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

[Meditation Society of America] Re: Monk ebusiness

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 18 , Jun 10, 2005
      --- 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 2 of 18 , Jun 10, 2005
        --- 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 3 of 18 , Jun 11, 2005
          --- 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.