RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is that so? -- an homage to Rick and his equanimity
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of authfriend Sent: Saturday, May 23, 2009 9:13 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is that so? -- an homage to Rick and his equanimity --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , Rick Archer r...@... wrote: snip I think the Vedic literature is written the way it is, with so many expectation-shattering stories, to culture the perspective that one's own little peephole on the Universe does not afford a view of the whole, and that therefore one should not take oneself too seriously. Because if you don't take yourself too seriously, you never need to take a stand on anything; you don't need to take any risks or fight any battles. The injustice and cruelty and suffering you see through your little peephole just doesn't matter in the larger scale of things; no need to exert yourself to remedy it. Q: If everything is perfect just as it is, why are we working so hard to change things? MMY: That too is perfect just as it is. ...There is no room for timidity. The fact that you might be wrong is simply no excuse: You might be right in your communication, and you might be wrong, but that doesn't matter. What does matter, as Kierkegaard so rudely reminded us, is that only by investing and speaking your vision with passion, can the truth, one way or another, finally penetrate the reluctance of the world. If you are right, or if you are wrong, it is only your passion that will force either to be discovered. It is your duty to promote that discovery--either way--and therefore it is your duty to speak your truth with whatever passion and courage you can find in your heart. You must shout, in whatever way you can. --Ken Wilber Busy week, but I've been meaning to respond to this. I agree about being passionately committed to things, but I think that development of consciousness results in the tendency to consciously incorporate paradox in pretty much all situations. One may be fighting fiercely for something one believes in, but that focus is never the totality of one's life. One lives a larger reality that incorporates not only that conviction, but a simultaneous appreciation of other, possibly conflicting perspectives. It's hard to take anything utterly seriously. Think Krishna smiling on the battlefield. Most wars, suicide bombings, abortion clinic bombings, church burnings, religious inquisitions, and chat room arguments result from a failure to have developed such a vision.
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is that so? -- an homage to Rick and his equanimity
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of TurquoiseB Sent: Saturday, May 23, 2009 9:43 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is that so? -- an homage to Rick and his equanimity --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , Rick Archer r...@... wrote: Thanks for the appreciative words, Barry. It so happens that that particular Zen story is one of my inspirations and I've told it often. The other day Judy mentioned that I must be really pissed because of something Raunchy said. It surprised me a bit that she would think I would get upset by something someone wrote here. Another thought on this, and on why some folks seem to get the wisdom of Is that so? and others do not. I have found in my life that those who seem most driven to defend themselves when either criticized or when someone sees them differently than they like to see themselves *have rarely bucked the system*. And, in fact in spiritual contexts, they have often *submitted* to the system for many years, making compromises to do so. For example, in organizations with a bit (or a lot) of cultic nature to them, it is not unusual for members to regularly be expected to defend themselves to be considered a member in good standing. Do this long enough, and you get used to it and consider it normal. The people in my experience who most get the Is that so? thang are those who have gone through a period of doubting or who have shifted their priorities in life and have to some extent walked away from an organization that they were strongly committed to for many years. Those who have never done this in a spiritual context simply DO NOT UNDERSTAND how the shit hits the fan when you do. Former friends in the organization you are walking away from (or distancing yourself from) have a tendency to suddenly turn on you and start saying things you never imagined them capable of. Former close friends cross the street to avoid talking to you. You start to hear rumors about yourself that defy belief. Some people even say shit to your face, and call you traitor or worse for leaving the highest path. I had a brick thrown through one of my windows when I walked away from the Rama trip. At first your impulse is to defend yourself. After all, you don't *understand* how these former friends and fellow seekers can one day treat you as an equal and as a valued member of the spiritual community and path that you shared for years or decades and the next day treat you like you were a child molestor or the spawn of Satan. So you try to explain yourself. If you care about these people (even if you don't really care what they think of you), you try to tell them that nothing has really changed about who and what you are, or you even try to explain your reasons for having made the decision that you did. But it never works. Your reasons are invalid. There can *be* no valid reasons for walking away from the highest path. By doing so you have shamed yourself and shamed the holy trad- ition you walked away from. You are pond scum, lower than the lint in a snake's navel. Sound familiar, Rick? I'll bet it does. It does, but I think that system-bucking is as much a symptom as a cause. Doing it may culture a broader perspective, but you have to have developed a certain degree of inner freedom before you can do it. I used to be nearly as fanatical as Nabby in my own way. It took me decades to get to the point where I could transition smoothly and almost spontaneously out of the TMO.
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is that so? -- an homage to Rick and his equanimity
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of authfriend Sent: Saturday, May 23, 2009 3:34 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is that so? -- an homage to Rick and his equanimity --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , raunchydog raunchy...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , Rick Archer rick@ wrote: snip I think the Vedic literature is written the way it is, with so many expectation-shattering stories, to culture the perspective that one's own little peephole on the Universe does not afford a view of the whole, and that therefore one should not take oneself too seriously. Because if you don't take yourself too seriously, you never need to take a stand on anything; you don't need to take any risks or fight any battles. The injustice and cruelty and suffering you see through your little peephole just doesn't matter in the larger scale of things; no need to exert yourself to remedy it. You nailed it. I saw the weasel in Rick's post as well, and I gave him a pass on it. I admit to making nice with him at the time. I'm glad you caught the varmint. An excellent specimen, indeed. I agree with Rick's peephole into the universe concept so far as the play of opposites is concerned but not as an excuse for weakly weaseling, Oh, it's just a game, so why should I care. Yeah, it all depends on how the insight is used. It's like the famous Charles Manson quote, If all is One, then what could be wrong? Disastrous category error. Manson's perspective denies the importance of relative values. By that logic, if all is one you should be just as happy eating shit and drinking battery acid as eating wholesome food. As Maharishi always put it, knowledge (or reality) is different in different states of consciousness. The ultimate oneness o things does not negate relative values, laws, ethics, etc., but living that oneness means that you have gained a broader perspective. You still view the world from your individual perspective, but at the same time, you are the totality which includes all perspectives. You can champion your own perspective, but you are less rigid about it.
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is that so? -- an homage to Rick and his equanimity
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of authfriend Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 10:15 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is that so? -- an homage to Rick and his equanimity [Rick wrote:] Busy week, but I've been meaning to respond to this. I agree about being passionately committed to things, but I think that development of consciousness results in the tendency to consciously incorporate paradox in pretty much all situations. One may be fighting fiercely for something one believes in, but that focus is never the totality of one's life. I agree. What I'm getting at is the tendency to use the don't take yourself too seriously meme as an excuse to *avoid* passionate commitment, to put the background, the wider view, in the foreground and reduce the individual elements to insignificance--as if the fact that there *is* a wider view means there's no reason to care about anything in particular. It may all be just Cosmic Play, but we're here to play as well and as hard and as wisely as we can. We don't get to opt out. I completely agree with you. Both I and folks in the TMO in general have played the cosmic cop out game. Hopefully I don't do that much anymore. If the cosmic and the individual are properly balanced and integrated, one can be passionately committed to one's action, yet not bound by it. It also seems that one can more easily sympathize with those holding viewpoints opposite to one's own, and see how they might hold those viewpoints.
