--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_re...@...> wrote: > > A spiritual teacher I studied with for a number of > years (not Maharishi) had a dualistic view of things > he liked to rap about from time to time, even though > his predominant view was more Unity-based. He gave a > number of talks about "the two types of seekers." > > He *more* than knew that there are more than two > types. But his theory was that one could reduce the > multiplicity of seekers out there to two basic tend- > encies or predilections -- those for whom reading > about other people's spiritual experiences was > "enough," and "those for whom only the spiritual > experiences themselves were "enough." > > This distinction is echoed in many other traditional > teachings. Sutra vs. tantra. Scholar vs. mystic. I > would add to the list "those who walk the walk" vs. > "those who feel they have the right to talk the talk > based on the 'authority' of others who claim to have > walked the walk." > > Think movies. We have seen on this forum instances > of a person being so convinced that they knew the > "Truth" of a movie *without ever seeing it* to call > the director of that film a "Christian bigot" for > having made it.
Gibson was widely known as a Christian bigot well before "Apocalypto" came out (as Barry knows). We even discussed it on FFL. The issue was *how that bigotry was reflected* in "Apocalypto" based on what happens in the film, specifically how the Mayans and their history and culture were portrayed. I've pointed out any number of times why Barry's claim is a thoroughly bad rap. Happy to cite chapter and verse for anyone interested. In subsequent rants this same person > has felt that she had the right to express her > opinion about several other films being discussed > here among those who had seen them. For example, > "Doubt" and "Avatar." Nope, never expressed an opinion about either, nor any other film I haven't seen (as Barry knows). <snip> > Now think spiritual practice. Every week we see > instances of people declaring what they believe to > be the "Truth" about enlightenment, *without ever > having experienced it themselves*. They have > convinced themselves that reading *about* > enlightenment is "enough" to talk the talk > of enlightenment. And Barry has convinced himself that reading what people say about enlightenment on an Internet forum is enough to know what they have and have not experienced. <guffaw> > Call me crazy, but I think only the people who have > seen the movie have the right to discuss the movie. Can you just *imagine* the shrieks of outrage from Barry if anybody ever told him he didn't "have the right" to discuss something?
