Calm acceptance of what is -- my newest adage

I enjoy coming up with new pieces of advice that I can tell myself. They become temporary mantras, something I can repeat in my mind now and then to keep myself as centered as possible in an unpredictable world.

Calm acceptance of what is. This is my newest adage. 

I've always been impressed by people who can stay calm in stressful circumstances. Soldiers fighting in war. Emergency room doctors and nurses. Parents of a two year old having a temper tantrum. So many other examples of humans handling difficult situations with poise and competence.

That requires a certain detachment from a natural impulse of fear, anxiety, freaking out. "Calm" doesn't mean Buddha-like serenity. The way I see it, calm is founded on an ability to stand back a bit from whatever storm is raging around us, sort of like a lighthouse on a rock in the middle of the ocean.

The massive waves break upon the rock, but the lighthouse keeps on shining a light all around itself, illuminating what is there. That's the "what is" part of my adage.

It doesn't do any good to be calm if we're not in touch with reality.

For example, even though the United States intelligence services were warning that Russia was poised to invade Ukraine, in the period before the invasion President Zelensky and other top officials in his country were discounting the possibility of an invasion.

They didn't prepare the Ukrainian people for this. They didn't move military assets in preparation for war. The calm being preached by Zelensky was a false calm that wasn't based on the what is known to American intelligence, but on an attitude of I hope this turns out to be based on wishful thinking.

Another example is the raid of Seal Team Six into Pakistan that resulted in the killing of Osama bin Laden. This mission succeeded because the highly trained special forces operatives kept their calm in the face of serious problems, such as one of their helicopters being disabled, and were completely in touch with the reality of what they faced in bin Laden's compound. 

Regarding "acceptance," I don't see this as being content with a bad situation.

That's the way I used to view the word, perhaps because one of the stages of coming to grips with grief, or one's impending death, is acceptance -- which connotes a sort of grudging realization that nothing can be done about what either has happened, or will happen.

Instead, acceptance is better thought of as an embracing of reality. It doesn't mean we don't want to change reality, to alter what is into what could be. But before we can make things better, we need to understand how things are now -- both within and without us.

Yesterday our local newspaper, the Salem Statesman Journal, had a nice piece by Leah Burkhart, a Salem Health educator. Here's part of what she said in "When it comes to stress, begin with acceptance." 

Fun Fact: April is Stress Awareness month (as if any of us needed help being aware of our stress).

Search any wellness book, online video or social media outlet and you’ll see all sorts of techniques for combatting stress, reducing stress, or even numbing it. You’ve seen the headlines: “Feeling stressed? We have the answer!” All you have to do is drink more of this, eat more of that, practice more of this, or give more of that. Easy peasy. Right?

We are bombarded with images of smiling faces — people who have found “the way” and are now liberated from the shackles of anxiety, fear and frustration. They are either peaceful and serene or blissed out, giggling with joy.

Naturally, then, we are left wondering why we aren’t stress-free, too. What are we doing wrong?

The answer is … nothing. You are doing absolutely nothing wrong. Stress, loneliness, frustration, sadness — these things are hardwired into the human body. Stress doesn’t have to be the enemy. At the very least, it can be considered a messenger. It can even be a powerful ally.

The key to making friends with stress is to first incorporate the practice of acceptance.

What is acceptance?

To be clear, acceptance does not mean saying, “Oh, well. There is nothing to be done. I guess I’ll just be miserable.”

Acceptance is being able to simply look at how something is without immediately seeking to change it.

In your mind, acceptance sounds like:

“Huh, I’m feeling really lonely right now.”

“I am feeling overwhelmed. There is a lot to do, and I don’t think I can get it all done as quickly as I would like. No wonder I am so tense.”

“I am really tired right now.”

“Yikes! I’m angry right now. I mean really, REALLY angry. I’m enraged.”

Why on earth might this be helpful? Because acknowledging where we are is the first step to understanding what needs to come next. Trying to reduce stress without first accepting it is like trying to read a map in a theme park without having a “you are here” dot. Acceptance represents the place to start.

Once you see, clearly, that you are overwhelmed or tired, it’s easier to ask questions like, “Okay, I’m exhausted. What is the next right thing I can do (or not do) now?” The answer might be to recruit support from people around you, get up and take a walk or go home early. But the answer is not the important piece. The important piece was being clearheaded enough to ask the question.

What can help you reach acceptance and identify what needs to come next? Often the best answer is to learn the art of slowing down and engaging in a moment of mindfulness. That might look like:

Practicing a few moments of slow, deep breathing.
Taking a moment to pull up a guided meditation practice.
Going outside and sitting still for a few moments and simply observing your surroundings.

In other words, the best way to learn acceptance is to practice slowing down.

Comments

[spence tepper]

There are plenty of good mental tools to help in dealing with stress.
Acceptance of what is, is the largest single strategy.

Paradoxically, the best way to prepare to act, and act successfully, fully, is to first accept and understand what is around and within you. What is the situation? What resources do you have?

In Hospital Care, nurses typically are asked to provide a SOAP assessment as a means of communicating their own process of formulating an objective plan of action:
Situation
Objective evaluation of what is happening
Affect: The emotional part of the situation, both the patients' and our own.
Plan: What is the plan to heal, remediate, etc.?

Action, teamwork, can only follow the assessment and concensus among those involved.
Sometimes a discussion, refinement and agreement of the assessment of the situation with the people involved, including the patient, is a great first step.

And that can include an acknowledgment of one's own situation: "I feel, I'm feeling...How are you feeling about this"?

So acceptance is part and parcel of actually acting vigorously and effectively. Acting vigorously, with full intentionality, full attention-ality and purpose, means engaging your conscious mind first.

What am I?
Well, let's first understand what you are not:
I'm not this body, though I am in it.
I'm not these emotions, though I am experiencing them.
I'm not even this personality, though it is the identity I must work with and through.
I'm not the one who made all this, though I'm connected to it and in part I'm responding to it.
I'm not this job. I will live without it, as the situation demands.
I'm not this car, home, possession. I can and will live without it as the situation demands.
I'm not this family, though I am a member of it. I can and will live without it as the situation demands.
These things I've accomplished have transitory value, in the minds of others, fleeting.

Again, I'm not this body, though I live in it. I can and will live without it as the situation demands.

Each of these things...captial Things...is a source of pleasure to me. And anxiety. But my happiness comes from within only.

My happiness comes from within.

In this tiny moment of space and time I have a responsibility. What can I do with that?

I'm not my emotions. They are not of value of themselves.
But right action means all, and considering my emotions objectively is a crucial step to developing right action.

I'm not alone, ever. Superior help is always within. And may also be found around...hence the need to communicate what I see and feel, to engage others to share, to listen, to reflect, to hear what they are saying: who are my resources?

And who am I a resource to? What is my duty to help them?

Stress is just a flag for us to respond, not react.
And when we are at peace, because we have done our part, there is no peace like it. Denial is not the same peace as effective action. In Denial our conscience isn't clear, we are just ignoring a part of ourselves, and in that we are splitting who we are into manageable pieces. That's OK when things become overwhelming. But at some point we need to listen to ourselves, acknowledge, accept, forgive, and pull those pieces together again.

[um]

@ Spence

Humility, real humility, is the possession of material wealth, mental wealth and spiritual wealth, and seeing to it, that without hiding, it does not affect and or effect others.

[Sonya]

“Acceptance”, that’s a mighty big word. Whew.

My dad’s reaction to the news of my brother’s death completely tore me apart. I always wanted to have kids but I didn’t for a number of reasons and that’s ok because I’ve had my nieces to raise. Their father is the one who got killed yesterday.

After witnessing my father’s pain, if someone told me that I could have a child that would bring me great joy for many years but would end up dying before me… honestly I think I’d say no thank you. No one should have to go through that.

But that brings us back Acceptance. My body refuses to accept food or anything other than milk. It’s a sign that I’m not accepting this situation. It’s like I won’t allow myself to feel any sort of peace until I’m 100% certain that he’s at peace. On some level I feel like I really failed him and I owe it to him to make sure he’s at peace. And yes, I recognize that sounds like all kinds of crazy. We can’t control those things. But still there’s this small voice in the back of my mind that won’t stop questioning that. I can’t let him be in pain. I just can’t… and hopefully that will change sooner than later. (Otherwise I think I might starve to death. 🙃)

Thanks for writing about acceptance—I’m going to do more reading about it.

[Ron E.]

J. Krishnamurti used to refer to ‘What Is’: Alan Watts used the term ‘This Is It’: Joko Beck wrote ‘Nothing Special’: in Chan they point to ‘Just This’ and ‘Being With’, all declaring from these apparently simple declarations that what is searched for is right here, right now – but of course over the centuries it has spawned millions of books, millions of organisations and religions and even more million beliefs, opinions and views.

In terms of what is called the spiritual quest, it seems that its human nature (in spite of statements as the above) to launch into one or more of the many spiritual quests or from habit, be content with the teachings of their particular cultures. It seems likely that to reach the position of seeing that ‘This Is It’ etc., for most, such a quest needs to be undertaken; a journeying away from the ‘What Is’ of life and self yet with the possibility of returning to the simplicity of being ‘Just This’.

I recall a Sufi account of a seeker who traveled around the near and middle east in search of teachers who could direct him to truth. They sent him to one teacher after another until one finally directed him to an address that was his own town and street – the prodigals return?

[um]

@ Ron

If the truth, whatever the content of that concept might be, can not be found, in your own land, city, street, house and body, it is not to be found, it is not existent.

Most people are like listeners to snake-oil sellers, they would never be interest in meditation, spirituality, religion or whatever, if they were not conditioned to know it as a concept based upon ...HEARSAY.

These quests resulting from an artificial "calling" or "pull from within" must end by necessity in frustration.

From birth on, in order to learn the tools to participate in culture we are born in, the begin with language and concepts of the world, we are asked or forced or conditioned
to direct ourselves to the outerworld and to the EXPERTS, the holders of knowledge and power.

We so get used to it, that we forget our own purpose, natural purpose not cultural, that we look upon ourselfs as "darkness" "ignorance" etc and go out in the street of the world , where there is much light, although deep down we know, that the key to our personal life, was not lost there, cannot be found there, but where we lost it before we were lured to leave that natural house and go into the streets of culture.

No crow needs a teacher to be taught how to live as a natural being .. why should any living creature?! .... why on earth should a human be excluded from that rule?

[Sonya]

Yesterday was unbearable. Last night I laid in bed thinking about Acceptance and tried to understand how that was even possible to achieve.

When someone dies it’s like they’re automatically elevated to Sainthood. People only talk about their good qualities and are usually reverent in remembering them because in the face of death and loss we have a stronger appreciation for the fragile and precious nature of life.

But then we start beating ourselves up and torturing ourselves with things like, “I should have done this and I should have taken the time to say this, and I shouldn’t have done or said that”. We waist or time with regrets at all the mistakes we believe we made in our relationship with that individual. News flash: it’s not humanly possible to not have regrets.

This is upside down thinking, because we only want to remember that individual in the best light, but we fill our minds with self destructive regrets.

It occurred to me very strongly that the biggest part of acceptance is forgiveness, or the concept of “forgiveness” because who has the power to forgive what is “unreal”.

My brother is not in a place where he’s dwelling on the mistakes I made or the mistakes anyone else made. We are celebrating his life and everything that was beautiful about it. Every gentle, loving and positive thought is part of Love. Every negative thought is the opposite of love. I can let go of all the useless and self destructive guilt and just focus on the blessings he brought into my life.

That’s acceptance—letting go of the “unreal”.

I woke up this morning in peace. My heart was no longer sinking. Sometime during the night I was able to accept, let go, and truly love the life that was my brother and every good thing he he did or said. I felt that he loved me and that wherever he is, he certainly doesn’t have time for regrets or unhappy thoughts. And I know he wants us to be happy.

There were a few other realizations that I had but I’ll keep them to myself.

I had a really good day. I know that sounds really strange but it really was a good day. We went to the cemetery where he’s going to be buried (we have plots reserved for the whole family 😂) and it’s so peaceful. It’s a beautiful small cemetery by a small stone church built before the civil war. And it’s surrounded by green rolling hills and horse farms.

Then we went to the place where we will be having the service. It’s a new kind of funeral home—more joyful. It has an area where the service will be held and then a large area where we will have a meal catered for any and all who are able to make it. We’re working on putting together a 150 picture slide show that they’ll display on multiple screens and it will be live streamed as well for those who can’t make it. The setting is a combination of comfortable, relaxed and reverent. It’s perfect.

Today was a Miracle. The heartache has been replaced by acceptance, true forgiveness in every sense and deep gratitude for the life that was my brother.

Thanks for all of your kind thoughts and wishes. 🙏

💗💗💗

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Um
You wrote
"Humility, real humility, is the possession of material wealth, mental wealth and spiritual wealth, and seeing to it, that without hiding, it does not affect and or effect others."

Not sure I agree. We do effect and affect each other.

We are part and parcel of this. It would be nice to think that I have no responsibilities, but I do. And so debts must be payed, and payments received.

If we are placed in a team meeting and everyone insists that I have to give to the answers, that they expect this and are entitled to it, it's all I can do not to do so and insist the answers must come from within, and authored by the team, though I am always happy to share what I know and encourage everyone to take this journey together with me. To take a deeper, more analytical and objective look at things. To be willing to try new things.

Because when I just blurt out the answers, that is the last thing anyone wants to hear. Those answers imply work, they reflect the cold reality that these folks aren't were we need to be, because everyone thought Everton was fine, because they didn't know that was actually happening, what they were actually doing. Everyone thought, in ignorance, they were great.

So I share what I know, the work of others, the successes of others I have witnessed, what the literature says about best practice. And the fact I'm in that room makes it difficult for the others. If only I had never entered that room. If only medical errors and waste had never happened. But they happened. They happen every day, and the only difference from one hospital to another is that some folks accept
1. What has happened.
2. Their responsibility to find a better way and make change, even if they can't imagine or accept today what those changes will need to be.

Now you and others suggest that somehow, in spiritual matters, the situation is different?

No. Sorry. It isn't.

[Dungeness]

@ Sonya: [ Every gentle, loving and positive thought is part of Love. ]

It's a very memorable, resonant observation, Sonya and one of the
gems of Brian's blog. Thank you.

[um]

@ Spence.

>> Humility, real humility, is the possession of material wealth, mental wealth and spiritual wealth, and seeing to it, that without hiding, it does not affect and or effect others<<

There it says ... "without hiding it" ...and ...I did not differentiated between activities, spiritual or other wise.

Humility, without hiding the wealth, does not impress.others, does not presses on others, does not make others feel other than they are, does not allow relative feelings and thoughts about one or the other arise, it does not addresses the person in any capacity.

This form of humility, not the artificial one which generally goes by that name, has to be witnessed, experienced. Often not so easy as the attention is mostly for the full 100% on the issues at hand ... for example the team meeting. And there are not that much people that have developed it, mastered it ... hahahaha

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Um
I see your point to a degree.

Focus should always be on the goal, and then, current conditions relative to that ideal objective.

The most aggregious harm is considered fine when there is no hope of improvement. So hope itself can become an insult to folks.

"There is nothing more irritating than a good example."
Mark Twain (Samuel Clemmons)

But so long as the notion that there is a better way, that is without harm, simply existing in that will create negative reactions, because to acknowldge it is to acknowldge that there is distance between where we are and where we could be, where we ought to be, and now there is the burden of responsibility to do something about it that didn't exist before. Now there is pressure to act.

So, unfortunately, there is no way to honestly live without people having reactions. We can be guided to act with care and sensitivity, but act we must.

[um]

@ Spence

The point I was pointing the finger at the "moon" of humility. and the difference with artificial light.

It is related to the difference of yore, between Lao Zi and Congfu Zi.
In the world of Lao Zi, there was also a life to be lived, and things to be done to uphold that life but it was a different approach.

Lao Zi, warned humans against showing, parading their wealth, in wagons and on their bodies as that would create unrest between men and attrac robbers.

Indeed blessed are those that prevent their material, mental and spiritual wealth stand in between them and any other person, [hidding or preventing it to be seen] so that they might see one another, relate ro one another and are not diverted by that wealth

[Appreciative Reader]

Heh, I find this curious philosophy of um's, well, somewhat curious. I don't remember having across this anywhere else, although that may merely be a function of the paucity of my own reading and knowledge base. Regardless, I think I've now understood um's main philosophy, which is this:

>>>Every person has a certain nature (their own "dharma", in the Pali/Buddhistic sense of the term), and their highest fulfillment lies in recognizing and fully actualizing that personal nature/dharma/potential; and this nature/dharma/potential is a very personal thing, and differs widely between person to person, so that there is little one person can to do guide another, unless by happenstance they share that inner intrinsic nature.<<<

Is that right, um? Have I captured your essential philosophy correctly? Correct me please if I've ended up misunderstanding your POV --- which is what you've tried to express in many of your comments, many of those addressed to me, where you talk of losing and finding keys, all that, and also without that particular allusion..

Like I said, I don't remember coming across this specific way of looking at things before this, so my question to you, um, is: Have you come across this in some book, or maybe from someone, or is this your own personal realization/understanding distilled from life, your own personal formulation?

----------

Food for thought.

At first blush I find lots of agree with in that philosophy; but also lots of things to disagree with. Rather than engaging with that sort of an analysis myself, at this time I choose merely to sit with the idea, let it percolate within me, just think about it. Meantime, sure, hearing others discuss this idea helps with that percolation, and that understanding.

For instance, Spence, this idea of um's militates against, for instance, (this aspect of) your philosophy, it seems to me. Which I suppose is why the two of you, of late, are often at loggerheads (usually very gently, but still). Clearly you, for instance, do think that EVERYONE's inner nature is to be aligned with Shabd, and/or more generally with meditation and thoughtlessness, so that your exhortation and guidance-from-personal-experience about this seems to apply not just to those few who directly ask you and/or who share that "dharma" with you, but as a general prescription/formulation based on the general human condition. (I'm right in concluding that, right, Spence? Correct me please if I've ended up misunderstanding [that aspect of] your POV.)

I'm enjoying seeing the two of your discuss your own personal POVs around this, across threads. I'm writing this comment now, firstly to make sure I correctly understand both your POVs (that is, your points of view around this aspect specifically); and secondly to bring to the attention of the both of you (and to whoever else might be interested, and/or might have something to contribute) this particular focus, in order, perhaps, to guide the discussion somewhat around that focus, should you both wish it that is. Because I'm interested in following both your trains of thought as far as this focus, on which it seems to me the two of you differ fundamentally.

[Appreciative Reader]

"Calm acceptance of what is -- my newest adage"

..........Great post, Brian. Lovely homily. (Using that term merely as a descriptor, and without any negative connotation, and absolutely without the slightest irony or sarcasm intended.)

Absolutely, calm, equipoise, is something worth cultivating, both for one's own sanity and peace of mind, and also as a means of better functioning within the world. And agreed, such calm and equipoise has limited application if it stems from, and/or results in, a general withdrawal from life, in as much as such a course embraces only the former and not that latter: it would appear to be 'better' to have one's equipoise embrace both ends rather than just the one. And finally, absolutely, a slowing down is what directly contributes to that equipoise, especially when one starts to find oneself overwhelmed with one's reaction to what one sees and hears and experiences without, even if that means a (brief, temporary) withdrawal/respite from whatever it is one had been engaged with, agreed.

Great post, nicely formulated and spelled out.

[um]

@ AR

My goodness the universe doesn't want me to give the answer I wrote down, laughing my heart out. I lost the whole answer. I am not going to reconstruct the answer but just will answer your questions shortly:

[1] Is you pali conclusion more or less right ... yes, it is. Would not the seed of an oak, love to live in conditions that allow it to develop, and become an oak?

[2] As for the source. I do read from my own book ... hahaha. Painters, at least some of that brotherhood, just gaze at an empty canvas, so long that they cannot longer handle the emptiness and have to paint. They have no intention. Intention is later ATTRIBUTED to them, by so called experts, but that intent was and is not theirs.

[3] I wrote in {1] about the conditions. Well, I had the great fortune to have the compagnie of many human beings, from which I came to understand, many things without them, teaching me. It remins me of Faqir chand about his students being his teachers.

[4] I am not in a dispute with Spence, I do put something before him and it is up to him whether he wants to look at it or not and how to digest it.

You see AR we are so bizy to learn to stand on our own feet that we forget to stand alone on our feet ...or ... we are so addicted to the light of the street that we refuse to enter our house, where we lost the key. Just have some coffee AR and ponder how you came to know what you know .. not WHAT ... but HOW. From you early days you were lured outward to HEAR UPON OTHERS ...THEY knew everything ... and YOU ... you have, like all of us been "brainwashed" to believe and accept that you cannot do without them. So here in this blog we always discuss OTHERS, what they do, what they say ... like people watching a game played by OTHERS.

Please forgive me this last outburst

[Appreciative Reader]

Hey, um. I don't see any "outburst". Your comment was simply the clarifications that I'd myself asked for, no more and no less --- for which clarifications, thanks!

No no, I don't mean that you and Spence are engaged in some "dispute" or feud or whatever. I mean merely that your (now clearly expressed) POV seems fundamentally different than, and the opposite of, Spence's (implied) POV, when it comes to this particular aspect.

I'm interested in seeing you guys talk about this, if the both of you'd like to that is, rather than wading into this myself; but I'll just point out that this philosophy (whether on your your side of the see-saw, or on Spence's, or somewhere in between) is grounded ultimately on the truth value of the proposition, that individual human beings are indeed so very different from one another that the "dharma" of the one does not correlate with that of the other, generally speaking. Is that proposition actually true? That would seem to be the clinching issue.

I personally suspect the answer would be somewhere midway. But I guess this is something that can be settled objectively, at least in principle (even if figuring this out in practice may not be very easy, and might be based on some amount of subjectivity). Even if that were so, that still leaves the question kind of open on some specific question that we find ourselves looking at --- this meditation business generally, for instance, which is what you're discussing right now.

Anyway, let me not get all over this now, beyond just spelling out my meaning clearly. Absolutely, you raise a lovely and original insight here, um. Let's see how it gets resolved, should Spence elect to join the discussion with you, on this specific aspect I mean, and take it onward to some kind of conclusion.

[um]

@ AR

When we use language, we use concepts.

Concepts are all sets and form together the set-theory

A concept or a set, is an "unique variation of the same"

In horizontal line it gives birth to the "10.000 things".
In vertical line it ens up in One, the sameness of everything.

Some are interested in the "uniqueness" of the same and others in the "sameness or essence" itself. Some are interested in the diversity in the horizontal line and others in the vertical line.

The mount everest exists.
That mountain can be climbed.
Those that climbed it spoke about what the climbing did with them.
Some have become "masters"and teach others how to climb the everest.

BUT ... that said

The mountain is not there to be climbed
Nor
Are humans here to climb the everest

To suggest that as the ultimate goal of life,
Is an evil of wealth.

Nothing special I have to say, as I am totaly ignorant about the purpose of this universe and everything containing in it ... but .. I do know how to make coffee ... hahaha

[um]

@ And Ar

If you see any meaning in what I write ... it is all YOURS

If you start reading a novel and the first page speaks of an bench under an oak with croked branches, YOUR oak will appear before your minds eye, YOUR bench and croked branches.

You are nor reading from another persons book but YOUR book.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi AR
You wrote
"Clearly you, for instance, do think that EVERYONE's inner nature is to be aligned with Shabd, and/or more generally with meditation and thoughtlessness, so that your exhortation and guidance-from-personal-experience about this seems to apply not just to those few who directly ask you and/or who share that "dharma" with you, but as a general prescription/formulation based on the general human condition. (I'm right in concluding that, right, Spence? Correct me please if I've ended up misunderstanding [that aspect of] your POV.)"

Yes, sort of. Who can know the destination at the very start of the journey? But whatever is there doesn't change. It is the same. All roads lead to Rome, though they start from entirely different places, even appearing to move in opposite directions.

When the early astronomers saw the movement of the stars, moving backwards then forwards, they realized these apparent changes in direction were actually the result if the earth's own movement, and concluded that we were moving also. The stars are not changing direction, moving forward then backwards. They are all, every one, moving forwards. But since we are also moving, we see them from a moving platform, our own journey, and in that view we see what is measurably moving forwards then turning and moving backwards. But we don't see it objectively,

Everyone's journey is an individual affair. Our different conditioning means we see reality through different filters. Filters that change all the time without our knowledge or consent.

Where Um and I are speaking from two different perspectives is really all about perspective.

From the highest possible point of view reality runs in absolute causality, so that every moment of every single leaf's gentle and twisting path from branch to earth is prescripted from all the causal events behind that moment stretching back to creation itself, and connected with all things, including past and future.

From the human perspective nothing existed before this moment, nothing will ever exist after "now", and we, in our limited view, are called upon, pressed or seduced to make decisions all on our own, however we recoil from that, and act, or react without our will's permission.

In the former perspective, guidance may seem unnecessary.

In the latter it is part and parcel of how we function, seeking insight, inspiration and strength. In this latter perspective we view encouragement as not only helpful but essential.

In the former view teachers and encouragement appears superfluous at best and at worst a means of exploitation.

But in reference to that, I'm reminded of my three favorite aphorisms from Ambrose Bierce

1. The Gods grant the wishes of those they would destroy.
2. The bee robs the flower it seeds with life.
3. The Gardner prunes the tree to save it.

[Spence Tepper]

A King's loyal servant, for no apparent reason, was thrown into a dark cell in the dungeon, with only a small window looking out upon the kingdom.

At first the servant thought it was all a joke, or some angry response from the King to his offering. But as days, weeks and years went by he began to resent what had happened and to renounce and hate the King.

In the meantime the King's nation was invaded for a time and overtaken by forces supported by the King's own family. The servant felt this was justice for what had happened to him. It helped him to accept his fate. He could see out the small window of his cell as enemies came and dragged away royal family members one by one, and listen as others gossiped as they scurried about. The servant couldn't see or hear much, but enough to get his daily news of events, however limited the perspective.

Most of the members of the King's court were publicly humiliated, and their careers destroyed. And this made the servant happy. Until one day it didn't matter. The servant just remembered that he had sincerely loved the King and longed for those Halcyon days.

When all had settled, the King was still the King. And, actually, the Kingdom had grown quite a bit, as others regularly sought sanctuary from their own oppressive countries. And the servant, after some years, had come to peace with his situation.

On that exact day a prison guard passing by asked the servant why he stayed in his cell. The servant remarked that he had come to accept his fate, and anyway the lock prevented him from getting out.

Then the gaurd answered, "There is no lock on your cell, Sir, nor has there ever been one."

The servant's eyes grew wide. Then he just accepted this too. He was bullet proof now. He tried the door, in calm acceptance, and left the cell. Rather than flee to any of the other kingdoms the servant went outside for a breath of fresh air. After a lovely afternoon in the Mind's gardens, the servant went to the King's court.

The King sat alone on his thrown reading a book. He was older now, a little frailer, but still his King.

The servant approached, not proudly, but in peace and acceptance and without bowing stood before the King.

"Ah, Brian, right on time!"

The loyal servant asked, "Why did you throw me in prison, my King?"

The King replied, "It was the safest spot. You had more in you to move you along anyway. And here you are ready for our next adventure!"

[Spence Tepper]

The farmer breaks up the soil hardened by sun, heat, rain and cold into clay, with a steel bladed shovel, tilling, piercing it over and over, turning it upside down just so that the fresh seeds have a chance to take hold and grow. Preparing it for summer harvest.

The remodeler tears out a wall or an old ceiling, and cuts a hole in the roof for a new skylight, with a sharp saw, a claw hammer, ripping it apart, to build a larger, brighter and better living space.

The tailor must cut the cloth with sharp scissors to make the perfect suit.

Every act of creation is preceded with an element of destruction.

And we learn to understand and participate in creation by calm acceptance.

[um]

Before, say 1960, haedly anybody in the west had any knowledge of the existence, let alone understanding, of the eastern worldview and the mental techniques they developed in relation to that.

We also had no knowledge and most ly we do not know even to day, what the worldview was and is of the many indigenous people all over the world.

They have something in common:
They all ATTRIBUTE their world view to the inner experiences of their mystics
The "entities" that appeared in their inner experiences, told them that what was revealed to them was absolute ... AND ... universal.

If that entity had an existence of himself, beside the one that received, the revelation, what all believe and are convinced of, then he forgot to inform the rest of humaniy.

So we ended up with a few tales about the world etc exclusively and uniquely told to just ONE ....O N E ...human being at a time and the rest, the majority, is swallowing the message as those that are bewitched by snake oil sellers, the hearsay in the third forth and god knows how many degrees.

[Spence Tepper]

Mystics ate encouraged to go within and discover their own reality, and invite others to share in that.

Hence there will be no end to the tales of mystics. It's built into us.

[um]

The everest exists.
There are mountaineers
The everest can climbed.
Thaose that have climbed it might guide others.

BUT ...

To suggest that the everest exists to be climbed
to suggest all are born to climb it.
To suggest others to do the same
and
offer them to help

Is an unforgivable evil.

[Appreciative Reader]

Ah, there's um.

Spence, I read your comment, addressed to me, but I was waiting for um to get here. Because the discussion is basically between the two of you, and I'm just the looker-on, or at most a wee bit of a facilitator, that's all.

I liked you comment about big-picture-needs-no-teacher vis-a-vis small-picture-does-need-a-teacher. Actually that paradigm works fine also with the determinism-free-will business, doesn't t? Agreed, far as that goes, what you say there.

Except, Spence: Kind of a non sequitur? Not what um was talking about, and not what I'd said in my comment, that you'd quoted from.

Anyway, I don't mind repeating. It's actually an interesting discussion, and I'd like to see what the two of you have to say on this. um's repeated his thing again, just now, and let me flesh that out a bit, for clarity, if I may --- without, let it be clearly understood, without my necessarily endorsing any of this, I'm just the postman here:

What um's saying is (as you can read in his comment immediately preceding, and in my comment that you've quoted from, but here it is again):

You imply, in all of your comments, that "going within", and "thoughtlessness", and what follows on those, are a common feature of the human condition. All of us come equipped with that potential. And meditation generally, and (inter alia?) Shabd specifically, facilitate that going within and that thoughtlessness. Therefore, it behooves all of us to apply ourselves to meditation generally and (inter alia?) to Shabd specifically as the means to arrive at the full human potential.

um disagrees. He believes that each individual human being comes equipped with certain talents that are specific to that individual, and maybe to a (very?) few others. Sure, for those with an intrinsic talent for X, to cultivate X makes sense, and is a great idea. But for those lacking a talent for X (perhaps because they have a talent for Y instead, or maybe a talent for A and B and C instead, or maybe no talent at all), it makes zero sense to apply themselves to X. Because at most they'll amount to mediocrities in that effort, and in any case they won't find fulfillment in X. So that for an X-talented person to proclaim that EVERYONE must find fulfillment in X is, at best, wrong and misguided, and if you want to put it strongly, then evil even, in as much as it will lead the non-X-talented not to fulfillment but to its exact obverse.

(And, to spell this out very very clearly: X might be anything at all. Something like a knack for ...architecture? [More on that in the following section.] Or maybe music? Or dancing? Or a talent for math? For literature? Or, and to take this back to the specific thing he was referring to: a knack and a talent for inner experiences and absorption and thoughtless and Shabd and the inner son et lumiere and all of that.)

----------

I'd said that I haven't come across this philosophy anywhere else before this, but as I type this it occurs to me that I detect a flavor of Ayn Rand in here. Not her hard-core stuff, not her larger thesis, but certainly one aspect of what she'd discussed in some detail in her Fountainhead (specifically by contrasting Howard Roark and Peter Whatsisname), and to a lesser extent in her Atlast Shrugged (lesser extent, because in that latter her thesis was a larger idea than that essentially personal insight).

I mention this because it seemed an apposite reference; but I believe um has come up with his insight by himself. If it's the same wheel that Ayn Rand discussed, or at least a similar one, then it's one that um's rediscovered all on his own.

----------

I repeat again, I don't necessarily endorse um's POV, nor yours. That is, I do have my views on this, I think, but they're far from well-formed, and I'd rather not discuss my own (partly formed and incomplete) viewpoint on this. I think it might be more meaningful to hear the two of you talk this out.

--------

Over to you, Spence. And, after, to you, um.

*walks way from the spotlight, and sits comfortably away in the darkness, waiting on the speakers to have their say*

[Spence Tepper]

Hi AR
As I'd mentioned, all roads lead to Rome. That means we each start in a different place with different talents, different views. Therefore what Um wrote is most certainly part of that and in no way contradictory.

So long as we are all in a human body, and in this physical world, certain essentials are going to be universal, even as their variations will also be infinite.

People are going to have different experiences as they progress each in their own way.

And they can hear others' views and judge in relation to their own experiences and understanding.

Sharing a different perspective from one's own is a good thing, not a sin at all, from where I see things.

Um's claim that encouraging spirituality universally carries some expectation of universal compliance or harm to those who don't agree doesn't apply to anything I've written. People are free to believe whatever appeals to their own experiences and sentiment. Who can really know the best next step for anyone else? I don't think anyone should be presumptuous in that way, because we don't know anyone else's thoughts. That is their own private property.

Outside of one's own view it is difficult to accurately speak for anyone else, to speak for "other people" past or present. I don't advise it.

[um]

@ AR

What You write is correct as far as the things that I write here and also that they became visible to me out of themselves without reading about it.

[um]

@ Spence

>> I don't advise it.<<

People have the tendency to think that whatever is good for me , is good for others" and to act accordingly.

If a person asks You Spence, how to climb "Your everest" of course you can give that advise in the way you deem fit ..and ... in that case ... there would not be an "UM" around that would open his mouth.

To tell others however, unasked for that "climbing that mountain of yours".. IS THE way to go for all ... is what i call an form of evil of wealth.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Um
You wrote
"To tell others however, unasked for that "climbing that mountain of yours".. IS THE way to go for all ... is what i call an form of evil of wealth."

I think I understand. However my beliefs only apply to those who feel the same way. The path to personal progress is always going to be a personal one.

In this way I don't believe you understood what I wrote.

I'm not making claims for anyone else.

On the other hand, Um, you are talking of other people you do not know. You are trying to defend the interests of these ghosts you have drummed up.

Actual people may not agree with you. But in all cases they can decide for themselves.

Certainly, for example, Jews and Christians. There is a rich history of mysticism in both, right from the earliest texts. For the entire history of both religions there have been those in these schools who did indeed have and share in sacred writings their own similar mystical experiences of divine inner music and light as a direct result of spiritual practice.

Whatever actually happened we cannot know from those texts. But they are evidence that such people did not act on blind faith alone but on their own experience.

These writings also serve as evidence that, in distinction to your remark, mysticism has also been a western tradition throughout Western history, though as an arcane offshoot, and not the mainstream tradition.

"Faith is to believe in what we cannot see. And the reward for this faith is to see what we believe."
St. Augustine

"I listen now only to the inner sound of God, my friend, as the mystic listens to the sound of the flute."
Socrates

"The divine can be heard as an inner voice within. If you are wise you will go within the temple cave inside yourself and listen to it."
Lord Alfred Tennyson

"Listening to this higher sound the soul is lifted into a higher sphere of pure bliss, so that it never wants to return."
Fray Lois De Leon

"The Lord plays divine music, the very music of salvation within."
Clement of Alexandria (one of the fathers of Christianity)

"The name of the Lord is a strong tower; the righteous man runs into it and is safe."
Proverbs 18:10

[Appreciative Reader]

Wait, wait, wait. If this is what you believe, Spence, then I'd mistakenly inferred what I (wrongly) imagined you to have been implying. But if this is what you truly believe, then I should be very surprised indeed; for one thing because this goes against what I understand Sant Mat to be saying. Let me make sure this is what you do mean:

Do you, Spence, then agree with um that Shabd meditation is not for everyone, but only a (very?) few; and that only those (very?) few with an inborn talent for it are likely to find fulfillment in Shabd, not everyone? Do you further agree that meditation, any kind of meditation not just Shabd, is likewise best suited only for a small subset of humanity that have an inborn tendency and talent for it, not for everyone? Because that is what um is saying, or at least, that is what I understand him to be saying.

[Dungeness]

@ um : [To tell others however, unasked for that "climbing that mountain of yours".. IS THE way to go for all ... is what i call an form of evil of wealth.]

As kids, we just called them "showboats" but it was more a
case of the obnoxiousness rather than "evil" of wealth. To
me graduating from a southern high school which required
attendance at a Jesus-centric baccalaureate service to
graduate... now that was "evil". Not because it's Christianity
but because it was coercive and not so subtly disrespected
others' beliefs. Definitely more than obnoxious at least if not
evil.

I respect the aversion to hyping one way (or even sneakily
implying "it's the one true way to climb the mountain") but I
don't think that happened. Mystics respect the myriads of
spiritual paths and at most suggest an invitation to test a
devotional practice they've tried themselves had success
experiencing.

[um]

@ Dungeness

What you call "showboating" and the other things, however nasty, is not the real "evil of wealth" .

The vil of wealth, in whatever form, material, mental and/or spiritual is NOT
[1] the [ possible reprehensible] way in which the wealth was optained
[2] nor how that wealth is [possible reprehensible] shown to the world / the new rich, showing of their wealth, or followers of an guru, not understanding what the concept of "being chosen" is all about

No it is something else... !!!!

It is intently, or unintendly, openly or secretly letting another person know, comunicating to him that:

There is something, they have, that is needed to live a life as a human being to its fullest and the worst form of it is making it clear that "I have it and you will never have it"

To explain the mechanism:
Before the advent of TV and the globalization, all peoples lived in their own gultural bubbles, thinking that, it was universal. After the advent of TV and Internet, by now the people living in these cultures, know that they are not universal and are faced with so many other cultures that claim the same.

What do they see and hear and have for decades by now? The predominance of presenting western [mostly that of the USA] culture as THE culture of the world.

Having watched, the interiors of the rooms from which and issue was presented, no matter fiction or non fiction, they saw the wealth a wealth that downed upon them they would never have.

That, how strange it might sound, explains the rise of the violent Islam as compensation for that suggestion that they would be forever a degraded people.
That explains the hatred against the USA and western culture in many other movements.

And the USA on all levels is telling the world ..We are the number one .. and ... we are not going to share that possition with anybody else.

On ALL levels of culture.!!!

Back to the mystics.
Mystics as far as I understand are even not happy in comparing themselves with anybody else, be they mystic or not. Those that I met personally and which were regarded by the world as so called advanced souls, mystics or teachers were reluctant to speak about themselves and their attainments. Certainly did not speak of many paths leading to rome. Often made it clear that they knew only about the path THEY had traveled along and some of them offered me, that they were willing to accept me as a student if i was inviting them to do so..

An most handled their "wealth" in a humble way, seeing to it that I was not impressed neither by them nor their attainments, doing their utmost to leave me free, free to make my own decisions.

If they offered "cake" they didn't say here is fine or good cake,. They used no adjectives. The just said this is the cake I make, this is the cake i eat and if you would like to make that cake, I am willing to instruct you.

Go and watch the video's of that western monk that lives in the Egyptian dessert as a modern "dessert father".... "father lazurus el Anthony". He loves to tell his story ... HIS story but he never says .. do as I do. ... let alone ... this is the only way to invest in life.

[1] The pull, calling, must come from within,.
If that calling, is not there, there is nothing one can do
and
nothing that should be done
Neither by the self nor by OTHERS to provoke it.

[2] In order to eat, to say "I am eating" two conditions have to be fulfilled
a/ there must be food on the plate
b/ there must be hunger [inner pull or calling]
and both conditions are not available at will

Mystics knowing this to be true, do nothing to attract followers. They do not need them and often do there utmost to hide themselves.

To use the parable of the the lost key ... they have left the "light in the street" and the many people walking around seeking keys, discussing with one another as to where to find it, and have turned to their house and locked that door from within, so that nobody could intruded and they be left alone.

[um]

@ AR

That is what I am saying and based on that insight there is nothing to be said.

Those who do, risk the evil of wealth to come to the surface.

Only natural humility can protect them from surfacing this evil.

[um]

and ...
The western world is CHRISTIAN in all its expressions.

Part of Christianity is the "spreading of the good news" ... the conversion of others ... asked or unasked for

That "missionary" attitude is to be found in whatever they do.

And although it might be based on the idealistic idea "what is good for me is good for others and I have the obligation to have them know that it exists" it often has resulted in the evil of wealth in all its form ...

just ponder a moment what has happened to all these indigenous peoples all over the world, that were "offered" the good news of christian message..... the children that were taken away from their parents.

It is everywhere .. those who came to know about mysticism after 1970 are all christians and prone to "spread the good knews" ... they feel they "HAVE" to do it, that they have to give to humanity, what THEY condider as "good"

[um]

And ... What triggers me.

If somebody tells we are doing "this" and I see them do "that", the lights start to glow, like on a panel.

It is a kind of an gift.

Often I was shown around in somebodies Business and while doing that they would tell me about their intentions and plans. Hearing what they said, without effort on my part, all sorts of details in their business that where in contrast to what they said would present themselves to me in a natural way ... as if they had a voice ...Hé Um, look at me.

Depending on the character of the one showing me around I would keep mum or point at these things. That made the impression that I had an interest in what they were doing but I do not have that interest at all as it is all theirs.

BUT .... they are TALKING to me, They want me to see a thing and in a particular way. That too is not what triggers my attention as it is up to everybody to have his own viewpoints and to express them, it is all theirs to be responsible for.

BUT ... they are addressing me and they try to make me see things other than they are to be seen by me, unasked for. It is a kind of intruding my privacy, and the freedom of mind I have there. It doesn't matter if it is done with intent or without.

Whatever I came to understand in this life about mysticism and mystics was that they had mastered that skill of not reaching out to others. They are all like the mount Figi, silently available for all, without acting out. What I do not know is what they are inside themselves, that is al secret and up to them but they are all visible in their capacities as human beings and THAT is available for all to see for free. Their humanity tells a story not their divinity.

They cannot be emulated, copied etc as it is an natural phenomena that grows and manifests its self and those who artificially try to do it will bring the worst out of themselves.

That said it has been a great pleasure to have been in the compagnie of some of these master humans, that company made me understand many a thing that is dear to me and demands gratitude.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi AR
You wrote
"Do you, Spence, then agree with um that Shabd meditation is not for everyone, but only a (very?) few; and that only those (very?) few with an inborn talent for it are likely to find fulfillment in Shabd, not everyone?"

If you are interested in painting you will paint. No one can stop you. There are lessons and shops with supplies everywhere.

Not everyone will become Picasso or Vermeer. But it won't matter. The challenges and the joy of painting will be there, and that person, whose interest grows, will also find both challenges and joy grow as well. It's for those so inclined merely by interest.

But the basic skills are in everyone.. Hands, mind, eye. It's wrong to say it isn't for everyone if someone wants to try.

Shabd is in everyone in the same way.

You wrote:
" Do you further agree that meditation, any kind of meditation not just Shabd, is likewise best suited only for a small subset of humanity that have an inborn tendency and talent for it, not for everyone?"

Meditation is healthy for almost everyone and accessible to all those. The physiology of meditation is very helpful for all but a very small number who cannot deal with their own mind directly.

But for most people studied by medical science it's very healthy.

Which kind works best for you? Try and find! There are as many different kinds of meditation as clothes in the mall.

But how far you get and how much you get out of it will vary. Your mileage will vary.

Baba Ji pointed this out when he said there is more than one path to enlightenment. He often quotes the adage, "One Light, Many Windows".

So, while I am not an authority on Sant Mat, nor a representative of that school, I do agree with what I understand and experience of it.

I've been shown most all the regions I read about, but that only makes me a more focused student, and inner Master is with me.

You wrote
"Because that is what um is saying, or at least, that is what I understand him to be saying."

I can't speak for Um. I haven't taken a survey of all people to confirm that tiny percentage you refer to. The "chosen ones". I don't believe in that. Meditation is a physiological function of the body, the very mechanisms that are triggered upon death, and these mechanisms, these awesome places and joyous feelings, these incredible insights, and this indescribable freedom we can experience daily with practice. And even carry some of that into our normal life activities. And these events place our tiny life into a wholesome context.. A context we are all missing otherwise. And missing, we are adrift.

So if someone feels adrift, meditation of one kind or another is very likely to help.

Guru Bhakti is just one form, the one I love. All these other people you and Um refer to can be good consumers of their practice by searching, investigating, as you are, and trying. That only works if those who practice these lifestyles are completely transparent about them.

Not by holding things in silence and shaming those who share. That's bad science.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi AR
You wrote
"Do you, Spence, then agree with um that Shabd meditation is not for everyone, but only a (very?) few;"

It is for anyone interested enough to try.

The equipment is within you.

Anyone who wants to paint will paint. They may not become Picasso or Vermeer right away. But they can enjoy the love of painting.

Shops with supplies and lessons are everywhere. That isn't wrong. Go and paint!

So it is with meditation. All meditation is Shabd meditation. Shabd is in everyone, and as the mind quiets, light and sound is there for everyone. It's physiologically impossible to quite the mind and not have light and sound flood in. Think of these as simply physiological realities built into human frame.

But the methods of meditation are as many as the clothes sold on the mall.

Be a good consumer.

and that only those (very?) few with an inborn talent for it are likely to find fulfillment in Shabd, not everyone?"

Even Baba Ji said repeatedly that there are other paths. He said" One light, many windows"

All roads lead to Rome, but they start on different places and so are different, depending upon our conditions. Destination is the same.

" Do you further agree that meditation, any kind of meditation not just Shabd, is likewise best suited only for a small subset of humanity that have an inborn tendency and talent for it, not for everyone? Because that is what um is saying, or at least, that is what I understand him to be saying."

No I don't agree. Medical science indicates that various forms of inner focus, meditation, prayer and worship are extremely healthy for most people.

Making things secret and out of reach is just a way to promote ego:" I had the company of Saints and you didn't so you should have zero hope." Really, that's just wrong.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi AR
You wrote
"Do you, Spence, then agree with um that Shabd meditation is not for everyone, but only a (very?) few;"

It is for anyone interested enough to try.

The equipment is within everyone.

Anyone who wants to paint will paint. They may not become Picasso or Vermeer right away. But they can enjoy the love of painting immediately.

Shops with supplies and lessons are everywhere. That isn't wrong. Go and paint!

So it is with meditation. All meditation is Shabd meditation. Shabd is in everyone, and as the mind quiets, light and sound is there for everyone. It's physiologically impossible to quiet the mind and not have light and sound flood in. Think of these as simply physiological realities built into human frame.
Meditation is the practice of dying while living. We are triggering the physiological mechanisms that come alive as we die.

Experiencing that joy, those amazing places and people, and the absolute freedom we experience puts our tiny like into a wholesome, healthy and very survivable context. Everyone should go there, even if they can only approach from a distance.

Whatever Love is, it is in its highest form there. And going even a few steps in that direction we become more loving.

But the methods of meditation are as many as the clothes sold in the mall.

Be a good consumer.

You wrote
"and that only those (very?) few with an inborn talent for it are likely to find fulfillment in Shabd, not everyone?"

You will experience fulfillment far sooner than that. Anything that focuses the mind yeilds a degree of fulfillment, as I've mentioned in the past. And you carry that to some degree, with you wherever you go.

Knowing these are physiological systems why not go directly to them?

Even Baba Ji said repeatedly that there are other paths. He said" One light, many windows"

All roads lead to Rome, but they start at different places and so are different, depending upon our conditions. Destination is the same.

" Do you further agree that meditation, any kind of meditation not just Shabd, is likewise best suited only for a small subset of humanity that have an inborn tendency and talent for it, not for everyone? Because that is what um is saying, or at least, that is what I understand him to be saying."

No I don't agree. Medical science indicates that various forms of inner focus, meditation, prayer and worship are extremely healthy for most people.

Some folks can't deal directly with their own mind. Some news artists can't handle messy watercolor or oil paints or charcoal. Too much for them. But for these there is colored pencil, equally sublime.

"Find your bliss and follow it."
Joseph Campbell.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi AR
Sorry but it seems the blog may have deleted my earlier replies. Please forgive if three or four earlier attempts show up in the next hours.

You wrote
"Do you, Spence, then agree with um that Shabd meditation is not for everyone, but only a (very?) few;"

It is for anyone interested enough to try.

The equipment is within everyone.

Anyone who wants to paint will paint. They may not become Picasso or Vermeer right away. But they can enjoy the love of painting immediately.

Shops with supplies and lessons are everywhere. That isn't wrong. Go and paint!

So it is with meditation. All meditation is Shabd meditation. Shabd is in everyone, and as the mind quiets, light and sound is there for everyone. It's physiologically impossible to quiet and focus the mind and not have light and sound flood in. Think of these as simply physiological realities built into the human frame.

We are debating the concept that if you walk outside on a clear day you will see a blue sky. I guess the debate is understandable to those who have never done do, but action will provide the real proof. And then you may remember you were here long ago, that it isn't anything new.

Meditation is the practice of dying while living. We are triggering the physiological mechanisms that come alive as we die.

Experiencing that joy, those amazing places and people, and the absolute freedom we experience puts our tiny like into a wholesome, healthy and very survivable context. Everyone should go there, even if they can only approach from a distance.

Whatever Love is, it is in its highest form there. And going even a few steps in that direction we become more loving.

But the methods of meditation are as many as the clothes sold in the mall.

Be a good consumer.

I happen to love Guru Bhakti. Others will find something else better suited. Since this requires a commitment of time and effort to make sustained progress that you are actually and directly aware of, pick an approach you like.

You wrote
"and that only those (very?) few with an inborn talent for it are likely to find fulfillment in Shabd, not everyone?"

You will experience fulfillment far sooner than that. Anything that focuses the mind yeilds a degree of fulfillment, as I've mentioned in the past.

Sitting before the master, boom, many are fulfilled. They go there to get their full charge.

And you carry that to some degree, with you wherever you go.

Knowing these are physiological systems why not go directly to them?

Even Baba Ji said repeatedly that there are other paths. He said" One light, many windows"

All roads lead to Rome, but they start at different places and so appear different, depending upon our conditions. Destination is the same.

" Do you further agree that meditation, any kind of meditation not just Shabd, is likewise best suited only for a small subset of humanity that have an inborn tendency and talent for it, not for everyone? Because that is what um is saying, or at least, that is what I understand him to be saying."

No I don't agree. Medical science indicates that various forms of inner focus, meditation, prayer and worship are extremely healthy for most people.

Some folks can't deal directly with their own mind. Some new artists can't handle messy watercolor or oil paints or charcoal. Too much for them. But for these there is colored pencil, equally sublime.

And if they can't stand their own efforts, they can go to the museum and gather inspiration from others of the past, or just sit in on a workshop and enjoy the messy attempts of others today as their inspiration.

If you want to paint, you can paint.

If you really want to paint, you will. And you will get better at it over time.

"Find your bliss and follow it."
Joseph Campbell.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi AR
You wrote
"Do you, Spence, then agree with um that Shabd meditation is not for everyone, but only a (very?) few;"

It is physiologically impossible to withdraw from thinking and not have a flood of light and sound.

[Spence Tepper]

Therefore all forms of meditation are, in fact, Shabd meditation. All roads lead to Rome. And anyone can take the road they find close by.

[Spence Tepper]

Medical science has also proven that some forms of meditation are physically and psychologically healthy for most people. That would include practices of prayer and devotion. That includes healing one's DNA. So that's nearly universal. Most everyone has that equipment built into them.

[Spence Tepper]

Find the practice you are willing to stick with. The one closest to your own lifestyle. Because results, including resulting happiness, are proportional to time and effort.

[Appreciative Reader]

"Hi AR
You wrote
"Do you, Spence, then agree with um that Shabd meditation is not for everyone, but only a (very?) few;"

It is physiologically impossible to withdraw from thinking and not have a flood of light and sound."

(Posted by: Spence Tepper | April 11, 2022 at 06:35 AM)

----------

"Therefore all forms of meditation are, in fact, Shabd meditation. All roads lead to Rome. And anyone can take the road they find close by."

(Posted by: Spence Tepper | April 11, 2022 at 06:37 AM)

----------

Hm.

Those are great comments, and open up many different nuances that one might explore --- and, I suppose, take issue with (while also appreciating the depth of the nuance). But I'll try to stick to what we were discussing here, just that and nothing else, so as not to derail the discussion (fascinating though the sidebars promise to be!).

So that I'll try to get you to state outright, as opposed to merely working with unstated implications:

Do you believe this thoughtlessness, and the son et lumiere that you claim necessarily follows on it, are what everyone has a capacity for, and that everyone might benefit from (beyond merely incidental de-stressing effects)?

If the answer is Yes, then clearly you disagree with um. I wonder why it's taking you so long to acknowledge that plain fact.

If the answer is No, then that's tantamount to saying that Shabd meditation, and indeed meditation generally, as well as the thoughtlessness that might follow --- these are not things that everyone is equipped to draw fulfillment from. In which case you agree with um, but then you'd be disagreeing squarely with Sant Mat principles, for instance.

[Appreciative Reader]

Medical science has also proven that some forms of meditation are physically and psychologically healthy for most people. That would include practices of prayer and devotion. That includes healing one's DNA. So that's nearly universal. Most everyone has that equipment built into them.

Posted by: Spence Tepper | April 11, 2022 at 06:54 AM

--------------------

That's a non sequitur, Spence. Those incidental health benefits isn't what this is about, you know that. That's merely incidental. That is, they're great too, and it's good and right that everyone should take advantage of those benefits if they can.

But what we're discussing is whether the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, actual thoughtlessness, and Shabd, all of that --- the real deal, not just the incidental benefits from de-stressing --- is something that everyone is equipped to derive fulfillment from. um thinks No. If you also think the answer is No, then you agree with um, but disagree with what Sant Mat claims (or at least, what I understand it to claim). If you think the answer is Yes, then you agree with Sant Mat, but disagree with um.

Again, I'm just a bit ...nonsplussed? ...why it's taking you so very long to recognize that your position is squarely opposed to um's, as far as this narrow issue. I should have thought that was evident from the get-go, and that the actual meat of this discussion would be from the two of you sussing out which of you is actually right. Instead, for some reason, I've no clue why, we seem to be following a super tortuous route to getting you to clearly admit that your POV is squarely opposed --- like, SQUARELY opposed --- to um's, as far as this narrow focused issue that is.

[um]

@ AR
Why?
Because I have nothing to lose, nothing at all, but he has, and quite a lot.

Best leave things as they are, and forget there was ever this discussion.

One day the mist will clear and things will become visible without themselves and natural.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi AR
You asked
"Do you believe this thoughtlessness, and the son et lumiere that you claim necessarily follows on it, are what everyone has a capacity for, and that everyone might benefit from (beyond merely incidental de-stressing effects)?"

Yes, and the two are actually related.

When the consciousness is sufficiently withdrawn from the thinking mechanisms of the brain, then light, sound and bliss flow. You can trigger those things through practice. Or brain trauma, or death.

But why not practice this while alive?

We're talking about an ancient spiritual practice that is actually a physiological practice. It's built into the body.

This is why other forms of meditation practice also have traction.

I find love of my Master, as a practice of meditation, most effective for me. But that is based on my nature, strengths and weaknesses mixed together.

Others like mindfulness.

Which gets you further?

Depends on your aptitude and practice.

You have a concept of some ultimate final point.

I suggest that is a culture bound religious concept, and that the reality it progress.

Think like this. Freedom from mind is just a brain function of switching tracks so that consciousness is functioning in a place you rarely are aware of, where a single thought becomes a sea of love, a place... Where a single question is answered with a whole and complete design. And time and space between you and the object of your love is erased, at least for the moment. But that moment is its own lifetime.

In that thoughtless moment we are all one.

[Appreciative Reader]

No no, agreed to the above, absolutely, Spence. That is, that is not the part in contention here.

um suggests that the above is not the universal human condition, but applicable to just a (very?) few individuals. All roads DON'T lead to Rome, and nor would Rome offer fulfillment to all; but only to a (very?) few. And THAT is the core issue here, that I found fascinating, this fundamental difference in opinion between the two of you --- without necessarily leaning towards either POV myself, for now. And THAT is what I was hoping I'd get to witness the two of you discussing and sussing out for yourselves.

This isn't about me, at all, at least that isn't how I'd envisioned this. But somehow this wasn't getting started at all, because you kept insisting that um's POV wasn't really in disagreement with yours, and for some reason refusing to see the core issue, even though it was very clearly spelt out, many times.

Well anyway, hopefully we're there now, finally, ready at last to get off the starting blocks. You do see, now, what the point of disagreement is. Have at it, then! Done right, this promises to be a fascinating, and instructive, discussion.

*melts away into the audience, and away from the spotlight, for the final time*

*yep, absolutely truly the final time, you won't hear a peep out of me after this, in this thread I mean to say, regardless of what direction this discussion now takes (or doesn't take)*

[Dungeness]

@ um : [ Certainly did not speak of many paths leading to rome. Often made it clear that they knew only about the path THEY had traveled along and some of them offered me, that they were willing to accept me as a student if i was inviting them to do so..]

The current RSSB guru has explicitly disavowed the "arrogance" of
asserting that Sant Mat is the only path to Truth. I've often cited
Sawan Singh's words to Ishwar Puri that RSSB has worked for me
but please tell me if you find something better. There's no clearer
mystic statement of that humility and disavowal.

Mystics that I'm familiar with do assert that the Truth is within all
though and everyone is equipped to find fulfillment of its promise.
But it must be sought inside through a practice of discipline and
devotion. Anyone seeking it there will find it in time. How could
your true essence be denied you if really want it...

[Spence Tepper]

Hi AR
Um and I are not actually opposed at all, as I had mentioned. You pick the level of consciousness at which you would like to view things. Each level is going to be different. One actually feeds into and is part of the other.

In spiritual writings there are details of the rare, sacred treasure of inner wealth. Then again, in these same writings mystics detail this inner treasure is in everyone, but access requires certain conditions most people don't create.

They don't create them because they have no idea of those treasures and not knowing, or not believing, they don't practice. Other things in their life pull them to create the conditions conducive to those other things.

So, divided, pulled into different directions by their loves, obligations, and habits, their practice is hopelessly flawed, and so they don't adequately control the stable conditions necessary for prolonged practice and progress.

The management author Peter Drucker once wrote that twenty years of experience in a field may not be twenty actual years of experience. It might just be one year repeated twenty times.

Therefore you can't judge by what people say about their years of following a practice. Twenty years for one will be 20x the progress of another.

Number of years means nothing.

Your own practice is what matters.

If you love being in the presence of your Guru, and are happy just moving gradually in meditation, that is also a very happy life, if you accept it. You have the whole package there.

And then there is this superstition about keeping quiet. Very unscientific. I don't prescribe to it. If you are willing to do the same things you will get the same results. Period. There is zero magic to it, all superstition aside. And no excuses.

Those who like their practice should absolutely share their love if they like, just because they love the path. Just our of sheer love, they can say what they like.

There is no ego involved in relating a truth universally available to everyone. No talent required. No special status. Zero.

Keeping things secret really is just an insult to science. Even to spiritual science.

But if you want people to leave you alone, then of course a quiet life is best.

If you are a scientist, you use your voice.

Anyone serious about Sant Mat should get details from the source. I don't think we should comment about something when there are experts on the field to refer to.

But as to our own personal experience, we should all be able to share that with some objectivity and without any filters at all.

[um]

@ Dungeness

I found that only of mostly people in the west are prone to compare / finding the "best this or that"

In the interactions I had with Asian people, they were more than pleased with what they had themselves, be it something trivial as "fighter kiting", their cuisine or in the serious realm "a mystic tradition"

In all the case , I too tried to have them discuss the differences between their path and RSSB, they kindly refused saying that they were content with what they were doing.

Actually when I did put it before MCS he answered by means of letter almost to te letter what others had said. He knew only about RSSB.

That idea of finding the BEST or the only true etc is something they are not interested in as what they do is self evident for them. They are not talking about, teachers and teachings "deserving our effort, love and devotion"but their own love, devotion for it.

Bakti, as understood in India and the relation between students and guru, is something that is beyond the grasp of western mind,... general speaking.

Who would say to a loving man or a women that there are better partners than their own.???

And i will not beat the drum but I do have a letter here that declares that the Path of RSSB is the only one. I will not write down in detail what there is said but from their point of view, speaking from within its cosmology, that is correct and they are not free to state otherwise. His successor has the same message to bring but he has to deal with the changing opinions of the western public .. what he says is just an cosmetic adaptation to that desire of westerns. In fact what he said was the same as his uncle said ..and that is all related to the initial fase of the path but not with the path itself.

I am not here to say something about any path as i would not have anything to say to others as to marry or not and with whom.

[um]

@ AR

How funny it is about "Rome" and "all roads leading to it"

Is that not the optimum of Christian worldview?!

In rome where the worldly and "divine" power is located, the the embassy of the christian lord. and the seat of the emperor.

There is no center! in reality,
Centres are relative and created.
Once created roads toward it can be constructed.

But people have to be told what that centre is and made to believe that it has an reality of its own.

Centristic thinking, christian thinging governs also science.

Scientist do not like the natural chaos

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Um
It's funny you point to a letter from Maharaji stating RSSB is the only path, and then contrast this with Christianity when He Himself wrote several books pointing to the same path in Christianity. He even said to one Satsangi, "Sister, we are all following Christ."

And of course, knowing Maharaji as closely as you state, you must know he chose to send his young kids to Catholic school for their education.

Truth can be found in many different systems of belief throughout history.

Long before the words Sant Mat, Radha Soami, or even Christ or Buddha were spoken, the same essential practice existed, from which these others were derived.

[um]

@ Spence

>>Those who like their practice should absolutely share their love if they like, just because they love the path. Just our of sheer love, they can say what they like.<<

It is that you write it down otherwise I could not believe that somebody would say such an thing.

Ask your wife if she wants you to speak about the relation between the two of you.

What have others to do with your love for whatever is near and dear to you.

I just can't believe what you say here.

[Spence Tepper]

And those practices still exist today, in different places under different names. Christian monks, ex the monks of the philokalia, even from the lost and hidden tribes of Israel.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Um
Every loving wife and husband gladly speak of their love for their spouse. And their actions speak even louder. They never let anyone presume they take the other for granted. Their whole life is a devotional to their spouse. Yes, they write love poetry, cook meals, become each other. That has nothing to do with the details of their relationship, which is absolutely private. Intimacy is another thing altogether.

But to suggest they never knew each other, that is an insult.

What a strange culture you speak of!

[um]

@ Spence

They do the things in the intimacy of their relations.
They do not need others as spectators or witness of their love.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Um
You wrote
"They do the things in the intimacy of their relations.
They do not need others as spectators or witness of their love."

The other spectators don't exist for the lovers, yes that's true. So why places yourself in the role of spectator?

Become the lover you were meant to be and don't spend one second worrying about what anyone else thinks or how other lovers behave.

Love does that to people. Don't worry about it

[um]

@ Spence

It is not about my or you r love but YOUR showing of to the world, letting the world know how much of a lover you are.
It serves a strange psyvhological need.

[Spence Tepper]

Um
If you make an absolute ass of yourself because of the love of your lover, your lover doesn't care either.

No one may take you seriously. After all, you are in the throws of love.

But no one will care.

Be a fool for love. Lose everything for love. Of course you won't care. You won't be losing anything. You will be taking off your clothes so you may be intimate with your Lover.

Shout to the hilltops about Shabd! Let the oceans resound in cheers, and all the stars sing with you. They are not being quiet. You need not also.

Be happy to lose it all mind, body and wealth. These are all so very stupid things...a prison house.

Love of Christ. Love of Christ.

[um]

@ Spence.

Do whatever suits you .. who cares, .
But you come here with what you do and that is at stake.

[Spence Tepper]

Um
Skiing didn't exist thousands of years ago.
For the longest time it was the hobby of the very rich.
Now, nearly everyone can go skiing at least once if they really want to try it.

Same with meditation. Modern medicine demonstrates that nearly everyone can have some level of alternate, raised awareness, higher peace and insight. Cognitive functioning improved, health improved.

If everyone can have access to the internet and become relative geniuses compared to their limited unaided memory of the past,, before cell phones, everyone can also partake of the benefits of meditation.

The discussion here is out of date already.

Because this is what is happening. Millions more people are trying meditation now than ever before, even using phone apps. Everyone is strolling up to that doorway, and already experiencing benefit.

Has nothing to do with you or I not should we let that overtake the larger discussion. The dynamics, the machinery of raising consciousness is in everyone and with proper training everyone can be a bunny Hill skier, and those who are now intrepid can attempt, with some help, a slightly greater vertical.

Same for mountain climbing. We don't encourage people to attempt Everest. We encourage them to go climb a rock.

[Dude]

He who casteth the first stone is a stoner.

[um]

@ Spence.

Yes that is what is on the market for sale ...
There is no end to joy and happiness sellers, with smiling faces an white robes.
Advertising with ... YOU too can be happy as I am IF..... you hear upon me do what I do.

They are like the toolshop owners that sold the tools for gold digging during the gold rush. They were the ones that made money, not the diggers.

They are like the people on HISTORY channel, seeking for hidden treasures.
These treasures are not to be found but they make money with the IDEA of others that it can be found and they, they do whatever they can to convince people, that it will be found, if not to day, then tomorrow and doing so the make money by the millions.

At the age of 16, after the closure of the local bars, stuffing myself with unhealthy but tasty comfort food, gazing focusless in the night, I knew, that manipulation the needs of people was the most easy thing to do to make money and bind people as is done in relgions,....it is a matter of propper PR.

Being a bad liar, i could never start a "shop" my own selling mental comfort food.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Um
I get you.

There are bad sales people out there.

And some good.

And then there are those just happy to share their experiences, like ratings on Amazon. They aren't selling anything. Just providing useful information. Just being helpful.

[um]

@ Spence

>> I get you<<

That is what you think ... but I doubt it. ...
Never mind.