As Spock would say, when confronted with his unfeeling analysis, 'Thank you'.
I was not led down this path entirely by others, I was sceptical from an early age. But spiritual teachers too, led me down this path. The spiritual path is strewn with unreality in the name of reality, and in the end, it does not exist, it is a means to an end, and the destruction of the spiritual path is part of its final effects. If you are still on the path, it still exists for you, you are not finished with it yet. My problem with people on the spiritual path is there seems to be a general lack of rationality and a vast expanse of muddled thinking about it. There are only about three things you can do when you have been conned onto a spiritual path. 1) Leave it and give up; 2) Stay on it and fail (True Believer Syndrome); 3) Get real and critical and try to see if there is a real pay off to the thing. Those that have managed to get to the pay off typically find the result is nothing like what they expected. Now Maharishi said to not confuse the ignorant, but that keeps them in a holding pattern of their own stupidity. When a person is confused and muddled, they will interpret anything said to them in a confused and muddled way, so it really matters not what you say. But if they have any spark of intelligence, if you say enough different things about what they are doing, in enough different ways, maybe they will find a way to get out of the true believer rut. And maybe not. The path is neither high nor low, it is an illusion, a thorn to remove a thorn. An illusion to remove an illusion. As for 'being out of the light' (awareness), it is equally present for everyone from the very start, it is the same in every direction and distance. You cannot be out of it, you can only misunderstand what you have already got. Hindu proverb: The three great mysteries: air to a bird, water to a fish, mankind to himself. Now Buck, what is the nature of the 'diversity' you want on FFL? Unification, as an experience, reduces the sense of diversity. Could you give some examples of things you would prefer were discussed, a nice list perhaps? If those are added to what is already here, you would have more diversity. If those things replace what is already discussed here, diversity may not materialise. For more diversity you cannot subtract, you have to add. Live long and prosper. ---In [email protected], <dhamiltony2k5@...> wrote : This thread is a larger search for better diversity of thought here on Rick's FairfieldLife at Yahoo-groups. Anartaxius, whoever you are, in your spock-like unfeeling way for this point you go ahead and condone the unkind culture of the snark here because you practice it. Lot like that article Geezer posted recently about how people can be led into their [cult] beliefs given over to a control by their beliefs if they first are led to act on them.. Seems you've been led far down a low path here with some others, possibly so far out of the light to see your way back up very clearly. An evident consequence of this is that the whole communal discussion here suffers for your plight. As they say, change happens within, hopefully you and others can make some way in your vile meanness for kindness and we may all be better off here. That might take some courage on your part to change. -JaiGuruYou ---In [email protected], <richard@...> wrote : It looks like somebody posted a false analogy. According to what I've read, a false analogy is a rhetorical fallacy that uses an analogy (comparing objects or ideas with similar characteristics) to support an argument, but the conclusion made by it is not supported by the analogy due to the differences between the two objects. ---In [email protected], <anartaxius@...> wrote : I think, Buck, what you call collaboration is a situation where everyone agrees with you. ---In [email protected], <dhamiltony2k5@...> wrote : I have no problem with considering divergent opinion. I am quite happy reading it here, as Rick had originally intended. But I do brace at the ruinous hurtful way you and others presenting here have on the discussions here. Buck, you need to realize that we are dealing with people who think they can win a religious debate by spreading a rumor that you are a drunkard. Although you may have given up that kind of childish bullying in grade school, some have not risen to that level of discourse or social skills. ---In [email protected], <dhamiltony2k5@...> wrote : Collaboration? Could many folks dare at all to publicly disagree here on FFL anymore given the lack of self-restraint in the culture that remains on FFL? What is mostly missing now from the dominant FFL writing is a kindness to process, a love enough of collaboration that seems necessary enough for there to be creative thinking between people. Instead what we have is a culture of rudeness that has long interrupted the communal thinking here and driven people away. ---In [email protected], <dhamiltony2k5@...> wrote : This thread is a larger search for better diversity of thought here on Rick's FairfieldLife at Yahoo-groups. Anartaxius, whoever you are, in your spock-like unfeeling way for this point you go ahead and condone the unkind culture of the snark here because you practice it. Lot like that article Geezer posted recently about how people can be led into their [cult] beliefs given over to a control by their beliefs if they first are led to act on them.. Seems you've been led far down a low path here with some others, possibly so far out of the light to see your way back up very clearly. An evident consequence of this is that the whole communal discussion here suffers for your plight. As they say, change happens within, hopefully you and others can make some way in your vile meanness for kindness and we may all be better off here. That might take some courage on your part to change. -JaiGuruYou ---In [email protected], <richard@...> wrote : It looks like somebody posted a false analogy. According to what I've read, a false analogy is a rhetorical fallacy that uses an analogy (comparing objects or ideas with similar characteristics) to support an argument, but the conclusion made by it is not supported by the analogy due to the differences between the two objects. ---In [email protected], <anartaxius@...> wrote : I think, Buck, what you call collaboration is a situation where everyone agrees with you. ---In [email protected], <dhamiltony2k5@...> wrote : I have no problem with considering divergent opinion. I am quite happy reading it here, as Rick had originally intended. But I do brace at the ruinous hurtful way you and others presenting here have on the discussions here. Buck, you need to realize that we are dealing with people who think they can win a religious debate by spreading a rumor that you are a drunkard. Although you may have given up that kind of childish bullying in grade school, some have not risen to that level of discourse or social skills. ---In [email protected], <dhamiltony2k5@...> wrote : Collaboration? Could many folks dare at all to publicly disagree here on FFL anymore given the lack of self-restraint in the culture that remains on FFL? What is mostly missing now from the dominant FFL writing is a kindness to process, a love enough of collaboration that seems necessary enough for there to be creative thinking between people. Instead what we have is a culture of rudeness that has long interrupted the communal thinking here and driven people away.
