Ann: > I guess my point here is that it takes enablers to allow certain individuals > to spiral out of control. When you put someone on some sort of pedestal > it can really screw them up, whether they are "holy men" or "holy women" > or the Justin Biebers and Miley Cyrus' of the world. Feed the ego like you > would force feed a goose to fatten up the liver and sooner or later you create > something that is unwell. > This is a new twist - now it's Barry's fault for enabling Rama. Go figure.
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 10:51 AM, <awoelfleba...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > Michael wrote: > > > I feel the Universe has nearly infinite if not infinite experiences we can > all have, and the so-called higher states of awareness or enlightened > perception, including all the celestial perception stuff is just another > experience among a plethora of experiences. > > > I agree. I also have a hard time finding greater or lesser validity of any > particular experience over another. An experience experienced is just that > - it is reality for that experiencer. And as we all know experience is > ultimately subjective and particular to each person. How to understand or > interpret, let alone judge or put some value on someone else's > reality/experience is, for me, an exercise in futility. I do, however, > believe in personal growth and the reality of the possibility for the > expansion of awareness and the development of sensibility in different > human beings in different phases of their life or lives. > > > I think that if one chooses one can create an experience, a persona that > is real moral, always sativcc, always unperturbed, sort of like the > historical Buddha was supposed to have been. But most of those who have > "higher states of consciousness" cycle from those kinds of experiences into > egoic focus that includes often enough the idea that since everything is a > play of awareness, it doesn't make a tinker's damn what they do with and to > people, cuz its just all consciousness playing around. No rules, no > standard of conduct, these are the ones like Muktananda, Maharishi and Rama > who go off the deep end of ego and screw things up. > > > I also think that many people who are under the assumption that a sort of > higher state of consciousness can or does exist in "gurus" or "teachers" > and are therefore responsible for giving these people free licence to do as > they please and to support them in this, often to the detriment of everyone > involved. I have yet to see anyone free of ego and I don't think of ego as > something terrible. Like many characteristics, it can become distorted, > unbalanced but in and of itself ego is neither good or bad. Just as > ambition or empathy or passion is not inherently, ultimately good or bad. > How it manifests can make the difference between something becoming > positive, negative or simply remaining benign. It's complex, of course. > > > I guess my point here is that it takes enablers to allow certain > individuals to spiral out of control. When you put someone on some sort of > pedestal it can really screw them up, whether they are "holy men" or "holy > women" or the Justin Biebers and Miley Cyrus' of the world. Feed the ego > like you would force feed a goose to fatten up the liver and sooner or > later you create something that is unwell. > > > >
