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

Re: Monk ebusiness

Expand Messages
  • rushi_kant
    Yep, one must be a monk, not for hearing the sound but for knowing its source.But for the one who has attained inner monkhood, meditated, cleansed the mind of
    Message 1 of 18 , Jun 3, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Yep, one must be a monk, not for hearing the sound but for knowing
      its source.But for the one who has attained inner monkhood,
      meditated, cleansed the mind of all negative inputs, even without
      entering the order of the monks, finds the doors opening without
      knocking & the 'Source' eager to reveal itself ! Kudos to him !
      Rushikant.




      --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "Jeff Belyea"
      <jeff@m...> wrote:
      > A man's car broke down
      > as he was driving past
      > a beautiful old monastery.
      > He walked up the drive and
      > knocked on the front door.
      > A monk answered, listened
      > to the man's story and
      > graciously invited him
      > to spend the night.
      >
      > The monks fed the man and
      > led him to a tiny chamber
      > in which to sleep. The man
      > thanked the monks and slept
      > serenely until he was awakened
      > by a strange and beautiful sound.
      >
      > The next morning,as the monks
      > were repairing his car, he asked
      > about the sound that had woke him.
      >
      > "We're sorry," the monks said.
      > "We can't tell you about the sound.
      > You're not a monk."
      >
      > The man was disappointed, but eager
      > to be gone, so he thanked the monks
      > for their kindness and went on his
      > way. During quiet moments afterward,
      > the man pondered the source of the
      > alluring sound. Several years later
      > the man happened to be driving in
      > the same area. He stopped at the
      > monastery on a whim and asked
      > admittance. He explained to the
      > monks that he had so enjoyed his
      > previous stay, he wondered if he
      > might be permitted to spend another
      > night under their peaceful roof.
      > The monks agreed, and so the man
      > stayed with them again.
      >
      > Late that night, he heard the
      > strange beautiful sound The
      > following morning he begged
      > the monks to explain the sound.
      > The monks gave him the same
      > answer as before.
      >
      > "We're sorry. We can't tell
      > you about the sound.
      > You're not a monk."
      >
      > By now the man's curiosity
      > had turned to obsession.
      > He decided to give up everything
      > and become a monk, for that was
      > the only way he could learn about
      > the sound. He informed the monks
      > of his decision and began the
      > long and arduous task of becoming
      > a monk. Seventeen years later,
      > the man was finally established
      > as a true member of the order.
      >
      > When the celebration ended, he
      > humbly went to the leader of
      > the order and asked to be told
      > the source of the sound.
      >
      > Silently, the old monk led
      > the new monk to a huge wooden
      > door. He opened the door with
      > a golden key. That door swung
      > open to reveal a second door
      > of silver, then a third of gold
      > and so on until they had passed
      > through twelve doors, each more
      > magnificent than the last.
      > The new monk's face was awash
      > with tears of joy as he finally
      > beheld the wondrous source of
      > the beautiful mysterious sound
      > he had heard so many years before...
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > But, I can't tell you what it was...
      > unless you're a monk.
    • jodyrrr
      ... Sorry guys. Not to take anything away from Tom or any other monks, but being a monk has as much to do with self-realization as my dog s ass. While calming
      Message 2 of 18 , Jun 5, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "rushi_kant"
        <rushi_kant@y...> wrote:
        > Yep, one must be a monk, not for hearing the sound but for knowing
        > its source.But for the one who has attained inner monkhood,
        > meditated, cleansed the mind of all negative inputs, even without
        > entering the order of the monks, finds the doors opening without
        > knocking & the 'Source' eager to reveal itself ! Kudos to him !
        > Rushikant.

        Sorry guys. Not to take anything away from
        Tom or any other monks, but being a monk has
        as much to do with self-realization as my
        dog's ass.

        While calming the mind is very helpful to the
        spiritual aspirant, it can be done in a number
        of ways that don't include celibacy.

        There have been many individuals who have come
        to self-realization without first being monks.
        Furthermore, one man's negative inputs are another's
        royal road to wisdom.

        So, while it may be entirely appropriate for some
        to become monks, for others it would be poison and
        completely useless to do so. There is no right way,
        or even better way for everyone.

        Do as thou wilt as long as nobody is getting hurt.

        --jody.

        [no new below]

        > --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "Jeff Belyea"
        > <jeff@m...> wrote:
        > > A man's car broke down
        > > as he was driving past
        > > a beautiful old monastery.
        > > He walked up the drive and
        > > knocked on the front door.
        > > A monk answered, listened
        > > to the man's story and
        > > graciously invited him
        > > to spend the night.
        > >
        > > The monks fed the man and
        > > led him to a tiny chamber
        > > in which to sleep. The man
        > > thanked the monks and slept
        > > serenely until he was awakened
        > > by a strange and beautiful sound.
        > >
        > > The next morning,as the monks
        > > were repairing his car, he asked
        > > about the sound that had woke him.
        > >
        > > "We're sorry," the monks said.
        > > "We can't tell you about the sound.
        > > You're not a monk."
        > >
        > > The man was disappointed, but eager
        > > to be gone, so he thanked the monks
        > > for their kindness and went on his
        > > way. During quiet moments afterward,
        > > the man pondered the source of the
        > > alluring sound. Several years later
        > > the man happened to be driving in
        > > the same area. He stopped at the
        > > monastery on a whim and asked
        > > admittance. He explained to the
        > > monks that he had so enjoyed his
        > > previous stay, he wondered if he
        > > might be permitted to spend another
        > > night under their peaceful roof.
        > > The monks agreed, and so the man
        > > stayed with them again.
        > >
        > > Late that night, he heard the
        > > strange beautiful sound The
        > > following morning he begged
        > > the monks to explain the sound.
        > > The monks gave him the same
        > > answer as before.
        > >
        > > "We're sorry. We can't tell
        > > you about the sound.
        > > You're not a monk."
        > >
        > > By now the man's curiosity
        > > had turned to obsession.
        > > He decided to give up everything
        > > and become a monk, for that was
        > > the only way he could learn about
        > > the sound. He informed the monks
        > > of his decision and began the
        > > long and arduous task of becoming
        > > a monk. Seventeen years later,
        > > the man was finally established
        > > as a true member of the order.
        > >
        > > When the celebration ended, he
        > > humbly went to the leader of
        > > the order and asked to be told
        > > the source of the sound.
        > >
        > > Silently, the old monk led
        > > the new monk to a huge wooden
        > > door. He opened the door with
        > > a golden key. That door swung
        > > open to reveal a second door
        > > of silver, then a third of gold
        > > and so on until they had passed
        > > through twelve doors, each more
        > > magnificent than the last.
        > > The new monk's face was awash
        > > with tears of joy as he finally
        > > beheld the wondrous source of
        > > the beautiful mysterious sound
        > > he had heard so many years before...
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > But, I can't tell you what it was...
        > > unless you're a monk.
      • Tom Flou
        Dear Jody. ... We were having a bit of fun here, Jody. No intention of hurting anybody. Jeff´s joke just made me write a humerous(?) reply. No need to drag
        Message 3 of 18 , Jun 5, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          Dear Jody.
          you wrote:

          > Sorry guys. Not to take anything away from
          > Tom or any other monks, but being a monk has
          > as much to do with self-realization as my
          > dog's ass.
          > While calming the mind is very helpful to the
          > spiritual aspirant, it can be done in a number
          > of ways that don't include celibacy.
          > There have been many individuals who have come
          > to self-realization without first being monks.
          > Furthermore, one man's negative inputs are another's
          > royal road to wisdom.
          > So, while it may be entirely appropriate for some
          > to become monks, for others it would be poison and
          > completely useless to do so. There is no right way,
          > or even better way for everyone.
          > Do as thou wilt as long as nobody is getting hurt.
          >
          > --jody.
          >

          We were having a bit of fun here, Jody.
          No intention of hurting anybody.
          Jeff´s joke just made me write a
          humerous(?) reply.
          No need to drag your dog into this.
          However clever he/she is, however
          famous in these forums.....;-)
          ...I don´t think dogs understand humor,
          they are waaay too serious.
          Playfull: Yes, but humor: No way.
          What about you?

          Tom
        • jodyrrr
          ... Of course not, Tom. I was making a reply to Rushikant s ... I didn t read this as part of the joke, but as a contention about the necessity of celibacy.
          Message 4 of 18 , Jun 5, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Flou"
            <tom@f...> wrote:
            > Dear Jody.
            > you wrote:
            >
            > > Sorry guys. Not to take anything away from
            > > Tom or any other monks, but being a monk has
            > > as much to do with self-realization as my
            > > dog's ass.
            > > While calming the mind is very helpful to the
            > > spiritual aspirant, it can be done in a number
            > > of ways that don't include celibacy.
            > > There have been many individuals who have come
            > > to self-realization without first being monks.
            > > Furthermore, one man's negative inputs are another's
            > > royal road to wisdom.
            > > So, while it may be entirely appropriate for some
            > > to become monks, for others it would be poison and
            > > completely useless to do so. There is no right way,
            > > or even better way for everyone.
            > > Do as thou wilt as long as nobody is getting hurt.
            > >
            > > --jody.
            > >
            >
            > We were having a bit of fun here, Jody.
            > No intention of hurting anybody.

            Of course not, Tom. I was making a reply to Rushikant's
            assertions:

            > Yep, one must be a monk, not for hearing the sound but for knowing
            > its source.But for the one who has attained inner monkhood,
            > meditated, cleansed the mind of all negative inputs, even without
            > entering the order of the monks, finds the doors opening without
            > knocking & the 'Source' eager to reveal itself ! Kudos to him !
            > Rushikant.

            I didn't read this as part of the joke, but as a
            contention about the necessity of celibacy.

            > Jeff´s joke just made me write a
            > humerous(?) reply.

            And I was not responding to either you or Jeff.
            However, I did feel the need to let you know that
            I have respect for those who make the choice to
            be monks, even while I have no respect for the
            idea that such is a spiritual necessity.

            > No need to drag your dog into this.

            I drag my dog into everything, Tom.

            > However clever he/she is, however
            > famous in these forums.....;-)
            > ...I don´t think dogs understand humor,
            > they are waaay too serious.
            > Playfull: Yes, but humor: No way.
            > What about you?
            >
            > Tom

            You know, sometimes I am a bit humor impaired,
            especially when my buttons gets pushed. And
            one of the things which pushes them is the idea
            that celibacy is necessary for realization to
            occur. While I realize it's traditional to say
            such things, I'm absolutely sure that celibacy
            is optional rather than mandatory.

            Perhaps Rushikant was kidding too. If that's
            the case I've stuck my foot in it again. It's
            not the first time, I can promise you that.

            --jody.
          • Rushikant Mehta
            Nop, not kidding, very seriously, Jody, I just said, & meant that to know the source of that mystical sound of Jeff (!), one need not be a monk outwardly, &
            Message 5 of 18 , Jun 5, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              Nop, not kidding, very seriously, Jody, I just said, & meant that to know the source of that mystical sound of Jeff (!), one need not be a monk outwardly, & nor a ( even self-forced )celibate. But do ya ever think, bliss can be a more sublime source of pleasure than lust ? And so higher that lust attracts no more ?
              Rushikant.

              jodyrrr <jodyrrr@...> wrote:
              --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Flou"
              <tom@f...> wrote:
              > Dear Jody.
              > you wrote:
              >
              > > Sorry guys.  Not to take anything away from
              > > Tom or any other monks, but being a monk has
              > > as much to do with self-realization as my
              > > dog's ass.
              > > While calming the mind is very helpful to the
              > > spiritual aspirant, it can be done in a number
              > > of ways that don't include celibacy.
              > > There have been many individuals who have come
              > > to self-realization without first being monks.
              > > Furthermore, one man's negative inputs are another's
              > > royal road to wisdom.
              > > So, while it may be entirely appropriate for some
              > > to become monks, for others it would be poison and
              > > completely useless to do so.  There is no right way,
              > > or even better way for everyone.
              > > Do as thou wilt as long as nobody is getting hurt.
              > >
              > > --jody.
              > >
              >
              > We were having a bit of fun here, Jody.
              > No intention of hurting anybody.

              Of course not, Tom.  I was making a reply to Rushikant's
              assertions:

              > Yep, one must be a monk, not for hearing the sound but for knowing
              > its source.But for the one who has attained inner monkhood,
              > meditated, cleansed the mind of all negative inputs, even without
              > entering the order of the monks, finds the doors opening without
              > knocking & the 'Source' eager to reveal itself ! Kudos to him !
              > Rushikant.

              I didn't read this as part of the joke, but as a
              contention about the necessity of celibacy.

              > Jeff´s joke just made me write a
              > humerous(?) reply.

              And I was not responding to either you or Jeff.
              However, I did feel the need to let you know that
              I have respect for those who make the choice to
              be monks, even while I have no respect for the
              idea that such is a spiritual necessity.

              > No need to drag your dog into this.

              I drag my dog into everything, Tom.

              > However clever he/she is, however
              > famous in these forums.....;-)
              > ...I don´t think dogs understand humor,
              > they are waaay too serious.
              > Playfull: Yes, but humor: No way.
              > What about you?
              >
              > Tom

              You know, sometimes I am a bit humor impaired,
              especially when my buttons gets pushed.  And
              one of the things which pushes them is the idea
              that celibacy is necessary for realization to
              occur.  While I realize it's traditional to say
              such things, I'm absolutely sure that celibacy
              is optional rather than mandatory.

              Perhaps Rushikant was kidding too.  If that's
              the case I've stuck my foot in it again.  It's
              not the first time, I can promise you that.

              --jody.




              May All Beings be Happy, be Peaceful, be Liberated from Misery.

              Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

            • jodyrrr
              ... One can lust for bliss just as much as they lust for sex. Is such a lust better? ... http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
              Message 6 of 18 , Jun 6, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, Rushikant Mehta
                <rushi_kant@y...> wrote:
                > Nop, not kidding, very seriously, Jody, I just said, & meant
                > that to know the source of that mystical sound of Jeff (!),
                > one need not be a monk outwardly, & nor a ( even self-forced
                > celibate. But do ya ever think, bliss can be a more sublime
                > source of pleasure than lust ? And so higher that lust attracts
                > no more ?
                > Rushikant.

                One can lust for bliss just as much as they
                lust for sex. Is such a lust better?

                > jodyrrr <jodyrrr@y...> wrote:
                > --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Flou"
                > <tom@f...> wrote:
                > > Dear Jody.
                > > you wrote:
                > >
                > > > Sorry guys. Not to take anything away from
                > > > Tom or any other monks, but being a monk has
                > > > as much to do with self-realization as my
                > > > dog's ass.
                > > > While calming the mind is very helpful to the
                > > > spiritual aspirant, it can be done in a number
                > > > of ways that don't include celibacy.
                > > > There have been many individuals who have come
                > > > to self-realization without first being monks.
                > > > Furthermore, one man's negative inputs are another's
                > > > royal road to wisdom.
                > > > So, while it may be entirely appropriate for some
                > > > to become monks, for others it would be poison and
                > > > completely useless to do so. There is no right way,
                > > > or even better way for everyone.
                > > > Do as thou wilt as long as nobody is getting hurt.
                > > >
                > > > --jody.
                > > >
                > >
                > > We were having a bit of fun here, Jody.
                > > No intention of hurting anybody.
                >
                > Of course not, Tom. I was making a reply to Rushikant's
                > assertions:
                >
                > > Yep, one must be a monk, not for hearing the sound but for knowing
                > > its source.But for the one who has attained inner monkhood,
                > > meditated, cleansed the mind of all negative inputs, even without
                > > entering the order of the monks, finds the doors opening without
                > > knocking & the 'Source' eager to reveal itself ! Kudos to him !
                > > Rushikant.
                >
                > I didn't read this as part of the joke, but as a
                > contention about the necessity of celibacy.
                >
                > > Jeff´s joke just made me write a
                > > humerous(?) reply.
                >
                > And I was not responding to either you or Jeff.
                > However, I did feel the need to let you know that
                > I have respect for those who make the choice to
                > be monks, even while I have no respect for the
                > idea that such is a spiritual necessity.
                >
                > > No need to drag your dog into this.
                >
                > I drag my dog into everything, Tom.
                >
                > > However clever he/she is, however
                > > famous in these forums.....;-)
                > > ...I don´t think dogs understand humor,
                > > they are waaay too serious.
                > > Playfull: Yes, but humor: No way.
                > > What about you?
                > >
                > > Tom
                >
                > You know, sometimes I am a bit humor impaired,
                > especially when my buttons gets pushed. And
                > one of the things which pushes them is the idea
                > that celibacy is necessary for realization to
                > occur. While I realize it's traditional to say
                > such things, I'm absolutely sure that celibacy
                > is optional rather than mandatory.
                >
                > Perhaps Rushikant was kidding too. If that's
                > the case I've stuck my foot in it again. It's
                > not the first time, I can promise you that.
                >
                > --jody.
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > ---------------------------------
                > Yahoo! Groups Links
                >
                > To visit your group on the web, go to:
                > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/meditationsocietyofamerica/
                >
                > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                > meditationsocietyofamerica-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                >
                > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                >
                >
                >
                > May All Beings be Happy, be Peaceful, be Liberated from Misery.
                > Send instant messages to your online friends
                http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
              • Rushikant Mehta
                Is it not that bliss dawns only when one goes beyond the power of lust for anything , including bliss ? Hen or egg ? jodyrrr wrote:--- In
                Message 7 of 18 , Jun 6, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  Is it not that bliss dawns only when one goes beyond the power of lust for anything , including bliss ? Hen or egg ?

                  jodyrrr <jodyrrr@...> wrote:
                  --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, Rushikant Mehta
                  <rushi_kant@y...> wrote:
                  > Nop, not kidding, very seriously, Jody, I just said, & meant
                  > that to know the source of that mystical sound of Jeff (!),
                  > one need not be a monk outwardly, & nor a ( even self-forced
                  > celibate. But do ya ever think, bliss can be a more sublime
                  > source of pleasure than lust ? And so higher that lust attracts
                  > no more ?
                  > Rushikant.

                  One can lust for bliss just as much as they
                  lust for sex.  Is such a lust better?

                  > jodyrrr <jodyrrr@y...> wrote:
                  > --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Flou"
                  > <tom@f...> wrote:
                  > > Dear Jody.
                  > > you wrote:
                  > >
                  > > > Sorry guys.  Not to take anything away from
                  > > > Tom or any other monks, but being a monk has
                  > > > as much to do with self-realization as my
                  > > > dog's ass.
                  > > > While calming the mind is very helpful to the
                  > > > spiritual aspirant, it can be done in a number
                  > > > of ways that don't include celibacy.
                  > > > There have been many individuals who have come
                  > > > to self-realization without first being monks.
                  > > > Furthermore, one man's negative inputs are another's
                  > > > royal road to wisdom.
                  > > > So, while it may be entirely appropriate for some
                  > > > to become monks, for others it would be poison and
                  > > > completely useless to do so.  There is no right way,
                  > > > or even better way for everyone.
                  > > > Do as thou wilt as long as nobody is getting hurt.
                  > > >
                  > > > --jody.
                  > > >
                  > >
                  > > We were having a bit of fun here, Jody.
                  > > No intention of hurting anybody.
                  >
                  > Of course not, Tom.  I was making a reply to Rushikant's
                  > assertions:
                  >
                  > > Yep, one must be a monk, not for hearing the sound but for knowing
                  > > its source.But for the one who has attained inner monkhood,
                  > > meditated, cleansed the mind of all negative inputs, even without
                  > > entering the order of the monks, finds the doors opening without
                  > > knocking & the 'Source' eager to reveal itself ! Kudos to him !
                  > > Rushikant.
                  >
                  > I didn't read this as part of the joke, but as a
                  > contention about the necessity of celibacy.
                  >
                  > > Jeff´s joke just made me write a
                  > > humerous(?) reply.
                  >
                  > And I was not responding to either you or Jeff.
                  > However, I did feel the need to let you know that
                  > I have respect for those who make the choice to
                  > be monks, even while I have no respect for the
                  > idea that such is a spiritual necessity.
                  >
                  > > No need to drag your dog into this.
                  >
                  > I drag my dog into everything, Tom.
                  >
                  > > However clever he/she is, however
                  > > famous in these forums.....;-)
                  > > ...I don´t think dogs understand humor,
                  > > they are waaay too serious.
                  > > Playfull: Yes, but humor: No way.
                  > > What about you?
                  > >
                  > > Tom
                  >
                  > You know, sometimes I am a bit humor impaired,
                  > especially when my buttons gets pushed.  And
                  > one of the things which pushes them is the idea
                  > that celibacy is necessary for realization to
                  > occur.  While I realize it's traditional to say
                  > such things, I'm absolutely sure that celibacy
                  > is optional rather than mandatory.
                  >
                  > Perhaps Rushikant was kidding too.  If that's
                  > the case I've stuck my foot in it again.  It's
                  > not the first time, I can promise you that.
                  >
                  > --jody.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > ---------------------------------
                  > Yahoo! Groups Links
                  >
                  >    To visit your group on the web, go to:
                  > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/meditationsocietyofamerica/
                  >  
                  >    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                  > meditationsocietyofamerica-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                  >  
                  >    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > May All Beings be Happy, be Peaceful, be Liberated from Misery.
                  > Send instant messages to your online friends
                  http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com




                  May All Beings be Happy, be Peaceful, be Liberated from Misery.

                  Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

                • suman sk
                  I will add here that the whole idea of mediatation and liberation is only to get a state of unattached dwelling where one is free from LUST,ANGER,GREED,FEAR
                  Message 8 of 18 , Jun 6, 2005
                  • 0 Attachment
                    I will add here that the whole idea of mediatation and liberation is only to get a state of unattached dwelling where one is free from LUST,ANGER,GREED,FEAR AND EGO.
                    The FACT is a FACT even when one tries to suit his or her own need.
                    Thanks
                    SK

                    Rushikant Mehta <rushi_kant@...> wrote:
                    Is it not that bliss dawns only when one goes beyond the power of lust for anything , including bliss ? Hen or egg ?

                    jodyrrr <jodyrrr@...> wrote:
                    --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, Rushikant Mehta
                    <rushi_kant@y...> wrote:
                    > Nop, not kidding, very seriously, Jody, I just said, & meant
                    > that to know the source of that mystical sound of Jeff (!),
                    > one need not be a monk outwardly, & nor a ( even self-forced
                    > celibate. But do ya ever think, bliss can be a more sublime
                    > source of pleasure than lust ? And so higher that lust attracts
                    > no more ?
                    > Rushikant.

                    One can lust for bliss just as much as they
                    lust for sex.  Is such a lust better?

                    > jodyrrr <jodyrrr@y...> wrote:
                    > --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Flou"
                    > <tom@f...> wrote:
                    > > Dear Jody.
                    > > you wrote:
                    > >
                    > > > Sorry guys.  Not to take anything away from
                    > > > Tom or any other monks, but being a monk has
                    > > > as much to do with self-realization as my
                    > > > dog's ass.
                    > > > While calming the mind is very helpful to the
                    > > > spiritual aspirant, it can be done in a number
                    > > > of ways that don't include celibacy.
                    > > > There have been many individuals who have come
                    > > > to self-realization without first being monks.
                    > > > Furthermore, one man's negative inputs are another's
                    > > > royal road to wisdom.
                    > > > So, while it may be entirely appropriate for some
                    > > > to become monks, for others it would be poison and
                    > > > completely useless to do so.  There is no right way,
                    > > > or even better way for everyone.
                    > > > Do as thou wilt as long as nobody is getting hurt.
                    > > >
                    > > > --jody.
                    > > >
                    > >
                    > > We were having a bit of fun here, Jody.
                    > > No intention of hurting anybody.
                    >
                    > Of course not, Tom.  I was making a reply to Rushikant's
                    > assertions:
                    >
                    > > Yep, one must be a monk, not for hearing the sound but for knowing
                    > > its source.But for the one who has attained inner monkhood,
                    > > meditated, cleansed the mind of all negative inputs, even without
                    > > entering the order of the monks, finds the doors opening without
                    > > knocking & the 'Source' eager to reveal itself ! Kudos to him !
                    > > Rushikant.
                    >
                    > I didn't read this as part of the joke, but as a
                    > contention about the necessity of celibacy.
                    >
                    > > Jeff´s joke just made me write a
                    > > humerous(?) reply.
                    >
                    > And I was not responding to either you or Jeff.
                    > However, I did feel the need to let you know that
                    > I have respect for those who make the choice to
                    > be monks, even while I have no respect for the
                    > idea that such is a spiritual necessity.
                    >
                    > > No need to drag your dog into this.
                    >
                    > I drag my dog into everything, Tom.
                    >
                    > > However clever he/she is, however
                    > > famous in these forums.....;-)
                    > > ...I don´t think dogs understand humor,
                    > > they are waaay too serious.
                    > > Playfull: Yes, but humor: No way.
                    > > What about you?
                    > >
                    > > Tom
                    >
                    > You know, sometimes I am a bit humor impaired,
                    > especially when my buttons gets pushed.  And
                    > one of the things which pushes them is the idea
                    > that celibacy is necessary for realization to
                    > occur.  While I realize it's traditional to say
                    > such things, I'm absolutely sure that celibacy
                    > is optional rather than mandatory.
                    >
                    > Perhaps Rushikant was kidding too.  If that's
                    > the case I've stuck my foot in it again.  It's
                    > not the first time, I can promise you that.
                    >
                    > --jody.
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > ---------------------------------
                    > Yahoo! Groups Links
                    >
                    >    To visit your group on the web, go to:
                    > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/meditationsocietyofamerica/
                    >  
                    >    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                    > meditationsocietyofamerica-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                    >  
                    >    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > May All Beings be Happy, be Peaceful, be Liberated from Misery.
                    > Send instant messages to your online friends
                    http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com




                    May All Beings be Happy, be Peaceful, be Liberated from Misery.

                    Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com


                    Do you Yahoo!?
                    Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.

                  • jodyrrr
                    ... No. Bliss is with us always in various forms. It s a spectrum of sensation. Spritual bliss and sexual bliss are on the same spectrum. In fact, I would
                    Message 9 of 18 , Jun 6, 2005
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, Rushikant Mehta
                      <rushi_kant@y...> wrote:
                      > Is it not that bliss dawns only when one goes beyond the
                      > power of lust for anything , including bliss ? Hen or egg ?

                      No. Bliss is with us always in various forms.
                      It's a spectrum of sensation. Spritual bliss and sexual
                      bliss are on the same spectrum. In fact, I would argue
                      that they are the same thing experienced in different
                      contexts.

                      So, wanting spiritual bliss is the same as wanting
                      sexual bliss. Both are forms of comfort that are
                      lusted after.

                      People get their comfort where they find it. The idea
                      that you must put off sexual pleasure to know spiritual
                      pleasure is a myth. One does not cancel the other, and
                      they can both be known in the same life.

                      --jody.

                      > jodyrrr <jodyrrr@y...> wrote:--- In
                      meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, Rushikant Mehta
                      > <rushi_kant@y...> wrote:
                      > > Nop, not kidding, very seriously, Jody, I just said, & meant
                      > > that to know the source of that mystical sound of Jeff (!),
                      > > one need not be a monk outwardly, & nor a ( even self-forced
                      > > celibate. But do ya ever think, bliss can be a more sublime
                      > > source of pleasure than lust ? And so higher that lust attracts
                      > > no more ?
                      > > Rushikant.
                      >
                      > One can lust for bliss just as much as they
                      > lust for sex. Is such a lust better?
                      >
                      > > jodyrrr <jodyrrr@y...> wrote:
                      > > --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Flou"
                      > > <tom@f...> wrote:
                      > > > Dear Jody.
                      > > > you wrote:
                      > > >
                      > > > > Sorry guys. Not to take anything away from
                      > > > > Tom or any other monks, but being a monk has
                      > > > > as much to do with self-realization as my
                      > > > > dog's ass.
                      > > > > While calming the mind is very helpful to the
                      > > > > spiritual aspirant, it can be done in a number
                      > > > > of ways that don't include celibacy.
                      > > > > There have been many individuals who have come
                      > > > > to self-realization without first being monks.
                      > > > > Furthermore, one man's negative inputs are another's
                      > > > > royal road to wisdom.
                      > > > > So, while it may be entirely appropriate for some
                      > > > > to become monks, for others it would be poison and
                      > > > > completely useless to do so. There is no right way,
                      > > > > or even better way for everyone.
                      > > > > Do as thou wilt as long as nobody is getting hurt.
                      > > > >
                      > > > > --jody.
                      > > > >
                      > > >
                      > > > We were having a bit of fun here, Jody.
                      > > > No intention of hurting anybody.
                      > >
                      > > Of course not, Tom. I was making a reply to Rushikant's
                      > > assertions:
                      > >
                      > > > Yep, one must be a monk, not for hearing the sound but for knowing
                      > > > its source.But for the one who has attained inner monkhood,
                      > > > meditated, cleansed the mind of all negative inputs, even without
                      > > > entering the order of the monks, finds the doors opening without
                      > > > knocking & the 'Source' eager to reveal itself ! Kudos to him !
                      > > > Rushikant.
                      > >
                      > > I didn't read this as part of the joke, but as a
                      > > contention about the necessity of celibacy.
                      > >
                      > > > Jeff´s joke just made me write a
                      > > > humerous(?) reply.
                      > >
                      > > And I was not responding to either you or Jeff.
                      > > However, I did feel the need to let you know that
                      > > I have respect for those who make the choice to
                      > > be monks, even while I have no respect for the
                      > > idea that such is a spiritual necessity.
                      > >
                      > > > No need to drag your dog into this.
                      > >
                      > > I drag my dog into everything, Tom.
                      > >
                      > > > However clever he/she is, however
                      > > > famous in these forums.....;-)
                      > > > ...I don´t think dogs understand humor,
                      > > > they are waaay too serious.
                      > > > Playfull: Yes, but humor: No way.
                      > > > What about you?
                      > > >
                      > > > Tom
                      > >
                      > > You know, sometimes I am a bit humor impaired,
                      > > especially when my buttons gets pushed. And
                      > > one of the things which pushes them is the idea
                      > > that celibacy is necessary for realization to
                      > > occur. While I realize it's traditional to say
                      > > such things, I'm absolutely sure that celibacy
                      > > is optional rather than mandatory.
                      > >
                      > > Perhaps Rushikant was kidding too. If that's
                      > > the case I've stuck my foot in it again. It's
                      > > not the first time, I can promise you that.
                      > >
                      > > --jody.
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > ---------------------------------
                      > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                      > >
                      > > To visit your group on the web, go to:
                      > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/meditationsocietyofamerica/
                      > >
                      > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                      > > meditationsocietyofamerica-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                      > >
                      > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
                      Service.
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > May All Beings be Happy, be Peaceful, be Liberated from Misery.
                      > > Send instant messages to your online friends
                      > http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > ---------------------------------
                      > Yahoo! Groups Links
                      >
                      > To visit your group on the web, go to:
                      > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/meditationsocietyofamerica/
                      >
                      > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                      > meditationsocietyofamerica-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                      >
                      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > May All Beings be Happy, be Peaceful, be Liberated from Misery.
                      > Send instant messages to your online friends
                      http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
                    • jodyrrr
                      ... only to get a state of unattached dwelling where one is free from LUST,ANGER,GREED,FEAR AND EGO. One exists as freedom itself, at all times, regardless of
                      Message 10 of 18 , Jun 6, 2005
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, suman sk
                        <sumansk@y...> wrote:
                        > I will add here that the whole idea of mediatation and liberation is
                        only to get a state of unattached dwelling where one is free from
                        LUST,ANGER,GREED,FEAR AND EGO.

                        One exists as freedom itself, at all times, regardless
                        of how much lust, anger, greed, etc. one is experiencing.

                        It's always right there, closer than our own breath.
                        We may be distracted from it by the various conditions
                        of life, but once it's been recognized, no amount of lust,
                        anger, greed, etc. will sway one from the fact that they
                        are freedom itself.

                        --jody.

                        > The FACT is a FACT even when one tries to suit his or her own need.
                        > Thanks
                        > SK
                        >
                        > Rushikant Mehta <rushi_kant@y...> wrote:
                        > Is it not that bliss dawns only when one goes beyond the power of
                        lust for anything , including bliss ? Hen or egg ?
                        >
                        > jodyrrr <jodyrrr@y...> wrote: --- In
                        meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, Rushikant Mehta
                        > <rushi_kant@y...> wrote:
                        > > Nop, not kidding, very seriously, Jody, I just said, & meant
                        > > that to know the source of that mystical sound of Jeff (!),
                        > > one need not be a monk outwardly, & nor a ( even self-forced
                        > > celibate. But do ya ever think, bliss can be a more sublime
                        > > source of pleasure than lust ? And so higher that lust attracts
                        > > no more ?
                        > > Rushikant.
                        >
                        > One can lust for bliss just as much as they
                        > lust for sex. Is such a lust better?
                        >
                        > > jodyrrr <jodyrrr@y...> wrote:
                        > > --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Flou"
                        > > <tom@f...> wrote:
                        > > > Dear Jody.
                        > > > you wrote:
                        > > >
                        > > > > Sorry guys. Not to take anything away from
                        > > > > Tom or any other monks, but being a monk has
                        > > > > as much to do with self-realization as my
                        > > > > dog's ass.
                        > > > > While calming the mind is very helpful to the
                        > > > > spiritual aspirant, it can be done in a number
                        > > > > of ways that don't include celibacy.
                        > > > > There have been many individuals who have come
                        > > > > to self-realization without first being monks.
                        > > > > Furthermore, one man's negative inputs are another's
                        > > > > royal road to wisdom.
                        > > > > So, while it may be entirely appropriate for some
                        > > > > to become monks, for others it would be poison and
                        > > > > completely useless to do so. There is no right way,
                        > > > > or even better way for everyone.
                        > > > > Do as thou wilt as long as nobody is getting hurt.
                        > > > >
                        > > > > --jody.
                        > > > >
                        > > >
                        > > > We were having a bit of fun here, Jody.
                        > > > No intention of hurting anybody.
                        > >
                        > > Of course not, Tom. I was making a reply to Rushikant's
                        > > assertions:
                        > >
                        > > > Yep, one must be a monk, not for hearing the sound but for knowing
                        > > > its source.But for the one who has attained inner monkhood,
                        > > > meditated, cleansed the mind of all negative inputs, even without
                        > > > entering the order of the monks, finds the doors opening without
                        > > > knocking & the 'Source' eager to reveal itself ! Kudos to him !
                        > > > Rushikant.
                        > >
                        > > I didn't read this as part of the joke, but as a
                        > > contention about the necessity of celibacy.
                        > >
                        > > > Jeff´s joke just made me write a
                        > > > humerous(?) reply.
                        > >
                        > > And I was not responding to either you or Jeff.
                        > > However, I did feel the need to let you know that
                        > > I have respect for those who make the choice to
                        > > be monks, even while I have no respect for the
                        > > idea that such is a spiritual necessity.
                        > >
                        > > > No need to drag your dog into this.
                        > >
                        > > I drag my dog into everything, Tom.
                        > >
                        > > > However clever he/she is, however
                        > > > famous in these forums.....;-)
                        > > > ...I don´t think dogs understand humor,
                        > > > they are waaay too serious.
                        > > > Playfull: Yes, but humor: No way.
                        > > > What about you?
                        > > >
                        > > > Tom
                        > >
                        > > You know, sometimes I am a bit humor impaired,
                        > > especially when my buttons gets pushed. And
                        > > one of the things which pushes them is the idea
                        > > that celibacy is necessary for realization to
                        > > occur. While I realize it's traditional to say
                        > > such things, I'm absolutely sure that celibacy
                        > > is optional rather than mandatory.
                        > >
                        > > Perhaps Rushikant was kidding too. If that's
                        > > the case I've stuck my foot in it again. It's
                        > > not the first time, I can promise you that.
                        > >
                        > > --jody.
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > ---------------------------------
                        > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                        > >
                        > > To visit your group on the web, go to:
                        > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/meditationsocietyofamerica/
                        > >
                        > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                        > > meditationsocietyofamerica-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                        > >
                        > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
                        Service.
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > May All Beings be Happy, be Peaceful, be Liberated from Misery.
                        > > Send instant messages to your online friends
                        > http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > May All Beings be Happy, be Peaceful, be Liberated from Misery.
                        > Send instant messages to your online friends
                        http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
                        >
                        > ---------------------------------
                        > Yahoo! Groups Links
                        >
                        > To visit your group on the web, go to:
                        > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/meditationsocietyofamerica/
                        >
                        > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                        > meditationsocietyofamerica-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                        >
                        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > ---------------------------------
                        > Do you Yahoo!?
                        > Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
                      • suman sk
                        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
                        Message 11 of 18 , Jun 6, 2005
                        • 0 Attachment
                          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

                          jodyrrr <jodyrrr@...> wrote:
                          --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, Rushikant Mehta
                          <rushi_kant@y...> wrote:
                          > Is it not that bliss dawns only when one goes beyond the
                          > power of lust for anything , including bliss ? Hen or egg ?

                          No.  Bliss is with us always in various forms.
                          It's a spectrum of sensation.  Spritual bliss and sexual
                          bliss are on the same spectrum.  In fact, I would argue
                          that they are the same thing experienced in different
                          contexts.

                          So, wanting spiritual bliss is the same as wanting
                          sexual bliss.  Both are forms of comfort that are
                          lusted after.

                          People get their comfort where they find it.  The idea
                          that you must put off sexual pleasure to know spiritual
                          pleasure is a myth.  One does not cancel the other, and
                          they can both be known in the same life.

                          --jody.

                          > jodyrrr <jodyrrr@y...> wrote:--- In
                          meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, Rushikant Mehta
                          > <rushi_kant@y...> wrote:
                          > > Nop, not kidding, very seriously, Jody, I just said, & meant
                          > > that to know the source of that mystical sound of Jeff (!),
                          > > one need not be a monk outwardly, & nor a ( even self-forced
                          > > celibate. But do ya ever think, bliss can be a more sublime
                          > > source of pleasure than lust ? And so higher that lust attracts
                          > > no more ?
                          > > Rushikant.
                          >
                          > One can lust for bliss just as much as they
                          > lust for sex.  Is such a lust better?
                          >
                          > > jodyrrr <jodyrrr@y...> wrote:
                          > > --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Flou"
                          > > <tom@f...> wrote:
                          > > > Dear Jody.
                          > > > you wrote:
                          > > >
                          > > > > Sorry guys.  Not to take anything away from
                          > > > > Tom or any other monks, but being a monk has
                          > > > > as much to do with self-realization as my
                          > > > > dog's ass.
                          > > > > While calming the mind is very helpful to the
                          > > > > spiritual aspirant, it can be done in a number
                          > > > > of ways that don't include celibacy.
                          > > > > There have been many individuals who have come
                          > > > > to self-realization without first being monks.
                          > > > > Furthermore, one man's negative inputs are another's
                          > > > > royal road to wisdom.
                          > > > > So, while it may be entirely appropriate for some
                          > > > > to become monks, for others it would be poison and
                          > > > > completely useless to do so.  There is no right way,
                          > > > > or even better way for everyone.
                          > > > > Do as thou wilt as long as nobody is getting hurt.
                          > > > >
                          > > > > --jody.
                          > > > >
                          > > >
                          > > > We were having a bit of fun here, Jody.
                          > > > No intention of hurting anybody.
                          > >
                          > > Of course not, Tom.  I was making a reply to Rushikant's
                          > > assertions:
                          > >
                          > > > Yep, one must be a monk, not for hearing the sound but for knowing
                          > > > its source.But for the one who has attained inner monkhood,
                          > > > meditated, cleansed the mind of all negative inputs, even without
                          > > > entering the order of the monks, finds the doors opening without
                          > > > knocking & the 'Source' eager to reveal itself ! Kudos to him !
                          > > > Rushikant.
                          > >
                          > > I didn't read this as part of the joke, but as a
                          > > contention about the necessity of celibacy.
                          > >
                          > > > Jeff´s joke just made me write a
                          > > > humerous(?) reply.
                          > >
                          > > And I was not responding to either you or Jeff.
                          > > However, I did feel the need to let you know that
                          > > I have respect for those who make the choice to
                          > > be monks, even while I have no respect for the
                          > > idea that such is a spiritual necessity.
                          > >
                          > > > No need to drag your dog into this.
                          > >
                          > > I drag my dog into everything, Tom.
                          > >
                          > > > However clever he/she is, however
                          > > > famous in these forums.....;-)
                          > > > ...I don´t think dogs understand humor,
                          > > > they are waaay too serious.
                          > > > Playfull: Yes, but humor: No way.
                          > > > What about you?
                          > > >
                          > > > Tom
                          > >
                          > > You know, sometimes I am a bit humor impaired,
                          > > especially when my buttons gets pushed.  And
                          > > one of the things which pushes them is the idea
                          > > that celibacy is necessary for realization to
                          > > occur.  While I realize it's traditional to say
                          > > such things, I'm absolutely sure that celibacy
                          > > is optional rather than mandatory.
                          > >
                          > > Perhaps Rushikant was kidding too.  If that's
                          > > the case I've stuck my foot in it again.  It's
                          > > not the first time, I can promise you that.
                          > >
                          > > --jody.
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > ---------------------------------
                          > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                          > >
                          > >    To visit your group on the web, go to:
                          > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/meditationsocietyofamerica/
                          > >  
                          > >    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                          > > meditationsocietyofamerica-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                          > >  
                          > >    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
                          Service.
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > May All Beings be Happy, be Peaceful, be Liberated from Misery.
                          > > Send instant messages to your online friends
                          > http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > ---------------------------------
                          > Yahoo! Groups Links
                          >
                          >    To visit your group on the web, go to:
                          > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/meditationsocietyofamerica/
                          >  
                          >    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                          > meditationsocietyofamerica-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                          >  
                          >    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > May All Beings be Happy, be Peaceful, be Liberated from Misery.
                          > Send instant messages to your online friends
                          http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com


                          __________________________________________________
                          Do You Yahoo!?
                          Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                          http://mail.yahoo.com

                        • jodyrrr
                          ... 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
                          Message 12 of 18 , Jun 6, 2005
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.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.

                            >
                            > jodyrrr <jodyrrr@y...> wrote:
                            > --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, Rushikant Mehta
                            > <rushi_kant@y...> wrote:
                            > > Is it not that bliss dawns only when one goes beyond the
                            > > power of lust for anything , including bliss ? Hen or egg ?
                            >
                            > No. Bliss is with us always in various forms.
                            > It's a spectrum of sensation. Spritual bliss and sexual
                            > bliss are on the same spectrum. In fact, I would argue
                            > that they are the same thing experienced in different
                            > contexts.
                            >
                            > So, wanting spiritual bliss is the same as wanting
                            > sexual bliss. Both are forms of comfort that are
                            > lusted after.
                            >
                            > People get their comfort where they find it. The idea
                            > that you must put off sexual pleasure to know spiritual
                            > pleasure is a myth. One does not cancel the other, and
                            > they can both be known in the same life.
                            >
                            > --jody.
                            >
                            > > jodyrrr <jodyrrr@y...> wrote:--- In
                            > meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, Rushikant Mehta
                            > > <rushi_kant@y...> wrote:
                            > > > Nop, not kidding, very seriously, Jody, I just said, & meant
                            > > > that to know the source of that mystical sound of Jeff (!),
                            > > > one need not be a monk outwardly, & nor a ( even self-forced
                            > > > celibate. But do ya ever think, bliss can be a more sublime
                            > > > source of pleasure than lust ? And so higher that lust attracts
                            > > > no more ?
                            > > > Rushikant.
                            > >
                            > > One can lust for bliss just as much as they
                            > > lust for sex. Is such a lust better?
                            > >
                            > > > jodyrrr <jodyrrr@y...> wrote:
                            > > > --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Flou"
                            > > > <tom@f...> wrote:
                            > > > > Dear Jody.
                            > > > > you wrote:
                            > > > >
                            > > > > > Sorry guys. Not to take anything away from
                            > > > > > Tom or any other monks, but being a monk has
                            > > > > > as much to do with self-realization as my
                            > > > > > dog's ass.
                            > > > > > While calming the mind is very helpful to the
                            > > > > > spiritual aspirant, it can be done in a number
                            > > > > > of ways that don't include celibacy.
                            > > > > > There have been many individuals who have come
                            > > > > > to self-realization without first being monks.
                            > > > > > Furthermore, one man's negative inputs are another's
                            > > > > > royal road to wisdom.
                            > > > > > So, while it may be entirely appropriate for some
                            > > > > > to become monks, for others it would be poison and
                            > > > > > completely useless to do so. There is no right way,
                            > > > > > or even better way for everyone.
                            > > > > > Do as thou wilt as long as nobody is getting hurt.
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > > --jody.
                            > > > > >
                            > > > >
                            > > > > We were having a bit of fun here, Jody.
                            > > > > No intention of hurting anybody.
                            > > >
                            > > > Of course not, Tom. I was making a reply to Rushikant's
                            > > > assertions:
                            > > >
                            > > > > Yep, one must be a monk, not for hearing the sound but for knowing
                            > > > > its source.But for the one who has attained inner monkhood,
                            > > > > meditated, cleansed the mind of all negative inputs, even without
                            > > > > entering the order of the monks, finds the doors opening without
                            > > > > knocking & the 'Source' eager to reveal itself ! Kudos to him !
                            > > > > Rushikant.
                            > > >
                            > > > I didn't read this as part of the joke, but as a
                            > > > contention about the necessity of celibacy.
                            > > >
                            > > > > Jeff´s joke just made me write a
                            > > > > humerous(?) reply.
                            > > >
                            > > > And I was not responding to either you or Jeff.
                            > > > However, I did feel the need to let you know that
                            > > > I have respect for those who make the choice to
                            > > > be monks, even while I have no respect for the
                            > > > idea that such is a spiritual necessity.
                            > > >
                            > > > > No need to drag your dog into this.
                            > > >
                            > > > I drag my dog into everything, Tom.
                            > > >
                            > > > > However clever he/she is, however
                            > > > > famous in these forums.....;-)
                            > > > > ...I don´t think dogs understand humor,
                            > > > > they are waaay too serious.
                            > > > > Playfull: Yes, but humor: No way.
                            > > > > What about you?
                            > > > >
                            > > > > Tom
                            > > >
                            > > > You know, sometimes I am a bit humor impaired,
                            > > > especially when my buttons gets pushed. And
                            > > > one of the things which pushes them is the idea
                            > > > that celibacy is necessary for realization to
                            > > > occur. While I realize it's traditional to say
                            > > > such things, I'm absolutely sure that celibacy
                            > > > is optional rather than mandatory.
                            > > >
                            > > > Perhaps Rushikant was kidding too. If that's
                            > > > the case I've stuck my foot in it again. It's
                            > > > not the first time, I can promise you that.
                            > > >
                            > > > --jody.
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > > > ---------------------------------
                            > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                            > > >
                            > > > To visit your group on the web, go to:
                            > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/meditationsocietyofamerica/
                            > > >
                            > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                            > > > meditationsocietyofamerica-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                            > > >
                            > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
                            > Service.
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > > > May All Beings be Happy, be Peaceful, be Liberated from Misery.
                            > > > Send instant messages to your online friends
                            > > http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > ---------------------------------
                            > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                            > >
                            > > To visit your group on the web, go to:
                            > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/meditationsocietyofamerica/
                            > >
                            > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                            > > meditationsocietyofamerica-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                            > >
                            > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
                            Service.
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > May All Beings be Happy, be Peaceful, be Liberated from Misery.
                            > > Send instant messages to your online friends
                            > http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > ---------------------------------
                            > Yahoo! Groups Links
                            >
                            > To visit your group on the web, go to:
                            > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/meditationsocietyofamerica/
                            >
                            > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                            > meditationsocietyofamerica-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                            >
                            > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                            >
                            >
                            > __________________________________________________
                            > Do You Yahoo!?
                            > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                            > http://mail.yahoo.com
                          • Jeff Belyea
                            ... 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
                            Message 13 of 18 , Jun 10, 2005
                            • 0 Attachment
                              --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "jodyrrr"
                              <jodyrrr@y...> wrote:
                              > --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.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.

                              Sustainability is a
                              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.

                              And while a tootsie pop
                              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
                              tangent...

                              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).

                              And to compare any of
                              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.

                              When you deconstruct
                              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
                              world.

                              The things(consciousness)
                              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
                              ballpark.

                              Love, as always.

                              Nothing more than...

                              Jeff
                            • jodyrrr
                              ... Definitely, and the scale of what is quality comfort is different for everyone. ... For as long as it can be maintained. Comfort is a condition of safety
                              Message 14 of 18 , Jun 10, 2005
                              • 0 Attachment
                                --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "Jeff Belyea"
                                <jeff@m...> wrote:
                                > --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "jodyrrr"
                                > <jodyrrr@y...> wrote:
                                > > --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.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.

                                Definitely, and the scale of what is
                                quality comfort is different for
                                everyone.

                                > Sustainability is a
                                > 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.

                                For as long as it can be maintained.
                                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
                                covered.

                                > And while a tootsie pop
                                > 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
                                > tangent...
                                >
                                > 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).

                                I don't think sustainability comes into
                                play at all. When you see who you really
                                are, that's it. You know yourself as that,
                                always.

                                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 of
                                > 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.

                                To me samadhi is the understanding
                                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.
                                Comfort seeking.

                                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
                                yourself.

                                > When you deconstruct
                                > 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
                                > world.

                                I know who I am, I know vedanta somewhat,
                                I comment from there.

                                > The things(consciousness)
                                > 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
                                > ballpark.

                                I have never, ever done so, Jeff.

                                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
                                or others.

                                > Love, as always.
                                >
                                > Nothing more than...
                                >
                                > Jeff

                                No prob, my friend.

                                We're just a bit out of phase sometimes.

                                --jody.
                              • Jeff Belyea
                                ... many ... of ... minds ... moment ... My reference was in response to your earlier comment about a bump on the head interrupting the bliss. A minor point on
                                Message 15 of 18 , Jun 11, 2005
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "jodyrrr"
                                  <jodyrrr@y...> wrote:
                                  > --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "Jeff Belyea"
                                  > <jeff@m...> wrote:
                                  > > --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "jodyrrr"
                                  > > <jodyrrr@y...> wrote:
                                  > > > --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.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.
                                  >
                                  > Definitely, and the scale of what is
                                  > quality comfort is different for
                                  > everyone.
                                  >
                                  > > Sustainability is a
                                  > > 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.
                                  >
                                  > For as long as it can be maintained.
                                  > 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
                                  > covered.
                                  >
                                  > > And while a tootsie pop
                                  > > 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
                                  > > tangent...
                                  > >
                                  > > 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).
                                  >
                                  > I don't think sustainability comes into
                                  > play at all. When you see who you really
                                  > are, that's it. You know yourself as that,
                                  > always.

                                  My reference was in response
                                  to your earlier comment about
                                  a bump on the head interrupting
                                  the bliss. A minor point on the
                                  way to my main issue with some
                                  of your responses. I am simply
                                  making an appeal that you
                                  refrain from disdain.

                                  >
                                  > 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.

                                  Nice, succinct distinctions.

                                  >
                                  > > And to compare any of
                                  > > 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.
                                  >
                                  > To me samadhi is the understanding
                                  > 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.
                                  > Comfort seeking.
                                  >
                                  > 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 agree. Never a dispute here.

                                  >
                                  > 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
                                  > yourself.

                                  Agreed.

                                  >
                                  > > When you deconstruct
                                  > > 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
                                  > > world.
                                  >
                                  > I know who I am, I know vedanta somewhat,
                                  > I comment from there.

                                  Understood. My appeal is
                                  that you leave room for
                                  the sweet, bhakti types
                                  without putting your dog's
                                  ass in their face.

                                  >
                                  > > The things(consciousness)
                                  > > 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
                                  > > ballpark.
                                  >
                                  > I have never, ever done so, Jeff.
                                  >
                                  > You have read me wrong.

                                  Sorry to have done you wrong, song.
                                  I did understand that you were
                                  comparing the desire. I just
                                  added a little clang to get
                                  your attention.

                                  >
                                  > 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
                                  > or others.
                                  >
                                  > > Love, as always.
                                  > >
                                  > > Nothing more than...
                                  > >
                                  > > Jeff
                                  >
                                  > No prob, my friend.
                                  >
                                  > We're just a bit out of phase sometimes.

                                  Aren't we all.

                                  >
                                  > --jody.

                                  Best,

                                  Jeff
                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.