All Comments By

On Jul 7, 2010 Rod wrote on A Portrait in Patience, by Pavithra Mehta:

Pavi has done it againJ

She has taken a concept that was gasping and choking for breath, on life supports, and essentially inert, and breathed new air into its lungs with her creative skills. She has reminded us that patience is a person up and walking again (and sometimes running), very much alive, and guiding us in all of our daily activities.

On Dec 22, 2009 Rod wrote on Willing to Experience our Suffering, by Charlotte Joko Beck:

Today's InnerNet Weekly contains an article on the meaning and experience of suffering. The text has been extracted from a book by Charlotte Joko Beck. For a wider view of the context of that text, I suggest you also read the sections in the book titled "Relationships Don't Work" and "Relationship Is Not to Each Other." The text on suffering focuses on the need to accept our suffering as a part (and only a part) of the vast web of relationships in which we are perpetually embedded. However, by focussing on only our own suffering, we find it difficult to realize others also suffer and we have an obligation to assist in removing their suffering. If we refuse a part of Indra's Web by judging it as 'bad', we are refusing the totality of the Web and our part in it. And, since we are an integral pat of the Web, by refusing to accept the suffering of others, we are refusing to see our essential nature as part of that Web. As a consequence of that rejection, it is also harder to accept OTHERS as part of that Web. Thus, by not accepting others we do not fully accept ourselves. This is the basis for accepting the cruelty and suffering of others and our unwillingness to accept their suffering as also part of ourselves and our obligation to help in removing it from the Web. How do we help reduce the totality of suffering in the Web? Joko Beck has a suggestion: "So, relationships don't work........Well, what does work then? The only thing that works (if we really practice) is a desire not to have something for myself but to support all life, including individual relationships.... But nobody really wants to do that. We don't want to support others. To truly support somebody means to give them everything and expect nothing. You might give them your time, , your work, your money, anything. "If you need that, I'll give it to you." Love expects nothing. Instead of that we have t... [View Full Comment]

The text on suffering focuses on the need to accept our suffering as a part (and only a part) of the vast web of relationships in which we are perpetually embedded. However, by focussing on only our own suffering, we find it difficult to realize others also suffer and we have an obligation to assist in removing their suffering. If we refuse a part of Indra's Web by judging it as 'bad', we are refusing the totality of the Web and our part in it. And, since we are an integral pat of the Web, by refusing to accept the suffering of others, we are refusing to see our essential nature as part of that Web. As a consequence of that rejection, it is also harder to accept OTHERS as part of that Web. Thus, by not accepting others we do not fully accept ourselves. This is the basis for accepting the cruelty and suffering of others and our unwillingness to accept their suffering as also part of ourselves and our obligation to help in removing it from the Web.

How do we help reduce the totality of suffering in the Web? Joko Beck has a suggestion:

"So, relationships don't work........Well, what does work then? The only thing that works (if we really practice) is a desire not to have something for myself but to support all life, including individual relationships.... But nobody really wants to do that. We don't want to support others. To truly support somebody means to give them everything and expect nothing. You might give them your time, , your work, your money, anything. "If you need that, I'll give it to you." Love expects nothing. Instead of that we have these games: "I'm going to communicate so our relationship will be better," which really means "I'm going to communicate so you'll see what I want." The underlying expectation we bring to those games ensures that relationships won't work. If we really see that, then a few of us will understand the next step, of seeing another way of being. We may get a glimpse of it now and then: "Yes, I can do this for you. I can support your life and I expect nothing, Nothing."

Happy Holidays:):):)

Rod

[Hide Full Comment]

On Jan 23, 2009 Rod wrote on One-Minute Excellence, by Tom Peters:

In his book “The Pursuit of Wow”, Tom Peters also used the following Chinese proverb to illustrate the importance of ‘just going for it: “It is not wise to leap a chasm in two bounds.” What Peters didn’t say was there were other sages at the place where those immortal words were spoken. There was an Arab, 2 other Chinese, an American, and a person of uncertain origin. The Arab said, “If you don’t know what is on the other side of the chasm, two leaps are as good as one.” The first Chinese agreed with the proverb speaker by saying “If you wait too long to leap, you will never get to the other side of the chasm.” The second Chinese said, “But, if you want to get across a chasm, it is better to build a bridge.” The American, seeing a business opportunity, answered quickly, “A bridge must be strong enough to last for a long time, well maintained, and I can build and maintain one for you.” The person of unknown origin agreed that there should be a bridge, but added, “The same bridge can not span all chasms. Because chasms vary in size and other properties, the bridge should be modular so it can be constantly reassembled.” When the last words were spoken, the other sages began to chatter. “A bridge must be strong in structure and able to withstand any storm that might arise,” said one. Another said emphatically, “We have never seen a bridge that can be reassembled at will. I’m convinced it is impossible to build.” A third said, “How can such a structure be maintained? Without constant maintenance, the bridge will surly crumble and fall.” The person of unknown origin listened and nodded after each comment, because she knew there was an element of truth in all of them. Finally she spoke: “To reassemble the modules of a bridge to accommodate each chasm, the blueprint for the bridge must also be modular, those responsible for the modules must constantly communicate with each other in an open and honest manner, and d... [View Full Comment] In his book “The Pursuit of Wow”, Tom Peters also used the following Chinese proverb to illustrate the importance of ‘just going for it: “It is not wise to leap a chasm in two bounds.” What Peters didn’t say was there were other sages at the place where those immortal words were spoken. There was an Arab, 2 other Chinese, an American, and a person of uncertain origin. The Arab said, “If you don’t know what is on the other side of the chasm, two leaps are as good as one.” The first Chinese agreed with the proverb speaker by saying “If you wait too long to leap, you will never get to the other side of the chasm.” The second Chinese said, “But, if you want to get across a chasm, it is better to build a bridge.” The American, seeing a business opportunity, answered quickly, “A bridge must be strong enough to last for a long time, well maintained, and I can build and maintain one for you.” The person of unknown origin agreed that there should be a bridge, but added, “The same bridge can not span all chasms. Because chasms vary in size and other properties, the bridge should be modular so it can be constantly reassembled.” When the last words were spoken, the other sages began to chatter. “A bridge must be strong in structure and able to withstand any storm that might arise,” said one. Another said emphatically, “We have never seen a bridge that can be reassembled at will. I’m convinced it is impossible to build.” A third said, “How can such a structure be maintained? Without constant maintenance, the bridge will surly crumble and fall.” The person of unknown origin listened and nodded after each comment, because she knew there was an element of truth in all of them. Finally she spoke: “To reassemble the modules of a bridge to accommodate each chasm, the blueprint for the bridge must also be modular, those responsible for the modules must constantly communicate with each other in an open and honest manner, and decision making should be distributed among the modules and not forced into a funnel. Otherwise, the resulting structure will not bridge any chasm.” After she spoke, there was silence. The assembled sages said goodbye to each other (because all sages are respectful) and walked slowly to their homes. Did the modular view prevail? The sages are still looking into the chasm. [Hide Full Comment]