Spiritual Theory of Longevity

[Guest guest]

Message: 4

Tue, 18 May 1999 23:56:59 -0400

David Bozzi <david.bozzi

Spiritual Theory of Longevity

 

 

Hi David,

 

What you say is all very interesting re:optimum diets and it may even be true

that living longer increases wisdom. Is there some optimum age for "getting

it?" If I may play devil's advocate ( a hobby of mine) there's also some truth

to the saying that "Some people live and learn, and some don't." Learn, that is.

Its just that there is no "life experience" guaranteed to produce enlightenment.

Some people are profoundly changed by a near death experience..and some are not.

Or one loses a child to death...reactions vary... some are embittered for life,

some turn to finding God. Some people recall past lives and think that alone

makes them really cool or "spiritual" is just another way to be cool and with

it. Spiritual awareness and wisdom is not all that easy to "pass on" from one

person to another, and tho I appreciate those who give when there seem to be no

takers, what helps a person be receptive to hearing truth is equally important

with having someone "older and wiser" to speak it. One can hear a lot of wisdom

from the mouths of babes. Thinking age is relevant could be "deafening."

 

And what are we giving to the younger generation overall? Our current under 18

population in the USA is one mostly neglected and spiritually abandoned by their

elders. They spend less time with adults than any other generation and are being

raised in daycare, as latchkey children, and with a culture of TV and movie

violence, unprecedented. At least 25% of teenagers each year seriously consider

suicide. The economic realities seem to require two working parents, yet half

the children have lived thru a parental divorce and the number of single parents

is also unprecedented. Even the best of parents have difficulty in the milieu of

cultural values that exists today. Something else, besides longevity, is needed

here, to pass on any values and wisdom to the younger generation. There are many

exceptions and a lot of good goes unnoticed. It may be true that there is also

some increase in spirituality, but overall, is longevity alone the cause of even

that? Who can know? There is a saying that most adults are "deteriorated

children." This recognizes the "natural born goodness" of children which will

persist if nurtured rather than damaged by adults.

 

So does living longer correlate with having wisdom?

 

Usually, the longer people live, they become more of what they already are.

Selfish persons become more selfish, etc. Certainly a diet healthy aged

population would be less of a burden on our society's medical costs, but the

unprecedented number of senior citizens is causing a need to re-think Social

Security and Medicare. Do we really need more people filling their leisure years

with golf, bingo. and bridge? This current increase in longevity (in wealthy

countries mostly) is attributed more to better medical care eliminating many

diseases rather than to vast numbers of people following anything near to your

optimum diet. Does anyone else see some irony in discussing optimum diets for

longevity in a world where millions are starving to death as children? Its also

true that if vast numbers quit eating meat, we could devote more grains to

feeding people than cattle... tho the resulting increase in the current

population explosion would put even more pressure on dwindling quality of water

and air.

 

The issues are far more complex than a simple correlation between longevity and

spirituality. That's all the point I wished to make..not that I have any answers

to all these complex issues, either. Ahimsa would seem to require a broader

focus than just what is good for me, diet or otherwise. That seems to me to be

the point Marcia keeps saying that with her lovely quote from Jesus. If what we

are radiating out to the world is seen as mostly a concern for keeping our own

holiness and purity intact..it is just self, self, and more self. Where is the

concern for others? Jesus broke dietary laws and restrictions on keeping the

sabbath, he ate with sinners (probably unkosher foods). ..He wanted to turn the

very idea of "holiness" upside down and inside out. Of course, for his trouble,

he only made it to age 33.

 

As for looking at just any one individual, David, your diet may be both good for

you and for the planet. May you live long and prosper.

 

With love,

Gloria

[Guest guest]

David Bozzi wrote:

>Why are we living longer? (on earth that is)

> Why is the rate of our life spans increasing at a rate unseen before on this

planet

> for any species?

>

 

Marcia:

 

I don't think that what you have stated as a fact is a

fact at all. Humans may well have lived much longer

life spans at a prior time in our evolutionary history.

[Guest guest]

At 11:56 PM 5/18/99 -0400, you wrote:

>David Bozzi <david.bozzi

>If I live to be 300 years old I dare say my level of spiritual awareness

will >have advanced more had I only lived to be a 100. (planetarily speaking)

>

>As a 300 year old my enhanced spiritual awareness will have an even

greater >impact on my children and following generations.

 

No, none of this matters. Don't you see that focusing on lifespan of the

gross body will bring only spiritual ruin? The True Self is birthless and

deathless. Lifespan depends primarily on the effects of karma. Put your

focus where it is important to put it, not on increasing the lifespan in

this lifetime. Please, consider these words carefully. Your statements

are on the level of intellect and logic only, which should ALWAYS be

mistrusted. There is ALWAYS an "ulterior motive" for ego/thought to keep

its precious current lifetime active longer.

 

Hari OM,

 

Tim

 

-----

Visit The Core of the WWW at:

http://www.eskimo.com/~fewtch/ND/index.html

Music, Poetry, Writings on Nondual Spiritual Topics.

 

Tim's Windows and DOS Shareware/Freeware is at:

http://www.eskimo.com/~fewtch/shareware.html

[Guest guest]

.. Your statements are on the level of intellect and logic only, which

should ALWAYS be mistrusted. There is ALWAYS an "ulterior motive" for

ego/thought to keep its precious current lifetime active longer.

Hari OM,

 

Tim

 

 

Harsha: The same could be said of anyone's statements Tim, including yours.

[Guest guest]

At 01:08 PM 5/19/99 -0400, you wrote:

>"Harsha (Dr. Harsh K. Luthar)" <hluthar

>

>. Your statements are on the level of intellect and logic only, which

>should ALWAYS be mistrusted. There is ALWAYS an "ulterior motive" for

>ego/thought to keep its precious current lifetime active longer.

>Hari OM,

>

>Tim

>

>Harsha: The same could be said of anyone's statements Tim, including yours.

 

Correct, I agree with you Harsha. Mistrust my statements, but examine them

for hints of Truth. People dedicate themselves to various things on the

spiritual path. My particular dedication is to be absolutely truthful both

to myself and to others, even if the truth is sometimes painful and causes

emotional hurt. Mistakes, of course, can be made.

 

Kundalini yoga is not the only path to Nirvikalpa Samadhi and Moksha.

Anyone who thinks so is a fool, in my view.

 

Hari OM,

 

Tim

 

-----

Visit The Core of the WWW at:

http://www.eskimo.com/~fewtch/ND/index.html

Music, Poetry, Writings on Nondual Spiritual Topics.

 

Tim's Windows and DOS Shareware/Freeware is at:

http://www.eskimo.com/~fewtch/shareware.html

[Guest guest]

On Wed, 19 May 1999 09:45:41 -0700 Marcia Paul <jacpa

writes:

>Marcia Paul <jacpa

>

>

>

>David Bozzi wrote:

>

>>Why are we living longer? (on earth that is)

>

>> Why is the rate of our life spans increasing at a rate unseen before

>on this planet

>> for any species?

>>

>

>Marcia:

>

>I don't think that what you have stated as a fact is a

>fact at all. Humans may well have lived much longer

>life spans at a prior time in our evolutionary history.

>

Possible, but unlikely. The

trend through all of recorded

western history has been

toward improved average

longevity, although the

ongoing decline in infant

mortality and in fatal

accidents and diseases in

childhood are probably the

biggest factors -- take out

those who don't make to

adulthood and the longevity

improvement is much more

modest. That said, I see

the quality of a life as

much more important than its

sheer length -- what's the

advantage of a century of

cranky, loveless confusion?

If we are ready to die right

now that speaks volumes

about our perceptual state,

if we're a healthy centenarian

who can't face death of what

value is that extraordinary

longevity?

 

_________________

You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.

Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html

or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

[Guest guest]

Bruce Morgen wrote:

> Possible, but unlikely. The

> trend through all of recorded

> western history has been

> toward improved average

> longevity, although the

> ongoing decline in infant

> mortality and in fatal

> accidents and diseases in

> childhood are probably the

> biggest factors -- take out

> those who don't make to

> adulthood and the longevity

> improvement is much more

> modest. That said, I see

> the quality of a life as

> much more important than its

> sheer length -- what's the

> advantage of a century of

> cranky, loveless confusion?

> If we are ready to die right

> now that speaks volumes

> about our perceptual state,

> if we're a healthy centenarian

> who can't face death of what

> value is that extraordinary

> longevity?

 

Marcia:

 

Hi Bruce,

 

I find that you brought up quite a number of different

issues or at least I find myself going off in a number

of different directions anyway. :-)

 

I will choose one. One thing that I found very interesting

in Gurdjieff's writings was that he wrote about us having

three different centers which has something like a bobbin

wound up in each one (he created different names for

things I think to make it more work to understand what

he was talking about). These bobbins in an unbalanced

person wind down at different speeds and thus we die

in thirds really. That is why he stressed working on balance

of all three centers i.e. the physical body, the emotional

body and the mental body. What I found really funny was

that unbalance in the physical body was often in the form

of athletes and in the mental body was people who read

newspapers and magazines. I forget the emotional body one

but it was probably something like preachers if he held true

to form.

 

My mother died at the fairly young age of 78. She was always

running her emotions out and she ended up dying of an immune

system disease. My father on the other hand kept private and

passive and read lots of books and newspapers. His body is

still here (believe me I can attest to it <s>) but his mind is totally

gone. When I get him to sit down at the table to eat he says...

"I have done this before", with such glee I can't help but smile.

 

So I think that is it neither "be willing to die right now" or live

a long life of loveless confusion but rather a task of bringing

things into balance. What does balance mean anyway? I think

this is the question.

 

>

>

> _________________

> You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.

> Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html

> or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

>

> ------

> How many communities do you think join ONElist each day?

>

> More than 1,000! Create yours now!

[Guest guest]

Gloria Lee wrote:

> Hi David,

 

Hey there Glo!

> reactions vary... some are embittered for

> life, some turn to finding God.

 

Ah but that embitteredness is always temporary. Even if taken to the

grave.

> Some people recall past lives and

> think that alone makes them really cool or "spiritual" is just another

> way to be cool and with it.

 

Or they move beyond that or take that immaturity. If not it's taken

to the grave.

> Spiritual awareness and wisdom is not all

> that easy to "pass on" from one person to another,

 

It's not an issue of easy/hard. It just happens.

> and tho I

> appreciate those who give when there seem to be no takers, what helps

> a person be receptive to hearing truth is equally important with

> having someone "older and wiser" to speak it. One can hear a lot of

> wisdom from the mouths of babes. Thinking age is relevant could be

> "deafening."

 

I'm more aware now than I was 20 years ago I believe. How about you?

>

> And what are we giving to the younger generation overall?

 

Love my dear. Sweet Love. What else is there to give? : )

> Our current

> under 18 population in the USA is one mostly neglected and spiritually

> abandoned by their elders. They spend less time with adults than any

> other generation and are being raised in daycare, as latchkey

> children, and with a culture of TV and movie violence, unprecedented.

> At least 25% of teenagers each year seriously consider suicide. The

> economic realities seem to require two working parents, yet half the

> children have lived thru a parental divorce and the number of single

> parents is also unprecedented.

 

All growing pains from a natural process.

> Even the best of parents have

> difficulty in the milieu of cultural values that exists today.

> Something else, besides longevity, is needed here, to pass on any

> values and wisdom to the younger generation. There are many exceptions

> and a lot of good goes unnoticed. It may be true that there is also

> some increase in spirituality, but overall, is longevity alone the

> cause of even that?

 

There is only one Cause.

> Who can know?

 

Wonderful question!

> So does living longer correlate with having wisdom?

 

Again, I am more aware now than I was 20 years ago.

>

> Usually, the longer people live, they become more of what they already

> are. Selfish persons become more selfish, etc.

 

Possible. But that selfishness always dies. Something does not.

> Certainly a diet

> healthy aged population would be less of a burden on our society's

> medical costs, but the unprecedented number of senior citizens is

> causing a need to re-think Social Security and Medicare. Do we really

> need more people filling their leisure years with golf, bingo. and

> bridge?

 

We receive what we are willing to give.

> This current increase in longevity (in wealthy countries

> mostly) is attributed more to better medical care eliminating many

> diseases rather than to vast numbers of people following anything near

> to your optimum diet.

 

Actually Death and disease from common infection were already

declining *long* before antibiotics and effective immunizations

 

Who gets credit for the increased life span?

The farmer. Advances in agriculture in the 18th and 19th century

allowed folk to get more varied and nutritious food which produced more

efficient immune systems.

 

Also, the purification of water, improved sewage disposal, better food

hygiene, pasteurization of milk (major reason for decline in infant

mortality and death from gastroenteritis. Also, parents having less kids.

 

The medical benefits were *marginal* when compared to their potential

for harm.

> Does anyone else see some irony in discussing

> optimum diets for longevity in a world where millions are starving to

> death as children?

 

Actually quality is the priority. Longevity naturally follows. I

personally think Death is wonderful.

> The issues are far more complex than a simple correlation between

> longevity and spirituality.

 

I believe my 'take' was misperceived.

> That's all the point I wished to make..not

> that I have any answers to all these complex issues, either.

 

Love. Love. Love. The rest follows. (there is no rest)

> Ahimsa

> would seem to require a broader focus than just what is good for me,

> diet or otherwise. That seems to me to be the point Marcia keeps

> saying that with her lovely quote from Jesus. If what we are radiating

> out to the world is seen as mostly a concern for keeping our own

> holiness and purity intact..it is just self, self, and more self.

 

Hammers see nails.

> Where is the concern for others? Jesus broke dietary laws and

> restrictions on keeping the sabbath, he ate with sinners (probably

> unkosher foods). ..He wanted to turn the very idea of "holiness"

> upside down and inside out. Of course, for his trouble, he only made

> it to age 33.

 

Not a bad age at that time actually. I've predicted many times I will

die an early death from choking on avitamin.

(but it really won't be early. It will be perfect timing)

>

> As for looking at just any one individual, David, your diet may be

> both good for you and for the planet. May you live long and prosper.

 

We can't die.

>

> With love,

> Gloria

 

More Love back, : )

David

[Guest guest]

On Wed, 19 May 1999 10:32:27 -0700 Marcia Paul <jacpa

writes:

>Marcia Paul <jacpa

>

>

>

>Bruce Morgen wrote:

>

>> Possible, but unlikely. The

>> trend through all of recorded

>> western history has been

>> toward improved average

>> longevity, although the

>> ongoing decline in infant

>> mortality and in fatal

>> accidents and diseases in

>> childhood are probably the

>> biggest factors -- take out

>> those who don't make to

>> adulthood and the longevity

>> improvement is much more

>> modest. That said, I see

>> the quality of a life as

>> much more important than its

>> sheer length -- what's the

>> advantage of a century of

>> cranky, loveless confusion?

>> If we are ready to die right

>> now that speaks volumes

>> about our perceptual state,

>> if we're a healthy centenarian

>> who can't face death of what

>> value is that extraordinary

>> longevity?

>

>Marcia:

>

>Hi Bruce,

>

>I find that you brought up quite a number of different

>issues or at least I find myself going off in a number

>of different directions anyway. :-)

>

[snip]

>

>So I think that is it neither "be willing to die right now" or live

>a long life of loveless confusion but rather a task of bringing

>things into balance. What does balance mean anyway? I think

>this is the question.

>

Well, it's certainly your

question. Note that I

didn't write "willing to

die," but rather "ready

to die" -- is there

*attachment* to bodily

existence, is there *fear*

of losing it based on a

sense of unfinished

business, are we

identified with the body,

the emotions, the thoughts

that flesh is heir to?

>From here this seems much

more urgent and relevant

than Gurdjieff's

conceptualizations about

"balance" and circles back

to the classic question

of questions: "Who am I?"

If the answer to that is

clear in this very moment,

is there any real issue of

"a task of bringing things

into balance?"

 

 

http://www.users.uniserve.com/~samuel/brucemrg.htm

http://www.users.uniserve.com/~samuel/brucsong.htm

m(_ _)m

_

 

_________________

You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.

Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html

or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

[Guest guest]

On Wed, 19 May 1999, Tim Gerchmez wrote:

> Correct, I agree with you Harsha. Mistrust my statements, but examine them

> for hints of Truth.

 

yuck. i hate capital truth.

 

things just are as they are, no big fat hairy capital-t matter about

it imo.

 

--janpa

[Guest guest]

On Wed, 19 May 1999 13:07:31 -0500 (CDT) "Debora A. Orf"

<dorf01 writes:

>"Debora A. Orf" <dorf01

>

>On Wed, 19 May 1999, Tim Gerchmez wrote:

>> Correct, I agree with you Harsha. Mistrust my statements, but

>examine them

>> for hints of Truth.

>

>yuck. i hate capital truth.

>

Yes, artificial gravitas is

the rhetorical equivalent of

ipecac. It's tempting

because language is a such a

crude tool, of course, but

imo a Silly Device. :-)

>things just are as they are, no big fat hairy capital-t matter about

>it imo.

>

Bullseye.

 

 

http://www.users.uniserve.com/~samuel/brucemrg.htm

http://www.users.uniserve.com/~samuel/brucsong.htm

m(_ _)m

_

 

_________________

You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.

Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html

or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

[Guest guest]

Bruce Morgen wrote:

> >> I see the quality of a life as

> >> much more important than its

> >> sheer length -- what's the

> >> advantage of a century of

> >> cranky, loveless confusion?

 

(shrug) Ask Barbara Streisand in about 50 years or so.

[Guest guest]

Bruce Morgen wrote:

 

<snip>

> >From here this seems much

> more urgent and relevant

> than Gurdjieff's

> conceptualizations about

> "balance" and circles back

> to the classic question

> of questions: "Who am I?"

> If the answer to that is

> clear in this very moment,

> is there any real issue of

> "a task of bringing things

> into balance?"

 

Marcia:

 

I don't know. :-)

 

It seems to me that if I know who I am in the moment then

things are already in balance. It feels as if I couldn't get to

who "I AM" without balance so it kind of begs the question.

Out of balance 'i' is misplaced or "thought" to be something

it isn't. If in balance I isn't.

 

It seems that what balances on the way in balances also on

the way out. If I am going to bake a cake and I don't put

the salt in or the right amount of baking soda then my cake

(or manifestation) will not turn out right.

 

 

>

>

>

> http://www.users.uniserve.com/~samuel/brucemrg.htm

> http://www.users.uniserve.com/~samuel/brucsong.htm

> m(_ _)m

> _

>

> _________________

> You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.

> Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html

> or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

>

> ------

> What do lizards and rock music have in common?

>

> They both have communities at ONElist. Find yours today!

[Guest guest]

David Bozzi wrote:

> Bruce Morgen wrote:

>

> > >> I see the quality of a life as

> > >> much more important than its

> > >> sheer length -- what's the

> > >> advantage of a century of

> > >> cranky, loveless confusion?

>

> (shrug) Ask Barbara Streisand in about 50 years or so.

 

 

Hey, just because you guys were dating back in the 70's and she didn't

want to be known as Barbra Bozzi all her life, is no reason to get all

uptight Dave...

 

Then again, maybe she sat in on Harsha's exercise classes, and required

Harsha to stand on his head while singing 'People'. I don't know. I

really don't know.

 

Actually, I waited on her a few times in my waiter days. She was

friendly and relaxed. She was nice to the little people.

 

not that I'm a dwarf or anything.

 

 

(hey, nothing against dwarfs)

 

 

(oh shit, I just better get outa here...)

 

 

(well I guess I'll know who the dwarfs are by who s in the

next few hours)

 

 

(wouldn't it be funny if there are about 50 dwarfs d to this

list?)

 

 

(I mean it wouldn't be funny or anything. It would be ... great. Really,

really great. It would be a great thing. Really guys.)

 

 

(...if there were 50 dwarfs on this list.)

 

 

Jerry

[Guest guest]

Jerry,

 

Have you noticed that you are seeing the number 50

everywhere? :-)

 

Seriously, this is a phenomena I find fascinating. Last

weekend some friends and I were cooking a bunch of

scrambled eggs (oops what does this have to say about

us, we had just meditated for 45 minutes and were high

if that is any compensation)

and one egg dropped to the floor and cracked. All our

attention went in that direction. We got the dog to lick

the egg up and then later when we were eating some

egg flew across the table and all our attention was drawn

to it. Someone said that was #2 on the egg spiral and

we could expect another egg thing to happen before we

were done. Ha Ha.

 

Marcia

 

Jerry M. Katz wrote:

> umbada (Jerry M. Katz)

>

> David Bozzi wrote:

>

> > Bruce Morgen wrote:

> >

> > > >> I see the quality of a life as

> > > >> much more important than its

> > > >> sheer length -- what's the

> > > >> advantage of a century of

> > > >> cranky, loveless confusion?

> >

> > (shrug) Ask Barbara Streisand in about 50 years or so.

>

> Hey, just because you guys were dating back in the 70's and she didn't

> want to be known as Barbra Bozzi all her life, is no reason to get all

> uptight Dave...

>

> Then again, maybe she sat in on Harsha's exercise classes, and required

> Harsha to stand on his head while singing 'People'. I don't know. I

> really don't know.

>

> Actually, I waited on her a few times in my waiter days. She was

> friendly and relaxed. She was nice to the little people.

>

> not that I'm a dwarf or anything.

>

> (hey, nothing against dwarfs)

>

> (oh shit, I just better get outa here...)

>

> (well I guess I'll know who the dwarfs are by who s in the

> next few hours)

>

> (wouldn't it be funny if there are about 50 dwarfs d to this

> list?)

>

> (I mean it wouldn't be funny or anything. It would be ... great. Really,

> really great. It would be a great thing. Really guys.)

>

> (...if there were 50 dwarfs on this list.)

>

> Jerry

>

> ------

> ONElist: where the world talks!

>

> Join a new list today.

[Guest guest]

"Jerry M. Katz" wrote:

> Hey, just because you guys were dating back in the 70's and she didn't

> want to be known as Barbra Bozzi all her life, is no reason to get all

> uptight Dave...

 

But 'Barbara Bozzi" has such a nice ring to it. Don't ya think?

(BTW, I also have a rather large 'facial centerpiece'. Our children could have

ruled

the world.)

> not that I'm a dwarf or anything.

>

> (hey, nothing against dwarfs)

 

I don't believe 'drawf' is the politically correct term Jer.

They prefer terms like 'half-pint' & 'shorty'.

 

David

(5' 8")

[Guest guest]

David Bozzi wrote:

> "Jerry M. Katz" wrote:

>

> > Hey, just because you guys were dating back in the 70's and she didn't

> > want to be known as Barbra Bozzi all her life, is no reason to get all

> > uptight Dave...

>

> But 'Barbara Bozzi" has such a nice ring to it. Don't ya think?

> (BTW, I also have a rather large 'facial centerpiece'. Our children could

have ruled

> the world.)

>

> > not that I'm a dwarf or anything.

> >

> > (hey, nothing against dwarfs)

>

> I don't believe 'drawf' is the politically correct term Jer.

> They prefer terms like 'half-pint' & 'shorty'.

>

> David

> (5' 8")

 

 

I'm glad I'm not going to hell by myself. BTW, I'm taller than you, and

therefore, in God's eyes (or, even more importantly, Corporate

America's), probably a better human being than you are.

 

Jerry

(5' 10")

[Guest guest]

On Wed, 19 May 1999 11:43:06 -0700 Marcia Paul <jacpa

writes:

>Marcia Paul <jacpa

>

>

>

>Bruce Morgen wrote:

>

><snip>

>

>> >From here this seems much

>> more urgent and relevant

>> than Gurdjieff's

>> conceptualizations about

>> "balance" and circles back

>> to the classic question

>> of questions: "Who am I?"

>> If the answer to that is

>> clear in this very moment,

>> is there any real issue of

>> "a task of bringing things

>> into balance?"

>

>Marcia:

>

>I don't know. :-)

>

A beautiful confession!

>It seems to me that if I know who I am in the moment then

>things are already in balance.

 

Exactly!

>It feels as if I couldn't get to

>who "I AM" without balance so it kind of begs the question.

 

If it "feels" that way

without swallowing

Gurdjieff's or anyone's

concepts about "balance,"

there's no arguing it!

>Out of balance 'i' is misplaced or "thought" to be something

>it isn't. If in balance I isn't.

>

Is this really a matter

of "balance" or are we

just supposing it is?

>It seems that what balances on the way in balances also on

>the way out. If I am going to bake a cake and I don't put

>the salt in or the right amount of baking soda then my cake

>(or manifestation) will not turn out right.

>

You're assuming there's a

recipe -- for now I'm not

saying that's wrong, but

it's certainly worth a

serious ponder! Is there

a causal relationship

between non-dual revelation

and intentional striving

for "balance" or, for that

matter, intent itself? If

so, what is the nature of

such a relationship?

 

 

http://www.users.uniserve.com/~samuel/brucemrg.htm

http://www.users.uniserve.com/~samuel/brucsong.htm

m(_ _)m

_

 

_________________

You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.

Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html

or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

[Guest guest]

Bruce Morgen wrote:

 

<snip>

> If it "feels" that way

> without swallowing

> Gurdjieff's or anyone's

> concepts about "balance,"

> there's no arguing it!

 

Marcia:

 

This is where it all gets so subtle it seems to me.

It seems to me that you have a very subtle bias

concerning swallowing someone's words. It seems

to me that I don't want to take credit for an idea

which someone else generated but that doesn't mean

I have "swallowed it" hook, line, and sinker without

verifying it. I really have observed the three centers

in myself and how I seem to have my center of gravity

more in one than the other. I have made observations

based on people close to me and what I know of them

and how they died as an additional verification. I think

that it is far more common to assume where the other guy

is coming from and respond to that than to ask a question.

I am not excluding myself from this process at all.

> >Out of balance 'i' is misplaced or "thought" to be something

> >it isn't. If in balance I isn't.

> >

> Is this really a matter

> of "balance" or are we

> just supposing it is?

 

Marcia:

 

You are right about this. That was my mind flapping. :-)

> >It seems that what balances on the way in balances also on

> >the way out. If I am going to bake a cake and I don't put

> >the salt in or the right amount of baking soda then my cake

> >(or manifestation) will not turn out right.

> >

> You're assuming there's a

> recipe -- for now I'm not

> saying that's wrong, but

> it's certainly worth a

> serious ponder! Is there

> a causal relationship

> between non-dual revelation

> and intentional striving

> for "balance" or, for that

> matter, intent itself? If

> so, what is the nature of

> such a relationship?

 

Marcia:

 

This is a question I have. How do you nondual guys get

anything done? I mean don't you have to set an aim,

visualize what it will take to get it done including all the

resistances, gather together the material need, begin the

task evaluating it as you go along and then release all

attachment to it? It seems to me to be a constant balancing

act.

 

I have set an aim to care for my dying father. Many of

the tasks associated with it are personally unpleasant to

me. If I do not remember my intent I will constantly be

"reacting" and that does neither of us any good nor the

other members of the family including our beagle Roger.

(Now you know my password <s>)

 

I mean if you are in a nondual mind frame do you just

float along and "do" nothing or does the "doing" come

through you or how does it work?

[Guest guest]

> Marcia Paul <jacpa

>

>

>

> David Bozzi wrote:

>

> >Why are we living longer? (on earth that is)

>

> > Why is the rate of our life spans increasing at a rate unseen

> before on this planet

> > for any species?

> >

>

> Marcia:

>

> I don't think that what you have stated as a fact is a

> fact at all. Humans may well have lived much longer

> life spans at a prior time in our evolutionary history.

 

Jan:

True. There have been members of the Masai tribe reaching 120. What is

forgotten, is that the average age doesn't reflect the maximum age. For a

long time, the maximum has been around 120.

[Guest guest]

On Wed, 19 May 1999 14:24:29 -0700 Marcia Paul <jacpa

writes:

>Marcia Paul <jacpa

>

>

>

>Bruce Morgen wrote:

>

><snip>

>

>> If it "feels" that way

>> without swallowing

>> Gurdjieff's or anyone's

>> concepts about "balance,"

>> there's no arguing it!

>

>Marcia:

>

>This is where it all gets so subtle it seems to me.

>It seems to me that you have a very subtle bias

>concerning swallowing someone's words.

 

About as "subtle" as a hand

grenade in a milk bottle.

:-)

 

It seems

>to me that I don't want to take credit for an idea

>which someone else generated but that doesn't mean

>I have "swallowed it" hook, line, and sinker without

>verifying it. I really have observed the three centers

>in myself and how I seem to have my center of gravity

>more in one than the other.

 

If you have "verified" you

have not "swallowed,"

you've looked into it and

it corresponds to something

you observe. The subtle

point imo is whether

Gudrjieff's concept has

pre-conditioned the outcome

of your verification -- for

example, are the categories

really all that clearly

delineated -- for example,

are emotions and thoughts

actually part and parcel of

the physical, intrinsic to

incarnation itself?

>I have made observations

>based on people close to me and what I know of them

>and how they died as an additional verification. I think

>that it is far more common to assume where the other guy

>is coming from and respond to that than to ask a question.

 

You bet, and questioning is

how verify -- or at least

approximate verification.

>I am not excluding myself from this process at all.

 

Yes, we all fail to ask from

time to time.

>

>> >Out of balance 'i' is misplaced or "thought" to be something

>> >it isn't. If in balance I isn't.

>> >

>> Is this really a matter

>> of "balance" or are we

>> just supposing it is?

>

>Marcia:

>

>You are right about this. That was my mind flapping. :-)

 

OK -- it's easy to over-

extrapolate something we've

"verified" in one or a few

respects to something

universal.

>

>> >It seems that what balances on the way in balances also on

>> >the way out. If I am going to bake a cake and I don't put

>> >the salt in or the right amount of baking soda then my cake

>> >(or manifestation) will not turn out right.

>> >

>> You're assuming there's a

>> recipe -- for now I'm not

>> saying that's wrong, but

>> it's certainly worth a

>> serious ponder! Is there

>> a causal relationship

>> between non-dual revelation

>> and intentional striving

>> for "balance" or, for that

>> matter, intent itself? If

>> so, what is the nature of

>> such a relationship?

>

>Marcia:

>

>This is a question I have. How do you nondual guys get

>anything done?

 

I don't know about "nondual

guys" as a category, but

here when a requirement is

noticed tools are deployed

to deal with it.

>I mean don't you have to set an aim,

>visualize what it will take to get it done including all the

>resistances, gather together the material need, begin the

>task evaluating it as you go along and then release all

>attachment to it? It seems to me to be a constant balancing

>act.

>

It's as effortless (or not)

as noticing and picking up a

penny. If there's no

attachment in the first

place, there is no "release"

and no intentional

"balancing." Planning and

visualization are mental

tools just as opposing thumbs

are physical tools and

binaural hearing is a sensory

tool -- and surely there can

be work and enjoyment without

attachment. Sometimes what

we do does not line up with

our visualizations and

evaluations, in the absence

of attachment to a particular

outcome this is no problem --

if the outcome suffices, OK,

if not, try something else.

>I have set an aim to care for my dying father. Many of

>the tasks associated with it are personally unpleasant to

>me. If I do not remember my intent I will constantly be

>"reacting" and that does neither of us any good nor the

>other members of the family including our beagle Roger.

>(Now you know my password <s>)

>

So, remembering the nature

of your task is a mental

tool you deploy as required.

Perhaps looking into what

makes us label something as

"unpleasant" can be a

helpful enquiry -- being

reminded of our loved ones

condition and mortality

plays to our fears about our

own destiny, anticipation of

certain sensory input

provokes resistance and

"reacting." In such

internal conflict there is

suffering.

>I mean if you are in a nondual mind frame do you just

>float along and "do" nothing or does the "doing" come

>through you or how does it work?

>

I don't know -- when thought

is required, there's thought,

when picking up an object is

required, there's bending and

gripping. These are tasks and

tools, who is the wielder --

iow who am I?

 

 

http://www.users.uniserve.com/~samuel/brucemrg.htm

http://www.users.uniserve.com/~samuel/brucsong.htm

m(_ _)m

_

 

_________________

You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.

Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html

or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

[Guest guest]

Bruce Morgen wrote:

> >Marcia:

> >

> >This is where it all gets so subtle it seems to me.

> >It seems to me that you have a very subtle bias

> >concerning swallowing someone's words.

>

> About as "subtle" as a hand

> grenade in a milk bottle.

> :-)

 

Marcia:

 

Bruce don't you see that is an attitude? Behind that is

the assumption that someone is trying to shove words

down your throat. What makes it subtle is the assumption

which lies behind it. You have taken a "stance" against.

Where does that come from? (putting on her psychotherapist hat)

Did you have an overbearing father? Ha Ha. Just teasing

really. My husband who is the Lutheran minister's son (the

preacher's kid) has the "standing in front of his father" stance.

Basically it boils down to ..."you aren't going to tell me how to

think."

 

<snip>

> -- for

> example, are the categories

> really all that clearly

> delineated -- for example,

> are emotions and thoughts

> actually part and parcel of

> the physical, intrinsic to

> incarnation itself?

 

Marcia:

 

I am not sure what the question is here. It is clear

to me that I can discriminate between a feeling,

a thought, and a physical sensation. I may not always

be able to correctly categorize an impression but

that may be due more to blind spots and defense

mechanisms. And I also can and have received

impressions of higher emotion and perhaps even

higher thought which did not seem to originate

from the same place but from a higher place either

"in" me or "out" me. I am not sure about that one. :-)

> I don't know about "nondual

> guys" as a category, but

> here when a requirement is

> noticed tools are deployed

> to deal with it.

 

Marcia:

 

The "nondual guys" was supposed to be a joke. :-)

"Noticing a requirement" doesn't sound to conducive

to long range planning. You know what I mean? It

sounds like whatever happens to hit my screen I employ

the proper tool to deal with it. Maybe I just have delusions

of grandeur. But the "big one", whatever that might be, must

need more than mere "noticing".

> It's as effortless (or not)

> as noticing and picking up a

> penny. If there's no

> attachment in the first

> place, there is no "release"

> and no intentional

> "balancing." Planning and

> visualization are mental

> tools just as opposing thumbs

> are physical tools and

> binaural hearing is a sensory

> tool -- and surely there can

> be work and enjoyment without

> attachment. Sometimes what

> we do does not line up with

> our visualizations and

> evaluations, in the absence

> of attachment to a particular

> outcome this is no problem --

> if the outcome suffices, OK,

> if not, try something else.

 

Marcia:

 

This is probably the heart of the matter. I wonder about

this. I really do. Is aim the same thing as attachment? It

seems to me that attachment has to do with something

personal whereas I could have an aim for something much

more comprehensive than the personal. Conscious efforts

could very well need to be made and suffered which use

the tools of mental visualization and planning.

> So, remembering the nature

> of your task is a mental

> tool you deploy as required.

> Perhaps looking into what

> makes us label something as

> "unpleasant" can be a

> helpful enquiry -- being

> reminded of our loved ones

> condition and mortality

> plays to our fears about our

> own destiny, anticipation of

> certain sensory input

> provokes resistance and

> "reacting." In such

> internal conflict there is

> suffering.

 

Marcia:

 

This is true. I was actually talking with my friends about

this last weekend. I said that I noticed that I will cop to

the lesser crime thus avoiding looking at what is really

"in my face." Confessing my reactions keeps me from

feeling my own mortality which as you say is right there

in front of me. There is no one I have known longer than

my father. I remember him as a huge figure and now I

see him as extremely frail and totally incapacitated. And

in the little room I don't want to go into is the realization of

my own mortality because I am next in this genetic line.

> I don't know -- when thought

> is required, there's thought,

> when picking up an object is

> required, there's bending and

> gripping. These are tasks and

> tools, who is the wielder --

> iow who am I?

 

Marcia:

 

"I" is the connector. It is the vehicle through which the

creator is connected with creation.

[Guest guest]

On Wed, 19 May 1999 16:48:40 -0700 Marcia Paul <jacpa

writes:

>Marcia Paul <jacpa

>

>

>

>Bruce Morgen wrote:

>

>> >Marcia:

>> >

>> >This is where it all gets so subtle it seems to me.

>> >It seems to me that you have a very subtle bias

>> >concerning swallowing someone's words.

>>

>> About as "subtle" as a hand

>> grenade in a milk bottle.

>> :-)

>

>Marcia:

>

>Bruce don't you see that is an attitude? Behind that is

>the assumption that someone is trying to shove words

>down your throat. What makes it subtle is the assumption

>which lies behind it. You have taken a "stance" against.

>Where does that come from? (putting on her psychotherapist hat)

>Did you have an overbearing father? Ha Ha. Just teasing

>really. My husband who is the Lutheran minister's son (the

>preacher's kid) has the "standing in front of his father" stance.

>Basically it boils down to ..."you aren't going to tell me how to

>think."

>

Frankly, I see this "attitude"

as an aspect of maturity -- a

mature person does not accept

such conditioning without

understanding the nature of

being told "how to think" or

act. The heart of it is

awareness, not a resentful

child's "you aren't going to

tell me" rebellion. It's

easy to be impressed with a

the reputation, articulation,

charm, or charisma of a writer

or speaker, the hard work is

checking out the substance of

what (s)he presents in our

moment-to-moment experience.

><snip>

>

>> -- for

>> example, are the categories

>> really all that clearly

>> delineated -- for example,

>> are emotions and thoughts

>> actually part and parcel of

>> the physical, intrinsic to

>> incarnation itself?

>

>Marcia:

>

>I am not sure what the question is here. It is clear

>to me that I can discriminate between a feeling,

>a thought, and a physical sensation. I may not always

>be able to correctly categorize an impression but

>that may be due more to blind spots and defense

>mechanisms. And I also can and have received

>impressions of higher emotion and perhaps even

>higher thought which did not seem to originate

>from the same place but from a higher place either

>"in" me or "out" me. I am not sure about that one. :-)

>

I'm postulating that emotion

and thought as we commonly

experience them are aspects

of physical incarnation --

what we commonly call mother

love is triggered hormonally

and thought is a neural

phenomenon supported by the

physical anatomy of the

brain and by chemical and

electrical events. Now pure

awareness, consciousness

itself, may well be another

matter. When we see what

comes and goes -- emotions,

thoughts, all that is based

on physical processes --

perhaps we can see what

abides and thus address "who

am I?". In this, there is

natural, spontaneous balance

without intention, and it

becomes clear what is to be

done (or not) regarding

emotion, thought, and all

else that is of the physical

body.

>> I don't know about "nondual

>> guys" as a category, but

>> here when a requirement is

>> noticed tools are deployed

>> to deal with it.

>

>Marcia:

>

>The "nondual guys" was supposed to be a joke. :-)

 

Sorry for being humor impaired

-- fortunately, that is

transient, it comes and goes.

>"Noticing a requirement" doesn't sound to conducive

>to long range planning.

 

Why not?

>You know what I mean?

 

Not yet.

>It sounds like whatever happens to hit my screen I employ

>the proper tool to deal with it.

 

Sometimes the proper tool is

a calendar, a notepad, a

DayTimer[tm], all coordinated

by thought. This is thought's

rightful role and does not

preclude a non-dual state as

the default mode of

consciousness. When it's time

to plan, *plan*, when it's

time to pick up a stone, bend

and grip!

>Maybe I just have delusions

>of grandeur. But the "big one", whatever that might be, must

>need more than mere "noticing".

>

So it is widely assumed --

but many a newly minted sage

has said, in effect, "So

many years, so much practice,

and all I had to do was to

notice!"

>> It's as effortless (or not)

>> as noticing and picking up a

>> penny. If there's no

>> attachment in the first

>> place, there is no "release"

>> and no intentional

>> "balancing." Planning and

>> visualization are mental

>> tools just as opposing thumbs

>> are physical tools and

>> binaural hearing is a sensory

>> tool -- and surely there can

>> be work and enjoyment without

>> attachment. Sometimes what

>> we do does not line up with

>> our visualizations and

>> evaluations, in the absence

>> of attachment to a particular

>> outcome this is no problem --

>> if the outcome suffices, OK,

>> if not, try something else.

>

>Marcia:

>

>This is probably the heart of the matter. I wonder about

>this. I really do. Is aim the same thing as attachment? It

>seems to me that attachment has to do with something

>personal whereas I could have an aim for something much

>more comprehensive than the personal. Conscious efforts

>could very well need to be made and suffered which use

>the tools of mental visualization and planning.

>

This is getting to it --

effort and planning are

just an extended version

of tending to necessity

in the moment and don't

have to entail attachment

to outcome. One can't

roof the house in a

moment -- one sees the

need for it in a moment

and renders unto thought

what is thought's.

>> So, remembering the nature

>> of your task is a mental

>> tool you deploy as required.

>> Perhaps looking into what

>> makes us label something as

>> "unpleasant" can be a

>> helpful enquiry -- being

>> reminded of our loved ones

>> condition and mortality

>> plays to our fears about our

>> own destiny, anticipation of

>> certain sensory input

>> provokes resistance and

>> "reacting." In such

>> internal conflict there is

>> suffering.

>

>Marcia:

>

>This is true. I was actually talking with my friends about

>this last weekend. I said that I noticed that I will cop to

>the lesser crime thus avoiding looking at what is really

>"in my face." Confessing my reactions keeps me from

>feeling my own mortality which as you say is right there

>in front of me.

 

Yes!

>There is no one I have known longer than

>my father. I remember him as a huge figure and now I

>see him as extremely frail and totally incapacitated. And

>in the little room I don't want to go into is the realization of

>my own mortality because I am next in this genetic line.

>

Yes, there is nothing more

sobering than realization

that with the declining

health and passing of our

parents we become the

elders, awaiting our time

for the body to sicken and

die. To lose a spouse or

lover must be even more

immediate. Here again, the

urgency of "who am I?"

emerges in the correlary

"what dies?"

>> I don't know -- when thought

>> is required, there's thought,

>> when picking up an object is

>> required, there's bending and

>> gripping. These are tasks and

>> tools, who is the wielder --

>> iow who am I?

>

>Marcia:

>

>"I" is the connector. It is the vehicle through which the

>creator is connected with creation.

>

>

That sounds wonderful --

how is this experienced

in ordinary, "beans &

weiners" life? Can it

be "verified?" :-)

 

Thanks in advance for

exploring this!

 

 

http://www.users.uniserve.com/~samuel/brucemrg.htm

http://www.users.uniserve.com/~samuel/brucsong.htm

m(_ _)m

_

 

_________________

You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.

Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html

or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

[Guest guest]

The reason for death is to get rid of the old 'fogies' because they

stopped learning! Keeping them around would get us stuck in ever

increasing senility. LIFE knows what it is doing: start with a clean

slate once the old one becomes all scratched up and illegible!

 

Jelke.

[Guest guest]

Marcia Paul wrote:

> Jerry,

>

> Have you noticed that you are seeing the number 50

> everywhere? :-)

 

 

now that you mention it, yeah...!

 

 

> Seriously, this is a phenomena I find fascinating. Last

> weekend some friends and I were cooking a bunch of

> scrambled eggs (oops what does this have to say about

> us, we had just meditated for 45 minutes and were high

> if that is any compensation)

 

 

no excuses.

 

> and one egg dropped to the floor and cracked. All our

> attention went in that direction. We got the dog to lick

> the egg up and then later when we were eating some

> egg flew across the table and all our attention was drawn

> to it. Someone said that was #2 on the egg spiral and

> we could expect another egg thing to happen before we

> were done. Ha Ha.

 

 

It's all about attention, I guess. Hey, Marcia, thank you for all your

carefully written letters. Bruce's recent response to you echoes what I

would say. You are giving a lot in your life. I think of you looking

after your father, and then contributing to all these people on these

list. Those are healthy things to do, I feel: To face what is in front

of a person and do what has to be done. I'm glad to be aware of people's

personal lives. I'm glad to see the striving, the attentional work, the

rise out of suffering, the increase in awareness, the coming of a kind

of ease, and the occasional easy laughter. I'm thankful for the reality

and the strong measure of it you bring.

 

Jerry