Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Bad news for blissninnies to seeklib

[Share Long]

seeklib I've been wanting to write to you about this for what seems like a long 
time.  Just to say that I enjoyed it and feel hopeful because supposedly the 
corpus collosum, which allegedly unites the 2 brain halves, supposedly it is 
bigger in women than in men.  


And I also liked your points about the ego which was also way too long ago.  
About the ego not being obliterated too soon.  Oy, gotta rush to Dome.  Sorry 
for lame reply but at least I got to thank you.  



 From: seekliberation 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Friday, March 1, 2013 11:32 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Bad news for blissninnies
 

  
Left brain vs. right brain thinking does have a lot to do with it too.  Some 
people think one is superior to the other, or try to convince themselves that 
if they can't deal with the experiences indicated by the other half, that those 
experiences are invalid or simply something that shouldn't be a part of 
society. 

I remember taking an IQ test before and then a psychologist explained to us the 
difference between average intelligence, above average, and genius.  Usually 
average intelligence will come from someone who can use either their left brain 
or right brain efficiently.  Above average intelligence (IQ being 100-130) is 
often someone who uses one half of their brain VERY efficiently.  But genius 
intelligence often lies with those who can alternate between both hemispheres 
of the brain.  He explained that IQ tests will often have a series of questions 
that require linear thinking and are then interrupted by questions that require 
abstract or holistic thinking.  It helps determine a person's fluidity in 
thinking patterns which is a true sign of genius, as opposed to the typical 
'Dr. Spock' outlook on intelligence where only 'step by step' logical thinking 
is used as a definition of intelligence.

Hencemy analogy earlier of David Carridine's character 'Kwai Chang Cain' 
who seems to display both left/right brain characteristics.  He too lived much 
on the edge of fear when it was necessary and unavoidable.  And that goes back 
to Bhuddist thought of non-resistance to invitability. 

I think union of both hemispheres of the brain is going to be a major step in 
evolution for humans.  But we first have to get past our tendency to discredit 
the opposite side.  Much like liberals vs. conservatives.  Rather than trying 
to crush the opposition, I think we would be better off just discarding the 
negative qualities of each side and sticking with the positive traits of both 
POV's.

seekliberation 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
>
> I knew both Das and Frawley.  The conflict is probably more between left 
> and right brained people. I recall the artists where I worked were 
> somewhat annoyed about what to do with their stock options.  It required 
> thinking about money and what to do with the stock once they got (turned 
> out selling some for some other stock might have been good). Sometimes I 
> find the materialists function living on the edge of fear which is not 
> very favorable either.
> 
> On 03/01/2013 11:56 AM, seekliberation wrote:
> > I know (only by email and phone) an astrologer by the name of Das Goravani 
> > who is also a trained Hindu priest.  One of the problems he pointed out 
> > about spirituality, as it is viewed and practiced in America, is that life 
> > is still not viewed holistically.  It is viewed in terms of materialism vs. 
> > spirituality.  One analogy similar to his that I remember reading before is 
> > that many people in new-age or alternative spiritual paths are simply 
> > trying to learn the alphabet (all of life's lessons) by focusing all of 
> > their attention on the letter 'Z' (enlightenment).  There seems to be a 
> > severe lack of acknowledgement that all our experiences lead the the same 
> > goal, both material and spiritual.
> > 
> > My experiences with 'SOME' of my family and friends is that their avoidance 
> > of material activities and focus on spirituality has created two-fold 
> > problem:  1.  They're still not enlightened, nor do they seem any closer to 
> > it after 10-30 years, and 2.  They are unable to provide for their own 
> > material needs and therefore are dependent on others.  And what's worse is 
> > that they function with the attitude that because they are 'spiritual', 
> > somehow they deserve to have their material needs provided by others 
> > because they are on a 'higher' path and are clearly 'higher' beings above 
> > alleged 'lowly' activities.
> >
> > Moreover, there seems to be a lack of acknowledgement that we are in a 
> > cycle of

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Bad news for blissninnies

[Michael Jackson]

1.  They're still not enlightened, nor do they seem any closer to it 
after 10-30 years, and 2.  They are unable to provide for their own 
material needs and therefore are dependent on others.  And what's worse 
is that they function with the attitude that because they are 
'spiritual', somehow they deserve to have their material needs provided 
by others because they are on a 'higher' path and are clearly 'higher' 
beings above alleged 'lowly' activities. 

Purusha and Mother Divine





 From: seekliberation 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Friday, March 1, 2013 2:56 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Bad news for blissninnies
 

  
I know (only by email and phone) an astrologer by the name of Das Goravani who 
is also a trained Hindu priest.  One of the problems he pointed out about 
spirituality, as it is viewed and practiced in America, is that life is still 
not viewed holistically.  It is viewed in terms of materialism vs. 
spirituality.  One analogy similar to his that I remember reading before is 
that many people in new-age or alternative spiritual paths are simply trying to 
learn the alphabet (all of life's lessons) by focusing all of their attention 
on the letter 'Z' (enlightenment).  There seems to be a severe lack of 
acknowledgement that all our experiences lead the the same goal, both material 
and spiritual. 

My experiences with 'SOME' of my family and friends is that their avoidance of 
material activities and focus on spirituality has created two-fold problem:  1. 
 They're still not enlightened, nor do they seem any closer to it after 10-30 
years, and 2.  They are unable to provide for their own material needs and 
therefore are dependent on others.  And what's worse is that they function with 
the attitude that because they are 'spiritual', somehow they deserve to have 
their material needs provided by others because they are on a 'higher' path and 
are clearly 'higher' beings above alleged 'lowly' activities. 

Moreover, there seems to be a lack of acknowledgement that we are in a cycle of 
birth and death.  Some people recognize it intellectually, but they don't 
really make their decisions in life based on that reality.  I know the TMO and 
MMY specifically taught the 'enlightenment in one lifetime' concept.  Das 
Goravani and David Frawley (who is a legitimate trained Vedic Scholar, not 
self-proclaimed) have indicated in their teachings that it's prepostorous to 
think that way.  They point out that it takes many lifetimes just to get our 
consciousness to a point where we would even be curious or interested in 
spirituality.   Then to achieve enlightenment (Cosmic consciousness) is quite 
some time.  And then it doesn't stop there.  You can be in CC and stuck in this 
cycle of birth and death due to burning off past karma or rising to GC.  I know 
a lot of this is speculation though, and I am certainly no authority.

Basically, if you were to look at Kwai Chang Cain's character played by David 
Carradine, I think you're looking at a truly evolved person.  By all means he 
is the epitome of spirituality.  He is humble, philisophical, balanced, he 
meditates, and he accepts reality for what it is.  But at the same time, he is 
capable of dealing with material life, in fact he's better at it than any other 
character in the series.  In addition to being able to fight, his work ethic is 
relentless. 

Therefore, my synopsis, as incorrect as it may be, following a spiritual path 
in the midst of extreme material incompetence is a sign of nothing more than 
studying the letter 'Z'.  You still have the rest of the alphabet to work on.  
And until we learn the whole alphabet, guess where our soul is going after this 
cycle of birth and death?  Nowhere but right back here. 

seekliberation

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
>
> "A lot of hippies and babyboomers are learning that painfully now."
> 
> Or perhaps materialism is better and spiritualism for existing on this 
> planet?  Those who worship wealth may fare better than those who follow 
> a spiritual path?  I often found it hard once on a spiritual path to 
> focus on money.  What income there was seemed to come incidentally.  But 
> then maybe it is just all karma for there are certainly folks who kept 
> following a spiritual path yet became wealthy.  I also find it very 
> interesting what kind of people have jobs now and those who are unemployed.


 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Bad news for blissninnies

[seekliberation]

Left brain vs. right brain thinking does have a lot to do with it too.  Some 
people think one is superior to the other, or try to convince themselves that 
if they can't deal with the experiences indicated by the other half, that those 
experiences are invalid or simply something that shouldn't be a part of 
society.  

I remember taking an IQ test before and then a psychologist explained to us the 
difference between average intelligence, above average, and genius.  Usually 
average intelligence will come from someone who can use either their left brain 
or right brain efficiently.  Above average intelligence (IQ being 100-130) is 
often someone who uses one half of their brain VERY efficiently.  But genius 
intelligence often lies with those who can alternate between both hemispheres 
of the brain.  He explained that IQ tests will often have a series of questions 
that require linear thinking and are then interrupted by questions that require 
abstract or holistic thinking.  It helps determine a person's fluidity in 
thinking patterns which is a true sign of genius, as opposed to the typical 
'Dr. Spock' outlook on intelligence where only 'step by step' logical thinking 
is used as a definition of intelligence.

Hencemy analogy earlier of David Carridine's character 'Kwai Chang Cain' 
who seems to display both left/right brain characteristics.  He too lived much 
on the edge of fear when it was necessary and unavoidable.  And that goes back 
to Bhuddist thought of non-resistance to invitability.  

I think union of both hemispheres of the brain is going to be a major step in 
evolution for humans.  But we first have to get past our tendency to discredit 
the opposite side.  Much like liberals vs. conservatives.  Rather than trying 
to crush the opposition, I think we would be better off just discarding the 
negative qualities of each side and sticking with the positive traits of both 
POV's.

seekliberation 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
>
> I knew both Das and Frawley.  The conflict is probably more between left 
> and right brained people. I recall the artists where I worked were 
> somewhat annoyed about what to do with their stock options.  It required 
> thinking about money and what to do with the stock once they got (turned 
> out selling some for some other stock might have been good). Sometimes I 
> find the materialists function living on the edge of fear which is not 
> very favorable either.
> 
> On 03/01/2013 11:56 AM, seekliberation wrote:
> > I know (only by email and phone) an astrologer by the name of Das Goravani 
> > who is also a trained Hindu priest.  One of the problems he pointed out 
> > about spirituality, as it is viewed and practiced in America, is that life 
> > is still not viewed holistically.  It is viewed in terms of materialism vs. 
> > spirituality.  One analogy similar to his that I remember reading before is 
> > that many people in new-age or alternative spiritual paths are simply 
> > trying to learn the alphabet (all of life's lessons) by focusing all of 
> > their attention on the letter 'Z' (enlightenment).  There seems to be a 
> > severe lack of acknowledgement that all our experiences lead the the same 
> > goal, both material and spiritual.
> >   
> > My experiences with 'SOME' of my family and friends is that their avoidance 
> > of material activities and focus on spirituality has created two-fold 
> > problem:  1.  They're still not enlightened, nor do they seem any closer to 
> > it after 10-30 years, and 2.  They are unable to provide for their own 
> > material needs and therefore are dependent on others.  And what's worse is 
> > that they function with the attitude that because they are 'spiritual', 
> > somehow they deserve to have their material needs provided by others 
> > because they are on a 'higher' path and are clearly 'higher' beings above 
> > alleged 'lowly' activities.
> >
> > Moreover, there seems to be a lack of acknowledgement that we are in a 
> > cycle of birth and death.  Some people recognize it intellectually, but 
> > they don't really make their decisions in life based on that reality.  I 
> > know the TMO and MMY specifically taught the 'enlightenment in one 
> > lifetime' concept.  Das Goravani and David Frawley (who is a legitimate 
> > trained Vedic Scholar, not self-proclaimed) have indicated in their 
> > teachings that it's prepostorous to think that way.  They point out that it 
> > takes many lifetimes just to get our consciousness to a point where we 
> > would even be curious or interested in spirituality.   Then to achieve 
> > enlightenment (Cosmic consciousness) is quite some time.  And then it 
> > doesn't stop there.  You can be in CC and stuck in this cycle of birth and 
> > death due to burning off past karma or rising to GC.  I know a lot of this 
> > is speculation though, and I am certainly no authority.
> >
> > Basically, if you were to look at Kwai Chang Cain's character p

[FairfieldLife] Re: Bad news for blissninnies

[doctordumbass]

I mentioned the "message view" to my wife - seriously, didn't read it, and she 
remarked that pessimists' lives just *seem* longer. Makes sense to me. Time 
flies when you're having fun!!

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> The pessimists you rag on will outlive you. 
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/28/pessimists-live-longer-lives-study_n_2781598.html
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Bad news for blissninnies

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> One finds the same mindset in many other spiritual teach-
> ings, such as the Christian monks who refuse to beg for
> a living, and are required to develop skills with which
> to pay the bills of the monastery they live in, and pay
> for their own lives. There are similar teachings in some
> Buddhist traditions, and in many other spiritual traditions.


Yeah, right:

  [Monks processing at dawn for alms of rice in Luang Prabang, Laos,
Indochina, Southeast Asia, Asia Stock Photo - Rights-Managed, Artist:
Robert Harding Images, Code: 841-03676049]

 


>
> It seems to be only the New Age and some Hindu-based
> traditions in which being spaced out and unable to find
> one's mouth with a fork, let alone earn a living, are
> looked upon as "spiritual," and a Good Thing.
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Bad news for blissninnies

[Bhairitu]

I knew both Das and Frawley.  The conflict is probably more between left 
and right brained people. I recall the artists where I worked were 
somewhat annoyed about what to do with their stock options.  It required 
thinking about money and what to do with the stock once they got (turned 
out selling some for some other stock might have been good). Sometimes I 
find the materialists function living on the edge of fear which is not 
very favorable either.

On 03/01/2013 11:56 AM, seekliberation wrote:
> I know (only by email and phone) an astrologer by the name of Das Goravani 
> who is also a trained Hindu priest.  One of the problems he pointed out about 
> spirituality, as it is viewed and practiced in America, is that life is still 
> not viewed holistically.  It is viewed in terms of materialism vs. 
> spirituality.  One analogy similar to his that I remember reading before is 
> that many people in new-age or alternative spiritual paths are simply trying 
> to learn the alphabet (all of life's lessons) by focusing all of their 
> attention on the letter 'Z' (enlightenment).  There seems to be a severe lack 
> of acknowledgement that all our experiences lead the the same goal, both 
> material and spiritual.
>   
> My experiences with 'SOME' of my family and friends is that their avoidance 
> of material activities and focus on spirituality has created two-fold 
> problem:  1.  They're still not enlightened, nor do they seem any closer to 
> it after 10-30 years, and 2.  They are unable to provide for their own 
> material needs and therefore are dependent on others.  And what's worse is 
> that they function with the attitude that because they are 'spiritual', 
> somehow they deserve to have their material needs provided by others because 
> they are on a 'higher' path and are clearly 'higher' beings above alleged 
> 'lowly' activities.
>
> Moreover, there seems to be a lack of acknowledgement that we are in a cycle 
> of birth and death.  Some people recognize it intellectually, but they don't 
> really make their decisions in life based on that reality.  I know the TMO 
> and MMY specifically taught the 'enlightenment in one lifetime' concept.  Das 
> Goravani and David Frawley (who is a legitimate trained Vedic Scholar, not 
> self-proclaimed) have indicated in their teachings that it's prepostorous to 
> think that way.  They point out that it takes many lifetimes just to get our 
> consciousness to a point where we would even be curious or interested in 
> spirituality.   Then to achieve enlightenment (Cosmic consciousness) is quite 
> some time.  And then it doesn't stop there.  You can be in CC and stuck in 
> this cycle of birth and death due to burning off past karma or rising to GC.  
> I know a lot of this is speculation though, and I am certainly no authority.
>
> Basically, if you were to look at Kwai Chang Cain's character played by David 
> Carradine, I think you're looking at a truly evolved person.  By all means he 
> is the epitome of spirituality.  He is humble, philisophical, balanced, he 
> meditates, and he accepts reality for what it is.  But at the same time, he 
> is capable of dealing with material life, in fact he's better at it than any 
> other character in the series.  In addition to being able to fight, his work 
> ethic is relentless.
>
> Therefore, my synopsis, as incorrect as it may be, following a spiritual path 
> in the midst of extreme material incompetence is a sign of nothing more than 
> studying the letter 'Z'.  You still have the rest of the alphabet to work on. 
>  And until we learn the whole alphabet, guess where our soul is going after 
> this cycle of birth and death?  Nowhere but right back here.
>
> seekliberation
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
>> "A lot of hippies and babyboomers are learning that painfully now."
>>
>> Or perhaps materialism is better and spiritualism for existing on this
>> planet?  Those who worship wealth may fare better than those who follow
>> a spiritual path?  I often found it hard once on a spiritual path to
>> focus on money.  What income there was seemed to come incidentally.  But
>> then maybe it is just all karma for there are certainly folks who kept
>> following a spiritual path yet became wealthy.  I also find it very
>> interesting what kind of people have jobs now and those who are unemployed.
>
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Bad news for blissninnies

[seekliberation]

I think I replied to quickly to the same post.  You pretty much stated the same 
thing I did regarding how materialistic incompetence is somehow looked at as a 
virtue.

seekliberation

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
> >
> > "A lot of hippies and babyboomers are learning that painfully now."
> > 
> > Or perhaps materialism is better and spiritualism for existing 
> > on this planet? Those who worship wealth may fare better than 
> > those who follow a spiritual path?  
> 
> More likely it's that the so-called "spiritual" paths
> ignored the value of Living In The Material World for
> so long, and passed this down as a virtue. 
> 
> This was never the case, for example, in the shamanic
> teachings popularized by Carlos Castaneda. His fictional
> don Juan (synthesized from a number of real Yaqui shamans)
> was clear that success in the spiritual realms was 
> *dependent on* having mastered the material world, or
> the First Attention. 
> 
> If you can't get by in that world, they taught, and with 
> some modicum of style and class, you *don't stand a chance* 
> of getting anywhere in the more refined spiritual worlds. 
> The latter is *dependent on* having mastered the former.
> 
> My experiences in the worlds of spiritual development tend
> to make me believe the wisdom of this. To make a long story
> short, those who cannot cope with the material world, and
> who wander around in a spaced-out state of mind that they
> call "spiritual" don't last very long, and aren't missed
> when the material world runs over them and leaves them as
> roadkill. Being able to handle the material world, and to
> turn it to your advantage, has a distinct advantage when
> one ventures into realms in which one plays with more
> subtle energies. Those who could not even master gross
> energies don't stand a chance in that world. 
> 
> One finds the same mindset in many other spiritual teach-
> ings, such as the Christian monks who refuse to beg for 
> a living, and are required to develop skills with which
> to pay the bills of the monastery they live in, and pay
> for their own lives. There are similar teachings in some
> Buddhist traditions, and in many other spiritual traditions.
> 
> It seems to be only the New Age and some Hindu-based 
> traditions in which being spaced out and unable to find 
> one's mouth with a fork, let alone earn a living, are 
> looked upon as "spiritual," and a Good Thing.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Bad news for blissninnies

[seekliberation]

I know (only by email and phone) an astrologer by the name of Das Goravani who 
is also a trained Hindu priest.  One of the problems he pointed out about 
spirituality, as it is viewed and practiced in America, is that life is still 
not viewed holistically.  It is viewed in terms of materialism vs. 
spirituality.  One analogy similar to his that I remember reading before is 
that many people in new-age or alternative spiritual paths are simply trying to 
learn the alphabet (all of life's lessons) by focusing all of their attention 
on the letter 'Z' (enlightenment).  There seems to be a severe lack of 
acknowledgement that all our experiences lead the the same goal, both material 
and spiritual. 
 
My experiences with 'SOME' of my family and friends is that their avoidance of 
material activities and focus on spirituality has created two-fold problem:  1. 
 They're still not enlightened, nor do they seem any closer to it after 10-30 
years, and 2.  They are unable to provide for their own material needs and 
therefore are dependent on others.  And what's worse is that they function with 
the attitude that because they are 'spiritual', somehow they deserve to have 
their material needs provided by others because they are on a 'higher' path and 
are clearly 'higher' beings above alleged 'lowly' activities.  

Moreover, there seems to be a lack of acknowledgement that we are in a cycle of 
birth and death.  Some people recognize it intellectually, but they don't 
really make their decisions in life based on that reality.  I know the TMO and 
MMY specifically taught the 'enlightenment in one lifetime' concept.  Das 
Goravani and David Frawley (who is a legitimate trained Vedic Scholar, not 
self-proclaimed) have indicated in their teachings that it's prepostorous to 
think that way.  They point out that it takes many lifetimes just to get our 
consciousness to a point where we would even be curious or interested in 
spirituality.   Then to achieve enlightenment (Cosmic consciousness) is quite 
some time.  And then it doesn't stop there.  You can be in CC and stuck in this 
cycle of birth and death due to burning off past karma or rising to GC.  I know 
a lot of this is speculation though, and I am certainly no authority.
  
Basically, if you were to look at Kwai Chang Cain's character played by David 
Carradine, I think you're looking at a truly evolved person.  By all means he 
is the epitome of spirituality.  He is humble, philisophical, balanced, he 
meditates, and he accepts reality for what it is.  But at the same time, he is 
capable of dealing with material life, in fact he's better at it than any other 
character in the series.  In addition to being able to fight, his work ethic is 
relentless.  
  
Therefore, my synopsis, as incorrect as it may be, following a spiritual path 
in the midst of extreme material incompetence is a sign of nothing more than 
studying the letter 'Z'.  You still have the rest of the alphabet to work on.  
And until we learn the whole alphabet, guess where our soul is going after this 
cycle of birth and death?  Nowhere but right back here.  

seekliberation

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
>
> "A lot of hippies and babyboomers are learning that painfully now."
> 
> Or perhaps materialism is better and spiritualism for existing on this 
> planet?  Those who worship wealth may fare better than those who follow 
> a spiritual path?  I often found it hard once on a spiritual path to 
> focus on money.  What income there was seemed to come incidentally.  But 
> then maybe it is just all karma for there are certainly folks who kept 
> following a spiritual path yet became wealthy.  I also find it very 
> interesting what kind of people have jobs now and those who are unemployed.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Bad news for blissninnies

[Bhairitu]

On 03/01/2013 11:05 AM, turquoiseb wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
>> "A lot of hippies and babyboomers are learning that painfully now."
>>
>> Or perhaps materialism is better and spiritualism for existing
>> on this planet? Those who worship wealth may fare better than
>> those who follow a spiritual path?
> More likely it's that the so-called "spiritual" paths
> ignored the value of Living In The Material World for
> so long, and passed this down as a virtue.
>
> This was never the case, for example, in the shamanic
> teachings popularized by Carlos Castaneda. His fictional
> don Juan (synthesized from a number of real Yaqui shamans)
> was clear that success in the spiritual realms was
> *dependent on* having mastered the material world, or
> the First Attention.
>
> If you can't get by in that world, they taught, and with
> some modicum of style and class, you *don't stand a chance*
> of getting anywhere in the more refined spiritual worlds.
> The latter is *dependent on* having mastered the former.
>
> My experiences in the worlds of spiritual development tend
> to make me believe the wisdom of this. To make a long story
> short, those who cannot cope with the material world, and
> who wander around in a spaced-out state of mind that they
> call "spiritual" don't last very long, and aren't missed
> when the material world runs over them and leaves them as
> roadkill. Being able to handle the material world, and to
> turn it to your advantage, has a distinct advantage when
> one ventures into realms in which one plays with more
> subtle energies. Those who could not even master gross
> energies don't stand a chance in that world.
>
> One finds the same mindset in many other spiritual teach-
> ings, such as the Christian monks who refuse to beg for
> a living, and are required to develop skills with which
> to pay the bills of the monastery they live in, and pay
> for their own lives. There are similar teachings in some
> Buddhist traditions, and in many other spiritual traditions.
>
> It seems to be only the New Age and some Hindu-based
> traditions in which being spaced out and unable to find
> one's mouth with a fork, let alone earn a living, are
> looked upon as "spiritual," and a Good Thing.

Of course "spaced out" was not what I was referring to.  "Spaced out" is 
not a spiritual state.  Economies used to be more flexible before the 
banksters gambled away all the money and put the citizens of the planet 
in deep debt (sounds like a science fiction story rather than reality).  
So one could focus more on their spiritual path and still earn a good 
living.  Now that's screwed unless you work for the offense industry.  
Or maybe some people are still able to make a good living selling 
crystals? :-D

[FairfieldLife] Re: Bad news for blissninnies

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
>
> "A lot of hippies and babyboomers are learning that painfully now."
> 
> Or perhaps materialism is better and spiritualism for existing 
> on this planet? Those who worship wealth may fare better than 
> those who follow a spiritual path?  

More likely it's that the so-called "spiritual" paths
ignored the value of Living In The Material World for
so long, and passed this down as a virtue. 

This was never the case, for example, in the shamanic
teachings popularized by Carlos Castaneda. His fictional
don Juan (synthesized from a number of real Yaqui shamans)
was clear that success in the spiritual realms was 
*dependent on* having mastered the material world, or
the First Attention. 

If you can't get by in that world, they taught, and with 
some modicum of style and class, you *don't stand a chance* 
of getting anywhere in the more refined spiritual worlds. 
The latter is *dependent on* having mastered the former.

My experiences in the worlds of spiritual development tend
to make me believe the wisdom of this. To make a long story
short, those who cannot cope with the material world, and
who wander around in a spaced-out state of mind that they
call "spiritual" don't last very long, and aren't missed
when the material world runs over them and leaves them as
roadkill. Being able to handle the material world, and to
turn it to your advantage, has a distinct advantage when
one ventures into realms in which one plays with more
subtle energies. Those who could not even master gross
energies don't stand a chance in that world. 

One finds the same mindset in many other spiritual teach-
ings, such as the Christian monks who refuse to beg for 
a living, and are required to develop skills with which
to pay the bills of the monastery they live in, and pay
for their own lives. There are similar teachings in some
Buddhist traditions, and in many other spiritual traditions.

It seems to be only the New Age and some Hindu-based 
traditions in which being spaced out and unable to find 
one's mouth with a fork, let alone earn a living, are 
looked upon as "spiritual," and a Good Thing.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Bad news for blissninnies

[Bhairitu]

"A lot of hippies and babyboomers are learning that painfully now."

Or perhaps materialism is better and spiritualism for existing on this 
planet?  Those who worship wealth may fare better than those who follow 
a spiritual path?  I often found it hard once on a spiritual path to 
focus on money.  What income there was seemed to come incidentally.  But 
then maybe it is just all karma for there are certainly folks who kept 
following a spiritual path yet became wealthy.  I also find it very 
interesting what kind of people have jobs now and those who are unemployed.

On 03/01/2013 04:18 AM, seekliberation wrote:
> It makes sense to me when I read the article.  But I also think there is a 
> fine line between those who look at the glass as half empty, and those who 
> just sit around in a state of misery and do nothing to increase what's in the 
> glass.
>
> So I guess it's not as simple as 'half-empty, half-full'.  It's more complex 
> than that.  I guess it may be more like this:
>
> 1.  The glass is half full, so i'll just sit on my ass for now.
> 2.  The glass is half full, so i'll save it for later.
> 3.  The glass is half empty, so I better start filling it up now.
> 4.  The glass is half empty, therefore life sucks.
>
> I would say that #2 & #3 are a healthy approach.  So it's not just that 
> pessimism is better, it's that DOING something to improve your situation is 
> superior to relaxing and assuming that everything is going to work out just 
> fine.  And it's the pessimist who will percieve the need for action more so 
> than the optimist.  A lot of hippies and babyboomers are learning that 
> painfully now.
>
> seekliberation
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>> The pessimists you rag on will outlive you.
>>
>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/28/pessimists-live-longer-lives-study_n_2781598.html
>>
>
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Bad news for blissninnies

[Carol]

Share stated: "[...] the glass is all full.  It's half full of water and half 
full of air. [...]" 

I like that! Hadn't thought of it that way. *thumbsup*

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
>
> Another perspective:  the glass is all full.  It's half full of water and 
> half full of air.  Feng shui!  Anyway, thanks seekliberation I like the 
> practical points you make.  I'd like my parents to have long, happy lives.  
> But having seen my step Dad linger miserably for years, I'd rather my parents 
> have short, happy lives than long, miserable ones.  Same for me.  And 
> FFLers too.  And by happy I don't mean blissninniehood.  Even the article 
> began with the descriptor "overly optimistic."  Remember turq, Maharishi 
> explains that bliss is not always blissful.  Thanks for the article.  It'll 
> be fascinating to see how the Positive Psychology gang responds.    
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  From: seekliberation 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Friday, March 1, 2013 6:18 AM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Bad news for blissninnies
>  
> 
>   
> It makes sense to me when I read the article.  But I also think there is a 
> fine line between those who look at the glass as half empty, and those who 
> just sit around in a state of misery and do nothing to increase what's in the 
> glass. 
> 
> So I guess it's not as simple as 'half-empty, half-full'.  It's more complex 
> than that.  I guess it may be more like this:
> 
> 1.  The glass is half full, so i'll just sit on my ass for now. 
> 2.  The glass is half full, so i'll save it for later.
> 3.  The glass is half empty, so I better start filling it up now. 
> 4.  The glass is half empty, therefore life sucks.
> 
> I would say that #2 & #3 are a healthy approach.  So it's not just that 
> pessimism is better, it's that DOING something to improve your situation is 
> superior to relaxing and assuming that everything is going to work out just 
> fine.  And it's the pessimist who will percieve the need for action more so 
> than the optimist.  A lot of hippies and babyboomers are learning that 
> painfully now. 
> 
> seekliberation
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> >
> > The pessimists you rag on will outlive you. 
> > 
> > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/28/pessimists-live-longer-lives-study_n_2781598.html
> >
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Bad news for blissninnies

[Share Long]

Another perspective:  the glass is all full.  It's half full of water and half 
full of air.  Feng shui!  Anyway, thanks seekliberation I like the practical 
points you make.  I'd like my parents to have long, happy lives.  But having 
seen my step Dad linger miserably for years, I'd rather my parents have short, 
happy lives than long, miserable ones.  Same for me.  And FFLers too.  And by 
happy I don't mean blissninniehood.  Even the article began with the descriptor 
"overly optimistic."  Remember turq, Maharishi explains that bliss is not 
always blissful.  Thanks for the article.  It'll be fascinating to see how the 
Positive Psychology gang responds.    





 From: seekliberation 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Friday, March 1, 2013 6:18 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Bad news for blissninnies
 

  
It makes sense to me when I read the article.  But I also think there is a fine 
line between those who look at the glass as half empty, and those who just sit 
around in a state of misery and do nothing to increase what's in the glass. 

So I guess it's not as simple as 'half-empty, half-full'.  It's more complex 
than that.  I guess it may be more like this:

1.  The glass is half full, so i'll just sit on my ass for now. 
2.  The glass is half full, so i'll save it for later.
3.  The glass is half empty, so I better start filling it up now. 
4.  The glass is half empty, therefore life sucks.

I would say that #2 & #3 are a healthy approach.  So it's not just that 
pessimism is better, it's that DOING something to improve your situation is 
superior to relaxing and assuming that everything is going to work out just 
fine.  And it's the pessimist who will percieve the need for action more so 
than the optimist.  A lot of hippies and babyboomers are learning that 
painfully now. 

seekliberation

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> The pessimists you rag on will outlive you. 
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/28/pessimists-live-longer-lives-study_n_2781598.html
>


 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Bad news for blissninnies

[seekliberation]

It makes sense to me when I read the article.  But I also think there is a fine 
line between those who look at the glass as half empty, and those who just sit 
around in a state of misery and do nothing to increase what's in the glass. 

So I guess it's not as simple as 'half-empty, half-full'.  It's more complex 
than that.  I guess it may be more like this:

1.  The glass is half full, so i'll just sit on my ass for now.  
2.  The glass is half full, so i'll save it for later.
3.  The glass is half empty, so I better start filling it up now.  
4.  The glass is half empty, therefore life sucks.

I would say that #2 & #3 are a healthy approach.  So it's not just that 
pessimism is better, it's that DOING something to improve your situation is 
superior to relaxing and assuming that everything is going to work out just 
fine.  And it's the pessimist who will percieve the need for action more so 
than the optimist.  A lot of hippies and babyboomers are learning that 
painfully now.  

seekliberation

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> The pessimists you rag on will outlive you. 
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/28/pessimists-live-longer-lives-study_n_2781598.html
>