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

Re: [Meditation Society of America] Re: Am I The Only One Who Is Going To Die?

Expand Messages
  • sean tremblay
    What if you make other people miserable? ... From: sandeep chatterjee Subject: Re: [Meditation Society of America] Re: Am I The Only
    Message 1 of 19 , Aug 4, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      What if you make other people miserable?

      --- On Thu, 8/4/11, sandeep chatterjee <sandeep1960@...> wrote:

      From: sandeep chatterjee <sandeep1960@...>
      Subject: Re: [Meditation Society of America] Re: Am I The Only One Who Is Going To Die?
      To: "meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com" <meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com>
      Date: Thursday, August 4, 2011, 1:10 PM

       

      Notice how some are depicted as "enlightened" and masses scramble to follow their every word...even though their physical life could be miserable as hell.

      -------

      Hi Faithe,

      Interesting this comment.

      In what way......is the " physical life miserable as hell" ( seemingly to an other).....of an "enlightened" object (once again labeled as so by the same other)...

      ...in any way of any relevance to enlightenment( to use the terminology in this conversation)?

      It is relevant.......if the assumption is that if an enlightened bozo cannot even make a million dollars or lead whatever is held to be a physical life not miserable as hell.....


      ...then the masses should run.

      Is that what you hold to be the criteria for concluding on the quality of ......let's say "enlightened bozoness"?







    • sandeep chatterjee
      ________________________________ From: medit8ionsociety To: meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, August 4,
      Message 2 of 19 , Aug 4, 2011
      • 0 Attachment



        From: medit8ionsociety <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
        To: meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Thursday, August 4, 2011 7:46 PM
        Subject: Re: [Meditation Society of America] Am I The Only One Who Is Going To Die?

         
        sean tremblay <bethjams9@...> wrote:
        >
        >  Do you have an example?
        >
        Yo Sean,
        In his amazing book, All and Everything, Gurdjieff
        told the tale of the devil taking a journey back to
        heaven because God had forgiven him. To pass the time,
        he told his nephew the entire story of the history of
        mankind, as he had witnessed it all 1st hand. After
        over 1200 pages of tales, he ended the book with the devil
        telling his nephew that the single most odd thing he
        found un-understandable about humans was there complete
        unawareness of the inevitability of their death. 

        --------
        Yes, Bob.
        Because somehow the very strong conviction.......that death happens only to the other.
        There was once a study over a large sample size of people attending funerals.

        I can't remember the figures but a huge percentage of them after attending funeral, subsequently felt ravenously hungry/very much hungry.
        It seems that death is out there, never here.

        ---------


        I see this all of the time. It plays out in many different ways, but generally I can say (and I will) that not seeing the finiteness of this little incarnation makes one miss the opportunity we have in every "Now" to be aware of life as it takes place, and this causes people to spend 99.999% of their life rehashing the past or fantasicizing about the future and going through their life as if sleepwalking. 
        Doing and saying and feeling in a rote reactive manner. Unable to do anything but predictable been there, done
        that things. The women I see, for instance, can't even sit comfortably because they were taught before they
        left 1st grade to sit with their legs together, and they do so even if they are the only one in the room. The
        men I work with lust after every women no differently than they did as teenagers. They are in a prison that
        can't be broken out of because they don't see the bars, and if any are pointed out to them, it is considered
        to be coming from a left wing goof, or whatever similar label is fashionable at the time.

        --------------
        :-)

        Despite the abuse, the sneering laughter....the labeling as a loser......whatever.....the speaking  which seeks nothing via the speaking.....continues.
        -------

         All I see does help kick up compassion and humility, which I think are the most important things for spiritual evolution. 
        Compassion because whenever a human sees suffering, it is appropriate to feel "their" pain. There is actually
        no "their" there, but that's another story. 
        -----
        Actually Bob you raise a very interesting issue......much debated.

        In all the non-dual stuff.....where is compassion, where is empathy, where is reaching out to help.


        Or does the apperception of non-dualness( to use a phrase)......erase all such....."nicesities" .


        It is in and as the existing-of-no-other.....that real compassion arises and flows.


        Akin, the reaching out to cup, the bleeding painful toe.

        It's your reaching out hand, it's your pain, it was you as the stone which stumped the toe.

        It's all you.

        The reaching out is automatic without the intervention of thought and thus total.
        And then the deeper seeing, a seeing which has no gradation......that what was concluded as a partial reaching out, was also a total reaching out....as so.
        That the intervention of thought.......is a thought of so........having no effect whatsoever on anything.


        ----------
        Similarly, one is humbled as the realization that you are no different becomes more and more apparent with every inward glance at ones own reactivity. 
        ------

        Yes just like the observing of the other and the hoopla of the other.....


        ....the observing of the hoopla happening through and as the object with a label.....held to be oneself.

        ---------


        In any event, I'll say that you can't really live unless
        you appreciate that you will die physically, mentally and
        emotionally, and the only hope is to live consciously,
        now and forever.

        ----


        Which really means, to see that there is dying happening right now........both in the domain of mentation, which includes the emotional structure...... as well as in the field of physicality.
        And this dying being observable........that which observes the change/dying...


        ..is not in the realm of the death.


        Nor in the ream of the deathless.




      • sean tremblay
        At the moment I don t but I ll get back to you on that. ... From: sandeep chatterjee Subject: Re: [Meditation Society of America] Am I
        Message 3 of 19 , Aug 4, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          At the moment I don't but I'll get back to you on that.

          --- On Thu, 8/4/11, sandeep chatterjee <sandeep1960@...> wrote:

          From: sandeep chatterjee <sandeep1960@...>
          Subject: Re: [Meditation Society of America] Am I The Only One Who Is Going To Die?
          To: "meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com" <meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com>
          Date: Thursday, August 4, 2011, 2:03 PM

           




          From: medit8ionsociety <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
          To: meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Thursday, August 4, 2011 7:46 PM
          Subject: Re: [Meditation Society of America] Am I The Only One Who Is Going To Die?

           
          sean tremblay <bethjams9@...> wrote:
          >
          >  Do you have an example?
          >
          Yo Sean,
          In his amazing book, All and Everything, Gurdjieff
          told the tale of the devil taking a journey back to
          heaven because God had forgiven him. To pass the time,
          he told his nephew the entire story of the history of
          mankind, as he had witnessed it all 1st hand. After
          over 1200 pages of tales, he ended the book with the devil
          telling his nephew that the single most odd thing he
          found un-understandable about humans was there complete
          unawareness of the inevitability of their death. 

          --------
          Yes, Bob.
          Because somehow the very strong conviction.......that death happens only to the other.
          There was once a study over a large sample size of people attending funerals.

          I can't remember the figures but a huge percentage of them after attending funeral, subsequently felt ravenously hungry/very much hungry.
          It seems that death is out there, never here.

          ---------


          I see this all of the time. It plays out in many different ways, but generally I can say (and I will) that not seeing the finiteness of this little incarnation makes one miss the opportunity we have in every "Now" to be aware of life as it takes place, and this causes people to spend 99.999% of their life rehashing the past or fantasicizing about the future and going through their life as if sleepwalking. 
          Doing and saying and feeling in a rote reactive manner. Unable to do anything but predictable been there, done
          that things. The women I see, for instance, can't even sit comfortably because they were taught before they
          left 1st grade to sit with their legs together, and they do so even if they are the only one in the room. The
          men I work with lust after every women no differently than they did as teenagers. They are in a prison that
          can't be broken out of because they don't see the bars, and if any are pointed out to them, it is considered
          to be coming from a left wing goof, or whatever similar label is fashionable at the time.

          --------------
          :-)

          Despite the abuse, the sneering laughter....the labeling as a loser......whatever.....the speaking  which seeks nothing via the speaking.....continues.
          -------

           All I see does help kick up compassion and humility, which I think are the most important things for spiritual evolution. 
          Compassion because whenever a human sees suffering, it is appropriate to feel "their" pain. There is actually
          no "their" there, but that's another story. 
          -----
          Actually Bob you raise a very interesting issue......much debated.

          In all the non-dual stuff.....where is compassion, where is empathy, where is reaching out to help.


          Or does the apperception of non-dualness( to use a phrase)......erase all such....."nicesities" .


          It is in and as the existing-of-no-other.....that real compassion arises and flows.


          Akin, the reaching out to cup, the bleeding painful toe.

          It's your reaching out hand, it's your pain, it was you as the stone which stumped the toe.

          It's all you.

          The reaching out is automatic without the intervention of thought and thus total.
          And then the deeper seeing, a seeing which has no gradation......that what was concluded as a partial reaching out, was also a total reaching out....as so.
          That the intervention of thought.......is a thought of so........having no effect whatsoever on anything.


          ----------
          Similarly, one is humbled as the realization that you are no different becomes more and more apparent with every inward glance at ones own reactivity. 
          ------

          Yes just like the observing of the other and the hoopla of the other.....


          ....the observing of the hoopla happening through and as the object with a label.....held to be oneself.

          ---------


          In any event, I'll say that you can't really live unless
          you appreciate that you will die physically, mentally and
          emotionally, and the only hope is to live consciously,
          now and forever.

          ----


          Which really means, to see that there is dying happening right now........both in the domain of mentation, which includes the emotional structure...... as well as in the field of physicality.
          And this dying being observable........that which observes the change/dying...


          ..is not in the realm of the death.


          Nor in the ream of the deathless.




        • tarah513
          ... follow their every word...even though their physical life could be miserable as hell. ... Faithe: Glad you found it interesting . ... to an other).....of
          Message 4 of 19 , Aug 4, 2011
          • 0 Attachment


            --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, sandeep chatterjee <sandeep1960@...> wrote:
            >
            > Notice how some are depicted as "enlightened" and masses scramble to follow their every word...even though their physical life could be miserable as hell.
            >
            >
            > -------
            >
            > Hi Faithe,
            >
            > Interesting this comment.

            Faithe: Glad you found it "interesting".
            >
            > In what way......is the " physical life miserable as hell" ( seemingly to an other).....of an "enlightened" object (once again labeled as so by the same other)...
            >
            > ...in any way of any relevance to enlightenment( to use the terminology in this conversation)?
            >
            > It is relevant.......if the assumption is that if an enlightened bozo cannot even make a million dollars or lead whatever is held to be a physical life not miserable as hell.....
            >
            >

            Faithe: Taking these comments together...what I was conveying is that judging whether or not there is a "proper" path or "blindly" following a path matters not one bit. Those (some who have offered guidance here) who follow the "guru" or "enlightened" person are prone to look at those out of the "club" as lacking something (physically or spiritually, no matter)...when in fact they have just chosen a certain path to follow, just different from others who may not even glance in their direction.

            Bob's comment on whether or not I feel a bit arrogant with my replies...no I do not...I was just stating how I viewed the prior comments...just as he probably feels no arrogance in his stance.


            > ...then the masses should run.
            >

            Faithe: Just being part of the "mass" connotates "not running" but "following". It is the individual who can run.


            > Is that what you hold to be the criteria for concluding on the quality of ......let's say "enlightened bozoness"?

            Faithe: I hold no criteria for "enlightened people". All I am saying is that no one is NOT on a path, planned or otherwise. We do, we path, we not do, we path...get the drift?

            Nice chatting with you...and you too Bob.
            >

          • sandeep chatterjee
            ________________________________ From: tarah513 To: meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, August 5, 2011 1:00 AM
            Message 5 of 19 , Aug 4, 2011
            • 0 Attachment



              From: tarah513 <faithearden@...>
              To: meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Friday, August 5, 2011 1:00 AM
              Subject: [Meditation Society of America] Re: Am I The Only One Who Is Going To Die?

               
              --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, sandeep chatterjee <sandeep1960@...> wrote:
              >
              > Notice how some are depicted as "enlightened" and masses
              scramble to follow their every word...even though their physical life could be miserable as hell.
              > 
              > 
              > -------
              > 
              > Hi Faithe,
              > 
              > Interesting this comment.
              Faithe: Glad you found it "interesting".
              > 
              > In what way......is the " physical life miserable as hell" (
              seemingly to an other).....of an "enlightened" object (once again labeled as so by the same other)...
              > 
              > ...in any way of any relevance to enlightenment( to use the terminology in
              this conversation)?
              > 
              > It is relevant.......if the assumption is that if an enlightened bozo
              cannot even make a million dollars or lead whatever is held to be a physical life not miserable as hell.....
              > 
              >
              Faithe: Taking these comments together...what I was conveying is that judging whether or not there is a "proper" path or "blindly" following a path matters not one bit.
              -----
              OK.
              If matters not one bit......then either all paths are proper/correct or all paths are blind.....and the moving from one path to the other, or the dropping of all paths......is all part of the "mattering not one bit".


              Is it not?
              ______


               Those (some who have offered guidance here) who follow the "guru" or "enlightened" person are prone to look at those out of the "club" as lacking something (physically or spiritually, no matter)...when in fact they have just chosen a certain path to follow, just different from others who may not even glance in their direction.


              -----


              Even if so.....that too is part of "mattering not one bit":-)
              ------
              <Snip>
              > ...then the masses should run.
              >
              Faithe: Just being part of the "mass" connotates "not running" but "following". It is the individual who can run.
              -----
              Following, whether as a crawl or as a sprint, or in the domain of mentation or in the realm of the heart....are all forms of running.


              Anyway what your previous  previous comment appeared to suggest was that people should run AWAY from Gurus who appear to lead a miserable personal life.



              Hence you appeared to suggest that such was a criteria, in order to assess, judge and conclude on the Guru-ish-ness of the Guru.


              > Is that what you hold to be the criteria for concluding on the quality of
              ......let's say "enlightened bozoness"?
              Faithe: I hold no criteria for "enlightened people". biological object named Jesusbiological object named biological object named biological object named
              ---------
              Yes.

              Not doubt you would choose a business consultant who has at least made a million bucks using the spiel that he is offering you for your business strategies.....but here is a different ball game(so to say)

              LOL.
              Because you cannot possible know what is not in within the boundaries of the known.


              All that you know, have known......(and experiences are just the same with some attached bells and whistles)…..are all modifications and projections of the known.

              That which-is…….neither in the realm of thought nor in the realm of thoughtless....cannot have a known criteria which it must meet.

              And since this "not meeting a known criteria" is itself a criteria........even this is not applicable.
              Since the biological object with a name…...and irrespective of what is the bestowed label…

              …...is itself a mere thought of so......there is nothing as an enlightened person.

              The biological object named Jesus........an appearance in Christ....was/is not the Christ.
              The biological object named Lao Tzu.....an appearance in Tao.....was/is not the Tao.
              The biological object named Gautam......an appearance in Bodhi....was/is not Bodhi.
              So I know Faithe, the usual rejoinder would be....... how the hell do you Sandeep know .....in order to prattle all this crap:-)


              The biological conditioned object named Sandeep………an appearance …..with no bestowed label 


              AND leading a hell of a miserable personal life........knows nothing.

              And I know.
              And this knowingness ( to use a hackneyed term)..... needs no validation of itself ....... whether through an acceptance or agreement of an other or otherwise.

              For it has no space .......to admit even an other, let alone an other's acceptance or agreement.

              Or even itself.......as knowingness.


              All I am saying is that no one is NOT on a path, planned or otherwise. We do, we path, we not do, we path...get the drift?
              -------
              Yes, no one is not on a path.

              Neither is any one .....on any path.

              Caught the pheromones of the drift?
              Never mind:-)

               


            • sean tremblay
              Somebody give me a road map I m getting confused. ... From: sandeep chatterjee Subject: Re: [Meditation Society of America] Re: Am I
              Message 6 of 19 , Aug 4, 2011
              • 0 Attachment
                Somebody give me a road map I'm getting confused.

                --- On Fri, 8/5/11, sandeep chatterjee <sandeep1960@...> wrote:

                From: sandeep chatterjee <sandeep1960@...>
                Subject: Re: [Meditation Society of America] Re: Am I The Only One Who Is Going To Die?
                To: "meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com" <meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com>
                Date: Friday, August 5, 2011, 12:36 AM

                 




                From: tarah513 <faithearden@...>
                To: meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com
                Sent: Friday, August 5, 2011 1:00 AM
                Subject: [Meditation Society of America] Re: Am I The Only One Who Is Going To Die?

                 
                --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, sandeep chatterjee <sandeep1960@...> wrote:
                >
                > Notice how some are depicted as "enlightened" and masses scramble to follow their every word...even though their physical life could be miserable as hell.
                > 
                > 
                > -------
                > 
                > Hi Faithe,
                > 
                > Interesting this comment.
                Faithe: Glad you found it "interesting".
                > 
                > In what way......is the " physical life miserable as hell" ( seemingly to an other).....of an "enlightened" object (once again labeled as so by the same other)...
                > 
                > ...in any way of any relevance to enlightenment( to use the terminology in this conversation)?
                > 
                > It is relevant.......if the assumption is that if an enlightened bozo cannot even make a million dollars or lead whatever is held to be a physical life not miserable as hell.....
                > 
                >
                Faithe: Taking these comments together...what I was conveying is that judging whether or not there is a "proper" path or "blindly" following a path matters not one bit.
                -----
                OK.
                If matters not one bit......then either all paths are proper/correct or all paths are blind.....and the moving from one path to the other, or the dropping of all paths......is all part of the "mattering not one bit".


                Is it not?
                ______


                 Those (some who have offered guidance here) who follow the "guru" or "enlightened" person are prone to look at those out of the "club" as lacking something (physically or spiritually, no matter)...when in fact they have just chosen a certain path to follow, just different from others who may not even glance in their direction.


                -----


                Even if so.....that too is part of "mattering not one bit":-)
                ------
                <Snip>
                > ...then the masses should run.
                >
                Faithe: Just being part of the "mass" connotates "not running" but "following". It is the individual who can run.
                -----
                Following, whether as a crawl or as a sprint, or in the domain of mentation or in the realm of the heart....are all forms of running.


                Anyway what your previous  previous comment appeared to suggest was that people should run AWAY from Gurus who appear to lead a miserable personal life.



                Hence you appeared to suggest that such was a criteria, in order to assess, judge and conclude on the Guru-ish-ness of the Guru.


                > Is that what you hold to be the criteria for concluding on the quality of ......let's say "enlightened bozoness"?
                Faithe: I hold no criteria for "enlightened people". biological object named Jesusbiological object named biological object named biological object named
                ---------
                Yes.

                Not doubt you would choose a business consultant who has at least made a million bucks using the spiel that he is offering you for your business strategies.....but here is a different ball game(so to say)

                LOL.
                Because you cannot possible know what is not in within the boundaries of the known.


                All that you know, have known......(and experiences are just the same with some attached bells and whistles)…..are all modifications and projections of the known.

                That which-is…….neither in the realm of thought nor in the realm of thoughtless....cannot have a known criteria which it must meet.

                And since this "not meeting a known criteria" is itself a criteria........even this is not applicable.
                Since the biological object with a name…...and irrespective of what is the bestowed label…

                …...is itself a mere thought of so......there is nothing as an enlightened person.

                The biological object named Jesus........an appearance in Christ....was/is not the Christ.
                The biological object named Lao Tzu.....an appearance in Tao.....was/is not the Tao.
                The biological object named Gautam......an appearance in Bodhi....was/is not Bodhi.
                So I know Faithe, the usual rejoinder would be....... how the hell do you Sandeep know .....in order to prattle all this crap:-)


                The biological conditioned object named Sandeep………an appearance …..with no bestowed label 


                AND leading a hell of a miserable personal life........knows nothing.

                And I know.
                And this knowingness ( to use a hackneyed term)..... needs no validation of itself ....... whether through an acceptance or agreement of an other or otherwise.

                For it has no space .......to admit even an other, let alone an other's acceptance or agreement.

                Or even itself.......as knowingness.


                All I am saying is that no one is NOT on a path, planned or otherwise. We do, we path, we not do, we path...get the drift?
                -------
                Yes, no one is not on a path.

                Neither is any one .....on any path.

                Caught the pheromones of the drift?
                Never mind:-)

                 


              • walto
                ... Yes and no. One can know something that WAS not within the boundaries of the known, but, of course, as soon as somebody knows it, it is no longer outside
                Message 7 of 19 , Aug 5, 2011
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, sandeep chatterjee <sandeep1960@...> wrote:
                  >
                  >
                  >Because you cannot possible know what is not in within the boundaries >of the known.

                  Yes and no. One can know something that WAS not within the boundaries of the known, but, of course, as soon as somebody knows it, it is no longer outside the boundaries of the known.

                  I admit that the phrase has a nice paradoxical ring to it, though--as did your remarks about criteria for knowledge, in which you sometimes use the term "criteria" to mean necessary conditions and other times to refer to sufficient conditions. Equivocation makes for easy concoction of paradox stews.

                  Best,

                  W
                • sandeep chatterjee
                  ________________________________ From: walto To: meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, August 5, 2011 4:33 PM Subject:
                  Message 8 of 19 , Aug 5, 2011
                  • 0 Attachment



                    From: walto <calhorn@...>
                    To: meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com
                    Sent: Friday, August 5, 2011 4:33 PM
                    Subject: [Meditation Society of America] Re: Am I The Only One Who Is Going To Die?

                     


                    --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, sandeep chatterjee <sandeep1960@...> wrote:
                    >
                    >
                    >Because you cannot possible know what is not in within the boundaries >of the known.

                    Yes and no. One can know something that WAS not within the boundaries of the known, 

                    -----------
                    That which was not within the known......the "was-not" needs the field of the known to be known as a "was-not", thus dependent on the known and finally can be seen to be a mere modification of the known, if the sense of investment in this particular was-not knowledge is pierced through.
                    ----------

                    but, of course, as soon as somebody knows it, it is no longer outside the boundaries of the known. 

                    I admit that the phrase has a nice paradoxical ring to it, though--as did your remarks about criteria for knowledge, in which you sometimes use the term "criteria" to mean necessary conditions and other times to refer to sufficient conditions. Equivocation makes for easy concoction of paradox stews.

                    -----

                    Fun and games.




                  • tarah513
                    ... of all paths......is ... Faithe: When I stated matters not one bit , I was implying that it matters not one bit to another...it is only pertinent to the
                    Message 9 of 19 , Aug 5, 2011
                    • 0 Attachment


                      --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, sandeep chatterjee <sandeep1960@...> wrote:
                      >
                      >
                      > Faithe: Taking these comments together...what I was
                      > conveying is that judging whether or not there is a "proper" path or
                      > "blindly" following a path matters not one bit.
                      > -----
                      > OK.
                      > If matters not one
                      > bit......then either all paths are proper/correct or all paths are
                      > blind.....and the moving from one path to the other, or the dropping of all paths......is
                      > all part of the "mattering not one bit".
                      >
                      >
                      > Is it not?
                      > ______
                      >
                      >

                      Faithe: When I stated "matters not one bit", I was implying that it matters not one bit to another...it is only pertinent to the one who is walking through life. I was also implying that no one has walked in another's shoes, and without that direct experience, no one knows the whole story or sees the who picture.

                       
                      > Faithe:  Those
                      > (some who have offered guidance here) who follow the "guru" or
                      > "enlightened" person are prone to look at those out of the
                      > "club" as lacking something (physically or spiritually, no
                      > matter)...when in fact they have just chosen a certain path to follow, just
                      > different from others who may not even glance in their direction.
                      >
                      > -----
                      >
                      >
                      > Even if so.....that too is part of "mattering not one bit":-)
                      > ------
                      Faithe: The mattering not one bit applies to those in the "club" who think their opinions give them greater "insight" and thereby are more "special" than the one they perceive as walking "blindly". It does not elevate either party...each is part of the mystery of life with no one having absolute answers/solutions.

                      > <Snip>


                      > > ...then the masses
                      > should run.
                      > >
                      > Faithe: Just being part of the "mass"
                      > connotates "not running" but "following". It is the
                      > individual who can run.
                      > -----
                      > Following, whether as a crawl or as a
                      > sprint, or in the domain of mentation or in the realm of the heart....are all
                      > forms of running.
                      >
                      Faithe: I disagree.

                      >
                      > Anyway what your previous  previous comment appeared to suggest was that
                      > people should run AWAY from Gurus who appear to lead a miserable personal life.
                      >
                      >
                      > Hence you appeared to suggest that such was a criteria, in order to assess, judge and conclude on the Guru-ish-ness of the Guru.

                      Faithe: Back to this comment...it is up to the individual to follow or not follow a particular guru. If the guru is perceived to have a less than satisfactory physical life, then it would be in the persons best interests to find another that matches what they are seeking. There are some that seek a miserable physical life...so for them that guru may be perfect.
                      >
                      >
                      > > Is that what you hold to be the criteria for concluding on the quality of
                      > ......let's say "enlightened bozoness"?
                      > Faithe: I hold no criteria for "enlightened
                      > people".

                       biological object named
                      > Jesusbiological object named biological object named biological
                      > object named
                      > ---------
                      > Yes.
                      >
                      > Not doubt you would choose a business consultant who has at least made a
                      > million bucks using the spiel that he is offering you for your business
                      > strategies.....but here is a different ball game(so to say)
                      >

                      Faithe: No, that is not necessarily true, Sandeep. For instance, if I have the million bucks, then perhaps I am in need of a consultant that offers something quite different and in the difference,  working together we each grow.


                      > LOL.
                      > Because you cannot
                      > possible know what is not in within the boundaries of the known.
                      >
                      >
                      > All that you know, have known......(and experiences are just
                      > the same with some attached bells and whistles)…..are all modifications and
                      > projections of the known.
                      >
                      > That which-is…….neither in the realm of thought nor in the realm of
                      > thoughtless....cannot have a known criteria which it must meet.
                      >
                      > And since this "not meeting a known
                      > criteria" is itself a criteria........even this is not applicable.
                      > Since the
                      > biological object with a name…...and irrespective of what is the bestowed label…
                      >
                      > …...is
                      > itself a mere thought of so......there is nothing as an enlightened person.
                      >
                      > The biological object named Jesus........an appearance in Christ....was/is not
                      > the Christ.
                      > The biological object named Lao Tzu.....an appearance in Tao.....was/is not the
                      > Tao.
                      > The biological object named Gautam......an appearance in Bodhi....was/is not
                      > Bodhi.
                      > So I know Faithe,
                      > the usual rejoinder would be....... how the hell do you Sandeep know .....in order
                      > to prattle all this crap:-)
                      >
                      >

                      Faithe: I do not question how you "know" in order to prattle the crap. I just don't accept what is offered above. Personally, I have concluded that a lopsided balance between the physical & spiritual is not beneficial. Is not the purpose of meditation...the merging of body, soul & mind. When the spiritual takes an inordinate amount of control, then rational thinking goes on the back burner and sadly the one who has allowed this condition to occur has given up the beautiful physical life with all its potential. When the physical takes control, then sadly everything becomes "black/white" with the basic good that comes from spirituality totally stifled. Like the light of the day, and the dark of night...each is needed...an inordinate amount of either throws one into chaos.

                      > The biological conditioned object named Sandeep………an appearance …..with no
                      > bestowed label 
                      >
                      > AND leading a hell of a miserable personal life........knows
                      > nothing.
                      >
                      > And I know.
                      > And this
                      > knowingness ( to use a hackneyed term)..... needs no validation of
                      > itself ....... whether through an acceptance or agreement of an other or
                      > otherwise.

                      Faithe: And for you, Sandeep, this fills some need. I can no more see where/why you have followed this path than you can understand the path I follow.

                      >
                      > For it has no space .......to admit even an other, let alone an other's acceptance or agreement.
                      >
                      > Or even itself.......as knowingness.

                      Faithe: Again, the path follows becomes a trench ever deeper with more & more "knowingness" added, layer upon layer, cushioning one's beliefs.
                      >
                      >
                      > All I am saying is that no one is NOT on a path, planned
                      > or otherwise. We do, we path, we not do, we path...get the drift?
                      > -------
                      > Yes, no one is not on a path.
                      >
                      > Neither is any one .....on any path.
                      >
                      > Caught the pheromones of the drift?
                      > Never mind:-)
                      >
                      >  
                      >

                      Faithe: And the path continues on...to accept your premise, one must accept there is "no one and no one to do anything". That in its own right is a "path"...I am Faithe, label & all, physical body, my soul and "always my mind".

                      I love you Sandeep. I love the Sandeep that I do not understand as well as the Sandeep I do understand. As far as Jesus, LaoTzu and all the "others"...meaningless to me. I MUCH, MUCH prefer all the comments, ideas & suggestions coming directly from the members and not the repeated "truisms" written & shared in abundance. It is when  the facade is lifted that the true beauty of each is allowed to shine. "There is a crack in everything".

                      I owe you a personal letter offline...it will come.

                    • sandeep chatterjee
                      ________________________________ From: tarah513 To: meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, August 5, 2011 10:50
                      Message 10 of 19 , Aug 6, 2011
                      • 0 Attachment



                        From: tarah513 <faithearden@...>
                        To: meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com
                        Sent: Friday, August 5, 2011 10:50 PM
                        Subject: [Meditation Society of America] Re: Am I The Only One Who Is Going To Die?

                         

                        --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, sandeep chatterjee <sandeep1960@...> wrote:
                        >
                        >
                        > Faithe: Taking these comments together...what I was
                        > conveying is that judging whether or not there is a "proper" path or
                        > "blindly" following a path matters not one bit.
                        > -----
                        > OK.
                        > If matters not one
                        > bit......then either all paths are proper/correct or all paths are
                        > blind.....and the moving from one path to the other, or the dropping of all paths......is
                        > all part of the "mattering not one bit".
                        >
                        >
                        > Is it not?
                        > ______
                        >
                        >
                        Faithe: When I stated "matters not one bit", I was implying that it matters not one bit to another..

                        --------


                        Is there an another?

                        There is just you.........and in that "you-ness".......these pixels like floating flotsam appear and disappear..



                        ...seemingly suggesting a dialogue taking place, between two separated , distinctive objects, which themselves are appearing and disappearing pixels...



                        ...just in a different domain.

                        -----




                        .it is only pertinent to the one who is walking through life. I was also implying that no one has walked in another's shoes, and without that direct experience, no one knows the whole story or sees the who picture.

                        -----
                        Walk in another shoes, and all you come to know is her shoe size and where it pinches.


                        You appear to believe dear Faithe that an experience is some sort of a criteria for a conclusion for reality...



                        ...and that there is inter-alia intrinsic differences between one experience and the other.

                        The content, depth, melodrama of the hoopla  of the sleep dream of last night......may have been totally completely different to the one of the previous night....



                        ..but in essence are the two hooplas ..... any different?


                        This awake dream hoopla in which these pixels are getting viewed right now..



                        ..is not a whit different to the hoopla of the night frenzy.


                         
                        > Faithe:  Those
                        > (some who have offered guidance here) who follow the "guru" or
                        > "enlightened" person are prone to look at those out of the
                        > "club" as lacking something (physically or spiritually, no
                        > matter)...when in fact they have just chosen a certain path to follow, just
                        > different from others who may not even glance in their direction.
                        >
                        > -----
                        >
                        >
                        > Even if so.....that too is part of "mattering not one bit":-)
                        > ------
                        Faithe: The mattering not one bit applies to those in the "club" who think their opinions give them greater "insight" and thereby are more "special" than the one they perceive as walking "blindly".

                        ------
                        Ahaaa.


                         It does not elevate either party...each is part of the mystery of life with no one having absolute answers/solutions.
                        So the "mattering not one bit" is selective.


                        LOL.

                        Being admitted into the club or having to perennially keep waiting at the doorstop for admittance....


                        ...or being rejected by THE CLUB....


                        .....why should it matter in the
                         "mattering not one bit".....part of things?


                        > <Snip>

                        > > ...then the masses
                        > should run.
                        > >
                        > Faithe: Just being part of the "mass"
                        > connotates "not running" but "following". It is the
                        > individual who can run.
                        > -----
                        > Following, whether as a crawl or as a
                        > sprint, or in the domain of mentation or in the realm of the heart....are all
                        > forms of running.
                        >
                        Faithe: I disagree.

                        ------
                        That's fine.

                        Agreement, disagreement, acceptance, rejection are about and in the realm of opinions.
                        Either there is a seeing, or there is not.

                        And no, that's not an opinion.

                        LOL

                        > Anyway what your previous  previous comment appeared to suggest was that
                        > people should run AWAY from Gurus who appear to lead a miserable personal life.
                        >
                        >
                        > Hence you appeared to suggest that such was a criteria, in order to assess, judge and conclude on the Guru-ish-ness of the Guru.
                        Faithe: Back to this comment...it is up to the individual to follow or not follow a particular guru. If the guru is perceived to have a less than satisfactory physical life, then it would be in the persons best interests to find another that matches what they are seeking. There are some that seek a miserable physical life...so for them that guru may be perfect.

                        -----
                        Sure.


                        The fake seeker reaches the divine feet of the fake-Guru.


                        W
                        hen the thirst is genuine, total......that very thirst invokes.....the quenching of the thirst.
                        But the quality of life being led or seen to be leading........by the one in whose milieu...


                        ... the quenching occurs(using some conventional terms for you Faithe) .


                        ..has no bearing to or with anything.

                        ------------

                        >
                        >
                        > > Is that what you hold to be the criteria for concluding on the quality of
                        > ......let's say "enlightened bozoness"?
                        > Faithe: I hold no criteria for "enlightened
                        > people".
                         biological object named
                        > Jesusbiological object named biological object named biological
                        > object named
                        > ---------
                        > Yes.
                        >
                        > Not doubt you would choose a business consultant who has at least made a
                        > million bucks using the spiel that he is offering you for your business
                        > strategies.....but here is a different ball game(so to say)
                        >
                        Faithe: No, that is not necessarily true, Sandeep. For instance, if I have the million bucks, then perhaps I am in need of a consultant that offers something quite different and in the difference,  working together we each grow.
                        -------
                        Yes that is the language and drivers of the market place.
                        Whether Wall Street or Spiritual Street.
                        -----



                        > LOL.
                        > Because you cannot
                        > possible know what is not in within the boundaries of the known.
                        >
                        >
                        > All that you know, have known......(and experiences are just
                        > the same with some attached bells and whistles)…..are all modifications and
                        > projections of the known.
                        >
                        > That which-is…….neither in the realm of thought nor in the realm of
                        > thoughtless....cannot have a known criteria which it must meet.
                        >
                        > And since this "not meeting a known
                        > criteria" is itself a criteria........even this is not applicable.
                        > Since the
                        > biological object with a name…...and irrespective of what is the bestowed label…
                        >
                        > …...is
                        > itself a mere thought of so......there is nothing as an enlightened person.
                        >
                        > The biological object named Jesus........an appearance in Christ....was/is not
                        > the Christ.
                        > The biological object named Lao Tzu.....an appearance in Tao.....was/is not the
                        > Tao.
                        > The biological object named Gautam......an appearance in Bodhi....was/is not
                        > Bodhi.
                        > So I know Faithe,
                        > the usual rejoinder would be....... how the hell do you Sandeep know .....in order
                        > to prattle all this crap:-)
                        >
                        >
                        Faithe: I do not question how you "know" in order to prattle the crap. I just don't accept what is offered above.

                        -----
                        That's fine.(For the rest see above)
                        ---------

                         Personally, I have concluded that a lopsided balance between the physical & spiritual is not beneficial.

                        -------

                        Indeed, in the market place...one must seek out that gimmickry that provides the promise of maximum benefit.
                        --------


                         Is not the purpose of meditation...the merging of body, soul & mind.


                        --------
                        Nope.


                        That which has a purpose.....is modifications, amplifications...expansion of "Band Aids".
                        And thus back into the ambit of the market place.


                        Meditation happens(without the connotation of an occurrence in time)...



                        ...when seen that "merging"(and thus the apriori assumption that there was a separation in the first place)........"body"...."soul"......"mind"....."lop-sided"( and thus it's counter part as perfect alignment)....


                        ......these are all asset bubbles in the realm of ideation...



                        ...in the ream of thought.

                        And that thought can never touch the state of meditativeness( to use a phrase)...



                        .....for such a state.....is not the thought of a state of meditativeness.

                        ------


                         When the spiritual takes an inordinate amount of control, then rational thinking goes on the back burner and sadly the one who has allowed this condition to occur has given up the beautiful physical life with all its potential. When the physical takes control, then sadly everything becomes "black/white" with the basic good that comes from spirituality totally stifled. Like the light of the day, and the dark of night...each is needed...an inordinate amount of either throws one into chaos.

                        ------
                        What happens to this idea, so beautifully expressed.......when the object popularly known as Faithe......goes to sleep.
                        Pooof.

                        And is replaced with another set of ideas, thoughts, understandings of what is perfect alignment, what is not in the state of the sleep dream drama.

                        All of which also goes pooof......when the state of deep sleep takes over....which is a temporary abeyance of thought.

                        That which keeps appearing and going pooof..........no matter how undeniably real. it's content (while unfolding) can it be of any import?


                        Sure they have an use to drive a hard bargain in the market place, whether in the awake-dream drama or the sleep-dream drama.


                        Piercing through all this poofing and puffing....



                        ...one sees, one is .....that which is neither in thought.

                        Nor in the thoughtless.

                        -------


                        > The biological conditioned object named Sandeep………an appearance …..with no
                        > bestowed label 
                        >
                        > AND leading a hell of a miserable personal life........knows
                        > nothing.
                        >
                        > And I know.
                        > And this
                        > knowingness ( to use a hackneyed term)..... needs no validation of
                        > itself ....... whether through an acceptance or agreement of an other or
                        > otherwise.
                        Faithe: And for you, Sandeep, this fills some need. I can no more see where/why you have followed this path than you can understand the path I follow.

                        ------
                        There has been no one who walked....... either there or here.


                        Just dancing pixels, in different gestalts of mediums.

                        >
                        > For it has no space .......to admit even an other, let alone an other's acceptance or agreement.
                        >
                        > Or even itself.......as knowingness.
                        Faithe: Again, the path follows becomes a trench ever deeper with more & more "knowingness" added, layer upon layer, cushioning one's beliefs.
                        >
                        >
                        > All I am saying is that no one is NOT on a path, planned
                        > or otherwise. We do, we path, we not do, we path...get the drift?
                        > -------
                        > Yes, no one is not on a path.
                        >
                        > Neither is any one .....on any path.
                        >
                        > Caught the pheromones of the drift?
                        > Never mind:-)
                        >
                        >  
                        >
                        Faithe: And the path continues on...to accept your premise, one must accept there is "no one and no one to do anything". 

                        -----
                        Nope.


                        That's an oxymoron dear Faithe.



                        No, don't rush to the keyboard....



                        ....just see....



                        .....be the see.


                        That in its own right is a "path"...I am Faithe, label & all, physical body, my soul and "always my mind".

                        ------
                        :-)


                        See how thought tries to protect...it's own investment ......in it's own creativity.
                        -----
                        I love you Sandeep. I love the Sandeep that I do not understand as well as the Sandeep I do understand. 

                        -----
                        Yes.


                        For the Sandeep that you understand and the Sandeep you do not understand...

                        ..both are  just nuances of you.


                        You that you truly are......which while includes the biological object known as Faithe(and all the objects which make up her world_.....


                        ....while simultaneously .......is nothing of all that
                        .

                        ----------

                        As far as Jesus, LaoTzu and all the "others"...meaningless to me. I MUCH, MUCH prefer all the comments, ideas & suggestions coming directly from the members and not the repeated "truisms" written & shared in abundance. It is when  the facade is lifted that the true beauty of each is allowed to shine. "There is a crack in everything".

                        -------


                        There is a crack available only for pirated softwares.
                        Or for junkies.

                        I owe you a personal letter offline...it will come.

                        Always looking forward to one.:-) 




                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.