| |
child, something has been transformed in me. And it is not only that logically I am a different person, I am existentially different too. Since then I have been seeing God now-here: in the wind passing through the trees, in the rain falling on the roof, I hear his footsteps, I hear his song. The birds sing, and I am reminded God is now-here. The sun rises, and I am reminded God is now-here. Now it is no more question of argumentation, it has become something of my experience.
But mind is always going somewhere else. It is never now-here; it is always then-there. Mind exists only in THEN and there. That's why Max Ehrmann has missed. He says: HEAR THEN... THEN looks more logical, but it is not existential. Now is existential, although very illogical -- because you cannot catch hold of NOW with logic. The moment you think you have caught hold OF it, it is already gone, it is already past. You can be in the now, but you cannot try to understand, to know NOW. By the time you try to continuously.
Heraclitus says: You cannot step in the same river twice. And I say to you: You cannot step in the same river even once because when your foot touches the surface of the river, the water underneath is rushing by. By the moment you touch a little deeper it is different water: the surface is rushing by. By the time you reach to the rock bottom of the river so much water has flowed by, you have not touched the same water even once!
And such is life: except change, nothing is permanent. Only change is eternal. It looks paradoxical, that's why I say it is illogical.
HEAR THEN THE WISDOM OF THE WISE...
A STRANGE STATEMENT. in fact: THE WISDOM OF THE WISE...? Seems to be tautological. Of course, wisdom can be only of the wise. What is the point of repeating it? Why say "wisdom of the wise"? Can wisdom be of the unwise too? But there is a very subtle point to be understood: because there are so many knowledgeable people in the world and the knowledgeable person appears almost as if he is wise, and he is not. He speaks in the same way. The scholar who has studied the Srimad Bhagavad Gita his whole life speaks the same language as Krishna, but when Krishna
|
|
|