Harimedia Forum

>>>>>On the other hand I have not yet fully understood what Hari proposes as a cure for all this. Not everyone of us is so experienced in practising psychotherapy and has the ability to turn the patients inside-out.


* Why do we believe what we believe? What caused us to come to the conclusions we did?
* What do we expect out of life and what are we expecting to attain in the future?

* Traumas at birth
* Being abused as a child
* Being neglected or not seen for who you were as a child etc.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Personally, I always enjoy reading what Hari speaks or writes. Although some of my old ISKCON friends talk about their frustration and disappointment when we meet and when they relate to the past I look at it as a part of an important experience. If Hari did not do it what he did I would never be able to evolve myself, to learn more about life. And I learned a lot and I do not talk about psychotherapy here but about much positive and loving energy. No rejection, only acceptance.
On the other hand we should not be naive to believe that one person can become our daddy and resolve all our problems. I have a tough personal experience regarding my father and I understand today that in the very end the choice is ours. But if I were to choose one person to have by my side I would choose a (real) father. So now I look for Him everywhere. I still see Prabupada as my grandfather and Hari as my co-father. It does not mean they have to do the same thing but they did and are still doing important things for me, maybe not even knowing about that.
It is important to identify one's crucial points (you called them anarthas) in order to work on them to be able to evolve. And we have all the time in the world but it is always a bliss to win that battle. I know my "pressure points" from the past life and I know what I have to do now but it is not that easy, of course. You have also your "pressure points", everybody has (there is only one of us).
Interestingly, you can talk about that with almost everybody but as soon as you stop the other person forgets it somewhat mystically and I guess this is his free choice that we can't influence. Maybe that is why Prabhupada recommended association of people who share the same inclination.

I think my answer to your question about what we expect out of life is to be, to experience, and to love (not fear). Quite simple but we do not need to make our life more complicated than it is. The same message can be found everywhere as the source of message is one. You mentioned discipline and daily practice, it did not work for me. I did not like it as I have a different "spirit". To hear that your thinking process is "anartha" really waked me up in the end. Now we have to pick up all the good things from our former experience and carry them with us and leave behind us everything that we feel was wrong. There is a lot of "anarthas" there too I would guess.

Thank you again for moving discussion in this direction. As I mentioned before, I really enjoy reading your conversations.

Akhila L wrote:Actually, it has been taught by Lord Chaitanya Himself: acintya bhedabheda tatthva. It is amazing that when one reads such books as Almine's or Walsh's ones there is an underlying and repeated message on almost every page: there is only one of us. But we are not a homogenous piece of spirit.

.Neale Donald Walsch

"I believe we are attracted to each other inherently, out of a deep knowing that in each other we will find our Selves. I believe we know at the highest level that We Are All One."

"Changing values are the sign of a maturing society. You are growing into a larger version of yourself. You are changing your values all the time as you gather new information, as you bring in new experiences and discover new ways of looking at things. As you redefine Who You Are."

"You are not a human being. You are not your body, you are not your mind, and you are not your soul. These are things that You have. The You that has these things - indeed, that has given your Self these things - is far bigger than any of them, and even all of them put together."

Sincerely speaking, Akhila, I am somehow baffled when I read all this quotes by Walsh on his official fan page site on Facebook or in some of his many books I have also a my book shelf. The way he understands this Oneness is not my way or the way I would like it to be. I can't do anything with it, since I perhaps like you also am not in the mood of merging myself in "a homogenous piece of spirit" where there is no feeling involved what to speak of love and service to others. Its like visiting India where all this guys and their tousends of followers are "shouting it from the rooftops" of their ashrams. "We are all ONE!!!!!!!!" And if you ask someone what does their new gaind "insight" really means you may be surprised of the answer. Its something like: "I am you, you are me, we are all ONE"... Strange world of "Oneness". It just doesn't appeal to me.

Considering this I can only compliment the author of the Shrimad Bhagavatam who wrote:
“My dear Lord, You are self-determined and are the Supreme Personality of Godhead for all living entities. For them You created this material manifestation, and although You are one, Your diverse energies can act multifariously. This is inconceivable to us.” (SB. 3.33.3)

I like Walsch's books. I found a lot of valuable information in them. I do not think we can compare it with Indian swamis shouting about oneness. In this life, I have an European mind and a Christian background so the whole Indian world is somewhat exotic for me. But I appreciate this vast knowledge and spiritual atmosphere given to us in shape of Vedic scriptures, especially BG and SB. And we all know very well who made it possible for us. In the beginning I took it as a "whole package" but in course of time I understood that I have to make my decisions and live my life. The one thing (again "one") I never stopped doing was praying as I know someone is listening. So how can you pray to the oneness? And who is talking to Walsch?
I think there must be a good reason that we love and feel so much. Every little experience everywhere has some meaning for the whole (or the One). To believe that we have to "kill it" in order to be absolutely perfect (or One) is devastating for me. So even if we are One we are also different and that is good. I know that you understand very well what I mean here. It lies beyond the words, it is how we feel it.
Thank you again for your comments.

.
It was around summer 1979 when I visited my grandfather on a Sunday afternoon. Upon entering his living-room a book with a very colourful cover catched my eyes. It had the title "Die Schönheit des Selbst" and was a translation of The Science of Self-Realization. My grandfather told me he bought it the other day when someone came and rang the bell of his appartment here in Nuremberg. I browsed a little through the book and was most impressed by the very clear, very logical and very decisive manner in which the author conveyed his spiritual message and understanding therein. I remember one of the first pages I opend were the one where Prabhupada answers some questions by someone regarding science and those who present themselves as scientists.

It really amused me to read how he described this in other sectors of society highly honoured personalities as "rascals." Like for exmple in this conversation one can read on the Internet:

"Srila Prabhupada. The individual soul is never lost. He does not die, nor is he born. He simply changes from one body to another, just as one changes garments. This is perfect science.
Dr. Singh. But why don't scientists accept this?
Srila Prabhupada. They are not nice men. They are rascals. They are not even gentlemen. Under appropriate circumstances, gentlemen will have some shyness or some shame. But these men are shameless. They cannot properly answer our challenges, yet they shamelessly claim that they are scientists and that they will create life. They are not even gentlemen. At least I regard them like that. A gentleman will be ashamed to speak nonsense.
Dr. Singh. They do not think before they speak.
Srila Prabhupada. That means that they are not human beings. A human being thinks twice before saying anything. Krsna makes the presence of life within the body so easy to understand." (...)

I thought at that time when reading about this "rascals" that at least there is someone who says the things like they are, without hesitation. I must say frankly I was fascinated by the way Prabhupada discussed this things with others. I thought wow at least there is someone who calles this things and people by its name. Of course at that time I was a youngster and now I am 50 but my inclination to receive clear and apparently decissive answers on my various questions in life is still the same. Therefore I still have much appreciation for Prabhupada and the way he is presenting and discussing his spiritual understanding to others although in the meantime I dont see many things so black and white as Prabhupada may describe some things in his books.

Akhila L wrote:It is amazing that when one reads such books as Almine's ... ones there is an underlying and repeated message on almost every page: there is only one of us.

I found in this regard a nice quote by Almine, someone whom I did not knew until you were mentioning his name. "Our bodies cannot be incarcerated when our spirits are free. We are only imprisoned when we are programmed by beliefs. No matter how lofty their philosophies seem, revere not the thoughts of men that have been. Through us the One Life spontaneously unfolds, when our hearts are open, when we don’t think that we know." - Almine

Interesting is also what Eckhart Tolle says in a video on Youtube:

"... your essential nature is not something, not content, not form. The best description through words is to say not what it is not. And then you're left with what it is, which cannot be named but can be known. But cannot be known conceptually because every concept is again a name and a form. It can be known simply easily in the silent space of stillness, which is in everyone. Underneath the mental noise, no matter how heavy and turbulent the mental emotional noise may be, no matter how heavy the ego accent of self is, in everyone as the essential nature is the stillness of pure cosciousness, your essential nature, the essence - your essence, not separate from the essence of the universe. Are this just words? Yes, the words point to that, they cannot encapsulate that, they cannot explain, not even attempt to explain.

If the question arrises in you that says: "Please explain a bit more, I don't quite get it yet", it is not possible. This are pointers - the analysis of pointers is pointless. But the mind wants to have content, so it will ask questions about the pointers, instead of allowing the pointers to point. It wants to analyse the pointer, the signpost. Let's look at the signpost, let`s examinate, let`s get out the microscope. So, what I am saying, the mind cannot get. Allow the statement to work in you as a pointer not as an explanation of the universe, because there can be none, but it can work, those beautiful words of the Upanishads or whatever words arise here - pointing to the dimension of the formless one life, that is you. So what really it is pointing to, what all this words point to, is that dimension of stillness within, that is vibrant with life but still. Extremely awake but still. Underneath thougts, in-between thoughts, in-between words is the canvas on which the whole phenomenal existence is painted." > View on Video

"Rascals"
I am working at university and meet "scientists" every day. I hope I am scientist myself. I think Prabhupada does not mean a specific category of people (scientists) but what he means are people who make us believe there is nothing else than what they perceive and can explain by various theories (evolution, brain activity etc.) just denying the simple fact that we are more than this bodily construction (although so perfectly built). The problem is that people in HK use this citation to completely reject the science although they use scientific products and probably a lot if scientists are deeply spiritual individuals.
Krishna in BG describes the underlying psychology of souls who play this otherwise unwanted role of being "demons". Interestingly, we can assume that many of them are just highly advanced or dedicated souls who decided to play this role to show us the opposite site of love and God. Thus, the experience of what God is can be even more relished by us.
When we look at serial murderers it is interesting to watch how deprived of any feeling for the other one they can be. They are just on the opposite pole of what love is. There is no real love in them at all. They have programmed themselves for destruction. How is it possible? I have read some of their testimonials, sometimes it is hard to read it, it is so devastating och depressing. But ... There is a point in it. When you look at them then you feel at once: no, I don't even want to move one centimeter in this direction. So, it is very instructive and God with us can experience what it means to find oneself in the total amnesia of God.
Probably such people like Hitler, Stalin are a sort of "no God experience"-messengers. So, "rascals" are needed!
I used to hate them, I still do it. But now I can understand their existence and the great sacrifice their victims do for us to show the other end of love.
I am trying to be sincere here. I am discussing it with you also for myself, just to remember these simple facts. We may need our memory when friction increases and it is going to do it sooner or later. I think this spiritual training recommended by Prabhupada was meant to prepare us for frictions. In some cases it works, in some cases it does not, as previously explained by Hari. I buy this explanation by a simple logic: if the theory explains your experience then you have to accept it. If it doesn't you have to evolve and look for another explanation.
I know some people may say: OK, it is beyond your logic. But if it is how do you know what is right or wrong? A great input Prabhupada did was to convince people in general that what we call "the spiritual life" is not deprived from logic. That is why I am so thankful to him.
With BG and SB in mind it is really a great pleasure to read such books as the ones we mentioned here. You are even more convinced that there is only One of us (I like this statement). What I want to say is that spirit of BG is reflected everywhere in such books, on every page. The problem some HK people are affected by today is that they have tendency to think and believe that "the truth is mine". For some reason they close their minds instead of expanding it (as the real love does).
What I used to do when I read such quotes as presented by you is that I start reading them and if I cannot understand them then I quit. No time to loose. But if l find something inspiring then I try to memorize it.
Thanks again.

A nice point of view and comparative study. I like it the way you explain this things, Akhila. Regarding your sentence: "You are even more convinced that there is only One of us (I like this statement)" my personal impression on that statement was that this "there is only one of us" would be a rather simplistic reading (interpretation), unduly bland, insignificant and noncommittal until last evening I found online a nice clarification in my quest for clarity in this regard which proves me wrong and by which I think we can all live with.

Therein the author gives some information about the benefits and perspective of opening yourself up for living deeper in the ‘Now’, the present moment, instead of being stuck in the past or tied down by tradition: "... open yourself deeper into the ‘Now’. In this moment you see, you hear, you taste, you smell and sense. The awareness of this moment becomes a doorway to experience the Truth, for yourself, about yourself. You realize that everything, including yourself, is an expression of the Divine. You have returned Home; you are one with your Source. Your separation is only an idea. Your Quest for Clarity is fulfilled." (...)

With kind regards from Nuremberg

I saw today a video on Youtube and I am very thankful to Kamalamala that he put it there, where Hari is explaining in a lecture he gave in Moscow in 2007, what he means when he speaks about this concept of 'I am' and 'one of us'.

Therein Hari is saying: "The proposal is, I am the most important person in my life. So now I'm going to stand all the way in the hundred eighty degree corner and I'm just going to simply embrace 'I am'. I'm going to say: this is the process. This is my way of existence. I am. Now I have to step back away from there, because an explanation is required.

Now that person standing over there who is - is a rare person, because most people don't think like that. And there are millions of reasons why, and we have already discussed a lot of them today. I propose that if we can get back to that state, where all we have as our perception of spirituality is that "we are", we have everything at our fingertips to realize everything there is to realize about spirituality everywhere.

Now I do not mean to say again that: "that person over there becomes everything everywhere or merges with everything everywhere, this are just statements which really means nothing. I mean after all one may say that he has merged with the everything everywhere and has become the one with the everything everywhere but if I simply stand over here (leaning against a chest of drawers) and say: "am I in the everything everywhere? So what am I thinking right now? Simple question even psychics could answer it." They can't answer it. And than they say well thats not that kind of oneness. I say well right because its just an idea. "You haven't experienced it because I am standing two metres from you - you are not one with me." So when I'm over here and I am the most important thing - I am and therefore I have all capacity spiritually - I mean something else."

Watch Video: "You don't have to do anything to come in contact with yourself and the Supreme" >

Indeed if this 'I am' is perceived in terms of an actual physical space, a spatial environment I am located and find myself already in as an individual being, which I may share and co-create with others including the Supreme, the proposal concept by Hari makes sense to me. Thus "there is only one of us" could be meant more figuratively than literally. As one can read online: "IT project leaders working for mediaman not only have the necessary technical know-how, but are also equipped with foresight, experience and the required social competence to make all persons involved act in concert." (...)

.
.Video: Hari lectures 2007 part 13 > More Videos on: http://gauranitai.tv > Mirdushi.ru


Hari: “I just want people to connect to the Supreme because that’s what I care about. And I have that enormous experience with these literally tens of thousands of people and all so many of these “big shot” gurus and so on, and I just don’t see it working. So I said: “But it does work; I know it works; I feel it works, so what’s wrong? And that’s why I looked at it from the other point of view. And that’s why I wanna share it. Because in my world husbands and wifes love each other. In my world their children are loved, and protected, and facilitated. In my world there is no hierarchy, we share; we work for our mutual benefit as people.

And in my world the spiritual world isn’t over there. It’s right here. How could it be anywhere else, it's not a geographical location. I’m not a geographical location. If you see energetically all you will see is energy. There is no geography in energy; there is no time in energy; these things are all creations we make here to make sense of the world that we live in. So I think this idea of love; of sharing love between people, of the protection of the families, of the protection of the communities, of just facilitating everybody’s growth upwards, and not having to depend on somebody to bring you there, but you all go, we all go, we all go together - I like that.”

Questioner: In self-realization in realizing the state of ‘we are’ and realizing our love and devotion in the state of our freedom and freedom of creativity can you say that this is god in it? (Translated from Russian)

Hari: First of all, I never use really if I talk about what we really do I don’t use the word “self-realization” it's actually a meaningless term; it's actually as meaningless as “my spirituality”. Of course you could use “my spirituality” to refer to the way you express spirituality, that’s another thing. But self-realization would tend to make you think that you can realize something about yourself. As if you are separate from the self and you realize the self. Now I suppose you could think like that, but I don’t like to speak like that. For me it’s just a question of being aware of what you are; accepting yourself. So some people use the term self-actualization. But whatever it is, it boils down to coming, embracing and accepting that you - are.

But this is the where we philosophically we start getting into tricky territory when we come to use words. Because when you are in that state words are not a predominating methodology; they are not even an important methodology of communication. Or at least let’s put it like this: philosophical analysis just disappears. Words may be there to exchange love and so on, but philosophical analysis becomes rather difficult, almost impossible. Because all this philosophical analysis we do depends on a mind; it depends on intelligence; it depends on a connection to things and being able to discriminate between this thing and that thing, and delineate it.

But that disappears when you are in that state of ‘I am’, and you just know because its your nature. Now you asked about God. Now here its where words start to fail us so I answer with impressions. If I am and I am connected to the divine, I know I am there, the divine is there, we are there, we are connected but it becomes such an Us that I become not (an) important element, god becomes not (an) important element, Us becomes the important element.

Now how do you talk about that in words, sure you can but every time you speak about it you lose what it is a little bit. So I'm gonna talk about another one of my experiences which was probably one of the most difficult things I've ever had to do. Now, I know and it's the only logic that can ever exist that my quality, my energy and god's energy are of the exact same quality. I know it, I experience it (and) the Us-ness has shown me that, there can be no other situation.

Now that's easy to understand when you are this Us. Because you and the Supreme together it's just really feels good. And you've forgotten your own individuality with that sense of it being just the separated thing, you now see it in union with the divine and it just feels so right in that situation. But there is a part; there is something else about that that's so difficult to deal with. When you have to again think about and feel your Self.

Does that self change from the point at which it was the Us with God? Follow this, please. The self is together with God, in connection, you feel it, you love it and you just feel great about it. Now just think about again yourself after “I am” now “we are” and than again “I am”.


.Video: Hari lectures 2007 part 14


Questioner: If we are together with God already than why should we separate from him again?
Hari: You are not separating but you are just being conscious again that 'I am' because you always - are. I never said separate. I just said be aware again 'I am'. And exactly what she just said is the problem. Because now when 'I am', I am also part of 'we are'. Now you will gonna have to just accept something that you could never possible accept. My quality what 'I am' is the same, is the same quality, the same power, the same energy as - the divine. Ok, you can say it's not the same huge, immense power and all that stuff, but you are not feeling that either. Those who felt “we are” know they are not feeling, "we are this huge power and this little, itsy-bitsy connecting". That's not what they feel.

Now we are aware of that, but it's this 'me' connecting to the divine, and I'm feeling that in such a beautiful loving connection of embrace. So, when I am again aware of 'I am', the unavoidable truth is: 'I am that', too. Now, that becomes a problem for some people. It scares them. What, scared me. It still scares me. I still have not made peace with that. And I've been working really hard to make peace, well maybe not so hard but anyway I try.

And you know what? I feel that I should really get it together. I’m being induced to get it together; I'm being induced to share it with you. I'm shaking in my boots (I'm scared) the same way you are, to actually understand that, to actually act on that platform. I’m being pushed. I’m scared. So like I said it’s like the hardest thing to deal with. It was easy when ‘we are’ because you don’t have to worry about personal responsibility. You’re just connected, you love it. But when you gonna go back the other way all of a sudden personal responsibility arises again.

"Jee (oh dear), I thought God was the one who did all that stuff". "You mean I've got to do these things. Wow! Wow! I don't know if I like that." Are you catching what I'm saying? Maybe (you) haven’t caught it yet, that's Ok, you will. When the ball is in your court, so to speak, (when it’s your turn) you know that term? And you're thinking: "Hey! I've thought this was just a love affair, “you mean there is like things you want from me, too, or I should do, or Oh no, you mean I have to manifest fully my purpose in life?."