14130[Meditation Society of America] Re: Monk ebusiness
- Jun 10, 2005--- In email@example.com, "Jeff Belyea"
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "jodyrrr"Definitely, and the scale of what is
> <jodyrrr@y...> wrote:
> > --- In email@example.com, suman sk
> > <sumansk@y...> wrote:
> > > yr quote
> > > "So, wanting spiritual bliss is the same as wanting
> > > sexual bliss. Both are forms of comfort that are
> > > lusted after."
> > > response: the only BIG difference between them is spiritual
> > > bliss is sustainable and sexual bliss go away with age and many
> > > other factors, it is not sustainable.and then it is a cause of
> > > suffering, like for many in old age . Sex reside in their minds
> > > but not in muscles.
> > > I am looking for bliss which is blissful for ever every moment
> > > and freedom which is unwaivering.
> > > --OM
> > > SK
> > That unwavering freedom IS us, right now and always.
> > It's never been anywhere else but right here.
> > But expecting your freedom to be a source of constant
> > bliss is occluding nonsense. We are in bodies, and
> > while we may be blessed to know ourselves as that
> > unwavering freedom, if we fall and bump our heads,
> > our bliss is likely to be interruped by some pain.
> > Your desire for sustainable bliss is identical to
> > another's desire for sex. You've just dressed it
> > up in pretty bows and so think it's "higher." It's
> > not. It's all about seeking comfort. You may believe
> > yours is somehow better, but that's just egocentricism.
> > --jody.
> Hi Jody -
> While the seeking and
> the desire for sex,
> for spiritual awakening,
> or a tootsie pop, may all
> have something to do with
> your comfort-catchall
> thesis, the quality of
> the comfort received is
> inherently different
> in each instance.
quality comfort is different for
> Sustainability is aFor as long as it can be maintained.
> tangent off that main
> point, and one that
> cannot be addressed
> a priori. The issue of
> sustainability is not
> in the forefront of the
> seeker's mind. Following
> your model and syntax,
> comfort is the goal.
Comfort is a condition of safety
and supply. There is a minimum
level of these which must be met,
different for everyone. But it
doesn't stop at that level, hence
we have super rich folk with
everything they want.
But that doesn't mean money ensures
comfort, just that it gets the basics
> And while a tootsie popI don't think sustainability comes into
> may be savored and
> lasts a long time, no
> one expects it to last
> eternally. Wow, The
> Eternal Tootsie Pop,
> available now, at your
> favorite market or ashram.
> Back to the sustainability
> Once spiritual awakening
> is experienced (understood
> by direct experiential
> "Knowing"), the matter
> of sustainability enters.
> I know that you are well
> versed in the Hindu model,
> where there are distinctions
> of a "salvikalpa samadhi" -
> momentary, or in-meditation
> bliss that fades much like
> a chemically induced high,
> and then the sustained bliss
> of a "nirvikalpa samadhi"
> that becomes an undercurrent
> of life's every moment,
> bump on the head or not -
> the "sahaja samadhi" or
> natural enlightenment.
> This is sustainable, without
> a nanosecond's interruption
> ever. It is unassailable,
> unfreakoutable, Self-
> Realized, God-Realized,
> Spirit-Realized bliss.
> Eternal, even (being
> outside of the time/
> space pixie dust).
play at all. When you see who you really
are, that's it. You know yourself as that,
I don't pay attention to flavors of
samadhi. You know who you are, you
are still looking to know who you are,
or you don't really care who you are.
> And to compare any ofTo me samadhi is the understanding
> these samadhis to the
> bliss of sex, or drugs
> or rock'n'roll (all of
> which I speak of from
> direct experiential
> knowledge and heartily
> endorsed with 4-star
> ratings,and still do,
> except the drugs) is to
> transparently enter the
> realm of not knowing what
> to heaven (5-star rating
> ...a kazillion-star rating)
> you're talking about.
of the Self. That IS the Self.
You can't compare it to anything.
What I was saying is that the desire
to do drugs and the desire for spiritual
bliss, AND samadhi, are the same thing.
Samadhi is preferrable to sex, drugs,
whatever. But those who want samadhi,
want what they believe samadhi will be.
You can't have ANY IDEA AT ALL about
what samadhi is like until you've been
to samadhi. Until then all you can have
is speculation about it, and EVERY
speculation is incorrect, regardless of
what guru or scripture told you.
I believe that peoples' ideas about
samadhi has something to do with their
notions about ultimate comfort. It IS
a kind of ultimate comfort, but I guarantee
you it's not in the way they think it is.
That is not possible, to anticipate what
samadhi is like before you've been there
> When you deconstructI know who I am, I know vedanta somewhat,
> down your oft-used and
> abused "exactly like...
> nothing more than...
> that's only..." you're
> over into a false posture,
> assuming, or at least
> presenting that you
> are the holder of
> absolute objective
> truths...in a relative
I comment from there.
> The things(consciousness)I have never, ever done so, Jeff.
> of the absolute spiritual
> or awakened realm cannot
> be compared or constasted
> to the things of the
> material, relative world.
> They're not in the same
You have read me wrong.
I'm not comparing the Self to anything.
I'm comparing the desire to know the
Self to other desires. I'm saying they
are the same thing, seeking comfort.
And I'm saying seeking comfort is always
ok, as long as you aren't hurting yourself
> Love, as always.No prob, my friend.
> Nothing more than...
We're just a bit out of phase sometimes.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>