Re: Reactionaries and fear

[Guest guest]

>Nothing wrong with having, except it makes us singlemindedly focused on preserving >something we fear losing, sometimes to the exclusion of other values.

Seems to me that being a "reactionary" and fearful of loss expresses an ego condition whereas lack of fear and acceptance of what is expresses a condition perhaps arising from the Self.

My sister has fairly recently become a certified financial counselor and when we visited a couple of weekends ago she had a hard time understanding my statement that, "I don't want to be rich." She emphatically stated, "Well, *I* do!" And she's working hard at getting that way. To her credit though, IMO, she doesn't want to be rich just to have money but to be able to do and have those things money can provide. But those things are still possessions.

As I get older I understand much better how we don't possess things so much as they possess us. Like the song says, "Freedom is just another word for nothin' left to lose."

I'm not sure I'd care to be *that* free at this point in my life but getting and having are a lot less important to me now than they used to be.

Blissings,

Sam

If everyone is thinking alike, then someone isn't thinking. -- Denis WaitleyIt is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. -- AristotleThe goal of an argument should be progress, not victory. -- Author unknownAccept complete responsibility both for understanding and for being understood. -- He's a blockhead who wants a proof of what he can't perceive; And he's a fool who tries to make such a blockhead believe. -- Blake

[Guest guest]

Has anyone ever heard of spiritual materialism?

Betty

.. "Cutting through Spiritual Materialism" is an important book by Chogyam Trungpa Rimpoche, one of Pema Chodron's teachers and a man I studied with many moons ago in New York.

Regards,

Suzanne

[Guest guest]

Sam,

Loved your reply...... including the quotes at the end. Right on!

And, as a financial advisor myself (my day job) I do know the importance of

accumulating enough nuts for the winter. I'm having a bit of a winter this

year....two kids getting married and one going off to college. So I certainly

don't advocate financial irresponsibility. Not by a long shot. Life is a

balance isn't it....

And I do wonder if it IS possible to be " in the world, yet not of it, " in the

deepest sense of that expression. Trying.

Thanks,

Greg

_______________________________________________

Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com

The most personalized portal on the Web!

[Guest guest]

Greg,

About 10 years ago I met a fellow here in Seattle (go seahawks) who became my mentor for a short time. His mentor in turn was a man named Ramesh Balsekar who lives in Bombay. One of Ramesh's mentors was Nisargadatta. I visited Bombay a few times during the second half of the 90s and early 2000's and got to meet Ramesh and spend some time with him. It is very special, like spending time with Alice. In fact, he and Alice are very alike with that twinkle in their eyes.

Ramesh is a fascinating man. He was schooled at the London School of Economics and worked his way up to be president of the Bank of India, not drawn to the spiritual until after mandatory retirement at age 60. It was then he was introduced to Nisargadatta. Ramesh did the translating into English of some of his works. One day he had that realization of profound peace. He started writing and is the author of several books including Consciousness Speaks.

Ramesh traveled the world talking and lecturing about these concepts. People come from all over the world to visit him, particularly from Europe and the US. He is now 86 and no longer travels, but still has satsang in his apartment overlooking the Arabian Sea just about every day. The last time I was there I sat down in the crowded study next to a fellow and didn't realize until we were introduced that it was Leonard Cohen.

Ramesh also holds in the highest regard and recommends the work of Sri Ramana Maharshi, one of the more well known saints of the last 100 years or so. There is a Ramana Maharshi Ave in Bangalore (which only demonstrates how well known he is; I was impressed by this until I went to Charlotte, NC and saw Graham Blvd.).

Another of Ramesh's proteges is Wayne Liquorman who started a foundation, http://advaita.org, and he has Ramesh's books for sale. Wayne also does satsang a couple times a week and streams the audio over the internet. May I recommend one of Wayne's books, "No Way" which he wrote under the pseudonym Ram Tzu. You might find it amusing. The chapters are small vignettes structured like the Tao. My favorite is this one:

<<

Ram Tzu hears it all the time...

You had a profound, revealing,

Deeply moving spiritual experience.

Now you're hooked.

Now you want more.

Now you're a seeker.

No junkie has ever

Been more dedicated

Or more continually disappointed

Or more miserable.

Once you might

Have been satisfied

With a new car

Or a loving mate.

Now you will settle

For nothing less

Than union with God.

Ram Tzu knows this...

You're fucked.

>>

Best,

Culver

From: JUNG-FIRE [mailto:JUNG-FIRE ] On Behalf Of Greg RiekeSent: Monday, January 23, 2006 13:34Toni wrote: >I have a theory about reactionaries. They are scared as hell.. >about everything, but particularly what they have they might lose Dear Toni, You raise in interesting point. Rush Limbaugh likes to say that conservatives are people who have something to conserve. ie, they tend to be, what I call, the "haves." Nothing wrong with having, except it makes us singlemindedly focused on preserving something we fear losing, sometimes to the exclusion of other values. I have been drawn, at the suggest of Tim Freke, to the writings of Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj, a simple Bombay shopkeeper, author of I AM THAT, a wonderful book. Nisargadatta, in his later years, was sought out by people from all over the world who traveled far distances to visit him in his tiny little house, to hear him speak about the I AM, a state of being to which we are all capable of aspiring...in this lifetime. But first we must have confidence that it (this "kingdom within") is something real and attainable. He advises that we must first let go of our desires (which are of the past, associated with our memory and thoughts) and then of our fears (which are of the future - associated with the potential loss or imagined loss of something we already own or remember desiring). And once I began to focus on these two ideas, I began to realize how very difficult it is for me (or anyone) to let go of these most basic of human motivations. Yet we are taught, by those who claim to know, that only in so doing can we attain a higher level of being. Can't say I'm there yet, but at least I'm aware of basics of what may be involved in the attainment.....and there are many basics. That is what his book is all about. Did you travel to Bombay Toni?

[Guest guest]

>as a financial advisor myself (my day job) I do know the importance of accumulating enough >nuts for the winter.

Hi Greg,

Well, as my other sister used to say in her sig line: Enough is a feast. Works for me. *G* The less I have the less I have to worry about. Of course I'd not choose to be a bag lady but that aside, sitting out here in the country with a 16-year-old van that I drive when necessary and a comfortable house with enough food and a comfy bed, well, what more could one ask?

Blissings,

Sam

Don't believe everything you think. ~ Bumper StickerMany of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our point of view. ~ Obi-Wan Kenobi Choose your illusion carefully. ~ UnknownWho looks outside, dreams; who looks inside, awakes. ~ C.G. Jung

[Guest guest]

>My favorite is this one:

>

><<

>Ram Tzu hears it all the time...

Wonderful!! Thanks!

Blissings,

Sam

Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing, there is a field. I'll meet you there.~ Rumi

[Guest guest]

>Has anyone ever heard of spiritual materialism?

Yup. It's something I worry myself every now and then. I can easily get didactic and full of myself so I try to be very aware of where my input is coming from before it turns into output. I'm not always successful.

I'd think Pat on might be one example of spiritual materialism and I think he glommed onto it very early in his path. It must be very comforting to know the mind of God and to have all the answers.

Blissings,

Sam

When you judge another, you do not define them, you define yourself.~ Wayne DyerIdeologies separate us. Dreams and anguish bring us together. ~ Eugene IonescuNo single raindrop believes it is to blame for the flood. ~ Despair, Inc.

[Guest guest]

Has anyone ever heard of spiritual materialism?

Betty

RE: Reactionaries and fear

Greg,

About 10 years ago I met a fellow here in Seattle (go seahawks) who became my mentor for a short time. His mentor in turn was a man named Ramesh Balsekar who lives in Bombay. One of Ramesh's mentors was Nisargadatta. I visited Bombay a few times during the second half of the 90s and early 2000's and got to meet Ramesh and spend some time with him. It is very special, like spending time with Alice. In fact, he and Alice are very alike with that twinkle in their eyes.

Ramesh is a fascinating man. He was schooled at the London School of Economics and worked his way up to be president of the Bank of India, not drawn to the spiritual until after mandatory retirement at age 60. It was then he was introduced to Nisargadatta. Ramesh did the translating into English of some of his works. One day he had that realization of profound peace. He started writing and is the author of several books including Consciousness Speaks.

Ramesh traveled the world talking and lecturing about these concepts. People come from all over the world to visit him, particularly from Europe and the US. He is now 86 and no longer travels, but still has satsang in his apartment overlooking the Arabian Sea just about every day. The last time I was there I sat down in the crowded study next to a fellow and didn't realize until we were introduced that it was Leonard Cohen.

Ramesh also holds in the highest regard and recommends the work of Sri Ramana Maharshi, one of the more well known saints of the last 100 years or so. There is a Ramana Maharshi Ave in Bangalore (which only demonstrates how well known he is; I was impressed by this until I went to Charlotte, NC and saw Graham Blvd.).

Another of Ramesh's proteges is Wayne Liquorman who started a foundation, http://advaita.org, and he has Ramesh's books for sale. Wayne also does satsang a couple times a week and streams the audio over the internet. May I recommend one of Wayne's books, "No Way" which he wrote under the pseudonym Ram Tzu. You might find it amusing. The chapters are small vignettes structured like the Tao. My favorite is this one:

<<

Ram Tzu hears it all the time...

You had a profound, revealing,

Deeply moving spiritual experience.

Now you're hooked.

Now you want more.

Now you're a seeker.

No junkie has ever

Been more dedicated

Or more continually disappointed

Or more miserable.

Once you might

Have been satisfied

With a new car

Or a loving mate.

Now you will settle

For nothing less

Than union with God.

Ram Tzu knows this...

You're fucked.

>>

Best,

Culver

From: JUNG-FIRE [mailto:JUNG-FIRE ] On Behalf Of Greg RiekeSent: Monday, January 23, 2006 13:34Toni wrote: >I have a theory about reactionaries. They are scared as hell.. >about everything, but particularly what they have they might lose Dear Toni, You raise in interesting point. Rush Limbaugh likes to say that conservatives are people who have something to conserve. ie, they tend to be, what I call, the "haves." Nothing wrong with having, except it makes us singlemindedly focused on preserving something we fear losing, sometimes to the exclusion of other values. I have been drawn, at the suggest of Tim Freke, to the writings of Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj, a simple Bombay shopkeeper, author of I AM THAT, a wonderful book. Nisargadatta, in his later years, was sought out by people from all over the world who traveled far distances to visit him in his tiny little house, to hear him speak about the I AM, a state of being to which we are all capable of aspiring...in this lifetime. But first we must have confidence that it (this "kingdom within") is something real and attainable. He advises that we must first let go of our desires (which are of the past, associated with our memory and thoughts) and then of our fears (which are of the future - associated with the potential loss or imagined loss of something we already own or remember desiring). And once I began to focus on these two ideas, I began to realize how very difficult it is for me (or anyone) to let go of these most basic of human motivations. Yet we are taught, by those who claim to know, that only in so doing can we attain a higher level of being. Can't say I'm there yet, but at least I'm aware of basics of what may be involved in the attainment.....and there are many basics. That is what his book is all about. Did you travel to Bombay Toni?

[Guest guest]

Exquisite!

Kione

-----Original Message-----From: JUNG-FIRE [mailto:JUNG-FIRE ] On Behalf Of Culver

<<

Ram Tzu hears it all the time...

You had a profound, revealing,

Deeply moving spiritual experience.

Now you're hooked.

Now you want more.

Now you're a seeker.

[Guest guest]

>How about Spiritual fascism?>Well only I know about this one.................

Could you, would you please clarify?

Thanks.

Blissings,

Sam

Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing, there is a field. I'll meet you there.~ Rumi

[Guest guest]

How about Spiritual fascism?

Well only I know about this one.................

> In a message dated 1/23/2006 5:58:28 P.M. Central Standard Time,

> bljh@... writes:

>

> >Has anyone ever heard of spiritual materialism?

>

>

> Yup. It's something I worry myself every now and then. I can easily

> get didactic and full of myself so I try to be very aware of where my

> input is coming from before it turns into output. I'm not always

> successful.

>

> I'd think Pat on might be one example of spiritual materialism

> and I think he glommed onto it very early in his path. It must be

> very comforting to know the mind of God and to have all the answers.

>

> Blissings,

> Sam

>

> When you judge another, you do not define them, you define yourself.

> ~ Wayne Dyer Ideologies separate us. Dreams and anguish bring us

> together. ~ Eugene Ionescu No single raindrop believes it is to blame

> for the flood. ~ Despair, Inc.

>

[Guest guest]

Suzanne,

I am familiar with and read the book back in the late 70s. I have a print out of a seminar he did in New York with the presentation and the questions and answers from the participants. I reread the first two presentations last night and it was so refreshing, especially his answers to the questions. Now I understand 'pulling the carpet out from under the feet" better than I did then.

Betty

Re: Reactionaries and fear

Has anyone ever heard of spiritual materialism?

Betty

.. "Cutting through Spiritual Materialism" is an important book by Chogyam Trungpa Rimpoche, one of Pema Chodron's teachers and a man I studied with many moons ago in New York.

Regards,

Suzanne

[Guest guest]

>found among 'those who suppress doubt- ie the certain->But it can be more subtle than that too- a kind of 'initiation' into a cult or anyone who >owns the notion that 'they/we' know and others do not or that there is a knowing.

OK, I think I'm getting it a bit. So, "spiritual materialism" and "spiritual facism" are very close neighbors. Both seem to engender or include some form of arrogance, yes?

Blissings,

Sam

Don't believe everything you think. ~ Bumper StickerMany of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our point of view. ~ Obi-Wan Kenobi Choose your illusion carefully. ~ UnknownWho looks outside, dreams; who looks inside, awakes. ~ C.G. Jung

[Guest guest]

>Every spiritual book I pick up says the same thing. Don't try to >tell anyone about your spiritual experiences. They won't believe >you and they will resent you.

Ah, shoot, Toni! There goes my best-seller! LOL Well, as a thesis in Transpersonal Studies it was OK. Now if I can "popularize" it enough maybe I can hold off the crucifiers for at least a little while.

>So please, think about such words as " spiritual materialism" or >"spiritual fascism" both of which are very judgmental terms.

You're right. It's a lot easier to put a label on something than just to accept that someone's had a totally different experience that might not be expressible.

>why should one be "right" and the other "wrong".

I'm making these kinds of judgments much less these days but it's still something I struggle with.

Blissings,

Sam

When you judge another, you do not define them, you define yourself.~ Wayne DyerIdeologies separate us. Dreams and anguish bring us together. ~ Eugene IonescuNo single raindrop believes it is to blame for the flood. ~ Despair, Inc.

[Guest guest]

Dear Greg,

It seems to me that real wisdom is universal and the Indian Sri Nisargadatta

Maharaj says exactly what of Avila and of the Cross

say...actually what all Christian, Judaic mysticism is about.

I am not sure how the Indian, Hindu? Muslim " Buddhist? gets there, but in

Western belief it is not something a person does. I see it as an impossible

human task:

" He advises that we must first let go of our desires (which are of the past,

associated with our memory and thoughts) and then of our fears (which are of

the future - associated with the potential loss or imagined loss of

something we already own or remember desiring). "

We can learn to loosen attachments, and un-attach ( not detach). I believe

it becomes a natural part of growing old for many spiritually attuned

people. But attachments would be invisible without the fear that generates

them. He hold of for dear life because we are afraid of losing, of suffering

the loss of all we hold dear.

So, I think fear has to go first. And there is only one way I see that that

can be done by a human being. That is to replace it with trust. We know we

are not capable;e at handling whatever comes. We know we cannot even control

our small lives or create real order in them. One either spends one's life

in constant anxiety which only increases fear, or we learn to trust.

Trust means having someone or something to trust. Einstein's benign

universe, n of Norwich's " All will be well " , and every soul that

yearns for union with the Divine.

Have to establish a relationship, and not an intellectual one with " first

cause' or whatever, but a real feeling one before one can take baby steps to

trust.

It is, to my mind when one KNOWS that the love of G-d surrounds one because

one experiences it, that one can begin to trust. In my case, it also helps

to look at my 74 years and see that the Divine was always there, and I was

always ultimately safe.

you say:

" Can't say I'm there yet, but at least I'm aware of basics of what may be

involved in the attainment.....and there are many basics. "

Protestant theology claims " it " was all done already by Christ, but it then

insists that one work like crazy because Christ may have fallen down on the

job. The Puritan just could not let go and let G-d, Calvin the same, so he

mistook predestination for fate, a matter of cause and event.

WE do not and cannot accomplish " trust " any more than we can become loving

as G-d is loving, nor have real faith by our own self. That's why they are

called spiritual virtues. Anyway, it takes a lot of batting down inflation

for us to finally reason that we cannot possibly do it alone. All we can do

is prepare the " playing field " by openness to the Spirit.

In my faith (given as grace, as is everything in me) G-d will do it all. The

idea is that what is expected of us when we feel G-d love, is not to return

it, but to accept it. We just find that so hard to do. " How can an

all-knowing G-d ever love me, I am so unworthy. " " Not me G-d, I do awful

things and you cannot possibly love me with overwhelming love "

We talk about unconditional love, we try to do it with our kids, but we must

finally admit we cannot do that( if we are honest). Only the Divine can have

Divine love, and it is unconditional. That's the whole point. Why would a

G-d want to create something that wouldn't love Him or even accept His love.

What would be the point of creation, the cosmos, human beings with free

will?

We feel so guilty because we have been taught to be. However much American

culture tells you you can lift yourself up by your own bootstraps...don't

believe it in the spiritual life. Just p[repare yourself to accept a free

gift which means dropping one's pride in one's G-d Almightiness.

I cannot make anyone believe what I say, and it wouldn't do any good anyway.

One can only turn with willingness and try it. Jung was so right...when he

discussed the idea of being born again. It is just the way human nature

actually works if we give it its way. We are marching in lock step away from

the only answer, and metanoia, over and over is all that will turn us around

to face the love of G-d,not as a passing thought but an actual experience.

And don't fall for it, the poor are just as proud as the rich, and as

attached to whatever they have, perhaps more.. They have to play humble to

allow the rich to give them what they need. It is not " things " , " money " that

keep us from our true destiny, but our attachment to them before all else.

By the way, we have misunderstood the parable of the 'rich young man "

completely.

There is one desire we dare not let go, and that is our yearning and desire

for G-d. The rest we can't let go until we have something to replace them

with.

with love,

Toni.

No I never made it to India, but I have read some in their wisdom.

Reactionaries and fear

>

> Toni wrote:

>>I have a theory about reactionaries. They are scared as hell..

>>about everything, but particularly what they have they might lose

>

> Dear Toni,

>

> You raise in interesting point. Rush Limbaugh likes to say that

> conservatives are people who have something to conserve. ie, they tend to

> be, what I call, the " haves. " Nothing wrong with having, except it makes

> us singlemindedly focused on preserving something we fear losing,

> sometimes to the exclusion of other values.

>

> I have been drawn, at the suggest of Tim Freke, to the writings of Sri

> Nisargadatta Maharaj, a simple Bombay shopkeeper, author of I AM THAT, a

> wonderful book. Nisargadatta, in his later years, was sought out by

> people from all over the world who traveled far distances to visit him in

> his tiny little house, to hear him speak about the I AM, a state of being

> to which we are all capable of aspiring...in this lifetime. But first we

> must have confidence that it (this " kingdom within " ) is something real and

> attainable. He advises that we must first let go of our desires (which

> are of the past, associated with our memory and thoughts) and then of our

> fears (which are of the future - associated with the potential loss or

> imagined loss of something we already own or remember desiring). And once

> I began to focus on these two ideas, I began to realize how very difficult

> it is for me (or anyone) to let go of these most basic of human

> motivations. Yet we are taught, by those who

> claim to know, that only in so doing can we attain a higher level of

> being. Can't say I'm there yet, but at least I'm aware of basics of what

> may be involved in the attainment.....and there are many basics. That is

> what his book is all about. Did you travel to Bombay Toni?

>

> If the above is true, then letting go of fear is the most difficult for

> the haves (ala Jesus's parable about the rich man), call them

> conservatives if you wish, for whom such a loss is unbearably difficult.

> The have nots, by comparison, are not burdened by the same degree of loss,

> thus it is in perhaps easier for them to experience I AM, or even attempt

> its attainment. It would also put the " reactionaries " in the most

> fear-inducing position of all, feeling the greatest loss, as you assert.

> Food for thought.

>

> Greg

[Guest guest]

Not easy to relate as it is a 'quality' I come across oft enough-

can be found among 'those who suppress doubt- ie the certain-

But it can be more subtle than that too- a kind of 'initiation' into a cult or

anyone who

owns the notion that 'they/we' know and others do not or that there is a

knowing.

The internal 'superman' distinquised by consciousness or awarenss. Sure! Only

ideas....

>

> In a message dated 1/24/2006 4:25:47 A.M. Central Standard Time,

> jdstephenflynn@... writes:

>

> >How about Spiritual fascism?

> >Well only I know about this one.................

>

>

>

> Could you, would you please clarify?

>

> Thanks.

>

> Blissings,

> Sam

>

> Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing, there is a field. I'll

> meet you there. ~ Rumi

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

yes.....

>

> In a message dated 1/24/2006 1:05:29 P.M. Central Standard Time,

> jdstephenflynn@... writes:

>

> >found among 'those who suppress doubt- ie the certain-

> >But it can be more subtle than that too- a kind of 'initiation' into

> >a cult

> or anyone who

> >owns the notion that 'they/we' know and others do not or that there

> >is a

> knowing.

>

>

>

> OK, I think I'm getting it a bit. So, " spiritual materialism " and

> " spiritual facism " are very close neighbors. Both seem to engender or

> include some form of arrogance, yes?

>

> Blissings,

> Sam

>

> Don't believe everything you think. ~ Bumper Sticker

> Many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our point of view. ~

> Obi-Wan Kenobi Choose your illusion carefully. ~ Unknown Who looks

> outside, dreams; who looks inside, awakes. ~ C.G. Jung

>

>

[Guest guest]

wrote:

>But it can be more subtle than that too- a kind of 'initiation' into >a cult or

anyone who owns the notion that 'they/we' know and others >do not or that there

is a knowing.

Setting aside the idea of a cult, , surely you are not suggesting that

one might be capable of knowing what another does not, or cannot, know. This

happens in my house occasionally, when my teenagers assert that I cannot " know "

something that I clearly do, but they cannot imagine it, simply because they do

not. Why is the notion of one person knowing what another does not conjure up

notions of dishonesty or trickery or even worse. It is clearly possible...in

many contexts. And such knowing is not necessarily occasioned by whimsey,

hubris, self-delusion or outright dishonesty.

That is what makes reading someone like Nisargadatta so interesting, to me at

least. He claims TO KNOW; even in the face of severe opposition and suspicion

and contradiction. But his dialogs are very compelling and contain a consistency

over time that I find very compelling. But what I decide is my business

(between me and me). What he knows, he knows, whether I accept it or not. That

seems quite possible to me. I mention Nisargadatta in this context because I

believe it was my mention of him that led to this whole stream of discussion.

But you can read what he says and decide for yourself. I offered it for the

inquisitive to take up with an open mind. Your logic would seem to argue that

it is impossible for one to know what you may not, therefore why bother. I

suggest that he may know....and that there may be a knowing. See for yourself.

I find him persuasive, as I do Jung on so many subjects, especially those

dealing with the reality of the psyche. But

Nisargadatta's claim is of a higher level....that between soul and spirit, where

Jung spent less time, because it is less empirical. And he did claim to be an

empiricist.

I still haven't decided about capital punishment. I probably lean toward

favoring it in the most egregious cases; at least I can't discard it entirely on

principle. And I'm still not convinced that Jung was in favor of it, certainly

not on the basis of some snippet from a book of quotes or an out-of-context

quote in the midst of a lecture on another subject, as has been presented by

Dan. Difficult thing. I know a governor who had to make the fateful decision

not to provide clemency for a death-row inmate. And I have never envied him his

decision....and how deeply he struggled with it. Unlike W. Woops, there I go

again.

Greg

Greg

_______________________________________________

Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com

The most personalized portal on the Web!

[Guest guest]

Dear Sam,

I have no intention in solving what you said in your post because no one would agree with anyone.

I will however be indiscrete and brave and tell you another side to this problem.

Everyone gets mad, angry, annoyed,frustrated when someone comes along and without saying much makes one aware that he "knows" something that makes him assured enough to say his piece.

Those who are annoyed and all those other things will call one who thinks he knows a lot of names and say " they suppress their doubts" belong in a cult" or whatever derogatory way they frame it.

Look at it from another way. How do you know that they had your doubts or any other doubts.? Is it not possible that grace gave them a certainty which Jung many others have observed and spoken about with people who have had some kind of experience that scrubbed their doubts away by what they experienced?

Sure everyone is known to doubt, especially as Jung says they "believe". Doubt is the opposite of believe as Jung says. But some people including me, do not believe anymore. They like Jung know from their own experience. Not they might not have doubts about some aspect of the spiritual life, and certainly the religious life, but they know something about their relationship to what they consider G-d or the Divine because they have experienced it themselves and took no one else's word for it.

It bothers those who doubt and feel noble in entertaining doubts that there are some people who contradict them in general." I know you doubt, but I do not doubt" I may even say what. But if I were to come out and say that, i would surely be crucified in some way here within minutes. And arrogant, my goodness yes. How could I ever even think I could "know" something someone else might believe but doubt. How arrogant can one get!!!

It has been so through the ages. That's why burnings, crucifixions, inquisitions and mass killings have taken place. We simply cannot bear anything so arrogant as someone who honestly knows enough about something so he has no doubts about G-d or the Divine. How dare he?

Every spiritual book I pick up says the same thing. Don't try to tell anyone about your spiritual experiences. They won't believe you and they will resent you.

Experiences aren't communicable. Neither is faith. Furthermore we all mean something different my the word G-d or faith. And we never like to think someone has something we want and do not have. We sneer we insult, we look down at them, and we doubt them unto our persecution if it goes deep enough.

Spiritual envy will deny something is so, if "I" don't have it. It is as old as man and as dangerous. "The other is lying, stupid,crazy or whatever. It cannot be so, or i would know it and have it. look how long I have wondered about it"

Wouldn't it be wiser, not to assume that the other is always wrong and very arrogant?" How dare ye.? Wouldn't it be wise to say, perhaps you are right, but so far I have not seen it, whatever you have? Why must we discount another's experience? ( some people have even been heard to say to such a one, please show me how, I want it too)

Let us have a broadminded approach . We doubt what another feels so strongly he is willing to be made a fool of? But what is our doubt based on? Our own experience. Well, so is his certainty. What is good for one person is good for another.

Why should someone who can say what Jung said, " I know I don't have to believe" not be respected for his point of view? Must he be lying? or is it OK for Jung, but someone like me better never dare say the same?

I will burn at the stake, But I also know something about a relationship with the Divine, I know it is real. Does that make me 'better" than someone who doesn't believe? What is better? its a value we humans put on something when we don't think it is "bad" Neither better nor worse fits here. I just am someone who responded to what went on inside him. That says nothing about anyone else does it?

There are people like me, who in their joy try to convert everyone they know until having gotten bushed back umpteen times, they realize for safety sake to keep their mouth closed. Jung says, after such an experience, inflation usually sets in. It does and makes the person who is certain that much more obnoxious. But that too is temporary, I hope.

At least they are not trying to sell you Amway or insurance!

So please, think about such words as " spiritual materialism" or "spiritual fascism" both of which are very judgmental terms. Does one really know someone else's deepest thoughts? is that person guilty of some phrase we picked up somewhere. All he did we didn't like is admit he has a certainty we don't feel

So I plead for all those others who like me were foolish enough to dash out to spread their "good news". They learned or will learn that envy takes all sorts of holy forms, and they will shut up sooner or later. But you and I are human beings and cannot see into the soul of another. How can we judge what the other knows? or what I actually doubt? And why should one be "right" and the other "wrong". I don't much feel arrogant, and the inflation comes and goes. i try to pray it away. I know my humility before G-d, perhaps you all of you, may not know that about me.

This is general. Everyone else here and in the world feel one way or another. I am suggesting a change of attitude for all of us, human as we are. I will promise to try to change mine and to say as little as possible anything that will sound proud to anyone.

It is bad enough when we judge people for their crimes and bad acts, but to judge them for their spirituality because it is different???????

love,

Toni

Re: Reactionaries and fear

>found among 'those who suppress doubt- ie the certain->But it can be more subtle than that too- a kind of 'initiation' into a cult or anyone who >owns the notion that 'they/we' know and others do not or that there is a knowing.

OK, I think I'm getting it a bit. So, "spiritual materialism" and "spiritual facism" are very close neighbors. Both seem to engender or include some form of arrogance, yes?

Blissings,

Sam

[Guest guest]

Greg,

I am looking at Jung's notion of 'prejudice being universal' and how this has

various

manifestations- national- local- class- wealth- education- tribe-colour- gender

etc etc

So it is inevitable and we/me/you have same or we are not different. Agreed it

is what

we do with our prejudice- tolerence etc,. or as the Ancient Alchemist puts it

A warring peace-within is what the best of us can expect.

I don't pretend to have the answers merely the observation.

Tell me of who has no prejudice? Not that they are exponent of same.

>

>

>

> wrote:

>

> >But it can be more subtle than that too- a kind of 'initiation' into

> >>a cult

> or anyone who owns the notion that 'they/we' know and others >do not

> or that there is a knowing.

>

> Setting aside the idea of a cult, , surely you are not

> suggesting that one might be capable of knowing what another does not,

> or cannot, know. This happens in my house occasionally, when my

> teenagers assert that I cannot " know " something that I clearly do, but

> they cannot imagine it, simply because they do not. Why is the notion

> of one person knowing what another does not conjure up notions of

> dishonesty or trickery or even worse. It is clearly possible...in many

> contexts. And such knowing is not necessarily occasioned by whimsey,

> hubris, self-delusion or outright dishonesty.

>

> That is what makes reading someone like Nisargadatta so interesting,

> to me at least. He claims TO KNOW; even in the face of severe

> opposition and suspicion and contradiction. But his dialogs are very

> compelling and contain a consistency over time that I find very

> compelling. But what I decide is my business (between me and me). What

> he knows, he knows, whether I accept it or not. That seems quite

> possible to me. I mention Nisargadatta in this context because I

> believe it was my mention of him that led to this whole stream of

> discussion. But you can read what he says and decide for yourself. I

> offered it for the inquisitive to take up with an open mind. Your

> logic would seem to argue that it is impossible for one to know what

> you may not, therefore why bother. I suggest that he may know....and

> that there may be a knowing. See for yourself. I find him persuasive,

> as I do Jung on so many subjects, especially those dealing with the

> reality of the psyche Nisargadatta's claim is of a higher

> level....that between soul and spirit, where Jung spent less time,

> because it is less empirical. And he did claim to be an empiricist.

>

> I still haven't decided about capital punishment. I probably lean

> toward favoring it in the most egregious cases; at least I can't

> discard it entirely on principle. And I'm still not convinced that

> Jung was in favor of it, certainly not on the basis of some snippet

> from a book of quotes or an out-of- context quote in the midst of a

> lecture on another subject, as has been presented by Dan. Difficult

> thing. I know a governor who had to make the fateful decision not to

> provide clemency for a death-row inmate. And I have never envied him

> his decision....and how deeply he struggled with it. Unlike W. Woops,

> there I go again.

>

> Greg

>

> Greg

>

> _______________________________________________

> Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com

> The most personalized portal on the Web!

>

>

>

>

> " Our highest duty as human beings is to search out a means whereby

> beings may be freed from all kinds of unsatisfactory experience and

> suffering. "

>

> H.H. Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th. Dalai Lama

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Sam,

Thanks. i have been continually thinking about this whole "problem with communication as it pertains to the spiritual.

I think I have one glimmer.

When Jung and others say they know, they don't mean they know G-d, or have figured out the mysteries of the universe. All they are saying is that they know the Divine exists.

I have seen it here before, and elsewhere. Wow, he has all the answers! Why don't I"

He, nor ANYONE HAS ALL THE ANSWERS. Surprise, surprise. Like the concept of :born again" we don't actual;ly all mean the same thing either. And it too, doesn't furnish all the answers to the mysteries of G-d or life.

No one can claim they know that. if they do they are dreaming or inflated. Life is a mystery, so is death and so is everything included in the word "G-O-D. The deeper one goes in the contemplative life, the more one realizes how much one does not know...And it bothers so one one bit. Life is not a mystery to be solved. ( think some one already said that)

So when I say I know, i am saying I spoke related to Something, and it answered back. There is something THERE. It is not my fantasy, my magical thinking, or dreaming. I actually experienced "Something" numinous.

If I ever tell anyone I know G-d, find me an asylum, I have finally flipped or mana has got me. The same if I were ever to tell someone I know what G-d wanted from them, or had a message for them...tell them to reply; " Then let G-d tell me Himself. I doubt The Almighty will tell you or me what he wants x to do or think.

Then there is discernment. I don't leave home without it. It tells me, in a number of ways, just whom , or what Spirit I am communicating with. The Holy Spirit, the human spirit or the evil spirit( people differ on this)

I will have some clue to how I should react to my relationship, and millions of books in every language and every culture agree to that to an extent. The reaction to the experience is "the spiritual life" It seems Someone begins to start a change in me, and if I follow along I find myself beginning to love more, to be freer and to find joy, and what is called enlightenment by some. One can follow an accepted path or one can try it on one's own. There are masters who have been there, I believe and show us the way, whatever name we give the Divine.

This spiritual life goes according to one's culture, position in it, personality and innate character. No two will be alike in all things. There is no "right" way or 'wrong" way if the end remains the same one. I happen to think, i do not have to reinvent the wheel, so I read about the experiences of others, and then I wait for the spirit to lead. ( Often, i surge ahead and then have to retrace my steps. i get too impetuous and impatient.

Anyway, I certainly and not most mature seekers will ever say they know the mystery of love, of creation or the universe. if they do, humor them and get away from them, they are charlatans. In Christianity, Jesus said he was the Way. he didn't say, follow me and I will give you all knowledge of the mystery of G-d. Neither did Mohammed, Zoaraster or anyone other great one. The Jews were told to follow the cloud ahead of them to the promised land. Then may have gotten hung up a bit by foreign gods, but they knew they had a covenant on which they could rely. I doubt, Buddha ever told his followers, let me tell you what happens in nirvana and even in enlightenment except in the broadest of terms.

So Jung and I are off the hook. All we know for sure is that we had an experience that what we call G-d or the Divine exists because we ran into him on the way. That's all. The rest of the communication is just between G-d and the experiencer if there is more. No one knows G-d, meister Eckhart even said he wanted G-d to save him from G-d. That is why n called it the cloud of unknowing. And why , i imagine Jesus called it heaven or kingdom of heaven and didn't go into a deep description.

We have intuition and the grace of faith. We are given love and trust, we cannot manufacture that ourselves for the journey. And we have hope we are on the right path for us.And, most of all we each make a decision whether or not we want a relationship in the first place, and what will we do with the fear of surrender which is huge inside us.

much love,

Toni

Re: Reactionaries and fear

>Every spiritual book I pick up says the same thing. Don't try to >tell anyone about your spiritual experiences. They won't believe >you and they will resent you.

Ah, shoot, Toni! There goes my best-seller! LOL Well, as a thesis in Transpersonal Studies it was OK. Now if I can "popularize" it enough maybe I can hold off the crucifiers for at least a little while.

>So please, think about such words as " spiritual materialism" or >"spiritual fascism" both of which are very judgmental terms.

You're right. It's a lot easier to put a label on something than just to accept that someone's had a totally different experience that might not be expressible.

>why should one be "right" and the other "wrong".

I'm making these kinds of judgments much less these days but it's still something I struggle with.

Blissings,

Sam

[Guest guest]

Dear betty,

I found this the other evening and since you asked, i thought you might like this answer. ( I assumed you were seriously asking, not making a "point" against anyone or anything:

"Our natural inclination, or course, is to grab on: to help ourselves and build up ourselves.:

"Spiritual materialism" in the name the Tibetan Buddhist master Trunpa Rinpoche gave to this attitude nearly 4 decades ago. Basically, it means the tendency to help ourselves to spiritual experience in order to build up our cataphatic (ordinary) self. If time spent on those apothatic depths yields up new information about ourselves we want quickly to write them in our journals. Or if it gives us wonderful experiences of intimate presence of GO-do- what of the Cross calls "spiritual consolations"- we want to savor them and allow them to deepen our own trust and sense of being especially loved by GO-do.

MY author goes on to say "there is nothing wrong with this...initially, and that in fact at certain stages of spiritual practice, when we are just setting out on the contemplative path, or when we feel wounded or unsure of ourselves it may be exactly what is needed."

You see one cannot judge what or who is practicing this "spiritual materialism", except for oneself, because we cannot have any knowledge of where the other is. All of us need crutches once in a while. But she says if we do not grow beyond this we will have to unlearn some different habits.( Personally, I would rather be accused of this than not, it would mean I were on the right path..I was having and trusting my experience, at least

It is not a pejorative term even though it sounds like one. It is purely a stage, and not a preliminary one along the way for others to judge.

Hope this helps some,

love,

Toni

Re: Reactionaries and fear

Has anyone ever heard of spiritual materialism?

Betty

.. "Cutting through Spiritual Materialism" is an important book by Chogyam Trungpa Rimpoche, one of Pema Chodron's teachers and a man I studied with many moons ago in New York.

Regards,

Suzanne

[Guest guest]

Thanks Toni.

It's just a place not to get stuck in as your author says.

Betty

Re: Reactionaries and fear

Has anyone ever heard of spiritual materialism?

Betty

.. "Cutting through Spiritual Materialism" is an important book by Chogyam Trungpa Rimpoche, one of Pema Chodron's teachers and a man I studied with many moons ago in New York.

Regards,

Suzanne