That's a rather interesting approach. But it would not be my style. And I have visited a few other teachers, but have been content to just listen and then make a determination. And then, either leave, or come back for another session. Turns out I never latched on to another teacher other than the one I started with.
But I can't help but feel that such "point blank" questions would not really be useful. I subscribe to the "approach the teacher with an open mind", style . And I think there are a many stages of development. A teacher who can simply inspire a student to be on a path may be the greater accomplishment. It's not a race is it? And does it really seem appropriate for a teacher to single out a student as someone who has arrived? I think that would be awkward. I don't know if this would be an good example, but it is my understanding that in many prison settings, it is considered very poor etiquette to ask, "what are you in for". Some things may just be better kept private. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <turquoiseb@...> wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: > > One phrase in movement jargon is 'self-sufficiency'. I find it interesting > that when it comes to 'self-sufficiency' on the movement's spiritual path, it > is a bad word. It means you are on your own. It doesn't mean ego, but it does > mean that eventually you have to give up the herd, herd mentality, and all > that goes with that. The herd mentality will get you a certain distance in > your growth (almost all our learning is based in herd mentality), but at some > point it becomes a liability and will hold you back, and at that point you > need to reclaim the direction of your life and form an independent > understanding. You cannot be creative if you are hemmed in by others' rules > and concepts. I've always found it an interesting exercise, when checking out different spiritual traditions and groups, to ask a couple of pointed questions. The first has a tendency to raise hackles, and in fact has gotten me thrown out of a couple of meetings. :-) And that is interesting, because it's *exactly* the kind of question that a prospective student should be asking of the teacher they're considering studying with. So, if the teacher or org promises enlightenment as a result of practicing their techniques and sadhana, I just ask, "Could you show me a few of your students who have achieved this enlightenment you speak of, *as a result of following your teachings*? If the teacher reacts with evasions like, "Oh, we never speak about our own advancement," then you know they're shuckin' and jivin', and that they have created an environment in which everyone is pursuing a goal, but no one but the teacher is recognized as having reached it. If they react angrily, that is a big red flag and you'd best be advised to be Outa There, and quickly. If the teacher *can't* point to anyone who has attained the goal of their teaching, then you have the right to ask him or her, "How do you know it works, if you have no examples *of* it working?" The second question has to do with apostates. I always ask about people who have spent some time with the teacher and then moved on. If the teacher badmouths them and attempts to demonize them, then again it's Outa There time. If the teacher acknowledges that they exist but the only thing they can say is, "They're free to 'come back' any time they want," then again you know that it's a You're Either On The Bus Or Off The Bus org. As for your preferred interpretation of "self-sufficiency," I agree completely that at some point one pretty much *has* to "leave the herd" to find oneself, or one's Self. The issue is whether the teacher *allows* students to do that. If you get the feeling that independent thought and a failure to do exactly what the teacher says is "not allowed," IMO it's time to beat feet and get Outa There. > ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@ wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 wrote: > > > > Perhaps but maybe having such a mythos also helps keep people together in > > one place where they can reinforce each others beliefs. If everyone is > > spread out it gets hard to keep reality at bay. I remember moving into an > > academy and it was a rapid and steep lesson in the TM language and customs. > > Probably something about it in Cults 101, which doesn't mean it was done > > deliberately to brainwash the newbies, but living with others in a strong > > belief system does have the effect of making you conform or be cast out. > > > > And if everyone shares a town and worldview, what better way to keep the > > money coming in! Very easy to frame world events through your own prism and > > have everyone see the rainbow the same way. > > > > And people are less likely to raise tricky questions if their social and > > family life depends on staying part of the herd. > > > > It's all jolly clever. > > Especially if you've created a myth -- pretty much since Day One -- of the > terrible things that will happen to you if you ever "leave the herd." Think > about the phrases "Off The Program" and "off the path" and "losing one's way" > that we heard so often. Think of the *shunning* that took place whenever > someone "left." Think how they were treated, and referred to: "Someday he/she > will realize his/her mistake and 'come back'." > > This mindset is part and parcel of Buck's whole schtick. It feels weird to > those of us who no longer think that way because it's based in fear: "Never > leave the herd." > > > > > > ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@ wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 wrote: > > > > > > Why not just be happy that you've got a nice little technique that makes > > > you feel happy and relaxed, why does it have to be the most ultimate > > > thing of any kind ever? > > > > In one phrase, because Maharishi's idea of enlightenment was always "my > > enlightenment." > > >
