On 29 May, 09:55, vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > It seems the way I came across to this Group, the ideas and views I > presented, have affected some people. Pat may be true in saying that > he'd been thus ' helped.' I do remember communicating with a few > others through mail. >
As for me, your 'help' was very material. In fact not just in material substance to my ideas but as material as it gets. > But my query is : so what ? ... not to dismiss, but to remind > ourselves of the duty to go back to our de - anchored view or > perception, or continue with the search, even as we live it out in the > world, live out the mind and the concept structures that constitute > us ... with the desire to know, reflect and awaken into greater > peace, from where more loving, effective and fulfilling, and > regenerative actions proceed. > Sounds more like a re-anchoring than a true de-anchoring. Not that there's anything wrong with that, rather, indeed, great merit. But see it for what it is...a re-anchoring. And ANY anchor will weigh you down keeping you where you are...in a sea of 'so what'. > I have no doubt that all well - meaning people are doing the same, in > their own ways, to consequences appropriate to their own preoccupying > natures and exigencies, that mean and form us in the middle of things. > Most are vivacious, cooling off their minds from time to time than > knowing it. But they are preferable than those who do not rise and > merely become adept, great adepts but chilling like lords Voldemort, > dedicated to a specific concept - structure that is deified but only > because it assures one's own overriding self - importance. > A nice oblique. I still find it bordering on ad hominem. But VERY cloaked and oblique...I appreciate your style and lingering 'need' to re-affirm your commitment. > Few indeed see the measure of our acceptance of diversity, and of the > plurality about us, as a definite KPI of love, peace and wisdom in our > lives. Because for it to be, much of our earned spiritual power, > happiness and freedom, need to be subsumed in the practice of ' not > this,' ' not this.' > Except if the 'not this' happens to be your sacred view. Rather, that's when 'neti' MUST apply. And, yes, I still do this myself, as a refining fire before the rise of the next phoenix of refined thought. > The destination is without all concept structures, of oneself and of > the other(s). Except 'neti'. That, too, is a structure and, by its very call must also be thrown away.
