Grace

[Guest guest]

Thank you Robert,

we are all stunned into silence when we see the beautiful one.

love

eric

Long interview, but well worth:

An interview with Éric Baret

Montreal, September 20, 1999

Having experienced moments of clarity, people then look for a way to

remain permanently established in the state of awareness, only to

find that it is impossible. In their search, they read sacred texts,

go to meet wise men, study for many years with a great guru,

meditate, do pranayama, yoga, change their diet, their habits, etc.

But my experience and that of my friends has clearly shown that

despite all this, one quickly reaches a point of saturation and seems

to stagnate for years, even decades. It seems as if the thirst has

not been quenched. As if something essential has been overlooked:

could it be what is known as "grace"? What is grace, where does it

come from and how does it operate? >>>>>>>>>>>>

[Guest guest]

Long interview, but well worth:

 

 

An interview with Éric Baret

Montreal, September 20, 1999

 

Having experienced moments of clarity, people then look for a way to

remain permanently established in the state of awareness, only to

find that it is impossible. In their search, they read sacred texts,

go to meet wise men, study for many years with a great guru,

meditate, do pranayama, yoga, change their diet, their habits, etc.

But my experience and that of my friends has clearly shown that

despite all this, one quickly reaches a point of saturation and seems

to stagnate for years, even decades. It seems as if the thirst has

not been quenched. As if something essential has been overlooked:

could it be what is known as "grace"? What is grace, where does it

come from and how does it operate?

 

There are many parts to this question. Let's first answer the last

part. If we can talk about it, if we can understand it, and if it

comes from somewhere, we cannot call it grace. Grace, according to

the traditional approach, cannot be observed objectively. It arises

of itself, from itself and it cannot come from anywhere but the

heart. It is not dependent on activity nor can it be comprehended by

the limited human mind. Nothing more can be said about it than that.

To come back to the beginning of the question, it is a good

observation that first there is an insight and then there is a

sadhana. The insight does not consist of seeing our true nature, for

this is impossible, "being" can never be experienced; the insight is

of what we are not. We see our mechanisms, our arrogance, our fears,

our limitations, very clearly without experiencing any desire to

change them. Facing these facts is an act of humility. Seeing

clearly — what we are not — is what, in the East, is referred to as

insight of what we are. It is important this be clear, because most

people fantasize, think or visualize an insight of what they are,

rather than an insight of what they are not.

Sadhana was never intended, at least according to the Kashmir Shaiva

Tradition, to bring you back anywhere, because what has come without

any cause, without any sadhana, is without cause. The first insight

came unwanted or unasked for and nothing can make it come back. The

whole process is determined by life. Sadhana is seen in the Kashmir

Tradition as an expression of this insight, not as a way to come back

to it. Otherwise it is yoga, in the dynamic sense, which is the core

of a senseless idea that more can be created from less, a democratic

fantasy. Sadhana is the art of expressing silence in everyday

activities, that is to say expressing this evidence on the level of

body and mind. That is why all the arts in the East are seen as

sadhana: dancing, poetry, the art of war, the art of love. In India,

music is sadhana for a musician; for a servant activity is sadhana;

for a widow life without her husband is sadhana. All expressions of

life can be seen as sadhana, can be seen to express this conviction

that life is not about doing, acquiring or getting something.

There was a moment of availability in which this was clearly evident.

The awakening of energy and such things are an expession of

consciousness on the mind and body level. The phenominal plane cannot

attain consciousness, but it can be enlightened by it: you can

realize that your body and mind don't exist on the same level as your

understanding, as your convictions. You see how much aggression, fear

and desire fill the whole body structure and the mind with

strategies. Then you knowingly tune your body-mind to reflecting this

insight, this openness, to discovering the space within you.

Again, the technical part is not to create this openness — but to

realize that we are not open. You can only feel how tense your body

is, and silently observe it. In this silence, the body tensions are

released and return to stillness. You realize how much you use the

mind to express your will, and how much it is engaged in fears and

strategies. You quietly observe it. Nobody asks you to like it or

dislike it, to think that you should be different. You live with the

facts: I am arrogant, pretentious, all this resonates within me now.

I no longer aim at being different tomorrow. I lucidly recognize my

limitations. In that very moment, when you see your limitations

clearly, they can slowly dissolve into openness.

You cannot deliberately progress towards an open state, you can only

see clearly that you are in a blocked state. So, you let your body-

mind slowly become more open to your conviction that you can attain

nothing. That you are going to die in total stupidity. You may die in

the very next moment, so there is no time to reach anything, to

achieve anything. In sadhana you live with the feeling that you are

going to die the very next minute; thus, you no longer make

strategies and you just do things for the sake of doing them. If you

think that you will die within two minutes, what do you do? Nothing.

You don't call anybody, you don't think of anything, you just totally

enjoy seeing, feeling, smelling, listening to the last seconds of

your life, the beauty of life.

Sadhana is this feeling. You sit for the joy of sitting, you do yoga

for the joy of doing yoga, you sing for the joy of singing. There is

no time and life is too beautiful and goes too fast to have time to

achieve anything. The slightest intention, like doing yoga because

tomorrow you are going to get better, will not work: you may die

before tomorrow. You go to satsang because it resonates in you now.

You do yoga because grace calls you to do it; you take aim with your

bow, you sing, but never with the feeling that you can reach

anything. You do everything for the shear beauty of it. Your life

becomes your sadhana. Situations are only what we project them to be.

Each possesses its own beauty when we don't ask it to be anything

other than what it is. You become imminently practical, without any

goal, or intention. That is the message of the Gita, when Krishna

asked Arjuna to do what needed to be done and to put aside his likes

and dislikes. It is of no psychological consequence that his master

and parents are to be fought on the battlefield of Kurukshetra. So

Arjuna does it because it has to be done. There is no future, no

intention; he is just acting functionally. That is the meaning of

sadhana from the traditional, non-dual point of view.

It seems that such grace often happens to people who never actively

look for it. Are there some people more qualified than others to

receive grace or does it just happen at random to poor unsuspecting

people?

If it seems to fall at random on people, it is because we don't

observe closely. People who live according to grace may seem to have

lived a very simple life, but I think it is their humility or our

lack of clarity that makes it seem like that.

It is our lack of clarity that prevents us from seeing that people we

imagine to be entitled to grace because they make huge efforts in

sadhana, are in fact totally caught up in the becoming process. They

live in a state of constant tension, in wanting to become something,

wanting to be free. In wanting, there is no room for anything.

Wanting to be free, wanting to be rich, to be beautiful, to have a

red car, all amount to exactly the same thing. There simply is no

room for anything in wanting. The few people who have been audacious

enough to describe the descent of grace have all said that at that

moment they were just silent and quiet.

Jean Klein said that he watched a bird on the Marina Drive in Bombay.

Virgil realized that there was no rush to do anything. It only

strikes in a moment of not knowing, not asserting; it can never

strike in a moment of expectation, where there is waiting or a desire

to attain something. Anybody seeking grace can only come to see his

limitations. For those who are humble enough to recognize how

undeserving they are of grace, who feel their inability to stop the

dynamics that motivate them, who realize they are totally unworthy of

grace because they constantly live in a state of expectation, this

clear vision is itself grace. Nothing happens. When I believe that

because I do yoga, because I meditate, or do this or that, I should

come to grace, then it is extremely pretentious on my part. It is

very clear that grace does not result from activity. Of course, in a

profound sense everything is grace: looking for grace and looking for

money is carried by grace itself. It is what we need. We should not

change our lives: if one wants to do yoga, if one wants to earn

money, one should go ahead. We just need to see that our motivations

come from our lack of clarity. At some point we simply no longer

expect anything from activity. We simply do for the sake of doing.

Grace is nothing other than this becoming totally obvious. It is not

seeing a white elephant or the full form of Vishnu; it is seeing how

pretentious we are. There can never be anything else but that, that

is the ultimate seeing. Wanting to see God is a fantasy.

Then what point is there in making any effort? Even if we have no

goal, we will move in some direction or another, and we may call

this " effort ". Does it make any difference whether we just hang out

with friends and watch TV, or attempt to become satvic, live in a

very pure environment and read sacred texts? Is there any difference

in the end?

Only for the one who projects. All values are only our values.

Maharaja (Nisargadatta) lived in very tamasic surroundings, ate meat,

and he lived in freedom. Some people live in an ashram and are very

pure, but they live in fear and expectation. So things have no value.

For someone living next door to a musician, playing the piano for an

hour everyday day is an effort, but for the musician it is not an

effort. If it is an effort, he is not a musician. Someone who does

yoga and knows that he is doing yoga, is not doing yoga; for in yoga

there is no room for knowledge, it is only feeling. If you are making

an effort, if it is an effort to meditate, then it is total nonsense.

At some point, the effort is to watch TV, not to meditate. Things

come naturally. Some foods attract you more than others, some friends

attract you more than others, some music more than others, some

spaces more than others: it is totally functional and none is better

then the other. For many people the battlefield could be a place of

grace, where they realize their fear and what they really are made

of. For some others, this place is meditation. Grace is to be found

where volition, and pretense end. When we think we are making an

effort, when we claim we are doing something, there is no room for

grace. Realize that there is no doer. It is not for me to choose to

do yoga or not. I just witness it. If I do yoga, I do yoga; if I

don't do yoga, I don't do yoga. How can I change my life? I can not

change anything. I am a witness to the fact that I am drawn to live

in the Himalayas, that I am drawn to live in a hotel, in a ballroom.

To think that one is better than an other makes absolutely no sense.

They are just different life styles. We all need different encounters

so as to mature. In order to mature, some people need to meditate,

whereas others need to do drugs or to go at war.

We are not entitled to grace because of our pretense that we are the

doer. There is no doer but the Lord Himself. When I see that I am

nothing: there is only the Lord. Then grace can be said to be

forefelt. To believe that I should be somewhere other than in a

concentration camp is wishful thinking, a judgement. For Jacques

Lusseyran, Auschwitz was his grace. For some people, yoga is a grace,

but for most people it is pure delusion. For most people doing

sadhana is an illusion; it brings sorrow and leaves them

dissatisfied. It will not bring them anything, especially if they

expect something from it. They end up saying that they didn't get

what they wanted. That is their problem. If I believe I need to do

this, or that, or to read sacred texts, I'm in for big trouble, I'm

in for feeling lonely, separate, because I am looking for myself

where I am not. Of course I feel unloved, misunderstood, experience

difficulties. When I come back to myself, I realize I was looking in

the wrong direction, I was trying to find myself in my body-mind. I

acknowledge this lack of understanding. I accept it lucidly; I cannot

think otherwise. What remains is resonance: I'm present. I'm not

present to something, I'm simply present. I find happiness here, once

I no longer believe it is somewhere else. Thinking that I must do

this or do that is simply a story. If I have to move one millimeter,

it is of no interest to me. What I want is none other than what I

have. If I look deep inside myself, I don't have to make a single

movement. Anything that I can find outside myself, I may loose. I go

nowhere, I stay where I am. If I'm in jail I stay in jail, if I'm in

an ashram I stay in an ashram, if I'm at home I stay at home. Out

there, there is nothing waiting for me. To think that there is

anything other than what is here right now is a total fantasy and it

prevents grace from being felt.

Sometimes people decide that they are going to meditate at such and

such time, for a set amount of time. What is the value of meditation

as a deliberate practice?

Its only value is to create a sense of separateness from what is

not "meditation". It cuts one off from life. There cannot be any

intent in meditation. Meditation calls to you, you don't call it. It

is like asking something of a teacher: it is an insult to the

teacher. The teacher tells you what he needs to tell you: you just

keep your mouth shut and listen. You don't ask him anything. If you

ask him, there is no room for an answer, because you are full of

expectations. When with a teacher, you just listen; you ask nothing.

In the absence of asking, in the absence of grabbing, there is space

for the teaching to be expanded upon. Of course the teacher we talk

about can be called "life" too. Meditation calls to you at certain

moments of the day. You have completed one activity and you are not

yet engaged in another one: you sit quietly, or you lie down quietly,

or you stand on your head quietly. You just face what is here now.

Immediately your body becomes the obvious object of observation.

First, you encounter the gross elements: fear, anxiety, heaviness,

tension. These dissolve rapidly into vibration, into light, into

heat. What remains is a feeling of space, of vibrating light, and it

resonates in your silence, in your presence. You are happy, you have

no needs, you have no future. Meditation calls to you.

But to meditate has meaning only if you have the same attitude

towards it as you have towards going to the toilet in the morning.

You don't do it to get enlightened. You do it because it is natural,

like when you wake up, you go to the toilet, you brush your teeth,

you take some water in your mouth, you chew it, and you spit it out.

It is totally normal. You have nothing to do at four in the morning.

If like most people you have neighbours you cannot make any noise. If

you are sane of mind, you don't turn on an artificial light; for this

would be an insult to beauty. You don't want to burn down your house

with a candle, therefore you don't light one, therefore you cannot

read. Nor will you put on any music because the neighbours are

psychopathic. Your dog is still sleeping, your wife lives with the

fantasy of having a husband. You have time on your hands. What can

you do? Nothing! So, you remain still.

The normal position for a happy body is the sitting position, so you

sit. You don't meditate, you just don't do anything. The moment the

thought "I meditate" comes, it is pure fantasy. Why do you stay

there, why don't you do something else? It all comes back to exactly

the same thing. You never meditate; you are just receptive to

whatever presents itself, to the body feeling. There is nothing to

think about. You are brought back to this resonance, to this

openness. You will feel the sun rising in your openness, and then you

go on with your life. But meditating every morning and knowing that

you are meditating is like trying to be humble for half an hour. Jean

[Klein] used to say that meditating is like somebody who does not

want to take a train. If you don't want to take the train, you don't

have to do anything about it. You just don't take the train! If your

life is such that you live in a peaceful country free from war, if

you live alone, if your dog is dead, then in the morning you find

yourself regularly going to the toilet, brushing your teeth and

sitting: it is just a matter of being practical. After that, some

people will do some exercises — life is movement — called yoga. But

to think that at six o'clock I must meditate is just like thinking

that at six o'clock I must not take the train. There is nothing to be

done about it. In a certain sense it may even cut us off from real

meditation, that is to say those moments in life when silence beckons

to us.

It reminds me of a friend of mine who became a famous guru. Another

friend went to see him and told me: "I feel that he has reached some

silence but that silence hasn't reached him..." I thought this was a

particularly bright comment about this "realized" friend. If you

meditate with a purpose, at a certain time, you may reach silence,

but silence will never reach you. True meditation envelops you in

silence. It can happen at any time, when you are making love,

drinking, watching TV. So when you feel silence enveloping you, there

is no more TV for you, there is nothing else, just silence. So, you

give yourself to this silence more and more often. If it happens in

the morning, it is beautiful. When our lives are in harmony, we wake

up from deep sleep, not from the dream state. Normally, in the

morning, there is a kind of humility left over from deep sleep, a

call to remain still. You can call it meditation; in the Kashmir

Tradition, they just call it living in a natural way. But if one goes

into the dream state after deep sleep, of course meditation has to

come as a decision, because in the dream state we are already in the

becoming process. Living harmoniously you go from deep sleep to

meditation or the waking state. So, in a certain way you acknowledge

the waking state, the light, the physical world, from the point of

view of deep sleep, from the point of view of silence.

The duration of meditation is irrelevant. You cannot "meditate for

one hour" nor for one second. But the body lives according to certain

rhythms. If one has the chance to eat regularly, to sit regularly, to

sleep at the same time each day, in a certain way it may become more

easily evident to you that meditation does not depend on a sitting

position. But very few people are lucky enough to always eat at the

same time and sleep at the same time. So, for a yogi to sit at two in

the morning is not a practice, it is just what happens. There is

nothing to it. When you become old and weak, you wake up later;

nothing is lacking. When I met Jean Klein, he used to sit in the

morning from three to eight, doing yoga, pranayama and meditation.

Later on, he was confined to a wheelchair and he could not do it any

more, but nothing was any different. There are just moments in life

when the body is ready to sit regularly and can thus express the

beauty of life, provided the sitting is effortless. If there is

somebody to make love with, if there is a fight to be fought, if

there is something else to be done, it is all exactly the same. You

should not strive or push to do it. It resonates, it comes from

inside. When a musician feels a calling for music, he gets up at five

o'clock and he writes music. It is for the joy of the music. Sitting

is purely for the joy of sitting. Otherwise it is reduced to this

fascist fantasy as in the Zen tradition, where you want to attain

something. This led to Soto and Rinzai involvement in the Manchurian

and Second World wars. The contributions of the Zen monasteries to

the fascist statement of the Japanese army in China were sustained by

the Zen attitude of wanting to reach satori, to do zazen. This was

very clearly an example of wanting to "do meditation". It is a form

of war, it creates war, if it is done with the slightest intention.

If it is something you don't know about and you are just drawn to sit

happily and later on you are happy swimming, it is beautiful.

In the Kashmir Tradition, effort seems to be considered not as a

means to getting somewhere, as you explained, but more as a symptom

of the absence of grace. Different "ways" are described: the way of

Shiva (Shambavopaya), the way of the energy (shaktopaya), and the way

of the individual (anavopaya). There is also a fourth, which is a non

way (anupaya). The Vijñana Bhairava Tantra describes techniques that

appeal to the imagination, and to the ability to visualize. Whoever

practices these techniques is trying to enter the gap in-between two

perceptions, two thoughts, or two moments. What is the value of such

bhavana ?

The exercise states are poorly understood. It is like talking about a

sage. The Indian tradition uses symbols extensively, so they describe

the sage as being free from cold, free from heat, like in the Yoga

Sutra. He doesn't move, he doesn't do this, he doesn't do that. It is

symbolic. It is never something you can ever attain, it does not

pertain to an achievement. He is what he is when there is no longer

any claim to owning anything.

All the exercises presented, maybe because badly translated, seem to

be an attempt to attain something. According to what I have been

taught, they are in fact the opposite: they are an attempt to make

you realize that you are constantly denying the space in-between

thoughts, in-between perceptions, that you are constantly visualizing

your body in heaviness, that you are constantly identifying yourself

with feelings. So, when they tell you to visualize the blue sky and

identify with it, it is to enable you to see that you constantly do

the opposite. When somebody says: "See how you feel on the

battlefield, when somebody runs after you; feel the fear, then the

beauty of Bhairava will occur", it is so as to show you how much you

immediately identify yourself with your emotions. Thus, there is

openness, availability to the emotion: you realize you are not the

emotion, the emotion is in you. You are not afraid, you feel fear.

That is the essence of Bhairava's activity. So, it is not so much

something we need to do as a "clin d'oeil" from and to our ever

present freedom. All these exercises can be approached in this way.

When you come to the anupaya, the ultimate way, you see that

everything is statement. Every sensation, every feeling, every

thought which comes to us, if we acknowledge them for what they are,

manifests in this openness. If we identify ourselves with them: "I am

afraid, I am tired, I am rich, I am poor", they cut us off from the

essential. The Vijñana Bhairava practice brings you back to the fact

that in every situation the space is there, when we don't pretend it

is not by locating ourselves in a situation. It is more an inward

activity, an inward exercise, of seeing that we are constantly caught

up in our imagination, constantly pretending. When we don't, what

remains is the essence.

Having said that, when somebody clearly realizes that he cannot

realize anything but his own projections and limitations, and he has

been clearly touched by this non experience, one can say: "turn your

head". But it is only possible when somebody has already seen this

pretense. In that moment, it strikes, not as something to be done but

as what is.

What do you mean by "turn your head"?

It means you must realize that you can never look, that everything

looks at you, that you are the space where perception happens. There

is nobody looking, there is only looking. So, once this has come

alive, "turn your head", or "step back", resonate as a trigger to

awareness, awareness that it is not a memory. These pertain only to

clarity. That is why, even if it seems as if there is something to be

done, and if it seems that there are levels of varying depth, they

are only levels of understanding.

On the first level, the person really lives in the becoming process.

He is trying to become enlightened, to reach something and he doesn't

know what. Then the person becomes a little bit more humble and

realizes that what he thinks cannot lead him to truth. He opens up to

feeling. Energy is feeling, feeling is energy. He asks his feelings

to bring him back to the resonance. But too bad, this doesn't work

either. So, humility grows a little more and he realizes that nothing

he can ever feel, or think, can ever take him beyond seeing and

feeling. At that very moment, he falls silent, not out of will, but

because faced with the clear evidence that he can never attain what

is unattainable. In that moment, the third way, the way of Shiva,

appears, which is wonderment. So, every perception is pure

wonderment, because you realize that there has never been any such

thing as perception. There is only being. I don't perceive anything.

I am everything. So, even the idea of perceiving leaves you totally.

We never perceive anything, we are what we perceive, on the essential

level; this fact never becomes a thought. That is why Ibn' Arabi

said: "The one who has seen God and knows he has seen God hasn't seen

God."

These things are not to be practiced, they are to be lived in

humility, in silence. Then they really come alive. Anyone who

undertakes them with the idea of attaining something will always

remain restricted by limitations, like the kaivalya state of the Yoga

Sutras, where the Purushas separate themselves from limitations and

finally remain separate Purushas. Ultimately there is only silence,

so there can never be any personal achievement of freedom. Of course,

kaivalya, from the higher point of view, the one Gopinath Kaviraj

talks about, is different. The kaivalya of the Yoga Sutras is a

highly satwic state, but it is still a state one can attain.

The state Patanjali describes in his Yoga Sutras is a state that

appears after all samskara (the compelling mental impressions left by

previous experiences) have dissolved.

Yes, that is why it is a state, it has an opposite. Freedom is a

space in which all samskara can arise and fall away: all samskara

have their roots in kaivalya. Avidya (ignorance) has its roots in

vidya (knowledge), avidya never existed. The snake has its roots in

the rope.

The concept of mantra has been discussed for thousands of years and

very often the practice of repeating a mantra is introduced as

meditation. What is a mantra and what value is there in repeating it?

I can only talk from intuition, for I have not experimented with

mantra. It is a highly sophisticated technique that requires

mastering all the gutturals, all the Sanskrit letters, through years

of study in a specialized place. If you have lived in Varanasi and

have studied the roots of Sanskrit, learned to pronounce the words

properly, words are power. The power is vibration. So the mantra is

like yoga. First you hear and feel the resonance. In yoga, you first

feel the body and the resonance. This brings you back to vibration

free of becoming. You become still. The mantra stills the mind, as

the bodywork stills the mind. The mind is no longer deluded by the

feeling of becoming realized, becoming free, doing mantra or doing

yoga. You just realize your own inept condition, you stop imagining

that stupidity can bring you knowledge. So, you fall totally silent.

The mantra can bring you to silence and when you are silent life

speaks.

In the Kashmir Tradition, the functional part of mantra is strongly

emphasized. As in yoga, where every position has an effect on body,

mind and feeling, every pranayama has an effect on these too, so

every mantra, every seed mantra, every letter of the mantra, has an

effect on body, mind and feeling. So, certainly by developing this

knowledge — it takes years — one can locally affect the functions of

the body, certain levels of the brain, of the feelings, certain

levels of deep resonance and particularly certain levels of the

breath. Breath is energy, energy is breath. The magic of words is

intimately linked with breath and like pranayama, mantra can be used

to enter into the world of magic. You realize that every form is a

song, a vibration and by knowingly tuning in to certain shapes,

certain rhythms of the breath, you can interact with all the

possibilities of the universe. This is what magic is. It unravels

free of cause and purpose.

There is nothing there, as such, and generally it is mostly a waste

of energy. For if we feel any inclination to interfere with life,

body, mind or the word, we don't yet clearly see that there is

nothing missing, that the heart is peaceful and joyful when we no

longer imagine that we need something. So the inclination to

interfere with the word, the body, the mind and the senses, and to do

something as an act of magic, is generally a lack of clarity: it

means that the yogi feels that God has made a little mistake which he

must correct by his magic. There is no mistake, there is nothing to

correct. People who die should die, people who are born should be

born. The yogi should keep his mouth shut. If he doesn't, in a

certain way he will pay the price.

If clarity is not there beforehand, the still mind will be an object.

There is no more emotion, no more thinking, but you are still there,

as thought. If it is evident that what we are is not a thought —

therefore thought cannot disturb what we are — if this is understood

before the practice of mantra or yoga, then, in a way, these are

beautiful ways of sustaining this understanding. But the idea of

attaining something with mantra or with yoga comes from the modern

degenerate mind, which thinks that man can reach God. It is quite the

opposite. The mind is halted and the word of God, the mantra, speaks

in the body, the breath of God breathes in the body if you do

pranayama, God sings in you if you are a musician, the shape of God

takes form in you if you are an architect.

It comes to you, it is not something you can master and put in your

pocket. When you fall silent and if you are made for it, if life has

prepared you enough for it, you can sustain the power of mantra, of

pranayama, or the power of music. If one receives it without having

been prepared enough, mantra and pranayama may, in a way, destroy

one's whole structure. But even then, it would not be a mistake,

because what happens has to happen. As for the technical part, I have

no right to say anything, because I haven't done it. It takes thirty

years to discover yoga, and I'm sure it is the same with mantra.

Technically, the mantra is not pronounced out loud, it is inside.

Pronouncing it out loud, is a preparation, it takes years. It is like

yoga postures that prepare you for the inner subtle body postures.

So, in a way, we could say that all these meditation techniques,

pranayama, yoga, exercises, repeating mantra, reading scriptures, is

like what Shankaracharya said about the scriptures: "Before one is

realized, one cannot understand them, and afterwards they are not

needed."

It is like that in a way. Jean Klein said that he could only

understand sexual intimacy after his freedom. Before that, he was

always very interested in the subject, he had sexual relations with

women but it was a mystery to him. It is after he realized what the

body really was that he could really understand Tantra and the

relationship between two bodies. He said that before that, he had had

a glimpse of it, because of yoga and because of his intelligence, but

it was only afterwards when he realized that the body was nothing,

that he could understand what physical relationship was. So, all the

traditional arts can only be understood from the forefeeling of

silence. You can only listen to music or watch dance from stillness.

One cannot really do mantra, yoga or anything, as long as one

pretends to be the doer. Of course, it is clearer in the traditional

arts, because they are created for the sole purpose of bringing this

very fact to light.

What comes directly from purity is beauty. When somebody recites a

mantra it is beauty, joy, and it is the same with yoga, dance, making

a temple, reciting poetry. Traditional art is done for the sake of

beauty, not as a means of reinforcing the fantasy of being

enlightened. Projections of being enlightened or being superman are

the same fantasy. So, there are no more problems with women, no more

problems with money, no more problems with the body, no one is

disturbed by the neighbour. We stop pretending to be anything other

than what we are and in this silence, all the beauty of the

traditional forms can really be appreciated for what it is and not as

a way to becoming free. It is seeing beauty itself, in action. That

is why in the tantric tradition of Kashmirian non-dualism, the arts

have been heavily emphasized, as opposed to yoga and the classical

Vedanta tradition, where art is seen as a distraction for the senses.

In the Kashmir tradition, we sense that the senses are beauty itself.

Through the statement and feeling of the senses, one can really

forefeel the beauty beyond the senses. That is the specificity of the

Kashmir tradition, compared to all other Indian traditions. Generally

in India spirituality is thought of as freeing one's self from the

senses. As seen from this tradition, nothing is disturbing,

everything is welcome and the joy and beauty of feeling is silence

speaking. Nothing is separate from it. Everything brings us back to

the resonance. Abhinavagupta wrote about this feeling resonating as

beauty, but he's kind of unique in the Indian tradition.

Why then do so many teachers in India and in the West advise their

students to become celibate and vegetarian, and so on?

Hitler was a vegetarian. The result can be judged in many ways.

Maharaja ate meat twice a day and one can also judge that in many

ways. So, I don't know why people have problems with meat. As for

celibacy, I cannot understand it, because for most people it is

through man to woman relationships — or man to man, or man to dog,

whatever one's inclination — that we really discover how free or not

we are from our self image. It is very easy, if you are celibate, to

feel free from attachments and feelings. It is too easy. You must

have a wife and mistresses, or husband etc., and experience what

happens in these relationships in order to see if you are really free

of yourself. Maybe some people do not need this. Some people in India

decide to observe brahmacharya, and if it comes naturally, it is

beautiful. But by trying to enforce it, we miss many opportunities to

see how much capacity we still have for fear, pretenses and

attachment.

It is very easy if you sit in a room and do yoga the whole day and

don't touch a woman or a man, to think that you are free from the

whole world. But when you are in a relationship and the woman you

love says she prefers the neighbour, then you see if it was really

love and openness to what is, or simply desire and possesivity. It is

an extraordinary tool for inquiring into our stupidity. Some people

do not need it, it is true, but as a rule trying to decide if you

need it or not — maybe some people can do that — makes no sense.

I understand it technically. If one wants to do some very specific

yoga exercises, and I'm sure it must be the same for mantra, you need

brahmacharya. It is like in the Kabbalah, it is sometimes needed, as

an act of power. It is the same as when a musician learns Indian

music, he is not allowed to listen to European music. It is a matter

of technique. He must attune his ear to such a subtle level that any

other music will reduce his ability for a time. I have a very good

friend in India who was forbidden to listen to European music for ten

years. He became a very good South Indian flutist. So, in yoga there

are some exercises like that, there are some moments like that. If

you do martial arts, you cannot simultaneously do karate and juj-jut-

su because in certain situations you will have two reflexes instead

of one and it is one reflex too many. It only concerns people chosen

by life to accomplish the art of yoga or tantra in the highest sense.

Brahmacharya means without desire, it doesn't mean not sleeping with

somebody. If the desire remains, nothing changes. You are not

practicing brahmacharya if you feel desire.

As for food, many people learn from sickness caused by eating

inappropriate food. Many learn a lot from cancer and from taking

drugs. I myself almost destroyed my body, with drugs, with food. I

would not for one second have missed this chance to challenge my

beliefs. I can understand a master who as an exception, in a very

specific situation, might suggest to somebody that they not eat this,

or not do this, but as a general rule I don't see any sense in it.

I see that all questions can be reduced to one question. All

questions come back to the idea of wanting to do something. What do

you think?

Of course! I have been there myself with my teacher. He had answered

all possible questions. There were no more questions, but still there

was this movement of energy asking, even though I knew there could

not be any answer. In fact, I was asking him to make me shut up, it

was very clear. The only answer was to shut up. But you cannot will

this to happen, it can only happen through maturity. I see clearly

that I cannot understand beyond the level of my understanding, that

thinking only comes from pretending to be able to think, from

claiming that we are able to understand by thinking. When one

constantly lives with the understanding that thought cannot go beyond

thought, that feeling cannot go beyond feeling, then what remains is

what Meister Eckhart described as humility. It is the space where God

Himself must be the background and the operator of what is. But as

long as I want it, I cannot have it, because I believe I don't have

it.

So, you must just stop pretending. When I ask a master what I should

do, I assume that it is not done. This claim prevents me from being

honest, from being resonance, which is what I am. So, one should

experience this fact over and over again, one should feel it and

formulate it in many ways, until this fact resonates as such and the

desire to ask comes no more — because there is nothing to ask. When

you don't ask, the energy isn't dispersed and it can awaken in

silence. But it is important to realize that all questions basically

come back to "what can I do?" and that the answer is that there is

nothing you can do. So, one must live with this fact and the clarity

will come as humility: I cannot win, so I'll stop fighting. As long

as I have the slightest idea that, maybe if I fight I can win, maybe

if I go there it will happen, maybe if I live like that, or I don't

live like that, or if I don't do that, it will happen, then I deny my

truth, I deny what is now. So, I live honestly with the knowledge

that this urge to ask, which is the root of all activity in life, can

only be what it is: a mere reflection of the truth. That is why

asking a question is an statement of the answer, it is the

opportunity to see that the question resonates from its origin.

If all there is, is cause and effect, then the answer "causes" the

question…

Yes, without the forefeeling of the answer, one cannot ask the

question. In fact, the question is the sign that the answer is

looking for itself, or that the question is looking for itself. The

thinker is the thought. I don't look for something. We can never see

what is to be found. When I see untruth, what remains is truth. You

cannot remove the snake, you can only see the rope. Then there is no

snake. But if I try to remove the snake, I never see the rope: I'm

blocked by the snake. So, I realize clearly that I cannot be

different, I accept that. I live with my pretensions, I shut up about

them, I notice that I think I should be different, that I think I

should not be pretentious. When I clearly acknowledge my pretension,

without the pretension that I should be without pretension, again I

am brought back to the resonance. What is there is not something that

has to be removed in order to find truth. It becomes evident that it

is truth itself, looking for itself. So, what happens to me now is

the truth, whatever it is. It is only my story that thinks that truth

is over there, my story that says I must not feel depressed, and thus

I deny divinity. What I feel now is silence and so I shut up. Thus, I

live with what happens from moment to moment and there is no other

way.

Truth is not "something" to be felt, or to be experienced; it is the

constant experience of non-truth. It is a non-experience and that is

why it never happened to anybody and that is why one cannot live in

truth. One can only see that one lives in untruth. To be free is not

an occupation. You are what you are. Jean was a musician, he was

not "free". He was what he was. Shankaracharya created rituals to

celebrate Surya, Lakshmi and Ganesha. He wrote hymns of freedom! His

function was to be a teacher. Nobody is free, it is a fantasy. We

need this fantasy to keep ourselves knowingly unhappy, to maintain

the claim that we will attain happiness once we become like this or

like that, to maintain the pretense that we exist. We don't. Glory to

Him.

 

 

LoveAlways,

 

b

[Guest guest]

, ErcAshfrd@a... wrote:

>we are all stunned into silence when we see the beautiful one

 

 

 

....LOL!

 

Yes, for a moment, and then we don't shut up!

 

 

The Beautiful One wants to

sing something through us,

something about hearts being

pregnant with God, and

perhaps how the time comes in which

one wishes that there was at least a

twenty-fifth hour in order to

love just one hour more.

 

Shall we let That One sing?

As if we had any choice!

She is so happy to be us,

why else would She be us?

We can feel feel Her Happiness,

since we are not other than That.

 

When we dream at night, we

are happy to be the dreaming,

even if it is a nightmare.

 

We may complain, but still

we are curious, curious

about the dream.

 

When we get curious about the

Dreamer, a bell rings in an

abandoned temple, and all our ghosts

look up from the morning papers.

 

They find their coffee flavored with

our sweet tears, and our yearning is spread

like jam all over their ghost toast.

 

One by one they pass through us

like a sleepy hand reaching for the

the breast of the lover, only to

slip through the mattress and glide into

somewhere that nobody has even imagined.

 

We are that hand, reaching into time & space

to touch ourselves and see if we are real.

The energy that lifts Mira's mountain is the

same energy that moves the hand.

 

One hand claps, and and all the universes crack

up, lift up, laughing, loving, singing the

Song of the Beautiful One, the One Who Is

Singing us into the Labor of God giving

Birth to Itself.

 

We've even got pictures

nobody can see --

for ghosts they're expensive,

for you they are

free!

 

 

LoveAlways,

 

b

[Guest guest]

That is the message of the Gita, when Krishna asked Arjuna to do what

needed to be done and to put aside his likes and dislikes. It is of

no psychological consequence that his master and parents are to be

fought on the battlefield of Kurukshetra. So Arjuna does it because

it has to be done. There is no future, no intention; he is just

acting functionally. That is the meaning of sadhana from the

traditional, non-dual point of view.

And so, dear Bob, we have revealed, in non-dual terms, the very heart

of what I have been writng: thus: it is action, not inaction that

represents the necessary state of grace in this non-dual example.

Krisna does not insist that Arjuna just "be blissful and sit by and do

nothing," he rallies him to go beyond his narrow view of reality and

to DO what must be done...in order to thwart a greater evil. That is

the aspect of grace. Not inaction. Inaction when that brings grace,

and action if that too brings grace.

Never does Krisna preach that despite the Maya and illusions of the

world and the contradictions of seeming duality, that to be a good

Hindu that one should forsake right action. This would be a horrible

disfigurement of the teachings.

Now, I must become inactive and rest for the night.

Blessings,

Love,

Zenbob

PS, this is an excellent interview!

[Guest guest]

Grace? You speak of Grace as if it were a commodity that can be

brought about as one's own by action and action alone.

No, actually, I wrote that inaction when called for could be a state of grace, and so could action.

It is only at this juncture that there has been an acknowledgement

that "no action need ever be done" is not totally a valid viewpoint.

 

So, for however tedious this long and both artless and artful dialogue

has been, it has finally resolved on a common note, and that is a very

lovely thing indeed.

It has been agreed that both inaction and action can be in a state of grace;

It has been agreed that charitable actions actually do have purpose;

It has been agreed that even in the non-dual universe that individuals

must find their own sense of right action; and to act upon it;

It has been agreed that posts should carefully define their elements

and to properly atrtibute them so as to render less confusion to

readers;

It has been agreed that no purpose is served by attempting to

interpret or ascribe motive to the author of a post beyond the

defined elements of the content of the post itself;

It has been agreed (I believe) that we are very likely more than 98%

in accord on all of these controversies (and that actually is pretty

amazing!);

and so, hugs and kisses, Let us move forth...

Or fifth...

Or not move at all, if inaction brings grace...

Blessings,

Love,

Zenbob

[Guest guest]

, zen2wrk@a... wrote:

In a message dated 7/5/02 2:26:33 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

hrtbeat7 writes:

 

>That is the message of the Gita, when Krishna

asked Arjuna to do what needed to be done and to put aside his likes

and dislikes. It is of no psychological consequence that his master

and parents are to be fought on the battlefield of Kurukshetra. So

Arjuna does it because it has to be done. There is no future, no

intention; he is just acting functionally. That is the meaning of

sadhana from the traditional, non-dual point of view.

 

> And so, dear Bob, we have revealed, in non-dual terms, the very

heart of what I have been writng: thus: it is action, not inaction

that represents the necessary state of grace in this non-dual example.

 

 

Dearest Zenbob,

 

The thing is Dear one, neither Robert nor myself have ever claimed

that to do nothing is the only way to act or not act. We simply do

not feel compelled to do so because another says we must. Neither do

i nor Robert feel it necessary to prove our works of action in giving

and helping and doing for others by trotting out a list of our

charitable contributions. We just do it and we do it without making

claims about it. My Darling is currently involved in several

charitable projects that are helping so many who need real, tangible

help in this world. That we say also that nothing is sometimes the

thing to do, and in this nothing, everything is done by the Love

being offered and the Peace that reigns supreme as actionless action,

more powerful than a hundred bags of rice are. We always advise that

to do what one can for another, in all ways when the thing is called

for to be done. But of what use to us or you or anyone when we are

cornered and forced to have to defend our position at any given time

concerning acts of compassion, mercy and charity? We just do it and

then we disappear. Or at least we attempt to even in the midst of

trying to have an understanding given of why and what we are all

about concerning this issue of the bombing child who spoke from

Robert's immense Heart of Love as the story offered to awaken others

to the real issue, and that is - There is no reality but God, there

is only God.

 

Krisna does not insist that Arjuna just "be blissful and sit by and

do nothing," he rallies him to go beyond his narrow view of reality

and to DO what must be done...in order to thwart a greater evil.

That is the aspect of grace. Not inaction. Inaction when that

brings grace, and action if that too brings grace.

 

 

....And also in the Gita and the Mahabharata are instances of

actionless action and seeking not the fruits of thy actions. Grace?

You speak of Grace as if it were a commodity that can be brought

about as one's own by action and action alone. This smacks of the old

dogma of doing good to get a place in heaven, or to further one's

place of specialness in God's Heart. i say to you once again, and

from a Heart filled with Love and Grace unimaginable, we do as our

Heart compels us, as the Beloved compels us and it may not always

align with traditional thinking and methods, and furthermore, what we

do is between the Beloved, the ones we help, and ourselves. We owe no

one an explanation nor a list of our so-called actions of charity and

helpfulness. What we gain in humility is lost when we take pride in

our so-called humility of doing for others so selflessly. The old

catch-22 if you will, of a sort, eh? Please understand i am and

Robert is, in agreement with you except that you presume to know what

our actions are by the actions we took or did not take in this

particular incident. Robert has helped so many so often and has never

ever said a word of it to anyone. He gives money, he gives his time,

he gives his Love, he gives and gives and gives, and yet now he is

viewed as some unmoving, unmoved being who thinks to just sit and

love is all we need do, and frankly, for some, that IS all they need

do, for that is their particular job and call to do so. How dare we

judge what is the particular method of "helping" in any given

situation! Do what you must and can do, but please, refrain from

reiterating about the actions needed and done by you or any others

when it concerns making a point to point out the error of Robert's

ways. You do not know him, and if you did, you would fall on your

face in tears to be near such a one as he! He is the Compassionate

and Merciful One in this Dear form of my Darling, my Beautiful

Robert, my Love of all Loves. i know him and i know his Heart is so

huge, and what he gives and does for others is uncomparable to what

most even dream of doing for others. i wish i were not so compelled

to defend him and i wish that i did not have to trot out all of his

accomplishments just to justify what i know him to be. But so it is

and i would do it again and again if any actually believes that he is

the picture that you have attempted to paint of him by a

misunderstanding in the first place Dearest.

 

 

Never does Krisna preach that despite the Maya and illusions of the

world and the contradictions of seeming duality, that to be a good

Hindu that one should forsake right action. This would be a horrible

disfigurement of the teachings.

 

 

....You don't say so! Is it? Well i'll be dipped in batter and fried

here and now my Love if i ever said, if Robert ever said or implied

such a thing as forsaking "right action!" Please, please understand

that you are so entirely off base about my Darling. Allow the doubt

you have concerning him and his "contributory acts of Kindness" to

dissapate and do away with all this singling out of him because of a

post that you misunderstood in the first place. i thought this had

died down and now i see it has not, for i would not be saying all of

this if it were really over and done with. Let's be done with the

thing Beloved! i Love you, you Love me, we Love Robert, he Loves us

and everyone esle and that Love does do good deeds, consistently, but

without the need nor the desire to make a show of it. He is Goodness

ItSelf and i know this my Love. Trust what i say and allow this line

of posting to do itself in once and for all. Robert IS a charitable

and hard-working Darling of the Beloved! He gives and he gives and

yet he gives again! And that, my friend, is that!

>

> Now, I must become inactive and rest for the night.

 

Yes, Dearheart, rest and become well in the knowledge that we Love

you and we are trying to understand why you are so adamant in this

line of thinking and questioning the integrity and honor of my

Beloved Darling. Love, that's all we are about and all we ever were

about. Doing things, not doing things as expected, all the same, it's

only Love. Love Is All There Is Beloved Friend, Dearest Zenbob. Rest

in the Love we extend to you now and always. May the Blessing of true

understanding settle upon you tonight.

>

> Blessings,

> Love,

 

LoveAlways,

 

Mazie

>

> Zenbob

> PS, this is an excellent interview!

[Guest guest]

To the two Bobs,

 

It is too plain to compare the two of you to two sides of a coin? Or

is a coin simply too flat to express the way the two of you so well

complement each other. (Although the two of you may still somewhat

disagree on that.)

 

No, a coin will just not do as a likeness for the two of you.

 

Let me consider then the moon, a sphere, a fuller representation of

the wholeness you share between the two of you.

Too bad though, the moon... most' the time not being full at all...

and favouring one side over its hidden back, keeping an eye on us too

permanently.

 

No, the moon will just not do as a likeness for the both of you.

 

Could the pair of you be more like our two poled earthly globe,

diurnally turning its multi-sided face, while keeping itself warm in

the rayments of the sun's reality? Nope, the half light, half

dark..., the half warm, half cold..., half the earth's life is not a

full enough expression of the light and warmth, life and love the two

of you reflect.

 

No, this globe will just not do as a likeness for the pair of you.

 

Might the both of you together then, not rather be like the oneness of

our splendid sun... being that eternal light ? ( Pretty near at

least.) The sun, which at the same time as maintaining, is

sacrificing its eternity (slowly, luckily at least) into form and

action of stuff and deed, as represented by you two fine human beings

on our heaven-on-earthly globe.

 

Yep, I figure our sun will do well enough to be a likeness of

togetherness of both of you.

 

Wim

(Too bad, that the two of you may not be ready to see that yet :-)

(Hey Mazie, let's give both them guys a hand, as I shall give you also mine :-)

 

 

----- From Zenbob

It is only at this juncture that there has been an acknowledgement

that "no action need ever be done" is not totally a valid viewpoint.

So, for however tedious this long and both artless and artful

dialogue has been, it has finally resolved on a common note, and that

is a very lovely thing indeed. It has been agreed that both inaction

and action can be in a state of grace; It has been agreed that

charitable actions actually do have purpose; It has been agreed that

even in the non-dual universe that individuals must find their own

sense of right action; and to act upon it; It has been agreed that

posts should carefully define their elements and to properly

atrtibute them so as to render less confusion to readers; It has

been agreed that no purpose is served by attempting to interpret or

ascribe motive to the author of a post beyond the defined elements of

the content of the post itself; It has been agreed (I believe) that we

are very likely more than 98% in accord on all of these controversies

(and that actually is pretty amazing!); and so, hugs and kisses, Let

us move forth... Or fifth... Or not move at all, if inaction brings

grace... Blessings, Love, Zenbob

Upgrade Outlook - Add COLOR to your Emails

[Guest guest]

, Wim Borsboom <wim@a...> wrote:

> To the two Bobs,

 

Wim

> (Too bad, that the two of you may not be ready to see that yet :-)

(Hey Mazie, let's give both them guys a hand, as I shall give you

also mine

:-)

 

 

Beloved Wimji,

 

i give my Heart to Love Alone, and alone i stand between the many.

Many are the times i cry to see the Heart being scattered about like

some anonymously thrown confetti at a party where no one is Kissing

at the Kissing booth. i am that Kissing booth. Oh! For the price of a

Kiss we would miss the One Singing as the two as Oneheart breaking!

Some are too remiss to remember that a dollar goes a long way to pay

for Love. Pennies are one hundred times shiny when we toss them into

the air of caring about Love and all that Love offers. What wonder

then that the Friend is also clapping as he's Weeping as He's

Sweeping up all our confetti hearts into One Basket of His own Heart,

the Only Heart, the OneHeart - Love Is All There Is and All There

Ever Was Or Will Ever Be Forever. i bow to my Beloved Robert for the

Love he is. i bow to my Brother Zenbob for the Love he is. i bow to

you, Dearest Wim, for the Love you are. i bow to All Hearts as

OneHeart, and That, THAT is all Love ever wanted me to do. Peace and

Namaste Beloved Wimji. May we all bow to the Love in one another. May

we all Love one another as the Blessed Beloved Loves us, as the

Beautiful One Loves in and as us, always. May we realize we ARE the

bowing to the one, the One we Are. OneHeart, OneBeloved, OneBowing to

ItSelf. i Love You my Friend.

 

LoveAlways,

 

Mazie

>

> -----

> From Zenbob

>

> It is only at this juncture that there has been an acknowledgement

that "no

> action need ever be done" is not totally a valid viewpoint.

>

> So, for however tedious this long and both artless and artful

dialogue has

> been, it has finally resolved on a common note, and that is a very

lovely

> thing indeed.

>

> It has been agreed that both inaction and action can be in a state

of grace;

>

> It has been agreed that charitable actions actually do have purpose;

>

> It has been agreed that even in the non-dual universe that

individuals must

> find their own sense of right action; and to act upon it;

>

> It has been agreed that posts should carefully define their

elements and to

> properly atrtibute them so as to render less confusion to readers;

>

> It has been agreed that no purpose is served by attempting to

interpret or

> ascribe motive to the author of a post beyond the defined elements

of the

> content of the post itself;

>

> It has been agreed (I believe) that we are very likely more than

98% in

> accord on all of these controversies (and that actually is pretty

amazing!);

>

> and so, hugs and kisses,

> Let us move forth...

> Or fifth...

>

> Or not move at all, if inaction brings grace...

>

> Blessings,

> Love,

> Zenbob

>

>

>

> --

--------

> ----

> Upgrade Outlook - Add COLOR to your Emails

>

>

> ---

> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

> Version: 6.0.370 / Virus Database: 205 - Release 6/5/2002