Click here to go to the next issue.

10/29/01 Monday


*********************

Nowhere to go but the heart - Rumi
[from: sunlight@onelist.com]

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


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

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


BENOIT



Greetings

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

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

For a satori aficionado, satsang savvy person, it could be quite your cup of
tea.

~~~~~~~
Can you give a capsule summary of the movie?

Also, K-PAX might be interesting too.

--Greg

~~~~~~

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

It's up at thInternet Movie Database;

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


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

That alone.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Yes.

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

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

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

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

I thought you were Dogen :-)

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


>
> > >
> > > Sometimes it's fun to speak of 'beyond'
> > > but come on, who're ya foolin'?
> > > This is it folks.
>
>
> > What is it? What "this" are you
> > talking about? The concept of
> > time isn't "this" ...
>
> Time is this. The quick, alive, changing :)
> worldself is this.

So, the unquick and unalive
is something else?


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

O.K.

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

Yes. No alternative
equals "compared with what?"

-- Dan


ANDREW


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

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


DAN

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

Exactly.

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

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

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

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

Who wants to go into "this" really?

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

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

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

or does it
> become incomprehensible to an ordinary reader;

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

only
> understood by an
> in crowd,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Sigh) :-)

-- Dan

top of page