Tag Archives: Non-Violence

Peace Energy

Jay Baba
This was received by Dagji just now…..enjoy!

The Miracle of the peace sign appearing on the lawn of the US Capitol
continues. If you haven’t heard the entire story, on Sunday, March 25, James
Twyman focused a peace ceremony commemorating the Season For Non-Violence in
Washington, DC. During the ceremony, which was held on the west lawn of the
US Capitol, the “Children’s Cloth of Many Colors” (for more info on this
amazing project please visit http://www.communitiesofpeace.org) was laid gently on
the grass in the form of a giant peace sign, and the ceremony took place in
the center.

The next day the sponsor of the event, Gerry Eitner, received a concerned
phone call from the US Capitol Police saying that the grass where the cloth
lie was now discolored, leaving an enormous peace sign on the lawn.

This morning the police department called back with more information. They
believe that some type of fertilizer attached to the quilt caused the
discoloration. In reality, however, there was nothing attached to the
Children’s Cloth except the prayers of those present at the ceremony, as
well as thousands of people from around the world. Subsequent calls to
professional lawn care companies indicated that there is currently nothing
on the market that would cause such a sudden overnight change. In fact,
witnesses reported that the “peace sign grass” is actually longer and
greener than the rest of the lawn.

Has a miracle visited the US Capitol? If so, then what is the message?

From James Twyman:

“I believe that this miracle was caused by two factors. First of all, there
were hundreds of thousands of people focusing on the Capitol ceremony while
it was taking place. At one point we actually held hands around the peace
sign and called upon the energy of all those people from around the world,
feeling their presence around the quilt with us. The intent of so many
people can be a powerful energetic force and seems to have catalyzed a
change in the actual earth causing the grass to grow greener and longer
overnight. Second, I believe that in some way and for some reason the earth
is literally giving us a sign. This is a critical point in the history of
the world. If we don’t begin turning our thoughts and actions toward peace,
for both humanity and the environment, a deep crisis may be around the
corner. For me the peace sign on the lawn of the US Capitol is both a
warning and a symbol of hope. I’m hoping we’ll listen and begin working for

Photos of the grass as well as the peace ceremony will be online later today

Leave a comment

Filed under Arts, MyWritings, Photos, Psychology

Viva the courage of Iranian women

Jay Baba….again i need to say that i am NOT interested or involved in politics at all, yet it does not mean that i can ignore the facts and the realities which goes on in my mother land….

the news from Iran is NOT so loving! Actually full of violence and hatred… for those who want to know, here is a picture: http://fedration.blogsky.com/?PostID=57 showing the brutal acts of the ‘leaders’ toward the women, in Tehran. Once again, Iranian women have taken the lead to oppose the oppression and we, men, should get a lesson from their courage…..

Leave a comment

Filed under Attitude, FactScience, Information, MyWritings, PersiaParseIran, Politicians, Psychology

The Language of Nonviolence: compassionate communication / by Marshall B. Rosenberg

… speaking of Marshal jaan, went to Google and found this interview with him in YES MAGAZINE = http://www.yesmagazine.org/article.asp?ID=837
for the sake of ease/record, will copy-paste it here too.
Jay Baba, enjoy his wisdom and humor (i have 2 VCDs of him explaining his approach and it was a delight to see it in Amit/Kaet home, in Rishi Bhavan, Mcleod Ganj, this month.
The Language of Nonviolence
by Sarah van Gelder and Marshall E. Rosenburg

“When words come from the heart, they break through barriers and elicit compassion”, says Marshall Rosenberg. Marshall Rosenberg travels the globe teaching Nonviolent Communication to diplomats, educators, corporate managers, parents, military personnel, peace activists, and others in over 20 countries. He has conducted mediation sessions in the Middle East, Sierra Leone, Croatia, and Rwanda. Sarah van Gelder interviewed Marshall when he was on Bainbridge Island to help mediate a dispute between developers and local activists.

SARAH: What was it that first got you interested in nonviolent communication?
MARSHALL: I got interested in this type of communication through pondering two kinds of smiles. My family was the only Jewish family in our Detroit neighborhood, and I was exposed to a considerable amount of violence. The beatings every day on my way home were not pleasant, of course, but what bothered me most was that the onlookers would smile and enjoy it. During each day of my childhood, I also saw another kind of smile. My grandmother was totally paralyzed with Lou Gehrig’s Disease, and my uncle came over to help care for her every day after he finished working. My grandmother was incontinent at that time, so it required cleaning her up. As a boy of eight or nine, I thought it was a horrible job! But I couldn’t wait for the uncle to come, because he smiled as though he were getting the greatest pleasure a person could get just by serving my grandmother. I grew up wondering why it is that some people smile when others are being beaten and other people smile when they’re giving pleasure, even though it may mean doing dirty work.

SARAH: Where did you go to look for the answer to that question?
MARSHALL: I got a doctoral degree in psychology, but I was very dissatisfied with its focus on pathology. The training didn’t help me understand very compassionate people like my uncle. So, for about a year, I studied comparative theology on my own. I saw the commonality that existed in many religions, especially around this word “love.” I soon saw that the words “compassion” and “love” were not so much feelings as they were actions. They are a way of serving people with pleasure and getting joy from that service. I think that is part of our nature. When I say that, people sometimes think I’m rather Pollyanna-ish to talk this way with the enormity of violence in the world. I see an awful lot of violence in my work, but I’ve become even more convinced that violence is not our nature. I was in a refugee camp in Sierra Leone, Africa, and there were hundreds of frightened kids just sitting around who had lost their parents. One of the men I worked with went over and told these kids that I liked one of their hymns. Then he called me over as a surprise and said, “These kids have something they want to give you.” Now, I had just seen them a few minutes before – pathetic, frightened, scared. But when he told them that this would be a real gift to me, they started to sing me this hymn, and I couldn’t believe the looks of pure joy and happiness on their faces.

It’s amazing. People, no matter what conditions they’re under, can give.

SARAH: How does your approach to communication get people in touch with love and compassion?
MARSHALL: The purpose of the model we use is to enable us to respond compassionately to ourselves and others, and to strengthen our ability to inspire compassion from others. We call the language that we teach “giraffe language,” though its official name is “Nonviolent Communication.” I use the image of a giraffe because it’s a language of the heart, and a giraffe has the largest heart of any land animal. Unfortunately for myself, I was taught to speak “jackal language.” You see, a jackal is closer to the ground. They get so preoccupied with getting their needs met that they just can’t see into the future like the tall giraffe. Jackals speak in ways that block compassionate communication, because they’re motivated out of fear, shame, and guilt.

SARAH: Can you talk about jackal language first? I was particularly struck by your idea of how we always have choices in how we act.
MARSHALL: I first got the idea that we always have choices from the psychologist who examined the top Nazi war criminals. What he found was that they were pretty normal, nice people. But I noticed as I was reading through the interviews how often a language was used by these people that denied choice: “should,” “one must,” “have to.” In Hannah Arendt’s book, Eichmann in Jerusalem, Eichmann was asked, “Was it difficult for you to send these tens of thousands of people to their death?” And Eichmann answered very candidly, “To tell you the truth, it was easy. Our language made it easy.”

His interviewer asked what that language was, and Eichmann said, “My fellow officers and I coined our own name for our language. We called it amtssprache – ‘office talk.’” When asked for examples, Eichmann said, “It’s basically a language in which you deny responsibility for your actions. So if anybody says, ‘Why did you do it?’ you say, ‘I had to.’ ‘Why did you have to?’ ‘Superiors’ orders. Company policy. It’s the law.’”
There’s no force on Earth that can make us do anything that we don’t choose to do, though we may not always like the choices that we’re aware of.

SARAH: You’ve mentioned two other types of language that block compassion – evaluations and demands.
MARSHALL: The Nazis and others who persecute people, in addition to denying responsibility for their actions, evaluate themselves and others through the use of dehumanizing labels, diagnoses, and interpretations. That involves using such words as “kikes,” “niggers,” or “gooks,” etc. I’m equally concerned about positive diagnoses, by the way. Whether I say you are a nice person or a selfish person, I’m still claiming to know what you are and thereby alienating myself from the truth about you. I believe that diagnosing and interpreting other people disconnects us from their vulnerability and encourages us to punish them. A third type of jackal language is a demand. As I use the term, demands carry a threat of punitive action if not acted upon. For example, let’s say I just asked you to get me some water, and you reply that you are tired and would appreciate it if I asked someone else to get me some water. Then I say, “You’re just lazy. I’ve done more work than you have today.” We would realize that I was making a demand because of my attempt to punish you through shame for not acting in harmony with my desires. I learned about the self-defeating nature of demands when I was a practicing psychologist. I spent many hours talking with children who weren’t doing what their parents were requesting. I learned that the kids were receiving those requests as demands. The children would tell me things like, “I don’t feel like studying when my parents threaten to take away my allowance.” Or, “Would you feel like taking the garbage out if your parents said that you were lazy and irresponsible?”

SARAH: OK, let’s talk about giraffe language. How do you foster compassionate communication?
MARSHALL: We basically ask people to answer the question that we ask all over the world: “How are you?” Of course, “How are you?” has become ritualized in many cultures, but it’s a profoundly important question, because living in harmony with our nature – which I think is compassion – requires being able to stay connected to one another. So, our training involves nakedly and vulnerably revealing at any given moment how you are. The next step is to talk about what could be done to make life even more wonderful. In my work, I find that if people would just keep their communication focused at that level – “How are you? What would make your life more wonderful?” –this natural compassion flows even when the people have an enormously painful history. For example, I was asked to work in a village in Nigeria where a quarter of the population had been killed in conflicts between Muslims and Christians that year. I’m in a room with the chiefs of both tribes; my friend had told me earlier there would be at least three people in that room who knew that somebody who killed their child was there with them. So, what do I do? I try to get people’s attention focused on those two areas: “How are you? What would make life more wonderful for you?”

One of the key ingredients is to find out what their needs are that aren’t getting met. So I asked both sides, “What are your needs?” And a chief from one of the tribes looks at the other and says, “You people are murderers!” And the other side immediately jumps up and says, “You people have been trying to dominate us for years!” I believe that this analysis implying wrongness creates violence. In a case like this one, I try to hear how the person is behind their talk. I hear the need that’s being expressed, and then I help the other side hear that. Then I keep that flow going back and forth. No matter how they communicate, I translate it into how they are and help each side connect compassionately at that level. Within about two hours, one of the chiefs said, “If we knew how to do this ourselves, we wouldn’t have to kill each other.” If I can keep people focused, I have yet to see any conflict that can’t be resolved. Now, it’s not easy to keep people at that level.

SARAH: Because it’s asking people to be vulnerable?
MARSHALL: Well, that’s a part of it. Instead of teaching us how to communicate in this vulnerable way, our cultural programming has taught us to imply wrongness in people who behave in ways that you don’t like. If you live within such a culture, then yes, it’s very scary to be vulnerable. I get into a lot of settings, especially in businesses, where people are not used to being vulnerable. They’re all in a competitive game. During one session, I got very emotional. Tears came to my eyes. The boss of this organization just looked really disgusted and turned away from me. It was horrible for a few seconds, because I allowed the look on his face to stimulate old jackal programming in me. I thought, “Oh, my God, I’ve behaved inappropriately. He must think I’m a real mess.” But, when I remembered to direct my attention to how he was feeling and what he was needing, I said to him, “Are you feeling disgusted and needing whoever’s running a meeting like this to have his emotions more in control?” At that moment, it wasn’t painful for me to be vulnerable, because I was seeing his vulnerability. I really thought I was accurate, but I was surprised with his response, because he said, “No, no. I was just thinking of how my wife wishes I could cry. I’m getting a divorce right now. She says that living with me is like living with a stone.”

SARAH: Does your approach require that all involved are willing to play by certain rules?
MARSHALL: No, you can keep this process going with anybody regardless of how they’re communicating. The important thing is to teach people how to listen for how the other person is, even when that other person doesn’t know how to communicate very clearly.

SARAH: I was interested in an example you shared in one of your workshops about a group of teachers who were having a conversation that wasn’t feeding you spiritually.
MARSHALL: Well, I was sitting around with a group of teachers who were all talking about what they did on vacation. Within ten minutes, my energy had dropped very low; I had no idea what people were feeling or wanting. In giraffe, we know it’s not being kind to the other person to smile and open your eyes wide to hide the fact that your head has gone dead. The person in front of you wants their words to enrich you, so when they aren’t, it’s helpful to be kind and stop them. Of course, in the jackal culture, this isn’t done. After listening awhile to the teachers, I screwed up my courage and said, “Excuse me, I’m impatient with the conversation because I’m not feeling as connected with you as I’d like to be. It would help me to know if you’re enjoying the conversation.” All nine people stopped talking and looked at me as if I had thrown a rat in the punch bowl.
For about two minutes, I thought I’d die, but then I remembered to look at the feelings and needs being expressed through the silence. I said, “I guess you’re all angry with me, and you would have liked for me to have kept out of the conversation.” The moment I turned my attention to what they were feeling and needing, I removed their power to demoralize me.
However, the first person who spoke told me, “No, I’m not angry. I was just thinking about what you were saying. I was bored with this conversation.” And he had been doing most of the talking! But this doesn’t surprise me. I have found that if I am bored, the person doing the talking is probably equally bored, which usually means we’re not talking from life; we’re acting out some socially-learned habits. Each one of the nine people then expressed the same feelings I had – impatience, discouragement, lifelessness, inertia. Then one of the women asked, “Marshall, why do we do this? Why do we sit around and bore each other? We get together every week and do this!” I said, “Because we probably haven’t learned to take the risk that I just did, which is to pay attention to our vitality. Are we really getting what we want from life? Each moment is precious, so when our vitality is down, let’s do something about it and wake up.”

SARAH: How does somebody who feels very strongly about making a change in political or economic institutions use the techniques you teach?
MARSHALL: Well, once you realize that you have choices, you can learn to live this process in contexts that are very hard. This Kung Fu giraffe, as I call it, involves staying with Nonviolent Communication even in a group situation in which you’re in a minority and everybody else is using jackal language. For example, I see that the product our company is making pollutes the environment. I’m working within an authoritarian institution, so how do I effectively communicate my concerns within that structure even though the group I’m dealing with speaks jackal, and some people have the power to punish me if I don’t buy the party line?
The first thing is to get access to the people on the other side. For this process to work, there needs to be a flow of communication and compassion between parties. If we can have enough time to get that flow going, we can resolve any differences. But let’s say these people are not willing to give me access, and I feel that their behavior in the meantime is harmful. Then I might have to use what we call “the protective use of force.” You use this kind of force to protect, not punish, the other people. That might involve things like organizing an employee strike, a boycott of the product, or other nonviolent techniques needed to protect the environment. They may not solve the conflict, but they may get the other side to agree to negotiate.

SARAH: There may be cases where one party feels that certain considerations, such as financial ones, are more important than the needs of the other group. I can imagine situations in which there could be a very open conversation and still no resolution at the end of it.
MARSHALL: When we keep this flow going, I have not seen that happen. But let’s go back to that situation. Again, suppose I’m concerned that the product a company is making pollutes the environment. I may start by stereotyping the other person: “He’s only interested in money. He has no regard for the environment.” If I think that way about that person, I become part of the problem, because I’ve dehumanized that person in my mind. Labels are static, and life is a process. We’re missing what’s going on when we label, and it leads us to act toward them in a certain way that usually provokes the very thing that we’re labeling. If I’m in conflict with people, I try to hear what needs they have. Now, “needs,” as we define the term, are universal; all human beings have the same needs. So if I connect to what people are needing, I’m one with them. I care about their needs. At the moment that they sense that I am as interested in their needs as my own, we can find a way to get everybody’s needs met. So more concretely, what would that look like? This man might say, “Our work is not going to harm the environment. Our tests have demonstrated that this is not going to harm the environment.” So, this person shares the same needs that I have. I want to protect the environment. Apparently, he’s concerned about the environment also. Now, where we might differ is in our ways of measuring whether something is harmful to the environment. But notice our needs are not in conflict. This person doesn’t want to destroy someone’s habitat, and he doesn’t want to be a menace. You see?

SARAH: There may be a tremendous amount of money to be made from the product.
MARSHALL: Well, that’s the other side of it! Now, we don’t have a need for money, but money can be instrumental in meeting certain needs. This man wants respect. He wants the material security that money can contribute to. I have those same needs. So, this man’s needs connect with mine. I’d like to find a way to get security and respect for him in a way that meets my needs as well. I’m confident that if this man trusted that I’m equally concerned with his needs as my own, we can find a way to meet everybody’s needs.

SARAH: What do you see going on in the world right now that gives you the most hope?
MARSHALL: I’ve seen a rapid change in the last 30 years toward a kind of consciousness that gives me hope. I’m also optimistic because, everywhere in the world, people are hungry to learn new ways of communication. For example, people have heard about our training, and we can’t get to them fast enough!

Giraffe Language at Home

The following dialogue took place at a workshop with Marshall B. Rosenberg. Marshall asked participants for situations where they might use “giraffe language.”
participant: I have a teenager who has messed up the living room. My need is for it to be clean, because that makes me feel good.
marshall: When dealing with children, you first say what you want the child to do. Second, ask yourself what you want her reasons to be for doing it. I’m convinced that we never want anything done for us out of fear, guilt, or shame. Now, I’ll demonstrate what such a conversation might sound like.

…giraffe-speaking mother: When the house is neat, I feel really good, and I would like you to keep it clean.
jackal-speaking daughter: Oh, Mom, loosen up. It’s not going to hurt anything if the house has a few things out of order. You only live once.

mother: I hear you’re frustrated.
daughter: Yes, thank you. There’s so much pressure around here.

mother: So you’d like me to lighten up?
daughter: Yes! [marshall: Now the mother can go back to her needs. It will be a different game, because the daughter has had at least a moment of connection where she felt her mother heard her.]

mother: When I see things in order, I feel better inside. It would be a great gift to me if other people were willing to maintain this order.
daughter: Sigh. I have to clean the house.

mother: Well, I can see that I haven’t made myself clear. Let’s try again. For me, when I have a sense of order, I can breathe easier.
daughter: Lighten up!

mother: Excuse me. Could you just tell me what you heard me say before reacting?
daughter: You said I had to clean up.

mother: In the past, I did use language like that – “You have to,” or “You can’t go around living like a slob.” But now I want to start over and come to an understanding between us. Can you tell me what you just heard me say?
daughter: That when you come home and see the house in order, it feels good to you.

mother: It feels very good! When I don’t have that, my life feels scattered.
daughter: Well, you shouldn’t feel that way.

mother: Whether I should feel that way or not, that’s not the issue. Could you tell me what you just heard me say?
daughter: That when you have that order, you feel really good inside and peaceful.

mother: Yes, and right now, you met a big need of mine, which was to hear you say that before you reacted. It feels good to me that we can talk to each other this way. How do you feel?
daughter: I feel like I have to do things that I just don’t want to do.

mother: So when it seems like a pressure or demand, it takes away the pleasure of doing it?
daughter: Yeah.

mother: That’s why I am really frustrated about the way I used to ask you to do things in the past. I see how you might be reacting to that. Is there a way we could change that so you do things to contribute to my well-being instead of feeling pressure?
daughter: I think so. Can I give you some ideas?

Leave a comment

Filed under Attitude, CommunicationMedia, Education, Ego, Information, IntellectualSkills, MyServices, Psychology

This 4w & freedom of expression

Jay Baba…. i rather post useful essential things, rather than the trivia, so the delay in posting is just due to this fact, and ‘other facts of life’! The following is a ‘fresh reply’ to an Irani sister, living abroad, who we recently met thru some Yahoo group i send my translaions to. Since it is related to my previous post/’favorite subject’, i post some parts of it here and welcome your feedbacks on this and other post…. more is cooking about other ‘vita; interesting topics’ (Italics are hers)

Dear friend …….Glad this English correspondence is useful for you, for me is, as well. please keep it up and if you let me i use some of your words in my blog………….

From those articles ,I only read one which was very interesting too,About different thought of different nations,whom are supposed to be free and liberated in the 21th century ,although we encountered condemn of those people ,as in Bahaee ,religion.

i am glad you see the point.

The largest of whom being astonished by some of wrong decisions of the Sects of the other religion such as moslems in Iran.

…….. or ‘extinct’ ?? or prosecuted? Yes, those mullas cannot tolerate anything that goes against their big sick egos!

Although we have to accept , it comes from benefits of politicians who made decisions to abolish those Bahaee ,……………

Yes and unfortunately, in Iran these days, the Politicians and the Priests are ONE nasty ‘body’!!

Anyway ,don’t take it wrong: I am not Bahaee either,but I had some Bahaee freinds when I was in central America,they were really friendly nice and well educated.One of them was the leader of the group of nine people ,and I had seen many pictures from Hifa in Israeel ,their temple and religious ceremonies,.

Yes, true. they are ‘highly cultured and very close to the ‘ultimate truth = LOVE’, much much closer to GOD than those who condemn/prosecute them!

In my opinion all the people are good ,this is us who think bad about the people ,so they are not responsible for the way we think about them.

Yes dear, this is called ‘right seeing’. Wish those in ‘worldly power’ also could see this, but as you know better, they are ‘blind and deaf’!

Oh I talked too much ,sorry about that and I wanted to mention this point that ,the article I have read there ,fascinated me so much in this case and it shows the reality in a way u accept the argumentation of the article.

Thank you dear, do you mean the Farsi article by M.Mir?
Yes, Freedom of expression has been always my way of life, in theory and in practice. i Thank the whole existence that we have this wwww (wonderful www!) to express ourselves and communicate with each other.

Yes, the first few sentences were in German , cuz I have seen the weblog about u in German language,may be it was because of my computer setting,.

thank you yet i would love to know if it was YOUR writing or the site introduction, or what else? if it was yours, i appreciate a translation!

Ok thanks alot again for what u sent to me,
sometimes my dictation and words which I used are not correct ,the reason is only mixing alot with German and French ,so forgive me for this case,I know I almost forget English but it is good to write in English .It is helpful.
Ok it is all for now,thanks again ,and bon weekend.Happy Easter, Happy smiles ,, Mojdeh,

Thank you dear one. i appreciate your being my friend and hope we communicate more often and if you let me i will post some of this mail to my blog, to encourage readers feedbacks……….
in His love and service

Leave a comment

Filed under Attitude, HumanRights, Information, MyServices, MyWritings, PersiaParseIran, Psychology

Humanity MUST prevail

the following i just found in my inbox, since it is about HUMAN RIGHT of self-expression, will post it here for a change, for Farsi readers. Hope i am not ‘accused’ of being a “Bahaee’! But who cares, i visted their temple in Delhi 2 months ago and it was a delight! Jay Baba

انسانیست باید محقق شود.

سالهاست که دراین مملکت انسانها به جرم اندیشه محکوم میشوند. ربطی هم به جمهوری اسلامی ندارد. آیین قبیله است. ریشه اش بیشتر در فرهنگ است تا سیاست. اما وسعتش وقتی دیده میشود که میرسد به روابط کلان اجتماعی. عمریست قاعده دراین مرز و بوم حذف مستقیم دیگران است . فقط حلقه ی این “دیگران” درهر دوره از گردن عده ای به گردن گروهی دیگر افتاده.

درميان آنها که مدام “دیگران” بوده اند ، چه درزمان قاجار، چه درزمان پهلوی و چه امروزـ البته با شدت و ضعف درنوسان ـ بهائیان، شاگرد اول شده اند. محرومیت از تحصیل دانشگاهی ، محرومیت از ثبت ازدواج در اسناد رسمی ایران ، محرومیت از دریافت حقوق بازنشستگی ، حتی محرومیت از داشتن عنوانی به نام بازنشستگی علیرغم سنوات کار، محرومیت ازداشتن حق بیمه ،محرومیت از داشتن سنگ قبر، اعدام های فراوان، شکنجه وحبس های بی دلیل، حبس اموال، تخریب مکانهای مقدس و ممنوعیت خروج از کشورو آزارهایی از این دست ـ که چند موردش بعد از اصلاحات کم رنگ و یا حل شد و باقیش همچنان به قوت خودش باقیست ـ از جمله مواردیست که باور کردنش در قرن ۲۱ کمی سخت است اما به شدت واقعیست. و تمام اینها تاوان همان “جور دیگر اندیشیدن” است و قصه ی” قبیله و دشمن”. متاسفانه ترس از آنچه که هرگز ندانسته ایم چیست، فضا را برای اعمال این حذف خشن آماده تر میکند.

گاهی فکر میکنم این ندانستن بر میگردد به اینکه به شدت ایرانیست. شاید اگر مبداش به هند یا چین یا بیافرا بر میگشت کمی ساده تر نگاهش میکردیم .هنوزهم ما، بهائیان را به عنوان پیروان “بهائی گری” میشناسیم. هنوز هم به دلیل نظم اداری این آیین، باور میکنیم که اینها وابسته اند به تشکیلات مخوف فراماسونری. هنوز هم فکر میکنیم که کار، کارانگلیس ها ست و کتاب های قطوری هم برای اثبات این فرضیه ها در بغلمان گذاشته اند. هنوز هم خیلی ها فکر میکنند که اميرعباس هویدا بهائی بوده . هنوز هم قصه ها هست ازآن کلید ها که در محفل های این جماعت رد و بدل میشود. و قصه های ازدواج با محارم… و خلاصه هر چه که غرور ملتی را جریحه دار میکند تا آنها را محکوم کند و من حذف کننده را تایید. ونمی دانیم که آنها هنوزهم زندانی میشوند و هیچکس نمیتواند خبری از وضع سلامتشان به بیرون برساند یا ازشان دفاع کند.

اینکه من چه باوری دارم، دین دارم یا حتی خداپرست هم نیستم ، اصلن مهم نیست. حتی اینکه آیا به آنچه ادعای باورش را داشته ام یا به باورش شهرت پیدا کرده ام ، مخلص بوده ام یا نه. حتی اینکه آنچه جماعتی عاشقانه برایش جان میدهند به زعم من یا دیگری اسمش دین است یا فرقه یا هیچ، این هم مهم نیست.

من اما به عنوان یک انسان درد میکشم وقتی انسان دیگری تنها به جرم اندیشه ی” دیگر” در هر کجای تاریخ یا جغرافیای هستی محکوم باشد. چه زینب ،چه مسیح ، چه حلاج ، چه گالیله، چه ژاندارک، چه ماندلا، چه طاهره ، چه واسلاو هاول، چه اکبر گنجی و چه آنها که بعدها نامشان خواهد ماند

محمد میر

Leave a comment

Filed under Attitude, Education, MyServices, PersiaParseIran, Politicians, Psychology, متفرقه, به زبان پارسی

Tibetan Indian, Iranian, American, African,,, children are ALL innocent beings needing support of all kinds

in a letter to a kind sister from Maui Hawaii, just wrote:

“………it is so peaceful and interesting here that i do not feel the need to go anywhere else! You know it since you have been in Nepal and felt the Buddhist vibrations….. here i meet very old monks, men and women, shaven heads, walking up and down the hills, looking very content, despite all the burdens of their simple lives. And the kids are even more fortunate because as i heard last night from a Zimbabwean sister, “Tibetan children and well looked after” (by the community) and it is only “the Indian children who need support”… That is why they have started a project called FUTURE CHILD, to help those kids in the nearly Dharmakot village…. i will go there for the volunteer work and then to see them at their school…. maybe my donation of some happy tunes could be of some ‘service.’

Yes dear, we all need your prayers for Peace…. Please feel the Iranian children and young generations in thirst of some ‘unfelt’ peace and security’…… ………..


Leave a comment

Filed under 'MeherBaba-lovers', Attitude, BharataIndia, Education, HumanRights, MyServices, MyWritings, Psychology

violence in action vs.compassion in action= خشونت در کردار در برابر مهر در عمل

<!–[if supportFields]> DATE \@ "dd/MM/yyyy" <![endif]–>06/02/2006<!–[if supportFields]><![endif]–> / <!–[if supportFields]> TIME \@ "HH:mm" <![endif]–>15:32<!–[if supportFields]><![endif]–>

Jay Mehr Baba…….an hour ago I was, for the first time, faced with ‘violence in deed’! A new ‘gift’ from Baba. A brother, FULL of anger and violence, pushed me away, using vulgar American 4-lettered words, saying to get away from the car in which Reza, Peter and Susan where leaving with. He had abused me once before, in words, same favorite 4-lettered ones! for telling him not to spread superstitions around Baba in His land. The ‘reason’ for his violent behavior is SO HILARIOUS that if I tell you, will make you wonder and laugh. But since it needs minute details, I do not do it now and had already told Gary about it. Good thing that brother…. and a few rikshaw drivers were watching the scene and I had to use my whistle to draw attention there, so he stopped the violent aggression, when asked by others to stop it. So this is just something to consider that how the deep feelings of selfishness and hatred can surface so easily in this wonderful land. All it needs is a ‘mad’ man like me to invoke it! May Baba gives me more of this ‘love-madness’! Ameen.

But the good news is that at lunch I received a very precious gift from Peter Pham, from Vietnam, a loving heart who came with Susan and Reza, a young ‘healer’, who makes music and plays guitar. The gift was a pack of incense with a bottle of perfume wrapped in a letter. Now, since the content of this is loving and may show a different angle of what you have already read here about the ‘negative emotions’ toward me, I will type and post it here, NOT for the self-gratification and egotistical purposes, but ONLY for the sake of the record, so you may see that there are MANY who feel the ‘positive emotions’ with me, AND to show that ‘The beauty is in the eyes of the beholder’. I told him that I may not be worthy of what he expressed, but I appreciated HIS kind warm feeling, expressed sincerely and beautifully. Molana Rumi says it all when he say, ‘Everyone became my friend out of his own presumptions….’. Now his letter :

Feb.06.‏2006‏‏-‏02‏‏-‏06‏ Mohsen joon (joon means a friendly dear)

Thank you for being within the space of my pilgrimage. Thank you for your unconditional love and humility. I was so touched by your public apology on the Persian night for reasons I know not. For me, saying, ‘I am sorry’ heartfully, makes one a leader of love and forgiveness. You have shown me this leadership and make my trip to India worthwhile. I do not know Baba through his books, at least not yet; but I know Baba, Meher Baba, through unique souls like yours. Thank you again, as I wish you the best in your mastery of servicing humanity. Jay Baba! In His love, Peter Pham………..

Leave a comment

Filed under 'MeherBaba-lovers', Ego, Information, MyWritings, NewsOfTheMagicHill, Psychology

The Real battle-field! = محراب عشق

Thanks to brother Behrooz for sending these pictures. Posted by Picasa

Leave a comment

Filed under Attitude, BharataIndia, Information, MagicHill, MeherBaba, MyServices, MyWritings, Photos

PEN and IRI;A chronicle resistance…

The pen and the Islamic Republic:
A chronicle resistance

Perhaps on a historic perspective there was never a moment when the pen could be said to have begun its confrontation with despotic power. It is certainly beyond my abilities to define this moment.

We could perhaps agree that the seed of this conflict was planted the moment the ruling powers stood against freedom to think, to express and to disseminate its fruits; when they tried to bring the pen, a versatile and influential of the expressive means for enlightening, under their control and monopoly.

The pen reacts with greater swiftness and directness than other art forms to rulers who succumbs to corruption and distance themselves from people and independent thought and block the path for society’s bloom. The pen’s revelations echo society’s most secret loathing and protests.

This is a general rule to which Iranian society is no stranger. From the Constitutional Revolution of 1905 onwards Iranian writers and intellectuals have embraced countless dangers by rising against the restrictions imposed from above. Such was the intensity of their desire to secure the instruments of freedom and democracy. The most telling document, as true today as when written nearly a century ago, is the shining article by Jahangir Shirazi. He was a pioneer, as well as one of the victims, of the movement for democracy in the Constitutional Revolution. Writing in Sur-e Esrafil, published contemporaneous with the victory of the revolution, it was directed at widening the meaning of justice-seeking: ”

A pen that god has sworn on, cannot be enslaved to the brandings and chains of a despotic office. God never appointed an angel to scrutinise the acts of man before they took place, let alone delegate it to devils” he remonstrated at the rulers and the champions of moral censorship [1].
From the instance the Islamic regime came to power in Iran, belief in the same freedom caused the independent community of writers to make identical demands, and to confront the very fabric of the regime. They put their finger on the same knot. They criticised, without heed to their own safety, the antiquated features of a regime which denied freedom and sovereignty to the people in their social existence. And they bore its vindictiveness from exile, to uprooting prison and even death.

A simple reading of the contemporary history of Iran, with its ceaseless suppression of freedom, will show that nearly nine decades after a huge coalition for constitutional government and justice had taken shape, the primary aims of that movement remain unfulfilled. This despite the unbroken resistance of men and women of intellect and the pen. In the shadow of uncontrolled despots of the time, the gate to democracy continued to revolve round repression. So, without for one second ceasing to pay homage to the huge multitude of victims of the road to freedom, I will concentrate on the response of the pen. And on the story of the confrontation, over two decades, of the progressive cultural-literary fellowship in Iran with the Islamic government.
Historic moment

Examining the revolt against oppression outside this or that political organisation, and independently of this or that cultural personality, the organised and comprehensive assault on the institutions defending freedom in June 1981, such as the Association of Writers (Kanoon), can be seen as a specific historic moment. That was a year of immense savagery and bloody repression. That was a year when the Islamic government unveiled its terrifying plans to obliterate any opposing idea and to impose an order on society that was one-sided and totally opposed to freedom.

That was a year when the Kanoon was deprived of any right to open activity. Books were confiscated at the printers and fuelled countless bonfires, bookshops were closed, independent publishers banned and other-thinking writers were either arrested or went into hiding. Said Soltanpour, a Kanoon executive committee member and a popular poet and artist, was shot on orders of Lajevardi, prosecutor and the head of the regime’s prisons. A large number of writers, poets and intellectuals chose exile to escape the cutting edge of repression and to continue the struggle.

Yet the barbarous mobilisation of force to obliterate free thought and impose authority on society by liquidating the independent pen and opinion did not succeed as planned.
Millions and millions of marchers had shouted again and again that they had revolted against the Shah for freedom. Even the most arid-thinker in the religious government knew this. The one way to retouch this and to pervert the will of the revolution was to bore into the people’s traditional beliefs in order to invert their demands. They did this by crawling under the deep-rooted flag of tradition. They ridiculed the very concept of new-thinking. Modernism was apparently a tainted present from the West. The innocent minds of the devotees of freedom and justice was cleansed of any tendency towards modern culture and literature.
Purged but alive

In the first instance the bureaucracy, the education and the social system of the country had to be forcibly purged of anyone who thought different. The price, bloody or otherwise, was irrelevant. Immediately afterwards, and without respite, any pen or written word which opposed the out-worn culture should not have a chance of making links with the emotions and thoughts of people, even in the attic. According to this vision, and that of its political and cultural disciples, our society should be protected from the seditious pen and free thought, and live in the closed circles defined entirely by sharia’ laws and Islamic morality. Then will religious rule preserve.

This policy at first satisfied its supporters. It insured the survival of their rule for the next 20 years. Political associations were suppressed and those who thought differently were expelled from influential social positions. But in the realm of letters and arts and the complicated emotional bonds with people, the policy failed.
Writers driven from their homeland, added the words “in exile” to the Association of Writers and proclaimed its existence in the absence of its inside-half inside the country. The “Kanoon in exile” was totally explicit in exposing the hostility of the Islamic government to freedom. In echoing the protest of its inner-half against repression it assumed a heavy and uplifting role. The sincerity and anguish of this effort, was not lost to the outside world. World literary figures and cultural circles joined in and objected to the denial of the human rights and dignity in Iran.
The ricochets of the success of the free-thinking exiled community of the pen within Iran, had unpleasant repercussions for a regime which pretended that its only concern was to impose its religious will, and was unafraid of being challenged by the rest of the world.
Conciliatory moves

At the beginning of 1994 the then president, Hashemi Rafsanjani brought into play a new trick. In order to damp down the confrontation with the writers remaining inside Iran, and to nullify the defiance of those abroad, he sent an invitation to the influential members of the “repressed Kanoon”. He asked them to help the government remove the obstacles that had appeared in the path of literary publications, and to advance the cultural climate of the country. There was not the slightest mention of the crimes committed by the regime, nor any explanation as to why the regime’s policy towards the community of writers had changed. While no member of the Kanoon answered these letters, a broad group of writers were provoked into rejuvenating the Kanoon inside the country.

It is interesting that what prompted the original idea of setting up the Kanoon in 1967 was also the political …. of the government of the day. The Kanoon then was to be a counterweight to the Shah’s plan to impose a congress of Iranian Writers and Artists. This congress was supposed to collect the scattered representatives of Iranian art and literature under one roof and promote the conditions for the growth of the national culture and literature! Writers and intellectuals moved swiftly to counter the political aims of the monarchy, which was itself the main obstacle to the growth of culture and literature.

The Iranian Writers Association was proclaimed in 1968. Writers belonging to the Kanoon still consider this declaration as the basis of their work:
“The people and the functional organisations of the country, especially those who deal with ideas and creativity, must learn to tolerate the expression and thoughts of others, whether or not they approve. They should not limit freedom to themselves. They should not be a nanny or guardian or worse.

Freedom of thought and expression are necessities, not luxuries; the prerequisite for the future of our individual and social growth. It is based on this need that the Association of Iranian writers begins its activities on the basis of two principles: comprehensive and unrestricted defence of the freedom of expression and the specific task of defending the professional rights of the people of the pen”. [from the first declaration of the Kanoon – April 21, 1968] Soon after the letter from the office of president Rafsanjani, 134 of the most well known writers of Iran signed the manifesto “We are Writers”.

This statement on the one hand addresses the difficulties for the publication of literary and cultural works, and on the other reveals tragic truths regarding the insults which Iranian writers are subjected to.


Under the shadow of a regime where the murder of Salman Rushdie for writing an undesirable book is a sacred duty, where dancing and expressing joy even in a wedding is a sin, where women are stoned to death for loving another, where those capable of thinking regularly face death or imprisonment, the coming out of 134 writers in defence of the freedom of thought, expression and dissemination was courageous. As we will see it was not left unpunished.
They had announced:

We are writers. It is our natural, social and civil right for our writings to reach our audience freely and without hindrance.
Writers should be free to create their work, criticise and judge the works of others and in expressing their beliefs.
No person or institution has the authority, under whatever excuse, to place obstacles in the publication of their creations.

We will oppose all hurdles placed on writing and thinking. Since this is beyond our individual ability we have no option but to function as a group in order to realise the freedom of thought, expression and publication, and the struggle against censorship.
Prying into the private life of a writer is an assault on their sanctuary. [2]

In our world, such statements are not particularly remarkable. For a regime which makes accepting anything conditional to its being compatible with the stamp of sharia’ this was an outrage to its authority. Particularly as some of Iran’s most famous names, such as Ahmad Shamlu, went on to declare that freedom of activity for the Kanoon, and a safeguard for its continuity, is dependent on other democratic institutions resuming their operation.

Freedom is an indivisible totality, they were defiantly saying: “As a member of society, I have always emphasised the [importance] for the unhindered and enthusiastic presence of democratic political and trade organisations as a sign of freedom of association … I have the same opinion with regards to the activity of the Association of Iranian Writers, while it maintains its historic, social and cultural position and authority,” [3].

Or Mansur Kushan wrote: “some day the system and its rulers will realise this truth that one must not, and cannot, impose the usual give and take on the culture of a nation – and in particular its literature. It is not possible to silence a voice, especially that of intellectuals, poets and writers of a nation. Undoubtedly the written will be written and [ultimately] published, but only when all prospects have been lost”. [4]

A regime, who at that time had the blood of the eminent writer and researcher, Said Sirjani, who had opposed the despotism of the keepers of sharia’, on its hands and which has began a deceitful policy against writers, suddenly found itself facing 134 writers. Here was a united gathering, who believed that cultural and literary growth required the removal of all the institutions of censorship and the resumption of activity of the Kanoon. The reaction of the regime was predictable.


“A torrent of accusation and insults rained on the head of the courageous men and women, who in that dark and suffocating climate were weighing up the glorious word freedom, from the morrow of affirming this question and publishing the manifesto” warned the critic and poet Dr Reza Barahani [5].

To understand the importance and historical value of this collective move, I will list what Barahani had called “torrent of accusations and insults” that rained on the heads of those who signed the manifesto:

Dr Zaryab Khoi’, a prominent professor of literature could not take the insults for more than a few weeks and had a stroke.
The body of Ahmad Mir-Alai’, writer and translator was found in an Isfahan alley. He was said to have died of a heart attack.

Ghaffar Hosseini, poet and translator, and member of the Consultative Group of writers, was found bloody and dead in his home. His death was said to be through heart attack and stroke.

Ghazaleh Alizadeh, a famous storywriter, was found dead a long way from her home. She was said to have committed suicide.

Shahrnush Parsi Pour had to quit Iran and live abroad in unfavourable material and physical circumstances.
The prominent sociologist Ariyan Pour humiliated himself and retracted his position regarding censorship.

Ebrahim Zalzadeh, publisher and director of Ebtekar publications was kidnapped after publishing and defending the “manifesto” and his mutilated body was found in a wasteland.
The literary monthly Gardoun was closed, accused of supporting the Kanoon and its editor Abbas Ma’rufi fled the country fearing for his life.
The monthly Takapu was closed and its editor Mansur Kushan, who was a member of the

Consultative Group and one of the signatories of We are Writers, was arrested a number of times, threatened with death and finally fled the country fearing his life.
Faraj Sarkuhi, editor of the monthly Adineh, was also a member of the Consultative Group and a signatory. The world knows of the story of his disappearance, torture, and the outrageous story made up by the regime to discredit him [6].

Only after he courageously exposed the lies, and the tortures, and the international outcry was he released and forced to leave the country.
The plot by the Information Ministry to plunge a bus-load of 21prominent writers, all signatories, into a ravine on their way to Armenia to attend a cultural event. [7]

Attempt to taint members of Consultative Group with working for foreign powers and espionage.

A new chapter of crimes began with the murder of two well known personalities in Iranian literature – Mohammad Mokhtari and Mohammad Ja’far Pouyandeh, both members of the Consultative Group.

Alongside these were a stream of preposterous slanders in the official-police television programme of hovviat (identity) against many prominent Iranian writers such as Ahmad Shamlu, Houshang Golshiri, Mahmoud Dowlatabadi, Reza Barahani after they made their collective objections to censorship and repression.

Global echo

We are Writers was first handed over to newspapers within Iran and later passed over to International Pen and other cultural institutions abroad. It was given a wide publicity because it portrayed so accurately the depth of oppression in Iran.

The support of a group of exiled writers, the Kanoon in Exile, for the “manifesto”, irrespective of their ideological hue, gave further depth to the challenge of the “manifesto”. Arthur Miller read it at the International Congress of Pen, and the broader community of writers came to its defence. Its authority was enhanced.

The Islamic rulers in Iran became anxious The mass of scientific, cultural and political personalities had broadly identified with the indisputable rights of Iranian writers. They had stressed the right to freedom of the pen, thought, expression, and publication. And they had unequivocally condemned the repressive climate and censorship in Iran.

The “manifesto” became a historic document. A written document that after 16 years brought news of the collective voice of Iranian writers and intellectuals in opposition to the official repression. The “manifesto” has also joined the tormented and resisting writers within with those outside its borders: with a single voice they have called on the world to defend the rights of Iranian people. It vindicates the resistance of hundreds of Iranian writers and artists in exile. It unmasks the murderers of the likes of Said Soltanpour, Rahman Hatefi, Saidi Sirjani… and countless others. A historic wisdom is hidden in its every line. To compromise or play timid games with a repressive regime has only one end: submission of humans to its humiliating authority.

Charter for new Kanoon

In September 1996 a draft charter, the result of the brave, and bloody, deliberations of the Consultative Group was completed. It announced the rebirth of the Kanoon and a practical step in realising the idea.

Freedom of thought, expression and publication in every sphere of private and public life without any limits and exceptions is a universal right. This right is not in monopoly of one person, group or institution and no one can be deprived of it.
n The Kanoon recognises that the growth and flowering of the various languages of the country is one of the mainstays of the growth of culture, of the bonds and of understanding among the peoples of Iran. It opposes any discrimination, and exclusions in the field of printing, publication, and distribution of works in any of the existing languages [of the country].

n The Kanoon is opposed to a one-voiced policy of the visual and aural and electronic media. It demands the plurality of the media in the cultural arena. [7]

Freedom speaks through ideas and the pen. Any attack on this voice is a broader assault on the foundation of the individual and society. How can one hope for fruitful changes in Iranian society today and tomorrow and yet physically and psychologically remove the guarantors of this development?

We have witnessed 20 years of collective resistance against the aggression of the religious rulers to the intellectual and material resources of culture and literature in Iran. They have shown by their ability to embrace danger that they will not remain silent until the moment freedom is assured. Let time once again attest to the fact that the Islamic government, as all other totalitarian rule, cannot insure its life through hostility to freedom of the pen and its champions.

The proud achievements of this collection of resisters was their courageous defence of the human dignity of the pen through exposing repression and acclaim for freedom. This same resistance has led the domination process of the dark-thinkers ruling our country up such a dead end, that any capitulation to freedom is now understood as equivalent to their death.

Mansur Khaksar

Mansur Khaksar is poet and critic and an influential member of the Iranian literary scene both while he was in Iran, and in exile. He edits Daftarhaye Shanbeh in the USA. He has recentlt translated Farrokh Afrooshteh, Dena PO BOX 3953, Seattle Wa 98124-3953, USA.
1. Sur-e Esrafil May 31, 1907
2. “We are Writers” September 1994, extracts – see also iran bulletin no 8, Winyter 1994.
3. Interview with Ahman Shamlu, Adineh, no 88
4. Mansur Kushan, editor of the monthly Takapu in the last edition before it was banned.
5. Reza Barahani. Shahrvand no 291.
6. See iran bulletin no15-16 1997. For ythe text of his letter see The Guardian (London) January 31, 1997
7. It was only the quick thinking of one of the writers that averted a tragedy.
8. Articles from the draft maifesto by the consultative group September 9 1996, Adineh no 130

Leave a comment

Filed under Arts, Attitude, CopyRight, Education, FactScience, HumanRights, Information, IntellectualSkills, MyServices, PersiaParseIran, Politicians, Psychology, Spirituality

The moment love arises…


The quest is for the energy that holds existence together — call it God, call it truth, or whatsoever you like to call it. Who holds this infinite existence together?
What is the center of it all, the core of it all?Science, philosophy, religion, all ask the same question. Their answers may differ but their question is the same.

Religions call it God. Scientists will not agree with the word ‘God’; it looks too personal. It looks too anthropomorphic, man-oriented. They call it electricity, magnetism. energy fields; but only the name is different. God is an energy field.Philosophers go on giving different names to it: the ultimate stratum, the absolute, the BRAHMA.

From Thales to Bertrand Russell, they have supplied many answers. Sometimes some philosopher says it is water, liquidity; sometimes somebody else says it is fire — but the quest has been eternal. What holds this infinite universe together?

Bauls call it love, and to me, their answer seems to be most pertinent. It is neither personal nor impersonal. It has something of God in it, and something of magnetism in it also; something of the divine, and something of the earth.Love has two faces. It is Janus-like: one face looks towards the earth, the other face looks towards the sky.

It is the greatest synthesis conceivable: it comes out of lust and moves towards prayer; it comes out of mud and becomes a lotus facing the sun.This word ‘love’ has to be understood. What do we mean by the word ‘love’? One thing we certainly all mean is that it has a pull in it, great energy.

When you fall in love, it is not that you do something — you are pulled in. It has a magnetic force. You gravitate towards the object of your love, you gravitate almost helplessly, you gravitate even against your will. It has a pull, a magnetic field — that’s why we call it ‘falling in love’. Who wants to fall? — but who can avoid it? When the energy calls you, suddenly you are no more your old self. Something bigger than you is pulling you, something greater than you is invoking you.

The challenge is such that one simply runs into it headlong.So the first thing to understand is: love is a great energy pull. The second thing: whenever you fall in love, suddenly you are no longer ordinary; something miraculously changes in your consciousness. Love transforms you. Falling in love, a violent man becomes kind and tender.

A murderer can become so compassionate, it is almost impossible to believe. Love is miraculous — it transforms the baser metal into gold. Have you watched people’s faces and eyes when they fall in love? — you cannot believe that they are the same persons. When love takes possession of their souls they are transfigured, transported into another dimension; and suddenly…and with no effort of their own, as if they are caught in the net of God.

Love transforms the base into the higher, transforms earth into sky, transforms the human into the divine.These two things: first, love is an energy field — scientists will agree — second, love is a transforming force; it helps you to become weightless, puts you on your wings. You can move towards the beyond.

Religious thinkers will agree that love is both God and electricity; love is divine energy. Bauls have chosen love because this is the most significant experience in man’s life. Whether you are religious or not makes no difference; love remains the central experience of human life. It is the most common and the most uncommon.

It happens to everybody, more or less, and whenever it happens it transmutes you. It is common and uncommon. It is the bridge between you and the ultimate.Remember the three L’s: life, love, light.Life is given to you; you are alive. Light is present, but you have to make a bridge between life and light. That bridge is love.

With these three L’s you can make a total way of life, a way of being, a new way of being.Bauls are not philosophers. They are more like poets — they sing, they dance, they don’t philosophize. In fact, they are almost anti-philosophical, because they have come to see that whenever a man becomes too head-oriented he becomes incapable of love — and love is going to be the bridge.

A man who becomes too head-oriented goes farther away from the heart, and the heart is the center which responds to the call of love.A head-oriented man is cut off from the universe. He lives in the universe, but lives as if in a deep stupor. He lives in the universe, but lives as a tree that has lost its roots. He lives only for name’s sake: the sap of life is no more flowing. He has lost contact; he’s unconnected. That’s what alienation is.

The modern man feels too alienated, feels too much an outsider, does not feel at home, at ease with life, existence, the world. He feels almost as if he has been thrown into it, and it is a curse rather than a blessing.Why has this happened? — too much head orientation, too much training of the head has cut all the roots from the heart.

There are many people — I have observed thousands of people — who don’t know what the heart is; they bypass. The heart is throbbing but the energy no longer moves via it. They bypass it; they go directly to the head. Even when they love, they THINK that they love. Even when they feel, they THINK that they feel. Even feeling is via thinking.

Of course, it has to be false.Thinking is the great falsifier, because thinking is man’s effort to understand the universe, and love is God’s effort to understand man. Let me repeat it: when you try to understand God, or existence, or truth, it is your effort — a part, a very tiny part trying to grasp the whole, the infinite whole.

The effort is bound to be doomed. It’s impossible. It cannot happen in the nature of things. Love is when God has found you. Love is when God’s hand is searching for you, groping for you. Love is when you are allowing God to find you. Hence, you cannot manage love. You can manage logic; you can be very very efficient as far as logic is concerned.

The moment love arises, you become absolutely inefficient. Then you don’t know where you are, then you don’t know what you are doing, then you don’t know where you are moving, then you don’t know any control. Logic is controlled; love is uncontrolled. Logic is manipulated; love is a happening. Logic gives you a feeling that you are somebody; love gives you a feeling that you are nobody.Love arises in you when you allow God to enter you.

When you are trying on your own, then the whole effort is absurd.I have heard….Mulla Nasrudin sidled up to a guest at one of his daughter’s social evenings. He had heard him addressed as doctor, and now he said, diffidently, “Doctor, may I ask a question?””Certainly,” he said.”Lately,” said Mulla Nasrudin, “I have been having a funny pain right here under the heart…”The guest interrupted uncomfortably and said, “I am terribly sorry, Mulla, but the truth is I am a Doctor of Philosophy.””Oh,” said Nasrudin, “I’m sorry.” He turned away, but then, overcome with curiosity, he turned back. “Just one more question, doctor. Tell me, what kind of disease is philosophy?”

Yes, philosophy is a kind of disease — and not just an ordinary kind of disease; it is more cancerous than cancer, more dangerous than all the diseases put together. A disease can cut only one root. Even all the diseases put together cannot cut you completely from existence. Philosophy cuts you, uproots you utterly.

What is disease? When one connection is loose with existence, you feel ill. When the head is unconnected, then there is headache. When the stomach is unconnected, then there is stomachache. Somewhere, you have become autonomous; you are no more in the ocean of the interdependence of existence. There exists disease.

Disease has a certain autonomy, independence. When you have a cancerous growth inside you, that growth becomes a universe unto itself. It is unconnected with existence.An ill person is one who is unconnected in many ways. When a certain disease becomes chronic, it simply means that that root is completely destroyed; even the possibility to replant it in the earth no longer exists. You will have to remain alive only partially; a part of you will remain dead.

Somebody is paralyzed — what does it mean? The body has lost contact with the universal energy. Now it is almost a dead thing — hanging, unconnected. The sap of life no longer flows in it.If this is what disease is, then philosophy IS really the greatest disease there can be — because it disconnects you utterly; and not only that, it disconnects you with such logic that you never become aware that you are ill. It disconnects you with such justifications and rationalizations that you never become aware that you are missing.

It is a very self-justificatory illness; it goes on supporting itself. Philosophy means that a man has become completely head-oriented. He looks towards existence through the eyes of logic and not through the eyes of love.When you look through the eyes of logic, you will know a few things, but those few things will not give you the vision of reality. They will be only abstractions.When you look through love, then you know the reality as it is.

Love is falling with the universe, together; falling in a togetherness. It is orgasmic: you are streaming, and the existence has always been streaming, and both streamings meet and mingle and are infused in each other.

A higher synthesis arises: the part is meeting in the whole and the whole is meeting in the part. Then something arises which is more than the part and the whole together — that’s what love is. ‘Love’ is one of the most significant words in human languages, because love is existential language.But somehow, from the very childhood, we are being crippled.

Our roots with the heart are cut. We are forced towards the head and we are not allowed to move towards the heart. It is something humanity has suffered for long, a calamity — that man has not yet become capable of living with love.There are reasons.Love is risky. To love is to move into danger — because you cannot control it, it is not safe. It is not within your hands. It is unpredictable: where it will lead nobody knows.

Whether it will lead anywhere, that too nobody knows. One is moving into utter darkness but roots grow only in darkness. If the roots of a tree become afraid of darkness and don’t move underground, the tree will die. They have to move into darkness. They have to find their way towards the deepest layers of the earth where they can find sources of water, nourishment.The heart is the darkest part of your being. It is like a dark night.

It is your very womb, it is your earth. So people are afraid to move into darkness; they would like to remain in light. At least you can see where you are and what is going to happen. You are safe, secure. When you move in love, you cannot calculate the possibilities, you cannot calculate the results. You cannot be result-oriented. For love, future does not exist, only the present exists. You can be in this moment but you cannot think anything about the next moment. No planning is possible in love.

The society, civilization, culture, church, all force a small child to be more logical. They try to focus his energies in the head. Once the energies are focused in the head, it becomes very difficult to fall towards the heart. In fact, every child is born with great love energy. The child is born out of love energy. The child is full of love, trust.

Have you looked into the eyes of a small child? — how trusting. The child can trust anything: the child can play with a snake, the child can go with anybody. The child can move so close to a fire that it can become dangerous — because the child has not yet learned how to doubt. So we teach doubt, we teach scepticism, we teach logic.

These seem to be measures for survival. We teach fear, we teach caution, we teach prudence, and all these together kill the possibility of love.

Leave a comment

Filed under Attitude, Education, FactScience, Information, IntellectualSkills, Mediatation, MyServices, Ontology, Osho, Psychology