--- In [email protected], nablusoss1008 <no_re...@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > [pondering what *really* drives] Michael to want to > > become Bevan's "friend," according to his Facebook > > profile one of his favorite films is "Planes, Trains > > and Automobiles." > > > > I rest my case. > > Don't you have better things to do ?
Actually, yesterday I didn't. And in the realm of "better things to do," I have to consider pointing out the *assumptions* that underlie spiritual seekers' thinking and actions as fairly important. It's pretty much a given at this point of their lives that *they* won't do so. Take Michael Goodleman, the young kid who went ballistic over someone pranking Bevan Morris. He says that he "loves and respects" Bevan because he did his best to do everything that Maharishi told him to do. I merely pointed out that there might be other, more secular, reasons why he's got this "love" he speaks of for the TM movement's token Fat Boy. Like wanting to get into the Fat Boy's size XXL boxer shorts. But I could as easily have dealt with his *stated* assumption. WHY should anyone do what Maharishi told them to do, and be considered noble and deserving of love and respect for doing so? Nabby also seems to make this assumption, as do many others on this forum. I'm merely asking WHY. And I'm suggesting that the reason they think this way, and revere absolute obedience to the "guru," is because they were taught to, and *by* the guru in question. *Most* of "Maharishi's stories" -- about Guru Dev, about Shankara and Trotaka, about other "saints" -- stress this "devotion to guru" and doing exactly what the guru says as if that's a Good Thing. At the same time, Maharishi's *history* has been to *punish* anyone who *doesn't* do exactly what he says -- via shunning, or banishment, or via actual lawsuits and persecution. I'm suggesting that this HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SPIRITUAL DEVELOPMENT. I'm suggesting that the only thing is *does* have anything to do with is a petty tyrant's ego. And I'm further suggesting that this age-old paradigm for how one is "supposed" to act with regard to a spiritual teacher is one of the biggest obstacles to spiritual progress. IT'S NOT NECESSARY. One can admire and revere a teacher and benefit from his teachings *without* feeling that one has to do everything that teacher tells them to. I would go so far as to suggest that a seeker *cannot* ever fully realize their own enlightenment *while* feeling that they have to believe everything the teacher tells them to believe, and do everything the teacher tells them to do. At some point the individual realization has to start acting as if it's individual, and capable of making its own decisions about things. The history of spiritual advancement presents, on the whole, a rather dim view of the potential of those who "did everything their 'masters' told them to do." You don't see many of these kinds of seekers celebrated as fully realized yogis and saints. The ones you *do* see celebrated by history as great saints or founders of spiritual traditions are the ones -- like Buddha, like Jesus, like so many others -- who, while thanking their teachers and the trad- itions they represented for their efforts, *rejected* those teachers' and those traditions' influence and dominance and struck off on their own. I don't think this is a coincidence. I think that to make any real progress in a spiritual sense, one must get to the point where one no longer depends on any "guru" to tell them what to do. Some would disagree. Some here on this forum would disagree. But in terms of having "something better to do," most of those people spend *their* days -- and for years, or decades -- doing nothing but compulsively reading every word written by people like myself and trying to demonize them for *not* doing everything the "guru" says, or for the crime of having...gasp!...ideas of their own. All while never presenting any ideas of *their* own. I really liked the .sig line at the end of a recent post, by Buckminster Fuller: "You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete." In the world of "having something better to do," I suggest that those whose lives seem to revolve around stalking those whose ideas or models they don't like, while never -- for decades now -- presenting any ideas or models of their own aren't in any position to talk. The day they can present new ideas, concepts, or models of their own, *then* they can criticize others. Until then, they're just puppets repeating the words of their "masters," and considering themselves "advanced" for doing so.
