--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In [email protected], "Patrick Gillam" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Question below. > > > > authfriend wrote: > > > > > > I don't think you'd care for him much. Here's his > > > description of one of the teachers who works with > > > Saniel Bonder, from the Web site: > > > > What follows sounds like a great way to interact with people. Why > > do you say "I don't think you'd care for him much," Judy? Are you > > being sarcastic? > > It sounds great to me too; it's just what I was > saying awhile back that I think enlightened people > *should* be doing when they're interacting with > people in ignorance--rather than telling them, e.g., > You only *think* you're overshadowed, or, Stress > release is just an excuse for people who don't > really want to achieve enlightenment. > > It's what I think MMY does, at least from what > I've seen of his tapes. He's able to empathize > with the experiential reality of people in > ignorance and doesn't try to tell them they're > not really having the experience they say they're > having, even though his experiential reality may > be very different.
It seems to me that you're trying to define what would be "good" in a spiritual teacher *from the point of view of the person in ignorance, the student, pandering to the person in ignorance's comfort levels*. Some students (the unenlightened) dealing with teachers (the enlightened) prefer to have their (by definition) delusional experiential reality coddled by teachers who "empathize" with them. Others prefer hearing the truth. >From my point of view, it's simply a matter of preference, for both teacher and student. In the example given, the student is telling a tale of suffering. If one believes in karma, there can only be one cause for that suffering -- the student's self, and its actions. If the student's self *continues* the actions that have caused the suffering, then the suffering will continue and enlighten- ment will not be realized. End of story. I think the question one should be asking is "Does the teacher "empathising" with the student's suffering do the student any *good*? What if the student is actually psychotic, and the enlightened teacher sees that the *cause* of the student's self's perception of suffering is that he has caused others to suffer for his whole lifetime, by mistreating and abusing them. Is it a *favor* for the teacher to empathize with such a person, and accept their current level of suffering as "valid" or without blame? Might it not be a bit more productive for the teacher to actually tell the student the truth, so that he could stop building up negative karma, and instead perhaps start to work on creating some positive karma to offset it, and thus possibly allow enlightenment to manifest? It sounds to me that what is being proposed here is that people who are not in ignorance (enlightened teachers) should perpetuate the ignorance of those in ignorance (their students) by avoiding telling them the truth about their lives and their perceived reality. If that's what you want out of a spiritual teacher, I'm sure there are many out there who will provide it. Me, I'd be happier with someone who told me the truth. 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/
