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

[Meditation Society of America] Re: Monk ebusiness

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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.