13552Re: Weekly Words ofWisdom-Love-Bob
- Jan 17, 2005--- In email@example.com, tarah513
>Well, let's see if we can summerize Gurdjieff's
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, 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.
> 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"?
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:How does one discriminate at the same time as having
> 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.
> 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
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:I disagree. The selfish love is always qualified.
> The selfish love you write of is clearly
> situational and changing. It goes from worthy to
> 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.
> Bob:Yes, words can't explain that which is experiential.
> 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.
> 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?
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:The infiniteness of how much love is everpresent
> 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.
> Have you met "Loving Consciousness". Who rips
> this veil away? Why is "Reality" undescribable?
is beyond words and the experience of IT is mind
chatter stopping. And the experience is not
producable. It comes by Grace.
> Bob:I can't even explain it to my so-called self.
> Words can only give a drop in the oceans worth of
> understanding of what this "Love" is.
> Forget about the drops, do you understand it,
> and if so, can you explain it to me a little bit
IT is experiental.
> Bob:No - see above, and within.
> IT is only known experientially. And until that is
> our reality, all of our "selfish" actions are only
> attempts to experience this unselfish Love.
> 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?
> Could you please give me an example of what youSeeing only your body/mind/emotions as what needs to
> perceive to be a "selfish" action?
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:I'm sorry, I must have retold it in a poor way.
> Peace and blessing,
> 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.
> And what does that above mean? Sounds confusing to me.
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 nowYeah, sort of. But what I am pointing to is being complete,
> 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".
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 inIf that's as far as you want to take it. But I think
> Yoga...this too is nothing more than using the
> intellectual to come up with more concepts.
that's seeing only one tree when there is a forrest
in front of you.
> All the meditation & yoga "theories", practicesI'm going to go way out here...The mind is your/our
> 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.
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 ofThat's great! I hope it brings you peace. I don't think
> 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.
meditation and yoga are at all secretive and unexpalanable.
I think a life without meditation is.
> Man has been working on making spirituality full ofThat's what meditation is all about.
> 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?
> The "Loving Consciousness" that you refer to, fallsYeah, but to quote Kir Li Molari again, all it would
> into this same mode. It has been conceived out of
> the intellectual. Can you explain the difference
> between "Loving Consciousness" and "consciousness"?
be is more "Words! Words! Words!"
> Intellectually, emotionally & spiritually yours,Peace and blessings,
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>