--- In [email protected], "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > 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.
I understood that. I just wanted to make the point that many if not most have in the back of their minds the *two* connotations of "Master," and tend to get them confused. Which basically creates and perpetuates the very issue you were talking about. > > > 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. I can see your point, and on some levels agree with it. It's just that I have had experience with some teachers who were better at "busting" the tendencies in students to react/overreact/misinterpret than is Maharishi. Then again, their students reacted/over- reacted/misinterpreted *anyway*, just in different ways, so your point is valid and noted. ------------------------ 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/
