Entertaining opposites, releasing attachment to positions.

Oryx

From here. With less hand waving, hopefully. Google is your friend.

Many people have wondered from time to time what exactly meditation is. There are many different answers to that question. At its core, though, meditation is the act of clearing the mind of distractions to achieve an internal goal. The process is incredibly personal and will change for each person based on their personal notions of meditation. A simple explanation of meditation could be the act of focusing ones energies inwardly, to promote growth.
It may be helpful for those just starting out with meditation to consider the origins of the word. Meditation comes to us from the Latin words meditari - to think, to dwell upon, to exercise the mind - and mederi - to heal. The original Sanskrit word for meditation was medha - wisdom. Combining these definitions, you can reach the conclusion that meditation means to use one's mind to heal (mind and/or body) and gain wisdom.
The practice of meditating is not new. It has been a common element in most of the world's religions in various forms since the birth of religion. As such, much of its history has been devoted to the realm of the spiritual. Buddhists in particular, have embraced meditation as a way of gaining enlightenment.
But there are other uses for meditation that are being employed in modern life. Meditation has been proven to be an effective alternative for drugs in dealing with stress. By clearing one's mind of all distractions, the practitioner can achieve a sense of calm that is lacking in our busy lives. Meditation may take longer to perform, but the results are more long-lasting and come with none of the side effects of medication.
There is also a growing body of evidence being put forth that states the mind actually has the ability to heal physical ailments. The theory of mind-body healing proponents is that as the brain enters into different states of awareness (measured by frequency length of brains electrical activity); it releases hormones that promote cell repair. There is still a long way to go, before this becomes fully accepted by the medical community, but is interesting.
Meditation does not need to be a formal activity. It has common to refer to hobbies that are found to be calming as meditation. For some people this means that their "meditation" may be listening to music or baking. While not as all encompassing as the traditional concept of meditation, this still has the benefit of reducing stress. Stress has been shown to aggravate many physical medical conditions. Thus even immersing oneself into a hobby can achieve the benefits of meditation.
As you can see meditation has many forms. There is the traditional Yogi or Buddhist interpretation of what meditation is, as well as the more loosely defined calming hobby activities. The one thing that all forms of meditation share in common is that they involve cutting out distractions and focusing one's mind to achieve a goal (enlightenment, wisdom, healing, calming).

Scanlas The 2nd

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Watching television is not meditative because of the perspective of your focus it puts you in. You get stuck in the thoughts that it stimulates in you. It disconnects you from life. Intead of being the observer of thoughts and emotions, you think you are the thoughts and emotions. That can be confusing when you first hear it.

No it's just confusing.

The exact same argument can be made for any activity you believe counts as mediation.

Oryx wrote: »

From here. With less hand waving, hopefully. Google is your friend.

And unfortunately that isn't less hand wavy at all.

From that definition anything at all still counts as mediation.

But I like how they use techno-babble as well.

Oryx

Then King mob, I suggest you get out in the big wide web and find a definition that does suit you, as the one I gave does a good job of condensing the concept of meditation into a few paragraphs. Unless you are only here to antagonise those who try to answer your queries sensibly.

Scanlas The 2nd

King Mob wrote: »

No it's just confusing.

The exact same argument can be made for any activity you believe counts as mediation.


And unfortunately that isn't less hand wavy at all.

From that definition anything at all still counts as mediation.

But I like how they use techno-babble as well.

I'll try to simplify. Stop thinking, become really aware of the feelings and sensations in your body. Breathing in and out slowly in deep breaths can help.

Maybe you are looking for fireworks and explosions when you think of meditating. Its a simple thing.

I know where you are coming from, I was always a logical person ( I have a degree in mathematics). I thought all of this talk of meditation was woo woo Bullsh%t that was pointless, I'd hear people say, I'm not religous but I'm spiritual and I'd think WTF does that mean, deluded idiots or something like that. But it really does make sense and make your life so much more enjoyable and richer, it's like my life is now in HD3D with surround sound whereas it used to be like those charlie chaplan movies. It's about where you put the focus of your attention.

Oryx

Oryx wrote: »

Then King mob, I suggest you get out in the big wide web and find a definition that does suit you, as the one I gave does a good job of condensing the concept of meditation into a few paragraphs.

Unfortunatly definitions aren't meant to suit people, they are to actually define the word in as strict as possible terms.
The definition you gave does not do this because I cannot see how it differentiates meditation from anything that requires a bit of concentration.
Nor does it explain my other question to you, why can't watching TV be considered meditation when it fixes your definition perfectly?

Oryx wrote: »

Unless you are only here to antagonise those who try to answer your queries sensibly.

No, I'm just asking every simple questions. If you think this is somehow antagonising....

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I'll try to simplify. Stop thinking, become really aware of the feelings and sensations in your body. Breathing in and out slowly in deep breaths can help.

Which I and most people don't do, and is not usual practise in most activities contrary to your and Oryx's claims.

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Maybe you are looking for fireworks and explosions when you think of meditating. Its a simple thing.

I'm not expecting or looking for anything when I think of meditation because I've yet to hear a good definition that makes sense.
But you do notice how you contradict yourself on this point in this next paragraph?

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I know where you are coming from, I was always a logical person ( I have a degree in mathematics). I thought all of this talk of meditation was woo woo Bullsh%t that was pointless, I'd hear people say, I'm not religous but I'm spiritual and I'd think WTF does that mean, deluded idiots or something like that. But it really does make sense and make your life so much more enjoyable and richer, it's like my life is now in HD3D with surround sound whereas it used to be like those charlie chaplan movies. It's about where you put the focus of your attention.

Oryx

King Mob wrote: »

Unfortunatly definitions aren't meant to suit people,

In fact, sometimes they are. Define light to a child and youll say one thing. Define light to a physicist, you wont contradict yourself, but youll word it in a completely different way.

The definition you gave does not do this because I cannot see how it differentiates meditation from anything that requires a bit of concentration.

Well then youve got it. The only difference between light meditation and deep meditation is the level of concentration. But in essence, yes its concentration.

Nor does it explain my other question to you, why can't watching TV be considered meditation when it fixes your definition perfectly?

I said way up there ^ that tv is an external distraction. How can you be concentrating on your own thoughts if youre watching xfactor and thinking of what Katie is wearing? I understand meditation as concentrating on whats going on inside your head, or the feelings of your body, rather than what your senses are picking up from outside. Did I wave my hands just then at all?

No, I'm just asking every simple questions. If you think this is somehow antagonising....

It must be the way you ask them, then. Something you should look at, really.

Which I and most people don't do, and is not usual practise in most activities contrary to your and Oryx's claims.

I havent said most people do it?

I'm not expecting or looking for anything when I think of meditation because I've yet to hear a good definition that makes sense.

What do you think is meant by meditation?

Ambersky

Entertaining Opposites Releasing attachment To Positions


I really liked the question

A recent thread got me thinking: How often do we entertain the ideas of our most staunch opposition?

I guess the answer to that question is not very well really

On the whole television, meditation, discussion Id like to state my position firmly in the middle on this one.
Dosent bother me, Ive explored some forms of spirituality deeply, Ive meditated, had estatic experiences, left all that - well most of it anyway cos a lot of it was woo woo or worse.
Now after a hard days work, engaging with the world, I like to unwind, loose myself watching a bit of TV, and allow my attention flit from one thing to the next, remote in hand.
Occasionally when Im ready, I do my best to focus and attend to one of the wonderful documentaries or other such serious things available to me, which I would be unaware of without the hard work of so many people who brought this amazing gift of television and all its insights to me.

But thats that issue and in my opinion.

With people on the net or others who (sorry guys) dont impact on my life too much I can simply choose to argue or not. Im better able to distance, choose my arguments and simply let it go by.
On Boards, things are nicely divided so that you can usually find people who will broadly share your interests and keep away from those whose interests are in opposition to your own.
Even then Ive managed to get into a few heated disagreements and I dont like it, I dont feel like it gets me anywhere, this attempt to set everyone elses thinking to rights.

Im a sort of a pinko liberal lefty with an interest, no kind of infused with a spiritual dimension, I find it difficult to talk about or share.
Ive been hurt by the roman catholic church and a couple of other ritually type things, bla bla. So I can enjoy those having a bash at religion, heck I can join in and theres nothing like an ex anything for being anti that thing.

I can see the point in the arguments against religion and spirituality is so open I think anyone dabbling in it would benifit from doing a course in critical thinking to avoid some of the many common pitfalls.

So the origional title Entertaining Opposites Releasing attachment To Positions

I like the feeling of non attachment, I feel free and I can see how it allows others to be.
I understand that non attachment dosent have to mean, not caring or disengaging, but rather a non grasping.
As I understand it its the grasping nature thats the problem.

When I feel my sense of identity is being threatened if I let someone express these ideas that I am attached to, then the theory is, my unhealthy ego is attached to the idea.
I identify with that idea, the idea is part of my identity and anyone challenging the idea challenges me and I will defend the idea as though defending myself.
This I think makes for a lot of around and around arguing, attack and defense, pushing each others buttons, insults, and not a lot of listening, learning or adapting anyones thinking - usually.
This goes for spiritual ideas, theorys, teachers, traditions, gurus, etc as much as for any other idea.

That sounds simple and sometimes I can do it but I havent worked out how to balance my political and spiritual self.
My political self wants, for the sake of all humankind , to get everyone thinking correctly and therefore behaving better and bringing peace and justice to the world.
Sigh!

padma

To put it simply, to my understanding, entertaining opposites and releasing attachment to positions comes down to basic human trait of Love and Respect for your fellow beings and surrendering.

I fully respect that we all come from differing backgrounds and have different understandings. Let me share some things that have passed my way. Please remember I am doing my best to use words to explain something which the human mind sometimes finds complex yet another part of us may recognise.

Though I am not of the character of practising the mind to calm the mind. As I see this just strenthens the mind. In the same way that you are just using a stronger part of the mind to control a weaker part of the mind. So in essence you are still using the mind waiting for those few seconds to turn in to minutes where you are not thinking, instead your just focusing on breath etc. All in all you are still using your mind. How many people have reached Full enlightenment or Yoga using this technique? Yes I am aware of a more passive meditation of being the observer yet one must look in to who is the observer etc etc etc. To me it seems very futile and can become very boring too.

Don't get me wrong I see the brain as a gift, yet it is only 1 of our consciousnesses. Unfortunately it is more often the case the more dominant one. This is the problem that I see with this method, you've got brain 2 looking at brain 1 and so on so forth. The other consciousnesses become dormant.

Now down to the grass roots level of most human existence. There are many different emotions dominating their daily being, from anger, jealousy, hatred, envy, hurt feelings, dissatisfaction, sadness etc. Some I believe the Buddha may have said, it takes maybe 1 thousand of lifetimes to fully understand anger and fully surrender it. What I'm getting to here is that the key word here is surrender and until we fully surrender all of these emotions we will be forever tied down to the trap of our ego, Thus continuing with not being able to fully release our attachments.

So, to be free from all of these emotions what do we do? Do we train our mind? Do we take stronger control of our being? Do we accept them as a part of us? Yet when these emotions surface yes they jump up at us, do we intend to release them each time? But they keep coming back all the time. Why?

Maybe because we have been keeping them, because our ego likes them, a part of us is not fully able to forgive, not fully able to surrender. The answer is because quite frankly we have too much attachment to them. If we thought of all the times in our life we were sad etc, and then suddenly sadness comes up and you release it. What are you releasing? How much are you releasing? What is it being replaced with? Emptiness? Are you releasing your attachment to this BIT of sadness? Many questions and the mind can only observe the analytical mathematics of this one incident.

Surrendering is the key here. Yet for all of our knowing certain emotions are bad for us, they still exist and have for a very Long time. Humans and other beings who incarnate need help with this matter, but we look for the help in the wrong place.

I'm going off wind here so I'm just gonna break it down easy language for us all.

So, having a healthy dose of Love within ones Heart, Understanding and respect for all of your fellow beings is paramount to growing in your daily life. Being able to fully surrender ALL your attachments and anchoring within your Heart where there is Love, Joy, peace and calmness abound you are entertaining opposites and you are releasing attachments to positions and at the same time staying within the peacefulness and happiness within. This is because you are within the Love within your Heart And being within the Love, you are directly not being tied in to emotions that surface when in the heat of debate, but essentially you are relaxed and smiling happily while meeting people with Love and peace from within.

The previous discussion about meditating during your daily life IE, washing the dishes, taking the kids to the park, practising being here and now etc, There is one thing missing in all of this PRACTICE. and that is you are practicing instead of living it? Am I close to the mark here? From my Understanding if you are not anchored within the Love Joy and happiness within and are just practicing mindfullness some people are simply missing out on the reasons why they first started meditating and that was to become more peaceful, calm, happy, joyful and loving in their daily lives. So to start with first step is
1, Relax,
2, Smile,
3, Surrender,
4, Be happy,
5 relax more,
6, smile sweeter and freer, ( come on you can smile even sweeter)
7, Smile sweetly freely and happily, (cutchiecutchie coo)
8 Smile, sweetly freely and joyfully to your Spiritual Heart
9, Follow the Nice feeling within your Heart (L)
10, keep following the nice feeling while letting go all thoughts burdens emotions and attachments.
11, Enjoy and be Grateful for the opportunity to surrender all thoughts burdens and attachments.
12, Just let your Heart be free, follow the feeling completely

Scanlas The 2nd

King Mob wrote: »

Unfortunatly definitions aren't meant to suit people, they are to actually define the word in as strict as possible terms.
The definition you gave does not do this because I cannot see how it differentiates meditation from anything that requires a bit of concentration.
Nor does it explain my other question to you, why can't watching TV be considered meditation when it fixes your definition perfectly?


No, I'm just asking every simple questions. If you think this is somehow antagonising....


Which I and most people don't do, and is not usual practise in most activities contrary to your and Oryx's claims.

I'm not expecting or looking for anything when I think of meditation because I've yet to hear a good definition that makes sense.
But you do notice how you contradict yourself on this point in this next paragraph?

When I say it's like HD3D TV that is what I mean, but looking at a tree in HD3D is hardly fireworks. Meditation gives you an inner peace, you become more aware of all the subtle aspects of the world around you as your focus of attention is outside of your head more often. Meditation makes the world a lighter place, things that seemed like big problems don't seem so serious.

Ambersky

I think my last post was a bit wishy washy and because I think this is a really interesting and important topic, that I have actually been thinking about in my own life recently I would like to make another attempt at answering the question

How often do we entertain the ideas of our most staunch opposition?

and the idea of Entertaining Opposites Releasing attachment To Positions.

Just look at this thread, the number of replies its receiving and how fast it is being responded to. What could have aroused such interest and intensity in what is usually such a quiet and slow area.
I think this is because someone, ie King Mob in this case, is presenting this forum, on religion and spirituality, with "staunch opposition".
So how are we here and now entertaining the ideas of King Mob?
Well we can all see and analize that for ourselves and we will probably come up with several differing conclusions.

Those of us who aspire to a spiritual model of living that is free from emotions like anger, irritation, defensiveness, impatience etc will realise how quickly the face of serenity is cracked when one is dealing with the realities of daily life.
Unless one is living in a bubble, cut off from all humanity, one is going to be faced with contradiction and opposition.
How deeply this impacts depends on how much the issue being challenged means to you and how important the relationship with the person posing the challenge is to you.
One of the most difficult things is, that it is the very people you love the most who will provide the deepest challenges.
This is as it should be.

We owe a debt of gratitude to those who break away, who analize, who criticise, who point out errors, who are not convinced, who differ.

There are many institutions whos errors and injustices have harmed and distroyed the lives of many individuals who claim at the time of the harm doing, nobody knew what was happening. They claim their ignorance as the grounds for their innocence.
Its important to listen to the voices of those who say something isnt working.
Who say the implications of beliefs we have are leading to bad things happening, maybe just for some minority individuals, but faulty thinking can lead to faulty actions even when the origional idea seemed benign.
This means that spiritual "for me" thinking is not enough.
If spirituality is to be more than an, Im all right to hell with the rest of you kind of thing, we need to listen and think about the implications of our beliefs.
Sometimes it wont be obvious to us initially, sometimes we wont like hearing about it, sometimes we wont want the little we have to hang onto to be shattered but what is left will be real and better for it.

Those who question or just dont believe also help to weed out errors in our thinking and help us define what we do believe or think.

Opposition also helps us check out just how well we are doing.
I find I am a lovely person when Im living by myself and just having limited interactions with friends over coffee and a chat.
Its my nearest and dearest that provide the most oppositon, constantly proving their otherness and moving out of my projections and plans.

In order to realy relate to another we have to listen to what they are really saying, think about it and be open to the possibility of it affecting or impacting us somewhat. Communication is a two way thing.
Having a spiritual model that blocks this possibility of another initiating change in one by blocking and controlling all feelings that arise in that interaction is in my opinion counter productive and sad.
You probably know what Im talking about if you have ever had to interact or challenge in any way that spiritual type with a constant smile on their face that says, Im not going to let you in to affect me in any way -Im holding the spiritual knowledge and it trumps yours, so Ill keep smiling to show you how spiritual and advanced I am. Its not nice, its not spiritual, its just controling.

Some spiritual groups offer advice on how to deal with opposition.
What kind of advice have you had or heard about and how do you do with trying to put that advice into practice in real life.
Maybe those of us on a spiritual path would benifit from some feedback on how it feels to be on the receiving end of some of our behaviours that have resulted from that advice.

padma

Ambersky wrote: »

.

Some spiritual groups offer advice on how to deal with opposition.
What kind of advice have you had or heard about and how do you do with trying to put that advice into practice in real life.
Maybe those of us on a spiritual path would benifit from some feedback on how it feels to be on the receiving end of some of our behaviours that have resulted from that advice.

Example 1, A woman who is a stay at home mom, cooks her husband a lovely meal. She was out that morning buying goods in the market. Came home and cooked the best meal she has ever cooked. The husband comes home, sits at the table in a foul mood and takes a few bites of the meal and says I don't like this. I've eaten already today. The woman gets angry, and lashes out at the husband, who is in a foul mood argument happens, and the night is spoiled, grudges are formed so on so forth.

Example 2, A woman who is a stay at home mom, cooks her husband a lovely meal. She was out that morning buying goods in the market. Came home and with great Love she cooks a beautiful meal, so happy to be cooking, so lovingly preparing the dish. The husband comes home sits at the table in a foul mood and takes a few bites of the meal and says "I dont like this Ive eaten already today" The woman smiles and with great Love and understanding picks up his meal and wraps it up in the fridge for her lunch the next day.

You see whatever you do do it with Love, Do it from your Heart, be free from all expectation. You do not need to be emotional. It serves you no purpose. So when around others who are emotional, being the one person who is calm and peaceful and loving, the situation changes. The anger that could have arisen, the negative Karma that could have been created has dissipated. This is how we can live our lives.

I agree in some instances it can be difficult, yet only you can make your Heart dirty, no other being can dirty your Heart. This is very big matter actually. Woman 1 in the story got angry. Woman 2 in the story didn't. So the advice is be an instrument of Love to ALL other beings, not just those who it is easy to Love, but to everyone as we are all connected closer than we can imagine.

It's the same with those who shock you, murderers, thieves, terrorist or whatever, they do not know about the Heart. For sure the people who blow up bombs think that they are right. Yes they are right, but only in their heads. Everyone is right in their own heads. Yet if they used their Heart they would know killing another is counter-productive to the condition of their Heart. So the best advice is be within your Heart at all times, and smile from your Heart to ALL beings, without any limitations placed by the brain or other parts.

The only lasting beauty is the beauty of the Heart - Rumi
There is a light that shines beyond all things on Earth, beyond us all, beyond the highest Heavens, This is the light that shines in your Heart.- Chandogya Upanishad 3.13.7
The best and most beautiful things in the world cannot be seen or touched, They must be felt with the Heart. - Helen Keller
And my favourite
There are so many good things about the Heart, However knowing about it and talking about it are not enough, to gain all of it's benefits, we have to use it properly - Irmansyah Effendi.

Ambersky

Ok padma cards on the table. Are you now or have you ever been a member of the catholic marriage advisory bureau, say sometime in the 50s or 60s? :eek:

Seriously though, we are all well aware surely of just where spiritual advice like that, particularly to stay at home moms leads us.

padma

The analogy was used to record how a person would react. The advice isn't in the form of telling people to go out and cook for your husband. It is simply giving a situation whereby the husband is very mean and confrontational and nasty because he is in a bad mood. And after the woman spent all that day cooking him his meal she was in the first instance very upset and hurt by his reaction. The point is the second lady simply avoided a negative reaction and ends up with her lunch for the next day.

What is wrong with cooking your husband a nice meal after working all day? Maybe if I said it was a stay at home dad, it wouldn't of had a reaction. Am I correct? So you can replace the woman with a man, it doesn't matter.

Ambersky

Padma you have touched on something here, ie the role of women in religion and spirituality, that is of particular interest to me.
I wasnt being serious about the marriage bureau, I was teasing you a bit.

The advice to women in marriages to men who are disrespectful to them to smile and be even more loving to their husbands, has been given by religious advisors from many different religious traditions for centuries.

Unfortunatley this was not just a religious tradition but a social construct.
In 1975 only 10% of married women were in full time employment and up untill that date the state enforced a marriage bar ending the employment of any women employed by it on marriage.
Women who were in employment were not entitled to equal pay for equal work because it was believed men should earn more than women to be able to support a family.

All this is changing, women still do not earn as much as men but are catching up in Ireland at least.
The point Im making is there needs to be a recognition of social constructs.
Women have traditionally been in subservient positions, denied access to power and money in religion and society.
Hence it is no accident the stay at home person in your story, and so many other stories, is a woman.
Society is designed that way.

These days there is financial pressure on women in the opposite direction to get out into the job market, but as jobs decline we will probaby see more women in part time, low pay jobs, being family breadwinners.
The role of women will be designed not only and probably not primarily by the individual but by the needs of society.
Individually it is also probably a good thing to let a bad mood slide by without comment on occasion or untill an opportune time to discuss the matter arises.

Women who have been stay at home mums, dependant financially on their husbands and with little prospect of earning enough money to support themselves and their children should they leave that marriage, have often gone to churches looking for advice on how to deal with difficulties in their marriage.
Here they were usually met by celibate men, who had been taught a theory and were passing it on.
Women were often seen as being mainly responsible for setting the tone in relationships, for making their men angry, arousing men, calming men, etc.
If a woman became pregnant it was the womans fault, hence we have had the magdalene laundrys.

Women who have been in violent relationships, and we are learning that family violence in much more common than was realised or cared to recognise, know that to smile at a man who "comes home in a foul mood" and says he dosent like that dinner, is often not enough to stop the mood he has come home with.
Many women know that if you behave like a door mat you will get treated like a door mat.

Again I am not calling for a reversal of roles it is not enought for the woman to have a turn at meeting the man with the same disrespect .
What I am calling for is real communication, not a denial of emotion or a no holds barred letting loose of emotion, but real respectful communication.

Spiritually I think some of this comes from western interpretatons of ego lesness.
In my reading on the subject I came across an explanation I really liked, it said that eastern teachers have a tendency to assume that we in the west have already got as adults, a normal functioning ego and are willing to try to get rid of the emotionally charged solid sense of ego.
It says that many spiritual practitioners in the west misunderstand the distinction between the two types of ego and assume we have to let go, or rid ourselves of all ego, even healthy individuation.
This leaves us incapable of relating because we dont know who we are, cant tell someone how we feel, cant tell them how they affect us, cant say what we want, dont know what makes us happy or unhappy.
Also so much emphasis on "the light" or happiness or love can be a form of addiction, an unwillingness or avoidance of The Shadow, which must be faced and will not be denied.

The long and short of it is I think if we can face all this disappointment at our own shortcomings, our embarassing contradictions, our failures in putting our theories into practice, we can find we are lovable and are ok in our fallibility, with our Shadow, in our humanity, dark side, moodiness and all.

padma

Ok thank you for the effort you put in to your post. It is very interesting.

The situation that was outlined was a very deep situation, one that has massive learning involved. However, it was just an analogy off the top of my head. To use a different analogy which if you look deeper you will get the point of my original post which is in response to some advice you asked people to share according to their understandings in dealing with everyday situations.

A person is asked by their boss to do a task. This person puts all their effort in to the task. The boss arrives 2 hours later and criticises the task that they did. The person is upset and frustrated and carries around all day a feeling of uselessness, also bearing a grudge against their boss for lack of good management skills.

This person's desire for recognition for their effort was not recognised. Also they wanted the boss to compliment them when this didn't come about. They became very upset. It is their WANTS and their DESIRES which are the stumbling block. The ever present ego.

A different person is asked by their boss in the same scenario. So they carry out the task with Love and happiness with no desires or wants of recognition from their boss. The boss criticises the task. The person smiles, nods and moves on.

The lesson is about surrendering any situation we are in. So if we are controlled by our ego it is very hard to surrender a situation because the control is so strong. Whereas when you do everything with Love, you are not held by any of your wants, needs or desires. Thus being free from the trap that people keep on falling through each time.

So the essence of my post is that You don't always get what you want. Why try? Even if you do get what you want all you are really getting is your ego being satisfied.

The 2nd person, even if the boss compliment them, they move on. They stay within the Love. Life is not about getting what you want, it is about sharing the Love to others. That is another story.

Ambersky

The way I would interpret your story Padma is that the second person had a healthy, intact, normaly functioning, ego and was not operating out of an emotionally charged solid sense of ego and so could let the episode slide by, this time. They had a secure sense of self which was not shaken by the hopefully unwarrented behaviour or changing moods of the boss.

I would be asking further questions however, especially in the case of the first person as to whether the criticism was constructive or unfair. If unfair I would like to know if this is the way the employee is treated all the time, whether there are any colleagues who are also being treated in the the same way or whether this treatment is reserved for this employee only. If so is it part of bullying campaign or any other such personally aimed behaviour.
Has it got to the stage where perhaps it is time to have a chat with the employer in order to improve the atmosphere at work and the effectiveness of the time spent there. These are also possibilities and need to be considered.

I think to do with the OPs origional question there are several different approaches to religion and spirituality that divide us.
Today I was thinking that some of it could be understood by thinking of some of it as a kind of Liberal Conservative divide.

There have been some studies done on the different ways Liberals and Conservatives make moral choices, the kinds of things they think are important to consider in making decisions.
http://www.psypost.org/2010/07/difference-moral-foundation-liberal-conservative-1060
In my own thinking Ive come to believe that spiritual beliefs that comes form a kind of Gnostic, New Thought, basis, such as Eckhart Tole, A Course in Miracles, The Law of Attraction,etc could be considered conservative in nature.
I think Athestists and Agnostics, followers of Liberation Theologies, social activists,etc could be thought of as liberal.

I say this second group could be considered liberal because they are interested in the way theories, beliefs, practices, affect the group, or society in general, they are interested in and see things as part of an inter connected system.
It is not enough for them for a practice to work for the individual only. They follow an idea or theory through and look at how it has actually in given circumstances, or historically, actually worked out and affected people.
The idea of a personal truth or a personal religion intended to relieve the suffering of one or the few is seen as illogical, selfish and contradictory.
For this reason they want to understand how systems and things work in order to make things fairer and more just for individuals within the context of the society in which they live.
This identifying with the pain of others and seeking social change is a way of expressing compassion.
They place a lot of emphasis on understanding, they have a poor tolerance threshold for injustice.

The first group are interested in the transformation of the individual.
They (I think because I belong to the first group, the liberals) believe you can only change things by changing first the individual.
Hence they seem to have a highly individual sense of spirituality.
There seems to be a viewing of spirituality as someting special, less ordinary, not of this world, which I think leads to a lack of understanding or even interest in "worldly things".
At times it could appear to be an expression of magical thinking, where the individual experiences events happening eg the sun rising, sickness occuring or the stock market falling and believes as the center of their own universe that these events were caused or were happening purely around and because of them.
Reason does not seem to have as much importance as a thing feeling right "for me" and there is a large emphasis on things "working for me", as a means of deciding their worth.
There is a higher tolerance for injustice, people can be happy even when bad things are happening, and a lack of interest in the context or systems causing an injustice. Things can be put to rights by the individual thinking differently or adopting a different attitude.
Compasssion is expressed as a wish for every individual to feel even in adversity a sense of inner peace.

One side drives the other crazy (speaking personally here )

Both sides i think want to bring about an end to suffering and maybe each needs to learn a little of the other.
Maybe the conservatives could get up off those cushions, learn to listen to others and understand systems of injustice.
Maybe the liberals could get out of their heads and all that running around doing things and learn to feel some inner peace.



Heres a little TED Talk that I think gets to the center of things and which maybe all of us can agree on

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhHJ4DRZNZM