--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > Go figure. > > > > > > Me, I'm more of a "you have to have been there" kinda guy. > > > I'm gonna see the movie. :-) > > > > Me too. This is a fundamental spiritual policy: See the guy, > > do the practice (if it's a about practice), or go to the > > place. Form your own judgment. Btw. I followed you > > recommendation to see Cloud Atlas, and I really enjoyed > > it. Great film. > > Thanks, but that probably wasn't me.
Methinks it might have been. Isn't this you? Post #326452 >I have commented > on the book, I think (thanks to Susan for recommending > it orginally), but the only copy of the movie I've found > was too grainy and bad-piratey for me to comment on. I > did watch it enough to realize that its structure was > vastly different than that of the novel (and I preferred > the novel structure more), but it was intriguing enough > that I'll probably watch it again when I score a better > copy. > > > <snip> > > > That's the same way I am these days with spiritual books. > > > I tend to read them only after I've already had the > > > experience they're discussing, to see how our impressions > > > jibe, or don't. > > > > > > Go figure. > > > > Yep. But what we observe here is, what I have understood > > to be a pattern of AVOIDANCE. People talk about teachers > > they have never met, they talk about practices they have > > never understood or done, they talk about enlightenment, > > without having experienced it, they talk about Maharishi > > without having ever seen him. Or when they saw him, they > > saw him very shortly, or only in a certain setting, of > > a lecture, or while attending a course, not really > > WORKING with the guy, never experiencing him when he > > meant business. They talk about the group effect, but > > don't participate, they talk about the movement without > > knowing it. They defend the ludicrously high course fee, > > and not take the fertilizers because they don't have the > > money, etc. In short, they don't walk the talk. How could > > we take them seriously? > > Can't disagree. And you can't talk them out of their > belief that none of this "talk walking" is necessary. > I think that in the long run the best thing you can > do for such people is laugh at them. Given enough time > and enough laughter, maybe they can learn to lighten > up and laugh at themselves. > > As G.K. Chesterton once said so wisely, "Seriousness > is not a virtue." :-) > > > I observed this with a friend once. He had a certain > > difficulty with discipline. But then he talked about > > keeping discipline, and how good it was, just he didn't > > act on it. I realized then, that his talk was a means > > to avoid it. > > > > Talk, words, the ideas where a SUBSTITUTE for the real > > thing the words represented. Give me somebody to adore, > > so that I can keep him at a save distance. Something > > along the lines: dead gurus can't kick ass. > > I like that. Also the corollary -- live gurus can and > often DO kick ass. It's tough to develop a lot of self- > importance when every so often you've got someone to > remind you how unimportant you really are. >
