--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > If the "pure" technique you wish to "protect" were > > > > doing its job and offering its practitioners a > > > > suitable > > > > pace of spiritual growth, how many people would be > > > > even *interested* in seeing other teachers? > > > > > > "Suitable pace" by whose standard? Who decides > > > what is and is not suitable, and on what basis? > > > > Exactly. Ultimately, one is left to their own > > experiences and their own judgments and assessments as > > to whether something is effective or not. > > While I agree, I think that this subjective perception can be, > and often is, colored by the spoken and unspoken dogma > that accompanies a tradition.
In either direction, of course. And then there's also the possibility that one's subjective perception of the "dogma" can color how one views one's own progress. > Take, for example, a tradition > such as the Dominican Order, in which mystical experiences > were not only uncommon, but suspect. It would be very sur- > prising to find a Dominican monk who actually experienced > a mystical experience during his lifetime or, because of the > dogma, missed not having had one. > > On the other hand, take traditions such as certain Tantric > sects or, closer to home, those who have worked with legi- > timate Yaqui shamans. In those traditions, the general > 'tude is that if you haven't had a life-shattering, ephiphal > experience this week, you're probably slacking off. :-) Or TM, which views "experiences" per se as pretty much inconsequential, the important thing being one's *experience* of everyday life. > Still, I hold to my original statement. Whatever the dogma > of a spiritual tradition is, if large numbers of its followers > are finding themselves interested in the teachings or tech- > niques of another tradition, I think it's safe to suggest that > something may be missing for them in their own. Quite safe to suggest, actually. But it avoids the question of whether what they think is missing is as significant as they believe it to be. > In such "slow" traditions, it is *common* for a dogma to arise > that portrays those who are not satisfied with their current > pace or progress as "off the program" or "heretical" or > otherwise unsane. The subtle pressure applied to those > who are not satisfied with a slow pace of self discovery > is along the lines of, "There must be something wrong > with them if they are not satisfied with what we *know* to > be the best." Or they may just not be seeing the forest for the trees. <snip> > At least that's my theory, for today, and I'm stickin' to it, > day. Tomorrow I may have a completely different > theory. :-) Sounds to me like what you've been saying as long as I can remember. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
