in these troubled times

[Guest guest]

Realization , " Rob Sacks " <editor@r...> wrote:

> Dear Dan,

>

> > Where are you getting this stuff from? Did I say

> > anything about how you shouldn't speak unless

> > you're enlightened?

>

> Of course not, Dan. I'm terribly sorry for giving you

> the impression that those remarks were directed at

> you. They applied to things that Judi had said. I

> apologize for addressing that message to both of you,

> and for making it appear that I was accusing you of

> something.

 

Ah -- well, then -- nevermind :-)

 

Thanks for clearing that up.

 

 

> > You say " actually Krishna gave two main reasons "

> > as if this is a correction of my letter...

>

> My statement was silly. When I wrote it I was on

> autopilot, thinking ahead to the next part of the letter.

> Of course you're right that there are additional

> reasons.

 

Hey, this is pretty easy.

 

Okay.

 

 

> > I added an important additional point,

> > which you apparently dispute, but which I will

> > show you below is given in the Gita.

>

> I assume you're talking about this:

>

> > Now, as to the point I made about doing what

> > it is time to be done, in accordance with movements

> > of energy and finding liberation through participation

> > in that movement rather than avoiding ...

>

> Actually, when I read your earlier letter, I didn't realize

> that you had this idea in mind. In that earlier letter, I was

> reacting only to the fact that Deb had asked this:

>

> > Hi Dan .. Please tell me what Krishna said?

> > blessings on you .. deb x x

>

> And the first paragraph of your answer was this:

>

> > He said something like what is said in the Hebrew

> > Bible: to everything there is a season, and a time

> > to every purpose.

>

> At the time I didn't see a connection between this

> sentence from Ecclesiastes and Krishna's advice.

> Your idea isn't obvious, at least not to me. Now that

> you explain the idea in more detail, I agree with you

> that the parallels are striking.

 

Hey, excellent.

 

I acknowledge that it's not an easy connection to make.

 

But worthwhile.

 

Ecclesiastes also said " don't try to be too good,

or too bad, because it won't get you anything. "

 

He was a cool guy.

 

> It's an intriguing idea. I just reread Ecclesiastes so I

> could ponder the idea a little bit, and I have a sort of

> initial reaction to it. Please understand that I'm not

> arguing with you here, just throwing out a few half-

> baked impressions.

 

Okay. Arguing gets draining for me, too.

 

> Ecclesiastes says we are trapped in time in at least

> two ways: we're mortal and we perceive events

> sequentially: " He has made everything suitable for its

> time; moreover he has put a sense of past and future

> into their minds, yet they cannot find out what God has

> done from the beginning to the end. " (3.11) In other

> words, reality is eternal, but we can't grasp it; we live in

> a world where one event follows another, and all we

> can do is attend to the present and enjoy it.

 

I haven't read Ecc. in a long time.

 

Your interpretation of this is wonderful, Rob.

 

I hadn't remembered that passage until you mentioned

it now.

 

 

> Hence Ecclesiastes arrives at a conclusion, repeated

> numerous times in slightly varying words: " There is

> nothing better for mortals than to eat and drink, and

> find enjoyment in their toil. " (2.24). Here's the idea

> again, phrased differently: " I know that there is nothing

> better for them than to be happy and enjoy themselves

> as long as they live; moreover, it is God's gift that all

> should eat and drink and take pleasure in all their toil. "

> (2.13). Or again: " So I saw that there is nothing better

> than that all should enjoy their work, for that is their lot;

> who can bring them to see what will be after them? "

> (3.22).

 

Yes. It reminds me of Lao Tzu saying that the

ruler who knows what he's doing, simply allows

the people to have full bellies. They don't

necessarily attribute it to the ruler and his

great way of ruling, but they are content.

 

> I would sum up Ecclesiastes on this point as follows:

> " We're mortal and stuck in time, so let's work, eat,

> drink, and be merry. "

 

Well, he's saying something very subtle.

 

Which is that the creature in time can't possibly

grasp what involves no time, what is beyond time.

 

What's very subtle about this is: how does he

know this? Who is he really to be able to

see this?

 

He's not saying that he's beyond time, because he's

acknowledging that he's writing as a creature in time.

 

And it's the same with what he wrote about the timing

of everything being exactly in its time --

a creature within time couldn't know this.

 

> The Gita, it seems to me, tells a different story. It says

> we're not stuck in time -- we're immortal (you quoted

> 2.27 which says we're mortal, however in the Gita,

> Krishna prefaces that verse by telling Arjuna that we're

> immortal, but if he can't accept that, then he can look at

> things in this other way).

 

Well, yes, immortality is used as a metaphor for the timeless

being.

 

In truth though, it's not mortal, but it's not immortal either --

to be immortal is to exist forever -- which still involves

being in time.

 

The Gita says we can learn to

> perceive the eternal reality which Ecclesiastes says is

> barred from us, and that we should perform our actions

> without regard to pain and pleasure, because such things

> are transitory. (Ecclesiastes, in contrast, says we should

> focus on transitory things.)

 

Ecclesiastes, in my opinion, has a great sense of humor --

as did Lao Tzu.

 

Ecclesiastes has heard all the talk about being immortal

and so on, and knows that it is human vanity.

 

That is, these are concepts of the being in time,

no matter how grand they sound.

 

> In short, the Gita prescribes Karma Yoga. Karma Yoga

> is based on the distinction between action and fruits of

> action. This distinction is missing from Ecclesiastes, or

> at least not explicit there -- it tells us simply to toil and

> enjoy.

 

Yes, it is far from explicit in Ecclesiastes.

 

I think Ecclesiastes is a remarkable statement

about the limits of human vanity, and our

tendency to believe the universe can be

known in terms of human thought.

 

> So we have one book saying, " We're stuck in time;

> therefore work, eat, drink, and be merry. "

 

If that was all it was saying, it would never have

been included in the Testament.

 

Just like Song of Songs wouldn't have been included

if it was just about how great it feels to be

lovers.

 

>The other

> book says, " We're immortal and eternal, so act without

> regard to consequences, and ignore sensual things. "

 

Well, you could say Ecclesiastes saw that the temporal

was never apart from the eternal in any way --

just that a temporal being could never know that.

 

So, he wasn't urging the temporal being to try to

know eternity.

 

Again, it's remarkable subtle to me -- more than

much of the other writing in the Bible.

 

> This seems to lead to the conclusion that the two books

> are opposites on this point. (By the way, it occurs to me

> that the Sermon on the Mount is closer to the Gita than

> Ecclesiastes is ... " the birds of the field neither sow nor

> reap, " etc.)

 

Yes, that's very similar as well.

 

> Nonetheless I think you're right that " For everything

> there is a season " does have some deep consonance

> with the nondoership-action ideas in the Gita. I can't

> put my finger on it exactly, but I feel it also. There is a

> sense of a sort of embryonic Karma Yoga in

> Ecclesiastes: But at best, it seems to me that these ideas

> are implicit in Ecclesiastes. In the Gita, they are

> developed into a fullblown textbook complete with a

> technical vocabulary.

 

Well, Ecclesiastes has given up on any how-to books.

 

To me, that is more profound.

 

He recognizes the human vanity in all these approaches

to the eternal.

 

There is nothing new under the sun.

 

He has seen how all this goes, over centuries,

and millenia of lives unfolding.

 

Of course, he'll never say that.

 

Because he is aware he is writing as a human creature.

 

> Maybe it's correct to say: " Ecclesiastes poses the

> problem, and the Gita offers the solution. "

 

I see it more like, the Gita offers the solution,

and Ecclesiastes is beyond solutions.

 

> > Since you're the one citing what Krishna said about

> > duty, I suggest you reread it. Nowhere does he

> > say anything about speaking out against the

> > government.

>

> I think you misunderstood me here. (By the way, I didn't

> mean to make a big argument out of this point. It was just

> a sort of feeble literary trope. I'm about to devote about

> ten times more space to explaining it than it deserves.)

 

I knew what you meant. I was just giving you a hard time --

mostly because Debby had asked me about the Gita --

not about what a modern citizen of Rome (oops, I mean the U.S.)

is supposed to do.

 

> I didn't say that Krishna says anything about speaking out

> against the government. That would be an anachronism.

> Arjuna was a member of a ruling family in a kingdom, not

> a citizen in a democracy.

 

True.

 

> What I said was that Krishna tells Arjuna to do his duty

> as a member of the warrior caste, the Ksatriyas:

>

> " Further, having regard for thine own duty, thou shouldst

> not falter, there exists no greater good for a Ksatriya than

> a battle enjoined by duty. " (2.31)

>

> I said further that if we want to apply this advice to

> Deb, a person living in a modern democracy, we have

> to find the social role she occupies that is analogous to

> a Ksatriya in ancient India. I suggested that her

> analogous social role is " citizen. " And I further suggested

> that just as a Ksatriya's duty was to govern and fight, the

> analogous duty of a citizen is to speak out against her

> government when (in her view) it does something wrong.

> (By the way, in my earlier message I assumed Deb is

> American. I've since noticed that her email address is

> Australian. Sorry for the chauvinism.)

 

Heh, heh.

 

You are a scholar and you make a good point.

 

Yet, there is a social agenda in the Gita that

doesn't involve questioning one's elders.

 

It is all karma.

 

You don't question karma.

 

Of course, if it is one's karma to live in America,

and to question one's karma -- so be it.

 

> > Since you are making an issue of not attacking people

> > personally, wouldn't you say that it's also an attack on

> > the person to falsely accuse a person of attacking

> > someone in a way that they didn't?

>

> I assume you asked this because you thought the

> comments I intended for Judi were directed at you.

> As I said above, this was not the case. If some issue

> remains unresolved here, please let me know.

 

Not at all.

 

Thanks for the honesty, thoughtfulness, and scholarly

comments as well.

 

-- Dan

[Guest guest]

Then some bitch on the internet does what she does best and I get angry, outraged. I want to tell her not to behave like that I want to wipe that smug smile : ) of her face and put her in her place etc. And how dare she claim to be enlightened and behave like that when I have been trying so hard to be good and kind and nice and loving and I'm not enlightened.It helps to wake me up.

 

********* Bingo! It's an effort in futility, which is but a pain in the ass in the first place, that you're trying to "pull off" somehow. Your whole life revolves around tyring to "pull something off". And what I do is to mirror that *trip* to you. I can't help it, bullshit is bullshit. Now, if you're *smart*, you won't let that "bother" you, but INSTEAD, will take it as a "lesson" and look back to yourself at what you're actually *doing*. As I believe Ramesh said of it, it takes a thorn to remove a thorn. And make no mistake, it goes "deep".

Trunpa said it's like undergoing surgery without benefit of anesthesia. It's only for the "brave" and the few. This is not something you take downtown for the masses in other words.

They're busy "enjoying" themselves. This is about "understanding", NOT about "enjoying" yourself.

 

Does that make sense?

 

Judi

 

[Guest guest]

And let me give you an example. Do you guys see the difference

between Deb's " attitude " and Tanya's " attitude " ?

 

Deb's attitude is one of " defense " where Tanya has obviously suffered

and looked into herself enough for that " defense " to start breaking

up. Therein lies the difference. She's gathered some intelligence in

regards to herself and her games.

 

When you're full of know-it-all defense, how can you expect to learn

anything? All that know-it-all-ness has to start breaking up

and " open intelligence " itself starts taking its place. You start

growing " ears " in other words. To let down your " defenses " is a good

thing.

 

It's not about " winning " , but " understanding " .

 

Judi

[Guest guest]

> > ***** Nothing to worry about, just put yer head right here. :-)

>

> ****** Like Wayne said, why do you hesitate? Hmmm? Perhaps that's

> what needs looking into?

 

Why do I hesitate? Isn't it obvious? I've got this

gorgeous, precious art object I created, my self-esteem.

I devoted my whole life to polishing it and protecting it.

 

Now you want me to let you cut it off???

 

It's full of nerve endings! The slightest pressure

is agony!

 

Plus what would I do all day if it evaporated?

 

But seriously, tell you what, if you invite me to your forum,

I'll come over there and take advantage of your kind offer.

[Guest guest]

Realization , " Rob Sacks " <editor@r...> wrote:

> > > ***** Nothing to worry about, just put yer head right here. :-)

> >

> > ****** Like Wayne said, why do you hesitate? Hmmm? Perhaps that's

> > what needs looking into?

>

> Why do I hesitate? Isn't it obvious? I've got this

> gorgeous, precious art object I created, my self-esteem.

> I devoted my whole life to polishing it and protecting it.

>

> Now you want me to let you cut it off???

>

> It's full of nerve endings! The slightest pressure

> is agony!

>

> Plus what would I do all day if it evaporated?

>

> But seriously, tell you what, if you invite me to your forum,

> I'll come over there and take advantage of your kind offer.

 

******** I thought you were already on the list? But sure, come!

 

Judi

[Guest guest]

Dear Tanya,

 

> Thank you for your questions Rob, they were really

> helpful to me.

 

Glad to hear it. I was afraid I was sort of imposing

on you by asking. Your answers were really helpful

to me so it's a good thing for both of us.

 

> I didn't mean to say that her comments are

> 'unnecessarily rude and hurtful' I said that I have

> often felt that they were.

 

That's what I thought you meant, but I wanted to

be one hundred percent sure.

 

> From many different sources I have heard that it

> is necessary to be at the end of the line, or the

> rope, to be ready to die...It is clear that realisation is

> not a process of becoming, it is the end of becoming...

 

Yep I'm following along with you here...

 

> I can tell myself a story in which I come out a pretty

> damn fine and wonderfully happy, peaceful and

> serene person....

 

> But this is not real, it's a castle built on sand,

> underneath it is pain, suffering, self-seeking,

> insecurity, fear and a lot of the time, most of the

> time I am not even aware of is, I actually think I

> am happy.

 

Okay I have a question here. If you feel like you're

happy most of the time, why are you here talking to

Judi to begin with? I would think it's because

you're dissatisfied to begin with, and you know it.

 

> I actually think that all of is activity is leading me to

> some ultimate safe happiness.

 

Isn't this quite different from believing you are happy?

I think only some people think they are happy. But

everybody (except enlightened people and depressed

people) thinks they can get happy by getting

something. As I understand " getting to the end of the

rope, " it's realizing that you've tried everything and it

doesn't work. Unfortunately the only way to become

convinced of that is to bang your head against the wall

a million times. I don't know how anybody can convince

anybody else of it through any technique or conversation.

 

> Then some bitch on the internet does what she does

> best and I get angry, outraged. I want to tell her not to

> behave like that I want to wipe that smug smile : ) off

> her face and put her in her place etc. And how dare

> she claim to be enlightened and behave like that

> when I have been trying so hard to be good and kind

> and nice and loving and I'm not enlightened.

> It helps to wake me up.

 

I guess this is the heart of the thing. You're describing

your feelings very clearly, I think. Very honestly and

clearly. But for some reason it's hard for me to

understand this.

 

> If what I have is real then it cannot be threatened

> by someone else's words.

 

Yep the fact that she can push our buttons means we're

stuck in some bullshit of our own. That part I certainly

understand.

 

> I want to be aware of myself and why I am doing

> what I am doing and if everything is going along nicely

> then I can give myself a pat on the back and say 'keep

> it up' and forget that I am living in hell until it all falls apart

> again and I am that much older but no wiser.

 

Maybe this is the answer to one of my earlier questions.

If things are in a pattern of falling part and you find yourself

living in hell on a regular basis ... well, that doesn't sound all

that happy.

 

> I do not have the power to hurt anyone but myself. If

> someone chooses to take what I do as an excuse to be

> hurt then that's up to them.

 

I know what you mean but.. hmm... let's face it, people

do give us the power to hurt them and make them

feel good.

 

> > Rob: I'm wondering if this has to do with personality

> > types or psychological issues. Is it possible that the

> > kind of benefits you get from Judi's remarks are only

> > applicable to people who are especially caught up

> > in the burden of being nice to other people?

>

> Tanya: I don't think so.

 

Hm, I'm not so sure. There are people (like me) who tend

to be self-critical, gloomy, depressed, etc. I can't imagine

saying like you did:

 

> I can tell myself a story in which I come out a pretty

> damn fine and wonderfully happy, peaceful and

> serene person....

 

This is why I think I'm having such a hard time

understanding what you're telling me. I can't imagine

having any need to have somebody expose the illusion

that I'm happy or deserving of good things. All my life

I felt the opposite.

 

> This board claims to be for people who want to

> 'share their experiences while enlightenment is happening'.

> I think if people are reaching a state where enlightenment

> is a real possibility then they are not going to be afraid

> of anyone disagreeing with them or calling them names

> and if they are then they need to get over it and maybe

> Judi can help them do that.

 

I don't think this kind of thing is *necessary* in order for

enlightenment to happen. Maybe it helps some people,

but that doesn't mean everybody needs it. In fact, it

doesn't mean that *anybody* *needs* it.

 

When I say " this kind of thing, " I mean rudeness and

remarks that are made with the knowledge that the other

person is probably going to get hurt by them.

 

But I guess it would be a good idea for me to let Judi

beat me up for a while so I have a better idea what we're

talking about. I'm going to visit her forum for a while and

hopefully she'll be nasty enough to indulge me.

 

> Judi can't hurt me, she can only help me because

> that is what I choose for her to do. I have to keep the

> focus on MYSELF - that is what I'm here to learn about.

 

Yes, that's true. But I suspect that most people who

walk into one of Judi's slaps do not look at it this

way. In those cases, for those people, what educational

value does the slapping have? None, I suspect. It's

working for you ... but I think maybe it's a technique

that only works with people who understand the idea,

and not everybody does.

 

> If the group has a rule that no-one is allowed to be

> negative about anyone else it will turn into 'aren't we

> all wonderful and so spiritual so let's stroke each other's

> ego's for a while' with people who have no idea what

> they're talking about trying to be guru's.

 

Haha, yes, this makes me think of a particular mail

group on a related subject where nobody ever disagrees,

not even the slightest bit ... it's carried to such extremes that

it's funny. I wouldn't call that group useless -- people there

pass some useful information back and forth and motivate

each other to keep practicing -- but I agree with you, I

wouldn't want this group to be like that.

 

However I think there's a middle ground. I think people

can disagree and challenge each other's bullshit without

insulting each other and saying things that look (superficially

at least) like they are designed to hurt.

 

Well hopefully Judi will give me some bruises and I'll

get a better idea what we're talking about.

 

Thank you again for describing your feelings so well.

 

Rob

 

-

" Tanya Davis " <tanyarowan

<Realization >

Wednesday, March 26, 2003 5:39 PM

Re: in these troubled times

[Guest guest]

> Trunpa said it's like undergoing surgery without benefit of

anesthesia.

 

Maybe that's why he got drunk all the time.

 

> It's only for the " brave " and the few.

 

For the few who don't need two.

 

For the few who are the single One,

not needing anything outside,

not having anything inside.

 

> This is not something you take downtown for the masses in other

words.

 

The messes of masses, massed to have a mass.

 

En masse, they make a mess.

 

The single One has no mass.

 

The universe of the single One is very

light indeed!

 

> They're busy " enjoying " themselves. This is about " understanding " ,

NOT about " enjoying " yourself.

 

*is* is

 

> Does that make sense?

 

Yes -- because it doesn't need to.

 

-- Dan

[Guest guest]

Realization , " dan330033 " <dan330033>

wrote:

> > Trunpa said it's like undergoing surgery without benefit of

> anesthesia.

>

> Maybe that's why he got drunk all the time.

>

****** Could be! :-) I know someone who knew him back when and spent

a good deal of time with him and some of his cronies and he said he

was just fun as hell, a real charachter. I would have liked to have

known him.

 

 

> > It's only for the " brave " and the few.

>

> For the few who don't need two.

>

******** Yes, exactly. " Two " is a game for losers.

 

Judi

[Guest guest]

Ok, Rob, so there's just one thing I have to point out, I guess

there's a bit of defensiveness creeping in here around my alcoholism.

I am a *recovering* alcoholic, after nearly two years without a drink

some would say *recovered*.

 

Realization , " Rob Sacks " <editor@r...> wrote:

>Maybe this is the answer to one of my earlier questions.

>If things are in a pattern of falling part and you find yourself

>living in hell on a regular basis ... well, that doesn't sound all

>that happy.

 

When I say 'it all falls apart' I do not mean popping down to the pub

for a pint before dinner only to wake up three days later handcuffed

to a hospital bed, that sort of thing doesn't happen any more.

What I mean is I'm going along fine, doing my readings, meditations,

being really nice and helpful to people and thinking I'm so great

when someone does something I don't want them to and I get a bit

angry and I don't want to feel like that. I believe it is possible to

live in peace/joy/love which can't be threatened. When I think

I'm 'getting there' and then I have feelings which tell me I'm still

capable of being the selfish angry little SOB I used to be it 'all

falls apart'.

'Living in hell' just means knowing, deep down, that I am alone and

that my motivations are selfish and self-seeking, that I do not know

the peace/love/joy that is my birthright.

 

Tanya.

[Guest guest]

Dear Tanya,

 

> Ok, Rob, so there's just one thing I have to point

> out, I guess there's a bit of defensiveness creeping

> in here around my alcoholism. I am a *recovering*

> alcoholic, after nearly two years without a drink

> some would say *recovered*.

 

You didn't seem defensive to me at all. You seemed

very honest.

 

> > When I say 'it all falls apart' I do not mean popping

> down to the pub for a pint before dinner only to wake

> up three days later handcuffed to a hospital bed, that

> sort of thing doesn't happen any more.

 

Bah, you should be proud of yourself for escaping from

it, not defensive. Not easy to escape. That sort of

thing has strong clutches. And it fogs the perception of

reality so badly. The desire for truth must be very strong

in you to have pulled yourself away from that. I would

imagine the battle against pretence and defensiveness will

always be of supreme importance to you -- I don't know

how to phrase it exactly.

 

> What I mean is I'm going along fine, doing my readings,

> meditations, being really nice and helpful to people and

> thinking I'm so great when someone does something I

> don't want them to and I get a bit angry and I don't want

> to feel like that. I believe it is possible to

> live in peace/joy/love which can't be threatened.

 

Oh I see.

 

> When I think I'm 'getting there' and then I have feelings

> which tell me I'm still capable of being the selfish angry

> little SOB I used to be it 'all falls apart'.

 

I see.

 

> > 'Living in hell' just means knowing, deep down, that

> I am alone and that my motivations are selfish and self-

> seeking, that I do not know the peace/love/joy that is

> my birthright.

 

I see. But why is this so hellish? This only means you're

human. This is only part of what you are. At the same

time, you're God. The fact that you have chosen to steer

a course straight into this hell, the fact that you are telling

us this, it brings tears to my eyes .... it's God, and it's a

miracle, and it's you dear.

 

> that I do not know the peace/love/joy that is

> my birthright.

 

Sounds like you're looking for it in the right direction

now.

 

Love,

 

Rob

 

-

" Tanya Davis " <tanyarowan

<Realization >

Saturday, March 29, 2003 2:58 AM

Re: in these troubled times