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

Re: Monk ebusiness

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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.