[FairfieldLife] Re: Realizing Brahma
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > "Ruth, "doing good", in my book, comes from a place of arrogance. It > implies that one knows whatu is "good" in the first place, ... but > whenever I see the phrase "doing good" in this context, my neckhairs > bristle and I check to make sure my weapons are handy." > > I may have misunderstood you. But it seemed sort of a call to "run" > when someone announces they are here to do good. That is, in that > view, altruists always muck it up -- either by simpleton naivite -- > or more ruthless manipulation for their own ends. Mm, I'd say it's a call to be wary. I don't think altruists *always* muck it up, but I do think that people are missing some large pieces of the puzzle of human nature when they think they are acting only in another's interest and not for any self-interest. Acting on delusions like that can lead to trouble. Of course, most of us, not just altruists, harbor delusions of some kind.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Realizing Brahma
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ispiritkin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning > wrote: > > I have a different take on "being good". It can include your view > > above, which to me a sort of Ayn Rand view of altruism. > > > > However, per my prior adjacent post on being "sadhu" and "good", > from > > SBS quote, I know there is a ground state of goodness. When one is > in > > that zone, its all good. All action is permeated with love, respect, > > caring,tenderness, support, and helpfulness. Its not an intellectual > > thing. Not the result of a phd in Ethics or Religious Shastras. > > > > And its clear when someone is functioning from that zone. No fancy > > titles or labels can disguise it,or make what is not there appear. > > > I think we must agree somewhere, and maybe disagree with details. > > Not sure about what you include of the Ayn Rand view of altruism. > Although I am a fan of Randa's philosophy, I think her writings really > missed out on emotional development. "Ruth, "doing good", in my book, comes from a place of arrogance. It implies that one knows whatu is "good" in the first place, ... but whenever I see the phrase "doing good" in this context, my neckhairs bristle and I check to make sure my weapons are handy." I may have misunderstood you. But it seemed sort of a call to "run" when someone announces they are here to do good. That is, in that view, altruists always muck it up -- either by simpleton naivite -- or more ruthless manipulation for their own ends. > When I wrote that post, along > with the C.S. Lewis quote, I was thinking along the lines of the > Louis Bromfield novel "A Good Woman". This woman was just the > opposite of what you describe above. One could see the sourness in > her face, and feel the anger seething below the surface, yet she > always did exactly the "good works" that drew approval from her > church circle. The novel painted a clear picture of emotional > hypocrisy. > > I agree with you that when someone is functioning from the zone of > goodness, "No fancy titles or labels can disguise it,or make what is > not there appear." However, that doesn't make it "all good". I have > seen very well-meaning people take actions that are simply > misinformed.* Action is quite a concrete thing, and translation from > the emotional/spiritual state of goodness to the physical state of > action sometimes gets garbled. > > ~~~ ~~~ > > I use the term "misguided" so often my children asked me once, "Is > everybody who disagrees with you misguided?" ;) >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Realizing Brahma
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have a different take on "being good". It can include your view > above, which to me a sort of Ayn Rand view of altruism. > > However, per my prior adjacent post on being "sadhu" and "good", from > SBS quote, I know there is a ground state of goodness. When one is in > that zone, its all good. All action is permeated with love, respect, > caring,tenderness, support, and helpfulness. Its not an intellectual > thing. Not the result of a phd in Ethics or Religious Shastras. > > And its clear when someone is functioning from that zone. No fancy > titles or labels can disguise it,or make what is not there appear. I think we must agree somewhere, and maybe disagree with details. Not sure about what you include of the Ayn Rand view of altruism. Although I am a fan of Rand's philosophy, I think her writings really missed out on emotional development. When I wrote that post, along with the C.S. Lewis quote, I was thinking along the lines of the Louis Bromfield novel "A Good Woman". This woman was just the opposite of what you describe above. One could see the sourness in her face, and feel the anger seething below the surface, yet she always did exactly the "good works" that drew approval from her church circle. The novel painted a clear picture of emotional hypocrisy. I agree with you that when someone is functioning from the zone of goodness, "No fancy titles or labels can disguise it,or make what is not there appear." However, that doesn't make it "all good". I have seen very well-meaning people take actions that are simply misinformed.* Action is quite a concrete thing, and translation from the emotional/spiritual state of goodness to the physical state of action sometimes gets garbled. ~~~ ~~~ I use the term "misguided" so often my children asked me once, "Is everybody who disagrees with you misguided?" ;)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Realizing Brahma
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ispiritkin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ruthsimplicity"
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > > What we do has consequences and we should not limit our focus
> > > to self realization or enlightenment, but to doing good.
> >
> > The criteria for "doing good" are
> > first "Do no harm," or at the very least *try*
> > to "do no harm," and second, try to do things
> > that have the instantaneous karmic effect of
> > elevating your own state of attention. IMO
> > *that* is one of the only indicators we have
> > that we are "doing good."
> >
> > What I couldn't agree with less is his sugges-
> > tion that the enlightened can do "anything they
> > want" and actually be enlightened. In my book
> > the enlightened still produce karma, and thus
> > still can create negative karma and suffer the
> > results of it if they perform negative actions.
> >
> > Being able to do "anything they want" is lazy
> > philosophy, and the top of a very slippery slide
> > into Hell.
>
>
> Ruth, "doing good", in my book, comes from a place of arrogance. It
> implies that one knows what is "good" in the first place, and then
> one executes the correct performance flawlessly. You are probably
> using the words differently than I am, but whenever I see the
> phrase "doing good" in this context, my neckhairs bristle and I check
> to make sure my weapons are handy.
>
I have a different take on "being good". It can include your view
above, which to me a sort of Ayn Rand view of altruism.
However, per my prior adjacent post on being "sadhu" and "good", from
SBS quote, I know there is a ground state of goodness. When one is in
that zone, its all good. All action is permeated with love, respect,
caring,tenderness, support, and helpfulness. Its not an intellectual
thing. Not the result of a phd in Ethics or Religious Shastras.
And its clear when someone is functioning from that zone. No fancy
titles or labels can disguise it,or make what is not there appear.
> I strongly resonate with the quote by C.S. Lewis,
> "It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent
> moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his
> cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for
> our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the
> approval of their own conscience."
>
> So I pursue the route, like Turq pointed out, of first "doing no
> harm".
>
> Years ago I went through a turning point during which I committed
> what I thought was a series of The Most Regrettable Actions of My
> Life. These actions were taken, by the way, fully in the quest
> of "doing good" for my then-boyfriend. It was after realizing my
> folly that I decided to take the very humble and modest approach of
> doing only no harm (in my judgment, which I was severely questioning
> at the time), and very carefully take notice at several checkpoints
> how things turned out, so that I could change direction as soon as I
> noticed any problems developing. I'm giving all this background to
> stress that the important thing is that I was paying very close
> attention to motives, actions and results.
>
> What I noticed was that when my motive was to benefit myself, things
> kind of muddled along. When my motive was to benefit my children,
> things went better for all of us. Sometimes a course of action
> would, by coincidence, benefit EVERYONE it touched -- self, children,
> friends, and even my opponents or enemies. THESE courses of action,
> I learned, were the best of all. These actions benefitted me the
> most and my children the most. And they didn't harm anyone, even
> people I really disliked (not that I was too worried about them, but
> as I'm counting the tallies, there's the data).
>
> So I decided to more consciously seek these actions, the ones that
> benefitted everyone, not because I was altruistic, but because
> everything just worked out so much better ("left better lies", to put
> it in billiards terms) when I found "the middle way", the way lying
> above the other choices which seemed to benefit one at the expense of
> another.
>
> Putting this into a nutshell, I pursue actions which seem, to my
> limited perception, to resonate with the Force and to align with the
> Flow.
>
> I'm not picking on you, Ruth. Go ahead and call it "doing good" if
> that's what it means to you.
>
[FairfieldLife] Re: Realizing Brahma
TurquoiseB wrote: > Indeed. And there we run into the potential > differences between the descriptions of what > enlightenment entails across different spirit- > ual traditions. For the purposes of these > discussions, when I use the term enlightenment, > I'm settling for the "lowest common denominator" > similar to Maharishi's definition of CC. That is, > the subjective awareness of the infinite (Being, > So, you DO believe in a Supreme Being! > the Absolute, eternity, whatever you want to call > it) 24/7, coexistent with waking, dreaming, and > deep sleep. I *don't* consider any of the other > stuff associated with MMY's definitions of GC > or UC. > > IF one assumes this state of a person, *then* the > definition of "wants" depends on what *else* one > assumes about having realized enlightenment. If > one follows the MMY model, then at that point one's > individual "wants" become "in tune" with the cosmic > "wants." The enlightened individual (*because* he/ > she is no longer an "individual") has *no choice* > but to "follow the laws of nature" and do what > nature "wants." > > I don't believe that. I've met and worked closely > with too many people I suspect of having realized > their enlightenment to believe it. I've also had > my own fleeting experiences with enlightenment, as > defined above. They didn't "abide" and become perm- > anent; it's more like they come and go. But in a > sense I feel that I've "been there done that" enough > to have a feeling for whether individuality and thus > individual "wants" still exist after that state is > realized. I think they are. > > I think that the enlightened individual still has > pretty much the *same* "wants" that he or she had > prior to realizing enlightenment. Before enlighten- > ment, chop wood and carry water; after enlightenment, > chop wood and carry water. (Or "Sport wood and carry > condoms," as a friend of mine rephrases this saying.) > > Based on my observation and my experience, and on > readings in Tibetan books that speak of the enlight- > ened *losing* their enlightenment as a result of > improper actions, I firmly believe that...uh...to > put it delicately...the enlightened still have the > ability to fuck up. > > IMO there IS still ego present, coexistent with the > subjective awareness of the infinite 24/7, enough so > that that ego can sometimes act AS ego, and perform > some action that is NOT appropriate. And when that > happens, the enlightened being suffers the same karma > that someone who has not realized their enlightenment > suffers. Perform the inappropriate actions enough > times, and the person who has realized his or her > enlightenment could actually LOSE it, have it "fade" > and "go away." > So, you DO believe in a personal soul-monad! > These are all MY feelings and opinions on the subject, > although there is support for them in other spiritual > teachings. I am not trying to "push" them or "sell" > them or declare them as any kind of "truth." It's > just that you pinpointed some definitions that have > to be agreed to before discussing a subject like this, > so I'm trying to define what those terms mean to me. > > > Perhaps an enlightened > > person would not *want* to do something harmful to > > someone else. In other words, their motives may be > > different. > > > My feeling is that "motives" don't really enter into > any discussion of karma. All that matters is the action, > not the intent behind the action. > So, you DO NOT follow the teachings of the Buddha! > One could say, and > find support for the idea in his writings, that Adolph > Hitler had benevolent *motives* for his actions. In his > way, he was trying to create an "ideal society" for the > supposed benefit of all who lived in it. But in terms > of karma, he is going to accrue the karma of the actions > themselves, not the intent behind them. Again, this is > Just My Opinion. > So, you Do believe in karma, but it is a mechanical process, and no moral determination is possible by humans. People can do good and be reborn; other people do bad and they get reborn - no difference, everyone suffers no matter what kind of actions they perform. Therefore there is no need to perform good actions - it's all the same mechanical process and the same outcome. So, there's no need to even attempt to be righteous and perform moral decisions. Anyone can go out and rape, murder and plunder - it's all the same. That's your opinion? > > Maybe enlightenment, in > > this sense, is a lot more rare than other definitions > > would have it. > > Or more common. I'm really not sure. All I know is that > if *I*, with my lifestyle and my samskaras, can have had > the clear experience of realizing enlightenment, even if > those experiences lasted only weeks at a time, then anyone > can. Therefore it could be far more common than we hear > about in traditional spiritual circles. > So, you DO believe in spirits. > Whether these > "more common" experience
[FairfieldLife] Re: Realizing Brahma
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ispiritkin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > > > What I couldn't agree with less is his sugges- > > tion that the enlightened can do "anything they > > want" and actually be enlightened. In my book > > the enlightened still produce karma, and thus > > still can create negative karma and suffer the > > results of it if they perform negative actions. > > > > Being able to do "anything they want" is lazy > > philosophy, > > Turq, regarding "enlightened" people doing whatever they > "want", it's important to define "enlightened" and "want". Indeed. And there we run into the potential differences between the descriptions of what enlightenment entails across different spirit- ual traditions. For the purposes of these discussions, when I use the term enlightenment, I'm settling for the "lowest common denominator" similar to Maharishi's definition of CC. That is, the subjective awareness of the infinite (Being, the Absolute, eternity, whatever you want to call it) 24/7, coexistent with waking, dreaming, and deep sleep. I *don't* consider any of the other stuff associated with MMY's definitions of GC or UC. IF one assumes this state of a person, *then* the definition of "wants" depends on what *else* one assumes about having realized enlightenment. If one follows the MMY model, then at that point one's individual "wants" become "in tune" with the cosmic "wants." The enlightened individual (*because* he/ she is no longer an "individual") has *no choice* but to "follow the laws of nature" and do what nature "wants." I don't believe that. I've met and worked closely with too many people I suspect of having realized their enlightenment to believe it. I've also had my own fleeting experiences with enlightenment, as defined above. They didn't "abide" and become perm- anent; it's more like they come and go. But in a sense I feel that I've "been there done that" enough to have a feeling for whether individuality and thus individual "wants" still exist after that state is realized. I think they are. I think that the enlightened individual still has pretty much the *same* "wants" that he or she had prior to realizing enlightenment. Before enlighten- ment, chop wood and carry water; after enlightenment, chop wood and carry water. (Or "Sport wood and carry condoms," as a friend of mine rephrases this saying.) Based on my observation and my experience, and on readings in Tibetan books that speak of the enlight- ened *losing* their enlightenment as a result of improper actions, I firmly believe that...uh...to put it delicately...the enlightened still have the ability to fuck up. IMO there IS still ego present, coexistent with the subjective awareness of the infinite 24/7, enough so that that ego can sometimes act AS ego, and perform some action that is NOT appropriate. And when that happens, the enlightened being suffers the same karma that someone who has not realized their enlightenment suffers. Perform the inappropriate actions enough times, and the person who has realized his or her enlightenment could actually LOSE it, have it "fade" and "go away." These are all MY feelings and opinions on the subject, although there is support for them in other spiritual teachings. I am not trying to "push" them or "sell" them or declare them as any kind of "truth." It's just that you pinpointed some definitions that have to be agreed to before discussing a subject like this, so I'm trying to define what those terms mean to me. > Perhaps an enlightened > person would not *want* to do something harmful to someone else. In > other words, their motives may be different. My feeling is that "motives" don't really enter into any discussion of karma. All that matters is the action, not the intent behind the action. One could say, and find support for the idea in his writings, that Adolph Hitler had benevolent *motives* for his actions. In his way, he was trying to create an "ideal society" for the supposed benefit of all who lived in it. But in terms of karma, he is going to accrue the karma of the actions themselves, not the intent behind them. Again, this is Just My Opinion. > Maybe enlightenment, in > this sense, is a lot more rare than other definitions would have it. Or more common. I'm really not sure. All I know is that if *I*, with my lifestyle and my samskaras, can have had the clear experience of realizing enlightenment, even if those experiences lasted only weeks at a time, then anyone can. Therefore it could be far more common than we hear about in traditional spiritual circles. Whether these "more common" experiences of realization *persist* and remain in place 24/7 for the rest of the experiencer's life is a larger question. > This theory would also mean that since some actions would not be > wanted by the aforementioned enlightened, then people taking those > actions would thereby not be defined as
[FairfieldLife] Re: Realizing Brahma
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > What I couldn't agree with less is his sugges- > tion that the enlightened can do "anything they > want" and actually be enlightened. In my book > the enlightened still produce karma, and thus > still can create negative karma and suffer the > results of it if they perform negative actions. > > Being able to do "anything they want" is lazy > philosophy, > Turq, regarding "enlightened" people doing whatever they "want", it's important to define "enlightened" and "want". Perhaps an enlightened person would not *want* to do something harmful to someone else. In other words, their motives may be different. Maybe enlightenment, in this sense, is a lot more rare than other definitions would have it. This theory would also mean that since some actions would not be wanted by the aforementioned enlightened, then people taking those actions would thereby not be defined as enlightened. In my fifth spin around the spiral, I'm getting a bit of a headache. :-]
[FairfieldLife] Re: Realizing Brahma
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ruthsimplicity"
> wrote:
> >
> > > > What we do has consequences and we should not limit our focus
> > to self realization or enlightenment, but to doing good.
>
> The criteria for "doing good" are
> first "Do no harm," or at the very least *try*
> to "do no harm," and second, try to do things
> that have the instantaneous karmic effect of
> elevating your own state of attention. IMO
> *that* is one of the only indicators we have
> that we are "doing good."
>
> What I couldn't agree with less is his sugges-
> tion that the enlightened can do "anything they
> want" and actually be enlightened. In my book
> the enlightened still produce karma, and thus
> still can create negative karma and suffer the
> results of it if they perform negative actions.
>
> Being able to do "anything they want" is lazy
> philosophy, and the top of a very slippery slide
> into Hell.
Ruth, "doing good", in my book, comes from a place of arrogance. It
implies that one knows what is "good" in the first place, and then
one executes the correct performance flawlessly. You are probably
using the words differently than I am, but whenever I see the
phrase "doing good" in this context, my neckhairs bristle and I check
to make sure my weapons are handy.
I strongly resonate with the quote by C.S. Lewis,
"It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent
moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his
cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for
our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the
approval of their own conscience."
So I pursue the route, like Turq pointed out, of first "doing no
harm".
Years ago I went through a turning point during which I committed
what I thought was a series of The Most Regrettable Actions of My
Life. These actions were taken, by the way, fully in the quest
of "doing good" for my then-boyfriend. It was after realizing my
folly that I decided to take the very humble and modest approach of
doing only no harm (in my judgment, which I was severely questioning
at the time), and very carefully take notice at several checkpoints
how things turned out, so that I could change direction as soon as I
noticed any problems developing. I'm giving all this background to
stress that the important thing is that I was paying very close
attention to motives, actions and results.
What I noticed was that when my motive was to benefit myself, things
kind of muddled along. When my motive was to benefit my children,
things went better for all of us. Sometimes a course of action
would, by coincidence, benefit EVERYONE it touched -- self, children,
friends, and even my opponents or enemies. THESE courses of action,
I learned, were the best of all. These actions benefitted me the
most and my children the most. And they didn't harm anyone, even
people I really disliked (not that I was too worried about them, but
as I'm counting the tallies, there's the data).
So I decided to more consciously seek these actions, the ones that
benefitted everyone, not because I was altruistic, but because
everything just worked out so much better ("left better lies", to put
it in billiards terms) when I found "the middle way", the way lying
above the other choices which seemed to benefit one at the expense of
another.
Putting this into a nutshell, I pursue actions which seem, to my
limited perception, to resonate with the Force and to align with the
Flow.
I'm not picking on you, Ruth. Go ahead and call it "doing good" if
that's what it means to you.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Realizing Brahma
Barry writes snipped: What I couldn't agree with less is his sugges- tion that the enlightened can do "anything they want" and actually be enlightened. In my book the enlightened still produce karma, and thus still can create negative karma and suffer the results of it if they perform negative actions. TomT: The statement that seems to spring to mind is that the Awake notice that Brahman is the charioteer. Nobody seems to get that there are times when Brahman comes out with the saddle, whip and spurs and you can guess who the steed is. Enough spurs and whip and YOU WILL do what is required. Tom
[FairfieldLife] Re: Realizing Brahma
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > TurquoiseB wrote: > > > Aleister Crowley at the beginning of living a life based on this > > philosophy: > > http://tinyurl.com/yqpa3q > > > > Aleister Crowley at the end of a life based on this philosophy: > > http://tinyurl.com/3xfgk5 > > Spending time in Colo. periodically in Hunter Thompson's neck of the > woods, and being stuck at the Vail Public Library this winter > waiting for the pass to open, I happened upon a giant size tribute > book to Hunter. I had always written him off as kind of a phony. > But going through the book with pictures and text and narrative, it > dawned on me that he was a pretty cool guy, and very genuine. > > Anyway, seeing these before and after pictures of Aleister made me > think of this. > > I know may here consider Aliester a real phony. Don't include me. > I thought his book "Diary of Drug Fiend" was a great read. On the > other hand I really haven't delved deeply into his life. I have extremely shallow knowledge of Crowley, pretty much limited to what I posted above. :-) I've hung in spiritual circles in which it is assumed that extreme physical degradation and a face that doesn't look like it's smiled in some time is an indicator of what one's inner being has been up to on the inner planes and what the karma is for that on the outer planes. One look at the photo that shows where Crowley's path took him and I took another path. I was never even remotely tempted to find out more about him. Color me shallow. I like movie stars who seem to age gracefully without surgery, too. And normal people, too...many of the photos in the FFL Members folder look to me like photos of people whose path has led them to a pretty happy place. Others, not so much. If you look, I'm the one on the far left in my photo. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Realizing Brahma
TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Aleister Crowley at the beginning of living a life based on this philosophy: http://tinyurl.com/yqpa3q > > Aleister Crowley at the end of a life based on this philosophy: http://tinyurl.com/3xfgk5 Spending time in Colo. periodically in Hunter Thompson's neck of the woods, and being stuck at the Vail Public Library this winter waiting for the pass to open, I happened upon a giant size tribute book to Hunter. I had always written him off as kind of a phony. But going through the book with pictures and text and narrative, it dawned on me that he was a pretty cool guy, and very genuine. Anyway, seeing these before and after pictures of Aleister made me think of this. I know may here consider Aliester a real phony. Don't include me. I thought his book "Diary of Drug Fiend" was a great read. On the other hand I really haven't delved deeply into his life.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Realizing Brahma
--- ruthsimplicity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sandiego108" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > > so in other words, rather than finding out who we > are and what our > > purpose in this life may be, we should remain not > knowing who we > > are, and even what this life is all about, and > shrouded within our > > illusion, "do good", whatever that may mean. are > you sure that this > > approach will guarantee tranquility and > satisfaction on your > > deathbed? > > > Those aren't my words. I am finding out who I am. > I am comfortable > in my skin. I am fulfilling my purpose in life and > feel rewarded in > my chosen careers. I volunteer with organizations I > believe in. I > lobby for causes that are important to me. This is > not illusion, this > is real life and real life has value. > > Part of real life is exploring the spiritual and I > am doing that as > well. part of exploring the spiritual is living a > life consistent with > my values. Not just sitting twice a day doing the > program. > > "Love and marriage, love and marriage > Go together like a horse and carriage > This I tell you brother > You cant have one without the other." Oh Ruth, you are so very lost! You should join Mother Divine and enjoy the bubbling bliss of Atma, the unified field of all the laws of nature. ;-) > > > > > To subscribe, send a message to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Or go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ > and click 'Join This Group!' > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
[FairfieldLife] Re: Realizing Brahma
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sandiego108" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > thanks for clarifying that, so the straw man here is "just sitting > twice a day doing the program". i agree that that doesn't work for > me either. gotta dip the cloth and hang it in the sun and all that. > Exactly.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Realizing Brahma
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > THAT is what believing that you can do whatever you > want gets you, karmically. You mean, that you get older?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Realizing Brahma
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ruthsimplicity" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Samuel Gravina > wrote: > > > > > I've noticed a thread that goes something like, "Why would an > > enlightened guy do X?" followed by some implication like, "he wasn't > > enlightened" or "enlightened guys work in mysterious ways." > > > What a great summary! > > > > After about 15 years of meditating and philosophical musing I came to > > the conclusion that there is no truth. That it's just something we > > make up and desire. It serves a very useful purpose but in our > > exaggerated generalization of everything we make it into something > real. > > > > The next 15 years didn't change my mind any. I consider this > > realization of the fakeness of life to be Brahma. "I am that, thou > > art that and all this is that". It's all fake. That's Brahma. > > > > So as to Maharishi's enlightenment. Just as soon as he realized how > > fake he was he was enlightened. It seems like a pretty easy thing to > > obtain. > > > > So what does and enlightened guy do? Anything he wants. > > > > Sam > > I am coming to the opposite conclusion. This is all effing real. What > we do has consequences and we should not limit our focus to self > realization or enlightenment, but to doing good. I must live like this > is the only life I have. When I am on my deathbed I want to look back > and say that I lived a good life. Me too. For me, God is in the picture.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Realizing Brahma
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ruthsimplicity" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sandiego108" > wrote: > > > > > > so in other words, rather than finding out who we are and what our > > purpose in this life may be, we should remain not knowing who we > > are, and even what this life is all about, and shrouded within our > > illusion, "do good", whatever that may mean. are you sure that this > > approach will guarantee tranquility and satisfaction on your > > deathbed? > > > Those aren't my words. I am finding out who I am. I am comfortable > in my skin. I am fulfilling my purpose in life and feel rewarded in > my chosen careers. I volunteer with organizations I believe in. I > lobby for causes that are important to me. This is not illusion, this > is real life and real life has value. > > Part of real life is exploring the spiritual and I am doing that as > well. part of exploring the spiritual is living a life consistent with > my values. Not just sitting twice a day doing the program. > > "Love and marriage, love and marriage > Go together like a horse and carriage > This I tell you brother > You cant have one without the other." > thanks for clarifying that, so the straw man here is "just sitting twice a day doing the program". i agree that that doesn't work for me either. gotta dip the cloth and hang it in the sun and all that.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Realizing Brahma
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sandiego108" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > so in other words, rather than finding out who we are and what our > purpose in this life may be, we should remain not knowing who we > are, and even what this life is all about, and shrouded within our > illusion, "do good", whatever that may mean. are you sure that this > approach will guarantee tranquility and satisfaction on your > deathbed? > Those aren't my words. I am finding out who I am. I am comfortable in my skin. I am fulfilling my purpose in life and feel rewarded in my chosen careers. I volunteer with organizations I believe in. I lobby for causes that are important to me. This is not illusion, this is real life and real life has value. Part of real life is exploring the spiritual and I am doing that as well. part of exploring the spiritual is living a life consistent with my values. Not just sitting twice a day doing the program. "Love and marriage, love and marriage Go together like a horse and carriage This I tell you brother You cant have one without the other."
[FairfieldLife] Re: Realizing Brahma
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ruthsimplicity" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Samuel Gravina > wrote: > > > > > After about 15 years of meditating and philosophical musing > > I came to the conclusion that there is no truth. That it's > > just something we make up and desire. It serves a very useful > > purpose but in our exaggerated generalization of everything > > we make it into something real. > > > > The next 15 years didn't change my mind any. I consider this > > realization of the fakeness of life to be Brahma. "I am that, > > thou art that and all this is that". It's all fake. That's > > Brahma. > > > > So as to Maharishi's enlightenment. Just as soon as he realized > > how fake he was he was enlightened. It seems like a pretty easy > > thing to obtain. > > > > So what does and enlightened guy do? Anything he wants. > > I am coming to the opposite conclusion. This is all effing real. Exactly. The notion that the relative world isn't real is a misinterpretation IMO. Of course it's real; it's just not ALL that's real. > What we do has consequences and we should not limit our focus > to self realization or enlightenment, but to doing good. Exactly again. Although I may agree with Samuel theoretically that there is no truth, and I may even agree theoretically that there is no such thing as an absolute "good," still there is "doing good." The criteria for "doing good" are first "Do no harm," or at the very least *try* to "do no harm," and second, try to do things that have the instantaneous karmic effect of elevating your own state of attention. IMO *that* is one of the only indicators we have that we are "doing good." What I couldn't agree with less is his sugges- tion that the enlightened can do "anything they want" and actually be enlightened. In my book the enlightened still produce karma, and thus still can create negative karma and suffer the results of it if they perform negative actions. Being able to do "anything they want" is lazy philosophy, and the top of a very slippery slide into Hell. Tibetan lore is full of stories of enlightened folks who believed that they could do anything they wanted, and wound up losing their enlightenment as a result. One of my favorite "visual aids" for explaining the karma of "anything I want" is to present the "Before and After" photos of someone in the world of who believed thoroughly that he could do "anything he wanted." His exact quote on the subject was "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law." Aleister Crowley at the beginning of living a life based on this philosophy: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6f/Aleister_Crowley_2.png or http://tinyurl.com/yqpa3q Aleister Crowley at the end of a life based on this philosophy: http://cache.viewimages.com/xc/3376794.jpg?v=1&c=ViewImages&k=2&d=89B856506CE54654589639FDCAE79635A55A1E4F32AD3138 or http://tinyurl.com/3xfgk5 THAT is what believing that you can do whatever you want gets you, karmically. > I must live like this is the only life I have. When I am > on my deathbed I want to look back and say that I lived > a good life. When I'm on mine, I want to still be looking forward. :-) But at the same time, I want to be able to look forward without having to look back in regret. Living as if the effects of my actions on others are more important than the benefits of those actions for myself is one way of trying to make sure that I *don't* look back in regret.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Realizing Brahma
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ruthsimplicity" > wrote: > > > > When I am on my deathbed I want to look back > > and say that I lived a good life. > > > > > > Well, if you die in bed sick and all, it probably means it wasn't over > the top a good life. Better to take a bullet skiing, reveling in new > knowledge, laughing with friends. Or fighting with someone on FLL -- > "defending the knowledge". Of course, being send out into the ocean on > a piece of ice -- with no food has some appeal. Actually I want to go > when I am floating. Or perhaps on a weekend getaway with Maria > Sharapova. The latter probably more a test of true enlightenment, and > support nature. At least a sign of a great life. Hey, I want to die when I am 100 years old in midst of an orgasm from doing it with Johny Depp's grandson! But old and in bed works. And yes, revealing in new knowledge, laughing with friends, is part of the good life. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Realizing Brahma
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ruthsimplicity" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Samuel Gravina > wrote: > > > > > I've noticed a thread that goes something like, "Why would an > > enlightened guy do X?" followed by some implication like, "he wasn't > > enlightened" or "enlightened guys work in mysterious ways." > > > What a great summary! > > > > After about 15 years of meditating and philosophical musing I came to > > the conclusion that there is no truth. That it's just something we > > make up and desire. It serves a very useful purpose but in our > > exaggerated generalization of everything we make it into something > real. > > > > The next 15 years didn't change my mind any. I consider this > > realization of the fakeness of life to be Brahma. "I am that, thou > > art that and all this is that". It's all fake. That's Brahma. > > > > So as to Maharishi's enlightenment. Just as soon as he realized how > > fake he was he was enlightened. It seems like a pretty easy thing to > > obtain. > > > > So what does and enlightened guy do? Anything he wants. > > > > Sam > > I am coming to the opposite conclusion. This is all effing real. What > we do has consequences and we should not limit our focus to self > realization or enlightenment, but to doing good. I must live like this > is the only life I have. When I am on my deathbed I want to look back > and say that I lived a good life. > > "...we should not limit our focus to self realization or enlightenment, but to doing good." so in other words, rather than finding out who we are and what our purpose in this life may be, we should remain not knowing who we are, and even what this life is all about, and shrouded within our illusion, "do good", whatever that may mean. are you sure that this approach will guarantee tranquility and satisfaction on your deathbed?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Realizing Brahma
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ruthsimplicity" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > When I am on my deathbed I want to look back > and say that I lived a good life. > > Well, if you die in bed sick and all, it probably means it wasn't over the top a good life. Better to take a bullet skiing, reveling in new knowledge, laughing with friends. Or fighting with someone on FLL -- "defending the knowledge". Of course, being send out into the ocean on a piece of ice -- with no food has some appeal. Actually I want to go when I am floating. Or perhaps on a weekend getaway with Maria Sharapova. The latter probably more a test of true enlightenment, and support nature. At least a sign of a great life.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Realizing Brahma
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Samuel Gravina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I started reading your fine discussion list after Maharishi died. > I've never been one for gossip and now that I'm learning all these new > details I realize that I'm still not into it. Not because it isn't > interesting but because it takes so much time to sort through. > > I've noticed a thread that goes something like, "Why would an > enlightened guy do X?" followed by some implication like, "he wasn't > enlightened" or "enlightened guys work in mysterious ways." > > After about 15 years of meditating and philosophical musing I came to > the conclusion that there is no truth. That it's just something we > make up and desire. It serves a very useful purpose but in our > exaggerated generalization of everything we make it into something real. > > The next 15 years didn't change my mind any. I consider this > realization of the fakeness of life to be Brahma. "I am that, thou > art that and all this is that". It's all fake. That's Brahma. > > So as to Maharishi's enlightenment. Just as soon as he realized how > fake he was he was enlightened. It seems like a pretty easy thing to > obtain. > > So what does and enlightened guy do? Anything he wants. > > Sam - That's very nice Samuel. Now, do your parents know your on the computer? -
[FairfieldLife] Re: Realizing Brahma
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Samuel Gravina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I've noticed a thread that goes something like, "Why would an > enlightened guy do X?" followed by some implication like, "he wasn't > enlightened" or "enlightened guys work in mysterious ways." What a great summary! > > After about 15 years of meditating and philosophical musing I came to > the conclusion that there is no truth. That it's just something we > make up and desire. It serves a very useful purpose but in our > exaggerated generalization of everything we make it into something real. > > The next 15 years didn't change my mind any. I consider this > realization of the fakeness of life to be Brahma. "I am that, thou > art that and all this is that". It's all fake. That's Brahma. > > So as to Maharishi's enlightenment. Just as soon as he realized how > fake he was he was enlightened. It seems like a pretty easy thing to > obtain. > > So what does and enlightened guy do? Anything he wants. > > Sam I am coming to the opposite conclusion. This is all effing real. What we do has consequences and we should not limit our focus to self realization or enlightenment, but to doing good. I must live like this is the only life I have. When I am on my deathbed I want to look back and say that I lived a good life. >
