Leading a balanced life - www.ezboard.com

SRF Walrus

Mt. Washington, Ca

Open discussions about SRF

SRF Walrus > Householder vs. Monastic > Leading a balanced life
Page 1 2

Author	Comment
KS Unregistered User (11/28/01 8:26 am) Reply	Leading a balanced life I want to start another thread for this. Rigiditananda had a good point in another thread about balance. Balance is a key to progress, especially in the average devotee. The monastic life can hardly be called balanced these days. Their lifestyle drags their minds from God for many reasons. We have a much better chance of being balanced without the monastic overhead to over come.
Rigiditananda Unregistered User (11/29/01 3:34 am) Reply	A balance life is something quite complex Dear KS Thanks for opening this section on balance. In SRF we have an over simplification of so many subjects -- the meditation posture, how to deal with our own mind, sexual life, marriage, how to get along with others, concentration, and yes, balance too. There is a tendency in SRF to oversimplify subjects so much that it becomes eventually hilarious to read about those subjects in the teachings. Balance is not a simple matter at all. So, I hope that with patience we will all contribute little by little to create a better understanding of the issue -- for all of us. Let me just say a few things for now: 1) Balance is unique for each one. What may be balance for one individual may be a complete imbalance for another. 2) What feels balance now may feel completely imbalance later -- we need to trust our energy. At some moment our energy may be very extroverted, later may become introverted. The first is good for karma Yoga, the second for meditation -- both are good of course. 3) There will be years that we will hardly be able to meditate and we will need to do a lot of service (action) and little meditation. Then years may come, that we will be able to go within. This is not a matter of FORCING HABITS -- that's ignorance! 4) Balance is an internal experience. But, obviously, it has also to do with attending our most fundamental needs in a balance way -- money, sexual needs, need for power, success (need for recognition), self-esteem, human love, universal love, creativity, transcendence and union with spirit. There is a correlation between these fundamental needs and the chakras. When the monastic renounces to the lower chakras takes the vows of poverty, obedience, and chastity. These are the symbols of renouncing to the three and one half lower chakras (human love is in the heart chakra too -- this is an individual and universal chakra at the same time). Monastics cut themselves at the waist! And, then they preach the householders to do the same! But, the householder needs to pay bills, lives in a world hungry for success and sex and so on. The householder does not have the shelter of the ashram, so is finally crushed by inner contradictions with the monastic paradigm. Painful conflicts arise in the mind sooner or later. Furthermore, the monastic rarely succeeds at controlling his lower impulses, or experiences success only for a while only, and then...... I highly recommend the book "Chakras for Beginners" by "Pond" It gave me incredible insights into why the SRF paradigm does not work for the householder -- at least in the way is being communicated now; full of monasticistic thinking! In this book you will see a balanced, non judgemental, paradigm for the householder -- it is a small book. I have complained to the monastics about this and I have found receptivity among the new generation of monks! So, there is hope that one day our paradigm will be balanced and not contaminated by the monastic paradigm. In that book you will clearly see that the path of the monastic and that of the householder are from two different planets! The first is about renunciation, and the second is about integration. Rigiditananda
Been there Unregistered User (11/29/01 11:16 am) Reply	Balance It gives me a laugh or two when I read that the monastic way does not work for householders. It doesn't work for the monastics either. Maybe there are a handful that are actually thriving human beings. The rest cope. Of course, the same might be said for much of the "outside world" as well.
Rigiditananda Unregistered User (11/29/01 2:47 pm) Reply	Hi Been there Nice hearing from you again. You are right it does not work for monastics either -- except for very, very, very few. Please read that book "Chakras for Beginners by David Pond" -- you will love it. It is all about balance. It is the most well balanced paradigm I have ever learnt about. Rigiditananda
pschuppe Registered User (12/1/01 8:24 pm) Reply	Re: A balance life is something quite complex I disagree about balanced life being complex. You're absolutely right in suggesting that it's based on the individual. But what's complicated about that? Maybe what you're saying is that it isn't easy to achieve. That's an understatement. Of course an organization can't dictate what's absolutely correct for an individual. Organizations can provide lots of good things: opportunities for service, satsang, a "cold light of day" proving ground for one's realization, (and, in theory, a good environment), etc., etc.. But the question of balance: that's between the devotee and the Guru. About 15 years ago, Kriyananda wrote a short rule for householders at Ananda, some of which touches on this point. The old Kali Yuga monastic paradigm of "poverty, chastity, obedience," he updated for a householder renunciate order in Dwapara Yuga as: "simplicity, moderation, and cooperative obedience." It always comes down to the individual. (BTW, you can take any mention of Ananda from me with however many grains/pounds of salt you feel to. I just didn't want to present the above ideas without any context, or credit. Because the issues in this thread are universal, devotees everywhere have to face those same challenges in different situations and ways. We can all learn from each other's mistakes and successes.) It's easy for any of us to get caught up looking to the past for models of how we should live and behave in order to grow spiritually. It's human nature. SRF seems to be determined that a particular form of monasticism is the highest path--or whatever. The point, it seems to me, is the energy, not the form. Where the energy within the individual is flowing in the right direction, the outer form of his/her life will follow and adjust accordingly. When it isn't, no amount of "help" from an outward form alone can fix that. Didn't Master say "too many rules kill the spirit"? If he didn't, he at least quoted it. Om, pschuppe
Raja Begum Unregistered User (12/1/01 10:55 pm) Reply	Cold light of Day ....Anybody see where I put my jacket? *Quote:* Organizations can provide lots of good things: opportunities for service, satsang, a "cold light of day" proving ground for one's realization Spiritual organizations become a breeding ground for sadomasochism when they start believing they are doing God's work by creating the opportunity for spiritual tests. Wouldn't it be more enlightened for a spiritual organization to be a place where people prove their realization by trying to eliminate the burden on others? Another thing? Why householder renunciants? Why take a vow? To do so already violates the rule of simplicity.
pschuppe Registered User (12/2/01 9:58 pm) Reply	Re: Cold light of Day ....Anybody see where I put my jacket? Are you missing Gyanamata's quotation here? ("Your realization is tested in the cold light of day.") Or are you insinuating that it isn't true, or that it can't be true because she said it? Or something altogether different? I'm not accustomed to having people on this board poke fun at her statements, if that was your intention. Her individual path may not seem useful or relevant to you because of how extreme it was, but I certainly expect and hope that her realization was. A spiritual organization doesn't have to set out with the express goal of testing its members, but if there isn't any challenge involved in being a part of it at all, what is the point of its existence? Suppose I join a rock climbing club, mountaineering club, or Outward Bound. They may not overtly state that there will be serious challenges or physical/psychological tests involved (although given this country's litigious climate it seems likely they must say something), but I would surely expect that implicit in taking part in the activities would some level of challenge. People don't generally come into life as expert climbers. If I want training, I expect to get challenged to learn and rise to the occasion. What's the difference between that and spiritual mountain climbing? Master's training in Sri Yukteswar's ashram was "drastic" in his own words. Most of the disciples left. As far as I can tell, Sri Yukteswar's aim was only to give his disciples' self-realization. In order to accomplish that, he had to remove, and sometimes vigorously, whatever erroneous preconception or limiting tendency they were hanging onto. Did he therefore set out to create an opportunity for spriritual testing? Maybe. As a master, he had that right. Maybe the analogy is flawed because of that. But any school will, in some way, challenge its students to learn and grow. Some schools are run by unfortunate people who lose sight of their sacred mission and primarily express their own pain and limitation through punishment, etc. Just because some schools or teachers are flawed in that way, doesn't mean that the entire model is flawed. Of course many sins--crusades, wars, violence, etc. get perpetrated in the name of religion and by organizational ineptitude or indifference. That seems to be the way of the world, and especially of Kali Yuga world. Nonetheless, I see a subtle but distinct difference between the above and a spiritual school where the students are encouraged to grow beyond their present limitations. To use the mountain climbing analogy, one could encourage or even challenge a fellow climber to unload a heavy and unnecessary burden he's carrying in order to climb more easily. That would be a beautiful and true expression of your "people prove their realization by trying to eliminate the burden on others" image. Of course the other climber may be very attached to his burden. It may not even be in your power to convince him to part with it. But it would be wrong not to try. As for making/taking a vow--what's the issue? People the world over take vows when they get married. We each made a vow when we received Kriya initiation. What's so inherently complicated about a vow? You vow to strive toward something you haven't perfected yet. I don't see anything un-simple about making a commitment to try to accomplish something. ps
Carbohydramoy Unregistered User (12/2/01 10:28 pm) Reply	Don't waste your time, Peter... Don't waste your time, Peter. As someone once said, if you no truth, no one can sway you from it, if you don't, no one can convince you it exists. The 6 - 10 folks here that feed off each others negativity haven't seen the Light in quite a while, if ever. Cast not your pearls, buddy.
Jesus Unregistered User (12/2/01 11:49 pm) Reply	Jesus speaks: Carbo, my Brother, dost thou not comprehend the error of thy ways? For thou art as a mockingbird shaming pidgeons, a braggart among gossips, and a gnat among flies. Why dost thou continuously scorn thy brethren for their 6-10 follies and then make thyself a repeating visitor?
Rigiditananda Unregistered User (12/3/01 3:34 am) Reply	Simple or complex? Dear pschuppe A system that has two variable may be relatively simple to put in equilibrium. Three variables may create a system that is quite a challenge to balance. When you have dozens or hundreds of variables to put in equilibrium that system can be very challenging. SO, YES, IT IS COMPLEX! To balance our countless human needs IS A VERY COMPLEX TASK! In engineering systems are relatively simple -- a few variables. In compture sciences the same. In biology there are no simple sytems already. And, in psychology dear pschuppe nothing is simple at all. That you learn in psychology 101. Greetings to you -- Rigiditananda
Rigiditananda Unregistered User (12/3/01 3:54 am) Reply	A little humility is a plus Dear Carbo It is nice to have you here. You probably come because you get here the intellectual stimulation that you miss to have in the simpleminded SRF culture. Please keep coming back. We, these poor sinners, welcome you. We welcome all type of "strange" personalities -- but also please remember that a little humility is a plus not a minus. A hug to you -- Rigiditananda
pschuppe Registered User (12/3/01 12:48 pm) Reply	Re: Simple or complex? <When you have dozens or hundreds of variables to put in equilibrium that system can be very challenging. SO, YES, IT IS COMPLEX! To balance our countless human needs IS A VERY COMPLEX TASK!> --------- At the risk of driving a simple point into the ground, it's completely a matter of perspective: Walking, digesting your lunch, completing a sentence, driving a car, practicing Kriya; all are extremely complex activities if: a) You've never done them b) You're recovering from some serious accident or trauma that requires re-training yourself from scratch c) You look at them from outside and try to analyze each and every possible force, tendency, energy, past karma, etc., etc., etc.. One who has practiced a bit uses intuition (as KS or someone above indicated) to self-adjust on the fly. So I say it's challenging, but not complicated. How many years (lifetimes?!) have we been at this guys?! Why make it seem more difficult than it is? ps
Rigiditananda Unregistered User (12/4/01 1:26 am) Reply	Complex or simple? Dear PSchuppe I'm not saying that the complexity lies in each one of our needs, it is in balancing adequately so many needs. It may seem that I am a bit obsessive here but I have a reason. This issue about the needs and desires is central to what has been called in this board "the SRF death culture." It is also central to why many of us today are mentally imbalance instead of God realized. It is also central to why monastic thinking is dangerous for the householder. It is also central to why we householder need to have a finger in the pie -- in the teachings, in the lessons, in the SRF board and so on. This issue -- the attitude about our needs and desires -- is the most crucial we could ever discuss here in this board -- And I'm not exaggerating. Let us see. Desire Thy Worst Enemy" Sounds familiar? Let us be objective in regard to this philosophy: Objectively, to make love is fun, isn't it or not? To listen to a beautiful music is fun, to eat a good meal with a cup of good wine is fun, to drink a wonderful Italian cappuccino with a friend is fun, to look at a beautiful sunset is fun, to write at the EZboard is fun, to study is fun, to enjoy romance is fun, to travel is fun, to serve God through our vocation is fun, to create is fun, to serve other is fun, and on goes the list. However, to enjoy these things you need to have the desire to enjoy them. If you do not want to listen to music you will not enjoy it. If you do not want to make love you "will not perform adequately." If you do not want to enjoy a good meal, even if you eat it, will taste poorly. Objectively, desire and needs, are the interface between the enjoyable experiences this world can offer and our inner experience of pleasure and joy as we indulge in them. If we have no desires -- or we deny having them --we can't enjoy life. It is that simple. Note that most of the above fun things are sensory experiences. Regardless, there is no doubt about it, those things make life fun and beautiful -- very objectively. But, in the SRF culture we developed contempt for all that. So? What can we expect now? -- death at the end of the road to save us from boredom and inner conflict; of course. This stupid obsession with renunciation -- coming obviously from monastic thinking -- cannot make us happy, impossible! If we shun off all the beautiful experiences of life -- what can we expect? What is left? Just the negative experiences are left -- disease, boredom, failure, and so. Objectively, there is also plenty of this in life too. Then the monastics says: Oh but God's joy is better -- if you have that joy you have all. Of course, but, again, let us be objective here; most people do not have that unconditional joy -- and we may not have it despite decades or lifetimes of hard work. So, what should we do in the meantime? Get depressed and wish to go to Forest Lawn asap like Anandamoy wants now? Mental disorders do not help to find GOD! Why not enjoying the fun side of life -- moderately of course -- and without guilt! Be thankful for that night making love, or for having a stimulating conversation with a friend. And, in the meantime, patiently attempting through meditation to contact the highest joy within. When that happens we will not need so much the external things -- in a very natural process. See how different is the path of the householder than that of the monastic? The monastic is obsessively trying to curb their needs and desires. The householder does not need to do that -- his/her path is much more balanced and eventually, in my opinion, paradoxically, faster too. Our path as householders have been contaminated badly by the monastic thinking -- with dreadful consequences for many.
pschuppe Registered User (12/4/01 11:11 am) Reply	Re: Complex or simple? Dear Rigiditananda "When a duty conflicts with a higher duty, it ceases to be a duty." It isn't my intention to debate the validity of that aphorism, though anyone else is welcome to if they like. To me that is the simple answer (through intuition) to the question how to balance. Do you spend the money now, or put it into your kid's college fund? Depends on the rest of the situation. In any case, we can live every moment, and enjoy it more and more fully if we do it with God (yes, every sense pleasure too). I don't think that's a direct contradiction with what you were suggesting above, and maybe no contradiction at all. Eventually we offer up a lower desire to a higher one, and you're right, it is a completely natural process. Om, ps
Raja Begum Unregistered User (12/4/01 11:38 am) Reply	To Pschuppe Yo Bro! I responded to your post. Its lengthy because I included a personal story at the end. Enjoy. Raja... pub78.ezboard.com/fsrfwal...ID=5.topic
Rigiditananda Unregistered User (12/5/01 4:19 am) Reply	The "duty paradigm" Dear PS You wrote: "When a duty conflicts with a higher duty, it ceases to be a duty." It isn't my intention to debate the validity of that aphorism, though anyone else is welcome to if they like. To me that is the simple answer (through intuition) to the question how to balance." There are here a a couple of things worth to consider. 1) Look at the word "duty." How it feels? Does it communicate relaxation, joy, happiness? Needs can be consider duties, yes, but what an ugly word! However, again, this is the SRF culture --duty, life is a school, you should not, you must do, you must be, you are to, you have to, you ought to, you should not, you ..... What a fun way to look at life! 2) Look at a second issue in that same "wise aphorism" there: What is a higher duty? That is so vague. Let us say you are meditating and you need urgently to urinate..... Which is higher? It all depends on how urgent it is -- isn't it so? Even a simple physiological need can become extremely important -- higher! Which one is higher, more divine? no one! Because Master said God is everything -- so every need is God himself! Prioritizing in those terms leads only to increase stress. I leave to the monastics to prioritize in those terms their lives and to suffer the consequences. Today, I strive to look at every need and every instant as sacred -- the rest is superstition. Why? Because the only solid belief we can hang on in the spiritual path is the non-dual -- God is everything. Duality, relativistic thinking is necessary in the everyday living yes; but when it comes to find the infinite non-dualism is the highest truth. This is why, Master said over and over that God is everything. So, which need is higher?
Raja Begum Unregistered User (12/5/01 11:48 am) Reply	To Pee or not to Pee? Rig has a good point. If I must piss, then that's my highest duty for that moment unless I can meditate comfortably in a puddle of urine!! In this case I would reason: God is more patient than my bladder and will still be with me after I empty it. Therefore, duty to my bladder must be the highest duty in that moment. If "duty" implies obligation and constraint, then I must follow the most constraining and binding obligation. Well, my relationship with God is open-ended but my bladder has an actual bursting point. So I must choose my bladder over God in that instant. Once relieved, my existential need for liberation overshadows my desire to read the daily newspaper. So I meditate. Simple, isn't it.
Raja Begum Unregistered User (12/5/01 12:58 pm) Reply	Duty or Free Will -- Which is better? Depending on who is doing the listening, the concept of duty conflicts with the concept of free will. Which is the higher duty? Let's analyze... DUTY: obligation, indebtedness or continuing constraint deriving usually from moral or ethical considerations. (Note the emphasis on morality and law -- attractive to Guardians) FREE WILL: Free choice. The belief that man's choices ultimately are or can be voluntary, and not determined by external causes. (Emphasis on authentic action -- attractive to Idealists). To a Guardian, the concept of free will sounds suspicious. As considered by their abiding and conforming natures, free will usually takes on the connotation of restricted freedom of choice-- when one is presented with a loaded-deck, there is only the choice of making a good choice or a bad choice. Free will is a buzz word to a Guardian's ears because it sounds suspiciously close to being carefree, heedless, freewheeling, basically unprincipled and untethered by moral or ethical concerns. Thus for law-loving Guardians, meditation on the concept of "duty" reveals a delicious aesthetic propostion. For the Idealist, duty it is an encumbrance. Idealists cannot live by the slide rule. When leashed too tightly, they choke. They require freedom to explore their values, to endlessly rediscover themselves, to live intuitively, spontaneously and authentically. To an Idealist, duty is an afterthought. Their guiding rule is "I am one with the Infinite Potential." So who's right? When a Guardian chooses what she believes to be the right, approved or expected course of action, she immediately feels congruent with her inner purpose. In this way she is living truthful to herself. "To thine own self be true." The Idealist, at 180 degrees opposition in typology, can only feel in sync and truthful to his nature when he is throwing of measured constraints and creating each moment anew with intuition and artistry. The concept of right action may be appealing to an Idealist's idealized romantic sense, and they do have a strong sensitivity to ethics. However, they are the least likely to compare an action to a preconcieved standard. In sum, there are many ways up the mountain.
pschuppe Registered User (12/5/01 1:50 pm) Reply	Re: The "duty paradigm" Dear Rigiditananda, You wrote: Today, I strive to look at every need and every instant as sacred -- the rest is superstition. Why? Because the only solid belief we can hang on in the spiritual path is the non-dual -- God is everything. Duality, relativistic thinking is necessary in the everyday living yes; but when it comes to find the infinite non-dualism is the highest truth. This is why, Master said over and over that God is everything. So, which need is higher? -------------- Where's the contradiction? And why does "duty" have to be grim? Whatever happened to "joyous duty"? Serving God in one moment could be wiping the oatmeal off of your baby's face. In the next moment it could be answering the phone. In the next, it could be doing your Kriyas. What if the aphorism said "when a need conflicts with a higher need, it ceases to be a priority?" That's a fairly loose paraphrase, but it retains most of the spirit of the aphorism. Another way to say it would be " when a narrower point of view or level of awareness conflicts with a broader one, the broader one must eventually take precedence over the narrower." I don't know if either of those make any sense to you. To my way of thinking the "higher" duty or need is the one that brings more (greater, more lasting) joy, or gives greater awareness of God. Not all that complicated. Why the rigidity, Mr. Rigiditananda? (BTW, is that "bliss through perfect rigidity?"! If so, I like it. I remember a friend extolling the virtues of grim determination one time.) Do what you need to do and get on with it. You don't need my permission or anyone elses! It sounds to me like there were too many rules in the scenario you mention. Should, could, ought to, can't, don't; all these might be helpful at a certain stage of the path (like childhood), but what you don't do doesn't define a spiritual flow or a spiritual life--it's what you do do that matters IMHO. Om, ps
Raja Begum Unregistered User (12/5/01 3:16 pm) Reply	"Duty" Sri Aurobindo said it this way: "Act from the summit of your consciousness."
Rigiditananda Unregistered User (12/6/01 12:24 am) Reply	Why I chose the name Rigiditananda and more Dear PS chuppe I chose the name R... Because, yes, I'm finding God through rigidity. You know how? The SRF paradigm created so much rigidity in my life -- perhaps you may have experience a bit of this too -- through all that crazy shoulding that eventually I was forced to destroy all that thinking in my mind. The other possibility was to die! As a consequence -- by braking with the paradigm; the should mentality -- I'm finding wonderful freedom, and I feel closer to Joy. It is easy to shift from one extreme to the other -- from extreme self criticism (important asset of the SRF paradigm) to self acceptance; from low self esteem to self appreciation, from rigidity to flexibility. Extremes do touch. You say: "Whatever happened to "joyous duty"?: I just say: Why mixing a beautiful word with an ugly one? A word that is connected with freedom and the highest feeling with another connected with pain and suffering? But yes, this justifies the existence of the "duty cult." SRF is now such cult (but not forever I'm sure, because new wins like this EZboard are blowing stronger everyday.) Why using that word when the dictionary is full of beautiful alternatives? As RB says it may have some pleasure for the Guardians, for me it is not exactly music to my ears! It is poison. I'm not a Guardian as you may have guess. Now, you can go on using it . It is up to you, but may be one day you will also be forced to brake up free from all that rigidity thinking. And to do that, you will find that the first thing you have to do is to change your inner self-taking -- to change the introjected language you use to talk to yourself (word by word). For example; I want to go to work because I want to enjoy myself -- serving. Not because it is my duty! What about the old Christian idea that work is a curse of God and "you will earn the bread with perspiration bla bla bla" Do you like that? You say: "To my way of thinking the "higher" duty or need is the one that brings more (greater, more lasting) joy, or gives greater awareness of God. Not all that complicated. Why the rigidity, Mr. Rigiditananda?" It is not matter of rigidity, but that you didn't read what RB and I wrote so far. To pee can become first priority, and when you evacuate your bladder after retaining for a long time, you will experience great joy -- there is no clear cut my friend. To me it seems that you look at the world in gradations, steps and priorities which are extremely relative -- as we prove beyond doubt with the example of peeing vs. meditating. The reason for such strange phenomena is that in the ultimate, it is all just one thing -- that is the non-dual thinking. And it is solid -- like a ROCK! And such thinking is liberating while the other is binding. You are welcome to keep your relativistic thinking -- but you will have to live with the consequences. Relativistic thinking sooner or later betrays us. In the next post I copy for you a beautiful story told by Ramana Maharshi to his disciples which explain this issue in a beautiful way. Greetings to you -- Rigiditananda

Page 1 2

Email This To a Friend
Topic Control Image

Topic Commands

Click to receive email notification of replies

Click to stop receiving email notification of replies

jump to:

- SRF Walrus - Householder vs. Monastic -

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