depression

And again, zen, you have missed my point. Do I dispute the wisdom inherent in doing what you want when those desires come from the heart? Not in the least. Just like I don't dispute about two dozen other spiritual cliches, all of which could have been substituted for your response to Neo. Care for some examples?

"The way to follow your path is to Be Here Now"
"The way to follow your path is to be detached from the results of your actions"
"The way to follow your path is to selflessly serve others, as they are in essence only an extension of your own being."

There is a Swami in India who pretty much just tells people to "be happy". Again, not a statement I have an issue with. If there are people out there who can experience the depths of their being just by "being happy", then more power to 'em. I however, am not one of those people, and I have a sneaking suspicion that you aren't either. But then again, neither is 99% of humanity. And that really is the crux of the issue, isn't it?

No zen, I don't dispute your wisdom or the wisdom of many other spiritual outlooks. What I do dispute is the application of that wisdom. In your case, the application was presumptuous and condescending towards its recipient, as well as flippant and short-sighted -- and I think that we can both agree that such motivating factors rarely exist in order to serve others.

On to the minutiae:
Is fulfillment fun? Not exclusively, no. Fulfillment transcends and includes fun.

Was your prattling on part of your path? Without doubt. That doesn't change the fact, however, that it was also partially intended to deflect truths which you don't yet have the capacity to fully embody (which is of course perfectly fine ).

Can feeding one's ego be spiritually relevant? Of course. Was it relevant in this instance? In part maybe. But your self-indulgence has also done you a disservice -- that much is apparent.

Should you pretend to be an enlightened master when you're really a moron? No. But you're not a moron, zen, and no one has implied that you should mimic the behavior of someone who transcends your level of spiritual realization. Those were your own projections.

And yes, my "dignity" has been my fallback plan over the course of this thread, at least on some level of my being. But I'll take dignity over knee-jerk defensive responses (even creative, visceral and visually evocative ones ) any day.

Travis

 

'Fun' and 'being happy' aren't really words we'd use to describe any deep feeling of fulfillment or peace and can be desolately empty when we totally lack any sense of fulfillment. To feel fulfilled is wonderful but im not sure we can always feel fulfilled ... i think we can always, more or less be at peace though as in acceptance, which seems to me to have some degree of fulfillment ... just less so.

I think though that the swamis idea of happiness 'could' be a simple transendent experience of bliss whereas a western idea of happiness could involve all sorts of stuff like obtaining a good salary, the perfect partner who'll make everything perfect, house, garden, dog ect. So the swami says 'be happy' and they don't hear him ... they don't get the trancendent thing. - I'll admit though that he could point towards it with something better than "be happy".

Yes, there's room for fun. If one can.

 

There's no need to get overly fixated on semantics. Fulfillment, acceptance, peace, bliss, happiness -- whichever word you prefer is fine by me.

And I don't really think there's a need to quantify the magnitude of one's fulfillment either. My sense has always been that an authentic realization of one's true nature encompasses a perpetual state of fulfillment. This is a sense that seems to be corroborated by the enlightenment reports of many spiritual teachers, including one who appears to be a mutual favorite of ours:

"For the next five months, I lived in a state of uninterrupted deep peace and bliss. After that, it diminished somewhat in intensity, or perhaps it just seemed to because it became my natural state. I could still function in the world, although I realized that nothing I ever did could possibly add anything to what I already had."

-- Eckhart Tolle

I'd say that qualifies as full-fledged fulfillment, wouldn't you?

My point was that I have no problem with the Swami in India. He is expressing the truth of his being in a unique, no-frills kind of way. And like I said, there are people out there who don't require convoluted, multi-tiered approaches to spiritual growth. So for them, this Swami could very well be their ticket to self-realization.

Travis

 

Dignity as an ego distortion is nothing more than superiority and pretentiousness, and as far as defenses go is no different than any other, regardless of outward appearances. Not to suggest we should forgo one defense in favor of another (we have our preferences ), but to simply recognize the inherent sameness of all of them.

 

*nods*

all the sounds that escape me are the songs of angels.

 

In the universal scheme of things, I agree that all defenses are ultimately homogenous. However, in addition to the x axis of spirituality there is also a y axis. And each level on this y continuum is accompanied by different egoic defenses. Vindictiveness, for instance, is far more spiritually detrimental than is self-pity in most cases. And I think it goes almost without saying that violent outbursts are a defense mechanism that on almost all paths is shed in the very early stages.

So, with that in mind, I say again that I'd rather lapse into my "dignity" than I would a knee-jerk defensive reaction, simply because the former is accompanied by a greater state of abiding awareness than is the latter.

Travis

 

Perhaps. Outward appearances can be deceptive. We never really know how rooted a defense is within another. And a relatively mild-seeming defense, when unrecognized (or even valued), can linger for a very long time, versus one that seems more unconscious but which more easily lends itself to transcendence, perhaps through the sheer suffering it envokes.

 

We may never really know. But somewhow I doubt that we represent the pinnacle of human perceptual capacity.

Agreed.

Travis

 

It doesn't seem it IS fine with you though.

Ok so that's what you think.

From what he says, Yes i would.

 

I'm sorry if it came off that way. It really and truly is fine with me if you use those words interchangably.

It is indeed.

I'm so glad that there's agreement on something!

Travis

 

Well at least you appreciate my showmanship.

You do make a lot of broad generalizations disparaging my performance, however. We could get into endless discussions over the "minutiae," but the minutiae are not really the point. So I'll go directly to my main concerns.

The thing about dignity is that it's not fun, and having fun is a helluva a great way to forget yourself, forget about your defense mechanisms, forget about your ego, and forget about doing everything in the best way possible, which is self-conscious. Having genuine fun is one of the best ways to achieve a state of just being. I could even make a case for the notion that fun is THE way to transcendental experience. This is one of MY main points, which I'm not sure you're getting.

You obviously have a brilliant mind and can spin analyses and shades of nuances of minutiae from now until doomsday. I could go there with you, but I just don't find this kind of discussion very fruitful. You want to pick apart everything and everyone to the umpteenth degree, and you are exceptionally gifted at it - but what is it that you're really trying to accomplish? For example, what is it that you're trying to accomplish in this discussion with me in particular? You've certainly pointed out, mostly in broad, nonspecific strokes, countless ways in which I fail to come up to one standard or another. What would you like me to do with this information?

And by the way, you're not exactly defensiveness-free yourself, and you have a habit of assuming the worst about my motivations and the state of my mood based on ambiguous evidence - what's up with that? And why are other people's defenses and ego-buttressing an issue for you requiring confrontations and discussion?

Inquiring minds want to KNOW.

 

I second that Zen.

 

Absolutely. I find you to be one of the most entertaining members of this entire forum. And the manner in which you intersperse your "showmanship" with your substantial spiritual insights is quite simply extraordinary.

I think you're overstating the point here. Not to worry though -- it isn't entirely lost on me.

Thank you. And I take your doomsday metaphor to heart as well.

I never had a premeditated agenda of any kind.

I would hope that a person of your spiritual stature would be able to glean something of value from my posts. Then again, it may be that I have overestimated their worth.

Nor did I ever claim to be.

I apologize if any assumptions I've made have done you an injustice.

Why not?

Travis

 

I don't believe I am. I have a lot of experiences to back up my belief.

I'm not worried.

I did.

I've recognized your talents, cajoled and entertained you, and put you off your guard, temporarily. But you've seen something in me that you didn't expect, and you're thinking now that it's time to be more cautious.

Good fallback position.

Cutting your losses - good strategy.

Sidestepping the question, aren't you?

I submit to you that you don't know me as well as you think you do, and your explanations for my behavior are - incorrect.

I submit to you that you DO have a goal that you're trying to accomplish, but for some reason you don't want to see it or admit it.

For what reason?

 

Sorry to butt in (well not really ) but I want to add something that's come to my attention recently. Zen, your statement above reminded me of it. I think that alot of times people don't read me accurately (Travis this pertains to you as well) but I really dislike having to come back to address every perception and attempt to dispute it. It's very tiresome to do so, imo. So more often than not I just leave the (mis)perception as is. Maybe I'm just overreacting in my sense of rebelliousness about it, but I just wonder why I need to defend an image? Because that's what I'd be doing, wouldn't I? What does it matter what's really true or not? We are as we are, whether people see it clearly or not. It does feel like misperceiving someone rather limits the relationship in some way, but I don't know how to change that without engaging in constant image tweaking. Any thoughts on that guys?

 

Let me just bypass all of the ego posturing and get to the point zen. You have a dark energy on your heart that is impeding your spiritual path. I have exposed it in my posts. You can continue to evade this knowledge as you've been doing continuously throughout this thread, or you can choose to begin to come to terms with it.

And believe me, if you'd like to continue our little sparring match, I can accomodate you. But I can tell you right now that that would not be in your best interests.

Travis

 

I relate so well to what you're saying.

In so many cases, it seems like the best course is to just let it go, and blow it off.

But in some cases, it seems to me that some effort is justified - because the subject shows promise of understanding and growth.

And that's really what these dances are all about, aren't they?

 

This is so sad.

I expected better of you.

The delusion is yours. I'm sorry for you.

This strategy will bear no enduring fruit, radar. You've lost your way.

But there is always the possibility of redemption, if you choose to let go...

 

I see it's back to the sparring match then. Very well...

Beliefs are only necessary prior to the attainment of direct perception. And that, my friend, is something you lack.

It's kinda an expression.

I know -- and it's your dark energy that compels your agenda.

Speculation, intended to intimidate -- nothing more.

Thanks!

Just leveling the playing field, actually.

You're just full of assumptions, aren't you zen? Why not? I think you answered that question quite adequately yourself:

I submit to you that you're in over your head.

Travis