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

[Meditation Society of America] Re: Monk ebusiness

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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.