Thanks for your reply. This is going to get messy now...my replies to yours, below.
--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This is a really good post. I wanted to save replying > to it for a time when I could do it justice... > > --- In [email protected], "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > --- In [email protected], "Cliff" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > wrote: > > > > > And I remind you that the "unfathomable master" point of > > > > > view is also just a belief. > > > > > > Bingo. Taught by "masters" who didn't like > > > what they said challenged. > > > > I don't see a problem with a Master being a Master. > > I understand this statement in the context of the rest > of your post, Jim, but have to disagree with it anyway. > I think part of the whole *problem* you discuss below > is inherent in the term "Master" itself. In the minds > of *most* people who hear it, it implies *two* things, > not one. The first, which could be considered admirable, > is "mastery." The second, which I personally feel has > no place in spirituality, is "the dominant position in > a master-disciple or master-slave relationship." The > latter I see as completely *counterproductive* to the > realization of enlightenment. Yeah, this is where I probably should have said I meant a Master of Reality, not a master of people. I emphatically mean the former. The other wasn't considered at all. I use the term 'Master' in every day conversation to connote someone who has mastered what they do; cooking, dancing, singing, etc. In this case, knowing Reality. > > > Nor is there a > > problem with a Master not wanting to be challenged. > > I see a problem in that when such a "Master" is clearly > *unwilling* or *resistant* to being challenged, it tends > (IMO) to indicate attachment or fear, which doesn't in my > mind imply that he has really developed mastery. Could just be what is needed in the moment. If the Master has no stories, no preconcieved notions of his existence, and no stored agendas to complete, then we can't really say what the indications or implication of a particular thought or action of his are, except from our point of view; how it affects us, or would affect us, or how someone else thought it affected them, which we believed. > > > The issue is that whn many of us practice what the Master > > says to, we begin to grow, to gain that which has been lost, > > *and therefore conclude that we must do whatever the Master > > wants us to do*, in order to gain enlightenment. > > Bingo. The whole problem, in a nutshell. > > To take it to its furthest extreme, it's like someone > hearing Adolph Hitler say, "Brushing your teeth is good > for you and prevents tooth decay. And remember to get > plenty of rest." The person puts these teachings into > practice and finds that -- lo and behold! -- they are > *true*, and produce *exactly* the effects that Master > Hitler said they would. So the acolyte, impressed by > this obvious cause-and-effect relationship and the > equally obvious truth of the teaching, goes back to see > Master Hitler, and he says, "Ok...now go kill Jews." > > Does it make sense to follow the second teaching just > because the first one worked out as described? > > > The delusion occurs in the mind of the follower, not the > > Master. > > Agreed. > > > The Master just keeps on being the Master, commenting on > > this, commenting on that. Any of us are free to ignore him, > > or look elsewhere. > > > > Instead we scrutinize every word and action of the Master, > > looking for ways it doesn't make sense, or doesn't work, > > in our world view. > > I'm not sure this sentence follows from what was said before > and after it, but whatever. I agree with what was said > before and after. :-) > > > Because we have assumed this logical fallacy that, 1) because > > we have derived benefit from following the Master, and > > 2) because the word has gotten around that he is enlightened... > > "The word" often coming from those followers who assume > it, not even from the "Master" himself. > > > ...we then conclude that 3) we must continue to do whatever > > he wants, in order to gain our own enlightenment. > > *Even* when the "Master" in question gives talks about > the folly of the "cart before the horse" phenomenon, > and teaches that following another's dharma is a great > way to *never* realize enlightenment. > > > And yet, 4) this is plainly rediculous. Every Master says the > > same thing: that the Kingdom of Heaven is within you, that the > > Self is uncovered by the Self. > > > > Why do we not understand that? Why is there instead this > > insistence upon reliance on the Master for our enlightenment? > > Human nature. The desire for "Daddy," who will make > everything work out for us. The hope that someone > can do all the work for us. I call it the "Beam me > up Scotty" approach to enlightenment. And this desire for "Daddy" seems to come from our comprehension of something greater than ourselves, a Reality that appears all encompassing, and hence it can do our bidding. I call it the small self wanting dominion over the Self. > > > Why do we spend our > > time "proving" him wrong, or "proving" him right, all the time > > refuting our own birth-right of merging the self into the Self? > > Even in traditions that teach the non-existence of path, > like Ramana Maharshi's. You find *exactly* the same > "Beam me up Scotty" fantasies among students who follow > that tradition that you find in traditions that emphasize > path. Go figure. Again, the delusion of the follower, not the Master. > > Why does the common sense we apply to all other situations in our > > life, not apply here? When I withdraw money from my bank, I don't > > further conclude that, since the bank has nearly unlimited funds > > compared to mine, that they must be able to teach me how to be > > wealthy, and that I will do everything they say in order to be > > wealthy. And, further, that if I don't become wealthy by doing > > everything they say, that it is their fault. > > Yup. Why indeed. > > > Instead I recognize that the bank can only really tell me how they > > became wealthy, and that I need to become wealthy on my own. But > > somehow, when we explore our desire for enlightenment, we latch > > onto a Master and conclude that if we do whatever he says, we will > > get enlightened. And if we don't, it is his fault. > > > > Wrong. It is our fault. The whole process begins and ends with us. > > The desire begins and ends with us. If we want to blame the Master > > instead, what does he care? He knows that isn't true. > > However, if he doesn't *bust* this folly in his > students, he is effectively prolonging it. How would he possibly do this? As you said earlier, even with Ramana Maharshi, the students *insist* upon it. Since it is all about the student's journey, better to let them follow it. > > > He knows we have the ability to listen closely to ourselves, > > the Self within each of us, and be guided by that, instead > > of what he says. So he continues to comment on this and comment > > on that. And we look to him instead of our Selves. > > But again, if he allows or even *encourages* the > dependence on "Master," is he really one? I don't see that as relevant. The student always has the ability to walk away. Only the Master knows if he is one. > > > Granted, there are historical and cultural influences for this > > mistaken reliance on a Master: > > 1. There are relatively few Masters in the world. > > A belief that tends to be perpetuated by those who > claim to be one of the "rare" "Masters." :-) Yes, in an absolute sense, we are all every bit the masters of our own realities. However in truth, those that transcend the apparent boundaries of time and space (which is as good a benchmark for judging Mastery of Reality as any) are relatively few. > > > 2. Each of us seeking our awakening has been doing so for a > > long, long time, with a few dead-ends along the way. > > > > Hence, when we come across a Master in this time and space who > > provides us some benefit, and *appears* to be the answer to our > > prayers, we follow him blindly. > > And, if he allows it, becomes the blind leading the > blind. > > > Until he inevitably makes it clear, > > directly or indirectly, that *the enlightenment we seek is > > always found within*. > > > > He continues to be himself, and we see, one way or another, > > that he isn't going to do it for us; he will not lead us to > > the promised land, he will not *grant* us our enlightenment, > > he will not perform some secret ritual to provide us our > > enlightenment. Even if he says he will. > > Sorry, but if he "says he will," he is PANDERING > to this self-deception on the part of his students, > and thus prolonging and supporting ignorance, not > liberation. OK, then if that is the perception of the student, they walk away. The point being that indulging in the blame game doesn't get them any closer to their liberation. > > > Only we can do that. Only we can reveal ourSelves to ourselves. > > Only we can gain enlightenment for ourselves. Maybe it involves > > following a Master for awhile. Maybe it doesn't. Maybe it > > involves listening closely to our desire and following them > > wherever they lead us; to France or Vermont or Iowa or > > California, or deep within ourselves, or nowhere at all. > > As Master Buckaroo Banzai said, "No matter where > you go, there you are." If you believe that Scotty > is going to beam you up, you're going to be looking > for him no matter where you go. :-) > > > Or into our backyard, where we build a spaceship to > > the stars. Who knows? Only we know. > > > > The Master only helps to awaken *the light within each of us*, > > if we let him or her. After that, we are on our own to find our > > Selves; to revel in the deep appreciation of our own > > enlightenment, our release from bondage, our eternal freedom. > > And good luck to us all. > > Nice rap. I agree with you. The "need" for a > "Master," and the desire to "follow" one, seems > counterproductive to the eventual goal. But there > you jolly well are, aren't you? Humans do this > stuff anyway. They have for thousands of years > and they will continue to for thousands more, and > the so-called "Masters" will continue to pander to > these followers' "Beam me up Scotty" fantasies > until they don't need them any more. It's a > weird and wacky and wonderful world... > > Unc ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 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/
