On Sep 24, 2007, at 6:23 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ron" <sidha7001@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Bottom line is enlightenment is really a possibility this life
> > time but the master has to be enlightened, sat Guru, and then
> > from the opinion of my Guru, it is essencial to be working
> > one to one. The Guru is the light, the disciple is in darkness
> > which is ego ( identification of mind and body as being the
> > self, or the small self is the existence)
>
> Bottom line is that you don't have the faintest idea what you are
> talking about when you are quoting other "gurus". What you are
> saying is just that; talk, talk, talk.
Why do I get the feeling that the 'other' in
"other gurus" is meaningful when Nabby says it,
and that he doesn't include Maharishi and *his*
followers in the category of those who just talk,
talk, talk and repeat what they've been told? :-)
In tantric Buddhism there's actually a word for this. In Sanskrit
they call them "shravakas", lit. "listeners" and while it has a
positive sense, in it's derogatory sense it means to people who are
happy with just listening to teachings and then repeating them, often
with a preachy affect. "Parroters or "parroteers" might be a good
western translation. If you hang around any spiritual scene, you're
bound to eventually run into 'em.
