One can often read and listen to Hari that one of the main problem of us feeling incomplete would be that one would feel to be not good enough in some way, whatever he means by that. My experience on this is that it is not really a matter of a lack of selfconfidence (a feeling of lacking something or of being not good enough) as it is one of being or not being able to `feel` or be aware that one is at all present or exists also on that `spiritual´ or that non-physical platform, apart from that physical body and subtle mind, ego and inteligence one carries with one in this existence here on earth.
Isn´t it so? The real question is that of our ability to experience and get to know our true self and not so much if we would feel a certain lack or not good enough on this physical plane. So yes we may feel to be in some way incomplete or not good enough if we still identify ourselves just with this physical existence, as on that plain there exists and one can suffer always a certain lack, but if one is also able to overcome that physical platform and manages to know and experience ones non-physical being one is strengthened in ones true being where one is not really suffering any lack.
On being not good enough
Re: On being not good enough
Akhila writes in Discussions with Hari: "The inner feeling of being not good enough is strongly related to the feeling of fear," in other words a psychological problem. I disagree with that. First of all I am not sure if Hari denotes a psychological problem of us with the words not good enough. Hari is far too smart and has far too much experience of his own, in order to know that on the psychological and the physical plane one experiences always a certain lack since that is the very nature of this physical world.
To think or imagine to be on this plane always complete and without any lack is an ilusion. And that is the very nature of this world, it gives us the impression to be in a certain way always enough, complete, whereus in reality it is not. It is temporary and lacks the substance and the quality we are always hankering for - in other words it is not truely good enough for us spiritual beings and always lacks something if we identify ourselves always just with its qualites and nature.
Thus the experience of completeness and of being enough, or good enough, I find that we can experience on the plane of our true being and not really also if we identify ourselves with the plain of this world with all its imperfections and shortcomings.
To think or imagine to be on this plane always complete and without any lack is an ilusion. And that is the very nature of this world, it gives us the impression to be in a certain way always enough, complete, whereus in reality it is not. It is temporary and lacks the substance and the quality we are always hankering for - in other words it is not truely good enough for us spiritual beings and always lacks something if we identify ourselves always just with its qualites and nature.
Thus the experience of completeness and of being enough, or good enough, I find that we can experience on the plane of our true being and not really also if we identify ourselves with the plain of this world with all its imperfections and shortcomings.
Re: On being not good enough
Hari writes to Drpta in Discussions with Hari: "Your task is to rid yourself of all these external things that are not you and live within your own natural energy." The way I inderstand what he means is that one needs to "purify" oneself, ones true, ones "spiritual" being, from all unwanted coverings, a procedure which will thus help us recognise and nurture the natural, God-given inner beauty and purity in ourselves and others.
Hari writes further: "That you are a good person who is good enough does not mean that you shall not have troubles. It means that you do not need to hold on to these less desirable qualities..." In other words you should keep firmly in mind, you should internalize, that you are as pure in your essence, as "good enough" in your spiritual being, as gold is pure in its essence even if placed or one may find it occasionally in some dirty places. Its not the nature of gold to be dirty, its rather so that its shining beauty comes to light when cleansed from its external coverings. The same is true for us the spiritual being when we manage somehow to get rid off our external and unwanted coverings, our "less desirable qualities." Isn´t it so?
Hari writes further: "This allows you to move into a better place by empowering you to give up unwanted aspects of your present self or burdens in your life that are not serving your best interests."
In other words it all depends on our willingness and on our ability to start a process of internalization in ourselves (try to find out what is serving also our best interests) and not on some external factors as for example someone elses´ mercy or ability to bring to light and generate a major change for the better in our true being, our self.
Hari writes further: "That you are a good person who is good enough does not mean that you shall not have troubles. It means that you do not need to hold on to these less desirable qualities..." In other words you should keep firmly in mind, you should internalize, that you are as pure in your essence, as "good enough" in your spiritual being, as gold is pure in its essence even if placed or one may find it occasionally in some dirty places. Its not the nature of gold to be dirty, its rather so that its shining beauty comes to light when cleansed from its external coverings. The same is true for us the spiritual being when we manage somehow to get rid off our external and unwanted coverings, our "less desirable qualities." Isn´t it so?
Hari writes further: "This allows you to move into a better place by empowering you to give up unwanted aspects of your present self or burdens in your life that are not serving your best interests."
In other words it all depends on our willingness and on our ability to start a process of internalization in ourselves (try to find out what is serving also our best interests) and not on some external factors as for example someone elses´ mercy or ability to bring to light and generate a major change for the better in our true being, our self.
Re: On being not good enough
It is interesting for me in this connection that Hari does never write or talk about our mind as a somehow separate entity from us the "spiritual", the non-physical being, the soul or spiritual consciosness of this physical body we are presently in.
I don´t know why he never writes, or speaks, about this supposed dichotomy between the spiritual being, this otherness, the distinction between us, the soul, and the mind when enamoured by its sensory impressions and the desires which are arising from a loose, respectively a seemigly from us, the true self, uncontroled mind and ego. It seems that he gives no importance to this because he wants to clearly affirm the mutual dependence or interdependency, the essential oneness as he would define it, between all the various factors, the `energies,` which seemingly define and shape us in our existence here on Earth.
"Knowing the enemy is fine, but if the enemy is yourself, then knowing yourself is the goal, " writes Hari to Drpta.
In other words, in the final analysis, the responsibility lies with us, the spiritual being, and does or will no longer lie at `our`mind, our faulty reasoning or intelligence or whatever seeming external factors one may, or may have, embraced until now. It all depends on our own desire how and if we become aware of our true being and internalize this awareness for our own good.
I don´t know why he never writes, or speaks, about this supposed dichotomy between the spiritual being, this otherness, the distinction between us, the soul, and the mind when enamoured by its sensory impressions and the desires which are arising from a loose, respectively a seemigly from us, the true self, uncontroled mind and ego. It seems that he gives no importance to this because he wants to clearly affirm the mutual dependence or interdependency, the essential oneness as he would define it, between all the various factors, the `energies,` which seemingly define and shape us in our existence here on Earth.
"Knowing the enemy is fine, but if the enemy is yourself, then knowing yourself is the goal, " writes Hari to Drpta.
In other words, in the final analysis, the responsibility lies with us, the spiritual being, and does or will no longer lie at `our`mind, our faulty reasoning or intelligence or whatever seeming external factors one may, or may have, embraced until now. It all depends on our own desire how and if we become aware of our true being and internalize this awareness for our own good.
Re: On being not good enough
Hari wrote today to Maha in Discussions with Hari: "The word good does not represent at all what I mean by "good enough," rather to be good enough would mean "you are fine as you are,"
Hari explains further: "We do not need to prove anything, do anything, or please anyone. We simply need to be what we are.
We are pure spirit, pure essence, that is the same energy 
as the divine God, as all spirit."
Now someone may say I am a local butcher and have a butchershop here in town. I am used to kill and divide daily the flesh of certain animals and my shop is florishing. If it is as Hari is saying: "We simply need to be what we are," and "that is ok..." would that applie to me, too?
Of course that would be an idiotic question. I just want to say by this that language terms means different things to different people. The question is also how do we get to know, do become aware and realize that we are in essence "the same energy as the divine God ?" Otherwise the premises of being "always good enough" may be missing the point. In such a case not only "Thinking that we are somehow less is an illusion."
Hari writes further "Do we have to remain in this realm of physicality to punish ourselves for not being good enough to return to God? Absolutely not."
Another question would be if anyone here could really decide on their own when and how to pass from this life? As well as could one really have full control about where to go in the afterlife? I guess we can prepare ourselves and hope and prepare for the best.
Hari explains further: "We do not need to prove anything, do anything, or please anyone. We simply need to be what we are.
We are pure spirit, pure essence, that is the same energy as the divine God, as all spirit."Now someone may say I am a local butcher and have a butchershop here in town. I am used to kill and divide daily the flesh of certain animals and my shop is florishing. If it is as Hari is saying: "We simply need to be what we are," and "that is ok..." would that applie to me, too?
Of course that would be an idiotic question. I just want to say by this that language terms means different things to different people. The question is also how do we get to know, do become aware and realize that we are in essence "the same energy as the divine God ?" Otherwise the premises of being "always good enough" may be missing the point. In such a case not only "Thinking that we are somehow less is an illusion."
Hari writes further "Do we have to remain in this realm of physicality to punish ourselves for not being good enough to return to God? Absolutely not."
Another question would be if anyone here could really decide on their own when and how to pass from this life? As well as could one really have full control about where to go in the afterlife? I guess we can prepare ourselves and hope and prepare for the best.
Re: On being not good enough
Quotes from: http://www.convinceme.net/debates/6791/ ... good-.html
"The definition of good is the most general term of approval, both moral and non-moral, whether intrinsic or extrinsic. I would like to point out that it is human nature to be born good as it is inherited. People are born with a natural instinct to care for others, we need love and affection.
John Locke was a famous English Philosopher. He was one of the most influential philosophers who emphasized on enlightenment and liberation. Locke believed that people were born without any innate ideas and were good by birth.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau is another famous philosopher who believed that man was born innately good but that it was society that corrupted man. He argued that man was made unhappy by experiences that he had in society because society was distorted, corrupt, and false. In Rousseau's The Social Contract, which he wrote in 1762, Rousseau explains this concept of man being naturally good but corrupted by society.
Mencius was a Chinese Philosopher, and he believed in Confucius's (social philosopher's) theory. Confucius believed that people are inherently good natured and should work towards the greater benefit of society. Confucius held the traditional view that all men are born good. Of anything like original sin there is not a trace in his teaching. He seems to have failed to recognize even the existence of vicious hereditary tendencies. In his view, what spoiled men was bad environment, evil example, an inexcusable yielding to evil appetites that everyone by right use of his natural powers could and ought to control."
Blog: Are Humans Good or Bad?: Hobbes vs. Rousseau
- Rousseau declared that humans in early times were "noble savages." That is, humans are naturally and innately good and it is "civilization" that turns man into a "beast."
"Rousseau was a creative writer and used everything from opera to novels and romances to explain his philosophy. He believed that human beings are inherently good, but are corrupted by the evils of society. He considered science, art and social institutions to be a part of what corrupts. He believed that the only way to get back to that goodness that human beings are born with is to be as close to nature as possible." > Jean-Jacques Rousseau (
"The definition of good is the most general term of approval, both moral and non-moral, whether intrinsic or extrinsic. I would like to point out that it is human nature to be born good as it is inherited. People are born with a natural instinct to care for others, we need love and affection.
John Locke was a famous English Philosopher. He was one of the most influential philosophers who emphasized on enlightenment and liberation. Locke believed that people were born without any innate ideas and were good by birth.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau is another famous philosopher who believed that man was born innately good but that it was society that corrupted man. He argued that man was made unhappy by experiences that he had in society because society was distorted, corrupt, and false. In Rousseau's The Social Contract, which he wrote in 1762, Rousseau explains this concept of man being naturally good but corrupted by society.
Mencius was a Chinese Philosopher, and he believed in Confucius's (social philosopher's) theory. Confucius believed that people are inherently good natured and should work towards the greater benefit of society. Confucius held the traditional view that all men are born good. Of anything like original sin there is not a trace in his teaching. He seems to have failed to recognize even the existence of vicious hereditary tendencies. In his view, what spoiled men was bad environment, evil example, an inexcusable yielding to evil appetites that everyone by right use of his natural powers could and ought to control."
Blog: Are Humans Good or Bad?: Hobbes vs. Rousseau
- Rousseau declared that humans in early times were "noble savages." That is, humans are naturally and innately good and it is "civilization" that turns man into a "beast."
"Rousseau was a creative writer and used everything from opera to novels and romances to explain his philosophy. He believed that human beings are inherently good, but are corrupted by the evils of society. He considered science, art and social institutions to be a part of what corrupts. He believed that the only way to get back to that goodness that human beings are born with is to be as close to nature as possible." > Jean-Jacques Rousseau (
Re: On being not good enough
"The word good does not represent at all what I mean by "good enough," rather to be good enough would mean "you are fine as you are,"
It is very practical advice since we are all was teached so long that we are not good enaf that we should be sorry for our even existence before that or this person and mainly Gurus and Saints , it the warst thing you can do to other to insert in his hearth that he is not good because he is not let say from such and such nationality religion sex and so on.And if he is from so called good religion or Country or race then in that religion and country and city
and e.t.c so many " reasons" for others to tell you that you are not good enaf ,we are bombarded all life by others in some way subtle or gross
that we are not good enaf even by parents,it is realy spoiling our capasityes our awarness .
It doesnt mean that one do a stupid thing and feel that he is great like the animal Hitler did.
But it mean that if you made a mistake you afcourse confes but then you should go farther and not all life confes.
A good example :let say you are driving and then you choused a wrong street so wath should you evry minute confes that how stupid you are because you choused wrong street ,,/?or you should just forget that you drived on the wrong street, and try to find the solution- the right way?
And more ,when you found the right way wath is a reason to alwayes think about how foolish you was that you made a mistake.
THe realigions and sects teached people to alwayes feel that they sinful and bad.(Some realigions considering openly that ladye s is not good enaf.)
And this way of thinking doesnt help at all.
Most of the people is realy nice people when they are not agitated and brainwashed.
So wath Hari said it is exactly wath most people really need.
Ecspesially the ones who a lot influensed by religions and sects.
This is just my understanding and opinion.
It is very practical advice since we are all was teached so long that we are not good enaf that we should be sorry for our even existence before that or this person and mainly Gurus and Saints , it the warst thing you can do to other to insert in his hearth that he is not good because he is not let say from such and such nationality religion sex and so on.And if he is from so called good religion or Country or race then in that religion and country and city
and e.t.c so many " reasons" for others to tell you that you are not good enaf ,we are bombarded all life by others in some way subtle or gross
that we are not good enaf even by parents,it is realy spoiling our capasityes our awarness .
It doesnt mean that one do a stupid thing and feel that he is great like the animal Hitler did.
But it mean that if you made a mistake you afcourse confes but then you should go farther and not all life confes.
A good example :let say you are driving and then you choused a wrong street so wath should you evry minute confes that how stupid you are because you choused wrong street ,,/?or you should just forget that you drived on the wrong street, and try to find the solution- the right way?
And more ,when you found the right way wath is a reason to alwayes think about how foolish you was that you made a mistake.
THe realigions and sects teached people to alwayes feel that they sinful and bad.(Some realigions considering openly that ladye s is not good enaf.)
And this way of thinking doesnt help at all.
Most of the people is realy nice people when they are not agitated and brainwashed.
So wath Hari said it is exactly wath most people really need.
Ecspesially the ones who a lot influensed by religions and sects.
This is just my understanding and opinion.