Buck, just off the top of my head, I'd call Francis Bennett a teacher. I'd call Kirsten Kirk a healer. I'd put channelers in a different category. Doesn't seem like enough categories. Maharishi and Amma I'd call masters.
On Sunday, May 18, 2014 2:17 PM, "dhamiltony...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> wrote: Someone like Francis Bennett more recently coming out now awakened on batgap.com is teaching now in a blush as a Quietist. Quietism is an earlier word to transcendentalism. Francis now it seems is one in old quietism like TM'ers are more narrowly modern day transcendentalist quietism. Maharishi Mahesh Yogi of course for his teaching of quietism, is better known in his promulgation using transcendental meditation as modality. It all becomes much more fun to look at mystics, spiritual teachers and history this way. More in line with western scholarly discernment of spirituality [for individuals or groups] and spiritual [illumined/awakened] teachers, 'Quietism', 'Piety' and 'Inspiration' in western typology become somewhat analogous to modern culture as, -Meditation teachers, -Subtle system teachers, -Ritam Bhara Pragya people; . -Buck In the west the categorization of spirituality technically falls in to 'Quietism', 'Piety' and 'Inspiration'. The Batgap interviews in a more scholarly way often fall nicely in to this typology when looked at this way. -Buck Those would be safer demarcations to categorize by that could have some scholarly basis. Though as started on the current Batgap categorizations, different from the spirituality typology of these three established categories, the channel-ers seem to fall over in to their own different category of 'spiritism'. That is fair and understandable. Rick should get someone much more scholarly [with credentials] to discern and categorize the interviewees spiritually if Rick is going to publisha categorical list like that and not just let some earnest friend go work on it. First, Rick really ought to pull the list from the Batgap page right now, back up and think about it some more before publishing some stoopid list that way it is growing now or he is looking at all kinds of legal troubles for Batgap and himself. Kindly, -Buck in the Dome Yes, I noticed the attempt at categorization on Batgap. It is lame. -Buck sharelong60 writes: Buck, a friend is working on Rick's categories at his request and I'll forward your comments to him. In range and distribution of illumined Batgap interviewees by types, just throwing these Batgap illumined people interviewed thus far on a scatter graph by their experience and spiritual affect on others, it seems observable that some of the awakened are more proactive in affect as teachers, some are long time practiced at helping others spiritually and/or transformational for others just by being of a field effect of presence. Some of them are teachers in nature of character, while some may glow in the closet and watch sort of like Harri by experience was for so long. Others transformational in effect like a Janet Sussman also from childhood or Connie Huebner from younger or Ammachi from way back, yet different from glowing in the closet each in their lives have been engaged teaching in formats with spiritual experience, techniques and scholarship to be of help to others for much of their lives, Batgap is a fabulous oral archive around this range of spiritual possibility within humanity based on a scale of abiding experience and spiritual transformational affect. It is useful for parsing to see them in a range and distribution of, Teachers -Gurus -Sat Gurus -Jagad Gurus by scale of transformational affect. Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Note to Rick, Conderning his interview with Sam Harris As you get to Sam Harris, he evidently may be a fantastic intellectual but don't just give him free air time without finding out more about his spiritual experience inside his constructs of thinking. -Buck in the Dome Om, Rick as you are proly experiencing in these Batgap interviews, someone becoming a 'guru' in culture can be different than someone abiding in spiritual experience. In a range and distribution of spiritual folks some can become 'gurus' by virtue of just scholarship alone without even much abiding experience. Others by virtue of ability to teach and talk spiritual technique, or others with having an abiding spiritual transformational effect for others by spiritual field affect. Sat-gurus it would seems would be good at combinations in all three: 1)scholarly, 2)knowledgable and good with techniques, and 3) with field effect of spiritual healing and help in Being. It would be nice to learn where Sam Harris in experience is in effect with this scale as he is becoming a famous talking head in culture. Some people evidently can become cultural gurus just by virtue of their intellectual understandings even without experience. Rick, invite Sam Harris to come to Fairfield to join us in our home of all Knowledge for the Batgap interview. That could be good for stirring the deeper discussion of spiritual experience and figure out if his is an abiding one. -Buck What is his spiritual experience around this that would allow him to be on Buddha at the Gas Pump anyway? > >>>>>>>>>>punditster writes: Buck, I think the key word here is "Buddha"- maybe Harris is a practicing "Buddhist". Go figure. There are some who would label all Buddhists atheists, but that is not really correct. Buddhists admit that there are many entities in the universe that can't be seen by man. Millions of Buddhist worldwide consider the gods to be sacred. But, these entities are not capable of offering Buddhists the saving grace, because they are not enlightened. A Buddhist believes in enlightenment - that's why they are referred to as "Buddhists"- enlightenment is not dependent on deities to instill the gnostic insight. There are clear parallels between the Vajrayana and the Vedanta point of view. It's not complicated. Buck, I think the key word here is "Buddha"- maybe Harris is a practicing "Buddhist". Go figure. There are some who would label all Buddhists atheists, but that is not really correct. Buddhists admit that there are many entities in the universe that can't be seen by man. Millions of Buddhist worldwide consider the gods to be sacred. But, these entities are not capable of offering Buddhists the saving grace, because they are not enlightened. A Buddhist believes in enlightenment - that's why they are referred to as "Buddhists"- enlightenment is not dependent on deities to instill the gnostic insight. There are clear parallels between the Vajrayana and the Vedanta point of view. It's not complicated.
