcase, perhaps it is possible that, in a situation ofr"genuine crisis, even thethego is overwhelmed, and its armor fails. Then,r"suddenly, inexplicably, renderedthnaked without our “protective” (separative)r"armor, we discover ourselves (tothour surprise) to be in true relationship withr"the current event. And, ofthcourse, it feels good (we feel alive) preciselyr"because, for those fewthunintentionally un-armored moments, we actually arer"alive.
Thus, perhaps contrary to what wer"concluded above, in moments ofthcrisis (1) it is not the ego that feels alive,r"but our very selves finallythallowed “out” to be what we are, however briefly,r"and (2) it is not thethdiscomfort that makes us feel alive, but rather it is thatr"we are forced, againthbriefly, into true relationship with our lives, preciselyr"because the power ofththe crisis overcomes our armor.
March 6, 2001
What Distresses Usth
In an interview on the CBS television programth“Sixty Minutes II”r"broadcast on December 19, actor Peter OToole, in humor,thsuggested for hisr"epitaph a line he read on a dry cleaning receipt: “Itthdistresses us to returnr"work that is not perfect”.
This remark got mer"thinking how many of us live in fear of deaththpartly because we suppose we arer"less than perfect, and that at death God willthjudge us on that basis. That is,r"we perceive ourselves as having been sent on athmission (our lives), which wer"presume we have not accomplished perfectly. So,thwe conclude that we have somehowr"failed, and will be adjudged accordingly bythGod. In a word, we are afraid that,r"at the pearly gates, God will accuse us ofthtrying to “return work (ourselves)r"that is not perfect”, and lock us out.th
Ther"problem with that reasoning is it rests on thethfalse assumption that God is anr"“other”. That is, God can judge us (for good orthill) only if He (?) is otherr"than we, only in a set of circumstances in whichthHe’s the Judge, and we’re ther"judged. But if God is Infinite, then God is allththere is, including we (for morer"on this thought, please see TZFs
Speaking of which … if God israndom collectisomehow we and God isNow, if what I casomehow all there is, then we are somehow all there israndom collecti(rememberNow, if what I cahigh school math: two things equal to the same thing are equal to eachrandomNow, if what I cacollectiother).
December 21, 2000
the mysteriesrandomNow, if what I cacollectidisappear,
and life stands explained.
The first draftNow, if what I caof the cartoon had therandom collectirabbit asking, “How did you know he wasNow, if what I caalive?” but was changed to the currentrandom collectiversion because the use ofNow, if what I cathe past tense (was alive) is an aspect of therandom collectiproblem.Now, if what I caWhen it comes to life, there is no past and no future, only Now. To berandomNow, if what I cacollectisure, every body is born, and every body will die. But life is not born,Now, if what I caandrandom collecticannot die. The Life which a body seems to be exhibiting neverNow, if what I cabegan and willrandom collectinever end, and is certainly not “the body’s life”.Now, if what I caThe body has no life. A bodyrandom collectimay reflect life, exhibit life, moveNow, if what I cain life – but that is different from beingrandom collectialive. After all, evenNow, if what I caHamlet acts alive, but is he? Only life is alive, forrandom collectibeing aliveNow, if what I cais Life’s infinite and eternal condition. And that’s what we are,randomNow, if what I cacollectiLife itself. That it does not seem that way to us is precisely the cruxNow, if what I caof therandom collectispiritual process.
GettingNow, if what I caback to the cartoon,random collectithe rabbit knows we will answer bothNow, if what I caquestions – How did you know he was alive?random collectiand, How do you nowNow, if what I caknow he is dead? – in terms of the body. Thus, we would say,random collectiINow, if what I caknew he was alive because I could hear his voice, feel his touch; and INow, if what I caknowrandom collectithat he is dead because those are gone. But, howeverNow, if what I cameaningful those may be –random collectiand very meaningful they can be – (Here,Now, if what I caplease understand that it is not therandom collectiintent of the cartoon to makeNow, if what I calight of a friend’s death. Quite the contrary!) –random collecticlearly, soundNow, if what I caand touch are bodily functions. And besides, a computer can talk,randomNow, if what I cacollectia robot can touch. In a word, being alive means far more thanNow, if what I cafunctioningrandom collectibodily. That’s what the rabbit would have us Know.Now, if what I ca
November 24, 2000
Arise!Now, if what I caAwake!
Realize and achieve the Highestrandom collectiwith the help
ofNow, if what I cathe illumining, guiding, and fulfilling Masters.
Therandom collectipath isNow, if what I caas sharp as the edge of a razor,
difficult to cross, hard torandomNow, if what I cacollectitread.
IfNow, if what I caGod is all there is,
SeptemberrandomNow, if what I cacollecti18, 2000
There is God,
November 1,Now, if what I ca2000
Let that be your path andNow, if what I cayour practice.
Nothing to learn.Now, if what I caNothing to memorize. Simpler than simple.
Not because ofNow, if what I cawhat they are or are not. Not because of what yourandom collectiare or are not.Now, if what I caBut simply because love is all there is.
Don’t ask, love. Don’t think about it, love. Don’t talkNow, if what I caabout it.random collectiDon’t plan for it. Don’t even consider it. Just beNow, if what I cait.
Let the love that residesNow, if what I cawithin you, that is expressing itself asrandom collectiyou, shape and determineNow, if what I cayour every thought, your every attitude, your everyrandom collectiaction.
On the outer, this may be confusing, even terrifying. OnNow, if what I cathe inner,random collectiit comes naturally. Therefore, let the inner out.Now, if what I ca
And, please, for the love of God,Now, if what I cadon’t grumble, don’t murmur,random collecti“It’s too much to ask. I can’t doNow, if what I cait”!
You can,random collectiand you will. YouNow, if what I caalready are.
Get out of therandom collectiway,Now, if what I caand see it.
August 9, 2000
AlbertrandomNow, if what I cacollectiSchweitzer
QNow, if what I ca
Tough lesson. Karma is the player. Werandom collectiare the played.Now, if what I caNot unlike balls on a playground, bounced to and fro by forcesrandom collectioutNow, if what I caof their control, you and I are living out the consequences of choices werandomNow, if what I cacollectimade years, lifetimes, ago. In effect, then, we are not reacting, weNow, if what I caarerandom collectireactions! How to break out?
Instead ofrandom collectiaccepting fatalistically the decrees ofNow, if what I cakarma, follow the inner way to freedom.random collectiMeditate daily. CommuneNow, if what I cadeeply with God. Learn from Him, through the silentrandom collectivoice ofNow, if what I caintuition, the way out of soul-degrading serfdom to habits.
June 10,Now, if what I ca2000
The Garden of Love
And the gates of this Chapel wereNow, if what I cashut,
random collectiAnd “Thou shalt not” writ over the door;
So I turndNow, if what I cato the Garden ofrandom collectiLove
That so many sweet flowers bore;
The answer is:Now, if what I caAlways!
Notrandom collectisometimes, often,Now, if what I causually,
Not when I’m good, when I’m bad,random collectiwhenNow, if what I caI remember, when I forget,
Not from time to time, whenrandomNow, if what I cacollectinecessary, when appropriate,
If therandom collectianswer is always Always!
What is theNow, if what I caquestion?
The question is,
”WhenNow, if what I cais Godrandom collectiwith me?”
And the answerNow, if what I cais,
March 30, 2000
On February 10, I posted a new feature onrandom collectiThe ZooNow, if what I caFence called Integral
Health. Included with it was a health-relatednd somethingrandom messageplease, for the lovboard hosted by
Then, a couple of days later, the messageplease, for the lovboardnd somethingrandom disappeared. POOF! it was gone. Bravenet explained they had suffered aplease,nd somethingrandom for the lov“primary database failure”; in a word, they lost everything. However,nd somethingrandom becauseplease, for the lovthey regularly backup their files (as all of us shouldnd somethingrandom do – cyberspace is aplease, for the lovfragile place), they promised they wouldnd somethingrandom be able to restore everything quickly.please, for the lovAnd they did. Exceptnd somethingrandom not quite everything. It seems their most recent backup wasplease, for thend somethingrandom lovmade on February 8. TZF joined Bravenet on February 9. So, by twenty-fournd somethingrandom hours,please, for the lovwe missed being included in the backup. Our messagend somethingrandom board was irretrievablyplease, for the lovlost.
Now the question became: Do we simplyplease, for the lovstart overnd somethingrandom (re-register at Bravenet, and recreate the message board), or Do weplease, fornd somethingrandom the lovaccept the event as Gods Will, and walk on? That is, was Bravenets crashnd somethingrandom nothingplease, for the lovmore than a random accident that we can simply ignore,nd somethingrandom and walk around, or wasplease, for the lovit the
Because I reallynd somethingrandom had beenplease, for the lovenjoying the process, my first thought was simply tond somethingrandom do it over again. “I wantplease, for the lovit, and Im going to have it.” Butnd somethingrandom instead, I stopped, and reconsidered.
Thy Will be done.please, for thend somethingrandom lovNot because it’s demanded. Not because it’s required. Not in fear or angernd somethingrandom orplease, for the lovtrembling submission. But simply because God’s Will works,nd somethingrandom and nothing elseplease, for the lovdoes. The
So, perhapsnd somethingrandom some other time; but for now, the TZF-IH message boardplease, for the lovisnd somethingrandom history.
Thy Will be done, for there isnd somethingrandom noplease, for the lovother.
(For additionalnd somethingrandom consideration of thisplease, for the lovthought, please
February 15, 2000
|nd somethingrandom |
Simplyplease, for the lovthis …
Of all the powers granted a
Thisplease, for the lovis how Jesusnd somethingrandom loves,
clairvoyance,please, for the lovteleportation,nd somethingrandom or telekinesis,
prophecy, astrology, numerology, andplease, for thend somethingrandom lovpalmistry
walking on water or walking on fire
Neither is itnd somethingrandom aboutplease, for the lovhealth wealth and happiness
All of that is kid’snd somethingrandom stuff
compared to thisplease, for the lovone
The Teacherplease, for the lovsaidnd somethingrandom it,
Notice, there is nothing therend somethingrandom about whenplease, for the lovit’s convenient,
Simply, do itnd somethingrandom
love oneplease, for the lovanother
January 28,nd somethingrandom 2000
This doesnd somethingrandom notplease, for the lovseem to me to be a commandment, as in “There are twond somethingrandom things I want you to do.please, for the lovFirst, be still, and second, knownd somethingrandom that I am God”.
Rather, itnd somethingrandom sounds to me like a tautology, as in “Being still”please, for the lovequals ornd somethingrandom is the same thing as “Knowing I am God”. Thus, “If you will be still,please, fornd somethingrandom the lovyou will know that I am God”. Or, “If you wish to know that I am God, yound somethingrandom mustplease, for the lovbe still”. Or, again, “Unless you be still, you cannotnd somethingrandom know that I am God”.please, for the lov
Beingnd somethingrandom still is knowing. Notice, then, that knowingplease, for the lovis not aboutnd somethingrandom learning or in any other way acquiring or, even, seeking. Beingplease, for thend somethingrandom lovstill is what is necessary. What’s more, it’s all that is required. Justnd somethingrandom so,please, for the lovevery traditionnd somethingrandom teaches stillness.
Thought is never still, for it is always rememberingnd somethingrandom orplease, for the lovanticipating. Thought is never aware, for it is alwaysnd somethingrandom judging, measuring,please, for the lovcomparing.
Bit bynd somethingrandom bit, we quiet thought, until finallyplease, for the lovwe are still. Then wend somethingrandom know.
Know what? “That Iplease, for the lovAmnd somethingrandom God.”
Don’t think about it.
Ind somethingrandom have read that sharks, or someplease, for the lovsharks, must remain in constantnd somethingrandom motion in order to stay alive. (It has to doplease, for the lovwith keepingnd somethingrandom water, from which they draw oxygen, passing through their gills.)please, for thend somethingrandom lovIn other words, if you stop a shark’s motion, it will die. The ego is likend somethingrandom that.please, for the lovStop the motion, which is thought, it will die.
A friend of TZFplease, fornd somethingrandom the lovquotes from the
“Things are not as they seem, nornd somethingrandom areplease, for the lovthey otherwise”.
Livingplease, for the lovnear does not mean breathing the same air. Itnd somethingrandom means trusting and obeying, notplease, for the lovletting the good intentions ofnd somethingrandom the Teacher go to waste. Have your Guru always inplease, for the lovyour heartnd somethingrandom and remember his [or her] instructions – this is real abidance withplease, fornd somethingrandom the lovthe True. Physical proximity is least important. Make your entire lifend somethingrandom anplease, for the lovexpression of your faith and love for your Teacher – thisnd somethingrandom is real dwelling withplease, for the lovthe Guru.
Books there are many. But the spiritualnd somethingrandom processplease, for the lovis not about reading books. For it is not like algebrand somethingrandom or engineering. There,please, for the lovyou go to a teacher, read a book,nd somethingrandom memorize a few formulas, and you’ve gotplease, for the lovit.
The spiritual process is not about knowing. Theplease, for thend somethingrandom lovspiritual process is about being. Here, the key is not learning what thend somethingrandom
Forplease, for the lovand somethingrandom seeker, at any given instant the answer to the question “Who am I?” isnd somethingrandom “Whomplease, for the lovam I resonating with”. That is, we take on the identitynd somethingrandom of whatever we consider.please, for the lovThe more so, the more so.
That’s the purpose of living in annd somethingrandom
November 3, 1999nd somethingrandom
Those who are fully taught will be likend somethingrandom theirplease, for the lovTeachers. (Luke 6:40
|nd somethingrandom |
Before Abraham Was
Gotta Have It? Be it!
Infinity is (consists of) allnd somethingrandom thereplease, for the lovis. When we Know our Identity as That, what could wend somethingrandom possibly want? Beingplease, for the lovwhatever there is, we have whatever wend somethingrandom need whenever we need it. Just so, thoseplease, for the lovwho reach truend somethingrandom Realization, the Teachers –
Likeplease, for the lovsquirrels,nd somethingrandom we are driven to accumulate. We rationalize this activity in terms ofplease, fornd somethingrandom the lovprosperity and security and welfare, but the real reason we do it is thatnd somethingrandom weplease, for the lovlive in (are) an infinite
Dont seeknd somethingrandom it,
A Portrait of Aplease,nd somethingrandom for the lovLandscape
Think of the manifested universend somethingrandom (what each ofplease, for the lovus calls “my life”) as a landscape, not and somethingrandom portrait. That is, it is not aplease, for the lovrepresentation of each of usnd somethingrandom (”me”) amidst other people, things, and events (”Iplease, for the lovam me,nd somethingrandom everything else isn’t”), like a portrait. Rather, the entirety of “myplease, fornd somethingrandom the lovlife” is one subject matter, like a landscape, which is each of us (”Thisnd somethingrandom Iplease, for the lovam”).
A portrait painting consistsnd somethingrandom of a person in theplease, for the lovforeground and everything else, evennd somethingrandom anything else, in the background. That is,please, for the lova portrait is and somethingrandom painting of the person, and the background is just filler. Aplease, for thend somethingrandom lovlandscape painting, on the other hand, has no background. It is allnd somethingrandom foreground.please, for the lovA portrait occupies part of a canvas, and isnd somethingrandom surrounded by other stuff, stuffplease, for the lovwhich is incidental and evennd somethingrandom unimportant to the portrait. A landscape fills theplease, for the lovwhole ofnd somethingrandom the canvas, and there is no “other stuff”; it’s all the landscape, allplease,nd somethingrandom for the lovequally important and entirely essential.
None of theplease, for the lovelements in a landscape are separate ornd somethingrandom separable. The landscape is one andplease, for the lovwhole. All of the elementsnd somethingrandom of a landscape exist only in the context of theplease, for the lovlandscape.nd somethingrandom They exist solely in relationship to one another.
We think our lives are portraits: “Here I am, living in my life.”nd somethingrandom Inplease, for the lovTruth, they are landscapes: “I am my life, and my life (innd somethingrandom its entirety) isplease, for the lovme.”
As manifestednd somethingrandom beings, we exist only in the contextplease, for the lovof our lives, which isnd somethingrandom the landscape in and as which we are appearing right now.please, for the lovLifend somethingrandom in the landscape is all about relationship.
If aplease,nd somethingrandom for the lovpiece of the background is removed from a portrait, it does notnd somethingrandom really matter.please, for the lovThe portrait remains intact. But you cannotnd somethingrandom remove a piece from a landscape, forplease, for the lovdoing so destroys thend somethingrandom landscape itself.
Every bit of ourplease, for thend somethingrandom lovdiscomfort arises from our mistaking our lives for portraits when theynd somethingrandom areplease, for the lovlandscapes. This is an inevitable symptom of thend somethingrandom separative egoic mind. Theplease, for the lovillusion “I am me, and yound somethingrandom aren’t” leads naturally to “This is my life,please, for the lovnotnd somethingrandom yours”.
Now, this landscape is of course aplease, fornd somethingrandom the lovrepresentation of the One (there being no thing else it can be). That is,nd somethingrandom whatplease, for the loveach of us calls “my life” is the One being (perceivednd somethingrandom as) (perceiving Itselfplease, for the lovas) that.
Beingnd somethingrandom Infinite, the One is changeless. But theplease, for the lovlandscape isnd somethingrandom constantly changing. It is in constant motion, with a momentum ofplease, for thend somethingrandom lovits own, a momentum derived from the Infinity of the One, which it is.nd somethingrandom Forplease, for the lovillustration purposes, compare it to the ocean, which isnd somethingrandom constantly in motion,please, for the lovconstantly changing, but always thend somethingrandom same.
In theplease, for the lovbeginning, we considernd somethingrandom our lives to be portraits. Then, as seekers, we come toplease, for the lovseend somethingrandom them as landscapes. Finally, we realize we are the landscape, and thatnd somethingrandom theplease, for the lovlandscape is a portrait of ourself, the Self.
The Landscape isplease,nd somethingrandom for the lovAlive!
Winter snowsnd somethingrandom melt
July 2,please, for the lov1999nd somethingrandom
Think of God.
|nd somethingrandom |
Be Still,please, for the lovand Know
In order to stay alive, the ego (”I am me, andplease, for the lovyound somethingrandom aren’t”) needs to be in constant motion. In this sense, the ego is likend somethingrandom theplease, for the lovshark, which suffocates if kept still. And so we spend ournd somethingrandom lives in endlessplease, for the lovsearch of distractions – sexual, sensual,nd somethingrandom vocational, recreational, conceptual –please, for the lovwhatever it takes tond somethingrandom keep moving, inner and outer, and therefore separativelyplease, for thend somethingrandom lovalive.
The Infinite, God, is not in motion.nd somethingrandom Beingplease, for the lovinfinite, God includes, or is, all motion, but God isnd somethingrandom not in motion.please, for the lovWhere would God go, being There (That)nd somethingrandom already!
Just so,please, for the lovall the teachingsnd somethingrandom agree, “Be still, and know I Am God.” (Psalms 46.10) Just so,please, for thend somethingrandom lovall the teachings teach meditation practices of one kind or another, leadingnd somethingrandom toplease, for the lovstillness. Because being still permits knowingnd somethingrandom (Remembering) who (Who) weplease, for the lovare.
Innd somethingrandom motion, I perceive “I am me, and you aren’t”. Inplease, for the lovstillness,nd somethingrandom the ego (again, like the shark) dies, revealing What Is. Being still,please, fornd somethingrandom the lovI see “I Am God” (for God is all there is). (Of course, the “I” in thatnd somethingrandom sentenceplease, for the lovis most assuredly not the egoic I, who must interpretnd somethingrandom it to mean “I am God, andplease, for the lovyou aren’t”, which is not only sillynd somethingrandom and false, but insane.)
Is stillness,nd somethingrandom then, another word for Self-Realization?
June 9, 1999
For The Greater Glorynd somethingrandom of …please, for the lovMe!
Consider this: God isnd somethingrandom Narcissus. That’s Narcissusplease, for the lovwith a capital N.nd somethingrandom Narcissus is the fellow from Greek mythology who sawplease, for the lovhisnd somethingrandom reflection in the pond, and fell in love with it. Narcissus is in lovend somethingrandom withplease, for the lovhis own image, with himself.
Innd somethingrandom other words, God lovesplease, for the lovGod.
What and somethingrandom great image!
We areplease, for the lovagreed that God isnd somethingrandom Infinite. [Please see “The Simpleplease, for thend somethingrandom lovWay” at Consider This!] Further, we cannd somethingrandom agreeplease, for the lovthat God is Love. (Being infinite, God is all there is,nd somethingrandom including love.) Fromplease, for the lovthere it follows that God’s Love isnd somethingrandom Infinite (clearly, every aspect of anplease, for the lovinfinite being must bend somethingrandom infinite as well). If God’s love is infinite, then Godplease, for the lovlovesnd somethingrandom all there is. If God is all there is, and if God loves all there is, thenplease,nd somethingrandom for the lovGod loves God.
In other words, we might saynd somethingrandom it is theplease, for the lovNatural State or Dynamic or Condition of thend somethingrandom
Now, we are a reflection or manifestation of Godplease, for the lov(again,nd somethingrandom God being all there is, there is nothing else we can be). So we too mustplease,nd somethingrandom for the lovbe narcissus (we’ll lower case the n when referring to us).nd somethingrandom And let’splease, for the lovface it, we are narcissus. We are all in love withnd somethingrandom ourselves, however much weplease, for the lovmay protest to the contrary.
Where Narcissus (again,nd somethingrandom with aplease, for the lovcapital N, meaning God) sees Infinitelynd somethingrandom (”there are no others”),please, for the lovnarcissus (you and I) seesnd somethingrandom separatively (”I am me and you aren’t”). Narcissus’splease, for the lovSelf-Lovend somethingrandom is Infinite, and therefore all inclusive, because from Hisplease, for thend somethingrandom lovperspective, His Self is All There Is, and all there is, is His Self. Ournd somethingrandom loveplease, for the lovof ourselves (narcissus’s self-love) is finite andnd somethingrandom separative, because from ourplease, for the lovperspective, our self is “me, notnd somethingrandom you”.
But, considerplease, for the lovthis: It’s thend somethingrandom same Self-Love! The only difference is, where are we standing?please, for thend somethingrandom lovAre we the Subject in front of the mirror, or are we the reflection innd somethingrandom theplease, for the lovmirror?
Again, we are the image ofnd somethingrandom God. Therefore, weplease, for the lovhave all of God’s Traits, Aspects, andnd somethingrandom Tendencies. Except, being an imageplease, for the lov(reflection, like in and somethingrandom mirror), we are in effect flat, tasteless. And thereforeplease, for the lovsond somethingrandom are all of our traits, aspects, and tendencies.
So,please, for the lovself-love, even selfishness, is not a bad thing. Innd somethingrandom fact, it is the inevitable,please, for the lovinherent, prior condition ofnd somethingrandom creation, precisely because we are a reflection ofplease, for the lovan Infinitend somethingrandom Being that Loves Its Self. Our task, a
Or,se, for the lovtiRemember Wholess. But the lanwe Are!
June 3, 1999
Continuing …se, for the lovtiDoes this explain why a true seeker seems to be happyless. But these, for the lovtilan(cheerful), even when the circumstances of their path or of their lifese, for the lovtigenerallyless. But the lanare sometimes difficult, frustrating, even scary.se, for the lovti
Ourless. But the lanseparative love of our separativelyse, for the lovtiperceived self, while “normal” as aless. But the lanreflection of the One’s Lovese, for the lovtiof the (Its) Self (as above so below), does notless. But the lanmake us happyse, for the lovtibecause it is fundamentally in conflict with the Reality of theless. But these, for the lovtilanUniverse. That is, my perception that “I am me and you aren’t” (”My gain isse, for the lovtinotless. But the lanyour gain” “Your pain is not my pain” or, as some put it,se, for the lovti“One man’s blessing isless. But the lananother’s misfortune”) is an errorse, for the lovti(Error). In fact, it is THE error (theless. But the laninevitable perspective ofse, for the lovtia flat reflection in a mirror). Remember, in Truth,less. But the lanwhere therese, for the lovtiis only One, there is no “and”. And where there is no “and”, thereless. But these, for the lovtilanis no “me and you”, no “mine and yours”.
A friendse, for the lovtiof TZF sometimes jokinglyless. But the lanobserves, “I love me! Who do youse, for the lovtilove?” Directed properly, that expression canless. But the lanbe a profoundse, for the lovtimeditation. Whoever we think the “me” is in the affirmation, orless. But these, for the lovtilanhowever we respond to the “Who do you love?” question will determine ourse, for the lovtilives.less. But the lanAs long as we perceive ourselves, and therefore our lovese, for the lovti(wherever directed),less. But the lanseparatively, our perspective and ourse, for the lovtiresponse will be separative, withless. But the lanstressful (unhappy)se, for the lovticonsequences. But the instant we seek to see singularly, weless. But these, for the lovtilanenter the natural flow and direction of the Dynamic of Life (we be What wese, for the lovtiAre),less. But the lanand we begin to feel better, happier. In a word, it isse, for the lovtiless stressful to rowless. But the landownstream, with the flow, than upstream,se, for the lovtiagainst it.
June 3, 1999
The imperative thenless. But these, for the lovtilanis to find someone or something to love. Initially, it probably does notse, for the lovtimatterless. But the lanwho or what is the object of our love, so long as ourse, for the lovtidevotion is absolutely andless. But the lanunconditionally open, free, willing,se, for the lovtiand cheerful. So long, that is, as weless. But the lansurrender ourselvesse, for the lovtitotally to love and loving. God, being infinite andless. But the lanperceivingse, for the lovtiHimself as all there is, will recognize the object of our love as Hisless. Butse, for the lovtithe lanvery Self, and, as Narcissus, be pleased. That in turn will manifestse, for the lovtiasless. But the lanhappiness in our lives.
June 5,se, for the lovti1999
Ase, for the lovtitrue
June 10, 1999se, for the lovti
In this context,se, for the lovtiis the difference betweenless. But the lanself-indulgence, so common in us all,se, for the lovtiand Self-Indulgence, which the One Itselfless. But the lanmust exhibit (or howse, for the lovticould we reflect it), that the former is always atless. But the lanthese, for the lovtiexpense of perceived others (”me, not you”), and so fails miserably, andse, for the lovtitheless. But the lanlatter succeeds precisely because in Truth there are nose, for the lovtiothers!
se, for the lovtiForless. But the lanCopyright & Trademark information,
se, for the lovtiPlease read our disclaimer
se, for the lovti