--- In [email protected], "qntmpkt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --In other words, most descriptions of E. are fraught with a degree > of error; and/or are incomplete, and may include contradictions. > Nevertheless, it's amusing and sometimes informative to try!
I would extend what you say above from "most descrip- tions of E" to "*all* descriptions of E." But that said, I would agree with the 'amusing' part; 'informative' may be another matter. It is my experience that the spiritual seekers who consider themselves most 'informed' about the nature of E -- the ones who are ready to debate the fine points of what it is and how it all works at the drop of a hat -- are often folks who, when you cut to the bottom line, have only looked at maps. They're really *good* with maps. They can sound really *authoritative* about maps, often just as authoritative as the authorities who sold them the maps in the first place. But if you cut through the map-talk, you often find that they've never been to the places that the maps were describing. Over the years, the one thing I've noticed about the spiritual marketplace and the progress that seekers tend to make within it is that the more detailed and precise the map they are given to focus on, the more the seekers themselves tend to *focus on* the maps and *settle for* the maps. And the less likely they are able to actually get to where the maps point to. Whereas those seekers who are on a path that says right up front, "No map is the territory, this one included," often find themselves there. Go figure. Probably a coincidence. Your mileage may vary, and all of that...
