Are we spending to much time on the "I"? - www.ezboard.com

>

SRF Walrus

Mt. Washington, Ca

Open discussions about SRF

SRF Walrus > Core Issues > Are we spending to much time on the "I"?
	<< Prev Topic \| Next Topic >>

Author	Comment
Raja Begum Unregistered User (11/14/01 4:19 am) Reply	Are we spending to much time on the "I"? On a different thread, the following question was posed along with a quote by Gyanamata: The question: "What does it matter? I had a profound shift in thought today. Are we spending too much time on the 'I' ? " The quote: "We make too much of feeling, even admitting that the right kind of feeling is very enjoyable. What does it matter how you feel? Bear your lot as long as it is the will of God that you should do so. Act rightly, and in due time the right feeling of peace and joy will come". To appreciate this quote fully, one has to take into consideration that Gyanamata is a Jnana yogi -- one of many legitimate orientations on the spiritual path. A jnani relies on the use of the mind as a detached witness. The idea is to break identification with name and form, and try to experience one's self as the eternal. When the sensory mind gets the upper hand, the jnani switches to endurance --- he or she regards the phenomenal world as a "flu" to be endured until wellness. We can learn from everybody. But just because the method is correct doesn't mean all can or should use it. One man says the only way up the mountain is by horse. Another insists you can only make it by helicopter. Someone else says you must take a secret tunnel to the top. Which way is right for you? If you go by tunnel, you navigate in a strange internal landscape; it's dark and there are bats and spiders. By helicopter, you get the total view, but you miss the details; also, you must deal with updrafts and crosswinds which can be hazardous. If you go by horse, you get to enjoy the trails and the scenery from up close. But you also ride on an animal which may turn lazy or overly spirited. Our guru gives us many choices. It is up to us to decide what and how to follow. In "The Divine Romance," there is an article titled "How Feelings Mask the Soul." Here Guruji's discussion seems to support Gyanamata's quote. Turning to the SRF Lessons, you find one titled "The Chemistry of Feelings" (S-2 P-33) which encourages a completely different tack. Let's contrast representative statements made by our guru from the above-cited works: "Your real nature is calmness. You have put on a mask of restlessness: the agitated state of your consciousness resulting from the stimuli of feelings. You are not that mask; you are pure, calm Spirit. It is time you remember who you are: the blessed soul, a reflection of Spirit. Take off the mask of feelings. Face your Self." ---- from "How Feelings Mask the Soul" "By itself, a particular feeling produces a particular, limited result; but when rightly combined with certain other qualities, it may produce infinite results in spiritual realization." ---- from "The Chemistry of Feelings" If you follow Gyanamata's advice, you will gibe well with Guruji's first quote. But if you follow his second quote, you can only do so by ignoring Gyanamata's advice. How can you rightly combine feelings when it doesn't matter how you feel in the first place? We could summon countless contrasting statements from the SRF literature. If we tried to take all the approaches to heart, we might beset ourselves with an innumerable amount of paradoxes. In some sense, I believe that's what has happened to us. Many years and many mistakes later, a wizened devotee learns to chose what works for him or her and let go of the rest. If our guru is a world teacher, then he had to have come bringing a little bit of everything for everyone. I diverge for a moment to make a suggestion: the SRF teachings and literature need to be reorganized. They are a mess. Very few complain about this mostly because they know they will hear the same advice that's always given: Don't blame the teachings, blame the student's attunement. SRF spokespeople are quick to rationalize that any SRF format is inherently perfect because it contains a master's perfect ideas. This is false logic. The improper presentation of a good idea distorts or impedes its effectiveness. This is something so obvious to many or our members, yet it seems to get absolutely no attention by the Board of Directors, or, if it has, the members are neither aware of such nor is their input expressly appreciated. The most widely accepted theories on learning suggest that students don't all learn the same way. Some are visually motivated. Others learn best either by listening or by using their hands. And some learn by a combination of approaches. An effective classroom gets each student on task in the way suited to his or her basic learning orientation. In this analogy, being in SRF for some is like being a student who is having difficulty following an instructor who talks most of the time but finds it much easier to learn when the instructor occasionaly writes his ideas on the chalkboard. How shall we case this dilemma? Do we blame the student for not pushing through his boredom and lack of concentration? Or do we blame the teacher for rendering his verbal lessons unintelligible to his visual learners. Who is responsible? Or are they both responsible? Let's consider the Gyanamata quote one more time. If the current leadership in SRF emphasizes the ascetic Gyanamata-type ideas to a disproportionate degree, what happens to those devotees who need to hear the other message, the one Guruji promotes in "The Chemistry of Feelings" ? My observation is they rapidly fall into dissociation with their feelings. This is not what yoga teaches. Dissociation is a form of unconsciousness, while our goal in yoga is to expand consciousness. I have in my files a quote by Dr. Nathaniel Branden explaining the damaging consequences of dissociation. If you feel inspired, you can pick up a copy of his book "The Art of Living Consciously" wherein this eloquent quote can be found: "To disown means to cease to recognize as our own. We can be alienated from -- inadequately conscious of --- our bodies, our needs and wants, our feelings and emotions, our actions and reactions, our thoughts and values, or our abilities and capacities. We can be strangers to ourselves in many different possible respects. We can act without recognizing the roots of our actions. We can be afraid without knowing what we are afraid of and long without knowing what we long for. These are some of the meanings of self-alienation and self-disowning. " "A consequence of this process is that we radically restrict our sense of self. We have less access to our inner signals, and consequently we become more dependent on signals from others. We may need others to tell us what to think, how to live, when to express which emotion (if at all), what is right or wrong, and so forth." "At minimum, we pay a price in suffering, when we inappropriate in our responses and frustrated in our life. But sometimes we pay even a worse price, as when, for instance -- 'What stress are you talking about?' asks a driven, workaholic salesman of forty-eight a moment before he drops dead of a heart attack."
Rigiditananda Unregistered User (11/15/01 1:26 am) Reply	Contempt for the ego The ego is the result of a process that simbolically began, many years ago, with our name. One day we heard our father saying "Peter, Peter, Oh, such a beautiful, cute, little baby." At that moment something clicked inside and we "thought," Oh, I am Peter, now I understand! now I know who I am! I am Peter! After that, mama gave little Peter an ugly stuffed dog; and he began sleeping day and night with it. Soon Peter created a sense of possession about the ugly dog, so another "I am" appeared in his thoughts -- very silently, but it was definitely there: "I am the owner of this ugly stuffed dog." The name is like a basket where all the other "I ams" begin to pile; until one day, we have a "clear identity" -- I am so and so, I am the CEO of such organization, I am intelligent, (or stupid), I am successful (or a failure, or somewhat successful) and on and on. The problem with the ego is that, as you can see, it can be positive or negative, or somewhat in between-- or even pathologically negative! A negative self concept is a source of unending pains. If Peter's father told him many times that he was "stupid" and he believed it, that belief, such identity, later will silently create havoc in his life. So, it is not that simple to "kill the ego," in the process we may end up killing the ego, mind, body, and we need to reincarnate again -- we are playing with fire!. Is it a safer way to "kill the ego?" I suspect there is -- to heal it and love it! Love the ego?.... Why not? God is everything, Master said; In the ultimate analysis God is the ego too! Love may eventually, safely dissolve this false identity, I suspect. Another way to eventually free ourselves from the illusion of ego consciousness, is to observe it at work -- I suspect too. This is not easy, because the ego process is quite unconscious. But, if we look at our thoughts carefully, we will see the "I" principle in action: "I did this" I am the owner of that" I am cool! and so on. This thoughts are subconscious for the most part, but they can be brought to consciousness by careful observation of the thoughts we have. Then, by observing -- without passing judgement -- or even better -- by having fun and laughing at these thoughts -- we may gradually dissolve the I principle. I write this as proposition for further analysis and discussion. Does your "I" have some thoughts about this? "I" will love to hear from "you" --- Should-Free

<< Prev Topic | Next Topic >>

Add Reply

Email This To a Friend

Email This To a Friend
Topic Control Image

Topic Control Image

Click to receive email notification of replies

Click to stop receiving email notification of replies

jump to:

- SRF Walrus - Core Issues -

Powered By ezboard� Ver. 7.32
Copyright �1999-2005 ezboard, Inc.