Reincarnation, the Soul

From An Interview with Shamcher Bryn Beorse

J=Jelaluddin Boru, S=Shamcher
J: What do you think of reincarnation, Shamcher?
S: The Soul may be thought of as something individual regarding you, but the Soul is also something deeper, and in this sense the soul is the same Soul for everyone. And in this sense the soul doesn’t reincarnate, it receives an impression. It gathers around it impressions, or vibrations you may call them, of heart and mind and body.
Take as an example a soul that is coming to the world of matter to make and receive impressions again. On the way it meets the soul of Beethoven, which is departing. Beethoven doesn’t need his music anymore, which is a product of the vibrations of his mind and heart, and so he sheds the impression that is his music, like a coat he no longer needs. And the soul that is approaching the physical world, and wants things of this sort, looks at this field of vibrations and thinks, “This is good, I like this,” and so he absorbs a little of the coat and comes here and plays like Beethoven, and then people say, “It is Beethoven reincarnated!” Even this soul may begin to think it is Beethoven reincarnated, but it is not, it is an impression of Beethoven in the form of vibrations of his mind and heart.
There is reincarnation, but not in the sense that some of us superficially believe. There isn’t a changing soul that comes down and then goes up again, the soul is more aloof and impersonal than that. It is sort of sitting there and looking down on the whole play…
Just look at the way the idea of reincarnation is sometimes abused in India: They see a man crawling along in the street, with leprosy, stretching out a half-broken arm, but the Indians say, “That’s his own fault, he did something wrong in his last life and so he reincarnates in this form.” That’s superstition and cruelty and not reincarnation!

J: How does the Soul get here in the first place?
S: The Soul  exists forever and has no beginning or end, or at least any beginning or end that anyone here can imagine.

J: Then why does it take a body?
S: To get experience. A metaphor would be that you have a finger, and then you put a glove on it, and stick it down in some hot water to experience the feeling… The Soul makes this kind of impression in this world of mind and matter to sift up the experience. That is why God has created the universe in the first place. And why he is continually creating it through each soul.

J: I don’t really understand what you are trying to say about reincarnation and the Soul.
S:  What I think doesn’t matter. But what I am trying to do here is to quote Inayat Khan: that the Soul is part of the eternal God, the Light. It is in a sense One with God, and in a sense it is separate.
And, as we said before, every opposite thing is really part of the same thing. The Soul doesn’t have any opposite. It doesn’t go down or up. The Soul is immovable. It doesn’t need to move…

J: Is the Soul in the body?
S: Only insofar as it gives the body life. For instance the moment that you die there is nothing in it…
You may picture it as you want. No one can draw an adequate picture from the physical world that can truly explain it. You can picture it all you want, but there is no final understanding of it. For instance, is it like that wall over there? These kind of things can’t be answered. Perhaps one could say that as the flower has a fragrance, so the body has a “fragrance” which is the Soul… The Soul is a very subtle vibration which is too subtle for our minds to comprehend.

J: How about the concepts of Soul and spirit. Is there any difference?
S: Not really. Sometimes they are not used synonymously, but there is no real difference, or the difference is too subtle for us to appreciate.

J: From what you’ve said, it would seem that you don’t accept the idea the reincarnation is a process by which we are attempting to reach perfection.
S: The soul may try various impressions to attain to more knowledge, but not really perfection. ls there anything you can call perfection?
One of the silliest notions going around in this line is, “Well, he is a perfect master.” There is no such thing as a master, except maybe in shoemaking, mechanics or making books perhaps. When you come to a spiritual life there is never a master, there never was and never will be a master. As Inayat Khan said: “There is only One master, the spirit that leads every Soul towards its destination.” “Master” is a spiritual concept and nothing more, and to hear people talk about the “perfect master”, so very sad.

Death, Physics, Initiation

From An Interview with Shamcher Bryn Beorse

J=Jelaluddin Boru S=Shamcher

J: How about death?
S: That is another reason for the misunderstanding. Death is a different thing than we usually picture it. And death doesn’t come from a disease. A disease may come at the same time, and then people will say, “Oh, he died from cancer.” You can’t prevent death, and why should you want to? That is why healing groups make a great mistake when they say, “These people mustn’t die, we must heal them.” Cancer may be a hideous disease, but there is nothing hideous about death. It is merely a certain rhythm which says “now this form of life is out.”
Many people ask about Inayat Khan’s death. Well, there are many theories, but I see that he had simply lived out his life. He wasn’t physically exhausted or anything like that, in fact he was fresh enough to be able to go to India and live a comfortable last year there, but his life as a constant stimulator of people’s vibrations was finished. So he said as he went to India that he wanted no one to go with him. A couple of disciples disobeyed.

J: Had you intimations of his death before it came?
S: Well, one time he said to me, “Murshid has no more interest” and I had a feeling about it then, and another time when I told him that I was looking forward to meeting him the following summer he said, “From now on, Shamcher, we will meet in your intuition.”

J: Did you say once that he died of a broken heart?
S: No, I never said that, that was —– who said that.

J: Some say that he was poisoned.
S: These are all superstitions. He was very happy that last year, and when he died there was the scent of roses in the room.
*
J: What are your thoughts on your own death?
S: Oh, I was in it once, when I had my accident, and the doctors told my children that I was dead. And during that time I met my parents and everything was fine, but then I was insolent enough to come back.
That experience of death was a very pleasant thing. My mother and father spoke to me as if I had been there with them all the time. They weren’t surprised, and the whole thing felt like it was just a continuation of a conversation. Probably I had been there before and not remembered it. Or perhaps without being aware of it.
By the way, when you were speaking about the mystic sciences before, were you including the atomic theory and the Quantum theory? I would include these as well. Because when you have a light photon you can explain it mathematically as a wave, that is, you have a certain set of equations which describe it as a wave, but then simultaneously you have another set of equations that describe it as a particle, an entirely different set of equations. So the old physicists say, the ones still bound to the old form of cause and effect, that this is impossible, it can’t be two things. But the Quantum theory people say, “Yes, the two things seemingly opposite are two poles of the same reality…”
In a sense we can explain it like this. Imagine you have a circle. When you look at it from the end it looks like a straight line. So in this dimension it is just a line. But stand it up in the second dimension and it appears as the circle. Now, if you put it in the third dimension you may have a doughnut; cut a line through it, you have two circles, but actually these two circles are just another way of expressing the doughnut in the third dimension.
*
J: I am always very interested when we talk about the concept of opposites. Isn’t that how linguistics tries to explain language, as a system embodying a relationships of opposites?
S: Yes, language is built on the relationship of opposites, but not so much in Chinese or the other Oriental languages as our own.

J: I found that out a couple of years ago when I worked for a time as a Vietnamese interpreter, Those languages are so much more fluid and less suggestive of what we sometimes call the “subject-object dichotomy”…
A line from Hazrat Inayat Khan has just entered my head here. He says: “Everything is apprehended by its opposite, And that’s why God is so hard to apprehend because He has no opposites.”
S: That’s very good. That’s very true… It is we who are living in the opposites. Good or evil, dark or light…
*
J: What is enlightenment?
S: Oh, enlightenment, yes. Well, let us just say that enlightenment is something you are looking forward to, and when you reach it then you can begin looking forward to the next enlightenment.
You see, there is always more…
Even God himself gets better all the time! When you have begun to be enlightened you feel, “Yes, I have a lot more to learn, but now at least I am happy because there is no doubt anymore.” And in this state you can look at the mistakes you have made, and passed and know that they are fine, that they belong. So you are enlightened in the sense that your doubts aren’t giving you such trouble, and you are ready to begin learning a thousand things…

J: Enlightenment is the point at which you realize that you don’t know?! Ya! (chuckles)
*
J: There is something that happens like that in initiation, where you begin to “know that you don’t know” only it’s so sudden that it can be tremendously confusing. After I was initiated by Neaatma at that Canada camp, the same time that I met you, Shamcher, I entered a period of bewilderment in which I felt completely disconnected from my normal habits and routines. Like I am a writer, and I couldn’t get myself to sit down and write, except for brief intense bursts, for about four months!
Now I think that a lot of what was happening to me was that I was learning to communicate without words, what the sufis call “tawwajeh” or heart to heart, and in the midst of this lesson I couldn’t immerse myself in the same old ways of analyzing and describing everything…,
It’s not painful to me anymore. Probably because I am finally coming out of it. But what would you say to someone who is still going through it…?
S: You just have to wait, be in touch with the silences as we’ve talked about, and it will work itself out.

J: Is that all? Do you think it is bad to struggle against it?
S: Yes. That is useless, and will make the experience worse.

J: I wish I understood this more. The point where I stopped being angry with myself for being unable to transmit the images that I was being bombarded with through my pen, to just feeling wonderful about the deep change that was going on in my being.,.
S: You know, this is really wonderful for me to hear. I didn’t realize that the initiations being given by the present initiators could still do that… When I was initiated by Inayat, I hung around in Suresnes for six weeks and then–blam!

(Click here for a random post from somewhere else in this blog.)

Attachments

From An Interview with Shamcher Bryn Beorse

J=Jelaluddin Boru, S=Shamcher

J : Could you give us an example of someone being too attached to fruits?
S: Yes. l have a friend who is an economist. I consider him the finest economist in the United States. He is also a zen man, and interested in Sufism and Yoga.
One day he comes to me and says, “Bryn, I don’t think I will continue any longer.” I don’t give him any response. “Yes,” he says, “I have articles running in the Economic journal, and I have written three books, but nobody listens… Nobody does what I ask…I think I’ll give up.”
Why do you want to give up, I say. Look how hard I have worked all my life. And yet the only thing that I can do is to continue with what believe in for the rest of my life, and the less people who listen the intensely must I work.”
So he says: “But Bryn, you are one in a million, no I mean one in a billion…” But anyway he realized that he had made a mistake by saying that he was going to give up.

J: We have spoken a great deal about attachments. Would you say that even if people cannot dissolve their attachments, they would become much better off if they could simply make them more gentle?
S: I think so, yes, definitely. Too often the trouble is that we want a sudden change into something impossible, we want a pedestal, so that is true. We can develop right here and now, if not perfectly, at least gradually.
*
J: We spoke of disease. Would you say that a person can cure himself?
S: In the first place, whatever name you put on a disease is laughable. People say, “Oh, cancer. That can’t be cured…” Who knows what cancer means? And who knows that that can’t be cured? Everything can be and has been completely cured at different times. And any disease that you can name has been completely cured by some people. The reason that there is so little of it now is that there is so little faith in these things…
There is a sort of faith in medical science, and of course some of the doctors in this field are the finest people in the world. And of them the very finest admit that they cannot answer questions like this, because they only know one dimension of healing and that is not entirely natural.
I know of one of these men, a Dr. Simonton, who has taken on any cancer patient who is given up by regular doctors, and then he makes them develop their thought power–their heart and thought power combined–and then really look at themselves. A phenomenally high percentage have been cured… He has even described cases in which a cancerous growth has diminished in a week or a month into nothing.
Or there is the story of the yogi in India who had his hand cut off by the police who thought he was a criminal. And then the policeman said, “Oh, I’m sorry, you’re not the right person…!” But the yogi told him not to worry about it, held the arm back in place for awhile, sitting there, and in half an hour there wasn’t a sign.
This is the ability the human body has in it. And we have not been utilizing it–though it is perhaps not so bad. Humanity has gone into an anti-spiritual development for awhile to find the “facts” of life, and now, gradually, we are returning to that more keen understanding of what life is all about, and the amazing things that our bodies can do.

(Click here for a random post from somewhere else in this blog.)

Fana-fi, Darshan

From An Interview with Shamcher Bryn Beorse

J=Jelaluddin Boru, S=Shamcher

S: There was one thing that I forgot to say about fani-fi-sheikh and fana-fi-lillah. I was initiated in October of 1923, and then in 1924 saw Inayat Khan again, in Suresnes.
At that time he gave me some practices. One of which was to look at a photograph of him for concentration. And I thought, look at a photograph? What a silly thing! It is impossible to do this, but all right, all right, if he says to do it I’ll do it…
And then as I was walking home, there was this great clacking of shoes, on the pavement in back of me, and a man was shouting, “Oh Mr. Beorse, Inayat Khan wants to see you right away.” And so I came right back and Inayat said, “Shamcher, I am so sorry, I made a mistake. You should not look at photographs. You should think of the great teachings of the world, those of Buddha, Christ, etc…”
So what he had done was give me the fana-fi-rassoul instead of the fana-fi-sheikh, because he knew it was right for me. What would have happened had he rigidly adhered to the step by step process of fana-fi-sheikh, fana-fi-rassoul, fana-fi-lilah…?

J: Do you think that he was actually experiencing what you were going through?
S: Yes. I think he felt the vibrations. He did that always…

J: Again and again in the life of Inayat Khan we see how important his ability to attune himself to vibration was…
S: Yes. It should be remembered that he was an extremely sensitive musician. Sound and vibration were to him tremendous things. He was more in touch with them than anyone else I’ve ever seen. He could even use this to throw thoughts into my mind. For example, when I first met him I was to translate his lecture. We didn’t get a chance to talk about it. So he just gave the whole lecture, and then I gave the lecture again, in Norwegian. It was really him of course. He had this ability to not only be in touch with me but to completely be in my mind. Nobody else has ever been able to do that..

J: How does this differ from mediumship and the use of oracles?
S: The Greek oracles used drugs and fumes and things like that. And sometimes they would get into an entirely different world in which they did get in touch with spirits and things on the other side. But what kind do you think? Very crude spirits, and ones that might do the worst things…
Inayat was not like that. He was clear. Sufi means pure, a clear perspective without mixtures of anything. You know, he was the first man I met with whom I felt I could not make circles around him. He knew things. He had the right feeling, and he could make me feel him…

J: When Pir Vilayat gives Darshan, is he attuning himself to vibrations in the same way?
S: That’s what he is trying to do, yes.

J: Or is he predicting?
S: No, not predicting…

J: In Toronto I heard you say that there is not any such thing as prediction, that the future is fluid and even God doesn’t know the future…
S: Yes, that’s my opinion. That’s beautiful…

J: That day you disintegrated a certain kind of dependency I had had on the I ching. This was very painful at first, but then I felt a tremendous freedom, in the thought that we can make our own future. But you do like the I Ching even if you separated me from using it as an oracle, right?
S: The I Ching has beautiful practices which I do. For instance, its practices stressing a breathing out. These practices are in the same vein as spiritual disciplines…
About breath: you know, most people in this culture don’t breathe out. In a stingy sense they keep it in, thinking ‘I have this breath inside, l can’t let it out, its very precious’. And it is this kind of obsession that some try to overcome when one fasts so long one almost starves, or goes into very prolonged retreat. (One doesn’t need to do that, by the way. I have a lot of work, for example, and could never go on a retreat like that, because I have to finish this work while I am still alive.) Anyway, the purpose of these disciplines is to learn how to give up food, to give up air, whatever one is too full of.

J: Would you speak more on darshan?
S: Yes, in darshan, Inayat would sit with a mureed before him, and he would close his eyes and then the mureed would close his eyes and then suddenly, they would both open their eyes and be in touch–the mureed may not have been in touch but he was in touch–and then Inayat would feel the longing and wishes of the mureed without them being otherwise expressed.
Darshan is not the kind of thing that I would go for, because, in my case at least, it would be a sort of almost an imposition. Rather, I would advise everyone to sit–or stand or whatever–and simply get in touch with what emanates from the silence within them. This is the thing, drop the personality, the worries, everything and just be in touch with that silence within yourself…
And there are many people who understand this…

J: Would you say that this practice breaks up the descriptions we hold of ourselves in our everyday life, and lets us view ourselves once again as a center of possibilities instead of as an object…?
S: I so agree with that! To me now, if you ask who I am, I don’t really think that I am anything… But there is a center here that collects, or at least takes charge of a lot of beings–thoughts, feelings and beings. An example of this is how the human body is constantly being served by all of the devoted beings. It is not yourself, really, it is they who take care of you…
People will go to a doctor, and he will say, “Oh, you have a disease!” And they will think, Oh my goodness, I have a disease! What do I do now? They shouldn’t care about all that. It is these beings that can restore and heal you, and your mind prevents them through fear, and through the thought projected by the doctors saying this and that.
In a moment of silence you would feel that you are not really ill…
In the Dhikr we say, “This is not my body, this is the temple of God.” And you needn’t even use the name “god” if that is offensive to you, the important thing to know is that it is a temple, and so it is sacred…
It’s really strange when we get caught up in who we think we are, or who others think we are…Take my image for example. If I took these things seriously, I’d have to be a little ashamed. In the first place, because all the descriptions are wrong since I don’t really exist, in the second place because I can never live up to what I am supposed to do. Too much is expected of one, one can’t do all that, and so one is always a disappointment to somebody else …When this happens, it is time to think, well if I am all that important then at least I’m somebody, and then it doesn’t matter anymore.

J: The key–the attachment to the description…?
S: Yes.

(Click here for a random post from somewhere else in this blog.)

The Mystic Sciences

From An Interview with Shamcher Bryn Beorse

J=Jelaluddin Boru, S=Shamcher

J: When I heard you speak on the “mystic sciences”, the I Ching, tarot, astrology, etc. up in Toronto this spring, it kept striking me that you were saying something on a deeper level than that they simply don’t have any value. That they could be aids to developing our insight, but the hold of their attraction over us is such that they have degenerated into something much less than they had been intended to be…
S: Yes. Someone once asked Inayat: “Shouldn’t we sufis get our charts read?” And he answered: “Where are the astrologers?”
That is the whole point.
Swami Yukteswar, Yogananda’s teacher, once wrote a book called the “holy science” that said that Indian astrology, on which is based Western astrology, is about 400,000 years wrong because of a mistake made many, many years ago.
The whole idea of zodiacs, twelve zodiacs–why twelve and not a million?

J: I had this explained to me once that the twelve zodiacs correspond to the six chakras below the crown. That there is a masculine and feminine side to each, and the zodiac was an external correspondence to the pathway of our Kundalini energy…
S: That sounds very good. But some say we have six chakras, some twelve, some three, some four… They are all constructs of the mind, descriptions. Why believe someone else’s descriptions? It is better to wait with a judgment until one has gone very deeply into oneself and seen these things. Then, if you see six chakras, of course for you there are six chakras, and if you see three then of course for you there are three… It is different for each person.

(Click here for a random post from somewhere else in this blog.)

Ego

From An Interview with Shamcher Bryn Beorse

J=Jelaluddin Boru, S=Shamcher

J: I think that these sufis, or other people, who have run to mediums, oracles, etc., are often doing so because of a basically good purpose of developing their intuition in such a way that they are in touch with the deeper significance of their lives, the one contained within their surface wants. And it is simply that they don’t understand that when one wants to transcend the ego, it is a tremendous interference to try do this through the intervention of other egos…
S: Well, I agree with you that when many go to a medium it is not always with a bad intention. But one thing that is going wrong in the first place is that they are thinking of themselves as egos. Inayat Khan never did that, and neither do l. If you call it your ego, and mean something bad, then you have the problem of working against yourself…
I don’t think of myself as a despicable being… The Christians do that, unfortunately. They say, I am an awful sinner, there is nothing but sin in me, but Christ is up there and He’s all right… Far away, you see, on a pedestal. One needn’t do this. It isn’t necessary to go the road of thinking of oneself as such a sinner or as an “ego”. Rather, without any preconditioning keep your thoughts right. That is the thing, that is real meditation. . .
And you may sit in a beautiful position to do it if you want, and this is fine if it is comfortable, but you needn’t do any particular position.
One time when I was with Musharaff and Mahboob Khan, two of Inayat’s brothers, I was trying rather desperately to get into the lotus position, and they said, “What are you trying to do, Shamcher?” And I answered, “Well, I’m trying to sit like you.” And they laughed and said, “All you have to do is get comfortable. The object is not to sit like us…”

(Click here for a random post from somewhere else in this blog.)

Appetites

From An Interview with Shamcher Bryn Beorse

J=Jelaluddin Boru, S=Shamcher

J: Harmony is so much a part of the message. And mastery of the forces within us so much a part of mastering the outer conflict which tends to separate us from our fellow beings… Yet how often we know nothing about how to go about learning self-control. And because of this lack of knowledge a very good intention becomes distorted and our appetites become exaggerated, and then explode outwardly in a very dangerous manner later on…Do you have any practical methods to recommend for the control of appetites, for the balancing of obsession?
S: It is all very, very individual. When I was young I enjoyed fasting. I now know that that is not the right way for everybody. I would fast for two or three weeks, eat nothing, and hardly even drink anything. Now, for some people that would be terrible. But I survived and even worked as usual and felt as strong. Sometimes I felt a little cooler…
The trouble was when I began eating again. The tendency is to eat too much. One should start with very little: an apple or a cracker, for if you eat too much you may destroy all the good effects of the fast.
But the most important effect one gets from a fast is the feeling one starts to get about this body of yours…
WHO is really taking care of it?!

(Click here for a random post from somewhere else in this blog.)

Titles

From An Interview with Shamcher Bryn Beorse
J=Jelaluddin Boru, S=Shamcher

Titles

J: That leads right into the idea of titles: Masters, Pir-O-Murshids, etc.
S: Yes, even the religious and philosophical organizations seem to have sinned in this direction. Hazrat Inayat Khan, a “Pir-O-Murshid”, once said; “When a title is given to a person, it doesn’t mean he is more advanced or is in any way ahead of anyone else, it means that he is privileged to have extended to him the opportunity to see if someday he may arrive at the proper attitude of respect, gratitude and humbleness that goes with his being a sufi.
Inayat Khan’s second son, Hidayat, says that he remembers that his father said, when he went to India the last time. “If I ever come back, I shall forget about the titles and the hierarchy and concentrate on the message.” And some will say “Well, Hidayat was a child at the time and you can remember a child remembering something like that”. But I was 29 years old at the time and I remember the same thing. Of course I was a child too. Am still a child for that matter…
I believe that among sufis we have all kinds of people. Some are more sensitive than others, and some believe in the hierarchy as a means to help the pupil, and maybe in some instances that is good. Personally, I am against it. I don’t think that it does any good, and I’ve always asked that no one use the title that I have been accorded in the sufi effort [Murshid]. I certainly don’t feel that I deserve any title. . .
Sometimes people say, “You must have respect and call Inayat Khan Pir-o-Murshid Inayat Khan. That’s the last thing I want to call him. I’ve always felt that he is so much more than merely a Pir-O-Murshid…I have met many murshids and pir-o-murshids for whom I could have no respect whatever, and others whom I felt were very fine people. So you see that it has nothing to do with the title…

J: About Inayat Khan. Would you say that all of his grace and power then, came from his natural attunement with the grace of his message, a message born of the vibrations coming from us?
S: He once said: “I was sent to the West by my teacher to unite East and West with the music that you know…and I did that in the beginning. I played my music, and now I have come to hear the music of every living Soul and this is not merely uniting the geographical directions of east and west but any two apparently opposite units, uniting them through the harmony which I hear when I listen to the music from individuals.” And by this he didn’t think that these individuals were going to sing to him, but he heard something, he looked at the person and the vibrations that he felt was the music he heard. So in one sense he stopped his musical life, but really it was a continuance of the same thing: uniting east and west through the harmony of his music…

(Click here for a random post from somewhere else in this blog.)

Obsession

From An Interview with Shamcher Bryn Beorse
J=Jelaluddin Boru, S=Shamcher
J: Shamcher, I’ve been searching for the underlying similarity in the type of obsession we’ve talked about. The “obsession” of Inayat Khan’s interest, contact with spirits of the other side, and the obsession that is preoccupation with certain ideas of the mind, and the obsession that is a process towards living with ego in balance. Somehow it is all caught up with the old idea from the Gita that deals with attachment to the fruits of one’s labors…
S: Yes, Obsession only occurs when you are concerned with the fruits of your labor. There is an old piece of wisdom in both yogic and sufi lore, and that is that you may be fond of your labor, you may do your labor for humanity, but if you think about the fruits and are concerned primarily with them then you are off the track, and for our purposes here you could say such a one was obsessed. For instance, you do certain things, and are overanxious with the results: “Will they understand me, will they go along, will I have no success at all?” Such thoughts make an obsession out of your work.

J: There seem to be two sides of dealing with this, On the one hand, the idea of struggle into self mastery, as suggested by the Gita quote: “O Arjuna, you can fight…”, and the other approach which is to yield to one’s impulses and “go with the flow…”
S: You give in to the flow, but this is perhaps not as simple as it sounds, Say there is a trend in our civilization right now to strive for more income. Civilization tells you that you are a bigger and better person the more you get. If you give in to this, you are not giving in to the ‘flow’, you are giving in to a quirk of civilization. There is a difference…
Congressmen, for instance, who feel that they must be privileged to increase their salaries in correspondence with inflation (which they are perhaps more responsible for than anyone else), they are giving in to the flow in a certain sense, but what flow? A flow of incorrect civilization.
Giving in to the flow really means giving in to the flow that is the flow of the Universe, of the spirit.
It is important to know which flow we are speaking of.
Like the way we give awards, titles, prizes. A person receives a Ph.D. or a Nobel prize… One rather wise head of a university once said: “I’d like to add a little note on everyone who gets their Ph.D. ‘This man has strived hard to become a very narrow specialist in this field, so never listen to him in anything else…’” This is the correct way, this man was trying to listen to the real flow. Whereas the others, the ones who have such great respect because they are Ph.D.s or some other title of being a great scientist, may be giving in to another flow altogether different, and one quite unworthy.

(Click here for a random post from somewhere else in this blog.)

Memory As A Balancer

From An Interview with Shamcher Bryn Beorse
J=Jelaluddin Boru, S=Shamcher

J: In a recent issue of The Message, Pir [Vilayat] talks about carrying a sense of memory from moment to moment. It seems that balance is like this. Rather than having one’s interest burn up like a flame, and then losing all the impressions and lessons learned in the particular point of attention. Would you say that an essential part of balance is continuity…?
S: Right. On your path you should try to remember at least this life. And maybe more than that, all the way from the beginning. That’s why l touched on the unbalance I had when I was younger, when I had to go on those mountain trips etc. I don’t need that any longer, maybe because now the hills are so darn steep (hmmmn, is it because I don’t need it, or the combination of these two things together?). But it is true, one should try one’s best to remember all the lessons, and then it is easier to be in communication with all ages.

J: Perhaps it is best to say that there is no balance greater than the awareness that you are one with God, and once you realize this, no matter what happens, there is a sense of Beauty and Divinity in you…
S: Yes. That’s very, very true, I couldn’t improve upon it.

J: I think you said it.
S: Yes…?