acceptance

[Guest guest]

This was originally a response to a comment in another group about

accepting one’s “situation”. I would like to share it with

you and link it to semminincs’ recent contrast between being NOW versus

acting. The difference between semminincs’ comments and mine raise a key

issue about spirituality in which I’ve had a lifelong interest —

the ambiguity of mystical language.

 

What is the “situation”

to be accepted? I suggest it is the experiential moment. There is nothing

desirable about my accepting various “situations” in the world

— for example, war, poverty, suffering, or my own personal ignorance

about many subjects — if by accepting we mean satisfaction with the

status quo. But there is everything desirable about accepting the experiential

moment — that is, my conscious experience at this very moment. For that

moment is the only thing I have with which I can enjoy life and work to enhance

enjoyment in its many forms and to reduce suffering.

 

In that experiential moment, that

present moment of conscious experience, I may feel apathetic or angry or

pleased about a particular “situation” of the world. That attitude

I accept, since it currently exists. However, it inherently points me toward

both past and future. It points me toward the past to exploit what I’ve

learned and it points me toward future action of some sort, action which may to

some extent increase or reduce suffering. Accepting the present, then, accepts

the fact that my experiential present is a triad of present feeling mixed with

thoughts about past and future. I take that to be an ineradicable aspect of

human consciousness. In emphasizing the present, wisdom traditions don’t

intend us to jettison past and future for some disembodied and inconceivable

present. Rather, they are concerned about our so focusing our attention on the

past or future that we lose contact with present feeling, which is the only reality

we ever really have.

 

At least that’s how I

understand wisdom traditions. I value this view because I believe that it

reconciles wisdom traditions, which emphasize present satisfaction, with human

technological progress, which learns from the past to improve the future.

Perhaps it’s my own personal endarkenment, but I don’t believe that

human scientific curiosity and technological progress is a valueless illusion.

Consequently, I don’t find acceptable those accounts of spiritual development

that seem to make them so.

 

In contrast, semminincs says:

 

The Joy of dreaming is to observe my mind and body

act. Whenever my

mind and its body gets emotional I think of

Academy Awards. This is

the Joy of dreaming – to think of Academy

Awards when the body

gets emotional for something in the past or for

future for which it

has to act emotionally – when all there is,

is NOW, observing,

dreaming.

.. . .

I cannot seek or act for NOW – NOW is BEING,

the Dreamer, the

Joy of being the Observer. If Observing, Dreaming,

is JOY then why

should I care about the future and its seeking of

wisdom and truths

for self-realization, the future, so I can become

another Ramana

Maharshi when in the NOW, I AM.

 

The ambiguity here is that I cannot tell when semminincs is speaking

literally and when he is speaking metaphorically.

 

Under a literal interpretation, I can read semminincs to be saying that

human action is just a dream which has no important consequences. With this I

respectfully disagree, since in our world of action real people undergo real

suffering, which action can alleviate. Semminincs might object that the

suffering is an illusion, since people would not suffer if they were in the

NOW. I doubt this is unqualifiedly true, since I doubt that even Ramana

Maharshi could escape physical suffering if someone cut off his arm. Indeed, he

had severe arthritis and my impression is that he claimed only that it did not rob

him of his happiness, not that it did not cause him physical pain. So one

reason I might care about the future is if I could alleviate his arthritic

pain. Furthermore, those who psychologically suffer unnecessarily because they

take action TOO seriously really do psychologically suffer, so that I might care

about the future in order to alleviate their psychological pain.

 

Under a metaphorical interpretation, I can read semminincs to be saying one

of two things.

 

The first possible metaphorical interpretation is that action is a dream

in the sense that it is incompatible with the joy of NOW. With this I also respectfully

disagree. Where else do we act than in the NOW? The problem with action is that

it can distract us from NOW since it has REFERENCE to past and future. But

action also has a somatic component of feeling, which has no REFERENCE beyond

itself and is therefore not yet emotion. Feeling exists only NOW, so that

somatic feeling involved in action anchors us in the present. There is

therefore no inherent incompatibility between action and being in the NOW.

Perhaps this is what semminincs means when he speaks of the joy of observing

his mind and body act. But then his comment about having no reason to care

about the future are puzzling, and lead me to the second interpretation.

 

The second possible metaphorical interpretation of semminincs’

comments is something with which I agree: it is not acting per se, but being

overly concerned with the RESULTS that puts us in a dreamlike state. As the

Bhagavad Gita says, we should not overly concern ourselves with the results of

what we do. The reason is that our deepest happiness is already NOW. The

illusion is to mistakenly think that our deepest happiness lies in the future,

that it is a result of action rather than a state we are perpetually in but

from which our attention has been distracted.

 

Perhaps this second metaphorical interpretation captures semminincs’

real meaning. Perhaps for him and many readers his comments capture that

meaning better than do mine. However, my concern is with ambiguity. Semminincs’

actual comments can be read in at least the three ways that I identified and

two of them would mislead the reader into thinking that the real world of

action is not that in which we find our PRESENT joy. All these comments of mine,

whatever their success, are part of my aim to contribute to intellectual and

spiritual progress by reducing the ambiguities in language about spirituality

and thus reduce the chance of going down false paths.

 

Gary Schouborg

[Guest guest]

advaitajnana , " Gary Schouborg " <gary@s...>

wrote:

> This was originally a response to a comment in another group about

accepting

> one's " situation " . I would like to share it with you and link it to

> semminincs' recent contrast between being NOW versus acting. The

difference

> between semminincs' comments and mine raise a key issue about

spirituality

> in which I've had a lifelong interest - the ambiguity of mystical

language.

>

>

>

> What is the " situation " to be accepted? I suggest it is the

experiential

> moment. There is nothing desirable about my accepting

various " situations "

> in the world - for example, war, poverty, suffering, or my own

personal

> ignorance about many subjects - if by accepting we mean

satisfaction with

> the status quo. But there is everything desirable about accepting

the

> experiential moment - that is, my conscious experience at this

very moment.

> For that moment is the only thing I have with which I can enjoy

life and

> work to enhance enjoyment in its many forms and to reduce

suffering.

 

Namaste G,IMO,

 

This is a short interim answer, I will try and respond in more

detail tomorrow. The confusion arises in mixing apples and oranges.

Living completely in the 'Now' is ony possible if one is 'Realised'

so to speak and lost the Ego. Of course Ramana has stated that he

felt pain when an ant bit him etc. Obviously until the body drops

the illusion of body carries with it the bodymind's illusion or

experience of pain. He does say that the Mukta sees the world but

sees it as an integral part of 'God' or Saguna Brahman, as opposed

to a separate illusion. The fact that the illusion itself doesn't

exist he didn't go too much into. So I suppose a Mukta feels pain at

the mind level but is in Bliss at a higher level. The difference

being the Mukta notices the pain and observes it but is not attached

or averse to it. Everybody suffers even the animals suffer and they

have no bad karma so to speak. So it is a plane of Dukkha or

suffering.

 

This is why in Yoga there are different stages and exercises to do

etc. Sankara said it is real whilst one is in it. The Buddha said

there is suffering but there is an end to it........ONS..Tony.

[Guest guest]

advaitajnana , " Tony OClery " <aoclery>

wrote:

>

> advaitajnana , " Gary Schouborg " <gary@s...>

> wrote:

> > This was originally a response to a comment in another group

about

> accepting

> > one's " situation " . I would like to share it with you and link it

to

> > semminincs' recent contrast between being NOW versus acting. The

> difference

> > between semminincs' comments and mine raise a key issue about

> spirituality

> > in which I've had a lifelong interest - the ambiguity of

mystical

> language.

> >

> >

> >

> > What is the " situation " to be accepted? I suggest it is the

> experiential

> > moment. There is nothing desirable about my accepting

> various " situations "

> > in the world - for example, war, poverty, suffering, or my own

> personal

> > ignorance about many subjects - if by accepting we mean

> satisfaction with

> > the status quo. But there is everything desirable about

accepting

> the

> > experiential moment - that is, my conscious experience at this

> very moment.

> > For that moment is the only thing I have with which I can enjoy

> life and

> > work to enhance enjoyment in its many forms and to reduce

> suffering.

>

> Namaste G,IMO,

>

> This is a short interim answer, I will try and respond in more

> detail tomorrow. The confusion arises in mixing apples and

oranges.

> Living completely in the 'Now' is ony possible if one

is 'Realised'

> so to speak and lost the Ego. Of course Ramana has stated that he

> felt pain when an ant bit him etc. Obviously until the body drops

> the illusion of body carries with it the bodymind's illusion or

> experience of pain. He does say that the Mukta sees the world but

> sees it as an integral part of 'God' or Saguna Brahman, as opposed

> to a separate illusion. The fact that the illusion itself doesn't

> exist he didn't go too much into. So I suppose a Mukta feels pain

at

> the mind level but is in Bliss at a higher level. The difference

> being the Mukta notices the pain and observes it but is not

attached

> or averse to it. Everybody suffers even the animals suffer and

they

> have no bad karma so to speak. So it is a plane of Dukkha or

> suffering.

>

> This is why in Yoga there are different stages and exercises to do

> etc. Sankara said it is real whilst one is in it. The Buddha said

> there is suffering but there is an end to it........ONS..Tony.

 

Namaste,

Yama consists of five parts, viz., Ahimsa (non-injury), Satyam

(truthfulness), Asteya (non-stealing), Brahmacharya (celibacy), and

Aparigraha (non-covetousness).

I can only add the yamas, for they do come close to a joining of the

apples and oranges so to speak...........ONS..Tony.