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

[Meditation Society of America] Re: Monk ebusiness

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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.