Thank you, Ravi, for your kind words. And I will take you at your word about
the condescension. But, if I remember correctly, that email already had in it
"as I've already explained" and how could someone with my history possibly not
thoroughly understand the Satguru principle?
On Jul 27, 2011, at 11:44 PM, Ravi Yogi wrote:
> "the self-same principle that Ravi was (condescendingly, I must say, (it
> takes one to know one)) trying to explain to me way back when."
>
>
> Mark, I have been (intentionally) condescending to others ("low vibe" writer
> types) but not when I was responding to you, sorry if it appeared otherwise.
> Your heart-centeredness became evident to me as you posted more. A beautiful
> post BTW.
>
> --- In [email protected], Mark Landau <m@...> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, Jim (how long does it take, here, to put names to email addresses?),
> > I, too, find this true and beautiful, with one possible exception. The
> > heart, the true heart (IME, E & U), has no need whatsoever for story
> > gratification. The true heart, the lion heart, is a far better organ of
> > perception/knower than the mind. It's the heart, or hearts, of the inner
> > frozen children that need constant soothing, the "heart", if you will, of
> > the ego complex, of our woundedness and our pain, or I guess one could say,
> > and perhaps more simply and truly, and, in so doing dissolve this
> > "exception," the wounded parts of our heart. It's the stories that are the
> > defense mechanisms that help us in our long, misguided efforts to keep our
> > pain away. Of course, this may not apply to MZ, or any other particular
> > individual, but, I believe, it applies to most of us.
> >
> > What may more aptly apply to MZ (for all the profound things that have
> > occurred between us, and, yes, they truly are profound, just how much so I
> > have yet to see, I really do not yet know him well, as I have not had the
> > time to follow his suggestion and read all that he has written here, nor do
> > I think I will need to) is that he is using his intellect to sincerely
> > advance his spiritual growth through the towering edifice created by the
> > west's paramount religious institution (at least in terms of it's effect on
> > the west) and, yes, some of the world's purest souls and highest thinkers
> > (perhaps I will have to look into Aquinas), combined with the highly
> > developed qualities of his intuition (for me, there's something I call
> > inner knowing that is distinct from and goes beyond intuition). How many
> > have spent lifetimes lost in this structure (of course, he would "know"
> > they are not lost but are getting found, and, perhaps, the only ones
> > getting found)? We agree, I think, that the mind, the intellect, no matter
> > how developed and pure must always fall short of true knowing. The truth of
> > things is "unfathomable" and better known by the heart. To know it one must
> > lay the mind and everything else aside and become it. To do this, one must
> > put oneself through whatever it takes to strip everything else away and
> > become the truly, truly, truly empty vessel.
> >
> > And, to this: the universe within us will never accept any story as the the
> > ultimate truth, I would add that the Satguru, God and the universe, both
> > the universe within and without (which you all may, of course, have already
> > agreed are one, though I still find it useful to distinguish them) and,
> > sometimes, the good guru, will totally knock the shit out of us, if we
> > force it/him/her to, the self-same principle that Ravi was
> > (condescendingly, I must say, (it takes one to know one)) trying to explain
> > to me way back when.
> >
>
>
>
