[FairfieldLife] Re: What would you teach?
---A related topic: most important (transforming, for good or evil) inventions, developments, or discoveries of all time. Here's a short list, not in order... 1. TM 2. Chess 3. Methamphetamines (thus far, the most diabolic curse of the world). Invented in the late 30's in Germany, Hitler's troops were high on the stuff while they raced across Europe in the "Blitzkrieg". American bomber pilots also used it, coming back to the U.S. after the war, becoming the "bikers" which later devolved into the biker gangs known to be distributors of meth. Being in law, I see the results of it every day. In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In > FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlis" > wrote: > > > > Marek writes snipped: > > So I was wondering . . . if you could teach or impart just one > thing > > to a person, the one thing or teaching or fundamental knowledge or > > wisdom that you had gleaned from your life experiences -- the thing > > that you would most want to share, the thing that you grokked the > most > > -- what would it be? > > > > TomT: > > One thing I have found to be useful is to get people to be able to > > say. "This is what wholeness looks like or feels like today". It > is a > > subtle way to remind one that the wholeness of reality always > appears > > as diversity and many times it is not the way we would like it to > be. > > This gentle reminder puts the attention back on the wholeness of > life > > while allowing the diversity of the BS of the relative to continue > > being what it has and will be. TOm > > > Exactly- every day the wonderful challenge and beautiful gift laid > before me I find is to see the mandala that each and every day is, > the perfect wholeness and completion, absolutely distinct, different > and new, each day perfect as it is, was, and will be.:-) >
[FairfieldLife] Re: What would you teach?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Marek writes snipped: > So I was wondering . . . if you could teach or impart just one thing > to a person, the one thing or teaching or fundamental knowledge or > wisdom that you had gleaned from your life experiences -- the thing > that you would most want to share, the thing that you grokked the most > -- what would it be? > > TomT: > One thing I have found to be useful is to get people to be able to > say. "This is what wholeness looks like or feels like today". It is a > subtle way to remind one that the wholeness of reality always appears > as diversity and many times it is not the way we would like it to be. > This gentle reminder puts the attention back on the wholeness of life > while allowing the diversity of the BS of the relative to continue > being what it has and will be. TOm > Exactly- every day the wonderful challenge and beautiful gift laid before me I find is to see the mandala that each and every day is, the perfect wholeness and completion, absolutely distinct, different and new, each day perfect as it is, was, and will be.:-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: What would you teach?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > He was one of my good friends from UC Riverside. > > I'd go up to visit him and others in Davis often, > > and developed a real attachment to the place. > > The Crumbs also have a shitload of Davis karma. > > We talk about the place often. > > When were the Crumbs there? I had not associated him with > Davis -- always figured he was a Berekely guy. But when you > said "shitload of Davis karma, I had some strange flash of > recognition -- like a name from the past you knew before > it was well known. > > Odd chance, but I have an image of this guy, I sort of knew, > lots of people sort of knew a lot of people, who used to sell > Berekely Barbs on campus at Davis, wearing (sometimes) I re- > image as an old skewl golf type cap. Probably not him -- but > something strikes a chord. Probably not Robert. He would always have been too shy to do something like that. > Were the Crumbs there overlapping with 68-73 at all? I'm not sure, but probably. They never lived in Davis per se, but in the country near it. Davis was the place you'd go for groceries, and to hang out a bit in the cafes. > If so possible classes overlap (taken by many in community > along with students -- Jose Arguellas (of Mandala fame), > Charles Tart first "Altered States of Consciousness Textbook," > John Cage on a visiting professorship Cuzerizes' (sp) > film classes showing 12 Bergman films in one quarter, etc > .. . first earth day on the quad 1970 (oraganized by a > friend Jim Boyer), Sy Migdal (of MIU "fame") was there, > Patty Puck, Blacks, Kozacks (earlier), Bruce Riordan who > ran the radio station. And of course Dick Farell. Reagan > showing up unannouced for a spontaneous radio interview. > But if they were even there in 68-73 I am sure they ran > in a different, older, hipper crowd. Yeah, Davis was like that. Small town, *very* much influenced by and dominated by the intellectual university crowd. The college crowd at Riverside was like that, too, but Riverside was a much larger city, and so it never became quite the enclave of protected academia that Davis became. Neat place... I always liked it there. > I was only 18. Though in the neasant spiritual circles, there > was a lot of overlapping of circles and networks. (Which they > might not have been invovled in). Robert's rarely been involved with society, period. :-) Except as an observer, in his art. That he does, and does well. > === > > And Marek -- I was in Davis about five years ago and I remember > a bar/club like you descibed around B st. Anyway, cool images of > you running a place like that. Indeed. Neat thing to do.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What would you teach?
Turq, see my comment to New.Morning when he posed the same query re Richard Farrell (but with initials); now that you tell me the name I can say it doesn't ring a bell with me at all. Again, that might be the different windows in which we all interacted with Davis. ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis" > wrote: > > > > > > When it comes to enlightenment, I'm a Will Rogers > > > populist. The "test" of how enlightened they are, and > > > how willing they are to *do for others* is how they > > > really *do* do for others on a daily basis. Do they > > > eat at fancy restaurants that wouldn't allow someone > > > poor through the front door, or do they feel comfort- > > > able enough with themselves to eat at Denny's? And, > > > in *either* dining establishment, how do they treat > > > their *waitress*? Do they treat her like a human being > > > and tip her well for her service, or do they treat her > > > like a servant? > > > > > > One of the "clues" I picked up in Santa Fe about how > > > the real world perceives those on a spiritual path > > > was *from* waitresses. Santa Fe was kind of a New Age > > > zoo, with almost every cult or organization represented > > > to some extent. And all you had to do to figure out > > > whether their spiritual path had turned them into a > > > good person or an asshole was wait on them. The waiters > > > and waitresses of Santa Fe *loved* certain spiritual > > > followers, because they treated them like human beings, > > > and they *loathed* others (like the Sikhs), because > > > they treated them like shit, and *went out of their > > > way* to treat them like shit. > > > > > > It's the same, for me, with the "enlightened." Anyone > > > can *talk* a good game. But where the rubber meets the > > > road is how you live your life on a daily basis, and > > > at the end of each day, how many other people's lives > > > you managed to improve by interacting with them. > > > > **snip to end** > > > > Turq, have to agree with you here and wholeheartedly. I bartended > > and waited tables for years and right before law school I owned > > and ran a bohemian little cafe and pub in Davis, California. > > There is s much you can tell about a person from how they > > receive service, particularly service that they feel they have > > paid for. > > > > The choreography of serving a table who innocently anticipates > > and appreciates good service is a true delight and anyone who > > has ever worked as a server knows how sweet that is. > > I agree. I'm following up because of the Davis > connection. Did you ever know a guy there named > Richard Farrell? Owned the Birkenstock store, > ran for City Council, weird but funny? > > He was one of my good friends from UC Riverside. > I'd go up to visit him and others in Davis often, > and developed a real attachment to the place. > The Crumbs also have a shitload of Davis karma. > We talk about the place often. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: What would you teach?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > He was one of my good friends from UC Riverside. > I'd go up to visit him and others in Davis often, > and developed a real attachment to the place. > The Crumbs also have a shitload of Davis karma. > We talk about the place often. When were the Crumbs there? I had not associated him with Davis -- always figured he was a Berekely guy. But when you said "shitload of Davis karma, I had some strange flash of recognition -- like a name from the past you knew before it was well known. Odd chance, but I have an image of this guy, I sort of knew, lots of people sort of knew a lot of people, who used to sell Berekely Barbs on campus at Davis, wearing (sometimes) I re-image as an old skewl golf type cap. Probably not him -- but something strikes a chord. Were the Crumbs there overlapping with 68-73 at all? If so possible classes overlap (taken by many in community along with students -- Jose Arguellas (of Mandala fame), Charles Tart first "Altered States of Consciousness Textbook," John Cage on a visiting professorship Cuzerizes' (sp) film classes showing 12 Bergman films in one quarter, etc .. . first earth day on the quad 1970 (oraganized by a friend Jim Boyer), Sy Migdal (of MIU "fame") was there, Patty Puck, Blacks, Kozacks (earlier), Bruce Riordan who ran the radio station. And of course Dick Farell. Reagan showing up unannouced for a spontaneous radio interview. But if they were even there in 68-73 I am sure they ran in a different, older, hipper crowd. I was only 18. Though in the neasant spiritual circles, there was a lot of overlapping of circles and networks. (Which they might not have been invovled in). === And Marek -- I was in Davis about five years ago and I remember a bar / club like you descibed around B st. Anyway, cool images of you running a place like that. When I was there, there wasn't the hip, multicultural, happening vibe, natural foods, coffee house, cool clubs thing happening in town. More cowtown and frat bars. Things have changed. But one of the big buildings on the north? side of the quad( right side side facing admin building) was a student run coffee house. Sawdust on the floors. Great acoustic folk and blues. Good coffee, teas, sandwiches on whole wheat bread (a major revolution in those days).
[FairfieldLife] Re: What would you teach?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > When it comes to enlightenment, I'm a Will Rogers > > populist. The "test" of how enlightened they are, and > > how willing they are to *do for others* is how they > > really *do* do for others on a daily basis. Do they > > eat at fancy restaurants that wouldn't allow someone > > poor through the front door, or do they feel comfort- > > able enough with themselves to eat at Denny's? And, > > in *either* dining establishment, how do they treat > > their *waitress*? Do they treat her like a human being > > and tip her well for her service, or do they treat her > > like a servant? > > > > One of the "clues" I picked up in Santa Fe about how > > the real world perceives those on a spiritual path > > was *from* waitresses. Santa Fe was kind of a New Age > > zoo, with almost every cult or organization represented > > to some extent. And all you had to do to figure out > > whether their spiritual path had turned them into a > > good person or an asshole was wait on them. The waiters > > and waitresses of Santa Fe *loved* certain spiritual > > followers, because they treated them like human beings, > > and they *loathed* others (like the Sikhs), because > > they treated them like shit, and *went out of their > > way* to treat them like shit. > > > > It's the same, for me, with the "enlightened." Anyone > > can *talk* a good game. But where the rubber meets the > > road is how you live your life on a daily basis, and > > at the end of each day, how many other people's lives > > you managed to improve by interacting with them. > > **snip to end** > > Turq, have to agree with you here and wholeheartedly. I bartended > and waited tables for years and right before law school I owned > and ran a bohemian little cafe and pub in Davis, California. > There is s much you can tell about a person from how they > receive service, particularly service that they feel they have > paid for. > > The choreography of serving a table who innocently anticipates > and appreciates good service is a true delight and anyone who > has ever worked as a server knows how sweet that is. I agree. I'm following up because of the Davis connection. Did you ever know a guy there named Richard Farrell? Owned the Birkenstock store, ran for City Council, weird but funny? He was one of my good friends from UC Riverside. I'd go up to visit him and others in Davis often, and developed a real attachment to the place. The Crumbs also have a shitload of Davis karma. We talk about the place often.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What would you teach?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I've actually been struggling with this since
> junior high, when we were assigned to write an
> essay on altruism.
Judy Stein in jr high. Now thats an interesting image to ponder. :)
> At the time, I insisted there
> was no such thing as true altruism, that a person
> always *got* something out of doing good, even if
> it was just feeling better about oneself. Now I'd
> say that the only truly altruistic actions are
> those of a selfless (i.e., enlightened) person.
Or altruistic masochists.
Jai altruistic hedonism. More gets done, there is more joy for all
involved. What's not to like?
I was think more why the social meme that suffering [not Judy's word}
atruism is better than joyful atruism.
{on my own tangental riff here]
Maybe that it is also a deeply engrained meme that Christ suffered. So
suffering altruism is more christ like than happy gleeful altruism.
And the heavenly father thus then like it better. So I am going to go
out and whip my back with thorns, while helping others. Yeah thats the
ticket...
Hubert Humphrhey (of all people -- given Chicago) wrote the "Politics
of Joy". A very cool title. Politics being a form of public service,
at its higher manifestations.
Though perhaps such joy of politics was better lived and exemplifed by
RFK, IMO, in that era.
(Having peed in a public urinal next to RFK once, I now realize,
having been enlighted to the golden effects on FFL, that I should have
cupped my hands, grabbed some RFK pee, and obtained greatness. but i
digress..)
Marcuse, more to the point,
"In his major writings, Marcuse .. emphasi[zed the] reconciliation
with nature as an important component of human liberation, and also
stressed the importance of peace and harmony among human beings as the
goal of an emancipated society.[2] Marcuse consistently called for a
new concept of socialism that made peace, joy, happiness, freedom, and
oneness with nature a primary component of an alternative society.
Producing new institutions, social relations, and culture would make
possible, in his liberatory vision, the sort of non-alienated labor,
erotic relations, and harmonious community envisaged by Fourier and
the utopian socialists. A radical ecology, then, which relentlessly
criticized environmental destruction, as well as the destruction of
humans being, and that struggled for a society without violence,
destruction, and pollution was part of Marcuse's vision of liberation."
And in his lectures he said the solution to world peace is that
"people need to fuck more" (Jeez, I am only quoting a learned professor)
Widely popular with students.
No wonder Reagan tried to fire him at UCSD -- when he was governor.
(purposeful ambiguity there -- for humors's sake)
(and his antartic socialism was far different from manifest socialism
of the day -- or any day. )
(yes, I know its archaic socialism, not antartic socialism. Just
playing with words)
:) (*well really its anarchist socialism. Not to far from Libertarian
Socialsm. But not to be confused with antichrist socialism.)
[FairfieldLife] Re: What would you teach?
Below: ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis" > wrote: > > > > Compulsion to post continued below: > > > > ** > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > > > > **snip** > > > > > > > > When it comes to enlightenment, I'm a Will Rogers > > > populist. The "test" of how enlightened they are, and > > > how willing they are to *do for others* is how they > > > really *do* do for others on a daily basis. Do they > > > eat at fancy restaurants that wouldn't allow someone > > > poor through the front door, or do they feel comfort- > > > able enough with themselves to eat at Denny's? And, > > > in *either* dining establishment, how do they treat > > > their *waitress*? Do they treat her like a human being > > > and tip her well for her service, or do they treat her > > > like a servant? > > > > > > One of the "clues" I picked up in Santa Fe about how > > > the real world perceives those on a spiritual path > > > was *from* waitresses. Santa Fe was kind of a New Age > > > zoo, with almost every cult or organization represented > > > to some extent. And all you had to do to figure out > > > whether their spiritual path had turned them into a > > > good person or an asshole was wait on them. The waiters > > > and waitresses of Santa Fe *loved* certain spiritual > > > followers, because they treated them like human beings, > > > and they *loathed* others (like the Sikhs), because > > > they treated them like shit, and *went out of their > > > way* to treat them like shit. > > > > > > It's the same, for me, with the "enlightened." Anyone > > > can *talk* a good game. But where the rubber meets the > > > road is how you live your life on a daily basis, and > > > at the end of each day, how many other people's lives > > > you managed to improve by interacting with them. > > > > **snip to end** > > > > Turq, have to agree with you here and wholeheartedly. I bartended and > > waited tables for years and right before law school I owned and ran a > > bohemian little cafe and pub in Davis, California. > > Where in Davis? I don't know "new" Davis that well, but I hang out for > half a day sometimes when I am driving 80. > > Holy cow dung! I went to UCD.(helped set up the first TM/ JJ lectures > there). And Turq and I though virtual strangers, have a good mutual > friend who was "the sage of Davis" -- well, at least a guy with a good > eclectic rap, with his finger on the pulse of the community (and > perhaps other places). Ran the Birenstocks store (long after I left.) > Does DF ring a bell? > > Did you go to UCD law school? I used to initiate students there. When > I was 20. Initiating people way smarter and older than me. > Surrealistic but fun. learned a lot. > **snip to end** New, my tenure in Davis was 1990-1997. My (then) spouse did her residency at UC Davis which is how we got there from Seattle where she did her med school and I did undergrad. The cafe/pub, Delta of Venus, which I recently learned from my daughter has unfortunately closed, was started by two friends in '94 and my (then) romantic partner and I took it over in February '96. I sold it in August of '97 just a couple of days before I began law school at U.C. Berkeley (Boalt). The Delta was on 'B' Street and we used to get a lot of law students from King Hall. One of the law school deans came nearly every day for lunch since we were the closest eatery to the school. "DF" doesn't ring a bell, but that's probably because of the different times you and I resided in Davis. However, if he still lived there when I ran the shop he may have been a regular at the Delta since it was the eclectic, hip place to be and the clientele ran the whole gamut from fullface-tatooed roadrats to college deans. It was a terribly great time in my life, full of upheavals, errors and insights. Lucky me.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What would you teach?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > However, a possible reflection of a social meme i found in your > post was the perhaps implict assumption that selfless service is > more noble than happy service. Its that social meme I was > questioning. I see. That wasn't my assumption, actually; service is service, as far as I'm concerned. "Ennoble" referred to how one might be tempted to view one's service in one's own mind, not to any independent selfish-vs.- selfless value.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What would you teach?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Quick comment below: > > ** > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > > So I'm gonna stick with selfless service, as noble > > > an idea as "All you need is love" may be. Yours may > > > actually be a more *advanced* teaching than mine, for > > > those who have gotten to the point where they *can* > > > love most of the things or people around them. I was > > > thinking more of lowlives like myself, who just aren't > > > there yet, and need something more remedial, something > > > they can *do*, Here And Now, that will make their > > > lives a little happier. For me, that "something" is > > > selfless service. It always works, and always puts a > > > smile on your face, whether you love the person you > > > are helping or not. Ya gotta love it. :-) > > > > That's been my experience as well, but here's a serious > > question I've wrestled with and haven't resolved yet: > > Is it really *selfless* service if you do it because it > > makes you happier? > > > > Not that service *shouldn't* make one happier--but if > > that's *why* one is doing the service, I think perhaps > > one shouldn't ennoble it with the adjective "selfless." > > > > **end** > > It seems to me that the use of the term 'selfless' isn't meant as a > descriptive of the service provider, but of the service provided. > In other words, the service, whatever it is, is done completely > engaged and without any other purpose than the service itself. > It's not done 'for' any purpose of the provider, though there may > be this collateral expansion of love and happiness that we're > talking about. It's just engaged activity without any other > thoughts or moodmaking about it. > > (Reading that back, it seems to be an exercise in tail-chasing, but > I'll leave it for now.) Well, but that's just what I was trying to get at. If your motivation for doing the service is the desire for the happiness you derive from the service, then there's a purpose other than the service itself. If it didn't make you happy, you wouldn't want, or at least you'd be less motivated, to do the service, in other words. I'm *not* saying you shouldn't do service if you can't do it without anticipating the reward of happiness, just that you perhaps shouldn't pat yourself on the back thinking how selfless your service is in that case. The "selfless" in the phrase "selfless service" may refer to the service and not the person doing it, but it seems to me that in order to do selfless service, one must first be selfless. I've actually been struggling with this since junior high, when we were assigned to write an essay on altruism. At the time, I insisted there was no such thing as true altruism, that a person always *got* something out of doing good, even if it was just feeling better about oneself. Now I'd say that the only truly altruistic actions are those of a selfless (i.e., enlightened) person.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What would you teach?
Bulb going off comment below:
**
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
**snip**
> And that we don't own the thoughts. Therefore, why be offended if
> someone doesn't agree with, or dislikes those thoughts. Jeez, I don't
> even like all "my" thoughts.
>
> And it comes sharper into view when the realization comes that we not
> only don't own the thoughts, we don't even create them.
> Thus, I place the stealth teaching of checking at a high level.
> ("Notice how effortless thoughts come" ==> if they came
> effortlessly,without conscious intent, volition or skill, then I had
> nothing to do with the process. [This is a differnt but related
> insightto what Judy raised.]
>
> But it appears to me others "don't own thoughts" in the same way I
> experience that happening. This different use of the same symbol
> "don't own thoughts" appears to be mapped to a different internal
> sturucture and experience.
>
> For some, they propose, in these words or others, that they don't own
> their thoughts (the same theme can also be traced back to expressions
> such as "there is no me found", "I am that", etc.) Yet when such
> expressors react like you just kicked their puppy, when you simply
> question the thoughts that effortlessly arose in them, it becomes
> clear we are using the same symbol to represent quite different things.
>
> I love the SBS dandi / fire story. A clever and mischievous, smirking
> little saint/boy/adept/he. Approaching those who claim no internal
> fire (anger etc) and who coincidently have vows not to have external
> fires (for cooking and all), SBS asks innocently, "Gotta match?" The
> saint /man goes angerly beserk, ego rage, self-importance, pompousness
> puncture, compassion seen to be running on empty. SBS "OK, next".
>
**end**
New, now I get what you were talking about in your earlier post re
'stealth techniques'. Thanks. Nicely put and nailhead hitting.
Boink. (Extremely effortless on this end and I presume on yours as well.)
[FairfieldLife] Re: What would you teach?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Compulsion to post continued below: > > ** > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > **snip** > > > > > When it comes to enlightenment, I'm a Will Rogers > > populist. The "test" of how enlightened they are, and > > how willing they are to *do for others* is how they > > really *do* do for others on a daily basis. Do they > > eat at fancy restaurants that wouldn't allow someone > > poor through the front door, or do they feel comfort- > > able enough with themselves to eat at Denny's? And, > > in *either* dining establishment, how do they treat > > their *waitress*? Do they treat her like a human being > > and tip her well for her service, or do they treat her > > like a servant? > > > > One of the "clues" I picked up in Santa Fe about how > > the real world perceives those on a spiritual path > > was *from* waitresses. Santa Fe was kind of a New Age > > zoo, with almost every cult or organization represented > > to some extent. And all you had to do to figure out > > whether their spiritual path had turned them into a > > good person or an asshole was wait on them. The waiters > > and waitresses of Santa Fe *loved* certain spiritual > > followers, because they treated them like human beings, > > and they *loathed* others (like the Sikhs), because > > they treated them like shit, and *went out of their > > way* to treat them like shit. > > > > It's the same, for me, with the "enlightened." Anyone > > can *talk* a good game. But where the rubber meets the > > road is how you live your life on a daily basis, and > > at the end of each day, how many other people's lives > > you managed to improve by interacting with them. > > **snip to end** > > Turq, have to agree with you here and wholeheartedly. I bartended and > waited tables for years and right before law school I owned and ran a > bohemian little cafe and pub in Davis, California. Where in Davis? I don't know "new" Davis that well, but I hang out for half a day sometimes when I am driving 80. Holy cow dung! I went to UCD.(helped set up the first TM/ JJ lectures there). And Turq and I though virtual strangers, have a good mutual friend who was "the sage of Davis" -- well, at least a guy with a good eclectic rap, with his finger on the pulse of the community (and perhaps other places). Ran the Birenstocks store (long after I left.) Does DF ring a bell? Did you go to UCD law school? I used to initiate students there. When I was 20. Initiating people way smarter and older than me. Surrealistic but fun. learned a lot. >There is s > much you can tell about a person from how they receive service, > particularly service that they feel they have paid for. > > The choreography of serving a table who innocently anticipates and > appreciates good service is a true delight and anyone who has ever > worked as a server knows how sweet that is.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What would you teach?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Comment below:
>
> **
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
>
> **snip**
>
> > I would try to teach people that there's a distinction
> > between the contents of consciousness and consciousness
> > itself--the "container" of those contents--and then to
> > understand why the nature of consciousness itself is
> > what is known in consciousness theory and research as
> > "the hard problem."
> >
> > It seems to me this is a seminal insight that many
> > people miss. When I got it under my belt, it changed
> > my entire outlook and opened up all kinds of new
> > vistas. I think the absence of this insight is very
> > limiting if one has any impulse toward self-development
> > and any concern for the problem of suffering in the
> > world.
> >
> > The insight itself is neutral; it doesn't carry any
> > particular imperatives, it just expands the range of
> > choices of action and demonstrates why some choices
> > are likely to be less productive than others.
> >
> > Perhaps the corollary insight that reinforces the
> > insight of the one about consciousness is that you
> > can't solve the problem on the level of the problem
> > (yes, that's a MMY slogan, but it was a concept also
> > expressed by Einstein, so it isn't peculiar to TM).
> >
>
> **end**
>
> Judy, this is really a huge and powerful understanding, I agree. It
> wasn't until a few years ago, when I first read Nisargadatta, that it
> finally dawned on me about what I'd been hearing from Maharishi for
> all those years. Before that I 'understood' it but something happened
> and the bulb lit up. But just the idea that 'you' are different from
> your thoughts and emotions is powerfully liberating; and just a small
> step away from the quest of figuring out who or what it is that is
> always present, no matter what the thought or changing condition.
And that we don't own the thoughts. Therefore, why be offended if
someone doesn't agree with, or dislikes those thoughts. Jeez, I don't
even like all "my" thoughts.
And it comes sharper into view when the realization comes that we not
only don't own the thoughts, we don't even create them.
Thus, I place the stealth teaching of checking at a high level.
("Notice how effortless thoughts come" ==> if they came
effortlessly,without conscious intent, volition or skill, then I had
nothing to do with the process. [This is a differnt but related
insightto what Judy raised.]
But it appears to me others "don't own thoughts" in the same way I
experience that happening. This different use of the same symbol
"don't own thoughts" appears to be mapped to a different internal
sturucture and experience.
For some, they propose, in these words or others, that they don't own
their thoughts (the same theme can also be traced back to expressions
such as "there is no me found", "I am that", etc.) Yet when such
expressors react like you just kicked their puppy, when you simply
question the thoughts that effortlessly arose in them, it becomes
clear we are using the same symbol to represent quite different things.
I love the SBS dandi / fire story. A clever and mischievous, smirking
little saint/boy/adept/he. Approaching those who claim no internal
fire (anger etc) and who coincidently have vows not to have external
fires (for cooking and all), SBS asks innocently, "Gotta match?" The
saint /man goes angerly beserk, ego rage, self-importance, pompousness
puncture, compassion seen to be running on empty. SBS "OK, next".
[FairfieldLife] Re: What would you teach?
Compulsion to post continued below: ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > **snip** > > When it comes to enlightenment, I'm a Will Rogers > populist. The "test" of how enlightened they are, and > how willing they are to *do for others* is how they > really *do* do for others on a daily basis. Do they > eat at fancy restaurants that wouldn't allow someone > poor through the front door, or do they feel comfort- > able enough with themselves to eat at Denny's? And, > in *either* dining establishment, how do they treat > their *waitress*? Do they treat her like a human being > and tip her well for her service, or do they treat her > like a servant? > > One of the "clues" I picked up in Santa Fe about how > the real world perceives those on a spiritual path > was *from* waitresses. Santa Fe was kind of a New Age > zoo, with almost every cult or organization represented > to some extent. And all you had to do to figure out > whether their spiritual path had turned them into a > good person or an asshole was wait on them. The waiters > and waitresses of Santa Fe *loved* certain spiritual > followers, because they treated them like human beings, > and they *loathed* others (like the Sikhs), because > they treated them like shit, and *went out of their > way* to treat them like shit. > > It's the same, for me, with the "enlightened." Anyone > can *talk* a good game. But where the rubber meets the > road is how you live your life on a daily basis, and > at the end of each day, how many other people's lives > you managed to improve by interacting with them. **snip to end** Turq, have to agree with you here and wholeheartedly. I bartended and waited tables for years and right before law school I owned and ran a bohemian little cafe and pub in Davis, California. There is s much you can tell about a person from how they receive service, particularly service that they feel they have paid for. The choreography of serving a table who innocently anticipates and appreciates good service is a true delight and anyone who has ever worked as a server knows how sweet that is.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What would you teach?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > > > > That's been my experience as well, but here's a serious > > > question I've wrestled with and haven't resolved yet: > > > Is it really *selfless* service if you do it because it > > > makes you happier? > > > > > > Not that service *shouldn't* make one happier--but if > > > that's *why* one is doing the service, I think perhaps > > > one shouldn't ennoble it with the adjective "selfless." > > > > > > Does the recipient care if the act makes you happy? At first glance, > > or course not -- the service is enjoyed by them, independent of your > > state. > > > > At second glance, if you were homebound and a meals-on-wheels > volunteer > > came to your house with a cooked meal, would you prefer them to be > > full of sacrifice, resentment (at having to do this seva shit), > > self-righteous, and frustrated? Or would you prefer someone who > > really got a kick out of doing this gig, was enthusiastic, bubbling > > over with good cheer -- and even a bit of warm silliness? > > > > Why does "selflessness" ennoble service? If anything, it seems to > take > > the heart out of it. Skewers it through the heart. > > > > If there is an anthropomorphic god, do you think she/he is going -- > > "ah good one my son/daughter -- you were totally miserable while > doing > > that service. You are a true reflection of my image -- an angry > > frustrated bastard / bitch -- you really get my teaching!" > > I'm not sure I made my point clear, given your > response. What exactly did you think I was > advocating with regard to doing service? > First, I like your response above. You politely, perhaps even humbly put the onus on your self for not being clear. And you didn't criticize my response, or me, you simply pointed out there was a disconnect somewhere, non fault non-communication. A good model for responding, IMO. In response to your polite inquiry, I did not see you strongly advocating -- rather suggesting that one shouldn't ennoble "joyful service" [my term], or mix it up with, with "selfless" service. However implied in your post seemed to me to be certain assumptions, and its those I was questioning. For my self. It was not a criticism of any assumption whether yours or societies. And I was questioning similar assumptions in posts earlier this morning. So my response was a continuation of a prior train of thought, a further clarification for me, and less a direct response to your specific question. [a practice that may seem impolite to some. Not to me. I mean no disrespect by not directly responding to a persons point. And I feel fine, contributing something from perhaps a different angle. YMMV. But I should be clearer that I am on a tangent.] The assumptions or implication that I was questioning -- and I sse them as social assumptions, part of a meme -- if thats a proper use of the term -- is that service should be selfless. Clearly you distinguished that service can make one happy -- so I was not confused that you might be saying otherwise. However, a possible reflection of a social meme i found in your post was the perhaps implict assumption that selfless service is more noble than happy service. Its that social meme I was questioning. But, I see where my post could have been clearer in what I was addressing. I know that when people go off on their own tangents when addressing my posts I sometimes go "huh?!" Sorry if my non-selfless, but joyful pondering inadvertently invoked that response in you. Its a lesson in better writing that I will try to remember.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What would you teach?
Compulsive response below: ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: **snip** > > As you do, I think, I sometimes evaluate a teacher and teaching > org/method by its adherents. And organization. Does the thing result > in happier, friendlier, more caring, smarter, wiser, flexible, in the > moment and less tied to, or (frustrated by) past things and future > unfulfilled desires, do they read, speak and think clearly, do they > see the best in you and spontaneously bring that out, is their > reasoning logical, do they seem pretty clear of major cognitive biases > ? Are they successful in their lifes work and personal lives? Are > they fit and healthy, have a healthy glow? Are people laughing, > sweetly funny, providing useful insights? > > Or are the people self-righteous, petty, muddled in understanding > about what others say, or what they read, illogical? Do they attribute > odd and bizarre motivations and inner structures to people, fumbling > deep within cognitive biases, seem to have a stick up their ass, are > "me" directed, are socially judgemental, toot superfical politics and > ontologies, don't seem like they would be fun people to hang with, are > dismissive, haven't achieved much, seem hung up on a lot of stuff, are > vindictive, fearful, etc > > I tend to like "teachings" that produce the former types of people and > organizations. > > And some say such criteria is silly. "You can't tell anything about a > persons inner development from their outer actions. There is > absolutely no connection, (And you are very ignorant for even thinking > that)". Thats fine if that works for them. It doesn't work for me. I > like group A people and what ever it is they do that helps cultivate > and nurture those qualities. I tend to shy away from Group B people, > their schtick, and their organizations. > **end** New, the above is (IMO) absolutely right on. And, although one may not be able to say anything about any specific individual's state of consciousness by any discrete actions they perform, it seems obvious that in an organization of many individuals, all more or less following the same practices and philosophy, you can look to the overall performance and behavior of the group and discern trends and charateristics from which you would be able to form some pretty accurate opinions and conclusions. The criterion of "would I want to hang out with this person" is a fundamentally valid one as suitable for one's guru as the girl or guy next door.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What would you teach?
Quick comment below: ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > So I'm gonna stick with selfless service, as noble > > an idea as "All you need is love" may be. Yours may > > actually be a more *advanced* teaching than mine, for > > those who have gotten to the point where they *can* > > love most of the things or people around them. I was > > thinking more of lowlives like myself, who just aren't > > there yet, and need something more remedial, something > > they can *do*, Here And Now, that will make their > > lives a little happier. For me, that "something" is > > selfless service. It always works, and always puts a > > smile on your face, whether you love the person you > > are helping or not. Ya gotta love it. :-) > > That's been my experience as well, but here's a serious > question I've wrestled with and haven't resolved yet: > Is it really *selfless* service if you do it because it > makes you happier? > > Not that service *shouldn't* make one happier--but if > that's *why* one is doing the service, I think perhaps > one shouldn't ennoble it with the adjective "selfless." > **end** It seems to me that the use of the term 'selfless' isn't meant as a descriptive of the service provider, but of the service provided. In other words, the service, whatever it is, is done completely engaged and without any other purpose than the service itself. It's not done 'for' any purpose of the provider, though there may be this collateral expansion of love and happiness that we're talking about. It's just engaged activity without any other thoughts or moodmaking about it. (Reading that back, it seems to be an exercise in tail-chasing, but I'll leave it for now.)
[FairfieldLife] Re: What would you teach?
Comment below: ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: **snip** > I would try to teach people that there's a distinction > between the contents of consciousness and consciousness > itself--the "container" of those contents--and then to > understand why the nature of consciousness itself is > what is known in consciousness theory and research as > "the hard problem." > > It seems to me this is a seminal insight that many > people miss. When I got it under my belt, it changed > my entire outlook and opened up all kinds of new > vistas. I think the absence of this insight is very > limiting if one has any impulse toward self-development > and any concern for the problem of suffering in the > world. > > The insight itself is neutral; it doesn't carry any > particular imperatives, it just expands the range of > choices of action and demonstrates why some choices > are likely to be less productive than others. > > Perhaps the corollary insight that reinforces the > insight of the one about consciousness is that you > can't solve the problem on the level of the problem > (yes, that's a MMY slogan, but it was a concept also > expressed by Einstein, so it isn't peculiar to TM). > **end** Judy, this is really a huge and powerful understanding, I agree. It wasn't until a few years ago, when I first read Nisargadatta, that it finally dawned on me about what I'd been hearing from Maharishi for all those years. Before that I 'understood' it but something happened and the bulb lit up. But just the idea that 'you' are different from your thoughts and emotions is powerfully liberating; and just a small step away from the quest of figuring out who or what it is that is always present, no matter what the thought or changing condition.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What would you teach?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > That's been my experience as well, but here's a serious > > question I've wrestled with and haven't resolved yet: > > Is it really *selfless* service if you do it because it > > makes you happier? > > > > Not that service *shouldn't* make one happier--but if > > that's *why* one is doing the service, I think perhaps > > one shouldn't ennoble it with the adjective "selfless." > > > Does the recipient care if the act makes you happy? At first glance, > or course not -- the service is enjoyed by them, independent of your > state. > > At second glance, if you were homebound and a meals-on-wheels volunteer > came to your house with a cooked meal, would you prefer them to be > full of sacrifice, resentment (at having to do this seva shit), > self-righteous, and frustrated? Or would you prefer someone who > really got a kick out of doing this gig, was enthusiastic, bubbling > over with good cheer -- and even a bit of warm silliness? > > Why does "selflessness" ennoble service? If anything, it seems to take > the heart out of it. Skewers it through the heart. > > If there is an anthropomorphic god, do you think she/he is going -- > "ah good one my son/daughter -- you were totally miserable while doing > that service. You are a true reflection of my image -- an angry > frustrated bastard / bitch -- you really get my teaching!" I'm not sure I made my point clear, given your response. What exactly did you think I was advocating with regard to doing service?
[FairfieldLife] Re: What would you teach?
Comment belwo: ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > **snip** > > Sounds good to me. The only problem with "love," > from my perspective as a wordsmith, is what *kind* > of love you're gonna teach about, and what *kind* > of love the students are going to hear in their > heads when they hear you talk about it. > > Love is one of those words that bonds with others, > the way the plastic in Tupperware bonds to the salad > oil you try to store in it on a molecular level and > messes up your Tupperware and makes it sticky and > icky forever so you end up throwing it away. :-) > > I mean, you've got true love, puppy love, tough love, > first love, unrequited love, undying love, romantic > love, idealized love, jaded love, unrequited love, > the love of God, the love that dares not speak its > name, and so on. Love has more forms than Baskin- > Robbins has flavors of ice cream. > > Plus, in most people's view, love is something you > *feel*, not something you *do*. When I was searching > for something worthy of teaching, I was looking for > something people could *do* on a daily basis to make > their lives happier and more fulfilled. While love > certainly qualifies, it's a little more difficult > to *do* if you don't already *feel* it. You're work- > ing in a hospice, feeding an old woman who is near- > ing her last days, and the pain of her cancer has > left her so angry and so mean that she tries to bite > you with every spoonful. And the cancer itself has > left her smelling so bad that you want to run from > the room to escape the smell, and take a shower, and > then take another one, just to be sure. Love is a > tough one to pull off in situations like that, unless > you are *already* a saint, and my advice was aimed at > those who haven't achieved sainthood yet. > > But with selfless service, you just do the service, > and at the end of it you feel more selfless. It's > like Alan Watts' old one-liner about Zen, "Zen does > not confuse spirituality with thinking about God while > one is peeling potatoes. Zen spirituality is just to > peel the potatoes." Selfless service is not about try- > ing to feel selfless while doing the service, it's > just about doing the service. And the selflessness, > and yes...the love, comes from just *doing* it. > > So I'm gonna stick with selfless service, as noble > an idea as "All you need is love" may be. Yours may > actually be a more *advanced* teaching than mine, for > those who have gotten to the point where they *can* > love most of the things or people around them. I was > thinking more of lowlives like myself, who just aren't > there yet, and need something more remedial, something > they can *do*, Here And Now, that will make their > lives a little happier. For me, that "something" is > selfless service. It always works, and always puts a > smile on your face, whether you love the person you > are helping or not. Ya gotta love it. :-) > > Thanks again for the noble question. It gave me the > chance to transcend the normal (sorry to say it, but > it's true) argumentative, my-philosophy-is-better-than- > your-philosophy-my-teacher's-dick-is-longer-than-your- > teacher's-dick banter of FFL and think about a bigger > question: What would *I* teach if I had the oppor- > tunity to teach again? > > I think that's a pretty interesting question, one that > most of us here could benefit from pondering. The fact > that so few did is IMO an indication of the resistance > to the idea that is so ingrained after years of spirit- > ual practice, and coming to believe that there is only > one way it *can* be taught, and seeing the ups and downs > of teaching it that way. There *are* ups and downs, in > the best and most noble and cleanest spiritual tradition, > and over time we start to focus on them, and forget the > impulse that drew us to that tradition and to the > spiritual path in the first place. If you're anything > like me, that impulse was, "H...this person giving > this talk seems to know something that enables him to > be *happier* than I am. I'd like to find out what that > *is*. For my own sake, and then for others'. Because > if it works for me, I'm going to want to tell others > about it." > > That's a neat impulse to be aware of, and to keep in > mind, in my opinion. Another name for it might be the > answer you provided -- love. > **snip to end** Turq, thanks again for taking this further (and back to the same place at the same time). After I wrote my post I thought to go back and change 'my' teaching from "all you need is love" to "all you 'are' is love". Don't know exactly why I didn't; but maybe it's because I feel that one of Maharishi's greatest teachings (if not 'the' greatest for me) is the "what you put your attention on grows stronger in life" dictum. In my experience it doesn't seem to take a whole lot of effort to just start to incline towards something in your life
[FairfieldLife] Re: What would you teach?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > One credo: While there are lots of types of service, some very > > sacraficial, I am going to dig deep and find ways to serve by > > using my best and most productive skills. Realizing the concept > > of pro bono work is not just for lawyers. And hey, actually > > enjoying service does not dilute its value to others. > > Absolutely. If you can find a way to be of service while > doing something you enjoy, win-win. > > > Perhaps a good writers best service is to write. They might > > take some pro bono time each week and write in ways and on > > things that "help". > > That's helpful only if they have a readership. :-) > > Writing "helpful things" in your Journal or to a forum > that no one reads isn't really gonna help that much. :-) Perhaps that writer is not digging deep enough -- to figure out other ways to i) be of significant service, ii) be really good at it, effective, iii) and enjoy the shit out of it. Surely creative writers are not restricted to writing in unread journals and forums. An after thought (is that like an after life for a thought?) "Enjoy the shit out of it" is a quite descriptive of a "process" (or perhaps only a result) of transforming shitty tasks into joyful ones. (and I have cleaned up copius shit, literally, from elderly incapacitated ones. I am thinking of that experience. I "enjoyed" the "shit" out of "it". Maybe thats what the Moses snake analogy was about "Arise ye shit, arise and become joy)"
[FairfieldLife] Re: What would you teach?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Good posts from both you (Turq) and Marek. It was a really good question from Marek, one that invited us all to step out of the normal mindset and act like teachers again. It inspired me to do so. > Service is a good thing -- and hardly, IMO, against God's will. > (It feels silly to have to point that out -- but when a silly > message is tooted by SCEs, we end up inserting silly sounding > distinctions.) And they're not all that silly, given some of the pronouncements by the Supposedly Enlightened. I'm pretty seriously underwhelmed by "It's all perfect as it is." That may be true, from one point of view and supposed state of consciousness, but it's *also* often a justification for not doing diddley for anyone else. After 40+ years on a spiritual path, I'm just sick and tired of the "when I realize my enlightenment everything will be great and I can relax" approach. It assumes that just *being* enlightened is enough of a service for one's fellow man. They are privi- leged to have you on the planet, and adding your Woo Woo Rays to the sum of beneficial, sattvic Woo Woo Rays. And when called on this 'tude, many of the Supposedly Enlightened respond by calling the person who has pointed this 'tude of theirs out by calling them ignorant. "You'll understand when you get as evolved as I am." Yeah, right. Personally I hope that I NEVER get as enlightened as that. As I've said before, give me a Gandhi over a Maharishi any day, someone who is willing to get down and dirty and actually *meet* the common people he hopes to help, eat the food they eat (or starve along with them), sleep in the fields with them, risk your life at the barricades, just as they do. THAT sounds like enlight- enment to me. Sitting on high making pronouncements about how perfect everything is doesn't. Neither does wearing long, flow- ing robes and Burger King crowns. Neither, for that matter, does sitting back in one's comfortable house and cutting a check to take care of one's "selfless service debt" for the year, and then going back to doing for oneself. Call me crazy, but I think that the enlightened should set an *example* for others. And if the example that they set is to effectively say to all the poor and starving and oppressed people of the world, "You folks are perfect as you are, so the only thing I'm going to do for you is bombard you with the awesome power of my Woo Woo Rays," I'm going to have about as much respect for them as I do for Dick Cheney and Karl Rove, or for some billionaire who spends all his time making more billions, and never puts any energy back into the system that made him wealthy (and others poor). When it comes to enlightenment, I'm a Will Rogers populist. The "test" of how enlightened they are, and how willing they are to *do for others* is how they really *do* do for others on a daily basis. Do they eat at fancy restaurants that wouldn't allow someone poor through the front door, or do they feel comfort- able enough with themselves to eat at Denny's? And, in *either* dining establishment, how do they treat their *waitress*? Do they treat her like a human being and tip her well for her service, or do they treat her like a servant? One of the "clues" I picked up in Santa Fe about how the real world perceives those on a spiritual path was *from* waitresses. Santa Fe was kind of a New Age zoo, with almost every cult or organization represented to some extent. And all you had to do to figure out whether their spiritual path had turned them into a good person or an asshole was wait on them. The waiters and waitresses of Santa Fe *loved* certain spiritual followers, because they treated them like human beings, and they *loathed* others (like the Sikhs), because they treated them like shit, and *went out of their way* to treat them like shit. It's the same, for me, with the "enlightened." Anyone can *talk* a good game. But where the rubber meets the road is how you live your life on a daily basis, and at the end of each day, how many other people's lives you managed to improve by interacting with them. > But service can have a flavor of sacrifice. Not to dis sacrifice, > but does it make sense to mitigate suffering with suffering? I think that's often another excuse for doing nothing. It *isn't* necessary to suffer to alleviate the suffer- ing of others. > Service also, in me, can invoke a sense of doing often menial and > distasteful stuff, often stuff we are not particularly skilled or > trained in. Not to dis rolling up your sleeves and getting on the > front lines of helping someone. I have found that it can shake off > lots of life's superficialities. Not to mention reminding the person of who they really are and what they could be doing for a *living* if they hadn't been as fortunate as they have been. > And I am not trying to redefine and superficialize "service", > setting up a strawman to kn
[FairfieldLife] Re: What would you teach?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > That's been my experience as well, but here's a serious > question I've wrestled with and haven't resolved yet: > Is it really *selfless* service if you do it because it > makes you happier? > > Not that service *shouldn't* make one happier--but if > that's *why* one is doing the service, I think perhaps > one shouldn't ennoble it with the adjective "selfless." Does the recipient care if the act makes you happy? At first glance, or course not -- the service is enjoyed by them, independent of your state. At second glance, if you were homebound and a meals-on-wheels volunteer came to your house with a cooked meal, would you prefer them to be full of sacrifice, resentment (at having to do this seva shit), self-righteous, and frustrated? Or would you prefer someone who really got a kick out of doing this gig, was enthusiastic, bubbling over with good cheer -- and even a bit of warm silliness? Why does "selflessness" ennoble service? If anything, it seems to take the heart out of it. Skewers it through the heart. If there is an anthropomorphic god, do you think she/he is going -- "ah good one my son/daughter -- you were totally miserable while doing that service. You are a true reflection of my image -- an angry frustrated bastard / bitch -- you really get my teaching!"
[FairfieldLife] Re: What would you teach?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > While love > certainly qualifies, it's a little more difficult > to *do* if you don't already *feel* it. You're work- > ing in a hospice, feeding an old woman who is near- > ing her last days, and the pain of her cancer has > left her so angry and so mean that she tries to bite > you with every spoonful. And the cancer itself has > left her smelling so bad that you want to run from > the room to escape the smell, and take a shower, and > then take another one, just to be sure. Love is a > tough one to pull off in situations like that, unless > you are *already* a saint, and my advice was aimed at > those who haven't achieved sainthood yet. > > But with selfless service, you just do the service, > and at the end of it you feel more selfless. It's > like Alan Watts' old one-liner about Zen, "Zen does > not confuse spirituality with thinking about God while > one is peeling potatoes. Zen spirituality is just to > peel the potatoes." Selfless service is not about try- > ing to feel selfless while doing the service, it's > just about doing the service. And the selflessness, > and yes...the love, comes from just *doing* it. Good posts from both you (Turq) and Marek. Service is a good thing -- and hardly, IMO, against God's will. (It feels silly to have to point that out -- but when a silly message is tooted by SCEs, we end up inserting silly sounding distinctions.) But service can have a flavor of sacrifice. Not to dis sacrifice, but does it make sense to mitigate suffering with suffering? Different magnitudes of suffering), true. But it strikes a strange chord in me. Service also, in me, can invoke a sense of doing often menial and distasteful stuff, often stuff we are not particularly skilled or trained in. Not to dis rolling up your sleeves and getting on the front lines of helping someone. I have found that it can shake off lots of life's superficialities. And I am not trying to redefine and superficialize "service", setting up a strawman to knock down. I am just pointing out that "service" can be seen, and can be done, with these attributes: doing stuff one doesn't like to do, and isn't particularly skilled at. It seems there would be more service if people could provide it, enjoying it and being really good at it. One credo: While there are lots of types of service, some very sacraficial, I am going to dig deep and find ways to serve by using my best and most productive skills. Realizing the concept of pro bono work is not just for lawyers. And hey, actually enjoying service does not dilute its value to others. Perhaps a good writers best service is to write. They might take some pro bono time each week and write in ways and on things that "help". > spiritual path in the first place. If you're anything > like me, that impulse was, "H...this person giving > this talk seems to know something that enables him to > be *happier* than I am. I'd like to find out what that > *is*. For my own sake, and then for others'. Because > if it works for me, I'm going to want to tell others > about it." As you do, I think, I sometimes evaluate a teacher and teaching org/method by its adherents. And organization. Does the thing result in happier, friendlier, more caring, smarter, wiser, flexible, in the moment and less tied to, or (frustrated by) past things and future unfulfilled desires, do they read, speak and think clearly, do they see the best in you and spontaneously bring that out, is their reasoning logical, do they seem pretty clear of major cognitive biases ? Are they successful in their lifes work and personal lives? Are they fit and healthy, have a healthy glow? Are people laughing, sweetly funny, providing useful insights? Or are the people self-righteous, petty, muddled in understanding about what others say, or what they read, illogical? Do they attribute odd and bizarre motivations and inner structures to people, fumbling deep within cognitive biases, seem to have a stick up their ass, are "me" directed, are socially judgemental, toot superfical politics and ontologies, don't seem like they would be fun people to hang with, are dismissive, haven't achieved much, seem hung up on a lot of stuff, are vindictive, fearful, etc I tend to like "teachings" that produce the former types of people and organizations. And some say such criteria is silly. "You can't tell anything about a persons inner development from their outer actions. There is absolutely no connection, (And you are very ignorant for even thinking that)". Thats fine if that works for them. It doesn't work for me. I like group A people and what ever it is they do that helps cultivate and nurture those qualities. I tend to shy away from Group B people, their schtick, and their organizations.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What would you teach?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So I'm gonna stick with selfless service, as noble > an idea as "All you need is love" may be. Yours may > actually be a more *advanced* teaching than mine, for > those who have gotten to the point where they *can* > love most of the things or people around them. I was > thinking more of lowlives like myself, who just aren't > there yet, and need something more remedial, something > they can *do*, Here And Now, that will make their > lives a little happier. For me, that "something" is > selfless service. It always works, and always puts a > smile on your face, whether you love the person you > are helping or not. Ya gotta love it. :-) That's been my experience as well, but here's a serious question I've wrestled with and haven't resolved yet: Is it really *selfless* service if you do it because it makes you happier? Not that service *shouldn't* make one happier--but if that's *why* one is doing the service, I think perhaps one shouldn't ennoble it with the adjective "selfless."
[FairfieldLife] Re: What would you teach?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > So I was wondering . . . if you could teach or impart just one > thing to a person, the one thing or teaching or fundamental > knowledge or wisdom that you had gleaned from your life > experiences -- the thing that you would most want to share, the > thing that you grokked the most -- what would it be? A > technique?, some insight?, a philosophy?, a government?, a new > social order? I would try to teach people that there's a distinction between the contents of consciousness and consciousness itself--the "container" of those contents--and then to understand why the nature of consciousness itself is what is known in consciousness theory and research as "the hard problem." It seems to me this is a seminal insight that many people miss. When I got it under my belt, it changed my entire outlook and opened up all kinds of new vistas. I think the absence of this insight is very limiting if one has any impulse toward self-development and any concern for the problem of suffering in the world. The insight itself is neutral; it doesn't carry any particular imperatives, it just expands the range of choices of action and demonstrates why some choices are likely to be less productive than others. Perhaps the corollary insight that reinforces the insight of the one about consciousness is that you can't solve the problem on the level of the problem (yes, that's a MMY slogan, but it was a concept also expressed by Einstein, so it isn't peculiar to TM).
[FairfieldLife] Re: What would you teach?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Turq, thanks for your answer (below) and thanks, too, for the > other responses posted. (It's fun to be reminded that when you > get all serious and "noble" and shit, "poontang" may actually > be the best answer after all.) Tell me about it. When I read that one, I wanted to trade in my answer for a membership in the local branch of The Church Of Poontang. I'm still trying to imagine the communion rituals and the passing of the collection plates. :-) > But to get back to the original intention behind the question, > and to dialogue a little more with you, Turq, I think that my > own answer isn't too different from yours, if at all. And as > New Morning suggested, my 'one' most important teaching does > actually scatter into a cluster of interrelated ones. > > However, if I extract the one element that fully informed the > most sublime and cosmic of my interior experiences and also > look to that same element as it percolates through and suffuses > my everyday life and radiates outwards, it seems to be love. > My selection for the highest teaching seems to be the same > thing that's been topping the Top 40 pop charts for as long > as they've been around. All you need is love. > > Kiss it and make it feel better. Don't be afraid, Mommy is > here now. Trust me, I'll catch you. Don't worry, I'll take > care of it. Here, let me get that for you. Are you allright, > can I help? Here's a dollar, it's all I've got right now. > No problem, man, it was an accident. I understand. Happy > to help. You're welcome. Thank you. Sounds good to me. The only problem with "love," from my perspective as a wordsmith, is what *kind* of love you're gonna teach about, and what *kind* of love the students are going to hear in their heads when they hear you talk about it. Love is one of those words that bonds with others, the way the plastic in Tupperware bonds to the salad oil you try to store in it on a molecular level and messes up your Tupperware and makes it sticky and icky forever so you end up throwing it away. :-) I mean, you've got true love, puppy love, tough love, first love, unrequited love, undying love, romantic love, idealized love, jaded love, unrequited love, the love of God, the love that dares not speak its name, and so on. Love has more forms than Baskin- Robbins has flavors of ice cream. Plus, in most people's view, love is something you *feel*, not something you *do*. When I was searching for something worthy of teaching, I was looking for something people could *do* on a daily basis to make their lives happier and more fulfilled. While love certainly qualifies, it's a little more difficult to *do* if you don't already *feel* it. You're work- ing in a hospice, feeding an old woman who is near- ing her last days, and the pain of her cancer has left her so angry and so mean that she tries to bite you with every spoonful. And the cancer itself has left her smelling so bad that you want to run from the room to escape the smell, and take a shower, and then take another one, just to be sure. Love is a tough one to pull off in situations like that, unless you are *already* a saint, and my advice was aimed at those who haven't achieved sainthood yet. But with selfless service, you just do the service, and at the end of it you feel more selfless. It's like Alan Watts' old one-liner about Zen, "Zen does not confuse spirituality with thinking about God while one is peeling potatoes. Zen spirituality is just to peel the potatoes." Selfless service is not about try- ing to feel selfless while doing the service, it's just about doing the service. And the selflessness, and yes...the love, comes from just *doing* it. So I'm gonna stick with selfless service, as noble an idea as "All you need is love" may be. Yours may actually be a more *advanced* teaching than mine, for those who have gotten to the point where they *can* love most of the things or people around them. I was thinking more of lowlives like myself, who just aren't there yet, and need something more remedial, something they can *do*, Here And Now, that will make their lives a little happier. For me, that "something" is selfless service. It always works, and always puts a smile on your face, whether you love the person you are helping or not. Ya gotta love it. :-) Thanks again for the noble question. It gave me the chance to transcend the normal (sorry to say it, but it's true) argumentative, my-philosophy-is-better-than- your-philosophy-my-teacher's-dick-is-longer-than-your- teacher's-dick banter of FFL and think about a bigger question: What would *I* teach if I had the oppor- tunity to teach again? I think that's a pretty interesting question, one that most of us here could benefit from pondering. The fact that so few did is IMO an indication of the resistance to the idea that is so ingrained after years of spirit- ua
[FairfieldLife] Re: What would you teach?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Turq, thanks for your answer (below) and thanks, too, for the other > responses posted. (It's fun to be reminded that when you get all > serious and "noble" and shit, "poontang" may actually be the best > answer after all.) > > But to get back to the original intention behind the question, and to > dialogue a little more with you, Turq, I think that my own answer > isn't too different from yours, if at all. And as New Morning > suggested, my 'one' most important teaching does actually scatter into > a cluster of interrelated ones. > Restated, I would say, there is no one thing because its about giving your all to whoever or whatever walks up, wakes up, speaks up, spanks, shouts out, whispers, passes out, gets sick, laughs, insightfulates, pontificates, lacerates, waves their hands furiously, smiles, gets angervated, ignores you, cuts you off on the freeway, promotes you, fires you, praises or scorns you, throws a pie in your face, what ever is in front of you, every moment, "DO THAT". ION, th TMO is all about s stealth techniques. (Tom has a great take on this.) My take on it is that the core teaching is: "Take it as it comes". When you fully grok, koanate, absorbifuse, and integregate, difusinate and coredistilate that into your life, then you Got the teaching. The other stealth pillar of wisdom of course is checking. When you ACTUALLY realize how effortless thoughts come, and GET what that means, in its awesome ramifications, all then you GOT the teaching. . All the meditation, YF, AV, SV etc are just ploys to keep our attention on somethng else, while the true stealth teachngs sink in, innocently. shh, but don't tell anyone.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What would you teach?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Turq, thanks for your answer (below) and thanks, too, for the other > responses posted. (It's fun to be reminded that when you get all > serious and "noble" and shit, "poontang" may actually be the best > answer after all.) > > But to get back to the original intention behind the question, and to > dialogue a little more with you, Turq, I think that my own answer > isn't too different from yours, if at all. And as New Morning > suggested, my 'one' most important teaching does actually scatter into > a cluster of interrelated ones. > Restated, I would say, there is no one thing because its about giving your all to whoever or whatever walks up, wakes up, speaks up, spanks, shouts out, whispers, passes out, gets sick, laughs, insightfulates, pontificates, lacerates, waves their hands furiously, smiles, gets angervated, ignores you, cuts you off on the freeway, promotes you, fires you, praises or scorns you, throws a pie in your face, what ever is in front of you, every moment, "DO THAT". ION, th TMO is all about s stealth techniques. (Tom has a great take on this.) My take on it is that the core teaching is: "Take it as it comes". When you fully grok, koanate, absorbifuse, and integregate, difusinate and coredistilate that into your life, then you Got the teaching. The other stealth pillar of wisdom of course is checking. When you ACTUALLY realize how effortless thoughts come, and GET what that means, in its awesome ramifications, all then you GOT the teaching. . All the meditation, YF, AV, SV etc are just ploys to keep our attention on somethng else, while the true stealth teachngs sink in, innocently. shh, but don't tell anyone.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What would you teach?
Turq, thanks for your answer (below) and thanks, too, for the other responses posted. (It's fun to be reminded that when you get all serious and "noble" and shit, "poontang" may actually be the best answer after all.) But to get back to the original intention behind the question, and to dialogue a little more with you, Turq, I think that my own answer isn't too different from yours, if at all. And as New Morning suggested, my 'one' most important teaching does actually scatter into a cluster of interrelated ones. However, if I extract the one element that fully informed the most sublime and cosmic of my interior experiences and also look to that same element as it percolates through and suffuses my everyday life and radiates outwards, it seems to be love. My selection for the highest teaching seems to be the same thing that's been topping the Top 40 pop charts for as long as they've been around. All you need is love. Kiss it and make it feel better. Don't be afraid, Mommy is here now. Trust me, I'll catch you. Don't worry, I'll take care of it. Here, let me get that for you. Are you allright, can I help? Here's a dollar, it's all I've got right now. No problem, man, it was an accident. I understand. Happy to help. You're welcome. Thank you. Marek ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis" > wrote: > > > > Everyone here has had so much interior experience and > > exposure to teachers, gurus, charlatans and saints in > > one form or another, and many of us are more or less > > 'elders' in our societies and have the benefit of the > > wisdom of age (to one degree or another). > > > > So I was wondering . . . if you could teach or impart > > just one thing to a person, the one thing or teaching > > or fundamental knowledge or wisdom that you had gleaned > > from your life experiences -- the thing that you would > > most want to share, the thing that you grokked the most > > -- what would it be? A technique?, some insight?, a > > philosophy?, a government?, a new social order? > > > > I don't have an answer myself at the present, or if I > > do I don't feel up to summarizing or articulating it > > yet. But I really would be interested if anyone else > > has any response and what their response would be. > > A fine and noble question, Marek, one that > I have pondered often over the years, and > one that I pondered again just now while > walking my neighbor's dogs. And, as it turns > out, I do have a ready answer for this ques- > tion, and have for years. After 40+ years on > the spiritual path, there *is* one teaching > that stands out for me above all others, and > that is the one I would try to convey to > someone else, if they asked me to. You asked, > so here it is. > > Selfless service -- doing nice things for others. > > I'll explain more in a minute, but first a word > or two to explain why other candidates didn't > win the Miss Universe prize and walk down the > catwalk with tears in their eyes and a bouquet > of roses in their hands, wearing a crown. :-) > > Some would undoubtedly teach the pursuit of > enlightenment. I wouldn't, for a number of > reasons. First, after all of these years and > all of the pursuit of it I indulged in, I have > to weigh enlightenment as a pretty selfish > concern. I am not convinced that enlightenment > itself does a whole lot for anyone except the > person who has realized it. I'm not a big > believer in the lasting value of darshan and > grace, even though I have experienced those > things, and I'm not convinced that the presence > in the world of an enlightened being affects it > all that much. Plus, to be honest, many of the > people whose primary goal in life is the real- > ization of their own enlightenment have struck > me over the decades as some of the most mis- > erable and *unhappy* people I've ever met. So > that one's just not a contender in the contest. > She flubbed up in the talent contest. :-) > > Meditation would certainly be something I'd > recommend, in whatever form that you feel a > personal resonance with. But I'd never suggest > that meditation alone is going to change your > life and make it a happy one. I've known too > many multi-decade meditators, in too many > traditions, to believe that meditation alone > is a panacea. > > No, for me selfless service is the clear winner > because IT MAKES YOU HAPPY. And for me, being > able to be happy is a cool thing, because it > radiates. *Forget* the "Maharishi Effect" or > any New Age bull about changing the world with > the power of your personal Woo Woo Rays. I'm > talking pure, unadulterated *happiness*, the > kind that transforms a room when a truly happy > person walks into it, and that could in my > estimation similarly transform the world. > > The paradigm we have been taught in this age > is, in my opinion, 100% backasswards. We are > all taugh
