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

17774[Meditation Society of America] Re: Am I The Only One Who Is Going To Die?

Expand Messages
  • tarah513
    Aug 5, 2011
    • 0 Attachment


      --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, sandeep chatterjee <sandeep1960@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      > Faithe: Taking these comments together...what I was
      > conveying is that judging whether or not there is a "proper" path or
      > "blindly" following a path matters not one bit.
      > -----
      > OK.
      > If matters not one
      > bit......then either all paths are proper/correct or all paths are
      > blind.....and the moving from one path to the other, or the dropping of all paths......is
      > all part of the "mattering not one bit".
      >
      >
      > Is it not?
      > ______
      >
      >

      Faithe: When I stated "matters not one bit", I was implying that it matters not one bit to another...it is only pertinent to the one who is walking through life. I was also implying that no one has walked in another's shoes, and without that direct experience, no one knows the whole story or sees the who picture.

       
      > Faithe:  Those
      > (some who have offered guidance here) who follow the "guru" or
      > "enlightened" person are prone to look at those out of the
      > "club" as lacking something (physically or spiritually, no
      > matter)...when in fact they have just chosen a certain path to follow, just
      > different from others who may not even glance in their direction.
      >
      > -----
      >
      >
      > Even if so.....that too is part of "mattering not one bit":-)
      > ------
      Faithe: The mattering not one bit applies to those in the "club" who think their opinions give them greater "insight" and thereby are more "special" than the one they perceive as walking "blindly". It does not elevate either party...each is part of the mystery of life with no one having absolute answers/solutions.

      > <Snip>


      > > ...then the masses
      > should run.
      > >
      > Faithe: Just being part of the "mass"
      > connotates "not running" but "following". It is the
      > individual who can run.
      > -----
      > Following, whether as a crawl or as a
      > sprint, or in the domain of mentation or in the realm of the heart....are all
      > forms of running.
      >
      Faithe: I disagree.

      >
      > Anyway what your previous  previous comment appeared to suggest was that
      > people should run AWAY from Gurus who appear to lead a miserable personal life.
      >
      >
      > Hence you appeared to suggest that such was a criteria, in order to assess, judge and conclude on the Guru-ish-ness of the Guru.

      Faithe: Back to this comment...it is up to the individual to follow or not follow a particular guru. If the guru is perceived to have a less than satisfactory physical life, then it would be in the persons best interests to find another that matches what they are seeking. There are some that seek a miserable physical life...so for them that guru may be perfect.
      >
      >
      > > Is that what you hold to be the criteria for concluding on the quality of
      > ......let's say "enlightened bozoness"?
      > Faithe: I hold no criteria for "enlightened
      > people".

       biological object named
      > Jesusbiological object named biological object named biological
      > object named
      > ---------
      > Yes.
      >
      > Not doubt you would choose a business consultant who has at least made a
      > million bucks using the spiel that he is offering you for your business
      > strategies.....but here is a different ball game(so to say)
      >

      Faithe: No, that is not necessarily true, Sandeep. For instance, if I have the million bucks, then perhaps I am in need of a consultant that offers something quite different and in the difference,  working together we each grow.


      > LOL.
      > Because you cannot
      > possible know what is not in within the boundaries of the known.
      >
      >
      > All that you know, have known......(and experiences are just
      > the same with some attached bells and whistles)…..are all modifications and
      > projections of the known.
      >
      > That which-is…….neither in the realm of thought nor in the realm of
      > thoughtless....cannot have a known criteria which it must meet.
      >
      > And since this "not meeting a known
      > criteria" is itself a criteria........even this is not applicable.
      > Since the
      > biological object with a name…...and irrespective of what is the bestowed label…
      >
      > …...is
      > itself a mere thought of so......there is nothing as an enlightened person.
      >
      > The biological object named Jesus........an appearance in Christ....was/is not
      > the Christ.
      > The biological object named Lao Tzu.....an appearance in Tao.....was/is not the
      > Tao.
      > The biological object named Gautam......an appearance in Bodhi....was/is not
      > Bodhi.
      > So I know Faithe,
      > the usual rejoinder would be....... how the hell do you Sandeep know .....in order
      > to prattle all this crap:-)
      >
      >

      Faithe: I do not question how you "know" in order to prattle the crap. I just don't accept what is offered above. Personally, I have concluded that a lopsided balance between the physical & spiritual is not beneficial. Is not the purpose of meditation...the merging of body, soul & mind. When the spiritual takes an inordinate amount of control, then rational thinking goes on the back burner and sadly the one who has allowed this condition to occur has given up the beautiful physical life with all its potential. When the physical takes control, then sadly everything becomes "black/white" with the basic good that comes from spirituality totally stifled. Like the light of the day, and the dark of night...each is needed...an inordinate amount of either throws one into chaos.

      > The biological conditioned object named Sandeep………an appearance …..with no
      > bestowed label 
      >
      > AND leading a hell of a miserable personal life........knows
      > nothing.
      >
      > And I know.
      > And this
      > knowingness ( to use a hackneyed term)..... needs no validation of
      > itself ....... whether through an acceptance or agreement of an other or
      > otherwise.

      Faithe: And for you, Sandeep, this fills some need. I can no more see where/why you have followed this path than you can understand the path I follow.

      >
      > For it has no space .......to admit even an other, let alone an other's acceptance or agreement.
      >
      > Or even itself.......as knowingness.

      Faithe: Again, the path follows becomes a trench ever deeper with more & more "knowingness" added, layer upon layer, cushioning one's beliefs.
      >
      >
      > All I am saying is that no one is NOT on a path, planned
      > or otherwise. We do, we path, we not do, we path...get the drift?
      > -------
      > Yes, no one is not on a path.
      >
      > Neither is any one .....on any path.
      >
      > Caught the pheromones of the drift?
      > Never mind:-)
      >
      >  
      >

      Faithe: And the path continues on...to accept your premise, one must accept there is "no one and no one to do anything". That in its own right is a "path"...I am Faithe, label & all, physical body, my soul and "always my mind".

      I love you Sandeep. I love the Sandeep that I do not understand as well as the Sandeep I do understand. As far as Jesus, LaoTzu and all the "others"...meaningless to me. I MUCH, MUCH prefer all the comments, ideas & suggestions coming directly from the members and not the repeated "truisms" written & shared in abundance. It is when  the facade is lifted that the true beauty of each is allowed to shine. "There is a crack in everything".

      I owe you a personal letter offline...it will come.

    • Show all 19 messages in this topic