Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

13552Re: Weekly Words ofWisdom-Love-Bob

Expand Messages
  • medit8ionsociety
    Jan 17, 2005
      --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, tarah513
      <no_reply@y...> wrote:
      >
      > --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, medit8ionsociety
      > <no_reply@y...> wrote:
      >
      > Dear Faithe,
      > I'd say that you present an intellectual
      > argument pretty well, but it is a spiritual
      > and emotional situation. As Gurdjieff would
      > put it, you're using the "wrong center"
      > to deal with Love.
      >
      > Faithe:
      >
      > You separate "intellectual" from "spiritual &
      > emotional" situations. Is there really a
      > separation? (More below in this topic.)
      >
      > Since Gurdjieff is not around to ask what he
      > means, I will side-step the comment on
      > "wrong center" as you say he would put it.
      >
      > I ask YOU what do you mean by "wrong center"?

      Well, let's see if we can summerize Gurdjieff's
      concept of centers by giving a few examples of
      not using the right center at the right time. Let's
      say that we are playing baseball, and are at bat.
      If we try to analyze the speed of the ball, the
      distance it's being thrown from, the weight of the
      ball, the height of the pitcher, the weather
      conditions, and so on, we're never going to be able
      to actually hit the ball. The intellectual center
      is inappropriate for this task. But if we let our
      body do the job, we can. This is using the physical
      center for a physical task. Similarly, if we want
      to purchase a car, it would make sense to use the
      intellectual center to determine if the price is
      fair, rather than just relying on our emotional or
      physical reaction to the car. Etc. Also, in general, the
      misuse of the appropriate center for the task at hand
      is one of the main causes of squandered energy, and
      drains us needlessly. And when we witness our life i
      n a balanced fashion, using the appropriate center at
      the appropriate time, we are then at the point where
      we can begin to "do", and not just react to the events
      in our life.

      > Bob:
      >
      > In Raja Yoga, the yoga
      > of meditation, we find the first 2 steps
      > are to discriminate between the real/eternal
      > and the unreal/transient, and to have dispassion.
      >
      > Faithe:
      >
      > And how does one be discriminate at the same
      > time as having dispassion? Is this not a conflict
      > of terms? To discriminate is to find favor with
      > something compared to another...which suggests
      > emotion.

      How does one discriminate at the same time as having
      dispassion? By unreactively witnessing our life
      as it takes place without judgement, comparisons, or
      commentary. And this ability is potentiated up by meditating.
      And meditation begins with discrimination and dispassion.
      When we get overly reactive positively or negatively,
      we are set up for a fall. The calm unattached witnessing
      of life's flow is the way to go. "Don't sweat the small
      stuff" is a basic form of discrimination. In Raja Yoga,
      this is extropolated to the infinite and eternal. These
      have been the first 2 steps in the meditative process for
      thousands of years, and is the foundation that must exist
      for the control of the senses, the mind, and emotions
      to happen. We then proceed to being able to
      concentrate, and then have meditation come to us, and
      ultimately enter into contemplation.

      > Bob:
      >
      > The selfish love you write of is clearly
      > situational and changing. It goes from worthy to
      > unworthy.
      >
      > Faithe:
      >
      > I disagree. The selfish love which I speak of is
      > unchanging. It is the "unselfish" love that
      > vacillates from the worthy to unworthy. The selfish
      > love is always worthy.

      I disagree. The selfish love is always qualified.

      > Bob:
      >
      > This has nothing whatsoever to do with
      > what Swamiji is pointing to. To use an example
      > from another yoga that deals with Love, Kundalini
      > Yoga, the Heart Chakra, when opened, is not
      > selfish at all, and is infinite and non-exclusive
      > in nature.
      >
      > Faithe:
      >
      > Could you please explain that further. I do not
      > understand what you are saying. What does this
      > love, when opened, do? How do you suppose that
      > this Kundalini Yoga came to be?

      Yes, words can't explain that which is experiential.
      I think Kundalini came to be long ago as our ancesters
      sat in caves and had no internet to surf, nor Tv
      to watch, so they looked within and found the really
      impressive reality show of shows:-)

      > Bob:
      >
      > And when the veil of illusion is ripped
      > away, the undescribable Reality presents itself as
      > can perhaps best be most closly described as
      > Loving Consciousness.
      >
      > Faithe:
      >
      > Have you met "Loving Consciousness". Who rips
      > this veil away? Why is "Reality" undescribable?

      The infiniteness of how much love is everpresent
      is beyond words and the experience of IT is mind
      chatter stopping. And the experience is not
      producable. It comes by Grace.

      > Bob:
      >
      > Words can only give a drop in the oceans worth of
      > understanding of what this "Love" is.
      >
      > Faithe:
      >
      > Forget about the drops, do you understand it,
      > and if so, can you explain it to me a little bit
      > better?

      I can't even explain it to my so-called self.
      IT is experiental.

      > Bob:
      >
      > IT is only known experientially. And until that is
      > our reality, all of our "selfish" actions are only
      > attempts to experience this unselfish Love.
      >
      > Faithe:
      >
      > What is this "IT" that you refer to? Since it is only
      > known personally through experiences (experientially)
      > then it should be able to be explained...no?

      No - see above, and within.

      > Could you please give me an example of what you
      > perceive to be a "selfish" action?

      Seeing only your body/mind/emotions as what needs to
      be cared about. And this puts you in a terrible
      and vulnerable position, whereas the person who puts
      others needs before "their" own can't go wrong. If
      you act for the good of others, you will never get
      "bad karma", and if you act for yourself only, it
      can't be avoided. As Kir Li Molari put it "Only
      the selfish suffer".

      > Bob:
      >
      > Peace and blessing,
      > Bob
      >
      > PS: I remember Swami Satchidananda once saying
      > (and I'm paraphrasing here) that the most selfish
      > person was the one who wants to be unselfish,
      > as s/he knows that only then will the entire
      > creation be known as themselves, and thus
      > satisfy all desires.
      >
      > Faithe:
      >
      > And what does that above mean? Sounds confusing to me.

      I'm sorry, I must have retold it in a poor way.
      It means that being unselfish is such a good stratogy
      for life that you are actually being selfish if you take
      that approach because you know good things will always
      then come to you.

      > With all the conversation above, I now
      > point out that your attempt to separate
      > "intellectual" from "spiritual" is nothing
      > more than a concept derived from an intellectual
      > base to describe the "spiritual" as "separate".

      Yeah, sort of. But what I am pointing to is being complete,
      and not top heavy intellectually. Because then you
      would be unbalanced, and eventually you will surely
      tip over, and that's a very vulnerable position to be in.

      > You make reference to "steps to be taken" above in
      > Yoga...this too is nothing more than using the
      > intellectual to come up with more concepts.
      >
      If that's as far as you want to take it. But I think
      that's seeing only one tree when there is a forrest
      in front of you.

      > All the meditation & yoga "theories", practices
      > and "how to's" are all intellectual means to
      > describe a process. Man is wondrous in using
      > the intellectual to explain everything...even
      > to the point of saying certain things are
      > "unexplainable"...because intellectually
      > they have been set up that way.

      I'm going to go way out here...The mind is your/our
      biggest enemy, and it's here talking you right out of
      self-enquiry and justifying a position that shuts off
      evolution of consciousness. Still the mind if you
      want to "get IT". And Raja Yoga/meditation is a fine
      way towards that end. If you want to go the intellectual
      route, Jhana Yoga, the yoga of wisdom is right there
      for us. It is perhaps the "hardest" path, but for many,
      it has been most beneficial. Enquire "Who am I".
      And see what happens.

      > Please, do not construe this as a belittling of
      > meditation & yoga, because this is NOT the intention.
      > What I am attempting to do is to take the mystique,
      > secretiveness and "unexplainable" aspect out of it. My
      > life is one continual meditative process.

      That's great! I hope it brings you peace. I don't think
      meditation and yoga are at all secretive and unexpalanable.
      I think a life without meditation is.

      > Man has been working on making spirituality full of
      > hidden meanings, etc., for thousands of years. Haven't
      > we been asleep long enough? Isn't it about time
      > that we wake up to this fraud and take the hocus-
      > pocus out of it?

      That's what meditation is all about.

      > The "Loving Consciousness" that you refer to, falls
      > into this same mode. It has been conceived out of
      > the intellectual. Can you explain the difference
      > between "Loving Consciousness" and "consciousness"?

      Yeah, but to quote Kir Li Molari again, all it would
      be is more "Words! Words! Words!"

      > Intellectually, emotionally & spiritually yours,
      >
      > Faithe

      Peace and blessings,
      Bob
    • Show all 24 messages in this topic