---Jan Barendrecht

---Jan Barendrecht

---Jan Barendrecht

---Jan

Gene Poole

I have a confession to make to you.

Do you remember the 'fairy tale' of the 'princess and the pea'?

In that fine illustrative tale, the princess could not sleep, for there was
a tiny pea under her mattress.
That tiny pea formed a 'lump' which disturbed the exquisitely sensitive
princess; so disturbed, she was deprived of sleep.

Her courtiers and servants, thinking to help her, heaped more mattresses
upon her bed, hoping to ameliorate the disturbing lump, but to no avail.
The princess could not sleep, even with fifty (50) mattresses between her
and the lump-causing pea.

Finally, a prince who was in love with the princess, correctly diagnosed
the situation. He simply removed the pea, thus resolving the dilemma of the
insomniac princess. She of course, was deeply gratefull, and no doubt
invited him to share her now-comfortable bed, as a reward for his acumen
and compassion.

I offer this story to illustrate my own dilemma here, in our ongoing
discussion of Ahimsa.

No heaping of padding, no great number of mattresses, is capable of
ameliorating my discomfort.

Further, there is no hypnotic or sedative drug, no self-hypnotic saying, no
doctrine or for that matter, any rationalization whatsoever, which is
capable of quelling my discomfort. No aphorisms, slogans, or witticisms can
defer my awareness. I am indeed, exquisitely sensitive, and make no
apologies for how I am Being. I am unable to rest, as long as the pea is
present.

My own 'remedy' for this "dilemma" is rather different that that offered in
the fairy-tale. My way is to water and fertilize the pea, to allow it to
grow into the full and mature plant which is contained in the seed.

In my own life of discovery and realization, such 'peas' are not to be
ignored. I have found a great and very real danger (to myself) in any act
which is ignoring any irritant. That I regularly clear myself of all
irritants, allows any irritant which enters or appears, to be immediately
seen and recognized; it is my openess and emptiness which allows any
irritant to be center-stage, alone and in the spotlight of awareness. It is
in the recognition of what that irritant is, that I am able to see and
manage the events surrounding the advent of that irritant.

I have, in my life, carried a veritable garden of growing and full-grown
pea-plants. I have not only tolerated them, but have made space for them
within myself; this is the garden of other. Yes, rather than reject the
peas which have been implanted in me by other, rather than apply any
broad-spectrum herbicide (such as 'roundup') to relieve myself of the
irritating presence of those (seemingly foreign) seeds, I allow them to
grow to maturity within me. It is then, that I may be successful in the
self-assigned task of knowing the actual nature of each and every pea which
I find within myself.

"By their fruits, ye shall know them"; meaning, that I see how I can
transmit to others, seeds of what grows within myself. It is in the very
conscious and deliberate withholding of those seed of irritation, which is
Ahimsa. Which is why it is said:

"Criticise not the mote in the eye of your neighbor, before removing the
log from your own eye".

I will share that in my reality, there is no exception from Ahimsa, none
whatsoever. No excuses are accepted. There is no balm for my irritation, no
anesthetic for my senses. I live in a state of constant sharing with my
living environment; every bit of information, no matter how tiny, receives
the full attention of my awareness, as it passes through me. In this, I
know well that each other is exactly like me in that regard, different only
to the degree which one honors one's own nature, that of exquisite
sensitivity.

As exquisitely sensitive Beings, we are always aware of each and every
nuance of Being. No moment goes unnoticed; each impression is catalogued,
and as each catalogue swells with maturity, wisdom is thus born. The
catalogues are those plants which I mention; each plant allowed to grow to
maturity, reveals its nature, especially by the seeds that it drops as it
matures.

Some of our inner growths have a toxic nature, and are thus irritants;
Ahimsa is the empathic decision made, to avoid transmitting such toxic
seeds to others. There is no exception to this; if we conserve a supply of
toxics, it is the highest responsibility to avoid implanting others with
our own (received) irritants.

It is widely acknowedged that it is common human nature to assume the
purity of oneself; this is referred to as 'self-esteem driven
compensation'. One who assumes their own purity, will thus feel no
responsibility in the act of transmitting irritants to others, for how can
one who is pure, possibly transmit what is impure?

The concept of 'Ahimsa' acknowledges what is stated (and usually
misunderstood) in the Christian dictum of the 'born sinner' or 'original
sin'. Far from being a condemnation of human nature, the doctrine of
'original sin' is identical to that of Ahimsa; it is an illustration of how
we may consciously and deliberately avoid the trap of assumed purity, thus
to conserve our harmful impulses. It is that simple.

I could stop here, but I feel compelled to mention one more cogent point.

It is the vaunted goal of purity which is the primary irritant. This
supposedly attainable goal, as an irritant, abrogates the responsibilty
which is Ahimsa. It is the implantation of that irritant, that of attaining
purity, which is the seed of seeking and attainment, to which we so often
refer in our discussions of nonduality. The seed of seeking and attaining
of purity, is what makes one impure.

Purity is defined only in world-dream (samsaric) terms; thus, one seeking
(or assuming the attaining of) purity, will use the contrast of harm,
killing, torturing, exploiting of others, as the basis for measuring
relative purity. In this ongoing measuring process, which is the seeking we
so often refer to, one is judged by ones abstention from the samsaric acts
which are defined as 'impure'. It is this seeking of purity which is itself
the essence of the 'satan' who is called the 'father of lies'. The chief
lie, the seed of all lies, is the assumption of purity.

"All have sinned and have fallen short of the glory of God".

Thus, it is the young child, faced with samsaric versions of pure and
impure, who takes up the greatest lie as the greatest truth, and who then
unwittingly transmits the seeds of 'purity' to others. Those seeds of
'purity' are the very irritants which cause the 'contraction' referred to
by Adi Da/Da Free John; those seeds of 'purity' are the very irritants
which one lives in suffering to escape. It is the idea of purity, scaled in
samsaric terms, which is what begins the search, the seeking, and
promulgates the illusion of attainment.

Driven by this early implantation of the great lie, one then moves forward,
with a certainty of judgement which is an automatic replacement for
sensitivity; the samsaric version of 'purity', like a mirage of water on
the desert, draws those who thirst for righteousness, but the drink is of
hot and dry sand only.

It is the awakening from the trance of seeking and attainment which is the
event of realization of self-nature; it is the seeing of the lie, and our
universal vulnerability to the lie, which reveals the very nature of our
true and sacred imperfection. It is in this moment of self-realization,
that perfection is truely known.

I am certainly an advocate of 'non-violence', but I am much more of an
advocate of _non-harm_.

In my years of reading and study, I have not seen Ahimsa defined as
'nonviolence', but instead as a deliberate way of opening oneself
empathically to the nature and thus needs of others, be they human or
otherwise.

'Nonviolence' is to me, a definition which allows the harms which are
perhaps more subtle and less obvious than overt violence.

It is easy (for me at least) to decline the impulse to perform overt
violence; there are very obvious civil and conscience-based penalties
reaped by overt violence, not to mention the pain I feel in myself if I do
commit a violent act (even toward an object) which is a 'violation' of
Ahimsa.

Do you get my point here? I am still going by my learned usage of the word
'Ahimsa'... nonharm, not nonviolence. I think that nonviolence is a
catagory of its own, certainly subsumed by Ahimsa, but still a specific
catagory.

Does sarcasm, making fun of another, touting superior knowledge to produce
feelings of embarassment in another, etc etc, fall (critically) into the
catagory of nonviolence, or the catagory of Ahimsa?

Indeed, careless usage of language while attempting to convey 'truth' can
'cause harm', as we well know.

If we limit Ahimsa to nonviolence, what of the myriad means of harm that
are not _seen or understood_ as violence?

An example of subtle harm is lying, either to oneself or to another. The
harm is to oneself, and that is an abridgment of the Ahimsa principle. One
who is sensitive, will immediately feel the harm of lying, and realize that
such harm is damaging, although usually such is ignored. It is that sort of
subtle harm that I refer to, which I believe the precepts of Ahimsa were
designed to reveal and thus prevent.

Of course, if I see Ahimsa as an external set of rules to follow, rather
than experiencing Ahimsa as a naturally occuring event within myself,
trouble will arise; interpretations, judgements of one by another,
condemnations, isolation, etc.

For me, Ahimsa is the remedy for all of these ills, but I fear that for
others, Ahimsa is yet another expectation to fulfill, another bar to
hurdle, another mask to wear.

Righteousness says that losers can lose their pain, by conforming to the
ideal. Nondualism (sic) purports no ideals but the ideals of the nondual;
therfore, all nonconformists (to the putative standards of nondualism) are
losers. That is why the spate of nondual realizers doing the circuit; the
language of the winner is unmistakable, being the manifestion of grace and
surity. But there is a pitfall waiting for those whose self-congratulation
would take their eyes off of the path for an instant; pride goeth before a
fall. Righteousness is that pride.

You might be recognizing that there is an ironbound algebra within
linguistics/languaging; it is so. Ironically, those who conform to that
esoteric algebra, (as revealed by L Wittgenstein, for example, or
Korzybski), find easy exit from the world-dream. The lie is revealed by the
twisting of words to conform to the need to escape the discomfort of Being.
That is called 'dissociation' and is the root of the separation which we so
often refer to.

'Existential angst' is less a prescription for spirituality, than for
awakening to the slyness which characterizes the one who is attached to
winning. That one who would win, sacrifices Ahimsa; that sacrifice is the
archetypal crucifixion of the flesh at the crossroads of Being and doing.
Who is that one?

---Harsha

>From: "Linda Callanan" <shastra@worldnet.att.net>
>
>Dear List:
>
>I had reason today to go to the Sanskrit dictionary and look up the meaning
>of 'ahimsa'. The official definition of this Sanskrit word is
>"Harmlessness, abstaining from killing or giving pain to others in thought,
>word or deed".
>
>One can take this concept to great lengths if he chooses to do so. Guess
>there is more to it than simply not eating a Big Mac :).

That could only be true. It's especially interesting to look at the idea
of Ahimsa as related to thought and word (deed seems more self-evident).
Those who feel they have enemies and think of them coming to harm are
violating the principle of Ahimsa. Those who simply make a cutting remark
that causes hurt to another are violating the principle of Ahimsa. He who
swears at another driver, calling him or her an idiot, while in an
automobile, is violating the principle of Ahimsa. He who harbors even a
single harmful thought toward another is violating the principle of Ahimsa.
And why not? We are all One in the Absolute, thus he who harms another
harms himself. There is no concept of evil at all in nonduality, only
ignorance. Thus, if one being is more ignorant than another, why does that
being deserve our scorn? Perhaps at some time, in some incarnation we were
cockroaches infesting a building. Perhaps we were stepped on and crushed
for the simple reason that we wished to survive in whatever way we could.
All beings are trying to survive as best they can. Shall we then step upon
them for that simple divine urge to live as well as they know how?

With Love,

Tim

The Spider
----------

Tonight a spider crawled across my bare foot.
I looked down, and my first reaction was revulsion--
Just a momentary reaction before I grasped it at the root,
and plucked this reaction out before it flowered,
and remembered... Ahimsa... not of the mind, but of the Heart.
All in the space of an instant, almost timelessly.

And I looked at the spider, now crawling elsewhere,
and thanked it for the gentle, whispering caress
of its legs across my foot...
and wished it well.

---Tim Gerchmez

Beautiful Tim...
I'm impressed!
You passed the test.

My spider test
is different...
If a damn spider
crawls on my foot
I'm screaming
and yelling
and shaking it off
to go find the biggest shoe
I can find to smush it to
nevernever land
so it never gets near me again.

Ahimsa doesn't include
creepy crawly spiders
in my book.

That they really do not exist
(even with the help of a shoe)
is what gives me peace.

Love,xxxtg