Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Guest guest

Please take your conversation off-line

By Guest guest, in Shakti Sadhana

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Guest guest   

Guest guest
Posted

Namaste,

Please do not fill this group with off-topic posts. The negative

aspects of any religion, culture, potitical party, or person do not

need to be discussed in Shree Maa's group. This group is about the

glory of the divine.

No matter what our personal feelings are about negative appearances,

all human history has been carried out under the energy of the

divine. Far better to meditate on that, persue our own purification,

and attain non-dual view and compassion.

Jesse Arana (Kailash)

www.meditationinfocus.com

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest guest   

Guest guest
Posted

jessee,

 

beautifully stated . . . thank you very much

 

sheryl jai

 

--- Jesse Arana <jessearana wrote:

> Namaste,

>

> Please do not fill this group with off-topic posts.

> The negative aspects

> of any religion, culture, potitical party, or person

> do not need to be

> discussed in Shree Maa's group. This group is about

> the glory of the

> divine.

>

> No matter what our personal feelings are about

> negative appearances, all

> human history has been carried out under the energy

> of the divine. Far

> better to meditate on that, persue our own

> purification, and attain

> non-dual view and compassion.

>

> Jesse Arana (Kailash)

> www.meditationinfocus.com

>

 

 

 

The New with improved product search

 

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest guest   

Guest guest
Posted

Absolutely! Jai Maa!

Also remember all accounts of history are generally done thru hearsay

which goes thru the individual's own filter.

-

Jesse Arana

Wednesday, October 08, 2003 3:05 PM

Please take your conversation off-line

Namaste,

Please do not fill this group with off-topic posts. The negative

aspects of any religion, culture, potitical party, or person do not

need to be discussed in Shree Maa's group. This group is about the

glory of the divine.

No matter what our personal feelings are about negative appearances,

all human history has been carried out under the energy of the

divine. Far better to meditate on that, persue our own purification,

and attain non-dual view and compassion.

Jesse Arana (Kailash)

www.meditationinfocus.comTo from this group, send an email

to:Your use of is

subject to the

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest guest   

Guest guest
Posted

Jesse,

Okay! I will not continue this here on this site.

I expected a more open forum that gave more latitude. But if the

boundaries of this forum are such that discussion of religious frauds

(whether phoney gurus or phoney prophets) are not allowed. So be it.

 

Astraea

 

, "Jesse Arana" <jessearana@c...>

wrote:

> Namaste,

>

> Please do not fill this group with off-topic posts. The negative

aspects

> of any religion, culture, potitical party, or person do not need to

be

> discussed in Shree Maa's group. This group is about the glory of the

> divine.

>

> No matter what our personal feelings are about negative

appearances, all

> human history has been carried out under the energy of the divine.

Far

> better to meditate on that, persue our own purification, and attain

> non-dual view and compassion.

>

> Jesse Arana (Kailash)

> www.meditationinfocus.com

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest guest   

Guest guest
Posted

I agree that "History is written by the Victor." In this particular

case, the sources are acknowledged as true by Islamic scholars &

Muslims. I will not bring this up here again.

 

Astraea

 

, "mahamuni" <mahamuni@c...> wrote:

> MessageAbsolutely! Jai Maa!

>

> Also remember all accounts of history are generally done thru

hearsay which goes thru the individual's own filter.

> -

> Jesse Arana

>

> Wednesday, October 08, 2003 3:05 PM

> Please take your conversation off-line

>

>

> Namaste,

>

> Please do not fill this group with off-topic posts. The negative

aspects of any religion, culture, potitical party, or person do not

need to be discussed in Shree Maa's group. This group is about the

glory of the divine.

>

> No matter what our personal feelings are about negative

appearances, all human history has been carried out under the energy

of the divine. Far better to meditate on that, persue our own

purification, and attain non-dual view and compassion.

>

> Jesse Arana (Kailash)

> www.meditationinfocus.com

>

> Sponsor

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Terms of

Service.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest guest   

Guest guest
Posted

Still the fact is that it is always hearsay thru somebody's filter and

then further the problem is further compounded by translating into

another language.

-

astraea2003

Wednesday, October 08, 2003 4:10 PM

Re: Please take your conversation off-line

I agree that "History is written by the Victor." In this particular

case, the sources are acknowledged as true by Islamic scholars &

Muslims. I will not bring this up here again.Astraea--- In

, "mahamuni" <mahamuni@c...> wrote:>

MessageAbsolutely! Jai Maa!> > Also remember all accounts of history

are generally done thru hearsay which goes thru the individual's own

filter.> - > Jesse Arana > To:

> Wednesday, October 08, 2003 3:05

PM> Please take your conversation off-line> >

> Namaste, > > Please do not fill this group with off-topic posts.

The negative aspects of any religion, culture, potitical party, or

person do not need to be discussed in Shree Maa's group. This group

is about the glory of the divine.> > No matter what our personal

feelings are about negative appearances, all human history has been

carried out under the energy of the divine. Far better to meditate on

that, persue our own purification, and attain non-dual view and

compassion.> > Jesse Arana (Kailash)> www.meditationinfocus.com>

> Sponsor > > > > To

from this group, send an email to:>

> > > > Your use of

Groups is subject to the To from

this group, send an email

to:Your use of

is subject to the

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest guest   

Guest guest
Posted

This time, I agree with you fully. Very well stated.

ChrisBrian McKee <brian (AT) soulspark (DOT) org> wrote:

Shouldn't this be stated by representatives of the Mandir?Do you

represent the Mandir?I think an open forum where people can work

through their own religious / spritual issues is a good thing. I

realize that many people don't like negativity but I've found that

those people simply don't know how to let negativity fall away, like

water off a duck's back.I think Swami Satyananda would tell us if he

felt we were too far off topic.The subject of religious idealogies

and abuse of religious ideals is very current and very real and I

think talking about it, getting the feelings out in the open is a

very good way to begin to heal. Many of us were raised in strict

religious circumstances. Stated or not we were pressured to fit into

a certain mold. Generally those molds are not condusive to spiritual

growth. Allowing those molds to be broken is a painful and often

emotional process. I think we should allow that evolution

in this forum and witness the awakening and growth of consciousness in

each other. That is to say we should be accepting of everyone's stage

of development and we should love each other anyway.I'm of the

opinion that all religions in the world have good people and bad

people, that is to say people who want to help others / further our

spiritual growth and people who wish to manipulate and control for

power, money or other basic gains.I think Mohammad lived in violent

times. I think its probably unfair to judge his actions with our

morals because our morals probably couldn't have existed in his

day.I've not studied the Koran but I do know good people who are

Moslem. I think it just goes to show that goodness can be found where

ever we look for it, assuming we are looking for it.I found it in

Christianity, despite what the Catholics did in the middle ages and

continue to do up till this day to manipulate the conscience of the

individual will. I'm sure

there are those who find it in Islam.Mother teaches us to love

everyone. And that's not just advice, that's a principle. I believe

that love is the only path to peace and that hating anyone is merely

empowering the violence. Gandhi had that right, he lived the example

and it worked.Sincerely,Brian"In the begining, the universe was

created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely

regarded as a bad move." -- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hikers Guide to

the Galaxy Radio Program.--- On Wed 10/08, Jesse Arana <

jessearana (AT) comcast (DOT) net > wrote:

Jesse Arana [ jessearana (AT) comcast (DOT) net]To:

Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 18:05:06

-0400 Please take your conversation off-line

Namaste, Please do not fill this group with off-topic posts. The

negative aspects of any religion, culture, potitical party, or person

do not need to be discussed in Shree Maa's group. This group is about

the glory of the divine.No matter what our personal feelings are

about negative appearances, all human history has been carried out

under the energy of the divine. Far better to meditate on that,

persue our own purification, and attain non-dual view and

compassion.Jesse Arana (Kailash)www.meditationinfocus.comTo

from this group, send an email

to:Your use of

is subject to the

No banners. No pop-ups. No kidding.Introducing My Way -

http://www.myway.com To from this group, send an email

to:Your use of

is subject to the

 

The New with improved product search

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest guest   

Guest guest
Posted

I know how you feel, I think. Such thoughts do not carry the heart

higher. But excuse me if I suggest you jumped the gun a bit.

This is a community of high-minded people, or at least those with an

aspiration toward high-mindedness. It is a unique community with, one

would hope, a balanced and enlightened perspective--a spiritual

perspective.

It would be unfortunate if this group became a place where people and

cultures and religions were "bashed," as Tesa described in other

groups, but at the same time it is helpful to occasionally bring to

light the darknesses in our hearts and minds, whether they are inside

or out in the world.

Censorship is a funny thing. It is generally done with the best of

intentions, the highest of purposes, but it can engender a culture of

exclusion, "we don't do that here..." Such a culture not only hinders

free expression and the understanding that can bring, but places

unnecessary obstacles in the way of new visitors, who sense, but

don't know, what "the rules" are.

This is fine, if that's what you want. Perhaps you envision a group

only of Devi Mandir devotees, or only of initiates of Shree Maa or

Swamiji. Somehow I don't think an online religion is what either of

them have in mind.

Your post mentioned that any post that wasn't about "'the glory of the

divine" was off-topic. I'm afraid I don't know the definition of "the

glory of the divine." Perhaps you should make a list of acceptable

subject matter. That's a bit over the top, I know, but I think you

get my point?

I have never done a puja in my life. Yet I love Shree Maa, and I've

even learned to tolerate Swamiji (just kidding Swamiji, I humbly

touch your feet in gratitude). Should I then not feel free to

participate? Should I perhaps not have discussed pranayama practice,

or the accusations that were made against he whom I believe is my

beloved gurudeva?

I fully realize that discussion of Islam in the present climate of

world events is often in a negative vein, and ours was largely no

exception. However, there are some important lessons to be learned

from such a discussion. And frankly, I think the most important of

those lessons were stifled by your post.

If I may be so bold to make blank statements about spiritual life,

spiritual life is about more that just worship; it is about

interacting with the world, and about understanding and coming to

terms with the dross of our own unconscious.

It would be a shame if this site became filled with the superficial

and with bashing of any kind, but I don't think a few posts "off

topic" (whatever that means) constitutes a threat to the integrity of

the group. There is time enough to put a stop to a problem after it

has actually become a problem.

I'm truly sorry (I really am) if you found our posts offensive. But

sometimes the best thing is simply to move to the next post.

Now, I have a final word about the topic of Islam with Astraea that I will address here.

Astraea,

If these things really are the historical truth, I am very sorry (not

for myself, but for Islam). It is an interesting thing about

organizations, though, if they are founded in strong principles, they

can grow beyond even the most heinous acts perpetrated in the past in

their name, because the living principles are more important than the

dead past.

Look at what the United States government did to the American Indians.

I have to believe we have grown beyond that, and that the reason we

have done so is because of the principles we stand for as a nation.

The Jews, the Christians, the Buddhists, the Hindus, all have at

certain times in their history done some really bad things.

I'm paraphrasing here, but I recall reading Ramakrishna saying how he

loved to enjoy the worship of the Muslims and the Christians and the

Hindus; that he wished we could all experience the worship going on

in the hearts of the others. To me, this says it all.

We can rightly bemoan the state of certain religions today, to the

extent that instead of promoting divinity they instead promote

division and negativity. But it is important to remember that

religions do rise above the low points in their history if they are

founded in the experience of the divine, and Islam is. God is not

absent from Islam, but only from some individual hearts (and not

really even there, of course).

I believe it is possible for Islam to recover from its current

radicalism. Just as long as there are true worshipers of God who are

Muslim. I believe we should all pray for such grace as will bring it

about, as long as we can do so in a spirit of true compassion and

humility, and not of haughty egotism.

I sincerely hope you don't feel I've been harsh toward you Jesse.

OM

Shanti, shanti, shantih.

ChrisJesse Arana <jessearana (AT) comcast (DOT) net> wrote:

Namaste,

Please do not fill this group with off-topic posts. The negative

aspects of any religion, culture, potitical party, or person do not

need to be discussed in Shree Maa's group. This group is about the

glory of the divine.

No matter what our personal feelings are about negative appearances,

all human history has been carried out under the energy of the

divine. Far better to meditate on that, persue our own purification,

and attain non-dual view and compassion.

Jesse Arana (Kailash)

www.meditationinfocus.comTo from this group, send an email

to:Your use of is

subject to the

 

The New with improved product search

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest guest   

Guest guest
Posted

Hari Om to All,

Regarding the "conversation content" comments, I look at the course of

this discussion group and see it as a reflection of how my own mind

works. It starts out focused on the divine question and then

meanders off here and there--following bits of thoughts and colorful

images. By not stepping in and refocusing us, I think Swamiji might

just be giving us an opportunity to do it for ourselves. What a

great teacher to give us a chance to fugure it out for ourselves. It

is simply divine.

I almost d from the group a few days ago because I thought

we were so off track. I'm glad I didn't. Now I will double my

efforts to keep myself on track. Thank you all for this learning.

May Lakshmi bless you all with beauty, abundance and the discernment

to know how to use them in service to All.

Sweet Blessings, Love

Lynne

-

chris kirner

Wednesday, October 08, 2003 10:35 PM

RE: Please take your conversation off-line

Brian,

This time, I agree with you fully. Very well stated.

ChrisBrian McKee <brian (AT) soulspark (DOT) org> wrote:

Shouldn't this be stated by representatives of the Mandir?Do you

represent the Mandir?I think an open forum where people can work

through their own religious / spritual issues is a good thing. I

realize that many people don't like negativity but I've found that

those people simply don't know how to let negativity fall away, like

water off a duck's back.I think Swami Satyananda would tell us if he

felt we were too far off topic.The subject of religious idealogies

and abuse of religious ideals is very current and very real and I

think talking about it, getting the feelings out in the open is a

very good way to begin to heal. Many of us were raised in strict

religious circumstances. Stated or not we were pressured to fit into

a certain mold. Generally those molds are not condusive to spiritual

growth. Allowing those molds to be broken is a painful and often

emotional process. I think we should allow that evolution in this

forum and witness the awakening and growth of consciousness in each

other. That is to say we should be accepting of everyone's stage of

development and we should love each other anyway.I'm of the opinion

that all religions in the world have good people and bad people, that

is to say people who want to help others / further our spiritual

growth and people who wish to manipulate and control for power, money

or other basic gains.I think Mohammad lived in violent times. I think

its probably unfair to judge his actions with our morals because our

morals probably couldn't have existed in his day.I've not studied the

Koran but I do know good people who are Moslem. I think it just goes

to show that goodness can be found where ever we look for it,

assuming we are looking for it.I found it in Christianity, despite

what the Catholics did in the middle ages and continue to do up till

this day to manipulate the conscience of the individual will. I'm

sure there are those who find it in Islam.Mother teaches us to love

everyone. And that's not just advice, that's a principle. I believe

that love is the only path to peace and that hating anyone is merely

empowering the violence. Gandhi had that right, he lived the example

and it worked.Sincerely,Brian"In the begining, the universe was

created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely

regarded as a bad move." -- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hikers Guide to

the Galaxy Radio Program.--- On Wed 10/08, Jesse Arana <

jessearana (AT) comcast (DOT) net > wrote:

Jesse Arana [ jessearana (AT) comcast (DOT) net]To:

Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 18:05:06

-0400 Please take your conversation off-line

Namaste, Please do not fill this group with off-topic posts. The

negative aspects of any religion, culture, potitical party, or person

do not need to be discussed in Shree Maa's group. This group is about

the glory of the divine.No matter what our personal feelings are

about negative appearances, all human history has been carried out

under the energy of the divine. Far better to meditate on that,

persue our own purification, and attain non-dual view and

compassion.Jesse Arana (Kailash)www.meditationinfocus.comTo

from this group, send an email

to:Your use of

is subject to the

No banners. No pop-ups. No kidding.Introducing My Way -

http://www.myway.com To from this group, send an email

to:Your use of

is subject to the

The New with improved product search

To from this group, send an email

to:Your use of

is subject to the

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest guest   

Guest guest
Posted

salutations,

 

i have been reading these posts with an open mind. i'm glad to hear of someone

else feeling as i do. i think the "glory of god" is ALL things, life is all

things, i feel that a spiritual group should address all things. my personal

worship is very celebratory in nature, i celebrate all things, i celebrate my

mundane life with as much joy as i celebrate my morning pooja! god is in my

life, in all my life. i think it is interesting to hear of other things and how

each of us lives our daily lives. i don't want things to get out of hand, but

it's nice to know there is a place where i can make new friends and learn from

my new friends.

 

i for one am glad to be here.

shanti shanti shanti

OM

 

chandra mani

 

 

 

 

In a message dated Thu, 9 Oct 2003 3:49:38 PM AEST, chris kirner

<chriskirner1956 writes:

>Jesse,

>

>I know how you feel, I think. Such thoughts do not carry the heart higher. But

excuse me if I suggest you jumped the gun a bit.

>

>This is a community of high-minded people, or at least those with an aspiration

toward high-mindedness. It is a unique community with, one would hope, a

balanced and enlightened perspective--a spiritual perspective.

>

>It would be unfortunate if this group became a place where people and cultures

and religions were "bashed," as Tesa described in other groups, but at the same

time it is helpful to occasionally bring to light the darknesses in our hearts

and minds, whether they are inside or out in the world.

>

>Censorship is a funny thing. It is generally done with the best of intentions,

the highest of purposes, but it can engender a culture of exclusion, "we don't

do that here..." Such a culture not only hinders free expression and the

understanding that can bring, but places unnecessary obstacles in the way of new

visitors, who sense, but don't know, what "the rules" are.

>

>This is fine, if that's what you want. Perhaps you envision a group only of

Devi Mandir devotees, or only of initiates of Shree Maa or Swamiji. Somehow I

don't think an online religion is what either of them have in mind.

>

>Your post mentioned that any post that wasn't about "'the glory of the divine"

was off-topic. I'm afraid I don't know the definition of "the glory of the

divine." Perhaps you should make a list of acceptable subject matter. That's a

bit over the top, I know, but I think you get my point?

>

>I have never done a puja in my life. Yet I love Shree Maa, and I've even

learned to tolerate Swamiji (just kidding Swamiji, I humbly touch your feet in

gratitude). Should I then not feel free to participate? Should I perhaps not

have discussed pranayama practice, or the accusations that were made against he

whom I believe is my beloved gurudeva?

>

>I fully realize that discussion of Islam in the present climate of world events

is often in a negative vein, and ours was largely no exception. However, there

are some important lessons to be learned from such a discussion.  And frankly, I

think the most important of those lessons were stifled by your post.

>

>If I may be so bold to make blank statements about spiritual life, spiritual

life is about more that just worship; it is about interacting with the world,

and about understanding and coming to terms with the dross of our own

unconscious.

>

>It would be a shame if this site became filled with the superficial and with

bashing of any kind, but I don't think a few posts "off topic" (whatever that

means) constitutes a threat to the integrity of the group. There is time enough

to put a stop to a problem after it has actually become a problem.

>

>I'm truly sorry (I really am) if you found our posts offensive. But sometimes

the best thing is simply to move to the next post.

>

>Now, I have a final word about the topic of Islam with Astraea that I will

address here.

>

>Astraea,

>

>If these things really are the historical truth, I am very sorry (not for

myself, but for Islam). It is an interesting thing about organizations, though,

if they are founded in strong principles, they can grow beyond even the most

heinous acts perpetrated in the past in their name, because the living

principles are more important than the dead past.

>

>Look at what the United States government did to the American Indians. I have

to believe we have grown beyond that, and that the reason we have done so is

because of the principles we stand for as a nation. The Jews, the Christians,

the Buddhists, the Hindus, all have at certain times in their history done some

really bad things.

>

>I'm paraphrasing here, but I recall reading Ramakrishna saying how he loved to

enjoy the worship of the Muslims and the Christians and the Hindus; that he

wished we could all experience the worship going on in the hearts of the others.

To me, this says it all.

>

>We can rightly bemoan the state of certain religions today, to the extent that

instead of promoting divinity they instead promote division and negativity. But

it is important to remember that religions do rise above the low points in their

history if they are founded in the experience of the divine, and Islam is. God

is not absent from Islam, but only from some individual hearts (and not really

even there, of course).

>

>I believe it is possible for Islam to recover from its current radicalism. Just

as long as there are true worshipers of God who are Muslim. I believe we should

all pray for such grace as will bring it about, as long as we can do so in a

spirit of true compassion and humility, and not of haughty egotism.

>

>I sincerely hope you don't feel I've been harsh toward you Jesse.

>

>OM

>Shanti, shanti, shantih.

>

>

>Chris

>

>Jesse Arana <jessearana wrote:

>Namaste,

>

>Please do not fill this group with off-topic posts. The negative aspects of any

religion, culture, potitical party, or person do not need to be discussed in

Shree Maa's group. This group is about the glory of the divine.

>

>No matter what our personal feelings are about negative appearances, all human

history has been carried out under the energy of the divine. Far better to

meditate on that, persue our own purification, and attain non-dual view and

compassion.

>

>Jesse Arana (Kailash)

>www.meditationinfocus.com

>

> Sponsor

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>The New with improved product search

>

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest guest   

Guest guest
Posted

Astraea and All,

In my first post to the group, I mentioned that I didn't want to

offend anyone with my posts, my views. In that post, the context was

not wishing to offend non-Devi worshippers. I still wish not to

offend anyone. Ideas have weight that inevitably comes into conflict

with the opposite nature.

My presumptions about this group include that we are here not because

we have a "right to be," but as a service and as a sadhana. I feel

this group is an extension of Devi Mandir, and if you go into Devi

Mandir (at least when I was there), you don't hear a lot of talk

about rock stars or false prophets.

There are a lot of issues that people brought up in regard to my post

about taking off-topic conversations off-line. If you will permit me

to address them:

I agree that this is a link of Shree Maa's site, with the name of her

Temple as the name of the group. I consider myself to be in Her

Conversation, not in mine.

I also agree that all things are part of the Glory of the Divine.

Everything has it's place, and that is what I mentioned in my

request. That there is no need to view things as "separate" from Her

Reign. She is known as Sri Mata, the Divine Mother; Sri Maharajni,

The Empress of the Universe; and Srimat Simhasaneshwari, She Who Sits

Upon the Lionthrone. That about says it for me, about all things being

within her. So it's not a matter of such a fundamental question. It's

about our relationship to Her.

One post asked whether I would come up with a set of topics that were

on-topic. Since that was a challenge well-stated, then my response

is, "No problem. I can look in Shree Maa and Swamiji's books and

classes."

A wonderful post talked about the wandering mind. Either we come to

Her temple to pray, or to chat. That's an individual choice. If you

have a guru, and you are following that guru, chances are you come

into the temple with a sadhana in mind. Sadhana means, "The Direct

Route," and distractions about culture and opinion do not reflect

very clearly a set of goals and topics given by the Guru as sadhana.

Therefore the relevancy of your experience will suffer, the more you

indulge yourself. The more you focus yourself, the more you will

learn.

The issue of "rights" was brought up. The Landmark Forum has a

wonderful way of dealing with our idea of our "rights". They say it's

better to take a position inside that you "have no rights, but that

you have possibilities." Their idea is that if we run around

believing we have "rights," then we end up in all kinds of conflict

about "my" this, and "my" that. In that space, we forget that it's

better to create, than to demand. For a devotee, rights do not exist.

Karma dictates our experience, and we see all things as the result of

our previous karma. This allows us to live in a totally different

relationship with our rights, expectations, etc. Now. Please do not

think that I don't endorse Legal Rights, Constitutional and

otherwise. I do. They are essential for a just world. However, for a

devotee the path of karma yoga has already been explained, and that

is what our outlook should be.

Another issue brought up was censorship. Asking people to have their

conversation off-line is not about censorship, it's about the

distinction between public and private life.

Lastly, I am asked if I envision this place as one for Shree Maa's

devotees only. Of course not. That doesn't mean there are no

guidelines. By working with a guideline, we become more clear in our

own minds. Hopefully that clarity will give us the mind that is

"desireless".

Jesse Arana (Kailash)

www.meditationinfocus.com

astraea2003

[astraea2003 ] Wednesday, October 08, 2003 7:07

PMSubject: Re: Please

take your conversation off-lineJesse,Okay! I will not continue this

here on this site.I expected a more open forum that gave more

latitude. But if the boundaries of this forum are such that

discussion of religious frauds (whether phoney gurus or phoney

prophets) are not allowed. So be it.Astraea--- In

, "Jesse Arana" <jessearana@c...> wrote:>

Namaste, > > Please do not fill this group with off-topic posts. The

negative aspects> of any religion, culture, potitical party, or person

do not need to be> discussed in Shree Maa's group. This group is about

the glory of the> divine.> > No matter what our personal feelings are

about negative appearances, all> human history has been carried out

under the energy of the divine. Far> better to meditate on that,

persue our own purification, and attain> non-dual view and

compassion.> > Jesse Arana (Kailash)> www.meditationinfocus.comTo

from this group, send an email

to:Your use of

is subject to the

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest guest   

Guest guest
Posted

I think it would be nice if as one poster said, someone representing

the Mandir give their "official" views on what They want.

-

Jesse Arana

Thursday, October 09, 2003 7:35 AM

RE: Re: Please take your conversation off-line

Astraea and All,

In my first post to the group, I mentioned that I didn't want to

offend anyone with my posts, my views. In that post, the context was

not wishing to offend non-Devi worshippers. I still wish not to

offend anyone. Ideas have weight that inevitably comes into conflict

with the opposite nature.

My presumptions about this group include that we are here not because

we have a "right to be," but as a service and as a sadhana. I feel

this group is an extension of Devi Mandir, and if you go into Devi

Mandir (at least when I was there), you don't hear a lot of talk

about rock stars or false prophets.

There are a lot of issues that people brought up in regard to my post

about taking off-topic conversations off-line. If you will permit me

to address them:

I agree that this is a link of Shree Maa's site, with the name of her

Temple as the name of the group. I consider myself to be in Her

Conversation, not in mine.

I also agree that all things are part of the Glory of the Divine.

Everything has it's place, and that is what I mentioned in my

request. That there is no need to view things as "separate" from Her

Reign. She is known as Sri Mata, the Divine Mother; Sri Maharajni,

The Empress of the Universe; and Srimat Simhasaneshwari, She Who Sits

Upon the Lionthrone. That about says it for me, about all things being

within her. So it's not a matter of such a fundamental question. It's

about our relationship to Her.

One post asked whether I would come up with a set of topics that were

on-topic. Since that was a challenge well-stated, then my response

is, "No problem. I can look in Shree Maa and Swamiji's books and

classes."

A wonderful post talked about the wandering mind. Either we come to

Her temple to pray, or to chat. That's an individual choice. If you

have a guru, and you are following that guru, chances are you come

into the temple with a sadhana in mind. Sadhana means, "The Direct

Route," and distractions about culture and opinion do not reflect

very clearly a set of goals and topics given by the Guru as sadhana.

Therefore the relevancy of your experience will suffer, the more you

indulge yourself. The more you focus yourself, the more you will

learn.

The issue of "rights" was brought up. The Landmark Forum has a

wonderful way of dealing with our idea of our "rights". They say it's

better to take a position inside that you "have no rights, but that

you have possibilities." Their idea is that if we run around

believing we have "rights," then we end up in all kinds of conflict

about "my" this, and "my" that. In that space, we forget that it's

better to create, than to demand. For a devotee, rights do not exist.

Karma dictates our experience, and we see all things as the result of

our previous karma. This allows us to live in a totally different

relationship with our rights, expectations, etc. Now. Please do not

think that I don't endorse Legal Rights, Constitutional and

otherwise. I do. They are essential for a just world. However, for a

devotee the path of karma yoga has already been explained, and that

is what our outlook should be.

Another issue brought up was censorship. Asking people to have their

conversation off-line is not about censorship, it's about the

distinction between public and private life.

Lastly, I am asked if I envision this place as one for Shree Maa's

devotees only. Of course not. That doesn't mean there are no

guidelines. By working with a guideline, we become more clear in our

own minds. Hopefully that clarity will give us the mind that is

"desireless".

Jesse Arana (Kailash)

www.meditationinfocus.com

astraea2003

[astraea2003 ] Wednesday, October 08, 2003 7:07

PMSubject: Re: Please

take your conversation off-lineJesse,Okay! I will not continue this

here on this site.I expected a more open forum that gave more

latitude. But if the boundaries of this forum are such that

discussion of religious frauds (whether phoney gurus or phoney

prophets) are not allowed. So be it.Astraea--- In

, "Jesse Arana" <jessearana@c...> wrote:>

Namaste, > > Please do not fill this group with off-topic posts. The

negative aspects> of any religion, culture, potitical party, or person

do not need to be> discussed in Shree Maa's group. This group is about

the glory of the> divine.> > No matter what our personal feelings are

about negative appearances, all> human history has been carried out

under the energy of the divine. Far> better to meditate on that,

persue our own purification, and attain> non-dual view and

compassion.> > Jesse Arana (Kailash)> www.meditationinfocus.comTo

from this group, send an email

to:Your use of

is subject to the To from this

group, send an email to:Your

use of is subject to the

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest guest   

Guest guest
Posted

m. It means that I used to let my emotions be entangled with the

emotions of those around me. I found that I had to differentiate

myself, and that process took a lot of work. However, now that I can

feel the difference and own only myself and my actions and feelings,

I can experience the emotions of others without feeling the emotions

effects. I am not the cause so I feel no effect. Sensatives can learn

to know the difference and learn to set automatic boundaries. It just

takes practice. I think this forum is a great place to teach these

things and I think the amount of knowlege, jnani, being distrubuted

here is phenominal, and I think limiting it in any way would be a bad

thing. Love, Brian "In the begining, the universe was created. This

has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad

move." -- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy Radio

Program.--- On Thu 10/09, Jesse Arana < jessearana (AT) comcast (DOT) net >

wrote:Jesse Arana [ jessearana (AT) comcast (DOT) net]To:

Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 10:35:47

-0400RE: Re: Please take your conversation

off-lineAstraea and All, In my first post to the group, I mentioned

that I didn't want to offend anyone with my posts, my views. In that

post, the context was not wishing to offend non-Devi worshippers. I

still wish not to offend anyone. Ideas have weight that inevitably

comes into conflict with the opposite nature. My presumptions about

this group include that we are here not because we have a "right to

be," but as a service and as a sadhana. I feel this group is an

extension of Devi Mandir, and if you go into Devi Mandir (at least

when I was there), you don't hear a lot of talk about rock stars or

false prophets. There are a lot of issues that people brought up in

regard to my post about taking off-topic conversations off-line. If

you will permit me to address them: I agree that this is a link of

Shree Maa's site, with the name of her Temple as the name of the

group. I consider myself to be in Her Conversation, not in mine. I

also agree that all things are part of the Glory of the Divine.

Everything has it's place, and that is what I mentioned in my

request. That there is no need to view things as "separate" from Her

Reign. She is known as Sri Mata, the Divine Mother; Sri Maharajni,

The Empress of the Universe; and Srimat Simhasaneshwari, She Who Sits

Upon the Lionthrone. That about says it for me, about all things being

within her. So it's not a matter of such a fundamental question. It's

about our relationship to Her. One post asked whether I would come

up with a set of topics that were on-topic. Since that was a

challenge well-stated, then my response is, "No problem. I can look

in Shree Maa and Swamiji's books and classes." A wonderful post

talked about the wandering mind. Either we come to Her temple to

pray, or to chat. That's an individual choice. If you have a guru,

and you are following that guru, chances are you come into the temple

with a sadhana in mind. Sadhana means, "The Direct Route," and

distractions about culture and opinion do not reflect very clearly a

set of goals and topics given by the Guru as sadhana. Therefore the

relevancy of your experience will suffer, the more you indulge

yourself. The more you focus yourself, the more you will learn. The

issue of "rights" was brought up. The Landmark Forum has a wonderful

way of dealing with our idea of

our "rights". They say it's better to take a position inside that you

"have no rights, but that you have possibilities." Their idea is that

if we run around believing we have "rights," then we end up in all

kinds of conflict about "my" this, and "my" that. In that space, we

forget that it's better to create, than to demand. For a devotee,

rights do not exist. Karma dictates our experience, and we see all

things as the result of our previous karma. This allows us to live in

a totally different relationship with our rights, expectations, etc.

Now. Please do not think that I don't endorse Legal Rights,

Constitutional and otherwise. I do. They are essential for a just

world. However, for a devotee the path of karma yoga has already been

explained, and that is what our outlook should be. Another issue

brought up was censorship. Asking people to have their conversation

off-line is not about censorship, it's about the distinction between

public and private life. Lastly, I am asked if I envision this place

as one for Shree Maa's devotees only. Of course not. That doesn't mean

there are no guidelines. By working with a guideline, we become more

clear in our own minds. Hopefully that clarity will give us the mind

that is "desireless". Jesse Arana (Kailash)www.meditationinfocus.com

astraea2003

[astraea2003 ] Wednesday, October 08, 2003 7:07

PMSubject: Re: Please

take your conversation off-lineJesse,Okay! I will not continue this

here on this site.I expected a more open forum that gave more

latitude. But if the boundaries of this forum are such that

discussion of religious frauds (whether phoney gurus or phoney

prophets) are not allowed. So be it.Astraea--- In

, "Jesse Arana" wrote:> Namaste, > >

Please do not fill this group with off-topic posts. The negative

aspects> of any religion, culture, potitical party, or person do not

need to be> discussed in Shree Maa's group. This group is about the

glory of the> divine.> > No matter what our personal feelings are

about negative appearances, all> human history has been carried out

under the energy of the divine. Far> better to meditate on that,

persue our own purification, and attain> non-dual view and

compassion.> > Jesse Arana (Kailash)> www.meditationinfocus.comTo

from this group, send an email

to:Your use of

is subject to the To from this

group, send an email to:Your

use of is subject to the No

banners. No pop-ups. No kidding.Introducing My Way -

http://www.myway.com

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest guest   

Guest guest
Posted

Hi Brian,

Very interesting post! I've inserted my responses.

Astraea

 

, "Brian McKee" <brian@s...> wrote:

> Shouldn't this be stated by representatives of the Mandir? Do you

represent the Mandir? I think an open forum where people can work

through their own religious / spritual issues is a good thing. I

realize that many people don't like negativity but I've found that

those people simply don't know how to let negativity fall away, like

water off a duck's back. I think Swami Satyananda would tell us if he

felt we were too far off topic. The subject of religious idealogies

and abuse of religious ideals is very current and very real and I

think talking about it, getting the feelings out in the open is a

very good way to begin to heal.

 

"Jesse Arana is not an official spokesperson for the Devi Mandir. But

every forum has its 'Post Police'. This always surprises me that

certain people feel they have the right to dictate what others can

post. I skip over posts that do not interest me, but I have never

presumed to tell someone, 'You can't post that here, because I don't

want to read it.' I also noted that he believes Swami Muktananda &

Gurumayi are real Satgurus. (Certainly, he's free to believe anything

he wants.) The point I'm making is that I stepped on his toes." A.

 

"That a person would threaten to because they did not

like 'off-topic' posts, is amazing to me. That's tantamount to

saying, 'Swamiji, unless you forbid this person from posting here,

I'm taking my toys & going home! So there!' Reasonable people would

skip over the posts that annoy them." A.

 

Many of us were raised in strict religious circumstances. Stated or

not we were pressured to fit into a certain mold. Generally those

molds are not condusive to spiritual growth. Allowing those molds to

be broken is a painful and often emotional process. I think we should

allow that evolution in this forum and witness the awakening and

growth of consciousness in each other. That is to say we should be

accepting of everyone's stage of development and we should love each

other anyway.

 

"I agree. This reminds me of a story (told by David Spangler {sp?})

of the Findhorn community: The community was trying to manifest

things and people were forbidden to bring up anything "negative". You

can guess what happened. It stifled honest communication, creativity,

and growth."

 

I'm of the opinion that all religions in the world have good people

and bad people, that is to say people who want to help others /

further our spiritual growth and people who wish to manipulate and

control for power, money or other basic gains.

 

"I agree. As I posted before, there are good people who happen to be

Muslim. I suspect that the highest aspects of Islam are there because

of the influence of the Sufis. But Sufism was already ancient before

Muhammad was born. There are genuine Muslim Sufi saints, in spite of

Muhammad." A.

 

I think Mohammad lived in violent times. I think its probably unfair

to judge his actions with our morals because our morals probably

couldn't have existed in his day.

 

"Jesus also lived in violent times. But he did not commit the

atrocities of Muhammad." A.

 

I've not studied the Koran...

 

"Most people are not interested enough in Islam to do the research,

which is why there are so many who ASSUME that Muhammad was a genuine

spiritual teacher/prophet. If they did the research they would be

appalled." A.

 

....but I do know good people who are Moslem. I think it just goes to

show that goodness can be found where ever we look for it, assuming

we are looking for it. I found it in Christianity, despite what the

Catholics did in the middle ages and continue to do up till this day

to manipulate the conscience of the individual will. I'm sure there

are those who find it in Islam.

 

"I agree. An important difference in the atrocities committed by so-

called Christians in Jesus's name: Jesus would have been appalled.

Jesus would NEVER have endorsed the Inquisition or the Witch hunts or

the atrocities committed by Christians against Muslims during the

Crusades, etc. On the other hand, Muhammad endorsed violence against

anyone who resisted him as a true prophet of God." A.

 

Mother teaches us to love everyone. And that's not just advice,

that's a principle. I believe that love is the only path to peace and

that hating anyone is merely empowering the violence. Gandhi had that

right, he lived the example and it worked. Sincerely, Brian

 

"I agree. Although loving someone who is does heinous things is not

easy. And accepting someone who did heinous things as a 'True Prophet

of God' is impossible for me at this point in time." Astraea

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest guest   

Guest guest
Posted

Chris,

An excellent post! I don't feel the need to add anything to it.

 

Astraea

 

 

, chris kirner

<chriskirner1956> wrote:

> Jesse,

>

> I know how you feel, I think. Such thoughts do not carry the heart

higher. But excuse me if I suggest you jumped the gun a bit.

>

> This is a community of high-minded people, or at least those with

an aspiration toward high-mindedness. It is a unique community with,

one would hope, a balanced and enlightened perspective--a spiritual

perspective.

>

> It would be unfortunate if this group became a place where people

and cultures and religions were "bashed," as Tesa described in other

groups, but at the same time it is helpful to occasionally bring to

light the darknesses in our hearts and minds, whether they are inside

or out in the world.

>

> Censorship is a funny thing. It is generally done with the best of

intentions, the highest of purposes, but it can engender a culture of

exclusion, "we don't do that here..." Such a culture not only hinders

free expression and the understanding that can bring, but places

unnecessary obstacles in the way of new visitors, who sense, but

don't know, what "the rules" are.

>

> This is fine, if that's what you want. Perhaps you envision a group

only of Devi Mandir devotees, or only of initiates of Shree Maa or

Swamiji. Somehow I don't think an online religion is what either of

them have in mind.

>

> Your post mentioned that any post that wasn't about "'the glory of

the divine" was off-topic. I'm afraid I don't know the definition

of "the glory of the divine." Perhaps you should make a list of

acceptable subject matter. That's a bit over the top, I know, but I

think you get my point?

>

> I have never done a puja in my life. Yet I love Shree Maa, and I've

even learned to tolerate Swamiji (just kidding Swamiji, I humbly

touch your feet in gratitude). Should I then not feel free to

participate? Should I perhaps not have discussed pranayama practice,

or the accusations that were made against he whom I believe is my

beloved gurudeva?

>

> I fully realize that discussion of Islam in the present climate of

world events is often in a negative vein, and ours was largely no

exception. However, there are some important lessons to be learned

from such a discussion. And frankly, I think the most important of

those lessons were stifled by your post.

>

> If I may be so bold to make blank statements about spiritual life,

spiritual life is about more that just worship; it is about

interacting with the world, and about understanding and coming to

terms with the dross of our own unconscious.

>

> It would be a shame if this site became filled with the superficial

and with bashing of any kind, but I don't think a few posts "off

topic" (whatever that means) constitutes a threat to the integrity of

the group. There is time enough to put a stop to a problem after it

has actually become a problem.

>

> I'm truly sorry (I really am) if you found our posts offensive. But

sometimes the best thing is simply to move to the next post.

>

> Now, I have a final word about the topic of Islam with Astraea that

I will address here.

>

> Astraea,

>

> If these things really are the historical truth, I am very sorry

(not for myself, but for Islam). It is an interesting thing about

organizations, though, if they are founded in strong principles, they

can grow beyond even the most heinous acts perpetrated in the past in

their name, because the living principles are more important than the

dead past.

>

> Look at what the United States government did to the American

Indians. I have to believe we have grown beyond that, and that the

reason we have done so is because of the principles we stand for as a

nation. The Jews, the Christians, the Buddhists, the Hindus, all have

at certain times in their history done some really bad things.

>

> I'm paraphrasing here, but I recall reading Ramakrishna saying how

he loved to enjoy the worship of the Muslims and the Christians and

the Hindus; that he wished we could all experience the worship going

on in the hearts of the others. To me, this says it all.

>

> We can rightly bemoan the state of certain religions today, to the

extent that instead of promoting divinity they instead promote

division and negativity. But it is important to remember that

religions do rise above the low points in their history if they are

founded in the experience of the divine, and Islam is. God is not

absent from Islam, but only from some individual hearts (and not

really even there, of course).

>

> I believe it is possible for Islam to recover from its current

radicalism. Just as long as there are true worshipers of God who are

Muslim. I believe we should all pray for such grace as will bring it

about, as long as we can do so in a spirit of true compassion and

humility, and not of haughty egotism.

>

> I sincerely hope you don't feel I've been harsh toward you Jesse.

>

> OM

> Shanti, shanti, shantih.

>

>

> Chris

>

> Jesse Arana <jessearana@c...> wrote:

> Namaste,

>

> Please do not fill this group with off-topic posts. The negative

aspects of any religion, culture, potitical party, or person do not

need to be discussed in Shree Maa's group. This group is about the

glory of the divine.

>

> No matter what our personal feelings are about negative

appearances, all human history has been carried out under the energy

of the divine. Far better to meditate on that, persue our own

purification, and attain non-dual view and compassion.

>

> Jesse Arana (Kailash)

> www.meditationinfocus.com

>

> Sponsor

>

>

>

>

>

> Terms of

Service.

>

>

>

>

> The New with improved product search

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest guest   

Guest guest
Posted

Chandra Mani,

I agree with your, "I feel that a spiritual group should address all

things."

 

Our posts have certainly stirred up discussions!

 

Astraea

 

, Cweord1@a... wrote:

> salutations,

>

> i have been reading these posts with an open mind. i'm glad to hear

of someone else feeling as i do. i think the "glory of god" is ALL

things, life is all things, i feel that a spiritual group should

address all things. my personal worship is very celebratory in

nature, i celebrate all things, i celebrate my mundane life with as

much joy as i celebrate my morning pooja! god is in my life, in all

my life. i think it is interesting to hear of other things and how

each of us lives our daily lives. i don't want things to get out of

hand, but it's nice to know there is a place where i can make new

friends and learn from my new friends.

>

> i for one am glad to be here.

> shanti shanti shanti

> OM

>

> chandra mani

>

>

>

>

> In a message dated Thu, 9 Oct 2003 3:49:38 PM AEST, chris kirner

<chriskirner1956> writes:

>

> >Jesse,

> >

> >I know how you feel, I think. Such thoughts do not carry the heart

higher. But excuse me if I suggest you jumped the gun a bit.

> >

> >This is a community of high-minded people, or at least those with

an aspiration toward high-mindedness. It is a unique community with,

one would hope, a balanced and enlightened perspective--a spiritual

perspective.

> >

> >It would be unfortunate if this group became a place where people

and cultures and religions were "bashed," as Tesa described in other

groups, but at the same time it is helpful to occasionally bring to

light the darknesses in our hearts and minds, whether they are inside

or out in the world.

> >

> >Censorship is a funny thing. It is generally done with the best of

intentions, the highest of purposes, but it can engender a culture of

exclusion, "we don't do that here..." Such a culture not only hinders

free expression and the understanding that can bring, but places

unnecessary obstacles in the way of new visitors, who sense, but

don't know, what "the rules" are.

> >

> >This is fine, if that's what you want. Perhaps you envision a

group only of Devi Mandir devotees, or only of initiates of Shree Maa

or Swamiji. Somehow I don't think an online religion is what either

of them have in mind.

> >

> >Your post mentioned that any post that wasn't about "'the glory of

the divine" was off-topic. I'm afraid I don't know the definition

of "the glory of the divine." Perhaps you should make a list of

acceptable subject matter. That's a bit over the top, I know, but I

think you get my point?

> >

> >I have never done a puja in my life. Yet I love Shree Maa, and

I've even learned to tolerate Swamiji (just kidding Swamiji, I humbly

touch your feet in gratitude). Should I then not feel free to

participate? Should I perhaps not have discussed pranayama practice,

or the accusations that were made against he whom I believe is my

beloved gurudeva?

> >

> >I fully realize that discussion of Islam in the present climate of

world events is often in a negative vein, and ours was largely no

exception. However, there are some important lessons to be learned

from such a discussion.  And frankly, I think the most important of

those lessons were stifled by your post.

> >

> >If I may be so bold to make blank statements about spiritual life,

spiritual life is about more that just worship; it is about

interacting with the world, and about understanding and coming to

terms with the dross of our own unconscious.

> >

> >It would be a shame if this site became filled with the

superficial and with bashing of any kind, but I don't think a few

posts "off topic" (whatever that means) constitutes a threat to the

integrity of the group. There is time enough to put a stop to a

problem after it has actually become a problem.

> >

> >I'm truly sorry (I really am) if you found our posts offensive.

But sometimes the best thing is simply to move to the next post.

> >

> >Now, I have a final word about the topic of Islam with Astraea

that I will address here.

> >

> >Astraea,

> >

> >If these things really are the historical truth, I am very sorry

(not for myself, but for Islam). It is an interesting thing about

organizations, though, if they are founded in strong principles, they

can grow beyond even the most heinous acts perpetrated in the past in

their name, because the living principles are more important than the

dead past.

> >

> >Look at what the United States government did to the American

Indians. I have to believe we have grown beyond that, and that the

reason we have done so is because of the principles we stand for as a

nation. The Jews, the Christians, the Buddhists, the Hindus, all have

at certain times in their history done some really bad things.

> >

> >I'm paraphrasing here, but I recall reading Ramakrishna saying how

he loved to enjoy the worship of the Muslims and the Christians and

the Hindus; that he wished we could all experience the worship going

on in the hearts of the others. To me, this says it all.

> >

> >We can rightly bemoan the state of certain religions today, to the

extent that instead of promoting divinity they instead promote

division and negativity. But it is important to remember that

religions do rise above the low points in their history if they are

founded in the experience of the divine, and Islam is. God is not

absent from Islam, but only from some individual hearts (and not

really even there, of course).

> >

> >I believe it is possible for Islam to recover from its current

radicalism. Just as long as there are true worshipers of God who are

Muslim. I believe we should all pray for such grace as will bring it

about, as long as we can do so in a spirit of true compassion and

humility, and not of haughty egotism.

> >

> >I sincerely hope you don't feel I've been harsh toward you Jesse.

> >

> >OM

> >Shanti, shanti, shantih.

> >

> >

> >Chris

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest guest   

Guest guest
Posted

Hi Brian,

An excellent post, I may be beginning to understand you!

 

Astraea

 

, "Brian McKee" <brian@s...> wrote:

> I don't agree with the concept that we can leave our path and then

come back to it. It reminds me of that phrase, "Where ever you go,

there you are." I believe our paths are spiritual not because they

are different than the norm, but because we perceive them differently

than the norm may. We look upon them with an understanding that we

are evolving and that everything is part of a process goddess has

created for us. Therefore, I don't believe it is possible to

say, "Therefore the relevancy of your experience will suffer, the

more you indulge yourself." I think its all part of the process and I

think one of the most important aspects of being spiritual is

recognition that everything is part of our spiritual path. If we go

around subdividing things and saying, "this is part of my path and

this isn't," then its easy to begin to say, "this is part of god, and

this isn't," when we know the latter is not true -- and the source of

most worldly conflict at this time. I believe Chris pointed out (and

my wife is in the habit of saying), its all god(des). Spiritualists

try to find a uniting force in everything on the planet, we seek the

oneness in every individualized aspect of creation. Its true we

distract ourselves. Its true that we make many mistakes. Its true

that we could all be a bit faster at finding our way home, but to

judge ourselves based on those facts is, in my opinion, a mistake.

Our path is our path but what we do is not who we are. Who we are is

much deeper, or much bigger. The path toward self evolvement is

merely an attitude shift or a shift in consciousness. External

actions may change as a result of a change in consciousness, but

forcebly changing an external action does not necessarilly mean we

can affect the consciousness behind it. I sincerely believe that it

is goddess who gave me my bad habits as a method of healing my body,

mind and heart. That the mistakes I make are meant to teach me and

heal me, to show me the truth behind my unconscious actions. I think

weighing the relevancy of our actions is missing the point, learning

who we are from our unconscious actions, allowing our wounds to

surface by observing the sub-conscious actions we make in every day

life, that is the way to grow closer to who we are, realize that we

are, as my wife calls us, "godlings." I feel the attitude of self

deprecation, the vibe I get from the weighing of our actions or

reactions, is tied up in the "oh I screwed up my spiritual path"

feelings we sometimes get, and its merely another way to avoid the

healing we are seeking to grow closer to god. By layering guilt on

top of the mistake we don't have to realize it or its cause and we

can continue merrily along in denial of our aflliction. I try to

never condemn myself for anything. Having been raised with Catholic

guilt I've realized that its my biggest pitfal. Its opposite, self

aggrandizement, is something that rarely captures my heart like a

good fit of guilt can. Although self aggrandizement has been my

method of escape, into fantasy, for much of my life and it is the

marrying the two worlds that will ultimately allow self deprecation

and self aggrandizement to balance and heal their respected

afflictions. Thus no longer three of me, just one.I think I

understand where you are coming from Jesse. Lord knows there are

people in the world I would not want to spend one minute around

because of their reluctance to let go of their negativity, or as may

be more appropriate for this thread, their zealousness toward theri

beliefs. But at the same time I know that if they can stand to be

around me, with all my positivity and openness, then they must desire

to open their minds a bit and who am I to let their hangups affect

me? Can't I set the example for them and even though we are

different, respect and love them anyway? I used to enmesh with people

very easilly. That's a farily technical term. It means that I used to

let my emotions be entangled with the emotions of those around me. I

found that I had to differentiate myself, and that process took a lot

of work. However, now that I c

> an feel the difference and own only myself and my actions and

feelings, I can experience the emotions of others without feeling the

emotions effects. I am not the cause so I feel no effect. Sensatives

can learn to know the difference and learn to set automatic

boundaries. It just takes practice. I think this forum is a great

place to teach these things and I think the amount of knowlege,

jnani, being distrubuted here is phenominal, and I think limiting it

in any way would be a bad thing. Love, Brian

On Thu 10/09, Jesse Arana < jessearana@c... > wrote:Jesse

Arana [ jessearana@c...]: Thu, 9 Oct 2003

10:35:47 -0400RE: Re: Please take your

conversation off-line

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest guest   

Guest guest
Posted

Thanks and I'm glad you understand me. Like I said in my first post,

language is the first barrier, and its not even the toughest.

 

*hugs*

 

Brian

 

At 02:02 AM 10/10/2003 +0000, you wrote:

>Hi Brian,

>An excellent post, I may be beginning to understand you!

>

>Astraea

>

>, "Brian McKee" <brian@s...> wrote:

> > I don't agree with the concept that we can leave our path and then

>come back to it. It reminds me of that phrase, "Where ever you go,

>there you are." I believe our paths are spiritual not because they

>are different than the norm, but because we perceive them differently

>than the norm may. We look upon them with an understanding that we

>are evolving and that everything is part of a process goddess has

>created for us. Therefore, I don't believe it is possible to

>say, "Therefore the relevancy of your experience will suffer, the

>more you indulge yourself." I think its all part of the process and I

>think one of the most important aspects of being spiritual is

>recognition that everything is part of our spiritual path. If we go

>around subdividing things and saying, "this is part of my path and

>this isn't," then its easy to begin to say, "this is part of god, and

>this isn't," when we know the latter is not true -- and the source of

>most worldly conflict at this time. I believe Chris pointed out (and

>my wife is in the habit of saying), its all god(des). Spiritualists

>try to find a uniting force in everything on the planet, we seek the

>oneness in every individualized aspect of creation. Its true we

>distract ourselves. Its true that we make many mistakes. Its true

>that we could all be a bit faster at finding our way home, but to

>judge ourselves based on those facts is, in my opinion, a mistake.

>Our path is our path but what we do is not who we are. Who we are is

>much deeper, or much bigger. The path toward self evolvement is

>merely an attitude shift or a shift in consciousness. External

>actions may change as a result of a change in consciousness, but

>forcebly changing an external action does not necessarilly mean we

>can affect the consciousness behind it. I sincerely believe that it

>is goddess who gave me my bad habits as a method of healing my body,

>mind and heart. That the mistakes I make are meant to teach me and

>heal me, to show me the truth behind my unconscious actions. I think

>weighing the relevancy of our actions is missing the point, learning

>who we are from our unconscious actions, allowing our wounds to

>surface by observing the sub-conscious actions we make in every day

>life, that is the way to grow closer to who we are, realize that we

>are, as my wife calls us, "godlings." I feel the attitude of self

>deprecation, the vibe I get from the weighing of our actions or

>reactions, is tied up in the "oh I screwed up my spiritual path"

>feelings we sometimes get, and its merely another way to avoid the

>healing we are seeking to grow closer to god. By layering guilt on

>top of the mistake we don't have to realize it or its cause and we

>can continue merrily along in denial of our aflliction. I try to

>never condemn myself for anything. Having been raised with Catholic

>guilt I've realized that its my biggest pitfal. Its opposite, self

>aggrandizement, is something that rarely captures my heart like a

>good fit of guilt can. Although self aggrandizement has been my

>method of escape, into fantasy, for much of my life and it is the

>marrying the two worlds that will ultimately allow self deprecation

>and self aggrandizement to balance and heal their respected

>afflictions. Thus no longer three of me, just one.I think I

>understand where you are coming from Jesse. Lord knows there are

>people in the world I would not want to spend one minute around

>because of their reluctance to let go of their negativity, or as may

>be more appropriate for this thread, their zealousness toward theri

>beliefs. But at the same time I know that if they can stand to be

>around me, with all my positivity and openness, then they must desire

>to open their minds a bit and who am I to let their hangups affect

>me? Can't I set the example for them and even though we are

>different, respect and love them anyway? I used to enmesh with people

>very easilly. That's a farily technical term. It means that I used to

>let my emotions be entangled with the emotions of those around me. I

>found that I had to differentiate myself, and that process took a lot

>of work. However, now that I c

> > an feel the difference and own only myself and my actions and

>feelings, I can experience the emotions of others without feeling the

>emotions effects. I am not the cause so I feel no effect. Sensatives

>can learn to know the difference and learn to set automatic

>boundaries. It just takes practice. I think this forum is a great

>place to teach these things and I think the amount of knowlege,

>jnani, being distrubuted here is phenominal, and I think limiting it

>in any way would be a bad thing. Love, Brian

>On Thu 10/09, Jesse Arana < jessearana@c... > wrote:Jesse

>Arana [ jessearana@c...]: Thu, 9 Oct 2003

>10:35:47 -0400RE: Re: Please take your

>conversation off-line

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>Your use of is subject to

>

>

>

>

>---

>Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.

>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

>Version: 6.0.524 / Virus Database: 321 - Release 10/6/2003

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.524 / Virus Database: 321 - Release 10/6/2003

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest guest   

Guest guest
Posted

Wow Brian,

I'm really impressed, this is really deep! (NO sarcasm, I'm on the

level here!). I can't pretend to understand it fully though.

 

Astraea

 

 

, "Brian McKee" <brian@s...> wrote:

> "I agree. Although loving someone who is does heinous things is

not easy..."This points to the crux of what I have been learning for

the last several years. In order to love everyone as goddess wishes

us to we have to let go of our conceptions, stop caring about what

people do, stop judging people for their lives, and simply love them

without expectation. Attitudes of judgement often cause resentment

and resentment is one of the many forms that is NOT LOVE. NOT LOVE is

an entity unto its own in my understanding. Codependence was an

example of NOT LOVE I brought up before. Maa inspires us to higher

ideals. The Jesus of the bible would love people who are as brutal as

Mohammad appears to have been, because he knew that love was the only

message that could be given to affect a positive change in their

lives. I'm not that passive. I think a good slap on the face can show

as much love as a kiss on the cheek in the right circumstance and

done with the right intent. How many people are capable of that?

Probably none. But I aspire. (and digress) I believe we should all

accept each other at face value, realize that no one is perfect or

every going to behave the way we think they should (because they are

not us) and let go what they say if it offends, "for they know not

what they do." If we don't accept other people's problems and love

them anyway, then we get in the mind set that we can change them, or

show them the error of their ways or in extreme circumstances believe

that we can get even with them through some act. That's obviously not

love. How many times have we repeated that cycle in the last year.

I'm asking everyone to own their thoughts and opinions and stop

owning other's thoughts and opinions. If something bothers you, fine,

speak up of you want to, but don't feel that anything anyone else

says is an attack on you or a judgement of who you are. If you feel

that it an attack or a judgement (even if its intended as one), its

your problem that you are letting their problem get to you. See what

I mean? We must own our actions and reactions. Consciousness is

facing our actions and reactions and owning the consequences,

accepting the consequences and learning and growing because of

it.This is all of course my opinion, what I've learned in the last

few years. It really works for me. I've actually become a better

driver because of it. That childhood samskara is nearly healed. If

you knew how bad it was, you'd be as amazed as I am. Consciousness

works and it's separate from mind, body, emotions and even soul. Does

everyone understand what this is about? Do you see what I'm trying to

prevent here? I'm trying to prevent an explosion and right now its up

to Jesse. Brian

>

> _____________

> No banners. No pop-ups. No kidding.

> Introducing My Way - http://www.myway.com

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest guest   

Guest guest
Posted

This is the core of my understanding. And what's even more brilliant is how

some very good friends of mine pointed out that codependence exists between

man and god. I had never seen that until recently.

 

I'm glad you see the purpose of my post.

 

Sincerely,

 

Brian

 

At 02:25 AM 10/10/2003 +0000, you wrote:

>Wow Brian,

>I'm really impressed, this is really deep! (NO sarcasm, I'm on the

>level here!). I can't pretend to understand it fully though.

>

>Astraea

>

>

>, "Brian McKee" <brian@s...> wrote:

> > "I agree. Although loving someone who is does heinous things is

>not easy..."This points to the crux of what I have been learning for

>the last several years. In order to love everyone as goddess wishes

>us to we have to let go of our conceptions, stop caring about what

>people do, stop judging people for their lives, and simply love them

>without expectation. Attitudes of judgement often cause resentment

>and resentment is one of the many forms that is NOT LOVE. NOT LOVE is

>an entity unto its own in my understanding. Codependence was an

>example of NOT LOVE I brought up before. Maa inspires us to higher

>ideals. The Jesus of the bible would love people who are as brutal as

>Mohammad appears to have been, because he knew that love was the only

>message that could be given to affect a positive change in their

>lives. I'm not that passive. I think a good slap on the face can show

>as much love as a kiss on the cheek in the right circumstance and

>done with the right intent. How many people are capable of that?

>Probably none. But I aspire. (and digress) I believe we should all

>accept each other at face value, realize that no one is perfect or

>every going to behave the way we think they should (because they are

>not us) and let go what they say if it offends, "for they know not

>what they do." If we don't accept other people's problems and love

>them anyway, then we get in the mind set that we can change them, or

>show them the error of their ways or in extreme circumstances believe

>that we can get even with them through some act. That's obviously not

>love. How many times have we repeated that cycle in the last year.

>I'm asking everyone to own their thoughts and opinions and stop

>owning other's thoughts and opinions. If something bothers you, fine,

>speak up of you want to, but don't feel that anything anyone else

>says is an attack on you or a judgement of who you are. If you feel

>that it an attack or a judgement (even if its intended as one), its

>your problem that you are letting their problem get to you. See what

>I mean? We must own our actions and reactions. Consciousness is

>facing our actions and reactions and owning the consequences,

>accepting the consequences and learning and growing because of

>it.This is all of course my opinion, what I've learned in the last

>few years. It really works for me. I've actually become a better

>driver because of it. That childhood samskara is nearly healed. If

>you knew how bad it was, you'd be as amazed as I am. Consciousness

>works and it's separate from mind, body, emotions and even soul. Does

>everyone understand what this is about? Do you see what I'm trying to

>prevent here? I'm trying to prevent an explosion and right now its up

>to Jesse. Brian

> >

> > _____________

> > No banners. No pop-ups. No kidding.

> > Introducing My Way - http://www.myway.com

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>Your use of is subject to

>

>

>

>

>---

>Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.

>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

>Version: 6.0.524 / Virus Database: 321 - Release 10/6/2003

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.524 / Virus Database: 321 - Release 10/6/2003

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest guest   

Guest guest
Posted

I agree that sometimes being tough is the best form of showing love.

This happens only when I don't take it (whatever the "it" is)

personally. If I am practicing vairagya then I cna be loving. My

teacher used to say that viveka, discrimination or discernment, and

vairagya, non-attachment, are like two wings that the bird of the

soul needs on its journey. I have been working with vairagya for the

past several months by consciously trying not to take other people's

behavior personally. I realized that 95% at least of what others do,

even when direted towards me, has more to do with them than with me.

Likewise my responses have more to do with me than with them.

ArjunaBrian McKee <brian (AT) soulspark (DOT) org> wrote:

"I agree. Although loving someone who is does heinous things is not

easy..."This points to the crux of what I have been learning for the

last several years. In order to love everyone as goddess wishes us to

we have to let go of our conceptions, stop caring about what people

do, stop judging people for their lives, and simply love them without

expectation.Attitudes of judgement often cause resentment and

resentment is one of the many forms that is NOT LOVE. NOT LOVE is an

entity unto its own in my understanding. Codependence was an example

of NOT LOVE I brought up before.Maa inspires us to higher ideals. The

Jesus of the bible would love people who are as brutal as Mohammad

appears to have been, because he knew that love was the only message

that could be given to affect a positive change in their lives.I'm

not that passive. I think a good slap on the face can show as much

love as a kiss on the cheek in the

right circumstance and done with the right intent.How many people are

capable of that? Probably none. But I aspire. (and digress)I believe

we should all accept each other at face value, realize that no one is

perfect or every going to behave the way we think they should (because

they are not us) and let go what they say if it offends, "for they

know not what they do."If we don't accept other people's problems and

love them anyway, then we get in the mind set that we can change them,

or show them the error of their ways or in extreme circumstances

believe that we can get even with them through some act.That's

obviously not love. How many times have we repeated that cycle in the

last year.I'm asking everyone to own their thoughts and opinions and

stop owning other's thoughts and opinions. If something bothers you,

fine, speak up of you want to, but don't feel that anything anyone

else says is an attack on you or a judgement of who you are. If

you feel that it an attack or a judgement (even if its intended as

one), its your problem that you are letting their problem get to you.

See what I mean? We must own our actions and reactions. Consciousness

is facing our actions and reactions and owning the consequences,

accepting the consequences and learning and growing because of

it.This is all of course my opinion, what I've learned in the last

few years. It really works for me. I've actually become a better

driver because of it. That childhood samskara is nearly healed. If

you knew how bad it was, you'd be as amazed as I am.Consciousness

works and it's separate from mind, body, emotions and even soul.Does

everyone understand what this is about? Do you see what I'm trying to

prevent here?I'm trying to prevent an explosion and right now its up

to Jesse.Brian

No banners. No pop-ups. No kidding.Introducing My Way -

http://www.myway.com To from this group, send an email

to:Your use of

is subject to the

 

The New with improved product search

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest guest   

Guest guest
Posted

Brian,

Excellent! Yes, co-dependence does exist between Man & God: look at

how many people try to barter or bargain with God! Quid pro quo.

 

Does God need anything from Man?

 

Astraea

 

 

, Brian McKee <brian@s...> wrote:

> This is the core of my understanding. And what's even more

brilliant is how

> some very good friends of mine pointed out that codependence exists

between

> man and god. I had never seen that until recently.

>

> I'm glad you see the purpose of my post.

>

> Sincerely,

>

> Brian

>

> At 02:25 AM 10/10/2003 +0000, you wrote:

>

> >Wow Brian,

> >I'm really impressed, this is really deep! (NO sarcasm, I'm on the

> >level here!). I can't pretend to understand it fully though.

> >

> >Astraea

> >

> >

> >, "Brian McKee" <brian@s...>

wrote:

> > > "I agree. Although loving someone who is does heinous things is

> >not easy..."This points to the crux of what I have been learning

for

> >the last several years. In order to love everyone as goddess wishes

> >us to we have to let go of our conceptions, stop caring about what

> >people do, stop judging people for their lives, and simply love

them

> >without expectation. Attitudes of judgement often cause resentment

> >and resentment is one of the many forms that is NOT LOVE. NOT LOVE

is

> >an entity unto its own in my understanding. Codependence was an

> >example of NOT LOVE I brought up before. Maa inspires us to higher

> >ideals. The Jesus of the bible would love people who are as brutal

as

> >Mohammad appears to have been, because he knew that love was the

only

> >message that could be given to affect a positive change in their

> >lives. I'm not that passive. I think a good slap on the face can

show

> >as much love as a kiss on the cheek in the right circumstance and

> >done with the right intent. How many people are capable of that?

> >Probably none. But I aspire. (and digress) I believe we should all

> >accept each other at face value, realize that no one is perfect or

> >every going to behave the way we think they should (because they

are

> >not us) and let go what they say if it offends, "for they know not

> >what they do." If we don't accept other people's problems and love

> >them anyway, then we get in the mind set that we can change them,

or

> >show them the error of their ways or in extreme circumstances

believe

> >that we can get even with them through some act. That's obviously

not

> >love. How many times have we repeated that cycle in the last year.

> >I'm asking everyone to own their thoughts and opinions and stop

> >owning other's thoughts and opinions. If something bothers you,

fine,

> >speak up of you want to, but don't feel that anything anyone else

> >says is an attack on you or a judgement of who you are. If you feel

> >that it an attack or a judgement (even if its intended as one), its

> >your problem that you are letting their problem get to you. See

what

> >I mean? We must own our actions and reactions. Consciousness is

> >facing our actions and reactions and owning the consequences,

> >accepting the consequences and learning and growing because of

> >it.This is all of course my opinion, what I've learned in the last

> >few years. It really works for me. I've actually become a better

> >driver because of it. That childhood samskara is nearly healed. If

> >you knew how bad it was, you'd be as amazed as I am. Consciousness

> >works and it's separate from mind, body, emotions and even soul.

Does

> >everyone understand what this is about? Do you see what I'm trying

to

> >prevent here? I'm trying to prevent an explosion and right now its

up

> >to Jesse. Brian

> > >

> > > _____________

> > > No banners. No pop-ups. No kidding.

> > > Introducing My Way - http://www.myway.com

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >Your use of is subject to

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >---

> >Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.

> >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

> >Version: 6.0.524 / Virus Database: 321 - Release 10/6/2003

>

>

> ---

> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

> Version: 6.0.524 / Virus Database: 321 - Release 10/6/2003

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Go To Topic Listing

Support the Ashram

Join Groups

IndiaDivine Telegram Group IndiaDivine WhatsApp Group


×
×
  • Create New...