6/22/04 18:44

这段话是 Emerson 写的，意思大概是说，不管他年纪多大，成就多高，目标多真实，他也只是存在于此时此刻的玫瑰花。

这里我不是想写一个人的神通广大，也非艳羡他的见多识广（虽然我认识他的初衷是这样的）。我只是想写一个人的故事，因为灵感来了，不得不写。我觉得，通过对任何一个人的真心的、non-judgemental（这个词的中文是什么？）的了解，我们可以看到宇宙的美丽与奥秘，也可以体验到自己内心的和平与喜悦。谢谢玛雅的关心，请不要为我担心。

6/24/04 13:27

兰舟姐总想用现实社会的尺度来衡量Ｆ君。我不想在这里写他的具体成就，因为很多事太难以令人相信了，我说也说不清，说了以后还要为他辩解，所以我一直避免现实的话题。他自己知道自己怎么回事，不用向世界证明任何事。是我在这里钦佩他。我的那篇，写得很有些理想化，因为他这个人带给我一些灵感，我想用诗来写。事实上Ｆ君并非苦恼不能 fit into the world，是我写的。他已经悟道了，出世过了，现在又入世了，是一个极其复杂的人物。我真是无力将他写下来，所以只有“印象”。

我上学时认识的及其聪明的人不少，但每次想天才这个字，总是想到 Shakespeare, Mozart, Van Gogh, Feynman 一类的人。Ｆ君告诉我说，普通定义里天才有七种，好像是音乐，美术，语言，数理，领袖，体育，高智商。

遇到一个能带给我 a whole score of human experience 的人，带给我灵感，已经是我的幸运了。昨天我顺口说了句，fact is a flat image of the truth，他觉得此话不错（哈哈，终于被他钦佩了一把）。现在想想，这话还真挺深奥的，用在这篇答复里也挺恰当的。

6/24/04 14:07

他不是 professional student （我才是呢）。他没怎么上小学（逃学），中学大学一起上的，去ＭＩＴ是因为跟人打赌；他学医是想不被医生左右；他学哲学是因做木匠时，无事可干；他自己的兴趣是搞电脑，园艺，绘画，写诗。这都是他说的，我一点证据也没见到（除了他写的歪诗），只见到一个无穷无尽的大脑，里面全是东西。

6/27/04 14:59

我文字中哪里说我 fall in love with him deeply 了？只有在“天才日记”中提到，但那已经是我得道前的旧文了。那辈子我已经活过了，现在开始了新的日子。

我看人看事也不会就那么肤浅，看到绝顶聪明的，或学车五斗，或经历丰富的，就要被迷惑住。真要去爱，也不是找个伴侣结婚这么简单就能满足的了。当我能从一个人那里看到宇宙万象变幻，看到人世缤纷繁复，我当然要抓住去看了。我不看，我不看回来跟你们说，你们谁去呢？

玛雅说的，功法不到位，与高手过招，受了轻伤，那也就算是前世的事吧。我经历不足，但天资优越，乐观豁达，现在还分不出胜败输赢。何况我已经找到了门，只是在找钥匙罢了。我不是简单的人，简单的俗世生活我已努力了多年，总是无法实现，已经打算完全放弃这个企图了。我不是在找“真正的幸福”——我已经找到了 ——幸福就在能自由自在的活着，体验着，感动着，爱着，被爱着，做着自己。

There is no cure for birth and death, save to enjoy the interval. -- Santayana

More and more I realize my position in the world--a truly unique, singular, special being. And this whole universe is all mine, mine alone, and I am the owner, the creator, the observer, the interpreter, the lover, the actor, the audience, the operator, the verb executor, the presence, the essence, of the world. I am not becoming arrogant. I am so smart, so beautiful, so wonderful, and when I look at myself I can't help admiring me. But I cannot take credit for any of these--who am I to claim the prize? It's the universe, and I am merely a reflection of it, but I am a good reflection. I am good.

As for F, although I still don't believe him 100%, I have learned to look beyond facts. He is another good reflection of the universe--simple, complex, intricate, pure, dark, fascinating, complete, content, unpredictable, kind, varied, alive.... He is completely himself--no more, no less. I think, this is what we strive to become in life--to become our true self. I know I am not myself yet, but I know where I am going.

I am having wonderful effects on people around me these days. Of course I am not serious of charging money for true wisdom. I don't have any right to any wisdom. However, this incident makes me realize some of my "dark" side. I am not an angel or a saint or a perfect goddess. I am only myself.

i am just very very very tired..... i haven't been sleeping much lately. 3-4 hours a day... but i feel i am in a state of mild enlightenment today. maybe i am just dreaming. but everything seems so wonderful and enjoyable and peaceful, even though i can't type without shaking (too tired). i sat under the sun and had a sandwich earlier this afternoon, and read a few paragraph of henry miller--yes, i am still working on it. i need rest, rest, rest.

email to TJ

> I'm reading Razor's Edge, and Emperor's Handbook ...
> They are both interesting ... Actually I am also
> reading much of your blog, which is more interesting
> than any other books :)

You are reading so much these days! I have not read anything. I am not even writing more stuff in my blog.

> "Do my things in my own ways". It is a good and
> practical idea.

I don't think I said it first. :) I think the hard part is to find out what are your own things, and what are your own ways.

> Last night I woke up at 3:30am, and couldn't sleep,
> and I started to think a lot ... I thought about
> freedom ... what am I going to do if I have all the
> freedom ? If there are always duties and difficulties,
> what does freedom mean ? What are the things I want to
> do in my life ? Why cannot I fly ?

What do you mean by freedom? Financial freedom? Social freedom? Spiritual freedom? There are many aspects to this word. I don't see a conflict between duties and difficulties, and freedom. And why do you say there are always duties? What duties? Toward whom?

I don't know what are the things you want to do in your life. Everyone has to find it for himself, and it is not easy.

Why cannot you fly? That's a separate question. Do you want to fly? Why? Remember, you can always take an airplane. :)

email to TJ

You are my master now :) Now I can talk more about this.

How can I help in your quest for enlightenment? I am your master now? But you know how confused I get at times. It's better we explore the Path together.

After seeing this link today:
http://www.bliss-music.com/enlightenment.htm
I immediately feel better. This is a shallow page. But
it made me feel much better than a good philosophy
book. Is this strange ?

I am reading the "shallow" passage you showed me. It is good, and very much in line of what we are exploring, meaning, to live in the present. In a poetic way, it is what I wrote at mayacafe about the roses.

You are right. Philosophy is no more inspiring than poetry or anything else. Take whatever makes you feel good and enjoy it.

I'm going to read Razor's Edge again tonight, to see
if I can go back to my old days :)

Don't strive to go back to your old days. Those days are always with you in the present, but they are also never to be repeated. Enjoy your book, and don't be disappointed if it doesn't take you back to your old days.

email to TJ

I find myself imitating the style of my master friend here already. :)

> I found myself in need of the enlightment: freedom,
> joy and peace. I have forgotten this for long and had
> thought there it no need for it. I had thought all we
> need are just success, love, and a good free and
> fearless spirit.

I am so happy for your enlightenment. Indeed, freedom, joy and peace. You should write your thoughts down while you are there, and share with us. I am nowhere near freedom, joy and peace right now, but I shall work my way back there, soon.

> Many (10-11) years ago when I read Razor's Edge and
> Hesse's buddism novel, I was inspired. But I was so
> young at that time, youth itself was such an
> enlightment that I never felt the need to go further.
> I thought Larry in Razor's Edge is a hero for us,
> while "us", ordinary and happy people, still only need
> success, love and a good common sense.

There is no real difference between people in the sense that nobody is a hero for nobody else.

> But today I feel I was wrong. There is an inner world
> inside us; there are mind, body, spirit, emotions and
> their interactions. Even if we achived success, even
> if we know the right theory/philosophy/rules in words
> and writing, we won't be happy without inner peace and
> harmony of what we think, what we do, and what we
> feel.

Now you are right. We all need to reach our own self in life. The theory/philosophy/rules are probably just good guidelines of conducts for us to follow when we have forgotten how to get back to our inner peace and harmony.

> Larry in Razor's Edge can achive a "normal" happiness
> with success and love. But he is simply after for
> something even more joyful.

You can derive so much from this book. I will have to read it soon.

> For years I was wondering why I cannot go back to my
> old happy and carefree college days. Now it seems that
> it is simply because youth is such an enlightment that
> when I become older I have to work to get it back
> again. When I was in college, "the sky seemed so blue,
> and the wind seemed so breezy". I want to feel that
> again.

I think when we were younger, we had less external influence in our lives, so it was easier for us to have more internal peace and joy. How to get it back? I think the first thing is to recognize it and be aware, like what you do now.

> We have only one life. We shall live it
> enlighted :)

Yes, let is live our only one life enlightened.

“My life is more like one foot in the twilight zone and other on a banana peel and any second I’m going to slip and be gone.”

Frank. You are singular. You are not from this world. You have never been of this world. No matter how similar our DNAs are, you do not belong.

We do not know how you came to this world, but you came. You looked around, and realized you were different, not just different, but, DIFFERENT. When you were younger you were not understood nor appreciated, but rather constantly laughed at, belittled, and abused. It didn’t help when you grew up in foster homes ran by “people straight from hell”. Nobody knew what to do with you. “Is Frank different for the sake of being different, or is he different?” everyone wanted to know. They studied you and concluded, “In any world Frank would be different”. And yes, for once they were right. But you were here. You had to try.

You tried to learn the rules of this world. You studied the physical world and got a MIT computer engineering degree. You studied the human bodies and got a MD but never practiced. You studied the mind and earned a Ph.D. in philosophy. You observe how everything works in this world. You are brilliantly bright. You are a genius. You know you are smarter than everyone else. You are. And you think you have understood everything. However, even your mind is out of this world. You are a contradiction to yourself. You have no real common sense and you make no sense at all! You do not understand how people work and you often wonder why people act the way they do even though you know the answer too. You devised a set of rules about this world, so you could live by them and live. You are mean to people you think are not nice, and generous to those who are nice to you. You think you are right--how else can you think? But there shall never be a way for you to evaluate yourself except with your own internal wits.

You believe in “truth, kindness, humors, bravery, and love—most of all love”. You live by the rules you invent and you prescribe them to others with ferocity. You tell stories of many roles you have played in this world--engineer, hacker, political negotiator, spy, carpenter, gardener, adventurer, K2 climber, pilot, grandson, son, foster son, brother, lover, husband, father, friend, patient, boss, city councilor, convicted felon(for stuffing a cut tree in trash bags), story-teller, comedian, philosopher, Taoist, writer, painter, poet..... After all you consider yourself a poet and everything is a poem to you. You are immensely fearless and you know no boundary. You strive to be capable--physically bold, mentally determined, emotionally daring, financially wealthy. Still, life can be so difficult for you at times. You just want to live and be in. “Yes I want to be alive and yes I will start where I start”, you tell me. You keep trying.

“Sometimes I think I am in a window looking at world inside wondering how to get in”, you write. And you are dyslexia and cannot even spell and do grammar! You say you have migraine, you have depression, you have allergies, you had pneumonia, you had leukemia, been struck by lightning, bit by a shark, and hit by a meteor. I don’t know how you could have survived all these and the heavy medications. They even say you are crazy, but you know how to get a certificate proving your sanity, and you write a poem about it afterward. You know everything, yet you know nothing. You don’t even know who you are. Are you a butterfly who is just dreaming, “or worse a brain-in-the-vat-ala-the-matrix”? You don’t know. And I don’t, either.

Sometimes you think you are god, and other times you fight him. You are more human, more real, more primal than any other human being in the world. You are saturated with human defects and human triumphs. But you are not of this world. You can never get in no matter how hard you try. That is your eternal curse and sorrow.

I think, the only door between the two worlds is love.

6/19/2004
6/21/2004

Some answers from F.

In a quite unassuming format, this is a pretty complex set of questions... ;)

> What is the inner voice?

I'd say, most of it is just an effect of our endless inner chatter, or an aspect of it. Sometimes, it might also be external input that we somehow internalized.

> When do we listen to it?

Listen as in hearing? Or listen as in obeying?
In both cases I'd tend to say when we feel inclined to. Although I guess such things, depending on the person, can take quite compelling forms, sometimes.

> If there are many, which one do we listen to?

Again, up to you. :) I'd suggest to listen to the one that's good for you, or makes you do what you determined you should be doing. :)

> Are inner voices in us sometimes actually outside voices from other people?

Although most people would object to it, I'd say in some cases that could indeed be the case.

> OK, since there is no new thoughts, it doesn't matter if the inner voice is from inside or from outside.

Well, it kinda does in practice, sometimes... ;) And even if objectively, we must know that we can't really invent anything new, it's always nice to have the feeling we are doing so anyway. ;)

> But, what to do with the many voices in head? It often paralyze me.

Just selectively listen to the ones that tell you to do what you actually want to do. ;) Use them as a support tool. Trick yourself. ;)

> I hate it when the voice always warn me against passion.

Well, in general, don't take inner voices any more seriously than outer voices. Words are just words anyway. ;) Always remember that. And the fact that nothing much we do, and, even more so, think, has much of any importance...

email excerpt to F.

History repeats itself in so many forms. There isn't any real escape from this world. It is so right to say that we must be aware of the reality and be detached in order to be in and live fully. Only when we are calm, we can burn brilliantly.

The good thing is, I am not desperate so I can be still and let things happen to me.

A couple of more questions: What is future? If the present moment is the only reality to live, then how and why and when should we plan for the future? When one talks about planning and the future, there comes a lot of hopes and expectations. How do these hopes and expectations work with living in the present? Also, since planning one's own future is difficult, planning a future together with other people is almost impossible. What about wishful thinking? Should we only do what we feel right for the present (and the near future, but not the far future), at any moment?

If someone believes he is a master and he is always right, how can I tell if he is right about it or not? Do masters disagree with one another? And how do they resolve their differences if everyone believes he himself knows the absolute truth? Who is the judge?? (OK, in my case, I think I am the judge.)

F, I have told you that you appear to be out of this world or above this world. Did you get out of this world, or you were never in it to begin with?

What is this powerful force of love, this desire to possess something or someone beautiful, and to be one with it?

I went to a piano recital today. The program included Bach, Chopin, Shostakovich (piano trio), Beethoven, and Prokofiev. The student is an 18 year old Chinese boy who had won numerous awards in Michigan. I think he lacks the technique for the difficult pieces, and lacks spirit overall. (I must have gotten picky.) But now I understand how important it is to have inspiration and spirit in arts (I like the word "inspiring" these days, after a couple of friends remarked this quality in me). Same as being a person. Talking about being a role model, maybe this is my real strength, to be an inspiration for others.

It is not difficult for me to impress people by the names and the institutions I can be associated with (even the school my sister went to and the city she lives are impressive!). So that's why I'd rather be introduced as an expiring musician. :)

exchange with F.

> Several people told me they like what you have said, "Immersed, yet, aware of the world's ultimate nature, and, therefore, detached." I think many wise men have said something similar before.

Indeed. Remember, none of us ever truly invents anything. Actually, somewhere in the New Testament, Jesus himself, or one of the Apostles, says something similar. And that's definitely the way to go.

Venus Transit, 2004

Pictures

Who, but me, would still be up at 1:10 AM, and guide a long lost
classmate in Beijing to watch the beginning of the Venus Transit? For
almost an hour I desperately looked for information online on how to
construct a pinhole camera.

Who, but me, would wait for a best friend in Holland to come online at
1:50 AM, to hear about her sighting, while watching the event broadcast
live on the internet?

Who, but me, would share the live movie with a internet friend in
Seattle, since he would have no chance to seeing it live?

Who, but me, would for once, get up at 5:30 AM, to join an enthusiastic
crowd on a rooftop, to anticipate, to appreciate, to admire, this "once
in a lifetime celestial feast"?

And, a point-and-shoot digital camera (Canon PowerShot s40) actually
worked!

２００４年６月８日凌晨

１：１０：３３
１７年未联络的初中同学忽然从网上问我，北京的太阳正当头，但太晃眼，看不见呀。没有眼镜，怎么办？有什么土办法呀？
我说：找个望远镜，把光照到白纸上看。放大镜，望远镜，都可以。伽利略就是这么做的。
我又说：不知道针孔望远镜能不能用。扎个小孔。。。 把太阳投射到纸上
他问：怎么折？你说的针孔望远镜，是不是得有个黑盒子
我说：我到网上查查有没有这个办法。
我找到了：如果沒有望遠鏡，可以利用一個紙盒，用針尖在紙盒上方鑽一小孔，紙盒底端則鋪一塊白色的影紙板。觀測時將小孔對準太陽，使太陽影像經由「針孔成像」原理投影在紙盒底端來觀察。若能在小孔前方加片透鏡來放大影像，效果會更好。這種觀測方法每次觀看時間最好不要超過一分鐘。
他说：我的太阳镜也很贵的，促销的售货员说不怕太阳的，但不敢试呀
我说：太阳镜不能用。看报纸说，拿五个太阳镜叠在一切也不成。
他说：谢谢，救我一命。（是专业滤镜的广告吧。）我用两个偏光镜，就什么也看不见了。中国的电视上说用旧胶卷就行。土呀！
我说：等我起床后，到学校天文系那里，也许他们发眼镜。
他说：睡吧，也没什么了不起，过几年不是还有么
我说：对，过11３年又有的看了。
他说：那时我们很老了，希望眼睛还行


１：３９：０８
一个未曾谋面的西雅图网友问：我们在北美看到吗？
我说：西雅图恐怕不行。
他说：哦。你应该先睡一觉，用两个闹钟，五点钟叫醒。
我说：我还在帮北京的同学针孔相机。
他说：能者多劳。多劳多得:) 都是互联网惹的


１：５０：２１
在荷兰的好朋友上网了。她说：我在网上找金星的图片呢。我们家没有看日食的眼镜。已经开始了。
她又说：我在给孩子们讲解呢。
我说：那我先睡觉去了。之后咱们再交流。

５：１５：００
闹钟响了。

我拍到的照片

>adagio wrote:
>再多问一句: 有没有不信奉唯美主义的艺术家？

我就是什么主义都不信奉的艺术家。当然，这也是一阵一阵的。 :)

理解逻辑的人都会明白，完整的逻辑是不存在的。逻辑，和艺术一样，只是大千世界中的一种味道；而心与脑，在真正自由的时候，都是可以包容整个世界的。

chat conversation with F, about Masters.

master: I was just finishing a letter for you.
jorielle: wow, such a long letter. i should read first then.
master: It just answered your questions.
jorielle: questions.... so many of them all the time.
master: Human destiny.
jorielle: need balance.... need some time with no questions.
master: Indeed.
master: The past few days you took a rest, no?

jorielle: i guess i should never make any decision unless the decision chooses me.
master: I told you... You just need a good Master...
master: One who will make all the decisions for you, after having asked your opinion, though.
jorielle: really? but why do i have to listen to you???
master: You don't *have to*.
master: You just might *want to*.
master: If nothing else, because it would make life so much simpler for you.
jorielle: but why would i want life to be simple? shouldn't there be a balance between simplicity and complication?
master: Should it?
jorielle: i don't know...
jorielle: OK, i go to read your email and think about it.
master: See..
master: wouldn't it be easier if your Master was to decide all such things?
jorielle: but what about balance between easiness and difficulties? (lightness vs. heaviness)?
master: Easy: When you want life to be difficult, you just decide things on your own for a while...
jorielle: Oh!!! that sounds like a good plan.
master: I think the mere fact to have to will cure you of such desires pretty quickly.
jorielle: so, ok, now i go on my own and get myself married... later i will get a master to help me out of the mess.
master: That's an idea.
master: Albeit a slightly radical one.
jorielle: just to make it difficult for the master.
jorielle: so the master will feel more accomplished once he gets me out of the big mess.
master: Oh but nothing is difficult for the Master.
master: Remember, each time you make your own decisions, He could just tell you to continue to do so.
jorielle: will a master abandon the one being mastered?
master: Only if she decides to be on her own first.
master: Otherwise, very unlikely.
master: Masters have principles.
master: Well, each time you decide to dismiss the Master...
master: He could consider himself dismissed.
master: Otherwise, no Master worth the title would dismiss you.
jorielle: I see.. and then I can always get the Master back? or not?
master: Perhaps. All you can do is re-apply, and hope for the best.
jorielle: I see..... I see......
master: But as long as you don't change the rules, your position is quite self-perpetuating.
jorielle: what are the principles of Masters?
master: The rules they abide by.
jorielle: what rules?
master: Rules such as "The Master is always right".
jorielle: hmmm....
jorielle: but what is the hope for people like me, who always change my mind?
master: Honestly, it always appeared to me that it was what you needed most in your life: Directions.
jorielle: always.
master: You can make it a rule that it does not matter how you change your mind, you always obey the Master in all things.
jorielle: who make the rules? me and the Master together?
master: The initial rules, yes, of course.
master: It's a consensual pact.
master: But the rules can establish that the Master is always right...
master: or that you can't change your mind, except on Feb 29th.
master: Things like that.
jorielle: what do you mean by "change my mind"? about what?
master: About total obedience at all times
jorielle: I see.
jorielle: ouch! i see... i would say, MWF i can change my mind.
master: MWF?
jorielle: monday, wednesday, friday
master: Oh, well, I have a feeling you'd have a hard time finding a Master accepting such rules.
jorielle: Do all buddhist monks have Masters?
master: I think most do
master: or did
jorielle: where does one find a Master anyway? i would need a bunch to bargain from.
master: Well, when the chela is ready, the Master appears.
master: In your case, all you have to do is ask me.
jorielle: ask you to find me a Master? or ask you to be my Master?
master: Any of these two.
jorielle: Am I a very difficult case???
jorielle: Am I really too smart for my own good?
master: Only to some extent.
master: And no one can be *too* smart.
jorielle: i mean, maybe i will never learn how to harness myself.
master: On your own, that is quite a possibility.
master: And an additional reason why you need a Master...
jorielle: when will i feel absolutely i need a Master?
master: Haven't you already, if you *think of it*?
jorielle: not absolutely. only some of the time, i feel i absolutely... sometimes i feel i might...
master: Well, next time you feel it absolutely, just ask.
jorielle: yeah.. but then after a while i change my mind.
master: And create rules that disallow any change of heart before next February 29th.
jorielle: that would be 4 years from now!
jorielle: OK, since i am still asking you, it shows some affinity I have with the Master idea.
master: We both know that you do.
master: Yeah. Would give you some stability.
master: And if you are in a good day that day, even 8 years.
master: Or 12.
jorielle: i am still in the "consideration" period. still swinging. right?
master: I suppose...
master: Who can say, except you?
jorielle: OK. i don't know. i am too silly.
master: Another reason why you need a good Master.
jorielle: and i have a lot of other friends who are "normal", "different", or "jealous"...
master: yes. So?
master: (We know that
jorielle: ...... do you think you can make life easier for me?
master: That's pretty obvious, no?
jorielle: sometimes it seems life is getting harder now.
jorielle: sometimes it seems life shall never be easy.
master: Life on your own, indeed, will never be.
jorielle: ok, it is easier for me, because i get answers if i am stuck.
master: that's one of the advantages.
jorielle: how is your life? what is the difference between your life and my life?
master: I don't need answers.
jorielle: why don't you need answers?
master: Although I could need a harem of houris, and a billion or two.
master: But even *that* is just delusion.
master: But at least I know it.
jorielle: what stage are you in? and what stage am i in?
master: I am at the stage of *being* a Master. You aren't.
jorielle: once you are a Master, you don't need a super-Master?
master: Well, I don't think so. But then, I could be wrong.
jorielle: masters are all different, right? i saw the Madhu's book, talking about the difference among masters.
master: Yes, in a way.
master: But they are all Masters.
jorielle: I see.. i didn't read the book. just the beginning of the book.
master: These are just one type of Masters anyway.
jorielle: what do you mean? madhu's masters are all just one type of masters
jorielle: and there are many other types... you are a different type from all those 12 masters in his book?
master: well, no and yes
master: They are different. Are they all of one type? This could be the matter of debate.
master: Am I differnt? Sure. Some seem a lot more advanced. Some, perhaps less.
jorielle: I see.
jorielle: just one type, but different students see differently
jorielle: different students react differently with the one type?
master: That too.
jorielle: i see.. just the advancement.
master: Oh there must be more differences than that.
jorielle: when did you "graduate"?
master: I don't know.
master: I just know what I am now.
jorielle: personalities are all different.
master: That too.
master: But there must be essential differences as well.
jorielle: so, masters are all different... but they are all of one type, or of different types.
master: Different types too.
master: But don't ask a catalog of the types from me...
jorielle: why not???
master: I wouldn't really know, without giving it some thought.

jorielle: oh........ but a master is not always available.
master: A master would be if you lived at His feet...
jorielle: oh.. cannot have a remote master...
jorielle: you said you had masters from the past.... from books
jorielle: how can i get a master from books?
jorielle: then that way i can decide when to follow Him and when not to, quite easily.
master: Yes, that too. But you, you need a very physical one.
jorielle: why me? because i don't have discipline?
master: Simply because it is so.
jorielle: but i want to understand.
master: Yes, for example
master: Remember, all people are different.
master: Such are the rules that work for you.
master: And there is no doubt that you need a very physical Master.
jorielle: OK. i guess i will just have to wait until the urge is very strong.
jorielle: until then, i have to just run free, and suffer in the dark. something like that, right?
master: At least until you decide to ask.
jorielle: OK... sounds like a good plan.

email conversation with F.
Subject: Sunday in June Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2004 17:13:25 -0400

> What is happening to our book writing? It is stalled! Can we still proceed and how?

Well, those things have cycles. Sometimes you write more, sometimes you write less. It's OK. What counts is that, in the end, you produce something useful and of value.

Of course we can proceed. :) We just did. ;)

> There is no more passion for questions and answers....

Believe me, it will come back at some time. :) It's OK. Why obsess about questions and answers anyway?

Remember: Don't take *anything* seriously. And first, not yourself! (Always keep this in mind: Taking oneself seriously in the beginning of the end, when it comes to the pursuit of Wisdom. One can be serious, or wise. It's very difficult to be both.)

> J doesn't agree you comments about literature as unimportant.

He must be a literary guy. ;) Wisely, I already mounted some advance defense about my disrespect for literature. :) Let me add to it that some French writer of importance once said something to the effect that "literature is the art of arising tempests in a glass of water". ;) I respect all water ("Water, Bearer of all Life" as Schauberger said), but the ocean is more impressive than the glass, wouldn't you agree? (Although in the middle of the Sahara, the glass might be more useful :)

So, get me right: I have nothing about good writing. ;)

I even personally prefer to express myself with a minimum of literary form, as you must have noticed. About that, some friends of mine remarked that I must love listening to myself. Which, of course, is probably somewhat true. ;) But then, why not? To paraphrase a bit the French proverb, "ce qui ce concoit bien s'enonce clairement": What is well conceived should be easily enounced, and structured language should be able to convey a bit more than Ebonics.

But I can't take on myself to think that any of it, my own production included, is of any real importance. It's just words, on a piece of paper or a screen.

> Do you discount passion? Do you discount emotions?

Not at all! Passion kills people, and also builds empires. How could one discount that?

As for emotions, they are the fuel that moves us to act.

This is all very real, and substantial.

However, both passions and emotions are made up out of Desire, formed up out of dreams. In other words, they are of the substance of Maya. Taking them at first level, or taking them *seriously*, are both things quite incompatible with Enlightenment, it appears to me.

> Do you simplify everything as mind trips?

Yes and no. There are things beyond the mind. However, anything we "think", or "believe", is by definition an operation of the mind. That is, if you want to call it that way, a "mind trip".

> Do you warn against taking everything seriously?

That, for sure.

> Do you advice me to observe everything, including passion and emotions?

Certainly so. Any school pursuing wisdom, awakening, or enlightenment is going to advise the same, in one form or another.

> Should we detach ourselves as much as we can from this world, and why?

Yes and no. As someone said before, we should "be in this world, as if we were out of this world". Immersed, yet, aware of the world's ultimate nature, and, therefore, detached.

> What does it mean to be human and not god?

That is an answer each of us has to probe and ferret out for themselves. But at any rate, who said you and I are not God? Or, at least, a legitimate aspect and expression of God?

Even if we can't walk on water.

And even that... who says we can't walk on water, or levitate, or bilocate, or teleport, or anything the mind can conceive? If we attuned ourselves to the world in such a manner that it became possible, then, it would be...

My feeling about such things is it's not because *I* can not do it, right now, or because reductionist rationalism claims it's impossible, that it can't be done...

About impossible things, you know, in late 1902 or early 1903, a man who was perhaps the most illustrious Professors of Physics in the USA at the time wrote an article in Scientific American. There, he explained, and mathematically proved, why heavier than air flight was *scientifically impossible*.

Fortunately, the Wright Brothers did not know about it, or did not care. In any event, what they did a couple weeks later apparently changed the Laws of Physics.

The conclusion of this is or, the noted physicist was wrong, or the collective undertaking of those who believed in heavier than air flight actually *did* change the laws of physics. Now, OK, this might sound a bit far-fetched. However, if the Observer modifies what is Observed, does it not ensue that such a thing as modifying the very laws regulating the process might indeed be possible? Think of it!

In fact, this is a view, which I hold as perfectly possible, from a rational point of view. And that, precisely because of the laws of physics themselves, at a higher level, and as we know them. This is an area where Giordano Bruno had great insights.

> Why do you sometimes seem like you are outside of this world, or above this world?

If I seem that way, *then*, I must indeed have achieved some level of Wisdom. ;)

> Is struggle and suffering intrinsic?

As the Lord Buddha once demonstrated, struggle and suffering are the price we pay for our entanglements with Maya. In other words, it comes with the territory.

> When I started this email I did not intend to ask questions. Should I update the rest of those 84 questions from a few weeks ago? I don't even want to look at those questions!

Well, you just updated them a bit, and got the answers right away. Someday soon, you will get another installment on the 84 questions. ;) So no need to look at them more, right now. They will come back to haunt you at any rate, along with their answers. All of it naturally, and with no further suffering of your part. ;)

> I cannot concentrate on ANYTHING for longer than 10 seconds (except when I am daydreaming and thinking and writing down my thoughts like this).

Harness the power of daydreaming, transforming it into an industrious servant.

> How can I learn concentration? Should I practice meditation?

That is at any rate definitely a great idea.

> I am so scattered and unfocused, in every way. Sometimes I feel this is just intrinsic of me. [I'd suggest to use "consubstantial to me" here, rather. It's an intrinsic quality or feature of you...]

As for being unfocused, this, again, is making a great case for the need for a good Master... ;)

> Can I use this to my advantage, and how? Or must I learn to control my thoughts?

Answer to the first part: Yes, certainly. Actually, since this is one of the mark of a "generalist", in a way, you should develop that aspect of your self. And turn a possible handicap into a feature or quality. Remember: Your degree is like a guarantee of income, whatever you want to focus on. Therefore, rather than trying to control your thoughts, learn to harness this "scattered-ness" of you mind. Turn it to your advantage, for whatever you truly wish to do. Which, I believe, is to express your creativity, and a certain natural talent and proclivity to think in global terms, and dwell in territories where Science and Art do converge, to perhaps become One...

> Scattered again,

> Ah san

I know it might sound like some sort of pro-domo plea, which it is not, but to me it again appears clearly that your considerable talents cannot truly be expressed without some morphogenetic (form-giving) external input. Exactly like actors and writers need and have agents, managers, and editors, to help them be themselves, and make money, so do you, at a different, yet somewhat similar levels.

So, if I were you, I'd maybe choose some subject in Epistemology that is precisely somehow at the confines of Art and Science. It can be "scattered" as much as you want: The fact that you have nothing to prove in hard science anymore, gives you the ability to go as far into these confines as you wish. From there on, we could perfectly actually create here a grad school where you'd indulge in any pursuit that please your mind at a given time, and teach whatever you wish.

Actually, there is an existing model for that: About 500 years ago, in France, King Francois I created an institution just for this. It still exists today, and is called the "College de France". It is both the most prestigious academic institution in France, and a place where people like you and me can teach whatever they want, however they want it, and get paid for it. (I always thought I should someday try to get a position there. :)

We could create something like that here, at some small level. If we do, sooner or later, if we pursue this, it might very well get grants, bequests, donations. Slowly giving substance to this flimsy, crazy idea. ;)

At any rate, amid something of that nature is where you should seek to be. Someday. And you can be, if you truly wanted.

F

from chat with TJ

• everyone is different...
• it is difficult to be different. a lot of loneliness and struggles and self-doubts.
• loneliness on the path (of the soul).
• so you must love yourself. nobody else is reliable
• if you love yourself (then you are loved), and you can be brave.
• people always change and you can only hope for the best in them.
• it is more important to have self-worth.
• everyone should love themselves first, and then they can love others.
• love comes from within.
• it is dangerous to depend on other people for happiness.
• everyone should feel very proud of themselves.
• excellent is a wrong ruler, i think... it is an external ruler.
• it is hard to like/love oneselves. especially for us chinese people.
• we are always so critical of ourselves.
• we are always trying to be humble, to think that we need to do better, to compare us with others (socially)
• it is very difficult to accept ourselves as the way we are.. only when we can accept ourselves and know who we are, we can really be comfortable and be productive and be loving and be compassionate and all that.

• i absolutely ask the most basic questions.
• because i always feel, the answer is not as simple as we think or we wish it is, and also not as what we would like to know. not as what we like it to be.

• the answers come from within. just need to listen very very carefully to oneself
• all the wisdom comes from within. everytime you learn something new, you actually learn it from yourself
• no matter how other people tell you things, you only understand when you understand from within yourself.
• so... i don't have the solutions for other people...
• i think everyone has to find his/her own way.
• but it is good to share.... on the way.
• and to know that we are not alone. to know that there are other people on our path

• philosophy maybe too "intellectual". philosophy is more male dominated
• and life is composed of more than just the intellectual part. life is composed of anti-philosophy as well.
• if the music moves you more than a book inspires you, then it is more powerful.
• it's all just part of the big picture of understanding and appreciation of life/universe.
• love is the only thing that truly matters....

• it is not something to believe in, but something to compare with
• everything you learn is supposed to help you understand yourself better.
• to get closer to your true self... to be more brave, free, loving, ...
• just pick one thing and do it with passion and sincerity, and find fulfilment.
• life is supposed to be experienced, and better when the experience is enjoyable.

• I love Hermann Hesse...
• When I first read Hesse, I thought, "wow, I am not alone in this world".
• I thought he was writing about me.
• So I thought, I should write, write, write, so when someone read what I write, they will know they are not alone.

• but every viewpoint is an aspect of the whole picture
• learning about his viewpoint just helps me understand the whole picture better, fuller, clearer
• it is like, life is a big mystery for experience. everything you learn, you love, you experience, is just to get you closer to the true meaning of it. but only the earnest search, love, learning, will bring you closer to the meaning of your own life.

• hong kong was a good experience for me.
• it was the first time i experienced "freedom"
• the first time i understood the word "opportunity" and "choice"
• in china, there are very little choices.

• i'm happy to find another person on my path.
• happy to find someone else willing to be part of the world i live in.
• never lose hope
• this world is so big and so varied.... so many wonderful things and people to discover.
• (easy to say than to do)

I was reading something Dalai Lama said yesterday, about work. People divide into three equal groups when come to work. The first group view their work as a job, a mean to earn money. The second group view their work as a career, and they seek promotion and status. The third group view their work as a calling, and they find a higher meaning in what they do. Only the people in the third group is truly satisfied with their work. I think it is because the rewards in the first two groups are external. I was thinking, I can easily find higher meaning in my work (to discover the secrets of the solar system for mankind), but I feel my calling is elsewhere--I love thinking and writing. So right now, although I have one of the most interesting jobs in the world, I still view my work only as a job (first group). Today (Sunday) I want to change my attitude toward my work.

-- email excerpt to T.

For as long as space endures
And for as long as living beings remain,
Until then may I too abide
To dispel the misery of the world.

-- Dalai Lama's favorite verse, found in the writings of the renowned eighth century Buddhist saint Shantideva.

I went out for a hike later this afternoon with some unrelated friend. The beauty of the lake and the shallowness of the conversation (about insurance policies) was so comforting. A great escape from my struggle. So why struggle? I resolved to do something different, preferable outdoors, every time I get too crowded and serious into my thoughts. I will not become normal, but I will learn to be balanced, no matter what I choose to do. But what is a balanced life? Is it boring because it might lack the uphill struggle I am constantly facing. If it is comfortable then it is not balanced, because it will need struggle for the balance. Ha, now we are back to that infinite negation and inclusion thing. OK, so now everything seems to be in place again.

-- from email to J.

Right now nothing much is written on this blog. Everything is dry. There is no wind today when I went to the sailing club. I go to phases, all the time. Sometimes I want it to be an online diary (and I have put some old stuff there too) but sometimes I think it is all very vain and unbearable. I have never found a place where I can stay.

Why do anyone want to understand me better? I can't even understand myself. I don't think it is possible to understand anyone. Isn't each individual a universe of its own and therefore all the consequences and implications from this claim? I have always wanted to be able to completely open myself to others, but for one reason or another, people only want to know me up to a comfortable limit and then they don't want any more. I feel I have a lot of extra self and awareness and passion and knowledge in me that I don't know what to do. That is one reason I post personal statements on the internet, hoping people will catch some of the overflow. Once I catch someone, I will just dump all my thoughts to him/her until this person won't take anymore and leaves. Other people is an unreliable source of support. I must learn to converse with myself.

This afternoon and then I decided to call my most trusted friend G. We talked for about an hour and he got really mad at me and the conversation upset me greatly. :( He was only trying to help me get free from my inner negative voice. He was mad because I was too helpless. Then he called me back and wanted to cheer me up a bit more. I hate this! I hate being told what to do and what not to think. And I hate it when other people are right. I hate when I lose my self assurance and crumble. But then as I am writing this, I feel I have gained more of myself in the last few weeks. I am less likely to ask myself, "what am I going to do with my life?"

I must learn to converse with myself, even though it was what G tried to warn me against. Too many inner voices and too many conversations with myself, and I don't go anywhere. It is good to write my thoughts down, even though they are paralyzing. Sometimes, especially now, I want to think that there is some value in me thinking negating thoughts to myself. And I want to somehow turn the permanent distraction to my own advantage. Earlier the spiritual experience was probably a result of this. Or maybe not. What upsets me is that I can't seem to control my thoughts. I have no discipline and no will power. I can't concentrate on anything for longer than 20 seconds. Should I just observe it, or accept it, or try to change it? How do I know what I should do? G seems to say that I should never use the word "should", but rather I would concentrate on the word "would enjoy". But who is he and why I should (or would enjoy) listen to him?

I have noticed that every time I do a big thinking exercise like this, I will come to a resolution that is more practical. What does it mean?

Ok, strange friends. It doesn't matter who is strange and who is normal. Everyone else is not me. You are not me. F is not me. G is not me. R is not me. These days I am much less vulnerable to opinions of people I admire or love. When do *I* become a role model of myself?

I am too much an emotional person and I need structure in my life. I am blessed (or cursed) with a sharp mind and I can passionately talk myself into believing or negating anything. Before the age of 25 I was the arrogant thinker. I did the same personality analysis before and after and I completely reversed myself. I don't think I will swing back.... who knows?

I do have an idea of what I want to do. Perhaps I shall stop talking to people.

-- from email to J

F says, even when reading books, do not take it seriously. But I am definitely swinging back to my emotional self. Maybe I was too emotional for too long, so the teaching of F was very well received when I needed a way out. Then I was out, I was rational, and I was wise, but I felt disatisfied. I wanted to move with passion again. So I go to J, to get away from the lightness of being that F is teaching. I want something rich, something thick, something colorful, something human, something faulty, something real. F is out of this world, or rather, above this world.

Where do I want to be? I swing, swing, swing, and never stop.

Reply from F.
Subject: tuesday afternoon / eco, etc. Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2004 18:23:44 -0400

> I finished Eco's The Name of the Rose today and got depressed.
Maybe it's just depressing. ;)

> Maybe I have enough of reasons for a while. Now I want some passion. Will Henry Miller do it for me? Or is he too proud too?
Those are just literary questions. Mind trips. Taking things seriously, which perhaps don't deserve to be taken that seriously...

> Perhaps it is a sign that I should resume writing my own.
Now. *that* is a good conclusion. :) Writing yourself is something a lot more valid than taking the writings of others any seriously. Writing is a personal growth process. And one that can be shared with others.

>... Yes, the book is a ladder and now I have discovered it was meaningless...
I wouldn't say "meaningless". Meaning comes from within. Therefore, anything is as meaningful or meaningless as each of us makes it to be. I'd say of "little or no importance".

> So I am irritated with my re-discovery. :( Or maybe I am just frustrated? Why? I am unsatisfied, intellectually. What's going on? And is there a way out? Can someone or something catch me out there so I won't fall, or fall further?
You are again making the case about needing a good Master. ;) Things are lot more simple when you follow a path rather than trailblazing it. ;)

> I need a vacuum cleaner and I will go to get one now. And I will learn about methane on Mars.
Now, *those* are useful resolutions. ;)

> Balance. Perhaps balance will save me.
Balance is good. But do you really need to be saved?

> I don't want to be proud and arrogant. I want to be humble again.
Back to the need for a Master thing, I see.... ;)

PS: Here is an interesting tidbit...
"Tribal Wisdom as it applies to Government Agencies and Corporate America (and Major Universities as well, probably. ;)
The tribal wisdom of the Dakota Indians, passed on from generation to generation, says that, "When you discover that you are riding a dead horse, the best strategy is to dismount."
However, in government, education, and in corporate America, more advanced strategies are often employed, such as: 1. Buying a bigger whip. 2. Changing riders. 3. Appointing a committee to study the horse. 4. Arranging to visit other countries to see how other cultures ride horses. 5. Lowering the standards so that dead horses can be included. 6. Reclassifying the dead horse as living-impaired. 7. Hiring outside contractors to ride the dead horse. 8. Harnessing several dead horses together to increase speed. 9. Providing additional funding and/or training to increase dead horse's performance. 10. Doing a productivity study to see if lighter riders would improve the dead horse's performance. 11. Declaring that as the dead horse does not have to be fed, it is less costly, carries lower overhead and therefore contributes substantially more to the bottom line of the economy than do some other horses. 12. Rewriting the expected performance requirements for all horses. And of course my favorite... 13. Promoting the dead horse to a supervisory position." by Author Unknown.

emails with JA on Eco, Miller, and writing

I started Henry Miller. Lots of passion. Will cure my Eco. I want to resume my own writing but nothing flows. I will have to wait.

Perhaps I anticipated the cure before I knew of the disease. Miller for Eco. You are right about Eco: an exquisite story about itself. But on so many levels. The lack of humor, of redemptive laughter so central to one story may be the semiotics of Eco himself. It is certainly, in my view, the signal fault of the Catholic Church. For a church preaching and founded around the passion of God, where is the passion of the church? Misplaced , if existent, in keeping man from smiling. The character Baskerville is both its champion and its cheerless victim.

But Miller. There is passion. Life. Unevenness. Humanity and Godhead. How often will dear Henry tumble from the ridge, only to scramble up again? But remember, dearest author, that it is a book, not a home movie constantly running. Like all teller of tales, he edits himself. We do not read every honest moment, just many. You now experience a lack of flow. It will pass if you let it. Write the mundane, choppy episodes of existence, of thought, of anti-thought. You will edit later, the bigger picture will become clearer and cohesive.

Miller knows so many words. You know so many words. I am intimidated. Miller's passionate tone reminds me of Kerouac's On the Road. (I hope Miller doesn't overuse the word "soul", one of the few colorful words I understand.) I do want to pour passion in my writing, but I lack words. I don't want to think about it now. Should I just wait till the spirit moves me again, or I should keep writing a little bit every day? Does writing emails count as writing? These days I don't even write many long emails....

Finally I finished The Name of the Rose. I have to admit that it didn't do too much to me--it neither stirred my passion or imagination nor reveal any truth that I didn't already know (everything is a sign of everything else, books included). No doubt this book is very stylish and is a universe of its own. It is scholarly, written with a lot of pride of the author. It reads like a detective game between the author and the reader. Everything is carefully thought through, well designed, and patiently put together. The postscript confirms my impression. The whole book is like the character Brother Williams. I wouldn't say this book is without passion. I quote what Eco writes in the postscript: "After a friend of mine had read the book, she said to me, 'My only objection is that William never has a twinge of pity.' I quote this to another friend, and he said, 'That's right, that is the style of his pity.' Perhaps this is so. And so be it." So the book shows the author's passion for reasons, for the complexity of the world.

I didn't know Eco is a critic himself. Do you know what his relationship with Borges is? I read selected fictions of Borges a few years ago and was very impressed with his brilliancy.

Maybe I have enough of reasons for a while. Now I want some passion. Will Henry Miller do it for me? Or is he too proud too?

Perhaps it is a sign that I should resume writing my own.

----
Actually I find myself quite disappointed about Eco's book when I think about it more. It is a book about itself. It is its own irony. The world is sad. I feel I am Brother William in the end. "The order that our mind imagines is like a net, or like a ladder, built to attain something. But afterward you must throw the ladder away, because you discover that, even if it was useful, it was meaningless." Yes, the book is a ladder and now I have discovered it was meaningless. "The only truths that are useful are instruments to be thrown away."

So I am irritated with my re-discovery. :( Or maybe I am just frustrated? Why? I am unsatisfied, intellectually. What's going on? And is there a way out? Can someone or something catch me out there so I won't fall, or fall further?

I need a vacuum cleaner and I will go to get one now. And I will learn about methane on Mars.

Balance. Perhaps balance will save me.

-- email excerpts to JA