[Meditation Society of America] Re: Monk ebusiness
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "jodyrrr"
> --- In email@example.com, "Jeff Belyea"many
> <jeff@m...> wrote:
> > --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "jodyrrr"
> > <jodyrrr@y...> wrote:
> > > --- In email@example.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
> > > > other factors, it is not sustainable.and then it is a causeof
> > > > suffering, like for many in old age . Sex reside in theirminds
> > > > but not in muscles.moment
> > > > I am looking for bliss which is blissful for ever every
> > > > and freedom which is unwaivering.My reference was in response
> > > > --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
> > 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
> > 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,
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.
>Nice, succinct distinctions.
> 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.
>I agree. Never a dispute here.
> > 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
>Understood. My appeal is
> > 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.
that you leave room for
the sweet, bhakti types
without putting your dog's
ass in their face.
>Sorry to have done you wrong, song.
> > 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 did understand that you were
comparing the desire. I just
added a little clang to get
>Aren't we all.
> 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.